Cæsar, Sallust, or Tacitus, where the word is indisputably used in a military sense as to the passage in Cæsar B. G. L. v. c. 31. Tandem dat Cotta permotus manus: superat sententia Sabini. Dare manus is here used not in a military, but in a metaphorical sense, as is evident from the sentence, with which it is connected. But in the following passage it is evident that the phrase is military in its original import, Romanos armis persequi, donicum aut certe vicissent, aut victi manum dedissent, Nep. in Amilc. c. 1. Et si tibi vera videtur, Dede manus, aut si falsa est, accingere contra, Lucret. L. 11. v. 1041.: in the passage of Lucretius the word accingere proves the point. "Thus ends the first series of annotations, which are followed by an additional apparatus of supplementary ones; among these the only article, that seemed to obtrude itself upon our notice from its intrinsic merit, is the following: in referring to I. Duport's Hom. Gnomologia, our Author thus modestly speaks of his illustrious self, and his illustrious College, and his illustrious predecessor, I will take this opportunity of recommending to the notice of the classical student this book of I. Duport, who was once the Greek Professor of the University of Cambridge, and belonged to the illustrious College, of which I am a member: this, we presume, is prudently brought forward on the present occasion, lest the careless printer should have omitted his titles on his title page, where, to be sure, they skulk almost unseen amidst a vocabulary of greatly more important matter, or, lest some pert untoward booby should deface the illustrious name-or, by demolishing the first leaf, erase for ever from the records of fame the remembrance of the learned author of this immortal work: doubtless, in some future age, when moths and snuff shops have spared only a solitary copy of this unrivalled production, and that, too, haply stripped of its title, moulders in the corner of the library of the illustrious College, it will afford no ordinary consolation to the plodding critic to discover in this small print what may likely escape the malignity of the booby pupil, and the eyes of less laborious bookworms, that the learned and illustrious author was once a member of the same illustrious College with Duport." The Writer here drops the Reviewer, and, as the late Lord Thurlow would have said, becomes a Jesuit grafted upon a b—k—d : (Hic niger est: hunc tu, Romane, caveto ;) but I am content with exclaiming against such illiberal remarks, and such puerile trash. It is beyond the powers even of a Scotch logician, or a Scotch metaphysician, to prove (but, perhaps, a Scotch Reviewer may be privileged to assert what he cannot prove,) that in the words, which are cited from my Work, there is any thing to justify the language, which is here used. Is it not an honorable feeling to be proud that you belong to a College, composed of illustrious men, as Trinity is at present in many respects, and to exult at the mention of the distinguished characters, who have, from the earliest periods, adorned its annals? ὑπὸ γὰρ λόγων ὁ νοῦς τε μετεωρίζεται, Has the Reviewer forgotten the contention for the birth-place of Homer? Little do I envy this Scotchman the blunt feelings of his nature: he, it seems, is content to be a chartered vagrant, and professes cosmopolitism; perhaps because he may be a lineal descendant of the avaientos Onßator, (of whom Demosthenes speaks,) or perhaps because he has read in Thucydides that the whole earth is to illustrious characters one vast muusoleum, ἀνδρῶν γὰρ ἐπιφανῶν πᾶσα γῆ τάφος, or in Plutarch that the man of the world is the world's denizen, πατρὶς δὲ γίνεται πᾶσα πόλις εὐθὺς ἀνθρώπῳ χρῆσθαι μεμαθηκότι. I have now gone through all the strictures in this Review, relative to myself, to which I deem it necessary to pay any attention. As to the censure of Mr. Jones, which runs through the article, I shall leave him to defend himself, if he thinks it worth his while to do so, but I cannot help remarking, that there is in this censure of Mr. Jones, a spirit of personal hostility: the cloven foot could not be entirely concealed from the view by the thin covering, which was put upon it. Be this as it may. When I publish a second edition of these Tracts, I shall be glad to renew my acquaintance with the Scotch Reviewer, and hope that he will have the goodness to lay before me his own opinions upon those difficult passages, "which," as he says, to have escaped my penetration, or gone beyond it." "But," with many thanks to him for having entered upon a critical examination of my book, "I am in haste," his respectfully, Hatton, Jan. 29th, 1813. "seem E. H. BARKER. ON THE PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION, Found in the Island of Malta. I TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. DERIVE great pleasure, Sir, from the very handsome acknowledgment of obligation made by Sir William Drummond to my endeavors to ascertain the import, or rather the character, of the Tyrian Inscription. Sir W. does not appear to be dissatisfied with that which I attribute to it; or at least, he expresses no sense of dissatisfaction, but desires a further consideration of the meaning given to certain words, in the translation. There can be but one opinion on the propriety of deducing the intention of a writer, ancient or modern, from the accurate grammatical construction of the terms he employs; yet it has often appeared to me extremely favorable to a correct knowledge of the terms, to obtain a satisfactory acquaintance with the general subject; and in the present instance, had it so happened that my notion of the inscription had been erroneous, as to its intention, a closer investigation of the words would but have aggravated the error. It is necessary to recall to Sir W.'s recollection the hopeless state in which the learned had left this inscription. Of part of Barthelemy's version Sir W. says it "cannot be read here without destroying the syntax."-Of Bayer, "can this be reconciled to syntax? I have nothing to offer but conjecture." "Most certainly, we must either admit for 2 and for ) or give up the inscription as inexplicable. The of Barthelemy will not construe at all -Swinton's labors under the same disadvantage; and if we supply two jods, we quit the inscription which has them not." Under circumstances so desperate, which had foiled several professors, men of the greatest learning, I had not the vanity to expect complete success at a single effort; and if there should be found imperfections in my version, after all, as I expected, I depend on experiencing the same candor as was exercised toward Barthelemy, Bayer, and Swinton. This dependance I find already happily realized; and I sincerely thank Sir W. D. for his having said, as much as he can "in favor of the hypothesis of E. C." his kindness commands my further attention. I shall take Sir W.'s objections in their order. 1. I have, in my time, had a variety of Tyrian medals through my hands, and I have been praised by Barthelemy for my close investigation of letters on medals, generally; yet I never discovered any traces of such final Aleph as Sir W. supposes :-nor has an instance of it been produced, so far as I know. It would, therefore, I think, be extremely hazardous, to allow the present to be the first acknowledged instance. I admit that the emphatic is sometimes, perhaps frequently, final in the Hebrew; and therefore, that the might be so in Syriac; but this inscription is not a reading sufficiently clear to be admitted as decisive of the fact. 2. The difference between the mem and the shin being chiefly the length of a stroke, which varies in length in almost every character, I used my best judgment in determining which letter most appropriately suited the place and construction; and supposing those with the shorter (or longer) limb to be fixed to each letter respectively, I did not think myself chargeable with attributing the power of m, and sh, to one letter: I carefully gave to those of one description the power of m; and those of the other description the power of sh. 3. The same principle applies to the distinction of daleth-from resh. Taking the inscription No. 1. p. 54. for the example, I say the two last characters in the first line, more nearly resemble each other, than they do the last character in the second line, which stands immediately under them: the first of these being a daleth, by uni versal admission; the second is so likewise, by closeness of resemblance. 66 4. I beg leave to thank Sir W. for giving me an opportunity of re-considering the interpretation I had given to : I have since conjectured that the whole first line should be formed of titles, or attributes, of the deity honored. Amen may mean the stable, unshakeable, constant deity: but, on weighing the general purport of the inscription, a sense including somewhat of affection seems to be desirable. In Esther ii. 7. this noun imports a foster father, guardian, prochain ami, or patron:-and if we take it here as denoting a patron, or conservator, the acceptation will not appear misplaced. Compare also, for this idea, Numb. xi. 12. 2 Kings x. 1-5. Isaiah xlix. 23. I feel myself called on to defend the sense I had given to TT. This word is usually supposed to imply a relationship between the persons by whom and of whom it is used; as my love;"" his uncle," &c.; but this has exceptions: for instance, Isaiah v. 1. "Now will I sing to my well-beloved TT a song of my BELOVED TIT touching his vineyard." It is clear that the prophet means God; to whom relationship by blood, or affection in reference to sex does not apply-and there seems to be no reason why this servant of Melkarthus should not direct to his God, in this inscription, similar language with that directed by the Hebrew prophet to his God. Further, we read 1 Chron. xxvii. 32. of Jonathan, David's father's bro. ther," i. e. uncle TT TT; but, we nowhere read that David's father had any brother; nor, though the names of Jesse's children are registered, can we trace any family connexions, which may justify this character of uncle; although every one so nearly related to David, a person uncommonly remarkable, in every view, would, we might say must, have been recorded. Read "Jonathan, David's favorite," or a person whom he loved. It is unlucky for this argument that now the term love is restricted to affection between the sexes: it was not so in Elizabeth's days; and the term in scripture, and in Shakespear, does not always imply that affection. We have another passage, 2 Kings xxiv. 17. in which it may deserve inquiry whether the term dud does necessarily mean uncle; for the Chronicles say, Zedekiah was the brother of his predecessor. "And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, his father's brother, king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah."-May we read "The king of Babylon made his favorite," a person to whom he had, as we say, taken a liking" king?" Certain it is, that Zedekiah's rebellion against the king of Babylon seems to be charged on him as a distinguished crime, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13; and that Nebuchadnezzar retained so much regard for him after his revolt, as to save his life. On the whole, it appears that Dud may import the object of affection, without regard to sex, and even as addressed to divinity; why not object of love as well as object of veneration, or of fear? I would, therefore, take Baal, in this inscription, to import sovereign Lord of the city, or public community, of Tyre; Amen to denote protector, or conservator of persons (analogous to the Jupiter Conservator of the Romans) especially of his votaries; and Dud as a title implying the fit and VOL. VII. NO. XIII. N proper object of affection or affectionate regard. This removes, I think completely, the harshness of construction to which Sir W. D. objects; and of which I had been sensible, though unacquainted with any mode of avoiding it. 5. I come now to Sir W.'s objection to the term otherwise. We have a few, and but few, persons with double names recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures; but not one man that I recollect, who has two names of the same import. What the Hebrew does not furnish, we may possibly, however, find an approach to in the Greek. In Acts xiii. 9. Σαῦλος δὲ, ὁ ΚΑΙ Παῦλος, then Saul, who AND Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, &c." A mere English reader might easily be deceived into the fancy that two persons were intended here; but the meaning is Saul otherwise called Paul," although zal has usual import of "and." These names, it will be observed, are of the same signification, and the original readers of the work could make no mistake. the The most applicable, though imperfect instance, yet not Hebrew, that I know, is that of Nebuchadnezzar, called by the Orientals generally, Bakht-al-NASSAR, (or, Baal-adon-assar?) each name, though inutable in its first syllable, implies "the exalted lord of splendor," but one appellation refers to the God Neoo-the other to the God Baal; who equally terminated in the sun, by the idol, or image. Now, I conceive that had this stood in Hebrew Neboch-adon-assar Baal-adon-assar, it would have expressed the same person under two names of the same import; and the might have been rendered "otherwise called," accurately enough. This is independent of the 'proposition that the in very many passages takes the import of or. We trace in the LXX. several names of places, where it would be very convenient to render the or; implying the early and later name of the same place: they stand in our public translation as two places. 6-64 Is it possible that this should be the remains or representative of N We have a feminine instance resembling this, in the name of Esther (chap. ii. 7.) DN ND Hadassa who is Esther: these names being of similar intention; one signifying-" the myrtle,” from the Hebrew;-the other," the green myrtle" from the Arabic or according to Hiller, the dark-colored, or black, myrtle, But in the case of Daniel, as his two names different significations, they are separated as it were purposely, by "Daniel whose name was Belteshazzar." Perhaps your learned correspondent may furnish other instances, though they have not occurred to me. if it were one, is deserving of notice. .اس تیره דניאל די שמה בלטשאצר,words at length were of The usage, It remains that we examine the names of this servant of Melkarthus. 1. ObedASSAR, 2. AchiASSAR. Obed is usually translated servant, but rather signifies bondman, and is opposed to which implies a servant who works for wages: this name, then, denotes "the bondman of Assar;" and precisely the same is denoted by |