follows: Master, oh the unthankfulnesse of men! but what hope had our first parents, and from thencefourth the rest, whereby they were relieved.' There is no other stop of the like kind, in so much of the book as I have by me (which is imperfect) and not one semicolon. 1759, April. Yours, &c. E. GREENSTEAD. XLI. On the ancient Custom of Burning the Dead. MR. URBAN, SIR Thomas Brown, in his spirited treatise, entitled Hydriotaphia, incidently introduces the ancient usage of burning the dead. It were to be wished, that he, and all those, who preceded him in the disquisition of so abstruse a theme, had considered the subject with a little more attention. One general error seems to have been adopted; that by such a precipitate dissolution, the ethereal flame, or soul of man, was purified by its disunion from the gross and servile bandages of matter. Heraclitus, it seems, was the first expositor of this doctrine; by whose means the practice became general in every region of Greece. According to him, fire was the predominant principle in the human fabric; and that therefore by the reduction of the body to its first principles, the purity and incorruptibility of its magisterial parts were, by such means, better preserved. To this purpose is Euripides, in speaking of Clytemnestra, τυρί καθήγνισαι δίμας. There was indeed another opinion, which had its foundation in policy which was, that by buruing the body, all rage and malice, the general issues of hatred and enmity, which often survived their object, were checked and prevented, But as this reason grew out of the custom, established a long time before; so the custom in its original, grew out of reasons previous to those beforementioned. It is matter of surprize, that so ingenious a writer as sir Thomas Brown should have imbibed the general opinion; and not rather have corrected it, by expatiating a little farther into that fruitful soil, where he would soon have discovered a clearer prospect. Two considerations then will arise here. The first relates to the antiquity, and the second to the intention, of this custom. Its antiquity rises as high as the Theban war; where we are told of the great solemnity that accompanied this ceremony at the pyre of Meneceus and Archemorus, who were cotemporary with Jair, the eighth judge of Israel. Homer abounds with funeral obsequies of this nature. Penthesilea, queen of the Amazons, we find, underwent this fiery dissolution. In the inward regions of Asia, the practice was of very ancient date, and the continuance long: for we are told, that in the reign of Julian, the king of Chinoniat burnt his son's body, and deposited the ashes in a silver urn. Coeval almost with the first instances of this kind in the east, was the practice in the western parts of the world. The Herculeans, the Getes, and Thracians, had all along observed it; and its antiquity was as great, with the Celta, Sarmatians, and other neighbouring nations. Under the second consideration then, cannot we turn up, and examine the earth a little about the roots of this custom, and see if they do not spread farther then general observation has hitherto gone? Can we not deduce this pyral construction, the supremos honores of this kind, from our own feelings? Yes-the custom has its foundation laid deep in nature. An anxious fondness to preserve the memory of the great and good, the dear friend, and the near relation, was the sole motive that prevailed in the institution of this solemnity. Wherefore Heraclitus, when he spoke of fire, as the master principle in all things (the custom of burning bodies existing long before his time) could not be supposed to lay down this doctrine, as a reason for the custom, but as a persuasion to ease the minds of those, who thought there was too much barbarity and inhumanity in the practice of it. Let us see, if the ancients do not furnish us with symptoms of this tenderness. In Homer we see this confirmed, —ὁ δὲ πάννυχος ὠκὺς ̓Αχιλλεὺς Χρυσία ἐκ κρητῆρος, έλων δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον, Iliad v. 218. 2. Calaber. lib. i. + Ammianus Marcellinus. ‡ Arnoldis Montanis L. L. Gyraldus. At Hector's funeral, the preservation of the ashes was the principal concern of the friends and relations that at tended. Πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ πυρκαϊὴν σβέσαν αἴθοπι οἴνω Iliad 2.791. The ashes, when collected and deposited in an urn, were preserved as a memorial of the goodness or greatness of the party deceased; as an example to excite the same ardour in the minds of those who survived. These were kept in some convenient place, in the house of the next relation or friend. Achilles, we find, had the remains of his dear Patroclus in his tent. Ἐν κλισίησι δὲ θέντες, ἐανῷ λιτὶ κάλυψανο Iliad E. 352. Tibullus introduces the same custom, where he speaks of the mother's absence, whose duty it had been to have preserved her son's remains. -Non hic mihi Mater, Quæ legat in mastos ossa perusta sinus. Thus it appears, that the reduction of the body to ashes, the urnal inclosure of those ashes, the frequent contemplation of them in the urn, were thought good expedients to keep alive the memory of those, who were in their lives most conspicuous in the walk of fame. These were the springs, from whence this custom issued. In the celebrated instance of Artemisia, the fondness extended almost to a deification. A case this, not unlike what we experience in our own times: when a lock of hair, a ring, a seal, which was the property of a deceased friend, and which we have in our possession, is looked upon with reverence, and a peculiar pleasure in the contemplation. Yours, &c. E. BOCHART. P.S. In your last magazine, Mr. Greenstead says, he finds the admiration stop in king Edward's Catechism. I have borrowed the book, and can see no such stop in the place he mentions. I would advise him to look again, and see whether it is not rather the artifice of the pen, than the product of the press. 1759, May. XLII. Of Honour due to the Wives of Prelates. MR. URBAN, Honour to whom Honour. Rom. xiii. 7. IT is matter of wonder with many, that the wives of our prelates are not dignified with the titles of ladies, as the consorts of the lay lords are; and indeed there is some room for it, as the style runs, the lords spiritual and temporal in parliament assembled,' by which, precedence being manifestly allotted to the spiritual peers, one would imagine their wives ought in reason to rank at least with the wives of the other. Besides, the refusing them this title is by no means consonant to the courtesy of England, in other respects, which in general is inclined rather to exceed, than be sparing of civility, to the fair sex more especially; thus the consort of the lord mayor of York, is a lady for the whole course of her life, and the wives of baronets, and, even of knights bachelors, do all enjoy the same titles; and yet the wives of the archbishops of Canterbury were no more than Mrs. Wake, or Mrs. Potter, though their husbands, by their dignity, had the precedence of dukes, the highest order of peers. And so it was anciently, for I remember to have read some where, I think in Strype's Life of archbishop Parker, that queen Elizabeth leaving Lambeth, after an entertainment, spoke in this manner to the archbishop's wife, Mistress, I will not call you, and madam, I must not call you, but however,' says she, 'I thank you?' Where you will please to observe, that madam, at that time of day, signified the same as my lady;' in French, madame; in Italian, ma donna. But what can be the meaning of this partiality? I take the case to be this; before the Reformation, the prelate, as is well known, did not marry, so that no provision of this kind, could be made till then; and at that time, and after, as in the reign of queen Elizabeth and James I. puritanism, which is seldom over-burthened with politeness, ran so strong, that the bishops were not likely to acquire any new privileges; attempts were made to deprive them of some of their old ones, but I question whether any one instance can be given of a new privilege conferred upon their order, as a separate body from the lay lords. But what would you have done in this case? No more, Mr. Urban, than what is fitting, and common decency and civility so apparently require, which is, that in direct addresses, the wives of the bishops should be styled ladies; and that, in speaking of them, as their husbands write themselves John Canterbury, Edward Duresme, &c. so their wives should be called lady John Canterbury, and lady Edward Duresme, &c. And this method, I apprehend, would answer every purpose, not only supply our present want of civility in this respect, but also be sufficient to distinguish the lady of the bishop from that of the lay lord, where both take their titles from the same place, as in Oxford, Lincoln, and the rest. It would also, in all probability, be sufficient in all cases to discriminate the surviving wife of a predecessor from that of a successor, or successors, as it might happen, since the christian names of their husbands are not often the same. Lastly, I would have the lady to subscribe herself Ethelred W. Canterbury, and then, if the deputy earl marshal would pass an act in the office of arms, or but issue his command to the king of arms, to make the proper entries there, and after that would cause a proclamation to be made in the Gazette, as is done in cases of public mourning, the business I suppose would be effected. 1759, April. Yours, &c. PAUL GEMSEGE, XLIII. On the Egyptian Lotus. MR. URBAN, THE following dissertation on a very curious subject, appeared to me, upon the perusal, to have so much merit, that I obtained leave of my learned and ingenious friend, the author, to impart it to the public by means of your excellent monthly collection. Mons. Mahudel, in Montfaucon's Antiqq. tom. vi. saw plainly, that the lotus of Egypt was an aquatic plant, and a species of the nymphæa, agreeing herein with my valuable friend; but then it should be remembered, that this last had never seen Mons. Mahudel's |