of a private character. The former averages sixty, the latter thirty pupils. These are all who are known by our informant to be "deterred from attending the public schools on religious grounds."

The third communication is from Boston. We quote the following. "I can not say what portion of our foreign population attend our public schools, not knowing how many there are in the city. But of 9838 children in the primary schools on the last day of January, 1848, 4644 were reported as of foreign parentage. This is by no means the whole number, as many teachers do not report how many they have, but say a few,' a great many,' 'a large proportion,' 'I can not say how many,' &c.

"Some of the children are Germans, English, &c., but the greater number are undoubtedly Irish.

66

"I am not aware that any are kept away from our schools on religious grounds. I know one Roman Catholic priest who not only encourages the attendance of his children at our primary schools, but provides them with clothing and the

necessary books, &c. to enable them to do so. He has been, or sent, to me many times for tickets of admission; and I presume I have admitted thirty or forty children at his request within three months. I have to-day admitted five. He also occasionally goes into the schools, and sees that they attend, and appears to take much interest in their attend. ing. He tells me that the Bishop and their clergy feel friendly to our schools."

To this information we need not add any comments. It fully sus tains our position, and is fitted greatly to gratify the friends of popular education and of our country. We are happy to be able to give it, and express hereby our obligations to those who have communicated it to us. The statements in the last communication require us to qualify, as we do with great pleasure, an ob. servation in the first part of our ar ticle, respecting the general opposi tion of the Roman Catholic priest. hood to the attendance of Roman Catholic children upon the public schools.

The Germania and Agricola of Caius Cornelius Tacitus, with notes for Colleges. By W. S. TYLER, Professor of the Greek and Latin Languages, in Amherst College. New York and London: Wiley & Putnam. 1847.

THIS book has already been favorably noticed by several other journals, and the commendations which it has received, though generally too indiscriminate, have nevertheless not been bestowed without reason. The aim of the editor has been to furnish the students of our colleges with the most approved text of these two treatises of Tacitus, together with such explanations and illustrations of the same, as, in his judgment, were needed. He has accordingly adopted, "in the main," the text of Walther, introducing a few

such deviations from him as were sug. gested by other critics and approved by his own judgment; and for "notes" has endeavored to embody in small compass

the most valuable. results of the labors of

such recent German editors as Grimm, Günther, Gruber, Kiessling, Dronke, Roth, Ruperti and Walther." This was a labo rious undertaking. Indeed, it would be no slight task thoroughly to digest the condensed yet voluminous commentaries of Ruperti alone on this author. But when to this is added the similar study of each of the commentators named above, as well as the others, still more numerous, whose names appear on page 75, the whole to be followed by a careful compar. ison of them all, one with another, the labor becomes well nigh formidable. If, therefore, in executing his plan, the edi tor is found sometimes to have misapprehended his authorities, or to have attri

buted to one what belonged to another, it should not in all cases be necessarily a matter of surprise. Nothing, however, is more important in a work of this kind, than accuracy; for, as it derives value, to a great extent, from the authority of great names, it is desirable that we know that their opinions are truly reported.

Besides the derived notes, there are many furnished by the editor himself, which, with the others, form a commentary of more than a hundred pages, and are destined, we doubt not, to render valuable aid to those for whom the book was particularly designed.

As the editor has in his preface intimated an intention of giving the public an improved edition of his book, it may not be amiss to illustrate the fault which we have hinted at above, by remarking for a moment on a few points presenting themselves within the compass of half-a-dozen pages, taken as a specimen of the work, presuming, however, that the errors discussed are generally such as would have been corrected by the editor himself, had he once more carefully revised his manuscript before sending it to the press.

ocean.

If we turn to page 163, we find the following note. "Auctus Oceanus, swelling W[alch] says: ocean boastfully described, but not so well." Now so far is Walch from translating auctus by the words boastfully described, that he rejerts auctus from the text, and adopts and defends the conjecture of Lipsius, who substitutes victus, and gives the sentence as follows: hinc terra et hostis, hinc victus Oceanus militari jactantia compararentur.

The note at the bottom of the same page is on the following passage: Culedoniam incolentes populi, paratų magno, majore fama, uti mos est de ignotis, oppugnasse ultro, castella adorti, metum, ut provocantes, addiderunt. In his note the editor says: "Oppugnasse depends on fa

ma.

So Gronovius], Dr[onke], Walch], etc. Walther would supply before oppugnasse, uti nuntiatum est, as implied in the context, which comes to the same result." This seems to us to be not only a very imperfect, but also an incorrect account of Walther's interpretation of this contested passage. In the first place, it represents that this critic and Walch essentially agree, whereas they differ as widely as two intelligent commentators well could; and secondly, the only point of difference which is mentioned, is stated incorrectly. For Walther does not supply nuntiatum est before oppugnasse, but after that word, and parenthetically. He makes oppugnasse de pend not on this supplied verb, nor on fama, (which construction he maintains would require adortos,) but notwithstand ing the tense of the infinitive, on the participle adorti. He differs still more

widely from Walch in his construction of the words paratu-ignotis. The latter makes majore agree with fuma. Walther makes it agree with paratu, and thus gives an entirely different turn to that part of the sentence, so that it must be iranslated: after great preparation, which was exaggerated by report, as things unknown are wont to be. We do not maintain that Walther's interpretation is to be preferred to the other, but that they differ widely, must, we think, be apparent.

On the next page, we are told that Quod, the first word of chapter 26, is the "relative for the demonstrative." But is this exactly true? Has not quod a use and a significance here which the demonstrative would not have? It may be that in English, where we do not link together our sentences and periods as it is customary to do in Latin, we should use the demonstrative to begin a sentence like this. But in saying this we assert something very different from the proposition in the note. We allude to this comparatively unimpor tant error, in order to make our objection to the use of such phraseology in general. We believe that learners are often misled by being told that this or that word, or case, or tense, or mood, is used for another, as if the substitution could be made without some change, greater or less, in the thought expressed, or some violation of the rules of the language, while the truth is, that it can very rarely be done. We find the same note repeated in explanation of the first word cujus, of the next chapter.

The last sentence of this chapter commences thus: Quod nisi paludes texis sent. By a reference to chapter 12, we are told that" quod propter quod, and means wherefore, so that." Prof. Tyler is here, we think, at variance with his best authorities. Does not Freund (see quod, VII) point out the true use of this particle in this passage as well as in the others alluded to? See also Zumpt's Latin Grammar, § 807.

At the bottom of page 165, we find the note, "Fortium virorum, military men. Dr[onke]. This is not Dronke's interpretation, but Ernesti's, quoted by Dr., to be sure, as also by the editor of the Tacitus found in Lemaire's series, and probably by others.

Page 166. Quæ-faceret ut ea faceret." Why is this simple case of the subjunctive explained, while æstimaret in chapter 5, and quaereretur in chapter 14, are passed by unnoticed?

But we have already exceeded the limits of a "short notice," and time and the printer forbid us to enlarge. We will therefore turn but one leaf more, and close our remarks with a word on two of the notes on page 169. In the middle of the page stands the following: "Quos -quod. Quod quod attinet ad: whom,

as to the fact that you have at length found, (it is not because) they have resisted, but they were overtaken." If quod quod attinet ad, what is the object of ad? Quod is said sometimes to combine in itself all that is expressed by quod attinet ad id, quod. But is there any necessity of giving this word any other than its more ordinary meaning in this passage? The text is as follows: quos quod tandem invenistis, non restiterunt, sed deprehensi sunt. We do not see that a literal translation of these words will be any more obscure than that contained in the note, thus: and because you have at length found them, they have not resisted, but have been overtaken. Agricola apprehends that some of his suldiers may infer that the Caledonians have come to a stand to oppose them, because they (the Romans) have at length found them in their remote retreats. He denies this concisely in the words given.

Quinquaginta annis. So many years, it might be said to be in round numbers, though actually somewhat less than fifty years since the invasion of Britain by Julius Cæsar." We know not how to account for the obvious and grave error of

this note. Julius Cæsar invaded Britain more than fifty years before Christ, and the exhortation which this note aims to explain, was delivered by Agricola to his soldiers more than eighty years after the commencement of the Christian era; the interval, therefore, in round numbers, was one hundred and forty, instead of fifty years. But Tacitus does not allude to the first expedition against Britain in this pas sage. He himself informs us, in chapter 13, that after Julius Cæsar's campaigns in that island, its inhabitants enjoyed quiet from Roman vexation during the successive reigns of Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula, till Claudius renewed the project of bringing them into subjection, (A. D. 43.) From that year to the time when Agricola is represented as speaking in the passage under consideration, was a period of upwards of forty years; and this is the period which Agricola has in mind, calling it in round numbers fifty years.

We had intended to comment on some other points, which we think call for criticism on the few pages to which we have confined our remarks; but we have said enough to indicate the nature of the inaccuracies of which we complain. For the book, as a whole, the editor deserves and will receive the thanks of the public. CHASE'S APOSTOLICAL CONSTITU TIONS.-The work claiming to be the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, including the canons; Whiston's Version, revised from the Greek; with a Prize Essay,

at the University of Bonn, upon the Origin and Contents. Trans. lated from the German; by IRAH CHASE, D.D. New York: D. Ap. pleton & Company, 200 Broadway. Philadelphia: George S. Appleton, 148 Chestnut Street, 1848.

THE Apostolical Constitutions, of which we have here an elegant translation, is one of the most im portant relics of Christian antiquity. Its claim to an Apostolical origin is now universally rejected by the learned, some assigning it to the third century, and others to a period as late as the sixth. No work of a similar title is mentioned by any writer until the latter part of the fourth century, or early in the fifth, when Epiphanius quotes from the "Constitution of the Apostles," which, he says, though held of doubtful authority by many, is not to be condemned since it contains a true account of the ecclesiastical discipline and laws." No other distinct mention of such a work occurs in any writer of the fourth century, nor until after the death of Theodosius the Great, about a hundred years later. This is all the evidence of the existence of the work which the first five centuries furnish, unless, as is conjectured by some, Eusebius and Athanasius refer to it under the title of the "Teachings" or "Doctrine" of the Apostles. was formally condemned as spurious by the Trullan council, A. D., 692. The reader will perceive from these facts that this work deserves no credit as an exponent of the doctrines and discipline of the primitive church. Even if it had as early an origin as the third century, it was no doubt subsequently interpolated, and the character of it essentially altered. In doctrine, it is Arian; in church government, Episcopal; and in support of both it is of about equal authority-that is, of no authority whatever. Al

It

though the main body of the work, came from one hand, yet it manifestly underwent alterations during two or three centuries to suit the exigencies of the reigning influence in the church. It came into existence in a corrupt age, after the doctrine had become current that deception may be lawfully practiced for the cause of religion, and after the want must have been felt for apostolic authority to support the new ecclesiastical ideas and usages. The age which produced it gave birth also to a multitude of other forgeries which were easily imposed on the world as the genuine works of the authors, whose names they bear. Whoever reflects upon the success of some modern authors in imposing their works upon the public as the productions of former times, can easily see with what facility the fraud might be committed in an age destitute of critics and printing presses, especially if the books were adapted to strengthen the interests of the heads of the church, into whose hands copies would first fall, and who alone would be competent to detect and expose the forgery. In such an age a book might be written with the name of an ancient author attached, with no design to deceive; yet af terwards, when its real authorship had died out of mind, it might be received without question as the work of him whose name it bears. Such, on one or the other of these suppositions, was the origin of the work before us. It was designed to realize the ideas which at the time of its composition had begun to prevail, of a Catholic church, under a hierarchy, constituted after the pattern of the Levitical priesthood. The first book which is short, is occupied mainly with rules for moral conduct and gives but few precepts respecting discipline. The second which is the central point of the whole work, contains some precepts respecting the character and conVOL. VI.

39

duct of the bishop, but is principal ly devoted to an exhibition of the subordinate relation in which the laity stand to the bishops. "The whole aim is to exalt the dignity and honor of the bishops above all, and in them to set forth the representatives, not only of the church, but of God." It distinctly exhibits. the germ of that hierarchical principle on which rested, at a later period, the whole sovereign power of the priests, not over the church only, but also over the state. The bishop is to be supreme, but all other church officers are represented as worthy of great honor. The remaining books contain precepts concerning all the relations of ecclesiastical life, both internal and external; concerning festivals and fasts, divisions and schisms, and ritual and liturgical regulations. The eighth or last book contains the apostolical canons, eighty-five in number, many of which undoubtedly date back as far as the second century, others as late as the fourth. The prize essay of Dr. Krabbe of the University of Kiel, p. 236, is a very lucid and able exposition and discussion of every point of interest connected with these ancient writings, and adds immensely to the value of the volume. We have spoken of the "Constitutions," including the "Canons," as one of the most important relics of Christian antiquity. For although they can not boast of apostolic authority, they throw much light on the ecclesiastical usages of the early centuries, to which they must be referred, and also on the spirit of Christianity in those times. We can not better express this judgment than in the following words of the translator's preface:

"In reading these Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles, the Christian of the present day will be likely to exclaim, a splendid specimen of pious fraud! A strange mixture of good and of evil! He will readily perceive, however, that he has before him documents exceedingly important for illustrating the ecclesiasti