Chapter C: J. CLAY, B.A. (Trin. Coll. Camb.)

[Leycester, in his _Cheshire_, says, "Bishop Bridgeman was the son
of Thomas Bridgeman of Greenway in Devonshire," but other
authorities make him a native of Exeter. Prince (_Worthies of
Devon_, p. 99.) says, "He was born in the city of Exeter, not far
from the palace-gate there, of honest and gentile parentage. His
father was Edmund Bridgeman, sometime high-sheriff of that city
and county, A.D. 1578. Who his mother was I do not find." In
Wood's _Fasti_, vol. i. p. 286. Mr. Bliss has the following note:
"John Bridgman, natus erat Exoniæ. Vid. Izaak's _Antiq. of
Exeter_, p. 156. S.T.P. Cant. Coll. Magd. an. 1612. Vid. Prynne's
_Antipathy_, p. 290., and _Worthies of Devon_, BAKER." Ormerod
(_Hist. of Cheshire_, i. 79.) says, "He was the compiler of a
valuable work relating to the ecclesiastical history of the
diocese, now deposited in the episcopal registry, and usually
denominated Bishop Bridgeman's _Leger_." For other particulars
respecting him, consult Walker's _Sufferings of the Clergy_, Part
II. p. 10.; Ackermann's _Cambridge_, vol. ii. p 160.; Prynne's
_New Discovery of the Prelate's Tyranny_, pp. 91. 108. 218.; and
Cole's MSS. vol. xxvii. p. 218.]

_Rouse, the Scottish Psalmist._--Can any of your readers favour me with some particulars of the life of Rouse, the author of the Scottish metrical version of the Psalms? His name does not appear in any of the biographical dictionaries I have had an opportunity of consulting. From some historical scraps this version had come into the hands of the Westminster Assembly of Divines--was afterwards transmitted by them to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, who appointed commissioners, &c., for consideration--and was, on 23rd Nov. 1649, sanctioned by the General Assembly, and any other version discharged from being used in the Kirk or its families. Notwithstanding some doggerel interspersed, the version is allowed to be distinguished for a sweet easy simplicity, and well suited to the devotional purpose intended. Rouse evidently was considerably endowed with the _vis poetica_; and it is to be regretted, that he who has rendered such important service to our national church, should not be known more than by name; at least, this is the predicament in which I stand, along with a few friends, whose notice has been incidentally drawn to the subject.

G. N.

Glasgow, Jan. 9. 1852.

[Our correspondent will find an interesting account of Francis
Rouse and his metrical version in Holland's _Psalmists of
Britain_, vol. ii. pp. 31-38.]

"_Count Cagliostro, or the Charlatan, a tale of the Reign of Louis XVI._"--I remember of having read, somewhere about the year 1838-9, a novel of this name; and having inquired frequently for it since, never heard of one. Can any of your correspondents tell me who wrote it?

S. WMSON.

[This work is in three volumes. We have seen it attributed to T.
A. James.]

_Churchyard Well and Bath._--Whilst making a short antiquarian excursion in the county of Norfolk last autumn, I visited the ancient church at East Dereham. Amongst other features of interest which this fine church displays, may be enumerated its massive bell tower, _detached_ from the sacred edifice, on the S.E. of the chancel; and a rude building, to the west of the building, also detached, on the western front of which is the following inscription:

"This bath
was erected in the year
1793,
in part by voluntary subscriptions, for public benefit,
on the ruins of a tomb which contained the remains of
WITHBURGA,
youngest daughter of
ANNAS,
king of the East Angles,
who died A.D. 654.
The abbot and monks of Ely
stole this precious relique
and translated it to Ely Cathedral,
where it was interred near her three royal sisters,
A.D. 974."

The sexton informed me that the abbot and monks of Ely made this bath, or well, to recompense the good people of Dereham for the loss they had sustained by the removal of the bones. It is yet used as a bath, both by residents and strangers, the supply of water being very plentiful, and delightfully clear. The water rises under an arch of the Early English, or Early Decorated period. I shall be glad of any notes upon this, or similar baths, in any other churchyards.

W. SPARROW SIMPSON, B.A.

[This bath appears to have been formerly used as a baptistery,
which in the early British churches was erected outside of the
western entrance, where it continued until the sixth century, if
not later (Bingham, book viii. c. vii.). Blomefield, in his
_History of Norfolk_, vol. v. p. 1190. fol. 1775., has the
following notices of this building: "At the west end of the
churchyard are the ruins of a very ancient baptistery, over which
was formerly a small chapel, dedicated to St. Withburga. At the
east end of the baptistery there is now remaining a curious old
Gothic arch, from which runs a spring of clear water, formerly
said to have had many medicinal and healing qualities. The
fabulous account is, that this spring took its rise in the
churchyard from the place where St. Withburga was first buried. In
the year 1752 it was arched over, and converted into a cold bath."
In the notices of the early churches of Cornwall, Wales, and
Ireland, frequent mention is made of these baptisteries or holy
wells, which we do not remember to have seen fully discussed in
any work, and of which some account would be interesting alike to
the divine, the topographer, and the antiquary. The learned
Leland, in his _Itinerary_, iii. 30., in a description of Falmouth
harbour, says, "there is a praty village or fishar town with a
pere, cawlid S. Maws [Machutus], and there is a chapelle of hym,
and his chaire of stone, and his _welle_." Again, speaking of the
church of St. Germochus in Cornwall, he says, "it is three miles
from S. Michael's Mont by est south est, and a mile from the se;
his tomb is yet seene ther. S. Germoke ther buried. S. Germoke's
chair in the chirch-yard. S. Germoke's _welle_ a little without
the chirch-yard." (_Itin._ iii. 16.) Some further notices of these
holy wells will be found in _The Chronicles of the Ancient British
Church_, pp. 136-140.]

Replies.

COLLARS OF SS.

(Vol. iv., pp. 147. 236. 456.)

I communicate the following names and dates of the death, and in some instances bare notices of the monumental effigies, of bearers of the various collars of SS., which may be found in Bloxam's _Monumental Architecture_, Boutell's _Monumental Brasses_, Cotman's _Sepulchral Brasses_, Gough's _Sepulchral Monuments_, and Hollis's _Monumental Effigies_.

I trust that the excellent example set by G. J. R. G., in making known the existence of two of these collars on a tomb in his own neighbourhood will be extensively followed by the readers of "N. & Q."

1. An effigy on a tomb in Tanfield church, co. York, commonly ascribed to Robert of Marmion, who probably died in the time of Henry III. or Edward I.

2. An effigy on a tomb in Gloucester cathedral, vulgarly called that of Humphrey Bohun, Earl of Hereford, who died in 1367.

3. The effigy of William Wilcotes, in Northleigh church, co. Oxon, who died in 1411.

4. and 5. Sir Thomas Peryent and his wife, in Digswell church, co. Herts. He was esquire-at-arms to Richard II., Henry IV. and V., and Master of the Horse to Joan of Navarre, 1415.

6. Sir William Calthorpe, in Burnham church, co. Norfolk, 1420.

7. Edwardus de la Hale, in Oakwood chapel, near Shene, in co. Surrey, died in 1421.

8. Sir Humphrey Stafford, at Bromsgrove, co. Worcester. He was slain by Cade, at Seven-Oaks, 28 Henry VI., 1450.

9. An effigy of a man, in plated armour, in Bakewell church, co. Derby.

10. An effigy of a woman at Dudley, co. Worcester.

11. An effigy of a man in Selby abbey, co. York.

LLEWELLYN.

_Collar of SS._ (Vol. iv., p. 147.).--In answer to the request of MR. E. FOSS, respecting effigies having a collar of SS., I beg to inform you that in the church of St. Lawrence, Isle of Thanet, is a brass of Nicholas Manston, Esq., A.D. 1444, who wears the above decoration. Near St. Lawrence, is the hamlet of Manston, in which is an old farmhouse called Manston Court, attached to which are the ruins of a chapel.

Query: Who was Nicholas Manston?

CANTOR.

ON THE FIRST, FINAL, AND SUPPRESSED VOLUME OF THE ONLY EXPURGATORY INDEX OF ROME.

(Vol. iv., p. 440.; Vol. v., p. 33.)

Receiving the "N. & Q." only in monthly parts, I was, till last week, unacquainted with the article of your correspondent U. U., from Baltimore. This ignorance, however, has been attended with the advantage of the very decisive information on the matter of inquiry by B. B., as far as the Bodleian Library, Oxford, is concerned. I am relieved by it from the necessity of describing more particularly the copy of the first, and Roman, Expurgatory of 1607; for the copy in my possession _agrees exactly_ in title with that of the Bodleian. Of the genuineness of the latter, the proof is as demonstrative as anything historical can be. I have the same assurance of the genuineness of mine. It was in the possession of the celebrated and intelligent collector, J. G. Michiels, as his autograph, with the year 1755 attached, testifies. The title, as given in my _Literary Policy_, has indeed a trifling error in punctuation, whether my own or the printer's, but from simple oversight, as in some cases _fas est obrepere somnum_. There was, however, and could be, no error as to the meaning of Brasichellen., of which Catalani, besides others, had given me information sufficiently correct in his _De Magistro S. Pal._

These observations will not, however, satisfy the _want_ of your transatlantic correspondent so completely as I trust I am enabled, and shall be much pleased to do; for I have likewise the celebrated _counterfeit_, of which I have given an ample account in my forecited volume; and the _difference_ between it and the original is sensibly evident on a _synoptical comparison_. But other marks, where this is impracticable, may be adduced; and in the title itself, without depending upon the _minutiæ_ of punctuation, and without any reference to the _figures_ in the frontispiece, which are plainly not the same impression, in both copies, the last line, SVPERIORVM PERMISSV, which, in the _genuine_ book measures 2-1/2 inches, in the counterfeit measures 2-1/5; therefore, shorter by 3/10. In the _body_ of the work, in the counterfeit the letter-press occupies more space than the genuine. Taken at a venture (and a right-hand page is preferred, because the _number_ of the page, and the _catchword_, come in one perpendicular line), I examined p. 163. The _height_ in the genuine is 5-1/5 inches; in the counterfeit 5-4/5; the increase, 3/5. The _width_ of the page appears to be in proportion. In the _preliminary matter_ of the genuine copy the _De Correctione_ ends with the line, "eos corrigere, atque purgare." The counterfeit varies. The last unnumbered page, indeed, the terminating line, of what is prefatory, is, "Palatio Apostolico anno salutis 1607." The counterfeit here likewise varies.

I have another volume closely identical; of which, because it is far from common, I will give the title entire. It is well known, but not easily detected:

"INDEX
LIBRORUM
EXPURGANDORUM,
_In quo_
Quinquaginta Authorum Libri præ
cæteris desiderati emendantur.
Per
FRANC. JO. MARIAM
BRASICHELLEN,
Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum in unum Corpus
redactus,
& publicæ Commoditati
æditus
EDITIO SECUNDA,
Multorum desideriô juxta Exemplare
Romanum Typis mandata.
_SUPERIORUM PERMISSU._
Pedeponti
vulgo
STADT AM HOF
Sumptibus JOANNIS GLASTL, Bibliopolæ
Anno 1745."

Previously it may be as well to observe, that Stadt am Hof is a town bordering on the imperial city of Ratisbon, at or near _the court_, and Latinized Pedepons as being at the foot of the bridge over the Danube at that part. This book is evidently the identical counterfeit before described, with the _mask cast aside_ by a _new title-page_, and _newly printed_ prefatory matter, in consequence of a proposal fairly and literally to _reprint_ the first genuine Roman edition. I will just mention one proof of the identity of this and the previous copy in the _body_ of the book. It occurs in the last line of p. 239., where the word Iunij has a stroke, _by fault of the type_, immediately after the word, thus Iunij[|]; and this is found in both. This is an accidental coincidence, not to be classed with the purposed retention of false spelling.

The Bergomi edition of 1608 is not in my possession; but I am well acquainted with it by actual inspection. My first sight of it was afforded by my friend the Rev. Richard Gibbings, who has published a new edition of it, with an elaborate and very finished preface, in 1837.[4] I have likewise seen it at Mr. Pickering's, a copy which I presume came from the dispersed library of the late Rev. H. F. Lyte. _That_ in the Bodleian I did not feel it necessary to examine. I do, however, possess, though not the original, a very correct, as appears, _fac-simile_ of that volume, whether it was intended as a counterfeit or not. The title, without any addition, agrees _exactly_ with that of the original, as given by your Oxford correspondent. I conclude it to be not the original, from a distinct recollection that the engraving on the title-page there is more rude and broken than in my copy; and, in the body of the work, some parts do not perfectly agree with Mr. Gibbings's reprint, not in the contents of the _pages_, in some instances in the middle portion, and in the frequent substitution of the _m_ and _n_ for the superscript bar, signifying one or other of those letters. My copy likewise is bound together in vellum, with the _Notitia Ind. Lib. Expurg. of Zobelius, Altorfii_, 1745. And, by the bye, I should like to know whether, and where, there is another copy of that treatise of eighty pages in England?

[Footnote 4: Copies may be had at Mr. Petheram's, 94. High
Holborn, London.]

I am happy in the present opportunity of recommending to the attention of such students as U. U. in the New World, a work of so much real value and interest as Mr. Gibbings's edition of the Bergomi edition of the _Brasichellian Index_; and flatter myself that, by their aid and example, an end will be put in the mother country to the incorrigible though simple practice of calling every catalogue of condemned books _expurgatory_, when the accuracy of the title, as far as Rome is concerned, hangs upon the single thread of one imperfect and withdrawn instance; the not easily numbered remainder being exclusively and expressly _prohibitory_.

The reason for the _suppression_ of the work here examined is, in part at least, correctly expressed by Papebrochius:

"Nec _porro processum in opere reliquo_, quod mox apparuit futurum
seminarium litium infinitarum, quibus sustinendis nec unus, nec
plures forent pares, quantavis auctoritate subnixi."

J. MENDHAM.

THE FIRST PAPER-MILL IN ENGLAND, AND PAPER-MILL NEAR STEVENAGE.

(Vol. ii., p. 473.; Vol. iii., p. 187.)

DR. RIMBAULT, in his Note "On the First Paper-Mill in England," after alluding to the errors of various writers on the subject, adds, "In _Bartholomeus de Proprietatibus Rerum_, printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1495, mention is made of a paper-mill near Stevenage, in the county of Hertford, belonging to John Tate the younger, which was undoubtedly the 'mylne' visited by Henry VII." Now this statement itself needs correction. The English translation of the work of Bartholomeus (De Glanvilla) informs us merely of the fact of John Tate the younger having lately _in England_ made the paper which was used for the printing of this book. The lines, which occur at the end of the volume, are as follows:

"And also of your charyte call to remembraunce
The soule of William Caxton, first prynter of this boke
In Laten tonge at Coleyn [Cologne] hysself to avaunce,
That every well-disposed man may theron loke:
And JOHN TATE the younger joye mote [may] he broke,
Which late hathe in Englond doo make this paper thynne,
That now in our Englysshe this boke is printed inne."

A rare poem, an early specimen of blank verse, entitled _A Tale of Two Swannes_, written by William Vallans (who was, I believe, a native of Ware), and printed in 1590, supplies us with the information that the mill belonging to John Tate was situated at Hertford. One of the notes in the poem states that, "in the time of Henry VIII., viz. 1507, there was a paper-mill at Hertford, and belonged to John Tate, whose father was Mayor of London." The author, however, is here mistaken in his chronology, as Henry VIII. did not begin to reign till 1509. The extract from the privy purse expenses of Henry VII., under the date of May 25, 1498, "for rewards geven at the Paper Mylne, 16s 8d," most clearly has reference to this particular mill, as the entry immediately preceding shows that the king went to Hertford two days before, viz. on the 23rd of May.

In answer to HERTFORDIENSIS, who asks for information as to its site, I quote a passage from Herbert's edition of Ames's _Typographical Antiquities_, under the description of the work of Bartholomeus, printed by Wynkyn de Worde. Herbert says, vol. i. p. 201.:--

"I have been informed that this mill was where Seel, or Seal Mill
is now, at the end of Hertford town, towards Stevenage; and that
an adjoining meadow is still called Paper-mill Mead. This Seel
Mill, so denominated from the adjoining hamlet, was erected in the
year 1700; and is noted for being the first that made the finest
flour, known by the name of _Hertfordshire White_. It stands upon
the river Bean, in the middle of three acres of meadow land,
called Paper-mill Mead, so denominated in the charter of King
Charles I. to the town of Hertford for the fishery of a certain
part of that river. Hence, perhaps, some have thought it was at
Stevenage, but there is no water for a mill at or even near that
place."

The French authorities are particularly unhappy on the subject of the introduction of the art of paper-making in England. According to the _Dictionnaire de la Conversation_, "la première manufacture, établie à _Gertford_ en Angleterre, est de 1588;" while the _Encyclopédie des Gens du Monde_ asserts that "la première patererie de chiffons qu'eu notre pays fut établie en 1312; celle d'Angleterre en 1388."

A. GRAYAN.

THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION.

(Vol. iv., pp. 129. 177. 235. 277.)

Since my last communication on this subject (Vol. iv., p. 235.) I have been engaged in examining the theory, and the experiments connected with it, somewhat more closely; and, in the meanwhile, I abstain from replying to the last observations of A. E. B. (Vol. iv., p. 277.)

A. E. B. says it was "uncourteous" in me to call the theory which he put forward _his_ theory. I beg pardon for the offence. I intended by the expression merely to indicate the particular theory which he advocated. I believe its author is M. Chesles. The theory in question is:

"That the variation of the pendulum's plane is due to the excess
of velocity with which one extremity of the line of oscillation
may be affected more than the other."

I ventured to pronounce this to be untenable, and begged A. E. B. to "reduce it to paper." Upon this he remarked:

"H. C. K. is surely not so unphilosophical as to imagine that a
theory, to be true, must be palpable to the senses. If the element
of increase exist at all, however imperceptible in a single
oscillation, repetition of effect must eventually make it
observable. But I shall even gratify H. C. K., and inform him,
that the difference in linear circumference between two such
parallels in the latitude of London, would be about 50 feet; so
that the northern end of a 10 feet rod, placed horizontally in the
meridian, would travel less by that number of feet in twenty-four
hours, than the southern end. This, so far from being inadequate,
is greatly _in excess_ of the alleged apparent motion in the place
of the pendulum's vibration."

I think, if A. E. B. will reconsider this opinion, he will find that, so far from being "greatly in excess," it is inadequate to account for the amount of apparent motion of the plane of the pendulum. For the onward motion of the plane of a 2 sec. pendulum, describing a circle of 10 feet diameter in twenty-four hours, amounts to ·0087 inch at each beat; 50 feet will be the difference in the distance the two extremities of the arc of vibration will travel in twenty-four hours; that is, ·0138 inch in 2 seconds of time: but this is for a difference of 10 feet; therefore, for 5 feet, the distance from the centre, it is ·0069 inch; whereas the arc described is ·0087 inch, which is absurd.

However, there is another equally fatal objection to this theory, founded on experiment; to make which objection good, I will not merely adduce the result of my own, but that of certain experiments carried out at Paris, which place the matter beyond a doubt. In the Pantheon, at Paris, there is a pendulum of the length of 230 feet, by means of which experiments can be made under the most favourable conditions possible as regards suspension, exclusion of currents of air, &c. &c. While witnessing the trials that were being made, a relation of mine requested that the pendulum might be set to oscillate east and west; and the result was, that the arc described after an interval of ten minutes, was the same as that described when the pendulum was oscillating north and south.

To return to the original theory. I stated formerly that I had no faith in the experiments which had been published. I now repeat that I believe all the experiments that have been made, with the view of showing the rotation of the earth, and the independence of the pendulum of that rotation, are inconclusive; and for the following reason, _the impossibility of obtaining perfect suspension_. Even in a still atmosphere, and with a pendulum formed of the rigid rod and a "bob," the axis of both of which shall be precisely in a line with the point of suspension; yet, until suspension can be effected on a mathematical point, and all torsion and local attraction got rid of, the pendulum will not continue to swing _in the same plane_ for many consecutive beats; because the _slightest_ disturbance will cause the "bob" to describe an ellipse; and, by a well-known law, the major axis of that ellipse will go on advancing in the direction of the revolution. This advance is by regular intervals; and my belief, founded on my own experiments, is, that the astonished spectators at the Polytechnic Institution, while intently watching, as they believed, the rotation of the earth made visible, were watching merely a weight suspended by a cord, which, disturbed from the plane in which it was set to oscillate, was describing a series of ellipses on the table, very pretty to look at, but having no more to do with the rotation of the earth than the benches on which they were sitting.

At the same time, however, that I assert the inefficacy of any experiments with the pendulum as tending to show the earth's rotation, I admit that, provided a pendulum could be made to preserve its plane of oscillation for twenty-four hours, it would oscillate independently of the rotation of the earth, and actually describe a circle round a fixed table in that interval. The _mathematical proof_ of this proposition is of a most abstruse nature; so much so, indeed, that it is understood to have been relinquished by one of our ablest mathematicians. But that it is likely to be true, and one not difficult to comprehend, I think I can show to A. E. B.'s satisfaction in a few lines.

If a pendulum be placed at one of the poles of the earth, it is obvious, that while it swings in one plane, the revolution of the earth beneath it will cause it to appear to describe a complete circle in twenty-four hours. This position is simple enough, but it is true also in any latitude, excepting near the equator. For there is no doubt, that, as gravity acts on the pendulum, _only in the line which joins the point of suspension and the centre of the earth_ (thereby merely drawing the "bobs" towards that line) it can have no effect on the _plane_ of oscillation; for the line of gravitation remains unchanged with respect to the pendulum, during a whole revolution of the earth on its axis. Take a map of a hemisphere, and on any parallel, say 60° of latitude, draw three pendulums, extended as in motion, with their centres of gravity directed toward the earth's centre, one on each extremity of the parallel of latitude, and one midway between the two; extend the "bobs" of the first two north and south, and those of the middle one east and west. Number them 1, 2, and 3, from the westward. It will then be observed that the _plane of oscillation_ of the three pendulums, thus placed, is one and the same--that of the _plane of the paper_; and moreover, that the lower "bob," which is south at No. 1., is west at No. 2., and north at No. 3. By this it will be evident, that the revolution of the pendulum will be through the whole circle, or 360° in twenty-four hours, at all points of the earth's surface, excepting near the equator; _the line joining the "bobs"_ remaining in a parallel plane.

I say, excepting near the equator; for it will be seen on looking closely at the above illustration (which would be better on a globe) that the three pendulums are not _strictly_ in the same, or even a parallel plane; inasmuch as the plane of oscillation must pass through the point of suspension, _and the centre of the earth_. But still the pendulum has _a tendency to remain_ in a parallel plane, as nearly as the figure of the earth will allow,--the chord of the arc of oscillation remaining in a plane parallel to itself. It will be seen that, as we approach the equator, the plane of oscillation is forced from its parallelism more and more, until, _on_ the equator, it has no tendency to return, as all planes are there the same with reference to the centre of the earth.

I may add that there is a variation of the above theory, which has found many advocates, viz. that the pendulum will make the complete revolution in a period _varying_ from twenty-four hours at the poles, to infinity at the equator; varying, that is, as the sine of the latitude. This seems, _à priori_, not so likely as the former, while it equally wants mathematical proof.

H. C. K.

---- Rectory, Hereford.

THE CROSS AND THE CRUCIFIX.

(Vol. v., p. 39.)

Your space precludes controversy: but the communication in Number 115. from W. DN. requires an explanation from me; which I give the more readily as it may perhaps serve to throw further light on a curious inquiry. A correspondent in a former Number (Vol. iv., p. 422.) questioned the correctness of an assertion by the Hon. MR. CURZON, that "the crucifix was not known before the fourth or fifth century, though the cross was always the emblem of the Christian faith." I ventured to sustain MR. CURZON'S view (Vol. iv., p. 485.) by referring to authorities for the fact, that the idea of ignominy associated with that peculiar form of execution had long prevented the cross from being adopted as a symbol of Christ's passion; that the actual representation of the crucifixion itself was still more repulsive, and much later in its admission into the early churches; that allegory was in consequence resorted to, in order to evade the literal delineation of the Saviour's death, which was typified by a lamb bleeding at the foot of a cross; and that when invention had become exhausted, and inert in the production of these emblems, the Church, in the seventh century at the _Quini-sextile_, or _Council in Trullo_, had "ordered that _fiction and allegory should cease, and the real figure of the Saviour be depicted on the tree_." (The words in Italics are my own, and were not given as a quotation.)

W. DN. in Number 115. (Vol. v., p. 39.) does not question the main conclusion sought to be established, but takes exception to my reference to the Council in Trullo as irrelevant, and says, "should your readers turn to the canons of that council, they would be disappointed at finding nothing about the cross;" whence he infers, that I have been "led into a singular mistake." But the mistake, I apprehend, is on the part of W. DN. himself, who evidently has not read the council in question, else he would have found, so far from its canons containing "nothing about the cross," one, the 73rd, is devoted exclusively to the cross, whilst the 82nd is given to the crucifix. The 73rd canon of the Council in Trullo directs all veneration to be paid to the cross, and prohibits its being any longer depicted in the tesseræ of the floors where this "trophy of our victory," as it is called in the canon, was exposed to desecration from the feet of the congregation. The 82nd canon, in like manner, has direct reference to the crucifix, and its style of design. It alludes to the practice which had theretofore prevailed, of representing Christ as the lamb, pointed to by St. John, which was to take away the sins of the world (John, i. 29.); but as that great work has been accomplished, the council declares that the Church now prefers the grace and _truth_ of him who had fulfilled the law, to those ancient forms and shadows which had been handed down as types and symbols only; and it continues:

"In order, therefore, that what has come to pass should be
exhibited before the sight of all by the skill of the artist in
colours, we direct that the representation of Christ the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sins of the world, shall henceforth be
elevated in his human character; and no longer under the old form
of a lamb."

The words are these:

"ὡς ἂν οὖν τὸ τέλειον κἂν ταῖς χρωματουργίαις ἐν ταῖς ἁπάντων ὄψεσιν
ὑπογράφηται, τὸν τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ἀμνοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον χαρακτῆρα καὶ ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἀπὸ
τοῦ νῦν ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀμνοῦ ἀναστηλοῦσθαι ὁρίζομεν."--_Concilium
Quinisextum_, Can. lxxxii. Concil. Collectio, J. B. MANSI, vol. xi.
p. 978.: Floren. 1765.

W. DN. has quoted this canon, not from the original Greek of the council, which I copy above, but from the Latin version given in Labbe, and which is much less close and literal than that of Carranza; and the words "_erigi et depingi_," which it employs, are a very incorrect rendering of the Greek ἀναστηλοῦσθαι, a term peculiarly appropriate to the elevation of a crucifix.

But that the whole canon has immediate reference to the literal delineation of the mode and manner of Christ's passion, will be apparent from the concluding sentences, which expressly set out that the object of the change which it enjoins is to bring more vividly before our minds the incarnation, suffering, and _death_ of the Saviour, by the full contemplation of the depth of _humiliation_ attendant on it:

"Δι' αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ταπεινώσεως ὕψος τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατανοοῦντες, καὶ
πρὸς μνήμην τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας τοῦ τε πάθος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ
σωτηρίου θανάτου χειραγωγούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν γενομένης τῷ
κόσμῳ ἀπολυτρώσεως, κ. τ. λ."--_Ib._ MANSI, v. xi. p. 979.

How this impression of the "_humiliation_" and "_suffering_" of Christ's _death_ could be conveyed otherwise than by a literal delineation of its incidents, I cannot well see. And, indeed, of many authorities who have recorded their opinion on the effect of this canon of the Quini-sextile council, W. DN. is the only one who expresses a doubt as to its direct reference to the cross and the crucifix. Both the historians of the church, and those who have treated of the history of the Arts in the Middle Ages, are concurrent in their testimony, that it was not till immediately after the promulgation of the canons of the Council in Trullo that the use of the crucifix became common in the early churches. This fact is recorded with some particularity by Gieseler, in his _Compendium of Ecclesiastical History_, sect. 99. note 51.; and Emeric-David, the most laborious and successful explorer of historical art of our time, in describing the effect upon the Fine Arts produced by the edict of the council, adverts to the 82nd canon more than once, as directing the delineation of the Saviour _on the cross_:

"La fin du 7me siècle et le commencement du 8me présentent deux
événements de la plus haute importance dans l'histoire de la
peinture. Le premier est la révolution opérée par le décret du
concile de Constantinople appelé le concile _quinisexte_ ou _in
Trullo_, et célébré en 692 A.D., qui ordonna de préférer la
peinture historique aux emblèmes, et notamment d'abandonner
l'allégorie dans la représentation du crucifiement de Jésus
Christ.... Ce fut après ce concile que les images de Jésus Christ
sur la croix commencèrent à se multiplier." (_Histoire de la
Peinture au Moyen Age_, par T. B. Emeric-David, Paris, 1842, p.
59.) "Lorsque le concile quinisexte ordonna de préférer la réalité
aux images, et de montrer le Christ sur la croix, l'esprit
d'allégorie, malgré ce décret, ne s'anéantit pas entièrement."
(_Ib._ p. 32.)

J. EMERSON TENNENT.

London.

YANKEE DOODLE.

(Vol. iv., p. 344.)

The subjoined song is copied from a _Collection of English Songs_ in the British Museum (G. 310-163.). The Catalogue gives the conjectural date of 1775. In the _History of the American Revolution_ (published by the Society for Diffusion of Useful Knowledge), p. 22., is an anecdote referring to Lord Percy having, in 1775, caused his band to play "Yankee Doodle" in _derision_ of the Americans: but I infer, from the Earl of Carlisle's Lecture on his Travels in America, that it is _now_ used by the Americans as their _national tune_.

YANKEE DOODLE; OR, THE NEGROE'S FAREWELL TO
AMERICA.

_The Words and Music by T. L._

1.

"Now farewell, my Massa, my Missey, adieu!
More blows or more stripes will me e'er take from you,
Or will me come hither or thither me go,
No help make you rich by de sweat of my brow.
Yankee doodle, yankee doodle dandy, I vow,
Yankee doodle, yankee doodle, bow wow wow.

2.

"Farewell all de yams, and farewell de salt fish,
De bran and spruce beer, at you all me cry, Pish!
Me feed upon pudding, roast beef, and strong beer,
In Englan', old Englan', when me do get dere.
Yankee doodle, &c.

3.

"Farewell de musketo, farewell de black fly,
And rattle-snake too, who may sting me to dye;
Den Negroe go 'ome to his friends in Guinee,
Before dat old Englan' he 'ave a seen'e.
Yankee doodle, &c.

4.

"Farewell de cold winter, de frost and de snow,
Which cover high hills and de valleys so low,
And dangling and canting, swearing and drinking,
Taring and feath'ring for ser'ously thinking.
Yankee doodle, &c.

5.

"Den hey! for old Englan' where Liberty reigns,
Where Negroe no beaten or loaded with chains;
And if Negroe return, O! may he be bang'd,
Chain'd, tortur'd, and drowned,--or let him be hang'd!
Yankee doodle," &c.