'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and _Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and _Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other wind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ are at 90 deg. distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105 deg.; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsolanus[78].' Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_ name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way ([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDON][79]: the _secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDON],--which is also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that _not_ [Greek: ULON] but [Greek: UDON] has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81]. In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai] for it.' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two untrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchomai] is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of [Greek: mede] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same excuse, St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei] ([Symbol: Aleph]BC). " xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan] ([Symbol: Aleph]B). " xiv. 40 [Greek: bebaremenoi] " [Greek: katabebaremenoi] (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).