Origin of the Word “News”—Origin of Newspapers—Instances of New Studies in Old Age—Literary Shoemakers—Imprisonment of the Learned—Singular Customs annually observed by the Company of Stationers—Book of Sports—Origin of Cards—Explanation of all the Letters on a Guinea.
Origin of the Word “News”—Origin of Newspapers—Instances of New Studies in Old Age—Literary Shoemakers—Imprisonment of the Learned—Singular Customs annually observed by the Company of Stationers—Book of Sports—Origin of Cards—Explanation of all the Letters on a Guinea.
Origin of the Word “News.”—The four cardinal points of the compass, marked with the letters N. E. W. S. standing for North, East, West, and South, form the word News, which coming from all parts of the world, gave derivation to the word.
Origin of Newspapers.—We are indebted to the Italians for the idea of Newspapers. The title of theGazettas, was perhaps derived fromGazzera, a magpie or chatterer; or more probably from a farthing coin, peculiar to the city of Venice, calledGazetta, which was the common price of the newspapers. Another learned etymologist is for deriving it from the Latin Gaza, which would colloquially lengthen intoGazetta, and signify a little treasury of news. The Spanish derive it indeed from the LatinGaza; and likewise theirGazatero, and ourGazetteer, for a writer of theGazette; and, what is peculiar to themselves,Gazetista, for a lover of theGazette.
Newspapers then took their birth in that principal land of modern politicians, Italy, and under the government of that aristocratical republic, Venice. The first paper was a Venetian one, and only monthly: but it was the newspaper of the government only. Other governments afterwards adopted the Venetian name for it; and from one solitary government Gazette, we see what an inundation of newspapers has burst out upon us in this country.
Mr. Chalmers gives, in his life of Ruddiman, a curious particular of these Venetian Gazettes. “A jealous government did not allow a printed newspaper; and the Venetian Gazetta continued long after the invention of printing to the close of the sixteenth century, and even to our own days, to be distributed in manuscript.” In the Magliabechian library at Florence are thirty volumes of Venetian Gazettas, all in manuscript.
Those who first wrote newspapers, were called by the ItaliansMenanti; because, says Vossius, they intended commonly bythese loose papers to spread about defamatory reflections, and were therefore prohibited in Italy by Gregory XIII. in a particular bull, under the name ofMenantes, from the LatinMinantes, threatening. Menage, however, derives it from the ItalianMenare, which signifies, to lead at large, or spread afar.
Mr. Chalmers discovers in England the first newspaper. It may gratify national pride, says he, to be told, that mankind are indebted to the wisdom of Elizabeth and the prudence of Burleigh for the first newspaper. The epoch of the Spanish Armada is also the epoch of a genuine newspaper. In the British Museum are several newspapers which had been printed while the Spanish fleet was in the English Channel, during the year 1588. It was a wise policy to prevent, during a moment of general anxiety, the danger of false reports, by publishing real information. The earliest newspaper is entitled “The English Mercurie,” which by authority “was imprinted at London by her highness’s printer, 1588.” These were, however, but extraordinary Gazettes, not regularly published.
The following are curiousInstances of New Studies in Old Age.—Socrates learnt to play on musical instruments in his old age; Cato, at eighty, thought proper to learn Greek; and Plutarch, almost as late in life, Latin.
Theophrastus began his admirable work on the characters of men, at the extreme age of ninety. He only terminated his literary labours by his death.
Peter Ronsard, one of the fathers of French poetry, applied himself late to study. His acute genius, and ardent application, rivalled those poetic models which he admired.
The great Arnauld retained the vigour of his genius, and the command of his pen, to his last day; and at the age of eighty-two was still the great Arnauld.
Sir Henry Spelman neglected the sciences in his youth, but cultivated them at fifty years of age, and produced good fruit. His early years were chiefly passed in farming, which greatly diverted him from his studies; but a remarkable disappointment respecting a contested estate, disgusted him with these rustic occupations, and resolving to attach himself to regular studies and literary society, he sold his farms, and became a most learned antiquary and lawyer.
Colbert, the famous French minister, almost at sixty returned to his Latin and law studies.
Tellier, the chancellor of France, learnt logic, merely for an amusement, to dispute with his grandchildren.
Dr. Johnson applied himself to the Dutch language but a few years before his death. But on this head the Marquis de SaintAnlaire may be regarded as a prodigy; at the age of seventy he began to court the Muses, and they crowned him with their freshest flowers. His verses are full of fire, delicacy, and sweetness. Voltaire says, that Anacreon, less old, produced less charming compositions.
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales were the composition of his latest years: they were begun in his fifty-fourth year, and finished in his sixty-first: it is on these works his fame is established, at least they are those which are most adapted to attract all classes of poetical readers.
The celebrated Boccacio was thirty-five years of age when he began his studies in polite literature. He has, however, excelled many whose whole life has been devoted to this branch of letters. Such is the privilege of genius.
Ludovico Monaldesco, at the extraordinary age of 115, wrote the memoirs of his time: a singular exertion, noticed by Voltaire, who himself is one of the most remarkable instances of the progress of age in new studies.
Koonhert began at forty to learn the Latin and Greek languages, of which he became a master; several students, who afterwards distinguished themselves, have commenced as late in life their literary pursuits. Ogilby, the translator of Homer and Virgil, knew little of Latin or Greek, till he was past fifty; and Franklin’s philosophical pursuits began when he had nearly reached his fiftieth year.
Accorso, a great lawyer, being asked why he began the study of the law so late, answered, that indeed he began it late, but should therefore master it the sooner.
Dryden’s complete works form the largest body of poetry from the pen of one writer in the English language; yet he gave no public testimony of poetical abilities till his twenty-seventh year. In his sixty-eighth year he proposed to translate the whole Ilias; his most pleasing productions were written in his old age.
Michael Angelo preserved his creative genius even in extreme old age; for he worked almost to his last day, and he reached his ninetieth year. He alludes, doubtless, to himself in an ingenious device, if it be of his own invention: A venerable old man is represented in a go-cart, an hour-glass upon it, with the inscription,Ancora Imparo! Yet I am learning!
Literary Shoemakers.—The fraternity of shoemakers have unquestionably given rise to some characters of worth and genius. The late Mr. Holcroft was originally a shoemaker. His dramatic pieces must rank among the best of those on the English stage. Robert Bloomfield wrote his poem of “The Farmer’s Boy,” while employed at this business,and Dr. William Carey, professor of Sanscrit and Bengalee at the college of Fort William, Calcutta, and the able and indefatigable translator of the Scriptures into many of the Eastern languages, was in early life a shoemaker in Northamptonshire. The present Mr. Gifford, the translator of Juvenal, and the supposed editor of the Quarterly Review, spent some of his early days in learning the “craft and mystery” of a shoemaker; as he tells us, in one of the most interesting pieces of auto-biography ever penned, and prefixed to his nervous and elegant version of the great Roman satirist.
Imprisonment of the Learned.—Imprisonment seems not much to have disturbed the men of letters in the progress of their studies.
It was in prison that Boethius composed his excellent book on the Consolations of Philosophy.
Grotius wrote, in his confinement, his Commentary on St. Matthew.
Buchanan, in his dungeon of a monastery in Portugal, composed his excellent Paraphrases on the Psalms of David.
Pelisson, during five years’ confinement for some state affairs, pursued with ardour his studies in the Greek language, in philosophy, and particularly in theology, and produced several good compositions.
Michael Cervantes composed the best and most agreeable book in the Spanish language, during his captivity in Barbary.
Fleta, a well-known and very excellent little law production, was written by a person confined in the fleet prison for debt, but whose name has not been preserved.
Louis XII. when he was Duke of Orleans, being taken prisoner at the battle of St. Aubin, was long confined in the tower of Bourges, and applying himself to his studies, which he had hitherto neglected, he became, in consequence, an able and enlightened monarch.
Margaret, Queen of Henry IV. King of France, confined in the Louvre, pursued very warmly the study of elegant literature, and composed a very skilful apology for the irregularities of her conduct.
Charles I. during his cruel confinement at Holmsby, wrote that excellent book, entitled The Portrait of a King, which he addressed to his son, and where the political reflections will be found not unworthy of Tacitus. This work, however, has been attributed, by his enemies, to a Dr. Gowden, who was incapable of writing a single paragraph of it.
Queen Elizabeth, while confined by her sister Mary, wrote some very charming poems, which we do not find she ever could equal after her enlargement: and Mary Queen of Scots,during her long imprisonment by Elizabeth, produced many beautiful poetic compositions.
Singular Custom annually observed by the Company of Stationers.—On the annual aquatic procession of the Lord Mayor of London to Westminster, the barge of the Company of Stationers, which is usually the first in the show, proceeds to Lambeth palace, where for time immemorial they have received a present of sixteen bottles of the Archbishop’s prime wine. This custom originated at the beginning of the last century. When archbishop Tenison enjoyed the see, a very near relation of his, who happened to be master of the Stationers’ Company, thought it a compliment to call there in full state, and in his barge: when the archbishop was informed that the number of the company within the barge was thirty-two, he thought that a pint of wine for each would not be disagreeable; and ordered, at the same time, that a sufficient quantity of new bread and old cheese, with plenty of strong ale, should be given to the watermen and attendants: and from that accidental circumstance it has grown into a settled custom. The Company, in return, presents to the Archbishop a copy of the several almanacks which they have the peculiar privilege of publishing.
Book of Sports.—A book, or declaration, drawn up by bishop Morton, in the reign of king James I. to encourage recreations and sports on the Lord’s day. It was to this effect: “That for his good people’s recreation, his majesty’s pleasure was, that, after the end of divine service, they should not be disturbed, letted, or discouraged, from any lawful recreations; such as dancing, either of men or women; archery for men; leaping, vaulting, or any such harmless recreations; nor having of may-games, whitsun-ales, or morrice-dances; or setting up of may-poles, or other sports therewith used, so as the same may be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or let of divine service; and that women should have leave to carry rushes to the church for the decorating of it, according to their old customs: withal prohibiting all unlawful games to be used on Sundays only; as bear-bating, bull-bating, interludes, and at all times (in the meaner sort of people prohibited) bowling.” Two or three restraints were annexed to the declaration, which deserve notice:—1. No recusant (i. e. papist) was to have the benefit of this declaration. 2. Nor such as were not present at the whole of divine service. 3. Nor such as did not keep to their own parish churches, that is, puritans.
This declaration was ordered to be read in all the parishes of Lancashire, which abounded with papists; and Wilson adds,that it was to have been read in all the churches of England, but that archbishop Abbot, being at Croydon, flatly forbade its being read there. In the reign of king Charles I. archbishop Laud put the king upon republishing this declaration, which was accordingly done. The court had their balls, masquerades, and plays, on the Sunday evenings; while the youth of the country were at their morrice-dances, may-games, church and clerk ales, and all such kind of revelling. The severe pressing of this declaration made sad havock among the puritans, as it was to be read in the churches. Many poor clergymen strained their consciences in submission to their superiors. Some, after publishing, immediately read the fourth commandment to the people:—“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy:” adding, “This is the law of God;” the other, “The injunction of man.” Some put it upon their curates; whilst great numbers absolutely refused to comply: the consequence of which was, that several clergymen were actually suspended for not reading it.
Origin of Cards.—About the year 1390, cards were invented, to divert Charles VI. then king of France, who was fallen into a melancholy disposition.
That they were not in use before, appears highly probable, 1st. Because no cards are to be seen in any paintings, sculpture, tapestry, &c. more ancient than the preceding period, but are represented in many works of ingenuity since that age.
2dly. No prohibitions relative to cards, by the king’s edicts, are mentioned, although, some few years before, a most severe one was published, forbidding by name, all manner of sports and pastimes, in order that the subjects might exercise themselves in shooting with bows and arrows, and be in a condition to oppose the English. Now it is not to be presumed, that so luring a game as cards would have been omitted in the enumeration, had they been in use.
3dly. In all the ecclesiastical canons prior to the said time, there occurs no mention of cards; although, twenty years after that date, card-playing was interdicted by the clergy, by a Gallican synod. About the same time is found, in the account book of the king’s cofferer, the following charge:—“Paid for a pack of painted leaves bought for the king’s amusement, three livres.” Printing and stamping being then not discovered, the cards were painted, which made them so dear. Thence, in the above synodical canons, they are calledgillæ pictæ, painted little leaves.
4thly. About thirty years after this, came a severe edict against cards in France; and another by Emanuel, duke of Savoy; only permitting the ladies this pastime,pro spinulis, for pins and needles.
Of their design.—The inventor proposed, by the figures of the four suits, or colours, as the French call them, to represent the four states, or classes, of men in the kingdom.
By theCæsars(Hearts) are meant thegens de chœur, choir men, or ecclesiastics; and therefore the Spaniards, who certainly received the use of cards from the French, havecopas, or chalices, instead of hearts.
The nobility, or prime military part of the kingdom, are represented by the ends or points of lances or pikes; and our ignorance of the meaning or resemblance of the figure induced us to call them Spades. The Spaniards haveespaces(swords) in lieu of pikes, which is of similar import.
By Diamonds, are designed the order of citizens, merchants, and tradesmen,carreaux(square stone tiles or the like.) The Spaniards have a coindineros, which answered to it; and the Dutch call the French wordcarreaux stieneen, stones and diamonds, from their form.
Treste, the trefoil leaf, or clover-grass (corruptly called Clubs) alludes to the husbandmen and peasants. How this suit came to be called clubs is not explained, unless, borrowing the game from the Spaniards, who havebastos(staves or clubs) instead of the trefoil, we gave the Spanish signification to the French figure.
The history of the four Kings, which the French in drollery sometimes call the cards, isDavid,Alexander,Cæsar, andCharles, (which names were then, and still are, on the French cards.) These respectable names represent the four celebrated monarchies of the Jews, Greeks, Romans, and Franks under Charlemagne.
By the Queens are intendedArgine,Esther,Judith, andPallas, (names retained in French cards,) typical of birth, piety, fortitude, and wisdom, the qualifications residing in each person. Argine is an anagram forRegina, queen by descent.
By the Knaves were designed the servants to knights (for knave originally meant only servant; and in an old translation of the Bible, St. Paul is called the knave of Christ) but French pages and valets, now indiscriminately used by various orders of persons, were formerly only allowed to persons of quality, esquires, (escuiers,) shield or armour-bearers.
Others fancy that the knights themselves were designed by those cards, becauseHogierandLahire, two names on the French cards, were famous knights at the time cards were supposed to be invented.
Explanation of all the Letters on a Guinea.—The Inscription on a Guinea runs thus:—GEORGIUS III. DEI GRATIA, M. B. F. ET H. REX, F. D. B. ET L. D. S. R. I. A. T. ET E.
That is,—Georgius Tertius, Dei Gratia, Magnæ Brittanniæ, Franciæ et Hiberniæ Rex, Fidei Defensor, Brunswicii et Lunenburgi Dux, Sacri Romani Imperii Archi-Thesaurarius et Elector.
In English,—George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, Arch-Treasurer and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.
CURIOSITIES OF LITERATURE.—(Concluded.)
Curious Address to the late Queen Charlotte—Quaint Lines on Queen Elizabeth—Curious Names adopted in the Civil Wars—Curious Extracts from the Will of an Earl of Pembroke—Curious Letter from Pomare, King of Otaheite, to the Missionary Society—Curious Love Letter and Answer—Creeds of the Jews—The Unbeliever’s Creed—Explanation of the Terms “Whig” and “Tory.”
Curious Address to the late Queen Charlotte—Quaint Lines on Queen Elizabeth—Curious Names adopted in the Civil Wars—Curious Extracts from the Will of an Earl of Pembroke—Curious Letter from Pomare, King of Otaheite, to the Missionary Society—Curious Love Letter and Answer—Creeds of the Jews—The Unbeliever’s Creed—Explanation of the Terms “Whig” and “Tory.”
Curious Address to the Late Queen Charlotte.
“The Address of the Burgomaster, Magistrates, and Citizens of Strelitz, to her Royal Highness the Most Illustrious Princess Sophia Charlotte, Duchess of Mecklenburgh, Princess of Wenden, Schrouin, and Piotzburgh, and Countess of Schwerin, and the countries of Rostock and Slangard, on her leaving the Territories of the said City in her Way to England, as the Royal Bride of his Most Illustrious Majesty George the Third, King of Great Britain, &c. &c. Aug. 27, 1761.
“The Address of the Burgomaster, Magistrates, and Citizens of Strelitz, to her Royal Highness the Most Illustrious Princess Sophia Charlotte, Duchess of Mecklenburgh, Princess of Wenden, Schrouin, and Piotzburgh, and Countess of Schwerin, and the countries of Rostock and Slangard, on her leaving the Territories of the said City in her Way to England, as the Royal Bride of his Most Illustrious Majesty George the Third, King of Great Britain, &c. &c. Aug. 27, 1761.
“Illustrious Dutchess, most gracious Princess and Lady; your Royal Highness is at present leaving that country whose happiness it has hitherto been to admire you, the model of a perfect Princess; you leave it to share with the greatest monarch in Europe, a throne respected through every part of the universe. The instant is at hand when your Royal Highness will for ever be withdrawn from our eyes: but it affects us the more sensibly, from the apprehension that the many great and brilliant objects, with which you will henceforth be connected, will efface so small a place as ours from your inestimable remembrance. Yet that goodness which we have hitherto with transport admired in your Royal Highness, revives our spirits; it assures us, that you will ever from the throne condescend graciously to look back on our town; andcontinue the patroness of those whose happiness it is to be the subjects of your illustrious Family. We, therefore, in full confidence, give ourselves up to that lively joy excited in us all, on the glorious union to which the Divine Providence has called your Royal Highness, and beg leave to accompany you with our most cordial wishes for your safe journey and continual welfare and prosperity. May the Eternal Ruler of all things, who has appointed this great event, make your Royal Highness the most perfect instance of felicity, the delight of that Royal Family into which you are now entering, the joy of Britain, and the glory of the illustrious Mecklenburg! May our illustrious Sovereign, the beloved Adolphus Frederic, long, and in all earthly happiness, together with his faithful and happy subjects, rejoice in these felicities! Your Royal Highness will graciously permit that Twelve of our Daughters, here present in the attire of innocence, may, as a memorial of this fortunate event, second the ardent sentiments of their Fathers, and in artless words, most humbly wish you a safe and pleasant journey:—
Eleonora Dorothea Maria Bentghoven.Hail Princess! with each shining virtue bright,All pure within, without all glorious light,Whose form divine, whose goodness we adore;Heaven bless thy parting from the German shore!Christiana Juliana Elizabeth Berendsden.As Consort of a mighty Monarch shine,Restore the honour of an ancient line;For this thy coming, Britain’s King invites,For this he calls to Hymen’s soft delights.Dorothea Elizabeth Tetlington.Thy soul with each divinest virtue fraught,Thy wisdom perfect, both in word and thought;Each British bosom shall with rapture fire,And faction sleep whilst gazing crowds admire.Sophia Elizabeth Gradhandlan.When seated by thy royal Consort’s side,New lustre he shall gain from such a Bride;Her worth shall grace the sacred nuptial ties,And Britain’s throne in dignity shall rise.Carolina Henrietta Tangate.O God! whose mercies through the world abound,Whose power supports the King thy hand has crown’d,Waft o’er the main the Bride’s transcendent charms,In safety to the Bridegroom’s longing arms.Dorothea Gaven.May she, with each endearing art possest,To pleasure ever soothe the Monarch’s breast!May all the royal virtues of her heart,To faithful subjects joy sincere impart!Anna Maria Elizabeth Christen.Britons, rejoice, receive with loud acclaimSophia Charlotte, ever dear to fame;Delight of Mecklenburg! she comes to showerOn Britain’s isle new blessings every hour.Madalen Elizabeth Colterjahn.Thrice happy Bride! who soon shall cross the main,Whom to behold again we wish in vain;May happiness increasing with thee dwell,To every age may fame thy glory tell!Christiana Sophia Sealon.From Ganges to where Mississippi flows,Diffusing wealth and plenty as it goes;From Senegal, still scorch’d by Phœbus’ beams,To where St. Lawrence rolls his silver streams,Proclaim Britannia’s bliss the world around,From pole to pole, to earth’s remotest bound.Christiana Elizabeth Phoelen.It’s wish auspicious Flavel hastes to bring,For fair Charlotta and his Britain’s King;On Britain’s isle all blessing he implores,And rolls his friendly wave to Albion’s shores.Dorothea Christiana Elizabeth Rexsehen.Beneath the Lord’s anointed may she thrive,Still may his influence keep the palm alive,Still may it flourish, branches still extend,Afford us shelter, and from heat defend.Catharine Sophia Bertrowen.Nought can our brothers’ ardent zeal restrain,Fain would they tempt with thee the roaring main;Permit them, Queen, thy person to be near,That of thy safety tidings we may hear.Chorus.Yet for one favour more we must apply,But little can these barren tracts supply;Permit us, since both gold and pearls you scorn,Your royal brows with myrtle to adorn!”
Quaint Lines on Queen Elizabeth.—Queen Elizabeth, who died at Greenwich, was brought thence to Whitehall by water, in a grand procession. On this occasion, as Camden informs us, the following quaint lines were written:—
“The Queen was brought by water to Whitehall;At every stroke the oars did tears let fall;More clung about the barge; fish under waterWept out their eyes of pearl, and swam blind after.I think the bargemen might, with easier thighs,Have row’d her thither in her people’s eyes;For howsoe’er, thus much my thoughts have scann’d,She had come by water, had she come by land.”
Curious Names adopted in the Civil Wars.—A curious style of naming individuals was exceedingly common in the time of the civil wars. It was said that the genealogy of our Saviour might be learned from the names in Cromwell’s regiments. The muster-master used no other list than the first chapter of Matthew.
A Jury was returned in the county of Sussex of the following names:
AcceptedTrevor, of Horsham.RedeemedCompton, of Battle.Faint-notHewet, of Heathfield.Make-peaceHeaton, of Hare.God-rewardSmart, of Fivehurst.Stand-fast-on-highStringer, of Crowhurst.EarthAdams, of Warbleton.CalledLower, of Warbleton.Kill-sinPimple, of Witham.ReturnSpelman, of Watling.Be-faithfulJoiner, of Britling.Fly-debateRobert, of Britling.Fight-the-good-fight-of-faithWhite, of Emer.More-fruitFowler, of East Hadley.Hope-forBending, of East Hadley.GracefulHarding, of Lewes.Weep-notBillings, of Lewes.MeekBrewer, of Okeham.
A noted character in those days was a divine of the name ofPraise-God Barebone. He is little known as a divine, but is celebrated for having been an active member in Cromwell’s parliament, and indeed for giving a name to it which is yet preserved in history. Praise-God Barebone had two brothers, namely,Christ-came-into-the-world-to-save Barebone, andIf-Christ-had-not-died-thou-hadst-been-damned Barebone: some are said to have omitted the former part of the latter name, and to have called him only “Damned Barebone.”
The reader will be amused with the followingCurious Extracts from the Will of an Earl of Pembroke.
“Imprimis.—For my soul; I confess I have heard very much of souls, but what they are, or whom they are, or what they are for, God knows, I know not: they tell me now of another world, where I never was, nor do I know one foot of the way thither. While the king stood, I was of his religion, made my son wear a cassock, and thought to make him a bishop, but then came the Scots, and made me a Presbyterian; and since Cromwell entered, I have been an Independent. These, I believe, are the kingdom’s three estates; and if any of these can save a soul, I may claim one; therefore if my executors do find I have a soul, I give it to him who gave it me.
“Item.—I give my body, for I cannot keep it, to be buried. Do not lay me in the church-porch, for I was a Lord, and would not be buried where Colonel Pride was born.
“Item.—My will is, that I have no monument, for then I must have epitaphs and verses, and all my life long I have had too much of them.
“Item.—I give all my deer to the Earl of Salisbury, who I know will preserve them, because he denied the king a buck out of one of his own parks.
“Item.—I give nothing to the Lord Say; which legacy I give him, because I know he will bestow it on the poor.
“Item.-To Tom May I give five shillings: I intended him more: but whoever has seen his history of the parliament, thinks five shillings too much.
“Item.—I give Lieutenant General Cromwell one word of mine, because hitherto he never kept his own.
“Item.—I give up the ghost,concordat cum originati.”
Curious Letter from Pomare, King of Otaheite, to the Missionary Society.
(Translation.)
Matavae, Otaheite, Jan. 1, 1807.
Friends,
I wish you every blessing, friends, in your residence in your country, with success in teaching this bad land, this foolish land, this wicked land, this land which is ignorant of good, this land that knoweth not the true God, this regardless land.
Friends, I wish you health and prosperity; may I also live, and may Jehovah save us all!
Friends, with respect to your letter you wrote to me, I have this to say to you, that your business with me, and your wishes, I fully consent to, and shall consequently banish Ore (his chief idol) and send him to Racatea.
Friends, I do therefore believe and shall obey your word.
Friends, I hope you also will consent to my request, which is this; I wish you to send a great number of men, women, and children, here.
Friends, send also property and cloth for us, and we also will adopt English customs.
Friends, send also plenty of muskets and powder, for wars are frequent in our country:—should I be killed, you will have nothing in Tahete; do not come here when I am dead. Tahete is a regardless country; and should I die with sickness, do not come here. This also I wish, that you would send me all the curious things that you have in England: also send me every thing necessary for writing; paper, ink, and pens, in abundance; let no writing utensil be wanting.
Friends, I have done, and have nothing at all more to ask you for: as for your desire to instruct Tahete, ’tis what I fully acquiesce in. ’Tis a common thing for people not to understand at first; but your object is good, and I fully consent to it; and shall cast off all evil customs.
What I say is truth, and no lie; it is the real truth.
This is all I have to write. I have done. Friends, write to me, that I may know what you have to say. I wish you life and every blessing. May I also live, and Jehovah save us all!
Pomare, King of Tahete, &c. &c.
For my Friends, the MissionarySociety, London.
Curious Love Letter.
Madam,—Most worthy of estimation! After long consideration, and much meditation, on the great reputation you possess in the nation, I have a strong inclination to become your relation. On your approbation of this declaration, I shall make preparation to remove my situation, to a more convenient station, to profess my admiration; and if such oblation is worthy of observation, and can obtain commiseration, it will be an aggrandization beyond all calculation of the joy and exultation,
Of your’s,Sans Dissimulation.
The Answer.
Sir,—I perused your oration with much deliberation, and a little consternation, at the great infatuation of your imagination, to shew such veneration on so slight a foundation. But after examination and much serious contemplation, I supposed your animation was the fruit of recreation, or had sprung from ostentation, to display your education, by an odd enumeration, or rather multiplication, of words of thesame termination, though of great variation in each respective signification.
Now without disputation, your laborious application in so tedious an occupation, deserves commemoration, and thinking imitation a sufficient gratification, I am, without hesitation,
Your’s,Mary Moderation.
Creeds of the Jews.—The following piece is transcribed from the Common Prayer now in use among the Jews, and is entitled the Thirteen Creeds. It will give some idea of the theoretic branch of religion now prevailing among this singular people.
1. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God is the Creator of all things; that he doth guide and support all creatures; that he alone has made every thing; and that he still acts, and will act, during the whole eternity.
2. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God is one; there is no unity like his: he alone hath been, and shall be eternally, our God.
3. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God is not corporeal; he cannot have any material properties; and no corporeal essence can be compared with him.
4. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God is the beginning and end of all things.
5. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God alone ought to be worshipped, and none but he ought to be adored.
6. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, whatever hath been taught by the Prophets.
7. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that the doctrine of Moses is true. He is the father and the head of all the doctors that lived before or since, or shall live after him.
8. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that the law we have is the same as was given by Moses.
9. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that this law shall never be altered, and God will give no other.
10. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God knoweth all the thoughts and actions of men.
11. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that God will reward the works of all those who perform his commandments, and punish those who transgress his laws.
12. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, that the Messiah is to come. Although he tarrieth, I will wait, and expect daily his coming!
13. I believe, with a firm and perfect faith, the Resurrection of the Dead shall happen when God shall think fit. Blessed, and glorified eternally, be the name of the Creator! Amen.
The Unbeliever’s Creed.
“I believe that there is no God, but that matter is God, and God is matter, and that it is no matter whether there is any God or not. I believe, also, that the world was not made; that the world made itself; that it had no beginning; that it will last for ever, world without end.
“I believe that a man is a beast, that the soul is the body, and the body is the soul; and that after death there is neither body nor soul.
“I believe there is no religion; that natural religion is the only religion; and that all religion is unnatural. I believe not in Moses; I believe in the first philosophy; I believe not in the Evangelists; I believe in Chubb, Collins, Toland, Tindal, Morgan, Mandeville, Woolston, Hobbes, and Shaftsbury; I believe in lord Bolingbroke; I believe not in St. Paul.
“I believe not in revelation; I believe in tradition; I believe in the Talmud; I believe in the Alcoran; I believe not in the Bible; I believe in Socrates; I believe in Confucius; I believe in Sanchoneathon; I believe in Mahomet; I believe not in Christ.
“Lastly, I believe in all unbelief.”
Explanation of the Terms “Whig” and “Tory.”—Burnet, who was contemporary with the introduction of these terms, gives the following account of the former:—
“The south-west counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to serve them through the year; and the northern parts producing more than they need, those in the west come in the summer to buy at Leith, the stores that come from the north; and from a word (whiggam) used in driving their horses, all that drove were called Whiggamors, and, shorter, the Whigs. Now in that year, before the news came down of the duke of Hamilton’s defeat, the ministers animated the people to rise and march to Edinburgh; and they came up, marching at the head of their parishes with an unheard-of fury, praying and preaching all the way as they came. This was called the Whiggamor’s inroad; and ever after, all that opposed the court came in contempt to be called Whigs.”
Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, quotes this passage; yet by placing against the term Whig, the Saxon wordWhœg, synonymous to whey, or sour milk, he seems not to reject another derivation, which has been assigned to it by some writers.
Echard says—“Great animosities were created by these petitioners and abhorrers, and they occasioned many feuds and quarrels in private conversations; and about the same time, 1680, and from the same cause, arose the pernicious terms and distinctions of Whig and Tory, both exotic names, which the parties invidiously bestowed upon each other. Allthat adhered to the interest of the crown and lineal succession, were by the contrary branded with the title given to the Irish robbers; and they, in return, gave the others the appellation of Whig, or sour milk, formerly appropriated to the Scotch presbyterians and rigid covenanters.”—p. 988.
Tindal, in his introduction to the Continuation of Rapin’s History, notices the distinction between the principles of the parties, but does not inquire into the etymology of the terms.—Vol. i. p. 15.
Toland, in his State Anatomy, considers the words as mere terms of reproach, first applied to each party by its enemies, and then adopted by each as a distinction.
“The words themselves are but late nicknames, given by each party to the other in King Charles the Second’s reign: Tories in Ireland, and Whigs in Scotland, being what we in England call highwaymen; and you, public robbers.”—Part I.
Hume, the historian, says—
“This year, 1680, is remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material difference, this island has been so long divided. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the fanatical conventiclers, who were known by the name of Whigs; and the country party found a resemblance between the courtiers and the Popish banditti in Ireland, who were known by the name of Tories.”—Vol. VIII. p. 125.
These are the principal writers in which the origin of the terms is noticed.
MISCELLANEOUS CURIOSITIES.
Monster—Individuation—Reproduction—Peruke—Centaurs and Lapithæ.
Monster.—A birth or production of a living being, degenerating from the proper and usual disposition of parts in the species to which it belongs; as, when there are too many members, or too few; or some of them are extravagantly out of proportion, either on the side of defect or excess,—is generally denominated a monster.
F. Malebranche accounts for the production of monsters in the animal world in the following manner:—“The Creator hasestablished such a communication between the several parts of his creation, that we are naturally led to imitate one another, i. e. to have a disposition to do the same things, and assume the same manners, with those about which we converse; we have also certain natural dispositions, which incline us to compassion as well as imitation. Of these things most men are sensible, and therefore they need not be proved. The animal spirits, then, are not only naturally carried into the respective parts of the body to perform the same actions and the same motions which we see others do, but also to receive in some manner their wounds, and take part in their sufferings.
“Experience tells us, that when we look attentively on any person severely beaten, or that has a large wound, ulcer, or the like, the spirits immediately flow into those parts of our bodies which answer to those we see suffer in the other; unless their course be stopped from some other principle. This flux of spirits is very sensible in persons of delicate constitutions, who frequently shudder, and find a kind of trembling in the body on these occasions; and this sympathy in bodies produces compassion in the mind.
“Now it must be observed, that the view of a wound, &c. affects the person who views it the more strongly and sensibly, as the person is more weak and delicate; the spirits making a stronger impression on the fibres of a delicate body, than in those of a robust one. Thus, strong and vigorous men, &c. see an execution without much concern, while women, &c. are struck with pity and horror. As to children that are unborn, the fibres of their flesh being incomparably finer than those in women, the course of the animal spirits must necessarily produce much greater alterations.
“These things being laid down, monsters are easily accounted for. Suppose, for instance, a child to be born a fool, and also with its legs and arms broken in the same manner as those are of criminals executed; the phenomena may be accounted for thus: Every stroke given to the poor man struck forcibly the imagination of the mother, and, by a kind of counter-stroke, the tender and delicate brain of the child. Now, though the fibres of the woman’s brain were strongly shaken by the violent flux of animal spirits on this occasion, yet they had strength and consistence enough to prevent an entire disorder; whereas the fibres of the child’s brain, being unable to bear the shock of those spirits, were quite ruined, and the ravage was great enough to deprive him of reason all his lifetime.
“Again, the view of an execution frightening the mother, the violent course of the animal spirits was directed forcibly from the brain to all those parts of the body corresponding to the suffering parts of the criminal and the same thing musthappen in the child. But as the bones were strong enough to resist the impulse of those spirits, they were not damaged; and yet the rapid course of these spirits could easily overpower and break the tender and delicate fibres of the bones of the child; the bones being the last parts of the body that are formed, and having a very slender consistence, while the child is yet in the womb.”
To this it may here be added, that had the mother determined the course of these spirits towards some other part of her body, by tickling or scratching herself vehemently, the child would not in all probability have had its bones broken; but the part answering that to which the motion of the spirits was determined, would have been the sufferer. Hence appears the reason why women, in the time of gestation, seeing persons, &c. marked in such a manner in the face, impress the same mark on the same parts of the child; and why, upon rubbing some other part of the body when startled at the sight of any thing, or agitated with any extraordinary passion, the mark or impression is fixed on that hidden part, rather than on the face of the child. From the principles here laid down, most, if not all, of the phenomena of monsters, may be easily accounted for.
Various other theories have been formed by different philosophers and phisiologists. But, after all, it must be confessed that we seem as yet to be very little acquainted with nature in her numerous variations.
Monsters are more common and more extraordinary in the vegetable than in the animal kingdom, because the different juices are more easily deranged and confounded together. Leaves are often seen, from the internal part of which other leaves spring forth; and it is not uncommon to see flowers of the ranunculus, from the middle of which issues a stalk bearing another flower. M. Bonnet informs us, that in certain warm and rainy years he has frequently met with monsters of this kind in rose-trees. This observer saw a rose, from the centre of which issued a square stalk of a whitish colour, tender, and without prickles, which at its top bore two flower-buds opposite to each other, and totally destitute of a calix; a little above the buds issued a petal of a very irregular shape. Upon the prickly stalk which supported the rose, a leaf was observed which had the shape of trefoil, together with a broad flat pedicle. In the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, for 1707, p. 448, mention is made of a rose, from the centre of the leaves of which issued a rose-branch two or three inches long, and furnished with leaves. See the same Memoirs for 1724, p. 20, and for 1749, p. 44. In the Memoirs for 1755, a very singular instance is mentioned of a monstrosity observed by M. Duhamel, in an apple-tree ingrafted withclay. At the place of the insertion there appeared a bud, which produced a stalk and some leaves; the stalk and the pedicle of the leaves were of a pulpy substance, and had the most perfect resemblance both in taste and smell to the pulp of a green apple.
An extraordinarychamæmelumis mentioned in theActa Helvetica. M. Bonnet, in hisRecherches sur l’Usage des Feuilles, mentions likewise some monstrous productions which have been found in fruits with kernels, analogous in their nature to those which occur in the flowers of the ranunculus and of the rose-tree. He has seen a pear, from the eye of which issued a tuft of thirteen or fourteen leaves, very well shaped, and many of them of the natural size. He has seen another pear which gave rise to a ligneous and knotty stalk, on which grew another pear somewhat larger than the first. The stalk had probably flourished, and the fruit had formed. Thelilium album polyanthos, observed some years ago at Breslaw, which bore on its top a bundle of flowers, consisting of one hundred and two lilies, all of the common shape, is well-known. M. Regnier has mentioned some individuals monstrous with respect to the flower, in theJournal de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle, for November, 1785. He has likewise mentioned a monstrous tulip, which is seen in the gardens of some amateurs; juniper berries with horns; a balsamine with three spurs, &c.
Individuation,—is the unity of a thing with itself, or that whereby a thing is what it is.
To begin with those species of body that are not properly organized, which have neither life nor sense, as stones, metals, &c. In these, individuation seems to consist in nothing but greater or less: take the less part of a stone away, you may still call it the same stone; take an equal part with the remains, that individuation ceases, and they are two new individuals. Divide a stone, &c. as often as you please, every part of it will be a stone still, another individual stone, as much as any in the mountain or quarry out of which it was first cut, even though reduced to the minutest sand, or, if possible, a thousand times less. But when we take one step farther, and proceed a degree higher, to the vegetable kingdom, the case is far otherwise; and indeed Nature seems to be still more distinct, and, as it were, careful in its individuation, the higher it rises, till at last it brings us to that great transcendental individual, the only proper uncompounded essence, the One God, blessed for ever.
To return to plants: their individuation consists in that singular form, contexture, and order of their parts, whereby they are disposed for those uses to which Nature has designedthem, and by which they receive and maintain their beings. For example, in a tree, though you take away the branches, it grows, receives nourishment from the earth, maintains itself, and is still a tree, which the parts thereof are not when separated from the rest; for we cannot say that every part of a tree is a tree, as we can that every part of a stone is still a stone, but if this tree be cloven in two or more pieces, or felled by the roots, this contexture, or orderly respect of the parts one to another, ceases; its essence as a tree is destroyed; its individuation perishes; and it is no more a tree, but a stump, or piece of timber.
Let us proceed a degree higher, to merely sensible creatures, who are not so immediately depending on the earth, the common mother, as the plants, nor rooted to it as they are, but walk about, and have a kind of independent existence, and are a sort of world by themselves. And here the individuation consists in such a particular contexture of their essential parts, and their relation one toward another, as enables them to exert the operations of the sensible or animal life. Thus, cut off the legs or any other parts of an animal, it is the same animal still; but cut off its head, or take away its life, and it is no longer that individual animal, but a mere carcase, and will, by degrees, resolve itself into common matter again.
To ascend now to the highest rank of visible beings,—the rational. The individuation of man appears to consist in the union of a rational soul with any convenient portion of fitly organized matter. Any portion of matter duly qualified, and united to the soul by such a union as we experience, is immediately individuated by it, and, together with that soul, makes a man; so that, if it were possible for one soul to be clothed over and over at different times with all the matter in the universe, it would in all those distinct shapes be the same individual man. Nor can a man be supposed in this case to differ more from himself, than he does from what he really was when an infant, or just passed an embryo, when compared with what he is when of adult or decrepit age; he having, during that intermediate time, changed his portion of matter over and over; as, being fat and lean, sick and well, having been exhausted by bleeding, effluvia, perspiration, &c.; and reunited again by aliment; so that perhaps not one particle, or but very few of the first matter which he took from his parents, and brought with him into the world, is now remaining.
The preceding article is naturally followed byReproduction.—Reproduction is usually understood to mean the restoration of a thing before existing, and since destroyed.It is very well known that trees and plants may be raised from slips and cuttings; and some late observations have shewn, that there are some animals which have nearly the same property. The polype (SeeHydra) was the first instance we had of this kind; but we had scarcely time to wonder at the discovery M. Trembley had made, when M. Bonnet discovered the same property in a species of water-worm. Amongst the plants which may be raised from cuttings, there are some which seem to possess this quality in so eminent a degree, that the smallest portion of them will become a complete tree again. A twig of willow, poplar, or many other trees, being planted in the earth, takes root, and becomes a tree, every piece of which will in the same manner produce other trees. The case is the same with these worms: they are cut to pieces, and these several pieces become perfect animals; and each of these may be again cut into a number of pieces, each of which will in the same manner produce an animal. It has been supposed by some, that these worms were oviparous; but, M. Bonnet, on cutting one of them to pieces, having observed a slender substance, resembling a small filament, to move at the end of one of the pieces, separated it, and on examining it with glasses, found it to be a perfect worm, of the same form with its parent, which lived and grew larger in a vessel of water into which he put it. These small bodies are easily divided, and very readily complete themselves again, a day usually serving for the production of a head to the part that wants one; and, in general, the smaller and more slender the worms are, the sooner they complete themselves after this operation. When the bodies of the large worms are examined by the microscope, it is very easy to see the appearance of the young worms alive, and moving about within them; but it requires great precision and exactness to be certain of this, since the ramifications of the great artery have very much the appearance of young worms, and they are kept in a sort of continual motion by the systoles and diastoles of the several portions of the artery, which serve as so many hearts. It is very certain, that what we force in regard to these animals by our operations, is done also naturally every day in the brooks and ditches where they live. A curious observer will find in these places many of them without heads or tails, and some without either; as also, other fragments of various kinds, all of which are in the act of completing themselves; but whether accidents have reduced them to this state, or they thus purposely throw off parts of their own bodies for the production of more animals, it is not easy to determine. They are plainly liable to many accidents, by which they lose the several parts of their bodies; and they must perish very early, if they had not a power ofreproducing what was lost. They are often broken into two parts, by the resistance of some hard piece of mud which they enter; and they are subject to a disease, a kind of gangrene, rotting off the several parts of their bodies, by which they must inevitably perish, were they not possessed of this surprising property.
The reproduction of several parts of lobsters, crabs, &c. is one of the greatest curiosities in natural history. It seems, indeed, inconsistent with the modern philosophical system of generation, which supposes the animal to be wholly formed in the egg; that, in lieu of an organical part of an animal cut off, another should arise perfectly like it: the fact, however, is too well attested to be denied. The legs of lobsters, &c. consist each of five articulations; now, when any of the legs happen to break by any accident, as by walking, &c. which frequently occurs, the fracture is always found to be at the suture near the fourth articulation; and what they thus lose is exactly reproduced in some time afterwards; that is, a part of the leg shoots out, consisting of four articulations, the first whereof has two claws, as before; so that the loss is entirely repaired.
If the leg of a lobster be broken off by design at the fourth or fifth articulation, what is thus broken off is always reproduced, even after a second or third accident. But if the fracture be made in the first, second, or third articulation, the reproduction is not so certain. And it is very surprising, that if the fracture be made at these articulations, at the end of two or three days, all the other articulations are generally found broken off to the fourth, which, it is supposed, is done by the creature itself, to make the reproduction certain. The part reproduced, is not only perfectly similar in form to that retrenched, but also, in a certain space of time, it grows equal to it. The creature is, however, frequently taken before this is accomplished. Hence it is that we frequently see lobsters, which have their two large legs unequal in all proportions.
Peruke.—It appears that this term was originally applied to describe a fine natural head of long hair, and if this appellation had been retained, we should never have associated wigs with monsters. But whatever may have been the ancient use or meaning of the word, it has now almost become obsolete, though it was for more than a century in constant application to those artificial heads of hair, made probably at first to conceal natural or accidental baldness, but which afterwards became so ridiculously fashionable, as to be worn in preference to the most beautiful locks, absurdly shaved off the head to make room for them.
Ancient authors might be quoted, to prove, that the great and luxurious of that time, had recourse to this mode of concealing defects, and of decorating the head; nay, it might perhaps be proved, that the peruke of the Emperor Commodus was more absurdly composed than any modern peruke has ever been; and indeed it must be admitted, that a wig powdered with scrapings of gold, in addition to oils and glutinous perfumes, must have made a more wonderful appearance than our immediate ancestors ever witnessed. It was in the reign of our Charles the First, that perukes were introduced throughout Europe, when the moralists attacked them without mercy, as they perceived that the folly of youth even extended to the cutting off nature’s locks, to be replaced by the hair of the dead, and of horses, woven into a filthy piece of canvass. Admonition and ridicule were, however, of little avail, and the clergy began to be affected by the general mania. Those on the Continent being almost universally Roman Catholics, were so completely subject to their superiors, that the peruke was soon routed from their body; but as the dignified clergy of England conceive that their consequence is increased by the enormous bushes of hair upon their heads, and the judges have adopted their sentiments in this particular, it is probable many years will elapse before the shape and absurdity of two particular species of perukes are forgotten.
About the close of the seventeenth century, the peruke was made to represent the natural curl of the hair, but in such profusion, that ten heads would not have furnished an equal quantity, as it flowed down the back, and hung over the shoulders halfway down the arms. By 1721, it had become fashionable to tie one half of it on the left side into a club. Between 1730 and 1740, the bag-wig came into fashion, and the peruke was docked considerably, and sometimes plaited behind into a queue, though even till 1752 the long flowing locks maintained their influence. After 1770 those were rarely seen; and since that time persons wearing perukes have generally had substantial reasons for so doing, from baldness, and complaints in the head. At one time, indeed, when the stern virtues of Brutus were much in vogue, the young men of Europe wore perukes of black or dark hair, dressed from his statues. Many particulars on this subject have been preserved by Mr. Malcolm, in his “Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London,” from which we learn, that a young countrywoman obtained £60 for her head of hair in the year 1700, when human hair sold at £3 per ounce; and in 1720, the grey locks of an aged woman sold for £50 after her decease. Wigs of peculiar excellence were sold at £40 each.
A petition from the master peruke-makers of London and Westminster, presented to the King, in 1763, points out the great decline of their use to have taken place at that time. In this they complain of the public wearing their own hair; and say, “That this mode, pernicious enough in itself to their trade, is rendered excessively more so by swarms of French hair-dressers already in those cities, and daily increasing.”
We close this chapter with an account ofCentaurs and Lapithæ.—Under the reign of Ixion, king of Thessaly, a company of bulls which fed upon Pelion ran mad, by which means the mountain was inaccessible. They also descended into the inhabited parts, ruining the trees and fruits, and killing the larger cattle. Upon which Ixion declared that he would give a great reward to any person that would destroy these bulls. Riding on horseback was never practised before that time. But some young men that lived in a village at the foot of Pelion, had attempted successfully to train horses fit to back, and had accustomed themselves to that exercise. These youths undertook to clear the mountain of the bulls, which they effected by pursuing them on horseback, and piercing them with their arrows as they fled; but when the bulls stopped or followed them, they retired without receiving any hurt. And from hence they were called Centaurs, viz. Pierce bulls. Having received of Ixion the recompense he promised them, they became so fierce and proud, that they committed a thousand insolences in Thessaly, not sparing even Ixion himself, who dwelt in the town of Larissa. The inhabitants of the country were at that time called Lapithæ, who one day invited the Centaurs to a feast which they celebrated: but the Centaurs abused their civility; for, having drunk too much, they took the Lapithites’ women from them, set them on their horses, and carried them away. This violence kindled a long war between the Centaurs and the Lapithæ: the Centaurs in the night came down into the plain, and laid ambushes for their enemies, and, as soon as day appeared, retired again into the mountain, with whatever they had taken. Thus, as they retired, the Lapithæ saw only the hinder parts of their horses, and the men’s heads; so that they seemed but as one animal, whence they believed the Centaurs had become half men and half horses, and that they were clouds, because the village where they dwelt was called Nophelus, which signified a cloud.