[154] Herod, i. 91.
[155] Hesiod., Theog., 220.
[156] Æsch., Sept. c. Theb., 832, 951. Eurip., Phœnissæ, 1518.
[157] Some modern historical instances of a similar superstitious feeling are given lower down in the text. Its nature, however, cannot be better illustrated than by reference to the legend attaching to the family of Redgauntlet in the novel of that name. The downfall of the house of Ravenswood, in the admirable tale of the Bride of Lammermoor, though foretold and fated, is not sufficiently identified with the story of the Mermaid’s Well, to be quoted on this occasion. If it were so, that work, from the severe grandeur of its serious parts, and the singularly impressive way in which all events, and all agency, human and supernatural, combine from the outset to bring about a catastrophe, foreseen and prophesied, but not the less inevitable, would offer to the English reader an excellent example of the spirit of the superstitions and tragedies here alluded to, though widely differing from them in form.
[158] Potter’s Æschylus: Agam., 1157; ed. Blomf. We give the translation as we find it, and are not answerable for the rendering of Κῶμος ... ξυγγόνων Ἐρινύων.
[159] Symmons’ Agamemnon; 1414, ed. Blomf.
[160] A similar belief existed in England with respect to the alienations of church property at the Reformation, of which the following is a remarkable instance.
Sir Walter Raleigh was gifted by Queen Elizabeth with the lands of Sherborne in Dorsetshire, which had been bequeathed by Osmund, a Norman knight, to the see of Canterbury, with a heavy denunciation against any rash or profane person who should attempt to wrest them from the church. This anathema was, in the opinion of the vulgar, first accomplished in the person of the Protector Somerset, to whom, after sundry vicissitudes, the property belonged. This nobleman was hunting in the woods of Sherborne when his presence was required by Edward the Sixth, and he was shortly afterwards committed to the Tower, and subsequently beheaded. The forfeited estate then lapsed to the See of Salisbury until the reign of Elizabeth, to whom it was made over by the bishop, at the instigation of Raleigh, who was blamed, and apparently with justice, for having displayed on this occasion a grasping and even dishonourable spirit. So strong were the religious prejudices of the day, that even the discerning Sir John Harrington attributed to a judgment from heaven a trifling accident which occurred to Raleigh while surveying the demesne which he coveted. Casting his eyes upon it, according to the notion of that writer, as Ahab did upon Naboth’s vineyard, and, in the course of a journey from Plymouth to the coast, discussing at the same time the advantages of the desired possession, Sir Walter’s horse fell, and the face of the rider, then, as the relater observes, “thought to be a very good one,” was buried in the ground. After Raleigh’s fall the estate was seized by James the First, who wished to bestow it on his favourite, Car, Earl of Somerset; but Prince Henry interfered, and obtained possession, intending to restore it to the owner. The prince’s death, however, frustrated his intentions, and left Sherborne still in the favourite’s hands. The premature death of this promising youth was thought by the vulgar again to corroborate the old prophecy. To Carew, the youngest son, and the injured survivor of Sir Walter, the subsequent attainder of Car, and the forfeiture of his estates upon his committal to the Tower, appeared to confirm the ill fortune attendant upon the owners of Sherborne; and the misfortunes which afterwards befell the house of Stuart were also considered by him to corroborate the old presage. On the confiscation of Car’s estates, Digby, Earl of Bristol, obtained Sherborne from the king, and in his family it now remains.—Life of Sir W. Raleigh, by Mrs. Thomson, chap. vi.
[161] Stewart, Sketches of Highlanders, part i. sect. xii.
[162] The proper meaning of this word will form the subject of a future article; meanwhile it is sufficient to observe, that it will never be employed here to denote specifically a blood–thirsty and oppressive ruler, but merely one who has raised himself to a degree of power unauthorised by the constitution of his country.