A writer in the Notes and Queries confused Beersheba with Bathsheba, and conferred on the woman the name of the place.

It has often been remarked that a thorough knowledge of the English Bible is an education of itself, and a correspondence in the Times in August 1888 shows the value of a knowledge of the Liturgy of the Church of England.  In a leading article occurred the passage, ``We have no doubt whatever that Scotch judges and juries will administer indifferent justice.’’ A correspondent in Glasgow, who supposed indifferent to mean inferior, wrote to complain at the insinuation that a Scotch jury would not do its duty.  The editor of the Times had little p 43difficulty in answering this by referring to the prayer for the Church militant, where are the words, ``Grant unto her [the Queen’s] whole Council and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of Thy true religion, and virtue.’’

The compiler of an Anthology made the following remarks in his preface:  ``In making a selection of this kind one sails between Scylla and Charybdis—­the hackneyed and the strange.  I have done my best to steer clear of both these rocks.’’ A leader-writer in a morning paper a few months ago made the same blunder when he wrote:  ``As a matter of fact, Mr. Gladstone was bound to bump against either Scylla or Charybdis.’’ It has generally been supposed that Scylla only was a rock.

A most extraordinary blunder was made in Scientific American eight or ten years ago.  An engraving of a handsome Chelsea china vase was presented with the following description:  ``In England no p 44regular hard porcelain is made, but a soft porcelain of great beauty is produced from kaolin, phosphate of lime, and calcined silica.  The principal works are situated at Chelsea.  The export of these English porcelains is considerable, and it is a curious fact that they are largely imported into China, where they are highly esteemed.  Our engraving shows a richly ornamented vase in soft porcelain from the works at Chelsea.’’ It could scarcely have been premised that any one would be so ignorant as to suppose that Chelsea china was still manufactured, and this paragraph is a good illustration of the evils of journalists writing on subjects about which they know nothing.

Critics who are supposed to be immaculate often blunder when sitting in judgment on the sins of authors.  They are frequently puzzled by reprints, and led into error by the disinclination of publishers to give particulars in the preface as to a book which was written many years before its republication.  A few years ago was issued a reprint of the p 45translation of the Arabian Nights, by Jonathan Scott, LL.D., which was first published in 1811.  A reviewer having the book before him overlooked this important fact, and straightway proceeded to ``slate’’ Dr. Scott for his supposed work of supererogation in making a new translation when Lane’s held the field, the fact really being that Scott’s translation preceded Lane’s by nearly thirty years.