Skip to main content

Full text of "Transactions - The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences"

See other formats 


:/"  "?         -^' 


^  V  {^  '■' 

n 

A  >f-                 r-, 

w  ^\.r"^ 

V-    ,' 

^' .  V. 

i^/,i*;^;^ .  "vlfe 


V  % 


:.-4i)Jt 


■,'      <   •    >T 


■■  U¥' 


'"/■r. 


,  ^5^" 


r-> 


HARVARD    UNIVERSITY. 


LIBRARY 


MUSEUM  OF  COMPARATIVE  ZOOLOGY. 


^^^' 


^a/vvu.xx)vu    vA^\^^ 


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 


THh   R.    WAGNER  SOHN   PRESS 


i 


/ 


OFFICERS   FOR    1911-12. 


President. 

His  Excellency  SIMEON  E.  BALDWIIQ. 


Vice-Preside  tUs. 


Prof.  ALEXANDER  W.  EVANS, 


Prof.  CLIVE  DAY, 


Prof.  HANNS  OERTEL. 

Secretary. 

Dr.  GEORGE  F.  EATON. 

Treasurer. 

Mr.  GEORGE  PARMLY  DAY. 

Z^ibrarian. 

Mr.  JOHN  CHRISTOPHER  SCHWAB. 


Cotntnittee  on  rublication. 

Exc.  S.  E.  BALDWIN,  Chairman,  Prof.  A.  W.  EVANS, 

Prof.  A.  S.  COOK,  Prof.  CLIVE  DAY, 


Prof.  E.  S.  DANA, 
Prof.  E.  P.  MORRIS, 


Prof.  H.  OERTEL, 
Mr.  J.  C.  SCHWAB. 


CO:NrTENTS. 


Additions  to  the  Library,  July  1,  1911,  to 

Art.  I.— The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut,  1789 — 1861. 

By  Henry  F.  Walradt 1-139 

Art.  II. — The  Authorship  of  the  Second  and  Third  Parts 

OF  "Kino  Henry  VI".     By  C.  F.  Tucker  Brooke      .    141-211 
Art.  III. — The    Date   of   the    Ruthwell   and    Newcastle 

Crosses.     By  Albert  S,  Cook 213-361 

Art.  IV. — The  Literary  Relations  of  the  First  Epistle 

OF  Peter  with  their  Bearing  on  the  Date  and  Place 

OF  Authorship.     By  Ora  D.  Foster    ....    363—538 


ADDITIONS  TO  THE  LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 
By  Gift  and  Exchange  from  July  1,  1911,  to  Aug.  31,  1912. 

Aix-en-Provence.—  Universite. 

Faculte  des  lettres.     Annales.     IV.  1-2.     1910. 
Amiens. — Academe  des  sciences,  des  lettres  et  des  arts. 

Memoires.     LVII.  1910. 
Amsterdam. — Akademie  van  wetenschappen. 

Jaarboek.     1910. 

Section  of  sciences.    Proceedings.   XIII,  1—2.    Afdeiing  Natuur- 
kunde. 

Verliandelingen.    Sectie  1,  X,  2,  XI,  1-2 ;   Sectie  n,  XVI,  4-5. 

Verslagen  van  de  vergaderingen.     Deel  XIX,  1—2.     1910—11. 
Maatschappij  tot  nut  van  t'algemeen. 

Jaarboek.     1911-12. 

Publications.     95-99. 
Meteorologisch  instituut. 

Annuaire.     1910,  A— B. 

Mededeelingen  en  verliandelingen.     CII,  1912. 
Angers.— S'ocie^e  Nationale  d' agriculture,  sciences  et  arts. 

Memoires.     Ser.  V,  T.  XIII,  1910. 
Antwerp. — Acadeniie  Roy  ale  d'archeologie  de  Belgique. 

Bulletin.     1911,  1-1912,  2. 
Argentine  Pepdelic. — Comision  del  censo  agro-pecuario. 

1908,  I-III,  with  maps. 
Augsburg. — Naturivissenschaftlicher  Yerein  fiir  Schivaben  nnd  Neuburg. 

Bericht.     XXXIX- XL,  1911. 
'Basel.— Natnr for schende  Gesellschaft. 

Verhandlungen.     XXII. 
Batavia. — Magnetisch  en  meteorologisch  observatorium. 

Seismological  bulletin.     March— May,  July,  Oct.  and  Dec,  1911. 

Verhandelingen.     No.  1—2,  1912. 
Pergen. — Museum. 

Aarbog.     1910,  3-1911,  2. 

Aarsberetning.     1910. 

Skrifter.     N.  P.,  Bd.  I,  1. 


VIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Berlin. — Deutscher  Seefischerei-  Verein. 

Mitteilungen.     XXVIII,  ]. 
Universitdt.     K,  Zoologisches  Museum. 

Bericht.     1910. 

Mitteilungen.     V,  3-VI,  1.     1911—12. 
BKRH.—Naturforschende  Gesellschaft . 

Verhandlungen.     XCIV,  1911. 
Birmingham.— iV^a^wrai  History  and  Philosophical  Society. 

Annual  Report.     1911. 

List  of  Members.     1912. 
Bologna. — R.  Accademia  delle  scienze  delV  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-filologiclie,  Ser.  I,  T.  V,  1. 
Bo^N. —Nattirhistorischer  Verein  der  preussischen  Rheinlande  und  Westfalens. 

Sitzungsbericlit.     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,  1911-12. 
Society  of  natural  history. 

Memoir.     VII,  1912. 
Bradford. — Scientific  association. 

Journal.     Ill,  1,  3-6,  1911. 
Bremen.—  Meteorologisches  Observatorium. 

Deutsclies  meteorologisches  Jalirbuch.     XXI,  1910  ;  XXII,  1911. 
Naturwissenschaftlicher  Verein. 

Abbandlungen.     XX,  2,  1911. 
Bkeslav. —Schlesische  Gesellschaft  fur  vaterlandische  Kultur. 

Jahres-Bericht.     LXXXVIII,  1-2,  1910. 
Brwuto^.— 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. 
Bristol. — Naturalists''  society. 

Proceedings.     Ser.  IV,  II,  3-III,  1;  Index  to  II. 
Brooklyn. — Institute  of  arts  and  sciences. 

Bulletin.     VII,  1,  and  Index  to  VI. 

Museum  news.     VII,  5—8. 

Year  Book.     XX-XXII,  1907-11. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  IX 

Brunn. — Naturforschender   Verein. 

Ergebnisse  der  pliauologischen  Beobachtungen  aus  Maliren  und 

Sclilesien  im  Jalire  1906. 
Meteorologische  Koramission.     Bericbt.     XXVI,  1908. 
Verbandlungen.     XLVIII,  1909. 
Brussels.— ^caf^emie  Royale.  des  sciences,    des  lettres  et  des  beaux-arts  de 
Belgique. 

Annuaire.     LXXVIII,  1912. 

Bulletin.     Classe  des  sciences.     1911,  6—1912.  5. 

Memoires.     Classe    des   sciences.     Ser.  II,  T.  Ill,    6—8  (8vo.) ; 

T.  Ill,  5  (4o). 
Notices  biograpbiques  et  bibliograpliiques,  5e  ed. 
International  Congress  of  botatiy,  Third. 

Actes,  I-II.     1910. 
Musee  Royal  d'histoire  natiirelle  de  Belgique. 

Memoires.     T.  IV,  Index.     Traquair,  Les  poissons  Wealdiens  de 
Bernissart ;  Lambert,  Ecliinides  cretaces  ;  Kidston,  Les  vege- 
taux  houillers. 
Observatoire  Royal  de  Belgique. 

Annales,  Physique  du  globe.     V,  1—2. 
Annuaire  astronomique.     191.3. 
Societe  entomologique. 
Annales.     LV. 
Memoires.     XIX.     1912. 
Societe  R.  Beige  de  geographic. 

Bulletin.     XXXV,  1-XXXVI,  1.     1911-12. 
Societe  R.  de  botanique. 

Bulletin.     XLVIII,  1-4.     1910. 
Societe  R.  zoologique  et  malacologique. 
Annales.     XLV-XLVI.     1910-11. 
Societe  scientifique. 

Annales.     XXXV,  3-6;  XXXVI,  2.     1910-12. 
Revue  des  questions  scientifiques.     XX,  1— XXII,  1.     1911—12. 
Bryn  Maivr  college  monographs.    VII— X. 
Bdcharest.— S'oae^a/e  de  sciinte. 

Buletinul.    XX,  2-XXI,  2. 
Budapest. — Magyar  Tudomdnyos  akademia. 

Mathematische  und  naturwissenscliaftlicbe  Bericlite  aus  Ungarn. 

XXVI,  pp.  1-272. 
Rapports  sur  les  travaux.     1910. 
Meteorologiai  es  Fdldmdgnessegi  Intezet. 
Bericht.     IX.     1908. 

Jahrbucb.     XXXVII,  1-XXXVIIL  1,  4.     1907-8. 
Verzeicbnis  der  .  .  .  Bucher.     VIII.     1909. 
Officielle  Publikationen.     IX.     1909. 


X  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Budapest.  —  Tudomdny-egyetem. 

Acta.     1909-10,  I-II ;  1930-11,  1. 

Almanach.     1910-11. 

Tanrende.     1909-10,  I-II;  1910-11,  I-II. 
Buenos  Aires. — Museo  Nacional. 

Anales.     Ser.  Ill,  T.  XIV. 
Direccion  general  de  estadistica. 

Boletin  mensual,  121-3.     1910. 
Sociedad  cientifica  Argentina. 

Anales.     LXX,  5-LXXIII,  1.     1911-12. 
Burton-on-Trent.— iVahtra/  history  and  archceological  society. 

Transactions.     VI.     1911. 
Calcutta. — Asiatic  society  of  Bengal. 

Journal  and  proceedings.     VII,  1—3. 

Memoir.     Ill,  2—4  ;  index  to  v.  II. 
Indian  museuryi. 

Natural  history  section.     Annual  report.     1909—11, 

Memoirs.     II,  4,  and  index  ;  III,  1—2. 

Records.     Ill,  index;  IV,  1-9;  V,  1-4;  VI,  1-5. 
California  academy  of  sciences. 

Proceedings.     Ser.  IV,  v.  I,  289-430  ;  III,  73-186. 
C^MBRAi.—Societe  d' emulation. 

Memoires.     LXV.     1910. 
Cambridge  (England).— Philosophical  society. 

Transactions.     XXI.     397-451. 
University.    Observatory. 

Annual  report.     1910—11. 
Cameron  {La,.).  — Gulf  biological  station. 

Biennial  report.     V.     1910. 

Bulletin.     IX-X. 
CAi^ABX.— 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—80. 
Geological  Survey. 

Maps.     1064,  1066,  1113,  1130,  1150. 

Memoir.     24  E,  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.  XI 

Cape  Town.— Royal  society  of  South  Africa. 

Transactions.     11,  3-4,  1912. 
Caracas. — Aceademia  Nacional  de  la  historia. 

Ramon  Azpuriia,   Biografias   de  liombres  notables  de  Hispano- 
America.     I— IV. 

Colleccion   de   documentos  para   la  historia    de  la  vida  piiblica 
del  Llbertador.     I-XIV. 
Cassel. —  Verein  fiir  Naturkunde. 

Festschrift,  1911. 
Catania.  -Aceademia  Gioenia. 

Bollettino  delle  sedute.     N.  S.,  18-21.     1911-12. 
Societa  degli  spetfroscopisti  Italiana. 

Memoria.     XL,  8-12  ;  Ser.  II,  T.  I,  1-8. 
Ceylon. —Administration  reports. 

Part  IV,  Education,  science,  and  art.    Marine  biology.     Eeport. 
1910-11. 
Chalons-sur-Saone.— (Socie^e  d'histoire  et  d'arcMologie. 

Memoires.     Ser.  II,  IV,  1.     1911. 
Cheltenham. — Natural  Science  Society. 

Proceedings.     N  S.  I,  4-5,  1910-1911. 
Chemnitz.  —Naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellsehaft. 

Bericht.     XVIII.     1909-10. 
Cherbourg.— /Soae/e  Rationale  des  sciences  naturelles  et  matJiematiques. 

Memoires.     XXXVII. 
Chicago. — Field  Museum  of  natural  history. 

Publications.     151-8,  160. 
John  Crerar  Library. 

Annual  report.     XVII.     1911. 
Christiania. —  Videnskabs-selskabet. 

Forhandlinger.     1910. 
CmcintiATi.— Lloyd  library. 

Bibliographical  contributions.     3—6.     1911—12. 

Bulletin.     Mycological  series,  20.     Pharmacy'  series.  18—19. 
University. 

Record.     VII,  5-8;  VIII,  1-3. 

University  studies.     Ser.  II,  Vol.  VII,  1-2.     1912. 
Colombo.  —Museum. 

Spolia  Zeylanica,  Vni,  29-30. 
Colorado  College.— 

Publications.    Engineering  series.    I,  11—12,  1911  ;  science  series. 
XII,  10-11.     1912. 
Colorado  scientific  society. 

Proceedings.     XX,  39-54,  75-284. 
Co'LORADO.— University  of. 

Studies.    VIII,  4-IX,  3.     1911-12. 


XII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Copenhagen.— Z.  Danske  videnska hemes  selskah. 

Skrifter.     Historisk-filosofisk  afdeling.     R.  7,  I-II,  2.     Natur- 
videnskabelig-mathematisk    afdeling.      E.    7,    I— V,    VII,    1, 
VIII-IX,  1.     1904-11. 
Naturhistoricke  forening. 

Videnskabelige  meddelelser.     1910—11. 
Corona.— 22.  Academia  Gallega. 

Boletin.     VI,  48-63.     1912. 
Croydon. — Microscopical  Club. 

Proceedings  and  transactions.     1910—11. 
Denison  University.— 

Bulletin  of  the  scientific  laboratories.     XVII,  1-201.     1912. 
Detroit. — Museum  of  art. 

Annual  report.  1911. 
Bulletin.     V,  3-VI,  3.     1911-12. 
DoRPAT.— Gre/eAr^e  estnische  Gesellschaft. 
Sitzungsbericlite.     1910—11. 
Naturf or  scher -Gesellschaft. 
Bibliothek.     Teile  I-II. 
Schriften.     XX. 

Sitzungsbericlit.     XIX,  1-XX,  4.     1910-11. 
Dresden.— Naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft  Isis. 

Sitzungsbericlite   und  Abhandlungen.     July,   1910 — Dec,   1911, 
Verein  fur  Erdkunde. 

Mitteilungen.     H.  7-9,  1908-9  ;  II,  1-4.     1910-12. 
Dv^iAN.— 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.     I^.  S.  XII,  37  ;  Xni,  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. 
Edinburgh. — Royal  physical  society. 
Proceedings.     XVIII,  3. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XIII 

Edinbdrgh.  — Eo?/ai  society  of  Edinburgh. 

Proceedings.     XXXI,  4-5;  XXXII,  1-3. 

Transactions.     XLVII,  3-XLVIII,  1.     1910-12. 
Elberfeld. — C7jewi«sc/ies  Untersuchungsamt. 

Bericht.     1909-11. 
Naturivissenschaftlicher  Verein. 

Jahres-Bericlit.     XIII,  1912. 
Elisha  Mitchell  scientific  society. 

Journal.     XXVII,  1-XXVIII,  2.     1911-12. 
Emde n  . — Na turforschen de  Gesellschaft. 

Jahresbericht.     XCV.     1910. 
Elorence. — Societa  entomologica  Italiana. 

Bollettino.     XLII,  1-4.     1910. 
Biblioteca  nazionale  centrah. 

Bollettino.     110-40.     1911-12. 
EoRMOSA. — Bureau  of  productive  industry. 

Icones  plantarum  Eorniosanarum.     I.     1911. 
Erankfdrt  a.  M.— Deutsche  malakozoologische  Gesellschaft. 

Nachrichtsblatt.     XLIII,  3-XLIV,  2.     1911-12. 
Senckenbergische  natur forschende  Gesellschaft. 

Abhandluugen.     XXIX,  4  ;  XXXIII,  4-XXXIV,  2. 

Bericlit.     1911,  1-4. 
Ereibdrg  I.  B.  —  Natur  forschende  Gesellschaft. 

Bericht.     XVIIl,  2-XIX,  1,     1911. 
Eribgurg. — Societe  Fribourgeoise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

Bulletin.     III-IV,  VII-XII,  XIV-XVIII.     1883-1910. 

Memoires.     Geologie  et  geographie.     I,  1  ;  II,  1—4;  III,  1     IV; 
1-3  ;  V,  5  ;  VI,  G  ;  VII,  7. 
Geneva. — Societe  de  physique  et  d'histoire  naturelle. 

Compte  rendu.     XVIIL     1911. 

Memoires.     XXXVII,  2.     1911. 
Geua.— Gesellschaft  von  Freunden  der  Naturwissenschaften. 

Jahresbericht.     1910-11. 
GiEssEN. —  Universitdt. 

177  dissertations. 
Glasgow. — Natural  History  Society. 

Glasgow  Naturalist.     Ill,  1-IV,  2. 
Royal  philosophical  society. 

Proceedings.     XLII.     1910-11. 
GoRLiTZ. —Natur forschende  Gesellschaft. 

Abhandlungen.     XXVII.     1911. 
GoTTiNGEN.— iC.  Gesellschaft  der   Wissenschaften. 

Philologische  Klasse.     Naclirichten.    1910,  1-1912,  1 ;  and  Bei- 
heft  1-2.     1910. 


XIV  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Graz.— Naturwissetischaftlicher   Verein  fur  Steiermark. 

Mitteilungen.     XLVI-XLVII.     1909-10. 
Grenoble.  —  Universife. 

Annales.     XXIII,  2. 
Gdelph. —  Wellington  field  naturalists'  club. 

Natural  science  bulletin.     1—6.     1905—10. 
Haarlem. — Hollandsche  maaschappij  der  icetenschappen. 

8er.  III.  A.     I,  1-4 ;  B.  I,  1-2. 
Halifax.  — iVova  Scotian  institute  of  science. 

Proceedings  and  transactions.      XII,  S-XIII,  1.     1908/9-11. 
Halle  A.  'ii.—Naturforschende  Gesellschaft. 
Abhandlung.     N.  F.     I.     1912. 
Mitteilung.     I.     1911. 
Hamburg. — Deutsche  Seewarte. 

Annalen   der  Hydrographie  und  maritimen  Meteorologie.     XL, 

1-8.    1912. 
Aus  dem  Archiv.     XXXIV,  1-XXXIII,  4. 
Deutsches  meteorologisches  Jahrbucli.     XXXIII.     1910. 
Jaliresbericht.     XXXIV.     1910. 
Naturwissenschnftlicher   Verein. 

Verhandlungen.     XVIII.     1910. 
Harvard  University.— Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology. 
Annual  report.     1910-11. 

Bulletin.     LIII,  7-9;  LIV,  6-14;  LV,  1.     1911-12. 
Memoirs.    XXV,  3-4;  XXVII,  4 ;  XXX Vin,  2;  XXXIX,  2-3; 
XL,  4.     1911-12. 
Observatory. 

Annals.     LVI,  6-7;  LIX,  9-10;   LXI,  3  ;  LXIII,  1;  LXXI,  2  ; 

LXXII,  1-3. 
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  ;  VIII-IX  ;  XIV-XVI ;  XVII,  191-5,  198-202  ; 
XVIII-XIX,  203-26  ;   XX,  XXI,  248 ;    XXII,   252 ;    XXIII, 
264-8,     270-4;      XXIV,     276;      XXV-XXXVI,     287-428; 
XXXVII-LXVIII  (March,  1912). 
Colegio  de  Belen. 

Observaciones  meteorologicas  y  magneticas.     1910. 
Museum  dliistoire  naturelle. 
Notice,  1911. 
Havre.— (Soae^e  geologique  de  Normandie. 

Bulletin.     XXX.     1910. 
Havpaii  —Board  of  agriculture  and  forestry. 

Division  of  Forestry.     Botanical  bulletin.     1.     1911. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XV 

Hawaii  College.     Publication.     1.     1912. 
Helgoland. — K.  Biologische  Anstnlt. 

Wissenschaftliche  Meeresuntersuchungen,  Abteilung  Helgoland. 
N.  r.     II,  I,  1 ;  II,  1  (2) ;  IV,  1-2 ;  V,  1  (2) ;  VI,  1-X,  1. 

Abteilung  Kiel.     I,  2 ;  II,  2 ;  IH-X  ;  XIII.     1896-1911. 
Helsingfors.  —Finska  vetenskaps-societeten. 

Acta.     XXXVni,  4  ;  XL,  6-8  ;  XLI ;  4,  6-7. 

Bidrag  till  kannedom  af  Finlands  natur  ocb  folk.     LXX,  1—2 ; 
LXXI,  1-2 ;  LXXII,  2-5,  LXXIII.  1-2. 

Meteorologiska  Centralanstalt.     Meteorologiscbes  Jahrbuch  fiir 
Finnland.     IV,  1904 ;  Beilage,  1903.     IX,  T.  2.     1909. 

Ofersigt  af  forliandlingar.     LIII,  A-C,  1910-11. 
Soeietas  pro  Fauna  et  Flora  Finnica. 

Acta.     XXXV.     1909-11. 

Meddelanden,  XXXVI-XXXVII,  1909-11. 
HoBART.— Royal  society  of  Tasmania. 

Annual  report.     1911. 

Papers  and  proceedings.     1910—11. 
Honolulu.— Berntce    Pauahi    Bishop    museum    of  Polynesian   ethnology   & 
natural  history. 

Memoirs.    III. 

Occasional  papers.     IV,  4-5  ;  V,  I.     1909-11. 
Illinois. — State  laboratory  of  natural  history. 

Bulletin.     IX,  4.     1911. 

Report.     1909-10. 
ItiBiA.— Bombay  Presidency.     Rainfall  in  Bombaj'.     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. 


XVI  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Iowa.— State  University. 

Laboratory  of  Natural  Historj^.     Bulletin.    VI,  2. 
Italy. — R.  Comitato  geologico. 

Bollettino.     1910,  4-1911,  4. 
Jeha. —Medizinisch-naturtvissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft. 

Jenaische    Zeitsclirift  fiir  Naturwissenscliaft.     XL,  3— XLI,   2. 
1911-12. 
Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Circular.     1911,  6-1912,  5. 
^k^s AS.— Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.     XXIII-XXIV.     1911. 
University. 

Science  bulletin.     V,  12-VI,  1. 
Kasan. — Observatoire  meteorologiqne. 

Bulletin.     1911. 
Societe  physieo-ntathematique. 

Bulletin.     Ser.  II.     T.  XVI,  4-XVII,  4.     1910-11. 
Kmh.—Naturwissenschaftlicher  Verein  fiir  Schleswig-Holstein. 

Schriften.     XV,  1. 
K.  Universitdt. 

Chronik.     1910-11. 

Dissertations  (58). 
KiEw. — Societe  des  naturalistes. 

Memoires.     XXI,  3—4. 
Kingston. — Institute  of  Jamaica. 

Annals.     I,  1. 

Bulletin.     I,  1.  , 

KoDAiKANAL. — Observatory. 

Annual  report.     1911. 

Bulletin.     XXIV-XXV. 
KoNiGSBERG  I.  TR.—Physikalisch-okonomische  Gesellschaft. 

Schriften.    XLIX,  1908;  LI,  1910;  Generalregister.   1885-1909. 
Keakow.— ^.  K.  Slernwarte. 

Meteorologiscbe  Beobachtungen.     June,  1911— July,  1912. 

Besultate    der    meteorologischen,    seismologischen  und  magne- 
tischen  Beobachtungen.     1911. 
Akademija  Umiejetnosci,  Komisya  Fizyjograficzna. 

Materyaly  zebrane  przez  Sekcye  meteorologiczna.     1910. 
Kyoto.— J.  University. 

College  of  Science  and  Engineering.  Memoirs.  111,4—7.  1911—12. 
La  Plata.— Mwseo. 

Revista.     XVII-XVIII.     1910~12. 
Universidad. 

Archives    de    pedagogia    y   sciencias    afinas.     VIII,  24,  IX,  28. 
1911-12. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XVII 

La'Rochelle. — Academic  des  belles  lettres^  sciences  et  arts,  Section  des  sciences 
naturelles. 

Anuales.     XXXVl,  1908-10. 
Lausanne.— iSocie^e  vaudoise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

BuUetin.     XLVII,  173-XLVIII,  175. 
Leipzig.— Fiirstl.  Jablonoivski' sche  Gesellschaft. 
Jahresbericht,  March,  1909. 
Naturforschende  Gesellschaft. 

Sitzungsbericlit.     1907-11. 
K.  Sdchsische  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften. 

Mathematisch-physikalischeKlasse.  Berichte.  LXII,  6— LXI1I,6. 
1910-11. 
Verein  fur  Erdkimde. 
Mitteilungen.     1910. 
Leyden. — Nederlandsche  dierkundige   Vereeniging. 
Tijdschrift.     Ser.  II,  D.  XII,  2. 
Anmcinsfen  der  Bibliotheek,  1910—12. 
Rijksuniversiteit.     Sterrewacht. 
Verslag.     1906-8. 
IjIMBxjrg. —Provinciaal  genootschap  voor  geschiedkundige  loetenschappen,  taal 
en  kunst. 

Limburg's  jaerboek.     XVII,  1-4 ;  XVIII,  2.     Catalog,  1912. 
LiNZ. — Museum  Francisco-Carolinum. 

Jahresbericht.     70. 
Lisbon. — Sociedade  de  geographia. 

Boletim.     XXIX,  4-XXX,  5.     1911—12. 
Liverpool. — Biological  society. 

Proceedings.     XXV.     1910-11. 
Geographical  society. 

Transactions  and  annual  report.     XX.     1911. 
London  — Geological  society. 

Geological  literature  added  to  library.     1910. 
List.     April  1912. 
Limiean  society. 
List.     1911-12. 
Proceedings.     123  d  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- VIII,  32.     1911-12. 
R.  Geographical  society. 

Geographical  journal.     XXXVII,  6-XL,  2.     1911-12. 

n 


XVIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

JjOSBOi^.— Geological  society. 

Quarterly  journal.     267-70.     1911-12. 
Mathematical  society. 

Proceedings.     X,  1-6  ;  XI,  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-LIl,  6.     1911-12. 
South  London  entomological  and  natural  history  society. 
Proceedings,  1911-12. 
Louisiana.— 6'^a<e  museum. 

Biennial  report.     II.     1910. 
Lund. — K.  Universitet. 

Bibliothek,  Arsberattelse.     1910. 
~LYOyis.— Bulletin  historique  du  diocese  de  Lyon. 
69-73.     1911-12. 
Societe  des  amis  de  VUniversite. 

Bulletin.     XXIV,  2-5  ;  XXV,  1-3. 
IJniversite. 

Annales.     Science-medecine.     XXX,  1911. 
McGill  University.     Papers  from  the  deparment  of  geoloy,  17-23. 
MAhnAS.— Fisheries  bureau. 
Bulletin.     II,  6. 
Madrid.— jR.  Academia  de  ciencias  exactas,  fisicas  y  naturales. 
Eevista.     V,  9-VI,  12  ;  IX,  9-X,  7,  10. 
Memorias.     XXVI.     1908. 
R.  Academia  de  la  historia. 
Boletin.     LIII,  4-LXI,  2. 
Cortes    de    los    antiguos    reinos    de   Aragon    y    de   Valencia  y 

Principado  de  Catalufia.     XIII-XV.     1909-11. 
Memorial  historico  espanol.     XLIV-XLV.     1911-12. 
Observatorio. 

Anuario.     1912. 
M.agTl)ebvb,g.  —  Museum  fur  Natur-  und  Heim^tkunde. 

Abhandlungen  und  Berichte.     II,  2. 
Maine. — Agricultural  experiment  station. 

Bulletin.     200.     1912. 
Manchester  (England). — Literary  and  philosophical  society. 
Memoirs  and  proceedings.     LV,  2— LVI,  1. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XIX 

Manchester  (England). — University. 

Publications.    Economic  series.    XIII,  1910  ;  Educational  series. 
IV— VI  ;  English   series.     II ;    Historical  series.     XII— XIII  ; 
Physical  series.     11. 
Manchester,  N.  '3..— Institute  of  arts  and  sciences. 

Proceedings.     V,  1.     1911. 
Marbdrg. — Gesellschaft  zur  Beforderung  der  gesamten  Naturtvissenschaften. 

Sitzungsberichte.     1911. 
Mark,  E.  L.     Anniversary  volume.     1903. 
Melbourne.— i\/ah'onaZ  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.     Ill,  9—10. 
Instituto  medico  nacional. 

Anales.     XII,  1-2.     1912. 
Museo  nacional  de  arqueologia,  historia  y  etnologia. 
Anales.     I,  1-13;  II,  1-9;  III,  1-5,  7-8. 
Boletin.     I,  1-4,  6-11.     1911-12. 
Museo  nacional  de  historia  natural. 

La  naturaleza.     Ser.  Ill,  T.  I,  2—3. 
Observatorio  astronomico  nacional. 

Boletin.     1. 
Observatorio  meteorologico-magnetico  central. 

Boletin.     Aug.,  1910-ApriL,  1912. 
Sociedad  cientifica  „Antonio  Alzate". 

Memoria  y  Eevista.     XXVni,  9-XXX,  6. 
Sociedad  geologica  Mexicana. 
Boletin.     VII,  2. 
Michigan  academy  of  sciences. 

Report.     XIII.     1911. 
Middelbdrg. —ZecMtvsc/i  genootschap  der  wetenschappen. 

Ai-chief.     1911. 
Milan. — R.  Istifuto  lombardo  di  science  e  leltere. 

Rendiconto.     Ser.  II,  T.  XLIV,  1-14,  17-20. 
Societd  Italiana  di  scienze  naturali  e  del  Museo  Civico. 
Atti.     L,  2-LI,  2. 
Milwaukee.— Pm^^ic  museum. 

Annual  report.     XXVII.     1909. 
Bulletin.     I,  2. 

II* 


XX  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Missovm.— Botanical  garden. 

Annual  report.     XXTI.     1911. 
University. 

Bulletin,    Engineering    experiment    station    series,     i,  1— II,  2; 

Science  series.     I,  1— II,  2. 
Laws  Observatory.     Bulletin.     17—19. 
Studies.     Science  series.     II,  2. 
MoDEKA. — R.  Accademia  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 
Memorie.     Ser.  III.     T.  IX. 
Societd  dei  naturalisti. 

Atti.     Eendiconti.     Ser.  IV.     T.  XIII.     1911. 
MoNS. — Sociefe  des  sciences,  des  arts  et  des  lettres  du  Hainaut. 

Memoires  et  publications.     LXII,  1911. 
MoiiTANA..— Agricultural  college. 

Experiment  Station.     Circular.     10-16.     1911-12. 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 
Annual  report.     XVII,   1910. 
Bulletin.     86. 
University. 

Bulletins.     69-70.     1911. 
Montevideo.— If Mseo  Nacional. 

Anales.     IV,  3. 
MoNTPELLiER.— .4carfmte  des  sciences  et  lettres. 

Bulletin  mensual.     1911,  9-12 ;    1912,  1-5. 
Moscow.— /Soc/e^e  I.  des  naturalistes. 

Bulletin.     1908,  2-3 ;  1909,  N.  S.,  T.  XXIII ;  1910,  1-4. 
K.   Universitdt.       • 

Meteorologisches  Observatorium.     Beobaclitungen.     ]908— 9. 
MiJNSTER,  I.  W. —  Westfdlischer  Provinzial-  Verein  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Kunst. 

Jahresbericlit.     XXXIX.     1910-11. 
Mdnich. — K.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften. 

Historische  Klasse.     Abliandlungen.     XXV.     Index. 
Matbematisch-pbysikalisclie  Klasse.    Abliandlungen.    XXV,  5,  8, 
1910-12;  Suppl.  II,  Bd.  3-7.    Index  to  Bd.  1;  Sitzungsberichte.  | 

1910.  10-15;  1911,  1-2.  I 

Philosophiscb-philologisch    und    historische    Klasse.      Abhand-  ' 

lungen.    XXV,  1-4,  6-7,  XXVI,  1-2, 1909-12  ;  Abhandlungen, 
Sitzungsberichte.     1910,  8-14;  Sitzungsberichte.     1911,  1-12. 
K.  Rnf-  und  Staafsbibliothek. 

Catalogus  codicum  manuscriptorum.     T.  I.     Pars  VI.     1912. 
'NA'SCY.—Academie  de  Stanislas. 

Memoires.     Ser.  VI,  T.  8.     1910-11. 
Naples. — B.  Accademia  di  scienze  morali  e  politiche. 
Atti.     XLI.     1912. 
Rendiconto.     L.     1912.  I 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXI 

Naples.— JB.  Accademia  ddle  scienze  fisiche  e  maiematiche. 
Rendiconto.     Ser.  III.     T,  XVII,  1-XVIII,  2. 
a.  Istituto  dHncoraggiamento. 

Atti.     Ser.  VI.     T.  LXII.     1910. 
Naturae  Novitates.     1911,  8-1912,  14. 
Nedbrandenburg. —  Verein  der  Freunde  der  NaturgescJiicJite. 

Archiv.    LXV,  1-2,  1911. 
Nedchatel. — Societe  neuchateloise  des  sciences  naturelles. 

Bulletin.     XXXVin,  1910-11. 
New  Brighton.— iSfaien  Island  Association  of  arts  and  sciences. 
Proceedings,  III,  3—4. 
Museum  bulletin.     35—49. 
New  Brunswick,  N.  J.— Natural  history  society. 

Bulletin.     XXVIII,  VI,  part  3;  XXIX,  VI,  part  3. 
New  York. — Americati  geographical  society. 

Bulletin.     XLIII,  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-XLIII.    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. 
Public  library. 

Bulletin.     XV,  7r-XVI,  6.     1911-12. 
American  geographical  society. 

Bulletin.    XLIII,  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. 
Neio  Zealand  Institute.     Transactions  and  proceedings.     XLIII.     1911. 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.— iVor/'/i  of  England  institute  of  mining  and  mecha- 
nical engineers. 

Report.     1911-12. 

Transactions.     LXI,  5-9;  LXII,  1-5.     1911-12. 
North  Carolina. —  University. 

Philological  Club.     Studies  in  philology,  VIIL     1911. 


XXII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

North  Carolina.— iS'/afe  historical  Society. 

Collections.    III.     1910. 
University. 

Quarterly  journal.     II,  1-4.     1911-12. 
Northampton. — Northamptonshire  natural  history  society  and  field  club. 

Journal.     XVL     125-8. 
Norwich. — Norfolk  and  Norwich  Naturalists  society. 

Transactions.     IX,  2—3. 
Noremberg. — 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. 
Odessa.— /Sodefe  des  naturalistes  de  la  Nouvelle-Russie. 

Memoires.  XXXIV-XXXVI ;  Index  to  I-XXX  ;  Suppl.  to  XXXIV. 
L'observatoire  meteorologique  et  magnetique  de  I'universite  Imperiale. 

Annuaire.     1910. 
Oklahoma. — Geological  Survey. 

Bulletin.     3,  7-8. 
Historical  society. 

Historia.     I,  3-6 ;  II,  7. 
Oporto.— J.carfemia  polytechnica. 

Annaes   scientificos.     VI,  2— VII,  1. 
OsNABRUCK. — Naturwissenschaftlicher  Verein. 

Jabi-esbericht.     XVI-XVII.     1903-10. 
Oxford.—  University. 

Observatory.     Astrograpbic  catalogue.     VII.     1911. 

Radcliffe  Library.     Catalogue  of  books  added  during  1911. 

Radcliffe   observatory.     Meteorological  observations.     XLIX— L. 
TkisLEY.— Philosophical  institution. 

Annual  report.     Cll-ni,  1910-11. 
Palermo. — Accademia  di  scienze,  lettere  e  belle  arti. 

Atti.     Ser.  III.     T.  IX. 

Bolletino.     1907-10. 
Paris.— ^co^e  poly  technique. 

Journal.     II.     Ser.  XV. 
Museum  d'histoire  naturelle. 

Bulletin.     1911,  1-4,  6-7. 

Laboratotre     de     phanerogamie.      Notulae     systematicae,     par 
H.  Lecomte.     II,  3-8. 

Rapport  annuel.     II-III.     1910-11. 
Observatoire. 

Rapport  annuel.     1911. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXUI 

Paris. — Societe  zoologique  de  France. 

Bulletin.     XXXV. 

Memoires.     XXIII.     1910. 
Pasadkna.  —  Throop  institute. 

Bulletin.     51-54,  56.     1911-12. 
TASSAV.—Naturtvissenschaftlicher  Verein.    I— XIX,  XXI,  1857—1911. 
Perth. — Department  of  mines,   Western  Australia. 

Reports.     (3). 

Annual  progress  report.     1910. 

Bulletin.     15,  20,  23,  31,  34,  36,  38,  39,  41. 
Perd. — Ministerio  de  Fomento. 

Cuerpo  de  Ingenieros  de  Ninas.     Boletin.     77. 
Peterhead.— ^Mc/tan  Club.     Museum. 

Transactions.     I,  2. 
Philadelphia. — Academy  of  natural  sciences. 

Journal.     2d  ser.    XIV,  3. 
American  Philosophical  society. 

Proceedings.     L,  199-LI,  205;  General  index  to  I-L. 

Transactions.     N.  S.,  XXII,  1-2. 
Franklin  Institute. 

Journal.     Vol.  172,  2-174,  2.     1911-12. 
Geographical  Society. 

Bulletin.     IX,  3-4,  1911. 
Pietermaritzbdrg. — Natal  government  museum. 

Annals.     II,  3. 
Pisa. — Societa  Toscana  di  scienze  naturali. 

Atti,    Memorie.       XXVI-XXVII.      1910-11;    Processi    verbaU. 
XX,  2-XXI,  2. 
Pittsburg. — Carnegie  museum. 

Publications.     65-66,  68-70. 
Carnegie  institute. 

Founder's  Day.     XVI.     1912. 
Western  Pennsylvania  engineers^  society. 

Proceedings.     XXVII,  6-XXVIII,  6. 
Plymouth.— 1/arine  biological  association  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

Publications.     II;  N.S.  I,  1-4;  II,  1-2;  III,  1-4  and  special 
number  ;  V-IX,  2.     1888-1911. 
PoRTici. — B.  Scuola  superiore  di  agricoltura. 

Annali.     Ser.  II.     T.  IX.     1910. 
Potsdam. — Astrophysikalisches  Observatorium. 

Publikationen.     XXII,  64-5. 
Prag.— Dewfsc/ier  naturivissenschaftlich-medizinischer  Verein  fUr  Bbhmen. 

Lotos.     LIX.     1911. 
K.  K.  Stermvarte. 

Magnetische  und  meteorologische  Beobaclitungen.     1910-11. 


XXIV  Additions  to  the  Library. 

FRAQ.  —  Ceske  Spolecnosty  entomologicke. 

Casopis.     VIII,  2-4 ;  IX,  1.     1911-12. 
Ceskd  spolecnost  ndiik. 
Jakresbericlit.     1911. 
Mathematisch-naturwissenscliaftliche   Klasse.     Sitzungsbericht. 

1911. 
PhilosopIiisch-gescIiich.tliche  und  philologische  Klasse.    Sitzungs- 
berichte.     1911. 

Providence.— jKo^rer  Williams  park  museum. 
Bulletin.     II,  1;  III,  1—5. 

Quebec— (Socie^e  de  geographie. 
Bulletin.     VI,  1-3. 

Ebichenbach  i.  Yogtl.—  Verein  fur  Natur-  und  Altertumskunde. 
Bericlit.     VI.     1909. 
Mitteilungen.     Heft  3-4,  1877-84. 

Renkema,  E.  H.    Observationes  criticae  et  exegeticae  ad  C.  Valerii  Macci 
Aragonautica.     1906. 

'RiQk.— Natur  forscher-  Verein. 

Arbeiten.     XIII.     1911. 
Korrespondenzblatt.     LIV.     1911. 

Rio  de  Janeiro. — Instituto  Oswaldo  Cruz. 
Memoria.     Ill,  2.     1911. 
Instituto  historico  e  geographico  Brazileiro. 

Revista.      XI ;  XXVII ;  XLIII,    2  ;    XLVIII-LII,  4  ;    LUX,  1 ; 
LIV,  2 ;  LIX-LXXIII,  2 ;  LXXIV,  1 ;  Special  volume,  1908, 
parts  1—2. 
Museu  nacional. 

Archivos.     XIV,  XV. 

Rochester. — Academy  of  Science. 

Proceedings.     IV,  233-41;  V,  1-58. 

Rome. — R.  Accademia  dei  lincei. 

Atti.      Ser.    V.     Rendiconti.      Classe    de    scienze   fisiche,    mate- 

maticbe  e  naturali.     XX,  11-XXI,  5,  7-12. 
Atti.     Rendiconto  dell'  adunanza  sollene.     1911,  2;  1912,  2. 
Accademia  Pontifka  dei  nuovi  lincei. 
Atti.     LXIV,  1-7,     1910-11. 

Rotterdam. — Bataafsch  genootschap  der  proefondervinderlijke  ivijsbegeerte. 
Nieuwe  verhandelingen.     2de  Reeks,  Deel  V— VI.  3. 

St.  Gallen.— S^.  Gallische  Naturwissenschaftliche  Gesellschaft. 

Jabrbuch.     1910. 
St.  Louis. — Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.     XX,  4—6. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXV 

St.  Petersbcrg. — Akademiia  nauk. 

Classe  physico-mathematique.     Bulletin.     Ser.  VI.     1912,  1—11. 
Memoires,  Ser.  VIII.  T.  XXV,  9-10  ;  XXVI,  1-2  ;  XXVII,  1-2 ; 
XXIX,  1-3;  XXX,  1-3. 
Classe  historique-philologique.   Memoires.    Ser.  VIII.   T.  X,  2—3. 
I.  Botanic  garden. 

Hortus  petropolitani.     Acta.     XXVIII,  4. 
Institut  des  mines  de  I' Imperatrice  Catherine  II. 

Annales.     Ill,  1—5. 
Observatoire  physique  central  Nicolas. 

Annales.     1907  and  1908,  I-II ;  II,  1-2. 
Comite  geologique. 

Bulletin.     XXIX,  5-XXX,  5.     1910-11. 

Memoires.     N.  S.     LIII-LV,  LX,  LXI,  LXVI-LXXHI. 

Salem. — Essex  Institute. 

Annual  report.     1912. 
Santiago  de  Chile. — Sociedad  cientifica  de  Chile. 

Actes.    VIII,  5 ;  IX  ;  XI ;  XIII,  3 ;  XIII,  4-5  ;  XIV,  5  ;  XV,  3-4  ; 
XVI,  1-5.     1898-1906. 
Sociedad  de  fomento  fabril. 
Boletin.     XXIX,  1,  4-7.     1912. 

Sao  V kVhO.— Museu  Paulisfa. 

Revista.     VIII.     1911. 
Sociedade  scientifica. 

Revista.     VI.     1911. 
Sapporo.  — To/toA;tt  J.   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.— CarafJoc  and  Severn  valley  field  club. 

Record  of  bare  facts.     1909,  19  ;  1911,  21. 

Transactions.     V,  3. 
'SiE.yiA.—Accademia  dei  fisiocratici. 

Atti.     Ser.  V.     II,  7-III,  6. 
Utiiversite. 

Annuaire.     I-VI.     1904-10. 

Faculte  de  droit.     Annuaire.     V-VI.     1908-10. 

Faculte  historico-philologique.     Annuaire.     V— VI.     1908—10. 

Faculte  physico-mathematique.     Annuaire.     V— VI.     1908—10. 
Sofia.— Universite. 

Annuaire.     VII,  1910-11. 

Faculte  physico-mathematique.     Annuaire.     VII,  1910—11. 


XXVI  Additions  to  the  Library. 

South  Dakota. — Geological  Survey. 

Bulletin.     4.  1908. 
Stettin. — Entomologischer   Verein. 

Entomologische  Zeitung.     XLII-LXXII.     1881-1911. 
Stockholm. — K.  Bibliotheket. 

Arsberiittelse.     1909,  1911. 
Entomologisk  fbrening. 

Entomologisk  Tidskrift.     XXXII.     1911  &  Register,  XI-XXX. 
1890-1909. 
K.  Svenska  Vetenskaps-Akademi. 
Arsbok.     1911. 

Arkiv  for  botanik.     X,  2-4.     1911. 

Ajkiv  for  kemi,  mineralogi  och  geologi.     IV,  2.     1911. 
Arkiv  for   matematik,    astronomi   och   fysik.     VI,  4 ;    VII,  1—2. 

1911. 
Nobeliustitut.     Meddelanden.     II,  1. 
Handlingar.     XLVI,  4-11 ;  XLVII,  1. 

Meteorologiska  lakttagelser  i  Sverige.     1910,  B,  52  and  appendix. 
Sveriges  offentliga  hibliothek. 

Accessions-katalog.     24-25,  1909-10. 
Stone.— iV^or^/t  Staffordshire  field  club. 

Annual  report  and  transactions.     XLVI.     1911—12. 
Strassburg.— £^.   Utiiversitdt. 

Sternwarte.     Annalen.     IV,  1,  1911. 
Stuttgart, —  Verein  fiXr  vaterldndische  Naturkunde  in  Wiirttemberg. 

Jabresbefte.     LXVII  and  Beilage ;  LXVIII.    1911-12. 
Sydney. — Australian  museum. 

Memoir.     IV,  13-16.     1911. 
Records.     VIII,  1-3;  IX,  1-2. 
Report  of  the  trustees.     LVII.     1911. 
Special  catalogue.     No.  1,  vol.  Ill,  2—4. 
Linnean  Society  of  Neio  South   Wales. 

Proceedings.     XXXV,  3-XXXVI,  2. 
Royal  society  of  New  South   Wales. 

Journal  and  proceedings.     XLIII,  2— XLV,  1. 
Texas. —  University. 

Bulletin.     221,  228,  229,  231-2.     1912. 
Tokyo.— Deutsche  Gesellschaft  fur  Natur-  und  Volkerkunde  Ostasiens. 
Mitteilungen.     XIII-XIV. 
University. 

College  of  science.     Journal.     XXVII,  15  ;  XXVIII,  7  ;  XXX,  1 ; 

XXXI ;  XXXII,  1,  5 ;  XXXII,  2,  4. 
Medizinische  Facultat.     Mitteilungen.     IX,  2—3  ;  X,  1—2. 

ToKOHTO.— Canadian  Institute. 

Transactions.     Nos.     20-21. 


Additions  to  the  Library.  XXVII 

TODLO0SE.  -Academic  des  sciences,  inscriptions  et  belles-lettres. 
Memoires.     Ser.  10,  T.  X. 
XJniversite. 

Bibliotlieque  meridionale.     Ser.  II,  T.  XIV.     1910. 
Anuuaire.     1911-12. 
Conseil.     Happort  annuel.     1911. 
Theses  (69). 
Teiest.—  Osservatorio  maritimo. 

Rapporto  annuale.     1907  (1911). 
Tufts  College.    Studies.     Scientific  series.     II  f,  2. 
Trondheim.— .A^orsAre  videnskabers  selskab. 

Skrifter.     1910. 
TvRia.—  Universitd. 

Musei   di    zoologia   ed  anatomia  comparata.     Bolletino.     XXVI, 
634—44 ;  and  Index. 
Upsala.  —  Universitet. 

Arsskrift.     1910. 

Geologiska  institution.     Bulletin.     XL     1912. 
K.  Vetenskajjs  societaten. 

Nova  acta.     Ser.  IV.     T.  II,  2. 
TJteecht.  —  Observatoire. 

Hecherches  astronomiques.     IV— V. 
Provinciaal  Utrecht sch  genoofschap  van  kunsten  en  wetenschappen. 
Aanteekeningen  van  het  verhandelde.     1911. 
Verslag  van  ket  verhandelde.     1911. 
Venice.— i2.  Istitufo  Vetieto  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 
Atti.     LXVII,  6-LXXX,  8.     1907-10. 
Concorsi  a  premio.     Ma}-  28.     1911. 
B,.  Istituto  Veneto  di  scienze,  lettere  ed  arti. 

Osservazioni  meteorologiche  e  geodinamiche.     1907—8. 
ViCENZA. — Accademia  Olimpica. 

Atti.     N.  S.,  II.     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.  XL VIII, 
1-27.       Denkschriften.       LXXXIV-LXXXVI,    L    LXXXVII. 
Sitzungsberichte.     CXXI,  Abt.  I,  1-3.  lib,  1-2,  II a,  1. 
K.  K.  Central- Anstalt  filr  Meteorologie. 

Jahrbuch.     N.F.,  XLVI,  1909. 
K.  K.  Geologische  Reichsanstalt. 

Jahrbuch.     LXI.  3-LXII,  1,  1911-12. 
Verhandlungen.     1911,  G-1912,  5. 
Naturhistorisches  Hof-Museum. 
Annalen.     XXIV,  3-XXV,  4. 


XXVIII  Additions  to  the  Library. 

Vienna.—^.  K.  Zoologisch-botanische  Gesellschaft. 
Verhandlungen.     LXI.     1911. 
Verein  zur  Verbreitung  naturwissenschaftUcher  Kenntnisse. 
Schriften.     LI.     1911. 
Virginia.—  University. 

Pliilosophical     society.      Bulletin.      Humanistic    series.      I,    2, 
pp.  51—7  ;  Scientific  series.     I,  6—9,  pp.  137-242  ;  Proceedings, 
1910-11. 
Vliet,    J.,   Van    der,    Studia    critica    in    Dionysii  Halicarnassensis   opera 

rhetorica. 
Warren. — Academy. 

Transactions.     I,  3.     1909-10. 
Washington. — 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. 
Washington.— iVrt^ionai  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  CoWe^e.— Bulletin.     VI,  1. 
Wiesbaden.— Nassauischer  Verein  fur  Naturkunde. 

Jahrbuch.     LXIV.     1911. 
Wisconsin. — Academy  of  science. 

Transactions.      XVI,    part    II,    1-6.      1909-10;    Indey    to  XVI, 
part  II. 


Additions  to  the  Libra)-}'.  XXIX 

Wisconsin.— Greo^o^icaZ  and  natural  history  survey. 

Bulletin.     23-4. 
Natural  history  society. 

Bulletin.     IX,  3-4.     1911. 
'WoKiHG.— South-eastern  union  of  scientific  societies. 

South-eastern  naturalist.     1911. 
"Worcester,  Mass. — America7i  antiquarian  society. 

Transactions  and  collections.     IX-X,  XII.     1909-11. 

Proceedings.     XXI,  2.     1911. 
Zurich. — Naturforschende  Gesellschaft. 

Vierteljahrsschrift.     LV,  3-LVI,  3.     1911. 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 

Incorporated  A.  D.  17S9 

VOLUME  17,  PACES  1-139  MARCH,  1912 


The  Financial  History 
of  Connecticut 

from  1789  to  1861 


HENRY  F.  WALRADT,  PH.D. 


'UBLISHED  UNDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF 


YALE  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1912 


TRMSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


.Incorporated  A.  D.  17£9 


YOLUME  17,  PAGES  1-139 


MARCH,  1912 


The  Financial  History 
of  Connecticut 


from  1789  to  1861 


HENRY  F.  WALRADT,  PH.D. 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF 

YALE  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 


IQI2 


WEIMAR :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN. 


PREFACE 

The  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  trace  tlie  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  also  a  study  of  the  county  and  munic- 
ipal systems,  but  the  present  volume  is  hmited  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. 

L  1789-1818.     Prolongation  of  Colonial  Period. 
n.  1818-1846.     Period  of  Slow  Development. 

in.  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  1851 
and  with  the  exception  of  a  manuscript  foHo  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  comphcated  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. 

PAGE 

A.  Introduction 9 

B.  Financial  Organs  of  the  State  Government 9 

a.  The  General  Assembly 9 

b.  Governor,  Treasurer,  Comptroller    ......  9 

C.  The  Public  Debt 10 

1.  Provision  for  Redeeming  State  Debt 12 

2.  Assumption  of  State  Debt 13 

3.  Payment  of  Balance  due  the  State  from  the  United  States     .  15 

4.  Transfer  of  United  States  Stock   by  the  State  in  Payment  of 
the  Public  Debt 18 

5.  Registration  of  State  Debt 18 

6.  Specie  Payment 20 

D.  Sources  of  Revenue 21 

1.  Taxation,  Forfeitures,  etc 21 

a.  State  Tax 21 

b.  Form  of  List 21 

c.  Tax  Rate 25 

d.  Collection  of  State  Tax 25 

e.  Exemptions 26 

f.  Valuation    ...........  27 

g.  Duties 28 

h.  Non-resident  Bank  Stock 28 

i.  Forfeited  Bonds,  Fines,  etc 29 

2.  Extraordinary  Receipts 29 

3.  Permanent  Fund 29 

4.  The  School  Fund 35 

E.  Expenditures 39 

1.  Education 39 

a.  Public  Schools 39 

b.  Yale  College 41 

2.  Public  Buildings 43 

a.  State  House 43 

b.  Arsenal 46 

c.  State  Prison 46 

3.  Judicial  Expenses 47 

4.  State  Paupers !         ....  47 

5.  Humane  Institutions 49 


6  Contents. 

PAGE 

6.  Salaries 50 

7.  General  Assembly          .........  51 

8.  Military  Expenses 52 

9.  Grants  to  Religious  Societies,  etc 53 

10.  Bounties  and  other  Encouragements 55 

a.  Wolves 55 

b.  Silk             ...........  55 

c.  Hemp  and  Flax 55 

d.  Other  Encouragements             .......  56 

11.  Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes 57 

F.  Summary 57 


Second  Period.     1818-1846.     Period  of  Slow  Development. 

A.  Elements  of  Discontent    .         .         .         , 

a.  Demand  for  Written  Constitution 

b.  Demand  for  Religious  Liberty 

c.  Demand  for  Change  in  Taxation 

B.  Republican  Administration 

1.  New  Constitution 

a.  Constitutional  Convention 

b.  System  of  Government 

c.  Religious  Freedom  . 

d.  School  Fund     . 

2.  Changes  in  Grand  List 

a.  Objections  to  Old  List     . 

b.  Revision    .... 

C.  Sources  of  Revenue  . 

1.  State  Tax       .... 
a.  Grand  List 

2.  Permanent  Fund 

a.  Composition  of  Fund  in  1818 

b.  Reinvestment  of  Fund    . 

c.  Increase  of  Fund    . 

d.  Condition  of  Fund  in  1833  and  1846 

e.  Income  of  Fund 

3.  Duties  on  Writs.     Licenses 

4.  Tax  on  Non-resident  Stock 

5.  Forfeited  Bonds  and  Avails  of  Courl 

6.  State  Prison 

7.  Extraordinai'y  Receipts 

a.  From  Permanent  Fund 

b.  Repayment  of  Advances 

c.  Land  Sales 

d.  Surplus  Funds  of  the  United  States  (Town  Deposit  Fund) 

8.  School  Fund 


58 
58 
58 
b'a 
59 
59 
59 
60 
60 
60 
60 
60 
62 
67 
67 
67 
67 
67 
68 
69 
69 
70 
72 
74 
74 
74 
75 
75 
76 
77 
77 
78 


Contents.  7 

PAGE 

a.  Principal  and  Income      ........  78 

b.  Management  of  Fund 79 

c.  Land  Exchanges 79 

d.  Investment  of  Fund         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .80 

e.  Composition  of  Fund 80 

f.  Distribution  of  Income 81 

D.  State  Expenditures 82 

1.  Education      . 82 

a.  Retrenchment 82 

b.  Educational  Institutions          .......  83 

2.  Support  of  Paupers 84 

a.  Measures  of  Economy 84 

b.  Effects  of  Limitations      ........  85 

3.  The  General  Assembly 86 

4.  Salaries 87 

5.  Militarj^  Department 88 

6.  State  Prison           ..........  88 

7.  Public  Debt  Discharged 89 

8.  Bounties  and  Encouragements    .......  90 

a.  Silk  and  Hemp 90 

b.  Crows         ..........  91 

c.  Agricultural  Societies 91 

d.  Silk  Manufacturing  Company         ......  92 

e.  The  Farmington  Canal             92 

f.  Eailroads 94 

g.  The  Thames  River 94 

9.  Humane  Institutions  and  Public  Buildings       ....  95 

a.  Asylum  for  Deaf  and  Dumb 95 

b.  General  Hospital  Society         .......  96 

c.  Institution  for  the  Blind 96 

d.  Insane  Retreat 97 

e.  Public  Buildings 98 

10.  Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes            .....  98 

E.  Summary 99 

1.  Lovv^er  Expenses 99 

2.  Larger  Income      ..........  99 

3.  Financial  Prosperity 100 

Third  Period.     1846-1861.     Period  of  Expansion. 
Increased  Expenditures  and  Taxation. 

A.  Growth  ok  Population       ..........  101 

B.  Expenditures 102 

1.  The  General  Assembly 102 

2.  Salaries 102 

3.  Judicial  Expenditures 103 


8  Contents. 

PAGE 

4.  Military  Expenses .         .  104 

5.  Education 105 

a    Normal  School 106 

b.  Colleges 107 

c.  The  Connecticut  Literary  Institution    .....  107 

6.  State  Prison 107 

7.  State  Paupers 107 

8.  Humane  Institvitions  and  Public  Buildings      ....  108 

a.  Asylum  for  Deaf  and  Dumb           ......  108 

b.  Perkins  Institute  for  the  Blind 108 

c.  Retreat  for  the  Insane 109 

d.  General  Hospital  Society         .......  109 

e.  State  Reform  School 109 

f.  Other  Institutions             110 

g.  Recapitulation 110 

h.  Other  Buildings Ill 

9.  Encouragements  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .111 

10.  Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes Ill 

C.  Revenue 112 

1.  Revised  System  of  Taxation        .......  112 

2.  Increase  in  Grand  List         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .113 

3.  Military  Commutation  Tax 114 

4.  Tax  on  Corporations 114 

a.  Railroads  .         .         .         .         .        '.         .         .         .         .         .  115 

b.  Foreign  Insurance  Companies         ......  115 

c.  Mutual  Insurance  Companies  .         .         .         .         .         .116 

d.  Savings  Banks  and  Savings  Associations     .         .         .         .116 

e.  Bonuses  from  Banks        ........  117 

f.  Banks  and  Insurance  Companies  .  .         .         .118 

5.  Non-resident  Stock 118 

6.  Duties  and  Licenses 119 

a.  Pedlers  and  Auction  Sales      .         .         .         .         .         .         .119 

7.  Forfeited  Bonds  and  Avails  of  Court 120 

8.  The  State  Prison 120 

9.  Permanent  Fund 120 

10.  School  Fund 121 

D.  Summary       ............  124 

1.  Increased  Expenditures  and  Receipts 124 

2.  Causes  of  Increased  Expenditures      ......  124 

a.  Largest  Items  of  Expense       .......  124 

b.  Educational  Avi^akening 125 

c.  Aid  for  the  Unfortunate          .......  125 

3.  Influence  of  Corporations     ........  126 

4.  Principal  Items  of  Revenue 126 

APPENDIX 127 


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  wh'ch 
"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.  FiNANCLAL  Organs  of  State  Gcwernment. 

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 
Assembly  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 
Governor  actual  handhng  of  the  money  were  the  treasurer  and  the 
Treasurer  comptroller  of  the  pubhc  accounts.  The  treasurer's 
Comptroller  ^^^y  ^^^  ^^  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  Uquidated,^  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.^  He  was  to  suggest  means  for  lessening  the  public  ex- 
penses, for  using  and  "improving "  pubhc  " 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  il9Q''  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. 


C.  Public  Debt. 

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)."'" 


^  At  that  time  "'liquidated"  signified  definitely  determined  or  ascertained 
(cf.   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. 

**  Compt.  Reports  (Ms.),  Sept.  1788  and  May  1790. 


The  Public  Debt.  11 

I.  Army  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 

£         s.       d.  £  s.      d. 

a  Payable  June  1,  1782,      63,778      1     9^/2         2,334      13  UV/, 
b  Payable  June  1,  1783,      63,824     2     2  2,339      13     4 

c  Payable  June  1,  1784,      63,805     8     IV4         3,252      12     1 
d  Payable  June  1,  1785,      63,780    10     b^/^       42,309        6    1^/^ 
Total,  255,188      2     6V4       50,236       5     6V4 

(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, 

a  Payable  June  1,  1786,      45,285     0     P/^       28,189       6    3^U 

b  Payable  June  1,  1787,      45,296      6     21/4       28,448       5     6^U 

^fotal     90,581     6~^  56.637     11  IOV2 

(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, 

a  Payable  June  1,  1788,      33,012     6  11 1/4       21,593  0     41/4 

b  Payable  June  1,  1789,     33,002    17  11 V4       20,097  5     71/4 

Total,     66,015     4  IOV2       41,690  5  11 1/2 

II.  State  securities,  notes  issued  in  pursuance  of: 

(1)  Act  of  November  29,  1780,  dated  February  1,  1781,  payable 
one  year  after  late  war, 

234,357     13     9V^      153,229       8    6^4 

(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, 

58,265    0     113/4      33,947       11     8V2 

(3)  Act  of  May,  1783,  for  purchase  of  horses,  payable  to  bearer  of 
said  securities  June  1,  1783, 

4,081     10      0  1,932        8    0 

(4)  Act  of  May,  1783,  and  sundry  special  acts  of  different  dates, 
payable  from  three  to  ten  years  from  their  dates, 

65,210     13       53/4       41,841        6     l^/^ 

(5)  Act  of  May,  1789,  for  old  notes  reloaned,       180,890        1     0 

III.  Interest  certificates  remaining  unpaid  November  1, 1789,  issued 
on  state  debt  up  to  February  1,  1789,  19,140        3     9^/^ 


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     11     4 

V.  Balance  of  orders  unpaid  drawn  by  Oliver  Wolcott,  Jr.,  payable 
out  of  the  1/  taxi  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 

4V4 

II. 

State  securities, 

411,840 

15 

5 

III. 

Interest  certificates, 

19,140 

3 

9^/4 

IV. 

Notes  (Civil  list). 

2,856 

11 

4 

V. 

Oliver  Wolcott  orders  on 

1/  tax. 

692 

8 

10 

VI. 

State  bills  (estimated). 

24,948 

9 

1 

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.) 

^  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.  13 

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.  1st,  1789,  being  the  Ballance  of 

fifteen  Taxes-  including   abatements,  Collecting  £  s.      d. 

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.,  9,070      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  5,000       0      0 

Total,  115.365      13      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.^  Soon,  however,  an  event  occurred  which  made  it  un- 
necessary to  use  all  of  the  funds  originally  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. 

2  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.^  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.  Id.  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  (M?.),  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.  3i 


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,  1790,2  (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: 

State  notes  (principal), 

Interest  certificates. 

Orders  on  the  1/  Tax  of  1783,  issued  from  comp 
troller's  office, 

Interest  on  above  state  notes, 

Imlay's  certificates, 

Interest  on  Imlay's  certificates. 

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),  7,350 


£ 

s. 

d. 

63,353 

16 

7 

4,739 

0 

2 

76 

9 

11 

4,000 

0 

0 

28,431 

14 

0 

1,848 

1 

2 

109,799       1     10 
There  were  no  special  funds  to  meet  this  debt  as  the  balance  of 
aU  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  supphes.  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.^  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.* 
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- 


^  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  iii,  pp.  721,  722. 
2  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  iv,  pp.  711,  712. 
2  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  iv,  p.  742. 
*  Acts  of  Congress,  1  congress,  1  session,  chap.  6. 
^  Acts  of  Con.fjfress,  1790,  second  session,  chap.  38. 


The  Public  Debt.  17 

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  setthng  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. ^    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; 

^  Comptroller's  Report  (Ms.),  May  1787. 

2  Compt.  Report,  May  1794,  p.  1. 

^  Acts  of  Third  Congress,  first  session,  chap.  37. 

Trans.  Conn.  Ac.^d..  Vol.  XVII.  2  March,  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.^  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  Pubhc  Debt. 

The  reason  for  digressing  from  the  payment  of  the  state  debt  to 
the  setthng  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  creaitors 
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. ^  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.*  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.  lid.,  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 

1  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  October  1794. 

2  Acts  of  Congress,  3  congress,  2  session,  chap.  75. 

3  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. 


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  presented  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.^  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.^  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,  1,432.31 
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         Unhquidated 
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- 


'■  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. 


20  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

icates  had  been  made  in  the  hmitation  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. 


Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  Oct.  1800. 

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 
State  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  "Hsters"  whose  duty  was  to 
make  a  hst  of  polls  and  rateable  estates  in  the  town.  They  were 
required  to  give  pubhc  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  Usts 
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  hsters  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 
hsters  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  hsts 
were  then  to  be  examined  critically  by  the  comptroUer  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  Usts  with  former  lists  and  by 
noting  the  relative  magnitude  of  the  towns  or  by  any  other  feasible 
method.  From  the  lists  received,  the  comptroHer  was  directed  to 
make  the  county  lists  and  the  grand  hst  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- 
-p  ,  ,.  troller.  A  second  column  is  added  to  show  changes  in 
List'         the  rates  that  appear  in  the  revision  of  1808. 

1  Conn.  Laws,  Revision  of  1795,  pp.  274,  275. 

2  Conn.  Laws,  May  1796,  p.  441. 

3  Conn.  Laws,  1796,  p.  281. 


22 


The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 


A  True  List  of  the  Polls  and  Estate  of  the  Town  of 
on  the  20  th  day  of  August  17  .  . 


No, 


rateable 


(Revision 

(Revision 

of  1795) 

of  1808) 

Dols. 

cts. 

Dols. 

cts. 

Polls  21  to  70, 

60 

00 

„      18  to  21  (before  1793  lower  Hmit 

was  16), 

30 

00 

Oxen  and  bulls  4  years  old, 

at    10 

00 

Cows,  steers,  heifers  and  buUs  3  years 

old. 

7 

00 

Steers,  heifers,  or  bulls  of  2  years  old. 

„      3 

34 

Stallions  or  seed  horses  more  than  3  years 

old, 

„     67 

00 

Horse  Kind  (of)  3  years  old  or  upward, 

„     10 

00 

2       „       „ 

7 

00 

1       „       „ 

,.       3 

34 

Covering  Jacks, 

„     34 

00 

Each  mule  (of)  3  years  old  or  upward, 

„     10 

00 

2       „        „ 

..,       7 

00 

1       ,, 

„       3 

34 

Acres  of  plow  land. 

„       1 

67 

, ,          Upland,  mowing  &  clear  pasture 

1 

34 

„           Boggy  meadow,  mowed, 

„       0 

84 

Boggy  meadow,  not  mowed. 

„       0 

34 

Meadow  land  in   Hartford  & 

Middlesex  Cos., 

,.       2 

50 

„           other  meadow  land. 

„       1 

17 

1 

25 

Bush  pasture. 

„       0 

34 

uninclosed  land,  1st  Rate, 

„       0 

34 

„       2nd      „ 

„       0 

17 

„       3rd      „ 

„       0 

09 

Coaches, 

„     84 

00 

168 

00 

Chariots, 

„     67 

00 

134 

00 

Phaetons, 

„     50 

00 

100 

00 

Coachees 

„     17 

00 

75 

00 

Curricles, 

„     34 

00 

68 

00 

Chaises, 

„     17 

00  ( 

5  Classes  ^15, 
JO,      30,      40, 

Riding  chairs  with  open  tops,  and  Sul- 

,0, 60. 

Other 

kies, 

„     10 

AQ  4  wheeled   car- 

riages  on 

springs  30  00 

Sources  of  Revenue. 


23 


No. 


Gold  watches. 


(Revision         (Revision 
of  1795)  of  1808) 

Dols.  cts.  Dols.  cts. 

at     17       00      34    00 


Silver  and  other  watches, 

5       00 

10     00 

Steel  and  Brass  wheeled  Clocks, 

10      00 

20     00 

Wooden 

3       34 

7     00 

Ounces  of  Silver  Plate  at  $1.11  per  ounce,    „ 

6% 

Money  on  Interest, 

6% 

Houses,  fireplaces, 

2       50 

cl.  (1)  5  00 

depreciated  1/4, 

1      88 

,.  (2)  3  75 

1/2,         „ 

1       25 

„   (3)  2  50 

3/4,         .. 

63 

,,  (4)  1  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) 

The  rest  higher  in  proportion. 

Each    Shopkeeper  or  Trader   (the   lowest 
class) 
All  others  in  due  proportion. 

Each  Physician  or  Surgeon  (the  least  prac- 
titioner) 
All  others  in  due  proportion. 

Each  allowed  and  hcensed  Tavern  keeper  set 
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 
and  to  be  added  to  at  the  best  discretion 
of  the  listers. 


at       $16/ 


84 


34 


50 


$75-300 


40-300 


34-200 


20-200 


17 


10-200 


24  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

Laws  of     Revision  of 
1795  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  suppUed  with 
custom  shall  be  set  in  the  list  annually     at     267  150^ 

and  others  of  lesser  advantages  whether 
windmills  or  others  at  a  less  sum  in  pro- 
portion according  to  the  Hsters'  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  hsters  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  hmiting  somewhat  the  discretionary  powers 
of  the  Hsters.^ 

^  "For  each  run  of  stones." 

2  Conn.  Laws,  Revision  of  1795,  p.  280. 

3  Conn.  Laws,  Oct.   1804,  p.  676,  sec.  6—10. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  25 

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  Usts)  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  hst  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 
lla^e  to^^^  li^^-  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  hst  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 
of'state^Tax    °^  town  government  for  state  purposes  has  been  con- 
tinued to  the  present  time* 

1  Conn.  Laws,  Oct.  1800,  p.  533.  ^  Conn.  Laws,  May  1814,  chap.  21. 

3  Conn.  Laws,  Oct.  1804,  p.  676,  sec.  5.  *  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. ^  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  lieutenant-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."*  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 

1  Cf.  p.  9. 

2  Conn.  Laws,  Revision  of  1808,  p.  466,  footnote. 

8  Revision  of  1808,  title  102,  chap.  1,  sec.  8,  footnote. 

*  Conn.  Laws,  Revision  of  1795,  pp.  278,  279. 

5  Idem. 

"  Conn.  Laws,  Oct.   1799,  p.  513,  sec.  5. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  27 

field.    This  proviso  gave  a  man  an  opportunity  to  make  a  fair  start 
in  his  work  before  taxing  him  in  the  hne  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  such  a  nature  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  2  an  upper  limit  was  made  within  which  the  listers  could 
exercise  their  judgment.  For  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. 

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  jnelded  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.^  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.^  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- 
Non-resident      gj_^^g      j^Q  h2.n\is,  the  Hartford  Bank  and  the  Union 
Bank  btock         _,      ,  ^^         ^     '  ^  ,  , 

Bank   at  New  London,  were  chartered   as   early  as 

May  1792,^  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  hsted  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 
hst  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- 

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. 
*  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, 

fhief  etc^°"'^''      ^°    ^P"^'    ^^^^'    ^^^    ^^"^^^    average    was    only 
$1,529.95. 

2.  Extraordinarj'  Receipts. 
In  extraordinary  receipts  the  state  received,  during  the  summer 
of  1796,  from  the  president  and  fellows  of  Yale  College,  $13,726.39 
m  deferred  six  per  cent  United  States  stock.  The  occasion  for  this 
transfer  will  be  shown  later  under  expenditures  for  education.^ 
During  the  fiscal  j^ear  ending  April  30,  1815,  the  Phoenix  Bank, 
pursuant  to  the  act  incorporating  it  (passed  at  the  May  session  of 
the  general  assembly  in  1814), ^  paid  into  the  state  treasury  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 

1  Cf.  p.  41. 

2  Public  Acts,  May  1814,  chap.  2,  sec.  8. 

3  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)       6%  stock       3%  stock 
Originating   from   subscrip- 
tion  to   the   U.    S.   Loan 

(made  principallyin  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. 

2  Cf.  p.  17. 

3  Cf.  p.  29. 

*  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. 

^  Idem. 

«  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  May  1801. 

"  Cf.  p.  18. 

**  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  May  1801.  Account  of  stock  standing  to  the 
credit  of  the  state  in  the  books  of  the  commissioner  of  loans. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  31 

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      125,751.34 

$258,131.76    $153,527.95      $43,466.33 

Redeemed  by  U.  S.  and 
money  not  yet  reinvested 
on  April  30,  1801,  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  —  V,  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,  i  represents  the  interest  due  on  the  unpaid 
portion  of  the  principal,  and  r  the  amount  applicable  to  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  debt.  Consequently  as  i  was  a  constantly  diminishing 
quantity,  r  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  a  little  more  than 
six  per  cent.  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. 

1  Cf.  p.  14. 


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  increasmg  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.i  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.^  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.^  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.^  The  banks  to  the  stock  of  which  the  state 
had  already  subscribed  had  temporarily  refused  to  receive  New  York 
money  or  "facihties"  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  dollais 
of  stocl^  in  these  three  banks.  With  the  exception  of  the  two  fiscal 
years  ending  on  April  30,  1809,  and  April  30,  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.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVIL  3  March,  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,  1817, 
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                   „         „           „           ,.           „  8,106.56 

Deferred  six    „         „           „          „  ,        „  68,034.00 

Three               „         „           „           „           „  55,302.66 

Total  of      „          „          ~  $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 

1  Cf.  p.  33. 
■Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  May  1818. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  35 

dollars  additional  was  drawn  from  this  fund.^  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 
hue  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  FoUo  D  (Ms.),  p.  14. 


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- 
sippi, which  lay  between  the  northern  and  southern  lines  set  by  the 
charter  of  16G2.  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,  TrumbuU,  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  hst  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 

^  Annual  Report  of  American  Historical  Association,  1898,  p.  142. 

^  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- 
all}^  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  t?ilrty-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. ^  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,  4,571.95 

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. 

2  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  recommended  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  htigated 
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."  2  The  following  is  the  statement  of  the  capital  as  it  stood 
in  April,  1819.3 

Connecticut,  $579,228 
New  York,  568,298 
Massachusetts,  271,582 
Ohio,  47,582 

Vermont,  17,445 

$1,483,831 4 
Cultivated  Lands  and  build-    i  Connecticut,       $7,618 

ings  in  t   Massachusetts,   59,576  67,194 


Money  loaned  on  bonds,  con- 
tracts and  mortgages  to  in- 
habitants of 


Wild  Lands  in 


f  New  York,       $38,000 

\  Ohio,  2,560  40,560 


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  Commissaioner  of  School  Fund,  1819. 

^  A  verification  of  this  table  shows  an  error  of  a  Uttle  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 
Hihhouse  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.  ExPENDrruRES. 
1.  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 

^s^y^^^.  society.  This  amount  was  taken  from  the  taxes  paid  into  the 
Schools  -^  ,    ,  •  ,     1  1       • 

state  treasury  by  the  towns  and  this  method  was  used  to  m- 

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.^  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  shilUngs  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  lev3dng  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 

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). 

2  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,"  [it  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  the  school 
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.^ 


^  Report  Supt.  of  Common  Schools.  1853,  pp.  44,  45. 

2  Report  Supt.  of  Common  Schools,  1853,  p.  46. 

'*  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. 

*  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. 
(  olleee     ^^^^^o"  ^^s  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  the  state  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  £19,306 
9s.  0^/4d.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  comphance  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 


1  Cf.  pp.  12,  13. 

2  Comptroller's  Report  (Ms.),  May  1792,  p.   1. 

3  Report  Siipt.  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.^  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  selHng  part  of 
the  bank  stock  and  received  in  dividends  from  the  stock  the  sum  of 
$591.60,  thus  raising  the  funds  forthe  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. 

2  Cf.  pp.  29,  30. 

3  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  May  1796. 
*  Cf.  p.  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- 
H^^se  Ps^ses"  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  standstill.^  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. ^  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, 

^  The  Connecticut  Gore   Land  Company  by  Albert  C.  Bates  in   Annual 
Report  American  Historical  Association,  1898,  pp.   141,  142. 
2  Cf.  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.^ 
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. ^  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.^ 

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  terrtorial  rights,  the  jurisdiction 


^  The  Connecticut  Gore  Land  Company  by  Albert  C.  Bates  in  Annua^ 
Report  American  Historical  Association,  1898,  p.   143. 

2  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.  45 

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.^  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  territorial  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. 

^  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 

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. 
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 

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. 

^  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.^  The  total  expense  of  the  prison  to  the  state  treasury 
from  1790  to  1818  (exclusive  of  year  ending  April  30,  18062)  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.^  Very  few  modifications  of  that  law  were  made  aftei  its  pas- 
sage. It  provided  that  every  town  should  be  responsible  for  the 
support  of  its  inhabitants  who  needed  relief  and  this  responsibility 
applied  even  to  inhabitants  who  lived  in  other  towns  \\ithin  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  conditions  upon 
which  persons  could  gain  a  settlement. 

I.  An  alien  could  gain  a  settlement  in  any  one  of  three  ways: 
(1)  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  April  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, 
18062)  Y^as  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 
finall}'  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 
remo\e  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  man;y 
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. ^  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" 

^  Report  of  Committee  de  Paupers  (Ms.)  to  the  General  Assembly,  May 
session,   1812,  pp.   1—3. 

2  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  Oct.   1816. 

3  Cf.  p.  84. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  4  March,  1912. 


50  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

and  the  institution  was  opened  in  Hartford  on  April  15,  1817.^  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. 

^  Conn.    Quarterly,  vol.  ix,  pp.  596—601. 


Expenditures.  51 

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.  2 

The  chief  judge  ot  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  doUar  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  1,  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 

1  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  Connectiicut. 

and  those  of  the  representatives  to  two  dollars  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  mihtary  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.^  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  Apiil  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.!  Jq  ^j^is  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 

1  Cf.  pp.  34,  35. 

2  Cf.  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. ^^  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,  181 7). ^ 

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  receive  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   $7,687.50*  and  the  share  of  the  Congrega- 

^  Public  Statute  Laws,  Oct.  1816,  chap.  13. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1817,  chap.  2,  p.  282. 

3  Cf.  p.  42. 

*  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  1S20,  chap.  25,  p.  407. 


Expenditures.  55 

tionalists  and  Presbyterians  was  twenty  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars.^ 

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  pohtical  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. ^  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.^  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 
XT  I     raising  of   hemp.      This   act   also   exempted    from  tax- 

Piax  ation,  for  the  year  in  which  the  crop  was  harvested,  all 

^  The  amount  assigned  to  the  Congregationahsts  and  Presbyterians  was 
not  completely  distributed  until  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  April  10,  1819. 
2  Conn.  Laws,  1784,  p.  282. 
^  Idem. 


56  The  Financial  History  of  Connedicttt. 

lands  on  which  hemp  or  flax  was  grown.     This  act  was  to  remain  in 

force  for  three  years,  commencing  May  1,  1804.^    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. ^    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 

Uther  iin-  voted  to  exem.pt  from  all   taxation  for  a  period  of 

couragements  ^  ^ 

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  hsts  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, 

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. 

5  Cf.  p.  25. 


Summary.  57 

were  to  be  exempted   from  a]]  assessment  for  the  same  length  of 
time.i 

11.  Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes. 
The  state  treasurer,  in  accordance  with  a  law  passed  by  the  assembly 
in  May,  1785,^  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.^  The  legislature  in  May,  1806,  raised  the  fees  to  three 
cents  and  a  half  for  every  dollar.*  From  May  1,  1797,  until  April  9, 
1818,  the  total  abatements  on  the  state  taxes  allowed  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.  Summary. 

The  state  started  with  a  debt  of  over  two  million  dollars,  but  on 
April  10, 1818,  its  debt  was  nominal  and  the  state  had  a  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  prison.     (This  leaves 

1  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1817,  chap.  9. 

-  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 
-pj  n  n  ,     old  charter  granted  by   King  Charles  II  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.^  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 
Eeh'gious  for  this  party  which  was  opposed  to  the  federalists. 
Liberty  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. 
^  Johnston's  Connecticut,  p.  347. 


I 


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.^  That  this  feeling  was  strong 
is  evidenced  by  the  last  great  poHtical  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 
axation  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  hving 
for  all  was  about  the  same.  By  the  time  of  the  War  of  1812,  condi- 
tions had  changed  sufficiently  to  cause  a  feehng  of  dissatisfaction 
with  the  existing  tax  system. 


B.   Republican  AD.MiNisrRATiox. 
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 
Constitutional     -^^  ^^^  ^j        gg^^j^j^  ^^  ^g^g  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^-^^^  ^j^^^  ^  ^^_ 
Convention  .       ■' 

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. 


^  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  houses  as  before.  The  lower 

bystem  ot        house  was  to  be  called  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
(xovei-nment  ^ 

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. ^  There 
was,  however,  to  be  but  one  regular  session  annually  instead  of 
two  sessions  as  hitherto.^  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 

I'reedom^       an  ecclesiastical  society.     As  societies  could  tax  only  their 

own   members,    persons   who   were    not   members  of   a 

society  were  not  compelled  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 
^  ,  ,  ^  I  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  such  a  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. 

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- 

Objections  -^  .  .  .       ^  .  -^      „ 

to  Old  List      publicans  on  this  question  maybe  gained  from  Governor 

^  Conn.  Constitution,  article  iii,  sec.   1. 

2  Conn.  Constitution,  article  iii,  sec.  3,  4. 

^  Conn.  Constitution,  article  iii,  sec.  2. 

^  Conn.  Constitution,  article  vii,  sec.   1,  2. 

^  Conn.  Constitution,  article  viii,  sec.  2.  '^  Cf.  p.  36. 


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  OP  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-dollar  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  assemblv,  1817 
(xMs.),  p.  7. 


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."  1  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 
T3     .  .  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. 

Dwelling  houses,  with  the  bviildings  and 
lots  appurtenant  thereto,  not  exceeding 
two  acres  in  any  case,  shall  be  valued  at 
the  rate  which  each  separate  dweUing 
house,  etc.,  is  worth  in  money,  and  with 
due  regard  to  the  situation,  use  or  in- 
come thereof,  whether  occupied  by  the 

^  Judd's  Plain  Truths  addressed  to  the  real  friends  of  the  state,  pp.  18,  19. 
^  Judd's  Plain  Truths  addressed  to  the  real  friends  of  the  state,  p.  20. 
3  Public  Statute  Laws,  Oct.  1818,  chap.  13. 
*  Cf.  pp.  21-24. 


Republican  Administration. 


63 


Act  of  1819. 


Supplementary 
Act  of  1820.» 


owner  or  leased ;  and  shall  be  set  in  the 
hst  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  hst  at 
Neat  cattle,  three  years  old  or  more,  shall 

be  valued  and  set  in  the  hst  at 

AU  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, 
curricle,  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 


2%  on 
such  value 


3%  on 
such  value 


3%  on 
such  value 

8%  on 
such  value 

10%  on 
such  value'' 

$67. 

6%  on 
such  value 

$25.b 

$50."= 
6%  on 
such  value'^ 

50%  on 
such  value 

25%  on 
such  value"-' 

6%  on 
such  value 

40%  on 
such  value 

25%  on 
such  value 

^  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1819,  chap.  2. 

2  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  May  1820,  chap.  57.  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, 
e.   Except  spoons,     f.  Must  be  worth  more  than  twenty  dollars,  if  listed. 


64 


The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 


Act  of  1819. 

Supplementaiy 
Act  of  1820." 

30%  on 
such  vahie 

15%,  on 
such  value^ 

50%  on 
such  value 

6%  on 
such  value 

6% 


6% 


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  on  interest  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,  ti'aders 
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  fort} 
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.     Such  abate- 


3%  on 
such  value 


Republican  Administration.  65 

merits,  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. ^  All  property  of  ministers  to  the  amount 
of  twenty-five  hundred  dollars  was  exempted  from  taxation, ^  (re- 
pealed in  1822)  ,3  and  woolen  and  cotton  manufactories,  as  already 
provided  by  an  act  passed  at  the  May  session,  1817,^  were  to  remain 
free  from  taxation  until  the  rising  of  the  legislature  in  1821.^ 

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  should  be  estimated  at  a  fair  value  and  listed  at  three 

^  Public   Statute  Laws,  May   1819,  chap.   2,  sec.   14. 
^  Idem,  sec.   15. 

3  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1822,  chap.  24. 

4  Cf.  p.  56. 

5  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1819,  chap.  2    sec.  16, 
«  Judd's  Plain  Truths,  p.   19. 

Trans.  Coxn.  Ac^d.,  Vol.  XVIT.  o  March,  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  oi  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.^  This  was  changed  in 
1843  to  ten  dollars.^  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  1833  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  hst  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  hst  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  $4,143,699. 

1  PubUc  Acts,  May  1824,  chap.  2,  sec.  1. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1819,  chap.  2,  sec.   11. 

3  Public  Acts,  May  1846,  chap.  5. 

*  PubHc  Acts,  May  1843,  chap.  43. 

5  PubUc  Statute  Laws,  May  1833,  chap.  22. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  67 

C.  Sources  of  Revenue. 

1.  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- 
n^t"      ^^^^"  P^rt}^  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  Repubhcans,  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. ^  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. 

2.  Permanent  Fund. 

The    composition    of    this  fund   on   April   10,    1818,   when    the 

first     period    was     nearing  its     close,     has     been     shown     else- 

p  .  .  where. 2      For  convenient    reference,   it    is    repeated 

of  Fund,  1818    here. 

1  Cf.  p.  113. 

2  Cf.  p.  34. 


68  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

Seven  per  cent  United  States  Stock,  $13,619.00 

Six  per  cent  United  States  ,,  8,106.56 

Deferred  six  per  cent  U.  S.  „  68,034.00 

Three  per  cent  United  States  „  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,  1,018.59 


$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 
S^Funf  ™^^*  reduced  the  amount  of  deferred  six  per  cent  stock 
and  b}^  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  di\adends  received  from  its 
bank  stock. ^ 

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  mth  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 

1  Cf.  p.  70,  footnote  3. 

2  Cf.  p.   34  for   first   diversion  of  reimbursement   ou  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 

Increase     hunored   dollars   cash    ($9,695.71)    was    in    the  treasury 

of  Fund  ,      ^,  .  .  '     ,      .  ,  r-       1 

unmvested.     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 

The  comptroller  in  his  May  report  (Ms.)  of  1833,  states  that  on 
March  31,  1833,  the  permanent  fund  consisted  of  three  hundred 
P  y  .  fifty-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 
and  184b  ^  io\_2\  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- 
irFmul    "^ane^t  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.^  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. ^  As  the  state  purchased  no  United  States  stock  after 
1817,  the  income  from  this  source  necessaril}^  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,^  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 


1  Cf.  p.  35. 

2  Cf.  p.  68. 

•^  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. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  71 

\\hich  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,  1833, 
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  doUars  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 


72  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

second  period  exceeds  that  of  the  best  part  of  the  first  period  by 
over  thirty-five  hundred  dohars.^ 

3.  Duties  on  Writs.     Licenses. 

The  revenue  received  in  duties  and  hcenses  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.^  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  hcense 
fee  for  the  sale  of  lottery  tickets  and  the  state  derived  no  revenue 
from  this  source  after  1830.  Acts  of  the  assembly  passed  in  1828^ 
and  1829^  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  Ibid 

*  Public   Statute  Laws  (Revision   1821),  title  4,  sec.   1. 
5  Public  Statute  Laws,  1825,  chap.  17,  sec.  2. 

®  PubHc  Statute  Laws,  1830,  chap.  19,  sec.  11. 
'  Public  Statute  Laws,  1828,  chap.  40. 

*  Public  Statute  Laws,   1829,  chap.  14. 

^  Public  Statute  Laws,  1832,  chap.  4,  sec.  2. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  1^ 

gives   amounts  received   for  lottery  licenses ;   and   duties   on  sales 
at  auction  are  shown  under  D. 


Years. 

A 

B 

C 

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 

2,597 

5,242 

47 

7,886 

1824 

2,590 

5,112 

39 

7,741 

1825 

2,732 

5,122 

22 

7,876 

1826 

2,006 

5.397 

138 

7,540 

1827 

2,175 

5,582 

2,522 

70 

10,349 

1828 

2,404 

5,517 

2,037 

83 

10,040 

1829 

2,322 

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 

35 

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.^  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  this  license^  and  as  a  result  the  revenue  from  this  source  was  greatlv 
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. 

^  Public  Acts,  May  1841,  chap.  37,  sec.  3. 
2  Public  Acts,  May  1842,  chap.  41. 


74  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. ^  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  aU  their  stock  held  by  non-residents  of  the  state.^  The 
next  year  this  tax  was  raised  to  two-thirds  of  one  per  cent.^  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 

1  Of.  p.  73. 

'"■  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1819,  chap.  2,  see.   11 

•^  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1830,  chap.  28. 

■^  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1831,  chap.  27. 


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.^  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 

mm  Fev-  another  small  transfer  in  1833  made  the  total  transfc 

manent  ±  una 

about  ninety-seven  hundred    dollars.^      The  rest  ol 

the  extraordinary  receipts  during  this  period  came  from  the  United 

States  government.     In  1816,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  general 

^  Computed  from  reports  of  the    warden  to   the  directors    of   the   state 
prison.     (Included  in  reports  of  the  rUrectors  from  1842—1846.) 
-  Private  Acts,  1838,  p.  70. 
3  Privcite  Acts,  1840,  p.  54. 
*  Cf.  p.  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.^ 
SXd^™  ices     ^^^  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."^  The  United  States 
government  did  not  make  the  expected  payments  until  the  fiscal 
year  ending  March  31,  1839,  when  it  paid  seventjz-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 

1  Public  Statute  Laws,  Oct.   1816,  chap.   13.     Cf.  pp.  53,  54. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1832,  chap.  30. 
^  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1833,  chap.  6. 
*  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1833,  chap.  7, 

^  PubKc  Statute  Laws,  May  1838,  chap.  55. 


Sources  of  Revenue.  77 

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 

its   share   of  the   amount  realized  by   the  sale  of  the 

pubhc  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, 

;,       ,  1836,    the    surplus   funds   of   the   United    States  were 

burplus  .      .  .      ^ 

Funds  of         distributed  in  trust  among  the  states  that  comprised  the 

the  United  Union.  The  sum  of  $763,661 .83  was  allotted  to  Connecti- 
cut^ and  it  was  accepted  by  the  assembly  at  its  annual 
session  in  1836.^  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  pubhc  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  mone}/,  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  w^ere 
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. 

2  Public   Statute  Laws,  May  1836,  chap.   71. 

^  Changed  to  "the  entire  income"  by  chap.  84,  Public  Acts  of  1855. 
*  Public  Acts,  May  1846,  chap.  50. 


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  of  the  state,  or  in  the  bonds  of  any  city,  town,  or  borough 
in  the  state.^  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  jugghng.  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 

on    September  2,    1820,    was    $1,858,074      This    had 

Principal  increased  to  $2,070,055  by  September  2,  1845.  In 
and  Income  ...  '    . 

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- 
Jf  ^Fund™^"^  ceeded  by  Seth  P.  Beers,  who  was  still  in  office  at  the  close 
of  the  period.  The  honor  of  estabhshing  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. ^  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 

Land  hx-  ^^^  ^^  ^j^^  same  time  the  state  was  paying  taxes  on  them, 
clianges  r    j      o 

It  was  Mr.  Beers '  policy  to  hold  them  no  longer  than  nec- 
essary, provided  he  could  dispose  of  them  without  loss  to  the  state.  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 

1  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  Connecticut, 

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- 
cipal of  the  fund  was  converted  into  cash,  it  was  in- 
of  Fund  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.^  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 

^  ...         at  different    dates    in  accordance  with  corresponding 

Composition  ^  ° 

of  Fund  reports  of  the  commissioner  of  the  school  fund. 


Report  of  Commissioner  of  School  Fund,   1828,  pp.   3,  4. 
Report  of  Commissioner  of  School  Fund,   1835,  pp.   1—7. 


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, 

2,500 

Bank  Stock, 

57,600 

97,850 

Cash, 

23,003 

Totals, 

$1,858,074 

$1,877,615 

April  1, 

Sept.  2, 

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- 
nf'Vncome^^     srty.'^    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  pubhc 
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  \a.w, 
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. 

^  Conn.  LaAvs,  May  1795,  p.  487 

Trans.  Conn.  Ac.^d..  Vol.  XVII.  0  March,  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  fohowing  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.   State  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- 

Ketrench-      ^^j-es  or  increased  taxation.      The   RepubUcans  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. 


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.^ 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. ^  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  b}' 
the  state,  until  1839,  for  pubHc  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.'*  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 
Institutions  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 

1  Comptroller's  Report  (Ms.),  May  1820. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1820,  chap.  50,  sec.  1. 

3  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.^  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.3 

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 
of^EcoiTomv     y^^^  Mniil  in  1817  and  1818  the  amount  exceeded  fifte 

thousand  dollars.  In  its  October  session  of  1818  the 
assembly  passed  a  measure  which  aimed  to  abohsh  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, 


1  Public  Statute  Laws,  183L  chap.  51,  sec.   12. 
-  Private  Acts,   1839,  p.  71. 
^  Private  Acts.   1840.   p.   5('.. 


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  hmitation  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  hmitations  and  the  pohcy  of  contracting  for 
the  support  of  the  state  paupers  were  striking.    From  the  beginning 

of  the  period,  the  expense  incurred  by  the  state  for 
LimiUtions      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. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  1820,  chap.  34,  sec.  2. 

3  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  1820,  chap.  34,  sec.  1. 
*  Ibidem,  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.^  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. 2  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 
RepubHcans  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  Repubhcan  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. 

1  Conn.  Constitution,  art.  3,  sec.  2. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  Oct.   1818,  chap.  12,  p.  329. 
^  Public  Statute  Laws,  1820,  chap.  58. 

*  Amendments  to  Conn.  Constitution,  art.  i. 
5  Public  Statute  Laws,  May  1831,  chap.  2. 


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. ^  The  salaries  of  the  principal  state 
officials  as  they  stood  at  the  time  of  the  revision  of  1821  were  as 
follows:  2 


Governor, 

Lieutenant  Governor, 
Secretary  of  State, 
Treasurer, 

Comptroller, 
Commissioner     of     School 

Fund, 
Chief    Judge    of    Superior 

Court, 
Four  Associates,  each,^ 
Senators, 


$1,100 

850  (changed  in  1823  to  $300)3 
84    and  fees^ 
1,000  ($300  of  this  amount  to  be  paid 

from  school  fund) 
1,000  ($1250,  beginning  May,   1826) ^ 

1,000  (paid  from  school  fund) 


1,100 
1,050 

$2 


a   day    and    mileage    (9    cents 
per  mile) 
Representatives,  $1.50     a  day  and  mileage  (9  cents  per 

mile) 

The  salary  list  estabhshed  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 
live  hundred  fifty  dollars  more.^     The  principal  change,  however, 


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.     PubUc  Statute  Laws,  Oct.   1818,  chap. 
'  Cf.  p.  50. 
^  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  May  1823,  chap.  18. 


88  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

was  in  lowering  the  compensation  of  the  members  of  the  general 
assembly.^  A  saving  of  forty-two  hundred  dollars  a  year  was  effect- 
ed b}^  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.^  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.  MiHtary  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  31,  1830,  the 
total  mihtary  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 
mihtary  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 


1  Cf.  pp.  51,  52. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,  Oct.   1818,  chap.   1,  sec.  1. 

3  Conn.  Laws,  May  1806,  p.  713. 
^  Cf.  p.  51. 

5  Public   Statute  Laws,   1819,-  chap.  4. 


State  Expenditures,  89 

treasury  for  the  maintenance  of  the  prison.  Conditions  at  the  old 
Newgate  prison  were  far  from  satisfactory  and  the  assembly  finalh' 
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.^  After  the  year  ending  March  31 , 
1829,  the  prison  was  not  only  self-supporting  but  also  a  source  of 
revenue  to  the  state.^  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  ^larch 

31,  1828,  $5,795 

Original  cost  of  building  new  prison,  33,000 

Expense  of  new  prison  for  first  two  years  ending  March  31, 

1829,  3,502 

Expense  of  building  an  addition  for  the  two  fiscal  years 

ending  March  31,  1832,  7,926 

Expense  for  year  ending  March  31,  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  pubhc  debtwas$3,312.90.^ 
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 
co\'er  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. 

Cf.  p.  75. 

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.^      In  1832,   the   general 

assembly  once  more  tried  to  encourage  the  silk  industry 

Hemp^^      by  providing  for  the  payment  of  a  bounty  of  one  dollar 

to  every  person  transplanting  on  his  land  one  hundred 

1  Cf.  pp.  55,  56. 


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.^  The  act  of  1832  also  ordered  a 
payment  of  fifty  cents  for  ever}^  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  undei  the  operation  of  these  laws. 
They  were  both  repealed  in  1839.^  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 

r,  crow  killed  in  the  state.    The  town  clerks  paid  the  boun- 

Urows  .  .  ^ 

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 
Si^'iet'^es"^'^       to     each     incorporated    county    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 

1  Public  Statute  Laws,  1832,  chap.  29. 

2  Public  Statute  Laws,   1834,  chap.  7. 

3  Pubhc  Acts,  1839,  chap.  45. 

4  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  1829,  chap.  22. 
^  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  1833,  chap.  31. 
"  Pubhc  Statute  Laws,  1837,  chap.  44. 
'  Pubhc  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 
Silk  Manu-  ^gj-y  interesting.  In  1834  a  charter  was  granted  to 
Company  ^^e  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 
toif  Canal"^  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 


Public  Statute  Laws,  1834,  chap.  40. 
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.^  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.^  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. 
^  Atwater's  History  of  City  of  New  Haven,  chap.  22,  p.  359. 
3  Public  Acts,  1831,  chap.  50,  sec.   10. 
*  Pubhc  Acts,  1834,  chap.  39. 

^  Account  of  Farmington,  Hampshire  and  Hampden,   and  New  Haven 
and  Northampton  Canal  Companies,  1850,  T.  J.  Stafford,  Printer. 


94  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

however,  to  relinquish  the  mortgage/  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. ^  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 
-D  iij-oad  '^^^  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. *  In  the  same  yeds  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.^  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- 
Th.e  Thames  ^^^  *^^  condition  that  it  spend  in  clearing  and 
Biver  deepening  the  channel  of  the  Thames  whatever  sum, 

1  Atwater's  History  City  of  New  Haven,  chap.  22,  p.  360. 

2  Niles'  Register  (1840),  vol.  Iviii,  p.  244. 

3  Account  of  Farmington,  Hampshire  and  Hampden,  and  New  Haven 
and  Northampton  Canal  Companies,  1850,  T.  J.  Stafford,  Printer. 

«  Private  Laws,  1789—1837,  title  33,  sec.  17. 

^  PubUc  Statute  Laws,  May  1833,  chap.  50,  sec.  11. 

^  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.  95 

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  estabhshed  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  j^  gave  no  aid  to  humane  institutions  of  any  kind.^ 
Dumb  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  doUars  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.*  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. 

2  Cf.  pp.  49,  50. 

3  Private  Acts,  1837,  p.  26. 
*  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, 
Geueral         ^j^g  legislature  required    the  New  Haven  County  Bank, 
Hospital  r    ,  ;•  •  ,  •  ,    •       , 

Society  ^^  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 

for  the  Blind.  One  hundred  forty-three  dollars  was 
for  the  Blind     P^^^    ^°    ^^  ^^  ^^^  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.^  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.2  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. 
*  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- 
Eetreat  corporated  by  the  legislature  in  May,  1822.1  jj^g  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. ^  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. 5  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  hmited  to  an  annual  expense  of 
two  thousand  dollars.^  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  j^ears.^  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.^  Under  the  opera- 
tion of  these  acts,  the  state,  in  the  four  years  ending  March  31, 184G, 
spent  the  sum  of  eighteen  thousand  six  hundred  eighty-four  dollars. 

1  Private  Laws,  1789—1836,  p.  342. 

2  Gov.   Buckingham's  Message,   1859,  p.   10. 

3  Compt.  Report  (Ms.),  May  1824. 

4  Private  Acts,   1837,  pp.  26,  27. 
^  Private  Acts,  1839,  pp.  59,  60. 

"  Private  Acts,  May  1842,  pp.  52,  53. 
"  Private  Acts,  1843,  p.  28. 
«  Private  Acts,  1844,  p.  23. 
'•'  Private  Acts,  1845,  pp.   117,   118. 
Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVIT.  7  March,  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 : 


Public 
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  mihtary  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  31,  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.^  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  wiU  be  slow.  A  stud}- 
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. 

1  Cf.  p.  77. 


Per  cent  increase 

Per  cent  of 

of 

Population 

Increase. 

in  U.S. 

5.4 

35.1 

4.3 

36.4 

5.0 

33.1 

8.1 

33.5 

4.1 

32.7 

19.6 

35.9 

24.0 

35.6 

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. 

Year.  Population. 

1790  237,946 

1800  251,002 

1810  261,942 

1820  275,148 

1830  297,675 

1840  309,978 

1850  370,792 

1860  460,147 

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.'^  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. 

1  Cf.  United  States  Census  Reports. 

2  Cf.  p.  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. 

2  Cf.  p.  87. 

3  Public  Acts,  1847,  chap.  45. 

*  Public  Acts,  1855,  chap.  26,  sec.   1,  11. 

^  Idem,  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. 

^  As  changed  by  sec.   15,  chap.  26,  Pubhc  Acts  of  1855. 
2  Public  Acts,  1845,  chap.  22. 


104  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

4.  Military  Expenses. 
In  1847  the  legislature  passed  an  act  relating  to  the  mihtia,' 
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.^  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  Button,  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 
mihtary  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 
mihtary  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.  -  Public  Acts,  1850,  chap.  57,  sec.  2. 

3  Governor  Button's  Message  to  the  General  Assembly,  May  1854,  p.  7. 
*  Public  Acts,  1854,  chap.  68,  sec.  49. 

5  Public  Acts,  1847,  chap.  43,  sec.  62. 

6  Public  Acts,   1854,  chap.  68,  sec.  45. 
'  PubUc  Acts,  1855,  chap.  89,  sec.  3. 


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.^ 
By  1821  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- 

1  Cf.  p.  83. 

2  Report  of  Superintendent  of  Common  Schools,  1852,  pp.  23,  24  (Leg. 
Doc.   1852). 

^  Idem,  p.  37. 

*  Public  Acts,  chap.  52,  sec.   1. 

5  Pubhc  Acts,  1842,  chap.  50,  sec.  G. 

«  Public  Acts,  1845,  chap.  46,  sec.   1. 

'  Pubhc  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. 1  As  a  condition  of  incorporation, ^  the  state  imposed  upon 
the  State  Bank  at  Hartford  a  bonus  of  ten  thousand 
Schoc)'l  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  1853  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 

1  Public  Acts,  1849,  chap.  23,  sec.   1. 

2  Private  Acts,  1849,  p.  4. 

3  Public  Acts,  1849,  chap.  23,  sec.  7. 
*  Private  Laws,  vol.  iii,  p.  66. 

s  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  58. 
«  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  1855.2 
This  company  was  formed  to  secure  a  building  for  the  Normal  School 
at  New  Britain  and  therefore  these  grants  are  closely  alhed  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 
p  ,.  ^  ^  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  Conneeti-  fj^g  thousand  dollars  to  this  institution.^  In  1857 
Institution'  ^^^   thousand   dollars  was   given  to  the  institution 

by  the  state. ^ 

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  doUars.  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. 

*  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  1850  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- 
Asyliim  for       sand  dollars  and  made  it  cumulative,   thereby  allow- 
Dumb  i"g  ^^  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.  ^  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-  ^jqj-,  jyiq  annual  appropriation  of  a  sum  not  to 
the  Blind  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- 


^  Compt.  Report,  1850,  p.  5. 

2  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  doUars  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 
thousand  dollars  a  year,^  An  additional  sum  ol 
tii?7nsan°e  twenty-five  hundred  dollars  was  granted  in  1859.-* 
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 
General  change  for  the  rest  of  the  period  and  the  full  amount 

Society  ^^^  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  estabhshed  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- 

State         uj-y^   ^j^g   s^a.te   should   add   another  ten  thousand  dollars. 

Sdioo"     The  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.  ^  private  Acts,  1858,  p.  6. 

3  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  81.  *  Private  Acts,  1859,  p.  139. 

5  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  6.  «  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  50. 

'  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  21.  ^  Private  Acts,  vol.  iii,  p.  309. 
•'  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  30. 


110  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

of  the  school  requested.^  Four  banks — the  Central  Bank  at  Middle- 
town,2  the  Farmers'  Bank  at  Bridgeport,^  the  Pequonnuc  Bank  at 
Bridgeport,*  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    dohars.      In    1857    one    thousand    dollars    was 
Other  given   to    the    New    Haven    Orphan    Asylum    and    five 

tions  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 

T-,  .^  humane  and  charitable  institutions  from  April  1,  1846, 
Kecapitu-  ^ 

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.    . 
*  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.  50. 

5  Private  Acts,   1851,  p.  30. 

«  Public  Acts,  1851,  chap.  46,  sec.   13. 

'  Private  Acts,  1860,  p.  88. 


Expenditures.  Ill 

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. 

buildhms      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  1853. 

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.^  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 


1  Cf.  p.  91. 

2  Private  Acts,  1856,  p.  139. 

3  Private  Acts,  1857,  p.  207. 

*  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  direct!}- 
by  the  towns  to  the  state  treasurer.  This  abohshed  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 

^  Treasurer's  Report,  1851,  p.  6. 

2  Public  Acts,  1850,  chap.  64,  sec.  6. 

3  Cf.  pp.  57,  98. 

*  Private  Acts,  1847,  p.   123. 


Revenue.  113 

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  accumiilated.  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  propert}- 
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.*  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.^  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  Cf.  pp.  22  and  62-64. 

2  Public  Acts,  May  1850,  chap.  64,  sec.   1. 
^  Idem. 

*  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. 

"  Pubhc  Acts,  May   1850.  chap.   6,  sec.  4. 

"  Pubhc  Acts,  May  1860,  chap.   15,  sec.  2. 

**  Private  Acts,  1851,  p.   188. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  8  March.  1912. 


114  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

in  18521  {j-  sg^  ^j^g  j-^te  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,  1861, 
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  mihtary  duty, 
except  those  actually  serving  in  the  militia.  This  tax  and  the 
state  tax  were  collected  by  the  towns  at  the  same  time*  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,  1861,  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. 

3  Cf.  p.  67. 

*  Public  Acts,  May  1854,  chap.  68,  sec.    5,  p.  25. 


Revenue.  115 

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 
Tj  .,       .        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  ^^q  pgj.    ^^t^^   qJ    ^j^g   gross   amount  of  premiums  and 

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.^  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  poHcy  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.*  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 

1  Public  Acts,  May  1850,  chap.  58,  sec.  2. 

2  Public  Acts,  1851,  chap.  47,  sec.  22. 

3  Pubhc  Acts,  May  1852,  chap.  69,  sec.  1. 
«  Pubhc  Acts,  May  1853,  chap.  27,  sec.  4 
''  Pubhc  Acts,  May  1854,  chap.  23. 


116  Tlie  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, 

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  taix  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  31,  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   ^^-^    ^f    one-eighth  of  one   per  cent  upon  the  total 
and  bavmgs  r     ^     ■       ■,  ■  -r-i  ■  ■,  i     i 

Associations        amount   oi  their  deposits.      Ihis  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 

^  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. 
*  Pubhc  Acts,  May  1857,  chap.  64,  sec.  1. 


Revenue.  117 

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  treasur}^ 
Bonuses  ^^y  ^j^jg  expedient,  because  generally  the  banks  had 
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  histor\'. 

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.^  Three 
years  later  the  legislature  passed  an  act  by  which  any  of  the  "free 

1  Public  Acts,  May  1859,  chap.  67. 

2  Cf.  pp.  106-110. 

3  Private  Acts,  1854,  p.  53. 

^  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. ^  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.^  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 
Banks  and  capital  stock  was  laid  on  banks  and  insurance  companies 
Companies       ^'^  1857.^     This  tax  was  repealed  in  1859.^     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. 
^  Treasurer's  Report,   1856,  p.  4 

4  Private  Acts,  1857,  p.  3. 

'">  PubHc  Acts,  May  1857,  chap.  64.  sec.  2. 

"  Public  Acts.  May  1859,  chap.  4. 

'  Cf.  p.  74. 


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.3  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 
Hable  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  Hcense  on  pedlers  imposed  by  the  legis- 

Pedlers  aiul     lature  in  1841  and  limited  the  next  year  to  persons  who 

bales'*^  ^^^^  ^ot  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  rehnquished  this  license  in  favoi 


1  Public   Acts,  May  1849,  chap.  42,  sec.  2. 

2  Public  Acts,  May  1850,  chap.  64,  sec.  4. 

3  Cf.  pp.  114-117. 

*  Public  Acts,  May  1852,  chap.  66,  sec.  2. 

5  Cf.  p.  73. 

«  Public  Acts,  May  1848,  chap.  67,  sec.  3. 


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 

1  Cf.  p.  72. 

-  Comptroller's  Report,  1850,  p.   10. 

3  Abstract  of  Comptroller's  Report,   Private  Acts,   1846,   p.    142. 


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 

$1,603,333 

$1,577,093 

$1,601,587 

$1,755,217 

B.    Cultivated  Land  and  Buildings  Situated  in 


Connecticut 

Massachusetts 

New  York 

Total 

1847 

$21,572 

$37,032 

$26,685 

$85,289 

1851 

6,050 

15,601 

5,600 

27,251 

1855 

3,600 

4,080 

7,680 

1860 

5,000 

5,000 

122  The  Financial  History  of  Connecticut. 

C.  Wild  Lands  Located  in 

Okio                       New  York  Vermont  Total 

1847               $40,856                  $13,496  $7,909  $62,261 

1851                 16,476                      9,800  6,343  32,618 

1855                     441                      5,257  1,777  7.475" 

1860  None 

D.   Bank  Stock. 
Number  of  Banks      Amount  of  Stock 


1847 

20 

$311,000 

1851 

24 

359,900 

1855 

29 

423,900 

1860 

23 

288,900 

. 

E.    Total  Capital. 

1847 

1851 

1855 

1860 

Bonds,  Contracts 

and  Mortgages,    $1,603,333 

$1,577,093 

$1,601,587 

$1,755,217 

Cultivated  Lands 

and  Buildings, 

85,289 

27,251 

7,680 

5,000 

Wild  Lands, 

62,261 

32,618 

7,475 

Bank  Stock, 

311,000 

359,900 

423,900 

288,900 

Loans  to  State, 

33,000 

Cash  on  hand. 

15,758 

19,621 

9,312 

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 


1  Cf.  p.  79. 

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  Umit  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 

^  Report  of  Commissioner  of  School  Fund,  1852,  pp.  9,  10.    (Leg.  Doc. 
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        $227,151        $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 

Largest         were   the   rise  and  growth   of   commercial   and    manu- 

items  or  .  .  ,     ,  ,  . 

Expense        tacturmg  corporations  and  the  attendant  mcrease  m  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.^ 

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- 
AvvakenTiia-  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- 
Aid  for  dition.  A  beginning  in  this  direction  was  made  in 
tlie  Unfor-  the  last  half  of  the  second  period,  but  the  work 
tiinate             ^^^g   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. ^  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. 

1  Cf.  p.  125. 


J 


APPENDIX. 
TABLE  I. 

Annual  State  Receipts  from  1798  to  1818. 


1798 

1799 

1800 

1801 

State  Tax 

$41,346 

$60,357 

$60,991 

$48,458 

Interest  on  United  i 

States 

Sock 

15,253 

15,269 

14,790 

16,670 

Duties  and  Licenses 

4,907 

6,056 

6,172 

6,156 

Forfeited  Bonds,  Avails  of  Court, 

etc. 

580 

1,123 

442 

227 

Miscellaneous 

1,628 

102 

758 

13 

$63,714 

$82,907 

$83,152 

$71,524 

1802 

1803 

1804 

1805 

State  Tax 

$41,118 

$42,159 

$42,132 

$42,183 

Interest  on  United 

States  Stock 

23,803 

23,701 

23,516 

22,745 . 

Dividends  on  Bank 

Stock 

48 

3,634 

Duties  and  Licenses 

5,635 

5,482 

5,790 

5,992 

Forfeited  Bonds,  Avails  of  Court, 

etc. 

428 

367 

952 

1,190 

Miscellaneous 

963 

1,155 

60 

426 

$71,945 

$72,864 

$72,497 

$76,171 

1806 

1807 

1808 

1809 

State  Tax 

$42,627 

$56,571 

$28,040 

$44,618 

Interest  on  United 

States 

Stock 

21,926 

21,056 

20,134 

19,155 

Dividends  on  Bank 

Stock 

5,915 

5,719 

7,325 

6,754 

Duties  and  Licenses 

5,674 

6,214 

6,457 

7.354 

Forfeited  Bonds,  Avails  of  Court, 

etc. 

1,532 

632 

2,052 

957 

Miscellaneous 

299 

181 

59 

924 

$77,973 

$90,372 

$64,065 

$79,762 

1810 

1811 

1812 

1813 

State  Tax 

$55,529 

$55,651 

$56,217 

$67,905 

Interest  on  United 

States 

Stock 

18,116 

17,014 

15,843 

14,601 

Dividends  on  Bank 

Stock 

8,201 

9,467 

9,782 

13,087 

Duties  and  Licenses 

i 

7,702 

7,326 

6,292 

6,221 

Forfeited  Bonds.  Avails  of  Court, 

etc. 

3,335 

2,616 

4,486 

1,363 

Miscellaneous 

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 

I 

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 

50,1612 

46 

55,5973 

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 

7,573 

Judicial 

4,217 

5,093 

3,942 

2,553 

Education 

11,286 

13,619 

12,599 

11,560 

Paupers 

2,241 

3,342 

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.  35. 

2  Includes  $50,000  bonus  from  Phojnix  Bank.     Cf.  p.    29. 

3  Includes  $55,400  from  United  States  for  services  of  Connecticut  miUtia. 
Cf.  p.  29. 

*  Includes  $11,500  from  United  States  for  services  of  Connecticut  miUtia* 
and  $3,254  for  interest  on  loan  to  school  fund. 


Cf.  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 

7,527 

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 

2,572 

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 

18061 

1807 

1808 

1809 

General  Assembly 

$16,972 

$16,740 

$21,811 

Salaries 

10,251 

11,566 

11,355 

Judicial 

8,588 

9,441 

9,874 

Education 

15,802 

13,917 

12,549 

Paupers 

8,071 

7,723 

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 

$127,386 

1  Comptroller's  Eeport,  Oct.  1805,  is  missing. 

-^  Last  instalment  of  $40,000  to 

Gore  Land  Company. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII 

9 

March 

,  1912. 

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 

13,817 

13,817 

Judicial 

10,203 

10,009 

11,048 

13,867 

15,151 

Education 

13,046 

32,7891 

13,641 

20,5902 

14,3143 

Paupers 

12,537 

12,964 

13,854 

15,171 

12,918 

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 

5,980^ 

Abatement  and  Collection 

of  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 

7,2985 

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 

4,287' 

8,850^ 

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  CoUege. 

3  $1,643  to  Yale  College. 

*  $5,000  to  Asylum  for  Deaf  and  Dumb. 
5  $7,143  to  EpiscopaUans. 
^  To  various  religious  societies. 

'  Includes  $2,776  transferred  from  Permanent  Fund. 
8  Includes   $7,936   reimbursement  of   principal   of   United  States 
Debt. 


Funded 


Appendix.  131 


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,  etc. 

1,552 

1,266 

3,526 

4,195 

Tax  on  Non- Resident  Stock 

723 

926 

1,002 

1,084 

Miscellaneous 

511 

338 

239 

S57,363 

$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 

1,0.37 

1.488 

Tax  on  Non-Resident  Stock 

.596 

634 

345 

443 

Avails  of  State  Prison 

2,168 

3,231 

1,182 

Miscellaneous 

180 

9,8601 

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 

127 

Forfeited  Bonds,  etc. 

1,737 

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       $69,801 
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 

3,113 

3,489 

2,657 

Forfeited  Bonds,  etc. 

2,145 

1,787 

2,436 

1,540 

Duties  and  Licenses 

204 

64 

70 

59 

Miscellaneous 

5,4792 

512 

2,109 

1,115 

$78,258 

$81,358 

$80,315 

$69,266 

Temporary  Loan  from 

School  Fund 

20,565 

Balance  (Cash)  transferred  from  Permanent  Fund,  $9,696. 
Includes  $1000  bonus  from  Exchange  Bank. 


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 

32,722 

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,  etc. 

3,005 

2,987 

2,884 

4,198 

Duties  and  Licenses 

2,517 

793 

291 

183 

Miscellaneous 

11,1992 

1,7003 

$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 

5,157 

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 

1,4645 

16 

7,7176 

293 

$116,684 

$86,752 

$79,025 

$61063 

1  Received  $72,234  from  United  States  in  payment  of  Connecticut  claims 
arising  from  the  War  of  1812. 

-  Reveived  from  the  United  States  its  share  on  sale  of  pubUc  lands,  $10,927. 
^  Received  from  the  United  States  its  share  on  sale  of  public  lands,  $1,342. 
■*  Includes    $11,313    for   expenses    of    Constitutional    Convention. 
^  Includes  $1,353  to  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists. 
6  Includes  $7,688  appropriation  to  Baptists. 


Appendix. 


13c 


1823 

1824 

1825 

1826 

General  Assembly 

$13,104 

$11,833 

$13,938 

$13,457 

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 

0,034 

9,034 

Judicial 

15,085 

17,571 

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 

3,0002 

3,0002 

Paupers 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

1,800 

State  Prison 

300 

300 

300 

2,909 

Military 

2,6803 

818 

827 

704 

Bounties 

53 

236 

Buildings  and  Institutions 

22,142 

4,904 

7,775 

2,620 

Retreat  for  Insane. 

Washington  (now  Trinity)  College. 

Includes  $2,000  for  building  State  Arsenal. 


134 


Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes 

Discharge  of  Debt 

Interest  on  Temporary  Loans 

Contingent 

Miscellaneous 


Appendix. 
6,154 


5,635 
500 


6,137 

225 
5,221 


4,627 


6,272 

7 

21 

4,634 


$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 

3,0001 

9901 

Paupers 

1,800 

1,800 

1,800 

1,700 

State  Prison 

300 

300 

300 

300 

MiUtary 

660 

1,004 

1,492 

1,720 

Bounties 

976 

1,117 

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 

Salaries 

Judicial 

Education 

Paupers 

State  Prison 

Military 

Bounties 

Agricultural  Societies 

Buildings  and  Institutions 

Abatement  and  Collection  of  Taxes 


.5,065 

$17,601 

$17,287 

$16,891 

9,234 

9,034 

9,034 

11,434 

58,483 

27,544 

32,479 

29,432 

535 

6,8092 

10,6133 

4,493* 

1,700 

1,700 

1,700 

1,700 

300 

300 

300 

300 

1,078 

1,100 

870 

1,100 

464 

44 

700 

1,018 

4,727 

2,518 

2,216 

4,717 

6,995 

6,909 

7,271 

7,109 

1  Washington  (now  Trinity)  College. 

2  $5,000  to  Wesleyan  University. 

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 

Contingent 

7,886 

7,174 

Miscellaneous 

29,3891 

4,5192 

59 
8,542 


$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 

1,3003 

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 

7,222 

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 

441 

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. 

^  $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. 


State  Tax 

Dividends  on  Bank  Stock 

Tax  on  Non-Eesident  Stock 

Avails  of  State  Prison 

Forfeited  Bonds,  etc. 

Duties  and  Licenses 

Special  Corporation  Taxes  (total) 

Savings  banks  and  building  asso- 
ciations 
Bonuses  from  banks 
Railroads  $2S 

Mutual  insurance  companies 
Agents  of  foreign  insurance  com- 
panies 

Specific  Purposes 
Miscellaneous 


1861 

1852 

1853 

1854 

$71,129 

$64,241 

$56,883 

$58,472 

37,597 

37,597 

38,553 

37,646 

4,171 

4,919 

5,413 

5,331 

6,000 

2,000 

4,099 

3,931 

3,183 

4,546 

30 

317 

25,202 

27,785 

42,653 

48,295 

$8,707   $11,590 

2,007 

202   $26,534    29,372    29,623 

205 

2,354 

3,347 

1,046 

2,220 

1,728 

660 

588 

23,748 

11,194 

4,179 

3,163 

1,963 

1,018 

$147,C 


$148,224     $174,398     $166,819 


1855 


1856 


1857 


1858 


State  Tax 

Military  Commutation  Tax 

Dividends  on  Bank  Stock 

Tax  on  Non-Resident  Stock 

Forfeited  Bonds,  etc. 

Duties  and  Licenses 

Special  Corporation  Taxes  (total) 
Savings  banks  and  building 

associations  $14,916 

Bonuses  from  banks  6,510 

Railroads  25,670 

Mutual  insurance  companies      2,818 
Agents  of  foreign  insurance 

companies 
Capital  stock  of  insurance 

companies 
Capital  stock  of  banks 

Specific  Purposes 
Miscellaneous 


$63,505       $67,133       $70,110       $72,518 


12,071 

13,435 

12,103 

36,426 

35,891 

37,542 

35,289 

5,233 

6,218 

7,322 

7,607 

3,567 

2,885 

9,639 

5,695 

4 

22 

49,936 

87,230 

101,883 

100,500 

$17,087  $19,037  $34,055 

45,007  59,600  19,980 

21,376  18,646  17,731 

3,479  4,377  4,574 


22 


281 


223 


183 


3,127 
20,850 


1,363 


5,606 


542 

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         77,472 

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           7,779 

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 

Temporary  Loans  from  School  Fund 


$271,072     $239,455     $254,552 
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 

1,351 

813 

Paupers 

1,500 

1,100 

1,100 

2,292 

State  Prison 

1,3001 

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  CoUection  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 

779 

20 

338 

34 

$110,622 

$109,419 

$122,000 

$132,876 

Paid  Loan  from  School 

Fund 

3,353 

$1,000  Litchfield  County  Jail. 


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 

1,3001 

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       25,6 


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 

13,9902 

15,9353 

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 


1  Fairfield  County  Jail  $1,000  per  order  Directors  of   State  Prison. 

2  $5,000  to  Wesleyan  University. 

^  $5,000  to  Wesleyan  University ;  $2,000  to  Connecticut  Literary  Insti- 
tution. 

*  $3,000  for  repairs  and  introduction  of  gas. 


Appendix.  139 


1859 

General  Assembly 

$34,451 

Salaries 

24,180 

Judicial 

83,481 

Education 

9,787 

Paupers 

1,800 

State  Prison 

1,500 

Military 

29,354 

Agricultural  Societies 

4,100 

Buildings  and  Institutions 

27,831 

Interest  on  Temporary 

Loans 

7,303 

Contingent 

21,497 

$245,287 

Paid  on  Temporary  Loans  from 

School  Fund 

85,000 

1860 

1861 

$31,107 

$35,978 

23,600 

23,900 

73,126 

73,132 

8,580 

9,581 

1,800 

1,800 

8,300 

300 

16,539 

21,620 

3,600 

1,160 

21,558 

24,966 

5,122 

5,330 

24,062 

26,813 

$217,394  $224,579 

65,000 


4 '^10 

TRAN5ACT10HS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


Incorporated  A.  D. 


VOLUME  «,  PAGES  Hl-2«  JULY,  1912 

The  Authorship  of  the 

Second  and  Third  Parts 

of  "King  Henry  VI" 


C.  F.  TUCKER  BROOKE,  M.  A.,  B.  LITT. 

INSTRUCTOR    IN    ENGLISH    AT    YALE    UNIVERSITY 


M 


THE  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS, 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1912 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  TBE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


Incorporated  A.  D.  179 


VOLUME  17,  PACES  Ui-2ii  JUIY,  1912 

The  Authorship  of  the 

Second  and  Third  Parts 

of  "King  Henry  VI" 


C.    F.  TUCKER  BROOKE,  M.  A.,  B.  LITT. 

INSTRUCTOR    IN    ENGLISH    AT    YALE    UNIVERSITY 


M 


THE  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS, 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1912 


WEIMAR :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

The  Approach  to  the  Subject 145 

I.  MARLOWE'S  AUTHOESHIP  OT  THE  CONTENTION  A'ND 
TRUE  TRAGEDY. 

1.  External  Evidence 148 

2.  Plot 152 

3.  Character 156 

4.  Verbal  Parallels   in   the  Conteniion   and    True  Tragedy   and 

in  accepted  Plays  of  Marlowe          ......  160 

5.  Metrical  Evidence 177 

6.  How   Far   do   the   Contention  and    True    Tragedy   represent 
Marlowe's  Original  Text '? 183 

II.  THE  GREENE-PEELE  MYTH 188 

III.  SHAKESPEARE'S  REVISION  OF  MARLOWE'S  WORK    .  194 


II.— THE  AUTHORSHIP 
OF  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  PARTS  OF  KING  HENRY  VI. 

By  C.  F.  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  aU  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  Pictorial  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  aU  the  probabilities,  has  not  been  accepted,  I  believe,  by 
any  other  writer  on  the  subject. 

In  1843,  J.  O.  HaUiweU  (later  HaUiwell-PhiUips)  edited  The  First 
Part  of  the  Contention  and  The  True  Tragedy  for  the  (old)  Shake- 

^  See  the  Dissertation  on  the  Three  Parts  of  King  Henry  YI,  printed  in 
Boswell's  edition  of  Malone's  Shakespeare  (1821),  vol.  xviii,  p.  570  ff. 

2  See  An  Attempt  to  Ascertain  the  Order  in  ivhich  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  J 
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 
reUeving  him  of  all  responsibihty  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  earher  plays  {i.  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  J  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,  Halliweh,  and  White. 
She  advances  sohd,  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  J 
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  \vith  one  attractive, 
but  rather  unproductive,  aspect  of  the  question.  The  direct  approach 
to  the  mystery  of  the  authorship  of  2  and  J  Henry  VI  from  the  side 
of  Shakespeare's  concern  in  the  plays  offers  little  secure  foothold 
for  the  critic.  Those  writers  who,  hke  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  YI,  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,  etc.),  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.  78  ff.;  J.  T.  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Companies,  155S-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  b}^  Shakespeare.  It  is  hoped  that  some  light  may 
thus  be  thrown  upon  the  character  of  Shakespeare's  style  and  method 
during  his  earhest  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  3^ears.  CoUier,  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. 


I.  Marlowe's  Authorship  of  the  Coxtention  and  True  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. 

^  See  J.P.Collier,  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  etc.,  2nd  ed.,  1879, 
vol.  ii,  p.  519-521. 
»  See  below,  p.  188  ff. 


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  tivoo  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  Cardinall  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  vi^  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 \vith  his  1619  edition  of  Pericles.'^  Pavier's  version  combined 
the  two  plays  received  from  INIillington  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 

^  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  Sir  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  VI,  as  to  make  the  revised  texts  a,lmost 
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  1623  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  Tragedy  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  earher,  that 
it  is  perfectly  safe  to  conclude  that  the  introductor}^  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  xis  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  Conte^iiion  (1619). 

»  See  p.  191. 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  151 

single  compan}' — 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  litterateurs,  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  compan}^ 
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  Edicard  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  earhest 
mention  of  Millington's  name  on  the  Stationers'  Register.  MiUing- 
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  Jeiv  of  Malta,  published  at  this  time,  is  known  to 
have  survived  ;  but  it  is  worth  remarking  that  the  registration  notice, 

■^  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  hke  the  registration  notice  and  all 
the  early  title-pages  of  Tamhurlaine,  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  Edi&ard  II,  and  that  the  publisher 
of  our  plays  recorded  his  ownership  of  the  copyright  of  ]\Iarlowe's 
other  play  of  The  Jew  of  Malta  during  the  very  months  when  the 
Contention  and  True  Tragedy  were  issuing  from  his  press. 

2.  Plot. 
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  Trtie  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  j-outhful 
Shakespeare  wall  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  iU-ordered  material.  In  Edward  II, 
the  first  great  Enghsh  historical  play,  a  ^vild,  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  Due 
de  Guise,  and  the  assassination  of  Henri  IH.  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 
ahen  elements  of  the  plaj'. 


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  Tamhurlaine,  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  True  Tragedy,  the  higher-pitched  of  the 
two,  contains  no  spark  of  comedy,  a  thing  almost  marvellous  in  an 
early  Enghsh  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  constant  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  Atitkorship  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,  sj'mpathizing  with  Shake- 
speare's Pistol,  to  find  much  that  is  absurd  in  the  intensity  of  Tamhur- 
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  ^larlowe'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 
manner.  It  has  been  usual,  of  course,  to  declare  that  these  scenes 
cannot  have  been  composed  by  Marlowe,  because  they  are  effective 
comedy,  and  ^larlowe  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,  non-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  colossus  in  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 
Tieo  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. 

3.   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  earher 
play ;  and  the  remaining  four  are  supplemented  in  the  True  Tragedy 
by  Richard,  Edward,  and  Young  Chfford,  who,  though  all  on  the 
stage  in  the  last  part  of  the  Contention  are  not  there  psychologically 
important.  The  True  Tragedy  introduces  one  new  figure  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  Chfford  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  mahgnant  selfishness  in 
which  a  rather  curious  twist  of  Marlowe's  genius  made  him  see  the 
highest  reach  of  human  glor\'.  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  soHloquy  of  Guise  near  the  opening  of  the  Massacre  at 
Paris  (11.  91  ff.).^  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  djdng  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  resolution  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  m3'  reach. 

Set  me  to  scale  the  high  Peramides  {i.  e.,  pyramids), 

And  thereon  set  the  Diadem  of  Fraunce, 

He  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  Une  in  the  Praetorius  facsimiles 
1886  —  1891 ;  references  to  Shakespeare's  plays:  including  2  and  S  Henry  VI 
follow  the  Oxford  Shakespeare. 

Trans.  Coxn.  Acad.,  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." 

"  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  Neuels  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  dehneation  of  the  eariier  plays.  It  is  remarkable, 
certainly,  that  in  the  Contention  the  picture  of  so  mean  a  creature 
as  Suffolk  remains  clearer  in  the  memor}^  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  hmitations  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,  too,  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  Warwdck  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  Edi&ard  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.^  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  Tragedy  are  three  or  four  times  as  numerous  as  has 
been  hitherto  suggested.  It  is  important  to  discuss  with  some  care 
what  these  resemblances  reall}^  indicate. 

^  For  a  further  discussion  of  this  point  see  p.  175  ff. 

^  Cf.  "  Some  Account  of  Marlowe  and  his  Writings  "  in  Dyce's  edition  of 
Marlowe  (1850,  etc.). 

3  Cf.   Transactions  of  the  Xeic  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  Hues  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  Trite  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." 

1.  745  :  "  To  follow  me  to  faire  Persepolis." 
1.  754  :  "  And  ride  in  triumph  through  Persepolis. " 
1.  755  :  "  And  ride  in  triumph  through  Persepolis. " 
1.  759  :  "  And  ride  in  triumph  through  Persepolis.  " 

(b)  Doctor  Faustus,  11.  1422-1430: 

"  Stand  stil  you  euer  moouing  spheres  of  heauen, 
That  time  may  cease,  and  midnight  neuer  come  : 
Faire  Natures  eie,  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. 

The  starres  mooue  stil,  time  runs,  the  clocke  wil  strike 
The  diuel  wil  come,  and  Faustus  must  be  damnd 

Edward  II,  U.  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  II,  11.  343  f.  : 

"  Ere  my  sweete  Gaiiesion  shall  part  from  me, 
This  He  shah  fleete  vpon  the  Ocean." 
Dido,  11.  1340  f.  : 

"  And  let  rich  Carthage  fleete  vpon  the  seas. 
So  I  may  haue  Aeneas  in  mine  armes." 

(d)  Edward  II,  11.  393-397  : 

"  Proud  Rome,  that  hatchest  such  imperiall  groomes. 

For  these  thy  superstitious  taperlights, 

Wherewith  thy  antichristian  churches  blaze, 

He  fire  thy  crazed  buildings  and  enforce 

The  papall  towers  to  kisse  the  lowhe  ground." 

Massacre  at  Paris,  11.  1210-1215  : 

"  Which  if  I  doe,  the  Papall  Monarck  goes 
To  wrack  and  antechristian  kingdome  falles. 
These  bloudy  hands  shaU  teare  his  triple  Crowne, 
And  fire  accursed  Rome  about  his  eares. 
He  fire  his  erased  buildings  and  inforse 
The  papall  towers  to  kisse  the  holy  earth." 

Jew  of  Malta,  11.  2066  f.: 

"  I'le  helpe  to  slay  their  children  and  their  wiues. 
To  fire  the  Churches,  pull  their  houses  downe." 

(e)  Doctor  Faustus,  11.  1328  f. : 

"  Was  this  the  face  that  lancht  a  thousand  shippes, 
And  burnt  the  toplesse  Towres  of  Ilium  ?  " 
Dido,  11.  481  f.: 

"  In  whose  sterne  faces  shin'd  the  quenchles  fire, 
That  after  burnt  the  pride  of  Asia." 

(f)  Edward  II,  11.  117  f.  : 

"  Brother,  reuenge  it,  and  let  these  their  heads 
Preach  vpon  poles  for  trespasse  of  their  tongues." 
Ibid.,  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  Authoyship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  163 

Ibid.,  1.  317: 

"  Cheef  standard  bearer  to  the  Lutheranes." 

(h)  Massacre  at  Paris,  11.  524-530 : 

"  I,  but  my  Lord  let  me  alone  for  that, 
For  Katherine  must  haue  her  will  in  France  : 
As  I  doe  Hue,  so  surely  shall  he  dye, 
And  Henry  then  shall  weare  the  diadem. 
And  if  he  grudge  or  crosse  his  Mothers  wiU, 
He  disinherite  him  and  all  the  rest : 
For  He  rule  France,  but  they  shall  weare  the  crowne." 
Ihid.,  11.  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, 

He  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  hues  Katherine  will  be   Queene." 

(i)  Ibid.,  11.  938  f.  : 

"  Come  on  sirs,  what,  are  you  resolutety  bent. 
Hating  the  life  and  honour  of  the  Guise  ?  " 

Ibid.,  11.  956  f.: 

"  But  are  they  resolute  and  armde  to  kiU, 
Hating  the  life  and  honour  of  the  Guise  ?  " 

(j)  Massacre  at  Paris,  11.  992  f. : 

"  Now  doe  I  but  begin  to  look  about, 

And  all  my  former  time  was  spent  in  vaine." 

Ibid.,  11.   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  hne  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,  1.  206 : 

"  Oh  fatall  was  this  marriage  to  vs  all." 

(3)  Contention,  p.  7,  11.  149  f. : 

"  And  when  I  spie  aduantage,  claime  the  Crowne, 

For  thats  the  golden  marke  I  seeke  to  hit." 
Ihid.,  p.  32,  1.  80: 

"  And  dogged  Yorke  that  leuels  at  the  Moone." 
Ihid.,  p.  53,  1.  94: 

"  If  honour  be  the  marke  whereat  you  aime." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  28,  1.  18 : 

"  Ambitious  Yorke  did  leuell  at  thy  Crowne." 
Edward  II,  11.  1581  f. : 

"  Thats  it  these  Barons  and  the  subtill  Queene 

Long  leueld  at." 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  165 

Ibid.,  1.  2277: 

"It  is  the  chiefest  marke  they  leuell  at." 

(4)  Contention,  p.  8,  1.  156  : 

"  Watch  thou  and  wake  when  others  be  asleepe." 
Massacre  at  Paris,  1.  104 : 

"  For  this  I  wake,  when  others  think  I  sleepe." 

(5)  Contention,  p.  12,  11.  49  f.  : 

"  But  still  must  be  protected  like  a  childe, 
And  gouerned  by  that  ambitious  Duke." 
Edward  II,  11.  1336  f.  : 

"  As  though  your  highnes  were  a  schoole  boy  still. 
And  must  be  awde  and  gouernd  like  a  child." 

(6)  Contention,  p.  13,  U.  59—61  : 

"  I  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,  11.  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." 

(7)  Contention,  p.  17,  11.  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  II,  1.  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." 
Ibid.,  p.  42,  \.  12: 

"  See  how  the  panges  of  death  doth  gripe  his  heart." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  21,  1.  156 : 

"  How  inlie  anger  gripes  his  hart." 
Massacre  at  Paris,  11.  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,  U.  9  f .  : 

"  That  earst  did  follow  thy  proud  Chariot  wheeles, 
When  thou  didst  ride  in  tryumph  through  the  streetes." 

Massacre  at  Paris,  W.  990  f.  : 

"  So  will  I  triumph  ouer  this  wanton  King, 
And  he  shall  follow  my  proud  Chariots  wheeles." 

Tamburlaine,  1.  754  (repeated  in  11.  755,  759)  : 
"  And  ride  in  triumph  through  Persepolis." 

(11)  Contention,  p.  33,  11.  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  II,  11.  969  f.  : 

"  The  wilde  Oneyle,  with  swarmes  of  Irish  Kernes 
Lines  vncontroulde  within  the  English  pale." 

(12)  Contention,  p.  39,  1.  127: 

"  To  trie  how  quaint  an  Orator  you  were." 
True  Tragedy,  p.   12,  1.  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  shah  play  the  Orators  for  vs."^ 

(13)  Contention,  p.  49,  11.  6  f. : 

"  Lord  Say,  lacke  Cade  hath  solemnely  vowde  to  haue  thy  head. 
Say.    I,  but  I  hope  your  highnesse  shall  haue  his." 
Massacre  at  Paris,  11.  783  f.  : 

"  For  he  hath  solemnely  sworne  thy  death. 

Muge.     I  may  be  stabd,  and  line  till  he  be  dead." 

(14)  Contention,  p.  57,  1.  53 : 

"  Deepe  trenched  furrowes  in  his  frowning  brow." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  68,  11.  10  f.  : 
"  The  wrinkles  in  my  browes  now  fild  with  bloud 
Were  likened  oft  to  kinglie  sepulchers." 

Edward  II,  1.  94 : 

"  The  sworde  shall  plane  the  furrowes  of  thy  browes." 

^  A  similar  line  is  found  in  Shakespeare's  Richard  III,  III,  v,  94 :  "  Doubt 
not,   my  lord,  I'll  play  the  orator." 


The  Authorship  of  "King  Henry  VI."  j(37 

Massacre  at  Paris,  1.  158 : 

"  Giue  me  a  look,  that  when  I  bend  the  browes, 
Pale  death  may  walke  in  furrowes  of  my  face." 

(15)  True  Tragedy,  p.  10,  1.  177: 

"  And  die  in  bands  for  this  vnkingly  deed." 
Edward  II,  1.  1289 : 

"  Weaponless  must  I  fall  and  die  in  bands  ?  " 

(16)  True  Tragedy,  p.  11,  1.  210  f.  : 
"  Sterne  Fawconhridge 
Commands  the  narrow  seas." 

Ihid.,  p.  64,  1.  24: 

"  Is  past  in  safetie  through  the  narrow  seas." 
Edward  II,  1.  970 : 

"  The  hautie  Dane  commands  the  narrow  seas." 

(17)  True  Tragedy,  p.  21,  11.  139  f.  : 

"  But  you  are  more  inhumaine,  more  inexorable, 

0  ten  times  more  then  Tygers  of  Arcadia  {i.  e.,  HjTcania)  "' 
Edward  II,  I  2057  : 

"  Inhumaine  creatures,  nurst  with  Tigers  milke." 
Dido,  11.  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,  1.  2043  :    "  Here,  take  my  crowne,  the  life  of  Edward 
too." 

(19)  True  Tragedy,  p.  21,  11.  164  f.  : 

"  Off  with  his  head  and  set  it  on  Yorke  Gates, 
So  Yorke  male  ouerlooke  the  towne  of  Yorke." 
Edward  II,  11.  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,  11.  45  f.  : 

"  Sweet  Duke  of  Yorke,  our  prop  to  leane  vpon, 
Now  thou  art  gone  there  is  no  hope  for  vs." 

^  "  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  Paris,  11.  1122  f.: 

"  Sweet  Duke  of  Guise,  our  prop  to  leane  vpon, 
Now  thou  art  dead,  heere  is  no  stay  for  vs." 

(21)  True  Tragedy,  p.  39,  11.  30  f. : 

"  Thus  farre  our  fortunes  keepes  an  vpward  Course, 
And  we  are  grast  with  wreathes  of  victorie." 

Ibid.,  p.  69,  11.  1  f. : 

"  Thus  still  our  fortune  giues  vs  victorie, 
And  girts  our  temples  with  triumphant  ioies." 

Massacre  at  Paris,  1.  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)  True  Tragedy,  p.  52,  1.  189: 

"  Did  I  impale  him  with  the  regall  Crowne." 
Edward  II.,  11.  1472  f. : 

"  The  royall  vine,  whose  golden  leaues 
Empale  your  princelie  head,  your  diadem." 

(24)  True  Tragedy,  p.  66,  11.  32  f. : 

"  But  whilst  he  sought  to  steale  the  single  ten. 
The  king  was  finelie  fingerd  from  the  decke." 
Massacre  at  Paris,  IL  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,  11.  6  f.  : 

"  Thus  yeelds  the  Cedar  to  the  axes  edge. 
Whose  armes  gaue  shelter  to  the  princelie  Eagle." 
Edward  II.,  11.  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  loues  spreading  tree. 
Edward  II.,  11.  2579  f. : 

"  I  stand  as  loues  huge  tree, 

And  others  are  but  shrubs  compard  to  me." 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  169 

(27)  True  Tragedy,  p.  71,  11.  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,  11.  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,  11.  50  f . : 

"  What  ?  will  the  aspiring  bloud  of  Lancaster 

Sinke  into  the  ground  ?   I  had  thought  it  would  haue  mounted." 

Edward  II,  1.  93 : 

"  Frownst  thou  thereat,  aspiring  Lancaster  ?  " 

Ibid.,  11.  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." 
Ihid.,  p.  5,  U.  60  f.: 

"  Till  terme  of  18.  months  be  full  expirde," 

(30)  Contention,  p.  6,  11.  98-101: 

"  The  common  people  swarme  about  him  straight. 
Crying  lesus  blesse  your  royall  exeUence, 
With  God  preserue  the  good  Duke  Humphrey, 
And  many  things  besides  that  are  not  knowne." 
Ihid.,  p.  30,  U.  9-12: 

"  See  you  not  how  the  Commons  follow  him 
In  troupes,  crying,  God  saue  the  good  Duke  Humphrey, 
And  with  long  life,  lesus  preserue  his  grace. 
Honouring  him  as  if  he  were  their  King." 

(31)  Contention,  p.  6,  1.  104: 

"  He  laie  a  plot  to  heaue  him  from  his  seate." 


170  C.  F.  Tucker  Brooke, 

Ibid.,  p.  6,  1.  Ill  : 

"  Weele  quickly  heaue  Duke  Humphrey  from  his  seate. 

(32)  Contention,  p.  6,  1.  108: 

"  And  put  them  from  the  marke  they  faine  would  hit.' 
Ibid.,  p.  7,  1.  150: 

"  For  thats  the  golden  marke  I  seeke  to  hit." 

(33)  Contention,  p.  7,  11.  144  f.  : 

"  Cold  newes  for  me,  for  I  had  hope  of  France, 
Euen  as  I  haue  of  fertill  England." 
Ibid.,  p.  31,  11.  34  f.: 

"  Cold  newes  for  me,  for  I  had  hope  of  France, 
Euen  as  I  haue  of  fertiU  England." 

(34)  Contention,  p.  23,  1.  171  : 

"  My  mind  doth  tell  me  thou  art  innocent." 
Ibid.,  p.  32,  1.  70: 

"  My  conscience  tells  me  thou  art  innocent." 

(35)  Contention,  p.  33,  U.  118  f.: 

"  If  our  King  Henry  had  shooke  hands  with  death, 
Duke  Humphrey  then  would  looke  to  be  our  King." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  19,  11.  86  f.  : 
"  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,  11.  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 

(39)  True  Tragedy,  p.  45,  1.  64  : 

"  Her  lookes  are  all  repleat  with  males  tie." 
Ibid.,  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,  I.  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,  11.   135-143: 

"  tell  false  Edward  thy  supposed  king. 

That  Lewis  of  France  is  sending  oner  Maskers 

To  reuell  it  with  him  and  his  now  bride. 

Bona.     Tell  him  in  hope  heele  be  a  Widower  shortlie, 

He  weare  the  wiUow  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  lie  vncrowne  him  er't  be  long." 

Ibid.,  p.  56,  11.  64-66,  69  f.,  74  f.,  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 
He  weare  the  willow  garland  for  his  sake  .  .  . 
Tell  him,  quoth  shee,  my  mourning  w^eeds  be  Doone, 
And  I  am  readie  to  put  armor  on  .  .  . 
Tell  him  quoth  he,  that  he  hath  done  me  wrong. 
And  therefore  He  vncrowne  him  er't  be  long." 

(42)  True  Tragedy,  p.  59,  1.  52  f.  : 

"  And  free  king  Henry  from  imprisonment. 
And  see  him  seated  in  his  regall  throne." 
Ibid.,  p.  63,  1.  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." 
Ibid.,  p.  72,  L  50: 

"  Awaie,  I  will  not  heare  them  speake." 


172  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  Tamhur- 
laine  and  Doctor  Faustus  in  the  pre- Shakespearean  Taming  of  a 
Shrew.''-  The  two  cases  are  fundamentally  different.  The  passages 
in  the  Contention  and  True  Tragedy  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  Trtie  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 

^  A  detailed  list  uf  these  parallels  is  given  in  Appendix  I  of  Prof.  Boas's 
edition  of  The  Taming  of  a  Shretv,  1908. 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  173 

to  verse  music  and  feeling,  and  yet  witli  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  hues  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),  (11),  (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  hst  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  The 
Massacre  at  Paris,  though  the  material  for  inference  is  rather  scanty, 
the  probabihties  seem  to  favor  the  priority  of  that  play  to  The 
Contention  and  The  True  Tragedy.    For  example,  the  allusion  to  the 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  12  July,  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  Tamhurlaine  ? 

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  True  Tragedy  (p.  23,  1.  45  f.), 

"  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  {i.  e.,  Richard), 
His  chaire  and  Dukedome  that  remaines  for  me."     (1.  56 f.) 


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)  : 

"  I  tell  thee  Poidl,  when  thou  didst  runne  at  Tilt, 
And  stolst  away  our  Ladaies  hearts  in  France, 
I  thought  King  Henry  had  bene  Jike  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  Isahell  the  Oueene,  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,  1308)  by  the  obvious  degeneracy  and  effeminacy 
of  the  bridegroom.^ 

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  hues  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, 


1  See  Chalfant  Robinson,  "  Was  King  Edward  the  Second  a  Degenerate 
American  Journal  of  .Insanity,  1910,  p.  454  f. 


176  C.  F.   Tvicker  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, 
Lines  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    (1.   970  f.)  : 

"  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  Trtie  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. 

'  /.  e.,  1308/y.  Later,  in  1315,  war  broke  out  in  connexion  %vith  Edwaid 
Bruce's  attempt  to  gain  the  Irish  crown,  and  the  O'Neills  appeared  on  his 
side  (cf.  T.  F.  Tout,  Political  History  of  England,  1216-1377,  p.  270).  At 
this  time  Gaveston  had  been  dead  thi'ee  j^ears. 


The  Atithorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  ill 

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  Tamhurlaine,  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 
jMarlowe  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  ]\Iarlowe'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  eariiest  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  J  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  hues,  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  minutiae  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  J  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  II,  857) 

The  usual  Shakespearean  scansion,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  in  the 
line  {Richard  III,  I,  1,  18): 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  179 

"  I  that  /  am  cur-  /  tail'd  of  /  this  fair  /  proper-  /  tion  "  Marlowe, 
writing  this  last  line,  would  normally  have  omitted  two  of  the 
syllables.  "I,  cur-  /  tail'd  of /this  f  air  /  propor- /  ti-on  "  or,  "  I  that/ 
am  cur-  /  tail'd  of  /  propor  /  ti-on  "  would  represent  the  regular 
Mario vian  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  II,  1.  581), 

"  But  can-  /  not  brooke  /  a  night  /  grown  mush-  /  (e)rump  /  (mush- 
room) " 

This  tendency  is  illustrated  in  the  second  hne  of  a  couplet  which 
occurs  twice  in  the  Contention  (p.  7,  1.  145  ;  p.  31,  1.  35)  : 

"  Cold  newes  for  me,  for  I  had  hope  of  France, 

Even  as  j  I  have  j  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,  i,  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  soil." 

In  the  second  case  (2  Henry  VI,  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  hnes  are  not  inherentl}'  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  VI,  III.  i,  190: 

"  Before  /  his  legs  /  be  firm  /  to  bear  /  his  bo-  /  dy." 
Contention,  p.  37,  1.  59 : 

"  Of  a-  /  shie  sem-  /  blance,  pale,  /  and  blood-  /  (e)lesse." 
2  Henry  VI,  III,  ii,  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  VI,  III,  ii,  210 : 

"  Blunt  wit-  /  ted  lord,  /  igno-  /  ble  in  /  demea-  /  nour." 
Contention,  p.  57,  1.  51  : 

"  Did  worke  /  me  and  /  my  land  /  such  cru-  /  ell  spight." 

2  Henry  IV ,Y ,  i,  70 : 

"  That  Ii-  /  ving  wrought  /  me  such  /  excee-  /  ding  trou-  /ble." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  5,  1.  55 : 

"  My  heart  /  for  an-  /  ger  breakes,  / 1  can-  /  not  speake." 

3  Henry  VI,  I,  i,  60: 

"  My  heart  /  for  an-  /  ger  burns  ;  / 1  can-  /  not  brook  /  it." 
True  Tragedy,  p.  49,  1.  39 : 

"  Whose  wise-  /  dome  was  /  a  mir-  /  rour  to  /  the  world." 
3  Henry  VI,  III,  iii,  84: 

"Whose  wis-  /  dom  was  /  a  mir  /  ror  to  /  the  wis-  /est." 
Trve  Tragedy,  p.  62,  1.  35 : 

"  With  what  /  secur'  /  ty  we  /  male  doe  /  this  thing." 
3  Henry  VI,  IV,  vii,  52  : 

"  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  VI,  V,  iv,  50 : 

"  Women  /  and  chil-  /  dren  of  /  so  high  /  a  cou-  /  rage." 
Trve  Tragedy,  p.  76,  i,  56  : 

"  If  a-  /  nie  sparke  /  of  life  /  remaine  /  in  thee." 
3  Henry  VI,  V,  vi,  66: 

"  If  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 

a  notion.  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  hst  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  J  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 

11 -syllable 

run-on 

of  metrical 

fifth  feet 

lines 

lines 

lines 

Contention 

7 — 

4— 

4  + 

1254 

2  Henry  VI 

11— 

14— 

10 

2148 

(additional  matter) 

True  Tragedy 

10 

7 

5 

1865 

3  Henry  VI 

8— 

14— 

7V2 

1550 

(additional  matter) 

Edward  II 

13V2 

4V3 

6^/3 

2519 

Massacre  at  Paris 

14 

2 

7V4 

1039 

Jew  of  Malta 

18— 

3 

10\/2 

1811 

Richard  III 

9 

19  + 

13-f- 

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  w^ell  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.^  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  VI,  and  considerably 
more  than  the  seven  and  a  half  percent  of  J  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  Hnes  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  hnes  printed  in  the 
Contention  give  a  much  abbreviated  and  corrupted  version  of  Mar- 
lowe's manuscript,  whereas  the  large  number  of  new  and  altered 


^  It  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  pubUeation  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  J  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  Mario vian  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  Faustns,  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  Yexy 
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  oi  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  J  Henry  VI  not  found  in  the  Contention  and  True 
Tragedy  versions  : 

2  Henry  VI,  1,  ii,  15  f. : 

"  And  never  more  abase  our  sight  so  low 

As  to  vouchsafe  one  glance  unto  the  ground." 

Edward  II,  1.  879  f.  : 

"  Whose  mounting  thoughts  did  never  creepe  so  low, 
As  to  bestow  a  looke  on  such  as  you." 


The  Author  ship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  185 

2  Henry  VI,  I,  iii,  83  : 

"  She  bears  a  duke's  revenues  on  her  back."  ^ 
Edward  II,  1.  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." 

Tamhurlaine,  11.  763—765  : 

"  I  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." 

Ihid.,  U.  863,  879  f. : 

"  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,  H,  iii,  56 : 

"  Forslow  no  longer;  make  we  hence  amain." 
Edward  II,  1.  1138: 

"  Forslowe  no  time,  sweet  Lancaster,  lets  march." 
3  Henry  VI,  H,  v,  14  f.  : 

"  These  arms  of  mine  shall  be  thy  winding-sheet ; 

My  heart,  sweet  boy,  shall  be  thy  sepulchre." 

Jew  of  Malta,  1.  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  httle  occasion 
to  mention  Pa\aer's  edition,  which  inherently  possesses  very  small 


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  bj' 
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  MilHngton'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  Hst  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,  II,  ii, 
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  Angouleme,  though  duly 


^  The  suggestion  that    Edward  of  Angouleme  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  Ill'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."  ^ 

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  MiUington'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  itahcized  in  the  folloA^dng  passages :  Part  I  ot 
Whole  Contention,  p.  35, 

"  Vnder  the  title  of  John  Mortimer, 
(For  he  is  like  him  every  kinde  of  ivay)  "  and 
Part  II  of  Whole  Contention,  p.  62, 

"  For  I  will  buz  abroad  such  Prophesies 
Vnder  pretence  of  outward  seeming  ill.'''' 
-  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. 


II.  The  Greene-Peele  Myth. 

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  J 
Henry  VI.  Here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  interest  in  an  entirely 
incidental,  though  important,  aUusion  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  \vits  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  luvenall,  that  by  ting  Satyrist,  that  lastlie  ^dth  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  lohannes  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."  ^ 

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. 2  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 

1  Shakspere  Allusion- Books,  Part  I,   ed.  C.  M.  Ingleby,  1874,  p.  29—31. 

2  Cf.  The  Merrie  conceited  Jests  of  George  Peele,  Gent.,  1607. 
Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  13  Jdly,  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  {i.  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  lohannes  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 
Johannes  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  True  Tragedy  ^  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  {viz.,  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  you,"  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  {i.  e.,  that  I  might  entreat 
you  to  employ  your  genius  in  more  lucrative  undertakings  than 
play-writing)    &    let    these    Apes     (the    actors)    imitate  j^our    past 


Facsimile  of  True  Tragedy,  1891,  p.  20,  1.  122;  3  Henry  VI,  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  prevaihng 
interpretation  of  this  passage.  ^  A  certain  malice  appears,  to  be 
sure,  in  the  address  to  ^larlowe,  and  there  is  open  hostility  in  the 
allusion  to  Shakespeare — hostihty  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 
crudest  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  emploj^es, 
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 


^  Apparently  Malone  in  his  Dissertation  on  King  Henry  VI  (Boswell's 
Malone,  vol.  xviii,  p.  570  ff.)  first  concluded  from  the  Groatswortk  of  Wit 
that  Shakespeare  had  plagiarized  from  Greene  and  Peele.  Tyrwhitt  (of. 
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 
sufficient  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  Acadetny,  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  jor  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  Tamhurlaine,  Doctor Faustus,  and  Massacre 
at  Paris.  In  the  last  play  alone  I  find  six  instances.^  Miss  Lee 
mentions  examples  from  The  Winter's  Tale,  Pericles,  All 's  Well  that 
EndsWell,  Titus  Andronicus,  and  the  older  (1603)  version  of  Hamlet. 
In  regard  to  the  last  play,  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  earlier  for  to  is 
twice  altered  in  the  later  version  into  the  normal  to.  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  LI.  518,  559,  1033,  1120,  1131,  1260.     White,  indeed,  himself  admitted 
that  his  theory  broke  down  in  the  case  of  this  play. 


The  Author  ship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  193 

in  Greene's  prose  work,  Penelope's  Weh}  but  not,  apparently,  in 
any  other  Elizabethan  author.  Henry  VI,  Part  II  (IV,  i,  108) 
alters  the  name  to  "  Bargulus,  the  strong  lUyrian  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  poesie  si\\\,Omne  tulit  punctuni,  although  latelye  two  Gentle- 

^  "  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.  77  f.  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  filhng  the  mouth 
like  the  fa  burden  of  Bo-Bell,  daring  God  out  of  heaven  with  that 
Atheist  Tamhurlan,  or  blaspheming  with  the  mad  preest  of  the 
Sonne."  ^ 

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  rehshed 
Greene's  plagiarism  of  Tamhurlaine  in  Alphonsvs  of  Arragon  and 
Orlando  Furioso  or  his  clear  attempt  to  cap  the  success  of  Doctor 
Faustus  in  Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay.  Everything  indicates 
that  the  unfriendhness  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. 

III.  Shakespeare's  Revision  of  Marlowe's  Work. 

The  student  who  compares  the  Contention  and  True  Tragedy  with 
the  Folio  text  of  2  and  J  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 


Greeners   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  Tamhurlaine.  Nothing,  I  think,  in  the  personahty  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  Httle  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  hy  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  H. 
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  jMarlowe,  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  bj'  fift}' 
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  w^hich 
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  "  ;  (1.  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.) 

^  In  the  Contention  this  scene  contains  171  hnes ;  in  2  Henry  VI  it  contains 
203.     The  added  Hnes  are  almost  exclusivelj'  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  t.) 

"  0  God!  seest  thou  this,  and  bearst  so  long'  "  (1.  153) 

"  O  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,  HI,  i). 
Marlowe's  version  of  this  passage,  in  the  Contention,  treats  Henry 
with  open  contempt.  He  is  allowed  to  speak  only  twelve  detached 
Hues  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 

"I,  Margaret.  My  heart  is  kild  with  grief e, 
Where  I  may  sit  and  sigh  in  endlesse  mone, 
For  who's  a  Traitor,  Gloster  he  is  none."^ 

TheFoHo  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  enhst  the  audience's  sympathy  ^vith 
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- 


^  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  hfe,  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  ft)llows  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  SLndjHenry  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  J  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  Hues  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 


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  necessar\'  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  rewTite  two  of 
his  plays  under  the  direction  of  a  young  player  belonging  to  a  compan}- 
with  which  ]\Iarlowe  can  hardly  be  shown  ever  to  have  had  business 
relations.  ^  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  ]\Iil]ington's  quartos — -not  improb- 
ably upon  the  very  manuscript  originally  sold  by  INIarlowe  to 
Lord  Pembroke's  Company.  In  considering  the  additional  passages 
found  in  the  1623  Folio,  it  is  a  somewhat  dehcate  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  True  Tragedy  text,  by  omitting  the  necessary 
"  not  ",  destroys  the  sense.     In  IV,  iii,  31  f.  of  the  same  plaj^ 

^  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  (11.  4—6)  we  read 

"  I  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)  : 

"  I  see  a  blacke  suspitious  cloud  appeare. 
That  will  encounter  with  our  glorious  sunne 
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  himself e  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  iii,  of  J  Henry  VI : 

"  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  hne  is  identical 
with  a  verse  in  the  Massacre  at  Paris, '^  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  Mario vian  material  has  merely 
been  transferred  in  the  Folio  text  from  one  scene  to  another. 

The  passages  from  J  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  ]\Iillington'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  fertiU  England. 

A  day  will  come  when  Yorke  shall  claime  his  owne, 

And  therefore  I  wiU  take  the  Neuels  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.   108,  parallel  21. 


202  C.  F.   Tucker  Brooke, 

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,  i,  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  hne  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  rambhng 
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  Althaea'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  HenryVI, 
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 


^  Something  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  the  correct  version  of  the 
Althaea  story  here  disagrees  Avdth  the  incorrect  allusion  in  2  Henry  IV,  II, 
ii,  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.   Tttcker  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  hke  the  following  (11.  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,"  etc. 

The  first  hnes  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,  11.  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  hnes  (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  svmmer  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. 


The  Authorship  of  "  King  Henry  VI."  205 

That  erst  did  follow  thy  proud  chariot  wheels 
When  thou  didst  ride  in  triumph  through  the  streets. 
Bvt,  soft !     /  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  soHloquy  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," 

^  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.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  14  July,  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-horn  man. 

And  find  no  harbour  in  a  royal  heart. 

Faster  than  spring-time  showers  comes  thovght  on  thovght, 

And  not  a  thought  hut  thinks  on  dignity. 

My  hrain,  more  husy  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 : 

/  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.  20  f.: 

"  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  : 

"  I  den  .  .  .  Oppose  thy  steadfast-gazing  eyes  to  mine. 

See  if  thou  canst  out-face  me  with  thy  looks : 

Set  hmb  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.  : 

"  He  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  VI,  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  (J  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  imnaturall, 

To  lift  his  sword  against  his  brothers  life  ? 

And  so  proud  harted  Warwike  I  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  impiety 

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  Warwike  still "  (V,  i,  47 ;  True  Tragedy,  p.  66,  1.  36),  the 
omission  of  the  adjective  "  olde  "  takes  away  the  friendliness  of  the 
king's  implied  offer  of  reconcihation.  The  death  of  Warwick  is 
very  strongly  and  pathetically  treated  in  the  True  Tragedy.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  scene  (V,  ii)  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  Warwike  ?  " 

Shakespeare,  in  the  interests  of  stage  effect,  has  Edward  himself 
drag  in  the  fallen  warrior  and  speak  four  heartless  lines  over  his 
body  (V,  ii,  1  ff.)  : 

"  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  sentimentahty,  is,  I  think,  glaringly  unbecoming  (11.  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  Warwike  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 


J 


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  213-361  DECEMBER,  1912 


The  Date  of  the  Ruthwell 
and  Bewcastle  Grosses 


ALBERT  S.  COOK, 

PKOFESSOR  OF  THE  ENGUISH  LANGUAGE  ANP  LITERATURE  IN  YALE  UNIVERSITY 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1912 


s'.. 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  TBE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


Incorporated  A.  D.  1799 


VOLUME  17,  PAGES  213-361  DECEMBER,  1912 

The  Date  of  the  Ruthwell 
and  Bewcastle  Crosses 


ALBERT  S.  COOK, 

PROFESSOR  OF  THE   ENGLISH   LANGUAGE   AND   LITERATURE   IN   YALE   UNIVERSITY 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1912 


WEIMAR :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGES 

Introduction 5 

I.  The  Problem  of  the  Crosses 5 

II.  Opinions  as  to  the  Date  of  the  Crosses         .        .         .        .  (j 

Description  of  the  Crosses 16 

I.  The  Euthwell  Cross 16 

II.  The  Bewcastle  Cross 24 

General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses       .......  28 

Outline 28 

I.  The  Inscriptions .30 

1.  Runic 30 

A.  Forms  of  Letters             30 

B.  Language         .........  32 

C.  Metrical  Peculiarities 40 

D.  Historical  Subject-Matter 40 

2.  Latin 44 

A.  Forms  of  Letters 44 

B    Language         .........  45 

C.  Metrical  Peculiarities      .......  45 

D.  Historical  Subject-Matter 45 

II.  The  Figure- Sculpture 45 

1.  Single  Figures  or  Groups  Belonging  to  the  Gospel  Story  46 

A.  John  the  Baptist  with  the  Agnus  Dei         ...  46 

B.  The  Annunciation  and  the  Visitation  ....  47 

C.  The  Flight  into  Egypt 50 

D    The  Anointing  of  Christ's  Feet 52 

E.  The  Crucifixion .53 

F.  The  Majesty 56 

2.  Groups  belonging  to  Christian  Legend     ....  58 

Paul  the  Hermit  and  St.  Anthony       ...  58 

3.  Genre-Subjects 60 

A.  The  Archer 60 

B.  The  Falconer 63 

III.  The  Decorative  Sculpture 7 1 

1.  The  Vines 71 

2.  The  Chequers 83 

3.  The  Interlacings  or  Knotwork  ......  86 

4.  The  Sundial 80 

Theory  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Crosses 91 

Outline 91 


216 


Contents 


PAGES 

1.  The  Power  which  Enabled  and  Suggested  the  Production       94 


the   Region   Including  both 


1.  A  Power   Extending 
Crosses  

2.  A  Power  which  Could  Make  Itself  Respected  in  a  Rude 
Age,   and   One  Making   Appeal  to  Various  Nationalities 

II.  The  Motive    or  Motives  which  Actuated  the  Production     . 

III.  The  Cultural    and    Artistic   Antecedents  Demanded  by  the 

Production 

1.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Tiron 

2.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Chartres 

3.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Beauvais 

4.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Clairvaux 

5.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Fleury 

6.  The  Possible  Influence  of  Northern  Italy 

CONCLDSION 


94 

103 
111 

118 
125 
128 
131 
132 
142 
143 
146 


Fiff.  I.     Ruthwell  Cross,  between    1823  and    1887. 
(From   Browne,    Theodore  and  IVilfrith.) 


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  obehsk.^  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  (14i  feet :  17^  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. 

^  See  p.  122,  note  1,  and  Figs.  1  and  2. 
2  See  p.   123,  note. 

i5) 


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.* 

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  RuthweU  and 
Bewcastle  crosses  as  Danish,  and  therefore  to  assign  them  to  a  com- 
paratively late  period.'^ 

1  See  p.   148. 

2  Long.  2040,  W.     Some  maps  give  the  name  of  the  village  as  Shopford. 
^  J.  R.  Allen,  Monumental  History  of  the  Early  British  Church,  p.  208. 

Similarly  Rivoira,  Burlington  Magazine,  April,  1912,  p.  24. 

*  CoUingwood,  Notes  on  the  Early  Sculptured  Crosses,  Shrines  and  Monu- 
ments in  the  Present  Diocese  of  Carlisle,  p.  43. 

^  Greenwell,  Catalogue  of  the  Sculptrcred  and  Inscribed  Stories  of  the  Cathe- 
dral Library,  Durham,,  p.  46. 

^  Prior  and  Gardner,  '  Mediaeval  Figure- Sculpture  in  England,'  Archi- 
tectural Review,  July,  1902,  p.  7. 

'  Thus  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross  Nicolson  says  in  1697  (see  my  '  Notes  on 
the  Ru.thwell  Cross,'  P^lb.  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  pubhshing 
the  first  plates  of  the  runic  inscriptions  at  RuthAveU  to  be  that  he  might 

(6) 


Fig.  2.     Bewcastle  Cross,  West  Face. 


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 
constantty  gromng.  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  Ale- 
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  Caedmon.^ 

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  ha^^e  been  brought  from  Bewcastle,  and  once  have  stood 


show  that  runes  were  employed  by  the  Norsemen  after  their  conversion 
to  Christianity  (runas  afud  Septentrionales  gentes,  post  receptam  ab  Us  Christ- 
ianam  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  Totir  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  Xicolson,  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  beUeve  the 
ObeMsk  to  be  older  than  900.'     He  also  thought  it  Danish. 

^  Archceologla  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  cf.  p.  41, 
below. 

^  See  p.  41,  below.  ^  Memoir,  p.  27. 

'  The  Conquest  of  Britain  by  the  Saxons,  p.  37. 

(7) 


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  evidentty  earlier  than 
Bede's  Death  Song  and  Csedmon's  Hj^mn.' 

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.'*  Incidentally,  he  speaks 
of  two  crosses  at  Bewcastle,  which  he  refers  to  the  same  time^  : 
'  In  oppido  Bewcastle  duae  cruces  partim  adhuc  superstites  sunt, 
quae  propter  runas  quibus  praeditse  sunt,  ad  idem  tempus  referendse 
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  Caedmon  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  canied  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  Ihid.,  p.  39. 

2  Disputatio  de  Cruce  Bulhivellensi,  p.   14. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  19. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  15-17. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  16. 

*  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  onh^ 
been  enabled  to  amend  the  text  and  add  some  words  to  the  carving,  but  I 
have  also  found  the  name  of  the  Immortal  Bard  — CiEDMON.'  .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 
M^FAUCEfiO,  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- 
mac}^  being  apparentlj^  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  RuthweU  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  Miiller^  declared  that  the  RuthweU  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. 

1884.  George  F.  Browne^  remarked  :  '  The  head  of  the  cross  bears 
the  words,  "  Caedmon  made  me."  The  Bewcastle  inscription  states 
that  the  pillar  was  erected  to  King  Alchfrith,  in  the  first  j^ear  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 


^  Dialect  of  the  Southern  Counties  of  Scotland,  p.  9. 

'■  Aelteste  Christliche  Epik  der  Angelsachsen,  Deutschen  und  Nordldnder, 
34.     The  Danish  original  appeared  in  the  previous  year. 


^  Anglo-Saxon  Header,  p 

.   169. 

*  Icelandic  Prose  Reader, 

,  p.  444. 

5  Or  M. 

«  P.  444. 

'  P.  451. 

^  '  Dyreornamentiken    i 

Xorden,' 

Aarbeg' 

1880,  pp.  338-9. 

9  Magazine  of  Art  8.  79 

(December 

,  1884). 

Aarbeger   for  Nordisk  Oldkyndigheid, 

(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    11th  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 
Caedmon  has  all  but  disappeared,  being  represented  only  by  five 
faint  perpendicular  strokes.  The  other  words,  "  mai  fseuo|)o,"  are 
quite  distinct,   with  the  exception  of  the  last  o  in  jcBUopo.' 

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  Bewcastle  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 


^  Oldest  English  Texts,  pp.  124-5. 

■^  Early  Christian  Symbolism  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  p.  85. 

3  P.  132. 

■*  Academy  32.  225  (Oct.   1). 

^  Early  Christian  Art  in  Ireland,  pp.   125-6. 

«  Academy  33.  279  (April  21). 

(10) 


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,  Ccedmon 
made  me,  of  words  which  he  professed  to  have  found  on  the  Ruthwell 
Cross,  and  proposed  to  read  :  GODMON  MiEFAE/o^I^O.  He  agreed 
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- 
ceedingty  doubtful  if  it  ever  existed.' 

1890.  I^  contended  that  the  language  of  the  poetic  fragments 
on  the  Ruthwell  Cross  must  be  as  late  as  the  10th  century,  and  very 
likety  posterior  to  950. 

1890.  George  F.  Browne  ^  read  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross  :  t  KEDMON 
MIE  FAUGEpO. 

1891.  Eduard  Sievers^  beheved  the  inscription  on  the  Bew- 
castle Cross,  if  correctly  reported  by  Stephens  and  Sweet,  to  be  late, 
and  therefore  a  bunghng  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  iihei-  die  Ent- 
stehung  der  Nordischen  Gotter-  und  Heldensagen  3.  494  ff. ;  the  passage  in 
question  was  translated  by  me  in  Mod.  Lang.  Notes  5  (1890).  77-8. 

-  Mo7i.  Hist.   Brit.  Church,  p.   159. 

3  P.  223  .-  cf.  p.  209. 

*  Academy  37.  153  (March  1). 

5  Academy  37.  170  (March  8) ;  cf.  h^s   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  Scidpt%ired  Crosses,  p.  40 ;  cf.  p.  ix. 

(11) 


224  Introdtiction 

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 .?)  R\{:)  (M^  ?)(F)AYRrO,  out  of  which 
nothing  can  be  made.  The  cross  is  earlier  than  750.*  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®  MTote  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  ta  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 
Csedmon  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.  WiUiam  G.  Collingwood ^"  attached  much  weight  to  the 
views  of  Bishop  Browne  (see  under  1896),  and  accordingly  accepted 
the  date  670.  ^^     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.  cxiii. 

^  Die  Northumbrischen  Runensteine,  p.   11.  *  Ibid.,   p.   48. 

5  P.   16. 

«  Conversion  of  the.  Heptarchy,  2d  ed.,  1906,  pp.   189,  208. 
^  Theodore  and   Wilfrith,  p.  236. 

*  Eng.  Lit.  from  the  Beginning  to  the  Norman  Conquest,  p.   133. 
^  Catalogue,  p.  47 ;  see  p.  78,  below. 
^°  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  p.  44. 
11  P.  47. 

(12) 


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.  P  resumed  and  extended  my  investigation  of  1890,  and 
came  to  the  same  general  result  as  then. 

1901.  WiUiam  G.  Collingwood^  observed  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross: 
'  It  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  Wul there 
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  archaeological  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 
Caedmon,  he  regarded  the  name,  supposing  it  to  be  on  the  cross, 
as  that  of  the  sculptor.^ 

1902.  Karl  D.  Biilbring'  declared  that  of  early  AngUan  poetry 
we  possess,  for  the  most  part,  only  late  and  corrupt  copies.    Among 

1  P.  43. 

2  '  IS'otes  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross  '  (written  December,  1900),  pp.  375-390; 
cf.  pp.  32  —  33,  below. 

3  The    Victoria  History  of  the  County  of  Cumberlatid  1.  256-7. 

*  '  Mediaeval  Figure- Sculpture  in  England,'  Architectural  Review  12.  7. 
'  '  La  Ruthwell  Cross,'  Annales  de  la  <Societe  d' Archeologie  de  Bruxelles 
16.  70. 

6  P.  67.  '  Altemjlisches  Elemenlarbuch,  pp.  8-9. 

(13) 


226  Introduction 

the  earliest  Northumbrian  verses  (before  740)  he  reckons  those  on  the 
Ruthwell  Cross,  which  he  considers  to  exhibit  pecuharities  of  the 
northern  variety  of  Northumbrian. 

1903.  John  Romihy  AUen^  quoted,  without  dissent,  the  con- 
clusions of  my  paper  of  1901. 

1905.  Alois  Brandl2  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.  Archaeologists  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  Xllth  century.' 


1  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  515-6, 

^  Sitzungsberichte  der  Konigl.  Preuss.  Akadernie  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). 

^  But  see  Cook,  Puh.  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  17.  380  ff. 

*  Michel,  Histoire  de  l' Art  V.  521.  ^  Ibid.  2.  202.         «  Ibid.  2.  199. 

'  Le  Origini  delV Architettura  Lombarda,  translated  in  1910  as  Lombardic 
Architecture  (2.  143). 

(14) 


opinions  as  to  the  Date  of  the  Crosses  227 

1907.  Anna  C.  Panes  ^  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  Csedmon,  '  for  the  language  of  the  poem  on  the 
RuthweU  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  foUowing  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  ^i  '  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  was  in 


1  Cambridge  Hist.  Eng.  Lit.   1.   12. 

^  Cambridge  Hist.  Eng.  Lit.  1.  57,  note. 

3  Encyc.  Brit.,  11th  ed.,  7.  691.  Elsewhere  (4.  935)  he  is  more  positive: 
'  The  poem  is  certainly  Northumbrian,  and  earher  than  the  date  of  Cynewulf.' 
He  rejects  Stephens'  Ccedmon  mm  faucepo  as  '  mere  jargon,  not  belonging 
to  any  known  or  unknown  Old  Enghsh  dialect.' 

*  English  Dialects,  pp.   18,  20. 

5  English  Literature:  Mediaeval,  p.  48. 

^  Burlington  Magazine,  April  15,  p.  24. 

'   Burlington  Magazine,  June  15,  pp.  145-6. 

(15) 


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,  ^ 
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  directty  from  the  shaft 
itself  (ignoring  the  top-stone) .  ^ 

South  Face.^ 

1.  The  Archer. 

An  archer  faces  the  spectator's  right,  with  an  arrow  aimed  up- 
ward at  an  angle  of  45  ^.  A  possible  quiver  hangs  at  the  right  side 
of  the  archer  ;  only  the  tip  is  \dsible.  There  is  an  inscription  at  each 
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. 


^  See  a  list  given  by  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  448. 

^  My  thanks  are  due  to  Rev.  J.  L.  Dinwiddie,  minister  of  Ruthwell, 
who  afforded  me  every  fac-ility  for  securing  these  photographs,  which  were 
taken  by  Mr.  F.  W.  Tassell  of  CarUsle. 

3  As  the  monument  stands  at  present.      See  Figs.  3,  4,  5,  6    7,  8. 

(16) 


Fig.  3.     Ruthwell   Cross,  South  and   West  F: 


Fig,  4.     Ruthwell  Cross,  South  Face,  top. 


ri^-  jaojia-a^^i^- 


hfrn 

w^iMsm 

r-4 

i 

Fi£:  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  (of.  the  Visitation  from  St. 
Benoit-sur-Loire,  as  figured  by  Caumont,  L' Ahecedaire  d' Archeologie 
1.  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  the  shoulders.  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 

ATTULIT  .  .  .  BA 
which  is  continued  down  at  the  spectator's  right  as 

STRUMVNGVENTI&STANSRETROSECUSPEDES; 
then  crosses  to  the  spectator's  left,  and  reads  downward : 

EIVSLACRIMIS  .  COEPITRIGAREPEDESEIVS  .  CAPILLIS 
and  ends  below  as : 

CAPITISSVITERGEBA ; 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  16  (17) 


230  Description  of  the  Crosses 

that  is  :  attulit  .  [ala]  bastrum  unguenti :  et  stans  retro  secus  pedes  eius 
lacrimis  coepit  rigare  pedes  eius,  et  capillis  capitis  sui  tergebat. 

4.  Christ's  Healing  of  the  Blind  Man  (John  9.  1  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 :  et  prcBteriens  vidi\t  hominem  ccecum]  a 
nativitate,  et  sa[navit  eum  a]6  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 : 

INGRESSVS 

That  at  the  right  is  so  mutilated  as  to  be  illegible,  but  at  the  left  we 
read : 

TE  .  .  .  BE  .  .  . 

This  stands,  no  doubt,  for :  Ingressus  angelus  ad  earn  dixit :  Ave, 
gratia  plena,  dominus  tecum  ■  benedicta  tu  in  mulieribus. 

(18) 


,«-^ 


|ifS":Ti  :jmi^ 


Fig.  6.     Ruthwell   Cross,  South  Face,  Anointing  of  Christ's  Feet, 
and   Healing  of  the  Blind  Man. 


/'>^^   7-      Ruthwell   Cross,  South    Face,   Annunciation. 


Fig.  S.     Ruthwell   Cross,  South  Face,  Crucifij 


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  incHnes  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  Uke  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  wees  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  hnes  :  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  ike  Rood,  pp.   3-5  ; 

2)  Printed  in  horizontal  Unes,  and  afterwards  transUterated :  Grein- 
Wiilker,  Bibliothek  der  Angel sdchsischen  Poesie  2.  111-6  ; 

3)  Printed  in  vertical  hnes,  as  on  the  cross,  and  transUterated  :  AUen, 
Early  Christ.  Man.  of  Scotland  3.  446-7  ; 

(19) 


232  Description  of  the  Crosses 

form  the  bottom  of  the  upper  monohth.  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  monohths  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  Dei. 

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  a  lamb  wearing  a  nimbus.  The  right 
fore  leg  of  the  lamb  is  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  legibihty  of 
the  individual  runes,  and  accompanied  by  reproductions  of  photographs  : 
Victor,  Die  Northumbrischen  Runensteine,  pp.   6  ff. 

Older  and  less  critical  readings  may  be  found  in  the  Archceologia  Scotica, 
Vol.  4,  1833  (by  Duncan),  and,  reposing  upon  this,  in  Archceologia,  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 
Litteratur,  pp.  134-8  ;  Victor  (as  above),  pp.  2-4. 

1  See  Figs.   12,  13,  13  a,  14. 
(20) 


Fig,  g.     Ruth  well  Cross,  West  Face,  near  top. 


Fig.  II).     Ruthwcll  Cross,   W«st  Face,  middle 


Fig.  II.     Ruthwell  Cross,  West  Face,  near  bottom. 


-^^^ 


Fig.  12.     Ruthwell   Cross,  North  Face,  John  the  Baptist. 


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  monohths,  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,  f  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 : 


g     IHS  XRS      < 

CD                                           O 

H 

w 

1— 1 
> 

X 

W 

> 

< 

1 

s 

CO 

w 

CD 

en 

w 

n 
O 

^ 

^ 

1 

CO 

> 

< 

H 

"^ 

1— 1 

^ 

o 

§ 

w 

<: 

^ 

o 

(21) 


234  Description  of  the  Crosses 

That  is  :  lestis  Christus,  iudex  cequitatis ;  hestice  et  draconles]  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  monohth  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  PAVLVS  ET  A FREGER  .  .  T  PANEM 

INDESERTO- 

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 : 

t  MARIA  ET  I^. 
This  naturally  stands  for  Maria  et  Joseph. 


East  Face. 


A  vine-scroU  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.  13  a. 

2  See  Tigs.  15,   16,   16  a,   17. 

(22) 


Fig.  13.     Ruthwell  Cross,   North  Face,  Figure  of  Christ. 


I'^ig'  ^3 ".     Ruthwell  Cross,  North  Face,  Figure  of  Christ. 
(From    The  Burlington  Magazine.) 


Fig.  14.      Kutliwell   Cross,   Nortli   Face,  Paul    and  Anthony,   and   Flight  into  Kgypt. 


F/g.  15.     Ruthwcll  Cross,   East  P'ace,  near  top. 


Fig.  i6.     Ruthwell  Cross,  East  Face,  middle. 


Fig. 


i6a.     Ruthwell  Cross,  East  Face,   middle. 
(From   The  Burlington  Magazine.) 


Fig.  77.     Ruthwell   Cross,   East  Face,  near  bottom. 


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  dcegisgcef.  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 

Height  of  shaft 

Height  of  head 

Total  height  of  cross 

Width  of  base 

Width  of  shaft  at  bottom 

Width  of  shaft  at  top 

Width  across  arms  of  cross 

Width  of  top  arm 

Thickness  of  base 

Thickness  of  shaft  at  bottom 

Thickness"  of  shaft  at  top 

These  figures  are  only  approximative, 
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. 


3  feet 
10     „ 

8  inches 
6       „ 

2     „ 

10       „ 

17     „ 

0       „ 

2     „ 

3       ,, 

1  foot 

9       „ 

1     „ 

1    inch 

3  feet 

1       „ 
9  inches 

1  foot 

6       „ 

1     „ 

6 

9       „ 

ve,    however ;    for 

example. 

11.  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.2 

West  Face}^ 

This  face  has  three  carved  figures,  the  spaces  between  them  being 
occupied  by  runes. 

1.  John  the  Baptist  with  the  Agnus  Dei. 

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) 


Fig.  i8.     Bewcastle  Cross,  South  and  West  Faces. 


Fig.  ig.      Bewcastle   Cross,   West   Face. 


Fig.  20.     Bewcastle  Cross,  West  Face,  John  the  Baptist,  Figure  of  Christ,  and  Runes. 


Fig.  21.      Bewcastle  Cross,  West  Face,  Runes. 


wmw 


r. 


fig-  22.     Collingwood's  Plate  of  Runes.      (From  Early  Sculptured  Crosses.) 


Fig.  33.     Bewcastle  Cross,  West  Face,  Falconer. 


The  Bcwcastle  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  ^ : 

2.  The  Figure  of  Christ.  I  A  I   I  I  | 
The  central  figure  stands  in  a  niche,  like 

the  others,   except  that  the   top  is  curved,  l.\^  '      '  T  T  j|   ^'' 
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  hues  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  sidcwise,  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  hke  a  crutch  or  T.  The  man  holds  in  his  right 
hand  a  rod,  which  slants  downward  in  front  of  him.  His  garment  seems 
to  resemble  a  plaid  of  heavy  cloth,  which,  draped  across  his  chest,  is 

1  See  p.  37. 

-  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  foHage.  The  spiral  branches  also  end  in  fruit  and  fohage, 
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  reUef  ; 
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  resembhng  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. 


Fig.  2S.     Bewcastle  Cross,  North  Face,  upper 


Fig.  26.     Bewcastle  Cross,  North  Face,  lower. 


Fig.  27.     Bewcastle  Cross,  East  Face. 


'M 


% 


Fig.  28.     Bewcastle  Cross,   East  Face,  uppe 


w. 


Fig.  2g.     Bewcastle  Cross,  East  Face,  lower. 


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.  A  vine-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,  resembhng  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,  filUng  a  somewhat  larger 
panel  than  the  first. 

4.  Two  vine-scrolls.  These,  starting  obhquelyfrom  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  fiUs  the  left  corner. 


1  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. 

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. 
(28j 


Fig.  30.     Bewcastle  Cross,  South  Face. 


m'^. 


-r^. 


Ur^ 


y^.  3r.      Hewcastlf   Cross,   South    F; 


ippcr. 


Fig.  32.     Bewcastle  Cross,  South  P'ace,  lower. 


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  Enghsh  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. 
IL  The  Figure- Sculpture. 

Here  are  included : 

1 .  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  Heahng  of  the  Blind  Man. 
The  Anointing  of  Christ's  Feet. 
The  Crucifixion. 
The  Figure  of  Christ  alone  (Ruthwell  and  Bewcastle). 

2.  Groups  belonging  to  Christian  legend.  The  single  example 
of  these  is  the  group  of  Paul  the  Hermit  and  St.  Anthony. 

3.  Genr e-suh]ecis.  Here  would  apparently  belong  the  man  with 
the  hawk  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross,  and  perhaps  the  archer  of 
the  Ruthwell  Cross. 

HL  The  Decorative  Sculpture. 
Here  belong : 

1.  The  vines  or  foliage-scrolls  of  both  the  Ruthwell  and  the  Bew- 
castle Crosses. 

2.  The  chequers  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross. 

3.  The  interlacings  or  knots  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross. 

4.  The  sundial  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross  (unless  this  be  regarded 
as  purely  utilitarian). 


(29) 


242  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

I.  THE  INSCRIPTIONS 

1.   RUNIC 

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  'Anghan'  might  be  used  (1)  in  contradistinction 
to  Scandinavian  or  German,  or  (2)  in  contradistinction  to  Saxon.  To 
say  that  they  are  Anghan  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  unUke 
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  ?  ^  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  estabhshed  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  eoutinentes 
posteriore  setate  exarati  sunt,  ut  prius  extitis.se  viderentur.  Tales 
olim  fuere  multi ;  tales  habendi  essent  n.  43-G9  nisi  Petrizzopulum  et 
Fourmontum  satis  teneremus  convictos ;  tale  est  Delphicum  quoddam 
apud  Cyriacum  oraculum,  Byzantina  cusum  aetate.* 


^  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  Grcecce  (1840),  pp.  73  ff. ;  Larfeld, 
HandhtLch  der  Oriechischen  Ejngraphik  I.  431  (cf.  Miiller's  Handbitch  der 
Klass.  AUerlurnswissenschufl   1.  492-3). 

'  Corp.  Inscr.  Lai.  1.  37-40;  cf.  Wolfflin  in  Sitzhar.  der  K.  Bay.  Akad. 
der  Wiss.,  Philos.-Pidlol.  Classe,  1890,  1.  293-321. 

*  Boeckh,  Corp.  Inscr.  Grcec.  1.  xxx. 
(30) 


Runic  Inscriptions  243 

Alteram  classem  constituunt  affectaii  tituli,  nee  priori  tributi  setati 
ab  iis,  qui  eos  composueruut,  neque  omnino  falsi,  sed  per  lusiim,  vel 
ut  antiquitatis  quadam  quasi  robigine  inducta  maior  iis  accederet 
auctoritas,  ea  forma  vel  scripturae  vel  orationis  vel  utriusque  facti, 
qu£e  turn  non  fuit  usitata.  Ex  quo  geuere  sunt  columnje  Herodis,  sttculi 
post  Christum  secundi  :  sed  iam  Praxiteles  hunc  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 
instaiiratione  antiqui  monumenti  in  priscorum  successerunt  locum,  ut 
Megarici  n.  1050-1051.  .  .  .  Xec  poemata  ex  libris  petita,  qua^  quidem 
iam  antiquitus  coniectain  lapides  sint,  ut  n.  511. 1724.  vel  sententi.-e  script- 
oribus  excerptie,  ut  ex  BacchyUde  et  Platone,  recte  sollicitabuntur,  si  et 
scripturae  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.  052.  1105  6.  ita  ut  ha^c  Kempiana  monuments  sint 
quidem  ipsa  falsa,  sed  continent  veras  inscriptiones.  .  .  .  Aliena  in- 
scriptio  ex  libro  petite  imposita  est  sepulcro  Homeri,  quod  vocatur, 
anliqua  anliqiio  mouumettto.  et  sic  permulta^  ex  Anthologia  et  aliis 
vetustis  libris  coniect;^  in   antiqua   anaglypba   sunt.^ 

With  regard  to  the  occurrence  of  the  earlier  forms  of  runes  on  later 
Danish  monuments,  the  words  of  W'immer  are  authoritative. 

De  leldre  formen  ikke  sjaelden  genfindes  p.."  nogle  af  do  yn^ste  mindes- 
ma?rker.* 

As  to  the  reproduction  of  earUer  foniis  at  a  comparatively  late 
date  on  the  Bewcastle  Cross,  Sievers  expressed  his  opinion  in  1891. 

Die  Inschrift  dieses  Steines  [Bewcastle  Cross]  bietet  so  vieles  Ratsel- 
hafte,  dass  man  sicli  zu  der  Annahme  gezwungen  sieht,  dass  wir  es  mit 
einer  jungen  Kopie  einer  alten,  nicht  verstAndenen  Inschrift  zu  tun 
haben.  Das  uralte  Ohcficoljni  neben  Xovitaten  me  Kynestcipa,  Wulf- 
here  statt  Ki/iii-,  -heri :  kt/ninges,  rices  statt  -ces :  gebid  .  .  .  st. 
gibid  .  .  .  wiire  bei  einer  Originalschrift  doch  ein  zu  starker  Anachro- 
nismus.  Und  wie  ware  sonst  das  unsinnige  gebid  heo  siniM  sowhula 
statt  gibidd<Bp  sinrce  sawloe  zu  erklaren  ?* 


^  Boeckh  1.  xxx.  -  Ibid.  1.  xxxi.  *  Ibid.   1.  xxx. 

*  Wimmer,  De  Danske  Runemindesiuarker,  1^  clxxxi  ;  cf.  Encyc.  Brit., 
11th  ed.,  5.  614:  '  It  appeai-s  certain  that  in  0.ramic  writings  stereotyped 
forms  wore  used  long  after  they  had  disappoai'ed  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  earher  ones,  thus 
substantiating  the  foregoing  statements. 

That  runic  inscriptions  were  carved  in  England  in  the  12th  cen- 
tury 2  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.'-'  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 


^  Annales  de  la  Soc.  Archiol.  de  Bruxelles  16.  70. 
^  For  the  Islo  of  Man,  see  p.  38,  note  4. 

^  See  Keyser,  List  of  Early  Norman  Tympana,  pp.  xxvi,  Ixix,  and  Fig.  137  ; 
Trans.  Cumb.  and  Westm.  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Soc,  N.  S.  3.  373. 

*  Trans.  Cumh.  and  Westm.  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Soc.  6.  308 ;  Early  Sculpt. 
Crosses,  p.  93. 

*  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  pp.  68  ff .     Victor  calls  the  runes  essentially  Norse, 
and  the  language  Middle  EngUsh  {Die  North.   Runeyisteine,  p.  16,  note  2). 

8  Ibid.,  p.  123.     Victor  says  {ibid.):  'Das  nord.  Runcn-M  (friiher  "  R  ") 
ergab    .  .  .    sofort   den   nichtenglischcn   Charakter   der   Inschrift.' 

'  Wimmer,   De  Danske   Runemindesmcerker   V.   cxxxvi-vii ;   Keyser,   List 
of  Norman  Tympana,  p.  xxvi. 
8  Wimmer  P.  Ixvi;  cf.  2.  317. 
^  Wimmer  P.  clxxix. 
1"  Mon.  Hist.  Brit.  Church,  p.  207. 

^^  Noreen,  Altisland.  und  Altnoriv.  Oram.,  3d  ed.,  p.  8. 
"  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  Lindisjarne  Gospels  of 
about  950. 

On  the  basis  of  this  phonological  examination  [conducted  at  some 
length]  wc  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,  dorstoe,  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. 

Unggel. 

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  vSweet'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  imcet,  in  the 
following  sentence  :  '  Her  wit  habba5  hielo,  gif  Drihten  unc  wile 
fultumian  ;  and  gif  he  forhiged  uncet  fyrenfulle,  {Donne  habbacJ  wit 
her  byrgene  in   ^issum  eorSscraefe.'      Here  it  stands,  parallel  with 

^  Academy  (London)  37.   153-4. 

*  Pub.  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  17.  389-90.  A  better  reading  of 
one  of  the  words  of  the  Leiden  Riddle,  cnyissan  for  cnyssa  (Schlutter, 
Anglia  32.  387),  only  confirm;^  my  general  conclusion.  Brandl  (see  p.  14, 
above)  speaks  of  the  lines  as  being  '  partly  in  metrical  confusion  '  (p.  139). 

3  Archceologia  28.  359. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  17  (33) 


246  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

unc,  1  in  a  text  which  has  some  northern  peculiarities  [gesegon  for 
gesdwon,  ccgan  for  cJegan,  in  for  on),  but  also  some  which  are  as 
clearly  Late  West  Saxon  [specan  for  sprecan,  gyt  for  glet,  drihten  for 
dryhten,  pince^  for  pynceff,  gehyrde  for  gehJerde,  miccle  for  micle, 
nceddran  for  ncrdran)} 

In  like  manner,  incit  occurs  in  the  poetical  Genesis  A  (2732,  28S0), 
side  by  side  with  unc  (2504). 

As  neither  incit  nor  uncet  appears  in  any  other  Germanic  tongue, 
we  have  no  means  of  determining  whether  -it  or  -et  is  earlier,  save  on 
the  basis  of  Old  English  alone.  Now  as  the  Genesis  A  is  presumably 
earlier  than  the  MalcJms,  and  as  the  former  has  -it  (twice),  while  the 
latter  has  -et,  it  would  seem,  though  the  evidence  is  scanty,  that 
-it  is  the  older  ending  ;  and  this  appears  to  be  the  view  of  Sievers, 
who  writes^  incit  and  uncit  {?).  Accordingly,  the  form  on  the  Ruth- 
well  Cross,  with  its  ending  -et,  would,  by  this  test,  be  rather  late. 

Again,  the  speUing  of  the  runic  form  is  very  peculiar.  It  is  usu- 
ally transliterated  as  ungket  or  ungcet.  Now  the  substitution  of  the 
rune  ng  (a  single  letter)  for  n  is  sufficiently  remarkable  ;  but,  in 
addition  to  this,  I  am  convinced  that  the  next  following  letter  is 
not  c  (or  k),  as  in  the  cwomu^  of  the  west  side,  right  border,  but 
rather  g  (the  rune  X).  Hence  we  have  the  extraordinary  form, 
ungget,  which  looks  as  though  the  sculptor  had  carved  a  word  whose 
spelling  was  unfamiliar  to  him,  and  had  done  it  bunglingly.^ 

Inc  and  unc,  the  much  more  usual  forms  of  the  dual  dative  and 
accusative,  continue  on  into  Middle  English,  occurring  as  late  as 

^  Shrine,  p.  42.  ^  All  on  p.  42. 

3  Old  English  Grammar,  tr.  Cook,  §  332. 

■*  The  comparison  with  the  first  letter  of  cwomu  may  be  conveniently 
made  on  the  basis  of  the  photograph  of  the  Edinburgh  cast  (reproduced 
by  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  447),  by  counting  down  the 
right  border  to  the  eleventh  line,  not  including  the  upper  margin.  The  first 
three  letters,  CWO,  are  just  above  the  bunch  of  fruit  over  the  bird  whose 
head  is  turned   to  the  left ;  the  rune  for  C  looks  something  like  a  trident. 

^  The  word  can  be  made  out  by  any  one  who  has  access  to  a  good 
photograph  of  this  side  (see  Victor's  Fig.  1,  for  example  ;  much  less  clear 
in  my  Fig.  13  a)  ;  it  is  situated  on  the  left  border  of  the  east  side,  nearly 
opposite  the  hand  of  Christ  in  the  group  with  the  blind  man,  and  also 
nearly  opposite  the  foot  of  the  bird  whose  head  is  turned  to  the  left. 
The   word  is  divided  between  two  lines,  thus  : 

UUNG  (three  letters) 
GET 
the  first  U  belonging  to  the  pieceding  word. 
(34) 


Runic  Inscriptions  247 

1250,  and  sporadically  even  later.  Since  the  dual  of  the  first  and 
second  personal  pronouns  is  thus  recognized  for  about  two  hundred 
years  after  the  Norman  Conquest,  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  dual 
form  should  occur  on  the  Rutliwell  Cross  at  a  late  period  ;  and,  as 
we  have  seen  above,  the  evidence  favors  a  late  period  rather  than  an 
earlier,  (1)  because  the  only  other  occurrence  of  the  word  is  in  a  text 
with  late  spellings,  (2)  because  -et,  the  ending  in  both  examples  of  the 
word,  seems  late,  as  if  due  to  lack  of  stress,  and  (3)  because  the  sculptor 
makes  two  blunders  in  the  one  word,  showing  perhaps  that  it  was 
specially  unfamiliar  when  he  worked. 

From  The  Dream  of  the  Rood  is  taken  a  much  briefer  inscription, 
occurring  on  a  reliquary  at  Brussels,  reputed  to  contain  a  fragment 
of  the  True  Cross.  The  inscription  was  engraved  on  a  strip  of  silver 
which  formerly  encircled  the  reliquary,  and  which  was  found  when  the 
latter  was  taken  to  pieces  at  the  instance  of  Professor  Logeman.^ 
In  order  to  understand  its  relation  to  the  corresponding  fragments 
on  the  Ruthwell  Cross,  I  give  first  the  adapted  lines  of  The  Dream 
of  the  Rood  (42  (beginning),  44,  45,  48)  : 

Bifode  ic.     .     .     . 


Rod  wass  ic  ara^red  ;  tlhof  ic  ricne  Cyning, 
heofona  Hlaford  ;  hyldan  me  ne  dorste. 

Bysmeredon  hie  unc  butu  aetgaedere.     Eall  ic  waes  mid  blode 
bestemed. 

Here  the  Ruthwell  Cross  has  (Victor's  readings)  : 

ic  riicnai  Kyning, 
heafunaes  Hlafard  ;  haelda  ic  ni  dorstas. 
Bismsersedu  ungget^  men  ba  3etgad[r]e. 
Ic  .  .  .  .  mi{D  blodae  bistemid. 

It  is  evident  that  the  monumental  inscription  omits  lines  and 
hemistichs,  and  substitutes  one  word  or  form  for  another. 

The  Brussels  inscription  is  not  continuous  on  the  silver  plate  of 
the  reliquary,  but  divided  as  follows  : 


1  See  his    brochure,    U Inscription   Anglo-Saxonne   du   Reliquaire   de    In 
Vraie  Croix,  1891,  pp    3,  6. 
^  Victor,  ungket ;  see  p.  34,  above. 

(35) 


248  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

tRODISMINNAMAGEOICRICNECYNINGBvERBYFIGYNDEB 
LODEBESTEMED 

rA 

SRODEHET^I^LM^R 

WYRICAN7 

ADiELWOLDHYSBEROl^O 

CRISTET0L0FEF0R^LFRICESSAVLEHYRABER0^0R2 

This  gives  us  : 

'  Rod  is  min  nama  ;  geo  ic  ricne  Cyning  bser, 
byfigynde,  blode  bestemed.     I^as  rode  het 
iE[)lm£er  wyrican,  and  Adelwold  hys  ber6t)o[r], 
Criste  to  lofe,  for  ^Ifrices  saule  hyra  berol)or  ; ' 
which  may  be  thus  translated  : 

'  Rood  is  my  name  ;  of  old  I  bore  the  mighty  King,  trembhng, 
bedewed  with  blood.     This  rood  had  ^Ethelmaer  made,  and 
yEthelwold  his  brother,  to  the  glory  of  Christ,  for  the  soul 
of  /Elfric  their  brother.' 
The  Brussels  inscription  thus  proceeds  with  at  least  as  much 
freedom  as  that  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross.     The  byfigynde  is  a  trans- 
posed adaptation  of  Bifode  (42)  ;  44  is  materially  changed  ;  and  the 
phrase  from  48,  while  remaining  unaltered,  is  moved  up  several  lines 
so  that  the  effect  of  the  whole  is  that  of  extreme  condensation,  with 
line  44,  retaining  ic  rJcne  Cyning  as  its  core,  becoming  dominant. 
As  to  its  bearing  upon  the  date  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross  inscription, 
Logeman^  assigns  the  Brussels  inscription  to  about  the  year  1100, 
and  this  can  hardly  be  far  from  the  truth.     In  any  case,  I  presume  that 
no  expert,  in  view  of  the  phonology,  would  date  it  earHer  than  1000. 
To  the  words  cited  as  proof  by  Logeman  might  be  added  the  Late 
West  Saxon  gro'^  and  wyrican  ;  the  latter  may  be  compared  with  the 
wyricean  of   the  Blickling  Homilies  ^,   commonly  referred  to  A.  D. 
971,  and  the  wyrihta,  -e  of  the  Lindisfarne  Gospels  (ca.  950).    The 

^  Logeman  reads  D,  but  the  facsimile  does  not  seem  to  bear  him  out.  We 
clearly  have  a  Latinized  form  such  as  is  often  found  in  Bede's  Ecclesiastical 
History  ;  this  is  borne  out  by  the  A  of  Adelwold,  for  A'2. 

^  On  the  back  of  the  reliquary  is  the  Old  English  sentence  : 
DRAHMALMEWORHTE  ; 
which  resolves  itself  into  : 

'  Drahmal  me  worhte.' 
This,  in  modern  English,  means  :  '  Drahmal  made  me.' 

3  P.    10. 

*  Bill  bring,  Altenglisches  Elementarhuch,  §  298. 

6  75.   13. 

(36) 


Runic  Inscriptions  249 

Brussels  inscription,  then,  indicates  that  The  Dream  of  the  Rood 
was  drawn  upon  in  the  11th  or  12th  century  for  epigraphic  purposes, 
and  therefore  tends  to  confirm  any  independent  presumption  that 
the  Ruthwell  Cross  inscription  is  to  be  assigned  to  a  late  period,  or 
at  least  does  nothing  to  invalidate  such  a  presumption. 

With  reference  to  the  runic  inscriptions  on  the  Bewcastle  Cross 
which  can  be  read  with  any  certainty,  these  are  limited  by  Victor  ^ 
to  Cynihurug  and  {Ge)ssu{s),  on  the  north  face;  Gessus  Cristtus 
IKristtus],  on  the  west  above  the  figure  of  Christ;  with  HwcBtr{e)d 
(1.  2)  .  .  .  gar  (1.  4),  Alcfripu  (11.  5—6,  very  probably),  cyning  (1.  6), 
and  Osw[iu]ng  (1.  7,  very  probably),  in  the  main  inscription.  Of 
cBJt  Al  he  says  (p.  15)  :  '  Alle  beschadigt,  aber,  wie  ich  glaube, 
vorhanden,'  so  that  he  would  also  read  cBJt. 

I  will  limit  my  examination  here  to  two  words,  the  name  Gessus 
Kristtus  and  the  preposition  ceft,  reserving  a  consideration  ol  Alcfripu 
for  a  later  place. 

Gessus  Kristtus. 

Above  the  figure  of  Christ  on  the  west  face  of  the  Bewcastle  Cross 
are  the  runic  letters  spelling  j-Gessu[s]  Kristtus.^  The  only  perfect 
parallels  to  this  with  which  I  am  acquainted  are  to  be  found  on  the 
censers  from  Hesselager  and  Kullerup,  in  Denmark.  The  former 
reads  in  runes,  Gesus  Krist,  and  the  latter,  t  Gesus  Krt.  The  former, 
and  perhaps  the  latter,  was  made  by  one  Jacob  the  Red.  The 
spelling  Gesus,  according  to  the  highest  authority  on  the  subject, 
Professor  Wimmer,  was  a  customary  spelling  at  this  period,  the  latest 
years  of  the  13th  century. 

Gesus  er  en  almindelig  skrivenmade  pa  denne  tid  ved  siden  af  iesus.' 
Sprog  og  runeformen  viser  at  de  ma  henferes  til  sidste  halvdel  af  det 
13  arh.,  naermest  det's  slutning.* 

The  only  English  parallel  to  this  use  of  g  for  ;  which  I  know  of 
is  on  the  Hawkswell  Cross,  where  the  inscription  reads  : 

HAEC  EST  CRUX  SCI  3ACOBI5 
This  must,  of  course,  be  comparatively  late,  unless  the  3  be  I,  as 
one  copyist  read  it.® 


^  Die  North.  Runensteine,  p.  16.  ^  See  p.  25. 

^  Wimmer  4^   115. 

*  Wimmer  4^  136-7. 

^  Cf.  Allen,  Mon.  Hist.  Brit.  Church,    pp.   129,    218;  Browne,  Conv.  of 
Heft.,  pp.  215-6. 

*  See  Browne,  Conv.  of  Hepf.,  p.  217. 

(37) 


250  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

^ft. 
Of  the  whole  long  inscription  on  the  west  face  of  the  Bewcastle 
Cross,  the  word  ajt,  or  cejt,  can  be  read  at  least  as  certainly  as  anything 
else.  It  is  not  elsewhere  to  be  found  in  English  in  the  sense  it 
bears  here,  '  to  the  memory  of,'  though  cejter  {-csr,  -ar,  -e)  occurs, 
according  to  the  customary  readings,  on  the  Dewsbury,  Colling- 
ham,  Yarm,  and  Thornhill  stones  in  Yorkshire,  and  the  Falstone 
stone  in  Northumberland,  very  near  Bewcastle.  ^  The  lapidary 
inscriptions  excepted,  neither  Old  Enghsh,  nor  Enghsh  of  any 
later  period,  knows  either  aft  or  cefter  in  this  sense. ^  On  the 
other  hand,  these  words,  in  a  great  variety  of  forms,  are  common 
in  the  commemorative  runic  stones  of  the  Continent,  and  in  those 
reared  by  Scandinavians  in  the  Northern  and  Western  Islands,^ 
and  especially  the  Isle  of  Man.*  It  is  natural,  then,  to  assume  Scan- 
dinavian influence  from  the  West  as  accounting  for  the  use  of  ceft 
in  this  sense  on  the  Bewcastle  Cross.  Now  as  the  Isle  of  Man  ap- 
proaches to  within  about  33  miles  of  the  Cumberland  coast,  and 
its  northern  point  is  distant  only  about  70  miles  from  Bewcastle 
(55  or  so  from  Ruthwell),  it  is  from  there  that  the  influence  is  likely 


1  Sweet,  Oldest  English  Texts,  pp.  127,  128,  129  ;  Victor,  Die  North.  Runen- 
steine,  pp.  17,  19,  22  ;  Plates  4.  10 ;  5.  13,  14 ;  7.  17-19  ;  Allen,  Mon.  Hist. 
Brit.  Church,  pp.  211-2,  218;  Browne,  Conv.  of  Hept.,  p.  205;  Browne, 
Theodore  and  Wilfrith,  p.  162.  The  inscription  on  the  Yarm  stone  must, 
at  least  in  its  present  form,  be  late,  if  the  y  of  ysetae  is  correctly  read  (see 
the  last  reference) ;  Canon  Greenwell,  however  [Catalogue,  pp.  112-5),  follow- 
ing Skeat,  reads  gi,  but  says  the  character  is  indistinct. 

2  Neither  the  Bosworth-Toller  nor  the  New  English  Dictionary  recognizes 
this  meaning. 

^  Anderson,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  in  Scotland,  p.  xxviii;  Allen,  ibid.  3.  19, 
37 ;  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christiaii  Times  2.  227  ff. ;  cf.  Noreen, 
Altisldnd.  und  Altnorw.  Gram.,  pp.  15-16. 

*  These  stones  are  as  follows :  Andreas  I  (Kermode,  Catalogue  of  the  Manks 
Crosses,  2d  ed.,  p.  35),  Andreas  III  (p.  36),  Andreas  V  (p.  37),  Ballaugh 
(p.  37),  Braddan  I  (p.  38),  Braddan  III  (p.  40),  Braddan  IV  (p.  41),  Bride 
(p.  42),  Conchan  (p.  43),  German  II  (p.  45),  Michael  I  (p.  47),  Michael  III 
(p.  49),  Michael  IV  (p.  51),  Michael  V  (p.  52).  Two  typical  inscriptions  are 
these :  Andreas  III :  '  Sontulf  hin  Suarti  raisti  krus  f)ona  aftir  Arinbiaurk 
kuinu  sina  '  {Sandulf  the  Black  erected  this  cross  to  the  memory  of  Arinbjorg  his 
ivife) ;  Michael  V :  '  f  lualfir  sunr  J>uruLfs  bins  Raujja  risti  krus  J)ono  aft 
Fri{)ii  mujjur  sino  -|-  '  (Joalf,  son  of  Thorolf  the  Red,  raised  this  cross  to  the 
memory  of  Fritha,  his  mother).     Cf.  Kermode,  Manx  Crosses,  pp.  195,  201. 

(38) 


I 


Runic  Inscriptions  251 

to  have  come.^  The  Manx  stones  in  question  are  assigned  to  the 
years  1050—1100,  or  later.^  Hence  we  gain  an  important  terminus 
a  quo  for  all  the  English  stones  bearing  cejt  or  cefter  in  this  sense. 

^Eft  Alkfrifm  is  plain,  but  the  words  following  are  a  little  doubtful. ^ 

^FTAL  aUe  beschadigt,  aber,  wie  ich  glaube,  vorhanden ;  CFRI 
(dies  mit  Nebenstrichen  rechts  ?  und  vielleicht  noch:  =  ]^''  ?  auf  der 
Grenze)  .  .  .  pti  .  .  .  (U  ?  mit   Querstrichen).* 

IFTIR,  after,  preposition  governing  the  accusative.  The  word  is 
found  with  numerous  variations  on  the  Swedish,  Danish,  and  Manx 
stones— a/<er,  aft,  auft,  eft,  aftir.  eftir,  oftir,  aiftir,  and  iftir  as  in  the 
present  case.^ 

I  samme  Betydning  forekommer  aft  i  mange  Runeindskrifter  isa?r 
fra  9de  og  lOde  Aarh.^ 

The  Northmen  would  seem  to  have  made  their  way  into  western 
Yorkshire  by  way  of  Cumberland.' 

Before  the  Normans  came,  our  district  [the  diocese  of  Carlisle]  was 
Scandinavian.  .  .  .  There  is  reason  to  believe  .  .  .  that  Norse  began 
to  settle  the  western  parts  not  much  later  [than  876],  coming  in  from  the 
Isle  of  Man  and  Ireland.  ...  In  the  course  of  200  years  their  descendants 
became  leading  landowners,  as  we  see  from  Norse  names  in  twelfth 
century  records.  The  map  (over  leaf)  sketches  the  probable  distribu- 
tion of  races.  Naturally,  the  art  of  the  district  must  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  such  people.  .  .  .  We  have  then  remains  in  Man  of  a  kindred 
race  to  ours  in  the  age  before  the  Normans  came ;  and  we  find  resem- 
blances between  the  Manx  crosses  and  some  of  ours  both  in  subject  and 
in  style. ^ 


1  Cf.  p.  102.  Rousseau  (Annales  de  la  Soc.  Archeol.  de  Bruxelles  16.  71) 
even  conjectures,  in  allusion  to  the  local  tradition  that  the  Ruthwell  Cross 
had  come  by  sea,  that  it  may  have  been   carved    in    the   Isle  of  Man. 

2  Noreen  {Gram.,  p.  16)  assigns  the  date  1050-1100;  Kermode  (p.  1) 
says:  '  The  greater  number  appear  to  belong  to  the  early  part  of  the  12th 
century';  in  the  Saga-book  of  the   Viking  Cluh  1.  369,  he  says  1050-1150. 

^  Colhngwood,  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  p.  45. 

*  Victor,  p.  15.  I  may  add  that  ceft  seemed  to  me,  on  an  inspection  of  the 
stone  on  August  26,  1909,  to  be,  if  anything,  the  plainest  word  in  the  in- 
scription. 

5  Goudie,  in  Proc.  Soc.  Antiq.  Scot.,  N.   S.   1.  152. 

^  Bugge,  Norges  Indskrifter  med  de  Jl£ldre  Rimer,  p.  33.  See  also  Stephens, 
Old-North.  Runic  Mon.,  passim. 

'  E.  A.  Freeman,  in  Encyc.   Brit.,  9th  ed.,  8.  283,  note. 

^  Colhngwood,  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  pp.  290-1,  and  map  on  pp.  292-3. 

(39) 


252  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

They  [runic  monuments]  are  restricted  in  Scotland  to  the  area  which 
was  conquered  and  colonised  by  the  Norsemen  in  the  eighth  and  ninth 
centuries,  comprehending  the  Isles  of  Shetland,  Orkney,  the  Hebrides, 
and  Man.^ 

According  to  the  testimony  of  tliis  word,'^  then,  the  form,  if  not 
Scandinavian,  seems  at  least  to  point  to  Scandinavian  infhience,  and 
to  be  late  rather  than  early.^ 

C.  Metrical  Peculiarities. 
We  next  come  to  the  metre  of  the  poetic  fragments  found  on  the 
RuthweU  Cross.    This  I  have  discussed,  in  comparison  with  the  metre 
of  the  standard  version  of  the  poem  excerpted  (seep. 23),  in  the  paper 
referred  to  above,^  with  the  result  here  summarized  : 

1.  The  poetic  fragments  have  long  lines,  while  the  earliest  Old 
English  poetry^ — Ccedmon's  Hymn,  Bede's  Death-Song,  the  Leiden 
Riddle,  and  the  Bonifatian  Proverb — has  only  short  lines. 

2.  The  portions  corresponding  to  lines  39—42  of  The  Dream  of 
the  Rood  cannot  be  made  to  scan  or  alliterate  properly,  while  the 
corresponding  lines  of  The  Dream  of  the  Rood  are  unexceptionable 
in  this  respect,  thus  confirming  in  a  general  way  the  view  of  Sweet 
{Oldest  English  Texts,  p.  125)  :  '  The  sculptor  or  designer  of  the 
Ruthweh  stone,  having  only  a  limited  space  at  his  command,  selected 
from  the  poem  such  verses  as  he  thought  most  appropriate,  and 
engraved  them  wherever  he  had  room  for  them.' 

D.  Historical  Subject-Matter. 

Finally,  we  may  consider  the  runic  inscriptions  with  reference 
to  historical  subject-matter,  premising  that  as  the  memorial 
high  crosses  of  Ireland  do  not  antedate  the  12th  century,^  as  the 


1  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2.  226-7. 

^  The  word  Alcfrifeu  points  in  the  same  direction ;  cf .  pp.  42-43. 

^  The  two  words,  ricoes  Dryhtnces,  which  were  read  in  1615  on  the  head 
of  a  cross  found  at  Bewcastle,  were  not  necessarily  on  our  cross  (see  p.  122, 
below) ;  if  they  were,  the  only  mark  of  age  is  -cbs,  and  this,  as  I  have  shown 
{Pub.  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  17.  388),  is  no  binding  proof  of  early 
dates,  Kluge  quotes  ll/ces  twice,  and  domces  once,  from  a  brief  MS.  of 
1050-1100,  Eng.  Stud.  8.  477),  even  if  we  disregard  the  possibiHty  of  copying 
from  an  earUer  inscription  (see  above,  pp.  11,31). 

«  Op.  cit.  17.  375-381. 

6  Cf.  p.  54,  note  3. 

(40) 


Maughan's 


Haigh's 


wnmN 


AitwPrmrF 


+  [TH]  I  S  S  IG:  B  [E  A]  CN: 

(THI]1N:SETT0N:H 

W  [^  TIRED  :  W  [MTE] 

GAR:ALWFWOL 

[THIJ|:  AFT:  ALC  FRI 

(T  H  U] :  E  A  N  :  C  Y  N  I  [I  N  G] 

EAC:0SWIU|ING1: 

+  G  E  B  I  D  :  H  E 

0  :  S  I  N  N  A  :  S  A  W  [H  UJ  L  A. 


4-[TH]IS:SIGBEC 
UN:SETT^E:H 
WiETREDrWIT 
G  .*:  R  :  F  L  W  0  L  I) 
U:ROETB|ER]T: 
U  M  ^E  :  G  Y  N  [I  N  G]  : 
A  L  C  F  R  I  IT  H]  ^ :  G 
E  G  I  D  ^  D  : 
HISSUM:SAULE. 


(From  Maughan,   Memoir,   p.   33.) 


niHflTTFN 

pmnHJM 

i->K!n'X'FHMn 
hnhhFrrnn 


(From   Haigli,    Conquest  of  Britain.) 
Fig.  33. 


Runic  Inscriptions  253 

Danish  memorial  stones  are  of  the  9th  century  and  later/  and  as 
those  of  the  Isle  of  Man  probably  he  between  1050  and  1100,  or  later,- 
it  is  antecedently  improbable  that  there  should  be  such  a  memorial 
cross  in  the  England  of  the  7th  century. 

First,  as  to  the  RuthweU  Cross.  For  some  time  it  was  supposed, 
on  the  testimony  of  George  Stephens,^  that  words  which  might  be 
translated,  Ccedmon  me  made,  were  to  be  found  near  the  top  of  the 
cross  ;  but  this  was  completely  disproved  by  Vietor*  in  1885,  had  it 
not  been  sufficiently  discredited  already  by  the  impossibihty  of 
making  any  sense  of  the  words  supposed  to  stand  there. 

Next,  as  to  the  Bewcastle  Cross.  In  1857,  Rev.  John  Maughan, 
who  had  previously^  come  to  quite  a  different  result,  interpreted  the 
long  inscription  to  mean  ^  :  '  t  Hwaetred,  Wasthgar,  and  Alwfwold  set 
up  this  slender  pillar  in  memory  of  Alcfrid,  ane  king,  and  son  of 
Oswy.    tPray  thou  for  them,  their  sins,  their  souls.' 

About  the  same  time,  Rev.  Daniel  H.  Haigh,  an  antiquary  of 
somewhat  similar  standing,  rendered  the  same  inscription  thus : 
'  Hwaetred,  Witgaer,  Felwold,  and  Roetbert  set  up  this  beacon  of 
victory  in  memory  of  Alcfrid.  Pray  for  his  soul.''  This  he  after- 
wards revised  to  read  :  '  This  memorial  set  Hwaetred  in  the  great 
pestilence  year  to  Roetbert  to  King  Alcfride.  Pray  for  their  souls.'* 
A  few  years  later,  Haigh  rendered  ^ :  '  This  memorial  Hwaetred  set 
and  carved  this  monument  after  the  prince,  after  the  King  Alcfrid  ; 
pray  for  their  souls.' 

George  Stephens,  the  runologist,  inclined  to  Maughan's  version, 
and  gave  this  rendering  in  his  large  work -^^  :  '  This  spiring  sign-pillar 
set  was  by  Hwaetred,  Wothgar,  Olufwolth,  after  Alcfrith,  sometime 
king  and  son  of  Oswi.    fPray  for  his  soul's  great  sin.'^^ 


1  P.  32. 

2  P.  39,  note  2. 

'  See  my  edition  of  The  Dream  of  the  Rood,  pp.  xii  ff . 

*  Die  Norih.  Runensteine,  p.  12. 

^  Archceological  Journal  11.  131-3. 

®  Memoir,  p.  18 ;  see  Fig.  33. 

'  Maughan,  Memoir,  p.  33  ;  see  Fig.  33. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  36. 

^  The  Conquest  of  Britain  (London,  1861),  p.  37  ;  see  Fig.   33. 

10  Old-North.  Runic  Mon.  1.  402. 

11  Cf.   Browne,   Conv.    of  Hept.,    p.    203 ;    Collingwood,    in    Victoria   Hist. 
Cumb.  1.  278. 

(41) 


254  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

These  proper  names,  combined  with  others  supposed  to  be  read 
on  other  parts  of  the  cross/  furnished  materials  for  the  hypothesis 
that  the  cross  was  erected  in  memory  of  Alcfrith,  son  of  Oswy,  a 
personage  mentioned  by  Bede  as  belonging  to  the  7th  century. ^ 

Unfortunately,  the  readings  upon  which  these  interpretations 
repose  will  not  bear  the  test  of  critical  investigation,  and  we  accordingly 
find  them  largely  rejected  by  Vietor,  who  has  published  the  most 
scholarly  account  of  these  readings.^ 

The  combinations  and  conjectures  of  Maughan  and  Haigh  are  thus 
seen,  apart  from  their  mutual  contradictions,  to  fall  to  the  ground, 
except  for  such  support  as  they  may  derive  from  two  or  three  proper 
names.  Of  a  7th  century  Hwsetred  nothing  is  known  ;  one  of  ca.  701 
was  a  nobleman  of  East  AngUa,*  and  another,  abbot  of  Reculver  in 
Kent,  belongs  to  ca.  760.  The  name  to  which  most  importance  has 
been  attached  is  undoubtedly  Alcfrithu,  and,  as  Vietor  is  strongly 
inclined  to  believe  that  it  may  be  read  upon  the  cross,  I  will 
examine  it  at  some  length. 

Alcfripu. 
Alcfripu,  or  Alkjripu,  seems  reasonably  clear  (see  p.  39).  If  cor- 
rectly read,  it  cannot,  however,  be  masculine,  as  commonly  as- 
sumed. Following  ceft,  it  should  be  an  accusative  ;  but  the  accusa- 
tive of  Alcjrip  would  be  the  same  as  the  nominative,  unless  it  were 
Latinized,  when  it  would  be  Alcfridum,  not  Alcfripu.  It  would  be 
much  easier  to  understand  it  as  feminine,  especially  if  we  assume 

1  Thus  Maughan  says  (p.  27)  with  reference  to  certain  runes  that  he  found 
on  the  south  side:  '  The  four  hues  on  this  side  of  the  Cross  are  evidently 
connected  with  each  other,  and  are  to  be  read  thus  :  — "  fruman  gear  Ecgfrithu 
kyninges  rices  thses,"  —  in  the  first  year  {of  the  reign)  of  Egfrid,  king  of  this 
kingdom  of  N orthumhria ,  i.  e.,  A.  D.  670,  in  which  year  we  may  conclude  that 
this  monument  was  erected.'  Here  Haigh  read  (Maughan,  p.  37-8) :  '  Oswu 
Cyning  elt  Eanflad  Cyniburug  Ecgfrid  Cyng;  '  that  is:  'Oswy  king  the 
elder;  Eanflsed  ;  Cyniburug;  King  Egfrid.'  Vietor  (pp.  15-16)  can  make 
nothing  of  these  traces  of  letters.  Any  one  who  is  disposed  tj  verify  the 
above  results  might  attempt  it  on  the  basis  of  the  photographs  of  the 
south  face  (see  p.  27),  reading  what  he  can  find  on  that  border,  be- 
ginning from  below  ;  thus  above  the  lowest  interlacing:  -j-FRUMANGEAR 
(Maughan),  or  OSWUCYNINGELT  (Haigh),  etc.  These  runes  can  be  read 
as  well  from  the  photographs  as  from  the  stone  direct,  I  should  say. 

2  Hist.  Eccl.  3.   14,  21,  24,  25,  28;  5.   19;  Hist.  Abb.  2. 
^  Die  North.  Runensteine,  p.   16. 

*  Cf.  Searle,  Onomdsticon  Aiiglo-Saxonicum,  p.  309. 

(42) 


Runic  Inscriptions  255 

Norse  influence,  as  we  seem  bound  to  do  for  ceit.  The  a\t  Fripii  of 
Kirk  Michael  V,  among  the  inscriptions  of  the  Isle  of  Man  (see  p.  38, 
note  4),  will  at  once  suggest  itself.  That  such  a  feminine  proper  noun 
is  not  unexampled  in  the  Germanic  tongues  is  shown  by  Forste- 
mann's^  41  Old  High  German  feminines  in  -frida  (besides  8  in  -is), 
as  against  220  masculines,  the  3  instances  of  Asjridr  (fern.)  which 
Wimmer  finds  ^  in  Old  Danish  runic  inscriptions,  and  the  11th  cen- 
tury Ecferd  [for  Ecgfrith],  Eadhunes  'dohtey^  of  Old  English.  That 
there  is  no  celebrated  historic  woman  of  this  name  does  not  militate 
against  the  conclusion  that  Alcfripu,  if  so  we  must  read,  is  the  name 
of  a  woman,  and  not  of  a  man.  All  arguments  for  the  7th  century, 
derived  from  an  identification  of  the  person  named  on  the  cross 
with  the  under-king  of  Deira,  accordingly  fall  to  the  ground. 

As  the  border  between  the  two  lowest  panels  on  the  north  side 
of  the  Bewcastle  Cross  has  been  generally  assumed  to  bear  the  name 
Cynnburug   (or   Cynihurug),   I  will  touch  briefly  upon   this  name. 

Cynnhurug} 
Nicolson's  letter  in  168.S  already  records  the  form.  Victor  is  certain 
that  he  can  read  Cyniburug  ;  but  any  one  can  see  from  the  photo- 
graph that  the  letter  just  before  the  (angular)  B  is  a  vertical  crossed 
by  a  bar,  and  not  a  mere  vertical — hence  an  N,  and  not  an  I.  Cynn- 
burug is  compounded  of  cynn  and  buriig,  and  each  of  these  may  be 
examined  separately. 

As  the  first  element  of  a  compound,  Cyni-  is  the  predominant 
early  form,  followed  by  Cyne-  and  Cyn-.  Thus  in  the  early  part 
of  the  Liber  Vita  (ca.  800)  there  are  114  instances  of  Cyni-,  and  only 
7  of  Cyn-,  Cyniburg  occurring  three  times  (once  also  in  Bede's 
Ecclesiastical  History).  As  to  Cyne-,  it  appears  as  early  as  692,  but 
is  much  less  frequent  than  Cyni-  for  a  generation  or  so  after  this. 
Cyn-  (in  Cynulfus)  is  found  in  758,  but  occurs  far  less  frequently 
in  the  early  period  than  the  other  two  forms  ^.  On  the  other  hand, 
cynn  is  not  only  the  prevailing  form  for  the  simple  word  in  the  Lin- 
disfarne  Gospels  of  ca.  950,  but  occurs  three  times  in  that  text  as 
the  first   element  of   compounds,  while    cyn-   is    found    but    once. 

^  Althochdeutsches  Namenbuch,  2d  ed.,  col.  527. 

2  Wimmer  1.  35,  57,  63,  66;  4^.  xxxix. 

3  Kemble,  Cod.  Dipl.  No.  925  (4.  263),  Thorpe,  Diplomatarium,  p.  621  ; 
Earle,  Land  Charters,  p.  275. 

4  See  p.  26. 

5  Cf.  F.  Tupper,  Jr.,  '  The  Philological  Legend  of  Cynewulf,'  Pub.  Mod. 
Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  26.  240  ff. 

(48) 


256  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

Cynn  and  kynn  then  occur,  along  with  other  forms,  until  the 
16th  century.^ 

With  -burug  the  case  is  even  clearer.  In  the  period  covered  by 
Sweet's  Oldest  English  Texts  it  does  not  occur,  save  for  a  very  few 
instances  in  the  Namur  manuscript  of  Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History, 
written  in  a  Continental  hand,  with  many  later  corrections,  and, 
as  Plummer^  tells  us,  quite  worthless  for  the  settlement  of  the  text. 
Burug,  moreover,  does  not  occur  in  the  writings  of  Alfred.  But 
again  in  the  Lindisfarne  Gospels  it  is  the  predominant  form,  occur- 
ring no  fewer  than  22  times.  Afterward  it  continues,  as  burug  and 
buruh,  to  appear  down  the  centuries  till  the  14th,  and  finally  becomes 
our  modern  borough. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  both  cynn  and  burug  are  comparatively 
late  forms,  which  do  not  flourish  till  the  10th  century,  and  persist 
long  after  that.  Hence  the  form  Cynnburug  could  not  be  expected 
till  the  10th  century  at  earhest,  and  then,  if  at  all,  in  the  North  of 
England  rather  than  the  South. 

2.  LATIN 
A.  Forms  of  Letters. 
If  now  we  turn  to  the  Latin  inscriptions,  we  are  to  consider  first 
the  forms  of  the  letters.     Only  C,  G,  O,  and  S  call  for  any  particular 
remark. 

In  the  Latin  inscriptions  on  the  front  and  back  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross 
all  the  letters  are  capitals,  with  the  exception  of  the  G,  which  is  of  the 
minuscule  form.  The  letters  C,  O,  and  S  are  of  the  angular  shape ;  and 
the  M  is  of  the  double  H  pattern,  which  occurs  on  the  crosses  at  Llant- 
wit  Major,    Glamorganshire,   and  in  the   early   Hiberno-Saxon   MSS.^ 

The  lozenge-shaped,  or  diamond-shaped,  O  has  sometimes  been 
thought  to  indicate  an  early  date.  That  it  is  found  in  manuscripts 
at  a  comparatively  early  period  cannot  be  denied^  ;  but  Dr.  G.  F.  War- 
ner, Keeper  of  the  Manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum,  refers  me  to 
an  instance  in  the  Leabhar  na  hUidhre,  or  Book  of  the  Dun  Cow, 
written  by  a  man  who  died  in  1106^  ;  and  other  examples  occur  (the 

^  New  Eng.  Diet. 

^  Bcedce  Opera  Histcrica  1.  Ixxxvii. 

3  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland,  p.  448.  The  Burlington  Maga- 
zine of  June  15,  1912  has  a  plate  (p.  145)  of  all  the  forms  of  Latin 
letters  occurring  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross. 

*  See  Lethaby's  remarks  in  Burl.  Mag.,  as  above. 

»  Cf.  Nat.  MSS.  of  Ireland,  Part  1,  No.  xxxvii. 

(44) 


The  Figure- Sculpture  257 

square  C  also  at  Piacenza)  on  panels  in  the  cathedral  of  Piacenza 
(1122),^  and  on  the  gate  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Ursin  at  Bourges 
(ca.  1150). 2  The  inscription  on  the  Brussels  rehquary,  which  Loge- 
man^  assigns  to  about  1100,  has  various  examples  of  the  angular 
C,  G,  and  O.  There  is  therefore  no  necessity  of  postulating  an  earlier 
date  on  account  of  this  peculiar  O.  In  fact,  according  to  Caumont, 
the  lozenge-shaped  O  becomes  more  frequent  in  lapidary  inscriptions 
the  later  the  date  within  this  period  in  France. 

Plus  tard,  quelques  alterations  seulement  s'introduisirentdans  la  forme 
de  certaines  lettres.  Les  c  devinrent  quelquefois  carres  ;  les  o  appro- 
cherent  de  la  forme  d'un  losange.* 

B.  Language.  —  C.  Metrical  Peculiarities. 
D.  Historical  Subject-Matter. 
As  to  the  language,  metrical  peculiarities,  or  subject-matter  of 
the  Latin  inscriptions,  there  is  almost  nothing  to  be  said.  The 
spelling  natibitate,  for  nativitate,  occurs,  but  I  do  not  know  what 
bearing,  if  anj^,  this  has  upon  the  question  of  date.  There  is  no 
Latin  verse  ;  and  the  subject-matter  is  taken  from  the  Gospel  history 
or  from  early  Christian  legend,  and  so  affords  no  clue. 


II.  THE  FIGURE -SCULPTURE 

The  figure-sculpture  embraces,  as  we  have  seen,  figures  or  groups 
whose  subjects  are  taken  from  the  New  Testament,  one  from  early 
Christian  legend,  and  two  of  the  nature  of  genre.  These  need  to  be 
treated  somewhat  fully,  and  accordingly  I  have  endeavored  to  show 
the  relation  of  these  figures  or  groups  (with  the  exception  of  the 
healing  of  the  blind  man)  to  others  which  represent  the  same  sub- 
ject in  the  earUest  Occidental  sculpture  with  which  I  am  acquainted. 

The  figure  of  Christ  by  himself  has  so  much  in  common  with  that 
which  is  known  as  the  '  Majesty,'  that  I  deal  with  it  under  that  head. 


^  Venturi,  Storia  delV Arte  Italiana  3.  176-7.  There  are  square  C's  in 
the  inscription  on  the  Church  of  St.  James  of  the  Rialto,  Venice.  Ruskin, 
who  figures  the  inscription  in  his  Works  (Library  Edition)  21.  269,  wavers 
as  to  date  (1073  in  24.  236-7  :  St.  Mark's  Rest,  §§  35,  36  ;  elsewhere  (29.  98) 
he  says  9th  century,  deferring  to  a  Venetian  antiquary. 

^  VioUet-le-Duc,  Dictionnaire  Raisonne  de  V Architecture  Fran^aise  8.  204. 

^  U Inscription  Anglo-Saxonne  du  Reliquaire  de  la  Vraie  Croix,  pp.  10, 
11  ;  cf.  the  facsimiles  at  the  end  of  his  volume. 

*  Abecedaire  d' Archeologie  1.  59. 

(45) 


258  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 


1.  SINGLE  FIGURES    OR    GROUPS    BELONGING 
TO   THE   GOSPEL   STORY 

A.  John  the  Baptist  with  the  Agnus  Dei. 

On  the  north  face  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross  is  a  figure  of  John  the 
Baptist,  1  nimbed,  wearing  a  long  tunic  and  a  mantle,  and  carrying 
a  lamb,  also  nimbed  ;  the  similar  figure  on  the  Bewcastle  Cross  is 
without  a  nimbus. 

Among  the  statues  of  the  north  porch  of  Chartres  (before  1275) 
is  one  of  John  the  Baptist  with  a  lamb  completely  aureoled.^  There 
is  a  similar  one  belonging  to  the  13th  century  in  the  west  porch  of 
the  Cathedral  of  Rheims.^ 

The  talaric  tunic  and  the  mantle  are  of  assistance  in  determining 
the  date.  According  to  Bulteau,  they  are  not  found  on  figures  of 
John  the  Baptist  before  the  10th  century. 

The  nimbus  is  not,  according  to  Didron,  uniformly  given  to  saints 
before  the  11th  century,  and,  beginning  v\ith  the  12th,  becomes  a 
rude  disk,  instead  of  being  '  fine  and  attenuate.' 

Dans  les  monuments  duV°  au  X**  siecle  Saint  Jean-Baptiste  n'appa- 
rait  que  convert  d'un  peau  brute  affectant  la  forme  d'une  tunique 
courte,  jetee  negligemment  sur  les  epaules.  Depuis  le  X"  siecle  jusqu'au 
XVI®  Saint  Jean  est  ton  jours  vetu  de  la  tunique  et  du  manteau  selon  le 
costume  dit  apostolique^ 

The  nimbus  is  not  constantly  figured  around  the  head  of  saints,  in 
monuments  belonging  to  a  period  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century.  .  .  . 
The  nimbus,  up  to  the  twelfth  century,  was  fine  and  attenuate.  .  .  . 
During  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  fourteenth  centuries,  the  nimbus 
became  more  dense,  narrower,  and  extending  less  beyond  the  head.  .  .  . 
It  was  nothing  more  thenceforth  than  a  rude  disk,  a  kind  of  plate  or 
sort  of  circular  pillow  painted  or  sculptured  behind  the  head.  It  was 
a  thick  wall,  not  transparent  glass.^ 

Allen  attributes  to  the  13th  and  14th  centuries  a  somewhat 
similar  figure  of  the  Baptist. 


1  See  p.  20;  cf.  p.  24. 

2  Bulteau,  Monographic  de  la  Cathedrale  de  Chartres  2.  182-3;   Marriage, 
The  Sculptures  of  Chartres  Cathedral,  p.  166. 

3  Didron,  Christian  Iconography  1.  321-2. 
«  Bulteau  2.   183-4,  note. 

5  Didron  1.  99-100. 
(46) 


TJie  Figure- Sculpture :  Annunciation  and  Visitation  259 

St.  John  the  Baptist  is  frequently  represented  in  the  art  of  the  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth  centuries,  carrying  a  book  or  circular  medallion 
with  the  Lamb  of  God  upon  it,  to  which  he  points.^ 

Very  significant  is  the  statue  on  the  trumeau  belonging  to  the 
central  doorway  leading  from  the  narthex  into  the  abbey  church 
of  Vezelay,  where  the  Baptist  bears  the  lamb  upon  a  medallion. 

Sur  la  pile  cannelee  de  ce  trumeau  se  dresse  la  statue  de  saint 
Jean-Baptiste.  ...  La  tete  nimbee  du  saint.  .  .  .  Devant  lui  le 
precurseur  porte  un  disque  ou  se  voyait  autrefois  I'agneau  pascal,  image 
du  Christ,  et  I'index  de  sa  main  droite,  appuyee  au  rebord  du  medallion, 
semble  designer  cette  image,  comme  I'indique  I'inscription  gravee  sur 
le  socle  de  la  statue : 

Agnoscant  omnes  quia  dicitur  iste  lohannes, 

[Qui  retijnet  populum,  demonstrans  indice  Christum.^ 

The  date  of  the  relief  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross  can  hardly,  then, 
according  to  the  indications,  be  earlier  than  the  12th  century. 

B.  The  Annunciation  and  the  Visitation.'^ 
The  Annunciation  and  the  Visitation   are   found,   now  together 

and  now  separate,  in  various  12th  century  buildings. 

For  the  two  at  Moissac,  in  connection  with  other  scenes  from  the 

Infancy,  see  p.  51.     There  is  another  Annunciation  in  the  cloister, 

capital  No.  39  (ca.  1140-60). 

L'ange  se  tient  debout  [this  is  on  the  west  face]  devant  Marie,  vetue 
d'une  longue  robe,  d'une  guimpe  et  d'un  voile.  Face  sud ;  la  Vierge  se 
levant  de  son  siege,  fait  un  geste  d'etonnement;  un  elegant  edifice 
cette  scene  de  la  Visitation.* 


In  the  tympanum  of  the  southern  doorway  leading  from  the 
narthex  into  the  abbey  church  of  Vezelay,  the  rectangular  lower 
panel  contains  an  Annunciation  (the  winged  angel  at  the  left)  ;  next, 
at  the  right,  follows  a  house  with  a  tower  (interpreted  by  Poree 
as  the  residence  of  Zacharias  at  Hebron),  and  then  the  Visitation 
(the  figure  nearest  the  house,  and  facing  to  the  right,  is  probably 
Elizabeth)  ;   then   come   the    Shepherds   and   the   Nativity ;   above, 

1  Early  Christ.  Symbolism,  p.  257. 

2  Poree,  U Ahhaye  de  Vezelay,  p.  42.  The  trumeau  belongs  to  a  date 
earher  than  1135,  probably  {ibid.,  p.   15). 

3  See  pp.   16,   18. 

*  Angles,  UAbbaye  de  Moissac,  p.  72 ;  cf.  pp.  36,  61. 

(47) 


260  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

in  the  semicircular  space,  is  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi.^  This  is  the 
portal  which  has,  on  the  capitals  of  the  pilasters  at  the  right,  the  archer 
shooting  at  the  demon. ^  There  seems  to  have  been  an  Annunciation 
on  the  right  hand  pilaster  of  the  central  outer  doorway  of  Vezelay. 

L'inscription  Sancta  Maria  et  Angelus  se  voyait  en  lettres  romanes 
sur  le  pilastre  de  droite,  ce  qui  a  autorise  Viollet-le-Duc  a  y  representer 
une  Annonciation.^ 

In  the  central  lancef  of  the  12  th  century  window  at  Chartres  there 
are  an  Annunciation  and  a  Visitation.*  They  are  also  to  be  found 
among  the  statues  of  the  north  porch,  but  these  date,  according  to 
Viollet-le-Duc,  from  1245  to  1270.  Then  there  is  an  upper  window 
of  the  nave  (Bulteau's  No.  17)  which  has  both  the  Annunciation 
and  the  Visitation.^  In  the  Visitation,  Mary  is  seen  opening  her 
arms  to  receive  EHzabeth,  who  places  her  right  hand  on  Mary's 
shoulder,  while  her  left  expresses  admiration  mingled  with  astonish- 
ment.^ Still  another  Visitation  is  to  be  found  among  the  capitals 
at  the  right  of  the  left  doorway  of  the  west  front,  where,  beginning 
at  the  right,  there  occur  in  succession  the  Visitation,  the  Nativity, 
the  Awakening  of  the  Shepherds,  the  Wise  Men  before  Herod,  and 
the  Adoration  of  the  Magi.'  But  the  most  interesting,  for  our  pur- 
pose, are  another  Annunciation  and  Visitation  of  the  west  front. 
These  are  found  in  the  tympanum  of  the  right  doorway.  This  con- 
sists of  two  parallel  rectangular  panels,  or  lintels,  with  an  arched 
panel,  or  tympanum  proper,  above.  The  lower  lintel  contains,  from 
left  to  right,  the  Annunciation,  the  "S^^sitation.  the  Nativity,  and  the 
Announcement  to  the  Shepherds ;  the  upper  lintel  has  the  Presen- 
tation in  the  Temple ;  while  the  tympanum  proper  has  a  Madonna 
of  Byzantine  type,  holding  the  Child  on  her  lap,  with  an  angel  censing 
on  either  side.^    Here,  as  at  Vezelay,^  the  series  begins  with  a  winged 

1  Poree,  U Ahhaye  de  Vezelay,  pp.  38,  39 ;  cf.  VioUet-le-Duc  7.  437. 

2  See  p.  61. 

8  Poree,  p.  22. 

*  Bulteau,  MonograpTiie  3.  212. 

^  13th  century,  but  before  1240  (Merlet,  La  Cathedrale  de  Chartres, 
pp.  48,  53). 

6  According  to  Bulteau  (3.  224-5). 

'  Marriage,  Sculpt,  of  Chartres  Cath.,  pp.  52-3. 

^  See  the  pictures  in  Marriage,  pp.  69,  71  ;  A.  K.  Porter,  Mediaeval  Archi- 
tecture, 111.  215,  Vol.  2  ;  and  cf.  Bulteau  2.  72.  For  the  Annunciation 
and  the  Visitation  at  Amiens,  see  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  2.  147  ;  for  that  at 
Rheims,  see  Porter  2.  303. 

^  JSote  that  Chartres,  hke  Vezelay,  formerly  had  a  narthex  (Marriage,  p.  14). 
(48) 


The  Figure- Sculpture :  Annunciation  and  Visitation  261 

angel  at  the  left,  facing  the  Virgin.  In  the  Visitation,  the  Virgin 
is  at  the  right,  wearing  a  royal  crown,  and  with  a  nimbus.  The  left 
arm  of  Elizabeth  is  passed  round  the  Virgin,  and  the  hand  clasps 
Mary's  arm  above  the  elbow,  while  her  right  hand  clasps  the  Virgin's 
left  wrist,  the  latter's  right  hand  being  invisible.  These  statues  must 
probably  be  dated  ca.  1150— 60.  ^ 

Perhaps  more  important  for  the  dating  of  the  Ruthwell  Visitation 
is  that,  or  rather  those,  at  St.  Benoit-sur-Loire.  At  the  left,  just 
as  one  passes  through  the  doorway  leading  from  the  narthex,  the 
capital  of  the  pillar  bears  an  Annunciation,  a  Visitation,  and  a  figure 
of  Christ  wearing  a  cruciform  nimbus,  and  blessing  with  the  right 
hand,  while  with  the  left  he  holds  a  book  resting  on  his  thigh. ^  Here, 
as  at  Chartres,  the  Annunciation  is  at  the  left  of  the  spectator.  In 
the  Visitation,  as  in  that  at  Ruthwell,  the  figure  at  the  left  has  her 
right  forearm  extended  horizontally,  with  the  hand  touching  the 
other  figure  near  the  waist,  while  the  left  forearm  of  the  figure  at 
the  right  is  nearly  parallel  to  the  other's,  but  above.  The  right  arm 
of  the  figure  at  the  right  is  passed  round  the  figure  at  the  left,  and  the 
hand  clasps  the  other's  right  shoulder,  whence  I  conclude  that  the 
figure  at  the  right  is  Elizabeth,  who  would  naturally  be  extending 
a  welcome  to  Mary  (see  the  Visitation  of  the  west  front  of  Chartres, 
above).  Mary's  sleeve  is  very  wide  above  the  wrist,  and  both  Mary 
and  EHzabeth  wear  long  tunics  and  veils  (compare  Moissac  and 
Chartres).  This  capital,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  to  be  dated  by  the 
narthex  of  which  it  forms  a  part — about  1170,  according  to  Marignan.^ 
There  is  another  Visitation  on  the  capital  of  the  last  pillar  of  the  choir 
at  the  left,  as  one  faces  the  west."*  The  two  figures  seem  to  be  kissing, 
and  the  face  of  Mary,  in  particular,  is  therefore  much  more  nearly 
in  profile  than  in  the  Visitation  of  the  narthex.  The  arms  of  Elizabeth 
(for  so  I  interpret  the  figure  at  the  left)  are  passed  about  the  waist 
of  Mary,  with  the  hands  nearly  touching  (in  the  other  the}^  approach 
each  other  at  Marv's  shoulder),  while  the  left  forearm  of  Mary  is 


1  Cf.  Marriage,  pp.   14,  70. 

2  Cf.  Bulletin  Momimental  22.  115-6. 

^  '  Une  Visite  a  FAbbaye  de  Fleury  a  Saint-Benoit-sur-Loire,'  Revue  de 
VArt  Chretien  45  (1902).  84,  note  2.  For  an  engraving  of  this  Visitation, 
see  Bull.  Mon.  22.  116. 

*  Cf.  Bull.  Mon.  22.  130;  and  Caumont,  Abecedaire  d" Archeologie  1.  176. 
Baum,  Rumanesque  Architecture  in  France,  p.  231,  would  date  this  and 
the  preceding  from  about  the  beginning  of  the  12th  century. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII  18  (49) 


262  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

nearly  parallel  to  Elizabeth's,  but  above  it.  The  bodies  are  represented 
as  very  short,  one  might  say  squatty,  and  the  knees  project  somewhat.^ 
•  The  analogies  between  the  treatment  of  these  12th  century  groups 
and  that  of  the  corresponding  subject  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross  are 
too  evident  to  be  insisted  on.^ 

According  to  Venturi's  reproductions,^  the  type  of  the  Visitation 
at  St.  Benoit  and  Ruthwell  occurs  at  least  seven  times  in  Italy,  all 
the  examples  presumably  belonging  to  the  12th  century,  besides 
three  others  in  which  the  attitudes  are  different.  The  seven  are 
respectively  at  Piacenza  (Cathedral,  architrave  of  left  side-door  of 
the  facade) ,^  Ferrara  (Cathedral,  lintel  of  main  portal),^  Fano  (Archie- 
piscopal  Palace,  fragment),^  Padua  (Santa  Giustina,  architrave  of 
portal  of  the  old  monastery,  now  in  sacristy),'^  Alatri  (Santa  Maria 
Maggiore,  sacristy),^  Monreale  (Cloister,  capital  at  north-east  angle), ^ 
and  Gaeta  (Cathedral,  panel  of  candelabrum). i<*  Of  these,  that  at 
Piacenza  is,  according  to  Venturi,  by  Wihgelmus ^^ ;  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),^^  by  Wilige]mus,  that  at  Verona  (San  Giovanni 
in  Fonte,  font),^*  and  that  at  Benevento  (Cathedral,  bronze  door 
dating  from  end  of  thirteenth  century). ^^ 


C.  The  Flight  into  Egypt.^e 
The  Fhght  into  Egypt  is  not  known  in  Christian  art  till  the  10  th 
century  at  earhest,  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  delVArte  Ital,  Vol.  3.  «  P.  175.  ^  p.  190.  6  p.  276. 
'  P.  339.  8  p^  385.  9  p,  629.  10  P.  649.  "  See  p.  144. 
12  See  p.  144.        is  p.  159.          i4  p.  228.         ^^  p.  gg?.  i«  See  p.  22. 

(50) 


The  Figure-Sculpture:  Flight  into  Egypt  263 

I  do  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  ete  figuree  dans  les  monuments 
avant  le  XI®  siecle.^ 

Italian  representations  of  the  12th  century  occur  at  Aosta  (Sanf 
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,  AUen  mentions  Nero  C.  IV 
of  the  British  Museum ;  of  sculptured  details,  the  capital  of  a  column  at 
St.  Benoit-sur-Loire  (see  below) ;  tSt.  Maire  a  ToscaneUa,  Italy,  for  which 
see  Gailhabaud's  Architecture,  Vol.  2,  Part  1 ;  and  the  pulpit  of  San  Michele 
at  GroppoU,  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,  UEvangile  (Tours,  1874)  1.  76. 

3  Storia  delVArte  Ital.  3.  175,  207,  235,  277,  291,  385,  653,  687  ;  cf.  3.  73, 
204,  242,  243,  275,  316,  692. 

*  See  p.  144.  ^  Cf.  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Symbolism,  p.  221. 

6  Angles,  L'Abbaye  de  Moissac,  pp.  37,  41 ;  cf.  pp.  33,  34,  35  ;  Viollet-le-Duc 
7.  391.  Angles  (p.  38)  attributes  to  the  Languedocian  school  of  Moissac 
and  Toulouse,  in  connection  with  the  Burgundian  school  of  Vezelay  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  (Ilonographie  3.  212),  the  same  scenes  as  those  enumerated  above. 
Avith  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.^  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  is  a  Flight  into  Egypt  which  considerably 
resembles  that  at  RuthweU,  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  10. 
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 

^  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  1^.  643.  The  tympanum  dates  from  about  1132 
(Angles,  p.  38). 

2  Revue  de  VArt  Chretien  45  (1902).  297. 

^  Guide  a  Saint- Bendit-sur- Loire  (Orleans,  Imprimerie  Paul  Girardot, 
1886).  Here  we  are  also  told  {Guide  du  Pelerin,  p.  15) ;  '  En  face  [to  the 
right],  le  roi  Herode,  ou  plutot  un  de  ses  satelhtes,  tenant  un  glaive  nu  a 
la  main  droite  et  une  hallebarde  sur  I'epaule  gauche,  cherche  I'enfant  Jesus 
pour  le  faire  mourir ;  et  derriere  ce  groupe,  I'archange  Saint  Michel  terrasse 
le  dragon  infernal.'  The  group  is  figured  (though  not  with  perfect  accuracy) 
in  Caumont,   Abecedaire  d' Archeologie  1.  175  ;  cf.  Bull.  Mon.  22  (1856).  117. 

*  Marriage,  Sculpt,  of  Chartres  Cath.,  p.  48  ;  Bulteau  2.  43-44.  For  that 
at  Amiens,  see  Ruskin,   Works  33.  168   (plate). 

5  See  p.   17.  8  UEvangile  2.  122. 

(52) 


The  Figure-Sculpture:  Crucifixion  265 

one  of  the  11th  century.    Both  of  these  show  Christ  seated  at  table, 
and  both  are  of  Bj^zantine  origin. 

The  restored  abbey  church  of  Vezelay,  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  resurrection  de  son  frere  Lazare,  puis  c'est  la  visits 
chez  Simon  le  lepreux  ou  la  pecheresse,  etendue  a  terre  devant  lui, 
repand  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  mediaeval  sculptured  representation  of  the  scene 
that  I  know  of,  besides  that  on  the  Ruthwell  Cross,  and  this  at 
Vezelay  belongs  to  the  years  1120—1135. 

E.  The  Crucifixion.3 

The  first  representation  of  the  crucifixion  in  Roman  painting  be- 
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®  siecle  ...  les  peintures  de  la  petite  basi- 
lique  cimiteriale  de  Saint-Valentin.  ...  La  plus  importante  de  ces 
fresques,  pour  I'iconographie  chretienne,  est  un  grand  Crucifix,  jadis 
publie  par  Bosio.  .  .  .  Voila,  dans  I'art  chretien  romain,  le  premier 
exemple  de  I'image  emouvante.* 

In  the  tenth  century  crucifixes  are  occasionally  seen.^ 

^  Poree,  L'Abbaye  de   Vezelay,  p.  22. 

^  I  cannot  make  out  whether  the  hntel  has  been  restored  or  not.  Poree 
says  of  the  tympanum  (p.  20) :  '  L'ancien  tympan  est  maintenant  depose 
en  dehors  de  I'eglise,  contre  le  mur  meridional.  Au  moment  de  la  restau- 
ration,  il  etait  reconvert  d'une  epaisse  couche  de  platre  qui  cachait  la  trace 
des  bas-reliefs  ra vales  au  nu  de  la  pierre.  Grace  a  la  teinte  plus  claire  de  la 
pierre,  on  put  cependant  en  deviner  quelques  sujets  qui  ont  inspire  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 
Unteau  se  deroulent  des  episodes  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. 

*  Perate,  in  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  V.  76  ;  cf.  Brehier,  Les  Origines  du  Crucifix 
dans  VArt  Religieux,  pp.  57  ff. 

*  Didron,  Christian  Iconography  I.  259. 

(53) 


266  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

On  avait  figure  tres  rarement  le  Christ  en  croix  du  VI"  siecle  au  X®  ; 
on  le  rencontre  encore  rarement  dans  les  sculptures  anterieures  au 
XIII^.i 

On  dut,  au  XII®  siecle,  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.* 


^  Caumont,  Abecedaire  (T ArcMologie  1.   173. 

2  Caumont  1.  232. 

^  Margaret  Stokes,  Early  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  Avhich  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  Xlth  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.  Xow  this  motive,  of  Etruscan  origin,  did  not  make  a  start  in 
Italy  before  the  Xlth  century.  The  date  of  the  cross  must  therefore  be 
put  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  half  of  the  Xllth  century.  To  the 
same  period  and  school  belongs  the  other  and  more  imposing  cro.ss  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). 

*  Anderson,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland,  p.  Ixvi.  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.  GreenweU,  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.  hii)  mentions  those  at  Langford  and  Romsey, 
which  Enlart  (Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  2.  202-3)  unhesitatingly  ascribes  to 
the  12th  century. 

(54) 


The  Figure-Sculpture:  Crucifixion  267 

Anderson  has  sEown  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  centur\^ 

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  symboUsm  of  the  monuments 
of  Class  II.,  which  always  includes  the  cross  itself  in  a  decorated  or 
glorified  form,  never  includes  the  crucifixion,  which  only  appears  on 
a  fcAv  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  important  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  12  th  century,  then,  seems  a 
probable  date  for  this  Crucifixion. 

^  Anderson,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland,  pp.  xLViii-XLix.  In  his  earher 
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,  24L 
^  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.  1 

A  figure  of  Christ,  common  in  the  12th  century,  though  also 
found  at  eariier  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,  stood  a  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  hntel  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. 


1  See  pp.   (17),  21,  25. 

2  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  1^.  71-2.  Other  early  examples  are  :  BasiUca  of 
St.  Pudentiana,  end  of  4th  century  (Michel  l^.  44,  45;  cf.  41,  43) ;  St.  Paul 
fuori  le  Mura,  440-461  (1^.  51) ;  Catacomb  of  Generosa,  6th  century  (1^.  74) ; 
BasiUca  of  St.  Valentine,  7th  century  (l^.  76;  cf.  l^.  78). 

(56) 


The  Figjire-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.i 

Le  Sauveur  est  vetu  de  la  tunique  talaire  et  du  manteau  de  I'anti- 
quite ;  il  a  la  barbe  courte  et  les  cheveux  longs  et  plats.  La  tete,  quoique 
endommagee,  porte  le  caractere  d'une  douce  gravite;  elle  est  entouree 
du  nimbe  divin  ou  crucifere.  .  .  .  De  sa  main  droite,  il  benit  les  fideles 
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,  Sculft.  of  Chartres  Cath.,  p.  56  ;  cf.   Porter,  111.  215,  Vol.  2. 

2  Bulteau,  Moyiografhie  2.  57-8.  Durand  (Monographie  de  la  Cathedrale 
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 
Moissac  (VioUet-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  Aries  (7.  418) ;  Cahors  (8.  132) ; 
Bourges  (Porter,  111.  267,  Vol.  2).  Several  examples  are  noted  by  Michel 
(P.  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.  *    Cf.  Marriage,  p.  238. 
5  Bulteau  2.  58.                       «  Marriage,  p.   152  ;  Bulteau  2.  189. 

'  Thus  in  the  Oratory  of  John  VII,  705-7  (Michel  1^.  77) ;  the  Baptistery 
of  St.  Valerian  at  Rome,  9th  century  (Viollet-le-Duc  9.  365)  ;  Santa  Maria 
in  Domnica,  9th  century  (Michel  1^.  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  13th  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  and  a  dragon — ^the  two  usually  selected 
from  the  four  animals  of  Ps.  XCI.  13  :  '  Super  aspidem  et  basiUsc- 
um  ambulabis,  et  conculcabis  leonem  et  draconem.'^  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  Vezelay  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. 

^  At  Amiens  all  four  animals  are  shown  ;  cf.  Ruskin,  Works  33.   146. 

^  Didron,  Christian  Iconography  1.  298.  Allen  finds  a  Norman  one  on 
a  slab  built  into  the  tower  of  New  Malton  Church,  Yorkshire  (Early  Christ. 
Symbolism,  p.  275). 

*  See  p.  22,  and  cf.  p.  131,  note  7,  end. 
(58) 


The  Figure-Sculpture :  Paul  and  Anthony  271 

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  Poree,  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  Poree  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  piUar  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  ^^ezelay  may  have  been  transmitted,  through  one  or  another 
channel,  to  Ruthwell  ;  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  Ruthwell  Cross 
should  have  influenced  Vezelay  ;  and  the  representations  on  the 
Irish  and  Scottish  stones  are  much  ruder.^ 

^  Migne,  Patrologia  Latina  23.   17. 

2  Poree,  L'Abbaye  de   Vezelay,  p.  37. 

^  Poree,  p.  60,  where  a  picture  is  given. 

*  Poree,  p.  61. 

^  The  narthex  was  constructed  after  the  nave  (Poree,  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  (Poree,  p.  56). 

^  Irish :  on  the  cross  in  the  street,  KeUs  ;  on  the  cross  of  St.  Patrick  and 
8t.  Columba,  KeUs  ;  on  the  south-east  cross,  Monasterboice ;  on  the  Mooue 
Abbey  cross  ;  on  the  cross  of  Castle  Dermot  ;  and  on  the  cross  at  Ardboe 
(Anderson,  Early  Christ.  Mori,  of  Scotland,  p.  Uv,  note  4 ;  cf.  Allen,  Early 
Christ.   Symbolism,  pp.  224-5). 

(59) 


272  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

3.  6^^iV^i?^- SUBJECTS 
Under  genr e-s\xh]ects  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  symbolical  intent,  and  to 
represent  the  slayer  of  an  evil  power. ^  The  falconer  with  his  hawk 
incidentally  raises  the  question  of  the  date  at  which  this  sport  was 
introduced  into  England. 

A.  The  Archer.2 

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 
Vezelay,  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  ;  Kirriemuir ;  St.  Vigeans  (Allen,  Early  Christ.  Symbolism, 
pp.  224-5;  Anderson,  op.  cit.,  p.  liv;  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland, 
3.  76,  227,  268).  Anderson  says  (p.  Iv.) :  '  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  earher  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  Ilartyrology  (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. 

^  The  falconer  is  sometimes  introduced  into  the  labors  of  the  months 
associated  with  the  representations  of  the  zodiac,  so  common  in  mediaeval 
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.' 

2  See  p.   16. 

^  A  capital  of  about  1150,  from  the  church  of  San  Salvatore  at  Brescia, 
is  figured  by  Venturi,  Storia  delVArte  Ital.  3.  217. 

*  7.  438  ;  cf.  Poree,  UAhhaye  de  Vezelay,  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  ou  se  trouvent  des  cavaliers :  Tun 
d'eux  tient  a  la  main  un  arc  dont  la  forme,  ainsi  que  celle  de  I'epee 
de  ses  compagnons,  correspond  a  la  meme  epoque.^ 

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  Ruth  well  and  Bewcastle  crosses.' 

^  Bull.  Moil.  22  (1856).  123-5;  see  the  engraving  on  p.  123,  and  Caumont, 
Ahecedaire  d' Archeologie  1.   177. 

2  Marignan,  in  Revue  de  VArt  Chretien  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,  serree  a  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  nobihty  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  fagade  of  St.  Giles, 
the  chapter-house  door  {parte  capitulaire)  of  St.  Stephen  at  Toulouse,  etc. 
Still  another  indication  is  the  inclusion  of  scenes  from  everyday  life,  in  place 
of  confining  the  representations  to  purely  rehgious  subjects  (pp.  303,  305). 
Everything,   according   to  Marignan,    points    to  a  date  not  far  from  1170. 

^  Keyser,  List  of  Norman  Tympana,   p.  37 ;  cf.  p.  XLIII,  and  Fig.  68. 

*  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  weh  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  drago.i,  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.'  * 

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  iiim  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. 

*  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  Sagittarii,  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  hon,  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,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotlandy 
p.  XLV. 

5  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  pp.   189-90. 

«  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  252. 

(62) 


The  Figure-Sculpiurc  :  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 
fmit  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.  ^  Victoria  Hist.  Durham  1.  218. 

^  Not,  of  course,  as  a  sign  of  the  zodiac ;  on  representations  of  this  see 
Fowler,  '  Mediaeval  Representations  of  the  Months  and  Seasons,'  Archceo- 
logia  44.  137-224  ;  Male,  L'Art  Religieux  du  XIII^  Siecle  en  France,  pp.  89- 
103 ;  and  cf.  TJn  Manuscrit  Chartrain  du  XF  Sihle  (Chartres,  1893),  p.  9 
where  one  of  the  11th  century  is  described  (these  being  rare).  There  are  five 
zodiacs  figured  at  Chartres  alone. 

*  See  p.  25.     Cf.   the  birds  on  the  top-stone  of  the  Ruthwell  Cross. 

'  Harting,  Bibliotheca  Accipitraria,  p.  xiii. 

^  Brockhaus,  Konversations-Lexikon,  14th  ed.,  2.  652. 

'  Migne,  Pair.  Lat.  89.  807 :  '  et  ut  accipitres  et  falcones  non  habeant.' 

(63) 


276  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

of  Germany,  sends  a  hawk  and  two  falcons  as  a  present  to  ^Ethelbald 
of  Mercia  ;  and  between  748  and  755,  ^Ethelbert  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  devotee  amicitiae  direximus  tibi  acci- 
pitrem  unum  et  duos  valcones  {var.  falcones),  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,  nuUatenus  reor  ;  hoc  est  duos  falcones, 
quorum  ars  et  artis  audatia  sit  :  grues  velle  hbenter  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  fcetus  et  ad 
supradictam  artem  animo  agiles  ac  belUcosi  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  {ne  peak  hafucfugel  abite)^ 

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.'  ^ 

The  date  of  the  Fates  of  Men  is  conjectural,  but  it  cannot  be  earlier 
than  800.  It  has  a  passage  of  eight  lines  (8r>— 92)  on  the  taming 
of  a  hawk  :  '  One  shall  tame  a  wild,  proud  bird,  a  hawk  in  the  hand, 
until  this  swaUow  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. 

1  Boniface  to  ^thelbald  of  Mercia,  732-751  ;  Jaffe,  Bihl.  Rer.  Germ.  3.  213. 

2  ^thelbert  of  Kent  to  Boniface,  748-755  :  Jaffe,  Bibl.  Rer.  Germ.  3.  256. 
^  Thorpe,  Anc.  Laws  and  Inst.,  folio  ed.,  p.  358. 

•*  Beowulf,  tr.  Tinker,  rev.  ed.,  p.   105. 

(64) 


The  Figure-Sculpture :  Falconer  211 

Et  mandatum  mandamus  .  .  .  ut  nullus  superveniat  hominum  superbia 
inflatus,  nee  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  nee  poenam  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  sues  omnes  et  falconarios  et  accipitrarios  canicularios  quoque 
docere  .  .  .  non  desinebat.^ 

In  the  10th  century,  notices  are  more  numerous.  Thus  King 
iEthelstan  (d.  940)  procures  from  North  Wales  '  birds  that  know 
how  to  hunt  the  prey  of  other  birds  through  the  void  '  ;  Byrhtric 
and  iElfswith,  of  Meopham  in  Kent  (ca.  980),  give  to  their  '  natural 
lord  '  two  hawks  and  all  their  hunting-dogs  ;  and  ^Ethelwine,  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  .  .  . 
armumerarent  .  .  .  volucres  quse  aliarum  avium  prsedam  per  inane 
venari  nossent.^ 

^rest  his  cynehlaforde  senne  beah  on  hundeahtotigum  mancysum 
goldes  ;  and  an  handsecs  on  eal  swa  miclum ;  and  feower  hors,  twa 
gertedede ;  and  twa  sword  gefetelsode ;  and  twegen  hafocas ;  and  ealle 
his  heahdeor-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  EngUsh 
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.  Juhus  A.  VI)  is 
assigned  by  Strutt  to  about  900. 

^  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesta  Regum  Anglorum  2.  134  (ed.  Stubbs,  1. 
148). 

*  Cod.  Dipl,  ed.  Kemble,  2.  380;  cf.  6.  53. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  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.^ 

About  the  same  date  a  priest  was  forbidden  by  the  Canons  of  Edgar 
to  be  a  hunter  or  a  hawker  [hunta  nc  hafecere). 

In  the  Colloquy  of  ^Ifric  (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  WiUiam  the  Conqueror  with  hawk  on  wrist. 

Unum  erat  quo  in  seculo  animum  oblectaret  suum,  cursus  canum 
velocium  quorum  circa  saltus  latratibus  solebat  Isetus  applaudere ; 
volatus  volucrum  quorum  natura  est  de  cognitis  avibus  praedas  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.'  ^ 

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  (Rolls  Series),  p.  52. 

2  Wright's  Anglo-Saxon  and  Old  English  Vocabularies,  ed.  Wulker,  1. 
95-96  ;  tv.  in  Select  Tracts,  from  Old  Engl.  Frose,  ed.Cook  and  Tinker,  pp.  181-2. 
The  word  for  '  hawk  '    occurs   here  and  there  in  the  Old  Enghsh  glossaries. 

3  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gest.   Reg.  Angl.  2.  220  (ed.   Stubbs,  1.  271). 
*  Strutt,  Sports  and  Pastimes,  p.  18;  cf.  Piers  Plowman  B  6.  33. 

(66) 


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.  1  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. ^  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  httle  rivulets  and  ditches,  which  might  otherwise  prevent 
him   in    his   progress.'*       The    pole,    as    I    am   informed   by   Mr. 


^  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  mth 
a  hawk  on  his  wrist  (Marriage,  p.  176).  At  Amiens,  on  the  phnth  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. 

^  Veitcli,  History  and  Poetry  of  the  Scottish  Border,  p.  170,  who  quotes 
National  MSS.  1.  liii. 

^  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  Bihliotheca 
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). 

^  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.  ^  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, 


Avith  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  Polyolhion  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  Phny  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.' 

^  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  delVArte  Ital.  3.  762-4. 

^  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  aid  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) ' 
{ibid.,  p.  179). 
(G8) 


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  famihar  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  part  of  the  sculptor  or  of  some  ecclesiastical  body 

1  lUd.,  2.  420-1. 

2  Raine,  Priory  of  Hexham  1.  8,  note.  Ailred's  words  are  {ibid.,  p.  191): 
'  Erat  autem  talis  terrae  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  Kfe  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  \vithin  the  country  in  early  Christian  times.'  But  see  p.  70,  note  2. 
On  equestrian  statues  in  rehgious  architecture  bearing  the  names  of  Constan- 
tine  and  Charlemagne,  see  Enlart,  Manuel  d' Archeologie  Fran^aise    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, 

^  An  argument  against  this  view  might  perhaps  be  drawn  from  the 
falconer  on  horseback,  with  a  hawk  on  his  left  wrist,  on  the  tympanum 
of  the  12th  century  church  of  Parthenay-le-Vieux  (Deux-Sevres),  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  VArt  l^.  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  symbohc  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  1^.  698).  Even  two  episodes  of  the 
Roman  de  lienard  occur  on  the  lintel  of  the  doorway  of  the  cathedral  of 
Modena  (Michel  P.  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. 


II.  THE  DECORATIVE  SCULPTURE 

The  decorative  sculpture  comprises  (p.  29,  above)  vines,  chequers, 
interlacings,  and  the  sundial. 


1.    THE    VINES  2 
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.* 

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  1^.  698. 

2  See  pp.  19-20,  22-23,  26-28. 

^  Smith  and  Cheetham,  Diet.  Christ.  Antiqq.  2.  2018. 

*  Ihid.  1.  693;  cf.  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  ViUa  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.^  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  symbohsm.  The  frequency  with  which  birds  are 
introduced  as  architectural  decorations  has  been  noted  b}'  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  fohage.'     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 generaUty  of  the  St.  Michele  decoration ;  though,  had  it  not  luckily 
been  carved  on  the  fa(,-ade,  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,  Diet,  des  Antiqq.  Chret.,  pp.  796  ff. ;  Kraus,  Realencyclopcidie 
der  Christl.  Alterthilmer  2.  982  ;  Handbook  L  394  ;  cf.  pp.  402,  404.  439. 

2  Handbook  1.  394. 

3  Song  of  Sol.  2.  15;  cf.  p.  63,  above. 
*  Stones  of  Venice  \.  20.  35. 

^  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  earher  Gothic  peck  at  it  hungrily 

(72) 


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  I'effet  d'un  tres  frequent  emploi,  a  fini  par 
changer  de  caractere.  Deja,  a  Spalato  [303],  il  s'enroule  autour  de 
fleurons  d'ou  sortent  les  tetes  d'animaux  ;  plus  tard,  a  Saint-Nicolas  de 
Myra,  a  Saint- Jean- Stoudite  [465],  des  fleurs  et  des  fruits  se  sont  at- 
taches au  bout  de  ses  volutes,  des  oiseaux  memes  se  sont  loges  dans 
ses  meandres.2 

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  conventionahzed  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. 

^  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2.  238. 

2  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  l^.  151-2  ;  cf.  also  p.  153. 

^  Michel  1^.  64  :  one  in  the  Lateran,  and  one  in  the  Vatican.  There  is 
another  in  the  vestibule  of  S.  Lorenzo  fuori  le  Mura,  at  Rome. 

*  Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiqq.  Chret.,  p.  796 ;  Allegranza,  Spiegazioni  e 
Riflessioni  sopra  Alcuni  Sacri  Monumenti  Antichi  di  Milano,  tav.  II. 

6  Venturi,  Storia  delVArte  Ital.   1.  33  ff.,  475. 

«  Ricci,  Ravenna,  pp.  35,  104 ;  Michel  1^.  385  ;  Venturi  1^.  221,  225.  There 
is  another  at  Toulouse  (Michel  P.  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  P.  264-5; 
2.  200  ;  Venturi  1.  295-9;  cf.  Du  Sommerard,  Les  Arts  du  Moyen  Age,  Vol.  1, 
pi.  XI ;  Greenwell,  Catalogue,  p.  53,  note.  G.  F.  Browne,  Bishop  of  Bristol, 
lias  expressed  the  '  feeUng  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  shoAvn  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  Hnen 
sheet  aknost  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  piii  contesta  a  lui. 
Le  sue  parole  tradotte  in  chiaro  italiano,  dicono :  "In  quel  tempo  (dicembre 
del  1001)  I'imperatore  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  I'altro  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  queUa 
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 
2^.  110,  caUs  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). 

^  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.  GreenweU, 
Catalogue,  pp.  59  ff. 

3  Rivoira  2.  139. 

(74) 


The  Decorative  Sculpture  :  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  %.  feet  high,  and  was  nearly  14  feet  high  when 
complete.  The  base  is  14  inches  by  11,  and  the  top  11  inches  by 
71,  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  sHghtly-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- 
clesiae  Haugustaldensis  [Hexham]  .  .  sepultum  est.  Duaeque  cruces 
lapidea  mirabih  caelatura  decoratae  positae  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  il,  in  which 
case  the  inscription  would  begin  with  Alpha  and  Omega,  not  an  un- 
hkely  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  mth  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 


^  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  N orthumherland  3.  181 ;  Rivoira  2.  143. 
Enlart  (Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  2.  200)  regards  the  decoration  of  the  Acca  cross 
as  strikingly  similar  to  that  of  the  throne  of  Maximian. 

3  Raine  1.  204. 

*  Ihid.  1.  xxxiv;  cf.   Greenwell,  Catalogue,  pp.   57-8. 
^  Oroenwell,  p.  57. 

1 75) 


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  VArt  2.  199  (Enlart  makes 
the  mistake  of  saying  that  the  cross  bears  the  name  of  Acca) ;  Rivoira,  Lonib. 
Arch.  2.  143. 

^  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  Compiegne.  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  vEdde  et  Eonan,  et  caementariis, 
omnisque  psene  artis  institoribus,  regionem  suam  rediens  cum  regula  Sancti 
Benedicti,  instituta  ecclesiarum  Dei  bene  meliorabat.'  This  ^'Edde,  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  Avill 
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  abUities  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),  whUe 
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  dom  iwi  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  Greenwel]  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  ezcogitavit). 

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  propria,  sed  et  ccementariorum,  quos  ex 
Roma  spes  munificentioe  attraxerat,  magisterio ;  and  to  this  he  was  perhaps 
led  by  his  desire  to  amphfy  Eddi's  statement  by  appending  to  it  the  second 
of  the  two  following  sentences  :  '  Ferebaturque  tunc  in  populo  celebre, 
scriptisque  etiam  est  inditum,  nusquam  citra  Alpes  tale  esse  edifitium. 
Nunc  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  pcene  artis  inslitorihus,  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,  Prior ij  of  Hexham  I.  20) :  '  De  Roma  quoque,  et  Itaha, 
et  Francia,  et  de  aUis  terris,  ubicumque  invenire  poterat,  caementarios,  et 
quoslibet  ahos  industrios  [sic]  artifices,  secum  retinuerat,  et  ad  opera  sua 
facienda  secum  in  AngUam  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  prsesul  Wilfridus,  adductis  secum  ex  partibus 
transmarinis  artificibus,  miro  lapideo  tabulatu,  ut  inpraesentiarium  cernitis, 
renovavit,  et,  ad  devotionem  rudis  adhuc  plebis  conciliandam,  picturis  et 
caelaturis  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  GalHas  petens,  cementarios  qui  lapideam  sibi  secclesiam 
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  from  a  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.'  ^ 

^  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  locahze,  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  modelUng  of  Umbs  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  simpUcity  of 
design  and  the  absence  of  any  interlacing  ornament  upon  it,  such  as  occurs 
on  the  Bewcastle  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  Bewcastle  and  Ruthwell.  Rivoira  asserts 
(2.  143):  'AH  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  earUer 
than  the  first  half  of  the  Xllth  century.'     Raine  (2.  xxviii-xxxi)  had  been 

(78) 


The  Decorative  Sculpture  :   Vines  291 

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  Scotland  2,  PI.  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. 

2  Figured  in  Michel  P.  390;  cf.  Browne,  Conv.  of  Hept.,  p.  222;  Venturi 
2.   134;  Cattaneo,  p.   151. 

^  Dartein,  Etudes  sur  V Architecture  Lombarde,  p.  20,  and  pp.  11,  12,  13; 
cf.  Michel  1'.  386  ff. 

«  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  l^.  152-3. 

®  Caumont,  Abecedaire  d' Archeologie  1.  26;  cf.  p.  8.  See  also  the  design 
on  p.  86.     Note  the  example  from  Coire  (BurK  Mag.  21.  195). 

'  Lomb.  Arch.  2.  180  ;  see  also  Greenwell,  Catalogue,  p.  49  ;  Browne, 
Theodore  and   Wilfrith,  pp.  291-2;  Michel  1^   120. 

(79) 


292  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

with  branches  of  scroll-work  in  the  tower  of  Barnack  church  (North- 
amptonshire) are  of  the  earher  11th  century.^ 

In  the  cathedral  of  Torcello  (ca.  1008),  on  the  parapets  {transennoe) 
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  Crosb}' 
Butler  figures  in  his  Ruined  Abbeys  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.'* 

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  nth  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,^ 
Vezelay,9  St.  Denis,^"  Notre-Dame  de  Paris  (1190- 1215), ^^   Arles.^^ 


1  Rivoira  2.  181. 

2  Michel  11.  389;    Cattaneo,  Arch,  in  Italy,  pp.  332-3;  Venturi  2.   161. 
2  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  433-4;  cf.  1.  Ixii ;  Anderson,  Scotland 

in  Early  Christ.  Times  2.  233.  Also  described  and  illustrated  in  Stuart, 
Scul-pt.  Stones  of  Scotland,  Vol.  2,  PI.  118,  No.  1;  Catholic  Encyc.  1.  509. 
*  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. 

^  Greenwell,  Catalogue,  p.  53,  note ;  Labarte,  Histoire  des  Arts  IndustrielS; 
Vol.  1,  pi.  4. 

®  Henry    Rousseau,    Annales   de   la    Soc.    Archeol.    de    Bruxelles  16.   70. 
So  at  Aal  and  Tuft  (Michel  1^.  524). 

'^  Marriage,  Sculpt,  of  Chartres  Cath.,  p.  44. 

8  Marriage,  pp.  44-5;  cf.  pp.  200-1 ;  VioUet-le-Duc  8.  210-1.  Cf.  p.  129,  below. 
»  Poree,  U Ahhage  de  Vezelay,  pp.  38-9;  VioUet-le-Duc  8.  213-5. 
10  VioUet-le-Duc  8.  222. 
"  Ibid.  8.  230. 
12  Venturi  3.  281. 
(80) 


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),  Vezelay,  Aulnay, 
Dalbades  (Cloister) ,  Fontevrault  (Abbey.church) ,  Bayeux  (Cathedral)  .* 
Baum  gives  several  examples  :  Maguelonne  (St.  Pierre),  Aulnay 
(St.  Pierre,  window  of  apse,  and  porch  of  south  transept),  Toulouse 
(Museum),  Angouleme  (St.  Pierre),  Le  Puy  (Chapel  of  St.  Michel), 
Aries  (St.  Trophime),  Avallon  (St.  Lazare),  Licheres,  St.  Benoit-sur- 
Loire,  La  Charite-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,  reUef),''  Milan  (Museo  Arch.,  ornaments 
of  pilasters,  by  Nicholas),*  Nonantola  (San  Silvestro,  portal,  by  Wili- 
geknus),^  Salerno  (Cathedral,  architrave  of  door  of  atrium),^"  Bene- 
vento  (Cathedral, 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. 

2  Viollet-le-Duc  8.  204-5. 

^  Manuel  d' Archeologie  Frangaise  1.  350. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  348,  363,  385,  388,  464  (Fig.  222). 

«  Romanesque  Arch,  in  France,  pp.  11,  13,  14,  74,  101,  109,  126,  144, 
147,  162,  176,  222. 

*  Rousseau,  '  La  RuthweU  Cross,'  Annales  de  la  Soc.  Archeol.  de  Bruxelles 
16  (1902).  65,  70. 

'  Venturi  3.  146. 

8  Ihid.  3.  162. 

9  Ihid.  3.   170. 
10  Ihid.  3.  540. 

"  Ihid.  3.  623;  Leader  Scott  (Mrs.  Baxter),  Cathedral  Builders,  p.  246. 

"  Venturi  3.  665. 

^3  Dartein,  Etudes  sur  VArch.  Lomb.,  Atlas  des  Planches,  pi.  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  XP  et  XII^ 
Siecles  1.  75;  Michel,  Hist,  de  I' Art  P.  541,  695;  Venturi  2.  153-7. 

^*  Venturi  3.  607. 

16  Ihid.  3.  533. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  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).^  Parma  (Baptistery,  tympana  and  door- 
jamb), ^  Trau  (San  Lorenzo,  bas-relief  on  door),^  Sessa  Aurunca 
(Cathedral,  ambo),^  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  hfe,  of  S.  Urbain 
at  Troyes  and  of  Rheims  Cathedral,  with  birds  in  its  branches,^  and 
the  foliage-scrolls  of  S.   Severin  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,  Sheffield,  Bishop  Auckland,  Monasterboice,  Kells,  and 
Clonmacnois  ^^ ;  then  at  Croft,^^  Abercorn,-^^  Aberlady,^*  Closeburn,^^ 


1  Venturi  3.  155. 
■      2  iii^_  3.  296-7.  305. 

3  lUd.  3.  352. 

4  lUd.  3.  581. 

5  Ihid.  3.  621,  627 
«  Ihul.  3.   105-113. 

'  Ihid.  3.  931  ;  see  also  Ruskin,  Works,  Library  Edition  23.  17,  where 
it  is  figured. 

8  Ihid.  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  Religieux  du  XIIP  Si(cle,  p.  63 ;  cf.  Allen,  Early  Christ. 
Symbolism,  p.  388  ;  Browne,  Co7iv.  of  Heft.,  p.  192. 

10  VioUet-le-Duc  9.  335-6. 

11  AU  mentioned  by  Allen,  Mon.  Hist.   Brit.  Church,  pp.   158-9  (the  last 
three  probably  of  the  12th  century ;  see  p.  54,  note  3). 

1-  Ihid.,  p.  154  (plate  opposite). 

13  Ihid.,  p.  158;  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  418;  1.  Ixii. 

1*  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  428;  1.  Ixii. 

1^  Ihid.  3.  436;  1.  Ixii. 

(82) 


The  Decorative  Sculpture:  Chequers  295 

St.  Vigeans  (ca.  900  ?)/  Hilton  of  Cadboll,2  Nigg,^  Tarbet,^  Crieff,^ 
Barfreston,^  Mugdrum,''  Forres  (?),^  Camuston,^  Dupplin.^o  Haver- 
sham,"  Keils  and  Kilarrow/^  Kildroman  (on  Islay),^^  and  Oronsay." 

According  to  Anderson,  the  fohage-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.'  ^^ 

lona  has  a  cross  erected  to  the  memory  of  Lauchlan  McFingon, 
and  bearing  the  date  of  1489,  which  has  a  foHage-scroll,  but  without 
birds  or  animals.^® 

Numerous  other  instances  of  the  vine-  or  fohage-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.  THE  CHEQUERS^'' 

Chequers  (Fr.  damier,  echiquier)  are  an  ornament  belonging  espec- 
ially to  Romanesque  architecture,  and  found  from  the  end  of  the 


1  Ibid.  3.  236-8;  1.  Ixii ;  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2. 
51,  130,  194;  Stuart,  Sculpt.  Stones  of  Scotland  2,  PI.  127. 

2  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.  Times  2.  130,  233 ;  Anderson,  Early 
Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  1.  Ixi ;  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  3.  62. 

^  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2.  130. 

*  Ibid.  2.  130,  233  ;  Allen,  Early  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.  Ixii;  3.  313-5. 

«  Michel  12.  517. 

'  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  1.  Ixi;  3.  367. 

8  Ibid.  1.  Ixii. 

9  Ibid.  1.  Ixii;  3.  254;  see  the  fuller  Ust,  ibid.  2.  404 
10  Ibid.   1.  Ixii;  3.  321. 

^1  Calverley,  in  Trans.  Cumb.  and  Westm.  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Soc.  12.  246. 

12  Stuart,  Sculpt.  Stones  of  Scotland,  p.   1,  PI.  35. 

13  Ibid.,  PI.  34.  i«  Ibid.,  PI.  38. 
1^  Early  Christ.  Mon.  of  Scotland  1.  Ixi. 

1^  Daniel  Wilson,  Prehistoric  Annals  of  Scotland  2.  247-8 ;  Stuart,  Sculpt. 
Stones  of  Scotland  2,  PI.  47 ;  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.  Times 
2.   131. 

"  See  p.  26. 

(83) 


296  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

11th  to  the  beginning  of  the  13th  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.^ 

Le  damier  est  un  ornement  d' architecture  frequemment  employe 
pendant  le  XII"  siecle.  .  .  .  C'est  surtout  dans  I'lle-de-France,  le 
Soissonnais.  et  en  Normandie,  qu'on  trouve  I'emploie  des  damiers  a  dater 
de  la  fin  du  XI®  siecle  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'etait  un  moyen  peu  dispendieux  de  donner  de  la  richesse 
aux   tympans,    aux   surfaces   des   murs.^ 

Les  damiers,  carres  alternes  en  creux  et  en  relief,  sont  des  motifs 
courants  tres  repandus,  connus  des  le  XI®  siecle,  abandonnes  a  la  fin 
du  XII®,  et  peu  vent  etre  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  VioUet-le-Duc  5.  24-5,  s.  v.  Damier.  For  tympana  thus  ornamented 
in  France,  see  Caumont,  Abecedaire  d' Archeologie  1.  91,  96,  160,  188. 

3  Enlart,  Manuel  d'Archeologie  Fravgaise  1.  354  ;  cf.  pp.  363,  364  (note  6), 
402  (picture)  ;  also  Baum,  Eomanesque  Arch,  in  France,  p.  70  (church  of 
Chauriat,  Puy-de-D6me). 

*  Colhngwood,  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  p.  290.  Among  Norman  churches 
in  the  diocese  of  Carlisle  which  have  tympana  or  capitals  ornamented  with 
chequers,  Colhngwood  mentions  those  of  Bromfield  (p.  85),  Kirk-Bampton 
(p.  214),  Long  Marton  (p.  229),  and  Torpenhow  (p.  271).  Ruprich-Robert 
{UArch.  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.  XXXIV-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,  PI.  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  Jumieges  (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  Jumieges],  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  sjiecially  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  LongMarton,  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  archaeologists 
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.  Colhngwood  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  all  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 

^  Rivoira,  Lomb.  Arch.  2.  83.  Venturi  (Storia  cklV Arte  Ital.  3.  20)  speaks 
of  chequers  as  among  the  ornaments  of  pillars  (with  knotwork,  etc.)  which 
became  more  and  more  common  in  Italy  from  the  12th  century.  See 
also  above,  p.  82,  note  7. 

^  Collingwood,  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  pp.  43-44. 

(85) 


298  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

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. 

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  Anghan  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,  Umbs,  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  proof  of  this  seems  to  be 


^  Cf.  also  p.  52 ;  Edith  A.  Browne,  Norman  Architecture  (London,  1907), 
p.  31 ;  and  especially  Rivoira  2.  202,  229,  247. 

2  Conv.  of  Heft.,  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  hmits, 
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  apphed  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 cyhnders,  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  SanPrassede,  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  comphcated  interlaced  work  arranged  in 
panels.     Among  them  is  one  on  which  is  sculptured  a  cross  of  interlaced 

^  Greenwell,  Catalogue,  pp.  48-9.  Cf.  Allen,  Mon.  Hist.  Brit.  Church, 
pp.  147-151  ;  Early  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  Bewcastle  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  apphed  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  prevaiUng  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, 
apphed  ahke  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  comphcated  patterns  so  frequently  met  with  in  the 
manuscripts  and  on  the  monuments.^ 

The  most  striking  characteristic  of  Vlllth  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  special  a  I'lrlande  peut-etre  que  les  deux  motifs  precedents, 
qui  ne  depasserent  guere  la  belle  epoque,  il  eut  dans  le  miheu  britannique 
toute  une  vie  prolongee  a  transformations  sans  nombre.  Beaucoup 
plus  compUque  des  I'origine  que  sur  le  continent,  il  a  connu  les  arrange- 
ments les  plus  divers,  issus  de  I'art  de  la  vannerie  ou  du  tisserand,  depuis 
la  simple  tresse  aux  anneaux  reguhers  jusqu'au  nattage  fait  de  plusieurs 
cordes  qui  s'entrecroisent  et  se  nouent,  en  carres,  en  cercles,  en  triangles, 
en  boucles  de  toute  forme  et  de  toute  grandeur,  souvent  meme  de  la 
plus  irreguhere  fantaisie.^ 


^  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2.   109-114. 

^  Rivoira,  Lomb.  Arch.  1.  105-6.  There  are  some  good  specimens  from 
the  8th  or  early  9th  century  in  the  church  of  S.  Sabina,  at  Rome  (Rivoira 
1.  128).  For  interlacing  associated  with  vine-scrolls,  see  Venturi  3.  105-113, 
and  p.  82,  above.  Enlart  {Manuel  d' Archeologie  Fran^aise  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-Desert  (Herault) 
of  the  10th  century. 

^  Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  P.  318  ;  cf.  Enlart,  Manuel  d'Archeologie  Fran- 
gaise  1.  352. 


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,'  ^ 
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.    THE  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  fohage.^ 


^  Anderson,  Scotland  in  Early  Christ.   Times  2.  109. 

^  Bishop  Browne,  who  regards  the  Bewcastle  Cross  as  of  the  7th  century, 
finds  difficulty  here.  He  says  {Conv.  of  Heft.,  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  hke  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, 
Ave  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  Anghan  development, 
and,  as  an  alternative,  to  that  of  a  borrowing  from  Lombardy,  the  peacock 
screen  at  Brescia  (see  p.  79,  above)  being  cited  as  a  crucial  example  of  the 
Lombardic  work  (op.  cit.,  pp.  198,  228-9  ;  but  of.  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  Anghan  and  Scotic  interlacements,  and  to  look  to  more 
classical  decoration  ').  Rivoira  {Burl.  Mag.,  April  15,  1912,  pp.  23,  24) 
Avill  not  allow  that  any  British  carved  interlacing  is  earher  than  the  8th 
century. 

^  See  p.  27. 

*  Colhngwood,  in  Victoria  Hist.  Cnmb.   1.  255. 

^  Calverley,  Early  Sciilpt.  Crosses,  p.  41. 

®  Browne,  Conv.  of  Hept.,  p.   194. 

(89) 


302  General  Discussion  of  the  Crosses 

According  to  Gatty,  few  sundials  in  England  antedate  1066.^ 
CoUingwood,  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  Kkeness  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 
12th  century  is  more  probable. 


^  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,  11th  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  Heft.,  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. 

3  Early  Sculpt.  Crosses,  pp.  288-9 ;  cf.  p.  54,  and  Victoria  Hist.  Cumb. 
1.  256. 

*  Reported  in  Cosmos,  No.  1238,  Oct.  17,  1908,  by  J.  L.  Benoit,  a  Bene- 
dictine monk;  cf.  Revue  de  VArt  Chretien  52  (1909).  200,  201. 


(90) 


Theory  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Crosses  303 

THEORY  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 — reUgious,  social,  or  political — which 
actuated  the  production. 

III.  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. 

II.  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  viev\- 
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  reUgious 
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.^ 


^  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),  mth  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  EvangeUsts  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.'  GreenweU  adds :  '  Our  Lord  is  represented  on  the  Hd  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  VArt  2.  200) :  '  Une  curieuse  piece  du  meme  musee  [Durham] 
montre  ce  qu'etait  devenue  la  representation  de  la  figure  humaine  dans 
les  dernieres  annees  du  VII®  siecle.  C'est  le  cercueil  de  bois  de  Saint  Cutli- 
bert  execute  en  698  par  les  moines  de  Lindisfarne.  Le  Christ  entre  les 
quatre  Animaux,  la  Vierge,  les  Archanges,  y  sont  representes  en  simple 
gravure  au  trait,  avec  une  mediocre  entente  des  proportions  et  des  formes, 
et  de  fagon  conventionnelle  et  systematique,  mais  non  sans  habilete.  La 
tradition  byzantine  est  encore  evidente  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) 


Fig.  34.     St.   Cuthbert's   Coffin.      (From   Greenwell,    Catalogue,  p.  138.) 


laiM 


Fig.  35.     St,  Cuthbert's  Coffin,  Figure  of  Christ.    (From  Greenwell,  Catalogue,  p.  143. 


Outline  305 

It  is  my  purpose,  in  this  section,  to  endeavor  to  show  tliat  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  RuthwcU  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 
Jiuthwcll  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  3.3.  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  jnaster  in  his  simple  art.  There 
is  no  hesitation  in  the  work,  no  second  cut,  no  shp  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  Bcwcastlc  Cross: 
'  The  buds,  blossoms,  and  fruit  have  been  so  carefully  and  exquisitely  de« 
hneated  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.'  Colhng- 
wood  {Early  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,  l^rowno  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  exc^cuted  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  simpheity  could  not  be  given  to  such  a  figure  in  any  age.   I  have 

(ua) 


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 
BOTH  CROSSES 

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  intelhgence  and  sagacity  of  that  able  and  pohtic  prince.^ 


had  it  put  on  glass,  and  shewn  by  Ume  hght  on  a  screen,  the  full  size  of  Ufe. 
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  GaUican,  or  by 
Roman  masons,  is  merely  bewildering.'  Prior  and  Gardner  ('  Enghsh 
Mediaeval  Figure- Sculpture,'  Architectural  Review  12.  8) :  '  The  draperies 
have  the  fuU  foldings  and  massive  modeUing  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  Enghsh  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,  '  Bewcastle,'  Trans.  Cumh.  and  Westm.  Antiq. 
and  Arch.  Soc.  3.  223;  Prior  and  Gardner,  '  Enghsh  Mediaeval  Figure-Sculp- 
ture,' Architectural  Review  12.  8.  For  similar  phenomena  in  the  Isle  of 
Man,  see  Kermode,  Manx  Crosses,  p.  89.  For  the  composite  character  of 
Romanesque  sculpture  and  architecture,  see  Michel,  Hist,  de  I'Art  1^.  943 ; 
Male,  UArt  Religieux  du  XIII''  Siecle  en  France  1.  68  ff. 

^  Robertson,  Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings  1.  170. 

(94) 


The  Power  ivhich  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  principaUty  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  Enghsh  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  estabhshed.  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  hne  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  Hmits  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  Carhsle.  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  WiUiam 
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.* 

Encyc.  Brit.,  9th  ed.,  21.  482. 

Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  14.  117. 

In  1133,  the  first  bishop  being  AdeluK;  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.^ 

Hie  Henricus  .  .  .  videns  Johannem  Episcopum  Glasguensem  per 
Cumberlandiam  ecelesias  dedicare,  et  cetei'a  officia  pontificaha  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 
resembUng  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  reUgion  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  fihus  Waldef,  Gill  filius  Boed, 
Leysyng  et  Oggo,  Cumbrenses  judices,  Halden  filius  Eadulf.  Hujus 
rei  testes  sunt,  etc.* 


^  Chalmers,  Caledonia  5.   148. 

2  Fordun,  Scotichron.  8.  3. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  14.  117-8. 

*  David's  Inquest,  in  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  2.  18 ;  also  in  Beg- 
istrum  Episcopatus  Glasguensis  (Bannatyne  Club)   I.   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  GaeUc  Buidh,  modern  Boyd,  i.  e., 
"  yellow-haired."  The  relatives  of  the  two  Bueths  bear  Gaehc  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  MaUse, 
means  "  Servant  of  Jesus  "  ( Giolla-Iosa  in  full  Gaehc  spelhng).  This  Gilles 
Avas  a  Cumbrian  witness  in  an  inquisition  as  to  the  lands  of  Glasgow 
€hurch,  1120-1121,  and  owned  "  Gilles-land  "  to  his  death,  after  which 
it  was  given  to  Hubert  de  Valhbus  (1157)  (Wetherhal,  p.  195-6); 
(b)  Bueth  or  Bueth-barn  {i.  e.,  Bueth  "  the  childe,"  junior ;  though  Chan- 
cellor Prescott  says  "  Bueth' s  child  ").  He  gave  land  in  Bewcastle 
to  Wetherhal  Priory,  and  his  son  Robert  confirmed  the  grant  (1177-8). 
Robert  joined  Wilham  the  Lion  (1173-4)  and  was  fined  one  mark  for 
the  act  of  rebeUion  (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  Gilles,  but  as  it  was 
common  to  give  a  grandson  his  grandfather's  name,  it  is  likely  that 
we  have  four  generations:  — Bueth,  Gilles,  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  marc  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  Carhsle.  .  .  .  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  tlie 
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  MabiMaj  filia?  Adse  fihj  Richeri  de  Buchcastre  facta  monachis 
de  Wederhale  de  XIV  acris  terrse  in  Buchcastre. ^ 


^  CoUingwood,   quoted  by  Curwen,   St.   Cuthbert's  Church,   Bewcastle,  in 
Cumberland  and  Westmoreland  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Soc.  Trails., 'N.  S.  2  (1902).  243. 

2  Prescott,    Register   of    the    Priory  of  Wetherhal    (EUiott    Stock,    1897), 
pp.  195-7. 

3  Prescott,  p.   199. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad..  Vol.  XVII.  21  (97) 


310  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,  Avhich  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,  eic.  .  .  .  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  chartei',  '  infra  baroniam  quam  dominus  rex  Henricus  Anghe 
dedit  patri  meo  et  mihi  in  terra  que  fuit  GiUe  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  Avith  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.  ^ 


1  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  [ibid.,  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  prevaiUng  Early 
Enghsh  style  [1189-1272,  Parker],  as  is  stiU  noticeable  in  the  triple  east- 
(98) 


The  Poiver  zuhich  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  Carhsle  peace  was 
made.  .  .  .  David  gave  hostages,  but  retained  Carhsle  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  hving  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  pads  £2:0:0;  tempore  guerre,  nihil.  At  the 
first  date,  the  bishop  of  Carhsle  had  a  pension  on  Bewcastle  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.  Cumh.  2.  78].  In 
the  year  1792  '  it  was  practically  rebuilt,  and  irredeemably  spoilt.  Six  and 
a  half  yards  Mere  cut  off  the  nave  [cf .  what  is  said  of  the RuthweU  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  waU  vnth.  a  second  tier  of 
three  square  sashed  Avindows.  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  Carhsle  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  Enghsh  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  LennW  of  the  Latin.  '  The  collectors  of  the  tenth, 
given  by  the  clergy  of  the  diocese  of  Carhsle  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. 
Cumh.  2.  204). 

1  P.  H.  Brown,  History  of  Scotland  1.  77. 

2  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.^ 

Strathclyde,  which  from  908—1034  had  probably  extended  to  the 
eastern  and  southern  boundaries  of  the  subsequent  sees  of  Glasgow 
and  Carhsle,  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  William  Rufus  wrested  English  Cumbria  from  Dolphin, 
lord  of  Carhsle,  a  vassal  of  the  Scottish  Malcolm,  and  rebuilt  the 
castle  of  Carhsle,  making  the  adjoining  country  for  the  first  time 
Enghsh.^  From  1136  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  dehcate  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  Carhsle  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  utiUzing  as 
it  suited  his  purpose,  was  a  constant  danger  to  the  peace  of  the  district.* 


1  Haddan  and  Stubbs  2.  10. 

2  Encyc.  Brit,  9th  ed.,  21.  481. 

3  Haddan  and  Stubbs  2.  27. 

*  Victoria  Hist.  Cumh.  2.  244-5.  Haddan  and  Stubbs  (2.  13)  thus  define 
the  boundary  with  which  we  are  most  immediately  concerned,  that  in  the 
direction  of  Bewcastle :  '  All  Cumbria  was  never  within  the  see  of  Hexham, 
only  that  part  of  what  is  now  Cumberland  which  hes  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  WilUam  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) 


The  Pozver  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  %\'ith  affection. 
They  were  really  more  under  his  control  than  under  that  of  Stephen, 
and  they  would  hear  with  wondering  deUght  of  the  monasteries  which 
their  patron  was  erecting  in  the  North,  and  of  the  dioceses  which  ho 
created  or  remodelled.^ 

InCarhsle  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  [ca. 
1150  ?]  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,  Ivi.'  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.' 

1  Raine  1.  Ixxi ;  cf.  p.  Ixix. 

2  Ihid.  1.  168,  note  av. 

3  Hid.  2.  XV. 

*  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  affiUation  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  AUerdale,  Avho  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  Avith  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  Carhsle,  on  the  river  Waver. 

3  Wyntoun  and  Fordun  say  that  it  was  founded  by  David  (Wyntoun, 
ed.  Laing,  3.  333;  Fordun  1.  347). 

*  '  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.  Cumh. 
2.  167). 

6   Victoria  Hist.  Cumh.  2.   162-4. 

(102) 


The  Power  ivhich  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  pohtical  frontier  wliich 
marked  off  the  Enghsh  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  rehgious  considerations  there  was  a  community  of  feeHng  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.  Rehgious  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 
Avherein  the  great  lords  of  Annandale  and  ClaUoway  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  liberaUty,  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 
England  ;  to  his  close  alliance  with  the  new  royal  house  of  England, 


!   Victoria  Hist.  Gumb.  2.  14,  15.     On  the  connection  between  CarUsle  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  encyclopaedias  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  Enghsh  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  WilUam  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  Noithumberland ;  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  poUtic 
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. 


^  Skene,  Celtic  Scotland  1.  454. 

2  Guthrie,  History  of  Scotland  1.  303. 

(104) 


The  Poiver  which  Enabled  and  Suggested  the  Production      317 

the  earldom  of  Northampton  during  her  Mfetime,  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  Enghsh  had  still  a 
strong  affection.  Stephen  therefore  treated  him  [1136]  with  all  the 
honors  due  to  the  first  prince  of  the  blood.  ^ 

Edgar  the  ^EtheUng,  with  his  mother  Agatha,  his  sisters  Margaret 
and  Christina,  and  the  last  relics  of  the  English  nobihty,  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 
fideUty,  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   WiUiam,    and 


^  Brown  1.  74-5. 

2  Guthrie,  p.  306. 

^  Turgot,  Lije  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  Une  of  England.^ 

The  shout  of  the  EngHsh  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 
Enghsh  throne.  The  blood  of  Cerdic  and  yElfred  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  Uterary  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  Avritten, 
nor  by  any  one  understood.'* 

Matilda  appears  to  have  been  very  amiable,  very  devout,  very  fond 
of  music  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- 


^  Turgot,  p.  35,  note. 

'^  Anglo-Saxon  Chron.  s.  ann.  1100. 

3  Green,  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  Chap.  2,  Sec.  6. 

■*  Diet.  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  monks,  etc.     Cf.  below,  p.  128. 

^  Eobertson  1.   153,  note. 

(106) 


The  Power  ivliich  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  principahty  a  body  of  knights  and  barons,  from  whom  sprung 
the  older  Norman  chivalry  of  Scotland.^ 

The  fear  of  the  mail-clad  auxiharies,  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.3 

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,  Lindsaj'  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  Da%ad 
a  strong  and  fortunate  monarch,  yet  the  most  potent  influence  that 
sustained  him  in  all  his  undertakings  was  the  discipUned  strength  of 
the  Norman  knights  and  barons  behind  him.^ 

Both  Normans  and  EngUsh  came  to  Scotland  in  crowds  in  the  days 
of  Margaret,  Edgar,  and  Da^nid.  In  Scotland  again  the  Norman  settlers 
were  lost  in  the  mixed  nationahty  of  the  country,  but  not  till  they  had 
modified  many  things  in  the  same  way  in  which  they  modified  things 
in  England.® 

FoUoAving  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. 

Ibid.   1.   171. 

Skene  1.  455. 

Robertson  1.   184. 

Brown  1.  73. 

Encyc.   Brit.,  9th  ed.,  17.  551. 

(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  leign  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  jiredominance  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  Avar,  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  Countr}^  '  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 


1  Brown   1.  90. 

2  Skene  1.  459-60. 

3  Ihid.   1.  455. 

4  Robertson  1.   196. 

(108) 


The  Power  which  Enabled  and  Suggested  the  Production      321 

treatment  of  the  conquered  English,  they  had  distinguished  themselves 
among  the  rest  of  David's  host.^ 

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  Enghsh,  who  then  spoke  Saxon, 
Anglo-Xormans,  and  Flemings  under  David  I.  and  his  two  grandsons, 
Malcolm  and  WilUam,  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 
pohcy.  ...  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  famihar  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  rehgious  foundations ;  he  strengthened  it 
with  the  castles  of  his  feudal  baronage ;  and  here  he  estabUshed  the 
nucleus  of  feudal  Scotland,  and  the  foundation  of  that  importance 
which  eventually   transferred   the    preponderance   in   the    kingdom   to 

1  Brown  1.  80. 

2  Ihid.  1.  88. 

3  lUd.   1.  89. 

*  Chalmers,  Caledonia  5.  62. 

*  Robertson  1.  229. 
«  Ibid.  1.  319-20. 

(109) 


322  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.  1 

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  Ufe  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.^ 

Bej^ond  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,  Dry  burgh,  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  Avith  beautiful 
examples  of  architecture.  .  .  .  From  the  time  of  David  to  the  death  of 
Alexander  III,  Scotland  was  relatively  peaceful,  prosperous,  and,  izi 
the  south,  Anglicized,  and  was  now  in  the  general  movement  of  western 
civiHzation.^ 

1  Robertson  1.  233.  ^  ^^^  i    224-5.  ^  Brown  1.  74. 

*  Ihid.  1.  94.  5  Andrew  Lang,  in  Encijc.  Brit.,  11th  ed.,  24.  433. 

(110) 


The  Motive  or  Motives  ivhich  Actuated  the  Prodtdction       323 


II:  THE  MOTIVE  OR  MOTIVES  WHICH  ACTUATED 
THE  PRODUCTION 
The  various  purposes  with  which  crosses  were  erected  during  the 
earher  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  Columbse  Crux  ' 
(the  Cross  of  SS.  Patrick  and  Columba) ;  and  since  neither  of  the  saints 
here  mentioned  were  buried  at  KeUs,  and  the  character  of  the  orna- 
mentation of  the  cross  shoAving  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  piUar-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  Umits  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  earlj^ 
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. 

^  On  the  Danish  stones,  cf.  Wimmer,  De  Danshe  Runemindesmoer Jeer  1^.111. 

^  Allen,  Early  Christ.  Symbolism,  p.  132-3 ;  cf.  also  his  Hon.  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. 

(Ill) 


324  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  Bewcastle, 
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.  ^ 

Venerabihs  pater  Kentegernus  [518  ?-603]  antistes  habebat  in  con- 
suetudine,  ut  in  locis  quibus  prsedicando  populum  adquisitionis  nomini 
Christi  subdiderat,  et  de  fide  crucis  Christi  illos  imbuerat,  aut  ibi  ali- 
quantisper  deguerat,  triumphale  vexillum  sanctse  crucis  erigeret,  qua- 
tinus  cunctis  daretur  intelhgi  quod  in  cruce  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi, 
quam  in  fronte  portabat  minime  erubesceret.  Sed  ut  mihi  videtur, 
sancti  viri  consuetudo  sanctissima  viva  ratione  multipHciter  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  hquescentes 
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  Enghsh  name  of  Crossfield— that 
is,  Crucis  N ovale— 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  faiUng  breath 
gave  warning  of  the  end  of  his  hfe  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,  hfted  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. 

2  Allen,  Hon.  Hist.  Brit.  Church,  pp.  210-1  ;  cf.  p.  159. 

3  Jocelyn,    Vita   Kentegerni  41    (Pinkerton,   Lives  of  the  Scottish  Saints, 
Vol.  2). 

*   Victoria  Hist.  Cumb.  2.  2. 

s  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 
iibicumque  sibi  visum  fuit :  et  jussit  ibi  publicas  orationes  celebrari, 
donee  multitudines  populorum,  spretis  cseteris  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  Fame],  which  I  have  erected  there.'  ^ 

Fecerat  iste  [^thelwold,  Bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  721— ca.  740]  de  lapide 
crucem  artifici  opere  expohri,  et  in  sui  memoriam  suum  in  eo  nomen 
exarari.  Cujus  summitatem  multo  post  tempore,  dum  ipsam  ecclesiam 
Lindisfarnensem  pagan!  devastarent,  fregerunt,  sed  post  artificis 
ingenio  reliquse  parti  infuso  plumbo,  ipsa  fractura  est  adjuncta  ;  semper- 
que  deinceps  cum  corpore  sancti  Cuthberti  crux  ipsa  circumferri  solebat, 
et  a  populo  Northanhymbrorum  propter  utrumque  sanctum  in  honore 
haberi :  quae  etiam  usque  hodie  in  hujus,  id  est,  Dunelmensis  ecclesise 
coemiterio  stans  subhmis,  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  ilhs  efferre  quod  jusserat  prohibuit  ille,  dicens  se  ante  sacrosanctum 

^  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.  Archeol.  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). 
*  See  p.   117,  note  5. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII  22  (113) 


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  ilia  longitudinem  habens  palmse,  de  auro  purissimo 
mirabile  opere  fabricata,  quae  in  modum  thecae  clauditur  et  aperitiir. 
Cernitur  et  qusedam  Dominicse  crucis  portio  (sicut  saepe  niultorum 
miraculorum  argumento  probatum  est),  Salvatoris  nostri  imaginem 
habens,  de  ebore  densissime  sculptam,  et  aureis  distinctionibus  mira- 
biliter  decoratam.  Hanc  religiosa  Regina  Margareta,  hujus  Regis  mater, 
quae  de  semine  regio  Anglorum  et  Hungariorum  extitit  oriunda,  allatam 
in  Scotiam  quasi  munus  hereditarium  transmisit  ad  filios.  Hanc  igitur 
crucem,  omni  Scotorum  genti  non  minus  terribilem  quam  amabilem, 
cum  Rex  devotissime  adorasset,  cum  multis  lacrimis  peccatorum  con- 
fessione  praemissa,  exitum  suum  coelestium  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 
hfe  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.* 


^  Ailred  of  Rievaulx,  De  Oenerositate  Regis  David,  in  Pinkerton  2.  281 ; 
cf.  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 
Enghsh  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'  ; 
cf.  Turgot,  p.  77,  note  1. 

2  Turgot,  pp.  76-77.  »  Ihid.,  p.  79.  *  Ihid.,  p.  63. 

ai4) 


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  EngUsh 
friends,  with  their  civiHzation.  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,  Diyburgh,  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.* 


1  Turgot,  p.  30. 

-  Ibid.,  p.  81. 

3  Lang  1.   109  ;    cf.  p.  93. 

*  lUd.  1.   109. 

^  Veitch,  Hist,  and  Poetry  of  the  Scottish  Border,  p.  167. 

(115) 


328  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  alhance  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  rehgious  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  estabUshed  there 
the  seat  of  a  bishopric.  In  fact,  it  is  unusual  to  find  an  estabUshment  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  rehgion,  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  unUke  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) 


The  Motive  or  Motives  which  Actuated  the  Production       329 

Dundrennan.  They  consist  in  an  unusual  degree  of  Kghtness  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  hke  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  earher  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  Malcolm  Canmore  (1054-93)  and 
in  that  of  his  youngest  son  David  (1124-53).  David  had  not  only  prof- 
ited by  Enghsh  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  mediseval  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  reUgious  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  Avere  founded  almost 
contemporaneously,  in  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  four  great 
abbeys.^ 

In  Lothian  the  religious  houses  of  Holyrood,  the  Isle  of  May, 
Xewbottle,  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  DaAad.^ 


^  Butler,  Scotland's  Ruined  Abbeys,  pp.   Iff. 

2  Robertson  1.  319.  »  /j^j.   1.  231.  *  Butler,  p.  71. 

'"  Diet.  Nat.   Biog.   14.   119;  cf.   Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  2.   15,  25, 

27,  28,  33:  Chalmers.  Caledonia  (1807)   1.  678,  note  (x) ;  Raine.   Priori/  of 

(117) 


330  Theory  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Crosses 


III.  THE  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  mediaeval  growth  quickened  to  a  mightier  vitaUty,  and 
distinctively  mediaeval  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  accompUshment  in  insti- 
tutions, in  philosophy,  in  art  and  poetry,  had  been  a  heaven-blown 
accident,  and  not  the  fruit  of  antecedent  disciphne.^ 

Au  XII®  siecle,  epoque  incomparable,  tout  nait,  tout  resplendit 
a  la  fois  dans  le  monde  moderne.  Chevalerie,  croisades,  architecture, 
langue,  Utterature,  tout  jaillit  ensemble  comme  par  la  meme  explosion; 


Hexham  1.  169;  Cram,  Ruined  Abbeys  of  Great  Britain,  pp.  132-3;  Keith- 
.Spottiswoode,  Historical  Catalogue  of  the  Scottish  Bishops,  1824 ;  BroAVTi, 
p.  110,  above;  Fordun,  Scotichronicon  2.  230,  426.  The  hst  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. 

1 140.     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  Mediceval  Mind  2.  205-6. 

(118) 


Cultural  and  Artistic  Antccede)its  33J 

c'est  la  que  debute  veritablement  I'histoire  de  nos  arts,  de  notre  litte- 
rature.  de  notre  civilisation,  comme  celle  des  autres  arts  et  des  autres 
civilisations  de  TEurope.^ 

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  LoUardism  of  Wychf,  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  welcomed  the  austere 
Cistercians,  a  reformed  outshoot  of  the  Benedictine  order,  as  they 
spread  over  the  moors  and  forests  of  the  North.  A  ncAV  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  ana^ch3^  The 
only  bright  pages  in  the  story  of  those  '  nineteen  winters  '  are  thi' 
pages  in  the  Jlonasticon  Anglimnum  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  Hospitallers  were  setting  up  their 
priories,  Austin  canons  were  directing  schools  and  serving  hospitals, 
and  the  sons  of  S.  Bernard  were  making  the  very  desert  to  rejoice  and 
blossom  as  the  lose.  The  vigor  of  the  movement  shewed  itself  in  the 
diversity  of  forms  which  it  assumed.  Most  of  them  were  offshoots 
of  the  Order  of  8.  Augustine.  The  Augustinian  schools  were  the  best 
in  England ;  the  '  Black  Canons  '  excelled  as  teachers ;  they  excelled 
yet  more  as  nui'ses  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  dwelhngs  of  the  servants  and  handmaids 
of  God  than  had  arisen  there  in  the  course  of  the  whole  previous  cen- 


Caumont,  Abecedaire  (V ArcMologit  1.  203. 
Taylor  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  lonelj'  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  Avere  .  .  .  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  Mght  amid  the  darkness.^ 

Thurstan  ^  is  especially  to  be  commemorated  as  the  reviver  of  monasti- 
cism  in  the  North.  His  intercourse  with  the  ecclesiastics  of  other  countries ; 
the  reUgious  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  disciphne  was  well  chosen.  The  Norman  and  the  Saxon  elements 
in  the  EngUsh  Church  were  now  happily  blended  together.  Everything 
in  rehgious  as  weU  as  civil  affairs  was  now  settled  and  laid  down.  The 
great  baronies  and  fees  throughout  the  country  were  for  the  most  part 

^  Norgate,  England  under  the  Angevin  Kings  1.  356-8. 

^  On  Thurstan  and  Hexham,  see  Raine,  Priory  of  Hexham  1.  Ixv. 

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  hves  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  hke  every  freak  and  sudden  feehng,  it  was  only  temporary.  It  began 
with  the  twelfth  century,  and  it  did  not  outUve  it.  .  .  .  Between  the 
years  1120  and  1125  six  houses  of  Augustine  canons  seem  to  have  been 
established  in  Yorkshire.^ 

L'ere  des  iconoclastes  avait,  pendant  longtemps,  aneanti  les  etudes 
iconographiques  ;  elles  commencerent  a  renaitre  au  XI^  siecle,  mais 
ce  ne  fut  qu'au  XII®  qu'elles  firent  de  grands  progres.  .  .  .  Jusqu'a  la 
fin  du  XI**  siecle,  on  avait  rendu  la  figure  humaine  de  la  maniere  la 
plus  bizarre  et  la  plus  incorrecte.  Mais  au  XII*^  siecle  on  vit  paraitre 
des  statues  et  des  bas-rehefs,  qui,  sans  etre  exempts  de  defauts,  etaient, 
au  moins,  ramenes  a  une  certaine  correction.  Cette  renaissance  de  la 
statuaire  contribua  puissamment  a  changer  I'aspect  des  monuments 
religieux  en  apportant  un  element  nouveau  dans  leur  decoration.  .  .  . 
On  commen9a  au  XII''  siecle  a  sculpter  des  figures  de  grande  proportion. 
...  La  plupart  sont  vetues  de  longues  tuniques  recouvertes  d'une  espece 
de  manteau  qui  s'ouvre  par  devant.^ 

Le  Xord,  avant  le  milieu  du  XII''  siecle,  ne  produit  qu'une  orne- 
mentation  pauvre,  barbare,  dans  quelque  acception  qu'on  prenne  le  mot.^ 

Au  douzieme  siecle,  apres  de  longs  tatonnements,  et  des  essais  labori- 
eux  et  informes,  la  sculpture  monumentak  etait  nee.  Silencieuse 
pendant  plusieurs  siecles,  les  pierres  etaient  devenues  eloquentes.^ 

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  obehsks  was  ever  a  cross,  that  is,  that 


Raine,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  York,  pp.  201-2. 
Caumont,  p.  160. 

Enlart,  Manuel  d\Archeolo<jie  Fran^uise  1.  201. 
Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  P.  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- 


^  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  Wilham  [Howard].  It  was  the  head  of  a  Cross  at  Bewcastell. 
All  the  letters  legable  are  thes  in  on[e]  line,'  etc.  (James  Wilson,  in  Trans. 
Cumb.  and  Westm.  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Soc,  N.  S.  10.  504  ;  cf.  Victor,  Die  North. 
Runensteine,  p.  15  ;  Ole  Worm,  Danicorum  Monumentorum  Libri  Sex,  Copen- 
hagen, 1643,  p.  161  ;  Kemble,  in  Archceologia  28.  346-7  ;  Camden,  Britannia, 
ed.  Gough,  p.  455).  Besides,  MS S.  Cotton Domitian  A.  xviii.  37,  and  Julius  F. 
vi.  313,  after  giving  the  runic  inscription,  RIK^S  DRUHTNiES  (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  cross-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  14^  feet  high, 
being  an  addition  of  scarcely  more  than  2  per  cent  to  its  height  (Colhngwood. 
in  Victoria  Hist.  Cumb.  1.  255,  must  therefore  be  in  error  when  he  says  : 
'  With  it  the  cress  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  monohth  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  Bewcastle  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  obehsk  could  have  been  known  to  North 
Europeans  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Now,  whatever  obeHsks  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  pecuhar  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  pecuhar  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  hkely  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,  Hke 

every  pilgrim  to  St.  Peter's,  from  before  the  days  of  King  Alfred,  must  have 
seen  that  wliich  still  adorns  the  Piazza  between  the  colonnades  of  Bernini. 
This,  according  to  Gregorovius,  is  '  the  only  obelisk  in  Rome  whicli  has  not 
at  some  time  or  other  been  leveled  with  the  ground  '  ( Rome  in  the  Middle 
Ayes  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  Ruth  well  Cross  that  it '  is,  in  Form,  like  the  Egyptian 
Obehsks  at  Borne  '  ;  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  ^Egyptian  Fashions.' 

It  is  indeed  strange,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Ruthwell  and  Bewcastle 
crosses  both  had  cross-pieces,  that  no  fragment  of  either  has  been  preserved, 
and  that  the  stone  sent  from  Bewcastle  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  sunoial.can  be  most  readily  derived 
from  the  ornamental  features  of  churches.  And  the  suggestion  for  such 
a  face  of  an  obelisk  would  most  naturally  come  from  the  carved  door- 
post of  a  church-portal.^  Such  a  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  mediaeval  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  i\.doration 
of  the  Magi ;  (9)  the  Announcement  to  the  Shepherds  ;  (10)  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,*  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, 
is  1117.6 

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 
genr e-sVihiecis  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'Archeologie  Fran- 
Qaise  1.  295. 

-  Cf.  the  door-jamb  of  the  baptistery  at  Parma  (Venturi,  Sioria  delV Arte 
Ital.  3.  305). 

3  See  pp.  25,  26,  28.  *  See  pp.   16  ff.  ^  ;^ee  p.  44. 

^  Cesari,  Nonantola  (Modena,  1901),  pp.  60-61,  and  frontispiece  :  Venturi, 
3.   172  ;    see  also  pp.  50,  81,  above. 

(124) 


Ctdtiiral  and  Artistic  Antecedents :  Tiron  337 

from  about  1122.  Two  of  these,^  by  a  master  standing  in  close 
relation  to  Wiligelmus,  represent  respectively  two  shoemakers  at 
work  and  a  knife-grinder.^  The  inscription  on  the  border  of  the 
first  siiows  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  pecuHar  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  32  ff.,  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  convenient^  begin  with  one  of  the  most  important  in- 
fluences, that  of  Tiron  (properly  Thiron),  near  Chartres. 

1.  THE    POSSIBLE    INFLUENCE  OF  TIRON 

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),^  show  the  influence  of  Tiron. 

Anno  MCXIII.  nionachi  Tiionenses  in  Angliani  veneiunt,  X.  annos 
antequam  Savinienses  venerunt  in  Angliam.  Monachi  Tironenses  in 
terra  David  regis  Scotise  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  sanctae  Mariae  prsedictis 
monachis  Tironensibus,  ubi  earn  plus  rex  David  magnis  muneribus 
ditavit,  multis  ornamentis  ornavit,  prsediis  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.  2  cf.  p.   145.  ^  cf_  pp,  45^  124. 

*  Lawrie  {Early  Scottish  Charters,  p.  269)  says  that  monks  from  Tiron 
were  brought  to  both  Lismahago  and  Kilwinning. 

*  Simeon  of  Durham,  Hist.  Regum  (Rolls  Series)  2.  247. 
«  Ihid.  2.  281. 

(125) 


338  Theory  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Crosses 

About  this  time  Bernard,  abbot  of  Quince  [Quin9ay]i  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  8t. 
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,  ])ainters  and 
masons,  vine-dressers  and  ploughmen,  with  skilled  artificers  in  various 
branches  of  labor.  They  diUgently  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, 

^  Bernard  was  Abbot  of  St.  Cyprian  at  Poitiers  in  1100  and  for  at  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 
Soc.  Arch.  d'Eure-et-Loir,  Un  Manuscrit  Ghartrain  du  XI^  Siccle,  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  BoUandists  under  April  25, 
and  is  also  to  be  found  in  Migne,  Pair.  Lot.  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). 

^  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  {Gartulaire  de  Noire  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. 

•*  Chevalier  (Topo-Bibliographie)  says  the  Holy  Trinity. 

5  Ordericus  Vitalis,  Bk.  8,  chap.  27  (Bohn  3.  50-51). 

®  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  Antecedeyits :  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  deHcate  mouldings  of  the 
arcades  which  make  them  seem  too  fine  for  Norman  work,  and  the 
skilful  adjustment  of  the  tower  to  its  supports.^ 

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  cain,  or  customar}- 
tax,^  an  exemption  which  was  confirmed  by  his  son  Henry.* 
Geoffrey,  the  biographer  of  Bernard,  not  onl}^  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  ;  of.  Cram,  The  Ruined  Abbeys 
of  Great  Britain,  pp.  149, 145.  There  is  a  kind  of  chequer-work  (Butler,  pp.94-5) 
on  the  gable  (somewhat  resembUng  that  on  the  gable  of  the  12th  century 
church  of  St.  Stephen's  at  Beauvais)  which  might  have  suggested  that  on 
the  Bewcastle  Cross.  Kelso  is  only  37  miles  from  Bewcastle  in  a  straight 
line. 

^  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 
Cahxtus  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  Carhsle  {Diet.  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.  6  89  ff.  ;  Freeman,  Norm. 
Cong.  5.  230. 

^  Cartulaire  de  VAbbaye  de  la  Sainte-Trinite  de  Tiron  1.  80  ;  Lawrie,  p.  103. 

*  Cartulaire  2.  14  ;  LaAvrie,  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  etait  au  XII^ 
siecle  un  foyer  d'art  fort  actif,  possedant  una  ecole  d'architectes  habiles 
qui  nous  ont  laisse  d'admirables  constructions  d'une  solidite  a  toute 
epreuve,  architectes  qui  etaient  pour  la  plupart  des  moines  formes  dans 
les  abbayes  de  Tiron  et  de  Saint-Pere.^ 

II  a  ete  commence  vers  1110,  sous  I'episcopat  de  Saint  Ives,  et  termine 
sous  celui  de  son  successeur  immediat,  le  pieux  Geoffroy  de  Leves. 
II  a  ete  probablement  sculpte  par  les  moines  de  I'abbaye  de  Tiron.^ 

Par  reconnaissance  envers  Saint  Ives  et  le  cliapitre  de  Notre-Dame, 
il  leur  aura  fait  sculpter  les  statues  et  les  chapiteaux  histories  qui  ornent 
les  trois  bales.  Le  travail  est  si  delicat,  si  fini  que  I'ardente  piete  des 
moines-artistes  a  pu  seule  I'executer.  C'est,  sans  doute,  pour  faciliter 
ce  travail  de  sculpture  que  les  moines  de  Tiron  etablirent,  en  1117,  une 
succursale  a  Chartres,  dans  une  maison  situee  pres  du  Marche,  juxta 
jorum..  Ces  moines-artistes  venaient,  pour  la  plupart,  du  midi  de  la 
France,  ou  les  monuments  romains  abondent  ;  de  la,  sans  doute,  les 
reminiscences  antiques  qu'on  remarque  dans  plusieurs  parties  du  portail 
occidental.'* 

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  appHcation  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.^     This  may  weU  have  been  while  David  was  with  his 

1  Migne,  Pair.  Lat.   172.  1426. 

2  Monographie  1.  112  ;  cf.  Huysmans'  La  Cathedrdle  (Paris,  1898),  p.  256. 

3  Bulteau  2.  34. 

*  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) 


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 
Fhght  into  Egypt  of  a  storied  capital,^  and  by  vines  between  the 


1  Bulteau  1.  73,  note  2.  The  Diet.  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  Mediaeval  Mind  1.  296  ff.  ;  Clerval,  Les  Ecoles  de  Chartres 
au  Moyen-Age,  pp.  31  ff.,  194  ff. 

3  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  9.  4. 
*  Bulteau  1.  71. 

^  See  above,  p.  48. 

6  See  above,  p.  52.  Enlart  (Michel,  Hist,  de  VArt  [2.  205  ;  cf.  1^.  517-8]) 
compares  the  west  front  of  Rochester  Cathedral  mth  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  ;  cf.  P. 
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  mth  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  (cf.  Viollet-le-Duc  8. 
108,  210).  The  tympanum  of  Malmesbury  is  perhaps  inspired  by  sculpture  at 
the  abbey  of  Moissac  (cf.  Angles,  LAhbaye  de  Moissac),  according  to  Enlart 
(Michel  2.  205),  who  finds  the  same  style  in  sculpture  at  Bristol,  York,  and 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  23  (129) 


342  Tlieo)y  as  to  the  Origin  of  the  Crosses 

statues.^  Such  a  theory  is  rendered  pJausible  by  a.  consideration  of 
the  number  of  Enghshmen  who  visited  Chartres  for  longer  or  shorter 
periods  at  about  this  time.  Among  Enghsh  scholars  and  ecclesiastics 
who  in  the  1 1th  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  llOS,^  not  to  speak  of  an  earher 
visit  in  1097.^  John  of  Salisbury,  M'ho  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  Enghsh 
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.^  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  P. 
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.  46  ff.  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  Pres,  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  P.  117)  :  '  Au  IX''  siecle,  la  plupart 
des  monuments  de  la  Grande-Bretagne  furent  detruits  de  fond  en  comble 
par  les  incursions  incessantes  et  devastatrices  des  Danois  ;  au  siecle  suivant, 
sous  la  direction  de  moines  a  la  fois  artistes  et  hommes  d'etat,  tels  que  Dunstan 
et  Ethelwold,  les  ruines  furent  reparees  ;  et  c'est  a  partir  du  X"  siecle 
jusqu'a  la  conquete  normande  de  1066  que  se  place  vraisemblablement 
I'erection  des  monuments  appeles  saxons,  oeuvres  d'un  style  roman  tres 
rude  et  tres  original,  qui  ont  precede  en  Angleterre  1' architecture  normande.' 

^  See  above,  p.  80. 

2  Hist.  Liu.  de  la  France  10.  112-3  ;  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  2.  27. 

^  M.  A.  E.  Green,  Lives  of  the  Princesses  of  England  1.  47. 

*  Stubbs,  quoted  in  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  29.  444. 

5  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  29.  439,  444  ;  cf.  Norden,  Die  Antike  Kunstprosa,  pp.  713-7. 

«  Cf.  pp.   129,   143. 
(130) 


Cultural  and  Artistic  Antecedents :  Beauvais  343 

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  Porree  some  time 
between  1124  and  1137.^  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. 

2  Clerval,  Les  Ecoles  de  Chartres,  p.  180. 

3  Chronique,  Surtees  Society,  1840  ;  cf.  Wright,  Biographia  Britannica 
Literaria,  Anglo-Norman  Period,  pp.  221-3,  and  p.  98,  above. 

«  Clerval,  pp.  164,  186. 

5  Clerval,  p.   186. 

"  See  p.   127,  above. 

"^  Ivo  suggests  another  possible  influence— that  of  the  Austin  Canons, 
though  we  can  not  estabUsh  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.,  Ixvi  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  estabUshed  in 
Yorkshire  between  1120  and  1125,  of  which  Gisburgh  (see  p.  136)  was  one. 
Lanercost  Abbey  (p.  98),  only  a  few  miles  from  Bewcastle,  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  Uke  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  Ughter  and 
more  elegant  system  of  construction  and  a  more  graceful  theory  of 
design  that  distinguishes  it  from  earher  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  conventionaUzed  foliage  even  in  direct 
comparison  is  strikingly  Uke  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  unUke  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  t^ 

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,*  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  Clau-- 
vaux,  that  he  may  faithfully  serve  and  humbly  obey  the  King  of  Heaven 
in  his  earthly  kingdom. 


^  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.'^ 

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  RuthweU  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  hke  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  chme.  The  interior  abounds  in  beautiful 
capitals  and  mouldings  carved  in  most  deUcate  fohate  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 

^  Eales,  Some  Letters  of  Saint  Bernard,  pp.  121-3  ;  cf.  p.   120,  above. 
2  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  18.  33  ;  cf.  Brown,  Hist.  Scot.   1.  1,  45;    Lang,  Hist. 
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  dehcate  in  the  sphere  of  art.^ 

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  EngHsh  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. 

2  The  approximate  distances  of  some  of  the  abbeys  mentioned  from  Ruth- 
well and  Bewcastle  respectively  are  as  follows  : 

Ruthwell  to  Holmcultram,  12  miles  ;  to  Dundrennan,  25  miles  ;  to  Carlisle, 
20  miles. 

Bewcastle  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  fUes. 

There  is  an  ecclesiastical  map  of  Cumberland  facing  2.  126  of  the  Victoria 
Hist.  Climb.  ;  see  also  that  in  Victor,  Die  North.  Runensteme.. 

4  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  RuthweU,  across  the  Nith, 
and  Machhne.  For  New  Abbey  see  also  New  Stat.  Ace.  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.  Ace.  4.  22,  54,  87,  88). 

^   Sylvanus,  first  abbot  of  Dundrennan,  was  transferred  to  Rievaulx  in 
1167  (Neiv  Stat.  Ace.  4.  362). 
(134) 


Ciillural  and  Artistic  Antecedents :  Clairvaux  347 

With  respect  to  the  relation  between  Ruth  well  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  local  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  RievaHis.  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  Valiis)  in  1128.^  The  Liber  de  Metros,  under  the 
year  1136,  speaks  of  the  monks  de  Rievalle^  ;  and  in  the  Rievaidx 
Chartulary  the  following  spellings  occur  in  the  first  half  of  the  13th 
century  :  Rievahe  (5  times),  Rivall  (3  times),  RyevaU  (twice),  Ryvall 
(once),  RevaU  (once),  Ryvaus  (once).  Ryevall  also  occurs  in  1334, 
Ryvall  in  1251,  1278,  and  1306,  RevaU  in  1315.  Other  speUings 
are  such  as  these  :  River,  Rywax,  Riwaxe,  Rivaux,  Ryvaulx,  Ryvax.^ 

The  link  between  Rievaulx  and  RuthweU  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  well 
suited  for  the  great  game  of  the  forest,  the  deer  and  the  wild  boar,  to 
which  its  new  owners  devoted  it.^ 

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, 

^  John  of  Hexham,  in  Raine,  Priory  of  Hexham  1.  108  ;  Ailred  of  Rievaulx, 
inHowlett.  Chronicle  (Rolls  Series)  3.  183-4  ;  Carfidnrinm  Ahhathice  de  Rievalle, 
p.  21. 

2  Raine,  op.  cit.  1.  169,  note. 

^  Cart.,  pp.  civ-cvii. 

*  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  jeigns  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 
CaHxtus  11.^  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.^ 

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  Did.  Nat.  Biog.  7.  114. 

2  Ibid. 

^  Bromton,  Chron.  (Twysden,  col.   1018)  ;  Diet.  Nat.  Biog.  7.   114. 

1  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  possibihty  of  a  connection 
between  Rievaulx  in  Yorkshire  and  Ruthwell  in  Annandale. 

«  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) 


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  VaUe  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  Peerage 
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,^  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  EngUsh.^ 

Again  we  hear  of  Ruthwell  in  1411,  when  '  a  charter  of  ta.i\y^ie 
of  the  lands  of  "  Ryvale  "  in  Annandale  .  .  .  [was]  granted 
by  Archibald,  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas,  to  Sir  Thomas  Murray  of 
Ryvale. '  ^ 


^  Patrick  and  William  were  respectively  the  first  and  second  sons  of 
Sir  WilUam  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 
Scotland,  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). 

^  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. 

5  Ibid.,  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.^  '  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.4 

On  Sept.  4,  1487,  Cuthbert  Murray  is  said  to  have  mortified  an 
annual  rent  for  the  souls  of  James  III  and  John,  Master  of  MaxweU, 
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  Avas  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  "  our  beloved  cousin,  Sir  Thomas  of  Murray,  Knight."  ' 

1  Scots  Peerage  1.  218  ;  Mansfield  Charter-Chest. 

2  Reg.  Mag.  Sig.,  22  April  1452.  and  Exch.  Rolls,  v.  670. 
^  Scots  Peerage  1.  218  ;  Mansfield  Charter- Chest. 

^  Scots  Peerage  1.  219  ;  Mansfield  Charter-Chest.  Johnstone  (pp.  39,  48) 
assumes  that  Cuthbert  Murray  received  Ruthv/ell  among  the  forfeited 
estates  of  the  Corries,  who  liad  joined  the  rebelhon  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 
calUng  him  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  king's  forces  in  repelhng  the  raid 
of  1484? 

"  Johnstone,    p.    48    (cf.    p.  70);    Scots  Peerage    1,  222    which,    has    the 
spelhng  '  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  Cockpool  ^  and  their  successors  the 
Viscounts  of  Stormont,  and  it  now  belongs  to  the  Earl  of  Mansfield, 
who  represents  the  Viscounts  of  Stormont.^ 


^  Scots  Peerage  1.  223  ;  Mansfield  Charter-Chest. 

2  Caledonia,  1890,  5.  191,  note  (p). 

^  '  In  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.' 

*  Cockpool  is  about  two  miles  from  Ruthwell,  and  half  a  mile  from  Com- 
longan.  Here,  according  to  Chalmers  (5.  191,  note  (o)),  '  there  was  formerly 
a  chapel,  which  was  subordinate  to  the  mother  church  of  Ruthwell.' 

5  In  1794  the  church  was  thus  described  {Stat.  Ace.  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  Ptib.  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  17.  372.)  Henry  Duncan, 
writing  in  1834  {New  Stat.  Ace.  4.  235),  says  of  the  church  :  '  This  place 
of  worship  was  about  a  century  ago  a  miserable  building  thatched  with 
heath.  AVhen  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  pubUc  buildings  throughout 
the  country.' 

The  cross  -was  in  the  church  at  the  time  of  Pennant's  tour  (1772).  '  Soon 
after  this  [New  Stat.  Ace.  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  demoUtion,  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  {Annates  de  la  Soc. 
d'Archeologie  de  Bruxdles  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.^  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  estabUsh  the  fact  that  the  second  syllable  began  with 
V  (not  w).  The  entry  is  ^  :  Rectoria  de  Rovell  iiij  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  spelhngs  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  u,  seems  like  a  variant 


^  Information  from  the  present  minister,  Rev.  J.  L.  Dinwiddie  ;  Encyc. 
Brit.  11th  ed.,  8.  664. 

2  Innes,  in  Reg.  Episc.  Glasg.   1.  Mx. 

3  Ibid.  1.  Ixvi. 

*  Caledonia,   1890,  5.   191. 

^   See  p.   135,  above. 

^  Reg.  Episc.  Olasg.   1.  Ixxv. 

"^  Possibly  the  obscuration  of  the  original  ie-sound  (no  doubt  hke  ee  in 
modern  Enghsh  meet)  may  be  illustrated  by  the  obsolete  and  dialectic  rother, 
ruther  (with  short  vowel)  for  Old  Enghsh  hrlder,  which  the  ^Ye;;^  Eng.  Diet. 
explains  (after  the  shortening  of  the  vowel)  as  due  to  the  influence  of  the 
preceding  r.  The  16th  or  17th  century  speUings,  RoveU  and  Ruvell,  in 
contrast  with  the  Ryvel  of  1331,  seem  only  expHcable  on  the  theory  of  a 
short  or  shortened  vowel. 

8  Cf.  Pub.  Mod.  Lang.  Assoc,  of  America  17.  370,  371,  374. 

^  See  above,  p.   135. 
(140) 


Cultural  and  Artistic  Antecedents :  Clairvaux  353 

of  theRuvell  of  1546  (the  '  St.'  is  of  course  meaningless)  ;  Rothwald 
may  be  an  analogical  formation,  assimilated  ^  to  Mousewald  (formerly 
Muswald  and  Mosswald),^  Torthorvvald,  and  Tinwald,  parishes 
adjoining  that  of  Ruthwell.  Less  probable  is  Chalmers'  opinion, 
that  the  new  name  might  be  derived  from  Old  English  rJS,  rivulet, 
and  'd'uld  [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  modem  pronunciation,  Rivvel. 

In  1726,  Gordon  ^  has  the  form  Ruthvel,  with  the  old  ending, 
-vel,  continuing  the  ancient  tradition.  Keith,  in  his  hst  of  Scottish 
parishes,*  published  in  1755,  has  a  reference  from  Rivel  to  Ruthwald, 
but  instead  of  Ruthwald  has  RuthweU  (the  first  instance  of  this 
form  that  I  have  found),  and  under  the  latter  word  adds,  '  vul^o 
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  R\^al  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  rod,  cross,  must  always  have 
retained  the  d,  evolving  into  modern  English  rood  or  rod. 


^  As  Duncan  conjectures  (New  Stat.  Ace.  4.  218). 

-  Neiv  Stat.  Ace.  4.  442. 

3  I  tin.  Sept.,  p.  160. 

*  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.' 

8  11th  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,  Dunfermline,  and 
Urquhart  ^  ;  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 .*  At  the  reform  of  EngUsh  monasticism 
by  Dunstan  and  iEthelwold,  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  Bishops,  pp.  401  ff. 

2  Priory  of  Dunfermline,  ca.  1130  (Lawrie,  Early  Scottish  Charters,  p.  350). 

^  See  above,  pp.  49,  52. 

*  Cf.  above,  p.   130,  note  6  from  preceding  page. 

(142) 


Cultural  and  Artistic  Antecedents:  Northern  Italy  855 

province.  1  iEthelwold  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  Regia  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 


^  Raine,  Archbishops  of  York  1.  118-121  ;  cf.  Neues  Archiv  der  Gesellschaft 
fiir  Altere  Deutsche  Oeschichtskunde  16.  375.  Raine  (op.  ciL,  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  {Neues  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. 
*  See  p.   130,  above. 

^  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  royaUst,  and  that  Fleury 
stood  under  the  direct  patronage  of  the  King  of  France,  being  exempt  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Orleans  (op.  cit.,  pp.  370  ff.). 

(143) 


356  TJieory  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  WilHam  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  WiUiam 
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.*  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 
Wilham.  However  this  be,  their  works  are  clearly  recognizable 
as  forming  a  distinct  group,  resembhng  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  delV Arte  Ital.  3.  113-4,  who  says  that  strangers  were 
more  numerous  than  Itahans  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. 

^  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  VArt  P.  696-700. 

3  Venturi  3.   186. 

"  Venturi  3.   160,   170,   172. 

5  Venturi  3.  160  ;  cf.  p.  158. 

«  Michel  P.  697. 
(144) 


Cultural  and  Artistic  Antecedents :  Northern  Italy  357 

Quelques  details,  dans  un  ensemble  d'architecture  tout  italienne, 
rappellent  etrangement  I'art  du  Nord.  .  .  .  Ou  bien  I'artiste  qui  a 
sculpte  les  prophetes  de  Ferrare  a-t-il  eu  connaissance  des  statues- 
colonnes  de  Saint-Denis  et  de  Chartres  ?  .  .  .  Une  inscription,  gravee 
sur  le  portail  de  Ferrare  et  dont  le  second  vers  est  mutile  parait  donner 
pour  les  sculptures  la  date  de  1135.  Si  les  portails  de  Verone  et  de 
Ferrare  appartiennent  reellement  a  la  premiere  moitie  du  XII^  siecle, 
ils  sont  anterieurs  au  portail  vieux  de  Chartres,  et  il  faut  admettre  que 
Nicola  ait  enrichi  la  sculpture  monumentale  de  themes  que  les  sculpteurs 
fran9ais  ne  reprendront  qu'apres  lui.  ...  II  est  permis  de  se  demander 
si  des  sculpteurs  tels  que  .  .  .  maitre  Nicola,  I'auteur  du  portail  de 
San  Zeno  a  Verone,  n'ont  pas  pu  etre  employes  dans  le  Midi  de  la  France 
et  n'y  ont  pas  exerce  quelque  influence.  Les  dates  de  1133,  pour  le 
cloitre  d'Aoste,  et  de  1135,  pour  le  portail  de  Ferrare,  si  eUes  sont  admises, 
obligent  I'histoire  a  reconnaitre  que  I'ltaHe  du  Nord  a  joue  un  role 
preponderant  et  independant,  a  cote  de  la  France,  dans  I'evenement 
capital  qui  se  manifeste  au  commencement  du  XII**  siecle  :  la  creation 
d'une  sculpture  monumentale  a  sujets  reUgieux.^ 

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  fagade  of  San  Zeno  at  Verona,^  seem  natural 
precursors  of  the  falconer  on  the  Bewcastle  Cross. 

Sculptors  like  William  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  P.  696-700. 

2  See  p.  124. 

3  Cf.  Venturi  3.   169  (illustration). 

^  Venturi  3.  176-7;    cf.  p.  125,  above. 
5  Venturi  3.  194  :  cf.  p.  70,  above. 


Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  24  (145) 


,'358  Conclustoii 


CONCLUSION 

At  the  dose  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  as  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  Gesstis  Kristtus  of  the  Bew- 
castle  Cross  belong  to  the  end  of  the  13th  century  (see  p.  37).  The 
word  cBJt  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  Rood  (see  p.  40).  The  word  Alcfnpti,  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  pecuhai  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  12th  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  Uth  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 
his  dominions  by  every  possible  means.^    Moreover,  by  his  influence 

1  See  p.   120. 

2  That  this  task  requued  all  his  powers,  that  his  successors  were  in  general 
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  WiUiam  the  Lion  (1165-1214)  has  almost  no  endowment 
«ave  the  foundation  of  the  abbey  of  Arbroath  to  his  credit.  As  to  the  im- 
pression produced  by  David's  rehgious  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  rehgious  houses  popular, 
or  of  high  repute  in  the  district.'  Elsewhere  we  are  told  {New  Stat.  Ace. 
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  civihzation  as  its 
founder  anticipated.  .  .  .  Yet  for  this,  perhaps,  the  monks  are  not  to  be 
Ijlamed,  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 
rehgious  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  civihzation  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  rehgious  revolution 
came  their  conduct  betrayed  what  httle  affection  they  had  inherited  towards 
the  church  estabhshed  by  David.' 

On  the  lawlessness  and  wickedness  of  the  region  about  Bewcastle,  see 
Nanson,  Trans.  Cumb.  and  Westm.  Antiq.  and  Arch.  Sac.  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 


Gumh.  2.  78,  452  ;  Ferguson,  Hist.Cumh.,  pp.  2,  3  ;  Surtees  Soc.  Pub.  68. 437-41, 
443,  447, 463-4  ;  Scott,  Gtiy  Marmering,  chaps.  22, 23, 24.  On  the  desolateness 
of  the  region,  see  Hutchinson,  Hist,  of  the  County  of  Cumberland  1.  36,  76  ; 
Archoeologia\4:.  117;  Denton,  quoted  by  Nanson,  op.  cit.,  p.  227;  Surtees  Soc. 
Pub.  68.  Ixvii  ;  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.  Fain.  Dumfriesshire, 
pp.  1-2. 

On  the  other  hand,  Avith  reference  to  southern  Scotland,  and  the  shores 
of  the  Solway  in  particular,  see  Ruskin,  Prceterita  4.  69,  70,  72,  74  :  *  It  has 
.  .  .  been  .  .  .  only  mthin  the  last  five  or  six  years  that  I  have  fully 
understood  the  power,  not  on  Sir  Walter's  mind  merely,  but  on  the 
character  of  all  good  Scotchmen,  (much  more,  good  Scotchwomen,)  of  the 
two  lines  of  coast  from  Holy  Island  to  Edinburgh,  and  from  Annan  to 
the  Mull  of  Galloway.  Between  them,  if  the  reader  will  glance  at  any 
old  map  which  gives  rivers  and  mountains,  ...  he  will  find  that  all  the 
highest  intellectual  and  moral  powers  of  Scotland  were  developed,  from 
the  days  of  the  Douglases  at  Lochmaben,  to  those  of  Scott  in  Edinburgh, 
—  Burns  in  Ayr,— and  Carlyle  at  Ecclefechan,  by  the  pastoral  country, 
everywhere  habitable,  but  only  by  hardihood  under  suffering,  and  patience 
in  poverty  ;  defending  themselves  always  against  the  northern  Pictish  war 
of  the  Highlands,  and  the  southern,  of  the  EngUsh  Edwards  and  Percys, 
in  the  days  when  whatever  was  loveUest  and  best  of  the  Cathohc  rehgion 
haunted  still  the— then  not  ruins, — of  Melrose,  Jedburgh,  Dryburgh,  Kelso, 
Dunblane,  Dundrennan,  New  Abbey  of  Dumfries,  and,  above  all,  the  most 

(148) 


Conclusion  '  361 

hardly  fail  to  see  that  the  evidence  which  points  to  the  middle  of  the 
12th  century  as  the  time  when  our  crosses  were  carved  receives  an 
added  confirmation  from  the  circumstance  that  this  was  precisely 
the  period  when  the  rule  of  David  was  at  its  height. 

ancient  Cave  of  Whithorn, —the  Candida  Casa  of  St.  Ninian.  ...  It  was 
only  .  .  .  since  what  became  practically  my  farewell  journey  in  Italy  in 
1882,  that  I  recovered  the  train  of  old  associations  by  re- visiting  Tweed- 
side,  from  Coldstream  up  to  Ashestiel ;  and  the  Solway  shores  from 
Dumfries  to  Whithorn  ;  and  while  what  knowledge  I  had  of  southern  and 
foreign  history  then  arranged  itself  for  final  review,  it  seemed  to  me  that 
this  space  of  low  mountain  ground,  with  the  eternal  sublimity  of  its  rocky 
seashores,  of  its  stormy  seas  and  dangerous  sands  ,  its  strange  and  mighty 
crags,  Ailsa  and  the  Bass,  and  its  pathless  moorlands,  haunted  by  the 
driving  cloud,  had  been  of  more  import  in  the  true  world's  history  than  all 
the  lovely  countries  of  the  South,  except  only  Palestine.  .  .  .  Guy  Man- 
iiering,  Redgauntlet,  a  great  part  of  Waverley,  and  the  beautiful  close  of 
The  Abbot,  pass  on  the  two  coasts  of  Solway.  The  entire  power  of  Old 
Mortality  rises  out  of  them.  .  .  .  For  myself,  the  impressions  of  the  Solway 
sands  are  a  part  of  the  greatest  teaching  that  ever  I  received  during  the 
joy  of  youth.' 


(149) 


INDEX 

(Pages  are  referred  to  by  the  numbering  at  the  foot.) 


Abbeys,  109,  110,  115,  116,  117,  118. 
148.     See  a/so   Cistercian    abl)eys. 

Abbo  of  Fleury,  143. 

Acanthus,  72. 

Acca,  cross  of,  75,  78. 

Adela,  Countess,  129,  180,  181,  143. 

Adelulf,  127,  181. 

.i/A  37,  88. 

Agnus  Dei,  20,  24.  29,  46. 

Alcfrith,  Alcfrid,  7,  8,  9,  41,  42. 

Ahfritlui,  12,  87,  40,  42,  43. 

Animals,  19,20,21,23,27.54,72,78,74, 
79-83. 

Annandale,  102, 103, 135,136, 137,  142. 

Annunciation,  18,  29,  47-50,  70,  124 

Anointing  of  Christ's  feet,  17.  29. 
52-53. 

Anthony,  St.,  16,  22,  2V>,  58-59. 

Archer,  16,  29,  60-63. 

Arthur,  King,  70. 

.\ustin  canons,  llil,  120,  121.   181. 

Beauvais,  116,  126,  127,  131-2. 

Benedict  Biscop,  13,  77. 

Benott-sur- Loire,  St.,  17,  49,  51,  52. 
61,  124,  130,  142-3. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  110.  119,  120, 
132. 

Bernard  of  Tiron,  126,  127,  181. 

Bewcastle  church,  98,  99. 

Newcastle  Cross,  beauty  of  carving 
on,  98-94;  description  of,  24—28; 
likeness  to  Ruth  well  Cross,  5-6: 

Bewcastle,  distance  from  Ruthwell, 
6;  distances  to,  from  various  ab- 
bey's, 184;  name  of,  97-8;  latitude 
and  longitude  of,  6;  region  near, 
5,  147-8. 


Bewcastle  stone  (Cotton),  122. 
Birds,  19,  20,  23,  27,  63-69,  71,  73, 

74,  79-82. 
Blind  man,  Christ's  healing  of,  18, 

29,  45. 
Border,  Scottish  and  English,  The,  5. 

102,  103,  147,  148. 
Brescia,  peacock  screen  at,  79. 
Bruce,  102,  103,  109,  135.  136. 
Brussels  Reliquary,  35—87. 
Bueth,  Boed,  94,  96,  97,  98,  100. 
Byzantine  sculpture,  92,  94. 

CffidmoD,  7,  8,  9,  11,  12,  13,  15.  41. 

Carlyle,  148. 

Carlyles,  136,  137. 

Celtic  sculpture,  92,  94,  146. 

Chartres,  46,  48,  49,  51,  52,  57.  58,  60, 

63,  67,  80,  106,126,  128-181,  145. 
Chequers,  26,  29,  83-86. 
Christ,  figure  of,  21,   25,  29. 
Christ.     See  also  Agnus  Dei, 

Anointing,  Blind  man, Crucifixion. 

Flight  into  Egypt. 
Cistercian  abbeys,  134. 
Cistercians,  120,  133,  134. 
Clairvaux,  120,  132,  133,  135. 
Crosses,  objects   in  erecting.  111  ff. 
Crucifixion,  19,  29,  53-5,  62.  71. 
Cumbria,    94-96,   99,  100,  103,  117. 
Cuthbert,  St.,  74,  92,  98,  113. 
Cynibunig,   12,  37,  42. 
Cynnburug,  26,  43,   44. 

Danish  inscriptions,  pseudo-early,31. 
Danish  origin  of  crosses,  hypothesis 
of.  6. 


II 


Index 


Danish  sulcpture,  92,  94. 

Dates  of  Crosses,  opinions  concern- 
ing (page-numbers  in  paren- 
thesis) : 

Rtithwell  Cross: 

7tb,    8th,  or  9th  century  :    Kemble 

(7),   Brooke    (12;    runes   possibly 
after  1066). 
7th  or  8th  century:  Sweet  (9),  Brad- 
ley (11:  cf.  15). 
7th  century:  Haigh  (7),  Murray?  (9), 

Black?  (10),  Ker?  (15). 
early:  Brandl  (14). 
ca.  665:   Browne  (9,  11). 
ca.  670  :    Prior  and  Gardner    (13) ; 
somewhat    after    670:    Collingwood 

(13). 
ca.  680:  Stephens  (8). 
before  685:  Browne  (12). 
end  of  7tli  century:  Hammerich  (9), 

Greenwell  (12). 
ca.  700  :  Vigfusson  and  Powell  (9), 

Vietor  (10),  Lethaby  (15). 
700-750  :  Brooke  (12). 
8th  century  :  Paues  ?  (15). 
before  740:  Biilbriug  (14). 
before    750:     Sweet    (10),     Bugge 

(11). 
ca.  750:  Skeat  (15). 
764-794:  Dietrich  (8). 
ca.  800:  Vigfusson  and  Powell   (9). 
9th  century:  Rousseau  (13). 
after  9th  century:  M.  Chalmers  (7). 
10th  century:  Smith  (15). 
after  10th  century:  Nicolson  (6). 
ca.  1000:  MuUer  (9). 
after  1000  (?) :  Eickes  (7). 
nth  century:  Stokes  (10). 
1100-1150:  Rivoira  (14,  15,  78). 
ca.   1150:  Enlart  (14). 
not  7th  century:  Allen  (11). 
late :  Anderson  (12). 

Beivcastle   Cross  : 

7th  century:  Haigh  (8),  Murray:  ^0) 
ca.  665:  Haigh  (7),  Browne  (9). 


ca.  670:  Maughan  (7),  Stephens  (8), 
Bradley  (10),  Calverley  (11), 
Browne  (12),  Colhngwood  (12, 13., 
Prior  and  Gardner  (13),  Enlart? 
(14),  Paues  (15). 

end  of  7th  century:  Greenwell  (12). 

ca.  700:  Vietor,  (10, 12),  Lethaby(15). 

before  750:  Sweet  (10). 

764-794:  Dietrich  (8). 

9th,  10th,  or  11th  century:  Allen 
(10;  cf.  11). 

after  900:  Smith,  G.  (7). 

11th  century:  Stokes  (10). 

1100-1150:  Rivoira  (15). 

ca.  1150:  Enlart?  (14). 

late:  Sievers  (11,  31). 
David  I,  93  ff.,  121  ff.,  127,  128,  131, 

134,  135,  136,  143,  147,  148. 
Dream  of  the  Rood,    The,  5,   7,  8,    14. 

15, 28,  28,  29,  32,  33,  35,  37,  40, 146. 
Duncurry,  Thomas  de  earliest  named 

lord  of  Ruthwell  136,  137. 
Dunstan,  142. 
Elizabeth.     See  Visitation. 
Falconer,  25,  29,  60,  68-71. 
Falconry  in  Cumberland,  68,  69. 
Fleury.    See  Abbo,  Benoit-sur-Loiro. 

Hugh. 
Flight  into  Egypt,   22,  29,   .50-52, 

70,  129,  142. 
Gessus  Kris  tins,  37. 
Gisburgh,  181,  136. 
Grreek     inscriptions,     pseudo-early, 

30-31. 
Haigh,  41,  42,  71. 
Henry  I,  104,  105,  106,  116,119,  120, 

128,  130,  182,  134,   135,   143,  147 
Hexham,  61,  74,  76,  77,  78,  79,  100, 

101,  111,  120,  131,  134,  147. 
Holmcultram,  102, 103,  118,  133,  134, 

147. 
Hugh  of  Fleury,  143. 

Interlacing.     See  Knotwork. 
Irish   high   crosses,    10,   40,   54,  55, 
59,  111. 


Index 


III 


Italy,  Northern,  143-5. 

Ivo  (Ives)  of  Chartres,  126,  128,  130, 

131. 
Jedburgh,  80,  110,115,  117,  118, 127, 

131-2,  134,  148. 
John,  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  126,  127. 
John  the  Baptist,  20,  24,  29,  46. 

Kelso,   46,    110,   115,   116,  117,  118, 

125,  126,  127,  132,  134,  148. 
Knife-grinder,  125,  145. 
Knotwork,  26,  27,  28,  29,  86-89. 

Lanercost  abbey,  98,  131,  134. 
Latin  inscriptions,  pseudo-early,  30. 
Latin  letters,  44 
Lombard  sculpture,  92,  94. 
Lozenge-0,  23,  44,  45,  125. 

Majesty,  the,  45,  56-58,  62. 

Man,  Isle  of,  38,  39,  40,  41,  43,  94, 

102. 
Margaret,  St.,  103-5,  114.  115. 
Mary.       See     Annunciation,    Flight 

into  Egypt,  Visitation. 
Matilda,  104,  106,  116,  128,  132,  134. 
Maughan,  7,  42. 
Maximian,  throne  of,  73. 
Melrose,  102,  110,  115,  117,  118,  133, 

134,  148. 
Milan,  10. 
Murray's,  lords  of  Ruthwell,  136—9. 

Nicholas,   Niccolo,   50,   70,   81,  144, 

145. 
Normans,  66,  84,  85,  86,  95,  96,  97, 

104,    107,  108,  109,  115,   116,  126. 

Obelisks,  5,  121,  122,  128. 
Oliver,  70. 


Paul  the  Hermit,  16, 


29,  58-59. 


Ravenna,  10. 

RiccES  Dryhtnoes,    rikffs  Druhtnces.  40, 

122. 
Rievaulx,  133  -5. 
Rivers,  pronunciation   of   Rievaulx, 

135. 


Rivvel,  pronunciation  of  Ruthv^ell, 
140. 

Roland,  70. 

Roman  de  Renarci.,   70. 

Romanesque  sculpture,  94,  116,  117, 
129,  132. 

Runes,  19,  20,  23,  24,  26,  30,  31,  32. 

Runes,  12th-century  English,  32. 

Ruthwell  church,  136. 

Ruthwell  Cross,  description  of,  16 
—24;  dimensions  of,  24;  likeness 
to  Bewcastle  Cross,  5-6. 

Ruthwell,  distance  from  Bewcastle, 
6;  distances  from,  to  various  ab- 
beys, 134;  history  of,  136-9;  his- 
tory of  name,  140-142;  latitude 
of,  6:  region  near,  5,  148. 

Sagittarius,  62-63. 
Saxon  language,  109. 
Saxon  sculpture,  92,  94. 
Shoemakers,  125.  145. 
Shopford,   another   name   for   Bew- 
castle, 6. 
Solway,  148-9. 
St.      See  the  follouniig  name. 
Stephens,  8,  41. 
Sundial,  27.  29.  89-90. 

Theodoric,  70. 

Thurstan,  120,  127.  136,  147. 
Tiron  (Thiron),  125-8. 
Twelfth  century,  117-121. 

Ungget,  33—35. 

Vines,  19.  20,  22,  23,  26,  27,  29,  71 

-83,  129. 
Visitation,  16,  29,  47-50,   124.  129, 

142. 

Wilfrith,  Wilfrid,   8,   9,    10,    13,  74, 

76,  77. 
Wiligelmus,  William,  50,  81,  82,  124. 

125,  144,  145. 

Yorkshire,  135,  136,  142 
Zodiac,  60,  63. 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


Incorporated  A.  D.  1799 


VOLUME  n,  PAGES  363-538  JAHUARY,  1913 

The  Literary  Relations  of 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 

with 

Their  Bearing  on  Date  and  Place 
of  Authorship 

BY 

ORA  DELMER  FOSTER,  Ph.D. 

% 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY 

BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  D.D.,  Litt.D.,  LL,D 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
1913 

5vi> 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE 

CONNECTICUT  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 


Incorporated  A.  D.  1799 


VOLUME  1!,  PAGES  363-538  JANUARY,  M13 

The  Literary  Relations  of 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter" 

with 

Their  Bearing  on  Date  and  Place 
of  Authorship 

BY 

ORA  DELMER  FOSTER,  Ph.D. 

WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY 

BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  D.D.,  Litt.D.,  LL.D 


M 


YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONNECTICUT 
191 5 


WEIMAR :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 370 

Part  I.     THE  APOSTOLIC  PATHEES 

Tertulliau 381 

Clement  of  Alexandria  ..........  381 

Irenaeus 381 

Papias        .............  381 

II  Clement 381 

Justin  Martyr 382 

Barnabas           ............  384 

Hermas     .............  388 

Didaclie 392 

Polj'carp 393 

Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs 396 

Ignatius 397 

Clement  of  Rome 398 

Part  II.     THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS 

Galatians 411 

I  Thessalonians 414 

II  Thessalonians 416 

I  Corinthians 417 

II  Corinthians 421 

Romans 424 

Ephesians 442 

Colossians 455 

Philemon 459 

Philippians 459 

I  Timothy 460 

II  Timothy 462 

Titus 463 

Marked  Text  Showing  Possible  Sources 466 

Dependence  of  I  Peter  upon  the  Pauline  Epistles      ....  472 

Hebrews            480 

"  Q  "  Source 492 

Markan  Source ■.••*•  ^^^ 

Peculiar  to  Matthew 499 

Peculiar  to  Luke 500 

Acts 502 


366  Contents 


James 


508 


Jude 518 

Revelation ^19 

IJolm 522 

II  John 525 

III  John 525 

John 525 

Tables  of  Results 533 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 536 


INTRODUCTION 

by 
Professor  Benjamin  W.  Bacon. 

There  are  few  writings,  if  any,  besides  First  Peter,  the  accurate 
determination  of  whose  date  is  a  matter  of  greater  moment  to  the 
student  of  Christian  origins.  Datings  vary  from  before  A.D.  50 
to  115,  or  later  ;  and  with  the  question  of  date  that  of  authenticity 
is  inextricably  bound  up.  Early  tradition  is  unanimous  in  placing 
the  death  of  Peter  under  Nero.  Yet  Ramsay,  stalwart  defender  as 
he  is  of  the  Petrine  authorship,  feels  compelled  to  date  it  under 
Domitian,  compelled  by  the  imphcations  of  the  Epistle  itself  regard- 
ing official  treatment  of  Christianity.  For  First  Peter  speaks  of 
"  sufferings  accomplished  among  the  brethren  throughout  the  world, 
penalties  appropriate  to  murderers  and  thieves  visited  upon  them 
"  for  the  name  of  Christ."  In  fact  this  "  fiery  trial  "  which  has 
come  upon  the  church  through  the  work  of  Satan,  who  prowls 
about  it  like  a  roaring  lion  "  seeking  whom  he  may  devour  "  seems 
to  be  the  one  chief  occasion  of  the  writing.  It  stands  practically 
alone  among  the  epistles  in  its  complete  silence  as  to  doctrinal 
differences.  Ramsay  sees  no  alternative  but  to  add  a  score  of  years 
more  or  less  to  the  traditional  life-time  of  Peter,  recognizing  the 
extreme  difficulty  of  identifjdng  these  general  persecutions  "  for 
the  name  "  with  the  local  onslaught  of  Nero  in  Rome,  of  which 
the  distinctive  feature  was  prosecution  for  flagitia  cohaerentia 
nomini. 

Even  were  it  found  for  any  reason  impossible  to  maintain  the 
Petrine  authorship,  accurate  determination  of  the  date  of  First 
Peter  would  be  of  immense  advantage  for  the  settlement  of  a  great 
number  of  disputed  points  of  criticism  ;  for  scarcely  any  writing 
of  the  canon  has  so  many  points  of  literary  connection  with  others. 
Itself  widely  used  from  an  extremely  early  date  it  employs  to  an 
extraordinary  extent  the  thought  and  phraseology  of  others.  It 
stands  in  the  very  midst  of  the  stream  of  literary  development. 
Almost  every  writing  of  the  New  Testament  has  lines  of  dependence 
leading    either  to  it,   or  from  it.      And  the  period    within    which 


368  Benjamin   W.  Bacon, 

nearly  all  authorities  agree  that  it  must  be  placed,  is  just  that  where 
light  is  most  needed,  the  dark  subapostolic  age  from  Nero  to  Trajan. 
Again  the  field  addressed  is  just  that  whose  history  we  most  need 
to  trace,  the  mission  field  of  Paul  in  Asia  Minor.  The  type  of 
teaching  (so  far  as  it  is  not  simply  Paul's)  comes  under  the  name 
of  Peter,  tempting  us  to  correlate  it  with  other  sources  claiming 
relationship  to  this  Apostle,  in  the  attempt  to  define  a  "  Petrinische 
Lehrbegi-iff  "  or  "  Petrinische  Stromung." 

These  Uterary  relations  are  undeniably  present,  and  in  ^  degree 
of  abundance  which  few,  we  think,  will  have  realized  who  have 
not  been  brought  face  to  face  with  the  facts  by  some  such  statis- 
tical survey  as  the  following  pages  afford  The  data  then  are  before 
us.  The  solution  of  the  problem  depends  simply  on  the  degree  of 
critical  acumen  with  which  we  can  pronounce  upon  extremely  de- 
licate questions  of  Hterary  employment,  more  especially  of  priority 
in  emploj/ment.  Fortunately  evidence  of  relationship  becomes 
rapidly  cumulative,  and  even  the  question  of  priority  is  not  hope- 
less when  real  impartiality  holds  the  scales. 

We  bespeak  the  careful  attention  of  students  of  New  Testament 
origins  to  the  data  presented  by  Dr.  Foster  ;  first,  because  of  the 
importance  of  the  subject,  whose  ramifications  extend  even  beyond 
what  we  have  already  so  briefly  indicated  ;  second,  because  of  the 
pecuhar  hopefulness  of  the  effort  in  view  of  the  superabundance 
of  material  ;  third,  because  of  the  scholarly  reserve,  caution,  and 
objectivity  of  Dr.  Foster's  method  ;  which  allows  the  reader  full 
liberty  to  form  his  own  judgment,  and  aims  only  to  let  the  facts 
speak  for  themselves. 

The  present  writer  gladly  acknowledges  his  own  indebtedness 
to  the  careful  comparisons  and  statistics  of  Dr.  Foster.  The  out- 
come, a  date  not  far  from  90  /4I>.,  with  dependence  of  First  Peter 
on  Ephesians,  Romans  and  Hebrews,  and  conversely  of  James, 
Clement  of  Rome,  and  other  writers  on  First  Peter,  tallies  indeed 
very  closely  with  results  previously  attained  by  an  important  group 
of  scholars.  But  the  evidence,  much  of  which,  though  available, 
has  hitherto  been  scattered,  acquires  far  more  convincing  power 
when  exhibited  in  due  order  and  classification.  The  inferences 
appeal,  even  to  one  who  has  traversed  the  field  before,  with  new 
freshness  and  urgency.  To  not  a  few,  we  beheve,  the  conviction 
will  be  brought  home  that  now,  at  last,  we  have  a  definite,  fixed 
point  in  the  sub-apostoHc  age,  a  datable  hterary  product  of  the 
Pauhne  mission-field  twenty  years  after  Paul's  death  ;  instead  of 
a  floating,  indeterminate  possibility.      To  others  the  problem  will 


Introduction.  369 

seem  to  call  for  further  light.  To  all,  as  we  believe,  who  give  to 
Dr.  Foster's  data  the  attention  their  careful  compilation  deserves, 
the  time  will  prove  well  spent.  One  cannot  review  the  evidence, 
no  matter  what  the  verdict,  without  new  insight  into  the  history 
of  primitive  Christian  thought  and  literature. 

Yale  University,  Benj.  W.  Bacox. 


INTRODUCTION 

by 
The  Author. 

In  this  age  of  Biblical  reconstruction,  there  is  probably  no  one 
thing  more  important  to  be  determined,  as  a  prerequisite  for  arriv- 
ing at  the  truth  concerning  the  History  of  Christian  Origins,  than 
the  authorship  and  date  of  early  documents.  Criticism  constantly 
forces  us  to  revise  and  rewrite  our  Histories.  Unfortunately  or 
otherwise,  criticism  has  robbed  us  of  our  "  certainty,"  as  concerns 
the  authorship  of  many  of  the  Canonical  books.  On  discovering 
that  dependence  cannot  be  placed  either  upon  the  tradition  con- 
cerning the  authorship  or  date  of  certain  documents  or  upon  the 
claims  these  documents  make  for  themselves,  the  modern  historian 
is  compelled  to  travel  a  more  difficult  path  than  his  predecessors. 
Though  this  new  path  be  difficult,  and  but  vaguely  defined  at  places, 
it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  an  understanding  of  the  early 
period  of  Church  History  that  the  critical  historian  follow  it  to  its 
very  end,  however  wearisome  the  journey.  Unless  the  dates  of  the 
early  sources  can  be  accurately  determined  the  historian  will  ever 
grope  about  in  uncertainty. 

As  great  and  important  results  were  effected  in  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  when  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  properly  located, 
so  also  the  correct  dating  of  certain  New  Testament  books  will 
prove  to  have  most  significant  results  for  the  History  of  Christian 
Origins.  It  is  as  reasonable  to  write  a  history  of  the  Hebrews  during 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  Millenium  before  our  Era  on  the  basis 
of  Deuteronomy  as  it  is  to  construct  a  history  of  the  early  Church 
on  the  basis  of  the  dates  sometimes  assigned  to  early  documents. 
Critical  History,  therefore,  necessarily  depends  upon  the  most 
careful  judgment  of  the  sources.  That  which  has  been  done  in 
analysing  the  sources  of  the  Hexateuch  has,  in  a  limited  degree, 
been  done  also  in  the  New  Testament.  Valuable  service  has  already 
been  done  in  bringing  to  light  the  sources  both  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  the  Acts,  but  there  is  much  important  work  j-et  to  be  done. 

Much  valuable  information  concerning  the  Apostolic  Age  is  suppUed 
by  the  certain  dating  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  unfortunately 
we  are  left  in  doubt  concerning  the  Sub-Apostolic  Age,  because  of 
the  dubious  dates  assigned  to  the  documents  of  the  period.     For 


Ora  Dclmcr  Foster,  Introduction.  371 

example,  there  is  little  agreement  among  scholars  concerning  the 
date  of  Hebrews,  James  and  I  Peter,  though  they  are  of  the  utmost 
importance  for  an  understanding  of  this  age.  After  a  prolonged 
battle  over  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  scholars  enjoyed  a  brief  period 
of  truce,  but  they  have  again  been  summoned  to  action  by  Har- 
nack's  recent  challenge.  That  this  great  scholar  should  move  the 
dates  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  so  far  back,  in  the  face  of  all  but 
universal  agreement,  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  need  of 
more  critical  study  of  the  literature  of  this  most  difficult  period. 

Probably  no  one  book,  if  properly  located,  will  throw  more  light 
on  this  puzzling  period  than  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  Though 
small,  it  contains,  in  proportion  to  its  size,  perhaps  more  points 
of  contact  with  other  New  Testament  literature  than  any  other 
book  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  exceedingly  important  that 
the  problems  in  connection  with  its  authorship  be  solved.  If,  as 
many  contend,  the  Epistle  is  genuine,  it  is  probably  the  only  written 
legacy  we  possess  from  any  of  the  original  "  Twelve."  Since,  as 
is  agreed  by  scholars  of  all  schools,  the  Epistle  is  thoroughly 
Pauline,  we  should  have,  in  the  case  of  its  genuineness,  a  key  to  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  how  the  Pauline  and  the  Petrine  mission 
fields  were  ultimately  united.  But  the  very  difficult  problem  of 
how  Peter  became  so  thoroughly  Pauhnized  is  presented.  If  the 
great  Apostle  to  the  Circumcision  is  the  author,  then  important 
information  is  here  supplied  not  only  regarding  the  early  influence 
of  Paul  upon  Peter,  but  also  regarding  the  early  development 
of  Christian  thought  as  well  as  the  extent  of  the  Neronian  persecu- 
tions, which  in  that  case  would  be  alluded  to  in  I  Peter. 

But  if,  as  others  contend,  I  Peter  was  not  written  by  the  one  whose 
name  it  bears,  it  modifies  our  views  of  all  this  period.  In  this  case 
its  evidence  amounts  to  very  little  in  reconstructing  the  history  of 
the  period  until  it  is  definitely  located  in  time  and  place. 

Since  the  date  of  this  Epistle  must  be  determined  before  certainty 
can  be  obtained  regarding  its  authorship,  the  present  inquiry  is 
concerned  about  its  location  in  time.  The  Literary  Relations  have 
a  very  small  bearing  upon  the  problem  of  authorship,  but  much  on 
the  question  of  date. 

Of  all  the  disputed  books  of  the  New  Testament  no  one  is  more 
important  to  locate.  Some  make  it  antedate  the  PauHne  Epistles, 
others  put  it  as  late  as  the  fourth  decade  of  the  Second  Century. 
Each  decade  between  these  extremes  has  its  claimants  for  its  date. 
Scholars  have  differed  just  as  widely  as  to  its  place  of  origin.  Some 
claim  that  it  was  written  at  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  others  that 


372  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

it  came  from  Babylon  in  Egypt  or  Old  Cairo,  while  still  others  hold 
that  is  was  penned  in  Babylon  on  the  Tiber,  or  Rome.  Obviously 
therefore  the  location  of  the  time  and  place  of  authorship  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  Peter  would  be  of  the  greatest  value  to  the  History 
of  Christian  Origins. 

Two  means  of  dating  are  open  to  us,  i.  e.,  (1)  the  internal  evidence, 
so  far  as  concerned  with  the  happenings  of  the  time,  and  (2)  the 
literary  relations.  These  must  necessarily  be  kept  apart,  for  any 
suspicion  of  one  affecting  the  other  tends  to  invaHdate  the  proof. 

Much  has  been  written  concerning  the  date  required  by  the  stratum 
of  theological  thought  found  in  the  Epistle.  Many  have  discussed 
at  great  length  the  date  implied  by  the  allusions  to  the  persecutions 
which  were  being  waged  against  the  Christians  at  the  time  of  writing. 
Some  also  have  elaborated  lengthy  arguments  concerning  the  date 
implied  from  the  incidental  references  to  ecclesiastical  institutions 
and  government.  Many  New  Testament  Introductions  and  Commen- 
taries on  I  Peter  point  out  some  of  the  more  probable  points  of 
contact  with  other  literature,  but  nowhere  have  these  relations 
been  exhaustively  or  systematically  treated.  This  thesis  is  limited 
to  the  last  line  of  approach,  i.  e.,  the  Literary  Relations. 

Nevertheless  we  may  mention  briefly  some  of  the  problems  con- 
nected with  the  external  conditions  of  the  Church  in  the  Sub-Apos- 
tolic Age.  Obviously  the  Epistle  was  written  during  a  fiery  ordeal, 
to  encourage  and  to  exhort  the  Christians  to  endure  to  the  end  and 
to  order  their  conduct  in  such  a  way  as  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible 
both  social  and  civil  odium.  The  sv  ttw  /v6o-[j.(.)  (5  ;  9)  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  Imperial  Government  had  adopted  a  definite  poHcy 
toward  the  Christians  throughout  the  world.  This  inference  seems 
to  be  borne  out  by  the  general  tenor  of  the  Epistle.  They  were 
persecuted  "  for  the  name."  Arnold  and  others  are  right  who  claim 
that  the  persecutions  of  Nero  did  not  extend  beyond  the  Capital 
and  its  immediate  vicinity.  The  confHct  here  referred  to  cannot 
have  been  that  inaugurated  by  Nero,  nor  was  it  earlier  than  Domitian. 
Ramsay  has  no  real  evidence  for  saying  that  "  the  Neronian  policy 
was  resumed  under  Vespasian.  (C.  R.  E.  p.  282.)  Nor  need  we 
suppose  that  the  persecutions  alluded  to  are  later  than  Domitian,  as 
many  contend.  The  conditions  here  are  practically  the  same  as 
those  reflected  in  Hebrews,  Revelation  and  Clement  of  Rome.  These 
four  writings  have  a  common  background.  They  look  back  to  the 
Neronian  outbreak  as  something  that  occurred  in  former  times, 
whereas  the  present  one  is  a  "  strange  thing."  Apparently  then  this 
is  the  beginning  of  Governmental  punishment  of  the  Christians  as 


Introduction.  373 

A  study  of  the  five  theories  which  have 
been  proposed  concerning  the  persecutions  alluded  to  in  I  Peter, 
in  the  light  of  the  data  at  hand,  has  led  the  present  writer  to  the 
conclusion  that  those  scholars  are  correct  who  claim  that  the  "  fier\' 
trial,"  which  the  Christians  were  undergoing  when  the  Epistle  was 
written,  was  caused  by  Domitian.  Assuming  the  correctness  of  this 
conclusion  we  should  be  required  to  date  I  Peter  somewhere  between 
81  and  95. 

The  internal  conditions  of  the  Church  are  quite  clearly  reflected 
in  I  Peter.  There  is  a  distinct  advance  over  the  doctrine  as  presented 
by  Paul.  Though  Pauhne  to  the  core,  I  Peter  seems  to  be  Post- 
Pauline  in  its  stage  of  doctrinal  development.  "  The  Christian's 
freedom  from  the  Law  is  assumed  in  a  genuine  PauUne  fashion  in 
2  ;  16.  The  tendency  is  present  to  give  to  the  ethical  side  of  the 
Christian  life  an  independent  value  which  it  lacks  in  Paul,  who 
always  lays  chief  stress  upon  its  religious  basis.  There  is  a  tendency 
also  to  emphasize  the  future  and  to  treat  faith  as  almost  synonymous 
with  hope  which  looks  forward  to  the  glory  of  Christ  and  his  saints, 
and  thus  furnishes  an  incentive  to  Christian  living,  instead  of  making 
it  as  clearly  and  distinctly  as  it  is  in  Paul  the  mystical  oneness  of  the 
believer  with  Christ.  And  so  baptism  in  the  same  way  takes  on  the 
aspect  rather  of  a  pledge  of  right  conduct  than  a  bond  between  the 
Christian  and  his  Lord.  Similarly  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  looked 
upon  not  simply  in  their  redemptive  value,  as  effecting  the  death 
of  the  flesh,  and  thus  the  believer's  release  from  its  bondage,  but 
also  in  their  moral  value  as  an  example  for  the  Christian.  This 
Epistle  bears  testimony  to  the  survival  after  Paul's  death  of  his 
conception  of  Christianity  in  a  somewhat  modified,  but  stiU  compa- 
ratively pure  form."  (McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age  p.  486  f.)  "  Christ, 
grace,  faith — these  are  the  foundations  of  Christianity.  The  threefold 
formula  even  appears  :  chosen  by  God,  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
reconciled  by  Christ.  The  struggle  against  Jewish  legalism  is  alto- 
gether past  and  yet  Paul's  main  dogma  remains,  that  redemption  is 
through  God's  grace  alone.  It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  many 
points  in  which  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  diverges 
from  St.  Paul  and  betrays  a  tendency  to  interpret  his  epistles  in  a 
catholic  sense."  (Wernle's  Beg.  of  Christianity,  Eng.  tr.  Vol.  I.) 
The  sinless  Christ  who  died  for  our  redemption  is  here  thought  of 
as  the  "Suffering  Servant"  of  II  Isaiah.  This  thought  is  foreign 
to  Paul,  but  common  in  later  literature.  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
preexistence  of  Christ  may  be  imphed  if  not  expressed  in  1;  11,  20. 
Though  many  scholars  think  that  this  doctrine  is  not  implied  here, 


374  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

others  assert  that  it  is,  e.  g.  Bevon,  Bigg,  Gloag,  Holtzmann,  Lechler, 
Pfleiderer,  Stevens,  etc.  The  Christology  of  I  Peter  occupies  a 
position  mid-way  between  Pan]  and  the  Johannine  Literature. 
It  also  suggests  Paul  on  the  one  side  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  on 
the  other.  (For  other  examples  see  McGiffert's  Apostolic  Age  p.  486  ; 
note  also  the  later  discussion  of  John.) 

The  book  reveals  no  traces  of  enemies  within  the  Church,  as 
Ephesians,  Colossians  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  but  the  enemies 
are  without.  Heresies  were  no  doubt  in  existence  at  this  time,  but 
they  were  for  the  time  overlooked,  in  the  more  pressing  need  of 
saving  the  Church  from  being  stamped  out  entirely  by  Imperial 
action.  The  silence  as  to  heresies  seems  to  be  as  easily  accounted 
for  on  the  assumption  that  the  Epistle  was  written  during  this  time 
of  external  hostility  as  if  it  were  written  before  the  heresies  alluded 
to  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  had  arisen. 

These  preliminary  conclusions  drawn  from  the  external  conditions 
are  very  important  for  an  understanding  of  the  Epistle,  but  they 
will  be  kept  separate  from  the  discussion  of  the  Literary  Relations. 

In  returning  to  the  problem  of  Literary  Relations,  it  may  be  said 
it  is  a  long  and  difficult  one  to  solve,  but  that  the  effort  is  fully 
recompensed  by  the  definite  results  that  attend  its  solution.  Know- 
ing as  we  do,  with  no  little  degree  of  certainty,  the  date  and  place 
of  authorship  of  the  greater  part  of  the  literature  related  to  the  First 
Epistle  of  Peter,  the  determination  of  the  order  of  dependence  would, 
if  accurately  done,  also  determine  the  approximate  date  and  place 
of  this  Epistle.  It  is  hoped  therefore  that  the  following  study  may 
show,  with  some  degree  of  accuracy,  what  literature  I  Peter  pre- 
supposes as  well  as  what  presupposes  it. 

The  aim  has  not  been  to  give  every  possible  point  of  contact  be- 
tween I  Peter  and  all  the  literature  considered,  but  an  effort  has  been 
made  to  record  what  seemed  to  the  author  to  be  the  more  important 
ones.  Many  more  resemblances  might  have  been  recorded,  but  the 
time  and  space  required  to  cohate  them  would  not  be  justified  by 
the  results  obtained.  By  arranging  in  parallel  columns,  in  the 
original  language,  the  more  probable  points  of  contact,  it  is  thought 
that  a  basis  is  afforded  for  some  valuable  conclusions,  both  as  regards 
date  and  place  of  authorship. 

By  the  very  nature  of  the  subject  little  new  material  can  be  ad- 
vanced. A  great  percent  of  the  parallels  tabulated  have  already 
been  pointed  out  by  others,  yet  there  are  many  additional  ones 
discussed,  which  were  discovered  independently. 


hitroductioii.  375 

The  method  adopted  in  this  thesis  is,  in  the  main,  that  followed 
by  the  Oxford  Committee,  in  their  excellent  httle  book  entitled 
"  The  New  Testament  and  the  Apostohc  Fathers."  (1905.)  The 
parallels  are  arranged  in  textual  order.  The  order  of  probable  de- 
pendence is  shown  by  arranging  them  into  classes  A,  A*,  B,  C,  C — D, 
and  D.  Class  A  includes  those  books  which  mention  our  Epistle  by 
name.  Class  A*  comprehends  those  which  do  not  mention  the 
Epistle  b}^  name  but  concerning  which  there  is  no  real  doubt  in  the 
author's  mind.  In  class  B  are  found  those  which  reach  a  very  high 
degree  of  probability.  In  class  C  have  been  placed  those  which  are 
of  lower  degree  of  probability.  Class  C — D  represents  those  which 
give  reason  to  suspect  literary  acquaintance,  but  are  not  sufficiently 
suggestive  to  belong  in  class  C.  Class  D  includes  all  those  for  which 
the  evidence  affords  no  ground  for  judgment.  Doubtless  there  are 
books  placed  in  the  last  class  which  are  related  to  I  Peter,  but  since  the 
evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  it  they  may  be  classed  as  doubtful. 
For  example,  Colossians  shows  many  points  of  very  probable  connec- 
tion, but  since  these  points,  with  many  others,  are  also  found  in 
Ephesians,  it  cannot  be  claimed  with  any  degree  of  certainty  that  our 
author  knew  Colossians.  Under  the  respective  classes  named  above, 
the  parallels  have  been  arranged  in  textual  order  according  to  the 
letters  a*,  b,  c,  c — d,  and  d,  to  which  an  explanation  wiU  apply 
similar  to  that  given  in  connection  with  the  capital  letters.  The 
present  writer  has  ventured  to  assign  to  some  books  a  higher  degree 
of  probable  dependence  than  the  Oxford  Committee  has  done.  It 
would  seem  that  they  have  not  given  due  consideration  to  the  value 
of  cumulative  evidence.  A  book  containing  a  number  of  probable 
points  of  connection  deserves  a  higher  rating  than  any  single  passage 
in  it.  Again  more  evidence  should  be  attached  to  probable  points 
of  contact  which  show  close  contextual  connection.  Peculiar  words 
of  themselves  mean  but  httle,  but  when  they  occur  in  suggestive 
connections  they  become  significant. 

Many  of  the  parallels  were  assigned  to  their  respective  classes  with 
much  hesitancy,  and  it  is  not  expected  that  their  classification  will 
meet  the  approval  of  those  who  may  read  them  reflectively,  but 
it  is  hoped  that  they  may  represent,  on  the  whole,  the  real  order 
of  connection.  The  notes  represent  in  part  the  author's  reasons 
for  the  various  classifications. 

The  books  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  are  arranged  with  the  chrono- 
logical order  reversed,  beginning  at  the  point  of  positive  reference 
to  I  Peter  and  extending  backward  to  Clement  of  Rome.  Harnack's 
"  Chronologic  "  has  been  followed  in  the  main.     In  the  New  Testa- 


376  Ora  Deliucr  Foster. 

ment,  the  order  proposed  by  Professor  Bacon  (Intr.  p.  280)  has  been 
adopted  with  few  exceptions. 

The  New  Testament  books  are  treated  as  wholes.  This  method, 
however,  is  not  followed  in  discussing  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Their 
sources  are  first  considered,  after  which  the  peculiarities  of  each  are 
reviewed  in  order.  Though  Acts  is  presented  as  a  whole,  attention 
has  been  called  to  the  comparative  degree  of  probable  dependence 
with  the  "  Petrine  "  and  the  "  Pauline "  divisions  of  the  book. 
II  Peter  does  not  receive  separate  treatment  because  it  is  taken  as 
direct  testimony  to  I  Peter. 

The  application  of  the  method  described  above  has  secured  some 
significant  results,  which  are  presented  in  tabular  form  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  thesis. 

It  has  been  made  obvious  that  our  author  was  not  an  original 
writer.  This  fact  has  proven  very  greatly  to  our  advantage  in 
locating  the  Epistle  by  its  Hterary  relations.  On  the  other  hand 
the  freedom  with  which  he  used  his  sources  makes  it  often  difficult 
to  determine  whether  he  was  influenced  by  a  certain  document 
or  whether  the  agreement  is  due  to  current  teaching.  He  was  an 
extensive  reader  but  no  slavish  copyist.  He  was  acquainted  with 
the  early  Christian  writings  as  well  as  with  the  LXX.  Scharfe, 
in  his  "Petrinische  Stromung",  shows  probably  as  clearly  as  anyone 
how  well  at  home  our  author  was  with  the  LXX,  though  it  must  be 
noted  that  he  has  frequently  overlooked  the  more  obvious  connection 
with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  in  his  zeal  to  make  a  strong  case. 

The  discussion  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  following  pages,  it 
is  believed,  shows  conclusively  that  our  Epistle  rests  directly  upon 
Paul,  more  especially  upon  Romans  and  Ephesians.  In  addition 
to  the  information  afforded  by  the  tables  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
thesis,  it  may  be  stated  that  no  less  than  fifty  percent  of  the  text 
of  I  Peter  shows  a  possible  connection  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and 
a  great  many  references  find  parallels  in  as  many  as  three  of  Paul's 
letters.  This  fact  which  is  represented  by  the  218  parallels  tabu- 
lated, is  alone  sufficient  to  show  that  I  Peter  depends  upon  the  Pauhne 
literature,  notwithstanding  the  recent  claim  that  no  reference  is  made 
to  this  Literature  for  a  century  or  more.^  It  can  be  said  with  a  rea- 
sonable degree  of  certainty  that  the  author  of  I  Peter  both  knew 
and  used  Romans  and  Ephesians.  There  is  much  in  the  points 
involved,   to  say  nothing  of  historical  considerations,   to  make  it 


1  W.  B.  Smith  in  "  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  "  (1906).     Ch.  V.  "  Saeculi 
Silentium  ". 


Introduction.  377 

certain  that  I  Peter  depends  upon  Pau]  and  not  vice  versa  as  B. Weiss 
and  Kiihl  have  contended.  From  the  hterary  relations  alone  then 
Ephesians  fixes  the  terminus  a  quo  for  I  Peter  at  about  60  A.  D. 
Granting  with  Moffatt  that  "  a  copy  of  Ephesians  came  back  to 
Rome  some  ye^xs  after  its  circulation  in  Asia,"  it  would  not  be  safe 
to  fix  the  earliest  possible  date  for  I  Peter  later  than  the  year  65. 

Irenaeus  (cir.  186)  is  the  first  concerning  whose  acquaintance  with 
I  Peter  there  is  absolute  certainty.  We  are  quite  certain  also  that 
Papias  (cir.  150)  knew  the  Epistle.  Doubt  cannot  well  be  enter- 
tained in  the  case  of  Polycarp  (cir.  115).  It  appears  highly  probable 
that  the  Johannine  Literature  (95—100)  presupposes  I  Peter.  Clement 
of  Rome  quite  certainly  used  it  as  early  as  the  year  95.  From 
the  literary  relations  alone,  therefore,  we  may  fix  the  termini  a  quo 
and  ad  quem  for  I  Peter  with  perfect  confidence  at  the  years  60 
and  95.  Granting  Moffatt's  view  to  be  correct,  three  decades  would 
still  be  open  for  the  date  of  this  Epistle. 

It  is  a  positive  gain  to  be  able  to  pin  this  Epistle  down  to  three 
decades,  but  it  would  be  of  still  greater  service  to  know  in  just  which 
one  it  should  be  located.  But  to  do  this  from  the  standpoint  of 
literary  relations  alone  requires  that  we  employ  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  that  are  themselves  difficult  to  locate.  Yet  if  these  doubtful 
writings  show  literary  connections,  they  have  mutual  service  to  render 
in  establishing  their  respective  dates.  Fortunately  for  us  this  is 
just  the  case. 

This  study  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Epistle  of 
James  depends  upon  I  Peter.  If  then,  as  many  scholars  contend, 
Clement  of  Rome  knew  and  used  James,  I  Peter  must  have  been 
written  not  later  than  90.  At  all  events  it  would  seem  fair,  even 
granting  that  the  Oxford  Committee  was  correct  in  finding  no  proof 
of  connection  between  James  and  Clement,  to  fix  the  terminus  ad 
quem  for  I  Peter  at  the  year  90.  On  the  other  hand  it  appears  from 
our  study  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  presupposed  by  I  Peter. 
Practically  all  scholars  admit  that  Hebrews  depends  upon  Paul. 
This  then  would  require  that  we  fix  the  terminus  a  quo  for  I  Peter 
much  later  than  the  year  60.  But  how  much  later  ?  To  determine 
this  the  internal  as  well  as  external  evidence  of  Hebrews  will  be 
involved.  Yet  this  is  not  going  beyond  the  hmits  of  our  discussion 
inasmuch  as  the  question  of  literary  relations  was  settled  inde- 
pendently. 

Since  both  Hebrews  and  I  Peter  were  written  by  thorough  students 
of  Paul  and  with  similar  motives,  and  under  similar  circumstances 
their  evidence  may  fairly  be  considered  as  supplementary.     Scholars 


378  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

are  very  generally  agreed  that  Hebrews  is  removed  several  years  from 
the  Neronian  Persecution.  Granting  that  Heb.  11  ;  32  refers  to 
this  persecution,  12  ;  3  f .  certainly  points  to  another  outbreak 
against  the  Christians,  which  was  then  in  progress  but  which  had  not 
reached  its  full  height.  This  cannot  allude  to  the  Jewish  War  of 
66—70.  It  was  apparently  long  enough  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  for  them  to  have  become  reconciled  to  the  catastrophe. 
We  are  to  conclude  therefore,  so  it  seems,  with  Bacon,  Holtzmaun, 
JiiUcher,  McGiffert,  Moffatt,  Weizsacker,  Von  Soden  and  others, 
that  the  persecutions  alluded  to  in  Hebrews  are  those  of  Domitian. 
If  these  conclusions  are  correct  I  Peter  could  not  have  been  written 
earlier  than  85. 

Incidentally  the  foregoing  study  has  afforded  an  earlier  limit  for 
the  Epistle  of  James,  as  weU  as  a  later  limit  for  Hebrews.  If,  as  is 
here  maintained,  James  depends  upon  I  Peter  it  must  have  been 
written  some  time  after  85,  and  not  early  as  many  contend.  But 
if,  as  we  believe,  this  study  shows,  I  Peter  presupposes  Hebrews  and 
the  latter  comes  from  the  reign  of  Domitian,  we  should  be  required 
to  date  James  somewhere  between  90  and  95.  Hebrews  would  in 
that  case  be  dated  between  81  and  85  and  I  Peter  between  85  and  90. 

It  may  be  noted  in  passing  that  Pliny,  in  his  correspondence  with 
Trajan  in  112,  states  that  in  Bithynia,  one  of  the  provinces  to  which 
I  Peter  is  addressed,  "  some  of  the  accused  assert  that  they  forsook 
Christianit),  twenty-five  years  ago."  (Ad  Traj.  96,  6.)  This 
apostacy  of  cir.  87  may  very  probably  have  been  due  to  the  perse- 
cutions that  are  alluded  to  in  I  Peter,  whose  author  aims  to  prevent 
this  very  thing. 

We  may  next  consider  the  place  of  authorship  of  our  Epistle. 
It  is  clear  from  Table  III,  p.  535,  that  the  literature  which  shows 
the  closest  relation  to  I  Peter  was  either  written  in  Rome  or  Asia 
Minor,  or  circulated  in  those  regions  very  early.  Nowhere  in  the 
whole  realm  of  early  Christian  literature  does  there  seem  to  be  any 
writing,  not  having  to  do  with  the  regions  just  mentioned,  that  shows 
any  connection  with  I  Peter  earlier  than  Pseudo-Barnabas  cir.  135. 
On  the  other  hand  there  are  many  in  these  localities  which  show  a 
very  probable  literary  connection.  Galatians,  written  from  Corinth 
and  circulating  in  Asia  Minor,  was  very  probably  known  by  our 
author.  I  Corinthians,  written  at  Ephesus,  seems  to  have  been  known 
by  him.  There  are  reasons  also  to  suspect  that  he  knew  II  Co- 
rinthians, which  would  be  apt  to  circulate  in  this  region.  Apparently 
he  knew  Hebrews,  the  evidence  of  whose  existence  comes  to  us  first 
from  Rome.     It  appears  highly  probably  that  the  author  or  authors 


Introduction.  379 

of  the  Johannine  literature,  who  wrote  from  Ephesus,  knew  I  Peter. 

So  also  Ignatius,  writing  from  the  same  region.  We  are  confident 
that  Polycarp,  of  Smyrna,  was  acquainted  with  our  Epistle.  It 
will  be  noticed  in  the  Table  that  there  are  none  of  those  marked 
"  A*  "  earlier  than  Polycarp  which  do  not  show  a  direct  connection 
with  Rome,  e.  g.  Romans,  Ephesians,  and  Clement  of  Rome.  James 
may  also  be  added  to  this  list,  inasmuch  as  the  first  echoes  which  we 
have  of  it  are  in  Rome.  All  the  Uterature  marked  "  B  "  or  "  C  "  earlier 
than  160  also  shows  direct  connection  with  Rome  or  Asia  Minor  or 
both,  unless  it  be  Titus,  which  will  hardly  be  counted  an  exception. 
The  silence  of  the  Hterature  of  other  places,  as  well  as  that  of 
these  localities  in  the  period  assigned  to  I  Peter  is  quite  as  signifi- 
cant as  the  direct  references  ;  for  manifestly  some  time  must  be 
allowed  for  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  extend,  and  more  as 
the  remoteness  increases.  Both  lines  of  evidence  converge,  therefore 
upon  the  conclusion  that  I  Peter  was  written  in  Rome  cir.  87—90. 
In  addition  to  the  conclusion  just  reached  regarding  the  date  and 
place  of  authorship  of  I  Peter,  this  study  has  other  important  results. 
The  bearing  that  it  has  on  the  problem  of  dating  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
should  not  be  overlooked.  If,  as  Harnack  claims,  the  Gospels  are 
so  early  one  is  surprised  not  to  find  them  reflected  more  in  I  Peter. 
It  may  be  claimed  that  the  author  was  acquainted  with  the  Synoptic 
tradition  in  some  form,  but  there  is  very  little,  if  indeed  anything, 
to  indicate  that  he  knew  our  Gospels.  There  is  no  real  evidence 
that  he  knew  the  "  Q  "  source.  The  real  evidence  for  literary 
connection  between  I  Peter  and  the  Markan  source  is  reduced  to 
I  Peter  2  ;  7  =  Mark  12  ;  10.  (See  discussion  on  Mk.  Ex.  5.)  Were 
we  to  grant  that  these  passages  show  a  direct  hterary  connection, 
there  is  nothing  to  prove  the  priority  of  Mark.  There  seems  to  be 
nothing  peculiar  to  Matthew  or  Luke  which  would  justify  the  claim 
of  literary  connection.  It  seems  strange  that  our  author,  susceptible 
as  he  was  to  literary  influences,  did  not  make  more  use  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  if  they  were  written  as  early  as  Harnack  contends.  This 
silence  is  against  Harnack's  position.  It  would  seem  therefore,  if 
for  example,  Mk.  12  ;  10  is  directly  connected  with  I  Peter,  that 
the  priority  must  be  given  to  the  latter  and  not  to  the  former. 

The  Johannine  Literature  is  also  involved  in  the  dating  of  I  Peter. 
If  the  conclusions  reached  here  are  correct,  namely  that  the  Johannine 
Literature  presupposes  I  Peter  as  a  necesssary  connecting  link  between 
it  and  Paul,  they  have  a  very  important  bearing,  not  only  on  the 
development  of  doctrine  in  Asia  Minor,  but  also  on  the  vexed  problem 
of   the    Johannine   authorship.     Many   ideas   merely   suggested   by 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  26  January,  1913. 


380  Ora  Delmer  Foster,  Introduction. 

Paul,  which  were  more  fully  expressed  in  I  Peter,  are  found  in  the 
Johannine  Literature  in  fully  developed  form  ;  in  speeches,  narralives, 
prayers,  etc.  That  is  to  say  these  anecdotes  seem  to  presuppose 
the  "  Petrine  "  development.  Apparently,  then,  the  Pauline  thought 
travelled  in  part  by  way  of  I  Peter. 

This  study  also  has  a  significant  bearing  on  other  problems  of 
Church  History.  It  shows  the  influence  that  Rome  wielded  over  the 
Pauline  Churches  in  Proconsular- Asia  at  this  very  early  period.  The 
relations  of  Roman  Christianity  to  that  of  Asia  Minor  were  indeed 
of  the  most  dehcate  kind  (cf.  Rom.  1  ;  11  f.  and  15  ;  15-29).  The 
process  of  annexation  of  the  great  Pauline  mission  field  after  Paul's 
death  was  of  the  utmost  concern  and  required  the  greatest  possible 
skill.  This  could  only  be  effected  from  Rome,  not  from  Jerusalem, 
and  necessarily  from  the  "  Petrine  "  wing,  which  we  have  reason 
to  believe  became  dominant  in  Rome  between  70  and  95.  This 
our  Epistle  helped  to  accomphsh  by  endorsing  Paul's  doctrine  and 
fellow  workers  (cf.  I  Peter  5  ;  12  with  the  contemporary  Acts  15  ; 
13-17). 


Part  I.-APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

TERTULLIAN 

A 

Scorpiace  XII  (written  cir.  220)  "  Addressing  the  Christians  of 
Pontus,  Peter,  at  all  events,  says  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  2  ;  20. 

CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA 
A 

(Cir.  200) 
INSTRUCTOR  I,  6.     "  Peter  says  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  2  ;  1-3. 

IREN^US 
A 

(Cir.  186) 
IV,  ix,  2  "  Peter  says  in  his  Epistle  "...  quoting  I  Pt.  1  ;  8. 

IV,  XV i,  5  "  And  for  this  reason  Peter  says"  . . .  quoting  I  Pt.  2;  16. 

V,  vii,  2  "  And  this  it  is  which  has  been  said  also  by  Peter  "... 
quoting  I  Pt.  1  ;   8. 

PAPIAS 

A 

(145-160) 
Eusebius  (H.  E.  Ill,  xxxix,  17)  quotes  Papias  as  follows  ;  X£/pY)i:ai 

B'  aOiroc  ixapTuptaii;  axo  t7]i;  'Iwdcvvoo  xpoTspac  imairoX^?  xol  aizb  Tf\c, 
ITsTpou  b\j.oio)c. 

II  CLEMENT 

(Cir.  170) 

C 

c 
(1)  II  Clem.  XIV,  2  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 

scpavspojO-Y)    Bs    £7c'   £(7)(aT0)v    TO)v      cpavepwS-svTO?  Bs  Itt'  l<r/jx,xou  tSv 
yi[j.epwv  iva  Yjixa?  awoYi  ipovoy^  'hC  u^a?. 

This  striking  resemblance  receives  additional  significance  when  we 
note  with  Benecke  (N.  T.  in  Apost.  Fath.)  that  &%b  t^?  U-alriaioci; 
-zriQ  ^w^<;  (XVI,  1)  occurs  in  the  same  contextual  connection.  Of. 
liboi  ^wvTE?  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  4.  Bishop  Lightfoot  thinks  the  context 
of  II  Clement  at  this  point  refers  to  Eph.  1 ;  23. 


382  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(2)  II  Clem.  XVI,  4  I  Pt.  4 ;   8 

Although  this  is  an  exact  parallel  we  cannot  be  certain  that  it  is 
quoted  from  our  Epistle.  It  occurs  also  in  I  Clem.  XLIX,  5,  in  which 
place  it  is  discussed. 

The  above  parallels  are  close  even  in  details,  yet  the  probabilities 
of  dependence  are  of  a  low  degree. 

JUSTIN 

(Cir.  153-155) 

B 

b 

(1)  Trypho  116  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

ap/^ispaTTtxov    to    a>>Yi8>tv6v    yevo?      6[j.£T$  Bs  yivoq  sxXsxtov  (3aai>.£wv 
£<7f;.£v  r|[j,£T?  i£paT£U[j.a,  IQ^vo?  aytov 

No  other  book  in  the  Bible  furnishes  a  passage  so  nearly  resembling 
this  as  I  Pet.  2  ;   9. 

(2)  Trypho  138  I  Pt.  3 ;  18-21 

Mr.  Bigg  thinks  there  is  a  reference  here  to  I  Pt.  3  ;  18—21.  Inas- 
much as  the  story  of  Noah  is  commented  upon  in  the  same  manner, 
it  seems  to  imply  a  knowledge  of  this  passage.  Noah  is  a  type  of 
Baptism,  the  eight  persons  are  dwelt  upon,  and  we  find  close  together 
avay£vvav,  BiEO-toQiri,  Bi'  ohcccoi;.  Further  similarity  is  noted  in  re- 
ference to  Jesus'  resurrection  and  exaltation,  following  in  the  same 
order  as  in  our  Epistle. 

c 

(3)  Apol.  1  ;  61  uses  avay£vvaco,  which  is  pecuUar  to  I  Peter.  The 
thought  however,  in  this  connection  is  nearer  that  of  John  3  ;  5, 
than  that  of  our  Epistle.  In  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  the  word  refers  to  the  new 
birth  of  a  "  lively  hope,"  accomplished  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
In  the  other  reference  (I  Pt.  1  ;  23)  the  Christian  is  born  again  not 
of  corruptible  seed  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  by  baptism  as  in  Justin. 

(4)  Trypho  116  I  Pt.  4  ;  12 

TY]?    %Op(^>C>i(^)q,     YjV    XUpoQfflV    UfXa?  .         [JLY]     ^£Vt^£0-Q'£     TY)     £V    6[xTv    TCUpW(T£l 

6  Tz  'hiA'^oXoc,  xol  ot  ayiToO  67inrjp£-      Tcpo?  TC£ipa(7pL6v  6[uv  yivo[JL£VY]. 

Tai  TcavTs?. 

Bigg  thinks  Justin  quite  clearly  alludes  to  I  Peter  here.  He 
rightly  points  out  that  izCpoxyi^  in  this  sense  is  pecuhar  to  I  Peter. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  383 

We  should  not  overlook  the  fact  however,  that  although  the  word 
has  a  different  appHcation  in  Rev.  18  ;  9,  18,  the  thought  is  quite 
like  this  section. 

(5)  Trypho  119  I  Pt.  2  ;  10 

Y][j.£T(;  Bs  O'j  [j.6vov,  "koihc  k'kky.  xai  01  ttots  ou  Xaoc,  vtiv  Bs  Xao?  Bsou. 
'kcn.hc  ayioi;  £a[x£v 

It  is  obvious  that  Bigg  is  right  in  saying  "  Justin  is  here  referring 
to  Isa.  52  ;  12."  The  suggestion  might  come  either  from  Rom.  9  ; 
25  ff ,  or  I  Peter. 

d 

6)  Trypho  35  I  Pt.  1  ;  19 

Here  Justin  exhorts  not  to  blaspheme  "  Him  who  ....  is  the 
a^j-cojioc,  and  in  all  things  irreproachable  Christ  Jesus."  Well  does 
Bigg  cite  Heb.  9;  14  as  a  possible  reference,  for  it  seems  more  prob- 
able that  Justin  had  it  in  mind,  rather  than  I  Pt.  1 ;  19,  inasmuch 
as  he  would  have  given  in  all  probability  a  better  connection  to 
both  the  thought  and  words,  S?  apou  ajxwp'j  xai  aoxD.ou  XpiaTOu. 
Cf .  also  Eph.  1 ;  4,  5  ;  27,  Col.  1 ;  22,  Jude  24,  Rev.  14 ;  5. 

(7)  Trypho  110  I  Pt.  1  ;  19 

We  have  here  a  parallel  to  the  one  just  mentioned  in  35.  In 
the  later  chapter  of  the  "Dialogue,"  the  word  " aoTtdo?,"  with 
others,  is  used  to  point  out  the  perfection  of  Jesus  as  "  the  most 
righteous  and  only  spotless  and  sinless  one."  Our  Epistle  com- 
pares Jesus'  blood  to  that  of  a  lamb  without  spot  or  blemish.  I  Pt. 
1  ;  19  .  .  .  ai[j.aTi,  wc  aij.o)jj.ov  xai  aamXcj  XpiaToO.  The  word  here 
refers  directly  to  apo?  rather  than  to  Xpwiroa  as  Bigg  would  make 
it.  Similar  usage  may  be  seen  in  I  Tim.  6  ;  14  i.  e.,  TY]p^o-ai  ae 
Try  £vto>.y;v  acrxaov.     Cf.  also  Jas.  I ;  27  and  II  Pt.  3  ;  14. 

(8)  Trypho  114  I  Pt.  2  ;  6 

Toti  axpoywviaio'j  \i\>ou  is  very  suggestive  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  but  on 
close  examination  it  becomes  evident  that  Justin's  mind  was  imbued 
with  the  O.  T.  references,  more  especially  Isa.  28  ;  16.  Yet  it  may 
have  been  suggested  by  I  Peter. 

Mr.  Bigg  rightly  concludes  that  it  is  probable  but  not  certain 
that  Justin  knew  I  Peter.  Chapters  114,  119,  and  138  of  the 
"  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  taken  together,  intensify  the  proba- 
bilities of  Hterary  dependence. 


384 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


BARNABAS 

(131-160  Harnack) 

A* 

b 


I  Pt.  1 ;  17 

TO  sxao-xou  spyov,  sv  cpopto  trov 
TYJ?  Tcapoixia?  6[j<ojv  y^powv  ava  • 
(7i;pacpY]Te. 

Cf.  also  II  Cor.  5  ;  10. 


(1)  Bar.  IV,  11  f. 

[xe>^eTw[j-£v  TOV  cpojBov  toO  d^zoU  . . . 
(12)  6  Kupto?  a%po(7bi'KoXrt[x%TO)!; 
xptvsT  TOV  x6(7[j-ov  .  sxao-TO? 
xaO'w?  i7ioiYi(7£v  xopsiTat .  siJcv  V] 
ayaO'OC,  y]  BixaiocruvT]  auTou  Trpo- 
YiyvjcrsTai  auTOu,  eav  vj  7uovY]p6i;,  6 
[xiaO'O?  T%  7covY]pta?  sij-TCpocO-sv 
auToO. 

Dr.  Bartlet  (N.  T.  in  Apost.  Fathers)  thinks  this  affords  no  argu- 
ment for  Hterary  dependence,  either  on  II  Corinthians  or  I  Peter, 
"  though  the  hkenesses  are  striking  in  both  cases."  It  is  significant 
however  that  u%^o<yomo'kri}XTz-o)<;,  which  is  pecuhar  to  our  Epistle,  is 
used  just  in  the  same  connection  as  in  I  Peter.  The  "  eav  clauses  " 
on  the  other  hand  appear  to  be  developed  from  "  sits  aya0-6v,  sits 
xaxov  "  of  II  Cor.  5  ;  10.  Since  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  imphes  all  that  is 
included  in  the  clauses,  just  alluded  to,  the  probabiUties  are  yet 
in  favor  of  our  Epistle.  It  is  also  important  to  note  the  employ- 
ment in  verse  11  of  vao?  teXsioc  tm  Bsw  which  corresponds  to  oTxo<; 
TCV£tj[xaTi,x6i;  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  5.  Reference  to  "  the  last  days  "  in  verse  9 
is  also  suggestive  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  5,  20. 

(2)  Bar.  V,  5,  6,  7  I  Pt.  1 ;  10 

7vo)5  o3v  uTCSfXEivsv  6x6  ytip6<;   ol^^-      xspl  ^?   o-oj-rjpia;  s^si^rjTrjO-av  xal 

O-pwxwv    xaO'sTv  ;    [xaQ-STS.      6.  ot      I'^YipsuvYjcrav  xpocp9]Tat,  ol  xspl  ty]? 

xpocpYJTai,    otTU    auToO   lyovzzc,  ty]v 

)(apiv,     dc,    (iuTov    Ixpocpi^TEUo-av . 

auTO?  Be  tva  xaT.rpyyjCTYi  tov  O-a- 

vaTov  xai  t7]v  Iy.  vsxpoiv  oi.'^6i.(s-'x- 

aiv  BeiI;?!,  oti  ev  aapxi  sBst  auTov 

cpavsptoO'^vai,    6TC£[j-£tv£v.       7.    I'va 

xai   ToT?  TiaTpaatv   ty]v   Ixa^'yE^iv 

dcTloBw. 

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- 


dc,  ojxa^  )(apiTO?  xpocpYiTstxravTSi;  • 

(11)     SpEUVWVTE^     sl?     TlVa    Y)    TIOTOV 

xaipov  zbrikou  to  sv  auToT?  Ilvsij- 
[j.a  Xpt,(7ToO,  xpo[xapTup6[j-£vov  toc 
zlc,  Xpio-Tov  xa6'T^[j.aTa,  xai  tocc- 
^EToc  TauTa  Bo'^a?. 


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. 

(3)  Bar.  V,  7  I  Pt.  2  ;  9 
ETOijj-a^wv  s^riBei^T].                               ispaTsujj-a,    lO-vo?    aytov,    Xao?  dc, 

XSptTCOlTjO-lV. 

Following  the  preceding  parallel  this  striking  similarity  is  very 
significant. 

(4)  Ear.  V,  13  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 

auTOi;  By]  £0>£>>y](tsv  oStw  TiraQ-sTv .  he,  ■zkc,  a[xapTia?  -^KJ-oiv  au-o?  dcvi^- 
iBei  yap  iva  i%\  ^tj>.ov  7:aOT|.  vsyxsv  sv  Toi  i70)[j.aTi  auToO  M  to 

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. 

c 

(5)  Bar.  I,  G  I  Pt.  1  ;  9 

^wTiC  i'Kzic^  ap/r,  y.<xi  -7s}.oc  tzittsojc  /vO[j.i^o[j,£voi  to  'zi'Koc,  ■vf\c,  TziGztotq 
Yi[x6iv  6[j.o>v 

This  similarity  is  probably  due  to  common  currency.  Cf.  the 
parallel  usage  immediately  following  i.  e.  Buaioauvv],  xpiasoj?  dp/v] 
xal  lilrji;.  It  is  to  be  noted  however  that  reference  is  made  to  the 
prophets  in  the  contexts  following  the  citations.  Cf.  T  7  with 
I  Pt.  1  ;  10. 

Bar.  V,  1  1  Pt.  1  ;  2 

iva  TT)  dcpsTsi  twv  d[j-apTt6iv  dy-  sv  dcpiao-jj-o)  nv£'J[xaTO?,  zlc,  bTzcc- 
vwO-o)[j.£v,  0  ETTtv  £v  TO)  ociij.aTt  yvOr,v  xal  pavTiTij-ov  dt[j.aTO?  'Iy]o-ou 
TOi)  pavTiTixaTO?  auToO  XptcToD. 

Cf.  1;  19,  Heb.  12;  24,  13;  12. 

Were  we  to  follow  C  and  the  Lat.  of  Barnabas  (i.  e.  £v  Toi  pav- 
Tto-[;.aTt  auToti  tgO  ai'iJ-aTO?.,  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  N  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. 
Cf.  V,  2  with  I  Pt.  1  ;  19,  2  ;  211,  3  ;  18,  4  ;  1. 


386  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(7)  Bar.  V,  5  I  Pt.  2 ;  21 

6  Kupto?  uTOfj-eivev  TcaO^sTv  xspl  ttt]?      Xpiaxo?  IxaO^sv  UTisp  yi[j.cov.    4  ;  1 
'huyjic,  ■r][j.wv  XpiaToO  TraO-ovTOi;  67C£p  yjjxwv  aapxi. 

Barnabas  is  quite  suggestive  of  I  Peter  at  this  point. 

(8)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 

oL%o  xaTa(3o>.Y];  xocrfxcu  7:p6  xaTa(3o7.Y]?  x6g-[j.ou 

The  context  (wv  TcavTo?  too  x6(7[j.ou  K'jpioc,  Si  sTttsv  6  ©so?)  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. 

(9)  Bar.  VI,  2     (Isa.  28;  16  b)  I  Pt.  2 ;  6 

'IBou  £[x[3alo)  sig  Toc  S-sp-sXia  Iltcov  iBotJ,   tiS-yh^i  ev  Stwv  >,iOov  aypo- 

>.t9>ov    TcouTsl^,     £X>.exT6v,    axpo-  ytovtotov,  ex>.£XT6v,  £V':t[j.ov. 
ycovtoTov,  £VTt[j.ov 

Quoted  from  the  LXX,  but  probably  suggested  by  I  Peter  as 
will  be  seen  by  the  following  parallels. 


(10) 


(11) 


Bar.  VI,  3  Isa.  28;  16  b  I  Pt.  2;  6 

6?   £).7ri(T£i    £7u'    auTOv      6  TctcTsuwv  o'j  ^.Y)  xaT-      6   xi(7i;£U0JV   iiz    auTai 
^■:^(7£Tai  £1?  Tov  ociwva      aicr/^uvO-^  ou  [jlt]  xaTaio-xuvQ*^. 

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. 
(tt^'Ti;^  N*:"  VP?:?'?'"!).  'EXm^co  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  Tiinzzdbi  as 
in  I  Pt.  3  ;  5,  IXxi^ouo-ai  Iro,  tov  Oeov.  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  zhzi^^i  for  ma-T£Uw. 

Bar.  VI,  4  I  Pt.  2  ;  7  b 

XiS-ov  6v  aTC£Boxt[j.a(7av  oi  oixoBo-  XiO>o<;   6v   oi  oixoBo[j.O!jvt£?,    o3toc 

[j.ouvT£c,    oOto?    £Y£vt^8>7]    zlc,   X£cp-  lyEVT^S-Y)  dc,  X£cpa>.Y;v  ywvta;. 
aT^Yjv  ywvia?. 

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 


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,  li^oc,  for  Christ,  1-4,  "recreation"  11,  14,  corresponding  to 
I  Pt.  1  ;  3,  23,  and  the  suffering  of  Christ. 


d 

(12)  Bar.  I,  6  I  Pt.  5;  1 

(o<;  tic  zi  6|xwv  BeiSto  o\\.-^(ix  a'jv7rp£(7(3i5Tspoe  12,  BE'  6XiY' 


OJV 


This  parallel  of  Monnier's  need  not  detain  us. 

(13)  Bar.  XVI,  10  I  Pt.  2 ;  5 

:rv£U[j.a-:tx6c  vao?  oTxoc  Tuve'jjxocTixoc 

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. 


388 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


[EPHEED  OF  HERMAS 

(Written  cir.  140) 

B 

b 

I  Pt.  5;  7a 

Ps.  54;  23  a 

b]xS>v    £7ri,pi^J>avT£5    sx 
atjTTOv  [tov  0s6v] 

I  Pt.  5;  7b 

Ps.  54  ;   23  b 

(1)  Vision  in,  xi,  3 

o5x  £7C£pt(|;aTS  sauToiv 
Toci;  \)Ipi\>y(x.^  £xi  tov 
Kuptov 

(2)  Vis.  IV,  ii,  4 

s?£(puY£i;  .  .  .  6x1  vf]v 

[X£pi[XV(XV     COU    STCi    TOV 

0£6v  i%zpi'\)ccq  .  .  . 
(5)  £7ripi'jiai:£  toci;  [j.£p- 
tpa?  6[x5)v  £7ci  Tov 
Kuptov,  xai  atjTO?  xaT- 
opS-wast  auToc?. 

Principal  Drummond  has  pointed  out  these  parallels.  (N.  T.  in 
Apost.  Fathers.)  He  thinks  this  quotation  is  taken  independently 
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. 


(3)         Sim.  IX,  xiv,  6 

o3x    i-KCCKTyCwvxoci  TO 
ovo[xa  auToO  cpopETv. 
xxi,  3. 

OTav  0>>a']>iv  axou(70)a-i 
...  TO  ovo[j.a  iizaciiy- 
pvovxai  ToU  KupiOD 
auTwv.  xxviii,  5,  6. 

01      TZOLOyWXZC,       £V£X£V 

ToO  ovofxaTO?  Bo'^a^£iv 

0(p£t7;£T£  TOV  0£6v,  OTl 

(Jc^iou?  6[JLa(;  YiyYiaaTO 
6  0£6(;  iva  toDxo  to 
ovo[j.a  (3a(7Ta^YiT£  .  .  . 

7r£7l6vO-aT£     £V£X£V    TOti 

•ov6[xaTo?  Kupiou 


I  Pt.  4  ;    14-16 

£1    6v£lBl^£'7Q*£    £V    6v6- 

[xaTiXpiTTOu  . . .  xaa- 

y^STO)    .   .   .    £t   CO?   Xpt(7- 

Tiavo?  [XY]  ai(7)(uv£0"Q^o), 

Bo^a^ETO)  ^£   TOV    0£6v 
£V   TW    6vO[J.aTt    TOtiTW. 


Poly.  VIII,  2 
Eocv  xaa"/w[j.£v  Sta  to 
ovofxa  auTOU,  Bo^a^w- 
[J.EV  auTOv  .  TouTov  yap 
Yi[j,Tv  TOV  6xoYpa[Ji[x6v 
IQ^YjXE  Bt  sauToO. 
Mk.8;  38,  Lk.  9;26. 


hz   yiJcp   otv   i%(x,i<7yw- 
Cf.  Acts  5;  41. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  389 

Sim,  Vin,  vi,  4 
iTCaio^uvO^EVTs?    TO    ovo[j.a   Kupiou 

Again  we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Drummond  for  this  careful  analy- 
sis, as  well  as  for  his  comment  upon  the  same.  He  thinks  there 
is  here  a  probable  reminiscence  of  I  Peter,  which  inference  is  con- 
firmed from  the  parallel  from  Polycarp,  for  the  latter  has  just  quoted 
I  Peter,  and  that  he  still  has  the  Epistle  in  mind  is  indicated  by  the 
last  clause.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  21.  Bigg  only  calls  attention  to  the  par- 
allel between  Sim.  IX,  xxviii,  5  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  15.  Lightfoot  and 
Crombie  fail  to  record  any  of  these  parallels  just  given.  Though 
a  few  accidental  catch  words  as  Tzmyjj),  £7i:at,a-/uvovTai,  svsxsv  toO 
ov6[j.aTO?,  etc.  may  but  suggest  our  Epistle,  the  general  tenor  of  the 
passage,  especially  ch.  28,  in  connection  with  the  verbal  likeness, 
and  the  reference  in  Polycarp,  all  combine  to  make  a  strong  case 
for  literary  dependence. 

c 
(4)  Vis.  Ill,  iii,  5  I  Pt.  2  ;   5 

Y]   ^co"?i    up-wv  Bia    uBaTo?    sg-coO-y)      sv  Yip-spai?  Nws,  xaTacrx£uoc^o[j.£VYj(; 
xai  o-coS-YiTSTai  xt[3ojTou,  £1?  ^v  oT^iyot . . .  Bi£0-o)8>Yj- 

aav  Bi'  uBocTO?  . . .  o-oj^ei  (3a7CTi(7[j.a. 

Drummond  thinks  the  idea  of  salvation  through  water  springs 
too  readily  from  the  practice  of  baptism  to  justify  one  in  claiming 
literary  dependence.  The  verbal  similarity  however  is  worthy  of 
note. 

Sim.  IX,  xxix,  1,  3  I  Pt.  2  ;  1,  2  Mt.  18  ;  3 

w?  vYjma   [3p£cpY]   £tai,  a7:oO"£[j.£voi  o5y]  xaaav  Y£vy]<7&-£  mc,  toc  TiaiBia. 

oT$  ouB£[j.ia  xaxtoc  ava-  xaxiav  ,  .  .  d)$  dpTi-  Cf.  I  Cor.  3  ;    1,  and 

Paiv£i  liii  TY]v  xapBiav  yivyriTX  [ipfcpY]  14  ;  20. 
.  .  .  OTOi  o3v  .   .   . 

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. 

Mand.  VIII,  10 

Bigg  calls  attention  to  a  list  of  "  Petrine  words  close  together" 
here  i.  e.  cpt,};6^£vo?,  Yja-uyto?,  aBsXcpoTTj?  and  uyab-oTzoififjic,  —  (ayaO-o- 


(5) 


(6) 


390 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


TTOua).  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.  3 ;  4,  and  in 
I  Tim.  2  ;  2,  while  riGuyfio^  is  found  in  Acts  22  ;  2,  II  Thes.  3  ;  12 
and  I  Tim.  2  ;  11,  12.  The  third  is  peculiar  to  I  Peter,  being 
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  ayaO-oTcoio?  is  only  in  I  Pt.  2  ; 
14.  The  verbal  form  ayaO-OTcoiew  is  common  in  the  N.  T. 
Cf.  Mk.  3  ;  4,  Lk.  6;  9,  33,  35,  Acts  14;  17,  and  III  Jn.  11.  It 
is  indeed  a  favorite  word  of  our  author.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  15,  20, 
3:  6,  17. 


(7) 


Vis.  Ill, 


I  Pt.  2  ;   5 

7:v£U[xaTixo^  .   .   . 


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. 


(8) 


Vis.  IV,  iii,  4 


I  Pt.  1  ;   7 


wo-^ep  yap  zb  jirpuaiov  Boxip-aTs-ai  -zb  Boxi[j.iov  6[xwv  ttj?  mcxswi;  %o- 
Bia  Tou  xtjpo?  .  .  .  o'jToi;  xat,  }.uTi[j.6T£pov  y^puGiou  Toii  ocTioXku- 
6[xeTc  Boxifj-a^ET'S-c  [xsvou  Bia  xupo?  Bs  Boxi[j.aKo[jivou. 

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. 


^9)       Sim.  IX,  xii,  2,  3 

6  jxsv  ulbc,  ToO  ©sot) 
TraoT]?  xy](;  xTiascoi;  au- 
Tou  TCpoyEvso-Tspoi;  la- 
-IV  .  .   .  I;c    Icr^aTcov 

TWV    Y][JL£pwV    T7](;    (7UV- 

TsTvsia?   cpavspoc    sys- 


I  Pt.  1  ;  20 

y^pKjTOO       7rpO£yV(0(7JJ.£- 

vou  [j.£v  xpo  xai:a(3oX7]? 
x6<7[X0!j    cpavEpcoS-fvTO? 

/p6v(ov. 


Heb.  1  ;  2 

ETC     icr/JX-Ol)    Toiv    Yj[X£- 

pSv.       I  Jn.  3  ;  5. 

£X£Tvoi;  IcpavEpcoS-Y) 
Col.  1  ;  15. 

TCpcOTOTOXOC  7:a'77]5  XTl- 
G-£CO(;. 


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.  IX,  xvi,  5  I  Pt.  4  ;   6 

oOtoi  01   aizoazoXoi  xal  ol  ^tBac-      ol  aTCoBo'xroLxjtv  Xoyov  T(o  £TOI[j.o)5 
xa>>oi  01  xTjp'JHavT-Si;  to  ovop.a  tou      xpivovTi   ^oivTa?    xol   vexpou?  *  si? 

UlOU     TOO      0£Oti,      X0l[XY]8-£VT£?     £V        TOUTO  Y'^'P  '^'^^  v£xpoT?  EUYiyyEXlfTQ-rj 

Buva[Ji£i   xai  m<7T£t   toQ    uioO    toD      tva  xptd-wat  [jlev   xaxa   avB^pcoAOu? 
€)£oD  £xr,p!j|av  xal  toT?  xpox£xoi-      o-apxi  ^wat  Bs  xaira  d"£ov  7iv£Ujj.aT:i. 
jjLYi[i£voic,  xai  auTOi  iBwxav  atJiroT? 
T7]v  G-'-ppayTBa  iro3  XYiptJY[j.aTo? 

Bigg  thinks  Hermas  here  is  explaining  I  Pt.  4  ;  6,  and  bases  his 
argument  largely  on  the  occurrence  of  the  "  Petrine  word  ^wo- 
-;;oi£Tv"  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;  11,  I  Cor.  15; 
22,  36,  45,  II  Cor.  3;  6,  Gal.  3  ;  21.  See  aJso  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  ocizorrxoloi  xai 
BiBoc'Txaloi  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 
a  parallel. 

On  the  cumulative  evidence  of  all  the  foregoing  parallels  it  would 
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  I'ecrit  de  Pierre;  mais  il  est  fort  possible  pourtant 
qu'  Hermas  le  connaisse." 


392  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

DIDACHE 

(120  or  later) 

D 

d 

(1)  Did.  I,  3  I  Pt.  2 ;  19 

:rota  yap  /api?  sav  .  .  .  touto   yap  ydpK;  d  .  .  . 

Though  the  phrase  is  similar  the  passage  does  not  deserve  serious 
attention. 

(2)  Did.  I,  4  I  Pt.  2;  11 

(XTCs/oo  Twv  crapxixwv   xai  (7co[xa-      uiiiyzab^M  twv  aapxixwv  s7riQ'U[xt5)V 

Professor  Lake  (N.T,  in  A.F.)  thinks  the  connection,  if  any, 
comes  through  a  later  gloss  of  o-apxixSiv  from  our  Epistle,  and  as 
evidence  that  the  tautologous  form  aapxtxwv  xai  (70)[j.aTixcov  was 
not  original,  cites  IV  Mace.  1;  32,  twv  Bs  smS-upoiv  od  ^sv  stat 
'\>uyiY.oCi  od  Bs  <7(o[jLaTixai.  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  shght  to  warrant  one  recognizing 
more  than  a  possible  connection. 

(3)  Did.  n,  6  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 

uTTsprjcpavoi;  uTiepiqcpavoti; 

This  parallel,  pointed  out  by  Monnier,  need  not  detain  us,  since 
the  word  is  not  pecuhar  to  I  Peter,  nor  is  the  context  as  suggestive 
of  it  as  of  "  James." 

(4)  Did.  IV,  11  I  Pt.  2;  18 

OuisTi;  Be    oi  BoOXoi   67UOTay^cr£ff&"£      oi  olxsTai,  67roTao"(76[JLSVoi  ev  TcavTi 
TToT?  xupioi?  6[j.wv  .  .  .  £v  (po(3(o  cpopw 

In  addition  to  this  very  similar  phrasing,  the  context  also  has 
ideas  which  suggest  our  Epistle.  Compare  ocizb  vEOTiqTO?  BtBa^Et?  tov 
cpo^ov  Tou  ©sou,  (v.  9,)  with  such  passages  as  I  Pt.  5  ;  5,  2 ;  17. 
Compare  also  o5  yap  zpyzxcci  xaTOC  Tipoacoxov  xa>.£<7a!,  (v.  10)  with 
a7rpO(7(o7io}.Tj7r~co?  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 

Merely  accidental. 

(6)  Did.  XVI,  5  I  Pt.  4 ;  12 
dc  TY]v  Titipwasv  T-Yji;  Box.t[j.a(7ta5         TTDpcoo'st  %^hc,  7rstpao[j.ov 

I  Pt.  1  ;  7 
Bia  TTupoc  Bs  Boxt[j.a^O[j,£vov 
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. 

POLYCAEP 
Cir.  115 

A* 

a* 

(1)  Poly.  I,  3  I  Pt.  1;  8 

SIC  6v  oux  Xhovzzq  TciG-TS'JeTs  X^pa      6v    oux    iBovts?    ayaTiairs,    dc,    6v 
oLwzyCKoCkfi'n^  Y.(x.i  BsBo^aff[j.£VYi  apTi    [j.y]    6pwvT£(;    Tcio-Tsuovirs?    Bs 

ayaXXiaaOs  X'^'P^  cazv.'koCkf\'XM  xal 

This  reference  clearly  depends  upon  I  Peter. 

(2)  Pol.  II,  1  I  Pt.  1 ;  21 

TctCTsuaavTS?  dq  tov  i'^zl^cc^^oi  tov  toui;   B\'    aufoD   m(7'iroU(;   dc,   ©sov 

Kupiov   ^]xm  'Iy](70uv   XpiaTov   ^x,  tov    sysipavTa    a^TOv    h.    vsxpwv 

vexpwv  xai  Bovra  auTw  Bo^av  xai  Bo^av  a^Tw  Bovra 

The  dependence  here  is  too  obvious  to  require  any  comment. 

(3)  Pol.  VIU,  1  I  Pt.  2 ;  24 

6c  avT^veyxsv   yijj.wv   -zolc,   a[j.apTia?      oc,    iolc,     a[j,apTiai;    Y]p.wv     a^TOS 
Tw  iBiw  (7c6[xaTt  STU  TO  '^uXov,  avT^vsyxsv    sv    tw    (70)[j.aTi    a^ToQ 

S7d    TO    ^tiXoV. 


394 


Ora  Delnier  Foster, 


(4)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  2 ;  22 

sOpsOY)   BoXo?   SV   TW   (TTOjJ-aXl  aUTOO         £6p£9Yl   BoXo?    £V  TO)   (TTOJXaTl    aUTTOU 


(5)  Ibid. 
oiXkoi  Bt'  vi[xa? 

(6)  Ibid. 

fva  ^■yi(7(o[X£v  ev  atj-w,  xavTa  ux£- 

[X£V£IV 


(7) 


Pol.  VIII,  2 


I  Pt.  2  ;  21 

£7:aO£V    UTTEp    6[J.0)V 

I  Pt.  2 ;  24 

iva  ToT?  a[xapTtac  aTCOY£v6{j-£voi  •r^ 
Bixaio<7t5vv]  ^i^(Ttojj.£v. 

I  Pt.  4  ;    16 


lav  xao-yo)p,£v  Bia  to  ovojjta  auToU      £iB£  mc,  /pi<7Tiav6?,  [xy]  aio-)(uv£(78^to, 
Bo^a^w[j.£v  auTOv  Bo'^a^ETco    Be    tov    Oeov    sv    tw 

6v6[J.(XTl    TOyTO) 

(8)  Ibid.  I  Pt.  2;  21 

'zorj'zo'v  yap  upv  67uOYpa[j.[j.6v  IO-yixe      6[j.Tv  6xo}.t[j.7vavo)v  67uoypa[j.[xov 

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.  The  second  reference  returns  to  the 
context  drawn  from  in  VIII,  1.  Since  6xoypa[j.[j.6v  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.  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  22  with  Isa.  53  ;  9. 
Isaiah  employs  avo[jiav  where  I  Peter  uses  ajxapTiav.  Other  diffe- 
rences occur,  but  Polycarp  gives  verbatim  the  form  found  in  our 
Epistle. 


(9)  Pol.  X,  2 

Omnes  vobis  invicem 
subjecti  estote,  con- 
versationem  vestram 
irreprehensiblem  hab- 
entes  in  gentibus  ut 
es  bonis  operibus 
vestris  et  vos  laudem 


I  Pt.  2  ;  12  (Vulg.) 
conversationem  ves- 
tram inter  Gentes 
habentes  bonam  ;  ut 
ines,  quod  detrectant 
de  vobis  tamquam 
demalefactoribus  vos 
considerantes,       glo- 


I  Ft.  2;  12 

TY]V  ava<TTpOCpYlV  U[XO)V 
dv  zoic,  lO'VECriV  £/^OVT£^ 

xaXi^v,  I'va  £v  S  xa^a- 
}^a}.o!ja-i,v  6[JLwv  wc 
xaxoTTOioiv       Ix      TtOV 

xa>.wv  Ipywv  etcotcteo- 
o-^-zzc    Boiaccoo'iv    tw 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  395 

accipiatis    et    Domi-      rificent  Deum  in  die      Beco  sv  Y][jipa  s-toxo- 

nus     in     vobis     non      visitationis.  5 ;  5  Om-      i:%c.    uT:o-uyf]-:z  Tzdrrfi 

blasphemetur.  nes    autem   invicem,      avOpwTiivri  Y.-iGzi  Bia 

(subditi  estote.  5;  4).      tov  Kyptov.    5;5  7:av- 

T£?  Bs  oiXkr{koic,  {bizo- 

zccf^zz  5 ;  4). 

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  maj?^  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  uxoypa^a^ov  of  Jesus  in 
I  Pt.  2;  21,  in  close  conjunction  with  "  fraternitatis,"  which  Hkewise 
corresponds  to  another  word  peculiar  to  our  Epistle,  i.  e.  aBsXcpoTviTa 
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 

(10)  Pol.  II,  1  I  Pt.  1 ;  13 

Bio  ava^fo(7aij.£voi,  Ta?  occpua?  Bou-      Bio  ava^ojcajjisvot  xa?  oo-cpuag  zr^c, 

"kzCccczz  -to  Bsfi)  £v  (p6[3o)  xai  alv]-      Biavoia^  6[j-cov 

0>£ta 

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. 

(11)  Pol.  II,  2  I  Pt.  3 ;  9 

[XY]  azoBiBovTsc  xaxov  av-i  y,xy.o\)  [xy]  axoBiBovTS?  xaxov  dcvd  /.axoO 
Y)  XotBopiav  avTi  AoiBopCa?  yj  XoiBopiav  avTt,  TvOiBopia? 

Benecke  thinks  this  verbatin  agreement  may  be  accounted  for,  as 
a  common  proverb  which  both  are  quoting.  This  however  is  rendered 
highly  improbable,  inasmuch  as  Polycarp  had  just  quoted  from 
I  Peter.  If  it  is  a  common  proverb,  in  aU  probability  it  was  suggested 
by  our  Epistle. 

c 

(12)  Pol.  I,  3  I  Pt.  1 ;  12 

SIC  y;/  -oXXoi  sTCiB'Oij.otiTiv  zla-  zlc,  a  sxiO-ufj-ouo-tv  ayyeXoi  xapa- 
zVj-zCy  wj'\)ca. 

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.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  27  January,  1913. 


396  Ora  Deltner  Foster, 

(13)  Pol.  V,  3  I  Pt.  2 ;  11 

xa7>6v    Y'^'P    "^    avax6x£cr8>ai,    dcxo      o!.Tzi'/z(jb'0!.i    t'ojv    capxixftv    £7ci8>u- 
TO)V  £;ciO-tj[j.iwv  £v    Tw    x6(7[j.o),   o'l      [J.icov    aiTivE?     a-TpaTS'JovTat,    xaTa 
zacra  £xiO-u[jia  xaToc  to-j  Twsu^xaTO?      ttjc  'J^u/Tj? 
T-paTsysTai,. 

This  is  probabl}'  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'epitre  de  Polycarpe  aux  PhiUppiens  contient  les  citations  les  plus 
expresses  et  les  plus  detaillees  de  l'epitre  de  Pierre,  mais  sans  le 
nommer  comme  I'auteur."  ("  La  Premiere  Epitre  De  L'Apotre 
Pierre  "  p.  307).  Eusebius  is  also  responsible  for  the  statement 
that  "  Polycarp  in  his  Epistle  to  the  PhiUppians,  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. 


TEST  AMENTA  XIT  PATRIAPCHARUM 

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  earher  Jewish  document  or  to  later  Christian 
interpolations  from  I  Peter.  At  all  events  this  book  complicates 
rather  than  helps  to  solve  our  problem. 

»  Greek  Version  of  the  "  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  ",  p.  ix. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  397 

IGNATIUS 

(Writing  Cir.  110-117) 
B 

b 
(1)  Mag.  VII L  2  I  Pt.  1;  10  f. 

(X)  JX^iZOC,  7UpOCpYlT£UG-aVT£S  ....    IBl^- 

>.ou  TO  £v  auToT^  7cv£S[xoc  XpiaxoO 

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. 


(2)  Eph.  V,  3  I  Pt.  5;  5c 

67C£pY]cpavot,s   6  6£6c   avTiToccTG-ETai      6  ©£05   67L£p7](pavois   aviriTraTO-ETai 

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  Kypio?  for  6  Stbc;  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 
Ignatius,  who  gives  immediately  after  the  quotation  a-TCODBaa-o)[j,£v 
ouv  [J.Y]  avTiTacrcr£G-^ai  Toi  iTCioyvOTico,  corresponding  exactly  to  uTTOTa- 
YYiT£  7tp£a'[iuT£pot,c  of  I  Pt.  5 ;  5a.  The  context  preceding  the 
quotation  is  an  exhortation  to  humility,  quite  in  harmony  with 
I  Pt.  5  ;  5b.  If  there  be  hterary  dependence,  therefore,  it  is 
probably  on  our  Epistle,  but  we  are  deahng  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. 

(3)  Eph.  IX,  1  I  Pt.  2;  5 

b)C  ovT£i;   Xib'Oi   vaou   xporjTOtjj.ao"-      w?  Xi^oi  Zmvuzc,  oixoBo[j.£Ta"Q-£  oTxoij 

[X£VOl    tic,     01X0B0[JLY1V     0£OU    7i!XTp6?        7CV£LliJ.aTrix6? 

Both  the  thought  and  phraseology  are  very  suggestive  of  our 
Epistle.  Ignatius  shows  however  some  points  of  likeness  to  I  Cor.  3 ; 
16.     The  probabihties  seem  to  be  in  favor  of  I  Peter. 


398  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(4)  Mag.  IX,  3  I  Pt.  3  ;  19 

o&  xai  6\  TrpocpYJTa!,  [xccb-r^-od  ovts?  sv  w  (7i;vsup,aTi)  xai  toT?  sv  (pLi>>oc>t^ 

Tw  TwsujxaTi  w?  BiSaoy.aTvOV  auTov  xvsujj.ac'i.v  TiopsuO'Si?  sxi^pu^ev,  4 ;  6 

xpocrsBoxoiv.      xal    Bia    toQ-o,    6v  vsxpoT?  suvjYYslio-S-rj 
BixaCco?    av£[j.£vov,    xapwv    v^ysipsv 
auTOUc  £x  vsxpoiv 

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. 

d 

(5)  Mag.  VIII,  2  I  Pt.  1 ;  11 

01  yap  ©sioTaTOi   TipocprjTai    xaira      Iv      auxoT^     (xpocpYixai^)     Tivsujj^a 
XptCTOv  'IvjcroOv  £^Y]G-av.    Cf.  Phi-      Xpio-Tou 
lad.  V. 

All  depends  on  the  interpretation  of  "  xa^a  "  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 

(1)  Clem.  Int.  I  Pt.  1  ;   I 

/^dpi?    6[j.Tv   xal   sipYjVY]    (octco  ttocv-      ^api,?  6[j.Tv   xai   sipyjvrj   tcT.yiO-uvS-sitj 
TOxpdcTopoi;  WsoQ  Bta  TyjitoD  Xpio-- 

Bishop  Lightfoot  observes  that  "/api(;  upv  xat  sipyjVY]  is  the 
common  salutation  of  Paul,  excepting  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  With 
the  addition  Tzkribvvb-ziri,  however,  it  occurs  only  in  the  two  Epist- 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  399 

les  of  Peter,  from  whom  probably  Clement  derived  the  form,  as 
the  First  Epistle  is  frequently  quoted  by  him. "  (Clem,  of  Rome 
I,  p.  647.)  Cf.  also  his  "Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul",  p.  8. 
Against  this  it  may  be  urged  that  Clement  is  here  borrowing  from 
Daniel  instead  of  from  I  Peter.  Dan.  (LXX)  3;  31  has  sipYJvY] 
6p.Tv  Tilrib-ovb-ziri.  See  also  Dan.  4;  34.  Dan.  11;  39  employs  the 
phrase  ::lrj8uvsT  Bo'^av.  IHyjS^uvco  is  a  very  common  word  in  the 
LXX.  It  is  rarely  employed  as  in  I  Peter  and  Clement,  but  is 
frequently  used  to  express  the  growth  of  evil.  Cf.  Ps.  118  (119); 
69,  Si.  47  ;  24,  Am.  4 ;  4,  Jl.  3  (4)  ;  13,  Is.  57  ;  9,  Jer.  5  :  6,  37 
(30)  ;  14,  15,  etc.  It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  the  word  xavTO- 
>tpa'u-cop  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  ydp^'^ 
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;  zkzo<;  6[uv  xai  stpYjvv]  xai  aydiz-q  izktpwbzit].  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 
TiapoixoOo-a.  Though  Im^rnxoic,  is  used  in  I  Peter  instead,  the  idea 
is  the  same,  as  may  be  seen,  both  by  I  Pt.  2;  11  (where  Tuapoixou? 
and  xaps7uiBr,[j.ou5  are  coordinated)  and  by  Clement  himself.  Cf. 
salutation  for  Trapoixouo-a  and  I,  2  for  7iap£7:i,BYi[j.Yi(Ta?.  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  (toTi; 
BwBsxa  ouXaTc  toTc  sv  t^  BiacTTuopa),  But  I  Pt.  1 ;  1  also  employs 
Stao-Tcopa?. 

Clement  uses  xAyj-oTc  while  I  Peter  has  ex7.£>n:oT?.  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  xXy]t6?,  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.  x}orj't6i;,)   Then    if  Clement    shaped    his    salutation    after 


400  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

the  model  of  I  Peter,  as  Lightfoot  thinks,  the  change  of  form  would 
not  militate  against  it,  since  "  £x};exT6c  is  indeed  a  rare  word  with 
Geeek  writers",  (cf.  Th.  Lex.  on  IxT^sxto?)  and  he  would,  in  quoting 
from  memory,  naturally  employ  the  more  famiUar  word  expressing 
the  same  idea.  He,  however,  uses  hCkzY.^6c  elsewhere,  which  will 
be  considered  later.     Cf.  1  ;  1. 

(2)  Clem.  Int.  I  Pt.  1 ;  2 

Tou  KuptoO   Yj[j.cov  'ItiG'oO   XpiaToO      xoYjv  xal  pavTia'^.ov  ai[j.a-o$  'Iyi(toU 

Xpto-ToO 

This  seems  to  express  the  thought  of  I  Peter  in  contracted  form. 
The  likeness  will  be  made  clearer  by  the  following  analysis. 

(1)  YiYiao-jjivoi?  aytac-p-w 

(2)  £v  Q'£}>T,[xaT-i  Beoij  xaira  Trpoyvojo-tv  ("Jzou 

(3)  Bta   TTOv    Kupiov    rjij.oiv  'lY]cro!J      £i?  6xaxo7]v  xai  pavi:i(7[j.6v  at[j.aTOc 

XpiCTOU  'lYja-OU    Xpi(7T0U. 

The  forms  of  the  verb  ayiaro)  are  found  in  the  salutations  of  but 
two  N.  T.  writings,  i.  e.,  I  Corinthians  and  Jude.     The  former  has 

"/•jyiaTijivoic  £v  XpiTTw  TtjCoS 

while  the  latter  has, 

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  betM'een  I  Clement 
and  I  Corinthians  at  this  point.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  many  of 
the  best  manuscripts  of  Jude  have  YiYa7:Yi[j,£voti;  instead  of  riyi7.i7ixivoiq, 
as  in  I  Corinthians.  In  favor  of  the  former  Tregelles  cites  A.  B.  n. 
Vulg.,  Syr.,  Hcl.  Memph.  Theb.  Arm.  (AEth.)  Orig  III,  607c,  etc. 
It  appears  therefore  that  I  Clement  was  very  probably  influenced 
here  by  I  Peter. 

(2)  'Ev  b-zX-fiiJ.oczi  (")£oD  is  a  very  different  form  from  that  used 
in  I  Peter,  but  the  thought  of  xaira  TcpoYvwo-iv  0£oO  .  .  .  iz^z'Jix'x-oc 
is  far  from  alien  to  that  of  Iv  b'zXri\s.ocxi  Stoo.  Indeed  the  latter 
may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  former  in  contracted  form. 

(3)  Ata  ToO  Kupiou  Yi[j.6iv  'I7](70!J  XpicTToO  may  be  a  general  form 
drawn  from  pavTt(7[j.6v  cd\iccTOc,  'lYjcroO  XpiG-ou,  in  which  case  Bta 
takes  the  place  of  pavTio-[j.6v  aip.aTO?. 


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.  Cf.  xXtjtoT?  of  I  Clem. 
Int.  and  ixXexToT?  of  I  Clem.  1  ;  1  with  sxXsxtoTc  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  1 
and  TrpoyvcoG-iv  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  \\ay 
dependent  upon  I  Peter. 

(3)  I  Clem.  22  ;  2—6  I  Pt.  3 ;  10-12 

xic,  e^Tiv  av&>pto7ro?  6  b-sXcov  ^coy;v,  6    yap    d-sXcov    ^wr,v    aya^rav    xal 

ayaxfiiv  Yjjxspac  iBsTv  ayaO^a?;  (3)  iBsTv    ri[jlpag    ayaQ-a?.      7i;a!j(rai:o) 

7:aOo"ov  tt;/  yT.coc'G'av  i70l»  axo  xaxou  tTjV    yX6)G"a"av    auToO    octco    xaxoO 

(4)  £xx}>tvov  dC7:6  xaxou  xai  tzoiTj-  B6).ov,    (11)    IxxlivdcTco     Bs     octto 

(70V  ayaO-ov      (5)  ^YiTrTiTOv  sip^^vYjv  xaxoD      xal      7;oirjO-aTO)      ayaO-ov, 

xai  Biwcov   auTYjv.      (6)  dcp&-a}.[j.o\  ^YjTVjc-a-irw     sipYjVTjV     xal    Bioj^octo) 

KupiOD  sTvi  Btxaiouc,  xai  co^a  atj-  rx.hvf\v.     (12)  oti,  ocpQ-aXjxoi  Kupio'j 

ToO  r^poc  BsTjaiv  auTcov  T^po-jco^ov  sTii    BixaCou?    xai    oira    au'^oO    etc 

Bs  Kupiou  l-i  TToioOvTac  xaxa  ....  B£t,(71v  au-oiv,  -p6(70)-ov  Bs  Kupioo 

Cf.  Ps.  34  ;   13^ — 17a.  lizi  'Koioo\t'^(x.c  v.yyA 

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 
especialty  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. 

(4)  I  Clem.  49  :  5  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Ja?.  5  ;  20 
ayaTTfj  xa>.'j--ei  ttItj-      ayaTrr^  xa>«!j7vTsi  rC)c[-      6    £mG":p£'!»as     aij.ap- 
d>0(;  aixapTuov                    u^o?  aixapTioiv                    -:co}.6v  Ix  -lavrj?  6BoO 

auToO  o-ojo-si  'j»u/r,v  Ix 
Prov.  10;  12  OavaTOU    xai   xa>,tJ'jȣi 

z,6l>^'^:rxc.%z -ohc  [j.y]  oi}.ov£ixo^vTacxa}>07i~£i  oi}ia.      ;:}.rjCi'0^  a|j.ap~io)v 

Lightfoot,  Monnier  and  others  think  we  have  here  a  certain  quo- 
tation from  our  Epistle.     Professor  Carlyle,  however,  views  it  as  a 


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  \-ery  important. 

(5)  I  Clem.  59  ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

Bt'  oO  ExaX£G-£v  rii)M<;  o(.%b  oxotou?      toO  sx   crxoTOU^   (j[x6tc,  xa}^£(javTO$ 
tic  (pw?,  36 ;  2  zic,  to  Q-aui^ao-Tov      si?  ■zo  S'aufj.aTTOv  a'j-oij  (poii; 
auToO  cpwc.     Cf.  Eph.  1  ;  18,  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  sxtcrxoTuov  v.  3,  finds  its  closest  N.  T.  parallel 
in  I  Pt.  2  ;  25.  Clement  speaks  of  God  as  the  bishop  of  7:v£U[j.a-o)v 
while  our  author  makes  Christ  the  bishop  of  dju/wv.  In  the  same 
context  both  writers  employ  the  same  metaphorical  expression  for 
the  believers,  i.  e.,  Tupopaxa.  The  doctrine  of  election  Bia  Xpi(7T0t> 
(cf.  64  ;  1)  is  particularly  Petrine.  Cf.  I  Pt.  1  ;  2,  21,  2  ;  9,  3  ;  18, 
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. 


(6)  I  Clem.  1 ;  3  I  Pt.  1  ;  17 

a7rpo<7(07ro};T^p.xTco?  a;cpoo-(oxo>.Yi[j.xi:w? 

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 


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. 

(7)  1  Clem.  1 ;  3  I  Pfc.  3 ;  7 

'Azovs[j.(o  occurs  but  this  one  time  in  the  N.  T.  That  Clement 
uses  TtfjLTjV  as  its  object  in  a  context  suggestive  of  I  Peter  can 
hardly  be  accidental. 

(8)  I  Clem.  2  ;  2,  7  I  Pt.  4  ;  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. 

(9)  I  Clem.  2 ;  4  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  5  ;  7 

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 Hterature.  (N.  T.  in  A.  F.  p.  57.)  It  is  also  significant  that  it 
is  found  in  direct  connection  with  .  .  .  auvzibifizbic.  (tov  apt9^[x6v) 
Tcov  £x}.£XTO)V  auToU.     Cf.  I  Pt.  2 ;  19,  3 ;  16,  21  and  1 ;  2,  2 ;  4,  6,  9. 

(10,  I  Clem.  2;  1  I  Pt.  5  ;  1 

Although  this  is  a  favorite  Petrine  expression  it  affords,  in 
itself,  but  httle  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  greatl}.  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. 


404 


Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 


(11)  I  Clem.  16 ;  5,  6  I  Pt.  2  ;  24,  25 

~M  [iMlomi  auTOu   yi[j.sT?   laO'Yjjj.sv.      o5  too  [j.o)Xo)7ri   laQ-Yjire.     ■yJte  yap 

ixev.     Isa.  53  ;  5,  6. 

(12)  I  Clem.  16 ;  10  I  Pt.  2 ;  22 

oTi    avoij-iav    oux    sTroiYjcrsv,     ouBs      be    ajj-apxiav    oux    sTCOiYjasv    ouBs 

s6psQ'Y]    Bo^O?    £V    TO)     CTOfJ-a-!,     ecu-        S'jpsS'Y)      B6}^05     £V     <7T6[J.aTl     aUTOU 

TOO.     Isa.  53;  9.  ' 

(13)  I  Clem.  16 ;  14  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 

xai    auTO?    a[j.apTia?    xo'XT.cov   av-      6?  Ta(;  a[j,apTta?  y;[j.o)v  [6[xo)v]  au- 
YJvsyxsv,     Isa.  53;   12.  toc  avr^veyxsv 

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 
incUned  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 
supsQ--/]  BoXo?  instead  of  BoXov.  Though  the  form  used  by  Clement 
and  our  author  is  found  in  s  c.  a.^  Swete  rejects  it  and  adopts 
^olov  instead.  The  latter  reading  agrees  with  the  original. 
(1  ""PI  no'ip  i<'?],)  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  br.oyp(x[x[j.6c  in  the  immediate 
context  with  these  quotations.     See  note  on  the  following  parallel. 


(14)  I  Clem.  16  ;  17 

6  57C0Ypa[j.p.6<;  6  BsBo^ivo?  Yiplv 


1   Pt.   2  ;    11 

6|uv  67i:o}^i[j.xavo)v  'jTC0Ypa[x[ji.6v 


Professor  Bacon  has  rightly  noted  that  very  probably  Clement 
dipped  his  pen  into  our  author's  ink-well  when  he  wrote  "  67coYpa[j.- 
[xoi  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 
Taxsivocppovsw.      See  Paral.  22. 


I 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


405 


(15)  I  Clem.  1 ;  3 

UTTOTao-a-op-svoi,  ■zoic,  Y]YOL)[jiotc  6[j.o)v 


I  Pt.  2;  13,  17 

iTocyTj-s  .  .  .  SITS  [3a(n>.sT  .  .  .  sits 
YjYS[j.6(7iv  (17)  Tov  [jaTdsia  -i- 
[j.aTS 

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. 


(16)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3 

ToTi;  xpso-|3uTspoic*  VSOIC  . 

x:sTS 


£;:sTp5 


I  Pt.  5;  5 

VSWTSpOt     UTiOTayTiTS     7:ps(7|3L»Tspot,$ 


(17)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3  I  Pt.  3 ;  1 

yuvaiHv  ts   sv  o-^m^m  xa"i,   o-sjj.vYj  Bia  t^c  twv  y-jvaixcov  dcvaTTpocpYji; 

xal    ayv^    o-uvsiByJo-si    TtavTa    It:!,-  avs-j  Xoyou  xspBTjS'YjTovTai 

T£}.s'rv  zapYjyysXXsTS, 

a[j.(j)[jioc  is  a  rare  word  in  the  N.  T.     Cf.  I  Pt.  1  ;  19.    ayv9]  auvsi- 
By^o-si  also  finds  a  similar  phrase  in  (tuvsiByio-iv  aya9>Y[v  of  I  Pt.  3  ;  16,  21 . 


(18j  I  Clem.  1  ;  3 

CTTspyo'JG-a?       xaS'YjXOVTO); 
avBpac  sauTwv 


u;:oTa(7(70!J.s' 


'/oi  ToT$  iStoic  avSpocTiv, 


:ayY,? 


I  Pt.  3 ;  6 

w?  lappa   67UYjXO'jo-£   tw  'A|3paaij., 
x'joiov  a'jTov  xalojo-a* 


(19)  I  Clem.  1  ;  3 

sv    TS     Tco    xavovi    T^C 
6-apyoU(7ac  ... 

When  taken  separately  these  references  have  Uttle  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. 


(20)  I  Clem.  7  ;  2,  4 

Bto  a7:o/i~coij.sv  Ta;  xsva;  xal 
[j-aTata?  (ppovTiBa?,  xa\  £>.&-o)[j.sv 
sm  TOV  sux}>sY]  xai  crs^^vov  ty]; 
TwapaBocrso)?  yj[j,cov  xavova,  .  .  .  icTs- 
viTco^j-sv  SI?  TO  al[j.a  toO  Xpto-ToD 
xai   yvw[;.sv    w;    so"tiv    tijjiiov    tw 


I  Pt.    1  ;    18,    19 

siBo'ts?  OTi   00   cpO'apToT?,  apyjptw 

Y]       XP'jii'i,       sXl»Tpc6S>YjTS       SX       TTJi; 

[j-aTaia?  5[j-wv  avaTTpocp-^?  ::aTpo- 
7:apaBo'TO!j,  StXkcc  Ti'jio)  at[j.aTi  (5j? 
aavoj   aij.coao'j  xai  a(7:ii},0'j  XpiT- 


406  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

O'£(0    TW    7Ca-pi    aUTOti,   OTTt    BlOC    TYjV 
Yl[X£T£paV    (TO)— /)piav    £X/l»0-£V     xavTi 

T(o   xo(7[J.(o    p-ETav&iac    /ocpiv    £;:•/- 

V£YX£V 

"  These  passages  present  many  points  of  correspondence  of  phrase 
and  thought,  but  the  conception  of  redemption  through  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  not  pecuhar  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  alixa^i  ■vi\Kiov  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  ;  20.  It 
seems  probable,  therefore,  that  this  Pauline  thought  traveled  by  the 
way  of  I  Peter. 

(21j  I  Clem.  13 ;  1  I  Pt.  2  ;  1 

.  .  oSv,  a7co0'£p-£vo!,  xaaav  .  .  .  a::oS>£[j.£voi  o5v  Tcacav  .... 

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  (a7:oTtO"Tj[j.t.)  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  in  this  way.     Cf.  I  Clem.  30  ;  1  and  57  ;  2. 

(22)                       I  Clem.  16  ;  1  I  Pt.  5 ;  2,  3 

Ta;r£i,vocppovouv'rwv     yap    EdTiv     6  xo(.[j.avai:£  to  sv  6[j.Tv  tmixviov  toO 

Xpto-Toc,    om  £7raipo[j.£vcov   lizi   to  0>£O!j,  [J-y]  (xvayxaaTOK  ocWx  sxou- 

TTOijJLViov     aOToO.        TO     axT^TCTpov  cio)?,    [j.Y]B£     a?G'/po/.£pBtoc     oOCkoc 

....  OUX    -^Xb-ZV    £V     Xo'iJ.TTO)    OtXtxZ.O-        XpoO-Upj?,  [J.YlB'  WC  XaTaX'jpiEUOVTE? 

vdac,     ouhl     br^zpri'j^ccviccc,    xatTisp      tcov  xTvrjpcov  a>.}.a  T'j-oi  yivo'ij-Evoi 
B!jva[jL£voc,  otXkoc  TaTOivocppovcov  tou  ;:oiptou' 

This  parallel  is  significant  in  this  context.  Hoiij-viov  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  Ta7U£ivocppov£o> 
(16;  1,  17)  in  harmony  with  Ta7r£tvocppO(7UVY]  of  I  Pt.  5;  5  and  TaTTEtvo'co 
of  5  ;  6.     As  in  I  Peter  those  in  authority  are  exhorted  not  to  exalt 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  407 

themselves  over  the  flock,  but  to  be  in  a  spirit  of  humility.  Signi- 
ficantty  enough,  he  follows  our  author's  characteristic  way  of  appeal- 
ing to  the  example  of  Christ.  ""V-spTjcpavo?  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. 

(23)  I  Clem.  30 ;  2  Prov.  3  ;  34  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 

b-zhc,  yap,  cprjTiv,  uzepv]-  Kupioc  'j-spYj-pavoi?  av-  6  h-zhc,  67vspYicpavoi?  av- 

(pavoic     avTiTao-o-sxai,  TiTaao-sTai,    TaxstvoT?  Ti-a(7a-sTat,    -raxsivoT? 

TaTcsivoTc    Bs    BiBwo'iv  Bs  BtScoctv  xocpiv.  Bs  BiBoxjiv  /^ocpiv.    Cf. 

/apiv  Jas.  4;  6. 

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  xopto?  to  b-toc,.  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 
V.  1,  make  it  more  probable  that  he  was  influenced  here  by  our 
Epistle. 

(24)  I  Clem.  61 ;  3  I  Pt.  2  ;  25 
ap)(i£p£coi;  xai  TrpocTa-u-ou  twv  dtu-      xoiixsva  xoci  sracrxoTJOv  'zmv   cpux^*"^ 

This  parallel  is  close  both  in  thought  and  form  of  expression. 
The  balancing  of  ap/tpsco?  with  7rpoG--aTOu,  corresponds  exactly  with 
7iOi[x£va  and  otCtxotcov,  while  both  are  followed  by  the  possessive 
genetive  'hu/m. 

(25)  •  I  Clem.  64 ;  1  I  Pt.  5 ;  10 

6  zyCkzi6L\i.tvoc  .  .  .  Yjfj.a^   Bi'    auTou      6  xaT^saa^  .  .  .  sv  XpiaToS 

The  membrans  of  the  parallel  are  introduced  by  "  6  "  with  an 
aorist  participle  of  antecedent  action.  This  identical  construction 
of  synonymous  participles  being  followed  by  a  phrase  expressing 
Christ  as  means  or  agent  is  indeed  suggestive. 

(26)  I  Clem.  64 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  10 

zic,    Xaov    Tcspioudiov  .  .  .  ap^ispso)?      paailsiov    i£paTSLi|j-a  .  .  .  XaLoc,    zic, 

XSpiXOtYllTtV 

The  "  royal  priesthood  "  of  believers  would  very  naturally  suggest 
that  Christ  himself  was  the  great  "  high  priest." 


408  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

d 

(27)  I  Clem.  1 ;  1  I  Pt.  1 ;  2,  2  ;  4,  6,  9 

sxAsxToT?  Iy.'Kzy.toc, 

This  word  appears  four  times  in  I  Peter  and  but  six  times  in  all 
the  PauHne  hterature. 

(28)  I  Clem.  1;  2  I  Pt.  1;  1,  2;  11 

This  word  is  found  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  Heb.  11  ;  13  and  the  two 
places  noted  above. 

(29)  I  Clem.  1 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  18 

llZtVATi  £7U£lX£(7tV 

A  rare  word  in  the  N.  T. 

(30)  I  Clem.  1  ;  2  I  Pt.  4 ;  9 

The  form  of  the  word  used  by  Clement  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  only 
in  Rom.  12  ;  13  and  Heb.  13  ;  2.  Though  the  form  of  the  word  which 
our  author  employed  is  shghtly  different  the  context  is  much  more 
suggestive  of  his  Epistle.     Cf.   parallels  6,   15,   7,   16-19,   27-30. 

(31)  I  Clem.  7;  6  I  Pt.  3 ;  20 

Nwe    sxT^'puJsv    [j.£Tavoiav,    xai    oi      ...  Nwe   xaTacrx£ua^O[Ji£VYi(;   xt(3w- 
67caxo'J(7avT£?  EG'toQ-Yjcrav  toO  tic,  yjv  oXCyoi,  tout    ecttiv  6x- 

Tw  ']^u/ai,  Bi£C(69"Tjcav  Bi'  uBaTO? 

This  parallel  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  No.  20. 

(32)  I  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  1  ;  19 

Ob  (Xpt(7Tou)  TO  aljjva   uxlp  yi[j.wv      s>.UTp(6&"YiT£  .  . .  Ti[j.i(.)     al[j.aTt  .  .  . 

sBo'0'7]  XpiTTOU 

This  thought  is  common  in  the  N.  T. 

(33)  I  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  2 ;  13 

Tou?    xpo7]YOU[j.£vo!JC    Y)[xa)v    aiBsff-      uxoTOcyYiTE  TCao-rj  avQ^pwmvYi  XTiasi 
Q^wjxsv  . .  .  stTs   (3a(7i}v£T  .  .  .  etTS   r\-^t\^6aiv 

The  general  tone  is  Petrine,  but  the  rulers  to  which  Clement 
alludes  are  Ecclesiastical  and  not  Political  as  in  I  Peter. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  409 

(34)  I  Clem.  21 ;  6  I  Pt.  5 ;  5 

TOUC    VSOUC    TCaiBsUdfOjJLEV    TYjV     Tcai- 

Bsiav  Tou  (po[3ou  toO  O^eoO 

This  is  quite  suggestive  of  our  Epistle, 


(35)  1  Clem.  21  ;  6  I  Pt.  3  ;  1  f. 

xoLc  YUvaTxai;  7][j.wv  It:!  to  ayaS-ov      yuvaTxs?,  6-OTa'70-0[j-£vai  .  .  . 
.op9>(oo-c6u,$0^a 


The  thought  is  in  accord  but  the  phrasing  is  different. 

(36)  I  Clem.  21 ;  7  I  Pt.  3 ;  2 

-0  a^iayaTrrj-ov  t-^c  ayvsiac  ^jQ^Oi;      sTiOTCTsytravTe?  TYiv  sv  cpd[3w  ayvYiv 
IvBsi'fao-Q'to'jav  avaaTpocpTjV  6[j.tov 

The  terms  employed  do  not  indicate  acquaintance,  yet  the  sequence 
(No.  35  and  36)  is  very  suggestive. 

(37)  I  Clem.  21  ;  7  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  b 

TO   l-Kizivkq   T%   yXcocTT/jc  .  .  .  Bta      B/a  ty]c  -rwv  yuvaixwv  avao-TpocpYjc 
'Vf\c,  ciy^?  .     .  avsu  lojoo  .  .  . 

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. 

(38)  I  Clem.  21 ;  8  I  Pt.  5  ;  5 

TOC  T£/vV7.  ,   .   .  [XaS-STWO-aV,  Tl  Ta7C£l-         V£0)T£pOl  .   .   .  TTjV      Ta7l£tVOCppO(7UVr]V 

vocppoo-'JvY)  TC(xpa  Q-Eco  Icyuzi  £yxo[x[3(oo-acr&'8 

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  probabiUties  are  increased  in  geometrical  ratio  of  the 
number  of  the  possible  points  of  contect.     See  No.  32—38. 


410 


Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 


(39)  I  Clem.  30;  1 


I  Pt.  1;  15,  2;  9 

Aytot  ysvecrO-s  ysvog  skTvSxto'v  .  .  . 
"kocQc,   zlc,   7C£pl7rOl7]a-!,V. 

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  I  Pt.  2  ;  9. 


(40)  I  Clem.  30 ;  1  I  Pt.  2 ;  1 
(psyyovTSi;  xaTa>.a>.ia5  a7i;oS'£[xsvot  xatraT^aXia? 

The  thought  in  the  contexts  of  these  references  is  also  much  the 
same. 

(41)  I  Clem.  36 ;  2  I  Pt.  2 ;  9 

£??  TO  0>au[j.aG-i:6v  auToQ  (!^b)C  zlc,  to   &-au[xa(7T6v  auToD  (pw$ 

This  verbatim  agreement  is  indeed  suggestive,  but  the  context 
is  thoroughly  Pauline. 


Order  of  Parallels. 


I  Clement 

I  Peter 

I  Clement 

[  Petei 

Int.     =  1 

1 

16 

14  =  2 

24 

=  1 

2 

16 

17  =  2 

11 

1   =  1 

2,  2  ;  4,  6,  9 

21 

6  =  1 

19 

2   =  1 

1,  2  ;  11 

21 

6  =  2 

13 

2=2 

18 

21 

6  =  5 

5 

3   =  1 

17 

21 

6  =  5 

5 

3=2 

13,  17 

21 

6  =  3 

If. 

3=3 

7 

21 

7  =  3 

2 

3=5 

5 

21 

7  =  3 

lb 

3=3 

1 

21 

8  =  5 

5 

3=3 

1,  6 

22 

2  =  3 

10 

3=3 

6 

30 

1  =  1 

15,  2 

2 

1   =  1 

11,  4  ;  13,  5  ;  1, 

9   30 

1  =  2 

1 

2 

2,  7  =  4 

19 

30 

2  =  5 

5 

2 

4=2 

17,  5  ;  7 

36 

2  =  2 

9 

7 

2,  4  =  1 

18,  19 

49 

5  =  4 

8 

7 

6=3 

20 

59 

2  =  2 

9 

13 

1   =  2 

1 

61 

3  =  2 

25 

16 

1   =  5 

2,  3 

64 

1  =  5 

10 

16 

5,  6  =  2 

24,  25 

64 

2  =  2 

9 

16 

10  =  2 

22 

First  Epistle  of  Peter.  411 

Conclusion. 
The  foregoing  stud}^  has  shown  that  Clement  has  used  words 
which  are  pecuhar  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  Q.  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.  Ixxvi), 
we  have  shown  that  I  Clement  is  dependent  on  I  Peter.  Monnier 
contends  that  "  Clement  connait  I'epitre.  II  ne  la  cite  pas  expresse- 
ment  :  il  I'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.) 


Part  IL— CANONICAL  BOOKS 

GALATIANS 

B 

b— c 
<1)  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 
accord  \vith  later  writers  (Jn.  1  ;  13,  3  ;  5,  Jas.  1  ;  18,  I  Jn.  3  ;  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. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  16  Gal.  5  ;  13 

b);  sT^suS^spoi,  yicd   [j/rj    oic,   It^ixccX-      ij[xzXc,  yap  liz   ¥kzi>i)-zpio(.  sx}^yi'8-y]':-£ 

suQ-spiav  aXX"  w^  Stou  BoOXot  d<;   acpopixriv   irfi   crapxi,    oOJm  Bta 

The  likeness  here  is  striking.     In  both  cases  a  reference  to  the 
defeat  of  persecutors  precedes.     The  freedmen  are  exhorted  alike 
TeaxNS.  CoxNn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  28  January,  19l3. 


412  Or  a  Delnier  Foster, 

not  to  use  their  liberty  as  license  but  (notice  the  antithesis  dcXXa) 
to  use  it  as  becometh  true  servants.  I  Cor.  7  ;  22  is  a  close  parallel. 
TheBotiXo?  XpiaxoO  orBouXo?  -ou  ©sou  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.  Peter." 
p.  146. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  Gal.  3  ;  13 

he,  Tocr  a[j.apTtac  r,[j.wv  auToc  av-  XpicTTO?  'r\\^Mc,  s^Yiyopacrev  sx  tyJi; 
rjveyxev  sv  tw  (7(o[j.aTt,  au-oii  sm  xaxapai;  xoO  v6[J-ou  Y£v6[j.£voi;  uxsp 
TO  HuT^ov  Y][xwv  xaTapa  .  .  .  sxixa-apaTOi;  xa^ 

6  xpsp.ajj.svoi;  sxi  '^u>.ou 

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  they  do  not  specifically  allude 
to  the  cuXov  as  does  Gal.  3  ;  13.  Thus  on  both  counts  Gal.  3  ;  13 
is  more  closely  related  to  our  Epistle. 


c 

(4,  I  Pt.  1;  4  Gal.  4  ;  7,  3 ;  18 

zlc,  x}."/]povo[jiav  cc'-pQ^ap-ov  xat  ocjxi-      si  Bs   uio;,   xat,   x>wY]pov6[xo?   ©soU- 
av-ov  xai  a[xapavTov,  i7£TYipYi[jivYiv      Bia  Xpto-ToO  3;   18  x>.Y]povo[j.i(X 
£v  o'jpocvoTi;  dc,  'j[mc, 

In  Gal.  3  ;  18,  Rom.  4  ;  13  f.,  (Heb.  6  ;  12,)  the  promise  of  the 
"inheritance"  is  already  fulfilled.  In  Gal.  4  ;  7  (Rom.  8  ;  16  f.), 
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. 


(5)                           I  Pt.  1  ;  5  Gal.  3 ;  23 

Touc  SV  Buva[j.si   Hsoti   cppoupoupi-  7cp6  xoO  Bs  s7.Q>sTv  tyjv  mcTtv,  6x6 

vouc    Bia    xt(7TS(05    zlc,    o-(.)TY)ptav  v6[j.ov  scppoupouixEd-a,  o-uyxExXsiapi- 

sTo([XY)v   axoxaXucpD-'^vai,    sv   xaipw  vot,  si?  ty]v  [xsXXouc-av  xtaxtv  axo- 

sT/aTO)  xaT^ucpO-^vat, 

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 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  413 

doctrine  of  the  believer's  security  is  common  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
(Jn.  10 ;  28,  29,  17  ;  11,  12,  15),  as  well  as  in  the  Pauline  Literature, 
but  nowhere  is  the  hkeness  so  close  in  both  members,  i.  e.,  the  ideas 
of  "  the  behever's  security  "  and  of  "  the  future  revelation." 

(6)  I  Pt.  1;  18  Gal.  3;  13 

ou    ©S-apToTs   •  •  .    sXuTpwQ-YiTS   Iy.  XpicToe  Y][iac  s^Yiyopacsv   sx  zr^c, 

T^G  [xaTatocc  ujxwv  avao--pocp%  xa-  xa-rapai;  toU  vojjlou 
irpoTrapaBoTou 

As  has  been  noted  elsewhere  this  is  a  weakened  form  of  Paulinism. 


i7)                         I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Gal.  5  ;  17 

o^Tziytab'M     zw/    aapxtxcov    iTzib-o-  -/]    yap    crap'^    smB-up-sT    acctx    ■zoo 

^.twv,    aiTtvsc    aTpscTsuov^ai    xa^a  TCveofj.aTo^,  to  Bs  7wV£Li[j.a  xaToc  t^? 

-zr^i  ^t>X;?i?:  crapxo?*  -rauTa  Bs  avTixst-ai  aXXrj- 

7.01C 

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. 
7  ;  23  or  Gal.  5  ;  13.  The  parallels  I  Pt.  2  ;  16  =  Gal.  5  ;  13  and 
I  Pt.  4  ;  3  =  Gal.  5  ;  21,  however,  seem  to  make  it  more  probable 
that  he  is  influenced  by  Galatians  at  this  point. 


d 

(8)  I  Pt.  3  ;  6  Gal.  4 ;  26 

(b?  Sappa  .  .  .  ir\c   lysvTfO^-rjTS   tsx-      y]    Bs    avo)   'ltpou<j(x,\ri\x    slEuQ^spa 
va .  .  £<7Ttv,     TJTi?     IgzX     [JTjT-rip     TCaVTWV 

Y][J.WV 

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.  1  :  23-25  =  Gal.  4  ;  4-7,  28-31. 

(9)  I  Pt.  4,  3  Gal.  5;  20,  21 

TO  \>£\'fi]j.(x.  Tcov   lO'Vcov   xaTspyaa-      .  .  tk  Ip^a  zr^c,   (jy.^y.bc,  .  .  .  kaiX- 
ccaS-ai,  7ce;:opeuijivo'jc  sv  aasTsysiocti;,      ysia,    siBcoT^oXaTpsia,     (pap[iax£ia, 


414  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

sxtO-u|jiat<;,    o?vocp>>iiYtai?,    xo)[;.otc,      s/O-pai  spsi?,  ^vj^ot,  Q-up-ol,  spit^sTat,, 

peiai?  [ji9>ai,  7vO)[j.ot  .  .  . 

Holtzmann  thinks  the  similarity  may  show  dependence,  (Einl. 
p.  314,)  yet  there  seems  to  be  nothing  to  commend  it  over  and  above 
Eph.  2  ;  2,  3,  4  ;  17,  I  Thes.  4  ;  5,  Tit.  3  ;  3,  Rom.  13  ;  13,  I  Cor.  6  ; 
9,  Eph.  5  ;  5,  etc. 

Although  the  parallels  are  not  numerous,  and  there  are  no  words 
found  only  in  these  two  Epistles,  the  combined  evidence  of  those 
examples  classed  as  "  b — c  "  and  "  c  "  make  it  quite  probable  that 
there  is  here  a  hterary  dependence.  Scholars  are  almost  unanimous, 
of  course,  in  giving  to  "  Galatians  "  the  priority.  Bigg,  however, 
thinks  "  if  a  writer  caUing  himself  Peter  had  read  Galatians  he  would 
have  made  distinct  allusion  to  the  second  chapter."  The  fact  that 
no  such  allusion  is  to  be  found  in  I  Peter  may  be  regarded  as  a  strong 
indirect  argument  in  favor  of  its  authenticity."  Now  our  interest 
here  is  not  whether  the  Epistle  is  authentic  or  not,  but  we  are  inter- 
ested in  the  relative  positions  of  these  two  Writings.  Does  it  not 
seem,  though,  that  the  silence  would  be  quite  as  natural  for  one 
"calling  himself  Peter"  as  for  Peter  himself?  Certainly  Peter 
would  have  chafed  at  such  scathing  allusions,  while  a  later  writer 
would  not  feel  the  sting  of  the  thrust  at  Peter.  Furthermore  the 
letter  comes,  more  probably,  from  a  later  period  of  mediation,  though 
not  so  late  as  the  Tubingen  School  would  contend.  To  say  "  the 
author's  silence,  if  writing  before  Galations,  is  natural  "  is  almost 
naive.  The  circumstances  under  which  the  letter  was  written  and 
the  conditions  revealed  in  it  make  it  impossible  to  suppose  it  to 
have  been  written  at  such  an  early  period. 


I  THESSALONIANS 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  1.3  I  Thes.  5 ;  G 

vYjcpovTS?,  -vtkzioyq  zhzirrccTt  .  .  yp-^iyopw^sv  xai  vrjcpto^asv.  Cf .  5 ; 

A  closer  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  Rom.  13  ;  11  —  13. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  14  I  Thes.  4 ;  5 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  415 

Cf.  I  Cor.  15  ;  34,  Gal.  4 ;  8,  Eph.  2  ;  12,  4  ;  18,  22,  II  Thes.  1  ;  8. 
See  also  Romans  Ex.  9  (i.  e,,  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  =  Rom.  12  ;  2),  which  more 
probably  sustains  some  relation  to  this  verse. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  15  I  Thes.  4 ;  7 

aA}.a   xaTa    tov   xa}iG-avTa   6[j.ac      oi>  yap  sxaxso-sv  r^]y^ic,  6  ©so;  sm 

ava(7Tpocpr,  Y2vifiQ"V]T£ 

The  thought  and  wording  are  close,  yet  not  such  as  to  make  depen- 
dence here  more  probable  than  in  Rom.  11  ;  2.     See  Rom.  Ex.  10. 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  I  Thes.  4 ;  9 
cfXkr}.rj\jr  aYazr,(7(XT£  sxtsvwc              u^xeic  O'SoBiBaxToi  iaxz  zlc,  'zb  aya- 


::av  aXkrlouc, 


Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  9,  10,  or  Ex.  13. 


(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  17  I  Thes.  4 ;  9 


Aouc 


Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  10  a,  or  Ex.  44. 


(6)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  I  Thes.  5 ;  15 

[XT,  aTToBiBovTsr  xaxov  avxi  xaxou      [j.yj  tic  xaxov  avd  xaxoU  Ttvi  axoBw 

See  Rom.  12  ;  17  for  an  exact  parallel,  which  is  also  in  a  better 
context. 

(7)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  I  Thes.  5 ;  6 
TtocppovTcaTs    oSv  xal   vr/Iia-re    zlc,      yprjyopw[j.£v  xai  vr,(poi[JL£v 

■jipoczoydc 

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 
"children  of  light.  "     Cf.  Col.  4  ;  2,  Mt.  26  ;  41,  Lk.  21  ;  34. 

(8)  I  Pt.  4;  15  I  Thes.  4;  11 
[^.Y]    Tt?    'jij.wv    zaT/sTO)]    6)C  .  .  .      TupaTTSiv  Ta  I'Bia 

a  AXoTp  t,£7:i(7Xozo  c 

The  background  here  is  very  different. 


416 

Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(9) 

I  Pt.  5  ;  8 

I  Thes.  5  ;  6 

vrjcjjaTS, 

YpY;Yopra-air£ 

YpYiyope)[j,£v  xai  vt/|iw[j.sv 

This  parallel  is  very  suggestive,  yet  is  probably  accidental.     Cf. 
Examples  1  and  7. 

(10)  I  Pt.  5  ;  9  I  Thes.  3  ;  2,  3 

w    avTio-TTjTS    G-Tspsot    TV]    Tiic-ei      7capaxa}v£(7at    6[j.a(;   Tispi   t^?  tcict- 

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  ;  18 
£v  uyic<.a[xoi  rivEOixaTOi;                         Iv  ocyiacixw  IIvEUjxaTO^ 

"  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)  I  Pt.  1  ;  13  II  Thes.  1  ;  7 

£v  a7uoxaXu'j(£i  'Iyio-qO  Xpt(7T0u  £v  xri  dcTioxaXu^Ei  toO  xupiou  'IrjCoO 

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 

TU7:oi  Yiv6[j.£voi  ToO  7:oi[j.vtou"  I'va  zof.wzobq  tuttov  Bco[j.£v  6[j.Tv 

(4)  I  Pt.  5;  10  II  Thes.  2;  17 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  417 

(5)  I  Pfc.  5;  10  II  Thes.  3;  3 

-ovTjpoO 
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 
C 

c— d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1  ;  13  I  Cor.  1 ;  4,  7 

sXziaa-s  sTci  TYjv  (pspojxsvYjv  6[j.Tv  /apiv  ...  (7)  6[j.a?  [j.t,  uo-repsTT- 
/dcpiv  £v  x%oyi(xk6'\>si  "^Iyio-oO  XpiT-  O'ai  sv  [j.V]B£vl  y(xpio-[j.aTt  a7:£xB£/6- 
ToO  [j,£voL»^  TYiv   a7roxau']>t,v  tou  x'jpio'j 

Y1JJ.C0V   'IyjTOU    XpiG-TOU 

The  hope  of  a  great  blessing  at  the  "  Parousia  "  is  Pauline,  though 
not  peculiar  to  him.  (Cf.  II  Thes.  1  ;  7.)  "Ev  axoxa>>U'lȣt  'ItiTol) 
Xpio-Toti  is  the  Pauline  term  for  the  Parousia."  (Cone,  Com.  on  I 
Pet.  p.  306).  This  is  the  closest  paraUel  to  I  Pt.  1  ;  13  in  the  N.  T., 
yet  it  is  not  conclusive. 

(2)  I    Pt.  2 ;  2  I  Cor.  3 ;  2 

MC,  ocpTiyivyr^-cc  (ip£orj  to  loyixov  6)C,  vrjTuiot?  sv  Xpio-Tw  yaXa  6[j.a$ 
aBoXov  yaXa  ImTzob'riGzz  iTTOTtcra,  ou  ppw^xa,  o'jto)  yap  IBy- 

vao-S-s  .  . 

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  hke  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)  I  Pt.  2 ;  16  I  Cor.  7 ;  22 

&)?  £>.£uO-£pot  .  .  .  a).).'  w?  9£oti  6  £X£!j9^£po5  x}.TjS"£t5,  'boi)7.6c,  mzi 
^ooXoi  Xpto-ToO 

No  other  N.  T.  passage  reproduces  this  thought  so  closely,  except 
Gal.  5  ;  13.  The  probabilities  of  dependence  here  are  increased  by 
the  possible  echo  of  I  Cor.  7  ;  23  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  18. 


418  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(4)  I  Pt.  5;  3  I  Cor.  3;  9a 

jjLYjB'      CO?     xai:axupt£6ovT£(;     twv      £a-[j.£v    o-DVEpyoi  •    0£oti    yEwpyiov. 

X^YJptOV 

This  parallel  becomes  more  significant  when  taken  in  connection 
with  ©£ou  d%oho\^A\  l<j^z  of  I  Cor.  3  ;  9b.  Cf.  also  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  = 
I  Cor.  3  ;  16. 

(5)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  I  Cor.  9 ;  25 

xo[j.i£T(78'£     -rov     a[j.apavT:ivov     t?]?      tva    (p8^ap-6v    crxEcpavov    }.a(3o)(nv, 

So^Yj?    G-T£CpaVOV  Y1[J.£T5   ^£    (XcpQ-apTOv 

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 

(6)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  I  Cor.  3 ;  13 

t)oyi.i]nrj^  ujxwv  7wI(7T£(o<;  .  .  .  Bia  %u-      IxarrTou  to  Ipyov  ...  oti  £v  Tiupl 
p6?  Be  Boxi[xa^o[X£VOU  .  .  hzoy.fxkuz'^z-oLi'    xat,    exdcTTOu    to 

Ipyov  OTzoXo^  £(TTi  TO  izop  B0Xl[Xa(7£l 

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  ;  13  may  have  suggested  the  figure  to  our 
author. 
(7;  I  Pt.  1 ;  18  I  Cor.  6  ;  20,  7  ;  23 

ou    cpQ-apToT(;  .  .  .    IXozpbib-rizz  Ix      6  ;  20  Yiyopao-Q-TqTE  yap  ti[j.%  7  ;  23 
TY]?  [xaxaia?  6[j.wv  avadrpocpY]!;  .  .  .      Ti,p,Y]c  Y]yopao-S>-/]T£ 
aXka  Ti,[xu.)  aijxaTi  .  .  . 

The  idea  is  Pauline,  though  the  deliverance  from  a  vain  manner 
of  life  is  a  mild  statement  as  compared  with  Gal.  3  ;  13.  T'-[;.9]c 
and  aiixaTi  seem  to  refer  to  the  same  thing. 

(8)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  I  Cor.  15 ;  14 

Tov  £y£ipavT«  a'jTov  £x  v£xpcov  .  .  zl  Vz  XpicTO?  oux  £yviy£pTat,   [X£- 

w(n:£  TYjv  Tciio-Ttv  ujj.wv  xai  zk'jziboc  vov  apa   to   xii^puyp-a  Yipiajv]    x£vy) 

elvai  dc,  ("yzo"^  Vz  xai  t]  :ita-Ti?  6[j.wv.     Cf.  13  ;  13. 

The  parallel  is  suggestive,  but  not  so  close  as  in  Romans.  Cf. 
I  Pt.  1  ;  21  =  Rom.  4  ;  24. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  419 

(9)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  I  Cor.  3 ;  16 

AiO-oi    ^wvTsc    oSxoBc[j.£T<70^£    oixoc      vao?   0£O!J    £(7T£,   xai  'CO   nv£0[j.a 
TWEDfj-occixoc  ToQ  OeoO  oixsT  sv  6[xTv 

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 

jcyvocriav  ayvoo-iav 

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)  I  Pt.  3;  1  I  Cor.  14;  34 
YuvaTx£c  •j7;0Ta'j'76[j.£vat  toTc  iBioic      ^(W'xxxzc,  5[j.wv  .  .  .  oCKKol  (jtzo^ug- 
avBpao-tv                                                  atab-ai 

A  closer  parallel  is  found  in  Eph.  5  ;  22.     Cf.  also  5  ;  33. 

(12)  I  Pt.  3 ;  lb  I  Cor.  7 ;  14 

tva   £1   xiyzc   oi.'Kzib'Oijnvj  tw    Xoyoi      r^yiccGTOLi  yap  6  (>:vrip  6  aTCtTTOc  Iv 
Bia  -%c  Tojv  yuvaixcov  avacTpocp^i;      i'7\  yoyy.ixi 
av£o  Aoyo'J  y.z^Zypr^'yoy-a.i 

This  similarity  of  thought  is  probably  due  to  accident. 

'13)  I  Pt.  3  ;  9  I  Cor.  4  ;  12 

[J.Y)  a.TZ'j'hibrjy-zc  y.oub^  avTi  xaxoO  }>oiBopo'J[j.£vo!,   z[)7.rjyou[xzy  •   buoxo- 

•?1   XoiBopiav    avTi   >.oiBopiac    TO'Jv-  [j.£yoi    av£/6[j.£Q^a    pX(X(7'-pTj[j.ou[j.£vot 

avTtov  5£  £'jXoyo!jvt£c  7rapaxa}vOii[j,£v 

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, 

(14)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  I  Cor.  15 ;  3 

XpiTTO?  (XTia^  XEpl  oc[j.ap':twv  ocze-      Xpi^jTo?  a.7:£&'av£v  Gxlp  twv  a[j,ap- 
&-av£v  [£7:a&'£v]  tiwv  t^jj.ojv 

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. 


420  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(15)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  I  Cor.  15 ;  25 
uTCOTaysvToiv    auxto    ayyslcov    xai      xaTapyYiVrj  xaaav  apy^Yjv  xai  xacav 

The  agreement  is  obvious,  but  the  frequency  with  which  this  thought 
occurs  in  the  Pauhne  Literature  makes  it  almost  implossible  to 
determine  which  Epistle  may  have  suggested  it  to  our  author.  The 
probabihties,  however,  are  in  favor  of  Romans  (8  ;  38)  and  Ephesians 
(1  ;  21,  22).     Cf.  also  Col.  2  ;  10,  1  ;  16. 

(16)  I  Pt.  4;  10a  I  Cor.  12;  5 
sxa^TOc   xaO^wc  sXa[3£v  /^apiajxa          Btatpso-si?  Biaxovwov  zlai 

See  Rom.  12  ;  6  for  closer  parallel. 

I  Pt.  4  ;  10  b  I  Cor.  4  ;  1 

BiaxoSvTs?  cbc  xcuXoi  o?xov6[j.ot,  co^  uTCVjpsTa?  XpicTou  xai   oixovo- 

Thoroughly  Pauline  but  not  conclusive. 

(17)  I  Pt.  4 ;  12  I  Cor.  3 ;  13 

T"^  £v  6[j.Tv  xupwaei  xpoc  x£tparr[j.6v      sxaTTOtj  to  spyov  67coT6v   eo-irt,   to 
6[jIv  yiv&[jivri  Tctip  Boxi,[j,a(7£!, 

Paul  here  refers  to  the  testing  of  the  Judgment,  of  which  our 
author  thought  the  present  persecutions  were  the  immediate  precur- 
sors. Cf.  I  Pt.  4  ;  7.  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. 

(18)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  I  Cor.  1 ;  9 

6  Bs  Geo?  Tzm-rii;  XdpiToc,  6  xa>>-      TZiGxb^  6    ^zoc^    Zi    ob    sxXy]'Q>y]T£ 
sera?  6[j.ac  elc  ty]v   aioiviov    auTOU      slq    xowomccv      toQ     oloo     auTOu 

Bo'^aV    £V    XpiCTTCO  TYjaOtJ    XptffTOti 

This  close  parallel  finds  similar  thought  in  I  Tim.  6  ;  12,  but  is 
quite  suggestive  of  dependence  here. 

(19)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  I  Cor.  4 ;  17 

Bia    I!i};Ouavo!j    6[uv    toO    7:ia-ou      zTzz^^a  upv   Tiix66-£ov  .  .  .  ^riaTov 
ot^zXrooi)  .  .  .  lypacjja  Iv  Kupuo 

^20)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  I  Cor.  15 ;  1 

/apiV    -zoo    0£OU"    £?$    YjV    (7T-^T£  TO    £Uayy£>.tOV  .   .   .  (T)    £'7Tr[xaT£ 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  421 

(21)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  I  Cor.  16 ;  19 

(22)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  I  Cor.  16 ;  20 
'A<Txa(7ao-Q£  a).}."/)' 7.0 DC  sv  (pilr^ixaTi      aTTraTaaS-s  aX}.rj>.ou?  sv  (piXrj[j.aTi 

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  e\ddence 
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 

(1)  I  Pt.  2;  22  II  Cor.  5  ;  21 

he,  a[j.apTiav  oux  zTzoir^Gtv  tov  [xy]  yvov^a  atj.ap-iav 

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  originaUty,  yet  all  may  draw 
from  Isa.  53. 

(2)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  II  Cor.  5 ;  10 

Tw   sToiij.w?   xftvovTi    ^wvTac    xai      -obc,  yap  7:av-ac  Yj[j.a?  cpavspcoO-r,- 
vsxpous  •  •  vai    BsT    £[j.;;poo-Q>£v    tou    ^r^[xy.-oc, 

TOS    XpCCTTOU 

This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  the  possible  relation 
of  4  ;  1  to  II  Cor.  5  ;  15.  Yet  the  doctrine  is  common.  Cf.  Acts 
17  ;  31,  Rom.  4  ;  10,  12  ;  1,  I  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 
to  II  Cor.  5  ;  10. 


422  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  5 ;  3  II  Cor.  1 ;  24 

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)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8  II  Cor.  1 ;  3 
EuT^oyTj-TO?  6  (dzbc,  xai  7:ai:7]p  tou      EuXoyrj-iro?  6  ©eo?  xai  T^axYip  to!> 

KupiOU    "?1[JL0~V  'l7](7O0    XptCTTOO  KupiOU    Y1[J.0~V   'lYjcroO    XpiCTOO 

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  I  Pt.  1  ;  3  =  Eph.  1  ;  3. 

(5)  I  Pfc.  1  ;  3  II  Cor.  1 ;  3 
6  xa^a  TO  %o\u  auToO  zkzoc,             6   xaTrjp  twv  oixTip[j.o)v 

Again  the  thought  is  not  as  close  as  in  Ephesians. 

(6)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8  II  Cor.  5 ;  7 

zlc,  Gv  apTi  [i-Y]  6po)VT£<;  ■KiGTt'oovztc,      tucc  :;i'7TS(0(:  yap   :;£po-a'70!j[xsv  oi> 

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. 
1  ;  1,  27,  I  Jn.  4  ;  20. 

(7)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  II  Cor.  6 ;  6 
cpilaBsT^cpiav  avuTioxpiTOv                       aydcTUYi  avuTcoxpiTw 

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.  1  ;  2  =  Eph.  1  ;  20  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  =  I  Cor.  3  ;  16. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  II  Cor.  12 ;  20 
•/.ccTcckcckiot.                                              xaxalaT^ia 

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  II  Cor.  10;  13 
sxaaTO?  xaO^wc  £>.a(3sv  /^api(7[j.a          xara   to    [j-ETpov    toD   xavovo^   oS 

£[J.£pi(7£V    YIJUV    6    StOq 

Our  Epistle  finds  a  closer  parallel  at  this  point  in  Rom.  12  ;  6, 
I  Cor.  12  ;  4,  5  and  Eph.  4  ;  7. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  423 

(10;  I  Pt.  4;  11  II  Cor.  9;  10 

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 

xa8'6  xowwvsT'^s  xoig  toU  XpiG'zoo  wcTusp  xotvtovoi  sctts  Toiv  7i;a6'"/][j.a- 
7:aQ>rj^a(jiv     /aipsxs  .   .  .     /apriTS      Ttov,  outw   xal   ty]?   TiapaxXrjCrso)? 

The  thought  is  the  same,  yet  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18  more  probably  sug- 
gested this  to  our  author. 

(12)  I  Pt.  4  ;  14  II  Cor.  12  ;  10 

£1  6v£tBt^£cr&'£  £v  ov6[j.a-i  Xptcr^oU,  euBoxw  Iv  ac-Q'£V£iaic  .  .  .  6~£p 
[j-axapioi  XpicTTOij 

The  phrase  Iv  6v6[j.a7i  XpiT-oti  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)  I  Pt.  5 ;  10  II  Cor.  4 ;  17 

6  v.cc).iay.c  b\KS,q  dc,  tyjv  aiojviov  1:6  TiapauTixa  sT^acppov  t^|  &'Xidȣc.)c 
auTou  B6'£av  Iv  XpiaTw  oliyov  yi[j.ojv  xaS-'  67t£p[3olY]v  £ic  67U£p- 
7:ad'6vTac  aOiro?  xaxapTi^oi  .  .  .  [3o^7]v  aiwviov  (3apO(;  Bo^y]?  xai:£p- 

ya^Exat,  y][jIv 

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. 

The  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  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

EOMANS 

A* 

a* — b 
(1)  I  Pt.  I ;  20  Rom.  16 ;  25 

7:po£Yvco(7[X£vou  [xsv  Tcpo  xaTa(3oX-^c  xocTOC  a7cpoxa>.ucjJi.v  [xucnnripiou  y^po- 
x6cr[j.0'j,  (pavepfod-svTO?  Be  stu  sa/a-      voic  akovioi?  (7SO-iyy][xsvou,  cpavEpw- 

TOU    TfOV    /pOVWV  S'SVTOC    Bs    VUV 

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 

is  working  out  a  purpose  in  the  world.    For  ages  it  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  ixuT^rlpiov  is  very  probable.  It  is  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  originahty  of  Paul.  That 
the  above  reference  occurs  in  connection  with  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  the  preexistence  of  Christ  is  very  important  to  note. 

(2j  I  Pt.  2 ;  6  Eom.  9 ;  33 

'IBo'j  TiD'TjiJ.!,  £v  Iiwv  .  .  .  iBoij  Tii>rjp  £v  luov 

(3)  I  Pt.  2;  6  b  Rom.  9;  33  b 

6  7:i,G-T£!J(ov  £X  auTco  o5  [r/]  xa-  6  tcicteucov  iiz  auTw  ou  xaira- 
Tai(j/tjv9'^  io-/^uv8-TjO-£Tai 

(4)  I  Pt.  2  ;  8  Rom.  9  ;  33  a 

Xiboc,  7cpoffx6[j.[j.a^O(:  xai  z£Tpa  \ibov  xpO(7x6[j.[j.aTO(;  xa\  xsTpav 
(7xavBa>.ou  (jxavBaXou 

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  voUig  unmogHch,  daB  die  Abhangigkeit  auf  Seiten  des 
Petrus  sein  kann."  (Der  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff.  p.  422)  Against 
this  abnost  isolated  example  is  to  be  given  the  general  consensus 
of  scholastic  opinion.  Furthermore  Weiss  does  not  seem  to  have 
met  Bruckner's  argument.  Monnier  says  :  "  la  dependance  de  I  Pt. 
2  ;  6  et  8  par  rapport  a  Rom.  9  ;  33  est  evidente."  (Com.  p.  38.) 
H.  M.  Holtzmann,  (Einl.  p.  314,)  gives  the  following  Hne  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.  Pt.  2  ; 
6—8,  ganz  ahnlich  wie  Rom.  9  ;  33  (Jes.  28  ;  16  mit  Jes.  8  ;  14  ver- 
bunden,  vgl.  auch  I.  Pt.  2  ;  8  xpoGr.oTUTeiv  wie  Rom.  9  ;  32  und 
paulinischer  Determinismus  wie  Rom.  9  ;  14  f.  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  Rom.  9  ;  25  eine  solche 
Benutzung  Bestatigung  findet.)  Gerade  wie  Pis.,  Rom.  9  ;  33,  10  ; 
11  thut,  ist  der  Spruch  Jes.  28  ;  16  mit  einem  zu  maTS'Jtov  hinzu- 
tretenden  s::  auxw  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  ;  32  f .  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  liz 
auTw  (Rom.  9  ;  33,  10  ;  11,1  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;  7  f .  are  added 
the  words  yib-oc  7ipo(7x6'jj.[;.aTO(;  xai  xs-rpa  oxavBdclou,  which  are  taken 
from  Isa.  8  ;  14,  but  vary  greatly  from  the  text  of  the  LXX,  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 
Ps.  118;  22." 

To  Professor  Sanday  we  are  indebted  for  the  following  important 
observations  on  the  variations  ;  (1)  The  LXX  reads  iBou  eyo)  s[j.[ja};- 
Iw  dz  Ta  9-eij.slia  luov.     In   both   the   passages   in   the   N.  T.  the 

(2)  For    the  LXX  }iS-ov    izohj^zXr, 


426  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

sx^exTov  axpoycovtaTov  £vti^,ov,  St.  Peter  reads  axpoywviaTov  £x7.£xtov 
zv^i[yo\/ ;  while  St.  Paul  substitutes  >>t8'0v  xcpo(7x6[j.[j.aToc  xai  ~i':pixy 
(TAcahoCkou  taken  from  Isa.  8  ;  14  xa\  ohy  w?  >.iQ^ov  xpo(7x6[j.[j.a-:i  C7'j- 
vavTYiTSG-O-s  ouBs  OK  TvSTpa?  xTojfj.airi.  Here  St.  Peter  2  ;  8  agrees 
with  St.  Paul  in  writing  Tisxpa  crxavBa>.ou  for  7;£-pa57:-o)[j.aTt,.  (3)  The 
LXX  proceeds  sic  xa  S-sfjilia  au--?]?,  which  both  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  omit.  (4)  The  LXX  proceeds  xal  6  ttio-tsucov  ou  ]^x^  y.o(.^o(.- 
i>7-/o^b-ri.  Both  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  bring  out  the  personal  re- 
ference by  inserting  iiz  auToi  while  St.  Paul  reads  xaxaicr/uvO-r'TSTai 
and  in  10;  11  adds  zuc."  (L  C.  C.  p  2801)  Cf.  also  Hilgenfeld's 
Einleitung  p.  633  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  =  Ps.  118  ;  22  and 
2  ;  8a  =  Isa.  8  ;  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  ;  7  b,  the  quo-tation  from  Ps.  118  ;  22  which  is  given 
in  "  Peter's  speech  "  in  Acts  4  ;  11. 

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.) 

(5)  I  Pt.  4 ;  10  Rom.  12 ;  6 

IxaTTO?  xaS'W?  sXapsv  /apiqxa,  zyov^zc,  Vz  /^apto-ij-a-ra  xara  zry 
dC:  sauToij?  auxo  BiaxovoOvrec  ,  .  .      xapiv  xy]v  BoQ^sTcrav  yjij.Tv  Sioccpopa . . 

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  PauHne  terms.     Cf.  also  I  Cor.  12  ;  4,  28. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4  ;  11  Horn.  12 ;  7 

li  Tt?  BtaxovsT,    i)C,   zt,   layuoc,  f^c,      sI'ts  Btaxoviav,  hi  ty]  Biaxovioc 
'/op-r\yzi  6  Bso^ 

This  citation  in  I  Peter  continues  the  thought  of  Paul  in  the 
same  order,  noted  in  the  preceding  parallel. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  427 

(7)  1  Pt.  4  ;  13  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18 

xaO'6  xoivtovsiTS  -zoic,  tou  XpiaToti  siTUsp    <jL»[j.::affyo[;.sv,   iva   xai   <7uv- 

::aO-i^[xa(nv  /aipsTS,  iva  xa\  sv  tyj  So^aa-S-wjj.sv.     8;  18    oux   a|ta  ra 

a7:oxa};U^|>£t  -z^c,  B6|y]c  atjiroti  /apv;-  7:a9T|[xaTa  r:o\j  vuv  xaipoS  xpo?  tyjv 

-z  ot.-^ciXkm\xtvoi.     Cf.  5  ;  1.  [jiXT^ouTav    Bocav    azoxaXucpQ-TJvai 

(S.                           1  Pt.  5  ;  1  Rom.  8;  17,  19 

[j.dcpTUi;   -rwv   'iroO    XptcTToO    7:a&-r,-  eiT^sp    cr'jfjxdc'j/o^.sv,    tva   xat    <ryv- 

[xdcTcov,  6  xai  -x^?  {j.aT.Xoya-r,;  olizo-  SoHaG'&'Wjj.ev  .  .  .  (19)  tyjv  piUo'j- 

xa^.uxTscr&ai  BoHy)?  xoivcovo?  o-av  Bo'^av  a7:oxa>.ucpS>Yivai  st?  r^^Mc, 

These  last  two  parallels  belong  together.  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.  Practical^  all  scholars 
are  agreed  that  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  dependence.  The  pri- 
ority must  be  given  to  Paul,  as  wiU  appear  later. 

b 

<9)  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  Rom.  12 ;  2 

[J.Y]  (jUV(7/;ri[j.a';:i,^6[j.£voi  'zcac,  7:p6T£pov      [j.v]     '70V'7/rj[j.aTi^£(7Q'£     tco     aioivi 
£V  'zr\  dcyvoia  6[j,o)v  lT^ib\j[xiy.ic,  'zod-M 

Zuv(r)(Yjij.aTo^o[j.ai  is  found  only  in  these  two  passages  in  all  the 
N.  T.  Nor  is  the  word  used  by  the  LXX.  Our  Epistle  has  an 
amplification  of  the  simpler  form  found  in  Romans.  This  parallel 
receives  added  significance  when  placed  alongside  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  5  = 
Rom.  12  ;  1.      Cf.  H.  J.  Holtzmann's  Einleitung  p.  314. 

<10)  I  Pt.  1  ;  15  Rom.  12  ;  2 

y.Wof.  ....  auToi    aytoi    Iv    -ao-r,      y.Wy.  ij.£Tap.opcpo!j(7Q-£ 'cti  avaxaivo)- 
avaij-pocpY]  Y£v/fS'r,'c-£  nti  toO  ■^ooc^ 

The  antithesis  here  is  an  important  parallel  construction,  wliile 
the  thought  is  equally  striking.  This  and  the  foregoing  example 
make  a  strong  case  for  dependence. 

<11)  I  Pt.  1;  17  Rom.  2 ;  11,  6 

Tov     a7cpoG"(o7co};r[[X7:'7(o?     xpivovra      ou  yap    eaTt   7tpO(7co7io};*rid»ia   7:apa 
xaToc  'zh  sxdcaTOU  Ipyov  tco  ©sw  2 ;  6  65  a7coBo>cr£i  exaa"i7o> 

xaToc  Ta'  Ipya  auToO 
This  is  a  common  N.  T.  parallel,  but  it  is  closer  here  than  in 
James  2  ;  1  or  Acts  10  ;  34.     Our  Epistle  clearly  refers  to  God's 
Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  29  January,  1913. 


428  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.,  IPt.  1  ;  7  =  Rom.  2  ;  10,). 
thereby  justifying  us  in  putting  this  parallel  in  class  "  b  ". 


(12)  I  Pt.  1  •,  21  Rom.  4 ;  24 

sysipavTa  autrov  sx  vsxpwv  'IrjO'OtJV  tov  Kuptov  rj[j.(ov  sx  vexpwv 

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 
resurrection  de  J.  C.  est  constamment  rapportee  a  un  acte  de  Dieu, 
a  qui  revient,  en  derniere  analyse,  la  premiere  initiative  et  la  puis- 
sance supreme  dans  I'oeuvre  de  salut  ..."  Both  the  thought 
and  phrasing  are  very  close. 


(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  Eom.  12 ;  9,  10 

TOC?    ^"^X''''^    6[1C0V    YjyVtXOTS?     EV     TT]        Y]       CC^OUZTi       aVUTTOXpiTTCK;.       aTCOCTTU- 

67iaxo^  TYJ?  cCkfi^-zioLc,  zlc,  cpiT-aBsT.-  yotivTs?  to  7uovY]p6v,  y.oXKo)iKtvoi 
(^iccv  avuTTOxpiTOv  £X  xapBiac  od-  tco  ayaO^w,  o:^  cptXaSslcptoc  d<;  al- 
'kqXouc,  ayaz-/]crai:s  sxtsvwi;.  Irfkryjc  cpiT^oo-Topyoi, 

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. 

(14)  I  Pt.  2;  11  Rom.  7;  23 

aizt/zab-M  twv  crapxixcov  i%ib-u\).io)v  [j>.eto.)  STspov  v6[jlov  sv  toXc  (xsX- 
aiTivEC     G-TpaTsuovTai     xaxa     tyJi;      eti  [xou  avtiTTpaiTEUOiXEVOv  xm  vop-w 

An  obvious  parallel  to  the  Pauhne  doctrine  of  the  o-ap?  which 
"  wars  "  against  the  7WEU[xa.  Monnier  (Com.  p.  110)  says:  "Eph.  2  ; 
3  est  imite  ici  ",  but  in  reahty  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. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  429 

(15)  I  Pt.  2;  12  Rom.  12;  20,  21 

h  (0  xaTaXaXooTiv  6[j.(ov  mc  xaxo-  lav  ^rsiva  6  iyp-^oc,  aou,  'jtwp^s 
::ot(oy,  sx  t(ov  xaXwv  spywv  £::o~-  atjTov  lav  Bfjia,  %6tiZ,z  a5x6v 
teuovtIc    Bo'^aaojat    tov    Gsov    sv      touto  yo'P    ^oiwv  av8'pa)ta(;  Tcupo? 

•f][X£fa    STrtCT/lOT^;  CCOpS'JO-Sl?  ItCI    TY]V    X£Cpa>.Y]V    auToO. 

[jiY]    vixco    6x6    Tou   xaxoD,    aXla 
vixa  Iv  Tw  ayaO-co  to  xaxov 

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. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2;  13  Rom.  13;  1 

•j;tO-:aY"/)~£  izurrri  avS'pwTTtvY)  xtig-ei  ;:acra  'huyr^  zEouaicciq,  bTzz^tyouaiixii; 

Bia  Tov   Kupiov   £1't£   ^(XGikti  .  .  .  67coTaG-G-£'7&"c.r  ...  at  ougm  l^oucrtat 

£iT£  rjY£[J-6aiv  bub  toO  0£oO  TExayfjilvat  eiotv 

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 
exist  is  described."  (Int.  II,  p.  187.)  Cf.  I  Pt.  2  ;  14  and  Rom. 
13  ;  3  f .  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.  A  doctrine  of  divine  right  could  be  built  upon  the 
words  of  Paul,  but  not  upon  those  of  Peter."  To  this  most  will 
agree,  but  many  will  not  accept  his  conclusion,  that  "  Peter's  "  atti- 
tude is  due  to  his  priority  to  Paul ;  i.  e.,  that  he  viewed  the  govern- 
ment as  a  Republic,  while  Paul  viewed  it  as  a  Monarchy.  The 
reason  is  made  obvious  by  ttie  body  of  the  letter,  which  indicates 
a  shifting  attitude  of  the  State  towards  the  Church.  This  shifted 
attidude  quite  clearly  implies  priority  of  Paul. 

(17)  I  Pt.  2 ;  14  Rom.  13 ;  4 

6)c  Bi  y.'j'Oij  z£[j.7:c/[j.£vot,;  dc  Ix-  IxBixoc  di;  opyV  tco  to  xaxov 
BlX'/jTlV  xaxoT^oiwv  TTpaaTOVTai 

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  rehgion  being  taken  in  "  a 


430  Ora  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." 

(18)  I  Pt.  2;  14  Rom.  13;  3 

sTcaivov  Bs  ayaQ^OTTOtcov  to  ayaQ^ov  xotsi,  xai  z^zic.  lizccivov 

Dependence  may  quite  easily  be  inferred  here.  ET^aivoc  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. 

(19)  I  Pt.  2;  24  Rom.  6;  2,  11. 

I'va    -zcac    a[j.api;i!ai?    a7iOY£v6[j.svot      oltive?    a7i;£d>avo[j.£v    ty]    a[j,apTia. 

-^^    ZlKMOG'JVJi  ^7](7C0[J,£V  TlOiC,     £Tt      ^TjcOp-SV      SV      aUTY].        11 

xobc,  vsxpou?  [J.SV  eTvai  t^  a[xap'irta, 
^wvTa?  Ss  Tco  Gsw.     Cf.  6  ;    18. 

"  This  passage  implies  the  writer's  dependence  upon  the  PauUne 
thought  and  phraseology."  Cone  Com.  p.  312.  Cf.  Monnier  Com. 
p.  136.  The  figure  is  too  thoroughly  Pauhne  for  us  to  say  with 
Bigg  that  "  the  Pauhne  images  of  death  or  burial  with  Christ  do 
not  cross  the  author's  mind."  (I.C.C.  p.  148.) 

(20)  I  Pt.  3 ;  4  Rom.  2 ;  16 

6  xpu7:T6?  T-?]$   xapBiac    avQ^pcoTTO?      al)'    6    sv   tw   xpuTiTw  TouBoTo?, 

xod  TiepiTOfiY)  xapBia?  sv  TCV£[j[j.aTrt. 
Cf.  Rom.  7  ;  22  and  II  Cor.  4  ;  16. 

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. 

(21)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Rom.  12 ;  16 

TO  Bs  'zfkoi;  xavTs?  6[j.6<ppov£?  to  auTO  dc,  ofXkrikooq   cppovoOvTsc 

15  ;  5,  BcoY]  6[xTv  to  auTO    cppovsTv 
sv  oiXh]koi<; 

(22)  I.  Pt.  3;  8  Rom.  12;  5 
<7U[j.7:aQ>£T?                                               yaipstv    [xstoc     /_atp6vT0)v,     xlai£v 


XSTOC    xXaiOVTCOV 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  431 

(23)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Eom.  12 ;  10 

Topyot 

(24)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Rom.  12 ;  16 

Ta-stvocppovs?  [JIT]    Ta    64»vi>>a    cppovoOvTsc    a>.la 

TaxsivoT^  cruva7caY6[X£voi 

(25)  I  Pt.  3;  8  Eom.  12;  13 
eua-laY/vot                                            toTc    /peiatc   twv    aywov    xotvwvo- 

OVTSC 

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 
beheve  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  PauHne  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)  I  Pt.  3  •,  9  Eom.  12 ;  17 

jj-Y]   a::oBiB6vT£c  v.axov  av-i  xaxoti      [XTjBevi   xaxov    avTi   xaxoti    axoBi- 

Prov.  20  ;  22  ([j.-/]  siTu-ri?  TiaojjLai  tov  t/p-pov)  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)  I  Pt.  3;  9b  Eom.  12;  14 

Y]    };OtBopiav    avd    loiBopiac    -ou-      suXoysTts     tou^    Bicoxovira;    6[j.a<; 
vavTiov  Bs  s^XoyouvTec  toXoytixt,  xa\  [xy]  xocTapao-d-s 

This  parallel  is  strengthened  also  by  I  Pt.  2  ;  15.  The  context 
as  well  as  the  wording  makes  dependence  very  probable. 


432  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(28)  I  Pt.  3;  11  Rom.  12;  18,  14;  19 

^Y]TYio"aTw     sipYjVYjv    xal    Bioi^dirto      \jsxcc  xavirtov  avQ-po)7:ojv  £lpY]V£6ov- 
aui77]'v  TTS?.     14  ;  19  Ta  tyJ?  £ipY]VT,?  Bio)- 

xa)[j.£v 

The  thought,  phrasing  and  context  are  very  suggestive  of  Hterary 
dependence. 

(29)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Rom.  5 ;  6,  8 

XpicTTO?   axa^  x£pt    a[xap-io)v    a-      Xpio-tr6(;  .  .  .  67r£p  a<T£[3o)v  a7i£8'av£, 
TOQ^avEv.   [£7vaQ>£v]  W.  H.  5  ;  8  XpiTTO?  u^p  yjij-wv  axEQ-avE 

W.  H.  prefer  axEQ-avEv  to  £7i;aQ"£v,  on  the  authority  of  sAC  and 
all  the  versions.  This  rendering  makes  a  very  close  parallel  with 
Romans,  yet  the  thought  would  not  be  materially  altered  by  octte- 
^-avE,  which  has  in  its  favor  BKLP. 

(30)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Rom.  5 ;  7 

Bixaio?  67V£p  aSixcDV  \t.6Xi^  yap  67r£p  Bixaw-j  Tt?  a7:o&>av- 

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  ;  9  is  also  in 
accord  with  the  Petrine  doctrine. 


(31)  I  Pt.  3;  18  Rom.  5;  10 

iva  6[j.ac  xpocraYayifi  Toi  0eo)  xai:Tri>.>>aY'''ip-£v    tw    0eo)    Sia    to3 

D'avdcTOU  Toti  uioO  au-oiS.    Cf.  5  ;  2. 

This  parallel  is  obvious.  Jiilicher  thinks  the  agreement  is  closer 
with  Rom.  5  ;  2.  (St'  oO  xai  tyjv  Tipoo-ayoiyYiv  £(7/Tjxa[j.£v)  "  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. 
The  combined  evidence  of  the  last  three  parallels  in  direct  contextual 
sequence  makes  dependence  here  very  probable. 

(32)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Rom.  8 ;  34 

0?  £(7Tiv  Iv  Be'^ioc  0EOIJ   xopEuO'Ei?      syEpQ-Ei?,    0?    i(T^w    £v    Be^iS    -ou 
El?  oupavov  .  .  .  0EoO 

This  parallel  is  too  close  to  require  comment. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  433 

(33)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  b  Rom.  8 ;  38 

ayyeXcov  xai  zio'jnuZ^  xoci  B-jvajj.scov      ay^zloi  outs  ap/^ai  o'jts  Buva[j.si? 

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 
and  powers.  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)  I  Pt.  4;  1  Rom.  6 ;  7,  2 

6  Tia&tov  crapxt,  TusTcauTai  a[j.apTiaic      6  aTCO&avwv  BsBixawo^ai  aizb   ■vr^q 

a^apTiac.     6  f  2  oitivs^  aTreO-avo- 

£V    OCUTT] 

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 
o  ily  in  the  use  of  the  word  cppoupsTv.      B.  Weiss,   whose  judgment 


434  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

here  regarding  the  connection  is  better  than  concerning  the  order 
of  dependence,  thinks  the  "  Pauhne  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 

TravTojv  TO  tsXoc  TJYyixsv  vOv  syYUTspov  yi[j,wv  y]  cro)TY]pia  .  . 

Y)    vu^    xpO£XO']jsv,     'r\    Bs    Y][jipoc 
YJYYWsv 

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. 


(36)  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  Ron.  8 ;  29,  11 ;  2,  1 ;  7 

■/va-a  TrpoYvtoo-iv  WsoO  ouc,  TcposY^w  11  ;  2,    tov  Xaov  .  . 

6v   TcposY^w  1  ;  7   xapi?   u[uv  xal 

£lp"/]VYl 

npoYvcoo-i?  and  xpoYivcocy.to  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  ;  20,  II  Pt. 
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  xpoopiaac.  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)  I  Pt.  1  ;  9  Rom.  6 ;  22 

xo[j.t,K6[j.£vot,  TO  'zi'krjc  T'^^  mTTeo)^      s/s'^s  '^ov  xapTuov  u[j.wv  zlc,  6(.yio(.a- 
(7coTr,ptav  'jiu/wv  ^.ov,    to    Bs    tsXo;    ^ojtiV    auoviov 

Nowhere  is  this  thought  more  closely  duplicated. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  435 

(38)  I  Pt.  2 ;  4  Rom.  9 ;  33 

aj:oB£Box!.[j.acr[j.£vov  TxocvBaT^ou 

W'hen  considered  along  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  6-8  =  Rom.  9  ;  33,  this 
parallel  deserves  a  higher  rating. 

(39)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Eom.  12  ;  1 
avsvsyxai   ::vo'jij.aTixac  O'ucrtac  £U-  TrapaTTYJcai  toc  acofj.aTOC  6[j,wv  O-u- 
TTpoG'Bex.TODC  Hsw  Bia  'It|(70u  XpiT-  atav  ^cocrav,   ayiav,    siapsiTTOv  -rw 
ToH  Bsco   -TjV   ■XoYtx-?;v   la^psiav    6[j.cov 

The  thought  is  very  similar.  The  sacrifice  in  both  cases  is  to 
be  pleasing  to  God. 

(40)  I  Pt.  2 ;  8  Rom.  9  ;  22,  18 

SIC  6  xai  sTsb-rjaav  (TxsuTj  opy^?  xa-j-Yipiria-sva  si?  a-to- 

>«£tav.   18  ov  Bs  O'slst,  (jx7.rjpyvsi 

Our  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  sTsO-zjo-av  to  stsO--^.  (Expos.  1909, 
p.  155  f.)  The  suggested  change  is  indeed  clever,  but  it  in  no  way 
affects  the  doctrine  at  issue,  since  it  is  found  elsewhere, 

(41)  I  Pt.  2;  9  Rom.  13;  12 

sx  TAOTOuc  ...  SIC  TO  S-a'j^.a7T6v      axoO-w^-sQ-a  o3v  -%  spya  too  ctao- 
auToO  cpco?  Touc,    xai    svBuo'cojj.sQ'a    ~v.    o-}.a 

TOU    (pcOTO? 

The  figure  is  Pauhne  and  the  antithesis  suggestive.  The  con- 
textual connection  should  not  be  overlooked. 

(42^  I  Pt.  2  ;  10  Rom.  9 ;  25 

01  xoTs  ou  \oLrjc  vOv  Bs  7.a6c  0soO      xa7.£crco  tov  ou  T^aov  [j.ou,  xai  tTiV 
01  06x  YjlsTipVOl  VOV  Bs  £>.S7]&-SVTSC       oux   YiYa7a]p.£vrjV 

"  Dasselbe  Zitat  und  in  demselben  Sinne  Rom.  9  ;  25,  eine  Stelle, 
die  dem  Verfasser  vorzuschweben  scheint."  (H.  Gunkel,  Dritter 
Abschnitt,  p.  40,  "  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments.  ")  Cf. 
Holtzmann'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  ; 
24  =  I  Pt.  2  :  9. 


436 

Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(43)                         I  Pt.  2;  17 

Rom.  12;  10b 

TCaVTS?    Tl[J-'/i(7a~£ 

~r\  "7t[j.Tj  oiXkriXooi;  ~porjYotJ[j.£voi 

(44)  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  Rom.  12 ;  10  a 

t:y]v  aB£}.(p6TrjTa  ayaT^oc"  tt]  cpt,}.aB£X(pia  £??  a}.}vT^>.oy?  cpt>.6- 

o-Topyoi 

Close  parallels  both  in  form  and  meaning,  yet  our  author  reverses 
the  order. 

(45)  I  Pt.  2  ;  17  Rom.  13 ;  7 

TOV     0£6v     (po[3ET(78-£,     TOV     ^iXGlkicC        ax6B0T£  'TO)   TOV   <p6(30V  TOV   (p6|3ov  • 

(46)  I  Pt.  2;  18,  19  Rom.  13;  5 
67roirao-o-6[j.£voi  ...  19  Bia  o-'jv£tBr,-  Bio  avayxY]  uTwOTOcTo-Ea-O-ai  ou  [;.6vov 
Tiv  0£oD  UTCocpspEi  Tii?  X'JTTac  'Tzm-  Bia  TYjv  opyYjv,  a}.la  /.at  Bia  tyjv 
)^wv  aBtxw^  (7'jv£tBrj'7t,v 

The  last  two  parallels  should  be  considered  together.  The  form 
is  similar,  but  the  background  is  different.  Dependence  may  read- 
ily be  inferred  from  these  passages. 

(47)  I  Pt.  3;  18  Rom.  8;  11 

^woTcoiYjQ'Eii;  Be  xvEO^j-aTi  zb  IIv£3[j.a  toO  £y£ipav-o?  Trj(70t3v 

£K    V£Xp(OV 

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.  15  ; 
3).  It  is  significant  also  that  the  well  known  Pauline  antithesis 
of  the  crdcp^  and  7:v£D[j.a  appears  here.     (Cone  Com.  p.  214.) 

(48)  I  Pt.  3  ;  21  Rom.  4 ;  25,  10  ;  9 

Bi'    avao-i:aa-£OK    'Itj(7o3    XpiTTOu      r^yipb'r^   Bia   tyjv   BixatwOTv    yj^.wv. 

xicTTEUGT]?  sv  -zr\  xapBia  <70u  oxi  6 

BeO?      aUTOV      Tjy£I,p£V      £X      V£Xp(OV, 

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  Bi'  ixvocgzugzok.  apparently  im- 
plying what  Paul  explicitl}^  states. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  437 


(49)  I  Pt.  4;  5  Rom.  14;  10 

rw   k-oi^Mc  xpivovTi,    ucov^a?    xai      xavxec  TrapaaTYjo-ojJLsS'a  'tw  pYitxa-irt 

i  VSXpO'JC  TOU    XptiTTOO    (©SOti) 

■  "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 

SIC  ia'j-ouc  OL^[r},T^y  IxTsvrj  zyo^-zc      7]  cf^^oLTZTi  (XvuTwOxptTo;  10  TY|  cp!.>.a- 

BsT-cpia   zic,   oLXkiikoDc  cpiXoairopYOi 

The  context  adds  to  the  significance  of  this  parallel.  See  "  Der 
Petrinische  Lehrbegriff  "  p.  420. 

(51)  I  Pt.  4;  9  Rom.  12;  13 

(:pi>.6?£vot  £1?  oiXkr^orjc,  tyiv  cpi>«o^sviav  Bio)XOV'!:£C 

$iXo|£via  is  only  found  in  Rom.  12  ;  13  and  Heb.  13  ;  2.  0^6- 
?£vo?  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,  i.  e.,  I  Pt.  4  ;  8  = 
Rom,  12  ;  9,  10  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  10  =  Rom.  12  ;  6. 


d 

(52)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Rom.  1 ;  7 

yapic  6[jIv  xal  sipr'vv]  X'^p''?  ^\f^'^  "^^^  £ipTJvr| 

This  verbatim  agreement  is  very  suggestive,  yet  this  form  is 
common  with  Paul.  The  "  Pastoral  Epistles  "  employ  IXzoc,  also. 
The  expression  also  occurs  in  Rev.  1  ;  4,  which  is  probably  bor- 
rowed from  I  Peter.  n>.Yi9'Uv9'£iv  suggests  that  II  Peter  copied  the 
phrase  from  I  Peter.  The  same  word,  as  well  as  contextual  reasons 
make  it  much  more  probable  that  our  author  is  following  Ephesians 
here  rather  than  Romans. 

(53,  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Rom.  15  ;  6 

EuXoyrjTOi;  6   ©soc  xai  7:(XTY]p  toU     Bo'^a^viTE  tov  ©sov  xai  Tcauspa  toQ 
xupioii  fj[j.wv  Trj(7oO  XpicTTot)  xupiou  Yip-fovTYiToDXpia-Tou.  Cf.l;7. 

Dependence  may  easily  be  inferred  from  this  very  close  agree- 
ment.    I  Pt.  1  ;  2b  and  1  ;  3a  =  Rom.  1  ;  7  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 
mth  him.  Though  the  close  agreement  is  striking  in  the  context, 
Eph.  1  ;  3  shows  a  much  more  probable  connection. 

(54)  I  Pt.  1 ;  7  Rom.  2 ;  10 

s^psS^Y]  £?<;  sTcatvov   xai  So'cav   xai      Bo'ta  Bs  xal  t:i[jiy]  xal  slpYJvY]  Tcav- 

Cf.  2;  7. 

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 

(j\i.zic  Bs  ysvo?  £X>.£XTdv  'oic  v.'X'za  xpdO^saiv  yCkfi'zoic,  oucriv  . . 

OUC  7ipOO)piG-£,   TrO'JTOU?  XKl   £XaX£(T£ 

Although  the  y£vo<;  £x}.£xt6v  may  be  borrowed  from  Isa.  43  ;  20 
it  is  in  thorough  accord  with  Paul's  doctrine  of  election, 

(56)  I  Pt.  3;  13  Rom.  8;  28,  31 

■zic,  6  xaxwcroiv  6[j.ac2£av  tou  aya-  toT?  ayaTitocri  tov  ©eov  %oi.y'Z(/. 
S>oQ  ^Yi>>(OTai  Y£vrj(7Q>£  cr!jv£pY£T  eTc  ayaO^o'v.    31  tl  6  ©£0^ 

6:r£p  r,|j.(ov,  -{?  xaO^'  yi[xwv 

The  parallel  is  closer  in  thought  than  in  form. 

(57)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2  Rom.  6 ;  12 

zic  TO  [j-TjXETi  dvO'pwT^tov  £7:tB'U[j.iatc      [J."?]  otjv  [iacri7;£U£Tco  t^  a[j.apTia   Iv 

Tw    Q'V/iTw     u[i(ov    crco[j.aTi,  .  .  .   £v 

TaTc  ETTiO'upiat^  .  .  .  a[j.apTLa 

This  parallel  is  strengthened  both  by  the  context  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  24 
=  Rom.  4  ;  2.  11  and  I  Pt.  4  ;  1  =  Rom.  6  :  2.  7. 


(58)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2  Rom.  6 ;  12 

a}>'Xa  bzk{\'^.oi.zi  (-)£0u  aXkoe.    TuapaaTTjCraTE     zmj^ouc    tw 

0£(O 

This  antithesis  may  indicate  Pauline  influence,  since  it  follows 
immediately  after  a  possible  point  of  contact. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  439 

(59)  1  Pt.  4;  3  Rom.  13;  13 

Tot^,  xai  a8>£[jLiT0ti;  siBo)>.o>.ai:ptai? 

Though  the  thought  is  similar,  the  context  is  hardly  in  favor  of 
dependence. 

(60i  I  Pt.  4;  11  Rom.  3;  3 

Xoyicc  Qzoo  Xoytcc  -voo  0sou 

In  all  probabiHtj-  this  parallel  is  due  to  accident. 

(61)  I  Pt.  5 ;  5  Rom.  12 ;  10 

TY]v  Ta7r£ivocpocruvr,v  £Yxo[x[3o>(ra(>&>£      fj-opyov  t^  Ttjj.^  ullrp.ooc,  zpor^- 

YO'J[J.£VOl 

The  thought  is  similar  but  the  form  is  different. 

(62)  I  Pt.  6 ;  13  Rom.  16 ;  16 

Xpta-oti 

/g3)  I  Pt.  5;  14  Rom.  16;  16 

acTrao-acrS-E,  a>vXY]>.ouc  Iv  cpiXr'aairi      aa--a(7a(7&-£  oCkXr^ryjc,  h  cpdTjij.a-i-t 
aYax-/]c  aYU;) 

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 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


Pt.  1 

;  2 

= 

Eom.  8;  29,  11;  2 

I.  Pt 

.  3 

;  '^ 

= 

Rom.  2 ;  16,  7  ;  22 

;  2b 

^=. 

„     1;  7 

^^ 

3 

8 

= 

„       12  ;  16,  15  ;  5 

;  3 

:= 

„       15  ;  16 

^^ 

3 

8 

r= 

,,      12 ;  5 

7 

^^ 

„       2  ;  10 

^^ 

3 

8 

::^ 

„        12;    10 

"     1- 

,  9 

= 

„       6 ;  22 

^, 

3 

8 

z=: 

„        12;    16 

14 

:= 

„       12;  2 

^^ 

3 

8 

=1 

„       12:  13 

15 

==, 

„       12 ;  2 

^^ 

3 

9 

= 

„       12;  16,  17 

"     1 

17 

=z 

„        2;   11,  6 

^, 

3 

9 

:=. 

;;          12;    14 

)1         ^ 

20 

=z 

,.       16 ;  25 

^^ 

3 

11 

=. 

„       12  ;  18,  14  ;  19 

21 

^= 

„       4;  24 

» 

3 

13 

z=z 

„       8;  28,  31 

22 

— 

„       12;  9,  10 

3 

18 

z=. 

„       5;  6,  8 

"      2 

4 

— 

„       9;  33 

^^ 

3 

18 

= 

„       5;  10 

,.      2 

5 

^^ 

„       12;  1 

^^ 

3 

18 

= 

„       8;   11 

„      2 

6 

— 

„     9;  33 

» 

3 

21 

^r 

„       4;25,6;4,10;9 

„      2 

6b 

— 

„       9 ;  33b 

3 

22 

= 

„       8 ;  34 

„      2 

8 

:^ 

„       9 ;  33a 

^^ 

3 

22 

^:z 

;;          8  ;    38 

„      2 

8b 

— 

;;        9;   18,  22 

„ 

1 

=Z 

„       6  ;  2,  7 

„      2 

9 

— 

„       8  ;  28,  30 

^^ 

2 

=z 

„       6;  12 

2 

9b 

— 

,.       13;  12 

^^ 

3 

z= 

„       13;  13 

",      2 

10 

= 

„       9;  25 

^^ 

5 

n: 

„      14;  10 

»      2 

11 

^; 

„       7  ;  23 

^^ 

7 

=z 

„       13;  11,  12 

„      2 

13 

::^ 

„        13;   1 

^^ 

8 

=z 

„        12  ;   9,   10 

„      2 

14b 

:^ 

„        13  ;   4 

9 

=, 

„       12;  13 

„      2 

14c 

— 

„       13;  3 

,^ 

11 

= 

„       3  ;  3 

„      2 

15 

— 

„       12 ;  14,  20,  21 

^^ 

11 

= 

„      12;  7 

»      2 

17 

— 

,.       12;  10b 

^^ 

13 

z=. 

„       8;  17,18 

„      2 

17  b 

— 

„       12;  10  a 

^^ 

5; 

1 

Z=L 

„       8;  17-19 

„      2 

17c 

— 

„       13;  7 

» 

5, 

5 

Z=L 

„       12;  10 

„      2; 

18 

— 

„       13 ;  5 

5; 

13 

= 

„      16;  16 

»      2 

24 

= 

„       6;  2,  11,  18 

„ 

5; 

14 

= 

„      16;  16 

From  the  above  table  we  may  sum  up  the  possible  points  of  contact 
with  Rom.  12,  as  follows  ;  2,  2,  9.  10.  1,  14,  20,  21,  10b,  10  a,  16,  5, 
10,  16,  13,  16,  17,  14,  18,  9,  10,  13,  7,  10.  Rom.  8  also  contains 
a  number  of  parallels,  i.  e.,  12,  1,  4,  3,  1,  5,  13,  11,  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  beUeved  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. 
^^'eiss  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 
Kiihl,  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  Stromung  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,"  i.  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,  \s:ri 
'j!JO'/Tj[j.a-:i^£'79-ai,  with  substantially  the  same  object  in  the  dative  ; 
Rom.  12  ;  17  =  I  Pt.  3  ;  9,  [j.yiBsvi  ([J-yj)  a-oBiBovTsc  xaxov  avTi  /.axoO, 
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  Xo^iwc,, — 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,  I  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)  : 
Cf.  parallels  I  Pt.  2  ;  13,  14  =  Rom.  13  ;  1,  I  Pt.  2  ;  14b  =  Rom. 
13  ;  4,  I  Pt.  2  ;  14c  =  Rom.  13  ;  3.  For  the  continuation  of  Zahn's 
argument  see  note  on  I  Pt.  2  ;  6,  8  ^  Rom.  9  ;  33. 


442  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

As  a  leader  of  English  Conservatives  we  may  quote  Sanday  (Com. 
on  Rom.  Ixxv  f.)  :  "  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  cru(7/Yiva'i-i^£0-Q>at,  avuTcoxptxoc,  but  in  one 
passage  (Rom.  13  ;  1  — 7  =  I  Pt.  2  ;  13—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  I  Pt.  2  ;  6  =  Rom.  9  ;  33. 

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  star  ken 
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.  (Vgl. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  13-17  mit  Rom.  13  ;  1-7,  I  Pt.  3  ;  8  f.  mit  Rom.  12  ;  16  f.)  " 
See  "  Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter  "  p.  33  f. 


EPHESIANS 
A* 

a— b 
(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1 ;  2 

'/oi^ic,  upv  xai  sipr^vT;  X°'p''?  ^P^  ^^^'"^  s^p'']^''; 

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. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  443 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Epli.  1  ;  3 

z'jXoyr^-zbc  6  Hsoc  xai  Tzxrf^p  Toti  ^•J\oyr^zb(;  6  ©so;  xai  -aTVip  toU 

xupiou    -^[jLwv    'Iyjo-oO    Xfto-ToD,    6  xyptou    i^jxwv    'Iyjo-oO    XptcTToO,    6 

.  .  .  avayswr'aac  Tj[xac  s'jloyTj'o-a;  i^'J.a; 

Only  in  II  Cor.  1  ;  3  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.  1  ;  3b 
also  leads  off  with  "  b  "  and  an  aorist  active  participle  used  sub- 
stantivety  (Burton's  Moods  and  Tenses  p.  165),  governing  rj[xa?  just 
as  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  3b.  II  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  ooxTipjxwv  of 
II  Cor.  1  ;  3  b  is  synonymous  \\dth  slso?  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,  "  £i»}.0Yr,T6?  ....  XpiaTroO,  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  x>.rjpovo[jLia,  (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  ;  4  f . 
(cf.  1  ;  9,  11),  namely,  that  of  election  through  the  divine  foresight 
and  predestination,  has  been  utilized  already  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  If.  (Int. 
II,  p.  186.)  AUuding  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  ^lo,  in  the  other  by  Bia  -oLi';:o  ".  (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,  llr.i(:  (Ex.  34) 
being  emphasised  in  both,  and  its  object  being  designated  the 
y.}>r,povo[j.ia  (Ex.  23),  the  connection  with  the  resurrection  (Ex.  35) 
of  Christ  as  its  ground  being  the  same,  and  in  both  the 
B'jvap?  Hsoj  being  put  in  relation  to  the  7:igti?.  (Ex.  24.) 
After  making  a  careful  analysis  of  the  foregoing  parallels  Von 
Soden  says  :  "  the  priority  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty 
by  the  text  itself."  ("  Hand  commentar  zum  Neuen  Testament,"  III, 
p.  122.)     He  also  considers  the  text  of  our  Epistle  to  be  more  compact 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  30  January,  1913. 


444  Ora  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  realite,  c'est  I'epitre  de  Pierre  qui 
tantot  resume  et  tantot  developpe.  C'est  elle  dont  les  idees  se 
suivent  d'une  fa^on  large,  coulante,  sans  rien  de  rigoureux.  Si  le 
style  des  Ephesiens  a  des  detours  (1  ;  11  —  14)  ou  la  pensee  semble 
se  resaisir,  il  est  plein,  nerveux,  original  ;  les  idees  forment  un  en- 
semble solide,  bien  lie,  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.  1  ;  3."     (Hort's  Ep.  of  Pt.  p.  27.) 

(3)  I   Pt.    1  ;   21  Eph.   1  ;   20 

Tov  sysipav-a  au~bv  sx  vsxpwv  systpac  auTov  sx  vsxpwv,  xat,  sxa- 
xa\  Bo^av  auTco  BovTa  Oiisv  Iv  Bsita  auToS  .  .  . 

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. 
(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  4-6  Eph.  2 ;  18-22 

xpo?  6v  xpo<7£p/_6[j.evot  'XiQ'OV  Bi'  a^ToO  £XO[j,£v  ■zr^^  TcpoaaywyrjV 
Zm^cc  ...  19)  .  .  .  oixsToi  -zoo  Qzoo. 

5)  xai  auToi  w?  lib-oi  ^wvts?  oixo-  20)  £XoixoBo[j.7]&-£VTei;  sTd  tw  &-£- 
Bojj.sT'jQ'S,  oTxo?  7iv£U[j.aT:tx6?  \it7d&  .  .  .  ovto?  axpoycovtaiou  au- 

6)  .  .  .  lib'oy  axpoyoviaTov  -zou  Xpio-Tou  'Iyjo-ou 22) 

G'uvoixoBojxsTcO'S  zlq  xaTOtx7]T-/]'piov 

-OD    (-hryj 

This  arrangement,  borrowed  from  Abbot  (Com.  p.  xxv),  shows 
the  extended  parallel  in  detailed  form.  In  I  Pt.  2  ;  4  and  Eph. 
2  ;  18  access  to  God  is  through  Christ.  Cf.  also  I  Pt.  3  ;  18  and 
Eph.  3  ;  12.  Holtzmann's  theory,  that  the  reference  to  Isa  28  ;  16 
was  suggested  to  our  author  by  the  axpoy(.)viaiov  of  Eph.  2  ;  20, 
is  quite  plausible.  The  word  is  found  in  the  N.T.  only  in  these 
two  passages.  The  reference  in  Acts  4  ;  11  may  seem  to  indicate 
the  originality  of  I  Peter,  yet  stress  cannot  be  placed  upon  this 
point,  since  Acts  may  depend  upon  I  Peter,  See  also  the  discus- 
sion on  Rom.  Ex.  2—4.  The  believers  are  frequently  thought  of  as 
a  spiritual  temple  by  Paul.      (Cf.  I  Cor.  3  ;  16.)     Cone  thinks  the 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  445 

application  of  the  epithet  "hving"  is  not  only  obscure  here  but 
also  has  the  appearance  of  a  mixing  of  metaphors,  and  that  the 
transition  is  abrupt  from  "  new  born  "  babes  longing  for  the  reasonable 
milk  to  "  living  stones  "  in  a  "  spiritual  house."  These  considerations 
are  important  in  determining  the  order  of  priority.  In  favor  of  Paul's 
independence,  Zahn  offers  the  following  :  "  Paul  develops  the  figure 
briefly  at  the  end  of  the  discussion  ;  Peter  makes  a  varied  and  detailed 
use  of  the  same,  in  connection  with  various  O.  T.  expressions,  and  also 
sayings  of  Jesus.  The  building  suggests  the  Lord  of  the  building,  who 
has  chosen  this  particular  stone  for  a  cornerstone,  and  Himself  has  put 
it  in  place,  after  it  had  been  rejected  as  worthless  by  the  fooHsh  master 
builders.  From  the  thought  of  the  living  character  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  who  is  represented  as  the  corner-stone,  is  argued  the  living 
character  of  the  stones  built  upon  this  foundation,  as  well  as  the 
freedom  of  their  attachment  to  Him.  The  comparison  of  the 
building  with  the  temple  suggests  the  thought  of  the  priesthood 
and  the  offerings.  The  corner-stone  is  also  the  curb-stone,  over 
which  passers-by  stumble.  It  would  seem  almost  as  if  in  I  Pt. 
2  ;  4— 8  one  were  hearing  the  voice  of  a  preacher  making  various 
appUcations  of  the  figure  suggested  by  his  text,  Eph.  2  ;  20-22  " 
(Int.  II,  p.  187.)  Alluding  to  I  Pt.  2  ;  4-6  Monnier  says  :  "  La  meme 
image  se  retrouve  dans  Eph.  2  ;  20,  21,  dont  ce  passage  depend." 
(Com.  p.  90—91.)  Cf.  Ignatius  and  Hermas  for  further  development. 
There  seems  to  be  a  clear  case  of  the  independence  of  Paul  at  this 
point,  but  whether  I  Peter  depends  upon  Ephesians,  or  Romans, 
or  both  is  not  so  clear.  Our  study  of  Romans  (Ex.  2—4)  led  us  to 
beheve  it  to  be  the  original  starting  point  for  our  author.  The  above 
discussion,  it  is  believed,  shows  that  he  was  also  acquainted  with 
Ephesians.  "  II  ne  copie  pas,  il  s'inspire.  Son  attitude  est  celle 
d'un  disciple."     (Monnier's  Com.  p.  264.) 

I  Pt.  3 ;  19  Eph.  4 ;  9 

ToTc   £v  (puXax^   xv£y[j.aai,v    xopsu-      xaTs(3Y]    T^pwirov   dc  'iroc   xx-oi-rspa 

Apparently  Paul  thought  only  of  the  descent  of  Christ  from  heaven 
to  the  present  world  ;  the  abode  of  the  power  of  death.  Yet  some 
think  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  idea  as  developed  in  I  Peter. 
The  doctrine  of  the  "  Harrowing  of  Hell  "  in  its  pre-Christian  form 
probably  goes  back  to  Isa.  26  ;  12—19,  which  C  hey  ne  dates  cir.  104 
B.  C.  (cf.  also  Ezek.  37.)  It  is  based  on  the  mythological  conception 
of  Yahweh  smiting  the  dragon  of  darkness  and  delivering  his  people 


446  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

from  the  prison-house  of  the  underworld.  The  Christians  took  over 
the  doctrine  with  but  few  changes.  They  thought  of  God  effecting 
the  dehverance  in  the  person  of  Christ.  This  passage  in  Ephesians 
marks  the  transition  point,  and  from  it  our  author  apparently  drew 
the  doctrine  of  the  mission  of  Christ  to  the  underworld.  The  more 
developed  form  found  in  I  Peter  indicates  the  priority  of  Paul.  The 
thought  occurs  in  the  fully  developed  form  but  this  one  time  in  the 
N.  T.,  but  is  common  in  later  writings.  Sandwiched  as  it  is  here 
between  thoroughly  Pauline  ideas  and  phrases,  the  probabiHties  are 
highly  in  favor  of  Abbot's  theory  of  dependence.  See  Monnier's 
discussion  Com.  p.  172—178. 

(6)  I  Pt.  3 ;  21—22  Eph.  I  ;  20—21 

ava(yTao"£(05 'Iy](7oO  XpidTOU,  6?  £<7-  lyzipccc,  ccu'^o'^  s>t  vsxpojv  xai  sxa- 

Ttv    sv   Bs^ia   0SOU,   TcopsuQ^si^    si?  O-tTsv  Iv  Be^ia  au^ou  sv  toT?  stcou- 

oupavov.     22)  OTUotraysvTfov    auToi  pavioic.    21)  uT^spavo)  T^aoTji;  ap/^7]? 

ayysXwv   xai   s^ouo-twv    xai   Buva-  xai    z^ouaioLc,    xol    ^uvaixsco?    xa\ 

[XSCOV  X'jptQ-YlTOC.   .   .   . 

The  exact  sequence  of  thought  and  similar  phrasing  in  this 
extended  parallel  thoroughly  justify  Zahn  in  saying  :  "  these " 
parallels  "go  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  the  observation  that 
Peter  and  Silvanus  had  Ephesians  before  them."  (Int.  II,  p.  187.) 
Robinson  also  thinks  there  is  here  a  clear  case  of  dependence  upon 
the  Pauline  Epistle.     (Ep.  to  Eph.  p.  151). 

(7)  I  Pt.  5 ;  8  Eph.  6 ;  11 

6  ,  .  .  Bta|3o}i.O(;  .  .  .  xspixaTsT  ^r^-  h'hu'jCf.ab-z  ty]v  xavoxliav  toO  0£Ol5 

';:cov   Ttva   xairaxtYi  *  (Tj    avTi(7'CT|i:s  T^po?  to  BuvaaO'at  u^-ac  a"~Yiva!,  T^po? 

(j-Tspeot  t:^  xt(7T£i  .  .  .  -zoLc,  [xsO'oSsiac  toO  Bi,a(3oXo!j  .  . 

"  Dependence  on  the  part  of  I  Peter  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
at  the  conclusion  of  both  letters  it  is  suggested  that  back  of  the  men, 
through  whose  hostilities  the  readers  are  compelled  to  suffer,  stands 
the  devil,  whom  they  are  steadfasth'  to  resist."  (Zahn's  Int.  II, 
p.  187.) 

b 

(8)  I  Pt.  1 :  3  Eph.  1  ;  7 

xatra  to  %ok\i  auirou  Vktoc,  xa^a  tov  tiIoQtov  ~r^c,  ya^vzoc  auTou 

This  parallel  is  very  significant,  since  it  follows  one  which  is  in 
complete  verbal  agreement.  This  usage  can  hardly  be  accidental. 
See  Ex.  2. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  447 

(9)                     I  Pt.  1 ;  10—12  Eph.  3 ;  5 

::£pl   %c   <j{<)-ri^io(.(;  £^£^Y]V/](7av  xal  6    sv    zzz^mc,    ysvsaTi;    oux    lyvw- 

£?r,p£'jvr((7av   xpocp^Tai  oi  Tispt  v^?  piaQ-Y]    toTc    uioXq    tcov    avQ^pwTcwv, 

sk   6[xac    yd^i-zoc  TrpocpYj'^-suo-avTSs  coc    vuv    aTcsxaT^ucpD-Yj    -zoic,    ayioi? 

....  oic  a-sxal'JcpQ'T,  oti  06/  sau-  aTCOcrTd}.oic    auTrou    xai    7rpocprjTai<; 

ToT?   upv   Bs    BiYjXovo'jv    atJTa,    a  sv  TlvsuixaTi  ■  3;  10  Iva  yvcoptcrQ-^ 

vUv  uvr^yyzkr^  6[j.Tv  Bia  twv  sOay-  vuv 
ys}vi(7a[jiv(ov 

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.) 

(10)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  Eph.  6  ;  14 

ava^(0(ja[j.evoi  zac  6<7(puac  ^^c  Bta-      7:spi^o)G-a[;.svoi  tyjv  oacpuv  6p.(.ov  ev 
voiac  6[j.wv  d>.rj&'£ta 

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 
£v  UTzoY-ciku'ltzi  'I'r](70i)  XpiaToO  (1  ;  13),  which  is  "  a  Pauline  term  for 
the  Parousia."     Cf.  I  Cor.  1  ;  7,  II  Thes.  1  ;  7.     (Cone  Com.  p.  306.) 


I  Pt.  1 ;  20 

Eph.  3;  11,  1;  4 

:ipo£yv(0'7[j.£voD   [J.kv  -p6  xaTaj3o};-^c 
xocrij-ou 

xaToc    '^zpob'tGiv  Twv    aiojvwv  yjv  I- 
zoiY(<j£v  £v  Xpio-Tw  .  ,     Cf .  3 ;  9,  10 
IhliEcc-zo   7][xa?  £v  auroj  7cp6  xa- 

The  "  preexistence  of  Christ  "  is  a  common  Pauline  conception. 
Monnier  thinks  with  Hort  (Ep.  of  Pt.  p.  80),  that  xpo  xaxapox^^  is 
"  probablement  empruntee  a  Eph.  1  ;  4."  (Com.  p.  76.)  "  I  Pt.  1 ;  20 
and  Eph.  3  ;  9  correspond  in  the  same  reference  to  the  mysteiy 
ordained  xpo  xa'rajioA^?  xo(7[j.ou,  and  hitherto  hidden,  but  now 
revealed.  And  as  in  Eph.  3  ;  10  the  wise  purpose  of  God  is  now 
made  known  to  angehc  powers,  so  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  12  they  desire  to  search 
into  these  things."    (Abbot  Com.  p.  xxvi). 


448  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

(12)  I  Pt.  2;  18  Eph.  6;  5 

01  olni-oa  67coxa(7'70[j.£voi  Iv  xavTi  &[  BoSXot,  ^Tiaxous-o  toT?  xupiot? 
cpd[3o)  ToTc  BscTUOTai?  .  .  ,  [xzxof.  (^ol^ou 

On  uTZOTrayaTs  f.  of  2  ;  13,  Dr.  Hort  comments  as  follows  :  "In 
Ephesians  (5  ;  21-24,  6  ;  1-3,  5-8)  subjection  (uTO-ao-cso-O-ai)  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  (67:oT-aa-c70[j,£voi  oOCkr^'koic,  Iv  (po(3w 
XpiGTOu),  laid  down  at  the  outset  in  5  ;  21,  which  likewise  corre- 
sponds in  drift  to  I  Pt.  5  ;  5  as  well  as  to  this  verse.  (Ep.  of  Pt. 
p.  139). 

(13)  I  Pt.  3 ;  1  Eph    5 ;  22 
yuvaTxsc    !j7tO-ao-(70[j.£v&i    sv    TiavTi      cd   yuvaTxs^,    -zoic,   ibioiq    avBpao-iv 
cpopw  -oig  B£(7;iOTai5                             UTTOTradcrso'O'S 

(14)  I  Pt.  3 ;  6  Epli.  5 ;  22b,  33 

wc  ^appa  tJTUYj'xouTs  to)  'A|3p(xa^.,  6iq  Toi  xupio)  (oTt  avr^p  sctiv  xscp- 
xuptov  au'Tov  xaXotjira  aT^r,  t^^  yuvatxoi;  .  .  .)  33  y]  yuvrj 

I'va  (po[3^Tai  t6v  avBpa 

(15)  I  Pt.  3 ;  7  Eph.  5 ;  25 

01  avBps?  .  .  .  Tco  yuvaixsuo  axo-  ol  avBps?,  ayaT^ocTs  tocc  yuvaTxa? 
v£[j.ov-£c  ^t[r/]v  £atj-a)V 

Robinson,  in  commenting  on  Eph.  5  ;  33  b,  claims  "  there  is  here 
a  double  reference  to  this  passage  in  I  Pt.  3';  1—6,  which  clearly 
is  not  independent  of  Ephesians :  'OiJ^oiox;  yuvaTx£?  !j;vo-ao-(7o'[X£vat 
'ZOIC,  ibioii;  avBpao"iv  .  .  .  Tvjv  sv  cpo'[3w  ayvTjV  avaT'cpoyYiv  uixcov ;  and 
then  as  if  to  guard  against  a  false  conception  of  fear,  [xtJ  cpo[3ou[j.£vai 
[XY]B£[j.iav  x-o'tqo-iv."  (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. 

(16)  I  Pt.  3;  8  Eph.  4;  32 

TO  Be  -ziXoc  tzolv-zc  6[j.6(ppov£c,  yiv£(78-£  Be  zlc  ocXkr\Xoo(;  ypriuzoi 
c7U[j.7ca8'£Tc,  cpiXaB£};(pot,  Euo-^rXay-  £5(7-Xay/^voi,,/_api,^6[X£voi£a'j"7oT?. .  . 
yyoi  .  .  . 

This  form  of  exhortation  is  common  in  the  Pauline  literature. 
Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13-17,  I  Cor.  4  ;  12,  I  Thes.  5  ;  15.  But  since  the 
passage,  which  contains  a  word  {zufjzkccyyyoi)  not  found  elsewhere 
in  the  N.  T.,  follows  immediately  after  a  context  suggestive  of  Ephe- 
sians, dependence  is  made  very  probable. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  449 

(17)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Eph.  2 ;  18 

"  I  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.) 

(18)  I  Pt.  4 ;  2,  3  Eph.  2 ;  3 

avu-pto7:wv    £7:iO-!jpat?     (4  ;  2)     to      l%ib-u[jioLii;  -yj?  o-apxo?  TjIj^wv,  tcoio-jv- 
|io'JXYi[J.a  Twv  sD'Vwv  xaTsipyacrb'a!,      -zc  ^a  8<s>.7i[j.aTa  --^^  crapxo? 

(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). 


(19)  I  Pt.  1;  1  Eph.  1;  1 

IIsTpoc  oL-oa-rAoc,  'iTjCrou  XpiT-ofj      ria-jlo?  aTOcnroXo?  'ItjCtou  Xpicr^otj 

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. 


(20) 


I  Pt.  1  ;  1  Eph.  1 ;  4 

ziz}\£i(x-rj 


(21)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1  ;  5 

XaTOC    TZpo'YVCOG-lV  TZpOOpiTCCC 

Election  is  a  common  Pauhne  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  Pauhne  authorship  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  Predestination  is  also  a  Pauhne  doctrine.  Cf.  Rom.  8 ; 
29,  30,  I  Cor.  2  ;  7,  and  Eph.  1  ;  5,  11.  But  in  the  beginning  of  no 
other  Epistle  is  it  alluded  to.  Paul  never  uses  the  noun  Trpoyvfocrt^,  yet 
he  employs  the  verb  T^poyivoxTKO)  in  the  sahie  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  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(22)  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  Eph.  1 ;  3 

sTvat,  fjjxa?  ayiou? 

These  phrases  are  quite  different,  but  they  afford  a  close  parallel 
in  thought,  and  are  suggestive  in  this  connection. 

(23)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Eph.  1  ;  5 

dc,  'jTtaxoYjv  xai  pavTiTp-ov  at,'[j.aTOc      tl^  ulrjj'zaiccv    (7)  aTrol'JTpwjtv  Bioc 

In  the  beginning  of  no  other  N.  T.  books  is  redemption  through 
Christ's  blood  so  mentioned,  except  in  Col.  1  ;  4,  I  Jn.  1  ;  7  and 
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  pavTrt(7[j,o<;,  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)  1  Pt.  1 ;  4  Eph.  1 ;  18 
xXripovopa                                             zl'/jpovopiac 

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)  I  Pt.  1 ;  5  Eph.  1 ;  13 

Bia  TiiTTscoc  £1?  TcoTTjpiav  7ci(7T£U(7avT£c      iTcppayiTS-Yi'^rE      TW 

The  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  obvious  in  both 
references. 

(26)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  Eph.  1  ;  14 
£t(;  £7caivov  xai  Bo'tav                           zlc  It.mvov  -r^c  So'^r^? 

That  this  close  parallel  follows  the  preceding  one  in  direct  con- 
textual connection  in  both  instances  is  significant. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  451 

(27)  I  Pt.  1  ;  14  Eph.  4 ;  22,  18 

ToTc  -poTspov  £v  TTj  (xyvota  -jiJ-tov      22  — r,v  TrpoTspav  avaa-trpocp-ri'v.     18 
£Xi5-[j[jiaic  Bia    tt^v    ayvotav    ~r]v    oOcrav    sv 

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 

6[j.eT$  yt/oc  sxAsxTo'v  .  .  .  omoc  Tac      -poopwQ'SVTEc   xara   TrpoO-scrtv  .  .  . 
apsTsc;  zzocy^^zilr^Tt  .  .  tic  -o  sTvai  rjij.ac  zlc  sxaivov    ir^^ 

The  sequence  of  thought  is  worthy  of  note.     Cf.  Ex.  25. 

(29)  I  Pt.  2;  9b  Eph.  5;  8 

ToD  ex  (T/.OTOtjc   6[j.ac   xaT^sTavToc      t^ts  yo'p  tuots  cv^o'toc,  vOv  Bs  ocZg 
zlc  TO  B-aiffj-aaTOv  a'jToii  owi;  sv  xupio) 

"  The  transition  from  darkness  to  light  is  much  emphasised  in 
Eph.  5  ;  8—14,  yet  the  phrase  probably  was  suggested  by  Eph.  1 ; 
17-19."  (Hort's  Ep.  of  St.  Pt.  p.  130.)  The  preceding  parallel 
makes  this  one  more  significant. 

(30)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Eph.  2 ;  19 
'apoixo'jc  xai  -ap£::tBr;ij.ouc                 Hvot  xai  Tvapoixot 

ITdpoixo;  is  found  only  here  and  in  Acts  7  ;  6,  29.  ITocpsm^Y]- 
[J.0?  occurs  only  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  1,  2  ;  11  and  Heb.  11;  13.  Eevo?, 
a  comparatively  rare  word  in  the  N.  T.,  is  used  by  our  author  in 
4  ;  12.  It  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  suggestive. 

(31)  1  Pt.  3 ;  20  Eph.  5 ;  26 
hitGMb%'j'xv  Bi'   'Sbcc^oc  (21)   6  xai      I'voc  a-jTYiv    o(.^[i6!.crf\,   xaS-apiaac  t6> 
■j[x5(.c   avTivjTUTOv    vjv    GcoZti    Jia~-      y.oyTpoi  tou  OBaTO? 

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 
aAAV-oic  TTjV  Ta-civo'^poc'JvTjV  £Y"      •j-ot(X'7'jO[j.£voi  yX/.r^Xoic, 
■A.>j\x[:jb)'j'xtjb'Z 

See  note  on  Ex.  12. 


452  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(33)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  Eph.  6 ;  21 

aB£>.<pou  .  .  .  £Ypa(|>a  .  .  .  6v  £X£[X(|ja 

Attention  is  to  be  directed  to  the  use  of  the  word  xto-iro?  as  well 
as  to  the  general  similarity.  The  proper  names  play  similar  parts 
in  connection  with  the  verb  in  the  first  person,  Aor.  Ind. 

(34)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  Eph.  6 ;  23 

£ipTjvr)  6plv  xaatv  'ZOIC  £v  Xpiciro)      £tpYivTj  ToTc  ^zh^Qic 

Though  this  parallel  is  not  very  close  it  is  significant  that  our 
Epistle  closes  with  Iv  Xpio-Tw,  a  Pauhne  phrase  "par  excellence." 
For  further  justification  of  this  classification  see  note  on  Ex.  18. 

d 

(35)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Eph.  1 ;  18 

zlc  zhzibcc  "Coxyav  y]  IItzk;  -yJc  yJ.r^azcoc  auToti 

The  wording  is  different  but  the  thought  is  much  the  same.  Con- 
sidered alongside  Ex.  23,  this  parallel  deserves  a  higher  classification. 

(86)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Eph.  1 ;  20 

Si'  ocvaT-ao-EOi?  'Ifiaou  Xpio-Tou  Ix      lyzipccc,  auTov  Ix  v£xp(ov 

V£Xp(OV 

Suggestive  here,  though  a  closer  parallel  appears  in  Ex.  22. 

(37)  I  Pt.  1;  17  Eph.  6;  9 

rov     o(.T.poa(<)%o\r^iJ.%~o)c     Y-pivovzix      xpocrwxo'XT/jiia  o'Jx  Itti  xap   au-oi 
xaTa  TO  ExaaTou  Ipyov 

This  thought  is  suggestive  in  this  connection,  yet  it  is  reproduced 
Rom.  2  ;  6,  11,  Col.  3  ;  25,  Jas.  2  ;  1  and  Acts  10  ;  34.  See  discus- 
sion on  Romans  Ex.  11. 

(38)  I  Pt.  1  ;  18  Eph.  4 ;  17 

£X  T%  [xaxaiac  u[j.(^v   avaT-pocp'^c      Iv  [j.aTaidiTYj'iri  -zoo  yooc,  atJTOjv 

(39)  I  Pt.  1  ;  7  Eph.  1 ;  7 

zhi'zpbih'rfz  .  .  .  (19)  i:t[j.u;)  al'[j.a-i      Iv  (o  lyp[s.zv  -zr^y  axoT^u-pcocriv  Bia 

.  .  .  XpiTTOu  ToO  al'[j.aT:o5  auxoO 

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. 

Ex.  7. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  453 

(40)  I  Pt.  1 ;  20  Epli.  1 ;  10 

oavspwO'svTOc  Bs  liz  ifjyuxo'j  twv  .  .  .  tou  TrXYjpwfj.aTO?  'zcZv  xatptov 
/pov(ov 

A  common  view. 

(41)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  Eph.  4 ;  25 

aTioO-eixsvoi  ouv  notaixy  xaxiav  y.ai  Sto  aTuoO^sfj-svot  to  ^JjsuBoi;  31, 
TzavTa  ZoXo"^  xal  67toxpio-iv  xai  Traaa  vcixpia  xai  G'U[;,6?  xai  opyY] 
cpG'o'vou?  xai  7:aa"a5  Y.oi.~rxXciCki(/.c  xai  xpauy'^  ^s^''  |3XaG"OY][jia  apO-^po) 

acp"   6[xwv  .  .  . 

This  is  a  very  suggestive  parallel,  yet  the  thought  is  common  in 
the  PauHne  Epistles.  Cf.  Rom.  13  ;  12  and  Col.  3  ;  8.  See  also 
Heb.  12  ;  1,  and  Jas.  1  ;  21. 

(42)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Eph.  2 ;  14 

6[j.sTi;  Bs  ysvoc  IxT.sx'iov  [iao-cT-siov  6  %ovr\(j(xc,  toc  a[j,cpo'T£pa  Iv  xai  -zh 
l£paT£L»[j.a  sQ-voc,    ayiov,    laoc   sic      [iscroTOi/ov  tou  cppaY[j.oD  Xdaouc,  .  . . 

7:£ptX0lY]0"lV 

See  Ex.  27  and  Rom.  Ex.  55. 

(43)  I  Pt.  3 ;  15  Eph.  3 ;  17 

x'jpiov  Bs  Tov  XpiG-Tov  ayia^jaTE  xaro^aat  tov  Xpio-rov  Sia  ty^c 
£v  -zcat;  xapBiaic  6[X(ov  TCia^scoc  sv  TaT;  xapBiai?  6[j.cov  sv 

ayaT^Ti 

It  does  not  seem  probable  that  this  Isaianic  passage  was  suggested 
to  our  author  by  Eph.  3  ;  17. 

(44)  I  Pt.  4 ;  10  Eph.  4 ;  7 

sxacr-oc    xa{>wc    s7.a[j£v    ydpi<7[xc(.      sxdco-Tw  y][j.wv  sBoQ-Y]  yj  yapic  xa-ra 

T%  Bojpsoci;  TToO  Xpia"TOL> 

The  idea  of  the  distribution  of  spiritual  gifts  according  to  the 
ability  to  receive  is  common  in  the  letters  of  Paul. 

(45)  I  Pt.  4  ;  11  ■■     Eph.  3  ;  21 
So;at£':ai  6  Heoc  Bia'IrjCroO  XpiG-voD      auTw    tj    Boia    Iv    XptG--w  'Itjo-oO 

The  glorification  of  God  through  Christ  is  common  in  the  later 
literature. 


454 


Ora  Delmer  Foster 


The  following  table  will  show  the  sequence  of  the  foregoing  parallels. 


I  Peter 


1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

5 

7 

10 

13 

16 

17 

18 

18 

20 

20 

21 

1 


Eph 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
6 
4 
6 

:  4 

■■  1 

:  3 

:  1 

:  1 

:  4 


esians 
1 
4 
5 
3 
5 
2 
3 
7 

18 
20 
18 
13 
14 
5 

14 

18,  22 
9 
17 
7 

11,  1  ;  4 
10 
20 
22,  25,  31 


I 

Peter 

Ephesians 

2 

4-6 

= 

2  ;  18-22 

2 

9 

^ 

1  ;  11,  12 

2 

9 

= 

2;  14 

2 

9b 

= 

5  ;  8 

2 

11 

= 

2  ;  19 

2 

18 

= 

6  ;  5 

3 

1 

= 

5  ;  22 

3 

6 

= 

5  ;  22,  33 

3 

7 

= 

5  ;  25 

3 

8 

= 

4  ;  32 

3 

15 

= 

3  ;  17 

3 

18 

= 

2  ;  18 

3 

19 

= 

4  ;  9 

3 

20 

= 

5  ;  26 

3 

21-22 

= 

1  ;  20-22 

4 

2,  3 

= 

2  ;  2-3 

4 

10 

= 

4  ;  7 

4 

11 

=: 

3  ;  21 

5 

5 

= 

5  ;  21 

5 

8,  9 

= 

6  ;  11 

5 

12 

r= 

6  ;  21 

5 

14 

= 

6  ;  23 

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 


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. 

Practical^  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.  ^^■eiss  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'epitre 
a  ete  redigee  en  toute  liberte  d'esprit  par  un  ecrivain  qui  connaissait 
parfaitement  les  Ephesiens,  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  RopeT^ees  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.  213  f.) 
Seufert  stands  almost  alone  in  ascribing  to  the  two  Epistles  the 
same  author,  of  course  neither  Paul  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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1  ;  4  Col.  1  ;  5 

x};"/]povo[J.i;av  .   .  .  T£— rj[:rjij.£vrjV    iv      tTjV    zkrl^oL  tyjv    a-ox£iiJ.svY]v    (jijIv 
o^pavoTc  dc  'j[j.ac  Iv  toT?  oupavoT? 

"  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 


456 


Or  a  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  hkely  the 
latter. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  Col.  3;  25 

Tov  a7ipo(70)7io}.Ti[xxT(oc  xptvovTa  6  Bs  aBixwv  xopetTai  6  yjBixyig-s' 
xaira  to  sxaTTOu  spyov  xai  oux  so-ti  Tz^oaMizoXrfi^ioi 

In  both  instances  an  impartial  judgment  is  pronounced  and  the 
penalty  is  to  be  inflicted  in  accordance  with  the  evil  done.  Cf. 
Rom.  2  ;  11,  12,  6,  Eph.  6  ;  9b,  Jas.  2  ;  1,  Acts  10  ;  34-35.  See 
discussion  on  Eph.  6  ;  9  =  1  Pt.  1  ;  17.  The  probabihties  are  that 
our  author  was  following  the  lead  of  Ephesians  here  rather  than 
Colossians. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  20  Col.  1 ;  26 

7cpc/eYvco(7[j.svo!j  [jxv  xpo  xaTa[jo>.%  to  [j.ucrTY)pi,ov  to  a7roxsxpfj[j.[j.£vov 
x6a[j.ou,  (pavspojO'SVTO?  Ss   liz    ia-      oltzo  twv  cd<iivbiv  .  .  .  vQv  Bs  Icpav- 

yUTOO    TWV    )(p6v(0V  SpwQ'Tj  .    . 

See  Eph.  3  ;  11,  1  ;  4  for  closer  parallel. 


(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  Col.  3 ;  8 

'AxoO^sp-svoi  o5v  TzS.Gccv  xaxtav  xai  ot-Tzob-zab-z  xai  ufxsT?  Ta  -jzoh'^toc, 
uTuoxptaiv  xai  cpS-ovou?  xai  Tztxatxc,  opyYjv,  S-u[j.6v  xaxiav  (ii>.ai7(pYi[j.iav, 
xaTaT^aT^iac,  aio-y^poXoyiav     ex     toO     o-TO^aTO^ 

U[j.c5v 

See  Eph.  4  ;  22,  25,  21,  etc.  for  equally  close  parallels. 


(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  18  Col.  3 ;  22 

01  oixsTai  uTCOTacrcrojxsvoi  Iv  TiavTi      oi  'SouT.oi,  UTcaxousTs  xaTa   TiavTa 
<p6[3to  ToTi;  Bso-TcoTai?  toT?  .  .  xupiot<; 

Cf.  Eph.  6  ;  5. 


(6)  I  Pt.  3;  1  Col.  3;  18 

yuvalxsi;  uTTOTaacrojxsvai  toT?  iBioi?      yuvaTxei;    uxoTaccrsaB-e    toTi;    iBiot? 
avBpao-iv  avBpacrtv 

See  Eph.  5  ;  22,  which  also  agrees  verbally. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  457 

(7)  I  Pt.  3;  7  Col.  3;  19 

01  avBpsc  (7UV01X0UVTSC  .  .  .  o)c  a(7-  ol  avBpec,  ayaxocTs  'zac,  yuvaTxa:; 
O-svsTTspo)     'jxs'jst     Tw     yuvatxsuo      xai  [j.y]  TiixpaivscrO-s  7up6?  auxa? 

a7rOV£[J.OVT£C    Tl^TjV 

Cf.  Eph.  5  ;  25. 

(8)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Col.  3 ;  12 

To  Ss  'O^oc,  TidcvTSc  6[j.6(ppovec,  sv^'JcraaS-s  .  .  .  axXdcyj^va  oixTip[j,ot> 
(7U|JL7iaS>£T;,  cptXaBsXcpoi,  zu'yu'kyyyrA,  )(pyig-t6ttjtc<,  Ta7:£i.vo(ppo(7UVY]v,xpa'j- 
Ta7i£t,v6cppov£c  .  .  .  TYjTa  [JLaxpoB^upav  .  . 

Cf.  Eph.  4  ;  32. 

(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  Col.  1 ;  22 
9>ava":co[;"£tc  [X£v  <7apxl  .  .                      vuvl  a7:ox(xi:Yi>.}v3c^£v  £v  tco  (7t6[xaT!, 

TTj?  c-apxoi:  a'jTOU  Bia  toD  {>avaTO'j 

This  thought  is  common  in  the  Pauhne  Epistles. 

(10)  I  Pt.  3;  22  Col.  3;  1 

bq  ICTIV  £V  BecICC  0£O!J  7UOp£uQ'£l5  6  XpiaTO?  l(j~lV  £V  B£^i.a  TOD 
£1?    OUpOCVOV  (dtOO    XaQT,[X£VO? 

(11)  I  Pt.  3;  22  b  Col.  2;  10,  1;  16 
OTiOTayEVTcov    auTw    ayyE^wv    xal      yj  xEcpaXY]  xacrrj?  apy_^<;  xai   e|oo- 
sSouG-iwv  xai  Buva[X£0)v                         aiac,.   Iv  au-w  £Xtio-9>yi  to:  izavzcc, 

Toc  £v  ToTi;  oupavoTc  .  .  .  £it£  8-p6voi, 

£tT£     XUpWTY]T£;,     eI'tE     OCpyCCl,     ti~Z 
E^0U(7[ai 

With  the  last  two  paraUels  cf.  Rom.  8  ;  34,  6  ;  2,  7,  and  Eph. 
1  ;  20-22,  for  better  contexts. 

(12)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Col.  4 ;  2 

(7wcppovYiG-aT£  o5v  xai  vT^'IiaT£  £i(;  T^  xpo(j£D/;?]  xpoxap-£p£TT£,  ypr,- 
■K^oazoydc  yopoOvTEi; 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  12,  Mt.  26  ;  41,  Lk.  21  ;  34>  I  Thes.  5  ;  6,  17,  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) 


I  Pt.  4; 


Col.  3;  14 


Tcpo  TTavTwv  TY]v  SI?  ktxu'Oijq  (xya-      £7d 
7r/]v  sxTsv^  lyovxtc, 

This  parallel  is  made  more  important  by  the  possible  reference 
to  Col.  4  ;  2  in  I  Pt.  4 ;  7.  Yet  we  have  reasons  to  think  I  Peter  is 
borrowing,  through  this  section,  quite  freely  from  Rom.  12. 

(14)  I  Pt.  5 ;  12  Col.  4 ;  7 

Sioc    HiXouavoti     6[j.Tv    zoo    tzigzoo      Tuytxoc,  6  ayaTajTO?  ochzla^b^  aoCi 
aBsT-cpoti  .  .  .  sypa'jia  7;i(It6?  .  .  .  6v  sTisij-'j^a 

This  may  be  an  accidental  parallel,  yet  it  is  suggestive. 

The  following  table  will  show  that  I  Peter  is  following  Ephesians 
rather  than  Colossians. 


Peter 

Ephesians 

Colossians 

I  Peter 

Ephesians 

Co 

ossians 

1;  1 

1;  1 

1; 

1 

2;  4—6 

2;  18—22 

1;   1 

1;  4 

2;  9 

1;  11,  12 

1;  2 

1;  5 

2;  9 

2;  14 

1;  2 

1;  3 

2;  9b 

5;  8 

1;  2 

1;  5 

2;  11 

2  ;  19 

1;  2 

1;  2 

2;  18 

6;  5 

3, 

22 

1;  3 

1;  3 

3;  1 

5;  22 

3; 

18 

1;  3 

1;  7 

3;  6 

5  ;  22.  33 

1;  3 

1;  18 

3;  7 

5;  25 

3, 

19 

1;  3 

1;  20 

3;  8 

4;  32 

3; 

12 

1;  4 

1;  18 

1 

5 

3;  15 

3;  17 

1  ;  5 

1;  13 

3;  18 

2  ;  18 

1 

22 

1;  7 

1;  14 

3;   19 

4;  9 

1;  10 

3;  5 

3;  20 

5;  26 

1  ;  13 

6;  14 

3;  21-22  1;  20-22 

3; 

1.2;10 

1;  16 

4;  18, 

22 

4;  2-3 

2  ;  2-3 

[1;16 

1;  17 

6;  9 

3 

25 

4;  10 

4;  7 

1;  18 

4;  17 

4;  11 

3;  21 

1;  18 

1;  7 

5;  5 

5;  21 

1;  20 

3;  11, 

1; 

4 

1 

26 

5;  8,  9 

6;  11 

1  ;  20 

1  ;  10 

5;  12 

6;  21 

4 

;  7 

1;  21 

1;  20 

5;  14 

6;  23 

2;  1 

4;  22,25.31 

3 

8 

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  duphcated  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 

TW    0£(O  .   . 

Though  the  thought  is  much  the  same,  there  is  a  closer  parallel 
in  Rom.  12  ;  1. 

(2)  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Phil.  3 ;  16 

-0  Bs  Tsloc  7:v.y~zc,  6[j.6'^povsc  to   ocuto  cppovsTv 

See  Rom.  12  ;  16,  15  ;  5. 

(8)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Phil.  4 ;  5 

^ravTwv  Bs  to  -z\oc  r^'c^iy.zv  6  Kupioc  syyy; 

See  Rom.  13  ;  11,  12,  which  is  in  a  more  favorable  context. 

(4)  I  Pt.  4;  9  Phil.  2;  14 

(piXoSsvoi  zlc  odXr^y.o'jc,  avsD   yoy-      izoi.'v'^cc  ttoisTts  //op"!,?  yoyyuijj.wv 
yu(7[jiou 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13,  Heb.  13  ;  2,  II  Cor.  9  ;  7,  Philem.  14. 

^5)  I  Pt.  4 ;  13  Phil.  3 ;  10 

xowcovsTts  toT?  Toti  XpiaTOii  TraS-Tj-      xotvcoviav    twv   7taQ'Yi[j.aTfov    auToQ 
[xacrtv 

Verbally,  no  other  passage  is  such  an  exact  parallel.  But  the  idea 
of  sharing  and  participating  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  is  very  common 
with  Paul.  Cf.  Rom.  8  ;  17,  18,  II  Cor.  1  ;  7,  14  ;  10,  Col.  1  ;  24. 
This  similarity  suggests  dependence  but  the  context  is  not  in  its 
favor. 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  31  January,  1913. 


460  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  5;  3  Phil.  3;  17 

-UTuot  yivojjxvoi  ToQ  Tcotptou  xaihw?  s/s'ts  tutvov  Yi[j,a(; 

Cf.  II  Thes.  3  ;  9,  I  Tim.  4  ;  12,  Tit.  2  ;  7. 

(7)  I  Pt.  5 ;  5  Phil.  2 ;  3 

/wO[j.(jo)'7a'j&'£  aX>.a  v?]  TaTiJsivocppoa-uvYi  a>.};Yi}^oui; 

fjoy[j-£voi  UTispsy^ovTa?  sauTwv. 

See  Rom.  12  ;  10  for  better  context  and  equally  close  wording. 
Cf.  also  Eph.  5  ;  21. 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  Phil.  4 ;  22 

(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  Phil.  4 ;  21 

a(77uao-aT0'£  ocXkr^ouc  Iv  (pi,}^Tj[j.aTt,      ao-Tiao-ao-B'S  -KOt-yzcc  aytov  .  .  . 
ayaxYjc 

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  PhiUppians. 

I  TIMOTHY 

D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  3;  3  I  Tim    2;  9 

cT)v  It-o)  ou/  6  l^o)&>£v  sjxxT^ox^i;  -zccc  yuvaTxai;  Iv  xaTaa-ol^  Y.oa- 
Tpiy^oiv  xai  7:£ptS>£(7£0)?  /pu(7to)v  Y)  [jiw  [j.£-a  aiBou?  xai  a-focppoTUV/]?, 
£vB'J(7£(o?  i[j.a-uov  x6<7[j.o?  xo(7[j.£Tv  £auTac,  [J.Y)  £v  7i;}iY[j.a(7tv, 

•?]  XpUTw,  Y]  [j^apyapiTai?,  yj  i[j.aTt- 

qj.(0    7iO}<UT£}v£T 

Although  this  is  suggestive  it  need  not  presuppose  dependence,  for 
exhortations  to  plainness  seem  to  have  been  common  in  the  early 
church. 

(2)  I  Pt.  3 ;  4  I  Tim.  2 ;  10 

aXT.'  6  xpuTiTO?  TYj?  xap^ia?  av-  oOX  (6  T^psTrsi,  yuvaittv  £7caYY£X- 
b-pomoc,  >.o[Ji£vaic  6-£0<7£(jiav)   Bi'    Ipycov   a- 

yaO^wv 

The  wording  is  not  close  enough  to  show  dependence,  yet  the 
antithesis  leads  one  to  suspect  it. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  461 

(3)  I  Pt.  3 ;  4  I  Tim.  2 ;  2 

This  word  appears  only  in  these  references  in  all  the  N.  T.  and 
suggests  dependence,  yet  the  context  does  not  seem  favorable. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  I  Tim.  5 ;  14 

Although  this  word  also  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  the 
N.  T-,  it  seems  to  have  been  accidentally  so  employed. 

(5)  I  Pt.  4;  II  I  Tim.  6;  16 

CO  saTiv  r,  ?)o;a  xat,  to  v.^ol^zoc  dc      w  Ti[j.rj  xa\  xpdcTO?   aio)viov   a[j.TjV 
TO'jc  aioivar  tcov  auovcov,  ajxr^v 

This  thought  is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  literature  to  afford  an 
argument  for  dependence. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  15  I  Tim.  5 ;  13 

([J.Y;  .  .  .  -XG/i-o))  oic . .    a>.}.OTpio-      -spisp/ojj.svat  xac  olmca;,  ou  [Jiovov 
tT.i'TAOT.rjC  Be  apyat,    Sckloc   xai   cpXoapoi   xal 

"spLspyoi 

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  aW^oxpio- 
zmTAOizoc,  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  I  Tim.  3 ;  3,  8 

[XYj^s  a'-G-/pox£pBw$  ul^Xoc  7cpo8>[j[;.to?      (stcig-xotcov)  .  .  .  aicr/pox£pB9],  3;  8, 

p.Y]  aiG-ypoxspBsT? 

This  qualification  seems  to  have  been  a  general  requirement  of 
church  officials,  especially  of  bishops. 

(8)  I  Pt.  5;  3  I  Tim.  4;  12 

TUTiOl    Ylv6[J.£V0I,    TOO    ;:01[J.V10'J  TUTTOC    \'iyOO    Toiv    TltTTWV 

The  thought  is  similar,  yet  compare  Phil.  3;  17  and  II  Thes.  3;  9. 


462 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(9)  I  Pt. 


;  10  I  Tim.  6;  12 


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 
=  I  Tim.  1  ;  2,  1  ;  16  --  3  ;  16,  1  ;  20  -  4  ;  2,  2  ;  18  =  6  ;  1,  3  ;  18 
=  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. 


II  TIMOTHY 

D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5 

xptvovTi  Z,mxo(.c;  xoix  vsxpoij? 

(2)  I  Pt.  4;  7 

vYi^aTs  zlc,  TcpoTsu/^ac 

(3)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11 

(4)  I  Pt.  4;  19 

©sou    TUtO-TW    XTlCTTYl    XapaT:i.8'£(7&'0)- 

(5)  IPt.  5;4 

xo[j.t£To-8'£     Tov     a[j,apdvTt,vov     ttj? 

Bo'^YjC    CTTSCpaVOV 


II  Tim. 

4;  1 

TYjcrou 

Xpio-ToO 

TOO       [X£>>>.0 

vxo? 

XptVElV 

^oivTa?  xai 

i    V£XpOU? 

II  Tim. 

.  4;  5 

vTi<p£  £v  r.aai 

II  Tim. 

4;  18 

w    7]    Boca    £1?    Tou?    aiwva; 

Toiv 

aicivcov, 

.     air^v 

12 


II  Tim.  1 

Bi'  fjv  aiTtav  xai  -rauTa  7:dayo), 
oO\X  oux  £7vatG-y^uvo[j.ai  .  .  .  tcetcekt- 
[xai,  o-i  BuvaTOi;  ecti  tyjv  xapa- 
0-/ixrjV  \j.ou  cpuXa^ai, 

II  Tim.  4 ;  8 

cxTtoxEiTai   [j.oi   6   'iTTj?  BixatoauvYj^ 

iTTECpavoi; 


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. 
Ill,  p.  110.) 


c- 

-D 
d 

Tit. 

,  3;  5 

a- 

xaToc 

TOV 

a 'J 

TOtJ 

VkzrjV 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3 

6  xa-ra  to  -oXb  auTOU  slso?  ava-      xa^oc  tov  auTOU  £>.£0v  srrtocrsv  -rjiJ-a? 

Titus  refers  to  "salvation"  per  se,  whereas  I  Peter  alludes  to  a 
"  new  birth,"  a  new  creation. 

^2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  7  Tit.  2 ;  13 

£v  a-oxaA'j'i>£t  'Iyj(7oD  XpiTToti  sTCioavstav    ty]?    BoSyjc  .  .  .  'IyictoO 

Xpi(7T0IJ 

This  thought  is  too  common  to  afford  any  evidence  for  dependence. 
Cf.  Col.  3  ;  4,  II  Tim.  4  ;  18,  Heb.  9  ;  2,  I  Jn.  3  ;  2,  etc. 

^3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  20  Tit.  1 ;  2,  3 

::po£YvcoaiX£vou  [j.ev  ::p6  xaTa[3o'X-^?  ry   iTir^yytilu^o    6    (X^euBtj?    ©eo? 

xorrij.o'j,  cpav£p(o8-£VTO<;   §£   £7i'    £-7-  ::p6  xpovcov  a'wovitov,  scpav£po)cr£  Bs; 

vaTcov  Twv  yoovwv  xatpoT?  iBCoi?  tov  ■Xoyov  auxoO 

The  phrasing  is  closer  than  the  thought  of  the  passage. 

(4)  IPt.  2;  9  Tit.  2;  14 
laor  £1?  ::£0'.-oiTj<7iv                                )^!XOV  ;:£p!,0U(jiv  .  .  . 

Our  author  probably  borrowed  T.z^iT-Mr^Giy  from   the  LXX.     Cf. 
Exod.    19;  5. 

(5)  IPt.  2;  12  Tit.  2;  8 

Try  avacTTpooYiv  b\).o)y  sv  toT?  lb--      loyov  -jyi-^,  axaTayvwcr-ov,    lya  6 

V£<71V      £/OVT£C      Xa>.YlV,      IVa      £V      6)         11    IvaVTia?     IvTpaTU^,     [XYlBkv     £XOiV 

xaTaXa^^oucTiv  !J[j.wv  w?  xaxoTcoiwv      7C£p\     u[j.(Sv    T^EyEiv    cpaOXcv    2 ;  7 
£x  TO)v  xalwv  £pY(.)v,  £7C07CT£UOv-£C      CTEOcuTOv  7uap£x6[J.£vo?  XU7C0V  xalwv 

SocdCG-WG-t     -rOV    0£OV,   .   17    XpElTTOV         £pY(OV  .   .   . 

rap  avaS-OTZotoDvTai;    Cf.  3  ;  16 


This  suggests  dependence,   yet  our  author  more  probably  used 
Rom.  12  ;  14,  17  here.     Cf.  also  II  Cor.   8  ;  21,  Phil.  2  ;   15,  etc. 


464 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(6) 


I  Pt. 


13 


Bta   Tov   xupiov    sI'tc   (BaOTlsT  .  .  . 

SITE    YlY£[J.6(7t,V  .   .  , 


Tit.  3 ;  1 

uxopi[xvTj(jx£  a'jTOUc  a^ycac,  xai 
££ouo-iat<;  UT^O'uaa-'jEaQ'ai  ::£iO-ap/^£Tv, 
Tcpo?  TCocv  Ipyov  aya&'ov  £To{[j.oui; 
sTvai 


See  Rom.   13  ;   1  for  equally  close  thought  and  better  context 


(7) 


I  Pt.  2 ;   13 


Tit.  2;  9 


01    TO    [XYjXETl   avQ-pCOTlWV  £TCt8'U[J.tai^        Bo6Xo!j? 

See  Eph.  6  ;  5.     It  is  important,  however,  to  note  here  the  possible      I 
reference  to  I  Pt.  2  ;  12  in  Tit.  2  ;  8. 


(8)  I  Pt.  3  ;  1  Tit.  2 ;  5 

yuvaTxs?  uTCOTao-o-oiJ-Evai  toTc  iStotc  'JTroTaTcro^xsva^  toT?  iBioi?  avBpao't.v 
avBpaaiv 

An  equally  tlose  parallel  is  seen  in  Eph.  5  ;  22,  yet  the  sequence 
here  is  suggestive. 

(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  3  -  4  Tit.  2 ;  B 

Sv    SO-TO)    ryjy    6    £'|0)&-£V   .   .   .  OiXhl    6  Zp£(7(j!JTI,SaC    0J(7a:iT0)C   Iv   XaTa-TTY,- 

xpuTCTOi;  T-^i;  xapBia?  avb-pcoT^oc  .  .  .  [xaTt  Iz^otz^ztzSlc  .  .  . 

Cf.  I  Tim.  2  ;  9  and  Rom.  2  ;  29. 


(10) 


I  Pt.  3 ;  21 


Tit.  3  :  5 


Biso-wO-Yjcrav  Bi    uBaTO?  6  xal  u[j.a;  lo-wo-sv  Y][xac,  Bia  Xo'jTpoLi  ■jzccJ.iyyt- 

avTiTUTiov  vOv  o-o'i^Ei  (3a7CTi,i7[j.a,  o'j  vzfjifxc,  xai  avaxatvoWscoc  xv£'J[j.aT0? 

o-apxoi;  ax6Q'£(n?  puxou  oiWcf.  a-'jv£i-  ^yiou 
B'^'7£(0i;  ayaS-'^i;  £7:£po)Ty)[j-a 

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. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  465 

(11)  IPt.  4;2  Tit.  2;r2 


.SVOl 


(12 


aic,  oiXka  &-£}.r,[j.a-i  Bsou  tov  s-i-      ty.v    acrspsiav    xai    toc?    xoapxa? 
loi-Koy  h  ascpxl  piwaai  XP^^^^^"^  £-tO"j[j.iac,    crco'ppovo)?   xal   BtxaCo); 

xai    zuaz^Mc   t-rjatoij.sv    sv    tw    vtiv 
auovi 
This  thought  may  be  paralleled  in  other  Pauline  Epistles,  yet  the 
sequence  here  is  suggestive.     Cf.  Exs.  2,  4,  6,  and  12. 

I  Pt.  4 ;  3  Tit.  3  ;  3 

apsxToc  yap  r^ij-Tv    6  -ap£XTj>.u&xoc      t,[j.£v  yap  7:ot£  xai  r,iJ.£rc  avorjTOi, 
. '.  .  £iB(o}.oXaTpiaic  aTTsiO-oTc  .  .  .  kWr^ko'j- 

Cf.  Gal.  5  ;  21,  Rom.  13  ;  13,  Eph.  2  ;  2,  3. 

^13,  IPt.  5;  2  Tit.  1;  7,  11 

[j.r,B£  aiT/poxEpBcoc  liziay.rjT.oy  .  .  .  [J-Tj    ato-/pox2pB^  .  .  . 

aio-ypoO  xspBo'j?  yapiv 

This  parallel  is  of  very  little  consequence. 

(14)  IPt.  5;  3  Tit.  2;  7 

■z'jTM  yivoiJ-svoi  ToO  TCOt[j.v{ou  (TsauTov  7:aps/6^.svo?  t-jt^ov  xaT^wv 

spywv 

Though  similar  exhortations  occur  elsewhere,  xaloiv  spyojv  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  Hterary 
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  Pauhne  Epistles 
upon  our  Epistle. 


466  Ora  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 
I  Peter. 


MARKED  TEXT  SHOAVING  POSSIBLE  SOimCES 

1  IIETPOS    axoTToTvOi;  T7](7oO    Xptc7-ou    iyCkzyixotc   ::ap£-!,B-/i[j.oic   Btao-- 
TTopa?    IlovTOu,    TcCk(x-iy.c.    Ka7:;:aBoxtac,    "Ao-iac    xat    BiO-jviac,    xam 

2  ;up6Yv(o(7iv    0£oO    ::a-p6c,    Iv    aY!.5C(7[j.oJ     7:v£'J[j.axo5    £'-?     'j~'x/s/{^     xal 
^avTiOliov  aiyaTOQ  "hjaov  XQidrov-  /jxpic  uplv  xai  siprjvr,  ::Xr,&'UvS-siYi. 

3  K'jkoyrizbc   b  0£o?    xal    T^aTYjp    xoti    xupiou    -/jpov   Ty^to'j    Xpicrirou, 
6    xaToc    TO   ::o}.!j    a'jTo^i    D.sor    dvayfi'vi'iaaQ  ij/ncic   f/c  fArrida   ^('^(^tt'^' 

4  Biovooraaswc  T-zig-o'j   \pio--o^i   sx  vsxpcov,    sic  xArjQOVOiiu'av  acf^aQtov 

5  x«/.  apiavior  xa)   d/iaQaiTO)',  ToV/]pY][jivriv  Iv  cjpavoTc  tic   "jij.ac   tou:: 
£V   B(jva[j.£t    0£oy    (ppoupoujxsvouc    Bia    -it-sco?     sic     TcoTr^piav     Itoijxtjv 

B  axoxa^uo&>7]vat   sv   xaipto    la/aTco.     m'  w  ctYaAAida^s,   okiXov  dqti   fl 
Shov  Xvnr^dtvrec  h  noiyJloic  nFiQao/iioig,  I'va  to  Boxtij.iov   'jij.wv  t-^c 

7  xtc-Tswc  xo>.?jT!,[j.6T£pov  /puTiou  ToU  a7:o}^>.u[j.£vov  Bia  TT'jpoc  B£  Boxt[j.a- 

8  ^0[Jv£voL»    £67i£8'^  £ic  £::aivov  xai  Bo'^av  xai  ti,[j,y)v    iv  a7:oxa}.'J'|j£i,  TtjO-oIJ 
Xpio-Tou.     6v  oux  iB6vT£c  ayaTTaTS,  fig  ov  (xqti  /iirj  oQcorrfg  niatfvovreg 

9  Be    ayalXiaTE    /apa   'av£xXa}o^T(o    xai    B£Botaa-[jivYi.   y.of.iiL,6nevoi  to 

10  xfiAog  rf/C  niGifoig  aonriQiav    if.ivxcoi'.     IIspi    vj?    c-w—rjpiac   £;£uTjTY](7av 

11  xai  £^Y]paovY]G-av  xpoo-^Tai  oi  7i£pi  t"^?  sic  uij.ac  /apiToc  -poo-riTsucravTEC, 
IpauvwvTEC    £1?    Tiva    Tj    Tcoiov    xaipov    IB-^Xou    TO    £v    a'jToTc    Tivevfxa 

12  Xqiaiov  TiQOf^iaqiVQOf^ifvov  xd  slg  XqiOtov  na^rif^iara  y.ai  idg  ^a€^d 
ravia  66'^ag-  olg  djreiccdixfid^rj  on  ovx  eavrolg  v/iuv  6s  SirfAovovv 
avTU^  g  vUv  avYiYyElY)  !j|j.Tv  Bia  twv  s!jaYY£}vio-a[j.£V(ov  -jij-ac  :i;v£0[j.aTi 
aY";>  axocTTaT^EVTi  uiz    oupavou,  £ic  a  £::iD-tj[j,ou(7iv    or^^tXrji   7:apaxu(];at. 

13  Aio  ava^(oG-a|j.svoi  Tag  baa^uoLq  ty)?  Biavoia(;  u[j.tov,  vyjcoovtsc  ts^swo^, 
IT^xicraTs  stui  ty]v  cp£poijivYiv   6[j.Tv  /apiv  sv  axoxaX^ost  TriToO  XptrrTOu. 

14  b)q  -xiY.-^ix  uTraxoYJc,  \yx^  (7!jv(7/rj[j.aTi^6a£voi  Talc  ;rp6Tspov  sv    -%   aYvoia 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  467 

lo  -jawv   £~iO-L([j.iai,?.    ■xWot.   xara    tov    yiaCkiaoLy-oi    'jixac    ayiov    xai  ccuxoi 

IT  £(T£G-D'£,    OT!,    syw    Syioc.     xai    £i   7uaT£pa   £7cixa};sT(78>£    -zov    ot-izpoGomo- 
XtjUtzto)?  xptvovTa  xara  to  IxacTOD  Epyov,  f  i-  9"0ji?w  rov  rf^c  naqoixiac 

18  tV^T^^'    X{?'^''<^''   civaaiQti(fr^T&-      zi^6~zc    o-i    oh    ffb^apzoit;^     apyupio)    yj 
/pDcuo,  sXvi()iijd^r]if  £x  -YJ5  [xaTocia?  uij.o>v  avaa-poo^^i;  xaTpoTiapaBoTrou, 

19  a}^}!.^:    T/^</w    tt'ifjaii     u)g    dfu'ov     dfuo/iov     aal     daniAov     XqiOtov, 

20  TTQoeyvioGptvov    psv    7tq6   y.aia^oXrfi    xocffiov,    (pavf^QOj^Lvioc    6e  in^ 

21  80Xdov    iwv    yoovon'    di^    ijuic    to'j;    Bi'  auToO  xtTTO'j;  zlc  ©sov  roj' 


22  6YfiQ(0'Ta  avriir  tx  )'txQjn'  zed  dc'^ctv  ((vim  Soviu^  oWt£  ty]v  zi(7Ttv 
6u.(Jov  xai  £A:riBa  £Tvai  £?<;  0e6v.  Ta^  9UX'''?  &[^wv  yjYvixote?  sv  t^ 
•j7:axo-^  T%  a}^Yi6-£iac  dc  'jCkoL^z'k^^ia.v  avu7c6xpt-ov  Ix  xapSia^  oiXkiikouc, 

23  (XY3t~/,<jaT£    £XT£vcoc,    avaY£Y£vvYi[jivoi    oux    Ix    G-Tzopa?    (pQ^aprrjC    a>.}.a 

24  amb-apTou,  Bia  }.6you  ^wvto?  BeoO  xai  [jivovTOc*     Bioti 

::aa-a  crapi;  wc  /opTOc, 

xat,  Twoco-a  Bo^a  au-Tj?  w?  av&'oc  /opTOD" 
liTjpavS-^  6  /opTO?, 

Xa\    TO    avd-OC    £C£7U£<7£V. 

II.  TO  S£  prj[J.y.  K'jpio'j  [jivEi.  £ic  tov  aiojva,  toDto  Ss  iaTtv  to  pr^p^oc 
TO    E'jaYYs^^t^&'sv    £??    6[j.ac.      AnoOi'f.ityoi    ovr    nuaav    xaxiav    xai 

2  ^ravTa    B6}>ov    xai   67i;6xpi!jiv  xai    cpS-ovouc   xai   xaaai;    ■aGCTockuXiocc.,    aig 
dQTiytv}'i]T(f.    ^otqt]    ro    koyixov    ddoAor    yd'ka    tntrro^ipaTf:^    iva    £v 

3  auTw    a'Jcr,&T,T£    £?c    crojT-ripiav,    u   sysvaaai/s    on    XQ^j^f^og   6   xvqioc. 

4  zpoc  ov  7:pO'7£p/6[j.£voi,  Xi9-ov  ^wvTa,  6x6  av9>pw7:o)v  [j.£v  a7ioB£Boxt[j,aa-- 
0  [jivov    xapa    Bl    i-)z(h    £x>.£xt6v    £vt!,[j.ov    xai    auTol    w^    }a0^oi    ^wvts? 

olxodojitsTaifs    oixog     Tirsv/ncnixog     zlc    i£paT£U[j.a     aytov,     dvsvsyxar 
(3  nvfvf^iazixdg  Ovaiag  birnQoadtxTovc  0sm  6fd   'h]aov  XqkJtov-     Bioti 

X£pi£/^£l    £V    YpaCpTj 

'IBo'j  Ti&>Y]p.t  £v  Hitov  /ii>ov  £xA£xt6v   axpoY^viaTov  IvTtp.ov, 
xai  6  'iTTEUtov  It:    a'jTw  oO  [j-t^  xaTatT/.'jv&'Tj. 

7  Oij.Tv  o3v  ■/;  Tiij.Y]  ToTc  7:icrT£'J ouo-tv  aTiicrTouo-tv  Bk  >.ii>o?  ov  aTOBoxip.aTav 

8  01  oixoBoij.oUvTEc  OJTOC  tfZYr^b-fi  zlc  X£cpa>«rjV  yomy.c  xai  XiD-oc  TrpOGTCojj.- 


468  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

9  £1?   6   xai   sTsQ'TjO-av.      i^ag  Bs  ysvo?  sxXsx-ov,  ^aaiXeiov  leQaievfJct, 
E^voQ   ayior,   Xaitc    &k    TTSQiTroltjan',    o/tok   tccc    dgszug   s'^ayyethjie 

10  ro[»    £/,   oxoTOU?   6[j-ac    xaT^saavroc   si?  to    O-auaao-^ov  aui:o3  cpw?'     ot 
%oxz  01)  y.ccbc,  vuv  Be  Xcco^  ©£o3,  ol  oux  yi}>.£yi{j.£voi,  vQv  Be   £>.£yi&-£vt£C. 

11  'AyaTCYj-ot,  7capaxa}.w  w?  naQoiy.ovg  xal  naQentdi]i.iovQ  aiziysiyb-ca 
Twv    o-apxtxwv,  IxiD'upwv,   aiTivs?    G'^pixTzoov-icci  xa^a   ttj^  4"^/^?'    "''iv 

12  avacTpocpYiv    6^.wv    Iv    toTc    IO-veotv    zyov-zc   y^oOaiv,    tva,  Iv  cb  xarala 
Ttoucriv  uafiiv  o)(;  xaxG7i:oiwv,  Ix  tcov  xaXwv  Ipywv  Itzot:-z'j>jv~z:  Bo'lao-wTi 

TTOV    S-EOV    £V    7]piptX    £7:1<7X07:Y]C. 

Ttcotocyyjts  Trao""/)  avQ-pcoTcivY)  xTtasi  Bia   tov  x'jpiov    sI'ts  [:J!xr>0.zX  6)^ 

13  6TC£p£/^0VTl,      eI'tE     YiyEJJ.OTlV      0)?     Bt,'     aUTOU      TCEiJ-TiQijivOlC      £??     IxBixTjO-iv 

14  xaxoTCOiwv   zizaivoy   Be  aya8>07:oio)V     (oti   cjtco^  eo-tiv    to  0-£Xyi[j.a  toO 

15  0£o3,  ayaO'OTcoiotJVTa?  (pi,[j.oTv  tyiv  twv  iccppovcov  av9-po)7:cov  ayvcoo"iav)  wc 
£^Eu8'Epoi,  xai  p.Y]  (b?  ETutxaXujma  zyoy-zc,    tTj^  y-ixyXoLc.   tt^v  £7.£DQ"Eptav, 

16  a};X   w?    0EOU    BoDT^oi.     TravTa?   Ti[;.Yicrair£,    t:y)v    aB£};Cp6TY]Ta    ayaxaTE, 

17  TOV    O-EOV    Cpo[3ETc7&-E,    TOV    ^CCCtlXioi    Tt[J.aT£.        i){    OlXETai    6-OTa(jG-6[J.EVOl   £V 

18  TvavTi    cp6[3(o    ToTc    BEG-TOTat,?,    ou    [j.6vov    toTc    ayaO-oTc    xai    e^vieixeotv 
yXkcK.    xai    ToTc    fTxolioT;.      toOto    yap    xocpi?    £?    Bia    g-uveiBtjitiv  BeoQ 

19  uTcocpspEt  TIC  )>!J7cac  izdryyoiv  aBtxojc"     7:oTov  yap  xAsoc  zl  ocixapTavovTs^ 

20  y-oCi  xo>.a<pt^6[Ji.£voi   !J7co[jieveTt£  ;    ixkX    zl    dcya&-o::otoOvT£?  xai   Tzrkayoy^zc 
uxo[j.£V£Tte,  touto  /apt?  7:apa  0ew.     eic  to3to  yap  £xlr,S'TjTE,  mi  xa) 

21  XQtdvog   ena^sv   vueq    i\um\    r/;?i'    vno'/.inndvMV    vTToyQajupov   I'va 
£7i;axo}^ou8'Yio7]TE  ToTt;  i/vetiv  atjToO"     oc  dfiiaQTca)'  oix  tnoiyjaev   ouBs 

22  EupsO^  B6}».o?   £v  Tw    CTTOiJiaTi  auToti*     oc   'AoiSogoi'iiievog  ovx  dviskoi- 

23  (Jo(»e/-,    vacr/oiv    oux    t,-eiX£1,    T^apEBiBou    Be    tw    xpivovTi    Bixaioj?"     og 
21  r«s   d/iiaQilag    tjiiiwv   ajVoc   arz/rfyxfi'   fV   tm   cfwinaTi    aviov   Im   to 

^aXov,  iva  Tat?  au.apTiai?  a7toyEv6^,Evoi  t^  Bixaioo-uvvi  ^Yjo-cofj-sv  o5 
25  Tw  [j.o'Ao)xi  laO-YiTE.     viTE  yap   wc  xpopaTa  7:7vav(oij.£voi,  aD.a  ET^EO-Tpd- 

cpY]T£  vOv  ETifi  Tov  noif^iti'a  xai  aniaxonov  rwr   ij,iv'/^<j)V  i\noJr.     ^0[j.oio)C 

III  yuvaTxE?  UT^OTaa-aoiJ-Evai  toT;  iSioi?  dvBpdG-iv,  I'va  ei  tivec  d7iEt,8-oO(7iv  tco 

2  loyo)    Bid   TTjC    Toiv    yDvaixwv   dvacTpocprjC    dvEU    Aoyo'j    XEpBr^Q^YjirovTai 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  469 

3  s-OTTTStiTavTcC  TY]v  £v  (popo)  ocyvTjV  avao-c-pocpY]v   ypiv.     cov  Ic-tco  ouj  6 

4  £?ci)Q>£v    sa^XoxTj?   TDtycov   xai   xspiO-so'Sfoc    ypuatcov  •?;  IvBtJasco?  [[j.aTicov 

5  x6cr[JL0c,  aA}'  6  xpu/wxo?  ty]?  xapBia?  av8>pcoxo?  sv  tw  acpQ-dcpTco  tou 
Tj'jtj/io'j   xal   -paswc   Tcvsufxa-oc,    6  Ictiv   svojttiov  tou  Bsotj  tco1ot£}'.£^. 

6  O'j-MC  Y<^p  ::oT£  xal  ai  (kr^ioii  yjvaTxsc  at  IXTTt^oucat  sic  O-sov  £x6(j[xouv 
^auTccc,  'j-OTaaTOji-svat,  xoT^  iBiiotc  avSpaatv,  co?  lappa  U7crjX0U£v  iro) 
'Aj3paa[j.,  x^piov  a-j-ov  yoO^ouGoc-     f^q   £Y£vy;Qtj-£   -sxva    aYaD-OTiOioucai 

7  xa\  [JLY]  oo[io'j]j.£vai.  [jLY)B£[j.tav  tttotjo-iv.  ( )[  avBps^  6[xowoc  tuvoixoOvts? 
xa-ra  yvwciv,   ok  a(7[)'£V£'7i:£p(o  (7X£y£t,  tw  yyvaixsio)   a7uov£[xov~(;  ttiij.yjv, 

8  wc  xai    Gi'i'xlrioovo/iiot    /a^/roc    ^'^1^5,     sic    to    [j.Tj    lYxoxTEG-Q-ai    ^ac 

9  ~pocr£tj/ac  oij.wv.  To  Bs  teXoc  vidvTs^  6a6cppov£5,  (7tjaxa&-£T$,  oi^^ocBeT^ooi, 
zoaizXccyyyoi.  Ta^sivocppovs?,  [xy]  axoBiBov's^  xaxov  avTi  xaxou  Tj 
XoiBopiav  avd  XoiBopia?  TOOvavTiov  Bs  suT^oyojjvts^,  oti  si?  toQto 
£x>.-^S>'/]Ts  iva  evXoyittv  xlrjQoronifjariTe. 

10  6  Y^^p  Q-sXcov  ^wr,v  aYaTiav 

xai  iBsTv  YitXEpac  dcYaO-ac 
Tra'jG-aTw  tyjv  ^^^(jcrccv  axo  xaxoO- 
xal  xst};'/]  xoO  [J.Y]  >>aHjo-ai  BoXov. 

11  sxxTwivaTO)  Be  (xtco  xaxoO  xai  xoiYjo-a-oj  aYa8>6v, 

CriiTjaacoj  dgrivriv  xal  6iw'S.dT0  ain^v. 

12  o'zr.  6(pQ-a7.[jLo"i  Kupiotj  Ixi  BixaioDc 

xal  wTa  atliToO  sic  Beyjg-iv  aijTwv, 

Tipoo-wTTOv  Be  Kupio'j  sTil  7:oi<70vTa?  xaxa. 

13  Kal  TIC  6  xax(oo-wv  u[xac  lav  toO  (XYaB^ou  ^Y]l(.)Tal  /£VY]crB's;  a>.X  si 

14  xal    TzaT/oiTs     Bia    Bixaioo-uvrjv,    [j.axapioi.    tov    Be    cpo^ov    auTwv    [xy, 
oo(3rj8^rjTs    [rr,Bs   Tapay^QTjTs,    xupiov   Be   tov  XpitTTOv  aYtaaaTE  Iv  xaTc 

15  xapBiaic    'jij.oJv,    etoiij.oi   dcsl   7:p6$   y.izoXoyiocv   TravTi   tw    aiTotivTi    !j[jiac 
}>6yov    ::£pl    Tr,c    sv    upv   sT^mBo?,    a>>}va    [j.STa   ^pauTVjTOc   xal    (p6(3o'j, 

16  oin'fidr^oiv  erovvsg  dya^i^r.,  iva   8V  w   xaiaXaXfrTa^e  xaiaioyrvv^oioiv 

17  o<'  e7T7jofcc^ovieg  vf.im'  rr^v  dyaiyi^v  iv  Xqiuico  dvaaTQoqrjr.     xpsTTTov 
Yop  aYa&"O7:oio0vTa?  si  S-sloi  to  8-sX-/][j,a  toO  ©soO,  7:acr)(£iv  r\  xaxao- 

18  TUOioOvTac.       oTi     xal     XQiCiog     ana's,     negl     dfjaQnuiv     dntd^avs)', 
Bixaioc  'j::£p  aBixow,    Yva   vi^idg   nQoaayuyr^  rw  0fw,    0>avaTO)8-slc  [xsv 


470  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

20  TiopsuB'Si?  Ix'/jpuHsv,  a7i;£t,0>TjG-a<7tv  ttote  ots  aTrs^sBs/^STO  y,  toO  ©eoO 
[xaxpoBupa  £i'  'iifJ8Qaig  NaJs  xaraCxEvaCoi^iH'rjg  xi^wtov  etc  ijv  oAtyoi, 

21  TOUT  sffriv  oxTO)  ipvy^ai^  disffw^rjaav  Bi'  uBaToc.  o  xfa  vfjag 
avtCivnov   rvv    aoKti    ^amiGi-ia    ov    aaQxog   dn6i)^8Gic    ovnov    dkka 

22  avveidijaswc  dyad^rig  i^n^Qoyirnia  fig  0e6r,  Bi'  avao-Tdc-jscoc  'Ivjo-oD 
XptcrTou,  og  iaiiv  ev  d&'^ia  Osov  noQevl}dg  etg  ovquvw  vnoTaytvrwv 

IV  avtoi  tcyyb/MV  xai   s'SovGiwr  xai    drvu/t&on'.      XpiCTOij    o5v    7:a8<6vTOC 

2  crapxi  xai  up-sT?  tyjv  auTY]v  epvoiav  b%7.i(yo(.Gb'Z,  oti  6  T^au'wv  oocioCi 
TTETcauTat  a[xapTiai5,  sii;  to  ulyixsti  avO-pojTcwv  £Xt9^u[jiat,c  a}^7.a  d^elr^^axi 

3  0fot~  Tov  sTuiXoiTCOv  £V  capxi  ^iwaai  /povov.  apxsTO?  yap  6  -ap£>.-^};uS>wc 
"/^^woc,  TO  [3o!j'Xrj[j.a  twv  sO-vwv  xaTsipyacrD'at,  ::s-op£'j[jivou?  £v 
kazh(tic(.ic„    £7i;tS^!j[jiaic,    oivocp^^uyiatc,    xo)[j.oi.c,    xoTot?,    xai    aO-sjjiToi,?; 

4  siB(o^o>>aTpiai?.     sv  Co  'Etvi'Cov~ca  [j.t;  crDVTps/^ovTtov   ^jij.ojv  si;  Tr,v  auTYjv 

5  T%   ao-coTiae    ava/uG-iv,    iS^vaTOTjjj.oQvTEC"     oV    diToduiaovGiv    'Aoyov    tS 

6  sToiu-oj^  xpivovTt  ^wvTac  xai  vsxpoui;'  si?  touto  yap  xai  vsxpoT? 
£U"/]yy£7.i<jO'Yj    iva   xpiQ-wo-i    [JwEV   xktoc   av&pwTiouc   crapxi   toxji   Bs   xaToc 

OeOV    7tV£U[J.aTl. 

7  ndvroyr   ds   to   Tf/oc    I'lyyixsi'.     (Tco'-ppovYjcraTS    ouv   xai   vY/LaTs    sic 

8  xpo(7SL>)(a(;'     xpo  xocvtcov  ty,v  f/c  mvrovg  ccydnr^v  sxrevT]  s/ovifc,  oTt 

9  aydcTUYj    xa>.U7iT£t    tc7.y]8>o?    ap^apTioiv      qiloieroi    f-ig    dkhi'lovg    avsy 

10  yoyyua-[j-0!j-     sxaTTOc  xa&'tO(;  slapsv  /apia^a,  si^  sauTotj;  a'JTO  Btaxo- 

11  vouvT£<;  (oc  xa>^oi  oixov6[j.oi  7:oixiX-^c  /^apiTO?  ©sou*  si  Tir  Aa7.s'r,  (5k 
Xoyia  0soO*  si  ti<;  BiocxoveT,  co?  s^  ic/uo?  %  /,°P"']T5'''  ^  ©so?"  ivcc 
£v  xaciv  BoHoc^YjTai  o  0£oc  Bta  'IyjO-ou  XpiTToO,  u)  eariv  yj  6o^a  xai 
ro  XQarog  elg  zovg  alwvug   loiv  alftjVMV.     dfi"i]v. 

12  'Ayax-rjTOi,    [J.Y]    csvi^so-O-s    -%   sv    ujxTv   xupcoo-si   xpo?   xsipa-jij-ov    'j[j.Tv 

13  yivo[i.£VY)  0)?  Hsvo'j  'jijIv  aujJ.jjaivovToc,  oiWk  xaQ^o  xoivwvsTte  toI?  tou 
XpitTToO   xaQ-Yi[xacriv    y^aip£T£,    iva    xai    sv   tyj    axoxa>.!J'L£i    tyj?    BoHyj? 

14  auTOLi  xapY]T£  aya};'Xiw[X£voi.  d  oveidC^eoife  ev  ovo/naTi  Xqkttov, 
(jaxaQioi^  OTi  TO  ty]?  Bo^y]?  xai   to  tou  ©sou    xvsuixa   h^    u[j.a?    ava- 

lo  xausTai.  p,Y]  yap  ti?  up)v  xaaysTco  w?  cpovsu?  yj  x>.£Xty,?  ■?;  xaxoxoto? 


First  Epistle  of  Pster.  471 

16  Y)  bic  aXXo-pismcTKOTro;.    si  Bs  w^  Xpi(j-tav6c,  [xtj  aio-yuvso-O-to,  Bo^a^sTo 

17  Bs  -6v  ("^sov  £v  Tw  6v6[j.aTt  -to'Jto).  oti  [6]  xaipoc  toO  ap'^aTO-a!,  to 
xpi^a  fCTo  ror  otzoj'  ror  Sf-oir  zl  Bs  TrpcoTOv  ao  Ti[j.o)V,  Ti  to 
TsXoc  Twv  a-£tO-o'jvTO)v  Tw  ToO  HsoO  suayysAiw ;  xai  si  6  Bixatoc 
[xoXic  GOiZt-xi,  b  [Bs]  a(7s(3Yi?  xai  a[j.apT(o>.6c  tcoO  cpavsTTai ;  wctts  xai 
01  -acr/ovTsr  x3CTa  to  b"£};"/i[j,a  toU  (")£oo  -icttw  xTtaTY)  7rapaTi8'Scr8"(o<7av 
Ta?  'ii'j/a;  sv  ayaD-OTiOtia. 

V  npsi7jb'jTspo'j;  O'jv  £v  u[jIv  -apaxa}vw  6  <7'jv-p£<7[3'JT£po?  xai  jxapTuc 
Twv  ToO  XpicTToO  7ia8-Yip.aTOJv,   6    xai   ttj?   |j.sXXouo71^    (XTCoxaXuTCTSO-Q-a!, 

2  BoiT,?  xotvwvoc,  7:oi[;<avaTS  to  sv  rjpv  7toi![xviov  tou  ©sou,  [j.y]  avayxao-Twc 

3  a}v}va  s/.o'j(7uor,    ixtiBs  alo-zpoxspBw?  ic},/,a  -po&>0[J.coc,  jJ.rjB'    toe,  y.ccxccy.o- 

4  pisuovTS?  TWV  xAYjpwv  txT^la  T'J-0!,  Y^'''0[J.svo!,  ToO  "Otij-Viou*  xai  cpavspoi- 
[;<svTOC     ror     dqxmolf^i^voq     xou-isTaO-s    tov    dc[j-apavTtvov     /  iic     do'irfi 

b  arsqavov.  'Oij.ouo^,  vscoTspoi,  'jTCOTayriTS  TrpscpUTspoic.  IlavTsc  Bs 
oOO:r^Xrji^  tt;/  Ta7:stvo(ppo(7UVYiv  syxoiJ-pcoa-ao-O'S,  OTt  [6]  i'^zbc,  uTOpT;Cpavo(.c 
avTiTOCG-o-STai  Ta^sivoTc  Bs  BiBcxriv  /aptv. 

€       TaTistvcoS-YjTS    oOv    bub    tyjv    xpocTaiav    /sTpa    toQ    Bsou,    iva    6[j.a? 

7  'j'];o)(rf|  sv  xaipoj,  izoIgccv  tyjv  [jipi[j.vav   -jp-wv  £7:ipi'X»avTsc   It:    auTOv  o// 

8  avio)   fiklti.    7T8Qi    Vf.im'.     Nr/jtaTs,    yprjyoprj(7aT£.      6    avTiBtxo?    uij.wv 


TT,  -i<7T£i,  dSortc  xa  avTcc   icdv  uad^yjiLiccrMV  rfi  sv  tw  xotij-o) 


10  'jjj-wv    dSs'/.qoirjii    &TriT8AfT(r0^ai.      'O    ds    Seoc    ndarjc    xctQitoq.    b 
xa/io-a;  'jij.a?  si;  tt,v  aicoviov  auToO  Bocav  sv  Xpio-Toi,  bXiyjy  T^aO'OVTa? 

11  auTO?    xaxaQTiaei^    crTr|pi^£i,    o-9>£V(6g-£i.      auTw    to    xptxTo;    £i?    tou; 
aiwvar  aij.TjV. 

12  Aia   IiAo'javoO   upv  toO  xkttoO  aBsXcpou,  w;   >.oyi^o[xai,    6'/'  dliym> 
Eyoatfia.   izccpoualMV   xai   £TCi[j.apTupwv    TatjTY]v    £Tvat  odrid-ri  /^apiv  toU 

13  0£oti-   SI?  ry  a-r^-zz.     ^AarrccCf-Tai  r/<«c  /j  sv  BapuXwvi  o-uvsxIsxtt,  xai 
11  Mapxoc    6    oioc    [J.o-j.     \i07TCioaa!/f-    dkXjlovq    h    tfdjfJ.aT(    ^'/^^'"Jf^ 

EipTjVrj   'j[uv  7:a<iiv  toT?  sv  Xpio-Tw. 


472  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

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.  211). 
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  ;  11  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  teaching  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- 
yond 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  of 
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  of  a  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." 
Bleek's  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 
Pauline."     (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  N.  T.  p.  145.) 

Examples  like  the  above  might  be  multiphed  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  fiir  wissen- 
schafthche  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,  Ranch,  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 
pecuHar  to  itself  to  depend  upon  Paul."  This  becomes  of  little  con- 
sequence, when  the  possibility  of  the  reverse  relationship  is  sug- 


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. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  "  many  of  the  PauHne  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  hst  of  N.  T.  words,  which 
occur  in  I  Peter  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  only,  will  show  that  this 
objection  merits  but  little  consideration,  ayvojo-ia,  axpoywviaTo^, 
ao-coTta,  acpQ^apTOC,  slBoAolaxpsia,  siTcsp,  slVs,  IxyOd'yo),  sxatvo?,  suTipocr- 

XotBopia,  vYjCpow,  ;:v£U[j-(X-tx6i;,  xp6crxo[xp.a,  o-uo-/^Yi^aTi^O[xat,  Touvavxiov, 
6%zpiyo),  uT^ocpspw,  (pQ^apToc,  cpiXo^svo^,  cppoupso),  )(apia-[j.a,  )(op"^y£to. 
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.  xpei(rG-o>v,  [xiirriTYjc,  ztpizoir^Giq, 
c-apxtxo?,  G-uyxlTipovojxos,  OTuaxoT^,  cpiXaBsXcpCa,  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. 


1  " 

o 

Is 

^ 

12 

'o 

,^5 

P5    M 

M 

o 

^ 

fU 

O 

l-H 

(XXp0pU(7Tia 

11  2 

3 

2 

2 

Bixaiotjv 

14  2 

8 

TiSpiTOlJ-Yj 

14  1 

7 

1 

2 

4 

moysTv 

1 

avax£o:xAatoo'70'ai 

1 

1 

mob-zGifx 

3 

1 

1 

T:\r^poi]j.oi 

42 

1 

4 

2 

jxtJO--f,piov 

2  5 

6 

4 

appa[3(ov 

2 

1 

xapa7CTto[xa 

9 

1 

1 

3 

2 

TTapaj^acx? 

3 

1 

xapajjaTYjc 

2 

1 

Tzpob-zaic 

2 

2 

^      ^      H 


Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII. 


32 


January,  1913. 


476  Or  a  Delnier  Foster 


Ph     m 

1 

O 

^ 

1— 1 

TUpOOpi^SlV 

xay/^aaO'at 

2  1 
54 

17  2 

2 
1 

1 

2 

xa-apysTv 

o-Taypo? 

o-raupouv 

6  9 
2 
4 

43 

3 

1  3 

1 
1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

lit 

4 
3 

1 
2  1 

1 

1 

No  one  denies  that  I  Thessalonians  came  from  the  "  circle  of 
Pauhne  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,  BixaioOv  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  "hixcciMC,,  Bixaioo-uvTj,  and  ^ixcaoc,  not  too 
distant  to  belong  to  the  household  of  Bixaiouv,  we  shall  be  required 
to  conclude  Professor  Bigg  had  incidentally  overlooked  many  of 
the  references,  since  our  author  employs  Bixauo?  once  (2  ;  23),  Bi- 
xaiocruvYj  twice  (2  ;  24,  3  ;  14),  and  Btxaio?  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  : 


dcv 

apa 

ye 

SXSlB 

t]    SXSl 

T£ 

M 

-nou  Kbit; 

Matthew 

41 

7 

1 

2 

4 

Mark 

21 

2 

1 

1 

Luke 

29 

6 

4 

1 

2 

7 

John 

27 

2 

3 

Acts 

20 

6 

3 

3 

136 

2 

Romans 

7 

11 

1 

4 

16 

1        3 

I  Corinthians 

12 

5 

3 

4 

5 

4 

2 

II  Corinthians 

3 

3 

1 

2 

1 

5 

Galatians 

5 

6 

2 

Ephesians 

1 

2 

/ 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  477 


av 

apa 

yS       STCSlB-^    STTSl       T£ 

M 

TlOO    %b)C, 

PhiHppians 
Colossians 

1 
1 

1            1 

1 

I  Thessalonians 

1 

1 

1 

II  Thessalonians 

1 

I  Timothy 

II  Timothy 

I  1  LUb 

Philemon 

Hebrews 

6 

2 

9       20 

1 

James 

3 

1 

II  Peter 

I  John 

II  John 

III  John 
Jude 
Revelation 

5 
3 

1 

2 

"  That  av  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.,  av  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  Ora  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  av,  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  apa  yields  a  similar  result  to  that  obtained  through 
av.  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.  Fs  is  found  in  Acts  only  in  the 
first  eleven  chapters,  which  again  would  seem  to  show  a  closer 
relation  between  our  Epistle  and  the  Pauhne  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  stisC  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.  'EtoiBt^  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.  Ts  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."  Ayj  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.  IIou  is  only  used  once  in  all  the 
letters  of  Paul.  Uoi(;  is  strictly  a  Pauline  term,  yet  heroes  not 
use  it  in  seven  of  his  Epistles.  IIw?  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  hst  of  "  missing  particles,"  cited 
by  Bigg,  does  not  argue  against,  but  for  Petrine  dependence  upon 
the  Pauhne  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  PauHne  Epistles  384 

Number  in  Petrine  section  of  Acts  23 

Number  in  Pauline  section  of  Acts  41 

Total  in  Acts  64 

Total  in  aU  the  other  N.  T.  books  333 

Grand  total  781 

Of  the  N.  T.  the  PauHne  Epistles  (excluding  Pastorals)  =  22% 
Of  the  N.  T.  the  Pastoral  Epistles  =     3% 

Of  the  N.  T.  the  PauUne  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  Pauhne  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 

^^^e  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  Pauhne  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  Klopper,  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  closety  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  sohd  results  of  criticism,  that 


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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18—20  Heb.  9  ;  12,  14,  24-25 

iT^UTpwQ'YiTE  .  .  .    ziitio)    ai[j.aTi,   to?      to  aT[xa  toO  Xpto-rou,  6;  Bta  zyz6- 
a[xvou  a[X(0[xou  xai  o!,r)iz'0,ou  Xpta-      [j-aTO?  aitovtou  sauTov  7cpo<Tifiv£YX£v 

TOU,  TCpOEYV(OCr[X£VOU  [XSV  Tipo   Y.CCXIX-        a[J.O)[J.OV    ircj)    0£W  .  .  .    XptiT~6?  .  .  . 

(3o}v%    x6(7[xou,    cpavspo)8"£v~o?    Bs      ouB'  tva  Tco^.'Xaxic  xpoTcpsp-r]  sauTov 
£7c'   £(7/a-i-0!j   Twv   )(p6v(ov  Bt'    u[xac      (oTTVEp    6    ap/^ispsu?    EldSp/^ETai    El? 

TO  ayia   xaT    IviauTOv    £v    al'[j.aTi 

.  .  .  (XTCO   xaTa(3o7.Yi?  x6a-[;.otj,   vuvi 

Bs  OCTCa^  £7d  0-!JVT£>.£ta  Toiv  aicovwv 
St?  aS-sTYio-iv  TTj?  a[j.apTia?  Bta 
TY]?  b-UGiccc,  auToti  7:£cpav£po)Tai 

St.  Paul  frequently  alludes  to  the  redemption  through  Christ  but 
not  just  as  these  authors  do.  The  former  never  uses  the  word 
a[jLwp.O(;  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  Ttpov "  (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  ;  18  b 
with  Heb.  9  ;  14  b.  Compare  also  Tipo  xaT:a[3o>.rj5  x6(7[J.ou  with  a^o 
xaTa[3oXYic  x6o-[j.ou;  cpav£po)8-£VTO?  with  X£(pav£pojTat ;  liz  icyjx^oo  Toiv 
/p6vo)v  with  £711  (7uvT£}.£ta  Twv  aiwvojv,  and  axa^  .  .  .  Heb.  9  ;  25  with 
ocTca'^  .  .  I  Pt.  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. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2  ;  24  Heb.  9 ;  28 

6?     xut;    (i[j.ap-ta?     Yj[j.6)v     auTOC      oStwc   xat,   6  Xpt(7T0?    aizccc,   -po- 
av-^vsyxsv  Iv  Toi  a-(6[xairi  auToO  az^zyp-in;  zlc  to  xoHwv  avEVEyxsTv 

ajxapTta? 
"  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  (^v£Y>t£v  stci  tw  (^uXto), 
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  avacpspsiv  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  a-j-o?  into  the  highly  emphatic  auTO?  sv  tw  aM[x<x-^ 
a-jToO,  which,  reinforced  as  they  are  by  the  following  [xojIojtci, 
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  ;  11,  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  hterary  dependence.  The  phrase 
avacpspsiv  a^aap^iac  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  all  the 
N.  T.  Note  also  the  other  possible  points  of  contact  in  these 
contexts,  e.  g.  I  Pt.  2  ;  23  =  Heb.  12  ;  3,  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  25  = 
Heb.  13  ;  20. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2  ;  25  Heb.  13 ;  20 

~ot[JL£va  xai  irriT/vOT^ov  tojv  'L'j/wv      7:oi[j.£va  toTv  7:po(3a-(ov  tov  [xsyav 

!J[J.WV 

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  ;  11  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  xot^w  except  of 
the  Christian  minister.  Cf.  Eph,  4  ;  11  (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 
=  9  ;  28,  2  ;  25  =  13  ;  20. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  '   Heb.  9 ;  28 

u>av£v  (sTra&sv)  7:ol}.wv    avsvEyxsTv    aij.ap-riac  .  .  . 


482  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

Only  in  these  two  places  is  SiizccE,  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  a^a^  is  accounted  for  by  the  6cpa7:a'^  of  Rom. 
6  ;  10.  (Int.  p.  556.)  But  against  this  view  it  is  to  be  urged  that 
the  phrase  avacpspsiv  cS:[j.apTia?  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. 

(5)  I  Pt.  3 ;  18  b  Heb.  12 ;  22 

iva  o\Kdic,  Tcpoa'ayayYi  -zm  ©sw  %po(jz'k'fik6b'y]zz  Hiwv   opzi  xat  tuo- 

\zi  ©sou    "C^oiyxoc,   'IspoDTaXyip.   £- 

xoupavuo 

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-PauHne  thought  shows  a  real  point  of  connection.  The 
above  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  the  ones  immediately 
preceding  and  immediately  following. 

(6)  I  Pt.  3 ;  20  Heb.  11 ;  7 

sv  Yjpipat?  N(0£  xaTKCxBua^oijivTii;      Ncoe  .  .  .  xaTSTXsyaTS   y.i[jo)~ov    si^ 

xipwTou  .  .  .  dxTcl)  '\)oyixi  BtsToVD'T;-      TWTYipiav  Tou  ol'xo'j   ocj-roj 

cav 

"  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. 

(7)  I  Pt.  3;  21  Heb.  9;  24,  30;  22 

6   xai    u\iStc   dcvTiTUTCov   vOv    fjO)Z,zi  ocv^i-or.oc   .  .  .   p£pavTi(7[X£voi     toc; 

PaTi-io-jj-a,     00     G-apxo?     aTcoQ-sfft?  xapBia?  a^o    (7UvsiSt,«7£o>5   7:ovT,pa? 

puTiou    aXkot.   (7uv£iBt^'7£(o;    (5CYa8"Tj5  xai    ^£Xou(7[jivoi    TO    (jw[j.a    uBairt, 

i7:£pwT7i[JLa  dc,  ©eov  xaO-apoi 

'AvTt^DTiOv  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, 


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 
pavTio-[j.£vo!,  is  similarly  used  by  I  Peter  in  other  connections. 

(8)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Heb.  13 ;  21 

^   lo-dv    Y]   Bo^a   xat    to    xpa^o?      o)  t]  Bota  si?  'zobc  aiwva?  twv  ai- 
dc,  "zobc,  cdoi'^cf.c,  rwv  aiwvcov  a[j.r,v.      o)vo)v.   aaT,v 
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  pecuhar  usage  is  most  easily  accounted  for  on  the 
basis  of  some  real  connection. 

(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  Heb.  13 ;  20 

ToD  ap)(i7rot[j.£vo?  tov    xot[jiva    twv    7:po[3aTwv    tov 

[j.£yav 

Monnier,  Goodspeed  and  many  others  think  that  there  is  here  some 
connection.     See  comments  on  Ex.  3. 


c 

(10)  I  Pt.  1 ;  2  Heb.  12 ;  24 

pav-ic7[j.6v  at[j.a-oc  'Irjaou  Xpin-ou      BtaO-'/jx-rj?  viae,   [xstit-/]  'Iviaou,    xal 

ai[j.aTt  pavTiG-txoO,      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. 

(11)  I  Pt.  1  ;  11  Heb.  12 ;  2 

7uv£!j[j.a  XpiTToO  xpo[xapT7Up6[j-£vov  'j7r£[;.£V£v  TTTocupov  airj/^uvTj?  xava- 
Toc  zl<;  XpicTov  ::aO"rj^.a-:a  xai  tocc  (ppovr.c-ac  £v  ^z'ciy.  -s  toQ  0>p6voL> 
[xsTcc  TaOira  Boca?  tou  (")£0!j  xsxaQ-ixEv 

Though  Paul  frequently  alludes  to  the  G-Taupo?  he  does  not  think 
of  Jesus  "  enduring "  it  that  glory  should  foUow.  Nor  does  he 
think  of  Jesus  as  the  suffering  Servant  of  Isa.  53,  as  is  here  presented. 
'V7U£[j.£V£v  TTaupov  and  7ra9'Y)[j.aTa  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 


484  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

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. 

(12)  I  Pt.  1  ;  12  Heb.  11 ;  13 

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.  11  ;  13b  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  (2  ;  11),  I  Pt.  1  ;  11 
and  Heb.  12  ;  2  dependence  is  rendered  quite  probable. 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  17  Heb.  12 ;  28 

h  cpopo)  'zoy  T^?  7:apot,/aa5  up/ov  }.a'c-p£U(0[X£v  s'japso-Tto?  Toi  0£o~ 
y(p6vov  ava(j"upacpYiT£  [xzxoc  zokcc^zifx^  y.od  Zio'jc, 

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  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  a  and  Heb.  11  ;  13  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  b. 
Cf.  also  I  Pt.  2  ;  11. 

(14)  I  Pt.  2 ;  2  Heb.  5 ;  12 

(5)$  apTi,Y£vvY)Ta  [Bpscp"/)  -zb  Xoyixov  ysyova-e  ypdav  s/ovtsc  yalaxxo? 
aBoXov  ydXcc  i%i%ob4^c><xxz  .  .  %S.c     yap     6     ^.sts/wv     ya}vaxToc 

axsipo?  loyou,  Btxaiocruvvjc,  vr^zio!; 

yap  Ifjziv 

Both  authors  may  be  influenced  by  Paul  at  this  point.  Paul 
employs  with  Hebrews  the  word  vr,7C!,o?,  whereas  I  Peter  uses  ^pi'J^oc. 
"  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. 


First  Epistle  oj  Peter.  485 

(15)  I  Pt.  2;  3  Heb.  6;  5 

I  Peter  refers  here  to  Ps.  34  ;  9  (Ysua-aa-Q-s  xai  iBsirs  oxi  yp7](7T6? 
6  xupioc),  but  probably  at  the  suggestion  of  Hebrews  since  the 
similar  usage  follows  the  preceding  parallel  so  closely  in  both  books. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Heb.  3 ;  6 

oixoSoij-sTtO'S  oTkoi;  Tcvsujj.aTixo?  tov    oIxov    auTo'D    o5    oTxoc    scrij.sv 

"  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. 

(17)  I  Pt.  2;  5  Heb.  13;  15 
avsvsYxai   7:v£U[JLaTix6(;   O^ucria?  s'j-      ^t'  atJXoO    ava(p£pco[j.£v    9'L«7tav    ai- 

7:pO(7B£XTOL»C  GoW  BlOC   'IyITOO    Xpi(7-         V£'7£0)5    BlOC   XaVTO?    TW    0£tO 

Though  these  passages  suggest  Rom.  12  ;  If.,  these  are  the  only 
N.  T.  authors  who  use  the  phrase  avacplpEiv  Q^uaiav.  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. 

(18)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Heb.  11  ;  13 

7:apoixo:jc  xxi  7:ap£7:t,B-^[j.ou5  Hevoi  xai  7uap£mB-/)[j,oi 

The  exact  form  used  in  Hebrews  is  peculiar  to  that  book.  Sevoi 
xoi  Tidcpoixot  appears  only  in  Eph.  2 ;  19.  HapsmBYiixos  is  found 
in  the  N.  T.  only  in  the  above  passages.  By  eliminating  the 
term  Ssvoi,  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. 

(19)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21,  23  Heb.  12 ;  3 

OTi  XptcTTO?  £7i:aQ>£v  uTTEp  6{j.wv,  avaXoYtG-aG-&"£  yap  tov  TOtauTYiv 
6[j.Tv  uTcoXt^xavcov  6xoYpa[J.[j.6v  -be,  6TCop.£[X£VY]x6Ta  bizb  ttwv  a[j.apTO)>.a)V 
};CitBopouij.£VOC  oux  avT£>.oiB6p£t  dq  iaozouc,  kv-zCkoYica 

The  appeal  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  a  reason  for  the  Christians 
endurance  under    persecution  is  not  made  by  Paul.     Though  the 


486  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

phraseology  is  different  the  thought  is  very  suggestive.  The  pro- 
babihties  of  dependence  are  heightened  by  the  following  parallels. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  22  =  Heb.  4  ;  15,  Heb.  12  ;  2  =  I  Pt  3  ;  22,  I  Pt.  2  ; 
24a  =  Heb.  9  ;  28a,  Heb.  9  ;  26  =  I  Pt.  3  ;  18. 

(20)  I  Pt.  3 ;  16  Heb.  13 ;  18 

Si    xaTa^a7.£T(70'£    xairatcr/^uvO'coa'iv      -/.cCKSiC,  b-zko^xzc,  avacrTpscpscTQ'at, 
oi  sTTYipea^ovTs?  6[j.cov  ty)v  ayaO^Yiv 
£v  XpiCTw  avacTpocpi^v 

"  These  are  the  only  N.  T.  authors  who  connect  '  the  good  con- 
science '  with  good  habits  of  hfe. "  The  phrase  sv  Xpto--o)  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  avaospsiv  and  its  derivative. 

(21)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Heb.  1 ;  3,  4,  6 

0?    £G"Tt,V    £V     Bs'^ia    ©sou     TtOpSuQ'Sl?         £Xa8'tO'£V  sv  'hz\l^  TY]^  [J.£YaXo)(TtJVY](; 

dc  oupccvbv  uTroTaysvTcov  auToJ  sv  5^yi>.oT(;,  too-outco  xpsi-TOJv  ysvo- 
ocyyEXtov  xai  s^ouaioiv  xai  Buvdcjj.scov      [xsvo?  tcov  aYY£};0)v 

Cf.  2  ;  9,  12  ;  2. 

Though  I  Peter  may  depend  upon  Paul  at  this  point,  the  sequense 
of  thought,  which  is  so  suggestive  of  Hebrews,  should  not  be  over- 
looked. Cf.  I  Pt.  3  ;  20  with  Heb.  11  ;  7  and  I  Pt.  3  ;  21  with  Heb. 
9  ;  24,  10  ;  22. 

(22)  I  Pt.  4 ;  14  Heb.  11 ;  26,  13 ;  13 

£1  dv£iB{^£G-0'£  SV  6v6[j.a-t  Xpt(7To3,  -/lyricraijxvo?  .  .  .  tov  6ve!,Bi(j[j.ov  zoo 
[xaxapiot  XpicTTToO,    13  ;    13    tov    dvsiSiTjj.ov 

auTou  (p£pov-£? 

"  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. 

(23)  I  Pt.  4 ;  17  Heb.  10 ;  21 

^Tzb  -oD  oTxou  zoo  0£otj  STci  Tov  oTxov  zoo  (dtoo 

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. 

(24)  I  Pt.  5 ;  4  Heb.  2 ;  7,  9 

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 
N.  T.  The  contextual  sequence  is  hardly  accidental.  Cf.  I  Pt. 
2  ;  25,  5  ;  4  with  Heb.  13  ;  20,  also  I  Pt.  3  ;  22  with  Heb.  2  ;  9,  12  ;  2. 

(25)  I  Pt   5;  10  Heb.  13;  20 

6  Bsoc  -oco-Tj;  yjxpi-oc  .  .  .  y.oc-cc^-      6  8s6?  tYj?  slpr^yr^q  .  .  .  xa-ap-rCo-at 

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)  I  Pt.  5;  12  Heb.  13;  22 

Though  the  thought  is  couched  in  different  words,  it  is  indeed 
suggestive. 

c— d 

(27)  I  Pt.  1 ;  4  Heb.  9 ;  15 

x7.Tjpovoij.iav  acpS^apTOV  y.od  aijiav-      ^ri<;  cdomou  x}.Y]povo[jiac 

'irov  xa\  a[j.apavTov 

These  are  the  first  N.  T.  writers  to  use  the  word  a^iaviro?.  Cf. 
Heb.  7  ;  26,  13  ;  4.  The  imperishable  nature  of  the  inheritance 
is  emphasised  by  both  authors.  Yet  they  may  draw  independently 
from  Paul.  Cf.  Gal.  3  ;  18,  Eph.  1  ;  14,  18,  5  ;  5,  Col.  3  ;  24,  I  Cor. 
6;  9,  10,  15;  15,  Gal.  4  ;  30,  5  ;  21. 

(28)  I  Pt.  1 ;  6  Heb.  12 ;  11 

£V  w  ayoOChiccG^yz,  oXiyov    ap-ri   tl  xacra    [jxv    xociBsia    xpo?    [jlsv    to 

Beov   XuTTf^j-iyzzc,  h  Tzov/dXciiq   Tzti-  Tzccpw  ou  BoxeT  y<x.pS.q  sTvai   ocTJm 

pacr[j.oTc  T^OTrrji;,  ucTspov  Bs  xapTcov  £ipY]vix6v 

The  phraseology  is  not  so  suggestive  as  the  thought.  The  parallel 
receives  additional  significance  by  the  possible  reference  to  Heb. 
12  ;  10b  in  I  Pt.  1  ;  15,  16. 


488  Oya  Delmer  Foster, 

(29)  1  Pt.  1 ;  8  Heb.  11 ;  27 

SI?  6v  apTi  [J.Y]  opcovTSi;  TCKJ-euovre?      xio-irei .  . .  tov  yap  aopocTov  o)?  opwv 

Faith  in  both  instances  consists  in  laying  hold  of  the  unseen. 
Cf.  Heb.  11  ;  1,  also  11  ;  13,  which  may  be  connected  with  I  Pt. 
1  ;  17,  2  ;  11. 

(30)  I  Pt.  1 ;  9  Heb.  10 ;  36,  39 
xo[j.i^6[X£vot,  TO  -ziloc  TYJi;  xi(7T£(.)c      xop^YjaQ-s  TY]v  hzcc^^zkiony  .  .  .  vXkoL 

acOTYjpiaV    4'^XCSV  XtCTTSW?    £1?    TCSpiTTOlYlO-tV    ^U)(^? 

Though  this  thought  is  Pauline,  both  the  phraseology  and  the 
context  are  suggestive. 

(31)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Heb.  2 ;  9 

Tov  eysipavTa  auTov  Ix  vexpoiv  xai      Bia  to  xdcS'Yip.a  toO  Q-avdcTOu  BoHt) 
So^av  auTw  Bovtk  xai  ti[x^  so-Tscpavcopivov 

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.  13  ;  1. 

(32)  I  Pt.  2;  1  Heb.  12;  1 

a7io9>£[j.£voi  ouv  xaaav  xaxiav  .  .  .      oyxov  a7io6-£[j.£voi  xdcv-a 

This  parallel  is  made  more  suggestive  by  the  possible  reference  to 
Heb.  5  ;  12,  13  in  I  Pt.  2  ;  2. 

(33)  I  Pt.  3 ;  7  Heb.  11 ;  9,  1 ;  14 

o-uvxXripovojj-oi  yfapiTO?  'C,byf\c,  G-uvx>.iripov6[JvCov     ty)?     l7uayy£};£iac 

xTi'/jpovofj-ETv  ccoTYiptav 

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  ;  17,  3  ;  11  with  12  ;  14,  etc. 

(34)  I  Pt.  3 ;  9  Heb.  12 ;  17 

£u>.oytav  x>.Yipovo[j.Yi(7Y]T£  xXvipovo[XY](7ai  TYjv  £uloytav 

This  phrase  appears  only  in  these  two  places  in  all  the  N.  T. 

(35)  I  Pt.  4 ;  1  Heb.  4 ;  12 

£vvot,av  evvoicov 

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 


I 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  489 

Pt.  4  ;  i  lays  much  stress  upon  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  harmony 
with  Hebrews. 

(36)  I  Pt.  4;  2  Heb.  9;  14 

.  .  .  [/•eXrjjjia'i-i  ©soti  .  .  .  [3iGo-ai  dc  ~b  Xa-^psusiv  6eco  (^wvti 

Cf.  I  Pt.  4  ;  la  with  Heb.  9  ;  26,  4  ;  lb  with  4  ;  12,  also  3  ;  15 
with  9  ;  15. 

(37)  I  Pt.  4;  5  Heb.  13;  17 
01  a7:oBc6o-o'j(7tv  TwOyov                           T^oyov  a-oBojaovtrsi; 

This  exact  usage  is  pecuhar  to  these  authors. 

(38)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  Heb.  10 ;  25 
:rav':cov  to  -£\oc,  Tiyyi'Azv                    (j^sxsts  lyyi^oucrav  t/jv  Yjjxspav 

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. 

(39)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Heb.  13 ;  1 

£1?  zccuzouc,  ayaTiTQv  sxtsvy]  I/^ovtsc      v]  oi\(xbzk'fic(.  [j.£vst(o 

The   context   makes   this   very   common   exhortation   worthy   of 
mention. 

(40)  I  Pt.  4;  9  Heb.  13;  2 

(ptlocsvoi  sic,  aXkfikoui;  'zr^c,    (pi,}.ot£via(;   [jly]   eTCt>.av&-av£(jS-£ 

Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  13,  I  Tim.  3  ;  2,  Tit.  1  ;  18.     The  probabiUties  of 
dependence  are  increased  by  the  sequence  of  the  last  three  parallels. 

(41)  I  Pt.  5;  9  Heb.  12;  8 

£iB6t£$  -cc  au-ra   twv  7ua&-Y][j.aT(ov      tl  y/opic  Ig^z  xaiBEia?,  ^i;  [X£TO/ot 
z%  .  .  .  aB£Xcp6-7aTi,  l-i-zlziGb^cci  y£y6va(7iv  xavT£? 

This  close  resemblance  in  thought  may  be  due  to  the  common 
background,  yet  the  context  is  to  be  considered. 

d 

(42)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Heb.  6 ;  18 

avaysvvfjTac  Tj[J.ac  zlc,  ¥k%i^c(.  ^oJdav      /vpocT-^a-at  tyJi:  7rpox£t[jivY]?  D^TZiboi; 

The  phraseology  is  very  different  and  probably  shows  no  con- 
nection. 


490  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(43)  I  Pt.  1 ;  15  Heb.  10 ;  14 

ayioi  Iv  TcacrY]  avao-irpocpY]  ysvT^O-YjTS      .  .  .  Biojxsts  .  .  .  tov  ayiac-jj-ov 

Accidental. 

(44)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Heb.  12 ;  28 

ujxsTi;,    [3a(7i>.si,ov    i£paT£!j[j.a    sO'VOi;      Zib     (^acriXsiav     ao-a>.£UTOv    xapa- 
ayiov,  OTOOi;   tocc   apsira?   I^ayyet-      ■Xa[jL[3avovT£;  £XfO[X£v  /apiv,   Bi'  ^; 

Xy]TS    TOU  .  .  .  };aTp£UOi[J,£V      £Uap£(7TC05     TO)      ©sw 

[j.£Ta  zoXfx'^ziy.g  xai  Beoui; 

I  Peter  more  probably  shows  acquaintance  here  with  Eph.  1  ;  11, 
12.     Cf.  Deut.  10  ;  15  or  Ex.  19  ;  5,  6. 

(45)  I  Pt.  2 ;  22  '  Heb.  4 ;  15 

oc  a[j.apTtav  o6x  Ixoiyjo-ev  .  .  .  y/opi?  ajxapiria? 

The  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ  is  too  common  to  constitute 
an  argument  for  hterary  dependence. 

(46)  I  Pt.  3;  11  Heb.  12;  14 

Our  author  is  quoting  directly  from  Ps.  34,  very  probably  at  the 
suggestion  of  Paul. 

(47)  I  Pt.  5 ;  7  Heb.  13 ;  5 

OTl    a'JTW    p,£>.£t    7U£p\    UJJ.COV  OU    [J.Tj    (7£   (XVW    O'jBt,  O'J   SyKaTaXlTCO) 

Our  author  is  probably  borrowing  here  from  Ps.  55  ;  22. 

(48)  I  Pt.  5 ;  13  Heb.  13 ;  24 

'AoTia^ETai,  uiKotc,  y]  .  .  .  .  acTCa^ovTat,  u[j.a?  oi  a;r6  t-^i;  'I^a}^- 

iccc. 

(49)  I  Pt.  5 ;  14  Heb.  13 ;  24 

'A(7xao-a(j&"£  oCKkrikouc,  sv  (:pi};rj[j.aTi      aaxadaa-O-E  .  .  .  TuavxE?  tou?  aytouc 
ayaTUYii; 

These  greetings  are  common  in  the  PauUne  literature.     Cf.  Rom. 
16;  16,  Phil.  4;  21-22,  II  Cor.  13;  12-13,  etc. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


491 


Order  of  Parallels. 


I  Pet.     Heb. 

I  Pet.     Heb. 

I  Pet. 

Heb. 

1  1  ; 

2  =  12  ; 

24 

18  2  ; 

9  =  12  ; 

28 

34  4  ; 

2 

=  9  ; 

14 

2  1  ; 

3  =  6; 

18 

19  2  ; 

11  =  11  ; 

13 

35  4  ; 

5 

=  13  ; 

17 

3  1  ; 

4  =  9; 

15 

20  2 

22  =  12 

3 

36  4; 

7 

=  10 

25 

4  1 

6  =  12  , 

11 

21  2 

22  =  4  ; 

15 

37  4  ; 

8 

=  13  , 

1 

5  1 

8  =  11 

27 

22  2 

24  =  9  ; 

28 

38  4  ; 

9 

=  13 

2 

6  1 

9  =  10 

36 

23  2 

25  =  13  ; 

20 

39  4  , 

11 

=  13 

21 

7  1 

11  =  12 

2 

24  3 

7  =  11 

9 

40  4 

14 

=  13 

13 

8  1 

12  =  11 

13 

25  3 

9  =  12 

17 

41  4 

17 

=  10 

21 

9  1 

15  =  12 

14 

26  3 

11  =  12 

14 

42  5 

4 

=  13 

20 

10  1 

17  =  12 

28 

27  3 

16  =  13 

18 

43  5 

4 

=  2 

7,  9 

11  1 

18f.=  9 

12f 

28  3 

18  =  9 

28 

44  5 

7 

=  13 

5 

12  1 

21=  2 

9 

29  3 

18b=12 

22 

45  5 

9 

=  12 

8 

13  2 

.  1  =  12 

1 

30  3 

20  =  11 

7 

46  5 

10 

=  13 

20 

14  2 

;  2  =  5 

,  12 

31  3 

,  21  =  10 

22 

47  5 

12 

=  13 

;  22 

15  2 

;  3  =  6 

5 

32  3 

,  22  =  1 

2f. 

48  5 

13 

=  13 

;  24 

16  2 

;  5  =  3 

;  6 

33  4 

;  1  =  4 

12 

49  5 

14 

=  13 

;  24 

17  2 

;  5  =  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  Pauhne  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. 

Tbans.  Conn.  Acad.,  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  is  a  carefully  thought  out  homily, 
logical  and  rethorical,  whereas  I  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.     Cf.  Exs.  1,  10,  11,  13,  14,  15,  20,  etc. 

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 
(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  6,  8  Mt.  5 ;  11,  12  =  Lk.  6 ;  22,  23 

pa(7[j.oT(;  ...  8     hfccHidt^s.     yo<.p^      xav  TCOVTjpov  xaQ'   ojxm  t{j£uB6[j.au 
avsxlaXT|T(o  yjxipzrz  xai  o(,yixXkiolGb'Z 

^ AyuXkioiGbz  serves  as  a  catch  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  ;  12,  Phil.  3  ;  1,  4  ;  4,  I  Thes.  5  ;  17,  etc. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  493 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  10  Mt.  13  ;  17  =  Lk.  10 ;  24 

TTspi  r^c   (joy—r^pi'xc   scs^YjTYio-av   xai      ■koXKoI    TupocpYJTai     [xai    (jaa-tlsTc] 

oOx  st^av 

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  ;  3  f .  Col.  1  ;  25,  Rom. 
16  ;  25,  Eph.  1  ;  9,  etc. 

(31  I  Pt    1 ;  17  Mt.  6 ;  9  =  Lk.  11 ;  2 

Tua^sp  .  .  . 

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)  I  Pt.  3  ;  9  Mt.  5  ;  39  =  Lk.  6 ;  29 

[j.Y]  a;:oBiB6vT£c  xaxov  avTi  xaxou  "Oaxt?  cs  py.iziZ.ti  zli;  ty]v  [Bs^tav], 
•?]  }.otBopiav  avTi  loiBopiac  tou-  G^^ocyova.  [aou],  >7'i^i'\>oy  cc'j-m  xal 
vavTiov  Bs  suVjyotJV-sc.    Cf.  3  ;  16.      tyiv  aXkri-v. 

Cf.  Mt.  5  ;  44   =  Lk.   6  ;  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  ; 
13,  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  taught  in  I  Pt.  3  ;  9.  See  Rom.  12  ;  17, 19,  I  Thes.  5  ;  15, 
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)  I  Pt.  3  ;  20  Mt.  24 ;  37,  38  =  Lk.  17 ;  26 
TTOu  0£oO   p.axpoQ'Uijia  £v   -/iijipai?      &Gr,zp  cd  "rjijipai,  zoo  N(o£ 
Ncos 

Though  the  reference  to  zcac,  ri^ipMt;  Nws  suggests  some  literary 
connection,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  phrase  occurs  in  contexts 


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. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4  ;  10  Mt.  24 ;  45  =  Lk.  12 ;  42 

xaT£(jTY](7sv  6  xuptoi;  sm  v^?  oixs- 
Tsta?    auToO     tou    Botivat,    au-TroT(; 

TYjV    TpO(pY]V    £V    Xatpw 

Clearly  this  parallel,  cited  by  Dean  Plumtre,  does  not  show  the 
dependence  of  our  Epistle  upon  "  Q  "  to  be  any  more  probable  than 
upon  Paul.     Cf.  I  Cor.  4  ;  1,  2,  Tit.  1  ;  7. 

(7)  I  Pt.  5;  6  Mt.  23;  12  =  Lk.  14;  11 

TaTiSivojO-YiTS     o5v     UTUO  TY]v    xpa-      "Oa^iq  \}<hb)(yzi  lauTOv  TaTusivcoQ-Yio-s- 

Traiav  /sTpa   tou    ©sou,  iva    ujxac      Tai,    xai   odTt?  TaTTsivojo-si  lauTOv 

!j6o)(jr|  £v  xaipw  6'j*o)QTj(jSTai 

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,  II  Cor.  7  ;  6,  10  ;  1,  11  ;  7, 
12  ;  21,  Eph.  4  ;  2,  Phil.  2  ;  3,  8,  4  ;  12,  Col.  2  ;  18,  23,  3. ;  12,  etc. 
II  Cor.  11  ;  7  is  a  very  close  parallel  to  I  Pt.  5  ;  6.  This  logion 
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  "  Q,"  nor  that  he  remembered  a  saying  that  he  had  heard  from 
the  lips  of  Jesus. 

(8)  I  Pt.  5;  8  Mt.  5;  25  =  Lk.  12;  58 
6  dcvTTtBtxo?                                             irw  aviriBtxfo 

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 

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 
or  that  they  both  go  back  to  a  common  source. 


MARKAN  SOURCE 
D 

d 

(1)  IPt.  1;18  Mk.  10;  45     (Mt.  20 ;  28) 

£>>UTpwQ-Y]T£  .  .  .  -iijio)  od[j.ixzi  .  .  .  Bouvai  TYjv  '\)oyy]v  ocu-zoo  Xuzpov 
XpiaToti  dvTi  7:oXko)v.     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,  i.  e.  "  the  precious  blood  of  Christ."     I  Tim 

2  ;  6,  Tit.  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. 

3  ;  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)  1  Pt.  1;  18b  Mk.  7;  3  (Mt.  15;  26) 
Tca-rpoTiapaBoTOu                                       tv]v    TcapaBocriv    twv    7ip£G-(3uT£pcov 

This  parallel  of  Dean  Plumtre's  need  not  detain  us. 


496  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3j  I  Pt.  1 ;  23  Mk.4  ;  14  (Mt.  13  ;  18  f.  :=Lk.  8  ;  12f.) 

avaY£Ysvv"/]ij.£vot,     oux,     sx.    cxopoci;      6  CTistpcov  \6yov  (j-zipzi  ff. 
cpS^apTYJ?  .  .  .  Bia   Xoyou  Toti  0£oO 

Bigg  thinks  that  there  is  some  connection  here.  But  cf.  I  Cor. 
4 ;  15,  Gal.  3  ;  16,  26,  29,  4  ;  19,  etc.  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  our  author  depends  upon  Mark  at  this  point  nor  that  both  draw 
from  a  common  source. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2  ;  2  Mk.  10  ;  15  (Mt.  18  ;  2  =  Lk.  18  ;  17) 

wc  apTiysvvYiTa  |3pecpYi  to   Xoyixbv      oc,  av    [j.y]   Bs^YiTat,   tyjv    (iaciXstav 
ocBoXov  y6i\u  £711710 B-YjiraTS,  iva  sv      zoo  0£ou  w^  TcatBtov,  otj   [xy]    £icr- 

aUTW    aU^YlQ^'^TE    £1?    C-tOTYJpCaV  £}.0>-fl    £L?    aUTYjV 

Chase  notices  this  parallel  but  he  does  not  advance  it  as  an  argu- 
ment for  literary  dependence.  Closer  resemblances  both  in  thought 
and  phraseology  are  to  be  found  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Cf .  I  Cor. 
3  ;  If.,  14  ;  20,  Eph.  4  ;  14,  etc. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2  ;  7  Mk.  12  ;  10  (Mt.  21 ;  42  =  Lk.  20 ;  12) 
>>iO'Oc  6v  dc7r£Boxi[j.ao-av  ol  olxo-  Xib-ov  6v  a7:£Sox{[j.acrav  oi  oIy.0- 
Bo[xoijvT£(;  oSto?  £Y£v-^8-y]  £ic  X£cpa-      Bo[j.OLivT£(;,  obToq   £Y£vyi9>yi    si^  X£- 

Verbal  agreement,  in  this  quotation  from  Ps.  118  ;  22,  leads  us 
to  suspect  that  some  literary  connection  exists  in  this  parallel.  Yet 
there  is  nothing  in  the  contexts  which  suggests  it.  Mark  also  quotes 
Ps.  118  ;  23,  showing  that  he  is  probably  following  the  original 
independently.  Our  Epistle,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  surely 
depends  upon  Rom.  9  ;  33  and  Eph.  2  ;  20—22  at  this  point.  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. 

(6)  I  Pt.  2  ;  13,  17  Mk.  12  ;  17  (Mt.  22 ;  21  =-  Lk.  20  ;  26) 

u7U0TaYYiT£    xaoY)    avS'p(07rivYi    xzi-  toc  KaCaapo?  a7:6Bo-£  kat'japt  xai 

o"£i   Bia   Tov   xuptov    £it'£    [iccr^ikzX  ICC  ToD  0£O!j  Toi  Hew 
0)?    UTZz^iyoyxi    £ix£    41-^1)^6^1^    17 

TOV     B£6v    Cpo[3£T(7Q-£,      TOV     [jaTl^Ea 
TIIJ-CCTS 

This  parallel  is  very  suggestive,  yet  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Rom. 
13  ;  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. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  497 

especially  Rom.  13  ;  1,  G,  7,  8  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  13.  17.  Certainly  there 
are  more  obvious  reasons  for  beheving  that  our  author  was  influenced 
at  this  point  by  Paul  than  by  Mark  or  the  Petrine  source  back  of 
Mark.     Mark  in  like  manner  may  equally  be  dependent  upon  Romans. 

(7)                         I  Pt.  2 ;  21  Mk.  8  ;  34  (Mt.  10  ;  38  =  Lk.  9  ;  23) 

XpicTTor   sTiaO'Sv    uTusp    up.wv,   !jij.Tv  si'    -71?    \}-i'kzi    oTOcrto     jxou    IXO-sTv, 

tj^ToXip-Tiavcov  u7:oYpa[X[j.6v  I'va  sxa-  axapvTjO-aa-Q-o)    sauTov    xal    apavo) 

/.oIodQ'TjGtits    toTc    lyytaiy    auTOu  tov    criraupov    auToO    xal    dcxoXotj- 

Q'SITO)    [J.0!, 

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  ;  21  a 
is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  render  such  a  view  tenable. 
Furthermore  the  i/vo?  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  21  b  occurs  only  here  and  in  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. 

^8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  23  Mk.  14 ;  61,  15 ;  5  (Mt.  27 ;  14) 

oc,  }^otBopo'j[j.£vour  o!jx  avTsloi-  6  Bs  scKOTca  xai  om.  dcTcsxpivairo 
Sopsi,  ~acr/o)v  rjuv.  r^TztiXzi  ouBsv.     6  Be  'IvjaoOc  ouxeti  o'jBsv 

Our  author  is  drawing  from  Isa.  53  all  through  this  section.  Cf. 
I  Pt.  2  ;  23  with  Isa.  53  ;  7.  The  word  XoibopiM  is  not  found  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  it  is  used  in  I  Cor.  4  ;  12  and  in  the 
PauHne  portion  of  Acts  (23  ;  4).  AoiBopia  is  used  only  by  Paul 
and  our  author,  while  Xoibopoc,  is  only  to  be  found  in  I  Cor.  5  ; 
11,  6 ;  10.  ^ AvTikoibo^oc  is  pecuUar  to  above  citation.  Hence  this 
would  be  a  slender  thread  on  which  to  suspend  an  argument 
either  for  literary  dependence  or  a  common  source. 

(9)  I  Pt.  2  ;  24  Mk.  15 ;  15  (Mt.  27 ;  26) 

00  Toi  [j.oAco7:t  laO'TjTo.  xapsBcoxsv  tov  'IyjO-ouv    cppaY£}>loj- 

Cf.  Isa.  53  ;  5.  cccq 

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. 


498  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(10)  1  Pt.  2 ;  25  Mk.  6  ;  34  (Mt.  9  ;  36  =  Lk.  15 ;  4) 

^T£  o)c  7;p6(iaT[x  7:Xavc6[j.$vot,    k\-      ■^^crav  w^  7cp6[3aTa  ^y)  lywi:<x  tcoi- 
Aa  s7r£(7Tpa(pY]T£   vuv  sm    tov  xoi-      [xsva 

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.  symbohsm.  Cf. 
Num.  27  ;  17,  I  Ki.  22  ;  17,  Ezek.  34  ;  6,  37  ;  24,  Zech.  10  ;  2,  etc. 
See  Isa.  53  ;  6  for  the  probable  original  of  I  Pt.  2  ;  25. 

(11)  I  Pt.  4  ;  7  Mk.  13  ;  33  (Mt.  24  ;  42  =  Lk.  12  ;  37) 

TiavTcov     Be     to     -ziXoc,     T^yyixsv.  [jH7zzi:z  aypuTcvsTTs  ooy.  ol'Baxs  yap 

(TcocppovrjCraT-s    o3v   xai   vYj-La-^s  sic  tote  6  xaipo?  [eo-Ttv].     Cf.  Mt.25  ; 

TzpoGzuydc  13,  26  ;  41  and  Lk.  21  ;  34. 

Though  the  thought  here  is  much  the  same  the  phraseology  is 
very  different.  Exhortations  to  watchfulness  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  ;  11,  I  Thes.  5  ;  6  f.,  etc. 

(12)  I  Pt.  5  ;  3  Mk.  10  ;  42  (Mt.  20 ;  25  =  Lk.  22  ;  24) 
[j.YjB    ojc  xaTaxupts'JovTsc  twv  xItj-      OlBaTs    oti    oi   BoxoOvTec    ocpytw 

p(OV  .  .   .  TCOV    IQ'VCOV    XaT(XXl>p!,£'JOUG-!,V    a'JTWV 

xai  01  [xzyakoi  a'jToJv  xaTetouTtdc- 
"Couaiv  auTwv 

KaTaxupiEUo)  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  II  Cor.   1  ;  24  or  Ezek.  34  ;  4. 

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. 


i 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  499 

PECULIAR  TO  MATTHEW 
D 

d 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  4  Mt.  25 ;  34 

dc    x}.Tjpovo[jiav  .  .  .  -sTTjp-fjjjivYiv      x>.Tjpovo[j.T^(7aTS   TTYiv   ■f\'^oi[i.y.(j[yiyf\-/ 
h  o'jpavoLir  si?  •jij.ar,     Cf .  3  ;  9  b.      -j^jIv     paaiXsiav     axo     xa-a[3oX% 

x6cr[j.o'j 

K};Yipovo[X£Tv  with  its  family  is  a  very  common  word  in  the  N.  T., 
especially  in  the  PauHne  Epistles.  "  Inheriting  the  Kingdom  "  is 
mentioned  in  I  Cor.  6  ;  10,  15  ;  50,  Gal.  5  ;  21,  Eph.  5  ;  5.  That 
the  "inheritance  is  laid  up  in  heaven"  is  also  alluded  to  in  Col. 
1  ;  5  and  inferred  in  Eph.  1  ;  14.  'ETOtixa^w  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. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  5  Mt.  16 ;  18 

7:v£'jij.a-:tx6?  .  .  .  Tisxpa  oixoBo'rfjG-co  [j.oD  tt^v  skxTvYj- 

Tiav  .  .  . 

The  change  of  Simon's  name  to  ns'D  or  HsTpo?,  and  the  allusion 
to  l-AY.J.r^fji'x  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  -iLjjk  .  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. 

(3) 


I  Pt.   2  ;   12 

Mt.  5;  16 

TY)v  avaG'Tpo?pY,v    'JIJ.WV    £V    zb'Vtav/ 

oStw?     laij.'jtaTw     TO    cpwc    !j[J.cov 

I/OVTSC  'x.cckr^y  hot..  .  .  .  Ix  twv  xa- 

£[j.7ipocrQ"£v    -cov    avO-poiTifov     oxto? 

>>o)v  spywv  £7:o7:t£'J ovToC  Boiacrwcri 

l'Bto(7iv  xa  xa}^a  spya  xai  Bo^acrcociv 

TOV    BSOV 

Tov     TraTspa     -jij-wv    tov    h    toT? 

oupavoTc 

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. 

(4)  1  Pt.  3 ;  14  a  Mt.  5 ;  10 

zl  xai  TiOLrr/oi^z  Bia  BixaioG-uvY]v,  [xaxdcpioi  oi  BcSuoyijivoi  svsxsv 
[j.axapioi  Btxaioo-yvTjC 

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. 

(5)  I  Pt.  3;  14  b  Mt.  10;  26 

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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  11  Lk.  24;  26 

7cv£U[xa  XpiCTTOtj  7cpo[j.ap':up6[j.£vov  ohyX  ^atjira  sBst  xaO-eTv  -6v  /pio- 
Ta  £?c  XpiG-Tov  xa&-/i[j.a-a  xai  xac  tov  xai  eicrsXQ'sTv  zlc,  ty]v  Bo^av 
[yz-k  TaijTa  Bo^a?.     Cf.  v.  2L  wj-zo^j.     Cf.  vv.  44,  46. 

This  close  parallel  suggests  hterary  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. 


i 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  501 

(2)  I  Ft.  1 ;  13  Lk.  12 ;  35 

Btavoia;  'jj^-wv  [jivai 

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. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  13  b  Lk.  17 ;  30 

sv  azoy.y.7:j'bzi  '\T^'JoZ  Xpio-xoo  6  uio?  tou  avQ-pwTiou  aTTOxaXuTtTre-^ai 

The  a.%o'/i(x.l'j'\ti(;  of  Christ  is  too  common  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to 
make  it  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  there  is  any  literary  con- 
nection here.     Cf.  II  Thes.  1  ;  7,  I  Cor.  1  ;  7,  I  Thes.  4  ;  16,  etc. 


(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Lk.  10 ;  44 

sv  Tipipa  Irdcy^o-^zTtC  tov  xaipov  -y)?  lizKyy-o-r^c 

That  the  word  smcrxoTiYi  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 
;:ao£BiBou  Bs   tco  xpivovT!,  Bixaiw?  riairsp,    si?   XsTpa?   (you   T.oc^cczib-z- 

4  ;  19  TdGzo)  -/vTto-rri  xapaTiO-so-Q-o)-  [j.m  x6  7iV£tJ[j.a  \)Sjo 
rrav  -zdc,  '\iu/6(.c  .  .  . 

Though  ::apaTiQ'Yi[J.i  is  a  common  word  in  the  N.  T.,  it  is  em- 
ployed just  in  this  way  but  rarely.  I  Peter  uses  xapaBiBo)ij,i  and 
7:apaTi&-rj[j.t  interchangeably,  consequently  this  resemblance  has  but 
little  value  as  a  datum  for  literary  dependence.  For  similar  usage 
of  TTapaTtG-r^p  see  Acts  14  ;  23,  20  ;  32.  Cf.  also  Acts  7  ;  59  for 
similar  idea. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Lk.  16 ;  2 

01  a7coBo)C70U(nv  loyov  Toi  .  .  .  xpiv-      a%oboc  ~w  J^oyov   -zr^i   okovo[j.ia; 

OVTl  .   .  .  (jOU 

Cf.  Mt.  12  ;  36,  22  ;  21,  Mk.  4  ;  20,  Acts  19  ;  40,  etc. 


502  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(7)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Lk.  7 ;  47 

■KoXkcci,    OTI    Y)Ya7CY]0-SV    7C0>.U 

Occurring,  as  it  does,  in  a  context  so  thoroughly  Pauhne,  this 
quotation  from  Prov.  10  ;  12  very  probably  has  no  connection  with 
the  citation  in  Luke. 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  1  Lk.  24 ;  48 

Tfov 

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  Uterary  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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  4  Acts  20;  32 

tic  x>.Tjpovo[jiav  .  .  .  -sTTjpTiijivrjv  Iv      Bouvat    tyjv    x>.rjpovo[xiav    sv    xdiq 
OJjpavoTc  zlc  'j[J.ac  r'ytocjiJ.svot,?  Traatv 

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.  1  ;  14,  Col.  1  ;  5.  II  Tim.  4  ;  8. 

Acts  26;  22-23 

(ov  T£  01  xpocp-^-ai  sXaXYjaav  [xsX- 


(2) 

I 

Pt. 

1;  11 

7ipocp-i]'xat,  . 
lJ.apTup6[j.s 

;vov 

7tV£3p.a  XpKjTOtJ 
TOC    £??    Xpl(7T0V 

First  Epistle  of  Peter.  503 

cocc  avaa-TocTswc  vexpwv 

This  close  parallel  suggests  literarj-  dependence.  Obviously  the 
passage  in  Acts  is  closely  related  to  I  Cor.  15  ;  20  f.  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. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1;  12  Acts  2;  4 

o^pavoj  ayiotj 

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 
any  literary  connection. 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  14  Acts  17 ;  30 

Toic  TrpoTTspov  £v  TTj  ayvoia  'jjj.wv      'zo^c,  ouv  y^povoo^   -z-r^c,    ocyvoiac   6- 
£7ui0>u[j.iai,;  TcspiBwv  6  Szbc  .  . 

It  seems  significant  that  ayvoia  occurs  in  "  Paul's  speech." 
Thought  resembhng  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 
17;  30  comes  from  the  "  rp-sT?  document,"  which  is  obviously  older 
than  I  Peter.  Literary  dependence,  therefore,  cannot  be  claimed 
for  these  passages. 

<5)  I  Pt.  1  ;  17  Acts  10 ;  34 

■Kcczipcc  .  .  .  Tuv     a7ipoG-co^o}.-^[j.7i;-      o'jY,  zfj-iy  7zpo'jO)T:rAri\}.7:~riq  6  b-zoc, 

TMC,  .  .    . 

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 
usesT.poaomrArt'hiccm  Rom.  2  ;  11,  Eph.  6  ;  9  and  Col.  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  Cornehus  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  Pauhne  influence 
is  not  wanting  here  in  Acts  10  ;  34.  There  is,  therefore,  no  hterary 
relation  between  the  members  of  this  parallel. 


504  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  1;  18,  19  Acts  20;  28 

£>.UTpO)DTj-£    .   ,   .    Tljjiw     cdlJ.aZl  .  .   .         TYIV      £Xxlrj(7iaV      YjV      T.ZpiZ%0l"f](J(X.ZO 

Since,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  I  Pt.  1  ;  18,  19  quite  certainly 
depends  upon  Paul  (cf.  Eph.  1  ;  7,  Col.  1  ;  14,  I  Cor.  6  ;  20,  7  ;  23, 
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. 

(7)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Acts  2 ;  32 

©sov  Tov  lyeipavTa    auTov  sx  v£-     'I-zjc-ouv  avEaTYjcrsv  6  ©so?,  .  .  .  v?] 
xpwv  xai  Bo^av  auTw  BovTa  Bs^ia    ouv    zoo  QzoZ    u'jiwO'Si?  .  .  . 

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.  4  ;  24,  8  ;  11, 
I  Cor.  6  ;  14,  15  ;  15,  II  Cor.  4  ;  14,  Gal.  1  ;  1,  Eph.  1  ;  20,  Col.  2; 
12,  I  Thes.  1  ;  10,  etc. 

(8)  I  Pt.  1  ;  22  b  Acts  15 ;  9 

■zccc,  '\)uyoit;  u[j.tov  r^yvixoxtc,   sv   t^      tt)  nidzzi  xaO'apiaac   'zocc,  xccpbiccc, 
UTuaxo^  t9]c  a>.YiQ'£ta5  auTwv 

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  ;  15, 
21,  23,  15  ;  7,  10,  I  Jn.  2  ;  5,  5  ;  3,  etc. 

(9)  I  Pt.  2;  7  Acts  4;  11 

>iO"0?  6v  a7:£BoxCp.a(7av  oi  oixoBo-      6  lib-oc   6  stouQ^svTjQ'Sii;    -jcp'   u[;.cov 
[j,0!jvT£(;  o&TO<;  syev'/jQ^Yi  ei?  x£cpa}.Yiv      twv    oixoBofxcov,    6    yzwixzwq    zlq 

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 


(lo; 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  505 

expect  closer  resemblance  between  Mark  and  Acts  than  between 
:\Iark  and  I  Feter,  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  Psabn,  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  Pt.  2  ;  9  Acts  20  ;  28 

lube  dc  r.zpi-oir^Giv  £Xx}.Y]criav  .  .  .  TvepisTroiYicraTro 

Connection  here  is  very  doubtful. 
(11)  I  Pt.  2;  9b  Acts  26;  18 

-roti  £X  oxoTO'j;  'Va?  xaT^so-avTOC,  xoZ  Ixiry-pi'liM  o^%b  ctxotou?  s?; 
zlc  -zb  9>au[JLaG"u6v  cco'zou  cpwc "  '^o)(; 

The  Pauline  source  is  too  obvious  here  to  require  comment.  CI 
Eph.  5  ;  8,  Col.  1  ;  13,  I  Thes.  5  ;  4,  etc. 

(12,  I  Pt.  2;  12  Acts  24;  5 

T7]v     ava(7TpocpY]v     i)[XiZv     Im    toT^      }^otpv  xai  xivouvtoc   (jzdazii;  izoiGi 
IS-vsw/  l/^ovTc?  xa>.7]v,   tva,    sv  cb      ^oT?     'lou^ociot?    toT?     xaToc    tyjv 
xccTaXaXouTtv  'jp-wv  wc  xaxoTuoiwv.      otxotj[jivYiv 
Cf.  3  ;  16. 

Apparently  there  is  here  no  direct  connection. 

(13^  I  Pt.  3 ;  8  Acts  4 ;  32 

TO  Bs  TsAoc  TiavTSC  6[j.6cppov£c  T,v  xapBia  xai  '^^uyji  \}lx 

Though  the  thought  is  similar  the  phraseology  is  different.  Pauhne 
influence  is  obvious  here.  Cf.  Rom.  12  ;  16,  15  ;  5,  6,  II  Cor.  13  ;  11, 
Phil.  1  ;  27,  2  ;  2,  3  ;  16. 

(14)  I  Pt.  3 ;  22  Acts  10 ;  36 

7iOp£L»8"£\?  £1?  oupavov  uxoTayEViwv      oi>^o<;  (T.  X.)  Icr-iv  TuavTOiv  Ktjpt,o; 

auTco    (xyyET^tov   xa\    E^ouaiwv    xal 

Buva[j.£cov 

For  closer  parallels  see  Eph.  1  ;  20-22,  Col.  1  ;  16  f.,  2  ;  15,  I  Cor. 
15  ;  24  f. 

(15)  1  Pt.  4 ;  1  ■.  Acts  17 ;  3 
Xct,(7T0!j  ouv  TzaO'OVTO?  (Tapxi  .  .          OTt  Tov  ■ipi'j^bv  zbsi  7Ta9>£~V 

This  thought  is  too  common  to  show  dependence. 


506  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(16)  I  Pt.  4 ;  3  Acts  14 ;  16 

apxETOC  yap  6  izccpzlrikub-oic,  jpo-  oq  sv   'zcaq   xapo))(Y)[jivat?   -^zyzolxc, 

^oc,  TO  [3otJ>.Y][j-a  Twv  s&vwv  xaTEip-  slacsv  xavTa  toc   sQ-vy]  xopeuscrD-a!, 

yacrS-at,    TisTropsujjLsvou?    sv    acrsT^-  toT?    6BoT?    auToiv.       Cf.  15  ;  20, 

ysiaic  ...  17  ;  30. 

Again  the  Pauline  influence  is  obvious.  Cf.  Rom.  3  ;  25,  Eph.  2; 
2,  4 ;  17,  Col.  1  ;  21,  3  ;  7,  I  Thes.  4  ;  5.     See  also  Ex.  3  above. 

(17)  I  Pt.  4;  4  Acts  13;  45 

pT.aa-cpYHJ.ouvTS?  >>a>.oupivo(,5  |3>>a(7cpY][j.ouvT£5 

(18)  I  Pt.  4;  5  Acts  10;  42 

TW     £TOl[X(OC     XpiVOVTl     ^WVTaC     Xai         o3t6?     SG-TIV     6    topi,(7[;.£VO(:     UTIO    TOD 

vsxpou?  0£ou  xpiTYJ?  ^ojvTcov  xal  vsxpwv 

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,  12,  II  Cor.  5; 
10,  II  Tim.  4  ;  1.  It  is  important  to  note  that  Acts  17  ;  31  comes 
from  a  much  better  source  than  Acts  10  ;  42. 

(19)  I  Pt.  4;  14  Acts  5;  41 

£1    6v£lBl^£i7&'£   £V    6v6[J.aTt   Xpi(7T03,         01     [J.£V      OUV     £7iOp£UOVTO     )(atpOVT£i; 

[xaxdcpioi  (16)  £1  Be  w?  Xpio-xtavoc,      dcTuo  .  .  .  OTt    xaTYi^t(o8^Y](Tav    uxsp 
[XY]  aicr/^uvEcQ'Co,  Bo'^a^£TO)   Be    tov      tou  6v6[iai:o5  aTtjjLaaQ'^vat,* 
©Eov  £V  Tw  ov6p.aTt  TO'J-W 

"  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.  12  ;  10,  Phil.  2  ;  17.  See  also 
Jas.  1  ;  2,  12  which  was  probably  written  soon  after  I  Peter.  Depen- 
dence upon  the  apostle  Peter  is  very  improbable  at  this  point. 

(20)  I  Pt.  5 ;  2  Acts  20 ;  28 
7rot[X(XvaT£  TO  £V  up^v  7rot[j.viov  Tou      7:pocr£/^£T£    iauToT?    xai    TiaVTl   TW 

0£OU,      (IxtOTCOXOUVTE?)      [J-Y]     (XVay-         TrOip-VUO,    £V    Cp    U^9.C,    TO    7W£Li[Jwa   TO 

xacTco^  .  .  .  aytov  eQ-eto  iTziaxoizouc,,  Tzoi^mytiv 

TYjv  Exx'XYicrtav 
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 

is  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. 

I  Pt.  5;  9  Acts  14;  22 

slSoTsc  -k  aO-ra  tcov  7:aS"r,|j.aT0)v  xai  oTt  Bia  ;:o}.lwv  Q'}a']>£(ov  BsT 
-7T,  sv  Tw  x6ap.o)  6[xwv  aS£}.o6';rair!,  Yjp.ac  eio-slQ-s'Tv  dc,  xr^y  jjacileiav 
l-tTS/sTc&at  TO!j  ©sou 

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  Pauhne  influence.  Cf.  Rom. 
8  ;  17,  Eph.  6  ;  11,  I  Thes.  3  ;  3,  II  Tim.  2  ;  11,  12,  3  ;  12,  etc.  It 
appears  that  there  is  no  direct  literary  connection  here. 

I  Pt.  5  ;  12  Acts  20  ;  24  b 

£-t|j.apT'jpwv    -auTY]v    sTvat,    oC}:c[3•r^      Bta[xapxtJpaG-&'ai  xo  z[)(x.yyiXiov  -7^c 

yjXpiV    TOG    0£OO  /apiTO?    TTOO    0£O!J 

The  Pauhne  influence  is  too  obvious  here  to  require  comment. 
I  Cor.  15  ;  lb  not  only  has  close  resemblance  in  thought  to  the  above 
parallel  but  also  contains  the  phrase  "  wherein  ye  stand,"  which 
appears  in  I  Pt.  5  ;  12  b. 

Acts  3  ;  13,  26,  4 ;  27,  30  and  I  Pt.  2  ;  21  f.  aUude  to  the  mn^  '2V 
of  II  Isaiah.  The  title  7:015  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  r.oac  toQ  Qzoo  he  employ's 
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.  Acad.,  Vol.  VXII.  34  January,  1913. 


508  Ora  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  PauHne  rather  than  Petrine. 


JAMES 
A* 

b 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  6,  7  Jas.  1 ;  2,  3 

£v  (b  ayalliaa-O'e,  oliyov    ap^i   d  xacrav    /apav   riyr^tjCCGb-z  .  .  .  oxav 

Beov  Xu%rib'iv^zc,   Iv    7:oiyiiXoic,  tcsi-  Tceipacp-oTc  TOptTcsTYjxs  Tzoi-aikoiq  (3) 

pa(7[j.oT5  (7)   ivoc  TO  Boxt[iiov  6[xcov  ytvcocrxovTE?  oTt  to  toyiiisiov  6[j.cov 

xric,  xio-Te(oc  zric,  tcig-tsw^  xaTspya^sirat 

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  %oixikoi^  TC£ipac-[J.oTc  and  to  Bo- 
xi[j.i,ov  u[)MV  TTji;  ro(7T£w?  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,  Prov.  17  ;  3, 
Job  23  ;  10,  Zech.  13  ;  9,  Mai.  3  ;  3)  by  the  trying  of  the  precious 
metals  in  the  fire  ;  we  find  also  the  addition,  oliyov  ocpTi,  e?  Bsov, 
AuxYjS-svTe?,  which  looks  as  if  it  were  intended  to  soften  down  the 
uncompromising  Stoicism  of  St.  James'  xaaav  /apav  riyri(Toc(jb-s" . 
(Com.  on  Jas.  p.  xcvi.)  That  there  is  here  a  case  of  depen- 
dence, practically  all  agree,  yet  the  order  of  dependence  many 
question,  nstpaajj-ot?  %oi7.iXoii  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  ■Kzipo(.<y\).6(;  see  any  Gk.  Lex.  Cf.  also  Cone's  com. 
p.    273 ;     Schmidt    and    Holzendorf    Com.     Ill,     p.     158 ;     etc.) 


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. 
]\Iany  of  the  "  illustrations  of  I  Peter,"  no  doubt,  were  originally 
from  the  0.  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,  i.  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. 

I  Pt.   1  ;  23  Jas.  1 ;  18 

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 
fa^on  oratorie"  (p.  269).  Yet  the  avaysYswYiijivoi  of  1  ;  23  refers 
back  to  the  avaYswr^o-ai;  of  i  ;  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.) 
'Atoxusw  is  peculiar  to  James,  being  found  only  in  1  ;  15,  18,  while 
avocYsvvato  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. 


510  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23,  24  Jas.  1 ;  10,  11 

Bi    OTt  Tcacra  cap?  ^c,  yppxo^   xai  w?     avQ-o^     XopTou     7:ap£}.£'Jo-£Tai 

Tcaca  Bo^a  auT?]?,    w?  avS-oi;  /op-  av£T£i}^£v     yocp    6    YJAto?  .  .  .  xai 

TOU"    E^'/ipavQ-Y)    6    yp^'xoc,    xai    to  £crjpav£v  tov  yop'o^y  xai  to  avO-o$ 

avQ-O?   i^ETOCEV,   TO   Bb   p^[J-a  XUpiOU         aUTOD    £C£7C£'7£V 
[J.£V£l 

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.  8  n.)  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  ver}' 
probable  by  the  next  parallel. 

(4)  I  Pt.  2 ;  1  Jas.  1 ;  21 

axoS-£[j-£vot  o5v  Ttacav   xa/iav  xai  Bio     a7:o9-£[j,£voi    :ia(7av     puT^apiav 

xavTa    'hoXo'v    xai     UTTOxpiTiv    xal  xal  7:£pt(7(7£iocv  xaxia?  sv  T^pauTYjTi 

cpS-ovou?    xai    TC(X(7a?    xaTa}.a}.i,a$,  B££a(70-£    tov    £ij.cpuTOv    T^oyov    tov 

coc    apTiYsvvTjTTj    (3p£Cp'ri    TO    Xo^i-  Buva[j.£vov  crwo-a!,  tocc  '^'j/occ.  Cf .  3 ; 

xov  .  .  .  yaXa  iTciTroS-YjcraTE   I'va  Iv  14,  17  and  4  ;  11. 
atjTw  atj'i^YjQ'YjTE    £1?  (7WTY]piav   (re- 
sumes 1  ;  13).    Cf.  3  ;  21  ffapxos 

ax60'£(7lC    pUTVOU 

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  weU  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  };0Ytx6v  par  lequel  on  grandit  en  vue  du  salut."  I  Pt. 
2  ;  2  (Com.  p.  269).  I  Pt.  2  ;  1  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.  Obviousl}- 
the  connection  is  better  in  I  Peter.  That  this  similar  exhortation 
foUows  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. 

(5)  I  Pt.  4;  8  Prov.  10;  12  Jas.  5;  12,  20 

xpo    T^ocvTtov    TYjv    £1^    LXX7:avTa$T0'j(;  [j.Tj  (ptlo-    T.po  TravTtov  jj.^  o\>y6- 
kaoTobq  aydx-riv  £xt£-    v£ixouvTa?xa}.'j-T£t.  Heb.    £T£  (20)  ytvco(7X£T£  oTt, 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  511 

TUov  8<0(;  (XfxapTtcov 

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  "  proverbial  expression  not 
appropriately  employed  by  James."  (Cf.  Cone's  Com.  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  apphcation "  (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  ayaTO] 
xa>J;:T£t,  -\r^oc  a|j.apTiwv,  St.  James  never  could  have  said  that  he 
who  converteth  a  sinner  xa>>'j']>£i  %\riboc,  aiJ.ap-vioiv. "  (For  more 
complete  discussion  see  Mayor  p.  170  f.,  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.  1 ;  12 

xoij.I£Tg-&'£     tov     a[j.apavTtvov     v?]?  };rj'|»£Tat   tov    (7T£(pavov    ty]$    b^"^? 
^otr,;  TTEcpavov 

(7j  I  Pt.  b ;  5  Jas.  4 ;  6 

6  0£oc  u;:£pr,cpavGtc  avTiTaG-'7£TKi,  6  Hsoc  !j;r£prj(pavoic  avirtTaTTSTat, 

T!X7:£ivoTr  Bb  BiBcoTt  /aptv  xaTOivoTi;  Be  BiB(0(n  /apiv 

(8)  I  Pt.  5 ;  6  Jas.  4 ;  10 

■TV.■Kzv/(iib•'f^-z  o3v  6::o  ~r;/  xpaTaiav  Ta7:£tvc68>TjT£   svcottiov    toO   xuptou, 

£V    XK'-pCO 


512  Or  a  Delmer  Foster, 

(9)  I  Pt.  5 ;  8  Jas.  4 ;  7  b 

6     avTiBtxoc     U1J.WV     '§ta|jo}.oc  .  .  .      ky-i<j-r{zz    Toi    %iy.'prj)x,i    y^rn    'psu- 

9)   w  avTricr-YiTs  crtrspsoi   ttj  7:io"i£i      io-ai  acp'   'jjj.wv 

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, 
TaxEivoiS-YiTE  Evwxiov  '70tj  Kupiou,  as  if  he  were  aware  that  6  0s6?  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  ayvicraTs  xa?  xapBta?,  which  may  be  suggested  by 
-b.c,  'Ifu/a?  !J[x6)v  YjYvtxoTS^  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  22 :  if  this  is  so,  St.  James  is 
combining  different  parts  of  the  Petrine  Epistle. " 


(10)  1  Pt.  1;  1  Jas.  1;  1 

BiaTTcopa 

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.  Toi?  BtoBsxa  cpuXaT?  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  BiaaTropa  might  be  understood  to  refer  to  the 
Jews  as  such — assuming  an  early  date — but  if  James  depends  upon 
Romans  the  Biao-xopa  must  refer  to  the  faithful  regardless  of  race. 
That  the  author  had  the  latter  class  in  mind  is  evident  from  the  con- 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  513 

text.  Cf.  ver.  18.  The  distorting  effect  tiiat  a  theory  of  date  may 
have  an  interpretation  is  illustrated  by  Maj^or,  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.) 

(11)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Jas.  1 ;  18 

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. 

(12)  I  Pt.  1 ;  3  Jas.  1 ;  27,  2 ;  5 

dc  xlTjpovoij.iav  acpQ-acTov  xat,  0-pY]<7/wSta  xaQ>apa  xai  apavTo;  .  . 
a[xiavTov  Y.\ripoWj\}.ouq  tyJ;  ^oiGOxioic, 

'A[j.iavTO?  occurs  in  the  N.T.  only  here  and  in  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. 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  12  Jas.  1 ;  25 

£15  a  £7rt6'L»[j.oii<Ti,v  aYY£>.oi  izxpy.-  b  Bl  -apaxu'jia;  £i;  voij.ov  -£>.£tov 
Y.'j'h'xi  -6v  -YJc  IXzob'zpiccc 

ITapaxuTCTOi  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. 

(14)  I  Pt.  1 ;  17  Jas.  2 ;  1 

':6v  a7:p 0(7(0 7:0 Irjjj.TCiTOJ?  xpivovTa  [j.rj  Iv  7:poo"coxo7>7]'j(iatc  .  .  . 

npo<70)7:oXY/]j{a  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.  npo'70)7:oXfj7:TYi5  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  Ora  Delnier  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)  I  Pt.  2 ;  11  Jas.  4 ;  1 
TuapaxaAw  .  .  .  k%i'/tG^c(.i  zS)^^  lap-  xoO-sv    7u67.£[xof  .  .  .  oux    £VT£!j9>£v 
xuoJv  £7ri,Q>u[j.ia)v    aiTivE?    G~pc(.-zu-  Ix  twv  yiBovwv  o^jmv  twv  cirpaTEU- 
ovTrat  xocTa  t-^i;  ^u)(Y]?  ojjivojv  £v  -zoic,  [ji^ETiv   •j[j.o)V 

Obviously  these  passages  are  closely  related.  I  Peter  depends 
very  probably  upon  Paul  (cf.  Rom.  5  ;  17,  Gal.  5  ;  17,  etc.),  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  ;  lb  agrees  with 
I  Pt.  2  ;  11  in  making  the  warfare  internal  in  accordance  with  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  "  (7ap2  against  the  7:v£'j[j.a."  But  the  preceding  and 
succeeding  contexts  lead  one  to  think  "James"  alludes  to  social 
disturbances.  If  so  [xilzfjw  should  refer  to  "persons",  but  this  is 
wresting  the  word  out  of  its  most  obvious  meaning.  The  phrase 
4  ;  1  b,  therefore,  seems  to  be  borrowed. 

(16)  I  Pt.  2 ;  12  Jas.  3 ;  13 

TTYiv  ava(7T:pocpY]v  up-wv  .  .  ,  £)(0VT£(;  B£t,^a-(o  £x  T7]c  xaX-^c  avacTTpo- 
xalYjv  I'va  .  .  .  £x  twv  xa>>wv  Ipywv      otiC  toc   Ipya   auTot)    Iv    -patJTYjTt 

£7U07iT£UOVT£^     Bo'c^aCTWG'l    TOV    QzOV.         C70Ol(XC 

Cf.  3  ;  2  TY]v  £v  (p6(3o)  ayvYiv  ava- 
G-TpocpYjv,  16,  TYjv  'ayaS-yjv  Iv  Xptcxco 

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  ;  15  Jas.  1 ;  25,  2 ;  12 

(J)?    £>>£u8>£poi  .  .  .  oilX    OK    0£OL)      v6[j.oc  I'kzob'zpiccc  1  ;  1   Szoo  BoD- 

This  is  a  close  parallel  on  the  Pauline  basis.  Cf.  Gal.  2  ;  4,  5  ;  1, 
13,  etc.     We  have  seen  in  another  connection  that  this  section  of 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  515 

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. 

(18)  I  Pt.  2;  20,  21  Jas.  5;  10,  11 

•j-ojjlevsTts,  zoZzo  y^ix^ic  'kcx.^cc  Hsco*  xai  v^^  [j.a)^poQ'U[j.ia?  to'j?  T^pocpv]- 

zlc  TOJTO  yap  IxXyiS-yits,    oti   xai  Tac  .  .  .  ?Bou     [j.a>tapi^o[j.£v     ttou? 

XpicToc   sTiaO'Sv  !JTOp    OIJ.COV,    rjijiv  !j::o[j.£tvavTa(;.     Cf.  1  ;  12. 
•jzoAiij-zavcov  'j:iOYpaij.[j.6v 

Patient  endurance  in  suffering  is  at  a  premium  in  both  cases, 
though  they  appeal  to  different  examples.  The  appeal  of  James 
to  the  0.  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. 
'AYa&'OTJoioijvTsr  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. 

(19)  I  Pt    3 ;  10  Jas.  1 ;  26 

Here  is  a  close  parallel  in  thought.  I  Peter  probably  quoted 
3  ;  9  a  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. 

(20)  I  Pt.  4 ;  5  Jas.  5 ;  9 

~M    SToClJ.WC    "/piVOVTl  6    XpiTTj(;    TipO     TWV     &"UpwV    STTTjXSV 

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. 

(21 1  I  Pt.  4;  7  Jas.  5;  8 

rravTwv  to  -ziXoc  ■f^-'f[iY.zY  acoc&po-  cv/jpitaTs  xolc,  xapBtai;  !j[j,wv  oti 
vr,G-aT£  o5v  Ti  Tcapouata    to 3   Kuptou    t^yT^^^^^- 

V.  3  £v  sa/KTai?  r^^i^cac, 
This  parallel  is  made  more  significant  by  Exs.  20  and  22. 

(22)  I  Pt.  5;  10  Jas.  5;  8 

6  0s6c  .  .  .  oXtY^'''  "5(0-6vTa;  ao-  [j.ay.poQ<tj'p.Y,(7aT£  xat,  'j[j,£Tc,  crTYjpi- 
To?  .  .  .  TT'/jpiSEi  2ax£  Toc?  xapBiac 

Note  the  sequence  in  parallels  20—22. 


516 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


(23)  I  Pt.  1  ;  1  Jas.  1  ;  1 

Xpio-Tou  "boukoc, 

On  the  supposition  that  the  author  of  "  James  "  was  an  apostle 
it  is  significant  to  note  that  Zookoc  is  used  instead  of  a7r6<jToXo?. 
i^oukot;  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 
o(.%Q(j'Zoloi,  also  in  two  of  the  Pastoral  epistles.  Only  Titus  and 
Romans  employ  ^ouko^  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  w^ould  expect 
to  find  aBsTvOOc.     ©sou  xai  Kupiou  are  important  additions. 


(24)  I  Pt.  1 ;  19 

XOI    0!.(T'Klk0lJ 


Jas.  1;  27,  5;  7 

aaTuiXov    sauTov    TfipsTv    octco    to3 
xoaixoo.     5  ;  7  zi[xiov  xapxov 


(25)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22 
'^•a?  '\>oyccc  T^yvtxo-sc 

(26)  I  Pt.  1;  22 

sv  T^  uTcaxoTj  TYJc  aXYjQ-sia? 


Jas.  4;  8 

ayviTaTS  xapBiac 

Jas.  1;  18 


When  taken  separately  these  three  parallels  need  not  detain  us. 

(27)  I  Pt.  2 ;  18,  3 ;  1  Jas.  4 ;  7 

b-KOzixaaoixzvoi  zoic  'hz(TK6zc(.ic,  bizo-      bizo-ixyriTz  -zm  (dzo) 
■raacrojj-svai  toT?  avBpao-iv.  xov  0s6v 
<po(3£T(78>s.     2  ;  17. 

See  Ex.  8  for  a  closer  parallel. 


(28)  I  Pt.  2  ;  25 

izXav M[xzvoi  £7iSO"7pa(p"ri-£ 

Suggestive  but  not  conclusive. 


Jas.  5;  19 

lav   -zic,  £v    6[j.Tv  xXavTjOfj 

;7vt,(7T:p£cpY)  Ti?  au-ov 


(29)  I  Pt.  3 ;  15 

[xzxot.  xpauTYj-Oi;.     Cf.  v.  4. 
Probably  accidental. 


Jas.  1;  21 


sv  xpa'JTT,-t 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  517 

(30)  I  Pt.  4;  14  Jas.  2;  1 

70    Tr,c   "^oi-r^c    xai    to    toj   <dzo\)      tt;/    -ittiv    ^\rf>o~j    XpiTTOo    toO 
-veii[j.a  Ky^cto'j  Y,acov.  tyjc  Bo^yj? 

This  furnishes  no  argument  either  for  or  against  dependence. 

(31)  I  Pt.  4 ;   16  Jas.  2 ;  7 

d    cbc    /pi(7T!,av6c    (Tzaoysi)    ...      to  xaXov  ovo|j.a  to  s7:tyAr,&-£v  so' 

BofatsTCO    TOV    ©SOV   SV   TCO    OVOtJ.aTt         'J[J.5CC 
TO 'J  TO) 

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  0.  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." 
(H.  B.  D.  p.  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 
Briickner  (S.  35),  Hausrath  (IV,  S.  253),  Hilgenfeld  (S.  638),  Holtz- 
mann  (Einl.  S.  315,  336),  von  Soden  (H.C.,  III  2  ;  2,  S.  2  f.,  110), 
Pfleiderer  (S.  417,  424,  427),  Knopf  (N.  Z.  S.  34),  Bacon  (Int.  p.  160), 
Bigg  (p.  23),  Cone  (E.  B.,  Com.  p.  269). 

Julicher  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  b}^  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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  1,  6  Jude  1 

ex7.£X-oT?  .  .   .  sv    ocyiaTjJLco  TuveO-  toT?  sv  0sw  xaxpl  f|Ya7iY,[jivoi?  .  .  . 

[xcczoc,    5    (-£TY]pYj[jivrjv)    cppoupou-  TSTTjpYj[jivoi?  yCX'riZQX(; 
[xivouc,  Bia  TciffTscoc  .  .  . 

The  occurence  of  the  doctrines  of  the  beUevers'  election,  sancti- 
fication  and  security  in  such  close  contextual  connection  makes 
dependence  seem  probable  at  the  very  outset. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1  ;  2  Jude  2 

/api?  'j[j.Tv   xat,   sip'/jVYi   Tzltpuvb-ziri      zkzoc,   6[j.Tv   xot   siprjVTj  xat,   ayaz'/) 

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 


i 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  519 

us  to  infer  dependence.  Yet  the  superscriptions  Jas.  1  ;  1  and  Jude 
1—2  are  peculiarly  open  to  the  suspicion  of  adjustment  and  as- 
similation in  the  process  of  formation  of  the  canon. 

(3)  I  Pt.  2 ;  8  Jude  4 

.  .  .  a-si&-oOv~$"  zic  6  xai  Its-  ol  izdlxi  Tipoysypaij-ijivot  sic  touto 
b%(jOcv  TO  xpi[jLa 

This  parallel  affords  no  argument  for  dependence.  Cf.  Rom.  9 ; 
21,  22,  I  Thes.  5  ;  9,  Prov.  16  ;  4,  Jer.  18  ;  6  etc. 

(4)  I  Pt.  3 ;  19  Jude  6 

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. 

eevelatio:n 
c 

c 

(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  19  Eev.  1 ;  5 

s>>UTpoj&-rjT£  .  .  .  Ti[j.to)  al'jj.aTt,  w;  X'Jo-avTi,  Yi[j.a<;  sx  twv  ap.ap-iwv 
ocpoO  a[j.w[j.oo  xai  acrraXoo  Xpio--  y)[xwv  sv  -ttco  at[JLaTrt  auToO.  5  ;  6 
Tou.  1  ;  2  pavTtG-[j.6v  at[j.aTo;  apviov  so-tyixo^  w?  so-cpay^ivov 
'Irj(70u  Xpic-oO  5  ;  9  Yiyopaca?  tw  Osw  ev  irw  od- 

[i.y.-i  GOO 

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. 

(2)  I  Pt.  2 ;  9  Rev.  1 ;  6 

b[Kzi<;  Vz  ysvoc  sx^xxrov,  pac-  lizoiriazy  -/jp.a^  (3aG-i};£iav,  IspsTc  Toi 
iXsiov  i£p2c-:£!j[j.a,  Ibyog  ayiov,  }.a6c  Osw.  5  ;  10  tco  0£co  7][j.o)v  (3oco-i- 
£15  7U£pt7ioirjC-i.v  Xzit;  xai  ispsT? 

Both  authors  may  be  following  the  original  independently  (i.  e. 
Exod.  19  ;  6),  yet  the  context  in  Revelation  makes  this  very  im- 
probable. 


520  Ora  Delnier  Foster, 

(3)  I  Pt.  4 ;  11  Rev.  1 ;  6 

(b  sT-lv  Tj  B6'£a  Y.cd  to  xpocToc  £1?  ocuTw  Tj  ^oioc  xai  TO  xpdcTO?  zl<; 
TO'j?  aiwva;  Twv  aio)V(ov.  a[j,Yiv.  touc  aiwvac  twv  aitovoiv.  aij.'^v. 
Cf.  5  ;    11.  Cf.  5  ;  13. 

"  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.  1  ;  6."  (Bigg 
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. 

c— d 

(4)  I  Pt.  1  ;  20  Rev.  13 ;  8 

::po£Yvo)[jivou  [xsv  7up6  >:aTa(3o7;r;C  toO  apviou  lo-cpocYp-svou  aroo  xocTa- 
XOO-JJ.OU  ^olric  x6cr[j.ou 

If  oczb  xaTa[joA-?jc  x6g-[j.ou  limits  Id^paYpivov,  as  one  would  naturally 
understand  it,  we  have  here  a  closer  parallel  than  is  to  be  found 
elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  On  the  other  hand,  if,  as  in  17  ;  8,  it 
connects  with  ysypaTiTai,  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  octto  xaTa[3o>.Yi? 
xocrpu  and  so-cpayfxsvov.  Bigg  so  interprets  it.  (Com.  p.  120.) 
"  Qui  occisus  est  ab  origine  mundi,"  of  the  Textum  Vaticanum,  and 
JjoVi^     oiCwiJiL    ^     ••)«  .->  I     001   )W»J;    '     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. 

(5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  25  Rev.  7  ;  17 

"^T£   yap   w?   TrpopocTa  xT^avfopxvoi      to  apviov  to  ava  [jio-ov  toO  G-povoy 

OlXX       £7C£(7Tpacpr,T£       VUV       Im      TOV         7i0I,[XaV£T    a'JTO'J?  .   .   . 

TTOtjxsva  .  .  . 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  our  author  uses  the  word  referring 
to  Christ,  which  is  common  with  later  authors.  Cf.  Jn.  10  ;  2,  11, 
12,  14,  16,  Heb.  13  ;  20,  etc.     See  John  Exs.  11-12. 

(6)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  Rev.  12 ;  12 

oTi  6  avTiBixo?  6[j.5)v  'hiu^oXoc,  ok  oti  xaTEJ^Y)  6  Bia|3o}.oc  xpo?  upta^ 
Tvscov  a)pu6[j.£V0(;,  7r£pt7:aT£T  ^yjtwv  £/cov  Q-ujj-ov  [jiyav,  £iSwc  oti  6}iyov 
Tiva  xaTam-fi  xatpov  £/£i 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  521 

These  passage  show  a  common  belief  in  the  devil's  activity  during 
the  fien''  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. 

d 
7  I  Pt.  1 ;  7  Rev.  3 ;  18 

Though  this  parallel  is  suggestive  it  is  not  conclusive.  It  only 
shows  that  the  two  books  have  a  common  background, 

(8 1  I  Pt  2 ;  16  Rev.  1 ;  1 

A  very  common  thought  in  the  N.  T. 
(9)  I  Pt.  3 ;  10  Rev.  14 ;  5 

supsO^Y)  ZoXoc,  (isOBoc) 

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 

::avTO)v  Bs  to  ziXoq  rjYY''^2  6  yap  xatpo?  syyu? 

This  idea  is  very  common  in  the  N.  T. 

(llj                          I  Pt.  5 ;  1  Rev.  1 ;  9 

:t(xpaxa};co    6    GO\i.%pzG^6xzpoc,   xal  syw  'Io)avv*/]c,  6  xol  aBsT^cpoi;  ujjlwv 

ij-apTU?    Toiv    ToU  XpicnroLi    TcaG-rj-  xal  (T!jyxo!,vwv6?  sv  Tf\  b'Xi'\)Zi  .  .  . 

[xdcTor/  ?)ia  .  .  .  t:y]v  [xapirupiav  'lYjcroL) 

This  similarity  is  probably  due  to  the  similar  conditions  out  of 
which  these  writings  were  produced. 

(12)  I  Pt.  5;  4  ,       Rev.  2;  10 

Though  suggestive,  dependence  here  is  very  doubtful. 


522  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

13)  I  Pt.  5  ;  13  ■  Rev.  14  ;  8 

(iapuXwvi  papuT^wv.       Cf.    16 ;  19,    17;   5, 

18;  2,  10;  21. 
In  view  both  of  tradition  and  history,  we  need  not  consider  any 
interpretation  which  does  not  identify  ^(x^rAm  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  ;  6  f.  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 
(1)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8  I  Jn.  4 ;  20 

6v    oux    Xboy^zc,   ayaTia'irs,    zlc,    6v      6v    soSpaxsv,     xov    0£6v     6v     ou/ 
apTi   [XY]    opwvTTSi;   TciaxsuovTs?  .  .  .      £o')pax£v  ou  Suva-rai  ayaTrav 

Dependence  here  is  made  very  probable  by  the  additional  evi- 
dence of  John  Ex.  2. 

<2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  19  I  Jn.  1  ;  7 

DvUTpwD-YiTs  (cpQ-apToT?)  Ti[j.to)  at[j.a-      to    al[xa  Tyjo-oo   XpiTTOU  .  .  .  xa- 
Tt  w?  apoCi  ajxojptj  xai  di.>jTdXo'j      b-fZpi^zi  T,[j.a?  axo  %(x.<Ti]<;  a[xapi:ia; 

XpiO-TOU 

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 


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. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1;  22a  I  Ju.  3;  3 

Tac  'h's/pa;  iJ[j.wv  -/^yvixoTsc  xol  ttoc?  .  .  .  ocyvi^st  sauTov  xaS-co? 

(4)  I  Pt.  1 ;  22  b  I  Jn.  5 ;  2 

£v   'zr^    6-0X0^   'zr\c,   oCkr^'zict.c,    Bta  Iv  ttouto)   Ytvojcrxo[;.£v  oti   ayaTcw- 

nvsuji-aTOc    £??    cpt>.aBs};Oiav    avu-  [xsv  toc  Tsxva  -ou  ©soH,  OTrav  tov 

zoxpiTOv,      £X     xaO>apac     xapBtac  ©sov  aYa::w[X£v,  xai    tocc  Iv-oXac 

aXlY)>.o'jc  ayaTTYia-a-E  extevco?  auTou  7i;ouo[j.£v 

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 
"  £v  -rfj  'j-oy.or\  -zr^c,  oCkc\bzi%c,  "oil  Peter  is  treated  more  extensively 
in  I  John.  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  puts  the  teaching  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  himself.  Cf.  Jn.  14  ;  15.  21,  23,  15  ;  10,  12, 
14,  etc.  The  reference  to  "  brotherly  love  "  of  I  Pt.  1  ;  22b  (2  ;  17, 
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. 

(5)  I  Pt.  1 ;  23  I  Jn.  3 ;  9 

avay£y£vvrjijiv&t  oux  Ix  crTCopa?  6  y£y£vvYi[j.£voc  Ix  tou  ©eou  a[xap- 
cpQ^apT^?  uXkv.  acpB-apTOu  Tiav    ou    tuoieT   ot!,   cr7C£p[j.a    auToS 

£V   auTw   [jiv£t, 

ZTUopac  and  G-7i£p[j.a  are  very  significant  parallels  just  in  this 
connection.  Obviously  the  expression  "  born  of  God  "  means  the  same 
as  "born  again",  or  .from  above  (avojO-ev).  Apparently  I  John 
elaborates  the  idea  found  in  I  Peter.  (Cf.  I  Jn.  3  ;  9,  4  ;  7,  5  ;  1,  18.) 
This  doctrine  is  definitely  taught  by  Jesus  himself  in  John  3.  Note 
the  sequence  of  thought  in  Exs.  3—5.  It  is  also  significant  that  there 
are  other  probable  points  of  contact  with  L  Peter  in  this  context. 
Cf.  Exs.  7  and  8.  (For  relationship  of  Jas.  1  ;  18  see  note  on  John 
Ex.  6.) 

Trans.  Conn.  Acad.,  Vol.  XVII.  35  January,  1913. 


524  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(6)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21  I  Jn.  2 ;  6 

tva    £7uaxo7.otjO''^(77]T£    ToTc    lyytmy      xa9>co(;    sxsTvoc    TrspisxaTTj^o,     xai 
auToS  auTO?  TcspiTraTsTv 

See  John  Ex.  15  for  a  closer  parallel  in  the  fore  part.  Yet  the 
TcspiTraTsTv  of  I  John  is  more  in  accord  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  21b  than  is  John 
13  ;  15.    I  Peter  is  probably  the  basis  for  Jn.  13  ;  15  and  I  Jn.  2  ;  6. 

(7)  I  Pt.  2 ;  22  I  Jn.  3 ;  5  b 

6c  aij.apTiav  oux  sTroCrjTsv  ap-ap^ia  sv  auxw  o'jx  Iry-i 

Cf.  John  8  ;  46,  Ex.  7.  It  is  to  be  noted  again  that  this  doctrine 
is  taught  by  Jesus  himself  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  24  I  Jn.  3 ;  5  a 

be,  Tra?  aixapTiac  ^p-wv  cco-vbt;  avvj-      scpavspwO-'/],  tva  xccc,  a^apTta^  -^[jlwv 
vsyxev    sv   tco    o-tofxairt,    autrou    sxl      ap-f).     Cf.  2  ;  2,  4  ;  10. 
TO  'iuXo'v 

I  Jn.  4  ;  10  has  iXo(.r;^.6c,  corresponding  to  [^.acr-^^piov  of  Rom.  3  ;  25. 
Rom.  5  ;  8,  10  expresses  in  abstract  form  what  is  given  in  I  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. 


(9)                            I  Pt.   1  ;  24  I  Jn.  2 ;  17 

h/jzi  r:u(7ix   cap^   o.>^   yopxoc,,   xat,  xai    6    x6(7ij.o?    xapaysirat,    xai    y 

zccG-y.  Bo'^oc   auTYit;   6)C,  ch^^oc,   jop-  sTiiO^upia  (/.'j-qu'  Bs   %oio)v   zb  b-i- 

z'jo  .  .  .  Bs  pyjfia  KupCou  \)Ivzi  dg  \ri\}.(x.    to3     Oeou    [jivst    si?    tov 

Tov  auova  aiwva.     Cf.  1  ;  1,  3. 

There  is  probably  no  connection  here. 


(10)  I  Pt.  4 ;  7  I  Ju.  2 ;  18 

7ravT(.)V  TO  TsT^Oi;  YjYYtxsv  Inyjx-r^  wptx  so-Ti 

This  idea  is  too  common  to  trace  its  course  down  to  the  Johannine 
Literature. 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  525 

II  JOHN 

D 
I  Pt.  4 ;  8  II  Jn.  5 

::fo  ;:avT(ov  Tr,v  sic  sa-j-ro'jc  aydc-      tva  aYa7:(o[j.sv  yXkf^ouc, 
7;r,v  i/wTsv?]  lypy-zc 

Dependence  cannot  be  argued  here,  unless  through  the  relation 
this  parallel  sustains  to  the  other  Johannine  Literature.  Cf.  Jn.  13  ; 
34,  15  ;  12,  I  Jn.  3  ;  23. 


Ill  JOHN 

D 

I  Pt.  3 ;  11  III  Jn.  11 

IxxXivdcTO)  Bs  (XTio  xaxou  xai  tuoiyj-      [j^yj  [j.t[j.oS  to  xaxov  a>vXa  to  ayaO^ov. 
cdcTco    ayaO^ov,    ^YiTTjo-aTco   sip"/ivr,v      6  ayaS-oxotoiv  .  .  . 

XOl    BlwJdCTO)     K'JTTiV.        (Xya^OT^OlSW 

2  ;  15,  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 

(1)  I  Pt.  1;  3b  Jn.  3;  3 
avaysvvT,c-ac  r^fj-Sc,     Cf.  1  ;  23.          ysvvrj&--?]  avcoS-sv     Cf.  3  ;  5 

The  idea  of  the  "  new  birth  "  is  found  in  the  Pauhne  writings. 
Cf.  I  Cor.  4  ;  15,  Gal.  4  ;  19,  6  ;  15,  Tit.  3  ;  5.  It  is  more  clearly 
set  forth  in  our  Epistle.  Cf.  1  ;  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. 

(2)  I  Pt.  1 ;  8,  9  •  Jn.  20 ;  29,  31 

ov    O'jx    iBovTsc    ayaTiocTs,    dc    6v      oti  soipaxac  [xs,  [0o)[x5c]  xstcCo-tsu- 
apT!,   [j.Tj    opwvTsc.    ziG-TS'JovTsc  Bs      xa?*    [xaxapioi   ol   \rf\  iBovtsi;,  xai 


526  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

a.yoiXkiS.xz  X'^f^  av£x}.a}vYj-co  xcci  7:ia-T£Uo-avT3;  .  .  .  iva  izig-zz'jovzz;, 
BsBoiapivY),  ■KO[xiCQ\f.zvoi  to  tsXo?  ^wy^v  £//jT£  sv  tw  6v6[j.aTi  a!jTO?j. 
TT^i;  m(rT£co5  !j[j,wv,  (70)TYipiav  ^u^wv      Cf.  16  ;  16,  22. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  contain  this  thought  in  embryo.  Cf.  II  Cor. 
5  ;  7,  I  Cor.  13  ;  12,  Rom.  8  ;  23,  24.  This  contrast  of  "  faith  and 
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  (oxt)  "  they  have  not  seen  and  yet  believed."  Furthermore 
the  teaching  is  again  found  in  a  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  hfe  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. 

(3)  I  Pt.  1 ;  18,  19  Jn.  1 ;  29 

£7.UTpc60'TjT£  .  .  .  Tijj.io)    a?[j.aTt    w^  "IBe  6  a[j.v6?  ■zo'o  Stoo,  b  aipwv  tyjv 

apou  (a[xo)[xou  xai  drjizikoo)  Xptc-  a[j.ap-iav  zou  x6(I[j.ou.  Cf.  1  ;  36. 
xou.     Cf.  2  ;  24. 

Acts  8 ;  32  employs  ap.vo?,  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  se,  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  ;  29  b  and  1  ;  36  b  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.     (Cf.  Jn.  1  ;  29  b  with  I  Pt.  2  ;  24.) 

(4)  I  Pt.   1  ;  22  a  Jn.  15 ;  3 

Tccc,  <\>i>-iccc,  u[xwv  •»^yvik6-£?  £v  -7]  yJBy)  upTt;  xaO^apoi  lo--£  Bta  xov 
fWxoY]  TY)?  ixXr\b-zi(X(;  loyov 

Purification  comes  in  both  cases  through  the  word  (truth).  I  Pt. 
1  ;  22a  probably  depends  upon  Eph.  5  ;  26,  but  the  parallel  is  much 
closer  between  I  Peter  and  John  than  between  Ephesians  and  John. 


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  anj^thing  in  the  context  of 
Ephesians  which  is  suggestive  of  Jn.  15  ;  1  f.  It  is  also  to  be  noted 
that  Jn.  15  ;  3  seems  to  be  somewhat  unnatural  in  the  parable  ; 
having  been  suggested  apparently  b}^  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 ;  22  b  Jn.  13 ;  34 

£X  y.ocp'hiccc,  dXkrfkoDc  dyrxTzr^acc^z  hot.  xai  u[j,£Tc  ayamTs  axxYiXoL>(; 
EXTSvwr  .  .  .  lav  aydcTC'/jv  s/yits  sv  <xX7J]koic, 

Though  this  is  a  common  exhortation,  dependence  is  made  very 
probable  because  of  other  probable  points  of  contact  in  the  immediate 
context  of  I  Peter  (cf.  1  ;  19,  21,  22a  and  23),  also  because  the  con- 
text of  John  suggests  I  Peter  (cf.  13  ;  31—32),  even  mentioning 
Peter  by  name,  v.  36. 

(6)  I  Pt.  1  ;  23  Jn.  1 ;  13 

avaY£Y£vv/][JL£voi     oux    Ix    cTcopac  oi  o5x  eS  ai[j.(XTO)v,  ouBe  ex  Q^sXyj- 

cpQ^apr^?,     aWvOc     a'^S>apTou,     Bia  [xcc-oc  G-apxoc  o'jBs   Ix  b^TdnKixTOc 

Xoyyo    wWVTOC    Osou    xai    [tAvo'/-  avBpo;  a}.}.'  Ix  QeoZ  lY£vvr|d-v](7av 

Attention  has  been  called  in  Ex.  1  to  the  idea  of  the  "  new  birth," 
but  in  the  above  parallel  we  are  also  told  how  it  was  brought  about. 
In  both  instances  the  negative  aspect  precedes  the  positive.  Our 
author  says  that  "we  are  born  not  of  corruptible  seed,"  whereas 
"  John  "  puts  it,  "  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  wiU  of  man,"  which  is  clearly  an  expansion  of  the  thought  of 
I  Peter.  "  Virtually  (jTropa  and  T^oyo?  (of  I  Peter)  are  the  same 
thing  seen  in  different  lights.  Aoyoc  is  of  course  not  used  in  the 
sense  which  it  ultimately  reaches  in  St.  John."  (Hort's  First  Epistle 
of  James,"  p.  93.)  I  Peter  seems  again  to  form  a  connection  between 
the  "  logos  "  idea  of  Paul  and  the  complete  expression  of  it  in  John. 
The  phrase  of  John,  "born  of  God,"  or  of  the  "  will  of  God,"  as  the 
case  may  be,  is  suggestive  of  Jas.  1  ;  18,  which  indeed  combines  the 
ideas  of  Jn.  1  ;  13  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  23.  We  have  found  reason  elsewhere 
to  beUeve  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  Aoyo?  is  God  Himself  speaking, 
speaking  not  once  only  but  with  renewed  utterance,  kindling  life  not 


528  Ora  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  T^oyo?  doctrine  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Nor  does  it  seem  to 
be  a  violation  of  the  text  to  say  Jas.  1  ;  18  shows  a  stiD  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  ;  13  a  and  I  Pt.  1  ;  23  a.  The  antithesis  is  significant,  especi- 
ally since  it  is  followed  by  phrases  similar  in  form  and  meaning. 
John  1  ;  14  takes  up  the  word  'ko^oc,  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  maystiU  show  an  influence  upon  Jn.  1  ;  1—14.  (Cf.  Jn.  1; 
3).  I  Pt.  1  ;  23  b  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  Jesus  (Jn.  8  ;  12,  9  ;  5,  12  ;  36,  37. 

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,"  b>  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. 

(7)  I  Pt.  2 ;  22  Jn.  8  ;  46 

6c   ap.apTiav  oux  stcoiTjCTSv  ti?     zc,     up.cov     IXiyy zi     [xz     Tzzpi 

a[j.apTta? 

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  following  con- 
text in  both  books  makes  dependence  here  very  probable.     Cf .  Ex.  8. 

(8)  I  Pt.  2 ;  23  Jn.  8 ;  48-50 

6?  loiBopoup-svo?  oux  avTsT.oiSopsi,  i;a[j.apsiTTj?  si  aij  xai  Bat[j.6viov 
TzdtyyMv  o5x  yjtcsCXsi  £)r£i,c    (;)    axsxpCD-Tj    Tv]a-o5;   'Eyw 

Batij-ovtov    o'jx    £/w,     oOJm    tiij.co 

-Qv    xaxspa    [xoy,    xai    6[j.£Ti;   oczi- 

[J.a^£-£   [J.£  .   .  . 

7uap£^[Bou  Bl   Tw  xpivov-i  Bixaiojc      la-tv  6  ^Tjttwv  xal  xpivcov 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  529 

Jn.  9  ;  48—49  gives  a  concrete  case  of  what  is  mentioned  in 
I  Pt.  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  Jn.  3 ;  .5,  6 

6    xai    u[j.ac   avTi-u~ov    vuv   crcotsi      sav  \i.i\  ■zic  yswYiD'Y]  t'E,  ijbtxzoc  .  .  . 

vov  £x  TTj?  o-apxoc  o-dcpi  Icrxiv 

This  very  suggestive  parallel  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  section,  but  it  seems  quite  as  evident  that 

the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  took  up  the  Pauline  thought  of 

1  Peter  and  developed  it  into  a  narrative.     See  Note  on  Ex.  4. 

(10)  I    Pt.   4;   11  Ju.   14;   13 

tva  £v  TraTiv  Soca^r^Tai  6  Heo?  tva  ZotccTbri  6  TraTYjp  Iv  tw  uuo 
Bia  'ItjCtoi!  \piG"roo 

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,  16  f 
7:oi[j.avaT£  to  sv  'jijIv  -oCpiov  tou      '^orr/.z  xk  apvta  ij.ou.   16,  17  po^rxs 
0£OLi                                                       TOC  :tp6,3aTa  ixou 

I  Peter  alludes  to  the  general  oversight  and  succor  of  the  church, 
such  as  an  elder  could  have  and  give,  quite  in  harznony  with  what 
is  taught  in   Jn.  21.     Ilotjjiaivsiv  is  used  of  Christ  (Mt.  2  ;  6,  Rev. 

2  ;  17,  7  ;  17,  12  ;  5,  19  ;  15)  in  the  sense  of  "  govern,"  and  of  Chris- 
tian ministers  (Jn.  21  ;  16,  Acts  20  ;  28,  I  Pt.  5  ;  2,  3).  noipv)  is  used 
of  the  Christian  flock,  Mt.  26  ;  31,  Jn.  10  ;  16  ;  xoipiov,  Lk.  12  ;  32,  Acts 
20  ;  28,  I  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. 


530  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(12)  I  Pfc.  5  ;  4  Jn.  10  ;  11  f. 

Totj  ap/^t-oCfj-svo?.     Cf.  2  ;  25. 

We  are  certain  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  depends  upon  Mark,  hence 
Mk.  6  ;  34  may  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  Tcotjxsva  twv  7cpo[3aT:tov  tov  [jiyav.  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. 

c 

(13)  I  Pt.  1 ;  5  Jn.  10  ;  28  f . 

TOU?  Iv  Buvajj-si,  (")£oij  cppoupou^ji-  .  .  .  ooy  apxac-si  -zic  tj-:cc  Ix  t?]? 
V0U5  .  .  .  Z^^*^^?  [-'•''-''J-     Ci.  17  ;  11  f. 

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  b}^  way  of 
I  Peter. 

(14)  I  Pt.  1  ;  25  Jn.  1  ;  1 

TO  Bs  pTj^-a  Kupiou  [jivsi  zlq  tov  £v  ap^Y]  y]v  6  Xoyjc,  xat,  6  Xoyjc, 
alwva.  TOUTO  Bs  laxi  to  prj[j.a  ^v  izpbc,  tov  0e6v,  xai  Hso?  TjV 
TO  £5aYY£>>t<70<£v  zlc,  tj[j.a?  6  X6^0(;.     Cf.  v.  14. 

The  relationship  between  these  citations  has  been  touched  upon 
in  the  note  on  Ex.  6.     Dependence  here  seems  probable. 

(1.5)  I  Pt.  2 ;  21  Jn.  13 ;  15 

Yi[j.Tv  uxoXifJvTtavwv  u7COYpa[j,[j.6v,  I'va  'Mo'hziyii.cc  yap  sBcoxa  6[j.Tv,  ivoc 
sxaxoT^ouS-YioTiTs  ToT?  lyvsctv  auToU      xaD'W?     lyw     E7roiYj'7a     tj[j,Tv,     xai 

up-sT?  Tuor^TS 

This  parallel  is  suggestive  especially  since  the  "  example  "  occurs 
in  a  narrative  in  John.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  our  Epistle  has 
much  to  say  about  "  humility." 


First  Epistle  of  Peter.  531 

(16) 


I  Ft.  4  ;  5 

Jn.  5 ;  22 

-7(0     STOltJ.O)?     XflVOVTl     '((OVTaC 

xai 

ty;v 

xpio-iv     Tiocaav    B£Bo)xsv 

TO) 

vsxpo'j? 

•Jl(0 

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  surety  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. 

(17)  I  Pt.  4 ;  8  a  Jn.  15 ;  12 

-p6  TravTcov  -ry  sic  zccd'OUc,  aya-      aijv/]    Icnrlv   r    IvtoXy]   *^    Iixy]   hoc 

aoc  oixolc, 

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  ;  8b  is  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. 


(18)  I  Pt.  1 ;  1  Jn.  7 ;  35  b 

;;aps7riBY|[j.oi?  BiaTrropag  ...  sic  ~r.v  Biao"7:opav  twv'EX)."/jv(i)v 

Probably  accidental. 

(19i  I  Pt.  1 ;  11 

IfsuvcovTsc  £ic  Tiva  .  .  ,  zpop^ap- 
Tup6[;.£vov  Toc  zIq  XpiCTov  za- 
Mi\).cc'zcc  xai  Tac  [j.£-a  -zccZzoc  Bocae 

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. 


Jn.  12; 

41 

TaUTOC 

zkz 

'Ho-afai 

:,    0-£   £lB£ 

TYjV 

56^av 

UD- 

■oti,    xai 

zUMr>e 

T£pi 

a'jTO'j 

532  Ora  Delmer  Foster, 

(20)  I  Pt.  1 ;  21  Jn.  12 ;  44 

.  .  .  Bi'    ccoTOU   mrr'zouc    zlq    0s6v      "O    TrKTTsuwv   si;   qxs    ou    tciittsusi 

D^TciBa  sTvat  sic  ©sov  [j.s 

Though  John  very  probably  depends  here  upon  Mk.  9  ;  37..  it 
is  suggestive  in  this  connection. 


(21)  I  Pt.  3;  12  Jn.  9;  31 

xal  wTa  auTou  zlq  SsTiTIv    aOTwv      ol'Baijxv  Be  oti  a[j.apTw}.wv  6  0s- 

7cp6(7wxov  Be  Kupiou  Ivd  7:ototJVTa<;      6?  oux  axoust,,  a^.X'  lav    'rtc  8'so- 
xaxa  (7£[3yi5    f\    xai    to    &'£},^^[xa    auTOO 

■KOiri  TOUTOU  axousi 

There  is  here  no  necessarv  connection. 


(22)  I  Pt.  3 ;  14  Jn.  14 ;  27 

Tov  Bs  ?p6[3ov  a'jTwv  ^.y]  cpoj3r,LJ''^'7£,      [j.tj    irapaTcrs'j&'Co    u[j.(ov    v;    xapBia 

ixY]B£  xapa/G'-^TS"  (Cf.  3  ;  15)  xap-      [j.TjBs  BsiXiairco 

Biat:; 

The  phraseology  is  suggestive,  yet  the  similarity  is  probably  acci- 
dental. 

(23)  I  Pt.  5  ;  1  Jn.  15 ;  27  a 

[xapxuc    Twv    -zoo   XpidToti    7zixb%-      sxsTvoc  [xapTupYjG-£i  T^spi   s[j.oiI*  xat, 
[jLOCTcov  'j[j.sTc  Be  [j-aprupsTTs 

Connection  here  is  very  doubtful. 


Conclusion  on  the  Johannine  Literature. 

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. 


533 


We  have  noted  at  many  points  in  the  Gospels  and  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  \vhere  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  later  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 

Table  I 

APOSTOLIC  EATHERS 


Classification 

No.  of  References 

A 

1 

A 

1 

A 

3 

C 

2 

A 

1 

B 

8 

D 

— 

A* 

13 

B 

10 

D 

6 

A* 

13 

B 

5 

A* 

41 

Tertullian      .     .  . 
Clement  of  Alex. 

Irenaeus   .     .     .  . 

II  Clement    .     .  . 

Papias       .     .     .  . 

Justin  Martyr    .  . 

Test.  XII  Pat.  .  . 

Barnabas       .     .  . 

Hermas     .     .     .  . 

Didache    .     ,     .  . 

Polycarp  .     .     .  . 

Ignatius    .     .     .  . 
Clement  of  Rome 


Total 


104 


534 


Ora  Delmer  Foster, 


Table  II 
CANONICAL  BOOKS 


Classification 

No 

.  of  References 

Galatians      .     .     . 

B 

9 

I  Thessalonians 

° 

10 

II  Thessalonians 

I            D 

5 

I  Corinthians    . 

1         c 

23 

II  Corinthians 

C-D 

13 

Romans   .     .     . 

A* 

63 

Ephesians     . 

A* 

45 

Colossians    . 

D 

14 

Philemon 

D 

— 

Philippians  . 

D 

9 

I  Timothy  ? 

D 

9 

II  Timothy  ? 

D 

5 

Titus  ?     .     . 

C-D 

14 

219  Total  in  Pauline 

Hebrews 

B 

49 

Epistles 

"  Q  "  Source 

D 

9 

Markan  Source 

D 

12 

Matthew       . 

D 

5 

Luke   .     . 

D 

8 

Acts     .     . 

D 

22 

James 

A* 

81 

Jude    .     . 

D 

4 

140 

Revelation 

C 

13 

I  John      . 

B 

10 

II  John    . 

1            D 

1 

Ill  John  . 

.    i            D 

1 

John    .     . 

.    1            B 

23 

48  Total  in  Joh.  Lit. 

II  Peter  . 

A 

T 

1 

Total  in  Canonical  Literature     408 

Total  in  Apostolic  Fathers     .     104 

Grand  total     .     .     .     512 


Tables  of  Results. 


635 


Table  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 

Romans    .... 

A*                      i     Rome          Corinth 

55 

Ephesians    .     .     . 

A* 

Asia,  Rome     Rome 

59 

Titus 

C 

?                   ? 

? 

Hebrews      .     .     . 

B                     Rome          Rome? 
FIRST  PETiiJU 

?   85-90 

James      .... 

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  .... 

B 

Smyrna 

115 

Polycarp      .     .     . 

A* 

Smyrna 

115 

Hermas    .... 

B 

Rome 

140 

Barnabas      .     .     . 

A* 

Alexandria  ? 

130-160 

Justin 

B 

Rome 

155 

Papias      .... 

A 

Hierapolis 

145-160 

II  Clement 

A 

Alexandria 

170 

BIBLIOGRAPHY! 

Histories 
JVIc  GiFFERT.     History  of  the  Apostolic  Age.     1897. 
Weizsacker.     Apostolic  Age.    Eng.  tr.  1895 
DoBscHDTZ.     Christian    Life    in    the    Primitive    Church.      Eng.    tr.    1904. 

The  Apostolic  Age.     Eng.  tr.  1909. 

Hauseath.     History  of  the  New  Testament  Times. 
Ropes.     The  Apostolic  Age.     1907. 

PuRVES.     Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age.     1901. 

Harnack.     Expansion  of  Christianity. 

Wernle.     Beginnings  of  Christianity.     Eng.  tr,  1904. 

Knopf.     Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter.     1905. 

Pfleiderer.     Primitive  Christianity.     Eng.  tr.  1906. 

Bartlet.     The  Apostolic  Age.     1899. 

Von  Soden.     Early  Christian  Literature.     Eng.  tr. 

Ramsay.     The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire.     1893. 

St.  Paul  the  Traveller. 

Neander.     Planting  of  the  Christian  Church.     1899. 

Schaff.     History  of  the  Clmstian  Church.  Vol.  1.     1882. 

Moeller.     History  of  the  Christian  Church.  A.  D.  1—600.     Eng.  tr.  1892. 

EiSHER.     History  of  the  Christian  Church.     1896. 

VoN  Schubert.     Outlines  of  Church  History. 

Bacon.     The  Story  of  St.  Paul.     1904. 

Earrar.     The  Early  Days  of  Christianity.     Vol.  I.     1882. 

MoMMSEN.     The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.     Eng.  tr.  1887. 

Hardy.     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. 

Arnold.     Die  Neronische  Christenverfolgung. 

Histories  of  Suetonius,  Dion  Cassius,  and  Eusebius. 

Redss.     History  of  the  New  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1884. 
MoFFATT.     The  Histoiical  New  Testament.     1801. 

Introductions. 
Bacon.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1905. 
Zahn.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1909. 
Holtzmann.     Einleitung  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. 


Ora  Dehncr  Foster,  Bibliography  537 

JuLicHER.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1904. 
HiLGKNFELD.    Historiscli-Kritisclie  Einleitnng  in  das  Neue  Testament.  1875. 
Peake.     a  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1910. 
Davidson.     Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  III.     1851. 
Salmon.     Historical  Introduction  to  the  Studj^  of  the  Books  of  the  New 

Testament. 
Gloag.     Introduction  to  the  Catholic  Epistles.     1887. 

B.  Weiss.     A  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    Eng.  tr.  1888. 
Bleek.     Einleituug  in  das  Neue  Testament.     Eng.  tr.  1870. 
DoDS.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

COJIMENTARIES. 

Bigg.     On  I  Peter,  International  Critical  Commentary.     1905. 

MoNNiER.     La  prem.  Ep.  de  I'apotre  Pierre.     1900. 

GuNKEL.     On  Der  erste  Brief  des  Petrus,  in  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T.  1907. 

HoLTZMANN.     On  Der  erste  Brief  des  Petrus,  in  Commentar  zum  N.  T.  III. 

Bennett.     On  General  Epistles,  in  the  Century  Bible.     1901. 

Pldmptre.     On  I  Peter,  in  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools.     1880. 

Cone.     On  I  Peter  and  other  Epistles,  in  the  International  Handbook^to 

tlie  New  Testament  Series.     1901. 
Hart.     On  I  Peter  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testament.     1910. 
Meyer.     Commentary  on  I  Peter.     Eng.  tr.  1891. 
Godet.     Commentary  on  I  Peter.     Eng.  tr.  1886. 
HiLGENFELD.     On  I  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. 
Lightfoot.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     1869. 

Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.     1895. 

Drdmmond.     On  Gal.  and   other  Epistles,   in  International  Handbook   to 

the  New  Testament  Series. 
Sanday  and  Headlam.     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. 
Robinson.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     1903. 
Beet.     St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     1888. 
Abbott.     On  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  in  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1897. 
Martin,     On  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  in  The  Century  Bible. 
IjIghtfoot.     The  Epistles   of  St.  Paul,   Colossians   and  Philemon.     1892. 
Vincent.     The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Philemon,  I.  C.  C.    1897 
MiLLiGAN.     St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Tessalonians.     1908. 
GooDSPEED.     On  Hebrews,  in  The  Bible  for  Home  and  School. 
Peake.     On  Hebrews,  in  The  Century  Bible. 
Mayor.     The  Epistle  of  St.  James.     1892. 
HoRT.     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.  Cora.     1907. 

Plummer.     On  Luke,  in  Int.  Crit.  Com.     1896. 

Heitmuller.     Das  Johannes-Evangelium,  in  Weiss'  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T. 

Zeller.     The  Contents  and  Origin  of  the  A.cts  of  the  Apostles.     Eng.  tr. 

Gilbert.     On  Acts,  in  The  Bible  for  Home  and  School.     1908. 

Bartlet.     On  Acts,  in  The  Century  Bible.     1901. 

Dictionaries  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. 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  Article  on  I  Peter,  by  Cone. 
Standard  Bible  Dictionary.     Article  on  I  Peter  by,  Dods. 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica.     Article  on  I  Peter,  byHarnack. 
The  New  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia.     Article  on  Peter  the  Apostle,  by 
Seiffert. 

General. 
"Weiss,  B,     Der  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff.     1855. 

Scharfe.     Die  Petrinische  Stromung  der  neutestamentlichen  Literatur. 
Harnack.     Die  Chronologie.     1897. 

LiGHTFOOT.     The  Apostolic  Pathers,  Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  etc. 
The  Ante-Nicene  Pathers,  Published  by  the  Christian  Lit.  Co.     1896. 
Oxford  Committee  of  Hist.  Theol.     The  ISI.  T.  in  Apostolic  Pathers.   1905. 
DiTTMAR.    Vetus  Testamentum  in  JNovo. 
Toy.     Quotations  in  the  New  Testament.     1884. 
Hawkins.     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. 
Smith,  W.  B.     Der  vorchristliche  Jesus.     1906. 
Schmidt.     Zwei  Pragen  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, 
Charles.     Greek  Version  of  the  XII  Patriarchs.     1908. 
Coneybeare  and  Kohler.     On  the  XII  Patriarchs,  in  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 


Any  of  the  below-named  parts  of  the  Transactions  and  Memoirs  of 
the  Connecticut  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences  will  be  sent  post-paid 
on  receipt  of  the  price  by  the  Librarian,  J.  C.  Schwab,  New  Haven, 
Conn.,  U.  S,  A.,  to  whom  also  all  communications  respecting  ex- 
change of  publications  should  be  addressed. 


TRANSACTIONS. 


Vol. 

Part. 

Pages. 

Plates. 

Price. 

I, 

1,  1866. 

246 

3 

$2.50 

I, 

2,  1867- 

71. 

367 

7 

3.50 

II, 

1,  1870. 

208 

7 

3.00 

n, 

2,  1873. 

202 

11 

3.00 

III, 

1,  1876. 

248 

37 

3.50 

III, 

2.  1878. 

260 

23 

2.50 

IV, 

1,  1877. 

242 

2 

2.50 

IV, 

2,  1882. 

100 

11 

1.50 

V, 

1,  1880. 

267 

26 

3.00 

V, 

2,  1882. 

341 

33 

3.50 

VI, 

1,  1884. 

294 

32 

3.50 

VI, 

2,  1885. 

223 

17 

3.00 

VII, 

1,  1886. 

259 

7 

2.50 

VII, 

2,  1888. 

203 

4 

•t50 

VIII, 

1,  1890. 

204 

8 

2.50 

VIII, 

2,  1893. 

331 

36 

3.50 

IX, 

1,  1892. 

332 

3.25 

IX, 

2,  1895. 

-  210 

15 

3.00 

X, 

1,  1899. 

300 

42 

3.50 

X, 

2,  1900. 

398 

29 

3.50 

XI, 

1,  1902. 

500 

70 

5.00 

XI, 

2,  1903. 

553 

40 

5.00 

XII, 

1907. 

436 

64 

4.00 

XIII, 

1907- 

-08. 

548 

38 

5.00 

XIV, 

1908-09. 

466 

27 

4.50 

XV, 

1909. 

369 

1 

3.50 

XVI, 

1910- 

-11. 

407 

6 

4.00 

XVII, 

1912- 

-13. 

538 

37 

5.50 

MEMOIRS. 

I, 

1810- 

-15. 

[out  of 

Prmt] 

II, 

1910. 

38 

31 

3.50 

III, 

1911. 

249 

49 

7.50 

WEIMAR  :  PRINTED  BY  R.  WAGNER  SOHN 


3  2044   106  253  461 


^4i^:i 


..i' 


/' 


'-''it 


^'5*    3f*A 


<*^.  -'-^J 


-t-i. 


<'jk..^..^-^j:  ^r^ 


VAa>,  *v^