Oxon.
CHARACTER OF A TRUE CHURCHMAN.
(Vol. v., p. 105.)
J. Y. makes an inquiry as to the author of the Character of a True Churchman, printed 1711. Your correspondent will do me good service by stating the size, and giving the first few words, of his tract. In 1702, or perhaps in the preceding year, Richard West, D.D., Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxford, and prebendary of Winchester, published The True Character of a Churchman, showing the False Pretences to that Name, one sheet in quarto, no date, of which I have two editions; and it was reprinted in the Somers' Tracts: "It is commonly observed," &c. This was answered by Sacheverell in The Character of a Low Churchman, 4to. 1702: "It cannot but be visible," &c. And in the same year there was an edition of both these characters printed, paragraph by paragraph, the original character and the reply: London, for A. Baldwin.
I have also The Character of a True Church of England Man, a single sheet in 4to.: London, by D. Edwards for N. C. 1702: "Next to the name Christian." And The True Churchman and Loyal Subject: London, for J. Morphew, 1710, 8vo. pp. 168.: "The name of the church in whose communion I am," &c. Is this the same with J. Y.'s book with another title?
P. B.
[We have submitted the above to J. Y., who states that "neither of the tracts mentioned by P. B. is the one noticed in his Query. It commences with the following words: 'He [i.e. the True Churchman] is one who is not only called a Christian, but is in truth and reality such.' Prefixed is a short letter from the author to his friend in the country; and the edition of 1711 appears to have been the first. It makes sixteen pages of octavo, and consists of short sententious paragraphs, more practical and devotional than controversial. J. Y. discovered it in the British Museum bound up with Dr. Hickes' Seasonable and Modest Apology, and other tracts.">[
WEARING GLOVES IN PRESENCE OF ROYALTY.
(Vol. i., p. 366.; Vol. ii., pp. 165. 467.; Vol. v., p. 102.).
MR. SINGER'S explanation (Vol. ii., p. 165.) is simple, and, I believe, correct. The covered hands might be considered as discourteous as a covered head: but why should uncovering either be a mark of respect? The solution of this question seems to me of some curiosity, and may perhaps be to many of your readers of some novelty. These and most other modern forms of salutation and civility are derived from chivalry, or at least from war, and they all betoken some deference, as from a conquered person to the conqueror; just as in private life we still continue to sign ourselves the "very humble servants" of our correspondent.
The uncovered head was simply the head unarmed; the helmet being removed, the party was at mercy. So the hand ungloved was the hand ungauntleted, and to this day it is an incivility to shake hands with gloves on. Shaking hands itself was but a token of truce, in which the parties took hold each of the other's weapon-hand, to make sure against treachery. So also a gentleman's bow is but an offer of the neck to the stroke of the adversary: so the lady's curtsey is but the form of going on her knees for mercy. This general principle is marked, as it ought naturally to be, still more strongly in the case of military salutes. Why is a discharge of guns a salute? Because it leaves the guns empty, and at the mercy of the opponent. And this is so true, that the saluting with blank cartridge is a modern invention. Formerly salutes were fired by discharging the cannonballs, and there have been instances in which the compliment has been nearly fatal to the visitor whom it meant to honour. When the officer salutes, he points his drawn sword to the ground; and the salute of the troops is, even at this day, called "presenting arms,"—that is, presenting them to be taken.
There are several other details both of social and military salutation of all countries which might be produced; but I have said enough to indicate the principle.