Replies.
MARRIAGE OF ECCLESIASTICS.
(Vol. iv. pp. 57. 125. 193. 196. 298.)
Your general readers have reason to be as much obliged as myself to your correspondents CEPHAS and K. S. for the information contained in the former's criticisms, and the latter's addition to what you had inserted in my name on the subject of clerical marriages.
CEPHAS is very fair, for he does not find fault with other persons' versions of the first part of Heb. xiii. 4. without giving his own version to be compared; and he states the ground of his criticisms on my reference to it. He has kindly told your readers, what they might have conjectured from the Italics in our authorized version, that in rendering Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, "Marriage is honourable in all," they inserted is; and to show your readers an example of keeping closer to the original, he himself renders it as follows: "Let (the laws of) marriage be revered in all things, and the marriage bed be undefiled."
Then comes his exposure of my unhappy mistake: "H. WALTER mistakes the adjective feminine ἐν πᾶσι as meaning all men." Really, had I known that πᾶσι was an adjective feminine, I could scarcely have fallen into the mistake of supposing it to mean all men. But many of your readers will be likely to feel some sympathy for my error, while they learn from CEPHAS that the ordinary Greek grammars, in which they can have proceeded but a very few pages before they read and were called upon to repeat the cases of πας, πασα, παν, were quite wrong in teaching us that though πᾶσι might be either masculine or neuter, it must not be taken for a feminine form. But before we correct this error in one of the first pages of our grammar, I presume that we should all like to know from what recondite source CEPHAS has discovered that πασι, and not πασαις, is the feminine form of this constantly-recurring adjective.
But farther, p. 193. will show that I did not give him a right to assume that I should construe πασι "all men." For under my mistaken view of its being masculine, I thought the weaker sex was included; and being myself a married man, I knew that marriage comprehends women as well as men.
But there is still more to be learnt from the criticisms of CEPHAS, which the learned world never knew before. For, having told us that πᾶσι is an adjective feminine, he adds, "it signifies here in all things;" whereas the grammars have long taught that things must not be understood unless the adjective be neuter. Perhaps he had better concede that the grammars have not been wrong in allowing that πᾶσι may be neuter; and then, as we know that it is also masculine, and he knows it to be feminine, it must be admitted to be of all genders, and so young learners will be spared all the trouble of distinguishing between them. If it be admitted that πᾶσι is neuter here, it may signify all things.
My other mistake, he says, has been that of not perceiving that the imperative let should be supplied, instead of the indicative be. This must be allowed to be open to debate; but as the proper meaning of τίμιος is "to be esteemed honourable," "had in reputation" (Acts v. 34.), will it be a mistake to say, that the primitive Christians would properly respect marriage, in their clergy as well as in others, on the ground of the Scriptures saying, "Let marriage be esteemed honourably in every respect?" Could they properly want ground for allowing it to the clergy, when they could also read 1 Tim. iii. 2. 11., and Titus i. 6.? As CEPHAS quotes the Vulgate for authority in favour of enim in the next clause, he might have told your readers to respect its authority in rendering the first clause, "Honorabile connubium in omnibus." And if he has no new rules for correcting Syriac as well as Greek, that very ancient version, though the gender of the adjective be ambiguous in the equivalent to πᾶσι, renders the next clause, "and their couch is pure," showing that persons were understood.
Next comes K. S., who tells your readers that Whiston quotes the well-known Doctor Wall for evidence as to the prohibition of second marriages among the Greek clergy, before the Council of Nice. I should like to know something of this well-known Doctor. There was a well-known Mr. Wall, who wrote on baptism; and there was a Don Ricardo Wall, a Spanish minister of state, well known in his day, and there was a Governor Wall, too well known from his being hanged; but I cannot find that any of these was a Doctor, so as to be the well-known Doctor Wall, whose "authority no one would willingly undervalue," (p. 299.) As for poor Whiston, his name was well known too, as a bye-word for a person somewhat crazy, when he quitted those mathematical studies which compelled him to fix his mind on his subject with steadiness whilst pursuing them. K. S. has told us that he terms "the Apostolic Constitutions the most sacred of the canonical books of the New Testament." Such an opinion is quite enough as a test of Whiston's power of judging in such questions. After much discussion, the most learned of modern investigators assigns the compilation of the first six books of those Constitutions to the end of the third century, and the eighth to the middle of the fourth.
In the remarks to which CEPHAS has thus adverted, I gave some evidence of marriages among ecclesiastics, at later dates than your correspondent supposes such to have been allowed. Can he disprove that evidence? (See Vol. iv., p. 194.)
HENRY WALTER.
Your correspondent CEPHAS attacks the authorised version of Heb. xiii. 4., and favours your readers with another. I venture to offer a few remarks on both these points.
I. He thinks—
"The authors of the authorised version advisedly inserted is instead of let, to forward their own new (?) doctrines."
Doubtless whatever the translators did was done "advisedly;" but what proof has CEPHAS that they adopted the present version merely to serve their own "interest?" Some verb must be supplied, and either form will suit the passage. It is true that Hammond prefers let to is, but there is as great authority on the other side.
1. St. Chrysostom:
"For marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled: why art thou ashamed of the honourable; why blushest thou at the undefiled?"—Hom. XII. (Colos. vi.) Oxf. Trans., vol. xiv. p. 330.
"For marriage is honourable."—Hom. X. (1 Tim. i.), Oxf. Trans., vol. xii. p. 77.
"And this I say, not as accusing marriage; for it is honourable: but those who have used it amiss."—Hom. IX. (2 Corin. iii.), Oxf. T., vol. xxvii. p. 120.
"And the blessed Paul says, 'Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled;' but he has nowhere said, that the care of riches is honourable, but the reverse."—Hom. V. (Tit. ii.), Oxf. T., vol. xii. p. 313.
"Thus marriage is accounted an honourable thing both by us and by those without; and it is honourable."—Hom. XII. (1 Cor. ii.), Oxf. T., vol. iv. p. 160.
2. St. Augustine:
"Hear what God saith; not what thine own mind, in indulgence to thine own sins, may say, or what thy friend, thine enemy rather and his own too, bound in the same bond of iniquity with thee, may say. Hear then what the Apostle saith: 'Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. But whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.'"—Hom. on N.T., Serm. xxxii. [82 B], Oxf. T., vol. xvi. p. 263.
"'Honourable, therefore, is marriage in all, [he had just before been speaking of married persons] and the bed undefiled.' And this we do not so call a good, as that it is a good in comparison of fornication," &c.—Short Treat. de Bono Conjug., Oxf. T., vol. xxii. p. 283.
3. St. Jerome, to whose authority perhaps CEPHAS will sooner bow on a version of Holy Scripture than to Hammond's:
"Illi scriptum est: 'Honorabiles nuptiæ, et cubile immaculatum:' Tibi legitur, 'Fornicatores autem et adulteros judicabit Deus.'"—69. Epist. ad Ocean. Hier. Op., vol. i. f. 325. Basileæ. Ed. Erasm. 1526.
In all these passages the words are quoted affirmatively, as is evident from the context; and it seems more likely, as well as more charitable, to believe that our translators were induced to adopt the present version in deference to such authorities, than to impute to them paltry motives of party purposes, which at the same time they have themselves taken the surest means to get exposed, by printing the inserted word in Italics. Can CEPHAS adduce any Father who quotes the text as he would read it, in the imperative mood, and with the sense of "all things," not "all persons?" There may be such, but they require to be alleged in the face of positive and adverse testimony. It is evident that the mere substitution of ἔστω for ἐστι, without an entire change of the rest of the passage, will make no difference; for that which was an assertion before will then have become a command.
II. CEPHAS proposes another version, and observes, "H. WALTER mistakes the adjective feminine ἐν πᾶσι as meaning 'all men,' whereas it signifies here 'in all things.'" Probably this is the first time that MR. H. WALTER and your other readers ever heard that ἐν πᾶσι was a feminine adjective. Your learned critic must surely have either forgotten his Greek grammar, in his haste to correct the translators of the Bible, or else is not strong in the genders; for he has unluckily hit upon the very gender which πᾶσι cannot be, by any possibility. But let it pass for a "lapsus memoriæ." However, he supports his version of "all things" by one other passage, 2 Cor. xi. 6., where yet it may be translated, as Hammond himself does in the margin, "among all men" (cf. v. 8.): and I will offer him one other:
ἵνα ἐν πᾶσι δοξάζηται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ—.1 Pet. iv. 11.
[Scil. χαρίσμασιν.]
But does CEPHAS mean to say that ἐν πᾶσι is always to be thus rendered, when found without a substantive? Here are five passages from St. Paul's Epistles, in which, with one possible exception, it evidently means "persons," not "things."
1. ὁ δὲ αὐτός ἐστι Θεὸς, ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.—1 Cor. xii. 6.
2. ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.—1 Cor. xv. 28.
3. βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι Χριστός.—Col. iii. 11.
4. ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι· ἵνα σοῦ ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ ἐν πᾶσιν.—1 Tim. iv. 15.
5. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις.—1 Cor. viii. 7.
Upon the whole, then, I imagine that if any one will take the trouble to compare the passages above cited, and others in which the phrase ἐν πᾶσι is used, he will find that generally it refers to "persons," and requires to be limited by the context before it bears the sense of "things:"—in other words, that the former meaning is to be considered the rule, the latter the exception.
E. A. D.
Is not this somewhat dangerous ground for "NOTES AND QUERIES" to venture upon, bearing in mind "the depths profound" of disputatious polemics by which it is bounded? As, however, A. B. C. has, to a certain extent, led you forward, it were well for you to offer a more sufficient direction to the intricacies of the way, than can be found in the only half-informed "Replies" which have hitherto been given to his inquiry. This is the more necessary, as we now are accustomed to turn to you for the resolution of many of our doubts; and, under these circumstances, it were better that you spake not at all, than that your language be incomplete or uncertain. But the present question, from the very nature of the case, is involved in some difficulty; and, to set about the proof of individual instances of the non-celibate as a rule of the bishops of the primitive Church, or to discuss probabilities, which have already formed the subject of much παραδιατριβή, would fill more of your pages than you would be ready to devote to such a purpose. It would best then subserve the intentions of your publication, upon such a matter as the present, to direct the attention of your correspondents to accredited sources of information, and leave them to work out the results for themselves. Voluminous are these authorities, but it will be found that the following contain the entire subject in dispute, as presented by the combatants on both sides; namely, The Defense of the Apologie, edit. fol. 1571, pp. 194-231, 540-545.; Wharton's Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, in Gibson's Preservative against Popery, fol. 1738, vol. i. pp. 278-339.; and Preby. Payne's Texts Examin'd, &c., in the same, pp. 340-359. Previously, however, to commencing the study of these authorities, I would recommend a perusal of the statement made by Messrs. Berington and Kirk, on the celibacy of the clergy, in The Faith of Catholics, &c., edit. 1830, p. 384.
COWGILL.
[COWGILL is right: the question of the Marriage of Ecclesiastics is not calculated for our pages. But our correspondent CEPHAS having impugned the scholarship of H. WALTER, and the honesty of the translators of the authorized version, justice required that we should insert MR. WALTER'S answer, and one of the many replies we have received in defence of the translators. With these, and COWGILL'S references to authorities which may be consulted upon the question, the discussion in our columns must terminate.]
LORD STRAFFORD AND ARCHBISHOP USSHER.
(Vol. iv., p. 290.)
The question raised by PEREGRINUS is one of interest, which a comparison of original and trustworthy writers enables us soon to settle. It is no vulgar calumny which implicates Ussher in the advice which induced Charles I. to consent to the murder of Lord Strafford; and though it seems not unlikely that from timidity Ussher avoided giving any advice, but allowed it to be inferred that he coincided in the counsel of Williams; after weighing the evidence on this subject it is, to say the least, impossible for us to believe for an instant that he acted in the same noble manner as Bishop Juxon. Thus far is clear, that Bishop Juxon, knowing that the king was satisfied of the innocence of Lord Strafford, besought him to refuse to allow of the execution, and to "trust God with the rest." Neither is it denied that Bishops Williams, Potter, and Morton advised the king to assent to the bill of attainder, on the ground that he was only assenting to the deeds of others, and was not himself acting responsibly. And assuredly the same evidence which carries us thus far, will not allow of our supposing that Ussher joined with Juxon, though, as I have said before, he may, when summoned, have avoided giving any advice. The facts seem simply these: when it was known that the king, satisfied of the innocence of Lord Strafford, hesitated about affixing his signature to the bill, or granting a commission to others to do so, the London rabble, lord mayor, and prentice lads were next called up, and the safety of the royal family menaced. This led to the queen's solicitation, that Charles would regard the lives of his family and sacrifice Strafford. Still the king could not be moved. He had scruples of conscience, as well he might. This the peers knowing, they selected four bishops who should satisfy these scruples: the four thus selected were Ussher, Williams, Morton, and Potter. On Sunday morning, the 9th of May, the four should have proceeded to Whitehall: the three latter did so; but Ussher preferred the safer course of going and preaching at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, leaving to his brother bishops the task of distinguishing between the king's private conscience and his corporate one. The king, not satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of those specially selected to urge his consent, summoned the Privy Council. Juxon was present as Lord Treasurer, and gave that noble and truly Christian advice: "Sir, you know the judgment of your own conscience; I beseech you follow that, and trust God with the rest." Moved by this, and by his own conviction of Strafford's innocence, the king still refused assent; and it was needful to hold another meeting, which was done in the evening of the same day. As evening service had not been introduced into churches, Ussher was present at the palace, and by his silence acquiesced in the advice tendered by Bishop Williams. After the bill was signed, he broke silence in useless regrets. But it was then too late to benefit Strafford, and quite safe to utter his own opinions. In opposition to this, which rests upon indisputable evidence, and with which Ussher's own statement entirely accords, PEREGRINUS adduces the fact that Ussher attended Strafford on the scaffold. But what does this prove? Merely that the faction which would not tolerate that Laud or Juxon should minister the last offices of the Church to their dying friend, did not object to Ussher's presence; and that Strafford, who could have known nothing of what had passed on Sunday in the interior of Whitehall, gladly accepted the consolations of religion from the hands of the timid Primate of all Ireland.
The substance of what appears in Elrington's Life of Ussher had been long before stated by Dr. Thomas Smith in his Vita Jacobi Usserii, apud Vitæ quorundam Erudit. et Illust. Virorum; but if, in addition, PEREGRINUS would consult May's History of the Long Parliament; Echard's History of England, bk. ii. ch. i.; Whitelocke's Memorials, p. 45.; Rushworth; Collier's Ecclesiastical History, t. ii. p. 801.; Dr. Knowler, in Preface to The Earl of Strafford's Letters and Dispatches; Dr. South, in Sermon on Rom. xi. 33.; and Sir George Radcliffe's Essay in Appendix to Letters, &c. of Lord Strafford, t. ii. p. 432., I doubt not but that he will come to the conclusion that the above sketch is only consistent with stern fact.
W. DN.
SCULPTURED STONES IN THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
(Vol. iv., p. 86.)
ABERDONIENSIS tells us that Mr. Chalmers, of Auldbar, had got drawings of the sculptured stone obelisks in Angus lithographed for the Bannatyne Club, and that the work had excited considerable interest, and that the Spalding Club of Aberdeen are now obtaining drawings of the stones of this description in the north of Scotland. Circulars from the Spalding Club desiring information had been sent to a large number of the clergy, to which answers had been received only from a small portion, and he desired further information. These monuments, he states, are not to be found south of the Forth, and I am told not further north than Sutherlandshire. It would be desirable to know what these sculptured obelisks and the sculptures on them are; if symbolical, of what, or what they serve to illustrate; the supposed race and date to which they are referable. What the Veronese antiquarians, Maffei and Bianchini, did from the nation's ancient remains to throw light on history, shows what may be done. In Orkney no sculptured stone, or stone with a runic inscription, has been noticed among its circles of standing stones, or single bantasteins; and though it is right to admit that attention has not been directed to seeking them, yet I do not believe they could have escaped observation had there been any such. The absence of runic stones in Orkney appears singular in a country certainly Scandinavian from its conquest by Harald Harfager, king of Norway, A.D. 895 (or perhaps earlier), till its transfer to Scotland in 1468 in mortgage for a part of the marriage portion of the Danish princess who became the queen of James III. of Scotland by treaty between the countries of Denmark and Norway and Scotland. In Zetland Dr. Hibbert noticed a few ruins, and within these few days the peregrinations of the Spalding Club have brought to notice, in the Island of Bruray, a stone of runic state, having inscribed on it letters like runic characters, and sculptures in relief, but decayed. A drawing is being made of it, to satisfy antiquarian curiosity. It may merit notice that no runic stones have been found in Orkney, nor circles of standing stones in Zetland. The sculptures of classic antiquity have been made use of to elucidate history, and it is equally to be desired that those Scottish sculptured remains should, if possible, be rescued from what Sir Francis Palgrave calls the "speechless past," and made to tell their tale in illustration of the earlier period of Scottish or Caledonian story.
W. H. F.
ANAGRAMS.
(Vol. iv., pp. 226, 297.)
As anagrams have been admitted into your pages, perhaps the following, on the merits of your publication, may find a place.
(1.) Every one will allow that "NOTES AND QUERIES" is a Question-Sender, and a very efficient one too.
(2.) Always ready to furnish information, it says to all, O send in a Request.
(3.) Its principles are loyal and constitutional, for its very name, in other words, is Queens and Tories.
(4.) It is suited to all classes, for while it instructs the people, it tires no sad queen.
(5.) It promotes peaceful studies so much that it ends a queen's riot.
(6.) The new subscriber finds it so interesting that on his bookseller's asking if he wishes to continue it, he is sure to say, No end as I request.
(7.) Lastly, its pages are only too absorbing; for I often observe (after dinner) my friend A—n's nose quite red.
Hoping the editor, who must be accustomed, from the variety of his contributions, to (8) stand queer noise, will excuse this trifling, I beg to subscribe myself,
(9) DAN. STONE, ESQUIRE.
As some of your readers feel an interest in anagrams, I venture to make an additional contribution. Polemics apart, it will strike most persons as remarkably happy:
"But, holie father, I am certifyed
That they youre power and policye deride;
And how of you they make an anagram,
The best and bitterest that the wits could frame.
As thus:
Supremus Pontifex Romanus.
Annagramma:
O non sum super petram fixus."
It occurs in Taylor's Suddaine Turne of Fortune's Wheele, lately printed for private circulation, under the care of Mr. Halliwell.
C. H.
I am surprised not one of your correspondents has noticed the anagram by George Herbert on Roma. As it is a good specimen of what may be called "learned trifling" I subjoin a copy of it:—
"Roma dabit oram, Maro,
Ramo, armo, mora, et amor.
_____________
"Roma tuum nomen quam non pertransiit Oram
Cum Latium ferrent sæcula prisca jugum?
Non deerat vel fama tibi, vel carmina famæ,
Unde Maro laudes duxit ad astra tuas.
At nunc exsucco similis tua gloria Ramo
A veteri trunco et nobilitate cadit.
Laus antiqua et honor perierunt, te velut Armo
Jam deturbârunt tempora longa suo.
Quin tibi jam desperatæ Mora nulla medetur;
Qua Fabio quondam sub duce nata salus.
Hinc te olim gentes miratæ odêre vicissim;
Et cum sublata laude recedit Amor."
H. C. K.
Amongst George Herbert's Poems is an anagram, which I shall only allude to, as it is upon a sacred subject; and Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, has left us a play upon his own name, which would scarcely satisfy the requirements of MR. BREEN. However, I am glad of any opportunity of referring to our great English Lucretius, and will transcribe it:—
"Let no man aske my name,
Nor what else I should be;
For Greiv-Ill, paine, forlorne estate
Doe best decipher me."
"Cælica," sonnet lxxxiii. Works, p. 233. Lond. 1633.
To me the most satisfactory anagram in the English language is that by the witty satirist Cleveland upon Oliver Cromwell:
Protector. O Portet C. R.
Cleveland's Works, p. 343. Lond. 1687.
RT.
Warmington, Oct. 18. 1851.
THE LOCUSTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
(Vol. iv., p. 255.)
The Romaic version of Matt. iv. 4. is almost verbally taken from the Greek, "ἡ δὲ τροφὴ αὐτοῦ ἦν ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον." In Mark i. 6., the expression is ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας. The only other place in the New Testament were the word ἀκρὶς is found, is in Rev. ix. 3. 7., where it plainly means a locust.
In the Septuagint version the word is commonly used for the Hebrew אַרְבֶּה, locust, of the meaning of which there is no dispute; as in Exodus, x. 4. 12, 13, 14.; Deut. xxviii. 38.; Joel, i. 4., ii. 25.; Ps. cv. 34., &c.
In other places the word ἀκρὶς in the Septuagint corresponds to חָגַב, in the Hebrew, as in Numb. xiii. 33.; Is. xl. 22.; and that this was a species of locust which was eatable, appears from Lev. xi. 21, 22.:
"Yet there may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even those of them ye may eat, the locust (אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה, τὸν βροῦχον) after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper (אֶת הֶחָגַב, τὴν ἀκρίδα) after his kind."
That locusts were eaten in the East is plain from Pliny, who in xi. 29. relates this of the Parthians; and in vi. 30. of the Ethiopians, among whom was a tribe called the Acridophagi, from their use of the ἀκρὶς for food.
There seems, then, no reason to suppose that in Matt. iv. 4., Mark i. 6., the word ἀκρίδες should be taken to mean anything but locusts.
It was, however, a very ancient opinion that the word ἀκρίδες here means ἀκρόδρυα, or ἄκρα δρύων, or ἀκρέμονες, or ἀκρίσματα, the ends of the branches of trees; although the word ἀκρίδες is never used in this sense by pure Greek writers.
T. C.
Durham.
The interpretation of ἀκρίδες (Matt. iii. 4.) suggested to Βορέας is not new. Isidorus Pelusiota (Epist. i. 132.) says:
"αἱ ἀκρίδες, αἷς Ἰωάννης ἐτρέφετο, οὐ ζῶά εἰσιν, ὥς τινες οἴονται ἀμαθῶς, κανθάροις ἀπεοίκοτἀπεοικότα· μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλ' ἀκρέμονες βοτανῶν ἢ φυτῶν."
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, either adopt or quote the same interpretation, as may be seen by referring to Suicer, Thes. Eccl., under the word Ἀκρίς.
But in the absence of any direct proof that the word was ever used in this sense, I do not think it safe to adopt interpretations which possibly rested only on some tradition.
There is positive proof that locusts were eaten by some people. In Lev. xi. 22. we have,
"These of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind."
In this passage we find ἀκρίδα used by the LXX. for the Hebrew חָגַב, the last of the four kinds specified. I find in several commentators whom I have consulted, reference to Bochart's Hierozoicon, ii. 4. 7., but as I have not the book by me, I must be content with referring your correspondent to it; and if he will look at the commentaries of Elsner and Kuinoel, and Schleusner's Lexicon, he will find references to so many authors in confirmation of the fact in question, that I think he will not disagree with me in concluding that where the balance of learned opinion, as well as of evidence, is so great in favour of one interpretation, we ought not rashly to take up another, however intelligent the party may be by whom it was suggested.
I have just looked into Wolfius on the New Testament, and there find a list of writers who have adopted the interpretations of the Father above mentioned, and also a host of others who defend the received explanation. If they should be within the reach of Βορέας (as most of them are not in mine), he will be able to balance their arguments for himself.
ב.
L—— Rectory, Somerset.
Perhaps the following may be useful to your correspondent Βορέας on the word ἀκρίδες, St. Matt. iii. 4.
Lev. xi. 22., we have an enumeration of the various kinds of locusts known to the Jews, viz. the locust proper, the bald locust, beetle, grasshopper; rendered in the Vulgate respectively, bruchus, attacus, ophiomachus, locusta, the latter by the Septuagint, ἀκρίδες. The Hebrew אַרְבֶּה, the locust proper, from רָבָה, to multiply, is used chiefly for the ravaging locust, as Exod. x. 12., probably a larger kind; while חָגַב, which is translated grasshopper in our version above, Vulg. locusta, Sept. ἀκρίδες, rendered by Fuerstius (Heb. Conc.) locusta gregaria, is mostly used as implying diminutiveness, as Numbers, xiii. 33., and but once as a devouring insect, 2 Chro. vii. 13. It is translated indiscriminately, in our version, locust and grasshopper; all these were edible and permitted to the Jews. Singularly enough, there is one passage in which this word חָגַב is used, viz. Eccl. xii. 5., in which it is doubted by some whether it may not mean a vegetable; but this is not the opinion of the best authorities. The observation of Grotius, by-the-bye, on the place is extremely curious, differing from all the other commentators.
What we learn from the Old Testament, then is the probability that ἀκρίδες meant a smaller kind of locust; and that they were edible and permitted to the Jews. We have abundant evidence, moreover, from other quarters, that these locusts were prized as food by frequenters of the desert. Joh. Leo (Descript. Africæ, book ix., quoted by Drusius, Crit. Sac.) says:
"Arabiæ desertæ et Libyæ populi locustarum adventum pro felici habent omine; nam vel elixas, vel ad solem desiccatas, in farinam tundunt atque edunt."
Again, Mercurialis, de Morb. Puerorum, i. 3. ap. eun.:
"Refert Agatharchides, in libro de Mare Rubro, ἀκριδοφάγους, i.e. eos qui vescuntur locustis, corpora habere maxime extenuata et macilenta."
Fit food, therefore, of the ascetic. Theophylact understood by ἀκρίδες a wild herb or fruit; but all the most trustworthy commentators besides were of opinion that an animal was intended.
The modern Greek interpretation of ἀκρίδες, "the young and tender shoots of plants," may perhaps be traced in what Balth. Stolbergius (see his essay on this passage, the most copious of any) says; maintaining it to be an animal, he adds,—
"Insectum, infirmis pennis alatum, ac proinde altius non evolans, sic dictum ab uredine locorum quæ attingit; quasi loca usta. Græcè, ἀκρὶς, παρὰ τὰς ἄκρας τῶν ἀσταχύων καὶ τῶν φυτῶν νόμεσθαι."
The following from Hieron. adv. Jovinian, ii. 6., quoted by Drusius, while it asserts that locusts were esteemed as food in some countries, will, perhaps, account for the unwillingness of the Greek friend of your correspondent Βορέας to recognise an animal in the ἀκρίδες of John the Baptist:
"Apud orientales et Libyæ populos, quia per desertum et calidam eremi vastitatem locustarum nubes reperiuntur, locustis vesci moris est; hoc verum esse Johannes quoque Baptista probat. Compelle Phrygem et Ponticum ut locustas comedat, nefas putabit."
H. C. K.
—— Rectory, Hereford.
Will you permit me to observe that the proper word is locusts? For I remember when I was at Constantinople in the year 1809, that passing through the fruit and vegetable bazaar, I observed some dried fruits, resembling a large French bean pod; they appeared dry, and were of a brown colour. I inquired the name of "the fruit;" I was told they were "locusts." I was struck with the name, for I remembered the passage in the New Testament, and I could not reconcile my mind to St. John living upon locusts (the insects) and wild honey. I immediately tasted some of the fruit, and found it sweet and good, something similar to the date, but not so good, although nutritious. I was thus instantly convinced of the possibility of St. John living upon "locusts and wild honey" in the desert. I have related to you this fact as it occurred to me. The locust tree must be well known amongst horticulturists. I do not pretend to enter into the question whether the translation is right or wrong, as I am no "scollard," as the old woman said.
J. BL.
There is in Malta, the north of Africa, and Syria, a tree called the locust tree; it bears a pod resembling the bean, and affords in those countries food for both man and horse, which I have no doubt in my own mind is the locust of the New Testament. If your correspondent feels curious on the subject, I would search the bottom of my portmanteau, and perhaps might be able to forward him a specimen.
J. W.
Relative to the meaning of Ἀκρίδες in Matt. iii., I beg to refer your correspondent Βορέας to the note in Dr. Burton's Gr. Test., where he will find reference to the authors who have discussed the question.
DX.
THE SOUL'S ERRAND.
(Vol. iv., p. 274.)
This beautiful little poem is assigned by Bishop Percy to Sir Walter Raleigh, by whom it is said to have been written the night before his execution; this assertion is, however, proved to be unfounded, from the fact that Raleigh was not executed until 1618, and the poem in question was printed in the second edition of Francis Davidson's Poetical Rhapsody, in 1608. "It is nevertheless possible," observes Sir Harris Nicolas (Introduction to Poetical Rhapsody, p. ci.), "that it was written by Raleigh the night before he expected to have been executed at Winchester, November, 1603, a circumstance which is perfectly reconcileable to dates, and in some degree accounts for the tradition alluded to." This ground must be now abandoned, as it is certain that MS. copies of the poem exist of a still earlier date. Malone had a MS. copy of it dated 1595 (Shakspeare by Boswell, vol. ii. p. 579.); Brydges speaks of one in the British Museum dated 1596 (Lee Priory edit. of Raleigh's Works, vol. viii. p. 725.); and Campbell says, "it can be traced to a MS. of a date as early as 1593" (Specimens, p. 57. second edit.).
"The Soul's Errand" is found in the folio edition of Joshua Sylvester's Works, and also in the poems of Lord Pembroke. Ritson, whose authority merits some attention, peremptorily attributes it to Francis Davison. "The Answer to the Lye," he observes, "usually ascribed to Raleigh, and pretended to have been written the night before his execution, was in fact by Francis Davison" (Bib. Poet. p. 308.).
The evidence in favour of these three claimants has been well examined by the Rev. John Hannah (see Poems by Sir Henry Wotton, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others, 12mo. 1845, pp. 89-99.), and completely set aside. The same gentleman has printed a curious poetical piece, from an old MS. Miscellany in the Chetham Library at Manchester (8012. p. 107), which does something to establish Raleigh's claim. It commences as follows:—
"Go, Eccho of the minde;
A careles troth protest;
Make answere yt rude
Rawly No stomack can disgest."
"In these verses (remarks Mr. Hannah) three points especially deserve attention; first, that they assign the disputed poem to Raleigh by name; next, that they were written when he was still alive, as is plain from the concluding stanza; and lastly, that they give the reason why it has been found so difficult to discover its true author, for the 13th stanza intimates that 'The Lie' was anonymous, though its writer was not altogether unknown."
Many MS. copies of "The Soul's Errand" exist. Two of them have been printed at the end of Sir Harris Nicolas's edition of Davison's Poetical Rhapsody; the one from Harl. MS. 2296., the other from a manuscript in the same collection, No. 6910.; the readings of which not only differ materially from each other, but in a slight degree also from the printed copies. The title in Davison is "The Lie," which is retained by Percy; that of "The Soul's Errand" was taken by Ellis from Sylvester's Works. In some copies it is called "The Farewell."
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.
The lines reported to have been written by Sir Walter Raleigh the night before his execution were not, I think, those alluded to by ÆGROTUS. In the Reliquiæ Wottonianæ are some few "poems found amongst the papers of Sir Henry Wotton," one of which is headed "Sir Walter Raleigh the Night before his Death," and is this:
"Even such is time that takes on trust
Our youth, our joyes, our all we have,
And pays us but with age and dust;
Who in the dark and silent grave
(When we have wandered all our ways)
Shuts up the story of our days.
But from this earth, this grave, this dust,
My God shall raise me up, I trust."—W. R.
P. 396, 3d edition, London, 1672.
In the Collection of Sacred Poetry, edited for the Parker Society by Mr. Farr (vol. i. p. 236.), the lines I have adduced are headed "An Epitaph" and attributed to Sir W. Raleigh on the above melancholy occasion.
"The Soul's Errand," which ÆGROTUS quotes from, is entitled "The Farewell" in the same collection; but so much ambiguity rests upon Sir Walter's poetry that I shall merely add my conviction that the "Epitaph" is only a fragment—"judicent peritiores."
RT.
Warmington, Oct. 14. 1851.
[BARTANUS, JOHN ALGOR, H. E. H. have also kindly replied to this Query.]
THE TWO DRS. ABERCROMBIE.
(Vol. iii., p. 209.)
It does not appear that David and Patrick Abercromby either studied or graduated at the University of Leyden. Their names are not found in the alphabetic registers of the students matriculated in the University. [3] For this reason the academic dissertations of these two physicians will be sought in vain in the University library. Three works of David Abercromby are, however, here:
1. "Tuta ac Efficax
Luis Venereæ, sæpe absque
Mercurio, ac semper absque
Salivatione Mercuriali
Curandæ Methodus.
Authore Davide Abercromby, M.D.
Londini, impensis Samuel Smith ad insigne principis
in Cœmiterio Divi Pauli. MDCLXXXIV."
Dedicated to Dr. Whistlero (Dubam, Londini, 7th Apr. 1684).
2. "Davidis Abercromby, M.D.
De variatione, ac varietate Pulsus Observationes
accessit ejusdem authoris
Nova Medicinæ
tum Speculativæ,
Tum Practicæ Clavis
Sive ars
Explorandi Medicæ Plantarum ac Corporum quorum cumque
Facultatis ex solo sapore.—Imp. Samuel
Smith. Londini, MDCLXXXV. in 8vo."
Dedicated to Robert Boyle.
3. "Davidis Abercrombii,
Scoto-Britanni
Philosoph. ac Med. Doct.
Fur Academicus.
Amstelodami, apud Abrahamum Wolfgang, 1689."
Dedicated to Jacobus Cuperus
(classis ex Indiá nuper reducis archithalasso.)
[3]These are now under the care of Professor N. C. Kist of Leyden. It is to be regretted that they are not printed.
Here is a list of the Abercrombys who have studied at Leyden, with the dates of their matriculation:—
"6. Oct. 1713. Alexander Abercromby, Scotus, an. 21. Stud. Juris."
"25. Oct. 1724. Georgius Abercromby, an. 21, et Jacobus Abercromby, an. 20, Scoto-Britanni, Stud. Juris. Residing with Beeck in the Brustraet."
"18. Nov. 1724. Jacobus Abercromby, Scotus, an. 24. Stud. Juris. Resides with S. Rosier, in the Moorstug."
"3. Aug. 1725. Georgius Abercromby, Scoto-Britannus, an. 22. Stud. Juris. Apud J. Boudar, in the Brustraet."
"3. Aug. 1725. Jacobus Abercromby, Scoto-Brit., an. 20. Stud. Juris. Apud eundem."
There is no other dissertation or work of the Abercrombys in the library or the university here.
ELSEVIR.
Leyden.
[We are indebted to the kindness of the Editor of the Navorscher for this extract from his forthcoming number.]