vel propter legem creationis vel ordinationem Dei, qui in prima creatione per ministerium Angelorum in hoc ordine creavit illos, atque eo ipso tempore imposuit etiam per ministerium Angelorum mulieri hanc legem subjectionis, cujus meminit 1. ad Cor. xiv, 34.' Sed, præterquam quod verbum ex non ita sæpe pro agnoscere sumitur, nimis longe petitum videtur per Angelos intelligere legem Angelorum ministerio latam. Verum quidem est legem alibi datam dici per Angelos; sed cedo locum, quicunque potes, quo per Angelos lex intelligitur Angelorum ministerio data. DIONYS. Non possum. PAUL. Neque ego. ANT. Neque alius, opinor, quisquam. Mihi videtur nobilissimi loci hic esse sensus:-Non oportere, ut mulier in semet ipsa ullam potestatem habeat possideatve; sed omnem potestatem habeat in viro, qui ipsius caput est. Sicut caput, quod mentis animique esse sedes putatur, potestatem habet in reliqua membra ; ita quoque vir in mulierem: maxime autem maritus in uxorem, de quibus Paulus potissimum loquitur. Quidquid corporis membra possunt ac valent, istud omne habent a capite. Ita mulier omnem legitime agendi potestatem sitam habet in viro, qui eam regit. PAUL. Verum est illud Poëtæ cujusdam Gr.

Γυναικὶ δ ̓ ἄρχειν οὐ δέδωκεν ἡ φύσις,

Mulieri natura non dedit, ut imperet.

ANT. Hoc est, quod Paulus dicit 1. ad Tim. ii, 12. Tuvaixi δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυ xía, Mulieri non permitto docere, neque dominari in virum, sed esse in silentio. Videatur Gen. iii, 16. DIONYS. Hactenus non male. Sed quid istud est propter Angelos. ANT. Audies. Mea sententia propter Angelos idem est, quod propter exemplum Angelorum. Intelligit autem D. Scriptor bonos Angelos, qui nullam sibi potestatem arrogant, sed eam omnem sitam habent in ipso Deo, illorum nostrique omnium creatore. Quidquid agunt, agunt Dei nomine et jussu: sunt enim TúμαTα XEITOUρyxd, Spiritus ministratorii, semper sua statione contenti. Potuisset Apostolus multas alias rationes addere, propter quas feminæ non debeant sibi propriam potestatem vindicare; sed putavit satis esse, si egregium bonorum Angelorum exemplum proponeret. Certe mulieres, quæ sua sorte et statione non contentæ vivunt, seque contra viros efferunt, similes sunt malis Angelis, us, ut D. Judas v. 6. scribit, un poartas Thy ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγά λης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὁ Κύριος τετήρηκεν, Quos non servantes originem suam, sed derelinquentes proprium domicilium suum Dominus vinculis aternis sub caligine reservavit ad judicium

magni diei. Vides, Dionysi, quod mihi de Pauli loco videtur. Per me licet, ut alii eum aliter ac melius explicent." Antonii Borremansii Dialogus Literarius

de Poëtis et Prophetis, Amstelædami, 1678. 12mo. p. 123.

CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

IN Blomfield's Glossary on Esch. Pers. 1057.
Καί μοι γενείου πέρθε λευκήρη τρίχα,

occurs the following note: "*Aeuxýρns. Albus. Hæc vox contra analogiam peccat; nullum aliud adjectivum in pas cum adjectivo componitur; vid. supra ad v. 414. Melius esset Asuxart. Soph. Cd. Τ. 742. χνοάζων ἄρτι λευκανθὲς κάρα.” The inaccuracy of this criticism may be demonstrated by the following examples of adjectives perfectly analogous to λευκήρης : Δολιχήρης, Oppian. Cyneg. 1, 407. Hal. 2, 497. Nicander Ther. 183. Oxyńpns, ibid. 284. Movýpns. Atben. 7. p. 301. 321. Lucian. Tim. 42. Amor. 97. Ομήρης, Nicander Alex. 70. 261. Ενομήρης, 238. 620. Συνο μήρης, 449. In Stephens' Thesaurus, Μεγήρης and Πανήρης are adduced from Hesychius. 'Iopns, Eurip. Iph, T. 1472. Meogns, Iph. A. 8. Ion. 910. and even in Eschylus, Suppl. 33. is found Ταχνήρης.

The note in the Glossary on v. 414. referred to above, likewise demands a few observations: "Xaxxýpns. Ære instructus. Hesych. Χαλκήρεας, χαλκῷ ἡρμοσμένους. Apud Polluc. 1. 85. ubi navis partes recensentur, pro xahxvns, voce ignorabili, reponendum puto xaλxńpns." [Similarly in v. 1057. for Aevxnpn the edition of Robortellus exhibits Asuxýv.] “Infra 422. xwapns est remis instructus. In Eurip. Cycl. 15. àμ‡rges dópu est navis utrinque instructus, sc. remis. xwanges σxátos Hel. 1997. Composita sunt ab apw. Infra 1057. Asuxýpns." This note must imply that all adjectives terminating in pns are compounds of pw. But in that case, what becomes of the obvious words διήψης, τριήρης, εντήρης, πεντήρης, and innumerable others of the same family, which are universally derived from igéaow? Even Hesychius, to whose authority an appeal is made for the derivation of χαλκήρης, thus derives αμφήρης: ἀμφήρεις νῆες· ἀμφοτέρωθεν ὁρμώμεναι, ἤ ἐρεσσόμεναι. Neither ought the two following passages from Euripides, in which the derivation from apa is not quite so convenient, to have been overlooked: Ion. 1147. aμopsis annual, which Musgrave renders ab omni parte exstructa tabernacula: Heath spatium undique includentia: Herc. F. 213. åμÞý3n kúλa, rendered by Musgrave,

undecunque aram cingentia. Brunck's note on Soph. Εl. 89., in which words ending in pns are considered merely as adjectives of a peculiar termination and not compounds, would have been worthy of Blomfield's attention : “ 'Αντήρεις πλαγὰς στέρνων, percussiones oppositas pectoris, seu oppositi pectoris planctus. Quippe ut ictu lædatur pectus, oppositum illi esse debet, quo ictus infigitur. Bene monet Heatbius ἀντήρης non derivari ab ἐρέσσω, sed unice ab ἀντί. Terminatio illa ηgης permultorum Vocabulorum nihil aliud est quam paragoge. At pleraque omnia grammatici composita esse somniarunt a substantivo et verbo, seu ἐρέσσω, seu ἄρω. Recti devius ad hunc locum Scholiastes, doctius ad Antig. 1136. κισσήρεις interpretatur κισσοφόροι. Adjectivum est a κισσός deductum, non compositum a κισσός et ἄρω. Idem statuendum de πετρήρης, τυμβήρης,” [χαλκήρης, κωπή. ρης, with λογχήρης, ξιφήρης, in Scapula's Lexicon absurdly placed under αἴρω,] « et aliis hujus formæ, quorum plurima recenset Valck. ad Phoen. 90. Ad sensum bene ἀντήρεις exponitur in glossa ἀντιτύπους.” The words of the Scholiast are these: Πλη γὰς ἀντήρεις. μετῆκται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρεσσόντων. οἷον πληγὰς κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν στέρνων ἐλαυνομένας. ἢ ἀντήρεις, ἀντιθέτους, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἴσας τοῖς θρήνοις. μετῆκται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρεσσόντων, ὅταν κατ ̓ ἴσον ἐρέσσωσι, καὶ μὴ εἰς θάτερον περιωθῆται ἡ ναῦς. ἀντήρεις οὖν, ἀντικτυπούσας τοῖς θρήνοις. This derivation from ἐρέσσω, to which Schneider assents, may seem to be in some measure confirmed by a similar use of this verb in #sch. S. c. Τh. 859. ̓Αλλὰ γόων, ὦ φίλαι, κατ' αὖρον ̓Εφέσσετ ̓ ἀμφὶ κρατὶ πόμπιμον χεροῖν Πίτυλον : Pers. 1047. *Ερεσσ ̓, ἔρεσσε, καὶ στέναζ ̓ ἐμὴν χάριν. Hence Burges in Eur. Tro. 1237. reads "Ερεσσε χειρὶ κράτ ̓, ἔρεσσε κράτα πιτύλους διδοῦσα χει ρὸς, for ἄρασσε, &c. ; butin v. 237. he has left ἄρασσε κρᾶτα κόυριμον, where the same emendation would have been equally applicable. In most instances, however, ἀντήρης appears to be merely a derivative of ἀντί: Eur. Phaen. 765. Καί μοι γένοιτ ἀδελφὸν ἀντήρη λαβεῖν : 1386. ἀντήρη δ ̓ ἐμὴν Καθαιματῶσαι δεξίαν νικηφόρον : Iph. Α. 224. πώλους—ἀντήρεις καμπαῖσι δρόμων, on which passage the following note occurs in Beck's edition: Αντήρεις. Alibi ap. Εurip. significat res, quarum frontes oppositæ sunt: v. Phoen. 782. Troad. 223. Hic interpreter: qui in contrarias partes nituntur. Heath. cum Brod. reddit: sibi mutuo in flectendis metis respondentes : Troad. 223. Φοινίκας ἀντήρη χώραν, situ oppositam, Burges. The word ταχυήρης in sch. Suppl. 33. ξὺν ὄχῳ ταχυήρει Πέμψατε πάντονδ', 1s derived from ἐρέσσω by Schneider; and this the metaphor may possibly require. « Eadem licentia navis ὄχος άλος Oppiano dicitur, Theodoreto όχημα θαλάττιον, Nostro ναύ τιλον ὄχημα, Prom. 467. Stanley, who however translates it simply vehiculo celeri.

22

With respect to the meaning of aμøñpeç dógu Heath has the following note: "Per aμñpes dópu non ipsam navem, sed gubernaculi clavum, indicari puto, qui ideo dupes dicitur, quod in utramque partem flecti et dirigi potest. Alias nihil est, quod a participio λaßay commode regatur." Blomfield in the Glossary on Pers. 417. quotes the passage thus: v púμm & ãxça Αὐτὸς λαβὼν ἴθυνον ἀμφῆρες δόρυ, which appears to be a typographical error, not an emendation, for the common reading ev πρύμνη δ' ἄκρα. Whether Heath is correct in the meaning attached to dópu may admit of a doubt. There does not appear any great difficulty in understanding oaxa after λaßav, to which ellipse the English vulgarism take and steer is analogous. Considering apps, in conformity with Brunck's opinion, merely as a derivative of ἀμφὶ, the words ἴθυνον ἀμφήρες δόρυ may be rendered, steer the vessel in either direction as may be required.

Æsch. Prom. 768. "*'Avaμvxíçoμai. Ingemisco. A μuxtiça, quod verbum non memini, nisi in Anthol. 7. p. 612. xai σà σεσηρώς Μυχθίζεις, per nares suflas : hoc vero a μύζω, quod a sono u formatum est: de quo plura ad Eumenidas." Blomf. Gloss. In Hemsterhusius' note on Lucian. T. 1. p. 353. the meaning of the compound avaμuxia is more clearly defined, and additional instances are given of the simple verb puxit: "Apud Æschylum utique Pr. V. 742. Σὺ δ' αὖ κέκραγας κἀναμυχθίζῃ, quin sit, ducto per nares spiritu ingemiscere, atque indignationem testaτi, vix in dubium voces : eo spectat Hesychii Μυχθισμὸς, στεναγμός: nec alio fonte manantia μυττάζειν et μυττηκάζειν. Idem tamen irridere, et adunco naso subsannare designat: Hesych. Muxlouσι, μυκτηρίζουσι, χλευάζουσι : neque aliter Suidas explicuit Mem leagrum Anth. 7. Εp. 107. Φλέξω ναί· τί μάταια γελᾷς, καὶ σιμὰ σεσηρώς Μυχθίζεις ; τάχα που σαρδόνιον γελάσεις. In Theocr. id. 20. pro μutioia utrum v. 11. an i3. supponi debeat μuxtília, parumper hæsito: quamvis animum inclinent ad posteriorem locum producta Meleagri verba. Clare Origenes in Cels. 4. p. 187. 'Αλλ' οὐκ εὔγνωμον, ἐκεῖνα μὲν μὴ γελᾶν ὡς μῦθον, ἀλλὰ θαυμά ζειν ὡς ἐν μύθῳ φιλοσοφούμενα· ταῦτα δὲ μόνῃ τῇ λέξει τὴν διάνοιαν ἐναπερείσαντα μυχθίζειν: ubi sententiæ nexus qualem vim postulet, haudquaquam obscurum est." Stanley on Esch. Eum. 117. quotes from Eustathius in Il. 4. 20. Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ μύζειν, καὶ ὁ μυκτὴρ λέγεται, καὶ ὁ μυγμὸς, καὶ τὸ μυχθίζειν, παρά τε Αἰσχύλω xai 2015 and in the Fragments p. 49. Ed. Butler., μuxlíčem is cited from Eust. ad Od. N. 415. To these instances may be added from Polyb. 15, 26, 8. Πρὸς οὐδὲν προσεῖχον τῶν λεγομένων, μυχθίζοντες δὲ καὶ διαψιθυρίζοντες ἐξελήρησαν.

M.

PHOENICIAN ANTIQUITIES AND
ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHY.

We received from Leyden, some days ago, three very interesting works, published in that city at different periods of the present year, 1822. For one we are indebted to the learned Professor Hamaker, whose excellent " Specimen Catalogi Codicum Orientalium Bibliothecæ Academiæ Lugduno-Batavæ," was briefly noticed in this Journal (No. XLVIII. Dec. 1821, p. 392.) The work which we at present announce is entitled "Diatribe PhilologicoCritica Monumentorum aliquot Punicorum, nuper in Africa repertorum, interpretationem exhibens. Accedunt novæ in nummos aliquot Phoenicios Lapidemque Carpentoractensem conjecturæ, necnon tabulæ, inscriptiones et Alphabeta Punica continentes" (4to. 78 pages, 3 plates). It is divided into three chapters: the first of which explains the Phoenician inscriptions on some stone cippi, found on the site of ancient Carthage by Mr. Humbert, and now deposited in the Museum of the University of Leyden.-The first plate annexed to this Essay contains a representation of those cippi and of two fragments, found also by Mr. Humbert, the inscriptions appearing in the original character: these, however, are reduced by Professor Hamaker into Hebrew letters of equivalent powers; and as a specimen we shall copy one, (which is marked No. III.) with the Latin translation.

לרבתן תלת ול בעלן לאדנן ב על חסלא תלד

דגדצת תרת

הסבר בן עבעס נדר

"Dominæ nostræ Tholath, et domino nostro, hero nostro, domino clementiæ Tholad, propter sectionem uvarum (vel 'mistionem musti') Hassobed, filius Abiam votum (vel 'ex voto')."

Another is thus rendered-" Dominæ nostræ Tholath..... et hero nostro, domino Thammouz Tholad, qui colitur hoc loco, propter sectionem uvarum (vel mistionem musti') in agro qui hic (est)." Another....." et hero domino clementiæ Tholad, Ebed-Moneni filii Hamithal filii Ebed