Notes and Queries, Number 182, April 23, 1853

EDMUND SPENSER, AND SPENSERS, OR SPENCERS, OF HURSTWOOD

(Vol. vii., pp. 303. 362.)

Without entering on the question as to possible connexion of the poet with the family above mentioned, the discussion may be simplified by solving a difficulty suggested by Cliviger (p. 362.), arising from Hurstwood Hall (another estate in Hurstwood) having been possessed by Townley, and by explaining, 1st, The identity of the tenement once owned by Spencers; 2ndly, The seeming cause of Whitaker's silence; and, 3rdly, The certainty of possession by the Spencers.

I. The former estate of the Spencers in Hurstwood is a tenement which was purchased by the late Rev. John Hargreaves from the representatives of William Ormerod, of Foxstones, in Cliviger, in 1803, and which had been conveyed in 1690, by John Spencer, then of Marsden, to Oliver Ormerod of Hurstwood, and his son Laurence; the former of these being youngest son, by a second marriage, of Peter Ormerod of Ormerod, and co-executor of his will in 1650. So much for the locality.

II. As for Dr. Whitaker's silence, I know, from correspondence with him (1808-1816), that, from an irregularity in the Prerogative Office, he was not aware of this will, and uninformed as to this second marriage, or the connexion of this purchaser's family with the parent house; and I think it as probable that he was as unaware of the ancient possession of the purchased tenement by Spencers, as it is certain that this theory as to the connexion of the poet with it was then unknown. If otherwise, he would doubtless have extended his scale, and included it.

III. As to the certainty of possession by Spencers, I have brief extracts from deeds as to this tenement as follows:—

1677. Indenture of covenants for a fine, between John Spencer the elder, and Oliver Ormerod of Cliviger, and note of fine.

1687. Will of same John Spencer, late of Hurstwood, mentioning possession of this tenement as the inheritance of his great-grandfather, Edmund Spencer.

1689. Family arrangements of John Spencer (the son) as to same tenement, then in occupation of "Oliver Ormeroyde" before mentioned.

1690. Conveyance from John Spencer to O. and L. O., as before mentioned.

In Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1842 (pp. 141, 142.), will be found numerous notices of these Spencers or Spensers, with identified localities from registers.

I think that this explanation will solve the difficulty suggested by Cliviger. On the main question I have not grounds sufficient for an opinion, but add a reference to Gentleman's Magazine, March, 1848, p. 286., for a general objection by Mr. Crossley, President of the Chetham Society, who is well acquainted with the locality.

    Lancastriensis.

I was about to address some photographic Queries to the correspondents of "N. & Q." when a note caught my attention relating to Edmund Spenser (in the Number dated March 26.). The Mr. F. F. Spenser mentioned therein was related to me, being my late father's half-brother. I regret to say that he died very suddenly at Manchester, Nov. 2, 1852. During his lifetime, he took much pains to clear up the doubts about the locality of the poet's retirement, and his relatives in the North; and has made out a very clear case, I imagine. On a visit to Yorkshire in 1851, I spent a few days with him, and took occasion to urge the necessity of arranging the mass of information he had accumulated on the subject; which I have no doubt he would have done, had not his sudden death occurred to prevent it. These facts may be of some interest to biographers of the poet, and with this object I have ventured to trouble you with this communication.

    J. B. Spencer.

11. Montpellier Road, Blackheath.

THROWING OLD SHOES FOR LUCK

(Vol. ii., p. 196.; Vol. v., p. 413.; Vol. vii., pp. 193. 288.)

I do not know whether you will permit me to occupy a small portion of your valuable space in an attempt to suggest an origin of the custom of throwing an old shoe after a newly married bride.

Your correspondents assume that the old shoe was thrown after the bride for luck, and for luck only. I doubt whether it was so in its origin.

Among barbarous nations, all transfers of property, all assertions and relinquishments of rights of dominion, were marked by some external ceremony or rite; by which, in the absence of written documents, the memory of the vulgar might be impressed. When, among Scandinavian nations, land was bought or sold, a turf was delivered by the trader to the purchaser: and among the Jews, and probably among other oriental nations, a shoe answered the same purpose.

In Psalm lx., beginning with "O God, thou hast cast me off," there occurs the phrase, "Moab is my washpot, over Edom have I cast out my shoe." Immediately after it occurs the exclamation, "O God! who has cast us off!" A similar passage occurs in Psalm cix.

By this passage I understand the Psalmist to mean, that God would thoroughly cast off Edom, and cease to aid him in war or peace. This interpretation is consistent with the whole tenor of the Psalm.

The receiving of a shoe was an evidence and symbol of asserting or accepting dominion or ownership; the giving back a shoe, the symbol of rejecting or resigning it.

Among the Jews, the brother of a childless man was bound to marry his widow: or, at least, he "had the refusal of her," and the lady could not marry again till her husband's brother had formally rejected her. The ceremony by which this rejection was performed took place in open court, and is mentioned in Deut. xxv. If the brother publicly refused her, "she loosed his shoe from off his foot, and spat in his face;" or, as great Hebraists translate it, "spat before his face." His giving up the shoe was a symbol that he abandoned all dominion over her; and her spitting before him was a defiance, and an assertion of independence. This construction is in accordance with the opinions of Michaelis, as stated in his Laws of Moses, vol. ii. p. 31.

This practice is still further illustrated by the story of Ruth. Her nearest kinsman refused to marry her, and to redeem her inheritance: he was publicly called on so to do by Boaz, and as publicly refused. And the Bible adds, "as it was the custom in Israel concerning changing, that a man plucked off his shoe and delivered it to his neighbour," the kinsman plucked off his shoe and delivered it to Boaz as a public renunciation of Ruth, of all dominion over her, and of his right of pre-marriage.

These ceremonies were evidently not unknown to the early Christians. When the Emperor Wladimir made proposals of marriage to the daughter of Raguald, she refused him, saying, "That she would not take off her shoe to the son of a slave."

There is a passage in Gregory of Tours (c. 20.) where, speaking of espousals, he says, "The bridegroom having given a ring to the fiancée, presents her with a shoe."

From Michelet's Life of Luther we learn, that the great reformer was at the wedding of Jean Luffte. After supper, he conducted the bride to bed, and told the bridegroom that, according to common custom, he ought to be master in his own house when his wife was not there: and for a symbol, he took off the husband's shoe, and put it upon the head of the bed—"afin qu'il prit ainsi la domination et gouvernement."

I would suggest for the consideration of your correspondents that the throwing a shoe after a bride was a symbol of renunciation of dominion and authority over her by her father or guardian; and the receipt of the shoe by the bridegroom, even if accidental, was an omen that that authority was transferred to him.

    John Thrupp.

Surbiton.

ORKNEYS IN PAWN

(Vol. vii., pp. 105. 183.)

That the Orkney and Zetland Islands were transferred by Denmark to Scotland in 1468, in pledge for payment of part of the dower of the Princess of Denmark, who was married to James III., King of Scotland, under right of redemption by Denmark, is an admitted historic fact; but it is asserted by the Scottish, and denied by the Danish historians, that Denmark renounced her right of redemption of these Islands. The question is fully discussed, with references to every work and passage treating of the matter, in the first introductory note to the edition of The General Grievances and Oppressions of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, published at Edinburgh, 1836. And the writer of the note is led to the conclusion that there was no renunciation, and that Denmark still retains her right of redemption. Mr. Samuel Laing, in his Journal of a Residence in Norway, remarks, that the object of Torfæus' historical work, Orcades, seu Rerum Orcadensium Historiæ libri tres, compiled by the express command of Christian V., King of Denmark, was to vindicate the right of the Danish monarch to redeem the mortgage of the sovereignty of these islands; and he adds, that in 1804, Bonaparte, in a proclamation addressed to the army assembled at Boulogne for the invasion of England, descanted on the claim of Denmark to this portion of the British dominions. In a note he has the farther statement, that in 1549 an assessment for paying off the sum for which Orkney and Zetland were pledged was levied in Norway by Christian III. (Vide Laing's Norway, 1837, pp. 352, 353.) From the preceding notice, it would appear, that Denmark never renounced her right of redemption, now merely a matter of antiquarian curiosity. And it is pertinent to mention, that the connexion of Orkney and Zetland was with Norway, not Denmark. I observe in the Catalogue of MSS., in the Cottonian Library in the British Museum (Titus C. VII. art. 71. f. 134.), "Notes on King of Denmark's Demand of the Orcades, 1587-8," which may throw some light on the matter.

In the historical sketch given by Broctuna, Kenneth II., King of Scotland, is said to have taken the Orkneys from the Picts A.D. 838; and that they remained attached to that kingdom till 1099, when Donald Bain, in recompense of aid given to him by Magnus, King of Norway, gifted all the Scotch isles, including the Orkneys, to Norway. This is not what is understood to be the history of Orkney.

In the middle of the ninth century, Harold Harfager, one of the reguli of Norway, subdued the other petty rulers, and made himself king of the whole country. The defeated party fled to Orkney, and other islands of the west: whence, betaking themselves to piracy, they returned to ravage the coast of Norway. Harold pursued them to their places of refuge, and conquered and colonised Orkney about A.D. 875. The Norwegians at that time destroyed or expelled the race then inhabiting these islands. They are supposed to have been Picts, and to have received Christianity at an earlier date, but it is doubtful if there were Christians in Orkney at that period: however, Depping says expressly, that Earl Segurd, the second Norwegian earl, expelled the Christians from these isles. I may remark, that the names of places in Orkney and Zetland are Norse, and bear descriptive and applicable meanings in that tongue; but hesitate to extend these names beyond the Norwegian colonisation, and to connect them with the Picts or other earlier inhabitants. No argument can be founded on the rude and miserable subterraneous buildings called Picts' houses, which, if they ever were habitations, or anything else than places of refuge, must have belonged to a people in a very low grade of civilisation. Be this as it may, Orkney and Zetland remained under the Norwegian dominion from the time of Harold Harfager till they were transferred to Scotland by the marriage treaty in 1468, a period of about six hundred years. What cannot easily be accounted for, is the discovery of two Orkney and Zetland deeds of the beginning of the fifteenth century prior to the transfer, written not in Norse, but in the Scottish language.

    R. W.

HOGARTH'S PICTURES

(Vol. vii., p. 339.)

The numerous and interesting inquiries of An Amateur respecting a catalogue of Hogarth's works has brought to my recollection the discovery of one of them, which I was so fortunate as to see in its original situation. About the year 1815 I was invited by a friend, who was an artist, to visit a small public-house in Leadenhall Street, to see a picture by Hogarth: it was "The Elephant," since, I believe, pulled down, being in a ruinous condition. In the tap-room, on the wall, almost obscured by the dirt and smoke, and grimed by the rubbing of numberless foul jackets, was an indisputable picture by the renowned Hogarth. It represented the meeting of the committee of the South Sea Company, and doubtless the figures were all portraits. It was painted in his roughest manner; but every head was stamped with that character for which he stood unrivalled. I have since heard that, when the house was pulled down, this picture was sold as one of the lots, in the sale of furniture, and bought by a dealer. It was painted on the wall, like a fresco; and how to remove it was the difficulty. On sounding the wall it was found to be lath and plaster, with timber framework (the usual style of building in the reign of Elizabeth). It was therefore determined to cut it out in substance, which was accordingly performed; and by the help of chisels, thin crowbars, and other instruments, it was safely detached. The plaster was then removed from the back down to the priming, and the picture was backed with strong canvas. It was then cleaned from all its defilement, and, on being offered for sale at a good price, was bought by a nobleman, whose name I have not heard, and is now in his collection.

I do not know whether your correspondent has heard of Hogarth's portrait of Fielding. The story, as I have heard or read it, is as follows:—Hogarth and Garrick sitting together after dinner, Hogarth was lamenting there was no portrait of Fielding, when Garrick said, "I think I can make his face."—"Pray, try my dear Davy," said the other. Garrick then made the attempt, and so well did he succeed, that Hogarth immediately caught the likeness, and exclaimed with exultation, "Now I have him: keep still, my dear Davy." To work he went with pen and ink, and the likeness was finished by their mutual recollections. This sketch has been engraved from the original drawing, and is preserved among several original drawings and prints in the illustrated copy of Lysons's Environs, vol. i. p. 544., in the King's Library, British Museum.

While I am writing about unnoticed pictures by what may be called erratic artists, I may mention that in the parlour of the "King's Head," corner of New Road and Hampstead Road, on the panel of a cupboard, is a half-length of a farmer's boy, most probably the work of G. Morland, who visited this house on his way to Hampstead, and probably paid his score by painting this picture; which is well known to have been his usual way of paying such debts.

    E. G. Ballard.

Agreeably to the suggestion of An Amateur, I beg to send you the following list of pictures, from a catalogue in my possession:

Catalogue of the Pictures and Prints, the property of the late Mrs. Hogarth, deceased, sold by Mr. Greenwood, the Golden Head, Leicester Square, Saturday, April 24, 1790.

Pictures by Mr. Hogarth

41. Two portraits of Ann and Mary Hogarth.

42. A daughter of Mr. Rich the comedian, finely coloured.

43. The original portrait of Sir James Thornhill.