2'"» S. VI. 140., Sept. 4. '58.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



196 



ceded ; and that on some, what I will crave leave 

 to call " special occasions," as baptisms, marriages, 

 &c., the men have been separated from women (as, 

 in fact, they now are frequently). I am also 

 aware that on many occasions attempts seem to 

 have been made to carry out this separation on 

 occasions of public worship. My queries, however, 

 are twofold : — 



First AYas it ever an universal custom of the 

 Western Church, that the sexes should be sepa- 

 rated at the great public services, as high mass, 

 &c. ? 



Second. Is it the fact that the present custom 

 of separating the sexes obtains now only among 

 the Genevan or Dutch Calvinists ; and where it 

 has existed in other countries (as it did in our own 

 in the seventeenth century), is it, or is it not, of 

 Puritan origin ? 



The first instances quoted by your learned cor- 

 respondent prove only what I have already con- 

 ceded, that there were parts of churches called 

 " the men's side," and " the women's side ;" but 

 the quotation from the Mitrale seems directly to 

 prove that the separation alluded to was not of 

 common use in his day. As I read it, the writer 

 does not even know how the separation should be : 

 — " according to the customs of service," he says, 

 " the women should be (sint) on the north side ; 

 but, according to others, tLe men should stand 

 (stent) in the anterior part of the church, and the 

 women in the lower." Now surely any separation 

 could not be an universal custom, when a Bishop 

 of Cremona actually does not know whether such 

 separation ought to be lengthwise or crosswise of the 

 church. Had such a practice obtained, he would 

 have said : " with us the men stand on the south, 

 and the women on the north ; but some writers 

 say the division ought to be crosswise." Is it not 

 a fair deduction there was no separation in the 

 time when such a writer does not even know how 

 it should be ? 



Now, the next writer quoted proves a distinct 

 fact : that there were churches at Pavia where 

 the sexes were separated by a wall, and the wo- 

 men could only see the altar through a door or 

 doors. But this was a Lombard church, and 

 those people were wholly Greek as to their civili- 

 sation, and most part so as to their religion. The 

 doors alluded to were no doubt those of an icon- 

 ostasis, and are themselves a proof that their 

 worship was that of the Greek church. Did any 

 one ever hear in any Latin church of a wall sepa- 

 rating men from women, or doors through which 

 to regard the altar ? 



Again, it is clear no such general usage existed 

 in the time of St. Carlo Borromeo, because his ex- 

 press object is to establish — revive, if you will — 

 such a custom : that it was of remote origin is 

 clear from his alluding to "vestiges which remain 

 to this time ; " but it must be remembered this is 



in the heart of Lombardy, and these " vestigia " 

 are most probably of Oriental origin, as before ex- 

 plained. 



That at special services, in processions, at bap- 

 tisms, at marriages, and on many occasions, the 

 men and women take different sides has also been 

 conceded ; but my query is as to a general usage 

 at public worship, high mass for instance, — How is 

 the custom now, and how has it always been ? 

 "Exceptio probat regulam." In our own church 

 the bridesmaids and bridegrooms take different 

 sides at marriages ; and the godfathers and god- 

 mothers do the same at baptisms, but this does 

 not prove that the men and women are always 

 separated at morning and evening prayer. 



The fact is, there seems to have been a lurking 

 feeling on the part of many old writers that some 

 separation ought to exist, but this is no proof it 

 did exist ; in fact, it appears to be rather a pre- 

 sumption to the contrary. Durandus is a writer 

 of this description : what he means by " in con- 

 ventu ecclesife " may be doubted ; and the phrase 

 he uses, " debere stare," and his doubt whether 

 the division should be crosswise, instead of length- 

 wise of the church, which followed shortly after. 

 The passage quoted seems rather to imply that he 

 writes, not of what was, but of what in his opinion 

 ought to be. As to the Wife of Bath, it must be 

 remembered at the time Chaucer speaks she was 

 a widow. If, therefore, she went up to the offering 

 without her husband, it is no proof that man and 

 wife had separate places in the church. 



But to come to the second part of our subject. 

 It is a fact that a general custom of separating men 

 and women at public worship prevails among the 

 Genevan churches, and among the Dutch Calvinists. 

 It is a fact that it existed (however it may have 

 originated) in England in Puritan times. It is a 

 fact that it was attempted to be revived by Whit- 

 field, and that it exists among some of the Wes- 

 leyans in Ireland. It is a fact in Italy that this 

 practice is stigmatised as a Puritan innovation. 

 It is a fact in the present day there has been an 

 attempt to revive the practice as a high-church 

 movement. Now, instead of arguing as to what 

 ought to be, or what theoretical writers may have 

 stated as their opinions, I think it would be highly 

 interesting if the readers of " N. & Q." would con- 

 tribute anything that may come to their know- 

 ledge as to the practice of ancient times, or those 

 abo'ut the period of the Reformation, particularly 

 anything that may be found in Calvinistic writers. 

 Permit me to contribute one passage which I 

 think is conclusive as to the practice in Paris in 

 the time of Rabelais : it is from Book ii. Chap. 16., 

 where he is relating the malicious tricks of Pa- 

 nurge. In one pocket he says he carried some 

 dirty things we will not name, and blows them 

 through a quill on the ladies in church, " for he 

 always remained in the nave among the women 



