views, which might escape notice under cover of a language less nearly allied to the original. Mr Horne's notice of it is as

follows:

"The Romaïc is a corruption of the ancient Greek; so great indeed, that, compared with the latter, it may be pronounced a new language. It is at present in general use, both for writing and speaking, the ancient Greek being used solely for ecclesiastical affairs. Into this language the New Testament was translated by Maximus Calliergi, and was printed at Geneva in 1638, in one large 4to. volume, in two columns; one contains the ancient, the other the modern Greek. It was published at the expense of the then United Provinces, at the solicitation of Cornelius Haga, their ambassador at Constantinople. The Greeks, however, did not receive it with much favour. This translation was reprinted at London in 1703 (in one vol. 12mo.) by Seraphin, a monk of Mitylene, who prefixed to it a preface, which gave offence to the Greek Bishops, particularly the Patriarch of Constantinople. By his order it was committed to the flames. The edition of 1703 (which, in consequence of this suppression, had become extremely rare) was reprinted in 1705, and in that edition the objectionable passages in Seraphin's preface were omitted. A more correct edition of it was printed at Halle, in Saxony, in 1710, in one volume, 12mo., under the patronage, and at the expense of Sophia Louisa, Queen of Prussia. From this last edition was printed the impression executed at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in one thick vol. 12mo., Chelsea, 1810 (the ancient and modern Greek being in parallel columns.) To this edition the Patriarch of Constantinople gave his unqualified approbation."-pp. 97, 98.

Let us have a specimen of the Patriarch's judgment. That there may be a better opportunity of comparing, we begin with the passage which we have just noticed, as it occurs in the French text of Ostervald.-2 Cor. ii. 10.

Ὧι δέ τι χαρίζεσθε, καὶ ἐγώ· καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ, εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι, ᾧ κεχάρισμαι, δὶ ὑμας ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστου.

Και εκεινε όπε έσεις συγχωράτε τίποτες και έγω (το συγχωρω)· διοτι έγω, ἐαν ἐχαρισα τίποτες, ἐκεινη όπο τι έχαρισα, δια λογισας το έχα ρισα ἐνώπιον το Χριστες.

"I have forgiven it for your sake, in the presence of Christ."

The translation, it will be seen, is the same as Ostervald'sbut it betrays the animus of the author much more clearly. In Romaic, the phrases εις το προσωπον, and ενώπιον are synonymous. What, therefore, could have been more simple than to have rendered it here Is Tо πроσшлоν, the very phrase which he commonly uses to express "in the presence of," (Acts iii. 14; Luke ii. 31; Gal. ii. 11.) Oh! but this would also mean in the person; this would leave the translation, like the text, open to the Catholic interpretation. Surely it is an indication of any thing but good faith in the translator, thus to have left his way for the purpose

of misleading. With the same prejudices, he did not possess equal craft with the authors of the French Bible; and we are at at a loss whether to wonder more at the prejudice which he manifests in this instance, or the blindness with which, in the fourth and fifth chapters of this same Epistle, he renders the self-same phrase by the very words which he so studiously avoids here,

εις το προσωπον.

We can afford room only for one more.-Matt. xix. Ο δε είπεν ἀντοις ου παντες Και αυτος της ειπεν· ἔτατον τον χωρεσι τον λογον τατον· ἀλλ ̓ ὁις λογον ὅλοι δεν ήμπορών να τον χωρες δέδοται. συν άλλα ἐκεινοι εις τις όποιες ἐδοθη.

"All cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it was granted."

66

Like all the other Calvinist translators, he renders the old Greek ου χωρσι, by δεν ημποραν να χωρεσαν, “ are not able to receive.” Will it be said in his defence, that the Romaic verb xwpew has a different meaning from the same verb in the ancient Greek? Let himself answer in the following verse:

ὁ δυναμενος χωρείν χωρείτω όπως ήμπορεί να χωρεσῃ ὡς χωρεση. where he twice considers them as synonymous words.

If the limits of this article permitted us to follow up the comparison, the common disposition of all these translators to accommodate the words of Scripture to their own principles would become still more apparent. In every instance, even down to the most contemptible of the quibbles of Beza, they all exhibit the same disposition.

And these are the translations, to circulate which, without note or comment, such unwearied exertions have been made. The opinion may startle some of our zealous Biblical friends, but we have ever held it as certain, that no Protestant, consistently with his principles, can read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue without note or comment; nay, without the most copious notes, indicating, in all important passages, the various readings with the authority of each-the various translations, with the reasons for and against that which he finds before him. Without these precautions, he never can form his own judgment; without these, he is exposed to frequent and gross deception. Let any educated man compare with the original the passages which we have cited-and some of them are of considerable importance-we defy him to pronounce that they present-we do not say an accurate translation-but even a fair medium through which he could himself investigate the meaning. That such interpretations, limiting the sense as they do, should be advanced in the pulpit, or explained in the private lecture-that they should even be set down in the

version, with a due notice of the other interpretations which are possible, or at least have a degree of probability—this may be tolerated. Because there is the remedy-there they have no undue weight-we know their author, and the principles on which they are founded, But that they be given to the simple people, unnoticed and unexplained-mixed up with, and, as far as possible, assimilated to, the undoubted word of God: it is this we condemn; it is of this the thinking Protestant has a right to complain. It is the union of light and darkness-the admixture of doubt and certainty; it is the placing of the feet of clay under the statue of Nabuchadonosor's vision-the statue of gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, "and a stone hewn from the mountain without hands, struck the statue upon the feet thereof. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together; and they became like the chaff of a summer's thrashing floor, and were carried away by the wind, and there was no place found for them."* No, he must examine for himself-at least he must have the means of examination in his own hands. Like the Queen of Saba he must refuse credit to those who tell him, "until he come and his own eyes have seen." Happy, if, like her, he find, that "the report was true which he heard in his own country!"

We waive for the present the perplexing question, whether he be not bound on his own principles, to read the Scriptures in the original language.-We do not press upon his mind the harrassing doubt as to the purity of the text, at the present day-a doubt which the critical researches of modern Rationalists, exercising the free principles of Protestantism, have increased for him to an alarming degree.-But we do say, that of the many inconsistencies which those principles have induced, there is scarce one so great not one, certainly, which of latter years has been made so prominent, as the dissemination and the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without any commentary annexed. The Protestant is thus compelled, in despite of himself, to take upon authority- the authority of a translator - the very foundation of all his faith. And if he find—as he must find, that he cannot make even the first step in religion, without the assistance of authority, will it not be more consistent, as well as more secure, to follow that authority- the authority of the Catholic Church which, even considered on motives merely human, must ever, in the mind of a thinking man, rank far above all others - which unites the vigour of youth, with the majesty of age-which knows no change, and disregards, in conscious superiority, every effort that would seek its overthrow.

Daniel ii. 32, 35.

ART. V.-1. Hella, and other Poems. By Mrs. George LenoxConyngham, author of "The Dream." 8vo. London. 1836. 2. The Visionary; a fragment, with other Poems. By Lady E. S. Wortley. 8vo. London. 1836.

3. The Birthday; a Poem in three parts: to which are added, Occasional Verses. By Caroline Bowles, author of "Ellen Fitzarthur," &c. 12mo. London. 1836.

4. The Story of Justin Martyr, and other Poems. By Richard Chenevix Trench, Perpetual Curate of Curdridge Chapel, Hants. 12mo. London. 1835.

5. Ion; a Tragedy, in Five Acts. By Thomas Noon Talfourd. 8vo. London. 1836.

I

F we might judge from the quantity of verse which the literary market still continues to produce from season to season, we should conclude that the general taste for poetry is quite as active as it ever had been at any former period of our literary annals. But we must take leave to say, that it is a taste very easily pleased. Few books wear a more attractive appearance than those fresh looking, elegantly printed, hot-pressed volumes, duly arranged in booksellers' windows, and usually containing one long metrical romance, with an appendix of sonnets, and occasional verses. It is not until we pass the ivory folder through the leaves, and familiarize ourselves with their contents, that we are enabled to appreciate all the value of external decoration. We too often find, beneath this show of beautiful binding and gilt-edged pages, a wonderful poverty of thought, and a most courageous contempt for the most ordinary rules of composition. The candidates for poetic fame seem to have altogether forgotten the art of blotting. They write with fine steel pens, upon enamelled paper, and they fancy that lines containing a certain number of syllables-eight is still the favourite number-commencing with capital letters, and terminating in rhyme, must of necessity be poetry. The album, in which they are preserved, is shown about among friends. The verses are praised, and adjudged to be fully as deserving of publication as Miss Landon's, or Miss Brown's, or any of the other maiden authoresses, who have of late become so multitudinous. The criticism may not be unjust. The standard with which they are compared is one not difficult to be reached-and forth goes the volume, claiming the indulgence of the public, a partial hand being already retained to trumpet it forth in some of the literary newspapers as a production of extraordinary merit.

We are of opinion, that, if all the verses which have seen the light since the publication of the last Canto of Childe Harold

were consigned to the furnace for refinement, and all the beauties of thought and expression which they contain were fused into one volume, it would not extend beyond one hundred pages. Even this is a generous allowance, although it has been calculated that the "poetry" issued since that period covers as much paper, as, if pasted together, would form a tolerably wide girdle for the planet on which we breathe.

The causes of this intrepid fertility of production are sufficiently obvious. The classic school of English poetry has been long superseded by a host of "annuals," the offspring of a new trade, which dealt in the sale of engravings of very moderate pretensions to excellence, illustrated by writers of the lowest order in literature, employed for that special purpose. The sketch to be explained, of course, suggested the thought which the manufacturer was to turn into verse. In this way millions of stanzas have been created, which otherwise would have had no existence. They found an introduction to our drawing-rooms and boudoirs by reason of the very splendid style in which the works containing them were finished; and they very naturally excited amongst those who happened to possess a facility for composition, an emulation of having their poetical bantlings decked out in similar "tinsel and brocade." The trading speculators were without difficulty prevailed upon to accept the gratuituous services of these bands of volunteers of both sexes. No model was looked to higher than the original publications of this class. Milton, Pope, and Dryden, Gray, and even Thomson, were considered as antiquated--at least they were neglected-and a slipshod style of writing became, and still continues, in consequence, so prevalent, that we almost despair of seeing the evil redressed within the age to which we belong.

A retrospective review of the compositions which have appeared under a poetical form, since the commencement of the present century, is a work much to be desired. We well remember having been ourselves among the idolators of quartos, the reciters of passages selected from new poems, which we cannot now read again without being astonished at the total want of good taste which we then displayed. In justice to ourselves, however, we must throw all the blame upon the critics of the time, who, whether from the spirit of political partizanship, or the habits of private friendship, or the influence of particular circles ruling the fashion of the hour, raised up more than one reputation to the heighth of greatness, which already totters to its fall. It might be deemed invidious, if not schismatical, in us, to mention names from which the gloss of fame has been brushed away by the mere lapse of years. Most persons can discover these "paling" stars