468
NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. VIL JUNE 15, 1907.
I have read that by Canon Law it was not
lawful at the same altar to say two masses
on the same day (Rev. O. T. Reichel, ' On
Canon Law,' vol. i. p. 98) ; also that chantry
priests (who in all cases were bound to be
at the vicar's command on " high " or
" double " feasts) might assist in solemn
masses in the capacity of deacon or sub-
deacon, but must not receive the Eucharist
more than once in the same day (' Gent.
Mag. Lib. of Ecclesiology,' p. 69).
How can these two prohibitions be recon- ciled with the above considerations, and with the fact that in some churches the number of chantry foundations was greatly in excess of the number of altars, e.g., in the old church of St. Paul, 47 chantries, 14 altars (Fuller, ' Ch. Hist.,' p. 350) ?
Might the incumbent of the parish say " private " masses (by which I mean masses for private persons) by bequest or salary ? and, if so, might he say them at the high altar, or must a side altar alone be used for such a purpose ?
Does the reference to several " stores " in the parish accounts, such as the " Store of St. Katherine," the " Store of St. George," &c., amounting perhaps to seven or nine (each with its pair of " wardens " accounting to the head warden), imply the existence of as many local gilds ? or might several such stores be supported by one gild, or merely by casual contributions ?
What were the practical manifestations of devotion to the patron saint of a gild, short of founding a chantry altar to his or her honour, or of paying a chantry clerk to say a mass on that saint's feast day ? Was there necessarily, in the church, an effigy or picture of each of the saints whose names were borne by the several stores ? and did members of the gilds maintaining such stores sit near the images of their titular saints at church services ?
In the case of a chapel being a distinct building, standing in a " borough " half a mile from the church, might this be pro- perly described as at one and the same time a " chantry chapel " and a " chapel of ease " ?
Of what nature, or on what grounds (in either or both the above-named capacities), were payments received from its wardens by the head warden of the parish church (both before and after the Reformation) ? Could it have belonged db origino, as it appears to have done in modern days, to the borough corporation ? It is not named in the official list of suppressed chantries, 1549. Could it, if a chantry foundation,
have been exempted under clause xv. of
the Act of 1 Ed. VI., cap. xiv. ?
By Act of 21 Hen. VIII., cap. ciii. clause- xix. no spiritual person, secular or regular., beneficed with cure of souls, may take any particular stipend or salary to sing for any soul. How is it, then, that down at least to- 1540 I find regularly xiirf. per annum paidi by the head warden to the vicar for keeping the anniversaries of two private persons,. and for saying the Bede-Roll ?
If, as I understand, gilds and chantries were dissolved by Act of 37 Hen. VIII., cap. iv., what was the need or effect of later legislation concerning their suppression ?
I shall be glad of replies direct.
(Miss) ETHEL LEGA-WEEKES.
Sunny Nook, Rugby Mansions, West Kensington.
DB. JOHNSON AS A POTTEK. I should be much obliged for any information as to the authenticity of the following anecdote, taken from ' Old and New London,' vol. v. pp. 92-3 :
"It is recorded that Dr. Johnson had conceived a notion that he was capable of improving on the manufacture of china. He even applied to the directors of the Chelsea China Works, and was- allowed to bake his compositions in their ovens in Lawrence Street. He was accordingly accustomed to go down with his housekeeper, about twice a week, and stay the whole day, she carrying a basket of provisions with her. The Doctor, who was not allowed to enter the mixing room, had access to every other part of the premises, and formed his composition in a particular apartment without being overlooked by any one. He had also free access to the oven, and superintended the whole of the process ; but he completely failed,, both as to composition and baking, for his materials, always yielded to the intensity of the heat, while those of the company came out of the furnace perfect and complete. Dr. Johnson retired in dis- gust, but not in despair, for he afterwards gave a dissertation on this very subject in his works." A little lower down his china is mentioned from Boswell, iii. 163 (Hill's edition), as " very beautiful, but nearly as dear as silver." This, by the way, is not quite exact, the passage standing thus :
" The china was beautiful, but Dr. Johnson justly observed it was too clear ; for that he could have vessels of silver, of the same size, as cheap as what were here made of porcelain."
Dr. Johnson wrote to Mrs. Thrale the next day:
" I took Boswell yesterday to see Keddlestone, and the silk mills, and the china work at Derby ; he was pleased with all. The Derby china is very pretty, but I think the gilding is all superficial ; and the finer pieces are so dear, that perhaps silver vessels of the same capacity may be sometimes bought at the same price ; and I am not yet so in- fected with the contagion of china-fancy, as to like
