integrity and learning, as well as for his deep research into the
ancient History of Parliament, who had been a Judge of the Common
Pleas, and was afterwards Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Speaker of
the House of Lords, in his learned and elaborate argument in the year
1680, in the case of an information by the Attorney General against
Williams, Speaker of the House of Commons, in asserting the antiquity
of that House, fell into some mistakes, from not having resorted to
the original records. He states, and insists much on it, that the
Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Hungerford, 51 Edward III.
was Speaker _of the Parliament_; whereas the words in the Record are,
“Monsieur Thomas de Hungerford, Chivaler, q’i avoit les Paroles pur
les Communes d’ Engleterre.” Rolls of Parl. vol. ii. p. 374, a. In the
first of Richard the Second, the Speaker, Sir Robert says again, was
termed the Speaker _of the Parliament_; the words in the Record are,
“Mons. Pere de la Mare Chivaler q’avoit les Paroles de Par la
Commune.”—Vol. iii. p. 5, 6.
The same with respect to Sir John Bussey, 20 Richard II. The words in
the Record are, “les Communes presenterent Mons. John Bussey pour leur
Parlour.”—Page 338, a.—339, b.
Footnote 36:
In 1766, the late Thomas Astle, Esq. was consulted by the
Sub-Committee of the House of Lords, concerning the printing of the
Rolls of Parliament, and in 1768, on the death of Mr. Blyke, Mr. Astle
introduced his father-in-law, the Rev. Philip Morant, author of the
History of Essex, to succeed that gentleman in preparing the Rolls for
the press. Mr. Morant died in November, 1770, after proceeding in them
as far as the 16th of Henry the fourth, when Mr. Astle was appointed
by the House of Lords to carry on the work, which he completed in
1775. They are printed in six volumes, _folio_.
Footnote 37:
Some reliance was placed by his Lordship on the Treatise “de Modo
tenendi Parliamentum;” the authority of which, if not entirely
destroyed by Prynne, will not at least in future have much
weight.—Prynne’s Animadversions on 4 Inst. p. 1. to p. 8. and p. 331.
Footnote 38:
In the Parliament of the 18th of Edward the first there were no
Citizens or Burgesses. There is a bundle of writs yet extant, by which
this Parliament was summoned. They are directed to the sheriffs of
several or most of the counties of England, by which two or three
Knights were directed to be chosen for each county, and accordingly
the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon, and
Cumberland returned each of them _three_ Knights, and the other
counties two each. This Parliament gave the King a fifteenth of all
their moveables as appears by the account of the same which is entered
upon the Great Roll of the 23d of that king, in which account we have
the style of this Parliament, namely, “The account of the fifteenth,
granted to the king in his 18th year, by the Archbishops, Bishops,
Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and _all others of the kingdom_,
assessed, collected, and levied,” &c.
We may here observe that the two or three Knights, chosen by the
several counties, did represent those counties, and according to the
form of the writ, consulted upon and consented to this grant of a
fifteenth.
So also in the 22d Edward the First there were neither Citizens nor
Burgesses summoned to the Parliament of that year. On the 8th of
October the king issued writs directed to every sheriff in England to
cause two discreet Knights to be chosen for each county, with full
powers, “so that for defect of such powers, the business might not
remain undone.” And on the following day the king issued other writs
to the sheriffs to cause to be elected two knights more, to be added
to the former two, making four for each county, and these four Knights
for each county, and the Earls, Barons, and Great Men, on the day of
their meeting gave the king a tenth part of all their goods.
Footnote 39:
This was only a grant of forty shillings for every Knight’s fee.—See
Rolls of Parliament, vol. 2, p. 112, a. hereinafter referred to in 14
of Edward III.
Footnote 40:
Proxies in Parliament is a privilege appropriated to the Lords only;
the first instance of a Proxy that occurs in the History of the
English Parliament, is in the reign of Edward the first.
In a Parliament at Westminster in the reign of Edward the second, the
bishops of Durham and Carlisle were allowed to send their Proxies to
Parliament.
In the early period of the History of Parliament, the Lords were not
obliged to make Barons only their Proxies as the custom now is; the
Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots usually gave their letters of proxy
to Prebendaries, Parsons, and Canons; but since the first year of king
Henry the eighth, there appear in the journals no Proxies but such as
were Lords of Parliament.
In the 35th of king Edward the third, 1360, the following Peeres were
summoned by writ to Parliament, to appear there by their Proxies,
namely, Mary, Countess of Norfolk; Eleanor, Countess of Ormond; Anna,
Baroness Despenser; Philippa, Countess of March; Joanna, Baroness
Fitzwalter; Agneta, Countess of Pembroke; Mary de St. Paul, Countess
of Pembroke; Margaret, Baroness de Roos; Matilda, Countess of Oxford;
Catherine, Countess of Athol. These ladies were called _ad colloquium
et tractatum_ by their Proxies.
MOSAIC PAINTING.
Mosaic is a representation of painting by means of small pebbles, or
shells of sundry colours, and, of late years, with pieces of glass
coloured at pleasure; it is an ornament of much beauty, and lasts for
ages, and is mostly used in pavements and floors.
The term _Mosaic_ is derived from the latin _musivum_, and ought to be
pronounced _musaic_. It is odd enough that many persons have really
fancied they could trace the etymology of this word to the name of the
great Jewish legislator. It is well observed by Wotton that Mosaic has
“long life;” and we have much to lament that, the art was not practised
in ancient Rome with the perfection it has attained in modern Rome. Had
Mosaic been applied to exact imitations of the pictures of Apelles,
Zeuxis, and the great artists of ancient times, we should still have
been the contemporaries of every fine genius, and a new polish had
renewed their fading beauties, and restored them to immortal youth.
Pliny has proved that the Greeks first practised Mosaic, and notices a
curious work of the kind which was called “the unswept piece.” This
singular performance exhibited to the eye, crumbs of bread and other
things which fall from a table, so naturally imitated, that the eye was
perfectly deceived, and it looked as if the pavement had never been
swept; it was formed of small shells, painted of different colours.
There were several pieces of Mosaic found in Herculaneum; one much
resembled a Turkey carpet. The ancients probably gave in Mosaic some
historical subjects, for there was also discovered the Rape of Europa,
composed of small flints.
Mosaic has been practised in Italy two thousand years; the manner of
working it in that country is by copying in very small pieces of marble
of different colours, every thing which a picture can be expected to
imitate. Instead of common stones, too difficult to collect for so great
a work, or which would require too much time to prepare and polish, the
Italian artists sometimes have recourse to paste, that is to a
composition of glass and enamel, which after passing through a crucible
takes a brilliant colour. All these pieces are inlaid, and very thin,
and their length is proportioned to their slenderness. They sometimes
inlay a piece not thicker than a hair, and the artist afterwards
arranges these pieces according to the colours and design of the picture
before him. They are easily fixed in the stucco or plaster of Paris
placed to receive them which soon hardens and dries. Such works are so
solid that they are capable of resisting the assaults of time through
ages. The Mosaic of St. Mark at Venice has existed above 900 years in
perfect splendour and beauty.
Several fine pieces of Roman Mosaic work have been discovered in England
in the last and preceding centuries, particularly at Woodchester in
Gloucestershire, and at Horkstow, in Lincolnshire, both of which have
been elaborately described and engraved by the late Samuel Lysons, Esq.
Others have been found at Winterton, Roxby, Scampton, and Denton, in the
county of Lincoln; in Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire,
Northamptonshire, &c. &c.
Sir Christopher Wren intended to have beautified the inside of the
Cupola of St. Paul’s Cathedral, instead of painting it in the manner in
which it now appears, with the more durable ornament of Mosaic work, as
is nobly executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s at Rome. For this purpose
he intended to have procured from Italy four of the most eminent artists
in that profession; but as this art was a great novelty in England, and
not generally understood, the plan did not receive the encouragement it
deserved. It was thought also that the expense would prove too great,
and the time very long in the execution; but though these and all other
objections were fully answered, yet this excellent design was no further
pursued.
KING EGBERT.
It is a generally received opinion, sanctioned by nearly every modern
historian, that Egbert king of the West Saxons, having dissolved the
Heptarchy, about the year 828, became the first sole monarch of England.
This is, however, one of those historical points which it is more easy
to assert than to confirm. There were undoubtedly many chief monarchs of
the heptarchy, both before and after the time of Egbert, that sovereign
himself having been one of those chief monarchs, but some of those petty
kingdoms subsisted for nearly one hundred and twenty years after
Egbert’s death. That this was the fact is proved both by their coins and
their laws. Several of their coins are still to be found in the cabinets
of the curious. Thus we find that in the kingdom of the East Angles,
king Edmund, called the Saint, and Ethelstan, (Guthrun the Danish
general being so named by Alfred at his baptism,) coined money, the
first in 857, and the latter in 878. The kings of Mercia coined money
until A. D. 874, and the kings of Northumberland till A. D. 950. In the
last mentioned year, the kingdom of Northumberland, which included all
the country north of the Humber, terminated, and England became one
kingdom. It was again divided by Edwy, who began to reign in 959, so
that Edgar may more justly be regarded as commencing the series of kings
of all England. It may be proper here to remark that two kingdoms of the
Heptarchy never coined any money; these were the kingdoms of the East
Saxons and the South Saxons.
Alfred was the first king that made a code of laws which was common to
the whole kingdom. There were very few legislators among the Saxon
Monarchs. The laws of Ethelbert, who died in 617, are the most ancient
that we have. The next are those of Lothaire, 673; Edric, 684; and
Wightred, 694; all of them kings of Kent. Ina, king of the West Saxons,
688, and Offa king of the Mercians, 757, were the only other kings of
the Heptarchy who formed any laws which have been preserved by
historians. If it be objected that the people of the other kingdoms
could not subsist without laws suited to the situation of their affairs,
we may observe that the monarchs of those kingdoms received into their
states and adopted the laws of the kings already mentioned. The laws of
Ina were received by the other kings of the Heptarchy, and in one of the
great councils held by Offa, king of Mercia, there were present the king
of the East Saxons, the king of the West Saxons, the king of Kent, the
king of Northumberland, and three kings of Wales.
Alfred having conquered the Danes at Edington, and Guthrun their general
and his principal officers having been baptized in the church of Aller,
near Langport, in Somersetshire, Alfred concluded a treaty of peace with
Guthrun, and gave him the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland for
himself and his Danes, appointing the boundaries of his dominions and
giving him laws which were agreed to and confirmed by Alfred’s and
Guthrun’s nobles. In all cases which were not provided for by this
treaty, Guthrun consented that the Danes should observe the general laws
of Alfred. This treaty was afterwards confirmed and enlarged by Edward
the Elder, Alfred’s son, with the consent and approbation of his and
Guthrun’s nobles.
THE LATIN LANGUAGE.
So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national
manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the
progress of their arms, the use of the latin tongue. The ancient
dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the Venetian, sunk into
oblivion; but the eastern were less docile than the western provinces to
the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked
the two portions of the empire with a distinction of character, which,
though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendour of
prosperity, became gradually more visible, as the shades of night
descended upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by
the same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were
reconciled to obedience, their minds were opened to any new impressions
of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil and Cicero, though
with some inevitable mixture of corruption, was so universally adopted
in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and Pannonia, that the faint traces of
the Punic or Celtic idioms were preserved only in the mountains or among
the peasants. The Celtic was indeed preserved in the mountains of Wales,
Cornwall, and Armorica; and it may here be observed that Apuleius
reproaches an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use
of the Punic, whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could nor
would speak Latin. The greater part of St. Austin’s congregations were
strangers to the Punic. Education and study insensibly inspired the
natives of the countries just mentioned with the sentiments of Romans;
and Italy gave fashions, as well as laws, to her latin provincials. They
solicited with more ardour, and obtained with more facility, the freedom
and honours of the state; supported the national dignity in letters and
in arms; and at length in the person of Trajan, produced an Emperor whom
the Scipios would not have disowned for their countryman. Spain alone
produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quinctilian.
The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the
barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They
had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to
adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after
they had lost the virtues of their ancestors, they affected to despise
the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were
compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. The Greeks seemed
to be entirely ignorant that the Romans had any good writers; and it is
believed that there is not a single Greek critic, from Dionysius to
Libanius, who mentions Virgil or Horace. Nor was the influence of the
Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that
once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and
conquests, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the
Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the
Macedonian kings, had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and
Egypt. In their pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of
Athens with the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was
imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their subjects.
Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and
Greek languages.
To these we may add a third distinction for the body of the natives in
Syria, and especially in Egypt. The use of their ancient dialects, by
secluding them from the commerce of mankind, checked the improvements of
those barbarians. The slothful effeminacy of the former, exposed them to
the contempt; the sullen ferociousness of the latter, excited the
aversion of the conquerors. Those nations had submitted to the Roman
power, but they seldom desired or deserved the freedom of the city; and
it was remarked, that more than two hundred and thirty years elapsed
after the ruin of the Ptolemys, before an Egyptian was admitted into the
Senate of Rome, the first instance of which happened under the reign of
Septimius Severus.
Dr. HERSCHEL.
In the History of Doncaster, written by Dr. Miller, we find the
following account of the early years of this eminent astronomer:—
“It will ever be a gratifying reflection to me,” says Dr. Miller, “that
I was the first person by whose means this extraordinary genius was
drawn from a state of obscurity. About the year 1760, as I was dining
with the officers of the Durham militia, at Pontefract, one of them
informed me, that they had a young German in their band, as a performer
on the hautboy, who had been only a few months in this country, and yet
spoke English almost as well as a native; that exclusively of the
hautboy, he was an excellent performer on the violin, and if I chose to
repair to another room, he should entertain me with a solo. I did so,
and Mr. Herschel executed a solo of Giordani’s in a manner that
surprised me. Afterwards I took an opportunity to have a little private
conversation with him, and requested to know if he had engaged himself
to the Durham militia for any long period? he answered, ‘No, only from
month to month.’ Leave them then, said I, and come and live with me; I
am a single man, and think we shall be happy together; doubtless your
merit will soon entitle you to a more eligible situation. He consented
to my request, and came to Doncaster. It is true, at that time, my
humble mansion consisted but of two rooms; however, poor as I was, my
cottage contained a small library of well chosen books; and it must
appear singular, that a young German, who had been so short a time in
England, should understand even the peculiarities of our language so
well, as to adopt Dean Swift for his favourite author. I took an early
opportunity of introducing him at Mr. Copley’s concert; and he presently
began
“Untwisting all the charms that tie
”The hidden soul of harmony.”
For never before had we heard the concertos of Corelli, Geminiani, and
Avison, or the overtures of Handel, performed more chastely, or more
according to the original intention of the composers, than by Mr.
Herschel. I soon lost my companion; his fame was presently spread
abroad, he had the offer of scholars, and was solicited to lead the
public concerts at Wakefield and Halifax.
“About this time a new organ, for the parish church of Halifax, was
built by Snetzler; which was opened with an oratorio, by the late
well-known Joah Bates. Mr. Herschel, and six others, were candidates for
the organist’s place. They drew lots how they were to perform in
rotation. Herschel drew the third lot—the second performer was Mr.
(afterwards Dr.) Wainwright, of Manchester, whose finger was so rapid,
that old Snetzler, the organ builder, ran about the church
exclaiming:—‘Te tevil, te tevil, he run over te keys like one cat, he
will not give my pipes room for to shpeak!’ During Mr. Wainwright’s
performance, I was standing in the middle aile with Herschel;—What
chance have you, said I, to follow this man? He replied, ‘I do not know,
I am sure fingers will not do.’ On which he ascended the loft, and
produced from the organ such an uncommon fullness, such a volume of
slow, solemn harmony, that I could by no means account for the effect.
After this short extemporary effusion, he finished with the old
hundredth psalm, which he played better than his opponent. ‘Aye, aye,’
cried old Snetzler, ‘tish is very goot, very goot inteet; I will luf
tish man, for he gives my pipes room for to shpeak!’ Having afterwards
asked Herschel by what means, in the beginning of his performance he
produced such an uncommon effect? he replied, ‘I told you fingers would
not do,’ and producing two pieces of lead from his pocket, ‘one of
these,’ said he, ‘I placed on the lowest key of the organ, and the other
upon the octave above; thus by accommodating the harmony, I produced the
effect of four hands instead of two. However, as my leading the concert
on the violin, is their principal object, they will give me the place in
preference to a better performer on the organ; but I shall not stay long
here, for I have the offer of a superior situation at Bath, which offer
I shall accept.’“
PARODIES.
The present use of this word is strictly consonant with that of the
ancients, who applied it to the giving a ridiculous turn to passages in
Homer and the tragic Poets. There are many in Aristophanes. One of the
happiest modern instances is the parody of the speech of Sarpedon to
Glaucus in the Rape of the Lock. The genealogy of Agamemnon’s sceptre is
also parodied in the same poem, canto 5, v. 87.
MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.
In the Mosaic law the Israelites were commanded _not to cut themselves
for the dead_. The original Hebrew has, however a more extensive meaning
than cutting, and includes all assaults on their own persons, arising
from immoderate grief, such as beating the breasts, tearing the hair,
&c. which were commonly practised by the heathen, who had no hope of a
resurrection, particularly by the Egyptians, which might afford a
particular reason for the Mosaic prohibition. We may also observe, that
among the Romans, it was ordained by one of the laws of the twelve
tables, “Let not women tear their faces, or make lamentations at
funerals,” which proves that this was the custom with the Romans,
previously to making this law. No doubt the law itself was immediately
borrowed from the Athenian code, of which it is a literal translation.
The Priests of Baal, (1 Kings, ch. 18, v. 28.) assaulted themselves with
knives and lances, which was indeed equivalent to cutting themselves.
Nor was this frantic custom confined to the Priests of Baal; the
_Galli_, and other devotees of the Syrian goddess, cut their arms, and
scourged each others backs, according to Lucian. “Baal’s Priests”, says
Dr. Leland, “were wont to cut and slash themselves with knives and
lances. The same thing was practised in the worship of Isis, according
to Herodotus, and of Bellona, as Lucan mentions. Many authors take
notice of the solemnities of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whose
priests in their sacred processions, made hideous noises and howlings,
cutting themselves till the blood gushed out, as they went along.”
GARRICK.
The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to
introduce Shakespeare on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to
fit him for the audience of the present day, without divesting him of
any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in
the spirit of the original. These Plays, so altered, are likely to keep
possession of the theatre, while every other attempt at change or
improvement are forgotten, except Cibber’s Richard the Third, and Tate’s
Lear, which, with some correction of Garrick’s, are still acted, though
the alteration of the last is directly in opposition to the precepts of
Aristotle and Mr. Addison.
Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, which is perhaps
essential to make a good dramatic writer, since the knowledge of stage
effect is of great consequence, possessed a genius not above mediocrity;
and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber’s
Richard, written by himself, so characteristic of the manner of his
archetype, that it has often been cited as one of Shakespeare’s
beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard, on Buckingham’s being
taken,
“Off with his head! so much for Buckingham.”
And I heard, says Mr. Pye, (Comment. on Aristotle,) Mr. Pitt, afterwards
Lord Chatham, quote the following verse of Tate’s, in the House of
Commons, undoubtedly taking it for Shakespeare’s,
“Where the gor’d battle bleeds in every vein.”
The tragedy of Hamlet was, by order of Mrs. Garrick, thrown into
Garrick’s grave. Though he was undoubtedly great in that character, he
was equally so in many of Shakespeare’s characters, and superior in
Lear. The comic characters it is presumed were thought too light for so
solemn an occasion. If by burying that tragedy with Garrick it was meant
to infer that it was lost to the stage with him, a complete edition of
Shakespeare might, with the utmost propriety have been interred with
that inimitable actor.
LEMONS.
Theophrastus, who studied under Plato and Aristotle, says of lemons,
that they were cultivated for their fragrance, not for their taste; that
the peel was laid up with garments, to preserve them from moths; and
that the juice was administered by physicians medicinally.
Virgil in his second Georgic, describes agreeably the Lemon-tree. Pliny
mentions the lemon-juice as an antidote; but says that the fruit, from
its austere taste, was not eaten.