« AnteriorContinuar »
mind was totally purified from earthly objects, and from any passion for grandeur, and she appeared to forget that she had been a queen. * Among the Gauls, when a father wished to marry his daughter he gave a liberal entertainment, to which he invited a great number of people, even strangers. At the conclusion of the entertainment, the daughter was called in, and from the guests she selected him for her husband, to whom she presented water. When the bridegroom received her fortune, he added to it an equal sum of his own. The whole money was then employed by them as they conceived to be most advantageous, and the profits of it placed apart. When either of the two died, the capital, and all that it had yielded, remained for the survivor. Husbands' had the power of life and death over their wives and children.--(D. Mart. Boug. Recueil des Hist. des Gaul. et de la Franc.) '-,' ' '
In the primitive ages of simplicity, évén princesses were inured to labour by a hardy education. They did not disdain employments which are now considered menial and de grading, for those employments were associated with their earliest ideas.
Nausicâe, the daughter of Alcinôus; king of the Phoea. cians, was commanded to wash her clothes, and make all necessary preparations for her marriage. The princess immediately repaired to the apartment of the king her father, where her mother was sitting near the fire with her women round her, spinning wool. Nausicäe asked a chariot of her father to carry her clothes to the river to be washed. Alcinộus ordered, a chariot, to which mules were harnessed. Nausicae's clothes were brought from her apartment, and thrown into the chariot. There likewise was placed by order of her mother, a basket of provisions for her dinner, with a bottle of wine. Nausicãe mounted the chariot, and drove to the riner, or to the place where they had receptacles of water for washing. The mules were unharnessed, and left to feed on the banks of the river, while the clothes were taken from the chariot and-washed; and while they were drying in the sun, they sat down to dinner.
Solon prohibited the giving of fortunes in marriage: he allowed the brides only to bring three robes, and some fürniture of little value. His intention was, to raise marriages from a selfish and despicable commerce, to an honourable
union for the increase of the human species—to a humane and agreeable state to the tenderest and sweetest friendship.
Dionysius, the Sicilian' tyrant, from a reverence to this harmonious connexion, gave the following answer to his moa ther, when she requested him to marry her to a young man of Syracuse :-_" To make myself master of a city, I have been able to force its laws; but I cannot force the laws of nature, to make improper marriages tolerable to each party. .
The custom of the Indian women burning themselves with the body of their husbands, originated, according to a passage in Diodorus Siculus, in consequence of the crime of a wife, who had poisoned her husband. . In ancient Egypt, polygamy was permitted, except to the priests, who were only allowed to have one wife: and whether the woman was a slave or free, her children were accounted legitimate, and enjoyed freedom as their birthright. · The hours of refection are singularly changed in little more than two centuries. In the reign of Francis the First of France, they were accustomed to say
Lever a cinq, diner a neuf,
Fait vivre d'ans nonante et neuf.
The King of Arracan assumes the following titles ;-Emperor of Arracan, Possessor of the White Elephant, and the two ear-rings; and in virtue of this possession, legitimate heir of Pegu and Brama; Lord of the twelve provinces of Bengal, and the twelve kings who place their heads under his feet.
The Caspians, in compliance with an ancient tradition, shut up their parents and let them die of hunger, when they had completed their seventieth year. When they were dead, they carried them to a desart place, and watched them at a distance. If the birds of prey came and drew them out of their coffins they concluded they were happy. They thought very differently of their immortal state, if their
bodies were dragged out by wild beasts, or by dogs. But they believed them to be supremely unhappy, if they were drawn out of the coffin by no animal. The Caspian dogs, according to Valerius Flaccus, were altogether as cruel and terrible as their masters.
The Egyptian kings, in early times, did not govern their subjects as was customary in other countries. They acted entirely as they were directed by the laws, to which they were accountable, not only for the administration of their kingdom, but likewise of their private conduct. They were not even allowed the service of bought slaves, nor of slaves born in their own houses; but the sons of the chief priests, of the age of twenty, and unquestionably the best educated youth in the nation, were placed about them, that his majesty, attended and observed night and day by the first young men of Egypt, might do nothing mean and unworthy his rank.
There were fixed hours of the day and night, which the king had not at his disposal, and in which he was obliged to discharge the duties prescribed him by the laws. , At break of day he was obliged to read all the letters addressed to him, that he might be authentically informed of the state and wants of his dominions—that he might reform all its political errors, and provide for all its necessities. After having bathed, he was clothed with a splendid robe, and took the other insignia of royalty to go and sacrifice to the Gods. When the victims were brought to the altar, the high priest stood up, and prayed aloud to the Gods that they would preserve the king, and shed upon him every prosperity, because he governed his subjects with justice. He afterwards inserted in the prayer all the virtues that should adorn a king; thus continuing his address to heaven-" because he is master of himself, magnanimous, benevolent, humane, a detester of falschood; his punishments are tempered with lenity; he shows more mercy to criminals than in rigid justice they deserve; and his rewards exceed the merit he encourages.”. After having mentioned many such particulars, he condemned the errors into which the king had been misled through ignorance. It is true, he exculpated his majesty, but he loaded the flatterers with execrations, and also all those who gave their sovereign bad counsel.. Such was the manner of the high priests, because they thought advice,
mixed with praise, more efficacious than keen remonstrances, to lead kings to the love of virtue.
The king was not only obliged to give audience, and to administer justice at stated times, but he could not walk, bathe, nor even sleep with his wife, except according to the regulated hours. No fesh but that of veal and duck was allowed him; and a measure of wine was given him, not sufficient either' to intoxicate, nor in the least degree weaken his judgment.
London Magazine. ', (To be concluded in our next.)
SINGULAR MANNERS OF LONDON IN THE FIFTEENTH
AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES.
[The manners, customs, and ceremonies of the inbabitants of London,
are at least curious, if not instructive; and I think many of them might, in the hands of a good writer, be made eminently interesting. In the fifteenth century, the higher orders of the inhabitants of London were as remarkable for chastity, as they have at some periods since been for the reverse.]
Henry VI. celebrated for his modesty and chastity, once witnessed a masque for his amusement. The ladies who assisted in the perforrnance were rather wantonly dressed, exhibit. ing part of their breasts, and their hair loose on their necks, The king, though unmarried, immediately rose, and left the apartment, exclaiming, “ Fie, fie, forooth you are much to blame."
The custom of taking sanctuary, by robbers, and all descriptions of villians, was common, although confined within the bounds of the metropolis. The abbey of St. Peter's, Westminster, and St. Martin-le-grand, were the only places allowed that privilege, which seems to have been coeval with the foundation of the former. Amongst the virtuous who fled there for refuge, was the widow of Edward iv. with her son, the Duke of York. This step greatly embarrassed the Duke of Gloucester and his friends, who were at a loss how to capture them, without violating the rights of the church, a measre then too dangerous even for a vindictive, artful, and cruel ušurper. In relating the particolars of this event, Sir Thomas More, in his life of Edward v. gives several circumstarices which occurred in the council, explanatory of the sanctuary. The archbishop of Canterbury mentioned the .antiquity of the custom: and the fact that not one king who had borne the sceptre of England had ever attempted to interfere with it; so well convinced they were of its importance in preserving the lives of the innocent. He therefore recommended persuasives only to accomplish their wishes. The Duke of Buckingham insinuated, that the sanctuary would be considered as a very trißling obstacle by the people, were they disposed to demand the queen ; which he hypocritically deprecated, though he could not help thinking good men might less value its privileges, without cornmitting a serious offence against religion; not that he would, by any means, interfere with so venerable an institution; yet he would, without scruple, oppose a similar, were it now first introduced. He admitted it was a deed of piety, that men deprived of their property by shipwreck, and other means, should have a place of refuge from the malice of their creditors. Besides, he acknowledged there were advantages attending it, when civil contentions forced the partisans on either side to take asylum from the terrors of the axe. But, instead of this commendable use of the sanctuary, it was known to abound with thieves and murderers. “Now, look,” said the duke," “ how few sanctuary-men there be whom necessity or misfortune compelled to go thither: and then see, on the other side, what a sort there be commonly therein, of such whom wilful unthristiness liath brought to nought; what a rabble of thieves, murderers, and malicious heinous traitors there be, and that in two places especially, the one at the elbow of the city, and the other in the very bowels. I dare well avow it, if you weigh the good they do, with the hurt that cometh of them, ye shall find it much better to lose both than to have both.
The term Cockney applied to the natives of the City of London, or that part of it in ancient times inclosed by a wall, and supposed to live within reach of the sound of Bow bell, is of greater antiquity than the custom is commendable. Shakspeare makes use of it in a ludicrous sense: but Mr. Douce, in liis comments on certain passages of the plays of that excellent dramatist, seems to think, " that it originates in an Utopian region of indulence and luxury, formerly denominated in the country of Cocaigne." However that may be the fact, we know other English writers, anterior to Shakspeare, used it in the same sense. As the inhabitants