Ilkan with other, and salde and boght, And planted, and bygged, and houses wroght, It rayned fire fra heven and brunstane, The day man son sal shewed be.' "' In this and preceding notices on Early English Poetry we have made frequent use of Wiclif's name, and may, perhaps, therefore fitly close this article with some few extracts from his translation of the Scriptures. Thanks to Dr. Bosworth and Mr. Waring, Wiclif's translation of the Gospels is placed within the reach of many readers who might otherwise have been debarred from its use." The passages we propose to quote from Wiclif are the same as those quoted above from Hampole; but it will be necessary for the reader to bear in mind that while Hampole's can hardly, in justice, be styled anything but paraphrases in rhyme, Wiclif's are translations, both being made from the Latin Vulgate. St. Matthew xxiv. 3-12 is thus rendered by Wiclif. "Tell vs, when this shalbe, and what signe shalbe of thy comminge, and of the ende of the worlde. And Jesus answered and sayde vnto them, Take hede, that no man desceave you. Many schulen come in my name, seyynge, I am Crist; and thei schulen disceyue manye. Sothly ye ben to heere bateyls, and opynyouns of bateyls; se ye, that ye ben not distroblid; forsoth it bihoueth thes thingis to be don, but not yit is the ende. Folk schal ryse to gidere agen folk, and rew me in to rewme, and pestilencis, and hungris, and erthemouyngis schulen be by placis; forsothe alle thes thingis ben bigynnyngis of sorwis And for wickidnesse schal be plenteous, the charite of manye schal wexe coold." St. Luke xxi. 25-27 is translated as follows: "And tokenes schulen be in the sunne, and moone, and sterris; and in the erthe schal be ouerleying of folkis, for confusioun of sown of the see that and wawis; men waxinge drye for drede and abidinge that schulen come on al the world. d; forwhi vertues of heuene schulen be mouyd. And thanne thei schulen se mannis sone "The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns, with the versions of Wiclif and Tyndale; arranged, with Preface and Notes, by the Rev. Joseph Bosworth, D.D., etc., etc., assisted by George Waring, Esq., M.A. London, 1865. A very valuable book, and one which we hope to see in the hands of all who wish to know what changes our language has undergone during the last nine hundred years. These changes may easily be traced in the volume before us from King Alfred to Wiclif, from Wiclif to Tyndale, and so on to our authorized version of the Scriptures. comynge in a cloude, with greet power and maieste." And St. Luke xvii. 26-30 thus: "And as it was don in the dayes of Noe, so it schal be in the dayes of mannis sone. Thei eeten and drunken, and weddiden wyues, and weren gouun to weddingis, til in to the day in which Noe entride in to his schip; and the greet flood cam, and loste alle. Also as it was don in the dayes of Loth, thei eeten and drunken, boughten and seelden, plantiden and byldeden; sothli in what day Loth wente out of Sodom, the Lord reynede fier and brymstoon fro heuene, and loste alle. Vp this thing it schal be, in what day mannis sone schal be schewid." J. M. C. Discoveries at Ephesus.-Yesterday, being at Azizieh, I had some finds worth noticing. First I examined the conical hill near Azizieh, beyond the Ephesus Pass. This, as I suspected, I found to be a tomb; and it proves to be one of the remarkable monuments of Asia Minor. It is a conical hill about 600 or 700 feet high, but joining on to a low ridge behind. It is so unlike the neighbouring formations of limestone that I suspect it has been trimmed partially. This mound, about 150 feet below the summit, is crowned with a ring wall of loose rubble piled about ten feet wide on the surface, and which is mostly in good preservation. On the top is the tumulus, in a very dilapidated state, having been rifled, and in a worse state than the tomb of Tantalus on Sipylus. There are appearances of the inner vault, and, like that of Tantalus, there are many bits of tiles of the same kind, and so likewise in the wall and scattered over the mound. To designate this, I propose to call it the Tomb of Lydus. At the foot to the east, close against the tomb, I found the site of a small town, about 1,000 feet square, evidently on the old road to the interior. I then went with Mr. E. A. Drew to see the pass he has brought to light, and which is the real Ephesus Pass, about one mile or one mile and a-half to the right of the present Ephesus Pass, through which the railway passes to Azizieh. The original and deserted pass is a very interesting site. Here I identified the site of a large town or city, which must have had upwards of 20,000 inhabitants. For a mile and a-half or two miles the surface is thickly filled with tiles and stones, interspersed with foundations and heaps of stones. The only sculptured remains are at the lower part, near Azizieh, where there is a small but solid building, with a niche and two windows. In the tombs are two double pilasters of very poor style. This place I have named Eski Azizieh. I cannot conjecture its ancient designation. It was evidently the summer town or village of Ephesus, and I consider Latorea was at Boorgas, close by. There are considerable remains of the causeway, but the place must have been deserted for many centuries. The pass leading to Azizieh is well supplied with water; but then below Eski Azizieh is a good stream most of the way from Magnesia ad Mæandrum. I consider Eski Azizieh a promising site for excavations. All the places I have referred to are within a short walk of Azizieh, and Eski Azizieh is about five miles from Ephesus station.-HYDE CLARKE.-Athenæum. CORRESPONDENCE ON LEV. XI. 3—7, AND DEUT. XIV, 6-8.a MR. GILLESPIE having waited upon Mr. Young, to bring before him the passages Leviticus xi. 3-7, and Deuteronomy xiv. 6-8, in combination with 1 Kings vii. 9, Mr. Young writes as follows, and the correspondence goes on:— No. 1.-Mr. YOUNG to Mr. GILLESPIE. My dear Sir, I have examined every one of the ten passages where the word occurs, comparing them with the ancient versions, the Septuagint, the Chaldee Targum, the Syriac Peshito, the Samaritan Version, the Latin Vulgate, and the Arabic. If you could kindly favour me with your question in writing, I shall try and give as distinct an answer as possible.-Yours, etc. Edinburgh, June 28, 1865. No. 2.-Mr. GILLESPIE to Mr. YOUNG. My dear Sir, I have received your kind note of yesterday, and I shall endeavour to put my question in the briefest form, divested of every extrinsic consideration. Is it the case that the writer in Leviticus xi. and Deuteronomy xiv. asserts that the hare does chew the cud? that is, does the writer imply that the animal has the stomach and habits of a ruminant? or, on the other hand, does the writer really allege no more than this, that the hare brings forward and chews, that is, saws or grinds its food? In other words, did not King James's translators take a meaning to the Hebrew, in place of taking one from it? And is it not corroborative of such a supposition, that, although the phraseology in the Hebrew varies considerably, those translators keep by the one phrase, whatever the phraseology of the original? Such is my question, eliminated in the meantime from all external considerations. These possibly may come into the field afterwards. Yours, etc. P.S. Possibly you may come to the conclusion that the phrase made by the two Hebrew words occurring so often may be translated set on the saw, or sawing process. If so, the passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy could be translated in harmony with the passage in 1 Kings vii. 9. Edinburgh, June 29, 1865. a Between Messrs. William Honyman Gillespie and Robert Young and the Author of a Popular Appeal, etc. As prepared for publication by Mr. Gillespie, No. 3.-Mr. YOUNG to Mr. GILLESPIE. My dear Sir, I regret much that I have been unavoidably prevented till now from writing you, as I promised, regarding the phrase, "Chewing the cud," as found in Lev. xi. 3-7, and Deut. xiv. 6-8. The original word, which in these passages is translated "cud," is, which is derived from a root, oror, the primary signification of which is almost, if not altogether, uniformly admitted by lexicographers to be "to drag or draw along, or up, or backwards and forwards," like most Hebrew words having in the first syllable. Other derivatives are, a "saw," because "drawn" along, and "strife, contention." The most natural meaning, therefore, of is a "thing dragged" along, backwards and forwards, etc. The Hebrew verb translated "chew" is literally derived from a root, signifying to "bring up, cause to ascend, come, or go up." It may be rendered "to bring forward,” though “up” is the more natural meaning. It occurs 2 Ch. xx. 34, where it is translated "mentioned;" but evidently "brought up or forward” is the primitive idea. Literally, then, the combined phrase is, "bringing up or forward (the thing dragged, or) the drag," whatever that may be. In Lev. xi. 7, and in Deut. xiv. 8, there is a slight change in the form of the expression. In the former there is a change of the verb, which is not the same as that rendered "to bring up or forward," but is one derived from, or connected with, the noun itself, and must evidently have the same general meaning. Literally, then, this phrase is, "and the drag (or dragged thing) it does not drag." In Deut. xiv. 8, where the common English version reads "yet cheweth not the cud," the Hebrew text has no verb at all, and is simply, "and not the drag or dragged thing." If, passing from the philological, we turn to the historical, meaning of the phrase, we find that the authors of the Septuagint version (B.c. 280) have uniformly rendered it by ȧvayovoi μnρvкioμòv; the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos (B.c. 50 to A.D. 100) renders it the Peshito-Syriac (A.D. 100150) renders it 133; the Samaritan version (A.D. 150200) renders it ; the Latin Vulgate version of Jerome (A.D. 400) renders it "rumino;" the Arabic version of Saadias Gaon is too recent to be of much authority, but it agrees with all the above-mentioned versions in rendering it "bringing up or forward the drag, or dragged thing," i.e., the cud. I regret I cannot at present throw any additional light upon the meaning of the phrase. I fear it is impossible to uphold the translation you mention, "to set on the sawing process;" and if it were, I am inclined to think the meaning would not be materially different from the commonly understood meaning of the phrase, "chewing the cud." The questions at issue, Whether the hare does or does not chew the cud, and whether Moses asserts or does not assert it as a fact, do not, it appears to me, trench upon the authority of Scripture as a Divine record of duty. Every wise teacher adapts his instructions to the capacity of his pupils. He uses the language of common life without rigidly scrutinizing its positive accuracy. Hence he speaks of the sun rising and setting, of the birds of the air carrying tidings, of the lion being strongest among beasts, of the eagle plucking out the eye of a disobedient child, of its reviving its youth, of the everlasting mountains, of Beelzebub casting out demons, of thunder being the voice of God, etc. The design of Revelation is not to teach the physical sciences, but man's duty to his fellow-man, and to God Himself. This duty is either natural or positive; the former cannot change, but the latter may. Hence the two must be distinguished: this may sometimes not be easy, but there is no alternative, no infallible criterion, and we are bound to investigate for ourselves as accountable beings. God's Revelations are all progressive, implying previous incompleteness in each. The former are only binding as explained, or modified, or enlarged, by the latter. I dread greatly lest Christian apologists or expositors should bind, or attempt to bind, a certain interpretation of Scripture to the hearty reception of it as a Revelation of God's will in "many parts," and in "many ways," made to us and to our fathers.-Yours, etc. P.S. You are welcome to use this in any way. Peebles, July 4, 1865. No. 4.-Mr. GILLESPIE to Mr. YOUNG. My dear Sir,-Yours of the 4th current I perused with pleasure and satisfaction; with pleasure, because you seem to enter so heartily into the spirit of the enquiry; with satisfaction, because we-unless I mistake the matter very much— sail in the same boat, though we are not pulling at the same individual oar. |