NOTICE OF HEBREW BIBLE, Now Printing in Parts, after the manner of Vander-Hooght, BY THE REv. J. Frey. IN no age since the dispersion of the Jews, has the Hebrew language been more attended to by Christians, than it is in the present time. The absolute necessity of this cultivation of the sacred language appears to be of a more urgent nature at this period of the world than at any other. For on account of the numerous and manifest errors and contradictions which appear in all the European translations, Infidels have, ever since the time of Voltaire, increased to an alarming degree; the spawn of that noted Deist has been astonishingly productive in all the nations of Europe. This is one of the reasons we can assign, in order to show how necessary it is to obtain a critical knowledge of this most ancient language, without which Infidelity will place the Bible on a level with the Koran. The successful attempts, which have been made to introduce Hebrew Literature, have induced many of the learned to consider this ancient language as a necessary branch of modern education; many of the Eastern languages are indebted to this origin for a vast number of words now in use, and the European languages, particularly the English, abound with Hebrew words. With a view to accommodate the students of Hebrew, the Rev. Mr. Frey, the resident preacher at the Chapel for the conversion of the Jews, has undertaken to edite a Hebrew Bible from the original of Vander-Hooght. The Bible printed by Vander-Hooght has always been considered as one of the most correct; fewer errors, I believe, are to be found in it than in any other; a copy of it is rarely to be met with; therefore a fac-simile of this most valuable Bible will be a great acquisition to Hebrew scholars, because they will not only be supplied at a less expense, but they will have no difficulty in being supplied. The first three numbers are printed on fine paper, superior to any thing we have seen of the kind, and the letter is as beautiful as the original. Those who have seen the original Bible of Vander-Hooght, which now sells for 61. 6s. and are well acquainted with Hebrew, know the great difficulty which necessarily must attend printing with the vowel points; but when it is recollected, that the accents also are to be added, the trouble and difficulty are greatly increased: nothing so complete as this has ever been produced in England; it will do honor to the enterprising spirit of the country. We are sorry that Mr. Frey did not determine on taking off a larger quantity; the number is comparatively small, and may not exceed the number of his subscribers. Hebrew Bibles have long been wanted, few are to be procured unless they are sent from the Continent; it is also proper to observe, that Bibles without vowel points can not be of much use to the Hebrew critic, nor even in many instances can the accents be dispensed with, as a true translation of many passages cannot be had without them; which we hope to have an opportunity of proving in this Journal. Both these, however, will be given in this elegant volume. SIR, CLASSICAL CRITICISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. In the Eighth Eclogue of Virgil, the following Lines occur, (52-58.): Nunc et oves ultro fugiat lupus aurea duræ Incipe Mænalios mecum, mea tibia, versus. These lines are imitated from the following five verses in the first Idyllium of Theocritus, (132-136.): Νῦν ἴα μὲν φορέοιτε, βάτοι, φορέοιτε δ', ἄκανθαι. Upon comparing these two passages, it will be evident that the last line of the extract from Virgil is copied from Πάντα δ' ἔναλλα YévoTO in the third line of Theocritus. It is less evident, but equally true, that Virgil has mistaken the meaning of the word Evaλλa, which the editions of Theocritus properly render contraria, and has translated the passage as if the reading were evaλa, marina, considerably to the injury of the sense. Theocritus, in all probability, would not have coupled Távra, all things, with evaλa, but would have used y, gos, or some such word, which would have formed a more striking contrast. This remark was made in my presence several years ago, by a gentleman who did not mention whether he derived it from his own observation, or from some other source. mined such commentaries on Virgil as have without finding any reason to suspect that the I have since exafallen in my way, authors of them were aware of this hallucination of the poet. Possibly some of your numerous readers will be able to point out the name of the Critic by whom the observation was first made. I imagine that it will be new to most of them, as it was to me, as well as to several of my acquaintance, better judges of these subjects than myself, to whom I have since communicated it. February, 1812. P. E. SIR W. DRUMMOND'S Answer to the Remarks on the word PHARAOH. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. SIR, As the Coptic in the CLASSICAL JOURNAL is printed in capital letters, in replacing the small letters by the large, some mistakes have been committed. The small letters, which answer to X and Y, may be easily mistaken for each other, and this has happened in printing the Coptic words at p. 415. For the future I shall take care to write the Coptic words, which I may have occasion to cite, in large characters. I shall now, Sir, proceed to make a few observations on the letter, which your Norwich correspondent has addressed to you on my derivation of the word Pharaoh. Your correspondent says, that I “appeared at first to mean, that it was the Jews who had borrowed the Egyptian article Phi, and prefixed it to their Hebrew word roh; but now it is the Egyptians, who are supposed to have made this incongruous medley, by prefixing their own article phi, to the word roh, shepherd, borrowed by them from the Israelites, which is still less probable than the former method." I conclude, Sir, that your correspondent founds his charge on the following sentence which occurs in the quotation from my Essay: "The article is purely Egyptian, but the noun may be traced to the Hebrew.” Now if I had not considered the language spoken by the Patriarchs, as one very nearly related to that spoken by the ancient Egyptians, the statement of your correspondent would have been fairer than I can possibly consider it at present. My opinion was, and is, that the dialects in question were cognate. There might have been, and I think that there probably was, an ancient language, from which the dialects spoken in Chaldea, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia, originally sprang. I believe the Hebrew, as far as we now know it, to be the most perfect remnant of that ancient language. Its poverty, and rudeness, not less than its simplicity, strongly attest its antiquity. I grant that all that I have here stated is hypothetical; but reasoning upon this hypothesis, I cannot allow that I have been guilty either of an incongruity, or of an anachronism. I hold that the languages men tioned above were different dialects branching out from a common stem. Of this stem the most complete remains, in my humble opinion at least, are to be found in the Hebrew. When, therefore, I say that an Egyptian noun may be traced to the Hebrew, I by no means assert that the Egyptians borrowed it from the Jews. The Jews, according to my hypothesis, preserved the ancient language, once spoken throughout a great territory, more exactly than any other nation; and when their peculiar customs, and their unsocial spirit, are considered, this will not appear very extraordinary; but the language, which we call the Hebrew, I believe to have existed before the Jews were a people.' In fact, the Hebrew was probably the language of the Chasidim. Your correspondent proceeds to observe, that "as the Israelites had lived long in Egypt, it was possible that they might have brought along with them some Egyptian words, as they did several Chaldean, when they returned from Babylon." That the Hebrew ceased to be the mother tongue of the Jews, when they returned from Babylon, is (as Prideaux observes) agreed on all hands: and really, Sir, I thought that it had been as generally agreed, that the language spoken by the Jews, after the captivity, was the Chaldean. But now we learn from your correspondent, that the Jews brought several Chaldean words with them from Babylon. How these Jews contrived to converse together, after the loss of their mother tongue, and with the acquisition of no more than several Chaldean words, your correspondent does not inform us. In my Essay I stated, that the word Pharaoh was not a proper name, but a title ;-that this title is nothing else than the Coptic Phouro, (the King), the article phi being placed before ouro, rex ;-that this word is written PPO in the Sahidic;-that it may be suspected to have been originally written PO, to which the indefinite article OY was prefixed; and that this is asserted by Woide. Upon this statement your correspondent observes, that "Phi-ou-ro would form a very incoherent confusion of articles, for it would signify the a King." Your correspondent, Sir, shall answer his own objection. He tells us, at p. 369. that it has sometimes happened, that the article has become an integral part of the noun itself;" and in the next page he speaks of the "propriety of sometimes withdrawing the articles, which may happen to adhere to ancient Egyptian words, but to which the Copts (not reflecting that the noun had already an article to attend it) have superadded a second article." How then, may I be allowed to ask, can your correspondent, according to his own principles, urge his objection against me? Am I not at liberty, upon those principles, to argue, that the article ou has so long adhered to the noun ro, that through long usage it has become an integral part of the noun? If the Copts superadd a second definite article, where there is one already, may not these same unreflecting Copts sometimes prefix the definite, where the indefinite article is adhering to the noun? 1 Let it not be understood that I mean to say, that the language in question was the source and origin of all others. I speak only of the dialects which I have named. I have said, that ouro, rex, may be suspected to have been originally written ro, to which the indefinite article ou was prefixed, and that this is positively asserted by Woide. Your correspondent denies this." That the ou of ouro," says he, "is the indefinite article ou is Sir W's. own presumption, and without any authority from Woide to support it."—" Neither can any such abbreviation of the word PO in Coptic letters be found any where, except in the above quotation from the Essay on a Punic Inscription." This is strong language, Sir; and your readers will think, perhaps, that your correspondent has been rather precipitate, when they have read the extract, which I am about to give from the Grammatica Egyptiaca. Woide, in speaking of the indefinite article ou, expresses himself as follows-Interdum articulus indeterminatus cum nomine coalescit. Ab antiquo (et inusitato) PO, rex, fit OYPO, et hinc cum articulo ПOYPO, et OYOYPO, rex. (Gramm. Ægypt. p. 17.) Ο ΟΥΡΟ, The last sentence of your correspondent's letter concludes with these words" The Royal Shepherds of Sir W. Drummond, who never existed any-where except in that Essay." I thought, Sir, that in that Essay I had referred to Manetho; but even if I had not done so, it appears rather singular to me that a gentleman, who has written so much in the CLASSICAL JOURNAL on the language and antiquities of Egypt, should assert that the Royal Shepherds never existed anywhere except in my Essay. Perhaps, if he consults Josephus, he will change his opinion. I have now, Sir, said all that I conceive to be necessary to justify me against the aspersions, which have been thrown upon me by your anonymous correspondent, who dates his letters from Norwich. I have the satisfaction of thinking that no personal animosity guides my pen, and that, whatever be my failings, I have never sought to depreciate the literary characters of others. P. S. I ought to have mentioned in my last letter on the subject of the Coptic, that some of the statements in it were made on the authority of Mr. Quatremère, whose work has much merit, though I cannot agree with him in some of his positions. Logie Almond, 1812. I am, Sir, your humble servant, W. DRUMMOND. The necessity of the Eastern Languages to illustrate obscure Passages in the more early Greek Writers. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. SIR, ETYMOLOGY, as it may ascertain the primary sense of a word, to unfold a general principle in the formation of language, to exemplify the manner in which philosophical notions, political occurrences, and religious institutions, influence the mind, and give birth to new modes of speech, is a subject of rational and useful |