 | The American lounger, or, Tales, sketches, and legends, gathered in sundry journeyings |  |
AN ESSAY ON CANES.
Duke of F.
Leonardi.
The noble ladies that came up from Rome,
And the gentlemen that do attend them,
Are all afoot with expectation;
And Greitz, the trav'ler, as I hither came,
Bade me, with its suppressed impatience, say
They wait for thee.
Duke of F.
Got thee gone, Leonardi! I must sleep.
Leonardi.
The sun hath climb'd the mountain's side, and now
Rides high above the headmost pinnacles.
Duke of F.
Let him get down and walk, an he will, so
He let me lie and sleep.
Leonardi.
A feat that trav'lers most do covet,
And achieving, boast of through a life after—
And men will cry out “shame,” when we return
To Florence.
Duke of F.
Leonardi!
Leonardi.
My lord Duke.
Duke of F.
My staff.
Leonardi.
'Tis here, my Lord.
Duke of F.
He who hath gone up Lebanon need not
To climb Vesuvius—Take it! 'T has been
My comrade, friend, and fellow traveller
Full thirty years. My long, close grasp
My nature, and of myself become a part—
A new limb, a leg, an arm additional
With fellow-feeling animate throughout.
Bear it to the mountain's topmost peak!
When thou com'st down bring't to me again
And I shall have gone up Vesuvius.
Fragment Unwritten MS.
Canes timidi vehentissime latrant.
Lat: Dis: Sic:
Canes make the timid dogs to bark vehemently.
Translation.
The origin of canes is of very remote antiquity.
The earliest mention of them is in the thirty-eighth
chapter of Genesis, where it is recorded that Judah
gave his “Staff, signet, and bracelets,” in pledge for
the payment of a kid he had promised to Tamar, his
daughter-in-law. Certain antiquaries there are, however,
that contend it has a still earlier origin. Such
assert on the doubtful authority of some unauthenticated
Jewish pandects, that Cain slew his brother with
his staff, which, for protection against wild beasts, was
doubtless, say they, a much heavier and more warlike
weapon than the modern walking stick, and therefore
easily convertible into an instrument of death. This
assertion is without a shadow of proof, and they who
have advanced it omit the very first step to the substantiality
of their theory, by neglecting to prove in
the premises that Cain carried a staff at all. If, in reply,
they refer us, as their authority, to the picture
books, where he is always represented with a club or
staff, we have only to say that the picture-makers
ought to know; but until they can satisfy us by pointing
to creditable authorities, we shall remain in our
present opinion. On the authority of a well known
passage in Horne Tooke, wherein he has satisfactorily
as well as ingeniously proven the English tongue to
have been antecedent to all other languages, and the
these unreasonable antiquarians asseverate that the
name “Cain” was given to the fratricide from the fact
of his having caned Abel to death; and they reconcile
the variation in the orthography of the word on the
plea that at that rude age of the world there existed
neither district-schools nor dictionaries, whereby the
just method of spelling words might be learned and
preserved.
Without entering into the discussion of the mooted
question whether Cain be derived from “cane” or
cane from “Cain,” we will only say, in reference to it
that in our opinion, in which we are sustained by
many German, Jewish, and Arabian antiquaries, neither
is correct. The learned Belibus, Dioces, the Arabian
scholar, Hosea Meles the erudite Jew, besides
Fra. Quirinus the Latin scribe, are of opinion, with
which our own accords, that cane is plainly an anglicism
of the Latin word CANIS, a dog; that this is the
true and original derivation of the word we shall proceed
to show.
It is well known to classical readers, that from the
time of Romulus and Remus, dogs in great numbers
have infested the streets of Roman or Italian cities:
vide, in attestation of this, T. Pomp. Atticus; the epistles
of Democritus the Greek; the letters of Cadmus;
and Annibal's commentaries on the battle of Apulia,
wherein he asserts, that from the adjacent village of
Cannæ, so called from the multitude of its dogs (canes)
there did issue after the battle from the gates of the
town, thirty thousand of these animals, which, being
attracted hither by the dead, did cover with their vast
numbers all the plain, and appal the very gods with
their howls.
This being the condition of things in an obscure
Roman town, how great must have been the multitudes
of these brutes in Rome itself! That their number
was so large as to defy census, and remain alto
letter to Tullius Brutus, informing him of the death of
his sister Appicia by hydrophobia, and also, by inference,
from the third oration of Cicero against Cataline:
further, Junius Brutus is recorded by C. Lælius
to have been pursued on horseback by a pack of hungry
dogs from the quarter of the Jews to Mons Palatine,
and barely escaped with life by seeking shelter in
the temple of the Muses. Such being the danger in
the streets of Rome, it became customary for pedestrians
to go provided with stout birchen cudgels, armed
at one extremity with a short, sharp pikey for the
purpose of defending themselves against these demi-savage
animals.[1] This cudgel, by a natural substitution
of cause for effect, was called cani, the dative singular
for canis, which means literally, “for a dog,”
a more significant and befitting term than which could
not have been chosen. The plural of canis is canes,
and this is the precise appellation by which they are
now known. We hold this to be the only and true
origin both of the cane and its name the “staff,” of the
Old Testament, which certain visionary antiquaries
would make us believe the primitive cane, with their
jargon about Cain and Abel, being unworthy of notice;
inasmuch as it is plain to every one at all conversant
with the subject, that it was neither more nor
less than a shepherd's crook, or, at the best, a knotted
club carried across the shoulder.
The introduction of the cani into Rome, we learn
from Nævius Metellus, was in the year 67 B.C.
Within the two weeks immediately preceding the ides
of August the same year, we are told by the same author,
no less than eighty thousand dogs were killed
with this instrument alone, besides nine thousand supposed
to have been torn in pieces by their species in
pestilence succeeding this exposure of so vast a
quantity of animal matter to the sun of the dog days,
and on account of the alarming increase of murders
among the common people with this weapon, with
which all the men went armed and readily used in
the slightest quarrel, the emperor was forced to promulge
an edict prohibiting any one beneath the patrician
rank from carrying the cani.[2] This imperial edict
at once made it a privileged thing, and forthwith it
was taken into high favor by the aristocracy of Rome.
Within a few days subsequently, the Tiber was
choked with drowned puppies; and theatres, baths,
and forum were thronged with young nobles, each
ostentatiously armed with the privileged cani.
In the hands of the patricians it for a while retained
its original shape—a round staff, three feet in length,
terminating in a sharp triedged pike. But the taste
of individuals soon made important innovations on the
usual form. The first change was suggested by a
wreath of flowers that Hortensia, the beautiful daughter
of the distinguished orator Hortensius, entwined
around the cani of her lover, Julius Curtius, the handsomest
gallant in Rome, for protecting her with it from
a pack of ferocious dogs while she was returning along
the Appian way from her villa to the city. Julius
made his appearance in the baths with it thus adorned,
and the following day the enwreathed cani was
adopted by all the exquisites of Rome. In a few days,
natural gave way to artificial flowers, and these to
wreaths of sprigs of diamonds and precious stones; so
“that,” observes M. Cellius, “the canes of the patricians
were more valuable than their estates, which
of the wreathed cani continued until L. Octavius, nephew
of the emperor, openly appeared in the forum
with a cane in the form of an elegantly twisted serpent,
enamelled with green and gold, and having two
large diamonds glittering in its head for eyes. This
idea was doubtless taken from the “Hortensian garland”
as the wreath was termed, which in a few days,
with its straight staff, gave place to rhe Octavian serpent.
This, in its turn was displaced by some tasteful
innovator, who came out with a straight, highly burnished
ebony stick without a pike, but containing in
the handle a short dagger, and with a gold head, in
which was exquisitely set the miniature of his mistress.
The novelty of the idea at once commended it
to the gallants of the day, and it was universally received
into favor. This was succeeded by other fashions,
each still more unique and elegant than its predecessor;
till, observes Cellius, to such a pitch did this
canine[3] madness reach, that half Rome thought and
dreamt of nothing besides the shape and fashion of the
cani. The custom extended to the ladies, who carried
with them on all occasions, costly and elegant
baubles of this kind, made of pearl, ivory, and even
gold and silver rods, with which, when in angry mood,
they struck their slaves, and peradventure, also, their
lovers.
At first, the cane was worn beneath the left arm,
the ornamental head protruding from the folds of the
toga: but when Julius Curtius made his appearance
openly with his garlanded staff, to avoid crushing the
flowers he ostentatiously but gracefully displayed it in
his right hand. After this, canes got to be universally
carried in this manner.
From Rome, the cane was introduced into Britain
or early in the fifth century; and until, and for
several years after, the conquest, it retained its exclusive
patrician rank. But the Roman laws, limiting its
use to the nobles, not affecting England, it got at
length to be adopted here by all classes. In the hands
of the populace, however, it went through many modifications,
till finally it lost its original form and character,
and became fairly fixed in the plebeian shape of
the “quarter-staff,” the boasted weapon of English
yeomanry, and, as at first in Rome, was carried beneath
the arm. Cavaliers who had laid aside the cane
when it came into popular use, seeing that, in its various
modifications, it retained in the hands of the common
people no part of its original shape or purpose,
chose to recognise no resemblance to it in the quarter-staff,
and once more resumed it in its primitive elegance.
It soon became an indispensable article
of luxury and ornament; and we are told by Philip
Balfour that the gallants of Henry the Third's
court vied with each other “in ye fantastick
shaipe, beautie, and costlinesse of their caines, whilk
dyd haue wounde about ye haundles thereof braides
of sylken and goolde corde, withe twain tassells appended
thereunto.” From a tract written in the third
year of the reign of the first Edward by a Franciscan
monk, we learn, that besides the tassels, which are
worn similarly about modern canes, some of the gayer
nobles had little bells attached to them. “Wherefore,”
reads the tract, “ye Kinge his excellente royall
majestie dyd pass a statute forbyding all knyghtes
under ye estate of a lorde, esquyer or gentylmanne,
from wearying lytell belles of golde or sylvere, or
other metalls, on theyr caynes, under ye forfeyture of
fyftie pence.”
According to a manuscript written a few years
later, we find that canes were constructed with lutes,
shepherds' pipes, and “an instrument of manye keyes,
these gallantes dyscoursed ryghte pleasaunte musyke
to fayre ladyes underneath their balconie.”
The original intention of the cane no longer existed;
for, in London, dogs were comparatively few in
number, and these less ferocious, and better provided
with food, than their species in Italian cities: the pike,
therefore, fell into disuse, and its place was supplied
by the ferrule in its present form. Besides this, there
are two additional reasons for their abandonment,
given by historians of the period. The venerable
Gregory, in his Memoirs of the Confessor says, somewhat
obscurely, however, that in “Hys daie gentles
dyd carrye a pyke fyve ynches yn lengthe, verie
sharpe, and oftyn foughte ye duello therewyth yn
cyvick broyls; wherefore dyd Kynge Edouard ye
Fyrste comande that they delyver them to his royall
armourer, who dyd breake therefrom three ynches,
leavynge yt pointlesse; and bye statute ye Kynge forbyde
such to ben usen more wythin ye walles of Londonne.”
Duncan Grime, who is nearly cotemporary with
Gregory, says, that by an edict of the last year of
Henry III, “alle knyghtes and noblesse,” were forbidden
to wear any “stycke staffe or caine, or anny
kynde of wepon save their goode swoorde, mace of
stele, or other knyghtlie armes, yn as moche yt ys unsemelie
in knyghtes to go swyngeing toe and froe a
tynklynge baubell yn their fyngeres.”
In an ancient poem still extant, written by a certain
John Loufkin entitled “Ye Dedes of ye Lord Rychard
of Potrelles,” who lived in the reign of Edward
III, we find that the pike was not only restored to the
cane, but this lengthened to five feet, and in this form
resembling a light spear, was frequently used in tournaments,
and sometimes even in battle. John Loufkin
has given at some length an account of jousts held
alone with the “spere-caine.”
Togyder they ranne without let.
Lorde Rychard gan hym dysgyse
In a ful strange queyntyse.
He bare a schafte that was grete and stronge,
It was ful five footen longe,
And it was both grete and stout,
Four and a halfen ynches about.
Of oaken wood it was, and cole blacke,
Of sylver bells yt had no lack.
From the valaye he forthe strode,
And in the lists ful bravely stode.
The Kynge came out of a valaye,
For to see of their playe—
A goode Knyghte he was of valour and main,
And well dyght in ye spere-caine,
And hymself toke a caine grete and stronge,
That was hevy and longe,
With wilk, yf he stroke a man's gorgere,
Hym repented that he cam there.”
After telling us that these jousts were fought on
foot and without mail, and that the “atyre” of the
combatants was “orgulous, and altogedyr cole black,”
the poem says:
Lord Rychard then did runne for to mette,
And ful egyrly hys foe hym grette,
With a dente on the forehede delde
He bare hym down in the felde,
And the youth fell to the grounde,
Ful nigh ded in that stound.
The next that he met thare
A grete stroke he hym bare,
Thrust his gorgette with his cane thro';
The kynge behelde this from hys stede,
And was grieved for that, the man was dede,
And swore on his sworde good blood again
Shoulde not be shede wythe a spere cane.”
On account of the fatal termination of this joust,
King Edward confirmed the oath he had made in the
lists, and passed a law prohibiting the “spere cane,
mace cane, pyke cane, or any manner of cane whatsoever;”
declaring it henceforward an “unknyghtlie
appendance.”
In the subsequent reign, during the crusades, the
cane was revived among knights, in undress, by one
John Lord Montacute, who, being wounded in an assault
of Jerusalem, and his sword being broken off,
sustained himself back to his tent by a branch plucked
from a tree on the mount of olives; which branch,
on account of its sacredness, his pious armorer subsequently
adorned with “fine steele, golde, and precious
stones sette aboute ye handle,” which was cut in the
form of a cross. On his recovery, the knight continued
to retain this cane, and bear it, when not in battle.
From what can be learned of him, at this period he
was a gay and youthful cavalier, of great personal accomplishments;
and forth with, his example was followed
by both French and English Knights, who, emulous
to combine piety with fashion, had well nigh stripped
the groves about Jerusalem of every branch, ere the
commanders of the Christian hosts interposed to save
the hallowed trees. The knights, on their return to
Europe, brought with them their sacred staffs, and until
the close of the crusades the cane was once more in
vogue in all the European cities.
At first, it was confined exclusively to such as had
done pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and made only of
wood that grew in Palestine; so that, like the scallop-shell,
it was recognised as an authentic badge of pilgrimage.
the badge, and substituted ordinary wood from unhallowed
soil, and the cane lost much of its sacred character:
but what it parted with in sanctity, it gained
in elegance. At the close of the last crusade, it was
worn by all of gentle birth; and for many years run
a brilliant career, exhausting, in the invention of its
myriad forms, the purses and tastes of its votaries.
At the close of the seventeenth century it got to be
worn by schoolboys almost exclusively, and finally
became a portion of the necessary wardrobe of the London
chimney-sweep. When boys began to wear them,
gentlemen gradually laid them aside and substituted
the small sword. This was originally worn suspended
from a belt at the left side; but it soon got to be the
fashion to carry it without sash or belt beneath the
arm: a few years later it was used sheathed, exclusively
as a walking-stick. With trifling modifications
it continued in vogue till near the close of the last
century, when it again became the fashion to wear it
at the side: the neglected cane, in the meanwhile, after
being cast off by the sweeps, adopted by the students
of Oxford and Cambridge, and by them resigned
to the apprentices of London, seemed to have a
legitimate abiding-place in the hands of powdered
footmen, valets, and lackeys generally, consigned to a
degradation from which it appeared destined never to
rise.
Shortly after the American Revolution, at which
period all the Christian world was more or less belligerent,
the side-arm was laid by, (for all men were
tired of war and its insignia,) and the popularity of
the cane began to revive. It made its way into favor,
at first, but slowly; elderly and middle aged gentlemen,
lawyers, and officers of the army, alone adopting
it. Its form was also exceedingly simple, resembling
strikingly, the original Roman cani. Its material
was usually the limb of an Indian tree, stout,
ferrule and a plain gold head, with an eye, through
which was passed a black silk cord terminating in two
tassels. This form of the cane, and its limitation
to the personages above mentioned, prevailed until
the commencement of the present century, when this
exclusiveness gradually disappeared; younger gentlemen
beginning to make their appearance with it on
the Sabbath, and by and by some few, who were gentlemen
of leisure, wearing it all times. It was not
long before it got to be worn by aspiring youths of all
classes, but rather as a portion of holyday attire than
an article of ordinary convenience and ornament. It
has been growing steadily into favor ever since; and
men now wear canes, not, as twenty-five years ago,
as the badge of a gentleman or the indication of dandyism,
but, with certain exceptions to be mentioned
hereafter, as a useful, convenient, and agreeable companion,
a friend to stand by in the hour of danger,
and to him who is worthy of wearing it, wife, horse,
dog, friend, all in one.
| The American lounger, or, Tales, sketches, and legends, gathered in sundry journeyings | |