Notes and Queries, Number 69, February 22, 1851

If this account be true respecting the origin of the mitre, it will lead us by an easy step to determine the place where it was first used—at Antioch, the "Queen of the East," where, as we are told in the Acts of the Apostles, the followers of Christ were first called "Christians;" thus indicating that they were sufficiently numerous and influential to be distinguished as a separate class in that city, while those in Rome yet remained despised and unknown. Antioch was the imperial residence of the Macedonian dynasty, which succeeded Alexander, who himself assumed the upright bonnet of the Persian king (Arrian. iv. 7.), and transmitted it to his successors, who ruled over Syria for several hundred years, where its form would be ready at hand as a model emblematic of authority for the bishop who ruled over the primitive church in those parts.

The tiara of the popes has, in like manner, an Eastern origin; but instead of being adopted by them directly from its native birth-place, it descended through Etruria to the Pagan priesthood of ancient Rome, and thence to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The τιάρα of the Greeks, and tiara of the Latins, expresses the cloth cap or fez of the Parthians, Persians, Armenians, &c., which was a low scull-cap amongst the commonalty, but a stiff and elevated covering for the kings and personages of distinction (Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 23.). This imposing tiara is frequently represented on ancient monuments, where it varies in some details, though always preserving the characteristic peculiarity of a tall upright head-dress. It is sometimes truncated at its upper extremity, at others a genuine round-topped bonnet, like the Phrygian cap when pulled out to its full length, and stiffened so as to stand erect—each a variety of form peculiar to certain classes or degrees of rank, which at this period we are not able to decide and distinguish with certainty. But on a bas-relief from Persepolis, supposed to have belonged to the palace of Cyrus, and engraved by Ferrario (Costume dell' Asia, vol. iii. tav. 47.), may be seen a bonnet shaped very much like a beehive, the exact type of the papal tiara, with three bands (the triregno) round its sides, and only wanting the cross at the summit, and the strawberry-leaved decoration, to distinguish it from the one worn by Pio Nono: and on a medal of Augustus, engraved on a larger scale in Rich's Companion to the Latin Dictionary, art. Tutulus, we find this identical form, with an unknown ornament of the top, for which the popes substituted a cross, reappearing on the skull of a pagan priest. I may add that the upright tiaras represented on works of ancient art, which can be proved, or are known to be worn by royal personages, are truncated at the summit; whence it does not seem an improper inference to conclude that the round and conical ones belonged to persons inferior to the kings alone in rank and influence, the Magi; which is the more probable, since it is clear that they were adopted by the highest priests of two other religions, those of Pagan and of Christian Rome.

If space admits, I would also add that the official insignia and costume of a cardinal are likewise derived from the pagan usages of Greece. Amongst his co-religionists he is supposed to symbolize one of the Apostles of Christ, who went forth ill clothed and coarsely shod to preach the Gospel; whereas, in truth, his comfortable hat, warm cloak, and showy stockings, are but borrowed plumage from the ordinary travelling costume of a Greek messenger (ἀποστόλος). The sentiment of travelling is always conveyed in the ancient bas-reliefs and vase paintings by certain conventional signs or accessories bestowed upon the figure represented, viz., a broad-brimmed and low-crowned hat (πέτασος, Lat. petasus), with long ties (redimicula) hanging from its sides, which served to fasten it under the chin, or sling it behind at the nape of the neck when not worn upon the head; a wrapping cloak (ἱμάτιον, Lat. pallium) made of coarse material instead of fine lamb's wool; and a pair of stout travelling boots laced round the legs with leathern thongs (ἐνδρομίδες), more serviceable for bad roads and rough weather than their representatives, red silk stockings. All these peculiarities may be seen in the following engravings (Winhelm. Mon. Ined. Tratt., Prelim., p. xxxv.; Id., tav. 85.; Rich's Companion, art. "Ceryx" and "Pallium").

I regret that the nature of your publication does not admit the introduction of woodcuts, which would have enabled me to present your readers with the best of all demonstrations for what I advance. In default of that I have endeavoured to point out the most compendious and accessible sources where the figures I refer to may be seen in engravings. But if any reader of "Notes and Queries" should not have an opportunity of consulting the books cited, and is desirous of pursuing the investigation to satisfy himself, I would willingly transmit to him a drawing of the objects mentioned through Mr. Bell, or any other channel deemed more convenient.

A. Rich, junr.

The Episcopal Mitre (Vol. iii., p. 62.)—Godwyn, in his Moses and Aaron, London, 1631, b. i., c. 5., says that—

"A miter of fine linnen sixteene cubits long, wrapped about his head, and a plate of purple gold, or holy crowne, two fingers broad, whereon was graven Holinesse to the Lord, which was tied with a blew lace upon the forefront of the miter,"

was that "which shadowed and signified the kingly office of our Saviour Christ," in the apparel of the Jewish high priest, and ordered (Lev. xvi. 4.): and again, in his Romanæ Historiæ Anthologia, Oxford, 1631, lib. iii. sec. 1. cap. 8., he says that the

"Mitra did signifie a certaine attire for women's heads, as a coife or such like."

For further illustration see Virgil's Æneid, lib. iv. l. 216.:

"Mæoniâ mentum mitrâ crinemque madentem."

Again, lib. ix. l. 616.:

"Et tunicæ manicas et habent redimicula mitræ."

During the ennobling of the clergy by the Roman emperors, in the seventh and eighth centuries, a crown was found necessary, and anciently cardinals wore mitres; but, at the council of Lyons, in 1245, they were appointed to wear hats.

Blowen.

The Episcopal Mitre (Vol. iii., p. 62.).—An Inquirer will find much curious matter respecting the mitre, collected both from classical writers and antiquaries, in Explications de plusieurs Textes difficiles de l'Ecriture par le R. P. Dom. [Martin], 4to., à Paris, 1730. To any one ambitious of learnedly occupying some six or seven columns of "Notes and Queries" the ample foot references are very tempting; I content myself with transcribing two or three of the entries in the index:

"Mitre des anciens, leur nature, et leur forme; était la marque du Sacerdoce; se portait ordinairement à la tête, et quelquefois aux mains. Forme des mitres dans leur origine, et dans les tems postérieurs," &c.

This dissertation, which is illustrated by several plates, will repay for the time spent in reading it. I presume Inquirer is acquainted with Godwyn's Moses and Aaron, where he will find something.

W. Dn.

Episcopal Mitre.—The origin of the peculiar form of the episcopal mitre is the cloven tongues which descended on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Of this the mitre is an emblem.

L. M. M. R.

DRYDEN'S ESSAY UPON SATIRE

(Vol. ii., pp. 422. 462.)

The Query proposed by your correspondent, as to the authorship of the Essay on Satire, is a very interesting one, and I am rather surprised that it has not yet been replied to. In favour of your correspondent's view, and I think it is perhaps the strongest argument which can be alleged, is Dean Lockier's remark:—

"Could anything be more impudent than his (Sheffield's) publishing that satire, for writing which Dryden was beaten in Rose Alley (and which was so remarkably known by the name of the 'Rose Alley Satire') as his own? Indeed he made a few alterations in it, but these were only verbal, and generally for the worse."—Spence's Anecdotes, edit. Singer, p. 64.

Dean Lockier, it must be observed, was well acquainted with Dryden from 1685 to the time of his death; and appears to speak so positively that he would seem to have acquired his knowledge from Dryden's own information. His first introduction to that great poet arose from an observation made in Dryden's hearing about his Mac Fleckno; and it is therefore the more likely that he would be correctly informed as to the author's other satires. Dean Lockier was, it may be added, a good critic; and his opinions on literary subjects are so just, that it is to be regretted we have only very few of them.

I confess I do not attach much weight to the argument arising from the lines on the Earl of Mulgrave himself contained in the poem. To transfer suspicion from himself, in so general a satire, it was necessary to include his own name amongst the rest; but, though the lines are somewhat obscure, it is, after all, as respects him, compared with the other persons mentioned, a very gentle flagellation, and something like what children call a make-believe. Indeed Rochester, in a letter to his friend Henry Saville (21st Nov. 1679), speaks of it as a panegyric.

On the other hand, Mulgrave expressly denied Dryden's being the author, in the lines in his Essay on Poetry,—

"Tho' praised and punished for another's rhymes."

and by inference claimed the poem, or at least the lines on Rochester, as his own. Dryden, in the Preface to his Virgil, praises the Essay on Poetry in the highest terms; but says not a word to dispute Mulgrave's statement, though he might then have safely claimed the Essay on Satire, if his own; and though he must have been aware that, by his silence, he was virtually resigning his sole claim to its authorship. It was subsequently included in Mulgrave's works, and has ever since gone under the joint names of himself and Dryden.

On the question of internal evidence critics differ. Your correspondent can see in it no hand but Dryden's; while Malone will scarcely allow that Dryden made even a few verbal alterations in it (Life, p. 130.); and Sir Walter Scott is not inclined to admit any further participation on the part of the great poet than "a few hints for revision," and denies its merit altogether—a position in which I think very few, who carefully peruse it, will agree with him.

I am disposed to take a middle course between your correspondent and Dryden's two biographers, and submit that there is quite sufficient internal evidence of joint ownership. I cannot think such lines as—

"I, who so wise and humble seem to be,Now my own vanity and pride can't see;"

or,—

"I, who have all this while been finding fault,E'en with my master who first satire taught,And did by that describe the task so hard,It seems stupendious, and above reward."

or,—

"To tell men freely of their foulest faults,To laugh at their vain deeds and vainer thoughts:"

would proceed from Dryden, while it is to be noticed that the inharmonious rhymes "faults" and "thoughts" were favourites of Mulgrave, and occur twice in his Essay on Poetry.

Neither can I doubt that the verses on Shaftesbury,—the four "will any dog;" the four "For words and wit did anciently agree," the four "Mean in each action;" the two "Each pleasure has its price"—are Dryden's additions, with many others, which a careful reader will instantly appropriate.

I can find no sufficient authority for the statement of Malone and Sir W. Scott, that Pope revised the Essay on Satire. It is well known he corrected that on Poetry.

Jas. Crossley.

Manchester, Feb. 10. 1851.

FOUNDATION-STONE OF ST. MARK'S AT VENICE

(Vol. iii., p. 88.)

I recollect having seen the stone in question in the collection of the late Mr. Douce, in whose possession it had been for some years before his communication of it to the Society of Antiquaries. It is quite evident that he was satisfied of its authenticity, and it was most probably an accidental purchase from some dealer in antiquities, who knew nothing about it. I happen to know that it remained in the hands of Sir Henry Ellis at the time of Mr. Douce's death, and your correspondent H. C. R. will most probably find it among the other collections of Mr. Douce now in the museum at Goodrich Castle.

The doubt expressed by your correspondent is evidently founded upon the engraving and accompanying paper in the 26th volume of the Archæologia; and as it conveys such a grave censure of the judgment of the director of the council and secretaries of the Antiquarian Society, it appears to me that it is incumbent upon him to satisfy his doubts by seeing the stone itself, and, if he should be convinced of his error, to make the amende honorable.

It is to be regretted that he did not state "the points which have suggested this notion of its being a hoax." For my own part, I cannot see the motive for such a falsification; and if it is one, it is the contrivance of some one who had more epigraphic skill than is usually found on such occasions.

There is nothing in the objection of your correspondent as to the size and form of the stone which would have any weight, and it is not necessary to suppose that it "must have been loose in the world for 858 years." On pulling down the old church, the foundation-stone in which this was imbedded may have been buried with the rubbish, and exhumed in comparatively recent times. It had evidently fallen into rude and ignorant hands, and suffered by being violently detached from the stone in which it was imbedded.

Every one who knew the late Mr. Douce must have full confidence in his intimate knowledge of mediæval antiquity, and would not easily be led to imagine that he could be deceived on a point like this; but are we to presume, from a vague idea of your correspondent's, that the executive body of the Society of Antiquaries would fail to detect a forgery of this nature?

S. W. S., olim F. S. A.

Foundation-stone of St. Mark's, Venice (Vol. iii., p.88.).—This singular relic is now preserved in the "Doucean Museum," at Goodrich Court, Herefordshire, with the numerous objects of art and antiquities bequeathed by Mr. Douce to the late Sir Samuel Meyrick. I believe that nothing can now be ascertained regarding the history of this stone, or how it came into the possession of Mr. Douce. Sir Samuel enumerates it amongst "Miscellaneous Antiquities," No. 2., in his interesting Inventory of this Collection, given in the Gentleman's Magazine, Feb., 1835, p. 198. The Doucean Museum comprises, probably, the finest series of specimens of sculpture in ivory existing in any collection in England. The Limoges enamels are also highly deserving of notice.

Albert Way.

HISTOIRE DES SÉVARAMBES

(Vol. iii., pp. 4. and 72.)

I am not sufficiently familiar with Vossius or his works to form any opinion as to the accuracy of the conclusion which Mr. Crossley has arrived at. There is at least much obscurity in the matter, to which I have long paid some little attention.

My Copy is entitled,—

"The History of the Sevarambians: A People of the South continent. In Five Parts. Containing an Account of the Government, &c. Translated from the Memoirs of Capt. Siden, who lived fifteen years amongst them. Lond. 1738." (8vo. pp. xxiii. and 412.)

I have given this to show how it differs from that spoken of by Mr. C. as being in two parts, by Capt. Thos. Liden, and not a reprint, but a translation from the French, which Lowndes says was "considerably altered and enlarged."

If this be so, we can hardly ascribe to Vossius the edition of 1738. The preface intimates that the papers were written in Latin, French, Italian, and Dutch, and placed in the editor's hands in England, on his promising to methodise them and put them all into one language; but I do not observe the slightest allusion to the work having previously appeared either in English or French, although we find that Barbier, in his Dict. des Anon., gives the French edit. 1 pt. Paris, 1677; 2 pt. Paris, 1678 et 1679, 2 vols. 12mo.; Nouvelle edit. Amsterdam, 1716, 2 vols. 12mo.; and ascribes it to Denis Vairasse d'Alais.

There is a long account of this work in Dict. Historique, par Marchand: à la Haye, 1758, fo. sub. nom., Allais, as the author, observing—

"Il y a diversité d'opinions touchant la langue en laquelle il a été écrit ou composé."

The earliest he mentions is the English one of 1675, and an edition in the French, "à Paris, 1677;" which states on the title, Traduit de l'Anglois, whereas the second part is "imprimée à Paris chez l'Auteur, 1678," from which Marchand concludes that Allais was the writer, adding,—

"On n'a peut-être jamais vu de Fiction composée avec plus d'art et plus d'industrie, et il faut avouer qu'il y en a peu où le vraisemblable soit aussi ingénieusement et aussi adroitement conservé."

Wm. Taylor, of Norwich, writes to Southey, asking,—

"Can you tell me who wrote the History of the Sevarambians? The book is to me curious. Wieland steals from it so often, that it must have been a favourite in his library; if I had to impute the book by guess, I would fix on Maurice Ashby, the translator of Xenophon's Cyropædia, as the author."

to which Southey replies,—

"Of the Sevarambians I know nothing!" (See Gent. Mag. N.S. xxi. p. 355.)

Sir W. Scott, in his Memoirs of Swift, p. 304. (edit. 1834), speaking of Gulliver's Travels, says—

"A third volume was published by an unblushing forger, as early as 1727, without printer's name, a great part of which is unacknowledged plunder from a work entitled Hist. des Sévarambes, ascribed to Mons. Alletz, suppressed in France and other Catholic kingdoms on account of its deistical opinions."

It would seem from this, that Sir Walter was not aware of the English work, or knew much of its origin or the author.

F. R. A.

Histoire des Sévarambes.—The second edition of Gulliver's Travels, entitled Travels into several Remote Nations of the World, by Lemuel Gulliver, 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1727, is accompanied with a spurious third volume, printed at London in the same year, with a similar title-page, but not professing to be a second edition. This third volume is divided into two parts: the first part consists, first, of an Introduction in pp. 20; next, of two chapters, containing a second voyage to Brobdingnag, which are followed by four chapters, containing a voyage to Sporunda. The second part consists of six chapters, containing a voyage to Sevarambia, a voyage to Monatamia, a voyage to Batavia, a voyage to the Cape, and a voyage to England. The whole of the third volume, with the exception of the introduction and the two chapters relating to Brobdingnag, is derived from the Histoire des Sévarambes, either in its English or French version.

L.

TOUCHING FOR THE EVIL

(Vol. iii., pp. 42. 93.)

There is ample evidence that the French monarchs performed the ceremony of touching for the evil.

In a MS. in the University Library, Cambridge18, is this memorandum:—

"The Kings of England and Fraunce by a peculiar guift cure the King's evill by touching them with their handes, and so doth the seaventh sonne."—Ant. Miraldus, p. 384.

Fuller intimates that St. Louis was the first king of France who healed the evil. "So witnesseth Andrew Chasne, a French author, and others."19

Speaking of the illness of Louis XI., "at Forges neere to Chinon," in March, 1480, Philip de Commines says:

"After two daies he recovered his speech and his memory after a sort: and because he thought no man understood him so wel as my selfe, his pleasure was that I should alwaies be by him, and he confessed himselfe to the officiall in my presence, otherwise they would never have understood one another. He had not much to say, for he was shriven not long before, because the Kings of Fraunce use alwaies to confesse themselves when they touch those that be sick of the King's evill, which he never failed to do once a weeke. If other Princes do not the like, they are to blame, for continuall a great number are troubled with that disease."20

Pierre Desrey, in his Great Chronicles of Charles VIII., has the following passage relating to that monarch's proceedings at Rome in January, 1494-5:—

"Tuesday the 20th, the king heard mass in the French chapel, and afterwards touched and cured many afflicted with the king's evil, to the great astonishment of the Italians who witnessed the miracle."21

And speaking of the king at Naples, in April, 1495, the same chronicler says:—

"The 15th of April, the king, after hearing mass in the church of the Annonciada, was confessed, and then touched and cured great numbers that were afflicted with the evil—a disorder that abounded much all over Italy—when the spectators were greatly edified at the powers of such an extraordinary gift.

*   *   *   *   *

"On Easter day, the 19th of April, the king was confessed in the church of St. Peter, adjoining to his lodgings, and then touched for the evil a second time."22

Fuller, in remarking upon the cure of the king's evil by the touch of our English monarchs, observes:—

"The kings of France share also with those of England in this miraculous cure. And Laurentius reports, that when Francis I., king of France, was kept prisoner in Spain, he, notwithstanding his exile and restraint, daily cured infinite multitudes of people of that disease; according to this epigram:

'Hispanos inter sanat rex chæradas, estqueCaptivus Superis gratus, ut antè fuit.''The captive king the evil cures in Spain:Dear, as before, he doth to God remain.'

"So it seemeth his medicinal quality is affixed not to his prosperity, but person; so that during his durance, he was fully free to exercise the same."23

Cavendish, relating what took place on Cardinal Wolsey's embassy to Francis I., in 1527, has the following passage:—

"And at his [the king's] coming in to the bishop's palace [at Amiens], where he intended to dine with my Lord Cardinal, there sat within a cloister about two hundred persons diseased with the king's evil, upon their knees. And the king, or ever he went to dinner, provised every of them with rubbing them and blessing them with his bare hands, being bareheaded all the while; after whom followed his almoner distributing of money unto the persons diseased. And that done, he said certain prayers over them, and then washed his hands, and so came up into his chamber to dinner, where as my lord dined with him."24

Laurentius, cited by Fuller in the page already given, was, it seems, physician in ordinary to King Henry IV. of France. In a treatise entitled De Mirabili Strumarum Curatione, he stated that the kings of England never cured the evil. "To cry quits with him," Dr. W. Tucker, chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, in his Charismate, denied that the kings of France ever originally cured the evil

"but per aliquam propaginem, 'by a sprig of right,' derived from the primitive power of our English kings, under whose jurisdiction most of the French provinces were once subjected."25

Louis XVI., immediately after his coronation at Rheims, in 1775, went to the Abbey of St. Remi to pay his devotions, and to touch for the evil. The ceremony took place in the Abbey Park, and is thus described in a paper entitled Coronation of the Kings of France prior to the Revolution, by Charles White, Esq.:—

"Two thousand four hundred individuals suffering under this affliction, having been assembled in rows in the park, his majesty, attended by the household physicians, approached the first on the right. The physician-in-chief then placed his hand upon the patient's head, whilst a captain of the guards held the hands of the latter joined before his bosom. The king, with his head uncovered, then touched the patient by making the sign of the cross upon his face, exclaiming, 'May God heal thee! The king touches thee.' The whole two thousand four hundred having been healed in a similar manner, and the grand almoner having distributed alms to each in succession, three attendants, called chefs de goblet, presented themselves with golden salvers, on which were three embroidered napkins. The first, steeped in vinegar, was then offered to the king by Monsieur; the second, dipped in plain water, was presented by the Count d'Artois; and the third, moistened with orange water, was banded by the Duke of Orleans."26