a plagiary, for the book was written by Dr. Richard Hall, as we are informed by Anth. a Wood, Athen. Oxon. I. col. 568. However the miracle, you see, is vouched by one doctor in divinity, and countenanced by another; but how groundlessly will appear from the following remarks:

First, The truth of the fact is very disputable, even upon the footing of Dr. Hall's report; for why was it not observed by the English, as well as those foreigners, Italians, Spanish, and French? Why not by the neighbours as well as by the strangers?-This nation was all Romanist at that time of day, and bishop Fisher wanted not friends and wellwishers enough amongst them to observe, to speak, and write of, and even to give an air of miracle to this contingency, had there been any such, and yet nobody has ever taken notice of it till this writer; from whence I conelude there never was any such thing. But says Dr. Hall, the king's subjects were more subject to fear, and liable to suspicion, than these foreigners, and therefore durst not, or could not make the remark; a mere empty surmise; for the people, as this author will allow, talked freely enough of the king's dealings with the bishop of Rochester, who had friends sufficient, and zealous enough, had there been any thing extraordinary in the case, to have noted it, and even then to have given it this turn.

But, Secondly, Supposing the fact to be true, there was nothing miraculous in it: for it is not at all strange or supernatural that grass or weeds should not grow upon a grave in a London church yard, situate within the walls. They do not naturally grow freely in any close places in London, and if it should happen that the earth in a particular place should be cold and steril, should prove to be a clay, or composed, as often is the case, of dead rubbish, which is either unfit for vegetation or includes no seeds in it, there may be no shoot at all, at least not for more than seven years, the space of time mentioned.

Again, Thirdly, Supposing the fact to be true, how does it prove any miracle in the behalf of the good bishop? The bodies of saints are found, as these writers tell us, all fresh and fragrant, from whence one would expect, had there been a real miracle, that the grave would have been overgrown with flowers, or at least with aromatic plants. I have the life of sir Thomas Cantilupe, written by R. S. a Jesuit, and printed at Ghent, 1674, which tells us p. 202, that his body, when his soul first left it, emitted an heavenly fragrance that filled the whole room. So in Osborn's History of the translation of archbishop Elphege.- -'Accurrunt

itaque admiratione perterriti rex et archiepiscopus, lachri mantibus oculis introrsum aspiciunt, vident organum quondam spiritus sancti incorruptum jacere, nec quicquam putris in toto corpore læsionis inesse.' The king and the archbishop advance with astonishment, and looking in with weeping eyes they behold the late temple of the holy spirit lying all incorrupt, without one mark of putrefaction in the whole body.' Wharton's Angl. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 145. and yet this was eleven years after his death. And in the search and inspection into the grave of St. Dunstan, by archbishop Warham, printed in the same volume, p. 228. the remains of that saint are said to smell most sweetly, quæ revera omnia odore redolebant suavissimo; and yet this was above 500 years after his decease; from all which one would incline to believe, that a luxuriancy of grass upon his grave, would better have betokened the sanctity of bishop Fisher than a want of it.An observation which I lay the more stress upon, on account of Hollingshed's_testimony concerning the murder of Mr. Arden, of Feversham. This one thing seemeth very strange and notable touching Maister Arden, that in the place where he was layd, being dead, all the proportion of his body might be seen: two yeares after and more, so plaine as could be; for the grasse did not growe where his body had touched, but betweene his leggs, betweene his armes, and about the holowness of his necke, and round about his body, and where his legges, armes, head, or any part of his body, had touched, no grasse growed at all of all that time.' There was no sanctity in the case here, nor did any one ever pretend there was: Arden had been basely murdered, it is true, but he was a man of a bad character in several respects, as the same historian tells us, and in particular had cruelly taken from a poor widow that very field in which his body was laid. Mr. Lewis in a note on the story, which he has printed in the appendix to his history of Feversham, after citing the above passage of Dr. Hall's, thinks it very probable that the grass was kept from growing where Mr. Arden's body lay by art; as was done at Colchester, in keeping the ground bare, where the bodies of those brave gentlemen, sir Charles Lucas, and sir George Lisle fell, when they were shot in the Castle Green, for the sake of getting money by shewing people this lying wonder. Thus, we are

*His tragedy, printed in 1529, is acted at certain seasons by the young people of Feversham.

told, the popish priests in king Henry VIII.'s time poured soap ashes on Mr. Petit's grave, in the church yard, to prove him an heretic, affirming that God would not suffer grass to grow on an heretic's grave.' Strype's Memor. voì, i. p. 203. The absence of grass, you observe, Mr. Urban, is esteemed a mark of roguery and villainy in Mr. Arden's, and of heresy in Mr. Petit's case, and was given out to be such, as to the latter, even by the Papists themselves; how then can it be a token of sanctity in bishop Fisher's grave? Certainly, in his case, the weeds and grass ought, by parity of reason, to be more copious than ordinary, rather than deficient.

But, Fourthly, How can this observation argue a virtue inherent in the bishop's bones, when they were removed from this church yard in a short time, into the Tower? The bishop was beheaded 22d of June, 1535. The sixth of July following, sir Thomas More suffered, soon after which, His body was buried in the chapel belonging to the Tower, called S. Peter ad Vincula, by the care of his daughter Margaret; to which place, as it is said, she afterwards removed the body of John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who being beheaded for the same matter on the 22d June going before, was buried in the church yard of Allhallows Barkin.' Wood's Athen. vol. i. col. 39.

The removal of the prelate's body not only precludes the pretended miracle, but also will fully account for the want of grass, on his grave; for from thence, it may be inferred:

Fifthly, and lastly, that the appearance, though it were such as is represented, was no other than what may be accounted for in a natural way. This bishop's grave was made by the halberds of the guards, and consequently was but shallow. See his Life, p. 211. After he had lain there a short time, the earth was moved again, as Mr. Wood writes; which second removal would of course retard all vegetation, nothing in the world contributing so much, as moving of earth, to the destruction of grass and weeds. If then along with this we consider the nature of the place, and the situation of that, there might well be but little grass.

I conclude upon the whole, that there was nothing pre ternatural in this affair; that the fact itself is doubtful; that admitting it to be true, the bishop's bones were no other way concerned in occasioning the want of grass, than as they caused the earth to be twice removed; and, lastly, that upon the whole matter, this is no other than one of

*

those false miracles, as was asserted above, with which the modern Papists are perpetually injuring the sacredness of truth, and hurting the credit of real ones.

Nov. 14, 1752. 1752, Dec.

Yours, &c.

PAUL GEMSEGE.

XL. On the first Introduction of Pointing.

MR. URBAN, Westminster, Jan. 8. IT is not, perhaps, an inquiry wholly useless, or unentertaining, when the usage of stops began amongst us, since upon them, all propriety of reading and pronunciation so much depends.

We will first consider, when they were not, and it will appear that ↑ Lipsius is on the side of truth, when he says, that all ancient records, which were within his experience, were without notes of distinction;' by which he must mean, regular, determinate, and fixed stops. Putean, in his observations upon Quintillian, is of the same opinion. What within our own knowledge at this day puts this beyond dispute, is, the Alexandrian manuscript, which I have particularly consulted on this occasion. This curious monument of antiquity, is at present in the king's library at the British Museum. Whoever examines this, will find, that the whole is written, continuo ductu, without distinction of words, or sentences. How the ancients read their works, written in this manner, is not easy to conceive. Their manner of reading was, very possibly, the same with that used in our courts of judicature; and what seems to favour this surmise, is, the ancient custom continued, in these tribunals, of writing without stops.

It has been imagined by some, that this invention of pointing sprung up in the time of Hadrian, but this is a mistake, and arose from the misinterpretation of a passage in Suidas. Suidas, speaking of Nicanor the grammarian, says, that he composed a little treatise, περὶ σίγμης τῆς παρ Ὁμήρω, καὶ τῆς παρὰ Καλλιμάχω. But whoever will take the pains to examine Suidas's meaning here, will clearly see, that he

See Hall again, p. 3 and 211.
De Distinct. lib, iv.

In his letter De Distinct. § See Suidas in hac voce,

is not talking of stops and pointing, but of emphasis, accent, and pronunciation. Lipsius* indeed supposes, that these words intimate a proposal to introduce pointing, and that the proposal was rejected. His error lies, in not having given due attention to their import.

Isidore,† indeed, seems to have made a new discovery, when he tells us, that, in his time, they made use of three points, or distinctions. According to him, they were called comma, colon, and period. The form of all three was the same, but their position different; the first being placed at the bottom, the second at the middle, and the third at the top of the letter. 'Positura,' says he, 'est figura ad distinguendos sensus per cola, commata, et periodos. Quæ dum ordine suo apponitur, sensum nobis lectionis ostendit. Ubi enim in initio pronunciationis, respirare oportet, fit comma, et ad imam literam ponitur. Ubi autem sententiæ sensum præstat, fit colon, mediamque literam puncto notamus. Ubi vero plenam sententia clausulam facimus, fit periodus, punctumque ad caput literæ ponimus.' It must be observed here, that Isidore wrote about the time when the old practice of joining words together ceased, and writings began to be more legible, by separating and distinguishing words from each other. About this time we find, from monumental inscriptions, that they made use of certain marks, placed at the end of every word; not to distinguish sentences, but words. And, though we call some of our stops, at this day, by the same name, it does not follow that we use them for the same purpose. From Isidore's words, here cited, one would at first imagine, that the points were only in those places he specifies; but it must be understood, that agreeable to the practice of that age, those notes of distinction were placed after every word, though perhaps not in the same manner.

In all the editions of the Fasti Capitolini, these points occur. The same are to be seen on the Columna Rostrata.§ For want of these, we find such confusion in the Chronicon Marmoreum, and the covenant between the Smyrnæans and Magnesians, which are both now at Oxford. In Salmasius's edition of Dedicatio Statuæ Regille Herodis, the like confusion occurs, where we find ΔΕΥΡΙΤΕ for Δευ ἴτε.

An instance to prove that marks of distinction were

In his letter about pointing, printed with Putean's Dissert. de Distinct. + De Orig. lib. i. c. 19.

See Cellarius's Orthography. p. 70.

Vide Livii Hist. edit. Oxon. tom. vi. p. 207.