St Simeon, or Simon, bishop of Jerusalem, martyr, 116. Saints Leo and Paragorius, martyrs, 3rd century.
Born. – Isaac Casaubon, scholar, 1559, Geneva; James Cassini, astronomer, 1677, Paris; Alexander Volta, discoverer of Voltaism, 1745, Como; David Bogue, eminent Independent divine, 1750, Dowlan, near Eyemouth, Berwickshire.
Died. – Pope Gregory V., 999; Martin Luther, Protestant Reformer, Wittenberg, 1546; John Louis de Balzac, littérateur, 1654, Angoulême; John Ernest Count Bernstorf, Hanovarian Minister, 1772, Hamburg; Baron von Biela, astronomer, 1856.
Among the many customs which have been handed down to us from early times, but which have now, unfortunately, become obsolete, one of the most beautiful, simple, and most poetically symbolic, was that of carrying garlands before the corpses of unmarried females on their way to the grave, and then hanging up the garland in the church as a memento of the departed one. This sweetly pretty custom was in former ages observed in most parts of the kingdom. Flowers have ever been an emblem of purity, and even in the primitive Christian church it was usual to place them, formed into wreaths or crowns, at the heads of deceased virgins. In every age, indeed, true virginity has been honoured in its purity by flowers pure as itself, and fresh from the hands of their Maker. The same feeling which tempts the bride to adorn her beautiful tresses with a wreath of orange blossoms for her nuptials – which gives rise to the offering of a bouquet of flowers, and to the custom of strewing the pathway she is to tread on her way to the altar – has been the origin of the custom of adorning the corpse, the coffin, and the grave of the virgin with the same frail but lovely and appropriate emblems. The same feeling which calls virginity itself ‘a flower,’ is that which places flowers in the hair of the bride, in the hands of or around the face of the corpse, and in the garlands at the grave.
On this Day in Other Sources.
On the nineteenth day of October fourteen hundred and sixty-one, the earl of Ross, Donald Balloch, and his son John de Isle, held a council of their vassals and dependants at Astornish, at which it was agreed to send ambassadors to England to treat with Edward. On the arrival of these ambassadors a negotiation was entered into between them and the earl of Douglas, and John Douglas of Balveny, his brother, both of whom had been obliged to leave Scotland for their treasons in the previous reign. These two brothers, who were animated by a spirit of hatred and revenge against the family of their late sovereign James II., warmly entered into the views of Edward, whose subjects they had become; and they concluded a treaty with the northern ambassadors which assumed as its basis nothing less than the entire conquest of Scotland. Among other conditions, it was stipulated, that, upon payment of a stipulated sum of money to himself, his son, and ally, the Lord of the Isles should become for ever the vassal of England, and should assist Edward and his successors in the wars in Ireland and elsewhere. And, in the event of the entire subjugation of Scotland by the earls of Ross and Douglas, the whole of the kingdom, on the north of the Frith of Forth, was to be divided equally between these Earls and Donald Balloch, and the estates which formerly belonged to Douglas, between the Frith of Forth and the borders, were to be restored to him. This singular treaty is dated London, the eighteenth February, fourteen hundred and sixty-two.1
– History of the Highlands, pp.163-177.
1 Rotuli Scotiæ, vol. ii. 407.
The 18th day of February this year, 1601, the Queen was brought to bed of her 3rd son at Dunfermline, and was christened, [on] the 2nd day of May, Robert.
– Historical Works, pp.340-416.
Feb. 18 [1624.] – The Town Council of Aberdeen had occasion to consider an abuse which had lately crept into their burgh, in the form of ‘costly banqueting at the baptising of bairns,’ and the ‘convocating of great numbers of people thereto.’ It is mentioned that on these occasions there were ‘all sorts of succours [sugars], confections, spiceries, and dessert, brought from foreign parts, beside great superfluity of venison, and wild meat of all sorts… and withal, extraordinary drinking and scolling [health-drinking]… to the slander of the town, in sic a calamitous time, when God is visiting the whole land with dearth and famine, and mony poor anes [are] dying and starving at dykes and under stairs for cauld and hunger.’ The Council ordained that thereafter no person of whatever degree should have ‘mae than four gossips and four cummers at the maist’ at their baptisms, that not more than six women be invited ‘to convoy the bairn to and frae the kirk,’ and that twelve should be the utmost amount of company present ‘at the dinner, supper, or afternoon’s drink.’ All extravagances at table were at the same time strictly forbidden.
– Domestic Annals, pp.177-227.
But we must now condense. When Monday the 18th came parties were as far as ever from agreeing. A Supplication was lodged by the minority against the merchants’ bill as “dipping on the liberties of their crafts.” They were only 8, the merchants were 17; it was unfair to vote in such a matter of “fundamentall rights” especially when sub judice in Parliament. Therefore following the lead of James Borthwick who was deacon of the “chirurgians,” the crafts protested “in a most tumultuarie and disorderly way.” Bailie John Boyd, on the other hand, “protested against all their protestations” for the liberty of the Council, the majority of which ultimately referred the controversy for the decision of Parliament. Accordingly the case was stated to the Legislature by the Council, and 30 closely written pages of the Folio are filled with copies of Supplications, Answers, Observations and Reasons, all more or less vehement, acrimonious pleadings.
– Scots Lore, pp.78-84.