|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 11
When baby was being carried to church to be baptised, it was of
importance that the woman appointed to this post should be known to be
lucky. Then she took with her a parcel of bread and cheese, which she
gave to the first person she met. This represented a gift from the
baby--a very ancient custom. Again, it was of importance that the person
who received this gift should be lucky--should have lucky marks upon
their person. Forecasts were made from such facts as the following
concerning the recipient of the gift:--Was this person male or female,
deformed, disfigured, plain-soled, etc. If the party accepted the gift
willingly, tasted it, and returned a few steps with the baptismal party,
this was a good sign; if they asked to look at the baby, and blessed it,
this was still more favourable: but should this person refuse the gift,
nor taste it, nor turn back, this was tantamount to wishing evil to the
child, and should any serious calamity befall the child, even years
after, it was connected with this circumstance, and the party who had
refused the baptismal gift was blamed for the evil which had befallen
the child. It was also a common belief that if, as was frequently the
case, there were several babies, male and female, awaiting baptism
together, and the males were baptised before the females, all was well;
but if, by mistake, a female should be christened before a male, the
characters of the pair would be reversed--the female would grow up with
a masculine character, and would have a beard, whereas the male would
display a feminine disposition and be beardless. I have known where such
a mistake has produced real anxiety and regret in the minds of the
parents. We have seen that it was not until after baptism that the child
was allowed out of the room in which it was born, except under the
skilful guardianship of a relative or the midwife; but, further than
this, it was not considered safe or proper to carry it into any
neighbour's house until the mother took it herself, and this it was
unlucky even for her to do until she had been to church. Indeed, few
mothers would enter any house until they had been to the house of God.
After this had been accomplished, however, she visited with the baby
freely. In visiting any house with baby for the first time, it was
incumbent on the person whom they were visiting to put a little salt or
sugar into baby's mouth, and wish it well: the omission of this was
regarded as a very unlucky omen for the baby. Here we may note the
survival of a very ancient symbolic practice in this gift of salt. Salt
was symbolical of favour or good will, and covenants of friendship in
very early times were ratified with this gift; sugar, as in this
instance, is no doubt a modern substitute for salt. Among Jews, Greeks,
and Romans, as well as among less civilised nations, salt was used in
their sacrifices as emblematic of fidelity, and for some reason or other
it also came to be regarded as a charm against evil fascinations. By
Roman Catholics in the middle ages, salt was used to protect children
from evil influences before they had received the sacrament of baptism.
This practice is referred to in many of the old ballads and romances.
In a ballad called _The King's Daughter_, a child is born, but in
circumstances which do not admit of the rite of baptism being
administered. The mother privately puts the baby into a casket, and,
like the mother of Moses, sends it afloat, and as a protection places
beside it a quantity of salt and candles. The words of the ballad are--
"The bairnie she swyl'd in linen so fine,
In a gilded casket she laid it syne,
Mickle saut and light she laid therein,
Cause yet in God's house it had'na been."
Let us return to the mother and child whom we left visiting at a
friend's house, and receiving the covenant of friendship. It was unsafe
to be lavish in praise of the child's beauty, for although such
commendation would naturally be gratifying to the mother, it would at
the same time increase her fears, for the _well faured_ ran the greatest
risk from evil influences, and of being carried off by the fairies.
There was also the superadded danger of the mother setting her
affections too much upon her child and forgetting God, who then in
jealousy and mercy would remove it from her. This latter was a very
widespread superstition among religiously-minded people, even among
those who, from their education, ought to have known better. I well
remember the case of a young mother,--a tender loving woman, who, quite
in keeping with her excitable affectionate nature, was passionately fond
of her baby, her first-born. But baby sickened and died, and the poor
mother, borne down with grief, wept bitterly, like Rachel refusing to be
comforted. In the depth of her affliction she was visited by both her
pastor and elder. They admonished her to turn her mind from the selfish
sorrow in which she was indulging, and thank God for His kindly dealing
toward her, in that He had removed from her the cause of sin on her
part. She had been guilty, they said, of loving the baby too much, and
God, who was a jealous God, would not suffer His people to set their
affections on any object in a greater degree than on Himself; and
therefore, He, in his mercy toward her, had removed from her the object
of her idolatry. The poor woman in her agony could only sob out, "Surely
it was no sin to love my own child that God gave me." The more correct
term for such a theological conception would not be superstition, but
blasphemy.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|