Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

Honour to whom Honour.

MR. URBAN,

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 stile runs, the lords spiritual and tem poral 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.

[ocr errors]

But what can be the meaning of this partiality? I take the case to be this; before the Reformation the prelates, 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 stiled 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 kings 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.

MR. URBAN,

XLIII. On the Egyptian Lotus,

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, agree ing herein with my valuable friend; but then it should be remembered, that this last had never seen Mons. Mahudel's

dissertation, and therefore his paper is justly entitled to all the honour and merit of an original discovery.

Yours, &c.

SAMUEL PEGGE.

Cubbit, April 2, 1759.

THE flower of the lotus, which adorns the heads of Isis and Orus, was almost peculiarly sacred to those two Egyptian deities. It has, however, the misfortune of losing more than half its beauties with many, because they are ignorant of the meaning of this attribute. For as, when the reverses of medals, or other monuments of antiquity, that express to us any allegorical deities, do clearly reveal to us the mystic knowledge they contain, no species of learning can be found more pleasing and instructive; so, on the other hand, if the devices remain obscure or unintelligible, what are they but mere blanks or chimæras, affording neither curiosity nor entertainment. They therefore, who have a taste for disquisitions of this kind, will find, that of all rational amusements, which tend to improve and refine the human understanding, none give us more noble ideas of man's be nevolence or his public spirit, than what is to be met with on the reverses of ancient coins, when once they are thoroughly understood. They represent their princes and great men in their most glorious characters, exhibiting them as public blessings, and the greatest benefactors of mankind.

Thus then, if we would have a true knowledge of medals, we must consider their reverses as denoting their meaning, 1st, by representation, 2dly, by symbols, 3dly, by hiero glyphics; these being the characteristics, whereby the an cients were wont to record their public benefactions, toge ther with the virtues of their heroes, on medals.

The device I undertake to explain, is the flower on the head of Isis, and in the hand of Orus, without concerning myself with any other part of the medal; and this I consider, not as it was received by the Romans in the reign of the emperor Hadrian, but as it was understood by the Egyptians in the earliest ages, even on the canonization of those deities. It seems to have been so long immersed and in such dark oblivion, that in the later times there was no vestige remaining of its first and original state. Isis is represented on this reverse as sitting on a chair of state, with a flower of the lotus on her head, and her son Orus sitting on her lap, naked, with the same flower on his head, with a long stalk and a flower at its extremity, in his left hand,

which I shall endeavour to prove, by analogy, to be the stalk and flower of the lotus.

The various opinions concerning this plant have hitherto rendered every determination very uncertain; and such false and precarious explanations must abate and lessen the credit of those who have so grossly misrepresented it: • Florem illum sacrum Isidis capiti impositum, loti esse putat Laur. Pignorius in expositione Mensæ Isiacæ, et recte, utpote quem Egyptii magnificerunt, ut constat ex Plinii, lib. xiii. c. 17 et 18. aliis abrotanum referre videtur, de quo Plinius lib. XXI. c. 10 et 21. roborando utero, vel erucam, de qua dictum,

"Excitat ad Venerem tardos eruca maritos,

sunt qui Perseam interpretentur, cujus arbor Isidi sacra fuit.' Oiselius. If Pliny means the birds-foot trefoil, or any other land plant, it is certain he knew nothing of the true lotus; and, if this great naturalist knew not what it was, we may take it for granted, that the people of Rome knew less, who seem, in this case, to have worshipped these deities rather from the knowledge they had of their fables, than the history of their lives; in short, they appear to have known them better as gods, than as mortals.

As for our modern professors of virtù, they are so wide from the mark, that they have quite mistaken the element in which the plant grows; for if there be any credit to be given to Herodotus, the lotus is not a land plant, as they suppose it, but an aquatic, the water, and not the land being its proper situation; it was on the overflowing of the Nile, that this father of history saw it floating on the wat e in great abundance: ἐπεὰν πλήρης γίνηται ὁ ποταμὸς, νὰ τὰ πεδία πελαγίση, φύεται ἐν τῷ ὕδαλι κρίνια πολλα, τὰ ̓Αιγύπλιοι καλέεσι λωτον ταῦτ ̓ ἐπεὰν δρέψωσι, αυαίνωσι πρός ἥλιον καὶ ἔπελα τὸ ἐκ τῶ μέσω τὸ λωΐδ, τῷ μήκων, ἐὸν ἐμφερές, ὀπλήσανες, ποιεῦνται ἐξ αὐτὸ ἄρτὲς ὀπτὲς πυρὶ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ ῥίζα τὸ λωτο τετε ἐδωδίμη καὶ ἐγγλύσσες ἐπιεικέως ἐὸν σφογγύλον, μέγεθος nara unλov. 'When the river is become full, and all the grounds round it are a perfect sea, there grows a vast quantity of lilies, which the Egyptians called lotus, in the water. After they have cut them, they dry them in the sun; then, having parched the seed within the lotus, which is most like the poppy, they make bread of it, baking it with fire. The root also of the lotus is eatable, easily becoming sweet, being round, and of the size of an apple.' Herodotus Eut. c. 92. From so plain a direction, in so celebrated an author, it is strange how the writers, mentioned by Oiselius, could be guilty of such a notorious blunder, as to seek this plant

on land, where it never did or could grow, instead of the water, where they might have been sure to have found it without much trouble, if they had but trusted to the evidence of an eye-witness, and not to their own fanciful imaginations.

The lotus being thus re-instated in its proper element, from whence it has been unfortunately transported for so many ages, the next thing to be done, is, to consider where and to what tribe to refer this plant. This now is no difficult task to one whose wretched destiny it is, to live in the Delta of England, where the principal prospect is water, whereon are crawling insects innumerable, and in which grow some plants, and amongst the rest the lotus.

If analogy, or similitude, can be admitted as a reason, I will then venture to pronounce, that the Egyptian lotus, and the nymphæa alba major, are one and the same plant, and that there is no difference between them, but what is occasioned by the variety or difference of climates.

Before the reader gives his determination, he should compare what Herodotus has said of the inside of the flower-cup of the lotus, with the inside of the flower-cup of the nymphæa, or the white water lily, and he will find an exact similitude. But this is not all; he must view the stalk, with the flower at its extremity, in the medal, along with the nymphæa, when floating in the water in July, in all its glory, from whence he will be clearly convinced, that the stalk in the hand of Orus, with the flower at its extremity, can be no other but the white water lily. This I can assert, that after frequently examining them together, to me they seem in every part alike.

The lotus being now found not only to be an aquatic, but also to belong to a certain species, it is to be hoped we may from hence investigate the reason, why it was so particularly dedicated to the goddess Isis and her son Orus. It is well known that the Egyptians perpetuated their memorable facts by figures, which, when ascribed to their deities, often inculcated a double meaning; that is, they had different meanings, according to the different manners in which they were represented. Thus the lotus in this reverse, has a two-fold meaning; it is both a representation and a symbol, according to its different situation, and partakes not at all of the hieroglyphic, as it stands here.

In the hand of Orus it is figurative; importing no less a transaction, than his preservation. The Egyptians could not devise a more significant attribute to perpetuate the momentous event in the life of Isis, the saving of her son

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »