July 19. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



45 



English Sapphics (Vol. iii., p. 494.). — In the 

 translation of the Psalms of David by Sir P. Sidney 

 and his sister, the Countess of Pembroke, the 

 125 th Psalm is rendered in Sapphics. The first 

 stanza is as follows : 



" As Sion standeth very firmly steadfast. 

 Never once shaking : so on high Jehova 

 Who his hope bulldeth, very firmly steadfast 



Ever abideth." 

 The 120tli PsaUn is in Alcaics, and, I think, 

 very success fid, considering the difficulty of the 

 metre. It commences thus : 



" As to th' Eternall often in anguishes 

 Erst have I called, never unanswered, 

 Againe I call, againe I calling 

 Doubt not againe to receave an answer." 



There are also specimens of other Latin metres 

 in the same collection. 



I remember about eighteen or twenty years ago 

 an " Ode to December," in Blackwood's Magazine, 

 the first stanza of which was as follows (I quote 

 from memory) : 



" O'er the l)are hill tops moan the gusty breezes, 

 From the dark branches sweeping the sere leaves. 

 South comes the polar duck ; and the gliding grev 

 gull 



Shrieks to her shelter." 



M. W. 



Welwood (Vol. iv., p. 1.). — The imprint of the 

 first edition of his Memoirs is " London, for Tim. 

 Goodwin, 1700." The Museum copy which bears 

 the press-mark 808. f. is a distinct impression. 



Bolton Corney. 



Bellarmins Monstrous Paradox (Vol. iii., p. 497.). 

 — In your paper of June 21st, there is a question 

 inserted as to the precise text in which Cardinal 

 Bellarmin is said to maintain that " should the 

 Pope command the commission of vice, and forbid 

 the practice of virtue, it would become the duty 

 of Catholics to perform the one and to avoid the 

 other." To that question you have replied by 

 quoting a passage from the fourth book of the 

 cardinal's great work. It is quite true that the 

 words quoted by you occur at that place ; it is 

 quite as untrue that the "monstrous parado.x" is 

 there attempted to be maintained. A reference 

 to the book will show at once that this paradox is 

 simply used as an argument to enable the cardinal 

 to prove his point by the common method of a 

 reductio ad ahsurduin. If what I maintain, says 

 the cardinal, is false, then it follows that " should 

 tiic Pope," &c. Of course, the rest of the argument 

 fully stated would be : But this consequence is 

 not true, therefore neither is the antecedent true ; 

 that is to say, " what I maintain" is true. So tliat 

 instead of maintaining in this passage the mon- 

 strous parado.x alleged, the cardinal, in reality, is 

 only quoting it as a monstrous absurdity, which 

 ho ]i\mifAi condemns, and which would result from 



the contradiction of his proposition. In justice to 

 the memory of a great man, who has been much 

 and most unjustly slandered upon this very point, 

 may I ask for the insertion of this letter. 



J. W. Ct. 



Jo7iah and the Whale (Vol. iii., p. 517.).— E.J. K. 

 probably founds his unqualified rejection of the 

 word " whale " on the English version, as a pre- 

 sumed more correct interpretation of the corre- 

 sponding term in the original Hebrew. But it 

 should not be forgotten, that the equal, or per- 

 haps superior authority of the Seventy translators, 

 to that of our best modern interpreters, is becom- 

 ing daily more apparent. At all events, without 

 a reference to such collateral aid, it is scarcely 

 safe to pronounce on the meaning of any word 

 or passage in the Old Testament. On this sub- 

 ject, among many other works, may be consulted 

 the valuable Lexicon of the Rev. Dr. Wilson, 

 Canon of Winchester ; and the learned Apology 

 for the Septuagint, by the Rev. E. W. Grinfield. 



In the present case, it is certainly of little con- 

 seqiience, whether the Greek word Krtros, and the 

 Latin cetiis, be translated " whale," or " great 

 fish," both of which may be comprehended under 

 them. Though the former is the usual interpreta- 

 tion, and though the English translator^! employ 

 the term " great fish" in the passages " Kol ■n-potre- 



TO^e Kvpios KT}Tei ij.eya.\(f," and " cV rfj kolKit. rod K-Syrovs" 



the commonly accepted word seems more in ac- 

 cordance with an authority of unquestionable im- 

 portance. C. H. P. 

 Brighton, June 28. 1851. 



It must have escaped the memory of your cor- 

 respondent E.J. K., in speaking of the supposed 

 error of calling the '-great fish" which swallowed 

 Jonah a "whale," that our Lord, in giving tnis 

 sign to the Jews, calls it in our English version a 

 " whale" (toO K^oi/r, St. Matt. xii. 40., this being 

 the word used in the Septuagint version, from 

 which the Evangelists quoted the SS. of the Old 

 Testament). 



Surely then there is not any popular error in 

 the term "whale" as expressing the "great fish" 

 of the prophet Jonah, for your correspondent does 

 not go beyond the English version, nor can I say 

 what the word used in the original Hebrew would 

 strictly signify. K^tos, it is true, may not, and 

 probably does not, mean anything more definite 

 than the "great fish" of the Hebrew; but cer- 

 tainly our tran.slators, by adopting the term 

 "wliale" in the Gospels, have so sanctioned the 

 interpretation, that the error, if such, must be 

 referred to them, and not to any later period, and 

 therefore can hardly be reckoned amongst those 

 of the popidur class. , Oxoniensis. 



Walthamstow, June .W. 1851. 



Great disputes have been raised what the fish 

 was. As it is called a whale in the Septuagint, 



