"Pascua qui volucrum vivus, Walthere, fuisti,Qui flos eloquii, qui Palladis os, obiisti!Ergo quod aureolam probitas tua possit habere,Qui legit, hic dicat—'Deus istius miserere!'"
"Pascua qui volucrum vivus, Walthere, fuisti,
Qui flos eloquii, qui Palladis os, obiisti!
Ergo quod aureolam probitas tua possit habere,
Qui legit, hic dicat—'Deus istius miserere!'"
Has Julius Mosen'sLegend of the Crossbill, translated by Longfellow, any more ancient foundation?
MORTIMERCOLLINS.
[The epitaph, and a very interesting sketch of the life ofWalter Vogelweide, with some ably translated specimens of his poetical compositions, will be found in the late Edgar Taylor'sLays of the Minnisingers, 8vo. London, 1825.]
—What is a silver Skeatta? SeeGent. Mag., May, 1851, p. 537.
J. R. RELTON.
[Mr. Akerman, in his very usefulNumismatic Manual, p. 227., says, "The wordsceattais by some derived fromsceat, apartorportion. Professor White, in a paper read to the Ashmolean Society, remarks, that it is of Mœso-Gothic origin,scattsignifying in the Gospels of Uphilas apound, apenny, and, indeed, money in general." Ruding observes that, "Whatever might have been the precise value of thesceatta, it was undoubtedly the smallest coin known among the Saxons at the latter end of the seventh century, as appears from its forming part of a proverb: Ne sceat ne scilling,From the least to the greatest."]
Your general readers have reason to be as much obliged as myself to your correspondents CEPHASandK. 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.
CEPHASis 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 renderingΤίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, "Marriageishonourable in all," they insertedis; 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 allthings, and the marriage bed be undefiled."
Then comes his exposure of my unhappy mistake: "H. WALTERmistakes the adjectivefeminineἐν πᾶσιas meaningall men." Really, had I known thatπᾶσιwas an adjective feminine, I could scarcely have fallen into the mistake of supposing it to meanall men. But many of your readers will be likely to feel some sympathy for my error, while they learn from CEPHASthat 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 ofπας, πασα, παν, were quite wrong in teaching us that thoughπᾶσιmight 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 CEPHAShas discovered thatπασι, and notπασαις, 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 construeπασι"allmen." For under mymistakenview 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 thatπᾶσιis an adjective feminine, he adds, "it signifies herein all things;" whereas the grammars have long taught thatthingsmust not be understood unless the adjective be neuter. Perhaps he had better concede that the grammars have not been wrong in allowing thatπᾶσιmay 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 thatπᾶσιis neuter here, it may signifyall things.
My other mistake, he says, has been that of not perceiving that the imperativeletshould be supplied, instead of the indicativebe. This must be allowed to be open to debate; but as the proper meaning ofτίμιοςis "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 CEPHASquotes the Vulgate for authority in favour ofenimin 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 toπᾶσι, renders the next clause, "andtheircouchispure," showing thatpersonswere understood.
Next comes K. S., who tells your readers that Whiston quotes the well-knownDoctorWall 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 thiswell-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 "theApostolic Constitutionsthe 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 thoseConstitutionsto the end of the third century, and the eighth to the middle of the fourth.
In the remarks to which CEPHAShas 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.)
HENRYWALTER.
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 advisedlyinsertedisinstead oflet, to forward their own new (?) doctrines."
Doubtless whatever the translators did was done "advisedly;" but what proof has CEPHASthat they adopted the present versionmerelyto serve their own "interest?" Some verbmustbe supplied, and either form will suit the passage. It is true that Hammond preferslettois, 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; andit 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 CEPHASwill sooner bow on a version of Holy Scripture than to Hammond's:
"Illi scriptum est: 'Honorabiles nuptiæ, et cubile immaculatum:' Tibi legitur, 'Fornicatoresautemet adulteros judicabit Deus.'"—69.Epist. ad Ocean. Hier. Op., vol. i. f. 325. Basileæ. Ed. Erasm. 1526.
In all these passages the words are quotedaffirmatively, 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 CEPHASadduce 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 ofἔστωforἐστι, 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. CEPHASproposes another version, and observes, "H. WALTERmistakes the adjective feminineἐν πᾶσιas meaning 'all men,' whereas it signifies here 'in all things.'" Probably this is the first time that MR. H. WALTERand your other readers ever heard thatἐν πᾶσιwas afeminineadjective. 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 whichπᾶσιcannot 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 itmaybe 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 CEPHASmean to say thatἐν πᾶσιisalwaysto be thus rendered, when found without a substantive? Here are five passages from St. Paul's Epistles, in which, with one possible exception, itevidentlymeans "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 phraseἐν πᾶσιis used, he will find thatgenerallyit 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 ANDQUERIES" 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 toturn 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-celibateas a ruleof the bishops of the primitive Church, or to discuss probabilities, which have already formed the subject of muchπαραδιατριβή, 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'sTreatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, in Gibson'sPreservative against Popery, fol. 1738, vol. i. pp. 278-339.; and Preby. Payne'sTexts Examin'd, &c., inthe 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, inThe Faith of Catholics, &c., edit. 1830, p. 384.
COWGILL.
[COWGILLis right: the question of the Marriage of Ecclesiastics is not calculated for our pages. But our correspondent CEPHAShaving impugned the scholarship of H. WALTER, and the honesty of the translators of the authorized version, justice required that we should insert MR. WALTER'Sanswer, and one of the many replies we have received in defence of the translators. With these, and COWGILL'Sreferences to authorities which may be consulted upon the question, the discussion in our columns must terminate.]
The question raised by PEREGRINUSis 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, theyselectedfour bishops who should satisfy these scruples: the four thus selected were Ussher, Williams, Morton, and Potter. On Sunday morning, the 9th of May, thefourshould have proceeded to Whitehall: thethreelatter 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, PEREGRINUSadduces 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'sLife of Ussherhad been long before stated by Dr. Thomas Smith in hisVita Jacobi Usserii, apudVitæ quorundam Erudit. et Illust. Virorum; but if, in addition, PEREGRINUSwould consult May'sHistory of the Long Parliament; Echard'sHistory of England, bk. ii. ch. i.; Whitelocke'sMemorials, p. 45.; Rushworth; Collier'sEcclesiastical History, t. ii. p. 801.; Dr. Knowler, in Preface toThe Earl of Strafford's Letters and Dispatches; Dr. South, inSermon on Rom. xi. 33.; and Sir George Radcliffe's Essay in Appendix toLetters, &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.
ABERDONIENSIStells 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 thatnorunic 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.
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 ANDQUERIES" isa 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, isQueens and Tories.
(4.) It is suited to all classes, for while it instructs the people, ittires no sad queen.
(5.) It promotes peaceful studies so much that itends 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 friendA—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 certifyedThat 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."
"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'sSuddaine 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 onRoma. 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 dabit oram, Maro,
Ramo, armo, mora, et amor.
_____________
_____________
"Roma tuum nomen quam non pertransiitOramCum Latium ferrent sæcula prisca jugum?Non deerat vel fama tibi, vel carmina famæ,UndeMarolaudes duxit ad astra tuas.At nunc exsucco similis tua gloriaRamoA veteri trunco et nobilitate cadit.Laus antiqua et honor perierunt, te velutArmoJam deturbârunt tempora longa suo.Quin tibi jam desperatæMoranulla medetur;Qua Fabio quondam sub duce nata salus.Hinc te olim gentes miratæ odêre vicissim;Et cum sublata laude receditAmor."
"Roma tuum nomen quam non pertransiitOram
Cum Latium ferrent sæcula prisca jugum?
Non deerat vel fama tibi, vel carmina famæ,
UndeMarolaudes duxit ad astra tuas.
At nunc exsucco similis tua gloriaRamo
A veteri trunco et nobilitate cadit.
Laus antiqua et honor perierunt, te velutArmo
Jam deturbârunt tempora longa suo.
Quin tibi jam desperatæMoranulla medetur;
Qua Fabio quondam sub duce nata salus.
Hinc te olim gentes miratæ odêre vicissim;
Et cum sublata laude receditAmor."
H. C. K.
Amongst George Herbert'sPoemsis 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;ForGreiv-Ill, paine, forlorne estateDoe best decipher me.""Cælica," sonnet lxxxiii.Works, p. 233. Lond. 1633.
"Let no man aske my name,
Nor what else I should be;
ForGreiv-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'sWorks, p. 343. Lond. 1687.
Protector. O Portet C. R.
Cleveland'sWorks, p. 343. Lond. 1687.
RT.
Warmington, Oct. 18. 1851.
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 isἐσθίων ἀκρίδας. The only other place in the New Testament were the wordἀκρὶςis found, is in Rev. ix. 3. 7., where it plainly means a locust.
In the Septuagint version the word is commonly used for the Hebrewאַרְבֶּה, 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 wordἀκρὶςin the Septuagint corresponds toחָגַב, 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 everyflyingcreeping 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 theἀκρὶςfor food.
There seems, then, no reason to suppose that in Matt. iv. 4., Mark i. 6., the wordἀκρίδεςshould be taken to mean anything but locusts.
It was, however, a very ancient opinion that the wordἀκρίδεςhere meansἀκρόδρυα, orἄκρα δρύων, orἀκρέμονες, orἀκρίσματα, the ends of the branches of trees; although the wordἀκρίδεςis never used in this sense by pure Greek writers.
T. C.
Durham.
The interpretation ofἀκρίδες(Matt. iii. 4.) suggested toΒορέαςis 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 wordἈκρίς.
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 findἀκρίδαused by the LXX. for the Hebrewחָגַב, the last of the four kinds specified. I find in several commentators whom I have consulted, reference to Bochart'sHierozoicon, 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'sLexicon, 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 whohave 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 ofΒορέας(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 correspondentΒορέαςon the wordἀκρίδες, 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 Hebrewאַרְבֶּה, the locust proper, fromרָבָה, to multiply, is used chiefly for the ravaging locust, as Exod. x. 12., probably a larger kind; whileחָגַב, which is translatedgrasshopperin 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,locustandgrasshopper; all these were edible and permitted to the Jews. Singularly enough, there is one passage in which this wordחָגַבis 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 thatἀκρίδεςmeant 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 byἀκρίδεςa wild herb or fruit; but all the most trustworthy commentators besides were of opinion that an animal was intended.
The modern Greek interpretation ofἀκρίδες, "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 fromHieron. 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 correspondentΒορέαςto recognise an animal in theἀκρίδεςof 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 islocusts? 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 ofἈκρίδεςin Matt. iii., I beg to refer your correspondentΒορέαςto the note in Dr. Burton'sGr. Test., where he will find reference to the authors who have discussed the question.
DX.
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'sPoetical Rhapsody, in 1608. "It is nevertheless possible," observes Sir Harris Nicolas (Introduction toPoetical Rhapsody, p. ci.), "that it was written by Raleigh the night before heexpectedto 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'sWorks, 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 (seePoems 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 ytrudeRawlyNo stomack can disgest."
"Go, Eccho of the minde;
A careles troth protest;
Make answere ytrude
RawlyNo stomack can disgest."
"In these verses (remarks Mr. Hannah) three points especially deserve attention; first, that they assign the disputed poem to Raleighby name; next, that they were writtenwhen 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'sPoetical 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'sWorks. In some copies it is called "The Farewell."
EDWARDF. RIMBAULT.
The lines reported to have been written by Sir Walter Raleigh the night before his execution werenot, I think, those alluded to by ÆGROTUS. In theReliquiæ Wottonianæare 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: