hic locus est unicus, ubi vox infrequentior eideos in diòs frequentiorem corrumpitur. Nempe in Theocrit. Id. xiii. 11. Οὐδ ̓ ὅκχ' & λεύκιππος ἀνατρέχει ἐς Διὸς ἀως legi manifesto debet ἑλᾶ τροχὸν εἴδεος ἀως ; ubi τροχὸν εἴδεος aliquid commune habet cum dicto altero Theocriteo id. xvi. 72. Πολλοὶ κινησεῦντ ̓ ἔτι τὸν τροχὸν ἄματος ἵπποι, ita enim scripsit ipse auctor non ἔτι τροχὸν ἄματος ἵπποι: quod nemo satis intelligere poterat; sed τροχὸν ἄματος bene reddit carmen apud Anglos venaticum

Bright Phœbus hath mounted the chariot of day.
G. B.

CRITICA SACRA

DE 1 CORINTH. ΧΙ. 10.

Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.

66

66

CERTE ovolav ibi nullo modo stare potest. Argumenti tenor velaminis mentionem poscit. Quo minus vero ovcíav reddatur velamen, Græci sermonis ratio repugnat fortissime. Vide igitur, annon in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΥΣ lateat ΑΓΓΟΝΟΥΣ: de qua voce ita Athe naus ix. p. 410. D. Σαπφὼ δὲ, ὅταν λέγῃ ἐν τῷ πεμπτῷ τῶν μελῶν πρὸς τὴν ̓Αφροδίτην “ε χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων πορφυρά”, καγγόνων κόσμον λέγει κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα, ὡς καὶ Ἑκαταῖος δηλοῖ ἢ ὁ γεγραφὼς τὰς Περιηγήσεις ἐν τῇ ̓Ασίᾳ ἐπιγραφομένῃ “ Γυναῖκες δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχουσι χειρόμακτρα ” Ηρόδοτος δὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φησὶν, “ Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἔλεγον τοῦτον τὸν βασιλέα ζων καταβῆναι κάτω εἰς ὃν οἱ Ἕλληνες ᾅδην νομίζουσι, κἀκεῖ δὲ συγκυ βεύειν τῇ Δήμητρι καὶ τὰ μὲν νικᾶν αὐτὴν τὰ δὲ ἡσσοῦσθαι ὑπ ̓ αὐτῆς, καί μιν πάλιν ἀνεφικέσθαι παρ' αὐτῆς δῶρον ἔχοντα χειρόμακτρον χρύσεον. Atqui Sappho, ut opinor, scripsit χειρόμακτρα δὲ κ ̓ ἀγγόνων, et ipse Athenaeus similiter ἀγγόνων. Unde illico se prodit Apostoli scriptura

Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξιοῦσα ἀνέχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διώπους ἀγγόνους.

Quod ad literarum ductus dous vix et ne vix quidem a dia

Our correspondent is learned and ingenious: but we must deprecate such alterations in the text of scripture. See the allusion to Tacitus in Cl. Jl. No. i, p. 100. EDIT.

Tous distat. Quod ad sententiam, manifesto Paulus ad velamen illud spectabat, quod Asiaticæ induere solent, foras exituræ, ita comparatum, ut caput et vultus una tegantur, nec, nisi per foramina duo, quidquam mulier videre queat. Ejusmodi velamen Corinthias quoque induere voluit Apostolus, quibus fuit gratius nudo capite et vultu aperto foras exire, ut spectare simul et spectari possent. Quod ad diwnos de veste dictum, adi facetissimum Aristophanem in Ach. 435. ubi verba Dicaiopolidis, τὰ ῥάκη Euripidea induituri, "Ω Ζεῦ διόπτα καὶ κατόπτα πανταχοῦ, ita Schol. exponit, ταῦτά φησιν ἐπεὶ πολύτρητα ἦν τὰ ῥάκια, δι ̓ áv v Táνтα ÉTIσxоnσa. Unde conjici potest Comicum scripsisse Zɛ diлa: cui similis fuit lusus alibi, uti patet ex Hesych. Πολύωπον-πολυόμματον ἢ πολλὰς ἐπὰς ἔχον. G. B.

REMARKS ON

DR. CROMBIE'S GYMNASIUM.

I BEG leave to send you a few remarks which lately occurred to me on reading a work of essential assistance to the classical student, and of singularly luminous observation-Dr. Crombie's Gymnasium. In a publication embracing so many litigated points, it is impossible to expect a universal acquiescence and it would perhaps be an improbable conjecture that a scholar, however eminent, should determine correctly on all of them. It is in reliance on this circumstance that I am induced to trouble your readers with the following observations.

In p. 43 of the 1st volume, Dr. C. disputes the propriety of a sentence, which, he informs us, was proposed as correct by an Edinburgh Reviewer. Platæenses, are the words of the Reviewer, ad paludem olim habitasse, Noster affirmat: in locum autem meliorem translatos novæ urbi nomen priscum continuasse, situi licet ab aquis remoto haud diutius competisset.' Dr. C., I conceive, objects very correctly to competisset,' as being inconsistent with affirmat.' He then asserts, that "nothing could justify competisset,' but affirmavit. Then 'continuasse' would be a preterpluperfect. And there are not wanting examples, which in this case would sanction competisset, though even then competeret' would be more agreeable to general usage.' In one sense, indeed, continuasse' might be said to be a pluperfect. It would be so in relation to the present

'

moment.

But it would be otherwise in relation to affirmavit.' This is an important distinction: and it is one, which Dr. C. has himself forcibly supported in another part of his work. In the sentence, Dixit se studere,'' studere' is present, and not preterite in relation to 'dixit.' In the sentence, Dixit se studuisse, studuisse' is preterite and not pluperfect in regard to 'dixit.' To adopt here the forbidden use of' quod,'' Dixit se studere' is equivalent to Dixit quod studet:' Dixit se studuisse' is equivalent to 'Dixit quod studuit,' but not 'studuerat.' Hence then continuasse' cannot be considered as pluperfect. And hence competisset' is decidedly wrong. For Dr. C. is perfectly right, when he says, that the unsuitableness is to be here predicated as contemporaneous with the continuation.' If, then, continuasse' is preterite, the unsuitableness cannot be expressed by the pluperfect.

I am aware that our author uses very guarded language in regard to the legitimacy of competisset,' even when used with · affirmavit.' But he does not condemn it as it deserves. The expression I here support, would not only be more agreable to general usage, but, if I am not mistaken, is the expression which alone can be tolerated. It may be used by eminent writers: but surely Dr. C. forgot an admirable decision, which he lays down in the following nervous language, in regard to the ridiculous, yet not very uncommon, interchange of hic' for ille,' and 'ille' for hic,' when used together in opposition: 'No authority,' he says, 'can sanction [observe this expression -for it is the very term used by the learned writer in the case under our previous inspection,] an expression, which is either ambiguous or obscure-much less an expression, by which the reader, if unacquainted with the subject, would unavoidably be led into error.' This decision is bold, but it is correct. Lindley Murray has pointed out constructions, which are undoubtedly erroneous, though used by the best English writers. What can such constructions evince but the melancholy truth that man is fallible and that the most eminent men cannot fail to come under the influence of this general fallibility?

6

In p. 39, Dr. C. gives the credit of greater correctness to the Latin idiom in these two sentences: Athenas ad scholam filium misit: Capua ex agello in Sardiniam migravit.' This is very disputable. For the English expression, He sent his son to a school at Athens,' is plainly elliptical, and intends, 'He sent his son to a school [which was] at Athens.' And the other expression, He removed from his farm at Capua, into Sardinia,' intends, 'He removed from his farm [which was] at Capua

into Sardinia.' What demonstrates more clearly this ellipsis is the English translation of the Latin sentence, Phaëthon præ timore in Padum in Italiam cecidit '-Phaethon fell into the Po [which is] in Italy. Ellipsis, I imagine, does not make sentences

incorrect.

6

In one case the Latin idiom would be more correct, if it could express what the English language ought, but was unable, to do. But the nature of things makes this otherwise. For, after we have said 'Cecidit in Padum,' we do not facilitate the expression by adopting the accusative case, in Italiam.' The accusative in the latter instance is unnecessary—we gain nothing by it; our own language furnishes us all which could reasonably be demanded of it. But, says Dr. C., the expression, He removed from his farm at Capua,' would lead the junior scholar to render it Capuæ' or ad Capuam;' which latter phraseology could only be admitted, when the circumstance is expressed by a distinct clause, as quem ad Capuam habebat.'' But of the truth of this I am very sceptical. For the most that it would come to, would be this :-that a boy in translating the English sentence had not happened to light on the very form expressed in the original. It would not prove that he was wrong. It would only be true that, out of two forms which might be used, he had not hit on that which happened to be employed by the writer, who might as well have used the other expression, The whole, then, I can allow, is, that the Latin language has the power of expressing this sentence in more than one mode. The Latin may carry the palm for variety-but in regard to correctness, I contend that the English is no way surpassed in this case by the Latin.

May I be allowed to intimate to the author of the Gymnasium, that there are several repetitions in his work? This has arisen from putting down on more than one occasion, an idea, which passes through the mind, and which it too often dictates to the hand in consequence of the unavoidable failure of the memory. I mention this without the least intention of disrespect. In a work, which has so much to recommend it, why should any blemishes occur? The scholar too would be happy to see such repetitions yielding to some new observations of the learned writer.

Mr. Valpy, in his admirable work, the Elegantia Latina, has said that Dr. C. was the first to suggest the excellent rule which he gives us in regard to the construction of 'qui' in sentiments expressed by the writer, or by the speaker of whom the writer happens to be treating. It would be curious to de

termine this fact. In the mean while, it may be observed, that the rule has been attended to by modern commentators. Thus in a note to the second book of Propertius, Broukhusius has the following sentence: 'Pontanus multo cum ambitu asserit veram lectionem et quam olim ipsi Scaligero probaverit [i. e. asserit se probasse], esse Candidus augustum,' &c.' I would just hint, that Mr. Valpy has failed to follow up the remark of Dr. C., who has suggested the important fact, that his rule extends also to 'quia,' 'quam,' 'cum,' ' quando,'' quod,' 'quod attinet,' and 'propterea quod.'

6

In conclusion, will you suffer me to propose to your readers, on what principle such a sentence as, Studet, cum ludere deberet,' is founded? For the fact of the studying is contemporaneous with the fact of the necessity of playing. I am aware that the Latin language has preserved a very accurate distinction, when, as Dr. C. informs us, it changes the tense, in speaking of the past, Studuit, cum ludere debuisset.' 'Debuisset' is very properly distinguished from deberet.' But I can see no good reason in the nature of language, why the two sentences should not be more properly constructed thus: Studet, cum ludere debet,' and' Studuit, cum ludere debuit.'

6

S. Y.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

I SHOULD have shrunk from any attempt at scriptural criticism, if my suggestion on the following text had not been quoted in your last number by one learned gentleman, and approved by some others.

Marylebonne, May, 1823.

EDMUND GRIFFITH.

Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.—1 Cor. xi. 10.

We can scarcely hope to give a satisfactory meaning to this difficult text, or, indeed, to perceive the scope of the Apostle's argument, without a distinct comprehension of his peculiar object. Where this is clearly understood, we shall be guarded against any rash innovation, or gross misinterpretation.

St. Paul had a mistake to rectify, in which much caution and delicacy were necessary.