[2] It is unnecessary to make any distinction between wives and concubines, because this distinction cannot in any way affect the present argument.
[3] The Hebrew text in v. 18 seems not quite clear. The interpretation we have given is supported by the Septuagint and the English Protestant version. According to the Vulgate, Caleb had but two wives, Azuba and Ephrath.
[4] Aristotle, for example, says that “twins are common in Egypt; even three or four at a birth, not rare” (Hist. Anim., vii. 4). And Pliny tells us, that “for a woman to have more than three children at a birth is accounted a portent except in Egypt” (Hist. Nat., vii. 4).
[5] This is the true reading according to the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the authorized version. The Vulgate has, “Filius Phallu Eliab”. A similar example however, occurs, I. Paral., ii. 8. “And the sons of Ethan, Azariah”. Here the Vulgate agrees with the other versions.
[6] An Essay on the Principle of Population. London, 1826. Vol. i., p. 517.
[7] Id. Ib. “Throughout all the northern provinces the population was found to double itself in twenty-five years. The original number of persons which had settled in the four provinces of New England in 1643, was 21,200. Afterwards it was calculated that more left them than went to them. In the year 1760 they were increased to half a million. They had, therefore, all along doubled their number in twenty-five years. In New Jersey the period of doubling appeared to be twenty-two years, and in Rhode Island still less. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselves solely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were supposed to double their number in fifteen years”. He adds in a note: “Speaking of Rhode Island, Dr. Styles says that though the period of doubling for the whole colony is twenty-five years, yet that it is different in different parts, and within land is twenty and fifteen years”. p. 518.
[8] See “Tracts” of I. A. S., vol. ii, an. 1843, pag. 119.
[9] Or Pierevill, from the place of his birth in Suffolk.
[10] The Bull appointing him to Ossory is dated “Sexto Kalend. Octobris, 1400”, and the See is described as vacant per obitum Johannis Epi. extra curiam defuncti.
[11] Bremond, in Bullario Ord. Praed. iii. 64, mentions a “Richardus Wichelei, Winchelsey, vel Wicherlsi”, who was appointed to our see anno circiter 1480. The Belgium Dominicanum fixes the precise date of his appointment as 1479, and we see no reason for excluding him from the list of the successors of St. Canice. He must, however, have resigned the same year, though, perhaps, the title may have been continued through courtesy, even in 1481, as mentioned by De Burgo, pag. 476. Some, however, have supposed that this bishop’s see was Ossonensis, to which we find Dominican bishops more than once appointed in the Bullarium above referred to.