Billeder på siden

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

Mr. White has published at the end of the second volume, a description of three ancient copies of the Philoxenian Version, communicated to him in a letter from Stephen Evodius Arsemanni, titular archbishop of Apamea, sub-librarian of the Vatican at Rome, and nephew of the great Allemanni, 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 description of them gives us a short specimen of that industry and erudition which he has displayed 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 second edition more complete.

The generality of our readers, we imagine, will not be difpleased that we have not sent to the press any Syriac quotations from the text or notes. That part of the literary world, which is conversant with biblical criticism and the oriental languages, we refer to the work itself, where the test and proof of its merit will be its subfervience to the interests of our religion. We shall defer taking into consideration this most useful and interesting 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 subject, will obtain the information he desires by consulting our author's excellent preface, or the elaborare Dissertations of Ridley and Storr.

The Philoxenian Version has exercised in a remarkable manner the industry and perseverance of the several critics through whose hands it has passed. 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."


[ocr errors]

knall degree of study and attention. Thomas of Heraclea was the faithful, methodical, and indefatigable collator throughout. In Dionysius Barfalibæus we see the industrious collector, the zealous restorer and preserver of the few copies of this Version that remained, after it had lain in obscurity for some centuries. 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 opprefed with the infirmities of old age, to go through with his undertaking. The present learned translator and editor does not appear to have been exempt from the difficulties which his predecessors encountered; and we are sorry to find, from a passage in his preface, that want of health was added to the number. Heracleensis has subjoined a Syriac note at the end of his MS. which seems applicable, severally, to the learned men we have enu. merated, and of which the following is the Latin translation :

Quanta autem opera et cura fuerit mihi in illo evangelistarum libro, et sociis ejus, actibus nimirum apostolicis et epiftolis, Dominus folus novit, qui, &c.

The history and attendant circumstances of this Version are curious and uncommon : its merit and value appear to be very considerable. The present edition reflects no less credit 'on the university under whose auspices it is published, than on the abilities of the professor by whom it is executed.

A Differtation' on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eastern

Nations. Originally prefixed to a Dictionary, Persian, Arabic, and English. The Second Edition. To which is added, Part II. containing Additional Observations. 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 Richardson, Esq. F. S. A. 8vo. 71. bound. Murray.

(Continued from vol. xlvi. P, 438.] ON

N a former occasion we took notice of some of the princi

pai topics of debate between this ingenious author, and the learned Mr. Bryant. In setting forth the advantages of the Persian and Arabic languages, Mr. Richardson obferves, that they may be highly useful in throwing light upon the obscure researches into remote antiquity. He observes that even Mr. Bryant, who affects to despise the aid of these languages in his mythological inquiries, might have derived from them the most powerful assistance ; and that it is much to be regretted this able and respectable writer has employed so much learned ingenuiry in endeavouring to establish a system, of which the



ground-work is destroyed by the lightest 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. Richardson's work, fufficiently justify this afsertion. 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 Analysis, seems by no means foreign to the design of a differtation on the languages, literature, and manners of the East. It would feem, therefore, that this gentleman speaks rather in the person of one who defends a fyftem that has been attacked, than with the natural candour of his own character, in his Address to Mr. Richardson * • You have ceriainly gone out of your way, and made an un. necefl'ary attack? in which your zeal has carried you much beyond the mark The work, which I ventured to produce to the world, was the consequence of much study and great labour. This you have tried to ruin. Yet I have reason to think you never read it through : and those parts which have come under your cognizance have been but partially noticed, and little uuderflood.'

Mr. Bryant takes notice that in our progress to obtain the knowlege of ancient mythology, we must have recourse to the writers of Greece. It is in vain to talk of the Persian and Arabic literature of modern date,' At the same time that he disputes the utility of this literature," he acknowleges himself to ally ignorant of it, as well as of the languages in which it is contained. Upon which Mr. Richardson makes what ap: pears to us a very pertinent observation, • that there appears an impr.priety in a person's condemning what he does not understand.' This, Mr. Bryant obferves, addressing his antagonift, leads ne 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 bt pleased, my good fir, to tell me ingenuoully, 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 sensible that you speak with great ease of Strabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch; and you treat the more remote historians, such as Berosus, Abydenus, Sanchoniathon, as if you had personally known them. But familiarity does not prove acquaintance. It is a common thing for people to pretend to a correspondence with persons of the first rank, and to claim an intimacy, where they are

* See Bryant's Apology, p. 81.

entire strangers.' The learned author then illustrates Mr. Richardson's pretended acquaintance with Greek writers, by a ftory of a noted empiric, who bowed, killed his hand, pulled off his hat, nodded, and smiled to every carriage with a coronet, that passed his circle of ragged admirers * The au. thor's story, doubtless, is humourous; but we are not sensible how this humour can be converted into ridicule against Mr. Rie chardfon. It would be neceíTary first to prove the ignorance of that gentleman in Greek, which is taken for granted; although Mr. Bryant thanks him for defending his Analysis against the authors of the Bibiiotheca Critica of Amsterdam, who had attacked that work upon philological principles; and although Mr. Richardson could not have wrote that defence, nor even have understood the argument of the Dutch critics, without a knowlege of Greek t.

Mr. Bryant accuses his adversary of equal ignorance of language and of logic. In proof of this he cites the following passage from Mr. Richardson's Differtation : “ As if truth want. ed the aid of fiction, innumerable have been the attempts of the learned to establish by forced and unnatural constructions à conformity between the early history 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 suggest. But the working up such strange materials into any circumstance descriptive of Noah's deluge, shews a warmth of fancy highly prepared for the reception of every thing marvellous ; whilst giving them all their utmost force, they prove at last precisely nothing. Ingenious men, if refolved to apply to profane materials in support of fcripture, (the deluge is the point in question) ought to go to mountainous districts, and to countries far removed from the possibility of natural inun. dations. They ought to consider Hindoftan, and other quarters of the world, where they positively refuse to believe this important era. Testimonies from such regions would be far more conclusive than hundreds of volumes from Egypt and Chaldea. Mr. Richardson observes in another passage that bringing proofs of an universal deluge from places annually overflowed by water, is like bringing proof of a general destruction of the world by fire from the neighbourhood of Mount Ætna or Mount Vesuvius. We shall insert the learned Mr. Bryant's remarks on these pafiages in his own words.

* See the Apology, p. 93., of See Apology, p. 88, and Richardson's Dissertation, p. 287.

• This

« This is decisive work ; and doing business to some purpose : yet I do not quite see the force of the argument. As to going to Hindoftan, and to the other parts, which are mentioned; I cannot agree to it, and must beg to be cxcused : for it is a great deal too far. Indeed why hould I take such a journey ; when he confesses, there is no intelligence to be had, when I get there. I am sent in quest of Pagan materials ; and it does not appear, that there is a shred or atom to be obtained. Ingenious men are particularly specified: but as to ingenuity I should think it quite fuperfluous. The dullest emiffary, that ever was employed, would be too good upon such an expedition : for whatever pittance he carried out, he would bring just so much home, and no more. But, as I said before, I do not perceive the force of this argument, which is founded upon the disbelief of the Asiatics. There is towards the most southern 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 Cingalese of these parts about an universal deluge, they would probably, as the author ingeniously expresses it, refuse 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 case: yet I do not know how to think, that such diffent is quite sufficient to set aside any event, with which others may be better acquainted. We will grant, that the people in Hindoftan do not believe this event. The reason is because they have no precise and authentic traditions about it: and the author mentions other people in the same fituation. And he thinks this disbelief so cogent and convincing, that he would have ingenious men go to these countries for information. He looks upon this disbelief, when repeated, as a positive proof: and ftiles it, in the plural, testimonies. Such teftimonies, says he, that is (what may at first appear a little strange) testimony without any evidence; or (if I might be allowed so to explain the term) such ignorance, would be far more conclusive than hundreds of volumes from Egypt and Chaldea. Many will think, that this is rating disbelief too high. Indeed, the author seems to thew the same veneration for ignorance, as the Turks do for folly ; who never see an ideot, but they think him inspired.

• The mode of reasoning above is curious, but not new. The celebrated Mr. Hume in his elaborate discourse against miracles, follows it throughout : and his system is built upon it. In respect to past 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 positive knowledge. He assures us, that this argument will be of service as long as the world endures : and moreover that it is all his own. The latter part of his afsertion I will not pretend to dispute : nor do I know of any body that would rob him of the honour. As to any utility, I confess, that I cannot perceive it. And though I am sensible,


« ForrigeFortsæt »