reason this term in the table cannot be supposed to relate to the singular practice of any one particular church; had it been expressed secundum usum Hispanicum, it would have been something; but as it is, and as the practice of veiling images, &c. prevailed every where, even here in this kingdom of England, as will be shewn below, this is a very material objection to this gentleman's interpretation.

2dly, The brandons are but one season in the year, as appears from the table; but if they meant all the several times when marriages were restrained, there would have been more than one. See Mr. Wheatley on the Common Prayer, p. 418.

3dly, Veiling, according to this gentleman, signifies marrying, for veilings shut is as much as to say marriage restrained, and veilings open, marriage allowed. But bran dons, or veilings, in our table, cannot mean marrying, but the contrary, to wit, a restraint from marrying, it being admitted by this author that marriage was prohibited from Ash-Wednesday till Low-Sunday.

4thly, There are no grounds to suppose, as this gentleman does, that the time of prohibiting marriage was different in Kerver's age from what it is now. (See Wheatley, p. 418.) Or that a printer exercising his trade at Paris should follow a custom peculiar to Spain, in a table printed according to the Roman use. No, you may depend on it, Mr. Urban, that the brandons are something of universal usage in the church at that time, and that the veiling of images and altars was such, shall be shewn by and by. For,

5thly and lastly, the brandons mean the first Sunday in Lent. This is allowed; and it appears from Durantus that the Romanists actually veiled their crosses and altars in Lent, beginning at that day. Brandeum then being the proper name of such veils, as Spelman, there also cited, clearly shews, it follows necessarily, that brandons is the same word with a French termination, and that since the first Sunday in Lent is called brandons, it was denominated from the brandea or brandons, that is, the veils on that day first applied. This seems to me to be demonstration. But this gentleman thinks this ceremony of veiling images, crosses, and altars, not material enough to find a place in a calendar. He tells us again, that it is the sexton's business, and of the least consequence of any of the Romish ceremonies. It may be the sexton's business, but the Sacristan, from whence our word sexton is corrupted, is an officer of no small consequence in the church of Rome, and this business of veiling the holy things in Lent being a general prac

tice in that church, this is sufficient to make it necessary to give a direction for it, especially as the time varied every year. That it was a general practice, throughout the whole extent of that communion, may appear from the testimony of Durantus, the table in this book of Kerver's, and lastly, from the custom here in England, which I shall now endeavour to establish.

After the passing of the six articles in Henry VIII's time, near forty years after the publication of this book of Kerver's, the popish party, as Mr. Strype tells us in his life of archbishop Cranmer, p. 74, endeavoured to introduce a book of ceremonies, with certain plausible explications. This design did not take effect; however, one of the heads was, "The covering of the cross and images in Lent." Afterwards, A.D. 1545, archbishop Cranmer intercedes with the king to have "The vigil, and ringing of bells all night long upon Allhallow-night, and the covering of images in the church in the time of Lent, with the lifting the veil that covereth the cross on Palm Sunday, &c. all abolished, but does not prevail, insomuch that the custom continued, as it seems, to the end of this reign, but with that I believe it ended.

I have done with Mr. G. but another gentleman, finding the word brandon to signify a wisp of straw on fire, inclines to believe it to be the name of a dance, so called because it was performed round bonfires of straw. For this he cites

Mons. Bonnet's Histoire de la Danse. I have not this book by me, and therefore cannot pretend to pass any certain judgment upon it, but so far I may go, as to remark, 1st, That this was a French custom, for it is not pretended to be of any larger extent; but Kerver's book is secundum usum Romanum, from whence it is obvious to infer, that a general practice of the Roman church must be implied, such as I have shewn the veiling of altars to be.

2dly, I would ask this gentleman, who I dare say has candour enough to indulge me with an answer, since I cannot consult Bonnet myself, whether this author represents these dances, called Brandons, as allowed in the church by authority so late as A. D. 1500. The gentleman's words, I think, import the contrary. But now, if these dances were only local and even disallowed customs, as they seem to be, it is strange they should find their way into such an authentic table as this of Kerver's. Veiling of altars, crosses, and images, was an approved, general, and authorized custom, and such as might reasonably be expected there; but one is obliged to judge otherwise of the disorderly practices of

the vulgar, especially when our table is calculated for a different climate, and where, as we have reason to believe, no such wild doings were ever suffered to prevail.

But to finish this affair, I have seen, by the favour of a friend, since writing the above, some extracts from the last edition of Menagius's Origines de la Langue Françoise, which, as it had not been seen by me, so neither, as it appears, have either of these gentlemen consulted it. The first edition of the book was printed in 1650; this is that I use, and is par ticularly commended in the life of the author, prefixed to the Menagiana, as an impression remarkably correct. The author himself went on enlarging his work, and a new edition was printed two years after his death, viz. 1694: but since that, there is another edition of the Dictionnaire Etymologique, par M. Menage, printed anno 1750, with copious additions, by several men of learning. The extracts from this book, which are here subjoined, so far as relate immediately to the subject, may convince these gentlemen, that neither of their interpretations is so indubitably certain as they may perhaps imagine, and that upon the whole, the best way must be, to leave at last both theirs, and mine, and these fresh ones, to the opinion and judgment of the readers.

I. Brandon, c'est un mot ancien qui signifie tison, d'ou est dit le Dimanche des brandons, Dominica in Brandonibus. C'est le premier Dimanche de Careme. De l'Allemand brand, qui signifie la meme chose. Menage. Here's an etymology; and we are told what brandon means; but it is not said, how it came to pass, that Le dimanche des brandons is named from it.

II. In the second extract it signifies a bonfire, but does not relate to the first Sunday in Lent, but to Midsummerday; this therefore is out of the question; but whereas there is mention made of Charles the VIII.th's dancing nine times round the bonfire, after he had kindled it, hence it seems easy to conceive, that brandons may signify a dance round a bonfire: but then this is not to the purpose.

III. Brandon, marque de Saisie, appellée autrement Panonceau de brandeum. Jean la Coste, dans sa preface, sur le titre au code de pigneratitia actione, expliquant la livre 2de. au code, du titre ut nemine liceat sine judicis auctoritate signa rebus imponere alienis; Hæc signa Franci vocant brandons, fiunt enim plerumque ex pannunculis, et inde pannonceaux. Brandeum apud D. Gregorium, Epist. 30, lib. 3. et apud Sigebertum in chronico, ubi de Leone Magno Romano pontifice, accipi reperio pro particula veli vel pallæ

altaris D. Petri. Ab hac voce deducta sine dubio, vox Fran cica, quod pauci sciunt. V. H. This now is very express on my side of the question; but then on the other hand it must be confessed that the Latin form Dominica in Brandonibus, which we meet with in the first extract, does not so well agree with this etymology. It does not appear, though, what authority there is for that Latin name, nor, supposing it to be the French word brandon, from what sense of that word it takes its rise.

IV. The fourth is this; "Brandon, torche, et branche d'arbre, parceque des branches du tæda ou sapin on faisoit des torches. ... On a appellée le dimanche des brandons, le premier dimanche de Careme.... Ce nom vient de ce que par un reste d'idolatrie, quelques paysans mal instruits alloient ce jour la avec de torches de paille ou de bois de sapin allumées, parcourir les arbres de leurs jardins et de leurs vergers, et les apostrophant les uns apres les autres, ils les menacoient de les coups par le pied, et de les bruler; s'ils ne portoient pas du fruit cette année la... On donne a Lyon le nom de brandons a des rameux verds que le peuple va querir tous les ans aux Fauxbourg de la Guillotiere, le premier dimanche de careme, et auxquels il attache des fruits, des gateaux, des oublies, et avec ces brandons il rentre dans la ville. Ce'st ce qui a fait donner a ce dimanche le nom de dimanche de brandons."

The occasions of the name here given, are different from any of the rest. The whole is submitted to the public by,

1756, Jan.

Sir,

Yours, &c.

SAMUEL PEGGE.

XXXII. On the Custom of Swearing in Discourse.

MR. URBAN,

THAT the vice of swearing in common discourse, is at this day but too frequent in this nation, will be allowed; but then, I think, it is chiefly found amongst the lower sort of people; and I remember an observation I have read somewhere "That it came in at the head, but is going out at the tail:" I hope the observation is true, and that in time this. horrible custom will totally vanish, both in head and

tail. However, this implies that at first it prevailed most amongst the nobility and gentry, and "To swear like a lord," and "To swear like an emperor," are expressions of the same denotement, and which, I dare say, have often sounded in your years. It is astonishing with what facility our kings would formerly swear at every turn. The form used by Henry VIII. was by the mother of God, and accordingly Shakespeare, adhering to the history, introduces him saying,

66

"Now, by my holy dame."

And again,

"By God's blest mother."
And afterwards,

"By holy Mary."

Shak. Hen. VIII. Act 3. Sc. 4.

The oath of the conqueror was "By the splendor of God," see Rapin, p. 165, 180. in Not. and that of. Rufus, as we are told, "By St. Luke's face," for so Rapin I. p. 189. Whereupon the king told the monk, swearing by St. Luke's face, his usual oath, that he best deserved the abbey, and should have it for nothing." But I think there is a great mistake in this matter; for though the Roman church pretends to have the head of St. Luke, both at Prague and at Rome, (See Patrick's Devotions of the Romish Church, p. 14.) yet I think Rufus did not swear by the face of St. Luke, but by the face of Christ. In the monkish historian Eadmarus, this prince swears four times; 1st. per sanctum vultum de Luca, p. 19. 2d. Per vultum dei, p. 30. 3d. Per vultum de Luca, p. 47. And lastly, per vultum dei again, p. 54. It appears to me that the king intended the same oath in all the four places, and that if he designed to swear by St. Luke's face, in those two instances where St. Luke is mentioned, he would have said per vultum Lucæ, and not per vultum de Lucâ, for per vultum de Lucâ, cannot signify St. Luke's face, that is, it is not equivalent to per vultumi Lucæ, the Latin writers never using de by way of periphrasis for the genitive case.* And therefore I take the truth of the matter to be this, that whereas, in every case, the king

[* When lord Lyttleton's History of Henry II. was published, in which this oath received a different interpretation, Dr. Pegge retracted his opinion, and received a letter from his lordship, acknowledging the candour with which it was relinquished. E.]