294
kt)TES AND QUERIES. u* s. it. bet. s,
non Sidney, and firv>m him it has become
diffused over Engknd. ISAAC TAYLOR.
[Many other replies to the same effect are acknow- ledged. J
MARSTON AND SHAKSPEARE (9 th S. ii. 183). If the passage from Marston refer to Shake- speare it ought to prove highly serviceable to all Baconomaniacs. What could be better v(for them) than these verses 1 And yet's but Broker of another's wit. Certes if all things were well known and viewed, He doth but champe that which another chew'd.
The words from 'Measure for Measure' (IV. iii. 38),
He is coining, sir, he is coming; I hear his straw rustle,
have no reference to a straw used as a spear, but merely denote the fact that Barnardine was rising from his bed of straw, which rustled as he arose. THOMAS AULD.
Belfast.
MACAULAY AND MONTGOMERY (8 th S. xii. 66, 132, 214, 332 ; 9 th S. ii. 12). I take no part in the Macaulay v. Montgomery controversy. This note refers only to the dictum of J. B. iS. at the last reference " Soul and spirit are identical."
In a passage too sacred to quote fully in this logomachy (1 Thess. v. 23) St. Paul makes a tripartite division of human nature into spirit ? soul, and body (Trvev/ia, fox r h Kai cru)fj.a). In this division he is followed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. n.vevfj.a in Christian nomenclature corresponds to the ^UYT) AoytKr) of the Platonists ; while fox^ as distinguished from irvevpa, corresponds to their foxy aAoyos. Ilveu/m corresponds to the animus of the Latins, that " quo intelligimus sapimusque"; foxn ^ their anima, that "qua vivimus et sentimus." Anima, fox^ the sea ^ of the passions and appetites, we jiave in common with brutes ; animus, Trvev^a, the seat of reason and conscience, among ter- restrials, is peculiar to man :
Mundi
Principio indulsit communis conditor illis Tantum animas, nobis animum quoque.
Juvenal, xv. 11. 147-9.
R. M. SPENCE, D.D. Manse of Arbuthnott, N.B.
"Si quis piorum manibus locus, si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpore ex- stinguuntur magnse animee," the REV. C. F. S. WARREN must have been some what astonished at the dogmatic scepticism of J. B. S., and it is to be wished that he could have answered for himself. When J. B. S. says that he has never " met with any convincing proof," he is taking much for gran ted, e.g., the unconvincing
character of such clear statements as the dis-
tinction between fax*! an d Trvev^a in 1 Thess.
v. 23 and Heb. iy. 12, and between ^VYIKOI/
and Tri/ev/jiaTiKov in 1 Cor. xv. 44-6. J. B. S.
is doubtless familiar with Hoard's ' Tripartite
Nature of Man,' and has found that, too,
"unconvincing." I do not wish to argue,
but merely to point out what his denial
involves. W. E. B.
At the last reference J. B. S. writes, " I have never so far met with any convincing proof of difference between them [soul and spirit], either philosophical or theological. I would refer him to an interesting note on 1 Thess. v. 23, by Bishop Lightfoot, in 'Notes on Epistles of St. Paul,' pp. 88-9. It is there pointed out that "the threefold division of the nature of man " body, soul, and spirit " is not peculiar to Christianity. It appears in the
heathen philosophers, as, for instance, in Plato
and 171 the Neoplatonists, as Plotinus and in the
Stoics It was familiar also to Jewish speculators,
whether of the Rabbinical type or the Alexandrian
School It was generally recognized by the early
Fathers When Apollinaris made it subservient
to his own heresy it oegan to be looked upon with disfavour."
Bishop Lightfoot thus explains the differ- ence :
" The spirit, which is the ruling faculty in man and through which he holds communication with the unseen world the soul, which is the seat of all his impulses and affections, the centre of his per- sonality the body, which links him to the material world and is the instrument of all his outward deeds."
ERNEST B. SAVAGE, F.S.A.
St. Thomas, Douglas.
For the difference between soul and spirit see Swedenborg's ' Arcana Cselestia,' Nos. 50, 321,322, 1807,and his 'Conjugial Love,' No. 206.
K.
SHROPSHIRE NAMES (9 th S. ii. 144, 255). Those who are interested in this subject would do well to refer to the admirable papers, three in number, which have been recently con- tributed to the Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society by Mr. W. H. Duignan, of Walsall, under the title ' On some Shrop- shire Place - Names.' The history of each name has been carefully traced through Domesday Book, ancient charters, and other early sources of information, and a knowledge of local conditions has been brought to bear in every case which admits of investigation of this kind.
1 notice that CANON TAYLOR says that Shropshire was formerly called Shrubshire, and that the ironworks have now eradicated all but a few patches of woodland. This opinion differs completely from that now
