lvyiO LOLI = cS || iil tN) i = , Se = = : LP = ; 2095 SULA LS? Sep yee 2 Pt in « e's? BPP BESS LIES s Lee Fe LAP ROMA * 7 , . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from University of Toronto TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES INCORPORATED A. D. 1799 VOLUME XVII 1912-13 Publications of Yale University YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1913 an ti - THE R. WAGNER SOHN PRESS OFFICERS FOR 1911-12. President. His Excettency SIMEON E. BALDWIN. Vice-Presidents. Pror. ALEXANDER W. EVANS, Pror. CLIVE DAY, Pror. HANNS OERTEL. Secretary. Dr. GEORGE F. EATON. Treasurer. Mr. GEORGE PARMLY DAY. Librarian, Mr. JOHN CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB. Committee on Publication. Exc. 8. E. BALDWIN, Chairman, Pror. A. W. EVANS, Pror. A. S. COOK, Pror. CLIVE DAY, Pror. E. 8S. DANA, Pror. H. OERTEL, Pror. E. P. MORRIS, Mr. J. C. SCHWAB. ft Pay Aa » on, 7 $+ = a no > " 4 . CONTENTS. PAGE ADDITIONS TO THE LipraRy, JULY 1, 1911, To Art. I.— THE Financia History oF ConNECTICUT, 1789—1861. By Henry F. Warrapt : ; b : : ‘ 1-139 ArT. I].—THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND AND THIRD PaRTS oF “Kine Henry VI”. By C. F. Tucker Brooke . 141-241 Art. IIl.—Tue Dare or tHe RUTHWELL AND N&wCAsTLE Crosses. By ALpert S. Coox . : 2 : . 213-361 ArT. 1V.—Tue Lirerary RELATIONS OF THE First EPISTLE OF PETER WITH THEIR BEARING ON THE DATE AND PLACE or AuTHOoRSHIP. By Ora D. Foster . : : . 3863-538 ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES By Girt anp ExcHan@r From Jozy 1, 1911, ro Ave. 31, 1912. Arx-EN-PRovENcE.— Université. Faculté des lettres. Annales. IV, 1-2. 1910. AmiEens.—Académe des sciences, des lettres et des arts. Mémoires. LVII. 1910. AmsTERDAM.—Akademie van wetenschappen. Jaarboek. 1910, Section of sciences. Proceedings. XIII, 1-2. Afdeling Natuur- kunde. Verhandelingen, Sectie I, X, 2, XI, 1-2; Sectie II, XVI, 4—5. Verslagen van de vergaderingen. Deel XIX, 1-2. 1910-11. Maatschappij tot nut van talgemeen. Jaarboek. 1911—12. Publications. 95—99. Meteorologisch instituut. Annuaire. 1910, A—B. Mededeelingen en verhandelingen. CII, 1912. AnceErs.—Société Nationale d’agriculture, sciences et arts. Mémoires, Sér. V, T. XIII, 1910. ANTWERP.— Académie Royale d’archéologie de Belgique. Bulletin. 1911, 1—1912, 2. ARGENTINE Repusiic.—Comision del censo agro-pecuario. 1908, I-III, with maps. AvespurG.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein fiir Schwaben und Neuburg. Bericht. XXXIX—XL, 1911. Baseu.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen. XXII. Batavia.—Magnetisch en meteorologisch observatorium. Seismological bulletin. March—May, July, Oct. and Dec., 1911. Verhandelingen. No. 1—2, 1912. Bercen.— Museum. Aarbog. 1910, 3—1911, 2. Aarsberetning. 1910. Skrifter. N.R., Bd. I, 1. Vill Additions to the Library. Beruwn.— Deutscher Seefischerei- Verein. Mitteilungen. XXVIII, 1. Universitat. K. Zoologisches Museum. Bericht. 1910. Mitteilungen. V, 3—VI,1. 1911—12. Bern.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen. XCIV, 1911. Biruincuam.—Natural History and Philosophical Society. Annual Report. 1911. List of Members. 1912. Bortocna.—R. Accademia delle scienze dell’ Istituto. Rendiconto. Classe di scienze fisiche. N. S., V, 1-4; XIV. Classe di scienze morali. Ser. I, T. IV. Memorie, Classe di scienze morali. Sez. di scienze giuridiche, Ser. I. T. V, 1. Sez. di scienze storico-filologiche, Ser. I, T. V, 1. Bonn.—Naturhistorischer Verein der preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens. Sitzungsbericht. 1910, 2—1911, 1. Verhandlungen. LXVII, 2-—LXVIII, 1, 1910-11. Boston.—American academy of arts and sciences. Proceedings. XLVI, 25; XLVII, 4-21; XLVIII, 1. 1911—12. Museum of fine arts. Bulletin: 52—7, 1911—19: Society of natural history. Memoir. VII, 1912. Brabrorp.—Scientific association. Journal, III, 1, 3-6, 1911. BremEn.— Meteorologisches Observatorium. Deutsches meteorologisches Jahrbuch. XXI, 1910; XXII, 1911. Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein. Abhandlungen. XX, 2, 1911. Bresiavu.—Schlesische Gesellschaft fiir vaterldéndische Kultur. Jahres-Bericht. LXXXVIII, 1—2, 1910. Bricuton.— Brighton and Hove natural history and philosophical society. Annual report and abstract of papers. 1910. BrisBane.—Royal Geographical society, Queensland branch. Queensland geographical journal. N.S., XXV, 1909-10. Queensland museum. Annals. 1, 2..4.\6-7, 10: Bristot.—Naturalists’ society. Proceedings. Ser. IV, II, 3—IL, 1; Index to II. Brooxiyn.—Institute of arts and sciences. Bulletin. VII, 1, and Index to VI. Museum news. VII, 5-8. Year Book. XX—XXIT, 1907-11. Additions to the Library. IX Briinn.—Naturforschender Verein. Ergebnisse der phanologischen Beobachtungen aus Mahren und Schlesien im Jahre 1906. Meteorologische Kommission. Bericht. XXVI, 1908. Verhandlungen. XLVIII, 1909. Brussets.—Académie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique. Annuaire. LXXVIII, 1912. Bulletin. Classe des sciences. 1911, 6—1912, 5. Mémoires. Classe des sciences. Sér. II, T. Ill, 6—8 (8vo.); iD. .LLL, \& (oe). Notices biographiques et bibliographiques, 5e éd. International Congress of botany, Third. Actes, I—II. 1910. Musée Royal d’histoire naturelle de Belgique. Mémoires. T.1V, Index. Traquair, Les poissons Wealdiens de Bernissart ; Lambert, Echinides crétacés ; Kidston, Les végé- taux houillers. Observatoire Royal de Belgique. Annales, Physique du globe. V, 1-2. Annuaire astronomique, 1915. Société entomologique. Annales. LV. Mémoires. XIX. 1912. Société R. Belge de géographie. Bulletin: KOC I eXXVE tf. 19t1—t12: Société R. de botanique. Bulletin. XLVIII, 1-4. 1910. Société R. zoologique et malacologique. Annales. XLV—XLVI. 1910-11. Societé scientifique. Annales. XXXV, 3-6; XXXVI, 2. 1910-12. Revue des questions scientifiques. XX,1—XXIJII,1. 1911-12. Bryn Mawr college monographs. VII—X. Bucuarest.—Societafte de sciinte. Buletinul. XX, 2—XXT, 2. Buparest.—Magyar Tudomdnyos akadémia. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Berichte aus Ungarn. SXV Epp. 1-272: Rapports sur les travaux. 1910. Meteoroligiai és Foldmdgnességi Intézet. Bericht. IX. 1908. Jahrbuch. XXXVI, 1—XXXVIII, 1,4. 1907-8. Verzeichnis der .. . Biicher. VIII. 1909. Officielle Publikationen. IX. 1909. X Additions to the Library. Bupapest. — Tudominy-egyetem. Acta. 1909-10, I—IT; 1910-11, 1. Almanach. 1910-11. Tanrende. 1909-10, I—II; 1910-11, I—II. Buenos Arres.—Museo Nacional. Anales. Ser. II, T. XIV. Direccion general de estadistica. Boletin mensual, 121—3. 1910. Sociedad cientifica Argentina. Anales. TaXGX, b-LXXUIIi 1 Wont, Burron-on-TRENT.—WNatural history and archeological societ,,. Transactions. VI. 1911. Catcutta.—Asiatic society of Bengal. Journal and proceedings. VII, 1—3, Memoir. II, 2-4; index to v. II. Indian museum. : Natural history section. Annual report. 1909-11. Memoirs. II, 4, and index; III, 1-2. Records. III, index; IV, 1-9 Vo 1-4-5 Vil. ds: California academy of sciences. Proceedings. Ser. IV, v. I, 289—430; III, 73-186. Campral.—Société d’émulation. Mémoires. LXV. 1910. CamBRIDGE (Hngland).— Philosophical society. Transactions. XXI. 397—451. University. Observatory. Annual report. 1910-11. CAMERON (La.).—Gulf biological station. Biennial report. V. 1910. Bulletin. IX—X. CanabdA.—Archives. Report on Canadian archives. 1910. Department of mines. Mines Branch. Annual report on the mineral production of Canada. 1909-10. Forestry branch. Bulletin. 21-380. Geological Survey. Maps. 1064, 1066, 1113, 1130, 1150. Memoir. 24H, 27, 28. Sheets 84, 99. Canadian forestry association. | Report. 1909-10. Canadian forestry convention. Report. 1904—5, 1907-11. Canadian forestry journal. VII, 1-4, 6; VIII, 1—4, 1911-12. Canadian railway club. Official proceedings. X, 6-9; XI, 1—5. Additions to the Library. xl Care Town.—Royal society of South Africa. Transactions. IJ, 3—4, 1912. Caracas.—Accademia Nacional de la historia. Ram6én Azpurta, Biografias de hombres notables de Hispano- América. I-IV. Colleccién de documentos para la historia de la vida publica del Libertador. I—XIV. CassEL.— Verein fiir Naturkunde. Festschrift, 1911. Catanta. -Accademia Gioenia. Bollettino delle sedute. N. 8., 18-21. 1911-12. Societa degli spettroscopisti Italiana. Memoria, XL, 8—12; Ser. I, T. I, 1-8. Cryton.-- Administration reports. Part IV, Education, science, and art. Marine biology. Report. PLO SH CHALONS-SUR-SaOnE.—Société d'histoire et d’archéologie. Mémoires. Sér. I, IV, 1. 1911. CuHELTENHAM.—WNatural Science Society. Proceedings. N.S. I, 4-5, 1910-1911. Cuemnitz. —Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Bericht. XVIII. 1909-10. CHERBOURG.—Société Nationale des sciences naturelles et mathématiques. Mémoires. XXXVII. Cuicaco.—Field Museum of natural history. Publications. 151—8, 160. John Crerar Library. Annual report. XVII. 1911. CuristTIANia.— Videnskabs-selskabet. Forhandlinger. 1910. Crncinnati.—Lloyd library. Bibliographical contributions. 3-6. 1911-12. Bulletin. Mycological series, 20. Pharmacy series. 18—19. University. Inecord. Vil, 5-8; VEL, 1-3. University studies. Ser. II, Vol. VII, 1-2. 1912. Cotompo.— Museum. Spolia Zeylanica, VIII, 29-30. Colorado College.— Publications. Engineering series. I, 11—12, 1911 ; science series. Se LOS AGES: Colorado scientific society. Proceedings. XX, 39-54, 75-284. Cotorano.— University of. Studies. VIII, 4-IX, 3. 1911-12. XI Additions to the Library. CopenHAGEN.—K. Danske videnskabernes selskab. Skrifter. Historisk-filosofisk afdeling. R. 7, I-II, 2. Natur- videnskabelig-mathematisk afdeling. R. 7, I-V, VII, 1, WS Exs 1 Se Naturhistoricke forening. Videnskabelige meddelelser. 1910-11. CoruNa.—R. Academia Gallega. Boletin. VI, 48-638. 1912. Croypon.—Microscopical Club. Proceedings and transactions. 1910—11. Denison UNIVERSITY.— Bulletin of the scientific laboratories. XVII, 1-201. 1912. Derroir.—Museum of art. Annual report. 1911. Bulletin. V, 3—VI, 3. 1911—12. Dorpat.—Gelehrte estnische Gesellschaft. Sitzungsberichte. 1910—11. Naturforscher-Gesellschaft. Bibliothek. Teile I—I1. Schriften. XX. Sitzungsbericht. XIX, 1—XX, 4. 1910-11. Drespen.— Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Isis. Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen. July, 1910—Dec., 1911. Verein fiir Erdkunde. Mitteilungen. H. 7—9, 1908-9; II, 1-4. 1910-12. Dousiin.— Pharmaceutical society of Ireland. Calendar. XXXVI. 1912. Royal Dublin society. Economic proceedings. II, 3-4. Scientific proceedings. N. S. XIII, 11-23. 1911-12. Scientific transactions. N. S. XII, 37; XIII, 1-10. 1911. Royal Irish academy. — Cunningham memoirs, Index, 1786-1906. Irish MSS. Series. Index, 1786—1906. Proceedings. Clare Island survey. XXXI, 2, 10-14, 23-24, 35—38, 51-52, 56, 60, 63, 65. Proceedings. Series A. XXIX, 3, 5 and index, 1911-12; Series B. XXIX, 5-XXX, 2 and index; Series C. XXIX, 7—9 and index. Todd Lecture Series. Index, 1786—1906. Transactions. Index, 1786—1906. Trinity College. Hermathena. 37. 1911. Epinsurex.—Royal physical society. Proceedings. XVIII, 3. Additions to the Library. XIII Epinsurcu.— Royal society of Edinburgh. Proceedings. . XXXI, 4—5; XXXII, 1-3. Transactions, XUVIL, S—XLVILI,1. 1910-12. ELBERFELD.—Chemisches Untersuchungsamt. Bericht. 1909-11. Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein. Jahres-Bericht. XIII, 1912. Elisha Mitchell scientific society. Sournal YX Vil, I—-XXVEEE 2. 19L1—12. Empen.— Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Jahresbericht. XCV. 1910. FLorence.—Societa entomologica Italiana. Bollettino. XLII, 1-4. 1910. Biblioteca nazionale centrale. Bollettino. 110—40. 1911-12. Formosa.— Bureau of productive industry. Icones plantarum Formosanarum. I. 1911. Franxrurt a. M.—Deutsche malakozoologische Gesellschaft. Nachrichtsblatt. XLII, 3—XLIV,2. 1911-12. Senckenbergische naturforschende Geselischa/t. Abhandlungen. XXIX,4; XXXIII, 4—XXXIV, 2. Bericht. 1911, 1—4. Frerpuré 1. B.— Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Bericht. XVIII, 2—XIX,1. 1911. FriBoure.—Société Fribourgeoise des sciences naturelles. Bulletin. TI—IV, VII-XI1, XIV—XVIII. 1888-1910. Mémoires. Géologie et géographie. I,1; I1,1—-4; III,1 IV; to Vi os VL 6) VEL: 7: GENEVA.—Société de physique et dhistoire naturelle. Compte rendu. XVIII. 1911. Mémoires, XXXVI, 2. 1911. Gera.—Gesellschaft von Freunden der Naturwissenschaften. Jahresbericht. 1910-11. GinssEen.— Universitit. 177 dissertations. Guiascow.—Natural History Society. Glasgow Naturalist. III, 1—IV, 2. Royal philosophical society. Proceedings. XLII. 1910-11. Goruitz.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Abhandlungen. XXVII. 1911. GortiIncEeN.—K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Philologische Klasse. Nachrichten. 1910, 1-1912,1; and Bei- heft) 1-2: .1910, XIV Additions to the Library. Graz.— Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein fiir Steiermark. Mitteilungen. XLVI-—XLVII. 1909-10. GRENOBLE. — Université. Annales. XXIII, 2. GueLpu.— Wellington field naturalists’ club. Natural science bulletin. 1—6. 1905-10. Haar.temM.—Hollandsche maaschappij der wetenschappen. Ser. JIT. A. 1, 1-4; B. Lote Haurrax.— Nova Scotian institute of science. Proceedings and transactions. XII, 3-XIL, 1. 1908/9—11. Hattie a. 8.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Abhandlung. N. F. I. 1912. Mitteilung. I. 1911. Hampure.— Deutsche Seewarte. Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie. XL, 18. 1912: Aus dem Archiv. XXXIV, 1—XXXITI, 4. Deutsches meteorologisches Jahrbuch. XXXIII. 1910. Jahresbericht. XXXIV. 1910. Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein. Verhandlungen. XVIII. 1910. Harvard University.—Museum of Comparative Zoology. Annual report. 1910-11. Balletin. “LUE, %—9);, LIV, 6-14; LY,/1.) A9li—1: Memoirs. XXV, 3-4; XXVII,4; XXXVIII, 2; XXXIX, 2-3; 5. 6 Oe bee Observatory. Annals. LVI, 6-7; LEX, 9-10; LX, 3; LXE rae 1bp.©.4 8 Rh ess Annual report. LXVI. 1911. Circular. 1-30, 166—74. Report of Visiting Committee. 28. Havana.— Academia de ciencias medicas, fisicas y naturales. Anales. VII, 79; VILI—EX ; XIV—XVI; XVII, 191—6b, 19820 XVITI—XIX, 2038-26; XX, XXI, 248; XXII, 252; XXITT 264—8, 270-4; XXIV, 276; XXV—-XXXVI, 287-428; XXXVII-—LXVIII (March, 1912). Colegio de Belen. Observaciones meteorologicas y magneticas. 1910. Museum Whistoire naturelle. Notice, 1911. Havre.—Société géologique de Normandie. Bulletin. XXX. 1910. Hawat.— Board of agriculture and forestry. Division of Forestry. Botanical bulletin. 1. 1911. Additions to the Library. XV Hawaii College. Publication. 1. 1912. Hexcorann.—K. Biologische Anstalt. Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, Abteilung Helgoland. Reet ts Ee (ay EV, Poy V;1°(2)¢ VE, 1—X, 1. Abteilung Kiel. I, 2; II, 2; IN—X; XIII. 1896-1911. Hetsincrors.—Finska vetenskaps-societeten. Acta. XXXVIII, 4; XL, 6-8; XLI; 4, 6—7. Bidrag till kinnedom af Finlands natur och folk. LXX, 1-2; Ike 13s EX 2b) ee, 1-2: Meteorologiska Centralanstalt. Meteorologisches Jahrbuch fiir Finnland. IV, 1904; Beilage, 1903. IX, T. 2. 1909. Ofersigt af férhandlingar. LIII, A—C, 1910-11. Societas pro Fauna et Flora Finnica. Acta. XXXV. 1909-11. Meddelanden, XXXVI-XXXVII, 1909-11. Hoxsart.— Royal society of Tasmania, Annual report. 1911. Papers and proceedings. 1910-11. Honotutvu.— Bernice Pauahi Bishop museum of Polynesian ethnology & natural history. Memoirs. III. Occasional papers. IV, 4-5; V, I. 1909-11. Intinois.—State laboratory of natural history. Bulletin. IX, 4. 1911. Report. 1909-10. Invia.— Bombay Presidency. Rainfall in Bombay. Vol. I. Board of Scientific advice. Annual report. 1910-11. I. Departement of agriculture. Memoirs. Botanical series. IV, 2-5. 1911-12. Chemical series. I, 10-11, 3. 1911-12. Entomological series. II, 9-10; III, 1, IV, 1. 1911-12. Report of progress of agriculture. 1910-11. Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. Report. 1910-11. Geological Survey. Records. XL, 4. 1910. Meteorological department. Rainfall in India. XX. 1910. Annual summary. 1910. Monthly Weather Review. March, 1911—March, 1912. Report of administration. 1910-11. Indiana Academy of Science. Proceedings. 1910. Iowa Academy of Sciences. Proceedings. XVI-—XVIII. 1909-11. VM XVI Additions to the Library. Iowa.—State University. Laboratory of Natural History. Bulletin. VI, 2. Iraty.—R. Comitato geologico. Bollettino. 1910, 4—1911, 4. Jena.— Medizinisch-naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Jenaische Zeitschrift fiir Naturwissenschaft. XL, 3—XLI, 2. 1911-12. Johns Hopkins University. Circular. 1911, 6—1912, 5. Kansas.—Academy of’ science. Transactions. XXIII_XXIV. 1911. University. Science bulletin. V, 12—VI, 1. Kasan.—Observatoire météorologique. Bulletin. 1911. Société physico-mathématique. Bulletin. Sér. I. T. XVI, 4-XVU, 4. 1910-11. Kieu.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein ftir Schleswig-Holstein. Schriften. XV, 1. K. Universitat. Chronik. 1910-11. Dissertations (58). Krew.—Société des naturalistes. Mémoires. XXI, 3-4. Kineston.—Jnstitute of Jamaica. Ania Ss alee Bulletin. I, 1. KoparkanaL.— Observatory. Annual report. 1911. Bulletin. XXIV—XXV. KonicsperG 1. Pr.—Physikalisch-dkonomische Gesellschaft. Schriften. XLIX, 1908; LI, 1910; Generalregister. 1885—1909. Krakow.— K. K. Sternwarte. Meteorologische Beobachtungen. June, 1911—July, 1912. Resultate der meteorologischen, seismologischen und magne- tischen Beobachtungen. 1911. Akademija Umiejetnosci, Komisya Fizyjograficzna. Materyaly zebrane przez Sekcye meteorologiczna, 1910. Kyoto. —I. University. College of Science and Engineering. Memoirs. III, 4—7, 1911—12. La Prata.— Museo. Revista. XVII—XVIII. 1910-12. Universidad. Archivos de pedagogia y sciencias afinas. VIII, 24, IX, 28. 1911—12. Additions to the Library. XVII La Rocuetir.—Académie des belles lettres, sciences et arts, Section des sciences naturelles. Annales. XXXVI, 1908-10. Lausanne.—Société vaudoise des sciences naturelles. Bulletin. XLVII, 173—XLVIII, 175. Leipzic.—Fiirstl. Jablonowski’sche Gesellschaft. Jahresbericht, March, 1909. Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Sitzungsbericht. 1907-11. K. Siichsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. Berichte. LXII,6—LXIUL,6. tO 11": Verein fiir Erdkunde. Mitteilungen. 1910. LeypEn.—WNederlandsche dierkundige Vereeniging. Tijdschrift. Ser. II, D. XII, 2. Aanwinsten der Bibliotheek, 1910—12. Rijksuniversiteit. Sterrewacht. Verslag. 1906-8. Limpure.—Provinciaal genootschap voor geschiedkundige wetenschappen, taal en kunst. Limburg’s jaerboek. XVII, 1-4; XVIII, 2. Catalog, 1912. Linz.—Museum Francisco-Carolinum. Jahresbericht. 70. Lispon.—Sociedade de geographia. Boletim. XXIX,4—XXX, 5. 1911—12. Liverpoot.— Biological society. Proceedings. XXV. 1910-11. Geographical society. Transactions and annual report. XX. 1911. Lonpon --Geological society. Geological literature added to library. 1910. List. April 1912. Linnean society. List. 1911—12. Proceedings. 123d session. Journal (Botany). 273-277, 279. 1911-12. National physical laboratory. Report. 1911. Collected researches. VIII, 12. Patent Office library. Subject lists. YK—-ZZ. 1911. Roentgen society. Journal. VII, 28—VILI, 32. 1911-12. R. Geographical society. Geographical journal, XXXVII,6 XL,2. 1911—12. II XVIII Additions to the Library. Lonpon.—Geological society. Quarterly journal. 267—70, 1911-12. Mathematical society. Proceedings. X, 1-6; X15, 1-3. 1911—12. R. Microscopical society. Journal. 1911, 4—1912, 4. Royal society. “ Philosophical transactions. Series A. 477-87. Series B. 285—94. 1911-12. Philosophical proceedings. Series A. 580-94. Series B. LXXXIV, 569-80. 1911-12. R. Photographic society of Great Britain. Photographic journal. LI, 6—LII, 6, 1911—12. South London entomological and natural history society. Proceedings, 1911-12. Lovis1ana.—State museum. Biennial report. II. 1910. Lunp.—K. Universitet. Bibliothek, Arsberattelse. 1910. Lyons.— Bulletin historique du diocése de Lyon. 69-73... 1911-12: Société des amis de Il’ Université. Bulletin. XXIV, 2-5; XXV, 1-3. Université. , Annales. Science-médecine. XXX, 1911. McGill University. Papers from the deparment of geoloy, 17-23. Mapras.— Fisheries bureau. Bulletin. I, 6. Mapriv.—R. Academia de ciencias exactas, fisicas y naturales. Revista..-V,9—Vi- 12 Ee ok i el Memorias. XXVI. 1908. R. Academia de la historia. Boletin. LI, 4—LXI, 2. Cortes de los antiguos reinos de Aragon y de Valencia y Principado de Catalufia. XIJI—XV. 1909-11. Memorial historico espafiol. XLIV—XLY. 1911-12. Observatorio. Anuario. 1912. Macpesurc.— Museum fiir Natur- und Heimatkunde. Abhandlungen und Berichte. II, 2. Martne.— Agricultural experiment station. Bulletin. 200. 1912. Mancuester (England)..—Literary and philosophical society. Memoirs and proceedings. LY, 2—LVI, 1. Additions to the Library. XIX Mancuester (England),— University. Publications. Economic series. XIII, 1910; Educational series. IV—VI; English series, II; Historical series. XII—XIII ; Physical series. I. Mancuester, N. H.—Institute of arts and sciences. Proceedings. V,1. 1911. Marsure.—Gesellschaft zur Befirderung der gesainten Naturwissenschaften. Sitzungsberichte. 1911. Mark, KE. L. Anniversary volume. 1903. Metpourne.—WNational Museum. Memoirs. 4. Royal society of Victoria. Proceedings. N.S. VII-—XXIV, 2. Transactions. IV; V, 1. 1895, 1909. Mexico.—Academia Mejicana de la lengua. Memorias. I, 1-4; V—VI. Instituto geologico. Boletin. 28. 1911. Parergones. III, 9-10. Instituto medico nacional. Anales. XII, 1-2. 1912. Museo nacional de arqueologia, historia y etnologia. Amales; lot—13- 1, t—9- Til, 1—5, 7-8. Boeletins EF l—4. 611. 1911=—12: Museo nacional de historia natural. La naturaleza. Ser. III, T. I, 2-3. Observatorio astronomico nacional. Boletin. 1. Observatorio meteorologico-magnetico central. Boletin. Aug., 1910—April., 1912. Sociedad cientifica ,,Antonio Alzate‘. Memoria y Revista. XXVIII, 9-XXX, 6. Sociedad geoligica Mexicana. Boletin. VII, 2. Michigan academy of sciences. Report. XIII. 1911. Mippetsure.—Zeeuwsch genootschap der wetenschappen. Archief. 1911. Mitan.—R. Istituto Lombardo di science e lettere. Rendiconto. Ser. II, T. XLIV, 1-14, 17—20. Societa Italiana di scienze naturali e del Museo Civico. matin 27, 2, Minwavxker.— Public museum. Annual report. XXVII. 1909. Bulletin. I, 2. LT XX Additions to the Library. Missouri.—Botanical garden. Annual report. XXII. 1911. University. Bulletin, Engineering experiment station series. t, 1—II, 2; Science series. I, 1—II, 2. Laws Observatory. Bulletin. 17-19. Studies. Science series. II, 2. Moprna.—R. Accademia di scienze, lettere ed arti. Memorie. Ser. II. T. IX. Societa dei naturalisti. Atti. Rendiconti. Ser. IV. T. XIN. 1911. Mons.—Société des sciences, des arts et des lettres du Hainaut. Mémoires et publications. LXII, 1911. Montana.— Agricultural college. Experiment Station. Circular. 10-16. 1911-12. Agricultural Experiment Station. Annual report. XVII, 1910. Bulletin. 86. University. Bulletins. 69-70. 1911. MontevinEo.— Museo Nacional. Anales. IV, 3. MonrtPELLieR.—Académie des sciences et lettres. Bulletin mensual. 1911, 9-12; 1912, 1—5. Moscow.—Société I. des naturalistes. Bulletin. 1908, 2-3; 1909, N.S., T. X-XIIT; 1910, 1—4. K. Universitat. Meteorologisches Observatorium. Beobachtungen. 1908-9. Minster, 1. W.— Westfalischer Provinzial- Verein fiir Wissenschaft und Kunst. Jahresbericht. XXXIX. 1910-11. Monicu.—K. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen. XXYV. Index. Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. Abhandlungen. XXYV, 5, 8, 1910-12; Suppl. I, Bd. 38-7. Index to Bd.1; Sitzungsberichte. 1910-10-15 = 1912: Philosophisch~philologisch und historische Klasse. Abhand- lungen. XXV, 1—4, 6—7, X XVI, 1—2, 1909-12; Abhandlungen, Sitzungsberichte. 1910, 8-14; Sitzungsberichte. 1911, 1-12. K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum. T.I. Pars VI. 1912. Nancy.— Académie de Stanislas. Mémoires. Sér. VI, T. 8. 1910-11. Napies.—R. Accademia di scienze morali e politiche. Atti. XLI. ~1912. Rendiconto. L. 1912. Additions to the Library. XXI Naptres.—R. Accademia delle scienze fisiche e matematiche. Rendiconto. Ser. III. T, XVII, 1—XVITI, 2. R. Istituto d@incoraggiamento. Atti. Ser. VI. T. LX. 1910. Naturae Novitates. 1911, 8—-1912, 14. NEUBRANDENBURG.— Verein der Freunde der Naturgeschichte. Archiv, LXV; 1-2) 1911. NeucHatEL.—Société neuchateloise des sciences naturelles. Bulletin. XXXVIII, 1910-11. New Brieuton.—Staten Island Association of arts and sciences. Proceedings, III, 3—4. Museum bulletin. 35—49. New Bronswicr, N. J.—WNatural history society. Bulletin. XXVIII, VI, part 3; XXIX, VI, part 3. New Yorx.—American geographical society. Bulletin. XLII, 7—XLIV, 8. 1911-12. American museum of natural history. Anthropological papers. V, 2; VII, 2; VIII; IX, 1; XII, 1. Bulletin. XXVII, XXVIII, XXX. 1910-11. Guide leaflet. 35. Reports. XLII—XLII. 1910-11. Academy of sciences. Annals. XX, 3; XXI, pp. 87-263. Botanical garden. Bulletin. 26-27. 1911—12. State museum. Annual report. LXIII, 1-4. 1909. Memoirs. IX, 2. 1907. Publie library. Bolletiny “XV, (—XVI, 6. 1911—12. American geographical society. Bulletin. XIII, 7—-XLIV, 6. 1911—12. Rockefeller institute for medical research. Studies. XIII- XV. Rockefeller sanitary commission for the eradication of hookworm disease. Publication. 2, 5—6. New Zealand Institute. Transactions and proceedings. XLIII. 1911. Newcastie-upon-Tyne.—North of England institute of mining and mecha- nical engineers. Report. 1911—12. iransaccions. UXT 5-9: LX be. 1912. Nortu Carorina.— University. Philological Club. Studies in philology, VIII. 1911. XXII Additions to the Library. Norra Caroiina.—State historical Society. Collections. III. 1910. University. Quarterly journal. II, 1—4. 1911-12. Norruampron.—Northamptonshire natural history society and field club. Journal. XVI. 125-8. Norwicu.—Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists society. Transactions. IX, 2—3. Nouremperc.—Naturhistorische Gesellschaft. Abhandlung. XIX, 1-3. Jahresbericht. 1882—4; 1891; 1898—9. Mitteilungen. 1908, 2—5; 1909, 1. Nyt Magazin for naturvidenskaberne. XXXVII—L, 1. OBERLIN.— Wilson ornithological club. Wilson bulletin. XXIII, 3-XXIV, 5. 1911—12. Opxssa.—Société des naturalistes de la Nowvelle- Russie. Mémoires. XXXIV—XXXVI ; Index to I-XXX ; Suppl. to XXXIV. L’observatoire météorologique et magnétique de Vuniversité Impériale. Annuaire... 1910. Ox.iaHoma.—Geological Survey. Bulletin, 3, 7—8. Historical society. Historia. 1, 38-65 Ee: Oporto.— Academia polytechnica. Annaes scientificos. VI, 2—VII, 1. OsnaBriick.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein. Jahresbericht. XVI—XVII. 1903—10. Oxrorp.— University. Observatory. Astrographic catalogue. VII. 1911. Radcliffe Library. Catalogue of books added during 1911. Radcliffe observatory. Meteorological observations. XLIX—L. Patstey.— Philosophical institution. Annual report. CII—III, 1910-11. Paermo.—Accademia di scienze, lettere e belle arti. Atti. Ser. II. TT. IX. Bolletino. 1907--10. Paris.— Ecole polytechnique. Journal. IJ. Sér. XV. Muséum Whistoire naturelle. Bulletin. 1911, 1456S Laboratoire de phanérogamie. Notulae systematicae, par H. Lecomte. II, 3-8. Rapport annuel. II-III. 1910-11. Observatoire. Rapport annuel. 1911. Additions to the Library. XXIll Paris.—Société zoologique de France. Bulletin. XXXY. Mémoires. XXIII. 1910. Pasapena.— Throop institute. Bulletin. 51-54, 56. 1911-12. Passavu.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein. I-—XIX, XXI, 1857-1911. Prrtu.— Department of mines, Western Australia. Reports. (3). Annual progress report. 1910. Bulletin. 15, 20, 23, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41. Prrvu.— Ministerio de Fomento. Cuerpo de Ingenieros de Ninas. Boletin. 77. PrrerHEAD.— Buchan Club. Museum. Transactions. I, 2. PuinavELpHia.— Academy of natural sciences. Journal. 2d ser. XIV, 3. American Philosophical society. Proceedings. L, 199—LI, 205; General index to I—L. Transactions. N. 8., XXII, 1-2. Franklin Institute. Journal. Vol. 172, 2—174, 2. 1911-12. Geographical Society. Bulletin. IX, 3-4, 1911. PIETERMARITZBURG.—WNatal government museum. Annals. II, 3. Pisa.—Societad Toscana di scienze naturali. “Atti, Memorie. XXVI—XXVII. 1910-11; Processi verbali. ek 2K, 2: Pirrspure.—Carnegie museum. Publications. 65—66, 68—70. Carnegie institute. Founder’s Day. XVI. 1912. Western Pennsylvania engineers’ society. Proceedings. XXVII, 6—XXVIII, 6. Piymoutu.— Marine biological association of the United Kingdom. Publications. II; N.S. I, 1-4; I, 1-2; III, 1-4 and special number; V—IX, 2. 1888—1911. Portict.—R. Scuola superiore di agricoltura. Annali. Ser. Il. T. IX. 1910. Porspam.—Astrophysikalisches Observatorium. Publikationen. XXII, 64-5. Prac.—Deutscher naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischer Verein fiir Bohmen. Lotos. LIX. 1911. K. K. Sternwarte. Magnetische und meteorologische Beobachtungen. 1910-11. XXIV Additions to the Library. Prag.—Ceské Spolecnosty entomologické. Gasopis. VIII, 2-4; IX, 1. 1911-12. Ceska spolecnost nduk. Jahresbericht. 1911. Mathematisch -naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Sitzungsbericht. Sis Philosophisch-geschichtliche und philologische Klasse. Sitzungs- berichte.* 1911. ProvipENce.— Roger Williams park museum. Bulletin. IJ, 1; II, 1—5. QurBEc.—Société de géographie. Bulletin. VI, 1-38. REICHENBACH i. Vogtl.— Verein fiir Natur- und Altertumskunde. Bericht. VI. 1909. Mitteilungen. Heft 3—4, 1877-84. Renkema, E. H. Observationes criticae et exegeticae ad C. Valerii Flacci Aragonautica. 1906. Riea.—Naturforscher- Verein. Arbeiten. XIII. 1911. Korrespondenzblatt. LIV. 1911. Rio dE Janetro.—Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Memoria. III, 2. 1911. Instituto historico e geographico Brazileiro. Revista. XI; XXVIL; XLITI, 2; XLVII—LII, 4; Lit i LIV, 2; LIX—LXXITI, 2; LXXIV, 1; Special volume, 1908, parts 1—2. Museu nacional. Archivos. XIV, XV. RocuestErR.—Academy of Science. Proceedings. IV, 233-41; V, 1—58. Rome.—R. Accademia dei lincei. Atti. Ser. V. Rendiconti. Classe de scienze fisiche, mate- matiche e naturali. XX, 11—XXI, 5, 7—12. Atti. Rendiconto dell’ adunanza sollene. 1911, 2; 1912, 2. Accademia Pontifica dei nuovi lincei. Atti. ILXIV, d= 210-10" RotrerpaM.—Bataafsch genootschap der proefondervinderlijke wijsbegeerte. Nieuwe verhandelingen. 2de Reeks, Deel V—VI, 3. Sr. GaLLen.—St. Gallische Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Jahrbuch. 1910. St. Lovis.—Academy of science. Transactions. XX, 4-6. Additions to the Library. XXV Sr. Pererspure.—Akademiia nauk. Classe physico-mathématique. Bulletin. Sér. VI. 1912, 1-11. Mémoires, Sér. VII. T. XXV, 9-10; XXVI, 1-2; XXVII, 1-2; RXEX, 1-3; XXX, 1-3, Classe historique-philologique. Mémoires. Sér. VIII. T. X, 2-3. I. Botanic garden. Hortus petropolitani. Acta. XXVIII, 4. Institut des mines de I’ Impératrice Catherine I. Annales. III, 1—5. Observatoire physique central Nicolas. Annales. 1907 and 1908, I-II; II, 1—2. Comité géologique. Bulletin. XXIX, 5—XXX, 5. 1910—11. Mémoires. N. 8. LITI—LV, LX, LXI, LXVI-LXXIII. SaLEM.—Essex Institute. Annual report. 1912. SanTIaAco DE Cuite.—Sociedad cientifica de Chile. vetes: WVIPL bs Dk: XT ORI. 3s XE 4—bi: XIV, 5; XV, 3—4; XVI, 1—5. 1898-1906. Sociedad de fomento fabril. Boletin. XXIX, 1, 4—7. 1912. Sao Pavto.—Museu Paulista. Revista. VIII. 1911. Sociedade scientifica. Revista. VI. 1911. Sapporo.—Tohoku I. University. College of agriculture. Journal. IV, 1-8. Science report. I, 1-2. Mathematical journal. I, 1—II, 1. 1911-12. Sars, G. O., Account of the crustacea of Norway. V, 31—36, 1911. Schwarzschild, K., Aktinometrie der Sterne. Teil B. 1912. SHREWsBURY.—Caradoc and Severn valley field club. Record of bare facts. 1909, 19; 1911, 21. Transactions. V, 3. Siena.— Accademia dei fisiocratici. Atti: Ser: Vo Uti, G6: Université. Annuaire. I—VI. 1904-10. Faculté de droit. Annuaire.. V—VI. 1908-10. Faculté historico-philologique. Annuaire. V—VI. 1908-10. : Faculté physico-mathématique, Annuaire. V—VI. 1908-10. ‘Sorra.— Université. Annuaire. VII, 1910—11. Faculté physico-mathématique. Annuaire. VII, 1910-11. XXVI Additions to the Library. Soutn Daxora.—Geological Survey. Bulletin. 4. 1908. Srerrin.—Entomologischer Verein. Entomologische Zeitung. XLII—LXXII. 1881-1911. StockHoLtm.—K. Bibliotheket. Arsberiattelse. 1909, 1911. _Entomologisk forening. Kntomologisk Tidskrift. XXXII. 1911 & Register, XI-XXX. 1890—1909. K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademi. Arsbok. 1911. Arkiv for botanik. X, 2-4. 1911. Arkiv for kemi, mineralogi och geologi. IV, 2. 1911. Arkiv for matematik, astronomi och fysik. VI, 4; VII, 1-2. 1911. Nobelinstitut. Meddelanden. IJ, 1. Handlingar. XLVI, 4-11; XLVII, 1. Meteorologiska Iakttagelser i Sverige. 1910, B. 52 and appendix. Sveriges offentliga bibliothek. Accessions-katalog. 24—25, 1909-10. Stone.—North Staffordshire field club. Annual report and transactions. XLVI. 1911-12. SrrassBurG.—K. Universitat. Sternwarte. Annalen. IV, 1, 1911. Sturreart.— Verein fiir vaterldndische Naturkunde in Wiirttemberg. Jahreshefte. LXVII and Beilage; LX VIII. 1911-12. SypNEY.—Australian museum. Memoir. IV, 138-16. 1911. Records. VIL, 1-3; IX, 1—2. Report of the trustees. LVI. 1911. Special catalogue. No. 1, vol. III, 2—4. Linnean Society of New South Wales. Proceedings. XXXV, 3—XXXVI, 2. Royal society of New South Wales. Journal and proceedings. XLIII, 2-XLV, 1. Trxas.— University. Bulletin. 221, 228, 229, 231-2. 1912. Toxyo.— Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Natur- und Vélkerkunde Ostasiens. Mitteilungen. XIJI—XIV. University. College of science. Journal. XXVIJ, 15; XXVIII, 7; XXX, 1; XXXI; XXXII, 1, 5; XXXII, 2, 4. Medizinische Facultiit. Mitteilungen. IX, 2-3; X, 1-2. Toronto.—Canadian Institute. Transactions. Nos. 20-21]. Additions to the Library. XXVII TouLouse. — Académie des sciences, inscriptions et belles-lettres. Mémoires. Sér. 10, T. X. Université. Bibliotheque méridionale. Sér. I], T. XIV. 1910. Annuaire. 1911-12. Conseil. Rapport annuel. 1911. Theses (69). Triest.— Osservatorio maritimo. Rapporto annuale. 1907 (1911). Tufts College. Studies. Scientific series. III, 2. TronpuEmm.— Norske videnskabers selskab. Skrifter. 1910. Turin. — Universita. Musei di zoologia ed anatomia comparata. Bolletino. XXVI, 634—44 ; and Index. Upsaa. — Universitet. Arsskrift. 1910. Geologiska institution. Bulletin. XI. 1912. K. Vetenskaps societaten. Nova acta,; Ser. IV. ‘T. II, 2. Urrecut.— Observatoire. Recherches astronomiques. IV—V. Provinciaal Utrechtsch genootschap van kunsten en wetenschappen. Aanteekeningen van het verhandelde. 1911. Verslag van het verhandelde. 1911. Ventice.— R. Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti. Agi. IuXVII, 6—=LXXxX, 8: 1907—10. Concorsi a premio. May 28, 1911. R. Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti. Osservazioni meteorologiche e geodinamiche. 1907-8. Vicenza.—Accademia Olimpica. MGtin aN. 9. Li. 1909=10: Vienna.—K. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Almanach. 1910-11. Register zu Bd. I-LX. Erdbeben-Kommission. Mitteilungen. XXXVIII—XLIII. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Anzeiger. XLVIII, 1—2%. Denkschriften. LXXXIV-—LXXXVI, 1, LXXXVII. witzungsberichte. CXXI, Abt. I, 1—3, I[b, 1-2, IIa, 1. K. K. Centrel-Anstalt fiir Meteorologie. Jahrbuch. N.F., XLVI, 1909. K. K. Geologische Reichsanstalt. sahrbuch. GX. 3—LXI, 1, 1911—12: Verhandlungen. 1911, 6—1912, 5. Naturhistorisches Hof-Museum. Annalen. XXIV, 3—XXV, 4. XXVIII Additions to the Library. Vienna.—K. K. Zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen. LXI. 1911. Verein zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse. Schriften. LI. 1911. Vireinia.— University. Philosophical society. Bulletin. Humanistic series. I, “2, pp. 51--7; Scientific series. I, 6—9, pp. 187-242; Proceedings, 1910-1. Vliet, J., Van der, Studia critica in Dionysii Halicarnassensis opera rhetorica. WARREN.— Academy. Transactions. I, 3. 1909-10. Wasuineton.— Bureau of American ethnology. Bulletin. 51. Department of agriculture. Library. Bulletin. 54-75; Monthly bulletin. II, 5—III, 6. Librarian’s report, 1911. Geological survey. Annual report. XXXII. 1911. Bulletins. 468-9; 472-3; 475—7; 479—97 ; 499-500 ; 506 ; 509 ; 511—12. Geologic atlas, folio. 177—82. Professional papers. 70, 72—3, 75. Publications. N.S. 1. 1912. Water-supply and irrigation papers. 265—80; 282—8. Library of Congress. Report of Librarian. 1911. Wasuineton.— National museum. Bulletin. 75-8. National Herbarium. Contributions. XVI, 1—3. Proceedings. XXXIX—XLI. Report. 1911. Naval observatory. Publications. Ser. II. Vol. VI. Report of Superintendent. 1911. National academy of sciences. Memoir. X. Weather bureau. Department of agriculture. Mount Weather observatory. Bulletin. IV, 4-6. Wesley College.—Bulletin. VI, 1. Wirspavden.—Nassauischer Verein fiir Naturkunde. Jahrbuch. LXIV. 1911. Wisconsin.—Academy of science. Transactions. XVI, part II, 1-6. 1909-10; Indey to XVI, part II. Additions to the Library. XXIX Wisconsin.—Geological and natural history survey. Bulletin. 23-4. Natural history society. Bulletin. IX, 3-4. 1911. Wokinc.—South-eastern union of scientific societies. South-eastern naturalist. 1911. Worcester, Mass.—American antiquarian society. Transactions and collections. IX—X, XII. 1909-11. Proceedings. XXI, 2. 1911. Ziricu.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Vierteljahrsschrift. LV, 3—LVI, 3. 1911. un st ae Sate } { TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ‘INCORPORATED A. D. 1769 VOLUME 17, PAGES 1-139 MARCH, 1942 The Financial History of Connecticut from 1789 to 1861 BY Bie NR Y WALRADT,-PH.D. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF YALE UNIVERSITY NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1912 PREFACE The purpose of this study is to trace the history and growth of the revenue and disbursements of the State of Connecticut from 1789 until the outbreak of the Civil War. Eventually it is intended to make the “Financial History of Connecticut’’ complete by bringing it down to date and by including alsoastudy of the county and munic- ipal systems, but the present volume is limited to the first three of the periods designated below and to the state government only. The financial history of Connecticut falls naturally into four periods. In many respects—e. g., taxation, income, and expenditures—these periods are clearly distinguished. I. 1789-1818. Prolongation of Colonial Period. II. 1818—1846. Period of Slow Development. III. 1846—1861. Period of Expansion. IV. 1861—1910. Modern Period. These periods are not wholly independent of one another and often it will be necessary or convenient, in the treatment of a period, to introduce subjects that include dates from the immediately preceding or succeeding period. Considerable difficulty has been experienced in collecting data for this monograph. The treasurers’ reports were not printed until 1854 and with the exception of a manuscript folio of October, 1818, no trace of manuscript accounts of the treasurer can be found. The state comptroller’s office, however, has an almost complete set of the manu- script records of the comptrollers from 1787 until 1851. Before 1817 these did not contain a detailed statement of the receipts but gave only an account of the expenditures. The author was obliged to secure his data for the receipts of the state previous to 1817 from manu- script reports of the auditors of the treasurers’ accounts. Until 1798 these auditors’ reports classify the receipts almost entirely according to whether payments were made in specie or in some form of the state debt. The accounts are both complicated and meager and with no other data available make it impossible to give any serviceable classi- fication. The principal sources of information have been documentary, consisting of the public and private acts of the state legislature and the reports of state officers. After 1837 the private or special acts, 4 Preface. as well as the public acts, were printed annually, but previous to that date they were not so printed. In 1837 a codification of these laws from 1789 to 1836 was made, but this codification is not complete. In a few instances, therefore, it has been impossible to find the act referred to in an official report and accordingly it has been necessary ~ in such instances to base statements upon the authority of the official report. In copying statistical figures from original or other sources, cents have been disregarded and the amounts have been stated accurately to the nearest dollar. This will explain apparent small inaccuracies in the computations given in the following pages The author is pleased to acknowledge the valuable encouragement and assistance that he has received. To Prof. Fred R. Fairchild of Yale University belongs the credit of suggesting this subject. Useful material and helpful suggestions have also come from him. This work is done under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Prof. Henry B. Gardner of Brown University, who is directing for the Institution its investigations of the financial history of all the states of the Union, has contributed much bibliographical assistance. Courteous consideration has also been shown by the state librarians of Connecticut and Massachusetts and by Mr. Albert C. Bates of the Connecticut Historical Society. Mr. Henry R. Gruener of the Yale University library has also been very helpful. The state officials in the capitol at Hartford have given ready access to all the old manu- scripts and documents relating to Connecticut finance that are in the state vaults. Special acknowledgment is due to Mr. F. Clarence Bis- sell, the deputy comptroller of the state, for his very helpful aid and his great personal interest. Finally, the author is indebted to his parents for clerical assistance in copying and in reading proof sheets and for many stimulating suggestions in the preparation of the manuscript. CONTENTS. First Period. 1789-1818. Prolongation of Colonial Period. . INTRODUCTION . FrnancraL ORGANS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT a. The General Assembly b. Governor, Treasurer, Comptroller . Tue Pusuic Dest 1. Provision for Tee deonait State Tebe. ‘ Assumption of State Debt 2. 3. Payment of Balance due the State fest the United States 4. Transfer of United States Stock by the State in Payment e the Public Debt ; 5. Registration of State Debt . 6. Specie Payment : . Sources oF REVENUE 1. Taxation, Forfeitures, etc. estate Dax . . Form of List . Tax Rate . : . Collection of State ae ; Exemptions . Valuation . . Duties . Non-resident Bank Stock we OG ee oO eo 2. Extraordinary Receipts 3. Permanent Fund 4, The School Fund . . EXPENDITURES 1. Education d a. Public Schools b. Yale College 2. Public Buildings a. State House b. Arsenal ce. State Prison 3. Judicial Expenses 4. State Paupers 5. Humane Institutions . Forfeited Bonds, Fines, etc. 49 “1 & co 0O a ithe Contents. . Salaries . General ivkenti ts . Military Expenses . Grants to Religious Societies: bids 10. Bounties and other Encouragements a. Wolves b. Silk c. Hemp and Flax d. Other Encouragements Abatement and Collection of Taxes . SUMMARY Second Period. 1818-1846. Period of Slow exe ee . ELEMENTS OF DISCONTENT . a. Demand for Written Constitution b. Demand for Religious Liberty c. Demand for Change in Taxation . REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION t. bo New Constitution a. Constitutional Conv sation b. System of Government c. Religious Freedom . d. School Fund . Changes in Grand List a. Objections to Old List b. Revision . SOURCES OF REVENUE . ike SI o> Ot HE 0 State Tax a. Grand List . Permanent Fund a. Composition of Fund in 1818 b. Reinvestment of Fund c. Increase of Fund . : d. Condition of Fund in 1833 wal 1846 e. Income of Fund . Duties on Writs. Licenses . Tax on Non-resident Stock . Forfeited Bonds and Avails of Gone State Prison . Extraordinary Peas a. From Permanent Fund b. Repayment of Advances c. Land Sales d. Surplus Funds of the Tatas Sees (iowa encam Fund) . School Fund 69 Contents. . Principal and Income . Management of Fund . Land Exchanges . Investment of Fund . Composition of Fund Distribution of Income . homoge ® D. State EXPENDITURES . Le 10. ea ie Education a. Retrenchment : b. Educational Institutions . Support of Paupers a. Measures of Economy b. Effects of Limitations . The General Assembly . Salaries : . Military ee panerent State Prison . Public Debt Diecharsed Bounties and Encouragements . . Silk and Hemp . Crows . Agricultural Saciotios . Silk Manufacturing Company The Farmington Canal . Railroads : . The Thames River . hd a el ta) 3 . Humane Institutions and Public Baildiwe’s . Asylum for Deaf and Dumb . General Hospital Society . Institution for the Blind . Insane Retreat . Public Buildings : Abatement and Collection of Paes OO VGuc o #. Summary ia. 2. De Lower Bevenses 4 Larger Income Financial Prosperity Third Period. 1846-1861. Period of Expansion. Increased Expenditures and Taxation. A. GrowtH or PopuLaTion B. EXxpEnbITURES 18 Z. ae The General Assembly Salaries Judicial Hipenditures, 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 98 98 99 99 99 100 101 102 102 102 103 8 ’ Contents. PAGE 4, Military Expenses : : : ; ; : : : . 104 5. Education . ; ‘ : : : : ‘ é : . 105 a. Normal School : : : : : : : : , ie b. Colleges. : : “ ‘ : < c. The Connecticut Takers Tate 3 ‘ : : . “IGE 6. State Prison : : : : : ; : ; : .- Le 7. State Paupers : : é : - - 105 8. Humane Institutions and Public Buildings : F ‘ . 108 a, Asylum for Deaf and Dumb ; : : : : . Js b. Perkins Institute for the Blind . : ‘ : : . 168 c. Retreat for the Insane . ; : 5 ; : ; ~ e109. d. General Hospital Society : é é : F ° . 163 e. State Reform School ‘ : : : : ‘ : - 108 f. Other Institutions : ; : : ; : : - 4 ALES g. Recapitulation : : : ; 5 : ; : .- £10 h. Other Buildings. ; : : : ‘ : : Poe Ld 9. Encouragements , ; : 5 : ‘ . pie 10. Abatement and Collection of pee : . : : : . ite C. REVENUE . : , : : é : . 1. Revised Sy a af aeceation - : : : : ; ne 2. Increase in Grand List : : : , : 2 : . 113 3. Military Commutation Tax - . : : : : : ~ eee 4. Tax on Corporations . 5 s : : : : : » ES a. Railroads . : : : : . : : 3 » AS b. Foreign Insurance ponies : “ene ‘ : . 16 c. Mutual Insurance Companies : ae : . . 16 d. Savings Banks and Savings Mesocimeaae : ‘ ; ‘ae e. Bonuses from Banks . : : ‘ : : ; » ee f. Banks and Insurance Companies : ; ; : 2 ES 5. Non-resident Stock . : : : : : : : . 2 6. Duties and Licenses . ; : 3 : : : : ; ies a. Pedlers and Auction Sales. : : F ‘ : - di 7. Forfeited Bonds and Avails of Court : : ‘ , «i LAG 8. The State Prison : : ‘ 3 : : - : . 120 9. Permanent Fund . : : p : 3 : ; ; . 120 10. School Fund : : : : ; : ; 2 : .| ae D. Summary. : : : ; : . 124 1. Increased Biependiteees ae Reeeints : : : : AE 2. Causes of Increased Expenditures. : : : : . 124 a. Largest Items of Expense . : : : ; ; ~ ee b. Educational Awakening : ; : : 5 : . 126 c. Aid for the Unfortunate : : ; ; : : . 125 3. Influence of Corporations . : - : : : : . 126 4. Principal Items of Revenue : 3 . : . : ~ 126 APPENDIX . : : : : : : ‘ : 5 : ; ze I—THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT. FIRST PERIOD. 1789-1818. PROLONGATION OF COLONIAL PERIOD. A. INTRODUCTION. Connecticut as a state had no constitution until 1818. The govern- ment was not interrupted by the overthrow of Great Britain‘s domin- ion. In 1662 King Charles II had granted the colony a charter which “confirmed to the colonists the right to govern themselves which they had assumed from the beginning’”’ and which made Connecticut “independent except in name.’’! The colonists instituted a very democratic form of government and made their own laws. The Revo- lution naturally abrogated this charter but the general assembly, the legislative body of the state, voted to continue it as the supreme law of the state. In 1789, therefore, the same general governmental machinery and code of laws existed as had already been in force for many years. B. FINANCIAL ORGANS OF STATE GOVERNMENT. The general assembly was the legislative body and was composed of “assistants” and “‘deputies.”” The assistants were twelve in number? and were elected at large by the people of the entire Sly state. The deputies were elected by the people of the towns which they represented. Every town had at least one deputy and some towns had two.*® The general assembly held two sessions annually, one in May and one in October. It made the laws of the state, voted appropriations and provided for meeting the expenditures of the state. Thus it had the right of taxation and the determination of the rate of taxation. The chief executive of the state was the governor, who, however, did not have the veto power. The two most important officials in the Ee vernor actual handling of the money were the treasurer and the Treasurer comptroller of the public accounts. The treasurer’s Comptroller duty was to receive all money belonging to the state and to pay it out as directed by law. The office of comptroller was created as a result of the Revolutionary War. During this war it was 1 Bancroft, Hist. of the U. S., vol. i, part 2, chap. 3, p. 358. 2 Conn. Laws (Revision of 1784), p. 27. ° Conn. Laws (Revision of 1784), p. 28. 10 The Financial History of Connecticut. necessary to issue bills of credit and various other evidences of debt and the accounts were in great confusion. In order that these accounts might be unraveled and the debts properly liquidated, the gen- eral assembly decided to appoint an officer whose duty would be to superintend the finances of the state, to recommend the best mode of keeping and liquidating the accounts, and to render to the general assembly in May and October annually (and more frequently if called upon) an account of all receipts and a complete statement of the ex- penditures.2, He was to suggest means for lessening the public ex- penses, for using and “improving” public “ monies”’ and for sustaining the state credit. The treasurer was directed not to pay any state money to meet demands against the state, unless such demands had been liquidated and allowed by the general assembly, or by the governor and council, or by the house of representatives, or by the su- preme court of errors, or superior court, until the comptroller should have entered the same in his books and given orders on the treasurer for the amount to be paid. The comptroller was first appointed in 1786, for two years only,* but the act creating the office was con- tinued in force by special acts of the assembly until by an act passed at the May session in 1796° the office was made permanent. Pro- vision was made for auditing the public accounts and the comptroller was made one of the auditors ex-officio. Thus we find that in 1789 the framework for carrying on the financial side of the state govern- ment was essentially the same as it is to-day. Ce Rusrics mpi Mention has already been made of the debt with which the state was burdened as a result of the Revolutionary War. Inasmuch as the payment of this public debt is the foundation of the greater part of the financial history of the state during this first period, it will not be amiss to give the following statement showing the amount of the original indebtedness (A) and the amount of the debt as it stood on November 1, 1789. (B).° 1 At that time *‘liquidated”’ signified definitely determined or ascertained (ef. Standard Dictionary). 2 Conn. Laws, May 1788, p. 360. 3 Conn. Laws, Jan. 1789, p. 375. 4 Conn. Laws, May 1786, p. 338. > Conn. Laws, May 1796, p. 443. 6 Compt. Reports (Ms.), Sept. 1788 and May 1790. The Public Debt. 11 I. Ayvmy notes, issued in pursuance of: (1) Act of May, 1780, for part of balance due to Connecticut Line January 1, 1780 (with interest from January 1, 1780), and for notes ordered issued by special acts for notes said to be lost, A B E Sid: fa Sa LG: a Payable June 1, 1782, 63,778 1 9'j/, Zook, Aa 4414/5 b Payable June 1, 1783, 63,824 2 2 2.909) A3 ¢ Payable June 1, 1784, 63,805 8 11/, Spine ata A d Payable June 1, 1785, 63,780 Bole. 427309) @ 6 15), - Total, 255,188 Ge, 50286 5 6; (2) Act of January, 1782, for part of balance due to Connecticut Line for services in the year 1780 (notes dated June 1, 1782) and for notes ordered issued by special acts for notes said to be lost, pebayable June 1, 1786, 45.285 0 413/, 28189 6 3%/, Bebayaple June 1) 1787, 45,296 6 27/, 28,448 5 63/, Mom OOset6 4 56.637 414 4027 (3) Act of May, 1782, for part of balance due to Connecticut Line for services in the year 1781 (notes dated June 1, 1782) and for notes ordered issued by special acts for notes said to be lost, \— Nw} © a Payable June 1, 1788, 33,012 6 111/, 24,593 0 41/, b Payable June 1, 1789, 33,002 17 111/, 20,097 °5 71/, Total, 66,015 4 101/, 41,690 5 112/, II. State securities, notes issued in pursuance of: (1) Act of November 29, 1780, ‘dated February 1, 1781, payable one year after late war, Zoe col Woe Otf AS SI20) (Be 6S], (2) Act of May, 1781, for supplies furnished the army and monies loaned to the state on various dates, payable one year after late war, 59,205, OF A198), 33,947 A 84/, (3) Act of May, 1783, for purchase of horses, payable to bearer of said securities June 1, 1783, 4,081 10 0 1,932 S..0 (4) Act of May, 1783, and sundry special acts of different dates, payable from three to ten years from their dates, 65,210 Se 8a aise 6) 15], (5) Act of May, 1789, for old notes reloaned, 180,890 i igre 8 Ill. Interest certificates remaining unpaid November 1, 1789, issued on state debt up to February 1, 1789, 19,140 Sas 12 The Financial History of Connecticut. IV. Notes issued by particular acts of the assembly payable out of civil list funds, 3,616 11 4 2,856 14 4 V. Balance of orders unpaid drawn by Oliver Wolcott, Jr., payable out of the 1/ tax! granted in January, 1783, 692 8 10 VI. Balance of state bills emitted March, June and July, 1780, with interest at five per cent to March 1, 1785 (estimated), 24,948 9 1 Summary for November 1, 1789. I. Army notes, 148,564 3 AJ, II. State securities, 411,840 15 III. Interest certificates, {9/140 3 Soe IV. Notes (Civil list), 2,856 11 4 V. Oliver Wolcott orders on 1/ tax, 692° — S208 VI. State bills (estimated), 24,948 9 14 Total debt, 608,042 11 10 There was also outstanding at this time an unknown amount of old emissions of paper issued before the war and there were a number of orders, drawn by the Committee of the Pay Table,” on former taxes, for an amount supposed to be inconsiderable.® This statement# of the Connecticut debt as it stood on November 1, 1789, was prepared by the comptroller for Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury of the United States, who was forming his plan for the assumption of the state debts by the federal government. 1. Provision for Redeeming State Debt. Before treating the subject of the assumption of the state debt, however, let us see what funds the state had set aside to meet its debt. During the war the taxes had been numerous and heavy. Part of them were payable in specie, but by far the greater part were payable in some form of the state debt. These taxes had not all been col- lected and the state relied on the collections of its back taxes to help cancel its indebtedness. Thus in the comptroller’s report of May, 1790, we find the following statement of the funds provided for the payment of the principal and interest of the public debt as he esti- mated them to be on November 1, 1789. (The spelling and capitals are his.) 1 This signifies a tax of one shilling on a pound. 2 The Committee of the Pay Table managed the state finances during the Revolutionary War and was succeeded by the comptroller. 3 Compt. Rep. (Ms.), May 1790. + The form of the statement is here changed. The Public Debt. 43 Ballances of Taxes laid for the payment of Interest in the State Debt and the first three classes of Army Notes as appears from the Treasury Booke Nov. ist, 1789, being the Ballance of fifteen Taxes including abatements, Collecting £ pee tare be fees, etc., 40,489 14 10 Ballance of Excise and Impost Bonds in Interest Certificates and the 1st three classes of Army Notes including collecting fees, etc., S070 2-15). 2 A Tax fourpence on the pound laid on list of 1788 for the payment of interest on the State debt and the ballance of the three first classes of State Army Notes, the net avails estimated at 20,266 14 4 Tax of eight pence on the pound on the same list laid for the payment of the ballance of State Bills, orders on 2/6 & 1/ Taxes and part of the principal of the State Debt, the net avails estimated at 40,538 8 8 Excise for payment of Interest on State debt, etc., estimated at OO 10-10 fofalii5300 113° _ 0 The comptroller also stated that the collections on the old taxes mentioned in the first item of the above statement would probably fall far below the sum as given; that there would be a loss upon the excise and impost bonds; and that the amount of excise for the current year, which he had estimated at five thousand pounds, was very uncertain. This was the last excise levied by the state. In its May session of 1790, the assembly repealed all acts relating to the laying of an excise. This repeal was to take effect July 1, 1790, but was not to interfere with the collection of what was due at the time of the repeal.t Soon, however, an event occurred which made it un- necessary to use all of the funds originaliy intended for the payment of the state debt. 2. Assumption of State Debt. This event was the passage of an act (approved August 4, 1790) by the United States Congress, at the suggestion of Alexander Hamil- ton, for the assumption of the state debts.? In this act, entitled “ An Act making Provision for the Debt of the United States,’”’ provision 1 Conn. Laws, 1784—95, p. 391. * Acts of Congress, 1790, chap. 34. 14 The Financial History of Connecticut. was made (section 13) for a loan of $21,500,000, which was to be sub- scribed for ‘‘in the principal and interest of the certificates or notes” which, prior to January 1, 1790, had been issued by the states as acknowledgments or evidences of debt, provided those certificates ~ had been issued for ‘expenditures for services or supplies towards the prosecution of the late war.’”” Each state was allowed to subscribe for a specified portion of this loan and the amount allotted to Connecti- cut was 480,000 pounds?! or $1,600,000.2 For each state a commis- sioner of loans was appointed to receive the state certificates present- ed in payment for subscriptions to the federal loan and to issue to the subscribers new certificates according to the following method: four-ninths of the sum received for a subscription was to be exchanged for a certificate bearing six per cent interest annually, the interest payable quarterly, and the entire amount payable in any one year for interest and redemption not to exceed eight per cent of the face value of the certificate ; two-ninths of the sum received was to be exchanged for a certificate bearing six per cent interest annually after the year 1800, with the interest and the principal payable as above; and the remaining one-third to be exchanged for a certificate bearing three per cent interest annually, said interest payable quar- terly, subject to redemption by payment of the sum specified therein at the will of congress (Section 15). To ascertain the interest due on the different evidences of state debt, the interest was to be computed to December 31, 1791, and interest upon the stock created by this act was to begin on January 1, 1792 (Section 16). The time for open- ing the loan was set at October 1, 1790, and the books were to be closed at the expiration of one year (Section 3). The act also pro- vided that if the full amount allotted to any state were not subscribed within the prescribed time, the United States would pay to that state, upon the terms already described, interest upon the unsub- scribed portion of the loan (Section 17). At the end of the period for subscription to the United States debt in evidences of state debt £46,060 9s. 1d. of the £480,000 allotted to Connecticut remained unsubscribed.? The state received from the commissioner of loans, William Imlay, the first quarter’s interest 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1790. 2 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1790; Acts of Congress, chap. 34, sec. 13. Note. In all the reports of this period, whenever the old and the new systems of money notation are used together, the ratio of the pound to the dollar is always three and one-third to one. 3 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1793, p. 33 The Public Debt. 15 on this balance, which amounted to £422 4s. 6d. Before the time for the second quarter’s interest the £480,000 had been subscribed! and Hamilton notified Imlay to commence the interest on the stock of the subscribers under the continuation of the act of congress of August 4, 1790,? (cf. p. 13) on the first day of the second quarter. Not only was the allotted quota subscribed but it was oversubscribed by £28,431 14s. or $94,772.34.3 To meet this oversubscription the loan commissioner issued certificates, bearing five per cent interest, which were called “Imlay’s Certificates”. The general assembly, in the October session of this year (1793), acknowledged these as evidences of state debt.* This assumption of the state debts by the federal government thus extinguished by far the greater part of Connecticut’s debt so that on April 30, 1793, the public debt stood as follows: B Sv gtk State notes (principal), 635303. SOm 7, Interest certificates, 4,739 One Orders on the 1/ Tax of 1783, issued from comp- troller’s office, 76 Ors 04 Interest on above state notes, 4000 0 0 Imlay’s certificates, 28,431 14 0 Interest on Imlay’s certificates, 1,848 ay Orders drawn by Committee of Pay Table on 2/6 and 1/ taxes, state bills emitted in 1780, certif- icates of interest issued by late treasurer (Law- rence) in excess of stated balance, and balances unclaimed by individuals of the late continental army (estimated), FOO iO. 3@ 10S TOSS AAG) There were no special funds to meet this debt as the balance of all former funds set aside for this purpose had been granted to Yale College by an act of the general assembly passed in May, 1792.° 3. Payment of Balance due State from United States. To show clearly the means by which the state proceeded to meet the debt still remaining, it will be necessary to digress and consider 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1793, p. 3. 2 Acts of Congress, 2 congress, 1 session, chap. 38. 3 Compt. Rep. (Ms.), May 1793, Acct. No. 2. 4 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1807. 5 Conn. Statutes, Compilation of 1808, title 178, chap. 1, sec. 2, p. 695. 16 The Financial History of Connecticut. the closing of the accounts between the United States and Connec- ticut. During the war the states incurred expenses for bounties and pensions, pay and depreciation of pay to the army and for various forms of supplies. On the other hand, the states received advances from congress. On February 20, 1782, the continental congress first made provision for the adjustment of the accounts between the states! and the central government. The machinery was changed by an act of congress on October 13, 1786, and again on May 7, 1787.3 By article six of the constitution of the United States it was enacted that “All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution as under the confederation.” In accordance with this clause, congress at its first session empowered the president to fill, subject to the consent of the senate, vacancies in the board of commissioners established by the act of May 7, 1787, to settle the accounts between the states and the United States.4 Finally, on August 5, 1790, congress passed the act under which these settlements were eventually made.® This act created a board of three commissioners to settle the accounts with the states (Sec- tion 1). These commissioners were to examine all claims exhibited to them before July 1, 1791, and to determine the amount of those incurred for the public defense during the war. All claims approved by former commissioners were exempt from this examination and no Claim in the account of any state was to be allowed unless it had been sanctioned by that state before September 24, 1788 (Section 3). The commissioners were to reduce to specie value the credits and debits of the states already on the treasury books for bills of credit issued subsequent to March 18, 1780 (Section 4). Having accom- plished this, the commissioners were to debit each state with all the advances made to it by the United States, plus the interest thereon up to December 31, 1789, inclusive; and were to credit each state for such disbursements and advances as had been allowed, plus the interest thereon up to the same date. For each state a balance was then to be struck and the total of all the balances found (Section 5). The total amount due to the states by the federal government was to be apportioned to the individual states in proportion to the popula- 1 Journals of Congress, vol. iii, pp. 721, 722. 2 Journals of Congress, vol. iv, pp. 711, 712. 3 Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 742. 4 Acts of Congress, 1 congress, 1 session, chap. 6. > Acts of Congress, 1790, second session, chap. 38. The Public Debt. sy tion (Section 6). The amount apportioned to each state was to be compared with its already ascertained balance and the difference carried to a new account on the debit or credit side as the case might be (Section 5). Oliver Wolcott, the first comptroller of public accounts in Connecticut and afterward secretary of the treasury of the United States, had advised Connecticut to urge such a measure as this. As he had been a member of the committee of the pay table and also one of the commissioners to settle the accounts between Connecticut and the United States, his judgment is of prime interest and importance. In a report to the general assembly at its May session, 1787, he said that from all the information he had been able to get, he had formed the opinion that a settlement of the public accounts would operate to the advantage of Connecticut. He also ex- pressed his belief that it would be expedient for thestate “to urge that the rule of apportioning the public expense be speedily settled.’’! The method of settling the balance due to any state to which the federal government was a debtor after deducting the appor- tioned quota was as follows: the state was entitled, within a year after being credited with a balance, to a certificate bearing six per cent interest annually, payable quarterly, and subject to redemption at the rate of two per cent of its face value annually, for two-thirds of the amount of the credited balance; for the other third of this balance, the state was entitled to a certificate which, after the year 1800, would bear six per cent interest annually, payable quarterly and subject to similar redemption (Section 7). These certificates received in payment of the balances were to be non-transferable, The commissioners appointed by the above described act, having completed their appointed task, made a report in which Connecticut is credited with $619,121.2 In an act approved May 31, 1794, con- gress provided that interest at four per cent from January 1, 1790, to January 1, 1795, should be paid on the balances found due to the states by the commissioners.? This interest was to be paid in certif- icates bearing three per cent interest annually and payable quar- terly. In accordance with these conditions, the following amounts were placed to the credit of Connecticut in the books of the United States commissioner of loans: $412,747.34 of six per cent stock and $206,373.66 of deferred six per cent stock, making a total of $619,121, the balance reported by the commissioner to be due to the state; 2 Comptroller’s Report (Ms.), May 1787. * Compt. Report, May 1794, p. 1. 3 Acts of Third Congress, first session, chap. 37. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 2 Marca, 1912. 18 The Financial History of Connecticut. and $123,824.20 of three per cent stock in payment of interest on this balance for five years beginning January 1, 1790.1 This stock was not entirely redeemed until 1832 and it was the source of a large part of the revenue of the state throughout the first quarter of the nineteenth century. 4. Transfer of U. S. Stock by State in Payment of Public Debt. The reason for digressing from the payment of the state debt to the settling of the balance due to the state from the federal govern- ment can now be made clear. By an act approved Jannuary 2, 1795, congress authorized the states which were credited with United States stock in payment of balances due them from the federal government to transfer to those who had become their creditors before July 1, 1793, as much of said stock as should be necessary to meet their claims. The making of such transfers was left optional with each state and its creditors.2, The original act limited the time within which these transfers could be made to two years from the time the act was passed; but in 1797, on motion of the Connecticut representatives,® congress extended the time to March 4, 1799.4 This offer was immediately accepted by the holders of a large portion of the state debt. Within three months after congress had authorized the states to make such transfers, £37,990 12s. 11d., or $126,635.37, had been exchanged® and on March 4, 1799, the date set as the limit for making transfers, $374,519.53 of stock had been transferred by Connecticut, of which $164,926.90 was in six per cent stock, $83,841.79 in deferred six per cent stock, and $125,751.34 in three per cent stock.® In this manner by far the larger part of the debt remaining after the assumption of the state debt by the federal government, which was about one hundred nine thousand eight hundred pounds (cf. p. 15), was extinguished and the remaining debt was now approximately fourteen thousand four hundred pounds or forty-eight thousand dollars. 5. Registration of State Debt. In the October session of the general assembly in 1798 an act was passed, known as the “Limitation Act,’ which provided that ‘‘all Compt. Report (Ms.), October 1794. Acts of Congress, 3 congress, 2 session, chap. 75. Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1797. Acts of Congress, 5 congress, 1 session, chap. 14. Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1795. Compt. Report (Ms.), 1801. Debit side of account of stock standing to credit of Connecticut in books of commissioner of loans. zh 2 3 4 5 6 The Public Debt. 19 state notes, interest certificates, pay-table orders, and bills of credit of this state, which at the time of passing this act shall be outstanding, shall on or before March 4 next be presentéd at the office of the comptroller of this state for the purpose of being discharged in a trans- fer of stock of the United States standing to the credit of this state on the books of the treasurer of the United States, or of being lodged and registered in said office at the option of the holder.’”’ All of the aforesaid evidences of indebtedness which were not presented at the comptroller’s office before March 4, 1799, as thus provided, were to be forever afterward barred from settlement.1 The opportunity to transfer such forms of indebtedness for United States stock ceased on this date, but the general assembly, in the May session of 1799, voted to extend -the opportunity to register the above mentioned claims against the state until April 1, 1800, before declaring any such claims void.2 The full amount of the public debt as it stood on April 30, 1800, and the amount of the same registered in accordance with these two acts appear in the following statement: Full Amount of Public Debt.® State Notes (principal), $27,032.72 Interest on State Notes, 13,380.87 Certificates for interest, IAs ah Orders on the 1/ Tax of 1783, issued from comptroller’s office, 15.24 Imlay’s certificates, 2,334.41 Interest on Imlay’s certificates, 1,167.20 $45,362.75 Amount Registered.* Liquidated Unliquidated In State Notes, $6,508.50 $500.00 In interest certificates, 536.34 In State bills emitted in 1780, 209.04 In State bills emitted before 1780, 4,110.34 In Pay Table Orders, 109.50 $7,363.38 $4,610.34 The comptroller, in his May report of 1800, calls the attention of the general assembly to the fact that no mention of Imlay’s certif- 1 Conn. Laws, May 1799, p. 508. * Conn. Acts and Laws, May 1799, p. 508. 3 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1800. * Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1800, Account No. 1, 20 The Financial History of Connecticut. icates had been made in the limitation acts of October, 1798, and May, 1799, and that consequently none had been presented for registration. He suggested that the legislature might pass an act exempting Imlay’s certificates from the operation of the last precluding act, which suggestion was followed. As a result of these three acts, the amount of debt written off from the accounts was $21,461.70. There was no injustice in this action. In the first place, ample time had been given for the state creditors to register their debt; sec- ondly, it is probable that nearly all of the above amount had been lost or destroyed?; and lastly, the general assembly, by special acts, afterward allowed certain claims to be added to the registered debt, even though by the limitation acts they had been precluded. The amounts so allowed were small and this fact strengthens the prob- ability that most of the debt precluded was non-existent. Thus within a period of eleven years, without the levying of a tax or the payment of cash from the treasury, the state debt had been dimin- ished from over two and a quarter million dollars to about sixteen thousand dollars. This was accomplished, as has been already shown, in three ways; (1) through collection of old taxes; (2) by assumption by federal government of $1,600,000; and (3) by the transfer of $374,519.53 of United States stock credited to the state on the books of the treasurer of the United States. 6. Specie Payment. In the May session of 1800 the general] assembly made provision for paying this debt in specie. In conformity with this act $5,647 was thus paid in the first year; and during the next four years $6,453 more was paid, leaving only $5,326.93 unpaid April 30, 1805. During the next six years additional payments still further reduced the debt to $3,266.99. For all practical purposes this discharged the debt, as will be seen when the subject of the public debt in the second period is treated. From 1811 until 1818 the amount paid on the debt was only three hundred twenty-two dollars, a sum insufficient to cover the interest, and accordingly on April 10, 1818, the comp- troller’s account showed that the debt had increased to $3,312.90. 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1800. 2 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1800, Account No. 1. Sources of Revenue. 21 D. Sources OF REVENUE. 1. Taxation, Forfeitures, etc. The most important source of revenue during the first period of Connecticut’s history as a state, as well as throughout her colonial period, was the State Tax. This tax was a direct tax upon polls, land, various specified forms of property, and on trades and professions. During this entire period, an average of more than fifty-five per cent of the entire revenue, exclusive of the school fund, which will be treated separately, was yielded by this tax. The colonial methods of laying, assessing and collecting this direct tax were continued. Every town in the state elected annually a convenient number of men called “‘listers’”” whose duty was to make a list of polls and rateable estates in the town. They were required to give public notice in July, annually, on the public sign post and in some public place in every “society’’ in the town, calling upon the inhabitants to make a true list of all of their polls and rate- able estate belonging to them on August 20, and to place said lists in the hands of the listers before September 10. The listers were also instructed to add four-fold for all the rateable estate which the owners failed to list. One-half of the amount arising from the four- fold additions was to be given to the listers for their diligence and the remaining half was to be added to the rest of the taxes collected. At first, after making out the lists for their respective towns, the listers were obliged to send them to the general assembly, but by an act of the legislature in the May session of 1796, they were directed to send the lists, on or before the first Tuesday after the opening of the general assembly in October, to the comptroller. These lists were then to be examined critically by the comptroller and the treas- urer, and the comptroller was ordered to report to the general as- sembly any errors or omissions which they found. These were to be discovered by a comparison of the lists with former lists and by noting the relative magnitude of the towns or by any other feasible method. From the lists received, the comptroller was directed to make the county lists and the grand list of the state.? The method of assessment can be shown best by giving the form of the list which the listers had to fill out and send to the comp- Form of ‘eller. A second column is added to show changes in List? the rates that appear in the revision of 1808. State Tax 1 Conn. Laws, Revision of 1795, pp. 274, 275. 2 Conn. Laws, May 1796, p. 441. 3 Conn. Laws, 1796, p. 281. 22 A True List of the Polls and Estate of the Town of on The Financial History of Connecticut. the 20th day of August 17. . No. Polls 21 to 70, , 18 to 241 (before 1793 lower limit was 16), Oxen and bulls 4 years old, Cows, steers, heifers and bulls 3 years old, Steers, heifers, or bulls of 2 years old, Stallions or seed horses more than 3 years old, Horse Kind (of) 3 years old or upward, ‘ ” ” al ” ” D, Covering Jacks, Each mule (of) 3 years old or upward, 2 ‘ is i as Acres of plow land, Ls Upland, mowing & clear pasture Ss Boggy meadow, mowed, 3 Boggy meadow, not mowed, - Meadow land in Hartford & Middlesex Cos., . other meadow land, x. Bush pasture, ; uninclosed land, 1st Rate, = - nm PAYG We ae - Fe Stare Coaches, Chariots, Phaetons, Coachees Curricles, Chaises, 2) LF) Riding chairs with open tops, and Sul- kies, rateable (Revision (Revision of 1795) of 1808) Dols. cts. Dolsx ets: 60 00 30 00 at 40-2 300 Sah 00 LG oe 34 «i Oday 200) 5 2100708 af 7. 00 a 3.) woe oe .a00 a> AO a OG Bos 7) 00 a O eee sf 1. 6ii me A eve Pe 0 84 = On ae 4 2 50 - 1 AY Ne ede i OL p38 5 034 ; O° AF B: O09 5 » 84. 00 L46se er ., .67. 00 Matar » D0. 00 100 aw 5 17. 00. oa » ot 00 76Srsee » 17 006 Classes $15, 20, | 30. —aas 50,60. Other i 10 00 4 wheeled car- riages on springs 30 00 Sources of Revenue. 23 (Revision (Revision of 1795) of 1808) No. Dols. cts. Dols. cts. Gold watches, ate 4 Ot) 34. 00 Silver and other watches, i 5s 0 0. 00 Steel and Brass wheeled Clocks, Pe On OO 20 OO Wooden ee, = a a ote TOO Ounces of Silver Plateat $1.11 per ounce, ,, 6% Money on Interest, ee Ong Houses, fireplaces, x we oh sel. (£5200 . e depreciated 1/4, te Som 45 (acorn Ka . re 1/2, - 25" (3) 200 = Fe <5 SE He 63 957 (4yed 25 Assessments, Totals, The amount included under “ Assessments’? was the sum of the following: Laws of Revision of 1795 1808 Each attorney at Law (the least prac- titioner) at $167 $75—300 The rest higher in proportion. Each Shopkeeper or Trader (the lowest class) x 84 40—300 All others in due proportion. Each Physician or Surgeon (the least prac- titioner) # 34 34—200 All others in due proportion. Eachallowed and licensed Tavern keeper set ,, 50 20—200 and to be added to in proportion to their situation and profits according to the best judgment of the listers. Each Person that followeth any mechanical art or mystery, such as Blacksmiths, Shoemakers, Tanners, Goldsmiths - or Silversmiths and every other Handy Craft shall be set in the List at least rs ily 10—200 and to be added to at the best discretion of the listers. 24 The Financial History of Connecticut. Laws of Revision of i705 1808 Each Corn-mill standing on a stream suf- ficient to carry the same through the various seasons of the year and so situ- ated as to be constantly supplied with custom shall be set in the list annually at 267 1502 and others of lesser advantages whether windmills or others at a less sum in pro- portion according to the listers’ best judgment. Owners of slitting mills, oil mills, saw mills, and all other water works (except iron works) by which profits arise; and all other works and occupations followed or pursued by any persons, by which prof- its arise, and which have not been enumer- ated above (except business in any pub- lic office, husbandry, and common labor for hire) shall be assessed by the best judgment of the listers according to the principles laid down above.? This is a good illustration of the old method of laying specific taxes upon things which were sometimes roughly classified according to the income they were supposed to yield. Thus meadow lands in Hartford and Middlesex counties, which are in the valley of the Connecticut river, were rated higher than meadow lands situated elsewhere. Different kinds of land were specified, such as plow land, pasture, boggy-meadow land, bush pasture, and unenclosed land with different grades under some of their heads. The same is true with the rating of animals—the older being rated higher as they produced a larger income for the owner. The same principle is seen in the method of taxing professions and occupations, a minimum sum being specified, in most cases, at which a person following a given pursuit was to be listed, with a provision that the listers should add to that minimum a sum proportioned, in their opinion, to the income of the individual. In 1804 a maximum sum was also established limiting somewhat the discretionary powers of the listers. 1 «For each run of stones.” * Conn. Laws, Revision of 1795, p. 280. 3 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1804, p. 676, sec. 6—10. Sources of Revenue. "S25 Connecticut was still principally an agricultural community. Cor- porations had not become important, railroads were unknown, no large cities existed, and there were no great differences in wealth among the inhabitants. Before the end of this period, however, inequalities in wealth began to appear and consequently the opinion grew that some changes should be made in the system of taxation. These changes were finally effected in the next period when the first Republican party came into power. During the first period, however, some changes were made in the rate (cf. above lists) and the number of articles to be listed was slightly increased. To en- courage the raising of sheep, the general assembly at the October session 1800! passed an act directing the listers to deduct from the list of every person raising sheep at the rate of seventy-five cents for every sheep ten months old and upwards from which a fleece of wool was shorn in the season next preceding the giving in of the list, and the act was not repealed until the May session in 1814.2 At the October session of 1804° stores were added to the list under three classes: (1) stores one story high were to be listed at ten dollars; (2) stores two stories high at twenty dollars; and (3) stores three stories high at thirty dollars. The general assembly also voted at this session that bank stock should be listed at three per cent of its value. This was the earliest provision for taxing stock and the only stock taxed by the state during this period was bank stock. Whenever the general assembly levied a state tax on the towns, it determined the amount of the tax and the rate of taxation by requir- ing every town to pay a stated amount on every dollar in its ea town list. The rates vary during this period, from five mills to two cents on the dollar. However, in the fiscal year ending in April, 1816, two taxes were collected making the actual rate that year about three and a half cents on the dollar. Calling, then, the rate of taxation for the fiscal year ending in 1816 three and a half cents, the average rate of state taxation on the grand lists of the towns from 1796 through 1816 (the list on which the last state tax of this first period was laid) was eleven mills. The towns were directed by law, as in the colonial days, to elect every year one constable whose duty should be to collect the state tax. The principle of utilizing the machinery Collection J of State Tax ©! town government for state purposes has been con- tinued to the present time.* 1 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1800, p. 533. 2 Conn. Laws, May 1814, chap. 21. 3 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1804, p. 676, sec. 5. 4 Conn. Laws, 1796, p. 118. 26 The Financial History of Connecticut. The survival of colonial policies in this period is seen again in the matter of exemptions from taxation. Among the early settlers magistrates, ministers, and teachers were honored and privileged persons. For example, in the code of 1650, magistrates and elders of churches were exempted from taxa- tion and in the revision of 1672 the assistants,! commissioners, minis- ters and schoolmasters were made exempt. Persons disabled by sickness or other infirmity were added to the exemption list in the revision of 1702.2 In October, 1737, the governor, deputy-governor, the rectors and tutors of Yale College and students, until the time for taking their second degree, were also made exempt. In October, 1794, the law exempting the governor, deputy or leutenant-governor, and assistants was repealed’ and the revision of 1795, which is the first revision made after Connecticut entered the Union, contained the following provision in regard to exemption from taxation: “ All ministers of the Gospel that now are or hereafter shall be settled in this state during their continuance in the ministry, shall have all their estates lying in the same society or town wherein they dwell, and all polls belonging to their several families, exempted from being put into the List. And also the Estate of the President of Yale College, for the time being, shall be under the same regulations as ministers of the Gospel. As also in like manner shall all lands and buildings in this state, sequestered to and improved for schools or other public or pious uses.”’4 In this revision authority was also given to abate from the town list the polls of persons disabled by sickness, lameness, or other infirmity, but these abatements were not to exceed one-tenth of such polls.’ In its fall session of 1799 the general assembly passed an act exempting from the poll-tax members of the militia presenting satisfactory evidence of having provided themselves with the outfit required by law and of having performed the prescribed military duties. Sickness or other reasonable cause preventing the perform- ance of the military duties was not to bar them from this exemp- tion.® The legislature, at its October session in 1804, added to the law providing for the assessment of professions and occupations a proviso which exempted attorneys, physicians and mechanics from such assessment until after they had been two years in their chosen Exemptions 1 CE p. 9. 2 Conn. Laws, Revision of 1808, p. 466, footnote. 3 Revision of 1808, title 102, chap. 1, sec. 8, footnote. * Conn. Laws, Revision of 1795, pp. 278, 279. 5 Tdem. * Conn. Laws, Oct. 1799, p. 513, sec. 5. bdo ~l Sources of Revenue. field. This proviso gave a man an opportunity to make a fair start in his work before taxing him in the line of that work.! Under the system of assessment already outlined no serious problem of the equitable valuation of property arose. Nearly everything listed was of suchanature that everybody knew what amount of taxable property each of his fellow-townsmen possessed. During this entire period bank stock was the only kind of stock to be listed and this was not put into the list until 1805. Hence evasion by concealment on the part of the owner of property was difficult. In the second place there was little incentive for the town listers to undervalue property in order that the town might escape paying its just portion of the state tax. The list on which the state tax was levied was used also as the basis of distribution to the school societies of the money annually turned over from the state treasury for the support of schools and as a basis for the distribution of the income from the school fund. In some years the dividends received from the latter source alone were greater than the amount paid into the state treasury by the towns, and as these dividends were increased by the sum annually received from the state for schools, making a total rarely much smaller than the state tax paid by the towns, the temptation to minimize the town lists did not arise. Finally, the listers did not have much discretion in regard to the valuation, for in many cases the rate was definitely set and in most of the rest a lower limit and in 1804? an upper limit was made within which the listers could exercise their judgment. or these causes injustice arising from unequal valuation of property in various localities in the state did not exist to an appreciable extent. A study of the grand lists shows that there was little increase of taxable property during this period. In 1796 the total valuation, with no deduction for abatements, was $5,890,833. The total of the list of 1818, the last one made under this system, was $5,559,784. The highest mark was reached in 1804, when the figures were $6,293,235. The last two totals are the lowest and highest totals for the period. Inasmuch as all changes made during the period were upward, the fact that the valuation of taxable property in 1818 was lower than that of 1796 is the more noticeable. It does not necessarily prove that Connecticut was growing poorer. It probably indicates that as men accumulated wealth they invested it largely in property that was not subject to taxation. Valuation 1 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1804, p. 676, sec. 10. 2 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1804, p. 676. 28 The Financial History of Connecticut. Very little taxation except the tax upon the towns was imposed by the state. Throughout this entire period duties were laid on writs and continuances and these duties yielded from five to seven thousand dollars a year. No other sources of revenue, except the state tax and the stock held by the state, yielded greater returns to the state. There is evidence that the state failed to receive its dues from this source.1_ This loss was due to the extreme careless- ness, if not graft, on the part of the justices who made out the writs and received the duties. At the May session of 1813 the general assembly levied on retailers of spirits a license fee of five dollars a year. This tax was collected by the town clerks and paid by them to the state treasurer.2. For the four years ending in April, 1818, it returned to the state treasury an average of more than four thou- sand dollars a year. At a later time the yield from duties and licenses became relatively so small that it will not be considered; but throughout this period its importance was considerable. The only other form of taxation used during this period was the taxing of stock held by persons not residing in Connecticut. In 1813, the state first availed itself of this source of rev- Sen eer enue. Two banks, the Hartford Bank and the Union Bank at New London, were chartered as early as May 1792,3 but the bank stock even of inhabitants of Connecticut was not listed until 1805, and for eight more years non-resident bank stock escaped taxation. The act passed by the legislature at the May session of 1812 reached that class of stock by declaring that it should be listed at three per cent of its face value and sub- jected to the same taxation as the same kind of stock owned by inhabi- tants of the state. However, the non-resident stock thus set in the list was not to be considered as part of the town list and did not in- crease the state tax due from the towns. The banks were directed to pay the taxes on such stock and were given a lien on the stock of the non-resident shareholders for the amount thus paid.* The prin- ciple of taxation at source, in later years to be more widely extended, is met with here for the first time in the history of Connecticut. It is interesting to note that the total amount of taxes received on non- Duties 1 Letter to James Thomas, Esq., Comptroller. By Andrew T. Judson, Attorney at Law, Canterbury, Conn. Clapp & Francis, Printers, New London, 1819. 2 Conn. Laws, May 1813, chap. 12, sec. 2. 3 Conn. Laws, Revision of 1795, pp. 40, 50. 4 Public Acts, May 1812, chap. 13. Sources of Revenue. 29 resident bank stock from the time this law went into operation until the close of this period was only two thousand five hundred ninety-six dollars, an average of less than five hundred twenty dollars a year. This tax on non-resident bank stock was the only tax, during the first period, on any kind of stock held by persons residing without the state. The amount received by the state in this period from forfeited bonds, bills of cost, fines, avails of court, and escheats was both actually and relatively small. From April, 1797, to April, 1818, the annual average was only $1,529.95. Forfeited Bonds, Fines, ete. 2. Extraordinary Receipts. In extraordinary receipts the state received, during the summer of 1796, from the president and fellows of Yale College, $13,726.39 in deferred six per cent United States stock. The occasion for this transfer will be shown later under expenditures for education.! During the fiscal year ending April 30, 1815, the Phcenix Bank, pursuant to the act incorporating it (passed at the May session of the general assembly in 1814),” paid into the state tréasury a bonus of fifty thousand dollars. In the fiscal years ending April 30, 1817, and April 9, 1818, respectively, two other large sums, fifty-five thou- sand four hundred dollars and eleven thousand five hundred dollars, were received from the United States government in payment for the services of the Connecticut troops and for supplies furnished by ' the state during the war of 1812 against Great Britain. 3. Permanent Fund. Under the head of revenue there remains for discussion the in- come from the United States stock and from bank stock held by the state. Taking advantage of that part of an act of congress, approved, August 4, 1790, which provided for the funding of the domestic debt, the state subscribed to the United States loan in evidences of United States indebtedness. Conforming to the terms of this act, the specie value of the amount subscribed by the state in the prin- cipal of the domestic debt, together with the interest due on it to December 31, 1790, inclusive, was determined and for two-thirds of the amount thus ascertained the state received from the United * Cf. p. 41. * Public Acts, May 1814, chap. 2, sec. 8. 8 Acts of Congress, 1 congress, 1 session, chap. 34. Cf. p. 13. 30 The Financial History of Connecticut. States $3,441.83 of six per cent stock and for the other third $1,720.94 of deferred six per cent stock to begin bearing interest in the year 1801. In exchange for the amount subscribed in the interest of the domestic debt, the state received $2,931.54 of three per cent stock.! In payment of the balance due to Connecticut for expenses incurred in the Revolutionary War, congress credited Connecticut, in 1795, with the following items: $412,747.34 of six per cent stock ; $206,373.66 of deferred six per cent stock; and $123,824.20 of three per cent stock.2 In 1796, the president and fellows of Yale College, as already stated,® transferred to the state $13,726.39 of the deferred six per cent stock. In payment of a debt due to the state, $682.20 of six per cent stock was transferred to the state. In May, 1796, the gen- eral assembly voted to reinvest, in deferred six per cent and three per cent United States stock, the amounts received from the United States in part payment of the principal of the six per cent stock.® This policy was continued without change until the United States began to redeem the deferred six per cent stock. This caused the legislature to vote, in October, 1800, to reinvest in the United States debt all money received from the United States in payment of prin- cipal.© Meanwhile the state had transferred some of its stock in payment of its debt.?, A brief summary showing the history of the stock held by the state and the amount actually owned by it on April 30, 1801,° will make the above paragraph clear. Amount of 6% stock Deferred (real capital) 69% stock 3% stock Originating from subscrip- tion to ‘the WU: S. oan (made principally in 1791), $3,441.83 $1,720.94 $2,931.54 Credited by U. S. in pay- ment of balance due, 412,747.34 206,373.66 123,824.20 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1801. Credit side of account of stock standing to the credit of the state in the books of the commissioner of loans. 250i. pe dd = Cr. p: 29. 4 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1801. Credit side of account of stock standing to the credit of the state in the books of the commissioner of loans. 5 Tdem. 6 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1801. CP Gp oad UC 8 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1801. Account of stock standing to the credit of the state in the books of the commissioner of loans. ee Sources of Revenue. | Amount of 6% stock Deferred (real capital) 6% stock 3% stock Transferred by President & Fellows of Yale College, 13,726.39 Transferred for debt due from late Sheriff Fitch, 682.20 Purchased up to April 30, 1801, 6,186.79 15,548.75 42,461.93 "$423,058.16 $237,369.74 $169,217.67 Transferred to State Cred- itors, 164,926.40 83,841.79 125 oO $258,131.76 $153,527.95 $43,466.33 Redeemed by U. S. and money not yet reinvested on April 30, 1804, 38,160.56 $219,971.20 When congress authorized the issue of its six per cent stock, it reserved to the federal government the right to make annual pay- ments for interest and principal to the extent of eight per cent of the face value of the certificates. Under this provision, as the yearly payments of interest decreased, the payments on the principal corre- spondingly increased. This may be shown graphically by the for- mula $8—i= 7, in which $8 is the maximum amount that the federal government could pay in one year on every hundred dollars of the face value of the stock, 7 represents the interest due on the unpaid portion of the principal, and 7 the amount applicable to the redemp- tion of the debt. Consequently as 7 was a constantly diminishing quantity, 7 became a constantly increasing quantity. In his report for May, 1802, the comptroller informs the general assembly that the state will soon have considerable difficulty in reinvesting the pay- ments made on the principal of the six per cent stocks by the United States. The full exercise of its right by the federal government was causing these payments to increase yearly at a rate of alittle more than six percent. This normal increase was enhanced by the fact that the state was reinvesting the amounts so received from the United States in the purchase of more six per cent stocks, thus augmenting the amount which the United States could pay annually on the principal. Bocca. 32 The Financial History of Connecticut. A vicious circle was the inevitable result. Larger payments by the national government involved larger investments in six per cent stock and the process repeated itself. This fact and the additional fact that there would be an increasing scarcity of such stock in the market because of the steady purchase of the same by the United States government would make the continuation of such purchases difficult and expensive. The comptroller, therefore, recommended that the reinvestment of the funds received from the United States for reimbursement of the principal be extended to bank stocks as well as to the stock of the United States and that the state should avoid, if possible, further purchase of the six per cent stock. When- ever it became necessary to purchase both six per cent stock and three per cent stock in order to get the latter, he advised that the former be sold as soon as possible and the proceeds reinvested in the three per cent stock.!. The comptroller made the further suggestion that inasmuch as all the United States stock held by the state, except that credited to it in payment of the balance due from the United States, was transferable, the state should sell the transferable portion of its six per cent stock and invest the proceeds in bank stock and three per cent United States stock.2 The general assembly did not act on this advice until the following year. At the May session in 1803 it voted to accept the proposal of the stockholders of the Hart- ford, New Haven and Middletown banks that the state subscribe to the capital stock of each of these banks, in proportion to their capital, the money already accrued or that should accrue from the reimbursement of the six per cent United States stock belonging to the state. This act directed the treasurer to subscribe to the stock of the above mentioned banks, and also to the stock of the New London and Norwich banks, if their stockholders should accept, within a month after the rising of the assembly, the terms of the act. The act also included a condition that the state should receive the same dividends as other shareholders. The state reserved the right to withdraw, on six months’ notice, the whole or any part of the money thus invested and also the privilege of sub- scribing other state money upon the same terms. All shares held by the state under this act were to be non-transferable.2 This was the origin of the state’s investment in bank stock. As a con- sequence of this change of policy, no United States stock was pur- 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1802, pp. 3—5. 2 Idem. 3 Conn. Laws, May 1803 p. 635. Sources of Revenue. 33 chased until after October, 1815, and the vicious circle was broken. In October, 1815, the comptroller suggested that inasmuch as the state had already subscribed a considerable amount in bank stock and as the school fund would in the future be able to hold a consider- able amount of bank stock, it might be prudent for the state not to invest in such stock the whole of its reimbursements from the United States. Therefore he proposed that the state treasurer be authorized to purchase some of the seven per cent loan of the United States or any of the public loans; to subscribe to the stock of any of the banks of the state; or to loan on such bonds and mortgages as he might approve.t_ The banks to the stock of which the state had already subscribed had temporarily refused to receive New York money or “facilities” in payment for stock. The United States was making its payments to the state on the principal of the debt in this form and consequently the funds were lying idle in the state treasury for want of a place to invest them.?. This was another reason why the comptroller made this proposal. Accordingly the general assembly during its October session, 1815, passed an act empow- ering the treasurer to invest the reimbursement of the United States stock and the dividends of bank stock in the banks of this state, or in funds of the United States.? Under the authority of this act there were purchased before May 1, 1817, the following amounts of stock: thirteen thousand six hundred nineteen dollars of seven per cent stock; $707.78 of six per cent stock; $1,557.36 of deferred six per cent stock; and $5,264.55 of three per cent stock. This was the last purchase of United States stock by the state until after the Civil War. Inasmuch as the stockholders of the Norwich and New London banks did not vote to accept the provisions of the act of May, 1803, authorizing the subscription to their stock from the money received from the United States for the redemption of its six per cent stock, the treasurer of the state subscribed to the shares of the Hartford, New Haven, and Middletown banks only. During the first year of the operation of this act, the state sub- scribed for forty-two thousand five hundred twenty-five dollars of stock in these three banks. With the exception of the two fiscal years ending on April 30, 1809, and April 50, 1814, additional sub- scriptions were made every year until, on April 30, 1816, the state 1 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1815. 2 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1815. 3 Treas. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1818. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 3 Marca, 1912. 34 The Financial History of Connecticut. owned one hundred forty-six thousand eight hundred dollars of bank stock, all of which was non-transferable, issued by these three banks. The general assembly, by the.same act (passed at the Oc- tober session, 1815) which again allowed the treasurer to invest in United States stock, also authorized him to invest in the bank stock of any banks in the state. Acting in accordance with this provision, the treasurer, during the year ending April 30, 1847, purchased forty-eight thousand three hundred dollars of stock issued by the Hartford, New Haven, Eagle, and Phoenix banks. This stock was purchased, not subscribed, and was, therefore, trans- ferable. By the purchase of this stock, the portion of the principal of the permanent fund invested in bank stock for the first time exceeded the amount of United States stock held by the state. During the next year the state subscribed for fifty-five thousand four hundred dollars more of stock in the three banks to whose capital stock it had previously subscribed and purchased three hundred dollars more of the Eagle Bank stock. Thus on April 10, 1818, the “‘ Permanent Fund,” as the United States stock and the bank stock held by the state were called, stood as follows?: Seven per cent United States Stock, $13,619.00 Six - es as ss it 8,106.56 Deferred six ,, Ee * ss Fe 68,034.00 Three ‘ i ae 55,302.66 Totaliot 7 3 ot $145,062.22 Bank stock subscribed and not transferable, $202,200.00 Bank stock purchased and transferable, 48,600.00 Total Bank Stock, $250,800.00 Balance in the treasury, uninvested, 1,018.59 Grand Tota!, $396,880.81 This fund was recorded in a separate account and the money received from the United States as reimbursements of the principal was not used as revenue, but was considered as capital to be rein- vested. Until 1809 the money thus appropriated for reinvestment was always so used. The money received from the United States on account of the principal -during the year ending April 30, 1809 ($16,932), was appropriated for the purchase of firearms. Further sums were expended from the fund for a similar purpose so that from 1811 to 1816 more than forty-eight thousand five hundred ECE sp: 33. ‘Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1818. Sources of Revenue. 35 dollars additional was drawn from this fund.t. Until 1817 the divi- dends on the bank stock and the interest on the United States stock were included in the current receipts designed to defray the annual expenses of the state. In the years 1817 and 1818, however, the bank dividends were turned into the fund for the purchase of bank stock. The annual income from interest and dividends formed a considerable part of the annual income and no other source except the state tax on the towns made a larger return to the state. Until 1817 the income from the United States stock exceeded the dividends from the bank stock. This was due to the fact that until this time the part of the fund invested in United States stock was greater than the amount invested in bank stock, and not to the fact that the former returned a higher rate of income. From 1801 until 1818 more than two-thirds of the United States stock held by the state was yielding an annual interest of six per cent and the remainder three per cent; but the rate of dividends on the bank stock, from April 30, 1804, to the close of this period, was between seven and eight per cent. For the year ending April 30, 1813, it rose to over nine and a half per cent, but after 1814, owing, no doubt, to the stagnation of business brought about by the war, it fell stead- ily below the average already mentioned. These decreased returns from the bank stock in the last few years lower the average annual income from the permanent fund, after all of it became productive in 1801, by more than a thousand dollars. The average income of the fund from April 30, 1801, to April 30, 1814, was twenty-five thousand nine hundred ten dollars. In the last four years of the first period, however, the average income was only twenty-one thousand sixty-seven dollars. 4. School Fund. Only one more important source of revenue during this period remains to be noticed—the school fund. To understand the origin of this fund, it is necessary to go back to the charter granted in 1662 to the colony of Connecticut by King Charles II of England. This charter defined the limits of Connecticut as follows: From the south line of Massachusetts on the north to Long Island sound on the south, and from the Narragansett river on the east to the Pacific ocean’ on the west, excepting such portions as were then occupied by prior settlers. In 1681, William Penn was granted a charter embracing a considerable portion of the above territory and which 1 Ledger Folio D (Ms.), p. 14. 9c 36 The Financial History of Connecticut. is included in the present state of Pennsylvania. The dispute arising from this fact was not finally settled until November, 1782, when a commission appointed by the two states decided it in favor of Pennsylvania. Connecticut still claimed a strip of land about two and one-third miles wide and two hundred twenty miles long situated west of the Delaware river, south of the imaginary line made by projecting the southern boundary line of Massachusetts, and north of the northern boundary of Pennsylvania as claimed by that state.? It also claimed all lands west of Pennsylvania, as far as the Missis- sippl, which lay between the northern and southern lines set by the charter of 1662. In 1786, Connecticut, following the lead of New York and Virginia, ceded to the United States all of the lands it claimed west of the western boundary of Pennsylvania with the exception of a tract of about thirty-five hundred thousand acres comprising what are now the counties of Ashtabula, Trumbull, Portage, Geauga, Cuyahoga, Medina, Lorain, Huron, and Erie in the state of Ohio.? In 1792 the general assembly granted five hundred thousand acres from this reserved tract to citizens of Danbury, Fairfield, Norwalk, New London and Groton to indemnify them for losses arising from the burning of the towns by the British at the time of Arnold’s raid into Connecticut. The general assembly, at its May session in 1795, appointed a committee to sell the remainder of this land known as the ‘‘Western Reserve.’’ The committee was instructed not to sell unless it should obtain at least one million dollars, specie value, and if there were more than one contract, the contracts must be made together and the purchasers must hold their respective parts in common. The legislature also voted that the principal sum received from the sale of these lands should remain a perpetual fund, and that the interest of this fund should be appropriated to the support of schools in the different school societies. The distribution of this sum was to be based on the list of polls and rateable estate of the different school societies.® Another example of the tendency, even at this period, of the state to maintain a paternal interest in the church is seen in this act relating to the sale of the Western Reserve. The act reserved to the general assembly the right to grant the request of any society which, by a two-thirds vote at a legal meeting called for that purpose only, should resolve to ask from the general assembly the privilege of using, for the support of public worship, the whole 1 Annual Report of American Historical Association, 1898, p. 142. 2 Niles’ Register, vol. 56, p. 344. 3 Conn. Laws, May 1798, p. 482, sec. 3. Sources of Revenue 37 or any portion of its share of the income received from the school fund. If such a request were offered and granted, the money was to be distributed among all the different denominations in the society according to the taxable lists of the respective members. As no such request was ever made, the income of the fund was actu- ally used for the support of schools.* The committee appointed to negotiate for the disposal of these lands reported to the legislature at the October session of the same year (1795) that they had sold the Western Reserve for one million two hundred thousand dollars payable in five years and with interest to begin after two years. The land was bought by thirty-five per- sons, who took thirty-six shares of unequal value, and the holders at once organized into the “Connecticut Land Company.” The committee which made the sale of the land had charge of the fund until 1800. In that year a board of managers, consisting of three members appointed by the legislature and the state treasurer, was created to administer the fund. In May, 1800, the general assembly passed an act providing that the principal of the school fund, as it should from time to time be converted into money, should be invested in bank stock or United States stock.2 A statement of the capital of the school fund as it stood on October 1, 1803, shows a small increase in the original capital of the fund and also that in accordance with the above act United States stock was being purchased. School bonds collaterally secured, $1,021,744.75 Six per cent stock, 14,592.89 Deferred stock, 5,582.40 Three per cent stock, SAO) New lands, value at which received by the state, 194,000.00 $1,240,491.99 By 1810 the original thirty-six bonds resting on personal security had increased to nearly five hundred bonds, most of which were secured by mortgages on real estate. The accounts were in very bad confusion and from the report of the managers of the school fund made in October, 1809, it appeared that a large amount of interest was due, in some instances nearly equal to the principal, and that many of the collateral securities were unsafe. A committee 1 New England States, vol. ii, chap. 63, pp. 701, 702. * Reports of Commissioner of School Fund, 1826, p. 8, and 1835, p. 6. 3 Green’s Register, 1804, pp. 140, 141. 38 The Financial History of Connecticut. appointed to investigate the problem recommendec that the manage- ment of the fund should be intrusted to one person. Accordingly the legislature, at its May session in 1810, appointed James Hill- house, then a member of the United States senate, to be “‘Commis- sioner of the School Fund.’ He immediately resigned his senator- ship and entered upon his new duties. The nominal amount of the fund on October 1, 1811, was $1,332,756.15 but of this sum only $1,201,165.74 was considered actually reliable The work that James Hillhouse did cannot be better described than in the words of the great educator, Henry Barnard. ‘‘ Without a single litigated suit or a dollar paid for counsel, he reduced the disordered manage- ment to an efficient system, disentangled its affairs from loose and embarrassed connections with personal securities and indebted es- tates, and converted its doubtful claims into well secured and solid capital.’’? The following is the statement of the capital as it stood in) April 1319:2 ¢ Connecticut, $579,228 Money loaned on bonds, con- | New York, 568,298 tracts and mortgages to in- | Massachusetts, 271,582 | habitants of Ohio, 47,582 Vermont, 17,445 $1,483,831 4 Cultivated Lands and build- ( Connecticut, $7,618 mgs in : Massachusetts, 59,576 67,194 Wild Lands in { Grae Benes wae Bank Stock (1 bank), 57,600 Total. $1,649,185 In accordance with the terms of the sale of the Western Reserve, interest did not begin to accrue until September 2, 1797, and it was allowed to accumulate until March, 1799, when the first apportion- ment of the fund was made. Until May, 1810, the expense of manag- ing this fund was paid out of the state treasury, leaving the whole 1 Niles’ Register, vol. i (1811), pp. 128, 129. 2 Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1853, p. 146. 3 Report of Commisssioner of School Fund, 1819. 4 A verification of this table shows an error of a little more than three hundred dollars in this total, but the percentage of error is too small to detract from the substantial accuracy of the table as given in the report from which it is taken. Expenditures. 39 income to be distributed for school purposes.! During this period of thirteen years, in which the fund was administered first by the committee which made the sale and after 1800 by the board of managers, the interest divided and paid out to the school societies according to their respective lists of polls and rateable estates was $456,757.44, an average of $35,135.19 a year. In spite of the fact that the ex- penses of managing the fund were paid, after 1810, from the income of the fund, the total amount of dividends distributed by James Hillhouse during the first nine years of his administration was $370,225.63, an average of $41,136.18 per annum. The total amount of money arising from this fund and distributed among the school societies in the state from 1799 to 1819 inclusive, this being the period during which the dividends were apportioned according to the town lists, was over $826,983, or more than two-thirds of the original capital of the fund. E. EXPENDITURES. A Education. In addition to the dividends arising from the school fund, the state paid annually from its treasury to each school society the sum of two dollars on every thousand dollars in the list of the given society. This amount was taken from the taxes paid into the state treasury by the towns and this method was used to in- sure for the schools an expenditure by local school units of an amount equal to at least two dollars on the thousand in their respective lists. Instead of leaving to the towns the collection of this tax, the state added it to the state tax imposed upon the towns and then returned it to the school societies.2, The idea was by no means new. In the Oc- tober session of the legislature in 1700, almost a century earlier, provision was made for a uniform school tax of forty shillings on every thousand pounds in the town lists. The method of collection was similar. as the act provided: “‘ When and so often as the treasurer sends forth his warrants for levying the county rates, he shall also, together with the county rate, assess the inhabitants of the several towns in this colony, the said sum of forty shillings upon every thousand pounds, and proportionably for lesser sums in their county Public Schools 1 Report (p. 19) of committee to whom was referred that part of His Excellency’s Speech which relates to the School Fund 1819. (Bound with Reports of Commissioner School Fund, etc., 1819). * Conn. Laws (Revision of 1795), p. 372, sec. 5. 40 The Financial History of Connecticut. lists, adding the same to their respective proportions of the county rate, and requiring the constables to levy the said assessments upon the inhabitants of each town within their several precincts.”’+ In 1711 the general assembly resolved that “‘upon consideration of the great backwardness and neglect among the people of this colony in paying the forty shillings upon every thousand pounds in the lists of estates allowed by law for the supporting and keeping of schools,” jit be ordered and enacted that] “the said sum of forty shillings (recovered and to be recovered as county pay) upon the thousand pounds, and at that rate upon the lists of estates of the several towns, villages, and places within this colony, shall be paid by the treasurer out of the public treasury of this colony, to the committee for the schools respectively, or their order, for the support of the schools in the said towns, villages, and places... ’’? In these two laws are seen the principles which are incorporated in the act of 1800—the state appropriating a designated sum which it is to receive back in the way of increased taxation. The rate of this tax was changed several times until in May, 1767, it was fixed again at “forty shillings on the thousand pounds.” It thus continued until by the act of 1800 its equivalent of two dollars on the thou- sand dollars was substituted. The total amount of these annual state appropriations for the support of schools during this entire period (1789-1818), exclusive of the year 1805—1806,* was $344,247.70. This is an average of $12,294.56 a year. By adding the dividends from the school fund (from 1799, when the first dividend was distributed, to 1818, inclusive), which were also appropriated for schools, the total sum, with the ex- ception already noted, spent for educational purposes by the state in this first period is found to be $1,113,210.15. Taking into account only the part of this period during which both the dividends from theschool fund and the annual appropriations were received by the school societies (1799-1818), the average annual sum of about fifty-one thousand three hundred sixty-four dollars was devoted by the state to the cause of education.* 1 Report Supt. of Common Schools, 1853, pp. 44, 45. 2 Report Supt. of Common Schools, 1853, p. 46. 3 The exact amount spent for schools by the state for the year ending April 30, 1806, could not be ascertained because the comptroller’s semi- annual report of October 1805 is missing. 4 In computing this average, the average annual appropriation of $12,294.56 has been substituted for the missing figures of 1806. Expenditures. 41 In addition to this annual expenditure for the common schools, the state, at different times during this period, made provision for the aid of its one higher institute of learning, Yale College. Mention has been made of back taxes and excise and impost duties, due to the state on November 1, 1789, which con- stituted the fund set aside for payments on thestate debt. The amount of paper taxes exclusive of abatements and the amount of excise bonds still due the state on April 30, 1792, together equalled £19,506 Qs. O!/,d.2 The assumption of the state debts by the United States being assured, James Hillhouse, at that time the treasurer of Yale College, reminded the general assembly that these taxes were no longer needed to pay state creditors as originally intended, and sug- gested that they be appropriated for the benefit of the college.* Because such a grant necessitated no additional taxation, little opposition was made to this commendable proposition. At its May session, 1792, the general assembly appointed three commissioners to receive the unpaid balances of all the taxes which had been levied for the discharge of the principal and interest of the public debt and also all other balances due the state in any public paper of the state. These balances were appropriated to Yale College, the act stipulating that twenty-five hundred pounds of the amount received should be used for the erection of a building and that the remainder should constitute a fund whose income should be used for the support of professors. This appropriation was made on two conditions: first, that the governor, lieutenant governor, and the six senior assistants in the council of the state, for the time being, should ex- officio be fellows of the college; and second, that the president and fellows of the college should agree to transfer to the state in some form of United States stock an amount equal to fifty per cent of the sum received from these balances.* These conditions were accepted, but the college authorities, soon feeling the need of more money, petitioned the assembly at its May session, 1796, to release them from the payment of the fifty per cent of the receipts from the balances. The legislature in compliance with this request con- sented to relinquish the state’s claim to this fifty per cent, if the college corporation, within thirty days of the rising of the assembly, would transfer to the state $13,726.39 in deferred stock of the United Yale College SCE pp. 12, 13. * Comptroller’s Report (Ms.), May 1792, p. 1. 3 Report Supt. of Com. Schools, 1853, p. 138. * Conn. Laws (Revision of 1808), title 178, chap. 1, sec. 2, 3. 42 The Financial History of Connecticut. States.1 This condition was complied with and thus is explained the previously mentioned? transfer of this stock to the state by the president and fellows of Yale College referred to in the discussion of the stock owned by the state. The total amount received from these balances from the passage of the act in 1792 until April 30, 1796, was £17,451 15s. 4d.,3 which was equivalent to $58,172.56. Subtracting from this amount the sum of $13,726.39, which the college transferred to the state in United States stock, the net amount realized by the college from these two acts is shown to be $44,446.27. The state again aided the college in 1814. In that year the general assembly appointed a committee to provide a building for a medical college and land for a botanical garden, and appropriated for this purpose twenty thousand dollars, to be taken from the fifty thousand dollar bonus paid to the state by the Phoenix Bank.* The committee received from the state treasurer a part of this sum in cash and the remainder in the stock of the Phoenix Bank. The committee made for the college a profit of four hundred sixty-four dollars by selling part of the bank stock and received in dividends from the stock the sum of $591.60, thus raising the funds for the institution to $21,055.60. Of this amount $15,249.09 was expended in instituting the medical college, leaving a surplus of $5,806.51 in Phoenix Bank stock. This stock, the medical college, the botanical garden, and all the other property procured for Yale College, was turned over, in 1816, to its president and fellows.° The last grant which the state made during this period to Yale ~ was made at the October session in 1816, when the general assembly appropriated for the use of the college one-seventh of the balance due from the United States in payment for advances made by the state, in the war of 1812, for the public defense. During the fiscal years of 1817 and 1818, the college received $8,785.71 from this source. Thus in this period the college received at the hands of the state over seventy thousand dollars, although in every case the grant was made in such a way as not to directly burden the people nor lessen appropriations for general current expenditures. 1 Conn. Laws (Revision of 1808), title 178, chap. 2. 25 Ci. pps 29, +30. 3 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1796. +(Ci ip: 29: 5 Report (Ms.) of Trustees of Medical Institution, Oct. 1816. Expenditures. 43 2. Public Buildings. During the first period no separate account of expenditures on public buildings was kept, but expenses incurred for this purpose were either entered under the account of “‘Contingent Ex- penses”’ or recorded by making a special entry for each parti- cular project. The building which absorbed nearly all the money spent by the state in the construction of buildings was the state house at Hartford. The history of the building of this state house is exceptionally interesting. Toward the erection of a state house in Hartford, fifteen hundred pounds (equivalent to five thou- sand dollars) was voted at the May, 1792, session of the legislature, on condition that the citizens of the city, town, and county of Hart- ford would contribute an equal sum, and for its construction a build- ing committee was appointed by the general assembly. More than thirty-six hundred dollars was subscribed by citizens, the city gave thirty-five hundred dollars and the county fifteen hundred dollars; but the building committee, seeing that more funds were needed to complete the building, applied to the assembly of May, 1793, for the right to hold a lottery to raise more money. The request was granted and the committee organized the lottery, known as the “Hartford State House Lottery,” under the following plan. Twenty- six thousand six hundred sixty-seven tickets at five dollars each were to be issued. The total selling value of these tickets was thus one hundred thirty-three thousand three hundred thirty-five dollars. Seven-eighths of this amount was to be awarded in eight thousand eight hundred ninety prizes varying in value from ten dollars to eight thousand dollars. The drawing was not to begin until three- quarters of the tickets had been sold and not until March 1795, did it finally begin. The lottery was not conspicuously successful. The money already raised for the erection of the state house had been exhausted. The building was at a standstill1 To determine what should be done was a difficult proposition. To understand how the problem was settled, reference must be made again to the western lands claimed by the state on the basis of the charter granted by King Charles II in 1662.2. A part of the land included in the limits of the colony by this charter was a strip of land west of the Delaware river, south of the imaginary line formed by the extension of the southern boundary of Massachusetts, State House 1 The Connecticut Gore Land Company by Albert C. Bates in Annual Report American Historical Association, 1898, pp. 141, 142. Cr p.. 35. 44 The Financial History of Connecticut. and north of the northern boundary of Pennsylvania as claimed by that state. This land, known as “The Gore,’ was about two hundred twenty miles long and two and one-third miles wide and its ownership was in dispute. About forty miles of the eastern end was claimed by New York and another forty miles was claimed by Phelps and Gorham, to whom it had been sold by Massachusetts.1 With an eye for speculation, two men, Colonel Jeremiah Halsey and General Andrew Ward, had made to the general assembly, in May, 1794, the proposition that if the state would deed to them its claim to this strip, they would sell it and return to the state one-half of the net proceeds.2 This proposition being refused, they came forward at the October session with another proposition. In this they stated that if Connecticut would transfer to them its claim to this land, they would contend in the courts for the legal title and that upon the establishment of their claim they would return to the state either three thousand pounds in Connecticut state notes or one-half of the land. This proposition was carried over to the May session of 1795, and then Halsey and Ward, who were persistent in their efforts to gain control of this territory, and who were fearing another refusal, came forward with the proposition that in return for Connecticut’s claim to this land, they would finish the building of the state house, according to the original plans, within two years. Here was a solution of the state house dilemma. The offer proved to be too strong for the general assembly to resist. They granted to Halsey and Ward all claims to any land lying east of the projection of Pennsylvania which extends northward to Lake Erie. The general assembly also allowed them any materials which the building committee had already provided and also the net avails of the lottery held by the same committee.4 The story would be interesting if it ended here, but further events were to happen to make it of still greater interest. Attention has already been called to the sale of the “Western Reserve” in Sep- tember, 1795, to the Connecticut Land Company. Although by this sale the state gave up her territorial mghts, the jurisdiction 1 The Connecticut Gore Land Company by Albert C. Bates in Annual Report American Historical Association, 1898, p. 143. * The Rise, Progress and Effect of the Claim of the Proprietors of the Connecticut Gore, p. 8. Hudson & Goodwin, Hartford, 1802. 3 Report (Ms.) made to the general assembly October, 1801, by a com- mittee appointed to inquire into the claims of the Connecticut Gore Land Company, pp. 7, 8. * Act (Ms.) of May 1795, warranting sale of the Gore to Ward and Halsey. - Expenditures. AD of this land was still retained by Connecticut. This region was several hundred miles away from Connecticut and its great distance made it difficult for the state to maintain law and order there. For that reason, the settlers on this land desired that the jurisdiction be transferred from the state to the United States. Accordingly, at the October session of 1797, the general assembly authorized the Connecticut senators in congress to endeavor to effect a transfer of jurisdiction.t Congress, however, was slow in accepting such a transfer and Connecticut did not gain her point until April, 1800. Congress then voted that if within eight months Connecticut should “by a legislative act renounce forever, for the use and benefit of the United States and the several individual states who may be therein concerned respectively and all those deriving claims or titles from them or any of them,” all jurisdictional and territorial right to all lands west of the present east bounds of New York, the United States would cede to Connecticut the ¢erritorial right to the Western Reserve.2, Two things are to be noticed in this act. In the first place, the United States agreed to cede to Connecticut the “terri- torial”’ right to the Western Reserve instead of accepting from Connecticut the jurisdiction over this territory. Congress had never directly allowed Connecticut’s claim to this land and Connecticut’s territorial and jurisdictional rights were based on the same claim. By this act the United States agreed to cede the territorial right and indirectly implied that the nation retained the jurisdiction which, in the opinion of the federal government, Connecticut did not really have to transfer. The second important point to notice is that in order to receive the benefit of this act Connecticut must renounce all claims, both territorial and jurisdictional, to all lands west of the eastern boundary of New York. This covered the land which the state had ceded to Halsey and Ward in return for the erection of the state house. Again the Connecticut leg’slature had a difficult problem to solve. The state had sold the Western Reserve for one million two hundred thousand dollars, payable in the fall of 1800, and was already drawing interest on the principal. Its title to the land had been disputed and if, by any chance its claim should be overthrown, the above sum could not be collected as a permanent school fund and the state might be compelled to return the interest money already received. Congress now offered to give Connecticut an indisputable title to this land, but on condition 1 Private Acts, vol. v, p. 783. 2 Acts of Congress, 6 congress, 1 session, chap. 38. 46 The Financial History of Connecticut. that the state give up her claim to “The Gore,” for which she had already been paid. The opportunity to make sure of the one million two hundred thousand dollars was too good to be neglected, however, and the assembly, at the May session of 1800, accepted the condition imposed by congress! and thus renounced all claim to “The Gore” in favor of the United States and the individual states concerned. In this case, the only state concerned was New York. This act on the part of the Connecticut legislature wrecked the Gore company which Halsey and Ward had organized. This com- pany had completed the erection of the state house at a cost of be- tween fifteen and twenty-five thousand dollars, had carried on suits, and made many other expenditures necessary to establish their claims. Consequently the shares of the company had cost their present holders about three hundred thousand dollars. This act, at one blow, made valueless the work and expense of this company. In the May session of 1801, the company asked relief from the general assembly and in vain continued to seek redress, until finally, in May, 1805, the legislature granted to the Gore company forty thou- sand dollars, payable in four annual instalments of ten thousand dollars.2, Thus the ultimate amount paid by the state for the erection of the state house exceeded forty-five thousand dollars. The only other expense incurred for the erection of buildings by the state during this period was a sum of four thousand one hundred fifty-five dollars for the erection of an arsenal during the fiscal paenatl years of 1814 and 1815. Repairs and alterations on the Hartford and New Haven state houses cost three thousand eight hundred forty-two dollars more, making a total expenditure by the state, on public buildings, of not quite fifty-four thousand five hundred dollars. The figures just stated do not include any money spent on build- ings connected with Newgate, the state prison. Appropriations for this purpose are included under the expenses of the prison. Newgate was the remains of an old mine and was first used as a prison on December 22, 1773. From 1782 until 1790 it was not in use, but in 1790 the general assembly established it State Prison 1 United States Laws, vol. i, 1789—1815, pp. 485, 486. Report (Ms.) made to the general assembly October 1801, by a committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the Connecticut Gore Land Company, p. 15. An enquiry concerning the grant of the legislature of Connecticut to Andrew Ward and Jeremiah Halsey, p. 8. P. Canfield, Hartford, 1829. 2 An enquiry concerning the grant of the legislature of Connecticut to Andrew Ward and Jeremiah Halsey, p. 23. P. Canfield, Hartford, 1829. Expenditures. 47 as a permanent prison. Three overseers, a keeper and a guard of ten men, increased to seventeen in 1802, were appointed and two brick buildings were erected. A twelve-foot stone wall was built around the grounds in 1802, and in 1815 two more buildings were constructed.t The total expense of the prison to the state treasury from 1790 to 1818 (exclusive of year ending April 30, 1806?) was one hundred nineteen thousand eight hundred four dollars, which is an average annual expenditure of $4,437.18. 3. Judicial Expenses. The expenses included under this heading are the costs of trans- porting convicts to the state prison, the payment of sums necessary to balance the accounts of the county courts and the amounts drawn from the treasury by the clerks of the superior and county courts. The entire amount expended during this period, exclusive of the year ending in 1806 (the comptroller’s report for October, 1805, is missing), was one hundred eighty-seven thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars. 4. State Paupers. The law under which the state incurred expense for paupers during this period was passed by the assembly at its autumn session in 1789.3 Very few modifications of that law were made afte1 its pas- sage. It provided that every town should be responsible for the support of its inhab‘tants who needed relief and this responsibility applied even to inhabitants who lived in other towns within the state. The term “inhabitants”’ was not used in its ordinary sense, but was applied in a legal and technical sense to persons who had gained a settlement. This law stated the following conaitions upon which persons could gain a settlement. I. An alien could gain a settlement in any one of three ways: (4) by vote of the citizens of the town; (2) by consent of the select- men; (3) by receiving an appointment to some public office. II. An inhabitant of any state in the United States outside of Connecticut could gain a settlement in any one of these three ways or (4) by owning real estate worth three hundred thirty-four dollars. III. An inhabitant of any town in Connecticut could gain a settle- ment in any one of the three ways first mentioned or (4) by owning real estate within the town worth one hundred dollars. 1 New England Mag., vol. v, pp. 432, 433. 2 Compt. report for Oct. 1805 is missing. 3 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1789, pp. 383—385. 48 The Financial History of Connecticut. In 1792 an additional way was opened to the third of the above classes. If a person of this class lived in a town six years without becoming a pauper. he thereby gained a settlement; but a town was given the right to send such a person back to the town from which he came at any time before the six years were past, provided he seemed liable to become a pauper. The law of 1789 provided that in case a person not an inhabitant of any town in the state became a pauper, the state should under certain conditions provide for his maintenance for a limited time. If within two weeks of his arrival in a town, he became a charge and the person to whom he became an expense notified the select- men, the state was to pay for his support for a period of three months from the day on which he came to the town, provided the town within the same three months warned him to leave. In case the per- son was unable to leave or to be removed within these three months, because of some sickness or infirmity which developed within this period, the state assumed the burden of supporting Lim until he could be removed. After that time the town became responsible for his support. Every town was authorized, however, to trans- port, at its own expense, to the states from which they came, the inhabitants of other states who became a charge on its hands. Under this law it was impossible for any of the third class to become state paupers. Persons of the first two classes could become state paupers, but as a rule would not be supported by the state for a longer period than three months. The towns could avoid the support of an in- habitant of another state by removing him to that state, but the only way to escape the burden of supporting an alien who became a pauper was to order him within three months to leave the town. At first the state was not called upon to expend much for the support of paupers. From April 1, 1789, until Apml 30, 1803, the total expense to the state for paupers was thirty-one thousand five hundred fifty-nine dollars, an annual average of two thousand two hundred fifty-four dollars. From this time the expense steadily rose. The very next year it reached the five thousand dollar point; and for the year ending April 30, 1817, the cost had increased to over fifteen thousand dollars. The total amount spent from May 1, 1803, until April 9, 1818 (exclusive of the year ending April 30, 1806?) was one hundred fifty-one thousand five hundred dollars. This is an average of ten thousand eight hundred twenty-one dollars 1 Conn. Laws, May 1792, p. 412. 2 Compt. Report, Oct. 1805, is missing. | = ‘Expenditures. 49 per year for the fourteen years—more than four times as much as that for the preceding fourteen years. This increased expenditure finally caused the legislature to investigate and a committee appoint- ed for this purpose made a report at the May session in 1812. This committee gave four causes for the increase: (1) increased immi- gration from Europe; (2) vigilance on the part of the neighboring states in removing the idle and worthless; (3) lack of this vigilance on the part of Connecticut; (4) defects in the laws. They pointed out that most of the states authorized their towns or counties to remove from the state foreigners who were likely to become paupers and that Connecticut had become a dumping ground for these states.! Nothing, however, was done which diminished the expense; and in 1816 the comptroller’s report to the legislature at the fall session called its attention to the subject. The report contained the state- ment that the towns charged the state for the support of state paupers more than they expended for the support of their own poor. It also stated that frequently two dollars and a half to three dollars a week was charged for board, exclusive of any allowance for clothing or doctors’ fees. The town authorities met the requirements of the law, the report said, by swearing that these charges were just and thus secured their payment by the state. According to the report, the expense for doctors to care for the state paupers constituted approximately an eighth of the total expense for paupers and many towns employed a physician, at a yearly salary, to attend to all of the town poor, but paid him the customary fee for each visit and for medicines whenever he attended a state pauper.2. Thus we see that the expense to the state for the support of paupers was considerably greater than was necessary. It remained for the Republicans, as will be seen in the next chapter, to alter this condition of affairs.* 5. Humane Institutions. At this period of the country’s history there were very few insti- tutions of any kind for the relief of suffering and the education of those who were physically handicapped. Connecticut has the honor of being the first state in this country to charter an asylum for the deaf and dumb. In 1816 the general assembly chartered “The Connecticut Asylum for the Education of Deaf and Dumb Persons” 1 Report of Committee de Paupers (Ms.) to the General Assembly, May session,- 1812, pp. 1—3. 2 Compt. Report (Ms.), Oct. 1816. EaCk. sp: 84. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 4 Marcu, 1912, 50 The Financial History of Connecticut. — and the institution was opened in Hartford on April 15, 1817.1 The legislature made a grant of five thousand dollars to this asylum in its opening year. During this entire period no other state appro- priation to a charitable institution was made. 6. Salaries, Under the system of accounting used by the state financial officers at this time, an account was kept called “Salaries.” Under this head, however, only the salaries of the executive officers and the judges of the superior court were included. In treating this sub- ject we shall state the salaries of the most important state officials. The governor’s salary from 1790 until 1814, with the exception of the three years ending April 30, 1798, when it was about a third higher, was one thousand dollars a year. For the year ending April 30, 1815, it was twelve hundred fifty dollars and from this date to the close of this period it was twelve hundred dollars a year. The salary of the lieutenant governor from 1790 until April 30, 1795, was three hundred dollars a year. It varied slightly for the next three years, being about four hundred dollars. For the years May 1, 1798, until April 30, 1810, it varied but a few cents from three hundred thirty-four dollars a year. It was then raised to six hundred dollars and remained at this figure until the year commencing May 1, 1814, when it was raised to eight hundred fifty dollars. The follow- ing year it was again raised and became nine hundred dollars. This continued to be the salary of the lieutenant governor for the remaining years of the period. The treasurer and the comptroller received the same salary until the year ending April 30, 1815. At first they received six hundred sixty-six and two-thirds dollars a year. For the three years ending April 30, 1798, their salary was eight hundred eighty-eight dollars and eighty-nine cents. The next year it fell over two hundred dollars and was raised in each of the two following years, so that for the year ending April 30, 1801, it was slightly more than eight hundred thirty-three dollars. This continued to be the salary of the treasurer for the rest of the period. The comptroller also received this salary until it was raised to one thousand dollars in 1815. The secretary of state received most of his compensation in fees, his salary varying from sixty-six and two-thirds dollars received for each of the first five years of the period to eighty-eight dollars and ninety cents a year during the three years ending April 30, 1798. 1 Conn. Quarterly, vol. ix, pp. 596—601. Expenditures. a Commencing with the year that closed April 30, 1806, it remained at eighty-four dollars throughout the period. The commissioner of the school fund was not appointed until 1810. At first his salary was one thousand dollars, but in October, 1812, ‘the assembly established an additional salary of five hundred dollars. This salary was paid out of the income of the school fund. After this increase was given to him, the commissioner of the school fund was the highest salaried state official of this p riod. The salary of the chief judge of the superior court was seven hundred fifty dollars a year! until in May, 1798,” the legislature in- creased it to one thousand dollars. The associate judges, at first received six hundred sixty-seven dollars, but their salaries were also raised by this act and thereafter they received nine hundred dollars.” ) The chief judge of the supreme court of errors received two dollars and a half a day and the other judges of this court were allowed two dollars for each day of actual attendance. The salaries of the general assembly will be treated under the next head. 7. The General Assembly. The expenses of the general assembly, including the salaries of its members, increased from £2895 19s. (equivalent to $9,653.67) for the year ending March 31, 1790, to fifteen thousand four hundred fifty-eight dollars for the year ending April 30, 1800. A considerable part of this increase was due to the increase in the salaries of the members of the general assembly. The assembly at its October session in 1795 raised the pay of the assistants from one dollar and a half to two dollars a day and that of the representatives from one dollar a day to $1.34. The allowance of mileage at the rate of nine cents a mile, which the members received under the first act, was not granted under the second. It was restored by the assembly in May, 1802.4 From May 14, 1800, until April 30, 1814 (exclusive of year ending April 30, 1806°), the expenses of the assembly averaged seventeen thousand five hundred twenty-four dollars. In its session in May, 1814, the legislature voted that beginning with that session the salaries of the assistants should be raised to three dollars a day 4 Conn. Laws, May 1787, p. 352. 2 Conn. Laws, May 1798, p. 488. 3 Conn.: Laws, Oct. 1795, p. 181. * Conn. Laws, May 1802, p. 590. ° The comptroller’s Oct. 1805 report is missing 52 The Financal History of Connecticut. and those of therepresentatives to twodollars a day.! This raise in the salaries and an extra session called in January, 1815, increased the expenses for the year ending April 30, 1815, and the average annual expenditure of the assembly for the last four years of this period (May 1, 1814, to April 10, 1818) was twenty-nine thousand twenty-- two dollars. 8. Military Expenses. After the close of the revolutionary period and before the war clouds of the second conflict with Great Britain began to lower, the military expenses of Connecticut were so small as to be negligible. The few that were incurred were entered under “Contingent Ex- penses.’’ In the comptroller’s report of May, 1808, the account of ‘““Advances to Quartermaster General” appears for the first time. Only two hundred twenty-five dollars was advanced for the two years ending April 30, 1809, but in that year the general assembly began to vote to increase the fortifications of the state in order to be better prepared for war. As a consequence, the military ex- penditures for the two years ending April 30, 1811, amounted to seventy-five hundred dollars. During the next year the probability that the United States would declare war against Great Britain be- came stronger continually and the state expended ten thousand seven hundred nine dollars in strengthening her military equipment. War was actually declared in June, 1812. At the October session of the assembly in 1814 a bounty of twenty-five dollars was voted to every person who should enlist in the state forces during the war and every person who enlisted for a term of three years was to re- ceive ten dollars additional bounty.2, Two new accounts were opened because of the war, one with the paymaster general in 1813, and one with the commissary general in 1814. The total military ex- penses for the four years ending in 1816 were as follows: For the year ending April 30, 1813, $32,353. ” ”) ” ” ” ” 1814, 44,775. ”? ”» ” ”) ” ” 1815, 147,803. ” ” ” ” ” ” 1816, 14,228. During the next year the reduction was very great and the total military expense for the remaining two years of the period was only two thousand two hundred sixty-seven dollars. In computing the cost of the war to the state, the amounts divert- ed or taken from the funds appropriated to the purchase of bank 1 Public Statute Laws, May 1814, chap. 5, p. 154. 2 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1814, chap. 4. Expenditures. 53 stock and applied to the purchase of munitions of war should be included. The amount actually taken from this fund from July 1, 1811, to April 16, 1816, was forty-eight thousand five hundred three dollars.1 To this sum may be added the reimbursements on the United States debt in the year ending April 30, 1809, amounting to sixteen thousand nine hundred thirty-two dollars, which were appropriated for the purchase of arms.” This action by the state reduced the permanent fund to this extent. The extraordinary expenditures caused by the war were defrayed, for the greater part, by increasing the state tax on the towns. The rate of the tax payable in February, 1809, was eight mills on the dollar. This rate went up to a cent on the dollar for each of the next three years and was raised to twelve mills for the tax due in February, 1813. It became necessary to increase still further the burden of taxation and a rate of two cents on the dollar was laid for the taxes of February, 1814, and February, 1815. An extra tax, payable June 1, 1815, was also levied. A comparison of the total amount of the state tax for this four-year period (May 1, 1812—April 30, 1816) with the total for the two years immediately preceding and the two years immediately succeeding the given period will give the best estimate of how much the state tax was really increased during the war. The total amount of the tax for the former four- year period was four hundred ninety-six thousand one hundred thirty-nine dollars; the total amount of the tax for the latter four years was two hundred twenty-six thousand three hundred forty- five dollars. The difference between these two totals ($269,794) represents roughly the increased taxation. The total military expenditures during these same four years (1812—1816), exclusive of those paid from the permanent fund, were two hundred thirty- nine thousand one hundred fifty-nine dollars. This comparison of figures clearly shows that the increased expenditures brought about by the war were met chiefly by increasing the state tax on the towns. 9. Grants to Religious Societies, etc. The state thus succeeded in financing this war without incurring a public debt. Hence when it received from the United States during the fiscal years ending April 30, 1817, and April 10, 1818, the sum of fifty-four hundred dollars in payment of war claims and six hundred fifteen dollars in return for the services of the Connecticut troops er. pp. 34, 35. Se Of. p. 34. 54 The Financial History of Connecticut. and for supplies which the state had furnished during the war, a question arose as to the disposition of the same. The act which authorized the state officials to receive the balance due the state from the United States also provided for its distribution.1 This act is so interesting that it is worth giving in some detail. In section three the state treasurer was authorized to transfer one-third for the use of the Congregational or Presbyterian societies. He was directed to distribute this sum in proportion to the several lists of these societies. (By an act of May, 1817, these societies were directed to make out their lists and send them to the state treasurer by October 1, 1817, if they wished to receive any of this money. The treasurer was ordered not to distribute any of the money appro- priated to these societies until after the rising of the assembly at- its October session, 1817).? By the fourth section one-seventh of the total amount was appro- priated for the use of the Episcopalians. The trustees who received contributions for the support of a bishop were authorized to receive the appropriation for the benefit of the fund. Section five gave to the Baptists one-eighth of the total sum and a board of ten men was appointed to receive this amount and to distribute it to the several Baptist societies according to their respec- tive lists or in any other way that the board approved. In behalf of the Methodist societies section six appointed seven trustees to recelve one-twelfth of the given sum under the same directions as were given the board for the Baptists. A sum equal to one-seventh of said balance was appropriated to Yale College.® The remainder, not quite one-sixth, was left unappropriated in the treasury. Under the operation of this act the Episcopalians received for their bishop’s fund, $8,785.71. Yale received the same amount. The Methodists received five thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars, the Baptists $7,687.504 and the share of the Congrega- 1 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1816, chap. 13. 2 Public Statute Laws, May 1817, chap. 2, p. 282. SO fonp. 42: 4 The Baptists did not at once avail themselves of their grant and the — assembly, at its May session in 1820, authorized the trustees appointed to distribute the Baptist grant to pay any sums refused by any of the Baptist societies to the Baptist Educational Society for a permanent fund.* As a result of this additional legislation the appropriation to the Baptists was finally paid during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1821. * Public Statute Laws, May 1820, chap. 25, p. 407. eR ee Expenditures. 55 tionalists and Presbyterians was twenty thousand five hundred dollars.t Being the last of its kind in Connecticut, this act is of more than passing interest. That the Congregational denomination was still the state denomination is shown by the fact that the state treasurer held the appropriation and distributed it directly to the several societies, but its days as such were nearing a close. The voting of grants to religious societies by the state also ceased with this act and church and state have become entirely distinct. This act is one of the-last deeds accomplished by the Federalist party in Connecticut. The opposition, called the “ Toleration Party,”’ was rapidly overcoming the federalists and the charge made that this was a political move on the part of the federalists to stave off defeat seems quite probable. 10. Bounties and Other Encouragements. At its May session in 1784 the general assembly voted that a bounty of three pounds—equivalent to ten dollars—should be given every inhabitant of the state who killed a full grown wolf within the limits of any town in the state. A similar bounty one- half as large was offered for every wolf's whelp thus killed.2- Evidently Connecticut soon became too thickly settled for the acquirement of large personal gain from this bounty; for after the state had joined the Union this bounty was awarded in three years only—1790, 1792 and 1795—and the total amount of the bounties paid was only fifteen pounds, or fifty dollars. At the same session of the legislature an act to encourage the silk industry was passed. This act provided for the payment of two pence for every ounce of silk wound from the cocoons of silk worms raised on mulberry trees in the state and was to apply for ten years beginning July 1, 1784.2 The law, therefore, was in opera- tion at the time when this history begins. The amount paid by the state for silk bounties from April 1, 1789, unt 1 April 30, 1799, was only $950.37. At the May session of 1803 the general assembly passed an act providing for the payment of a bounty of ten dollars a ton for the iciap and raising of hemp. This act also exempted from tax- Flax ation, for the year in which the crop was harvested, all Wolves Silk 1 The amount assigned to the Congregationalists and Presbyterians was not completely distributed until during the fiseal year ending April 10, 1819. 2 Conn. Laws, 1784, p. 282. 3 Idem. rp 56 The Financial History of Connecticut. lands on which hemp or flax was grown. This act was to remain in force for three years, commencing May 1, 1804.1 No payment was made under this act until during the fiscal year ending April 30, 1807. In this year thirty-two dollars was so expended. An act passed at the May session, 1807, renewed the previous act without setting a time limit.2, This second act was not repealed until October. 1813. In the repeal it was specially provided that “‘ nothing herein contained shall affect the right of any person to the bounty on hemp raised prior to the rising of this assembly.’ Payments on this bounty did not wholly cease until 1817. The total amount paid was sixteen hundred fourteen dollars. Assuming that all persons who had claims under this legislation presented them and received the stipulated bounties, the quantity of hemp raised between May 1, 1804, and the rising of the assembly in 1813, a period of a little more than nine and a half years, was 161.4 tons. This is the small average annual yield of about seventeen tons and it proves that the bounty failed to build up a large and thriving hemp-growing industry. No other encouragements of this positive form were given during this period, but a few inducements in the way of exemption from taxation were given. In 1789, the assembly voted to exempt from all taxation for a period of five years from February 1, 1789, the buildings used in the manufacture of woolen cloth by three specified firms. The polls of all persons regularly employed in these three manufactories were exempted for two years from the same date.* Previous reference has been made to the fact that from January 1, 1801, until after the drawing up of the lists in 1813, sheep were deducted, at the rate of seventy-five cents each (no more than twenty sheep to be deducted for any one man after 1810), from the lists of polls and rateable estate belonging to the owner.® Finally, at the May session of 1817, owing to the fact that the woolen and cotton manufactures were hard pressed, the war of 1812 and the Napoleonic wars having ended, the general assembly passed an act exempting from the poll tax and from military duty, for a period of four years, all workmen constantly employed in cotton and woolen manufactories. The act also provided that all buildings and machinery and all land, to the extent of five acres, connected with these establishments, Other En- couragements 1 Conn. Laws, May 1803, p. 629. 2 Conn. Laws, 1807, p. 751. 3 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1813, chap. 11. 4 Conn. Laws, 1789, p. 375. 3 Ch-p...25. o) ~l Summary. were to be exempted from al] assessment for the same length of time.t 11. Abatement and Collection of Taxes. The state treasurer, in accordance with a law passed by the assembly in May, 1785,2 which continued in force throughout this entire period, allowed the towns an abatement of one-eighth of the amount of the state tax imposed upon them. provided the selectmen of the towns certified that this allowance was applied in the remitting of taxes to their own poor. In October of the same year the fees of the collectors of the state tax were set at two cents and a half for every dollar that they collected. Traveling expenses were also allowed.2 The legislature in May, 1806, raised the fees to three cents and a half for every dollar.t From May 1, 1797, until April 9, 1818, the total abatements on the state taxes aJlowed by the treas- urer were one hundred sixty-seven thousand one hundred forty dollars and the total allowed to the collectors for fees and travel was forty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-five dollars. F. SumMMaRY. The state started with a debt of over two million dollars, but on April 10, 1818, its debt was nominal and the state hada permanent fund of about four hundred thousand dollars. This change had been wrought chiefly through the assumption of the greater part of the state debt by the federal government and by the payment to the state of the balance due from the United States. The state had also amassed a permanent school fund of about one million seven hundred thou- sand dollars which came from the sale of its western lands. At the close of this period, the annual yield of this fund was about fifty thousand dollars, and together with the principal was increasing. In the order of importance, the three other principal sources of revenue were the state tax on the towns, the income from the permanent fund and the revenue from duties on writs and from licenses for the retailing of spirits. Outside of the expenses of running the govern- ment—legislative, judicial and executive—the three leading objects of ordinary expense, in the order of importance, were the support of schools, the care of paupers and the state peer (This leaves : Public Statute tates May 1817, chap. 9. 2 Conn. Laws, May 1785, p. 324. 3 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1785, p. 333. * Conn. Laws, May 1806, p. 720. 58 The Financial History of Connecticut. out of consideration the extraordinary military expenditures caused by the war of 1812). The machinery of government, the method of taxation and the objects of expense, are, in general, the same or similar to those which existed under the colonial government. SECOND PERIOD. 1818-1846. PERIOD OF SLOW DEVELOPMENT. A. ELEMENTS OF DISCONTENT. This period is opened with the adoption of a written constitution. Until this time the only constitution which the state had was the Denise charter granted by King Charles I of England. Written The legislature. in its October session of 1776, Constitution after the states had declared themselves to be in- dependent of English rule, declared that this charter should remain in force without the superior authority of any king.t This decla- ration by the assembly was subject to alteration or repeal by mere legislative action and did not give the state a constitution in the sense that is generally understood in this country. From the beginning of the century there was an agitation for a written constitution, but the dominant party, the federalists, were against such action. Another element of discontent consisted of those who wished entire separation of state and church. This feeling gave rise to the Demand for name “Toleration Party,” generally used in the state Religious for this party which was opposed to the federalists. Lien Under the laws of the state, persons were liable to taxation, by the ecclesiastical societies, for the support of the Con- gregational ministry. Provision, however, was made that dissenters— those who belonged to any denomination other than the Congre- gational—should be exempted from this tax upon depositing with the town clerk a certificate of such membership, but they were sub- ject to a similar tax for the support of their own ministry. Those who held no religious belief, or who were not church members, were not benefited by this act. Such persons were obliged to help support the ministry of the Congregational societies. The dissenters com- plained that on slight legal pretexts the authorities would refuse to accept the certificates of membership in dissenting denominations.? The toleration party held that the support of the ministry should 1 Conn. Laws, Oct. 1776, p. 431. 2 Johnston’s Connecticut, p. 347. Republican Administration. 59 be optional and that if a person were not a church member he should not be compelled to contribute to the support of any church. The grants made to Yale College were criticised on the ground that it was a Congregational institution and that the state did not thus aid any other denominational institution.1 That this feeling was strong is evidenced by the last great political effort on the part of the fed- eralist party in the act (referred to in the last chapter) which they passed in the October session of the assembly in 1816 making grants to the various denominations.” A still further cause for complaint was found in the system of taxation. This system, good as regards the equality of valuation Demand for Of property, became unjust as soon as differences Change in in wealth began to appear. It was based upon the Eoranon utterly false proposition that all property of the same kind was of about the same value. Then, too, no provision was made for the taxation of the accumulating wealth, of which the evidences, such as government stock and the stock of various kinds of cor- porations, were at this time numerous. At the time this system of taxation was formulated, very little stock existed, commerce such as grew during the Napoleonic wars was yet to help create inequali- ties of wealth, and manufacturing was in its infancy. Hence no great injustice had been felt by the people, because the standard of living for all was about the same. By the time of the War of 1812, condi- tions had changed sufficiently to cause a feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing tax system. B. RepusLican ADMINISTRATION. 1. New Constitution. This overthrow of the federalists was finally accomplished by these elements of discontent. In 1817 the Toleration or “‘old” Re- publican party elected Oliver Wolcott governor and in the May session of 1818 had for the first time a ma- jority in both houses of the legislature. Immediately, in pursuance of their program, they passed an act providing for a constitutional convention and the result was the adoption (Sep- tember 15, 1818) of the constitution under which, as amended from time to time, Connecticut has been governed until the present day. Constitutional Convention * Johnston’s Connecticut, p. 347. 2 Cf. p. 54. 60 The Financial History of Connecticut. The framers of this constitution thought it unnecessary to change the governmental machinery. The legislative body, the general as- sembly, was to consist of two housesas before. The lower house was to be called the House of Representatives and the upper house the Senate. The number of represen- tatives allowed each town was not changed, but provision was made that no new town which might be incorporated should send more than one representative. The upper house, as in the past, was to consist of twelve members elected by the people at large.2 There was, however, to be but one regular session annually instead of two sessions as hitherto.2 The treasurer and comptroller of public accounts remained the principal financial officers of the government with unchanged duties and powers. The governor was entrusted with the execution of the laws, but was still given no real power in legislation as his veto could be overruled by a majority vote of the same assembly that originally passed the bill. The constitution put all religious denominations on an equality and empowered each to tax its own members for the support of the ministry, but obliged no person to be a member of an ecclesiastical society. As societies could tax only their own members, persons who were not members of a society were not tompelled to pay a tax for its support.* Only one important financial measure in the constitution remains to be mentioned. The school fund was made a permanent fund, the income of which should be used solely for the support of the public schools.® It is true that when the fund was created the general assembly voted that it should be a per- manent fund for this purpose,® but sucha vote could be repealed at any time. By incorporating this provision in the constitution, the fund was made much more secure as no change could be made without overcoming all the difficulties attending an attempt to amend the constitution. System of Government Religious Freedom School Fund 2. Changes in Grand List. After framing the constitution and entirely separating church and state, the republican party was free to grapple with the taxation system. Some idea of the policy of the re- 1 Conn. Constitution, article ii, sec. 1. 2 Conn. Constitution, article iii, sec. 3, 4. 3 Conn. Constitution, article ii, sec. 2. 4 Conn. Constitution, article vii, sec. 1, 2. 5 Conn. Constitution, article viii, sec. 2. 6 Ch. post: Republican Administration. 61 Wolcott’s message to the general assembly at its May session, 1817. In this message he said that the system of taxation was ancient and had ceased to be adapted to the circumstances of the people. He expressed his belief that the effects of the system were “far more injurious than generally supposed’’! and to prove his point he gave several illustrations showing the operation of the system. He pointed out that the polls were listed at a sum—sixty dollars—equal to twenty-five acres of the best meadow land in Hartford or Middlesex counties or to forty-eight acres of the best meadow land elsewhere. A first-class new brick or stone house containing twelve fireplaces would be listed at no higher figure. Governor Wolcott attacked the tax on fireplaces severely, showing that the number of fireplaces in a house was no index of the wealth of its owner. Two or three fireplaces were necessary for every family because of the climate and as the condition of a house—whether new or in need of repair— was not taken into consideration “‘it must frequently happen that the cottage of a man in very moderate circumstances will be subject to a higher assessment than the ancient, but comfortable mansion of his opulent neighbor.’’? Other examples of the injustice of the system are easily found. Under it a horse worth forty dollars, was assessed as much as a horse worth two hundred dollars, an acre of plow-land worth twenty dollars was assessed as much as an acre worth eighty dollars, a ten- dollar watch was assessed as much as a watch worth two hundred dollars, an eight-hundred-dollar country house was assessed for as much as a ten-thousand-dolJlar house in the largest town, if both had the same number of fireplaces. Other figures could be substituted and examples multiplied, but the injustice of the system is already clear. However, two attacks, which read very much like a modern socialistic circular, but which contain considerable truth, are so interesting as to be worth quoting. ‘“‘Even the poor man’s cow, which the law humanely considers so far an article necessary to uphold life as to exempt it from being taken for debt, was made to pay a higher tax than two hundred dollars in bank stock—more than six acres of plow-land worth forty dollars per acre—more than eighteen acres of (uninclosed) woodland worth eighty dollars per acre—more than forty-one acres of second rate (uninclosed) wood- * Governor Wolcott’s message to May session of general assembly, 1817 (Ms.), p. 4. * Governor Wolcott’s message to May session of general assembly, 1817 (iis.): p77. 62 The Financial History of Connecticut. land worth fifty dollars per acre—more than a table set of silver plate—more than three building lots located in one of our principal cities worth in all three thousand dollars. Indeed the poor man’s cow, when the owner was not possessed of enough land for the animal to stand upon, was taxed for its protection, while the nabob who lived without labor upon the dividends of his insurance, bridge, turnpike, and United States stock, was not required to pay a dollar for his wealth.”! The other attack is aimed at the poll tax upon minors. ‘‘The children of the rich, who were sent to college or educated for either of the learned professions, by law were exempt from the poll tax, while the farmer and mechanic were taxed for no other reason than that they were not rich enough to educate them at Yale College.” ? In the light of such criticism the direction taken by the reforms is not difficult to forecast. In the fall session of 1818 the assembly modified the provision for the listing of polls so that after August 1, 1819, “all persons from 21 to 60, except ministers, the president, professors, and tutors of Yale College, constant school-masters, and students until the time for taking their second degree, and persons who are or may be exempted by act of the general assembly”’ were to be listed at forty dollars. Thus the polls were reduced one-third and the tax on minors was abolished. Notice also that the polls of the members of ministers’ families are no longer exempted, but simply those of the ministers themselves. In the May session of 1819 the republican (demo- cratic) party prepared and enacted an entirely new system of taxa- tion. The act is not too long to quote and in order that comparison may better be made with the system of taxation which existed up to this time (as given in chapter one)* it is here given together with the changes made by the supplementary act of the next year. Revision Dwelling houses, with the buildings and lots appurtenant thereto, not exceeding two acres in any case, shall be valued at the rate which each separate dwelling house, etc., is worth in money, and with due regard to the situation, use or in- come thereof, whether occupied by the 1 Judd’s Plain Truths addressed to the real friends of the state, pp. 18, 19. 2 Judd’s Plain Truths addressed to the real friends of the state, p. 20. 3 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1818, chap. 18. 4 Cf. pp. 21—24. Republican Administration. owner or leased; and shall be set in the list at Lands and separate lots (excepting house lots as aforesaid) shall be valued by the acre at such average rate as each entire tract or lot is worth in money, with ref- erence to any and all advantages of soil, situation, and income, and shall be set in the list at Mills, stores, distilleries, buildings, with their improvements, used for manufac- tories of all kinds, shall be valued with respect to situation and present income, and set in the list at Horses three years old or more, asses and mules two years old or more shall be valued and set in the list at Each stallion more than three years old shall be set in the list at Neat cattle, three years old or more, shall be valued and set in the list at All silver plate shall be valued and set in the list at Stock in any turnpike co. netting 6% shall be set in the list at Each coach, chariot, phaeton,’ coachee, eurricle, chaise, chair, gig or sulky shall . be valued and set in the list at Every other carriage or wagon drawn by one or more horses, except such as are generally Act of 1819.3 2% on such value 18) 3% on such value 2% on such value 8% on such value $67. 6% on such value 50% on such value o/ 6% on such value 409% on such value 1 Public Statute Laws, May 1819, chap. 2. * Public Statute Laws, May 1820, chap. 57. 63 Supplementary Act of 1820.? 10% on such value“ FE $252 We g50:¢ 6% on such value 5O 25% on such value* 25% on such value The supplementary act contains the following changes in the Act of 1819: a. Age lowered to one year. b. Two years old. c. Three years old. d. One year old or more. . Except spoons. f. Must be worth more than twenty dollars, if listed. The Financial History used on farms or for transportation of goods, produce, wares and merchandise, shall be valued and set in the list at Clocks, watches, and timepieces shall be valued and set in the list at Bank and insurance stock to be valued and set in the list at United States Bank stock, all monies on interest secured by bonds on responsible persons, except monies loaned to this state, and all monies oninterest secured, by mortgage, more than the owners thereof pay interest for, shall be set in the list at United States stock or any other state stock belonging to residents in this state shall be assessed at its just value and set in the list at All fisheries, whether appendages of any farm, or lot, or block, or wharf, made for the purpose of fishing (not included in Act of 1819) shall be valued and set in the list at Attorneys, physicians, surgeons, traders of all kinds, mechanics, taverners, bro- kers, and distillers, to be assessed at the discretion of the assessors according to the value and income of their occupation. Provided that attorneys, physicians, and mechanics shall not be taxed until after two years from the time of commencing such occupation. By the act passed at the May session the provision for polls was the same as the provision of the act passed in the preceding session, but in the act of 1820 the age was raised from sixty years to seventy years and the sum at which the poll was listed lowered from forty dollars to thirty dollars. Both of these acts provided that the town assessors (formerly called listers) and the board of relief might abate the polls of the sick and infirm or disabled persons. of Connecticut. Act of 1819. Supplementary Act of 1820. 30% on such value 15% on such valuef 50% on such value 6% on such value j > 6% oO O% 3% on such value Such abate- Republican Administration. 65 ments, however, were not to exceed one-tenth part of the number of taxable polls. Provision was made that any real estate belonging to the federal or state government, or to any municipality, or to any incorporated academy or college, or to any religious or school society or district, or to any religious or charitable corporation in the state, should be exempted from taxation.t All property of ministers to the amount of twenty-five hundred dollars was exempted from taxation,” (re- pealed in 1822), and woolen and cotton manufactories, as already provided by an act passed at the May session, 1817,4 were to remain free from taxation until the rising of the legislature in 1821.5 The system of taxation thus worked out by these acts is a good illustration of the transitional stage between the old and the present method of taxation. The specific mention of the property to be assessed and the classification into groups with different ratings for the several groups still remain, although these groups have been combined into a fewer number. On the other hand, these acts require that all taxable property, except stallions, shall be entered in the lists at a stated per cent of their true value. Under the new system honest and correct lists would assess a watch or any other tax- able object in proportion to its value. The groups were also more equitably assessed than before. For example, three thousand dollars invested in building lots, instead of being assessed for less than a cow, was listed for as much as seventy cows.® It is noticeable that for the first time insurance stock and also the stock issued by the United States and by the individual states was included in the list of taxable property. Turnpike stock netting six per cent was also added and in 1824 the limitation phrase “‘netting six per cent’’ was dropped. The rate at which bank stock was to be set in the list was doubled. These provisions are the first serious attempt to reach persons deriving an income from investments in different kinds of stock. This system of taxation was made to conform still more closely to the present system by an act passed by the assembly at its May session of 1824. This act required that all real and personal estate taxable by law sue! be estimated at a us value and listed at ties : Public Statute ee Mag 1819, chap. 2, sec. 14. 2 Idem, sec. 15. 3 Public Statute Laws, May 1822, chap. 24. ~ GF p. 56. 5 6 Public Statute Laws, May 1819, chap. 2. sec. 16. Judd’s Plain Truths, p. 19. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 5 Marca, 1912. 66 The Financial History of Connecticut. per cent and six per cent, respectively, of the estimated values.! Thus the classification of property was simplified by limitation to two groups, but still differed from the modern method in rating the property included under one group at double the rate of the property included under the other group. This act of May, 1819, also called for the taxation of insurance stock held by persons residing outside of Connecticut. Before this time non-resident bank stock had been listed at three per cent of its value, but now bank, turnpike and insurance stock of companies in Connecticut, held by non-residents, was to be set in the list at six per cent of its value and all taxes collected thereon were to be turned into the state treasury.” Few changes or additions were made during this second period, which ends in 1846, to the system outlined above. In 1826, the assembly again lowered the amount at which the polls were to be put in the list, fixing it at twenty dollars.2 This was changed in 1845 to ten dollars.4. Thus, at the close of this period, the poll tax was only one-sixth as large as it was at the beginning of the period. In 1855 the law exempting from the poll tax ministers and instruct- ors in colleges and incorporated academies was repealed.® Quarries and ferries appear for the first time as taxable property in the grand list of 1831 and bridge stock was added in 1836. This new system of assessment caused the grand list to diminish. Under the old method its total never fell below five and one-half million dollars. The total of the first list under the new system was only $4,113,139 and in 1820, after the lowering of the polls to thirty dollars and the making of a few other changes, the list fell below four million dollars and did not again reach that amount until 1835. The list of 1826, constructed just after the assessment on polls had been lowered to twenty dollars, was more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars smaller than the list for 1825, and the same effect is noticeable after the assessment on polls was lowered to ten dollars in 1843. The list of 1843 was over three hundred fifty thousand dollars smaller than the list of the preceding year. The total of the list of 1845, the last list made in this period, was practically the same as that for the first years of the period and amounted to $4,145,699. Public Acts, May 1824, chap. 2, sec. 1. Public Statute Laws, May 1819, chap. 2, sec. 11. Public Acts, May 1846, chap. 5. Public Acts, May 1843, chap. 43. ® Public Statute Laws, May 1833, chap. 22. Pe Oo nm Sources of Revenue. 67 C. SourcEs OF REVENUE. 4.. State Tax. As the grand list was the basis of the state tax upon the towns, this large reduction of its amount meant that the state must either raise the tax rate or cut down the expenditures. The repub- lican party, then in power, decided upon the latter alternative and the tax rate was kept at one cent on the dollar throughout the entire period. The total amount of the state tax laid for this period, exclusive of the years 1819 and 1820 (in which years the taxes were laid on the lists made, under the old system, in the years 1817 and 1818) was $1,037,938, an average of only thirty-nine thou- sand nine hundred twenty dollars a year. A fair comparison of the policy that prevailed in the first period, when the Federalists were in power, with the policy adopted by the Republicans, may be made by taking fifteen years of each period. This choice of fifteen years will make a further comparison easy when the entire fifteen years of the third period come under consideration.1. The fifteen years chosen for the first period are the years from May 1, 1799, to April 9, 1818, exclusive of the four years—May 1, 1812 to April 30, 1816— when extraordinary taxation was caused by the war with Great Britain. Eliminating those years, the average annual rate for fif- teen years was forty-eight thousand seven hundred eighteen dollars. The fifteen years for the second period will begin April 1, 1820 (when the system inaugurated by the Republicans became operative) and will end March 31, 1835. The average rate for these years was thirty- seven thousand nine hundred sixty-five dollars, a reduction of ten thousand seven hundred fifty-three dollars per year. The state tax on the towns, however, still remained the chief source of income upon which the state depended for the means with which to meet the ordinary expenses of the state government and the income from the permanent fund continued to be the next highest in amount. Grand List 2. Permanent Fund. The composition of this fund on April 10, 1818, when the first period was nearing its close, has been shown else- Composition where. For convenient reference, it is repeated of Fund, 1818 here. GE p. 113. SC. p34: 08 The Financial History of Connecticut. Seven per cent United States Stock, $13,619.00 Six per cent United States r 8,106.56 Deferred six per cent U. S. “= 68,034.00 Three per cent United States ‘3 55,302.66 $145,062.22 Bank stock, non-transferable, 202,200.00 Bank stock, transferable, 48,600.00 250,800.00 Balance in treasury, uninvested, 4,018.59 $396,880.81 It experienced a considerable change during the second period The United States redeemed all of the six per cent stock, first men- tioned above, before April 10, 1819. It also steadily reduced the amount of deferred six per cent stock and by March 31, 1825, this item likewise disappeared. During the fiscal year ending on the latter date, the entire amount of seven per cent stock was redeemed, leaving only the $55,302.66 of three per cent stock indebtedness unpaid. This debt was paid by the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1833. Meanwhile the state had been reinvesting the principal in bank stock. It had also, in addition, appropriated, for the increase of its holdings of bank stock, part of the dividends received from its bank stock.t During the first year of this period, two thousand seven hundred seventy-six dollars which, on October 1, 1818, had not yet been invested in bank stock was transferred to the funds available for current expenses, and the very next year, for the second time in the history of the state,? the reimbursements on the principal of the United States debt ($7,396) were diverted from the fund set aside for the purchase of bank stock and applied to the current expenses of the state. Nearly all the bank stock acquired by the state was issued by banks chartered with a condition that the state should be allowed to subscribe to their stock. This stock thus acquired by the state was, however, to be non-transferable. During this period the state acquired, by subscription, stock of the Hartford, New Haven, Middle- town, Phoenix, Farmers and Mechanics, and Eagle Banks. It held stock in the first three of these banks during the first period. In the present period no bank stock was obtained except forty-one hundred dollars of Phoenix bank stock which was bought in the Reinvestment otf Fund 1 Cf. p. 70, footnote 3. 2 Cf. p. 34 for first diversion of reimbursement on principal. Sources of Revenue. 69 fiscal year ending March 31, 1820. This raised the total of trans- ferable bank stock to fifty-two thousand seven hundred dollars. No more transferable stock was acquired until the year ending March 31, 1843. During this process of change the principal of the fund gradually increased until on March 31, 1826, it was $444,798.37, the highest it had been since 1808. Of this amount, nearly ninety-seven hundred dollars cash ($9,695.71) was in the treasury uninvested. This was transferred during the next fiscal year to the civil list funds, which were used to defray the current expenses of the state. This reduced the fund to $435,102.66, at which figure it remained until March 31, 1832. During the next year the United States redeemed the remainder of its debt, con- sisting of the $55,302.66 three per cent stock, the state reinvesting the principal (with the exception of $2.66 which was transferred to the civil list funds) in non-transferable bank stock. We should now expect the fund to stand as follows: Bank stock, non-transferable, $382,400 Bank stock, transferable, 52,700 $435,100 Increase of Fund The comptroller in his May report (Ms.) of 1833, states that on March 31, 1833, the permanent fund consisted of three hundred Condition Hity-one thousand five hundred dollars of non-trans- of Fund ferable bank stock and forty-eight thousand two in 1833 ==hundred dollars of transferable bank stock, making eatte> 2 total of only three hundred ninety-nine thousand seven hundred dollars. The difference between these figures—thirty-five thousand four hundred dollars—is traceable to the failure of the Eagle Bank. This bank suspended specie payments September 19, 1825, and never resumed. The state investigated the condition of the bank and found that it had loaned on inadequate security an amount which absorbed all its capital, deposits and circulation! Having invested thirty thousand nine hundred dollars in the non-trans- ferable stock and forty-five hundred dollars in the transferable stock of that bank, the state was the loser to the extent of the difference already noted. The state comptroller did not acknowledge this loss until this report of May, 1833. A few gains were made by disposing of some of the transferable stock and subscribing to the non-transferable. Consequently on March 31, 1846, which marks 1 Atwater, “History of the City of New Haven,” p. 335. 70 The Financial History of Connecticut. the close of this period, the state held three hundred fifty-six thou- sand four hundred dollars of non-transferable and forty-four thousand dollars of transferable bank stock. This left the total amount of four hundred thousand four hundred dollars held by the state as a permanent fund. Inasmuch as for a little more than one-half of this period the state held both United States stock and bank stock, we shall divide this period, in treating the income derived from the per- manent fund, into two shorter periods, 1818—1833 and 1833—1846. In chapter one it was shown that the amount of interest received from United States stock was greater than the amount of the dividends received from bank stock and that the latter did not forge ahead until 1817.1 The United States steadily redeemed all stock bearing six per cent interest and, as has been stated, left only the three per cent stock to the credit of the state after 1825.2 As the state purchased no United States stock after 1817, the income from this source necessarily decreased from six thousand seven hundred three dollars (the amount received by the state in interest during the first year of this period) to sixteen hundred fifty-nine dollars, which was the annual interest on the three per cent stock until its redemption in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1833. The total amount of interest received from the United States stock from April 10, 1818, to the time when the stock was fully redeemed was forty-five thousand three hundred fourteen dollars. The total amount of dividends received during the same period from bank stock was two hundred seventy-nine thousand seventy- five dollars. Adding the two amounts, the total revenue from the permanent fund during the period April 10, 1818, to March 31, 1833, is found to be three hundred twenty-four thousand three hundred eighty-nine dollars. This is a yearly average of twenty- one thousand six hundred twenty-eight dollars, but a better con- ception of the annual yield is gained if the years 1827—1830,4 during which the bank dividends were diminished considerably, be excluded. With this exclusion, the average rises to twenty-three thousand forty-five dollars and the lowest and highest annual figures are less than seven thousand dollars apart. The drop in bank dividends Income of Fund Cf. ip. 65: 3 Of this amount $220,650 was appropriated to current expenses and $58,425 to purchase of bank stock. . * Unless otherwise noted, a year of a certain date means the fiscal yea ending March 31 of the year given. eee ee ee ee Sources of Revenue. 71 which began in 1827 is largely explained by the failure of the Eagle Bank. Although the stock of this bank held by the state was kept on the books until 1833, it was not yielding a cent of revenue and therefore in computing the rate of dividends paid by the banks on the stock in which the state had investments, no account has been taken of the Eagle Bank stock after March 31, 1826. The annual rate of dividends from April 1, 1818, until March 31, 18535, was a little above five and a half per cent. The lowest rate during these years was three and seven-tenths per cent—the rate for the year ending March 31, 1830—and in no year did the rate rise to seven per cent. From March 31, 1833, to the close of this period, the capital of the permanent fund consisted entirely of bank stock. The total of the dividends received by the state for the thirteen years was three hundred eighty-three thousand two hundred fifty-five dollars, an average for each year of twenty-nine thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars. This average shows the approximate returns for every year; for with the exception of the year 1838, when the dividends were only twenty-one thousand four hundred eighty- nine dollars, the lowest amount received was twenty-six thousand eight-hundred eighteen dollars in the year 1844; and in only one year (1836), when they amounted to thirty-six thousand one hundred forty dollars, did the dividends exceed the 1846 dividend of thirty- two thousand seven hundred twenty-two dollars. Thus it is seen that with only two exceptions the greatest fluctuation, in either direction, from the average was but a little more than three thou- sand dollars. The highest rate of dividend received during these thirteen years was nine per cent for the year 1836 and the lowest rate was five and three-tenths per cent for the year 1838. During the intervening time occurred the panic of 1837, which explains this large fluctuation. Aside from these two years, however, the rate during the years now under consideration (1833—1846) varied within the narrow limits of six and seven-tenths per cent and eight and one-tenth per cent. The average rate for the thirteen years was seven and three-tenths per cent. A comparison of the income from the permanent fund in the first period with its income during this period shows that from April 10, 1818, to March 31, 1833, the annual average income was more than thirty-one hundred dollars less than for the years 1801 —1818 and nearly forty-three hundred dollars smaller than the average yield for 1801—1814. On the other hand, the average yearly income of the fund from March 31, 1833, to the end of the ~] bo The Financial History of Connecticut. second period exceeds that of the best part of the first period by over thirty-five hundred dollars.! 3. Duties on Writs. Licenses. The revenue received in duties and licenses maintained its rank of third in the amount received from the various sources until March 31, 1833. In relative importance it gained upon the state tax and upon the income from the permanent fund. At no time in its history has the state derived so large a portion of its revenue from duties | and licenses as during these years. The duties on writs, continu- ances, petitions and appeals of various descriptions, which yielded, during the first period, the larger portion of the revenue from duties and licenses, held this supremacy for the first year only of the second period. They were then surpassed by the receipts from the five- dollar license fee for selling liquor. A duty of two per cent of the proceeds-arising from the sale of foreign goods at auction was levied in 1820.2 Several exceptions were made® and in 1821 a few more articles were added to the list of exceptions.t | The returns from this duty were small, never exceeding one hundred seventy dollars in one year. A license fee of one hundred dollars was imposed in 1825 upon persons selling lottery tickets.° An act for the regulation of lotteries passed by the legislature in 1830 marked the beginning of the end of lotteries. This act contains no provision for a license fee for the sale of lottery tickets and the state derived no revenue from this source after 1830. Acts of the assembly passed in 18287 and 18298 repealed nearly all the duties on writs, etc., and in 1832 the liquor license fees were given to the towns granting the licenses.® Consequently after March 31, 1833, the receipts from duties and licenses amounted to very little. Because of the relative impor- tance of this source of revenue during the years April 10, 1818, and March 31, 1833, a table is here given showing the receipts from each. In this table duties on writs, continuances, petitions, etc., are included in column A; under B liquor license fees appear; C 1 Cf. pp. 35, 70. * Public Statute Laws, 1820, chap. 48, sec. 1. 3 Thid. 4 Public Statute Laws (Revision 1821), title 4, sec. 1. 5 Public Statute Laws, 1825, chap. 17, sec. 2. § Public Statute Laws, 1830, chap. 19, sec. 11. * Public Statute Laws, 1828, chap. 40. 8 Public Statute Laws, 1829, chap. 14. ® Public Statute Laws, 1832, chap. 4, sec. 2. ee iniendeennnaieeetiees Sources of Revenue. Te gives amounts received for lottery licenses; and duties on sales at auction are shown under D. Years. A B e: D Totals 1819 $4,872 $4,471 9,344 1820 4,082 4,452 8,535 1821 5,508 4,612 10,120 1822 4,851 4,650 16 9,516 1823 2597 5,242 47 7,886 1824 2,590 Bede 39 7,744 1825 2,132 5122 22 7,876 1826 2,006 5,397 138 7,540 1827 2,175 5,582 Pye) 70 10,349 1828 2,404 Sead, PMIEY| 83 10,040 1829 2,o22 5,469 2,134 166 10,091 1830 692 5,134 291 54 6,170 1831 287 4,383 110 4,780 1832 267 4,480 6 4,753 1833 123 4,142 aD) 4,299 The total receipts from duties and licenses for these fifteen years were one hundred nineteen thousand forty dollars. This is an average of seven thousand nine hundred thirty-six dollars per year. From 1833 until March 31, 1842, owing to the transfer of the liquor license fees to the towns and the repeal of many of the duties on writs, etc., the receipts from duties and licenses became very meager. Seven hundred seventy-five dollars was the total amount received by the state from this source for these nine years. This is an annual average of only eighty-six dollars, a diminution of seven thousand eight hundred fifty dollars from the average for the preceding fifteen years. In 1841 the general assembly passed an act laying licenses on pedlers. A license for a year was to cost twenty dollars ; for six months, twelve dollars; and for three months, seven dollars.t The receipts from these licenses for the first year were more than twenty-five hundred dollars. In 1842 the legislature amended the act by providing that no inhabitant of the state should be subject to thislicense? and asa result the revenue from this source was greatly lessened. The average revenue per annum from all the duties and licenses from April 1, 1842, until March 31, 1846, was $1,055.50, but if the first year be omitted, the average falls to $568.33. 1 Public Acts, May 1841, chap. 37, sec. 3. 2 Public Acts, May 1842, chap. 41. ~l uN The Financial History of Connecticut. To show clearly the complete change of policy during this period in regard to the laying of duties and licenses, the average yield from these sources from 1818 to 1833 is compared with that from 1833 to 1846. The average annual revenue thus arising during the former interval has been shown to be seven thousand nine hundred thirty- six dollars!; but for the latter it was only three hundred eighty- four dollars. 4. Tax on Non-Resident Stock. In the alteration of the tax system made by the legislature at its May session of 1819, non-resident stock of Connecticut insurance and turnpike companies, as well as non-resident bank stock, was subjected to state taxation. Such stock was to be listed at six per cent of its value and all taxes arising from it were to be paid into the state treasury.2. This method of taxing non-resident stock was changed in 1830 in such a way as to increase greatly the revenue coming from this source. From April 10, 1818, until March 31, 1830, the total amount raised by this tax was eighty-seven hundred dollars, an annual average of seven hundred twenty-five dollars. In 1830 a law was passed directing banks and insurance companies to pay to the state treasurer a tax of one-third of one per cent on the value of all their stock held by non-residents of the state.2 The next year this tax was raised to two-thirds of one per cent.4- Under this law the tax on non-resident stock yielded from March 31, 1830, until March 31, 1846, the sum of forty-five thousand seven hundred sixteen dollars. This is an average of two thousand eight hundred fifty-seven dollars per year, which is almost four times as much as the average under the old law, and it shows the efficacy of the new method as a producer of revenue. 5. Forfeited Bonds and Avails of Court. The receipts from forfeited bonds, fines and avails of court for this period were seventy-one thousand sixty-three dollars. This is an average of two thousand five hundred thirty-eight dollars a year, an increase of a little more than one thousand dollars over the average for the years 1798 to 1818 inclusive. 6. State Prison. A new source of revenue appears during this period in the state prison. In 1827 the state built a new state prison at Wethersfield ihe p) 73: * Public Statute Laws, May 1819, chap. 2, sec. 11 3 Public Statute Laws, May 1830, chap. 28. + Public Statute Laws, May 1831, chap. 27. oe Sources of Revenue. 75 and the old prison at Newgate was abandoned. The state took measures to sell the old property and during the four fiscal years ending on March 31, 1833, it received a total of seven thousand two hundred sixty-four dollars from such sales. Meanwhile, the state prison at Wethersfield had become self-supporting. It man aged its own finances and its receipts were considerably higher than its expenditures. The net profits of the prison from October 1, 1827, to March 31, 1846, were one hundred eight thousand four hundred seventy-seven dollars. From this amount fourteen thou- sand six hundred twenty-seven dollars was spent for buildings and improvements.!. One thousand dollars was given to the Prison Discipline Society in 1838 by order of the general assembly.2 In accordance with an act passed by the assembly in 1840, granting to each of the counties one thousand dollars whenever they should erect suitable county prisons,’ the warden paid this sum to four counties—Hartford, New London, New Haven and Middlesex. Its surplus earnings were so large that the state at times made use of them as revenue. The prison warden paid into the state treasury, from March 31, 1830, to March 31, 1833, the sum of eighteen thou- sand twenty-seven dollars. No further payments were made until the year commencing April 1, 1840. Annual payments from the prison were received by the state from this time, with the exception of the year ending March 31, 1843, until the close of this period These payments amounted to forty-five thousand dollars, making a grand total of over sixty-three thousand dollars which the state received from the state prison. Financially, at least, the state prison was a great success during the latter two-thirds of the second period. 7. Extraordinary Receipts. In the discussion of the permanent fund, it was noted that in the year ending March 31, 1828, the fund was diminished by the transfer of $9,695.71 to the funds for current expenses and that another small transfer in 1833 made the total transfe about ninety-seven hundred dollars.° The rest oi the extraordinary receipts during this period came from the United States government. In 1816, it will be remembered, the general From Per- manent Fund 1 Computed from reports of the warden to the directors of the state prison. (Included in reports of the @irectors from 1842—1846.) * Private Acts, 1838, p. 70. 8 Private Acts, 1840, p. 54. Ok ps 89. 5 Cf. p. 69. 76 The Financial History of Connecticut assembly voted to divide among the different religious denomi- nations and Yale College, in definitely specified proportions, the money which should be received from the United States in payment for advances made by the state during the war of 1812.4 The United States made some payments the next year and the money was divided as authorized. In 1832, it became evident that the state was to receive more money from the United States in full payment of the aforesaid advances. No act had ever been passed repealing the act of 1816 in regard to the distribution of the money thus received and there was doubt whether the above act was still in force. Accordingly, the general assembly, in 1832, directed the treasurer to hold, until after the rising of the next assembly,? money which might be received from the United States in payment of the war advances. No money was received from the United States during the year; but it was still expected and the assembly of 1833 was ready to determine what should be done with the money. It repealed the act of 1816 and all acts relating to appropriation of money thus received from the United States.* It also voted that whenever the state should receive from the United States any money in payment for advances made by the state during the war of 1812, the state treasurer should dis- tribute it, in proportion to the grand list of August 20, 1813, among the towns which had been incorporated previous to that date. Towns which had subsequently been formed from the older towns were to receive their share by a division of the amounts allotted to the older towns according to the “residence of the inhabitants and the location of estates on August 20, 1813.”4 The United States government did not make the expected payments until the fiscal year ending March 31, 1839, when it paid seventy-two thousand two hundred thirty-four dollars to the state treasurer. This entire amount, however, was not apportioned among the towns, for in the previous year, owing to the needs of the state treasury, the general assembly had voted to retain thirty-five thousand dollars of the money which the United States should pay the state in return for the war advances.? The amount actually distributed among the towns was about thirty thousand dollars. Thus the state treasury was strengthened by over forty-two thousand and the state was Repayment of Advances 1 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1816, chap. 13. Cf. pp. 53, 54. 2 Public Statute Laws, May 1832, chap. 30. 3 Public Statute Laws, May 1833, chap. 6. 4 Public Statute Laws, May 1833, chap. 7. Public Statute Laws, May 1838, chap. 55. or z 3 ia t 5 4 : 4] = Sources of Revenue. enabled to pay off its temporary indebtedness of more than forty thousand dollars due to banks and to the school fund. The state also received, during the two fiscal years ending March 31, 1844, the sum of twelve thousand two hundred : sixty-nine dollars from the federal government as Land Sales its share of the amount realized by the sale of the public lands. One more large sum was received by the state from the United States during this period. By an act of congress, approved June 23, Baepius 1836, the surplus funds of the United States were Funds of distributed in trust among the states that comprised the the United = Union. The sum of $763,661.83 was allotted to Connecti- Baetes cut! and it was accepted by the assembly at its annual session in 1836.2. The act of acceptance also provided for the distri- bution and use of this large trust fund. The money was to be depos- ited with the towns of the state in proportion to their population, under the census of 1830, but with the following conditions : 1. The towns were to preserve the money as a deposit in trust for the state. The state reserved the right to call for the money on thirty days notice whenever the United States should demand payment of the same. 2. They were to keep the principal received from the state intact as a permanent fund and to appropriate annually at least one-half? of the income of the fund for the benefit of the public schools in the town. 3. They were to make good any deficiency in the amount received from the state should any loss occur. The act also provided that if any town failed to draw upon the state treasurer for its portion of this money, the treasurer was to loan the same at the expense of the town. The interest received by the state on such a loan was to be paid over annually to the town and the town was to appro- priate it in the same manner as if it had accepted its quota of the principal. It was provided that the investment of this money should be limited to loans secured by mortgage upon real estate of at least double the value of the loan. In 1846 the towns were authorized to make loans from this fund, known as the Town Deposit Fund, upon such security as they wished and to invest it in any bank stock of the state or in the bonds of any city in the state.! 1 Bradley’s Register, 1853, p. 121. Public Statute Laws, May 1836, chap. 7]. Changed to “the entire income” by chap. 84, Public Acts of 1855. Public Acts, May 1846, chap. 50. ~ © 1 78 The Financial History of Connecticut. The history of this fund is connected entirely with town finances and for that reason is not within the scope of this chapter. The subject is of too great importance and interest, however, to be dis- missed summarily and a brief digression, showing that the condi- tions of the act distributing this fund were not regarded, will not be wholly out of place. Until 1847 this fund fulfilled its purpose and the principal in- creased a little, but the act of 1846 was the beginning of a relaxa- tion in the restrictions put upon the investment of the fund and finally an act passed in 1872 permitted the investment of the fund in any loan or in any bank stock of the state, in the bonds of the United States or cf the state, or in the bonds of any city, town, or borough in the state.1_ The result of these acts was that whenever the towns were hard pressed for funds, they borrowed from the town deposit fund. According to the report of the secretary of education for the year 1887 about five-sevenths of the fund was invested in this way. He also said that if the towns made any pretense of paying interest on this loan it generally consisted of book-keeping juggling. For example, from the tax receipts there might be turned over to the treasurer of the fund six per cent interest on the loan. He would enter this on his books as receipt of interest and turn it back to the town treasurer to be used for the support of schools.” This policy brought no additional money to the schools and the only effect of these cases was to diminish the town’s indebtedness and lower its tax rate. Hence it is that although the town records gave the yield of the town deposit fund for 1908 as over twenty-seven thou- sand dollars the secretary of the board of education estimated that the actual income was at the most seven thousand dollars.? A thorough investigation of the town deposit fund would be a very interesting study. 8. School Fund. From a financial point of view, the period from 1820—1846 was very advantageous to the school fund. The capital of the fund iar on September 2, 1820, was $1,858,074. This had Pea increased to $2,070,055 by September 2, 1845. In the next two years, the principal increased a little over 1 Public Acts, 1872, chap. 28. 2 Report of Secretary of Education, Jan. 1888, p. 146. (Leg. Doc. 1888, vol. i.) : 3 Report of Secretary of Education, 1908, p. 88. (Pub. Doc. 1908, vol. iv, part i.) Sources of Revenue. 79 seven thousand dollars and reached the highest point in its history During the same period the annual income from the fund doubled, increasing from about sixty thousand dollars for the year 1820 to one hundred twenty thousand dollars for 1846, The total amount of dividends distributed for the support of the schools during this period was $2,319,715. This is almost double the original capital of the fund and if the dividends of the next year are added, the total is more than double the amount received for the Western Reserve. This record speaks well for the management of the fund. James Hillhouse, the first commissioner of the school fund, resigned in 1825, from the post which he had filled so well. He was suc- Be mecement ceeded by Seth P. Beers, who was still in office at the close of the period. The honor of establishing the fund on a sound basis belongs to Mr. Hillhouse and the honor of increasing the principal and the income so materially belongs to Mr. Beers. Some of the means which Mr. Beers used to collect bad debts or arrears in interest are worth noting. In July, 1827, he made a trip into western New York for the purpose of obtaining, if possible, a settlement of the back interest due from settlers residing there. He noticed that these persons, who were farmers, were holding a considerable amount of wheat waiting for a rise in the market price. At the same time an abundant new crop was expected and there was a possibility that the old wheat might be left on their hands. He very shrewdly offered to the state debtors to receive wheat in payment of arrears of interest, on condition that the wheat be deliv- ered, at a given time and place, on the Erie Canal. This offer was eagerly accepted and Mr. Beers’ collections in wheat and cash amounted to ten thousand dollars.1_ He also sometimes received payments in cattle? which he would sell and thus receive pay- ments which otherwise the state would have lost. During this period much wild land came into the possession of the state through the failure of debtors to the fund to meet their obligations. These holdings yielded no income to the state and at the same time the state was paying taxes on them. It was Mr. Beers’ policy to hold them no longer than nec- essary, provided he could dispose of them without loss to thestate. In his report of 1828 he tells of the method by which he thus disposed of some of this land. He says that inasmuch as he was unable to Land Ex- changes * Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1827, pp. 8, 9. 2 Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1832, p. 5. 80 The Financial History of Connecticui, dispose of large tracts of wild land in Ohio and New York at any reasonable price, he had decided to attempt to exchange land there for farms in Connecticut. Here again he showed his shrewdness by taking advantage of the western emigration movement. In negotiating for such an exchange, he offered, upon the request of the owner, to pay one-sixth of the value of his farm in cash, the rest in western lands. This would provide the farmer with a little ready cash with which to go west and make a start. The result was that during the fall and winter of 1827 he acquired for the fund Connecticut farms valued at twenty-five thousand six hundred dollars in exchange for wild land worth about twenty-two thousand dollars and cash for the balance. This transfer brought to the fund lands which would yield a revenue and which were exempt from taxation in place of lands which were only a source of expense to the fund. These illustrations give an idea of the problems which were met and the methods pursued in solving them. Such failures on the part of debtors to make payments to the fund and similar exchanges of property characterize the changes in the composition of the fund from year to year. Two acts of the assembly deserve mention in this connection. Until 1826, in accordance with a resolve passed in 1800, whenever the prin- j cipal of the fund was converted into cash, it was in- een vested exclusively in bank stock or stock of the United States. In 1826, at the suggestion of the commissioner of the fund, the general assembly authorized him to invest this money also in loans secured by a mortgage of real estate located in Connecticut and worth at least double the value of the loans. In 1828 the act was modified to permit loans when the security was situated in New York or Massachusetts.2 Until 1824 only fifty- seven thousand six hundred dollars of the fund had been invested in bank stock and this had been invested in shares of the Hartford Bank before 1815. As the years passed, however, this amount was more than quadrupled and there were investments in seventeen banks at the close of this period. To convey an idea of the composition of the principal of this fund the following table is given. It itemizes the capital C ee at different dates in accordance with corresponding omposition Pete: of Fund reports of the commissioner of the school fund. 1 Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1828, pp. 3, 4. 2 Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1835, pp. 1—7. Se RE nn Sources of Revenue. 81 Sept. 2, April 1, 1820. 1828. Bonds, Contracts and Mortgages, $1,663,780 $1,437,912 Cultivated-lands and Buildings, 77,639 166,498 Wild Lands. 59,055 149,852 Stock on farms and other personal property, ; 2,900 Bank Stock, 57,600 97,850 Cash, 23,003 Totals, $4,858,074 $1,877,615 April 4, Sepe: 2F 1837. 1845. Bonds, Contracts and Mortgages, $1,620,049 $1,642,083 Cultivated-lands and Buildings, 116,934 74,590 Wild Lands, 64,914 66,923 Stock on farms and other personal property, 710 180 Bank Stock, 216,700 254,700 Cash, 8,095 31,579 Totals, $2,027,402 $2,070,055 The act which created the school fund required that the annual income should be distributed among the school societies of the state in proportion to their lists of polls and taxable prop- erty.1. An equitable distribution was intended thereby, but it is difficult to see what relation the taxable property of a society bore to the expense of maintaining public schools for the children. After the system of taxation was changed in 1819, in an attempt to tax property according to its true valuation, the retention of this provision would have been positively unjust. Those societies which possessed the most valuable property and which were naturally most able to provide for the education of the children would have received, under the operation of the old law, the larger shares of the income from the school fund, even though the poorer societies might have the greater number of children to educate. This injustice was seen and the method of distribution was changed to allow each school society to receive the proportion of the entire dividends which the number of its children between four and sixteen years of age bore to the whole number of children of the same description in the state. Distribution of Income 1 Conn. Laws, May 1795, p. 487 Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 6 Marca, 1912. 82 The Financial History of Connecticut. In accordance with an act passed by the legislature at the May session in 1820, the first enumeration of school children was made in August, 1820, and showed that the number of children in the state between the ages of four and sixteen was eighty-four thousand one hundred seventy-nine. A study of the school census for the years 1820 to 1845 furnishes another evidence of the slow development of the state during this period. The following table speaks for itself. Number of Children between the Ages of Four and Sixteen. Years. Children. Years. Children. 1820 84,179 1835 83,799 1825 84,976 1840 82,676 1830 85,006 1845 84,093 Because the number of children during this entire period remained nearly stationary while the income from the fund was rising from sixty thousand dollars to one hundred twenty thousand dollars a year, the allotment for each child increased until it was doubled. In 1820 the amount per child was about seventy cents. It reached eighty-five cents by 1825 and remained at this figure until 1830, when it became ninety cents. A raise to ninety-five cents occurred after three years and in 1835 the dollar point was reached. From this it rose every year until it stood at one dollar and a quarter in 1839. In 1841 ten cents more per child was added and in 1842 the rate was made $1.40 per child, at which point it still stood at the close of this period. This enlarged income of the school fund was of considerable aid to the Republicans of that day in their effort to decrease the state expenditures, as will be seen under the following heading. Unless the portion of income from the town deposit fund devoted to schools be considered as state aid,? the towns received no other financial support for their schools from the state during this period except the dividends from the school fund. D. Strate EXPENDITURES. 1. Education. The reduction of the grand list under the new system of assessment and the decreased income from the permanent fund during the first part of this period necessitated a curtailment of expendi- tures or increased taxation. The Republicans desired to keep the taxes low and hence sought opportunities for 1 Public Statute Laws, May 1820, chap. 50, sec. 2. 2 Cf. p. 77 and foot note 3 on same page. Retrench- ment State Expenditures. 83 retrenchment. It was noticed that the dividends from the school fund were increasing and in 1820 the comptroller suggested to the assembly that a considerable saving could be made by merely adding to the next dividend from the school fund an appropriation no larger than would be necessary to leave the payment to the societies undimin- ished.t The idea was seized upon by the assembly and it voted to suspend the school appropriation of two dollars on every thousand dollars in the grand list as soon as the income of the school fund should exceed sixty-two thousand dollars.2, During this very year (April 1, 1820, to March 31, 1821) the income from the school fund was greater and consequently no payment for schools was made from the state treasury except a small amount due to the societies for the previous year. As no further appropriation was made by the state, until 1839, for public education, an annual saving of more than twelve thousand dollars a year was made by this action. In 1838 the general assembly was sufficiently progressive to pass an act providing for a board of commissioners to supervise the public schools. This board consisted of the governor and the com- missioner of the school fund, ex officio, and one other person from each of the eight counties. The board received no compensation for its services. It was allowed to appoint its own secretary and to pay for his services an amount not exceeding three dollars a day and his expenses. In 1842, owing to the demands for economy and the complaints that the board was guilty of interference in the local management of the schools, the board was abolished.4 The expense of the board, as a matter of fact, had not been large. It was only six thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars for the whole period of its existence, an average of $1,264.50 per year. Although more money was actually paid from the state treasury, the state extended less aid to collegiate institutions during the period than it did in the first period. Its only aid to Yale College was a grant of seven thousand dollars, which the Connecticut Bank at Bridgeport gave as a bonus in com- pliance with its charter. By the terms of the act incorporating this bank in 1831, the bank was to pay at the end of the first year of its existence the sum of thirty-five hundred dollars to Yale College and fifteen hundred dollars to Washington College; one year later Educational Institutions 1 Comptroller’s Report (Ms.), May 1820. 2 Public Statute Laws, May 1820, chap. 50, sec. 1. 8 Public Acts, 1838, chap. 52, sec. 1, 2, 6. * Report of Secretary Board of Education, Jan. 1888. (Leg. Doc. 1888, vol. i.) 84 The Financial History of Connecticut. it was to repeat these payments.! Thus Yale received seven thou- sand dollars and Washington College received three thousand dollars. Washington College, now known as Trinity College, was also granted nearly ten thousand dollars, payable in three instalments of three thousand dollars and the remainder in a fourth instalment. The first instalment was paid in July, 1832, and the remaining instalments were paid in the three following Aprils. In 1834 the legislature chartered two banks, the Stamford Bank, at Stamford, and the Manufacturers’ Bank at Farmington, on con- dition that they pay bonuses to Wesleyan University. The former was directed to pay five thousand dollars in two equal instalments, the first by the end of the first year and the second at the end of the second year of discounting by the bank. The latter was to pay double this amount in the same way; but as the bank did not go into operation, this sum was never paid to Wesleyan. However, in 1839, the legislature directed the comptroller to draw an order on the treasurer for ten thousand dollars in favor of Wesleyan Uni- versity, one-half to be paid on October 1, 1839, and the remainder one year later.2_ The colleges received as a result of these acts about thirty-five thousand dollars. This is less than half the amount bestowed upon Yale in the first period; on the other hand, twenty thousand of the thirty-five thousand dollars came directly from the state treasury, while in the first period the state gave its aid indirectly. In 1840 the assembly appropriated seven thousand dollars, payable in two equal instalments to the Connecticut Literary Institute at Suffield. 2. Support of Paupers. The Republican party also decided to reduce the cost of support- ing state paupers. In the first period, as has been shown, this expense increased from less than twenty-five hundred dollars a year until in 1817 and 1818 the amount exceeded fifteen thousand dollars. In its October session of 1818 the assembly passed a measure which aimed to abolish imposition upon the state by the towns. This act gave the comptroller full power to demand from the selectmen satisfactory proof of their claims for the support of state paupers, directed him not to allow to any town a sum larger than the amount actually spent by the town, Measures of Economy 1 Public Statute Laws, 1831, chap. 51, sec. 12. 2 Private Acts, 1839, p. 71. 3 Private Acts, 1840, p. 56. State Expenditures. 85 and empowered him to deduct from sums actually expended by the towns whenever he thought unnecessary expense had been incurred. Three more provisions, enacted in 1820, were the effective measures in reducing this item of expense. First, it was enacted that any per- son born in this state or in a neighboring state could not become a state pauper.” This tended to restrict the unloading of paupers from neighboring states into Connecticut and to do away with much of the pushing along of paupers from one town to another, thus preventing them from gaining a settlement and causing them to become state paupers. Secondly, a limitation was set on the amounts for which a town could be reimbursed. Hitherto, no limit had been set, and under a loose system of checking such expenditures, the towns could run up their claims considerably and have them allowed. Now not more than one dollar a week was to be allowed for any person over fourteen years of age, and for those under that age fifty cents was the limit. Finally, the comptroller was authorized to contract for the support of state paupers for any length of time not exceeding five years. He was to obtain the best terms possible but could not make a contract on terms higher than have already been specified. The comptroller was also given the power to remove the state paupers from any town and to place them with the contracting party.* The results of these limitations and the policy of contracting for the support of the state paupers were striking. From the beginning ry of the period, the expense incurred by the state for Effects of ; : Limitations Paupers decreased each year until for the year ending March 31, 1826, the sum was only twenty-six hundred dollars. The contracting for a number of years now becomes evident; for during the next two years this same sum was spent and for the next five years the state spent two thousand dollars annually for this purpose. This amount was cut to eighteen hundred dollars for the year ending March 31, 1834, and this was the sum annually spent for the three following years. The state continued to get pro- gressively lower terms and from the year beginning April 1, 1837, paid but seventeen hundred dollars a year for the support of its paupers for the next five years. For the year ending March 31, 1843, the state spent fifteen hundred dollars, and this was the amount at which this expense stood at the close of this period. 1 Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1818, chap. 3, p. 314. * Public Statute Laws, 1820, chap. 34, sec. 2. 3 Public Statute Laws, 1820, chap. 34, sec. 1. + Tbidem, sec. 3. 86 The Financial History of Connecticut. 3. The General Assembly. In framing the state constitution the Republicans provided that beginning with the year 1819 the assembly should have but one regular session annually to be held in May.t The salaries of the senators and representatives were at first the same as had been received by the assistants and deputies before the adoption of the constitution.” A comparison of the average annual expense of the assembly for the two years ending April 9, 1819, with the average for the two years ending March 31, 1821, shows the saving to the state effected by this change. The average expense for the last two years under the system of two sessions was $27,535.50; for the first two years of the one-session system the average annual expense was only $17,436.50, a decrease of ten thousand dollars a year. The Republicans did not stop at this point, but in 1820 they reduced the pay of the senators from three dollars a day to two dollars a day and the daily pay of the representatives from two dollars to one dollar and fifty cents. Both were allowed nine cents a mile for travel to and from the place of holding the session. The economy of the party is shown by the following comparison. The average annual cost of holding two sessions from May 1, 1806, to April 9, 1819, was twenty-two thousand one hundred twenty-one dollars. Under the Republican administration the average cost per annum from April 10, 1819, to March 31, 1832, was reduced to fourteen thousand three hundred sixty-eight dollars. The salaries of the legislators established by the Republicans in 1820 remained unchanged through- out the period, but an amendment to the constitution in 1828 in- creased the membership of the senate (beginning in May, 1830) from twelve to not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-four.* Beginning with the May session of 1832, the senate consisted of twenty-one members.®° This enlargement of the senate increased the expenses of the legislature, raising the annual average for the remaining fourteen years of the period (1832—1846) to eighteen thousand sixty-two dollars. Even this is a smaller average than the average incurred under the previous system of two sessions in every year. The expenses of the convention that drew up the constitution in the autumn of 1818 were eleven thousand three hundred thirteen dollars. Conn. Constitution, art. 3, sec. 2. Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1818, chap. 12, p. 329. Public Statute Laws, 1820, chap. 58. Amendments to Conn. Constitution, art. i. Public Statute Laws, May 1831, chap. 2. fm © po ow State Expenditures. 87 4. Salaries. The constitution provided that the compensation of the governor, lieutenant governor, senators and representatives should be estab- lished and that if changes should be made, the changes could not take effect until after an election, subsequent to the law making the changes, had occurred.t The salaries of the principal state officials as they stood at the time of the revision of 1821 were as follows :? Governor, $1,100 Lieutenant Governor, 850 (changed in 1823 to $300) Secretary of State, 84 and fees? Treasurer, 1,000 ($300 of this amount to be paid from school fund) Comptroller, 1,000 ($1250, beginning May, 1826)°® Commissioner of School Fund, 1,000 (paid from school fund) Chief Judge of Superior Court, 1,100 Four Associates, each,® 1,050 Senators, $2 a day and mileage (9 cents per mile) Representatives, $41.50 a day and mileage (9 cents per mile) The salary list established by the legislature in 1820 differed from this schedule in only one respect—it did not mention the commissioner of the school fund. The Republicans effected a considerable saving by their revision of salaries. The salary of the governor was lowered one hundred dollars and that of the lieutenant governor fifty dollars from the salaries they had been receiving from May, 1815, until this change was made.‘ In 1823 the lieutenant governor’s salary was reduced tive hundred fifty dollars more.’ The principal change, however, I - Conn. Constitution, art. iv, sec. 4. Revision of 1821, title 83, sec. 1. Public Statute Laws, May 1823, chap. 18. Revision of 1821, title 83, sec. 11. Compt. Report (Ms.), 1827. The five judges of the superior court also constituted the supreme court of errors. Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1818, chap. 1, sec. 2. yer. “p. 50. 8 Public Statute Laws, May 1823, chap. 18. oo 8 mm © 88 The Financial History of Connecticut. was in lowering the compensation of the members of the general assembly.t A saving of forty-two hundred dollars a year was effect- ed by reducing the number of superior court judges from nine to five.2 By this action the court was restored to its original size be- fore enlargement by the Federalists in 1806.3 The salary of the commissioner of the school fund was considered too high and in 1818 the Republicans reduced it five hundred dollars. Throughout this period no changes except those noted were made in the salaries here given. 5. Military Department. From May 1, 1816, to April 9, 1819, when the military expenses were on a peace footing under the Federalist laws, the average annual expense for this object had been eleven hundred forty-five dollars. In 1819 the Republicans applied the policy of retrenchment to the military department by amending the act relating to the militia.® The result was that from April 10, 1819, to March 34, 1830, the total military expense was only seven thousand two hundred twenty- four dollars, a yearly average of only six hundred fifty-seven dollars. This shows a saving of nearly fifty per cent. In the year ending March 31, 1831, an arsenal was built at an expense of two thousand dollars and the expense of maintaining it increased the military expenditures. Including the expense of building the arsenal, the military expenditures from April 1, 1830, to March 31, 1846, were eighteen thousand three hundred eighty-seven dollars, an average of eleven hundred forty-nine dollars a year, which is about the same as under the Federalist regime. The total military expense for this entire period (April 10, 1818, to March 31, 1846) was twenty-six thousand seven hundred seventy-eight dollars. 6. State Prison. The state prison became self-supporting before the close of this period. For the last year of the preceding period the expense of the prison to the state treasury was nearly thirteen thousand dollars. From that time the yearly expense to the state treasury was so dimin- ished that in the eight years ending March 31, 1826, only fifty-nine thousand four hundred twenty-nine dollars was taken from the state Chopper ole a2: Public Statute Laws, Oct. 1818, chap. 1, sec. 1. Conn. Laws, May 1806, p. 713. Cieapmole Public Statute Laws, 1819, chap. 4. o - wo ix} a State Expenditures, 89 treasury for the maintenance of the prison. Conditions at the old Newgate prison were far from satisfactory and the assembly finally decided to build a new state prison at Wethersfield. This was made and all the prisoners—one hundred twenty-six in number—were removed to it from Newgate in 1827.1 After the year ending March 31, 1829, the prison was not only self-supporting but also a source of revenue to the state.2_ Even the cost of building the new prison was more than met by the surplus earnings of the prisoners. The total expense of the state prison to the state treasury from March 31, 1826, to March 31, 1846, including the cost of building the new prison was as follows: Expense of Newgate for the two fiscal years ending March 31, 1828, $9,795 Original cost of building new prison, 33,000 Expense of new prison for first two years ending March 31, 1829, 3,902 Expense of building an addition for the two fiscal years ending March 31, 1832, 7,926 Expense for year ending March 51, 1834, 2,609 Salaries of the directors of the state prison from March 31, 1829, to March 31, 1846, 5,183 $58,015 The total money received by the state treasurer from the state prison from the time it began to be self-supporting in 1829 until the close of this period was sixty-three thousand twenty-seven dollars. Thus the state prison ceased to be an expense to the state after the first third of this period. 7. Public Debt Discharged. At the beginning of the second period the public debt was$3,312.90.8 Reference has been made to the fact that in the latter part of the previous period not enough payments were made on the debt to cover even the interest and that for all practical purposes the debt was merely nominal. That statement can now be proved by tracing the history of the debt during this period. In the first place, it was decided that the interest on the debt ought not to go on accumu- lating. The state was now ready, as it had been for years, to pay the debt upon the presentation of proper evidences, but it no longer New England Magazine, vol. v, p. 433. Cis p. 75. 3 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1818. 90 The Financial History of Connecticut. felt disposed to pay interest on claims which it had for years been willing to settle. Therefore, the interest on the debt still outstanding was reduced to the amount which was due on this given principal on April 30, 1805. This action reduced the debt to the extent of nearly five hundred dollars and on April 1, 1820, it stood at $2,835.60. Twenty-eight dollars had been paid during the year ending on that date and from 1820 until March 31, 1838, about seven hundred dollars more was paid. The debt as given in the Comptroller’s Report (Ms.) of June, 1838, was $2,142.29 on April 1 of that year. No further payments are recorded and finally, in his report to the assembly in May, 1843, the comptroller made the following statement in regard to the debt: “For many years the comptrollers have reported a few hundred dollars as the amount of outstanding evidences of debt due from this state, in the form of colony bills, issued before the Revolution, and state bills, state notes, interest cer- tificates, etc., issued during and immediately after the Revolution. ... For several years the comptrollers have ceased to receive them; for the reasons that great numbers were known to have been counter- feited by the enemy in the Revolutionary War, and no one is now remaining to discriminate between the true and the false. That many must have been lost or destroyed—probably to as great amount as the sum now nominally due; and consequently, a like amount of counterfeits must have been received and paid. And from the fact that few or none of the persons or their relatives, for whose claims they were issued would be benefited by their payment, but, on the contrary, they are now in the hands of those who re- ceived them without giving value, or came into possession from acci- dental circumstances. The present comptroller has not, there- fore, deemed it necessary to state what he considers but a nominal debt, but merely to remark that it remains in amount the same as for many years past.’’ This ends the public record of the old Revolutionary debt, although since 1810 the greater part of it had been merely nominal. 8. Bounties and Encouragements. As in the former period, the direct payments made from the state treasury for bounties were insignificant.t In 1832, the general assembly once more tried to encourage the silk industry by providing for the payment of a bounty of one dollar to every person transplanting on his land one hundred Silk and Hemp 1 Cf. pp. 55, 56. oe State Expenditures. 91 white mulberry trees of at least three years growth. This bounty was not to be paid until two years after the transplanting of the trees! In 1834 the act was made to include the Chinese mulberry as well as the white mulberry.2 The act of 1832 also ordered a payment of fifty cents for every pound of silk reeled by a specified method and in 1834 this was extended to silk reeled by any method. The history of the first period was repeated. The industry was not stimulated to an appreciable extent by the bounties offered. This is evident from the small amount—nineteen hundred eighty-nine dollars—which the state paid under the operation of these laws. They were both repealed in 1839.3 Another act similar to the one which was in operation in the first period was an act passed by the legislature in 1829, to be operative until May 1, 1832, exempting from taxation, in that year in which the crop should be harvested, all lands used in the cultivation of hemp.* In 1833 the influence of the farmers was strong enough to cause the legislature to pass an act allowing a bounty of ten cents for every crow killed in the state. The town clerks paid the boun- ties upon proper evidence, and the state treasurer reim- bursed the towns.® Many crows were killed as a result of this bounty and in 1837 it was withdrawn.® During the four years in which the bounty was offered two thousand five hundred twenty-eight dollars was paid by the state. This indicates that twenty-five thousand two hundred eighty crows were killed under the stimulus of the bounty. To encourage agriculture, the assembly in 1840 passed an act providing for paying, on conditions prescribed by the act, a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars in a single year ee naral to each incorporated county agricultural lety Siacieties p y agricultural society. If such a society should raise a hundred dollars or more in any year, the state, to the extent of two hundred dollars, would duplicate the amount thus raised, provided the society used the entire amount for the encouragement and improvement of agri- culture or manufactures.‘ The societies generally fulfilled these conditions by the payment of premiums. Under the operation of Crows 1 Public Statute Laws, 1832, chap. 29. * Public Statute Laws, 1834, chap. 7. 8 Public Acts, 1839, chap. 45. 4 Public Statute Laws, 1829, chap. 22. ° Public Statute Laws, 1833, chap. 31. ° Public Statute Laws, 1837, chap. 44. ? Public Acts, 1840, chap. 1, sec. 1, 4. 92 The Financial History of Connecticut. this act the state paid seven hundred dollars during the year ending in 1841. After that the payments averaged a little more than one thousand dollars a year, the total amount, including the payment in 1841, being five thousand seven hundred sixty dollars. The other bounties granted by the state were those which the banks were required to pay as a condition of receiving their char- ; ters. Many of the charters granted at this time are pea very interesting. In 1834 a charter was granted to Company the Exchange Bank at Hartford. By the terms of this charter the bank had to pay a bonus of twenty-five thousand dollars. Of this amount fifteen thousand dollars was to go to the Connecticut Silk Manufacturing Company, which, in turn, was directed to pay two thousand dollars to Gamaliel Gay and James Bottom. This last payment was to be made as a remuneration for the invention of machinery for the manufacture of silk and was to .be given on condition that the inventors would allow this machinery to be used by any person in Connecticut without receiving in return a royalty. The company was also directed to pay fifteen hundred dollars of the fifteen thousand dollars to the Mansfield Manufac- turing Company. This left eleven thousand five hundred dollars to be used by the Connecticut Company. The bank was also directed to spend eight thousand dollars in constructing an iron railing, walks and gutters around the state house in Hartford. The re- maining two thousand dollars the bank was to pay into the state treasury. The “internal improvement’? movement spread over the country in this period and Connecticut did not escape. The particular ob- ject of its solicitude was the Farmington Canal. The projectors of this canal had large visions of what it would become and of the prosperity it would bring to Connecticut. At first it was intended to be but a link of a series of canals leading to Canada. The city of New Haven was especially interested in it because the terminus was to be at New Haven, and it was expected that much of the trade Hartford had enjoyed would be brought to New Haven. The Farmington Canal Company was incorporated in 1822 and its charter exempted the stock of this corporation from all taxation until after twenty-one years from the time of the completion of the canal.2, The state never made a grant from the treasury to this The Farming- ton Canal 1 Public Statute Laws, 1834, chap. 40. 2 Private Laws, 1789—1836, title 8, sec. 22. State Expenditures, 93 enterprise, but it did aid it materially in making banks subscribe to the stock of the corporation. In 1824, the Mechanics’ Bank in New Haven was incorporated. One of the conditions of its charter was that it must subscribe one hundred thousand dollars to the capital stock of the Farmington Canal Corporation and an addi- tional one hundred thousand dollars if the directors of the canal should call for it. The directors did demand it and the bank sub- scribed the entire two hundred thousand dollars. In return for the subscription, the capital stock of the bank was forever exempted from all taxation.t In 1826 the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company united their stock. The work of constructing a canal from New Haven to Northampton, Massachusetts, was now under way, but in 1827 the funds from the stock subscription were exhausted and only the courage of the managers kept the enterprise alive at this time. The city of New Haven came to their relief in 1829 with a subscription of one hundred thousand dollars to the stock of the canal and in 1831 the City Bank of New Haven was chartered on condition that it subscribe the same amount to the stock of the Hampshire and Hampden canal corporation. The capital stock of the bank was to be free from taxa- tion until the tolls of the canal were yielding a dividend of six per cent on the capital stock of the canal corporation.? Still another bank was directed by its charter, granted in 1834, to further the con- struction of the canal. This was the New Haven County Bank. Within a year from the time of its organization this bank was to pay to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company the sum of two thou- sand dollars and was also to pay one thousand dollars annually during the three following years.* In 1836 the condition of the two companies was so bad that they were wound up at a loss of over one million dollars and a new company, called the New Haven and Northampton Company, was formed in their place.2 The canal continued to be run at a loss and in 1839 the city of New Haven issued to the com- pany as a loan, twenty thousand dollars worth of bonds, secured by mortgage of the canal. The city offered one hundred thousand dollars; but in 1840, when the company asked for the remaining eighty thousand dollars, the city refused to make the loan. It agreed, 1 Private Laws, 1789—1836, pp. 104—107, sec. 10. 2 Atwater’s History of City of New Haven, chap. 22, p. 359. 3 Public Acts, 1831, chap. 50, sec. 10. * Public Acts, 1834, chap. 39. ° Account of Farmington, Hampshire and Hampden, and New Haven and Northampton Canal Companies, 1850, T. J. Stafford, Printer. oO 94 The Financial History of Connecticut. however, to relinquish the mortgage,t thus making a gift of the twenty thousand dollars, and it appropriated three thousand dollars a year for the use of the water of the canal for as many years (not exceeding thirty) as it should be kept in operation.2 No further public grants were made and so the story of this canal will be dropped with the mere statement that the entire amount of money sunk in this enterprise until it was finally superseded by the railroad in 1848 was one million five hundred thousand dollars.® The first railroad corporations chartered in Connecticut were the Boston, Norwich and New London Railroad Company and the New York and Stonington Railroad Company. These companies were incorporated in 1832. The legislature provided that the capital stock of these railroad companies should be exempted from taxation until the tolls were sufficient to yield a six per cent dividend on the capital stock.4 In the same year a charter was granted to the Quinebaug Bank in Norwich. Its charter required the bank to subscribe at least one hundred thousand dollars (and another hundred thousand, if demanded) to the stock of the first named railroad company. The capital stock of the bank was exempted from taxation until the bank and the railroad company should be able to make dividends, which, when taken together, should equal six per cent of their combined capital stock.® A year later charters were granted to the Hartford and New Haven Rail- road Company and to the Manchester Railroad Company. By the terms of their charters the capital stock of these companies was exempted from taxation until their profits should be large enough to afford a dividend of five per cent on their capital stock.6 The first train to run in Connecticut was on the Stonington road. This event did not occur until 1839,’ and the state received no revenue from the railroads during this period. Another form of internal improvement was fostered by the state in 1833. The Merchants’ Bank at Norwich was incorpora- The Thames ted on condition that it spend in clearing and River deepening the channel of the Thames whatever sum, Railroads 1 Atwater’s History City of New Haven, chap. 22, p. 360. * Niles’ Register (1840), vol. lviii, p. 244. 3 Account of Farmington, Hampshire and Hampden, and New Haven and Northampton Canal Companies, 1850, T. J. Stafford, Printer. 4 Private Laws, 1789—1837, title 33, sec. 17. 5 Public Statute Laws, May 1833, chap. 50, sec. 11. 8 Private Laws, 1789—1837, title 33, p. 1005, sec. 14 and p. 1019, sec. 18. * Second Annual Report of Railroad Commissioners, 1854, p. 4. State Expenditures. 25 not exceeding thirty thousand dollars, might be necessary for that purpose. It is an interesting sequel to know that in 1841 the assembly authorized the directors of this bank to reduce the value of each share from fifty dollars to forty dollars. This action of reducing the capital stock by one-fifth was based on the ground that the bonus required of the bank had put too severe a strain upon its resources.! 9. Humane Institutions and Public Buildings. During the first period the state established no charitable insti- tution and with an exception of an appropriation in 1817 to the Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb Asylum for jit gave no aid to humane institutions of any kind.2 Deaf and : é et ee Bamb From the year beginning April 1, 1830, this institution annually received money from the state for the edu- cation of deaf and dumb persons who were unable to provide it for themselves and whose friends could not bear the expense. In 1837 the assembly authorized the governor to choose some of the deaf and dumb inhabitants of the state who were unable to provide an education, using his discretion regarding the number to be chosen, and to send them to the asylum for the deaf and dumb at Hartford to be educated at the expense of the state. These beneficiaries were to be between the ages of twelve and twenty-five. The governor was empowered to contract for their education, for a period of not more than five years, on terms at least as favorable as other states were granted. He was limited to twenty-five hundred dollars for any one year.’ This appropriation was continued in 1843 and the act was amended to permit the governor to contract for the edu- cation of deaf and dumb children between eight and twelve years of age. For these he could contract for a term of eight years, but he was restricted to a term of six years for all others.4 As a matter of fact, the amount allowed by the acts of 1837 and 1843 was not entirely used, the actual expense for this purpose in a single sub- sequent year being less than fifteen hundred dollars until 1841 and not rising above two thousand dollars until 1844. In this year the assembly voted that if in any year the full appropriation of twenty- five hundred dollars should not be used, the unexpended portion might be added to the appropriation for the next year.> The total 1 Public Acts, May 1841, chap. 4. Sef. pp. 49, 50. 3 Private Acts, 1837, p. 26. 4 Private Acts, 1843, p. 27. 5 Private Acts, 1844, p. 8. 96 The Financial History of Connecticut. amount expended from April 1, 1830, until March 31, 1847, was twenty-nine thousand eight hundred nine dollars, an average per year of one thousand eight hundred sixty-three dollars. Another institution to receive aid at the hands of the state during this period was the General Hospital Society of the State of Connec- ticut. Using its favorite method of financial assistance, Salen the legislature required the New Haven County Bank, Society as one of the conditions on which its charter was granted in 1834, to pay five thousand dollars to this society.} The next institution for the physically infirm to which the state gave annual financial support was the New England Institution tLe of for the Blind. One hundred forty-three dollars was ie aaa paid to it by the state in 1835, six hundred fifty in 1837 and three hundred thirty-eight in 1838. In this year the legislature followed the policy already adopted in the case of the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb. It appointed the governor a commissioner to contract with the New England Insti- tution for the Blind for the education of blind persons of the state who were unable personally or by the assistance of friends to pro- vide the necessary means. The age limit of persons who could receive the benefit of this act was set at twenty-five. The governor could contract for as many persons as he deemed expedient, provided the expense did not exceed one thousand dollars a year, and he could not make a contract for more than five years.2, Two years later the age limit was extended to forty years, preference still being given to persons under twenty-five, if, in the opinion of the governor, there was a sufficient number of persons within the lower age limit entitled to the benefits of the appropriation, but no other change was made.? In 1843 the resolution of 1838 was re-enacted for another period of five years, thus restoring the age limit to twenty-five years. As in the case of the deaf and dumb, the appropriation allowed was not entirely used. From April 1, 1838, to March 31, 1844, only two thousand seven hundred sixteen dollars was thus expended. This is an average per year of four hundred fifty-three dollars, which is less than half of the appropriation. No outlay was made for this purpose for the next two years. The reason for these small expend- itures is that the number of persons who applied was too small to exhaust the appropriations. 1 Public Statute Laws, 1834, chap. 39, sec. 14. 2 Private Acts, 1838, pp. 8, 9. 3 Private Acts, 1840, p. 4. 4 Private Acts, 1843, p. 26. State Expenditures 97 There arose at this time a demand that the state should make provision for its insane poor. An institution known as the Retreat for the Insane and situated in Hartford had been in- ene corporated by the legislature in May, 1822.1 The legis- lature at that time made a grant of five thousand dollars to this institution.2. This grant was paid in the year which ended March 31, 1824.2 In 1837 the legislature appointed a committee to inquire into the best means of relieving the insane poor of the state? and in 1839 a committee was appointed to select a location for an insane hospital and to ascertain the expense of building the hospital.2 Such a hospital was not built, however, as the legis- lature, in May, 1842, decided to support its insane poor at the above mentioned Retreat for the Insane. The governor was made a commissioner to select the beneficiaries and to contract for their support at this retreat. He was limited to an annual expense of two thousand dollars.6 The next year the assembly voted to ad- vance to the retreat the appropriation for the next five years—ten thousand dollars—on condition that the retreat should contract to support the insane poor of the state on terms to be agreed upon by the governor and the officers of the institution.’ Finally, in 1844, further aid was granted by an act authorizing the governor to contract still further with the institution for the support of the insane poor of the state. In the execution of this contract he was authorized to allow the retreat, in addition to the previous annual grant of two thousand dollars, a sum not to exceed three thousand dollars a year. This act also provided that if any part of this three thousand dollar appropriation was not expended in any year, the balance could be carried on to succeeding years.8 In 1845 five thou- sand dollars was appropriated for completing and furnishing the new buildings of the retreat. This was to be paid in two equal in- stalments, one-half in 1845 and the other in 1846.9 Under the opera- tion of these acts, the state, in the four years ending March 31, 1846, 1 * Gov. Buckingham’s Message, 1859, p. 10. 3 Compt. Report (Ms.), May 1824. 4 Private Acts, 1837, pp. 26, 27. 5 Private Acts, 1839, pp. 59, 60. 6 Private Acts, May 1842, pp. 52, 53. * Private Acts, 1843, p. 28. 8 Private Acts, 1844, p. 23. Private Acts, 1845, pp. 117, 118. » Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 7 Marca, 1912. 98 The Financial History of Connecticut. During the second period the entire amount spent for humane in- stitutions was fifty-seven thousand three hundred forty dollars. As only five thousand dollars of this sum was expended before March 31, 1830, the average annual expenditure after the state began the policy of annually appropriating money for such an object was thirty-two hundred seventy-one dollars. This is not a large amount to spend for such purposes, but it was at least a beginning of an expenditure which increased considerably in the next period. During this period the state expenditures for buildings were as follows: Publie Buildings Building new state prison, $33,000 Addition to state prison, 7,926 Building state house at New Haven, 32,359 Alterations, etc., to Hartford State House, 9,460 Repairs of New Haven State House, 4,750 Building and repairs of arsenal 2,000 $89,495 Of this amount the expenditures incurred for the buildings of the state prison and of the arsenal have already been included in the treatment of the state prison! and military expenses.? Exclusive of these, the entire amount spent for public buildings and insti- tutions from April 1, 1823 (the year in which an expense of this nature first appeared in this period) to March 31, 1846, was one hundred five thousand one hundred thirty-eight dollars, an average of nearly forty-six hundred dollars a year. Even if the exceptions for arsenal and state prison are not made, the total will fall below one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($148,064) and the average will be only sixty-four hundred thirty-eight dollars a year. 10. Abatement and Collection of Taxes. When they revised the system of taxation at the beginning of this period, the Republicans did not alter the existing provision for abating one-eighth of one per cent of the state tax on the towns nor did it change the fees paid to the collectors of the state tax.® During the entire period no change in these respects was made. The abatements to the towns from April 10, 1818, to March 3f, 1846, amounted to one hundred forty-one thousand fifty-nine dollars 1 Cf. pp. 88, 89. 2 Cf. p. 88. = Cf p:. 57: Summary. 99 and the total expense for the collection of taxes was forty-four thousand three dollars. E. SuMMARY. 1. Lower Expenses. This period was marked by the adoption of a constitution and a change in the system of taxation which resulted in a lower grand list. The tax on the towns was kept low, however, and a reduction made in the expenditures of the state. This was brought about principally by limiting the regular sessions of the legislature to one every year, by the withdrawal of the annual appropriation for the support of schools, by putting the state prison upon a self-supporting basis and by limiting the amount to be spent for individual state paupers and contracting for their support. Expenditures were kept so low that for the year ending March 31, 1826, they fell below fifty thousand dollars, the only time in the history of the state since 1795 that this has occurred. At no time during this period, after 1819, did the expenditures for any one year exceed ninety-five thousand dollars. After this period the annual expenditures never fell below one hundred thousand dollars. In summing up the first period, it was stated that exclusive of the expenses of running the govern- ment—legislative, judicial and executive—the principal items of ordinary expense were for schools, for the support of paupers, and for the state prison. During this period the first of these disappears, the second dwindles to a small amount, and the state prison becomes a source of revenue. The only avenue of expense to take the place of these three was that of public buildings and institutions. The average annual amount spent on these did not equal the average annual amount spent on either schools or paupers during the last ten years of the first period. 2. Larger Income. The capital of the school fund was enlarged from $1,858,074 in 1820 to $2,070,055 in 1845 and the income distributed increased from fifty-eight thousand four hundred thirty-nine dollars in 1820 to one hundred nineteen thousand three hundred eighty-five dollars in 1846. The distribution was changed from a method based on the grand list to a new method based on the number of children between four and sixteen. After 1820 the yearly income from this fund was larger than the entire amount annually spent by the state for current expenses. Exclusive of the school fund the state tax on the towns 100 The Financial History of Connecticut. was the largest source of revenue. The income from the permanent fund (which after 1833 consisted entirely of bank stock) remained the third in importance. Until March 31, 1830, the revenue from duties and licenses continued to be the fourth in amount, but it was surpassed the next year by the amount paid into the state treasury from the surplus earnings of the state prison. After this date the revenue received by the state from duties and licenses never regained its original importance. In 1837, the state received its quota of the United States surplus funds and distributed it among the towns to be held as a permanent fund. This was called the “Town Deposit Fund” and one-half of the income (later the entire income) was to be appropriated to the support of schools.1 A new form of taxation (used before in the case of the Phoenix Bank in 1814) appears during this period in the bank bonus. This was in the nature of a franchise tax, as it was a payment which the banking corporation had to make in order to receive its charter. Although during this period very little money came into the state treasury from this source, the legislature availed itself of this means to make grants to various undertakings which it wished to encourage. 3. Financial Prosperity. From one point of view this period was an exceedingly prosperous one for the state. It was not burdened with a public debt. It had a permanent fund of about four hundred thousand dollars which for the last half of the period yielded a large annual return. The principal and interest of its school fund greatly increased. Fi- nancially, the state was in a sound and prosperous condition. When a man prospers, one of two thing soccurs ; he either raises his stand- ard of living or he becomes miserly. The same is true of political bodies. If they are financially strong, they should make many improvements and extend their activities. Otherwise, they will tend to be satisfied with what they have, will refuse to tax them- selves, and thus progress and development will be slow. A study of this period shows that the latter statement well describes the condition of Connecticut at this time. Instead of devoting the income of the accumulated funds to the betterment of the schools and to desirable public improvements, the state used the income of these funds merely to reduce the taxes. It is questionable, there- fore, whether these permanent funds really benefited, or injured the state at this time. TCE. Wpey til Growth of Population. 101 THIRD PERIOD. 1846-1861. PERIOD OF EXPANSION. INCREASED EXPENDITURES AND TAXATION. A. GRowTH OF POPULATION. A study of the population of Connecticut from 1790 to 1860 as shown by the United States census reports! will help to explain the changed conditions of the state finances which appear in this period. Per cent increase Wear. Population. Per cent of of Population Increase. in. US: 1790 237,946 1800 251,002 5.4 30.4 1810 261,942 4.3 36.4 1820 275,148 5.0 33.4 1830 297,675 8.1 33.9 1840 309,978 4A 32.7 1850 370,792 19.6 39.9 1860 460,147 24.0 39.6 These figures show that while the normal increase for the entire United States for every decade except one was more than one for every three persons, the average rate of increase for Connecticut up to 1840 was only about one in twenty for each decade. This is a proof that emigration from Connecticut was then taking place to a degree that prevented even the normal rate of increase. This fact is further verified by the figures given in the last chapter where it was shown that the number of children between the ages of four and sixteen actually decreased from 1820 to 1845.2, Notice, however, the great change that occurred during the decade ending in 1850. In this decade the population of Connecticut increased by nearly sixty-one thousand. The increase for this decade was 1838 more than the increase for the four decades that immediately preceded it. In the succeeding decade the increase was still more rapid, the gain being eighty-nine thousand three hundred fifty-five. From 1846 to 1860 the population of the state increased more than it did from 1790 to 1846, and this is the most important factor in the increased expenditures of this period. There is little need for considering the state expenditures for the third period except to note the general increase in most of the items and to point out a few changes in the laws which caused increased expenditures. * Cf. United States Census Reports. ee pp. 82. 102 The Financial History of Connecticut. B. EXPENDITURES. 1. The General Assembly. The salaries of the members of the general assembly remained the same as in the last period, the senators receiving two dollars a day and the members of the House of Representatives one dollar and a half a day. Both continued to receive for mileage an allow- ance of nine cents per mile! The expenses of the assembly in- creased during this period from about twenty-four thousand dollars a year to approximately thirty-five thousand dollars a year. This increase is explained in part by the increased amount of legislation and consequently longer sessions. 2. Salaries. In general, the salaries of the principal officials of the state re- mained the same as they were at the close of the last period.? In 1847 an important change was made in the compensation of the secretary of state. Until this time he had received eighty-four dollars a year and was allowed certain stipulated fees for official services. The assembly, in 1847, fixed his salary at one thousand dollars a year and at the same time directed the secretary to turn all fees received by him into the state treasury.? In 1855 the assembly increased the number of judges of the su- preme and superior courts, from five to nine. Each one of these judges was allowed a salary of two thousand dollars a year.® The salaries of all the five judges constituting these courts before this change aggregated fifty-three hundred dollars a year. The new law, therefore, increased the expense for salaries of the judges of these courts by twelve thousand seven hundred dollars. However, as the county courts were superseded by the superior court under the provisions of this same act,® this increased expense was reduced to ninety-eight hundred dollars. No other changes in the salaries of the principal officials occurred in this period. Their salaries at the close of this period were as follows’: 1 Revised Statutes, 1849, title 16, sec. 1; Conn. Statutes (Compilation of 1854) title 46, sec. 1. LOT Ag ones IT 3 Public Acts, 1847, chap. 45. 4 Public Acts, 1855, chap. 26, sec. 1, 11. > Tdem, sec. 15. ® Public Acts, 1855, chap. 26, sec. 17. * Conn. Statutes (Compilation of 1854), title 46, sec. 1. Expenditures 103 Governor, $1100 Lieutenant Governor, 300 Secretary of State, 1000 Treasurer, 1000 Comptroller, 1000 Commissioner of School Fund, 1250 Judges of the Supreme Court,! 2000 Judges of the Superior Court,! 2000 The entire salary of the commissioner of the school fund and three hundred dollars of the treasurer’s salary were payable from the school fund. 3. Judicial Expenditures. The judicial expenditures, which first became the chief item of state expense in 1823 and which had risen from the insignificant sum of about twenty-five hundred dollars in 1801 to thirty-three thousand nine hundred eleven dollars for the closing year of the second period, increased rapidly during the third period and for the year ending in 1858 reached the hitherto unequaled amount of eighty-six thousand two hundred dollars. Notice that in the early part of the state’s history it took forty-six years (1801-1846) for the annual cost to increase thirty thousand dollars. In these later years the much shorter interval of twelve years (1847—1858) was signalized by an increase of more than fifty-two thousand dollars. There are several causes for this increase. An act passed by the legislature in 1845 allowed the towns to shift upon the state the costs of certain cases brought before justices of the peace which the towns had formerly been obliged to pay.?. This, however, was only a minor cause. The principal causes are three. First, the rapidly growing population and its concentration in the cities natu- rally tended to increase crime. Second, the state was admitting many foreigners who were in a measure unaccustomed to the freedom of this country and who therefore sometimes mistook liberty for license. Most important of all, the growth of corporations—manu- facturing, banking, and railroad—during this period was the oc- casion for many new legal questions involving litigation to arise. The total judicial expenditures (exclusive of the salaries of the judges of the supreme, superior, and county courts) for the fifteen years of this period were eight hundred twenty-nine thousand three hundred fifty-four dollars. 1 As changed by sec. 15, chap. 26, Public Acts of 1855. * Public Acts, 1845, chap. 22. 104 The Financial History of Connecticut. 4. Military Expenses. In 1847 the legislature passed an act relating to the militia,' aiming to make it a more effective body. The operation of the act caused a considerable increase of military expense when viewed from the ratio point of view, but measured in dollars and cents the increase was not large. The average annual expense for the three years ending March 31, 1847, was ten hundred ninety-one dollars and for the three following years it was nineteen hundred thirty- four dollars. In 1850 further legislation was enacted in which provision was made for the payment to the town clerks of three cents for every name enrolled by them in the militia.2 The act of 1847 had provided for the enrolment of the militia, but it was to be done by the collectors of the state tax and no extra compen- sation was given. The expenses were somewhat increased by the act of 1850, and the annual average for the five years ending in 1855 was four thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars; but the act of 1854 revolutionized the system and caused a greatly increased expenditure. Governor Dutton, in his message to the assembly in 1854, called its attention to the increasing number of foreigners and the need for better military protection. Lawlessness was liable to occur at the hands of these foreigners and the possibility of riots necessitated an efficient militia. He therefore advised a revision of the militia laws for the purpose of organizing a better military force. The legislature responded to his appeal by passing an act which provided for a stated compensation to members of the active militia. Until this time the inducements offered to join the active militia had been exemption from the poll tax and an allowance which was paid from the military commutation money and fines and was therefore an uncertain quantity.° This act re- quired three days regimental or brigade camp duty in the fall of each year® and in 1855 an additional drill of three days in August for the officers was ordered.? These acts added greatly to the ‘military expenditures of the state. From 1855 to 1861 the total expenses amounted to one hundred fifty-two thousand fifty-three dollars, an average of twenty-five thousand three hundred forty- two dollars per year. 1 Public Acts, 1847, chap. 43. 2 Public Acts, 1850, chap. 57, sec. 2. 8 Governor Dutton’s Message to the General Assembly, May 1854, Bu: le 4 Public Acts, 1854, chap. 68, sec. 49. ® Public Acts, 1847, chap. 43, sec. 62. 6 Public Acts, 1854, chap. 68, sec. 45. Public Acts, 1855, chap. 89, sec. 3. e 7 A ow Expenditures. 105 5. Education. In this period the state began to awake to the fact that it was no longer maintaining its premier position in the realm of public edu- cation. The chief reason why Connecticut was losing its prestige was its possession of a large and productive school fund. It will be remembered that at the beginning of the second period, the state appropriation for schools was withdrawn because of this fact.t By 1824 all legal obligations for the people to support the public schools by taxation were withdrawn and the school districts were allowed to assess the parents of the scholars for school expenses in excess of the income from the school fund. The result was that in the majority of school districts, the schools were kept open just long enough to consume the money derived from the school fund or some town fund and taxation for ordinary school purposes was almost entirely an unknown event.? A beginning of state supervision was made near the end of the second period, but this had ceased in 1842, when the board of com- missioners of the common schools was abolished.? A new start was made in 1845, when the commissioner of the school fund was made superintendent of the common schools by virtue of his office.® From that time there has always been some form of state super- vision. In 1849, when the first state normal school in Connecticut was established, the principal of the school was made superintendent of the public schools in place of the school fund commissioner.‘ In 1854 the legislature passed an act again requiring the towns to lay a tax of one cent on the dollar of its list of taxable property and polls. As the list was made at this time, this was equivalent to a tax of three cents on a hundred dollars of the true valuation of property and ten cents for each poll. In the year ending in 1857 the state began to make appropriations for school libraries. During the five years ending March 31, 1861, this amounted to sixty-nine hundred ninety dollars. The expense incurred for the superintend- ence of the schools increased from five hundred twenty-eight dollars for the first year of the period to thirty-three hundred sixty- Wi, p. 83. 2 Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1852, pp. 23, 24 (Leg. Doc. 1852). 3 Idem, p. 37. 4 Public Acts, chap. 52, sec. 1. 5 Public Acts, 1842, chap. 50, sec. 6. § Public Acts, 1845, chap. 46, sec. 1. * Public Acts, 1849, chap. 24, sec. 1, 3. 106 The Financial History of Connecticut. five dollars for the year ending in 1854. For the remainder of the period the average annual expense for supervision was thirty-six hundred sixty-seven dollars with very little fluctuation from this amount. The total expense of the public schools, including the expense incurred in the aid of school libraries, for the entire period was forty-six thousand seven hundred seven dollars. This does not include the school fund, which is treated separately. In 1849 the assembly passed an act establishing a state normal school.t As a condition of incorporation,? the state imposed upon the State Bank at Hartford a bonus of ten thousand dollars, which was appropriated for the support of the normal school. This bonus of ten thousand dollars was to constitute a fund from which the trustees of the school were to be paid annually twenty-five hundred dollars, plus accrued in- terest, for four years. The Deep River Bank at Saybrook, also chartered in 1849, was directed to pay a bonus of one thousand dollars to this fund. In 1851 the Farmers’ Bank at Bridgeport was allowed to increase its capital on condition that it pay a bonus of fifteen hundred dollars, of which five hundred was to be paid to the normal school.® In 18535 the legislature voted an annual appro- priation of four thousand dollars a year for a term of five years? ; in 1858 a grant of forty-four hundred dollars was made’ and five thousand dollars was appropriated for each of the next two years. All of these grants were for running expenses. In addition to these sums, the state appropriated a thousand dollars in the year 1855 and again in 1856 and twenty-seven hundred fifty dollars in 1858. These amounts were expended on the building, apparatus, heating plant, and repairs. The entire amount appropriated from the state treasury for the school from the time of its establishment in 1849 until the close of the period was thirty-five thousand one hundred fifty dollars plus eleven thousand five hundred dollars bank bonuses and nine hundred fifty-eight dollars interest, making a total of forty-seven thousand six hundred eight dollars. In this connection it is fitting to mention a bonus of four thousand dollars which the City Bank of Hartford was directed to pay to the New Britain Normal School 1 Public Acts, 1849, chap. 23, sec. 1. 2 Private Acts, 1849, p. 4. 3 Public Acts, 1849, chap. 23, sec. 7. 4 Private Laws, vol. ii, p. 66. > Private Acts, 1851, p. 58. 6 Private Acts, 1853, p. 197. ? Private Acts, 1858, p. 107. Expenditures. 107 Educational Fund Company as a condition of incorporation.' The state also paid four thousand dollars to this company in 1855.? This company was formed to secure a building for the Normal School at New Britain and therefore these grants are closely allied to those to the normal school. Wesleyan University was the only college to receive aid from the state during this period. In 1851 the legislature authorized the Middlesex County Bank to increase its capital on the condition that it pay a bonus of two thousand dollars to this institution.? In the year 1854 a grant of ten thousand dollars was made by the legislature which was paid in two equal instalments during the fiscal years 1855 and 1856.! The state again gave aid to the Connecticut Literary Institution in this period. The City Bank of Hartford, in the act incorpora- ting it in 1851, was directed to pay a bonus of The Connecti- five thousand dollars to this institution.® In 1857 eut Literary : Cae pee Reeetaion two thousand dollars was given to the institution by the state.® Colleges 6. State Prison. The only expense to the state treasury for the prison during this period was the salaries of the directors, which remained, as formerly at one hundred dollars a year for each one of a board of three, and twelve thousand two hundred dollars for repairs and the construction of a new building. The total expense to the treasury was thus sixteen thousand seven hundred dollars. The warden of the prison paid into the state treasury during this period, from the surplus earnings of the prison, the sum of sixteen thousand dollars. The net expense of the prison to the state treasury was very small. 7. State Paupers. The cost of supporting the state paupers for the first year of this period was fifteen hundred dollars. This was the last year of the contract previously made by the comptroller and the new contract called for only eleven hundred dollars a year. This remained in 1 Private Acts, 1851, p. 15. * Compt. Report, 1855, under Contingent Expenses. 3 Private Acts, 1851, p. 60. 4 Private Acts, 1854, p. 231. > Private Acts, 1851, p. 15. 6 Private Acts, 1856, p. 145. 108 The Financial History of Connecticut. force for two years, but for the year ending March 31, 1850, this expense was doubled. The comptroller gave as the cause of this increase, the increasing immigration and the influx of laborers to aid in the construction of public works,! who, after their immediate job was done, frequently became public charges and not being inhabitants of this state their support fell upon the state. The contractors, for their own protection, were forced to demand more compensation. With the exception of the year 1853, when the expense was only seventeen hundred eighty-five dollars, the annual expense from 41850 until 1856 was twenty-two hundred dollars. For the remaining five years of the period, the annual expense was reduced to eighteen hundred dollars. 8. Humane Institutions and Public Buildings. No change was made in the annual appropriation of three thousand a year allowed at the close of the last period, until 1856. The legis- lature in this year raised the amount to four thou- Asylum for sand dollars and made it cumulative, thereby allow- Deaf and : Damb ing an unexpended balance of one year to be added | to the annual appropriation for the next year. No further change was made in the appropriation. From April 1, 1846, until March 31, 1861, the actual amount granted to the asylum by the state was fifty thousand two hundred fifty-two dollars, an average of thirty-three hundred fifty dollars a year. In 1851 the legislature incorporated the Bank of North America in Seymour, stipulating that it pay to the state a bonus equal to one per cent of its paid-in capital stock. This sum was to be appropriated to the education of the deaf and dumb of the state.2» The amount given to the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb as a result-of this act was one thousand dollars. There was not always a demand for aid to the blind and conse- quently in the years 1850, 1852 and 1857 no expense was in- curred by the state in connection with this institu- Perkins In- tion. The annual appropriation of a sum not to stitute for the (Bland exceed one thousand dollars was renewed for another period of five years? and in 1853 the appropriation was raised to fifteen hundred dollars a year for another five-year period. This act also removed any restriction as to the age of the bene- 1 Compt. Report, 1850, p. 5. * Private Acts, 1851, p. 37. 3 Private Acts, 1848, p. 29. Expenditures. 109 ficiary, merely stipulating that he be of “suitable age and ca- pacity.”? This act was renewed in 1858.? The amount expended by the state for the education of the blind during this period, which began April 1, 1846, was fourteen thousand two hundred forty-five dollars. This is an average of eleven hundred eighty-seven dollars for the twelve years in which aid was given. The annual grant of five thousand dollars for the support of the insane poor was raised by the legislature in 1851 to seven ee i. thousand dollars a year. An additional sum of the Insane ¢tWenty-five hundred dollars was granted in 1859.4 Under the operation of these acts ninety-three thou- sand six hundred ninety-three dollars was expended from April 1, 1846, until March 31, 1861, an annual average of six thou- sand two hundred forty-six dollars. In addition to these annual appropriations, the state in 1854 and 1856 paid to the retreat six thousand and eight thousand dollars, respectively, for building purposes. In 1851 the state also directed three banks—the Central Bank at Middletown,® the Pequonnuc at Bridgeport,® and the Hatters’ at Bethel’—to pay bonuses which aggregated three thou- sand two hundred fifty dollars to be used for the benefit of the insane poor. Thus this institution received during this period over one hundred and five thousand dollars from the state. In 1854 the assembly for the first time voted an annual appropri- ation of two thousand dollars to be made to the General Hospital Society. This appropriation was continued without Sena change for the rest of the period and the full amount Societv was expended. The legislature did not overlook this ; society in 1851, when it was chartering so many banks and causing them to pay bonuses for various institutions. The Merchants’ Bank of New Haven was directed to pay two thousand dollars to the society.® The state reform school was established by the legislature in 1851. The act provided that as soon as ten: thousand dollars was raised by private subscription and paid into the state treas- oa ury, the state should add another ten thousand dollars. Schoo] Lhe sum thus held by the treasurer was to be expended on the reform school at such times as the trustees 1 Private Acts, 1853, p. 5. 2 Private Acts, 1858, p. 6. “ Private Acts, 1851, 81. 4 Private Acts, 1859, p. 139. 5 Private Acts, 1851, 6. 6 Private Acts, 1851, p. 50. 7 Private Acts, 1851, PAE 8 Private Acts, vol. iii, p. 309. ® Private Acts, 1851, 30. ee Sa a 110 The Financial History of Connecticut. of the school requested.t. Four banks—the Central Bank at Middle- town,” the Farmers’ Bank at Bridgeport,? the Pequonnuc Bank at Bridgeport,4 and the Merchants’ Bank at New Haven®—were direct- ed in 1851 to pay bonuses aggregating forty-five hundred dollars to the school. The state continued to appropriate money for the reform school and a considerable portion of the appropriations was expended in the purchase of land and the erection of buildings. In addition to these appropriations, the state paid the institution one dollar a week for the care of every boy committed to the school.® From April 1, 1855, which marks the beginning of the payments for board, until March 31, 1861, the state paid to the school thirty- nine thousand seven hundred ninety-five dollars for that purpose. — The appropriations from April 1, 1852, to the close of the period amounted to eighty-two thousand seven hundred forty-six dollars in addition to the payments for board. Adding to this the slight expenses of the trustees of the institution (eleven hundred forty- eight dollars), the total expense to the state in establishing and supporting the school was one hundred twenty-three thousand six hundred eighty-nine dollars. The state gave appropriations to the Hartford Hospital in the years 1856, 1858 and 1861 amounting to twenty-six thousand five hundred dollars. In 1857 one thousand dollars was aa given to the New Haven Orphan Asylum and five ane hundred dollars each to the Hartford and Middle- town Orphan Asylums. At four different times dur- ing the last eight years of the period, small sums were given to the American Colonization Society to aid them in transporting colored people to Africa. Only eleven hundred dollars was thus expended. Finally, in 1860, provision was made for the education of indigent idiotic children and the expense incurred for this purpose was fifteen hundred dollars.’ To clearly show the activity of the state in this direction, the following summary of the amounts expended by the state for Recaneie humane and charitable institutions from April 1, 1846, lation to March, 31, 1861, is here given: 1 Public Acts, 1851, chap. 46, sec. 12. 2 Private Acts, 1851, p. 6. 3 Private Acts, 1851, p. 58: 4 Private Acts, 1851, p. 50. 5 Private Acts, 1851, p. 30. § Public Acts, 1851, chap. 46, sec. 13. * Private Acts, 1860, p. 88. ; . oo Expenditures. 114 Asylum for Deaf and Dumb, $50,252 and $1,000 bank bonus: Perkins Institute for the Blind, 14,245 Retreat for the Insane, 107,693 and $3,250 bank bonuses General Hospital Society, 14,000 and $2,000 bank bonus. State Reform School, 123,689 and $4,500 bank bonuses. Hartford Hospital, 26,500 Other institutions, 4,600 $340,979 and $10,750 bank bonuses. During this period the repairs on the New Haven state house cost the state twelve hundred ninety dollars and those on the Hartford state house thirty-five hundred eighty-four dollars. Provision was also made for two county jails, one receiv- ing a thousand dollars in 1847 and the other being paid an equal amount in 1855. Other buildings 9. Encouragements. No bounties were offered by the legislature in this period. The encouragement of agriculture by means of stimulating county agri- cultural societies to offer premiums was, however, continued. Payments were made in every year of the period, amounting in all to twenty-five thousand one hundred six dollars. The state began in the year ending March 31, 1855, to make an annual grant to the State Agricultural Society on similar terms. If the society by means of voluntary contributions, or by taxing its members, raised twenty-five hundred dollars, the state agreed to double it, on con- dition that the whole sum be offered as premiums at the annual cattle show. In 1856 the legislature voted to make this an annual appropriation,” but this resolution was repealed in 1857.3 One more grant—one thousand dollars—was made to the state society in the year ending in 1860, making the total of the state’s contribution eighty-five hundred dollars. Adding this amount to the sum re- ceived by the county societies, the expenditure incurred by the state in this period in the effort to encourage agriculture is found to be thirty-three thousand six hundred six dollars. 10. Abatement and Collection of Taxes. In the revision of the system of taxation in 1851, the abatement allowed to the towns on the state tax was withdrawn. This course peor p. 91. 2 Private Acts, 1856, p. 139. 3 Private Acts, 1857, p. 207. 4 Public Acts, 1851, chap. 47, sec. 48. Cf. pp. 57, 98. 112 The Financial History of Connecticut. was necessitated by the cause of justice. The abatement of one- eighth of the tax was not necessary in a large number of the towns which accepted it. Not only did this lessen the revenue which the state should have received from these towns, but it was unjust to those towns which had the most paupers to support. In the case of the latter, the abatements were only a partial relief while with the former more was granted than was needed. The state needed a certain amount of revenue every year and the rate of the state tax was regulated by this need. If the state was unjustly deprived of revenue from some towns, the loss was made up by imposing a higher rate than would otherwise be necessary. In this way the towns which had justly received the abatement would really be helping the other towns to lower their expenses. By an act passed in 1850,” the legislature provided that the state tax should be paid directly by the towns to the state treasurer. This abolished the system of state collectors, and eliminated an unnecessary expense.’ There- after the state tax was considered as an expense by the towns, was provided for when the town taxes were assessed, and was collected by the proper town official. From April 1, 1846, to March 31, 1850, before the new system was instituted, the total expense of abatements and collection of taxes was thirty-eight thousand eight hundred seventy-one dollars. C. REVENUE. 1. Revised System of Taxation. The increase in the current expenditures finally compelled the assembly to increase the taxes. The grand list was not growing rapidly enough to supply the necessary funds by continuing to impose upon the towns the former state tax of one cent on the dollar. In 1847 the rate was raised by the legislature to one and a half cents on the dollar. This action increased the returns from the state tax by twenty thousand dollars a year, but nevertheless the state was forced to borrow from the school fund, annually, from the beginning of this period, and on March 31, 1850, it owed more than fifty-eight thousand dollars to this fund. Although on other occasions the state had received temporary loans from the school fund and from 1 Treasurer's Report, 1851, p. 6. 2 Public Acts, 1850, chap. 64, sec. 6. S\Ch pp: 51,°2s: 4 Private Acts, 1847, p. 123. OR oct e deo. y Revenue. 413 banks, never before had it let them remain unpaid for more than a year. The loans had been made merely to carry the treasury through an emergency until the state taxes were paid. Now, the expenditures were exceeding the receipts and therefore the tempo- rary debt accumulated. Finally, in the sessions of 1850 and 1851, the general assembly revised the entire system of taxation and the system which was evolved bears all the earmarks of the present system. In the first place, instead of attempting to name every- thing which should be taxed,! the law was made to read “all real and personal property, except that which is exempt from taxation, shall be valued and set in the list." A list of exemptions was thus substituted for the list of taxable property. The second change to be noted was the provision that both real and personal property should be listed at three per cent of their true valuation. Previous to this time personal property had been listed at a higher rate than real estate. These two modifications made the law in regard to the taxation of real and personal property substantially the same as it is to-day.4 Personal property was made to include all goods, chattels, money, and effects (except wearing apparel) and all vessels owned by residents of the state in addition to all personal property already taxed.® The assessment of professions and occupations was dropped in the new system developed in 1850.6 Polls con- tinued to be set in the list at ten dollars each until 1860, when they were raised to three hundred dollars.’ 2. Increase in Grand List. Under the new system of assessing and the increasing prosperity of the state, the grand list increased from $4,704,612 in 1850 to $7,479,302 in 1859, the list on which the last state tax on the towns for the period was laid. The rate of the state tax was reduced by the legislature in 1851° to one cent and a quarter on the dollar and 1 Ci. pp. 22 and 62—64. 2 Public Acts, May 1850, chap. 64, sec. 1. 3 Idem. 4 In 1860 the law was changed to its present form, so that all taxable property was to be set in the list at its actual valuation instead of at three per cent of its valuation, but for practical purposes this made no change as the rate could be correspondingly lowered. ® Public Acts, May 1850, chap. 64, sec. 2. 5 Public Acts, May 1850, chap. 6, sec. 4. * Public Acts, May 1860, chap. 15, sec. 2. S Private Acts, 1851, p. 188. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 8 Marca, 1912. 114 The Financial History of Connecticut. in 18521 it set the rate again at one cent on the dollar. In 1858,” the rate was raised to one cent and a half. The total amount of state taxes on the towns from April 1, 1846, to March 31, 1864, was $1,088,546. This is an average of seventy-two thousand five . hundred sixty-nine dollars per year, an increase of thirty-two thou- sand six hundred fifty-one dollars over the average for the previous period. By comparing the first of these averages with the fifteen- year averages already given for the first ana second periods,® it will be found that it is twenty-three thousand eight hundred fifty- one dollars higher than the average for the given years of the first period and thirty-four thousand six hundred four dollars more than the average for the same number of years in the second period. 3. Military Commutation Tax. An additional tax in the nature of a poll tax was levied by an act of the legislature in 1854. This was called the military com- mutation tax and was a tax of fifty cents on all persons from twenty- one to forty-five years of age who were subject to military duty, except those actually serving in the militia. This tax and the state tax were collected by the towns at the same time.t The first return from this tax was in 1856. The total amount received by the state up to March 31, 1861, was sixty-eight thousand six hundred twenty-six dollars. If the amount received from this tax be added to that produced by the state tax, the total sum collected by the state from the towns from April 1, 1855, until March 31, 1864, is found to be six hundred four thousand six hundred nine dollars. This is an annual average of one hundred thousand seven hundred sixty-eight dollars and shows a great increase over the amount received from the towns during the previous period. 4. Tax on Corporations. The assembly did not stop here in its search for additional sources of revenue. The railroads, insurance companies and banking insti- tutions had hitherto escaped all special taxation except the bonuses required of some of the banks. In 1850, under the demands for increased revenue, the assembly began to lay special taxes on cor- porations, which is the distinctive feature of the modern system of state taxation. 1 Private Acts, 1852, p. 140. 2 Private Acts, 1858, p. 95. SACiomps Oe 4 Public Acts, May 1854, chap. 68, sec. 5, p. 25. — Revenue. 415 The first tax of this kind was a tax of one-third of one per cent aid in 1850 upon the market value of the capital stock of railroad companies. If a railroad extended beyond the limits of the state, it was directed to pay that proportion of the above tax which the length of the road within the state bore to the entire length of the road. This was an annual tax and was in lieu of all other taxes on railroad stock. From April 1, 1850, until March 31, 1861, the state received from this tax the sum of two hundred forty-nine thousand eight hundred sixteen dollars, an average of twenty-two thousand seven hundred eleven dollars a year. In 1851 the assembly passed an act providing that the agents of all insurance companies not incorporated by Connecticut, but doing business therein, should pay a tax equal to Foreign two per cent of the gross amount of premiums and Insurance : Companies assessments collected by them during the year. No tax, however, was to be collected from such companies chartered by states which did not lay an excise or license upon companies chartered by Connecticut and doing business within their territory.2 This introduces for the first time the reciprocal feature in taxation and the principle was carried further the next year. The law was then changed by subjecting foreign insurance companies to the same taxation that was imposed by their home states upon Connecticut companies.? The legislature at this time was very uncertain as to how foreign insurance companies should be taxed. They afforded a good opportunity to increase the revenue of the state and revenue was much to be desired ; on the other hand, the home insurance companies, which would probably be taxed by other states according to the policy Connecticut pursued in regard to companies chartered by those states, were entitled to considera- tion. The latter idea prevailed in 1852, but in 1853 the assembly again laid the two per cent tax on the gross amount of premiums and assessments which it laid in 1851.4 Finally, in 1854, the re- ciprocal law of 1852 was re-enacted® and it was not altered again during this period. The total amount of taxes received from the agents during the first three years of vacillation was four thousand nine hundred ninety-four dollars. After the act of 1854 the revenue Railroads 1 Public Acts, May 1850, chap. 58, sec. 2. * Public Acts, 1851, chap. 47, sec. 22. 8 Public Acts, May 1852, chap. 69, sec. 1. * Public Acts, May 1853, chap. 27, sec. 4 » Public Acts, May 1854, chap. 23. 116 The Financial History of Connecticut. from this source was very small, amounting to only twelve hundred twenty-one dollars for the seven years ending March 31, 1861. The grand total for the ten years was five thousand two hundred fifteen dollars. In the same act in which a tax was first levied on foreign insur- ance companies, the assembly imposed a tax on all mutual insur- ance companies chartered by the state. The tax was Mutual one-third of one per cent of the total cash capital, Insurance 5 : : Companies Whether invested or on deposit. This tax exempted these companies from all other taxes! The legis- lature, at its next session, May, 1852, reduced this tax from one- third of one per cent to one-fourth of one per cent of the total cash capital.2 From the time it was first laid until March 34, 1861, forty thousand seven hundred seventy-four dollars was received from this tax. The growth in the business of these companies may be seen by noticing the increase in the sums realized from this tax. During the year ending March 31, 1853, the tax was two thousand three hundred fifty-four dollars. For the last year of this period it amounted to the much larger sum of seven thousand seven hundred seventy-nine dollars. Savings banks and associations for saving were also made the object of a special tax in 1851. It was provided that beginning with July, 1852, these institutions should pay an annual Savings Banks tax of one-eighth of one per cent upon the total and Savings : : : Associations @mount of their deposits. This tax released them from further taxation except on real estate? In 1857 this tax was changed so that savings and building associa- tions were to pay one-fourth of one per cent on the total amount of their deposits and stock and the savings banks were to pay three-sixteenths of one per cent on the total amount of their deposits. This change almost doubled the revenue from this source. The tax had risen about three thousand dollars a year from the amount it yielded for the year ending March 31, 1853 (eight thousand seven hundred seven dollars), until it brought into the state treasury, during the year ending March 31, 1857, the sum of nineteen thousand thirty-seven dollars. The next year, the income from the new tax was thirty-four thousand fifty-five dollars. In 1859 the tax on savings banks was made the same as the tax on 1 Public Acts, May 1851, chap. 47, sec. 21. 2 Public Acts, May 1852, chap. 66, sec. 4. 3 Public Acts, May 1851, chap. 47, sec. 18. 4 Public Acts, May 1857, chap. 64, sec. 1. Revenue. aes savings and building associations.’ This again increased the revenue of the tax and for the year ending March 31, 1861, the amount received was forty-nine thousand five hundred sixty-one dollars. From March 31, 1852, until March 31, 1861, the taxes on these in- stitutions were two hundred thirty-two thousand three hundred eighty dollars. Although before this period the state had imposed the payment of bonuses upon banks as a condition of granting them charters, not much money had been brought into the state treasury Bonuses py this expedient, because generally the banks had from : é Banks been directed to pay the required bonus to a particular enterprise. As has already been shown in the treatment of state aid to institutions,” this policy was continued in this period. In 1853 the state received some revenue from bank bonuses to which no condition in regard to its expenditure had been attached and in 1854 the legislature adopted the policy of requiring all the bonuses to be paid into the state treasury. A resolution was passed that all banks which were chartered during the session, or of which the capital stock was increased within the same time, should pay to the state a bonus of two per cent on the capital thus obtained.* In 1855 a good opportunity to use the bonus as a means of revenue arose and the legislature did not let is pass. To show how this opportunity arose, it is necessary to refer to banking history. In 1852 the legislature passed an act known as the “ Free Banking Act.” This act permitted any number of persons from twenty- five upward who were residents of the state to engage in banking subject to the terms of the act. No special charter was required. The act also directed the state treasurer to provide for engraving blank circulating notes, in the form of bank notes, of the denomi- nations issued by the incorporated banks of the state. On the face of these notes were to be stamped the words, “‘ Secured by the pledge of Public Stocks.’”’ The banking associations or corporations formed under this act, upon depositing with the state treasurer certain specified public securities, were entitled to receive an equal amount of these circulating notes and could use them as bank notes. In case any bank failed to redeem its notes, the state would redeem them by means of the securities received from that bank.4 Three * Cf. pp. 106—110. $ Private Acts, 1854, p. 53. 4 Public Acts, May 1852, chap. 23. 118 The Financial History of Connecticut. banks” organized under the act of 1852 could be specially incor- porated. If the holders of two-thirds of the stock of any of these banks voted to accept the provisions of the act granting the privi- lege, a charter would be granted on condition that the banks pay to the state a bonus of two per cent on their capital. This bonus was to be paid in two instalments, one-half on or before January 1, 1856, and the other half on or before January 1, 1857.2 All the free banks accepted this offer, which allowed them to withdraw the securities which under the Free Banking Act of 1852 they had been required to deposit with the state treasurer, and the state received over one hundred thousand dollars in bonuses from banks in the two years ending March 31, 1857. In the regular session of the legislature this year an act similar to the act of 1854 was passed, requiring that all banks which, during this session, were chartered, or were authorized to increase their capital, should pay a bonus of two per cent on the capital granted. This was payable on January 1, 1858, and January 1, 1859.4 The state continued to derive revenue from bank bonuses until March 31, 1860. The total amount thus received from banks from March 31, 1853, to March 31, 1860, was one hundred fifty-nine thousand four hundred sixty-eight dollars. One other form of corporation tax was tried during this period but was in operation for two years only. A tax of one-eighth of one per cent on the market value of the paid-in he etna capital stock was laid on banks and insurance companies Companies in 1857.° This tax was repealed in 1859.6 The state received fifty thousand six hundred twenty-nine dollars from this tax, of which about eighty-five per cent was paid by the banks. 5. Non-Resident Stock. The tax of two-thirds of one per cent of the value of the capital stock of banks and insurance companies held by non-residents, which was imposed in 1831,‘ remained unchanged until 1852. In 1849 the legislature directed the railroad and turnpike companies to pay a tax of one-half of one per cent of the market value of all 1 Public Acts, May 1855, chap. 13. 2 Public Acts, May 1855, chap. 14. 3 Treasurer's Report, 1856, p. 4 4 Private Acts, 1857, p. 3. > Public Acts, May 1857, chap. 64, sec. 2. ® Public Acts. May 1859, chap. 4. TCE p04. eee Revenue. 119 their stock held by non-residents. However, if a railroad extended beyond the limits of the state, is was required to pay only that proportion of this sum that the length of the road within the state bore to the entire length! In 1850 the tax on non-resident turn- pike stock was made the same as that levied on non-resident bank stock. In the same year the assembly began its policy of imposing special taxes on various corporations, which, as has been shown in the treatment of these special taxes, exempted them from all other taxes.2 With these exceptions, the tax on non-resident stock im- posed by the assembly in 1852 was as. follows: Banks, insurance, turnpike and all other companies and associations whose stock was liable to taxation were required to pay a tax of one-half of one per cent of the value of all their stock held by non-residents. This tax remained unchanged for the remainder of this period. The reduction in the rate from two-thirds of one per cent to one-half of one per cent was more than counterbalanced by the amount of non-resident stock subjected to the tax. The return of the tax for the first year of this period was thirty-five hundred nineteen dollars and the amount steadily increased until for the last year twelve thousand four hundred fifty dollars was received. The entire receipts for the fifteen years were ninety-three thousand four hundred seventy-nine dollars. This is an average of six thousand two hundred thirty-two dollars a year, an increase of three thousand two hundred seventy-four dollars over the average for the fifteen preceding years (April 1, 1831, to March 31, 1846). 6. Duties and Licenses. Before the close of the last period the revenue from this source had become very small, but in this period it dropped to almost nothing. The license on pedlers imposed by the legis- oes and Jature in 1841 and limited the next year to persons who Dales were not inhabitants of the state® was still in force at the opening of the period, but in 1848 this license was repealed and a license of ten dollars to be received by the towns was substituted. After the state had relinquished this license in favor 1 Public Acts, May 1849, chap. 42, sec. 2. -# Public Acts, May 1850, chap. 64, sec. 4. ® Cf. pp. 114—117. 4 Public Acts, May 1852, chap. 66, sec. mtr p. 73: ® Public Acts, May 1848, chap. 67, sec. 3. bo 120 The Financial History of Connecticut. of the towns, there remained but one source of revenue of this de- scription. The duties on auction sales of foreign goods imposed in 1820! were still required. The return from these duties was trifling and in some years nothing was received in this way. The income to the state from duties and licenses for the entire period was only twenty-one hundred twelve dollars. 7. Forfeited Bonds and Avails of Court. The receipts from forfeited bonds, fines, and avails of court from April 1, 1846, to March 31, 1861, were seventy-two thousand four hundred ninety-six dollars, an average of four thousand eight hundred thirty-three dollars per annum. The average annual receipts in the preceding period were twenty-five hundred thirty-eight dollars. The gain is due to the growing population and the increasing volume of business done by the courts. 8. The State Prison. The state prison continued to be self-supporting throughout this entire period, but the annual profits fell from an average exceeding seventy-five hundred dollars during the last five years of the second period to less than twenty-five hundred dollars. This was princi- pally due to the diminution in the number of prisoners. This did not indicate that there was less crime in the state. On the contrary, crime had increased, but the county prisons and work-houses were now caring for classes of prisoners formerly confined in the state prison.2 Necessarily, therefore, the state treasury did not receive so much revenue from the prison during this period. After April 1, 1852, none of the surplus earnings of the prison were paid into the state treasury and the amount thus transferred during the first six years of the period was only sixteen thousand dollars. 9. Permanent Fund. At the beginning of this period the principal of the permanent fund stood as follows?: Non-transferable bank stock, $356,400 Transferable bank stock, 44,000 Total, $400,400 Chop: 72: Comptroller’s Report, 1850, p. 10. Abstract of Comptroller’s Report, Private Acts, 1846, p. 142. ao to _ | Revenue. 121 In the first year, however, the state disposed of the transferable stock and by adding to the proceeds of the sale the small sum of seventy-four dollars it secured forty-nine thousand six hundred dollars of non-transferable stock, thereby making the fund fifty-six hundred dollars larger and leaving it standing at four hundred six thousand dollars invested in non-transferable bank stock. The total amount of dividends received from this fund for this period was five hundred twenty-seven thousand nine hundred sixty-four dollars, an average per year of $35,197.60. The average annual rate of dividends from April 1, 1848, until the close of the period was eight and seven-tenths per cent. 10. School Fund. The principal of the school fund reached its highest point at the end of the first year of this period. It was estimated to be $2,077,641. To show the history of the investment of the fund during the period, the following tables have been compiled from the reports of the commissioner of the school fund. A. Loaned on Bonds, Contracts and Mortgages to Inhabitants of the States Herein Named. 1847 1851 1855 1860 Connecticut, $679,109 $752,156 $885,773 $1,127,811 New York, 601,114 546,728 486,048 457,859 Massachusetts, 176,792 173,562 161,050 132,514 Ohio, 140,086 100,254 62,765 36,670 Vermont, 6,233 4,392 5,950 365 $4,603,333 $1,577,093 $4,601,587 $4,755,217 B. Cultivated Land and Buildings Situated in Connecticut Massachusetts New York Total 1847 S24 572 $37,032 $26,685 $85,289 1851 6,050 15,601 5,600 Qh 1855 3,600 4,080 7,680 1860 5,000 5,000 122 The Financial History of Connecticut. C. Wild Lands Located in Ohio New York Vermont Total 1847 $40,856 $13,496 $7,909 $62,261 1851 16,476 9,800 6,343 32,618 1855 441 5 2ar: 177d GETS) 1860 None DD. Bank Stock: Number of Banks Amount of Stock 1847 20 $311,000 1851 24 359,900 1855 29 423,900 iSc0aere 23 288,900 E. Total Capital. 1847 1851 1855 1860 Bonds, Contracts and Mortgages, $1,603,333 $4,577,093 $41,601,587 $41,755,247 Cultivated Lands ; and Buildings, 85,289 27254 7,680 5, 000m Wild Lands, 62,261 32,618 1475 Bank Stock, 311,000 359,900 423,900 288,900 Loans to State, 33,000 Cash on hand, 15158 19,621 9312 1,342 Totals, $2,077,641 $2,049,482 $2,049,953 $2,050,460 The first point to notice in this table is the decrease in the capital from 1847 to 1851. This was due to the depreciation of the culti- vated lands which had been exchanged under Mr. Beer’s manage- ment.! The commissioner, in his report of 1851, stated that on the — lands taken in exchange which had already been sold, there had been the following depreciation from the original appraised value.? Farms in Connecticut, $28,500 Farms in Massachusetts, 31,500 Farms in New York, 4,000 $64,000 ~ enGl spstO. 2 Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1851, p. 8. Revenue. 123 From 1851, there was very little fluctuation in the amount of the capital. The limit to which it could be increased had been reached. A second noticeable fact is the almost total disappearance, by the close of the period, of any investment in cultivated lands and build- ings and the complete disappearance of wild land in the items of capital. The former produced little revenue and the latter none, and it was the policy in the management of this fund to dispose of these forms of capital even at a loss, if necessary to put all the capital on as productive a basis as possible. The third point to notice is the gradual drawing in of the loans to inhabitants of other states and the reinvestment of the amounts thus received in loans to inhabitants of Connecticut. In 1847 forty- two per cent of the loans were to inhabitants of Connecticut. In 1860 sixty-four per cent of the loans were thus placed. This fur- nished the people of Connecticut with more available capital for in- vestment, the fund serving the double purpose of supplying capital and producing an income for the schools. Finally, the amount of the capital invested in bank stock increased during the first two-thirds of the period and decreased during the latter third. This decrease was due to the fact that some of the banks were passing dividends or paying a very low dividend. From such banks the capital invested by the school fund was withdrawn. In- vestments in bank stock were considered to be among the best. The advantages of such investments are well summed up in the comptroller’s report of 1852: “These investments,” he said, “‘are in the nature of deposits in the several banks, liable to be withdrawn on six months’ notice, entitled to a priority of payment over other stockholders, and to participation, while deposited, in the same rate of dividends. Unless the whole capital of a bank is sunk, the investment of the school fund can not be lost, and the state will be only temporarily deprived of dividends while the principal is being withdrawn.’’! In the same report the commissioner stated _ that the dividends from the banks were at least as high as could be gained on the most favorable loans to individuals.” The average rate of the dividends received from the banks during this period _ Was over eight per cent. The income of the fund for the fifteen years in this period was $2,078,892, an average of one hundred thirty-eight thousand five 1 Report of Commissioner of School Fund, 1852, pp. 9, 10. (Leg. Doe. 1852.) 2 Idem, p. 10. 124 The Financial History of Connecticut. hundred ninety-three dollars per year. The amount of dividends distributed from this income during these same years was $1,991,191, an annual average of one hundred thirty-two thousand seven hundred forty-six dollars. The amount per child enumerated was one dollar and forty-five cents for the first two years and this was raised to one dollar and a half for the years 1849 and 1850. This was the highest amount per child that the fund ever afforded, for in spite of the increase in the income of the fund the number of children among whom it was distributed increased more rapidly. The number of children enumerated in 1846 was eighty-five thousand two hun- dred seventy-five. In 1851 the number had increased to ninety- two thousand two hundred twenty. The rate of dividend per child dropped this year to one dollar and forty cents. The number of children between the ages of four and sixteen continued to increase so that in 1861 the enumeration was one hundred eight-thousand three hundred eighty-nine. This increase caused the allowance per child to continue to fall and for the year 1861 it was only one dollar and fifteen cents, the lowest figure it had been since 1837. D. SuMMaRY. 1. Increased Expenditures and Receipts. The first fact observable in a study of this period is the large in- crease in the financial transactions of the state. The following com- parison of the total expenditures and receipts for the years opening and closing the period clearly illustrates this increase. 1846—1847 1860—1861 Increase Expenditures, $109,502 $227,454 $117,649 Receipts, 95,646 254,552 158,906 2. Causes of Increased Expenditures. The expenses which show the largest increase are the judicial, the military, the legislative, the educational and the charitable. The principal factors in the increase of expenditures Tac ean were the rise and growth of commercial and manu- Expense facturing corporations and the attendant increase in the population. Crime and litigation were on the increase, causing the judicial expenditures to rise rapidly. The growth in Summary. 125 the foreign element of the population gave an impulse to the feeling that there was a need for a well-organized and efficient state militia, which culminated in a new militia law and greatly increased this branch of the state expenditures. More legislation than formerly became necessary, causing the sessions of the legislature to be length- ened. The compensation of the members of the general assembly was still on a per diem basis and the inevitable effect of the length- ening of the legislative sessions was increased expense of legis- lation. Other expenses incidental to legislation, and proportioned to the length of time spent in effecting it, contributed to this increase. Thus the cause of the larger part of the increased expenditures can be traced, as stated at the beginning of this paragraph, to the growth of corporations and to the increased population. On the other hand, these same corporations, which were in a large measure re- sponsible for the presence of the foreigner and the growing concen- tration of the population as well as for much of the increased liti- gation, became the source of a large part of the revenue needed to meet the increased expenditures. This will be more fully shown in a subsequent paragraph.t During this period there was an awakening by the state to the necessity of providing a better system of education than existed. The increase in the school population without a corre- sponding enlargement of the school fund reduced the per capita dividend for the education of the children. This fact together with the failure of the municipalities to volun- tarily tax themselves sufficiently to provide good schools led the legislature to impose again upon the towns the duty of laying a specified tax for the support of schools. Provision was also made for the supervision of schools by a state superintendent and in 1849 a normal school was established. The state also awoke to its duty of providing for the poor un- fortunates in its midst who were unable to better their con- Educational Awakening Bed for dition. A beginning in this direction was made in the Unfor- the last half of the second period, but the work eanate was considerably extended in this period. In addition to providing for the deaf and dumb, the blind and the insane, for whom the state was regularly making provision at the beginning of the period, the legislature in the last year of the period made appropriations for the General Hospital Society, the Hart- ford Hospital, and for the education of idiotic children. The appro- 1 Cf. p. 126. 126 The Financial History of Connecticut. priations for these purposes were increased during the period and frequently the amount allowed was found by the officials entrusted with its expenditure to be larger than necessary. 3. Influence of Corporations. It is now appropriate to return to the important part played by corporations in defraying the expenses of the state. As already stated in a preceding paragraph, they caused expense to the state, but they also contributed to its support.t The introduction, in the early fifties, of special taxes on corporations is the most important feature of this period. As the old system of specifying the property which should be taxable was abolished in 1850 and a list of property which should be exempt from taxation was substituted, the origin of the modern taxation system may be set at the year 1851. 4. Principal Items of Revenue. The income from the school fund as in the two preceding periods was the largest source of revenue. The state tax continued to be the second in importance, and until the last two years of the period the income from the permanent fund maintained its relative impor- tance of third. At that time the tax on the deposits in savings banks and institutions supplanted it. In several years during this period the state was required to resort to temporary loans and at the close of the period it was indebted to the school fund for fifty thousand dollars. t Cf. p: 125. APPENDIX. Annual State Receipts from State Tax Interest on United States S‘ock Duties and Licenses Forfeited Bonds, Avails of Court, etc. Miscellaneous State Tax Interest on United States Stock Dividends on Bank Stock Duties and Licenses Forfeited Bonds, Avails of Court, ete. Miscellaneous State Tax Interest on United States Stock Dividends on Bank Stock Duties and Licenses Forfeited Bonds, Avails of Court, etc. Miscellaneous State Tax Interest on United States Stock Dividends on Bank Stock Duties and Licenses Forfeited Bonds, Avails of Court, etc. Miscellaneous TABLE I. 1798 to 1818. 1798 1799 1800 1801 $41,346 $60,357 $60,991 $48,458 15,253 15,269 14,790 16,670 4,907 6,056 6,172 6,156 580 1,123 442 227 1,628 102 758 15 $63,714 $82,907 $83,152 $71,524 1802 1803 1804 1805 $41,118 $42,159 $42,132 $42,183 23,803 23,701 23,516 22,745 48 3,634 5,635 5,482 5,790 5,992 428 367 952 1,190 963 1,155 60 426 $71,945 972,864 $72,497 $76,171 1806 1807 1808 1809 $42,627 $56,571 $28,040 $44,618 21,926 21,056 20,134 19,155 5,915 5,719 7,325 6,754 5,674 6,214 6,457 7,354 1,532 632 2,052 957 299 181 59 924 $77,973 $90,372 $64,065 $79,762 1810 1811 1812 1813 $55,529 $55,651 $56,217 $67,905 18,116 17,014 15,843 14,601 8,201 9,467 9,782 13,087 7,702 7,326 6,292 6,221 3,335 2,616 4,486 1,363 1 504 370 845 $92,884 $92,577 $92,989 $104,021 128 Appendix. 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 State Tax $113,131 $112,862 $202,241 $57,990 $56,487 Interest on United States Stock 13,282 11,883 10,119 9,655 8,357 Dividends on Bank Stock 12,005 9,204 9,788 mh 1 Duties and Licenses 5,465 8,838 10,484 12,453 13,407 Forfeited Bonds, Avails of Court, etc. 956 1,400 2,273 1,008 4,210 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 366 608 482 567 573 Miscellaneous 145 50,161? 46 55,597? 14,908? $145,351 $194,956 $235,433 $137,271 $97,942 TABLE II. Annual State Expenditures from 1798 to 1818. 1798 1799 1800 1801] General Assembly $15,091 $15,134 $15,458 $16,411 Salaries 8,137 7,911 8,200 teOle Judicial ACO 5,093 3,942 2,553 Education 11,286 13,619 12,599 11,560 Paupers 2,241 3,042 3,188 3,429 State Prison 3,458 4,063 3,658 3,800 Buildings and Institutions 1,480 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 5,839 8,601 11,290 5,402 Discharge of Debt 6,126 Contingent 8,837 15,320 5,308 7,096 Miscellaneous 2,631 4,374 1,262 1,012 $61,738 $77,457 $66,383 $64,964 1 The dividends on bank stock for 1817 ($9,889) and for 1818 ($15,372) were added to the fund for the purchase of bank stock. Cf. p. 36. 2 Includes $50,000 bonus from Phoenix Bank. Cf. p. 29. 3 Includes $55,400 from United States for services of Connecticut militia. Cf. p. 29. . 4 Includes $11,500 from United States for services of Connecticut militia* and $3,254 for interest on loan to school fund. * Of. p. 29. Appendix. 129 1802 1803 1804 1805 General Assembly $16,337 $16,446 $17,057 $17,145 Salaries 8,056 8,481 8,130 9,565 Judicial 5,377 5,617 6,734 {Per Education 12,989 12,114 10,134 12,566 Paupers 3,476 3,980 5,175 5,869 State Prison 1,311 6,071 5,572 5,657 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 8,473 5,943 4,727 6,004 Discharge of Debt 2,512 1,629 1,677 575 Contingent 6,956 5,764 4,685 9,180 Miscellaneous 367 176 22 104 $65,915 $66,220 $63,913 $74,192 1806! 1807 1808 1809 General Assembly $16,972 $16,740 $21,811 Salaries 10,251 11,566 1IES55 Judicial 8,588 9,441 9,874 Education 15,802 13,917 12,549 Paupers ; 8,071 TSU: 8,275 State Prison 2,637 5,530 5,889 Military 150 75 Bounties 32 121 62 Buildings and Institutions 10,000 10,450 10,000- Abatement and Collection of Taxes 11,931 5,137 7,192 Discharge of Debt 454 375 181 Contingent 5,155 9,202 5,510 Miscellaneous 11 $89,893 $90,352 $92,785 1810 1811 1812 1813 General Assembly $17,607 $16,198 $16,875 $21,339 Salaries 11,270 11,838 11,651 10,702 Judicial 9,043 9,438 10,288 9,247 Education 13,078 13,602 12,647 13,254 Paupers 9,689 12,194 12,901 14,159 State Prison 7,951 5,466 5,700 6,158 Military 5,000 2,500 10,709 32,353 Bounties 83 52 321 395 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 9,285 8,954 9,049 10,780 Discharge of Debt 560 61 60 Contingent 8,717 5,710 5,019 8,940 $91,722 $86,514 $95,222 1 Comptroller’s Report, Oct. 1805, is missing. * Last instalment of $40,000 to Gore Land Company. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 9 $127,386 Marca, 1912. To various religious societies. 130 Appendix. 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 General Assembly $16,876 $35,785 $24,673 $27,532 28,009 Salaries 12,101 11,201 13,367 13,8172 Valse Judicial 10,203 10,009 11,048 13,867 15,15] Education 13,046 32,7891 13,641 20,5902 14,3148 Paupers IPAs RY| 12,964 13,854 VST 1 2AOs State Prison 4,792 7,243 9,674 12,680 12,494 Military 48.438 148,295 14,228 751 1,516 Bounties 276 223 48 1 Buildings and Institutions 2,412 5,9804 Abatement and Collection ot Taxes 18,050 17,729 32,080 9,169 9,185 Discharge of Debt 160 41 Contingent 6,688 7,074 7.400 4,925 3,444 Miscellaneous 100 1,081 405 7,298 25,915° $143,107 $284,555 $142,870 $131,781 $136,764 TABLE III. Annual State Receipts for Second Period. 1819 1820 1821 1822 State Tax $55,271 $55,462 $40,972 $38,915 Interest on United States Stock 6,703 4,544 5,525 4,909 Dividends on Bank Stock 8.435 15,504 16,063 8,483 Duties and Licenses 9,344 8,535 10,120 9,516 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 4,260 4,089 1,027 3,076 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 752 857 620 718 Miscellaneous 4,2877 8,8508 1,688 401 $89,050 $97,842 $76,015 $66,018 1 $20,000 to Yale College for Medical School. 2 $7,143 to Yale College. 3 $1,643 to Yale College. 4 $5,000 to Asylum for Deaf and Dumb. 5 $7,143 to Episcopalians. 6 Includes $2,776 transferred from Permanent Fund. 8 Includes $7,936 reimbursement of principa] of United States Funded Debt. eV RRL, 5 Appendix. 134 1823 1824 1825 1826 State Tax $37,273 $37,829 $37,680 $38,101 Interest on United States Stock 4,255 3,561 2,821 1,659 Dividends on Bank Stock 5,164 10,220 11,252 20.797 Duties and Licenses 7,886 7,741 7,876 7,540 Forfeited Bonds, ete. 1,552 1,266 3,526 4,195 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 723 926 1,002 1,084 Miscellaneous 511 338 239 $57,363 $61,880 $64,156 $73,615 1827 1828 1829 1830 State Tax $38,671 $36,077 $36,604 $36,974 Interest on United States Stock 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 Dividends on Bank Stock 8,708 18,100 15,531 13,036 Duties and Licenses 10,349 10,040 10,091 6,170 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 1,706 3,841 1,037 1,488 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 596 634 345 443 Avails of State Prison 2,168 3,231 1,182 Miscellaneous 180 9,860! 106 $61,870 $82,378 $68,604 $60,952 1831 1832 1833 1834 State Tax $37,454 $37,340 $37,984 $38,293 Interest on United States Stock 1,659 1,659 1,383 Dividends on Bank Stock 21,843 21,843 25,671 27,636 Duties and Licenses 4,780 4,753 4,299 Ay) Forfeited Bonds, etc. leo 2,034 2,798 938 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 1,341 3,204 2,818 2,547 Avails of State Prison 6,918 6,665 5,127 Miscellaneous 24 159 223 266 $75,754 $77,657 $80,305 $69,807 Temporary Loan from School Fund 5,000 1835 1836 1837 1838 State Tax $39,302 $39,742 $41,097 $42,407 Dividends on Bank Stock 27,894 36,140 31,113 21,489 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 3,234 Sills 3,489 2,657 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 2,145 1,787 2,436 1,540 Duties and Licenses 204 64 70 59 Miscellaneous 5,479? 512 2,109 PAS 78,258 $81,358 $80,315 $69,266 Temporary Loan from School Fund 1 Balance (Cash) transferred from Seema. $9,696. 2 Includes $1000 bonus from Exchange Bank. 20,565 132 Appendix. 1839 1840 1841 1842 State Tax $43,843 $43,580 $44,558 $43,549 Dividends on Bank Stock 32,387 28,497 27,944 31,828 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 2,953 2,831 2,748 2.750 Avails of State Prison 5,000 13,000 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 1,240 3,915 2,981 3,621 Duties and Licenses 63 76 54 57 Miscellaneous 72,3461 794 148 475 $152,832 $79,694 $83,433 $95,280 Temporary Loans from Banks 25,000 Temporary Loans from School Fund 15,000 1843 1844 1845 1846 State Tax $44,112 $44,236 $40,130 $41,224 Dividends on Bank Stock 30,949 26,818 27,838 32,122 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 2.668 3,032 3,157 3,174 Avails of State Prison 10,000 10,000 7,000 Forfeited Bonds, ete. 3,005 2,987 2,884 4,198 Duties and Licenses Zoli 793 291 183 Miscellaneous 11,199? 1,7008 $94,451 $89,564 $84,300 $88,500 TABLE IV. Annual State Expenditures for Second Period. 1819 1820 1821 1822 General Assembly $38,375! $17,341 $17,532 $14,008 Salaries 13,877 9,617 7,193 13,101 Judicial 11,700 12,441 13,494 11,399 Education 13,283 12,645 970 Paupers 11,736 10,854 9,499 5ST State Prison 11,404 9,704 6,000 5,263 Military 1,167 680 662 640 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 8,920 8,710 7,728 5,486 Discharge of Debt 28 Contingent 4,729 4,744 8,231 5,716 Miscellaneous 1,464° 16 Teta 293 $116,684 $86,752 $79,025 $61 063 1 Received $72,234 from United States in payment of Connecticut claims arising from the War of 1812. ; 2 Reveived from the United States its share on sale of public lands, $10,927. 3 Received from the United States its share on sale of public lands, $1,342. 4 Includes $11,313 for expenses of Constitutional Convention. > Includes $1,353 to Presbyterians and Congregationalists. 6 Includes $7,688 appropriation to Baptists. Appendix. 133 1823 1824 1825 1826 General Assembly Slo 04 S$ LieS3s un elosgac. Sla.4o7 Salaries 9,384 8,959 9,259 8,159 Judicial 18,274 14,279 16,714 13,432 Paupers 4,891 3,251 2,691 2,600 State Prison 5,500 8,003 7,285 6,301 Military 630 725 625 600 Buildings and Institutions 5,000! Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,090 6,217 6,185 6,208 Discharge of Debt 143 Contingent 4,187 5,338 6,422 4,407 Miscellaneous $62,060 $63,604 $63,118 $55,307 1827 1828 1829 1830 General Assembly $14,177 $14,010 $13,485 $13,965 Salaries 8,984 9,034 §,034 9,034 Judicial 15,085 Waffss7ill 23,209 22,870 Paupers 2,600 2,600 2,000 2,000 State Prison 4,815 2,280 2,202 383 Military 363 638 748 913 Buildings and Institutions 19,000 15,000 9,201 3,867 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,329 5,980 5,890 6,176 Discharge of Debt 118 355 Contingent 5,191 5.919 8,830 7,391 Miscellaneous $76,543 $73,149 $74,954 $66,600 1831 1832 1833 1834 General Assembly $15,679 $14,254 $15,924 $16,880 Salaries 8,484 9,095 9,034 9,388 Judicial 24,106 25,712 21,845 27,410 Education 3,000? 3,000- Paupers 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,800 State Prison 300 300 300 2,909 Military 2,680° 818 827 704 Bounties 53 236 Buildings and Institutions 22,142 4,904 7,775 2,620 1 Retreat for Insane. 2 Washington (now Trinity) College. 3 Includes $2,000 for building State Arsenal. 134 Appendix. Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,154 6,137 6,238 6,272 Discharge of Debt 4 7 Interest on Temporary Loans 225 21 Contingent 5,635 5,221 4,627 4,634 Miscellaneous 500 $87,680 $68,666 $71,626 $75,881 Loans Repaid 5,000 1835 1836 1837 1838 General Assembly $15,597 $14,937 $26,717 $21,729 Salaries 9,494 9,367 9,034 9,234 Judicial 29,008 29,962 32,220 34,115 Education 3,000! 990! Paupers 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,700 State Prison 300 300 300 300 Military 660 1,004 1,492 1,720 Bounties 976 is) LL Ey/ 1,363 264 Buildings and Institutions 2,398 2,150 2,900 3,759 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,308 6,591 6,737 6.689 Discharge of Debt 52 1 22 Interest on Temporary Loans 600 Contingent 4,474 5,891 13,068 10,986 Miscellaneous 3,491 2,356 $74,015 $74,160 $99,122 $93,475 1839 1840 1841 1842 General Assembly $15,065 $17,601 $17,287 $16,891 Salaries 9,234 9,034 9,034 11,434 Judicial _ 28,483 27,544 32,479 29,432 Education 535 6,809? 10,613° 4,493+ Paupers 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 State Prison 300 300 300 300 Military 1,078 1,100 870 1,100 Bounties 464 44 Agricultural Societies 700 1,018 Buildings and Institutions 4,727 2,518 2,216 4,717 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,995 6,909 Teves 7,109 1 Washington (now Trinity) College. $5,000 to Wesleyan University. to 3 $5,000 to Wesleyan University; $3,500 to Connecticut Literary In- stitution. + $3,500 to Connecticut Literary Institution. Appendix. 135 Interest on Temporary Loans 530 59 Contingent 7,886 7,174 7,986 8,542 Miscellaneous 29,3891 4,519? 1 $106,386 $85,252 $90,464 $86,795 Paid temporary loans (from banks) 25,000 1843 1844 1845 1846 General Assembly $21,930 $16,253 $17,642 $18,451 Salaries 11,434 11,434 11,434 11,934 Judicial 31,336 31,021 31,776 33,911 Education 872 Paupers ; 1,500 1,580 1,500 1,500 State Prison 1,3008 300 300 300 Military 828 838 943 1,725 Agricultural Societies 1,136 1,106 600 1,200 Buildings and Institutions 2,651 4,301 11,974 12,246 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 7,154 T2202 6,515 6,642 Contingent 10,740 5,948 8,191 10,249 Miscellaneous 235 44 705 $90,878 $80,238 $90,919 $98,863 TABLE V. Annual State Receipts for Third Period. 1847 1848 1849 1850 State Tax $41,642 $64,171 $66,976 $69,339 Dividends on Bank Stock 32,220 33,488 34,061 37,053 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 3,519 3.695 3,886 4,218 Avails of State Prison 4,000 1,000 3,000 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 2,215 1,887 3,968 5,895 Duties and Licenses 484 44] 504 247 ‘ Specific Purposes 11,000 ‘ Miscellaneous 981 2,601 2,595 $84,080 $104,663 $112,996 $133,347 Temporary Loans from School Fund 11,566 25,000 13,000 12,000 1 $26,003 to towns for their shares of money received from the United States in payment of war claims. 2 $3,994 to towns for their shares of money received from the United States in payment of war claims. 3 $1,000 Windham County Jail per order Directors of State Prison. 136 Appendix. 1851 1852 1853 1854 State Tax $71,129 $64,241 $56,883 $58,472 Dividends on Bank Stock 37,597 37,597 38,553 37,646 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 4,171 4,919 5,413 5,331 Avails of State Prison 6,000 2,000 Forfeited Bonds, ete. 4,099 3,931 3,183 4,546 Duties and Licenses 30 317 Special Corporation Taxes (total) 25,202 27,785 42,653 48,295 Savings banks and building asso- ciations $8,707 $11,590 Bonuses from banks 2,007 Railroads $25,202 $26,534 29,372 29,623 Mutual insurance companies 205 2,354 3,347 Agents of foreign insurance com- panies 1,046 2,220 1,728 Specific Purposes 660 588 23,748 11,194 Miscellaneous 4,179 3,163 1,963 1,018 $147,066 $148,224 $174,398 $166,819 & 1855 1856 1857 1858 State Tax $63,505 $67,133 $70,110 $72,518 Military Commutation Tax 12,071 13,435 12,103 Dividends on Bank Stock 36,426 35,891 37,542 35,289 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 5,233 6,218 7,322 7,607 Forfeited Bonds, ete. 3,567 2,885 9,639 5,695 Duties and Licenses 4 22 Special Corporation Taxes (total) 49,936 87,230 101,883 100,500 Savings banks and building associations $14,916 $17,087 $19,037 $34,055 Bonuses from banks 6,510 45,007 59,600 19,980 Railroads 25,670 21,376 18,646 17,731 Mutual insurance companies 2,818 3,479 4,377 4,574 Agents of foreign insurance companies 22 281 223 183 Capital stock of insurance companies 3,127 Capital stock of banks 20,850 Specific Purposes 6,283 542 ; Miscellaneous 1,363 5,606 248 920 $166,318 $217,054 $240,721 $234,632 Temporary Loans from School Fund 50,000 —_ 85,000 Appendix. 137 1859 1860 1861 State Tax $106,880 $107,637 $111,706 Military Commutation Tax 10,604 10,050 10,363 Dividends on Bank Stock 33,790 26,470 33,839 Tax on Non-Resident Stock 9,415 10,765 12,450 Forfeited Bonds, etc. 6,399 7,277 7,220 Duties and Licenses 63 Special Corporation Taxes (total) 103,606 74,720 17,412 Savings banks and building associations $33,269 $44,158 $49,561 Bonuses from banks 21,638 4,726 Railroads 17,330 18,421 19,911 Mutual insurance companies 5,441 6,400 71,779 Agents of foreign insurance companies 153 138 221 Capital stock of insurance companies 4,529 Capital stock of banks 21,246 877 Miscellaneous 377 2,538 1,439 $271,072 $239,455 $254,552 Temporary Loans from School Fund 65,000 50,000 TABLE VI. Annual State Expenditures for Third Period. 1847 1848 1849 1850 General Assembly $23,850 $25,118 $28,354 $25,986 Salaries 12,597 11,934 13,725 14,150 Judicial 34,761 36,781 41,375 49,002 Education 528 1,250 ook 813 Paupers 1,500 1,100 1,100 2,292 State Prison 1,300 300 300 300 Military 605 1,746 2,250 1,911 Agricultural Societies 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Buildings and Institutions 10,112 8,536 8,387 7,610 Abatement and Collection of Taxes 6,809 10,233 10,674 11,155 Interest on Temporary Loans 848 1,844 2,580 3,329 Contingent 15,934 9,556 10,567 15,294 Miscellaneous 7179 20 338 34 $110,622 $109,419 $122,000 $132,876 Paid Loan from Schoo] Fund 3,353 1 $1,000 Litchfield County Jail. 158 Appendix. 1851 1852 1853 1854 General Assembly $27,874 $31,210 $30,282 $32,509 Salaries 13,430 13,750 14,000 13,500 Judicial 39,460 31,494 36,059 44,036 Education 4,161 4,917 4,759 7,966 Paupers 2,200 2,200 1,785 2,200 State Prison 300 300 1,300! 300 Military 2,294 5,936 4,737 5,236 Agricultural Societies 1,000 1,165 1,181 1,400 Buildings and Institutions 8,942 8,752 24,492 54,008 Interest on Temporary Loans 2,977 1,832 13 Contingent 10,554 10,018 15,900 15,924 Miscellaneous 123 104 4,114 10,311 $113,314 $111,680 $138,623 $187,390 Paid on Loans from School Fund 25,668 25,000 8,000 1855 1856 1857 1858 General Assembly $33,261 $36,328 $43,331 $35,954 Salaries 14,058 22,863 23,194 23,050 Judicial 54,329 67,188 77,889 86,262 Education 14,169 13,990? 15,935? 12,866 Paupers 2,200 2,200 1,800 1,800 State Prison 300 3,300! 300 300 Military 6,138 24,938 29,081 30,521 Agricultural Societies 3,900 3,900 4,100 4,100 Buildings and Institutions 31,566 48,194 39,524 46,191 Interest on Temporary Loans 5,311 6,891 Contingent 21,453 31,068 27,265 31,881 Miscellaneous 6,030 1,409 9,802 688 $187,405 $255,379 $277,532 $280,502 Paid on Loans from School Fund 1,924 50,000 Fairfield County Jail $1,000 per order Directors of State Prison. 2 $5,000 to Wesleyan University. 3 $5,000 to Wesleyan University ; $2,000 to Connecticut Literary Insti- tution. 4 $3,000 for repairs and introduction of gas. General Assembly Salaries Judicial Education Paupers State Prison Military Agricultural Societies Buildings and Institutions Interest on Temporary Loans Contingent Paid on Temporary Loans from School Fund Appendix. 139 1859 1860 1861 $34,451 $31,107 $35,978 24,180 23,600 23,900 83,481 73,126 73,132 SES 8,580 9,581 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,500 8,300 300 29,354 16,539 21,620 4,100 3,600 1,160 27,831 21,558 24,966 7,303 5,122 5,330 21,497 24,062 26,813 $245,287 $217,394 $224,579 85,000 65,000 TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT el th ARTS AND SCIENCES INCORPOR p A. D. 1799 VOLUME 17, PAGES 141-244 JULY, 1942 The Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of “King Henry VI” BY ere LWCKER BROOKE, M-A., B. LIFT. INSTRUCTOR IN ENGLISH AT YALE UNIVERSITY THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1912 WEIMAR: PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN. CONTENTS PAGE Tue APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT : E : : , : ; gets: I. MARLOWE’S AUTHORSHIP OF THE CONTENTION AND TRUE TRAGEDY. 1. External Evidence . : : : A : : ; . 148 2. Plot . : : : : : é : : : : = - 152 3. Character . : : : : : : : : 4 . 156 4. Verbal Parallels in the Contention and True Tragedy and in accepted Plays of Marlowe ; : ‘ : . S160 5. Metrical Evidence . : : f : : : : pie if 6. How Far do the Contention and True Tragedy represent Marlowe's Original Text ? ; : ; : : : . 183 Il. THE GREENE-PEELE MYTH : : ; : : . 188 Ill. SHAKESPEARE’S REVISION OF MARLOWE’S WORK . 194 Il.— THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF KING HENRY VI. ByveG. bh TUCKER BROOKE. THE APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT. During the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century, at least five opposing theories were circulated in regard to the authorship of the second and third Henry VI plays, each supported by careful research and ingenious argument. Yet, in spite of the successive labors of Malone, Knight, Halliwell, Grant White, and Miss Jane Lee, with their respective followers, the problem was left at the end so much involved in the mists of conflicting opinion as to appear more insoluble than ever. Indeed, the very mass of accumulated argument has apparently had the effect of stifling inquiry during the last thirty-five years, notwithstanding the fact that the publication of careful facsimiles of the early quarto editions of 1594/5 and 1619 has placed the means of study within easy reach. It is possible that the failure of critics so far to arrive at conclu- sive results arises from the circumstance that they have all treated the question primarily, if not exclusively, in connexion with its bearing upon Shakespeare. Malone (d. 1812) contented himself with proving that Shakespeare was not the author of the early quar- tos entitled The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy. These plays he first assigned, with little discussion, to Greene and Peele on the evidence of a passage in Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit. Subsequently, Malone lightly renounced this theory, and accepted the suggestion of Marlowe’s authorship, originally proposed by Dr. Richard Farmer (d. 1797).? Charles Knight, in his Prctorial Shakespeare (1839, etc.), attempted on grounds purely sentimental to establish Shakespeare’s exclusive right to the plays in all their phases. This extravagant claim, which contradicts all the probabilities, has not been accepted, I believe, by any other writer on the subject. In 1843, J. O. Halliwell (later Halliwell-Phillips) edited The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy for the (old) Shake- 1 See the Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI, printed in Boswell’s edition of Malone’s Shakespeare (1821), vol. xviii, p. 570 ff. 2 See An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays of Shakspeare were Written, Boswell’s Malone, vol. ii, p. 311 ff. 146 C. F. Tucker Brooke, speare Society. In his introduction to this work, the editor set up, as a sort of compromise between the views of Malone and Knight, the unfounded conjecture that the original plays upon which 2 and 3 Henry VI were based have been lost, and that the Contention and True Tragedy “ included the first additions which Shakespeare made to the originals.’’ The gratuitous assumption of such a hypothesis, inspired by the pious desire of the Shakespeare-worshipper to ascribe to his idol whatever might be of particular merit in the work, while relieving him of all responsibility for the mediocre portions, really carries the problem out of the domain of logical research, and makes the discussion of the non-Shakespearean residue impracticable and unimportant. An equally one-sided attitude to the question is involved in Richard Grant White’s more painstaking Essay on the Authorship of Henry VI (1859). It was, of course, natural that this elaborate paper, composed for insertion in White’s edition of Shakespeare, should concern itself primarily, like its predecessors, with Shake- speare’s interest in the plays. White’s theory assumes that all the passages in the earlier plays (7. e., Contention and True Tragedy) retained in 2 and 3 Henry VI were of Shakespeare’s original compo- sition. Thus, only the poor rejected matter in Contention and True Tragedy is ascribed to the other authors, whom White identifies as Greene, Peele, and Marlowe; and White’s treatment of the non-Shake- spearean side of the question degenerates into an unworthy attempt to show by illustrative excerpts that the poets named were incapable of writing of the scenes retained in 2 and 3 Henry VI. Miss Lee’s paper,! the most clearly reasoned discussion of the sub- ject which has yet appeared, is mainly occupied with a refutation of the ill-advised Shakespearean claims of Knight, Halliwell, and White. She advances solid, and, it appears to me, sufficient arguments in favor of the belief that Shakespeare had no part in the Contention or the True Tragedy. Yet Miss Lee’s negative thesis is not much less engrossed with the special Shakespearean interest of the problem than were the positive theories which she opposed. Though she very con- scientiously devoted considerable pains to the discussion of Mar- lowe’s and Greene’s share in the earlier plays, she really left that part of the subject as undecided as she found it. Her concluding statements are that ‘“‘ Marlowe and Greene, and possibly Peele, were the authors’’ of the older plays, and “‘ that there is, at least, nothing 1 «*On the Authorship of the Second and Third Parts of Henry VI and their Originals,” Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1875—76, p. 219 ff. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 147 unreasonable, or even improbable, in supposing” that Marlowe furthermore collaborated with Shakespeare in the revised 2 and 3 Henry VI Thus critical investigation during nearly a century had travelled a circular path. Miss Lee, in 1875, guided by independent research, occupied approximately the same vague position taken up by Malone before 1800. It is not surprising that this relative failure to advance, in view of the careful scholarship and indubitable earnestness of the various investigators, should have discouraged further effort. It may be believed, however, without excessive temerity, that the difficulties encountered arose less from inherent lack of evidence than from the preoccupation of all the critics with one attractive, but rather unproductive, aspect of the question. The direct approach to the mystery of the authorship of 2 and 3 Henry VI from the side of Shakespeare’s concern in the plays offers little secure foothold for the critic. Those writers who, like Knight, Halliwell, and White, attempted to prove Shakespeare’s exclusive or partial interest in the antecedent plays of the Contention and the True Tragedy seem by all the best evidence to have been upholding a theory with no basis of fact ; and they unconsciously distorted the real truths in order to render this preconceived fiction tenable. Critics of the opposing group expended far more care upon the disproof of Shakespeare’s author- ship than upon the discovery of the actual writers. Malone, indeed, regarding the question, like Knight and White, from the specialized view-point of the editor of Shakespeare, frankly lost interest when he had shown reason to believe the Contention and True Tragedy non-Shakespearean. Even Miss Lee’s more comprehensive dis- cussion manifests in the constructive portion which deals with the actual origin of the earlier plays a vagueness and comparative in- 1 In consequence of a challenge from Dr. Furnivall, Miss Lee added, though with doubt and against her expressed better judgment, tables indi- cating Shakespeare’s and Marlowe’s shares in 2 and 3 Henry VI, and Mar- lowe’s and Greene’s shares in Contention and True Tragedy. These tables, which seem to me to possess no importance, will be found on pp. 293—306 of the Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1875—76. Other dis- cussions worthy of attention are: A. Dyce, in the prefatory matter to his editions of Marlowe (1850, ete.), and Shakespeare (1857, etc.); F. G. Fleay. ‘Who Wrote Henry VI?” Macmillan’s Magazine, Nov., 1875, p. 50—62:; A. C. Swinburne, ‘‘ The Three Stages of Shakespeare,” Fortnightly Review, Jan., 1876, p. 25—30; F. E. Schelling, The English Chronicle Play, 1902, p- 78ff.; J. T. Murray, English Dramatic Companies, 1558—1642. 1910. vol. i, p. 59—67. 148 C. F. Tucker Brooke, difference very strikingly in contrast with the admirable acuteness with which she defends her negative position in regard to Shake- speare’s authorship. It is doubtless true that the question of Shakespeare’s concern in the Henry VI plays possesses considerably higher importance than any other which arises in this connexion. It seems clear, however, that this question can be adequately discussed only after definite knowledge has been attained regarding the origin and general charac- ter of the plays upon which Shakespeare based his work. In the following treatment, therefore, I purpose first to consider in detail the authorship and dramatic structure of the plays which Shake- speare received as his sources—namely, the Contention and the True Tragedy ; and then, on the basis of what may thus be ascertained, to attempt an investigation of the extent and nature of the altera- tions introduced by Shakespeare. It is hoped that some light may thus be thrown upon the character of Shakespeare’s style and method during his earliest dramatic period. That Marlowe was responsible for much or all of the best poetry in the Contention and the True Tragedy has been at least vaguely accepted by all writers on the subject for many years. Collier, in- deed,! appears to be the only nineteenth-century critic who felt doubt concerning Marlowe’s authorship, though the problem of the origin of these plays has long been complicated by the general acceptance of a piece of external evidence, which I shall discuss later,” as proving that Greene and Peele also had shares in the work. It will be well to take up the examination of the Contention and True Tragedy from the point of view of the authorship of Marlowe, the only Elizabethan writer who, in my opinion, has any demon- strable interest in these plays. ]. MarLowe’s AUTHORSHIP OF THE CONTENTION AND 7 RUE TRAGEDY. 1. External evidence. It is a familiar fact that the two plays known since 1623 as the second and third ‘parts of Henry VI have each been preserved in three different forms. It will be well to distinguish clearly the three phases in the evolution of the text. 1 See J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, etc., 2nd ed., 1879, vol. ii, p. 519—521. 2 See below, p. 188 ff. oe The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 149 I. 2 Henry VI is first mentioned in the following entry on the Stationers’ Register for March 12, 1593/4: ‘“‘ Thomas Millington Entred for his copie vnder the handes of bothe the wardens a booke intituled, the firste parte of the Contention of the twoo famous houses of York and Lancaster with the death of the good Duke Humfrey, and the banishement and Deathe of the Duke of Suffolk, and the tragicall ende of the proud Cardinali of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade and the Duke of Yorkes ffirste clayme vnto the Crowne.”’ In the same year (1594), the play was printed, by Thomas Creed for Thomas Millington, with a title identical, except for spelling and the change of one preposition, with that given in the Register. The earliest version of 3 Henry VI does not appear to have been registered before publication ; but it was printed for Millington by P. S. (Peter Short) in the following year (1595), with the title : “ The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the whole contention betweene the two Houses Lancaster and Yorke, as it was sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants.”’ In the year 1600, Millington published reprints of both plays, in- volving no essential alterations. II. In 1603, Millington retired from business. On April 19 of the previous year (1602), doubtless with the idea of winding up his affairs, he assigned over to Thomas Pavier his interest in the two plays we are considering, which he terms “ the first and second parte of Henry the vit ij bookes.”” It is not known that Pavier attempted to make commercial use of the copyright which he had thus obtained till 1619, for his only extant edition of the plays, though it bears no date on its title-page, appears to have been brought out simultane- ously with his 1619 edition of Pericles.1 Pavier’s version combined the two plays received from Millington in a single quarto with the title: ““ The Whole Contention betweene the two Famous Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. With the Tragicall ends of the good Duke Humfrey, Richard Duke of Yorke, and King Henrie the sixt. Diuided into two Parts: And newly corrected and enlarged. Written by William Shakespeare, Gent.”” The text here printed introduced a number of more or less trivial alterations, which will be discussed 1 The signatures at the bottoms of the leaves in the two quartos are continuous ; that is, the leaves in the Whole Contention are signed with the letters, A—Q, while the 1619 Pericles begins with R. The probable reason for Pavier’s long delay in issuing an edition of our plays is that he took over in 1602, along with the copyright, a number of unsold copies of Milling- ton’s 1600 quartos. 150 C. F. Tucker Brooke, later.1 It may be said at once that Pavier’s assertion of Shake- speare’s authorship seems to be quite as little grounded in this case as in the same publisher’s editions of Siv John Oldcastle (1600)? and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608), where the words, “ Written by W(il- liam) Shakespeare ”’ likewise appear. III. The third and final phase in the evolution of the text of the plays under discussion is found in the 1623 Shakespeare Folio. Here for the first time, the two plays, clearly first written as a two-part drama, and so regarded for thirty years, are associated with the previously unpublished First Part of King Henry VI and thus changed into the second and third members of a trilogy. The verbal alterations in the 1623 edition of our plays are so radical, particu- larly in the case of 2 Henry VJ, as to make the revised texts almost new dramas, though the basic elements of plot and character are not very seriously affected. There is evidence to indicate that the revision represented in the 1623 text was carried out not later than 1592%: and it seems very likely that the matter then added was exclusively Shakespearean work and was the only Shakespearean work in the plays. There- fore, the discussion of Shakespeare’s concern, in the concluding section of this article, will be mainly a discussion of the peculiar features of the 1625 text. : Let us return for the present to the consideration of the external evidence connected with Millington’s editions. It will have been noted that the first title-page of the True Tvagedy expressly declares the drama to have been acted by the Earl of Pembroke’s Company. The connection between the two plays under discussion is so Close, and the later one so entirely unintelligible without the earlier, that it is perfectly safe to conclude that the introductory drama of the Contention must have been produced by the same company. The determination of the company by which the plays printed by Milling- ton were acted, does not, of course, determine their authorship. Both Greene and Marlowe, among others, are known to have written for Pembroke’s Men. The fact, however, that The Contention and True Tragedy texts represent plays written for Lord Pembroke’s Company justifies us in inferring that Shakespeare had nothing to do with them; for there is every reason against believing that Shake- speare had direct relations at any period of his life with any but the 1 See p. 186 ff. 2 This edition of Oldcastle, though dated 1600, was probably printed in the same year as the Whole Contention (1619). ® See p. 191. The Authorship of “‘ King Henry VI.” 154 single company—known successively as Lord Strange’s, Lord Derby’s Lord Hunsdon’s, the Lord Chamberlain’s, and the King’s—of which he was personally a member. Those critics who imagine Shakespeare employed during his early years as a hack writer for various companies reason against all the evidence and all the probabilities. The old distinction between the “university wits’’ on the one hand and Shakespeare on the other is trite and superficial, but it has one true side. About 1590, there were two sets of dramatic writers in London. The larger class was made up of professional /itterateurs, who, like Greene and Marlowe, had no personal knowledge of the stage, or whose interest in any one company, like that of Ben Jonson, was too unsatisfactory to encourage permanence. These poets naturally disposed of their plays as best they could, now to one company, now to another, but nearly always, as far as we can tell, at pitiably low rates and much to their own discontent. To the other set belonged Shakespeare, who, approaching the stage from its non-literary side, was already a loyal and relatively prosperous actor in a particular company when he commenced his career as playwright by patching up old dramas for purely utilitarian reasons. To the end, Shakespeare’s income from the success of his company seems to have far exceeded his earnings as a writer. Considering, then, where the theatrical profits lay in his time, it would have been utterly absurd for Shakespeare to dispose of any play capable of being successfully acted to a company in which he had no interest. And it is hardly less absurd to imagine the Earl of Pembroke’s Company applying for dramatic material, between 1590 and 1592 to an active member of a rival company, who was as yet almost unknown as a dramatic author. Pembroke’s company acted Marlowe’s Edward II, which seems to have been composed a very little later than the plays we are considering. ! The only other piece of external evidence bearing upon the 1594/5 texts concerns the publisher, Thomas Millington. The entry of the Contention, March 12, 1593/4, quoted above,? is the earliest mention of Millington’s name on the Stationers’ Register. Milling- ton next appears, just two months and five days later (May 17, 1594), when he, in conjunction with Nicholas Linge, registered “‘ the famouse tragedie of the Riche Jewe of Malta.”” Unfortunately, no edition of the Jew of Malta, published at this time, is known to have survived ; but it is worth remarking that the registration notice, 1 With reference to the relative dates of these plays, see pp. 173—177. 2 See p. 149. 152, C. F. Tucker Brooke, like that of the Contention, and like the registration notice and all the early title-pages of Tamburlaine, omits the author’s name. Hence, Millington’s failure to mention Marlowe as author of the Contention and True Tragedy should not be taken as evidence against that poet’s authorship, particularly as the revised version by Shake- speare must probably have been better known to the public at the time when Millington’s quartos were published. The rather scanty external evidence regarding the 1594/5 texts of our plays seems to me, therefore, quite sufficient to disqualify Shakespeare as possible author. Respecting the positive determi- nation of authorship, though there is nothing in this evidence which at all approaches proof, it seems worth remembering that the com- pany which acted the Contention and True Tragedy very shortly after acted Marlowe’s play of Edward II, and that the publisher of our plays recorded his ownership of the copyright of Marlowe’s other play of The Jew of Malta during the very months when the Contention and True Tragedy were issuing from his press. 2. eloe The two plays we are considering are very carefully welded into one. The Contention breaks off abruptly at the most exciting mo- ment, when the success of York at the first Battle of St. Albans renders civil war inevitable. Without any intermission or prelude, the first scene of the Tvue Tragedy introduces the conversation of the victorious leaders as they compare their experiences on the battle-field. The whole work is planned with an imaginative appre- ciation of the meaning of history and a power of unifying details which are very remarkable and which would make themselves more generally felt even in the revised versions of Shakespeare, if these plays were there separated in the reader’s mind from the unrelated First Part of Henry VI. The very determination of the limits of the double drama shows marked constructive ability. The first play opens with the arrival of Margaret, England’s evil genius. The second closes with the final ruin of Margaret’s cause at Tewkes- bury, and the death of the pious Henry, whose fate has been so disastrously linked with that of his terrible queen. Between these termini the poet’s imagination moves with an iron precision. Though the historical figures necessarily shift and disappear, the tone -of the work never changes. There is nothing irrelevant or episodic. Even the Horner, Simcox, and Cade scenes in the Contention bear directly upon the general tragic plot and have their comedy suffused with its stern light. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” ~ 153 This singleness of purpose and feeling, in dramas dealing with a particularly chaotic era and belonging clearly to the earliest period in the development of the history play, is a very remarkable pheno- menon. How far such solidarity of outlook lay from the youthful Shakespeare will be abundantly clear when we come to analyze the spirit in which the changes introduced into the revised 2 and 3 Henry VI were made. How infinitely far it lay from Peele and Greene need hardly be suggested to any one who has considered the wonderful medleys of plot and tone illustrated in Edward I, James IV, and Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay. Leaving all con- firmatory evidence out of mind, I believe that it would be safe to assert that the brilliant synthesis of plot and emotion manifested in the Contention and True Tragedy can about 1590 have been the work of only one dramatist known to literary history. The whole tangled story is resolutely pitched in a single key, preserved with hardly a fluctuation through the two plays, which thus become a kind of monody on the single note of ambition, transmitted from the throat of one leading figure to that of the next, from York’s glorious vaunt in the first scene of the Contention to Richard’s final pro- clamation of his magnificent villainy at the close of the True Tragedy. This insistence upon one mood and one aspect produces a sense of order in the midst of plot confusion and a touch also of that fine lucidity which in classic works accompanies restrictedness of view. For other examples of this rare unity injected into ill-unified matter by the vividness of the poet’s feeling one can turn among plays contemporary with those we are discussing only to the ac- cepted works of Marlowe. Through the two parts of Tamburlaine the fervid expression of heaven-topping egoism lends consecutive- ness and meaning to the hopelessly ill-ordered material. In Edward II, the first great English historical play, a wild, purposeless reign and an uninteresting monarch are made deeply affecting by the con- sistent tragedy which the poet, almost gratuitously, reads into them. An even closer parallel to the tone and method of the Contention and True Tragedy is found in Marlowe’s Massacre at Paris, where French history during seventeen years just past (1572—1589) is carelessly depicted in connexion with the three sensational inci- dents of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the death of the Duc de Guise, and the assassination of Henri III. Here there is no sem- blance of technical unity. Yet the reader hardly perceives any incoherence, because the consuming anti-papal ardor of the poet is strong enough to focuss and bring into apparent relation all the alien elements of the play. 154 C. F. Tucker Brooke, There is about Marlowe’s genius a kind of fierceness of perception and expression which renders him equally incapable of dramatic impartiality, of incoherence, and of dullness. Life and history he viewed always from one side only, the side of the picturesque ; and what he saw he reproduced necessarily in the most brilliant color, with little of the modesty of nature, but with a glowing feeling which made his picture, however unfaithful to outward fact, inevitably true in its expression of a single clear passion of the poet. Once the predominant emotion is set in play, it courses through the work, and tinges every atom of material. No triviality, digression, or change of attitude is possible. In Tamburlaine, the hero’s lust for conquest rages through every scene. In Faustus, the atmosphere of sulphur and brimstone pervades even such ostensibly comic passages as the masque of the seven deadly sins, Faust’s visit to Rome, or the interview with the horse-courser. Never for an instant, I think, in the genuine part of that play, is the central tragic idea out of the mind of either poet or spectator. So it is with the plays we are considering. The Tyvuwe Tragedy, the higher-pitched of the two, contains no spark of comedy, a thing almost marvellous in an early English history play. The Contention has several scenes, which, handled by any Elizabethan writer except Marlowe, would probably be broadly farcical and digressive; but as they here appear, they are filled no less than the rest of the drama with the muffled roar of civil war. The Horner and Cade scenes, instead of conflicting with the tragic passages, seem to me to tend toward precisely the same effect. In an age when the drama was almost universally inclined to excessive range of mood and subject, this constaat adherence to the one note is very conspicuous. It made Marlowe a poor drama- tist in several respects : it certainly prevented the normal expansion of his abilities as a playwright. Undoubtedly, however, it permitted him to give unity and force to the handling of subjects which would otherwise have wanted both those qualities. It is commonly said that Marlowe lacked the perception of comedy. This is probably not true. A grim sense of humor will hardly be denied the poet by those who have carefully read his works. It is, however, quite true that the student of Marlowe misses both the irresponsible transition from black tragedy to light-hearted merri- ment, so characteristic of the cruder Elizabethan dramatists, and also Shakespeare’s judicial power of setting side by side the tragic aspect which a particular circumstance may bear for those vitally interested and the commonplace or even ludicrous view taken by The Authorship of ‘“ King Henry VI.” 155 casual outsiders. The absence of this changefulness of mood and of dramatic irony should probably be ascribed, not to any congenital want of humor in the poet, but to his total absorption in the special side of the question which he is endeavoring to portray. Few men can throw themselves into the delineation of the highest sublimities of passion and at the same time retain full consciousness of all the little humorous accompaniments of life. Even in Shakespeare thi power came only with maturity, and in Shakespeare it is almost unique. It is easy for the cold critic, sympathizing with Shake- speare’s Pistol, to find much that is absurd in the intensity of Tambur- laine ; but it would have been quite impossible for any poet, while in a mood unimpassioned enough to be conscious of these laughable trivialities, to reach the tragic exaltation which makes the greatness of Marlowe’s play. Thus, the fact that Marlowe’s strong tragic pinion bears him in his moments of inspiration above the lowly species of comedy with which Greene, for instance, was accustomed to intersperse his romantic extravaganzas should not be taken as a necessary Indication that Marlowe at all times lacks a sense of humor, or that he was incapable of utilizing comic material where it was possible to do so without subverting the great tragic purpose of his dramas. The evidence is all against this common assumption. I believe that the most conspicuous comic scenes in the Conten- tion, those dealing with Jack Cade, are distinctly in Marlowe's mauner. It has been usual, of course, to declare that these scenes cannot have been composed by Marlowe, because they are effective comedy, and Marlowe was no comic writer. Such an argument involves a complete non sequitur. What we are really justified in expecting of comic matter introduced by Marlowe into a serious play is that it shall not be tawdry, as is much of Greene’s buffoonery and most of the later, nor-Marlovian, additions to the text of Doctor Faustus ; and that it shall not be extraneous to the main issue of the play, as Shakespeare’s early comic scenes usually are. The Cade scenes offend in none of these respects. So far are they from being irrelevant that they serve a very necessary function in preparing the way for York’s rebellion and bringing out the instability of Henry’s rule. Their spirit is not that imparted by the professed comedian or fun-maker. Cade’s followers, unlike the insipid clowns of contemporary farce, are a band of wild fanatics, as heavily charged with tragedy as any that in later days did homage to the goddess Guillotine. Their follies and extravagances, like the murderous jests in The Massacre at Paris, have in every case a deadly sequel which actually darkens the black atmosphere of the tragedy. 156 C. F. Tucker Brooke, The figure of Cade himself is a masterpiece which could never have emerged from the brain of an essentially “comic” writer. Instead of the buffoon and demagogue that one would expect, one finds a colossusin whose character grandeur and pathos are continually getting the better of boorishness—a giant peasant type near of kin to Tamburlaine, who seems restrained only by the limitations of the historic plot from snapping the bonds of the commonplace and soaring with the Scythian shepherd into the heights of poetry and heroism. That the Cade scenes could have been written by Shake- speare at the early period at which they were written appears simply impossible in the light of what we know of that poet’s comic method in such contemporary plays as Love’s Labor’s Lost and The Two Gentlemen of Verona. That the scenes in question were moulded at the same time as the rest of the original play, of which they form an integral part, is, I think, unquestionable ; and it seems to me that in spirit and character delineation they bear the strongest testimony to Marlowe’s authorship. ja Character The Contention and True Tragedy contain twelve important characters. Of these eight are conspicuous in the earlier play: Suf- folk, Margaret, King Henry, Duke Humphrey, Cardinal Beaufort, York, Warwick, and Jack Cade. Four of these, Humphrey, the Cardinal, Suffolk, and Cade, die during the course of the earlier play ; and the remaining four are supplemented in the True Tragedy by Richard, Edward, and Young Clifford, who, though all on the stage in the last part of the Contention are not there psychologically important. The True Tragedy introduces one new Dees worthy of study in Margaret’s son, Prince Edward. If any deduction concerning the authorship of the plays is to be drawn from their delineation of character, the final conclusion must be based upon the treatment of these twelve figures. The character of Cade has already been discussed. It seems to me unlike the work of any known dramatist of the time except Marlowe. The other notable figures divide themselves into two or three groups. Seven of them, the most memorable and the least altered in Shakespeare’s revision, represent the type of bold bad nobility whose romantically egoistic and vindictive figures seem in Edward II and The Massacre at Paris to have caught the imagination of Mar- lowe to the exclusion of nearly everything else in history. Suffolk, Warwick, the Cardinal, and Young Clifford form a group of over- daring, remorseless, terrible, yet splendid peers comparable only The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 157 perhaps with the similar group of turbulent barons in Edward II. Three other figures of this same type, York, Queen Margaret, and Richard, are yet more highly individualized.. They are masterpieces of that overwhelming evil ambition and malignant selfishness in which a rather curious twist of Marlowe’s genius made him see the highest reach of human glory. These three characters are related by the closest bonds to the supreme embodiments of evil power in Marlowe’s accepted history plays: Young Mortimer in Edward II and Guise and the Old Queen in the Massacre at Paris. Verbal similarities may be reserved for later discussion ; but on the evidence of spirit and general style alone, it seems impossible to read in suc- cession two such companion passages as those printed below without complete assurance that in each the same poet’s mind has been at work under the impulse of the same inspiration. The first quotation is from the soliloquy of Guise near the opening of the Massacre at Paris (ll. 91ff.).1. The second gives the soliloquy of York at the close of the first scene of the Contention. “Now Guise begins those deepe ingendred thoughts To burst abroad those neuer dying flames, Which cannot be extinguisht but by bloud. Oft haue I leueld, and at last haue learnd, That perill is the cheefest way to happines, And resoJution honors fairest aime. What glory is there in a common good, That hanges for euery peasant to atchiue ? That like I best that flyes beyond my reach. Set me to scale the high Peramides (7. e., pyramids), And thereon set the Diadem of Fraunce, Ile either rend it with my nayles to naught, Or mount the top with my aspiring winges, Although my downfall be the deepest hell. For this I wake when others think I sleepe, For this I waite, that scornes attendance else. The gentle King whose pleasure vncontrolde Weakneth his body, and will waste his Realme, + References to Marlowe in the following pages will give the line number in my edition, Clarendon Press, 1910; references to Contention, True Tragedy, and the 1619 quarto allude to page and line in the Praetorius facsimiles 1886—1891; references to Shakespeare’s plays; including 2 and 3 Henry VI follow the Oxford Shakespeare. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 11 JULY, 1912. 158 C. F. Tucker Brooke, If I repaire not what he ruinates: Him as a childe I dayly winne with words, So that for proofe he barely beares the name: I execute, and he sustaines the blame. Giue me a look, that when I bend the browes, Pale death may walke in furrowes of my face: A hand, that with a graspe may gripe world, An eare, to heare what my detractors say, A royall seate, a scepter, and a crowne: That those which doe beholde, thay may become As men that stand and gase against the Sunne. The plot is laide, and things shall come to passe, Where resolution striues for victory.’’ “ Amioy and Maine, both giuen vnto the French, Cold newes for me, for I had hope of France, Euen as I haue of fertill England. A day will come when Yorke shall claime his owne, And therefore I will take the Newels parts, And make a show of loue to proud Duke Humphrey: And when I spie aduantage, claime the Crowne, For that’s the golden marke I seeke to hit: Nor shall proud Lancaster vsurpe my right, Nor hold the scepter in his childish fist, Nor weare the Diademe vpon his head, Whose church-like humours fits not for a Crowne: Then Yorke be still a while till time do serue, Watch thou, and wake when others be asleepe, To prie into the secrets of the state, Till Henry surfeiting in ioyes of loue, With his new bride, and Englands dear bought queene, And Humphrey with the Peeres be falne at iarres, Then will I raise aloft the milke-white Rose, With whose sweete smell the aire shall be perfumde, And in my Standard beare the Armes of Yorke, To graffle with the House of Lancaster : And force perforce, ile make him yeeld the Crowne, Whose bookish rule hath puld faire England downe.”’ (Contention, p. 7, 1. 143—p. 8, 1. 166). In addition to the figures just discussed, there remain four which merit attention: Henry VI, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, Edward IV, and the young Prince Edward. These, in contrast with The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 159 the others, are good characters. The prince perhaps need not be seriously considered, because he appears relatively little and owes his romantic courage quite as much to the chronicle accounts as to the poet’s original portraiture. The other three figures are likely to surprise the readers of the Contention and True Tragedy by their comparative tameness. It was in the presentation of the good characters that Shakespeare found his most fruitful opportunity to improve upon the delineation of the earlier plays. It is remarkable, certainly, that in the Contention the picture of so mean a creature as Suffolk remains clearer in the memory than that of Humphrey, the real hero of the epoch in the chronicle accounts and a particularly promising subject, one would say, for dramatic presentation. There is no question, I think, that the Contention fails on the whole to make Duke Humphrey and King Henry vivid personalities, and that the True Tragedy makes the capable and relatively virtuous Edward a far less interesting figure than either the villainous Richard or the madly impetuous and mischief-making Warwick. The same uncon- vincingness in the normal or good characters must strike the student of the acknowledged work of Marlowe, for that poet appears never to have been able to separate virtue from mediocrity or to portray vivid personality except in the prosecution of godless and desperate extravagance. To depict sympathetically and persuasively a great man strong in righteousness, as, for example, the unknown author of the contemporary play of Woodstock did with an earlier Duke of Gloucester very similar to Humphrey in character and fate, seems to have been decidedly beyond the range of Marlowe’s genius. The representation of the king’s well-meaning brother Edmund in Edward II and even of the great figure of Henry of Navarre in the Massacre at Paris illustrates the same failure on the poet’s part to rise to the possibilities latent in the portrayal of simple nobleness. It would appear, therefore, that the presentation of character in the Contention and the True Tragedy manifests both the special merits and also the particular limitations of Marlowe’s work. I think, moreover, that the parallel between the characters of the plays we are considering and those of accepted Marlovian dramas can be traced yet farther. Careful readers will hardly fail to notice the close resemblance between the complex quadrangle of relations between Henry VI, Margaret, Suffolk, and Prince Edward in our plays and the relations of Edward II, Isabella, Young Mortimer, and Prince Edward in Edward II. So, tov, the similarity between the treat- ment of Margaret’s experiences at the French court and those of Isabella in Edward II seems very much closer than historic coin- 160 C. F. Tucker Brooke, cidence would make natural. It would perhaps be unduly tedious to dwell at length upon the likenesses between the two sets of charac- ters ; but it is certainly worth remarking that, wherever the analogy seems particularly striking, the Contention and True Tragedy will be found to be merely reproducing history, while Edward II frequently departs from the facts recorded by the chroniclers in order to conform to our plays. Thus, Edward IV’s despatching of Warwick to France to prevent Louis from listening to Margaret’s appeals is a well-known historic occurrence ; but Edward II’s sending of Levune on a similar mission against Isabella appears to be a gratuitous invention suggested from the other play. Here, then, and in other instances, where an account of debit and credit can be set up between Edward II and the early versions of the Henry VI plays, it is the former which proves to be the borrower. Hence, if we are unwilling to admit that Marlowe was influenced in Edward II by reminiscence of his own earlier productions, we shall be driven to the unlikely conclusion that in his most mature play he introduced a series of small purposeless imitations of an inferior work by an undetermined author.? 4. Verbal Parallels in the Contention and True Tragedy and in Accepted Plays of Marlowe. Previous critics have been struck with the close parallel between some six or eight passages in the plays under discussion and corre- sponding passages in Marlowe’s acknowledged dramas, and they have explained the similarity in various ways. Dyce, who dis- covered five of the most important resemblances, believed that they indicated Marlowe’s authorship of the Contention and True Tragedy, in part at least.2 Grant White, holding the opposite view, tried to invalidate this testimony by the citation of several vague parallels between plays by Marlowe and others by Shakespeare. Miss Lee accepted the parallels as proof of Marlowe’s authorship of parts of the plays, but attempted quite fruitlessly to point out another set of parallels with the works of Greene, in order that the claim of that poet might also be supported.? The list which follows will show that the verbal echoes of undoubted Marlovian dramas in the Contention and the True Tvagedy are three or four times as numerous as has been hitherto suggested. It is important to discuss with some care what these resemblances really indicate. 1 For a further discussion of this point see p. 175 ff. . 2 Cf. “ Some Account of Marlowe and his Writings’? in Dyce’s edition of Marlowe (1850, etc.). 3 Cf. Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1875—76, p. 248. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 161 It must be admitted as axiomatic that mere similarity or identity of language between two works does not of itself imply common authorship. In the case of Shakespeare, for example, striking repeti- tion of the wording of genuine plays in a doubtful work would go far to discredit the claim of the latter, because Shakespeare, who was often imitated by other writers, was never much disposed to repeat his own lines and phrases. In the present case, before the parallels in question can be used to support the theory of Marlowe’s authorship of the Contention and True Tragedy, it will be necessary first to prove from the certainly genuine plays that Marlowe was accustomed to reproduce his ideas and expressions in the particular manner in which our plays reproduce them, and then to show that the passages which appear in the plays before us cannot be reasonably explained as an alien poet’s imitation of Marlowe’s work. I believe it possible to establish both these theses. Marlowe’s tendency to hark back to a favorite image or idea and to ring the changes upon any line which by its mellifluous flow had caught his fancy, is, indeed, too familiar to require much illustration. The following examples, selected rather at random among the undis- puted plays, will serve as a basis for comparison with the Marlovian parallels in the Contention and True Tragedy: > (a) Tamburlaine, 1.729: “ And now we will to faire Persepolis.’ Ap 1.745: “ To follow me to faire Persepolis.” 3 1.754: “ And ride in triumph through Persepolis.” 1. 755 k 755: “ And ride in triumph through Persepolis.’ 759: “ And ride in triumph through Persepolis.” (b) Doctor Faustus, ll. 1422—1430: “ Stand stil you euer moouing spheres of heauen, That time may cease, and midnight neuer come: Faire Natures eile, rise, rise againe, and make Perpetuall day, or let this houre be but A yeare, a moneth, a weeke, a naturall day, That Faustus may repent, and saue his soule. ve The starres mooue stil, time runs, the clocke wil strike The diuel wil come, and Faustus must be damnd ”’ Edward II, Wl. 2050—2056: “Continue euer thou celestiall sunne, Let neuer silent night possesse this clime, Stand still you watches of the element, 162 C. F. Tucker Brooke, All times and seasons rest you at a stay, That Edward may be still faire Englands king: But dayes bright beames dooth vanish fast away, And needes I must resigne my wished crowne.”’ (c) Edward IT, ll. 343 f.: “Ere my sweete Gaueston shall part from me, This Ie shall fleete vpon the Ocean.” Dido, ll. 1340 f. : “And let rich Carthage fleete vpon the seas. So I may haue Aeneas in mine armes.”’ (d) Edward IT, ll. 393—397: “Proud Rome, that hatchest such imperiall groomes, For these thy superstitious taperlights, Wherewith thy antichristian churches blaze, Ile fire thy crazed buildings and enforce The papall towers to kisse the lowlie ground.” Massacre at Paris, ll. 1210—1215: “Which if I doe, the Papall Monarck goes To wrack and antechristian kingdome falles. These bloudy hands shall teare his triple Crowne, And fire accursed Rome about his eares. Ile fire his crased buildings and inforse The papall towers to kisse the holy earth.”’ Jew of Malta, ll. 2066f.: “T’le helpe to slay their children and their wiues, To fire the Churches, pull their houses downe.”’ (e) Doctor Faustus, ll. 1328 f. : “Was this the face that lancht a thousand shippes, And burnt the toplesse Towres of Ilium ? ” Dido, ll. 481. : “In whose sterne faces shin’d the quenchles fire, That after burnt the pride of Asia.” (f) Edward II, ll. 117f.: ‘Brother, reuenge it, and let these their heads Preach vpon poles for trespasse of their tongues.” Tind., 1. 1326: “ Strike off their heads, and let them preach on poles.” (g) Massacre at Paris, 1. 289: “Cheefe standard bearer to the Lutheranes.” The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 163 Wid eV 3t7: ““Cheef standard bearer to the Lutheranes.” (h) Massacre at Paris, ll. 524—530: “T, but my Lord let me alone for that, For Katherine must haue her will in France: As I doe liue, so surely shall he dye, And Henry then shall weare the diadem. And if he grudge or crosse his Mothers will, Ile disinherite him and all the rest: For Ile rule France, but they shall weare the crowne.” Ibid., ll. 653—659: “Thus man, let me alone with him, To work the way to bring this thing to passe: And if he doe deny what I doe say, Ile dispatch him with his brother presently, And then shall Mounser weare the diadem: Thus, all shall dye vnles I haue my will, For while she liues Katherine will be Queene.” (i) Ibid., Ul. 938 £.: “Come on sirs, what, are you resolutely bent, Hating the life and honour of the Guise?” Thid., ll: 956 f.: “ But are they resolute and armde to kill, Hating the life and honour of the Guise ?”’ (j) Massacre at Paris, ll. 992 f.: “Now doe I but begin to look about, And all my former time was spent in vaine.”’ fiid., I. 1011 f.: ‘Nay then tis time To look about.” In the instances just cited, two kinds of parallels are illustrated. In some cases, as in (a), (f), (g), (i), (j), a striking line or expression, which has already been used once in a play, lingers in the poet’s mind and repeats itself later either from carelessness or as a con- scious rhetorical device. In the other cases, though identity of wording is still largely present, this is of less importance than the identity of idea. In these latter instances, usually occurring in different plays, the poet happens to deal with similar conceptions, and his mind naturally reacts in each case in a similar manner, so that there results a parallel of thought and language, quite un- 164 C. F. Tucker Brooke, realized by the writer, but more clearly demonstrative of unity of authorship than any number of mere word echoes. Now, if Marlowe wrote the Contention and True Tragedy, we should normally expect to find both these types of parallels there illustrated. We should expect to find the poet introducing parallels of language and thought from his other plays—particularly from those nearly contemporary with the ones in question ; and we should also expect to find him continuing the same practice of repetition within the new plays themselves. That is, we should expect to find the same similarities of language and idea between the different parts of the Contention and True Tragedy as between those plays and accepted works like the Massacre at Paris and Edward II. This is precisely what we do find. It will be well to take up first the passages which show the plays under consideration echoing lines in Marlowe’s acknowledged dramas. I give a list of all the instances I have noted in the order in which they appear. The references allude, as before, to the page and line number in the Praetorius facsimiles of Contention and True Tragedy and to the line number in my edition of Marlowe :-— (1) Contention, p. 4, 1. 30: “ Her lookes did wound, but now her speech doth pierce.” Dido, 1. 1007: “ Aeneas, no, although his eyes doe pearce.”’ (2) Contention, p. 5, 1. 79: ; “Ah Lords, fatall is this marriage canselling our states.” Massacre at Paris, |. 206: “Oh fatall was this marriage to vs all.” (3) Contention, p. 7, Il. 149f.: “And when I spie aduantage, claime the Crowne, For thats the golden marke I seeke to hit.” Thid., p. 32, 1 80% “ And dogged Yorke that leuels at the Moone.” Ibid; p- 08; 04> “Tf honour be the marke whereat you aime.” True Tragedy, p. 28, 1. 18: “Ambitious Yorke did leuell at thy Crowne.” Edward IT, ll. 1584 £.: “Thats it these Barons and the subtill Queene Long leueld at.” The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 165 Tbid., 1. 2277: “Tt is the chiefest marke they leuell at.” (4) Contention, p. 8, 1. 156: “Watch thou and wake when others be asleepe.”’ Massacre at Paris, |. 104: “For this I wake, when others think I sleepe.”’ (5) Contention, p. 12, Il. 49f.: “ But still must be protected like a childe, And gouerned by that ambitious Duke.” Edward II, ll. 1336 f.: “As though your highnes were a schoole boy still, And must be awde and gouernd like a child.” (6) Contention, p. 13, ll. 59—61: “T tell thee Poull, when thou didst runne at Tilt, And stolst away our Ladaies hearts in France, I thought King Henry had bene like to thee.” Edward II, ll. 2516—2518: “ Tell Isabell the Queene, I lookt not thus, When for her sake I ran at tilt in Fraunce, And there vnhorste the duke of Cleremont.” (2) Contention, p. 17, ll. 15 f..: “ (Night) Wherein the Furies maske in hellish troupes, Send vp I charge you from Sosetus lake.” Tamburlaine, 1. 1999: “Furies from the blacke Cocitus lake.” (8) Contention, p. 25, 1. 10: “Euen to my death, for I haue liued too long.” Edward ITI, |. 2651: “Nay, to my death, for too long haue I liued.” (9) Contention, p. 25, 1. 17: “ For sorrowes teares hath gripte my aged heart.” Toid., p. 42, 1. 12: “See how the panges of death doth gripe his heart.” True Tragedy, p. 24, 1. 156: “ How inlie anger gripes his hart.” Massacre at Parts, ll. 542 f.: “A griping paine hath ceasde vpon my heart: A sodaine pang, the messenger of death.” 166 C. F. Tucker Brooke, (10) Contention, p. 27, ll. 9f.: “That earst did follow thy proud Chariot wheeles, When thou didst ride in tryumph through the streetes.’ Massacre at Paris, ll. 990 f.: “So will I triumph ouer this wanton King, And he shall follow my proud Chariots wheeles.”’ , Tamburlaine, |. 754 (repeated in ll. 755, 759): “And ride in triumph through Persepolis.” (11) Contention, p. 33, Il. 134-136: “The wilde Onele my Lords, is vp in Armes, With troupes of Irish Kernes that vncontrold Doth plant themselues within the English pale.” Edward IT, ll. 969f.: “The wilde Oneyle, with swarmes of Irish Kernes Liues vncontroulde within the English pale.” (12) Contention, p. 39, 1. 127: “To trie how quaint an Orator you were.” True Tragedy, p.et2, 2: “Nay, I can better plaie the Orator.” Ibid., p. 29, 1. 42: “ Full wel hath Clifford plaid the Orator.” Tamburlaine, 1. 32: ‘Or looke you, I should play the Orator.”’ Ibid., 1. 328: “‘ Our swords shall play the Orators for vs.’’} (13) Contention, p. 49, ll. 6f.: “ Lord Say, Iacke Cade hath solemnely vowde to haue thy head. Say. I, but I hope your highnesse shall haue his.”’ Massacre at Paris, ll. 783 f.: “For he hath solemnely sworne thy death. Muge. I may be stabd, and liue till he be dead.” (14) Contention, p. 57, 1. 53: ““Deepe trenched furrowes in his frowning brow.” True Tragedy, p. 68, ll. 10f.: “ The wrinkles in my browes now fild with bloud Were likened oft to kinglie sepulchers.”’ Edward II, |. 94: “The sworde shall plane the furrowes of thy browes.”’ 1 A similar line is found in Shakespeare’s Richard III, II, v, 94: «* Doubt not, my lord, I'll play the orator.” The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 167 Massacre at Paris, |. 158: ““Giue me a look, that when I bend the browes, Pale death may walke in furrowes of my face.” Moy ivue Tragedy, p. 10, 1. 177: “And die in bands for this vnkingly deed.” Edward II, |. 1289: ““Weaponless must I fall and die in bands? ”’ (46) True Tragedy, p. 11, 1. 210f.: “ Sterne Fawconbridge Commands the narrow seas.” Tind., p. 64, 1. 24: “Ts past in safetie through the narrow seas.”’ Edward II, 1. 970: “The hautie Dane commands the narrow seas.” (17) True Tragedy, p. 24, Il. 139f.: “ But you are more inhumaine, more inexorable, O ten times more then Tygers of Arcadia (i. e., Hyrcania) ”! Edward II, 1. 2057: “Inhumaine creatures, nurst with Tigers milke.” Dido, ll. 1566 f. : “ But thou art sprung from Scythian Caucasus, And Tygers of Hircania gaue thee sucke.”’ (18) True Tragedy, p. 19, 1. 92: " “Off with the Crowne and with the Crowne his head.” Edward II, \. 2043: ‘‘ Here, take my crowne, the life of Edward too.”’ (19) True Tragedy, p. 21, ll. 164f.: “ Off with his head and set it on Yorke Gates, So Yorke maie ouerlooke the towne of Yorke.” Edward II, ll. 1547 f.: “For which thy head shall ouerlooke the rest As much as thou in rage out wentst the rest.” (20) True Tragedy, p. 23, ll. 45f.: “ Sweet Duke of Yorke, our prop to leane vpon, Now thou art gone there is no hope for vs.” 1 « Arcadia,” the reading of the editions of 1595 and 1619, is evidently a printer’s error. The 1623 edition gives the correct “ Hyrcania.” 168 C. F. Tucker Brooke, | Massacre at Pars, ll. 1122 f.: “ Sweet Duke of Guise, our prop to leane vpon, Now thou art dead, heere is no stay for vs.” (24) True. Tragedy, p..39, 7 30 t. : “Thus farre our fortunes keepes an vpward Course, And we are grast with wreathes of victorie.”’ Tbids ap. 109) We ae “Thus still our fortune giues vs victorie, And girts our temples with triumphant ioies.”’ Massacre at Paris, |. 794: “And we are grac’d with wreathes of victory.” (22) True Tragedy, p. 43, 1. 9: “Your highnesse shall doe well to grant it then.” Jew of Malta, 1. 274: “Your Lordship shall doe well to let them haue it.” (23)" Drue Ll ragedy ps o25 aloo: “Did I impale him with the regall Crowne.” Edward II., ll. 1472 f.: “The royall vine, whose golden leaues Empale your princelie head, your diadem.” (24) True Tragedy, p. 66, Il. 32 f.: “ But whilst he sought to steale the single ten, The king was finelie fingerd from the decke.” Massacre at Paris, ll. 146—148: “Since thou hast all the Cardes within thy hands To shuffle or cut, take this as surest thing: That right or wrong, thou deale thy selfe a King.” (25) True Tragedy, p. 68, ll. 6f.: “Thus yeelds the Cedar to the axes edge, Whose armes gaue shelter to the princelie Eagle.”’ Edward II., ll. 818 f.: “A loftie Cedar tree faire flourishing, On whose top-branches Kinglie Eagles pearch.”’ (26) True Tragedy, p. 68, 1. 9: | “Whose top branch ouerpeerd Ioues spreading tree.” Edward ITI., \. 2579 f.: “T stand as Ioues huge tree, And others are but shrubs compard to me.” The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 169 (27) True Tragedy, p. 71, ll. 35—37: “See brothers, yonder stands the thornie wood, Which by Gods assistance and your prowesse, Shall with our swords yer night be cleane cut downe.”’ Tamburlaine, ll. 1397—1399: “Shaking their swords, their speares and yron bils, Enuironing their standard round, that stood As bristle-pointed as a thorny wood.” (28) True Tragedy, p. 76, ll. 50f.: “What ? will the aspiring bloud of Lancaster Sinke into the ground ? I had thought it would haue mounted.” Edward II, |. 93: “ Frownst thou thereat, aspiring Lancaster ? ”’ Tbid., ll. 2000 f. : “ Highly scorning that the lowly earth Should drinke his bloud, mounts vp into the ayre.”’ In a number of the passages just quoted (e. g., nos. 3, 9, 12, 14), parallels appear not only with the accepted plays of Marlowe, but also between the various parts of the Contention and True Tragedy. In the following additional instances the plays we are considering exhibit parallels for which the acknowledged plays offer no suggestion or counterpart : (29) Contention, p. 4, 1. 39: “ Till terme of eighteene months be full expired.” fiid., p. 5, il. 60 f.: “Till terme of 18. months be full expirde.” (30) Contention, p. 6, Il. 98—101: “The common people swarme about him straight, Crying lesus blesse your royall exellence, With God preserue the good Duke Humphrey, And many things besides that are not knowne.” Tbid., p. 30, ll. 9—12: “See you not how the Commons follow him In troupes, crying, God saue the good Duke eas ca And with long life, Iesus preserue his Se Honouring him as if he were their King.” (31) Contention, p. 6, 1. 104: “Tle laie a plot to heaue him from his seate.”’ 170 C. F. Tucker Brooke, Lota: Ap. 16 aie: “Weele quickly heaue Duke Humphrey from his seate.”’ (32) Contention, p. 6, 1. 108: “And put them from the marke they faine would hit.” Lod: po dels ASO: ‘For thats the golden marke I seeke to hit.” (33) Contention, p. 7, ll. 144 f.: “Cold newes for me, for I had hope of France, Euen as I haue of fertill England.” Ibid, p: 34, US sek “Cold newes for me, for I had hope of France, Euen as I haue of fertill England.” (34) Contention, p. 23, 1. 171: ‘““My mind doth tell me thou art innocent.” Tbid- pare, lo ef0e “My conscience tells me thou art innocent.” (35) Contention, p. 33, ll. 118 f.: “Tf our King Henry had shooke hands with death, Duke Humphrey then would looke to be our King.” True Tragedy, p. 19, ll. 86f.: “As I bethinke me you should not be king, Till our Henry had shooke hands with death.” (36) Contention, p. 40, 1. 165: “You bad me ban, and will you bid me sease ?”’ True Tragedy, p. 20, 1. 128: ‘Bids thou me rage ? why now thou hast thy will.” (37) Contention, p. 62, 1. 63: “Make hast, for vengeance comes along with them.” True Tragedy, p. 38, 1. 61: ‘““Awaie my Lord for vengeance comes along with him.” (38) True Tragedy, p. 33, 1. 3—p. 34, 1.5: “ For strokes receiude, and manie blowes repaide, Hath robd my strong knit sinnews of their strength, And force perforce needes must I rest my selfe.” Ibid., p. 68, ll. 25—27: “For manie wounds receiu’d, and manie moe repaid, Hath robd my strong knit sinews of their strength, And spite of spites needes must I yeeld to death.” The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 171 (389) True Tragedy, p. 45, 1. 64: “Her lookes are all repleat with maiestie.” wied.. p. 63, 1. 19: “Thy lookes are all repleat with Maiestie.” Contention, p. 4, 1. 21: “Lend me a heart repleat with thankfulnesse.”’ (40) True Tragedy, p. 47, |. 107: “For I am not yet lookt on in the world.” Ibid., p. 78, 1. 22: “For yet I am not lookt on in the world.” (41) True Tragedy, p. 52, ll. 135—143: “tell false Edward thy supposed king, That Lewis of France is sending ouer Maskers To reuell it with him and his now bride. Bona. Tell him in hope heele be a Widower shortlie, Ile weare the willow garland for his sake. Queen. Tell him my mourning weedes be laide aside, And I am readie to put armor on. War. Tell him from me, that he hath done me wrong, And therefore Ile vncrowne him er’t be long.” fhid,, p. 56, ll. 64—66, 69f., 744., 79 f.: “tell false Edward thy supposed king, That Lewis of France is sending ouer Maskers, To reuill it with him and his new bride... Tel him, quoth she, in hope heele proue a widdower shortly Ile weare the willow garland for his sake... . Tell him, quoth shee, my mourning weeds be Doone, And I am readie to put armor on. . Tell him quoth he, that he hath done me wrong, And therefore Ile vncrowne him er’t be long.” (42) True Tragedy, p. 59, 1. 52f.: “And free king Henry from imprisonment, And see him seated in his regall throne.”’ bod. p. 63, |. 58: “And pull false Henry from the Regall throne.” (43) True Tragedy, p. 65, 1. 3: “ Awaie with him, I will not heare him speake.” Féid:, p. 72; 1.50: “ Awaie, I will not heare them speake.” FD, C. F. Tucker Brooke, Even though one rates evidence derived from parallel passages at its very lowest value, making every allowance for possible coin- cidence, I believe that the cumulative force of this long list of resem- blances must go very near to proving identity of authorship between the Contention and True Tragedy and the plays of Marlowe. In the face of the number, complexity, and closeness of the parallels in the first list (nos. 1—28) Grant White’s theory of mere accident seems now entirely indefensible. And reason argues hardly less strongly, I think, against the other alternative of conscious plagiarism. Mar- lowe, to be sure, was a much imitated writer. Yet it is notorious that none of the poet’s imitators was ever able to raise his own style near enough to that of his model to prevent the presence of the stolen finery striking the attention of any careful reader. The probability of Marlowe’s authorship of the Contention and True Tragedy gains in force very considerably upon comparison of their Marlovian parallels with the conspicuous borrowings from Tambur- laine and Doctor Faustus in the pre-Shakespearean Taming of a Shrew.1 The two cases are fundamentally different. The passages in the Contention and True Tvagedy which are reminiscent of accepted plays do not arouse attention in their contexts. In every instance they are homogeneous with the rest of the speeches in which they occur, and they illustrate the same habits of mind shown in the parallels between the genuine plays. On the other hand, the borrow- ings from Marlowe in the Taming of a Shrew are totally different in style from the rest of the play and incongruous with its spirit. Of this unevenness, indicating the presence of an alien mind, no trace is found in the dramas we are discussing. A strong additional proof of the Marlovian quality of the Con- tention and True Tragedy is implied in the list of parallels (nos. 29—43) occurring within those plays alone. Here no model was furnished by other plays of Marlowe. Yet the distinctive note of Marlowe’s style seems clearly apparent in the more conspicuous of these passages, such as nos. 32, 33, 38, 39, 42: and the repetition of wording and idea is in these cases of precisely the same kind as that found in the parallels between the various accepted plays (a—j) and between those plays and ours (nos. 1—28). Here we have a state of affairs which seems quite unexplainable on any assumption of plagiarism. Even if we admit the possibility that another writer could imitate passages in Marlowe’s plays with the delicate fidelity 1 A detailed list of these paraliels is given in Appendix I of Prof. Boas’s edition of The Taming of a Shrew, 1908. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 173 to verse music and feeling, and yet with the perfect appropriateness to the new context which appear in examples 1—28, it seems utterly fantastic to imagine that this writer could then proceed to compose from his own mind other lines perfectly suggestive of Marlowe and to vary these original lines in precisely the manner in which he had varied those stolen from Marlowe. No poet, it may probably be said, who plagiarizes largely from another, will plagiarize from himself in the same manner and to the same relative extent. Yet no one, I think, can compare such parallels as those cited above in (b), (c), (d), in (6), (44), (17), and in (35), (38), (42) without feeling that in each case the same mind has been at work both in the original con- ception of the idea and in its later repetition. To conclude otherwise would be to assume that there existed, all unknown to history, an exact intellectual double to one of the most original and peculiar geniuses in English literature. I believe that Marlowe’s authorship of the Contention and True Tragedy is sufficiently attested, in so far as the parallel passages bear upon the question, by what has been already said. There is, however, a further point which it seems improper to ignore, since it offers positive evidence in the same direction. It will have been observed that decidedly the greatest number of the resemblances between the Contention and True Tragedy and the canonical plays of Marlowe in the list given on pp. 164—169 refer to Edward II and The Massacre at Paris. Of the twenty-eight parallels there cited, fourteen concern the former play and nine the latter. The obvious inference from this is that these four dramas, all dealing with historical themes, were composed within relatively short limits of time. It is important to attempt to fix the precise sequence of the four plays in question, since the theory that an unidentified author imitated Marlowe in the Contention and True Tragedy is tenable only on the assumption that.the latter plays are subsequent to those from which they appear to borrow. Some of the parallels offer evidence on this question. Wherever a passage appearing in two plays is naturally suggested by the con- text in one, while in the other it appears out of keeping or unne- cessary to the argument, I think it may be assumed that the passage is original in the former instance and has been gratuitously intro- duced in the second either by a trick of the author’s memory or by the conscious imitation of a later writer. Now, in regard to Tle Massacre at Paris, though the material for inference is rather scanty, the probabilities seem to favor the priority of that play to The Contention and The True Tragedy. For example, the allusion to the Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 12 Juny, 1912. 174 C. F. Tucker Brooke, “proud chariot’s wheels’ in the tenth parallel is perfectly natural in the context in which it appears in the Massacre. Guise is referring to Roman life in a carefully sustained simile : “As ancient Romanes ouer their Captiue Lords, So will I triumph ouer this wanton King, And he shall follow my proud Chariots wheeles.” In the case of the Contention, however, the allusion to the chariot is anachronistic and even absurd, for Humphrey is speaking, without any suggestion of figurative language, of his own wife and of the present time: “Sweete Nell, ill can thy noble minde abrooke The abject people gazing on thy face, That earst did follow thy proud Chariot wheeles, When thou didst ride in tryumph through the streetes.” May we not here feel reasonably sure that the picture of the Duchess Eleanor driving in triumph through fifteenth-century London streets in a proud chariot with the abject people following at her wheels is due to a mischievous freak of the poet’s memory, which suddenly diverted his attention from the real subject and caused Humphrey’s plain speech to end incongruously with the repetition of a remembered line from the Massacre and another from Tamburlaine ? There is one other parallel which seems likewise to suggest the earlier composition of the Massacre. When, near the close of that play, Dumaine says of his brother (1. 1122f.), “ Sweet Duke of Guise, our prop to leane vpon, Now thou art dead, heere is no stay for vs,” he is speaking only what the exigencies of the occasion justify, for the Guise’s party is crushed and the speaker himself is at the moment threatened with death. However, when Edward repeats virtually the same words in the Tvue Tragedy (p. 23, 1. 45f.), “Sweet Duke of Yorke, our prop to leane vpon, Now thou art gone there is no hope for vs,” they seem decidedly less appropriate to the speaker’s situation, for Edward’s emotion is merely personal sorrow at his father’s death, and his very next speech shows that he is as far as possible from having lost political hope: “ His name that valiant Duke hath left with thee (7. e., Richard), His chaire and Dukedome that remaines for me.’ (I. 56f.) The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 175 The case is different with the parallels between our plays and Edward II. When Queen Margaret, enraged at the mild inasser- tiveness of Henry’s character and the consequent predominance of Gloucester and his Duchess at the English court, exclaims to Suffolk (parallel 6) : “T tell thee Powll, when thou didst runne at Tilt, And stolst away our Ladaies hearts in France, I thought King Henry had bene like to thee, Or else thou hadst not brought me out of France,” the words are admirably adapted to the speaker’s character and to the facts of history. The chroniclers all give special attention to the magnificent jousts in which Suffolk was the chief figure, both during his negotiations with the French king for Henry’s marriage and later when he returned to France as Henry’s representative to escort the new queen to England. The similar lines spoken by Edward II in his distress, “Tell Isabell the Queene, I lookt not thus, When for her sake I ran at Tilt in France, And there vnhorste the duke of Cleremont,”’ add a desired touch of romance and pathos to the king’s figure, but they seem to be quite unjustified by history. The words which naturally suggested themselves in connexion with Suffolk’s knightly accomplishments seem to have been consciously repeated in order to lend an unhistoric charm to the personality of the hero of a later play. So far was Edward II really, at the time of his marriage with Isabella, from paralleling the chivalrous feats of Suffolk, that a very dark cloud was thrown over the wedding and coronation ceremonies (January, February, 1508) by the obvious degeneracy and effeminacy of the bridegroom. 1! In the O’Neill passages, again, the Contention version (parallel 11) seems Clearly the original, suggested by the historical sources and by dramatic propriety, while the similar lines in Edward II form a mere replica which, except for the recollection of the already written Contention, would have had nothing to suggest it. The name O’Neill was, indeed, very familiar to the English public of Marlowe’s day in connexion with Irish disturbances because of the activities of ‘‘ the great O'Neill,” as Fabyan calls him, who was created Earl of Tyrone in 1543 after thrice invading the Pale. But the lines of the Contention, * See Chalfant Robinson, ‘* Was King Edward the Second a Degenerate ? ” American Journal of Insanity, 1910, p. 454 f. 176 C. F. Tucker Brooke, “The wilde Onele my Lords, is vp in armes, With troupes of Irish Kernes that vncontrold, Doth plant themselves within the English pale,” perfectly describe the situation at the time of the action of the play Henry O’Neill (d. 1489) was at this period a conspicuous figure in Irish affairs, and was officially recognized by England in 1459. The despatch of the Duke of York, in 1448, to quell the unrest in Ireland, the remarkable success of the Duke, and the consequent devotion of the Irish to his cause during the English civil wars were facts dwelt upon at considerable length by all the chroniclers, and they had an important bearing upon the fortunes of the Yorkist party. The similar lines in Edward II, on the other hand, ‘The wilde Onele, with swarmes of Irish Kernes, Liues vncontroulde within the English pale,” must be regarded as a mere fabrication of the poet. No O’Neill, living at this period, is regognized by the Dictionary of National Bio- graphy. Nor was there an Irish rebellion at the time when Gaveston was sent as governor to Ireland. } Only four lines after the O’Neill passage in Edward II, Young Mortimer cites another evidence of Edward’s misrule (Ll 970f.): “The hautie Dane commands the narrow seas, While in the harbor ride thy ships vnrigd.” Now history knows nothing, apparently, of any Danish interference with the English seas during Edward II’s reign. But the corre- sponding line in the True Tragedy (parallel 16) “Sterne Fawconbridge commands the narrow seas”’ alludes to a prominent actual character of the time and to an actual situation. In these cases it would seem preposterous to believe that histor- ically unfounded lines were needlessly invented by Marlowe in Edward II, and that these lines were then later found to fit precisely the historic facts presented in the Henry VI plays. The debt must lie the other way, as the evidence discussed on pages 159 and 160 also suggests. 1 T.e., 1308/9. Later, in 1315, war broke out in connexion with Edward Bruce’s attempt to gain the Irish crown, and the O’Neills appeared on his side (cf. T. F. Tout, Political History of England, 1216—1877, p. 270). At this time Gaveston had been dead three years. + 9 Se The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 177 Thus, we get the following sequence of plays: Massacre at Paris— Contention—True Tragedy—Edward II. Once this order is accepted, the theory that the Contention and True Tragedy were written by an imitator of Marlowe and not by Marlowe himself becomes indefen- sible, since upholders of that theory would be obliged to assume that the plagiarist first succeeded in introducing into the plays we are con- sidering marvellous imitations of the spirit and language of Marlowe’s earlier dramas, such as Zamburlaine, The Jew of Malta, and The Massacre at Paris; next that he himself composed other original passages conspicuously suggestive of Marlowe’s hand ; and then that Marlowe borrowed copiously from these passages in his later play of Edward II. By this theory, one would have to assume such a poetic identity between the two authors, each writing in the same style, and each stealing from the other in the same manner, that the two would constitute a kind of literary syndicate, To any one who considers Marlowe’s striking individuality and his aloofness from all his dramatic contemporaries, no conception can well seem more extravagant. 5. Metrical evidence. The imperfect state in which the Contention and True Tragedy are preserved in the earliest editions of 1594/5 makes it impossible to apply metrical tests to the solution of the problem of authorship with even the doubtful authority which such tests possess in the case of the works of Shakespeare. Yet, after allowing for the in- conclusiveness of this evidence, the results obtained by tabulating the various metrical criteria seem pretty strongly to suggest homo- geneity of authorship between the Contention and True Tragedy and the Marlovian plays of about the same date, while they point yet more decisively to the fact that the Contention and True Tragedy cannot have been written by the author of the new passages inserted in the revised 2 and 3 Henry VI. Blank verse, as written by Marlowe, is a definitely decasyllabic measure, in which the individual line is still unmistakeably the poetic unit. Marlowe, therefore, avoids run-on lines, in which the division of one verse from the next is obscured in the unity of sentence or paragraph ; and double-ending lines, in which the normal ten-syllable measure is varied by the addition of a more or less strongly stressed eleventh syllable. These latter features, which give the impression of colloquial ease, grew steadily more conspicuous, as dramatic verse came in the later Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights to be re- garded less as a medium for impassioned lyric declamation and more 178 C. F. Tucker Brooke, as a vehicle of real conversation. Run-on lines and double endings are far more frequent even in the earliest of Shakespeare’s plays than in Marlowe’s, and in the works of such Jacobean writers as Fletcher and Massinger they predominate to such an extent as to make the blank verse of these writers largely lose the quality of poetry and become, like much of Wordsworth’s, mere measured prose. The change indicated is in great measure a regular evolution occasioned by a change in the purpose and tone of the drama from Marlowe’s time to Fletcher’s ; and the stylistic peculiarities of Mar- lowe’s verse are shared, to a certain extent, by several of the more impassioned writers of his age—by Kyd and Peele, for example. The discussion of the minutize of versification by which Marlowe’s in- dividual style can be distinguished even from that of his immediate contemporaries would be not altogether germane to the present sub- ject, and would carry the inquiry unjustifiably far afield. I hope to prosecute this investigation in another place. For the present, I offer the statistics below as proving merely that the Contention and True Tragedy cannot reasonably be regarded as the work of the author who wrote the additions to these plays in 2 and 3 Henry VI, while fully agreeing with the theory that Marlowe wrote the first two plays and Shakespeare the additions. One of the most striking characteristics of Marlowe’s verse, an outgrowth of his tendency to emphasize the division of lines and his dislike of double endings, is the frequent appearance of two weak syllables in the final foot. This pyrrhic ending gives the verse a kind of dying fall which very markedly emphasizes its close. It also permits the avoidance of a double ending where words like “ resolu- tion”’ or ‘‘valiant”’ conclude the line. In such cases, Marlowe and the author of Contention and True Tragedy normally pronounce every possible syllable, making the line a regular pentameter, whereas Shakespeare and the author of the additions in 2 and 3 Henry VI cause the fifth foot to close with the stressed antepenult of the word, and run the remaining “‘ -tion ”’ or “ -iant ’’ together as a single super- fluous eleventh syllable. The ordinary Marlovian pronunciation is seen in the line: “ Before / we part / with our/posses-/si-on.” (Tamburlaine, 340) or “ Desirde / her more, / and waxt / outra- / gi-ous ” (Edward IT, 857) The usual Shakespearean scansion, on the other hand, appears in the line. (vchard TIT; 1, 1, 48): i to aul «4. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 179 “T that / am cur- / tail’d of / this fair / propor- / tion’’ Marlowe, writing this last line, would normally have omitted two of the syllables. “I, cur- / tail’d of /this fair /propor-/ti-on ”’ or, ‘‘ I that / am cur- / tail’d of / propor / ti-on’’ would represent the regular Marlovian rhythm. Marlowe’s avoidance of the eleventh syllable and his fondness for the pyrrhic fifth foot frequently led him to make trisyllables out of awkward final dissyllables such as “‘ England”’ by the insertion of a colorless parasitic vowel before the liquid consonant. Thus, (Edward IT, 1. 581), “ But can- / not brooke / a night / grown mush- / (e)rump / (mush- room) ” This tendency is illustrated in the second line of a couplet which occurs twice in the Contention (p. 7, 1. 145; p. 34, 1. 35): “Cold newes for me, for I had hope of France, Even as | I have | of fer- | till Eng- | (e)land.” The rhythm of the italicized verse, quite characteristic of Marlowe, was clearly displeasing to the reviser, for in each of the corresponding lines in 2 Henry VI he has altered the metrical flow according to his own principles of prosody. In the first instance (2 Henry VI, I, 1, 239) he has made the last foot a regular iambus by the addition of a color- less monosyllable : “Even as / I have / of fer- / tile Eng- / land’s sow.” In the second case (2 Henry VJ, III, i, 88), he has an eleven-syllable line : “As firm- / ly as / I hope / for fer- / tile Eng- / land.” Since no alteration of meaning is involved in these changes, and since the revised lines are not inherently more musical or more correct than the original, it is clear that the alteration illustrates the dis- agreement between the stylistic idiosyncracies of the two poets. There are many other instances in which lines with the peculiar Marlovian rhythm in Contention and True Tragedy have been recast in 2 and 3 Henry VI merely in order to avoid the pyrrhic final foot or in order to admit the eleventh-syllable mannerism of the reviser. In the following cases the revised form seems actually inferior to the older version : Contention, p. 32, 1. 100: “ Before / his legs / can beare / his bo- / die vp.” 180 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 2-Henry V Iie ease “Before / his legs / be firm / to bear / his bo- / dy.” Contention. pp. a7. 1.20. “Of a- / shie sem- / blance, pale, / and blood- / (e)lesse.” 2 Henry VI, Iii, 1, 162; “ Of a- / shy sem- / blance, mea- / gre, pale, / and blood- / less.” Contention, p. 38, 1. 93: “ Blunt wit- / ted Lord, / igno- / ble in / thy words.” 2 Henry’ Val, Maes, 200 “ Blunt wit- / ted lord, / igno- / ble in / demea- / nour.” Contention, prod, 1. ose “Did worke / me and / my land / such cru- / ell spight.” 2 tlenry WV GN dO: “ That li- / ving wrought / me such / excee- / ding trou- / ble.” True Tragedy, p. 5, 1. 55: “My heart / for an- / ger breakes, / I can-/ not speake.” 3 Henry VI, 1160: “My heart / for an- / ger burns; /I can- / not brook / it.” True Tragedy, p. 49, 1. 39: “Whose wise- / dome was /a mir- / rour to / the world.” 3 Henry, VI, Via 8e “Whose wis- /dom was /a mir/ ror to / the wis- / est.” livve Tragedy; p62) 15 aac “With what / secur’ / ty we / maie doe / this thing.” 3 flenry VIFAN, wa bee “ By what / safe means / the crown / may be / reco--/ ver’d.” Trve Tragedy, p. 70, 1. 22: “Women / and chil- / dren of / so high / resolve.” 3. Henry Vile Nene SUE “Women / and chil- / dren of / so high / a cou- / rage.” Trve Tragedy, p. 76, i, 56: “Tf a- / nie sparke / of life / remaine / in thee.” Sullenry Vil Neyo “Tf a- / ny spark / of life / be yet / remai- / ning.” Of course, it is not to be supposed that Marlowe never wrote eleven-syllable lines or that the reviser (Shakespeare) never employed the pyrrhic fifth foot. The figures below would at once dispel such The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 181 anotion. It seems quite clear, however, that the normal tendencies of the two writers were distinctly opposed as regards the use of these two metrical forms. The list which I have just given of ten- syllable lines in Contention and True Tragedy expanded into eleven- syllable lines in the revised plays might be greatly increased ; but I have been unable to find even a single instance of the converse, where an eleven-syllable line in the original version has been recast as ten syllables. There follows a list of the percentages of pyrrhic fifth feet, eleven- syllable lines, and run-on lines in three of Marlowe’s later plays— Edward II, The Massacre at Paris, and The Jew of Malta; in the Contention and the True Tragedy ; in those parts of 2 and 3 Henry VI not found in the earlier plays or found there in essentially different form ; and in Shakespeare’s most closely connected play, Richard III. Percent Percent Percent Total number pyrrhic 1 1-syllable run-on of metrical fifth feet lines lines lines Contention 7— 4— At 1254 2 Henry VI 11— 14— 10 2148 (additional matter) True Tragedy 10 7 5 1865 3 Henry VI 8— 14— TI5 1550 (additional matter) Edward II Bae 4*/, 6/5 2519 Massacre at Paris 14 2 Es 1039 Jew of Malta 18— 3 1 h, 1811 Richard III 9 19+ 13+ 3412 The evidence of this table is, on the whole, quite definite. In the small percentage of eleven-syllable lines (less than four percent and seven percent respectively) the Contention and True Tragedy, even in their corrupted texts, agree closely with the undisputed plays of Marlowe, and are strikingly at variance with the additional matter of the 1623 edition (14 percent) and with Richard III (19 percent). In the work which I would attribute to Marlowe—to put the converse of what has just been said—the percentage of ten-syllable lines out of the total number scannable as pentameters, ranges from 98 percent in The Massacre at Paris to 93 percent in The True Tragedy. The average is well above 95 percent. In the additional matter of the Henry VI plays, however, the percentage of ten-syllable lines is only 86 and in Richard III only 81. So too, the percentage of pyrrhic fifth feet is in all the work ascribed 182 C. F. Tucker Brooke, to Marlowe considerably in excess of the percentage of eleven-syllable lines, whereas in all the work ascribed to Shakespeare the proportion is reversed. The ratio of run-on lines bears out the same division with two easily explainable irregularities. Normally Marlowe paused at the close of nearly every line even in his latest plays. In the Contention and True Tragedy, only about five percent of the lines run on; in Edward II and The Massacre at Paris only about seven percent.1 Shakespeare’s percentage of run-on lines, however, even in so early a play as Richard III, is over thirteen. Apparently, therefore, we should expect something over the ten percent of run- on lines in the additional matter in 2 Henry VJ, and considerably more than the seven and a half percent of 3 Henry VI. However, this exception is only superficial. The figures are based on the total number of lines added or materially altered in the 1623 edition, but the opportunity for the reviser to insert run-on lines occurred almost exclusively in new passages extending to several verses. In 3 Henry VI, especially, the reviser’s work consists very largely of single new lines, almost necessarily end-stopped, because not closely consecutive with the old matter; and of old lines rewritten, where the original pauses were for the most part retained. If the per- centages of run-on lines in the supposedly Shakespearean part of 2 and 3 Henry VI were based entirely upon the number of lines where the reviser had a fair opportunity of arranging verse pause according to his own ear, the proportion would be found very mate- rially in excess of that given in the table. The figures in the table contain, indeed, only one serious discrep- ancy. That occurs in the ratio of pyrrhic fifth feet in the Contention and in the additional matter of 2 Henry VI respectively. Since Mar- lowe uses the mannerism in question much more frequently than Shakespeare, one would expect the percentages of seven for the Contention and eleven for the “‘ new” matter to be reversed. Rules relating to metrical tests are doubtless particularly subject to ex- ceptions, and it may be, of course, that the irregularity here is only accidental. It is worth noting, however, that this apparent dis- crepancy lends weight to the inference, which on other grounds amounts to practical certainty, that the 1254 lines printed in the Contention give a much abbreviated and corrupted version of Mar- lowe’s manuscript, whereas the large number of new and altered 1 Jt seems almost certain that the relatively high percentage of run-on — lines in The Jew of Malta is due to the serious alteration which that play — suffered between Marlowe’s death and its publication in 1633. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 183 lines in 2 Henry VI (2148) include not only Shakespeare’s revisions, but also a very considerable amount of original matter not represented in the Contention. 6. How far do the Contention and True Tragedy represent Marlowe’s original text? In the last section it was suggested that, although the evidence of metre in general strongly confirms the idea that the Contention and True Tragedy were written by Marlowe and altered by Shake- speare into 2 and 3 Henry VI, at least one metrical consideration indicates that Marlowe’s share in the performance is not wholly represented in the 1594/5 text. Evidence of another kind, now to be discussed, points in the same direction, justifying the assumption that the 1623 version of the plays, besides including for the first time the alterations of Shakespeare, also represented a purer and more complete copy of the Marlovian work than Millington, the publisher of the 1594/5 quartos, was able to acquire. Though there appears not a shadow of likelihood of collaboration in the original composition of the Contention and True Tragedy, there is a practical certainty of contamination of Marlowe’s text. No intelligent reader will probably desire to hold so careful a metrist as Marlowe responsible for the five percent, or more, of totally unscannable lines in Contention and True Tragedy, or for the three percent in The Massacre at Paris and four percent in The Jew of Malta. Moreover, since it is known that inferior matter, not by Marlowe, was injected into Tamburlaine and Doctor Faustus, sub- sequent to their original composition, is it not impossible that spuri- ous scenes may have been added to the Contention and True Tragedy even before they were revised by Shakespeare. The unusual excellence of the Folio text of Shakespeare’s plays in- clines us to estimate too highly the accuracy of the extant versions of the works of other dramatists of the period. Shakespeare’s practical connexion with the company that acted his plays was productive to the poet of many benefits, both literary and temporal. Among others, it protected the acting version of his plays from outside inter- ference, made sure that such changes as might from time to time become commercially desirable should during his life be made by the poet himself, and after his death procured the careful editing of the genuine texts by those who knew most about them. Thus Shake- speare’s position in his company and the friendly services of his + For a further discussion of this point, see pp. 184—188. 184 C. F. Tucker Brooke, “fellows,” Hemings and Condell gained for his works the same textual purity which Ben Jonson obtained by the unusual expedient of personal revision and publication. With the dramas of Marlowe, Kyd, Greene, and other popular writers not connected with particular companies, the case is very different. For these poets the power of ensuring the form of their productions ceased when the plays were once sold to an acting company. Yet a popular play was likely to need frequent reno- vation in the eyes of the company’s manager, and the latter would be likely to turn the manuscript over for revision to some hack in his employ—often, doubtless, to one incapable of appreciating the purposes of the original poet. Moreover, there was small chance that a valuable stage play would reach the press even in the modi- fied form in which the actors presented it; for the companies cer- tainly frowned on publication. Therefore, a very large number of the dramas of Marlowe and his contemporaries were printed sur- reptitiously from damaged, imperfect, or superseded drafts less authoritative even than the playhouse copies. In the case of no play of Marlowe, not even in the case of Edward II, which is least corrupt, can we feel assurance that there has survived a text based upon the author’s original manuscript and comparable in authority with the texts of the Shakespeare and Jonson Folios. The Contention and True Tragedy are particularly imperfect. The dubious authenticity of the printed text should, therefore, be kept in mind lest the occasional degeneration of the poetry into rank doggerel or the sudden weakening of the dialogue be given undue weight in judging the plays. It is largely on the basis of this textual impurity that the theory of double or triple authorship of our plays has arisen, the tendency being to ascribe to one poet what has sur- vived more or less in its original state, while assigning to another whatever the theatrical manipulator and the printer’s devil have united in deforming. Several parallels to passages in Marlowe’s accepted dramas occur in lines of 2 and 3 Henry VI not found in the Contention and True Tragedy versions: 2. Henry Vis Waa ona: “And never more abase our sight so low As to vouchsafe one glance unto the ground.”’ Edward II, |. 879 f.: “Whose mounting thoughts did never creepe so low, As to bestow a looke on such as you.”’ The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 185 eemenry VI, I, ii, 83: “She bears a duke’s revenues on her back.” } Edward II, |. 704: “He weares a lords revenewe on his back.” 3 Henry VI, I, ii, 28—31: “And, father, do but think How sweet a thing it is to wear a crown, Within whose circuit is Elysium, And all that poets feign of bliss and joy.” Tamburlaine, ll. 763—765: “T thinke the pleasure they enioy in heaven Can not compare with kingly ioyes in earth, To weare a Crowne enchac’d with pearle and golde.”’ fom... VW. 863, $794. : “The thirst of raigne and sweetnes of a crowne— That perfect blisse and sole felicitie, The sweet fruition of an earthly crowne.’ 3 Henry VI, Ul, iii, 56: “ Forslow no longer; make we hence amain.’ Edward II, |. 1438: “ Forslowe no time, sweet Lancaster, lets march.’ peer VI, Il, v, 141.: “These arms of mine shall be thy winding-sheet ; My heart, sweet boy, shall be thy sepulchre.”’ Jew of Malia, |. 1192: “These armes of mine shall be thy Sepulchre.” , , There would thus seem, on prima-facie evidence and on the testi- mony of parallels, very good reason to believe that Millington’s version of the Contention and True Tragedy, printed in 1594/5, gave a corrupt text of the plays and omitted certain passages belonging to Marlowe’s original draft. This suspicion is rendered almost a certainty when we consider the intermediate version printed by Pavier in 1619. In the preceding pages there has been little occasion to mention Pavier’s edition, which inherently possesses very small 1 See p. 187. 186 C. F. Tucker Brooke, importance. No just ground exists for supposing either that this edition represents an independent recension of the plays or that it includes any of Shakespeare’s alterations. Pavier doubtless used as basis for his printer’s “copy ”’ the text of Millington, of which the copyright was in his possession. In the case of the Contention, he increased the total number of lines by some eight or ten; in the True Tragedy he added two new lines, but omitted, presumably by accident, two of the old ones. In the main essentials, however, the text of Pavier is the text of Millington ; and the failure of the former to make use of the hundreds of new lines by Shakespeare, in spite of his fraudulent insertion of Shakespeare’s name on the title-page, is conclusive evidence that he had no access to the Shakespearean version of the dramas. Yet Pavier’s edition is not a mere reprint of either of Millington’s, as Millington’s 1600 edition is a reprint of his 1594/5 text. Four brief passages in the Contention are given by Pavier in rather longer and more satisfactory form, and about two hundred distinct changes of word or phrase occur through the two parts, exclusive of mere correction of misprints and variation of spelling. A careful list of the variant readings of ed. 1619 will be found in the introductions to the Praetorius facsimiles of the Whole Contention (1886). Study © of these variants makes it clear that Pavier’s edition, though mainly based on Millington’s, must have had also another source independent both of the Millington quartos and of the Shakespearean version of the plays. Thus, in the four passages of the Contention, previ- ously mentioned, where ed. 1619 notably amplifies the text of 1594, the later edition often approaches comparatively close to the version of 1623. Yet it is quite certain that ed. 1619 cannot here be merely a corrupted rendering of the Shakespearean text, for it contains matter not found in either of the other versions. For example, in York’s list of the descendants of Edward III (2 Henry VI, IU, ui, 9 ff.), the 1623 Folio differs very radically from the quarto of 1594; and the 1619 text, while agreeing in places with each of the others, is in some respects quite independent of both. The progeny of the Black Prince is fully stated by ed. 1619 alone (Facsimile, p. 231): ‘““Now Edward the blacke Prince dyed before his Father, leaving behinde him two sonnes, Edward borne at Angolesme, who died — young, and Richard that was after crowned King, by the name of — Richard the second.” ! This Edward of Angouléme, though duly ‘ The suggestion that Edward of Angouléme survived his father is, of course, incorrect. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 187 mentioned by Holinshed, is entirely ignored in both the other versions of the play. In this same passage, ed. 1619 reverses the order of Edward III’s sixth and seventh sons, as given in the other versions. Both in the Contention and again in the True Tragedy, the 1619 edition adds a line, apparently quite genuine, which does not appear elsewhere.} It prints in the obviously correct sequence another line, clearly misplaced in the edition of 1594 and entirely omitted in that of 1623 (Part I of Whole Contention, p. 34, fifth line from top of page) : “And burnes and spoiles the Country as they go.”’ Moreover, it inserts for the first time one of the lines found in the 1623 version, but not in that of Millington, which verbal resemblance to Edward II would indicate to be of Marlowe’s composition (Part I of Whole Contention, p. 12): “She beares a Dukes whole revennewes on her backe..”’ 2. The only reasonable conclusion from the state of the 1619 text seems to be that Pavier, who shows no acquaintance whatever with any of the characteristically Shakespearean alterations in the plays, did have access to some version of the Marlovian text different in a number of particulars from that printed by Millington. Since the influence of this other version tends on the whole to bring Pavier’s edition closer than Millington’s to that of 1623, we are doubtless justified in inferring that the discrepancy between Marlowe’s original and the version of Shakespeare was less broad than the text of the Millington quartos would suggest. It is by no means to be supposed, I think, that all the necessary corrections of the Millington text, or even all the better readings accessible to Pavier in manuscript, are embodied in the 1619 edition. The chief value of that edition lies merely in the fact that it furnishes a rough measure of the inaccuracy of the earlier quartos, and proves the existence of some other source independent of the two important printed versions of 1594/5 and 1623. That Pavier made full use of ' The new lines are those italicized in the following passages: Part I ot Whole Contention, p. 35, ** Vnder the title of Iohn Mortimer, (For he is like him every kinde of way)” and Part Il of Whole Contention, p. 62, “ For I will buz abroad such Prophesies Vnder pretence of outward seeming ill.” 2 See p. 185. 188 C. F. Tucker Brooke, that source is highly improbable, since he seems clearly to have printed from one of Millington’s editions, merely correcting that text here and there from the results of an inattentive collation of the manuscript. It is worth noting that extensive changes in ed. 1619 appear only in the first two acts of the earlier play (the Contention). For all the rest of the work of collator seems to have contented himself with the insertion of one or two omitted lines and the alteration of an occasional single word, doubtless marking his cor- rections in the margin of a copy of Millington’s text as he glanced carelessly through the manuscript. Il. THe GREENE-PEELE MytTu. Near the close of Robert Greene’s last work, Greens Groats-worth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance, is printed a letter ad- dressed “To those Gentlemen, his Quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making Plaies.”” Upon a complete misinter- pretation of this passage, which altogether extends to about three pages, is based alone the current idea that Greene and Peele had a concern, along with Marlowe, in the earlier version of 2 and 3 Henry VI. Here, as in so many other cases, interest in an entirely incidental, though important, allusion to Shakespeare has tended — to blind readers to the true significance of the document, and has | led to wholly unfounded conclusions. Greene’s main purpose is, indeed, made sufficiently clear in the heading. To his former acquaintances, who, like Greene, ‘“‘ spend their wits in making plays”’ and of whom three are specifically ad- — dressed, Greene wishes ‘“‘a better exercise,”” that is, a more profit-— able occupation and the avoidance thereby of the extremities brought upon the writer, as he asserts, by his connection with the ungrateful trade of playwright. The purpose, therefore, of these last words, written by Greene in his poverty and sickness, was not, as it is generally explained, the expression of a mean-spirited grudge against Shakespeare because of a paltry piece of borrowing by that poet. The purpose was rather the arraignment of the very unfair relations existing in Greene’s day between the writers of plays, nearly always dependent and necessitous, and the prosperous actors — who built their fortunes upon the ill-paid product of the others’ genius. The allusion to Shakespeare, which has so much ‘distorted © the view of critics, is quite subordinate, and it certainly does not contain the slightest possible suggestion that Shakespeare had - plagiarized from Greene, either in Henry VI or elsewhere. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 189 It is generally agreed—rightly, I think—that the three authors addressed by Greene in the passage under discussion are first Mar- lowe, “ famous gracer of Tragedians,’’ whose supposed atheism and Machiavellianism are dwelt upon in rather malicious manner; then Nash, “ young Iuvenall, that byting Satyrist, that lastlie with mee together writ a Comedie”’ ; and finally Peele. The address to the last and the general admonition which follows must be quoted entire, since they include the pith of the letter: “ And thou no lesse deseruing then the other two, in some things rarer, in nothing inferiour ; driuen (as my selfe) to extreame shifts; a little haue I to say to thee: and were it not an idolatrous oth, I would sweare by sweet S. George, thou art unworthie better hap, sith thou dependest on so meane a stay. Base minded men al three of you, if by my miserie ye be not warned; for unto none of you (like me) sought those burres to cleaue: those Puppits (I meane) that speake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they al haue beene beholding : is it not like that you, to whome they all haue beene beholding, shall (were ye in the case that I am now) be both at once of them forsaken ? Yes, trust them not: for there is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie. O that I might intreate your rare wits to be imployed in more profitable courses ; & let these Apes imitate your past excellence, and neuer more acquaint them with your admired inventions. I know the best husband of you all wil neuer proue an Vsurer, and the kindest of them all wil neuer prooue a kinde nurse : yet, whilst you may, seeke you better Maisters ; for it is pittie men of such rare wits, should be subject to the plea- sures of such rude groomes.” 4 The “ extreame shifts” to which Peele was driven by his poverty were notorious in his day and furnished the subject of many contem- porary anecdotes.” Greene’s comment is pointed enough: “ thou art unworthie better hap, sith thou dependest on so meane a stay” ; namely, on the sorry recompense offered by the players to their poets. Base-minded men, he goes on, they must all be if they are not warned by Greene’s misery, for none of them has been so much solicited in the past as Greene, by “‘ those burres . . . those Puppits * Shakspere Allusion-Books, Part I, ed. C. M. Ingleby, 1874, p. 29—31. * Cf. The Merrie conceited Jests of George Peele, Gent., 1607. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 13 Juty, 1912. 190 C. F. Tucker Brooke, that speake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours ;” that is, by the actors in search of dramatic material. Is it not likely that the other poets, in spite of their services to the ungrateful companies, will in the end be forsaken, like Greene, in their extre- mities. Here Greene, in his anger, cites another cause for distrust of the actors: “‘ Yes, trust them not for there is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our feathers (7. e., a presumptuous actor who makes his fortune by repeating our lines) that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Iohannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie.” That the allusion here is to Shakespeare is unmistakeable ; but the charge which Greene brings against him is not that of pla- giarism. Greene is moved merely by pique that this upstart player, accustomed to make his profit out of the ill-paid labors of the poets, should now add insult to injury by venturing to enter the ranks of dramatic authors and thus attempting to prove himself an absolute Iohannes fac totum. The line, “ Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide,” is clearly a parody of “Oh Tygers hart wrapt in a womans hide”’ in the Tvue Tvagedy1 and seems to have pertinence only if we assume Shakespeare’s revision of the play in question already to have been made. Similarly, the next clause, “‘ supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you,” indicates that Johannes-fac-totum had definitely put his blank verse rendering of the play into competition with that of “‘ the best”’ of the poets addressed by Greene (vz., Marlowe ?). For even a hint, however, that Greene or Peele was connected in any way with the work quoted the reader must look in vain. The very use of the second person of the pronoun, rather than the first, in the phrase, “ as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of ow,’ shows, it seems to me, that Greene did not feel himself included in the challenge involved in the actor-poet’s revisionary work. After this not unnatural excursus upon the effrontery of an indi- vidual actor who had dared in his revision of the Henry VI plays to match his blank verse against that of the best of the professional poets, Greene returns to his main theme: the unprofitableness of the playwright’s career: ‘‘O that I might intreate your rare wits to be imployed in more profitable courses (7. e., that I might entreat you to employ your genius in more lucrative undertakings than play-writing) & let these Apes (the actors) imitate your past 1 Facsimile of True Tragedy, 1891, p. 20, 1. 122; 3 Henry VJ, I, iv, 137- The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 191 excellence (act your old plays), and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions (refrain for the future from writing for the stage). “I know,” Greene continues, “‘ the best husband of you all will neuer proue an Vsurer, and the kindest of them all wil neuer prooue a kinde nurse ; yet, whilst you may seeke you better Maisters ; for it is pittie men of such rare wits should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.” Considerable injustice has been done to Greene in the prevailing interpretation of this passage.! A certain malice appears, to be sure, in the address to Marlowe, and there is open hostility in the allusion to Shakespeare—hostility directed in the latter instance rather against the actor than the poet. In general, however, Greene’s letter, instead of voicing petty literary spite and unfounded charges of plagiarism, expresses a manly denunciation of one of the cruelest injustices of Elizabethan life: the heart-breaking and pauperizing subservience of the dramatic poets to the managers of theatrical companies. The genuineness of the grievance against which the dying Greene inveighs is illustrated not only by the cases cited by the writer—that of Peele and of Greene himself—but even more pathetically in the detailed sketch which Henslowe’s Diary gives of the straitened lives of that penurious manager’s employes, Chettle and Dekker. Greene’s letter bears upon the True Tragedy, and inferentially upon the Contention, only in so far as it suggests that Shakespeare’s revision of these pieces had already been completed at the time of Greene’s death (September, 1592), and in so far as it seems to in- dicate more remotely that the original author was Marlowe. No hint whatever of Peele’s connexion with the plays occurs and Greene’s connexion appears to be positively disclaimed by the wording of the passage. No accusation of plagiarism is brought against Shake- speare. Such a charge would, indeed, have been absurd in view 1 Apparently Malone in his Dissertation on King Henry VI (Boswell’s Malone, vol. xviii, p. 570 ff.) first concluded from the Groatsworth of Wit that Shakespeare had plagiarized from Greene and Peele. Tyrwhitt (cf. Boswell’s Malone, same volume, p. 551 f.) had previously called attention to the passage in question, but only as proving that Shakespeare was author of the Henry VI plays and that “ they had, at the time of their appearance, a suificient degree of excellence to alarm the jealousy of the older playwrights.”’ The interpretation which I have attempted to give I find to be partially anticipated in a brief note by Richard Simpson (The Academy, Apr. 4, 1874) and in Ingleby’s correction of Simpson’s view, p. xi of General Introduction to Shakspere Allusion-Books, Part I (1874). 192 C. F. Tucker Brooke, of the facts; for an author hired by one theatrical company to re- vise a play manuscript acquired from another company could in Greene’s time no more be held guilty of plagiarizing from the ori- ginal writer than could to-day the poet who adapted for the stage another man’s novel after the acting rights had been sold. Greene’s real accusation against Shakespeare is quite the reverse. Instead of charging him with slavish imitation, he derides his effrontery in essaying too boldly to match his verse, tyro and mechanical as he was, against that of the leading professional dramatist of the day. We shall see, in comparing the earlier and later versions of the plays, that it is precisely this feature, the independence with which Shakespeare alters both the metre and the thought of Marlowe, that distinguishes the later poet’s work. The arguments by which successive critics have sought to support the idea of Greene’s and Peele’s interest in Henry VI, falsely de- duced from the passage just considered, are admitted to be of the most insubstantial nature, and they fall with the fall of the pre- conception which avowedly suggested them. Grant White laid an absurd stress upon the appearance in the Contention and True Tragedy of the idiom for to in infinitive phrases, erroneously asserting that this idiom was a peculiar mark of Greene’s style never employed by Marlowe or Shakespeare. Miss Lee, herself an advocate of the Greene theory, admits that for to, which occurs five times in the Contention and four times in the True Tragedy, occurs also in Shake- speare and in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, Doctor Faustus, and Massacre at Paris. In the last play alone I find six instances.t Miss Lee mentions examples from The Winter’s Tale, Pericles, All’s Well that Ends Well, Titus Andronicus, and the older (1603) version of Hamlet. In regard to the last play, it is noteworthy that the earlier for ¢o is twice altered in the later version into the normal fo. The fact is that the old use of for to as sign of the infinitive was still generally current at the end of the sixteenth century, but had come to be regarded as slip-shod. Greene, a careless writer, employs it fre- quently. Marlowe and Shakespeare also use it frequently in their rougher works, but tend to eliminate it upon revision. The only other evidence even speciously favorable to the theory of Greene’s partial authorship of our plays is, I think, the circum- stance that ‘‘ mightie Abradas, the great Masadonian Pyrate,” men- tioned in the Contention (Facsimile, p. 44, 1. 51), is mentioned also 1 Ll). 518, 559, 1033, 1120, 1131, 1260. White, indeed, himself admitted that his theory broke down in the case of this play. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 193 in Greene’s prose work, Penelope's Web, but not, apparently, in any other Elizabethan author. Henry VI, Part II (IV, i, 108) alters the name to “ Bargulus, the strong Illyrian pirate.” In de- ciding a question of authorship between Marlowe and Greene, who, after the same kind of school training, had passed through the same Cambridge career at about the same time, no small piece of classic or pseudo-classic learning can safely be held to be the peculiar possession of either. Whatever Greene knew about Abradas he is likely to have learned at Cambridge, where it is improbable that Marlowe failed to gain precisely the same knowledge from the same source. I believe that no value whatever attaches to the other putative evidence laboriously collected by Miss Lee and her predecessors: the facts, namely, that Greene as well as Marlowe uses words like countervail and eternize, which are found in the Contention and True Tragedy ; and that four passages in these plays, of which two are closely paralleled in Marlowe, are remotely similar to passages in Greene. Miss Lee is herself careful to avow the small stress she lays upon such arguments.” Indeed, the reading of her pages tends to convince one the more strongly of the entire baselessness of the Greene theory, as one observes what perfectly negligible results have been attained by the most diligent inquiry backed by fervent belief on the part of the investigator. It is not enough to say that there is absolutely no proof of Greene’s concern in the plays under consideration. There is the strongest reason against believing that Greene collaborated with Marlowe at any time. Though the latter is naturally included in the group of scholar-poets to whom Greene’s letter is addressed, the tone of the words concerning Marlowe is covertly hostile. We know from the apology of Greene’s executor, Chettle, in his Epistle to the Gentlemen Readers of Kind-Harts Dreame that Marlowe as well as Shakespeare resented Greene’s letter and made his resentment known. Four years before the composition of the Groatsworth of Wit, in the preface to Perimedes the Blacksmith (1588), Greene had attacked Marlowe yet more openly : “I keepe my old course, to palter up some thing in Prose, using mine old ee still, Omne tulit punctum, although latelye two Gentle- 1 « Abradas the great Macedonian Pirat thought every one had a letter of mart that bare sayles in the Ocean,’ Greene’s Works, ed. Grosart, vol.v, p. 197. The entire passage is repeated verbatim in Greene’s Menaphon, vol. vi, p. 77f. of Grosart’s ed. * Transactions New Shakspere Society, p. 245. 194 C. F. Tucker Brooke, men Poets made two madmen of Rome beate it out of their paper bucklers, & had it in derision, for that I could not make my verses iet upon the stage in tragicall buskins, euerie worde filling the mouth like the fa burden of Bo-Bell, daring God out of heaven with that Atheist Tamburlan, or blaspheming with the mad preest of the sone: “4 On Marlowe’s side we have no open expression of such early hostil- ity to Greene, but it is easy to guess that he cannot have relished Greene’s plagiarism of Tamburlaine in Alphonsus of Arragon and Orlando Furioso or his clear attempt to cap the success of Doctor Faustus in Friar Bacon and Fnar Bungay. Everything indicates that the unfriendliness between Greene and Marlowe was permanent through the entire period, 1588—1592, and it seems out of the question that the Contention and True Tragedy, both certainly com- posed within this period, can have been the result of a friendly alliance between the two poets. Apart from the state of Marlowe’s personal relations with Greene, it seems quite unlikely that the former poet can have collaborated in the Contention and True Tragedy with any writer of his day. Marlowe appears to have worked alone. His genius was not of the character which seeks the assistance and companionship of other men. Except in the case of Dido, ascribed on the title-page to Marlowe and Nash, there is no reason to suppose that any other poet was concerned in the original draft of any of Marlowe’s works. And even Dido bears the stamp of Marlowe’s hand so wholly, that editors both of Nash and of Marlowe find difficulty in imagining it the result of a real partnership, preferring on the whole to conclude that Nash had merely a subsequent interest in the play as reviser after Marlowe’s death. It may very safely be said, therefore, I think, that all the evidence at present accessible strongly supports the inference that the original version of 2 and 3 Henry VI, somewhat imperfectly represented in the Contention and the True Tragedy, was written by Marlowe alone. Il]. SHakESPEARE’S REVISION OF MARLOWE’S WORK. The student who compares the Contention and True Tragedy with the Folio text of 2 and 3 Henry VI will perceive one of the most conspicuous indications of diverse authorship in the character of King Henry as it appears in the two versions. In the earlier plays 1 Greene’s Works, ed. Grosart, vol. vii, p. 7, 8. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 195 the king is presented as an amiable weakling of the type of Mycetes in Tamburlaine. Nothing, I think, in the personality here displayed attracts the attention of the reader, or suggests special interest on the author’s part. The negative virtues of humility and irresolute conscientiousness made little appeal to Marlowe’s soaring imagi- nation. Thvs, the pious Henry is depicted in the Contention and True Tragedy, without insight or sympathy, as a mere foil to bring out the more positive and more evil characters of those who seek to rule or overthrow him. In the texts printed in the Shakespeare Folio the impression made by this figure is not only vastly deeper ; it is also quite different in kind. For the first time Henry becomes important by virtue of the qualities which he possesses rather than because of those he lacks. The view of life back of this later treatment of the king’s character is the impartial, judicial view illustrated by Shakespeare a little later in the careful balancing of Bolingbroke against Richard II. It involves an outlook quite foreign to the partisan view-point of Marlowe. The change in Henry’s character, tending to add vividness and poetic charm to the dry stock of Marlowe, is observable almost from the very start of 2 Henry VI. The first scene of Act II of that play, though otherwise not notably different from the corresponding scene in the Contention, increases the lines given to Henry by fifty percent and makes the king’s words for the first time significant. In the earlier version of the scene, Henry’s speeches are nearly all dull, reflecting no spark of sympathy on the author’s part; but in 2 Henry II there appears a vein of the rich meditative wisdom which endears to vs the figure of the equally incapable Richard II. With hardly an exception, the new lines are conspicuous for poetic and philosophic value; e. g., “To see how God in all his creatures works! Yea man and birds are fain of climbing high ’”’; 1. 7 f.) Heaven, “‘ The treasury of everlasting joy’; (I. 18) “ How irksome is this music to my heart! When such strings jar, what hope of harmony ?”’ (1. 56 f.) “Now God be prais’d that to believing souls Gives light in darkness, comfort in despair!’ (66 f.) 1 In the Contention this scene contains 171 lines; in 2 Henry VJ it contains 203. The added lines are almost exclusively those given to King Henry. 196 C. F. Tucker Brooke, “ Great is his comfort in this earthly vale, Although by his sight his sin be multiplied”; (1. 70 f.) “OQ God! seest thou this, and bearst so long’ ”’ (I. 153) “OQ God! what mischiefs work the wicked ones, Heaping confusion on their own heads thereby ”’ ; (1. 184 f.) “And poise the cause in justice’ equal scales, Whose beam stands sure, whose rightful cause prevails.” (202 f.) These lines, found only in the revised scene, are strikingly at variance with the bald insipidities of Henry’s speeches in the Con- tention. They mark the presence of a mind to which was revealed, behind the practical incompetence of the monarch, a counter- balancing wealth of moral and poetic feeling entirely unpercieved by the original author. The same new-birth of sympathy for the king is conspicuous in the scene where Duke Humphrey is arraigned (2 Henry VI, III, i). Marlowe’s version of this passage, in the Contention, treats Henry with open contempt. He is allowed to speak only twelve detached lines expressive of his total inability to cope with the situation or even to comprehend it. Shakespeare’s version still depicts the king as weak, of course ; but it no longer presents him as a mere puppet. Whereas the Contention permits Margaret and Suffolk to slander Duke Humphrey without a word of protest from the passive ruler, the 1623 text inserts a fine sympathetic speech admirably expressive of Henry’s shy timidity before his headstrong peers and of his innate feeling for righteousness (2 Henry VI, III, 1, 66—73): “My lords, at once: the care you have of us, To mow down thorns that would annoy our foot, Is worthy praise; but shall I speak my conscience, Our kinsman Gloucester is as innocent From meaning treason to our royal person, As is the sucking lamb or harmless dove. The duke is virtuous, mild, and too well given To dream on evil, or to work my downfall.” Unconvinced, the protesting king is simply talked down by Mar- garet. Later in the scene, when Humphrey is formally accused and led away by the Cardinal’s men, the king goes out, leaving the Queen and her counselors to do as they please. Marlowe here gives Henry only three bare lines in which to speak his feeble sorrow (Contention, p. 33, 1. 109—111): The Authorship of ‘“ King Henry VI.” 197 ‘““T, Margaret. My heart is kild with griefe, Where I may sit and sigh in endlesse mone, For who’s a Traitor, Gloster he is none.’’! The Folio version, on the other hand, assigns the king twenty-five lines of fine poetry, written in the unmistakeable strain of the young Shakespeare, and calculated to enlist the audience’s sympathy with the speaker (2 Henry VI, III, i, 198—222): ‘““ Ay, Margaret ; my heart is drown’d with grief, Whose flood begins to flow within mine eyes, My body round engirt with misery, For what’s more miserable than discontent ? Ah! uncle Humphrey, in thy face I see The map of honuor, truth, and loyalty ; And yet, good Humphrey, is the hour to come That e’er I prov’d thee false, or fear’d thy faith. What low’ring star now envies thy estate, That these great lords, and Margaret our queen, Do seek subversion of thy harmless life ? Thou never didst them wrong, nor no man wrong ; And as the butcher takes away the calf, And binds the wretch, and beats it when it strays, Bearing it to the bloody slaughter-house, Even so, remorseless, have they borne him hence ; And as the dam runs lowing up and down, Looking the way her harmless young one went, And can do nought but wail her darling’s loss ; Even so myself bewails good Gloucester’s case, With sad unhelpful tears, and with dimm’d eyes Look after him, and cannot do him good ; So mighty are his vowed enemies. His fortunes I will weep; and, twixt each groan, Say ‘ Who’s a traitor, Gloucester he is none.’ ”’ __ This fairmindedness, which impels the poet to see two sides of the situation, and to sympathize with the claims of the feebler perso- nality, is the most notable contribution made by Shakespeare to the psychology of the plays. It not only makes Henry VI’s character for the first time worthy of consideration as it appears in the Shake- 1 As the sense is not quite consecutive, it is possible that a line may have been lost between the first and second verses of this speech. The 1619 edition makes no correction. 198 C. F. Tucker Brooke, spearean revision. It adds also very notably to the pathos and attractiveness of the good Duke Humphrey. In Marlowe’s strenuous philosophy of life, nothing succeeded like success. Genial and sympathetic as was the character of the Duke in the chronicles, the Contention has a decided tendency to slight the treatment of this representative of defeated magnanimity in the ardent interest with which the play follows the rising fortunes of Humphrey’s rivals, Margaret, Suffolk, and York. The 1623 version does much more justice to the claims of Humphrey’s personality, thus broadening the humanity of the work, and reflecting again that impartiality in the judgment of character, which from the first made Shakespeare’s equipment as a dramatist superior to Marlowe’s. Otherwise, it can hardly be held that Shakespeare’s adaptation greatly enriched the plays we are discussing either in plot or in portraiture. Within the narrow psychological province where Mar- lowe’s genius was at its best—in the depicting of evil ambition— Shakespeare was in 1592 only a pupil, and he seems to have been content to leave the outlines of the great figures of York, Suffolk, Margaret, Warwick, and Richard as he found them. Certainly the minor alterations which he admitted were quite insufficient in all these cases to obscure the deep impression of Marlowe’s original sketch. So, too, the plot of 2 and 3 Henry VI hinges upon the partic- ular kind of interest which Marlowe read into the story of the chron- iclers ; and, though Shakespeare, as befitted the professional actor, occasionally rearranged the old scenes in the interests of practical stage-craft—notably in the case of scenes ii—vii of Act IV of 3 Henry VI—he did not essentially affect the general method or tone of his models. Thus, the reader of the later version should bear in mind that, with the rather unimportant exceptions just mentioned, the second and third parts of Henry VI represent the ideas and the dramatic theory of Marlowe, though about half the actual lines printed in the 1623 Folio may be due either to the independent composition or to the careful re-writing of Shakespeare. Enough has probably been said in other connexions to refute the unfounded hypothesis of Miss Lee that Shakespeare was assisted by Marlowe in his revision. To assume that either Marlowe or Shake- speare was concerned with these plays in more than one of the phases of their evolution is merely to set up a conjecture, unsup- ported by fact or likelihood, for the purpose of needlessly involving the question of authorship. No known circumstance in the life of either poet suggests the possibility of collaboration between LC eee The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 199 Shakespeare and Marlowe at any time; and the great difference both between the careers of the two authors and between the circles in which they moved would make very definite evidence necessary to the proof of so unlikely a connexion. As regards the present question, it would seem particularly improbable that Marlowe, at the height of his fame, should have condescended to rewrite two of his plays under the direction of a young player belonging to a company with which Marlowe can hardly be shown ever to have had business relations.1_ And, on the other hand, there appears no shadow of reason why Shakespeare’s company, having one of their own number able to make all the changes required, should have gone to the trouble and expense of hiring a great unattached poet to add what admittedly can have been only a small proportion of the new passages. Collaboration, of course, did exist in Shakespeare’s time among the numerous hacks in the regular employ of Henslowe, where it was natural and easily arranged; but Marlowe never belonged to that band of hacks, and there is good reason against believing that Shake- speare or Shakespeare’s company ever approved the practice. It has been indicated, however, that Marlowe’s complete work cannot safely be assumed to exist in the Contention and True Tragedy texts. The latter plays appear rather to be bad copies of acting versions, themselves perhaps abbreviated. Shakespeare’s revision was made two or three years before the publication of the Contention and Ture Tragedy, and it was certainly based upon a purer text than that given in Millington’s quartos—not improb- ably upon the very manuscript originally sold by Marlowe to Lord Pembroke’s Company. In considering the additional passages found in the 1623 Folio, it is a somewhat delicate matter to dis- criminate between passages belonging to the original Marlovian plays, but misrepresented or omitted by Millington, and newer passages which embody the revision of Shakespeare. In a few instances it is clear that the 1623 edition is merely giving the accurate text of Marlowe, where the earlier version prints a corrupt reading. Thus, in 3 Henry VI, III. iii, 97, the line, “ And not bewray thy treason with a blush,” is obviously what Marlowe wrote, though the ZTvwe Tragedy text, by omitting the necessary “tot”, destroys the sense. In IV, iii, 34 f. of the same play, 1 Henslowe’s Diary, indeed, shows that The Jew of Malta and The Massacre at Paris were acted by Lord Strange’s Men in 1592/93. Both plays, however, were also acted by other companies with which Henslowe happened to be connected, and it seems doubtful whether either belonged in the first in- stance to the Strange Company. 200 C. F. Tucker Brooke, } “When you disgrac’d me in my embassade, Then I degraded you from being king,” it seems again probable that Shakespeare preserves Marlowe’s text, and that the appearance of “‘ disgraste,”’ instead of “‘ degraded ”’ in the True Tragedy (p. 58, 1. 33) is due to the 1595 printer’s inad- vertent repetition of the word used in the previous line. In Act V, scene iii, of 3 Henry VI (ll. 4—6) we read “T spy a black, suspicious, threat’ning cloud, | That will encounter with our glorious sun, | Ere he attain his easeful western bed ;” whereas the True Tragedy version gives (p. 69, 1. 6—8): That will encounter with our glorious sunne ‘ q } ; “T see a blacke suspitious cloud appeare, . - - ] Before he gaine his easefull westerne beames.”’ Here there is room for doubt in the case of most of the variants whether Shakespeare is revising the True Tragedy text or merely printing correctly what that text gives in corrupted form. But © as regards the last word, it is clear that “‘ bed’’, the reading of the Folio, must be the reading of Marlowe’s manuscript also, because the alternative, “‘ beames,’’ fails to make sense and confesses itself the perversion of a sleepy compositor. Sometimes lines, which seem to be original with the 1623 version, have merely been borrowed from other parts of the earlier text. In II, i, 53 of 3 Henry VI, the messenger reporting York’s death uses a line which does not occur in the corresponding passage of the True Tragedy: “ But Hercules himself must yield to odds.”’ One would probably be inclined to regard this line as original with Shakespeare ; but on investigation one discovers that the identical line appears many pages later in the True Tragedy in connection with the death of Warwick (p. 68, 1. 24): “ But Hercules himselfe must yeeld to ods.” Instead of inventing, Shakespeare has simply shifted the original matter from one context to another. Another instance of the same procedure is found at the beginning Of Act V; scene il, of 3° Henry Vk “Thus far our fortune keeps an upward course, And we are grac’d with wreaths of victory.”’ The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 201 These lines are quite different from those in the corresponding passage in the True Tragedy. Moreover, since the second line is identical with a verse in the Massacre at Paris,1 the couplet has even been cited by Miss Lee as proof that Marlowe collaborated with Shake- speare in revising the plays subsequent to the composition of the text preserved in the Contention and Trve Tragedy. However, the precise lines in question are found in an earlier part of the True Tragedy (p. 39, 1. 30). Again the Marlovian material has merely been transferred in the Folio text from one scene to another. The passages from 3 Henry VI just instanced illustrate the difficulty of determining with absolute precision the respective amovnts of Marlovian and Shakespearean verse in the plays we are discussing. In the case of 2 Henry VI, where Millington’s text is particularly imperfect, the problem is yet more obscure. Exactly how many lines Shakespeare added from his own imagination and how many he altered from the manuscript of Marlowe must doubt- less remain unsettled. There are, however, in both plays a number of passages in which the impact of Shakespeare’s mind upon the conceptions of Marlowe can be clearly traced. The study of these passages throws very valuable light upon the character of Shake- speare’s early verse and upon the ideals by which he was governed in his first attempts at dramatizing English history. An excellent example of the contrasted styles of Marlowe and Shakespeare is furnished by the soliloquy of York at the close of the first scene of 2 Henry VI. In the Contention this fine speech runs as follows (Facsimile, p. 7, 1. 143 ff.) : “Anioy and Maine both giuen vnto the French, Cold newes for me, for I had hope of France, Euen as I haue of fertill England. A day will come when Yorke shall claime his owne, And therefore I will take the Newels parts, And make a show of loue to proud Duke Humphrey: And when I spie aduantage, claime the Crowne, For thats the golden marke I seeke to hit: Nor shall proud Lancaster vsurpe my right, Nor hold the scepter in his childish fist, Nor weare the Diademe vpon his head, Whose church-like humours fits not for a Crowne: Then Yorke be still a while till time do serue, Watch thou, and wake when others be asleepe, * See above, p. 168, paraliel 21. C. F. Tucker Brooke, i) SS iw) To prie into the secrets of the state, Till Henry surfeiting in ioyes of loue, With his new bride, and Englands dear bought queene, And Humphrey with the Peeres be falne at iarres, Then will I raise aloft the milke-white Rose, With whose swete smell the aire shall be perfumde, And in my Standard beare the Armes of Yorke, To graffle with the House of Lancaster: And force perforce, ile make him yeeld the Crowne, Whose bookish rule hath puld faire England downe.”’ Bad as the text of the Contention often is, the student of Marlowe will hardly refuse to accept every syllable of this speech as the genuine work of the poet. More distinctly Marlovian verse, in melody and in sense, it would, indeed, be hard to point out. The reviser, Shake- speare, evidently found no fault here, for he was content to retain the lines quoted without any change except the characteristic metrical alteration of “ fertile England” into “ fertile England’s soil,” which has been mentioned above.! However, it would seem that the fine lines and the fine situation challenged the imaginative powers of the later writer and made him insert, as a supplement to the old passage, twenty-one new lines as typically Shakespearean as are the others Marlovian. After quoting with a trifling change the first verse of Marlowe, ‘‘ Anjou and Maine are given to the French,” — the reviser continues in the strain most natural to him at this period (2 Henry VI, I, 1, 216—236) : “ Paris is lost; the state of Normandy Stands on a tickle point now they are gone. Suffolk concluded on the articles, The peers agreed, and Henry was well pleas’d To change two dukedoms for a duke’s fair daughter. I cannot blame them all: what is’t to them ? Tis thine they give away, and not their own. Pirates may make cheap pennyworths of their pillage, And purchase friends, and give to courtesans, Still revelling like lords till all be gone ; While as the silly owner of the goods Weeps over them, and wrings his hapless hands, And shakes his head, and trembling stands aloof, While all is shar’d and all is borne away, Ready to starve and dare not touch his own: 1 See p. 179. The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 203 So York must sit and fret and bite his tongue While his own lands are bargain’d for and sold. Me thinks the realms of England, France, and Ireland Bear that proportion to my flesh and blood As did the fatal brand Althaea burn’d Unto the prince’s heart of Calydon.’’! After this line is then printed the whole of Marlowe’s speech, “Anjou and Maine both given unto the French! Cold news for me, for I had hope of France,” etc. Unquestionably, the Shakespearean insertion here weakens the effect of the passage. The new matter is in this case so completely discordant from the old as to leave no doubt of its different author- ship. The fiery expression of York’s iron resolution, which in the original lines forces itself from the speaker’s mouth in language of the directest self-revelation, contrasts sharply with the rambling sentimentalism of the Shakespearean part, where five lines of mere statistical recapitulation are followed by a far-away metaphor of pirates and an affected simile relating to Althza’s brand. Divided authorship can hardly have produced many more complete perver- sions than this, where Marlowe’s confident, calculating York, flushed with the sense of power and the promise of supreme triumph, is represented by Shakespeare as a “ silly’”’ merchant in the grasp of pirates, weeping over his lost goods and wringing his hapless hands ; shaking his head and standing aloof, ‘‘ While all is shar’d and all is borne away,” or sitting and fretting and biting his tongue, “‘ While his own lands are bargain’d for and sold.” In writing this score of lines, Shakespeare was impelled not by the desire of voicing more truly the real character of York, but merely by the ambition of the young poet to express a couple of pretty notions—or, in Greene’s phrase, “ to bumbast out blank verse’ with the great master of that metre. In the soliloquy of Hume at the end of the next scene(2 HenryV I, I, ii), it is equally clear that Shakespeare is somewhat tastelessly padding out the lines of Marlowe. Instead of the sober presen- tation of the state of affairs which the Contention gives in thirteen lines, the 1623 edition fills twenty-one with feeble plays on words 1 Something has been made of the fact that the correct version of the Althza story here disagrees with the incorrect allusion in 2 Henry IV, I, li, 98 ff. It should be remembered that when Shakespeare wrote the latter passage, his recollection of the mythology learned in his school-boy days had become some six years dimmer. 204 C. F. Tucker Brooke, and other jocularities quite out of keeping with the character of the speaker. The hand of the young Shakespeare is easily recognizable in verses like the following (ll. 100 ff.) : “They say, ‘A crafty knave does need no broker ;’ Yet am I Suffolk and the Cardinal’s broker. Hume, if you take not heed, you shall go near To call them both a pair of crafty knaves,” ete. The first lines of Act II, scene iv (2 Henry VI) again offer an insight into Shakespeare’s revisionary method. In the Contention, the passage is brief and direct, the one object being to show Hum- phrey’s keen feeling of the degradation of his wife (Contention, p. 7, Il. 1-10): “ Humph. Sirra, whats a clocke ? Serving (Man). Almost ten, my Lord. Humph. Then is that wofull houre hard at hand, That my poore Lady should come by this way, In shamefull penance wandring in the streetes. Sweete Nell, ill can thy noble minde abrooke The abiect people gazing on thy face, With envious lookes laughing at thy shame, That earst did follow thy proud Chariot wheeles, When thou didst ride in tryumph through the streetes.” The 1623 version omits three of these lines (3—5), retains the rest without any noteworthy change, and adds ten new verses expressing a conspicuously different mood. I give the passage as it occurs in the later text, italicizing the lines which seem to be original with Shakespeare : “Glo. Thus sometimes hath the brightest day a cloud ; And after summer evermore succeeds Barren winter, with his wrathful nipping cold: So cares and joys abound, as seasons fleet. Sirs, what’s o’clock ? Serv(ing-man). Ten, my lord. Glo. Ten is the hour that was appointed me To watch the coming of my punished duchess : Uneath may she endure the flinty streets, To tread them with her tender-feeling feet. Sweet Nell, ill can thy noble mind abrook The abject people, gazing on thy face With envious looks still laughing at thy shame, ee The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 205 That erst did follow thy proud chariot wheels When thou didst ride in triumph through the streets. But, soft! I think she comes; and I'll prepare My tear-stain’d eyes to see her miseries.” Here there is no question that the tone of the new matter is quite opposed to the tone of the old, and that the added lines, though in themselves excellent poetry, decidedly weaken the effect of the whole. The four introductory lines of sententious moral, conceived in the spirit of many of Shakespeare’s sonnets, form a feebler opening to the scene which follows than the curt question with which the Contention version begins. The new lines, 8 and 9, are positively unfortunate, for they divert attention from the humiliation of Eleanor’s “‘ noble mind,” of which Marlowe’s Gloucester thinks alone, to the rather ludicrous image of the duchess’s physical discomfort as she walks barefoot over the flinty pavement. So trifling a detail could at such a time hardly have occupied the attention either of the sufferer or of her husband. To give it special notice seems both bad art and bad psychology. The addition of the last two lines is no less injurious. The purpose of the speech is the exhibition of Gloucester’s fine stoical refusal to allow personal feeling to assert itself in opposition to the execution of justice. The sentimental allusion to his tear-stained eyes, together with the lachrymose tone fo the other inserted lines, distinctly weakens this impression of noble austerity.+ The soliloquy of York at the end of Act III, scene i (2 Henry VI) again shows the contrast between the clear-cut method of Marlowe, bent always upon the expression of some one mood in its highest intensity, and the medleys of changing emotion, rich in poetical truisms and fine-wrought figures, which Shakespeare at the beginning of his career loved to put into the mouths of his characters. The quotation of the first lines of the speech in the two versions will sufficiently illustrate the opposition. Again I italicize the lines which are entirely original in the 1623 version : Contention, p. 34, 1. 170 ff. : “Now York bethink thy self and rowse thee vp, Take time whilst it is offered thee so faire, Least when thou wouldst, thou canst it not attaine. Twas men I lackt, and now they give them me.” 1 The warmer play of feeling in Shakespeare’s treatment, which here results injuriously, is in other scenes advantageous to Gloucester’s character as has been noted already (p. 198). Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 14 Juxy, 1912. 206 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 2 Henry VI, III, i, 331—345: “Now, York, or never, steel thy fearful thoughts, And change misdovbt to resolution : Be that thou hop’st to be, or what thou art Resign to death: it is not worth the enjoying. Let pale-fac’d fear keep with the mean-born man, And find no harbour in a royal heart. Faster than spring-time showers comes thovght on thovght, And not a thought but thinks on dignity. My brain, more busy than the labouring spider, Weaves tedious snares to trap mine enemies. Well, nobles, well ; ’tis politicly done, To send me packing with a host of men: I fear me you but warm the starved snake, Who, cherish’d in your breasts, will sting your hearts. ’Twas men I lack’d, and you will give them me.” The scene representing Cade’s death (2 Henry VI, IV, x) is expanded in the edition of 1623, not only in bad taste, by the introduction of many lines of pure bombast, but also in a tone which shows that the reviser failed utterly to realize the heroic quality in Cade which Marlowe always brings out. The following parallels exemplify both the intrusion of meaningless rant in the later version, and also the change from the tragic view of Cade to the other very different view which regarded him as a mere vulgar upstart, easily overthrown and justly subjected to insult after death: Contention, p. 55, 1. 20f.: “ Eyden... Looke on me, my limmes are equall unto thine, and every way as big; then hand to hand, ile combat thee.” 2 Henry VI, IV, x, 48—57: “Iden... Oppose thy steadfast-gazing eyes to mine, See if thou canst out-face me with thy looks: Set limb to limb, and thou art far the lesser ; Thy hand is but a finger to my fist; Thy leg a stick compared with this truncheon ; My foot shall fight with all the strength thou hast ; And if mine arm be heaved in the air Thy grave is digg’d already in the earth. As for more words, whose greatness answers words, Let this my sword report what speech forbears.”’ The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 207 Contention, p. 55, 1. 35 f.: “Tle drag him hence, and with my sword cut off his head, and beare it to the King.” 2 Henry VI, IV, x, 82—89: “ Die, damned wretch, the curse of her that bare thee: And as I thrust thy body in with my sword, So wish I I might thrvst thy soul to hell. Hence will I drag thee headlong by the heels Unto a dunghill which shall be thy grave, And there cut off most ungracious head ; Which I will bear in triumph to the king, Leaving thy trunk for crows to feed upon.” Extended additions, which can be positively ascribed to Shake- speare, are less frequent in 3 Henry VJ, for in that play the alte- rations of the 1623 text consist largely of mere changes of single lines. Where longer insertions do occur, however, the relation between the old and new matter is precisely the same as in 2 Henry VI. A good example of the Shakespearean weakening of a simple but strong speech by remote reference and involved rhetoric is found in Clarence’s defiance of Warwick (3 Henry VI, V, i, 81 ff.) The True Tragedy gives the first part of this address as follows: “Father of Warwike, know you what this meanes ? I throw mine infamie at thee, I will not ruinate my fathers house, Who gave his bloud to lime the stones together, And set up Lancaster. Thinkest thou That Clarence is so harsh unnatural], To lift his sword against his brothers life ? And so proud harted Warwike | defie thee, And to my brothers turne my blushing cheekes.” Instead of these nine lines, the 1623 text prints nineteen. I italicize those which are peculiar to the later version: “Father of Warwick, know you what this means ? Look here, I throw my infamy at thee: I will not ruinate my father’s house, Who gave his blood to lime the stones together, And set up Lancaster. Why, trow’st thou, Warwick, That Clarence is so harsh, so blunt, unnatural, To bend the fatal instruments of war 208 C. F. Tucker Brooke, Against his brother and his lawful king ? Perhaps thou wilt object my holy oath: To keep that oath were more imptety Than Jephthah’s, when he sacrificed his daughter. I am so sorry for my trespass made That, to deserve well at my brother's hands, I here proclaim myself thy mortal foe ; With resolution, wheresoe er I meet thee— As I will meet thee if thou stir abroad— To plague thee for thy foul misleading me. And so, proud-hearted Warwick, I defy thee, And to my brother turn my blushing cheeks.”’ Clearly, the rhetorical question and the allusion to Jephthah detract from the candor of Clarence’s avowal of the claims of blood. Clearly, too, the following diatribe against Warwick, who is the offended not the offending party, smacks of hollow declamation and deprives the speech of the tone of manly frankness which the early version gives it. Throughout this part of the play the reviser robs Warwick’s figure of much of the charm which it has in the True Tragedy. Even in trifling details the warmth of the original is frequently lost, as where in recasting Edward’s line: “ Tis even so, and yet you are olde Warwtke still” (V, 1, 47; True Tragedy, p. 66, 1. 36), the omission of the adjective “ olde”’ takes away the friendliness of the king’s implied offer of reconciliation. The death of Warwick is very strongly and pathetically treated in the True Tragedy. It seems to me that the scene (V, il) is rather spoiled in the revision. Whereas Marlowe has Warwick enter alone, wounded, with the words : “Ah, who is nie? Come to me, friend or foe, And tell me who is victor, Yorke or Warwitke?” Shakespeare, in the interests of stage effect, has Edward himself drag in the fallen warrior and speak four heartless lines over his body (V; ai," ti) “So, lie thou there: die thou, and die our fear; For Warwick was a bug that fear’d us all Now Montague, sit fast; I seek for thee, That Warwicks’ bones may keep thine company.” The new lines given to Warwick in this scene are all superfluous, and the most important added speech, conceived in a tone of weak sentimentality, is, I think, glaringly unbecoming (ll. 33—39): The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 209 “Ah! Montague, If thov be here, sweet brother, take my hand, And with thy lips keep in my soul awhile Thou lovs’t me not; for, brother, if thou didst, Thy tears would wash this cold congealed blood That glues my lips and will not let me speak. Come quickly, Montague, or I am dead.” A good final example of the extent to which the immature Shake- speare sometimes distorted the natural words of Marlowe’s speakers in his ambition to work out an elaborate tissue of metaphor and allusion, appears in the revised version of Queen Margaret’s address to her followers in 3 Henry VI, V, iv. In the True Tragedy, this speech consists of eleven lines, all quite appropriate to the occasion : “Welcome to England, my loving friends of France, And welcome Summerset, and Oxford too. Once more have we spread our sailes abroad, And though our tackling be almost consumde, And Warwtke as our maine mast overthrowne, Yet warlike Lords raise you that sturdie post, That beares the sailes to bring vs vnto rest, And Ned and I as willing Pilots should For once with carefull mindes gvide on the sterne, To beare vs through that dangerous gulfe That heretofore hath swallowed vp our friends ” This passage served only as a foundation for the reviser, who rewrote the speech, nearly quadrupling its length and elaborating every suggested figure to such a degree that the feelings of the ill- starred queen are hidden beneath the profusion of ornament. This is the speech as printed in the Folio: “Great lords, wise men ne’er sit and wail their loss, But cheerly seek how to redress their harms. What though the mast be now blowne overboard, The cable broke, the holding anchor lost, And half our sailors swallowed in the flood ; Yet lives our pilot still: is’t meet that he Should leave the helm and like a fearful lad With tearful eyes, add water to the sea, And give more strength to that which hath too much; -Whiles in his moan the ship splits on the rock, Which industry and courage might have saved ? 210 C. F. Tucker Brooke, Ah! what a shame? ah, what a fault were this. Say, Warwick was our anchor; what of that ? And Montague our top-mast; what of him ? Our slaughter’d friends the tackles; what of those ? Why, is not Oxford here another anchor ? And Somerset, another goodly mast ? The friends of France our shrouds and tacklings ? And, though unskilful, why not Ned and I For once allow’d the skilful pilot’s charge ? We will not from the helm, to sit and weep, But keep our course, though the rough wind say no, From shelves and rocks that threaten us with wrack. As good to chide the waves as speak them fair. And what is Edward but a rvthless sea ? What Clarence but a quicksand of deceit ? And Richard but a ragged fatal rock ? All these the enemies to our poor bark. Say you can swim; alas! ‘tis but a while: Tread on the sand; why, there you quickly sink: Bestride the rock; the tide will wash you off, Or else you famish: that’s a three-fold death. This speak I, lords, to let you understand, In case some one of you would fly from us, That there’s no hop’d-for mercy with the brothers More than with ruthless waves, with sands and rocks. Why, courage, then; what cannot be avoided *Twere childish weakness to lament or fear.” It is quite possible that injustice is done to Shakespeare in the study of these parallels. The reviser, working upon material so homogeneous and so firmly moulded, was necessarily at a disadvantage. His failures to preserve the tone and purpose of the original quickly rise to convict him. But where he may have succeeded in main- taining or improving the decorum of Marlowe’s conceptions, his additions are less easily distinguished from the earlier matter. Cer- tain details in which the adapter was able to broaden the range of character interest of the original plays have been pointed out. On the whole, however, there seems no reason to doubt the justice of the impression, based on many careful readings and comparisons of the different texts, that in spite of probable curtailments and corruptions, the Marlovian versions preserved in the Contention and True Tragedy are intrinsically better plays than those which resulted The Authorship of “ King Henry VI.” 211 from the Shakespearean alteration—more powerful in plot-interest and more impressive in psychological portraiture. At the period during which these plays seem to been written and revised—be- tween 1590 and 1592—-Marlowe was undoubtedly a maturer and a more effective dramatist than Shakespeare. The very traits upon which Shakespeare’s later unapproachable superiority was founded —his broad impartial view of human character and his wealth of poetic fancy—make his earlier style appear diffuse and muddy in contrast with the forceful clarity of Marlowe’s more restricted outlook. TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES INCORPORATED A. D. 1799 VOLUME 17, PAGES 213-364 DECEMBER, 1942 The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses BY ALBERT S.€O0OK, PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN YALE UNIVERSITY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 1912 (a ee Pee ee a & Ve 2 “sa * > 2 * rh rey j ' v ae . “ r ’ ye, on Sao eee ee ay i i = = ’ a x , ~ > - * : a > . : t sal ‘ or] "WEIMAR! PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN. 2 \S TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES INTRODUCTION : ; ; : 5 I. The Problem of the Crosses . - ; : ; : 5 II. Opinions as to the Date of the Gates : : , . 6 DeEscripTION OF THE CROSSES . ; ; - “ : ; ; Enh ChB I. The Ruthwell Cross : : : E : : : Ea as Il. The Bewcastle Cross - ‘ ; : ; : : . 24 GENERAL DiscussION OF THE CROSSES. 5 ; : . - ere. Outline : : ‘ ‘ é ; é : 3 : 2 . 28 I. The Inscriptions. : , : : : . : . 30 i Runic . : ‘ : : Z . : ; ee 0) A.. Forms of eaters : 5 Alege : : 5 iO) B. Language : : : : : ; : yo C. Metrical Peeuliarities ; ; : . : : sen A D. Historical Subject-Matter : : : : . 40 2. Latin . : : : ; : , ; : . 44 A. Forms of istiers ; : é s : : : . 44 B. Language ; : ; : : s : ae ye) C. Metrical Becntrariiies 3 : : ; : 2 beter 5° D. Historical Subject-Matter : . : : . 45 Ii. The Figure-Sculpture 45 1. Single Figures or Groups Paloma to fhe Bosvel anes 46 A. John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei : : . 46 B. The Annunciation and the Visitation . : : = ee C. The Flight into Egypt. , : : i : . 50 D. The Anointing of Christ’s Feet . : : ‘ pag E. The Crucifixion. ‘ : : : : : (68 F. The Majesty . : . : - 56 2. Groups belonging to Ghtisind Teauad i 2 ee Paul the Hermit and St. Anthony . , ‘ . 68 3. Genre-Subjects . : : F é : : ; . 60 A. The Archer . : : : ; : : ; ae B. The Falconer . : j : ; ; . : a i: IIl. The Decorative Sculpture. j : . : : eer tl E _ The Vines . : ; : ; : ; : : tg . The Chequers. : : : ; : 83 3, The Interlacings or enotwerky : P : 3 . 86 4. The Sundial : , : ‘ . : : ‘ 1a} THEORY AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE CrossES . : ‘ . 2 od Outline : : : : ; é : . : f SO 216 Contents PAGES I. The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 1. A Power Extending over the Region ey both Crosses . A Power which aes Mike Itself Respected in a Butle aie and One Making Appeal to Various Nationalities II. The Motive or Motives which Actuated the Production Ill. The Cultural and Artistic Antecedents Demanded by the Production ; 5 F : . The Possible Tansee of Tiron . The Possible Influence of Chartres . . The Possible Influence of Beauvais . . The Possible Influence of Clairvaux . The Possible Influence of Fleury . The Possible Influence of Northern Tealy CONCLUSION Ov pm CO LO or) _— 94 94 103 111 118 125 128 131 132 142 143 146 BOSS wes Ms ww * = i. j- ross, between 1823 and 188 ~ Ruthwell ¢ (From I, Theodore and Wilfrith.) Browne, INTRODUCTION I. THE PROBLEM OF THE CROSSES The problem respecting the date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses is none of the easiest to solve; the only hope of a solution lies in a close and critical examination of every circumstance which might conceivably be of assistance, beginning with the appearance and characteristics of the monuments themselves. Let us first consider in what respects the two crosses resemble each other. Each has the general form of an obelisk.t Each, if it ever had a cross-piece, has lost it now.? The two, if the Ruthwell Cross be considered without its unauthorized cross-piece, are not very far from the same height (143 feet : 174 feet), and taper to somewhat the same degree. Each has a vine, with animal figures among its branches, covering one or more faces of the monument—two in the case of the Ruthwell Cross, and one in the case of the Bewcastle Cross. Both have sculptured human figures, the Ruthwell Cross on two faces, the Bewcastle Cross on one; moreover, two of the figure-subjects on one of the crosses are identical with two on the other. Both have runic inscriptions, those on the Ruthwell Cross occupying the borders of the faces which are ornamented with vines, and presenting fragments of an Old English poem, The Dream of the Rood, and those on the Bewcastle Cross being found, mostly in an illegible condition, on three faces—that which contains the figure-sculpture, and two adjacent sides—but not on that which is filled with the ornamental vine. Each is found in the domain of a church, the Ruthwell Cross within its walls, the Bewcastle Cross just outside. Each suffered violence in the Reformation period—the Ruthwell Cross certainly, and the Bewcastle Cross not improbably— besides such defacement as they may have undergone in other ages. Both are situated within the Border, using that term in a rather large sense to denote the frontier where modern. Scotland approaches England, or England approaches Scotland, and where both countries have naturally had an influence. Within this Border various races have, within historic times, as well as in the very dawn of authentic history, dwelt. and struggled, and ravaged, often in the wildest and most savage manner. Both crosses are, and always have been, 1 See p. 122, note 1, and Figs. 1 and 2. * See p. 123, note. 218 Introduction in a comparatively infertile region,’ remote from centres of population, on nearly the same parallel of latitude (Ruthwell, 54° 59’ 40”; Bew- castle?, 55° 4’), and certainly within 30 miles of each other. It is especially to be noted that modern writers are practically unanimous in assuming that they belong to the same period and school. Postulating this, we have only one problem to solve in our attempt to date the two crosses. If they are not the work of the same artist, they are certainly of the same school. Ruthwell and Bewcastle are of the same school. ... Their re- semblances give them a place together far above other high crosses in our district or around it.4 To the same period the Ruthwell cross must be assigned, for there cannot be the least doubt that they are the product of the same work- shop, even if they did not come from the hands of the same artist.® At Ruthwell, some five and twenty miles distant, is a cross of such similar make and sculpture, that it must be similarly dated.® II. OPINIONS AS TO THE DATE OF THE CROSSES Earlier students were inclined to consider both the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses as Danish, and therefore to assign them to a com- paratively late igo teat i 1 See p. 148. 2 Long. 2040, W. Some maps give the name of the village as Shopford. 3 J. R. Allen, Monumental History of the Harly British Church, p. 208. Similarly Rivoira, Burlington Magazine, April, 1912, p. 24. 4 Collingwood, Notes on the Early Sculptured Crosses, Shrines and Monu- ments in the Present Diocese of Carlisle, p. 43. > Greenwell, Catalogue of the Sculptured and Inscribed Stones of the Cathe- dral Library, Durham, p. 46. 6 Prior and Gardner, ‘ Medieval Figure-Sculpture in England,’ Archi- tectural Review, July, 1902, p. 7. 7 Thus of the Ruthwell Cross Nicolson says in 1697 (see my ‘ Notes on the Ruthwell Cross,’ Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 370): ‘ The former [the Latin inscriptions] are exactly in the same character with these Gospels [a Latin MS. referred to] : which (I confess) I judged to be later than the tenth century.’ Hickes, on p. 5 of the Icelandic Grammar pub- lished in 1703 as Part III of his Thesaurus, speaks of a motive for publishing the first plates of the runic inscriptions at Ruthwell to be that he might (6) oat oO hla IT ry ‘a pore gpcer pee West Face. Bewcastle Cross, > Fig. - ; - 5 = - a 3 : ; = ' * . pia | | ; 2 = ; “ Y Pod ° { ia 3 | | = ’ ; ve ‘ i ie ® f ; i ; 3 ’ * 7 ‘ { te 1 nie - “ee ? : ox? ae Opinions as to the Date of the Crosses 219 In 1840, J. M. Kemble! held the view that the dialect of the poetic fragments on the Ruthwell Cross was ‘ that of Northumberland in the seventh, eighth, and even ninth centuries.’ From the year 1856 opinion entered on a new phase, and the con- jectures of two or three men led to an assignment of the crosses to the 7th century; but in later years dissent from this view has been constantly growing. Chronologically arranged, the chief expressions of opinion have been as follows. 1856. Daniel H. Haigh’s version of the principal inscription on the Bewcastle Cross was presented by Dr. Charlton at the January meeting of the Society of Antiquarians of Newcastle-on-Tyne.? Haigh believed the Bewcastle Cross was erected in memory of Alc- frith, and that it was to be assigned to about 665 A. D.? Because of the resemblance of the Ruthwell to the Bewcastle Cross, he postu- lated for the former a date in the same century, and was thus led to attribute the fragments of The Dream of the Rood on the Ruthwell Cross to Cedmon.* 1857. John Maughan read the word Alcfrid on the Bewcastle Cross,®° and therefore referred the cross to about 670.® 1861. Daniel H. Haigh’ thought that the Ruthwell Cross might ‘possibly have been brought from Bewcastle, and once have stood show that runes were employed by the Norsemen after their conversion to Christianity (runas apud Septentrionales gentes, post receptam ab tis Christ- vanam religionem, in usu aliquandiu fuisse). In 1726 Gordon (Itinerarium Septentrionale, pp. 159, 160) quotes with approval Nicolson’s opinion that our runic inscriptions are Danish (cf. Chalmers, Caledonia, 1890, 5. 62). Chalmers, in 1824, says (referring to Pennant’s Tour 3. 85-6): ‘ It cannot be older, if so old, as the ninth century, though tradition is silent about the time and the cause of its erection’ (ibid.); elsewhere he says (2. 467) that it ‘ may possibly have been erected by some of the followers of Halfden the Dane [ca. 875].’ With reference to the Bewcastle Cross, Bishop Nicolson, in his famous letter to Obadiah Walker (1685), thought it a work of the Danes; and in 1742 George Smith (Gent. Mag. for 1742, p. 369), said: ‘ None believe the Obelisk to be older than 900.’ He also thought it Danish. 1 Archeologia 28. 357. * Maughan, Memoir on the Roman Station and Runic Cross at Bewcastle, London, 1857, p. 31. 3 Ibid., p. 25. * See my edition of The Dream of the Rood, pp. xi, xii; and ef. p. 41, below. 5 See p. 41, below. 6 Memoir, p. 27. * The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, p. 37. ro =~] — 220 Introduction at the other end of Alcfrid’s grave.’ He added!: ‘ That they [the two crosses] belong to the seventh century cannot be doubted ; they contain forms of the language which are evidently earlier than Bede’s Death Song and Cedmon’s Hymn.’ 1865. Franz Dietrich, believing that The Dream of the Rood was written by Cynewulf, and that near the close of it (133 ff.) he had particularly in mind, among the friends whom he had lost, King Ceolwulf of Northumbria, who died in 764,? assigned the Ruthwell Cross to a period soon after this,? but before 794, when the Danes devastated Northumbria, and destroyed the peaceful conditions necessary for the cultivation of the arts.4 Incidentally, he speaks | ‘of two crosses at Bewcastle, which he refers to the same time® : ‘In oppido Bewcastle duz cruces partim adhuc superstites sunt, que propter runas quibus preedite sunt, ad idem tempus referendze esse videntur.’ 1866. George Stephens accepted Haigh’s view with regard to the authorship of the poetic fragments on the Ruthwell Cross, and further announced that he had discovered the name of Cedmon on the cross itself. He believed the date could be fixed ‘ at about 680.’ Of the Bewcastle Cross Stephens said’: ‘The man+who slept beneath it was ALCFRITH. .. . ALCFRITH was a pious and brave prince, and is famous in history as the friend of St. Wilfrid. The year of his death is not ascertained. But as he is not mentioned among the victims of the Great Plague in 664, which carried off so many of his countrymen, he probably died in 665 or 666. As the tomb-stone was not finisht till the first year of ECGFRITH, his successor, its date is about 670.’ 1 Tbid., p. 39. 2 Disputatio de Cruce Ruthwellensi, p. 14. 8 bids Pele: 4 Ibid., pp. 15-17. 5 Ibid.; p. 16: 6 Stephens, The Ruthwell Cross, pp. 9, 17-18: Old-Northern Runic Monu- ments 1. 411, 419-20. On the former page he said: ‘ By the help of the Casts since taken by Mr. Haigh, and of the Vercelli Codex, I have not only been enabled to amend the text and add some words to the carving, butl have also found the name of the Immortal Bard—CASDMON.’ See also my edition of The Dream of the Rood, pp. xii-xiv, and pp. 12 (1895), 15, note 3, be- low. Stephens called the period when this monument was raised ‘ the seventh century or thereabouts.’ He read on the top-stone in runes: CADMON MAFAUCEPO, which he interpreted: ‘Cadmon me fawed (made).’ ? Old-Northern Runic Monuments, p. 400. (8) Opinions as to the Date of the Crosses 221 1873. James A. H. Murray! wrote : ‘ Eadwin was succeeded by Oswald and Oswiu, during whose reign the Angle power was still further extended in what is now the south of Scotland, their supre- macy being apparently recognized by the Cumbrian Britons. Wit- nesses to this extension of the Northumbrian area, at or shortly after this period, exist in the Cross of Bewcastle, in Cumberland, with a Runic inscription commemorating Alchfrid, son of Oswiu, who was associated with his father in the government about 660, and the Runic Cross at Ruthwell in Dumfriesshire, of the same high antiq- uity.’ 1874. Frederik Hammerich? attributed the Ruthwell Cross to the end of the 7th century, following Stephens. His grounds were the style of the monument, the forms of the letters, and the antiquity of the language—besides the inscription read by Stephens on the top-stone. 1876. Henry Sweet? referred to the Ruthwell Cross inscription as being ‘in the old Northumbrian dialect of the seventh or eighth century.’ 1879. Gudbrand Vigfusson and F. York Powell*? read the runes on the top-stone of the Ruthwell Cross as: KSDMAMAFA®UOO. They give the date in one place® as ca. 700, and in another’ as ca. 800. 1880. Sophus Miller® declared that the Ruthwell Cross must be posterior to 800, on account of its decorative features, and indeed that it could scarcely have been sculptured much before 1000 A. D. i884. George F. Browne® remarked : ‘ The head of the cross bears the words, ‘““Cedmon made me.” The Bewcastle inscription states that the pillar was erected to King Alchfrith, in the first year of King Ecgfrith, about A. D. 665. On the bands dividing the panels are names of near relatives of these kings. Alchfrith was the patron of Wilfrith. The runes are unquestionably Anglian runes, and some Anglo-Saxon scholars say that the grammatical peculiarities are 1 Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland, p. 9. * Aelteste Christliche Epik der Angelsachsen, Deutschen und Nordlénder, p. 34. The Danish original appeared in the previous year. 3 Anglo-Saxon Reader, p. 169. 4 Icelandic Prose Reader, p. 444. 5 Or &. 6 P. 444. OP. 451. 8 ‘ Dyreornamentiken i Norden,’ Aarbeger for Nordisk Oldkyndigheid, 1880, pp. 338-9. 9 Magazine of Art 8.79 (December, 1884). - (9) 222 Introduction early. Thus everything points to the time of Wilfrith as the time when these crosses were first designed.’ 1885. Henry Sweet! printed the inscriptions on both crosses as given by Stephens, assigning the latter’s conjectural date of 670 (Maughan’s) to the ‘ Bewcastle Column,’ and of 680 to the Ruthwell Cross. He adds under the latter: ‘ All that the language teaches us is that the inscription cannot well be later than the middle of the eighth century.’ 1887. John Romilly Allen? considered that ‘ the evidence as to the age of the sculptured stones of Northumbria [referring to Stephens’ dates] is rather unreliable. In the same work? he called the 9th, 10th, and 411th centuries ‘the period of the sculptured crosses.’ 1887. George F. Black* wrote: ‘While in the south of Scotland recently, I visited Ruthwell to see its famous cross. ... The name Cedmon has all but disappeared, being represented -only by five faint perpendicular strokes. The other words, “mz feuopo,”’ are quite distinct, with the exception of the last o in feuopo.’ 1887. Margaret Stokes® assigned the two crosses to the 11th cen- tury, (1) because of their relation to the Irish high crosses, which are late ; (2) because ‘ as eleventh century monuments these crosses . . . would fall naturally into their place in the development of the arts of sculpture and design during this period, while as seventh century monuments they are abnormal and exceptional’ ; (3) because the vine reminds us of Lombardic sculpture ; (4) because the figure-subjects are such as are discussed in the Byzantine Painters’ Guide, compiled ‘from the works of Panselinos, a painter of the eleventh century’ ; (5) because ‘it is not likely that such symbols were subjects of the sculptor’s art in the North of England, in the seventh century, or that their execution would be more perfect there than the carving of similar subjects in Ravenna or in Milan at the same date.’ 1888. Henry Bradley® accepted the dating of the Bewcasile Cross by Maughan, thought that ‘to maintain that this inscription is a forgery of the eleventh century would be preposterous,’ and argued that ‘ the close resemblance in the style of art’ between this and the ~ Ruthwell Cross is ‘ inconsistent with the theory that they are several 1 Oldest English Texts, pp. 124-5. Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain and Ireland, p. 85. P. 132. Academy 32. 225 (Oct. 1). Early Christian Art in Ireland, pp. 125-6. Academy 33.279 (April 21). (10) aon rk wo Ww Opinions as to the Date of the Crosses 223 centuries apart in date.’ He also maintained that the dialect of the poetic fragments on the Ruthwell Cross is ‘ considerably earlier than that of the gloss on the Lindisfarne Gospels’; he was there- fore in favor of assigning it ‘ to the eighth century at latest.’ 1889. Sophus Bugge! repudiated Stephens’ rendering, Ce@dmon made me, of words which he professed to have found on the Ruthwell Cross, and proposed to read: GODMON MZEFAE/o APO. Heagreed with Sweet regarding the date of the cross, however, and rejected Miiller’s late date of ca. 1000. 1889. John Romilly Allen? said: ‘ The claim of the crosses at Ruthwell and Bewcastle to be of the seventh century must, we think, be abandoned.’ Referring to the attempts of Haigh and Stephens to identify names on the crosses with those of persons known to history, he remarked* that they generally either fail to do this, “ or there is some doubt as to the reading of the names in the inscrip- tion which renders the identification valueless.’ As to Caedmon he said (p. 210): ‘All trace of the name has disappeared, and it is ex- ceedingly doubtful if it ever existed.’ 1890. 1? contended that the language of the poetic fragments on the Ruthwell Cross must be as late as the 10th century, and very likely posterior to 950. 1890. George F. Browne® read on the Ruthwell Cross : + KEDMON M# FAUGPO. 1891. Eduard Sievers® believed the inscription on the Bew- castle Cross, if correctly reported by Stephens and Sweet, to be late, and therefore a bungling copy of an earlier original. 1891. William S. Calverley’ virtually accepted Stephens’ date of 670 for the Bewcastle Cross. ‘ German translation by Brenner, under the title, Studien iiber die Ent- stehung der Nordischen Gétter- und Heldensagen 3. 494 ff.; the passage in question was translated by me in Mod. Lang. Notes 5 (1890). 77-8. 2 Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, p. 159. a. 223: cf. p. 209. 4 Academy 37. 153 (March 1). ° Academy 37.170 (March 8); cf. his Theodore and Wilfrith, p. 239. § Anglia 13. 12, note, written in January, 1890 (see p- 31, below). This opinion he reaffirmed in 1901 (Paul, Grundriss der Germ. Phil., 2d ed., 1. 256). Sievers (1901) will not allow any Anglian runes, with the exception of a single one on a coin, to be earlier than the 8th century. * Early Sculptured Crosses, p. 40; ef. p. ix. (11) 224 Introduction 1892. Stopford A. Brooke! said : ‘ The [Ruthwell] Cross, so far as its make goes, might have been set up during the seventh, eighth, or the beginning of the ninth century ; and as to the Runes—th re were runes carved on stones after the Norman Conquest.’ 1892. Joseph Anderson? dated the monuments of his Class II between 800 and 1000, and remarked that those of his Class III, to which the Ruthwell Cross belongs, ‘were only displaced by the _ European style of grave-slab introduced with Gothic architecture _ in the twelfth century.’ ‘ 1895. Wilhelm Vietor® could read on the top-stone of the Ruth- well Cross only: (R?)D(D?) 24P(:) (ME ?)(F)AYRPO, out of which nothing can be made. The cross is earlier than 750.4 For his readings of the principal inscription on the Bewcastle Cross,° see p. 37, below. As to the date, he said: ‘ Sprachlich steht nichts im Wege, in der sicheren Cyniburg und dem wahrscheinlichen Alcfrithu die Tochter Pendas von Merzien und ihren Gemahl, den Sohn Oswius von Northumbrien, zu sehen.’ 1896. George F. Browne® wrote of the Bewcastle Cross: ‘ It was set up in the year 670.’ 1897. George F. Browne’ was confident that the Ruthwell Cross was erected before the death of King Ecgfrith in 685. 1898. Stopford A. Brooke® declared : ‘The [Ruthwell] cross dates from the first half of the eighth century, and the lines, which from their situation and language belong to the north, are believed to be of the latter end of the seventh. . . . Criticism of the lan- guage and manner of the lines tends to make the authorship of Cedmon more and more probable.’ 1899. William Greenwell® believed the sculptors of the two crosses to have come from Italy, ‘towards the close of the seventh century.’ 1899. William G. Collingwood’? attached much weight to the views of Bishop Browne (see under 1896), and accordingly accepted the date 670.1! He added: ‘ The date of the Bewcastle Cross does — 1 Hist. Early Eng. Lit., p. 337. 2 Early Christian Monuments of Scotland, 1903, pp. cix, eXxill. 3 Die Northumbrischen Runensteine, p. 11. 4 Ibid., p. 48. Bae TG, 5 Conversion of the Heptarchy, 2d ed., 1906, pp. 189, 208. * Theodore and Wilfrith, p. 236. 8 Eng. Lit. from the Beginning to the Norman Conquest, p. 133. 9 Catalogue, p. 47; see p. 78, below. Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 44. baci! ef: Ff (12) J i) Opinions as to the Date of the Crosses 225 not depend on its legend. The style and workmanship are surer proofs of its origin.’ Referring to both crosses, he observed’: “ How unlike this work is to 12th century carving can be seen at once by comparing the sketch of a floral scroll opposite with Bridekirk Font.’ 1901. I? resumed and extended my investigation of 1890, and came to the same general result as then. 4901. William G. Collingwood® observed of the Bewcastle Cross : ‘Tt can... be classed with many other works done in the flush of the great renaissance of the late seventh century, in which Benedict Bisc- op and St. Wilfrith were leaders, and king Alchfrith and his wife Cyniburg, and her sister and brother Cyneswitha and king Wulfhere of Mercia (all named on this cross) were chief patrons. It is not of the Hexham school, but of a school of that age and character, from which came many fine works quite alien in spirit to the art of North England in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and impossible to have been executed in that period of storm and stress, when the churches were ravaged by the Danes ; and it is equally impossible to class it as Norman. The archzological evidence is all in favour of the date assigned to it by the inscription—the first year of king Ecgfrith, 670—71 A. D.; and it has a great importance in the history of art as the starting-point from which not only all our Cumbrian sculpture was derived, but (with Ruthwell cross, its younger sister) the model for much of that so-called Hiberno-Saxon art which has been con- fused with it.’ 1902. Edward S. Prior and Arthur Gardner,‘ following Maughan, considered the Bewcastle Cross as ‘ well dated to the year 670.’ They added : ‘ At Ruthwell . . . is a cross of such similar make and sculp- ture, that it must be, similarly dated.’ 1902. Henry Rousseau ® assigned the Ruthwell Cross to the 9th century, when Northumbria was occupied by the Danes. As to Cedmon, he regarded the name, supposing it to be on the cross, as that of the sculptor.® 1902. Karl D. Biilbring’ declared that of early Anglian poetry we possess, for the most part, only late and corrupt copies. Among t_ P43. 2 “ Notes on the Ruthwell Cross’ (written December, 1900), pp. 375-390; ef. pp. 32—33, below. 3 The Victoria History of the County of Cumberland 1. 256-7. 4 “ Medieval Figure-Sculpture in England,’ Architectural Review 12. 7. 5 ‘La Ruthwell Cross,’ Annales de la Société d’ Archéologie de Bruxelles TG70: Cor: 61. ? Altenglisches Elementarbuch, pp. 8-9. (13) 226 Introduction the earliest Northumbrian verses (before 740) he reckons those on the Ruthwell Cross, which he considers to exhibit peculiarities of the northern variety of Northumbrian. 1903. John Romilly Allen! quoted, without dissent, the con- clusions of my paper of 1901. 1905. Alois Brandl? said of the Ruthwell Cross : ‘ There is of late a tendency to relegate the stone to a much later period— to the ninth or even the tenth century. Archzeologists conclude this from its ornamentation, and Prof. Cook has shown that the archaic in- flexions, on which so much stress was laid in fixing the age of the Cross, also occur sporadically in Northumbrian manuscripts of the late tenth century. As a matter of fact, this particular dialect did retain for an astonishing length of time a whole series of sounds and inflexions which the others had long since abandoned. The patent objection, however, is: Could such a mass of archaisms have got compressed into such narrow compass ? Only sixteen lines, some of them mutilated, are preserved on the Ruthwell Cross, and they show a consistent? early Northumbrian dialect. At the very least a particularly ancient stock of written forms must have lain at bottom.’ 1905. Camille Enlart* characterized the human figures, knot- work, vines, and animals of the Bewcastle Cross as of a good style ~ of the middle of the 12th century (but see under 1906), and added that the Ruthwell Cross presents a series of interesting bas-reliefs of the same period. 1906. Camille Enlart® inclined to attribute the Ruthwell Cross to the 12th century, on account of its high reliefs and its inscriptions. Of the Bewcastle Cross, on the other hand, he said®: ‘It bears a runic inscription which attributes it formally to the first year of the reign of Eadfrith, that is, to 670, and the inscription has all the characteristics of the period’ (but see under 1905). 1907. G. T. Rivoira? said that the Ruthwell Cross ‘ cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the XIIth century.’ 1 Karly Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 515-6. 2 Sitzungsberichte der Kénigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften for 1905, pp. 716-23. Our quotation is from the translation and revision of this paper, entitled ‘On the Early Northumbrian Poem, “ A Vision of the Cross of Christ,’ in Scottish Historical Review 9. 140 (January, 1912). — 3 But see Cook, Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 380 ff. 4 Michel, Histoire de [ Art 12. 521. 5 Ibid. 2. 202. 8 Ibid. 2. 199. 7 Le Origini dell’ Architettura Lombarda, translated in 1910 as Lombardic Architecture (2. 148). (14) Opinions as to the Date of the Crosses 227 1907. Anna C. Paues! spoke of ‘the Ruthwell Cross in Dum- friesshire, possibly dating back to the eighth century, . . . and the Bewcastle Column in Cumberland, probably erected to the memory of Alchfrith, son of the Northumbrian king Oswy (642—670).’ 1907. (Miss) M. Bentinck Smith? declared that the supposed words at the top of the Ruthwell Cross, if decipherable, could not refer to the poet Cedmon, ‘for the language of the poem on the Ruthwell cross is younger than that of the MS. poem, possibly of the tenth century. The decoration of the cross, also, is thought to be too elaborate and ornate for eighth century work, and can hardly be dated much earlier than the tenth century.’ 1910. Henry Bradley? made the following statement: ‘ Cyne wulf’s authorship has been asserted by some scholars for The Dream of the Rood. . . . But an extract from this poem is carved on the Ruth- well Cross ; and, notwithstanding the arguments of Prof. A. S. Cook, the language of the inscription seems too early for Cynewulf’s date.’ 1911. Walter W. Skeat* wrote: ‘ There is another relic of Old Northumbrian, apparently belonging to the middle of the eighth century. ... I refer to the famous Ruthwell cross. . . . There is also extant a considerable number of very brief inscriptions, such as that on a column at Bewcastle, in Cumberland.’ 1912. William P. Ker remarked®: ‘ The Ruthwell Cross with the runic inscription on it is thus one of the oldest poetical manuscripts in English, not to speak of its importance in other ways.’ 1912. G. T. Rivoira® said: ‘The age of the Bewcastle Cross, if I am not mistaken, is not earlier than about the first half of the twelfth century. And the same is true of the other well-known cross at Ruthwell.’ 1912. W.R.Lethaby ’ undertook to vindicate the earlier date of the Ruthwell Cross from the strictures of Rivoira. His arguments are : (1) The forms of the letters indicate ‘ a semi-Irish hand, such as wasin 1 Cambridge Hist. Eng. Lit. 1. 12. * Cambridge Hist. Eng. Lit. 1. 57, note. 8 Encyc. Brit., 11th ed., 7. 691. Elsewhere (4. 935) he is more positive : “ The poem is certainly Northumbrian, and earlier than the date of Cynewulf.’ He rejects Stephens’ Cedmon me fauepo as ‘ mere jargon, not belonging to any known or unknown Old English dialect.’ 4 English Dialects, pp. 18, 20. 5 English Literature: Medieval, p. 48. § Burlington Magazine, April 15, p. 24. * Burlington Magazine, June 15, pp. 145-6. 228 Description of the Crosses use in Northumbria about the year 700’ ; (2) The Dream of the Rood was early ; (3) there were tall crosses in England in the 7th century (referring to the life of Willibald, p. 112, below) ; (4) ‘the sculptures of these crosses are of ‘‘ Early Christian” or Byzantine character’: thus the Paul and Anthony and Christ treading on the wild animals, while the Crucifixion resembles one in an early manu- script at St. Gall; (5) the interlacings probably derive from Coptic sources. Incidentally, Mr. Lethaby believes that the top-stone of the Ruthwell Cross should be turned round, so that the archer would be shooting at the single bird. DESCRIPTION OF, THE CROSSES I. THE RUTHWELL CROSS Various descriptions of the Ruthwell Cross are already in print, 4 but none is entirely accurate. The following account, while it no doubt leaves something to be desired, is based upon personal exam- ination and a series of photographs made directly from the shaft itself (ignoring the top-stone). ? South Face.* 4. The Archer. An archer faces the spectator’s right, with an arrow aimed up- ward at anangle of 45°. A possible quiver hangs at the right side of the archer ; only the tip is visible. There is an inscription at each a side, but the letters are illegible. 2. The Visitation. Mary and Elizabeth face each other, so far as the main position of the bodies is concerned, but the figure at the left seems to have | her face slightly turned toward the spectator’s, while that at his right _ is seen in profile. The new stone, introduced to fill the space caused by the fracture, seems too thick, so that it suggests legs much too long for the rest of the bodies. The shoes resemble sabots. The figure on the left has her forearm extended at right angles to the upper arm, with hand touching the other figure near the waist, 1 See a list given by Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 448. 2 My thanks are due to Rev. J. L. Dinwiddie, minister of Ruthwell, who afforded me every facility for securing these photographs, which were taken by Mr. F. W. Tassell of Carlisle. ; 3 As the monument stands at present. See Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8. (16) Gi — ae ee ae or Le ; i) UTE ‘a —atape West Faces. frig, 4. Ruthwell Cross, South Face, top. Sey « Gas ay A ig Fig. 5. Ruthwell Cross, South Face, Visitation. “ The Ruthwell Cross 229 while the figure at the right has her forearm nearly parallel to the other’s, and above it. It is difficult to determine whether the drapery for the head may not be hair (cf. the Visitation from St. Benoit-sur-Loire, as figured by Caumont, L’Abécédaire d’ Archéologte 4.176). There is an inscription above and at each side, but il- legible. A single border on this side corresponds to the lower of the double borders on the north side, though narrower. An oblong piece of new stone, extending for part of the width of the panel, replaces a portion broken out at some time, from the waist of the figures to below the middle of the lower leg. 3. The Anointing of Christ’s Feet (Luke 7. 37,38). The figure of Christ in the act of benediction faces the spectator, with upraised right hand, palm outward, and one (or possibly two) fingers extended. The left hand, which is covered by the drapery, holds a large book (not roll). The circular nimbus, with three rays at each side and above, has a diameter more than twice as great as that of the head including the hair, which falls to theshoulders. Christ is bearded, and wears a tunic, which leaves the upper part of the breast bare, and falls in straight heavy folds nearly to the ankle, leaving the feet, so far as they are visible, apparently bare. His mantle leaves the right forearm bare, and falls at his right side nearly to the head of the woman and the bottom of his tunic, and is gathered up in heavy folds by his left hand to support the book, falling at his left not quite so low as at his right. The woman who was a sinner is seen in profile. Her hair falls on her right shoulder, and is extended to cover the extremity of the Saviour’s left foot, being held in position by her right hand—the right forearm, which is bare, being nearly parallel to the coil of hair. Her fingers are about one-third the length of the whole hand and forearm. The hair seems to extend beyond her hand, and to be recurved to the left and down- ward for a distance about equal to that from her shoulder to the foot. Another strand of hair, faintly seen, falls directly downward, on the further (inner) side of her face. . The inscription above, in Roman capitals, is ATTUETE ...-. BA which is continued down at the spectator’s right as STRUMVNGVENTI&STANSRETROSECUSPEDES ; then crosses to the spectator’s left, and reads downward : BIVSLACRIMIS . COEPITRIGAREPEDESEIVS . CAPILLIS and ends below as: CAPITISSVITERGEBA ; Trans, Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 16 (17) 230 Description of the Crosses that is: attulit . [ala] bastrum unguenti : et stans retro secus pedes eius lacrinus cepit rigare pedes eius, et capillis capitis sui tergebat. 4. Christ's Healing of the Blind Man (John 9. 4 ff.). Christ at the left, distinguishable by his rayed nimbus, this time of two rays each, instead of three, faces a man dressed like himself in tunic and mantle. Christ is bearded, and is turned slightly towards the spectator, while the man is in nearly full profile. The hair of both falls to the shoulders. The right hand of the Saviour is extended toward the man, and seems to hold a small rod, the end of which is near the man’s chin (this apparent rod, however, may perhaps | represent Christ’s forearm, broken off save for this trace) ; Christ’s left hand is passed in front of himself, and touches the drapery which falls from his right forearm. The inscription reads downward at the spectator’s left, as: ET . PRAETERIENS .VIDI .... [here mutilated] ; then down- wards at the spectator’s right, ANATIBITATEETSA ... . [muti- lation] BINFI [these doubtful] RMITATE [the last four are only pos- sible]. This may stand for: e¢ preteriens vidijt hominem caecum] a nativitate, et salnavit eum ab infirmitate. 5. The Annunciation, or (Angelic) Salutation. The angel, who wears the plain nimbus, and is winged to the height of his shoulders, is facing outward, slightly in the direction of the Virgin. A ringlet falls behind his right shoulder. His right arm, which is bent at the elbow at less than a right angle, seems to be bare, and his two hands appear to be clasped. The advancement of his left foot and the fall of his drapery indicate motion toward Mary, as she, in turn, seems to be advancing toward him. She also wears the plain nimbus. Her hair falls over her shoulders, one tress falling over her right shoulder as a ringlet. She faces the angel, but turns somewhat toward the spectator. Her head is slightly inclined toward the angel. The inscription begins above: INGIRES SV Oia. 222 operon That at the right is so mutilated as to be illegible, but at the left we read : TE <2. Sie This stands, no doubt, for: Ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave, gratia plena, dominus tecum ; benedicta tu in multeribus. (18) Fig. 6. Ruthwell Cross, South Face, Anointing of Christ’s Feet, and Healing of the Blind Man. iation. Ruthwell Cross, South Face, Annunc Cross, South Face, Crucifixion. Ruthwell The Ruthwell Cross 231 6. The Crucifixion. This is much defaced, but the following points are clear. The cross is of Latin form, with the upright fairly broad, but the cross-beam narrower. The head of Christ inclines toward his right. His left shoulder, with part of the upper arm, is visible and bare. His legs are bare from above the knee downward, and the feet are manifestly nailed side by side. Whether he wears the nimbus or not it is im- possible to determine. A large circular object above the arm of the cross at the spectator’s right may be intended for the moon, which is sometimes found in representations of the Crucifixion after the 9th century ; and there is a faint indication of a corresponding object over the other arm. At the spectator’s right and below, there appears to be something like a crouching, naked figure ; and below the cross- beam, on either side, there may be traces of two smaller crosses, as if of the two thieves. These last, however, are quite conjectural. West Face.+ A vine-scroll starts in the middle of the base, and curves alter- nately to right and left, touching the right border four times, the left one three times. Above each contact it throws off a branch which curves in the opposite direction to the course of the vine. On each of these branches rests a bird or animal facing alternately right and left, first bird, then beast, then two birds and two beasts. The crea- ture at the bottom, a bird, as well as the two top creatures, has its tail lengthened and recurved on itself, to simulate another offshoot. Each branch ends in a bunch of fruit, which the corresponding animal devours. Both the main vine and its branches freely throw off small shoots ending in leaves or bunches of fruit. The border contains the runes which begin above with Christ we@s on, and con- tinue down the right edge, another set beginning on the left edge.? The lower monolith supports two pieces of new hewn stone, which 1 See Figs. 3, 9, 10, 11. 2 The runes may be found: 1) Transliterated in horizontal lines: Zupitza-MacLean, Old and Middle English Reader, pp. 2-3 ; my article, Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 381-2 (from the Grein-Wiilker Bibliothek); my edition of The Dream of the Rood, pp. 3-5 ; 2) Printed in horizontal lines, and afterwards transliterated: Grein- Wiilker, Bibliothek der Ange!sdchsischen Poesie 2. 111-6 ; 3) Printed in vertical lines, as on the cross, and transliterated: Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 446-7; (19) 232 Description of the Crosses form the bottom of the upper monolith. The remaining portion of the carving consists of the top of the new vine, which appears first in contact at the left, curves to contact at the right, and finally, recurving on itself, makes a spiral which contains an animal]. After the first contact it throws off a branch which contains a bird. Both of the monoliths grow narrower at the top. There are runes on the upper stone, also, but illegible. North Face 1. Subject doubtful. Two defaced figures, with hair reaching to the shoulders, stand side by side, and face outward. They are visible only to the waist, or a little lower. There is no inscription legible. 2. John the Baptist with the Agnus Det. The man wears a nimbus, is bearded, and is of venerable aspect. His hair reaches to his shoulders. He stands with each foot resting on a ball-shaped stone, and is clothed in a talaric tunic and mantle. The heavy drapery of the latter falls from the right arm, of which the outline is not clear. The left hand and arm, apparently wrapped in the mantle, support the figure of alamb wearing a nimbus. Theright fore leg of the lambis raised, the left fore and hind legs are worn away. The lamb is facing the man’s right, its nimbus nearly touching his chin. Its hind quarters touch the right border. The panel is broken in two, and rejoined with plaster. It is possible that several inches of carving are missing at the joint. The right-hand border of the lower half of the broken panel is composed of two pieces of new hewn stone cemented together. There are traces of an inscription on the border of the upper half. That on the lower half, reading down the left side, is: (A ?)DORAMVS. The letters on the lower border are illegible. 4) Transliterated in vertical lines, with comments on the legibility of the individual runes, and accompanied by reproductions of photographs : Vietor, Die Northumbrischen Runensteine, pp. 6 ff. Older and less critical readings may be found in the Archeologia Scotica, Vol. 4, 1833 (by Duncan), and, reposing upon this, in Archwologia, Vol. 28 (Kemble’s article); then in Stephens’ Runic Monuments, Vol. 2, the re- print from it, entitled The Ruthwell Cross, and the reproduction of his plate in Hammerich’s Aelteste Christliche Epik ; etc. For the history of opinion concerning the runes on the cross, reference may be made to Wiilker, Grundriss zur Geschichte der Angelsdchsischen Iitteratur, pp. 134-8; Vietor (as above), pp. 2-4. 1 See Figs. 12, 13, 13 a, 14. (20) Fig. 9. Ruthwell Cross, West Face, near top. Ruthwell Cross, West Face, middle. fig. 10. uthwell Cross, West Face, near bottom. R Fig. I. fig. 12, Ruthwell Cross, North Face, John the Baptist. ae The Ruthwell Cross 233 3. The Figure of Christ. His right hand and arm, much mutilated, are raised as if in benediction. The left hand, emerging from a fold of his mantle, which is in the form of a sling, grasps a roll. The left arm slants down across the body, causing the end of the roll to touch the right elbow. He wears a three-rayed wide nimbus, and is bearded. His hair reaches nearly to the shoulder. The heavy folds of the tunic reach almost to the ankle. Each foot, perhaps bare, rests on the head of an animal. These animals, visible only to the shoulder, have their heads bent toward each other, the snouts touching. The raised right forefoot of the left one covers the left forefoot of the right one. The heads are abnormally long, the ears small. This panel has a top border, separate from the lower border of the upper panel. Between these two borders is the evidence of the cementing of the two monoliths, this lower panel being the top of the lower monolith. The inscription begins, reading from left to right on the top border, with the abbreviation for Jesus Christ, ; IHS XRS (RS partly illegible). It continues down the right border, and half way down jumps to the top of the left border, continues the whole length of that border, and, returning to the right border, ends at the bottom of the latter—the whole as illustrated below: IHS XRS HANI LNAMHAONDOO SHNQOVAC LA AVILSAA IGNAW WAY¢ * VATVS 0.LMAS SILVLIAOAV XAGAI 234. Description of the Crosses That is: Iesus Christus, tudex equitatis ; bestia et dracon[es] cogno- verunt in deserto salva[to|rem mundi. 4. St. Anthony and Paul the Hermit. Two figures represent Saints Anthony and Paul in the act of breaking a circular loaf of bread. They stand facing each other, the loaf between them being supported by a forearm of each, which is dis- closed from the elbow down, as it projects from the mantle. Their hair, instead of covering the ear, is cut close above it, and then falls to the shoulder. Across the panel, on the line of the shoulder, is the indication of a break, which is continued round the stone, showing that the lower monolith had been broken in two at this point. The inscription reads from left to right on the top border, then, down the right a few inches, (the rest of the right is mutilated), and continues down the left border. It reads: SCS PAV LVS 2B AS so gern ace FREGER .. T PANEM INDESERT)O. The verb of course represents fregerunt. 5. The Flight into Egypt. The legless figure of a horse or ass, the head and tail touching the left and right borders respectively, bears on its back Mary holding the child on one arm. Mary is seated sidewise on the animal, facing the spectator. The child alone wears a nimbus. In the left-hand upper corner of the panel is a portion of a circular object. The inscription on the upper border reads: + MARIA ET I. This naturally stands for Maria et Ioseph. East Face? A vine-scroll starts in the middle of the base. It then curves to the spectator’s right, touches the border, and passes over to the left margin, throwing off on the way a branch, which curves down- ward to the left, touches the left margin, and turns toward the right in such a way as to form with the main vine a large arc of an irregular circle. The main vine continues its meander from one side to the other, touching the right margin four times in all in the height of the main — 1 Clearest in Fig. 13a. 2 See Figs. 15,516,164; 517. (22) Ruthwell Cross, North Face, Figure of Christ. Fig. 13. eer fig. 13a. Ruthwell Cross, North Face, Figure of Christ. (From The Burlington Magazine.) Fig.t4. Ruthwell Cross, North Face, Paul and Anthony, and Flight into Egypt. Fig. 15. Ruthwell Cross, East Face, near top. Fig. 16. Ruthwell Cross, East Face, middle. ” Ruthwell Cross, East Face, middle. (From The Burlington Magazine.) Fig. 16a. I Ruthwell Cross, East Face, near bottom. wt, The Ruthwell Cross 235 stone, approximately twelve feet, the distances between the points of contact diminishing somewhat in the ascent. After the last contact at the right, the vine divides in such a way that it ends in the opposite upper corners in bunches of fruit. The points of contact on the left side are three in number. Meanwhile the vine throws off branches alternately to the left and right, which, re- curving, form with the main vine irregular circles, each, except the lowest, enclosing a bird or animal. When the branch is thrown off to the right, the animal’s head is turned to the left ; when to the left, the animal’s head faces the right. Each animal pecks at a fruit which forms the termination of the branch by which the animal is supported. There are thus five of these creatures on this face of the lower monolith, of which three have their heads turned to the left ; the lowest seems to be an animal, the next two, birds, and the last two, animals. This vine ends at an upper border, belonging to the lower monolith. Here, as on the west face, two fragments of The Dream of the Rood are written in runes, one, as there, beginning at the top and continuing down the right margin, and the other extending down the left margin. See pp. 19-20, above. Above this lower monolith is an upper section, broken into two parts, a large section of the lower part having been replaced in recent times by plain hewn stone. The vine which originally occupied this lower part may have begun near the middle of the lower margin, had its first contact at the left, and afterwards thrown off a branch to the right, which would then have enclosed a bird or animal facing the right. The upper part has the vine touching the right, and then the left, with an animal under the branch thrown off toward the left, and a bird enclosed in the last coil of the vine, which here makes a return upon itself. Of the carving in the lower part, nothing remains except a bunch of fruit in the lower right-hand corner, above which is a short offshoot of the main vine, and above that the descending curl (apparently) of the first branch (thrown off to the right) at its point of contact with the margin. There would, then, probably, have been a bird or animal in the viny portion of the lower part. On this upper portion there are, or have been, runes. On the right-hand margin there are, above, runes which have never been deciphered, their uprights being at right angles to the direction of the margin, and the runes to be read from the left. Below, on the right, and written in the same manner, are the runes which have been read degisge/. On the upper part there seem to be traces of runes on the left margin, and transverse to it. (23) 236 Description of the Crosses The following table of dimensions is taken from Allen?: Height of base 3 feet 8 inches Height of shaft 10777. Cae Height of head 2: 5. Total height of cross sh Me 0? tS Width of base pi tok FS are 22, Width of shaft at bottom 1 foot" 9a Width of shaft at top Tee 1 inch Width across arms of cross 3 feet’ “1h ae Width of top arm 9 inches Thickness of base f° foot G5 Thickness of shaft at bottom 1 ,, o> Thickness of shaft at top Sa These figures are only approximative, however; for example, it cannot be definitely determined where the base passes into the shaft. The width across the arms of the cross is of no value, since these arms are modern. Il. THE BEWCASTLE CROSS The Bewcastle Cross has not been so frequently and accurately described as that at Ruthwell. The following account reposes upon personal examination and photographs specially made for the pur- pose.” West Face.® This face has three carved figures, the spaces between them being occupied by runes. 1. John the Baptist with the Agnus Det. The upper figure, supposed that of John the Baptist, closely resembles the figure on the Ruthwell Cross. The man, wearing beard and moustache, clothed in tunic and mantle, supports a lamb on his left arm, which is concealed by the draped mantle. His right arm, over which an end of the cloak falls, is indistinct. The man appears to hold the lamb by its forelegs; the hind legs seem doubled beneath it. The animal wears a nimbus, and is — facing the man’s right. The essential difference between this and © 1 Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 442. 2 By Messrs. J. P. Gibson, of Hexham, and F. W. Tassell, of Carlisle. 8 See Figs. 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. (24) Bewcastle Cross, South and West Faces. Fig. 18. ie + SS ae ee Eo aia’ at aahea case Bewcastle Cross, West Face. Dernier A: thinks oe hla dees eel Bewcastle Cross, West Face, John the Baptist, Figure of Christ, and Runes. 2 Fig. wean F: . PRAT hy As 4 My ; ; x Rye me ¢, ve fed" 2 ee hg: Bewcastle Cross, West Face, Runes. Fig, 21. Fig. 22. Collingwood’s Plate of Runes. (From Zarly Sculptured Crosses.) aa Se oe - 7 Fig. 23. Bewcastle Cross, West Face, Falconer. ary The Bewcastle Cross 237 the Ruthwell figure is the lack of nimbus in this case, and also of visible feet—the hem of the gown reaches the base of the panel. Beneath the panel are these runes?: re 2. The Figure of Christ. 1X | di 4 l\ The central figure stands in a niche, like the others, except that the top is curved, 2 / L, J TN bi not square. The figure, that of Christ, : stands facing the spectator, his feet placed on the long heads of two animals which emerge diagonally from the lower corners. The noses of the creatures are touching, their ears are small, and what may possibly be a foot of each appears just above its head, on the left and right re- spectively. The head of Christ, wearing a cruciform nimbus, has parted hair which falls to his shoulders. The face appears to be wi- thout beard or moustache. He is clothed in a tunic, reaching to the ankles, and a mantle, which, V-shaped at the neck, has its heavy folds caught up, and draped over each arm. The right arm, bent upward from the elbow, from which the drapery hangs, is topped by a mutilated hand, in the attitude of benediction. The left hand holds across the front a roll, an end of which touches the right elbow. At each side the folds of the mantle reach the hem of the tunic ; the curved fold falling between the arms reaches only to the knee. Between this figure and the lowest one there is a long space, filled by nine horizontal lines of runes, now mostly illegible.? 3. The Falconer. The lowest figure, also in a round-arched niche, is that of a falconer, with a bird of prey on his wrist. The main body, placed in the left of the panel, is turned sidewise, the right shoulder being presented to the spectator. The head is turned nearly full face outward. Parted hair falls to the shoulders, and the face has beard and moustache. The left forearm is extended horizontally toward the right border of the panel, and the bird perches on it, facing outward. Though the claws are worn away, it is just above the hand in the conventional position of a trained falcon. Its beak is turned toward the man’s left shoulder. Beneath it, standing higher than the falconer’s knee, is the perch, shaped like a crutch or T. The man holds in his right hand arod, which slants downward in front of him. His garment seems to resemble a plaid of heavy cloth, which, draped across his chest, is = See p. 37. 2 See pp. 38, 41-43. (25) 238 Description of the Crosses drawn over the left shoulder and upper arm and across the back, the long end falling down over the right shoulder and reaching nearly to the ankle. North Face. This face of the shaft is divided into five panels of varying heights, which are separated from one another by narrow borders. 1. The top panel is filled by a vine-scroll. From a thick stem, which starts in the middle of the base, the main vine curves first to the right border, throwing off a spiral branch to the left, then to the left border, making a spiral to the right ; and, recurving to the right border, forms a finishing spiral to the left. Of the three spirals the lowest is the largest and most elaborate, and is separated from the others by a longer space than lies between the two upper ones. At the foot of the vine on either side hangs a short-stemmed bunch of fruit. From below each of the spirals stretches a shoot from the main vine, which, twined across the spiral, emerges above it, and ends in fruit or foliage. The spiral branches also end in fruit and foliage, which fill the interstices of the other carving. 2. The next panel is quite small, and filled with an intricate pattern of interlacing. 3. A long panel, nearly the height of the first, is entirely filled with chequer-work, every other division being in relief. There are eight square spaces between side and side, four of which are in relief ; and there are twenty-five from top to bottom. 4. This panel is small, and filled with another pattern of inter- lacing. 5. The lowest panel is of the same height as the top one. From the two lower corners emerge two vines, which come into contact with each other twice, forming a symmetrical figure resembling an urn, with two spirals at its base, and two at the top. The right vine curves toward and touches the left vine, then curves to the right border. After again touching the left vine, it ends in a spiral and a bunch of fruit in the right upper corner. The left vine repeats this in the opposite direction. The borders between the panels originally contained runes, now mostly undecipherable. The lowest, however, appears to bear the word Cynnburug.? East Face? In the panel runs a vine-scroll from bottom to top. The main vine starts in the middle of the base, and curves alternately to 1 See Figs. 24, 25, 26. 2 See p. 43, and Vietor, p. 16. 3 See Figs. 27. 28, 29. (26) fig. 24. Bewcastle Cross, North and West Faces. * . * , ’ ~ A ~ ‘ 4 3 . mn a ‘ - ; ; Va? j a a Ads Cores A + a tye? ar Sage, Dian Fig. 25. Bewcastle Cross, North Face, upper. = _ MESA Fig. 26. Bewcastle Cross, North Face, lower. ; oo Bewcastle Cross, East Face. 27. Fig. Bewcastle Cross, East Face, upper. 3. ? oO Fig, Be i Sd Bewcastle Cross, East Face, lower. Fig. 20. a eo 1) Sheewers ah A The Bewcastle Cross 239 right and left, touching the right border five times, the left one four times. Above each contact it throws off a spiral branch, which curves in the opposite direction to the course of the vine, touching the border in so doing. In each curled branch there rests a bird or animal, devouring the bunch of fruit in which the branch ends. They face alternately right and left. The two creatures at the top closely resemble squirrels with bushy tails over their backs; the next two are somewhat like crows; the next two are animals with small ears and no hind legs, only a tail which is curved to resemble an offshoot. The lowest creature is somewhat hard to make out. At the juncture of each spiral branch save the lowest two with the main vine, there issues a small shoot, ending in a leaf or a bunch of fruit, which fills up an empty space at the border. The top of the vine is divided into two shoots, which end in two bunches of fruit, side by side. touching the top border. South Face. The south face is divided into five panels, three short and two long ones. They contain, beginning at the top: 1. A pattern of interlaced bands, forming a piece of knotwork just fitting the oblong panel. 2. Avine-scroll. This, starting at the middle of the base, curves first to the left, then to the right, and ends in a bunch of fruit at the upper right-hand corner. Above each contact it throws off a branch, which curves in the opposite direction to the course of the vine, and forms a spiral ending in a bunch of fruit. Several small shoots from the main vine are interlaced with the two large branches, and two bunches of fruit hang beside the base of the stem. Across the lower half of the oval space formed by the first spiral branch there is a dial-face, resembling an outstretched fan upside down, reaching from border to border. Lines are drawn to its circumference from a hole near the centre of its upper side. 3. Another pattern of interlaced bands, filling a somewhat larger panel than the first. 4. Two vine-scrolls. These, starting obliquely from the lower corners of the base, form a symmetrical design resembling a figure eight. The left vine, crossing the other, curves first to the right, then, crossing again, bends to the left. Its end is divided into three shoots tipped with fruit, one of which fills the upper right corner, after crossing a similar shoot from the other vine which fills the left corner. ‘ See Figs. 18. 30, 31, 32. (27) 240 General Discussion of the Crosses The other two ends bend down into the upper half of the figure eight, and one, continuing, ends in a space outside the figure. The right vine is developed in exactly the same way, in the opposite direction. The two halves of the figure eight are made somewhat heart-shaped by the offshoots which bend in, and, crossing, fill the space with fruit. The upper half has two bunches, the lower four, two depending from above, two springing from shoots below. The outside trian- gular spaces left by the figure eight are filled with bunches of fruit, which tip the ends of shoots. 5. Still another design of interlaced bands, taller than either of the preceding. At the edge of each face of the shaft there runs a border, inside of which is a narrower molding. Runes, now illegible, once oc- cupied the spaces between successive panels. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE CROSSES OUTLINE In dealing with the crosses, we have to consider : I. The Inscriptions. II. The Figure-Sculpture. III. The Decorative Sculpture. I. The Inscriptions. These are: 1. Runic. 2. Latin. The runic inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross, so far as they are intelligible, embody fragments of an Old English poem, The Dream of the Rood. At least one short one on the Bewcastle Cross appears to spell a proper name. The longest inscription is practi- cally illegible, but the two or three words which perhaps can be made out seem to point to a possible memorial purpose. ioe The Latin inscriptions (found only on the Ruthwell Cross) are extracts from the Gospels, or other phrases and short sentences, descriptive of the figure-sculpture with which they are associated. An examination of both the runic and the Latin inscriptions with reference to their date would have reference to: A. The forms of the letters. Here it must be remembered that early forms of letters might be found on a comparatively late monument, but not vice versa. (28) Fig. 30. ee oa es oe wy ABAD Wa tyes Patiyetidathinitenetcuiok cena ee + ' ‘ Ys , 4 at Se Bewcastle Cross, South Face. ¥ 3 Fig. 31. Bewcastle Cross, South Face, upper. > + . wt ie F ‘ * v . + os 7 : rear) . < a : Spor he aft : s c 4 ‘ j 2 vt EE ete ted J <= * ‘ ] é Fig. 32. ~ ee | Rat ns 3 d , ; ’ Pee : of ; 5 Be in y + . ‘ : 4 $i e _ 3 tes t¢ Arey 5 . A” er phe ad 3 SIR EEN ACTF a < Le fh at 44 Bewcastle Cross, South Face, lower. a. 2 =a os<5 : — , Outline 241 B. The language. This would include the forms of words, their inflections, their meanings, and their constructions. In the case of the frag- ments of The Dream of the Rood, an examination of the lan- guage would imply comparison, particularly with the other specimens of that Old English dialect, the Northumbrian, to which the fragments belong. C. Metrical peculiarities. These would be found, if at all, only in the fragments of The Dream of the Rood on the Ruthwell Cross. D. Historical subject-matter, if any. II. The Figure-Sculpture. Here are included: Ii, iw) Single figures or groups belonging to the Gospel story, sometimes with symbolical accessories. These include (all Ruthwell but the first and last) : John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei (Ruthwell and Bew- castle). The Annunciation. The Visitation. The Flight into Egypt. Christ’s Healing of the Blind Man. The Anointing of Christ’s Feet. The Crucifixion. The Figure of Christ alone (Ruthwell and Bewcastle). . Groups belonging to Christian legend. The single example of these is the group of Paul the Hermit and St. Anthony. . Genre-subjects. Here would apparently belong the man with the hawk of the Bewcastle Cross, and perhaps the archer of the Ruthwell Cross. Ill. The Decorative Sculpture. Here belong: di. Hr CO ho The vines or foliage-scrolls of both the Ruthwell and the Bew- castle Crosses. . The chequers of the Bewcastle Cross. . The interlacings or knots of the Bewcastle Cross. . The sundial of the Bewcastle Cross (unless. this be regarded as purely utilitarian). 2 (29) 242 General Discussion of the Crosses I. THE INSCRIPTIONS 1 Ke A. Forms of Letters. If, now, we take up the subject in this order, we shall first consider the runic inscriptions with regard to the forms of the letters. These letters are commonly said to be Anglian runes, of presumably the 7th century. Here ‘Anglian’ might be used (1) in contradistinction to Scandinavian or German, or (2) in contradistinction toSaxon. To say that they are Anglian merely because they are found in the North of England, in territory probably or conjecturally Anglian, is to add nothing to our knowledge. Are they unlike any runic letters regarded by competent runologists as Scandinavian? Are they unlike any runic letters regarded by competent runologists as Saxon ? Furthermore, can it be shown, by comparison with other authent- ically dated specimens, that these runic letters must be dated as early as the 7th century ?1 This is what it imports us to know. For myself, I know too little of the history of runes in detail to attempt to deal with this question at the present time. I will therefore limit myself to the remark that, even were it fully established that such runic letters as these were employed in England in the 7th century, I should not feel compelled to assume that these inscriptions belonged to the 7th century, since the history of Greek, Latin, and runic inscriptions demonstrates that earlier forms of letters not only may be found, but actually are found, on later monuments. Boeckh has classified the different kinds of Greek inscriptions which may easily deceive the unwary as to their age.” A well-known example of a genuine Latin inscription renewed a couple of hundred years later, is on the Columna Rostrata,? discovered in 1565. Prima est fictorum antiquitus, qui seu vera seu falsa continentes posteriore «tate exarati sunt, ut prius extitisse viderentur. Tales olim fuere multi; tales habendi essent n. 43-69 nisi Petrizzopulum et Fourmontum satis teneremus convictos; tale est Delphicum quoddam apud Cyriacum oraculum, Byzantina cusum etate.* 1 Evidently not, if Sievers is right in thinking all Anglian runes, with one exception, to be as late as the 8th century (see p. 11, note 6). 2 Cf. Franz, Elementa Epigraphices Grace (1840), pp. 73 ff.; Larfeld, Handbuch der Griechischen Epigraphik 1. 431 (cf. Miiller’s Handbuch der Klass. Altertumswissenschaft 1. 492-3). 3 Corp. Inscr. Lat. 1. 37-40; cf. Wélfflin in Sitzber. der K. Bay. Akad. der Wiss., Philos.-Philol. Classe, 1890, 1. 293-321. 4 Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Gree. 1. xxx. (30) ‘ , Runic Inscriptions 243 Alteram classem constituunt affectati tituli, nee priori tributi etati ab iis, qui eos composuerunt, neque omnino falsi, sed per lusum, vel ut antiquitatis quadam quasi robigine inducta maior iis accederet auctoritas, ea forma vel scripture vel orationis vel utriusque facti, quz tum non fuit usitata. Ex quo genere sunt column Herodis, szculi post Christum secundi; sed iam Praxiteles hune secutus morem est, insigneque exemplum accessit n. 25 circa Olymp. 102 scriptum.* Postremo tertia est classis titulorum falsi quadam specie interiore affectorum, sed omni fraudis suspicione liberandorum; eos dico, qui instauratione antiqui monumenti in priscorum successerunt locum, ut Megarici n. 1050-1051. . . . Nec poemata ex libris petita, que quidem iam antiquitus coniecta in lapides sint, ut n. 511. 1724. vel sententiz script- oribus excerpt, ut ex Bacchylide et Platone, recte sollicitabuntur, si et scripture forma refert antiquitatem, et titulum aut idonei tradiderunt auctores aut monumentum continet nulla ex parte suspectum.? Veri sunt tituli, sed aliunde petiti et in lapides coniecti, in Kempianis plures, n. 372. 614. 652. 11056. ita ut hec Kempiana monumenta sint quidem ipsa falsa, sed continent veras inscriptiones. ... « Aliena in- scriptio ex libro petita imposita est sepulero Homeri, quod vocatur, antiqua antiquo monumento, et sic permultze ex Anthologia et aliis vetustis libris coniectze in antiqua anaglypha sunt.’ With regard to the occurrence of the earlier forms of runes on later Danish monuments, the words of Wimmer are authoritative. De zldre formen ikke sjzlden genfindes pi nogle af de yngste mindes- merker.* As to the reproduction of earlier forms at a comparatively late date on the Bewcastle Cross, Sievers expressed his opinion in 1891. Die Inschrift dieses Steines [Bewcastle Cross] bietet so vieles Riatsel- hafte, dass man sich zu der Annahme gezwungen sieht, dass wir es mit einer jungen Kopie einer alten, nicht verstandenen Inschrift zu tun haben. Das uralte Olwfwolbu neben Novitaiten wie K yneswipa, Wulf- here statt Kyni-, -heri; kyninges, rices statt -@s; gebid ... st. gibid . . . wiire bei einer Originalschrift doch ein zu starker Anachro- nismus. Und wie wiire sonst das unsinnige gebid heo sinna sowhula statt gibiddep sinre sawle zu erklaren ?° 1 Boeckh 1. xxx. eel Otd.) Vo xxx: a find. 1. xxx. 4 Wimmer, De Danske Runemindesmerker, 1. clxxxi; ef. Encyc. Brit., llth ed., 5. 614: ‘It appears certain that in Ozamie writings stereotyped forms were used long after they had disappeared in ordinary speech.’ ° Anglia 13. 12, note; otherwise Browne, Conv. of Hept., pp. 212-3. (31) 244 General Discussion of the Crosses Henry Rousseau tells! of certain sepulchral slabs in Belgium which bear inscriptions evidently copied from earlier ones, thus substantiating the foregoing statements. That runic inscriptions were carved in England in the 12th cen- tury 7 is generally admitted. Such are those on a tympanum at Per- rington (1150 or later), the so-called Dolfin runes* at Carlisle Cathe- dral (doubtful), those on the Bridekirk font,® and those on the Adam grave-slab at Dearham.® Of the 11th century is the Danish stone found in St. Paul’s churchyard, London.’ The oldest runic inscriptions of Denmark date from the 9th cen- tury... Those referring to historic personages are not found earlier than 935—940.2 According to Allen, the runic inscriptions of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark date from the 10th to the 16th century.!° The oldest Icelandic ones belong to the 13th century.% The Old Norwegian ones, according to Noreen,!* are but little, if any, older than the written documents, and of these only two are — found so early as 900—1100. B. Language. We shall next consider the language of the runic inscriptions. So far as the Ruthwell fragments of The Dream of the Rood are con- cerned, I made a comparison in 1901 between their linguistic forms and those of the other Northumbrian documents which could be approximately dated, and came to the same conclusion as already 1 Annales de la Soc. Archéol. de Bruxelles 16. 70. 2 For the Isle of Man, see p. 38, note 4. 3 See Keyser, List of Harly Norman T ympana, pp. xxvi, lxix, and Fig. 137; Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antig. and Arch. Soc., N. 8. 3. 373. 4 Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antig. and Arch. Soc. 6. 308; Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 93. 5 Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 68 ff. Vietor calls the runes essentially Norse, and the language Middle English (Die North. Runensteine, p. 16, note 2). 6 Jbid., p. 123. Vietor says (ibid.): ‘Das nord. Runen-M (frither “ R ”) ergab . .. sofort den nichtenglischen .Charakter der Inschrift.’ 7 Wimmer, De Danske Runemindesmerker 11. exxxvi-vii; Keyser, List of Norman Tympana, p. xxvi. 8 Wimmer 1}. Ixvi; cf. 2. 317. 9 Wimmer 1+. clxxix. 10 Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, p. 207. 11 Noreen, Altislind. und Altnorw. Gram., 3d ed., p. 8. 12 Ibid., pp. 16-17. (32) Runic Inscriptions 245 in 1890! that, in spite of certain forms apparently early, the fragments must be dated as late as, or later than, the Lindisfarne Gospels of about 950. On the basis of this phonological examination [conducted at some length] we have found that, while the general aspect of the inscription has led many persons to refer it to an early period, it lacks some of the marks of antiquity ; every real mark of antiquity can be paralleled from the latest documents; some of the phenomena point to a period sub- sequent to that of Lind. and Rit. [Lindisfarne Gospels and Durham Ritual, ca. 950], and none flatly contradicts such an assumption. If to this we add that a comparison with The Dream of the Rood indicates that the Ruthwell inscription is later than that poem; that certain of the forms of the poem seem to have been inadvertently retained; and that at least one word, dorsta@, is, in its radical vowel, not Northum- brian at all, while it is of the dialect of the Rood, we shall not hesitate, I believe, to assume that the Ruthwell inscription is at least as late as the tenth century.” One word, not treated at length in my article of 1901, is here dealt with more fully, because of the importance attached to it by the brilliant scholar, Kemble. Ungeget. Kemble called the word, which appears on the east side of the Ruthwell Cross, on the left margin, a little more than halfway down, an ‘incontrovertible proof of extreme antiquity, having,’ as he added, “to the best of my knowledge, never been found but in this passage.’ That Kemble had found the word nowhere else was, of course no proof whatever of its extreme antiquity. As a matter of fact, it occurs neither in Sweet’s Oldest English Texts (save here) nor in the writings of Alfred. Had Kemble lived a few years longer, he could, however, have found another example of it. The article’ from which the above extract is taken was published in 1840 ; Kemble died in 1857 ; and between 1864 and 1869 Oswald Cockayne published a set of occasional papers under the title of The Shrine, in No. 7 of which, a life of Malchus, our word occurs as uncet, in the following sentence : ‘ Hér wit habbad helo, gif Drihten unc wile fultumian ; and gif he forhiged uncet fyrenfulle, bonne habbad wit her byrgene in pissum eordscreefe.’ Here it stands, parallel with 1 Academy (London) 37. 153-4. * Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 389-90. Fano (Archie- piscopal Palace, fragment),® Padua (Santa Giustina, architrave of portal of the old monastery, now in sacristy),’ Alatri (Santa Maria Maggiore, sacristy),8 Monreale (Cloister, capital at north-east angle),® and Gaeta (Cathedral, panel of candelabrum).!° Of these, that at Piacenza is, according to Venturi, by Wiligelmus"; that at Ferrara, by Nicholas!” ; that at Fano, perhaps of the school of Nicholas ; while those at Padua, Alatri, Monreale, and Gaeta are probably later. The three other examples are that at Nonantola (San Silvestro, jamb at right of portal) ,1° by Wiligelmus, that at Verona (San Giovanni in Fonte, font),4* and that at Benevento (Cathedral, bronze door dating from end of thirteenth century). C. The Flight into Egypt. The Flight into Egypt is not known in Christian art till the 10th century at earliest, and does not appear in the monuments before the 11th century. The Flight into Egypt . . . belongs . . . to the regular series of the Life of Christ, which first make their appearance in Christian art in about the tenth or eleventh century. . . . The sculpture shows the Virgin and Child seated upon an ass, which is being led by Joseph. . . . 1 The descriptions are from personal inspection on July 26, 1911, and from sketches made by my wife on the same day. 2 If we may trust Bulteau (3. 163), Mary is always seated in the Annun- ciation till the end of the 12th century, while from 1150 to 1350 Mary and the angel are both standing. This is important in its bearing on the date of the Ruthwell Annunciation. 3 Storia dell Arte Ital., Vol. 3. cul eee ALT 3y, less 0: ops 276. 7 Ps 339. 8.P2385; v. P2629: 10 P. 649. 11 See p. 144. 12 See p. 144. 1g SP; S59: 14 SP 228) tS SP 6S is 16 See p. 22. (50) ee ee “ms ee Ther F igure-Sculpture - Flight into Egypt 263 I dv not know of any miniature of the Flight into Egypt in the Irish or Celtic MSS., but the subject occurs in MSS., sculptured details of churches, and on ivories, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. La fuite en Egypte ne parait pas avoir été figurée dans les monuments avant le XI° siécle.? Italian representations of the 12th century occur at Aosta (Sant’ Orso, cloister), Piacenza (Cathedral, architrave of right side-door of facade), Como (Civic Museum, capital), Verona (San Giovanni in Fonte, font), Fano (Archiepiscopal Palace, fragment from Cathedral), Parma (Baptistery, bas-relief), Alatri (S. Maria Maggiore, sacristy door), Gaeta (Cathedral, candelabrum), Benevento (Cathedral, door-panel), all figured by Venturi,? except that at Aosta. Of these, none are of particular interest in this connection except those at Piacenza, Fano, and Gaeta, that at Piacenza being especially signi- ficant on account of its having been sculptured by Nicholas.* There is a Flight into Egypt (and a representation of the fall of the idols in Egypt,® as told in the apocryphal gospels) at the abbey of Moissac. This is found in connection with an Annunciation (the head of the angel is a bad modern restoration), a Visitation, an Adoration of the Magi, a Presentation at the Temple, and a Vision of Joseph, all dating from about 1180.® It is also found sculptured 1 Allen, Early Christian Symbolism, pp. 220, 222 ; he pictures the Flight on the Moone Abbey cross (p. 221), probably of the 12th century (cf. Ri- voira, Lomb. Arch. 2. 255-7). Of manuscripts, Allen mentions Nero C. IV of the British Museum; of sculptured details, the capital of a column at St. Benoit-sur-Loire (see below); St. Maire a Toscanella, Italy, for which see Gailhabaud’s Architecture, Vol. 2, Part 1; and the pulpit of San Michele at Groppoli, for which see The Builder, Dec. 10, 1881. Allen (p. 297) in- stances the font at Walton-on-the-Hill, near Liverpool, and one at Clonard Abbey in Ireland. 2 Rohault de Fleury, L’Evangile (Tours, 1874) 1. 76. 3 Storia dell Arte Ital. 3. 175, 207, 235, 277, 291, 385, 653, 687; cf. 3. 73, 204, 242, 243, 275, 316, 692. 4 See p. 144. ® Cf. Allen, Harly Christ. Symbolism, p. 221. 6 Anglés, L’ Abbaye de Moissac, pp. 37, 41; cf. pp. 33, 34, 35 ; Viollet-le-Duc 7. 391. Anglés (p. 38) attributes to the Languedocian school of Moissac and Toulouse, in connection with the Burcundian school of Vézelay and Autun, an influence on the portals of St. Denis and Chartres (west front). This seems not improbable, in view of the fact that the 12th century stained glass of the middle lancet of the west front of Chartres has, according to Bulteau (Monographie 3. 212), the same scenes as those enumerated above, with the addition of the Nativity, the Awakening of the Shepherds, the Massacre of the Innocents, and the Return to Nazareth. (51) 264 General Discussion of the Crosses at St. Lazare d’Autun.t| That at St. Benoit-sur-Loire is found in the third row of the narthex, and is the third from the left, as one faces the west front. It dates from about 1170, according to Marignan (see p. 49, note 3), who thus describes it : ‘ The Virgin is seated on a horse, and holds the child Jesus, whose feet rest on a footstool, and whose head is surrounded by a cruciform nimbus. It is no longer the representation of the child placed in his mother’s lap ; he is turned toward the left, and stands erect, extending his little hand toward Mary’s right [really placing it, with two fingers in the act of blessing, and with palm opened outward, against her right shoulder], a gesture which only appears in the second half of the 12th century.’? The local guide-book,®? which is sometimes incorrect, interprets the ani- mal as an ass, and adds that Joseph holds the reins with one hand (the left), and has a stick in the other. On one of the storied capitals of the left doorway of the west front of Chartres Cathedral? there isa Flight into Egypt which considerably resembles that at Ruthwell, so far as the position of the Virgin and the Child is concerned. These are the nearest analogues I have been able to find to the representation of the same subject on the Ruthwell Cross. There, too, the Virgin faces outward; there, too, she is without a nimbus, while the child has one; and there, too, Joseph must have been ori- ginally figured, as is shown by the inscription, MARIA ET IO. The evidence, therefore, points to the 12th century for this panel, and to the second half of the century rather than the first. D. The Anointing of Christ’s Feet.® The earliest representation of this subject, according to Rohault de Fleury,® is in a manuscript of the 9th century, and the next in 1 Michel, Hist. de [ Art 1°. 643. The tympanum dates from about 1132 (Anglés, p. 38). 2 Revue de V Art Chrétien 45 (1902). 297. 3 Guide a Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire (Orléans, Imprimerie Paul Girardot, 1886). Here we are also told (Guide du Pélerin, p. 15); ‘ En face [to the right], le roi Hérode, ou plutdt un de ses satellites, tenant un glaive nu a la main droite et une hallebarde sur l’épaule gauche, cherche lenfant Jésus pour le faire mourir; et derriére ce groupe, larchange Saint Michel terrasse le dragon infernal.’ The group is figured (though not with perfect accuracy) in Caumont, Abécédaire d’ Archéologie 1. 175 ; ef. Bull. Mon. 22 (1856). 117. 4 Marriage, Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p. 48; Bulteau 2. 43-44. For that at Amiens, see Ruskin, Works 33. 168 (plate). &Seeep: 17. § L’Evangile 2. 122. (82) . The Figure-Sculpture: Crucifixion 265 one of the 11th century. Both of these show Christ seated at table, and both are of Byzantine origin. The restored abbey church of Vézelay, dedicated to Mary Magdalen, has, on the lintel of the central doorway of the west front, the scene where she washes the feet of Christ. A gauche, c’est la résurrection de son frére Lazare, puis c’est la visite chez Simon le lépreux ot la pécheresse, étendue a terre devant lui, répand des parfums sur les pieds du Christ et les essuie de ses cheveux.! To be sure, this may be a restoration, but, if so, it is a restoration by Viollet-le-Duc, and according to indications afforded by the original sculpture.” This is the only medieval sculptured representation of the scene that I know of, besides that on the Ruthwell Cross, and this at Vézelay belongs to the years 1120—1135. E. The Crucifixion.’ The first representation of the crucifixion in Roman painting be- ye longs to the 7th century. It is rarely figured in sculpture in the 10th century, and does not become at all common till the 13th. On peut attribuer au VII® siécle . . . les peintures de la petite basi- lique cimitériale de Saint-Valentin. . . . La plus importante de ces fresques, pour liconographie chrétienne, est un grand Crucifix, jadis publié par Bosio. . . . Voila, dans Tart chrétien romain, le premier exemple de l'image émouvante.* In the tenth century crucifixes are occasionally seen.® 1 Porée, L’ Abbaye de Vézelay, p. 22. 2 IT cannot make out whether the lintel has been restored or not. Porée says of the tympanum (p. 20): ‘ L’ancien tympan est maintenant déposé en dehors de l’église, contre le mur méridional. Au moment de la restau- ration, il était recouvert dune épaisse couche de platre qui cachait la trace des bas-reliefs ravalés au nu de la pierre. Grace a la teinte plus claire de la pierre, on put cependant en deviner quelques sujets qui ont inspiré la re- constitution de Viollet-le-Duc.’ The author then describes, in a paragraph, the Last Judgment of the tympanum. He then proceeds (p. 22): ‘ Sur le linteau se déroulent des épisodes de la vie de la Madeleine.’ The question is whether he reckons the lintel as part of the tympanum, which, of course, strictly speaking, it is not. 3 See p. 19. 4 Pératé, in Michel, Hist. de’ Art 11.76; cf. Bréhier, Les Origines du Crucifix dans VArt Religieux, pp. 57 ff. 5 Didron, Christian Iconography 1. 259. (53) 266 General Discussion of the Crosses On avait figuré trés rarement le Christ en croix du VI® siécle au X® ; on le rencontre encore rarement dans les sculptures antérieures au XITT°# On dut, au XII® siécle, sculpter le Christ sur quelques croix en pierre.* There is no evidence whatever to prove that such sculpture as we find upon these High Crosses in Ireland was executed here before the tenth [rather, twelfth] century. The crucifixion ...did not become common in_ sculpture—in Britain, at least—until after the eleventh century.* 1 Caumont, Abécédaire d’ Archéologie 1. 173. 2 Caumont 1. 232. 3 Margaret Stokes, Harly Christian Art in Ireland, p. 124. Miss Stokes shows (pp. 134-9) that, out of sixteen crosses whose iconography had been deciphered when she wrote, fourteen bore the image of the Crucifixion. She, however, dates the high crosses too early. Rivoira (Lomb. Arch. 2. 255 ff.) shows that none of the principal ones antedates the second half of the 12th century. He says (2. 257): ‘ They were the result of a national artistic revival produced by the renewal of relations with Western Europe after the long period of isolation in which Danish invasions and struggles, and disastrous internal conflicts, had plunged the unfortunate country. This revival, accordingly, was a reflex of the potent influence exercised by the art of Italy and by the Papacy, in the era following the epoch of 1000, on so many countries of both East and West. . . . So far as carving is concerned this revival cannot have become effective till considerably after the beginning of the XIth century.’ Again he says (p. 256): ‘ The representations on the Cross of Muredach of pairs of animals facing one another and holding some creature or bird between their paws are undoubtedly due to Lombardic influence. Now this motive, of Etruscan origin, did not make a start in Italy before the XIth century. The date of the cross must therefore be put at the beginning of the second half of the XIIth century. To the same period and school belongs the other and more imposing cross at Monasterboice, about 27 ft. high, wrongly assigned to the Xth century.’ As to the Tuam Cross, this was set up by Archbishop O’Hoisin, 1150-1161 (p. 256). 4 Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland, p. lxvi. Rivoira recognizes a Cornish crucifixion of ca. 925-940 (2. 148); one from Durham as belonging to the 10th or 11th century (2. 162; cf. Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 82); one at Langford as of the last quarter of the 11th century (2. 193); and one at Romsey as belonging to the end of the 12th century (2. 193). Keyser (List of Norman Tympana, p. liii) mentions those at Langford and Romsey; which Enlart (Michel, Hist. de l Art 2. 202-3) unhesitatingly ascribes to the 12th century. (54) The Figure-Sculpture - Crucifixion 267 Anderson has shown that the Crucifixion, when occurring on Scot- tish crosses, is always late, belonging to his Class III. The appear- ance of the sun and moon, as on the Ruthwell Cross, indicates a date later than the 9th century. The crucifixion occurs but rarely on the Scottish monuments with Celtic ornamentation, though it is a general feature of the high crosses of Ireland, and common on the later crosses of the West High- lands. It is a remarkable fact that the symbolism of the monuments of Class II., which always includes the cross itself in a decorated or clorified form, never includes the crucifixion, which only appears on a few of the later monuments of Class III. . . . From the ninth century the sun and moon usually accompanied the representations of the crucifixion, the sun being placed on the right and the moon on the left over the arms of the cross. . . . On the lower panel of the Ruth- well cross and at Craignarget in Wigtownshire the sun and moon appear as two orbs over the arms of the cross.! An unportant criterion of the age of a sculptured crucifix is the length of the tunic. In the tenth century crucifixes are occasionally seen, but the coun- tenance of the crucified Lord is gentle and benevolent; he is also clad in a long robe with sleeves, the extremities of the arms and legs only being uncovered. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the robe becomes shorter, the sleeves disappear, and the breast is already uncovered in some instances, the robe being scarcely more than a tunic. In the thirteenth century the tunic is as short as possible.” Now on the Ruthwell Cross the left shoulder and part of the upper arm are bare, and the legs are bare from above the knee. Other characters point to the later period—the head inclined to the right, and the feet nailed separately? The 12th century, then, seems a probable date for this Crucifixion. work, Scotland in Early Christ. Times (1881), Anderson had not recognized that the Ruthwell Cross bore the Crucifixion. He says (2. 234): ‘ The first panel contains a simple cross of plain Latin form.’ Browne recognized it in his Theodore and Wilfrith, where he says (p. 245): ‘At the bottom it is possible to see the crucifixion.’ 2 Didron 1. 259, 260; cf. Caumont 1. 173, 232-3, 241. 3 Cf. the Crucifixion of the 12th century, from the church of Lillers, figured in Caumont 1. 173, and that in Lacroix, Arts in the Middle Ages, p- 474. Among paintings, the fresco of the lower church of San Clemente. at Rome, attributed to the 9th century, agrees in several important respects ; it lacks the sun and moon, and has well defined figures of the Virgin and St. John, rising nearly to the arms of the cross. (55) 268 General Discussion of the Crosses F. The Majesty.! A figure of Christ, common in the 12th century, though also found at earlier and later periods, is called the Majesty. This is based upon Rev. 4. 2—8; 5.1: ‘ Behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. . . . And there was a rainbow round about the throne.... And round about the throne were four and twenty seats : and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting... . And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne. . . And in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him. . . And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.’ Certain early representations also make use of Rev. 5. 6, 7 : ‘ Lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stooda Lamb. . . . And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.’ The representations at various periods are sometimes fuller, some- times modified or simplified. In the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian (526—530) all these features appear : The Lamb ; the book (roll) of seven seals open below ; the seven lamps, or candlesticks ; four angels ; four beasts ; twenty-four elders.” A typical example may be found in the 12th century tympanum of the west front of Chartres (central doorway). This is a ‘ Majestas Domini’ or Glorification of Christ. . . . In the centre of the tympanum is Christ, with the Dove of the Spirit over His head; He is surrounded by the symbols of the evangelists : on the left the angel of St. Matthew and the winged lion of St. Mark, on the right the eagle of St. John and the winged bull of St. Luke. The waved band enclosing the group represents clouds. On the lintel are the twelve Apostles arranged in groups of three. . . . In the first order of the arch are twelve angels, and in the two other orders the twenty- four elders. * See (pp. (U7); 215.26. 2 Michel, Hist. de Art 11. 71-2. Other early examples are: Basilica of St. Pudentiana, end of 4th century (Michel 1!. 44, 45; cf. 41, 43); St. Paul fuori le Mura, 440-461 (11. 51) ; Catacomb of Generosa, 6th century (1'. 74); Basilica of St. Valentine, 7th century (1'. 76; cf. 1. 78). (56) The Figure-Sculpture: Majesty 269 At the top of the third order, two angels hold a crown over the head of Christ. There are faint traces of color in the tympanum; Durand in 1881 could perceive, near the border of clouds, parallel bands of color representing the rainbow (Rev. IV. 3) surrounding the throne of God.t Le Sauveur est vétu de la tunique talaire et du manteau de lanti- quité ; il a la barbe courte et les cheveux longs et plats. La téte, quoique endommagée, porte le caractére d’une douce gravité; elle est entourée du nimbe divin ou crucifére. . . . De sa main droite, il bénit les fidéles qui entrent dans le temple.? The book is sometimes interpreted as that of the Gospels.? At other times it is called the Book of Life* At St. Sophia, Constanti- nople, the open book bears the inscription : Enter, I am the light of the world ; and similarly at Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome: Ego sum lux mundi ; while at St. Peter’s it has: Ego sum via, veritas, et vita; qui credit in me, vivet?. In the north porch at Chartres, the tympanum of the central doorway bears a Coronation of the Virgin, in which Christ is represented in the same attitude, and with the same attributes.® Sometimes the infant Christ, in the lap of his mother, blesses with his right hand, and holds the book with his left.” 1 Marriage, Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p. 56; cf. Porter, Ill. 215, Vol. 2. 2 Bulteau, Monographie 2. 57-8. Durand (Monographie de la Cathédrale de Chartres, p. 43) says that Christ is blessing the world, and that the book is that of the Gospels. Other examples of about the same period are at Moissae (Viollet-le-Duc 7. 391); St. Genest at Nevers, ca. 1150 (7. 395-6) ; Notre Dame du Port at Clermont (7. 400-401) ; St. Urbain at Troyes (7. 428) ; St. Pierre at Mella (7. 401); St. Trophime at Arles (7. 418); Cahors (8. 132); Bourges (Porter, Ill. 267, Vol. 2). Several examples are noted by Michel (1?. 517, 614, 619, 871; cf. Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 141, and Plate A), and Keyser (List of Norman Tympana, pp. LX-LXVII) counts twenty-one examples, of which nineteen are figured in his book, one of the earliest being at Castor, in a church dedicated in 1124. The tympana with the Majesty at Ely, at Barfreston, and at Rochester, are, according to Enlart (Michel 2. 204), works parallel to those of the French portals, and themselves proceed from a Continental inspiration. 3 Cf. note 2, and Viollet-le-Duc 9. 365-6. 4 Cf. Marriage, p. 238. 5 Bulteau 2. 58. 8 Marriage, p. 152 ; Bulteau 2. 189. ? Thus in the Oratory of John VII, 705-7 (Michel 11. 77); the Baptistery of St. Valerian at Rome, 9th century (Viollet-le-Duc 9. 365) ; Santa Maria in Domnica, 9th century (Michel 14. 84); Notre Dame at Paris, ca. 1140 (Viollet-le-Duc 9. 365-6); Fownhope, England (Keyser, p. 1, and Fig. 89). (57) 270 General Discussion of the Crosses Finally, Christ, with the same attributes and in the same attitude, is sometimes found as an isolated figure (designated by some as Christ-Man, or Christ teaching). Typical figures of this sort are those on the trumeau of the central door of the south porch at Chartres, and the corresponding Beau Dieu of Amiens—a type not fully adopted till the 15th century. Marriage thus describes the figure at Chartres : ‘On the trumeau is a magnificent statue of Christ (plate 109) ; His right hand is raised in blessing, His left holds the Book of Life. He is standing on a lion andadragon—the two usually selected from the four animals of Ps. XCI. 13: ‘ Super aspidem et basilisc- um ambulabis, et conculcabis leonem et draconem.’”2 The earliest example of this seems to be an ivory statuette of the 10th century.® There are three Christs, of the general type last described, on the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses, one of them being in the panel which depicts the anointing of Christ’s feet. In the group of the anoint- ing, Christ carries a book in his left hand ; in the other case, a roll. The Bewcastle figure has a roll. The faces of the Ruthwell Cross are bearded ; that of the Bewcastle beardless. All the heads have the cruciform nimbus, and the hair is long in all three, but the arrange- ment of the drapery differs. The beasts seem somewhat better defined on the Bewcastle Cross ; they have been called swine in both cases, but may they not be rude animal-heads, intended to represent those of Ps. 91. 13, but not well wrought, and further defaced by exposure to the elements ? The type of the isolated figure can hardly have been created in monumental sculpture before the 12th century. 2. GROUPS BELONGING TO CHRISTIAN LEGEND Christian legend is represented by the one group of Paul the Hermit and St. Anthony. Paul the Hermit and St. Anthony.* On two capitals of the abbey of Vézelay were sculptured, about the year 1135, scenes from the life of Paul, the first hermit (228—345), and Anthony, the father of monachism (251—356). On one, a pillar of the narthex, is depicted what is believed to be the meeting of the 1 Viollet-le-Duc 3. 246; cf. p. 240. 2 At Amiens all four animals are shown; cf. Ruskin, Works 33. 146. 8 Didron, Christian Iconography 1. 298. Allen finds a Norman one on a slab built into the tower of New Malton Church, Yorkshire (Harly Christ. Symbolism, p. 275). 4 See p. 22, and cf. p. 131, note 7, end. (58) The Figure-Sculpture: Paul and Anthony - 274 two, according to the account given by St. Jerome in his Lives of Saints.! Two persons, facing each other, are pulling with both hands at a sort of flat slab, supposed to represent the cover of the cavern where Paul dwells. In a sort of cupboard below are vases and jugs, which suggest the scanty furniture of the grotto. This is the interpretation of Porée, but the supposed slab is much more likely to be a flat cake of bread, such as is figured on the Ruth- well Cross, where the words of the inscription, SCS PAULUS ET A ... FREGER .. T PANEM IN DESERTO, make the interpretation of the circular disk clear and conclusive. On any other hypothesis it is hard to see why the two men should be pulling in opposite directions, as Porée writes: ‘D’un geste semblable, deux person- nages qui se font face tirent a eux, a deux mains, une sorte de dalle plate. Ce serait la pierre fermant la caverne de Saint Paul.’ On the seventh pillar of the northern side of the nave is represented the death of Paul. The legend recounts that lions dug his grave, and here they are depicted as scratching the ground with their paws. Above them is the corpse of the hermit, nearly invisible in a sort of mummy-case, and Anthony, near, is in the attitude of prayer.? Besides these, where both men figure, Anthony alone is represented, on both the north and the east faces of the eighth pillar (next to the one just described), as suffering various torments at the hands of demons.+* The scene depicted on the pillar of the narthex represents the same act as that depicted on the Ruthwell Cross (see above), and it is significant that the former belongs to about 1135.° The influence of Vézelay may have been transmitted, through one or another channel, to Ruthwell ; it is inconceivable that the Ruthwell Cross should have influenced Vézelay ; and the representations on the Irish and Scottish stones are much ruder.® Migne, Patrologia Latina 23. 17. Porée, L’ Abbaye de Vézelay, p. 37. Porée, p. 60, where a picture is given. Porée, p. 61. The narthex was constructed after the nave (Porée, p. 15)—the nave by 1110, the narthex between 1120 and 1135; but the capitals of the nave were sculptured at the same time as those of the narthex (Porée, p. 56). § Trish: on the cross in the street, Kells ; on the cross of St. Patrick and St. Columba, Kells ; on the south-east cross, Monasterboice; on the Moone Abbey cross ; on the cross of Castle Dermot ; and on the cross at Ardboe (Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland, p. liv, note 4; ef. Allen, Early Christ. Symbolism, pp. 224-5). - © Ww ow (59) 272 General Discussion of the Crosses 3. GENRE-SUBJECTS Under genre-subjects we may class the archer of the Ruthwell Cross and the falconer of the Bewcastle Cross, though the former should perhaps rather be considered as a Biblical subject, since it appears to have been introduced with symbolica] intent, and to represent the slayer of an evil power.t. The falconer with his hawk incidentally raises the question of the date at which this sport was introduced into England. A. The Archer.? The archer, not to speak of the Sagittarius, is sometimes found in France and England,? in the architectural sculpture of the 11th and 12th centuries. Thus in the southern doorway leading inwards from the narthex (1120—1135) of the Cluniac abbey church of Vézelay, there is, on one pilaster, a serpent with a woman’s head, emerging from foliage, and on the other an archer taking aim at her with his bow. The serpent is interpreted by Viollet-le-Duc* Scotch: Nigg ; Keene St. Vigeans (Allen, Harly Christ. Symbolism, pp. 224-5; Anderson, op. cit., p. liv; Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland, 3. 76, 227, 268). Anderson says (p. lv.): ‘ It is not difficult to account for the special veneration of St. Paul, the first hermit, and St. Anthony, the father of monasticism, in the Scottish and Irish Churches, in whose con- stitution the eremitical and monastic modes of ecclesiastical life were so closely interwoven.’ To this explanation may be added the fact that the story of the two is contained in the present Roman Breviary under January 15. The earlier day for Paul was January 10, and this assignment is found as early as Bede’s Martyrologium Poeticum (Misc. Works, ed. Giles, 1. 50 ; cf. 4. 21); also in the Old English Martyrology (ed. Herzfeld, E. E. T. S. 116. 17), and in the calendars printed by Hampson in his Medii Aevi Kalen- darium (pp. 397, 422, 435, 449), all not far from the year 1000. None of these, however, except the Old English Martyrology, refers to the meeting of Paul and Anthony. Cf. p. 131, note 7, end. 1 The faleoner is sometimes introduced into the labors of the months associated with the representations of the zodiac, so common in medieval cathedrals. Thus on the west front of Chartres, on the left side of the arch of the left doorway (Marriage, Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p. 32), where May is represented by ‘a horseman holding his horse by the bridle, and having a hawk on his wrist.’ See also on the left side of the arch of the right bay of the north porch (Marriage, p. 176), ‘a man with a hawk on his wrist.’ SaSceopsnkG: 3 A capital of about 1150, from the church of San Salvatore at ie is figured by Venturi, Storia dell’ Arte Ital. 3. 217. 4 7. 438; cf. Porée, L’ Abbaye de Vézelay, p. 40, and see also pp. 37, 44, 48 69. (60) The Figure-Sculpture: Archer 273 as the devil ; and the archer must accordingly represent an agent of good, engaged in slaying the power of evil. One of the capitals of the narthex of the Benedictine abbey church of St. Benoit-sur-Loire, or Fleury, exhibits an archer riding on a horse, and bending his bow at the figure of a man. This is inter- preted by Crosnier? as referring to Rev. 6. 2 : “ And I'saw, and behold a white horse : and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.’ This archer, again, must be conceived as an agent of good. According to Marignan, this is proved to be of the second half of the 12th cen- tury by the form of the bow. Puis, ce sont des chapiteaux ot se trouvent des cavaliers: Pun d’eux tient 4 la main un are dont la forme, ainsi que celle de Pépée de ses compagnons, correspond & la méme époque.? In the tympanum of the north doorway of Ribbesford Church, Worcestershire, is ‘an archer shooting an arrow at a monster from which a fawn is escaping.’ Finally, there is an archer, a youthful, naked figure, on a wall-slab from Hexham, which Greenwell thinks? ‘may possibly have proceeded from the artists whose handicraft or influence is shown on the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses.’ 1 Bull. Mon. 22 (1856). 123-5; see the engraving on p. 123, and Caumont, Abécédaire @ Archéologie 1. 177. 2 Marignan, in Revue del Art Chrétien 45 (1902). 300. Marignan maintains that no part of the narthex can be of the 11th century, and that the evidence points to the second half of the 12th century. Thus he argues that the costume (‘ cotte courte descendant jusqu’aux genoux, serrée 4 la taille par une ceinture,’ p. 295) points to this epoch. Then the monks wear a tunic and a mantle provided with a hood, the priests are clad as in the seals of the period, a knight is dressed as on the Bayeux tapestry (p. 295). The same is true of the costume of the Virgin in the Annunciation and the Visitation of the pillar on the left as you leave the narthex for the church. That in the Visitation resembles those worn by the women of the nobility on seals of the second half of the 12th century (p. 297). One pillar, the next to the left-hand corner on the western face, bears the inscription: Umbertus me fecit; this is another important indication of the date, since such signatures belong only to the period mentioned, as witness the facade of St. Giles, the chapter-house door (porte capitulaire) of St. Stephen at Toulouse, ete. Still another indication is the inclusion of scenes from everyday life, in place cf confining the representations to purely religious subjects (pp. 303, 305). Everything, according to Marignan, points to a date not far from 1170. 8 Keyser, List of Norman Tympana, p. 37; cf. p. XLIII, and Fig. 68. 4 Catalogue, p. 46, note 1; p. 64. (61) 274 General Discussion of the Crosses The Sagittarius is sometimes found in the tympana and archi- volts of French churches of the period,’ as well as in the zodiacs rather frequently employed for ornamental purposes. He also appears on various tympana of Norman churches in England. Thus at Kencott, Oxfordshire, he is ‘ discharging an arrow into the jaws of a dragon.’? At Stoke-sub-Hamden, Somersetshire, he is shooting an arrow at a lion.? ‘On the font at Dareuth, Kent, Sagittarius is facing a dragon, and on the point of discharging his arrow, while on a capital of the chancel arch at Adel, Yorkshire, he is aiming at the head of a similar monster, and a smaller dragon is attacking him from behind. On two stones let into the south wall of the nave of Eastham Church, Worcestershire, are sculptured representations of Sagittarius and Leo. On the font at West Rounton, Yorkshire, Sagittarius is discharging his arrow at the head of the ‘‘ savage man,’’ according to the interpretation of Mr. J. Romilly Allen, “ Early Christian Symbolism,” p. 361.’ 4 On the edge of a panel of the Halton Cross, Lancaster, is a figure of an archer, ‘ shooting upwards toward the cross-head ’ ° ; and there is a Sagittarius on the Camuston stone in Scotland, shooting obli- quely upwards to the right, and above him a Crucifixion. On the other side is Christ in Majesty, with two angels, and below four saints, probably the Evangelists, with books.® 1 Caumont 1. 185, 189. 2 Keyser, p. 23; cf. p. XL, and Fig. 70. 3 Keyser, p. 46; cf. p. XL, and Fig. 69. 4 Keyser, p. XL. Cf. Allen, Early Christ. Symbolism, pp. 362-364 : ‘In the deserts of India there are savages who have one horn in the middle of the forehead. ... The savages make war on the Sazittarii, and the Sa- gittarii on them. The war between the savages and the Sagittarii signifies the contest between the soul and the flesh. . . . Sagittarius is represented in the illustrations of the bestiary, as on the signs of the Zodiac, half horse, half man, shooting with a bow and arrow at a savage clothed in a lion’s skin, having a horn on the top of his head. . . . In other cases Sagittarius is contend- ing with a lion, or a dragon. . . . On the tympanum of the west doorway of Ault Hacknall Church in Derbyshire is a very remarkable figure of a centaur with a nimbus round the head, holding a branch in its right hand and a cross in the left. Facing the centaur is a huge beast followed by a small animal.’ There are illustrations of the Sagittarius on pp. 229, 234, 255, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365. On the centaur cf. Anderson, Harly Christ. Mon. of Scotland, p. XLV. 5 Karly Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 189-90. 6 Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 252. (62) The Figure-Sculpture : Falconer 275 ‘The great cross in Bakewell Churchyard has at the bottom of all a man with a bow, taking aim at the little creature nibbling the fruit at the top. At Bradbourne in Derbyshire there are the frag- ments of a cross equally noble with that at Bakewell ; and there again on more than one side is a man at the foot taking aim at the squirrels or little foxes in the tree or vine. The great cross shaft at Sheffield has remarkable examples of the same kind.’! The cross at Auckland (see p. 82) has ‘the upper part of a human figure, the upraised hands of which hold a bow and arrow, pointed at one of the animals.’ ” Everything would seem to indicate, then, that both archer and Sagittarius ? are represented as in conflict with the powers of evil ; that on the Ruthwell Cross, as well as on those at Bakewell and Bradbourne, the archers are aiming at the animals (not the birds) in the vines (probably with reference to Song of Sol. 2. 15, ‘ Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines’) ; and that all these examples of the archer, like those of the Sagittarius, belong to the 11th and 12th centuries. B. The Falconer.‘ Authorities are now agreed that falconry was introduced into Europe from the East.> Accordingly, as may be supposed, it was introduced into England from the Continent. There is no mention of falcons in England before the second third of the 8th century. At this time, and even in the middle of the century, there were very few trained hawks even in Kent, the part of England most accessible from the Continent, while there they must have been comparatively numerous, as shown by the mention of them in the Germanic laws of even the 5th to the 7th century,® and by the decree of the Ger- manic Council in 742 that priests were not to possess hawks or fal- cons.‘ Somewhere between 732 and 751, Boniface, the apostle 1 Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 192. 2 Victoria Hist. Durham 1. 218. 3 Not, of course, as a sign of the zodiac; on representations of this sec Fowler, ‘ Medieval Representations of the Months and Seasons,’ Archeo- logia 44. 137-224 ; Male, L’Art Religiewx du XIII Sitcle en France, pp. 89- 103; and cf. Un Manuscrit Chartrain du XI¢ Si le (Chartres, 1893), p. 9 where one of the 11th century is described (these being rare). There are five zodiacs figured at Chartres alone. 4 See p. 25. Cf. the birds on the top-stone of the Ruthwell Cross. 5 Harting, Bibliotheca Accipitraria, p. xiii. 6 Brockhaus, Konversations-Lexikon, 14th ed., 2. 652. ? Migne, Patr. Lat. 89. 807: ‘ et ut accipitres et faleones non habeant.” (63) 276 General Discussion of the Crosses of Germany, sends a hawk and two falcons as a present to A2thelbald of Mercia ; and between 748 and 755, Athelbert of Kent begs Boni- face to send him two falcons that could bring down cranes, since there are very few in Kent which produce young fit for this purpose, or that are trained to be at once swift and bold. Interea pro signo veri amoris et devote amicitie direximus tibi acci- pitrem unum et duos valcones (var. faleones), duo scuta et duas lances (var. lanceas).? His itaque breviter summatimque prelibatis, unam rem _ preterea a vobis desidero mihi exhiberi, quam vobis adquirere valde difficile esse, juxta quod mihi indicatum est, nullatenus reor ; hoc est duos falcones, quorum ars et artis audatia sit : grues velle libenter captando arripere et arripiendo consternere solo. Ob hanc etenim causam de harum adquisitione et transmittendarum ad nos avium vos rogamus, quia videlicet perpauci hujus generis accipitres in nostris regionibus, hoc est in Cantia, repperiuntur, qui tam bonos producant feetus et ad supradictam artem animo agiles ac bellicosi educantur ac doceantur.? In the Confessional of Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766), there is a passage in which he includes among birds that may not be eaten such as have been bitten by a hawk (né péah hafucfugel abite).8 In the poem of Beowulf (2263), there is a reference to the hawk : ‘There is no joy of harp, no mirth of the gleewood, no good hawk swinging through the hall, no swift horse beating with his hoof the courts about the hall.’ 4 The date of the Fates of Men is conjectural, but it cannot be earlier than 800. It has a passage of eight lines (85—92) on the taming of a hawk: ‘ One shall tame a wild, proud bird, a hawk in the hand, until this swallow of fight becomes gentle; he puts jesses on, and so feeds in bonds the proud of pinion, enfeebles with small morsels the wind-swift one, until the peregrine becomes docile to its feeder in furnishings and deeds, and wonted to the young man’s hand.’ There is a single line about the hawk in the Crafts of Men (80—81). The next mention is by Coenwulf of Mercia, who in 821, after reciting his gifts of lands to the monastery of Abingdon, forbids any proud man or king, having under him men with hawks or falcons, horses or dogs, to molest the monks in any way. Boniface to thelbald of Mercia, 732-751; Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germ. 3. 213. “Ethelbert of Kent to Boniface, 748-755: Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germ. 3.. 256. Thorpe, Anc. Laws and Inst., folio ed., p. 358. Beowulf, tr. Tinker, rev. ed., p. 105. (64) me WO DP eH A tg nee. The Figure-Sculpture: Falconer 277 Et mandatum mandamus... ut nullus superveniat hominum superbia inflatus, nec rex suum pastum requirat, vel habentes homines quos nos dicamus festi{n]gmen, nee eos qui accipitres portant vel falcones, vel cavallos ducunt sive canes nec peenam mittere super eos quoquomodo audeat.? Of Alfred we are told that, during his reign (871—901), he was wont to instruct his hawkers and falconers in their business. Interea tamen rex . . . omnem venandi artem agere, aurifices et artifices suos omnes et falconarios et accipitrarios canicularios quoque docere . . . non desinebat.? In the 10th century, notices are more numerous. Thus King Ethelstan (d. 940) procures from North Wales ‘ birds that know how to hunt the prey of other birds through the void’ ; Byrhtric and A2lfswith, of Meopham in Kent (ca. 980), give to their ‘ natural lord’ two hawks and all their hunting-dogs ; and A?thelwine, the founder of Ramsey Abbey, in Huntingdonshire, gives the monks (ca. 974) the island which he had found convenient for his favorite sports of hunting and fowling (hawking not expressly mentioned, but probable). Ipse in effectum formavit, ut ei nomine vectigalis annuatim ... annumerarent . . . volucres qu aliarum avium predam per inane venari nossent.® ZErest his cynehlaforde x#nne beah on hundeahtotigum mancysum goldes ; and an handsecs on eal swa miclum; and feower hors, twa gerzedede ; and twa sword gefetelsode; and twegen hafocas; and ealle his héuhdeor-hundas.? Primo scilicet [he gave to the church of Ramsey] Insulam ipsam, ubi Xenodochium constructum est, cum adjacentibus maris et stagnis. .. . 1 Cod. Dipl., ed. Kemble, 1. 270. 2 Asser, Life of King Alfred 76 (ed. Stevenson, p. 59); cf. my translation, p- 38. There are representations of hawking-scenes in certain Old English manuscripts. Strutt figures one in his Sports and Pastimes (1801), opp. p- 32, and a scene from a calendar of the months in Horda Angelcynnan ; the manuscript from which the former is derived (Cott. Julius A. VI) is assigned by Strutt to about 900. 8 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum 2. 134 (ed. Stubbs, 1. 148). 4 Cod. Dipl., ed. Kemble, 2. 380; cf. 6. 53. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 19 (65) 278 General Discussion of the Crosses Quia enim locus et nemoribus consitus et mariscorum paludibus erat vicinus, frequenter ibi in venatu et aucupatione [vel aucupio] spatium morabatur.1 About the same date a priest was forbidden by the Canons of Edgar to be a hunter or a hawker (hunta né hafecere). In the Colloguy of AZlfric (ca. 1000), there is a conversation between the teacher and a falconer, in which the latter says that he knows how to tame a hawk, that he will give one in exchange for a swift dog, that they feed themselves and him in the winter, that he lets them escape in the spring and catches nestlings in the autumn, and that he will not follow the example of those who feed their hawks the summer through, since he finds it easier to catch them as he needs them.? Of Edward the Confessor (d. 1066) we are told that he delighted in the coursing of swift dogs, whose barkings he would cheer on, and also in the flight of birds whose nature it is to make prey of their kindred birds. In the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold is depicted as riding to meet William the Conqueror with hawk on wrist. Unum erat quo in seculo animum oblectaret suum, cursus canum velocium quorum circa saltus latratibus solebat letus applaudere; volatus volucrum quorum natura est de cognitis avibus predas agere.® With the coming of the Normans, hawking, like all forms of hunt- ing, grew to be a passion with kings and the highest nobility, and so continued for several centuries. So fully was it reserved for them that hawks ‘ were considered as ensigns of nobility ; and no action could be reckoned more dishonourable to a man of rank than to give up his hawk.’ ‘ Persons of high rank rarely appeared without their dogs and their hawks ; the latter they carried with them when they journeyed from one country to another, and sometimes when they went to battle, and would not part with them to procure their own liberty when taken prisoners.’ 4 Ecclesiastics were not averse to either the sport or the distinction. As we have seen above, they had to be enjoined at intervals to have nothing to do with falconry. Nevertheless, we are told that when 1 Chron. Abb. Rames., ed. Macray (Rolis Series), p. 52. 2 Wright’s Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, ed. Wilker, 1. 95-96 ; tr. in Select Trans. from Old Eng!. Prose, ed. Cook and Tinker, pp. 181-2. The word for ‘hawk’ occurs here and there in the Old English glossaries. 3 William of Malmesbury, Gest. Reg. Angl. 2. 220 (ed. Stubbs, 1. 271). 4 Strutt, Sports and Pastimes, p. 18; cf. Piers Plowman B 6. 33. (66) ie ese ot Tae. & a Cadel i " The Figure-Sculpture: Falconer 279 Thomas a Becket (d. 1170) was sent from Henry II as ambassador to France, he assumed the state of a secular potentate, and took with him dogs and hawks of various sorts, such as were used by kings and princes.t It is not surprising, then, that when Walter, the Steward, in the time of Alexander II of Scotland (1214—1249), is enlarging the grant of forest on the banks of the Water of Ayr to the monks of Melrose, he gives them all forest-rights with the express exception of hunting or taking falcons in the forest, because, as he says, that is neither becoming for their order nor expedient for them.? Among the appurtenances of the falconer was a stout pole. As it was the custom to carry the falcon upon the left hand, the pole was usually carried in the right.2 The use of this pole is thus described by Strutt: ‘In following the hawk on foot, it was usual for the sportsman to have a stout pole with him, to assist him in leaping over little rivulets and ditches, which might otherwise prevent him in his progress.’ The pole, as I am informed by Mr. 1 William Fitz Stephen, quoted by Strutt, p.9. Falconers are sometimes found represented under May in the labors of the months (see p. 60, note 1, above). Thus at Chartres, on the left side of the left arch of the left doorway of the west front, there is a horseman holding his horse by the bridle, and having a hawk on his wrist (Marriage, Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p. 32); and on the left side of the arch of the right bay of the north porch, there is a man with a hawk on his wrist (Marriage, p. 176). At Amiens, on the plinth of the northernmost doorway of the west front, there is a gentleman standing with a hawk upon his fist (Fowler, p. 160). In the floor of one of the chapels of the abbey church of St. Denis there is a man on horseback, with a hawk on his fist (Fowler, p. 167; Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire, article Dallage). At Padua, in the great hall, there is a man holding by the left hand the trunk of a tree, and by the right a hawk or other bird (Fowler, p. 176). Other representations are on a leaden Norman font at Brookland, Kent (Fowler, p- 145), and on a misericord in the choir of Worcester Cathedral (Fowler, p- 164). Cf. p. 70, note 1. 2 Veitch, History and Poetry of the Scottish Border, p. 170, who quotes National MSS. 1. liii. 3 Thus we see it figured in the pictures of Peter Ballantine (1798-1884), “the last of the old Scotch falconers’ (opp. p. 42 of Harting’s Bibliotheca Accipitraria ; opp. p. 217 of Cox and Lascelles’ Coursing and Falconry ; in the ‘ English Falconers of the XVII Century’ (opp. p. 26 of Harting) ; and perhaps in the * Heron-hawking at the Loo in 1717’ (Harting, opp. p. 48). ; 4 Sports and Pastimes, pp. 23-4. Cf. the following passage from Hall’s Chronicle, under the 16th year of Henry VIII, s. f. (ed. of 1809, p. 697): “In this yere the kyng folowing of his hauke lept ouer a diche beside Hychyn, (67) 280 General Discussion of the Crosses J. E. Harting, the authority on falconry, would also be used ‘ for beating the flags and sedges round pools where wild fowl are ex- pected to be lurking. In that case, the pole would be somewhat shorter and lighter than would otherwise be required.’ Such a pole is figured on the Bewcastle Cross, and is contributory proof that the bird is intended for a falcon. A T-shaped perch—known as a crutch-perch—though not now commonly used, is occasionally found.t Michell says (p. 48) : ‘ Prob- ably for an eagle it is the best resting-place that could be provided ’ (cf. p. 37). If this is true, it may be inferred that the bird of the Bewcastle Cross is one of the larger kind, probably a gerfalcon. The peregrine falcon is even now to be found in Cumberland. Says H. A. Macpherson (Victoria Hist. Cumb. 1. 195) : “ The bird itself is not excessively rare. On the contrary, it is often to be seen by any one who can identify a highflying hawk in the distance. . . The female feeds partly on grouse.’ ? As to falconry in Cumberland, we are told that ‘ scattered references to the sport are met with in the old registers and rolls.’ Thus, with a pole and the pole brake, so that if one Edmond Mody, a foteman, had not lept into the water, and lift up his hed, whiche was fast in the clay, he had been drouned.’ To a similar effect is Drayton’s Polyolbion 20. 239-242: But when the Falconers take their hawking-poles in hand, And crossing of the brook, do put it over land, The hawk gives it a souse, that makes it to rebound, Well-near the height of man, sometime above the ground. Holland, in his translation of Pliny 16. 36 (66), misunderstands the Latin, but his use of the term ‘ hawking-pole’ seems to bear out Strutt’s view: “ Now during the ninth year . . . these canes prove so bigge and strong with all that they serve for hawking-poles, and fowlers pearches.’ 1 See Michell, Art and Practice of Hawking, No. 22, opp. p. 46. From about 1260 dates the De Arte Venandi cum Avibus of the Emperor Frede- rick II, and among its miniatures are three representations of T-shaped perches braced at the ends (seven perches in all). These are figured by Venturi, Storia dell’ Arte Ital. 3. 762-4. 2 Black grouse is ‘a resident species, very local in the north and west of the county, but fairly plentiful in the east and north-east between Alston and Brampton ’ (ibid., p. 204). Red grouse is ‘ a resident in small numbers on mosses near the coast, becoming more abundant when the fells are reached. . .. An old hen shot near Bewcastle on October 5th, 1895, has the usual markings’ (ibid.). ‘ The fells of the Pennine range . . . present even greater attractions to red grouse (Lagopus Scoticus) and black grouse (Tetrao tetrix)’ (tbid., p. 179). (68) i i it he clea tel angie & oe RS a1, r 7 a — 2 WF dairesage We OP that PEti yy 7 Mes ws ” te ( __]]_ ll = ~~ — The Figure-Sculpture: Falconer 281 while Sir William Lenglis, knight, was hunting in the neighborhood of Brunstock, in the autumn of 1360, he set his falcon to flight, but the bird disappeared from view and did not return.”. . . Raughton near Dalston was a celebrated eyry in the twelfth century. ... “ The vill of Ratton [Raughton] is a serjeanty to keep the hawks’ eyries of the lord the King, and is worth 100s. a year.” ’! Ailred says that when Hexham was renovated about the beginning of the twelfth century, the whole place and neighborhood were deserted, and the re-founder of the church maintained himself and his family for two years by hunting and hawking. ? Since there were almost no trained falcons in Kent about 750, it is not likely that they were sufficiently common in Northern Cumberland in the preceding century to admit of a falconer, with his hawk and appurtenances, forming the theme of a piece of sculpture. The later the period to which the cross can be assigned, the greater the probability that the sport was familiar in this sequestered part of the country. As the Normans were passionate devotees of the sport, it would not be unreasonable to assume that this panel was executed when Norman landowners had secured influential positions in Northern England and Southern Scotland. As to the identity of the figure, it is evident that no sculptor would have commemorated a mere professional falconer on such a cross, and that it may well have been a royal or noble personage who is thus depicted.* It is conceivable that if such a royal or noble personage had been responsible for the erection of the cross, he might have been portrayed upon it, either at his own instance, or as a com- pliment on the pon of the Soule @ or 7 some ecclesiastical body 1 Tbid., . 420- De 2 Raine, Aas of Hexham 1. 8, note. Ailred’s words are (ibid., p. 191): “Erat autem talis terre illius desolatio, ut fere bienno ex sole venatu et aucupio se suamque familiam sustineret.’ Hexham is only some 24 miles distant from Bewcastle. 3 Anderson (Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 163-4) is disinclined to entertain any such theory for the Scottish stones. He says: ‘ The custom of presenting in monumental sculpture historical representations of secular scenes derived from the life or times of the persons commemorated, was not only extremely rare and exceptional everywhere throughout the whole period of early Christian art, but was absolutely unknown in this country as far as any positive evidence exists. No monument is known to bear any commemorative reference, sculptured or inscribed, to any historical event occurring within the country in early Christian times.’ But see p. 70, note 2. On equestrian statues in religious architecture bearing the names of Constan- tine and Charlemagne, see Enlart. Manuel d’ Archéologie Francaise 1. 366. (69) 282 General Discussion of the Crosses interested in the monument and its purposes.! It might occur to some one to attribute the figure to a later date than the rest of the cross ; but against this it may be observed (1) that no part of the monument is more weathered and defaced than this; (2) that the curved head of the niche resembles that over the figure of Christ, on the same face ; (3) and that a ruler of later date would hardly have ventured to incur the reproach of thus desecrating the monument, whereas a beneficent and trusted leader, high in favor with the monks and clergy, might have been pardoned for allowing himself to be portrayed on a monument erected by his orders or under his patronage. A kind of parallel to such a representation of a historical personage may possibly be found in a relief wrought by the sculptor Nicholas (see pp. 50-51, 144) at the right of the central door of San Zeno at Verona. This represents a horseman, with a quiver at his back, and his cloak blowing in the wind, pursuing a stag which his dog has over- taken. The horseman, depicted in the act of blowing a horn, has been identified with the semi-mythical King Theodoric.” At the left of the doorway are panels containing the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Adoration of the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Kiss of Judas, the Adoration.of the Shepherds, Herod, the Purification, 1 An argument against this view might perhaps be drawn from the faleoner on horseback, with a hawk on his left wrist, on the tympanum of the 12th century church of Parthenay-le-Vieux (Deux-Sévres), north portal, west front (Baum, Romanesque Arch. in France, p. 44). Cf. p. 67, above, note 1. 2 Venturi 3. 192-4 ; Michel, Hist. de l Art 1%. 698-9. Anderson (Scotland in Early Christian Times, p. 166) refers to this scene, but adds : ‘ We find the chase of the stag included among the subjects from Scripture which are considered suitable for the symbolic decoration of the portal of a church.’ Again (ibid., note 1): “ This is not a solitary instance. A stag, chased by two dogs, followed by a man blowing a horn, is carved in wood on the door of the Church of Rogslosa in Sweden. It is a common subject in mosaic, as at Cremona, Djemila, Carthage, and Sour.’ ‘ The stag (p. 165) became part of a traditional allegory which represented the soul driven to take refuge in the bosom of the Church.’ However this may be, mythical heroes are sometimes found in church-sculpture of the 12th century. Thus Arthur and other heroes of his cycle, recognizable by inscriptions, occur on the archivolt of the Peschiera doorway of the Cathedral of Modena (Venturi 3. 164 ; Michel 1*. 698), while on the portal of San Zeno of Verona, Nicholas (see p. 144) represented Roland, with his sword inscribed Durindarda, and Oliver opposite (Venturi 3. 196; Michel 12. 698). Even two episodes of the Roman de Renard occur on the lintel of the doorway of the cathedral of Modena (Michel 17. 698). (70) The Decorative Sculpture : Vines 283 the Baptism, and the Crucifixion, besides two horsemen in mortal combat, and, in another place, two men on foot engaged in a duel.? Hence we have here a similar collocation of genre and Scriptural subjects to that on the Bewcastle Cross. Il. THE DECORATIVE SCULPTURE The decorative sculpture comprises (p. 29, above) vines, chequers, interlacings, and the sundial. Me ARISE WetiN asa The vine is the most ancient subject of Christian art,? since it is figured as early as the beginning of the 2d century in the catacomb of Domitilla. There is a vaulted roof, over which a vine trails with all the freedom of nature, laden with clusters at which birds are pecking, while winged boys are gathering or pressing out the grapes.4 Another example occurs in the catacomb of Callistus,®> of the 3d century, and there is a mosaic with vintage-scenes, birds, and genii® in the circular aisle of S. Costanza (4th century). Whether or not such vines and grapes, with or without birds, were intended to be symbolical in the earliest Christian art, they were soon invested with a meaning. The vine was associated with Christ (John 15. 1 ff.), and is thus sometimes wreathed around the Good Shepherd or the monogram of Christ, and employed as a decoration on crosses. By an identification of the Promised Land, from which the cluster of grapes was brought back (Num. 13.23), with the Heav- enly Paradise, grapes were regarded as emblematical of the joys of heaven ; and the doves that fed upon the grapes were interpreted 1 Venturi 3. 190; Michel 12. 698. 2 See pp. 19-20, 22-23, 26-28. 3 Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Christ. Antiqg. 2. 2018. 4 Ibid. 1. 693; ef. Tuker and Malleson, Handbook of Christian and Eccles. Rome 1. 509: ‘ The painting is exquisite as art, and has been compared by De Rossi with that of the Villa of Livia, and with that of the most perfect columbaria of the time of Augustus.’ * Smith and Cheetham 1. 698. § Handbook 1. 157; Smith and Cheetham 1. 694; Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., 16. 852. (71) 284 General Discussion of the Crosses as the souls of the blessed.t/ Much later, the grapes, sometimes associated with ears of wheat, represented the Eucharist, by which the souls of Christians were refreshed on earth.? As for the animals sometimes interspersed with the birds, they perhaps were originally intended to represent ‘ the little foxes that spoil the vines,’ * the evil agencies which are intent upon destroying Christianity—not in all innocence, like the birds, enjoying the fruits of it. Of course in many instances the vine, with or without its birds or animals, must have been used as a merely decorative feature, with no thought of symbolism. The frequency with which birds are introduced as architectural decorations has been noted by Ruskin. Half the ornament, at least, in Byzantine architecture, and a third of that of Lombardic, is composed of birds, either pecking at fruit or flowers, or standing on either side of a flower or vase, or alone, as generally the symbolical peacock. #* The vine itself is not always distinctly recognizable as a grapevine, and for this reason writers sometimes speak of it merely as a ‘ scroll of foliage.’ Occasionally it is replaced by the acanthus. The vine-leaf [is] used constantly both by Byzantines and Lombards, but by the latter with especial frequency, though at this time they were hardly able to indicate what they meant. It forms the most remark- able generality of the St. Michele decoration ; though, had it not luckily been carved on the facade, twining round a stake, and with grapes, I should never have known what it was meant for, its general form being a succession of sharp lobes, with incised furrows to the point of each. But it is thrown about in endless change ; four or five varieties of it might be found on every cluster of capitals: and not content with this, the Lombards hint the same form even in their griffin wings. They love the vine very heartily.® 1 Martigny, Dict. des Antiqq. Chrét., pp. 796 ff.; Kraus, Realencyclopddie der Christl. Alterthiimer 2.982; Handbook 1. 394 ; ef. pp. 402, 404, 439. Handbook 1. 394. 3 Song of Sol. 2. 15; cf. p. 63, above. Stones of Venice 1. 20. 35. 5 Ibid., Vol. 1, App. 8. In the preceding paragraph Ruskin says: ‘ The Lombard animals are all alive, and fiercely alive too, all impatience and spring: the Byzantine birds peck idly at the fruit, and the animals hardly touch it with their noses. The cinque cento birds in Venice hold it up dain- tily, like train-bearers ; the birds in the earlier Gothic peck at it hungrily (72) to _ The Decorative Sculpture: Vines 285 The Byzantine formalism reduced it to a mere running scroll, and in this conventional form it always appears on the monuments of this country. Le rinceau d’acanthe, par leffet d’un trés fréquent emploi, a fini par changer de caractére. Déja, 4 Spalato [303], il s’enroule autour de fleurons d’ou sortent les tétes d’animaux ; plus tard, 4 Saint-Nicolas de Myra, 4 Saint-Jean-Stoudite [465], des fleurs et des fruits se sont at- tachés au bout de ses volutes, des oiseaux mémes se sont logés dans ses méandres.? From the 4th century there are sarcophagi with vintage-scenes.® From the 5th is the so-called sarcophagus of Galla Placidia (ca. 450), in the church of San Lorenzo at Milan, which exhibits a vine, with doves pecking at the grapes*; and of about the same date is the carved door of S. Sabina at Rome, having panels bordered with highly conventionalized vine-scrolls.° Of the 6th century are two in S. Apollinare in Classe, at Ravenna,® one of which (that of St. Theodore) has three birds and one animal pecking at grapes. Vines having not only small birds and animals, but peacocks and large animals, are on the front of the episcopal throne usually known as that of Maximian, an Oriental or Egyptian work of the 5th or 6th century ; and still others are found on the back.’ and naturally ; but the Lombard beasts gripe at it like’tigers, and tear it off with writhing lips and glaring eyes.’ Cf. Browne, Conv. Hept. p. 192, for a similar contrast between earlier and later representations in England. 1 Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 238. 2 Michel, Hist. de ? Art 11. 151-2 ; cf. also p. 153. 3 Michel 11. 64 : one in the Lateran, and one in the Vatican. There is another in the vestibule of S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura, at Rome. 4 Martigny, Dict. des Antiqg. Chrét., p. 796; Allegranza, Spiegazioni e Riflessioni sopra Alcuni Sacri Monumenti Antichi di Milano, tav. I. 5 Venturi, Storia dell Arte Ital. 1. 33 ff., 475. 6 Ricci, Ravenna, pp. 35, 104; Michel 11.385; Venturi 11. 221, 225. There is another at Toulouse (Michel 1'. 69, 70). These latter are all executed under Oriental influence, according to Michel. See also the 5th century specimen from the Cairo Museum (Burl. Mag. 21. 195). * Goetz, Ravenna, pp. 97-9; Ricci, Ravenna, p. 105; Michel 11. 264-5; 2. 200; Venturi 1. 295-9; cf. Du Sommerard, Les Arts du Moyen Age, Vol. 1, pl. XI; Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 53, note. G. F. Browne, Bishop of Bristol, has expressed the ‘ feeling that on the upright on either side of the front of the chair you have the secret of the original of this most beautiful side [east] of the Bewcastle Cross.’ Unfortunately for this theory, it has been shown that the throne was not sent to Ravenna till the year 1001. Cf. Ricci, pp. 33-4: ‘La cattedra detta di S. Massimiano fu portata a Ravenna soltanto nel 1001, (73) 286 General Discussion of the Crosses Either in 687, when he died, or in 698, when his body was exhumed, the body of St. Cuthbert was wrapped, over his other robes, in a linen sheet almost nine cubits in length and three and a half in breadth, having an embroidered border of an inch in width, with a design in raised figures. The design was of ‘ birds and beasts, so arranged that invariably between every two pairs of birds and beasts there was interwoven the representation of a branching tree, which distin- guished and divided the figures. This representation of the tree, so tastefully depicted, appeared to be putting forth its leaves, although small, on both sides ; under which, upon the adjacent compartment, the interwoven figures of animals again appeared, and this ornamental border of trees and animals was equally visible upon the extreme parts of the sheet. This sheet was removed from his holy body at the time of his translation [1104], and... was long preserved entire in the church.’ ? To the time of Wilfrith (d. 709) may be assigned a fragment with vine-foliage from Hexham, executed in low relief,? with a somewhat similar fragment at Jarrow. quando invece Massimiano era stato arcivescovo di quella citta quattro secoli e mezzo prima. E la notizia ci viene pel mezzo della persona stessa che con- dusse a Ravenna il prezioso mobile: da Giovanni Diacono che la scrisse nella cronaca veneziana, edita gia ben tre volte e che nessuno pit contesta a lui. Le sue parole tradotte in chiaro italiano, dicono: “ In quel tempo (dicembre del 1001) Vimperatore Ottone III per mezzo di Giovanni Diacono mando al Doge Pietro II Orseolo, due ornamenti imperiali d’oro fatti con mirabile lavoro, uno da Pavia e laltro da Ravenna. Ad Ottone, per ricompensa, il Doge mando a Ravenna una cattedra maestrevolmente scolpita in tavole d’avorio, che Ottone, accettata con vivo desiderio, lasciO in quella citta perche vi fosse conservata.”.. . E certo che nel suo complesso la cattedra appare opera orientale, provenga essa da Bisanzio, da Alessandria o da Antiochia.’? See also Goetz, Ravenna, p. 89. Carotti, History of Art 21.110, calls it ‘an Alexandrian work of the sixth century,’ and adds : ‘ It was first taken from Alexandria to Grado, and then in 1001 to Ravenna, sent as a gift from Doge Pietro Orseolo Ii. to the Emperor Otto, but Otto left it there to ensure its preservation.’ Venturi thinks it to have been named after Bishop Maximian of Constantinople (1. 468). 1 Reginald of Durham, Libellus, chap. 42 (quoted in Raine, St. Cuthbert, App., p. 5), as translated by Raine, pp. 90-91; I have merely changed certain present tenses to past. Reginald wrote after 1173. 2 Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 2. 143 (illustration on p. 142); cf. Greenwell, Catalogue, pp. 59 ff. 3 Rivoira 2. 139. (74) er a The Decorative Sculplure : Vines 287 The tomb of Theodota, about 720 (Museum of Pavia) has grace- ful vine-sprays;! cf. the tomb of Theodechildis (d. 660), at Jouarre. The Hexham cross, generally regarded as the headstone for the grave of Bishop Acca, who died in 740, now exists in four pieces in the Library of Durham Cathedral. It lacks almost all the head and a portion of the shaft 23 feet high, and was nearly 14 feet high when complete. The base is 14 inches by 11, and the top 11 inches by 7z, this piece being 11 feet high. ‘ The design upon one face con- sists of two vine plants, to a great extent naturally treated, inter- twining, forming nine slightly-pointed oval panels, filled with varied combinations of grape bunches, vine leaves and tendrils, in which the grapes predominate.’ ? In the attribution of these fragments to the memorial of Acca, the chief weight attaches to a passage from Pseudo-Simeon of Dur- ham : ‘Corpus vero ejus ad orientalem plagam extra parietem ec- clesiz Haugustaldensis [Hexham]. .sepultum est. Duaque cruces lapidee mirabili celatura decorate posite sunt, una ad caput, alia ad pedes ejus.’* The largest of the fragments remaining ‘ was found in the earth’ ‘ while making the chancel of the present church, in the position that the memorial must have originally occupied.’ Of the inscription, which originally filled the whole of one face of the cross, very little remains. ‘ The commencing letter is certainly A, and at the end of the line are some remains which may be resolved into 2, in which case the inscription would begin with Alpha and Omega, not an un- likely heading. The name ACCA has, however, been suggested, and some traces of the last three letters of the name have been thought to be still visible. The second line commences with SC, and nothing more can be made out until about the middle of the shaft, where the words VNIGENITO FILIO DEO, from the Nicene Creed, can be read with almost absolute certainty.’® However, the authorities seem to be agreed that the fragments belong to Acca’s cross—the 1 Rivoira, Burlington Magazine, April 15, 1912, p. 25. 2 Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 53, where three plates are given. Other de- scriptions, with illustrations, are in Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. xxxiv; Stuart, Sculptured Stones of Scotland 2. 47, 48, plates xcii, xciii; Browne, Theodore and Wilfrith, pp. 257-261 ; History of Northumberland 3.181; Rivoira 2. 143. Enlart (Michel, Hist. de Art 2. 200) regards the decoration of the Acca cross as strikingly similar to that of the throne of Maximian. 3 Raine 1. 204. 4 Ibid. 1. xxxiv; ef. Greenwell, Catalogue, pp. 57-8. > Greenwell, p. 57. 288 General Discussion of the Crosses one which stood at the head of his grave.! Greenwell attributes the work to ‘ the Italian craftsmen whom St. Wilfrid brought over 1 Greenwell, p. 58; Enlart, in Michel, Hist. de ? Art 2. 199 (Enlart makes the mistake of saying that the cross bears the name of Acca) ; Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 2. 148. * Too much has been made of Wilfrith’s importation of foreign workmen into England. He may, indeed, have brought artisans from the Continent, but the evidence that he did so is too late to be of any value. The facts are these (dates from Plummer’s edition of Bede’s Opera Hist. 2. 316 ff.). Wil- frith was on the Continent twice before he began his building operations at York, Ripon, and Hexham. His first journey was at the age of 19, on which occasion he proceeded to Rome by way of Lyons, in company with Benedict Biscop, who was perhaps half a dozen years his senior; after remaining at Rome several months, he returned to Lyons, and stayed there three years, reaching England after an absence of five years. On the second occasion he went to France, in order to be consecrated as bishop at Compiégne. This time he was abroad for two years, and after his return spent three years at Ripon, varied by the discharge of episcopal duties in Mercia and Kent. This brings us to 669, and his constructions at Ripon did not begin for at least two years (perhaps considerably longer). The church at Hexham was probably not begun till 674, or eight years after his return from France. Now the only passage in Eddi, the one supreme authority for Wilfrith’s life, which contains any direct mention of mechanics, is most naturally referred to 669; it is as follows (chap. 14: Historians of the Church of York 1. 22): ‘Ideo autem venerabiliter vivens, omnibus carus, episcopalia officia per plura spatia agens, cum cantoribus Aidde et Eonan, et czmentariis, omnisque pene artis institoribus, regionem suam rediens cum regula Sancti Benedicti, instituta ecclesiarum Dei bene meliorabat.’ This 4{dde, or Eddi, was the same that wrote his life, and him Wilfrith took from Kent after the arrival of Archbishop Theodore in 669 (Bede, Hist. Eccl. 4. 2). Accordingly, it must have been-in this same year that the builders and artisans accom- panied him on his return to Northumbria (regionem suam rediens). It will be remembered that he had then been back three years from his second visit to the Continent; in the period just before him he was to have sufficient employment for his workmen—first of all, probably, in the repair of the church at York—whereas in the previous three years he had not, so far as we know, any important operations in which to employ them. On the face of it, then, it looks as though he had found his workmen where he found his singers—in Kent, at that time a centre of learning and the arts. More- over, there is no proof that he needed the superior abilities of a foreign archi- tect (the young man, probably one of the masons, who fell from the roof of the Hexham church while it was building (Eddi, chap. 22) was a monk (ex servis Dei) with an English name, Bothelm), for Eddi (chap. 22), while he says that the church of St. Andrew at Hexham surpassed any building of which he had ever heard north of the Alps (neque enim ullam domum citra (76) The Decorative Sculpture : Vines ' 289 to build his church at Hexham, but if not the produce of their hands, then sculptured by artists, possibly native, educated in their school and emulous of their achievements.’ ! Rivoira takes issue squarely with Greenwell concerning the provenience of the craftsmen : ‘ It Alpes montes talem cedificatam audivimus), expressly gives Wilfrith the credit for the plan (Spiritu Dei doctus, opera facere excogitavit). Four centuries or so after Eddi wrote, his statements in these two places became expanded and embellished by writers who can have had no infor- mation on the subject save what he furnished them. Thus William of Malmesbury, writing in the first quarter of the 12th century (Gesta Pontificum 3. 117: ed. Hamilton, p. 255), although he expressly says that he is following Eddi (Prol. to Bk. 3: p. 210), observes, with respect to Wilfrith’s building at Hexham, arbitratu quidem multa proprio, sed et cementariorum, quos ex Roma spes munificentie attraxerat, magisterio; and to this he was perhaps led by his desire to amplify Eddi’s statement by appending to it the second of the two following sentences: ‘ Ferebaturque tunc in populo celebre, seriptisque etiam est inditum, nusquam citra Alpes tale esse edifitium. Nune qui Roma veniunt idem allegant, ut qui Haugustaldensem fabricam vident ambitionem Romanam se imaginari jurent.’ Later in the century (after 1140) Richard of Hexham seeks to improve upon Eddi’s statement in chapter 14 by paraphrasing his omnisque pene artis institoribus, and by having Wilfrith bring his workmen from Rome, Italy, France, and other countries (what ones ?) into England, instead of from the South of England to the North (Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. 20): ‘ De Roma quoque, et Italia, et Francia, et de aliis terris, ubicumque invenire poterat, cementarios, et quoslibet alios industrios [sic] artifices, secum retinuerat, et ad opera sua facienda secum in Angliam adduxerat.’ Finally, Ailred of Rievaulx, writing after 1154, and describing the church at Hexham, brings the artificers from foreign parts in general, without specification of the country (Raine 1. 175): ‘Verum ubi eam beatissimus presul Wilfridus, adductis secum ex partibus transmarinis artificibus, miro lapideo tabulatu, ut inpresentiarium cernitis, renovavit, et, ad devotionem rudis adhuc plebis conciliandam, picturis et celaturis multiphariam decoravit.’ These later writers may possibly, considering the friendship and association between Wilfrith and Benedict Biscop, have been influenced by Bede’s statement concerning the latter with reference to his journey into Gaul in 675 (Hist. Abb. 5): ‘ Nee plus- quam unius anni spatio post fundatum monasterium interiecto, Benedictus oceano transmisso Gallias petens, cementarios qui lapideam sibi ecclesiam iuxta Romanorum quem semper amabat morem facerent, postulauit, accepit, adtulit.’ Or they may have been influenced by their knowledge of the importation of Continental workmen into England in their own time. * Catalogue, p. 59; he also says: ‘ It appears to have been the model from which, in various developments, a class of monuments spread from Hexham and enriched the cemeteries of many and even distant places.’ (77) 290 General Discussion of the Crosses is clear that the carving belongs to a period which, if not that of Wilfrid, is not far removed from it ; and it is equally clear that it comes froma French hand.! I say this because the carvers of Rome and Ravenna, at that date the best in Italy, did not produce such complicated interlacings ; and those of Lombardy, though very fond of employing them, were unable to treat them with the grace shown by the cross from Hexham.’ 2 1 Elsewhere Rivoira is undecided between ‘some artist of the school of Ravenna’ and a ‘ French sculptor’ (Burl. Mag., April 15, 1912, p. 25). 2 Cf. Lomb. Arch. 2. 143. Neither Greenwell nor Rivoira will allow any connection between the Acca cross and those at Bewcastle and Ruthwell. On this point Canon Greenwell remarks (pp. 45-6): ‘Though they [the Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses] possess some features in common with the vine pattern on the cross of Acca and on others apparently developed from it, there is distinctly another motive introduced, and another school than that of Hexham appears to have produced the artists who conceived and executed them. They belong to a school of the highest excellence, the centre of which it is not at present possible to localize, and are, both in design and workmanship, far in advance of those of ordinary Anglian manufacture. It is true that great skill has been exercised and refined taste is manifested on the cross of Acca, yet the relief on these two crosses is higher and bolder, and they exhibit a greater and more inventive power in the representation of natural objects, translated into stone, than is shown in that beautiful work. The way in which tree forms and foliage have been made to adapt themselves to the requirements of the general scheme and to the material used in its production, as well as the artistic sculpturing of branches and leaves and fruits, quite apart from a slavish copy, gives evidence of an edu- cated and well-practised craftsman. The manner also in which the human figure is treated, and the knowledge displayed in the modelling of limbs and drapery, is so different and so superior to the other work of the same time, that it seems to point to an origin beyond the limits of England, and which came from a country where art had for long flourished, and where it had not altogether died away.’ He adds (p. 47) with respect to Acca’s cross that it is ‘a monument which, having regard to its greater simplicity of design and the absence of any interlacing ornament upon it, such as occurs on the Beweastle cross, might be thought to belong to an earlier time than that of these two memorials.’ On the supposition, however, that the Bew- castle Cross is to be assigned to the 7th century, Canon Greenwell is fain to assume that two artists, or two companies of artists, worked contempo- raneously at Hexham and at Bewceastle and Ruthweill. Rivoira asserts (2. 143): ‘All this carving in relief [of Acca’s cross, etc.] is quite different, both in composition, design, and technique, from that of the well-known tall cross at Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, . . . which cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the XIIth century.’ Raine (2. xxviii-xxxi) had been (78) The Decorative Sculpture : Vines 294 Two shafts from the ruined eighth-century church of Aurona at Milan, which are now in the Brera museum, have oval scrolls con- taining leaf-ornaments, the tendrils ending in vine-leaves, grapes, etc. They have not birds and animals in them, but in one case there is a single bird at the top, and in the other case a single quadruped.? We need not dwell upon the peacock-screen of the museum of Brescia, said to have come from the eighth-century church of San Salvatore, and containing a kind of vine-pattern.? The baptistery of Calixtus, at Cividale in Friuli, belongs to the first half of the 8th century. On the archivolts are vines, with birds pecking at the grapes. A vine-scroll, with grapes but no birds, executed in stucco, ornaments the arch over a door in the church of Santa Maria in Valle, also at Cividale (762—776).* The iconoclasts (8th and 9th centuries) are credited with a pre- dilection for this species of ornament.® A piece of ornament from the church of St. Samson-sur-Rille (Eure) exhibits a vine with grapes and fruit. This dates from before the end of the 9th century, at latest.® The jamb of the north opening into Britford church (Wiltshire) is decorated with a vine of rather rude workmanship, which Rivoira would date anywhere from the 8th to the 10th century‘ ; the trees inclined to assume a connection. For example, he says: ‘ It seems to me that Wilfrid was the originator of the beautiful forms that appear at Hexham and other places, and which overran Northumbria.’ For other Hexham work of this general character, see Stuart, Sculpt. Stones of Scoiland 2, Pl. 88, 94; Rivoira 2. 142-4; Michel 2. 200; Greenwell, Cata- logue, pp. 59 ff. * Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 225; Cattaneo, Architecture in Italy, pp. 138, 140. * Figured in Michel 1. 390; cf. Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 222; Venturi 2. 134; Cattaneo, p. 151. 3 Dartein, Etudes sur l Architecture Lombarde, p. 20, and pp. 11, 12, 13; ef. Michel 1). 386 ff. 4 Dartein, pp. 31, 33; Rivoira 1. 97-9; Venturi 2. 127, 129. Carotti (Hist. Art 2'. 173) is sure that this is after 1000, ‘ being altogether in the style of the Byzantine Renaissance.’ 5 See Michel 11. 152-3. ® Caumont, Abécédaire d’ Archéologie 1. 26; cf. p. 8. See also the design on p. 86. Note the example from Coire (Bur!. Mag. 21. 195). * Lomb. Arch. 2. 180; see also Greenwell, Catalogue, p- 49; Browne, Theodore and Wilfrith, pp. 291-2; Michel 11. 120. (79) 292 General Discussion of the Crosses with branches of scroll-work in the tower of Barnack church (North- amptonshire) are of the earlier 14th century. In the cathedral of Torcello (ca. 1008), on the parapets (transenne) of the choir, the whole surface is covered with volutes, in which birds and little animals disport, as on the Brescia screen.? At Jedburgh there is a slab of sandstone in the north transept of the abbey, thus described by Allen? : ‘ Of nearly rectangular shape (but fractured along one edge), 2 feet 7 inches high by 2 feet wide, sculptured in relief on one face thus (fig. 454) : . . . the lower part of a panel of scroll foliage with winged dragons, birds and beasts in- volved in the branches and eating the fruit ; and (on the right) a panel of interlaced-work.’ This stone Professor Howard Crosby Butler figures in his Ruined Ableys of Scotland (p. 71), and entitles it, ‘ Fragment of Romanesque altar-piece’ ; elsewhere he compares it, in general style and technique, with Lombard work of the 11th century, with which he regards it as very closely allied.4 Of the 11th century is reported to be a foliage-scroll found in a copy of the Gospels in the National Library of Paris.® At Flaa and Sauland, in Norway, the doorways of the churches are decorated with a vine-scroll, winding about animals. These are of the 11th century. ® Of the 12th century are the foliage-scrolls with figures of the west door of Lincoln Cathedral.’ Vines are to be found in France, in the 12th century, at Chartres,® Vézelay,® St. Denis,1° Notre-Dame de Paris (1190—1215),1! Arles,” 1 Rivoira 2. 181. 2 Michel 11. 389; Cattaneo, Arch. in Italy, pp. 332-3; Venturi 2. 161. 3 Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 433-4; cf. 1. lxii; Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 233. Also described and illustrated in Stuart, Sculpt. Stones of Scotland, Vol. 2, Pl. 118, No. 1; Catholic Encyc. 1. 509. 4 Letter of Jan. 17,1910. Cf., however, Enlart, in Michel 2.200. Prior and Gardner, ‘ Med. Figure-Sculpture in England,’ Architectural Review, July, 1902, p. 11, refer it to ca. 700. 5 Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 53, note; Labarte, Histoire des Arts Industriels, Vol. 1p 6 Henry Rousseau, Annales de la Soc. Archéol. de Bruxelles 16. 70. So at Aal and Tuft (Michel 17. 524). ? Marriage, Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p. 44. 8 Marriage, pp. 44-5; cf. pp. 200-1; Viollet-le-Duc 8. 210-1. Cf. p. 129, below. ® Porée, L’ Abbage de Vézelay, pp. 38-9; Viollet-le-Duc 8. 213-5. 10 Viollet-le-Duc 8. 222. 11 Jbid. 8. 230. 12 Venturi 3. 281. (80) — S gee C9 aed og IN Ahem, aw rere, | The Decorative Sculpture : Vines 293 Sens, and St. Ursin at Bourges (1150).2 Enlart, after saying that they (rinceaux) are favorite motives with Romanesque sculp- tors,? gives several instances : Mantes (door-jamb), Vézelay, Aulnay, Dalbades (Cloister), Fontevrault (Abbey,church), Bayeux (Cathedral).4 Baum gives several examples : Maguelonne (St. Pierre), Aulnay (St. Pierre, window of apse, and porch of south transept), Toulouse (Museum), Angouléme (St. Pierre), Le Puy (Chapel of St. Michel), Arles (St. Trophime), Avallon (St. Lazare), Lichéres, St. Benoit-sur- Loire, La Charité-sur-Loire (St. Croix), Mantes.° These vary from classical to the more extravagant Lombard types. There is a vine, with animals, on the door-jamb of St. Gertrude at Nivelles.® Vines were frequently used as a sculptural ornament in Italy during the 12th century. Grape-vines with both birds and animals among their branches, these latter often eating the fruit, are to be seen at Como (Museo Civico, relief),’ Milan (Museo Arch., ornaments of pilasters, by Nicholas), Nonantola (San Silvestro, portal, by Wili- gelmus),® Salerno (Cathedral, architrave of door of atrium),!® Bene- vento (Cathedra!,door-jamb),'* Bitonto (Cathedral,portal),!* and Pavia (San Michele, various doorways).'* There is a vine with one bird among its branches at Capua (Cathedral, candelabrum),"* and, in the same city, one with apparently only animal forms (San Marcello, door-jamb).!° Vines with human figures as well as animals among 1 Venturi 3. 362 ff. = Viollet-le-Duc 8. 204-5. 8 Manuel d Archéologie Frangaise 1. 350. 4 Ibid., pp. 348, 363, 385, 388, 464 (Fig. 222). 5 Romanesque Arch. in France, pp. 11, 13, 14, 74, 101, 109, 126, 144, Wai, A62, 176; 222. ® Rousseau, ‘ La Ruthwell Cross,’ Annales de la Soc. Archéol. de Bruxelles 16 (1902). 65, 70. 7 Venturi 3. 146. 8 Ibid. 3. 162. 9 Ibid. 3. 170. 10 Tbid. 3. 540. 4 Ibid. 3. 623; Leader Scott (Mrs. Baxter), Cathedral Builders, p. 246. 12 Venturi 3. 665. 18 Dartein, Etudes sur ? Arch. Lomb., Atlas des Planches, pl. 54, 58, 60, 61; Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 1. 236; Cummings, History of Architecture in Italy 1. 127, 188-9; Ruprich-Robert, L’ Architecture Normande aux XI¢ et XII¢ Siécles 1. 75; Michel, Hist. de ? Art 12. 541, 695; Venturi 2. 153-7. 4 Venturi 3. 607. Pe lbsd. 3. 533. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 20 (81) 294 General Discussion of the Crosses the branches (or sometimes merely human figures, and these occasion- ally of grotesque appearance) are found at Modena (Duomo, portal dei Principi, by Wiligelmus),1 Parma (Baptistery, tympana and door- jamb),? Tra (San Lorenzo, bas-relief on door),? Sessa Aurunca (Cathedral, ambo),4 and Monreale (Duomo, door-jamb and pillars of cloister).° It is also interesting to note that on the door of the cathedral at Spalato, dating from the early years of the 13th century (1214), there are vines with birds, animals, and human heads among their branches, in the near neighborhood of interlacing or knotwork.® A vine of conventional pattern is found closely associated with chequer-work on the font in the baptistery at Pisa.’ Besides these more interesting examples of vine-sculpture, more than forty other vine-ornaments carved in Italy in the 12th century are pictured by Venturi.§ Of the 13th century is the Peridexion, or tree of life, of S. Urbain at Troyes and of Rheims Cathedral, with birds in its branches,? and the foliage-scrolls of S. Séverin at Bordeaux.! Foliage-scrolls are found on various crosses in the British Isles which need only be named here. Such are those at Bakewell, Eyam, Ilkley, Shetfield, Bishop Auckland, Monasterboice, Kells, and Clonmacnois!! ; then at Croft,” Abercorn,’* Aberlady,“ Closeburn, 1 Venturi 3. 155. 2 Ibid. 3. 296-7, 305. 3 Ibid. 3. 352. 4 Ibid. 3. 581. 5 Tbid. 3. 621, 627 6 Ibid. 3. 105-113. 7 Ibid. 3. 931; see also Ruskin, Works, Library Edition 23. 17, where it is figured. 8 Ibid. 3. 13, 72, 92, 101, 119, 122, 163, 187, 190, 193, 195, 225, 250, 283, 286, 287, 293, 295, 333, 288-9, 395, 539, 559, 561, 609, 667, 707, 718, 773, 817, 826, 893, 895, 898, 899, 912, 916, 919, 934, 935, 936, 937, 947, 950, 951, 952-3; 1. 49. 9 Male, L’ Art Religiewx du XIII¢ Sifcle, p. 63; cf. Allen, Harly Christ. Symbolism, p. 388; Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 192. 10 Viollet-le-Duc 9. 335-6. 11 All mentioned by Allen, Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, pp. 158-9 (the last three probably of the 12th century; see p. 54, note 3). 12 Tbid., p. 154 (plate opposite). 13 [bid., p. 158; Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 418; 1. Ixii. 14 Karly Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 428; 1. Lxii. 16: Jotd. 3. 436; 1. Isai. (52) we ty Dig a nh i EO eet, A em) hwy ~ The Decorative Sculpture: Chequers 295 St. Vigeans (ca. 900 ?),1 Hilton of Cadboll,? Nigg,? Tarbet,’ Crieff,> Barfreston,® Mugdrum,’ Forres(?),8 Camuston,? Dupplin,!° Haver- sham," Keils and Kilarrow,! Kildroman (on Islay),!® and Oronsay.** According to Anderson, the foliage-scroll, ‘ though it is an excep- tional feature of the monuments [in Scotland] previous to the twelfth century, becomes the prevailing and dominant feature of the West Highland monuments of a later period ranging from the thirteenth century to the Reformation.’ Iona has a cross erected to the memory of Lauchlan McFingon, and bearing the date of 1489, which has a foliage-scroll, but without birds or animals.'® Numerous other instances of the vine- or foliage-scroll might be cited, but the object of the foregoing is to show that this decoration may be found in practically any century from the second to the fifteenth, and that hence it is not safe to place too much dependence upon this feature in an attempt to date the cross. The conclusion of Rivoira has been quoted above (p. 78, note 2), and deserves peculiar consideration. 2, tee CHEO U ERS *? Chequers (Fr. damier, échiquier) are an ornament belonging espec- ially to Romanesque architecture, and found from the end of the 1 Ibid. 3. 236-8; 1. lxii; Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 51, 130, 194; Stuart, Sculpt. Stones of Scotland 2, Pl. 127. * Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 130, 233; Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. lxi; Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3. 62. 3 Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 130. 4 Ibid. 2. 130,233; Allen, Harly Christ. Mon. of Scotland 3.73; Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. Ixi. 5 Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 130; Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. lxii; 3. 313-5. 8 Michel 12. 517. ? Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. lxi; 3. 367. 8 Tbid. 1. Ixii. 9 Ibid. 1. lxii; 3. 254; see the fuller list, ibid. 2. 404 10 Jbid. 1. Ixii; 3. 321. 4 Calverley, in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antig. and Arch. Soc. 12. 246. 2 Stuart, Sculpt. Stones of Scotland, p. 1, Pl. 35. = Imd., Pl. 34. 14 Tbtd:, Ele 38: 16 Karly Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. 1xi. © Daniel Wilson, Prehistoric Annals of Scotland 2. 247-8; Stuart, Sculpt. Stones of Scotland 2, Pl. 47; Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times B91. 17 See p. 26. (83) 296 General Discussion of the Crosses 11th to the beginning of the 15th century, in the Ile-de-France, the Soissonnais, Normandy, and England. It is frequently found on the tympana of churches, but in Normandy also on the faces of walls, buttresses, etc. A form of diaper ornement in which the compartments are uniformly square, as in late Romanesque and in Gothic surface carving.t Le damier est un ornement d’architecture fréquemment employé pendant le XII° siécle. . . . Cest surtout dans lIle-de-France, le Soissonnais. et en Normandie, qu’on trouve l’emploie des damiers & dater de la fin du XI® siécle jusqu’au commencement du XIII*. ... Les damiers couvrent aussi, en Normandie, des parements de murs, des rampants de contre-forts ; alors ils figurent des essentes ou bardeaux de bois. C’était un moyen peu dispendieux de donner de la richesse aux tympans, aux surfaces des murs.* Les damiers, carrés alternés en creux et en relief, sont des motifs courants trés répandus, connus dés le XI° siécle, abandonnés a la fin du XII*°, et peuvent étre d’origine orientale.? The average craftsman of Norman days had the ideas of interlacing, chequers, and scrolls among his stock-in-trade.* 1 Sturgis, Dictionary of Architecture and Building, s. v. Checker. 2 Viollet-le-Duc 5. 24-5, s. v. Damier. For tympana thus ornamented in France, see Caumont, Abécédaire d Archéologie 1. 91, 96, 160, 188. 3 Enlart, Manuel d Archéologie Francaise 1. 354; cf. pp. 363, 364 (note 6), 402 (picture); also Baum, Romanesque Arch. in France, p. 70 (church of Chauriat, Puy-de-Dome). 4 Collingwood, Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 290. Among Norman churches in the diocese of Carlisle which have tympana or capitals ornamented with chequers, Collingwood mentions those of Bromfield (p. 85), Kirk-Bampton (p. 214), Long Marton (p. 229), and Torpenhow (p. 271). Ruprich-Robert (L’ Arch. Norm. 1. 95) mentions the tympanum over a door at Norwich Cathe- dral (see his Fig. 56, and compare his Plate XLII, Fig. 2). Keyser, List of Norman Tympana, though professing to consider only the figure- or symbol- ical sculpture, mentions tympana of the following churches as containing chequers: Wold Newton, Yorkshire (pp. XXX, 31; Fig. 16); Tissington, Derbyshire (pp. XXX, 51; Fig. 22); Findern, Derbyshire (p. XXX: ‘a diaper of the chequered pattern’; p. 16: ‘a diaper of square billets’ ; Fig. 23); and, finest of all, Brize Norton, Oxfordshire (pp. XX XIV-V, 32; Fig. 33). These he considers (p. XV) to ‘ belong to the Norman period of architecture, say 1080-1200.’ Cf. p. 127, note 1, below, and the Venetian example in Ruskin, Works (Lib. Ed.) 11. 320, Pl. 2. (84) The Decorative Sculpture: Chequers 297 The earliest instance of the chequer-pattern in ecclesiastical architecture is to be found in the abbey-church of Jumiéges (1040 to 1066). Nor should we omit to notice the presence of a decorative form not previously used in ecclesiastical architecture, viz. the bands of chequer pattern [at Jumiéges], so frequently reproduced later in Normandy and England, and finally applied by the architect Lanfrancus to the capitals in the cathedral at Modena (1099-1106). This chess-board motive was a favorite one with the Etruscan artists, who often employed it in tomb-paintings (Fig. 459). The Romans applied it specially in mosaics.* Notwithstanding these facts, Collingwood will not allow that the chequers on the Bewcastle Cross necessarily indicate that it was executed in the Norman period. The mere fact of the use of a chequer-pattern does not indicate Nor- man age. The chequers on Bewcastle Cross are a variety of the step- pattern on Irton Cross ; chequers also appear at Bromfield, Kirk-Bamp- ton, Torpenhow, and Long Marton, but these are different in treatment, just as Norman interlacing, of which there is plenty, differs from the regulated braids of Anglo-Saxon age.’ Whether ‘ the chequers on Bewcastle Cross are a variety of the step-pattern on Irton Cross’ is a matter for professed archeologists to determine. As for me, I can see no such resemblance, judging from the plate facing his page 206. In any case, it is only guess- work that Irton Cross is early. Collingwood says (p. 301) : ‘ The key-patterns and other details of Irton are also not Irish but Anglian, if the Lindisfarne Gospels are—as the names of their artists indicate ; and may be as early—dating from the beginning of the eighth cen- tury, to judge from the style.’ But elsewhere he says (p. 206) of Irton Cross : ‘ The carving has been aJl done with the chisel, without drill or pick, and is smooth, highly finished work, very varied in depth.’ But if it was all done with the chisel, it must have been as late as the Norman period, if we may trust Parker, Introduction to the Study of Gothic Architecture, p. 77 : ‘ The chisel is only required for deep-cutting and especially under-cutting, and that we do not 1 Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 2. 83. Venturi (Storia dell’ Arte Ital. 3. 20) speaks of chequers as among the ornaments of pillars (with knotwork, ete.) which became more and more common in Italy from the 12th century. See also above, p. 82, note 7. 2 Collingwood, Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 43-44. find on any buildings of ascertained date before 1120. The chisel was used for carving in stone in Italy and the south of France at an earlier period, but not in Normandy or the north of France much earlier than in England. . After this usage was introduced, the workmen seem to have gloried in it, and revelled in it, and the pro- fusion of rich Norman sculptured ornament in the latter half of the twelfth century is quite wonderful.’? Bishop Browne declares the chequers ‘ perhaps the most difficult thing to explain on the whole cross, whether as to purpose or as to date’ 2; but with Viollet-le-Duc’s statements in mind, it is easy to - see that there is no difficulty if we assume that the cross is of the 12th century, and that the purpose of the chequers was merely to serve as a means of ornamentation. 298 General Discussion of the Crosses 3. THE INTERLACINGS OR KNOTWORK# The interlacings found on the Bewcastle Cross are a characteristi- cally Celtic development of designs which must have been brought to Britain soon after the introduction of Christianity, and which® gave birth here to a great variety of intricate and beautiful patterns. These patterns are first found in such manuscripts as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells, and afterwards in metal-work and stone-work. The intricate and in some cases involved pattern of interlacing or knot-work occurs not only on the Anglian crosses and grave-covers, but is also found on the memorial stones of Ireland, Scotland, and other parts of the United Kingdom outside Northumbria. It is sometimes formed by a simple riband, at other times by lacertine or serpentine creatures (zoomorphic), or by beasts, more or less naturalistically represented, whose tails, limbs, or tongues are prolonged into ribands. This riband intertwines after the most varied fashion, progressing from a mere overlapping or twisting cord into the most elaborate convolu- tions, forming designs which, when executed by a well-skilled and deft-handed workman, are marvels of intelligent intricacy, and produce a very charming effect through the gracefulness and accuracy of their curvature and interlacement. The use of the interlacing riband pattern appears to have been introduced into this country, though not alto- gether directly, from Ireland, where it almost certainly had arrived with the introduction of Christianity. Sufficient i ae of this seems to be 1 Cf. also p. 52; ‘Edith A. Browne, Norman Architecture (London, ene p: ae and epee Rivoira 2. 202, 229, 247. 2 Conv. of Hept., p. 194. 3 See pp. 26-28. (86) The Decorative Sculpture : Knotwork 299 afforded by the entire absence of any design at all like it in Ireland during pagan times, though metal weapons and ornaments of that period are richly decorated. The origin of the interlacing principle as an element of ornamental design is a difficult problem to solve. It may, perhaps, be a development of the patterns of the tesselated pavements so common in late Roman work. It appears to have follow- ed the spread of Christianity, and it occurs far beyond European limits, being found as a frequent decoration in early Coptic and Ethiopic manuscripts.! In Ireland, which was the cradle of the art, it is suggestive that these elaborately intricate patterns are not so characteristic of the monu- ments as of the manuscripts. The earlier Irish monuments are com- paratively plain and unadorned ; among the earlier manuscripts, on the contrary, there are many that are profusely decorated. It thus appears that it was only when the art had been brought to a high degree of excellence that it began to be generally applied to stone and metal work in Ireland. There is no reason to suppose that the course of its development was different in Scotland. ... While it is manifest ... that a national system of art like this of the Scottish monuments is described in correct terms by saying that in all the essential features of its individuality it differs from every other, it does not necessarily follow that its essential elements must have originated in Scotland or in Ireland. ... When I say, for instance, that interlaced work is one of the special characteristics of the Celtic school of art, I do not mean that the Celts were the only people who have used interlaced work, or that its invention was due to them. ... For instance, we find interlaced work on Baby- lonish cylinders, on Mycenian ornaments and sculpture, on Alexandrian manuscripts, on Ethiopic manuscripts and metal-work, and on Pompeian bronzes. .. . We find it on the mosaic pavements of the time of the Roman occupation of Britain, and on Christian mosaics of later time in the early churches of Italy and France. We find it also existing as an architectural decoration applied to the ornamentation of churches, both externally and internally. The jambs of the doorway of San Zeno at San Prassede, in Rome, built by Pope Paschal I., about A. D. 820, are ornamented with a running pattern of interlaced ribbon-work of four strands, which might have appeared on the shaft of a sculptured cross in Scotland or in Ireland. . . . In the church of Chur, in Switzer- land, founded in 1178, there were found seventeen fragments of slabs sculptured with designs of complicated interlaced work arranged in panels. Among them is one on which is sculptured a cross of interlaced 1 Greenwell, Catalogue, pp. 48-9. Cf. Allen, Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, pp. 147-151; Harly Christ. Mon. of Scotland 2. 143. The varieties of inter- laced work are described in detail by Allen, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 2. 140-307, where the Beweastle patterns will be found. (87) 300 General Discussion of the Crosses work, with two circles above the arms, and two lions below... . It was thus a common form of decorative ornament applied to many and various purposes, in many different parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, both before and after the time when, in this country and in Ireland, it became one of the prevailing and dominant characteristics of Celtic art. But while it was thus used by other peoples as an occasional element of decoration, or as a style of ornament suitable for special purposes, it was nowhere developed into a systematic style of art, applied alike to manuscripts, metal-work, and stone-work, unless in this country and in Ireland. In other words, it never gave a distinctive character to any art but Celtic art. . . . The variety and beauty of their special adaptations of this system of ornamental design can only be appreciated by those who have closely studied their endless variations, as exhibited in the complicated patterns so frequently met with in the manuscripts and on the monuments.! The most striking characteristic of VIIIth century carving, inter- lacing, had been used by the Romans not only on vases and domestic utensils, but also in architectural decoration, as also, and more partic- ularly, in mosaics. This may be verified by any one in museums, in the early Christian Catacombs, and in buildings of the Imperial age. And before the Romans it had been used by the Etruscans.* L’entrelacs, en revanche, est d’usage aussi constant que multiple. Moins spécial 4 l’Irlande peut-étre que les deux motifs précédents, qui ne dépassérent guére la belle époque, il eut dans le milieu britannique toute une vie prolongée a transformations sans nombre. Beaucoup plus compliqué dés Vorigine que sur le continent, il a connu les arrange- ments les plus divers, issus de art de la vannerie ou du tisserand, depuis la simple tresse aux anneaux réguliers jusqu’au nattage fait de plusieurs cordes qui s’entrecroisent et se nouent, en carrés, en cercles, en triangles, en boucles de toute forme et de toute grandeur, souvent méme de la plus irréguliére fantaisie.® 1 Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 109-114. 2 Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 1. 105-6. There are some good specimens from the 8th or early 9th century in the church of 8. Sabina, at Rome (Rivoira ae 128). For interlacing associated with vine-scrolls, see Venturi 3. 105-113, and p. 82, above. Enlart (Manuel d’Archéologie Francaise 1. 363, note 3) refers to St. Michel d’Entraigues (Charente), the Cathedral of Mariana (Corsica), and St. Peter’s at Segovia (Spain); Baum (Romanesque Arch. in France, p.136) figures an example from St. Guilhem-du-Désert (Hérault) of the 10th century. 3 Michel, Hist. de Art 14. 318; ef. Enlart, Manuel d’Archéologie Fran- caise 1. 352. (88) od. ee eC ee et ee es AI a ert The Decorative Sculpture : Sundial 301 As the best stone- and metal-work containing the Celtic interlacing is late, and ‘comes close to the eleventh and twelfth centuries,’ 2 and as the knotwork on the Bewcastle Cross is evidently of Celtic pattern, it is clear that, even judged by these considerations alone, the Bewcastle Cross must belong to a comparatively late period.? 4, LAE SUNDIAL The sundial on the south face of the Bewcastle Cross is, by common consent, as old as the rest of the carving. This dial is a semicircle with hole for the gnomon now lost, and rays marking twelve divisions between sunrise and sunset. It is certainly a part of the original monument.* The sun-dial, with its rays marking the hours, and the hole for its gnomon, has been cut at the time of the making of the cross, and is part of the original design, so far as we can see.° It is contemporary with the sculpturing of the scroll of foliage.® 1 Anderson, Scotland in Early Christ. Times 2. 109. 2 Bishop Browne, who regards the Bewcastle Cross as of the 7th century. finds difficulty here. He says (Conv. of Hept., pp. 197-8): ‘ As to the inter- lacing patterns, the question is more difficult. Our Hibernian friends claim that the whole of this art came from them. But they have no stone-work of anything like the date of the Bewcastle Cross with anything like these patterns. Their earliest great cross, too, dates from 920 only [really 12th century; see p. 54, note 3]. ... If it is claimed that the Irish parchment ornamentation gave the patterns of these panels of interlacing ornament, we have to reply that we are not aware of any MS. of Irish production with these patterns so early as the year 670.’ He accordingly finds himself obliged to resort to the hypothesis of an independent Anglian development, and, as an alternative, to that of a borrowing from Lombardy, the peacock sereen at Brescia (see p. 79, above) being cited as a crucial example of the Lombardiec work (op. cit., pp. 198, 228-9; but cf. his Theodore and Wilfrith, p- 238, where he accounts for the absence of knotwork from the Ruthwell Cross by the desire of its artists “to shake themselves free from the local associations of Anglian and Scotic interlacements, and to look to more classical decoration’). Rivoira (Burl. Mag., April 15, 1912, pp. 23, 24) will not allow that any British carved interlacing is earlier than the 8th century. 3 See p. 27. + Collingwood, in Victoria Hist. Cumb. 1. 255. ® Calverley, Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 41. ® Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 194. 302 General Discussion of the Crosses According to Gatty, few sundials in England antedate 1066.1 Collingwood, who lists several in Cumberland,? will not assert that any of them were sculptured before the Norman period. There is abundant evidence that our dials are of a ‘ Saxon’ type; but they occur in masonry which, at earliest, is Norman, at latest, as late as the Newbiggin dial, given for its likeness to Bewcastle.... The conclusion is that these dials, though of ‘ Saxon’ type, were cut on Norman (and later) buildings by twelfth century (and later) people, who still, however, kept up the pre-Norman manner of marking time.® Some light is thrown upon the Bewcastle sundial by one at the Cistercian abbey of Acquafredda, on Lake Como.’ It is of white marble, .425 metre in diameter, and bears the date of 1093 above its horizontal diameter. Like the Bewcastle dial, it has twelve divisions, with short pieces of radii, ending in the circumference, in the fifth, eighth, and tenth divisions, counting from the right, marking respectively 10.30 A. M., and 1.30 and 3.30 P. M. ; the hours, according to the Coutumier Cistercien, denoting the end of manual labor, the end of the siesta, and vespers. Above the date is the Chi Rho monogram, and, on either side, the Alpha and the Omega. It will be seen that there is absolutely no reason for dating the Bewcastle sundial earlier than the late 11th century, and that the {2th century is more probable. 1 Book of Sun-Dials, ed. Eden and Lloyd, p. 51. Gatty notes those at Weaverthorpe, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, about 943; Old Byland, before the coming of the Cistercian monks in the 12th century; Skelton, early 12th century; Bishopstone, llth century; Warnford, 12th or 13th century; Bricet, about 1096; St. Sepulchre’s church, Northampton, about 1400; besides the famous one at Kirby Moorside, among the moors not far from Whitby. This was erected by Orm, Gamal’s son, in the days of Earl Tostig, and is dated by every one within the ten years immediately preceding 1065 (see the inscription in Browne, Conv. of Hept., p. 195, and Gatty, p. 55, for example). 2 Victoria Hist. Cumb. 1. 256; Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 57, 92, 99, 132, 178, 208, 226, 237, 239, 263, 270. ® Harly Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 288-9; cf. p. 54, and Victoria Hist. Cumb. 1. 256. 4 Reported in Cosmos, No. 1238, Oct. 17, 1908, by J. L. Benoit, a Bene- dictine monk; cf. Revue de l Art Chrétien 52 (1909). 200, 201. (90) st « ay Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses 303 maeORY AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE CROSSES OUTLINE On the supposition that the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses were produced at about the same time, and under the same general influences, the theory of production must take account of three factors : I. The power—political, social, or religious—which enabled and suggested the production. II. The motive or motives—religious, social, or political—which actuated the production. Ill. The cultural and artistic antecedents and environment de- manded by the production. I. In the case of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses, the power which enabled and suggested the production must have had these characteristics : 1. It must have been a power extending over the whole region which includes both Ruthwell and Bewcastle. 2. It must have been a power which could make itself respected in a rude age ; and, to have been supremely effective, it must have been a power making appeal to all the various nationalities which occupied the region. Il. The motives actuating such a production, whether religious, social, or political, must have been such as can be reasonably assigned to the individual or organization credited with the production. These motives, considering the territory in which the crosses are found, might conceivably be such as these—some or all : To erect a memorial of the Christian faith ; to establish a station for Christian worship ; to commemorate a historic event or individual ; to con- ciliate the various elements of the population which should view the monument; incidentally to subserve a political end, by reminding the inhabitants of that region of the sway of the organization or individual at whose instance the crosses were erected. III. In considering the cultural and artistic antecedents and en- vironment, we must remember the variety of features which the crosses exhibit. Among these, none is of more importance with reference to the date than the figure-sculpture, pointing to the 12th century, and to analogues existing upon French and Italian soil, or, if upon English soil, due to Continental, and probably to French (91) 304 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses influence. Some, at least, of these analogues exist in places whence influences might, directly or indirectly, have reached Ruthwell and Bewcastle. These crosses, anomalous when viewed merely in re- lation to the development of Celtic, Danish, or Saxon sculpture upon English soil, are only explicable on the theory of an art which, borrowing elements from these various nationalities, at once har- monized and transcended them. But the art which thus harmonized and transcended these borrowed elements reposed upon a religious sentiment which gathered new power from the beginning of the 12th century, a sentiment whose warmth and depth evoked po- tentialities which had been latent in the artistic capabilities of the Middle Ages, at once energizing, refining, humanizing, and co-ord- inating what had been nerveless, barbarous, or random in the Byzantine or Lombard sculpture which had preceded.? 1 It is instructive to compare the figure of Christ on St. Cuthbert’s coffin, which Canon Greenwell (Catalogue, p. 134) is positive was made in 698 (and so Kitchin, Victoria Hist. Durham 1.246). with those on our crosses. Green- well’s description of the carving is as follows (p. 141): ‘ The lid contains at the middle a figure of our Lord (see Fig. 34) placed between the symbols of the Evangelists arranged in pairs, two over his head and two beneath his feet. The one side has half-length figures of Archangels placed in one row, the other side has similar figures of the Apostles arranged in two rows. The larger end, probably that at the head of the coffin, has two Archangels upon it, the other has a seated figure of the Blessed Virgin holding our Lord on her knees.” Greenwell adds: “Our Lord is represented on the lid standing fronting (see Fig. 35). He has a cruciferous nimbus, and wears a dress reaching to the feet, which are naked. His right hand is raised in the act of blessing, and a fold of the dress hangs over the arm. In his left hand, which is covered by another fold of the dress, he holds a book (The Gospels).’ Other authorities are in substantial agreement with Greenwell. Thus Enlart (Michel, Hist. de ? Art 2. 200): ‘ Une curieuse piéce du méme musée [Durham | montre ce qu’était devenue la représentation de la figure humaine dans les derniéres années du VII® siécle. C’est le cercueil de bois de Saint Cuth- bert exécuté en 6935 par les moines de Lindisfarne. Le Christ entre les quatre Animaux, la Vierge, les Archanges, y sont représentés en simple gravure au trait, avec une médiocre entente des proportions et des formes, et de fagon conventionnelle et systématique, mais non sans habileté. La tradition byzantine est encore évidente dans ces curieuses figures.’ Rivoira remarks (Lomb. Arch. 2. 147) on ‘ the precious remains of the oak coffin which once held the body of St. Cuthbert, . . . with its representations of Christ between the Emblems of the Evangelists, the Archangels, the Virgin and Child, and the Apostles, poor in drawing but freely cut with the knife or graver, and accompanied by legends in Roman and Runic characters. . - - (92) —a a). when Fig. 34. St. Cuthbert’s Coffin, (From Greenwell, Ca/alogue, p. 138.) a ee Pee ee oP on d : ~ . ; : t a = : - — = — _ — ~ ——_————<——— —— § = ——————— —— ———— ————— st — ———S = SSN Ay Outline 305 It is my purpose, in this section, to endeavor to show that no historical character better suits the demands made by these various considerations than David I of Scotland (1080 ?—1153). In order to succeed in this, it will be necessary to take up the above points one by one. [It] may very well belong to the year 698, or perhaps 696, as has been sug- gested.” The contrast with the art of the Ruthwell Cross was suggested by Margaret Stokes (Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 125): ‘ The reader has only to compare the beautiful art and good drawing of the scrolls and figures on the Ruthwell cross with the rude outlines and letters on the coffin of St. Cuth- bert—a work which all authorities allow to be of the seventh century —to realize how unlikely it is that they could be contemporaneous.’ To this Henry Bradley rejoined (Academy 33. 279): “ The argument from comparison with St. Cuthbert’s coffin does not appear to be of great force. There is no reason to suppose that the number of artists capable of producing work like that of the Ruthwell cross was large; and it is quite conceivable that, however anxious the monks of Lindisfarne may have been to do honour to the remains of their master, they may have chosen to employ the services of some members of their own community in preference to importing a more skilful workman from a distant part of the kingdom.’ Any force there may seem to be in the argument from the inferiority of the supposed Lindisfarne workman is, however, invalidated by the observations of Dean Kitchin (Victoria Hist. Durham 1. 246): “ The carvings are a remarkable example of early Anglian work; they are executed with a freedom and accuracy of stroke which tells us that the artist was a master in his simple art. There is no hesitation in the work, no second cut, no slip over the grain, no sign of weakness in it or note of indecision.’ Various writers have commented on the beauty of the carving on these crosses. Thus Maughan (Memoir, p. 13), concerning the Bewcastle Cross: “The buds, blossoms, and fruit have been so carefully and exquisitely de- lineated by the chisel of the workman, and are still so faithfully preserved, that they seem as if they were things only just starting into life.’ Colling- wood (Harly Sculpt. Crosses, p. 196) speaks of ‘the classic proportion and dignity which must strike even the least critical visitor to Bewcastle or Ruth- well.” Concerning the vine on the Bewcastle Cross, Browne remarks (Conv. of Hept., p. 191): ‘ The whole is drawn in a very bold and skilful manner, and the animals and birds are full of life. . . . It is quite impossible to see the beautiful sculpture without a wondering surprise. Who could have drawn, who could have executed in high relief, such a work of art as this, at any assignable date in Anglian history ?’ Later he observes (ibid., pp. 199-200 ; cf. p. 223): ‘ Of the figure of our Lord on the west side of the Bew- castle Cross, a figure about three and a half feet high, I can only say that a more dignified simplicity could not be given to such a figure in any age. I have (93) 306 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses I. THE POWER WHICH ENABLED: AND SUGGESTED THE PRODUCTION 1. A POWER EXTENDING OVER THE REGION INCLUDING BO LEE GROS srs David became prince of Scottish Cumbria in 1107, and ruled over it until he became king of Scotland in 1124. According to the best authorities, his rule as prince extended over the whole of Dumfries- shire, and would therefore have included Ruthwell ; while the fact that Gilles, son of Boed, or Bueth, from whom Bewcastle derives its name, appears among the witnesses to David’s inquest of 1120 or 1121, leads one to suppose that this region, at least, was under his jurisdiction, though so clearly, according to our notions, on the English side of the Border. Upon the 8th of January 1107, Edgar sunk into an early grave, with his latest breath bequeathing the appanage of Scottish Cumbria to his youngest brother David; not only as a testimony of personal regard for his favorite brother, but as an acknowledgment of the valuable assistance which he had derived, during his contest for the crown, from the intelligence and sagacity of that able and politic prince.* had it put on glass, and shewn by lime light on a screen, the full size of life. It never fails to impress deeply an audience of whatever class. Nothing that I have seen of early sculpture in foreign museums has produced the same kind of effect upon myself; and the effort to conceive its being produced in Cumberland 1225 years ago, whether by native, or by Gallican, or by Roman masons, is merely bewildering.’ Prior and Gardner (‘ English Medieval Figure-Sculpture,’ Architectural Review 12. 8): “The draperies have the full foldings and massive modelling of late classic design, and gener- ally the technique shows a practised chisel, as well as the assured methods of a finished school in figure and decorative design. We do not reach such technical attainment again in English work until close upon the thirteenth century.’ On the various elements which enter into the English sculpture of this period, see Allen, Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, pp. 159, 230; Calverley, Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 41; Nanson, ‘ Beweastle,’ Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. 3.223; Prior and Gardner, ‘ English Medizval Figure-Sculp- ture,’ Architectural Review 12. 8. For similar phenomena in the Isle of Man, see Kermode, Manz Crosses, p. 89. For the composite character of Romanesque sculpture and architecture, see Michel, Hist. de ? Art 17. 943; Male, L’Art Religieux du XIII’ Siécle en France 1. 68 ff. 1 Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings 1. 170. (94) -paseiees AL ODN EN bs The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 307 After Edgar’s death [1107] he served an apprenticeship for the royal office as earl or prince of Cumbria, where his power was little short of regal. He married a Saxon, . . . and his friends and followers were chiefly Norman. . . . In the government of his principality he succeeded in reducing a wild part of Scotland into order, using for this purpose the agency of the church.' The government of Cumbria was a valuable apprenticeship for the royal office. Originally peopled by Celts of the Cymric branch, from whom it derived its name, it had been separated from North Wales by the Northumbrian conquests in the seventh and first part of the eighth century. It had been granted by the English king Edmund in 945 to Malcolm MacDonald on condition that he should be ‘his fellow-worker by land and sea,’ and since that date remained a dependency of the Scottish crown, although the English monarchs claimed its suzerainty. It included the whole south-western portion of modern Scotland from the Firth of Clyde to the Solway, whence its inhabitants derived their name of Strathclyde Britons, and although it early received an infusion of Norse settlers on the coast, and, after the Norman Conquest, of Nor- man barons, its population was still predominantly Celtic. It had been christianised, and the see of Glasgow founded in the time of Kentigern {6th century], but no settled government, either ecclesiastical or civil, had been-established. Within its borders Celtic customs still contended with Saxon and Norman law for the mastery, and the language of the natives was still probably Celtic. It extended inland beyond the modern counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew, Ayr, Galloway, and part of Dumfries to an indeterminate border line which included the modern counties of Lanark and Peebles, where it met Lothian, to the valley of the Nith, which separated it from the southern counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk, but even beyond these limits it preserved, ecclesiastically at least, certain places as subject to the jurisdiction of the see of Glasgow.* The kingdom of Cumbria originally extended from the Firth of Clyde to the river Derwent, including what was afterwards the dioceses of Glasgow, Galloway, and Carlisle. That portion, which extended, however, from the Solway Firth to the river Derwent, and afterwards * formed the diocese of Carlisle, was wrested from the Scots by William Rufus in 1092, and was bestowed by Henry the First upon Ranulf de Meschines. David’s possessions in Cumbria consisted, therefore, of the counties of Lanark, Ayr, Renfrew, Dumfries, and Peebles, and the inquisition contains lands in these counties.* 1 Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., 21. 482. 2 Dict. Nat. Biog. 14. 117. 3 In 1133, the first bishop being Adelulf; see p. 127, note 2. “ Skene, Celtic Scotland 1. 456; cf. Burton, History of Scotland 2. 61-2. (95) 308 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses At the revival of the episcopate of Glasgow, under David I, the whole churches of Dumfriesshire were included within its jurisdiction. The authority of the bishops of Glasgow over the parishes of Eskdale, Ewisdale, Dryfesdale, Annandale, Glencairn, and Strathnith, with a part of Cumberland, was confirmed by Pope Alexander in 1178, by Lucius in 1181, and by Urban in 1186 A. D. Several of the churches with their revenues belonged to the bishops of Glasgow, as the property of their see. From the munificence of Robert de Bruce, the bishop of Glasgow acquired, about the year 1174, the property of the churches of Moffat and Kirkpatrick.! Hic Henricus . . . videns Johannem Episcopum Glasguensem per Cumberlandiam ecclesias dedicare, et cetera officia pontificalia se- cundum morem juris antiqui perficere, etc.? The inquisition made in 1120 or 1121 into the lands belonging to the see of Glasgow by the elders and wise men of Cumbria by command of David, its earl, is a unique and valuable record of his method of procedure. Its preamble bears that disturbances had not only destroyed the church but laid waste the whole region, and that the tribes of dif- ferent languages now inhabiting it had relapsed into a condition more resembling heathens than christians, and that God had now sent to them David, the brother of the king of Scotland, as their prince. It then recites that David through zeal for religion had ordered an inquest to be made of the possessions formerly belonging to the see of Glasgow that they might be restored to it. The names of the lands of the church thus restored are, as might be expected, chiefly Celtic, and formed, whether they originally belonged to the see of Kentigern or not, the later diocese of Glasgow. The inquest concludes with the names of five witnesses who swore to it and a larger number who were present and heard it read. Their names, a strange medley of Celtic, Saxon, and Norman, afford a pregnant proof of the mixed population even among the class of landowners.® Has vero auxilio et investigatione seniorum hominum et sapientorum totius Cumbrie pro posse suo investigavit, que inferius subscribuntur. . . Has terras juraverunt fore pertinentes Ecclesie Glasgu, rogatu et imperio supradicti principis, Uchtred filius Waldef, Git? filius Boed, Leysyng et Oggo, Cumbrenses judices, Halden filius Eadulf. Hujus rei testes sunt, etc. 1 2 3 4 Chalmers, Caledonia 5. 148. Fordun, Scotichron. 8. 3. Dict. Nat. Biog. 14. 117-8. David's Inquest, in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 2. 18; also in Reg- tstrum Episcopatus Glasguensis (Bannatyne Club) 1. 7. (96) The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 309 Bueth, a name occurring twice among 12th century landholders in North Cumberland, is probably Gaelic Buidh, modern Boyd, i. e., “ yellow-haired.” The relatives of the two Bueths bear Gaelic and Norse names, as well as Norman, later on: so that it may be presumed these people, whether one family or not, were originally Gallgael, or Viking who had intermarried with Gaels. Bewcastle, and also Buetholme and Buethby (Norse place-names) are obviously derived from Bueth (Chancellor Prescott’s Wetherhal, p. 197). The two Bueths are (a) father of Gilles—not the French Giles, but Gilles which, like Malise, means “ Servant of Jesus” (Giolla-Iosa in full Gaelic spelling). This Gilles was a Cumbrian witness in an inquisition as to the lands of Glasgow Church, 1120-1121, and owned “ Gilles-land ”’ to his death, after which it was given to Hubert de Vallibus (1157) (Wetherhal, p. 195-6); (b) Bueth or Bueth-barn (7. e., Bueth “ the childe,” junior ; though Chan- cellor Prescott says ‘“‘ Bueth’s child”). He gave land in Beweastle to Wetherhal Priory, and his son Robert confirmed the grant (1177-8). Robert joined William the Lion (1173-4) and was fined one mark for the act of rebellion (Pipe Rolls, 1177). His name appears in several charters with contemporary lords and clerics. ... We cannot say that Bueth-barn was descended from Bueth, father of Gillés, but as it was common to give a grandson his grandfather’s name, it is likely that we have four generations:—Bueth, Gillés, Bueth-barn, Robert.! Bueth, or Buec, or Boed, would seem to have held the district which afterwards formed the Barony of Gilsland, or Gillesland, and the country immediately to the north of it. The name appears here as in the place name Buchastre, Buchcastre, or Buethcastre. . .. In the Pipe Rolls, we find that Robert son of Bueth was fined one mare in 1177, for having been with the enemies of the king. He is witness to several of the charters of Robert de Vallibus and others of the period (Regist. Laner- cost, MS. i, 6, 8; ii, 9,12). Robert de Buethcastre is said to have given the Church of Bewcastle to the Priory of Carlisle. . . . The name Bueth appears in other places in Gilsland, as Buetholme and Buethby (Regist. Lanercost, MS. iii, 8 et al.).. . . The castle, of later date than the time of Gille son of Bueth, probably occupies the site of the castle where the family of Bueth resided, and where Gilles son of Bueth held the district until his death. . . . It was called Bewecastell as early as 1488 (Cal. Doc. Scot. ed. Bain, iv. 345).2 Carta Mabiliz filiz Adz filij Richeri de Buchcastre facta monachis de Wederhale de XIV acris. terre in Buchcastre.® 1 Collingwood, quoted by Curwen, St. Cuthbert’s Church, Bewcastle, in Cumberland and Westmoreland Antig. and Arch. Soc. Trans., N.S. 2 (1902). 243. * Prescott, Register of the Priory of Wetherhal (Elliott Stock, 1897), pp. 195-7. 3 Prescott, p. 199. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 21 (97) 310 1 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses On the banks of the Irthing close to the Roman wall, in the country which we now associate with the genius of Sir Walter Scott, Robert de Vaux son of Hubert de Vaux, lord of Gillesland, founded the priory of Lanercost for regular canons of the Order of St. Augustine. Tra- dition places the foundation in 1169, which agrees with the evidence of the earliest charter of the house. ... The grantor assigned to God and St. Mary Magdalene of Lanercost and to the regular canons there the lawn (landa) of Lanercost between the ancient wall and the Irthing and between, etc. . . . certain lawns by bounds as ‘ Gille son of Bueth’ held them. .. - In several of these charters, when he had occasion to refer to his territorial title, he reverted to the old phrase employed by Henry II in the original enfeoffment of his family and repeated by himself in his foundation charter, ‘infra baroniam quam dominus rex Henricus Anglie dedit patri meo et mihi in terra que fuit Gille filii Bueth.” Few of the religious houses founded by subjects in the northern counties can point to a patron more distinguished in personal qualities than Lanercost, for Robert de Vaux, immortalized by Jordan Fantosme, his contem- porary, was a valiant soldier, a great judge, a prudent statesman, and a munificent benefactor of his church and country. The example he set was infectious, for his family, kindred and descendants rank fore- most among those who contributed to the prosperity and welfare of the priory. ... In common with the other religious houses of the county, the small proprietors were as forward in making bequests according to their station as the great magnates. The manor of Buchecastre is mentioned in No. 109. It lies about 7 miles due north of Lanercost and is the northernmost part of the County of Cumberland, touching Scotland on the northwest and Northumberland on the east and northeast. Here was a Roman station, not far from the Maiden Way, and in the church is the famous Saxon Runic Cross. The castle, of later date than the time of Gille son of Bueth, probably occupies the site of the castle where the family of Bueth resided, and where Gille son of Bueth held the district until his death.? Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 152-3. 2 Prescott, p. 197. The name of Bewcastle is given as Buthecaster in 1249 (Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 125), Bothecastre in 1299-1300, 1357-8, castle of Bothe in 1401 (Cal. Doc. Scot., ed. Bain, Vol. 4, nos. 2, 585, 1776), Bewe- castell in 1488 (cbid., no. 1542). The following items with respect to the Bewcastle church are extracted from Curwen’s paper (see p. 97, above). Referring to the early period, he says (p. 245): “ The low narrow quaint old church with rude walls and thatched roof [this must be conjectural] would become by degrees of greater importance and be rebuilt at the lord’s instigation in the prevailing Early English style [1189-1272, Parker], as is still noticeable in the triple east- (98) The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 311 If Bewcastle did not belong to Scottish Cumbria, it certainly lay within the territory which fell more and more under David's in- fluence after he became king. In the beginning of the year 1136 he led an army across the border, and made himself master of every castle in Cumberland and Northum- berland except Bamborough, penetrating as far as Durham. [After the battle of the Standard in 1138] at Carlisle peace was made. ... David gave hostages, but retained Carlisle and Cumber- land without any condition of homage. end windows of the church.’ In 1279 permission was obtained for a fair and market to be held here. ‘The living was valued in Pope Nicholas’ valuation, 1291-2, Ecclesia de Botecastre, at £ 19: 0:0; in 1318 it was not taxed: quia non sufficiunt pro stipendio capellani. In 1546 Bewcastell rectoria valet per an’ tempore pacis £2: 0:0; tempore guerre, nihil. At the first date, the bishop of Carlisle had a pension on Bewecastle vicaria of 6/8 ; at the second, nil; nothing said at the third date. In 1298 the Scots harried the region. Robert de Southayle was rector between 1306 and 1356, being the first of whom we have record. After 1580, Camden speaks of the church as being ‘now almost quite ruinated’ [cf. Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 78]. In the year 1792 ‘ it was practically rebuilt, and irredeemably spoilt. Six and a half yards were cut off the nave [cf. what is said of the Ruthwell renovation, p- 139, below] at the west end, reducing its length by one third, and the curiously ugly tower, I suppose, erected as a set-off. . . . The vandals ... pierced the upper parts of the southern wall with a second tier of three square sashed windows. There are no windows in the northern wall, and it would seem that this is customary in all buildings in this stormy district ’ (p. 246). “The dean and chapter of Carlisle are still the patrons’ (p. 248). ‘In 1899 the old fabric was found to be not only out of repair, but dangerous. . . . As much as possible has been preserved, and the changes introduced are in the style of the Early English part of the building. The restored church was opened on Sunday, November 3, 1901’ (pp. 253-4). It thus appears that the earliest mention of the church was in 1291-2, but that, if we may trust the inference from the windows of the east end, the building must have been in existence considerably before that time. In 1294, it may be noted, there was a “ hospital’—an almshouse—at Bew- castle. This was known as the Hospital of Lennham—for so we must prob- ably interpret the Lennh’ of the Latin. ‘The collectors of the tenth, given by the clergy of the diocese of Carlisle in 1294 to Edward I. for the Holy Land, refer to this house—and reported that the hospital of Lennh’ in Bewcastle (Hospitale de Lennh’ in Bothecaster) was unable to pay the assessment as the land belonging to it lay uncultivated’ (Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 204). 1 Pp. H. Brown, History of Scotland 1. 77. * Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., 21. 483. (99) 312 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses A. D. 1092. William Rufus, and A. D. 1122 Henry I., occupy and fortify Carlisle. A. D. 1136. David regains English Cumberland. A. D. 1147. Cumberland (English) with Northumberland and Dur- ham ceded to Scotland by the Treaty of Carlisle.t Strathclyde, which from 908—1034 had probably extended to the eastern and southern boundaries of the subsequent sees of Glasgow and Carlisle, was in the latter year merged in the Scottish crown and kingdom. From 1070—1091 Scottish kings ruled over Cumber- land and Northumberland as well as over Scottish Cumbria, but in 1092 Wiliam Rufus wrested English Cumbria from Dolphin, lord of Carlisle, a vassal of the Scottish Malcolm, and rebuilt the castle of Carlisle, making the adjoining country for the first time English.2 From 14136 English Cumbria remained in possession of Scotland till 1157. The relation of Hexham to David I is partic- ularly interesting in this connection. The administration of Cumberland during the reign of Henry II. was a delicate task in view of its Scottish sympathies and associations, requiring all the resources of tact and skill to complete its incorporation as a portion of the English commonwealth. The king took a personal interest in the recovered province and visited Carlisle from time to time as the public affairs of the district called for his immediate atten- tion. He came north in 1158 and held a conference with King Malcolm in that city. ... It was on this visit that King Henry committed to Hubert de Vaux the barony of Gillesland, a wide tract abutting the frontier on the east which had been previously held by Gille son of Boet, a local chieftain who appears to have acknowledged no feudal superior. The presence of a Scottish element among the territorial owners, which the King of Scotland was not backward in utilizing as it suited his purpose, was a constant danger to the peace of the district.* Haddan and Stubbs 2. 10. Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., 21. 481. Haddan and Stubbs 2. 27. Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 244-5. Haddan and Stubbs (2. 13) thus define the boundary with which we are most immediately concerned, that in the direction of Beweastle: ‘ All Cumbria was never within the see of Hexham, only that part of what is now Cumberland which lies east from Wetherall. on the Eden above Carlisle, up to the boundaries of Northumberland... . What really happened, plainly was, that Hexhamshire (and indeed the whole northern district) being absolutely devastated by William the Conqueror, Thomas I. of York (A. D. 1070-1100) took possession of it, and no doubt of Cumbria also, as a sort of waif and stray; and that Henry I. confirmed (100) Pe © Dw OE Pewee’? ) ean et The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 313 As long as the earldoms of Cumberland and Northumberland were appanages of his royal house, Hexham occupied a most important po- sition on the frontiers of his territory. It was of the utmost conse- quence to him to have a monastery like that which lay between his two towns of Carlisle and Newcastle, thoroughly devoted to his inter- ests. David certainly succeeded in securing and retaining the good opinion of the canons of Hexham. When Priors Richard and John describe the cruelties of the Scots in the invasion of 1138, the blame is laid not on the leader, but on his followers. Of David they always speak with reverence and affection.! The canons of Hexham had good cause to speak of David with affection. They were really more under his control than under that of Stephen, and they would hear with wondering delight of the monasteries which their patron was erecting in the North, and of the dioceses which he created or remodelled.” In Carlisle they [the canons of Hexham] had one or two plots of ground with a house or two upon them of the gift of David king of Scotland and Henry his son. ... Passing by the archbishops of York and their numerous gifts, we find among the donors many of the great potentates and barons of Northumberland. First and foremost is David king of Scotland, with his son and grandson prince Henry and William the Lion.* In 1149, Henry Fitz-Empress, later Henry II., arrived at Carlisle, and was knighted, promising, if ever he became king, to confirm to David and his heirs the lands between Tweed and Tyne. . . . Thanks to the troubles of Stephen’s reign, David was now master of England, as far south as the Tees, with a promise of continuance, if Henry Fitz- Empress succeeded to the English throne.* The whole of the north of England beyond the Tees had now [ea. 1150 7] for several years been under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy that possession to Thomas II. (A. D. 1109-1113). See Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. 220, App. p. viii, and Pref. pp. xlvii, vi.’ Elsewhere they say (2. 11), defining the ancient Strathclyde, that it ‘ would include about two- thirds only of Westmoreland on the east; although probably including also the district east of Wetherall in Cumberland up to the present county boundaries of Northumberland and Durham.’ Seivaine V. lexi; cf. p.. bxix. 2 Ibid. 1. 168, note w. 3 Ibid. 2. xv. 4 Lang, History of Scotland 1. 107-8. (101) 314 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses prevailing in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of the northern counties to look with favor upon a continuance of the Scottish connection. All southward of the Tyne, indeed, was held probably in the name of the Empress Queen, but the influence of David extended far beyond the Tees.! As an illustration of the community of religious and cultural interests on both sides of the Border, and the reciprocal influences of southern Scotland and northern England, the abbey of Holm- cultram, founded in 1150 under David’s influence, if not by David himself, deserves particular attention. The abbey of Holmcultram,? situated in the low-lying district between Carlisle and the Solway, was founded as an affiliation of the great Cis- tercian house of Melrose by Prince Henry, son of David, King of Scot- land, in the year 1150, while he was ruler of the province ceded to Scot- land by King Stephen and afterwards known as the county of Cumber- land. In this great work he was assisted by Alan son of Waldeve, the lord of Allerdale, who relinquished to the new foundation the tract of territory which Henry had given him for a sporting domain. The act of the prince of Scotland and his vassal was confirmed by King David.® ... This great abbey, which overshadowed in riches and influence the rest of the religious houses in Cumberland and Westmorland, had many friends and benefactors on both sides of the Border before the rupture with Scotland in 1296. Endowments were freely lavished upon it by landowners, large and small, in various parts of the two counties. ... The Scottish possessions were chiefly in Annandale, the fief of the Brus or Bruce family, and in Galloway, the principality of Fergus. Free trade with Scotland was conceded by William the Lion and free passage through the Vale of Annan by Robert de Brus. The kings of Man? allowed the ships of the monks to visit the ports of the island and to buy and sell free of toll... . The abbey of Melrose was brought into intimate relations with Holmcultram, and often exercised an effec- tive jurisdiction over the affairs of the monastery. . . . In various ways we see the subjection of Holmcultram to the Scottish house.°® 1 Robertson 1. 222. 2 17 miles S. W. of Carlisle, on the river Waver. 8’ Wyntoun and Fordun say that it was founded by David (Wyntoun, ed. Laing, 3. 333; Fordun 1. 347). 4 “At one time the ships of the convent traversed the Irish Sea and carried on a brisk trade with Ireland and the Isle of Man’ (Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 167). ® Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 162-4. ah At att Se ete ag am The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 315 The church in the twelfth century was not insular or national, be- longing to one race or one kingdom: it claimed an universal sovereignty over all nations. For this reason no doubt the political frontier which marked off the English from the Scottish kingdom was scarcely recognized at the outset among the benevolent landowners who first endowed religious institutions in this part of the country. But apart from religious considerations there was a community of feeling as well as an identity of aim among the people on both sides of the national boundary. By ties of property, intermarriage and old associations, the inhabitants of ancient Cumbria remained practically one people for a long period after they had become politically separated. The needs of the church knew no political barriers. Religious houses in Scot- land received grants from the lords of Cumberland after the severance of the diocese from Scottish rule. National prejudice did not hinder Scottish laymen from extending their benevolence to institutions on the English side of the Border. . . . The favors conferred on Scottish monasteries by Cumberland landowners were reciprocated from the other side. On the western border alone many instances might be given wherein the great lords of Annandale and Galloway were equally con- siderate to English institutions. No small portion of the endowments of the abbey of Holmcultram was situated in Galloway and on the northern shore of the Solway. The family of Brus, the owners of the great fief of Annandale, were among the foremost benefactors of the priory of Gisburn in Yorkshire. The priory of Lanercost had rent charges in Dumfries. It is true that family ties or national sentiment had much to do with several of these endowments. One might expect that the abbey of Holmcultram should possess strong claims upon Scottish liberality, seeing that it was of Scottish foundation and the only institution left in the district as a relic of the Scottish occupation. Making due allowance for considerations of this sort, we should not forget the strong international sentiment which pervaded the people of both kingdoms.! 2, A POWER WHICH COULD MAKE ITSELF RESPECTED IN A RUDE AGE, AND ONE MAKING APPEAL TO VARIOUS NATIONALITIES As to the power wielded by David, this was due to his royal descent, since he was not only rightful heir to the Scottish crown, but was at least, in the estimation of many, one of the rightful heirs to the crown of England through his mother Margaret, a lineal descendant of King Alfred, and sister of the last Saxon king of Engiand ; to his close alliance with the new royal house of England, 1 Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 14, 15. On the connection between Carlisle and Holyrood, see ibid. 2. 15. (103) 316 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses through the marriage of his sister, Matilda, with Henry I, son of William the Conqueror ; to the veneration and affection in which his mother and his sister were held ; to his residence at the English court, which gave him access to the first men of his time ; to his grasp of Norman institutions, and his employment of Norman auxiliaries ; to the welcome he extended to foreigners, and his enlist- ment of various nationalities in his enterprises ; to his warm cham- pionship of the Church, and his patronage of its most powerful agencies ; not to speak of his own personal qualities, which can only be measured by his success in turning every advantage to account—in other words, by the sum total of his achievement. Some of these points have already been touched upon above ; others will now be presented ; while still others are matters of common knowledge, or can readily be found in encyclopedias and other standard works of reference. The only son of Queen Margaret now left was David, the youngest. He appears, while yet a youth, to have accompanied his sister Matilda to the English court, on her marriage with Henry the First, king of Eng- land, which took place in November 1100, during the reign of Eadgar over Scotland, and here he was trained, with other young Norman barons, in all the feudal usages, so as to become, by education and association with the young English nobility, embued with feudal ideas, and sur- rounded by Norman influences, or, as William of Malmesbury expresses it, “ polished from a boy by intercourse and familiarity with us.’! He married Maud the daughter of Waltheof, by Judith the niece of William the Conqueror; and David became afterwards possessed of the great earldoms of Huntingdon and Northumberland; so that he was, at the time of his accession to the crown of Scotland, the most powerful subject in England.? While the king of the French was struggling for bare existence against refractory barons as powerful as himself, while England was distracted by the wars of Stephen and Maud so that men said that ‘ Christ and his saints were asleep,’ Scotland enjoyed a peace and prosperity which made her a refuge for exiles and a mart for foreign countries. . . . By a politic marriage he [David] gained an influence and a prestige beyond the border which for a time made him arbiter of the fortunes of England. His wife, Matilda, granddaughter of Siward of Northumbria, brought him the Honour of Huntingdon, with lands in at least six English counties, 1 Skene, Celtic Scotland 1. 454. * Guthrie, History of Scotland 1. 303. (104) ————— wae he 4 - a DRM kW peri « ‘ « = - 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 317 the earldom of Northampton during her lifetime, and a claim to the earldom of Northumberland, which David practically made good during the latter half of his reign.! The prince of Scotland [Henry, David’s son] was then the represen- tative of the old Anglo-Saxon kings, to whom the English had still a strong affection. Stephen therefore treated him [1136] with all the honors due to the first prince of the blood. Edgar the A®theling, with his mother Agatha, his sisters Margaret and Christina, and the last relics of the English nobility, resolved to sail for Wearmouth, and to seek a shelter at the court of Malcolm, King of Scotland.*® This prudent queen directed all such things as it was fitting for her to regulate; the laws of the realm were administered by her counsel ; by her care the influence of religion was extended, and the people re- joiced in the prosperity of their affairs. Nothing was firmer than her fidelity, steadier than her favour, or juster than her decisions; noth- ing was more enduring than her patience, graver than her advice, or more pleasant than her conversation. There is perhaps no more beautiful character recorded in history than that of Margaret. For purity of motives, for an earnest desire to benefit the people among whom her lot was cast, for a deep sense of religion and great personal piety, for the unselfish performance of what- ever duty lay before her, and for entire self-abnegation, she is unsur- passed, and the chroniclers of the time all bear testimony to her exalted character.® Margaret became the mirror of wives, mothers, and queens, and none ever more worthily earned the honors of saintship. Her gentle influence reformed whatever needed to be reformed in her husband, and none labored more diligently for the advance of temporal and spiritual en- lightenment in her adopted country.® It is owing in great measure to this virtuous education given by Mar- garet to her sons that Scotland was governed for the space of 200 years by seven excellent kings, that is, by her three sons, Edgar, Alexander, David, by David’s two grandsons, Malcolm IV. and William, and Brown 1. 74-5. Guthrie, p. 306. Turgot, Life of St. Margaret, tr. Forbes-Leith, p. 11. Turgot, p. 29. Skene 2. 344. Freeman, Norman Conquest 3. 12. (105) 318 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses William’s son and grandson, Alexander II. and III. ; during which space the nation enjoyed greater happiness than perhaps it ever did before or after.! And soon afterwards the king [Henry I] took for his wife Maud the daughter of Malcolm king of Scotland and of the good queen Margaret, King Edward’s kinswoman, of the true royal line of England.? The shout of the English multitude when he [Anselm] set the crown on Matilda’s brow drowned the murmur of Churchman or of baron. . For the first time since the Conquest, an English sovereign sat on the English throne. The blood of Cerdic and Alfred was to blend itself with that of Hrolf and the Conqueror.* Like her mother, she [Matilda] was very pious, wearing a hair shirt, going barefoot round the churches in Lent, and devoting herself especially to the care of lepers, . . . besides building a hospital for them at St. Giles-in-the-Fields, London. . . . In her convent days she had ‘ learned and practised the literary art,’ and six letters written by her to Anselm, . as well as one to Pope Paschal II, . . . display a scholarship unusual among laymen, and probably still more among women, in her day. . . . She was a warm patroness of verse and song; she gave lavishly to mus- ical clerks, to scholars, poets, and strangers of all sorts, who were drawn to her court by the fame of her bounty, and who spread her praises far and wide... . Robert of Gloucester over and over again ascribes to her a direct, personal, and most beneficial influence on the condition of England under Henry I, and finally declares that “the goodness that she did here to England cannot all be here written, nor by any one understood.’ 4 Matilda appears to have been very amiable, very devout, very fond of musie and poetry, very vain, and rather pretty; not a perfect, but a feminine and lovable character, which earned her the title of ‘ Good Queen Maud.’® An intimate connection with the Court of England for upwards of a quarter of a century, had effectually “rubbed off the Scottish rust’ from David—to use the words of his contemporary Malmesbury —con- 1 2 3 4 Turgot, p. 35, note. Anglo-Saxon Chron. s. ann. 1100. Green, Short History of the English People, Chap. 2, Sec. 6. Dict. Nat. Biog. 37. 53. It may be worth noting that the date of her death is entered in the Chartulary of Chartres Cathedral, as donor of a new lead roof, a chasuble bordered with gold, forty pounds for the use of the 5 monks, etc. Cf. below, p. 128. Robertson 1. 153, note. (106) The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 319 verting him into a feudal baron; and many years before he was called upon to fill the throne (1124-1153), he had gathered around him in his Cumbrian principality a body of knights and barons, from whom sprung the older Norman chivalry of Scotland. The fear of the mail-clad auxiliaries, whom the long residence and popularity of the Earl at his sister’s court would have enabled him to call to his aid, at length extorted from Alexander a tardy and reluctant recognition of his brother’s claims upon Scottish Cumbria.? David was thus, to all intents and purposes, a Norman baron when the death of his brother Eadgar placed him, by his bequest, in possession of almost the entire Scottish territory south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde.® The dignitaries at the court of Alexander were exclusively . . . the nobility of ancient Alban and the Lothians; whilst around Earl David gathered Moreville and Somerville, Lindsay and Umphraville, Bruce and Fitz-Alan, Norman names destined to surround the throne of his descendants, two of them to become royal, and all to shed a lustre upon the feudal chivalry of Scotland.? But it was during David’s own reign that the Norman element attained such a predominance as to become the great formative influence in the Scottish kingdom. Many circumstances combined to make David a strong and fortunate monarch, yet the most potent influence that sustained him in all his undertakings was the disciplined strength of the Norman knights and barons behind him.° Both Normans and English came to Scotland in crowds in the days of Margaret, Edgar, and David. In Scotland again the Norman settlers were lost in the mixed nationality of the country, but not till they had modified many things in the same way in which they modified things in England.*® Following the example of his fellows elsewhere, the southern baron planted a castle on the most advantageous site on his new estate. With him he brought a body of retainers, by whose aid he at once secured his own position, and wrought such changes in his neighborhood as were Robertson 1. 187. bids We Wil. Skene 1. 455. Robertson 1. 184. Brown 1. 73. Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., 17. Or Or — (107) 320 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses consistent with the conditions on which his fief had been granted... - By the close of David’s reign the most valuable part of his dominion was held by vassals and subvassals who looked to him as their feudal head.? The reign of David I. is beyond doubt the true commencement of feudal Scotland, and the term of Celtic Scotland becomes no longer appropriate to it as a kingdom. Under his auspices feudalism rapidly acquired predominance in the country, and its social state and insti- tutions became formally assimilated to Norman forms and ideas, while the old Celtic element in her constitutional history gradually retired into the background. During this and the subsequent reigns the out- lying districts, which had hitherto maintained a kind of semi-indepen- dence under their native rulers, and in which they were more tenaciously adhered to, were gradually brought under the more direct power of the monarch and incorporated into the kingdom.? In this charter [1113] he calls himself Earl David, son of Malcolm, king of Scots, and addressed it to all his adherents, Normans, Angles, and Scots. David, who had been long preparing for war, had gathered his army from every quarter of his dominions; and around the royal standard, the ancient Dragon of Wessex, might be seen the representatives of nearly every race contributing to form the varied ancestry of the modern Scottish people. The Norman knight and the Low Country ‘ Reiter,’ the sturdy Angle and the fiery Scot, marched [1138] side by side with the men of Northumberland and Cumberland, of Lothian and of Teviot- dale; whilst the mixed population of the distant islands, Norwegians from the Orkneys, and the wild Picts of Galloway, flocked in crowds to the banner of their king, to revel in the plunder of the south.* Norwegians from Orkney, Scots from Alba, Angles from Lothian, Norman knights, and apparently even mercenaries from Germany, formed his motley following. One other element, however, deserves special mention, as from this time forward it was to play a noticeable part in the general history of Scotland. From the beginning of David’s doings in England, the Galwegians, or Picts, as they are otherwise styled by the contemporary chroniclers, had played a prominent part in all his operations. By their fierce insubordination and their savage Brown 1. 90. Skene 1. 459-60. Ibid. 1. 455. Robertson 1. 196. (108) Y= how 0 We lee i pls ed ne ed tee ad el ea The Power which Enabled and Suggested the Production 324 treatment of the conquered English, they had distinguished themselves among the rest of David’s host.1 The dominating fact of the period is the extensive assignment of lands within the bounds of Scotland to men of Norman, Saxon, or Danish extraction. Wherever these strangers settled they formed centres of force, compelling acceptance of the new order in church and state by the reluctant natives. From all we know of Strathclyde and Galloway previous to the time of the Saxonized and Normanized kings, extensive districts must have consisted of waste land, which could be alienated without great injustice being done to existing rights.* In discussing such topographical investigations, it ought constantly to be remarked that the great influx of English, who then spoke Saxon, Anglo-Normans, and Flemings under David I. and his two grandsons, Malcolm and William, who themselves spoke Saxon, must necessarily have had the greatest effect in changing the names of places in Scot- land ; as they mostly all received, from those sovereigns, grants of lands, and generally gave new names to their Scottish estates. The several maps of the shires of Scotland are the best evidence of the truth of this reasoning.* Conciliation may be described as the leading principle of David’s policy. . . . He is said to have succeeded in establishing a more durable state of concord amongst the heterogeneous population of his kingdom, than existed at that period amongst people enjoying far higher advan- tages.> Of feudal and historical Scotland ; of the Scotland which counts Edin- burgh amongst her fairest cities, and Glasgow, as well as Perth and Aberdeen ; of the familiar Scotland of Bruce and of the Stewarts, David was unquestionably the creator.® Southern Scotland was the creation of David. He embellished it with the monasteries of his religious foundations; he strengthened it with the castles of his feudal baronage; and here he established the nucleus of feudal Scotland, and the foundation of that importance which eventually transferred the preponderance in the kingdom to a ao fF Oo HS Brown 1. 80. Ibid. 1. 88. Ibid. 1. 89. Chalmers, Caledonia 5. 62. Robertson 1. 229. Ibid. 1. 319-20. (169) 322 4 1 Robertson 1. 233. 2 Ibid. 1. 224-5. Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses the south. Strath Clyde and the Lothians were admirably adapted to his purpose, for all the land appears to have been in direct dependence on the crown; he could stud it at will with his favourite Anglo-Norman chivalry. Never was Scotland at any period of her history more powerful relatively to her southern neighbor, than during the last ten years of David’s reign.” Of all the reigns of Scottish kings that of David is undoubtedly the most memorable in every aspect of the life of a people. . . . The trans- formation wrought by David placed the country in new relations to the other countries of Christendom. But besides remoulding the church, he recast the social condition of the people in such degree as makes his reign an epoch in the national development. At no period of its history has Scotland ever stood relatively so high in the scale of nations. By a fortunate combination of circumstances, the country profited beyond its neighbors in the great awakening of Christendom throughout the 11th century. It was the age of St. Bernard, whose name is associated with three of the great movements that absorbed the heart and mind of the time.® Beyond all David’s achievements it was what he did for the church that gave him his great name among the kings of Scotland. In the words of Wyntoun : He illumynyd in his dayis His landys wyth kyrkys and wyth abbayis. In this work also he was no initiator; but by the extent of the changes he wrought, he definitively made the Church of Rome the national Church of Scotland. . . . More palpable memorials of David’s munificence are the great abbeys he founded for the various orders who came to divide the country among them—Kelso, Dryburgh, Melrose, Newbattle, Dundrennan, Kinloss, Cambuskenneth, Holyrood, and Jedburgh. David was, if any man was, the maker of Scotland. The bishoprics erected by him, and his many Lowland abbeys, Holyrood, Melrose, Dryburgh, Kelso, Jedburgh and others, confirmed the freedom of the Scottish church from the claims of the see of York, encouraged the improvement of agriculture, and endowed the country with beautiful examples of architecture. ... From the time of David to the death of Alexander III, Scotland was relatively peaceful, prosperous, and, in the south, Anglicized, and was now in the general movement of western civilization.® 3 Brown 1. 74. Ibid. 1. 94. 5 Andrew Lang, in Encyc. Brit., 11th ed., 24. 433. (110) ; The Motive or Motives which Actuated the Production 323 Il. THE MOTIVE OR MOTIVES WHICH ACTUATED THE PRODUCTION The various purposes with which crosses were erected during the earlier Middle Ages are to some extent touched upon in the quota- tions that follow. In some cases, other motives than those here specified may perhaps be inferred from the character of the ornamen- tation or inscriptions, the situation where the crosses are found, or the dispositions and aims of those instrumental in the erection. The object of the erection of the more important free standing crosses was not as sepulchral memorials, but they were intended to be either dedicatory, commemorative, terminal, churchyard, or wayside crosses, being always placed in a prominent position, so as to attract the attention of the passer-by, and direct his mind to the contemplation of holy things, and more especially the Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord.* The inscriptions upon the high crosses of [Ireland show that these monuments were not sepulchral, because in cases where names of persons are mentioned they are known to have been buried elsewhere.* The cross in Kells churchyard is inscribed, ‘ Patricii et Columb Crux ’ (the Cross of SS. Patrick and Columba) ; and since neither of the saints here mentioned were buried at Kells, and the character of the orna- mentation of the cross showing it to belong to the ninth century, it is clear that the monument is commemorative. We have seen examples of dedicatory inscriptions to St. Peter upon early pillar-stones at Kilna- saggart, in the county of Armagh, and at Whithorne in Wigtonshire ; and Fordun relates that in the year A. D. 1260 a cross of great magni- ficence was dug up at Peebles, upon the base of which was the inscrip- tion, “ Locus Sancti Nicholai Episcopi.’ Many of the high crosses appear to have been terminal, marking the limits of the sanctuary—as, for instance, at Castle Kieran, co. Meath, the eight mile-crosses at Ripon in Yorkshire, and four at Hexham in Northumberland. Most of the early crosses in Cornwall are situated near the principal doorways of churches, so as to command the attention of worshippers entering the sacred edifice.* 1 Allen, Early Christ. Symbolism, p. 132. 2 On the Danish stones, cf. Wimmer, De Danske Runemindesmerker 1+. 11. 3 Allen, Early Christ. Symbolism, p. 132-3; cf. also his Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, p. 124. With respect to the Irish high crosses, Rivoira has now shown that they belong to the 12th century (see p.54, note 3); but this would only strengthen the argument, since the most important of them would thus be commemorative of persons who had died a couple of centuries earlier. (111) 324 1 2 3 Vol. 4 5 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses At the same time there is no doubt that crosses, other than memorial, were set up in very early Christian times in Britain. Some were erected to mark holy sites, others at preaching stations, and in some cases as limits to rights of sanctuary.? The more important crosses, such as those at Ruthwell and Beweastle, were evidently not sepulchral, but probably erected to commemorate some illustrious personage, and to encourage a devotional frame of mind by setting before the congregation scenes from the Gospels.* Venerabilis pater Kentegernus [518 ?-603] antistes habebat in con- suetudine, ut in locis quibus predicando populum adquisitionis nomini Christi subdiderat, et de fide crucis Christi illos imbuerat, aut ibi ali- quantisper deguerat, triumphale vexillum sanctz crucis erigeret, qua- tinus cunctis daretur intelligi quod in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quam in fronte portabat minime erubesceret. Sed ut mihi videtur, sancti viri consuetudo sanctissima viva ratione multipliciter subnixa est. Ideo namque Sanctus hoc vitale et sanctum et terribile signum erigere consueverat, ut sicut fluit cera a facie ignis, sic inimici humani generis, potestates tenebrarum harum, a conspectu signi hujus liquescentes defluerent, territi atque fugati procul aufugerent.® For some time he remained in a thickly wooded place, and he erected a cross, from which the place took the English name of Crossfield —that is, Crucis Novale—where a new basilica was erected in Jocelyn’s time and dedicated in the name of the blessed Kentigern.* A grievous bodily weakness attacked him, and his failing breath gave warning of the end of his life being at hand. . . . And when his parents, in great anxiety of mind, were held in suspense as to the death of their son, they made an offering of him before the great Cross of our Lord and Saviour. For it is the custom of the Saxon race that on many of the estates of nobles and of good men they are wont to have, not a church, but the standard of the holy Cross, dedicated to our Lord, and reverenced with great honor, lifted up on high, so as to be con- venient for the frequency of daily prayer. They laid him there before the Cross, and earnestly, and with all their might, begged our Lord God, the Maker of all things, to console them, and save their son’s life.® Greenwell, Catalogue, p. 44. Allen, Mon. Hist. Brit. Church, pp. 210-1; ef. p. 159. Jocelyn, Vita Kentegernt 41 (Pinkerton, Lives of the Scottish Saints, 2). Victoria Hist. Cumb. 2. 2. St. Willibald, Hodoeporicon 2-3 (Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Soc., Vol. 3). (112) The Motive or Motives which Actuated the Production 325 Fecit quoque cruciculas et oratoriola in campis, et ad fontes, vel ubicumque sibi visum fuit: et jussit ibi publicas orationes celebrari, donee multitudines populorum, spretis czteris episcopis, et dimissis antiquis ecclesiis in talibus locis conventus celebrarent.* “Do so,’ replied he; ‘ go on board, and return home in safety. But, when the Lord shall have taken my spirit, bury me [Cuthbert] in this house, near my oratory, towards the south, over against the eastern side of the holy cross [at Farne], which I have erected there.’ * Fecerat iste [thelwold, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 721—ca. 740] de lapide erucem artifici opere expoliri, et in sui memoriam suum in eo nomen exarari. Cujus summitatem multo post tempore, dum ipsam ecclesiam Lindisfarnensem pagani devastarent, fregerunt, sed post artificis ingenio reliquz parti infuso plumbo, ipsa fractura est adjuncta; semper- que deinceps cum corpore sancti Cuthberti crux ipsa cireumferri solebat, et a populo Northanhymbrorum propter utrumque sanctum in honore haberi: que etiam usque hodie in hujus, id est, Dunelmensis ecclesiz eccemiterio stans sublimis, utrorumque pontificum intuentibus exhibet monumentum.* In estimating the motives which may have actuated David—sup- posing him to have been influential, directly or indirectly, in the erec- tion of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses—we must remember his devotion to the cross, which may well have been derived from his mother ; his love of the arts in general, and of architecture in parti- cular ; and the numerous monasteries which he founded* or re- edified, or whose foundation he confirmed. We must remember, too, his interest in extending his sway, but no less his desire to con- solidate, to pacify, to rule by law, to civilize, and to Christianize the territories under his dominion. Sed cum feria sexta morbus ingravesceret, et ei standi simul et in- cedendi facultatum, vis languoris adimeret ; accersitis clericis, virisque religiosis, Dominici corporis sacramentum sibi dari postulavit. Paran- tibus illis efferre quod jusserat prohibuit ille, dicens se ante sacrosanctum 1 Boniface, Epistola 57: Boniface to Pope Zacharias, A. D. 744 (ed. Giles, 1. 122). This is in an account of Aldibertus, ‘ natione generis Gallus.’ 2 Bede, Life of St. Cuthbert, ed. Giles 4. 325. Rousseau (Annales de la Soc. Archéol. de Bruxelles 16. 71) thinks of the Ruthwell Cross as originally destined for a churchyard, because the runes refer to the death of Christ. 3 Simeon of Durham, Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. 1. 12 (Rolls Series 1. 39). 4 See p. 117, note 5. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII 22 (115) 326 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses altare sacrosancta mysteria percepturum. Igitur clericorum ac militum manibus in oratorium deportatus, post Missarum solemnia, venerandum sibi Crucem, quam Nigram vocant, produci sibi petiit adorandum. Est autem crux illa longitudinem habens palm, de auro purissimo mirabile opere fabricata, que in modum thece clauditur et aperitur. Cernitur et quedam Dominic crucis portio (sicut sepe multorum miraculorum argumento probatum est), Salvatoris nostri imaginem habens, de ebore densissime sculptam, et aureis distinctionibus mira- biliter decoratam. Hance religiosa Regina Margareta, hujus Regis mater, que de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum extitit oriunda, allatam in Scotiam quasi munus hereditarium transmisit ad filios. Hane igitur crucem, omni Scotorum genti non minus terribilem quam amabilem, cum Rex devotissime adorasset, cum multis lacrimis peccatorum con- fessione preemissa, exitum suum ccelestium mysteriorum perceptione munivit.! Moreover, she asked that a cross, called the Black Cross, which she always held in the greatest veneration, should be brought to her. There was some delay in opening the chest in which it was kept, during which the queen, sighing deeply, exclaimed, ‘O unhappy that we are! O guilty that we are! Shall we not be permitted once more to look upon the Holy Cross!’ When at last it was got out of the chest and brought to her, she received it with reverence, and did her best to embrace it and kiss it, and several times she signed herself with it. Although every part of her body was now growing cold, still as long as the warmth of life throbbed at her heart she continued steadfast in prayer. She re- | peated the whole of the Fiftieth Psalm, and placing the cross before | her eyes, she held it there with both her hands.? With a deep sigh she exclaimed, ‘ I know it, my boy, I know it. By this holy cross, by the bond of our blood, I adjure you to tell me the truth.”* Upon holy days, in addition to the hours of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Cross, and Holy Mary, recited within the space of a day and a night, she used to repeat the Psalter twice or thrice.* 1 Ailred of Rievaulx, De Generositate Regis David, in Pinkerton 2. 281; ef. Robertson 1. 227. The later history of the Black Cross is told by Lansdale, Scotland Historic and Romantic, p. 6, note: “ After the treaty (of Northampton) concluded between King Robert Bruce and Edward III, it was returned to Scotland [it had been taken away by Edward I]. It was carried before the army of David II in the invasion of England in 1346, was captured by the English at the battle of Neville’s Cross, placed in the shrine of St. Cuthbert in the cathedral of Durham, and disappeared at the time of the Reformation’ ; ef.. Turgot, p. 77, note 1. * Turgot, pp. 76-77. 3 Tbid., aps 12: 4 Ibid., ps Gas (114) 1 2 3 4 5 The Motive or Motives which Actuated the Production 327 She also placed there [at Dunfermline] a cross of priceless value, bearing the figure of our Saviour, which she had caused to be covered with the purest gold and silver studded with gems, a token even to the present day of the earnestness of her faith. She left proofs of her devotion and fervour in various other churches, as witness the Church of St. An- drews, in which is preserved a most beautiful crucifix erected by her there, and remaining even at the present day. Her chamber was never without such objects, those I mean which appertained to the dignity of the divine service. It was, so to speak, a workshop of sacred art. There, as she herself had directed, we committed it [Margaret’s body | to the grave, opposite the altar and the venerable sign of the Holy Cross which she had erected. It is justly said (as will later be shown in detail) that ‘ southern Scot-— land was the creation of David.’ He introduced his Norman and English friends, with their civilization. He founded abbeys, he aided burghs, he encouraged art and agriculture, he was ‘the Commons’ King,’ he brought Scotland within the circle of European chivalry, manners, trade, and education.® The Lowland abbeys founded by David, as Holyrood, Melrose, Jed- burgh, Kelso, Dryburgh, and others, were centres of letters, tillage, and nascent civilisation. In art, of course, Scotland was now perhaps more civilised than it has ever been since, where art is concerned. David’s attachment to Anglo-Norman friends was, partly, a matter of taste ; partly, too, he found them useful against his Celtic subjects. They were the examples and sources of such European culture as reached Scotland.* As we doat over the picturesque beauty of the broken details which are left to us, and try to conjure up the great unity which in each case they constituted, we cannot but feel that in those otherwise dim and barbarous early centuries, there was a sense of vastness and of regal magnificence in art which has not since then flourished as a genuine growth in our land, and that the power of imagination which could so embody itself was inspired by a deep and faithful state of the human soul, interpenetrated by the emotions of awe and grandeur, and _ puri- fied by reverence and the sense of an encompassing invisible reality.® Turgot, p. 30. Ibid., p. 81. Wane) 1 109: ef. p. 93. Ibid. 1. 109. Veitch, Hist. and Poetry of the Scottish Border, p. 167. (115) Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses The tidal wave. of architectural activity which swept over Europe in the latter half of the Middle Ages reached its high-water mark in the north of France; but the influence of its motion was felt, in diminishing degrees, in every direction from that centre. Its impetus toward the north was aided by the Norman conquest of England, whence it rolled on to break in ripples over the furthest shores of Scotland. Few and meagre were the monastic edifices in Scotland at the end of the eleventh century ; rude and primitive were the castles of the Scot- tish chiefs until Saxon England had become Norman England, and the effects of this change had revolutionized the whole of Great Britain. The Conqueror himself invaded Scotland, receiving homage from Malcolm III. A few years later the Norman king, Henry I., sought a Scottish bride, Matilda, daughter of Malcolm. This alliance became the entering wedge for Norman influence in Scotland. Matilda brought with her to the court of the English king her young brother David. Growing up amid Nor- man surroundings, receiving his education from a Norman bishop, David returned to Scotland, to become king in course of time, more Norman than Scot. Two features seem to have been infused into the character of David by his education: a devout religious enthusiasm and the Nor- man building spirit. Monumental evidence of this was given even be- fore he became king. Returning from England he retired to Jedburgh, then the chief town of the Middle Marches, and there, in 1118, erected a beautiful and extensive abbey for the reception of an abbot with a large following of Benedictine monks from Beauvais. What William the Norman was to the architecture of England, David I. was to that of Scotland. Upon his accession to the throne, in 1124, he made large grants of crown lands to the Church, founded abbeys at Holyrood, Kelso, Melrose, Newbattle, Kinloss, and Cambuskenneth ; elevated the ancient abbey of Dunblane to the dignity of a cathedral ; drove the Culdees from their church at Dunkeld and established there the seat of a bishopric. In fact, it is unusual to find an establishment in the whole domain that David did not either found or enrich. His exces- sive liberality toward the clergy, his zeal for founding churches and for the spreading of religion, caused him to be canonized in the hearts of his subjects, and under the title of St. David has he come down to us in history. Comparatively few of the church edifices of St. David’s-. building escaped the ravages of the wars with England under the Edwards, so that we are obliged to judge of the style of architecture during his reign from fragments incorporated with buildings of later date. But a single edifice preserves anything approaching a complete structure—the abbey of Kelso. Here the style of Romanesque is so unique, so unlike anything of its kind across the border or on the Continent, that we are almost ready to place the style of David’s reign apart, as a school of Roman- esque by itself. The same general features are perceived in the earliest surviving portions of the abbeys of Holyrood, Dryburgh, Kinloss, and (116) Ch Op My © PAN POPs Sy ree Met +>) gba pA The Motive or Motives which Actuated the Production 329 Dundrennan. They consist in an unusual degree of lightness mani- fested by the use of colonettes of exceeding slenderness, in the lavish use of mouldings, which depend for decorative effect upon depth of cutting rather than upon fantastic surface carvings, in which respect they are more like the true Gothic type. . . . It is this tendency toward refinement and the unmistakable advance toward transition from Romanesque to Gothic seen in David’s churches that would make certain other edifices in Scotland seem to belong to an earlier period. . . . In short, these two groups of Romanesque buildings illustrate quite clearly the difference that existed between the social, and hence the artistic, condition of Scotland in the reign of Maleolm Canmore (1054-93) and in that of his youngest son David (1124-53). David had not only prof- ited by English training at Winchester but he imported monastics from France, and these important facts must have influenced his exten- sive architectural exploits. . . . There is in this medieval architecture of Scotland a certain originality that clothes it with special charm. . . It did not depend absolutely upon either of these sources for general methods of design or treatment of detail, but, borrowing generously from both, evolved new motives. David found Scotland built of wattles and left her framed in granite, castles and monasteries studding the land in every direction.” The monasteries of Kelso, Jedburgh, Melrose, and Holyrood, with many another stately pile, also owed their first foundations to the fostering care of David; for, independently of his religious zeal, he appreciated the encouragement afforded by such establishments to the pacific arts it was his aim to introduce amongst his subjects.* There is probably no other country district, equally small in area, that can boast a group of ruins, at once so great and interesting, as those situated in the north of Roxburghshire, along the banks of the Tweed and its little tributary the Jed. Here were founded almost contemporaneously, in the first half of the twelfth century, four great abbeys.4 In Lothian the religious houses of Holyrood, the Isle of May, Newbottle, Kelso, Berwick; in Scotland proper, north of the Forth or Scottish sea, St. Andrews, Cambuskenneth, Stirling; in Moray, Urquhart and Kinloss; and in Scottish Cumbria, Selkirk. Jedburgh, and Glasgow, have been certainly traced to David.® ' Butler, Scotland’s Ruined Abbeys, pp. Lfe. * Robertson 1. 319. Shade As "231. 4 Butler, p. 71. > Dict. Nat. Biog. 14. 119; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 2. 15, 205 27, 28, 33; Chalmers, Caledonia (1807) 1. 678, note (x); Raine, Priory of (117) 330 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses I. ‘ITTHE CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC ANTECEDENTS DEMANDED BY THE PRODUCTION Before entering upon the consideration of the artistic influences which may have been operative in the production of our crosses, we may first pause to reflect upon the new spirit which in the 12th century was actuating the leaders in Church and State, and which in art was the herald of Gothic architecture. This was chiefly religious, and largely monastic, but it was powerful in all the chief departments of human endeavor. As the eleventh century closed and the great twelfth century dawned, the forces of medizval growth quickened to a mightier vitality, and distinctively medizval creations appeared. . . . It was no sudden birth of power, but rather faculties ripening through apprentice cen- turies, which illumined the period opening about the year 1100. This period would carry no human teaching if its accomplishment in insti- tutions, in philosophy, in art and poetry, had been a heaven-blown accident, and not the fruit of antecedent discipline.t Au XII® siécle, époque incomparable, tout nait, tout resplendit a la fois dans le monde moderne. Chevalerie, croisades, architecture. langue, littérature, tout jaillit ensemble comme par la méme explosion ; Hexham 1. 169; Cram, Ruined Abbeys of Great Britain, pp. 132-3; Keith- Spottiswoode, Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, 1824; Brown, p- 110, above; Fordun, Scotichronicon 2. 230, 426. The list varies some- what in the different authorities, but there is agreement respecting the chief monasteries. The dates of some of these, including such as were founded under David’s influence, rather than directly by him, may be interesting. 1113. Selkirk; Benedictine; from Tiron. 1115. Jedburgh; Austin canons; from Beauvais. 1128. Kelso (translation from Selkirk). 1128. Holyrood; Austin canons. 1136. Melrose (refounded); Cistercian; from Rievaulx. 1140. Newbattle; Cistercian; from Melrose. 1140. Kilwinning; Benedictine; from Tiron. 1142. Dundrennan; Cistercian; from Rievaulx. 1144. Lismahago; Benedictine; from Kelso. 1150. Dryburgh; Premonstratensian. 1150. Holmcultram; Cistercian; from Melrose. 1150. Kinloss; Cistercian; from Melrose. 1 Taylor, The Medieval Mind 2. 205-6. (118) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents 331 e’est la que débute véritablement l’histoire de nos arts, de notre litté- rature, de notre civilisation, comme celle des autres arts et des autres civilisations de l Europe. Classical studies reached their zenith in the twelfth century. For in every way this century surpassed its predecessors; and in classical studies it excelled the thirteenth, which devoted to them a smaller portion of its intellectual energies.? But at the close of the latter reign [Henry I’s] and throughout that of Stephen, the people . . . was stirred by the first of those great relig- ious movements which England was to experience afterwards in the preaching of the Friars, the Lollardism of Wyclif, the Reformation, the Puritan enthusiasm, and the mission work of the Wesleys. Every- where in town and country men banded themselves together for prayer, hermits flocked to the woods, noble and churl weleomed the austere Cistercians, a reformed outshoot of the Benedictine order, as they spread over the moors and forests of the North. A new spirit of de- votion woke the slumber of the religious houses.* The religious movement of which Henry had once seemed destined to become a leader had gone sweeping on till it left him far behind. It was the one element of national life whose growth, instead of being checked, seems to have been actually fostered by the anarchy. The only bright pages in the story of those “nineteen winters’ are the pages in the Monasticon Anglicanum which tell of the progress and the work of the new religious orders, and shew us how, while knights and barons, king and Empress, were turning the fairest regions of England into a wilderness. Templars and Hospitaliers were setting up their priories. Austin canons were directing schools and serving hospitals, and the sons of 8. Bernard were making the very desert to rejoice and blossom as the rose. The vigor of the movement shewed itself in the diversity of forms which it assumed. Most of them were offshoots of the Order of S. Augustine. The Augustinian schools were the best in England; the ‘ Black Canons’ excelled as teachers; they excelled yet more as nurses and guardians of the poor. One of the most attract- ive features of the time is the great number of hospices, hospitals, or almhouses as we should call them now, established for the reception and maintenance of the aged, the needy and the infirm... . ‘ In the short while that Stephen reigned, or rather bore the title of king, there arose in England many more dwellings of the servants and handmaids of God than had arisen there in the course of the whole previous cen- Caumont, Abécédaire d’ Archéologie 1. 203. WVaylor 2. 117. Green, Short Hist., Chap. 2, sec. 6. Cf. p. 99, note. (119) 332 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses tury ’ [William of Newburgh]. ... Buried in their lonely wildernesses, the Cistercians seem at first glance to have been intent only on saving their own souls, taking no part in the regeneration of society at large. While the other orders were . . . the working, fighting rank and file of the spiritual army, the White Monks were at once its sentinels, its guides, and its commanding officers ; they kept watch and ward over its organization and its safety, they pointed the way wherein it should go, they directed its energies and inspired its action. For the never- ending crusade of the Church against the world had at this time found its leader in a simple Cistercian monk, who never was Pope, nor legate, nor archbishop, nor even official head of his own order—who was simply abbot of Clairvaux—yet who, by the irresistible, unconscious influence of a pure mind and a single aim, had brought all Christendom to his feet. It was to the ‘ Bright Valley,’ to Clairvaux, that men looked from the most distant lands for light amid the darkness. Thurstan 2 is especially to be commemorated as the reviver of monasti- cism inthe North. His intercourse with the ecclesiastics of other countries ; the religious houses which he would see during his exile, exhibiting, as far as human agency could effect it, the perfection of discipline and organization, would open his eyes to the wants of his diocese at home, and make him eager to meet and remedy them. The example and the exhortations of St. Bernard, with whom he was acquainted, would strengthen and nerve his hand. The letter which he wrote about the poor Cistercians of Fountains shews that he was thoroughly saturated with the monastic principle. His knowledge of it was of a kind that long study and practice could alone impart, and it seems to me that Thurstan, together with St. Bernard and two or three others, are to be regarded as the great church reformers of the twelfth century. It was at Thurstan’s suggestion that pope Honorius confirmed the privileges of the monastery at Savigny, and he witnessed the grant of a hundred marks of silver which was made by Henry I. to the monks of Clugny, to which order the archbishop was especially attached. When Thurstan arrived in the North he would find there a very small number of religious houses, one or two of which were occupied by Augustine canons, and the rest by Benedictines. A new impetus was now given to the diffusion of the monastic principle. The two existing orders were reformed and enlarged, and the Cluniacs and Cistercians,? monks of a stricter rule, were brought in. The time for their introduction and for the revival of discipline was well chosen. The Norman and the Saxon elements in the English Church were now happily blended together. Everything in religious as well as civil affairs was now settled and laid down. The great baronies and fees throughout the country were for the most part 1 Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings 1. 356-8. 2 On Thurstan and Hexham, see Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. \xv. 3 See pp. 132 ff. (120) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents 333 marked out. Peace and rest superinduced other and better thoughts. Many of the great knights and nobles had grievous offences to atone for. They were living upon the possessions of others—very frequently upon church property ; and their lives had been stained with violence and bloodshed. The wish to make amends as well as to honour God, led them to establish monasteries where their souls might be prayed for, and to which their names, ‘ in perpetuam rei memoriam, might be honourably attached. When one leads, another soon will follow, and the erection and endowment of religious houses soon became the fashion, but like every freak and sudden feeling, it was only temporary. It began with the twelfth century, and it did not outlive it. . . . Between the years 1120 and 1125 six houses of Augustine canons seem to have been established in Yorkshire.* L’ére des iconoclastes avait, pendant longtemps, anéanti les études iconographiques ; elles commencérent a renaitre au XI® siécle, mais ce ne fut qu’au XII® qu’elles firent de grands progrés. . . . Jusqu’a la fin du XI® siécle, on avait rendu la figure humaine de la maniére la plus bizarre et la plus incorrecte. Mais au XII® siécle on vit paraitre des statues et des bas-reliefs, qui, sans étre exempts de défauts, étaient, au moins, ramenés a une certaine correction. Cette renaissance de la statuaire contribua puissamment a changer laspect des monuments religieux en apportant un élément nouveau dans leur décoration. . On commenga au XII® siécle 4 sculpter des figures de grande proportion. ... La plupart sont vétues de longues tuniques recouvertes d’une espéce de manteau qui s’ouvre par devant. Le Nord, avant le milieu du XIIJ® siecle, ne produit qu'une orne- mentation pauvre, barbare, dans quelque acception qu’on prenne le mot.* Au douziéme siécle, aprés de longs tatonnements, et des essais labori- eux et informes, la sculpture monumentale était née. Silencieuse pendant plusieurs siécles, les pierres étaient devenues éloquentes.4 If we are to be warranted in referring the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses to 1150, or thereabouts, and to the influence of David I of Scotland, we must examine what detailed considerations appear to favor, and what to oppose, this assumption, so far as the artistic side is concerned. We need to account for the conception of an up- right rectangle or trapezoid—for, it will be observed, we have no proof that either of these obelisks was ever a cross, that is, that 1 Raine, Lives of the Archbishops of York, pp. 201-2. * Caumont, p. 160. 3 Enlart, Manuel d’Archéoloyie Francaise 1. 201. 4 Michel, Hist. de l Art 17. 944. (121) 334 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses either ever had a cross-piece !—divided into panels that are filled with figure-sculpture, and enclosed in frames bearing legends de- scriptive of the figure-sculpture. We next have to account for a similar rectangle or trapezoid bearing a vine, with or without inter- 1 The top of the Bewcastle Cross—if such it really was—formerly in the possession of Sir Robert Cotton, could not have been a cross-piece. What we are told is (letter from Cotton to Camden before 1623, when Camden died) : “I receaued this morning a ston from my lord of Arundell sent him from my lord William [Howard]. It was the head of a Cross at Bewcastell. All the letters legable are thes in on[e] line,’ etc. (James Wilson, in T'rans. Cumb. and Westm. Antig. and Arch. Soc., N.S. 10. 504 ; ef. Vietor, Die North. Runensteine, p. 15 ; Ole Worm, Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex, Copen- hagen, 1643, p. 161 ; Kemble, in Arche@ologia 28. 346-7 ; Camden, Britannia, ed. Gough, p. 455). Besides, MSS. Cotton Domitian A. xviii. 37, and Julius F. vi. 313, after giving the runic inscription, RIK ASS DRUHTN AS (Cotton’s letter and Worm read Y for U), add : ‘ This Inscription was on the head of a Cross found at Beucastell in 1615. The length of the stone, bein the head of the Crosse —16 inches. The breadth at the upper end—12 ynches. The thicknes—4 inches’ (Wilson, p. 503). As the Bewcastle Cross is 13 by 14 inches at the top (Collingwood, in Victoria Hist. Cumb., 1. 255 ; Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 43), it is evident that, if this block belonged to our cross, it could not have been the Gross-piece. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of it as a part of the cross at all, since its length, 16 inches, would ill have fitted the longer face of the cross at top—14 inches ; its breadth, 12 inches, would have been too short for the breadth of the cross—13 inches ; and its thickness, 4 inches, would have been unimpressive on the top of a cross 143 feet high, being an addition of scarcely more than 2 per cent to its height (Collingwood, in Victoria Hist. Cumb. 1. 255, must therefore be in error when he says : “With it the cross would have been about 21 feet high from the base of the pedestal,’ since the pedestal cannot be as much as two feet in height ; see the photographs). In one direction it would have overlapped the existing cross an inch on each side; and in the other it would have fallen short by half an inch on each side. If we suppose an intervening cross-piece, we are no better off : what figure would be cut by a stone 4 inches high, over a cross-piece duly proportioned to a monolith 14$ feet high? And if, in order to gain a height of 16 inches for it, we suppose it stood upon its smallest face, how would a thickness of 4 inches look in the top-piece, as contrasted with that of 13 or 14 inches in the main shaft? If we were to think of the Ruthwell and Beweastle Crosses as obelisks, rather than crosses—and so various early writers on the monoliths of the North term the monuments they describe—we should be interested to consider whether any Egyptian obelisk could have been known to North Europeans of the Middle Ages. Now, whatever obelisks may have been overthrown or buried at Rome in that period, we are certain at least that (122) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents 335 spersed animals and birds. We need to find precedents for the subjects of the figure-sculpture in this period, and, if possible, for the peculiar modes of treatment ; and to show that these subjects were not handled in sculpture, or not handled in this way, at an earlier period. We must find precedents for the use of the sundial, of chequers, and of knotwork, in stone. We must account for the use, at this period, of any peculiar forms of letters in the Latin inscriptions. Finally, we must account for the employment of runic characters on stone monuments, and, in particular, of stone monu- ments devoted to Christian uses. Having considered the precedents or parallels for the various feat- ures of the carving, we must then see by what artists such carving might be designed and executed, from what countries, districts, and, if possible, schools, such artists may be conceived as proceeding ; whether they would be likely to come to so remote and barbarous a region ; and by what inducements, if any, they may have been determined to sojourn there and accomplish these works. Among such inducements might be reckoned the existence, not far away, of works of art of a similar character, due to similar influences, and produced by workmen of similar antecedents ; the hospitality and liberality of their patron or patrons ; and the assurance that their labors would be appreciated by competent, or at least well-disposed, observers. Beginning, then, with such faces of obelisks as are divided into panels filled with figure-sculpture, it is easy to see that these, like every pilgrim to St. Peter’s, from before the days of King Alfred, must have seen that which still adorns the Piazza between the colonnades of Bernini. This, according to Gregorovius, is ‘ the only obelisk in Rome which has not at some time or other been leveled with the ground’ (Rome in the Middle Ages 1. 53 ; 3. 27 ; cf. 6. 722, note 3 ; 7. 240, note 2). Every such pilgrim from the North would of course have been impressed by an object so strange. and by figures so enigmatic. Alexander Gordon (Itinerarium Septentrionale, 1726, p. 160) says of the Ruthwell Cross that it ‘ is, in Form, like the Agyptian Obelisks at Rome’ ; and Bishop Nicolson, in his Scots Historical Library (1702), p. 64, says of the monuments of northeastern Scotland : ‘ Hector Boetius [d. 1536], in one of his particular Fancies, thinks them relicks of the Agyptian Fashions.’ It is indeed strange, on the supposition that the Ruthwell and Beweastle crosses both had cross-pieces, that no fragment of either has been preserved, and that the stone sent from Bewecastle to London could not possibly have been the cross-piece, nor, so far as can be seen, a head-piece above it. It is well known that the cross-piece now to be seen at Ruthwell is modern, and of no authority whatever, while the top-stone seems authentic. (123) 336 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses the chequers and vines,and even the sunaial,can be most readily derived from the ornamental features of churches. And the suggestion forsuch a face of an obelisk would most naturally come from the carved door- post of a church-portal.t| Sucha one we find at the abbey-church of Nonantola, a few miles northeast of Modena, the most important Bene- dictine abbey in Italy next to that of Monte Cassino, at one period a centre of medizeval learning, and no doubt in constant communi- cation with so important a Transalpine monastery as that of St. Bene- dict at Fleury (St. Benoit-sur-Loire), whose connections with Eng- land we shall see. Here, at Nonantola, the door-jamb on the right side bears a striking general resemblance to two faces of the Ruthwell Cross, in so far as it contains, in a series of panels,? representations of Scriptural figures or groups, with Latin legends explaining them. These panels differ in height, as do those on the Ruthwell Cross, and are ten in number. Beginning at the top, they represent: (1) The child in the manger, with the ox and ass ; (2) the washing of the child, from the Apocryphal Gospels ; (3) the Visitation ; (4) the Annun- ciation ; (5) a person whose significance is doubtful (Zacharias ?) ; (6) Joseph warned by an angel ; (7) the Purification ; (8) the Adoration of the Magi; (9) the Announcement to the Shepherds ; (410) the flock of sheep belonging to the latter. Not only do the inscriptions occupy the intermediate spaces between the panels, as they do at Bewcastle,* and in part at Ruthwell,t but the O of the inscriptions is lozenge- shaped,° as sometimes in those at Ruthwell. The approximate date of the Nonantola carvings, which were executed by Wiligelmus, asia 7 8 For the vine we need only refer to pages 71—83, where it has been shown that there is abundant precedent for its use, the instances of its occurrence increasing especially in the 12th century. For the Biblical subjects occurring on our two crosses, we may refer to pages 46—58; for the legend of Paul and Anthony, to pages 58, 59; for the genre-subjects of the Bewcastle Cross, to pages 60—71. For genre- subjects in general as treated in the 12th century, it is important to consider such bas-reliefs as those of the cathedral of Piacenza, sculptured at the instance of various trades of the city, and dating * On door-jambs bearing statues, see Enlart, Manuel d’ Archéologie Fran- caise 1. 295. * Cf. the door-jamb of the baptistery at Parma (Venturi, Storia dell Arte Ital. 3. 305). ; 3 See pp. 25, 26, 28. 4 See: pp. 16 if. 5 See p. 44. ® Cesari, Nonantola (Modena, 1901), pp. 60-61, and frontispiece ; Venturi, 3. 172 ; see also pp. 50, 81, above. (124) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Tiron 337 from about 1122. Two of these, by a master standing in close relation to Wilgelmus, represent respectively two shoemakers at work and a knife-grinder.2. The inscription on the border of the first shows the lozenge-shaped O with which we are familiar on the Ruthwell Cross.% On the sundial, see pages 89, 90; on the chequers, pages 83—86 ; on the knotwork, pages 86—89. On the peculiar form of the Latin O, see pages 44, 45. For the use of runic characters on stone monuments in the British Isles, see particularly pages 32ff., 38 ff. The question as to what artists may have been available for such sculpture as that of our crosses can best be approached by considering what foreign schools of art were, or had been, represented in Scotland (and incidentally in England) in the generation or so preceding 1150. We may conveniently begin with one of the most important in- fluences, that of Tiron (properly Thiron), near Chartres. K [IS CEoE SP OSSr Bing, LN DU BN GE Ob aR ON The abbey of Kelso was first established at Selkirk in 1113 by monks from Tiron, and was transferred to Kelso in 1128. Kelso, in turn, founded Lismahago (1144); and various other monasteries, among them Kilwinning (1140),4 show the influence of Tiron. Anno MCXIII. monachi Tironenses in Angliam venerunt, X. annos antequam Savinienses venerunt in Angliam. Monachi Tironenses in terra David regis Scotiz apud Seleschirche [Selkirk] venerunt, et ibi per annos XV. manserunt.® Anno MCXXVIII. mutata est abbatia de Selechirche ad Kelchou [Kelso] juxta Rochestura, et fundata est ecclesia sanctee Marie predictis monachis Tironensibus, ubi eam pius rex David magnis muneribus ditavit, multis ornamentis ornavit, prediis et possessionibus amplis nobiliter dotavit.® The monks of Tiron were notable in that age for the variety of handicrafts—including architecture and sculpture—which they re- presented. 1 Venturi 3. 176-7. * Cf. p. 146. 3 Cf. pp. 45, 124. 4 Lawrie (Harly Scottish Charters, p. 269) says that monks from Tiron were brou ht to both Lismahago and Kilwinning. ®* Simeon of Durham, Hist. Regum (Rolls Series) 2. 247. ® Ibid. 2. 281. 338 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses About this time Bernard, abbot of Quincé [Quingay]! retired from Poitiers, because he had refused to subject his monastery, which had been independent to that time, to the abbey of Cluni. ... At last, after much journeying, he visited the venerable bishop Ives,” who graci- ously received him, and settled him and his monks on the territory of the church of Chartres,? where he built a monastery dedicated to St. Saviour? in a woody district called Tiron. A multitude of the faithful of both orders flocked to him, and father Bernard received in his loving embraces all who were ready to make their profession, enjoining them to practise in his new monastery the occupations which each of them had learnt. In consequence there readily assembled about him workmen, both smiths and carpenters, sculptors and goldsmiths, painters and masons, vine-dressers and ploughmen, with skilled artificers in various branches of labor. They diligently employed themselves in the tasks assigned them by the abbot, and turned their gains to the common ad- vantage. Thus where lately robbers sheltered themselves in a fright- ful forest, and cut the throats of unwary travelers, on whom they rushed unawares, a stately abbey was, by God’s help, quickly reared.® The craftsmen from Tiron displayed their skill in the building of Kelso Abbey, begun in 1128,° four years after David's accession, = pone was Abbot = St. leone we Pons in 1100 aad for a least four or five years thereafter. He was born near Abbeville about 1046, and died in April, 1116 (so the Necrology of Chartres, p. 161, published by the Soe. Arch. d’Eure-et-Loir, Un Manuscrit Chartrain du XI® Siécle, Chartres, 1893 ; but Chevalier, Bio-Bibliographie, says 1117). Beatrix, mother of Rotrou, Count of La Perche, gave him lands in the forest of Tiron in 1107, and the monastery was ready to be inhabited by 1109. On account of claims made by the Cluniac monks of Nogent, he obtained a small estate from the Bishop and canons of Chartres (Hist. Litt. de la France 10. 213 ff.). The 12th century life of him is published by the Bollandists under April 25, and is also to be found in Migne, Patr. Lat. 172. 1367-1446. 2 Ivo of Chartres (ca. 1040-1116), a warm friend of Bernard’s, had been the first prior of the abbey of St. Quentin at Beauvais (see p. 131, below). 3 The deed bears date of Feb. 3, 1113. Bernard had asked for a carucate (carrucatam) of land from the territory belonging to the cathedral of Chartres que est super rivulum qui dicitur Tiro, infra Gardiensem parrochiam, ad edifi- candum monasterium et claustrum (Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Chartres 1. 117-8 : Soc. Arch. d’Eure-et-Loir, Chartres, 1865). Thiron (such is the modern name) is about eleven miles northeast of Chartres, in the arrondissement of Nogent-le-Rotrou. Gardais is a hamlet belonging to the commune of Thiron. The abbey of Thiron was Benedictine. 4 Chevalier (Topo-Bibliographie) says the Holy Trinity. : > Ordericus Vitalis, Bk. 8, chap. 27 (Bohn 3. 50-51). 6 He had, partly at the instance of Bishop John of Glasgow (Ridpath, Border History of England and Scotland, p. 76), himself a monk from Tiron, removed them to Roxburgh soon after his accession in 1124. (126) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Tiron 339 and resorted to by him for the interment of his son Henry, at the very close of his own reign, twenty-five years later. We may still see portions of their work in the north transept of the church. It is to these skilful monks that we owe the masterful work upon the north transept with its exquisite portal, the delicate mouldings of the arcades which make them seem too fine for Norman work, and the skilful adjustment of the tower to its supports.t Tiron must have been much in David’s thoughts for another reason. About 1117 he made his tutor, John,? who had been a monk of Tiron, Bishop of Glasgow, and he continued in this office, though with long absences from his see, until 1147, when he died and was buried at Jedburgh. Other proofs of David’s attachment to Tiron are to be found in his exemption, about 1141, at the instance of Bishop John, of a ship belonging to this monastery from the caim, or customary tax, an exemption which was confirmed by his son Henry.* Geoffrey, the biographer of Bernard, not only reports the foundation of Kelso, but also tells of a later visit of David to Tiron after 1 Butler, Scotland’s Ruined Abbeys, p. 97 ; ef. Cram, The Ruined Abbeys of Great Britain, pp. 149,145. There isa kind of chequer-work ( Butler, pp.94-5) on the gable (somewhat resembling that on the gable of the 12th century ehurch of St. Stephen’s at Beauvais) which might have suggested that on the Beweastle Cross. Kelso is only 37 miles from Beweastle in a straight line. 2 Cf. p. 126, note 6. The chief events of his life may be summarized as follows : David’s inquisition, 1120 or 1121 ; John is early alarmed by the savagery of his diocese ; suspended by Archbishop Thurstan of York in 1122, and makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but in 1123 is ordered by Pope Calixtus II to return; goes to Rome, 1125; returns, 1126; is made chancellor by David, 1129 ; see of Carlisle created at the expense of the see of Glasgow, 1133 ; retires to Tiron, 1133-1138 ; obtains numerous gifts from David for the cathedral of Glasgow, which is consecrated in 1136, John being absent ; is ordered to return by the papal legate Alberic, who had settled Aldulf or Adelulf, formerly Prior of Nostell Abbey, as bishop at Carlisle (Dict. Nat. Biog. ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 2. 13-31). On Adelulf (d. 1156) see Raine, Archbishops of York 1. 202-3 ; Priory of Hexham 1. 110; Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, p. 61; Lawrie, pp. 267-270 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 2. 27 ; Dugdale, Monast. Angl. ¢. 89 ff. ; Freeman, Norm. Cong. 5. 230. 3 Cartulaire del Abbaye de la Sainte-Trinité de Tiron 1. 80 ; Lawrie, p. 103. 4 Cartulaire 2. 14 ; Lawrie, p. 104. (127) 340 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses Bernard’s death, when he gave larger possessions to the monastery which he had founded, and took to Scotland with him an abbot and twelve monks more.! 2. THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF CHARTRES Bulteau is persuaded that the monks of Tiron had a share in the construction of the west porch of the cathedral of Chartres. Tout ce que nous savons, c’est que le pays chartrain était au XII® siécle un foyer d’art fort actif, possédant une école d’architectes habiles qui nous ont laissé d’admirables constructions d’une solidité a toute épreuve, architectes qui étaient pour la plupart des moines formés dans les abbayes de Tiron et de Saint-Pére.* Il a été commencé vers 1110, sous l’épiscopat de Saint Ives, et terminé sous celui de son successeur immédiat, le pieux Geoffroy de Léves. Tl a été probablement sculpté par les moines de labbaye de Tiron.* Par reconnaissance envers Saint Ives et le chapitre de Notre-Dame, il leur aura fait sculpter les statues et les chapiteaux historiés qui ornent les trois baies. Le travail est si délicat, si fini que lardente piété des moines-artistes a pu seule l’exécuter. C’est, sans doute, pour faciliter ce travail de sculpture que les moines de Tiron établirent, en 1117, une succursale & Chartres, dans une maison située prés du Marché, juata forum. Ces moines-artistes venaient, pour la plupart, du midi de la France, ott les monuments romains abondent ; de 1a, sans doute, les réminiscences antiques qu’on remarque dans plusieurs parties du portail occidental.4 The interest of the royal family of England in the building of the cathedral of Chartres is testified in various ways. In the year of Henry I’s marriage to Matilda, David’s sister, Bishop Ivo of Chartres appealed to him for gifts for the cathedral, and the very next year to Matilda herself. A second application to Henry, probably in 1101, elicited a reply through Queen Matilda, who made a gift of bells, and promised money for the repair of the roof, for which Ivo thanks her.6 This may well have been while David was with his 1 Migne, Patr. Lat. 172. 1426. * Monographie 1. 112 ; cf. Huysmans’ La Cathédrale (Paris, 1898), p. 256. 3 Bulteau 2. 34. 4 Ibid. 1. 81 ; elsewhere (2. 34) he thinks the Tironian sculptors had practised their art on the porch of St. Sernin at Toulouse ; but cf. Merlet, La Cath. de Chartres, pp. 26-28. 5 Bulteau 1. 68-71; cf. p. 106, above, note 4. (128) “2 Le hennantiaierted | g-s9" Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Chartres 341 sister at the English court. King Henry’s sister, Adela, Countess of Blois and of Chartres, made gifts to the cathedral about this time, . and was generous to it on various occasions.!_ Already in the epis- copate of Fulbert (1008—1028), who conducted a famous school at Chartres,? Canute ‘ greatly helped the building of the cathedral of Chartres.’ William the Conqueror gave a bell to Chartres which was called by his name,* so that England had for a long series of years been interested in the cathedral and its bishops. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising if Chartres had exerted an influence upon the sculpture of our crosses, an influence which is perhaps best suggested by the group of the Visitation® in the right tympanum of the west front, by the Flight into Egypt of a storied capital,6 and by vines between the + Bulteau 1.73, note2. The Dict. Nat. Biog. (1.135) says: ‘It was through her energy and beneficence that the cathedral of Chartres was rebuilt in stone, and freed from all taxation.’ 2 Taylor, The Medieval Mind 1. 296 ff.; Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen-Age, pp. 31 ff., 194 ff. 3 Dict. Nat. Biog. 9. 4. 4 Bulteau 1. 71. 5 See above, p. 48. § See above, p. 52. Enlart (Michel, Hist. de Art [2.205 ; cf. 12. 517-8]) compares the west front of Rochester Cathedral with that of Chartres. He speaks of the statues of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba at Rochester, and declares that, while smaller than those of Chartres, they are absolutely of the same style. These he would date after the portal, and the portal itself about 1160. Keyser (List of Norman Tympana, p. XVII) is of a similar opinion : ‘ The series of figures on the arch mouldings, the statues between the jamb shafts, and the treatment of the subject of ‘‘ The Majesty ” on the tympanum,’ all show the influence of ‘ Bourges, Chartres, Le Mans, and other doorways of the great Romanesque churches in France.’ Enlart (2. 204; ef. 12. 518) also finds an analogy between the human figures, mingled with vine- scrolls and dragons, on the door-jambs of the south portal and on the triumphal arch at Kil(l)peck, near Hereford, and the style of the west door- way of Chartres. The west front of Chartres is also compared with some rich Norman work on the ruined church of Shobdon (also in Herefordshire) by Parker (Introd. to Goth. Arch., p. 78 ; cf. Michel 2. 205). The vine-scroll with figurines on a shaft of the west front of Chartres is brought by Marriage (Sculpt. of Chartres Cath., p.44 ; see p. 80, above) into relation with similar work on the west door of Lincoln Cathedral (ef. Viollet-le-Duc 8. 108, 210). The tympanum of Malmesbury is perhaps inspired by sculpture at the abbey of Moissac (cf. Anglés, L’ Abbaye de Moissac), according to Enlart (Michel 2. 205), who finds the same style in sculpture at Bristol, York, and Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 23 (129) 342 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses statues.1 Such a theory is rendered plausible by a consideration of the number of Englishmen who visited Chartres for longer or shorter periods at about this time. Among English scholars and ecclesiastics who in the 11th century had relations with Chartres must be reckoned Anselm, the fellow-student and devoted friend of Ivo. Anselm, when Archbishop of Canterbury, spent months at Chartres in 1103, and again weeks in the summer of 1105,? not to speak of an earlier visit in 1097.2 John of Salisbury, who became Bishop of Chartres in 1176, studied there as a young man from 1138—1140 or 1141. As he was for a long time secretary to Thomas a Becket, was for thirty years the central figure of English learning,* was the first classicist of the Middle Ages,® and was long influential in English political affairs, it is easy to see how he would extend the knowledge of Chartres in England. Countess Adela, being the sister of Henry I and the mother of the future King Stephen, and herself a woman of vigorous understanding and manifold activities, would naturally attract English attention to Chartres in the early years of the 12th century.6 Then we have the testimony of Ivo to the presence of a colony of English students there in the year 1112. Writing in that Lincoln (see also the references to York, Lincoln, and Chichester in 1?. 518). At Barfreston, in Kent, Enlart (1?. 517) finds sculpture which reminds him of St. Denis. For particular subjects of French figure-sculpture, see pp. 46ff. French influence on English architecture as early as the 10th century is suspected by Rivoira and Enlart. Thus Rivoira (Lomb. Arch. 2. 158) says of the abbey church of Ramsey, founded in 969 and consecrated in 974: ‘ Oswald himself was the architect of the building, the idea of which he may have derived from the church of Germigny des Prés, situated only a few miles from the convent of Fleury at Saint Benoit-sur-Loire, with which Ramsey Abbey was closely connected for several centuries.’ And thus Enlart expresses himself (Michel 11. 117) : ‘ Au IX® siécle, la plupart des monuments de la Grande-Bretagne furent détruits de fond en comble par les incursions incessantes et dévastatrices des Danois ; au siécle suivant, sous la direction de moines a la fois artistes et hommes d’état, tels que Dunstan et Ethelwold, les ruines furent réparées ; et c’est a partir du X* siécle jusqu’a la conquéte normande de 1066 que se place vraisemblablement Pérection des monuments appelés saxons, ceuvres d’un style roman trés rude et trés original, qui ont précédé en Angleterre architecture normande.’ 1 See above, p. 80. Hist. Litt. de la France 10. 112-3 ; Dict. Nat. Biog. 2. 27- M. A. E. Green, Lives of the Princesses of England 1. 47. Stubbs, quoted in Dict. Nat. Biog. 29. 444. Dict. Nat. Biog. 29. 439, 444 ; cf. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 713-7. Cf. pp. 129, 143. (130) oa oO fP wo a eee e Pr ee cr eee Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Beauvais 3438 year! to Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, he asks him to communicate any request for his (Ivo’s) services through Robert’s pupils who are in residence at Chartres. Jordan Fantosme, who was present in the North of England in 1173 and 1174, when William the Lion, David’s grandson, invaded it, and who afterwards wrote a poem ® on the war, studied at Chartres with Gilbert de la Porrée some time between 1124 and 1137.4 Afterwards we find him (1158) a cleric, and probably chancellor, at Winchester, under the episcopate of Adela’s son Henry, where he had relations with John of Salisbury.® David I himself would surely have visited Chartres on the occasion of his visit to Tiron, only a few miles away.® 3. THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF BEAUVAIS Jedburgh was founded in 1115 by monks from Beauvais. This connects Jedburgh indirectly with Chartres, since we have seen (p. 126) that the abbey at Beauvais was founded by Ivo of Chartres,’ the friend of Bernard of Tiron, and the correspondent 1 Migne, Patr. Lat. 162. 279. * Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres, p. 180. 3 Chronique, Surtees Society, 1840; cf. Wright, Biographia Britannica Interaria, Anglo-Norman Period, pp. 221-3, and p. 98, above. 4 Clerval, pp. 164, 186. 5 Clerval, p. 186. - 6 See p. 127, above. ? Ivo suggests another possible influence—that of the Austin Canons, though we can not establish a direct relation between this order and notable Northern architecture of so early a period. The Austin or Regular Canons had existed for centuries under somewhat varying rules, when Ivo wrote one of greater strictness, and thus gave a new impulse to the foundation of houses of the order (Tuker and Malleson, Handbook to Christian and Eccle- siastical Rome 3. 205). Nostell, from the priorate of which Adelulf went to the bishopric of Carlisle (see p. 127), was founded before 1121, for in that year Henry I confirmed its lands and privileges (Dugdale, Mon. Angl. 6. 89-90). Hexham (see p. 101), soon after 1114, became an Augustinian priory (Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. cix ff., lxvi ff.). Another early foundation was that of Scone (about 1215), a prior of which became Bishop of St. Andrews in 1124, or earlier. There were six houses of Austin Canons established in Yorkshire between 1120 and 1125, of which Gisburgh (see p. 136) was one. Lanercost Abbey (p. 98), only a few miles from Beweastle, was founded as late as 1169, while the priory of Carlisle.is attributed to 1133. By 1250 they had two hundred houses in England ; cf. pp. 119-120. The Austin Friars were reputed to have been founded by Paul, the first hermit (Piers Plowman B. 15. 284; Pierce the Ploughmans Crede 308-9. Cf. pp. 58-59. (131) 344 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses of Henry I and Matilda, David’s sister. The art of the French sculptors (probably between 1128 and 1152) has been characterized by Butler. The entire edifice as we have it, unique as a specimen of a style, the persistent use of Romanesque forms throughout, with a highly refined treatment of details, the frank employment of the pointed arch in the supports of the tower, all foreshadow the transition, and would seem to indicate that the style of David’s reign was not like the barbaric Norman of the last twenty-five years of the eleventh century, nor yet the still heavy style of the first quarter of the twelfth, but a lighter and more elegant system of construction and a more graceful theory of design that distinguishes it from earlier phases of northern Romanesque. The abaci of the capitals of the clustered columns and colonettes are rectangular, and the carving of the capitals themselves, the bases, the profiles of all the mouldings, are far more suggestive of the French style of the transition than of insular work. These capitals with their abaci are strangely reminiscent of the late Norman details of the cathedral of Bayeux. The design of their conventionalized foliage even in direct comparison is strikingly like that of the transitional churches of Laon and Beauvais. Is it not this last name that gives the clew to the ap- pearance of detail here in Jedburgh, totally unlike anything of its kind in Great Britain ? Is it not the work of the monks from the great Benedictine convent at Beauvais that we see in these elegantly carved capitals and mouldings ?? The present Cathedral of Beauvais dates from a later period, but the church of St. Stephen is of the 12th century, and, as we have seen above (p. 127, note 1), may have furnished a suggestion for the gable of Kelso. Other early churches in the region about Beauvais might also be considered. 4. THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF CLAIKVAUX About the year 1128,3 Bernard addressed to Henry I a remarkable letter, entrusting it to a deputation of monks which he sent as a colony to England. To the illustrious Henry, King of England, Bernard, Abbot of Clair- vaux, that he may faithfully serve and humbly obey the King of Heaven in his earthly kingdom. 1 Butler, Scotland’s Ruined Abbeys, pp. 96-7. * Ibid, p. 82. For the vine-scroll, see above, p. 80, and Butler, p. 84. ® Raine, Archbishops of York 1. 203. (132) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Clairvaux 345 There is in your land a property belonging to your Lord and mine, for which He preferred to die rather than it should be lost. This I have formed a plan for recovering, and am sending a party of my brave followers to seek, recover, and hold it with strong hand, if this does not displease you. And these scouts whom you see before you I have sent beforehand on this business to investigate wisely the state of things, and bring me faithful word again. Be so kind as to assist them as mes- sengers of your Lord, and in their persons fulfil your feudal duty to Him. I pray Him to render you, in return, happy and illustrious, to His honor, and to the salvation of your soul, to the safety and peace of your country, and to continue to you happiness and contentment to the end of your days.1 In 1131 these monks were settled at Rievaulx, in Yorkshire, by Walter Espec. Monks from Rievaulx, in turn, founded, or rather refounded, Melrose in 1136. Melrose founded Newbattle in 1140, and Holmcultram and Kinloss in 1150. From Rievaulx directly came not only Melrose, but Dundrennan (1142) ; while the church of Ruthwell seems to have been named from the same Yorkshire abbey, as that, in turn, modeled its name upon Clairvaux. The influence of Rievaulx in southwestern Scotland appears in the journey of Ailred of Rievaulx into Galloway (1164), at that time a savage region.” Melrose itself is clearly a building wrought under French influence. The exterior of Melrose is in some respects more French in appearance than any ecclesiastical edifice in Scotland. The prominent buttresses are provided with canopied niches, some of which retain their sculp- ture ; slender pier buttresses rising through the aisle roof to support sets of two flying buttresses are also adorned with niches and terminate in richly decorated Gothic pinnacles. The deep mouldings, the wealth of grotesque gargoyles and other figures, make it seem so like early French Gothic work that we may assume a French architect, or at least a student of French architecture, designed portions of the abbey, and that some of the builders, those Cistercian monks, had come from France. The sculpture within and without is rich and plentiful for a northern clime. The interior abounds in beautiful capitals and mouldings carved in most delicate foliate designs. The variety is remarkable, almost all of the native leaves being wrought in the hard brown stone ; the oak leaf and the thistle being prominent. Most graceful and flowing and most deeply carved is the capital of the ‘1 Eales, Some Letters of Saint Bernard, pp. 121-3: cf. p. 120, above. 2 Dict. Nat. Biog. 18. 33 ; cf. Brown, Hist. Scot. 1. 1, 45; Lang, Hvst. Scot. 1. 154. (133) 346 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses easternmost column in the south aisle ; the design is a naturalistic treat- ment of the domestic Scotch kale ; so humble and so crude in nature, it becomes most rich and delicate in the sphere of art.1 Of the abbeys proceeding from Melrose, it is only Holmcultram ? that concerns us here, and that because of its proximity to Ruthwell, though on the English side of the Border. As it was not founded till 1150, it is interesting, not so much because of any influence it could have had upon our crosses, as because it shows the prevalence of the Cistercian spirit in the region to the south and westward of Ruthwell and Bewcastle, just as Melrose exhibits it to the northeast.® A French influence directly from Rievaulx manifested itself at the founding of Dundrennan # in 1142, only eleven years after Rievaulx itself was established.® 1 Butler, pp. 111-2. Butler adds (p. 113): ‘The ponderous keystones of the fallen high vaults have been preserved by themselves. They represent human heads with masses of flowing hair. The boss of the great central tower represents the head of David I. ; another is that of his queen, Matilda.’ 2 See above, pp. 102-3. 3 The approximate distances of some of the abbeys mentioned from Ruth- well and Beweastle respectively are as follows : Ruthwell to Holmcultram, 12 miles ; to Dundrennan, 25 miles ; to Carlisle, 20 miles. Beweastle to Holmcultram, 28 miles ; to Carlisle, 16 miles ; to Wetheral (Benedictine, before 1112), 14 miles ; to Lanercost (Austin Canons, 1169), 7 miles ; to Kelso, 37 miles ; to Jedburgh, 29 miles ; to Melrose, 36 miles ; to Hexham, 24 miles ; to Ruthwell, 29 miles ; all as the bird flies. There is an ecclesiastical map of Cumberland facing 2. 126 of the Victoria Hist. Cumb.: see also that in Vietor, Die North. Runensteine. * See New Statistical Account of Scotland 4. 357-8, 362 ; Butler, p. 246 ; Keith-Spottiswoode, Hist. Cat. of the Scottish Bishops, p. 417. Spottiswoode mentions the following abbeys as founded by Cistercians after 1150, thus indicating the influence of that order in Scotland in the latter half of the 12th and early part of the 13th century : Saundle (before 1164), Coupar (1164), Glenluce (1190), Culross (1217), Deer (1218), Balmerinach (1229), Sweetheart or New Abbey (13th century ; founded by Devorgilla, a great- great-granddaughter of David I), ten miles from Ruthwell, across the Nith, and Machline. For New Abbey see also New Stat. Acc. 4. 248. Of other orders than the Cistercian there were founded in Galloway, soon after 1150, the abbeys of Soulseat, Tungland, St. Mary’s Isle, and Whithorn (Keith- Spottiswoode, pp. 389, 398, 399 ; cf. New Stat. Acc. 4. 22, 54, 87, 88). 5 Sylvanus, first abbot of Dundrennan, was transferred to Rievaulx in 1167 (New Stat. Ace. 4. 362). (134) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Clairvaux 347 With respect to the relation between Ruthwell and Rievaulx, it is to be observed that the spelling Ruthwell is by no means the earliest known, that the local pronunciation of Ruthwell is Rivvel, and that the Jocal pronunciation of Rievaulx is Rivers, which would earlier have been Rivel or Rivvel. Rievaulx was named from the river Rie, and hence called by the Latin name of Rievallis. It was founded, as we have seen above, by Walter Espec, with the consent of Archbishop Thurstan of York, King Henry I, and Pope Innocent II, its first monks having come from Clairvaux (Clara Vallis) in 1128.1. The Liber de Melros, under the year 1136, speaks of the monks de Rievalle? ; and in the Rievaulx Chartulary the following spellings occur in the first half of the 13th century : Rievalle (5 times), Rival] (3 times), Ryevall (twice), Ryvall (once), Revall (once), Ryvaus (once). Ryevall also occurs in 1334, Ryvall in 1251, 1278, and 1306, Revall in 1315. Other spellings are such as these : River, Rywax, Riwaxe, Rivaux, Ryvaulx, Ryvax.® The link between Rievaulx and Ruthwell is to be found in the person of Robert de Bruce II (1078 ?—1141) a companion of David I at the court of Henry, to whom the former granted, ca. 1124, Annan- dale—a tract somewhat difficult to define, but certainly including Ruthwell. None of those English settlers were more personally dear to the King, none left a name more illustrious than the Bruces. They had been settled in Yorkshire since the Conquest, and without quitting his York- shire baronies, Robert Bruce accepted from the king of Scots, his friend and brother in arms, the Valley of Annandale, which he soon had erected into a forest, marching with Nithsdale on the one hand, the Valley of Clyde on the other, and stretching eastward till it met the Royal Forest of Selkirk—an immense territory, even yet thinly peopled, but weli suited for the great game of the forest, the deer and the wild boar, to which its new owners devoted it.4 He received from David I a grant of Annandale, then called Strath Annent, by a charter c. 1124... . It was bounded by the lands of Dunegal, of Strathnith (Nithsdale), and those of Ranulf de Meschines, 1 John of Hexham, in Raine, Priory of Hexham 1. 108 ; Ailred of Rievaulx, in Howlett, Chronicle (Rolls Series) 3. 183-4 ; Cartularium Abbathie de Rievalle, p. 21. * Raine, op. cit. 1. 169, note. 3 Cart., pp. civ-evii. 4 Facsimiles of Nat. Manuscripts of Scotland 1. ix; cf. Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, p. 307, and pp. 102, 103, above. (135) 348 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses earl of Chester, in Cumberland, and embraced the largest part of the county of Dumfries. Like David, a benefactor of the church. .. . His second son, Robert de Bruce III, saved the Scotch fief of Annan- dale either by joining David I, if a tradition that he was taken prisoner by his father at the battle of the Standard can be relied on, or by ob- taining its subsequent restoration from David or Malcolm IV... . He held the Annandale fief, with Lochmaben as its chief messuage, for the service of a hundred knights during the reigns of David I, Malcolm IV, and William the Lion, who confirmed it by a charter in 1166.1 Their services were rewarded by forty-three manors in the East and West, and fifty-one in the North Riding of Yorkshire —upwards of 40,000 acres of land, which fell to the lot of Robert de Bruce I, the head of the family. The chief possessions of the Bruces were, as we have seen, in York- shire, which remained the home of Robert de Bruce II. There, in 1129, he founded the monastery of Guisburn, Guisborough, or Gisburgh, with the concurrence of Archbishop Thurstan, Henry I, and Pope Calixtus II. To this monastery Bruce granted the patronage of all the churches in Annandale,‘ or at least the greater part.® The rights of ordination and collation to these churches were acquired by the Bishop of Glasgow in 1223.6 The Bruces must have parted with lands in Annandale to various adherents in the 12th and 13th centuries. Between 1170 and 1180 William de Bruce granted lands to Adam Carlyle, a native of the soil, who held property in Cumberland.’ Similarly, Ruthwell must at some time have passed into the hands of Thomas de Duncurry, and afterward into those of Thomas Randolph, Earl of Murray, who deeded it to his nephew, William Murray, before 1332. 1 Dict. Nat. Biog. 7. 114. 2 Thid. 3’ Bromton, Chron. (Twysden, col. 1018) ; Dict. Nat. Biog. 7. 114. + Chalmers, Caledonia 5. 189 ; Johnstone, Historical Families of Dum- friesshire, 2d ed., Dumfries, [1889,] p. 2; cf. p. 103, above. ° This fact suggests the close ecclesiastical connections between York- shire and Annandale, and makes it easy to see the possibility of a connection between Rievaulx in Yorkshire and Ruthwell in Annandale. 5 Chalmers 5. 148. * Johnstone, p. 26. There were Carlyles from Cockpool, according to an ancient ballad, The Bedesman of Nithsdale, who followed Richard I to the Crusades (Johnstone, p. 3); but Cockpool is later associated with Ruthwell. (136) Ad Sted Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Clairvaux 349 William Murray, the second son,! got a charter from his uncle Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, granting to ‘ Willelmo de Moravia nepoti nostro dilecto . . . omnes terras et omnia tenementa cum per- tinenciis tocius medietatis tenementorum de Cumlungan et de Ryvel in Valle Anandie prout dicta tenementa cum pertinenciis inter pre- dictum Willelmum et Patricium fratrem suum per probos homines et fidedignos sunt divisa’ [Mansfield Charter Chest; Annandale Peeragz Minutes, 796]. The charter includes a grant of half the patronage ‘of the church of the holdings named,’ which, with the lands, had formerly been possessed by Thomas of Duncurry. It is undated, but must have been granted between 1317 and 1332,2 when Thomas Ran- dolph, Earl of Moray, died.* By a charter of David II, dated 1363, the lands along the southern coast of Dumfriesshire which had belonged to Sir William de Carlyle, who married Margaret Bruce (sister of the great Bruce), were granted to the daughter of Sir William’s son Thomas, and to her husband, Robert Corrie.* Besides the Barony of Corrie, comprising the modern parishes of Houtton and Corrie, they [the Corries ; middle of 14th century] owned Keldwood in the modern Cumberland parish of Kirkandrews-upon- Esk, Comlongan, Ruthwell, the Barony of Newbie, the Barony of Stapleton, Robgill, and part of the parish of St. Patrick, now divided into Kirkpatrick-Fleming and Gretna, which includes the ruins of the ancient Redkirk or Rampatrick, and the celebrated Lochmaben Stone, where treaties were signed with the English.® Again we hear of Ruthwell in 1411, when ‘a charter of tailzie of the lands of ‘ Ryvale”’ in Annandale... [was] granted by Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, to Sir Thomas Murray of Ryvale.’® . 1 Patrick and William were respectively the first and second sons of Sir William Murray, who is said to have been the first of his family. “Whatever his descent, he married the sister of Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, and daughter of Sir Thomas Randolph, Great Chamberlain of Seotland, by Isobel, sister of King Robert Bruce’ (Scots Peerage 1. 215). * Sir Thomas Randolph became Earl of Moray in 1312 (Scots Peerage 6. 292), and died July 20, 1332 (p. 294). 3 Scots Peerage, edited by Sir James Balfour Paul, Edinburgh, 1904, pp. 215-16. The date is said to be between 1315 and 1332, perhaps about 1329, *< having regard to the witnesses’ (p. 233); cf. Johnstone, p. 26. + Johnstone, pp. 4, 5. STbid.; p. 6. § Scots Peerage 1. 213; Mansfield Charter-Chest. We are told (op. cit., p- 217): ‘Sir Thomas Murray, Knight, the eldest son [of Patrick]. first (137) 350 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses In 1438 Sir Charles Murray of Cockpool had seisin of the lands of Ryvel.1. ‘He also had,two charters under the Great Seal of these lands and others, dated January 1449 and April 1452.? In 1454 Mariota, daughter of Sir Thomas Murray, Knight, resigned by deed all rights she may have had in the lands of Ryvel ‘ fratri suo Karolo de Moravia domino dictarum terrarum de Ryvel.’? About the year 1474 Cuthbert Murray succeeded his father, and in that year had seisin of the lands of Ryvel, Howelset, and Arbig- land.# On Sept. 4, 1487, Cuthbert Murray is said to have mortified an annual rent for the souls of James III and John, Master of Maxwell, whom he had slain in the course of the feud with that family. Lord Maxwell, in his turn (presumably the heir), was bound to find a priest to sing for the souls of each of Cuthbert’s friends in Ruthwell Church.° In 1494 John Murray inherited Ryvel from his father, Cuthbert. In 1494 John Murray had been returned heir to his father Cuthbert in the hereditary lands of Cockpool, Ryvel or Ruthwell, as well as of Rampatrick, or Redkirk, also part of the Corrie property.® appears in the year 1405. . . . He was a witness to several charters by Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, in the early part of the fifteenth cen- tury, and from this Earl he obtained, upon his resignation, a charter of the lands and “ tenements of Ryvale,” in which he is described as ‘four beloved cousin, Sir Thomas of Murray, Knight.” ’ 1 Scots Peerage 1. 218; Mansfield Charter-Chest. > Reg. Mag. Sig., 22 April 1452. and Each. Rolls, v. 670. 8 Scots Peerage 1. 218; Mansfield Charter-Chest. + Scots Peerage 1. 219; Mansfield Charter-Chest. Johnstone (pp. 39, 48) assumes that Cuthbert Murray received Ruthwell among the forfeited estates of the Corries, who had joined the rebellion of the Duke of Albany and Archibald. Earl of Douglas (‘ Bell-the-Cat’) against James III of Scotland ; he introduces the date of July 22, 1484, when the rebels made an unsuccessful raid upon Lochmaben, ten miles from Ruthwell. This theory does not appear to harmonize. however, with the facts adduced above. > Scots Peerage 1. 220; Caerlaverock Book 2. 446. Can 1487 stand for 1488, since James III was not slain till June 11, 1488? And why should Murray provide for masses for the king’s soul, if Johnstone is right in calling him one of the leaders of the king’s forces in repelling the raid of 1484? 6 Johnstone, p. 48 (cf. p. 70); Scots Peerage 1, 222 which, has the spelling ‘ Revel.’ (138) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents - Clairvaux 351 On July 30, 1529, Cuthbert Murray of Cockpool had seisin of the lands of Cockpool, Revel, Arbigland, and others.? According to Chalmers,” the patronage ® of the church of Ruthwell continued with the Murrays of Cockpoo]* and their successors the Viscounts of Stormont, and it now belongs to the Earl of Mansfield, who represents the Viscounts of Stormont.® 1 Scots Peerage 1. 223; Mansfield Charter-Chest. 2 Caledonia, 1890, 5. 191, note (p). 3 “Tn 1406 [Chalmers 5.191], Robert, the archbishop of Glasgow, collated Alexander Murray to the parsonage of Ruthwell, upon the presentation of Sir John Murray of Cockpool.’ 4 Cockpool is about two miles from Ruthwell, and half a mile from Com- longan. Here, according to Chalmers (5. 191, note (0)), ‘ there was formerly a chapel, which was subordinate to the mother church of Ruthwell.’ 5 In 1794 the church was thus described (Stat. Acc. 10. 220): ‘It is a long building, remarkably narrow, and has a projecting aile or wing joined to it, which was formerly the burial place of the Murrays of Cockpool.’ (The longer part of the Ruthwell Cross lay in Murray’s ‘ quire’ in 1704 ; see my paper in Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 372.) Henry Duncan, writing in 1834 (New Stat. Acc. 4. 235), says of the church : ‘ This place of worship was about a century ago a miserable building thatched with heath. When the present incumbent came into possession of his living (in 1799) it was scarcely in a better condition ; for, though slated, it still remained without a ceiling, and was of most inconvenient dimensions, being within the walls 96 feet long, and only 14 broad. Soon after this period it underwent a thorough change, 30 feet having been taken off its length, and ten feet added to its breadth. ... [It is] still, in point both of accom- modation and of architecture, much inferior to some of the neighboring churches, and to the average state of these public buildings throughout the country.’ The cross was in the church at the time of Pennant’s tour (1772). ‘ Soon after this [New Stat. Acc. 4. 224], it was removed to the church-yard, — the increasing population, and the improved taste of the times having ren- dered necessary better accommodations to the worshippers. In its new situation, it became more exposed to injury, and when the present incumbent acquired the living, he found it undergoing such rapid demolition, that he resolved to preserve it by transferring it to a place of greater security. This resolution was carried into effect in the summer of 1802, when it was erected in a garden which he had begun to form in the immediate neighborhood of the church-yard.’ According to Henri Rousseau (Annales de la Soc. @ Archéologie de Bruxelles 16. 69), the cross was thrown out in 1790, for the accommodation of workmen in the church. In 1887 the cross was re-erected within the church, where it now stands. (139) 352 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses The pronunciation of Ruthwell at the present day is beyond all doubt Rivvel.t This is parallel to the modern pronunciation of Rievaulx as Rivers, no doubt by analogy for Rivvel. The earliest spelling of which we have knowledge is that of Bagimond’s (properly Benemund’s) Roll (1275), as transcribed by Habakkuk Bisset about the beginning of the 17th century. Though Bisset’s copy was ‘inconceivably inaccurate,’ and the original has therefore ‘ suffered grievously in spelling’? the form of our word in his transcription seems at least to establish the fact that the second syllable began with v (not w). The entry is? : Rectoria de Rovell 1iij lib (meaning that the church at Ruthwell was taxed for £4, the same as Dumfries, and one-half more than Peebles). Here Chalmers* (whatever his authority) spells Rieval, which would point directly to one of the earliest spellings of Rievaulx.® Since little dependence can be placed upon Bisset’s spelling, and since the next occurrence of the word (1331) is under the form Ryvel, it seems not improbable that the latter, or Ryvale (1411), Rieval, may best represent the earliest form. The next occurrence of the word is in a list of churches assessed for the expenses of deputies to the Council of Trent, 1546. Here the v is again found, the word being spelled Ruvell,® which is on the way to the modern spelling, Ruthwell.’ In 1690 we encounter the form Revel, from the pen of Bishop Nicolson,’ who repeats it in 1697 and 1704. This resembles the 12th and early 13th century spelling Revall for Rievaulx.? However, Nicolson has the alternative forms, Rothwald (1690) and St. Ruel’s (1697). The Ruel, if pronounced with a short “, seems like a variant 1 Information from the present minister, Rev. J. L. Dinwiddie ; Eneye. Brit. 11th ed., 8. 664. 2 Innes, in Reg. Episc. Glasg. 1. lix. S$ Ibid. 1. Devi. 4 Caledonia, 1890, 5. 191. 5 See p. 135, above. 8 Reg. Episc. Glasg. 1. Ixxv. ? Possibly the obscuration of the original ie-sound (no doubt like ee in modern English meet) may be illustrated by the obsolete and dialectic rother, ruther (with short vowel) for Old English hrider, which the New Eng. Dict. explains (after the shortening of the vowel) as due to the influence of the preceding r. The 16th or 17th century spellings, Rovell and Ruvell, in contrast with the Ryvel of 1331, seem only explicable on the theory of a short or shortened vowel. 8 Cf. Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America 17. 370, 371, 374. 9 See above, p. 135. (140) | . Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Clairvaux 353 of the Ruvell of 1546 (the ‘ St.’ is of course meaningless) ; Rothwald may be an analogical formation, assimilated 1 to Mousewald (formerly Muswald and Mosswald),? Torthorwald, and Tinwald, parishes. adjoining that of Ruthwell. Less probable is Chalmers’ opinion, that the new name might be derived from Old English 77d, rivulet, and wald (weald), forest. In any case, the form Rothwald has no further history (except for the reference by Keith, below), and only the first syllable of it is interesting, in its relation to the first element of Ruthwell ; both of these words, however, are of comparatively slight importance, since they lie outside the history of the spoken word, which runs from Ryvel to the modern pronunciation, Rivvel. In 1726, Gordon? has the form Ruthvel, with the old ending, -vel, continuing the ancient tradition. Keith, in his list of Scottish parishes,* published in 1755, has a reference from Rivel to Ruthwald, but instead of Ruthwald has Ruthwell (the first instance of this form that I have found), and under the latter word adds, ‘ vulgo Revel.’ This goes back to Nicolson’s form, while Ruthwell, when compared with Gordon’s Ruthvel, seems to have borrowed the w of -wald, remaining a mere literary form, and having no connection with popular speech. A striking testimony to the persistence of the ancient form is afforded by Chalmers in 1824, when he says : ‘ In vulgar speech, and even in the chartularies, the name of Rithwald or Ruthwell has been abbreviated into Ryval and Ruval.’ The attempts to etymologize the comparatively modern Ruthwell did not cease with Chalmers. A modern writer makes this state- ment® : ‘ A few miles from Annan and quite close to the shore is the town of Ruthwell, named from a chalybeate spring—the ‘“‘ Rood well ” or well of the Cross, which still yields its healing waters under the name of the Brow well.’ Hence, it appears, must be drawn the explanation in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica ® : “the “rood, or cross well.” ’ The baselessness of this surmise may be seen if we recall that the Old English rad, cross, must always have retained the d, evolving into modern English rood or rod. 1 As Duncan conjectures (New Stat. Acc. 4. 218). * New Stat. Acc. 4. 442. 3 Itin. Sept., p. 160. 4 Hist. Cat. of Scottish Bishops, ed. 1824, p. 360. ® Lansdale, Scotland Historic and Romantic 1. 318; cf. Browne, Theodore and Wilfrith, p. 236: ‘They put a shed over it [the Cross], and the place became known as Roodwell.’ 6 llth ed., 8. 664. (141) 354 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses It appears most reasonable, then, to conclude that the earliest form (1331) of whose spelling we can be at all sure, Ryvel (unless, with Chalmers, we assume Bagimond’s Roll (1275) to have had Rieval), is the lineal ancestor of the modern spoken Rivvel, and that all other forms represent either variations in the quality of the stressed vowel, or perversions due to a false etymology. If such is the case, it seems most natural to assume a connection between the name Ryvel (Ryvale) in Scotland and the name Ry(e)vall (Rie- valle, Rivall, Revall), representing the Yorkshire Rievaulx ; and such an assumption we have seen to be plausible, in the light of the in- fluence which that famous abbey had in Scotland, and of the con- nection maintained between Yorkshire and Annandale through the family of Bruce. 5. THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF FLEURY (ST. BENOIT-SUR- LOIRE) According to Keith-Spottiswoode,! three monasteries in Scotland were related to Fleury. These were Coldingham, Durfermline, and Urquhart 2 ; but I can find no confirmation of this statement. Indications of a relation between the Ruthwell Cross and the abbey church of St. Benoit may perhaps be found in the similarities between the sculptured Flight into Egypt and Visitation of the former and those of the latter.® An influence of the sculptures of St. Benoit upon English work might be conjectured from the relations of that monastery with England in the 10th century.4 At the reform of English monasticism by Dunstan and A:thelwold, it became important to insist upon the stricter Benedictine rule, as it was held and practised by its authentic representatives ; and what monastery more fit to lay down the pure law than that where the bones of the founder reposed, after they had been brought northward from Monte Cassino? Thus Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, sent his nephew, Oswald, to the abbey where he himself had passed some time. After Oswald’s return, he set out for Rome with Oskytel, Archbishop of York, but ‘ was unable to pass by the walls of Fleury,’ where he lingered. Thence he was recalled by the urgent solicitations of Oskytel (ca. 961), to aid in the introduction of a stricter form of discipline into the northern * Hist. Cat. of the Scottish Belone a pp. 401 ff. 2 Priory of Dunfermline, ca. 1130 (Lawrie, Harly Scottish Charters, p. . 350). 3 See above, pp. 49, 52. 4 Cf. above, p. 130, note 6 from preceding page. (142) Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Northern Italy 355 province. AZthelwold is said to have been the first to introduce this stricter rule into England at the monastery of Abingdon, having sent Osgar, a monk of Glastonbury, to Fleury (St. Benoit) for the purpose.2, Among the scholars of the period, the name of Abbo, who went for a time from Fleury to England, is held in honor. At times the monastery school was attended by as many as five thousand students, each of whom was to give two manuscripts to the library as his fee ; and contributions to the library were required from every dependent monastery. A link between Fleury and the English royal house is found in the person of Hugh of Fleury (d. 1108), who dedicated a history of the church to Countess Adela,* a history of the recent French kings to Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and his treatise, De egia Potestate et Sacerdotali Dignitate, to King Henry himself. It is thus evident that Fleury must have been well within King David's ken, and fre- quently visited by Englishmen during his reign. 6. THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF NORTHERN ITALY The sculptures of a certain group of churches in northern Italy form so interesting a parallel to those on the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses as to suggest a possible influence from that quarter. That such an influence—either direct or through the mediation of French sculptors—is not inherently impossible, is indicated by the bonds 1 Raine, Archbishops of York 1. 118-121 ; cf. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fiir Altere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 16. 375. Raine (op. cit., p. 121) tells of twelve monks from Fleury whom Oswald established at Westbury under the charge of Germanus ; ‘ the sight of that house was so gratifying to the king that he directed more than forty monasteries to be constructed after the same model.’ Sackur says (Newes Archiv 16. 375) that the reformation of the English monasteries by Dunstan emanated from Fleury. A prose calendar of the Anglo-Saxon church was found at Fleury, and called Calen- darium Floriacense (Piper, Kalendarien, p. 65). 2 Chron. de Abingdon 1. 129; Robertson, Hist. Essays, p. 190; Diet. Nat. Biog. 18. 38. 3 Wetzer and Welter, Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Fleury. 4 See p. 130, above. 5 Sackur (op. cit., p. 375) considers that the relations between Fleury and England must have been continuous from after the time of Dunstan’s re- form ; it may be noted that Hugh was a convinced royalist, and that Fleury stood under the direct patronage of the King of France, being exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Orléans (op. cit., pp. 370 ff.). (143) 356 Theory as to the Origin of the Crosses formed between Italy and other countries of Europe during the Middle Ages by the presence of Transalpine monks in the monasteries of northern Italy. The sculptors whose work we have to consider were Wiligelmus and Niccolo, or William and Nicholas ; and their activities extended over the early part of the 12th century.? Their first notable work was done under the direction of the architect Lanfranc on the cathedral of Modena, which was consecrated in 1106. They worked together at Cremona, probably before 1114, at Nonantola before 1117, and at Piacenza soon after 1122. About 1135 they seem to have been associated at Ferrara, where William was perhaps chiefly responsible for the general design, and Nicholas for the details ; then again on the facade of San Zeno, at Verona, completed in 1139, where most of the carving seems to have been done by Nicholas.® These two artists differed more or less in style, that of William being the severer and more archaic ; his figures angular and recti- linear, with large, long noses, and stiff locks of hair ; and the general effect often what Venturi describes as grandiose. Nicholas was simpler, more youthful in spirit, more bourgeois and less archaic, and exhibited greater variety.4 The faces of his personages are broad and squat, and they are shorter of stature, in contradistinction to the figures of William.® Of the origins of these two men nothing is known, but there has been speculation concerning the possibly Germanic provenience of William. However this be, their works are clearly recognizable as forming a distinct group, resembling rather the art of France than that of central and southern Italy® ; and, what is not less remarkable, these sculptures are earlier than those in France which they most resemble, so that France may really have been the debtor. 1 Cf. Venturi, Storia dell’ Arte Ital. 3. 113-4, who says that strangers were more numerous than Italians in certain monasteries of northern Italy in the 11th century—that, for example, of 161 priests nominated in 1037 by Olderico, Bishop of Brescia, there were only 25 who were not either German or French. 2 For a somewhat detailed discussion of their activities, see Venturi 3. 150-197 ; and cf. Venturi 3. 120; Rivoira, Lomb. Arch. 1. 221; 2. 121 ; ‘Michel, Hist. de l Art 17. 696-700. 3 Venturi 3. 186. 4 Venturi 3. 160, 170, 172. 5 Venturi 3. 160; cf. p. 158. 6 Michel 1?. 697. (144) Sati aiptones Cultural and Artistic Antecedents: Northern Italy 357 Quelques détails, dans un ensemble d’architecture tout italienne, rappellent étrangement l’art du Nord. . . . Ou bien Vartiste qui a sculpté les prophétes de Ferrare a-t-il eu connaissance des statues- colonnes de Saint-Denis et de Chartres? . . . Une inscription, gravée sur le portail de Ferrare et dont le second vers est mutilé parait donner pour les sculptures la date de 1135. Si les portails de Vérone et de Ferrare appartiennent réellement 4 la premiére moitié du XII® siécle, ils sont antérieurs au portail vieux de Chartres, et il faut admettre que Nicola ait enrichi la sculpture monumentale de thémes que les sculpteurs francais ne reprendront quaprés lui. . . . Il est permis de se demander si des sculpteurs tels que . . . maitre Nicola, auteur du portail de San Zeno 4 Vérone, n’ont pas pu étre employés dans le Midi de la France et n’y ont pas exercé quelque influence. Les dates de 1133, pour le cloitre d’ Aoste, et de 1135, pour le portail de Ferrare, si elles sont admises, obligent Vhistoire 4 reconnaitre que l’Italie du Nord a joué un role préponderant et indépendant, 4 cdté de la France, dans l’événement capital qui se manifeste au commencement du XII® siécle : la création dune sculpture monumentale a sujets réligieux.! However this may be, the resemblances, not only to French art, but to that of the crosses under consideration, are striking. The panels of the door-jamb at Nonantola, already referred to as the work of William,? are similar in general plan and in many details ? to those of the Ruthwell Cross ; while such bas-reliefs as those of the shoemakers and the knife-grinder*# in the cathedral of Piacenza, or the hunting-scene on the facade of San Zeno at Verona,’ seem natural precursors of the falconer on the Bewcastle Cross. Sculptors like Wiliam and Nicholas, or at least certain of their disciples or associates, might conceivably have been induced to cross the Alps, and carry to France, if not to Scotland, the tradition and manner of these sculptures of northern Italy. It is certainly note- worthy, in any case, that the sculptures of our Northern crosses find Italian parallels in work that is undoubtedly of the early 12th cen- tury. 1 Michel 17. 696-700. 2 See p. 124. 3 Cf. Venturi 3. 169 (illustration). 4 Venturi 3. 176-7; cf. p. 125, above. 5 Venturi 3. 194: cf. p. 70, above. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 24 (145) 358 Conclusion CONCLUSION At the close of this inquiry, we may well endeavor to summarize its results. The forms of the runic letters do not require an early date, and the fact that no Scandinavian memorial inscriptions ante- date 900, and that runic inscriptions occur in England as late es the 12th century, assuredly favors a date much later than the 7th cen- tury (see pp. 31—32). The language of the Ruthwell inscription in runes indicates a date not earlier than the 10th century (see pp. 33 —37). The nearest parallels to the runic Gessus Kristtus of the Bew- castle Cross belong to the end of the 13th century (see p. 37). The word @e/t seems to indicate a date later than 1050 (see pp. 38—40). Cynnburug points to the 10th century at earliest (see pp. 43—44). The metrical peculiarities of the poetical inscription on the Ruthwell Cross show that it was a rather clumsy adaptation of certain lines of The Dream of the Rocd (see p. 40). The word Alcjripu, if it actually occurs on the Bewcastle Cross, is the name of a woman rather than of a man, is rather Norse than English, and therefore indicates a date subsequent to the Norse conquest of the Western Isles (see pp. 42—43). The most peculiar letters of the Latin in- scriptions have forms which elsewhere occur in inscriptions of the 12th century (see pp. 44—45). : The figure-sculpture points uniformly to the 11th and 412th cen- turies, with a general preponderance in favor of the 12th (see pp. 45 —71). In the decorative sculpture, the vine occurs over too long a period to furnish the best means of determining the date of our crosses ; but Rivoira, the latest expert to examine the Ruthwell carving, favors a period about 1100—1150 (see pp. 14, 78). The chequers indicate the 12th century (see pp. 83—86), the Celtic interlacings the 11th or 12th (see pp. 86—89), and the sundial the late 11th or 12th century see pp. 89—90). Accordingly, a date not far from 1150 would perhaps harmonize all the indications better than any other that could be named. Upon this supposition, it remains to discover, if possible, what agency might be credited with the erection of the two crosses. One might think of a great prelate, a great abbey, a religious noble, or a religious king. The greatest prelate of the North in those times was undoubt- (146) Conclusion 359 edly Archbishop Thurstan! of York; but his authority did not reach so far, he was fully occupied elsewhere, and he died in 1140. The nearest great abbeys were those that had been founded under the influence of King David of Scotland, and none of these had in that century a prepotent abbot known to history. The religious nobles of the surrounding territory were vassals or friends of the same David. Of English kings there were Henry I (1100—1135) and Stephen (1135—1154). Henry was no religious devotee, and Stephen’s character excludes him from consideration ; besides, neither would have been recognized as lord and master on the Border. David, on the contrary, was prince and king over this region for forty- six years (1107—1153) ; he was the founder of several monasteries, and a patron of others, like Hexham and Holmcultram ; and his heart was bound up in extending Christianity and civilization in 1 See p. 120. 2 That this task required all his powers, that his successors were in generat unequal or indisposed to it, and that the temper of the Borderers, at least, was refractory and untamable enough, is clear from history. It has been shown (pp. 125 ff.) that David was under the necessity of importing monks and artificers from France ; of his immediate successors, Malcolm IV (1154-1165) died young, and William the Lion (1165-1214) has almost no endowment save the foundation of the abbey of Arbroath to his credit. As to the im- pression produced by David's religious establishments on his subjects, we have various modern testimonies. Thus Veitch (Hist. and Poetry of the Scottish Border, p. 171): ‘The Lowland Scot was not, during the middle ages, a very devoted churchman, nor were the religious houses popular, or of high repute in the district.’ Elsewhere we are told (New Stat. Acc. 3. 308-9) : ‘It does not appear from the records of the times that the mon- astery of Kelso ever proved of such advantage to border civilization as its founder anticipated. . . . Yet for this, perhaps, the monks are not to be blamed, so much as the untowardness of the times in which their lot was cast. There never seems to have existed on the border that respect for religious houses, which in other places rendered them safer repositories for literary treasures than the fortresses of kings. Nor do the monks ever seem to have gained that ascendency over the popular mind, which alone could cause the monastery to act as a centre and source of civilization to the sur- rounding country.’ And the remark of Brown is significant (Hist. Scot. 1. 96) : “ From the first the people resented the burdens imposed on them for the support of an alien clergy ; and when another religious revolution came their conduct betrayed what little affection they had inherited towards the church established by David.’ On the lawlessness and wickedness of the region about Bewcastle, see Nanson, Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antig. and Arch. Soc. 3. 228; Victoria Hist. (147) 360 Conclusion at the English court, and his direct relations with France, he was in a position to command the services of accomplished architects and sculptors, as is clearly shown by the character of the monastic build- ings erected under his rule ; this has been duly set forth and illustrat- ed in the latter part of our study (pp. 115 ff.), and hence need not be further rehearsed here. In the absence of more explicit and unequivocal testimony than we have been able to adduce, we may not be warranted in the absolute assertion that David is responsible for the existence of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses ; but when we think of him as the son of the saintly Margaret, the brother-in-law of the scholar-king Henry I, the introducer of Norman piety and skill into Scotland, the fervent adorer of the cross, the tamer of Border barbarism, the man most feared by the desperate, and most beloved by the good, of any who bore rule in English or Scottish Cumbria in the Middle Ages, we can Cumb. 2. 78, 452 ; Ferguson, Hist.Cumb., pp. 2, 3 ; Surtees Soc. Pub. 68. 437-41, 443, 447, 463-4 ; Scott, Guy Mannering, chaps. 22, 23,24. On the desolateness of the region, see Hutchinson, Hist. of the County of Cumberland 1. 36, 76 ; Archeologia 14.117; Denton, quoted by Nanson, op. cit., p.227; Surtees Soc. Pub. 68. xvii ; on its spoliation by wars (in 1298, etc.), and consequent decay, Hutchinson, op. cit. 1.78. In 1881 Bewcastle had 20 persons to the square mile, while the whole of Cumberland had 165, and England and Wales 447 ; in 1901 the figures were 16, 176, and 558 respectively. For the state of the borderland between Cumberland and Dumfriesshire, in the vi- cinity of Ruthwell, before 1603, see Johnstone, Hist. Fam. Dumfriesshire, pp. 1-2. On the other hand, with reference to southern Scotland, and the shores of the Solway in particular, see Ruskin, Preterita 4. 69, 70, 72, 74: ae Lar res mh) e Mies ‘ ba i = Ps q + - A _— 6 i —— ~~ > 7 : | 7 » i - 7 : ft ©i% a it VF a esd cela § tit “Whee "WEIMAR: PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SQ CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . : : : : A ; ; : : aa Oe Part I. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS Tertullian : f ; - : ; ; E ; ; . 3881 Clement of Newandvia d i Z : E : : " : . 3881 Irenaeus . j : : ; : : ; : ‘ : : a esi! Papias. : : - ‘ ; : : : : ; : . 3881 Il Clement. : : : ; ? : : E ; : 7 OSL Justin Martyr : : ; : : : , ; : . 882 Barnabas : : : Z ‘ : : ~ ‘ x s moogyrat, an dutod gyovtes thy sic bude yuortos mpopyntedcavetss y%pw, sig dutdv expovttevcav. (11) gpevvisvtes sig tivm 7 motov autos St tva xatupyyjon tov Da- xarpdov gdyhov 7 a vaTov xo Thy a vexpdv dviota- pa Xptotod, mpouxetupdpevov TH - ee NS \ > £ ‘ , ‘ ‘ ow Setén, Str dv ouput Eder adtov sig Xotovdv nabyyata, xo Teo- waveowmO¥ivat, Oméuewev. . 7. tva pete taBta S0goc. s uv ~ ROL TOlS TATOKCW Thy smayyeAty Anode. Dr. Bartlet rightly sees a twofold parallelism here with. our— Epistle ; ‘‘ (1) prophecy foreshadows Christ’s passion and its sequel, and (2) this is due to grace proceeding from himself.” Attention should have been called also to the close parallel in the clause im- (3) (4) (5) First Epistle of Peter. 385 mediately following Mr. Bartlet’s reference. See just below. Bigg contends that Barnabas used I Peter here. See Com. p. 108. Bar. Vi, @ EP Pi 2< 9 abTOS ExUTH Tov Andv Tov xawov Susic BE yévoe ExrextOv, Baotrerov EcomraCwy emdetéy. tepavevp.c, EOvos a&ytov, Ande sic TEOLTotyow Following the preceding parallel this striking similarity is very significant. Bar. V, 13 I Pt. 2; 24 abtos By EDEAnoev otm nadsiv. b¢ ta> arapting Huey adTO> avi- det yao tva én Eddov naedy. veynev av TH THUATL HUTOD Ext TO E0Xov. This reference shows closer kindship to our Epistle than to any other passage of scripture. Gal. 3 ; 13 is the next closest parallel in the N. T., but clearly “ Barnabas”’ is not following it at this point. Bar. I, 6 Peete 29 Coys erm, Kpyy nal védog miotews nourlduevor TO TéAOG Tio mioTeWs hy.dy buddy This similarity is probably due to common currency. Cf. the parallel usage immediately following i. e. dimaoodvy, xpiceme aoy7 xu. tédoc. It is to be noted however that reference is made to the prophets in the contexts following the citations. Cf. I. 7 with fete = 10. Bar. V,1 TP e2 iva TH avéoet THY KumoTIOV ayY- ev do & Ilvejuatoc, ete Sna- vy) Y vO. [J OTLMY j ov XDLAGU.) VOUILATOS, 4s UT viodépev, & éotiv év tH alas. xohy xo davtroudv dinatos <00 pavttopatos adtov Xorortov. Giot; 19) Heb. 12724, 432 12. Were we to follow C and the Lat. of Barnabas (i. e. év 7 éxv- tiow.att xdToD Tod atuxcos., Lat. sparsione sanguinis illius) ; we should have here a closer parallel with I Peter than with Hebrews, but as Professor Bartlet says “all depends on the reading adopted ; and as § is as likely to be right as C and a version, we must leave the phrase out of account.” The similar use however made of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah is in favor of dependence on I Peter. Mie awithel Pt: 4::49.2; 20f., 3318, 4; 4. (8) (9) (10) (11) 386 Ora Delmer Foster, Bar. V, 5 I Pt. 2; 21 5 Kuproc onéuewev nabeiv rept cig Xprotd¢ exadey Onto Hav. 4; 41 buy hy.ov Xorozed nabdvetos Oreo Hudiv copxt. Barnabas is quite suggestive of I Peter at this point. Ibid. I Pt. 1; 20 ans nataBoAye xdop.ov TOO naTABOAT|S xOop.0U The context (Gv mavtdg tod xédcyov Kuoroc, & cimev 6 Ocd<) con- necting this parallel with the one just cited is in favor of consider- ing this verbatim agreement to be merely accidental, yet it occurs in significant connections in both books. Bar. VI, 2 (Isa. 28; 16b) ]. Pi. 2p > ‘ ~ \ yy , ‘ , TSod 2uBare etc te Seudria Limv tod, cinps gv Limv Aibov axypo- AiGov moutedt, exdextdv, dxoo- ‘yuviollov, éxdextov, EvtuLov. yovuottov, EvTuLov Quoted from the LXX, but probably suggested by I Peter as will be seen by the following parallels. Bar. VI, 3 Isa. 28; 16b I Pt. 2; 6 > , > > ‘ , > x c , 33 > anf C SATLOEL et KUTOV 6 TUGTEVWMY OV p-1) XAT O NTMOTEVDMY EX KU vw , 0 DVae aloyuvory 0 UN xaTaLoyvvOT. . il i . ‘ ‘ Since ‘“‘Barnabas’’ purports to be quoting from ‘the prophet,” the passage is a good commentary on his method of quoting. That he is not following the original is obvious from the text itself. (PPA N? POND7), “EActfo is here used in the sense of moveJw as in I Pt. 3; 5, 2\ntZovom ém tov Oedv. This usage is rare in the N. T. Paul may parallel it in Rom. 15; 12 and Phil. 2; 19, yet in the latter case it refers to desire mingled with trust. Other probable examples are I Tim. 4; 10, 5; 5. It seems on the whole altogether likely that our ‘“‘ Epistle of Hope’”’ may have influenced ‘“Barnabas”’ to employ unconsciously éAnt@w for moved. Bar. VI, 4 I Pt. 2; 7b nedoniu.acay ot cinodo- Albeo Gv ot olnxcdoucdvees, obta¢ wotvtes, obtog ayevyy sig xep- sysv4dn sic xegadyy yoviac. ayy yeovias. There is nothing here but the context by which to determine whether ‘“‘ Barnabas is quoting”’ Ps. 118 ; 22 independently or at the suggestion of our Epistle. If he is following Rom. 8 ; 33 it (12) (13) First Epistle of Peter. 387 is probably by way of I Peter, since the wording, order and context of the latter is more in accord with this Epistle at this point. When taken alone the quotations taken from Chap. VI mean but little, but since they occur in the same context in the same order and are connected with a variation suggestive of Petrine influence, dependence is highly probable. Among the infinite number of possible combinations the above could be a mere coin- cidence, but exceedingly improbable. It may also be said in this connection that Chap. VI lays stress upon some Petrine ideas which are worthy of note, e. g. “ hope” v.3, tee for Christ, 1—4, “‘recreation”’ 11, 14, corresponding to I Pt. 1; 3, 23, and the suffering of Christ. Bar. I, 6 yi oe we ele && buav SetEw CAtya cuvrpecputepo¢g 12, 3’ 6Atyov This parallel of Monnier’s need not detain us. Bar. XVI, 10 I Pt. 2:5 TVEVU.ATINOS VOOS GUNOS TvEU.ATIXOC We have here no clear evidence either for or against acquaintance with our Epistle. Yet the reference to “temple building” and “new creation in v. 8 may have a direct bearing on the question. Conclusion. It has been seen that Chapter V seems to be thoroughly imbued with Petrine thought and expressions. The same use made of Isa. 53 in regard to Christ, and the close and quite continuous sequence of Petrine ideas make it highly probable that ‘‘ Barnabas’”’ here depends upon I Pt. 1 and 2. The sequence and the variations of the references in Chap. VI also add weight to the above obser- vation. Hesitation and consideration should characterise any statement which is adverse to the opinion of great scholars, yet on the basis of the combined evidence of Chapters IV—VI, it seems necessary to conclude that “‘ Barnabas’”’ knew and used our Epistle. (1) 388 Vision II], xi, 3 Vis. IV, ii, 4 .. . OTL Thy Gov én Tov WYSE UULGY Kiotov, xot adtog xaT- ophice, adtec. Principal Drummond has pointed out these parallels. He thinks this quotation is taken independently Apost. Fathers.) Ova Delmer Foster, (Written cir. 140) B b I Pt. 5; 7a Ticav THY [WéolUvory Sudv amotbavtss ax advov [cov Med] SHEPHERD OF HERMAS Ps. 54; 23a émroupov én Kuouov Thy UgoiUveyv Gov (N..) Ema from Ps. 54. Bishop Lightfoot is undecided between the Psalm and our Epistle. Perhaps Drummond disposes of the comparison too readily. The fact that the huge beast, used as a type of dire- ful tribulation, is given in connection with the echo of I Pt. 5; 7, - makes it very probable that Hermas had in mind also I Pt. 5; 8b. Sim. IX, xiv, 6 ovx ématcyivovta. TO Ovou.e, a0TOD Oopety Xx. 3 ovay Shibw axotvowsr .. . 76 dvoum arouc- jovovtat tod Kuotov aoTeY. XXviil, 5, 6. Oz & RQ Ov a ot -G cn ° (S ( og Xoto- Tiaves Ny aloyuvécder, doéaZéto SE TOv Ocdv &v TH Gvouets TOTO. Poly. VII, 2 exy THoyuuev Sie TE Ovou.n advo, dogKCw- sv aUTOV.. TOUTOV Yx~ hyiv tov Sroyoauy.oy Zoyxe St sautoo. Mk.8; 38, Lk. 9; 26. 6g yap dv énotoyuy- OF] pe. Cf. Acts 5; 41. First Epistle of Peter. 389 Sim. VIL, vi, 4 énarcyuvPévtes 7 Ovoux Ku , , , dig obdeuta nant dva- xnoniav... oo &evt- Cf. I Cor. 3; 1, and Batver éxt thy xapdiav ‘yéwvyta Bogoy 14; 20. ra > - OGOL OUV... In I Pt. 2; 1 and I Cor. 14 ; 20 it is the blamelessness of the babe which is considered, where-as in I Cor. 3 ; 1 and I Pt. 2 ; 2 its diet. Sim. IX, xxix is more likely to have been suggested by I Pt. than by I Cor. 6) : Mand. VIII, 10 Bigg calls attention to a list of “‘ Petrine words close together ’’ here i. e. ovddgevoc, Hodywos, &deAQd7y¢ and ayadonoinars = (axyabo- (7) (8) (9) 390 Ora Delmer Foster, moti). The first is found not only in I Pt. 4; 9 but also in I Tim. 3; 2 and Tit. 1; 8. The second occurs in I Pt. 35 4 and I Tim. 2; 2, while jovyia is found in Acts 22; 2, II Thes. 3; 12 and J Tim. 2; 44, 12. The third is peculiar to 1 Peter bem= found only in 2; 17 and 5; 9. The exact form of the last is not found in the N. T., but the allied form ayadorotds is only in I Pt. 2; 14. The verbal form ayadonxoé is common in the N. Tf. Cf. Mk. 3; 4, Lk. 6; 9, 33, 35, Acts 14/47, and Wiig }ma; ee is indeed a favorite word of our author. Cf. I Pt. 2; 15, 20, FS pee Op 4 Vis EEE ive ot I Pt:.2%5 ~ , ~ , ‘ ~/ ~ O y tOv AOwv tov Unaydvtwv sic Thy ASor Civte¢ otnodouetobe olnog olnodouny TVEVIATIAOS . . . This is indeed suggestive of our Epistle, especially as a develop- ment of the figure. The figure however, is too common to guarantee any degree of certainty for dependence. Vis. IV, iii, 4 T Pet @oneo yep To youotov Soxwaletat 70 Soxiptov Opa tig TloTEMWS TO- Bie tod mupdc . . . oltmg xxl AuTYWdTEpOV Xpuatov 703 a&mohu- Syste Sonww.cCeode wévou Sia mupd¢ SE Soxw.xCouevov. Drummond can see no connection here with our Epistle. Bishop Lightfoot is not sure. When taken alone we cannot lay any weight on this parallel, though it is suggestive. Sim. IX, xii, 2, 3 I Pt. 1; 20 Heb. 1; 2 c ‘ c ~ ~ ~ , > , ~ 6 pev vide tod Oecd eee TPO pilose éx gcyacou THy hpe- Le THON TH uticews aV- vou LEV 70 os ataBoArc pay: L joven TOU TPOYEveoT: repos 3c- “0013.00 cavepwiévtog axelvog 2ouveody, > Sr Y . iy) . 8x soyaétwv dt én soyatov Tov Col. “et THy Tusedv tig ouv- ypovuv. TOWTOTOROS TANS XTL- Tehsing pavepos eyé- Ewe. VETO These parallels, borrowed from Drummond, show close similarity in thought and phraseology. Yet stress cannot be placed on the likenesses, inasmuch as the same thought and forms of expression First Epistle of Peter. 391 are to be found elsewhere, also that the context does not refer to our Epistle. Mr. Crombie (Antenicene Fathers II, 47) sees here a reference to I Peter, but Bishop Lightfoot fails to record it. (10) Sim. EX savin © I Pt. 4; 6 odTOL of andoToAOL xa of Sdho- ol Aanodd&covew éyov TH Evotu.M< nahor ot xnpdavtes TO Ovou.e toB xplvover Ciivtag nat vexpotc~ lc viod to¥ Oeod, xowrSévtes gv tolto yk nat vexocic edyyyeAtody, Suvewer xat miote, ToD vied tod fva xoihiior piv xat& dvOparrous cod exipviav nai tole mooxexot- ocaupnl Cor 38 xatva Dedv mveduatt. pNpévors, xaL adTOL ESwxav adTCIS THY sopayida tod xyovyyatoc Bigg thinks Hermas here is explaining I Pt. 4 ; 6, and bases his argument largely on the occurrence of the “ Petrine word Zwo- moutv’’ just before the reference cited. This is indeed suggestive, yet a dubious argument since the “‘ Petrine word”’ is really a Pau- line word. It occurs but once in our Epistle (3; 18), but Paul uses it seven or eight times. Cf. Rom. 4; 17, 8: 14, I Cor. 15; eee an fl Gor. 3: 6; Gal. 3:21. See also I Tim..6;,13, Jn. 5; 21a, and b, 6; 63. The thought of the passage is close to that of I Peter, yet our Epistle no where speaks of the a&xdéotohor xan Sid5xoxado. preaching to the dead. Just above in I Pt. 3; 19 our author has told of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison Pos- sibly this may refer to I Peter, but the ‘ harrowing of hell” is a mythological loan of early Christianity not confined to our Epistle. Drummond, Crombie and Lightfoot fail to record this as seem that we are justified in claiming a higher degree of probable dependence of Hermas on our Epistle than Drummond, or even Monnier, who says, after pointing out that Westcott, Gebhardt and Harnack see striking resemblances, that: “On ne peut en dire autant de l’ecrit de Pierre; mais il est fort possible pourtant a parallel. On the cumulative evidence of all the foregoing parallels it would 4 qu’ Hermas le connaisse.”’ ; (2) (3) (4) 392 Ova Delmer Foster, DIDACHE (120 or later) D d Did. I, 3 I Pt. 2; 19 TO yap yxpic ekv... soto yap yapis el... Though the phrase is similar the passage does not deserve serious attention. Did. I, 4 I Pt. 2; 11 anéyov THv cuontndiv xo owpa- anéyeodar tiv caxonindy émbuytoy TLADY émbuy.ayv Professor Lake (N.T. in A.F.) thinks the connection, if any, comes through a later gloss of oxextxHv from our Epistle, and as evidence that the tautologous form cxpxixOv xxl copatindy was not original, cites IV Macc. 1; 32, zHv d3& embuurdv at pév eior buyizat at 3& cwuacixat. This argument however is based on an assumption that has less in its favor than the conjecture that it is an actual quotation. The context has nothing to suggest I Peter but this was to be expected inasmuch as the whole docu- ment is a mosaic of scriptural references taken almost at random. The evidence either way is too slight to warrant one recognizing more than a possible connection. Did. I, 6 I Pt.5;5 Smeohouvoc brepnoavote This parallel, pointed out by Monnier, need not detain us, since the word is not peculiar to I Peter, nor is the context as suggestive of it as of “‘ James.” Did. IV, 11 I Pt. 2; 18 bysic SE ot SodAcL SnotayHoeode ot oixétar, Snotacodéusvor Ev TAVTL soig xuotorg Sydv... év ood oofé In addition to this very similar phrasing, the context also has ideas which suggest our Epistle. Compare &x6 veétvyt0¢ Bidazerg Tov o6Gov zo3 cod, (v. 9,) with such passages as I Pt. 5; 5, 2; 47. Compare also od yao goyeta. nate modownov xahéou (v. 10) with anooownonyncms of I Pt. 1; 17 and the Petrine doctrine of election, The combination of these inferences makes dependence somewhat First Epistle of Peter. 393 probable, yet there is very little here which cannot be paralleled in the Pauline Literature. Cf. Eph. 6; 5. (5) Did. XVI, 4 I Pt. 4; 3 adeurrx adenttotc Merely accidental. (6) Did. XVI, 5 I Pt. 4; 12 sig THY moWoev Tie Soxwacing TUPMGEL TOPOS TEloMOULov Pe ea Sia mupde S& SoxwaTopévov This figure is too common to betray dependence. The foregoing study justifies us in claiming for the Didache no more than a very doubtful connection with I Peter. Harnack, with Lightfoot and others, sees no connection here with our Epistle, but notes certain resemblances to Jude and II Peter. (See Art. in Schaff. Herzog Relig. Enc.) The Oxford committee notes but one parallel. POLYCARP Cin its A* 3h (1) Poly. I, 3 i Pts cig Ov ox iddvteg motetete yap bv odx iDévtec chyanéits, sic dv avexhakizm rat Sedozaopevy Gott wy Spvteg motedovtes 3s KyarMaobe yapk avexradiyto nat Sedoeaopevy This reference clearly depends upon I Peter. (2) Pol. II, 1 I Pt. 1; 21 Tiotevcuvees cig tov éystpavtx tov tobe dt adtod mortods elo Ocdv Kiptov fyéiv “Incoty Xpuotév é tov ayeipavra aitov éx vexpiiv vexpaiy xal Sdvta ada Sdzav na S6Eaxv adTH Sdvtq The dependence here is too obvious to require any comment. (3) Pol. VIII, 1 I Pt. 2; 24 6c evi c ~ ‘ c , a WP ig , is ~ mn p 6 aviveyxev Tdiv tag cpaoting O¢ tas cpyapting fudiv adtd¢ TH Wim oopat. emi TO ErAov, aviveynxev 8v 7H oopat. adtod py aa emt TO EvAOv. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 394 Ibid. O¢ cpaotiav obn arotyosv, odd ebpéin Sodo¢ ev TH otduate adTOD Ibid. AAA Bt” Hy.dic Ibid. a , > > ~ , c , La Che WMUEV EY AVTW, TAVTK UTE- J.EVELY Pol. VIII, 2 say TAoyo.cy Sie Tb Ovo axvTO! SozaZwuev advdv Ca. ee ‘ toUtOV yap buiv dxoyeauu.ov eOyxe Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 2; 22 6g auaptiav obx énotnoev, add I Pt. 2; 24 tva toile cu.mpting arovyevouevor Ti] Sinacodvy, Crows. I Pt. 45 ie ei BE WS yplotiavés, UH atoyuvecbu, Eatétm 38 tov Wedv bv tH dsosatérm 3 Osiv dv wm dvou.aTL TOUTH I Pt. 2; 21 c ~ uly orohwuravey broyeauu.ov These parallels in Pol. VIII have been pointed out by all scholars. That Polycarp drew in VIII, 1 from I Pt. 2 ; 21—24, seems to beyond all doubt. Though he has not followed the order of our Epistle he has not only reproduced its thought but its phraseology ver- batim. The first reference under VIII, 2 is drawn from another context but clearly echoes I Peter. context drawn from in VIII, 1. The second reference returns to the Since 6zoyeuuu.dv occurs no where else in the N. T., there can be but little doubt but that the last parallel presupposes our Epistle. Mr. Benecke notices that in the place where I Peter is dependent on Isaiah, Polycarp seems clearly to be dependent on I Peter. Isaiah employs avoytav where I Peter uses &u.xpciny. Cf: I Pt. 2: 22 with Isasjsoeeuee Other diffe- rences occur, but Polycarp gives verbatim the form found in our Epistle. Pol AS 2 Omnes vobis invicem subjecti estote, con- versationem vestram irreprehensiblem hab- entes in gentibus ut es bonis operibus vestris et vos laudem tram Ey Pt... 125(Walg;) conversationem ves- inter habentes bonam ; ut ines, quod detrectant de vobis tamquam de malefactoribus vos considerantes, bo i Ptgaee Thy avactpooyy ue bv tog EOveow Eyovtes nahty, Wa év @ *xTH- ahodtow byuav’ wg XKKOTOLOY 8% TOY Gentes ys ~ ovteg Sotgkowow TH glo- ZOABY Eoyov emonTe- ‘ anos ~~ (10) (11) (12) First Epistle of Peter. 395 accipiatis et Domi- rificent Deum in die ©cé év 7 pepe emLono- nus in vobis non visitationis.5;5Om- 7%. Sz ovayyte TAGY, blasphemetur. nes autem invicem, avSewntvyn xcttioet Bex (subditiestote. 5; 4). tov Kuprov. 5; 5 xev- weg OF AAAS (b70- tTaynte 5; 4). es Benecke, after quoting the above, states : ‘‘ the second clause in the passage seems to be a certain quotation from I Pt.” Bishop Lightfoot thinks there may be a reference in the first part of the quotation to Eph. 5; 21. It is significant that in X. 1 the word ‘exemplar ’’ occurs, corresponding to the Sxoyeapu.sv of Jesus in I Pt. 2; 21, in close conjunction with “ ea eee. which likewise corresponds to another word peculiar to our Epistle. 1. e. a3eooTy 7H of I Pt. 2; 17. These two words, it is noticed, occur in I Peter in rather close contextual connexion. These observations make Benecke’s conclusion all the more certain, that Polycarp here shows dependence upon I Peter. b Pol. Tt EePts 1 816 avalwodusvor tas Goodas Sov- B16 avalwoduevor tae dootauc wi ¢ 009 OTH : : , Lap , ~ Aevoute 7a Onn év =i 6hu xxi ahy- Stavotac Su.dy Deter Although this citation has a certain affinity with Eph. 6 ; 14 the probabilities are that the Pauline thought reached Polycarp via our Epistle. The context seems to demand such a conclusion. Pol IT, 2 EePts23 29 UN amodiwdevetes, xaxndv ave. xaxod ph amodiddvteg xaxdv avtt xanod T AowWsootav avti Aowdootas N Aowootav avti Aoweotac | Ny Kea i rv Taare Benecke thinks this verbatin agreement may be accounted for, as a common proverb which bothare quoting. This however is rendered highly improbable, inasmuch as Polycarp had just quoted from I Peter. If it is a common proverb, in all probability it was suggested by our Epistle. c Pol. I, 3 1 Pt. 1; 12 slg Yv moddor émduyotow eic- cic & embuuotow ayyedor maxou- cA dety n5vaL. Though Lightfoot, Bigg and others fail to find any reference here to our Epistle, Benecke is correct in claiming a possible connection on the basis of the certain quotation just preceding it. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 27 January, 1913. (13) 396 Ova Delmer Foster, Pol. Vie0 lL. Pt2out Q ‘ Q 5 , is 5 ‘ > fe QO ~ ~ 5 AAKOV YXHO TO AVARKOTEDUAL ATO OTEYECUVAL TOY GHOXUKGY émudu- anak . tHv émSuuiayv év 7TH xo, OTL play altives OTOUTEDOVTAL KATH nion émbuuia xate tod mvevpatos tio buyiic This is probably a free quotation from I Peter, yet its close re- lationship with such passages of Paul as Gal. 5 ; 16, 17, and Rom. 13; 14, render it somewhat doubtful. The foregoing study in the Epistle of Polycarp seems to justify us, without further comment, though numerous other minor like- nesses might be pointed out, in adopting Monnier’s conclusion, “ L’épitre de Polycarpe aux Philippiens contient les citations les plus expresses et les plus détaillées de l’épitre de Pierre, mais sans le nommer comme l’auteur.” (‘La Premiére Epitre De L’Apétre Pierre’ p. 307). Eusebius is also responsible for the statement that “‘ Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimonies taken from the First Epistle of Peter.”” Though Polycarp never mentions the name of Peter in connection with the quotations there can be no doubt but that he used the “ First Epistle’’ that bears the Apostle’s name. TESTAMENTA XII PATRIARCHARUM D Bigg, in basing the date of this document on the authority of Sinker, who puts it in the latter part of the First Century or the early part of the Second, gives it a voice in deciding our problem. But if Professor Charles is right in dating the original in the closing years of the Second Century B. C.! there can be but little value in its testimony, since the date of the Christian interpolations is much more indefinite than the date of I Peter itself. (Cf. also the articles by F. C. Conybeare and K. Kohler in the Jewish Encyclopedia.) The Parallels between the two books may be due either to dependence by the writer of I Peter on the earlier Jewish document or to later Christian interpolations from I Peter. At all events this book complicates rather than helps to solve our problem. : 1 Greek Version of the “ Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs”, p. ix. (1) (2) (3) First Epistle of Peter. 397 IGNATIUS (Writing Cir. 110—117) B b Mag. VIII, 2 I Pt. 1; 10f. gumveouar On6 tio yapttTos (xOTOU) mpopitar of mept tig sic bude (X) YAPITOS TPCONTEVOAVTES .... EdY- hov 76 &y abtoic mele Xororod Inspiration of the prophets by the preexistent spirit of Christ is not a common idea in the N. T., though it occurs in Heb. 2; 11—13. 10 ;5—9. Since there are “ several ideas in common ”’ in the imme- diate contexts of the above passages, (cf. Lightfoot’s Apos. Fathers, II, 125,) dependence on our Epistle is far more probable than on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the thought of whose context is quite foreign to the thought of Ignatius in this section. Eph. V, 3 ie tes poe Omepngdvors 6 Osde-dvttdccstat 6 Ode Smepnpcvors avttdéccetar It seems impossible to determine definitely whether the author was quoting Prov. 3 ; 34 directly, or whether he was influenced either by I Peter or James 4; 6 or Clement of Rome (30 ; 2). The order is neither that of the original in the LXX, not that of any of the later writers. The change of Kvouog for 6 Med¢ shows later in- fluence. The context in wich the quotation occurs both in Clement and James is not in accord with the context in Ignatius. On the other hand the context of our Epistle is quite in accord with that of a who gives immediately after the quotation onavonam[fey obv Un aveiTdocscha. TH extoxézw, corresponding exactly to Sxoté- ynte mpcoPurtépotg of I Pt. 5; 5a. The context preceding the quotation is an exhortation fa humility, quite in harmony with Pit. 5> 5b. If there be literary dependence, therefore, it is probably on our Epistle, but we are dealing with a mere “ winged word,” a memoniter quotation. The value of the datum will be largely determined by the number of other instances in Ignatius. Eph. IX, 1 I Pt. 2; 5 @¢ Gvte¢ Aibor vaod xpontownc- we Aidor Céivtec olxodouciods cinos yévor sic olxodouny Oecd natpdg mvevpatix o mY Both the thought and phraseology are very suggestive of our Epistle. Ignatius shows however some points of likeness to I Cor. 33 16. The probabilities seem to be in favor of I Peter. (1) 398 Ova. Delmer Foster, Mag. IX, 3 I Pt. 338 rae x ‘ ~ \ x Vv ob xa Ob 7 mpocyiran uadytal ovtes TH TVEUL.ATL OF Sronzonahov a0TOV PeoGea OKO nal Ole TOUTO, by ~ , >) , A v OIXALOS AVEUEVOV, TAPWY YSIOSv avTODS 8x VEXOdy Ov V ® (mvebpartr) xo tog év ouhany pees mopevbers éxvjougev, 456 EXO ots ednyyedtody J The idea that Jesus descended into Hades, (drawn probably from Eph. 4 ; 9, which is developed in I Pt. 3 ; 19, and 4 ; 6, into the doctrine that Christ preached there to release the spirits from prison) receives even fuller development here. This idea was too prevalent in the Second Century to enable us to be certain that Ignatius was depending directly upon our Epistle, though the general context seems to make it probable. See also Mt. 27 ; 51-53, Justin, Dial. 72; Hermas, Sim. IX, 16 and Clem. of Alex. Strom. II, 9. Mag. VIII, 2 ae, ibs il ot yx Oerdtator moowytor nate ev adtolg (mpopytate) mea Xototov “Incotv 2Cnouv. Cf. Phi- Xorotod Y | ) lads We ? All depends on the interpretation of “ x%7%’’ as to whether this is a parallel or not. This study of the Ignation Epistles has not discovered sufficient ground for asserting literary dependence on our Epistle. It merely shows the prevalence of certain ideas which are more likely to have been suggested by it than by any other writing to which we can definitely point. CLEMENT OF ROME (95) A* b Clem. Int. Pt pie yHpug Sptv xo cipivy (and mav- ycorg Suv xo cloyvy mAnSuvdety coxpatooos Mod Sa “Iycod Xoro- TOD) TAYSUvVoety, Bishop Lightfoot observes that “ydéorc Spiv xot sipyvy is the common salutation of Paul, excepting the Pastoral Epistles. With the addition zSvvS) 24: Am, 4:4; Jl 3 (4); 43; Is. 57; 9) Jer. 5: 6, -37 (30) ; 14, 15, etc. It is also to be observed that the word zavto- zxeazwe does not appear in Daniel. The word, however, is common in the LXX, especially in Amos, where it is used no less than ten times. But it is never used in the O. T. in a connection similar to the above usage in Clement and I Peter. Nor is yépu¢ employed in this way in the O. T. It does not seem necessary therefore to think Clement selected words from different O. T. books to compose this clause when he could have taken the major portion of the expression directly from I Peter, from which he apparently drew in other connections. ‘‘ Jude”’ has a very simi- lar clause; EAso¢g Suly nat clotvy xa ayamn zAndvvdety. but it need not detain us here as a rival of 1. Pt. 1; 1. On the whole it seems Lightfoot’s conclusion is well grounded. There is a further likeness in the salutation of Clement in the word mupoixcdox. Though émdruore is used in I Peter instead, the idea is the same, as may be seen, both by I Pt. 2; 11 (where xapotnoug and magemdyu.cuve are coordinated) and by Clement himself. Cf. salutation for mxpomotox and I, 2 for xagemdyutoxs. In the saluta- tion of no other N. T. book does either word, or a word expressing a similar idea occur. The nearest approach is in Jas. 1; 1 (coite Swdexx Ouddic cole év cH Siacrop%), But I Pt. 1; 1 also employs Siaonopke. Clement uses xAnzci¢g while I Peter has éxAexzote. The former occurs in the N. T. salutations only in Romans, I Corinthians and Jude, while the latter appears only in Titus and our Epistle. Though I Peter nowhere uses the form xAyzté¢e, the idea is the same. Thayer contrasts these words (Lex. in loco), but evidently there is no contrast to be understood here, since it is improbable that Clement would, in the salutation, upbraid his readers as ‘‘ those who have shown themselves unfitted to obtain salvation’. Paul does not contrast these forms, nor indeed is there a contrast here. (Th. Lex. xAyz6¢,) Then if Clement shaped his salutation after (2) 400 Ora Delmer Foster, the model of I Peter, as Lightfoot thinks, the change of form would not militate against it, since ‘‘éxdextd¢ is indeed a rare word with Geeek writers”, (cf. Th. Lex. on &%)sx76¢) and he would, in quoting from memory, naturally employ the more familiar word expressing the same idea. He, however, uses @xAexzé¢ elsewhere, which will be considered later. Cf. 1; 1. Clem. Int. T Pt. 1; 2 Hyraopévors av Oediac. cod Sie av ayrxoud IIvetuarog sig bra- co Kugiod fydv Inood Xororod xnohy xo baveropov aiuacog “Inood Xorored This seems to express the thought of I Peter in contracted form. The likeness will be made clearer by the following analysis. (1) nyraouévorc OYLAOU.C (2) av Sedrhpat. Oecd nate TP6yvocw Osod (3) 3% tov Kupiov fev “Inood ele Sraxoty nat bavettopoy attyatos Xototou "Inood Xpuozod. The forms of the verb %y1#%m are found in the salutations of but two N. T. writings, i. e., I Corinthians and Jude. The former has A M4 ay x Tl ~ NYLAKOUEVOLE EV oLoTe) 1,009 while the latter has, > éy Se matel Hytaopevots. Attention has been called to the close parallel between the sa- lutations of Jude and I Clement. It seems there is more probability of connection between I Clement and Jude than between I Clement and I Corinthians at this point. But it is to be noted that many of . the best manuscripts of Jude have qyaryuévore instead of Hyrxopévote, as in I Corinthians. In favor of the former Tregelles cites A. B. x. Vulg., Syr., Hcl. Memph. Theb. Arm. (AEth.) Orig. III, 607c, ete. It appears therefore that I Clement was very probably influenced here by I Peter. (2) Ev Sedhpact Ocod is a very different form from that used in I Peter, but the thought of zxavx TOOyvOaty ®cod .. . TVEUULKTOS is far from alien to that of év Sedjpac. Oecd. Indeed the latter may be a reminiscence of the former in contracted form. (3) Ave to3 Kugtov fyéiv “Inood Xpioto3 may be a general form drawn from favttoysv atuatos eae Xgiszo3, in which case 3% takes the place of Sev ae aUULATOS. (3) (4) First Epistle’ of Peter. 401 In the beginning of no other N. T. book is the same emphasis laid on “ election,” with the single exception of Ephesians, and there the dependence is on the side of I Peter. Int. and éxAextcic of I Clem. 1 ; Cf. xdyntoig of I Clem. i -with: 2xAextove of 1 Pt, 4s; 4 and modyvwow of I Pt. 1; 2. Cf. also 1; 3ff. Though some of the above “ likenesses ” may be imaginary, there seems to be, on the whole, a good basis for maintaining, notwith- standing Professor Carlyle’s adverse conclusion (N. T. in Apos. Fathers p. 57), that the salutation of I Clement is in some way dependent upon I Peter. 1 Clem. 22; 2—6 I Pt. 3: 10—12 aig gotw avdownos 6 Oéhwv Cwyv, 6 yao Sédrkov Coty cyaniv not ayandv hsoac tSelv ayabac; (3) tdetv fugous ayabds. xavodtm navcov Thy YA@oodvoou and xaxod Thy Yhooouv adtod and xaxod nar yetAn ToD pn AcdAijou Sorov = xal yetAn adtod tod py Racca (4) Exxdwov and xaxod nat notn- SdAov, (11) exxdAwatm B88 and cov ayabov’ (5) Chtyoov sioyvyv xaxod xa Towak te ayaddv, nar Stwfov adcyyv. (6) og rach.ct Cytyoatm stoyvyy xa dsiwégacw Kuptou éxt dixatouc, nat ota ad- abdtyy. (12) ée apbayor Kuotov TOU mpO¢ devjow adtav 7 Rodoumrsy amt Stxatous xa ota adTOd cic d= Kupicu émt movotivtas xaxd.... dénow adctiv, modomnov d& Kuotov Sirs: 04: 13—17a. am TOLodvtTaS nAKK We are certain that Clement is quoting here from the LXX, not only because of the verbatim agreement but also because he quotes at greater length. But that the scripture was suggested by I Peter (3 ; 10—12) is made most probable, since it is used as the scriptural authority for the lengthy Petrine exhortations just given in Chap. 21, precisely as it is employed in I Pt. 3 ; 10—12 after 3 ; 1-9. It is especially significant that the quotation is followed in both instances with a buoyant expression of God’s providential care for His fol- lowers. Cf. Clem. 22 ; 1 with I Pt. 3; 13. This sequence can hardly be accidental. I Clem. 49; 5 |e Bai ee TNSS toy ety cey dry KadUTTEL TAY- Kayan xodinrer TAH- 6 amorpébag d&woo- Doc aucecttwy Soe du.nottoy TwWAOV 8x TANS 6500 advo cwoer buyyy ex Prov: 10; 12 Savarou nol xadudber TavTAS DE TODS py OLAovernodvTac naAUTTEL OLALo. ~~ c , TAYVOS cu.xcottoy Lightfoot, Monnier and others think we have here a certain quo- tation from our Epistle. Professor Carlyle, however, views it as a (6) 402 Ora Delmer Foster, mere possibility. Nor can he justify A. Resch (Agrapha p. 248) in his conclusion that both I Peter and I Clement are quoting a tradi- tional saying of our Lord. (N. T. in A. F. p. 56—57. Clement’s mind was certainly and deeply imbued with I Cor. 13. There. is, however, no record that Paul ever alluded to this passage in Pro- verbs. The fact that this exact form of the quotation is to be found nowhere earlier than I Peter is indeed significant. Though Jas. 5 ; 20 and Prov. 10 ; 12 are similar, it seems evident that if there is dependence anywhere it is on our Epistle. It is also to be noted that Clem. 49 ; 6 is quite suggestive of I Peter. This parallel affords no conclusive proof that Clement used I Peter, but in view of the other parallels and quotations common to both Epistles, we are justified in regarding this verbatim agreement as very important. I Clem. 59; 2 I Pt. 2;9 b) Ya St ob axcAcoev Hudic amd oxdtove TOD ex oxdtOUS Bude xaxAéouvto i > > > ~ Bn ts >) \ Q xX Q ‘ > ~ sig wc, 36; 2 sig Td Daupaotov sic TO VavMoTOV aUTOD bic aicovsone. 1 Ci. Bol 18135. 5% 8—14. This is a closer parallel to the above passage in I Clement than is to be found elsewhere in the N. T. In fact the two references in I Clement reproduce both the thought and phraseology of I Peter. Similar thought appears in Ephesians but the form is much different. The use of the word éxtoxonzov v. 3, finds its closest N. T. parallel in I Pt. 2 ; 25. Clement speaks of God as the bishop of tvevy.atov while our author makes Christ the bishop of buy@v. In the same context both writers employ the same metaphorical expression for the believers, i. e., meéBa7x. The doctrine of election Se Xototod (cf. 64 ; 1) is particularly Petrine. Cf. 1 Pt. 1; 2, 21, 23035 eee 5; 10. It is important to note that “ election through Christ” is thought of in both instances as a “ calling from darkness to light. The similarities of thought and expression in chap. 59, make depen- dence here very probable. b—c I Clem. 1; 3 T Pt de ay ATOCCWROANUTRTOG ATOGOWROARTTOS Dependence here is made very probable since this word, which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., appears in a context suggestive of our text, which context also contains another word peculiar (7) (8) (9) (10; First Epistle of Peter. 403 to I Peter, and others common with it but rare in the N.T. Cf. parallels No. 15—19, 27—30. I Clem. 1; 3 LPt. 33% TULYV . . . ATOVELOVTES AMOVEULOVTES TULNV "Anovéy occurs but this one time in the N. T. That Clement uses 7yw.4v as its object in a context suggestive of I Peter can hardly be accidental. 19 Professor Carlyle not only notes that this word occurs nowhere else in the N. T., but also that it is found neither in the LXX nor other Greek versions of the O. T. and Apocrypha ; and that appar- ently it does not occur in classical literature. The word is very significant in this connection. I Clem. 2; 4 DS) 25 58 oo WC a9 Tea adeAooTyTOC aDdehooTyH TH This word, which occurs in no other book of the N. T., Carlyle says, ‘‘ appears in the LXX only in I Mac. 12; 10, 17, but in the sense of brotherly affection.”’ He is also unable to find the word in clas- sical literature. (N.T.in A.F. p.57.) It is also significant that it is found in direct connection with .. . cuvedfoews (cov covdu.dv) movecwacktay: aOco0. Cf. I Pt. 2: 49,3; 16, 21 and 1;2,.2; 4, 6, 9. I Clem. 2; 1 Lebo bork Ta nadhuata adToOD Hy mod 60- 6 udotUcTav TOD NoLtoTod naOyu.c- v 1 P- v vO \¥ 7G OG V.ACTUS T vOU APlLOTOU 7D 12: Dakudy Sudy TOV Although this is a favorite Petrine expression it affords, in itself, but little evidence for or against dependence, since it is also common in the letters of Paul. Yet taken in conjunction with parallels 8 and 9, and the general tone of the passage with its appeal to their witnessing, the probabilities are greatly increased. Professor Carlyle is justified in not taking into account the last three citations, when viewed separately, but when so many like- nesses, both in diction and thought, occur in such close contextual connection, one is justified in taking into account less striking re- semblances and in giving to all a higher rating. (12) (13) (14) 404 Ova Delmer Foster, I Clem. 16; 5, 6 I Pt. 2; 24, 25 TH poOhom axdTod qysic idbyyev. 08 TH porhom iddynte. Fre yao 6 mavteg we modhata exravydy- we xpdBata mAxveouevor, ney. . (Sa.* Sachse I Clem. 16; 10 L Pt. 222 > o > 4 > > , Sh a ig 4 > 4 Li! OTL avopiav obx ésmolycev, GUdE Oc aaptinv odx énolycev OddE chpéOn Bd6A0¢ év TH oTduaTL ad- vV otopatt abtot tod. Isa. 53; 9. 40} Os, o) = of Os ~ oOo UY Ov I Clem. 16; 14 F-Pt.2 924 nol adbtTog awapting mOAAGV av- 86 TAS Guaptiag Hudiv [buéiv] ad- yveyxev. Isa. 53; 12. TOS avyjveyxev Quotations 12—13 show they were not copied directly from I Peter but from the LXX. That these quotations from Isa. 53 follow the LXX rather than our Epistle is no proof that the latter did not suggest their use, especially since Clement did not consider the N. T. writings to be on the same level with the O. T. books. If he were following the thought of I Peter, he would, in that case, still be inclined to refer to the original and in so doing quote at greater length, just as he has done. 16; 10 follows I Pt. 2+; 22 in using evpédy, 36X0¢ instead of 860v. Though the form used by Clement and our author is found in ne. a, Swete rejects it and adopts d6Acv instead. The latter reading agrees with the original. (1°22 772 N?).) While this is no proof that Clement was influenced by I Peter it is suggestive. Dependence here is indeed made very probable by the use of the word ‘Szoyeauye¢ in the immediate context with these quotations. See note on the following parallel. I Clem. 16 ; 17 L Pty ¢ i x ¢ iN , Cc ~ cCoo~ c f, c ‘ T LU.0S O OSOOULEVOS LY UU. TONULAT AVG. vO 0 UTMOVPAUOS O dedou EVOS YU.LV UU.LY yeP, WLTAVOY UROYOXLU.OV Professor Bacon has rightly noted that very probably Clement dipped his pen into our author’s ink-well when he wrote ‘‘ Szoyeap- u.o¢ of the suffering of Christ’. Cf. also 33; 8. (Bacon’s Intro- duction p. 151.) This word is not found anywhere else in the N. T., and it is indeed significant that St. Peter is mentioned by name in a context where the word is used. Cf. 5; 4 and 5; 7. This parallel is also strengthened by the occurrence of the word Tanewoopovewm. See Paral. 22. (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) First Epistle of Peter. 405 (e: I Clem. 1; 3 I Pt. 2; 13, 17 ~ id , c bmotaccGuevor tOls Hyoupsors Suiiv = ovayyte.. .eite Baotlet... site yyep.dow (17) cov Baorreta ct- Though Clement does not refer to secular rulers as does our author yet the phraseology is very suggestive in this context. Note that this passage stands between parallels 6 and 7. I Clem. 1; 3 PE Pt. 55°65 ~ Q Z = , ee eS , Co , fQ la VOLS Toeoputépotc VEOLE. . « STETOE- VEWTEPOL UROTAYYTE TOET SUTEOOLC TETE I Clem. 1; 3 I Pt. 3:1 Yuvardiv ve év dudum xxl ceri] did tig tay yuvatnov d&vaotedorne ROL Gyvi| cuveldyjce. ma&vta em- aXvev Adyou xepdyOrjcovtar TEhely THON YEAAETE, @wu.oc is a rare word in the N.T. Cf. I Pt. 1; 19. d&yvij uve dyer also finds a similar phrase in cuverdyjow &yaOey of I Pt.3 ; 16, 21. ftlem: 1.7.3 Fe BiA3i 6 Gtepyavons xabyxdveme todo Snotacoducvor seis tdiorg dvdocow, ¥v ¢ avSens sxutiy I Clem. 1; 3 £ Bt. 3:6 > s , ~ (ot ne Oe im c wz c , a _Z > fA , gy te TH xavove tH¢ SmotaxyH¢ ao Ldppa Sryjxouce cH ABondu, bmapyovous... nUptov adToV xahodon’ When taken separately these references have little value, but in view of the Petrine phrasing and vocabulary, which includes two words not found elsewhere in the N. T. and others which appear but rarely, and the Petrine sequence of thought (cf. parallels 6, 15, 7, 16—19) in Chap. I, the passage suggests that Clement was acquainted with our Epistle. I Clem. 7; 2, 4 TL Pt. dd tS 09 Bt6 arodizwpe, tas xneves xat eldoteg oT Od apie aoyvoto , ‘ VA O A , +34 oO > poraias opovtidac, xat ehdwucv 7 Kpdet, 6 = erga Teen Ses ic ém tov sOxAcH zat osuvdv zH¢ patatag Suav avaot pogiic TXT0- mapabocsms hydy xavava, . .. UTE napuddrou, OG Tyler atuorTe ag vicwusy cig To alua Tod Xowovod aduvod aucuov xa honthoy Xoto- ROL Yyvapsv a¢ Eovw civtoyv 7H TOU... 406 Ora Delmer Foster, C ~ ‘ > ~ iG ‘ x Se TH TaTOL adTOD, ott Sie Thy uetépav owtypiay éxyudey mavet XOG > opm petavotac yaptv énr- VEYAEV ‘ These passages present many points of correspondence of phrase and thought, but the conception of redemption through the blood of Christ is not peculiar to St. Peter’s Epistles in the N. T., and may well be supposed to have been current among all Christians.’ Among the “‘many points of correspondence’”’ Professor Carlyle should have noted that .aiu.at: ttysov is peculiar to our Epistle. It is also important to note that Clement alludes, in the immediate context, to the preaching of Noah. Cf. I Clem. 7 ; 6 with I Pt) 3 2203 seems probable, therefore, that this Pauline thought traveled by the way of I Peter. (21) I Clem. 13; 1 LP 28 . ovV, anodsuevor. THoav... anoféuevor obv niouv.... Monnier thinks there is a reference here to I Peter. This may be a mere coincidence, and indeed we should so conclude, were it not for the fact that this compound word (#zo7tOyp) is not common in the N. T., and that it is used here in a connection resembling that of I Peter. The probabilities are increased in geometrical ratio to the number of times it is used inthis way. Cf. I Clem. 30; 1 and 57 ; 2. (22) I Clem. 16: 1 1 .Pt.. ds2re ? , TURELVOWOOVOUYTMY yao ésotly 6 ow.dvats TO év Oly Totuvioy TOD r ft ‘ : 7 , b>) , . XQ Cc ~ > ‘ Xototos, 00% exatoopévov ext To Deed, py OVANRUKGTOS HNKK SxOv- —y) rk ? | > , ~ ‘ ~~ , aa > Totuvicy avToD. TO oxtintoov ots, pds atoypoxepdaic a&hAX ....00% HAOev ev xoumm ehaCo- npobdpms, pnd wo xatanuptedovTEes velag o0d8 Onepypavinc, xatnep tov xAvomv aAAX cUroL yivopevor ~~ Suvayevoc, HAAR TamEwowpovary zoB mow.viov" This parallel is significant in this context. Llotuwov is a rare word in the N. T. It is used in all five times, two of which are here. _ Neither Lk. 12 ; 32 nor Acts 20 ; 28, 29 shows as many points of © | likeness to I Clement. Acts 20 ; 28, 29 and I Pt. 5 ; 2, 3 have much | in common and seem to be related, yet the context with its-appeal ! to the “ Suffering Servant” of II Isaiah is more in accord with our author’s interpretation of Jesus. Clement uses tamstvoppovem | (16; 1, 17) in harmony with tanewogpootvy of I Pt. 5;5 and tamewom of 5; 6. Asin I Peter those in authority are exhorted not to exalt (23) (24) (25) (26) First Epistle of Peter. 407 themselves over the flock, but to be in a spirit of humility. Signi- ficantly enough, he follows our author’s characteristic way of appeal- ing to the example of Christ. “Yxepyigavee of I Pt. 5 ; 5 is also a rare word in the N. T. It appears, therefore, that there is much here to suggest dependence. Cf. also parallels 6, 7, 15—19. I Clem. 30; 2 Beds YXp, onotv, imepy,- OaVOIE avTITKCoETH Tamewvoie St dtdwow yapuw Prov. 3; 34 c Keres Smepyocvots dv- ‘ ~~ ~” — TATELVOLS 6 Dede brepnpavors av- TWTAG TOATELVOLS (Smow yaouw. Cf. Jas. 4; 6. of o- of Clement is not following the Hebrew original here, which words the first clause very differently, but the LXX, I Peter or James. He follows the LXX in omitting the article 6” with the subject, but agrees with the N. T. writers in changing xJevo¢g to Sede. Re- ference to lusts, adultery and justification by works suggest depen- dence upon James, while the Petrine tone of the exhortation, before and after the quotation, plus the probable reference to I Peter in vy. 1, make it more probable that he was influenced here by our Epistle. ” I Clem, 61; 3 I Pt. 2; 25 hoytepéws xal TocotaTOV Tév wu- yYOv tyu.dy 5u.dv. This parallel is close both in thought and form of expression. The balancing of aey1oém¢ with zpooc&tou, corresponds exactly with mow zm duyat, Siecddyoav B81 b8aT0¢ This parallel should be considered in the light of No. 20. I Clem. 21; 6 I Pt. 1; 19 (Xorotod) 7d aiua ontp hudiv erutpw@Oyre ... tito aipote..- Ze This thought is common in the N. T. I Clem. 21; 6 I Pt. 2; 13 Tode moonyoupévoug dv aldco- Srotdyyte néon avOownivy xtloet \w ~ os , Sdpev ...ette PBaorrel... sive hyspoow The general tone is Petrine, but the rulers to which Clement alludes are Ecclesiastical and not Political as in I Peter. a (34) (35) (86) (37) (38) First Epistle of Peter. 409 I Clem. 21; 6 EVPt: 8575 tobe mpcofutécous Huddy tyyoduev, vedteoor, Inoteyyte moecbutépotc Tove véoug Taldcdowey THY Tat- detav to¥ odov tod Seod This is quite suggestive of our Epistle. 1 Clem. 21; 6 US) Sa reas ta ¢ Tag Yyuvalxac Hudiv ex to kyabov yuvollnec, Onotaccouevan.... SopSwowusd-« The thought is in accord but the phrasing is different. I Clem, 21; 7 gO ea Tis See ‘ bad s ~~ c , ae > , = aS > 42 is TO Keiayarytov THs ayvelag yoo enontevouvtes THY év OOH ayviy avderzaoowany avactoouny Sudy The terms employed do not indicate acquaintance, yet the sequence (No. 35 and 36) is very suggestive. i Clem.:21 + 7 i PtSi b TO emreintg TiS YAdoonc... Sie Sede tig tav yuvarniiv dvactoooys ~ > , ieouyys. . dvev AoYyou... This citation finds a closer parallel in Paul’s letters, and can have no value here further than to show that Clement thought in a sphere akin to that of our Epistle. I Clem. 21; 8 1 Pt.5;5 TH Ténva... Uxdétwoay, Th THMEL- VEWTEDOL... THY TamELVOMOOGUVYY voopootvn mack Ded tcyver eynou.bocacds There is here a close parallel, though in itself not sufficient to make ' dependence probable. None of the citations of chapter 21 considered separately justify any claim for dependence, but when the combined evidence is pre- sented, the probabilities are increased in geometrical ratio of the number of the possible points of contect. See No. 32—38. 4A0 Ova Delmer Foster, (39) I Clem. 30; 1 I Pt. 1; 15, 2; 9 ‘Aytou pepig dmapyovees Aytot yévecbs yévog éxdantov... ads sig mepimotnow. Monnier sees a likeness here between 30; 1 and I Pt. 1; 15. Though not as close in wording, his reference is related in thought more closely to lB 799: (40) I Clem. 30; 1 I Pt.2;1 MEVYOvTEs naTHAKtAC amobéevor xatahadtacs The thought in the contexts of these references is also much the same. (41) I Clem. 36; 2 T Pt; 228 sig To Davpactov adcod véic sig TO Davuactov adtod véic This verbatim agreement is indeed suggestive, but the context is thoroughly Pauline. Order of Parallels. I Clement I Peter I Clement I Peter [nt. ee eel) 165.44 2 B ae eee 16.° 417 = ee oe | a Dh Seong 241 > .6: (=i iD, == hee eee 24 26. 2 eae ena —— ee eG 24 6, =e og — Aa 2b; 6. = foie Bees: = eee iady, of: 6. = Bias ete: eT 2] =e Ana a ees) 2h: 7]. a= Tees {ee 3 a ea 24 2 8 ==— Boe {en3 =—— ace a 22): 2 =a ea hs ao 30; 4 = 43 452eae 2.4 == 4 3244, 4.5713, 5-5 49) 0 a ee DoD ya me er 302-2) == Pome Die Te See Oe OM ee aed 36.5 2 = eee LD eae ea LO eee TESS) —— eee) 59) 2D, ees (2EIA) Ursa meek 64.3 2-24 258 lies 4 th 646 Alani hee 1G 25) (Gra "Dr aan 640 Renee Moyea 0 i pe to )). (1) (2) First Epistle of Peter. 411 Conclusion. The foregoing study has shown that Clement has used words which are peculiar to our Epistle in most significant connections, as well as O. T. quotations common with our Epistle in unmistakably Petrine contexts. Of course no one can, at the conclusion of a dis- cussion of this nature, place his QO. E. D., but if Professor Sanday is correct in saying “‘ the occurence of the same ideas in the same order must be accepted as conclusive evidence ” (I. C. C. on Rom. p. lxxvi), we have shown that I Clement is dependent on I Peter. Monnier contends that “‘ Clement connait l’épitre. Il ne la cite pas expresse- ment : il l’utilise.” (Com. p. 307.) Knopf reaches a similar con- clusion : “In Rom. wird noch vor der Jahrhundertwende I. Petri wahrscheinlich von I. Clem. benutzt.”’ (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter p. 34.) Parr Il.—CANONICAL BOOKS GALATIANS B b—c I Pt. 1; 23—25 Gal. 4; 4—7, 28—31 Professor Bacon (Com. on Gal. p. 8, 75, 93) notes a close parallel, in the doctrine of the new birth from “ spiritual seed,” in the above references. In his letter to the Romans (4 ; 19—21, 9 ; 7—9), Paul “reckons the children of the promise for a seed,” 9 ;9. They become sons through adoption, Gal. 4; 5, (Rom. 8; 15, 23, 9; 4, Eph.1; 5). While the idea is the same in our Epistle, our author, in Beege with later writers: (Jn. 1; 13,355, Jas. 1; 18,1 Jn: 35 9) used the figure as a “‘ new birth ”’ instead of an “‘ adoption.”” There seems to be evidence here not only of borrowing but also of a later stratum of thought. PP 216 @¢ eAcvSeoor, xa ph Oo emincd- yo > Vv ~ Aupu.n syovtes tHe xoxtas Thy 8A- sudeciay AAR ho cod Sodro1 The likeness here is striking. defeat of persecutors precedes. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. Gal, 5; 13 bystic yao ex znevdeota exdyOrnjze adeAoot: Uovov wn THY éAcudcolav cig agony HY TY oapxt, HAAR Sid THe ayamns SovAcutE KAAHAOLC In both cases a reference to the The freedmen are exhorted alike 28 January, 1913. (4) 412, Ora Delmer Foster, not to use their liberty as license but (notice the antithesis &\A&) to use it as becometh true servants. I Cor. 7 ; 22 is a close parallel. The 303X0¢ Xpto769 or $03A0¢ Tod Mecd is a common Paulinism, but on the whole certainly no reference can outdo Gal. 5 ; 13, as the probable source of I Pt. 2; 16. Cf. Hort’s. “ First Epistle of St. Petaus p. 146. I Pt. 2; 24 Gal. 3; 13 Og Tae Kpapting Huwv adtog av- Xototog Huds cényopacey én TIS qveyney av TH copa. adtod ami xat&pag Tod vowou yevopevac bre 70 E0Aov NU.GY AATHOM .. . ETIRATHPKTOS TAG 6 xpeucuevos emt EvAov I Pt. 2; 24 from Isa. 53 ; 4, 5, 6, 11, probably was suggested by Galatians. Rom.8;3, II Cor. 5 ; 21, etc., contain the idea of vicarious suffering, as does I Pt. 2 ; 24a, but thes do not specifically allude to the 20)iev as does Gal. 3 ; 143. Thus on both counts Gal. 3 ; 13 is more closely related to our Epistle. c Pte lent Gal. 4; 7, 3; 18 etc mheqpovoyioey dolnotov nat dul- et 38 vids, nal xAynpovouog Meod avTOV nal audeavtov, teTHOnevyy Sie Xprorod 3; 18 xdnpovouta év odpavoic sic bu.dic In Gal. 3; 18, Rom. 4; 131., (Hebr6 ; 12,) the promise wana ‘inheritance”’ is already fulfilled. In Gal. 4; 7 (Rom. 8; 16f.), as in I Peter, the “‘ inheritance ”’ is present, ‘““being inseparable from sonship.”’ . (Hort “Ep. of St. Peter,” p. 35). The idea is too common in the N. T., and the context too dubious to be sure of dependence, yet the parallel I Pt. 3 ; 6 = Gal. 4 ; 26 makes it quite probable. I Pt. 1; 5 Gal. 3; 23 toads dv Suvauer Oecd gpovcovyé- med tod de EdOetv tHy alotw, 6x6 voug Sia amiotewe cig owtypiav vop.ov egeaups jpsdra, GUY AEKASLOPES c , A, ~ la Stotuny anoxnduobtvar ev noua vor slg why péAAoUCHY TtoTIY ono- soyazu rAdVODT Vet This parallel is very important. Paul said, “ before faith they were kept under the law,” I Peter then notes “‘ they were kept through faith,’ whereas both have in view the “ future revelation.”’ This (6) (7) (8) (9) First Epistle of Peter. 413 doctrine of the believer’s security is common in the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 10 ; 28, 29, 17; 14, 12, 15), as well as in the Pauline Literature, but nowhere is the likeness so close in both members, i. e., the ideas of “ the believer’s security’ and of ‘‘ the future revelation.” L Pi Lars Gal. 3; 13 9 , x ob pdaptoic ... ehutpubyte éx Xprotds fy TiS paratas budiv avaotpowNs ma- xaTHOAE TOD vouLOD TPOTAPAdOTOv As has been noted elsewhere this is a weakened form of Paulinism. we oP ts 2511 Gal. 5 ; 17 Gnéyecdur vv capxiniiv émbo- fh yap oxpe emduyet xata tod Ulev, GiTIVEs OTPATEVOVTaL HXTH MveUUKTOS, TO dE TrvEDULA HATH TIS wis voxins onoxog Talca Ss dvtinerto. &AAY- hore The internal warfare, of which St. Paul so frequently speaks, is here alluded to. Jas. 4 ; 1 likewise refers to it, but this later writer, of course, cannot have suggested it to either of these earlier authors. It is difficult to determine whether our author is following Rom. feenor Gal. 5513. The parallels 1 Pt. 2; 16= Gal. 5 > 13 and I Pt. 4 ; 5 = Gal. 5 ; 21, however, seem to make it more probable that he is influenced by Galatians at this point. d I Pt. 3; 6 Gal. 4; 26 , bd “0 , X ¢ ‘ \ 2 @e Deoon ... He syewvnOnte céx- FH BE vw ‘IcooucamAnu. sAcudéson I> ‘ i | | t if iy vo gotiv, Ftt¢ gotl wyTnO TavTwV Holtzmann calls attention to this similarity of thought. (Einl. p. 314.) Though there is nothing striking in the phrases, the like- ness is worthy of consideration in view of the parallel to which Professor Bacon alludes, i. e., I Pt. 4: 23—25 = Gal. 4; 4—7, 28—31. I Pt. 4,3 Gal. 5; 20, 21 zo Déknua stiv eveiv xavepydo- .. 7k Soyn sie aupndc... daéh- . A TMOY SUVWY XK vepy (oy <7ernG CY v 1S 9) r UG 2 « o aos 4 2 Oy pes ‘§ ? m~nct ede 4 acon, TETOpeupévous ev aoeAystatc, yeta, eldwAcAntpsin, oaprancta, (1) (2) 414 Ova Delmer Foster, emOuutars, oivooruytass, xoduorc, esydpar Eperc, CijAor, Guyot, soub 9,40. or Ex. 413. (5) Pte 25 1 I Thes: 4; 9 Thy AdeAgetyta aKyankre EPL THS PLANSEAwLAS . . . UULEIC Deo- , , LN 5 ~ 5 Stdaxtot gore cig vo eyanky KAAy- hove erokom, 12° 410 a, or Ex. 44. (6) I Pt. 3; 9 I Thes. 5; 15 UN anodwWovtes xaxdv avtL xaxod py TIE xaKdv v7 xaxod Twi &n0dB See Rom. 12; 17 for an exact parallel, which is also in a better context. (7) I Pt. 4; 7 I Thes. 5; 6 cwypovncute atv nar wibate sig ‘Ypnyop@puev xat vioupev TOOGEDY XC In I Pt. 4; 7 b the exhortation is given in view of the imminent judgment (4; 7 a) likewise in I Thes. 5; 6, they are exhorted to watchfulness that they may be ready for the sudden coming of the Lord (5 ; 1—4). I Thes. 5 ; 5 seems to interrupt this thought and make the exhortation an appeal for consistent action on the part of the memidren of light.” Cf. Col. 4; 2, Mt. 26; 41, Lk. 21; 34 (8) Peet. 43 15, Lo fhes; 411 [ph tig ouov macyétw] Oo... mpedkooew th TSrx aot ptertonoT0¢ The background here is very different. 416 Ova Delmer Foster, (9) I Pt.5;8 I Thes. 5; 6 aval _—o arr’ 4 oo late Pas . -f ° vyvarte, pyyoproute YenyopGp.ev nal vijbwusev This parallel is very suggestive, yet is probably accidental. Cf. Examples 1 and 7. (10) I Pt. 5; 9 I Thes. 3; 2, 3 TEpeot TH Tote. mTapannhéoa buds mept TIS mo- TGyv radypatoy Tews buy, 7 pndéva satveodou ~ > - ¥ th, 7H x6ouu Sudv a&dekodtyt. av tolte SAtheor tadcron | ’ ‘ ‘ Y i > Dependence may easily be inferred from this parallel, yet the con- text does not warrant us to consider it more than a mere possibility. We are not to conclude from the above study that either Epistle presupposes the other. II THESSALONIANS D d (1) I Pt. 1; 2 II Thes. 2; 13 év aytaoud IIveduacos év ayiaond IIvetu.atoc i) ‘ “ Election” through sanctification of the Spirit is set forth here in a way not found elsewhere in the N. T. The thought is Pauline and the verbal agreement closer than elsewhere. The context, however, is not suggestive of I Peter. (2) TaPE bse13 It Thes. 1; 7 A ~ 7 ~ ~ , ~ > wo év aronadiver Inood. Xprotod év ti] anoxadver vod xuptou Inood Again there is verbal agreement. It is significant that “ angels ” are spoken of in the immediate contexts, yet they play very different roles. (3) I Pt.5;3 II Thes. 3; 9 TOROL Yiv6uevor ToB ou.vion" iva sautods tUmov dépuev Oyiy (4) T Pt. 5; 10 II -Thes: 22 Ag se se GTNOLCAL OTN PLCAL First Epistle of Peter. 417 (5) I Pt. 5; 10 II Thes. 3; 3 omnotéa., sdeviooat ormnptéet bya xa oudrdzer and vot TOvyjeoU These last three parallels need not detain us. As in I Thessalonians, there is no word common to these Epistles only, and clearly the evidence will not warrant any claim for depen- dence. I CORINTHIANS Cc c—d (1) I Pt. 1; 13 I Cor. 1; 4, 7 ednicats ani viv oeoouévyy Suiv yeow... (7) buds pH botepsto- yapw av a&ronaddber “Inood Xpic- Don dv pndevi yaptouat, amexdey- axe)?) usvoug THY aroxcubwy tod xuotov hy.dv Incot Xprotot The hope of a great blessing at the “ Parousia ”’ is Pauline, though not peculiar to him. (Cf. Il Thes. 1; 7.) “Ev dronadddber “Iyood Xototod is the Pauline term for the Parousia.” (Cone, Com. on I Pet. p. 306). This is the closest parallel to I Pt.1 ; 13 in the N.T., yet it is not conclusive. (2) BR Pt,. 25 2 Tei Comyaree he dotuyéwyta Boggy +O Aoytxdv 6 vyntotg év XowotH yarn buds v A ” , , a v ‘ >? adohov yarn émimodHorve EnOtioa, Ob Podiu.n, cdtm yuo edv- VOGUE .. Heb.5 ; 12, 13 has a similar figure. Heb. 6 ; 5 also corresponds closely with I Pt. 2; 3. The passages in the above Parallel refer to those who are “‘tull of hearing.” I Cor. 3; 1, 2 is followed in v. 3 by thought much like I Pt. 2; 1. Both textually and contextu- ally then this is the nearest N. T. parallel, and may indicate a real point of contact. (Cf. Holtzmann’s Einleitung p. 314.) (3) E Pie 2016 TE Corot 22 as ahebepot . . . GAN hs Occd 6 SodAo Xorored No other N. T. passage reproduces this thought so closely, except Gal. 5; 13. The probabilities of dependence here are increased by Bae possible echo of I Cor. 7; 23 in I Pt. 4; 48: (4) (6) (8) 418 Ova Delmer Foster, 1 Ptb-3 I Cor. 3; 9a und ao xnaToxUpLedovTEs Tov aouev cuvepyot Weod ‘yedpytov. xAtE WY This parallel becomes more significant when taken in connection with ect otxodouy gocte of I Cor. 3; 9b. Cf. also I Pt. 2;5 i Copies 16s I Pt. 5; 4 I Cor. 9; 25 nouriode Tov awoccvewoy tie tva obapcov otéoavoyv AdcBwow, S6ENg oTéEQAVOY psig 3&8 aooanpvov This figure may have been borrowed from I Cor. 9 ; 25. In nei- ther of the other parallels (II Tim. 4; 8 and Jas. 1 ; 12) is the imper- ishable nature of the crown mentioned. Since I Peter cannot depend upon James, and the connection with II Timothy is very dubious the dependence of our Epistle upon I Corinthians is all the more probable at this point. d 1b eel Ge I Cor. 32s Soxtusov Ouav miovewg... Sak Mu- Exkotov TO zoyov... Ott év mupt o0¢ Se doxwaTougvov . . ANOKaAUTTETOAL? xO en = ¥ c > 5 EpYOV OTOCLOV EOTL TO T A closer duplicate is found in Jas. 1; 2, 3, though the figure here is much the same. Although the background is very different in these Epistles, I Cor. 3 ; 15 may have suggested the figure to our author. 1 Pt. Les I Cor. 6; 20; 7-923 ad obauptoic . 3h ieee éx 6; 20 hyopactyte yap tiie 75 2d tiie oa Tatas aes Avaoteow7ys . TUS Hyoptodyte > A A s OMAK 7 : The idea is Pauline, though the deliverance from a vain manner of life is a mild statement as compared with Gal. 3; 13. Twij¢ and atuacs seem to refer to the same thing. I Pt. 1; 21 I Cor. 15; 14 zov ey elpovea advTOv 8x venpy et O& Xprove obx éyyyeotat, . [KeE- @ote thy Tlotw bydiv xo BrmtBe vov apa 190) SO hye] xevh eivat ete edy dE xa f alot bpdiv. Cf. 13; 13. The parallel is suggestive, but not so close as in Romans. Cf. TOP t O21 Romie First Epistle of Peter. 419 (9) I: Pt. 2; 5 I Cor. 3; 16 Mibor Cavte¢ cinodouciobe cixoc vate Oecd gore, xati 7d Ivetyx TVEVLATINOC 703 Weod cinet av Syl The figure of a spiritual temple is common with Paul. Eph. 2 ; 20—22 very probably suggested this figure to our author. See the discussion loco citato. 10) I Pt. 2; 15 I Cor. 15; 34 ayvootay ayvootay Although this word appears only in these two places in the N. T., it is a mere coincidence here. It seems to be the only word which is found in these two Epistles only. 11) f Pt. 35 1 I Cor. 14; 34 yuvaines SnotTKooGuevar Tots tStorg = yuvoilxse Sudv. . . &AAX SnoTKo- avdoaow GEOUK A closer parallel is found in Eph. 5; 22. Cf. also 5 ; 33. 12) I Pt. 3; 1b I Cor. 7; 14 a Vv , 5 ~ ~ c , ‘ Se Vv > va et tives anetboticw tH Adyw Hylaota. yao 6 avijo 6 &mortos év Bie Tig Tév yuvaindiv avaotpooys Ti} yuvant dvev AOyou xecdnSicovea This similarity of thought is probably due to accident. I Pt. 3; 9 I Cor. 4; 12 Un anodiwWovres nandv avei xancd ovopoduevor ne nyotusy > Su%d- ] AowSopiay avi howootag sodv- wevor aveydueda BA noonpospevor avetoy de sdAoyodvtes TAPAXKAOD LEV Though the thought is the same, a closer parallel is to be found in Rom. 12 ; 17, 14 ; the first clause of which is in verbal agreement. See the discussion on this passage in Romans. I Pt. 3; 18 I Cor. 15; 3 Xprords anaE mec auapriay ané- Xorortde anélavev Sate cv Guu.010- Savev [Exadev] LOY Tu.av The thought and phrasing are close, but too common to base any argument upon them. Cf. Rom. 5; 6, 8, 10, 11, Heb. 9; 28 etc. (16) (17) (18) (20) PO, BP) > ~ > SwaxGDvTES MS “XHAOL Oln I Pt. 3; 22 RoTAYEVTOY ANTE AYYEhwv nat &ovardy xa Suvap.cov Ova Delmer Foster, I Cor. 15; 25 KATHOY NOY Taoav Kpyhy xa m&oav &ovotav xo Sdvouty The agreement is obvious, but the frequency with which this thought I Pt. 4; 10a Exactoc nadws EkaPev yaprorm occurs in the Pauline Literature makes it almost implossible to determine which Epistle may have suggested it to our author. probabilities, however, are in favor of Romans (8 ; 38) and Ephesians Ch alsouCole2 es t0s The Paes NG} I Cor. 12; 5 Srapécerg Saxony ctor See Rom. 12 ; 6 for closer parallel. I Pt. 4: 10b [e) < Os Cc °o = a Hiarsises @s Omypetas J U.0US . . Thoroughly Pauline but not conclusive. I Pt. 4; 12 A EXKOTOD TO EPYOV Omol6v gott TO Tip Soxww.aoer of the Judgment, of which our author thought the present persecutions were the immediate precur- Ch TEN PEs a7: SOrs. Though the conditions under which they wrote were very different, the figure used by Paul would be picked up most appropriately during the trying ordeal. I Pt. 5; 10 6 S& Weds muons Xaoutoc, 6 xaA- ¢ si¢ thy atoviov adcod 1 Corb motos 6 ede, St od sxAyOnte sig xowoviav tod vied adtod "Tynood Xpotod This close parallel finds similar thought in I Tim. 6 ; 12, but is quite suggestive of dependence here. I Pt. 5; 12 >. s —\ ~ (one ~ ~ ora = StAcvaved Duty tod ToT x7. OA n~ v adehood ... eypadba I Pt. 5; 12 yaow cod OWcod- I Cor. 4; 17 exept outv Twy.ddcov év Kuote . e . TLOTOV T 'Cors 150 edayyéMov...@ éEorTyKaTe (21) (22) (1) (2) First Epistle of Peter. 421 I Pt. 5; 13 I Cor. 16; 19 *Aondleta buds f... donacovrar bute at exxdyotar... I Pt. 5; 14 I Cor. 16; 20 -Aordkoacd: ay ous bv ordvat donkoacde Adi Aoug av ordyuace ayanns ayio The last four parallels may be duplicated in most any of the Pau- line Epistles. The foregoing study shows the difficulty in ascertaining the exact relationship between these two Epistles. The combined evidence of a score or more of possible points of contact, and especially of those classed ‘“‘ c—d’’, make dependence somewhat probable. No one instance requires this conclusion, nor do they all necessarily prove it since much of the thought is to be duplicated in Romans and Ephesians, with which dependence is far more probable. Hence we can do no more than assign to I Corinthians a low degree of probability. II CORINTHIANS C—D c—d i Pb, 2:s'22 If Cor. 5; 21 ce , A ~~ , Cc , 06 Gu.anotiav ob énotnoev TOV UN YVOVTH GU.KOTLAV 1 aU iy Ly The doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ is common. See Jn. 8 ; 34, 46, Heb. 4 ; 15, I Jn.3;4,8. Since II Corinthians antedates them all, none can surpass its claim to originality, yet all may draw from Isa. 53. I Pt. 4;°5 EF Cord) 10 w) Evotuws xetvovT, Cavtag xa Todo yao n&vtas Hude oaveowmdy- VEXPOUS . . va. det Eurpoctsy tod Pruxcos 4, [ Cor. 15; 51, 52, Jas. 5; 9, Acts 10; 42 and II Tim. 4 ; 1, the last two of which are closer to I Pt. 4; 5 than mm Cor. 5: 10, 422 Ora Delmer Foster, (3) I Pt. 5; 3 II Cor. 1; 24 und ae xaTanueretovTes THY xAT- Gdy Ort xvptetouev buov Tie mlo- wy TEWS II Cor. 1 ; 24 is a closer parallel to 5 ; 3 than is to be found else- where in the N. T. Dependence is somewhat probable, though not certain since the context is neutral. d (4) RyPt tes If Cor. ta3 Kdroyntés 6 Wed nai nathp tod Kddoyntig 6 Oed¢ xat mace tod Kuptov joy “Inood Xerotod Kuptov fav “Iyood Xepuotod Holtzmann calls attention to this parallel (Einl. p. 314), but as we have seen the dependence is much more likely upon Eph. 1; 3. See. discussion-on 1°Pt)-1°3'3.—— Eph aie: (5) DP Ptclsrs IT Cor. 13 3 6 xaTe TO TOAD adTOD sAc0¢ 6 nacho tiv olxtipudiv Again the thought is not as close as in Ephesians. 6) I Pt. 1; 8 II Cor. 5; 7 cig bv det. wh bpavtec motetovtes §9dte miotews YxO mMepinaTODEV OD Sie eldoue This thought is too common and the context too different to claim dependence. Cf. Jn. 20 ; 29, Rom. 8 ; 24, 25, I Cor. 13 ; 12, Heb: A Ae ie Mes He A (7) I Pt. 1; 21 II Cor. 6; 6 GL\AadEdglav avuTOxptTOV ayarn avuToxpite Although there is a parallel in I Pt. 2 ; 4 and II Cor. 6 ; 16, there is nothing to indicate dependence at this point. Cf. discussions on [I Pt. 4; 2= Eph. 4 ; 20 and d Pt. 2; 5 —2 Cope (8) TePt25 01 IL Cor. 127-20 AATANAAL RATAN This word occurs only in these two places in all the N. T., yet the context is not such as to lead one to infer dependence at this point. (9) I Pt. 4; 10 EL Cor; 10583 EXKOTOS NADWE EhaGev fAproy.n AUTH TO peTPOV TOD *UVOVOS OD guépicev fuiv 6 Med¢ Our Epistle finds a closer parallel at this point in Rom. 12 ; 6, I Cor.112 34, Svand eB phe se First Epistle of Peter. 423 (10) I Pt. 4; 11 It Cor. 9; 10 yornyet yoonyyoet The usage of this word, which occurs only here in the N. T., seems | to be independent. (11) I Pt. 4; 13 II Cor. 1; 7 ‘ ~ ~ ~ a nn o , ~ ia 7 2x00 nxowovette TOig Tod Nororo) Woneo xolwwvol gots THY TAUHU.A- TaOyacw yaiosets ... yaoiytse twv, obtw xxl tig mapaKAYoeMs HY AN udpevor The thought is the same, yet Rom. 8 ; 17, 18 more probably sug- gested this to our author. (12) I Pt. 4; 14 IL Cor. 12; 10 et dveldiCeode év dvouat: Xotovod, sddoxs ev cobeveiaig . .. dré U.OCKGOLOL Xororod The phrase év évéu.a71 Xorovod occurs now here else in the N.T. Persecution caused by confessing the name of Christ is specific. The passage in I Corinthians shows Paul’s willingness to pay the price, that he might be “ strong in Christ.”” The evidence for depen- dence here is slight. (13) Bt. by 10 ih (Cor; 4.3h7¢ 6 xahéous Bu.dic cic thy aldvov 706 maomutina granoodyv Ho SAtbewe ‘ 5 Sy i> 7 ~ 4 > nn > . c ~ ‘ > abtol Sdgav gv Xprots dAtyov fydv xad’ SrepBoryv cic brep- Tadovtas adTOS xataptios: ... Borny atwviov Baoog S6Ens xarvE0- yatetan hpiv The joyful optimism during suffering is noticeable in both cases. Paul was an “ apostle of hope’ quite as much as our author, and no doubt was a great inspiration to him. Dependence however can not be asserted here. he concluding greeting (I Pt..5 ;.13'—= II Cor..13.; 13 and I Pt. 5; 14 = II Cor. 13 ; 12) has no more to commend it here than in the other Pauline Epistles. The possible points of contact between these two Epistles are not such as to warrant any confidence in the probability of dependence. What may be termed real evidence is limited to the parallels classed “c—d”’. Even these do not show more than a low degree of pro- bability. 424 Ova Delmer Foster, ROMANS A*® a*—b I Pt. 1; 20 . Rom. 16; 25 TOGEYVYWOWEVOD Lev TOO naTABOANS nate amooxcuibty pvotyptov yod- n6ou.0v, vaveowdévtas dé én soyd- vote atwvtorc GECLYNPEVOU, OXVEOW- TOV TOY YOOVY Dévtoe SE vov The significance of this parallel has been noted by many scholars. Professor Sanday (Com. on Rom. p. 434) makes the following comment on the passage in Romans ; “ This is the thought which underlies much of the argument of chapters 9—11, and is directly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents in fact the conclusion which the Apostle had arrived at in musing over the difficulties which the problems of human history, as he knew them, had suggested. God .... 1s working out a purpose in the world. For agesit was a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed ; and this revelation ex- plains the meaning of God’s working in the past.’”’ That I Peter here alludes to the Pauline idea of the puoryptov is very probable. Itis wholly in accord with the non-speculative nature of the author, as well as in harmony with his characteristic trait of expressing in a simple phrase or clause the equivalent of the more elaborate reasoning of Paul. This brevity has led B. Weiss to advocate the dependence of Paul. Yet Professor Sanday follows the general consensus of scholastic opinion in contending for the originality of Paul. That the above reference occurs in connection with the Pauline doctrine of the preexistence of Christ is very important to note. TAPER oes Rom. 9; 33 *TS0d tlOyur év Lov... (Sod siOyys év Liev TE Pt: 2:56 \b Rom. 9; 33b ¢ , >> > os > S ¢ , >> Byes > 6 motetwv ax adtH 00 pH xa- 6 motedwv én avTH 0D xXaTH- ToLoyuvOry ioyuvOrjoeT Ht I Pt. 2.8 Rom. 9; 33a Moog mocoxduyatos nal métoxn AiSov mocoxdupatos nol méTpOV onavSahov onavdh)Ov The very important place these three parallels have in the problem of literary relation, necessitates quite extensive comment. Bigg says “‘ It is unnecessary to suppose that St. Peter’s version of Isaiah is derived from St. Paul.” (I. C. C. p. 132.) B. Weiss after arguing First Epistle of Peter. 425 that there is here a literary dependence says ““ Es ist nun aber auch in dieser Stelle véllig unméglich, daB die Abhangigkeit auf Seiten des Petrus sein kann.” (Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff. p. 422) Against this almost isolated example is to be given the general consensus of scholastic opinion. Furthermore Weiss does not seem to have met Briickner’s argument. Monnier says : “ la dépendance de I Pt. 2; 6 et 8 par rapport a Rom. 9 ; 33 est évidente.” (Com. p. 38.) H. M. Holtzmann, (Einl. p. 314,) gives the following line of reasoning ; “Am wenigsten aber ist nur Zufall dabei im Spiele, wenn Jes. 28 ; 16 und 8: 14, letztere Stelle verschmolzen mit Ps. 118; 22, I. Pit. 2; 6—8, ganz ahnlich wie Rém. 9 ; 33 (Jes. 28 ; 16 mit Jes. 8 ; 14 ver- bunden, vgl. auch I. Pt. 2; 8 xoocxéxvew wie Rom. 9 ; 32 und paulinischer Determinismus wie Rém. 9; 14f. und unmittelbar — darauf 10. Hos. 2 ; 25 ganz in demselben Sinne, um den Unterschied des ehemaligen heidnischen und des gegenwartigen christlichen Zu- standes hervorzuheben, angefiihrt wird, wie Rém. 9 ; 25 eine solche Benutzung Bestatigung findet.) Gerade wie Pls., Rom. 9; 33, 10 ; 11 thut, ist der Spruch Jes. 28; 16 mit einem zu mozeJov hinzu- tretenden éx aov@ aus Jes. 8; 14 ausgestattet ; auch der beider- seitige Eingang des Spruches stimmt gegen LXX iiberein.”’ Zahn (Introduction II p. 188) gives the following against Weiss : “That Rom. 9 ; 32f. and I Pt. 2 ; 6, still more 2 ;: 4—8 were not written independently of each other is proved (1) by the fact that both apostles in quoting Isa. 28 ; 16 are practically agreed against the strongly variant reading of the LXX ; even the addition 27 “07 (Rom. 9; 33, 10; 11, I Pt. 2; 6) is certainly spurious in the LXX ; (2) from the fact that after the quotation of Isa. 28; 16, following a quotation from Ps. 118; 22, in I Pt. 2; 7f. are added the words AiSo¢ xocoxduyntos xa métoa Gxavdadov, which are taken from Isa. 8; 14, but vary greatly from the text of the LNX, and which Paul inserts in the quotation of Isa. 28; 16. Here also Peter does not copy Rom. ; he is familiar with the prophetic text from his own reading, since in 2; 6 he gives the characteristics of the stone,—as also earlier in 2 ; 3,—passed over by Paul. But there remains in his memory also the form in which Paul had quoted the words of the prophet, and, following the cue suggested by Paul’s combination of Isa. 28; 16 and Isa. 8; 14 he also adds E>, 118; 22.” To Professor Sanday we are indebted for the following important observations on the variations ; (1) The LXX reads ied éy@ gu.6x)- ho sic cx Sevédia Mtv. In both the passages in the N. T. the words are fSod ziSyut év Limy. (2) For the LXX 2iSev xodutedy (5) (6) 426 Ova Delmer Foster, éxhentov axpoywvicitov évew.ov, St. Peter reads axpoywwollov éxextov Zvzw.ov ; while St. Paul substitutes AiSov THOCKOPATOG KO TET—OY cxavderov taken from Isa. 8; 14 xa ody we Aibov mpcoxduuocr ov- VaVTNGEGVE GDSE WE meeps mropatt. Here St. Peter 2; 8 agrees with St. Paul in writing zétox o cecil for xétpacntopatt. (3) The LXX proceeds sic t& OeusArxe advijs, which both St. Peter and St. Paul omit. (4) The LXX proceeds zai 6 motedwv ob pq xaTa- tcyuv7. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal re- ference by inserting é@x «7 while St. Paul reads xacvacyuvOyjceta and in 10; 14 adds 7&.” (I. C. C. p 280f.) Cf. also Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung p. 635 f. We may note in this connection that in the “ Petrine”’ speech of Acts 4; 11, reference is made to Ps. 118 ; 22 and not to Isa. 28 ; 16. I Pt. 2; 6b.= Isa. 28; 16,2; 7b = Psatoeeeeeeee 2 Oa, — a saor 14. Rom. 9 ; 33 combines I Pt. 2 ; 6a, 8a, and 6b into one short sentence, i. e., Isa. 28 ; 16b, 8 ; 14 and 28 ; 16c, omitting I Pt. 2 ; 7b, the quotation from Ps. 118 ; 22 which is given n. “ Peter's; speech: san Acts: 4-744. That there is literary dependence here scholars agree, and that the dependence is on the part of our author they are nearly all quite as ready to admit. Only B. Weiss and his pupil Kiihl resist this conclusion. It seems fair therefore to say the arguments pre- sented above by representative scholars prove the originality of Paul, who had thoroughly worked over these ideas and put them in compact form, while our author apparently was contented in his “practical treatise ’’ to sort out and string together the scriptural pearls discovered by Paul. (For counter arguments see “ Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff”’ by B. Weiss, p. 421 f.) I Pt. 4; 10 Rom. 12; 6 7, Ennotog nada EraPev yaoroun, syovtes 88 yapiowata xawk THY cig EauTods adTO Sani aa ... yapw why dobciony hullv diapopa . « Jiilicher (Int. p. 209) agrees with Cone (Com. p. 319) “ that the dependence of the writer on the Pauline passage is evident” in this and the following parallels. The Pauline thought is expressed in Pauline terms. Ci also ICor. 42); 45.28: iL Pt, A Rom. 12; 7 eee >) l g. zug Sranovel, wg 8€ loydog To cite Staxoviav, év ci] dronovig yoonyst 6 Wed This citation in I Peter continues the thought of Paul in the same order, noted in the preceding parallel. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) First Epistle of Peter. I Pt. 4; 13 xa06 xnOWwvelte Tig TOD Xpiot od RaoHacw yatoste, iva nal ev TH Gmonarier tig S6Eys adToD yaxp7- we ayodousvor. Cf. 5; 4. Pty bya waptug tHv tol Xorotod nady- , UaTov, 6 xaL TIS PLAxAAOUOY nxanUnTeGa, SENS xotvmvecs These last two parallels belong together. 427 Rom. 8; 17, 18 eimeo oupraéoyouey, tva xo ouv- ~ ve ‘ Sogacdopyev. 8;18 odx aka cH TaOHxTx TOD vUv xatpod mods THy wédhovoav ddéav anoxadugdFivar ete - Sle YV.As Rom. 8; 17, 19 eimeo cuumdoyouey, tv xaL oUV- dozac diye) ... (19) thy pérrov- sie cay dézav anoxahvodyvar cic hyde Weiss (Lehrbegriff p. 423) thinks there is here a clear case of Paul’s dependence upon I Peter. Chase (H. B. D., III. p. 788) on the other hand thinks the dependence of I Peter is obvious. are agreed that there is here a clear case of dependence. Practically all scholars The pri- ority must be given to Paul, as will appear later. Pt. 1 14” ph Guvey ny etl. EVOL THUS mot cQ0V éy vy ayvota Ou.av ér ruSup.tocig Rom. 12; 2 ‘ = (Cue ms Pon PY UVOyYNY.0t tieoUs TO) LGV , TOU TO) Lovo npactt Zou.xt is found only in these two passages in all the i] ES.. Nor is the word used by the LXX. amplification of the simpler form found in Romans. receives added significance when placed alongside of I Pt. 2 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann’s Einleitung p. 314. Rom. 42; 1. I Pt. 1; 15 mJ A 5 4 iA > s GNKK.... HOTOL Ayton gv Taoy Our Epistle has an This parallel ;u=> Rom, 12; 2 Cae? petapopgodads. TY} avaxatve- ~ 4 Get TOD vous The antithesis here is an important parallel construction, while the thought is equally striking. This and the foregoing example make a strong case for dependence. Ete Lely , OGWTOKT, paring id UJ EXGOTOD EPYOV xotvoveto This is a common N. T. parallel, James 2; 1 or Acts 10; 34. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. m. 2; 11, 6 p gott. Tpocwmodnbia mxod 10) Océ 2; 6 6¢ anoddosr Exkotm X ch Epya adtov but it is closer here than in Our Epistle clearly refers to God’s 29 JaNuARY, 1913. (12) (13) (14) A28 Ora Delmer Foster, impartiality in the judgment in harmony with Rom. 2; 11. Cf. also 2; 6. A similar sentiment is expressed in Eph. 6 ; 9, and Col. 3 ; 25. That this is a closer parallel than in the ~ speech of Peter’ is very significant—We have seen another probable point of contact in this context of Romans, (i.e., I Pt. 1; 7 = Rom. 2; 10,) thereby justifying us in putting this parallel in class “b”’. PE Pti beat Rom. 4; 24 >> > ~ \ > ake Q 3) 28 x > , Se adto matods els Weov tov tol¢ mocvsvovow ent cov EyelomvTa éyetoavta altoOv &X vEXpav Inooty cov Kuprov hoy éx vexpay That God raised up Jesus from the dead, was a common belief, but that He did it to beget belief in Himself, hence be efficacious for salvation, is peculiar to these authors. Monnier says “La résurrection de J. C. est constamment rapportée a un acte de Dieu, a qui revient, en derniére analyse, la premiére initiative et la puis- sance supreme dans l’ceuvre de salut...’ Both the thought and phrasing are very close. I Pt. 1; 22 Rom. 12; 9, 10 THC puyas Su.ov Hyvinétes év wh of kyamn avumdxpiTos. amooTU- Smaxo of THC Baenbelore cig OtAadeA- yodvtes TO ToOvypov, KOAADpeEVvOL olay AVY TORUTOY &% nadia Gh- tH dyads, cH ovrAadsrAota sig HA- Anrove ayanyoute éxtevoc. AyfAove OtAdotopyot This parallel is too close to require comment. Jas. 4 ; 8 approxi- mates it but is not nearly so close. Furthermore the evidence seems to indicate that ‘‘ James”’ is later than either of the above passages. ee Ee ee a Rom. 7; 23 AnEyeovan THY THORLKOY emLOUULadY Grex ETEOOV vop.ov év TOU per- AUTIVES OTPATEVOVTAL HXATH TYG Ot [LOU AVTLOTOATEVOUEVOV TO) VOLO An obvious parallel to the Pauline doctrine of the o%p¢ which “wars ’’ against the mve}ux. Monnier (Com. p. 110) says: “Eph. 2; 3 est imité ici’, but in reality there is here a combination of Rom. 7; 23 and Eph. 2; 3 in one sentence. The passage in Ephe- sians fails to emphasise the ‘‘ internal warfare ”’ as do these passages. (15) (16) (17) First Epistle of Peter. 429 I Pt. 2; 12 Rom. 12; 20, 21 &v & xataharodow Suov we xaxo- sdv newk 6 sybode cov, deyile mouv, &x% Tay xxA@Y EpYOv axon- adtov sav Bubs, nove ade selovtéc Sotkcwo. vov Wsdv ev toto yap mov a&vooaxae mupde hsoa exoxonie owpedosts emt Thy xeoxAyy adzOdD. uy vino bd TOD xaxod, &AX ving év TH ayadd Oo xaxdv Holtzmann calls attention to this parallel. Though the back- ground is different the thought is similar and the gap is filled which would have been left open by v. 12. The importance of the position of this parallel, it is thought, justifies this classification. Pe 2 21s Rom. 13; 1 Smotayyte naon avdownivn utice. maou buyn e€ouctatc, Inepeyotountc dix cov Kuotov’ etze Baorket... Srovaccéchw: ... at odoo: sovctar Concerning the extended parallel between I Pt. 2 ; 13—17 and Rom. 13; 1—7, Zahn says: “ The sense is not only the same, but several expressions are alike, e.g., the aim for which civil authorities peeemseeescciped. (Int.-Il, p: 187.) Cf. I Pt. 2; 14 and Rom. 13; 3f. Many commentators have discussed these parallels and are agreed in the main. Bigg rightly calls attention to the different backgrounds of the authors (I.C.C. p. 139). ‘‘ Paul speaks of Caesar as holding his authority from god, not from the people. Rom. 13 ; 1. ~ , > > y > > ‘ ~ ‘ x @¢ dt advo meumousvots cic ex- eExdinog cic doyyvy tH TO xaxKOdv Sixyow xanoToLoyv TOAKGGOVTAL The parallel is obvious, but the situations are different. Paul refers to social disturbances caused by evil doing, actual crime, but I Peter alludes to the accusation of “ evil doing,” brought on « by their insubordination to the state religion being taken in “a (18) (19) (21) 430 Ova Delmer Foster, false light.”” Cf. Holtzmann’s Com. p. 137, also Gunkel, Abschnitt 3, p. 43. Regarding this and its relation to Romans the latter says it is “‘ Ein Zusatz, begriindet ganz in paulinischer Weise.” I Pt. 2; 14 Rom. 13; 3 Exawvoy de ayaborouy wo ayadov moter, xa Egerg Exatvov Dependence may quite easily be inferred here. Exzatwog is only used by these two authors in all the N. T. Our author combines in his characteristic fashion the adjective and the verb. Out of the sixty-one words peculiar to I Peter forty-one are compounds. With this tendency of his in mind we can see a perfect parallel here. The closeness of the last three parallels, both in thought and textual sequence make a strong case for dependence. I Pt. 2; 24 Rom. 6; 2, 11. oe ~~ c 4 > 4 iy > s x c , iva totic Gpaptioug amoyevdusvor oltives arebcvouey TH cuaprto., TH Sinaroodvy Cricwpev ROG Ett Cycopev av adty. 414 sods vexpods pev elvan TH cpcotto, g 5. Ch Oe “This passage implies the writer’s dependence upon the Pauline thought and phraseology.”” Cone Com. p. 312. Cf. Monnier Com. p. 136. The figure is too thoroughly Pauline for us to say with Bigg that “the Pauline images of death or burial with Christ do not cross the author’s mind.” (I.C.C. p. 148.) Cavtus 38 TH ? I Pt. 3; 4 Rom. 2; 16 6 xpuntig Tis xapdiac dvOomnog GAN 6 ev tH xpuz7e “lovdaiioc, “AL TEpltouy xapdtacg sv MvEeUWLOCTL. Cf. Rom. 7 ; 22 and Il Cor 433 An exact parallel to Paul’s “inward man.” Cf. Rom. 7; 22. Combining this parallel with I Pt. 2 ; 11 = Rom. 7 ; 23, they both receive added significance. « Tf Pi 33.8 Rom. 12; 16 TO de TéAOS TaVTEG bU.dO0OVES <6 abTO sig KAAYAOUS opovodvTEs 15; 5, dey Syiv 7d ad7O gpovelv 2v &kAyAotg I. Pt. 3; 8 Rom. 12; 5 oupradelc yatpew pete yoarodvtmyv, xhattev UsTX KhOLOVTOY First Epistle of Peter. 431 (23) F Pe sis Rom. 12; 10 OUAddehgor TT prAadehota ele KAAYAoUS OLAdc- TOpyoL (24) I Pt. 3; 8 Rom. 12; 16 TATELWODEOVES pn tx Sdydd& povodvtes K&AAX TATELVOLS CUVATAYOWEVOL (25) I Pt. 3; 8 Rom. 12; 13 svonAnyyvot Tog ~ypsiawg TOV aytwy xoLvwvo- Quer) UVTES Following the canon of brevity we should be required to cast our vote in favor of the originality of I Peter at this point in accord with the contention of Weiss, but other considerations lead us to believe our author summed up the exhortation of Rom. 12 ; 5—16 into one sentence, i. e. 3; 8. The last five parallels afford a con- spicuous example of expressing the content of Pauline phrases by single compound words. This is especially obvious in the next to the last parallel, where two words already used by St. Paul are combined. Separately these parallels do not merit such a high rating, yet when taken together they may well be placed in class “ b”’, (26) Bt. 39 Rom. 12; 17 UN arodwWevees xandv avo xaxod pydevi xaxdv avt naxod dnod:- Sdvtes Prov. 20; 22 (um etang cicopar tov éyfedv) can hardly be the ori- ginal for these two passages as some contend. Nor is it probable they were quoting independently a logion of Jesus. Cf. Mt. 5; 39, and Lk. 6; 29, which have very different forms. The probabilities are therefore that one is quoting the phrase from the other. Paul uses it also in another connection. I Thes. 5; 15. See Zahn’s Introduction II, p. 187. 27 Il 124m, Bie): Rom. 12; 14 ? ? 7) dowSopiav avti Aowdooiae cov- edAcyeite code Budnovtacg bykc vavttov S& edAoYoUvTes eAoyette, nol py xaTapdode This parallel is strengthened also by I Pt. 2; 15. The context as well as the wording makes dependence very probable. 432 Ova Delmer Foster, (28) E Pest Rom. 12; 18, 14; 19 Cytyoatm slonvyy xa Simgitm peta m&vtwv avOownwy slonvedov- OT veg. 14; 19 td vig eloyvng St0- KOUEV The thought, phrasing and context are very esse of literary dependence. (29) I Pt. 3; 18 Rom. 5; 6,8 Xorords nag mept caotinv a Xorotd¢... Onto doslov a&mébave, néDavev. [Exadev] W. H. De te gee inte Hav a&néQave W. H. prefer anéSavev to ExaSev, on the authority of x AC and all the versions. This rendering makes a very close parallel with Romans, yet the thought would not be materially altered by ané- Dave, which has in its favor BKLP. (30) I Pt. 3; 18 Rom. 5; 7 dinarog Orso adinwv wdAtc yap Onto Sixatou tug dmobav- SUTOL An important parallel as Rom. 5 ; 7 connects vs. 6 and 8 given in the example I Pt. 3 ; 18 = Rom.5;6, 8. Rom: 5 ;91s alsgum accord with the Petrine doctrine. (31) I Pt. 3; 18 Rom. 5; 10 iva Opde npocayayyn TH Oss KATHAALYYEv TH We Side Tod Savetov tod btod adtod. Cf. 5; 2. This parallel is obvious. Jiilicher thinks the agreement is closer with Rom. 5; 2. (8¢ od xol thy mooonywyhy éoyryxapev) “ Intro- duction’”’ p. 209. This appears to be another example of con- densing. What was done elsewhere in words is here done in phrases and clauses, as 3; 18 seems to be an abstract of Rom. 5; 2—10. he combined evidence of the last three parallels in direct contextual sequence makes dependence here very probable. (32) I Pt. 3; 22 Rom. 8; 34 TOD -R2 6¢ gotw av Sekt Weod mopevdeic syepbstc, o¢ govw ev Beet sig obpuvov... @sod This parallel is too close to require comment. First Epistle of Peter. 433 (83) I Pt. 3; 22b Rom. 8; 38 dy yehwv xa Bovordy xo Suvduswv ayyedor alte Hoya olte Suvausers Christ’s leadership over angels, authorities and powers is distinctly a Pauline teaching. Bigg thinks the reference to Noah in I Pt.3; 20 is a proof that our author was not borrowing from Paul but from Enoch 61 ; 10, “since the passage comes just before one of the Noachic fragments.’”’ (Com. p. 166.) Enoch 61; 10 reads as follows ; ‘‘ And He will call on all the host of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and all the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect one, and the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day.’’ Charles says “the other persons on the earth, over the water, etc., refer to the lower angel-powers over nature.’ The “ Noachic fragment ’’ therefore seems too frag- mentary to merit attention. On the other hand Charles says these (referring to Enoch 61; 10) are exactly St. Paul’s principalities eucepawers, Cf Rom. 8; 38, Eph. 1; 21, Col. 1 ; 16.” (Book of Enoch p. 162.) Professor Sanday refers to the same passage in Enoch as a probable source of Paul’s terminology. Cf. Com. on Rom. p. 222. The commonness of the idea with Paul, along with the variety of expression argue for his independence of I Peter. In addition to the passages cited by Charles cf. I Cor. 15 ; 24, Eph. 3; 10, 6 ; 12, Col. 2; 10, 15. This and the preceding parallel taken together makes the dependence of our author upon Paul highly probable, and very likely on Romans. (34) 1 i Ba re: Sg Rom. 6; 7, 2 6 mabov capxl némautar cuaorions 6 &7 c Pe Bis Cyt aes os ONT Cine: au.notias. 6; 2 ottives amevavo- — ¢ att. = ~ y¥ —- rd VEV TY AKOTA, THE ETL CYGOULCV av aoty This seems to be a very probable case of dependence ‘“‘ for the thought that death annuls man’s relationship to sin, which is only differently expressed in the two instances is very boldly applied in both cases, first to the death of Christ and then as the ground of moral obligation on the part of those who have been redeemed through His death. Similar relations do not exist between I Peter and any other of Paul’s letters.” (Zahn’s Intro. II, p. 188.) Gal. 3; 23 and I Pt. 1; 5, quoted by Hilgenfeld, (Einl. p. 633), agree | oily in the use of the word ggougeiv. B. Weiss, whose judgment . 434 Ora Delmer Foster, here regarding the connection is better than concerning the order of dependence, thinks the “ Pauline mysticism, regarding the effi- cacy of Christ’s sufferings, is borrowed from this passage in I Peter.” (“ Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff’’ p. 289.) (35) I Pt. 4;7 Rom. 13; 11, 12 TévTmy TO TéAOS Hyytnev viv éyyutepov fp.av h ow7ypia . - y woe nongnotey, i 3s Huson NYY e*Ev That these scriptures are followed by similar exhortations based upon them and that they occur in such close contextual connection with I Pt. 4; 3 = Rom. 13 ; 13, is a strong argument for literary dependence. Cf. Weiss’ Lehrbegriff p. 420. c (36) I Pt. 1; 2 Ron. 8; 29, ee naTah mpGYyVUGW Oecd 006 mpoeyvoo 11; 2, zov Aoov. . Cc ow 6v moogyvw 1; 7 yaoug oulv xot clovvy LY IIoéyvmorg and xpoywveioxm are strictly Pauline and Petrine terms. The former is found only in I Pt. 1; 2 and Acts 2; 23. The latter in Acts 26; 5, Rom. 8; 29\ 11; 2, I Pt. 1-203 tte 3; 17. Though I Peter shows a more extended likeness in the fore part to “Ephesians” than to “Romans’’, it is quite probable that our author was influenced just at this point by the latter, for the former uses zpsogtexc. On the whole it is to be noted that “The salutation of I Peter is formed in an independent manner after the model which had been created by St. Paul, especially as it appears in his Epistles to the Galatians and Romans’’. Hort’s “ First Epistle of St. Peter,” p. 13. We should also add the Epistle to the Ephesians. (37) 1 Pt. 15-9 Rom. 6; 22 ~ , ‘ ‘ ~ > AOU! copay 70 tédOg Tig Tiotemg Eyete TOV xapTOV BUOY sic cyte cwThptay buyoy udv, To de teres Cony aldviov Nowhere is this thought more closely duplicated. (38) (39) (40) (42) First Epistle of Peter. 435 DP Pts Qr4: Rom. 9: 33 ? ? NSov Zivtu, Smt avdoutmv uty Aibov mocoxnduuatoc nal néTOAV = ’ i ‘ ry ita > > , , ATO SESORUU.AKOU.EVOV OKULVOAAOD When considered along with I Pt. 2 ; 6-8 = Rom. 9 ; 33, this parallel deserves a higher rating. EB Pt2ecb Rom. 125 1 Gveveynar mvevuatinas Guotiac s0- napnorijoa 7x cwopata Sudiv Sv- , 2 ~ . 3 ~ , Fou , s ~ moacdentous Mee Six Iycod Xoro- ciav Conv, aytav, eddpsotov ca TOU OcG why Aoyyy hatpetav Suov The thought is very similar. The sacrifice in both cases is to be pleasing to God. I Pt. 2; 8 Rom. 9; 22, 18 3 a ‘ > 2Q , P ~ 14 > > , te 6 nar eréOroav cnet OoyTic xatyoticeva sic anw- Aevav. 18 dv dE Beret oxdnodver ° — -QOur author here echoes the Pauline doctrine that the disobedient were foreordained to spiritual hardness. Cf. I Tim. 2; 7, II Tim.1; 4. That the thought occurs in these contexts is significant. See Rendel Harris’ emendation of étéSyouv to étéfn. (Expos. 1909, p. 155f.) The suggested change is indeed clever, but it in no way affects the doctrine at issue, since it is found elsewhere. POR G2 319 Rom. 13; 12 m , 5 ‘ ia) DS > Q zs zy ‘ v ~ , &x% onOTOug... sig 70 Dauuanotov anodupeda obv tx Eoya tod oxd- ~ ~ ‘ , . a adTod ows Tove, “al évdvowusha te onAn zoB owes The figure is Pauline and the antithesis suggestive. The con- textual connection should not be overlooked. EPR 40 Rom. 9; 25 Gi TOTE OD Ande Wy dE Ande Weod xahéow cov od Andv pov, xal Thy ¢ > Pe 4 ~ NS x OQ. > de > le Be ot o0% HAsnpévor viv dé EAendevtes dx HYarnyevyy “ Dasselbe Zitat und in demselben Sinne Rém. 9 ; 25, eine Stelle, die dem Verfasser vorzuschweben scheint.” (H. Gunkel, Dritter Abschnitt, p..40, ‘‘ Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments.”’) Cf. Ho]tzmann’s comment on parallels between I Pt. 2; 6, 8 and Rom. 9; 33. This reference to Hosea is preceded in both cases by the statement that’ God had so “called”’ them. Cf. Rom. 9 ; foot Pt. 2°: 9. (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) 436 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 2; 17 Rom. 12; 10b TAVTES TWAHORTE TH TWA AAAHAOUS TpONYoUpevor I Pt. 2; 17 Rom, 12; 10a Thy AdehnoTyHTA ayandee TH QrAadeAota cig &AMAOUS OLAG- OTOPYOL Close parallels both in form and meaning, yet our author reverses the order. FE Pt2 Az Rom. 13; 7 zov Wcbv wobeiods, tov Baorhex anodorve TH tov OdBov Tov O6Goy- TUWLATE Cwononbete S& mvedu.artt co IIvedu.an tod eystpaveog Inoody sx vexomy This entire verse is thoroughly akin to the Pauline teaching on the subject. The suffering of Christ for sins accords with “ gave himself for our sins ”’ (Gal. 1 ; 4) and “‘ died for our sins ” (I Cor. 45 ; 3). It is significant also that the well known Pauline antithesis of the c&~ and zvedy.x appears here. (Cone Com. p. 214.) TPs: 21 Rom. 4; 25, 10; 9 3. dvactdcsme “Iyood Xorotod jysoly Bie chy Sinaxtwow jpov. matevons év ti xapdia cov tt 6 Meds adtov ¥yewwev ex VEXpOv, om don, It was noted in the parallel I Pt. 1 ; 21 = Rom. 4 ; 24 that these authors saw in the resurrection of Jesus, a special power or proof which would beget faith, which in turn would lead to justification, hence ‘‘salvation.’”” Our author parallels Paul’s whole train of reasoning with the simple phrase 3.’ avactécsw¢, apparently im- plying what Paul explicitly states. ~l First Epistle of Peter. 43 (49) I Pt. 4; 5 Rom. 14; 10 w& Ecotume xotvove, Covras nat mavtec mapaotyoducda TH Eruote os co} Xeroto3 (cod) “So far as the dead are concerned, believers only are included in the writer’s thought, just as the Pauline doctrine of the last things takes account of them alone. The believers were conceived of as being subject to judgment.” Cf. II Cor. 5 ;10. (Cone Com. p. 317.) (50) I Pt. 4; 8 Rom. 12; 9, 10 slg Exutods &ydmny extev¥] Eyavtes 9} Kya avumdxortos 10 7H orha- Sedoia el KAAyAOUE OLAdoTOPYOL The context adds to the significance of this parallel. See “ Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff”’ p. 420. (51) I Pt. 4; 9 Rom. 12; 13 ovddgevor ele &AAYAOUE Thy olrogeviay Sioxovetes Mi\cgevia is only found in Rom. 12; 13 and Heb. 13; 2. é- eave occurs only in I Tim. 3; 2, Tit. 1; 8, and_I Pt. 4; 9. The use of this rare word, although in a slightly different form, in this context may indicate a real point of contact. This parallel occurs between two drawn from the same contexts, 1. e., I Pt. 4; 8 = pome i 9 40) and I Pt. 4;°10 = Rom: 12: 6. (52) ie Pia Le 2 Rom, 154 yaere Suliv xai storvy yaprs Sulv xal stoyvy This verbatim agreement is very suggestive, yet this form is common with Paul. The ‘ Pastoral Epistles’? employ )57 and 15 -:.6,, modelled 438 Ora Delmer Foster, on the plan of 1; 7. With the single exception of I Pt. 1; 3, this exact phrase is peculiar to Paul and at the same time very common with him. Though the close agreement is striking in the context, Eph. 1; 3 shows a much more probable connection. (54) aP Gs, Tey. Rom. 2; 10 ebpeOy] cig Exawwov nol Sotav nal Seta dé xa ty not slovvyn mev- TLV TL TH spyoConevd TO cyadov. Ceeei: This may be a real echo, though the evidence is inadequate for any degree of certainty. (55) I Pt. 2; 9 Rom, 8; 28, 30 Syscic 38 yévog éxhextov TOlg nate mooDsow xANTOIS OvOW .. , od¢ TEOWPLGS, TOUTOUS xa ExcAcoe Although the yévo¢g éxXext6v may be borrowed from Isa. 43 ; 20 it is in thorough accord with Paul’s doctrine of election. (56) So lePt os Rom. 8; 28, 31 tig 6 nandowy bude sav ToD aya- tig ayanwo. tov Wsdv navtw Sod Cyrwtor yévyods cuvepyet etc &yabov. 34 ct 6 Osde x , Voie ~ bnsp Huov, tic xa qyov The parallel is closer in thought than in form. (52) I Pt. 4; 2 Rom. 6; 12 X , , s ‘ , OG sig TO pynéte avOownwy emduptors py odv Baotrsvéto y auaptia év cH OvyTS Sov copoett... gy ~~ > , ec , solic émOuutaus... Kuaotio This parallel is strengthened both by the context and I Pt. 2; 24 = Rom: 42) 44-and I) Pts-45. 1 Rom sa .ere (58) T Pts 4542 Rom. 6; 12 GMX Dedryract. Ocod aMAK TapaoTYCATS skuTODS FT Hes -S2 This antithesis may indicate Pauline influence, since it follows immediately after a possible point of contact. First Epistle of Peter. 439 Rom. 13; 13 (59) Lbyees memopevpevoug av doedyelarc, emt- Tmepimatyompev Uy] xwpoLg nab UE- Suptarc, civogduytonc, xedors, mo- Graig, wh noitaig nal doedhystac . > i > ‘ >9 >> § > Toc, “at abeutzoug eldmAoAucoiaLs Though the thought is similar, the context is hardly in favor of dependence. (60) . Pere ii Rom. 3; 3 Roya Oecd Roya tod Oecd In all probability this parallel is due to accident. (61) I Pt. 5;5 Rom. 12; 10 movees DE HAAKAOLE SnoTHGGOUEVOL, TH OLAAdSeAOLA ele &AAv/AOVES OLAG- i > ‘ ’ aU Y3 beers = | 7 “Hy tamewooocuvyy eynou.Bacacds oatooyou tH TWH HAAVAOVS TOOT- ; | Hf Hf | PY youmevor The thought is similar but the form is different. (62) I Pt. 5; 13 Rom. 16; 16 donkCeta, Suic x (@v BaBuraw) doncCovror bree at éxxdAnoton cod Xerotod (63) Pt. bi 14 Rom. 16; 16 dondcacts, ahdyhovg av orryuat. condousds adi ove ev OLdryiatt avin Ky aTNC These salutations are clearly built on the same specifications. The form is common with Paul, hence its occurence in I Peter can be no proof of dependence upon Romans. The following table of parallel references will serve to make more apparent the relationship between Romans and I Peter. 440 Ova Delmer Foster, LT Piri. 2. = Roms 29. aly I. Pt. 3; 4 = Rom, 4; 16 14,.2b).= 1;7 4 328 S505 12; 16, 15; 5 ie 35 == ek eto oS | =e 12; 5 Ph. ee eee Vis; o =) on 1:9 Se Oren 3, 338 = eee 1; 14. 3 5° aloe , 333 => eee oj Mp tL pS eee wy 33 9 SS 5 eee Rees hee de — Dre » (8; 9 > 4 be 20) FS ee Gao >» 1 => (ee ae NA ee » 831 => > eae Lis322 0S. ES LO » 23/18 -=> eae 2,4 = 9; 33 » 3518 >) Soe PACS 12: 1 5 233 18: > eee 26 = 9; 33 » 3;21=> ,. £325,625 2-6 ba =), Usisoe » 05 22>), oe 2318 - = 9; 33a » 2322 = FS ease 2 8b = ¢ 9h AB S22 y 451 = Fees 2) 9 8; 28, 30 » 43°20 Ss Paes 239b = 13; 12 » 433 Sony else 2 10 (== wees » £35 = 5 2Reee 2, It = 7; 23 Pee ee ee he 2¢ 13 13; 1 , £8 =") Sea 2 AA Di Bae le oe , 4:9 = 352 2) AA eh oe oo , 22. = eee ZAG, = ela 20a a ae DD ee Dil 12: 10b y £513 = 445 335 0eee 217 b= 3 12; 10a 2 Stl => 4 pas (efoto 2 el | 5 O2:5. 3, 5 eee 2 AS == ke 8 Seo 59 OF 13 = 2) ae 2224, Gere. els made ip eee | eS From the above table we may sum up the possible points of contact with Rom. 42, as follows ; 2, 2, 9, 10. 1, 14, 20, 21, 10b, 10a, 16, 5, 10, 16, 13, 16, 17, 14, 18, 9, 10, 13, 7, 10. Rom. 8 also contamms a number of parallels, i.e., 12,1, 4, 3, 7, 5, 13, 14, 12. Many of these it will be noted occur in groups in close contextual con- nection. Bennet has an excellent analysis of the parallels in Rom. 12 ; 1—13; 14 in the ‘‘New Century Bible” on the Gen. Eps. p. 33 f. SUMMARY The foregoing parallels and notes it is believed show quite con- clusively that “I Peter” is indebted to ‘‘Romans.’’ The parallels have been too close, employing too similar phraseology, and too First Epistle of Peter. 441 often of the same order to be independent. Nor have instances been lacking to show the priority of the Pauline Epistle. Few indeed are the advocates of the priority of “I Peter.” B. Weiss has made the most heroic effort of all to defend this position in his “‘ Petrinische Lehrbegriff.”” His pupil Kiihl follows a similar line of thought. The anonymous article on “ Peter”’ in the “ Inter- national Encyclopaedia” 1910, says “‘ The opinion of Weiss and Kihl, has much in its favor, and appears on the whole, the most probable.”’ Bigg is inclined to favor the independence of our author. Cf. also E. Scharfe’s “‘ Die petrinische Str6mung der neutestament- lichen Literatur.” (1893.) With these exceptions the scholars of all schools are agreed that our author was the borrower. Strange to say not all the most enthusiastic defenders of this position are to be found in the “ rad- ical school.’ ‘‘ Conservatives’”’ claim, on the one hand, that this dependence upon Romans is a proof of its genuineness, while “ radi- cals’ maintain, on the other hand, that it proves the very opposite. At this point it may be well to review a few of the opinions and argu- ments of some of the leading conservative scholars. Chase in his excellent article in H.B.D. says “there is no doubt that the author of I Peter was acquainted with this Epistle,” 1. e., Romans. Zahn, the worthy prince of German conservatives, says: “It is especially the hortatory portion of Romans to which I Peter shows numerous points of resemblance; Rom. 12; 2 =I Pt. 1; 14, py, ouoynu.xcilecdat, with substantially the same object in the dative ; Rom. 12; 17 =I Pt. 3; 9, uydevt (uy) &rodidovtes naxov avei xoxod, in both instances standing between an exhortation to humility and the advice to preserve peace with non-Christians, while in the immediate context in both passages stands the command that they bless their persecutors instead of reviling them (Romans 12 ; 14). Taken in connection with such clear resemblances, a certain weight is to be given also to similarities in the same chapter, which cannot be used as positive proof, such as the similar use of Aoy1x0¢,—not to be found elsewhere in the N. T. or LXX,—Rom. 12 ; 1, I Pt. 2 ; 2, and the conception of offerings, in a figurative sense, made by Christians, Rom. 12 ; 1, 1 Pt.2;5. In relatively close proximity to these parallels, Rom. 13 ; 1—7 and I Pt. 2 ; 13—17, occurs an ex- hortation with regard to civil authorities. The sense is not only the same but several expressions are alike, e. g. the aim for which civil authorities exist is described thus”’ (N. T. Intro. II, p. 187) : Seepacalels1 Pt. 2°; 15,44 — Rom. 13:1, 1 Pt. 2: 144b = Rom. tom 4, 1 Pt. 2 > 44c = Rom. 13 ;3. For the continuation of Zahn’s ereument see note on I Pt.-2 ; 6, § = Rom. 9; 33. 44) Ova Delmer Foster, As a leader of English Conservatives we may quote Sanday (Com. on Rom. Ixxvf.) : “ The resemblance’”’ between these parallels “is too great and too constant to be merely accidential. In I Pt. 2 ; 6 we have a quotation from the LXX that we find in Rom. 9 ; 32. Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. 12 ; 1 = I Pt. 2 ; 5), and the same rare words, such as ouoynvacifecdor, avurcxeito¢, but in one passage (Rom. 13 ; 1—7 =I Pt. 2 ; 183-17) we have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas occurring in the same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of the two, the Epistle to the Romans is the earlier. St. Paul works out a thesis clearly and logically ; St. Peter gives a series of maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example in Rom. 13 ; 7 we have a broad general principle laid down, St. Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage, merely gives three rules of conduct. In St.Paul the language and ideas come out of the sequence of thought ; in St. Peter they are adopted because they had already been used for the same purpose.”’ For Sanday and Headlam’s further argument see. note.on 1 Pia 2 soi — Romy oes: Numerous quotations from the “ liberal school’”’ might be given in defence of the position here maintained by “ conservatives,” but let one suffice. Knopf rests the case, “‘ vor allem an den starken Anleihen, die I Peter bei den Paulusbriefen macht, Anleihen, die das theologische Gedankengut im allgemeinen, aber auch besondere ein- zelne Gedanken in ihrer speziellen Formulierung betreffen. (Vel. I Pt. 2 ; 13—17 mit Rom. 13 ; 1—7, I Pt. 3 ; 8 f£. mit Rom. 12; 16a98 See ‘““ Das nachapostolische Zeitalter”’ p. 33 f. EPHESIANS A* a—b (1) iE Pt. Eph. 1; 2 yapus Syiv nat etonvy yaoug byiv xa stoyvy When considered alone, this parallel means little, but when placed alongside the following parallel which is also in exact verbal agree- ment, it is seen to be very important. It is indeed significant that this precise form occurs when so many others might have been employed. (2) First Epistle of Peter. 443 Lf Pils 3 Eph. 1; 3 eOAoyyz0¢ 6 Osde xa navip to sddoyntos 6 Deds nat mathe tod ~ ~ 7 ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ c xuptov ydv “Iycod Xoerorod, 6 xuelov yuov “Inood Xprotod, 6 , (~/ ~ 7 ¢ ~ 2. AVAYEWTCAS NY.ds eVAOY NTE NY.dic ~ ! Only in II Cor. 1 ; 5 is there to be found a duplicate of this perfect parallel. Though the “evidence for dependence here is weakened by II Cor. 1 ; 3” (Salmon’s Int. p. 553), the ‘“‘ weakening ”’ is more than counterbalanced by the occurrence, in the immediate context of Ephesians, of the “ Petrine’’ emphasis on the predestination of believers, which is wholly wanting in II Cor. 1 ; 1 ff. Eph. 4 ; 3b also leads off with ‘6’ and an aorist active participle used sub- stantively (Burton’s Moods and Tenses p. 165), governing 7.4% just aol rt. 1; ob. Il Cor. 1 ; 4 has a similar construction but the participle is a present of simultaneous action, and is separated from its antecedent by an interpreting phrase. Though cixtieudy of II Cor. 1 ; 3b is synonymous with )co¢ of I Pt. 1 ; 3b, the thought is closer in the Petrine parallel. The evidence is in favor of the dependence of I Peter upon Ephesians at this point. Zahn says: “In favor of the conscious dependence of I Peter upon Ephesians is the fact that they begin with exactly the same word, “sdAcynz76¢ .... Xptotod, 6” followed by a participle,—a construction which does not occur in this or similar form in any other N. T. Epistle. .:. The reference to the future xAypovopta, (cf. ex. I Pt. 1 ; 4, is found also in Eph., only farther from the beginning, 1; 14 ; while the thought which immediately follows Eph. 1 ; 4f. (cf. 1; 9, 11), namely, that of election through the divine foresight and predestination, has been utilized already in I Pt. 1; 1f. (Int. II, p. 186.) Alluding to 1; 5—13 and Eph. 1; 5—15, T. K. Abbot says : “ the alternation of participles and relative pronouns is the same until the transition to the succeeding period is made, in the one case by So, in the other by S& totto”. (I C. C. on Eph. p.xxivf.) The substance of the passage in I Pt. 1 ; 3—5 corresponds to that of the following passage in Eph. 1 ; 18—20, 2Ani¢ (Ex. 34) being emphasised in both, and its object being designated the xdypovouia (Ex. 23), the connection with the resurrection (Ex. 35) of Christ as its ground being the same, and in both the dtvauts Oscd being put in relation to the alow. (Ex. 24.) After making a careful analysis of the foregoing paralle'’s Von Soden says : “the priority cannot be determined with certainty by the text itself.” (“Hand commentar zum Neuen Testament,” IIT, p. 122.) He also considers the text of our Epistle to be more compact Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 30 January, 1913. 444 Ova Delmer Foster, than that of Ephesians. These conclusions are affected, no doubt, by his doubts concerning the authenticity of Ephesians. Against the position of Von Soden may be urged the following line of argument presented by Monnier: “En réalité, c’est l’épitre de Pierre qui tantdt résume et tantot développe. C’est elle dont les idées se suivent d’une fagon large, coulante, sans rien de rigoureux. Si le style des Ephesiens a des detours (1 ; 11—14) ot la pensée semble se resaisir, 1] est. plein, nerveux, original ; les idées forment un en- semble solide, bien lié, avec une indiscutable puissance.”’ (Com. p. 261.) It would seem, therefore, that the general consensus of scholastic opinion is that “‘ This form of benediction is copied from Eph. 133" \(Hort's* Ep onyPts ps 274) I Pt. 1; 21 Eph. 1; 20 x 5 le pp >) ~ Pd , meee =] Tov eyelpavtx adtoOv ex vexomv éysloac ambTOV &x vexoOV, Kal EXa- ‘ > /S > ~ 4 Q > SF ~ > ~ na Sogav avte Sovtx Dioev év See adrod . This is a striking parallel and in this context is very significant. “ This connection of the resurrection of Christ with Christian faith and hope is distinctly Pauline.” (Cone Com. p. 308.) Romans Ex. 12 affords a close parallel, but this one combines the exaltation of Jesus with the resurrection, and in this respect is the closest N. T. parallel. I Pt. 2; 4-6 Eph. 2; 18—22 mec Ov moocepyduevor Aidov 3. adsod EYOUEV Thy TOCOAYWY HY Coven... 19) ... otxeton tod Gees. 5) no adel me Aibor Cavte¢ otxo- 20) Faonobol nOévtes ent tH Se- Sousiods, otxoc mvevp.ntinds USAID... ovz0¢ anooYOvicttov a= 6)... Aibov axooywviatov ~ AANTA TO TOAD KOTOD ZAc06 NATH TOV TAGUTOV TIS YAOLTOS KUTOD, This parallel is very significant, since it follows one which is in complete verbal agreement. This usage can hardly be accidental. See KA. (9) (10) (11) First Epistle of Peter. EPtvi 10—12 9 , oid , N Rept Ho owtypiag seCytyoav nat SEypevvyoav mpowyta. ot mepl Ti¢ sig bud yapitos mpopytevoavtec . alg amexadiodny ovr ody Exv- ~ ~ ‘ 4 > s sete bulv Se Sryxovovv aute%, & viv dvyyyéAn Sulv die tov eday- yedronpévery 447 Eph. 3; 5 c , ~ ’ - ETépaLS ‘Yeventig obx eyvw- ptooy, , ~ c , a@e vdv amenansoory TOs a ytotc Amootohas auToD xxl mpOMTTaAILG év IIvevpat.- 3; 10 tve yvoeicdF vv I Pt. 1 ; 10—12 finds a related thought in Heb. 11 ; 13, 39, 40, but Eph. 3 ; 5, 10 is the only other place in the N. T. where the meaning of the prophecies was not clearly known to the prophets themselves but has first become so to us. That I Peter goes beyond Ephesians in saying the prophets themselves were made acquainted by revelation with their own ignorance (Eph. 3 ; 5), indicates the priority of the latter. (Cf. Abbot’s Com. on Eph. p. xxv). Hort thinks we have here a clear “clue to St. Peter’s trend of thought.” (Ep. of St. Pt. p. 64.) I Pt. 1; 13 >) 4 ‘ PI] , ~ Gvalwonevor THC Coda THC Stx- votac Suav Eph. 6; 14 PEON shy. doody Sudv 2 TECLCWGHILEVOL THY OGODV DUwv ev > 4 an oeta No other passage in the N. T. affords as close a parallel to our Epistle here as Eph. 6 ; 14. Dependence is made more probable by dv aronadiver ‘Incot Xpiovod (1; 13), which is “a Pauline term for piesearousia. Cf. 1Cor. 45.7, i Thes. 1; 7. (Cone Com. p: 306.) I Pt. 1; 20 Eph. 8; 11, 1; 4 TOGEYYMGWEvOU sv TOO xaTABOATS nate moobeow tov aldvwv fy é- ZOOU.OV motyoev gv XototH .. Cf. 3; 9, 10 « ~s c ~ > ~ ‘ &EekcEato Hydc év aut moO xa- The “‘ preexistence of Christ’ is a common Pauline conception. Monnier thinks with Hort (Ep. of Pt. p. 80), that mod xavaZoxij¢ is “ probablement empruntée a Eph. 1; 4.” (Com. p.76.) “I Pt. 1; 20 and Eph. 3 ; 9 correspond in the same reference to the mystery ordained xpd xataforye xcopov, and hitherto hidden, but now revealed. And as in Eph. 3; 10 the wise purpose of God is now made known to angelic powers, so in I Pt. 1 ; 12 they desire to search into these things.”’ (Abbot Com. p. xxvi). (18) (14) (15) (16) 445 Ova Delmer Foster, LT Peas Eph. 6; 5 c ae op c , 2 € Saw c f — OL OLXETHL UMOTACOOEVOL EV TAVT ot SodAoL, Smaxovete Tole nuptoug “2 ~ > , /2 O00 Tole dsOTOTHLC areas ete 90\300 On dnxotayate f. of 2; 13, Dr. Hort comments as follows: ‘In Ephesians (5 ; 21-24, 6 ; 1-3, 5-8) subjection (Snotvxocechat) is set forth only in so far as it concerns family and household relations, the subject of 2; 18-3; 7 here, but apparently as founded on a general principle of subjection (Snotacodpevor addajdorg gv dbo Xotorzed), laid down at the outset in 5; 24, which likewise corre- sponds in drift to I Pt. 5; 5 as well as to this verse. (Ep. of Pt. p. 439). I Pt. 3; 1 Eph 5; 22 nse a = =, ¢€ ~~ ~ yz > i Yyuvoiines unotaooosvor Ev TavtL al yuvolxsc, tolg tSto1g avdpaou 412 ses > , ¢c , o0bw zig Seonotac UROTKOGEGUE I Pt. 3; 6 Eph. 5; 22b, 33 Lee ¢ , mS 2) , ~ ao > , ag Laon umyxouce 7 “ABouny, we tH xuplo (oct avi éotw xE0- , > ‘ A ~ ‘ ~ A - c AYOLGY KUTOY xaAODOH GOAN TS yuvainoc...) 3d H youve iva woBiitan Tov a&vdox ‘ 1Pt 3:7 Eph. 5; 25 ¢ yy ~ , > € Y> > x ‘ ~. ot &vdpeg ... TH yuvainstw ano- of avdosc, Kyamite tae yuvodnas VéWovTes TITY sxuToy Robinson, in commenting on Eph. 5 ; 33b, claims “ there is here a double reference to this passage in I Pt. 3; 1—6, which clearly is not independent of Ephesians: ‘Opoltw¢ yuvoilxes trotacoduevon Tig [Slow avdedcow ... tyv av ohm ayviv dvactpoyhy vuev; and then as if to guard against a false conception of fear, px goPodpevan uydeptay z7oyow.” (Com. on Eph. p. 209). The general trend of the thought as well as the sequence in the last four parallels make dependence very probable. When taken separately these citations. do not merit this classification. I Pt. 3; 8 Eph. 4; 32 opoves, yiveode d& cig aAAHhOUS yororoL omhay- sdorAnyyvor, yeoulouevorsauTotg. .. xvor.. This form of exhortation is common in the Pauline literature. Cf: Rom. 12 ; 1483—417, I Cor. 4; 12, I Thes. 5 5415. Butismiceuaes passage, which contains a word (svoxdxyyvot) not found elsewhere in the N. T., follows immediately after a context suggestive of Ephe- sians, dependence is made very probable. (7) (18) (19) (20) (71) First Epistle of Peter. 449 Ie Pi. Ses Eph. 2; 18 a ¢c ~ ¢ ~ ~ > , ~ Yv x x iva Uu.dic mpocayayyn 7 Wed dt “uTOU Eyousy THY RoOCaywy yy “T Pt. 3 ; 18 reminds us of Eph. 2 ; 18, while the verses immedi- ately following exhibit the ancient explanation of Eph. 4 ; 8—10.” (Abbot Com. p. xxv.) I Pt. 4;2,8 Eph. 2; 3 > , > Cc , 2 ‘ > © , ~~ ‘ c ~ ~ avGowney éexuduutar (4; 2) vo ésmduptare tHe omoxnds Huov, ToLouv- BodAny.an cov vay xaverpycodon teg tk PeAtata vig cupxds (4; 3). Monnier has pointed out this close parallel. (Com. p. 263.) R. Knopf also thinks there is here a clear case of dependence upon Ephesians. (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter p. 34). lees ale a phe Iléseoc anéatodoc “Iyood Xprotod §~=— [latirog &mdatoros ‘Inood This Pauline form of address is worthy of attention in a context so suggestive of Ephesians. Though “epistolary forms are not made by any one man,” it is indeed significant that our author used the Ephesian form both at the beginning and at the end of his Epistle. oP tet Eph. 1; 4 SXACKTOUS seehseato f Pts ls 2 Eph. 1; 5 RATA TOCY VL Toooptone Election is a common Pauline doctrine, but it is alluded to in the opening verses of but three of his Epistles, i. e., Eph. 1; 4, I Thes. 1; 4 and Tit. 1 ; 1, granting the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Predestination is also a Pauline doctrine. Cf. Rom. 8; 29, 30, I Cor. 2 ; 7, and Eph. 1 ;5, 41. But in the beginning of no other Epistle isit alluded to. Paul never uses the noun zpcyvworg, yet he employs the verb xgoywwoxm in the same way. Cf. Rom. 8 ; 29. See also Acts 26; 5. The occurrence of these ideas in the beginning of these two Epistles only, and in the same order is too significant to be passed over lightly. 450 Ova Delmer Foster, (22) T Pheliea2 Eph. 1; 3 > (4 ~ —_ , — 5 s b} , ~~ rn EV AYLAOL.G TVEVUATOS év mao sUAoyin mvevpatiny 1; 4. sivat qude cytous These phrases are quite different, but they afford a close parallel in thought, and are suggestive in this connection. (23) EL Pte is2 Eph. 1; 5 > c ‘ A 4e ‘ oY > (ame , > , > slg UTOKOTY XXL PavTiop.oV abu.atos sig viotsotav (7) anokivomaty die TOD aluatos In the beginning of no other N. T. books is redemption through Christ’s blood so mentioned, except in Col. 1; 4, I Jn. #397eand Rev. 1; 5. It is clear, however, that our Epistle cannot depend upon either of the last two. Nor have we found sufficient evidence to suppose that it was influenced by the companion Epistle of Ephe- sians. There is, therefore, a closer parallel here than can be found in the beginning of any N. T. book earlier than I Peter. True, Paul never uses the term éav71oy.0¢, yet the theology is the same. This exact usage is found only in later writers (e. g. Heb. 12 ; 24), which indicates the priority of Ephesians. (24) EG ee Eph. 1; 18 , pr HANOCOVOULE XN OOVOULAEC | \ | > The “ inheritance reserved in heaven,” is equivalent to the “ hope reserved in heaven”’ (Col. 1 ; 5). Ephesians contains the doctrine of “the hope of his calling, and the riches of the glory of his in- heritance in the saints.” Dependence, therefore, seems somewhat probable in this connection. (25) fi Pt. 155 Eph. 1; 13 Sia miotews sig owryptav Totevouvtss sonpnyioUynte TH Ivevuoce The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith is obvious in both references. (26) 1 OR eared Bg Eph. 1; 14 cic Exutvov nat So cay ci¢ Emawwov THC SOeNS That this close parallel follows the preceding one in direct con- textual connection in both instances is significant. First Epistle of Peter. 451 (27) Tr Pt. 15-4 Eph. 4; 22, 18 solic mpovepov av cH dyvola Sumy 22 chy mpovepay ayaa spogyy. 18 Emdup.tanc Sie thy ayvowwy thy otbcav éyv KOTOC The thought is thoroughly Pauline. Cf. Rom. 12; 2, I Thes. 4; 5, and Acts 17 ; 30. ‘Ayvoia appears in the N. T. only in these passages and in Acts 3; 17 and 17; 30. The parallel suggests dependence. (28) I Pt. 2; 9 Eph. 1; 11, 12 bpeic yévoc éxAcutov...Omme wag mpoopiobévtes nxata mpddeow .. . doecvae shayyelAyte . . sic TO elvan jude elo Exawvov tie (29) I Pt. 2; 9b Eph. 5; 8 <00 8x oxovoug byte xxdgcuvtog te yao move oxdtos, viv SE OAC sig tO Gavpnotov adtod owe év nuetw “The transition from darkness to light is much emphasised in Eph. 5; 8—14, yet the phrase probably was suggested by Eph. 1; 47—19.” (Hort’s Ep. of St. Pt. p. 130.) The preceding parallel makes this one more significant. Jy (30) i Pt 251 Eph. 2; 19 TAPGIKOUS xAL TapETtdnLLOUS Eévon nal TACOLKOL IIxeowxc¢ is found only here and in Acts 7; 6, 29. Ilapentdy- foe socears only in I Pt. 4; 1, 2; 11 and Heb. 11; 43. Gévoc, a comparatively rare word in the N. T., is used by our author in 4;12. Ht is employed by no N. T. writer in the above sense earlier than I Peter, except in Eph. 2 ; 12,19. This combination, following Exs. 27 and 28, is very Sis be : (31) 1. Pt. 33:20 eS 5; 26 SreoiSycav Se Gato (21) 6 xxi tva adehy ayidon, xadaptcag tH Sudc avcicumtov viv owler Bax- Acute tod FSato¢ TOU. Though the thought is more crassly expressed in our Epistle it is important to note that this reference is found between two very suggestive parallels, i. e., 5 and 6. (32) I Pt. 5;5 Eph. 5; 21 ahdijhowe shy sanewoopoctvay éy- Snotacoduevor AAAYAOLC ZOV.OWGATUE See note on Ex. 12. 452 Ova Delmer Foster, (33) I Pt. 5; 12 Eph. 6; 21 Sie Lidovavod Sylv cod moto} Tuywndg 6 ayanntos xo mordc ; Vv a yv AdeAMOD ...6 -. Ov Enea i ry are) & S R Attention is to be directed to the use of the word mozd¢ as well as to the general similarity. The proper names play similar parts in connection with the verb in the first person, Aor. Ind. (84) I Pt. 5; 14 Eph. 6; 23 stoyvy Spiv nma@ow cotc év XptotG slovwy stoic a&deAodic Though this parallel is not very close it is significant that our Epistle closes with év X¢g1o7@, a Pauline phrase ‘‘ par excellence.” For further justification of this classification see note on Ex, 18. (35) If 124m ib. 3 8} Eph. 1; 18 ¢ thntda Cacay | sAnig TKS xAfoems axdTOD The wording is different but the thought is much the same. Con- sidered alongside Ex. 25, this parallel deserves a higher classification. (36) Pile Eph. 1; 20 3 > , ¢ ~ 7 ~ > > , > x 5 ~ OL KLVAOTAGEME Inooi Xororot ex Systeae KUTOV SK VEZCOY VEKOOV Suggestive here, though a closer parallel appears in Ex. 22. (37) Peet. es Eph. 6; 9 x > , , 4 , > > TOV GTpOGWTOAYUTTMS xplvovTx TOGoWmoANbia obx got. TAP KOTO ‘ > 5 YY yv 4LTK TO SXAGTOY SCVOY This thought is suggestive in this connection, yet it is reproduced Rom. 2; 6, 44; Col. 3 ; 25, Jas. 2; 4 and Acts. 10 ; 34.) (Sceu@ieeues sion on Romans Ex. 11. (38) I Pt. 1; 18 Eph. 4; 17 &% Tig patateg buav avaotpoons ev patooTHTL ToD voog adTmV (39) LSPts le Eph. 1; 7 shuteodyce ... (19) wwlw atuac. gv @ Eyouey THY arokUTOMOW Bie .. . Xptotov ToD atyatos attoD Examples 37 and 38 show Pauline influence, though the term “redeem ”’ is considerably weakened. The thought is too common with Paul to be sure of dependence here. See Gal. Ex. 6 and I Cor. 1 Ee ea Wf ie ee EE EE eee First Epistle of Peter. 453 (40) I Pt. 1; 20 Eph. 1; 10 guvepmdevea og 38 an goydvov tTHv ... T0U TAnpwU.aTOS TOV KaLOGV yoovo A common view. (41) I Pt. 2; 1 Eph. 4; 25 ymodéucvor obv micav xaxtiav xa Sto anoépevor TO (yeddoe ole TovTX Sodrov xal Onoxprow xo niow 7 untae nou Gupdg nat doyy pdovous nal mhons natadadtac no xpavyy xat Bhaconuta xpd-How ao Sp.oy eee This is a very suggestive parallel, yet the thought is common in the Pauline Epistles. Cf. Rom. 13 ; 12 and Col. 3; 8. See also Beb,. 12:1, and Jas. 4; 21. (42) I Pt. 2; 9 Eph, 2; 14 c ~ Sr , > ‘ ¢ 4, By > f a x \ Dpetic de yevoc éxAextov Pacthctov 6 nothoug TH auooTsoM Ev nal TO lep&teua EOvoc, cXytov, Ande sig peodtotyov tod wpayp.od AUous... neoinotnow See Ex. 27 and Rom. Ex. 55. (43) I Pt. 3; 15 Eph. 3; 17 nplov dt cov Xototov ayikoate xatOoLjou. tov Xototov Sie THC Ev Talc nacdtaig Suey Tiotems év tole xapdtarg Suov év ayary It does not seem probable that this Isaianic passage was suggested to our author by Eph. 3 ; 17. (44) Pt 4210 Eph. 4; 7 g om 2s faim VA 2 Y Caaey: > /C ae eee - ek exnotoc xxdme ehaBev yaproun exkote Huov edo0ny tH yaprg xaTH THC Bwge de to¥ Xorotod The idea of the distribution of spiritual gifts according to the ability to receive is common in the letters of Paul. (45) ier. 411 Kph. 3; 21 Sosdletar 6 Ocde Sid’ Iyood Xorotod 9 ads H Sota av XprovsH “Inood The glorification of God through Christ is common in the later literature. 454 Ova Delmer Foster The following table will show the sequence of the foregoing parallels. I *Peter Ephesians I Peter Ephesians (a: Re et | 2;46 =2545-2 Lo Ae ae ee 2:9 = (ier fDi es 2.29 =" Jee PD ae 2;9b a A nD eae ete eee Ia | = Zee Te ely ae Oe AS ==" ees Ds ee ees Bi Al =» Syeee (URE sammy on: LES BF: =» 5a Meio ret — ta Igoe Be eel = | aeons ior pel Oy 3: 8 = Aa 4 pie Af mane Ps RS: ee els = een doe at ale SioPhallcs ==) 2 a Fe een ci 22 Baa ee, = ae 4 AOD 3 ara a0 =" Se ot LOL ter 3; 21—22 = 12230228 Pelee => i sto ae Les 2D x 08s = 2s ie" 6S Mees 0) = | (ae 12S! a A ee, me fe | = ee AEs Ae an hacer Si eeet5 ==, 7 ore IIR. Oe Mier a ges Bs FTG cha sO. 9 = (6 1s 200 eee ss prs be ee Cpl! {pie ra en) Sy eed kA ==. Giga Dis Ate oc elie eerie SUMMARY Other points of likeness and similar combinations have been noted by such men as Chase, Holtzmann, Scharfe, Weiss, Monnier, Abbott, Hort, Westcott, Cone, etc., but these will be sufficient to show the real or apparent dependence of one author upon the other. Though no one reference may prove dependence conclusively the cumulative evidence of a succession of forty-five parallels, at lowest count, is indeed formidable. The thought and many of the expressions are the same in I Pt. 1 ; 1—7 and Eph. 1, even to verbal agreement. The fact that the parallels in I Pt. 1 ; 1—7 are all in the first chapter of Ephesians, and that, on the whole, they show progress in the Ephesian order almost precludes doubt at the very outset, as to the relationship between the Epistles. (For order see the above table.) The close similarity in the salutation and final greetings, the sequence of thought, which is obscured by analysis, and the gene- ral structure, to say nothing of similar Christology, go to show not ' (1) First Epistle of Peter. 455 only that the writers were of the same school of thought but also that one was actually depending upon the other. Instances were noted in which the thought of our Epistle shows a development of the thought of Ephesians, while the latter, at many points, appeared to be the more original and logical. There are other considerations, not coming under the scope of this paper, which confirm the results of the foregoing study. Practically all scholars agree that there is here a clear case of dependence. Von Soden is undecided on which side it should be reckoned. Hilgenfeld, B. Weiss and Kiihl contend for the priority of I Peter, but the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports its dependence upon Ephesians. Abbot concludes that “the parallels are so numerous that the Epistles may almost be compared throughout.” (I. I. C. on Eph. xxiv.) In harmony with this observation Monnier remarks : L’épitre a été rédigée en toute liberté d’esprit par un écrivain qui connaissait parfaitement les Ephésiens, et en reproduisait instinctivement les expressions essentielles. (Com. p. 261.) Dr. Hort thinks that “ the connection, though close, does not lie on the surface, and that the question must be settled by identities of thought and similarities of structure rather than by identities of phrase.” (Epis. of I Pt. p. 5.) Professor Ropes sees such a close similarity that he is ready to say “‘ there is here a closer parallel to Paul’s thought than some of the Epistles which bear Paul’s own name.”’ (Apos. Age, p. 243 f.) Seufert stands almost alone in ascribing to the two Epistles the same author, of course neither Pau] nor Peter. Numerous other authorities might be cited, but the general con- sensus of opinion is that “the acquaintance of our author with the Epistle to the Ephesians is especially evident.” (Purves’ “ Chris- tianity in the Apos. Age,” p. 280.) COLOSSIANS D d FE Pty h:-4 Col. 1; 5 4 Z ‘ x > , c ~ HAnpovojsioey ves TeTIeHEvyy év tyy ednida Thy aroxewévyv uplv ~~ > ~ ~ ~ obpavoic sig unde év Tig avoavatc “ The thought of the ‘hope’, i. e., the blessing hoped for, being already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps in I Tim. 6 ; 19, but is clearly put in I Pt. 1; 4. In (2) (3) (4) 6) 456 Ova Delmer Foster, substance it is involved in Phil. 3 ; 20, and, indeed, in Mat. 6 ; 20.’’ (Abbot I. C. C. on Col. p. 197). Cf. discussion on Galatians Par- allel 4. This is a close parallel, yet it is more probable that our author was influenced by Gal. 4 ; 7 or Eph. 1 ; 18 ; more likely the latter. I Pt. 1; 17 Col, 3; 25 Tov anpCowmoAnmTMs xptvovta 6 SE ADdindv xoptetta. 6 HOtxyoe natd To ExkoTov EpyoV no obn Eat. MooowmmoAndbia In both instances an impartial judgment is pronounced and the penalty is to be inflicted in accordance with the evil done. Cf. Rom. 2; 141, 42, 6, Eph. 6; 9b, Jas. 2°; 1; Acts 10 >34— nee discussion on Eph. 6 ; 9 = 1 Pt. 1; 17. The probabilities are that our author was following the lead of Ephesians here rather than Colossians. I Pt. 1; 20 Col. 1; 26 x TOGEYVWOUEVOU LEV TPO xaTAMOATC G- , TO UOTHELOY TO amoxexoUULU.EvOV and tay alovey... viv dt souv- x , Qz > > n0ou.00, Gavepmdévtog d& éx & jazov THY Yodvwv cowty . . See Eph. 3; 14, 1; 4 for closer parallel. bE Pt 221 Col. 3; 8 "AnoSéuevor ctv nilcav xantav xxl anddecde xal ducic te movTa, Onéxeiow xo obdvovg xa mkoag dpyyv, Supdv xaxtav Brnoonpiay, RATHAKALAC, aicyoohoyiav é& tod otdumroE bp.ay See Eph. 4 ; 22, 25, 21, etc. for equally close parallels. I Pt. 2; 18 Col. 8; 22 ¢c >) , c , 5 X\ ¢ nr oo r a = — iA =, ot oixéta. Srotacoduevor év mavtl ot SodAcr, Onaxovets naTH ToVTO 060m ctotg SeonoTarg TOIG . . xUpLOLS Cf. Ephsb% 5 I Pt. 3:1 Col. 3; 18 ~ , ~ > ~ ig ~ Wz yuvolines Snotacodusvan tog tStowg yuvotinec HmotkaceoUEs TOIS tdtotE avdouow avdSeaou See Eph. 5 ; 22, which also agrees verbally. First Epistle of Peter. (2) I Pt. 3; 7 ot d&vdoec Deveotecw QMOVEN.OVTES GUVOLKODYTES 2. . OS KO- oxeve. TH ‘yuvarneto ‘ ‘ TULhY Se Eph. 5°; 25. (8) PPh oe Té 38 céhog ma&vtes bu.dopoVveC, supnadeic, OuAddehoot, eVoTAYyvoL, THTELWOOPOVES Cf. Eph. 4; 32. (9) I Pt. 8; 18 Gavatwbete wiv oxpxi. . Col, 3; 19 dyandve tae yuvolinns TOS KUTHS ob ay vdpec, no un Txpatvesds Col. 3; 12 évddouotes . .. om Ady yva olnciey.ad LONCTOTHTA, TATELVOOPOGUVYY, ToOD )- wyta paxpoduutayv . . Col. 1; 22 VUVL AROKATHAAAEEY Ev TH TUUL.OTE Tig caonds adTOD Ste tod Savarov This thought is common in the Pauline Epistles. (10) I Pt. 3; 22 6¢ dotw av Sekt% Ocod sig ovpavov mopev ele I Pt. 3; 22b ~~ brotayévtwmy att ayyérAwv xat (11) Bovey xat Suvauswv Col. 3; 1 6 Xowstég gotw av dete tod cod nad fuevoc Col. 2; 10, 1; 16 Cc x i“ > ~~ ‘ bh H xeoahn muons apyTc xal égov- év abt extiodyn te naveo, ry 2 —ny, AA ye ae > Tx &v TOIG OUPAVOIC ... Elte Uodvot, oie A mes o ¥, 2 4 4 - ETE KUPLOTY TES, Elts Apyat, sLTE bh a , SZOUGLAL With the last two parallels cf. Rom. 8 ; 34, 6; 2, 7, and Eph. 4; 20—22, for better contexts. (12) I Pt. 4;7 , Oe F ‘ , i = > GMOPOVYGatE obv zat vybate sic TOOGEvy as GiokRom. 12; 12, BS ~ Th TReocsuyy, TOOKXAOTEOSLTE, YOY)- ' v VOOODYTEC (oeouvTsc Mt. 26; 41, Lk. 243.34; I Thes. 5-6; £7, etc: On the whole this reference shows no more similarities to I Peter than do some of the others mentioned. 458 Ora Delmer Foster, (13) T iPt.'4 508 Col. 3; 14 TOO Ta&vTWV THY sig ExUTODS Aya- ert my extev, EyovTes This parallel is made more important by the possible reference to Col. 4; 2in I Pt. 4; 7. Yet we have reasons to think I Peter is borrowing, through this section, quite freely from Rom. 12. mio. d& vobtoig Thy cyamnyy (14) de einige ily Col) Avan Bie “rAovaved suiv vod morod Tuymds, 6 ayannzde &deApog nat &dekpod .. . Evpadha MOTOS... Ov Exe This may be an accidental parallel, yet it is suggestive. The following table will show that I Peter is following Ephesians rather than Colossians. I Peter Ephesians Colossians I Peter Ephesians Colossians Acres) fie der 2; 46 2; 18—22 “ar Ate Berg 1°44 ie A S82, ee pease) eet sae 1 ers 2: 9b Ber face? 15) y Agee TL Dees {= 2 Wee pApewils: O55 3 32s 128) 1-3 a0. A Be 324s dee aed | 3556 5 22 : es series Ko} Bi SD 3°49 1 lear; eZ) Hoes 432 pi pee ibe aks} Lees ape aS ee tl cee feds 32A8 25, 45 1; 22 sae ARPA See hs) 4:9 1 MOMS co sir 3° 20 DG 113 et4 3; 24—22 4-20-22 3:1. 2G Ae Ge 8 ae Ae 4 2-3 2 Des [1; 16 VATS AGES 3 20 ae 0) 4k {PASM A ead Ags Us| 3 ot 1ISey eles ae) 5 2A "20. Seite eee 5 18. 9. iOinael i Bee AO goes Per 8) See |e 632 | a eae | 120 Spey aL 63,23 S| Pipe) Wi) leyno u Ie eae It appears from this table that all the thought, which we find in Colossians, that is paralleled in I Peter, is to be found also in Ephe- sians. On the other hand, there are many parallels in Ephesians that are not to be duplicated in Colossians. We have, therefore, on evidence that our author knew Colossians. First Epistle of Peter. 459 PHILEMON D No one can determine with certainty from the Epistles themselves whether our author did or did not know Philemon, but that he made no use of it is obvious. PHILIPPIANS D d (1) I Pt. 2; 5 Phil. 4; 18 ? ‘ oO , > iss is , > , > ‘ ~ (- ~ TEVA TLLAS WUOLKS CUTOOCC SKTOUCS WDUGLKY OEXTHY, SULVEOTOV Tw yea) 7H Och . Though the thought is much the same, there is a closer parallel miokam. «12 ;- 1. 2) I Pt. 3;'8 Phil. 3; 16 <0 de tEhOEg T&VTEG OULOMpOVES TO AUTO OpOVElV (8) I Pt. 4; 7 Phil. 4; 5 Ee oS fh. cS) ¥ 5 6 KG Pn mavtwy Of TO TEAOS HYYiKEv 0 Kuptog syyus See Rom. 13 ; 11, 12, which is in a more favorable context. (4) I Pt. 4; 9 Phil. 2; 14 OtAGEevor cic KAAVAoUE avev yoy- TRkvtx motets ywpls yoyyuopdy yuou.cd (5) I Pt. 4; 13 Phil. 3; 10 nowoveite Tic TOD Xototod naOy- xowwviav tov nabyudrtov advod WLKoLY Verbally, no other passage is such an exact parallel. But the idea of sharing and participating in the sufferings of Christ is very common feeeetaul Cf. Rom. 8; 17, 18, II Cor.4; 7, 44; 40, Col. 1; 24. This similarity suggests dependence but the context is not in its favor. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 31 January, 1913, — “I SS (8) (9) (1) 460 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 5; 3 Phil. 3; 17 TOmOL yivouever TOD Tow.viou nadwg éyete tUrov hudic Cf. If Thes; 3.2 OF iin. 41a ee I Pt. 5; 5 Phil. 2; 3 aMHhGG Thy Tanswowpootvny By- pndsv xaTe wi T xevodosiny, noN.BOcns0s ANAK TI tamewoopoctvyn &AHAOUS Hyovpevor bmepéyovtag sautév. See Rom. 12; 10 for better context and equally close wording. Cf. also. Eph, 53-24% PP t 513 Phil. 4; 22 "Aondéletoa budic fh... dondlovta. bude mé&vees of cytor.. - I Pt. 5; 14 Phil, 4-721 ai donacucds &AAHAOUS év OLAhat. kondoucde nivta Kyiov... ayamne The last two parallels are common in the Pauline Epistles. The foregoing study makes it clear that we have no real evidence that I Peter in any way rests upon Philippians. EMO WEB. D d E.Pt 3573 Lim 22reo @Y soT7M oh 6 2émbev spthoniic THE yuvolinag év xaTAHOTOAT KOo- ~ ToLyay xo meoihéceme yovotwv 7 plo peta aidode xal omopoctvys, BvSUGEMS WATLMV xGOU.06 ROGUELY EXUTHS, pn év Theypaow, evr, | pacyapizate, T tact Oud) TOAUTEAEL Although this is suggestive it need not presuppose dependence, for exhortations to plainness seem to have been common in the early church. ieee i Tims 28 BAN & xpuntog tig napdtac dv- GAN (6 mpémer yovaneiv enoyyed- , ei > Downo¢ Ropévatg Deoogirav) Se Epywv a- yada The wording is not close enough to show dependence, Bie: the antithesis leads one to suspect it. ———————eee————ee First Epistle of Peter. 461 (3) I Pt.8 574 I Tim. 2; 2 Hovytov hovytov This word appears only in these references in all the N. T. and suggests dependence, yet the context does not seem favorable. (4) P Pt.3%)9 I. Tim. 5; 14 Aowdootac howdoptac Although this word also appears only in these two places in the N. T., it seems to have been accidentally so employed. (5) EPs. 22211 I fim. 6+ 16 @ gotiv fh S6Ea xa 7d xprvo¢g ele & Th nol upwtog ateviov’ duty Tode aldvac THY aldvoyv, ayy This thought is too common in the Pauline literature to afford an argument for dependence. (6) PaPt. 4.5 15 Totims be 13 (uy... maoyéTm) Ho... HAotpLO- meptepyduevan tae olxtac, O08 Ldvov ¢ dE doyat, KAAK nal oAdaoor nat Teptepyor ETMLOXOTO I Timothy refers to “ tattling and meddlesome women,” whereas I Peter alludes to fanatical zealots inspired either by religious or civil motives. ‘‘Erst unter K. Trajanus finden wir den &))ozpu0- extoxormoc oder delator, den Denuncianten als Criminalverbrecher.”’ (Hilgenfeld’s Einl. p. 360.) It seems clear that I Timothy alludes to an individual weakness while our author had in mind a more serious offense. (7) I Pt. 5; 2 Ff Tim: 33°38 unde aloyponepdéic aAAX mpoOUpwg (Emtoxomov) .. . aloypoxepdi, 3; 8, un aloyponeodetc This qualification seems to have been a general requirement of church officials, especially of bishops. (8) PE 5.3 I Tim. 4; 12 TUTOL Yivousvot TOU ToLviou sUmog ‘yivou tay moto The thought is similar, yet compare Phil. 3; 17 and II Thes. 3; 9. (9) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 462 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 5; 10 I Tim. 6; 12 6 narécag vp.dic cig yy alwviov sémtdaod tic alwviou Cmije cig Hv auto ddcav EXDHINS Both clauses were written in view of trials to be endured. Timothy is to fight manfully in the moral conflict “ whereunto he is called,” whereas the Christians of Asia Minor are “ to receive the glory of their calling ’’ after enduring “ fiery trials.” There is, therefore, no necessary connection here. Other minor points of similarity might be given, e. g. I Pt. 1 ; 2 =I1Tim.4;2,1;16=3 516,1;20=4; 22313 ere = 3; 16,4;9=5; 10, etc., but they do not make dependence probable. From the foregoing data we have no reason to believe that one author knew the work of the other. It TIMOTHY D d I Pt. 4; 5 II Tim. 4; 1 q > , ~ 4 > ~ 7 ~ ~ , ot anoddcovcr AOYov TH Etotums Inood Xprotod cod péedrdovtos notvovtr Cévtag xa vexpods notvery Cavtag xa vexoods I Pt. 4; 7 II Tim. 4; 5 wybate sig moocevy ac vijoe év n&or I Pt. 4; 11 II Tim. 4; 18 en > ‘ c ve ‘ i >) noe c I< > ‘ Ja n~ @ gotiv Hh SOga xa xpatog sig @ H SOgx sic todE aldvag TOV TOdS alavac THY aldvwv dKuyy aLOvVOV. AWAY > yee | Ly it (Pin 429 DT Tim dea , S 5 , ~ > , ~ , ob m&oyovtes xaTa TO SEAnx cod St Fv aitiav xal taba mAoYw, ~ ~ s > > cod moth uctiocvy mapatibéchw- ah oun smatoydvouot.. . németo- Gay Tag buyac won Ot. Suvatég gott Thy Topol Ovany pov pudcéor I Pt. 5; 4 1 ime asS ~ X > s ~ , ~ > nopietobs tov auaotvtivov Tig ardxertar por 6 tig Sixcoodvys Sens aTéOKvoV OTEDAVOS The points of contact between these Epistles are not of such a character, nor are they of sufficient number, to make dependence | First Epistle of Peter. 463 probable. Obviously neither author was influenced by the other to any appreciable extent. (Cf. Holtzmann’s Commentar zum N. T. mr. p. 110.) TITUS C—D d (1) I Pt.1;3 Tit. 3:5 ¢ 6) ‘ A \ > ~ Y > ‘ \ > ~~ VW Vv ¢ ~ O XATAH TO TOAD KUTOV SACO 0¢ avVK- XATAH TOV AUTOV SAEOV EGQWOEV |V-S , ¢€ ~ YEWNGAS Ty.dic Titus refers to “salvation” per se, whereas I Peter alludes to a “new birth,” a new creation. (2) Pps i. % Tit. 2; 13 , > aS re ~ 3 , ~ - > ~ &v anoxadiver Incod Xerotot émroaverav tig Sdéys . . . Inood Xoworov ‘ This thought is too common to afford any evidence for dependence. Meco. «, Ll Fim. :4; 48, Heb: 9; 2, I Jn: 3; 2) etc. (3) Pt. 1; 20 Pit bs 2e3 MEGS YVOSLEVAY | Usy TOO XO Tapontc hy émnyystAato 6 aupevdiig Ocd¢ xOop.ov, oavepwhévtoc 38 gx ao- 70d ypdvov alwviwy, go savéowos SE Yar “ey yobverv RALOOLC tStore Tov hoyov “xOTOD The phrasing is closer than the thought of the passage. (4) I Pt. 2; 9 tame B| ade sic meoixotnow Aaov TEectovow ... Our author probably borrowed zegizctnow from the LXX. Cf. Psod..19; 5 (5) E Pt. 2; 12 Tit. 2; 8 = c ~ > ~ vO , € ~ > s a c “Hy avactpoory Sumy év toig 20- Adyov Sytij, AKATAYVMOTOV, tva 6 veo eyovtes xadyv, iva gv @ 8€ evavting avrpany, uydev zyov ~ {say ACS ~ ‘ KA WN , ; ~ KATAhAaAGDGLY UUBY MS xaXKOTOLBY TECl undy Agyetv oadrov 2; 7 , eX TOV xahGY Eoywv, ExonTeovtes GEKUTOV = peyGu.evog TUTOV xxiv Sogdomer tov Mcdy, . 17 ee Evo . yap ayadorotveac Cf. 3; 16 This suggests dependence, yet our author more probably used Rom. 12; 14, 17 here. Cf. also II Cor. 8; 24, Phil. 2; 45, etc. (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 464 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 2; 13 Tit. 3; 1 unotaynte méoy avOownivyn xvicet Unouluvnoxe abdtod, Rpyoiic xa Sie tov xUptov’ site Baotdet ... eouctare dnotkoceodon rerbapyety, site Hyepoow... moog Tv Epyov ayabdov Etotuoug SLVaL See Rom. 13 ; 1 for equally close thought and better context I Pt. 2; 13 Tit. 2; 9 t TO unxéte avoourwy émbuutare SotrAove (Dtore Seondcare vnoTHo- t Nd \ > > > > EMA Sedhore G See Eph. 6 ;5. It is important, however, to note here the possible reference sto 1 *Pt 2 12 init 2 I Pt. 3; 1 Tit. 2; 5 ~ ¢ ~ >/ i ~ wa Z Yyuvalnes umotaoobusva, Tols (Store umotaccouévag tOlg TSloug avOodou avdeaow An equally tlose parallel is seen in Eph. 5 ; 22, yet the sequence here is suggestive. [Pt 3.324 Tit. 2; 3 y > ye > > , > , > @v Eotw ody 6 EEmbev... aX 6 rpoecPitIdag waattms Ev xaTKOTY- KOUNTOSE THS xapdiac avOownog... part lepompemcic.. . Ci dims 2:9 and -Rom: 2729: I Pt. 3; 21 Tit. 3; 5 xs ~ > 70 P) I> ‘ ~ >A dteowlycav St BSatog 6 nat bude Eomoev Hu.dic, Suk Aoutpod maduyye- y s ae ~ we (2 pe AVTLTUTROVY VUY OWCEL par vLOU roy AQ The thought is much the same though the wording is very dif- ferent. Eph. 5 ; 26 is also a close parallel. The context is more in harmony with Romans and Ephesians, yet parallels 1, 6, and 12 suggest dependence. 4 First Epistle of Peter. 465 (1) I Pt. 4; 2 Tit. 2; 12 ete 7d pyxécr AvSodzmv embupi- nadelovox tudic, la dpvnodpevor mie, AX Sedhuacr Oeod cov éxi- chy aoéfermv xo tHe NOCWLAAS u ‘ ‘ Rowmov 2v cxcxt Briica yodvoy embuutac, smopdvis nat Sixalwc 5 = Se ries as Ba um suseBGc Chomysey év TH viv This thought may be paralleled in other Pauline Epistles, yet the sequence here is suggestive. Cf. Exs. 2, 4, 6, and 12, (12) I Pt. 4; 3 Tit. 3: 3 a =r AT ner 4 - ae) he g nye = Ar hs y+ -T- ary A. “nr! eentoe yko hulv 6 nagedydudGc Tysev yao TOTS na Tysie avorjror SLSwMAGARTOLALE amenDcic KDR AOS eae to 0 5 = 24. Rom: 43:5) 13, Eph. 2. 5-2,.3. (13) E Pt. 5; 2 it, td yydt aicypoxesdHc éxioxonov ... Ly) aloypoxepdf . - - ¢ ~ , , atcypod xépdouc ycotv (14) LOS 2 a a J Tit. 2; 7 sUmot Yivousve: co zoviou GEKuTOV TACEY~GNsvOs TITOV XAG Zoyov “hy, © Though similar exhortations occur elsewhere, %x)®v Egywv re- minds one of our author’s emphasis on “ good works.”’ Holtzmann sees a parallel between I Pt. 1 ; 3—5 and Tit. 3 ; 4—7, (Handcommentar III, p. 110). Many other minor likenesses exist, but they are, in the main, such as are common in the Pauline lite- rature. Obviously, these parallels afford but little evidence for literary dependence, since many of those given above, however close, are not peculiar to these Epistles. The general structure of Titus, as Holtzmann notes, is more suggestive than the separate passages. But this cannot be conclusive,. for it too has much in commom with other Epistles upon which we have more reason to suppose our Epistle depends. The underscored text of I PETER on the following pages will show at a glance the probable influence of the Pauline Epistles upon our Epistle. ide) 12 13 466 Ova Delmer Foster, The dotted line (+--+ ) shows the points of contact with Romans ; the black line (———) calls attention to the parallels with Ephesians ; the broken line (--=-=- ) represents all the other points of contact between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles (not found in Romans or Ephesians). The lines in italic show the possible influence of Hebrews upon iPerer MARKED TEXT SHOWING POSSIBLE SOURCES HETPOX anéovodos “Inocd Xprotod sxdexcoic napemBipors Bixo- moods Il6vtov, Tadatinc, Kanmadoxtac, Actac not BiSuvine, nace ral o : 5 c = , TOOVVWMOLY (-)eo' TATCOC, EY AYLKOUM TVEVUMTOC CS yee | >? Se See eee eeeeeessersesseesseees ee c ‘ ‘ S$ URAKGYY XAL « 5 st x ~ , c ~~ By eae. ~ 7: ~ Neos xa TATYO xuotov huov Inood Xoprotov, ¢) Sea Se SA eet 2 6 auto) Eheog avayervijoas ywuac éic EAnida Cwoar OES ; — xl alarvroy zai ducoayroy, TeTHpnpsvny bv Gdouvols cic Uudic Toe ee. TC tha Re rane anaes acre 2 >. ae en év duvaue. WMeod woovgoupévouc Bie atotemo sic cwcyciav ésvotumy > ca , > a4 ~ "4% ” > ATOXAHAVO OUT év “x00 eoyaTH. EV w ayassaodse, Chiov GOtL & La ~ déov umydévrec Ev rrorzthows mergaomoic, tve ~ 7 3 ~ fowevou sumeOT] sig Exawvov nowt eee aca ee év aroxaoder ie Oo ITeot Hg ommnotag séeC¥ryouv Cc ow YU , uUdic yapITos TOOMNTEUOKVTES, gdHhov to gv nuvolg mvEvUa Bes , ‘ = \ , ‘ \ . Xolerov TeOMMOTVOOMEVOY Va Eg Xovovoy MAITMaATH zai Tes MELA < ~ Fen ~ ¢ ‘ ~ c a ‘ ig tavta dosac ois amexahvgdy ori ovy Eavtoic vuiv dE dryzovovy 2 i“ Cw ‘ ~ > A ¢ ~ avra, & viv avnyyédn vulv dik tov svayyedtcapévov vUdic mvetaTe > > TS) ra ~ ¥y ee e= * Ad uy U \EVTL dv io) oe Ciel Oo}: CNG WA . cyl amootahéve, ax ovpavod, sic & émdupotow ayyehor O“KUUAL Q ‘ > ¢ ~ Avs davalwotyevor tas boqdas Tig Stavolag opev, vhoovtes TeActwc, 23 a 24 3 ‘ae wm Oo qn 6 -I First Epistle of Peter. 467 Am «< ‘ ‘ , ¢ ~ o ‘ > ‘ UU.@yv embup.tocec, ONKa nate TOV narhécavTn YAS AY LOV HAL OHUTOL ~ s 7 a ieyuor Ev Teo evaorgogy, yevy dice, véyounTat [ee] Aytor Puceamastieraeas \ 7 Ssh giagieb ier eins cor paca gious ve-u7 Socots, Oc sym aytoc. xo el natépm emmnheiode tov dmpocwno- MirTws xoivov7x xat&e <0 Exkovov Epyov, €v YoRw tov ris agoixtas SS See SS ; = a C 2, LUGY Yoovoy avacteagyre cidéveq Gt. 0b gdaoToic, aoyupio 7 yovot, Ehvrgwdyve ex THS UT olae Sy.dv AVASTPOOTS TATPOTAPADdOTOD, c “ r ~ Cae) TLL UUate we @uvon CUMMOV zai caomihov Xovorov. - ‘ \ _~ , - ‘ > ee ouaoy ev 700 zxaLaPOLTS xOOMoLv, ParéowIEvros O& &7t =-—---------------- Ss SU eSS Tene LE ; : EOYCTOV coy ygove ée vas sods St autOD mortod Be Q SATAN AVAYEVEWNUEVOL obn & OROEKS OVAOT 6 “AAG Bi x x lana > os c ¥Y CO apa ‘ Kal Ton Soda adtis we avo ydpTov ‘ x Cn i , , > \ I~ 27 > ‘ C~ VO OF ONU.% Kuetov U.SVEL ElLg¢ TOV ALWVK. TOUTO & cottly TO OY) U.% 5 > a Qs > Cans >; O27 > ee A, ‘ TO sUayYyeAiavey El¢ UK. AmOvEUEVOL OVY TaOAY xaxLaY xO 4 yy 7A ‘ c , Fae a Peni ed he ais = ee ey es a TAVTAH OOAGY “AL UTOXCLOLY naL oS¢ BVOUG X%AL TACKS RHATHAMALAC, wC aotlyevy yee Porgy v0 hoytxov adosov yeda _ Emit odour, Wa Ev HIT adenDce cle cwtypinv, ef Eyevouode Ore YonoroS 6 xveLOE. — ‘ ra] eat sales , = \/7Q Fu = c A > ee a fens ‘ >) > mPOS OV TEOGECyOVEvOL, Aov Cyt, xd avoowWTOY UEv anodedoxniUKo- , = ‘ SS. Byass > \ >, \ > x c 7/0 pévoy mapa d& Wet exdcxtOv Evetwov nal adtol me Aton Céveec paedonercde olxos TEVevucTIxOS sig teokteuULX SON, aveveyzau Ny ie aie ERE BER Cae Dikas oy ae ~ WS a a = Se mvEvuatizas Svotac ev7oocdéexvove Mea dia “Inoov Xovorotv: 8.67 TMEpleyet év yon > ‘ 40 > ~ Vv [Sod ciSyur év Limv AiSov éxdexcvov axpoywviatov Evtwrov, creneesneetnneifaeteneesn ree a a nO 6 ToTEvMv és AUTH OD UN no TooyuvOr¥. —....: venttneeneeenese wrterennbetae stecreehne se Ouiv obv H tiwy tol¢ moTeJouotw amortotiow St Aides Ov anedoxinacav 5 ? , , at cixodouctvess abcoc syevyOn cic xsoadty ywving non doc TOOGKOU.- 468 Ova Delmer Foster, as XOL TéETON ONAVSK AOD’ OL TOOOKOTTOVOW 76) 1X) o anewWodvtes \ iY jueic dz yévog exdexzév, Bacidevoy igourevma, »” ‘ - ‘ , c ‘ ‘ Le Edvocs uywov, Laos &és MEQUTTOLNOWV, OMS vag doEtuC &SayyEetAnvE ~ > , c ~ \ 7 > OQ ‘ ~ 10 tov &% oxotOUG bude xahEouvtog cl¢ To Dauy.coTOv aoTOD osc OF mote OD Ande viv SE Ando Wend, of odx HAenpévor vOv 38 edendévees. > , , 11 ee paces Hg maoolzove xa mreagenedieovs i anéyes oon 12 ae by.oy zy soig eOveow syovteg uxdAyy, tva, gv @ nathan 13 Smepéyoven, 14 xanxoTOL@y LT TEVOVTAL KKTH hadow Sudy ws HOKOTOLEY, éx tTOv xahdv coywv enontevovtes S0zKowO! X > tov edv év ea ETLOKOTTS. > x , yv y\ ~ “Yrordeyyte avoowntvy xcicss dik tov xdoiov’ sive Baordel we c , a a c > ~ Ws 3 abtod meumousvois sig en dtnory =nlayy* A , =a 4)- yy omoL@y' «(Ott OUTME goTly TO DEAnua TO ~~ 15 cod, ayadonowtvras oucty thy cHv agodvey avooummv ayvwctav') mc shedOeat, KO UN ws smixcuuun BYOVTES | Tis nantag thy sdevdeptav, 16 OK hg Ocod SodAa.. né&vtas twhouts, thy AdeAodtTyTA Kyantre, 17 tov Sedv woBeiods, tov Bacthéa twats. Ot oixérou OnoTKooOU.sval év Prrrreer irr) wneeeeeee ales eee eee e cece rece nsneeeeesesaseneeeeesseseeeneeeeeeEee oo eerear cece eercccoce ‘ ~ > , 4 ~~ > ~ ‘ 18 zayot Poh colic Seonécaic, 00 udvov coIg ayadoic xa éemtetxéow BOI Ko TOS oxoMets. toto yaxo yaoug st Sie ouvveldyoLy @eod | \ er etcecanscceco eeneeenee eeeeeee wee Saenrnene a NY va Gah lad ny SA ya rest A—hy —o-r 19 UO ; cee TS UNAS TAG ON v LOE TOLOV Y¥%e KXKEOS Sb KU.A0 TAVOVTES Ray area: Sa ae pe eee . 290 X%*a XOMKOULOU.EVOL UMOU.SVELTE a? Hh AV APG VOLOUVTSE XKOL TAGYOV ves . vy =e ayy s BVA > ~ \ ” ‘ Onopevelte, toUTo yaoug nape Wes. cig toto yxo exAnOyte, ore xOL 21 Xovorog Enadev vireo vVU@Y, viv - c \ TOMMIUGVOV VITOYORUMOY te émanodovdyjonte tols tyveow xdTOD 0S cucaotiay obz E7oinoev add= CEOy. i , ~ 4 y) 22 sdoédn Bdhog év TH otduat. adtoB ac howogovmuevos ove caycédot- 25 wee , > s> S. ~ ae Ooger, vécywv ob% fnether, napedidov SE TH xptvoveTr Sixatmc? oc \ 2 , 2 \ , 2 ~ ‘ 4 24 Tac aucnoriac io QUTOS GVnVvE HEV ey T@ owuante avrov am ZO EbAov, tva totic cuccotions ATOvevalrevor mi Sixaoodvy Chowpev’ Ov eee eee EERO EER ESSERE EERE EEE ESHER RETESET ESE EERE REESE ESSER SEES SEES ESESSEESEESSESESES SS BESEEE ESS sen eeeenee 25 tH porom idOyte. Fre yao we nodBata TAavebpevor, aAAX meotpa- = le pT) ~ \ , , ~ ~ c ~ c onze viv éxt tov momméva xa Emioxomtoy Tov Wvzayv vw. Ov.stme ~ la > > s vo Q ~ ~ III Yuvoitnes unotacoéucvan toi tSlorg &vbocow, tva st cweo amewdotow TH 2 hoy Sie tiie THv yuvoundiv dvactooeTs aver AOyou xeodnTHoovta First Epistle of Peter. 469 > , ‘ 5 2c ‘ ¢ ~ Y Vv c EROTTEVGAVTES THY SV Gg 00 » ayy ry OVAG v TeO9 NY UU.WY. WY COTW GO bY, 0) = — ‘ ——— ee ee ye Oo > - ~ Pe o vem ey SCWMUVEYV CUTAN OXNS TPL) @v XO Teowdéo iO Ta [proto t BvOUCEE 1.x OW) SEBS SSS US HE See ee eee —— ee ee eee ae ee ee ee ee ee ee XOOU.06, HAR 6& xpumTd¢ THiS x2ESLAC avOommog ev tH KODKOTH TOD rh or alo Ge iesaacon Rebs Bains 03 Oecd nodutedéc. 6 obtm> yao cote nal ai Ayr yuvoilnec at EAniZouoa cic Oedv SXOCU.OUV BautaKc, UnoTacoduevar TOs WDiorg avdecow, wo Lapoa omixovev zo "ABoudu, xUorov advov yadoton fie & ye aS RS ayabonovotica: 7 xoat pn goCoduevar pydeulav mrdyow. Ot avdpec Opolwe cuvormodvtes XUTHK YvGow, ws cern ouster TH Yuvainsty arovéwovtes TMH, 8 OS xaL sepedeioaratias yaoutos swi5, cig TO ph byxdmtecdar tac 9 mpoceuyde vp. a RY TE corhoyyyor, canswagooves, i) anobidevrec xandy duel named fi Rerdooiay “Bye otdoping 7 ToUveLy tov 88 sdAoyotveec, 6c. ig tolizo 10 11 12 18 exanoyte iva evdsoylav hy 001 ‘oMNante. € DS , 6 yao Sédwv Coty ayantv nou tdelv Huzoas ayabdac UGkTH THY YA@oouv and xaxod nal yetdy to py AwA 5 5 if »s > ‘ nn X s > , SxnxAaTo SE ATO nAKOD xAL TOLY OATH ayaddv, Syryoare e/07) yy xl dtmSaro QUeny. SEO , Da rN Out GodaAuol ae U 6m dSixatouc 2 beat 2; elle oy a” 2 ¢ vA ~ oO > > c Q XALKZOGWOV VWKS say cod ayadod Cydwrot yévnos; aAX st em “os opce ions Scene Se i a ae Ae Oi i ehaechceat Gea tc “NL Taoyoiws Sie Srceoatvay, pander. tov Ss odPov adctHv py, f2 yy Qy , ‘ Q 7 ‘ G ~~ GopynOijcs pyds tapaySyjcte, xdotov S& tov Xoratov ayitoats av tolic > i Saens > > 5 ~ ~ napolaLS Up.GVv, ETOWLOL Kel mPdG Amohoyinvy navel tH alvolver vpdic i , 4 os >] 74 aN SAA 4 ‘ 4H hoyov REpl TS Sy Uy ch TLOOS, AAG YoT% TOKUTNTOS KEL 90,300 ‘ ouveldjow Evovres ayadyy, Wa ev w xarahadeiode xaraioyovdaou’ Gc > c la c ~ ‘ > a. > > ~ Ot Emyjoeclovrés Kuwv tyy cyadyy Ev Xowwr@ evactoogyy. xosizzov yao ayaborootvtas st HAor 76 Oddyux vod Oecd, né&oyew H xaxao- Towodvtac. OTL xal Xoworoc craks EOL ceu@orL@y CETTE AVEY, Dinanoc unto ASdixov, Wa vues mMoocaydyy TH Ow, SavaTtwdels wsv 19 20) Oo 10 12 13 14 470 Ova Delmer Foster, ‘ Q A ay > an ‘ 4 ~ caput Cworomdelc St mvevuat év @ nat Tog év QUALKT, TVEUULLOW mooeudeic exhoutev. cscewbhioacty mote ce GREZeNGyero! Tecan mopevdele exvjougev, ameihonoty mote Gte anetedéyeto H tod Weod waxpodupin &v quo Noe xavaoxevalowerys xiBwrov eis iv cAtyor, cov Early Oxto ee wee bt BSatog. 0 ee need Xo Bite Os EOL EV deka @coi TLOQEVIEIS €1S OVOMYOY imoreyévcay wae e wee eesessssssessesesesesssenns Peeeee eee eee eee eee trees Xototod obv nabdvtoc a - ‘ id a > San ” c = c AUGER ‘ GAOL KOU UUELS THY KUTT) y \ ae OTL O09 TAUWY CATAL s TETAK = UTAL AU. aotton Sc; ~ ‘ 5 7 > ‘ c Oeod cov axthoumoy dv cuon Braca ypdvov. ve yao 6 mapeh quae EE Bl a ce ce ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ————< ee eee <<< eee ee ee ee ee ee = i ee z / ; 401)? =—\ anya VAIS ie meanness 2 [COVas TO ou VANS VOY SUYVWY KATELOY AGUA, RETRO SUE SYOUG s&V ‘ ¢ ~ >| > OVTAL v.71) (oy 0) UVTPEYOVT Wy YU. Sle THY aoTHY widyuow, Bhaconpodvtes of amodwoovew hoyov = ao On~ 4 4 5 oO a ; a Wve XPLGOL ev xAANTA aAvUOMMOUS GAPXL (edy TVEUULOTL. , ” >: ‘ , > Havioy 0& to véhos Hyyinev. Gogcovicate obv xo vibace sic ‘ % > 4 a ~ Vv TEVTOY Thy &lo EAVTOVS ayazHy ae aes Ove i La ~ , = s~ 7 vodvtes MS xahOL CinovoucL ToMtrys yaortos Weo icf va 000 Xototod, w Zon ij dosa- zai , ims ay, vO ZOQTOCS &ic rows aLo as TWY uiavey. aMyy. . . oe iy c ~ > = laos » ay A ‘ mr "Ayarntot, 7 CEVLEEOU'E TY) SV gully TUPWGEL TOOS TELOAGU.OV JULY i * - es wae = = - - + - = eee eee -= oe Cine .AA Or ~ ~ Yevopevy, @>¢ €évou uuiv GuyBatvovTes, KAAK xaUO nolvOvEelTs TOC TOD Tod Tad LcXoLW no ev TH amonaniber THs Sens ~ ~ > A 3 2 S rhe > ~ noo yuotize ayadMopevor. ee ovedilecte Ev Gvomate Xuron, ve x ~ , \ \ ~ ~ ~ Ses c¢ > paxcoror, Ott TO He B6Eno xo cd ToD Ocod mveduan 20 vse ava- ‘ , c a c “a ~ _ an =, od — A TAVETHL. UN YHO TIE vUdY mxoyéTW WE Yovede H nAETTNS TY nXKOMOLOS 16 17 is) Cor Sl) os (Je) First Epistle of Peter. 471 , He KAdotoremtoxonos. sl 38 HE Norotiavéc, wh aloynvécdw, Sota 5 ~ > , Q ¥v Cc BE tov Osdv av TH dvénaT. toTm. Gtr [6] xawode cod kpeacdar vd , , \ ~ ” ~ ~ > KOW.% «70 TOV oOlZoV TOV MEov zt , ~ n~ 5 “~ / 4 | c , wéhog ~ tay ¢ Qn ‘ , IigscGucécoug ctv av oully napannra 6 GUVTPSCLUTEDOS HAL U.hOTUS ’ cov TOU Nototod nabyuatwv, 6 xa cio weddodons anoxadintecdar S6Eno nxowwvde, mowdvate TO av duly Toiuvoy Tod Meod, yy avaynnotac GX Exovcioc, Uds aloypoxepdH¢ aAAX nmooddpwe, pd OS *XATAKU- plevovtes — 2) ‘ G ~ NI.Z, , c > > ¢ CUT MWELEL TTEOL vit@y. Nybace, ees os 0 AVTLOLKOS UU. 710% “7 , Y > , Sixorac MC AcMy MPVOL.EVOC TEOLTATEL Catv KATOTLELV" @ avttotyte X nn , \ OTEOEGl TY} TioteL, ELdOTES Ta AVIA TOV reedy ce roo Ti &v TM KEG. Dp.OY cdehgorntt EMITELELO ICL, ‘O 0& Ogos maors XCLQUEOS, 6 nahécag vudic sic Thy Ae abToD Sdéav év XototH, dAtyov mabdveae > sig TOvG aHOTOS HOT MOTLOEL, ornptéet, ovevwcst. aT TO xOaTO alavac auiy. Ave Svrcvaved vpiiv tod motod adeAgod, wo RoyiZouor, dv? ddiywr EYOaWa, TAPAKAAOY nol smaoTUEMY TAUTHY Elvan aAYDH yoow TOD ~ - Sue c ~ c ~ ‘ cod: sic fv othe. “Aonaleras vuds " &v BaGureve ouvexAcnty xa Mépxog 6 vlég pov. “Aomconode @hanhovs &v gdje ayarcys. 7), PA ¢ ~ ~ ~ Hioyvy vutv m&ow cote év Xouoté. Ova Delmer Foster, ne ~l i) DEPENDENCE OF I PETER UPON THE PAULINE EPISTLES (A) Supporting Considerations Zahn maintains, with others, that the churches addressed in I Pt. 1 ; 1 were not in existence long enough before Paul penned his letter to the Romans to permit of its dependence upon our Epistle. “ According to the testimony of his own letters and of Acts, Paul was the missionary who, in the sense of Rom. 15; 20, I Cor. 3; 10, II Cor. 10 ; 15, laid the foundations of Christianity in all this region ” (Zahn Int. II, p. 135). “ The supposition that Paul found in Eph- esus or Iconium Christian Churches already organised or even indi- vidual Christians, is contrary to the evidence of all existing sources of information.” (ibid.) ‘‘ Regarding the founding of the churches in Cappadocia, Pontus, and Bithynia, regions which Paul did not visit personally, we have no information. But it is probable that in these provinces . . . the gospel was preached somewhat later, but practically under the same conditions’ (ibid. p. 136). “‘ Nor were the provinces evangelized by persons from these districts, who heard the preaching at Pentecost. It must be remembered that these hear- ers were not pilgrims to the feast, who, after the feast, returned to the lands of their birth, but Jews from abroad residing in Jeru- salem’ (ibid. p. 138). Jiilicher also contends that “‘ Paul would not have begun his missionary work in Galatia and Asia if flourishing Christian commu- nities had already been founded there under the influence of Peter, as we should be obliged to assume from I Pt. 1 ; 2 ff.” (Int. p. 241). The same author argues that : “ (a) the independence asserted by Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians becomes a grievous delusion, since he would have owed not only the kernel of his Gospel but even | his epistolary style to Peter ; (b) he must, contrary to his principles, have worked upon a field over which Peter had prior rights ; (c) the history of the Apostolic times becomes an absolute riddle, for we should find Peter, who had just been publicly rebuked by Paul at Antioch (Gal. 2; 411 f.) for exercising a moral pressure towards Judaism upon Gentile Christians, writing immediately afterwards to Christian communities in a manner by which it might be supposed that such a thing as a written norm for the social conduct of mankind —the Law—did not exist : that he knew only of Christians, not of Jewish or Gentile Christians ; and (d) we should be forced to admit that Peter already possessed everything in Paul’s Hegenins which helped to form the common Christian consciousness.’ First Epistle of Peter. 473 McGiffert, as against Weiss, claims : ‘“‘ There is no other early Christian document, by another hand than Paul’s, whose Paulinism can begin to compare with that of I Peter. There can be no mista- king the fact that the author was a Paulinist, that his Gospel was the Gospel of Paul, and that his mind was saturated with Paul’s ideas ”’ (Apos. Age, p. 485). Salmon says: “ The Paulinism of Peter’s Epistle proceeds be- vond identity of doctrine, and is such as to show that Peter had read some of Paul’s letters. In particular the proofs of his acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans are so numerous and striking as to leave no doubt in my mind. There are isolated coincidences with other Pauline Epistles, but it is with the Epistle to the Ephesians that the affinity is closest. There are several] passages in Peter’s Epistle which so strongly remind us of passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that the simplest explanation cf their origin is that they were suggested to the writer by his know- ledge of Paul’s Epistles. But the resemblance is often merely in the thoughts, or in the general plan, without any exact reproduction of the words. We might conjecturally explain this difference by supposing the Epistle to the Romans to have been so long known to St. Peter that he had had time to become familiar with its language, while his acquaintance with the Ephesian Epistle was more recent.” For his argument see Introduction p. 553 f. Bennett and Addeney maintain that ‘“‘ Peter here appears as having learned more from Paul than from Christ. There are many allusions to some of Paul’s Epistles, certainly Romans and probably Ephesians’ (Bib. Int., p. 442). “ This similarity ’—between I Peter and the Pauline epistles— “certainly is traceable and is ofa kind to lead us to suppose an ac- quaintance on the writer’s part with several of our Pauline epistles.”’ Among the Pauline epistles which the Apostle Peter seems to have had in mind in writing his, were those to the Colossians and Ephesians.” Bleeles Int. II, p. 168 f. “One seeks in vain in this supposed work of Peter, that head of Jewish Christianity, for a definite distinctness such as is seen in the writings of Paul and John. There are not only to be found in it reminiscences of the Pauline Epistles, which the author without doubt read, but also the doctrine and phraseology are essentially Fauline.” (De Wette’s Einl. in das N. T. p.:381.) Reuss, after giving a list of parallels between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles notes that : “‘ The circumstance that two epistles 474 Ora Delmer Foster, only furnish these parallels shows that the coincidence is not acci- dental.” (Hist. of the Naw." p445)) Examples like the above might be multiplied indefinitely, but let these suffice. Almost any N. T. Introduction, or Commentary on I Peter, to which we may turn will contain some such view as these cited above. That is to say the overwhelming weight of scholarship supports the claim that I Peter depends upon the Pauline Epistles. In addition to the authorities cited above, we may also add the names of Bleek, Credner, Ewald, Harnack, Hug, Hofmann, Lechler, Mangold, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Schmiedel, Schmidt, Schott, Sieffert, Wellhausen, etc., in Germany ; Alford, Bennett, Davidson, Cook, Farrar, Plumptre, Ramsay, etc., in England ; Loisey, Monnier, etc., in France and Bacon, McGiffert, etc., in America. (B) Opposing Considerations. As has been noted at various points in the notes on the parallels, B. Weiss, in his “ Petrinische Lehrbegriff,’’ has said about all that can be said in favor of the dependence of Paul upon I Peter. He has gained so small a following that we need not discuss his position in detail. Practically all scholars to-day admit that I Peter contains a later stratum of thought than that found in the Pauline Epistles. This, of course, is accounted for by a very small minority, by the theory of a later redaction. (See P. Schmidt’s article on “ Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief,”’ in the “ Zeitschrift ftir wissen- schaftliche Theologie.”’ 1908, p. 24—52.) The above discussion assumes, on the authority of the greater number of scholars, the integrity of the Epistle. This may not be giving due consideration, either to the “ partition theory,” proposed by Schmidt, or to the claim of Pauline dependence, advocated by Weiss, yet, not only the evidence afforded by the 223 parallels given above, but also the consensus of scholastic opinion, seem to justify an apparently hasty disposition. Some, very naturally, question “ Petrine dependence,” who do not advocate the reverse relation, e. g., Briickner, Davidson, Eadie, Huther, Mayerhoff, Rauch, Ritschl, Steiger, etc. A few of the arguments, which are advanced against the view of Petrine depen- dence, may now be reviewed. It is urged that “I Peter has too large a vocabulary of words peculiar to itself to depend upon Paul.’’ This becomes of little con- sequence, when the possibility of the reverse relationship is sug- y ; First Epistle of Peter. 475 gested. It would be much more difficult to account for the abscence of all the 61 words, which are peculiar to I Peter, in all the Pauline Literature, on the supposition that Paul depends upon I Peter, than to suppose the dependence is on the side of our author. ce The objection is raised that “many of the Pauline expressions do not appear in the Epistle.’’ This, all will concede, but it is also important to note that the book does contain many of the funda- mental expressions of Paul. The following list of N. T. words, which occur in I Peter and the Pauline Epistles only, will show that this objection merits but little. consideration. ayvwotx, axgoywvusiioc, dowrin, AoGnueTa¢, cldwhoAatosia, elxep, elve, éxxAlvw, Exawoc, cdmpd0- Dext9¢, cVorAnyyvos, Hovytos, tyvoc, xadO, xatarhaAta, xay.oc, oyindc, Roworin, vyodm, mvevpatiKds, TOGCKONU.K, oVoyNL.ATICoUaL, ToUvavetoy, Snepéym, unogéom, obaptéc, orrogévoc, gpoueém, ydpioua, yoonyéu. Twenty-two appear only in I Peter and the generally accepted Epistles of Paul; nine more are found in the Pastoral Epistles, making a total of thirty. Several more appear also in Hebrews, which, with I Peter depends upon Paul. Some of Paul’s favorite terms may be found in this list, e. g. xpetcowv, piyntie, mepimotnorc, Gapninds, GUYnANOVOWLOS, UTAXOT, OLAKdEAgLa, etc. Bigg argues that “there are none of those words which belong especially to the circle of Paul’s ideas to be found in I Peter,’’ hence the inference is that it cannot depend upon Paul. The force of his argument is seen to be nil, by a glance at the following arrangement of the words which he cites. 1h Phil. Col. TE, Il Th Philem. eins Te Dim, Titus Rom. “IO W Gal. m= Mp T[ C, mo Eph. ho anoopvatia Sinaodv TEPLTOUY) éhdoyetv avansonhnototra viodecta TANOWU.K puotyetov nxopaBey 2 TH OAT TU. TaonBacrs napabatnys noddecte 2 Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 32 January, 1913. il ls ho Oo oe ee ti bo pa —_ bo aS —_ bo Go © — —_— — NS) ND 476 Ova Delmer Foster. 3 ae E o a a3 \S ee Fives ee 601. ¢ «4 6 2. 2 See > fe ko |S SaaS moooptCetv Zod 2 navy todo ea 72 it 2 RATA ELV G19. vA it 1 1 GTHUOOS 2 Oe lee ee oTaueody AG iliac oe ! Coun 4 YOmprce 3 Pj 1 No one denies that I Thessalonians came from the “circle of Pauline ideas,” yet of all the words Bigg cites, not one is found in that generally accepted Epistle. They also appear in other Epistles so rarely that the argument is absolutely worthless. One is puzzled to know how the same author can advance, as an argument against the Pauline influence upon our Epistle, the statement that ‘‘ we do not find, in I Peter, 3aodv or its family.” True, the verbal form is not to be found in I Peter, neither is it to be found in eight of the Pauline Epistles. Hence from his premise these are not Pauline. On the other hand, if we may consider the kindship of Sixatme, Sinaroodvy, and Sinavog not too distant to belong to the household of d5x«0dv, we shall be required to conclude Professor Bigg had incidentally overlooked many of the references, since our author employs dixaiws once (2; 23), d- nxoroatvn twice (2; 24, 3; 14), and dixaog three times (3; 12, 18, 4; 18). Bigg notes (Com. p. 4—5) that “ very few connecting particles occur” in the Epistle. He then gives the following examples : dv kon ye snerdh eet te Sy TOU mOG Matthew 4A 7 f 2 4 1 Mark 24 2 1 1 Luke 29 6 4. il 2 7 1 John 27 2 3 Acts 20 6 3 3) 136 2 Ds Romans past il 4 16 il a I Corinthians 12, 5 3 4 5 4 il y II Corinthians 3 S 4 2 1 i 5 Galatians Da eG 2 Ephesians 4 2 First Epistle of Peter. 477 avy Goa ye emeidy exci te BH Tov TwsG Philippians 1 1 1 | Colossians 1 I Thessalonians 1 1 1! II Thessalonians 1 I Timothy II Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews Gy. ee3 9 James 3 TT Peter I John S) II John III John Jude it Revelation 3 a Ww yy (5) = « “That & is not to be found in the Epistle” he says “is alone sufficient to show that the writer was not a Greek.’ (Com. p. 5.) The weakness of this argument is made obvious by the above ar- rangement of the words which he cites. It is seen that this par- ticle does not appear in a number of Paul’s Epistles. True, Paul was not a Greek by birth, yet his native city was a center of Greek culture of no little consequence. He had abundant opportunity in Tarsus to learn the Greek language thoroughly. At any rate we are assured by his writings that he was a master of the Greek language. It is to be noted that in all his Epistles, which compose cir. 25% of the N. T., & appears but thirty times, whereas in Matthew, which certainly goes back to a Semitic original, the word occurs forty-one times. The above table shows that Paul, or his amanu- ensis,-employed the particle very freely at times and at other times not at all. That the word appears in Matthew about as often as in Luke and Acts combined, which, on the whole, are written in as good Greek as is to be found in the N. T., shows that Bigg’s argument has practically nothing to support it. Furthermore it involves an inconsistency, in that, he admits that our author pos- sessed “‘a remarkable correctness of usage.’’ He also states that “the article is employed in more classical style than by any other writer in the N. T., and still more striking is the refined accuracy of his use of w¢.’’ (Cf. Com. p. 4.) These concessions certainly do not support his claim that our author “ could not have been a Greek.”’ 478 Ova Delmer Foster, On Bigg’s premise, we should expect the particle to be of rare occurence in the “ Petrine portion” of Acts, whereas out of its twenty appearances in the entire book, thirteen are in the first ten chapters. Many of them are also in the “speeches of Peter.” It would seem, therefore, that the absence of %, instead of being an argument against the dependence of our Epistle upon Paul, rather indicates the opposite, since the ‘“‘ Pauline portion” of Acts uses the word but rarely. The study of &%p« yields a similar result to that obtained through ay. It appears four times in the Petrine portion of Acts, and but twice in the Pauline section. It also shows a great variation of usage in the Pauline Epistles. Ie is found in Acts only in the first eleven chapters, which again would seem to show a closer relation between our Epistle and the Pauline section than with the Petrine portion, as might be expected. ‘‘Luke”’, who also “uses the language with freedom and not with an inconsiderable degree of correctness’’, does not use éxet in the Acts at all, and but twice in the Gospel. If in fifty-two chapters he uses the word but twice, and in the acts not at all, we should not be surprised at its absence in a short Epistle of but five chapters. “Exed% is used but six times by Paul and but five times by all the rest of the N. T. authors, so we should not think it strange that it does not appear in this little Epistle. Te affords a good example of how an author may vary in the use of a particular word in diffe- rent writings. It appears sixteen times in Romans, and not at all in Galatians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles. ‘‘ Luke” also employs it but seven times in his Gospel, whereas it appears one hundred and thirty-six times in Acts, fifty- four of which are in the “ Petrine division.” Ay is a very rare word in the N. T. The absence of the particle from I Peter is just what would be expected by those who assert its dependence, since Paul only uses it twice. Ilov is only used once in all the letters of Paul. Ilw¢ is strictly a Pauline term, yet he does not use it in seven of his Epistles. Il®¢ is not used by our author, yet it occurs nine times in Acts, seven of which are in the Petrine section. On the whole, therefore, the list of ‘‘ missing particles,’ cited by Bigg, does not argue against, but for Petrine dependence upon the Pauline Epistles. As a further test of the verbal argument, a careful classification and count has been made of all the words used in I Peter, which are also employed by no more than six other N. T. writers. ” First Epistle of Peter. 479 Total occurrences in the generally accepted Epistles of Paul 344 Total occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles 40 Total in the Pauline Epistles 384 Number in Petrine section of Acts 23 Number in Pauline section of Acts 41 Total in Acts 64 Total in all the other N. T. books 333 Grand total 781 Of the N. T. the Pauline Epistles (excluding Pastorals) = 22% Of the N. T. the Pastoral Epistles — ols Of the N. T. the Pauline Epistles compose cir. 25% Normal proportion of occurrences in the Petrine section of Acts 29 Normal proportion of occurrences in the Pauline section of Acts 35 It is obvious, therefore, that the words of this list are below the normal] in the Petrine section, contrary to the “ one source ”’ theory. The Pauline Epistles which constitute but 25% of the N. T. contain almost 50% of these words. It seems therefore, as against Professor Bigg, that there must be some relationship between I Peter and the Pauline Epistles. Conclusion We have seen that the opposing arguments, reviewed above, have proven to be of very little moment. Their testimony, what little they have to offer, seems to be in favor of the dependence of I Peter upon the Pauline Epistles rather than against it. We have also noted that the great majority of scholars of all schools agree that our Epistle depends upon Paul. Even those, as Klépper, who deny the genuineness of either I Peter or Ephesians, contend that Ephesians was used by our author. Moffat voices the opinion of the majority of scholars when he says: “ The literary connection of I Peter with the later Pauline epistles is indubitable ” (Hist. N. T. p. 246). A glance at the underscored text of the Epistle (cf. pgs. 101—106) would seem not only to justify this conclusion, but also to warrant McGiffert and Bennet and Adeney in saying that : “ there is no other book in the N. T. not written by Paul himself that so closely resembles his writings (Apos. Age p. 485, and Bib. Int. p.442). As a result af the foregoing study we are led to say with Professor Bacon that : “It is one of the most solid results of criticism, that (1) (2) /, 480 Ora Delmer Foster, our Epistle stands in direct literary dependence on the great epistles of Paul, particularly Ephesians,” (and Romans). Int. N.T. p. 153). HEBREWS B b—c I Pt. 1; 18—20 Heb. 9; 12, 14, 2425 > o, 7 ~ EhuTpOUyTE ... Tyl alatL OS TO aie TOD Xorotod, O¢ Sik mved- 5 ~ 5 , 4 >) 7 au.vod au.c.ou xa aonthov Xoto- f U i] TOOSY' GC! 4 qh! Sy: =A 4 Long 2 TOCSY VMO'LEVOU SV 70 XATK- a 16) M a (BS) (S) oy 5) oS ie UN x60u.00, oaveowdévto e/a, ~ , => VATU THY YEOVOY OL YI Ov 1 Ov Q RQv— a or x R «) R Sts) [e) ~~ Ps 2 . By Pa] cote SVN Oy al fo) Cc mee wy Qu (ee) ©. 3 Q zl wy Ra = R oO a R SY oe R © | ay uy (qe) Cc re) SN ec R rm) R Cc ca °o = © G R < Os we) & <) RX o St. Paul frequently alludes to the redemption through Christ but not just as these authors do. The former never uses the word a.o.0¢ just as the latter use it. ‘The physical perfection of the victim is regarded as typical of the sinlessness of Christ, which makes his blood viysov’”’ (Bigg), all of which is in thorough harmony with Hebrews. Christ’s blood as the means of redemption is emphasised by both authors. Both contrast the efficacy of the appointed means with other agencies. Both allude to the former conduct much in the same fashion. Cf. I Pt. 1; 18b with Heb. 9; 14b. Compare also mp6 xataSorii¢ xdou.ov with ano xaraBontic xécuov; oaveowdévto¢ with negauvépwtan; én soydtou Tay yoovoy with énxt cuvteheta vév atavev, and anag... Heb. 9; 25 with gnaz..1Pt.3;18. Both Epistles have thought in common with Paul, yet the parallels noted above can hardly be due to common de- pendence. The thought runs through the whole chapter of Hebrews, whereas in I Peter it is more fragmentary, indicating the priority of the former. Dependence is made more probable by the close parallel between I Pt. 1 ; 17 and Heb. 12 ; 28. I Pt. 2; 24 Heb. 9; 28 a s c , € x DEAN o \ ¢ 7 X a S 0g 7H5 Gumoting Tusv abtog obtme xxl 6 Xototds AmAE mpO- > , ~ , x > ~ > ~ aviveynev év 7H coat xvTOl oeveyDete elg TO TOAMGY Gveveynely c “The turn which St. Peter has given to the words represents Christ as not only the sin-offering who bore the consequences of First Epistle of Peter. 481 the sins of his people on the cross of shame (fveyzev én 7H 20)m), but as the priest who took the sins, or sin-offering and laid the sacrifice on the altar of the cross. Thus Alford appears to be right in giving avagépew here a double meaning; but the two meanings ‘bear’ and ‘carry’ both belong to the one Greek word, and St. Peter has done his best to cure the ambiguity by ex- panding Isaiah’s «3z6¢ into the highly emphatic a374¢ év 7 coy.x7" azo, which, reinforced as they are by the following p.odwzt, clearly mean, He Himself, by His own personal suffering, carried the sins up ; in other words, the Priest was also the Victim.” Bigg. That Christ was both priest and victim is dwelt upon at length in | Hebrews, e. g. 9; 14, 12, 14, 24—28. This un-Pauline chapter of Hebrews seems to form the basis of our author’s allusion to the “Suffering Servant.” Not only the peculiar thought but also the phraseology is very suggestive of literary dependence. The phrase dvaécery auxocing appears only in these two places in all the N. T. Note also the other possible points of contact in these Gontexts, ec. g. I Pt. 2; 23 = Heb. 12; 3, and I Pt. 2; 25 = Heb. 13 ;'20. . (3) I Pt. 2; 25 Heb, 13; 20 TOUNEVA XO éxtoxonoy twv Uuy@v ToLreva TOV TooRaTwy TOV Usyav ¢ ~ UU.OY Professor E. J. Goodspeed (Epis. to the Heb. p. 122) calls atten- tion to this striking parallel. It is indeed suggestive since the only reference to the favorite Petrine “doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus,” in the whole Epistle, appears in this connection. “ The great shepherd of the sheep is a Messianic designation. Cf. also I Pt. 5 ; 4 (the arch-shepherd). Not simply the shepherd of the sheep, of Isa. 63 ; 14 LXX, but the great shepherd.” Goodspeed. Cf. also Jn. 10 ; 11, 14, 21; 16, which were probably influenced by the above passages. Paul never uses the metaphor zow-ryy except of the Christian minister. Cf. Eph. 4; 14 (Acts 20 ; 28). Though it is easy to draw the figure used here either from Paul or the O. T., it seems more probable in this connection that I Peter was influenced by Hebrews. Note I Pt. 2 ; 22 = Heb. 4; 15,2; 23 = 12; 3,2; 24 a, 20, 2; 25 = 13°; 20. (4) I Pt. 3; 18 Heb. 9; 28 Nowotic Saute xe SAIS) ERE XNowsthc faut mooceveyielic cic cA elo vog ATAS Teel KV.L9 TLWY ATE- YA plo vOog AnAS TRPOGEVEY VELS sl¢ TO . Savey (Exadev) TOMMY Gveveyxely Kaptiag... (5) (6) 482 Ora Delmer Foster, Only in these two places is éma€ so employed. Cf. Heb. 9; 26. The same doctrine of the atonement is here set forth in a similar fashion. This shows that both authors moved in the same sphere of thought, if indeed, it does not prove dependence. Sal- mon thinks that éxa~ is accounted for by the éo%nxé of Rom. 6; 10. (Int. p. 556.) But against this view it is to be urged that the phrase avaoéeew &y.xetiag only appears in I Peter and Hebrews. See Ex. 2 above. The conjunction of these two peculiar usages in a suggestive context makes dependence highly probable. I Pt. 3; 18b Heb, 12; 22 tva unde mooonyayy 7 Och moocehnuoycte Limyv Gost nat 7O- ~ ~ > det Osod Caveoc, “legovoxdhy €- movpavie I Peter and Hebrews both represent the Christians as mere strangers and sojourners in the world and that Christ leads them through this wilderness of life to God, the heavenly home, the New Jerusalem. This non-Pauline thought shows a real point of connection. The above parallel is made more significant by the ones immediately preceding and immediately following. I Pt. 3; 20 Heb. 11; 7 év fyéoaig Noe xataoxduatouévyg Nie... xaveoxetace ufwrov sic ~ \ Seas \ , ~ Vv. > ~ wBwrod ... dx7e buyal Sicwy- cwoypinv tod otxov aurvod ouy ‘“ Salvation’’ is mentioned by both authors as the purpose of preparing the ark. No other N. T. writers so allude to it. Heb. 11 is an excursus on “ faith,” calling up the Patriarchs in order as examples. Hence the passage was not suggested by our Epistle to the author of Hebrews, but the reverse relation seems highly probable in this context. Cf. Exs. 5 and 7. I Pt. 3; 21 Heb. 9; 24, 10; 22 dvtitumov viv owe. avtituna PepavTLoUevoL THE Rancioyc, 00 ocauoxds andbsorg nxapding and cuvetdficeme movypaic cuvedycems ayabTc nol AeAovopévar To cwue dec mepwTny.a sig Oedy 225400) » ’Avcizumev occurs only in these two places in the N. T. The ethical and symbolical signification of baptism is here set forth in similar ways. Both see great efficacy in the baptismal ordinance, (8) (10) (11) a vik First Epistle of Peter 483 not as a cleansing of the body but as a cleansing of the conscience. No other N. T. writers so allude to it. Both refer to the physical ablution in suggestive phraseology. It is also to be noted that Cavttoyéevet is similarly used by I Peter in other connections. I Pt. 4; 11 Heb. 13; 21 f , N ‘ G > rin > > @ éotlv f S6Ex ual tO xpatog & vy Sea cic tode aldvag Tov al- sig tade alMvac TOV aldvov auiy. avov. auty See also 5; 11 That no earlier writer addresses doxologies to Christ is most significant. II Tim. 4; 18 is hardly an exception. The similar phrasing in this peculiar usage is most easily accounted for on the basis of some real connection. I Pt. 5; 4 Heb. 13; 20 700 doytnotuscvos TOV ToWéva cov ToORaTHV Tov poyey Monnier, Goodspeed and many others think that there is here some connection. See comments on Ex. 3. c I Pt. 1; 2 Heb. 12; 24 Eavttcutv atvacoc “Iysov Xprotod diabrjxng véas peciry Tyood, xo tna NON hee ial 2 : - 99 alot. Pavtiood. 10; 22 The parallel is striking since it is used by no other N. T. writers. ‘“ The idea is foreign to Paul but recurs in Barnabas.” (Bigg.) The possible reference in I Pt. 4; 6 to Heb. 12 ; 23 b is significant in this connection. Note also I Pt. 1; 3 may refer to Heb. 6; 18. I Pt. 1; 11 Heb. 12; 2 medux Xptorod ay UOTUDOLLEY p >; ‘ af. vy URéUsvey oTaUpOV aloyuvns xaTO- vious év deetX te tO Sodvov cod nexadimev 0) ‘ (9 ha th Though Paul frequently alludes to the otauede he does not think of Jesus “enduring” it that glory should follow. Nor does he think of Jesus as the suffering Servant of Isa. 53, as is here presented. Yréyevey otavodv and zabyuacx are quite different in form yet the meaning is the same and probably shows some connection. No doubt both authors are influenced here by Paul yet it is to be noted that (18) (14) 484 Ova Delmer F oster, I Peter may also be influenced by Hebrews, for the latter, in ac- cordance with the former, lays, greater stress upon Christ’s sufferings than does Paul. Christ’s glorification is a common teaching of this period. I Pt. 1; 12 Heb. 11; 13 > > , oY > > ‘ , \ pees ‘ alg amexahioon ott aby savtoig AAA nOppmbev auTas WdvTeq Kon Cc ow x , > s > Y uly S& Stinxdvouv auch. . HOTATE|LEVOL Both authors may draw independently from such O. T. passages as Num. 24 ; 17 or Deut. 18 ; 15, but because of the close resem- blance between Heb. 14; 13b and I Pt. 1; 47 (2: 11) sp Pie and Heb. 12 ; 2 dependence is rendered quite probable. Te Peedi Heb. 12; 28 ay nh =Ay\ mR er mANIN lyr 7" i daene c =F Savanl hy) (-) *) ev 9090) vOV THES RAO OLXLAG UU.C¥ INXo3 TPEUOULEYV iS YAREC TOS TW ec) , > > x fOovoy avaotpaorte vraBetag xa déouc ET These authors emphasise the “ fear of God” whereas Paul lays the stress on the “ love of God.”’ The contextual connection makes it more probable that I Peter was influenced by Hebrews. Heb. 12:5, 6 is echoed in ] Pt. 1; 17a and Heb. 11; 13an 2 Pe ae Cis -also Be. Deis I Pt, 2; 2 Heb. 5; 12 “ mare n= QAZ fat =p wee on” , no Of Aci. Be —= 7 oy ed Og apsuyewata espn TO oymov yeyovate yostav syovtes yaAonToc A A > , ~ ‘ c , Hdohov yarn émnodhonte . . ms yuo 6 petéywy yoadoxtos DA , , amsioos hOvovu, Sinatoouvyc, wymLos ‘ > Ys e SOTLY Both authors may be influenced by Paul at this point. Paul employs with Hebrews the word vimo¢, whereas I Peter uses Boégoc. ‘“ This passage (I Pt. 2 ; 2) marks better than any other the difference between St. Peter, Hebrews, and St. Paul. In St. Peter’s eyes the Christian is always a babe, always in need of mother’s milk, grow- ing not to perfection but to deliverance. In Heb. 5; 12, 6; 2, milk is the catechism, the rudiments of faith . . . contrasted with the “solid meat.” St. Paul is vexed with the babe, who is the weaker brother the formalist. Hebrews represents (here) a via media between St. Paul and St. Peter’ (Bigg). It would seem therefore that the Pauline figure was modified in our author’s mind by the use made of it in Hebrews. (16) a) (18) (19) First Epistle of Peter. 485 I Pt. 2; 3 Heb. 6; 5 a si éyetoucde Gut yonotis & xtorog §=xahov yevoupévoug Weod bij I Peter refers here to Ps. 34; 9 (yedcacbs nal Weve Str yonotd< 6 xvUotoc), but probably at the suggestion of Hebrews since the similar usage follows the preceding parallel so closely in both books. EPigas b Heb. 3; 6 ixod Toe ob yar np — , aaa PTAIne A eee OLXOOOU.SLOVE OLKOS TVEVUATIAGS TOY OLXOV MUTOD OU OLAOE sOULEV ¢ ~~ NELS “ These authors alone insist on the believers’ privileges as members of the house of God.’’ Possibly I Peter drew independently from Paul, yet the following parallel makes dependence here seem prob- able. I Pt. 2:5 Heb. 13; 15 dveveyna mevuatinos Ovatag cv- St dutod avavgompev Suotav ai- mpoodénzous Océ Six “Iycod Xoro- veosme Sie navrd0s 7H Ocd oie))) Though these passages suggest Rom. 12 ; 1f., these are the only N. T. authors who use the phrase avagéoew Suvotav. They may have drawn the phrase from the LXX, where it is frequently em- ployed, but in view of the other possible points of contact with Hebrews in this context is seems very probable that our author was also influenced by the more copious treatment of the sacrificial figure in that book. 1ePt; 23; Vt Heb. 11; 18 x TapOiKGVS XAL MApEMLdHU.oUS Sévor xal mapertdy.01 The exact form used in Hebrews is peculiar to that book. Zévar no TApOIxoL appears only in Eph. 2; 19. Ilapext3yuo¢g is found in the N. T. only in the above passages. By eliminating the term ¢évo1, common to the earlier authors, it would appear that our author combined the remaining terms. It is also to be noted that no other N. T. books lay so much stress upon the thought that Christians are but sojourners in the world. I Pt. 2; 21, 23 Heb. 12; 3 Ot. Xowotdc Exabev Onto Suiiv, avadoyioucbe yup tov TormdTyy buiv brodwrdvey Sroypauyov -6¢ broucnevyndta 70 THv Kp.noTHAGY Roworotu.evos adn aXvTehotddoer sig EauTOdS avTLhoytav The appeal to the sufferings of Christ as a reason for the Christians endurance under persecution is not made by Paul. Though the (21) (22) 486 Ora Delmer Foster, phraseology is different the thought is very suggestive. The pro- babilities of dependence are heightened by the following parallels. I Pt. 2; 22 = Heb. 4315, Heb. 12;2— 1 Pt see 24a, = Heb. 9 ;: 28a, Heb. 9 ; 26 =f Pt..3 = AB: I Pt. 3; 16 Heb. 13; 18 , Vv 5 , ie A n~ GuvetOnaoty eyovte “yadny, iva gv xaxdty cudetdnow Eyousy, év mow @ natahareiobs nataoyuvOdow xariic Sédovtes avactpévecdou ¢ buay thy a&yadyy i) v Xpiota D LVAoTOOT, 2 v 3S v “These are the only N. T. authors who connect ‘ the good con- science’ with good habits of life.” The phrase év Xo1o7é suggests that our author is influenced here by Paul, yet the above usage seems to indicate that he also knew Hebrews. Note the parallel usage of avxeégew and its derivative. I Pt. 3; 22 Heb; 12°38, 46 adioev év Sede tic peyarwodvns TOCOUTH KpElTT WY YEVO- UEVOS TOY KYYEAOY Ci. 2,: 9, (Die Though I Peter may depend upon Paul at this point, the sequense of thought, which is so suggestive of Hebrews, should not be over- jooked. Cf. ; as 3 ; 20 with Heb. 11 ; 7 and I Pt. 3 ; 21 with Heb: Ds DANO a2, x Ov My iy aYYEhov 200 toate paca) eee I Pt. 4; 14 Heb. 11; 26, 13; 13 ei dvetdiZeads ev évéuns: Xowotod, hynouusvoc... Tov avetdtou.ov Tod WAX ELOL Xerorod, 13; 13 cov dverdiopov “These writers only refer to the blessing pronounced by the ninth beatitude on those who suffer reproach for Christ’s sake.” Our author may draw independently from a logion of the Lord, but it seems quite natural in this context to suppose that he was influenced by Hebrews. I Pt. 45°17 Heb. 10; 21 ano TOD olxoD TOD Mcod 2-5 =—Ay nixov con Aceon ARO TOU OLXOU TOU €0U o7 vOY OLXGY TOU 16}8) I Peter may be influenced directly by Ez. 9 ; 6, yet the phrase is different. No other N. T. writers use the phrase with the meaning First Epistle of Peter. 487 “household of God.’’ The phrase appears in I Tim. 3 ; 15, but not in the above sense. Cf. Heb. 3 ; 6. I Pt. 5; 4 Heb. 2; 7,9 sHe SGeys oTsOAvOV SEN nal cw Eoteoavncas axbTEv ? The “crown of glory’ would very naturally be attributed to Christ first, then to his followers. If there is dependence shown here it would seem to indicate the priority of Hebrews. The thought “ crown of glory’ or “‘ crowned with glory ”’ occurs only here in the 7 N. T. The contextual sequence is hardly accidental. Cf. I Pt. % m2. 5 ; 4 with Heb. 13 ; 20, also I Pt. 3 ; 22 with Heb. 2 ; 9, 12 ; 2. b edt ) 25 IP dein, rs alo) Heb. 13; 20 ? ? © @edc maons yapitog...: xnatap- 6 Dede cic sioyvys . . . natxption cares Ttoet UU.AG It is very significant that in the immediate contexts, Jesus Christ is appealed to as the one through whom God works. Hebrews very probably depends here upon II Thes. 2 ; 17. (26) TPE. bs. 12 Heb, 13; 22 Se BAtywv gyeaba Six Bonygwv axéoterha vyilv Though the thought is couched in different words, it is indeed suggestive. c—d (27) I Pt. 1; 4 Heb. 9; 15 xinpovopiay aomotov xxl autav- cig aimviov xAnpovouinc ‘ > if TOV xa aUKoavTOV These are the first N. T. writers to use the word autaveoc. Cf. Heb. 7 ; 26, 13; 4. The imperishable nature of the inheritance is emphasised by both authors. Yet they may draw independently semmecaiie- Cl. Gal o,, 4a, pb. 15414, 18.555, Col. 3; 24, I Cor. meee: 15>) 45,..Gals 4°30, 5» 21. (28) i Pt. 156 Heb. 12; 11 év @ ayaddacbe, OAtyov dott ci neon pév natdsia mOd¢ pév ZO Béov Avmndévtes Bv mormtrorg met- mapdv 08 Soxet yapdic sivar aA - paop.cic AbmNs, Sotepov Ss xxoTOv eloyvindv The phraseology is not so suggestive as the thought. The parallel receives additional significance by the possible reference to Heb. aelOb, in I Pt. 4 ; 15, 16. a peakon 488 Ova Delmer Foster, (29) I Pt. 1; 8 Heb. 11; 27 sic Gv Hott py Opdvteg motevovtes moter... Tov yap dépatov wc bpaiv Faith in both instances consists in laying hold of the unseen. Cf. Heb. 14 ; 1, also 11 ; 13, which may be connected with I Pt. 42 (80) I Pt. 1;9 Heb. 10; 36, 39 KOWATOUEVOL TO TEhOS TIS TloTEWS nopicnod obe thy én may yeMay . OK cwtyotay buyay miotems sig nepinotyow buys Though this thought is Pauline, both the phraseology and the context are suggestive. (31) 1 2a ge zat Heb. 2; 9 TOV eyeloavear abtov éx vexodv xa Sie To madyyx tod Davarou doy Sdéav noTe Sovtm AHL TWA SOTEORVOUL.EVOY Again the thought is Pauline, but suggestive in its context. Cf. I Pt. 1; 18—20 with Heb. 9; 12, 14, 24—25, and I Pt. 1; 22 with Heb sas; ak: (32) I Pt. 2; 1 Heb. 12; 1 ~ , v anodévevo, obv Ticav nontav... Oyxov anobéuevor mavta This parallel is made more suggestive by the possible reference to Heb. 52 12; Ioan eRe ce: (33) I Pt. 3; 7 Heb. 11; 9, 1; 14 y . Ys ~~ by A, A < rd 2 z Guvahncovon.or yaoutos Cwiic GUYXANPOVEULOY TYG emayyeAstag “ANPOVOLLElY GWTHPLOV This may be a mere coincidence, yet I Pt. 3 ; 7 ff. is very sug- gestive of Hebrews. Cf. I Pt. 3; 8 with Heb. 13; 1, 3; 9 with 12 ATS 1, wath 2-8 TA eee: (34) TPt.33-9 Heb. 12; 17 +14 , , nA ~~ x 5 , edhoylav xAnpovou.nonte xnpovourioa, THY e0Aoytoy This phrase appears only in these two places in all the N. T. (35) I Pt. 4; 1 Heb. 4; 12 EVVOLAY avvolay Though this word appears only in these two places in the N. T., it may be wholly accidental. It is to be noted, however, that First Epistle of Peter. 489 Pt. 4; 1 lays much stress upon the sufferings of Christ, in harmony with Hebrews. (36) I Pt. 4; 2 Heb. 9; 14 ... Dedipatt Osod . . . Prdooar sig 6 Aatpetew Oss Cover mil et, 4-4aewim reb. 9: 26,4; 1b with 4; 12: also 3:45 morn 9 > 45. (37) I Pt 4: 5 Heb. 13; 17 ot anodmooucw Aévov hoyov axodHcovtes This exact usage is peculiar to these authors. (88) I Pt. 4;7 Heb. 10; 25 TavTMV TO TéAOS Tyyimcv Prénete éyyiCovcav why jygpav This idea, when considered alone, is too common in the N. T. to merit attention, but it must be viewed in the light of its context. (89) I Pt. 4; 8 “Heb. 13; 1 gig EauTads ayamny excevi] Eyovtes =} OLAadeAGia wevéTw The context makes this very common exhortation worthy of mention. (40) I Pt. 4;9 Heb. 13; 2 @tAGgevot cig KAANAOUS THS glAcgeving py emdavOaveotss ei Kom. 12; 13, I Tim:.3; 2, Tit. 4; 18. The probabilities of dependence are increased by the sequence of the last three parallels. (41) I Pt. 5; 9 Heb. 12; 8 ba ‘ > Sy ~ a s > \ > , ms , a elootes TH AUTH tov TalyudtOv st ywolc ove Tatdelac, NS péETOYOL TH. . . KdEAGOTATL emiTeActod at yeyovaow ma&vtes This close resemblance in thought may be due to the common background, yet the context is to be considered. (42) I Pt. 1;3 Heb. 6; 18 al 4 / ~ nr ~~ , ‘> a dvovyewvijcas Hu.de sic 2nida Cioav xpartijoat tic mpoxewrévys sAmtdoc The phraseology is very different and probably shows no con- nection. (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) 490 Ova Delmer Foster, T Pt. 15:15 Heb. 10; 14 &yvor év nkon avactpooy yevnOyte ... Sudxets... TOV KYIKOLLOV Accidental, Et. 2:9 Heb. 12; 28 ¢ f= YO \ , * / ov teoateuu.x e0vog 86 Paoidsinv donAcuTOYV m~pa- dywov, Omme THe HoetuS sEavyet- AnuBdvovtes Zywuev yxow, SF Fe i aoidy ALES ee eee os GG SXOUeY aes iS , > ~ ~ Ayte TOU... atpeiouscy sdapéstwg tH Och ustX edAaPetns xa Séoug I Peter more probably shows acquaintance here with Eph. 1; 114, 42. GE Deut.10245 or Eee 4192 bo: I Pt.' 2-5 22 Heb. 4; 15 a Cc , > > 4 ‘ c , 06 AZV.AOTLAY OUX STOLYGSY 2 2 e YOPLG KU.noTtLiKg > t | \ Pract ead 2 The doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ is too common to constitute an argument for literary dependence. I Pt. 3; 11 Heb. 12; 14 i , Cytncdsm sctoyvyy xo Siwmgatm sioyvyv Sidxerve aOTHy Our author is quoting directly from Ps. 34, very probably at the suggestion of Paul. I Pt.5;7 Heb. 13; 5 Oo = , ¢€ ~ > , > ~ > x7 5 , OTL KUTG PEAEL MEPL UULOV OD LN GS Avo GUdL OD syxaTahinw Our author is probably borrowing here from Ps. 55 ; 22. I Pt. 5: 13 Heb. 13; 24 "Aondletan Optic }.... donclovta. wdc ot and cig Ivah- tac I Pt. 5; 14 Heb. 13; 24 ’Aordcasds &AAiAcus év OrAyat. kondkonode .. . navteg TODS KylOUE KY ATS These greetings are common in the Pauline literature. Cf. Rom. 16; 46, Phil: 4; 21—22.. if Cor. 135.1213; sete. | First Epistle of Peter. 491 Order of Parallels. I Pet. Heb. I Pet. Heb. I Pet. Heb. ee 0 eeeeees:) Oo. == 12:28 344: 2 9:44 ees soem oe 1 11: 13 35 4:5 = 32 417 ee. —— on we 22 — 12> 3 364: 7 =10-> 5 eo — Ae ee 2 22 2-15 387 4;8 =13 2 4 es Ae, oe 9-98 384:9 =1372 Bee (somes 2) 25 — 132 20 39 4; 144 = 132 Zt ee eae ey = 4s 9 40 4: 14 = 43 43 eo — eee oe seo — 42° 17. 44 4: 47 = 10-28 ee oem 14 4D 5 4 = 18 = Oe Pee Je ee ome 45" 18 43 5:4 = 2a 9 eto —= Os At oer to— 9° 28 445:>7 =—1325 eee ON Oe op—I2)- 22 45 5;.9 =—412:: 8 eerie Oe eee 20s > 7 46 5-: 40. = 13: 20 Pee oe oie AO: 22 47 5: 42 — 413 2-22 eee) big oe 1 Of. 48 5°13 — 13> 24 Poo Om ea 4. fo 4 712, 49 5° 14 — 13 : 24 ieee. —— 13-15 CONCLUSION The many suggestive parallels between these two Epistles would form a conclusive argument for literary dependence, were we not certain that they both rest upon the Epistles of Paul. It is diffe- cult to determine whether one author is drawing from Paul independ- ently or at the suggestion of the other. Nor is it easy to tell whether one is drawing directly from the other or whether they are expressing thought due to a common background. Through this labyrinth of possibilities we can only hope to discover a somewhat circuitous trail. From the marked text on page 101 f. it would appear that these authors sometimes follow paths over which Paul had never traveled. Since these paths are quite clearly defined in some instances of resemblance here one may readily infer that there is some literary connection between I Peter and Hebrews. Furthermore there are places where we were led to believe that one author pointed out the Pauline path to the other. In view of the many striking parallels one is tempted to assert that these Epistles show a direct literary connection. Though the case seems very certain, the complication of possibilities lessens the degree of cer- tainty until it would seem advisable to claim no more than that one author very probably knew the work of the other. Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVII. 33 JANUARY, 1913, 492 Ora Delmer Foster, The next question to be determined is the order of probable dep- endence. We have noted several points in the discussion where Hebrews more probably blazed the way for our author. Cf. Exs. 2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 22, etc. Hebrews isa carefully thought out homily, logical and rethorical, whereas | Peter is halting in its logic and dis- connected at many points. In contrast to the former the latter is a mere literary mosaic. Instances are not wanting in which the contexts of the members of the parallels considered show Hebrews to be the more original. For instance, in Ex. 6 it will be noted that Noah is referred to in Hebrews as but one of a long list of ancient worthies, whereas I Peter alludes to him as if at the suggestion of another.’ Ci. xs, 45105 14) 43) 141s ete: It can hardly be accidental that Hebrews 12—13 contain 26 of the 49 possible points of contact with I Peter. The first 8 chapters contain but 9 points of contact, whereas the last 4 chapters have 40. Appar- ently then our author used that part of Hebrews most which is in closest harmony with the purpose for which he was writing, i. e. to strengthen and encourage the Christians during a fiery perse- cution. Although much of the thought and phraseology of these books may be due to common dependence upon Paul or to a common background, it would seeem that we are justified in claiming that our author was very probably acquainted with Hebrews. “Q” SOURCE D d PPR 6,08 Mt. 5; 11, 12° = LEGeaee > er > A. w~_Q 2) la DA > | , 5 oC 21 , év @ ayaddaode, Gdtyov aptt el poxcerot gots, Otay Oveldtowotv ps + s lo cL ‘ uA x ¥, déov AuanDévtes ev mointrorg Tet- vee xa StwEmow xat elmwotv ~ 5) a ~ ~ ‘ > Cle co puou.cic ...8 kyaddiete yuo nv novyoov xad vudiv bevdopor. AVEXLANT TO yatoete no ayadddods "Ayakiaicve serves as acatch word. Though a rare word in the N.T. it does not show dependence. Cf. Lk. 1 ; 47, 10 ; 21, Acts 2 ; 26, 16 ; 34, Rev. 19 ;7, Jn. 5; 35, 8; 56. The word does not occur in the parallel account in Luke. There is no more reason to suppose that our author was influenced by “‘ Q” at this point than by Paul Cf. Rom: 12); 42; (Phili3*sen4 2 4aiaies soe eects First Epistle of Peter. 493 _ I Pt. 1; 10 Mt. 13; 17 = Lk. 10; 24 ‘4 Va , so ‘ A 4 ~ 4 ) ~ mept No awning e€eChtyouv xxi modAct xooyitar [xat Baordrcic] SEnpatvyoav TOOMyTAL... éneOupnouv ideiv & Phémete nov o0x sony This is indeed a suggestive parallel. If there is any literary dependence it must be on the side of our author, as “ Q”’ surely antedates our Epistle some decades. But the thought is not close enough to make this probable. Cf. Eph. 3; 3f. Col. 1; 25, Rom. for 20, Eph: 1); "9° etc: 8) I Pt 1; 17 Mt. 6; 9 = Lk. 11; 2 naL el matéox eminadAciods [OStm¢ cdv xooostyecbe] dyetc: ie mmrymon TATED... : ‘ Harnack, in his ‘‘ Sayings of Jesus’’ p. 134, does not place the bracketed phrase in the “ Q” source, as A. Huck seems to do in his ‘“‘ Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien”’ s. 28. At all events, this parallel has no evidential value in the solution of our problem, though Bigg, Chase and Holtzmann point it out. (4) eb tse 39 Mt: 5; 39 = Lk. 6; 29 wh anodwovtes nondv avett xaxod “Oortic os Ganifer sic thy [Sekrdv], 7) AowWoptav ave Rowoetag stov- craydva [cov], ocpéhov avers xa vavetoy 38 UAcyoUvtes. Cf.3; 16. Thy &AAny. Ci Mir 44, = Lkivn’; 28: The doctrine of “nonresistance”’ is clearly set forth in both instances, but the words in which it is couched are very different and not at all suggestive either of dependence or of a common source. A close parallel appears in the Markan source, i. e. 15 ; 29. The doctrine here taught is not wholly new in the N. T., e. g. Prov. 17 ; 43, 20; 22, 24; 29, etc. As we have seen elsewhere I Peter most certainly depends upon Rom. 12, so we need not go back of Paul for the doctrine taughtinI Pt.3;9. See Rom.12; 17,19, I Thes. 5 ; 45, I Cor. 6 ; 7, etc. Though Chase, Bigg, Holtzmann, Monnier and others have pointed out the above parallel it does not so much as prove a common source. (5) Pt: 3:20 Mt. 24.5: 31, 38 = ike he= 26 a0 cod paxpoduuta év hyépatg donep at hyéoo tod Nowe Noe Though the reference to taig yusoog Noe suggests some literary connection, it will be observed that the phrase occurs in contexts (6) (%) (8) 494 Ora Delmer Foster, which have nothing else in common. Our author thinks of the ark as a symbol of salvation by water baptism, whereas Q alludes to the unconcern of Noah’s contemporaries in view of the approaching destruction as analogous to the conditions at the imminent parousia. There is, therefore, no necessary connection between these passages. I Pt. 4; 10 Mt. 24; 45 = Lk. 12; 42 Stanovodytes wg nxAoL oinoveuot... (ea) TLaTOg SodAcs xox wpdvurcc, dv natéotynoey 6 xUplog emt Tig olxe- cetag adTOD Tod Sova. aucotC THY TeOOHY ev nao) Clearly this parallel, cited by Dean Plumtre, does not show the dependence of our Epistle upon “‘ OQ” to be any more probable than upon, Paul. Ci.) Core 4 Dit lean. I Pt. 5; 6 Mt. 23; 12 = Lk. 14; il 2 CeaAN ¢ , x , Tanswwaoynte adv und thy xpa- “Oortc ubdoer Exutov Tametvdyoe- Tardy yelon tod Weod, tva vyeic tor, nal coti¢ tTametvelost EcUTOV , > ~ ¢ dbaon av narod ubodyjceta Chase, Holtzmann, Monnier and others have recorded this very suggestive parallel. The citation in “ Q” resembles the thought of our Epistle at this point more than any other N. T. passage. But that the Christian should be humble is a very common teaching in the Pauline Epistles. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 16, 11 Cor. 7 ; 6, 103i 42; 241, Eph. 4; .2, Phil: 2 ; 3,8, 4; 12; Coli 2 5 18, 235 sewer II Cor. 11 ; 7 is a very close parallel to I Pt. 53.6] iihieweaiag pertains to social distinctions whereas, I Peter alludes to the Christi- ans’ resignation during the fiery ordeal of persecution, which is viewed as a providential neans of exaltation. Consequently there is not such a close resemblance here as at first appears. Hence it cannot be asserted from this parallel that our author was acquainted with “‘ QO,” nor that he remembered a saying that he had heard from the lips of Jesus. I Pt. 5; 8 Mt. 5; 295 = Lk. 12; 58 6 avttdunoc TH AvTWDinn Dean Plumtre gives this among other resemblances to show that “one of the most dominant influences upon St. Peter was the per- sonal teaching of our Lord.”” But it would seem that a single word like this, occurring as it does in contexts differing so widely, could no real evidential value. First Epistle of Peter. 495 (9) I Pt. 5; 10 Mt. 7; 25 = Lk, 6; 48 Depeduidcer tedenetwto Granting that this word belonged originally in I Peter, we should still have to question the propriety of considering it as a datum to proove that “‘ Peter was influenced by the personal teaching of our Lord.” Especially is it hazardous to depend upon this “ datum,” since many of the best Manuscripts do not contain the word. See W. H. in loco. It seems quite clear from the above study that we cannot claim either that there is any literary connection between “ Q”’ and I Peter q or that they both go back to a common source. MARKAN SOURCE D d (1) I Pt. 1; 18 Mk. 10; 45 (Mt. 20; 28) ZhutpwOoyte ... Trt atuate... Sodvar thy huyyv adtod AdtCov Xeuotat &vtt moAAmyv. Cf. Mk. 14; 24. The Markan source represents “ the life of the Son of Man”’ to be the “ransom,” whereas our author alludes to the redemption price in symbolic terms, 1. e. “ the precious blood of Christ.” I Tim mo Pit. 2: 14, Gal: 1 ; 4, 2; 20, Rom. 4 ; 45, etc. resemble the thought of Mark more closely, but Eph. 1 ; 7,5 ; 2, Col. 1 ; 14, Rom. ae 24, 25, Acts 5 ; 2, etc. are closer to I Peter. Cf. also Heb. 9 ; 12. It is obvious that the Pauline doctrine of the atonement is here heard from the lips of Jesus. No one can be certain as to the genuineness of Mk. 10; 45, yet it is conceded by the majority of modern scholars to be more in accord with the theology of Paul than with what we know of the teaching of Jesus concerning himself. That Mark was a disciple of Paul we are assured. Cf. Acts 12; 25. All things considered there is no reason to claim that there is here any literary connection. There is, however, an obvious Pauline influence back of the members of this parallel. (2) I Pt. 1; 18b Mk. 7; 3 (Mt. 15; 26) TATPOTAPADSOTOU Thy Tapadocw taHv moscPutéowy detain us. This parallel of Dean Plumtre’s need not (3 (4) (5) (6) 496 I Pt. 1; 23 > , >] ~ Avavyeyewvyyevol oUX &% omopdc pdaotis... Sie Adyou tod Weod Bigg thinks that there is some connection here. Lee (9 ete: 4.45 Gal aloe 264 20 Ova Delmer Foster, Mk.4; 14 (Mt.13; 18 f.=Lk. 8; 12f.) ¢ , 6 onstowv AOyov onetoe. ff. But cf 1 Ger There is no reason to think that our author depends upon Mark at this point nor that both draw from a common source. A Ee t.22 552 en hoyinov Os doTuyéwyro HO hOv yoo enum nut avenDite slo cmTyptay Mk. 10; 15 (Mt. 18; 2= Lk. 18; 17) a xr x eg ‘ f2 , 0g av pH déenrar why Baothetav ~ ~ c , 2) x > to) Osod Ho madtov, od un cio- ‘ Chase notices this parallel but he does not advance it as an argu- ment for literary dependence. iE Pee. Gog Gv anedoxtuacav ot oixo- do opobvees avtog éyevyOy cic xewa- yy yovias Verbal agreement, in this quotation on Ps. 41835 to suspect that some literary connection exists in this parallel. there is nothing in the contexts which suggests it. 23, showing that he is probably following the original Our Epistle, as we have seen elsewhere, depends upon Rom. 9 ; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20—22 at this point. SevitS ; independently. Closer resemblances both in thought and phraseology are to be found in the Pauline Epistles. B35 At 14720) Ee phe 4 ere: GL i Cor Mk. 12; 10 (Mb. 21; 42 = Lk. 20; 12) leads us Yet Mark also quotes surely Assum- ing that this is a genuine saying of Jesus, as it purports to be, we still have no special reason to conclude that Peter is the common source back of these quotations. I Pt. 2; 18, 17 , > td , TAO avoowntvy, xTHt- diz tov xdorov’ sive Baordet ¢ , ‘ Yv y UNEPEYOVTL ELTE AT = A é vOY paar \EX 1 cai) ay YTE Mk. 12; 17 (Mt. 22; 21 — Lk. 20; 26) Katcoaor no ea) ‘ 7x Katonpos croton Ta TOD Oeo3 0) OD This parallel is very suggestive, yet it is to be noted that Rom.. 1 1 is even more suggestive of our Epistle. There is practically nothing in the immediate context in Mark to suggest I Peter, whereas Rom. 12—13 has numerous points of probable connection. Cf. i) (8) - First Epistle of Peter. 497 especially Rom. 13 ; 1, 6, 7, 8 with I Pt. 2 ; 13,17. Certainly there are more obvious reasons for believing that our author was influenced at this point by Paul than by Mark or the Petrine source back ot Mark. Mark in like manner may equally be dependent upon Romans. i Pte 2-28 Mk. 8; 34 (Mt. 10; 38 = Lk. 9; 23) Xpiozbe Emadey Unto Uuav, Oiv et cic Oder Sziow pov 6 y nomwuncvey Omoyoauudy tv gxa- annpvycdcin ExuTiv xxl dodcw KohovOyonts tig tyvecw adtod cov otaupdv adtod xo dxodov- Setto p08 Dean Plumtre thinks that this is one of “ Peter’s reminiscences of the Lord’s teaching.’’ But the thought and phraseology of I Pt.2; 21a is too common in the Pauline Epistles to render such a view fenniale. Furthermore the iyvog of I Pt. 2 ; 21 b occurs only here andin Rom. 4; 12 and II Cor. 12; 18, in which places, significantly enough, it is employed in the same sense in which our author uses it. Hence it is not necessary for us to suppose that these scriptures come from a common Petrine source. I Pt. 2; 23 Mk. 14; 61, 15; 5 (Mt. 27; 14) dg owWopoduevous obx dvtedot- 6 S& eorwdrx xal oon dnexolvaro Doce, maoymv oon Trether obdév. 6 35 “Incode ovxétt sane anenotdy Our author is drawing from Isa. 53 all through this section. Cf. I Pt. 2; 23 with Isa. 53; 7. The word dodepém is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, but it is used in I Cor. 4; 12 and in the Pauline portion of Acts (23; 4). Aodopt« is used only by Paul and our author, while of3ee0¢ is only to be found in I Cor. 5; few > 40. ’ AvzthofSop0¢ is peculiar to above citation. Hence this would be a slender thread on which to suspend an argument either for literary dependence or a common source. I Pt. 2; 24 Mk. 15; 15 (Mt. 27; 26) 0d TH pohon iddyce. napédmxey tov ‘Iycody oowyed)oo- Gress. 53 > 5. ous Again we cannot follow Plumtre in his “ reminiscences of St. Peter.” The language of Mk. 15; 15 is much more in accord with a real reminiscence than I Pt. 2; 24. The quotation from Isaiah seems to indicate that our author was musing on the picture of the “Suffering Servant’”’ of II Isaiah rather than upon the concrete instance depicted in Mark. (10) (11) 498 I Pt. 2; 25 x s , > Hre wo TOGBaTH TAavEdLEvOL, GA- Aa emeotpaoyte viv ext Tov Tot- Ova Delmer Foster, Mk. 6; 34 (Mt. 9; 36 = Lk. 15; 4) joa we mpdBata ph Eyovta mot- UEVe p.evo NOL EMLORXOTOV THY buyay Ou.dy Chase records this striking parallel, yet he is unable to find any evidence in it for literary dependence. The quotation in Mark does not claim to have come from the lips of Jesus, consequently it is a later interpretation in accord with the O. T. symbolism. Cf. Num. 27; 47, I Ki. 22317, Ezek. 3436; 37 ; 24 “Zech ere See Isa. 53; 6 for the probable original of I Pt. 2; 25. » = I Pt. 4:7 Mk. 13; 33 (Mt. 24; 42 = Lk. 12; 37) mavtoy S& tO Tédog Hyymev. PAémete hypumvette“odn oldate yee Swppovyoute obv xa wibate el¢ TPOGEVY AC mote 6 xatods [gorw]. Cf. Mt.25; 13, 26 41 and Ek Zits Though the thought here is much the same the phraseology is very different. Exhortations to watchfuJness in view of the appro- aching parousia were too common during the early period for this parallel to be of any evidential value either for dependence or for a. common source, Cf. Rom. 13 ; 14;\1 Thes! 5 -G@aemene I Pt. 5;3 Mk, 10; 42 (Mt. 20; 25 = Lk. 22 ; 24) > c , ~ ~ pnd wo xataxvptetovtes tov xAn- Oldate ot. ot SoxodvtTes doyetlv ~ ~ ~~ , OE ies pov . Tov sOvay xaTAKUELEDOVELY AUTOY no ol peyaAor xUToY naTecovcIe- Covow autay Kataxvetedw is a rare word in the N.T., yet it is not sufficient in these contexts to make literary acquaintance probable. The reference in I Peter could have been suggested, quite as naturally, by Il Cor. 1,24 or Ezele 32 74: A study of the above points of contact (which, it is believed, exhaust the more important ones) shows that the Pauline Literature, upon which we are quite sure our author depends, furnishes, in nearly every instance, equally close thought and phraseology : and in not a few cases is the resemblance even more striking. It has also been seen that Mark has been influenced by Paul. Whether or not Mark and I Peter alike go back to Peter, we are quite sure that they are deeply indebted to Paul. At all events literary dependence can- not be claimed between I Peter and the Markan Source. (1) (3) First Epistle of Peter. 499 PECULIAR TO MATTHEW I Pt. 1; 4 Mt. 25; 34 sig xdnoovo opto . +. TeTHENEvHY xANpOvoUroaTe Thy jrowaouEevyy &v ovpavotic elo dutc. Cf.3;9b. Spyiv Baorretav amd xataBorric %GO.0U Kineevouciy with its family is a very common word in the N. T., especially in the Pauline Epistles. ‘Inheriting the Kingdom”’ is menmancd in I-Cor, 6; 10, 15;.50, Gal. 5; 24, Eph. 5;5, That the ‘inheritance is laid up in heaven” is also alluded to in Col. io and inferred in Eph. 1; 14. "Exow.cCo is a common word in the Gospels, but rare elsewhere, occurring in the Pauline Epistles only three times and in I Peter not at all. Therefore literary dependence cannot be argued from this parallel. I Pt. 2;5 Mt. 16; 18 @¢ Adon Céivtes oinodopetobe cinog od ct Iléctpoc, xa emt caticn TH TVEVULATINOS . . . TETOAX Olnodourow Y.00 THY 2xxdn- The change of Simon’s name to x2 or [lécgo¢, and the allusion to éxxdqotx lead many to think that there is here an anachronism. Unfortunately the Siniatic Syriac (Ss) fails us at this point. Both the Curetonian (Sc) and the Peshito (P) follow the Greek text in using sl,» - We have concluded elsewhere that our Epistle de- pends upon Rom. 9; 33 and Eph. 2; 20-21 at this point, so if either of these authors influenced the other, Matthew is the bor- rower. Knowing what we do about the rapidly developing tradition of the early church we should conclude, apart from literary con- siderations, that the thought of Mt. 16; 18 antedates our Epistle. Therefore we cannot so much as argue a common source for these scriptures. Btws apdhatw tO ws ULEdv Vv (as ard a > ~ Eyovtes xaANY tva,... &% THY xa- ‘ > ~ > va Thy avaotoOOHY Udy év EOveow ~ > ica urpootey tay avbourmv onms Ov seyGyv exontsvovtes SoEKomar tSmaw TH HKAK epy% XAL SOLAGWGLY > by A aa > a cov Ocdy Tov Tmatéon uov tov av soic ovoavots Mt. 5 ; 16 resembles our Epistle at this point more closely than any other N. T. passage. It is quite natural to suppose that Matthew 500 Ora Delmer Foster, preserves a genuine logion of our Lord, which was current in the church, but which was not used by the other Synoptic writers. Yet the form in which the thought is expressed suggests that there is here no literary connection. I] Pt. 3; 14a Mt. 5; 10 el nol TMaoyorte Sie Sinatocdvyy, pancoror ot Sedumypévor svexcv ULAKKPLOL Sixnoodvne This parallel may be accounted for in the same way as No. 3. Cer- tainly no one will affirm that these must go back to a common origin. I Pt. 3; 14b Mt. 10; 26 Q Sv , 3) ~ ‘ ~~ x 4 ~ > tov S& o6Rov autay py ooByOATe wn obv oobyOyce aUTOvs Chase calls our attention to this parallel, yet he is unable to find in it any evidence for literary acquaintance. The resemblance can hardly be more than a mere coincidence. We may conclude from the above possible points of contact that there is nothing peculiar to Matthew which warrants any claim for literary acquaintance. PECULIAR TO LUKE D d pigs Es new Bey | Lk. 24; 26 ~ 7 ~ , Pee ~ vi ~ X mvedua Xototo mpou.motupdwevoy ovyt tata Eder maDelv tov yoto- a >) ne Q la \ ‘ \ ; ‘ 3 Q SY. > x re 7% sig Xototov nabiyata nol tae tov xa siosdDelv sig thy dOgav ETO TOUTE LOCCMC mn. We call: advod. Cf. vv. 44, 46. This close parallel suggests literary dependence. Acts 26; 22, 23, which is in a “‘ speech of Paul,” also resembles our Epistle very much at this point. That the sufferings of Christ were foretold was a common doctrine : belief in his subsequent glorification also grew up very early. Consequently there need be no literary connection here, though the thought is very suggestive. Both passages bear evidence of Pauline influence. First Epistle of Peter. oO I Pt. 1; 13 Lk. 12; 35 A ‘ > i ‘ > , ~ c ~ fa} ; , y Ato dvalwodpevor tHE Gowdas Tig =. Kotmony oudv ai daqdes mepteZuna- ¢ ~ la Siavotae voy U.EVOL ‘ iY Certainly this parallel, cited by Holtzmann and Plumtre, need not detain us. The phrase is not of the sort that suggests dependence Furthermore, a closer resemblance to our Epistle here is to be found in Paul. Cf. Eph. 6 ; 14, which uses the common phrase in a tropical sense more in accord with I Pt. 1 ; 18 than with Lk. 12 ; 35. I Pt. 1; 13b Lk. 17; 30 av aronadtver Incod Xowstod FUNC ROU ED GmDD. Garantie VY AROLANVOVEL Iyjoou LOT O ULOS TOU AvVVOWTOV ATORKKNUTRTETAL (3) The axoxa)udig of Christ is too common in the Pauline Epistles to make it necessary for us to suppose that there is any literary con- Become nere. Cf. Ii thes. 4° 7, 1 Cor. 1; 7, I Thes. 4; 16, etc. (4) I Pt. 2; 12 Lk. 10; 44 év vpéou emoxorifc Tov naLodv THS smoxomys That the word émoxonf is used in this sense only in these two places in all the N. T. seems quite significant. It would not be wise, however, to place too much stress upon this usage, which is probably accidental. (5) I Pt. 2; 23, 4; 19 Lk. 23; 46 mapsdtoov d= TH xptvovtr Sixatwc Ilactep, sig yslpue cov naxparide- 4; 19 motm xtioty mapatibécdw- pom TO TvEDU.K [LOU Gav THE poyas... Though xapactifyp.s is a common word in the N. T., it is em- ployed just in this way but rarely. I Peter uses rapxdidmu. and raouttSny. interchangeably, consequently this resemblance has but little value as a datum for literary dependence. For similar usage of mapacibyp: see Acts 14; 23, 20; 32. Cf. also Acts 7; 59 for similar idea. (6) I Pt. 4; 5 Lk. 16; 2 Gt arodmaovew Adyov 7H... xolv- andde¢ Tov Advov zie olxovouinc GOVT... Gov ieMt 12:;.36; 22 ; 21, Mk. 4 ; 20, Acts 19 ; 40, ete. 2) 502 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 4; 8 Lk, 7; 47 aydmn naninter. TARDOS aumotidv kogwvtar at cumotion adtys orb Tohrat, Ot. Hyannoey TOAD Occurring, as it does, in a context so thoroughly Pauline, this quotation from Prov. 10; 12 very probably has no connection with the citation in Luke. I Pt. 5; 1 Lk. 24; 48 s ~ ~ ~ s ¢ ~ fe , udptug TOY TOD Xototod mabyud- vyel¢ paptUpES TOUTE Tw Connection here is very dubious. . Sir John Hawkins shows in his Horae Synopticae (p. 190 f.) that Luke is linguistically more closely related to Paul than either of the other Synoptic Gospels. In view of the close dependence of our Epistle upon Paul we should be surprised not to find close parallels between Luke and I Peter. Indeed, these likenesses have been such as lead Bigg to say that “ I Peter shows upon the whole the nearest resemblance to Luke ”’ (i. e. of the Gospels). In favor of this it may also be said that the literary style of Luke and I Peter is much the same. Both have large vocabularies. They very frequently employ compound words. They have an abnormally large number of words peculiar to each, as well as common to each. Yet with all these likenesses we cannot claim that either author knew the work of the other. ACTS D d I P& 1; 4 Acts 20; 32 5 La /, fg > S ~ ‘ , > »~ cig xAypovou.av... TeTHPYNEVYV Ev Sobvar THY xAypovoulav ev TOLE > ~ ~ ¢ ~ oupavets sic yu.dic NYvaopévors Tow Very clearly these scriptures come from the same circle of ideas. Acts 20 ; 32 purports to give Paul’s own words, whereas I Peter, as we have seen elsewhere, very probably depends directly upon Paul. Cf. Eph? 4p Aaeolk 1 5 lima aoa: I Pt. 1; 11 Acts 26; 22-23 ~ ~ r ~ > ~ , { TooMyTHL... mvevNe Xptotod mp0- av te Of TpOMHTaL ZAKAnoaV PeA= , 7 X ‘ fh ~~ > 4 uaptupopevoyv ta sic Xototov ma- Advtwv yiveoDar aati Mevong, st First Epistle of Peter. 303 Ohpata nal tas pete tata S6- mabyrto¢ 6 yorotdc, ef mpmrog 2 > A ~ Euc AVATTAGEWS VEXOOY This close parallel suggests literary dependence. Obviously the passage in Acts is closely related to I Cor. 15; 20f. Acts 3; 18 is also a close parallel to I Pt. 1; 11a, but it makes no reference to Christ’s glorification through suffering. Apparently, therefore, the citation in the Pauline portion of Acts affords the closer parallel, although we cannot assert that it shows literary dependence. (8) F Pt. Ale Acts 2; 4 , CrAR > , > Heer) ‘ 5 Sasi , , TvEvpaT. ayi anootahevt, an xat emAnodyoav mavtes mvedu.nTO¢ a. ~ , oupanvod aytou The doctrine of the gift of the Spirit is too common in the Pauline Literature to make it necessary for us to suppose that there is here f any literary connection. & I Pt. 1; 14 Acts 17; 30 a ~~ , ~ s ¢ ~ ~ > , ~ > , My talic mpOtepov ev ti Kyvoim uuMv ods obv ypdvoug Tic ayvoing 6- q , Sa i¢ A EmOuu.torc Teodav 6 Wedc.. It seems significant that «yvot« occurs in “ Paul’s speech.” , Thought resembling this is also to be found in another one of Paul’s speeches, i. e. Acts 14; 16. These passages suggest acquaintance, yet our Epistle more probably depends upon Rom. 3 ; 25, while Acts 417; 30 comes from the ‘“ ipsic document,” which is obviously older than I Peter. Literary dependence, therefore, cannot be claimed for these passages. (5) Pt Ls Li Acts 10; 34 , , > \ 7 > yv ey « © , TATEOK sate uu ATPOCWTROANUT- OUX SOTLY TLOGWTOANLTTS O WEOS TWC... That God is no respecter of persons is a common doctrine, both in the N. T. and contemporary literature. Neither of the above words expressing this idea is to be found elsewhere in the N. T. Paul uses zeoownoAybiain Rom. 2 ; 14, Eph. 6 ;9andCol. 3 ; 25. Rom. 2 ; 11 alludes, as in I Peter, to the impartial judgment of God; an idea which is not on the surface in Acts 10 ; 34. The story of Peter’s visit with Cornelius in Acts 10 makes Peter the Apostle to the Gen- tiles very early in his ministerial career, whereas we are told in Gal. 2 _ that this vision of a world wide mission came later : through the medi- ation of Paul. Consequently we are certain that Pauline influence is not wanting here in Acts 10 ; 34. There is, therefore, no literary relation between the members of this parallel. 504 Ora Delmer Foster, [ei ilo aks: aly Acts 20; 28 27 n—Aratn-ne met if - anny PapaR ane, S f drutpwoUyte ... Tl aluatr... Thy exxAnoiav fv meplemonjonso Xowotod dik 70d aiatog tod fdtov Since, as we have seen elsewhere, I Pt. 1 ; 18, 19 quite certainly depends upon Paul (cf. Eph. 1 ; 7, Col. 1; 14, | Corsoesapyae. Gal. 3 ; 13), and since the account in Acts comes from a document which antedates I Peter, we cannot suppose that there is any literary connection here. eri lee Acts 2; 32 ‘ Q > ~~ ctv tov eyelpaye autov éx ve- “Iyoodv avearnoey 6 Os6c, - naam xoay no Sébav aoTe Sov7m Sek odv tod Oeod obwdeic... There is here a close resemblance. The doctrine of the resur- rection and exaltation of Christ is too common, however, to permit us to use this parallel as an argument for dependence. Cf. Acts 2; 32,3; 15,4; 10, 10; 40, 13; 30, 34,17 ; 31, Rom i4 a2 eee I Cor. 6; 14, 15; 15, II Cor. 4; 14, Gal. 151, Eph tee 42; datthes. Get: I Pt. 1; 22b Acts 15; 9 ‘ ‘ € ¢ , ay y che buyde voy nywxdtes év TH TH moter xadaupiong tae napdiac ¢ Bo xs > , > UTOAKON THC eanbeice LUTOV The reference in Acts is a clear allusion to the doctrine of “ Justi- fication by Faith,’ so common with Paul, whereas the citation in I Peter shows progress in the Johannine direction ; cf. Jn. 14 ; 415, 2A, 23, AD 7, 40 ie 2s, Poa ete ba reer Acts 4; 11 As A a See?! ¢ ~ KiSog Ov anedoxtu.acav ot oixodo- 6 Mboc 6 sovdevnSeig vo Opa TEG vevijoy sig xegadyy av oixe dopo, 6 yevousvog sig YovVine REOaAHY Yovins Ps. 118 ; 22 was, during the early history of the church, a favorite proof text for the Messiahship of Jesus. Mark 12 ; 10, followed by Matthew and Luke, records it as having been quoted by Jesus with reference to himself. It is significant that the text in Mark is exactly the same as that used by our author, whereas the text used in the “speech in Acts,” which purports to be Peter’s, has important vari- ations. Assuming the historicity of Acts 4; 11, tradition, which tells us that Mark drew from Peter, would in that case lead us to daaE ry Poy First Epistle of Peter. 505 expect closer resemblance between Mark and Acts than between Mark and I Peter, since we are quite certain that the latter depends upon Rom. 9 ; 33 and Eph. 2 ; 20—22. Granting that Jesus did allude to this Psalm, there would be no reason for us to suppose that there is any literary relation between Acts and I Peter, nor need we think that they are derived from a common source, unless Paul, upon whom I Peter surely depends, gained his information from Peter, which he would seem in Gal. 1 ; 11 f. to repudiate. I Bure Acts 20; 28 , hades sic mepixotyow exxdyotav .. . Teptemoujoaso Connection here is very doubtful. I Pt. 2; 9b Acts 26; 18 ~ , {3 ~ , > ~ , TOU EX GxOTOUS UNE xxhEcavTOG, TOU Emtotpéar and oxOTOUE x XQ > ~ ~ ele 70 Gauuxotov auto ows’ ome The Pauline source is too obvious here to require comment. Cf. pad o. Col. 1; 43, 1 Thes. 55 4, etc. m2) Lip es repens Acts 24; 5 c ~ THY GvaoTOOONY vEMv sv TOC Row.ov NOL RWOUVTA GTAOELG THOL EOveow syovtes xaAvv, tva, av @ toic “lovdators solg xatd Thy ~ ¢ ~ ~ fs RATANANOVGL VULMY HE XAKOTOLOY. olnxouLevy Cis; 16. Apparently there is here no direct connection. IGPt. 3:8 Acts 4; 32 , wo DE Téhog TavTtES Sy.OMpoves hy nadie not boyy plo Though the thought is similar the phraseology is different. Pauline influence is obvious here. Cf. Rom. 12; 16, 15;5,6, II Cor. 13; 11, rete 27 2 2? 16; (14) I Pt. 3; 22 Acts 10; 36 Topevvstc etc Oupavoy dxotayévtwvy odtog (I. X.) Eotw ma&vTOVv KYouos ads ayyehwv not eEoucrsiv xout Buvduewy For closer parallels see Eph. 1 ; 20—22, Col. 1; 16f., 2 ; 15, I Cor. | 5: 24 f. (15) hy Pte; 1 Acts 17; 3 Xpretod obv naddvtos can. . Gti tov yototov eden madetv This thought is too common to show dependence. (17) (18) (19) (20) 506 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 4; 3 Acts 14; 16 Q ‘ c donetog yuo 6 mapeAnAudas yod- 6¢ av totic Topepy(npsvorts yeventic voc 7b Bot put Tay 2Ovay xavelp- lacey ma&vta th eOvyn mopedecdan yaoOou, memopsupévoug év aoed- toig Odcic adcév. Cf. 15; 20, VELOULG DiS on i: oO: Again the Pauline influence is obvious. Cf. Rom. 3; 25, Eph. 2; 2,4; 17, Col. 4; 21, 3; 7, I Thes. 4:5. See also Ex Sapove: I Pt. 4; 4 Acts 13; 45 Craconp.ctvtes Lahouuévors Praconuodvrec I Pt, 455 Acts 10; 42 ~ € 4 P Sr \ Pee > id / c x ~ TG stots xolvovt, Civtag xual obvd¢g got 6 optopévoc 6x6 TOU VEXPOUS cod xpuriig Covtmy xo vexpédv This parallel affords no real evidence either for literary dependence or for a common Petrine source. A common Pauline source seems more apparent.. Cf. Acts 17; 31, Rom. 2; 16, 14; 10) 423iiiG@aeee. 10,11 Tim. 4; 1. It is important to note that Acts 17 ; 31 comes from a much better source than Acts 10 ; 42. I Pt. 4; 14 Acts 5; 41 ci OvetdtZeobe ev dvéuac. Xorovod, of pev obv exopetovto yatoovtec uaxcorot (16) st St He Xprotimvéc, and... Gtr natnermOyouv bréEp ‘ > , See eee x ‘ Cin a> Flt d > | atcyuvéodw, SogaTétwm SE tov TOU dvonatos ati.nodFvon “ Suffering for the name” in Acts 5 ; 41 is obviously an anach- ronism. It is more natural to suppose that this phrase comes from a time at least as late as I Peter. The resemblance in the above parallel seems to be accounted for sufficiently well by the assumption that these passages have a common background. Though the conditions are different, Paul has much to suggest these citations. Cf: Rom: 5 ; 3, Eph. 3 ; 13, II Cor. 42%; 10; Phil 22s oe Jas. 4 ; 2, 12 which was probably ee soon after I Peten Depen- dence upon the apostle Peter is very improbable at this point. I Pt beo2 Acts 20; 28 X 2) c ~~ 7, , c ~ x Ay n~ Towavate TO év duly moiuviov to mpocéyete EKUTOIC KO TavTL TH cod, (&moxonodvtes) wh avay- fae a @ bua tO mvedu.a TO ~~ 2g > , TH een This parallel is very close. Though this “charge” may not come directly from Paul, his influence upon this section of. Acts First Epistle of Peter. 507 js obvious and in all probability he prepared the way for the suggestion in our Epistle, which the author of the Appendix to the Fourth Gospel wove into an anecdote. Mk. 14 ; 27 may bear some relation to these passages. Cf. also I Pt. 2; 25. IT Pt 639 Acts 14; 22 ® GvttoTyte otepscl TH TloteL, mxoanxdolvres Enuévery cH moter elddtes TH adTA THY Tabyatov xal Orr Six ToAABY OAthbewy det ai év TH xdopm bpdiv adehootatt Hud clocdOeiv sig thy Paordetav éruteystoban zod Mcod In both members of this very suggestive parallel, to which Holtz- mann calls our attention, reference is made both to continuing in the faith, and to the afflictions that are rife. Though the backgrounds are different, both passages show Pauline influence. Cf. Rom. Peto ett ines, o, IT Tim. 2; 11, 12,35 12, ete: Te appears that there is no direct literary connection here. I Pt. 5; 12 . Acts 20; 24b 2 = m~y)nhy Tah 7 0 DF, Dy ahords me atiernrvre ann emiaotupay cadcyy iva, GAD Stapnotipachar vo edayyédov cic yao tod Wcod yaptsog tod Ocod The Pauline influence is too obvious here to require comment. I Cor. 15 ; 1b not only has close resemblance in thought to the above parallel but also contains the phrase “wherein ye stand,” which appeass int Pt..5: 4 2b. Pera 26,4. 2/7. 00 ang lePt. 2°: 21 f.,allude to the nin? Tay of II Isaiah. The title zo is rarely applied to Christ. It is im- portant to note that the death of the “suffering servant” in the early chapters of Acts has no atoning significance as in our Epistle.. Though our author never uses the title xaéiz zo} zc he employs the doctrine of the “ suffering servant” in its most developed form. I Peter does not rest upon Paul here, as the latter rarely alludes to this Isaianic teaching. Nor do these passages in Acts depend upon I Peter, for the theology of the former is quite primitive. Neither can we be certain that there is a common source back of the scrip- tures in question, inasmuch as the “ servant ”’ is alluded to so differ- ently. Conclusion. Of the twenty-two parallels just cited, but eight are in the Petrine portion of Acts, and in almost every instance equally close thought is to be found in the Pauline Epistles. Of course, the fourteen Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. VXII. 34 January, 1913. (1) 508 Ova Delmer Foster, parallels in the non-Petrine portion of Acts all show strong Pauline influence. Our study has revealed many suggestive points of con- tact between Acts and I Peter, yet they are not such as to justify the conclusion that one author knew the work of the other. If there is any dependence it would seem that “ Luke ” is the borrower. It is generally agreed that Luke, the author of the ‘“‘ we document,” was a disciple of Paul. Our author also appears to have been a student of Paul. Consequently these authors would naturally have similar thoughts and forms of expression and still be independent of each other. The resemblances between I Peter and Acts 1—12 are due, it would seem, not to a common Petrine source, but (1) to the dependence of our author upon the Pauline Epistles and (2) to the influence of Paul upon the author of Acts. That is to say, the common source is Pauline rather than Petrine. JAMES TePtsaleiGs 6 Jas. L; 2:53 dv @ ayahMdods, Grtyov dots ci nicav yapdv hyfjoacts ... Stav déov AumyDévtes Ev TommtAowg met- Telpmowcic mepiméonte motntdots (3) pucu.cts (7) tva To Soxtutov dudy yiwwoxovtes Ott TO Soxiutov budiv THS THOTEWS Tig motes RATEPY ACETAL Nearly all commentators have recognized a dependence between these two passages. Mayor says: “‘it is proven beyond all doubt by the recurrence in both phrases motxthorg metpxouctg and to d0- xivtoy voy vH¢ mlotewe with its usual order of words. Assuming then, as we must, that one copied from the other, we find the trial of faith illustrated in I Peter (as in Ps. 66; 10) Proves t7aee Job 23; 10, Zech. 18; 9, Mal. 3; 3) by the trying of thejprecious metals in the fire; we find also the addition, dAtyov dott, et déov, uny2évtec, which looks as if it were intended to soften down the uncompromising Stoicism of St. James’ x&oav yapav nyjouode”’. (Com. on Jas. p. xcvi.) That there is here a case Of dépen= dence, practically all agree, yet the order of dependence many question. Ileteacpcte morxthorg seems somewhat weak prior to the Neronian persecution, which is assumed in the argument, inasmuch as it refers in I Peter to ‘trials and persecutions of the Christi- ans”’. (For mstpaopdg see any Gk. Lex. Cf. also Cone’s com p. 273; Schmidt and Holzendorf Com. 111, ‘p; 458 fem First Epistle of Peter 509 Against the argument that the longer form in I Peter is a proof of its priority may be advanced the general consensus of even con- servative opinion regarding the alleged dependence of Romans and Ephesians on I Peter. Cf. Sanday’s Com. on Rom. p. Ixxvf. Many of the “illustrations of I Peter,” no doubt, were originally © from the O. T., but they do not appear to have been dragged in unnaturally. They have been called out by a concrete situation, whereas the passage in James is lacking not only in local coloring but also in clearness of purpose. The phrase alluded to above may be “a softening down of James’ harder expression,” but as a matter of fact the tendency was towards an increase in the fanaticism for suffering as we approach the second Century. Cf. Acts 5; 41 and the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans. Again, in I Peter, the successful endurance of the present trial has an important bearing on the condition of the Christians at the imminent “ parousia,” a most vital and burning issue, whereas in James it is advanced merely as a motive for “ patience.’ Jas. 1 ; 2 has nothing to recommend its priority in this context. On the other hand I Pt. 1 ; 6 is the continuation of a line of thought begun in the preceding verses, 1. e., (3) God has begotten the believers to a lively hope (4) of an inheritance reserved for those (5) who are kept through faith unto salvation, (6) in which thought they may find comfort in the present persecutions (7) which will turn out to their good in the approaching parousia. In view of the foregoing considerations the position of Mayor and Monnier seems untenable. The probabilities are in favor of the dependence of James on I Peter, at this point. (2) I Pt. 1; 23 Jas: 15318 avoveyewnévor .. . dik Advou Bovrndets anexuijosy hud Oyo ahndstac The “birth” here is accomplished “ by the word of God,” or “of truth.” Mayor thinks that ; “I Peter expanded the simpler thought of James” (p. xcvi), to which Monnier adds: “d’une facon oratorie”’ (p. 269). Yet the avaysyewrnyévor of 1; 23 refers back to the avayewvyoxe of 1; 3 which shows close sequence of thought. Some have felt a difficulty here in finding a logical connection of Jas. 1; 18 to its context. (See note on Ex. 11.) >Anoxvéw is peculiar to James, being found only in 1; 15, 18, while avavevvao) occurs only in I Pt. 1; 3, 23. The closeness of thought and phraseology make dependence probable. The priority seems also to belong to I Peter. (3) (5) (4) . 510 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 1; 23, 24 Jas..1; 10, 14 St oc milow odpE He yoptog uot ao avbog ydote mion S6fa avtiSG, ws 6p- dvétetbev yap 6 fdvog. . . xo zou séypavOn 6 yOptog nal tO séhjpavev tov yoovov xat To avoo avOog &émecev, TO SE OYju.x xuptov adtod eénecev U.eVvEet Professor Bacon thinks that ; “the thought here is reproduced from I Peter.” He also maintains that James is the borrower in Ex. 2. (Com. on Gal. p.8n.) The language of James shows a close relation to Ps. 90 ; 6, 103 ; 15, Job 14 ; 2 and Isa. 40 ; 6—8, but it is more closely related to the last. Dependence here is made very probable by the next parallel. [Pts 2-4 Jas. 1; 21 anodéuevor civ nicav nantav xa S16 anobéusvor nioav pumactav mavea 36 ‘ av noniag év mpxUTHTE oddvoug xxl makoug xatahadiac, dSégaobs tov Eu a hovyov Tov ae apttyévvytn Bpéon tO Aoyt- Suvepevov sisou, THe buyas. Cf. 3; nov... YaAn émmodyjoats tva év 14, 17 and 4; 11. AIT avEnONTE sic owrnotav (re- sumes 1 ; 13). Cf. 3; 21 capnxdg Dye Qn pope Eri ery AKTOVEGLC QUTOU L ~ , ‘ A AOYV XOL UROZPLGLY XA %GL TECLOGE ‘ The identical use of the introductory participles is striking. The wording and general plan are also very similar. That I Pt. 2; 1 is preceded by a possible reference to James is significant, as well as the fact that 2 ; 2 finds a parallel in the “ new born babes” to the “new birth” of Jas. 1 ; 18, which is in a close context. Monnier compares the “ Word of Truth” which saves our souls (Jas. 1 ; 21) to “le lait Xoyixév par lequel on grandit en vue du salut.” I Pt. 2; 2 (Com. p. 269). I Pt. 2; 4 is an exhortation based upon 1; 23a. If Jas. 1; 21 is in any way connected with the preceding context, it too must go back a few verses, i.e. to 1; 18. Obviously the connection is better in I Peter. That this similar exhortation follows three verses below the common reference to the “new birth,” makes a strong case for dependence. I Peter also employs the “Word” in 2;2, which James used in the foregoing connection. lL Pt 4258 Prov. 10; 12 Jas. 5; 12, 20 ¢ LX Xnravragtodeunordo- mpd navtmv pA) Ouvu- ry ‘ suvtods ayamny éxte- vemodvtacxadinter. Heb. eve (20) ywwodonete Oot First Epistle of Peter. 511 vi} gyovtes, Our eye TZUN NIN pyyp oD DY 6 EMLOTPENAS KU.KOTO- AKNOTTEL TAY SOC Gy.xp- Rov... nadower wAF- Tay Dog aunotay Monnier thinks that the thought of James is the more primitive, and that the citation in I Peter is of a homiletical character (Com. p. 270—271). Others take it to be a “ proverbia] expression not appropriately employed by James.” (Cf. Cone’sCom. p. 295.) Mayor says: ‘‘ James makes use of a familiar phrase without regard to the bearing of the context, applying it to the conversion of the erring, while St. Peter keeps the original application” (Com. p. xcix). With this we agree, but on this basis, we are inclined, with Bigg (Com. p. 173), to turn Mayor’s argument against himself and infer the priority of I Peter. If our author “keeps the original appli- cation,’ James cannot have influenced him to any appreciable extent. Bigg gives the following summary of the argument: “ If there is any connection here between St. James and St. Peter, it is clear that the former is the borrower, for the connection of his phrase with verse of Proverbs can only be made clear by taking the phrase of the latter as a help. If. St. Peter had not first written &yary nainrer TAVLOS auxetiHv, St. James never could have said that he who converteth a sinner xahvber mADo¢ auaptidv.”” (For more complete discussion see Mayor p. 170f., and Bigg p. 173.) From the above parallels it is obvious that these N.T. authors do not follow either the LXX or the original Hebrew as we now know them. The verbal agreement, therefore, is best explained on the basis of literary dependence, and reasons have not been wanting to give to I Peter the priority. (6) I Pt. 5; 4 Jas. ue noursiots tov duapavtivey tHS Aneta Tov otégauvov tig Cwiis Soe otéEoAvov (7) | (ol et toe) Jas. 4; 6 ¢ ‘ Cc , > , c fe \ id s > , 6 Wcde umepyodvors avtitdocetat, 64 Wed¢ umepnpavorg dvtitacoeTat, canewois Se Sidwor yaow cameos SE Stdwor yaouw (8) I Pt. 5; 6 Jas. 4; 10 , y c ‘ ‘ , , ~ , TORELWUONTE DV UTD Thy xPaTALay TametwODyTE Evemtov tO xuoton, ~ ~ ~ Cc ow ¢ ‘ ¢ , (ay aS - xsipx tod Oecd, tva vpde ubwon xat ubdoer vee év “~x106) (9) (10) 512 Ova Delmer Foster, 1) Pt:-bE33 Jas. 4: 7b ¢ > > c¢ ww 40% 5 , ~ 24 6 avttdixcg updv SiaPodog... avtlotyte TH StaBdAw xo Ev- Y > , \ Bo , iva bate Cex 9) @ avtioTHTE OTepeoL TH Mote. CetaL AO Udy Dependence is indisputable in parallels 6—9. The phrasing and general structure are remarkably alike. The sequence cannot well be considered accidental. Following the quotation in both cases is the exhortation to submission to God with the view of exaltation, which will follow after resisting the devil. Ex. 9. The evidence of Ex. 20 should also be considered here. These quotations are too constant and too close to permit a doubt of dependence. The importance of these parallels justifies us in quoting some- what at length from Bigg (p. 191) where the priority of our Epistle is defended in a convincing way. ‘“‘ Reasons why we should assign the priority to I Peter: (1) in James the mention of humility is sudden and unexpected ; (2) though he gives the quotation from Prov. 3 ; 34 in the same shape as I Peter, he writes, in ver. 10, cunewounte évamtov ToD Kupiov, as if he were aware that 6 @sd¢ was not quite correct : we may infer perhaps that he had somewhere seen the quotation in its altered shape ; (3) the mention of the devil in I Peter is not only more natural but more original; (4) in ver. 8, St. James has ayvicute tae xapdiac, which may be suggested by axe buyac Du.0v Hyvinotes of I Pt. 1 ; 22: if this is so, St. James as combining different parts of the Petrine Epistle.”’ S LPG, shed Jas, >! A, ~ > 7 > ~ ~ » 7 ~ ~ 5 nn &xhenToig TapEMdyy.org Sinonmooms talc Swdexx ovhaig talc ev TH Sixomoo% This leads one to infer literary dependence. Our Epistle addresses people of a definite location while James refers to the Diaspora in general. Mayor argues that the definiteness of I Peter is an unconscious enlargement of the general address of Jas. 1 ; 1, but others see in it an evidence of originality. Tats 3Hdexx oudaig cannot be very early if it refers to the children of Abraham by faith, rather than by birth, which the body of the Epistle requires. Many scholars believe that James bears a literary relation to Romans. If this were not so the S:%cxneo% might be understood to refer to the Jews as such—assuming an early date—but if James depends upon Romans the dS.zonog% must refer to the faithful regardless of race. That the author had the latter class in mind is evident from the con- (11) (12) (13) (14) First Epistle of Peter. 513 text. Cf. ver. 18. The distorting effect that a theory of date may have an interpretation is illustrated by Mayor, not only when he makes ‘‘ James’”’ address ‘‘the Jews of the Eastern Dispersion,” but also when he says ; ‘“‘ St. Peter addresses the Jews of Asia Minor” (Com. on Jas. p. xcvi.) i Pie Eee Jas. 13 18 6 xatx Td TOAD adtOD Edcog Kva- ovAnSele anexdyoev Huds hoyw yewrous hdc ete eAnida Caioxv adydeing The reference to the “new birth” comes in more naturally in I Peter than in James. It is difficult to see any connection with the context in the latter, unless it be preparatory to the following exhortation. (Cf. Cone p. 277.) Since there is nothing in the preceding context to suggest it, the probabilities are that the bor- rowing is on the part of James. ra os Wee Jas. 1; 27, 2; 5 gig xAnpovouiav dobaotov xa Donorxsia xabupd nal apiavros . . au.lavTov whnoovou.oug =HS¢ PaotAstas * Auucvzo¢ occurs in the N.T. only here andin Heb. 7; 26; and 13 ; 4. Dependence here is made probable by the possible points of contact in the immediate context of James. Cf. parallels 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 30. 1 ghd Ea rages age 8 Jas. 1; 25 ~ ¥ S. , a , sig & amdunotow ayyeho. napa- 6 SE napaxddbag ele vonov Téhetov nova wov zH¢ eAsubeptas Ilagaxtntm is a rare word in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in Lk. 24 ; 12 and Jn. 20; 5, 11. It is used in the perceptual sense in the latter references, whereas it is employed in the con- ceptual sense in the above parallel. The context in James is sug- gestive of I Peter. Dependence here seems quite probable. lePho 7 Jas. 2; 1 Tov Aanpocwnornntos xpivovTx uy év mpoownoAybiatc . . . Ioccwxodnbia is found also in Rom. 2; 11, 3; 25, 6; 9, and may suggest dependence of James upon Paul. The verbal form appears only in Jas.2;9. Ilpccwxodnntys occurs in “ Peter’s speech” in Acts 10; 34. ‘‘A” privative is employed with this word only by our author. It appears then that Paul is the source for I Peter. The usage in I Peter is more in favor of its priority than in James. 514 Ova Delmer Foster, I Peter employs it in a chain of thought whereas James uses it, as if suggested by another, to introduce an exhortation quite foreigen to the previous context. This parallel is made more significant by Exs. 12, 24 and 30. (15) dy etry ey lal Jas. 4: TKPKKHAG . . - dre yeodou THY Cao- Tobey mOAcWOL ... a évteDOev ALA emidupsdy aitives oTpaTey- é&x TV TdoOvaYV Op. TOY OTPATED- OvTa nate THC Puyys oy.évoy &v TOIC sean Dp. Obviously these passages are closely related. I Peter depends very probably upon Paul (cf. Rom. 5 ; 17, Gal. 5 ; 17, ete); rather than upon James; inasmuch as the influence of Romans is apparent all through this section. The verse contains nothing that cannot be duplicated in the Pauline Literature. Jas. 4; 1b agrees with I Pt. 2 ; 11 in making the warfare internal in accordance with Paul’s doctrine of the “‘capé against the mvedy.x.”’ But the preceding and succeeding contexts lead one to chile ‘« James”’ alludes to social disturbances. If so pédeow should refer to “persons”, but this is wresting the word out of its most obvious meaning. The phrase 4; 1b, therefore, seems to be borrowed. | (16) I Pt. 2; 12 Jas, 3; 13 chy dvactpooty vudiv...syovtes Serektm ax tig nadiig dvaotpo- nat ta... én T&v xoddv Zoymv oie Te Zoya adtod ev mpxuTHT émontetiovtee Soedowor tov Wedv. cootac Cf. 3;2 chy &v 068m ayvnv ava- otpoony, 16, thy ayadyy év Xprote The sequence of thought is better in I Peter. A difficulty is felt in the attempt to bring the verse in James into connection with the idea implied in the analogies of the foundation, etc. (Cf. Cone’s Com. p. 286.) This author says : “ the connection, if any, is strained.’ The writer begins here a new theme of the “ Meekness of Wisdom,”’ whereas in I Peter the verse is a continuation of the thought begun in the foregoing context. If I Peter shows depen- dence at this point it is upon Paul. Cf. ver. 11. (17) I Pt. 2;-16 Jas. 1: 2b aeue ao edsdOepor ... HAR oo Osod voyoc srevbspiag 1; 1 cod Sod- SodAot hoc This is a close parallel on the Pauline basis. Cf. Gal. 2 ; 4, 5 ; 4, 13, etc. We have seen in another connection that this section of (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) First Epistle of Peter. 545 I Peter depends upon Romans, hence, if there is dependence here between James and I Peter it must be on the part of the former. This parallel is made more significant by Exs. 4, 6 and 20. I Pt. 2; 20, 21 Jas, 5; 10, 11 et oryabonousdvees NHL TACYOVTE UN 3° - 2 oo bee = co R ~ R. oS © a o 2! UN = R = > 3 Q os. R ay ¢€ ~ ¢ , UTOUEvEL % TOUTO (APLC monk oe a Osd- xa te ane Sontag TOUS TPOMY)- ; ty ~y a4 nt hme - * nmr iS » vy Ati o =nn- sig TOUTO yap ext Se, Ott nahh Tag. (dod waxaottousey Tods ‘ Vv ~ x la Xpovbe ENAVEY UTED UUGY, UNIV oUmoUsivavtacs. Cf. 4 ; 12. UTOMpRdvoy UTROLPOULOY Patient endurance in suffering is at a premium in both cases, though they appeal to different examples. The appeal of James to the O. T. worthies does not show the Christian trait as distinctly as I Peter in its appeal to Christ, nor is it in accord with Jas. 1 ; 1. "AyaSoxovotvces of Peter is in accord with “‘ James’ polemic” against the misunderstanding either of Paul’s doctrine of ‘“ justifi- cation by Faith,” or of Hebrews 11. I Pt. 8; 10 Jas. 1; 26 TAVGATO THY YAGoouv ano xax0d pH yahwaywyHy YAooouy advod Here is a close parallel in thought. I Peter probably quoted 3; 9a from Prov. 17; 13 at Paul’s suggestion. Cf. Rom. 12 ; 14, 17, I Thes. 5 ; 15. On the basis of Mayor’s criterion, the brevity of James here indicates its priority, but against this is Jas. 3, which is more explicable as a discourse preached on the text of I Peter against the growing zeal to become teachers. Cf. I Cor. 14 ; 16—22. I Pt. 4; 5 Jas. 3: 9 ‘on (¢ , , c SN Q ~ Q ~ a Be TH STOLE HOW OVTL la) XOLTNS TOO THY VUEMY COTY XEY The thought is too common during the early period to be decisive, yet the general trend of the contexts is quite alike in both cases. I Pt. 4;7 Jas. 5; 8 Thvtwy TO téAOE Hyyinev’ cwyoo- arnptgate TOG nagdiog buoy Oct vijcate obv % Tapoucta vod Kuptou Hyymev. v. 3 év soyarag Husoas This parallel is made more significant by Exs. 20 and 22 I Pt. 5; 10 Jas. 5; 8 6 Osdc ...Odlyov maddvtag ad- paxpoduuoate xa vusic, ornot- TOG... . oTNpLEEt gate Tas xxpdiac Note the sequence in parallels 20—22. (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) 516 Ora Delmer Foster, d fei Tass dea Ilécpo¢ anéotodo¢ “Incov Xoprotod *Idexmboc, Osod xat Kuptov “Iyoor Xetotod S0d)o¢ > On the supposition that the author of “ James ’”’ was an apostle it is significant to note that S0dAc¢ is used instead of a&mdot0Xo<. AodAo¢ Paul uses, in Phil. 1; 1, for an apostles associate. In the salutations of five of Paul’s epistles he alludes to himself as an anoczo0h0¢, also in two of the Pastoral epistles. Only Titus and Romans employ $05/9¢ in this connection, which may be used as a datum for the dependence of James upon Romans. Or on the supposition that the author is the Lord’s brother one would expect to find adeiod¢. Oeod xxi Kuotov are important additions. 1 Me Ek rag ete 8) Jas) ls 2t bee TUte aiuate OS apved auonouv omAov sautov tyoEly amo TOD *KL HoTtAOv xoou.ov. 5; 7 thutov xmomOv I Pt. 1; 22 Jas. 4; 8 Tae buyas ayvindtes ayvicnts xxpdtas I Pt. 1; 22 Jas, eae dv TH umanot tis &Andetac Oyo ay S_tac When taken separately these three parallels need not detain us. L Peele a3 al Jas. 4; 7 Smotacobwsvor TOS DeoroTaLs, Ono- Onotayyte TH Oc TUGCOU.EVAL TLS Avduow. TOV Meov gopetods. 2; 17. See Ex. 8 for a closer parallel. Pt: 2552p Jas. 5; 19 s s > TAKVOUEVOL STEGTOMONTE dv vig év bylv mAavynd¥]... xo > , emotpéon Tig abTOV Ov Suggestive but not conclusive. I Pt35 eb Jas. 1; 21 wet moautytos. Cf. v. 4. dy mpavtyT Probably accidental. First Epistle of Peter. 517 (30) I Pt. 4; 14 Jas. 2; 1 TO tis d6Eyo xal TO TOD sod tHy xiotw “Incod Xorotod — tod TeveDu.o Kuotov fudv, zig 86én¢ This furnishes no argument either for or against dependence. (31) I Pt. 4; 16 Jase ae \ s ‘ ‘ y \ ‘ > el @¢ yolotiavdg (mkoyel) . . . TO KAAOV dvou.n To emxAndev so Sogalétw tov Ocdv év TH Gvouac. duke ToUTW While this is suggestive the background is different. Conclusion J. P. Mayor says: “I think no unprejudiced reader can doubt the resemblances between the Epistle of St. James and the Epistle of St. Peter. The recurrence in them of the same words and phrases and their common quotations from the O. T. are such as to prove conclusively that the one borrowed from the other. Nor can there be much doubt as to which of the two was the borrower if we ob- serve how in almost every case, the common thought finds fuller expression in St. Peter.”. (Epis. of St. Jas. p. xcv.) So Zahn says : “‘it is plain that the author of I Peter was well acquainted with James and had read the letter reflectively.” (Int. I, p. 134.) Salmon thinks that ‘“‘ the proofs of the use by Peter of the Epistle of James are decisive.” (Int. p. 556.) Falconer maintains that “there is a close relation between the Epistles, but the order of priority can be determined only on the basis of the date of James.” (EE BS Diep. 716.) That these Epistles are in some way directly related, critics of all schools are agreed, but as to the order of priority they differ widely. Luther long ago contended for the priority of I Peter. He has been followed by an illustrious line of scholars, e. g. W Brtickner (S. 35), Hausrath (IV, S. 253), Hilgenfeld (S. 638), Holtz- mann (Einl. S. 315, 336), von Soden (H.C., III 2 ; 2, S. 2f., 110), Pfleiderer (S. 417, 424, 427), Knopf (N. Z. S. 34), Bacon (Int. p. 160), Bigg (p. 23), Cone (E. B., Com. p. 269). Jiilicher contends that: ‘‘ James has considerable literature behind it not only O. T. Apocrypha, but Christian writings also : Paul, Hebrews, I Peter and the Gospels. The points of resem- blance, too, between it and the First Epistle of Clement are so many and so striking that it is impossible to explain them satisfactorily 518 Ora Delmer Foster, except by supposing our author to have been acquainted with that Epistle. James shares its fundamental ideas with those of the Shepherd of Hermas, and even in expression it often approaches the latter remarkably closely.” (Int. p. 224.) Were we to grant the truth of Mayor’s assertion—which is not supported by the facts—that “the common thought finds fuller expression in I Peter,” it would still afford no conclusive argument for the priority of James. Cf. the relation of I Peter to Ephesians and Romans. What is much more conclusive is the naturalness with which the citations in question occur in their respective contexts. It has been noted at various points in the above study that the contextual connection is much better in I Peter and not unfrequently does it appear that the thought of James has been introduced at the suggestion of another. The priority of our Epistle seems evident in no less than half of the parallels, e. g. 1—9, 11, 14-17, 19. Appa- rently therefore those are correct who claim James depends directly upon the First Epistle of Peter. JUDE D d Pt = ee Jude 1 Exhexctolg . . . EV KYLAKOU.G TveU- OIG év ea TAT HYATNPEVOL . nacog 5 (veTNS one) Opoupou- TeTHOHMEvoLC ae TOU ld > ‘ , WEVOUS OLA TOTEWS... The occurence of the doctrines of the believers’ election, sancti- fication and security in such close contextual connection makes dependence seem probable at the very outset. I Pt.1;2 Jude 2 yacig Sply not etoyvyn mAyOuvOety Edeoc Syiv nol eloyvyn nol ayo TAnuvOety, Jude reproduces the phraseology of our Epistle more perfectly at this point than any other N.T. writing, excepting II Pt. 1 ; 2, which was borrowed either from Jude or from I Peter. II Peter has the exact form found in I Peter, but it is a recasting of Jude by a student of I Peter, hence the priority must be given to our Epistle. The direct sequence of this close parallel with the one preceding it leads (3) (4) (1) First Epistle of Peter. 519 us to infer dependence. Yet the superscriptions Jas. 1; 1 and Jude 4—2 are peculiarly open to the suspicion of adjustment and as- similation in the process of formation of the canon. | (Gd 2 Pee ie Jude 4 > > a x ross € ¢ , > ~ ... amewodvtes sic O nat éEcé- oof mean mooyeypapuévor sig toto Syoay TO Koto This parallel affords no argument for dependence. Cf. Rom. 9; fee, . Thestb=) 9) Proy. 16;.4, Jer. 18; 6 etc. igbivor 1g Jude 6 woig év QuAany mvebp.now Seap.cte aidtors dnd Cooov teTHoNxEv There is here no obvious connection. The evidence afforded by the above possible points of contact is not such as to warrant the claim that one author knew the work of the other. REVELATION Cc c Gt ea rere hea I) Rev. 1; 5 Ehutpwooyte ... tit atuacs do Adoavt, hud ex tiv aymoTiéiv Guvod auwu.ov xat wonthov Xpto- ‘Huddy av cH aluat, advod. 5; 6 qo. 1; favettowdv aluacog kpviov sothxds as soonypévov i) > ~ x - ~ Vd hae ~ ivf Inood Xovozot 5; 9 Hydpacacs tH Osh ev 7H axt- U.aTt Ov The purchase was made with the blood of the lamb. (Cf. Acts 20°; 28, I Cor. 6 ; 20, Heb. 9 ; 14.) The words used for “ lamb” and for “‘ purchase”’ are different, yet the ideas are the same. It can hardly be accidental that this reference to ‘“‘ redemption” or “washing from sin” is contextually connected with parallels 2 ‘and 3. I Pt. 2;9 Rev. 1; 6 Oyeig Se yévoc exdextdv, Pauc- éxorfosv hy.de Baordstayv, tepsic a tAetov tepatevyx, ESvag dyvov, Ande =OcH. 5; 10 7H Od qusiv Bacr- sig meoimotnow Agig xo tepete Both authors may be following the original independently (i. e. Exod. 19 ; 6), yet the context in Revelation makes this very im- probable. (4) (5) (6) 520 Ora Delmer Foster, I Pt. 4; 11 Rev. 1; 6 @ gotiv 1 S6ga nal TO xpatoc cig adts f S6Ex xal TO nomTOG Etc Tod aldvag civ alovov. aurv. tobe aléivac cv atdvoy. dum. Chas a. Cinor As: “The collocation of words is rightly considered by Hoffmann, von Soden (and Swete) to show that the doxology is addressed to Christ, as are those in II Tim. 4; 18, II Pt. 3; 18, Apoc> 1i6s ees p. 176.) But in no other instance is there verbal agreement through- out. The textual sequence and very similar phraseology in these three parallels make a strong argument for dependence. =e I Pt. 1; 20 Rev. 13; 8 ROCeyvuu.evou psy TOO naTaBoAYs tod ceviov écomyusvou ano xaTO- 2OGU.00 Goris xdoyov If ano xacaSorre xdou.ov limits éooxypévov, as one would naturally understand ts we have here a closer parallel than is to be found elsewhere in the N. T. On the other hand, if, as m 7475 connects with yéypanza, the thought is not the same. Cf. Swete’s ‘“Apoc. of St. John,” p. 164. As the text of Rev. 13; 8 stands it really demands a direct connection between «x6 xataorte xoou.ov and éooxyyévov. Bigg so interprets it. (Com. p. 4120.) ‘“‘ Qui occisus est ab origine mundi,” of the Textum Vaticanum, and pois, mlisih w «fms oo Jy0J> © of the Peshito, can only be taken as our revisers of 1881 rendered the Greek text. This parallel, therefore, is very significant, especially when taken in connection with Ex. 1. I Pt. 2; 25 Rev. 7; 17 me S c Lap) * ued , iy GES) FS , ane > a YTE YXO WS TOO “TH TALVOUEYS L TO LOVLGY TO AvVH Y.coov vol poveu AA? Z ~ aN ~ >. A GAX sneotpaonte viv emt TOV TOWWavel MOTOUG... It is interesting to note that our author uses the word referring to Christ, which is common with later authors. Cf. Jn. 10 ; 2, 41, 12, 14, 16, Heb. 13 ; 20, etc. See John Exs. 11—12. I Pt. 4;8 Rev. 12; 12 OTL O avttomo 0¢ Boros, 6 Ott ssoenem 6 dixBoroc Rémy @pev6usvec, TEpLRaTEL | , Vv >i yTov §& eyey Supov V WEyaY, SLOWS iva AAT ORY nao syet > seed } 4 < a — .. { First Epistle of Peter. 521 These passage show a common belief in the devil’s activity during the fiery persecution then waging. Rome appears to be the base of his operations in the world and apart from there he is thought of as ‘‘a roaring lion going about seeking whom he may devour.” I Pt. 1; 8. These references therefore, show similar conditions to have existed when the books were written, if, indeed, they do not show dependence. (7) Te Wea Rev. 3; 18 youctov Tod amoAAuuévon, Six TU0bE youcloy meTUOMU.EVOV ? ‘ » 4 Se SoxwaCouevov Though this parallel is suggestive it is not conclusive, It only shows that the two books have a common background. (8) I Pt 2; 16 Rey. Ly 1 SodAo. Oecd SovrAore adrod A very common thought in the N. T. (9) hebt. 3; 10 Rev. 14; 5 no ysthn TOU pi) Aadijout SdAov xal gv tH oTOumTL adTHY ody eboéSn S62A0¢, (eddac) These passages suggest dependence, yet they may be drawn from the original directly. Cf. Ps. 34; 13 and 32 ; 2. (10) I Pt. 4; 7 Rev. 1; 3 Tovey OF TO TEADS HYyime 6 yap noupds sys This idea is very common in the N.T. (11) Ie Bta bl Rev. 1;)9 THOUKANG 6 GUUTpEcPUTEpOG xal sym Todwns, 6 xa adekods Sudv udetug tHv to Xpiotod naby- xaxt ouynotvwvec év tH Other... WET Bid... Thy paotuptav “Inood This similarity is probably due to the similar conditions out of which these writings were produced. (12) I Pt. 5; 4 Rev. 2; 10 THs Sons otéoaxvov otépavov TiS Cwiic Though suggestive, dependence here is very doubtful. 13) 522 Ora Delmer Foster, I-Ptsbegls Rev, 14: 8 GaSurdve GaBurdy. Cf. 165 49:047--aa— 185).2; 40224, In view both of tradition and history, we need not consider any interpretation which does not identify Gafv2Xev with Rome. On this basis, which is the only tenable view, we must recognize a re- lation between I Peter and the Apocalypse. We cannot claim any literary relation, but that the circumstances and time of writing were Closely related seems obvious. Rome was already drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Rev. 17; 6. C. A. Scott expresses the opinion of many scholars when he makes this passage, just quoted, presuppose the Neronian persecution. (New Cent. Bib. on Rev. p. 262.) On this basis the mystical name has meaning, but to place it before the Neronian persecution, or even at the beginning, as the “ traditional view ”’ would claim for I Peter, would be to involve us in an insoluble mystery. It is clear from our Epistle that the persecutions had not made as much progress in Asia Minor as they had in Rome. Cf. Rev. 17 ; 6f. The persecutions alluded to in I Peter, were a “ new thing,’ whereas in Rome they were of some duration. It would thus appear that the Apocalypse was written soon after I Peter. The more obvious points of contact between these writings (e. g. Exs. 1—3) can hardly be satisfactorily accounted for on the basis of a common background, yet the evidence is not such as to make dependence very probable. I JOHN B b—c I Pt. 1:8 I Jn. 4; 20 ig 6v on iSdvteo ayankce, cig bv Ov Ecipuxev, tov Osdv ov ody hott wh Sp@vte¢ motetovtses... smpaney 08 SivaTar cyomaV Dependence here is made very probable by the additional evi- dence of John Ex. 2. i Pts 48 I Jn. 2 3ae \ ~ fod > ~ ~ ZhutpMdyte (Qaptots) cyto afue- 7d aia Inood Xoprovov... xa- > ~ , ¢ ~ J X ¢ c = TL MS Kp.vod a&yodp.ov xxl Konthou Oaxpiler yyu.dic ano axons ALapTLAC Xerorod The thought is very similar as well as the phrasing. Here Jesus’ blood is thought of as ‘‘ cleansing from sin,” whereas in Jn. 1 ; 29 (3) (4) (5) First Epistle of Peter. 523 it is the ‘“‘ Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world.” Our author has used these two ideas together, if indeed they may be said to be two ideas. ‘‘ Redemption is through the spotless blood of the Lamb.” Dependence here seems probable. Cf. also John ex. 3. Pts 28. I Jn. 3; 3 ‘ ‘ ~ ¢ , ‘ > 6 ~ 4 Qa Tag buyae Du.ay NYVinOTES nolL Tag... ayviter savtov nadie éxelvog KYVOg SoTL [ Pt. 1; 22b ID frog ayo ~ c ~ ~ > , ‘ > , , o > ~ év tH UmoK0T THs HAnDcing Sie ev toUTW yYivwoxouev OTL HYATO- , , > ‘ , ~ ~ A ‘ TIvetpatog sig prdadeotav avu- pev t& téxva TOU Mcod, ova TOV , >) fay ~ , ‘ > ~ ‘ ‘ > ba Va} moxpitov, ex xabapadc xapdiac @edyv AYATMUEV, KOOL TAS EvTOAAS aAAHAoug ayamicate extevire AUTO) TOLOLU.ey Parallels 3 and 4 should be considered together. Our Epistle teaches that purification is effected by obedience to truth and that it issues in brotherly love. I John sets forth obedience to the command- ments as the final test of love (I Jn. 3—5). The mere suggestion “dy TH Unoxot| tic anOetac’’ of I Peter is treated more extensively in I John. The author of the Fourth Gospel puts the teaching into Peeemowennot jesus himsel “Cf, Jno 44° 15. 21, 23, 15 >; 10/42: 44, etc. The reference to “‘ brotherly love” of I Pt. 1 ; 22b (2 ; 47, 3; 8, 4 ; 8) is extensively elaborated in I John. (Cf. 2 ; 9, 10, 3; 10—20, 4 ; 7—21, 5; 1—3.) Jesus himself teaches it in John 13 ; 34, 35. All this seems to indicate that the Johannine literature presupposes our Epistle. I Pt. 1; 23 I Jn. 3; 9 avavyeyewnévor obx éx omopdc 6 yeyewnpévoc éx tO odapriis ake apdcetou clay 00 Totet Ott o dv auTa pévet Ynoo% and onépua are very significant parallels just in this connection. Obviously the expression ‘‘ born of God’”’ means the same as “born again’’, or from above (%vw% ~ be’ ~ AUTOV AUTOS TEPITATELY See John Ex. 15 for a closer parallel in the fore part. Yet the neguratety of I John is more in accord with I Pt. 2 ; 21b than is John 13; 415. I Peter is probably the basis for Jn. 13°; 15 andwijaeiaa: I Pt. 2; 22 I Jn. 8; 5b a c , P) 5) , c , > et aed > v 06 KVL OTLAY OUX ETOLYOESV AW.LOTLA eV KUTW GUA SoTL Cf. John 8 ; 46, Ex. 7. It is to be noted again that this doctrine is taught by Jesus himself in the Fourth Gospel. I Pt. 2: 24 I Jn. 3; 5a a uN c ay: ¢ ~ aN eee, > 59: a x > , c ~ Og THE cu.coTing NLLOV auro¢ caviyj- soavepwdn, va tas axotiag nav veynev dv TH copatt avToD amt apy. Cf. 2; 2,4; 10. TO EvKov I Jn. 4; 10 has thxo6¢ corresponding to thaotiovov of Rom. 3 ; 25. Rom. 5 ; 8, 10 expresses in abstract form what is given inI Pt.3; 18 and I Jn.3; 16. I Pt. 2 ; 24 thinks of Jesus “ bearing our sins in his own body,” while I Jn. 3 ; 5 says ; “he bears them away,” in accordance with the testimony of John the Baptist. Cf. John Exs. 2 and 3. T Pt 1; 24 Neck. 82 7 a ~ Ne. , ‘ , is Siéctt miicn Geos w> ydptoc, nal xol 6 xdowog mapmyeTa, XO ~ se Dens c ¥ , > Cc , > par xX ~~ ‘ ie niion Sdfa avrviig oo avOoo ydo- émduuta autod’ Se moLwv TO Oé- zou... d8 bij Kuptov péver cig Anya tod Oeod péver ele tov TOV ahve atave. (Cie 43: There is probably no connection here. 1 Pt: 47 Ti Ini2e 18 ¢ A , Vv > UY cr =) , TAVTWY TO TEAO S NY YUAEY SOY AT Wen EOTL This idea is too common to trace its course down to the Johannine Literature. nl (1) (2) oy bo Cyr First Epistle of Peter. Il JOHN D I Pt. 4;8 II Jn. 5 ‘ s ‘ 5 c ‘ ~) ¢ ic > ~ >) , TPO TavTWY Thy Ele EXUTOUE Hya- va ayandpev KAAHAOUS Ty extevi| EYovTEs Dependence cannot be argued here, unless through the relation this parallel sustains to the other Johannine Literature. Cf. Jn. 13; peta 42) 1 Jn. 35-23. Ill JOHN D ete 3-1 II Jn. 11 exxdwatm 3& ano xaxod nol Toy- pH pod Td naxndv &AAX 7 dyabdy. cdtw ayaddv, Cytycatw sioyvyy 6 na Swméato adeyy. ayadorordw eo 20, 3 ; 6, 17. This parallel is quite suggestive, yet since it is the only real point of contact between these Epistles, and the reference in I Peter is ‘a quotation from the O.T., III John can have no voice in determin- ing the relation the Johannine Literature sustains to I Peter. JOHN B b—c IT Pt.1:3b. - Jn. 8:8 avayewyous hdc. Cf. 1; 23. yewyO¥] &vobev Cf. 3; 5 The idea of the “new birth” is found in the Pauline writings. weer Cor. 4 = 15, Gal. 4:49 615, Tit. 3:5. It is more clearly set forthin our Epistle. Cf. 41 ;3,23. It would seem that the author of the Fourth Gospel took up the idea as our author had developed it and incorporated it into a narrative. [Deg ea MS SiS) Jn. 20; 29, 31 a , ~ ve s ~ , Gv 00% {Sdvteq ayankre, cic Ov Gtr dcpande pe, [Owned] wentotev- vteg, Motevovtes SE xaS* paxncotoL of wh [SdvTed, nat Re oO ) pa ee fon) “oO S2 (3) (4) 526 Ora Delmer Foster, ayarmerts yaok avexdhadryto kon TOTEUGAVTES ... lve TloTEUOvTES Sedozauevy, nxowtZouevor tT téhog Cwhy Eynte év TH dvopnart adrod. THS TOTEWS Duddy, 6 cotnotay buyav Cf. 16; 16, 22. The Pauline Epistles contain this thought in embryo. Cf. II Cor. 5; 7, 1 Cor. 143 ; 12, Rom. 8 ; 23, 24. This contrast of jaieaeeae sight,” to which Paul thus refers, I Peter applies to the Christians of Asia Minor in a commendatory fashion. Great joy accompanies belief in the unseen one. But in the Fourth Gospel, the blessing is because (671) “ they have not seen and yet believed.” Furthermore the teaching is again found ina narrative. That there is a connection here is made very probable by the further parallel in I Pt. 1 ; 9 and Jn. 20 ; 31b. Salvation or life is here set forth as the end of faith, which refers back to the preceding parallel verse in both instances. Paul’s allusions to the subject are of a general and somewhat spe- culative character, while the author of the Fourth Gospel weaves it into a narrative in a most concrete fashion. I Peter forms a con- nection which bridges the chasm. The sequence of thought and the similar phraseology make a strong argument for dependence. I Pt. 1; 18, 19 Jn. 1; 29 , , ba iN 3 ‘ mo. ZhutomOyte ... twit atnat. we [Se 6 auvog tod Wcod, 6 atowv Thy AuUvod (acduov xa daonthov) Xpio- uaoctiav tod xdomou. Cf. 1; 36. v «cov. Cf. 2; 24. Acts 8 ; 32 employs %.v6¢, from Isa. 53 ; 7, otherwise it does not occur in the N. T. outside this parallel. This is significant, since in all three instances it is used as an epithet of Christ. Paul nowhere speaks of the “lamb” per sé, but he does speak of “ Christ our passover”’ (I Cor. 5 ; 7), which implies what our author explicitly states in 1; 19. The author of the Fourth Gospel improves upon our author when he puts 1 ; 29b and 1 ; 36b into the mouth of John the Baptist. The Petrine development of Paul is again found in the form of a definite narrative. John the Baptist is made to enunciate the fully developed Pauline doctrine of the atonement, in Petrine terms. (Ch Jnj41- 129 bowith) PE 243) I Pt. 1; 22a Jn. 15; 3 s Sy , > ~ id ~ > ss Tas buys ouov nyvindtes év cH dyn vpstg xnadapot cove Ste TOV Urano Tic adyOstas dovyov Purification comes in both cases through the word (truth). I Pt. 4 ; 22a probably depends upon Eph. 5 ; 26, but the parallel is much closer between I Peter and John than between Ephesians and John. aes First Epistle of Peter. 527 There is nothing in Jn. 13 ;3 to suggest “cleansing by the wash- ing of water by the word,” nor is there anything in the context of Ephesians which is suggestive of Jn. 15; 1f. It is also to be noted that Jn. 15 ; 3 seems to be somewhat unnatural in the parable ; having been suggested apparently by something already written. Since I Pt. 1 ; 22a is the closest N. T. parallel, it is reasonable to suppose John depends upon I| Peter at this point. Cf. also Jn. 17 ; 17, 19 which is an essential part of the “‘ great high-priestly prayer.”’ (5) I Pt, 1: 22b Jn. 13; 34 > > > , oa ‘ A BX HAPDIAS KAAHAOVS ayamycate ta nol dele nyamirs axntAous > ~ IA ALA EXTEVWS 13 and I Pt. 4 3 23. We have found reason elsewhere to believe that this verse in James depends upon our Epistle. I Peter understood the “ new birth” to have been effected “‘ by the word of a living and abiding God. The 6ye¢ is God Himself speaking, speaking not once only but with renewed utterance, kindling life not 8 < 7 <2) or Sy Rye ~ ce o x _ i = © ° (7) (8) 528 Ova Delmer Foster, only by recollection but by a present power” (Hort p. 92). The tendency toward hypostatization is more marked here than in the implied eyo¢ doctrine of the Pauline Epistles. Nor does it seem to be a violation of the text to say Jas. 1; 18 shows a still greater tendency in this direction. That“ John” was acquainted with I Peter is made very probable both by the structure and the sense of Jn. 1; 18a and I Pt. 1; 23a. The antithesis is significant, especi- ally since it is followed by phrases similar in form and meaning. John 1 ; 14 takes up the word d6yo¢ again, as if at the suggestion of another, which would come quite naturally from I Pt. 1 ; 23—25 or Jas. 1; 18. Hort thinks that “‘ St. James is speaking here of the original creation of man.” Granting the truth of his contention, the Epistle may still show an influence upon Jn. 1; 1—14. (Cf. Jn. 1; 3). I Pt. 1; 23b would have been a very suggestive text for the author who wrote Jn. 1; 4a, the content of which, significantly enough, is put into a discourse of Jesus (Jn. 5; 26). Compare I Pt. 2 ; 9b also with Jn. 1 ; 4b, which idea is also put into the mouth of Jésus (ins 62 107-9 3 to ont: On the whole then this parallel seems to indicate that the implied “logos doctrine ’’ of Paul was taken up. in connection with the idea of the “ new birth,” by our author, who put it in a suggestive fashion for “ James,”’ all of which—with the possible exception of James— paved the way for the fully developed form found in the Fourth Gospel. I Pt. 2; 22 Jn. 8; 46 0¢ GuU.noTtiny obn émolyosv iiaee 1a Ou.ay éheyyet ps Tept > ' y i > > . Gy.covboeg The doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness is too common, in itself, to be certain that there is here any literary dependence. Cf. Isa. 53 ; 9, Lk. 23 ; 41, II Cor. 5 ; 21, Heb. 4 ; 15, etc. Yet the followimg con- text in both books makes dependence here very probable. Cf. Ex. 8. T Pt. 2; 23 Jn. 8; 48—50 6¢ Aowepotuevos Obx avTeAordéoer, Lowapettys ef od xaxt dSoupdviov s > > ~ > TRACywv adb% Tretder gyetg (;) d&mexetOy “Incotg Eye Sawrsviov obx Eym, GAR Tw ~ Le ~ Tov Tatépe po, xo UNsic a&rt- UACETE PE... mapsdtoov S& TH xotvovTr Sixatme Eotw 6 Cyt@v xo xotvev First Epistle of Peter. 529 Jn. 9 ; 48—49 gives a concrete case of what is mentioned in IPt.1; 23a. I Pt. 2; 23b is also parallel in 8 ; 50 by “ Jesus’ own” words. These close parallels in their sequence, with Ex. 7, can hardly be accidental. (9) I Pt. 3; 21 In. 3: 5,6 ral . ‘ € ~ 5 (ie ~ ed 3.2 ‘ Qw 3 gS O XO UNdo avtitumOv vv owCeL sadv wy TIS yewyO* Odatoc... Y > ‘ > 20 > , A > Q Barticu.n, o8 capxog amdbcotg 08 SUvatar ciceADelv ele thy fa- 6Unov ... GlAstay tod cod. a Veyevvyps- > ~ , & > VOV Ex Tig Gapnds GAPE EOTL This very suggestive parallel i is made even more significant by the probable reference in Jn. 3 ; 7 to I Pt. 1 ; 23. Apparently I Peter depends upon Paul in this ems but it seems quite as evident that the author of the Fourth Gospel took up the Pauline thought of I Peter and developed it into a narrative. See Note on Ex. 4. (10) I Pt. 4; 11 Jn. 14; 18 ~ va éy naow SoécCnvar 6 Wsde tva SotacbH 6 navip ev TH Suey Se “Iyood Xorotod Eph. 5 ; 20 probably furnished the suggestion for our author, but clearly the parallel is closer between John and I Peter than between John and Ephesians. “‘ The glorification of God through Christ,” as alluded to in I Peter, is a common doctrine in the Fourth Gospel (13 ; 31, 17; 1, 4, 5, 6, etc.), and is frequently found in “speeches of Jesus.’’ It seems probable therefore that this too is a case of natural development. (11) I Pt. 5;2 Jn. 21; 15, 16f TOw.dvace TO ev Ouly motuviov tod Béoxe te dovia pov. 16, 17 Boone @cod Te mooBaté jou I Peter alludes to the general oversight and succor of the church, such as an elder could have and give, quite in harmony with what is taught in Jn. 21. Housatvery is used of Christ (ME. 2; 6, Rew: 2;47,7; 17,12; 5, 19; 15) in the sense of ‘“ govern,” and of Chris- tian ministers Gm 241 ; 16, Acts 20 ; 28, I Pt. 5; 2, 3). Ilotuvy is used of the Christian pas Mt. 26 ; 31, Jn. 10 ; 16 ; xotumov, Lk. 12 ; 32, Acts 20 ; 28,1 Pt.5 ; 2,3. See Bigg ad loc. Whatever view be taken of the alleged speech of Paul in Acts 20 ; 28, it shows a movement in the Johannine direction. Again the Fourth Gospel, even in its appendix, permits us to hear from the lips of Jesus himself ideas found in I Peter. This parallel is made more significant by the one following. (13) (14) (15) 530 Ova Delmer Foster, I Pt. 5; 4 J? LO eee oD) mowsviou no oavepwhévtog “Hyed sips 6 mowyy 6 naddc od &pyimotuevoc. Cf. 2 ; 25. We are certain that the Fourth Gospel depends upon Mark, hence Mk. 6; 34 fa have suggested this O.T. figure (Isa. 40 ; 11, 53; 6, Ezek. 34 ; 23, 37 ; 24, Ps. 23, Zech. 13 ; 7), which “ John ” elaborates. What Mark only implies our author explicitly states, whereas the author of the Fourth Gospel takes up the form given in I Peter and puts it in a teaching of Jesus concerning himself. In Heb. 13 ; 20 Jesus is spoken of as tov xowéva tov mooheTmv cov péyav. The context, however, has nothing to suggest John. On the other hand the “‘ Parable of the Good Shepherd” contains much to suggest I Pt. 5 ; 2-4 and 2 ; 25. It would seem, therefore, that our Epistle served again as a connecting link between the earlier tradition and the later development. I Pt. 1; Jn. 10; YF. gv Suvauet Ocod gpovpouys- ... ody Kpmticer tic abt ex Tig Ui ea yetpoc pov. Cf. 175i We have noted in Galatians (Ex. 5) the idea of “ the believer’s security,” and have been led to believe that our Epistle depends there upon Paul. The Fourth Gospel has an extended discussion on the subject (e. g. 10 ; 28, 29, 17 ; 11, 12, 15) and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the development may have traveled by way of iePeter 5 ov ¢ Mv I Pt. 1; 25 Jn. 1: 1 TO dé bijy.a% Kuotov péver sic tov ev aoyh Hy 6 AOyor, now 6 AdYo 9) tie Puy 0) Sve € 0 & CLF, } \OYOS, \ ¢ C 7~ ~ \ fxn Se ‘ ‘ ‘ ez aidva. todTo S& gout TO fix Fy zp 1 Osd¢ Fy 6¢ tov @edv, xo sO edayyedtadtv sig vpdc OD AOyos: “Chad The relationship between these citations has been touched upon in the note on Ex. 6. Dependence here seems probable. I Pp. 2 =c20 Jn. 13; 15 ~ ¢ Y € x s ‘ C ow a fpiv dnodwardcvey dnoypappov, tv ondderyya yap Edmxx Ypyly, tva , os ~ . a a~ > (ne nN exanohovOyjonte tog tyveow adbtod xabos eym emolnow vplv, xa uucig moive This parallel is suggestive especially since the “ example” occurs in a narrative in [Ons It is to be noted also that our Epistle has much to say about “ humility.” (16) (1%) (18) (19) First Epistle of Peter. 531 I Pt. 4; 5 Jn. 5; 22 T® stofuMe xotvovt. Cavtag xa Thy xolow nicav Bédmxev To 0UC UL) It is not clear from this passage in I Peter which is to be understood, Christ or God. Judging from the Pauline literature upon which I Peter surely depends, it would seem necessary to conclude that the author had the former in mind. It would readily be interpreted as such by anyone in the latter part of the First Century. Apparently “John ”’ so understood it. Reference in Jn. 5 ; 21 to quickening the dead, is very suggestive of the quick and the dead of I Pt. 4 ; 5. That it is found in a speech of Jesus is again indicative of a natural development. We cannot be certain, however, for “ John” may draw from Paul directly, at this point, or even from some other source. I Pt. 4; Sa Jn. 15; 12 SN , ‘ > ¢ , v > ‘ c > ‘ ¢c De LAR a To TAVTWY Thy sig EXUTOUG aYX- adTH sotly T EvTOAH F eEUH tve > ~ 14 > ~ 2) , ‘ s TV extEvt, EyOvTEC ayankts “hAHAouS xadOs Hyary- Cc ww GH UUs It is to be noted again that the thought of I Peter is found in John as the subject matter of a discourse by Jesus, in which the atonement doctrine (15 ; 13) is set forth in harmony with I Pt. 2; 24. It is very significant that the general statement made in the O.T. quota- tion in I Pt. 4; 8bis paralleled in Jn. 15 ; 13a by a concrete example. Note also that Jn. 15 ; 16 may allude to the Petrine doctrine of election, which is again incorporated in a speech of Jesus. d et. tel Afin, YS 1d) | TAPEMOoH.ors Sinomopae... sic Thy Siaonopav tov HAdivev... Probably accidental. 1 at car as Jn. 12; 41 Epsuvavtss sig tive... mpowap- tata eine Hoatac, ove elde thy cupoyevov tae elg Xptotdv ma- dSdEav adutod, xat eAcdyos eol Ohara xal tas pete tadrm 3dExc “OTOD Again the Pauline thought occurs in John in a narrative, but the similarity is not close enough to indicate dependence. Cf. also Lk. 24 ; 25, 26, 44, 46 and Acts 26 ; 22, 23. (20) (1) (23) 532 Ova Delmer Foster, 1b ietre abe Al Jn. 12; 44 > > ~ ‘ ‘ ¢ . ot auTOD mliotTOdDs sic Ostv ‘O motetwv ef 7 . - “5 eye aAAK sic cov méuhaved - = ‘ i> 2 .. . OOTE THY TloTlV UUaV xa et eantda stvar cic Pedy U. Though John very probably depends here upon Mk. 9 ; 37, it is suggestive in this connection. EL Pts? 13 Jn. 9; 31 . > ~ > ps > « v . @ A ~ = “OL WTA aUTOU sic Séyow avTOY oldauev de OTL AuapTHMAOY 6 He- Se. = aS 7 , Dy Q > > , dA AD a) medownov Se Kuptov ext morotvtag 6¢ oun axoter, HAN Edy tie Oeo- Bie ee oe 5 ik dn ae ate KUKA osPig H nat co OeAno auTod ~ , , There is here no necessary connection. I. Pt. 3; 14 Jn. 14; 27 cov Sb 068 pict ES, Be SE * zee be en ee TOV OF OODOV HUTMV LLY OODHUYTE, PY TAPUGCECUW UUMVY Y XH unde tapayOyjce (Ci. 3; 15) xxp- pydée detdudto a ©) o/] of. R The phraseology is suggestive, yet the similarity is probably acci- dental. | 24 rete | Jn. 15; 202 , ~ ~ r ~ Cc > ~ WZ ‘ > ~, ‘ UASTUS THY TOU Xororod TAY - EXSWVGS V.AOTUCT/ GEL TES cU.0U XA fo € ~ ~ VU.ATOY DUELS Oe U.K TUPELTE Connection here is very doubtful. Conclusion on the Johannine Literature. ce Professor Cone notes that “ distinct foreshadowings of the ideas of the Fourth Gospel and the epistles ascribed to John are indeed not wanting. The absence of the mystical profundity of Paul and the softening of some of the harsher lines of his teaching as well as several striking accords with Hebrews, shows the writer (of our Epistle) to have been in contact with the later Paulinism which marks the transision to the Johannine theology,” (Encyc. Bib. p. 3680). First Epistle of Peter. Dod We have noted at many points in the Gospels and the First Epistle of John where these ‘“ foreshadowings”’ have been developed into extended discourses and not unfrequently have we been permitted, in the former, to hear them from the mouth of Jesus, as a teaching of his own. Ideas of Paul have been taken up by our author and treated in a suggestive fashion for Jater writers. I Peter not only “marks the transition,” but also plays no small part in making the later literature possible. From the parallels cited above it would seem that our Epistle formed a bridge, as it were, between the Pauline and the Johannine Literatures. Our study, therefore, seems to require us to conclude that the Johannine Literature (especially I John and the Gospel) depends directly upon the First Epistle of Peter. TABLES OF RESULTS TasLE I APOSTOLIC FATHERS Classification | No. of References Tertullian ‘ A 1 Clement of Alex. A di We Ce A 3 II Clement . | Cc 2 Papias A 1 Justin Martyr B | 8 ihest. Xl Pat. .. D == Barnabas A* 13 Hermas B 10 Didache . D 6 Polycarp . A* 13 Ignatius : B 5 Clement of Rome A# 41 Total 104 534 Ova Delmer Foster, Taste IT CANONICAL BOOKS | Classification No. of References Galatians7) hoe | B | 9 I Thessalonians | D | 10 II Thessalonians . D | 5 I Corinthians . & 23 II Corinthians C-D 13 Romans . | A# 63 Ephesians | A* 45 Colossians | D 14 Philemon D — Philippians. 2. D 9 I Cimothy: he D 9 II Timothy ? . | D 5 Titus ? Joe Hl CD 14. 249 Total in Pauline Hebrews ‘ B 49 Epa Od 4SONUKee bi : | D 9 Markan Source D 12 Matthew = D 5 Lukes % 2k 4 D 8 cise. 6 os Fa D 22 James | A* 34 Jude | D 4 140 Revelation . | c 13 I John B 10 Il John D 1 Il John . | D | 1 John | B 23 48 Total in Joh. Lit. II Peter . | A | ge Total in Canonical Literature 408 Total in Apostolic Fathers . 104 Grand otal -. . . 512 2 eer Tables of Results. 535 Tasie III The Literature Showing a Probable Connection with I Peter Classification Place of | Date A A* B C C_D|Circulation Writing Galatians .. . B Asia Corinth 50 I Corinthians . . C Rome Ephesus} 54 II Corinthians. C—D| Corinth Ephesus: 54 Romanss. . . . A* Rome Corinth | a5 Ephesians . ..j/| A* ‘Asia, Rome Rome 59 its a 2 Oe S| C ? c ? RIecnteEws! 9.) 25] B _ Rome Rome? |? 85—90 FIRST PETER aiiesta ss aes S|, A® Rome ? ? 90—95 Revelation . . . | C Ephesus 95 Clement of Rome A* Rome | 95 I John B Ephesus) 95—100 John B Ephesus 100 Ignatius . 3 B Smyrna. 115 Bolyearp, . +. | A* Smyrna 115 Igermas: . . «| B Rome | 140 ariabas . . . A* Alexandria ? 130—160 Pisin... se B Rome 155 Papias | A Hierapolis 145—160 Il Clement A Alexandria 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY? HIsTORIES Mc Girrert. History of the Apostolic Age. 1897. WeilzsickEr. Apostolic Age. Eng. tr. 1895 Dosscuiitz. Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Eng. tr. 1904. —— The Apostolic Age. Eng. tr. 1909. Havusratu. History of the New Testament Times. Ropsrs. The Apostolic Age. 1907. Purves. Christianity in the Apostolic Age. 1901. Harnack. Expansion of Christianity. WeERNLE. Beginnings of Christianity. Eng. tr. 1904. Knorr. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 1905. PFLEIDERER. Primitive Christianity. Eng. tr. 1906. Barret. The Apostolic Age. 1899. Von Sopen. Early Christian Literature. Eng. tr. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire. 1893. —— St. Paul the Traveller. Neanper. Planting of the Christian Church. 1899. Scuarr. History of the Christian Church. Vol. I. 1882. Moe.ier. History of the Christian Church. A. D. 1—600. Eng. tr. 1892. Fisoer. History of the Christian Church. 1896. Von Scuusert. Outlines of Church History. Bacon. The Story of St. Paul. 1904. * Farrar. The Early Days of Christianity. Vol. I. 1882. Momsen. The Provinces of the Roman Empire. Eng. tr. 1887. Harpy. Christianity and the Roman Government. 1894. Buss. Roman Law and History in the New Testament. 1901. Ramsay, G. G. The Annals of Tacitus, Vol. II. 1909. Arnotp. Die Neronische Christenverfolgung. Histories of Suetonius, Dion Cassius, and Eusebius. Reuss. History of the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1884. Morratr. The Historical New Testament. 1901. INTRODUCTIONS. Bacon. An Introduction to the New Testament. 1905. ZAHN. KHinleitung in das Neue Testament. Eng. tr. 1909. Hottzmann. LHinleitung in das Neue Testament. 1892. * Only the most important of those works which have been consulted in the preparation of this monograph are included in this list. a “7 So ws Teaee —. — a Ora Delmer Foster, Bibliography 537 Jixicuer. An Introduction to the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1904. Hincenretp. Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1875. Peake. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. 1910, Davipson. Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. III. 1851. Satmon. Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament. Gioae. Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 1887. B. Weiss. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1888. Buirex. LEinleitung in das Neue Testament. Eng. tr. 1870. Dops. An Introduction to the New Testament. COMMENTARIES. Bice. On I Peter, International Critical Commentary. 1905. Monniter. La prem. Ep. de l’apotre Pierre. 1900. GuNKEL. On Der erste Brief des Petrus, in Die Schriften des N. T. 1907. Houtrzmann. On Der erste Brief des Petrus, in Commentar zum N. T. III, Bennett. On General Epistles, in the Century Bible. 1901. Piomptre. On J Peter, in Cambridge Bible for Schools. 1880. Cone, On I Peter and other Epistles, in the International Handbook to the New Testament Series. 1901. Harr. On I Peter in Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1910. Meyer. Commentary on I Peter. Eng. tr. 1891. Govet. Commentary on I Peter. Eng. tr. 1886. Hincenretp. OnI Peter in Schmidt and Holzendorff’s Short Commentary on the New Testament. Eng. tr. 1884. Bacon. On Galatians in The Bible for Home and School. 1909. Licutroor. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 1869. —— Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. 1895. Drummonp. On Gal. and other Epistles, in International Handbook to the New Testament Series. Sanpay and Hraptam. On Romans, in the Int. Crit. Com. 1902. Hort. The Romans and the Ephesians, Prolegomena. 1895. GarviE. On Romans, in the Century Bible. 1901. Westcott. The Epistle to the Ephesians. 1906. Rosriyson. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 1903. Beer. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 1888. Axspotr. On Ephesians and Colossians, in Int. Crit. Com. 1897. Martin. On Ephesians and Colossians, in The Century Bible. Lieutroor. The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon. 1892. Vincent. The Epistle to the Philippians and to Philemon, I. C.C. 1897 Minuiean. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Tessalonians. 1908. GoopspreD. On Hebrews, in The Bible for Home and School. Peake. On Hebrews, in The Century Bible. Mayor. The Epistle of St. James. 1892. Horr. The Epistle of St. James. 538 Ora Delmer Foster, Bibliography. Swete. Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1898. ALLEN. On Matthew, in the Int. Crit. Com. 1907. Prioummer. On Luke, in Int. Crit. Com. 1896. Herrmititer. Das Johannes-Evangelium, in Weiss’ Die Schriften des N. T. ZELLER. The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles. Eng. tr. GILBERT. On Acts, in The Bible for Home and School. 1908. BartLer. On Acts, in The Century Bible. 1901. DicTIoNaARIES AND ENCYCLOPAEDIAS, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible. Article on I Peter, by Chase. Hasting’s One Volume Bible Dictionary. Article on I Peter, by Falconer. Encyclopedia Biblica, Article on I Peter, by Cone. Standard Bible Dictionary. Article on I Peter by, Dods. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Article on I Peter, by Harnack. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. Article on Peter the Apostle, by Seiffert. GENERAL. Weiss, B. Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff. 1855. ScuarFe. Die Petrinische Str6mung der neutestamentlichen Literatur. Harnack. Die Chronologie. 1897. Licutroot. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, ete. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Published by the Christian Lit. Co. 1896. Oxford Committee of Hist. Theol. The N. T. in Apostolic Fathers. 1905. Ditrmar. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Toy. Quotations in the New Testament. 1884. Hawsins. Horae Synopticae. 1899. Vincent. Word Studies. THayeR. Word Lists in Appendix to the Greek-English Lexicon of N. T. Harnack. Sayings of Jesus. Eng. tr. 1908, Also on Acts. Smita, W. B. Der vorchristliche Jesus. 1906. Scumipt. Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief, in Zeitschrift fiir wissen- schaftliche Theologie. 1908. P. 24—52. Ramsay. The Flavian Persecution in the Province of Asia, Expositor Vol. X, p. 241 ff. —— The Church and the Empire in the First Century. Expositor 1893, pages 8 ff., 110 ff. and 283 ff., Harris. Expositor 1909, p. 155 ff. CuaRLEs. Greek Version of the XII Patriarchs. 1908. CoNEYBEARE and Kouter. On the XII Patriarchs, in Jewish Encyclopedia. Lo - a) ae a _- aa —_— a Bit Pai dine eee | een Tee = spe g ee aie , . a he ; 7 : VSM . ej 3 ee F Sy z iy a 3 sy t r ‘ J Q Connecticut Academy of Arts aa and Sciences, New Haven c9 Transactions V.17 Physical & Applied Sci. Serials PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY S TORAGE See tag Rite ES Pe ye alee anes Ne RTE OS DI / : PU OSIRES DRE CUCL RAAT E LORD STAT Gn URS Laer aS FAG by eee es ee een Abit SA ROSE oo ae ry : - * he cL * bec Ee wees : = Sia camaeennp eee eeniged Sanees HaAS tee gs spt: Mahia i aa Secnaeeehaneas 2 se i a = : Seeicoeceasaeceae fananhes Be eo Sestsinespngeses io i 2 Se iesere eer Saag ee ey oe oe a tn ey eee