160 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 120. 



occupy more space than you could afford. I 

 therefore write only a few general remarks, lest 

 my silence should be interpreted as an acqui- 

 escence in Mk. 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 D''3in3n 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 (notwith- 

 standing what Mr. ^I. remarks), because the 

 words X'^ITISS flJSI 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 con- 

 sideration will never interfere with my own judg- 

 ment, founded on a thorough knowledge of the 

 meaning of the Hebrew word." 



AVhat is this but to say that the Septuaglnt 

 translators, the authors of the other ancient 

 versions, the Jewish Rabbis, had not the same 

 "thorough knowledge of tiie meaning of the He- 

 brew word" wliich Mr. M. "in his own judg- 

 ment" 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 ver- 

 nacular ; 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 ar- 

 gument, 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 un- 

 supported 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 3 

 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 es- 

 pecially that I object to it ; Holy Scripture is too 

 sacred a thing to be trifled with by ingenious con- 

 jectures : it is easy for a man of talent like Mr. M. 

 to gain a reputation with the unlearned by af- 

 fecting to correct our English version on a " tho- 

 rough 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 Hebrevv Scriptures : and it is In no un- 

 kindly spirit towards him, but very much the 

 reverse, that I venture to give him this warning. 



J. H. Todd. 



Rotten Row. — I cannot agree with any of the 

 etymologies of this phrase, as given at p. 441. of 

 Vol. i., p. 235. of Vol. ii., or at p. 40. of Vol. v. of 

 "N. & Q.," because I have found the same applied 

 to many places with which such etymologies could 

 not, by any possibility, have the remotest con- 

 nexion. In my examination of tlie Hundred Rolls 

 or Acre Books of the various parishes in tlie hun- 

 dred of Skirbeck in Lincolnshire, I found that a 

 portion of several of those parishes was named 

 Rotten Row: I will instance two, Freiston and 

 Bennington. Upon consulting the best authorities 

 I could meet with, I found that Camden derives 

 the name from Rotteran, to muster ; and we know 

 that the Barons de Croun and their descendants, 

 the Lords Rous, who formerly held the manor of 

 Freiston, were in the habit of mustering their 

 vassals under arms. " William Lord Ros, then 

 residing at Ros Hall, Freiston, received a com- 

 mand to attend Edward II. at Coventry ; and 

 hastened to him with all his men at arms, divers 

 Hoblers, and some foot soldiers accordingly." (See 

 Dugdale's Baronage.) That the term Rotten Row 

 has this military origin receives additional corro- 

 boration from the fact, that In Blount's Olosso- 

 graphia, 1670, the word Rot Is defined to be "a 

 term of war ; six men (be they pikes or mus- 

 keteers) make a Rot or file." Under the word 

 Brigade in the same dictionary, I find it stated 

 that " six men make a Rot, and three Rots of 

 Pikes make a corporalship, but the musqueteers 

 have four Rots to a corporalship. Nine Rots of 

 pikes and twelve Rots of musqueteers, or 126 men, 

 make a complete company." In Cole's Dictionary, 

 1685, I find " Rot, a file of six soldiers." 



From these authorities I am led to infer that 



