that their condition was mean or contemptible; and here will be no improper place to advance an opinion, that the apostles were not so poor and so low in the scale of society as has generally been asserted. It is true that they were not men of exalted rank, of affluence, nor great attainments; neither were they the reverse of these. Of our Lord's twelve apostles, four were fishermen; viz. the brothers James and John, and the brothers Peter and Andrew. But this occupation, so ignoble in our own times, was not considered so in an age and country, where every man followed some employment, and was taught to gain a subsistence by some handicraft. The four persons of whom we are speaking were in partnership, had more than one vessel, (Luke V. 7.) and had hired servants' to assist them in their labors; (Mark i. 20.) they must therefore have been traders above the ordinary level of such people as are commonly called fishermen. We also learn of two of them, Peter and Andrew, that they more than once entertained Jesus, and the rest of his disciples, at their house in Capernaum, (see Matt. viii. 14. and ix. 1. Mark i. 29. and ii. 1. Luke v. 18.) and it is the received opinion that the holy brethren usually frequented this house of their's. Moreover, an observation is put into the mouth of St. Peter which, added to the above-mentioned particulars, argues very strongly that his circumstances were far from being indifferent. 'Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee!' What could this intimate but that he, and some of the others, had really made sacrifices of a worldly nature? That the two brothers James and John were likewise in the enjoyment of competence, may be inferred from the well-known fact that John took the mother of Jesus to his own house, and there supported her at his own expense after the crucifixion of the Messiah. (John xix. 27.) There is no doubt that Matthew's situation in life approximated rather to wealth than to indigence. He was a collector of the customs before he was called to the apostolic office; and just before he left the receipt of customs' to follow Jesus, it is recorded that he made a great feast in his house, and there was a great company of publicans, and of others that sate down with them.' (Luke v. 20.) There could be no poverty here: and we have still farther evidence, that another of the disciples, though his name is not mentioned, moved in a respectable walk of life; for we read that he was an acquaintance of the high priest; that he was admitted into the palace of the high priest when others were excluded, and that he had sufficient influence to gain admission for Peter also. (John xviii. 15, 16.) Thus we have grounds for contending that six out of the twelve were not men of that mean and abject condition which has been unnecessarily assigned to them: and we may be allowed to judge of the rest by these six. When Jesus was journeying through Samaria, we read that his disciples went into the city of Sychar to buy food, (John iv. 8.) which looks as if they were not in the habit of subsisting by eleemosynary contributions. When Jesus proposed to feed the five thousand, it was asked by the disciples, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?' (Mark vi. 37, and Luke ix. 13.) and when Mary poured the costly ointment upon Christ's head, the disciples murmured, and said that it ought rather to have been sold, and the amount given to the poor: upon which, our Saviour answered, 'Ye have the poor with you always, but me ye have not always.' (Matt. xxvi. 11.) What do we gather from these two transactions but that the disciples, instead of being absolutely destitute and poor themselves, had it sometimes in their power to relieve the poor, and that their rank in society was not low, but mediocre only? In his remarks on the miraculous conversion of the water into wine, Mr. G. observes that It was not customary among the ancients for the master of the house, or the provider of the banquet, to preside at the table: but this office was either appointed by lot, or it was unanimously deputed to one of the party, who was distinguished by his wit, or his convivial talents. We find frequent mention of the Governor of the Feast,' in classic authors. We may turn to the book of Ecclesiasticus, and gather from thence that the custom had long been observed by the Jews also. If thou he made the ruler of the feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest. Take diligent care for them to sit down: and when thou hast done with thine office, take thy place that thou mayest be merry with them, and receive a crown for thy well-ordering of the feast.' Ch. xxxii. 1, 2. This explanation will account for the governor of the feast knowing nothing of the quality of the wine until he had tasted it. It was the bridegroom, and not he, who provided the feast. There is a latitude in the original word which our translators have rendered well drunk. It may be used in the sense of drinking to excess, or drinking to cheerfulness; and this has raised objections in the minds of some, who have attempted to argue from it that our Saviour was present at a meeting where conviviality was carried to intemperance. But the facts themselves prove the contrary, as every body knows who is acquainted with the classic authors. It was the express office of the ruler of the feast to keep order, as well as to furnish conversation, and subjects of amusement: he was to see that there should be no excess, that every thing should be conducted with sobriety and decency. This was so perfectly understood, that Horace has a passage to this effect: Whoever is appointed director of the feast, I shall still be tempted to drink intemperately in the fulness of my heart, and out of joy at your return.' Odes, B. ii. O. v. 25, 28. Signifying that he should transgress the customary rule of preserving moderation, while the ruler of the feast presided. When there was no ruler of the feast, then the guests might drink as immoderately as they pleased; and hence the expression, To drink, with the cup for a president.' See Horace, Satires, ii. 123. Thus the very fact of there being a 'governor of the feast' implies that there was no intemperance at this marriage-feast. With one more extract from this Gospel relating to the Pool of Bethesda, ch. v. 4, we shall conclude our specimens of this ingenious and useful work. Since this verse is wanting in some of the Mss., and several orthodox commentators have endeavoured to explain away the miraculous qualities of the waters, it will not be considered too bold, if a conjecture of the same kind be here hazarded. It is not improbable that the sanative virtues of the pool of Bethesda were imaginary only; and the Evangelist may be supposed to have spoken of them (as mention is made of demoniacs in other places) not in attestation of an established fact, but of a prevailing superstition. In support of this opinion the reader may be reminded that St. John is the only Evangelist who details the matter; and that the Jewish historians, who were always very ready to relate any thing marvellous of Jerusalem, are silent on the subject. The common people may have attributed some virtue to the waters of the pool, and tradition may have handed down the particulars of some extraordinary cure performed by the use of them: but all that we are bound to believe is this, that a multitude of miserable objects were lying by the side of the water, under the expectation of deriving some benefit from the implied sanctity of the place; and that Jesús, selecting one out of these, wrought a miracle upon him, as recorded in the words of the sacred writer. On the whole, this is a volume which it would be difficult for the best informed reader to open, without satisfaction or improvement. It condenses in a small compass the observations of the most learned and ingenious expositors, and in a form and style which must render it acceptable to that numerous class of readers, who wish for information without trouble or research, on subjects which may have frequently excited their curiosity, and perplexed their understandings. And it is embellished by quotations without reserve, from authors ancient and modern, prosaic and poetical, sacred and profane, wherever the subject admits such reference; and it is but mere justice to add, that the author has executed his task with a correctness of judgment of no ordinary description, and displayed unequivocal signs of extensive reading and happy recollection. NOTICE OF IDYLLIA HEROICA DECEM, Librum Phaleuciorum Unum, partim jam primo partim iterum atque tertio edit Savagius LANDOR. Accedit Quæstiuncula cur poëtæ Latini recentiores minus legantur. Pisis apud S. Nistrium MDCCcxx. No. II. [Continued from No. 51.] THE last lines of the poem faintly recal the matchless conclusion of the tale of Undine. "Pan et Pitys" is a pleasing little eclogue, describing the loves of the sylvan deity (who appears to be a favorite with our author) and the nymph Pitys, who we suppose (though Mr. Landor has not informed us) was afterwards metamorphosed into a pine-tree. Part of one of Pan's amatory addresses may exemplify our poet's talent for rural description. Tum placui, poteramque loqui poteramque silere, Aspicere, atque animas haurire fragrantibus herbis, Aut quondam hiunuleis malefida genista gemellis; Next comes "Coresus et Callirhoë," of which the argument is as follows. Coresus, a young man, and priest of Bacchus at Calydon, becomes enamoured of Callirhoë, and, on her refusal, pines away with sorrow. The god, indignant at the slight offered to his minister, sends a pestilence upon the Calydonians; the oracle of Dodona is consulted, as usual in such cases, and the result is a command to sacrifice the offending maiden at the altar of Bacchus, unless some one of the people will consent to be immolated in her stead. Her friends and relations, like those of Admetus in a similar case, all stand aloof; and Coresus, who as officiating priest had led her to the altar, fulfils the requisition of the oracle by turning his sacrificial knife against his own breast. Such is the story, and it loses little of its interest in the hands of Mr. Landor; the catastrophe, however, is abrupt, and (to modern feelings at least) disappointing. The best part is the address of Coresus to Callirhoë on her refusal. The eighth idyl, "Catillus et Salia," is more to our taste than any of the rest, except the last, of which hereafter. The story is rather of a modern cast. Catillus, the brother of Coras, and joint founder of the city of Tibur, is in love with Salia, the daughter of Anius, king of Volsinii, by whom his passion is returned; but their union in forbidden by an oracle, the general import of which only is known to Catillus, portending a calamitous result to the match. Desirous of more particular information, Catillus repairs to the temple of the goddess Voltumna on Mount Ciminus, from whence the oracle had been delivered; the answer he receives to his enquiries determines him to attempt an elopement with his mistress, which he accordingly executes. The Anius pursues the fugitives as far as the Tiburtine terri- Multa orat juvenis, tristemque silentia vocem The river voyage of Catillus and his bride, on their flight to the Tiburtine country, are described con amore. The falls of the Anio, the scene of the catastrophe, are thus delineated, obviously from personal recollection; we were struck with the boldness of the expression in Italics. -in silvam se proripit, amne sonantem At non clamores non amnim turbidus audit, Constringunt frontem palmæ . . quam fontis acerbi |