The whole occurrence was a striking proof of the passionate pride that is latent in the Greek character in any matter that affects its reputation and self-esteem. Although the question came to assume a semi-religious, semi-political aspect, the real offence lay in the fact that the language used in the translation was the vulgar tongue, which the University authorities desired to suppress, so far as its use for literary purposes was concerned. If the translation had been allowed to get a footing at home or in school it would have acquired a place in the affections of the people. To avoid this danger the ecclesiastical authorities issued an edict forbidding the use of all translations or any departure from the original text--and this notwithstanding the fact that there were thousands of the members of their Church who could derive little or no benefit from the New Testament without the help of a translation. It is easy to understand, from the feelings with which many devout people in this country received the changes made on the English Revised Version about thirty years ago, that the Greeks would be very sensitive to any alteration on the New Testament, which had been the cherished symbol of their nationality under the dominion of the Turk. But in this case there was no alteration of the sense; and no one was compelled to use the translation unless he pleased, nor was there any attempt to supersede the reading of the original text in church. No doubt the language of Mr. Pallis’ translation was sometimes of a very homely character. But to talk of its being a “profanation of the Gospel” [Illustration: THE SQUARE IN FRONT OF THE KING’S PALACE AT ATHENS Mount Hymettos behind and the dust-laden cypress trees in front of the Palace, ruddy in the last rays of a June sunset.] was quite a misrepresentation, and seems almost ridiculous in view of the fact--which the discovery of Egyptian _papyri_ has been bringing home to us of late--that the language of the New Testament was, at the time it was written, the language in every-day use among the masses of the people for whom it was intended, which the learned men of the day would have disdained to employ for literary purposes. No such outcry was raised in this country when a Scots translation of the Psalms was issued by the late Dr. P. H. Waddell, though it might have been more reasonably objected to as serving no practical purpose. But there was no jealousy of the Scots dialect on the part of the Church or the educated classes--hence it was simply regarded as a literary curiosity.