Notes and Queries, Vol. V, Number 120, February 14, 1852 / A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.

by Various

Replies.

COVERDALE'S BIBLE.
(Vol. v., pp. 59., 109.)

Learned disputes about the translation of Biblical words might occupy the pages of "N. & Q." to the discomfort of some of its readers. In fact its numbers might be all swallowed up in the important inquiry after those original texts which our eminent translators used when they supplied England with the water of life, by furnishing the country with a faithful translation of the Holy Oracles. To the martyr Tyndale, and the venerable servant of Christ, Coverdale, this nation and the world are indebted to an extent that no honour to their memory can ever repay. Tyndale, fearless, learned, and devoted, was sacrificed in the prime of life; while Coverdale, more cautious, went on to old age constantly energetic in promoting the Reformation.

Words and sentences can be produced in which Coverdale claims superiority over Tyndale. While Tyndale's is more suited to this day of fearless enquiry and meridian light, Coverdale's may be preferred as a gentler clearing away of the morning clouds which obscured the horizon after Wickliffe had introduced the day spring from on high.

It has become too much the fashion in our day to exalt Tyndale at the expense of Coverdale. This is ungenerous and unjust: they were both of them great and shining lights in the hemisphere of the Reformation. Tyndale's learning and decision of character gave him great advantages as a translator from languages then but little known; while Coverdale's cautious, pains-taking perseverance enabled him to render most essential service to the sacred cause of Divine Truth. Our inquiry commenced with the question, why the words "translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englyshe" appeared upon the title-page to some copies of Coverdale's Bible, 1535. I must remind my excellent friend, the Rev. HENRY WALTER, that while the copy in the British Museum, and that at Holkham, has those words, a finer and unsophisticated copy in the library of Earl Jersey of the same edition has no such words; and that the four editions subsequently published by Coverdale all omit the words "Douche and Latyn," and insert in their place, "faythfully translated in English." My decided impression is, that the insertion of those words on the first title-page was not with Coverdale's knowledge, and that, lest they should mislead the reader, they were omitted when the title was reprinted; and a dedication and prologue were added when the copies arrived in England, the dedication and preface being from a very different fount of type to that used in printing the text.

It must also be recollected that Coverdale altered his prologue to the reader in the copies dedicated to Edward VI. Instead of "To helpe me herein I have had sondrye translacyons, not onely in Latyn but also of the Douche interpreters," the last four words are omitted, and he has inserted, "in other languages." Coverdale, with indefatigable zeal, made use of every translation in his power. Tyndale's Pentateuch had been for several years published, and had passed through two editions. His translation of Jonah, with a long prologue, was printed in 1530 and 1537, and republished in Matthew's (Tyndale's) Bible in 1549. The prologue is inserted in The Works of Tyndale, Frith, and Barnes, and the translation of Jonah by Tyndale is denounced by Sir Thomas More. Why MR. WALTER doubts its existence I cannot imagine. The title-page is given at full length by Herbert in his Typographical Antiquities; and it is a fact that Henry Walter, in 1828, in his Second Letter to the Bishop of Peterborough, clearly states that which in 1852 he says is "adhuc sub judice." Coverdale rejected from the canon all apocryphal chapters and books, and placed them together as a distinct part, in four of his editions, between the Old and New Testaments, and in one between Esther and Job. In this he neither copied from the Latin nor the German.

No subject connected with English history has been more confused and misrepresented than the history of the English Bible. Mr. Anderson's errors in quotation are most remarkable,—a fact much to be regretted in so laborious a compilation. In his selection of passages to prove the superiority of Tyndale over Coverdale (Annals, vol. i. pp. 587, 588), in copying forty-six lines he has made two hundred and sixty-one errors; viz. 191 literal errors in spelling, 5 words omitted, 1 added, 2 words exchanged for others, 11 capitals put for small letters, 47 words in Italics which ought to be Roman, 3 words joined, and 1 divided. These extracts ought to have been correct, for accurate reprints were within his reach; it probably exhibits the most extraordinary number of blunders in as short a space as could be found in the annals of literature. Mr. Anderson is equally unfortunate in nearly all his extracts from written documents and printed books: let one more instance suffice. He quotes the just and memorable words of Dr. Geddes in eulogy of our translations made in the reign of Henry VIII. It is astonishing how little obsolete the language of it is, even at this day, and "in point of perspicuity and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom, and purity of style, no English version has yet surpassed it." To this extract Mr. Anderson adds a note (vol. i. p. 586.): "These words are applied by Geddes, by way of distinction, to Tyndale, and not to Coverdale, as sometimes quoted." They occur in Dr. Geddes's Prospectus for a New Translation of the Holy Bible, 4to. 1786, p. 88. His words are: "The first compleat edition of an English version of the whole Bible, from the originals, is that of Tyndale's and Coverdale's together." It is to the united labours of these two great men that Dr. Geddes applies his just, and, for a Roman Catholic, liberal eulogium.

Amidst a mass of errors Mr. Anderson complains, in a note on p. 569., that Lewis's History of the English Bible is "grievously in want of correction!" Mr. Anderson's Annals are encumbered with a heavy disquisition on the origin of printing, which reminds us of Knickerbocker's History of New York, in which we find to a considerable extent learned accounts of the cosmogony of creation, because, if the world had not been created, in all probability New York would not have existed: the same probability connects the origin of printing with the history of the English Bible. Why the annalist should have omitted any notice of those important Roman Catholic translations at Rheims and Douay, after a long account of Wickliffe's, which was from the same source, is as difficult to account for as is his total silence with regard to a most important revision of the New Testament made in the reign of Edward VI., called by the Company of Stationers "the most vendible volume in English," and which was introduced into Parker's, or the Bishop's Bible, in 1568. A good historical work on this subject is greatly needed, showing not only the editions and gradual improvement, but also the sources whence our translation was derived, and its faithfulness and imperishable renown.

GEORGE OFFOR.

"AS STARS WITH TRAINS OF FIRE," ETC.
(Vol. v., p. 75.)

Your correspondent A. E. B. has shown on more than one occasion so high an appreciation of the wonderful powers of Shakspeare, and his speculations in connexion therewith are so ingenious, that I feel considerable regret when I am compelled to dissent from his conclusions. I believe with him, that Shakspeare's learning has been very much underrated; but at the same time it must be confessed, that so soon as we abandon the intuition, which some would substitute for learning, by which his knowledge was acquired, the latter ceases to be "mysterious." I regret, however, to say that, if it could be shown that he wrote "asters," and with the intention which A. E. B. claims for him, my conclusion would be against that misuse of learning which left the meaning of a passage dependent on the antithesis between two words used each in a sense different from the usual one, and not understood by the audience to whom they were addressed.

Let us now take another view of the question. The purpose of the passage is to record the occurrence of a series of omens, the harbingers of "fierce events." "The graves stood tenantless;" "the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber;" "the moist star was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse:" each circumstance is distinct. But what did "asters with trains of fire," and "disasters in the sun" do? Mr. Knight says that Malone's proposal to substitute "astres" for "as stars," appears to get rid of the difficulty; but not until the English language admits of the formation of a perfect sentence without a verb will it do so. In short, there is nothing gained by the substitution, as Malone saw when he proposed to turn "disasters" into "disasterous," and to supply the verb.

I have no alteration of my own to propose; but I think possibly a suggestion as to the directions to be taken in search of the right text may be of service. In the case of a line or lines being lost, nothing can be done; but I discern a gleam of hope in two other directions. In the first place it is to be observed, that the thoughts of the speaker would in all probability be turned to night-portents. There is a reference to the same circumstances in Julius Cæsar, Act II. Sc. 2., as having occurred in the night, and been seen by the watch. Now, though there is certainly no reason why Horatio might not have enumerated spots in the sun as one of the omens preceding terrible events, it seems scarcely probable that it was in the order of his allusions to the events of the "fearful night" preceding the death of Cæsar. Let the corruption then be sought for here. Or look for a verb in the place of "disasters" that shall intelligibly connect "the sun" with what precedes. "As stars" must not be changed into "asters" until it can be shown that such change is necessary to a better constructed sentence than any which has yet been suggested.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

St. John's Wood.

DIALS, DIAL MOTTOES, ETC.
(Vol. iv., p. 471., &c.)

Perhaps the following will be of use to your correspondent HERMES (Vol. iv., p. 471.), referring to dials which I take to mean sun-dials.

Lately there was rather an interesting object of that kind to be seen upon the south wall of Glasgow Cathedral, with this motto or inscription:—

"Our life's a flying shadow, God's the pole,

The index pointing at Him is our soul;

Death the horizon, when our sun is set,

Which will through Christ a resurrection get."

That the above cannot now be classed among living inscriptions is entirely to be ascribed to the zeal for clean walls exhibited by Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under whose auspices the renovation of our cathedral has been accomplished. I regret to mention some other memorials have also disappeared, long familiar to the eye of the antiquary—not granting but that these gentlemen have a power to do what they please; however, en passant, we would entreat, if they can, to lay on their hands as charily as possible when such innocent matters come in their way. Though the following well-known lines—

"Good friend, for Jesus' sake forbear,

To dig the dust inclosed here;

Blest be the man that spares these stones,

And curst be he that moves my bones"—

be not literally applicable in the present case, they breathe such a spirit as would almost make any one "nervous" in tampering with revered and time-honoured relics nearly become sacred.

Glasgow does not appear at all rich in dial erections; the only one I know of is in our old street the Gallowgate (or Gallow's Gate; as you would say, the road to Tyburn), on the south front of a tenement, with no motto, but date 1708. Our long fame for numerous public clocks and excellent bells, according to the ancient adage—

"Glasgow for bells,

Linlithgow for wells,

Falkirk for beans and pease,

Edinburgh for wh——s and thieves,"

together with our frequent wet murky atmosphere, may all have contributed to the unfavourableness of endeavouring to mark the flight of Time through the medium of the solar rays.

The cities and villages under the sunny skies of southern climates, and where also appears a better taste generally than with us for inscriptions on public and private monuments, would, I think, be the richest field for HERMES to explore. I speak from some little observation in a tour of France and Italy, &c., in the year 1846. Sun-dials were to me objects of curiosity, but not of that importance as to be engrossing. On a loose memorandum I have the two following mottoes which particularly struck me, but have not preserved a note of the places, that I think lay on the route from Florence to Bologna:—

(Latin Englished) "This dial indicates every hour to man but his last."

"Se il Sol benigno, mi concede il raggio,

L'ora ti mostra, è il ciel ti dia buon viaggio."

On a building near the Cathedral of Geneva, there is rather a novel and curious example of the sun-dial, in a perpendicular line bisected on each side by two curves, the curve on the one side black, the other gilded, with the following:—

"Fait en 1778—Restauré en 1824,

La Courbe noire Indique le Midi du 21 Juin au 21 Décembre,

et la

Courbe dorée du 21 Décembre au 21 Juin."

Meridian lines, though not, properly speaking, coming under the order of sun-dials, may be reckoned so far cognate; fine specimens of these may be seen in the cathedrals of Milan, Bologna, &c.

Public clocks occasionally become objects of considerable interest, as at Berne, &c., not to mention the monster of Strasbourg, which all the world has heard of.

Quaint allegorising on such subjects as the foregoing, as presenting different stages in the life of man and the fleeting nature of times and things, were not unusual among our old Scotch divines, as in the subsequent quotation from The Last Battell of the Soule in Death, by Mr. Zachary Boyd, Glasgow, 1629:—

"Men's dayes are distributed vnto them like houres upon the Horologe: some must liue but till one; another vnto two; another vnto three. The Palme turneth about, and with its finger pointeth at the houre. So soone as man's appointed houre is come, whether it bee the first, second, or third, there is no more biding (abiding) for him. Nec prece nec precio, neither by pryce nor prayer can Death be moued to spare him but an houre; no, not, As the sound of the clocke bell ringing, his last houre passeth away with all speede, and turneth not againe, so must the poor man at death packe him out of sight, and no more be seene upon the land of the living."

NIGEL.

Glasgow.

CAN BISHOPS VACATE THEIR SEES?
(Vol. iv., p. 293.)

In answer to your correspondent K. S.'s Query, "Can bishops vacate their sees?" I have little hesitation in saying that they can; though I know of no instance (in modern times) of such an occurrence (except colonial bishops); nor have I ever heard of any one but Dr. Pearce who wished so to do. Lord Dover is, however, mistaken in supposing that "his resignation could not be received, on the ground that a bishopric, as being a peerage, is inalienable." The bishop's own account of the matter (see his Life, prefixed to his Commentary on the Gospels and Acts) is as follows:—Feeling himself unable, from his age and other infirmities, to perform any longer his duties as Bishop of Rochester, and wishing like Charles V. to retire from the world, he requested his friend Lord Bath to apply to the king for permission to resign. He was soon after sent for by the king, who told him that he had consulted Lord Mansfield and Lord Northington, and that neither of them saw any objection. In the mean time, however, Lord Bath asked the king to appoint, as his successor in the see of Rochester, Dr. Newton, then Bishop of Bristol. On this the ministry, not wishing any ecclesiastical dignities to be granted except through their hands, interfered so as to prevent the resignation from being effected; Dr. Pearce being told by the king that his resignation could not be accepted, but that he should have all the credit of it.

Lord Dover's mistake is, I think, to be attributed to his assumption that bishops are peers of the realm. This is, however, by no means the case. A bishop is simply a Lord of Parliament, and possesses none of the privileges of the peerage; not those, among others, of freedom from arrest, and trial by their peers. A peer can only be deprived of his peerage by a special act of parliament, and after a trial by the House of Lords; while a bishop can be deprived of his see, and, of consequence, of his seat in the House of Lords, by the sentence of the archbishop of the province, assisted by such of his suffragans as he may summon. The two last instances of deprivation were those of Bishop Watson, of St. David's, by Archbishop Tenison, and of the Bishop of Clogher, in 1822.

A bishop so deprived does not cease to be a bishop, but only ceases from having jurisdiction over a diocese. Whether a bishop can be deposed from his episcopal office altogether is a matter of doubt, though it is held by most of those who are learned in the canon law, that there is not sufficient authority in any ecclesiastical person, or body of persons, to degrade from the office of bishop any one who has once received episcopal consecration.

R. C. C.

Oxon.

CHARACTER OF A TRUE CHURCHMAN.
(Vol. v., p. 105.)

J. Y. makes an inquiry as to the author of the Character of a True Churchman, printed 1711. Your correspondent will do me good service by stating the size, and giving the first few words, of his tract. In 1702, or perhaps in the preceding year, Richard West, D.D., Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxford, and prebendary of Winchester, published The True Character of a Churchman, showing the False Pretences to that Name, one sheet in quarto, no date, of which I have two editions; and it was reprinted in the Somers' Tracts: "It is commonly observed," &c. This was answered by Sacheverell in The Character of a Low Churchman, 4to. 1702: "It cannot but be visible," &c. And in the same year there was an edition of both these characters printed, paragraph by paragraph, the original character and the reply: London, for A. Baldwin.

I have also The Character of a True Church of England Man, a single sheet in 4to.: London, by D. Edwards for N. C. 1702: "Next to the name Christian." And The True Churchman and Loyal Subject: London, for J. Morphew, 1710, 8vo. pp. 168.: "The name of the church in whose communion I am," &c. Is this the same with J. Y.'s book with another title?

P. B.

[We have submitted the above to J. Y., who states that "neither of the tracts mentioned by P. B. is the one noticed in his Query. It commences with the following words: 'He [i.e. the True Churchman] is one who is not only called a Christian, but is in truth and reality such.' Prefixed is a short letter from the author to his friend in the country; and the edition of 1711 appears to have been the first. It makes sixteen pages of octavo, and consists of short sententious paragraphs, more practical and devotional than controversial. J. Y. discovered it in the British Museum bound up with Dr. Hickes' Seasonable and Modest Apology, and other tracts.">[

WEARING GLOVES IN PRESENCE OF ROYALTY.
(Vol. i., p. 366.; Vol. ii., pp. 165. 467.; Vol. v., p. 102.).

MR. SINGER'S explanation (Vol. ii., p. 165.) is simple, and, I believe, correct. The covered hands might be considered as discourteous as a covered head: but why should uncovering either be a mark of respect? The solution of this question seems to me of some curiosity, and may perhaps be to many of your readers of some novelty. These and most other modern forms of salutation and civility are derived from chivalry, or at least from war, and they all betoken some deference, as from a conquered person to the conqueror; just as in private life we still continue to sign ourselves the "very humble servants" of our correspondent.

The uncovered head was simply the head unarmed; the helmet being removed, the party was at mercy. So the hand ungloved was the hand ungauntleted, and to this day it is an incivility to shake hands with gloves on. Shaking hands itself was but a token of truce, in which the parties took hold each of the other's weapon-hand, to make sure against treachery. So also a gentleman's bow is but an offer of the neck to the stroke of the adversary: so the lady's curtsey is but the form of going on her knees for mercy. This general principle is marked, as it ought naturally to be, still more strongly in the case of military salutes. Why is a discharge of guns a salute? Because it leaves the guns empty, and at the mercy of the opponent. And this is so true, that the saluting with blank cartridge is a modern invention. Formerly salutes were fired by discharging the cannonballs, and there have been instances in which the compliment has been nearly fatal to the visitor whom it meant to honour. When the officer salutes, he points his drawn sword to the ground; and the salute of the troops is, even at this day, called "presenting arms,"—that is, presenting them to be taken.

There are several other details both of social and military salutation of all countries which might be produced; but I have said enough to indicate the principle.

C.

GOSPEL OAKS.
(Vol. ii., p. 407.)

The inquiry of STEPHEN into the origin of "this delightful name," applied to some fine old oak trees in different parts of the country, has not elicited one answer, nor an additional note of other trees so designated. Oaks are not the only trees so honoured; for I remember reading of a "gospel elm," but where situated I do not recollect. Had your valuable publication been then in existence, I should most probably have made a note of it. It would be desirable to elucidate this interesting subject; and if your correspondents would send you a note of such as may be in their neighbourhoods, with the traditions attached to them, much curious and interesting information would be accumulated; and it is possible that some approximation to their date and origin might be arrived at. The Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth, in his History of Stowmarket, gives an account of a very fine one still remaining in the park of Polstead Hall, Essex, the seat of Charles Tyrell, Esq.:

"It stands (he writes) almost in front of the house, at a distance of about 150 yards, and close to the adjoining early Norman church. It rises like a small feudal tower out of the green field, to the height of twenty feet, and still possesses vigorous remains of the three enormous stems into which it was divided above. This earth-born giant is forty-three feet in circumference four feet from the ground, and the base slopes gradually outwards as the sides bury themselves in the earth, giving one the idea of a skilful architect's hand having systematically planted an enormous foundation for that stupendous mass of wood, with which 1000 or 1500 years must have loaded its shoulders. It is hollow within, and could seat eight or ten persons. The bark is generally gone, except in one or two places, where it winds like a stream of rough verdure to supply the branches, which still drop their acorns into your face as you gaze upwards, and are thus reminded of the passing seasons. Its wood is seared, knotted, and in some places looks like a piece of sculpture smoothed and wrought by hand into waving channels. By its side, and at a distance of some eight feet, is a tall oak of eighty years' growth,—a scion, no doubt, of such a mighty tree. But it looks puerile, and a child, when compared with its parent. And some idea may be formed of this, perhaps one of the last fast departing memorials of Roman and Saxon times, when on comparison it would take twenty or more such trunks of a hundred years' growth, to make up the bulk of the glorious size of this mighty pillar, thus erected by the hand of nature to the memory of past generations."

Mr. Hollingsworth appears to consider them relics of Druidism:

"When Christianity was first introduced into England, it was customary for the missionaries to select some one known gigantic tree as their place of assemblage. These leafy tabernacles were generally oaks of vast size and stature. Nor is it at all unlikely that some of them were thus chosen because from their gigantic bosoms the sacred mistletoe of the Druids had been cut, and they were consecrated by superstitious veneration in the minds of the people as sacred places. Nor were they inappropriate pulpits for the apostolic bishops and priests, who thus, in making their shades vocal with the gospel words, proclaimed by their voice and presence the victory of Christ over darkness and idolatry."—P. 18.

Can the following item in the will of John Cole, of Thelnetham, dated May 8, 1527, be considered as throwing any light upon their origin and use?

"Item, I will have a newe crosse made according to ] Trappett's crosse at the Hawelanesende, and sett vp at Short Groves end, where the gospell is sayd vpon Ascension Even, for ye wch I assigne Xs."

Bury Wills, p. 118.

BURIENSIS.

THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION.
(Vol. v., p. 84.)

A few lines will suffice for my rejoinder to H. C. K.'s further observations on this subject.

Since he and I are substantially of the same opinion as to the reality of the phenomenon, it would be bootless to discuss the comparative merits of the considerations that have led us to it. But inasmuch as I am very careful in making assertions, so am I proportionately impatient when their correctness is wrongfully impugned.

H. C. K., in remarking upon a statement of mine, enters into a calculation to show that it is absurd. At least such I suppose to be the meaning of the paragraph concluding with the words "which is absurd."

My assertion was, that the difference alluded to was "greatly in excess of the alleged apparent motion."

Now "the difference" was fifty feet in twenty-four hours, or upwards of two feet in the hour; and "the alleged apparent motion" had been stated over and over again to be a complete revolution in about thirty hours (for the latitude of London). Hence, the circumference of a ten-feet circle being about thirty feet, it requires no great profundity to discover that "the alleged apparent motion" is one foot in the hour; but the "difference" in velocity is two feet in the hour, which surely justifies the assertion that the latter is "greatly in excess" of the former.

It would occupy too much space to show H. C. K. where it is that his calculation has gone astray; but if he will reconsider it, he will perceive, firstly, that he has no authority, except his own, for assuming a revolution (of the line of oscillation) in twenty-four hours; and secondly, that five feet on either side of the centre is equal to ten feet altogether.

But, above all, he must recollect that his own original assertion (Vol. iv., p. 236.), to which mine was but an answer, was, that "the difference" would be "practically nothing:" of this even his own calculation is a sufficient refutation.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

EXPURGATED QUAKER BIBLE.
(Vol. iv., pp. 87. 412.; Vol. v., p. 44.)

By favour of an intelligent and respected friend, I am enabled to send some kind of answer to the inquiries made on this subject in your Numbers.

The Society of Friends have never published nor authorised a mutilated edition of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible in common use with them is the authorised version of King James. The translation published in 1764, by Antony Purver, a member of the Society, contains several alterations from the received version, but it does not omit any part. Besides, this edition never came into general use. It was too expensive, and too bulky, being in two large folio volumes. It never was reprinted, and in fact is seldom found except in public libraries. It is quite true, that many of the Friends, as well as other Christians, have felt that there are parts of the sacred volume, which at this time are ill suited for being read aloud and discussed in a family circle: and some of them have devised expedients for a ready selection of the most edifying portions of Holy Writ for such occasions. One of their ministers, Mr. George Withy, published a small tract in 1846, which he named An Index to the Holy Scriptures, intended to facilitate the Audible Reading thereof in Families and in Schools. His tract enumerates those chapters of the Old and New Testaments, which he judged most suitable for that purpose.

In 1830, John Kendall (to whom one of your correspondents alludes) published in 2 vols. 12mo. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, by way of Abstract; containing what is more especially Instructive in the Historical Parts, &c. &c. He designed this for the special use of young persons, and expressly states that "it was not intended to supersede the reading of the Scriptures at large by those who are come to an age of discernment." He adheres mostly, but not entirely, to the words of the authorised version.

Twenty or thirty years later, the same feeling of the want of an edition of the Bible entirely fit for audible reading in the presence of a mixed family, induced Mr. William Alexander, a printer of York, to endeavour to supply the deficiency: and after fourteen years of earnest attention to the subject, he issued proposals for publishing a Bible so arranged. It was designed to be in three (perhaps four) volumes, imperial octavo size: but, for want of sufficient encouragement, only the first volume appeared, containing the Pentateuch. This consists of 792 pages; has foot-notes, side-notes, and marginal references; together with introductions to the several books, and dissertations upon sundry interesting subjects. It is evident, that the whole work, if completed in the same manner, would have been far too cumbrous for general use, and could not have been sold for less than fifty shillings or three pounds; so that we need not be surprised at its remaining unfinished, as it would have been little likely to find its way into many of those families for whose benefit it was kindly intended.

The author explains his views and manner of proceeding in his preface. I cannot enter into them at length here. Where a single word or expression in the authorised version appeared to him objectionable, he has removed or changed it. Where entire verses, or a whole chapter, seemed little fitted for family reading, he has placed such portions in the lower part of the page, and has printed them in Italics by way of distinction. He has also added a lineal arrangement of numerous passages which seemed peculiarly fitted to exhibit the characteristic features of Hebrew poetry.

Altogether, it appears that Mr. Alexander's object was most praiseworthy, his learning considerable, and his diligence very great; and it is to be hoped that the remaining portions of his work are not lost, but that they may yet be made available in some manner for the pious purpose which the author had in view.

H. COTTON.

Thurles, Ireland.

JUNIUS RUMOURS.
(Vol. v., p. 125.)

The experience of a pretty long life has taught me never to believe a Junius "rumour"; never to believe in any story of a coming Junius, no matter how confidently or circumstantially told, which is not proved; and I think the short experience of the Editor of "N. & Q." must have convinced him that what is asserted on men's personal knowledge—the evidence of their own eyes and ears (see case of ÆGROTUS, Vol. iii., p. 378.), may possibly be untrue, on the proof that it was impossible. Out of respect, however, to "N. & Q.," I will say a few words on the rumours to which JUNIUS QUERIST refers.

One of your correspondent's rumours is to this effect, that an eminent bookseller was lately called in to value certain MSS., and thus accidentally discovered who "Atticus or Brutus was, and consequently who Junius himself was." This consequently is certainly a most astounding non-sequitur to those who are reasonably well-informed as to the present state of the Junius question. But let that pass. Still I must observe that your correspondent is dealing with a rumour; that the rumour does not tell us whether the discovery is inferential or positive—relates to Atticus or Brutus: nothing can well be more vague. Now my "rumour" said the discovery was of the writer of the letters of Lucius. Under these circumstances it would be idle to waste another line in speculation: enough for the information of your correspondent, if I add, that in one case the discovery might help us to a conjecture who Junius was; in another, might prove who he was not.

As to the "rumours" about the scents contained in the Grenville Papers, they would fill a volume. They have been buzzing about for more than a quarter of a century. The nonsense of one-half was demonstrable by any intelligent person who would have taken the trouble to examine and test them: but nobody did take such trouble. "N. & Q." was not then in existence. The most plausible, and seemingly, from its circumstantiality, best authenticated version, was given by Mr. Barker, in 1828, to the effect that three letters had been discovered, one of which had a fictitious signature; another asked legal advice of Mr. Grenville as to publishing the letter to the King; and the third enclosed a copy of Junius's letter to Lord Mansfield, signed with the author's initials, and with a reference therein to a letter received from Mr. Grenville.

The publication of the letters will soon put an end to "rumour." Meanwhile the few following facts will dispose of Mr. Barker's circumstantial fictions, and perhaps satisfy your correspondent.

There are amongst the Grenville Papers three letters, dated Feb., Sept., and Nov., 1768; the last therefore before the first Junius was published.

Two of these letters are signed with the initial C.; and, on the similarity of the handwriting, it is assumed that the three letters came from the same person. The writer of the unsigned letter claims to have written many of the letters which had latterly appeared in the newspapers, and, amongst others, a letter signed Atticus, a copy of which he encloses. This is according to my recollection; but I will not say positively that he does not claim to be the writer of the letters signed Atticus. The question, therefore, at present stands thus:—The connexion of these letters with the writer of Junius's letters is an inference or assumption, not a fact. It remains to be proved: and, for anything I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be proved by the editor of the Grenville Papers,—a diligent and careful man,—that the unknown writer of the unsigned letter is worthy of belief; that he was the same person who wrote the two letters signed C.; that Mr. Grenville's correspondent C. in 1768, was Woodfall's correspondent C. in 1769; and then, whether Mr. Grenville's Atticus was the same Atticus whose four letters were published as written by Junius, by Mr. George Woodfall in the edition of 1812. Simple as this last question may appear, and naturally as most persons would come to a conclusion on the subject, I think it well to mention as a warning, that there were, as admitted in the Public Advertiser, two persons who about the same time wrote under that signature, and I think clear evidence of a third writer.

J. R.

WADY MOKATTEB NOT MENTIONED IN NUM. XI. 26.
(Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., pp. 31., 87.)

Your pages are not suited to the discussion of topics like this: I mean, that to enter fully into all the points raised by MR. MARGOLIOUTH, would occupy more space than you could afford. I therefore write only a few general remarks, lest my silence should be interpreted as an acquiescence in MR. M.'S arguments. The difficulty MR. M. has to contend with is evidently this: how came the eminent Hebrew scholars, who were the authors of the ancient versions—how came the whole body of Jewish Rabbis who have written upon the law, to be ignorant of what seems so clear to MR. M., that הכתובים, in the passage in question was in fact a proper name, denoting the place in which Eldad and Medad were? How came it that they all took it in the sense expressed in our English version? [I do not admit the Chaldee paraphrase as an exception (notwithstanding what MR. M. remarks), because the words בכתיביא ‎ואנון are an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, and partake of the same ambiguity, if there be any ambiguity.] The legend which I quoted from Rashi clearly proves that the Jews of his time understood the passage as our English translators have done. This is MR. M.'S difficulty: and how does he meet it? He says, "What of that, if they happen to be wrong? Such a consideration will never interfere with my own judgment, founded on a thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word."

What is this but to say that the Septuagint translators, the authors of the other ancient versions, the Jewish Rabbis, had not the same "thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word" which MR. M. "in his own judgment" believes himself to possess? I do not, however, suppose that MR. M. really intends to set up his own judgment against these authorities, as if he was better acquainted with Hebrew than those who lived when the language was vernacular; but when he tells us "that he has long since learned that opinions are not necessarily true because they are old, nor doctrines undeniably infallible because we have believed them from our cradles," it becomes necessary to remind him that I never asserted any such thing, and that my argument, from authority, amounted simply to this,—that the judgment of the LXX, and other ancient translators, with that of all the Jewish Rabbis of later date, was a better authority, in my judgment, as to the meaning of a Hebrew word, than the unsupported opinion of MR. MARGOLIOUTH, which (as it seems to me) is also inconsistent with the context of the passage. If MR. M. will produce the judgment of any other authority, especially of those who lived near the time when Hebrew was a vernacular language (for this is what makes the age of the authority valuable), his opinion will be more worthy of attention.

MR. M. says, as one of his arguments, "It would appear that DR. TODD himself found the ב insurmountable, and therefore omitted it in his last Hebrew quotation."

This omission was the error of your printer, not mine; and I think any one who did not greatly need such an argument, must have seen that it was a mistake of the press. In my own defence I must say that I had not the advantage of being allowed to correct the press.

I do not deny that MR. M.'S interpretation is ingenious and clever, but it is for this reason especially that I object to it; Holy Scripture is too sacred a thing to be trifled with by ingenious conjectures: it is easy for a man of talent like MR. M. to gain a reputation with the unlearned by affecting to correct our English version on a "thorough knowledge of Hebrew words." This is a rock upon which many have foundered; the temptation is very great to a man like MR. M., who has been brought up with a verbal knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures: and it is in no unkindly spirit towards him, but very much the reverse, that I venture to give him this warning.

J. H. TODD.