Thus we have in Longinus περὶ ὕψους, c. 44. διόπερ οὐδὲν ὅτι μὲ κόλακες ἐκβαίνομεν μεγαλοφυείς, • nil nisi magnifici adulatores evadi mus.' καθαίρω, καθαιρέω. In page 68. καθαιρήσει τὸ τῆς ἀδελφῆς σῶμα Teucher cites the following excellent note: Xyl. priusquam sororis corpus deponeret, bene sane, Lucas, c. XXIII. v. 53. καθελὼν αὐτὸ (τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ dovi, Erasm. et depositum involvit sindoni." Munck. But in Verheyk's edition we have the following words besides, which ought not to have been omitted: “Aliud xalxigw, aliud xalxigéw, ne quis heic, ut aliquando factum vidi, de purgatione corporis agi existimet." dex, omnino, used only with a negative. Muncker, in page 117, has the following note: Apollodor. L. Ι. Ζητούντων δὲ ἀμφοτέρων τὸν Ὕλαν ἢ ναῦς ἀνήχθη. Ηρόδοτος δὲ (scribe Ηρόδωρος cum Fabro) οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχήν φησι πλεῦσαι πότε, ἀλλὰ πας Ομφάλη δουλεύειν, non intellexit illud τὴν ἀρχὴν interpres; vertit enim, Herodotus neque jam tum statim navigasse, sed apud Omphalen servitutem serviisse affirmat: tu vide Vigerum de Idiot. Ling. Gr. p. 18, verte, inquam, omnino non navigasse ait: nam Vigerum accuratius dum considero, ut satisfacturus sit tibi, vereor: producit ex Xenoph. L. VII. Exped. ὅσῳ περ χαλεπώτερον, ἐκ πλουσίου πένητα γενέσθαι, ἢ ἀρχὴν μὴ πλουτήσαι, καὶ ὅσῳ λυπηρότερον, ἐκ βασιλέως ἰδιώτην φανῆναι, ἢ ἀρχὴν μὴ βασιλεῦσαι, quo gravius ex divite pauperem fieri, quam abfinitio divitem non fuisse, quantoque molestius ex rege privatum fieri, quam regem fuisse nunquam:' nimirum illud Thy de respondet sæpe r omnino, prorsus, plane, Thucyd. oude πειρώνται τὴν ἀρχὴν: familiarem Dioni istam esse locutionem observat cl. Jacob. Gronovius Supplem. nunc nuper edit. p. 54." But a is never so used, but with a negative, as is shown, if we remember rightly, by Lennep, (in his Notes on Phalaris's Epistles,) who first explained the principle of the thing. Digitus, digitum, dáxtuλos, dáxтuλov, &c. The subsequent note is worthy the attention of the student: "Gloss. Benedicti, Interdita, pɛoodánruña, leg. interdigita:—ne digita mireris, vide mihi, quam multa contra vulgarem usum oderpws in Vett. Gloss. efferantur, Articula, Zgłça, Nervia, vauga, Petron. Fragm. Tragur. p. 17. Ed. Comer. Mortuus pro mortuo, qui habet nervia præcisa: Non. c. 3. 149. ut probet nervia esse neutri generis, producit ex Varronis Satyra, vos gas, Et id dicunt suam Briseidem producere, quæ ejus nervias tractare solebat: nisi nervia heic legas, quomodo id, quod intendit, evincet hoc exemplo Nonius? Gladium, pos, Gladia, žien, Stumbilum, névrçov, leg. stimulum: Gloss. Cyrill. us, humerum, aoxòs Taugaos, culleum, et sexcenta alia: cæterum, ut digitus et digitum Latini, ita dάxruλos Græci et dánruŽOV dicunt: Anthol. L. I. c. 86. Epigr. 8. Joà Sántula xɛiçòs, L. IV. c. 25. Epigr. I. δάκτυλα καὶ μουσῶν κρείσσονα καὶ χαρίτων : Musæus, v. 114. ἠρέμα μὲν θλίβων ῥοδοειδέα δάκτυλα χειρός: adde quæ Nansius ad Nonn. Paraphras. c. XIX. v. 130. notavit : metaplasmus ille Ionicus videtur: Hom. II. E. v. 722. xaμwúla núnλa: annotat Schol. Ἰωνικῶς, κύκλους, τοὺς τροχούς: sic φιμὰ pro φιμοὺς in Epigr. Anytes, L. I. c. 33. Numer. 28." p. 181. We have cited this note more particularly with a view to guard the student against the absurdity, into which many, whom we shall not name, have fallen, of supposing that the neutral plural, such as digita, Sáxruha, comes from the masculine singular, digitus, dáxruxos. calve, adulari, de Animalibus caudam moventibus. By far the most valuable note, that has ever been written on this word, which has afforded such ample scope for the display of learning, and the exercise of ingenuity, appears in page 156, and we shall cite it entire, because Mr. Blomfield on The Seven against Thebes,' v. 379, will, we doubt not, be thought by many scholars to have gone to the bottom of the subject, which is by no means the case. It is true, that at the conclusion of his elaborate note, he refers us to the "Interpretes ad Antonin. Liberal. 35," but it is equally true, that he has made little, or no use of the important matter, which is to be found there, except, perhaps, to take one, or two examples from it, else he would not have said: "aiva igitur PROPRIE dicitur canis, qui cauda blanditur, caudam leniter atterens, ut ait Horatius." « Λύκοι δὲ συναντόμενοι καὶ σήναντες, hæc vox non de lupis tantum et canibus, sed omnibus adeo animalibus, quæ cauda adulantur, usurpatur: hinc σαννίον, penis, cauda : μεταφορικῶς et σαίνειν τινὰ homines dicuntur: Pind. Pyth. Od. I. legi nunc nuper, Evv dáváyna μιν φίλον Καί τις ἐὼν μεγαλώνως ἔσανε: in Scholiis ad eandem oden invenio Пepixaov ænei illius tauri, in quo hospites cremabat Phalaris, vocatum fuisse artificem, quem Perillum Plin. et Ovid. appellant: id quod haud scio, an quisquam notaverit: iterum monendum mihi Tò cava latius patere, quam quidam rentur: leonibus illud tribuit Tzetz. ad Lycophr. p. 131. Ed. Steph. sidov Ewbεv Tñs avλñs TñS Κίρκης λύκους καὶ λέοντας ἡμέρους, σαίνοντας αὐτοὺς ταῖς οὐραῖς, Hieronym. in Vit. Pauli Eremit. Et illi (leones) directo cursu ad cadaver beati senis substiterunt, adulantibusque caudis circa ejus pedes occubuere: nimirum caively PROPRIE est cauda adulari: quæcunque ergo animalia facere hoc consuevere, valve dicuntur: Apollon. Argon. I. v. 1144. Θῆρες δ ̓ εἰλύους τε κατὰ ξυλόχους τε λιπόντες, οὐρῆσιν σαίνοντες ἐπήλυθον.” Munck. "Ad Lactantium, unde hoc argumentum observationis huc trans tuli, agnoscit quidem Staverenius, quæ dixit Munckerus, sed contendit verbum hoc proprium esse canum, a quibus metaphorice ad alia animalia translatum esset; si vero analogiæ rationem habuisset, vidisset vix aliam quam movendi significationem huic verbo inesse, quod cum fiat cauda, res ipsa loquitur, proprie de omnibus animalibus dici, quæ caudam movent, sive hoc motu tanquam remigio utantur, ut pisces, de quibus etiam caixa adhibuit Sophocles ap. Athenæum, L. VII. c. 2. χορὸς δ' ἀναύδων ἰχθύων ἐπεῤῥόθει cet. et aves, de quibus adhibuit Antigonus in Histor. 48. monente hic Berkelio; sive eo lætitiam testentur, quod omnes faciunt bestiæ cicures, uti in canibus non tantum, sed et equis, si palpes, in porcis, et ovibus cet. constat de lupis et leonibus jam vidimus, et confir matur Ovidii loco Tzetzæ expositioni congruo, Met. L. XIV. v. 255. ubi et ursi adduntur, Mille lupi, mixtæque lupis ursæque leaque * # * Quin etiam blandas movere per aera caudas, vides quod innuo, blandas movere caudas, et adulari, jungi quidem, sed tamen diversa esse, quod minus distinguunt, qui illud canis præ ceteris proprium censent; alterum enim raive, alterum est gorxuVETY, quod Livius innuit L. IX. c. 18. Desideratæ humi jacentium adulationes, et L. XXX. c. 16. More adulantium procubuerunt, unde discimus quomodo ad homines translatum sit, et pro simpliciter aliquid petere sumatur, unde cum adorare vel confunditur, vel idem significat; sic enim Vet. Inscriptio ap. Murator. Deos pro me adularent: nisi distinctionem facias inter σαίνειν οὐραν, et οὐρᾷ: certe σαίνω et adulor sæpe tantum indicare voluptatem, quam motitando caudam ostentant, vel etiam adsultando, ac vocis sono, testantur Lucretius L. V. v. 1969. ubigannitu vocis adulare dixit, et Ælian. L. XIII. c. 42. αὐτὸν Μελιταῖον κυνίδιον ἔσαινε, adsultando latitiam testabatur, quam Epaminonda reviso capiebat: neque aliter vetulus canis, qui solus fere Ulyssem post tam longos errores agnoscebat, Homer. Odys. P. v. 301. δὴ τότε γ ̓ ὡς ἐνόησεν Οδυσσέα, ἐγγὺς ἐόντα, οὐςῇ μέν ρ' ὅγ ̓ ἔτηνε, καὶ οὔατα καββαλεν ἄμφω : certe ad quavis animalia retulit Eustath. ad Odys. K. v. 20. quem Homeri locum ob oculos habuit Schol. Lycophronis, xaworary de λέξις τὸ Σαίνειν ἐπὶ ζώων ἀλόγων, ὃ ἐστι, σείειν τὴν οὐράν, et ad Odyss. 1.ν. 10. κυριολεκτούμενον μὲν ἐπὶ κυνῶν, ἤδη καὶ ἐπὶ ἑτέρων ἡμέρων ζώντων, μεταφορικόν δε τροπικῶς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ὑπούλους καὶ κολακικούς, Schol. Pind. Pyth. II. v. 151. et ad Olymp. IV. 7. ἔσαναν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐχάρησαν, ἀπὸ τῶν σαινοντων ζώων.” To these instances we add Hesych. v. Σαίνουροι, οἱ τὰς οὐρὰς συνεχῶς κινοῦντες ἵπποι καὶ κύνες. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. I TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. WAS surprised to find in your twelfth Number an attack on an unpublished work of mine, by a Gentleman, who calls himself "the Abridger of Bryant." The work which he abridges, is the only publication, I believe, of Mr. Bryant's, which I have never read. It relates to four passages in Scripture concerning Balaam, Joshua, Samson, (improperly spelt Sampson) and Jonah. I cannot speak of the original; but we learn from this curious abridgment,-that Balaam, who came to Moab from "the mountains of the East," was Archimage of Midian, and Edom, lying to the south and the west of Moab !that the Ass was made an object of veneration in those regions "from its peculiar sagacity!"-that Bacchus placed the "Asinine species" in the celestial sphere!-that their carvy, or crib, which was also placed there, was "perhaps a distant adumbration of the ark !"-that "both these constellations" (the Asinine species and their crib) "are reckoned ominous of serenity!"—and that, as whales are not found near Joppa, a whale must have been sent on purpose from the north to swallow up Jonah! (Class. Journ. xii. pp. 321-330.) We have, besides, some `delectable specimens of correct writing: e. g.-" where the LXX translation." p. 323. "The mountains of Kiddim-probably means some eastern eminences." ibid. Now, sir, if I were to close this letter here, I much mistake the usual feelings of authors, if your correspondent would not think himself entitled to complain of a little want of candor on my part. He would, perhaps, be obliged to confess, that part of the ridicule is just, and that all of it is founded upon his own expressions; but he might say, that he had oftener than once been quoted by half sentences; that some undoubted errors which had escaped his pen had been invidiously selected, in order to expose him to contempt;-and that all that is ingenious, learned, or argumentative, in the system which he supports, had been either concealed, or misrepresented. But, sir, have I no reason to make a similar complaint against your correspondent? If I be not misinformed concerning the name of this gentleman, he is a man of letters, and, what I esteem much more, a man of genius. His short, and, I must say, flippant, account of my book, would not have otherwise attracted so much of my notice. But he should recollect, that it is scarcely worthy of a good painter, to sit down to draw caricatures. Having taken up the pen, I shall proceed to make a few remarks on Mr. Bryant's work, as it is made known to me by the abridgment, for I have not been able to procure the book itself; and I shall submit it to the judgment of your correspondent, whether, or not, he will still adhere to all of Bryant's opinions. I have always, sir, considered it to be the duty of every man, who CI. JI, F disputes for the sake of truth, not only candidly to examine the reasoning of an adversary, but to produce all the evidence which he can find in its favor. When this is fairly done, and he still feels that he cannot be convinced, he may expect that a candid hearing will be given to him, while he states his objections. Your readers are in possession of what Mr. Bryant's abridger has said for him. In answering him upon several points, I shall state what additional arguments, I think, might be adduced in favor of Mr. Bryant's opinions; and then show why I am still unprepared to follow him. 1. In the passages in Deuteronomy and Numbers, in which Balaam is said to be brought from Aram, or Syria, and Aram Naharaim, or Mesopotamia, Mr. Bryant proposes to substitute a for a to read ONEdom for Aram-and to dismiss Naharaim as a gloss. Mr. Bryant's reasons for proposing this alteration are stated pp. 321322. In addition to these arguments it may be observed, that if Pethor ( Pethorah) the place of Balaam's residence, were the same with Petra, as Mr. Bryant supposes, there can be no doubt that it was in Edom, and not in Syria, or Aram. Eusebius distinctly tells us that Petra was a city in the land of Edom-Πέτρα, πόλις ἐν γῇ 'Eduu, &c. 2. It is said that Balaam came from Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people. In favor of Mr. Bryant's opinion, it may be observed that a river flowed by Petra. Nabatæi, says Pliny, oppidum incolunt Petram nomine in convalle, paulo minus 11 mill. pass. amplitudinis circumdatam montibus inaccessis AMNE INTERFLUENTE. 3. If Mr. Bryant be right in supposing Pethorah, and Petra, to have been the same, there seems to be no occasion to dismiss Naharaim as a gloss. This, indeed, would be taking a considerable liberty with the text. That part of Edom, in which Petra was situated, abounded in rivers; and it, therefore, might Irave been called Edom Naharaim, to distinguish it from other districts not so well watered ; just as Aram Naharaim was so called, to distinguish it from other parts of Syria. Petra, according to Eusebius, lay ten miles to the east of Aila; and Aila, which was situated at the extremity of the Elanitic bay, by the consent of Eusebius and Jerome, was the Eloth of Scripture. Now, as nearly as I can judge from the map, the place called Jotbathah, or Jotbath, must, have been situated about fifteen miles from Aila, or Eloth, and about five miles from Petra. Let us then turn to the words of Moses (Deut. x.) From thence they journeyed ⚫unto Gudgodah, and from Gudgedah to Jotbath a land of rivers of water. Thus Petra was situated within five miles of a spot expressly called a land of rivers of water. If, then, Balaam resided at Petra in the land of Edom, it was precisely in that part which might be properly called Edom Naharaim; for since we find from Pliny, that one of the rivers of Edom ran near to Petra, we may conclude, that Petra, as well as Jotbath, was included in the land of rivers of water, especially as the two cities were only about five miles distant from each other. 4. These observations appear to me to strengthen Mr. Bryant's opi |