صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

when, speaking of a statement of Polydore Virgil, he says that it is
“an untruth worthy to be punished with a whole year's banishment
(to speak after the manner of Apuleius).” iii. 375. The reference is
obviously to the African philosopher of the second century, and in
particular to these words of his Apology, “O falsum, et audax nimium
mendacium, viginti annorum exilio puniendum!"--but, instead of any.
thing like a reference to this, the note tells us, “« Apuleius,' Apuleia
Lex, was enacted by Apuleius the tribune, A. U.C. 652, against sedi-
tions and tumults.-ED."

Edward the Third, we are told, “granted to release the Scots of all their homage and fealty unto the realm of England, which by their charter ensealed they were bound to; as also their indenture, which was called the Ragman Roll, wherein were specified the aforesaid homage and fealty to the king and crown of England, by the said king of Scots, nobles, and prelates, to be made; having all their seals annexed to the same,” 669. To illustrate this, the editor adds a note, « « Ragman Roll,' was a statute appointed by this king for hearing and determining all complaints and actions done five years before." Here again the editor has been misled by a verbal similiarity, and has got hold of a statute which had no kind of connexion with the matter in hand. The statute of Rageman had no more to do with the Ragman Roll, than Apuleius the platonist had to do with Appuleius the demagogue. And, as the Lex Appuleia was so far from being against seditions and tumults, that it was an agrarian law, intended to promote the sedition and tumult in which its factious proposer perished, so the statute of Rageman was not “ appointed by this king," but by his grandfather, and the period of its retrospect consisted, not of “five," but of twenty-five years.

I do not wish to make this letter tedious, for even immoderate prolixity would not enable me to crowd into it all that it seems right to say; and on this particular part of the subject I have perhaps said quite enough to prove that the editor has not done justice to his author in his attempts to illustrate the text by notes; yet, before I proceed to any other point, it seems necessary to notice a class of mistakes peculiarly unfortunate in an editor of anti-papal polemics. I mean such as manifest a surprising ignorance of things relating to the church of Rome. It would not be reasonable to expect protestants to be familiar with the language of the Vulgate; but I think that most general readers, if they had only a slight knowledge of Latin, and found Fox expressing his hope that he should be able to spunge out the dirt with which Harpsfield had “ bedaubed and bespotted” bin, adding, “at least wise with a little asperges' of the pope's holy water, I trust to come to a

dealbabor' well enough,” ii. 376,-most, I say, would be led to think of the verse, “ Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow,” even though they might not be previously aware that in the Vulgate that verse stands, “ Asperges me hyssopo, et mundabor: lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor." This does not seem to have occurred to the editor, who turns the verb into a noun, and tells us that a “ dealbabor” is “ a purger or wbitener.” But what are we to say to his explanations on the subject of popish

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

vestments ? It is a subject which few protestants can be expected
completely to understand; but even those who will only read new
books, and English books, and books as handsomely printed in octavo
as if they did not contain more learning than most folios, might gain
information enough to avoid such gross blunders, from a work which
every man (I was going to say who has, but I may certainly say) who
officiates from a prayer-book onght to know. Several of the editor's
notes, however, though I most sincerely acquit him of any such inten-
tion, seemn as if they had been studiously framed to mislead the reader.

In a note on p. 257, he tells us that “ the Casule is probably the under
garment." If, instead of this mere conjecture, for which he gives no
grounds, he had looked only in Du Cange's Glossary, he would have
found that it was quite the contrary, being the uppermost garment of
all. He would have found Alcuin saying, “ Casula, quæ super omnia
ponitur," &c., and Rabanus Maurus, “Hæc supremum omnium in-
dumentum, et cætera omnia interius per suum munimen teget et servat.”

“ The Chimer," says the editor, in the same note, “is a short, light, under dress worn by the bishops.” Mr. Palmer, in his work already referred to, says, “'The Chimere seems to resemble the garment used by Bishops during the middle ages, and called Mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, [" The cope, as I have remarked, is a cloak reaching from the neck nearly to the feet," p. 313,] with apertures for the arms to pass through. The name of chimere is probably derived from the Italian zimarra, which is described as “vesta talare de' sacerdoti.'” &c.* Indeed, the editor himself tells us at p. 531 that “i Simarre in French is a long gown or robe.” “ The Rochet,continues the editor, still in the same note, “is the lawn sleeves.” Mr. Palmer tells us that (so far from its consisting merely of sleeves) it was a garment like a surplice, and differing from it only by having narrower sleeves.t Perhaps it might be doubted whether it had any sleeves at all.

In the third volume, p. 227, we find some notes of a similar character on a “sentence of degradation" pronounced on a priest; by which, according to the usual custom, he was (if I may so speak) put back through the orders which he had received, of priest, deacon, subdeacon, &c., and those symbolical things which had been delivered to him when he received each of those orders were taken from him in succes. sion. In the first step of his degradation we are told, both in the text and the margin, that they took from him the “patent and chalice;" a blunder continued from the old edition.

Afterwards, in token of his degradation from the order of subdeacon, they took from him the albe, on which the editor gives a note** Albe,' the surplice.” Mr. Palmer says, “the albe is directed by the English ritual to be used by the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, in celebrating the eucharist. The first, however, is allowed to use a surplice instead of it in his public ministrations ;"# indeed, if the editor had only looked a few lines forward, he would have seen that the "surplice" was taken from the man at a subsequent stage of the degra


[ocr errors]


[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Origines Liturgicæ, Vol. II. 318.

+ Ibid.

I lbid. p. 316.

dation; that is, when he was degraded from what Fox is still permitted to call the order of Sexton.

In the meantime, however, he was degraded from the order of an acolyte," and (notwithstanding that he had just before been degraded from “the order of a subdeacon") the editor puts a note to inform his readers that an “ acolyte” was “an under-deacon.” The symbols taken from him at this step were, according to Fox, “ the candlestick and taper, and also urceolum ;" which latter word he either did not know how, or did not see fit, to translate ; nor has the editor, but he goes so far as to say in a note that it was “a vessel used in the celebration of popish services."*

Again, at p. 380 of the third volume, Fox talks of Harpsfield's “ popish portues ;' and the editor puts a note—“ Portues, Porthose, or Mass Book.–En." Whether he found or made the word porthose I do not know; but, from this description of a porthors, it would seem that he did not know the difference between a breviary and a missal ; and we may perhaps suspect that he has not much more acquaintance with the canon law, when we find Fox's “Glose” (695) turned into “Glossary," üï. 687; and continually, ii. 511 and following pages.

But one of the errors of this class which it has puzzled me most to account for is this : at p. 634 of the third volume we have a translation of a speech which the Archbishop of Arles delivered at the council of Basil. He argued that by ancient rule the inferior clergy (priests and deacons) were not excluded from general councils; and that the words of a certain canon which he specified, and which might seem at first sight to favour a contrary opinion, did in fact (when properly understood) only exclude those who were below the degree of deacon, or in what the church of Rome calls the minor orders, -as subdeacons, acolytes, &c. : “nempe hoc non excludit omnes inferiores, sed eos tantum, qui solius primæ tonsuræ sunt clerici, quos etiam nos excludimus, servantes quod Toletanum præcepit concilium.”+ The translation of this as it stands in the new edition is, “For this does not exclude all the inferiors, but only such as have taken Bennet and Collet, whom we also do exclude, observing the order, which the council of Toulousef commanded to be appointed.” Now, whatever may be the origin of the phrase " Bennet and Collet,” it is quite clear that Fox

“ here used it to express the lesser orders of the church ; and it occurs

*“When any acolythist is ordained, the bishop shall inform him how he is to behave himself in his office : and he shall receive a candlestick with a taper in it, from the archdeacon, that he may understand that he is appointed to light the candles of the cburch. He shall also receive an empty pitcher, to furnish wine for the eucharist of the blood of Christ."- Bingham Antiq. B. III. c. iii. §. 2.

+ Æn. Syl. ap. Fasc. Rer. II. 24. # As this mistake occurs in a passage which the editor has inserted from the edition of 1563, which I have not got, I do not know whether he or Fox changed Toledo into Tolouse, both here and on the preceding page. I presume, however, that it was Fox; for I find the same thing further on in a part which Fox retained in the edition of 1583, (p. 683,) new ed. 641. I notice it here because it is connected with what I quote for another purpose, to point out the very many mistaken, corrupt, and almost unintelligible names of persons and places occurring only in the account of the council of Basil, would of itself occupy pages.

again, with the same meaning, in a subsequent part of his work.
John Lambert, in his answer to the bishops' articles, says, “I say,
the order or state of priests and deacons was ordained by God, but
subdeacons, and conjurers, otherwise called exorcistæ and accolitæ,
which we call Benet and Collect, were instituted by the invention of
men."* But what is the editor's explanation ? «« Bennet and Collet,'
the orders of St. Benedict and St. Nicholas." I have heard of the
“ Clerks of St. Nicholas,” and should quite feel the propriety of ex-
cluding them from all councils, whether general or provincial; but of
any order of St. Nicholas, I do not remember to have heard, and shall
be glad to know more about it; but could the editor possibly imagine
that the archbishop was maintaining (on such an occasion too, and
before such an audience) that a Benedictine could not sit in a general
council ? How such a doctrine would have startled “ Alexander,
(the Benedictine] Abbot of Vergilia, [read Vezelai,] who was the first
that came to this place, the Council beginning when there was
no bishop as yet come," 642; and surely, instead of hearing that
"John, the [Benedictine] Abbot of Sistertia, (read Cistercium, orCiteaux,]
made an oration to the Bohemians” 679, we should find that he made
an oration in defence of his Order ; but what ideas can the editor have
of Orders and Councils ?
I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,



[ocr errors]

“Well! I hope I have a friend above that will order all, and stand my friend, and keep me to the last,” said old Hester Smith, as she slowly left me at my cottage-garden gate, where she and I had been talking a longer time perhaps than either of us ought to have had to spare. And yet how could I stop lier in the midst of the history of her anxieties, when she avowedly finds sympathy such a comfort, and when, so I am told, owing to some new arrangement at the workhonse, it will be perhaps but for a few weeks longer that I shall be able to sympathize with her ?

My earliest recollection of Strawberry-lane, which is a very deep, and steep, and stony pathway, leading down to the river, between two rugged hills, the sides of which, when I first knew it, were covered up to the very top with brushwood, and low thorn bushes, and maples, here and there wreathed with wild honeysuckle and what the children call old man's beard, presents to my mind a narrow footpath from the one which was the public way, winding up amongst the tangled bushes to the very top of the hill on the right hand side. Whither it led we had not fully discovered, because to keep half-a-dozen children in the beaten and orderly way was as much as could be expected from any one governess or guardian.

[ocr errors]

* P. 1009. ed. of 1596.

My earliest recollection of Strawberry-lane, I was about to remark, is combined with the figure of an old man whom we used to see often on a summer evening, supporting himself (though his short form was then bale and sturdy) on a stout oaken stick, and bearing on his shoulder a brimming pail of water for his cows. He used to descend the bill on our left hand, cross our path, and slowly ascend again the narrow winding way of which I spoke, on the right. Now, I cannot tell why it was so, but so it was; we grew out of childhood, and were at liberty to explore for ourselves, before we discovered the little hatch so closely fenced up with thorns in the hedge at the other side of the bank; and we had lamented long and often, that the kings' wood had been disforested as long ago as the days of Henry the Third, and we had grieved over the destruction of so many “seemly trees,” before accident led us to the beautiful enclosure of hilly ground, filled with pear and apple trees-chiefly wildings, indeed, but extremely beautiful, as to size, and shape, and blossom-where the grass grows luxuriantly under the broad shade, thickly set with blue bells, single and double, white and yellow daffodils, vetch, and primrose; where there is no path, and you look down from your bower of overgrowing trees on the soft flowing river, so far beneath you that it is dwindled to a shining thread. It is a lovely place, and we were delighted to find that there yet remained in this populous district one spot still so wild and so retired, and that we might yet make acquaintance with the last Lord of the Forest.

The small cottage in which old John and Hester Smith live, was built many years ago by their own hands. The country just here on the bill being then almost uninhabited, and the soil barren, the possessor of a part of this waste ground offered a small portion (about two acres, I believe,) rent free for their lives to any couple who would build a cottage and cultivate garden ground round it. Many were too indolent. “It will never pay,” they said, “such rugged, untilled soil.” Many were too timid. “ Their children would lose their lives or their limbs amongst the rocks and pitfalls; and who would pass a winter in such a lonesome place ?". A lonesome place? I was almost going to say I wish it were lonesome now; but see the number of huts perched on the rocky banks of Strawberry-lane, and look down at the congregated rows of mean houses along the towing-path, each, alas ! with its well-accustomed beer-shop, and hear that throng of people hallooing for the boat at what used to be our quiet ferryah! if it be the sabbath-day, the throng is but the greater-they are going to keep holiday by visiting the new rail-road, which has brought here such an influx of disorderly strangers, and such an awful accumulation of our list of accidents,—and say if we shall ever have to complain of lonesomeness again. But I was speaking of past timesof the last Lord of the Forest building his lodge here." It is sixty years since.

Yet I scarcely know whether, in the fragments which I have gathered up of the history of this old couple, I can find so much of interest as usual. There have been no sudden or awful calamities to record, no change of situation, no travels by land, nor perils by sea.

« السابقةمتابعة »