Chapter D: B. J

[It has never, we believe, been printed since its first publication in
_Knight's Magazine_, about the year 1824. From the omission pointed
out by our correspondent, it is obvious that the accomplished writer
of it does not himself regard this ballad as deserving of
republication.]

Replies.

THE CRUCIFIX AS USED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS.

(Vol. iv., p. 422.).

A correspondent questions the accuracy of MR. CURZON's statement, in his _Monasteries of the Levant_, that--

"The crucifix was not known before the fifth or sixth century, though
the cross was always the emblem of the Christian faith,"--

and asks for information as to its use, and the dates of the earliest examples. Some twenty years ago I devoted some care to this inquiry, and the result will be found in a chapter on the decline of the arts in Greece, in a _History of Modern Greece_, which I published in 1830. To that essay, but more especially to the authorities which it cites, I would refer your correspondent; and I think, after an examination of the latter, he will be disposed to concur with me, that Mr. Curzon's statement is correct. It is in accordance with that of Gibbon, and sustained by the same authorities as Basnage, to the effect that the first Christians, from their association with the Jews, and their aversion to the mythology of the Greeks, were hostile to the use of images of any description in their primitive temples, in which they reluctantly admitted the figure of the ignominious cross, as a memorial of the Redeemer's death. At a later period, however, the veneration for the _relics_ of departed saints led to the admission of their painted _portraits_, and eventually to the erection of their images and effigies in wood and marble. (_Gibbon_, chap. xxiii. xlix.) Reiskius states that it was not till the fourth century after Christ that the latter innovation began:

"Ecclesia vero Christiana tribus seculis prioribus ne quidem imagines
recepit aut inter sacra numeravit instrumenta. Sed demum sub finem
quarti seculi ea lege admisit ut in templis memoriae ac ornatus causa
haberentur."--Reiskius, _De Imaginibus Jesu Christi Exercitationes
Histor._, ex. i. c. i. sec. ii. p. 12.

Lillio Giraldi concurs with Reiskius:

"Illud certe non praetermittam nos dico Christianos ut aliquando
Romanos fuisse sine imaginibus in primitiva quae vocatur
ecclesia."--Lillius Gregorius Giraldus, _Historiae Deorum Syntage_, v.
i. p. 15.

The earliest images of Christ were those mentioned as being placed, by Alexander Severus, along with those of Abraham, Jupiter, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. (_Reiskius_, ex. vii. c. i. sec. i. p. 151.) Constantine placed two equestrian statues of the Saviour in the Lateran Church. But Molanus, who mentions the latter fact, insists that there were existing about this period numerous statues of the Saviour, which he would refer to the time of Pontius Pilate. (_De Historia SS. Imaginibus, &c._, lib. i. c. vi. p. 65.)

The most ancient examples now remaining of the decorations employed by the early Christians, are doubtless those found in the catacombs at Rome. I have not access to any recent copies of these interesting antiquities; but so far as my recollection serves, they contain no example of a crucifix, or any literal delineation of the death of the Saviour. In fact, even in these gloomy retreats, the vigilance of persecution compelled the Christians to caution, and forced them to conceal, under allegories and mystery, the memorials of their faith; the figure of the Redeemer being always veiled under an assumed character, most generally that of a shepherd bearing in his arms a recovered lamb. This, which is the most common form of allegory of this period, occurs in the catacomb of the Via Latina, in that of Priscilla in the Via Salaria, discovered in 1776, both of which, according to Aringhi, are amongst the oldest Christian monuments now remaining. (_Roma Subterranea_, vol. ii. p. 25. 292.) In a sepulchral chamber in the cemetery of St. Calixtus, Jesus is represented as Orpheus with a lyre, as emblematic of the subduing influences of his life. But his death is still more cautiously shadowed forth by the types of Jonas, Isaac on the altar of Abraham, and Daniel in the den of lions,--examples of all of which are numerous; and the cover of an urn figured by Agincourt presents them all three. (_Histoire de l'Art par les Monumens_, vol. iv.; _Dec. Sculp._, pl. v. no. 10.)

Art, after its decline in Rome, was later cherished by the Greeks at Byzantum, and allegory in their hands, during the third and fourth centuries, exhibited a much higher refinement than amongst the degenerate Romans,--the divinity and _life_ of Jesus being represented in their paintings by a youth of godlike mien and heavenly grace, with his foot upon the mane of a lion, whilst his _death_ is still typified by a lamb expiring at the foot of a cross, which it sprinkles with its blood, and his _resurrection_ by a phoenix, which rests upon the summit of a palm-tree, the emblem of his _victory_.

I have stated that even the _cross_, as an emblem, was admitted "reluctantly" into the churches of the early Christians. The fact, and the causes of this reluctance, are stated fairly by Gibbon (ch. xx.), principally on the authorities consulted by Basnage in his _Histoire des Eglises Reformees_, to have had their origin in the idea of infamy and ignominy which they attached to the mode of execution by crucifixion,--feelings analogous to those inspired by a gallows or a gibbet; and it required a long lapse of time, even after Constantine had abolished throughout the Roman dominions the punishment which had prevailed for slaves and malefactors, but which the Saviour of mankind had submitted to suffer, before the people could be led to regard as a symbol for veneration that which had so long been an object of horror and disgust. A most interesting account of the subsidence of this feeling, and of its effects upon Sacred Art whilst it prevailed, will be found in Emeric David's _Discours sur la Peinture Moderne_, p. 115. It rendered allegory so indispensable, that in the exhaustion of fancy it declined into conceits and puerility, which finally brought the subject into contempt, and compelled the hierarchy to exert the influence of the Church for its correction. This led to a measure the record of which is strongly corroborative of the statement of Mr. Curzon; namely, that A.D. 692, at the Quine Sextine, or _Council in Trullo_, it was ordered that thenceforth fiction and allegory should cease, and _the real figure of the Saviour be depicted on the tree_. (_Can._ 82. _Act. Concil._ Paris, 1714, v. iii. col. 1691, 1692.)

The Greeks complied, but with reluctance, to delineate the actual crucifixion; and as, in the controversy which arose in the second century, and never entirely subsided, regarding the beauty or deformity of the Saviour's features, the Greek Church had espoused the side of St. Basil, Tertullian, and Origen, who maintained that "he was without form or comeliness," their artists exhibited such a spectacle of deformity on the cross, that to the present hour a proverb compares a lean and ugly person to "un crucifix des Grecs." The Latins and Italians, on the other hand, whilst they were equally hostile to the literal exhibition of the Redeemer's death, and _forbore for nearly a century_ to comply with the orders of the Council _in Trullo_, adopted, as to his beauty, the party of Celsus and Chrysostom,--quoted the expression of David, "thou art fairer than the children of men,"--and painted the Saviour, albeit suspended on the fatal tree, as a youth of heavenly mien; and instead of the crown of thorns, the lance, and the sponge, they represented him with a diadem, and insensible to suffering or pain.

These remarks, though they will no doubt be insufficient as an answer to your correspondent, may perhaps direct him to authorities, the consultation of which will satisfy his inquiry.

J. EMERSON TENNENT.

London.

THE WORD "[Greek: Adelphos]."

(Vol. iv., pp. 339, 458.)

In commenting on the criticisms of J. B., may I be allowed to follow the order of his own reasoning as much as possible?

1st. I am glad to find that Scapula is right, but I must object to the use of the participle _acquiescing_, as applied to me. My word is "_de_duction," and is applied to a rule grounded upon Scapula's correctness, and may, I think, settle the sense of those disputed verses in Matt. xiii. 55, 56, to say nothing of two indisputable proofs which might be adduced.

2nd. _I_ am wrong--for what? for _appearing_, in the eyes of J. B., to have done that which I have not done,--for bringing in links of "the Indo-Germanic languages," which I have neither done, nor can do.

3rd. "The word is solely and peculiarly Greek." Let me give only one etymon by way of preparation for my answer. Let us take the word _mouse_. Well, it comes from the Latin _mus_, which comes, you will say, from the Greek [Greek: mys], and there are many clever etymologists, excepting a few, with J. B. and myself, would say, "it is solely and peculiarly Greek;" but _we_ go up to the Sanscrit (the _mother_ of European languages), and bring forward _mush_, a mouse, and here is _the terminus_--and why? because _mush_ signifies _to steal_, and therefore sufficiently describes the nature of the little animal. Now, because we cannot _find_ an existing link between the Greek and Sanscrit, is that a reason for asserting [Greek: adelphos] to be of pure Greek _origin_? No; and if J. B. will only recollect that all words in Sanscrit, excepting bare primary roots, are compounded after the same manner as [Greek: adelphos] or rather [Greek: del-ph], he will, I hope, find that I have _not been wrong_ in my _etymon_. Moreover, let J. B. prove, _if he can_, what is _the meaning_ of [Greek: delph] in the Greek, unaided by any other language.

4th. Why is the Sanscrit _bhratre_ brought into the contest? perhaps to prove what has not been proved, viz. that _it also_ signifies _frater uterinus_.

5th. "How happened it that the word [Greek: phrater] was lost in Greek?" Why, because the Greeks thought it too _barbarous_ a word to _own_, as coming through the Latins from the barbarous Goths, Scandinavians, &c.! Let us pass over irrelevant matter till we come to

6th. J. B.'s authoritative rule, "that no apparent similarity between words in the Semitic and Asian (read Sanscrit) families can be used to establish a real identity, the two classes of language being _radically_ and fundamentally distinct." Vide _mouse_, and a hundred more roots, that might quash this rule.

To conclude, I did not introduce the Sanscrit _dal_ into my former note, because, I suppose, an idea passed through my mind that I might offend some "_interesting_ points in Greek manners."

I have only one more remark to make, which is, that the Sanscrit _bhra-tre_ is a compound word like [Greek: del-phys]. I will give the full etymology of this word _bhra-tre_, to prove that J. B. has done wrong in bringing in a word to militate against his _own_ rule. Persian, _bra-dar_; Sanscrit, _bhra-tre_; Gothic, _bro-thar_; Islandic, _bro-dir_; German, _bru-der_; Swedish and Danish, _bro-der_; Anglo-Saxon, _bro-ther_. Now, will J. B. prove that the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac [Hebrew: bar], _bar_, a son, is not connected with the Persian and Sanscrit _bra_ and _bhra_? If he does, I shall doubtless be edified.

T. R. BROWN.

Vicarage, Southwick, near Oundle.

THE ROMAN INDEX EXPURGATORIUS OF 1607.

(Vol. iv., p. 440.)

I am happy in being able to give, I trust, a satisfactory answer to the Query of your American correspondent U. U., respecting the original edition of 1607.

There can be no doubt that the copy in the Bodleian Library is of the genuine edition. It was in the Library certainly before the year 1620, as it appears in the catalogue printed in that year, and still bears the same reference on the shelf as is there given to it, namely, 8vo. I. 32. Theol.; and it was doubtless the copy used by Dr. James, who superintended the forming of that catalogue, and who died only a few months before. The title runs thus:

INDICIS
(red ink) LIBRORVM
(red) EXPVRGANDORVM
in studiosorum gratiam confecti.
Tomus Primus
_IN QVO QVINQVAGINTA AVCTORVM_
_Libri prae ceteris desiderati emendantur._
(red ink)
PER FR. IO. MARIAM BRASICHELLEN.
(red ink)
SACRI PALATII APOSTOLICI MAGISTRVM
in vnum corpus redactus, & publicae
commoditati aeditus
(this first word red) (this date red)
------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAE, ex Typographia R. Cam. Apost. M.DC.VII.
------------------------------------------------------------
(the line above red)
SVPERIORVM PERMISSV.

There is a full stop at confecti, also at emendantur, and at Brasichellen; but no stop whatever at auctorum. It extends (besides eight leaves of title and preliminary matter) to pp. 742. On the recto of the next and last leaf, "Series chartarum," &c., and at the bottom:

ROMAE, M.DC.VII.
----------------------------------------
_Ex Typographia Reu. Camerae Apostolicae._
----------------------------------------
SVPERIORVM PERMISSV.

There is also in the Bodleian Library a copy of the Bergomi edition, the title of which is as follows:

(red ink) INDICIS
LIBRORVM
(red) EXPVRGANDORVM
In studiosorum gratiam confecti
(red) TOMVS PRIMVS
In quo quinquaginta Auctorum Libri prae
caeteris desiderati emendantur
(red) PER F. IO. MARIAM BRASICHELL.
Sacri Palatij Apost. Magistrum
_In vnum corpus redactus & pub. commoditati aeditus._

At the bottom:

(red) ROMAE Primo, Deinde
BERGOMI, _typis Comini Venturae_, 1608.

This edition extends to 608 pages, in double columns, besides the preliminary matter, consisting of four articles, of which the first in this edition is the last in the genuine copy of 1607,--a circumstance mentioned by Clement as peculiar to the Altdorff edition; but here the signatures run to pages in eights, whereas the Altdorff edition "qu'ne remplit qu'un alphabet, et seize feuilles."

I have never seen a copy of the Ratisbon edition.

B. B.

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Hobbes's "Leviathan"_ (Vol. iv., p. 314.).--The meaning of the frontispiece to the first edition of this work, is, I imagine, sufficiently obvious. The large figure representing a commonwealth holds in his right hand a sword, in his left a pastoral crook. He is the emblem of a commonwealth "ecclesiastical and civil" (as the title of the book shows us). Ranged down one side of the page, under the sword-bearing arm, are the weapons and resources which the State possesses. Down the other side of the page, under the protection of the pastoral staff, is the corresponding armament of the Church. Thus, a castle and a church, a crown and a mitre, a cannon and spiritual thunderbolts, a trophy of guns and spears, &c., and one of dilemmas (represented by a pair of bull's horns), syllogisms (made like a three-pronged fork), and the like; these, ending with a battle on one side, a convention of bishops on the other, show the power which (as Hobbes would have it) each arm of the commonwealth should be able to have at its command. The whole picture is at best an absurd conceit, and very unworthy of the author of the _Leviathan_.

H. A. B.

The best edition of Hobbes's works was printed 1750. The print of _Leviathan_ in it is neither like Charles nor Cromwell, of whom I have old and good prints, and many. The print has at the bottom of it "_Written_ by Thos. Hobbs, 1651."