Replies.
COLLARS OF SS.
(Vol. iv., pp. 147. 236. 456.)
I communicate the following names and dates of the death, and in some instances bare notices of the monumental effigies, of bearers of the various collars of SS., which may be found in Bloxam's Monumental Architecture, Boutell's Monumental Brasses, Cotman's Sepulchral Brasses, Gough's Sepulchral Monuments, and Hollis's Monumental Effigies.
I trust that the excellent example set by G. J. R. G., in making known the existence of two of these collars on a tomb in his own neighbourhood will be extensively followed by the readers of "N. & Q."
1. An effigy on a tomb in Tanfield church, co. York, commonly ascribed to Robert of Marmion, who probably died in the time of Henry III. or Edward I.
2. An effigy on a tomb in Gloucester cathedral, vulgarly called that of Humphrey Bohun, Earl of Hereford, who died in 1367.
3. The effigy of William Wilcotes, in Northleigh church, co. Oxon, who died in 1411.
4. and 5. Sir Thomas Peryent and his wife, in Digswell church, co. Herts. He was esquire-at-arms to Richard II., Henry IV. and V., and Master of the Horse to Joan of Navarre, 1415.
6. Sir William Calthorpe, in Burnham church, co. Norfolk, 1420.
7. Edwardus de la Hale, in Oakwood chapel, near Shene, in co. Surrey, died in 1421.
8. Sir Humphrey Stafford, at Bromsgrove, co. Worcester. He was slain by Cade, at Seven-Oaks, 28 Henry VI., 1450.
9. An effigy of a man, in plated armour, in Bakewell church, co. Derby.
10. An effigy of a woman at Dudley, co. Worcester.
11. An effigy of a man in Selby abbey, co. York.
LLEWELLYN.
Collar of SS. (Vol. iv., p. 147.).
—In answer to the request of MR. E. FOSS, respecting effigies having a collar of SS., I beg to inform you that in the church of St. Lawrence, Isle of Thanet, is a brass of Nicholas Manston, Esq., A.D. 1444, who wears the above decoration. Near St. Lawrence, is the hamlet of Manston, in which is an old farmhouse called Manston Court, attached to which are the ruins of a chapel.
Query: Who was Nicholas Manston?
CANTOR.
ON THE FIRST, FINAL, AND SUPPRESSED VOLUME OF THE ONLY EXPURGATORY INDEX OF ROME.
(Vol. iv., p. 440.; Vol. v., p. 33.)
Receiving the "N. & Q." only in monthly parts, I was, till last week, unacquainted with the article of your correspondent U. U., from Baltimore. This ignorance, however, has been attended with the advantage of the very decisive information on the matter of inquiry by B. B., as far as the Bodleian Library, Oxford, is concerned. I am relieved by it from the necessity of describing more particularly the copy of the first, and Roman, Expurgatory of 1607; for the copy in my possession agrees exactly in title with that of the Bodleian. Of the genuineness of the latter, the proof is as demonstrative as anything historical can be. I have the same assurance of the genuineness of mine. It was in the possession of the celebrated and intelligent collector, J. G. Michiels, as his autograph, with the year 1755 attached, testifies. The title, as given in my Literary Policy, has indeed a trifling error in punctuation, whether my own or the printer's, but from simple oversight, as in some cases fas est obrepere somnum. There was, however, and could be, no error as to the meaning of Brasichellen., of which Catalani, besides others, had given me information sufficiently correct in his De Magistro S. Pal.
These observations will not, however, satisfy the want of your transatlantic correspondent so completely as I trust I am enabled, and shall be much pleased to do; for I have likewise the celebrated counterfeit, of which I have given an ample account in my forecited volume; and the difference between it and the original is sensibly evident on a synoptical comparison. But other marks, where this is impracticable, may be adduced; and in the title itself, without depending upon the minutiæ of punctuation, and without any reference to the figures in the frontispiece, which are plainly not the same impression, in both copies, the last line, SVPERIORVM PERMISSV, which, in the genuine book measures 2-1/2 inches, in the counterfeit measures 2-1/5; therefore, shorter by 3/10. In the body of the work, in the counterfeit the letter-press occupies more space than the genuine. Taken at a venture (and a right-hand page is preferred, because the number of the page, and the catchword, come in one perpendicular line), I examined p. 163. The height in the genuine is 5-1/5 inches; in the counterfeit 5-4/5; the increase, 3/5. The width of the page appears to be in proportion. In the preliminary matter of the genuine copy the De Correctione ends with the line, "eos corrigere, atque purgare." The counterfeit varies. The last unnumbered page, indeed, the terminating line, of what is prefatory, is, "Palatio Apostolico anno salutis 1607." The counterfeit here likewise varies.
I have another volume closely identical; of which, because it is far from common, I will give the title entire. It is well known, but not easily detected:
"INDEX
LIBRORUM
EXPURGANDORUM,
In quo
Quinquaginta Authorum Libri præ
cæteris desiderati emendantur.
Per
FRANC. JO. MARIAM
BRASICHELLEN,
Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum Corpus
redactus,
& publicæ Commoditati
æditus
EDITIO SECUNDA,
Multorum desideriô juxta Exemplare
Romanum Typis mandata.
SUPERIORUM PERMISSU.
Pedeponti
vulgo
STADT AM HOF
Sumptibus JOANNIS GLASTL, Bibliopolæ
Previously it may be as well to observe, that Stadt am Hof is a town bordering on the imperial city of Ratisbon, at or near the court, and Latinized Pedepons as being at the foot of the bridge over the Danube at that part. This book is evidently the identical counterfeit before described, with the mask cast aside by a new title-page, and newly printed prefatory matter, in consequence of a proposal fairly and literally to reprint the first genuine Roman edition. I will just mention one proof of the identity of this and the previous copy in the body of the book. It occurs in the last line of p. 239., where the word Iunij has a stroke, by fault of the type, immediately after the word, thus Iunij[|]; and this is found in both. This is an accidental coincidence, not to be classed with the purposed retention of false spelling.
The Bergomi edition of 1608 is not in my possession; but I am well acquainted with it by actual inspection. My first sight of it was afforded by my friend the Rev. Richard Gibbings, who has published a new edition of it, with an elaborate and very finished preface, in 1837.[4] I have likewise seen it at Mr. Pickering's, a copy which I presume came from the dispersed library of the late Rev. H. F. Lyte. That in the Bodleian I did not feel it necessary to examine. I do, however, possess, though not the original, a very correct, as appears, fac-simile of that volume, whether it was intended as a counterfeit or not. The title, without any addition, agrees exactly with that of the original, as given by your Oxford correspondent. I conclude it to be not the original, from a distinct recollection that the engraving on the title-page there is more rude and broken than in my copy; and, in the body of the work, some parts do not perfectly agree with Mr. Gibbings's reprint, not in the contents of the pages, in some instances in the middle portion, and in the frequent substitution of the m and n for the superscript bar, signifying one or other of those letters. My copy likewise is bound together in vellum, with the Notitia Ind. Lib. Expurg. of Zobelius, Altorfii, 1745. And, by the bye, I should like to know whether, and where, there is another copy of that treatise of eighty pages in England?
[4] Copies may be had at Mr. Petheram's, 94. High Holborn, London.
I am happy in the present opportunity of recommending to the attention of such students as U. U. in the New World, a work of so much real value and interest as Mr. Gibbings's edition of the Bergomi edition of the Brasichellian Index; and flatter myself that, by their aid and example, an end will be put in the mother country to the incorrigible though simple practice of calling every catalogue of condemned books expurgatory, when the accuracy of the title, as far as Rome is concerned, hangs upon the single thread of one imperfect and withdrawn instance; the not easily numbered remainder being exclusively and expressly prohibitory.
The reason for the suppression of the work here examined is, in part at least, correctly expressed by Papebrochius:
"Nec porro processum in opere reliquo, quod mox apparuit futurum seminarium litium infinitarum, quibus sustinendis nec unus, nec plures forent pares, quantavis auctoritate subnixi."
J. MENDHAM.
THE FIRST PAPER-MILL IN ENGLAND, AND PAPER-MILL NEAR STEVENAGE.
(Vol. ii., p. 473.; Vol. iii., p. 187.)
DR. RIMBAULT, in his Note "On the First Paper-Mill in England," after alluding to the errors of various writers on the subject, adds, "In Bartholomeus de Proprietatibus Rerum, printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1495, mention is made of a paper-mill near Stevenage, in the county of Hertford, belonging to John Tate the younger, which was undoubtedly the 'mylne' visited by Henry VII." Now this statement itself needs correction. The English translation of the work of Bartholomeus (De Glanvilla) informs us merely of the fact of John Tate the younger having lately in England made the paper which was used for the printing of this book. The lines, which occur at the end of the volume, are as follows:
"And also of your charyte call to remembraunce
The soule of William Caxton, first prynter of this boke
In Laten tonge at Coleyn [Cologne] hysself to avaunce,
That every well-disposed man may theron loke:
And JOHN TATE the younger joye mote [may] he broke,
Which late hathe in Englond doo make this paper thynne,
That now in our Englysshe this boke is printed inne."
A rare poem, an early specimen of blank verse, entitled A Tale of Two Swannes, written by William Vallans (who was, I believe, a native of Ware), and printed in 1590, supplies us with the information that the mill belonging to John Tate was situated at Hertford. One of the notes in the poem states that, "in the time of Henry VIII., viz. 1507, there was a paper-mill at Hertford, and belonged to John Tate, whose father was Mayor of London." The author, however, is here mistaken in his chronology, as Henry VIII. did not begin to reign till 1509. The extract from the privy purse expenses of Henry VII., under the date of May 25, 1498, "for rewards geven at the Paper Mylne, 16s 8d," most clearly has reference to this particular mill, as the entry immediately preceding shows that the king went to Hertford two days before, viz. on the 23rd of May.
In answer to HERTFORDIENSIS, who asks for information as to its site, I quote a passage from Herbert's edition of Ames's Typographical Antiquities, under the description of the work of Bartholomeus, printed by Wynkyn de Worde. Herbert says, vol. i. p. 201.:—
"I have been informed that this mill was where Seel, or Seal Mill is now, at the end of Hertford town, towards Stevenage; and that an adjoining meadow is still called Paper-mill Mead. This Seel Mill, so denominated from the adjoining hamlet, was erected in the year 1700; and is noted for being the first that made the finest flour, known by the name of Hertfordshire White. It stands upon the river Bean, in the middle of three acres of meadow land, called Paper-mill Mead, so denominated in the charter of King Charles I. to the town of Hertford for the fishery of a certain part of that river. Hence, perhaps, some have thought it was at Stevenage, but there is no water for a mill at or even near that place."
The French authorities are particularly unhappy on the subject of the introduction of the art of paper-making in England. According to the Dictionnaire de la Conversation, "la première manufacture, établie à Gertford en Angleterre, est de 1588;" while the Encyclopédie des Gens du Monde asserts that "la première patererie de chiffons qu'eu notre pays fut établie en 1312; celle d'Angleterre en 1388."
A. GRAYAN.
THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION.
(Vol. iv., pp. 129. 177. 235. 277.)
Since my last communication on this subject (Vol. iv., p. 235.) I have been engaged in examining the theory, and the experiments connected with it, somewhat more closely; and, in the meanwhile, I abstain from replying to the last observations of A. E. B. (Vol. iv., p. 277.)
A. E. B. says it was "uncourteous" in me to call the theory which he put forward his theory. I beg pardon for the offence. I intended by the expression merely to indicate the particular theory which he advocated. I believe its author is M. Chesles. The theory in question is:
"That the variation of the pendulum's plane is due to the excess of velocity with which one extremity of the line of oscillation may be affected more than the other."
I ventured to pronounce this to be untenable, and begged A. E. B. to "reduce it to paper." Upon this he remarked:
"H. C. K. is surely not so unphilosophical as to imagine that a theory, to be true, must be palpable to the senses. If the element of increase exist at all, however imperceptible in a single oscillation, repetition of effect must eventually make it observable. But I shall even gratify H. C. K., and inform him, that the difference in linear circumference between two such parallels in the latitude of London, would be about 50 feet; so that the northern end of a 10 feet rod, placed horizontally in the meridian, would travel less by that number of feet in twenty-four hours, than the southern end. This, so far from being inadequate, is greatly in excess of the alleged apparent motion in the place of the pendulum's vibration."
I think, if A. E. B. will reconsider this opinion, he will find that, so far from being "greatly in excess," it is inadequate to account for the amount of apparent motion of the plane of the pendulum. For the onward motion of the plane of a 2 sec. pendulum, describing a circle of 10 feet diameter in twenty-four hours, amounts to ·0087 inch at each beat; 50 feet will be the difference in the distance the two extremities of the arc of vibration will travel in twenty-four hours; that is, ·0138 inch in 2 seconds of time: but this is for a difference of 10 feet; therefore, for 5 feet, the distance from the centre, it is ·0069 inch; whereas the arc described is ·0087 inch, which is absurd.
However, there is another equally fatal objection to this theory, founded on experiment; to make which objection good, I will not merely adduce the result of my own, but that of certain experiments carried out at Paris, which place the matter beyond a doubt. In the Pantheon, at Paris, there is a pendulum of the length of 230 feet, by means of which experiments can be made under the most favourable conditions possible as regards suspension, exclusion of currents of air, &c. &c. While witnessing the trials that were being made, a relation of mine requested that the pendulum might be set to oscillate east and west; and the result was, that the arc described after an interval of ten minutes, was the same as that described when the pendulum was oscillating north and south.
To return to the original theory. I stated formerly that I had no faith in the experiments which had been published. I now repeat that I believe all the experiments that have been made, with the view of showing the rotation of the earth, and the independence of the pendulum of that rotation, are inconclusive; and for the following reason, the impossibility of obtaining perfect suspension. Even in a still atmosphere, and with a pendulum formed of the rigid rod and a "bob," the axis of both of which shall be precisely in a line with the point of suspension; yet, until suspension can be effected on a mathematical point, and all torsion and local attraction got rid of, the pendulum will not continue to swing in the same plane for many consecutive beats; because the slightest disturbance will cause the "bob" to describe an ellipse; and, by a well-known law, the major axis of that ellipse will go on advancing in the direction of the revolution. This advance is by regular intervals; and my belief, founded on my own experiments, is, that the astonished spectators at the Polytechnic Institution, while intently watching, as they believed, the rotation of the earth made visible, were watching merely a weight suspended by a cord, which, disturbed from the plane in which it was set to oscillate, was describing a series of ellipses on the table, very pretty to look at, but having no more to do with the rotation of the earth than the benches on which they were sitting.
At the same time, however, that I assert the inefficacy of any experiments with the pendulum as tending to show the earth's rotation, I admit that, provided a pendulum could be made to preserve its plane of oscillation for twenty-four hours, it would oscillate independently of the rotation of the earth, and actually describe a circle round a fixed table in that interval. The mathematical proof of this proposition is of a most abstruse nature; so much so, indeed, that it is understood to have been relinquished by one of our ablest mathematicians. But that it is likely to be true, and one not difficult to comprehend, I think I can show to A. E. B.'s satisfaction in a few lines.
If a pendulum be placed at one of the poles of the earth, it is obvious, that while it swings in one plane, the revolution of the earth beneath it will cause it to appear to describe a complete circle in twenty-four hours. This position is simple enough, but it is true also in any latitude, excepting near the equator. For there is no doubt, that, as gravity acts on the pendulum, only in the line which joins the point of suspension and the centre of the earth (thereby merely drawing the "bobs" towards that line) it can have no effect on the plane of oscillation; for the line of gravitation remains unchanged with respect to the pendulum, during a whole revolution of the earth on its axis. Take a map of a hemisphere, and on any parallel, say 60° of latitude, draw three pendulums, extended as in motion, with their centres of gravity directed toward the earth's centre, one on each extremity of the parallel of latitude, and one midway between the two; extend the "bobs" of the first two north and south, and those of the middle one east and west. Number them 1, 2, and 3, from the westward. It will then be observed that the plane of oscillation of the three pendulums, thus placed, is one and the same—that of the plane of the paper; and moreover, that the lower "bob," which is south at No. 1., is west at No. 2., and north at No. 3. By this it will be evident, that the revolution of the pendulum will be through the whole circle, or 360° in twenty-four hours, at all points of the earth's surface, excepting near the equator; the line joining the "bobs" remaining in a parallel plane.
I say, excepting near the equator; for it will be seen on looking closely at the above illustration (which would be better on a globe) that the three pendulums are not strictly in the same, or even a parallel plane; inasmuch as the plane of oscillation must pass through the point of suspension, and the centre of the earth. But still the pendulum has a tendency to remain in a parallel plane, as nearly as the figure of the earth will allow,—the chord of the arc of oscillation remaining in a plane parallel to itself. It will be seen that, as we approach the equator, the plane of oscillation is forced from its parallelism more and more, until, on the equator, it has no tendency to return, as all planes are there the same with reference to the centre of the earth.
I may add that there is a variation of the above theory, which has found many advocates, viz. that the pendulum will make the complete revolution in a period varying from twenty-four hours at the poles, to infinity at the equator; varying, that is, as the sine of the latitude. This seems, à priori, not so likely as the former, while it equally wants mathematical proof.
H. C. K.
—— Rectory, Hereford.
THE CROSS AND THE CRUCIFIX.
(Vol. v., p. 39.)
Your space precludes controversy: but the communication in Number 115. from W. DN. requires an explanation from me; which I give the more readily as it may perhaps serve to throw further light on a curious inquiry. A correspondent in a former Number (Vol. iv., p. 422.) questioned the correctness of an assertion by the Hon. MR. CURZON, that "the crucifix was not known before the fourth or fifth century, though the cross was always the emblem of the Christian faith." I ventured to sustain MR. CURZON'S view (Vol. iv., p. 485.) by referring to authorities for the fact, that the idea of ignominy associated with that peculiar form of execution had long prevented the cross from being adopted as a symbol of Christ's passion; that the actual representation of the crucifixion itself was still more repulsive, and much later in its admission into the early churches; that allegory was in consequence resorted to, in order to evade the literal delineation of the Saviour's death, which was typified by a lamb bleeding at the foot of a cross; and that when invention had become exhausted, and inert in the production of these emblems, the Church, in the seventh century at the Quini-sextile, or Council in Trullo, had "ordered that fiction and allegory should cease, and the real figure of the Saviour be depicted on the tree." (The words in Italics are my own, and were not given as a quotation.)
W. DN. in Number 115. (Vol. v., p. 39.) does not question the main conclusion sought to be established, but takes exception to my reference to the Council in Trullo as irrelevant, and says, "should your readers turn to the canons of that council, they would be disappointed at finding nothing about the cross;" whence he infers, that I have been "led into a singular mistake." But the mistake, I apprehend, is on the part of W. DN. himself, who evidently has not read the council in question, else he would have found, so far from its canons containing "nothing about the cross," one, the 73rd, is devoted exclusively to the cross, whilst the 82nd is given to the crucifix. The 73rd canon of the Council in Trullo directs all veneration to be paid to the cross, and prohibits its being any longer depicted in the tesseræ of the floors where this "trophy of our victory," as it is called in the canon, was exposed to desecration from the feet of the congregation. The 82nd canon, in like manner, has direct reference to the crucifix, and its style of design. It alludes to the practice which had theretofore prevailed, of representing Christ as the lamb, pointed to by St. John, which was to take away the sins of the world (John, i. 29.); but as that great work has been accomplished, the council declares that the Church now prefers the grace and truth of him who had fulfilled the law, to those ancient forms and shadows which had been handed down as types and symbols only; and it continues:
"In order, therefore, that what has come to pass should be exhibited before the sight of all by the skill of the artist in colours, we direct that the representation of Christ the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, shall henceforth be elevated in his human character; and no longer under the old form of a lamb."
The words are these:
"ὡς ἂν οὖν τὸ τέλειον κἂν ταῖς χρωματουργίαις ἐν ταῖς ἁπάντων ὄψεσιν ὑπογράφηται, τὸν τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ἀμνοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον χαρακτῆρα καὶ ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀμνοῦ ἀναστηλοῦσθαι ὁρίζομεν."—Concilium Quinisextum, Can. lxxxii. Concil. Collectio, J. B. MANSI, vol. xi. p. 978.: Floren. 1765.
W. DN. has quoted this canon, not from the original Greek of the council, which I copy above, but from the Latin version given in Labbe, and which is much less close and literal than that of Carranza; and the words "erigi et depingi," which it employs, are a very incorrect rendering of the Greek ἀναστηλοῦσθαι, a term peculiarly appropriate to the elevation of a crucifix.
But that the whole canon has immediate reference to the literal delineation of the mode and manner of Christ's passion, will be apparent from the concluding sentences, which expressly set out that the object of the change which it enjoins is to bring more vividly before our minds the incarnation, suffering, and death of the Saviour, by the full contemplation of the depth of humiliation attendant on it:
"Δι' αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ταπεινώσεως ὕψος τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατανοοῦντες, καὶ πρὸς μνήμην τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας τοῦ τε πάθος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου θανάτου χειραγωγούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν γενομένης τῷ κόσμῳ ἀπολυτρώσεως, κ. τ. λ."—Ib. MANSI, v. xi. p. 979.
How this impression of the "humiliation" and "suffering" of Christ's death could be conveyed otherwise than by a literal delineation of its incidents, I cannot well see. And, indeed, of many authorities who have recorded their opinion on the effect of this canon of the Quini-sextile council, W. DN. is the only one who expresses a doubt as to its direct reference to the cross and the crucifix. Both the historians of the church, and those who have treated of the history of the Arts in the Middle Ages, are concurrent in their testimony, that it was not till immediately after the promulgation of the canons of the Council in Trullo that the use of the crucifix became common in the early churches. This fact is recorded with some particularity by Gieseler, in his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, sect. 99. note 51.; and Emeric-David, the most laborious and successful explorer of historical art of our time, in describing the effect upon the Fine Arts produced by the edict of the council, adverts to the 82nd canon more than once, as directing the delineation of the Saviour on the cross:
"La fin du 7me siècle et le commencement du 8me présentent deux événements de la plus haute importance dans l'histoire de la peinture. Le premier est la révolution opérée par le décret du concile de Constantinople appelé le concile quinisexte ou in Trullo, et célébré en 692 A.D., qui ordonna de préférer la peinture historique aux emblèmes, et notamment d'abandonner l'allégorie dans la représentation du crucifiement de Jésus Christ.... Ce fut après ce concile que les images de Jésus Christ sur la croix commencèrent à se multiplier." (Histoire de la Peinture au Moyen Age, par T. B. Emeric-David, Paris, 1842, p. 59.) "Lorsque le concile quinisexte ordonna de préférer la réalité aux images, et de montrer le Christ sur la croix, l'esprit d'allégorie, malgré ce décret, ne s'anéantit pas entièrement." (Ib. p. 32.)
J. EMERSON TENNENT.
London.
YANKEE DOODLE.
(Vol. iv., p. 344.)
The subjoined song is copied from a Collection of English Songs in the British Museum (G. 310-163.). The Catalogue gives the conjectural date of 1775. In the History of the American Revolution (published by the Society for Diffusion of Useful Knowledge), p. 22., is an anecdote referring to Lord Percy having, in 1775, caused his band to play "Yankee Doodle" in derision of the Americans: but I infer, from the Earl of Carlisle's Lecture on his Travels in America, that it is now used by the Americans as their national tune.
YANKEE DOODLE; OR, THE NEGROE'S FAREWELL TO AMERICA.
The Words and Music by T. L.
1.
"Now farewell, my Massa, my Missey, adieu!
More blows or more stripes will me e'er take from you,
Or will me come hither or thither me go,
No help make you rich by de sweat of my brow.
Yankee doodle, yankee doodle dandy, I vow,
Yankee doodle, yankee doodle, bow wow wow.
2.
"Farewell all de yams, and farewell de salt fish,
De bran and spruce beer, at you all me cry, Pish!
Me feed upon pudding, roast beef, and strong beer,
In Englan', old Englan', when me do get dere.
Yankee doodle, &c.
3.
"Farewell de musketo, farewell de black fly,
And rattle-snake too, who may sting me to dye;
Den Negroe go 'ome to his friends in Guinee,
Before dat old Englan' he 'ave a seen'e.
Yankee doodle, &c.
4.
"Farewell de cold winter, de frost and de snow,
Which cover high hills and de valleys so low,
And dangling and canting, swearing and drinking,
Taring and feath'ring for ser'ously thinking.
Yankee doodle, &c.
5.
"Den hey! for old Englan' where Liberty reigns,
Where Negroe no beaten or loaded with chains;
And if Negroe return, O! may he be bang'd,
Chain'd, tortur'd, and drowned,—or let him be hang'd!
Yankee doodle," &c.
C. H. COOPER.
PERPETUAL LAMP.
(Vol. iv., p. 501.)
The reported discovery at the dissolution of monasteries of a lamp that had burned in a tomb nearly 1200 years, to which your correspondent B. B. adverts, is, I presume, the discovery referred to by Camden (Gough's ed. vol. iii. p. 242.), where he says:
"I have been informed by persons of good credit, that upon the dissolution of monasteries in the last age, a lamp was found burning in a secret vault of a little chapel, where, according to tradition, Constantius was buried. For Lazius writes that the ancients had the art of reducing gold to a consistent fluid, by which they kept fire burning in vaults for a long time, and even for many ages."
The lamp of the alleged tomb of Constantius Chlorus was the subject of a communication by Mr. Albert Way to the York meeting of the Archæological Institute in 1846, in which he compared the ignited lamp said to have been found therein, with the story of a similar sepulchral lamp in a Roman family tomb, beneath the site of the ancient Castellum Priscum in the province of Cordova, as communicated to the Institute by Mr. Wetherell of Seville. It seems well worthy the attention of modern archæologists to ascertain what foundation in fact exists for the statements advanced by ancient writers as to the possibility of preparing a lamp that would burn for centuries in the tomb. Mr. Way remarks that the curious discovery communicated from Seville is unfortunately not authenticated by the observation at the time of any person skilled either in natural history or archæology. Some, however, may consider the tale of the sepulchre of Chlorus, though rejected by Drake and others, as not wholly unworthy of consideration; and Mr. Way suggests the possibility of a substance having been compounded which, on the admission of purer air to the tomb, became for a short time ignited. An abstract of his interesting communication is in the Athenæum for 8th August, 1846. The prince whose tomb is said to have been discovered near the church of St. Helen's on the Walls, in York, was the H. Valerius Constantius who came to York about a century after the death of Severus, and was father of Constantine the Great.
Let me now ask where the story may be found of
"The bright lamp that lay in Kildare's holy fane,
And burned through long ages of darkness and storm?"
W. S. G.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
KIBROTH HATTAVAH AND WADY MOKATTEB: NUM. XI. 26. CRITICALLY EXAMINED.
(Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., p. 31.)
In order that the readers of "N. & Q." may have an opportunity of judging for themselves of the question between DR. TODD and myself, as to the identity of Kibroth Hattavah and Wady Mokatteb, it will be necessary, in the first place, that a more comprehensive view should be taken of the camp of Israel than DR. TODD'S criticism seems to imply. A population of six hundred thousand, besides women and children, must have occupied a larger extent of ground than a single valley; and the valley which is called par excellence Wady Mokatteb would by no means suffice for the accommodation of half the multitude, were it not joined to many other valleys,—both sides, by means of narrow windings.
In the second place, it must be borne in mind that the "Tabernacle was pitched without the camp, afar off from the camp" (Exod. xxxiii. 7.); a circumstance which DR. TODD overlooked, which made him hazard the strange statement that I "did not explain how Eldad and Medad were in Wady Mokatteb, more than Moses and the rest of the seventy."
In the third place, it must be observable to every intelligent reader, that there is not the least shadow of warrant for supposing that Eldad and Medad were two of the seventy elders "gathered" by Moses; on the contrary, there is unmistakeable evidence against the notion. We are expressly told by inspired authority, that the seventy elders—not sixty-eight—were set round about the tabernacle; and there and then did Jehovah take of the spirit that was upon Moses, "and gave it unto the seventy elders,"—not to sixty-eight only. Another proof that Eldad and Medad cannot be considered as two of the seventy elders, but as persons belonging to the mass of the laity, is derivable from Moses' answer to Joshua, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets" (ver. 29.). If they were of the seventy, what cause was there for surprise and consternation? Would Joshua have asked for a prohibition? and would Moses have given such an answer?
But what is to be done with the statements, "And they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle, and they prophesied in the camp?" How are these statements to be explained? Very easily, by a reference to the original Hebrew. The words בכתובים והמה do not mean "and they were of them that were written," but "and they were amongst the writings" or inscriptions, that is Wady Mokatteb, i.e. in that part of the encampment which was pitched there. If the inspired narrator had meant to convey the idea that Eldad and Medad were two of the seventy elders, he would have employed the proper word for it, which בכתובים is certainly not. The proper word would have been either מהאסופים, "of them that were gathered," or מהזקנים, "of the elders." We have no account of Moses writing down the names of the seventy, to authorise such a translation. Besides, even if we had such an account, and the sacred historian wished to intimate as much in the verse under review, he would assuredly have used the word מהכתובים, and not בכתובים. It appears that the ב was a difficulty to the LXX, as well as to the author or authors of the Vulgate, to Rashi and the translators of the English version. The Greek particle ἐκ and the Latin de are literal translations of the equivalent Hebrew particle מן or מ, and not of ב. It would appear, moreover, that DR. TODD himself found the ב insurmountable, and therefore omitted it in his last Hebrew quotation. Again, in the Pentateuch, wherever the word כתובים occurs, it implies written records, but not written names of persons.
But do not all the ancient paraphrasts sanction the translation of the authorised version? What of that, if they happen to be wrong! Such a consideration will never interfere with my own judgment, founded on a thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word. I have long since learned that opinions are not necessarily true, because they are old ones, nor doctrines undeniably infallible, because we may have believed in them from our cradles. I am positive, however, that had the LXX, the authors of the Vulgate, Rashi, and the translators of the authorised version, known the locality of Wady Mokatteb, they would have hesitated before they put so unnatural a construction on the word. Aye, and DR. TODD too, if he were in the valley, and traced, with his generally correct mind, the wanderings of the people of Israel, would have exclaimed, "Surely this is none other than the Kibroth Hattavah of Scripture, and rightly named "כתובים."
Onkelos, however, in his Chaldee Paraphrase—DR. TODD evidently overlooked that, for he grouped the Chaldee Paraphrase amongst the mistranslators—renders the words בכתובים והמה literally and grammatically by the Chaldee words בכתיביא ואנון, "And they were amongst the inscriptions."
But do not the words "but they went not out into the tabernacle, and they prophesied in the camp," "completely overturn my hypothesis?" They may according to DR. TODD'S criticisms, but not according to the correct sense of that interesting portion of Scripture. The people in the camp were evidently under the impression that it was not right for any one but the seventy to prophesy, nor was it lawful to prophesy any where else but at the tabernacle, as they were accustomed to hear Moses do; the fact, therefore, that two men, who were not of the seventy, and far away from the tabernacle, probably in the very centre of the camp of Israel, which I conceive Wady Mokatteb to have been, being gifted with a spirit of prophecy, seemed so astounding and unprecedented in the history of Israel's wanderings, that the inspired writer is induced to make a particular note of the few circumstances connected with that extraordinary event.
The above is a fair, sound, and well-digested view of the passage in question. Adding to it the stubborn fact—which Dr. Todd ignores—that where the ancient maps have Kibroth Hattavah, the modern maps have Wady Mokatteb, the conclusion is inevitable that Wady Mokatteb is mentioned in Num. xi. 26.
MOSES MARGOLIOUTH.