472 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 29. 
There is also an interesting passage in Dionys. 
Carthus. in Apocal. Enarr. iv. 7., from which the 
following is an extract : — 
« Although the above exposition of Gregorius, in 
which by the man is meant Matthew, by the calf Luke, 
&e., be the common one, yet other holy men have held 
a different opinion, for as Bede relates on this point, 
Augustine understood by the lion Matthew, because 
in the beginning of his Gospel he describes the royal 
descent of Christ ; by the calf he also understood Luke, 
because he wrote of the priestly descent of Our Lord ; 
by the man Mark, because he omits the question of 
Christ’s birth. and confines himself more especially to 
describing His acts as a man; by the eagle, all under- 
stand John, on account of the sublimity to which his 
Gospel soars. Others again understand by the lion 
Matthew ; by the calf Mark, on account of the sim- 
plicity of his style; and by the man Luke, because he 
has more fully treated of Christ's human generation.” 
Would “ Jarrzpere” kindly favour me with 
a reference to his interesting anecdote of the lion’s 
whelps ? J. Eastwoop. 
Ecclesfield, May 9. 1850. 
Your correspondent “JaruzperG” (No. 24. 
p- 385.) inquires for the origin of the Evangelistic 
symbols. The four living creatures, in Ezekiel, 
i. 10., and Revelations, iv. 7., were interpreted 
from the earliest times to represent the four 
Gospels. Why the angel is attributed to St. 
Matthew, the lion to St. Mark, and so on, is an- 
other question: but their order in Ezekiel cor- 
responds with the order of the Gospels as we have 
them. Durandus would probably furnish some 
information. The fabulous legend of the lion 
savours of a later origin. Some valuable remarks 
on the subject, and a list of references to early 
writers, will be found in Dr. Wordsworth’s Lec- 
tures on the Canon of Scripture (Lect. VI. p. 151.), 
and his Lectures on the Apocalypse (Lect. IV. 
pp- 116, 117.) C. BR. M. 
Symbols of the Evangelists (No. 24. p.385.).— 
The symbols of the four Evangelists are treated 
of by J. Williams, Thoughts on the Study of the 
Gospels, p.5—22. Lond. 1842. 
Oxford. 
With regard to the symbols of the four Evan- 
gelists, “ JartzpERG” may consult a Sermon by 
Boys on the portion of Scripture appointed for 
the Epistle for Trinity-Sunday. (Works, p.355. 
Lond. 1622.) R. G. 
{To these Replies we will only add a reference to 
Mrs. Jameson’s interesting and beautiful volume on 
Sacred and Legendary Art, vol. i. p. 98., et seg., and the 
following Latin quatrain: — 
“ Quatuor hee Dominum signant animalia Christum, 
Est Homo nascendo, Vitulusque sacer moriendo, 
Et Leo surgendo, coelos Aquilaque petendo ; 
Nee minus hos scribas animalia et ipsa figurant.”] 
COMFLEXION. 
Complexion is usually (and I think universally) 
employed to express the tint of the skin; and the 
hair and eyes are spoken of separately when the 
oceasion demands a specific reference to them. 
“ Nemo” (No. 22. p.352.), moreover, seems to 
confound the terms “ white” and “ fair,” between 
the meanings of which there is considerable differ- 
ence. <A white skin is not fair, nor a fair skin 
white. There is no close approach of one to the 
other; and indeed we never see a white com- 
plexion, except the chalked faces in a Christmas 
or Easter Pantomime, or in front of Richardson’s 
booth at Greenwich or Charlton Fair. A contem- 
plation of these would tell us what the “ human 
face divine” would become, were we any of us 
truly white-skinned. 
The skin diverges in tint from the white, in one 
direction towards the yellow, and in another to- 
wards the red or pink; whilst sometimes we wit- 
ness a seeming tinge of blue,—characteristic of 
asphyxia, cholera, or some other disease. We often 
see a mixture of red and yellow (the yellow pre- 
dominating) in persons subject to bilious com- 
plaints; and not unfrequently a mixture of all 
three, forming what the painters call a “neutral 
tint,” and which is more commonly called “an 
olive complexion.” 
The negro skin is black ; that is, it does not se- 
parate the sun’s light into the elementary colours. 
When, by the admixture of the coloured races 
with the negro, we find coloured skins, they always 
tend to the yellow, as in the various mulatto 
shades of the West Indies, and especially in the 
Southern States of America ; and the same is true 
of the “ half-castes” of British Iidia, though with 
a distinct darkness or blackness, which the de- 
scendant of the negro does not generally show. 
Though I have, in accordance with the usual 
language of philosophers, spoken of blue as an ele- 
ment in the colour of the skin, I have some doubt 
whether it be a “true blue” or not. It is quite 
as likely to arise from a partial participation in 
the quality of the negro skin—that of absorbing 
a large portion of the light without any analysis 
whatever. This may be called darkness. 
However, to return to the Query: the term 
pale is applied to the yellow-tinted skin ; fair, to 
the red or pink; brown, to the mixture of red and 
yellow, with either blue or such darkness as above 
described; sallow, to yellow and darkness; and 
the only close approach to whiteness that we ever 
see, is in the sick room of the long-suffering fair 
complexion. In death, this changes to a “ blackish 
grey,” a mixture of white and darkness. 
The pale complexion indicates a thick, hard, 
dry skin; the fair, a thin and soft one; and all 
the shades of dark skin render a large amount of 
ablution essential to health, comfort, or agreeable- 
ness to others. If any of your readers should 
