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

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

6

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, cuni ludere debuit.'

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.

It is certain, that the gift of prophesy, whether in pointing out the completion, at that time in progress, of many things which had been foretold, or in any other impulse of the Holy Spirit, was among the primitive Christians, imparted to women as well as to men: “ Καὶ προφητεύσουσιν οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν καὶ αἱ θυγαTépeç úμv." It therefore became equally necessary that women should be permitted to communicate that, of which each had an exclusive knowledge, to those who were assembled. But it was a strict rule in the republics of Greece, that women should be veiled when they were admitted into the public assemblies.

Now, it is clear, by the whole tenor of this chapter, that the women so gifted (or more probably some contentious persons on their behalf), had claimed the privilege of speaking, as the men did, uncovered. This, we may presume, gave great offence, both to the Hellenistic Christians, and to the converted, as well as the unconverted, Jews: who had been commanded, that, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man: neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all who do so, are abomination unto God." Deut. xxII. 5. The heathen prophetesses, the Baccha and Pythæ, when they gave their oracles, and officiated in certain sacrifices, were uncovered: and in some of the idolatrous nations, the men sacrificed to Venus in the stole, orów, of the woman; and the woman in the armor of men. This was abomination: to use the appropriate word in Scripture for idolatrous sacrifice. It was, therefore, the object of the Apostle to reconcile the peculiar situation of these Grecian women, with established usage and national manners.

In the republics of Greece, women were not admitted into the assemblies which met on public occasions, concerning the good of the commonwealth. It is, therefore, very probable, that the Greeks would feel a strong prejudice against women appearing uncovered in their religious assemblies. It is observable, that their civil and religious associations had the same denomination. The meeting of the people on civil affairs, was called 'Exxλnola: and the religious congregations of the first Christians took the same name which is still retained. Men were not suffered to speak in the assemblies under the age of 30, and women not at all. In Aristoph., a woman is ordered to sit down:

σε Σὺ μὲν βάδιζε καὶ κάθησ ̓· οὐδὲν γὰρ εἶ

Go you and sit down, for you are nobody.

Such was the difference which the Apostle wished to compromise.

The first nine verses are therefore forcibly addressed to the Corinthian women. He shows them, by arguments from analogy, as well as from nature, that the woman is subordinate to the man and that it is scandalous for either to assume the dress and appearance of the other: for a man to be covered, or to have long hair; or for a woman to be uncovered or to be shorn. Then comes in the 10th verse this extraordinary double conclusion. Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head: because of the angels.

Mr. Lock professes that he does not understand the "4 Toùs άyyéλous”—and I have not hitherto met with any satisfactory explanation of it-we are therefore still left to suspect either,

1st, That the word has not been thoroughly understood: or, 2dly, That it is an unwarrantable addition to the original

text.

1st, The use of the word "Ayyeλ05 is so confined and appropriate, through all the authorities up to that of Homer, that, I think, it can no more be liable to be mistaken, than the word messenger.

Χαίρετε, κήρυκες, Διὸς ἄγγελοι, ἠδὲ καὶ ἀνδρῶν.

If, therefore, the word was originally in the text, we seem to be still as ignorant of the meaning of it as Lock was.

2ndly, As to the unwarrantable addition of the words 4 τοὺς ἀγγέλους, there appear to me to be grounds for a reasonable suspicion, that these are not the words of St. Paul. First from the internal evidence of the fact. We are not prepared to adopt the conclusion, that woman ought to have power over her head, i. e. ought to be veiled, except from the elaborate argument which runs through the first nine verses: which, to the women of Corinth, would probably have been decisive. But how can we, or how did they, understand the superadded motive: "Because of the Angels"?-If we any where found that they did understand it, we must necessarily conclude that it is not now understood.

The conclusion produced by the previous argument, appears to be not only complete without the last three words, but he seems to have excluded any other ground for that conclusion. Notwithstanding which, another entirely distinct reason is proposed, without any introduction, and without even a copulative. Because of this, (his preceding argument) ought the woman to have power on her head.-Because of the angels.

Where shall we find any thing like this incongruity in the arguments and inferences of St. Paul? "He knew how to prosecute his purpose with strength of argument and close reasoning, without incoherent sallies, or the intermixture of things foreign to his business." (Essay to the Understanding of the Epistles, p. 8.)

The suspicion of interpolation appears to be strengthened by certain passages in the LXX, in which the word Angels is improperly used, if we may trust the Hebrew commentators, and our own translation: which renders Deut. xxxii. 43. in these words; "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people." But before these words, the LXX has the following: Εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοὶ, ἅμα αὐτῷ καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ : Rejoice ye heavens together with him, and let all the Angels of God worship him.

These words, it is said, are not to be found in the original Hebrew, or in the ancient translations: and their introduction into the text of the LXX is the more inexplicable, if it be true, as is asserted of that translation, that it is divested of all Rabbinical tradition. But it seems to be still more extraordinary, that these words, apparently so objectionable, are adopted by St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews themselves, (Heb. i. 6.) who would probably detect the unwarrantable addition made to their own book of Moses, and more especially, as, at the time when St. Paul wrote, the Jews were become extremely jealous and careful concerning the purity of the Mosaical text. And one of the objects of the Hellenistic Jews in the LXX translation, was said to be the preservation of the literal sense of the original.

Again, in Deut. xxxii. 8. we have these words: He set the bounds of the people, according to the number of the children of Israel. Instead of this, the LXX give the passage thus: "He appointed the bounds of the nations, according to the number of the Angels."

It is said that, "the antient Greek fathers, who followed this translation, were led into great difficulties and it grew a common opinion, that every nation was under the government of an Angel. (Bp. Patrick in loc.)

Bochart supposes that they had an imperfect copy before them, which omitted the three first letters of Israel, and they read it baneel, the children of God; now the Angels are sometimes called the sons of God; and the transcribers have in some places mistaken the Angels for the children of Israel. In Gen. vi. 2 and 4, we read the sons of God: the LXX have it, qi