Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853»
Notes
ON THE USE OF THE HOUR-GLASS IN PULPITS
George Herbert says:
"The parson exceeds not an hour in preaching, because all ages have thought that a competency."—A Priest to the Temple, p. 28.
Ferrarius, De Ritu Concion., lib. i. c. 34., makes the following statement:
"Huic igitur certo ac communi malo (the evil of too long sermons) ut medicinam facerent, Ecclesiæ patres in concionando determinatum dicendi tempus fereque unius horæ spatio conclusum aut ipsi sibi præscribant, aut ab aliis præfinitum religiosè observabant."
Bingham, commenting on this passage, observes:
"Ferrarius and some others are very positive that they (their sermons) were generally an hour long; but Ferrarius is at a loss to tell by what instrument they measured their hour, for he will not venture to affirm that they preached, as the old Greek and Roman orators declaimed, by an hour-glass."—See Bingham, vol. iv. p. 582.
This remark of Bingham's brings me at once to the subject of my present communication. What evidence exists of the practice of preaching by the hour-glass, thus treated as improbable, if not ridiculous, by the learned writer just quoted? If the early Fathers of the church timed their sermons by any instrument of the kind, we should expect their writings to contain internal evidence of the fact, just as frequent allusion is made by Demosthenes and other ancient orators to the klepshydra or water-clock, by which the time allotted to each speaker was measured. Besides, the close proximity of such an instrument would be a constant source of metaphorical allusion on the subject of time and eternity. Perhaps those of your readers who are familiar with the extant sermons of the Greek and Latin fathers, may be able to supply some illustration on this subject. At all events there appears to be indisputable evidence of the use of the hour-glass in the pulpit formerly in this country.
In an extract from the churchwardens' accounts of the parish of St. Helen, in Abingdon, Berks, we find the following entry:
"Anno mdxci. 34 Eliz. 'Payde for an houre-glasse for the pulpit,' 4d."—See Hone's Table-Book, vol. i. p. 482.
Among the accounts of Christ Church, St. Catherine's, Aldgate, under the year 1564, this entry occurs:
"Paid for an hour-glass that hangeth by the pulpitt when the preacher doth make a sermon that he may know how the hour passeth away."—Malcolm's Londinium, vol. iii. p. 309., cited Southey's Common-Place Book, 4th Series, p. 471.
In Fosbrooke (Br. Mon., p. 286.) I find the following passage:
"A stand for an hour-glass still remains in many pulpits. A rector of Bibury (in Gloucestershire) used to preach two hours, regularly turning the glass. After the text the esquire of the parish withdrew, smoaked his pipe, and returned to the blessing."
The authority for this, which Fosbrooke cites, is Rudder's Gloucestershire, in "Bibury." It is added that lecturers' pulpits have also hour-glasses The woodcuts in Hawkins's Music, ii. 332., are referred to in support of this statement. I regret that I have no means of consulting the two last-mentioned authorities.
In 1681 some poor crazy people at Edinburgh called themselves the Sweet Singers of Israel. Among other things, they renounced the limiting the Lord's mind by glasses. This is no doubt in allusion to the hour-glass, which Mr. Water, the editor of the fourth series of Southey's Common-Place Book, informs us is still to be found, or at least its iron frame, in many churches, adding that the custom of preaching by the hour-glass commenced about the end of the sixteenth century. I cannot help thinking that an earlier date must be assigned to this singular practice. (See Southey's Common-Place Book, 4th series, p. 379.) Mr. Water states that one of these iron frames still exists at Ferring in Sussex. The iron extinguishers still to be found on the railing opposite large houses in London, are a similar memorial of an obsolete custom.
I trust some contributor to the "N. & Q." will be able to supply farther illustrations of this custom. Should it be revived in our own times, I fear most parishes would supply only a half-hour glass for the pulpit of their church, however unanimous antiquity may be in favour of sermons of an hour's duration. One advantage presented by this ancient and precise practice was, that the squire of the parish knew exactly when it was time to put out his pipe and return for the blessing, which he cannot ascertain under the present uncertain and indefinite mode of preaching. Fosbrooke (Br. Mon., p. 286.) states that the priest had sometimes a watch found for him by the parish. The authority cited for this is the following entry in the accounts of the Chantrey Wardens of the parish of Shire in Surrey:
"Received for the priest's watch after he was dead, 13s. 4d."—Manning's Surrey, vol. i. p. 531.
This entry seems to be rather too vague and obscure to warrant the inference drawn from it. This also may be susceptible of farther illustration.
A. W. S.
Temple.
THE MEGATHERIUM AMERICANUM IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM
Amongst the most interesting specimens of that collection certainly ranges the skeleton of the above animal of a primæval world, albeit but a cast; the real bones, found in Buenos Ayres, being preserved in the Museum of Madrid. To imagine a sloth of the size of a large bear, somewhat baffles our imagination; especially if we ponder upon the size of trees on which such a huge animal must have lived. To have placed near him a nondescript branch (!!) of a palm, as has been done in the Museum here, is a terrible mistake. Palms there were none at that period of telluric formation; besides, no sloth ever could ascend an exogenous tree, as the simple form of the coma of leaves precludes every hope of motion, &c. I never can view those remnants of a former world, without being forcibly reminded of that most curious passage in Berosus, which I cite from memory:
"There was a flood raging then over parts of the world.... There were to be seen, however, on the walls of the temple of Belus, representations of animals, such as inhabited the earth before the Flood."
We may thence gather, that although the ancient world did not possess museums of stuffed animals, yet, the first collection of Icones is certainly that mentioned by Berosus. I think that it was about the times of the Crusades, that animals were first rudely preserved (stuffed), whence the emblems in the coats of arms of the nobility also took their origin. I have seen a MS. in the British Museum dating from this period, where the delineation of a bird of the Picus tribe is to be found. Many things which the Crusaders saw in Egypt and Syria were so striking and new to them, that they thought of means of preserving them as mementoes for themselves and friends. The above date, I think, will be an addition to the history of collections of natural history: a work wanting yet in the vast domain of modern literature.
A Foreign Surgeon.
Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury Square.
REMUNERATION OF AUTHORS
In that varied and interesting of antiquarian and literary curiosities, "N. & Q.," perhaps a collection of the prices paid by booksellers and publishers for works of interest and to authors of celebrity might find a corner. As a first contribution towards such a collection, if approved of, I send some Notes made some years ago, with the authorities from which I copied them. With regard to those cited on the authority of "R. Chambers," I cannot now say from which of Messrs. Chambers's publications I extracted them, but fancy it might have been the Cyclopædia of English Literature. To any one disposed to swell the list of the remunerations of authors, I would suggest that Disraeli's Curiosities of Literature, Boswell's Life of Johnson, Johnson's Lives of the Poets and other works of every-day handling, would no doubt furnish many facts; but all my books being in the country, I have no means of searching, and therefore send my Notes in the fragmentary state in which I find them:—
I perfectly agree with the suggestion of one of your correspondents, that, in a publication like yours, dealing with historic facts, the communications should not be anonymous, or made under noms de guerre. I therefore drop the initials with which I have signed previous communications, and append my name as suggested.
Alexander Andrews.
COINCIDENT LEGENDS
In the Scandinavian portion of the Fairy Mythology, there is a legend of a farmer cheating a Troll in an argument respecting the crops that were to be grown on the hill within which the latter resided. It is there observed that Rabelais tells the same story of a farmer and the Devil. I think there can be no doubt that these are not independent fictions, but that the legend is a transmitted one, the Scandinavian being the original, brought with them perhaps by the Normans. But what are we to say to the actual fact of the same legend being found in the valleys of Afghánistán?
Masson, in his Narrative, &c. (iii. 297.), when speaking of the Tájiks of Lúghmân, says,—
"They have the following amusing story: In times of yore, ere the natives were acquainted with the arts of husbandry, the Shaitán, or Devil, appeared amongst them, and, winning their confidence, recommended them to sow their lands. They consented, it being farther agreed that the Devil was to be a sherík, or partner, with them. The lands were accordingly sown with turnips, carrots, beet, onions, and such vegetables whose value consists in the roots. When the crops were mature the Shaitán appeared, and generously asked the assembled agriculturists if they would receive for their share what was above ground or what was below. Admiring the vivid green hue of the tops, they unanimously replied that they would accept what was above ground. They were directed to remove their portion, when the Devil and his attendants dug up the roots and carried them away. The next year he again came and entered into partnership. The lands were now sown with wheat and other grains, whose value lies in their seed-spikes. In due time, as the crops had ripened, he convened the husbandmen, putting the same question to them as he did the preceding year. Resolved not to be deceived as before, they chose for their share what was below ground; on which the Devil immediately set to work and collected the harvest, leaving them to dig up the worthless roots. Having experienced that they were not a match for the Devil, they grew weary of his friendship; and it fortunately turned out that, on departing with his wheat, he took the road from Lúghmân to Báríkâb, which is proverbially intricate, and where he lost his road, and has never been heard of or seen since."
Surely here is simple coincidence, for there could scarcely ever have been any communication between such distant regions in remote times, and the legend has hardly been carried to Afghánistán by Europeans. There is, as will be observed, a difference in the character of the legends. In the Oriental one it is the Devil who outwits the peasants. This perhaps arises from the higher character of the Shaitán (the ancient Akriman) than that of the Troll or the mediæval Devil.
Thos. Keightley.
SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. VIII
I have to announce the detection of an important misprint, which completely restores sense, point, and antithesis to a sorely tormented passage in King Lear; and which proves at the same time that the corrector of Mr. Collier's folio, in this instance at least, is undeniably in error. Here, as elsewhere (whether by anticipation or imitation I shall not take upon me to decide), he has fallen into just the same mistake as the rest of the commentators: indeed it is startling to observe how regularly he suspects every passage that they have suspected, and how invariably he treats them in the same spirit of emendation (some places of course excepted, where his courage soars far beyond theirs; such as the memorable "curds and cream," "on a table of green frieze," &c.).
I say that the error of "the old corrector," in this instance, is undeniable, because the misprint I am about to expose, like the egg-problem of Columbus, when once shown, demonstrates itself: so that any attempt to support it by argument would be absurd, because superfluous.
There are two verbs, one in every-day use, the other obsolete, which, although of nearly opposite significations, and of very dissimilar sound, nevertheless differ only in the mutual exchange of place in two letters: these verbs are secure and recuse; the first implying assurance, the second want of assurance, or refusal. Hence any sentence would receive an opposite meaning from one of these verbs to what it would from the other.
Let us now refer to the opening scene of the Fourth Act of King Lear, where the old man offers his services to Gloster, who has been deprived of his eyes:
"Old Man. You cannot see your way.
Gloster. I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw: full oft 'tis seen
Our means secure us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."
Here one would suppose that the obvious opposition between means and defects would have preserved these words from being tampered with; and that, on the other hand, the absence of opposition between secure and commodious would have directed attention to the real error. But, no: all the worretting has been about means; and this unfortunate word has been twisted in all manner of ways, until finally "the old corrector" informs us that "the printer read wants 'means,' and hence the blunder!"
Now, mark the perfect antithesis the passage receives from the change of secure into recuse:
"Full oft 'tis seen
Our means recuse us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."
I trust I may be left in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to this restoration. Some other of my humble auxilia have, before now, been coolly appropriated, with the most innocent air possible, without the slightest acknowledgment. One instance is afforded in Mr. Keightley's communication to "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 136., where that gentleman not only repeats the explanation I had previously given of the same passage, but even does me the honour of requoting the same line of Shakspeare with which I had supported it.
I did not think it worth noticing at the time, nor should I now, were it not that Mr. Keightley's confidence in the negligence or want of recollection in your readers seems not have been wholly misplaced, if we may judge from Mr. Arrowsmith's admiring foot-note in last Number of "N. & Q.," p. 568.
A. E. B.
Leeds.
SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE IDIOM "NO HAD" AND "NO HATH NOT."
(Vol. vii., p. 520.)
We are under great obligations to the Rev. Mr. Arrowsmith for his very interesting illustration of several misunderstood archaisms; and it may not be unacceptable to him if I call his attention to what seems to me a farther illustration of the above singular idiom, from Shakspeare himself.
In As You Like It, Act I. Sc. 3., where Rosalind has been banished by the Duke her uncle, we have the following dialogue between Celia and her cousin:
"Cel. O my poor Rosalind! whither wilt thou go?
Wilt thou change fathers? I will give thee mine.
I charge thee, be not thou more grieved than I am.
Ros. I have more cause.
Cel. Thou hast not, cousin:
Pr'ythee be cheerful: know'st thou not, the duke
Hath banish'd me, his daughter?
Ros. That he hath not.
Cel. No hath not? Rosalind lacks, then, the love
Which teacheth thee that thou and I are one.
Shall we be sunder'd," &c.
From wrong pointing, and ignorance of the idiomatic structure, the passage has hitherto been misunderstood; and Warburton proposed to read, "Which teacheth me," but was fortunately opposed by Johnson, although he did not clearly understand the passage. I have ventured to change am to are, for I cannot conceive that Shakspeare wrote, "that thou and I am one!" It is with some hesitation that I make this trifling innovation on the old text, although we have, a few lines lower, the more serious misprint of your change for the charge. I presume that the abbreviated form of the = ye was taken for for yr, and the r in charge mistaken for n; and in the former case of am for are, indistinctness in old writing, and especially in such a hand as, it appears from his autograph, our great poet wrote, would readily lead to such mistakes. That the correction was left to the printer of the first folio, I am fully persuaded; yet, in comparison with the second folio, it is a correct book, notwithstanding all its faults. That it was customary for men who were otherwise busied, as we may suppose Heminge and Condell to have been, to leave the correction entirely to the printer, is certain; for an acquaintance of Shakspeare's, Resolute John Florio, distinctly shows that it was the case. We have this pithy brief Preface to the second edition of his translation of Montaigne:
"To the Reader
"Enough, if not too much, hath beene said of this translation. If the faults found even by myselfe in the first impression, be now by the printer corrected, as he was directed, the work is much amended: if not, know that through mine attendance on her Majesty, I could not intend it; and blame not Neptune for my second shipwracke. Let me conclude with this worthy man's daughter of alliance: 'Que t'ensemble donc lecteur?'
Still Resolute John Florio."
S. W. Singer.
Mickleham.
Shakspeare (Vol. vii., p. 521.).—May I ask whether there is any precedent (I think there can be no excuse) for calling Shakspeare's plays "our national Bible"?
A Clergyman.
