my mind. But after a little reflection, I resolved to refer a matter
of this importance to my friends. This circumstance has caused the
delay, for which I ought before now to have apologized. My friends
unanimously exhorted me to embrace the good fortune which they
conceived to be within my grasp. Their advice, therefore, joined to
the expectation I had entertained of doing some small good by my
exertions in the employment, together with the pardonable vanity
which the honour annexed to the office inspired, determined me; and
I was on the point of troubling you, sir, and the other electors
with notice of my intentions to profess myself a candidate, when an
objection which had escaped me in the hurry of my thoughts, now
occurred to my recollection.
“The same reason which hindered me from keeping my fellowship by the
method you obligingly pointed out to me, would, I am greatly afraid,
prevent me from being Greek professor. Whatever concern this may
give me for myself, it gives me none for the public. I trust there
are at least twenty or thirty in the university, equally able and
willing to undertake the office; possessed, many of talents superior
to mine, and all of a more complying conscience. This I speak upon
the supposition that the next Greek professor will be compelled to
read lectures; but if the place remains a sinecure, the number of
qualified persons will be greatly increased. And though it was even
granted that my industry and attention might possibly produce some
benefit to the interests of learning and the credit of the
university, that trifling gain would be as much exceeded by keeping
the professorship a sinecure, and bestowing it on a sound believer,
as temporal considerations are outweighed by spiritual. Having only
a strong persuasion, not an absolute certainty, that such a
subscription is required of the professor elect; if I am mistaken, I
hereby offer myself as a candidate, but if I am right in my opinion,
I shall beg of you to order my name to be erased from the boards,
and I shall esteem it a favour conferred on, Sir,
Your obliged humble servant,
R. PORSON.”
* * * * *
_Letter from the Rev. Joseph Goodall, D. D. Upper Master (now
Provost) of Eton College, to Mr. Porson._
“_Eton, Nov. 16th, 1806._
“Dear Porson,—The bishop of Rochester [Dr. Dampier] has written to
me requesting my assistance on the following subject. ‘On summing up
matters the Oxford people find no account of the Eton MS of Strabo,
of which use has been made, and want one for their preface.’ Now the
said bishop, urged by his brother of Oxford [Dr. Randolph] at the
same time he hints that you have examined the MS in question, and
advises me to enter upon the subject with you, which I most gladly
do, praying for such information as you may be disposed to give me,
being fully persuaded that you are not likely to forget what you
have once seen.
“I write to the bishop by this post to acknowledge my incompetence.
How glad should Mrs. Goodall and myself be, if you would take the
trouble of once more inspecting the MS and dating your kind
communication from the Eton library. Should you be a prisoner
in——street will you suffer me to bring the MS to town about the
middle of December, and then give me your opinion of its value, age,
&c. The master of the Charter-House, [Dr. Raine] whom I hope soon to
greet by some other title, will I am sure, have the goodness to
forward this petition to you.
“Charles Hayes, who, with his wife is now on a visit to us, desires
his kindest remembrance. Mrs. Goodall is fatigued to death with
nursing a sick nephew and niece, and I am sorry to add that I am on
the invalid list myself, but we hope to be all well in the course of
a few days. She unites in every good wish with
Dear Porson,
Yours most faithfully,
J. GOODALL.”
* * * * *
_From Mr. William Laing of Edinburgh to Mr. Porson._
“_Edinburgh, 3d of Jan. 1807._
“Sir,—The edition of Herodotus being now compleated after the plan
you proceeded on, I have taken the liberty of dedicating to you,
which I hope will meet your approbation. Mr. Dunbar who has
succeeded poor Mr. Dalzel has paid the utmost attention to it. I
shall order Cuthell to forward a copy for your use. A selection has
been made of the best notes from Wesseling; which with his Index
Rerum, will make it very compleat. I return you my best thanks for
the trouble you voluntarily undertook in promoting this speculation.
I hope soon to see you in town, and shall personally repeat my
obligations.
“I am about to print a new and elegant edition of Pindar in two
volumes from Heyne’s—You see there is still some spirit for
enterprize existing here.
“I hope all my little editions will possess beauty and correctness.
I believe you have still a volume of Herodotus which belongs to a
person here who wants it. Please deliver it to my son who will call
for it.
I remain with the highest respect,
Sir, your very obedient servant,
WILLIAM LAING.”
* * * * *
_From Dr. Charles Burney to Mr. Porson._
“_Greenwich, June 20th, 1808._
“My dear Porson,—My friends at Cambridge direct me to request you
will go down as speedily as may be, to vote, and collect votes, for
a degree of M. A. to be conferred on me. Now though I know your
objections to expeditions of such a nature, yet I cannot help
intreating you, if you have not sound reasons against it to go down
and aid my cause.
“Kaye tells me that no time is to be lost. So if you can, pack up a
small portion of wardrobe and visit _alma mater_, so will you
greatly oblige and favor
C. BURNEY.”
* * * * *
_From Dr. Davy, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, to Mr.
Porson._
“_Caius Coll. Tuesday 21st June, 1808._
“My dear Porson—I take the liberty of telling you, in case it should
affect any of your movements, that Dr. Burney’s mandamus will be
voted for on Friday next, at 2 o’clock precisely. Every thing seems
in his favour.
Your’s most truly,
M. DAVY.”
* * * * *
_From Thomas Tyrwhitt, Esq. to Mr. James Perry, Morning Chronicle
office, Strand._
“_Carlton House, Feb. 12th, 1805._
“Dear Sir,—Do pray at your convenience inform me of the address of
Mr. Porson, as some papers have been found in the collection of the
late Sir William Hamilton respecting the Papiri, which are very
interesting; and several MSS so clearly written out, as to be ready
for the opinion of Mr. Porson, the only person in my opinion fit to
inspect them in the whole kingdom.
Your very faithful and obedient servant,
THOMAS TYRWHITT.”
HISTORY OF SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.
In the early ages of Christianity the honour of being deposited within
the walls of the church was reserved to martyrs; and it was the request
of the emperor Constantine in imitation of this holy mode of interment,
that after his death, his remains might be allowed to lie in the porch
of the basilica of the Apostles, which he himself had erected in
Constantinople. Hence the eloquent Chrysostom, when speaking of the
triumphs of Christianity, exultingly observes, in allusion to this
circumstance, that the Cæsars, subdued by the humble fishermen whom they
had persecuted, now appeared as suppliants before them, and gloried in
occupying the place of porters at the doors of their sepulchres. Bishops
and priests distinguished by their learning, zeal, and sanctity, were
gradually permitted to share the honours of the martyrs, and to repose
with them within the sanctuary itself. A pious wish in some to be
deposited in the neighbourhood of such holy persons, and to rest under
the shadow of the altars; in others an absurd love of distinction even
beyond the grave; to which may be added, that the clergy, by making such
a distinction expensive, rendered it enviable; so that by degrees, all
the wholesome restrictions of antiquity were broken through, and at
length the noblest public edifices, the temples of the ETERNAL, the
seats of holiness and purity, were converted into so many dormitories of
the dead.
Our present business is to investigate the antiquity and variety of
sepulchral monuments, which have been erected as memorials of the
illustrious dead, in the cathedral, conventual, and parish churches of
this island. During the time of our Saxon ancestors, it is probable,
that few or no monuments of this kind were erected; at least, being
usually placed in the churches belonging to the greater abbeys, they
felt the stroke of the general dissolution, and it is believed there are
now scarcely any extant. Those we meet with for the kings of that race,
such as Ina at Wells;[59] Osric, at Gloucester; Sebba and Ethelbert,
which were in Old St. Paul’s, or where-ever else they may occur, are
undoubtedly cenotaphs, erected in later ages by the several abbeys and
convents of which these royal personages were the founders, in gratitude
to such generous benefactors.
The period immediately after the conquest was not a time for people to
think of such memorials for themselves, or friends. Few could then tell
how long the lands they enjoyed would remain their own; and most indeed
were put into the hands of new possessors, who, frequently, as we find
in Domesday Book, held thirty or forty manors, or more, at a time. All
_then_ above the degree of servants, were soldiers, the sword alone made
the gentleman, and accordingly on a strict inquiry, we shall meet with
few or no monuments of that age, except for the kings, royal family, or
some few of the chief nobility and leaders, among which, those for the
Veres, Earls of Oxford, at Earl’s Colne, in Essex, are some of the most
ancient. It is probable that this state of things, so far as regards
sepulchral monuments, continued through the troublesome reign of
Stephen, and during the confusion which prevailed while the barons’ wars
subsisted, and until the ninth year of king Henry the third, 1224.
In that year Magna Charta being confirmed, and every man’s security
better established, property became more dispersed, manors were in more
divided hands, and the lords of them began to settle on their
possessions in the country. In that age many parish churches were built,
and it is not improbable that the care of a resting-place for their
bodies, and monuments to preserve their memories, became more general
and diffused.
In country parish churches, the ancient monuments are usually found
either in the chancel, or in small chapels, or side aisles, which have
been built by the lords of manors, and patrons of the churches, (which
for the most part went together,) and being designed for burying places
for their families, were frequently endowed with chantries, in which
priests officiated, and offered up prayers for the souls of their
founder and his progenitors.
The tracing out, therefore, of such founders, will frequently help us to
the knowledge of an ancient tomb which is found placed near the altar of
such chantries. If there are more than one, they are, probably, for
succeeding lords, and where there have been found ancient monuments in
the church, also, besides what are in such chapels or aisles, they may
be supposed to have been erected in memory of lords, prior to the
foundation of the buildings.
CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS.
The first species of monument, of which I propose to give the history,
is that denominated _cross-legged_, from its having the recumbent effigy
of the deceased upon it, represented in armour, with the legs crossed.
During the Norman period of our history, the holy war, and vows of
pilgrimage to Palestine, were esteemed highly meritorious. The religious
order of laymen, the knights templars, were received, cherished, and
enriched throughout Europe, and the individuals of that community, after
death, being usually buried cross-legged, in token of the banner under
which they fought, and completely armed in regard to their being
soldiers, this sort of monument grew much in fashion, and though all the
effigies with which we meet in that shape are commonly called knights
templars, yet it is certain that many of them do not represent persons
of that order; and Mr. Lethieullier says (_Archæologia, vol. 2. p. 292_)
that he had rarely found any of these monuments which he could with
certainty say had been erected to the memory of persons who had belonged
to that community.
The order of knights templars had its rise but in the year 1118, and
in 1134, we find Robert duke of Normandy, son of William the
conqueror, represented in this manner on his tomb in Gloucester
cathedral.[60]—Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was represented thus on
his fine tomb, which was in St. Paul’s cathedral, before the fire of
London. And in the Temple church there still remain the cross-legged
effigies of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, who died in 1219;
William his son, who died in 1231; and Gilbert, another son, who died
in 1241; none of whom it is believed were of the order of Templars.
If these monuments were designed to denote at least, that the
persons, to whose memory they were erected, had been in the Holy
Land, yet all who had been there did not follow this fashion, for
Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, second son of king Henry the
third, had been there, and yet, as appears by his monument, still in
being in Westminster-abbey, he is not represented cross-legged.[61]
However, it seems to have been a prevailing fashion till the sixth
year of Edward the second, 1312, when the order of Templars coming
to destruction, and into the highest contempt, their fashions of all
kinds seem to have been totally abolished.
By this it may be determined that all those effigies, either of wood or
stone, which we find in country churches, whether in niches in the walls
or on table tombs, and represented in complete armour, with a shield on
the left arm, and the right hand grasping the sword, cross-legged, and a
lion, talbot, or some animal couchant at the feet, have been set up
between the ninth of Henry the third, 1224, and the seventh of Edward
the second, 1313, and what corroborates this opinion is, that whenever
any such figures are certainly known, either by the arms on the shield,
or by uninterrupted tradition, they have always been found to fall
within that period, and whenever, says Mr. Lethieullier in the before
mentioned paper, I have met with such monument, totally forgotten, I
have, on searching for the owners of the church and manor, found some
person or other, of especial note, who lived in that age, and left
little room to doubt but it was his memory which was intended to be
preserved.
It must, however, be acknowledged that this sort of monument did not
entirely cease after the year 1312, for there is one in the church of
Leekhampton, in Gloucestershire, which, by tradition, is said to be for
Sir John Gifford, who died possessed of that manor, in the third of king
Edward the third, 1328.
The Rev. Dr. Nash, in his History of Worcester, has the following
observations on this sort of monument:—“It is an opinion which
universally prevails, with regard to the cross-legged monuments, that
they were all erected to the memory of knights templars; now, to me, it
is very evident that not one of them belonged to that order, but as Mr.
Habingdon, in describing those at Alvechurch, hath justly expressed it,
to ‘Knights of the Holy Voyage,’ for the order of knights templars
followed the rule of the canons regular of St. Augustin, and as such
were under a vow of celibacy. Now there is scarcely any one of these
monuments which is certainly known for whom it was erected, but it is as
certain that the person it represents was a married man.
“The knights templars always wore a white habit, with a red cross on the
left shoulder. I believe not a single instance can be produced of either
the mantle or cross being carved on any of these monuments, which surely
would not have been omitted, as by it they were distinguished from all
other orders, had these been really designed to represent knights
templars.
“Lastly, this order was not confined to England only, but dispersed
itself all over Europe, yet it will be very difficult to find one
cross-legged monument any where out of England; whereas no doubt they
would have abounded in France, Italy, and elsewhere, had it been a
fashion peculiar to that famous order.
“But though for these reasons I cannot allow the cross-legged monuments
to have been erected for knights templars, yet they have some relation
to them; being memorials of those zealous devotees, who had either been
in Palestine, personally engaged in what is called the Holy War, or had
laid themselves under a vow to go thither, though perhaps they were
prevented from it by death; some few indeed might possibly be erected to
the memory of persons who had made pilgrimages thither, merely out of
devotion; among the latter probably was the lady of the family of
Metham, of Metham in Yorkshire, to whose memory a cross-legged monument
was placed in a chapel adjoining the once collegiate church of Howden,
in Yorkshire, and is at this day remaining, together with that of her
husband on the same tomb.
“As this religious madness lasted no longer than the reign of our Henry
the third, (the seventh and last crusade being published in the year
1268) and the whole order of knights templars dissolved in the seventh
of Edward the second; military expeditions to the Holy Land, as well as
devout pilgrimages thither had their period by the year 1312,
consequently none of those cross-legged monuments are of a later date
than the reign of Edward the second, or the beginning of Edward the
third, nor of an earlier than that of king Stephen, when those
expeditions first took place in this kingdom.”
THE FOLLOWING RULES WERE OBSERVED BY ANCIENT SCULPTORS IN ERECTING
SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.[62]
Kings and princes, in what part, or by what means soever, they died,
were represented upon their tombs clothed with their coats of arms,
their shield, bourlet or pad, crown, crest, supporters, lambrequins or
_mantlings_, orders, and devices, upon their effigies, and round about
their tombs.
Knights and gentlemen might not be represented with their coats of arms,
unless they had lost their lives in some battle, single combat or
rencontre with the prince himself, or in his service, unless they died
and were buried within their own manors and lordships; and then to shew
they died a natural death in their beds, they were represented with
their coat of armour, ungirded, without a helmet, bareheaded, their eyes
closed, their feet resting against the back of a greyhound, and without
any sword.
Those who died on the day of battle, or in any mortal conflict on the
side of the victorious party, were to be represented with a drawn sword
in their right hand, the shield in their left, their helmet on their
head, (which some think ought to be closed and the vizor let down, as a
sign that they fell fighting against their enemies) having their coats
of arms girded over their armour, and their feet resting on a lion.
Those who died in captivity, or before they had paid their ransom, were
figured on their tombs without spurs or helmets, without coats of arms,
and without swords, the scabbard thereof only girded to, and hanging at
their side.
Those who fell on the side of the vanquished in a rencontre or battle
were to be represented without coats of arms, the sword at their side
and in the scabbard, the vizor raised and open, their hands joined
before their breasts, and their feet resting against the back of a dead
and overthrown lion.
Those who had been vanquished and slain in the lists in a combat of
honour were to be placed on their tomb armed at all points, their
battle-axe lying by them, the left arm crossed over the right.
Those who were victorious in the lists were exhibited on their tombs
armed at all points, their battle-axe in their arms, the right arm
crossed over the left.
It was customary to represent ecclesiastical persons on their tombs
clothed in their respective sacerdotal habits. The canons with the
surplice, square cap, and aumasse or amice, that is the undermost part
of the priest’s habit.
The abbots were represented with their mitres and crosiers turned to the
left.
The bishops, with their great copes, their gloves in their hands,
holding their crosiers with their left hands and seeming to give their
benediction with the right, their mitres on their heads and their
armorial bearings round their tombs supported by angels.
The popes, cardinals, patriarchs, and archbishops were likewise all
represented in their official habits.
The editors of the Antiquarian Repertory (vol. 2. p. 226.) have given
the following additional particulars relating to these monuments:—
“Although the figures represented on tombs with their legs crossed, are
commonly stiled Knights Templars, there are divers circumstances which
intitled other persons to be so represented. The first, having served
personally, though for hire in the Holy Land. Secondly, having made a
vow to go thither, though prevented by sickness or death. Thirdly, the
having contributed to the fitting out of soldiers or ships for that
service. Fourthly, having been born with the army in Palestine. And
lastly, by having been considerable benefactors to the order of Knights
Templars, persons were rendered partakers of the merits and honours of
that fraternity, and buried with their distinctions, an idea which has
been more recently adopted abroad by many great personages, who have
been interred in the habits of Capuchins. Indeed the admission of laymen
to the fraternity of a religious order was no uncommon circumstance in
former days.
“So long as the Knights Templars remained in estimation it is probable
that persons availed themselves of that privileged distinction, but as
at its dissolution the Knights were accused of divers enormous crimes,
it is not likely any one would chuse to claim brotherhood with them, or
hand themselves or friends to posterity as members of a society held in
detestation all over Europe, so that cross-legged figures, or monuments,
may pretty safely be estimated as _prior_ to the year 1312, when that
dissolution took place, or at most they cannot exceed it by above sixty
or seventy years, as persons of sufficient age to be benefactors before
that event, would not, according to the common age of man, outlive them
more than that term.”
CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH.[63]
_Geoffrey de Magnaville, first Earl of Essex._
(1148.)
He is represented in mail with a surcoat, and round helmet flatted on
the top, with a nose piece, which was of iron to defend the nose from
swords. His head rests on a cushion placed lozenge fashion, his right
hand on his breast, a long sword at his right side, and on his left arm
a long pointed shield, charged with an escarbuncle on a diapered field.
This is the first instance in England of arms on a sepulchral figure.
This Earl, driven to despair by the confiscation of his estates by king
Stephen, indulged in every act of violence, and making an attack on the
castle of Burwell, was there mortally wounded, and was carried off by
the Templars, who as he died under sentence of excommunication, declined
giving him Christian burial, but wrapping his body up in lead, hung it
on a crooked tree in the orchard of the Old Temple, London. William,
prior of Walden, having obtained absolution for him of the Pope, made
application for his body, for the purpose of burying it at Walden, upon
which the Templars took it down, and deposited it in the cemetery of the
New Temple.
_William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke._
This monument represents a knight in mail with a surcoat, his helmet
more completely rounded than the adjoining one, and the cushion as in
all the rest laid straiter under his head. He is drawing his short
dagger or broken sword with his right hand, and on his left arm has a
short pointed shield, on which are his arms, per pale, _or_ and _vert_,
a lion rampant, _gules_, armed and langued, _gules_, below his knees are
bands or garters, as if to separate the cuisses from the greaves; his
legs are crossed, and under his feet is a lion couchant.