Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

• Hic loci neceffarium mihi videtur paucis excufare brevitatem annotationum, ad quas in ima pagina lectorem aliquoties remitto; quafque in modum longe ampliorem dilatare in animo fuit. Opus profecto commentarium poftulat verfioni ipfi magnitudine fere parem. Et plurima quidem a me notata fcripto commifi, præter ea quæ typis imprimenda curavi. Verum cum neminem familiarem haberem hujus argumenti compotem, quocum de annotationibus meis confilia communicarem, potius habui premere ea quæ mente conceperam, quam feveræ reprehenfionis fortunam experiri. Quod fi univerfitati placuerit, ut * fecundum volumen conficiatur, atque illius in publicum edendi mihi conceffa fuerit facultas, adhuc plura ad argumentum generatim fpectantia annotabo, et loca quædam difficiliora illuftrare conabor.'

Mr. White has published at the end of the fecond volume, a description of three ancient copies of the Philoxenian Verfion, communicated to him in a letter from Stephen Evodius Affemanni, titular archbishop of Apamea, fub-librarian of the Vatican at Rome, and nephew of the great Affemanni, to whose Bibliotheca Orientalis our author frequently adverts, -a work that will ever be held in the highest estimation by the friends and cultivators of eastern literature. The copies here noticed are the private property of the learned archbishop, whose defcription of them gives us a fhort fpecimen of that industry and erudition which he has difplayed in his publications, and which have gained him a reputation in Italy inferior only to that of his uncle. A collation of these MSS. would render a fecond edition more complete.

The generality of our readers, we imagine, will not be dif pleafed that we have not fent to the prefs any Syriac quotations from the text or notes. That part of the literary world, which is converfant with biblical criticism and the oriental languages, we refer to the work itself, where the test and proof of its merit will be its fubfervience to the interefts of our religion. We fhall defer taking into confideration this moft ufeful and interefting part of the publication till the remainder of the edition appears, when Mr. White proposes to lay before the public, in a more ample manner, his critical disquifitions. The theological student who is curious to have a general knowlege of the fubject, will obtain the information he defires by confulting our author's excellent preface, or the elaborate Differtations of Ridley and Storr.

The Philoxenian Verfion has exercifed in a remarkable manper the industry and perfeverance of the feveral critics through whofe hands it has paffed. The undeviating rigour with which Polycarp adhered to the letter of his Greek text, evinces no

This is a mistake: it thould have been " tertium volumen, &c."

fmall

fmall degree of ftudy and attention. Thomas of Heraclea was the faithful, methodical, and indefatigable collator throughout. In Dionyfius Barfalibæus we fee the industrious collector, the zealous restorer and preferver of the few copies of this Verfion that remained, after it had lain in obscurity for fome centu ries. Dr. Ridley spent many years of the latter part of his life in preparing it for the public eye; but found them too few, and himself too much oppreffed with the infirmities of old age, to go through with his undertaking. The present learned tranflator and editor does not appear to have been exempt from the difficulties which his predeceffors encountered; and we are forry to find, from a paffage in his preface, that want of health was added to the number. Heracleenfis has fubjoined a Syriac note at the end of his MS. which feems applicable, severally, to the learned men we have enumerated, and of which the following is the Latin translation : • Quanta autem opera et cura fuerit mihi in illo evangeliftarum libro, et fociis ejus, actibus nimirum apoftolicis et epiftolis, Dominus folus novit, qui, &c.'

The hiftory and attendant circumftances of this Verfion are curious and uncommon: its merit and value appear to be very confiderable. The prefent edition reflects no less credit on the univerfity under whofe aufpices it is published, than on the abilities of the profeffor by whom it is executed.

A Differtation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eaftern Nations. Originally prefixed to a Dictionary, Perfian, Arabic, and English. The Second Edition. The Second Edition. To which is added, Part II. containing Additional Obfervations. Together with further Remarks on A New Analysis of Ancient Mythology: in Answer to An Apology, addressed to the Author, by Jacob Bryant, Esq. By John Richardfon, Efq. F. S. A. 8vo. 71. bound. Murray. [Continued from vol. xlvi. p, 438.]

ON

N a former occafion we took notice of fome of the principal topics of debate between this ingenious author, and the learned Mr. Bryant. In fetting forth the advantages of the Perfian and Arabic languages, Mr. Richardson observes, that they may be highly useful in throwing light upon the obscure researches into remote antiquity. He obferves that even Mr. Bryant, who affects to defpife the aid of these languages in his mythological inquiries, might have derived from them the most powerful affiftance; and that it is much to be regretted this able and respectable writer has employed fo much learned ingenuity in endeavouring to establish a system, of which the

G4

ground

ground-work is deftroyed by the flighteft acquaintance with the genius of oriental tongues. It will appear, perhaps, to many of our readers that the extracts which we have already given from Mr. Richardfon's work, fufficiently juftify this affertion. The extracts, which it remains to give, will feem, perhaps, to confirm it. At any rate an inquiry into the foundation of Mr. Bryant's Analyfis, feems by no means foreign to the defign of a differtation on the languages, literature, and manners of the Eaft. It would feem, therefore, that this gentleman fpeaks rather in the perfon of one who defends a fyftem that has been attacked, than with the natural candour of his own character, in his Addrefs to Mr. Richardfon *. • You have certainly gone out of your way, and made an unneceffary attack? in which your zeal has carried you much beyond the mark. The work, which I ventured to produce to the world, was the confequence of much ftudy and great labour. This you have tried to ruin. Yet I have reafon to think you never read it through: and thofe parts which have come under your cognizance have been. but partially noticed, and little uuderflood.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. Bryant takes notice that in our progrefs to obtain the knowlege of ancient mythology, we must have recourse to the writers of Greece. It is in vain to talk of the Perfian and Arabic literature of modern date.' At the fame time that he difputes the utility of this literature, he acknowleges himself torally ignorant of it, as well as of the languages in which it is contained. Upon which Mr. Richardfon makes what appeals to us a very pertinent obfervation, that there appears an impropriety in a perfon's condemning what he does not underftand,' This, Mr. Bryant obferves, addreffing his antagonift, leads me to a quere, which I forgot to make' (he probably means in the former part of his Apology) and which with your permiflion I will mention now. You apply very familiarly to various Grecian authors; and give your opinion about them, as if they were your intimate acquaintance. But be pleased, my good fir, to tell me ingenuously, did you ever read five lines in any of them: or are you at all acquainted with the language in which they wrote. I am fenfible that you fpeak with great ease of Strabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch; and you treat the more remote hiftorians, fuch as Berofus, Abydenus, Sanchoniathon, as if you had perfonally known them. But familiarity does not prove acquaintance. It is a common thing for people to pretend to a correfpondence with perfons of the firft rank, and to claim an intimacy, where they are

See Bryant's Apology, p. 81.

entire ftrangers.' The learned author then illuftrates Mr. Richardfon's pretended acquaintance with Greek writers, by a ftory of a noted empiric, who bowed, kiffed his hand, pulled off his hat, nodded, and fmiled to every carriage with a coronet, that paffed his circle of ragged admirers *. The author's story, doubtless, is humourous; but we are not sensible how this humour can be converted into ridicule against Mr. Ri chardfon. It would be neceffary firft to prove the ignorance of that gentleman in Greek, which is taken for granted; although Mr. Bryant thanks him for defending his Analyfis against the authors of the Bibliotheca Critica of Amfterdam, who had attacked that work upon philological principles; and although Mr. Richardfon could not have wrote that defence, nor even have understood the argument of the Dutch critics, without a knowlege of Greek t.

Mr. Bryant accufes his adverfary of equal ignorance of language and of logic. In proof of this he cites the following paffage from Mr. Richardfon's Differtation: As if truth wanted the aid of fiction, innumerable have been the attempts of the learned to establish by forced and unnatural conftructions a conformity between the early hiftory of the Hebrews, and the later fables of Greece, Egypt, and other ancient nations. From the fragments of Berofus, Abydenus, Sanchoniathon, Manetho, and other remote fablers, any thing, and every thing, may be drawn, which a lively imagination can fuggeft. But the working up fuch ftrange materials into any circumftance defcriptive of Noah's deluge, fhews a warmth of fancy highly prepared for the reception of every thing marvellous; whilft giving them all their utmost force, they prove at last precifely nothing. Ingenious men, if refolved to apply to profane materials in fupport of fcripture, (the deluge is the point in queftion) ought to go to mountainous districts, and to countries far removed from the poffibility of natural inundations. They ought to confider Hindoftan, and other quarters of the world, where they pofitively refuse to believe this, important era. Teftimonies from fuch regions would be far more conclufive than hundreds of volumes from Egypt and Chaldea.' Mr. Richardfon obferves in another paffage that bringing proofs of an univerfal deluge from places annually overflowed by water, is like bringing proof of a general deftruction of the world by fire from the neighbourhood of Mount Etna or Mount Vefuvius. We fhall infert the learned Mr. Bryant's remarks on these paffages in his own words.

*See the Apology, p. 93.

See Apology, p. 88, and Richardfon's Differtation, p. 287.

• This

:

This is decifive work; and doing business to some purpose: yet I do not quite fee the force of the argument. As to going to Hindoftan, and to the other parts, which are mentioned; I cannot agree to it, and muft beg to be excufed: for it is a great deal too far. Indeed why should I take fuch a journey; when he confeffes, there is no intelligence to be had, when I get there. I am fent in queft of Pagan materials; and it does not appear, that there is a fhred or atom to be obtained. Ingenious men are particularly fpecified: but as to ingenuity I fhould think it quite fuperfluous. The dulleft emiffary, that ever was employed, would be too good upon fuch an expedition: for whatever pittance he carried out, he would bring just so much home, and no more. But, as I faid before, I do not perceive the force of this argument, which is founded upon the difbelief of the Afiatics. There is towards the moft fouthern point of Africa an high eminence, called the Table Mountain and in Ceylon a high hill in the province of Conde Uda. If we were to ask a Caffre or a Cingalefe of these parts about an univerfal deluge, they would probably, as the author ingeniously expreffes it, refufe to believe this important era: that is, in other words, they would be found to know nothing of the matter. This would undoubtedly be the cafe: yet I do not know how to think, that fuch diffent is quite fufficient to fet afide any event, with which others may be better acquainted. We will grant, that the people in Hindoftan do not believe this event. The reafon is because they have no precife and authentic traditions about it: and the author mentions other people in the fame fituation. And he thinks this disbelief fo cogent and convincing, that he would have ingenious men go to thefe countries for information. He looks upon this difbelief, when repeated, as a pofitive proof: and files it, in the plural, teftimonies. Such teftimonies, fays he, that is (what may at firft appear a little ftrange) teftimony without any evidence; or (if I might be allowed fo to explain the term) fuch ignorance, would be far more conclufive than hundreds of volumes from Egypt and Chaldea. Many will think, that this is rating difbelief too high. Indeed, the author feems to fhew the fame veneration for ignorance, as the Turks do for folly: who never fee an ideot, but they think him infpired.

• The mode of reafoning above is curious, but not new. The celebrated Mr. Hume in his elaborate difcourfe against miracles, follows it throughout and his fyftem is built upon it. In refpect to paft facts upon record, he makes our not experiencing any thing analogous, either one way or the other, the fame as our experiencing the direct contrary and he enhances, what is a mere negative to pofitive knowledge. He affures us, that this argument will be of fervice as long as the world endures: and moreover that it is all his own. The latter part of his af fertion I will not pretend to difpute: nor do I know of any body that would rob him of the honour. As to any utility, I confefs, that I cannot perceive it. And though I am fenfible,

that

« AnteriorContinuar »