grammar, as R. Abraham ben Ezra has very clearly demonstrated. : והנה מצאנו יי צבאות והוצרכו רבים לומר כי צבאות שם העצם הוא או הוא אות בצבא שלו וזה לא יתבן כי הנה אלהי הצבאות ולבדו לא תמצאנו כי אם עם אלהים או עם השם הנכבד יי אלהים : It is worthy of remark, however, that we find, Jehovah of hosts; which has led many to assert, that the term, Sabaoth, is itself a proper appellation of the Deity; or that it is a banner in his army so inscribed; but this is void of all probability; for we meet with, God of The armies, in which it is evidently constructed as a noun common; nor is it ever to be found standing by itself for, God, but only with the term, Elohim, or the compound term, Jehovah Elohim. Com. on Ex. ch. 3. So far, indeed, from its being a peculiar epithet of the true God, as the learned father contends; or wholly differing from the Jupiter of the Greeks and Romans, it denotes the very objects, to which the Jewish nation was strictly prohibited from paying adoration. I shall not dwell on the minor instances of stupidity and oscitancy; such as his giving, Ebio, instead of Ebion, for pauper, in Hebrew; (Philoc. ch. I. p. 17.) his using Elohai, and Adonai, constantly, for Elohim and Adonim; (vid. Contra Cels. Lib. 6. p. 217. Cam. ed.) errors too gross for any Hebraist to commit. But it may be reasonably demanded, if Origen knew nothing of Hebrew, how could he treat so many passages of the Old Testament in so critical a manner, or add to his Polyglott the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters? To this I reply, that the trifling display of biblical learning to be found in any of his works now extant, he in all probability obtained by means of his many conferences with the Jewish divines; but especially from the literal Translation of Aquila, on which much of the seeming erudition of this Christian father ought doubtless to be charged. But with respect to the Hebrew text in the Polyglott, that, we may rest certain, if it ever existed at all, was the work of a Jew, who being needy as well as learned, did not disdain to profit from the design without sharing in its honors. Be this as it may, I cannot but maintain, what I think has been most amply demonstrated, that when he composed his work against Celsus, as well as the Philocalia, he was completely ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures; and, consequently is at this day a very incompetent authority to be alleged against the veracity of the Masoretic text. Hovingham, Aug. 27, 1812. J. O. Miscellaneous Observations on some passages in several ancient and modern Authors, By JOHN SEAGER, B. A. Rector of Welsh Bicknor, in Monmouthshire. NO. I. SOME SOME of the following observations may, perhaps, not prove wholly unacceptable to the readers of those works, which are the subjects of them. I believe them all to be new; if that be any atonement for their want of merit in other respects. But should any of them have been anticipated in writings with which I am not acquainted, and should any reflection be therefore cast on me, I would gladly, if I might without presumption, employ in my defence the following words of Locke, written upon a similar, though much more important, occasion to Dr. Stillingfleet, who had taxed him with publishing thoughts already extant in the books of others: To alleviate my fault herein I agree with your Lordship, that many things may seem new to one that converses only with his own thoughts, which really are not so; but I must crave leave to suggest to your Lordship, that if in spinning of them out of his own thoughts they seem new to him, he is certainly the inventor of them, and they may as justly be thought his own invention, as any one's; and he is as certainly the inventor of them as any one who thought on them before him; the distinction of invention or not invention lying not in thinking first or not first, but in borrowing or not borrowing our thoughts from another." In the preface to a small volume published in 1808, and intitled, Emendationes in scriptores quosdam Græcos, I cited an opinion of Dr. Johnson upon Conjectural Criticism, as an answer to the many contemptuous remarks often made on verbal criticism, and not with an intention of arrogating to myself any of the high qualities there. ascribed to the legitimate Critic; and now, as my first observation regards Mr. Gibbon's translation of a passage in Julian, I cannot help taking notice that Mr. Gibbon also did not resemble some other men of great genius and abilities in affecting to despise corrective criticism. He well knew, that words are signs of ideas, and that a trifling change of words may create an important alteration in signification. It frequently happens, says he, that the sounds and characters, which approach the nearest to each other, accidentally represent the most opposite ideas. Mr. Gibbon not only mentions conjectural emendations of others with applause, but frequently attempts them successfully himself. His translation, however, of a passage in Julian,3 shows far less knowledge of the Greek language than some of his emendations. The Emperor is severely reprimanding Ecdicius, Præfect of Egypt, for not executing his sentence of exile on Athanasius, whose conduct he stigmatises in the following words, as quoted by Mr. Gibbon : Τὸν μιαρὸν, ὃς ἐτόλμησεν Ἑλληνίδας ἐπ' ἐμοῦ γυναῖκας τῶν ἐπισήμων βαπτίσαι diánica. Mr. Gibbon's translation is, The abominable wretch! Under my reign the baptism of several Grecian ladies of the highest rank has been the effect of his persecutions: and he adds, I have preserved the See his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Note on ch. iv. p. 153. (octavo, 1797.); Note on ch. ix. p. 363.; Note on ch. ix. p. 369.; Note on ch. ix. p. 379. Note on ch. xxxviii. p. 322. 2 Note on ch. x. p. 398.; on ch. x. p. 415.; on ch. xii. p. 74.; on ch. xiv. p. 217.; on ch. xvii. p. 28.; on ch. xvii. p. 32.; on ch. xviii. p. 102.; on ch. xix. p. 177.; on ch. xxxviii. p. 364. 3 See ch. xxiii. of the Decline and Fall, &c. p. 134. edit. 1797. 8vo. ambiguous sense of the last word, the ambiguity of a tyrant, who wished to find, or to create guilt. Εὐ, νὰ τὸν Ἑρμῆν· ὅ τι λέγεις δ' οὐ μανθάνω. By what method of construction this meaning, or indeed any, could be wrung from the Greek words, I am quite at a loss to know. Διώκεσθαι appears to me not ambiguous, but inexplicable. I doubt not that Julian wrote, Τὸν μικρὸν· ὃς ἐτόλμησεν Ἑλληνίδας ἐπ ̓ ἐμοῦ γυναίκας τῶν ἐπισήμων βαπτίσαι. ΔΙΩΚΕΣΘΩ. Miscreant! to dare baptize, in my reign, Grecian women of the highest rank! Let him be banished, or let him be persecuted for diariodo may have either of these two senses. In Polybius, lib. Ix. c. 18. (p. 170. edit. Ernest.) the preposition εἰς seems to have been omitted: πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀναβαινόντων συμμετρία», ΕΙΣ ἡμισείαν, κ. τ. λ. The distance of the foot of the ladder from the wall was to be of a measure proportionate to the number of men ascending it. If they were very few, the greatest distance (half the length of the ladder) might be used, without danger of breaking the ladder; if many, it was to be placed more upright, but not so much so as to make it unsteady. In book x. ch. 41. Polybius, for instantaneously notifying events from a great distance, describes an apparatus, which, when compared with our modern telegraphs, will appear even more inferior than Chinese characters, or signs for words, in writing, in comparison of alphabetical marks, or signs of the most simple elements of articulate sounds. There is an omission in the Greek, marked by a blank space; however, from what is still extant, the device seems to have been this:-The parties, between whom a communication was to be maintained, provided vessels of water of equal sizes, each keeping one. Upon the water in each vessel was placed a staff, standing upright in a cork. Each staff, corresponding to the other, was inscribed, upon divisions equally marked, with the principal occurrences that might happen. When one party wished to signify any incident to the other, he kindled a fire; and as soon as this signal was answered by another fire, vent was immediately given to the water in both vessels, until the intelligencer seeing the intended inscription on his staff sunk down to the rim of the vessel, extinguished his fire, as a signal to his associate to stop the effusion of the water, and, by reading the same inscription, then even with the rim of his vessel also, to inform himself of the event which had taken place. The imperfection and dangerous inaccuracy of this method are apparent. The nature and use of the machine mentioned by Polybius in book x. ch. 43. and called by him diórę, are not very evident. After considering the whole passage, I am inclined to think the design of it was merely to guide the eye instantaneously to a distant object. It remained fixed; and was pointed exactly towards the spot where signals were expected to be made; so that the eye might, without wandering, catch any signal at once. GREGORIUS NYSSENUS (De hominis opificio, p. 58. edit. Oporini) arguing from the false system of natural philosophy prevalent in his age, observes that, whereas locomotion is naturally united with change of constituent parts, and immobility with immutability, yet God, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, broke this union; assign ing to the heavens locomotion with immutability, and to the earth immobility with change of parts; for this he suggests the following reason: اد be Προμηθεία τινὶ τάχα τὸ τοιοῦτον οἰκονομήσασα, (ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφία scil.) ὡς ἂν μὴ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἴδιον, ὅπερ ἐστι τὸ ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀμετάθετον, ἐπί τινος τῶν κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν βλεπομένων, θεὸν νομίζεσθαι τὸ κτίσμα ποιήσειεν, οὐ γὰρ ἔτι θεότητος ὑπόληψιν σχοίη, ὅπερ ἂν κινούμενον ἢ ἀλλοιούμενον τύχῃ. which may In these words an omission and depravation appear, thus supplied and rectified: Προμηθείᾳ τινι τάχα τὸ τοιοῦτον οἰκονομήσασα, ὡς ἂν μὴ τὸ τῆς ̓ΑΥΤΟΥ (Θεοῦ vid.) φύσεως ἴδιον, ὅπερ ἐστι τὸ ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀμετάθετον, ἐπί τινος τῶν κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν ΒΛΕΠΟΜΕΝΟΝ, Θεὸν νομί ζεσθαι τὸ κτίσμα ποιήσειεν. Having made this distribution with wise precaution, lest, if his own peculiar attributes of immutability and immobility should both be seen in any part of the creation, they might cause the creature to be mistaken for GOD. EURIPIDES. Hecuba. v. 986. ἔστω φιληθείς, ὡς σὺ νῦν ἐμοὶ φιλεῖ. τί χρῆμ', ὃ κἀμὲ καὶ τέκν ̓ εἰδέναι χρεών ; Polymestor had been intrusted with the care of Hecuba's son, Polydorus, and had betrayed his charge by murdering him. Hecuba in a dialogue with Polymestor, in which are the verses above cited, conceals her knowledge of his guilt, and her consequent hatred of him. Should we read, ἜΣΩ φιληθεὶς ὡς ΓΕ νῦν ἐμοὶ φιλεῖ, the words would be more in character, veiling, under a parenthetical expression of apparent friendship, an imprecation of universal hatred on Polymestor. Euripides Orest. v. 1049. (Porson's edit.) Orestes, embracing his sister Electra, exclaims, Ω στέρν ̓ ἀδελφῆς, ὦ φίλον πρόσπτυγμ ̓ ἐμὸν, Προσφθέγματ ̓ ἀμφὶ Ald. et MSS. fere omnes. ἄρτι pro ἀμφὶ Mus. gravius, quod Brunckius recepit, simul tamen conjiciens προσφθέγματ ἡμῖν quod ex H. (MS. Harleiano) edidi.” PORSON. Before I had read this note, I conjectured, τάδ ̓ ἀντὶ παίδων, καὶ γαμηλίου λέχους προσφθέγματ ̓ ΑΝΤ1, τοῖς ταλαιπώροις πάρα. and I now think the repetition of ἀντὶ much more elegant than ἡμῖν. ἄντι also very nearly resembles the word found in Aldus's edition, and in almost all the manuscripts. As the spirited conclusion of Turnus's answer to Drances, in Virgil's eleventh Æneid, "Nunquam animam talem dextrâ hâc (absiste moveri) appears rather flat in the best English versions of Virgil, I shall here exhibit a translation, the two first lines of which are Mr. Edward Osborne's, formerly an ornament of Winchester College: the two last were added by myself. This hand (those well-dissembled fears resign) The form of the imperative mood used in the third line is not men tioned by Lowth, nor in any English grammar to which I can at present refer. I will therefore give an example or two from Shak speare. To make you brothers, and to knit your hearts Antony and Cleop. Act 11. Sc. 2, This day all things begun come to ill end; Love they to live, that love and honor have. King Rich. II. Act II. Se. 1. Having been thus led to quote an English author, before I return to the ancients, I shall introduce some remarks on several passages in Shakspeare, and a few other English writers. SHAKSPEARE Troilus and Cress. Act. III. Sc. 3. Nor doth the eye itself, That most pure spirit of sense, behold itself, Till it hath travell'd, and is married there Οφθαλμὸς ἄρα, ὀφθαλμὸν θεώμενος, καὶ ἐμβλέπων εἰς τοῦτο, ὅπερ βέλτιστον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾧ ὁρᾷ, οὕτως ἂν αὑτὸν ἴδοι. εἰ δέ γε εἰς ἄλλο τῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου βλέποι, ἢ τί τῶν ὄντων, πλὴν εἰς ἐκεῖνο ᾧ τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὅμοιον, οὐκ ὄψεται Plato. Alcibiad. I. ἑαυτόν. Read, K. HENRY V. Act 1. Sc. 2. "Yet that is but a curs'd necessity." "Yet that is but a cur'd necessity." That is, only a necessity for which we have a remedy. The remedy is mentioned in the lines immediately following. HENRY VI. Part 1. Act I. Sc. 5. "Here dies the dusky torch of Mortimer, "Chok'd with ambition of the meaner sort." I cannot be of the same opinion as Warburton as to the sense of these verses. I think meaner sort signifies the sort or family whose title to the crown was inferior: that is, the house of the Duke of Lancaster, afterwards Henry IV.; whose ambition ruined Mortimer, HENRY VI. Part I. Act III. Sc. 1. "Set this unaccustom'd fight aside." Unaccustom'd, says Dr. Johnson, is Unseemly, Indecent. I think VOL. VII. NO. XIII. I |