The Grotesque in Church Art Part 11

Rebuses are often met among Gothic sculptures, but not in such frequency, or with an amount of humour to claim any great attention here. They are almost entirely, as in the case of the canting heraldry of seals, of late date, being mostly of the 15th and 16th centuries. They are often met as the punning memorial of the name of a founder, builder, or architect, as the bolt-ton of Bishop Bolton in St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield, the many-times-repeated c.o.c.k of Bishop Alc.o.c.k in Henry VII's. Chapel, the eye and the slip of a tree, and the man slipping from a tree, for Bishop Islip, Westminster; and others well known. In the series of misericordes in Beverley Minster, there are _arma palantes_ of the dignitaries of the Church in 1520. William White, the Chancellor, has no less than seven different renderings of the pun upon his name, all being representations of weights, apparently of four-stone ponderosity. Thomas Donnington, the Precentor, whose name would doubtless often be written Do'ington, has a doe upon a ton or barrel. John Sperke, the Clerk of the Fabric, has a dog with a bone, and a vigilant c.o.c.k; this, however, is not a name-rebus so much as an allusion to the exigencies of his office. The Church of St.

Nicholas, Lynn, had misericordes (some of which are now in the Architectural Museum) which have several monograms and rebuses.

Unfortunately, they are somewhat involved, and there is at present no key by which to read them. The least doubtful is that given below.

[Ill.u.s.tration: WEIGHT, REBUS FOR WHITE, BEVERLEY MINSTER.]

It has a "ton" rebus which will admit, however, of perhaps three different renderings. It is most likely Thorn-ton, less so Bar-ton, and still less Hop-ton, all Lincolns.h.i.+re names.

[Ill.u.s.tration: MERCHANT MARK, COGNIZANCE AND REBUS, ST. NICHOLAS'S, LYNN.]

Trinities.

[Ill.u.s.tration: LARVA-LIKE DRAGON, ST. PAUL'S, BEDFORD.]

Repeatedly has the statement been made that the various mythologies are only so many corruptions of the Mosaic system. Manifestly if this could be admitted there would be little interest in enquiring further into their details. But there are three arguments against the statement, any one of which is effective. Although it is perhaps totally unnecessary to contradict that which can be accepted by the unreflective only, it is sufficiently near the purpose of this volume to slightly touch upon the matter, as pointing strong distinctions among ancient wors.h.i.+ps.

First, there is the simple fact recorded in the Mosaic account itself, that there existed at that time, and had done previously, various religious systems, the rooting out of which was an important function of the liberated Hebrews. The only reply to this is that, by a slight s.h.i.+ft of ground, the mythologies were corruptions of the patriarchal religion, not the Mosaic system. Yet paganism surrounded the patriarchs.

The second point is that most of the mythologies had crystallized into taking the sun as the main symbol of wors.h.i.+p, and into taking the equinoxes and other points of the constellation path as other symbols and reminders of periodic wors.h.i.+p; whereas in the Mosaic system the whole structure of the solar year is ignored, all the calculations being lunar.

If it be objected that Numbers ix. 6-13, and II. Chronicles x.x.x. 2, refer indirectly to an intercalary month, that, if admitted, could only for expediency's sake, and has no bearing upon the general silence as to the solar periods. This second point is an important testimony to what may be termed Mosaic originality.

The third point is that in most of the mythologies there is the distinct mention of a Trinity; in the Mosaic system, the system of the Old Testament, none. With the question as to whether the New Testament supports the notion of a Trinity, we need not concern ourselves here; it is enough that it has been adopted as an item of the Christian belief.

The mythological Trinities are vague and, of course, difficult or impossible to understand. Most of them appear to be attempts of great minds of archaic times to reconcile the manifest contradictions ever observable in the universe. This is done in various ways. Some omit one consideration, some another; but they generally agree that to have a three-fold character in one deity is necessary in explaining the phenomenon of existence. Some of the Trinities may be recited.

PERSIAN.

OROMASDES, Goodness, the deviser of Creation.

MITHRAS, Eternal Intellect, the architect and ruler of the world, literally "the Friend."

ARIMANES, the mundane soul (Psyche).

GRECIAN.

ZEUS.

PALLAS.

HERA.

ROMAN.

JUPITER, Power.

MINERVA, Wisdom, Eternal Intellect.

JUNO, Love.

SCANDINAVIAN.

ODIN, Giver of Life.

HaeNIR, Giver of motion and sense.

LODUR, Giver of speech and the senses.

AMERICAN INDIAN.

OTKON.

MESSOU.

ATAHUATA.

EGYPTIAN.

CNEPH, the Creator, Goodness.

PTA (Opas), the active principle of Creation (= Vulcan).

EICTON.

The Egyptians had other Trinities than the above, each chief city having its own form; in these, however, the third personality appears to be supposed to proceed from the other two, which scarcely seems to have been intended in the instances already given. Some of the city Trinities were as follow:--

THEBES.

AMUN-RA (= Jupiter), (RA = the Mid-day Sun.)

MANT or MENTU (= "the mother," Juno.)

CHONSO (= Hercules.)

PHILAE & ABYDOS.

OSIRIS (= Pluto).

ISIS (= Prosperine).

HORUS, the Saviour, the Shepherd (the Rising Sun).

ABOO-SIMBEL.

PTA or PHTHAH.

AMUM-RA.