Page images
PDF
EPUB

merely add, with reference to MR. TITE's remark his friend Dr. Webster with it, and after the doctor's death that no Roman inscription in that part of France it passed to some heedless individual, and remained in ob(Cannes) was scurity from that time to the present. It is mentioned more touching" than that to further, that the painting is at Mr. Rodd's (a dealer in Venusia Anthimilla, that he will find in the Sepul-old paintings, &c. in London) until it is sold." eralia of any good collection of Latin inscriptions many similar examples of tender affection simply expressed. Toronto.

HOGARTH.

(4th S. i. 245.)

J. M.C.

In answer to your correspondent's query, "whether Hogarth ever executed replicas of any of his works," I should say he certainly did. Of the painting of the famous Lord Lovat which is engraved in Hogarth's works, your correspondent has seen a small cabinet full-length represented in the usual attitude of counting the clans. In this portrait he is wearing red-I should suppose silkstockings. In Hone's Table-Book, p. 119, mention is made of the original picture of Lord Lovat by Hogarth, lately discovered, from which the etching was taken :

:

"To the present time none of Hogarth's biographers appear to have been aware of the local habitation' of the original painting from which the artist published his etching, the popularity of which, at the period to which it alludes, was so great that a printseller offered for it its weight in gold: that offer the artist rejected, and he is said to have received from its sale, for many weeks, at the rate of twelve pounds each day. The impressions could not be taken off so fast as they were wanted, though the rolling-press was at work all night by the week together. Hogarth said himself that Lord Lovat's portrait was taken at the White Hart Inn, at St. Alban's, in attitude relating on his fingers the numbers of the clans

'Such a general had so many men,' &c. Samuel Ireland, in his graphic Illustrations of Hogarth, vol. i. p. 146, states that Hogarth was invited to St. Alban's for the express purpose of being introduced to Lovat, who was then resting at the White Hart Inn on his way to London from Scotland, by Dr. Webster, a physician residing at St. Alban's, and well known to Boswell, Johnson, and other eminent literary characters of that period. The short stay of Lovat at St. Alban's

allowed the artist but scanty opportunity of providing the

materials for a complete picture; hence some carpenter was employed on the instant to glue together some deal board, and plane down one side, which is evident from the back being in the usual rough state in which the plank leaves the saw-pit. The painting, from the thinness of the priming-ground, bears evident proof of the haste with which the portrait was accomplished. It is observable the button-holes of the coat, &c., are reversed in the artist's etching, and in the upper corner of the picture are satirical heraldic insignia. The 'satirical heraldic insignia' mentioned in the above description, and represented in the present engraving, do not appear in Hogarth's well-known whole-length etching of Lord Lovat. The picture is a half-length; it was found in the house of a poor person at Verulam, in the neighbourhood of St. Alban's, where Hogarth painted it eighty years ago [this was written in 1827], and it is a singular fact, that till its discovery a few weeks ago, such a picture was not known to have been executed. In all probability Hogarth obliged

Who is in possession of this painting now? The "satirical insignia" or coat of arms is, in the first quarter of the shield a block, in the second quarter two axes crossed, in the third quarter a triangular-headed gallows with a rope dependent, in the fourth quarter [? a serpent] twisted in a ring-shape, apparently spitting venom,-the whole inclosed in an old-fashioned shield with some attempts of foliage in flowers dependent. I must mention that the first painting of Lord Lovat mentioned in this account was in the possession, about 1826, of the Rev. Mr. Birket, of Ovingham, in the neighbourhood of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It was in an oldfashioned frame of the period when it was painted. Old Mr. Birket was said to have had one of the psalms at his church at Ovingham sung to a Jacobite tune. W. H. C.

A LACEMAKER'S SONG.
(4th S. ii. 8.)

This is a shortened and modernised version of the ballad of St. Hugh of Lincoln. This beautiful old legend has been printed in many forms. The sweetest in our tongue is "The Prioresse's Tale" by Chaucer. He probably, however, had never heard of the Lincoln tragedy. If he had, I cannot but think that he would have laid the scene of his tale, not in the far East, but in England.

"There was in Asie, in a greate citie, Amonges cristen folke a certain iewrie," does not come home to the hearts of his readers so warmly as if he had said that what he had to tell had happened in their own land.

The best version I remember to have seen of the "Jew's Daughter" was printed by Mr. W. C. Atkinson, of Brigg, in Lincolnshire, in The Athenæum of January 19, 1867 (p. 96). It may have appeared in this form before, but if so, I have

never seen it. These old ballads are common property, and should be known of all people who speak our language. I therefore make no apology for begging you to print it once more.

"THE JEW'S DAUGHTER.
"The bonny boys of merry Lincoln
Were playing at the ba',

And wi' them stude the sweet Sir Hugh,
The flower among them a'.

"He kepped the ba' there wi' his foot,
And catched it wi' his knee,
Till in at the cruel Jew's window,
Wi' speed he garred it flee.

"Cast out the ba' to me, fair maid;

Cast out the ba' to me.'

'Ye ne'er shall hae it, my bonny Sir Hugh,
Till ye cume up to me.

"Cume up, sweet Hugh; cum up, dear Hugh; Cume up and get the ba','

'I winna cume up, I winna cume up, Without my playferers a'.

"And she has gone to her father's garden,
Sae fast as she could rin;

And pow'd an apple red and white,
To whyle the young thing in.
"She wyled him sune through a chamber,
And wyled him sune through twa;
And neist they came to her ain chamber,
The fairest o' them a'.

"She has laid him on a dressing-board,

Whar' she was used to dine!
And stuck a knife deep in his heart,
And dressed him like a swine.
"She row'd him in a cake o' lead,

And bade him lie and sleip;

Syne threw him into the Jew's draw-well,
Fu' fifty fathom deip.

"When bells were rung and mass was sung,
And ilka lady gaed hame,
Then ilka lady had her young son,
But Lady Helen had nane.

"She row'd her mantel her about,
And sair, sair can she weip;

666

She ran wi' speed to the Jew's castel,
Where a' were fast asleip.

My bonny Sir Hugh, your mither calls;
I pray thee to her speik.'

'O Lady, rin to the deip draw-well,
Gin ye your son wad seik.'

"Lady Helen ran to the deep draw-well,
And kneeled upon her knee;

'My bonny Sir Hugh, gin ye be here,
I pray ye speik to me!'

"The lead is wonderous heavy, mither;
The well is wonderous deip;

A kene, kene knife stiks in my heart;
A word I donnar speik.

"Gae hame, gae hame, my mither deir;
Fetch me my winding sheit;
For again in merry Lincoln toun
We twa sall nevir meit."

Bishop Percy printed a version, very similar to the above, "from a MS. copy sent from Scotland" (Reliques, ed. iv. 1794, vol. i. p. 38-41.) It is, however, decidedly inferior to the one here given, which I will call the Atkinson copy. The Percy copy does not profess to have any connection with Lincoln. The first verse lays the scene in some now unknown place:

"The rain rins doun through Mirry-land toun,
Sae dois it doune the Pa;

Sae does the lads of Mirry-land toune,
Quhan they play at the ba'."

Bishop Percy guessed that Mirry-land Toun was Milan, and Pa the River Po. Such a fancy is not worth any serious answer.

It is stated in Wilde's Lincoln Cathedral, 1819, p. 27, that a manuscript copy of this ballad was once in the Minster library there. Only the first verse is given. It corresponds almost literally

with that in the Atkinson copy. "Mary Lincoln " is the only noticeable variation. This may have been a penman's or a reciter's error, or it may well be the true reading, for Lincoln Cathedral is under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin. The Acta Sanctorum, 27 Jul. vi. 494, 495, contains an account of this boy saint taken from Capgrave's Nova legenda Anglia (Aug. Potthast, Bibliotheca Hist. Medii Ævi, p. 747). There is some doubt about the date of his feast day. Alban Butler, in his Lives of the Saints, gives August 27; Sir Harris Nicolas, in his Chronology of History, fixes it on June 29. The murder is believed to have taken place on August 27, 1255. The king's writ to the sheriff of Lincolnshire, instructing him to impanel a jury of twenty-four knights of the county, and a similar number of burgesses of the city, to certify the king's justices concerning the death of Hugh, the son of Beatrice, whom the Jews are said to have crucified, is dated January 7, 40 Hen. III. (1256). Royal and Hist. Letters, ed. W. W. Shirley, D.D, vol. ii. p. 110. If the printed list is to be trusted, Roger Beler and Roger his heir filled the post of Sheriff' of Lincolnshire that year. Eighteen of the Lincoln Jews were hanged for this crime, and many others imprisoned in the Tower of London. Matt. Paris, ed. Wats. 1640,

p.

913.

There can be no doubt whatever that these Jews suffered for St. Hugh's death. I do not feel, however, by any means satisfied that the story of his murder is true. When we consider how justice was administered in those times, and how fierce were the prejudices of race and religion, we may well doubt whether these persons did not die innocently. This feeling is strengthened by the well-known fact that legends of a similar nature are found to exist about many other places. It is not reasonable to suppose that such a crime would be frequently repeated.

I shall be much obliged to any of your readers, English or foreign, who will refer me to stories of Jews crucifying Christian children. There are, I believe, a host of them in middle-age literature. EDWARD PEACOCK.

Bottesford Manor, Brigg.

QUEEN BLEAREYE'S TOMB: PAISLEY ABBEY. (4th S. i. 309, 486, 584.)

Our thanks are due to ANGLO-SCOTUS for the valuable assistance afforded with the view of fixing the date of erection of this long-considered interesting tomb, and the person (if there was not a plurality) intended to be commemorated by it.

With reference to the centre shield of the three upon the stone at the head of the tomb, it is suggested that the figure apparently behind the

device of the keys, placed in saltire adossé, may be a sword, palewise, with its pommel in base. This view is probably correct: the only circumstance militating against it seemingly is, that if a sword, the point would appear to reach above the shield considerably, leading to an opinion that it may be rather a crosier or staff upon which the shield is suspended, provided what is above and behind the shield, and only visible in as far as it overtops it, is not a separate device from that on the front of the shield, behind the keys. The see of Exeter carried for arms, as Nisbet says (i. 419), a sword in pale, hilted and pommelled, and surmounted of two keys in saltire adossé; while that of Winchester bore a sword in bend sinister, the hilt downward, interposed between two keys indorsed, in bend dexter. The former is just the coat sculptured on this shield, except that it is wanting in the side device of the "crosiers en pale," as Dr. Boog calls them; the lower points of which seem to rest upon the handles of the keys, in base, and the tops of which do not rise quite so far as to touch the wards of the keys. On the other hand, there are examples of shields which bear ecclesiastical coats, being figured as suspended from a crosier; and as one, reference may be made to the seal of arms of the prioress of Elcho, mentioned by Laing in his supplementary volume of Scottish Seals, No. 1149, and of which a woodcut is there given.

Again, as to the so-called "crosiers en pale," it is said by ANGLO-SCOTUS that they seem rather "part of the link of a chain"; but a personal inspection of the tomb has the effect, we think, of dispelling such a view. The device is, if not short crosiers, more like a common walking staff; having a round knob, or open bend, at the head, of use for the hand to rest upon and grasp. The heraldic bourdon, or pilgrim's staff, is similar (see Boutell). But if this device is neither a bourdon nor crosier, may it not be a passion nail, seeing it forms part of the armorial coat of some ecclesiastic?

It is true that the monument does not exist now as it originally did. Parts of it have been lost or destroyed, the result probably of the Reformation fervour. Its position, too, has been shifted more than once; and that which it occupied originally, before the Reformation era, is certainly not known, although Dr. Boog presumes to say that it stood "originally in a small chapel of the abbey church, formed by cutting off the south end of the transept,"-not a very correct explanation, as no south transept is known to have existed. What his evidence of this fact was, he does not say; and he probably only referred to its position subsequent to the Reformation-a period more than two hundred years before his time. He says the monument retained its original position up to the time when John, Earl of Dundonald (the third earl) had it removed, between

1704 and 1720, to a corner of the abbey garden, where it was re-erected in its original form. Here it remained, as the Doctor adds, till a successor, Thomas Earl of Dundonald, being about to feu out the garden, had it taken to pieces, when the several stones of which it was compo-ed were thrown aside and neglected: and so unknown and uncared for was this monument, that Dr. Boog was fourteen years the incumbent of the Abbey church before he was aware of the existence of such a structure. This can only, however, have reference to part of the monument as it appears now the altar tomb: for he states that the female statue was sunk in the pavement of the floor of St. Mirin's aisle; and there it could be seen any day, and would necessarily be very often by the minister of the church. The place in this aisle where the statue was sunk was probably that where "the relics" of the Princess Marjory Bruce were deposited by the Earl of Abercorn, when removed from some other part of the abbey buildings to his own burial-place; and "covered," as Semple states, "with the foresaid monument" (the female statue, not also the altar tomb), about ten or twelve years before he wrote, which was in 1782. (Semple's Renf., p. 292.) This removal of the relics, depositation, and covering of them by the monument, would take place then about 1770 or 1772; and had they been accompanied in their first resting-place with this altar tomb as well as the statue, no reason whatever can be discovered for Lord Abercorn not placing over them, when transferred to St. Mirin's aisle, the altar tomb also. This was not done, however; because, in 1774, when Dr. Boog became minister of the abbey, its existence was not known to him, nor for fourteen years afterwards. In 1788 the Doctor had the stones of the tomb searched for, disinterred from the superincumbent rubbish, and "loosely but carefully put together" in the cloister area, which is on the south side of the nave. And here possibly they remained till about 1817 or 1820, when the missing stones were supplied conjecturally, and the monument was set up where it now stands; and when there was added to it the statue and canopy the former having been raised from the pavement of the aisle. At this time the monument, as Mr. Billings says, would be in "a fragmentary state"; and when reconstructed within the aisle it was covered over, unnecessarily and with little taste or sense, with a coat of stonecoloured paint, so thick that the supplied parts cannot now certainly be recognised. Crawfurd, in his History of Renfrewshire (Rob. edit p. 18), who wrote a little before 1710, having published in that year, speaks of a monument as having been erected to the Princess Marjory at the abbey; but at what part specially, he does not mention.

says this, however, and the statement is imortant, that the monument was cut in the form

46

of a woman, raised about two feet above the surface of the ground"; which accords strictly with a separate statement made more than half a century before (about 1654) by Principal Dunlop of Glasgow, in a short description of Renfrewshire to this effect:

"This abbey was honoured by being the burial-place of King Robert II., and of his mother Marjorie Bruce, whose gravestone is to be seen cut out in the shape of a woman."-Appendix to Hamilton's History of Renfrewshire, p. 148.

Can these descriptions, then, of the monument refer to the altar tomb? We should answer in the negative. It is more imposing, and quite as curious as the statue and canopy; and had it formed then a part, the monument could not have been characterised simply as a "gravestone." Besides, we can see no reason why, if forming a part, it was left entirely unnoticed. The height of this altar tomb, too, is not two feet (the height of Crawfurd), but three feet eight inches. Semple, besides stating what we have above noticed, says that the Princess lies buried at Paisley (p. 292), where a monument is erected to her memory, "now (i. e. in 1782) on the north side, and near to the west end of this burial-place, or Sounding Isle." This monument, mentioned by Semple, therefore, evidently has no reference to the altar tomb, but to the statue alone, sunk into the pavement of the aisle as referred to by Dr. Boog. In 1788, or 1789, or about that time, be it observed, the tomb had by the Doctor only been "put together" outside in the open air, in the cloister area. This was five or six years subsequent to the publication of Semple's work; and Dr. Boog's statement is most distinct that throughout the interval from 1774 to 1788 the tomb was not known. If it had stood openly in the aisle by the north wall in 1782 (as Semple says), it behoved to have been known to him. Accordingly, it would seem certain that neither Dunlop, Crawfurd, nor Semple refer to the altar tomb at all as the monument of the Princess Marjory, or even part of it; and from all that can be discovered now, it and the statue, with its accompanying canopy, were only set up together, for the first time probably, under Dr. Boog's superintendence between 1788 and

1820.

What parts of this tomb were awanting in 1788 is made plain by Dr. Boog's statement to the Scotch antiquaries. Exclusive of the female statue and canopy, it seems to have consisted of eleven or twelve different stones, there being three on each side, one at each end, and three or four forming the platform on which the recumbent female statue now rests. The stones not discovered were one of the side stones, that of the east end, or foot of the tomb, and two or three of those forming the platform. Whether the stones were all found huddled up in one place, is not

stated. It is impossible, therefore, to contend in sincerity and certainly, that the original stones, as now placed, occupy the very same positions as they did at first. The stone, for example, now at the head of the tomb, on which the three shields of arms are sculptured, may, for aught that can be discovered to the contrary, have been that of the foot, which now is a supplied stone.

ANGLO-SCOTUS assumes that St. Mirin's aisle was not erected till the end of the fifteenth century. That is a belief entertained by others as well; but, as a fact, it is not well ascertained. James Crawfurd of Kylwinnet, and his wife, of the name of Galbraith, no doubt about that time (July 15, 1499, is the date of the charter) established an altar within it, which was dedicated to Saints Mirin and Columba; and from having done this, they probably received the credit of rearing the whole fabric. Semple says, that "in this chapel was interred Elisabeth Muir and Euphemia Ross, both consorts to King Robert III." Both of these high personages died, as is well ascertained, during the fourteenth century, and more than one hundred years before the founding of the altar by Crawfurd. And the curious sculpturing, often noticed by our antiquaries, to which Semple refers as within this chapel, and extending across the whole of the east end wall, except for a space in the centre where an altar stood, as supposed, and which he homely and ungracefully enough calls a 66 range of popish images," would lead to a belief in a much greater antiquity for this place (Semple's Renfrewshire, p. 293). It has been conjectured, on the other hand, that this aisle was the private chapel of the Paisley monks. The piscina and pix recess are to be seen in the south side wall; and the abbey church, as known, was used parochially from a very early period. This view regarding the aisle, therefore, is not without foundation; and it seems to have been recognised as entitled to consideration by the able writers of the New Stat. Account (voce "Paisley," p. 217), the Rev. Drs. M'Nair and Burns.

ANGLO-SCOTUS Supposes that the centre shield symbolises an ecclesiastic; and as in his view it holds the post of honour, may not an inference be drawn that this altar tomb (exclusive of the statue and canopy, of course) was meant to commemorate some high dignitary of the Paisley house, as Abbot John Lytchgow, whose name twice appears sculptured on it? This abbot chose for the place of his interment, in 1433, a site within what is now the north porch, or entrance to the nave of the church, which is near its west end, as an inscribed slab on the east wall of that porch still in situ testifies. (New Stat. Account, "Paisley," p. 211; and Hamilton of Wishaw's History of Renfrewshire, Plate of Antiquities.) And may not, consequently, a fair inference be

formed that this porch originally was a side chapel in which this altar tomb stood? This is a query we put for ANGLO-SCOTUS's consideration, and any of his brother antiquaries to whom the subject may be interesting. Dr. Boog said, in his account of the tomb furnished to the S. Antiq. Society (vol. ii.):

"It is singular that, as the tomb of a queen, all the ornamental figures should be those of ecclesiastic, and the principal place assigned to a spiritual coat of arms.'

May we not, therefore, reasonably conclude that the statue and canopy, irrespective of, and separate from, this altar tomb, was part of a monument reared in memory of some distinguished lady, as the Princess Marjory, or Robert II.'s queen; and, as the former was at her death the only child of The great Brus, as well as the wife of Walter, the sixth High Stewart of Scotland, whose ancestor was founder of the Paisley house, may we not further conclude that she would be interred somewhere in the choir in some prominent post of honour, not far distant from the high altar? This choir now is a total ruin, and it is understood to have been destroyed by the falling of the great central tower, not long before the Reformation (Stat. Account, suprà p. 216); or, as some think, rather by the hands of the excited Reformers at desire of the Protestant Church, and by the aid of the Privy Council. ESPEDARE.

[blocks in formation]

Most people who have lived at the ports or travelled on the rivers of China, during the past fifteen years, will be inclined to support Curzon, as quoted by CPL., against Pliny.

In 1853, after a dreadful massacre by the Taepings, the harbour of Amoy was full of corpses, and I heard this very subject much discussed, but I never heard it doubted that the female corpse floated face upwards or supine, and the male face downwards or prone.

In fact it seemed admitted that this was the rule, and a physical reason was assigned, with which I need not take up your space. W. T. M. Earley.

[blocks in formation]

"Besides the good qualities before expressed, must be added to the fair sex's account modesty, the most beautiful and most excellent of all; and so congenial to woman, dited; who tells us, that the bodies of drowned men float as not to leave them, even in death, if Pliny is to be crewith their face upward, and those of drowned women downwards; 'veluti pudori defunctarum parcente natura,' lib. vi. cap. 18: Nature, as it were, sparing the modesty of women dying in this manner."

I am told that Cornelius Agrippa, in his "Essay on the Superiority of the Female Sex," quotes the same fact. R. J. F.

I have never observed the corpse of a man floating on its face, as stated in the note from Curzon's Armenia, quoted by CPL., and I have had ample opportunity of noticing this peculiarity, if it existed, during three months' residence on the Hooghly above Calcutta. I have counted as many as seven bodies of the infatuated victims of "sacred Ganges" and Hindoo superstition-men, women, and children, floating by at one time, and invariably on their backs. This I noted from the fact that the birds of prey, their loathsome attendants, always attacked the eyes first. W. J. C.

THE DOUGLAS RINGS: THE DOUGLAS HEART. (4th S. ii. 17.)

While I should be sorry to cause "pain or regret" to any unoffending person, I have yet to learn that a little harmless raillery in analysing does not seem to be aware that in charging me error is forbidden in these pages. MR. IRVING with a "tone of comment" which does not meet with his approval, he by implication accuses our mutual friend the Editor, and makes that gentleman particeps criminis in admitting the offending article into print.

My remarks were dictated by no feeling of discourtesy to MR. CUMING-we being perfect strangers-but simply to correct a rather elaborate paper founded on error. When in a similar predicament, MR. IRVING, or any one else, is most welcome to note, like Captain Grose, the "hole in my coat," with any facetious comments that occur to him. In such matters, "veniam damus petimusque."

1. MR. IRVING amusingly misquotes what I said, and then objectionably argues upon the misquotation, winding up with Shakespeare. He says, I objected "to MR. CUMING calling the nobleman who fell at Dumfries his great ancestor." Whereas my inquiry was, "How the " Red Cumyn "comes to be his (MR. CUMING'S) ancestor?" which could not of course be answered without elaborate detail. This shows the propriety in private life of refraining from general assertions of descent

« EelmineJätka »