234 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 45. 



printed at "Westminster before the year 1477, six 

 years later than the date mentioned by Stow. 



John Gough Nichols. 



THE USE OF COFFINS. 



The Query of H. E. (Vol. i., p. 321.) seems to 

 infer that tlie use of coffins may be only a modern 

 custom. In book xxiii., chapters i. and ii., of 

 Binrrham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, 

 H. E. will find ample proof of the very early use 

 of coffins. During the first tliree centuries of the 

 Church, one great distinction betwixt He.athens 

 and Christians was, that the former burned tlieir 

 dead, and placed the bones and aslics in urns ; 

 whilst tlie latter always buried the corpse, eitlier 

 in a coffin or, embalmed, in a catacomb ; so tliat 

 it might be restored at the last day from its original 

 dust. There have frequently l)een dug out of tlie 

 barrows wdiich contain Roman urns, ancient 

 British stone coffins. Bede mentions that the 

 Saxons buried their dead in wood. Coffins both 

 of lead and iron were constructed at a very early 

 period. When the royal vaults at St. Denis were 

 desecrated, during the first French revolution, 

 coffins were exposed that had lain there for ages. 



Notwithstanding all this, it appears to be tlie 

 case that, both in the Norman and English periods, 

 the common people of this country were often 

 wrapped in a sere-cloth after death, and so placed, 

 coffinless, in the earth. The illuminations in the 

 old missals represent this. And it is not impossible 

 that the extract from the " Table of Dutyes," on 

 which H. E. founds his inquiry, may refer to a 

 lingering continuance of this rude custom. Indeed, 

 a statute passed in 1678, ordering that all dead 

 bodies shall be interred in woollen and no other 

 material, is so worded as to give the idea that 

 there might be interments without coffins. The 

 statute forbids that any person be put in, wrapt, 

 or wound up, or buried in any shirt, shift, sheet, 

 or shroud, unless made of sheep's wool only ; or 

 in any coffin lined or faced with any material but 

 sheep's wool ; as if the person might be buried 

 either in a garment, or in a coffin, so long as the 

 former was made of, or the latter lined with, wool. 



I think the " buryall without a collin," qufited 

 by H. E., must have referred to the interment of 

 the poorest class. Their friends, being unable to 

 provide a coffin, conformed to an old rude custom, 

 wliich had not entirely ceased. Alfred Gattt 



SHAKSrEABF.'s USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED." 



If the passage from Measure for Mcasia-e, which 

 has been the subject of much controversy in your 

 recent numbers, be read in its natural sense — there 

 is surely nothing unintelligible in the word "de- 

 lighted" as there used. 

 "The object of the poet was to show how in- | 



stinctively the mind shudders at the change pro- 

 duced by death — both on body and soul; and 

 how repulsive it must be to an active and sentient 

 being. 



He therefore places in frightful contrast the 

 condition of each before and after that awful 

 change. The body, now endowed with " sensible 

 warm motion," to become in death " a kneaded 

 clod," to " lie in cold obstruction, and to rot." The 

 SPIRIT, now " delighted" (all full of delight), to be- 

 come in death utterly powerless, an unconscious — 

 passive thing — "imprisoned in the viewless winds, 

 and blown with restless violence round about the 

 pendant world," how intolerable the thought, and 

 how repulsive the contrast! It is not in its state 

 after death, but during life, that the poet repre- 

 sents the spirit to be a " delighted one." If we 

 fall into the error of supposing him to refer to the 

 former period, we are compelled to alter our text, 

 in order to make the passage intelligible, or invent 

 some new meaning to the word " delighted," and, 

 at the same time, we ileprive the passage of the 

 strong antithesis in which all its spirit and force con- 

 sists. It is this strong antithesis, this painfully 

 marked contrast between the two states of each, 

 bod;/ and spirit, which displays the power and skill 

 of the poet in handling the sidjject. Without it, 

 the passnge loses half its meaning. 



I\Ie. Hickson will not, I hope, accuse one who 

 is no critic for pi'esuming to offi-'r this suggestion. 

 I tender it with diffidence, being conscious that, 

 although a passionate admirer of the great bard, I 

 am all unlearned in the art of criticism, " a plain 

 unlettered man," and therefore simply take -what 

 is set Ijefore me in its natural sense, as well as I 

 may, without searchingfor recondite interpretations. 

 On this account, I feel doubly the necessity of 

 apologising for interfering with the labours of so 

 learned and able a commentator as Mr. Hickson 

 has shown himself to be. L. B. L. 



VENTRILOQUISM. 



(Vol. ii., p. 88.) 



Plutarch (tom.ii., p. 397. D.) has these words: — 



" Ov yap icTTi &€oO ?; yripvs oi'iSe d <p66yyos, ovSi t] A.6|(s, 



oiiSi rh fierpoi', aAAa ttjs yvvatKSs " iKflvos Se fxovas ras 



(pavTaaitis TvaptaTTftTi, Kal (pus iv Tri ^VXV "'"'^'^ irpbj tJ» 



If that be the passage referred to by Rollin, 

 nothing is said there about ventriloquism. The 

 Scholiast on Aristoph. {Plut. 39.) tells us how the 

 Pythian received the afflatus, but says nothing 

 about her speaking from her belly : he only has — 

 " Ta T-rjs /xavTeias v) fxuAKov /xavias i(p6€yyero ^-finaTa.'' 



In another place of Plutarch (tom. ii., p. 414. E.) 



we have iyyaarpi/ivBoi and mBtuyes used as synony- 

 mous words to express persons into whose bodies 

 the god might be supposed to enter, "using their 



