Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][graphic]

most usually found, but they have also been found in an upright position, similar to the human mummy. Count Caylus (Recueil d'Antiquités, vol. vi. pl. 11, fig. 1), gives a mummy Ibis, in which the bird was placed on its feet, with the head erect (fig. 3). He

says,

[ocr errors]

"It has been disposed and arranged as would have been done to the most eminent corpse in Egypt." "This mummy has never been opened, and has not undergone the least alteration; the beak of the bird and the head are not enveloped in the bandages; they have been covered with bitumen, and furnished with linen threads. The beak is moveable, and only held to the head by these same threads; it is conceived that the embalmment could not have given it sufficient consistence to hold it in its place; but it is most likely it has been thus arranged to avoid the danger of breaking, to which its natural projection necessarily exposed it."

Mr. Pettigrew has also engraved a similar upright specimen, with the head tied back to a forked stick, from Monumens Egyptiens, pl. LXI. fig. 3, published in folio at Rome in 1791.

My specimen belongs to the second species described by Herodotus, namely, having white plumage, with the extremities of the wings and tail black, described by Baron Cuvier in his "Animal Kingdom," as, " Ibis Religiosa as large as a hen, with white plumage, except the end of the wing quills, which are black. The last wing coverts have elongated and slender barbs of a black colour, with violet reflections, and thus cover the end of the wings and tail. The bill and feet are black, as well as all the naked part of the head and neck. The species is found throughout the whole extent of Africa." In a memoir on the

[graphic]

Ibis by Cuvier, first inserted in the Annals of the French Museum, and afterwards in his "Ossemens Fossiles," he says, "it is a bird of the genus Numenius, or curlew, of the subgenus Ibis. I have named it NuMENIUS IBIS, albus, capite et collo adulti nudis, remigium apicibus, rostro et pedibus nigris, remigibus secundariis elongatus nigro violaceis,"-and adds, "the black Ibis of the ancients is probably the bird known in Europe under the name of green curlew, or the Scolopax falcinellus of Linnæus; it also belongs to the genus of Curlew, and the subgenus of Ibis."

Bruce was the first to discover in Ethiopia a bird which is there called Abou-Hannès (Father John), and on comparing it with the embalmed individuals, he discovered it to be the true black and white Ibis of the ancients, and the same as the Mengel, or AbouMengel (Father of the Sickle), of the Arabs. This fact has been fully confirmed in the Memoir before referred to by M. Cuvier, who inspected several mummies brought from the pits of Saccara, and also from Thebes, by Col. Grobert and M. Geoffroy. He states that travellers, before and after Bruce, appear to have all been in error, and that the learned have not been more fortunate in their conjectures than the travellers, and explains where and how they have erred. That in the mummies from Saccara," the bones had experienced a kind of half combustion, and were without consistency; they broke on the least touch, and it was very difficult to procure one entire, still more to detach them, so as to form a skeleton." Those from Thebes were much better preserved; and M. Rousseau, the assistant of Cuvier, contrived, by sacrificing several specimens, to form an entire skeleton.

It has been a questio vexata, whether the Ibis does or does not destroy serpents. Cuvier says, in confirmation of Herodotus and Diodorus, "I believe that I have ascertained decidedly, that the bird-mummies were real serpent eaters; for I have found in one of their mummies the undigested remains of the skin and scales of serpents."

M. Savigny, who observed whilst

living, and more than once dissected the Ibis, wrote a natural and mythological history of the bird, in which he fully confirms Bruce's discovery of the true black and white Ibis of the ancients, but disagrees with Cuvier as to the food of these birds, and consequently, on the reason of the venera. tion of the Egyptians for them. He asserts that they eat only worms, fresh water shell fish, and other similar small animals; he never found any remains of serpents in those he opened, and considers the fact mentioned by the Baron as an isolated instance; and observes, that, according to Herodotus, before the Egyptians proceeded to embalm an Ibis, they removed the intestines; that he himself has found, in the interior of one of these mummies, no remains of viscera and soft parts, but a multitude of the larvæ or nymphæ of insects of different species. That mummies of serpents have been discovered in the grottoes of Thebes,† and that many of the mummies from the depositories in the plains of Saccara, contained under a general envelope, aggregations of different animals, whose debris alone were collected; to which Cuvier's reply is, supposing there is no exception to this, all we can conclude is, that the Egyptians, as has before occurred to them and others, gave a false reason for an absurd worship."

Mr. Griffith, the translator and editor of Cuvier, observes that the organization of the bird seems ill adapted for killing snakes, and adduces several other arguments against what he calls the assertions of Herodotus respecting the supposed service rendered to Egypt by these birds in delivering it from serpents. Herodotus, however, made no assertions on the subject; he gave the account as an on dit of the Arabians, which was not contradicted by the Egyptians; and it is due to the venerable Father of History to say, that he rarely made positive assertions The inside of my specimen was entirely void.

The Egyptians may have embalmed both snakes and crocodiles, with the same object with which they erected temples to Typhon, the evil principle, in order to deprecate his malice.

on subjects which did not come within his personal knowledge; although, doubtless, both he and Diodorus were in several instances deceived by the wily priests of Egypt.

Mr. Griffith's opinion on the point is as follows:

"Its (the Ibis) constant presence at the epoch of that inundation which annually triumphs over all the sources of decay, and assures the fertility of the soil, must have appeared to the priests and persons at the head of Government admirably calculated to make an impression on the minds of the people, to lead them to suppose supernatural and secret relations between the movements of the Nile, and the sojourn of these inoffensive birds, and to consider the latter as the cause of effects exclusively owing to the overflow of the river."

This idea is ingenious, but we must doubt its correctness, so many varieties of animals having been found preserved in mummies as to give great authenticity to the account of Herodotus, seconded by the statements of Diodorus, that all the beasts of Egypt, both wild and domestic, were regarded

as sacred, and we must look for some reason more generally applicable. The most plausible, in my opinion, which I have yet met with, is one mentioned by Diodorus: he says, "the priests have a private and secret account of these things in the history of the gods; but the common people give three reasons for what they do." One of these reasons is, that "the ancient Egyptians, being often defeated by the neighbouring nations, by reason of the disorder and confusion that was among them in drawing up their battalions, found out at last the way of carrying standards or ensigns before their several regiments; and therefore, they

Mr. URBAN, Norwood, June 1. IN my last communication 1 left Sir Thomas Lunsford at Monmouth, with the gallant and devoted Lucas, threatening mischief to the county of Gloucester. This was shortly after the battle of Naseby, about the time when, as Lloyd informs us, with the newly-created Lord Astley he received a commission from Charles to collect the Welsh into a body. The same

painted the images of these beasts which now they adore, and fixed them at the head of a spear, which the officers carried before them, and by this means every man perfectly knew the regiment he belonged to; and it being that by the observation of this good order and discipline, they were often victorious, they ascribed their deliverance to these creatures; and, to make them a grateful return, it was ordained for a law, that none of these creatures, whose representations were formerly thus carried, should be killed, but religiously and carefully adored." 1 consider this as merely the most plausible reason, and I cannot but think that the true cause of the universal veneration for the brute creation among the Egyptians, is among those mysteries of that highly mysterious people which have never yet been fathomed, and probably never will, unless the more perfect knowledge of the hieroglyphic inscriptions shall admit us, among the initiated, to some of the secrets of the Egyptian priests.

the subject, according to Mr. PettiTo come to the latest authority on grew's valuable work on Mummies, the Ibis was consecrated to Thoth or

Theuth, the Egyptian Mercury, the protector of the sciences, the inventor of writing, and of all the useful arts, and, in short, the organiser of human society. This bird on a perch constitutes the hieroglyphical name of Thoth. At Medinet Abou there is a temple especially dedicated to him, in which he is represented with the head of an Ibis.* W. H. ROSSer.

*Caylus, Recueil d'Antiquités, has given two human figures, each with the head of an Ibis.

author has recorded, that in this service he was preserved from assassination by Sir John Pettus, of Cheston Hall, Suffolk. On the 26th September, at Hereford, with the Lord Herbert, of Ragland, and divers others of the King's chieftains in those parts, he is next to be found attending there a council of war, summoned upon receipt of a message from Charles, after his defeat before Chester, desiring the

aid of such horse as the city could afford. He had resigned the government of Monmouth to his brother, previous to the 7th of July.

From the date of the holding this council, no mention of Sir Thomas has occurred to me till the 21st of October. On this day, we are told, he quitted Monmouth,2 where he appears to have been staying some short time, and retraced his steps to Hereford. The 8th of December following, this last-mentioned place was surprised and taken by Colonels Morgan and Birch, when our hero once more fell into the hands of the jailor. His fellow captives of rank here were Dr. George Coke, Bishop of Hereford, Lord Brudenell, Judge Jenkins, Sirs Henry Bedingfield, Walter Blunt, Henry Spiller, Marmaduke and Francis Lloyd, Giles Mompesson, George Vaughan, John Stepney, Richard Basset, Philip Jones, Edward Morgan, Nicholas Throgmorton, and Walter Keamish. On the 3d of January, 1646, upon the reading of the list of prisoners taken at Hereford before the Commons, the House ordered that the Lord Bishop, the Lord Brudenell, Judge Jenkins, and all the knights named therein, should be forthwith sent for up to London. On the 22nd the Journals tell us that the Lord Brudenell, Sir Henry Bedingfield, Sir Walter Blunt, Sir Francis Howard, Sir Thomas Lunsford, and Mr. David Jenkins were ordered to the Tower for high treason, in levying war against the Parliament. On the 13th of April, the same authority informs us, that Mr. Herbert and Mr. James Temple, members of the house, had leave granted them to visit Sir Thomas in his captivity. In the June of this year, it seems, he received a letter from Cambridge concerning the division which had then sprung up between the Parliament and the Army, the Presbyterians and the Independents; a division which, born of the wiles of Cromwell, was at once the ladder to that extraor

dinary man's advancement to regal power, and to the dethronement and death of Charles.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Sir, I have received your letter, and give you hearty thanks for it. These parts are full of expectation: the great actions in motion have fixed the eyes of the kingdome, and false rumours (the harbingers of such designes) have taken up transitory lodgings in the several dispositions of men; but those which have been beaten into judgment of the times, stand upon their guards, refusing admittance to what comes not with good authority. That an army, and a powerful one is on foot, is knowne; 'that (if the King bee partie in it) it will be irresistable, is likewise out of doubt; that the declaration of it is unpleasing, and challenges part of the freehold of our Parliament, wee see in print; and that the Parliament will not part with nothing it can either get or hold, we know by experience; and that I absolutely hope the dissolution of it I assure you, upon my reputation. Now the army having thus farre displayed, and the Parliament not having power to equal what is on foot, the one standing upon power and the hearts of the people. the other upon thornes, and the festering wounds of the Common-wealth; I give the one assured, the other capable of a very speedy determination. I likewise judge a necessity of restoring the King, and returning the lawes into their former channell; for should the Army bee satisfied with only their arreares, and expulsion of the Presbyterian partie, and yet continue the two Houses (when it shall bee disbanded) what assurance have the Independents in Parliament that the City (which is Presbyterian, and from whence the Army at this instant affirmes would be raised another, to countenance Presbytery, were it not for the interposition of this on foot) shall not raise forces, and destroy the acts of these hereafter, who forcibly may settle themselves now? that the City shall not new-mould the Houses with Presbyterians, as perhaps the Army may now with Independents? and that the Houses then (by vertue of the Citie) shall not runne rigorous wayes of re venge? For what can oppose the Citie if the Armie be away?

These considerations will not admit me to gleane other expectation from the courses in motion, then honourable and popular conclusions. The King in Barliament can assure the ends of the Armie, can conferre honours, can gratifie with estates, can make an act of oblivion; and then, by the dissolution of the Parliament, the parties are sure to enjoy all that is so given them; but keepe it still on foot, and disband the Armie, then there is danger of the prevalencie of the other faction, and

consequently of the revocation of all grants to the former. Likewise, to keepe an Armie long up, requires a charge insupportable, as well as it gives an aspect formidable to all who have observed the mu

tability of these times. Besides, without

the King nothing can be confirmed, nothing enjoyed longer than an Armie is on foot; nor can peace be so settled but that seedes will be left for a new warre to spring forth, so soone as the season can procure it.

But mee thinks now there is a miracle working: an Armie (powerful to enrich it selfe by offences) is so spotlesse as the world admires it; and this Armie summons a Parliament (indeed red as skarlet), vyes with it in innocencie, and boldly demands reparations of the crimes committed against the common-wealth. The nature of the one is (commonly) charged with crime and bloud, and of the other with pietie, vertue, and blessings upon the realme. But as the one hath degenerated into the other's qualitie and nature, so is it just it should receive the other's propertie. As a good Parliament might demand accompts of a wicked Armie, so why may not a righteous Armie demand the like of a wicked Parliament? In mine opinion, justice hath layd this scene; to be acted in this antipodian tragedie; and (so that it may be the last) he little cares how soone it be concluded, who is, Sir,

Your friend and servant,
THOMAS LUNSFORD.

The Tower, 16° June, 1647.

Though I know this will not please you, yet to let you understand and to possesse all your universitie (contrarie) perhaps, to its opinion, that our halcyon dayes are not farre off, I write this, and care not if both Houses see it, and desire you to publish it.

From the title to this letter,3 which

was given to the public as the writer

desired, we find Sir Thomas to have been then in possession of a baronetcy; a reward to which his services, his military skill, and his singular loyalty so justly entitled him. The patent of this honour, owing as much perhaps to the state of his purse, as to the time when it was conferred, he appears never to have passed, and therefore the absence of his name from the Synopsis of the Extinct Baronetage lately published. But from the facts that he has

3 An Answer to a Letter written from Cambridge to SirThomas Lunsford, Knight and Baronet, Prisoner in the Tower of London. Printed in the year 1647.

[ocr errors]

here the style of a Baronet, that he takes the style to himself in his will, and that he has been allowed it in an elaborate contemporary pedigree of his

family preserved now in the College of Arms, 1 should say there can be no doubt but that this honour was his. In the Tower he remained a prisoner, enjoying the society of his wife, till the 1st of October; when, by order of the Commons, he was removed to Lord Petre's house in Aldersgate-street, a common prison for the Royalists. The date of his liberation from this durance, and the cause are untold; but from the following letter, which I shall show to have been written in 1648, and to be addressed to the Prince of Wales, then residing in Paris, it would seem that, previous to the 29th of June in the following year he was at large.

May it please your Highness,

I have not been idle in your [service] since I had my liberty. And [I] conceive I have such interest [in] Sussex as there I shall most advantageously move in it. I humbly conceive that your Highness commission will much forward my progress therein, and the want of it countenance scruples, wherefore I have sent this bearer humbly to acquaint you with this, and (if it be thought fit) to bring your commands and commission to serve you in that quality and condition as shall be most agreeable to your Highness's pleasure, according to which all care and industry shall be immediately set on foot by

May it please your Highness
Yor Higss most humble

June 29th.

and obedient servant, THOMAS LUNSFORD.4 That this letter was written to the Prince of Wales, and in the year here given, I infer, first, from the fact that about this very time there were several risings in favour of the imprisoned King, with which the Queen and Prince were made acquainted; secondly, from the statement of Lunsford that he had not been idle since he obtained his liberty. Now this liberty spoken of could not be that which followed his imprisonment at Warwick; for then, as we have said, he joined the King at Oxford, and received, on the 3d of June, an appointment there, which found him local occupation.5

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »