Abbildungen der Seite

Again in 1. 2. El. 11.

At tibi dura seges Nemesin qui abducis ab urbe,

Persolvat nulla semina terra fide, a passage, cited by A. Schottus in his Nodi Ciceroniani L. I. c. 8. p. 286., who has the following note upon it: “ Repono que abducis, sensu plano; moleste enim fert poeta ruri degere Nemesin, domoque abesse ; sterilitatem etiam agro imprecatur.” Silius Italicus


in his 13th bk.

Multa solo virtus jam reddere semen aratris, where Dausqueius observes : « Ager Siculus reddere semen dicitur, quasi creditum reposcatur: Modius ingeniose, non necessario fænus reponit : scio eleganter id verbi usitatum Plinio L. 5. c. 4. [Fertilitatis erimie, cum centesima fruge agricolis fanus reddente terra] : quid tum ? et altero usus est Martialis,

Non reddet sterilis semina jaeta seges.”
Manilius, L. V. v. 274. says,

Seminaque in foenus sulcatis reddere terris,
Usuramque sequi mujori sorte receptis

Frugibus innumeris, atque horrea quærere messi? L. Carrio in his Antiq. Lect. Comment. Antv. 1576. p. 87. reads here properly majorem.

I embrace the present occasion of directing the attention of scholars to the emendation of a passage in Pliny's Natural History, founded upon manuscript authority, which is cited, agreeably to the common, and the Bipontine reading, in my edition of these two tracts, p. XLIII. : the emendation, which seems to have escaped the research of editors, is to be found in Junius's most elegant, amusing, sensible, and erudite. treatise De Pictura Veterum, bk. 2. c. 4. p. 57. Ed. Roterodami 1694.: « Quam severe caverint olim Romani, ne scientia rei rusticæ desidia atque incuria tolleretur, docet A. Gellius Noctt. Att. L. 4. c. 12. Si quis agrum suum passus fuerat sordescere, eumque indiligenter curabat, ac neque araverat, neque purgaverat; sive quis arborem suum vineamque habuerat derelictui ; non id sine pæna fuit, sed erat opus censorium, censoresque ararium faciebant: Plinius quoque Nat. Hist. L. 18. c. 3. Agrum male colere, censorium probrum judicabatur, atque (ut refert Cato) quem virum bonum colonum dixissent, anplissime laudasse existimabantur: et rursus L. 19. c. 4. Prisci statim faciebant judicium, nequam esse in domo matrem familias, etenim hæc cura femina dicebatur, ubi indiligens essei hortus : in vetere codice Vossiano notæ optimae lego, Prisci statim faciebant judicium, nequam essent domo matrem familias, et enim hæc cura femine ducebatur, nisi indulgens esset ortus: unde locum hunc ita restituendum suspicor, Prisci statim faciebant judicium, nequam esse in domo matrem familias, (etenim hæc cura femina ducebatur) nisi indulgens esset hortus : quum

enim in prædicto codice, sicuti et in reliquis codd. antiquis, n et u passim confunduntur, atque u habens i suprascriptum poni solet pro nisi, facili quoque lapsu ubi pro nisi crediderim irrepsisse.”

The following important notes of Canter have been entirely overlooked by me :

De Senect. c. 17. In quem illud elogium unicum plurima consentiunt gentes, populi primarium fuisse virum : in hoc elogio pro unicum tribus est vocabulis scribendum, Uno ore cui ; de quo quanquam dubitare quis merito possit, ita tamen hoc me certum redditurum confido, ut nemo jure dubitare possit amplius : etenim altero de Fin. idem Cicero contra Epicurum disputans, ait postremo; si quidem laudationes virorum præclarorum, tam Græcorum, quam Romanorum, inspiciantur, neminem ita laudatum videri posse, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur ; hæc enim sunt ejus verba, post quæ statim hæc sequuntur, Non elogia monumentorum id significant, velut hoc ad portam, Uno ore cui plurima consentiunt gentes, populi primarium fuisse virum : quocirca cum idem utrobique cietur elogium, facile patet, utrum ex altero sit emendandum ; et quoniam carmen hoc esse tradit orator, possent hinc fortasse duo versus hoc modo effici,

Uno ore cui plurimæ consentiunt

.Gentes fuisse virum populi primarium : ceterum an pro cui sit potius quem legendum, viderint alii : hæc vix scripseram, cum prodierunt doctissimæ Caroli Langii in hunc librum annotationes, in quibus conjecturæ nostræ subscribit, et eodem modo atque argumento locum hunc emendat, ut et alios multos : nisi quod unum etiam, cujus nunc venit in mentem, omisit ; quod enim legitur initio disputationis hujus Videtisne ut apud Homerum sæpissime Nestor de virtutibus suis prædicet ? justo prolixiorem habet vocem virtutibus [c. x.] quæ est in viribus mutanda, quemadmodum et Homerus docet, et Gaza vertit: atque hoc ego, quoniam pusillum est, admoniturus non eram, nisi a tanto viro neglectum reperissem.” Nov. Lectt. L. VI. c. 10.

De Amic. c. 11. Quod si rectum statuerimus vel concedere amicis quicquid velint, vel impetrare ab his quicquid velimus, perfecta quidem sapientia simus, si nihil habeat res vitii ; ex his verbis non potest commode elici sensus; non enim tam, cui nihil haberet res vitii, perfecta jure diceremur esse sapientia, quam si perfecta essemus sapientia, nihil jure res vitii haberet : quare sic legenda postrema censeo, Perfecta quidem sapientia si simus, nihil habeat res vitii ; quam lectionem confirmant etiam hæc sequentia sed loquimur de iis amicis, qui ante oculos sunt, quos videmus, &c. quæ quidem superioribus opponuntur : atque hoc illi geminum est, quod primo de Off. dixit, Quoniam autem vivitur, non cum perfectis hominibus, pleneque

[ocr errors]

sapientibus ; sed cùm iis, quibus praclare agitur, si insunt simua lacra virtutis, &c.; utrobique enim usum communem spectandum et secundum eum præcepta danda, recte censet vir sapientiss.” Nov. Lectt. L. VII. C. 14.


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

I observe in No. IX. of your Journul three articles sent by your correspondents, with some singular remarks, endeavouring to refute some of the translations I have given of difticult and contradictory passages, as they stand in the European translations of the Bible, in former numbers of your Journal.

As the articles I have written are intended to silence the objections of the Deists, by proving, so far, that there is no contradiction in the original Hebrew, and having confirmed such translations by references to other parts of scripture where the same words occur, which can have no other signification; how far these gentlemen have succeeded in what they have attempted from the original, let the learned Hebraist determine, when he examines my articles with the hasty conclusions of these writers. It does not appear from any thing they have said, that they have weakened the carise of Deism, by a single objection ; for we shall find that a great part which they have advanced can possibly have no other tendency, than to assist this description of men to create doubts in the minds of well-meaning Christians, concerning the authority and integrity of the sacred original. It is a rule with me, in every article I write for the Journal, or in any answer I give to the articles of others, to elucidate some difficult or controverted part of scripture, which Deists have always brought forward to show, as they term it, the disordered state of the Bible. By these elucidations, I do not mean “conjecture," as your correspondent Dr. G. S. C. says, No. III. p. 641. viz. where every other


. help fails in giving a suitable reading to the text, recourse can alone be had to conjecture, this has been the case with Dr. Kennicott and his supporters. But I mean that such translations should be confirmed by other passages where the same words occur, and which can possibly have no other meaning or application ; and these are the translations which can only be admitted,

I am

[ocr errors]

and depended on with certainty. This gentleman, I think, has . crowded in his article about twenty theological problems for solution ; they are important, and deserve notice; and though he seems a little out of temper with me in some places, yet he appears to write in the spirit of Christianity,

Your correspondent W. N. begins by showing that he is a decided enemy to what I have asserted, viz. the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text of the sacred scriptures. This is one of the most important biblical subjects that can possibly come before the public, for if the scriptures in the original are not now as pure as when they were given to the inspired writer, there would be but little dependence on any thing they contain. It certainly is a dangerous opinion for those to promulgate, who really believe the scriptures to be of divine origin, for in this case they are sapping the foundation of their divinity, and by so doing, they are enabling the Deist to destroy the truths of our holy religion. Nevertheless, though this gentleman has fallen into this error, confident he can have no such wish. He says, “an unprejudiced reader might justly inquire, what peculiar circumstances have preserved the Jewish scriptures in preference to the Christian, from the ordinary casualties of copyists and the corrosions of time. If the assumed fact be resolved into divine interposition, (and what but a continued series of miracles could effect it?) is it supposable that the author of Revelation should exert his almighty power to defend the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets from every mistake; while the gospels and epistles that contained the life and doctrines of the Messiah, of whom Moses spake, and to whom the prophets gave witness, were left to the ravages of time and the carelessness of transcribers, in common with the works of all other ancient writers ?” No. As an article is intended to be sent for insertion in the Journal, which may satisfy him on this subject, I shall for the present only ask, what peculiar circumstances have preserved the writings of Euclid, Homer, and Virgil ; are they not the same now that they were in the time of those writers? there has been no alteration in their works, nor was it possible; because, (as I have observed) the eye of the learned world was upon them in all ages, which would soon have detected any thing of the kind, and ruined the character of the interpolator. On this ground only we are more certain that the present original scriptures are pure and uncorrupted, because a whole nation has been appointed the guardian of the sacred letter from the time it was given to the present day. Is it possible that any reflecting Christian, who believes in the providence of God, can for a moment doubt that he has in his providence, preserved both the Old and the New Testaments, not only “from the ordinary casualties of copyists and the corrosions of time, but also from the univer VOL. VI. No. XI.


[ocr errors]

sal efforts of all the Pagan nations, the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans, who strove with the whole power of their empires to destroy the sacred records ? What but à continued series of miracles could effect it? But when we seriously consider that the Bible is the word of God, who governs the world and the most minute concerns of man by his providence, can we, I ask, for a moment doubt that he, who gave the scripture for a rule of life to man, has preserved it pure to the present day? To suppose the contrary would be to conclude that the Bible is not the word of God, and that he does not govern the world by his providence. Let me again ask, what good can such writers propose to the present generation and to posterity, by inculcating doubts as to the purity of the sacred original.

This gentleman steps forward as the defender of Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and all those who wish to mend the original Hebrew. 1 hope I have as high a respect for the personal character of these writers, as your correspondent, and I hope he will remember that in any thing I say concerning the true interpretation of the

I original scriptures, I know. nothing of persons; personal character has nothing to do here. When subjects brought forward by such writers for alteration in the original are proved to be altogether inconsistent with reason by such alteration, surely we are authorised to declare that Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and others of the same class, as Hebraists, were superficial scholars, mere innovators, altogether unquulified, and but mere pretenders to a critical knowledge of the Hebrew language. This writer says “these are strong expressions, and a writer had need produce something more satisfactory than his own assertion”—Truih, and not victory, has been my pursuit, and ever since I have furnished any articles for the Journal, when I have answered those which have been signed by the name of the writer, I have always deemed it proper to sign my remarks with my own name, for nobody knows an anonymous writer. Though I never mean to answer the questions of such writers in future who do not sign their real name, I shall for the present adduce that kind of proof, which ought to satisfy this gentleman concerning the fallacy of Dr. Kennicott's statements of the necessity of new modelling the Hebrew scriptures.

From the same quarter we are informed that the Hebrew text is defective in Exod. 15. 2. 777'y my strength and my song is the Lord, “ that 07217 being irregular,' should probably be non. Agreeably to the Chaldee, Arabic, and Vulgate versions, the yod is necessary to non, four of the six valuable MSS. agree in reading it so." Well, and suppose a hundred MSS. agreed in reading it thus, are we to make nonsense of the passage on that account? which it evidently would be if this translation were admitted. It must be obvious to the learned that the Hebrew is now the same as it was in the time of the inspired writer, and

« ZurückWeiter »