Act 3 — Replies.

CARLING SUNDAY—ROMAN FUNERAL PILE.

(Vol. iii., p. 449.; Vol. iv., p. 381.; Vol. v., p. 67.)

At Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and many other places in the North of England, grey peas, after having been steeped a night in water, are fried with butter, given away, and eaten at a kind of entertainment on the Sunday preceding Palm Sunday, which was formerly called Care or Carle Sunday, as may be yet seen in some of our old almanacks. They are called carlings, probably, as we call the presents at fairs, fairings. Marshal, in his Observations on the Saxon Gospels, tells us that "the Friday on which Christ was crucified is called in German both Gute Freytag and Carr Freytag;" that the word karr signifies a satisfaction for a fine or penalty; and that Care or Carr Sunday was not unknown to the English in his time, at least to such as lived among old people in the country.

In the old Roman calendar I find it observed on this day (the 12th of March), that a dole is made of soft beans. I can hardly entertain a doubt but that our custom is derived from hence. It was usual among the Romanists to give away beans in the doles at funerals; it was also a rite in the funeral ceremonies of heathen Rome. There is a great deal of learning in Erasmus's Adages concerning the religious use of beans, which were thought to belong to the dead. An observation which he gives us of Pliny concerning Pythagoras's interdiction of the pulse, is highly remarkable. It is "that beans contain the souls of the dead." For which cause also they were used in the Parentalia. Plutarch also, he tells us, held that pulse to be of the highest efficacy for invoking the manes. Ridiculous and absurd as these superstitions may appear, it is yet certain that our carlings deduce their origin from thence. On the interdiction of this pulse by Pythagoras, the following occurs in Spencer De Leg. Hebr., lib. i. p. 1154.:—

"Quid enim Pythagoras, ejusque præceptores, Ægypti Mystæ, adeo leguminum, fabarum imprimis, esum et aspectum fugerent; nisi quod cibi mortuorum cœnis et exequiis proprii, adeoque polluti et abominandi haberentur," &c.—Brand's Observations on Popular Antiquities, Ellis's ed., vol. i. pp. 95-99.

In the notes in loco is mentioned "a practice of the Greek church, not yet out of use, to set boyled corne before the singers at their commemorations of the dead," v. Gregorii Opusc., p. 128. The length of this reply will not admit of my here enumerating the other emblems of the resurrection of the body used by the fathers and other writers. I shall therefore conclude with an extract from Rennel's Geographical System of Herodotus, p. 632., relating to the Pythagorean prohibition of beans:—

"The Bengalese have the Nymphæa nelumbo in their lakes and inundations; and its fruit certainly resembles at all points that of the second species of water-lily described by Herodotus; that is, it has the form of the orbicular wasp's nest; and contains kernels of the size and shape of a small bean. Amongst the Bramins this plant is held sacred; but the kernels, which are of a better flavour than almonds, are almost universally eaten by the Hindoos.

"It may, however, be a question whether it has always been the case; and whether in the lapse of time that has taken place since the days of Pythagoras (who is supposed to have visited India, as well as Chaldæa, Persia, and Egypt), a relaxation in discipline may not have occasioned the law to be dispensed with; instances enough of a like kind being to be met with elsewhere. Kyamos in the Greek language appears to signify, not only a bean, but also the fruit or bean of the Nymphæa nelumbo. Is it not probable then that the mystery of the famous inhibition of Pythagoras, an enigma of which neither the ancients nor the moderns have hitherto been able to give a rational solution, may be discovered in those curious records of Sanscrit erudition, which the meritorious labours of some of our countrymen in India are gradually bringing to light?"

Bibliothecar. Chetham.

HART AND MOHUN.

(Vol. v., p. 466.)

In Downes' Roscius Anglicanus, edit. 1789, mention is made of these two actors, thus:

"Hart was apprentice to Robinson, an actor who lived before the Civil Wars; he afterwards had a captain's commission, and fought for Charles I. He acted women's parts when a boy.

"Mohun was brought up under Robinson, as Hart and others were: in his youth he acted Bellamente, in Love's Cruelty, which part he retained after the Restoration."—Page 10.

The patent of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, of which Mr. Hart and Major Mohun formed part of the company, having descended from Thomas to Charles Killigrew—

In Rymer's Dissertation on Tragedy he is thus noticed:

"The eyes of the audience are prepossessed and charmed by his action, before aught of the poet can approach their ears; and to the most wretched of characters Hart gives a lustre which dazzles the sight, that the deformities of the poet cannot be perceived."

It would seem that through Hart's "excellent action" alone Ben Jonson's Catiline (his own favourite play), which had been condemned on its first representation, was kept on the stage during the reign of Charles II. With Hart this play died.

Previous to Nell Gwyn's elevation to royal favour, it is said, upon the authority of Sir George Etherge, in Lives of the most celebrated Beauties, &c., 1715, she was "protected" by Lacy, and afterwards by Hart. Whether this be true or not, it is certain that she received instructions in the Thespian art from both of these gentlemen.

The cause of Hart retiring from the stage was in consequence of his being dreadfully afflicted with the stone and gravel, "of which he died sometime after, having a salary of forty shillings a week to the day of his death."

Major Mohun remained in the "United Company" after Hart's retirement.

Rymer remarks:

"We may remember (however we find this scene of Melanthius and Amintor written in the book) that at the Theater we have a good scene acted; there is work cut out, and both our Æsopus and Roscius are on the stage together. Whatever defect may be in Amintor and Melanthius, Mr. Hart and Mr. Mohun are wanting in nothing. To these we owe what is pleasing in the scene; and to this scene we may impute the success of the 'Maid's Tragedy.'"

Major Mohun's Christian name was Michael.

W. H. Ln.

Berwick-on-Tweed.

BURIAL WITHOUT RELIGIOUS SERVICE—BURIAL.

(Vol. v., pp. 466. 549.)

There can be no doubt, I think, that a burial ground, whether parish churchyard or cemetery, so long as it has been consecrated, or even licensed by the bishop, is only legally useable for interments performed according to "the ecclesiastical laws of this realm;" i.e. the burial service, as rubrically directed, must be read by a clergyman over the corpse. Whether the bishop would have proceeded by law against the clergyman in Carlile's case, supposing he had desisted from the service under the protests of the sons, may be questioned; but that he could have done so is beyond a doubt. The sixty-eighth canon says, that "no minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or churchyard ... in such manner and form as is prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. And if he shall refuse, &c., he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months." The consecration, or episcopal licence, seems to tie the burial ground to the burial service, except in the three cases of persons who die excommunicated, unbaptised, or by their own hands; and I imagine that a clergyman would render himself liable to suspension by his bishop, who either allowed interments to take place in the churchyard without the burial service, or, on the other hand, used the service in unconsecrated or unlicensed ground. By the 3 Ja. I. c. 5., there is a penalty for burying a corpse away from the church; but this law is either repealed or obsolete. If any services of the church be used by a clergyman, except "according to order," I imagine that he renders himself liable to penal consequences; but it may be sometimes thought best to omit them. Sometimes, however, as in the case of baptisms being allowed in drawing-rooms, there is such an intentional oversight as is quite indefensible.

The story which I have heard of Baskerville's burial is as follows;—He died at Birmingham, but was not interred, and his corpse was kept in the house in which he had lived. After a time this house was sold, and the purchaser of it became embarrassed by the unexpected discovery that he was in possession of the old printer's mortal remains. He applied to the clergyman of the parish for release from his difficulty; and this gentleman, being a man of the world, said that he was the last person who ought to have been consulted, but since it was so, the churchyard and the shades of evening afforded a remedy.

Perhaps it is worth adding, that when Sir W. Page Wood, the late Solicitor-General, would have brought a bill into parliament to relieve dissenters from the payment of church rates, on condition that they consented to forego all claim upon the services of the church, including of course the burial service, the bargain was declined by them.

Alfred Gatty.

"QUOD NON FECERUNT BARBARI," ETC.

(Vol. v., p. 559.)

Your correspondent Mr. Breen is mistaken in supposing this "epigram" to refer to the Barberini spoliation of the Coliseum; it was an equally important and more sacrilegious theft that aroused Pasquin's satire and indignation.

Urban VIII. (Matteo Barberini), 1623-44, had just stripped the dome of the Pantheon of the bronze that adorned it, to construct therewith the baldacchino over the high altar in St. Peter's. The amount of metal obtained, says Venuti, was upwards of 450,250 pounds weight; and upon the principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the material thus stolen from the Madonna was dedicated to the service of San Pietro. Bernini was the artist employed, from whose taste, perhaps, little better was to be expected; and the baldacchino, though highly ornamented, richly gilt, and of imposing dimensions, certainly makes the beholder regret that the metal was moved from its original position. It was costly enough too, upwards of 20,000l. having been expended upon its production.

Urban evidently had a practical turn for warfare by no means unusual to the possessors of the "holy see," for we find that the surplusage of the metal was cast into cannon for the defence of St. Angelo.

This pope certainly was one of the most unsparing despoilers of the Coliseum, inasmuch as the huge pile of the Palazzo Barbarini was erected by him with stone supplied solely from that convenient and inexpensive quarry. If, however, we reflect that he did but follow the example of many of his predecessors (Paul II. built the Palazzo di Venezia, and Paul III. the Farnese, from the same exhaustless supply), and that the Coliseum was not only much ruined by the "barbarians" during the various sieges of Rome, but was used as a fortress by the Frangipani in the Middle Ages, the pasquinade quoted by Mr. Breen would hardly have been applicable to Urban's misdeeds in that quarter. Nor was the Coliseum at that time consecrated ground, as it was not till the year 1750 that Benedict XIV., with a view to protect it from future depredation, dedicated it to the memory of the Christian martyrs who had perished in its arena. But the Pantheon, consecrated as early as A.D. 608, under the name of S. Maria Rotonda, had been respected and spared by all, whether Arian or barb-"arian;" and it was reserved for a "Santo Padre" of the seventeenth century to despoil a Christian Church, and himself set an example of sacrilege to the Christian world. Urban was the sole member of the Barberini family (of Florentine extraction) that ever attained the papal tiara. The amount of wealth stated to have been amassed by him during his pontificate appears almost fabulous.

The author of the pasquinade in question is, I believe, unknown.

A. P.

Bayswater.

RESTIVE.

(Vol. v., p. 535.)

I am inclined to think that your correspondents, however deeply they may be versed in "Folk-Lore," are generally not much acquainted with "Horse-Lore." Such, at least, is the opinion that is warranted by the extraordinary nature of the questions (not many in number, it is true) which have been put in relation to that subject, and of the replies that have been given to them. In the case now before us, J. R. has only superficially considered the matter. He takes one out of many definitions "in our dictionaries," and on that takes his stand. He is manifestly in error. The tempting facility of referring all words similar in appearance to the same etymon lies at the root of his mistake; for restive, as he will find on more patient investigation, is by our lexicographers (Richardson, for example) classed under a different root from rest, used to express quiescence, or repose. Restive, or more properly restiff, is equivalent to the French rétif, or Italian restio; and, as applied to horses, means those which resist the will of their rider. Hence, whether in standing stock still, in running away, in rearing, in plunging, or in kicking, they employ their natural means of defence against the control of the cavalier, and may equally be called restiff. In support of this view, take the following quotation, to which others might be added. It is from Grisone, Ordini di Cavalcare, 4to., 1550:

"Se il cavallo è restio, il più delle volte procede per colpa del Cavaliero, per una di questi ragioni. Overo il Cavallo è vile, e di poca forza, e essendo troppo molestato si abandona e avvilisce di sorte che accorando non vuole caminare avante; over è superbo, e gagliardo, e dandogli fatica, egli mancandogli un poco di lena, si prevalerà con salti, e con aggrupparsi, e con altre malignità, ò fara pur questo dal principio che si cavalca, di maniera che se allora conoscerà chi il Cavaliero lo teme, prenderà tant' animo, che usando molte ribalderie, si fermerà contra la volontà sua; e di queste due Specie di Restii [which J. R. will be pleased to note], la peggior è quella che nasce da viltà, e da poca forza."—Folio 92, verso.

Thus much for the equestrian part of the subject. With regard to the use of the word restive by the author of the Eclipse of Faith, that is purely a matter of taste, which it is unnecessary here to discuss; but I hope that the foregoing opinion of one who in his day passed for the most accomplished horseman of Europe, will suffice to show that, in the passage quoted, the term is not so entirely misapplied as J. R. supposes.

F. S. Q.

MEN OF KENT AND KENTISH MEN.

(Vol. v., p. 321.)

In your answers to Minor Queries (Vol. v., p. 321.) I find it stated, that the inhabitants of the part of Kent lying between Rochester and London being invicti, have ever since (the Norman Conquest) been designated as Men of Kent; while those to the eastward, through whose district the Conqueror marched unopposed, are only "Kentish Men."

As I have always understood that the contrary is the case, and that the inhabitants of East Kent are called "Men of Kent," and those in West Kent, "Kentish Men"—because in East Kent the people are less intermixed with strangers than in West Kent, from its proximity to the metropolis—I was desirous of correcting what appeared to me to be a manifest error: but not finding any direct authority on the point, I consulted my friend Charles Sandys, Esq., of Canterbury, as a Kentish antiquary, on the subject. And I now send you a letter from that gentleman, which you are at liberty to print.

Geo. R. Corner.

Eltham.

"'MEN OF KENT,' AND 'KENTISH MEN.'

"I am not aware that any professed treatise has been written or published upon our provincial distinction of 'Men of Kent' and 'Kentish Men.' That some such traditionary distinction, however, (whatever it may be) has existed from time immemorial in our county, cannot be disputed, and I think it has an undoubted and unquestionable historic origin, which I will endeavour briefly to illustrate.

"The West Kent Men, according to the tradition, are styled 'Kentish Men;' whilst those of East Kent are more emphatically denominated 'Men of Kent.'

"And now for my historical authorities:—

"That the East Kent people were denominated from ancient time 'Men of Kent,' may, I think, be inferred from the ancient Saxon name of its metropolis, [Canterbury], literally, 'The City of the Men of Kent;' the royal city and seat of government of King Ethelbert at the time of the arrival of St. Augustine (A.D. 597) to convert our idolatrous Saxon ancestors from the worship of Woden and his kindred deities to that of the Saviour of the world.

"St. Augustine, having succeeded in his holy mission, and having been consecrated Archbishop of the Saxons and Angles in Britain, fixed his metropolitical see in the royal city of Canterbury, which had been granted to him by King Ethelbert on his conversion (who thereupon retired to his royal fortress, or Castrum, of Regulbium, Reculver). And in that city it has ever since continued for a period of more than twelve centuries.

"The conversion of the Pagan inhabitants of Kent proceeded so rapidly that St. Augustine, with the assistance of King Ethelbert, soon founded another episcopal see at Rochester, and thus divided the Kentish kingdom into two dioceses: the eastern, or diocese of Canterbury; the western, or diocese of Rochester. And thus, I conceive, originated the divisions of East and West Kent: the men of the former retaining their ancient name of 'Men of Kent;' whilst those of the latter adopted that of 'Kentish Men.'

"The Saxon (or Jutish) kingdom of Kent continued a separate and independent kingdom of the Octarchy from the time of Hengist (A.D. 455) until its subjugation by Offa, King of Mercia, in the eighth century, to which it continued tributary until King Egbert reduced all the kingdoms of the Octarchy under his dominion, at the commencement of the ninth century,—and thus became the first King of all England.

"That Kent was separated at an early period into the two divisions of East and West Kent, may be inferred from a charter (Kemble, Cod. Dipl. ii. 19.) relating to some property withheld from the church of Canterbury, and which is specially described as having been that "of Oswulf, duke and prince of the province of East Kent" ('dux atque princeps provinciæ Orientalis Cantiæ') c. A.D. 844.

"The Saxon Chronicle also confirms this view of the matter, thus:

A.D. 853. "Ealhere with the 'Men of Kent' fought in Thanet against the heathen army (Danes)."—Thanet is in East Kent.

A.D. 865. "The heathen army sate down in Thanet, and made peace with the 'Men of Kent.' And the 'Men of Kent' promised them money for the peace."

A.D. 902. ... "Battle at the Holmes, between the 'Kentish Men' and the 'Danish Men.'—This, I take it, occurred in West Kent.

A.D. 999. "The army (Danes) went up along the Medway to Rochester, and then the 'Kentish forces' stoutly joined battle ... and full nigh all the 'West Kentish men' they ruined and plundered."

A.D. 1009. "Then came the vast hostile army (Danes) to Sandwich, and they soon went their way to Canterbury; and all the people of 'East Kent' made peace with the army, and gave them 3000 pounds."

"Thus, I trust, I have satisfactorily shown from our ancient annals, that the distinction between 'Kentish Men' and 'Men of Kent,' existed at a period long anterior to the Norman Conquest, and is distinctly recognised in the foregoing historical passages. And its origin may, I think, be attributed to the ancient division of the Jutish kingdom of Kent into the two dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester.

"Our Gavelkind Tenure and free Kentish customs, of which I have attempted a history in my recently published Consuetudines Kanciæ, gave rise to our well-known old provincial song of 'The Man of Kent,' its burthen being:

Charles Sandys, F.S.A.

Canterbury.