Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

In the Saxon we have the last word rendered “beor;"- Wickliffe gives "syder." But it must be allowed, that the words "strong drink" are by far more appropriate than either "beer "" or "cider." Antiently the latter word meant all kinds of strong liquors (except wine), but in that sense (as Doctor Johnson himself tells us), it has been long wholly obsolete, but certainly it was not so in Wickliffe's days. Beer was the usual and common beverage of our Saxon ancestors, into which they put Ground Ivy (and from the use to which it was applied, it afterwards obtained the names of "Alehoof" and "Tunhoof") instead of Hops.

It is probable that the Apple Tree was first propagated in this country by the followers of Wm. Duke of Normandy soon after the Battle of Hastings; and if that was the case, it was not unreasonable to suppose, that in the course of three centuries, from that event, to the time of publishing Wickliffe's Bible, they had become completely naturalized, and so much increased as to render Cider a common drink at that time in England, and therefore the venerable Rector of Lutterworth became fully justified in the use of the word "Sydyr," independant of the antient meaning of that term before hinted at.

[blocks in formation]

ACCOUNT OF THE ANTIENT SCULPTURES IN THE ROYAL MUSEUM AT PARIS; WITH REMARKS BY MR. FOSBROOKE. No. IV.

(Continued from p. 326.) XLIV. VENUS OF CNIDUS. A Bust. The antient head of this Goddess is of divine beauty; and it belonged to a copy of the Cnidian Venus, the chef-d'œuvre of Praxiteles. The other part is a restoration. (Visconti, p. 19.) The first writer upon Venuses is Lessing. He says, that restorers have been perpetually creating Venuses. "The greater part of these figures were torsos of women, without any appropriation; others were simple portraits of pretty women; others were Venuses, but without any of the attributes, which the restoring artist added, in creating in this manner, a Venus de Medicis, or a Venus Victrisc, Urania, &c. Thus, from all the statues restored in modern times, we can' learn nothing sure or positive con

cerning the different manners in which the antients represented this goddess."

As the Cnidian Venus is an interesting subject in Sculpture, it is worth while to discuss it at length.

"According to common opinion," says Lessing, the Venus de Medicis is the same as the Cnidian, that is to say, the chef-d'œuvre of Praxiteles, in marble, which was brought to Cnidus, and to which that town owed its celebrity and concourse of strangers. (Plin. xxxvi. 5. sect. 4, 5.) We know positively that this Venus had a similing air, that she was naked, and covered the sexual parts with her left hand. Lucian (Amor. 13.) says, that she is quite naked; if I understand well the sense of this passage, I find there proof that the hand did not cover the bosom; and, as far as I know, there is not found neither in Lucian, or the Anthologia, (where nevertheless there is a suite of Epigrams not very delicate on the Cnidian Venus) nor elsewhere any description of the rest of her attitude. It has been thought, that the Venus of Florence is that which was found at Cnidus; for from that town it was brought to Constantinople, and from thence, as they have perhaps thought, it was easy to bring it to Rome. According to Cedrenus, it must have been placed in the palace of Lausi at Constantinople; but I have no confidence in the assertions of Authors of that time, and of this kind. It is possible, that there was a Venus in the attitude of the Cuidian, but, that this was the identical statue, requires beiter proof. Even should this notice be more worthy of credit than it is, we may oppose the general conflagration under Leo 1. in 462, which destroyed three quarters of the town, and the Grand Imperial Library, with an infinity of antient works of art, as that may have destroyed the Cnidian Venus, as well as the Olympian Jupiter. The Authors, with whom I am acquainted, do not speak positively of these works, but they mention, in detail, the quarters and the places of the town, which were the prey of the flames; in this number is the palace of Lausi. (See Zonar. Ann. xiv. p. 50. Cedren. Hist. Comp. 348. Evagr. Hist. Eccles. L. 2. et Valois, ibid.")

"It is to be particularly observed, that the two arms of the Venus de Medicis

PART I.]

Antient Sculpture in France.

Medicis are modern: the right from the shoulder, and the left below the elbow. In general, she is composed of many pieces, antient and modern, especially the legs, which were entirely broken. It is said, that this accident happened when she was brought from Rome, under the pontificate of Innocent XI."

The Belvidere Venus, issuing from the Bath, is that which approaches nearest in attitude to the Cnidian. She covers with her right hand the sexual parts, and lifts with her left her drapery, laid upon a vase.”

Thus Lessing. Winckelman says, "The Venus de Medicis is similar to a rose, which appears at the end of a fine dawn, and expands at sun-rise. She is of that age, when the vessels begin to swell, and the bosom assumes its form. The eyes of Venus are full of sweetness, with the languishing and amorous look, which the Greeks called vypov. This look is very different from the lascivious traits, by which modern Sculptors have pretended to characterize their Venuses. For, by the antient Artists, as well as Philosophers, Love was regarded as the colleague of Wisdom. (Euripid. Med. v. 483.")

If I have said, that among the Goddesses, Venus alone, with the Graces and Hours, had the privilege of appearing naked, I have not pretended to say, that this Goddess was constantly represented without drapery. The Venus of Caidus by Praxitiles shows the contrary. (Plin. xxxvi. c. 5.)

Whether the Cnidian Venus be or

be not (probably not) the present Venus de Medicis, it is most certain that the real object is represented upon a Medallion, struck at Cnidus; and it corresponds in attitude with the Medicean, except that one arm is extended and holds drapery over a vase, presumed to contain perfumes. (See it engraved in Montfauc. Suppl. vol. I. p. 70. Ed. Humphreys). This attitude is certainly not so graceful as that of the restoration, where this arm screens the bosom, and such attitude is antient. Cedrenus positively says, "The Cuidian Venus is made of white marble, is naked, and covers her modesty with her hand only, and was made by Praxiteles of Cnidus." It was at Cnidus in the time of Arcadius and

587

Honorius: and was exhibited in a small temple, open on all sides, that it might be every way seen. But there is still an interesting addition to be made; this Venus of the French Museum, as Cnidian, ought to be an actual portrait of the famous courtesan, Phryné. (See Athenæus, 13. 6. and Posidippus in Clemens Alexandrinus, as quoted by Montfaucon) and that the attitude, by which the Cnidian, Medicean, and Mr. Hope's Venus are characterized, belonged to that class of persons, appears from some indelicate passages in Apuleius Metamorphos, L. ii. p. 36. ed. Bipont. Mr. Hope's Venus, of Parian marble, found at Baiæ, one of the most perfect Statues known, is in the attitude of the Medicean Venus, as to both arms; but both that and the figure of the Cnidian Medallion is taller than the famous Florentine Statue alluded to; nor are the Portraits similar. It is probable that many Venuses are portraits of favourite females, placed in the Medicean attitude, from popularity of the pattern. (To be continued.)

Mr. URBAN,

Louth, June 8. IN N answer to W. S. in p. 386, who is anxious to know what Selby Estate is alluded to in Hasted's History nected with the loss of that Estate to of Kent, or any circumstances conthe right heir; I beg leave to observe, that Thomas James Selby, esq. died in 1772; and in his Will (proved in December of that year) left his Estates to his "right and lawful heir;" for the better finding out of whom, he directed advertisements to be published immediately after his decease in some of the public Papers. He then adds:

"I do hereby order and direct the legacies to be paid by the said heir, his heirs, executors, or assigns, within twelve months after my decease; but should it so happen that no heir at law is found, I then do hereby constitute and appoint William condition he takes the name of Selby, I Lowndes, Esq. my lawful heir; and on give him the Estates and all the Manors before mentioned."

From the following Pedigree (which was communicated to me by a gentleman who resides in the vicinity of Spilsby), it appears that the present heir at law of the said Thomas James

Selby,

Selby, Esq. is Mr. John Hattersley, of Barton upon Humber.

inform me whether, under the circumstances above-mentioned, the Selby Estates may not still be recovered. I and others are of opinion that they are recoverable by the heir at law.

I should esteem it a favour if any of your Correspondents well acquainted with legal subjects, would Thomas Selby of Goxhill, co. Lincoln, baptized (Aug. 28, 1635), Mary Smith. Nov. 5, 1609; buried 1643.

[blocks in formation]

John Hattersley of Barton upon Humber, now living, 1820.
Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

HA

June 11. AVING it in my power to gratify W. S.'s wishes respecting the Selby Estate, noticed in the Minor Correspondence, p. 386, I beg leave to state that the Selby Estate alluded to is situate at Whaddon in the county of Bucks, and is of the annual value of about 30001. It was formerly the property of Serjeant Selby, who died about 50 years ago, and who by his will devised it to William Lowndes, Esq. of Winslow in Bucks, in the event of no person being able to prove himself the Serjeant's heir at law within 20 years after his death: there were several claimants, but they all failed in the necessary proofs of their lineage and affinity to the Serjeant. Mr. Lowndes, after the expiration of the twenty years, took the name of Selby in addition to that of Lowndes; and on his death, a few years back, the Estate devolved on his son William Selby Lowndes, Esq. who now resides at Whaddon, and who represented the County of Bucks in the last Parliament. J. A.

[blocks in formation]

R. U.

sanctioned by the approbation of Aatiquity. It is true that the Sovereign may alter the paternal Coat of Arms of any personage as he thinks proper ; yet when such an honourable mark of favour is conferred, I think the Heralds ought to be guided by the usage of past ages, when the science was in greater cultivation than at present, rather than any fantastic conceit of recent growth.

OSCAR seems by his question to be but little acquainted with the principles of marshalling Coats of Arms: he might have seen in any book that is written on the subject, that the Shield of a widower is not at all different from that of a married man whose wife is living. If a person, after his wife's death, quartered her family Coat with his own, as Oscar supposes he should, it would be taken for his mother's, according to the rules by which I have always understood Arms to be marshalled.

Londiniana, p. 401.

It appears by a passage in Hudibras that the Round Church in the Temple was formerly public, and was the haunt of characters not of the best description.

"Retain all sorts of witnesses

That ply i' th' Temples, under trees,

Or walk the Round, with Knights o'th'
posts,
About the cross-legg'd Knights, their hosts;
Or wait for customers, between
The pillar-rows in Lincoln's-inn *.”

• Part III, Canto iii. p. 213, edit. 1684. The

PART I.]

General Education justified.

The latter place is the crypt (if I may be allowed the term) upon which the Chapel of Lincoln's Inn is built, originally designed for a promenade. The terms Cross-legg'd Knights," and "Knights of the Post," are, I believe, well enough understood to require no explanation. E. I. C.

I

Mr. URBAN, Durham, June 5. T may be said, and truly so, that every man has an exclusive right to express his opinion publicly upon any subject connected with the public good; but still there is something inpolitic (not to say presumptive) in starting objections against a system of religious and moral instruction, which has been organized and matured by the wisdom of our best Counsels. However well I may feel disposed to think of the sincerity of those political speculatists, who imagine that such institutions are productive of mischief, I cannot but deprecate, at the same time, the impropriety of treating a subject of the gravest nature with so much levity as has been done on some recent occasions.

To characterize education as the fountain from whence disaffection and Radicalism take their rise, is going a little too far. Every general good may be said to have its particular evil, and this admitted, it consequently folJows that Education ought not to be an exception; but then what is the inference? Is it wise to sacrifice the general good to the extirpation of the partial evil, and in trying the experiment adventure upon the possibility only of effecting it? By suspending Education we know we diminish knowledge, but can we at the same time assure ourselves that we diminish crime in proportion? The bare uncertainty ought to command the most serious consideration. It is by no means a harmless experiment; be cause, should we prove unsuccessful in the attainment of the object, inevitable mischief must be the conse quence of the failure. Would it be reason sufficiently conclusive to abolish some of our humane institutions, the pride and glory of our country, because it may be proved that a few mischievous individuals have wantonly abused them? and would any man venture so far from reason and candour, as to blame the

a

589

institution for the abuse committed? yet something of analogy to this seems to be the reasoning of these "fanciful theorists," who will have nothing short of ignorance as the anodyne plaster to heal up the sore of disaffection. But with respectful deference to their opinions, I think it may be shown that Education is not the part to be blamed; and I think it may too, en passant, be doubted whether the remedy they propose would have the effect of curing the evil they complain of.

Your Correspondent Mr. Gilchrist, of Newcastle, has very ably defended the principle of National Schools; with his opinion I cordially agree: for what, I would ask, is there in the education of a Charity School that deserves the imputation of crime? What is the pious lessons of such a School that can give a leaning to infidelity or licentiousness? Does the Bible inculcate vice; or are the principles of the institution such as to train youth up in rebellion or disloyalty? Do not the very books from which their minds are formed, instil doctrines directly opposite,-good morality, passive obedience, and sound religion? Are not the founders of these Schools men of wisdom, property, and character? Can they be supposed to encourage the evils complained of? They have property to protect; so that it becomes their interest as well as their duty, to tranquillize the country; and must they then be suspected of promoting what in fact must be their utmost wish to suppress? or can it be imagined that our Church dignitaries, whose greatest care is to protect Christianity, and by every means to disseminate its doctrines throughout the nation, would thus sow the seeds of irreligion, were they conscious that such was the fact, or that National Schools had, in the smallest degree, such a tendency?

The opinion delivered by the Bishop of London at a late Anniversary Meeting, ought to be considered good authority, and is decidedly in favour of these Schools; he mentioned a remarkable fact at that Meeting, which ought not to be overlooked by those who may have withheld their patronage from Charity Schools, because of their supposed evil tendency; he said that however crime might not appear to have diminished, since the institution

institution was founded, yet the cause was found to be quite remote from Education; and, as a proof, he referred to two high authorities, one of which stated that out of 400 juvenile delinquents, only two had been educated at the National Schools. In short, if one proof stronger than another is wanted to show the efficacy of national instruction as a national advantage, it may be found in its patrons. We may all remember the opinion on this head of our late beloved and pious Monarch, when he said, "Let every poor child in the kingdom be instructed to read the Bible." We happily see the same charitable sentiment descend to his children; and it is no little recommendation to this enlightened country to see our Royal Family take the lead in promoting an Institution so congenial to its welfare, and so truly laudable in its design.

A CLERGYMAN OF
THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

On the Extent of the Historic Relation, in discovering and marshalling the Subjects of Human Knowledge. (Continued from p. 504.)

TH

HUS, men having once lost their way, it became a question, or matter of research and discovery, to know "Wherein consists virtue? What is happiness, conscience," &c. I can compare all this uproar and hubbub of the Sceptics to nothing else than to the confusion of tongues in the Tower of Babel. What shall we think of Hume writing a treatise upon Religion, and the professing to do it, without the assistance of the very faculty that is solely and exclusively appropriated to it? As much as the eye and light are necessary to vision, are faith and the scripture to Religion. But (in principle), conscience, virtue, happiness, are, from first to last, if not different energies of one and the same faculty, discoverable as well as connected and made manifest by one governing relation. In the confusion and disorder of our condition arising from the repeated fall and degradation of human nature, proved both by historical tradition, and historical analysis, the matter of divine truth being no more communicated rapidly and instantaneously along one chain-we are wandering

in the dark and the chain once broken, all is puzzle and inconsistency when man once departs from the historical order.

Thence arose the necessity of enumerating in a category, the broken parts of truth. Analysis has been made of happiness in this way: “It consists," say they, "first, in right opinions-then in active exertion or occupation:"-next in attaining the object of such exertions" or success: -next (proh! pudor) "in the testimony of a good conscience;" finally in the "just estimation of us by others," ratifying that testimony. But, the governing principle being once lost (indeed it is not so much as named or recollected in this enumetion) men were reduced in their speculations to a dry comparison, and weighing which of the above ingredients are the most valuable to bappiness-since they had no principle that could unite them all, and preserve them in ONE. In this storm of philosophy, some of these categories were therefore thrown overboard, to save the remainder. Or rather each ther principle, using it as a plank on person seised, some one, some ano

which to swim ashore:-That isupon the separation and analysis of the component parts of happinessTHIS man attached himself to one principle,—THAT to another-and so on-but each principle in exclusion of the rest.

The Epicurean system chose bodily pleasure (under temperance to œconomize its waste) requiring tranquillity and repose: of course not to be harmed, or thought ill of, or little of, by others. The Stoics, absolute independence of pain and opinion: the object of the Epicurean being to secure pleasure, of the Stoic to do without it. Plato at the head of the academicians made happiness consist in contemplation and discourse or study, with a perfect discipline in the tactics of speculation. Not knowing, authentically, the governing principle, but having heard of it, be elevated SoCRATES with some imaginary attributes, no doubt, into the supreme earthly governor, and the head of his monarchy: For such it was, though it is translated republic: and wxx means neither. It signifies "civil polity." He required, as the head of his monarchy, such a man as SOCRATES,

« VorigeDoorgaan »