{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39264/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39264","id":"gutenberg_39264","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39264","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Art","Category: History - Religious","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Christian art and symbolism","Church decoration and ornament","Grotesque"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE GROTESQUE IN CHURCH ART.\n\n\n\n\n  Only 400 copies of this Book published\n  for Sale, and this is No. 315\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: THE STORY OF JONAH, RIPON.]\n\n\n\n\n  The Grotesque\n  in Church Art\n\n\n  By T. Tindall Wildridge\n\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., 5, FARRINGDON AVENUE, E.C.\n  1899.\n\n\n\n\nPreface.\n\n\nThe designs of which this book treats have vast fields outside the English\nchurch works to which it has been thought good to limit it. Books and\nbuildings undoubtedly mutually interchanged some forms of their ornaments,\nyet the temple was the earlier repository of man's ideas expressed in art,\nand the proper home of the religious symbolism which forms so large a\nproportion of my subject. In view also of the ground I have ventured to\nhint may be taken up as to the derivation, of a larger number than is\ngenerally supposed, of church designs from heathen prototypes by the hands\nof apprenticed masons, it is fitting that the evidences should be from\ntheir chisels. The only exceptions are a few wall-paintings, which serve\nto point a difference in style and origin.\n\nIn every case the examples are from churches in our own land. The\nconclusions do not nearly approach a complete study of the questions, the\nresearch to the present, great as it is, chiefly shewing how much has yet\nto be learned in order to accurately compare the extant with the\nlong-forgotten. The endeavour has been to present sufficient to enable\ngeneral inferences to be drawn in the right direction.\n\nOf the numerous works consulted in the course of this essay, the most\nuseful has been \"Choir Stalls and their Carvings,\" sketched by Miss Emma\nPhipson. While tendering my acknowledgments for much assistance obtained\nfrom that lady's book, I would add that the 'second series' suggested\ncannot but equal the first as a service to the cause of comparative\nmythology and folk-lore.\n\nThis place may be taken to dispose of two kinds of grotesques in church\nart which belong to my title, though not to my intention.\n\nThe memorial erections put into so many churches after the middle of the\nsixteenth century are to be placed in the same category as the less often\nludicrous effigies of earlier times, and may be dismissed as \"ugly\nmonumental vanities, miscalled sculpture.\" The grotesqueness of some of\nthese sepulchral excrescences may in future centuries be still more\napparent, though to many even time cannot supply interest. Not all are\nlike the imposing monument to a doctor in Southwark Cathedral, on which,\nby the way, the epitaph is mainly devoted to laudation of his _pills_.\nYet, though the grotesque is not entirely wanting in even these monuments,\nit is chiefly through errors of taste. The worst of them are more pathetic\nthan anything else. The grotesque proper implies a proportion of levity,\nwhereas the earnestness evinced by these effigies are more in keeping with\nthe solemnity of the church's purpose than the infinitely more artistic\nand unobtrusive ornament of the fabric. The other class of grotesque is\nthe modern imitation of mediaeval carving, with original design. Luckily,\nit is somewhat rare to find the spirit of the old sculptors animating a\nmodern chisel. One of the best series of modern antiques of this kind is a\nset of gargoyles at St. Nicholas's, Abingdon, executed about 1881, of\nwhich I think it worth while to append a warning sample.\n\nThese two classes are left out of account in the following pages.\n\n[Illustration: MODERN GARGOYLE, ABINGDON, 1881.]\n\n\n\n\nContents.\n\n\n                                                      PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                                                v\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                           1\n\n  DEFINITIONS OF THE GROTESQUE                           5\n\n  THE CARVERS                                            9\n\n  THE ARTISTIC QUALITIES OF CHURCH GROTESQUES           19\n\n  GOTHIC ORNAMENT NOT DIDACTIC                          24\n\n  INGRAINED PAGANISM                                    27\n\n  MYTHIC ORIGIN                                         34\n\n  HELL'S MOUTH                                          60\n\n  SATANIC REPRESENTATIONS                               64\n\n  THE DEVIL AND THE VICES                               78\n\n  ALE AND THE ALEWIFE                                   99\n\n  SATIRES WITHOUT SATAN                                106\n\n  SCRIPTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS                             112\n\n  MASKS AND FACES                                      121\n\n  THE DOMESTIC AND POPULAR                             134\n\n  THE PIG AND OTHER ANIMAL MUSICIANS                   152\n\n  COMPOUND FORMS                                       157\n\n  NONDESCRIPTS                                         169\n\n  REBUSES                                              173\n\n  TRINITIES                                            175\n\n  THE FOX IN CHURCH ART                                184\n\n  SITUATIONS OF GROTESQUE ORNAMENT IN CHURCH ART       213\n\n  INDEX                                                219\n\n[Illustration: A ROOF SUPPORTER, EWELME, OXON.]\n\n\n\n\nThe Grotesque in Church Art.\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction.\n\n\n[Illustration: GORGONIC MASK, EWELME.]\n\nThe more lofty the earlier manifestations of man's intellect, the more\ncomplete and immediate seems to have been their advancement. That is to\nsay, where the products of genius depend mainly upon the recognition of\ngreat principles and deliberate adherence to them, they are more\nsatisfying than when success depends upon dexterous manipulation of\nmaterial. What I have in view in this respect in connection with\narchitecture has its co-relative in language. The subtlety and poetic\nforce of Ayran roots shew a refined application of principle--that of\nimagery--in far advance of the languages rising from them. The successive\ngrowths of the detail of language, for use or ornament,--and the useful of\none age would seem to become the ornamental of another--necessarily often\nforsake the high purity of the primeval standard, and give rise, not only\nto the commonplace, but, by misconception or wantonness, to perversion of\ntaste. So in architecture. Temples were noble before their ornaments. The\ngrotesque is the slang of architecture. Nowhere so much as in Gothic\narchitecture has the grotesque been fostered and developed, for, except\nfor a blind adherence to ancient designs, due to something like gild\ncontinuity, the whole detail was introduced apropos of nothing. The\nassisting circumstance would appear to have been the indifference of the\narchitects to the precise significance of the detail ornaments of their\nbuildings. Gothic, or in fact any architecture admitting ornament, calls\nfor crisp sub-regular projections, which shall, by their prominence and\nbroken surface, attract the eye, but by the vagueness of their general\nform attract it so slightly as to lose individuality in a general view.\nThese encrusting ornaments, by their opposition to the light of what the\ncarvers call a \"busy\" surface, increase and accentuate rather than detract\nfrom the effect of the sweep of arches or dying vistas of recurring\npillars. They afford a sort of punctuation, or measurers of the rhythm of\nthe composition. Led from point to point, the eye gathers an impression of\nrich elaboration that does not interfere with its appreciation of the\norderliness of the main design.\n\nThese objects gained, the architects did not, apparently, enquire what the\nlesser minds, who carved the boss or dripstone, considered appropriate\nornament. Hence we have a thousand fancies, often beautifully worked out,\nbut often utterly incongruous with the intent of the edifice they are\nintended to adorn, and unworthy of the architecture of which they are a\npart.\n\nAs in language the grotesque is sometimes produced by inadvertency and\nmisconception, so in ornament not all the grotesque is of set purpose, and\nhere the consideration of the less development of the less idea has its\nchief example. As original meaning became lost, the real merit of\nearnestness decreased, and the grotesque became an art.\n\nMoreover, the execution of Gothic ornament is excellent in proportion to\nits artistic easiness. Thus the foliate and florate designs are better\ncarved than the animal forms, and both better than the human. With the\nexception of little else besides the Angel Choir at Lincoln, and portions\nof the Percy Shrine at Beverley, there is nothing in Gothic representation\nof sentient form really worthy of the perfect conceptions of architecture\nafforded by scores of English churches. It may, of course, be considered\nthat anything but conventional form is out of place as architectural\nornament; on the other hand, it must not be ignored that conventionality\nis a growth. It is only to be expected, therefore, that where the artist\nfound character beyond his reach he fell readily into caricature, though\nit is a matter for surprise to find such a high standard of ability in\nthat, and in the carved work generally. We find no instances of carving so\nlow in absolute merit as are the best of the wall-paintings of the same\nperiods.\n\nThe sources from which the artists obtained their material are as wide as\nthe air. A chief aim of this volume is to indicate those sources, and this\nis done in some cases rather minutely, though not in any exhaustively. The\npoint of view from which the subject is surveyed is that the original\ndetail of the temples entirely consisted of symbols of worship and\nattributes, founded chiefly upon astronomical phenomena: that owing to the\ngild organization of the masons, the same forms were mechanically\nperpetuated long after the worship of the heavenly bodies had given way to\nChristianity, often with the thinnest veil of Christian symbolism thrown\nover them. To this material, descended from remote antiquity, came\ngradually to be added a multitude of designs from nature and from fancy.\n\n[Illustration: HARPY, EXETER.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: RAGE AND TERROR, RIPON.]\n\n\nDefinitions of the Grotesque.\n\n\nThe term \"Grotesque,\" which conveys to us an idea of humourous distortion\nor exaggeration, is simply _grotto-esque_, being literally the style of\nart found in the grottos or baths of the ancients. The term rose towards\nthe end of the fifteenth century, when exhumation brought to light the\nfantastic decorations of the more private apartments of the licentious\nRomans. The use at that period of a similar style for not unsimilar\npurposes gave the word common currency, and it has spread to everything\nwhich, combined with wit or not, provokes a smile by a real or pretended\nviolation of the laws of Nature and Beauty. In its later, and not in its\noriginal, meaning is the word applied to the extraordinary productions of\nchurch art. We may usefully inquire as to the causes of those remarkable\ncharacteristics of Gothic art which have caused the word Grotesque to\nfittingly describe so much of its detail.\n\nThe joke has a different meaning for every age. The capacity for\nsimultaneously recognizing likeness and contrast between things the most\nincongruous and wide-sundered, which is at the root of our appreciation of\nwit, humour, or the grotesque, is a quality of slow growth among nations.\nNo doubt early man enjoyed his laugh, but it was a different thing from\nthe laughter of our day. Many races have left no suspicion of their ever\nhaving smiled; even where there are ample pictorial remains, humour is\ngenerally unrepresented. The Assyrians have left us the smallest possible\ngrounds for crediting them with its possession. Instances have been\nadduced of Egyptian humour, but some are doubtful, and in any case the\nproportion of fun per acre of picture is infinitesimally small. The\nGreeks, perhaps, came the nearest to what we consider the comic, but with\nboth Greek and Roman the humour has something of bitterness and sterility;\neven in what was professedly comic we cannot always see any real fun.\nWhere it strikes out unexpectedly in brief flashes it is with a cold light\nthat leaves no impression of warmth behind. The mechanical character of\ntheir languages, with a multitude of fixed formulae, is perhaps an index to\ntheir mental development. The subtleties of wit ran in the direction of\ngratifying established tastes and prejudices by satirical references, but\nrarely condescending to amuse for mere humour's sake. Where is found the\nnearest approach to merriness is in what now-a-days we regard as the least\ninteresting and meritorious grade of humour, the formal parody. The Greeks\nhad, outside their fun, let it be noted, something better than jococity,\nand that was joyousness. The later Romans became humourous in a low way\nwhich has had a permanent influence upon literature and art.\n\nSense of humour grew with the centuries, and by the time that the Gothic\nstyle of architecture arose, appreciation of the ludicrous-in-general\n(_i.e._ that which is without special reference to an established phase of\nthought) is traceable as a characteristic of, at least, the Teuton\nnations. It must be admitted that the popular verbal fun of the middle\nages is not always easy to grasp, but it cannot be denied that where\nunderstood, or where its outlet is found in the graphic or glyphic arts,\nthere is allied to the innocent coarseness and unscrupulousness, a\nrichness of conceit, a wealth of humour, and a delicate and accurate sense\nof the laughable far beyond Greek wit or Roman jocularity.\n\nIt is to the embodiments of the spirit of humour as found in our mediaeval\nchurches that our present study is directed.\n\nIt may be as well to first say a little upon those comicalities which may\nbe styled 'grotesques by misadventure.' This is a branch of the subject to\nbe approached with some diffidence, for it is in many cases difficult to\ndiscriminate between that which was intended to be grotesque, and that\nwhich was executed with serious or often devout feelings, but for one of\nseveral causes often presenting to us an irresistibly comic effect.\n\nThe causes may be five. First, the varying mechanical and constructive\nincompetency of the artists to embody their ideas. Second, the copying of\nan earlier work with executive ability, with strong perception of its\nunintentional and latent humour, but without respect to, or without\nknowledge of, its serious meaning. Third, the use of symbolic\nrepresentation, in which the greater the skill, often the greater the\nludicrous effect. Fourth, the change of fashion, manners, and customs.\nFifth, a bias of mind which impelled to whimsical treatment.\n\nConsideration of the causes thus roughly analysed will explain away a\nlarge proportion of the irreverence of the irreverent paintings and\ncarvings which excite such surprise, and sometimes disgust, in the minds\nof many modern observers of ecclesiological detail.\n\nIt will be seen that the placing of carvings in any one of these five\nclasses, or in the category of intentional grotesques, must, in many\ncases, be a mere matter of opinion. For the present purpose it will not be\nnecessary to separate them, except so far as the plan of the work does it\nautomatically. Many ecclesiastical and other seals afford familiar\ninstances of the 'comic without intention,' parallel to what is said above\nas to carvings.\n\n\n\n\nThe Carvers.\n\n\n[Illustration: LINCOLN, _14th cent._]\n\nSeemingly probability and evidence go hand in hand to shew that a great\nbulk of the church mason work of this country was the work of foreigners.\nSaxon churches were probably first built by Roman workmen, whose erections\nwould teach sufficient to enable Saxons to afterward build for themselves.\nImported talent, however, is likely to have been constantly employed.\nEdward the Confessor brought back with him from France new French designs\nfor the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey, and doubtless he brought French\nmasons also. Anglo-Norman is strongly Byzantine in character, and though\nthe channels through which it passed may be various, there is little doubt\nthat its origin was the great Empire of the East. Again, the great\nworkshop of Europe, where Eastern ideas were gathered together and\ndigested, and which supplied cathedrals and cathedral builders at command,\nwas Flanders; and there is little doubt that during some five centuries\nafter the Norman Conquest, Flemings were employed, in a greater or less\ndegree, on English work. Italians were largely employed. The Angel Choir\nof Lincoln is one distinct witness to that. The workmen who executed the\nfinely-carved woodwork of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, King's College,\nCambridge, and Westminster Abbey, in the sixteenth century, were chiefly\nItalians, under the superintendence of Torregiano, a Florentine artist. He\nwas a fellow-pupil of Michael Angelo, and is best known by the dastardly\nblow he dealt him with a mallet, disfiguring him for life. The resentment\nof Lorenzo de Medici at this caused Torregiano to leave Florence. He came\nto England in 1503.\n\nThe architect, however, of King Henry VII.'s Chapel was Bishop Alcock, an\nEnglishman, born at Hull, the already existing Grammar School of which\nplace he endowed, and, perhaps, rebuilt. Many other architects of English\nbuildings were Englishmen, probably the majority, and doubtless a large\nproportion of the workmen also,[1] but it would be idle to deny that\nimported art speaks loudly from work of all the styles.\n\nThe carved detail may be relied upon to tell us something, and it speaks\nof an original reliance upon the East, which was never outgrown. The\ncarvings found in England are not marked by anything at all approaching a\nnational spirit, even in the limited degree that was possible. Except for\na few carvings of armorial designs, and still fewer with slight local\nreference, there are none in wood or stone which would not be equally in\nplace in any Romance country in Europe. The carvings, also, in the\nContinental churches present familiar aspects to the student of English\nornament.\n\nBut if we have yet to wait some fortunate discovery of rolls of workmen's\nnames, with their rate of wages, we are not without such interesting\ninformation concerning the old carvers as is contained in portraits they\nhave left of themselves. Just as authors sometimes recognize how\nsatisfactory it is to have their \"effigies\" done at the fronts of their\nbooks, so have the carvers of old sometimes attached to their works\nportraits of themselves or their fellows, in their habits as they lived,\nin their attitudes as they laboured.\n\n[Illustration: AN INDUSTRIOUS CARVER, LYNN.]\n\nOur first carver hails from Lincolnshire. In 1852, when the Church of St.\nNicholas, Lynn, was restored, the misericordes were taken out and not\nreplaced, but passed as articles of commerce eventually to the\nArchitectural Museum, Tufton Street, London. Among these is a view of a\ncarver's studio, shewing the industrious master seated, tapping carefully\naway at a design upon the bench before him. There are three apprentices in\nthe background working at benches; there are at the back some incised\npanels, and a piece of open screen-work. Perhaps we may suppose the\nweather to be cold, for the carver has on an exceedingly comfortable cloak\nor surcoat. At his feet reposes his dog.\n\n[Illustration: CARVER'S INITIALS, ST. NICHOLAS'S, LYNN.]\n\nThere is an interesting peculiarity about these Lynn carvings; the sides\nof the misericordes are designs in the fashion of monograms, or rebuses.\nThe sides supporting the carver are his initials, pierced with his carving\ntools, a saw and a chisel. The difficulty is the same in all of the set;\nthe meaning of the monograms is not to be lightly determined. In this case\nit may be U.V., or perhaps U is twice repeated.\n\n[Illustration: COMMUNICATING A STRIKING IDEA, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe next carvers belong to the following century. Here also we see the\nprincipal figures in the midst of work. In this case, however, there has\narrived an interruption. Either one of the workers is about to commit\nmock assault and battery upon another with a mallet, or a brilliant idea\nfor a grotesque has just struck him, and he hastens to impart it. From the\nexpression of the faces, and the attitudes for which two other workmen\nhave stood as models, at the sides, the latter may be the more likely. It\nis not impossible that the carver of the fine set of sixty-eight\nmisericordes in Beverley Minster had in mind the incident of the blow\ngiven to Michael Angelo, and it would be interesting to know if any of\nTorregiano's Italians worked at Beverley. This aproned, noisy, jocular\ncrew are very different from the dignified artist we have just left, but\ndoubtless they turned out good work of the humorous class.\n\nThe two \"sidesmen\" are occupied in the two ways of shewing intelligence\nand contempt known as \"taking a sight,\" etc.\n\n[Illustration: MUTUAL CONTEMPT, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe next carver is a figure at Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. This is\nlocally known as the Wellingborough shoemaker, but nearly all local\ndesignations of such things are wrong, and this is no exception. Elsewhere\nin speaking of this sedate figure, I have conjectured he may be cutting\nsomething out of leather, and not making shoes. However, I have since\narrived at Miss Phipson's conclusion: the figure can only be that of a\ncarver. He is fashioning not a leather rosette, but a Tudor rose in oak,\nto be afterwards pinned with an oak pin in some spandrel. He is rather a\nreserved-looking individual, but a master of his craft, if we may suppose\nhe has \"turned out\" the two eagles at his right and left.\n\n[Illustration: A PIECE OF FINE WORK, WELLINGBOROUGH.]\n\nNo doubt there were several ways of building churches, or supplying them\nwith their art decorations. Some masons would be attached to a cathedral,\nand be lent or sent here and there by arrangement. Others would be ever\nwandering, seeking church work. Others might come from abroad for\nparticular work, and return with the harvest of English money when the\nwork was done. For special objects there were depots. It is an\nacknowledged fact that the black basalt fonts of Norman times were\nimported from Flanders. There are occasionally met other things of this\nmaterial with the same class of design, evidently from the same source,\nsuch as the sculptured coffin-lid at Bridlington Priory, given on a\nfollowing page. I have not seen it noted, but I think it will be\nestablished that \"brasses,\" so much alike all over the country, were\nmostly ready-made articles also from Flanders. From the stereotyped\nconventionality of the altar-tomb effigies, they also may be judged to be\nthe productions of workshops doing little but this work, and probably\nforeign.\n\nWhat is required to determine the general facts on these points is a\nreturn from various fabric accounts. We shall probably find both English\nand foreign carvers. There is little or no doubt that the carvers of our\ngrotesques were members of the mysterious society which has developed into\nthe modern body of Freemasons. It would be interesting--if it were not so\napparently impossible--to trace in the records of early Freemasonry, not\nonly the names and nationalities of the masons and carvers, but the\ndetails of that fine organization which enabled them to develope ideas and\nimprovements simultaneously throughout Europe; and which would tell us,\nmoreover, something of the master minds which conceived and directed the\nchanges of style. But the masonic history of our carvers is much enveloped\nin error to the outside world. Thus we are told that in the minority of\nHenry VI. the masons were suppressed by statute, but that on his assuming\nthe control of affairs he repealed the Act, and himself became a mason;\nmoreover, we are told he wrote out \"Certayne Questyons with Awnsweres to\nthe same concerning the Mystery of Maconrye\" which was afterwards \"copyed\nby me Johan Leylande Antiquarius,\" at the command of Henry VIII.; the MS.\nbeing gravely stated to be in the Bodleian Library. No such MS. exists at\nthe Bodleian Library. If it did, its diction and spelling (which is all on\npretended record in certain books probably repudiated by the masonic body\nproper) would instantly condemn it as a forgery. Certainly an Act was\npassed, 3 Henry VI., which is in itself a historical monument to the\nimportance of Freemasonry. It is a brief enactment that the yearly\nmeetings of the masons, being contrary to the Statute of Labourers (of 25\nEdward III., 1351) fixing the rates of labour, which the masons varied and\napparently increased, were no longer to be held; offenders to be judged\nguilty of felony. The Commons did not quite know what to style the\nmeetings, using in this short Act the following terms for them: Chapters,\nAssemblies, Congregations, and Confederacies.\n\nBut important though this proves the masons to have been, there is no\naccount of the statute being repealed until the 5 Elizabeth, when another\ntook its place equally intolerant to the spirit of Freemasonry, and\nFreemasonry really only became legal by the Act of 6 George IV.\n\nBut the prohibition of 1424 was not abolition. If the masons were debarred\nfrom being allowed to exercise their advanced notions of remuneration, or\nto have any legal recognition whatever, it scarcely seems to have affected\ntheir action. For if they had refrained from exercising their freedom, and\nsubmitted to being put down by statute, it is probable we should have met\nthem in the form of more ordinary gilds as instituted by other craftsmen.\nBut we do not meet them thus, and the inference is that they went on in\ntheir own way, at their own time, and at their own price. It may be\npresumed that the more or less migratory habits of the masons made the Act\nimpossible to be rigidly enforced.\n\nComing down towards the end of Gothic times, we find, at any rate, there\nwas one place where images might be ordered. In the Stanford\nchurchwardens' accounts for 1556 there occur the following entries:--\n\n  \"It. In expences to Abyndon to speke for ymages         vijd.\n   It. for iij ymages, the Rode, Mare, and John   xxijs. iiijd.\"\n\nIt will have been noticed that the portraits of the carvers are Late. It\nis a great merit, on antiquarian grounds, that Gothic work, prior to the\nrevival in art, was too much unconscious to admit anything so\nself-personal as a thought of the workers themselves, though frequently\ntheir 'marks' are unobtrusively set upon their works. By the sixteenth\ncentury, the sculptor's art developed with the rest of mental effort, and\nthe artists drank fresh draughts from the springs coming by way of Rome,\nsprings whose waters had been concerned in the existence of nearly all the\nart that had been in Europe for ten centuries.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: DOG AND BONE, BRECHIN.]\n\n\nThe Artistic Quality of Church Grotesques.\n\n\nThe grotesque has been pronounced a false taste, and not desirable to be\nperpetuated. Reflection upon the causes and meanings of Gothic grotesque\nwill shew that perpetuation is to be regretted for other than artistic\nreasons. If the taste be false yet the work is valuable on historic\ngrounds, for what it teaches of its own time and much more for what it\nhints of earlier periods of which there is meagre record anywhere.\nTherefore it would be well not to confuse the student of the future with\nour clever variations of imperfectly understood ideas. Practically the\ngrotesque and emblematic period ended at the Reformation; and it was well.\n\nBut while leaving the falseness of the taste for grotesques an open\nquestion, there is something to be said for them without straining fact.\nFor it is certain that there is underlying Gothic grotesque ornament a\nunique and, if not understood, an uncopiable beauty, be the subject never\nso ugly. The fascinating element appear to be, first, the completeness of\nthe genius which was exercised upon it. It not only conveys the\ntravestying idea, but also sufficiently conveys the original thought\ntravestied.\n\nWhat is it at which we laugh? It shall be a figure which is of a kind\ngenerally dignified, now with no dignity; generally to be respected, but\nnow commanding no respect; capable of being feared, but now inspiring no\nfear; usually lovable, but now provoking no love. It shall be a figure of\nwhich the preconceived idea was either worthy or dreadful--which suddenly\nwe have presented to us shorn of its superior attributes. Ideals are\nunconsciously enshrined in the mind, and when images proclaiming\nthemselves the same ideals appear in sharp degraded contrast--we laugh.\nThus we affirm the correctness of the original judgments both as to the\ngreat and the contemptible imitating it, for laughter is the effect of\nappreciation of incongruity. Custom overrides nearly all, and blunts\ncontrast of ideas, yet wit, darting here and there among men, ever finds\nfresh contrasts and fresh laughter.\n\n[Illustration: DOG AND BONE, CHRISTCHURCH, HAMPSHIRE.]\n\nFurther counts for something the excellence of the artistic management,\nwhich in the treatment of the most unpromising subjects filled the\ncomposition with beautiful lines. It was left to Hogarth's genius to\ninsist on the reality of \"the line of beauty\" as governing all loveliness,\nand he suggests that a perceptive recognition of this existed on the part\nof the classic sculptors. This applies to their work in general, but he\nalso mentions their frequent addition of some curved object connected\nwith the subject, as though it were a kind of key to the artistic\ncomposition. Whether consciously or not, the ancients used many such\nadjunctive curved lines, and Hogarth's conclusions cannot be styled\nfanciful. The helmet, plume, and serpent-edged aegis of Minerva, the\ndouble-bowed bolt and serpents of Jupiter, the ornaments of the trident,\nthe aplustre and the twisted rope of Neptune, the bow and serpent of\nApollo, the plume of Mars, the caduceus of Mercury, the ship-prow of\nSaturn, the gubernum or rudder of Venus, the drinking horn of Pan,\ntogether with many another form to be observed in particular works of the\nancients, is each a definite and perfect example of the faultless line.\nNow, to repeat, many--an infinite number--of the ornaments of Gothic\narchitecture, and not less the grotesque than any other description, are\nlikewise composed of the most beautiful lines conceivable, either\nentirely, or combined with lines of abrupt and ungraceful turn that seem\nto deliberately provoke one's artistic protest; and yet the whole\ncomposition shall, by its curious mixture of beauty and bizarre, its\ncontrast of elegance with awkwardness, leave a real and unique sense of\npleasure in the mind. Doubtless the root of this pleasure is the\ngratification of the mind at having secretly detected itself responding to\nthe call of art to exercise itself in appreciative discrimination. This\nmay be unconsciously done; and in a great measure the qualities which give\nthe pleasure would be bestowed upon the work in similar happy\nunconsciousness of the exact why and wherefore. Often, as in the ancient\nstatues, a small curved form is introduced as an appendage to a mediaeval\ngrotesque.\n\n[Illustration: HAWKS OR EAGLES? WELLINGBOROUGH, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.]\n\nThus we see that there are combinations of two kinds of contrast which\nmake Gothic grotesques agreeable, the artistic contrasts among the mere\nlines of the carvings, and the significatory contrasts evolved by the\nmeanings of the carvings.\n\nAs far back as the twelfth century, a critic of church grotesques\nrecognized their combination of contrasts. This was St. Bernard of\nClairvaux, who, speaking of the ecclesiastical decoration of his time,\npaid the grotesques of church art the exact tribute they so often merit;\nprobably the greater portion of what he saw has given place to succeeding\ncarvings, though of precisely the same characteristics. He calls them \"a\nwonderful sort of hideous beauty and beautiful deformity.\" He, moreover,\nput a question, many times since repeated by hundreds who never heard of\nhim, asking the use of placing ridiculous monstrosities in the cloisters\nbefore the eyes of the brethren when occupied with their studies.\n\nIt is not possible to explain the \"use\" of perpetuating the barbarous\nsymbols of a long-forgotten past; but it will be interesting to shew that\nthere were actual causes accounting for their continued existence and\ntheir continued production, unknown ages after their own epoch.\n\n\n\n\nGothic Ornaments not Didactic.\n\n\nReflection will not lead us to believe carvings to have been placed in\nchurches with direct intent to teach or preach. Many writers have\ncoincided in producing a general opinion that the churches, as containing\nthese carvings, were practically the picture (or sculpture) galleries and\nillustrated papers for the illiterate of the past. This supposition will\nnot bear examination. It would mean that in the days when humble men\nrarely travelled from home, and then mostly by compulsion, to fight for\nlord or king, or against him, the inhabitant of a village or town had for\nthe (say) forty years sojourn in his spot of Merrie England, a small\ncollection of composite animals, monsters, mermaids, impossible flowers,\netc.--with perhaps one doubtful domestic scene of a lady breaking a vessel\nover the head of a gentleman who is inquisitive as to boots--with which to\nimprove his mind. Sometimes his church would contain not half-a-dozen\nforms, and mostly not one he could understand or cared to interpret.\n\nMisericordes, the secondary seats or shelves allowed as a relaxation\nduring the ancient long standing services, are invariably carved, and\nepisode is more likely to be found there than anywhere else in the church.\nHence, misericordes have been specially selected for this erroneous\nconsideration of ornament to be the story-book of the Middle Ages. This is\nunfortunate for the theory, for they were placed only in churches having\nconnection with a monastic or collegiate establishment. They are in the\nchancels, where the feet of laymen rarely trod, and, moreover, there would\nbe few hours out of the twenty-four when the stalls would not be occupied\nby the performers of the daily offices or celebrations.\n\nThe fact appears to be that the carvings were the outcome of causes far\ndifferent from an intention to produce genre pictures. It is patent that\nanything which kept within its proper mechanical and architectural\noutline, was admitted. What was offered depended upon a multitude of\nconsiderations, but chiefly upon the traditions of mason-craft. The Rev.\nCharles Boutell has an apt description touching upon the origin of the\ncarvings: calling them \"chronicles,\" he says they were \"written by men who\nwere altogether unconscious of being chroniclers at all.... They worked\nunder the impulse of motives altogether devoid of the historical element.\nThey were influenced by the traditions of their art, by their own\nfeelings, and were directed by their own knowledge, experience, and\nobservation, and also by the associations of their every-day lives.\" This\nappears to explain in general terms the sources of iconography. In brief,\nthe sculptor had a stock-in-trade of designs, which he varied or\nsupplemented, according to his ability and originality.\n\nThat the stock-in-trade, or traditions of the art, handed down from\nmaster to apprentice, generation after generation, persistently retained\nan immense amount of intellectualia thus derived from a remote antiquity,\nis but an item of this subject, but the most important of which this work\nhas cognizance.\n\n[Illustration: SEA-HORSE DRAGONZED, LINCOLN, _14th cent._]\n\n\n\n\nIngrained Paganism.\n\n\nWe at this day may be excused for not participating in the good St.\nBernard's dislike to the \"hideous beauties\" of the grotesque, and for not\ndeploring, as he does, the money expended on their production. For many of\nthem are the embodiments of ideas which the masons had perpetuated from a\nperiod centuries before his time, and which could in no other way have\nbeen handed down to us. There are many reasons why books were unlikely\nmedia for early times; for later, the serious import of the origin of the\ndesigns would be likely to be doubted; and for the most part the special\nfunction of the designs has been the adornment of edifices of religion.\nThey were, in fact, religious symbols which in various ages of the world\nhave been used with varying degrees of purity. One of the Rabbis,\nMaimonides, has an instructive passage on the rise of symbolic images.\nSpeaking of men's first falling away from a presumed early pure religion\nhe says:--\"They began to build temples to the stars, ... and this was the\nroot of idolatry ... and the false prophet showed them the image that he\nhad feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of that star\nwhich was made known to him by prophecy; and they began after this manner\nto make images in temples and under trees ... and this thing was spread\nthroughout the world--to serve images with services different one from\nanother and to sacrifice unto, and worship them. So in process of time the\nglorious and fearful name was forgotten out of the mouth of all living ...\nand there was found on earth no people that knew aught save images of wood\nand stone, and temples of stone which they built.\" The ancient Hindoo\nfables also indicate how imagery arose; they speak of the god Ram, \"who,\nhaving no shape, is described by a similitude.\" The worship of the \"Host\nof Heaven\" was star-worship, or \"Baalim.\"\n\nThe Sabean idolatry was the worship of the stars, to which belongs much of\nthe earlier image carving, for the household gods of the ancient Hebrews,\nthe Teraphim (as the images of Laban stolen by Rachel), were probably in\nthe human form as representing planets, even in varying astronomical\naspects of the same planet. They are said to have been of metal. The\nancient Germans had similar household gods of wood, carved out of the root\nof the mandragora plant, or alraun as they called it, from the\nsuperstition kindred to that of the East, that the images would answer\nquestions (from _raunen_ to whisper in the ear). Examination of many\nancient Attic figurines appears to shew that they had a not unsimilar\norigin, reminding us that both Herodotus and Plato state the original\nreligion of the Greeks to have been star-worship, and hence is derived the\n[Greek: Theos] god, from [Greek: Thein] to run. Thus in other than the\npoet's sense are the stars \"elder scripture.\"\n\nA large number of the forms met in architectural ornament, it may be\nfittingly reiterated, have a more or less close connection with the\nworships which existed in times long prior to Christianity. A portion of\nthem was continuously used simply because the masons were accustomed to\nthem, or in later Gothic on account of the universal practice of copying\nexisting works; unless we can take it for granted in place of that\npractice, that there existed down to Reformation days \"portfolios\" of\ncarver's designs which were to the last handed down from master to\napprentice, as must have undoubtedly been the case in earlier times. Other\nportions of the ancient worship designs are found in Christian art because\nthey were received and grafted upon the symbolic system of the Church's\nteaching. The retention of these fragments of superseded paganism does not\nalways appear to have been of deliberate or willing intention. The early\ndays of the Church even after its firm establishment, were much occupied\nin combating every form of paganism. The converts were constantly lapsing\ninto their old beliefs, and the thunders of the early ecclesiastical\ncouncils were as constantly being directed against the ancient\nsuperstitions. Sufficient remains on record to shew how hard the gods\ndied.\n\nTo near the end of the fourth century the chief intelligence of Rome\npublicly professed the Olympic faith. With the next century, however,\ncommenced a more or less determined programme of persecutory repression.\nThus, councils held at Arles about 452 ruled that a bishop was guilty of\nsacrilege who neglected to extirpate the custom of adoring fountains,\ntrees, and stones. At that of Orleans in 533 Catholics were to be\nexcommunicated who returned to the worship of idols or ate flesh offered\nto idols. At Tours in 567 several pagan superstitions were forbidden, and\nat Narborne in 590; freemen who transgressed were to have penance, but\nslaves to be beaten. At Nicea in 681 image worship was allowed of\nChrist.[2] At Augsburgh (?) in 742 the Count Gravio was associated with\nthe Bishop to watch against popular lapses into paganism. In 743 Pepin\nheld a council in which he ruled, as his father had done before, that he\nwho practised any pagan rites be fined 15 sous (15/22 of a livre). To the\norders was attached the renunciation, in German, of the worship of Odin by\nthe Saxons, and a list of the pagan superstitions of the Germans. The\nCouncil of Frankfort in 794 ordered the sacred woods to be destroyed.\nConstantinople had apparently already not only become a channel for the\nconveyance of oriental paganism in astro-symbolic images, but was also\nevidently nearer to the lower idolatry of heathenism than the Church of\nthe West. Thus we find the bishops of Gaul, Germany, and Italy in council\nat Frankfort, rejecting with anathema, and as idolatrous, the doctrines of\nthe Council of Constantinople upon the worship of images.\n\nWhile all this repression was going on, the Church was making itself\nacceptable, just as the Mosaic system had done in its day, by assimilating\nthe symbols of the forbidden faiths. Itself instituted without formularies\nor ceremonial, both were needed when it became a step-ladder of ambition\nand the expedient displacer of the corrupt idolatries into which\nsun-worship had disintegrated. Hence among the means of organization,\nobservance and symbol took the place of original simplicity, and it is\nsmall wonder that ideas were adopted which were already in men's minds.\nElements of heathenism which, after the lapse of centuries, still clung to\nthe Church's robes, became an interwoven part of her dearest symbolism. If\nmen did not burn what they had adored, they in effect adored that which\nthey had burned.\n\nIn spite, however, of edicts and adoptions, paganism has never been\nentirely rooted out; what Sismondi calls the \"rights of long possession,\nthe sacredness of time-hallowed opinion, and the potency of habit,\" are\nnot yet entirely overcome in the midst of the most enlightened peoples.\nThe carvings which point back to forgotten myths have their parallels in\ncurious superstitions and odd customs which are not less venerable.\n\nThere were many compromises made on account of the ineradicable attachment\nof the people to religious customs into which they were born. Christian\nfestivals were erected on the dates of heathen observances. In the sixth\ncentury, Pope Gregory sent word to Augustine, then in England, that the\nidolatrous temples of the English need not be destroyed, though the idols\nshould, and that the cattle sacrificed to the heathen deities should be\nkilled on the anniversary of dedication or on the nativities of the\nsaints whose relics were within the church.\n\nIt is said that it was, later, usual to bring a fat buck into St. Paul's,\nLondon, with the hunters' horns blowing, in the midst of divine service,\nfor the cathedral was built on or near the site of a former temple of\nDiana. This custom was made the condition of a feudal tenure. The story of\nProsperine, another form of Diana, was the subject of heathen plays, and\ndown to the sixteenth century the character appears in religious mystery\nplays as the recipient of much abuse.\n\nAncient mythology points in one chief direction. \"Omnes Deos referri ad\nsolem,\" says Macrobius, \"All Gods refer to the sun,\" and in the light of\nthat saying a thousand complicated fables of antiquity melt into\nsimplicity. The ancient poets called the sun (at one time symbolically of\na First Great Cause, at another absolutely) the Leader, the Moderator, the\nDepository of Light, the Ordainer of human things; each of his virtues was\nstyled a different god, and given its distinct name. The moon also, and\nthe stars were made the symbols of deities. These symbols put before the\npeople as vehicles for abstract ideas, were quickly adopted as gods, the\nsymbolism being disregarded, and the end was practically the same as that\nnarrated by the ancient rabbi just quoted. But it may be doubted whether\nthe pantheism of the classic nations was ever entirely gross. The great\nfestivals of the gods were accompanied by the initiation of carefully\nselected persons into certain mysteries of which no description is\nextant. Thirlwall hazards the conjecture \"that they were the remains of a\nworship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology ... grounded on\na view of nature less fanciful, more earnest and better fitted to awaken\nboth philosophical thought and religious feeling.\" Whether a purer system\nwas unfolded to the initiated on these occasions or not, there is little\ndoubt that it had existed and was at the root of the symbol rites.\n\n[Illustration: AN IMP ON CUSHIONS, CHRISTCHURCH, HANTS., _early 16th\ncent._]\n\n\n\n\nMythic Origin of Church Carvings.\n\n\n[Illustration: TAU CROSS, WELLINGBOROUGH.]\n\nThe discoveries in Egypt in recent years undoubtedly press upon us the\nfact that there was in Europe an early indigenous civilization, and that\nthe exchange of ideas between East and West was at least equal. For the\npurpose of this study, however, the theory of independence is not accepted\nabsolutely; it is premised that though there were in numerous parts of the\nold world early native systems of worship of much similarity, yet that\nsuch relics of them as are met in architecture came from the East.\n\nThe mythic ideas at the root of Gothic decoration were probably early\ndisseminated through Europe in vague and varying ways, whose chief impress\nis in folk-lore; but the concrete forms themselves appear to have been\nintroduced later, after being brought, as it were, to a focus, being\nselected and assimilated at some great mental centre. Alexandria was the\nplace where Eastern and Western culture impinged on each other, and\nresulted in a conglomerate of ideas. These ideas, however, were not\nessentially different in their nature, though each school, Assyrian,\nBabylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew, had diverged widely if they came\nfrom an unknown common source. But if Alexandria was the furnace in which\nthe material was fused, Byzantium appears to have been the great workshop\nwhere the results were utilized, and from whence they were issued to\nEurope.\n\nSculptured ornament is not alone in the fact of its being a direct legacy\nfrom remotely ancient forms, though, on comparing that with any of the\nother arts hitherto recognized as of Eastern origin, it will be found that\nnone bears such distinct marks of its parentage, or shews such continuity\nof form. Thus examination of European glazed pottery, which comes perhaps\nthe nearest to our subject, shews that the ornamenting devices\noccasionally betray an acquaintance with the old symbolic patterns, but\nthere is less recognition of meaning, scarcely any intention to perpetuate\nidea, and no continuity of design. It was not in the nature of the\npotter's purpose that there should be any of these, the difference being\nthat for the mason's and the sculptor's art there was a very close\nassociation with the gild system. The first Christian sculptors would be\nmasons brought up in pagan gilds, and the gild instincts and traditions\nhad undoubtedly as strong an effect upon their work, on the whole, as any\nreligious beliefs they might possess.\n\nThe symbolism of the animals of the church in the late points of view of\nthe Bestiaries and of the expository writers of the Middle Ages, is not\nhere to be made the subject of special attention. That is a department\nwell treated in other works, particularly in the volume, \"Animal Symbolism\nin Ecclesiastical Architecture,\" by Mr. E. P. Evans, which yet remains to\nbe equalled. It is to be noted, however, that the early Christians,\nseeing the animals and their compounds so integral a portion of pagan\nimagery, endeavoured to twist every meaning to one sufficiently Christian:\nbut what is chiefly worthy of note is the unconscious resistance of the\nsculptors to the treatment. Although a multitude of figures can be traced\nas used symbolically in accordance with the Christian dicta, there are at\nleast as many which shew stronger affinity to pagan myth. There is\nevidence that this was early recognized by the propogandists. The Council\nof Nice in 787, in enjoining upon the faithful the due regard of images,\nordered that the works of art were not to be drawn from the imagination of\nthe painters, but to be only such as were approved by the rules and\ntraditions of the Catholic Church. So also ordained the Council of Milan\nin 1565.\n\nThe Artists, however, did not invent the images so much as use old\nmaterial, and, the injunctions of the Council notwithstanding, the ancient\nsymbols apparently held their ground. The protests of St. Nilus, in the\nfifth century, against animal figures in the sanctuary, were echoed by the\nrepudiations of St. Bernard in the twelfth and Gautier de Coinsi in the\nthirteenth, a final condemnation being made at the Council of Milan in\n1565, all equally in vain. Though the force of the myth symbols has passed\naway, they have left another legacy than the grotesques of church art. The\nart works of the Greeks arose from the same materials, the glorious\nstatues and epics being the highest embodiment of the symbolic, so loftily\novertopping all other forms by the force of supreme physical beauty as to\nalmost justify and certainly purify the religion of which they were the\noutcome; so, later, the same ideas clothed with the moral beauty of\nsupreme unselfishness enabled Christianity to take hold of the nations.\n\nBy the diatribes of Bernard we can see what materials were extant in the\ntwelfth century for a study of worship-symbols and of the grotesque,\nthough he ignores any possible meaning they may have. He says, \"Sometimes\nyou may see many bodies under one head; at other times, many heads to one\nbody; here is seen the tail of a serpent attached to the body of a\nquadruped; there the head of a quadruped on the body of a fish. In another\nplace appears an animal, the fore half of which represents a horse, and\nthe hinder portion a goat. Elsewhere you have a horned animal with the\nhinder parts of a horse; indeed there appears everywhere so multifarious\nand so wonderful a variety of diverse forms that one is more apt to con\nover the sculptures than to study the scriptures, to occupy the whole day\nin wondering at these than in meditating upon God's law.\"\n\nIt has now to be observed how far the symbolic fancies of ancient beliefs\nhave left their impress on the grotesque art of our churches.\n\nA common representation of the great sun-myth was that of two eagles, or\ndragons, watching one at each side of an altar. These were the powers of\ndarkness, one at each limit of the day, waiting to destroy the light. This\npoetic idea has come down to us in many forms. Greek art was unconsciously\nfrequent in its use of the form, and mediaeval sculptors, being often quite\nignorant of the significance of the design, use it in a variety of ways,\nin many of which the likeness to the original is entirely lost, the\ncomposition ending in but a semi-natural representation of birds pecking\nat fruit. In the above block from Lincoln Minster, the altar is well\npreserved. In the next block, which is from a carving connected with the\npreceding one, the idea is more distantly hinted at.\n\n[Illustration: THE ALTAR OF LIGHT AND THE BIRDS OF DARKNESS, LINCOLN.]\n\n[Illustration: SYMBOLS OF DARKNESS, LINCOLN.]\n\nAt Exeter, an ingenious grotesque composition of two duck-footed harpies,\none on either side of a _fleur-de-lis_, is evidently from the same source.\nExamples of this could be multiplied very readily.\n\n[Illustration: THE ALTAR OF LIGHT AND THE BIRDS OF DARKNESS, EXETER.]\n\nThe Cat and the Fiddle are subjects of carvings at Beverley and at Wells.\n\nMan has an almost universal passion for the oral transmission of the\nfruits of his mental activity. In the particular instances of many lingual\ncompositions this passion has become an inveterate race habit, and the\nrhymes or reasons have been transmitted verbally to posterity long after\ntheir original meaning has been lost or obscured. It is no new thing that\na nursery rhyme has been found to be the relic of an archaic poem long\nmisunderstood or perverted. The lines as to \"the cat and the fiddle\" are\nan excellent instance of the aptitude to continue the use of metrical\ncomposition the sense of which has departed. The full verse is, as it\nstands, a curious jumble of disconnected sentences.\n\n  \"Hey, diddle, diddle, the cat and the fiddle,\n    The cow jumped over the moon,\n  The little dog laughed to see such sport,\n    While the dish run away with the spoon.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE WEEKS DANCING TO THE MUSIC OF THE MONTH, BEVERLEY\nMINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: HEY, DIDDLE, DIDDLE, THE CAT AND THE FIDDLE, WELLS.]\n\nI am not aware that any attempt has yet been made to explain this\nextraordinary verse. Examination seemingly shews that it was originally a\nsatire in derision of the worship of Diana. The moon-goddess had a\nthree-fold existence. On the earth she was Diana. Among the Egyptians we\nfind her as Isis, and her chief symbol was the cat. Apuleius calls her the\nmother of the gods. In the worship of Isis was used a musical instrument,\nthe sistrum, which had four metal bars loosely inserted in a frame so as\nto be shaken; on the apex of this frame, which was shaped not unlike a\nhorse-shoe, was carved the figure of a cat, as emblematic of the moon. The\nfour bars are said by Plutarch to represent the elements, but it is more\nlikely they were certain notes of the diapason. The worship of Isis passed\nto Italy, though the Greeks had previously connected the cat with the\nmoon. The fiddle, as an instrument played with a bow, was not known to\nclassic times, but the word for fiddle--_fides_--was applied to a lyre. It\nis equivalent to a Greek word for gut-string. In the light of what\nfollows, I suggest that \"the Cat and the Fiddle\" is a mocking allusion to\nthe worship of Diana upon earth.\n\nIn the heavens the moon-goddess had the name of Luna, and her chief symbol\nwas the crescent, which is sometimes met figured as a pair of cow's horns.\nImages of Isis were crowned with crescent horns; she was believed to be\npersonified in the cow, as Osiris was in the bull, and her symbol, a\ncrescent moon, is met in sculpture over the back of the animal. This\napparently suggested the second line.\n\nThe third personality of the goddess was Hecate, which was the name by\nwhich she was known in the infernal regions,--which means of course, in\nnature, when she was below the horizon. Now another name by which she was\nknown was Prosperine (Roman), and Persephone (Greek), and her carrying\ndown into Hades by Pluto (Roman), or Dis (Greek), was the fable wrought\nout of the simple phenomenon of moon-set. I suggest that the last line of\nthe verse is a grotesque rendering of the statement that--\n\n  \"Dis ran away with Persephone.\"\n\nDis is equivalent to Serapis the Bull, otherwise Ammon, AEsculapius, Nilus,\netc., that is, the Sun. Why the little dog laughed to see such sport is\nnot easy to explain. It may be an allusion to one of the heads of Hecate,\nthat of a dog, to indicate the watchfulness of the moon. There is another\nHecate (a bad, as the above-mentioned was considered a beneficient deity),\nbut which was originally no doubt the same, whose attributes were two\nblack dogs, _i.e._, the darkness preceding and following the moonlight in\nshort lunar appearances. Or it may be an allusion to the fact that the dog\nwas associated with Dis, being considered the impersonation of Sirius the\nDog-star. In various representations of the rape of Prosperine, Dis is\naccompanied by a dog, _e.g._, the grinning hound in Titian's picture.\n\nProsperine's symbol of a crescent moon was adopted as one of those of the\nVirgin Mary, and Candlemas Day, 2nd February, takes the place of the Roman\nfestival, the candles used to illustrate the text, \"a light to lighten the\nGentiles,\" being the representatives of the torches carried in the\nprocessions which affected to search for the lost Prosperine.\n\nHindoo mythology has also a three-fold Isis, or moon-goddess; namely, Bhu\non earth, Swar in heaven, Patala, below the earth.\n\nThe moon-deity has not come down to us as in every case a female\npersonation. This is, however, explained by an early fable [in the\nPuranas] of the Hindoos, in which it is narrated that Chandra, or Lunus,\nlost his sex in the forest of Gauri, and became Chandri, or Luna. The\norigin of this has yet to be discovered; it may be nothing more than the\naccount of an etymological change, produced by a transcript of dialect.\n\nWhether the Beverley artist knew that the cat was a moon-symbol may be\ndoubted. The fiddle has four strings, as the sistrum had four bars. As\nwell as the elements and the four seasons of the year, the four may mean\nthe four weeks. It will be observed that as the Hours are said to dance by\nthe side of the chariot of the sun, so here four weeks dance to the music\nof the moon-sphere; the word moon means the measurer, and the cat is\nplaying a dance measure!\n\nThe cat is not a very frequent subject. At Sherborne she is shewn hanged\nby mice, one of the retributive pieces which point to a confidence in the\nexistence of something called justice, not always self-evident in the\nolden-time. Rats and mice are the emblem of St. Gertrude. The dog had a\nhigher place in ancient estimation than his mention in literature would\nwarrant; the fact that among the Romans he was the emblem of the Lares,\nthe household gods, is a weighty testimonial to that effect, while the\nEgyptians had a city named after and devoted to the dog.\n\nAmong the pre-existing symbols seized by the Christians, the Egyptian\nCross and Druidical Tau must not be overlooked. It is found on the\ncapitals of pillars at Canterbury and other places; the example given in\nthe initial on page 34 is perhaps the latest example in English Gothic.\nIts admission as a grotesque is due to its, perhaps merely accidental, use\nas a mask as noted in the chapter on \"Masks and Faces.\"\n\nThe sinuous course of the sun among the constellations is mentioned in\nliterature as far back as Euripides as an explanation of the presence of\nthe dragon in archaic systems of mythology. This may have been the origin\nof the figure. Yet in addition to that there always seems to have been the\nrecognition of an evil principle, of which by a change of meaning, the\ndragonic or serpentine star-path of the sun was made the personification\nor symbol. According to Pausanius the \"dragon\" of the Greeks was only a\nlarge snake.\n\nIt might not be impossible to collect several hundreds of names by which\nthe deistic character of the sun has been expressed by various peoples;\nand the same applies, though in a less degree, to the Darkness, Storm,\nCold, and Wet, which are taken as his antithesis. One of the oldest of\nthese Dragon-names is Typhon, which is met in Egyptian mythology. Typhon\nis said to be the Chinese _Tai-fun_, the hot wind, and, if this be so,\ndoubtless the adverse principle was taken to be the spirit of the desert\nwhich ever seeks to embrace Egypt in its arid arms. The symbol of Typhon\nwas the crocodile, and doubtless the dragon form thus largely rose. Rahu,\nan evil deity in Hindoo mythology, though generally called a dragon, is\nsometimes met represented as a crocodile, and his numerous progeny are\nstyled crocodiles. The constellation called by the Japanese the crocodile\nis that known to us as the dragon. Can it be that in the universal dragon\nwe have a chronicle of our race's dim recollection of some survival of the\nterrible Jurassic reptiles, and hence of their period?\n\nBut the myth has ever one ending; the power of the evil one is destroyed\nfor a time by the coming of the sun-god, though eventually the evil\ntriumphs, that is dearth recurs.\n\nIn the Scandinavian myth, Odin the son of Bur, broke for a season the\nstrength of the great serpent Joermungard, who, however, eventually\nswallowed the hero. Thus was Odin the sun; and his companions, the other\nAsir, were more or less sun attributes. In the case of Egypt the god is\nHorus (the sun-light), the youthful son of Osiris and Isis, who drives\nback Typhon to the deserts; for that country the rising of the Nile is the\nhappy crisis. Horus is sometimes called Nilus. Whether the above\nderivation of the word Typhon be correct or not, which may be doubtful,[3]\nthat of Horus from the root _Hur_ light, connected with the Sanscrit _Ush_\nto burn (whence also Aurora, etc.,) is certain. When the great myth became\ntranslated to different climates, the evil principle took on different\nforms of dread. Water, the rainy season in some countries, the darkness\nand cold of winter in others, were the Dragon which the Hero-god, the Sun,\nhad to overcome--out of which conflict arose myths innumerable, yet one\nand the same in essence. Apollo slew the Python, the sunbeams drying up\nthe waters being his arrows; Perseus slew the Dragon, by turning him to\nstone, which perhaps means that the spring sun dried up the mud of the\nparticular locality where the fable rose. Later, Sigurd slew the Dragon\nFafnir. When the Christians found themselves by expediency committed to\nadopt the form, and to a certain degree the spirit, of heathen beliefs,\nthe Sun _versus_ Darkness, or the Spring _versus_ Winter myth was a\ndifficulty in very many places. At first the idea was kept up of a\nmaterial victory over the adverse forces of nature, and we find honourable\nmention of various bishops and saints, who--by means of which there is\nlittle detail, but which may be supposed to be that great monastic\nbeneficence, intelligent drainage--conquered the dragons of flood and fen.\nIt is somewhat odd that the Psalmist attributes to the Deity the victory\nof breaking the heads of the \"dragons in the waters.\"\n\nThus St. Romain of Rouen slew there the Dragon Gargouille, which is but\nthe name of a draining-gutter after all, and hence the grotesque\nwaterspouts of our churches are mostly dragons.\n\nSt. Martha slew the Dragon Tarasque at Aix-la-chapelle, but that name is\nderived from _tarir_, to drain. St. Keyne slew the Cornish Dragon, and, to\nbe brief, at least twelve other worthies slew dragons, and doubtless for\ntheir respective districts supplied the place of the older myth. Among\nthese, St. George is noteworthy. He is said to have been born at Lydda, in\nSyria, where his legend awaited the Crusaders, who took him as their\npatron, bringing him to the west, as the last Christian adoption of a\nsun-myth idea, to become the patron saint of England. A figure of St.\nGeorge was a private badge of English kings till the time of the Stuarts.\nOn the old English angel the combat is between St. Michael and the Dragon,\nand though St. George is generally shewn mounted, as was also sometimes\nHorus, the Egyptian deity, he is sometimes represented on foot, like St.\nMichael. The Dragon is generally the same in the two cases, being the\nWyvern or two-legged variety.\n\nAnother form of dragon is drake. Certain forms of cannon were called both\ndragons and drakes. Sometimes the dragon is found termed the Linden-worm,\nor Lind-drake, in places as widely sundered as Scotland and Germany. It is\nsaid this is on account of the dragon dwelling under the linden, a sacred\ntree, but this is probably only, as yet, half explained.\n\nPerhaps through all time the sun-myth was accompanied by a constant\nfeeling that good and evil were symbolised by the alternation of season.\nIt is to be expected that the feeling would increase and solidify upon the\nadvent of Christianity, for the periodic dragon of heathendom was become\nthe permanent enemy of man, the Devil. The frequent combats between men\n(and other animals) and the dragons, met among church grotesques, though\ntheir models, far remote in antiquity, were representations of sun-myths,\nwould be carved and read as the ever-continuing fight between good and\nevil. That, however, it is reasonable to see in these Dragon sculptures\ndirect representatives of the ancient cult, we know from a fact of date.\nThe festival of Horus, the Egyptian deity, was the 23rd of April. That is\nthe date of St. George's Day.\n\nLess than the foregoing would scarcely be sufficient to explain the\nfrequency and significance of the Dragon forms which crowd our subject.\n\nDuring the three Rogation days, which took the place of the Roman\nprocessional festivals of the Ambarvalia and Cerealia, the Dragon was\ncarried as a symbol both in England and on the continent. When the Mystery\npageantry of Norwich was swept away, an exception was made in favour of\nthe Dragon, who, it was ordained, \"should come forth and shew himself as\nof old.\"\n\nThe Rogation Dragon in France was borne, during the first two days of the\nthree, before the cross, with a great tail stuffed with chaff, but on the\nthird day it was carried behind the cross, with the tail emptied of its\ncontents. This signified, it is said, the undisturbed dominion of Satan\nover the world during the two days that Christ was in Hell, and his\ncomplete humiliation on the third day.\n\nIn some countries the figure of the Dragon, or another of the Devil, after\nthe procession, was placed on the altar, then drawn up to the roof, and\nbeing allowed to fall was broken into pieces.\n\nEarly Keltic and other pastoral staves end in two Dragons' heads,\nrecalling the caduceus of Mercury and rod of Moses; the Dragon was a\nKeltic military or tribal ensign. Henry VII. assumed a red dragon as one\nof the supporters of the royal arms, on account of his Welsh descent;\nEdward IV. had as one of his numerous badges a black dragon. A dragon\nissuing from a chalice is the symbol of St. John the Evangelist, an\nallusion to the dragon of the Apocalypse.\n\n[Illustration: THE SLAYER OF THE DRAGON, IFFLEY.]\n\nThe Dragon combat here presented is from the south doorway of Iffley\nChurch, near Oxford. In this example of Norman sculpture, the humour\nintent is more marked than usual. The hero is seated astride the dragon's\nback, and, grasping its upper and lower jaws, is tearing them asunder. The\ndragon is rudely enough executed, but the man's face and extremities have\ngood drawing. The cloak flying behind him shew that he has leaped into\nthe quoin of vantage, and recalls the classic. The calm exultation with\nwhich the hero seizes his enemy is only equalled by the good-natured\namusement which the creature evinces at its own undoing.\n\nWe now arrive at a form of the sun-myth which appears to have come down\nwithout much interference. The god Horus is alluded to as a child, and in\na curious series of carvings the being attacked by a Dragon is a child. It\nis attempted, and with considerable success, to be represented as of great\nbeauty. The point to explain is the position of the child, rising as it\ndoes from a shell. This leads us further into the various contingent\nmythologies dealing with the Typhon story. Horus (also called Averis, or\nOrus), was in Egyptian lore also styled Caimis, and is equivalent to Cama,\nthe Cupid of the Hindoos. Typhon (also known as Smu, and as Sambar) is\nstated to have killed him, and left him in the waters, where Isis restored\nhim to life. That is the account of Herodotus, but AElian says that Osiris\nthrew Cupid into the ocean, and gave him a shell for his abode. After\nwhich he at length killed Typhon.\n\nHence the shell in the myth-carvings to be found to-day in mediaeval\nChristian churches.\n\nThe Greeks represented Cupid, and also Nerites, as living in shells, and,\nstrangely enough, located them on the Red Sea coast, adjacent to the home\nof the Typhon myth. It is probable that the word _sancha_, a sea-shell,\nused in this connection, is from _suca_, a cave, a tent; and we may\nconjecture that there is an allusion to certain dwellers in tents, who,\ncoming westward, worked, after a struggle, a political and dynastic\nrevolution, carrying with it great changes in agriculture. This is a\nconjecture we may, however, readily withdraw in favour of another, that\nthe shell itself is merely a symbol of the ocean, and that Cupid emerging\nis a figure of the sun rising from the sea at some particular zodiacal\nperiod.\n\n[Illustration: THE CHILD AND DRAGON, LINCOLN.]\n\nAnother story kindred to that of Typhon and Horus is that of Sani and\nAurva, met in Hindoo literature. They were the sons of Surya, regent of\nthe Sun (Vishnu); Sani was appointed ruler, but becoming a tyrant was\ndeposed, and Aurva reigned in his place. This recalls that one of the\nnames given to Typhon in India was Swarbhanu, \"light of heaven,\" from\nwhich it is evident that he is Lucifer, the fallen angel; so that\naccepting the figurative meaning of all the narratives, we can see even a\npropriety in the Gothic transmission of these symbolic representations.\n\nIt may be added to this that the early conception of Cupid was as the god\nof Love in a far wider and higher sense than indicated in the later\npoetical and popular idea. He was not originally considered the son of\nVenus, whom he preceded in birth. It is scarcely too much to say that he\npersonified the love of a Supreme Unknown for creation; and hence the\nassumption by Love of the character of a deliverer.\n\nThere are other shell deities in mythology. Venus had her shell, and her\nNorthern co-type, Frigga, the wife of the Northern sun-god, Odin, rode in\na shell chariot.\n\nThe earliest of our examples is the most serious and precise. The Dragon\nis a very bilious and repulsive reptile, while the child form, thrice\nrepeated in the same carving, has grace and originality. This is from\nLincoln Minster.\n\nThe next is also on a misericorde, and is in Manchester Cathedral. Here\nthe shell is different in position, being upright. The Child in this has\nlong hair.\n\n[Illustration: DRAGON AND CHILD, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe third example is from a misericorde at Beverley Minster, the series at\nwhich place shews strong evidence of having been executed from the same\nset of designs as those of Manchester Cathedral, and were carved some\ntwelve years later. Many of the subjects are identically the same, but in\nthis case it will be seen how a meaning may be lost by a carver's\nmisapprehension. The shell would not be recognizable without comparison\nwith the other instances, and the Dragon has become two. The head of the\nChild in this carving appears to be in a close hood, or Puritan infantile\ncap, which, as the \"foundling cap,\" survived into this century. In all the\nthree carvings, the Dragons are of the two-legged kind, which St.\nGeorge is usually shewn slaying. It is a little remarkable that the\nChild's weapon in all three cases is broken away. The object borne\nsceptre-wise by the left hand child in the Lincoln carving, is apparently\nsimilar to the Egyptian hieroglyphic [symbol], the Greek [Greek: z],\nEuropean s. It may be worth while to suggest that the greatly-discussed\ncollar of ss, worn by the lords chief justices, and others in authority,\nmay have its origin in this hieroglyphic as a symbol of sovereignty,\nrather than in any of the arbitrary ascriptions of a mediaeval initial.\n\n[Illustration: THE CHILD AND DRAGON, MANCHESTER.]\n\n[Illustration: THE SLAYING OF THE SNAIL, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe weapon is evidently a form of the falx, or falcula, for it was with\nsuch a one (and here we see further distribution of the myth) that Jupiter\nwounded Typhon, and such was the instrument with which Perseus slew the\nsea-dragon: the falx, the pruning-hook, sickle or scythe, is an emblem of\nSaturn, and the oldest representation of it in that connection shew it in\nsimple curved form. Saturn's sickle became a scythe, and the planet deity\nthus armed became, on account of the length of his periodical revolution,\nour familiar figure of Father Time. Osiris, the father of Horus, is styled\n\"the cause of Time.\" An Egyptian regal coin bears a man cutting corn with\na sickle of semi-circular blade. In many parts of England, the sickle is\nspoken of simply as \"a hook.\"\n\n[Illustration: GROTESQUE OF HORUS IN THE SHELL. THE PALMER FOX EXHIBITING\nHOLY WATER. NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.]\n\nApparently the carver of the Beverley misericorde was conscious he had\nrendered the shell very badly, for in the side supporter of the carving he\nhad placed, by way of reminder as to an attack upon the occupant of a\nshell, a man in a fashionable dress, piercing a snail as it approaches\nhim. In mediaeval carvings, as in many of their explanations, it is\nscarcely a step from the sublime to the ridiculous.\n\nOne other carving which seems to point to the foregoing is at New\nCollege, Oxford. It is a genuine grotesque, and may be a satire upon the\nmore serious works. It represents, seated in the same univalve kind of\nshell as the others, a fox or ape in a religious habit, displaying a\nbottle containing, perhaps, water from the Holy Land, the Virgin's Milk,\nor other wondrous liquid. One of the side carvings is an ape in a hood\nbringing a bottle.\n\n\n\n\nHell's Mouth.\n\n\n[Illustration: HELL'S MOUTH, HOLY CROSS, STRATFORD-ON-AVON.]\n\nHell's Mouth was one of the most popular conceptions of mediaeval times.\nExcept so far as concerns the dragon form of the head whose mouth was\nsupposed to be the gates of Hell, the idea appears to be entirely\nChristian. \"Christ's descent into Hell\" was a favourite subject of Mystery\nplays. In the Coventry pageant the \"book of words\" contained but six\nverses, in which Hell is styled the \"cindery cell.\" The Chester play is\nmuch longer, and is drawn from the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. This\ngospel, which has a version in Anglo-Saxon of A.D. 950, is no doubt the\nsource from which is derived a prevalent form of Hell's Mouth in which\nChrist is represented holding the hand of one of the persons engulped in\nthe infernal jaws. This is seen in a carving on the east window of\nDorchester Abbey.\n\nThe Mouth is here scarcely that of a dragon, but that of an exceedingly\nwell-studied serpent; for intent and powerful malignity the expression of\nthis fine stone carving would be difficult to surpass. The Descent into\nHell is one of a series, on the same window, of incidents in the life of\nChrist; all are exceedingly quaint, but their distance from the ground\nimproves them in a more than ordinary degree, and their earnest intention\nprevails over their accidental grotesqueness. The beautiful curves in this\nviperous head are well worthy of notice in connection with the remarks\nupon the artistic qualities of Gothic grotesques.\n\n[Illustration: HELL'S MOUTH, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nThe verse of the Gospel (xix., 12), explains who the person is. \"And [the\nLord] taking hold of Adam by his right hand he ascended from hell and all\nthe saints of God followed him.\" The female figure is of course Eve, who\nis shewn with Adam in engravings of the subject by Albert Durer (1512,\netc.,) and others. The vision of Piers Ploughman (_circa_ 1362), has\nparticular mention of Adam and Eve among Satan's captive colony. Satan, on\nhearing the order of a voice to open the gates of Hell, exclaims:--\n\n  \"Yf he reve me of my ryght he robbeth me by mastrie,\n  For by ryght and reson the reukes [rooks] that be on here\n  Body and soul beth myne both good and ille\n  For he hyms-self hit seide that Syre is of Helle,\n  That Adam and Eve and al hus issue\n  Sholden deye with deol [should die with grief] and here dwell evere\n  Yf thei touchede a tree othr toke ther of an appel.\"\n\nA MS. volume in the British Museum, of poems written in the thirty-fourth\nyear of the reign of Henry VI., has \"Our Lady's Song of the Chyld that\nsoked hyr brest,\" in which other persons than Adam and Eve are stated to\nhave been taken out of hell on the same occasion:--\n\n  \"Adam and Eve wyth hym he take,\n  Kyng David, Moyses and Salamon\n  And haryed hell every noke,\n  Wythyn hyt left he soulys non.\"\n\nThe belief in the descent in Hell can be traced back to the second\ncentury. The form of Hell as a mouth is much later.\n\nThere is mention of a certain \"Mouth of Hell,\" which in 1437 was used in a\nPassion play in the plain of Veximiel; this Mouth was reported as very\nwell done, for it opened and shut when the devils required to pass in or\nout, and it had two large eyes of steel.\n\nThe great east window of York Cathedral, the west front and south doorway\nof Lincoln, and the east side of the altar-screen, Beverley Minster, have\nrepresentations of the Mouth of Hell. The chancel arch of Southleigh has a\nlarge early fresco of the subject, in which two angels, a good and a bad\n(white and black), are gathering the people out of their graves; the black\nspirit is plucking up certain bodies (or souls) with a flesh-hook, and his\ncompanions are conveying them to the adjacent Mouth. In a Flemish Book of\nHours of the fifteenth century (in the Bodleian Library) there is a\nrepresentation with very minute details of all the usual adjuncts of the\nMouth, and, in addition, several basketsful of children (presumably the\nunbaptized) brought in on the backs of wolf-like fiends, and on sledges, a\ncommon mediaeval method of conveyance.\n\nSackvil mentions Hell as \"an hideous hole\" that--\n\n  \"With ougly mouth and griesly jawes doth gape.\"\n\nFurther instances of Hell's Mouth are in the block of the Ludlow ale-wife\non a following page.\n\n\n\n\nSatanic Representations.\n\n\n[Illustration: WINCHESTER COLLEGE, _14th century_.]\n\nQuaint as are the grotesques derived from the great symbolic Dragon, there\nis another series of delineations of Evil, which are still more curious.\nThese are the representations of Evil which are to be regarded not so much\nsymbolic as personal. The constant presence of Satan and his satellites on\ncapital and corbel, arcade and misericorde, is to be explained by the\nexceedingly strong belief in their active participation in mundane affairs\nin robust physical shapes.\n\n[Illustration: SATAN AND A SOUL, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nIt would, perhaps, not seem improper to refer the class of carving\ninstanced by the three cuts, next following, to the Typhon myth. I think,\nhowever, a distinction may be drawn between such carvings as represent\ncombat, and such as represent victimization; the former I would attribute\nto the myth, the latter to the Christian idea of the torments consequent\non sin. At the same time, the victim-carving, generally easily disposed of\nby styling it \"Satan and a Soul,\" is undoubtedly largely influenced by\nthe myth-idea of Typhon (by whatever name known) as a _seizer_, as\nindicated definitely in one of his general names, Graha. The figure was\nnaturally one according well with the mediaeval understanding of spiritual\npunishment, and its varieties in carving are numerous enough to furnish an\nadequate inferno. The Dorchester example is a small boss in the groined\nceiling of the sedilia of celebrants; that at Ewelme is a weather-worn\nparapet-ornament on the south of the choir; the carving at Farnsham is on\na misericorde.\n\n[Illustration: SATAN AND A SOUL, EWELME, OXON.]\n\nNot entirely, though in some degree, the two next illustrations support\nthe theory, of punishment rather than conflict, for the others.\n\n[Illustration: REMORSE, YORK.]\n\nThe carving in York Cathedral is of a graceful type; there is one closely\nresembling it at Wells. The Glasgow sketch is from the drawing of a\nfragment of the cathedral; it is more vivid and ludicrous than the other.\nA comparison of these two affords a good idea of the excellent in Gothic\nornament. The Glasgow carving lacks everything but vigor; the York\nproduction, though no exceptional example, has vigor, poetry, and grace.\n\nWe will now revert to the more personal and \"human\" aspect of Satan.\n\n[Illustration: REMORSE, GLASGOW.]\n\nA writer[4] in the _Art Journal_ some years ago offered excellent general\nobservations upon the ideas of the Evil One found at various periods. He\npointed out that the frolicsome character of the mediaeval demon was\nimparted by Christianity, with its forbidden Satan coming into contact\nwith the popular belief in hobgoblins and fairies which were common in the\nold heathen belief of this island, and so the sterner teaching was tinged\nby more popular fancies.\n\nThere is much truth in this, except that for the hobgoblins and fairies we\nmay very well read ancient deities, for the ultimate effect of\nChristianity upon Pagan reverence was to turn it into contempt and\nabhorrence for good and bad deities alike. We can read this in the slender\nrecords of ancient worships whose traces are left in language. Thus _Bo_\nis apparently one of the ancient root-words implying divinity; _Bod_, the\ngoddess of fecundity; _Boivani_, goddess of destruction; _Bolay_, the\ngiant who overcame heaven, earth and hell; _Bouders_, or _Boudons_, the\ngenii guarding Shiva, and _Boroon_, a sea-god, are in Indian mythology.\n_Bossum_ is a good deity of Africa. _Borvo_ and _Bormania_ were guardians\nof hot springs, and with _Bouljanus_ were gods of old Gaul. _Borr_ was\nthe father of Odin, and _Bure_ was Borr's sister. The _Bo_-tree of\nIndia is the sacred tree of wisdom. In Sumatra _boo_ is a root-word\nmeaning good (as in _booroo_). _Bog_ is the Slavonic for god. These are\ngiven to shew a probable connection among wide-spread worships.\n\n[Illustration: SATAN AND A SOUL, DORCHESTER.]\n\nWe are now chiefly concerned with the last instance. The Slavonic _Bog_, a\ngod, is met in Saxon as a goblin, for the \"boy\" who came into the court of\nKing Arthur and laid his wand upon a boar's head was clearly a \"bog\" (the\nSaxon _g_ being exchanged erroneously for _y_, as in _dag's aeg_, day's\neye, etc). In Welsh, similarly, _Brog_ is a goblin, and we have the evil\nidea in _bug_.\n\n  \"Warwick was a bug that feared us all.\"\n              --_Shakespeare. Henry IV., v., 2._\n\nThat is \"Warwick was a goblin that made us all afraid.\" The Boggart is a\nfairy still believed in by Staffordshire peasants. We have yet _bugbear_,\nas the Russians have _Buka_, and the Italians _Buggaboo_, of similar\nmeaning.\n\nAs with the barbaric gods, so with the classic deities, who equally\nsupplied material of which to make foul fiends. Bacchus, with the legs and\nsprouting horns of a goat, that haunter of vine-yards, then his fauns\nconstructed on the same symbolic principle, gave rise to the satyrs.\nThese, offering in their form disreputable points for reprobation, were\nfound to be a sufficiently appropriate symbol of the Devil. The reasons of\nvariety in the satyr figure are not far to seek, beyond the constant\ntendency of the mediaeval artist to vary form while preserving essence.\nEvery artist had his idea of the devil, either drawn from the rich depths\nof a Gothic imagination, from the descriptions accumulated by popular\ncredulity, and most of all from that result of both--the Devil of the\nMystery or Miracle Plays.\n\nThe plays were performed by trade gilds. Every town had many of these\ngilds, though several would sometimes join at the plays; and even very\nsmall villages had both gild and plays. There are yet existing some slight\ntraces of the reputation which obscure villages had in their own vicinity\nfor their plays, of which Christmas mumming contains the last tattered\nrelic. So that, the Devil being a favourite character in the pieces so\nwidely performed, it is not surprising to find him equally at home among\nthe works of the carvers, who, according to the nature of artists of all\ntime, would doubtless holiday it with the best, and look with more or less\nappreciation upon such drama as was set before them.\n\nWhere we see Satan as the satyr, he is the rollicking fiend of the Mystery\nstage, tempting with sly good-humour, tormenting with a grim and ferocious\njoy, or often merely posturing and capering in a much to be envied height\nof the wildest animal spirits. There is in popular art no trace, so far as\nthe writer's observation extends, of that lofty sorrow at man's\nunworthiness, which has occasionally been attributed to Satan.\n\nThe general feeling is that indicated by the semi-contemptuous epithets\napplied to the satyr-idea of \"Auld Clootie\" (cloven-footed), and \"Auld\nHornie,\" of our Northern brethren.\n\n[Illustration: A MAN-GOAT, ALL SOULS, OXFORD.]\n\nHorns were among all ancient nations symbolic of power and dignity.\nAncient coinages shew the heads of kings and deities thus adorned. The\nGoths wore horns. Alexander frequently wore an actual horn to indicate his\npresumption of divine descent. The head dress of priests was horned on\nthis account. This may point to a pre-historic period when the horned\nanimals were not so much of a prey as we find them in later days; thus the\naurochs of Western Europe appears to have been more dreaded by the wild\nmen of its time, than has been, say, the now fast-disappearing bison by\nthe North American Indians. On the other hand, the marvellous continuity\nof nature's designs lead us to recognize that the carnivorous animals must\nalways have had the right to be the symbols of physical power. Therefore,\nthe idea of power, originally conveyed by the horns, is that carried by\nthe possession of riches in the shape of flocks and herds. The pecunia\nwere the means of power, and their horns the symbol of it. With the\nEgyptians, the ox signified agriculture and subsistence. Pharaoh saw the\nkine coming out of the Nile because the fertility of Egypt depends upon\nthat river. So that it is easy to see how the ox became the figure of the\nsun, and of life. Similar significance attached to the sheep, the goat,\nand the ram. Horus is met as \"Orus, the Shepherd.\" Ammon wore the horns of\na ram. Mendes was worshipped as a goat.\n\n[Illustration: A CHERISHED BEARD, CHICHESTER.]\n\nThe goat characteristics are well carved on a seat in All Souls. A goat\nfigure of the thirteenth century at Chichester has the head of a man with\na curious twisted or tied beard, clutched by one of the hands in which the\nfore feet terminate. The clutching of the beard is not uncommon among\nGothic figures, and has doubtless some original on a coin, or other\nancient standard design. At St. Helen's, Abingdon, Berkshire, in different\nparts of the church, three heads, one being a king, another a bishop, are\nshewn grasping or stroking each his own beard. It is to be remembered that\nthe stroking of the beard is a well-known Eastern habit.\n\nOf close kindred to the goat form is the bull form. Just as Ceres\nsymbolized the fecundity of the earth in the matter of cereals, so Pan was\nthe emblem by which was figured its productiveness of animal life. Thus\nPriapus was rendered in goat form, as the ready type of animal sexual\nvigor; but not less familiar in this connection was the bull, and that\nanimal also symbolizes Pan, who became, when superstition grew out of\nimagery, the protector of cattle in general. An old English superstition\nwas that a piece of horn, hung to the stable or cowhouse key, would\nprotect the animals from night-fright and other ills. When the pagan Gods\nwere skilfully turned into Christian devils, we find the bull equally with\nthe goat as a Satanic form, and several examples will be seen in the\ndrawings.\n\nThe ox, as the symbol of St. Luke, is stated to refer, on account of its\ncud-chewing, to the eclectic character of this evangelist's gospel.\nIrenaeus, speaking of the second cherubim of the Revelation, which is the\nsame animal, says the calf signifies the sacerdotal office of Christ; but\nthe fanciful symbolisms of the fathers and of the Bestiaries are often\nindifferent guides to original meaning. It may be that in the ox forms we\nhave astronomical allusions to Taurus, Bacchus, to Diana, or to Pan. A\nnote on the emblems of the Evangelists follows in the remarks on the\ncombinatory forms met in grotesque art.\n\nBefore passing on to consider particular examples of satyr or bull-form\nfiends, a few words may be said as to another form which, though allied to\nthe dragon-shape embodiments, has the personal character. This is the\nSerpent. The origin of this appears to be the translation of the word\n_Nachasch_ for serpent in the Biblical account of the momentous Eden\nepisode, a rendering which, without philological certainty, is\ncountenanced by the general presence of the serpent in one form or another\nin every system of theology in the world. Jewish tradition states that the\nserpent, with beauty of form and power of flight, had no speech, until in\nthe presence of Eve he ate of the fruit of the Tree, and so acquired\nspeech, immediately using the gift to tempt Eve. Other traditions say that\nNachasch was a camel, and became a serpent by the curse. Adam Clarke\nmaintained that Nachasch was a monkey. The traditional and mystic form of\nthe angels was that of a serpent. _Seraph_ means a fiery serpent. In\nIsaiah's vision, the seraphim are human-headed serpents. One of the most\nremarkable items in the history of worship is the account of the symbolic\nserpent erected by Moses, and the subsequent use of it as an idol until\nthe time of Hezekiah. In the first satire of Perseus, he says, \"paint two\nsnakes, the place is sacred!\"\n\n[Illustration: THE SERPENT, ELY.]\n\nThe use of the serpent as the Church symbol of regeneration and revival of\nhealth or life is not common in carvings. In these senses it was used by\nthe Greeks, though chiefly as the symbol of the Supreme Intellect, being\nthe special attribute and co-type of Minerva. The personal apparition\nwhich confronted Eve is not so infrequent, though without much variety.\n\nIn a representation of the temptation of Adam and Eve among the\nmisericordes of Ely, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is shewn\nof a very peculiar shape. The serpent, whose coils are difficult to\ndistinguish from the foliage of the tree, has the head of a saturnine\nAsiatic, who is taking the least possible notice of \"our first parents,\"\nas they stand eating apples and being ashamed, one on each side of the\ncomposition.\n\n[Illustration: THE OLD SERPENT, CHICHESTER. _13th century._]\n\nA carving in the choir of Chichester Cathedral shews in a double\nrepetition, one half of which is here shewn, the evil head with an attempt\nat the legendary comeliness, mingled with debased traits, that is\nartistically very creditable to the sculptor. As though dissatisfied with\nthe amount of beauty he had succeeded in imparting to the heads on the\nserpents, he adds, on the side-pieces of the carving, two other heads of\nfemales in eastern head-dresses, to which he has imparted a demure Dutch\nbeauty, due perhaps to his own nationality. Human-headed serpents are in\ncarvings at Norwich and at Bridge, Kent.\n\n[Illustration: DEMURENESS MEDITATING MISCHIEF. DEUTCHO-EGYPTIAN MASK,\nCHICHESTER.]\n\nWith regard to Satan's status as an angel, a considerable number of\nrepresentations of him are to be found, in which he conforms to a\nprevalent mediaeval idea as to the plumage of the spirit race. Angels are\nfound clothed entirely with feathers, as repeated some scores of times in\nthe memorial chapel, at Ewelme, of Alice, Duchess of Suffolk,\ngrand-daughter of Chaucer, who died in 1475. The annexed block shews a\nsmall archangel which surmounts the font canopy, and is of the same\ncharacter as the chapel angels. At All Souls, Oxford, is a carving of a\nwarrior-visaged person wearing a morion, and armed with a falchion and\nbuckler. He is clad in feathers only, appearing to be flying downward, and\nis either a representation of St. Michael or Lucifer.\n\n[Illustration: ANGEL, EWELME.]\n\n[Illustration: ST. MICHAEL, ALL SOULS, OXFORD.]\n\nSatan is often similarly treated. Loki, the tempter of the Scandinavian\nEden, who was ordered to seek the lost Idun he had deceived, had to go\nforth clad in borrowed garments of falcon's feathers with wings. When the\npageant at the Setting of the Midsummer Watch at Chester was forbidden by\nthe Mayor, in 1599, one of the prohibited figures was \"the Devil and his\nFeathers.\"\n\nThere may be a connection between the final punishment of Loki and the\nidea embodied in the carvings mentioned above as being at, among other\nplaces, Wells, York, and Glasgow, and which have been considered as\nconceptions of Remorse. Loki was condemned to be fastened to a rock to\nhelplessly endure the eternal dropping upon his brow of poison from the\njaws of a serpent; only that there is neither in these carvings, nor any\nothers noted to the present, any indication of the presence of the\nministering woman-spirit who for even the fiend Loki stood by to catch the\ndeath-drops in a cup of mercy.\n\n\n\n\nThe Devil and the Vices.\n\n\n[Illustration: RECORDING IMP. ST. KATHERINE'S, REGENT'S PARK. (_Initial\nadded_).]\n\nHaving examined the various lower forms given by man to his great enemy,\nand now noting that to such forms may be added the human figure in whole\nor part, we will next take in review a few of the sins which bring erring\nhumanity into the clutches of Satan; for we find some of the most\ngrotesque of antique carvings devoted to representation of what may be\ncalled the finale of the Sinner's Progress. These are probably largely\nderived from the Mystery Plays; for the moral teaching has the same direct\nsoundness. The ideas are often jocosely put, but the principle is one of\nmere retribution. The Devil cannot hurt the Saint and he pays out to the\nWicked the exact price of his wrong-doing. Thus in nearly all of what may\nbe termed the Sin series there is a Recording Imp who bears a tablet or\nscroll, on which we are to suppose the evil commissions and omissions of\nthe sinner are duly entered, entitling the fiend to take possession. This\nreminds of the Egyptian Mercury, Thoth, who recorded upon his tablets the\nactions of men, in order that at the Judgment there might be proper\nevidence.\n\n[Illustration: THE UNSEEN WITNESS, ELY.\n\nThe Account Presented. Satan Satisfied. The Record of Sin.]\n\nThere is a series of carvings, examplified at Ely, New College, Oxford,\nSt. Katherine's (removed from near the Tower to the Regent's Park) and\nGayton, which have Satan encouraging or embracing two figures apparently\nengaged in conversation. I have placed these among the Sins, for though no\nvery particular explanation is forthcoming as to the meaning of the group,\nit is clear that the two human beings are engaged in some occupation\nhighly agreeable to the fiend. This evidently has a connection with the\nmonkish story told of St. Britius. One day, while St. Martin was saying\nmass, Britius, who was officiating as deacon, saw the devil behind the\naltar, writing on a slip of parchment \"as long as a proctor's bill\" the\nsins which the congregation were then and there committing. The people,\nboth men and women, appear to have been doing many other things besides\nlistening to St. Martin, for the devil soon filled his scroll on both\nsides. Thus far our carvings.\n\nThe story goes further, and states that the devil, having further sins to\nrecord, but no further space on which to write them, attempted to stretch\nthe parchment with teeth and claws, which, however, broke the record, the\ndevil falling back against a wall. The story then betrays itself. Britius\nlaughed loudly, whereat St. Martin, highly displeased, demanded the\nreason, when Britius told him what he had seen, which relation the other\nsaint accepted as being true.\n\nThis story is one of a class common among mediaeval pulpit anecdotes. It\ncannot well be considered that the carvings arose from the story, nor the\nstory from the carvings. Probably both arose from something else,\naccounting for the number of sinners being uniformly two, and for the\nattitude of the fiend in each case being so similar. With regard to the\nlatter I must leave the matter as it is.\n\nI venture, as to the signification of the two figures, to make a\nsuggestion to stand good until a better be found. In the Mystery Play\nentitled the \"Trial of Mary and Joseph\" (Cotton MS., Pageant xiv.,\namplified out of the Apocryphal New Testament, _Protevan_, xi.), the story\nruns that Mary and Joseph, particularly the former, are defamed by two\nSlanderers. The Bishop sends his Summoner for the two accused persons, and\norders that they drink the water of vengeance \"which is for trial,\" a kind\nof miraculous ordeal by poison. Joseph drinks and is unhurt; Mary likewise\nand is declared a pure maid in spite of facts. One of the Slanderers\ndeclares that the drink has been changed because the Virgin was of the\nHigh Priest's kindred, upon which the Slanderer is himself ordered to\ndrink what is left in the cup. Doing so he instantly becomes frantic. All\nask pardon of Mary for their suspicions, and, that being granted, the play\nis ended.\n\nNow the play commences with the meeting of the Two Slanderers. A brief\nextract or two will shew their method.\n\n  1ST DETRACTOR.--To reyse blawthyr is al my lay,\n                    Bakbyter is my brother of blood\n                  Dede he ought come hethyr in al this day\n                    Now wolde God that he were here,\n                  And, by my trewth, I dare well say\n                  That if we tweyn to gethyr apere\n                  Mor slawndyr we t[w]o schal a rere\n                  With in an howre thorwe outh this town,\n                  Than evyr ther was this thouwsand yer,\n                  Now, be my trewth, I have a sight\n                  Evyn of my brother ... Welcome ...\n\n  2ND DETRACTOR.--I am ful glad we met this day.\n\n  1ST DETRACTOR.--Telle all these pepyl [the audience] what is yor name--\n\n  2ND DETRACTOR.--I am Bakbyter, that spyllyth all game,\n                  Both hyd and known in many a place.\n\nThen they fall to, and in terms of some wit and much freedom describe the\nphysical condition of she who was \"calde mayd Mary.\"\n\nThe Two Slanderers in this play are undoubtedly men, for each styles the\nother \"brother.\" Yet there are words in their dialogue, not suited to\nthese pages, which could properly only be used by women. As in at least\none of the carvings the sinners are women, if my hypothesis has any\ncorrectness there must be some other form of the story in which the\ndetractors are female. It is to be noted, also, that the play from which I\nhave quoted has no mention of the devil.\n\n[Illustration: A BACKBITER, ST. KATHERINE'S.]\n\nYears before I met with the play of the trial of Joseph and Mary, I\nconsidered that the sin of the Two might be scandal, and put down a\ncurious carving adjoining the St. Katherine group as a reference to it,\nand suggested it might be a humorous rendering of a Backbiter. This is\nshewn in the accompanying block. It was therefore agreeable to find one\nof the Mystery detractors actually named Backbiter. Against that it may be\nmentioned that the composite figure with a head at the rear is not unique.\nAt Rothwell, Northamptonshire, is a dragon attempt, rude though probably\nof late fifteenth century work, with a similar head in the same anatomical\ndirection; this is not connected with anything that can be considered\nbearing upon the subject of the Mystery, unless the heads on the same\nmisericorde are meant to be those of Jews.\n\nThe example at Ely shews the fiend closely embracing the two sinners who\nare evidently in the height of an impressive conversation. One figure has\na book on its knee, the other is telling the beads of a rosary. At the\nsides are two imps of a somewhat Robin Goodfellow-like character, each\nbearing a scroll with the account of the misdeeds of the sinners, and\nwhich we may presume are the warrants by which Satan is entitled to seize\nhis prey. He is the picture of jovial good-nature.\n\n[Illustration: A BACKBITER, ROTHWELL, NORTHANTS.]\n\nNew College, Oxford, has a misericorde of the subject in which the\nfigures, female in appearance, are seated in a sort of box. This reminds\nus of Baldini and Boticelli's picture of Hell, which is divided into\nvarious ovens for different vices. That may be the idea here, or perhaps\nthe object is a coffin and is used to emphasize what the wages of sin\nare. They, like the two sinners of Ely, are in animated conversation.\nSatan here is of a bull-headed form with wings rather like those of a\nbutterfly. These are of the end of the fifteenth century.\n\n[Illustration: THE UNSEEN WITNESS, NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.]\n\nThere are foreign carvings described by Mr. Evans as being of the devil\ntaking notes of the idle words of two women during mass. This is, perhaps,\nthe simple meaning of all this series, and an evidence of the resentment\nof ecclesiastics against the irreverent. There is considerable evidence\nthat religious service was scarcely a solemn thing in mediaeval times. If\nthis is the signification the box arrangement described above may be some\nsort of early pew.\n\nThe next example, from St. Katherine's (lately) by the Tower, has the\nfiend in a fashionable slashed suit. The ladies here are only in bust, and\nthough of demurely interested expression they have not that rapport and\nanimation which distinguish the two previously noticed. Satan does not\nembrace them, but stands behind with legs outstretched and hands, or\nrather claws, on knees, ready to clutch them at the proper moment.\n\n[Illustration: THE UNSEEN WITNESS, ST. KATHERINE'S.]\n\nAt Gayton, Northants, is a further curious instance of this group. The two\nSinners are in this case unquestionably males, and, but for the\ncoincidence with the preceding examples, the men might have been supposed\nto have been engaged in some game of chance. It will be observed that the\none to the right has a rosary as in the first-named carving. Satan here\nis well clothed in feathers, and in his left wing is the head of what is\nprobably one of the instruments of torture awaiting the very much\novershadowed victims. It is a kind of rake or flesh-hook, with three\nsharp, hooked teeth; perhaps a figure of the tongue of a slanderer,\nmaterialized for his own subsequent scarification; it may be added as a\nkind of satanic badge. Satan bears on his right arm a leaf-shaped shield.\n\n[Illustration: THE UNSEEN WITNESS, GAYTON, NORTHANTS.]\n\nThe vice next to be regarded is Avarice. In a misericorde at Beverley\nMinster we have three scenes from the history of the Devil. One gives us\nthe avaricious man bending before his coffers. He has taken out a coin; if\nwe read aright his contemplative and affectionate look, it is gold.\nHidden behind the chest behold Satan, one of whose bullock horns is\nvisible as he lurks out of the miser's sight, grinning to think how surely\nthe victim is his.\n\nAt the opposite end of the carving is the other extreme, Gluttony. A man\nis drinking out of a huge flask, which he holds in his right hand, while\nin the other he grasps a ham (or is it not impossible that this is a\nsecond bottle). In this the devil is likewise present; he is apparently\ndesperately anxious the victim should have enough.\n\n[Illustration: THE DEVIL AND THE MISER, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: SATAN AND A SOUL, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nBetween these two reliefs appears Satan seizing a naked soul. In the\noriginal all that remains of the Devil's head is the outline and one\nhorn; of the soul's head there remains only the outline; the two faces I\nhave ventured to supply, also the fore-arm of the Devil. The fiend is here\nagain presented with the attributes of a bullock, rather than a goat.\nSatan has had placed on his abdomen a mask or face, a somewhat common\nmethod of adding to the startling effect of his boisterous personality.\nThe fine rush which the fiend is making upon the soul, and the shrinking\nhorror of the latter, are exceedingly well rendered. The moral is, we may\nsuppose, that the sinners on either side will come to the same bad end.\n\n[Illustration: THE DEVIL AND THE GLUTTON, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nAmong the seat-carvings of Henry VII's. Chapel, Westminster Abbey, we have\nthe vice of Avarice more fully treated, there being two carvings devoted\nto the subject. In the first we see a monk suddenly seized by a quaint and\ncurious devil (to whom I have supplied his right fore-arm). The monk,\nhorror-stricken, yet angry, has dropped his bag of sovereigns, or nobles,\nand the coins fall out. He would escape if he could, but the claws of the\nfiend have him fast.\n\n[Illustration: DISMAY, WESTMINSTER.]\n\nIn the companion carving we have the incident--and the monk--carried a\nlittle further. The devil has picked him up, thrown him down along his\nconveniently horizontal back, and strides on with him through a wild place\nof rocks and trees, holding what appears to be a flaming torch, which he\nalso uses as a staff. The monk has managed to gather up his dearly-loved\nbag of money, and is frantically clutching at the rocks as he is swiftly\nborne along. Satan in the first carving has rather a benevolent human\nface, in the second a debased beast face, unknown to natural history.\nThere is no explanation of how Sathanus has disposed in the second scene\nof the graceful dragon wings he wears in the first. It is probable that\ntwo of the Italians who carved this set each took the same subject, and we\nhave here their respective renderings. I mention with diffidence that if\nthe mild and timorous face of Bishop Alcock (which may be seen at Jesus\nCollege, Cambridge), the architect of this part of the abbey, could be\nsupposed to have unfortunately borne at any time the expressions upon\neither of these two representations of the monk, the likeness would, in my\nopinion, be rather striking.\n\n[Illustration: THE OVERTAKING OF AVARICE, WESTMINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: THE TAKING OF THE AVARICIOUS, WESTMINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: DEMONIACAL DRUMMER, WESTMINSTER.]\n\nOn the side carving of the carrying-away scene is shewn a woman, dismayed\nat the sight. On the opposite side a fiend is welcoming the monk with beat\nof drum, just as we shall see the ale-wife saluted with the drone of the\nbagpipes.\n\n[Illustration: VANITY, ST. MARY'S MINSTER.]\n\nA carving at St. Mary's Minster, Isle of Thanet, has the devil looking out\nwith a vexed frown from between the horns of a lofty head-dress, which is\non a lady's head. Whether this be a rendering of the dishonest ale-wife,\nor a separate warning against the vice of Vanity, cannot well be decided.\n\nThere was a popular opinion at one time that the bulk of church carvings\nwere jokes at the expense of clergy, probably largely because every hood\nwas thought to be a cowl. There is, however, no doubt as to the carving\nhere presented. It may represent the consecration of a bishop. The\npresence of Satan dominating both the individuals, and pulling forward the\ncowl of the seated figure, appears to declare that this is to illustrate\nthe vice of Hypocrisy. It is at New College, Oxford.\n\n[Illustration: HYPOCRISY, NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.]\n\n\n\n\nAle and the Ale-wife.\n\n\n[Illustration: THE JOLLY TAPSTER, LUDLOW.]\n\nAle, good old ale, has formed the burden of more songs and satires ancient\nand modern, than will ever be brought together. Ale was the staple\nbeverage for morning, noon, and evening meals. It is probable that swollen\nas is the beer portion of the Budget, the consumption of ale, man for man,\nis much less than that of any mediaeval time. The records of all the\nauthoritative bodies who dealt with the liquor traffic of the olden time\nare crowded with rules and regulations that plainly demonstrate not only\nthe universal prevalence of beer drinking in a proper and domestic degree,\nbut also the constant growing abuse of the sale of the liquor. In the\nreign of Elizabeth the evils of the tavern had become so notorious, that\nin some places women were forbidden to keep ale-houses.\n\nAs far back as A.D. 794, ale-houses had become an institution, for we find\nthe orders passed at the Council of Frankfort in that year included one by\nwhich ecclesiastics and monks were forbidden to drink in an ale-house. St.\nAdrian was the patron of brewers.\n\nIn some boroughs (Hull may be given as an instance) in the fifteenth\ncentury, the Mayor was not allowed to keep a tavern in his year of office.\nBrewers and tavern keepers, with many nice distinctions of grade among\nthem, were duly licensed and supervised, various penalties meeting\nattempts at illicit trade. The quality of ale was also an object of\nsolicitude, and an official, called the ale-taster, was in nearly every\ncentre of population made responsible for the due strength and purity of\nthe national beverage. It was customary in some places in the fifteenth\ncentury for the ale-taster to be remunerated by a payment of 4d. a year\nfrom each brewer.\n\nIt has to be remembered ale was drunk at the meals at which we now use\ntea, coffee, and cocoa; it will be interesting to glance at an instance of\nthe rate at which it was consumed. At the Hospital of St. Cross, founded\nin 1132, at Winchester, thirteen \"impotent\" men had each a daily allowance\nof a gallon and a half of good small beer, with more on holidays; this was\nafterwards reduced to three quarts with some two quarts extra for\nholidays. The porter at the gate had only three quarts to give away to\nbeggars. There was great idea of continuity at this establishment; even in\n1836 there was spent L133 5s. for malt and hops for the year's brewing.\nThe happy thirteen had each yet three quarts every day as well as a jack\n(say four gallons) extra among them on holidays, with 4s. for beer money.\nTwo gallons of beer were also daily dispensed at the gate at the rate of a\nhorn of not quite half a pint to each applicant.\n\n[Illustration: LETTICE LITTLETRUST AND A SIMPLE SIMON. WELLINGBOROUGH,\n_14th century_.]\n\nAle, no more than other things, could be kept out of church. A carving at\nWellingborough, Northamptonshire, shews us an interview between a would-be\ncustomer on the one part and an ale-wife on the other part. There is, in a\nlist of imaginary names in an epilogue or \"gagging\" summons to a miracle\nplay, mention of one Letyce Lytyltrust, whom surely we see above.\nEvidently the man is better known than trusted, and while a generous\nsupply of the desired refreshment is \"on reserve\" in a dear old jug, some\nintimation has been made that cash is required; he, like one Simon on a\nsimilar occasion, has not a penny, and with one hand dipped into his\nempty pocket, he scratches his head with the other. His good-natured\nperplexity contrasts well with the indifferent tradeswoman-like air of the\nale-wife, who while she rests the jug upon a bench, does not relinquish\nthe handle. He is saying to himself, \"Nay, marry, an I wanted a cup o' ale\naforetime I was ever served. A thirsty morn is this. I know not what to\nsay to t' jade;\" while she is muttering, \"An he wipe off the chalk ahint\nthe door even, he might drink and welcome, sorry rogue tho' he be. But no\nuse to cry pay when t' barrel be empty.\"\n\nAt Edgeware in 1558, an innkeeper, was fined for selling a pint and a half\nof ale at an exorbitant price, namely, one penny. A quart was everywhere\nthe proper quantity, and that of the strongest; small ale sold at one\npenny for two quarts. With regard to the then higher value of money,\nhowever, the prices may be considered to be about the same as at present,\nand the same may be said of many commodities which appear in records at\nlow figures.\n\nOf an earlier date is the tapster of the initial block, from Ludlow, who\nfurnishes a comfortable idea of a congenial, and to judge from his pouch,\na profitable occupation. It is to be presumed the smallness of the barrel\nas compared with that of the jug--probably of copper, and dazzlingly\nbright--was the artist's means of getting its full outline within the\npicture, and not an indication of the relations of supply and demand.\n\nAlas for the final fate of the dishonest woman who could cheat men in the\nimportant matter of ale! At Ludlow we are shewn such a one, stripped of\nall but the head dress and necklace of her vanity, and carried\nignominiously and indecorously to Hell's Mouth on the shoulders of a\nstalwart demon (whose head is supplied in the block). In her hand, and\npartaking of her own reverse, she bears the hooped tankard with which she\ndefrauded her customers. It is the measure of her woe. The demon thus\nloaded with mischief is met by another, armed with the bagpipes. With\nhilarious air and fiendish grin he welcomes the latest addition to the\ncollection of evil-doers within. To the right are the usual gaping jaws of\nHell's Mouth, into which are disappearing two nude females, who, we may\nsuppose, are other ale-wifes not more meritorious than the lady of the\nhorned head dress. To the left is the Recording Imp.\n\n[Illustration: THE END OF THE ALE-WIFE, LUDLOW.]\n\n[Illustration: THE FEMALE DRAWER, ALL SOULS, OXFORD.]\n\nThere is allusion in a copy of the Chester Mystery of Christ's Descent\ninto Hell, among the Harleian MSS., to an ale-wife of Chester, which\ndoubtless suggested this carving. This lady, a little-trust and a cheater\nin her day, laments having to dwell among the fiends; she endeavours to\npropitiate one of them by addressing him as \"My Sweet Master Sir\nSattanas,\" who returns the compliment by calling her his \"dear darling.\"\nShe announces that:--\n\n  \"Some tyme I was a tavernere,\n  A gentill gossipe and a tapstere,\n  Of wyne and ale a trustie brewer,\n      Which wo hath me wroughte.\n  Of cannes I kepte no trewe measuer\n  My cuppes I soulde at my pleasuer,\n  Deceaving manye a creature,\n      Tho' my ale were naughte.\"\n\nThe Devil then delivers a short speech, which is one of the earliest\ntemperance addresses on record. He says:--\n\n  \"Welckome, dere ladye, I shall thee wedd,\n  For many a heavye and droncken head\n  Cause of thy ale were broughte to bed\n  Farre worse than anye beaste.\"\n\nThere is an old saying \"pull Devil, pull Baker\" connected with the\nrepresentation of a baker who sold his bread short of weight, and was\ncarried to the lower regions in his own basket; the ale-wife, of our\ncarving, however, does not appear to have retained any power of\nresistance, however slight or ineffectual.\n\n[Illustration: A HORN OF ALE, ELY.]\n\nAt All Souls, Oxford, there is a good carving of a woman drawing ale. It\nis not, apparently, the ale-wife herself, but the maid sent down into the\ncellar. The maid, perhaps after a good draught of the brew, seems to be\nblowing a whistle to convey, to the probably listening ears of her\nmistress upstairs, the impression that the jug has not received any\nimproper attention from her. The artful expression of the ale-loving maid\nlends countenance to the conjecture that the precaution has not been\nentirely efficacious. It is to this day a jocular expression in\nOxfordshire, and perhaps elsewhere, \"You had better whistle while you are\ndrawing that beer.\"\n\nA carving at Ely represents Pan as an appreciative imbiber from a\nveritable horn of ale.\n\n\n\n\nSatires without Satan.\n\n\n[Illustration: THE SLUMBERING PRIEST, NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.]\n\nThere are numbers of grotesques which are satires evidently aimed at sins,\nbut which have not the visible attendance of the evil one himself.\n\nAmong these must be included a curious carving from Swine, in Holderness.\nThe priory of Swine was a Cistercian nunnery of fifteen sisters and a\nprioress. Mr. Thomas Blashill states, \"There were, however, two canons at\nleast, to assist in the offices of religion, who did not refrain from\nmeddling in secular affairs.\"[5] There was also a small community of\nlay-brethren.\n\nThe female in the centre of the carving is a nun; her hood is drawn partly\nover her face, so that only one eye is fully visible, but with the other\neye she is executing a well-known movement of but momentary duration. The\ntwo ugly animals between which she peers are intended for hares, a symbol\nof libidinousness, as well as of timidity.\n\nAnother carving in the same chancel may be in derision of some official of\nthe papal court, which, in the thirteenth century, on an occasion of the\ncontumacy of the nuns in refusing to pay certain tithes, caused the\nchurch, with that adjoining, of the lay brethren, to be closed. The nuns\ndefied all authority, broke open the chapels, and in general during the\nlong contest acted in a curiously ungovernable, irresponsible manner.\n\n[Illustration: A PAPAL MONSTER, SWINE, YORKSHIRE.]\n\nAt Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire, are some misericordes, which, says\nMiss Phipson, are stated to have originally belonged to Old St. Paul's.\nAmong them is the annexed subject. The wicked expression of the face, and\nthe general incorrectness of the composition, are a historical evidence of\nindecorum akin to the gestures of the Beverley carvers.\n\n[Illustration: IMPUDENCE, BISHOP'S STORTFORD, HERTFORDSHIRE.]\n\nFrom the fine choir carvings of Westminster Abbey yet another example is\ngiven. It is one in which the spirit of the old _Comptes a Plaisance_ is\nwell illustrated. A well-clad man, suggesting Falstaff in his prime, is\nseated with a lady among luxurious foliage. His arm is right round his\ncompanion's waist, while his left hand dips into his capacious and\napparently well-lined pouch, or gipciere. He has been styled a merchant.\nHe is manifestly making a bargain. The lady is evidently a daughter of the\nhireling (_hirudo!_), and is crying, \"Give, give.\" In spite of this being\nthe work of an Italian artist, the artistic feeling about it would seem to\nrecall slightly the lines of Holbein.\n\n[Illustration: THE WINKING NUN, SWINE, YORKSHIRE.]\n\n[Illustration: A QUESTION OF PRICE, WESTMINSTER ABBEY.]\n\nThe small carving to the right of the above is a highly-elate pig, playing\nthe pipe. This is shewn in a short chapter hereafter given on Animal\nMusicians. The initial at the head of this chapter is illustrated with the\n\"slumbering priest,\" the carving of whom is at the right of that of the\n'Unseen Witness,' drawn on page 85. This doubtless implies that some\nportion of the sin of the people was to be attributed to the indifference\nof the clergy. Balancing this, there is in the original carving an aged\nperson kneeling, and, supported by a crutch, counting her beads.\n\nIn a subsequent chapter (on Compound Forms in Gothic) the harpy is\nmentioned, and shewn to be a not uncommon subject of church art, either as\nfrom the malignant classic form which symbolized fierce bad weather, or as\nthe more beneficient though not unsimilar figure which was the symbol of\nAthor, the Egyptian Venus. A Winchester example which might seem in place\namong the remarks on the Compounds, is included here, as it is evidently\nintended to embody a sin. It serves to show that a modern use of the word\nharpy was well understood in mediaeval times. The design is simple, the\nvulture wings being made to take the position of the hair of the woman\nhead. She lies in wait spider-wise, her great claws in readiness for the\nprey; and is evidently a character-sketch of a coarse, insatiable daughter\nof the horse-leech.\n\n[Illustration: THE HARPY IN WAIT, WINCHESTER.]\n\n\n\n\nScriptural Illustrations.\n\n\n[Illustration: ADAM AND EVE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nMystery Plays, we have seen, drew upon the Apocryphal New Testament for\nsubjects, but it has simply happened that the examples of vice carvings\nillustrate those writings, for Mystery Plays were in general founded upon\nthe canonical scriptures. There are many carvings which have Biblical\nincidents for their subject, but it is often impossible to say whether the\ntext were the sole material of the designer, or whether his ideas were\nformed by representations he had seen on the Mystery stage. It may be\npresumed that the effect would not be greatly different in one case from\nthe other.\n\nThe story of Jonah furnishes a subject for two misericordes in Ripon\nCathedral. One is in the frontispiece of this volume. In the first the\nprophet is being pushed by three men unceremoniously over the side of the\nvessel which has the usual mediaeval characteristics, and, in which,\nplainly, there is no room for a fourth person. The ship is riding easily\non by no means tumultuous waves, out of which protrudes the head of the\ngreat fish. The fish and Jonah appear to regard the situation with equal\ncomplacency.\n\nIn the sequel carving Jonah is shewn being cast out by the fish, of\nwhich, as in the other, the head only is visible. The monster of the deep\nhas altered its appearance slightly during the period of Jonah's\nincarceration, its square upper teeth having become pointed. The prophet\nis represented kneeling among the teeth, apparently offering up thanks for\nhis deliverance. The sea is bounded by a rocky shore on which stand trees\nof the well-known grotesque type in which they are excellent fir-cones.\n\n[Illustration: THE STORY OF JONAH. THE CASTING OUT.]\n\nThese two carvings are of somewhat special interest, as their precise\norigin is known. They are both exceedingly close copies of engravings in\nthe Biblia Pauperum, or Poor Man's Bible, otherwise called \"Speculum\nHumanae Salvationis,\" or the Mirror of Human Salvation. Other Biblical\nsubjects in the Ripon Series of Misericordes are from the same source. Did\nthe Sculptor or Sculptors of the series fall short of subjects, or were\ntheir eyes caught by the definite outlines of the prints in the \"Picture\nBible\" as it lay chained in the Minster?\n\nThe Adoration, in a carving in the choir of Worcester, comes under the\nhead of unintentional grotesques. It is a proof that though the\nmanipulative skill of the artist may be great, that may only accentuate\nhis failure to grasp the true spirit of a subject; and render what might\nhave been only a piece of simplicity, into an elaborate grotesque. The\ncommon-place, ugly features--where not broken away--the repeated attitudes\nand the symmetric arrangement join to defeat the artist's aim. Add to\nthose the anachronisms, the ancient Eastern rulers in Edward III. crowns\nand gowns, seated beneath late Gothic Decorated Arches offering gifts,\nand the absurdity is nearly complete. It is difficult to quite understand\nthe presence of the lady with gnarled features, on the left, bearing the\nswathed infant (headless) which seems to demonstrate that this was carved\nby a foreigner, or was from a foreign source; for though swathing was\npractised to some extent in England, I can only find that in Holland,\nGermany, etc., and more especially in Italy, the children were swathed to\nthis extent, in the complete mummy fashion styled \"bambino.\"\n\nPerhaps the reason of the two figures right and left was that the artist\nwent with the artistic tide in representing the recently-born infant as a\nstrapping boy of four or five; yet his common-sense telling him that was a\nviolation of fact he put the other figure in with the strapped infant to\nshow what--in his own private opinion--the child would really be like at\nthe time.\n\nWe might have supposed it to be St. John, but he was older and not younger\nthan the Divine Child. In the Scandinavian mythology, Vali, the New Year,\nis represented as a child in swaddling clothes.\n\n[Illustration: ADORATION OF THE MAGI, WORCHESTER.]\n\nThe Scriptural subjects in carved work may be compared with the wall\npaintings which in a few instances have survived the reforming zeal of\nbygone white-washing churchwardens. The comparison is infinitely to the\nadvantage of the carvings. These paintings are in distemper and were the\nhumble inartistic precursors of noble frescoes in the continental fanes,\nbut which had in England no development. To what extent there was merit in\nthe mural decoration of the English cathedrals cannot well be stated.\nSuch examples, as in a few churches are left to us, are simply\ncuriosities. Though changing with the styles they are more crude than the\nsculptures, and the modern eye in search of the grotesque, finds here\ncompositions infinitely more excruciatingly imbecile than in any other\ndepartment of art-work of pretension.\n\n[Illustration: BAPTISMAL SCENE, GUILDFORD.]\n\nAt the same time when they are considered in conjunction with the most\nperfect of the paintings of their period they are by no means so low in\nthe scale of merit as at the first thought might be supposed.\n\nOutside the present purpose of looking at them as unintentional grotesques\nthey are very valuable specimens of the English art of painting of dates\nwhich have, except in illuminations, no other examples.\n\nThose of St. Mary's, Guildford, are very quaint. The first selected from\nthe series is a representation of Christ attending the ministration of St.\nJohn the Baptist. St. John has apparently taken down to the river bank a\nclassic font, in which is seated a convert. The Baptist himself, wearing a\nPhrygian cap (probably Saxon), is turning away from the figures of Christ\nand the man in the font, and is apparently addressing a company which does\nnot appear in the picture. Just as the font was put in to make the idea of\nbaptism easily understood, so, we may suppose, the curious buttons on\nthongs, or whatever they are, were shewn attached to St. John's wrist, to\nindicate that he is speaking of the \"shoe-latchets.\" The waters and bank\nof the Jordan are indicated in a few lines.\n\n[Illustration: CASTING OUT OF DEVILS, GUILDFORD.]\n\nThe other selection is still more bizarre. It evidently portrays Christ\ncasting out devils. The chief point of interest in this painting is the\noriginal conception of the devils. Anything more vicious, degraded, and\nabhorrent, it would be difficult to produce in so few lines. Roughly\nspeaking, they are a compound of the hawk, the hog, and the monkey; this\ncurious illustration is an excellent pendant to the marks made upon early\nSatanic depictions on a previous page. The faces are Saxon, except in the\ncase of the man with the sword, who is a distinct attempt at a Roman. The\nartist had evidently in his mind one who was set in authority.\n\nThe churches of the Midlands are rich in wall-paintings.\n\nA fine example is in North Stoke Church, Oxfordshire, which has two\nScriptural subjects, a series of angelic figures, and several other\nfigures, etc., only fragmentally visible. They were all found accidentally\nunder thick coats of whitewash. It may be doubted whether they were ever\nfinished. The two Biblical subjects are \"Christ betrayed in the Garden,\"\nand \"Christ before Pilate.\" Christ is a small apparently blind-folded\nfigure, of which only the head and one shoulder remains. Pilot is the\nSaxon lord, posing as the seated figure of legal authority, poising a\nhiltless sword in his right hand. The figure addressing Pilate is\napparently a Roman (Saxon) official; his hand is very large, but there is\na simple force about his drawing. The fourth figure in a mitre is\ndoubtless meant for a Jewish priest, and he has a nasty, clamorous look.\nPilate, unfortunately, has no pupils to his eyes, but his general\nappearance is as though he was expostulating with the priest.\n\nThere is a carol, printed in 1820, which has a woodcut of the subject not\nless rude and not less of an anachronism than this: but what is curious,\nas illustrating the main theory of the present volume--the tenacity with\nwhich form is adhered to in unconscious art--is that the disposition of\nthe figures is exactly the same in both pictures. Where the Saxon lord is\nseated, imagine a bearded magistrate, at a sort of Georgian\nquarter-sessions bench, with panelled front. For the simple Saxon, with\nvandyked shirt, suppose a Roman half-soldier, half-village-policeman. Then\ncomes the figure of Christ, with the head much lower than those of the\nothers because he is nearer. Lastly, there is an incomplete figure behind.\n\nIn this case the perfect correspondence may be mere coincidence; it is\ndifficult to explain otherwise. The design, however, is the same, only the\nAnglo-Norman filled in his detail from his observation of a manorial\ncourt, the Moorfield engraver from his knowledge of Bow Street\npolice-court.\n\nTo conclude, although these paintings are ludicrous in the extreme, the\nartists, who had no easy task, were absolutely serious, and their works,\ndivested of the comic aspect conferred by haste and manipulative\nincompetence, are marked by bold impressiveness.\n\nThe initial to this chapter is from one of a series of similar ornaments\non the parapet of the south side of the nave of Beverley Minster; it\nillustrates the toilsome nature of the later portion of Adam's life.\n\n\n\n\nMasks and Faces.\n\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, THE CHOIR, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe merriest, oddest, most ill-assorted company in the world meet together\nin the masks and faces of Gothic ornament. Space could always be found for\na head, and skill to execute it. Yet though the variety is immense, the\nfaces of Gothic art will be found to classify themselves very definitely.\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nPerhaps the most prevalent type is the classic mask with leaves issuing\nfrom the mouth. This may be an idea of the mask which every player in the\nancient drama wore, displayed as an ornament with laurel, bay, oak, ivy,\nor what not, inserted in the mouth, because it was pierced for speaking\nthrough, and the only aperture in which the decorative branches could be\ninserted. Or seeds might germinate in sculptured masks and so have\nsuggested the idea. Masks were hung in vineyards, etc.\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, ST. MARY'S MINSTER, ISLE OF THANET.]\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nA mask above the internal tower-doorway in the Lady Chapel of Dorchester\nAbbey has a close resemblance to the classic mask in the protruding lips,\nwhich, for the conveying of the voice for the great distance necessary in\nthe arrangement of the ancient theatres, were often shaped like a shallow\nspeaking-trumpet. The leaves appear to be the vine, and so the head,\nperhaps, that of Bacchus. Between the eyebrows will be noticed an angular\nprojection. This is probably explained by a mask in a misericorde in St.\nMary's Minster, in which some object, perhaps the nasal of a helmet, comes\ndown the middle of the forehead. The leaves in this case appear to be oak,\nwhich is, indeed, the prevailing tree used for the purpose.\n\n[Illustration: INDIAN MASK, ST. MARY'S, BEVERLEY.]\n\n[Illustration: LATE ITALIAN FOLIATE MASK, WESTMINSTER.]\n\nOccasionally a mask with leaves has the tongue protruding.\n\nPerhaps one of the most remarkable masks in Gothic is on another\nmisericorde in the same town, but in St. Mary's Church; in which the\nfeatures, the head-dress, the treatment of the ears, are all Indian, while\nthe leaves are those of the palm. This is, perhaps, unique as an instance\nof Gothic work so nearly purely Indian in its form.\n\n[Illustration: RIPON, _late Fifteenth Century_.]\n\nSometimes the leaves are much elaborated as in one of the late\nmisericordes of Westminster Abbey; in a few cases the original simplicity\nis quite lost, and we have, as at Ripon, the mask idea run mad, inverted,\nand the leaves become a graceful composition of foliage, flower, and\nfruit.\n\nA rosette from the tomb of Bishop de La Wich, Chichester, has four animal\nfaces in an excellent design.\n\n[Illustration: ROSETTE ON TOMB OF BISHOP DE LA WICH, CHICHESTER.]\n\nOften masks are of the simple description known as the Notch-head; these\nare of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They are generally found\nin exposed situations at some elevation, as among the series of corbels\n(_corbula_ a small basket) or brackets called the corbel-table,\nsupporting a stone course or cornice. The likeness to the human face\ncaused by the shadows of the T varies in different examples. That below,\nby curving back at the base, suggests the idea of a mouth. Occasionally,\nas at Finedon, Northamptonshire, the notch-head has its likeness to a face\nincreased by the addition of ears.\n\n[Illustration: MASK, BUCKLE, OR NOTCH HEAD, CULHAM, YORKSHIRE.]\n\nNorman masks are interesting, as they explain some odd appearances in\nlater work. In many churches are faces scored with lines across the\ncheeks, regardless of the ordinary lines of expression, in a manner\nclosely resembling the tattoo incisions of the New Zealand warrior. This\nappearance, however, is simply the too faithful copying of crude Norman\nmasks, in which the lines are meant to be the semi-circles round eyes and\nmouth. Moreover, the Norman heads are most often the heads of animals\ngrinning to shew the teeth, although their general effect is that of\ngrotesque human heads. Iffley west doorway furnishes the best example.\nHere we have the well-known \"beak head\" ornament. The semicircle and upper\nportion of the jambs have single heads, not two of which are exactly\nalike, though all closely resemble each other. They are heads of the eagle\nor gryphon order, with a forehead ornament very Assyrian in character. The\nheads of the jambs are compound, being the head of a grinning beast,\nprobably a lion, from the mouth of which emerges a gryphon head of small\nsize. These are sometimes called \"Cat-heads,\" and the gryphon head is\nsometimes considered (and perhaps occasionally shewn as such) a tongue. A\nfine doorway of beak-heads is at St. Peter's-in-the-East, Oxford, which\nchurch was probably executed by the workmen who were responsible for\nIffley.\n\n[Illustration: BEAK HEADS, IFFLEY.]\n\nIt is probable that the symbolism of this is the swallowing up of night by\nday or _vice versa_. The outer arch of the Iffley doorway consists of\nzodiacal signs, and at the south doorway are other designs elsewhere\nmentioned in this volume, far removed from Christian intent.\n\n[Illustration: NORMAN MASK, ROCHESTER.]\n\nThe grotesqueness of Norman work is almost entirely unconscious. The\nworkers were full of Byzantine ideas, and the severe and awful was their\nobject rather than the comic. They frequently attempted pretty detail in\ntheir symbolic designs, but in all the forms which have come from their\nchisels it is easy to see how incomplete an embodiment they gave to their\nconceptions, or rather to the conceptions of their traditional school.\nNorman work, beyond the Gothic, irrespective of the architectural\npeculiarities, has traces of its eastern origin in the classic connection\nof its designs. Adel Church, near Leeds, is peculiar in having co-mingled\nwith its eastern designs more than ordinarily tangible references to\nancient Keltic worship, but nearly all Norman ideographic detail concerns\nitself with old-world myths.\n\n[Illustration: GORGONIC MASK, EWELME.]\n\nAn excellent conception, well carried out, is in a mask which is one of a\nseries of late carvings alternating with the gargoyles of Ewelme. In this,\ninstead of leaves issuing from the mouth of the mask, there are two\ndragons. If those with leaves are deities, this surely must be one of the\nFuries. It is on the north side of the nave; on the exterior of the\naisle, at the same side, other sculptures form a kind of irregular\ncorbel-table, and special attention may be drawn to them as affording an\nindication of the derivation of such ornaments from the \"antefixes\" or\ndecorated tiles occupying a nearly corresponding position in classic\narchitecture.\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, EWELME.]\n\nOne of those on the aisle offers a further explanation of the mark before\nmentioned as being on the foreheads of some masks. In this case the\nprominences of the eyebrows branch off into foliage. This appears also to\nbe the intention in a capital carving in Lincoln Chapter House.\n\nRoslyn Chapel has some very realistic heads, notably of apes or gorillas\nnear the south doorway, of which one is drawn (opposite).\n\n[Illustration: FOLIATE MASK, LINCOLN.]\n\nNorman work has frequently some very grotesque heads in corbel tables and\ntower corners, to the odd appearance of which the decay by weather has no\ndoubt much contributed. Two examples from Sutton Courtney, Oxfordshire,\nillustrate this weather-worn whimsicality.\n\n[Illustration: GORILLA, ROSLYN CHAPEL.]\n\nThen comes a crowd of faces which have no particular significance, being\nsimply the outcome of the unrestrainable fun of the carver. Some are\nmerely oddities, while others are full of life-like character.\n\n[Illustration: GARGOYLE, SUTTON COURTNEY.]\n\n[Illustration: WEATHER-WORN NORMAN, SUTTON COURTNEY, BERKSHIRE.]\n\n[Illustration: HUMOUR, YORK.]\n\n[Illustration: MASK WITH SAUSAGE, STRATFORD-UPON-AVON.]\n\n[Illustration: A JEALOUS EYE, YORK.]\n\nThe knight with the twisted beard, from Swine, may be a portrait, and the\nGargantuan-faced dominus from St. Mary's Minster certainly is. An old\nbarbarian head from a croche or elbow-rest at Bakewell is rude and worn,\nbut yet bold and fine.\n\n[Illustration: A BEARD WITH A TWIST, SWINE, YORKSHIRE.]\n\n[Illustration: A QUIZZICAL VISAGE, BAKEWELL.]\n\n[Illustration: GRIMACE MAKER, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: FOOL'S HEADS, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nSome of these are better than the joculators and mimes' faces in which the\nartist seriously set himself a humorous task, as in the three heads\n(page 130) from Beverley Minster, though the latter are in some respects\nmore grotesque.\n\n[Illustration: A PORTRAIT, ST. MARY'S MINSTER. ISLE OF THANET.]\n\n[Illustration: A ROUGH CHARACTER, BAKEWELL.]\n\nAnother curious instance of a grimace and posture maker, assisting his\ncountenance's contortions by the use of his fingers, is at Dorchester\nAbbey. In this the artist has not been master of the facial anatomy, and\nshows a double pair of lips, one pair in repose, the other pulled back at\nthe corners.\n\n[Illustration: GRIMACE MAKER, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nOften a grotesque face will be found added to a beautiful design of\nfoliage, either as the conventional mask, as in the design in Lincoln\nChapter House, or a realistic head, as the following grim, dour visage\nbetween graceful curves on a misericord at King's College, Cambridge.\n\n[Illustration: GRACE AND THE GRACELESS, KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.]\n\n\n\n\nThe Domestic and Popular.\n\n\n[Illustration: THE WEAKER VESSEL, SHERBORNE.]\n\nDomestic and popular incidents are plentiful among the carvings, of which\nthey form, indeed, a distinct class; and they afford a considerable amount\nof material with which might be built up, in a truly Hogarthian and\nexaggerated spirit, an elaborate account of mediaeval manners in general.\nIn the majority of cases the incidents have a familiar, if not an\nendearing suggestiveness.\n\n[Illustration: DOMESTIC DISCIPLINE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe records of mankind are not wanting in stormy incidents in which the\ngentle female spirit has chafed under some presumed foolishness or\nwickedness of the head of the house, and at length breaking bounds,\ninflicted on him personal reminders that patience endureth but for a\nseason. An example of this is given above, which shews the possibility of\nsuch a thing as far back as 1520, the date of the Beverley Minster\nmisericordes. While the lady is devoting her attention to the flagellation\nof her unfortunate and perhaps entirely blameless spouse, a dog avails\nhimself of the opportunity to rifle the caldron.\n\n[Illustration: AN UNKIND FARE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThe picture in the initial, taken from a carving in the choir of Sherborne\nMinster, shews another domestic incident in which the lady administers\ncastigation. Though in itself no more than a vulgar satire, it is probable\nthat this carving was copied from some representation of St. Lucy, who is\nsometimes shewn with a staff in her hand, and behind her the devil\nprostrate.\n\nIt is not easy to say what is the meaning of another carving in Beverley\nMinster, or whether it has any connection with that just noted. The\nprobability is that it has not. This may be a shrewish wife being wheeled\nin the tumbril to the waterside, there to undergo for the better ruling of\nher tongue, a punishment the authority for which was custom older than\nlaw. But I am inclined to think that another reading will be nearer the\ntruth. The vehicle is not the tumbril but a wheelbarrow, and the man\npropelling it is younger than the lady, who is pulling his hair. I imagine\nthe man is apprentice or husband, and is not very cheerfully trundling his\ncompanion home. A similar, but more definite misericorde is in Ripon\nCathedral.\n\nIn this barrow, the old woman, wearing a cap with hat on the top, as yet\noccasionally seen in country places, is seated in a mistress-like way. She\nis not committing any violence, but apparently is offering the man (call\nhim the bridegroom) his choice of either a bag of money with dutiful\nobedience, or a huge cudgel, which she wields with muscular power, with\ndereliction. The gem of the carving is the man's face. He smiles a quiet,\namused, satirical smile, as of one who would say, \"'Tis no harm to humour\nthese foolish old bodies, and must be done, I trow.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE CHARIOT, RIPON.]\n\nBut the object called a bag of money is as likely to be a bottle, and the\nwhole subject may be something quite different. She may be going to the\ndoctor, or offering the man a drink; or it may be Noah wheeling his\nwife into the Ark, which, it was one of the jokes in a Mystery play to\nsuppose she was very unwilling to enter.\n\n[Illustration: PILGRIMAGE IN COMFORT, CANTERBURY.]\n\n[Illustration: MARTINMAS. CHRISTMAS. HOLY TRINITY, HULL.]\n\nThe block from the capital of a column in the crypt of Canterbury\nCathedral, tells us little of its history. It is given as an example of a\ncheerful grace and ease not common in early work.\n\nThe hunting of the boar is a frequent subject of the Gothic carver, being\ngenerally considered the sport of September, though Sir Edward Coke says\nthe season for the boar was from Christmas to Candlemas. It is uncommon to\nfind the boar's head shewn treated as in the accompanying block, struck\noff, and with the lemon in his mouth, ready for the table. These\nquatrefoils are the only two with a special design upon them, out of\ntwelve on the font of Holy Trinity Church, Hull, the others having\nrosettes. There is no rule in this, but there are other examples in which\nsmall portions of fonts are picked out for significant decoration, and\npossibly on the side originally intended to be turned towards the door of\nthe church, or the altar.\n\n[Illustration: HUNTSMAN AND DEER, YORK.]\n\nHunting scenes frequently occur. A boss in York Minster shews a huntsman\n\"breaking\" a deer as it hangs from a tree.\n\nThe wild sweetness of one stringed and one wind instrument--not uncommonly\nmet as harp and piccolo near London \"saloon bars\"--was a usual duet of\nthe middle ages. In Stoeffler's _Calendarum Romanorum Magnum_ (of 1518) in\na series of woodcuts illustrating the months, and which are otherwise\nreasonable, he gives one of these duets performed in a field as a proper\noccupation of the month of April with the following highly appropriate\ndistich--\n\n  \"Aprilis patule nucis sub umbra\n  post convivia dormio libenter.\"\n\n[Illustration: A CURIOUS DUET, CHICHESTER.]\n\nIn this carving, however, the musicians appear to be within doors and to\nbe giving a set duet. To the interest of the ear they add a curious\nspectacle for the eye, for they are seated in chairs which have no\nfore-legs, and their balance is kept by the flageoletist taking hold of\nthe harp as the players sit facing, so that while leaning back they form a\ncounter-poise to each other. The chairs are a curious study in mediaeval\nfurniture.\n\nIt is not unlikely that the sculptor in the case of the annexed block had\nin his mind something similar to the saying--\n\n  \"When a man's single he lives at his ease.\"\n\n[Illustration: BACHELOR QUARTERS, WORCESTER.]\n\nA man come in from, we may presume, frost and snow, has taken off his\nboots, and warms his feet as, seated on his fald-stool by the fire, he\nstirs the pot with lively anticipation of the meal preparing inside. He is\nprobably a shepherd or swine-herd; on one side is seated his dog, at the\nother are hung two fat gammons of bacon.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nShepherds and shepherding furnish frequent subjects to the carver.\n\nIn a Coventry Corpus Christi play of 1534 one of the three shepherds\npresents his gloves to the infant Saviour in these words--\n\n  \"Have here my myttens, to pytt en thi hondis,\n  Other treysure have I none to present thee with.\"\n\nThis carving has been called the Good Shepherd. If the artist really meant\nChrist by this shepherd with a hood over his head and hat over that, with\ngreat gloves and shoes, with a round beardless face, with his arms round\nthe necks of two sheep, holding their feet in his hands, it is the finest\npiece of religious burlesque extant. But it is not to be supposed that the\nidea even occurred to the sculptor.\n\nThe Feast of Fools was a kind of religious farce, a \"mystery\" run riot.\nCedranus, a Byzantine historian, who wrote in the eleventh century,\nrecords that it was introduced into the Greek Church A.D. 990, by\nTheophylact, patriarch of Constantinople. We can partly understand that\nthe popular craving for the wild liberties of the Saturnalia might be met,\nand perhaps modified, by a brief removal of the solemn constraint of the\nChristian priest-rule. But licentiousness in church worship was no new\nthing, and, long before the time of Theophylact, the Church of the West,\nand probably the Greek Church also, had been rendered scandalous by the\nlaxity with which the church services were conducted. At the Council of\nOrleans, in A.D. 533, it was found necessary to rule that no person in a\nchurch shall sing, drink, or do anything unbecoming; at another in\nChalons, in A.D. 650, women were forbidden to sing indecent songs in\nchurch. There is in fact every evidence, including the sculptures of our\nsubject, that religion was not, popularly, a thing solemn in itself.\nCedranus mentions the \"diabolic dances\" among the enormities practised at\nthe Feast of Fools, which was generally held about Christmas, though not\nconfined to that festival.\n\nIn the twelfth century, the abuse increased; songs of the most indecent\nand offensive character were sung in the midst of the mock services;\npuddings were eaten, and dice rattled on the altar, and old shoes burnt as\nincense.\n\n[Illustration: DANCING FOOLS, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nThis observance, so evidently an expedient parody of the old-time\nfestivals, is traceable in England, and said to have been abolished about\nthe end of the fourteenth century. The carvings in Beverley Minster, here\npresented, are supposed to refer to the Feast, and at any rate give us a\ngood idea of the mediaeval fool. There were innumerable classic dances.\nThe Greeks send down the names of two hundred kinds. A dance with arms was\nthe Pyrrhic dance, which was similar in some of its varieties to the\nmilitary dance known as the Morris. The Morris was introduced into Spain\nby the Moors, and brought into England by John of Gaunt in 1332. It was,\nhowever, little used until the reign of Henry VII. There were other\nvivacious dances, called Bayle, of Moorish origin, which, as well as\nvarious kinds of the stately Court dance, were used by the Spaniards. It\nis difficult, from general sources, to ascertain the dances in vogue in\nold England. A drawing in the Cotton MSS. shews a Saxon dancing a reel.\nThe general inference is, however, that the Morris (of the Moors or\nMoriscoes) was the chief dance of the English, and perhaps it is that in\nwhich the saltatory fools of the carving are engaged.\n\n[Illustration: AN ABJECT OBJECT. WINCHESTER COLLEGE CHAPEL.]\n\nProbably the extraordinary monstrosity shewn in the annexed block had an\nactual existence. There are fairly numerous accounts of such malformities\nin mediaeval times, and it was a function of mediaeval humour to make\ncapital out of unfortunate deformity. This poor man has distorted hands\ninstead of feet, and he moves about on pattens or wooden clogs strapped to\nhis hands and legs. There is little meaning in the side carvings. The\nfool-ape, making an uncouth gesture, is perhaps to shew the character of\nthose who mock misfortune. The man with the scimitar may represent the\nalarm of one who might suddenly come upon the sight of the abortion, and\nfearing some mystery or trap, draw his blade. In a sense this is a\nhumourous carving--yet there is a quality for which it is much more\nremarkable, and that is its element of forcible and realistic pathos.\n\n[Illustration: A MYTHOLOGICAL EPISODE, YORK.]\n\nTwo reliefs from York Minster are presumably scenes from classic\nmythology, from, in regard to the costumes, a Saxon point of view. One may\nbe supposed to be the rape of Ganymede. Oak leaves are an attribute of\nJupiter, as is also the eagle which bore Ganymede to Olympus.\n\nThe other may be Vulcan giving Venus \"a piece of his mind.\"\n\n[Illustration: MARITAL VIOLENCE, YORK.]\n\nIf these readings are correct these two carvings are among the very few\ninstances of representations of circumstantial detail of the Olympian\nmythology. Most of the church references to mythology have more connection\nwith the earlier symbolic meanings than with the later narrative histories\ninto which the cults degenerated. Other examples are in the references to\nHercules in the sixteenth century stalls of Henry VII.'s Chapel,\nWestminster.\n\nThere is in mediaeval art several examples remaining of what may be called\ntopsy-turveyism, in which two figures mutually lent their parts to each\nother in such a way that four figures may be found.\n\nAn excellent example of this is at New College, Oxford, in which, though\nthe four figures are so apparent when once seen, the two (taken as upper\nand lower), are in a natural and ingenious acrobatic position. The\ngrotesque head at the base is put in to balance the composition, and\nperhaps to prevent the trick being discerned at once.\n\n[Illustration: A CONTINUOUS GROUP OF FOUR FIGURES, OXFORD.]\n\nThe grace of the free if somewhat meagre Corinthian acanthus as used in\nEarly English work is often rendered more marked by the introduction of\nan extraneous subject. Thus at Wells the foliate design is relieved by the\nungainly figure of a melancholy individual, who, before retiring to rest,\npursues an examination into his pedal callosities, or extracts the\npoignant thorn. Or can it be that we have here a reminder of the Egyptian\nmonarch, Somaraja, mentioned in the Hindoo accounts of the Egyptian\nmythology, who was dissolute and outcast, and who, to shew his repentance\nand patience, stood twelve days upon one leg?\n\n[Illustration: A PILGRIM'S PAINS, WELLS.]\n\nThis discursive chapter would not be complete without a reference to the\nalleged impropriety of church grotesques. Though it is not to be denied\nthat in the wide range of subjects a considerable number of indecent\nsubjects have crept in, yet their proportion is small. Examination would\nlead to the belief that upon the whole the art of the churches is much\npurer than the literature or the popular taste of the respective periods.\nThough there may be sometimes met examples of grossness of humour and a\nfrank want of reserve, such as in the annexed drawing from the chapel of\nAll Souls, Oxford, yet these are rarely of the most gross or least\nreserved character.\n\n[Illustration: A POSTURIST, ALL SOULS, OXFORD.]\n\nIt may be well to note, in this connection that the literature from which\nwe draw the bulk of our ideas as to mediaeval life, are foreign, and that,\nalthough English manners would not be remotely different in essentials,\nyet there would be as many absolute differences as there are yet remaining\nto our eyes in architecture and in art generally.\n\n\n\n\nThe Pig and other Animal Musicians.\n\n\n[Illustration: APE AS PIPER, BEVERLEY.]\n\nOne might count in the churches animal musicians, perhaps, by thousands,\nand the reason of their presence is doubtless the same as that which\nexplains the frequency of the serious carvings of musicians which adorn\nthe arches of nave and choir throughout the country--namely the prevalent\nuse of various kinds of instrumental music in the service of the church.\nThe animal musicians are the burlesques of the human, and the fact that\nthe pig is the most frequent performer may perhaps suggest that the\nability of the musician had overwhelmed the consideration of other\nqualities which might be expected, but were not found, in the\nharmony-producing choristers. Clever as musicians, they may have become\nmerely functionaries as regards interest in the church, as we see to-day\nin the case of our bell-ringers, who for the most part issue from the\nchurches as worshippers enter them.\n\nIt may also be that the frequency of suilline musicians may have derisive\nreference to the ancient veneration in which the pig was held in the\nmythologies. It was a symbol of the sun, and, derivatively, of fecundity.\nPerhaps the strongest trace of this is in Scandinavian mythology. The\nnorthern races sacrificed a boar to Freyr, the patron deity of Sweden and\nof Iceland, the god of fertility; he was fabled to ride upon a boar named\nGullinbrusti, or Golden Bristle. Freyr's festival was at Yule-tide. Yule\nis _jul_ or _heol_, the sun, and Gehul is the Saxon \"Sunfeast.\" The gods\nof Scandinavia were said to nightly feast upon the great boar Saehrimnir,\nwhich eaten up, was every morning found whole again. This seems somewhat\nakin to the Hindoo story of Crorasura, a demon with the face of a boar,\nwho continually read the Vedas and was so devout that Vishnu (the sun god)\ngave him a boon. He asked that no creature existing in the three worlds\nmight have power to slay him, which was granted.\n\n[Illustration: SOW AND FIDDLE, WINCHESTER.]\n\nThe special sacrifice of the pig was not peculiar to Scandinavia, for the\nDruids and the Greeks also offered up a boar at the winter solstice. The\nsacrifice of a pig was a constant preliminary of the Athenian assemblies.\nAs a corn destroyer the same animal was sacrificed to Ceres.\n\nThe above explains the recurrence of the pig rather than the pig musician.\nA pregnant sow was, however, yearly sacrificed to Mercury, the inventor of\nthe harp, and a sow playing the harp is among the rich set of choir\ncarvings in Beverley Minster.\n\nThe chase of the boar was the sport of September, the ordinary killing\nseason, the swine being then in condition after their autumn feed of\n_bucon_, or beechmast (hence _bacon_), \"His Martinmas has come\" passed\ninto a proverb. The prevalence of the pig as a food animal had undoubtedly\nits share in the frequency of art reference.\n\n[Illustration: SOW AS HARPIST, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nIn the Christian adoption of pagan attributes, the pig was apportioned to\nSt. Anthony, it is said, variously, because he had been a swine-herd, or\nlived in woods. The smallest or weakling pig in a litter, called in the\nnorth \"piggy-widdy\" (small white pig), and in the south midlands the\n\"dillin\" (perhaps equivalent to _delayed_), and is elsewhere styled the\nAnthony pig, as specially needing the protection of his patron.\n\n[Illustration: MUSIC AT DINNER, WINCHESTER.]\n\nA common representation of the pig musician is a sow who plays to her\nbrood. At Winchester, the feast of the little ones is enlivened by the\nstrains of the double flute. At Durham Castle, in a carving formerly in\nAucland Castle Chapel, the sow plays the bagpipes while the young pigs\ndance. At Ripon, a vigorous carving has the same subject, and another at\nBeverley, in which a realistic trough forms the foreground.\n\n[Illustration: SOW AND BAGPIPES, DURHAM CASTLE.]\n\n[Illustration: PIGS AND PIPES, RIPON.]\n\nThe \"Pig and Whistle\" forms an old tavern sign. Dr. Brewer explains this\nas the pot, bowl, or cup (the _pig_), and the wassail it contained. The\nearthenware vessel used to warm the feet in bed is in Scotland yet called\n\"the pig,\" and to southern strangers the use of the word has caused a\ntemporary embarrassment. If this explanation is not coincident with some\nother not at present to hand, the carving of the pig and whistle in the\nsixteenth century carving in Henry VII.'s chapel shows that the corruption\nof the \"pig and wassail\" was accepted in ignorance as far back as that\nperiod.\n\n[Illustration: PIG AND WHISTLE, WESTMINSTER.]\n\nBut too much stress is not to be laid upon the pig as a musician, for at\nWestminster the bear plays the bagpipes, just as at Winchester the ape\nperforms on the harp. In the Beverley Minster choir an ape converts a cat\ninto an almost automatic instrument by biting its tail.\n\n[Illustration: APE AS HARPIST, WESTMINSTER.]\n\n\n\n\nCompound Forms.\n\n\n[Illustration: ATHOR, CHICHESTER.]\n\nIn nearly every church compound forms are met which in a high degree merit\nthe designation of grotesque. Few religions have been without these\nsymbolic representations of complex characters. If the Egyptian had its\ncat-headed and hawk-headed men, the Assyrian its human-headed bull, the\nMexican its serpent-armed tiger-men, so also the Scandinavian mythology\nhad its horse-headed and vulture-headed giants, and its human-headed\neagle. Horace, who doubtless knew the figurative meaning of what he\nsatirizes, viewed the representations of such compounds in his days, and\nasks--\n\n  \"If in a picture you should see\n  A handsome woman with a fishes tail,\n  Or a man's head upon a horse's neck,\n  Or limbs of beasts of the most diff'rent kind,\n  Cover'd with feathers of all sorts of birds\n  Would you not laugh?\"[6]\n\nIt is, perhaps, a little remote from our subject to inquire whether the\npoet or the priest came the first in bringing about these archaic\ncombinations; yet a word or two may be devoted to suggesting the inquiry.\nIt is probable that the religious ideas and artistic forms met in ancient\nworships first solely existed in poetic expressions of the qualities of\nthe sun--of the other members of the solar system--of the gods. Thus the\nswiftness of the sun in his course and in his light induced the mention of\nwings. Hence the wings of an eagle added to a circular form arose as the\nsymbol in one place; in another arose the God Mercury; while Jove the\ngreat sun-god is shewn accompanied by an eagle. The fertility of the earth\nbecame as to corn Ceres, as to vines Bacchus, as to flowers Flora, and so\nforth. The human personification, in cases where a combination of\nqualities or functions was sought to be indicated, resulted in more or\nless abstruse literary fables; on the other hand the artist or symbol\nseeker found it easier to select a lower plane of thought for his\nembodiments. Thus, while swiftness suggested the eagle, strength was\nfigured by the lion: so when a symbol of swiftness and strength was\nrequired arose the compound eagle-lion, the gryphon.\n\nThe gryphon, however, though constantly met in Gothic, is rarely grotesque\nin itself. Another form which also, to a certain extent, is incorruptible,\nis that of the sphinx. This is a figure symbolic of the sun from the\nEgyptian point of view, in which the Nile was all-important. Nilus, or\nAmmon, the Egyptian Jove, was the sun-god, an equivalent to Osiris, and\nthe sphinx was similar in estimation, being, it is reasonably conjectured,\na compound of Leo and Virgo, at whose conjunction the Nile has yearly\nrisen. According to Dr. Birch, the sphinx is to be read as being the\nsymbol of Harmachis or \"the sun on the horizon.\" It may be that the Child\nrising from the Shell is sunrise over the sea, and the Sphinx sunrise over\nthe land. It has been conjectured that the cherubim of the tabernacle were\nsphinx-form. The cherubim on the Mosaic Ark are among the subjects of the\nearliest mention of composite symbols. Ezekiel says they were composed of\nparts of the figures of a man (wisdom, intellect), a lion (dominion), a\nbull (strength), and an eagle (sharp-sightedness, swiftness.) The Persians\nand Hindoos had similar figures. A man with buffalo horns is painted in\nthe Synhedria of the American Indians in conjunction with that of a\npanther or puma-like beast, and these are supposed to be a contraction of\nthe cherubimical figures of the man, the bull, and the lion; these,\nrenewed yearly, are near the carved figures of eagles common in the Indian\nsun-worship.\n\n[Illustration: SPHINX AND BUCKLER, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\n[Illustration: SPHINX FIGURE, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nA carving in the arm-rest of one of the stalls of Beverley Minster,\nsuggested in the block on page 159, shews a sphinx with a shield; there\nare in the same church several fine examples seated in the orthodox\nmanner.\n\nOn a capital in the sedilia of Dorchester Abbey is a curious compound\nwhich may be classed as a sphinx. One of the hands (or paws) is held over\nthe eyes of a dog, which suggests the manner in which animals were\nanciently sacrificed. Another sphinx in the same sedilia is of the winged\nvariety. It has the head cowled; many of the mediaeval combinatory forms\nare mantled.\n\nIn Worcester Cathedral is a compound of man, ox, and lion, very different\nfrom the sphinx or cherubim shapes, being a grotesque deprived of all the\noriginal poetry of the conception.\n\n[Illustration: COWLED SPHINX, DORCHESTER, OXON.]\n\nVirgil describes Scylla (the Punic _Scol_, destruction) as a beautiful\nfigure upwards, half her body being a beautiful virgin; downwards, a\nhorrible fish with a wolf's belly (utero). Homer similarly.\n\nThe mermaid is a frequent subject, but more monotonous in its form and\naction than any other creature, and is generally found executed with a\nrespectful simplicity that scarcely ever savours of grotesqueness. The\nmermaid, \"the sea wolf of the abyss,\" and the \"mighty sea-woman\" of\nBoewulf, has an early origin as a deity of fascinating but malignant\ntendencies.\n\nThe centaur, perhaps, ranks next to the sphinx in artistic merit. To the\nearly Christians the centaur was merely a symbol of unbridled passions,\nand all mediaeval reference classes it as evil. Virgil mentions it as being\nmet in numbers near the gates of Hades, and the Parthenon sculptures shew\nit as the enemy of men.\n\n[Illustration: GROTESQUE CHERUBIM, WORCESTER.]\n\nThe story of the encyclopedias regarding centaurs is that they were\nThessalonian horsemen, whom the Greeks, ignorant of horsemanship, took to\nbe half-men, half-animals. They were called, it is said, centaurs, from\ntheir skill in killing the wild bulls of the Pelion mountains, and, later,\nhippo-centaurs. This explanation may, in the presence of other\ncombinatory forms, be considered doubtful, as it is more probable that\nthis, like those, arose out of a poetic appreciation of the qualities\nunderlying beauty of form, that is, out of an intelligent symbolism. The\nhorse, where known, was always a favourite animal among men. Innumerable\ncoinages attest this fact. Early Corinthian coins have the figure of\nPegasus. In most the horse is shewn alone. In the next proportion he is\nattached to a chariot. In few is he shewn being ridden, as it is his\nqualities that were intended to be expressed, and not those of the being\nwho has subjected him. One of the old Greek gold staters has a man driving\na chariot in which the horse has a human head; while the man is urging the\nhorse with the sacred three-branched rod, each branch of which terminates\nin a trefoil. The centaur has a yet unallotted place in the symbolism of\nthe sun-myth. Classic mythology says Chiron the centaur was the teacher of\nApollo in music, medicine, and hunting, and centaurs are mostly sagittarii\nor archers, whose arrows, like those of Apollo, are the sunbeams. The\ncentaur met in Gothic ornament is the Zodiacal Sagittarius, and true to\nthis original derivation, the centaur is generally found with his bow and\narrow.\n\nIt is said that the Irish saints, Ciaran and Nessan, are the same with the\ncentaurs Chiron and Nessus.\n\n[Illustration: MATERNAL CARES OF THE CENTAUR, IFFLEY.]\n\nA capital of the south doorway, Iffley, has a unique composition of\ncentaurs. A female centaur, armed with bow (broken) and arrow, is suckling\na child centaur after the human manner. The equine portions of the figures\nare in exceptionally good drawing, though the tremendous elongation of\nthe human trunks, and the ill-rendered position, render the group very\ngrotesque. Both the mother and child wear the classic cestus or girdle.\nThe bow carried by the mother is held apparently in readiness in the left\nhand, while it is probable that the right breast was meant to be shown\nremoved, as was stated of the Amazons. The mother looks off, and there is\nan air of alertness about the two, which is explained by the sculpture on\nthe return of the capital, where the father-centaur is seen slaying a\nwolf, lion, or other beast.\n\n[Illustration: CENTAUR AS DRAGON SLAYER, EXETER.]\n\nOn a centaur at Exeter of the thirteenth century, the mythical idea is\nsomewhat retained; the centaur has shot an arrow into the throat of a\ndragon, which is part of the ornament. This is a very rude but suggestive\ncarving. Is the centaur but a symbol of Apollo himself?\n\nThe next block (at Ely) is also of the centaur order, though not\nsuggestive of aggression. The figure is female, and she is playing the\nzither. This is of the fourteenth century.\n\n[Illustration: MUSICAL CENTAUR, ELY.]\n\n[Illustration: HARPY, WINCHESTER.]\n\nAnother classic conception which has been perpetuated in Gothic is the\nharpy, though in most cases without any apparent recognition of the harpy\ncharacter. Exceptions are such instances as that of the harpy drawn in the\nchapter \"Satires without Satan.\" In one at Winchester a fine mediaeval\neffect is produced by putting a hood on the human head.\n\n[Illustration: IBIS-HEADED FIGURE FROM AN UNKNOWN CHURCH.]\n\nAnother curious bird combination is in a carving in the Architectural\nMuseum, Tufton Street, London, from an unknown church. This is a\nsemi-human figure, whose upper part is skilfully draped. The head, bent\ntowards the ground, is that of a bird of the ibis species, and it is\nprobable that we have here a relic of the Egyptian Mercury Thoth, who was\nincarnated as an ibis. Thoth is called the God of the Heart (the\nconscience), and the ibis was said to be sacred to him because when\nsleeping it assumes the shape of a heart.\n\n[Illustration: THE SWAN SISTER, ST. GEORGE'S CHAPEL, WINDSOR.]\n\nAn unusual compound is that of a swan with the agreeable head of a young\nwoman, in St. George's Chapel, Windsor. This may be one of the\nswan-sisters in the old story of the \"Knight of the Swan.\"\n\nThe initial letter of this section is a fine grotesque rendering of the\nEgyptian goddess Athor, Athyr, or Het-her (meaning the dwelling of God.)\nShe was the daughter of the sun, and bore in images the sun's disc.\nProbably through a lapse into ignorance on the part of the\npriest-painters, she became of less consideration, and the signification\neven of her image was forgotten. She had always had as one of her\nrepresentations, a bird with a human head horned and bearing the disc; but\nthe disc began to be shewn as a tambourine, and she herself was styled\n\"the mistress of dance and jest.\" As in the cosmogony of one of the\nEgyptian Trinities she was the Third Person, as Supreme Love, the Greeks\nheld her to be the same as Aphrodite. The name of the sun-disc was Aten,\nand its worship was kindred to that of Ra, the mid-day sun. The Hebrew\nAdonai and the Syriac Adonis have been considered to be derived from this\nword Aten.\n\nSeveral examples of bird-compounds are in the Exeter series of\nmisericordes of the thirteenth century. They are renderings in wood of the\nolder Anglo-Saxon style of design, and are ludicrously grotesque.\n\nIt is scarcely to be considered that the compound figures were influenced\nby the prevalence of mumming in the periods of the various carvings. In\nthis, as in many other respects, the traditions of the carvers' art\nprotected it from being coloured by the aspect of the times, except in a\nlimited degree, shewn in distinctly isolated examples.\n\n[Illustration: BIRD-COMPOUND, EXETER.]\n\n\n\n\nNon-descripts.\n\n\n[Illustration: A BEARDED BIPED, ST. KATHERINE'S.]\n\nThere is a large number of bizarre works which defy natural\nclassification, and though in many cases they are a branch of the compound\norder of figures, yet they are frequently well defined as non-descripts.\nThese, though in one respect the most grotesque of the grotesques, do not\nclaim lengthy description. Where they are not traceable compounds, they\nare often apparently the creatures of fancy, without meaning and without\nhistory. It may be, however, that could we trace it, we should find for\neach a pedigree as interesting, if not as old, as that of any of the\nsun-myths. Among the absurd figures which scarcely call for explanation\nare such as that shown in the initial, from the Hospital and Collegiate\nChurch of St. Katherine by the Tower (now removed to a substituted\nhospital in Regent's Park).\n\n[Illustration: A CLOAKED SIN, TUFTON STREET.]\n\nIn the Architectural Museum, Tufton Street, London, is a carving from an\nunknown church, in which appear two figures which were not an uncommon\nsubject for artists of the odd. These are human heads, to which are\nattached legs without intermediary bodies, and with tails depending from\nthe back of the heads.\n\n[Illustration: THE WORM OF CONSCIENCE. (_From an unknown Church._)]\n\nIn the \"Pilgremage of the Sowle,\" printed by Caxton in 1483, translated\nfrom a French manuscript of 1435 or earlier, is a description of a man's\nconscience, which, there is little doubt, furnished the idealic material\nfor these carvings. A \"sowle\" being \"snarlyed in the trappe\" of Satan, is\nbeing, by a travesty on the forms of a court of law, claimed by both the\n\"horrible Sathanas\" and its own Warden or Guardian Angel. The Devil calls\nfor his chief witness by the name of Synderesys, but the witness calls\nhimself the Worm of Conscience. The following is the soul's\ndescription:--\"Then came forth by me an old one, that long time had hid\nhimself nigh me, which before that time I had not perceived. He was\nwonderfully hideous and of cruel countenance; and he began to grin, and\nshewed me his jaws and gums, for teeth he had none, they all being broken\nand worn away. He had no body, but under his head he had only a tail,\nwhich seemed the tail of a worm of exceeding length and greatness.\" This\nstrange accuser tells the Soul that he had often warned it, and so often\nbitten it that all his teeth were wasted and broken, his function being\n\"to bite and wounde them that wrong themselves.\"[7]\n\nThe above examples are scarcely unique. In Ripon Cathedral, on a\nmisericorde of 1489, representing the bearing of the grapes of Eschol on a\nstaff, are two somewhat similar figures, likewise mere \"nobodies,\" though\nwithout tails. These are a covert allusion to the wonderful stories of the\nspies, which, it is thus hinted, are akin to the travellers' tales of\nmediaeval times, as well as a pun on the report that they had seen nobody.\n\n[Illustration: NOBODIES, RIPON.]\n\nIt is evident that the idea of men without bodies came from the East, and\nalso that it had credence as an actual fact. In the _Cosmographiae\nUniversalis_, printed in 1550, they are alluded to in the following\nterms:--\"Sunt qui cervicibus carent et in humeris habet oculos; De India\nultra Gangem fluvium sita.\"\n\n[Illustration: NON-DESCRIPT, CHRIST CHURCH, HANTS.]\n\nThere are many carvings which are more or less of the same character, and\nprobably intended to embody the idea of conscience or sins.\n\nThe two rather indecorous figures shewn in the following block from Great\nMalvern are varieties doubtless typifying sins.\n\n[Illustration: SINS IN SYMBOL, GREAT MALVERN.]\n\n\n\n\nRebuses.\n\n\n[Illustration: BOLT-TON.]\n\n[Illustration: WILLIAM WHITE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nRebuses are often met among Gothic sculptures, but not in such frequency,\nor with an amount of humour to claim any great attention here. They are\nalmost entirely, as in the case of the canting heraldry of seals, of late\ndate, being mostly of the 15th and 16th centuries. They are often met as\nthe punning memorial of the name of a founder, builder, or architect, as\nthe bolt-ton of Bishop Bolton in St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield, the\nmany-times-repeated cock of Bishop Alcock in Henry VII's. Chapel, the eye\nand the slip of a tree, and the man slipping from a tree, for Bishop\nIslip, Westminster; and others well known. In the series of misericordes\nin Beverley Minster, there are _arma palantes_ of the dignitaries of the\nChurch in 1520. William White, the Chancellor, has no less than seven\ndifferent renderings of the pun upon his name, all being representations\nof weights, apparently of four-stone ponderosity. Thomas Donnington, the\nPrecentor, whose name would doubtless often be written Do'ington, has a\ndoe upon a ton or barrel. John Sperke, the Clerk of the Fabric, has a dog\nwith a bone, and a vigilant cock; this, however, is not a name-rebus so\nmuch as an allusion to the exigencies of his office. The Church of St.\nNicholas, Lynn, had misericordes (some of which are now in the\nArchitectural Museum) which have several monograms and rebuses.\nUnfortunately, they are somewhat involved, and there is at present no key\nby which to read them. The least doubtful is that given below.\n\n[Illustration: WEIGHT, REBUS FOR WHITE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]\n\nIt has a \"ton\" rebus which will admit, however, of perhaps three different\nrenderings. It is most likely Thorn-ton, less so Bar-ton, and still less\nHop-ton, all Lincolnshire names.\n\n[Illustration: MERCHANT MARK, COGNIZANCE AND REBUS, ST. NICHOLAS'S,\nLYNN.]\n\n\n\n\nTrinities.\n\n\n[Illustration: LARVA-LIKE DRAGON, ST. PAUL'S, BEDFORD.]\n\nRepeatedly has the statement been made that the various mythologies are\nonly so many corruptions of the Mosaic system. Manifestly if this could be\nadmitted there would be little interest in enquiring further into their\ndetails. But there are three arguments against the statement, any one of\nwhich is effective. Although it is perhaps totally unnecessary to\ncontradict that which can be accepted by the unreflective only, it is\nsufficiently near the purpose of this volume to slightly touch upon the\nmatter, as pointing strong distinctions among ancient worships.\n\nFirst, there is the simple fact recorded in the Mosaic account itself,\nthat there existed at that time, and had done previously, various\nreligious systems, the rooting out of which was an important function of\nthe liberated Hebrews. The only reply to this is that, by a slight shift\nof ground, the mythologies were corruptions of the patriarchal religion,\nnot the Mosaic system. Yet paganism surrounded the patriarchs.\n\nThe second point is that most of the mythologies had crystallized into\ntaking the sun as the main symbol of worship, and into taking the\nequinoxes and other points of the constellation path as other symbols and\nreminders of periodic worship; whereas in the Mosaic system the whole\nstructure of the solar year is ignored, all the calculations being lunar.\nIf it be objected that Numbers ix. 6-13, and II. Chronicles xxx. 2, refer\nindirectly to an intercalary month, that, if admitted, could only for\nexpediency's sake, and has no bearing upon the general silence as to the\nsolar periods. This second point is an important testimony to what may be\ntermed Mosaic originality.\n\nThe third point is that in most of the mythologies there is the distinct\nmention of a Trinity; in the Mosaic system, the system of the Old\nTestament, none. With the question as to whether the New Testament\nsupports the notion of a Trinity, we need not concern ourselves here; it\nis enough that it has been adopted as an item of the Christian belief.\n\nThe mythological Trinities are vague and, of course, difficult or\nimpossible to understand. Most of them appear to be attempts of great\nminds of archaic times to reconcile the manifest contradictions ever\nobservable in the universe. This is done in various ways. Some omit one\nconsideration, some another; but they generally agree that to have a\nthree-fold character in one deity is necessary in explaining the\nphenomenon of existence. Some of the Trinities may be recited.\n\nPERSIAN.\n\n    OROMASDES, Goodness, the deviser of Creation.\n\n    MITHRAS, Eternal Intellect, the architect and ruler of the world,\n    literally \"the Friend.\"\n\n    ARIMANES, the mundane soul (Psyche).\n\nGRECIAN.\n\n    ZEUS.\n\n    PALLAS.\n\n    HERA.\n\nROMAN.\n\n    JUPITER, Power.\n\n    MINERVA, Wisdom, Eternal Intellect.\n\n    JUNO, Love.\n\nSCANDINAVIAN.\n\n    ODIN, Giver of Life.\n\n    HAENIR, Giver of motion and sense.\n\n    LODUR, Giver of speech and the senses.\n\nAMERICAN INDIAN.\n\n    OTKON.\n\n    MESSOU.\n\n    ATAHUATA.\n\nEGYPTIAN.\n\n    CNEPH, the Creator, Goodness.\n\n    PTA (Opas), the active principle of Creation (= Vulcan).\n\n    EICTON.\n\nThe Egyptians had other Trinities than the above, each chief city having\nits own form; in these, however, the third personality appears to be\nsupposed to proceed from the other two, which scarcely seems to have been\nintended in the instances already given. Some of the city Trinities were\nas follow:--\n\nTHEBES.\n\n    AMUN-RA (= Jupiter), (RA = the Mid-day Sun.)\n\n    MANT or MENTU (= \"the mother,\" Juno.)\n\n    CHONSO (= Hercules.)\n\nPHILAE & ABYDOS.\n\n    OSIRIS (= Pluto).\n\n    ISIS (= Prosperine).\n\n    HORUS, the Saviour, the Shepherd (the Rising Sun).\n\nABOO-SIMBEL.\n\n    PTA or PHTHAH.\n\n    AMUM-RA.\n\n    ATHOR, Love (the wife of HORUS).\n\nSo that it is no coincidence that both Hercules and Horus are met in\nGothic carvings as deliverers from dragons.\n\nELEPHANTINE.\n\n    KHUM or CHNOUMIS.\n\n    ANUKA.\n\n    HAK.\n\nMEMPHIS.\n\n    PTAH.\n\n    MERENPHTAH.\n\n    NEFER-ATUM.\n\nHELIOPOLIS.\n\n    TUM (Setting Sun.)\n\n    NEBHETP.\n\n    HORUS.\n\nAnother Egyptian triad, styled \"Trimorphous God!\" was:--\n\n    BAIT.\n\n    ATHOR.\n\n    AKORI.\n\nAnother:--\n\n    TELEPHORUS.\n\n    ESCULAPIUS.\n\n    SALUS.\n\nVEDIC HINDOO.\n\n    AGNI, Fire, governing the Earth.\n\n    INDRA, The Firmament, governing Space or Mid Air.\n\n    SURYA, The Sun, governing the Heavens.\n\nBRAHMINIC HINDOO.\n\n    BRAHMA, the Creator.\n\n    VISHNU, the Preserver.\n\n    SIVA, the Destroyer (the Transformer) (= Fire).\n\nThe Platonic and other philosophic Trinities need not detain us; it has\nbeen asserted that by their means the doctrine of the pagan Trinity was\ngrafted on to Christianity.\n\nRight down through the ages the number three has always been regarded as\nof mystic force. Wherever perfection or efficiency was sought its means\nwere tripled; thus Jove's thunderbolt had three forks of lightning,\nNeptune's lance was a trident, and Pluto's dog had three heads. The\nGraces, the Fates, and the Furies were each three. The trefoil was held\nsacred by the Greeks as well as other triad forms. In the East three was\nalmost equally regarded. Three stars are frequently met upon Asiatic\nseals. The Scarabaeus was esteemed as having thirty joints.\n\nMediaeval thought, in accepting the idea of the Christian Trinity, lavishly\nthrew its symbolism everywhere; writers and symbolists, architects and\nheralds, multiplied ideas of three-fold qualities.\n\nHeraldry is permeated with three-fold repetitions, a proportion of at\nleast one-third of the generality of heraldic coats having a trinity of\none sort or another. In all probability the stars and bars of America rose\nfrom the coat-armour of an English family in which the stars were three,\nthe bars three.\n\nSt. Nicholas had as his attributes three purses, three bulls of gold,\nthree children.\n\nSacred marks were three dots, sometimes alone, sometimes in a triangle,\nsometimes in a double triangle; three balls attached, making a trefoil;\nthree bones in a triangle crossing at the corners; a fleur-de-lys in\nvarious designs of three conjoined; three lines crossed by three lines;\nand many other forms.\n\nGod, the symbolists said, was symbolized by a hexagon, whose sides were\nGlory, Power, Majesty, Wisdom, Blessing, and Honor. The three steps to\nheaven were Oratio, Amor, Imitatio. The three steps to the altar, the\nthree spires of the cathedral, the three lancets of an Early English\nwindow, were all supposed to refer to the Trinity.\n\nHaving seen that the idea of the Trinity is a part of most of the ancient\nreligious systems, it remains to point to one or two instances where, in\ncommon with other ideas from that source, the Trinity has a place among\nchurch grotesques.\n\nThere is a triune head in St. Mary's Church, Faversham, Kent, which was\ndoubtless executed as indicative of the Trinity. The _Beehive of the\nRomishe Church_, in 1579, says: \"They in their churches and Masse Bookes\ndoe paint the Trinitie with three faces; for our mother the holie Church\ndid learn that at Rome, where they were wont to paint or carve Janus with\ntwo faces.\" In the Salisbury Missal of 1534 is a woodcut of the Trinity\ntriangle surmounted by a three-faced head similar to the above. Hone\nreproduces it in his _Ancient Mysteries Described_, and asks, \"May not the\ntriune head have been originally suggested by the three-headed Saxon deity\nnamed \"Trigla\"?\" The Faversham tria, it will be noticed, has the curled\nand formal beards of the Greek mask.\n\n[Illustration: A TRINITY, ST. MARY'S, FAVERSHAM.]\n\nAnother instance of a three-fold head similar to the Faversham carving is\nat Cartmel.\n\nA still more remarkable form of the same thing occurs as a rosette on the\ntomb of Bishop de la Wich, in Chichester Cathedral, in which the trinity\nof faces is doubled and placed in a circle in an exceedingly ingenious and\nsymmetrical manner. This has oak leaves issuing from the mouths, which we\nhave seen as a frequent adjunct of the classic mask as indicating Jupiter.\n\n[Illustration: DOUBLE TRINITY OF FOLIATE MASKS, CHICHESTER.]\n\nIn carvings three will often be found to be a favourite number without a\ndirect reference to the Trinity. The form of the misericorde is almost\ninvariably a three-part design, and, being purely arbitrary, its universal\nadoption is one of the evidences of the organization of the craft gild.\n\nAs with the misericorde, so with its subjects. At Exeter we have seen\n(page 4) the tail of the harpy made into a trefoil ornament, while she\ngrasps a trefoil-headed rod (just as among Assyrian carvings we should\nhave met a figure bearing the sacred three-headed poppy). At Gayton (page\n87) we have the three-toothed flesh-hook; at Maidstone is another.\nChichester Cathedral and Chichester Hospital have each three groups.\nBeverley Minster has three fish interlaced, and three hares running round\ninside a circle. In Worcester Cathedral there are three misericordes, in\neach of which there are three figures, in which groups the number is\nevidently intentional. Three till the ground, three reap corn with\nsickles, three mow with scythes.\n\n[Illustration: TRINITY OF MOWERS, WORCESTER.]\n\nFrom them as being unusual in treatment, even in this stiff Flemish set,\nis selected the trinity of mowers. Groups of three in mowing scenes is a\nfrequent number. Doubtless this carving is indicative of July, that being\nthe \"Hey-Monath\" of early times. One of the side supporters or pendant\ncarvings of this is a hare riding upon the back of a leoparded lion,\nperhaps some reference to Leo, the sign governing July.\n\nThe three mowers do not make a pleasing carving, owing to the repetition\nand want of curve.\n\nOther instances of triplication in Gothic design might be given,\nparticularly in the choice of floral forms in which nature has set the\npattern. This section, however, is chiefly important as a convenient means\nof incorporating a record of something further of the fundamental beliefs\nof the world's youth, connected with and extending the question of the\nremote origin of the ideas at the root of so many grotesques in church\nart.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fox in Church Art.\n\n\n[Illustration: PREACHING FOX, CHRISTCHURCH, HAMPSHIRE.]\n\nThe Fox, apostrophized as follows:\n\n  \"O gentle one among the beasts of prey\n  O eloquent and comely-faced animal!\"\n\nas an important subject in mediaeval art, has two distinct places.\n\nThere is a general impression that there was a great popular literary\ncomposition, running through many editions and through many centuries,\nhaving its own direct artistic illustration, and a wide indirect\nillustration which, later, by its ability to stand alone, had broken away\nfrom close connection with the epic, yet possessed a derivative identity\nwith it.\n\nCloser examination, however, proves that there is indeed the Fox in its\nparticular literature with its avowed illustrations, but also that there\nis the Fox in mediaeval art, illustrative of ideas partly found in\nliterature, but illustrative of no particular work, and yet awaiting a\nkey. Each is a separate and distinct thing.\n\nAmong the grotesques of our churches there are some references to the\nliterary \"Reynard the Fox,\" but they are few and far between; while\nnumerous most likely and prominent incidents of Reynard's career, as\nnarrated in the poem, have no place among the carvings.\n\nThe subjects of the carvings are mostly so many variations of the idea of\nthe Fox turned ecclesiastic and preying upon his care and congregation;\nand in this he is assisted by the ape, who also takes sides with him in\ncarvings of other proceedings; but in none of these scenes is there\nevidence of reference to the epic. A great point of difference, too, lies\nin the conclusion of the epic, and the conclusion of Reynard's life as\nshewn in the carvings. In the epic, the King makes Reynard the Lord\nChancellor and favourite.\n\nThe end of the Fox of church art, however, is far different; several\nsculptures agree in shewing him hanged by a body of geese.\n\nIn the epic, Reynard's victims are many. The deaths of the Hare and the\nRam afford good circumstantial pictures, yet in the carvings there is\nneither of these; and it is scarcely Reynard who plots, and sins, and\nconceals, but a more vulgar fox who concerns himself, chiefly about geese,\nin an open, verminous way, while many of the sculptures are little more\nthan natural history illustrations, in which we see _vulpes_, but not the\nFox.\n\nTo enable, however, a fair comparison to be made between literature and\nart in this byway, it will be as well to glance at the history of the\npoem, and lay down a brief analysis of its episodes; and, next, to present\nsketches of some typical examples from the carvings.\n\nMuch of ancient satire owes its origin to that description of fable which\nbestows the attributes and capacities of the human race upon the lower\nanimals, which are made to reason and to speak. Their mental processes and\ntheir actions are entirely human, although their respective animal\ncharacteristics are often used to accentuate their human character. In\nevery animal Edward Carpenter sees varying sparks of the actual mental\nlife we call human, in, it may be added, arrested or perverted\ndevelopment, in which, in each instance, one characteristic has\nimmeasurably prevailed. For the animal qualities, whether human or not in\nkind, man has ever had a sympathetic recognition, which has made both\nsymbol and fable easily acceptable. Perhaps symbolism, which for so many\nages has taken the various animals as figures to intelligibly express\nabstract qualities, gave rise to fable. If so, fable may be considered the\ngrotesque of symbolism. The same ideas--of certain qualities--are taken\nfrom their original serious import, and used to amuse, and, while amusing,\nto strike.\n\nOn the other hand, Grimm asserts that animal-fable arose in the\nNetherlands, North France, and West Germany, extending neither to the\nRomance countries, nor to the Keltic; whereas we find animal symbolism\neverywhere. Grimm's statement may be taken to speak, perhaps, of a certain\nclass of fable, and the countries he names are certainly where we should\nexpect to find the free-est handling of superstitions. His arguments are\nbased on the Germanic form of the names given to the beasts, but his\nlocalities seem to follow the course of the editions. Perhaps special\ncauses, and not the influence of race, decided the localities. The\nearliest trace of a connected animal-fable is of that which is also the\nmost wide-spread and popular--the history of the Fox.\n\nThis early production is a poem, called _Isengrinus_, in Latin hexameters,\nby a cleric of South Flanders, whose name has not survived. It was written\nin the first half of the twelfth century, and first printed, it is said,\nso late as 1834.\n\nIn this, the narrative is briefly as follows:--The Lion is sick, and calls\na court to choose his successor. Reynard is the only animal that does not\nappear. The Wolf, Isengrinus, to ruin Reynard's adherents, the Goat and\nthe Ram, prescribes as a remedy for the Lion's disorder a medicine of Goat\nand Ram livers. They defend the absent Reynard, and pronounce him a great\ndoctor, and, to save their livers, drive the Wolf by force from before the\nthrone. Reynard is summoned. He comes with herbs, which, he says, will\nonly be efficacious if the patient is wrapped in the skin of a wolf four\nyears old. The Wolf is skinned, the Lion is cured, and Fox made\nChancellor.\n\nIn this story is neatly dovetailed another, narrating how the Wolf had\nbeen prevented from devouring a party of weak pilgrim animals by the\njudicious display of a wolf's head. This head was cut off a wolf found\nhanging in a tree, and, at Reynard's instigation, the party, on the\nstrength of possessing it, led the Wolf to believe them to be a company of\nprofessional wolf-slayers.\n\nAfter this poem followed another at the end of the same century with\nnumerous additions and alterations, by a monk of Ghent. Next came a high\nGerman poem, also of the twelfth century, expanded, but without great\naddition. After this came the French version, Roman de Renart, which, with\nsupplementary compositions, enlarged the matter to no less than 41,748\nverses. There is another French version, called Renart le Contrefet, of\nnearly the same horrible length.\n\nA Flemish version, written in the middle of the thirteenth century, and\ncontinued in the fourteenth, became the great father of editions.\n\nAll these were in verse, but on the invention of printing the Flemish form\nwas re-cast into prose, and printed at Gouda in 1479, and at Delft in\n1485; abridged and mutilated it was often re-printed in Holland.\n\nCaxton printed a translation in 1481, and another a few years later. The\nEnglish quarto, like the Dutch, also gave rise in time to a call for a\ncheap abridgment, and it appeared in 1639, as \"The Most delectable history\nof Reynard the Fox.\"\n\nMeanwhile a Low Saxon form had appeared, \"Reinche Bos,\" first printed at\nLubeck in 1498, and next at Rostock in 1517, a translation, with\nalterations, from the Flemish publication. Various other editions in\nGerman followed, with cuts by Amman.\n\nIn all these and their successors the incidents were varied. Having seen\nthat, within at least certain limits, the story must have been exceedingly\nwell-known and popular, we will run through the incidents narrated in the\nmost popular of the German Reynard poems, chiefly taken from Goethe's\nrendering.\n\nNouvel, the Lion, calls a parliament, and the Fox does not appear, and is\naccused of various crimes. The Wolf accuses him of sullying the honour of\nhis wife, and blinding his three children. A little Dog accuses him of\nstealing a pudding end (this the Cat denies, stating that the pudding was\none of her own stealing). The Leopard accuses him of murder, having only\nthe day before rescued the Hare from his clutch as he was throttling him,\nunder pretence of severity in teaching the Creed.\n\nThe Badger, Grimbart, now comes forward in defence.\n\n  \"An ancient proverb says, quoth he,\n  Justice in an enemy\n  Is seldom to be found.\"\n\nHe accuses the Wolf in his turn of violating the bonds of partnership. The\nFox and the Wolf had arranged to rob a fish-cart. The Fox lay for dead on\nthe road, and the carter, taking him up, threw him on the top of the load\nof fish, turning to his horse again. Reynard then threw the fish on to the\nroad, and jumping down to join in the feast found left for him but fin and\nscales. The Badger explains away also the story of Reynard's guilt as to\nDame Isengrin, and, with regard to the Hare, asks if a teacher shall not\nchastise his scholars. In short, since the King proclaimed a peace,\nReynard was thoroughly reformed, and but for being absorbed in penance\nwould no doubt have been present to defend himself from any false\nreports.\n\nUnfortunately for this justification, at the very moment of its conclusion\na funeral procession passes;\n\n  \"On sable bier\n  The relics of a Hen appear,\"\n\nwhile Henning, the Cock, makes a piteous complaint of Reynard's misdeeds.\nHe said how the Fox had\n\n  \"Assured him he'd become a friar,\n  And brought a letter from his prior;\n  Show'd him his hood and shirt of hair,\n  His rosary and scapulaire;\n  Took leave of him with pious grace,\n  That he might hasten to his place\n  To read the nona and the sept,\n  And vesper too before he slept;\n  And as he slowly took his way,\n  Read in his pocket breviary.\"\n\nall of which ended in the devout penitent eating nineteen of Henning's\nbrood.\n\nThe Lion invites his council's advice. It is decided to send an envoy to\nReynard, and Bruno, the Bear, is selected to summon him to court.\n\nBruno finds him at his castle of Malepart, and thunders a summons.\nReynard, by plausible speech and a story of honey, disarms some of his\nhostility, and entices him off to a carpenter's yard, where an oak trunk,\nhalf split, yet has the wedge in. Reynard declaring the honey is in the\ncleft, Bruno puts his head and paws in. Reynard draws out the wedge. The\nBear howls till the whole village is aroused, and Bruno, to save his life,\ndraws himself out minus skin from head and paws. In the confusion the\nparson's cook falls into the stream, and the parson offers two butts of\nbeer to the man who saves her. While this is being done, the Bear escapes,\nand the Fox taunts him.\n\nThe Bear displaying his condition at court, the King swears to hang\nReynard, this time sending Hinge, the Cat, to summon Reynard to trial.\nHinge is lured to the parson's house in hopes of mice, and caught in a\nnoose fixed for Reynard. The household wake, and beat the Cat, who dashes\nunderneath the priest's robe, revenging himself in a cruel and unseemly\nway. The Cat is finally left apparently dead, but reviving, gnaws the\ncord, and crawls back to court.\n\n  \"The King was wroth, as wroth could be.\"\n\nThe Badger now offers to go, three times being the necessary number for\nsummoning a peer of the realm. He puts the case plainly before Reynard,\nwho agrees to come, and they set out together. On the way Reynard has a\nfit of remorse, and confesses his sins. Grimbart plucks a twig, makes the\nFox beat himself, leap over it three times, kiss it; and then declares him\nfree from his sins. All the time Reynard casts a greedy eye on some\nchickens, and makes a dash at one shortly after. Accused by Grimbart, he\ndeclares he had only looked aside to murmur a prayer for those who die in\n\"yonder cloister.\"\n\n  \"And also I would say\n  A prayer for the endless peace\n  Of many long-departed geese,\n  Which, when in a state of sin,\n  I stole from the nuns who dwell therein.\"\n\nThe Fox arrives at court with a proud step and a bold eye. He is accused,\nbut\n\n  \"Tried every shift and vain pretence\n  To baffle truth and common sense,\n  And shield his crimes with eloquence.\"\n\nIn vain. He is condemned to die. His friend Martin the Ape, Grimbart the\nBadger, and others withdraw in resentment, and the King is troubled.\n\nAt the gallows Reynard professes to deliver a dying confession, and\nintroduces a story of seven waggon-loads of gold and jewels which had been\na secret hoard of his father, stolen for the purpose of bribing chiefs to\ndepose the Lion and place the Bear on the throne.\n\nReynard is pardoned on condition of pointing out the treasure. He declares\nit to be in Husterlo, but excuses himself from accompanying the King on\nhis way there, as he, Reynard, is excommunicated for once assisting the\nWolf to escape from a monastery, and must, therefore, go to Rome to get\nabsolution.\n\nThe King announces his pardon to the court. The Bear and Wolf are thrown\ninto prison, and Reynard has a scrip made of a piece of the Bear's hide,\nand shoes of the skin of the feet of the Wolf and his wife. Blessed by\nBellin the Ram, who is the King's chaplain, and accompanied a short\ndistance by the whole court, he sets out for Rome. The chaplain Ram and\nLampe the Hare, accompany him home to bid his wife farewell. He inveigles\nthe Hare inside, and the family eat him. He puts the Hare's head in the\nbear-skin wallet, and taking it to the impatient Bellin outside, asks him\nto take it to the King, as it contains letters of state policy.\n\nThe satchel is opened in full court, and Reynard once more proclaimed a\ntraitor, accursed and banned, the Bear and Wolf restored, and the Ram and\nall his race given to them for atonement. A twelve-day tourney is held. On\nthe eighth day the Coney and the Crow present complaint against Reynard;\nhe had wounded the Coney, and eaten the Crow's wife. It is resolved, in\nspite of the Lioness's second intercession, to besiege Malepart and hang\nReynard.\n\nGrimbart secretly runs off to warn Reynard, who decides to return to court\nonce more and plead his cause. They set out together, and Reynard again\nconfesses his sins. This introduces a story of how he once fooled the\nWolf. Isengrin coveted to eat a foal, and sent the Fox to inquire the\nprice from the mare. She replied the price was written on her hinder hoof.\nThe Fox, seeing the trick, returned to the Wolf saying he could not\nunderstand the inscription. The Wolf boasts of his learning, having long\nago taken his degrees as Doctor of Both Faculties. The Wolf bends down to\nexamine the newly-shod hoof, and the rest may be supposed.\n\nOn their way to court, Reynard and Grimbart meet Martin the Ape, who is\nbound for Rome, and promises his gold shall buy Reynard's absolution.\nArrived at court, Reynard boldly explains away the stories of the Coney\nand the Crow, and demands the trial by battle. The Coney and Crow, having\nno witnesses, and being averse to battle, withdraw. Reynard accuses the\ndead Bellin of killing the Hare Lampe and secreting rare jewels he sent\nto the King. His story is half believed in the hope that the jewels, which\nhe described at great length, may be found. Reynard's former services to\nthe state are remembered, and he is about to depart triumphant, when the\nWolf, unable to restrain his rage, accuses him afresh. In the end, as each\naccusation is smoothly foiled, he accepts the wager of battle. They\nwithdraw to prepare for the lists. Reynard is shorn and shaven, all but\nhis tail, by his relatives the Apes. He is well oiled. He is also enjoined\nto drink plentifully overnight.\n\nThey meet in the lists. Reynard kicks up the dust to blind the Wolf, draws\nhis wet tail across his eyes, and at length tears an eye out. He is,\nhowever, seized by the Wolf's strong jaw, and is about to be finished off\nwhen he takes advantage of a word of parley to seize the wolf in a tender\npart with his hand, and the fight recommences, ending in the total\noverthrow of Isengrin. The King orders the fray to be stayed and the\nWolf's life spared. The Wolf is carried off. All fly to congratulate the\nvictor,\n\n  \"All gazed in his face with fawning eyes,\n  And loaded him with flatteries.\"\n\nThe King makes him the Lord Chancellor and takes him to his close esteem.\n\nThe tale winds up:\n\n  \"To wisdom now let each one turn,\n  Avoid the base and virtue learn;\n  This is the end of Reynard's story,\n  May God assist us to His glory.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE FOX RETURNING FROM HUNTING, MANCHESTER.]\n\nThe above is the gist of the matter dealing with the Fox in letters; from\nthese lively images we will turn to the more wooden achievements of the\ncarvers. The general fact that the Fox is a marauder specially fond of the\nflesh of that bird of long descent, the goose, but also partial to that of\nother birds, is frequently illustrated by church carvings. In the churches\nat the following places he is carved as having seized his prey:--Beverley\n(Minster), Boston, Fairford, Faversham, Gloucester, Hereford, Norwich,\nOxford (Magdalen), Peterborough, Ripon, Wellingborough, Winchester, and\nWindsor (St. George's Chapel). At the last-named he is also shewn as\npreying upon a hen. At Beverley (Minster) Ely, Manchester, and Thanet (St.\nMary's Minster) the picture of the abduction of the goose is heightened in\ninterest by his pursuit by a woman armed with a distaff. Doubtless there\nare others; the object throughout is to give examples, not an exhaustive\nlist.\n\nA somewhat unusual subject is one in Manchester Cathedral, in which the\nFox is returning from hunting. A carving where the Fox is used to point a\nmoral is another, in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, in which three monks,\nconveyed in a wheel-barrow into Hell's Mouth, are accompanied by a Fox\nwith a goose in his mouth. Probably the idea here broadly expressed is\nintended to be quietly suggested by some of the above.\n\nNext in frequency is the more definite satire of the Fox preaching to\nGeese. We find it at Beverley (both the Minster and St. Mary's), Boston,\nBristol, Cartmel, Ely, Etchingham, Nantwich, Ripon, Stowlangcroft, and\nWindsor (St. George's Chapel). In the last he has a goose in his cowl.\n\nAll those need for their completion the supposition that the text of the\nFox's sermon is the same as was given at length in a representation of a\npreaching scene on an ancient stained-glass window in the church of St.\nMartin, Leicester, which was unhappily destroyed in the last century. In\nthis, from the Fox's mouth proceeded the words \"Testis est mihi Deus, quam\ncupiam vos omnes visceribus meus\" (God is my witness how I desire you all\nin my bowels.--Philippians, i., 8). In Wolfius, A.D. 1300, is a\ndescription of another such representation, in a MS. of AEsop's Fables. It\nmay accord quite well with the theory of the transmission of designs by\nthe continuity of the artificers' gild system to suppose that some\nproportion of the material found its way into their repertoire through\nthe medium of manuscripts (not necessarily original in them), especially\nfor such subjects as were essentially mediaeval. We have seen how the\ncarvings of Jonah and of Samson, at Ripon, were taken from the Poor Man's\nBible; here we have the Preaching Fox mentioned in a book of 1300 as being\nin an earlier work. A Fox bearing two Cocks by the neck on a staff is the\ninitial T in a MS. considered by Montflaucon to be of the ninth century.\nFredegarius, the Frankish historian, in the middle of the seventh century,\nhas a fable of a Fox at the court of the Lion, repeated by others in the\ntenth and eleventh. Paulin Paris and Thomas Wright agreed in thinking the\nwhole fable of French origin, and first in the Latin tongue. So that we\nmay reasonably suppose that the countless tons of books and MSS. (though\nit is useless to grope now among the mere memories of ashes), burnt at the\nReformation, would contain much that would have made clearer our\nunderstanding of this subject of Gothic grotesques. It is clear, however,\nthat the Fox was used as a means of satirical comment before the writing\nof the Isengrine Fable, and that most of the church carvings refer to what\nwe may call pre-Fable or co-Fable conceptions.\n\nThere may be other material lying hidden in our great libraries, but\nsearch for early Reynard drawings produces almost nothing.\n\nAt Ripon the Fox is shewn without vestments, in a neat Gothic pulpit\nadorned with carvings of the trefoil.[8] His hands, and what they may\nhave held, are gone. His congregation is to his right a goose, to his left\na cock, who appear to be uttering responses, while his face is significant\nof conscious slyness.\n\n[Illustration: THE PREACHING FOX, RIPON.]\n\nIn Beverley Minster the Preaching Fox is in a square panelled pulpit on\nfour legs; before him are seven geese, one of whom slumbers peacefully. He\nwears a gown and cowl, has a rosary in his right hand, and appears to be\nperforming his part with some animation. Behind the pulpit stands an ape\nwith a goose hung on a stick, while another fox--to give point to the\nlesson--is slinking off with a goose slung over his back. At St. Mary's,\nBeverley, the various carvings have a decidedly manuscript appearance. The\none of the Preaching Fox has labels, upon which, in some unknown original,\nmay have been inscribed texts or other matter. Here the Fox wears only his\n\"scapulaire,\" and has his right hand raised in correct exhortative manner;\nhis pulpit is of stone, and is early. Behind stand two persons, perhaps\nmale and female, whose religious dress would lead us to suppose them to\nrepresent the class to whose teaching a fox-like character is to be\nattributed. At the front are seated two apes, also in scapularies, or\nhoods, who, as well as the Fox, may be here to shew the real character of\nthe supposed sanctified.\n\n[Illustration: THE RULE AND THE ROAST CONTRASTED, ST. MARY'S, BEVERLEY.]\n\nIt will have been noticed how frequently the carvings evade explanation;\nall these satires on the clergy may mean either that the system was bad,\nor that there was much abuse of it. A remarkable instance of this is in\nanother misericorde in St. Mary's, Beverley. Here we have the Benedictine\nwith mild and serene countenance, without a sign of sin, and bearing the\nscroll of truth and simplicity of life--call it the rule of his order. Yet\nhow do many of his followers act? With greed for the temporalities, they\naspire to the pastoral crook, and devour their flocks with such rapacity\nas to threaten the up-rooting of the whole order.\n\n[Illustration: THE PREACHING FOX, ST. MARY'S, BEVERLEY.]\n\nSuch might be one rendering; yet the placid cleric may be simply\nintroduced to shew the outward appearance of the ravening ones.\n\nIt has been a favourite explanation of these anti-cleric carvings to say\nthat they were due to the jealousy which existed between the regular\norders and the preaching friars. But carvings such as this last are\nsufficient to prove the explanation erroneous; preaching friars carried no\ncroziers.\n\nYet another instance from St. Mary's shews us two foxes in scapularies\nreading from a book placed on an eagle-lectern.\n\n[Illustration: FOXES AT THE LECTERN, ST. MARY'S, BEVERLEY.]\n\nThe bird--lectern or not--has round its head a kind of aureola or glory;\nit is probably an eagle, but who shall say it is not a dove? The\nreligiously-garbed foxes are alone unmistakable.\n\nAt Boston we have a mitred Fox, enthroned in the episcopal seat in full\ncanonicals, clutching at a cock which stands near, while another bird is\nat the side. Close by the throne, another fox, in a cowl only, is reading\nfrom a book.\n\nAt Christchurch, Hampshire, we see the Fox on a seat-elbow, in a pulpit of\ngood design, and near him, on a stool, the Cock; it appears in the\ninitial of this article.\n\nAt Worcester, a scapularied Fox is kneeling before a small table or altar,\nlaying his hand with an affectation of reverence upon--a sheep's head.\nThis is one of the side carvings to the misericorde of the three mowers,\nconsidered under the head of \"Trinities.\"\n\n[Illustration: EPISCOPAL HYPOCRISY, BOSTON.]\n\nThe Fox seizing the Hen, at Windsor, reminds of the Fable, yet in so many\nother instances it is the Cock who is the prey. Still further removing the\ncarvings out of the sphere of the Fable is a carving at Chicester of the\nFox playing the harp to a goose, while an ape dances; and another at St.\nGeorge's, Windsor, in which it is an ape who wears the stole, and is\nengaged in the laying on of hands. In the Fable the Fox teaches the Hare\nthe Creed, yet in a carving at Manchester it is his two young cubs whom\nhe is teaching from a book.\n\nThe Fox in the Shell of Salvation, artfully discoursing on the merits of a\nbottle of holy water, as drawn on page 58, may be considered a Preaching\nFox.\n\nThere is at Nantwich a carving which, unlike any of those already noticed,\nis closely illustrative of an incident of the epic. It represents the\nstory told to Nouvel's court by the widower Crow. He and his wife, in\ntravelling through the country, came across what they thought was the dead\nbody of Reynard on the heath. He was stiff, his tongue protruded, his eyes\nwere inverted. They lamented his unhappy fate, and \"course so early run.\"\nThe lady approached his chin, not, indeed, with any idea of commencing a\nmeal; far from that, it was to ascertain if perchance any signs of life\nremained, when--snap! Her head was off! The Crow himself had the\nmelancholy luck to fly to a tree, there to sit and watch his wife eaten\nup. In the carving we have the crows first coming upon the sight of the\ncounterfeit carrion as it lies near a rabbit warren. To shew how perfect\nis Reynard's semblance of death, the rear portions of two rabbits are to\nbe seen as they hurry into their holes on the approach of the crows, the\nproximity of the Fox not having previously alarmed them.\n\nThe side figures have no simultaneous connection with the central\ncomposition, being merely representations of Reynard, once more as a\nlarder regarder. The pilgrim's hat, borne by one of the figures, is a\nfurther reminder of the Fable, and the monkish garb is of course in\nkeeping. These two are somewhat singular in being fox-headed men. At\nChester, also, is a Fox feigning death.\n\n[Illustration: THE FOX FEIGNING DEATH, NANTWICH.]\n\n[Illustration: THE TEMPTATION. THE PUNISHMENT. THE WAKE KNOT. BEVERLEY\nMINSTER.]\n\nThus far the examples have been of Reynard's crimes; we will now survey\nhis punishment. In the fable he was to be hanged, but was not, the Wolf\nand the Bear, whom he always outwitted, being the disappointed\nexecutioners. In the carvings he is really hanged, and the hangsmen are\nthe geese of his despoliation. Beverley Minster has among its fine\ncarvings an admirable rendering of this subject. Reynard is hanged on a\nsquare gallows, a number of birds, geese, taking a beak at the rope. To\nthe left of the gallows stand two official geese, with mace and\nbattle-axe. The left supplementary carving gives a note of the crime;\nReynard is creeping upon two sleeping geese. The right hand supporting\ncarving gives us the Fox after being cut down. His friend, the Ape, is\nuntying the rope from his neck. Observe the twist of the rope at the end;\nit declares that Reynard is dead, for it is a Wake Knot!\n\nAlso at Boston, Bristol, Nantwich, and Sherborne are carvings of the\nhanging by geese. The gallows of the Sherborne execution is square, and\nmade of rough trees. The general action is less logical than in the\nBeverley scene, but the geese are full of vivacity, evidently enjoying the\nthoroughness with which they are carrying out their intentions.\n\n[Illustration: EXECUTION OF REYNARD, SHERBORNE.]\n\nIn the hanging scenes there is no suggestion of the religious dress.\nReynard has lost his Benefit of Clergy. Besides the carving of the Ape\nlaying out the dead Fox, at Beverley there are also others where the Ape\nis riding on the Fox's back, and again where he is tending him in bed. The\nApe succouring the Fox is also instanced at Windsor.\n\nHowever, after the two broad classes of carvings are exhausted--the Fox\ndeluding or eating birds, and the Fox hanged by birds, there is little\nleft to tell of him.\n\nIt may be added that his hanging by his one-time victims has suggested to\nthe carver another subject of the same kind--the hanging of the cat by\nmice, or, more probably, rats, mentioned on page 43. It is there stated to\nbe at Sherborne, in error, the place being Great Malvern.\n\n[Illustration: EXECUTION OF THE CAT, GREAT MALVERN.]\n\nThe following curious scene from the Fox-fruitful church of St. Mary's,\nBeverley, is perplexing, and gives the Fox receiving his quietus under\nunique circumstances. He is, with anxiety, awaiting the diagnosis of an\nape-doctor, who is critically examining urinary deposits; his health has\nbeen evidently not all he could wish. When, lo, an arrow, from the bow of\nan archer in quilted leather, pierces him through the heart! What more\nthis carving means is a mystery.\n\n[Illustration: REYNARD IN DANGER, ST. MARY'S, BEVERLEY.]\n\nCarvings of the ordinary fables in which the Fox is concerned are not\nunknown. At Faversham, Kent, is one of the Fox and the Grapes; at Chester\nis the Fox and the Stork. The latter is, again, on a remarkable slab,\nprobably a coffin lid, in the Priory Church of Bridlington, East\nYorkshire, the strange combination of designs on which may be described.\nAt the head appear two curious dragon forms opposed over an elaborate\nembattled temple, suggestive of Saxon and Byzantine derivation, with a\ncentral pointed arch. This may be a rendering of the sun-myth, noted on\npage 37. At the foot is a reversed lion, the curls and twists of whose\nmane and tail closely resembles those of the white porcelain lions used by\nthe Chinese as incense-burners. Between the temple and the lion is incised\nan illustration of the fable of the Fox and the Stork. The slab, of which\na rough sketch is annexed, is of black basaltic marble, similar to that\nof the font of the church, which is of the type generally considered to be\nNorman, and to have been imported ready made from Flanders, and on which\ndragons are sometimes the ornament. The Fox on this slab is the earliest\nsculptured figure of the animal known in England.\n\n[Illustration: COFFIN LID, BRIDLINGTON, YORKSHIRE.]\n\nThere are also hunting scenes in which the fox is shot with bow and arrow,\nas in Beverley Minster; or chased with hounds in a way more commending\nitself to modern sporting ideas, as at Ripon.\n\nIn conclusion, the satirical intent of the fox inventions, as we find them\nin the library or in the church, may be summed up, for here indeed lies\nthe whole secret of their prevalence and popularity. The section of\nsociety satirized by the epic is large, but is principally covered by the\nfeudal institution. The notes struck are its greed of wealth and its greed\nof the table, its injustice under the pretext of laws, its expedient\nlying, the immunity from punishment afforded by riches, the absolute yet\nrevolution-fearing power of the sovereign, the helplessness of nobles\nsingle-handed, and the general influence of religion thrown over\neverything, while for its own sake being allowed to really influence\nnothing.\n\nThe chief point of the epic is generally considered to be that power in\nthe hands of the feudal barons was accompanied by a trivial amount of\nintelligence, which was easily deceived by the more astute element of\nsociety. The carvings give no note of this. A further object, however, may\nbe seen. The whole story of the Fox is meant not only to shew that\n\n  \"It is not strength that always wins,\n  For wit doth strength excel,\"\n\nby playing on the passions and weaknesses of mankind, but in particular to\nhold up to scorn the immunity procured by professional religion, though it\nis fair to note that the Fox does not adopt a religious life because\nsuited to his treacherous and deceitful character, but to conceal it. Thus\nso far as they elucidate the general \"foxiness\" of religious hypocrisy,\nthe carvings and the epic illustrate the same theme, but it is evident\nthat they embodied and developed already-existing popular recognition of\nthe evil, each in its own way, and without special reference one to the\nother.\n\n\n\n\nSituations of the Grotesque Ornament in Church Art.\n\n\nThe places chosen for the execution of the work which, by reason of its\nintention or its want of conformity with what we now consider a true taste\nin art, may be styled Grotesque, do not seem to be in any marked degree\ndifferent from the situations selected for other ornamental work. It may,\nhowever, be permitted to glance at those situations, and enquire as to\nsuch comparisons as they afford, though the conclusions to be arrived at\nmust necessarily be loose and general.\n\nIn Norman work the chief iconographical interest is to be found in the\ncapitals of pilasters and pillars, for here is often told a story of some\ncompleteness. Other places are the arches, chiefly of doorways; bosses of\ngroining, and the horizontal corners of pillar plinths; exteriorly, the\ngargoyles are most full of meaning, seconded by the corbels of the\ncorbel-table. We may expect in Norman grotesque some reference to ancient\nmystics; the forms are bold and rugged, such appearance of delicacy as\nexists being attained by interlacing lines in conventional patterns, with,\nalso, the effect of distance upon repeating ornament.\n\nTransitional Norman retained all the characteristic ornament of the purer\nstyle, but with the development of Early English the grotesque for a time\nsomewhat passed out of vogue, slight but eminently graceful modifications\nof the Corinthian acanthus supplying most of the places where strange\nbeasts had formerly presented their bewildering shapes. It might not be\nimpossible to connect this partial purification of ornament with a phase\nof church history.\n\n[Illustration: APE CORBEL, CARRYING ROOF TIMBER, EWELME.]\n\nBut in some portions of structure, as the gargoyles, and in the woodwork\nof the choirs, the grotesque still held its own. As Early English grew\ndistinctly into the Decorated, every available spot was enriched with\ncarving. The collections (called \"portfolios\" elsewhere) of the old\ncarvers would seem to have been ransacked and exhausted, all that had gone\nbefore receiving fresh rendering in wood and stone, while life and nature\nwere now often called upon to furnish new material. The pointed arch\nremained, however, an undecorated sweep of mouldings, and the plinth\ncorners were rarely touched; in fact there was here scarcely now the same\nsquareness of space which before had asked for ornament. All the other\nplaces ornamented in Norman work were filled up in Decorated with the new\ndesigns of old subjects. The resting-places of ornament were multiplied;\nthe dripstones of every kind of arch, and the capitals of every kind of\npillar, whether in the arcading of the walls, the heaped-up richness of\nthe reredos, or the single subject of the piscina, became nests of the\ngrotesque. In a single group of sedilia all the architecture of a great\ncathedral may be seen in miniature, in arch, column, groined roof, boss,\nwindow-tracery, pinnacle, and finial, each part with its share of\nornament, of grotesque. In the choirs the carvers had busied themselves\nwith summoning odd forms from out the hard oak, till the croches or\nelbow-rests, the bench ends, the stall canopies, and below all, and above\nall, the misericordes, swarmed with all the ideas of Asia and Europe past\nand present. Musicians are everywhere, but most persistently on the\nintersections of the choir arches, and somewhat less so on those of the\nnave.\n\n[Illustration: MISERICORDE--LION COMPOSITION, WELLINGBOROUGH.]\n\nA favourite place for humourous figures was on the stone brackets or\ncorbels which bear up timber roofs; examples are in the ape corbel in this\narticle, and the responsible yet happy-looking saint at the end of the\nlist of Contents.\n\nWhen the Perpendicular style came with other arts from Italy, and the\nlavish spread of the Decorated was chastened and over-chastened into\nregularity, there came for the second or third time the same ideas from\nthe never-dying mythologies, their concrete embodiments sometimes with\neloquence rendered, nearly always with vigour. They came to the old\nplaces, but in most fulness to that most full place, the dark recess where\nlurks the misericorde.\n\nUpon the whole it would appear that the grotesque, be it in the relics of\na long-forgotten symbolism, in crude attempts at realism, or in the\nfantastic whimseys of irresponsibility, is chiefly met in the portions of\nthe church where would occur, in the development of architecture, the\nproblems and difficulties. They occur, so to speak, at the joints of\nconstruction. It may be that the pluteresques (grotesque and other\nornaments made of metal) employed in many Spanish churches are to be\naccounted for in this way on the score of the facility of attachment.\nWhere it may be questioned that the ornament was to conceal juncture, it\nis often to be acknowledged that it was to give external apparent\nlightness to masses which are in themselves joints or centres of weight.\nTo conclude--to whatever extent we may carry our inquiries into the\nmeaning of the grotesques in church art, we have in them undoubtedly\nobjects whose associations are among the most ancient of the human race;\nwhatever our opinion of their fitness for a place in the temple, it is\nplain that practically they could be nowhere else.\n\n[Illustration: MUSICIAN ON THE INTERSECTION OF NAVE ARCHES, ST. HELEN'S,\nABINGDON, BERKSHIRE.]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n\n\nIndex.\n\n\n  Abdominal Mask, 91\n\n  Abingdon, 18, 72, 218, and Preface\n\n  Aboo-Simbel Trinity, 177\n\n  Abydos Trinity, 177\n\n  Acanthus, 149-50, 214\n\n  Adam, 61, 62, 74;\n    and Eve, 112, 120\n\n  Adam Clarke, 74\n\n  Adel, Yorkshire, 127\n\n  Adonai, 168\n\n  Adonis, 168\n\n  Adoration, the, 113-5\n\n  AElian, 50\n\n  AEsculapius, 42\n\n  _AEsop's Fables_, 196\n\n  Africa, 66\n\n  Agni, 178\n\n  Aix-la-Chapelle, 46\n\n  Akori, 178\n\n  Alcock, Bishop, 10, 92, 173\n\n  Ale and the Alewife, 99-105\n\n  Alewife, 97\n\n  Alehouses, 99\n\n  Ale-taster, 100\n\n  Alexander, 71\n\n  Alexandria, 34\n\n  All Souls, Oxford, 71, 76, 104-5, 150-1\n\n  Alraun images, 28\n\n  Altar of the Sun, 37-39\n\n  Ambarvalia, 48\n\n  American Arms, 179\n\n  American-Indian mythology, 159\n\n  American-Indian Trinity, 177\n\n  Amman, Justus, 188\n\n  Ammon, 42, 72, 158\n\n  Amun-Ra, 177\n\n  _Ancient Mysteries described_, 180\n\n  Ancient Worships, 27-59, 64-77, 152-3, 157-168, 175-183\n\n  Angel Choir, Lincoln, 3, 9\n\n  Angel (coin), 47\n\n  Angels, 63\n\n  Animal Musicians, 152-6\n\n  Animal symbolism, 35\n\n  Anthony pig, the, 154\n\n  Anuka, 178\n\n  Archers, 205, 209-10\n\n  Ape, the, 59, 28-9, 145, 152, 156, 192-4, 198, 201, 203, 207-10, 214\n\n  Aphrodite, 168\n\n  Apocryphal New Testament, the, 60, 112\n\n  Apollo, 21, 46, 162, 165\n\n  April, 141\n\n  Apuleius, 41\n\n  Architectural Museum, Tufton Street, the, 12, 167, 169, 174\n\n  Arimanes, 176\n\n  Arles, the Council of, 29\n\n  Arma palantes, 173\n\n  Arthur, King, 69\n\n  Artistic quality of Church grotesques, 19-23, 61\n\n  _Art Journal, the_, 66\n\n  Asir, 45\n\n  Assyrian myth, 34, 157, 181\n\n  Assyrians, no record of their humour, 6\n\n  Astronomical symbols a source of Gothic design, 4, 27-8, 37-59, 73,\n      157-68, 177\n\n  Atahuata, 177\n\n  Aten, 168\n\n  Athor, 111, 157, 167, 177-8\n\n  Athyr, 167\n\n  Attic figurines, 28\n\n  Auckland Castle, 155\n\n  Augsburgh, (?) Council of, 30\n\n  \"Auld Clootie,\" 70\n\n  \"Auld Hornie,\" 70\n\n  Aurva, 53\n\n  Avarice, 87, 91-95\n\n  Averus (Horus), 50\n\n\n  Baalim, 28\n\n  Babylonian myth, 34\n\n  Bacon, 142, 154\n\n  Bacchus, 69, 73, 158\n\n  Backbiter, 82-84\n\n  Badger Grimbart, 189, 191-3\n\n  Bagpipes, 103, 152, 155\n\n  Ba-it, 178\n\n  Baker, 105\n\n  Bakewell, Derbyshire, 130-1\n\n  Baldini and Boticelli, 84\n\n  Baptism of John, the, 117-8\n\n  Barton, Lincs., 174\n\n  Basketsful of Children, 63\n\n  Bayle, a kind of dance, 147\n\n  Beakheads, 125-6\n\n  Bear Bruno, 190-3\n\n  Bear, the, 152-156\n\n  Beard, the, 72\n\n  Bedford, 175\n\n  _Beehive of the Romishe Church_, 180\n\n  Bellin the Ram, 192\n\n  Berkshire, 18, 72, 125, 129, 218\n\n  Bestiaries, the, 73\n\n  Beverley, Percy Shrine at, 3;\n    Carvings at, 13, 39, 40, 54, 57, 63, 87, 112, 120-3, 130, 133-6, 144,\n        152, 154-5, 159, 173, 182, 195-6, 198-9, 201-2, 208-11\n\n  Bhu, 42\n\n  Bible (as Old and New Testaments), 176\n\n  Biblia Pauperum, 113\n\n  Birch, Dr., 158\n\n  Birds, 4, 9, 22, 38, 39\n\n  Bishop Foxes, 199, 203\n\n  Bishops Stortford, 109\n\n  Blashill, Mr. Thomas, 106\n\n  Bo, Bo-tree. Bod, Bog, Boggart, Boivani, Bolay, Boo, Bouders, Boudons,\n      Boroon, Bormania, Borr, Borvo, Bouljanus, Brog, Bug, Bugbear,\n      Buggaboo, Buka, 66, 69\n\n  Boar, 139-40, 152\n\n  Boar's Head, 69, 139\n\n  Bodleian Library, 16, 63\n\n  Bolton, Bishop, 173\n\n  Boston, Lincolnshire, 195, 196, 202, 208\n\n  Boutell, Rev. C., 25\n\n  Bow and arrow, 162-5\n\n  Boy (Bog), 69\n\n  Brahma, 178\n\n  Brahminic Trinity, 178\n\n  Breast, removal of, 165\n\n  Bridge, Kent, 75\n\n  Bridlington Priory Church, Yorks, 15, 210-1\n\n  Bristol, 196, 208\n\n  British Museum, 62\n\n  Bruno the Bear, 190-3\n\n  Buckle Mask, 125\n\n  Bull, the, 41-2, 72-3, 85, 88-9, 91, 159\n\n  Bur, 45\n\n  Byzantine ideas, 127\n\n  Byzantium, 35\n\n\n  Caimis, 50\n\n  _Calendarum Romanorum Magnum_, 141\n\n  Calf, 73\n\n  Cama, 50\n\n  Cambridge, 10, 92, 133\n\n  Cambridgeshire, 74\n\n  Candlemas, 42, 140\n\n  Canterbury, 139\n\n  Canting heraldry, 173\n\n  Caricature in part explained, 3\n\n  Carpenter, Mr. Edward, 186\n\n  Cartmel, 180, 196\n\n  Carvers, 9-18\n\n  Cat, the, 156, 189, 191, 209\n\n  Cat and Fiddle, the, 39-43\n\n  Cat-heads, 126\n\n  Caxton, 170, 188\n\n  Cedranus, 143-4\n\n  Centaur, 161-6\n\n  Cerealia, 48\n\n  Ceres, 72, 153, 158\n\n  Cestus, 165\n\n  Chairs, 141\n\n  Chalons, Council of, 143\n\n  Chandra, Chandri, 43\n\n  Cherubim, 73, 159, 161\n\n  Chester, 60, 77, 103, 207, 210\n\n  Chichester, 72, 75, 124, 141, 157, 181, 182, 203\n\n  Chiron the Centaur, 162\n\n  Chnoumis, 178\n\n  Chonso, 177\n\n  Christ, 30, 48, 60-62, 104, 114-20\n\n  Christchurch (Hants), 21, 33, 172, 184, 202\n\n  Christmas, 139-40, 144\n\n  _Chronicles, the Book of_, 176\n\n  Church symbolism, expediency, etc., 31\n\n  Ciaran (St.), 162\n\n  Clergy, the, 97, 111\n\n  Cneph, 177\n\n  Cock, the, 184, 197-8, 202-3\n\n  Compound Forms, 37, 111, 157-168\n\n  Coney, the, 193, 204-5\n\n  Conscience, 170-1\n\n  Constantinople, Council of, 30;\n    Byzantium, 35\n\n  Continuous group, 149\n\n  Conventional form a matter of development, 3\n\n  Corinthian Acanthus, 149-50, 214\n\n  Corpus Christi Play, 142-3\n\n  _Cosmographiae Universalis_, 172\n\n  Cotton MSS., 82, 147\n\n  Councils, Arles, 29;\n    Augsburgh (?), 30;\n    Constantinople, 30;\n    Frankfurt, 30, 99;\n    Narbonne, 30;\n    Nicea, 30;\n    Orleans, 29;\n    Tours, 30;\n    Nice, 36;\n    Milan, 36\n\n  Coventry, 60, 142\n\n  Cow, the, 41\n\n  Creators, Mythological, 176-8\n\n  Crescent, the, 41, 42\n\n  Cripple, 145, 147\n\n  Crocodile, 44-5\n\n  Crorasura, 153\n\n  Cross, the, 43\n\n  Crow and his wife, the, 193, 204-5\n\n  Croziers, 198, 202\n\n  Crusaders, 47\n\n  Culham, Berkshire, 125\n\n  Cupid, 50, 51, 53-55\n\n\n  Dance, 40, 43, 144, 147\n\n  David, King, 62\n\n  Decorated Carvings, 214-217\n\n  Deer, 140\n\n  Definitions of the Grotesque, 5-8\n\n  De la Wich, Bishop, 181\n\n  Delft, 188\n\n  Derbyshire, 130-1\n\n  Design, Continuity of Gothic, 4\n\n  Detractors, 82-3\n\n  Devil and the Vices, the, 78-98\n\n  Devil, the, 47, 69, 70, 77, 103-5\n\n  Devils, 63, 119\n\n  Diana, 32, 40-43, 73\n\n  Diapason, the, 41\n\n  Dillin pig, the, 154\n\n  Disc of the Sun, 167-8\n\n  Distaff, 195\n\n  Dog, 5, 19, 21, 40, 42, 142, 159-60, 189\n\n  Domestic and Popular, the, 134-151\n\n  Donnington, Thomas (1520), 174\n\n  Dorchester Abbey, Oxon., 60, 64-5, 121-2, 133, 159-60\n\n  Dragons, 26, 37, 44-57, 60, 64-66, 84, 127, 165, 177, 211\n\n  Drake (dragon), 47\n\n  Druidical Tau, 43-4\n\n  Drum (Tabor), 97\n\n  Durer, Albert, 61\n\n  Durham, 155\n\n\n  Eagle, the, 22, 37, 148, 158-9, 202\n\n  Early English Carvings, 214\n\n  Eastern ideas, 9-10, 34-5\n\n  Eden, 73, 76\n\n  Edgeware, 102\n\n  Edward the Confessor, 9\n\n  Edward III., 17\n\n  Edward IV., 49\n\n  Egypt, 34, 43-45\n\n  Egyptians, little record of their humour, 6\n\n  Egyptian myth, etc., 34, 41-5, 47-8, 50-6, 157-8, 177-8\n\n  Egyptian Trinities, 177-8\n\n  Eicton, 177\n\n  Elephantine Trinity, 178\n\n  Ely, 74, 80-1, 84, 105, 166, 195-6\n\n  Equinoxes, the, 175\n\n  Eschol, 171\n\n  Esculapius, 178\n\n  Etchingham, 196\n\n  Evans, Mr. E. P., 35, 85\n\n  Evil, Images of, 1, 26, 33\n\n  Eve, 62, 74\n\n  Ewelme, Oxon., Carvings at, 1, 65, 67\n    (not Dorchester), 76, 127-8, 214\n\n  Exeter, 4, 39, 165, 168, 181\n\n  Ezekiel, 159\n\n\n  Fable, 186\n\n  Fafnir the Dragon, 46\n\n  Fairford, 195\n\n  Fairies, 66\n\n  Falx, the, 57\n\n  Farnsham, 65\n\n  Fates, the, 178\n\n  Fauns, 69\n\n  Faversham, Kent, 180, 195, 210\n\n  Feast of Fools, the, 143-7\n\n  Feathered Angels, 75-7\n\n  Fecundity, Goddess of, 66, 72\n\n  Fiddle, 40, 41, 153\n\n  Figurines as _lares_, 28\n\n  Finedon, Northamptonshire, 125\n\n  Fire, 178\n\n  Fish, 182\n\n  Flagellation, 134\n\n  Flanders, a church workshop, 9, 15\n\n  Flesh hook, 63, 87, 182\n\n  Fleur-de-lys, 39, 179\n\n  Flora, 158\n\n  Fools, 130\n\n  Fools, the Feast of, 143-7\n\n  Foreign carvers, 9-18\n\n  Fox, the, 58-9, 184-212\n\n  Fox and Grapes, the, 210\n\n  Fox and Stork, the, 210-1\n\n  France, 48\n\n  Frankfort, Council of, 30, 99\n\n  Fredegarius, 197\n\n  Freemasonry, 16, 17\n\n  French work for Saxons, 9\n\n  Frigga, 53\n\n  Freyr, 153\n\n  Furies, the, 178\n\n\n  Gallows, the, 207-9\n\n  Ganges, the, 172\n\n  Gargonilles, 46, 129\n\n  Gaul, 66\n\n  Gaul, Bishops of, 30\n\n  Gauri, 43\n\n  Gautier de Coinsi, 36\n\n  Gayton, Northants, 81, 86, 87\n\n  Geese, Reynard's theft of, etc., 191, 195, 198, 203\n\n  Gehul, 153\n\n  George IV., 17\n\n  German \"teraphim,\" 28;\n    paganism, 30\n\n  Germany, Bishops of, 30\n\n  Ghent, 188\n\n  Gild, continuity the explanation of continuity of design, 4, 35, 196\n      (_see_ Freemasonry)\n\n  Gilds, 70\n\n  Glasgow, 65, 66, 77\n\n  Gloucester, 195\n\n  Gluttony, 88\n\n  Goat, the, 69, 71-3, 187\n\n  Goethe, 189\n\n  Golden Bristle, 153\n\n  Gorgon, 127\n\n  Gothic ornament, uses of, etc., 2, 3;\n    some characteristics of, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19-23, 24-26, 35-39,\n        49, 54;\n    not didactic, 24-26;\n    situations of, 213, 218\n\n  Gouda, 188\n\n  Graces, the, 178\n\n  Gravio, Count, 30\n\n  Great Malvern, 172, 209\n\n  Grecian Trinity, 177\n\n  Greek wit, 6;\n    star-worship, 28;\n    myth, 34, 41, 177-8;\n    art, 36-37;\n    symbolism 74;\n    dances, 147\n\n  Grimace-makers, 130, 133\n\n  Grimbart, the Badger, 189, 191-3\n\n  Grimm, 186\n\n  Gryphon, 125, 158\n\n  Guildford, Surrey, 117-8\n\n  Gullinbrusti, 153\n\n\n  Hades, 42, 161\n\n  Haenir, 177\n\n  Hak, 178\n\n  Hampshire, 21, 33, 172\n\n  Hanging of the Cat, 209\n\n  Hanging of the Fox, 207-8\n\n  Hare, the, 106-7, 182, 189, 192, 194, 203\n\n  Harleian MSS., 104\n\n  Harmachis, 158\n\n  Harp, the, 140-1, 153, 154, 155\n\n  Harpy, the, 4, 111, 166, 181\n\n  Hebrew Teraphim, 28\n\n  Hecate, 41, 42\n\n  Heliopolis, Trinity of, 178\n\n  Hell, 48, 84, 104\n\n  Hell's Mouth, 60-63, 103, 196\n\n  Hen, the, 195, 203\n\n  Henning the Cock, 190\n\n  Henry VI., 16, 62\n\n  Henry VII.'s Chapel, 10, 91, 95, 148, 156, 173\n\n  Henry VIII., 16, 49\n\n  Hera, 177\n\n  Heraldry, canting, 173\n\n  Heraldry and three-fold repetitions, 179\n\n  Hercules, 148, 177\n\n  Hereford, 195\n\n  Herodotus, 28, 50\n\n  Hertfordshire, 109\n\n  Het-her, 167\n\n  Hexagon, symbolic, 179\n\n  Hezekiah, 74\n\n  Hindoo myth, 28, 42-45, 50, 53, 153, 178\n\n  Hinge the Cat, 191\n\n  Hippocampus, Lincoln, 26\n\n  Hippo-centaurs, 161\n\n  Hobgoblins, 66\n\n  Hogarth, 20, 21\n\n  Holy Cross, Stratford-on-Avon, 60\n\n  Holy Trinity, Hull, 139-40\n\n  Holderness, 106\n\n  Homer, 160\n\n  Hone, 180\n\n  Hopton, 174\n\n  Horace, 157\n\n  Horns, 70;\n    Horn, 73\n\n  Horse, the, 162, 139\n\n  Horse-leech, 110-1\n\n  Horus, 45, 48, 50-56, 57, 72, 177, 178\n\n  Hull, 10, 100, 139-40\n\n  Humour, of nations, 6, 7;\n    defined, 20\n\n  Hunting, 140\n\n  Huntsman, 139\n\n  Husterlo, 192\n\n  Hypocrisy, 98\n\n\n  Ibis, 167\n\n  Iceland, 153\n\n  Idun, 76\n\n  Iffley, 49, 126, 162, 163\n\n  Imagery in Architecture and Language compared, 1-3\n\n  Impudence, 109\n\n  Indecency in church, 143-7, 150-1\n\n  India, 172\n\n  Indian mask, 123-4\n\n  Indian mythology, East, 66, 69, 178\n\n  Indian Trinity, American, 177\n\n  Indra, 178\n\n  Irenaeus, 73\n\n  Irreverence in art explained in part, 8\n\n  _Isaiah_, 74\n\n  _Isengrinus_, 187\n\n  Isis, 41, 42, 45, 50, 177\n\n  Islip, Bishop, 173\n\n  Italian workers in England, 9, 10, 13\n\n  Italy, 41\n\n  Italy, Bishops of, 30\n\n\n  Janus, 180\n\n  Japanese (crocodile), 45\n\n  Jesus College, Cambridge, 92\n\n  Joke, the, 6\n\n  Jonah, 112-3, 197\n\n  Joermungard, 45\n\n  Jove (Jupiter), 11\n\n  July, 183\n\n  Juno, 177\n\n  Jupiter, 21, 57, 148, 158, 177, 178, 181\n\n  Jurassic reptiles, 145\n\n\n  Keltic dragons, 49\n\n  Kent, 75, 180, 182\n\n  Khum, 178\n\n  King Arthur, 69\n\n  King Edward the Confessor, 9\n\n  King Edward III., 17\n\n  King Edward IV., 49\n\n  King George IV., 17\n\n  King Henry VI., 16, 62\n\n  King Henry VII., 147\n\n  King Henry VII. Chapel, 10, 173\n\n  King Henry VIII., 16, 49\n\n  King's College, Cambridge, 10, 133\n\n\n  Lampe the Hare, 192, 194\n\n  Lares, 43\n\n  Laughter of nations, 6-7;\n    defined, 20\n\n  Lectern, 202\n\n  Leicester, 196\n\n  Leland, John, 16\n\n  Lemon, 139-40\n\n  Leo, 158\n\n  Leopard, The, 189\n\n  Lincoln Cathedral, 3, 9, 38, 51, 54, 63, 128, 133\n\n  Lincolnshire, 11, 174\n\n  Lind-drake, 47\n\n  Linden worm, 47\n\n  Linden tree, 47\n\n  Line of Beauty, 20\n\n  Lion, 5, 158, 183, 187, 189-90, 210-1, 215\n\n  Lioness, The, 193\n\n  Little-trust, Lettice, 101\n\n  Lodur, 177\n\n  Loki, 76, 77\n\n  Love, 53\n\n  Lubeck, 188\n\n  Lucifer, 53, 76\n\n  Ludlow, 99, 102, 103\n\n  Luna, 41, 43\n\n  Lunar calculations of Mosaic system, 176\n\n  Lunus, 43\n\n  Lydda, 47\n\n  Lynn, 11, 174\n\n\n  Macrobius, 32\n\n  Magdalen College, Oxford, 195\n\n  Magi, Adoration of the, 113-5\n\n  Maidstone, 182\n\n  Maimonides, the Rabbi, 27\n\n  Malepart, 190, 193\n\n  Malvern, Great, 172, 209\n\n  Manchester, 54, 55, 203-4, 195, 196\n\n  Mandragora images, 28\n\n  Mann, Mr. Robert, 66\n\n  Mant, 177\n\n  Mare and foal, the story of, 193\n\n  Mars, 21\n\n  Marks, sculptors', ignored; an example is on p. 103\n\n  Martinmas, 139, 154\n\n  Martin the Ape, 192-3\n\n  Mary, the Virgin, 34, 42, 82, 83\n\n  Masks and Faces, 121-133\n\n  Meaux Abbey, Yorkshire, 10\n\n  Memphis, Trinity of, 178\n\n  Mendes, 72\n\n  Mentu, 177\n\n  Merchant mark, 174\n\n  Mercury, 21, 49, 78, 153, 158, 167\n\n  Merenphtah, 178\n\n  Mermaid, 160\n\n  Messon, 177\n\n  Mexican myth, 157\n\n  Mice, 40, 43, 209\n\n  Michael Angelo, 10, 13\n\n  Midsummer Watch, 77\n\n  Milan, Council of, 36\n\n  Minerva, 21, 74, 177\n\n  Miracle Plays, 70\n\n  _Mirror of Human Salvation, the_, 113\n\n  Misericordes, 24-5, 181, 215, 217\n\n  Mithras, 176\n\n  Monstrosity, 147\n\n  Montflaucon, 197\n\n  Moon worship, 32, 40, 43\n\n  Morris Dance, 144, 147\n\n  Mosaic system, 31;\n    Ark, 159, 175;\n    not the original of pagan myth, 175-6\n\n  Moses, 62, 74, 175\n\n  Mouth of Hell, 60, 63\n\n  Mowers, 182\n\n  Mumming, 70, 168\n\n  Music, 140, 152\n\n  Monograms, 12\n\n  Mystery Plays, 32, 48, 70, 82, 103, 112, 142-3\n\n  Mythic origin of Church carvings, 34-59\n\n\n  Nachasch, 73\n\n  Nantwich, Cheshire, 196, 204-5, 208\n\n  Narbonne, the Council of, 30\n\n  Nebhetp, 178\n\n  Nefer-Atum, 178\n\n  Neptune, 21, 178\n\n  Nerites, 50\n\n  Nessus the Centaur, 162\n\n  New College, Oxford, 58-9, 81, 84-5, 98, 106, 149\n\n  Nice, 36\n\n  Nicea, the Council of, 30\n\n  _Nicodemus, the Gospel of_, 60\n\n  Nile, the River, 45, 71, 158\n\n  Nilus, 45, 158;\n    St. Nilus, _see_ Saints\n\n  Nobodies, 171\n\n  Non-descripts, 169-172\n\n  Norfolk, 48, 75, 195\n\n  Norman carvings, 49, 125, 127, 129, 163, 211, 213;\n    fonts 15\n\n  North Stoke, 119\n\n  Northamptonshire, 14, 22, 81, 84, 86-7, 101, 125\n\n  Norwich, 48, 75, 195\n\n  Notch-heads, 124-5\n\n  Nouvel the Lion, 189\n\n  _Numbers, the Book of_, 176\n\n  Nuns, 106-7\n\n  Nursery Rhymes, 39\n\n\n  Oak, the, 148, 181\n\n  Odin, 45, 53, 69, 177\n\n  Opas, 177\n\n  Orleans, the Council of, 143\n\n  Ornament, the use of Gothic, 2\n\n  Oromasdes, 176\n\n  Orus (_see_ Horus), 50, 72\n\n  Osiris, 41, 45, 50, 57, 158, 177\n\n  Otkon, 177\n\n  Ox, 71, 73, 160\n\n  Oxford, 58, 59, 71, 76, 81, 84, 85, 97, 104-6, 149, 151, 195\n\n  Oxfordshire, 49, 60, 64-5, 67, 105, 121-2, 133, 159\n\n\n  Paganism, ingrained among nations, 27\n\n  Pallas, 177\n\n  Palmer Fox, 58\n\n  Pan, 21, 72-3, 105\n\n  Pantheism, 32\n\n  Panther, the, 159\n\n  Paris, Paulin, 197\n\n  Parody, a characteristic of Greek wit, 7\n\n  Patala, 42\n\n  Pastoral staves, 49\n\n  Pausanius, 44\n\n  Pegasus, 162\n\n  Pepin, 30\n\n  Percy Shrine, 3\n\n  Perpendicular Ornament, 217\n\n  Persephone, 41\n\n  Perseus, 46, 57\n\n  Persian Trinity, 176\n\n  Peterborough, 195\n\n  Philaean Trinity, 176\n\n  _Philippians, the Epistle to the_, 196\n\n  Phipson, Miss, 14, 109, and preface\n\n  Phyrric Dance, the, 147\n\n  _Picture Bible, the_, 113, 197\n\n  Pig and Whistle, 155, 156\n\n  Pig, and other Animal Musicians, the, 110, 152-6\n\n  Piggy-widdy, 154\n\n  _Pilgremage of the Sowle, the_, 170\n\n  Pipes, Double, 155\n\n  Planet symbols, 28\n\n  Plato, 28\n\n  Plutarch, 41\n\n  Pluteresques, 218\n\n  Pluto, 42, 177-8\n\n  _Poor Man's Bible, the_, 113, 197\n\n  Poppy, Assyrian, 182\n\n  Pottery, 35\n\n  Preaching Fox, the, 184, 196-204\n\n  Priapus, 73\n\n  Prideaux, Bishop, 30\n\n  Priest sleeping, 106, 110-1\n\n  Prosperine, 32, 41-2, 177\n\n  Protevan, 82\n\n  Psyche, 176\n\n  Pta, 177-8\n\n  Pulpits, 184, 197-8, 201\n\n  Puranas, 43\n\n  Python, the, 46\n\n\n  Ra, 168, 177\n\n  Rabbi Maimonides, 27\n\n  Rahu, 44\n\n  Ram, the, 72, 187, 192\n\n  Ram Bellin, 192-3\n\n  Ram's Head, 19\n\n  Ram, the Hindoo deity, 28\n\n  Rebuses, 12, 173-4\n\n  Recording Imps, 78-9, 81, 84-5, 103\n\n  Red Sea, the, 50\n\n  _Reinche Bos_, 188\n\n  _Renart le Contrefet_, 188\n\n  _Reynard the Fox_, 184\n\n  _Reynard the Fox, the most delectable history of_, 188\n\n  Ripon, 5, 112-3, 124, 136-7, 155, 171, 195-8, 211\n\n  Rochester, 127\n\n  Rogation, 48\n\n  _Roman de Renart_, 188\n\n  Roman Trinity, 177\n\n  Roman, Wit bitter and low, 6-7;\n    myth, 42-3\n\n  Roman work for Saxons, 9\n\n  Roscommon, the Poet, 157\n\n  Roslyn Chapel, 128-9\n\n  Rostock, 188\n\n  Rothwell, Northants, 84\n\n\n  Sabean Idolatry, 28\n\n  Sackville the Poet, 63\n\n  Sacred Marks, 103 (block), 179\n\n  Saehrimnir, 153\n\n  Sagittarius, 162-5\n\n  Saints--Adrian, 99\n    Anthony, 154\n    Augustine, 31\n    Bartholomew's, Smithfield, 173\n    Bernard of Clairvaux, 23, 27, 36-7\n    Britius, 81\n    Ciaran, 162\n    Cross, Hospital of, Winchester, 100\n    George, 47-8, 57\n    George's Chapel, Windsor, 10, 167, 195-6, 203\n    Gertrude, 43\n    Helen's, Abingdon, 218\n    John, 49, 118\n    Katherine's, Regent's Park, 78, 81, 83, 86, 169\n    Keyne, 46\n    Lucy, 134-5\n    Luke, 73\n    Martha, 46\n    Michael, 47, 76\n    Martin's, Leicester, 196\n    Martin, 81\n    Mary's, Beverley, 123 (_see_ Beverley)\n    Mary's, Faversham, 180\n    Mary's Minster, Thanet, 97, 122-3, 130-1, 195\n    Nessan, 162\n    Nicholas's, Lynn, 11-2, 174\n    Nicholas, 179\n    Nilus, 36\n    Paul's, Bedford, 175\n    Paul's, London, 32, 109\n    Peter's-in-the-East, Oxford, 126\n    Romain, 46\n\n\n  Salus, 178\n\n  Sambar, 50\n\n  Samson, 198\n\n  Sani, 53\n\n  Satan, 48, 62, 70, 104-6, 170\n\n  Satanic Representations, 64-77, 78-105\n\n  Sathanus, 170\n\n  Satire, 185\n\n  Satires without Satan, 106-11\n\n  Satyrs, 69\n\n  Saturn, 21, 57\n\n  Saturnalia, 143\n\n  Saxon work, 9\n\n  Scandinavian mythology, 45, 76, 153, 157;\n    Trinity, 177\n\n  Scarabaeus, 178\n\n  Scriptural Illustrations, 112-120\n\n  Scylla, 160\n\n  Scythes, 182\n\n  Sea-horse (hippocampus), 26\n\n  Seals, 8, and end of Index\n\n  September, 140, 154\n\n  Seraphim, 74\n\n  Serapis, 42\n\n  Serpent, the, 44-5, 60-1, 73-5, 77\n\n  Sex of the Moon, 43\n\n  Sheep, 72, 142\n\n  Shell, 50-1, 54-5, 57-9, 159\n\n  Shell Child, the, 50-9, 159\n\n  Shepherd, 72, 142\n\n  Sherborne, 134-5, 208\n\n  Shiva, 66\n\n  Sigurd, 46\n\n  Sin series of carvings, 78-111\n\n  Sirius, 42\n\n  Sismondi, 31\n\n  Sistrum, 41, 43\n\n  Situations of Church Grotesques, 213-8\n\n  Siva, 178\n\n  Slanderers, 82\n\n  Sledges, 63\n\n  Smu, 50\n\n  Snail, 57-8\n\n  Solomon, King, 62\n\n  Sources of material for Gothic grotesques, General, 4\n\n  Southleigh, 63\n\n  _Speculum Humanae Salvationis_, 113\n\n  Sperke, John (1520), 174\n\n  Spinx, the, 158-9\n\n  Springs, 66\n\n  SS., the letter, and Collar of, 57\n\n  Stanford, Berkshire, 18\n\n  Star Worship, 27-8\n\n  Stars and Stripes, 179\n\n  Statute of Labourers, 17\n\n  Stoeffler, 141\n\n  Stowlangcroft, 196\n\n  Stratford-on-Avon, 60, 129\n\n  Suffolk, Duchess of (ob. 1475), 76\n\n  Sun, 167\n\n  Sun Feast, 153\n\n  Sun Worship, 32, 37, 42, 44-59, 71, 153, 158, 162, 175, 210-1\n\n  Superstition, Horn, 73\n\n  Supreme Intellect, the, 74\n\n  Surya, 53, 178\n\n  Sutton Courtney, 128-9\n\n  _Sutton-in-Holderness_, 106\n\n  Swan, 167\n\n  Swar, 42\n\n  Swathing of Infants, 114\n\n  Swarhanu, 53\n\n  Sweden, 153\n\n  Swine, Yorkshire, 106-7, 109, 129-30\n\n  Symbolism and Fable, 186\n\n  Symbols of worship a general source of Gothic ornament, 4, 27\n\n  Syderesys, 170\n\n  Syria, 47\n\n\n  Tabor (drum), 97\n\n  Tarasque, 46\n\n  Tau Cross, the, 34, 43-4\n\n  Taurus, 73\n\n  Telephorus, 178\n\n  Teraphim, 28\n\n  Teutonic appreciation of humour, 7\n\n  Thanet, Isle of, 97, 122, 130-1, 195\n\n  Theban Trinity, 177\n\n  Theophylact, 143\n\n  Thirlwall, 33\n\n  Thoth, 78, 167\n\n  Three, the number, 162 (_see_ Trinities)\n\n  Three branched rod, 103 (block), 162, 181-2\n\n  Time, Father, 57\n\n  Titian, 42\n\n  Topsey-turveyism, 149\n\n  Torregiano, 10\n\n  Tree of Knowledge, the, 74\n\n  Trefoil, the, 162, 178-9\n\n  _Trial of Mary and Joseph_, 82\n\n  Trigla, 180\n\n  Trinities, 168, 175-183\n\n  Tufton Street Architectural Museum, 12\n\n  Tum, the Setting Sun, 178\n\n  Typhon, 44-57, 64-5\n\n\n  Unseen Witness, the, 79, 85, 86, 87\n\n\n  Vali, 114\n\n  Vanity, 97\n\n  Vedie Trinity, 178\n\n  Venus, 21, 53, 111, 148\n\n  Veximiel, 62\n\n  Virgil, the, 160-1\n\n  Virgin Mary, the, 30, 42, 82-3\n\n  Virgo, 158\n\n  Vishnu, 53, 153, 178\n\n  Vulcan, 148, 177\n\n\n  Wall paintings compared with carvings, 114-117, 119-20\n\n  Wake Knot, 207-8\n\n  Wellingborough, 14, 15, 22, 34, 101, 195, 215\n\n  Wells, 65, 77, 150\n\n  Westminster Abbey, 9, 10, 91-95, 97, 109-110, 123-4, 156, 173\n\n  Wheelbarrows, 135-7, 196\n\n  Whistling Maid, the, 104-5\n\n  Whistling while drawing ale, 105\n\n  White, Wm. (1520), 173-4\n\n  Wich, Bishop de la, 124, 181\n\n  Winchester, 64, 100, 111, 145, 154, 166, 195\n\n  Windsor, 10, 167, 195, 203, 208\n\n  Winking Nun, the, 106-7\n\n  Wolf, the, 187, 189, 192;\n    story of the wolf's head, 187\n\n  Wolfius, 196\n\n  Worcester, 113-5, 142, 160, 161, 182-3, 203\n\n  Worm of conscience, the, 170\n\n  Wright, Thomas, 197\n\n  Wyvern, the, 47\n\n\n  York, 63, 65, 77, 129-30, 140, 148\n\n  Yorkshire, 10, 63, 65, 77, 106-7, 109, 127 (_see_ Beverley)\n\n  Yule, 153\n\n\n  Zeus, 177\n\n  Zither, 166\n\n  Zodiac, 45, 53\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Early in the thirteenth century unruly converts of the Abbey of Meaux,\nYorkshire, were, to humble their pride, made stonemasons, etc.\n\n[2] Of Christ, the Virgin, and saints only. It is here quoted as evidence\nof a tendency. It is plain that the council protected itself, for the\nfollowing distich is attributed to it, which sums up the original intent\nof all images--\n\n  \"Id Deus est, quod Imago docet, sed non deus ipse;\n  Hanc Videas, sed mente colas; quod cemis in ipse.\"\n\nwhich Prideaux, Bishop of Worcester, translates (1681):\n\n  \"A God the Image represents,\n    But is no God in kind;\n  That's the eye's object, what it shews\n    The object of the mind.\"\n\n[3] Yet the Hindoo signification of Typhon is \"the power of destruction by\nheat.\" In this we have another piece of evidence that both the good and\nthe bad of the fable are referrable to the sun as his varying attributes,\nand probably describe his particular effects at various portions of the\nzodiacal year. The true, or rather the close, meaning of the various\naccounts is obscured and confused; firstly, by imperfect knowledge as to\nthe geographical situations where the idea of the zodiac was conceived and\ndeveloped; secondly, by the gradual precession of the Equinoxes during the\nages which have elapsed since such conception.\n\n[4] Mr. Robert Mann.\n\n[5] \"Sutton-in-Holderness.\"\n\n[6] Roscommon.\n\n[7] Hone.\n\n[8] The Church Treasury, by William Andrews, 1898, p. 193.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nThe original text includes Greek characters. For this text version these\nletters have been replaced with transliterations.\n\nThe original text contains a hieroglyph. This is noted in this text as\n[symbol].","title":"The Grotesque in Church Art","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":40267}