Replies to Minor Queries.
Bogatsky (Vol. iii., p. 478.).
—A very satisfactory biographical sketch of Bogatsky, author of the Golden Treasury, will be found in Evangelical Christendom, vol. iii. for 1849, pp. 69. and 101.
C. W. B.
Baronette (Vol. iii., p. 450.).
—Selden was of opinion that Baronet was used for Banneret, as may be seen in the following extracts from the second part of Titles of Honor.
Chap. iii. sect. 23.:
"Bannerets ... some have stiled them Baronets, as if they had a diminitive title of Barons."
Chap. v. sect. 25.:
"And whereas in the statutes of the same King" (Richard II.), "as we read them in English, every Archbishop, Bishop, Abbot, Prior, Duke, Earl, Baron, Baronet, Knight of the Shire, &c., are commanded under paine of amerciament or other punishment, according to ancient use, to appear in Parlament; the French, both of the Roll and of those Books that are truly printed, hath Banneret and by some little mistake Barneret for the same word. And as when mention is in the old stories of Knight Banneret, the word Baronet (which runnes easier from the tongue) is often for Banneret; so fell it not only in the English print of our statutes, but also in a report of a case that is of a later time than that to which our present division confines us, that Baronet (for Banneret) is likewise used for a Baron. For in an attaint under Henry the Sixt, one of the Jury challenged himselfe because his ancestors had been Baronets and Seigneurs des Parlements. I cannot doubt but that the title of Banneret in this sense was meant there."
Chap. v. sect. 39.:
"Of the name of Banneret as it sometimes expressed a Baron of Parlament enough is before said. And as in that notion of it, Baronet was often miswritten for it, so also in this." (Milites vexilliferi): "Neither only have the old stories Baronetti very frequent for Banneretti, but even in a patent passed to Sir Ralph Fane, a Knight-Banneret under Edward the Sixt, he is called Baronettus for Bannerettus."
LLEWELLYN.
Rifles (Vol. iii., p. 517.).
—In reply to A. C., I can safely assert that the best American rifles are nearly equal, in point of workmanship, to the common ones made in Birmingham, and that there is no "use for which an American rifle is to be preferred to an English," French, or Belgian one; and further, that the American rifles will not bear comparison with those of any London maker.
Colt's revolvers were submitted to our Government twelve or fourteen years ago, and not approved. The present revolvers, made in England, have always been considered improvements upon them.
I do not pretend to be the "highest authority," though I profess to know something of the subject.
THE AUTHOR OF
"ENGINES OF WAR."
Miss (Vol. iv., p. 6.).
—Evelyn's notice of this word is prior to the instance cited by your correspondent. Under the 9th of January, 1662, he has,—
"I saw acted The Third Part of the Siege of Rhodes. In this acted ye faire and famous comedian call'd Roxalana, from ye part she perform'd; and I think it was ye last, she being taken to be ye Earle of Oxford's Misse (as at this time they began to call lewd women)."
SPERIEND.
Lady Flora Hastings' Bequest (Vol. iii., p. 522.).
—I can state positively, that the lines with the above title were "in reality written by that lamented lady." I was not aware they had ever appeared in print, nor do I think her family are aware either. I am truly sorry that a "Christian Lady" should have been guilty of such a shameless, heartless act of literary piracy.
I here take the opportunity of remarking that, in the last stanza but one, and sixth line, "upon" is a misprint for "uprose."
English Sapphics (Vol. iii., p. 494.).
—In the translation of the Psalms of David by Sir P. Sidney and his sister, the Countess of Pembroke, the 125th Psalm is rendered in Sapphics. The first stanza is as follows:
"As Sion standeth very firmly steadfast,
Never once shaking: so on high Jehova
Who his hope buildeth, very firmly steadfast
Ever abideth."
The 120th Psalm is in Alcaics, and, I think, very successful, considering the difficulty of the metre. It commences thus:
"As to th' Eternall often in anguishes
Erst have I called, never unanswered,
Againe I call, againe I calling
Doubt not againe to receave an answer."
There are also specimens of other Latin metres in the same collection.
I remember about eighteen or twenty years ago an "Ode to December," in Blackwood's Magazine, the first stanza of which was as follows (I quote from memory):
"O'er the bare hill tops moan the gusty breezes,
From the dark branches sweeping the sere leaves,
South comes the polar duck; and the gliding grey gull
Shrieks to her shelter."
M. W.
Welwood (Vol. iv., p. 1.).
—The imprint of the first edition of his Memoirs is "London, for Tim. Goodwin, 1700." The Museum copy which bears the press-mark 808. f. is a distinct impression.
BOLTON CORNEY.
Bellarmin's Monstrous Paradox (Vol. iii., p. 497.).
—In your paper of June 21st, there is a question inserted as to the precise text in which Cardinal Bellarmin is said to maintain that "should the Pope command the commission of vice, and forbid the practice of virtue, it would become the duty of Catholics to perform the one and to avoid the other." To that question you have replied by quoting a passage from the fourth book of the cardinal's great work. It is quite true that the words quoted by you occur at that place; it is quite as untrue that the "monstrous paradox" is there attempted to be maintained. A reference to the book will show at once that this paradox is simply used as an argument to enable the cardinal to prove his point by the common method of a reductio ad absurdum. If what I maintain, says the cardinal, is false, then it follows that "should the Pope," &c. Of course, the rest of the argument fully stated would be: But this consequence is not true, therefore neither is the antecedent true; that is to say, "what I maintain" is true. So that instead of maintaining in this passage the monstrous paradox alleged, the cardinal, in reality, is only quoting it as a monstrous absurdity, which he himself condemns, and which would result from the contradiction of his proposition. In justice to the memory of a great man, who has been much and most unjustly slandered upon this very point, may I ask for the insertion of this letter.
J. W. CT.
Jonah and the Whale (Vol. iii., p. 517.).
—E. J. K. probably founds his unqualified rejection of the word "whale" on the English version, as a presumed more correct interpretation of the corresponding term in the original Hebrew. But it should not be forgotten, that the equal, or perhaps superior authority of the Seventy translators, to that of our best modern interpreters, is becoming daily more apparent. At all events, without a reference to such collateral aid, it is scarcely safe to pronounce on the meaning of any word or passage in the Old Testament. On this subject, among many other works, may be consulted the valuable Lexicon of the Rev. Dr. Wilson, Canon of Winchester; and the learned Apology for the Septuagint, by the Rev. E. W. Grinfield.
In the present case, it is certainly of little consequence, whether the Greek word κῆτος, and the Latin cetus, be translated "whale," or "great fish," both of which may be comprehended under them. Though the former is the usual interpretation, and though the English translators employ the term "great fish" in the passages "Καὶ προσέταξε Κύριος κήτει μεγάλῳ," and "ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους," the commonly accepted word seems more in accordance with an authority of unquestionable importance.
C. H. P.
Brighton, June 28. 1851.
It must have escaped the memory of your correspondent E. J. K., in speaking of the supposed error of calling the "great fish" which swallowed Jonah a "whale," that our Lord, in giving this sign to the Jews, calls it in our English version a "whale" (τοῦ κήτους, St. Matt. xii. 40., this being the word used in the Septuagint version, from which the Evangelists quoted the SS. of the Old Testament).
Surely then there is not any popular error in the term "whale" as expressing the "great fish" of the prophet Jonah, for your correspondent does not go beyond the English version, nor can I say what the word used in the original Hebrew would strictly signify. Κῆτος, it is true, may not, and probably does not, mean anything more definite than the "great fish" of the Hebrew; but certainly our translators, by adopting the term "whale" in the Gospels, have so sanctioned the interpretation, that the error, if such, must be referred to them, and not to any later period, and therefore can hardly be reckoned amongst those of the popular class.
OXONIENSIS.
Walthamstow, June 30. 1851
Great disputes have been raised what the fish was. As it is called a whale in the Septuagint, and in St. Matthew, xii. 40., one can hardly call it a vulgar error to speak of it commonly as a whale.
C. B.
Book Plates (Vol. iii., p. 495.).
—Your correspondent inquiring about book plates mentions, that 1698 is the earliest date he has heard of. In a sale at Sotheby's, commencing on the 21st inst., there is a copy of Evelyn's Silva, presented by him to Sir Robert Clayton, Lord Mayor of London, with his book plate in it, date 1679.
E. N. W.
Southwark, July, 1851.