Bible Reference

[Brainy Cove]

In The Bishop's Move, I noticed a boner in the Scripture category,
namely the quotation from Proverbs cxxxi. 6.

Doubtless others have spotted this before I, but it takes me a while
to translate Roman numerals into the King's English.

There is, of course, no Proverbs beyond chapter 31. The quote in
question comes from, not Psalm 131:6 as you one might suppose, as that
psalm has but 5 verses, but from Ps 122:7.

Brainy Cove

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by Brainy Cove
In The Bishop's Move, I noticed a boner in the Scripture category,
namely the quotation from Proverbs cxxxi. 6.
Doubtless others have spotted this before I, but it takes me a while
to translate Roman numerals into the King's English.
There is, of course, no Proverbs beyond chapter 31. The quote in
question comes from, not Psalm 131:6 as you one might suppose, as that
psalm has but 5 verses, but from Ps 122:7.

Interestingly, in the original appearance of the story in _Liberty_
magazine (August 20, 1927), the Bishop cites it as "Proverbs
one-twenty-one; six."

Perhaps the _Liberty_ editors wanted to make it clearer without the
Roman numberals that the Bishop was talking through his hat, though I
can't explain the variation between 121 and 131. Does anyone have a
copy of the _Strand_ magazine appearance (September 1927) to check how
it appears there?

We must remember that the Bishop and the Head Master were under the
influence of two wineglassfuls of Buck-U-Uppo at the time of the
quotation. Earlier in the story, when conversing soberly with
Augustine, the Bishop's citation from Proverbs was accurate, and in
general Wodehouse's clergy know their Bible well, so I assume this was a
deliberate blunder intended to illustrate the intoxicating effects of
the tonic, rather than a slip on the part of author or editor.

-Neil Midkiff

[Ian Michaud, TWS]

Post by Neil Midkiff

Post by Brainy Cove
In The Bishop's Move, I noticed a boner in the Scripture category,
namely the quotation from Proverbs cxxxi. 6.

Interestingly, in the original appearance of the story in _Liberty_
magazine (August 20, 1927), the Bishop cites it as "Proverbs
one-twenty-one; six."
Perhaps the _Liberty_ editors wanted to make it clearer without the Roman
numberals that the Bishop was talking through his hat, though I can't
explain the variation between 121 and 131. Does anyone have a copy of the
_Strand_ magazine appearance (September 1927) to check how it appears
there?

I just gave myself eyestrain by peering at my rather fuzzy jpg files of the
story in the _Strand_ and, yes, it does use the Roman numerals. And, unlike
the book editions of the story (Proverbs cxxxi. 6), in the _Strand_ the
source is given as "Proverbs cxxii.7."

The Mixer

[Ian Michaud, TWS]

"Ian Michaud, TWS" >

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
I just gave myself eyestrain by peering at my rather fuzzy jpg files of
the story in the _Strand_ and, yes, it does use the Roman numerals. And,
unlike the book editions of the story (Proverbs cxxxi. 6), in the _Strand_
the source is given as "Proverbs cxxii.7."

Dash it! I should have copied out the whole thing instead of just the
numbers when I was peering at my jpgs. The Strand Magazine story ACTUALLY
said "Psalms cxxii. 7."

The Mixer

[Neil Midkiff]

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
"Ian Michaud, TWS" >

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
I just gave myself eyestrain by peering at my rather fuzzy jpg files of
the story in the _Strand_ and, yes, it does use the Roman numerals. And,
unlike the book editions of the story (Proverbs cxxxi. 6), in the _Strand_
the source is given as "Proverbs cxxii.7."

Dash it! I should have copied out the whole thing instead of just the
numbers when I was peering at my jpgs. The Strand Magazine story ACTUALLY
said "Psalms cxxii. 7."
The Mixer

So we have two possibilities:

1) Wodehouse had the Bishop give the correct citation (Psalms 122:7) and
the Strand got it right while Liberty for some reason changed it to the
wrong book, chapter, and verse, or

2) Wodehouse (as I assumed in a previous message) gave an obviously
erroneous citation to illustrate the Bishop's intoxication, Liberty
followed along, but some officious copy-editor at the Strand noted the
discrepancy and "corrected" it to show the actual Biblical citation,
thus missing the humor of the deliberate mistake.

Given that the hardcover versions go back to citing a non-existent
chapter of Proverbs, I'm putting my money on the second choice.

I note that the American first edition of _Meet Mr. Mulliner_
(Doubleday, Doran, 1928) follows the data of the _Liberty_ magazine
version (which said "Proverbs one-twenty-one; six") but formats it as
"Proverbs cxxi: 6."

I don't have the British first edition (Herbert Jenkins, 1927) but the
various later British editions seem to go with Proverbs cxxxi, 6 (as the
Penguin paperback formats it). Once again I can't explain the variation
from chapter 121 to 131, but as Proverbs has only 31 chapters either one
is wildly out of bounds.

-Neil Midkiff

[DonH]

Post by Neil Midkiff

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
"Ian Michaud, TWS" >

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
I just gave myself eyestrain by peering at my rather fuzzy jpg files of
the story in the _Strand_ and, yes, it does use the Roman numerals.
And, unlike the book editions of the story (Proverbs cxxxi. 6), in the
_Strand_ the source is given as "Proverbs cxxii.7."

Dash it! I should have copied out the whole thing instead of just the
numbers when I was peering at my jpgs. The Strand Magazine story
ACTUALLY said "Psalms cxxii. 7."
The Mixer

1) Wodehouse had the Bishop give the correct citation (Psalms 122:7) and
the Strand got it right while Liberty for some reason changed it to the
wrong book, chapter, and verse, or
2) Wodehouse (as I assumed in a previous message) gave an obviously
erroneous citation to illustrate the Bishop's intoxication, Liberty
followed along, but some officious copy-editor at the Strand noted the
discrepancy and "corrected" it to show the actual Biblical citation, thus
missing the humor of the deliberate mistake.
Given that the hardcover versions go back to citing a non-existent chapter
of Proverbs, I'm putting my money on the second choice.
I note that the American first edition of _Meet Mr. Mulliner_ (Doubleday,
Doran, 1928) follows the data of the _Liberty_ magazine version (which
said "Proverbs one-twenty-one; six") but formats it as "Proverbs cxxi: 6."
I don't have the British first edition (Herbert Jenkins, 1927) but the
various later British editions seem to go with Proverbs cxxxi, 6 (as the
Penguin paperback formats it). Once again I can't explain the variation
from chapter 121 to 131, but as Proverbs has only 31 chapters either one
is wildly out of bounds.
-Neil Midkiff

# I go along with the intoxication theory, as, while Roman numerals can be
easily subject to typo error, you could hardly switch from Psalms to
Proverbs in such manner. Still, you'd have to get back to the original
manuscript to be sure.
Does anyone know if PGW was always a two-finger typist - as he may have
become in an arthritic old age - but seems unlikely for a person with such
voluminous output?

[Charles stone-Tolcher]

Look again old boy, it definitely says 'Psalms cxxii. 7.'

Pillingshot

Post by Ian Michaud, TWS
I just gave myself eyestrain by peering at my rather fuzzy jpg files of
the story in the _Strand_ and, yes, it does use the Roman numerals. And,
unlike the book editions of the story (Proverbs cxxxi. 6), in the _Strand_
the source is given as "Proverbs cxxii.7."
The Mixer

[Charles stone-Tolcher]

I have the issue of Strand that contains "The Bishops Move" The Herbert
Jenkins edition gives the quote, ending with 'prosperity within thy
palaces' as "Proverbs cxxi 6' but in the magazine version it gives the same
quote as "Psalms cxxii. 7"

Pillingshot

Post by Neil Midkiff
Perhaps the _Liberty_ editors wanted to make it clearer without the Roman
numberals that the Bishop was talking through his hat, though I can't
explain the variation between 121 and 131. Does anyone have a copy of the
_Strand_ magazine appearance (September 1927) to check how it appears
there?
We must remember that the Bishop and the Head Master were under the
influence of two wineglassfuls of Buck-U-Uppo at the time of the
quotation. Earlier in the story, when conversing soberly with Augustine,
the Bishop's citation from Proverbs was accurate, and in general
Wodehouse's clergy know their Bible well, so I assume this was a
deliberate blunder intended to illustrate the intoxicating effects of the
tonic, rather than a slip on the part of author or editor.
-Neil Midkiff