“JOHN BULL.”

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16564, 30 May 1914, Page 12

“JOHN BULL.”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your able and suggestive article of Saturday last on the probable sinister influence on English national, character by the acceptance of the nickname " John Bull "" suggests that there may be a profound reason for that acceptance. There is nothing of tho bull, though a good deal of the bulldog, about the English character, and it "could hardly be that the name " Bull " was considered appropriate or descriptive of men of the bull-dog breed (the "John" may be ignored, as a mere handle, as in "John" Company, "John" Highlandmau and "John" Chinaman—the Bull's the thing). What if the bull came to be associated with Englishmen as mysteriously, and inevitably as the lion and unicorn came into the nation's armorial bearings ? The lion is not n beast indigenous to England; the unicorn, as depicted, is mythical; but the lion and the unicorn are prominently mentioned in Hebrew history and prophecy. The lion was tho emblem of the tribe of Judah, and it was prophesied of Israel generally that he should " push as a unicorn " (tho unicorn of the Bible being probably the rhinoceros). Well, Britain lias the lion of Judah represented in the Royal Family; and Britain has "pushed" to some purpose in every part of the earth, yet peoplo are still found to maintain that the British are not of Israelitish descent. Lot the sceptics then consider the bull question. Tho bull was the tribal emblem of the tribe of Ephraim—the representative tribe of the Kingdom of Israel, as distinguished from that of Judah—and the Hebrew word for a young bull is " engol." Angles—Engels—English ! Also the further etymology is claimed: Isaac's sons—Sacsunes —Saxons! Henco wo have tho Anglo-Saxon race identified as descendants of Isaac and of Ephraim, and a national explanation given of why tho name " Bull" has been accepted as a generic one for Englishmen.

I should like to bo allowed to add that these animal and verbal evidences have had practically no weight with me as proofs of the Isrnolitish origin of the British. On tho contrary, 1 accepted our Hebrew origin many years beforo I heard of these evidences, which for years I was wont to (scout as farfetched and rather tending to weaken the car;o of British-Israel. Now, however, I feel inclined to ask—May there not be something in it? I know pretty well all that can bo said by way of refutation and ridicule, go that controversy is not invited; but I should like readers to calmly think over the matter. —T am, etc., J. LIDDELI. KELLY. Auckland, May 27.