420 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 26. 
2. There appear many reasons for likening rivers 
to bulls. Euripides calls Cephisus ravpéuopdos, 
and Horace gives Aufidus the same epithet, for 
the same reason, probably, as makes him call it 
also “Jonge sonans,” “violentus,” and “acer ;” 
viz., the bull-like roaring of its waters, and the 
blind fury of its course, especially in flood time. 
Other interpretations may be given: thus, Milton, 
Dryden, and others, speak of the “horned flood,” 
i.é., a body of water which, when it meets with 
any obstruction, divides itself and becomes horned, 
as it were. See Milt. P. Z. xi. 831., and notes on 
the passage by Newton and Todd. Dryden speaks 
.of ‘the seven-fold horns of the Nile,” using the 
word as equivalent to winding stream. It would 
be tedious to multiply examples. 
3. Of this phrase I have never seen a satis- 
factory explanation. ‘“Cornua nasci” is said by 
Petronius, in a general sense, of one in great dis- 
tress. As applied to a cuckold, it is common to 
most of the modern European languages. The 
Italian phrase is “ becco cornuto” (horned goat), 
which the Accademici del'a Crusea explain by 
averring that that animal, unlike others, can with- 
out anger bear a rival in his female’s love. 
“Dr, Burn, in his History of Westmoreland, would 
trace this crest of cuckoldom to horns worn as crests by 
those who went to the Crusades, as their armorial dis- 
tinctions; to the infidelity of consorts during their ab- 
sence, and to the finger of scorn pointed at them on 
their return; crested indeed, but abused.” — Todd's 
Johnson’s Dictionary. 
R. T. H. G. 
Why Moses represented with Horns. —You may 
inform your querist “L.C.” (No. 24. p. 383.), that 
the strange practice of making Moses appear 
horned, which is not confined to statues, arose from 
the mistranslation of Exod. xxxiv. 30. & 35. in the 
Vulgate, which is to the Romanist his authenticated 
scripture. For there he reads “ faciem Moysi cor- 
nutum,” instead of “the skin of Moses’ face shone.” 
The Hebrew verb put into our type is coran, very 
possibly the root of the Latin cornu: and its pri- 
mary signification is to put forth horns; its se- 
condary, to shoot forth rays, to shine. The par- 
ticiple is used in its primary sense in Psalms, Ixix. 
31.; but the Greek Septuagint, and all translators 
from the Hebrew into modern European languages, 
have assigned to the verb its secondary meaning 
in Exod. xxxiv. In that chapter the nominative 
to coran is, in both verses, undeniably skin, not 
head nor face. Now it would obviously be absurd 
to write “his skin was horned,” so that common 
sense, and the authority of the Septuagint, sup- 
ported by the language of St. Paul in his para- 
phrase and comment on this passage in 2 Cor. iii. 
7—13., ought to have been sufficient to guide any 
Christian translator as to the sense to be attached 
to coran in the mention of Moses. 
Oxford, April 16. 1850. 
[We have since received replies to a similar effect 
from “ Sin Epmunp Ficmer,” “ J. E.,” &c. “R. G.” 
refers our Querist to Leigh’s Critica Sacra, Part. I. 
p- 219. London, 1662; and “ M.” refers him to the 
note on this passage in Exodus in M. Polus’ Synopsis 
Criticorum. ToT. E.” we are indebted for Notes on 
other portions of “ L. C.’s” Queries. | 
The Temple or A Temple. —‘“ Mr. Foss” says | 
(No. 21. p. 335.) that in Tyrwhitt’s edition of 
Chaucer, and in all other copies he has seen, the 
reading is — 
« A gentil manciple was there cf ua temple.” 
In an imperfect black-letter folio copy of Chau- 
cer in my possession (with curious wood-cuts, 
but without title-page, or any indications of its 
date, printer, &c.), the reading is — 
“ A gentyl mancyple was there of the temple.” 
That the above is the true reading (‘“ the real 
passage”), and that it is to be applied to the temple, 
appears to me from what follows, in the descrip- 
tion of the manciple. 
“* Of maysters had he moo than thryes ten 
That were of lawe expirte and curyous, 
Of whyche there were a dosen in that hous 
Worthy to be,” &e. 
P.H.F. 
March 23. 1850. 
Ecclesiastical Year (No. 24. p. 381.).— The fol- 
lowing note on the calendar is authority for the 
statement respecting the beginning of the eccle- 
siastical year : — 
“Note that the Golden Number and Dominicall let- 
ter doeth change euery yeere the first day of January. 
Note also, that the yeere of our Lord beginneth the 
xxv, day of March, the same supposed to be the first 
day upon which the world was created, and the day 
when Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin 
Mary.” 
As in the Book of Common Prayer, Lond. 1614, 
2. 
Bishop Cosins remarks, “ beginneth the 25th day 
of March.” 
“ Romani annum suum auspicantur ad calendas 
Januarias. Idem faciunt hodierni Romani et qui in 
aliis regnis papz authoritatem agnoscunt. Ecclesia 
autem Anglicana sequitur supputationem antiquam a 
Dionysio Exiguo inchoatum, anno Christi 532.” 
Nicholl’s Commentary on the Book of Common 
Prayer, additional notes, p. 10. Fol. Lond. 1712, 
vid. loc. 
In the Book of Common Prayer, Oxford, 1716, 
the note is, — . 
* Note. — The supputation of the year of our Lord 
in the Church of England beginneth the five-and- 
twentieth day of March.” 
H. W. This note does not now appear in our Prayer 
Books, being omitted, I suppose, in consequence 
