directed against his person and office, he addressed a fresh encyclical letter to the Italians on October 15, 1890, and that it might be understood by all, wrote in their tongue, "Were it only a question of ourself," he said, "if we did not see Italy menaced in its faith and rushing to its ruin, we should suffer in silence such offences." Then further on he pointed out how desirable from an Italian point of view it was that Italy should reconcile itself with the Holy See. "This conflict with the Holy See not only deprives Italy abroad of that prestige w ich peace with the Papacy would most certainly give it, but it estranges from it the whole Catholic world, imposes on it great burdens, and on the slightest pretext would give its enemies a weapon against itself." After pointing out all that Italy would gain by restoring to the Pontiff his independence and his sovereignty, the Pope concludes by showing that it is a calumny "to denounce Catholics and the Pontiff as enemies of Italy."

Very soon again a fresh outrage saddened the paternal heart of Leo XIII. This was the undoubtedly premeditated ill-treatment of the French pilgrims in October, 1892, and the cynical and hypocritical language of the Italian government about it. These had one happy result, for they called forth words from the Austrian Chancellor, Count Kalnoky, in the Austrian delegations, that showed that the Roman question was not closed. He called it "a difficult problem of which a satisfactory solution has not yet been found."

It were idle to speculate what that satisfactory solution will be unless we

1

"Can look into the seeds of time,

And say which grain will grow and which will not."

With Mgr. de T'Serclaes we can only hint at the possible solution. "The day of [Italy's] break-up is perhaps not far off. Its unity will then crumble of itself into anarchy, but order will not be restored on the principle of unity, but on the federal principle, and not without the Pontiff, but under his auspices and with his assistance." With an earnest prayer that Italy may soon be converted and live, we take leave of Mgr. de T'Serclaes volumes, merely adding that they are a mine of information about contemporary history. The eight chapters devoted to the Pope's action. in the politico-religious affairs of France are of especial interest and value.

BRUGES, BELGIUM,

WILFRID C. ROBINSON.

1 II., 179.

TH

"QUID MIHI ET TIBI, MULIER?"

HE writer begs to submit a brief exposition of John ii., 4, as he understands this vexed passage.

In the first place, no honest man will find a difficulty in the appellation of "Mulier" applied by Christ to his Blessed Mother. In the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which Jesus spoke, this was the accustomed manner of address to any woman and manifested no want of respect or tenderness. Christ uses the same address to Mary Magdalen at the tomb on the morning of the Resurrection. In judging of such remote events we cannot take for a criterion our social code; we must clothe them with the circumstances and social customs of the time; we must pay heed also to the idiom of the language in which they were first chronicled. As there exists no radical difference between Syro-Chaldaic and Hebrew, we may turn to the latter as the basic text in our present consideration.

The phrase was an idiom, and the cardinal point is to determine what exact shade of meaning it was intended to convey in the language in which it first had origin. The idiom occurs in Judges xị., 12, where Jephte sends to the king of Ammon demanding: "Prescinding from the idiomatic meaning, the words are correctly reproduced in Greek by: "Ti tuoi zai aoi;" and in Latin Τί ἐμοὶ σοί;” by: "Quid mihi et tibi?" The idea, however, produced by such

words in the Greek or Latin mind would not be the same as that caused in the Hebrew mind by the same words, for such is the force of an idiom that it is frequently lost by translation. Modern languages differ somewhat in reproducing this phrase. The German version of D'Allioli renders it as it occurs in St. John by: "Weib, was habe ich mit dir zu schaffen?" which might be rendered in English by: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" The French and Italian are identical in signification: "Femme, qu'y a-t-il entre vous et moi?" and "Donna, che vi ha tra te e me?" In English the meaning of these words would be: "Woman, what is there between you and me?" The passage in King James' version is: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" which is evidently not a translation, but an interpretation, and, as we shall endeavor to prove, a very bad one. The Rheims-Douay version, as corrected by Challoner, is: "Woman, what is to me and to thee?" In some versions of the Rheims version is found: 'Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" The introduction of

"that" here is an interpretation and completely perverts the signification of the phrase.

To one with even a smattering of Hebrew and Greek it is evident that Challoner's text surpasses every other modern version in the literal reproduction of the original texts. We consider the Greek in the present case as an original text, because St. John, in his Gospel, reproduced in Greek the Saviour's words spoken in Aramaic. But Challoner's version, although literal, labors under the disadvantage that, owing to the strangeness of the idiom, it conveys no clear-cut idea to our minds. The other versions, in attempting to remove this strangeness, have given us interpretations instead of translations, the words of men instead of the words of Christ. We prefer, then, the vagueness to the false concept conveyed by all the other versions. Discarding, then, all other versions, we will endeavor to bring out the Hebrew idiom, though clothed in English words, as rendered by Challoner's text.

All such phrases have a great, general signification, which becomes modified by the context in its different applications. We place, then, as our foundation, in dealing with this expression, that by it the one speaking demands a reason for some action or tenor of conduct directed towards himself—that is, the one uttering those words asks a cause for the line of action which the person addressed is adopting towards the speaker. Now, it depends on the context whether an indignant expostulation or calm interrogation be conveyed by the words. In the passage in Judges, referred to in the beginning, Jephte asks cause why the king of Ammon should make war upon him and devastate his land. The basic sense of the words, that we have determined above, fits exactly here: Jephte asks cause for a line of action used towards him. Similarly, in II. Samuel, xvi., 10 (commonly called Second Kings), where Abisai, the son of Sarvia, would slay Semei, who was cursing David, the holy king demands reason for such slaying in this exact phrase: "Quid mihi et vobis, filii Sarvia?" This, in the present case, would be equivalent to saying in our tongue: "Why such actions towards me, O sons of Sarvia?" Evidently the words here convey no harshness or disrespect, as they are addressed to one of David's own defenders, who, through zeal for the king's honor, would slay his opponent. They express, it is true, disapproval, but the disapproval of the suggestion of a zealous friend. The words in the same sense are again directed towards Abisai in the 22d verse of the xix. chapter of the same book.

A yet more striking example of the fundamental signification is found in I. Kings, xvii., 18 (III. Kings, xvii, 18). Elias is harbored by the widow of Sarephta. Her son falls ill, and it soon appears that a mortal disease is preying upon his vitals. The grief

stricken mother turns to Elias, and, attributing the cause of her son's death to his presence, asks concerning his action towards her in this idiom: "Quid mihi et tibi, vir Dei?" Here the expression under consideration can admit of no other interpretation than that of being an interrogation to know the cause of the line of action which the speaker believed to be practiced towards herself. In II. Kings, iii., 13 (IV. Kings, iii., 13), when Joram, king of Israel, sought to know from Eliseus the event of his war against Moab, the prophet made answer: "Quid mihi et tibi est? Vade ad prophetas patris tui et matris tuae." Here Eliseus asks with scorn why the idolatrous king of Israel should come to him, and we could render the sense of the sentence by: "What wouldst thou of me?" or, "Why comest thou to me? Go to the prophets of thy father and thy mother." The scorn here is not essentially implied in the phrase, but results from the context.

In the second book of Paralipomenon, xxxv., 21, the same expression appears in its unvarying fundamental signification, but the tone is conciliatory. Nechao, king of Egypt, sends a friendly message to Josias, king of Juda, advising him that he is not making war upon him and asks, in the oft-quoted phrase, why Josias is assembling hosts to make head against him. The only places where the idiom occurs in the New Testament, besides the one under consideration, is where the demons address our Lord, who is about to eject them from the energumens. In every one of these passages, Math. viii., 29, Luke viii., 28, iv., 34, Mark i., 24, v., 7, the demons ask concerning Jesus' conduct towards them.

There is a mingling of railing hate and despair in the phrase in the mouths of the demons, but this is accidental, not from the essential nature of the words. After the consideration of all these texts, we repeat our fundamental position that the phrase asks a cause for the line of action which the one addressed employs towards the speaker. This basic meaning would be naturally by the context shaded and drawn to cognate meanings springing from the original signification. We have seen clear evidence that its tone may be scornful or conciliatory, angry or friendly, in different circumstances.

We come now to examine the text of St. John, in the light of our previous scrutiny. We shall apply the fundamental signification to the phrase as it there occurs. The wine at the marriagefeast has failed, and as Mary was one of the inner circle of friends, the defect is made known to her. Knowing her Son's almighty power, she approaches Him, and makes known to Him the distressing occurrence. She plainly, by her action, shows forth that she believes that, if He will, He can afford a remedy. There is a quaint beauty in Mary's words: "They have no wine." The full

VOL. XX.-26

extent of Mary's relations with Jesus, we, upon this bank and shoal of time, can never know. How much she shared of the thoughts and designs of the God-Man is hid and barred from mortal sense. Although the field of conjecture be vast, we will refrain conjectures help not in a scientific interpretation. But it seems not conjecture to say that Mary knew that her Son could supply the failing wine, else why her bootless message to Him? Impelled then by such conviction, she comes to Him and announces the simple fact. Now this can be called Mary's line of action for which Jesus asks cause, and as we have already shown, his asking cause for such action implies not by virtue of the phrase any repulse. We will venture to here place in Christ's mouth what we believe to have actuated Him in His response to Mary: "O, woman, why comest thou to me in this need? Thou knowest that only by appealing to my almighty power could I remedy this defect. Now the time has not yet come to establish my title to the coequal Sonship of God, by manifestations of my divine power. I have not became Incarnate to work miracles for the advantage of our kinsfolk and acquaintances. The divine design, in harmony. with which my human will always works, is that I remain hid until my entrance on my public life. Then I will perform works so that I can say, 'if ye believe not my words, believe my works.' But these miracles shall be performed for no private end or emolument, but to prove that the Father and I are one in nature as we are one in power." These words though said ostensibly to Mary, were said to us. We were the ones to be taught the scope of Christ's miracles.

Had Christ not performed the miracle we could rest here. But Mary takes the answer for an affirmation, and Christ, in seeming contradiction to his words, changeth the water into wine. Before answering this heavy objection, we take for granted the truth of the mystery of mysteries, the harmonious concurrence of man's free will and God's eternal prescience, and consequent eternal decrees. Christ as man was endowed with free will; free, while always in consonance with His divine will. He was free, therefore, to begin His public life when He should please. When, therefore, He says to Mary, that His time was not yet come, He means this in relation to the end for which His miracles should be wrought. He does not imply that there was any absolute fixed date, before which He could not begin His public life; but rather that His miracle-working should be a part and factor in the great drama of Redemption, and not for private ends done in the interest of his family or friends. It was a fitting preface to the wondrous deed to show our dull senses that Christ worked those wonders not for private interests, but as a necessary element in the