42,360;" and yet," says Dr. Kennicott," the real sum total, at present, of the largest of the three sets of numbers is less than 42,360 by 8400."

These general remarks on the different modes of notation used by the Jews, on the various causes which might have led to error and misrepresentation, without the least wilful intention to alter or deprave the Holy Scriptures, may serve, at least, to remove the objections of serious, well-disposed persons, with respect to the very extraordinary magnitude of some numbers in the inspired writings, and their discrepancy with respect to others, that are used on the same occasions. Similar causes have produced similar errors in ALL ancient books; and, in reprinting modern works, mistakes with respect to numbers are most frequent, and seem unavoidable.

When we consider the great antiquity of the Hebrew Scriptures, the different ages in which they were written, the times through which they passed, the great number of copies that have been made from them by Scribes of the Jewish nation in different ages, under persecutions and privations, by no means favorable to literary accuracy, we may consider it as a signal blessing of Divine Providence, that the Holy Bible should have reached us in such purity and integrity as we now find it; that there should be no various readings, that can affect any essential article of faith, or practice; nor any thing that can detract from the general credibility of its narratives: but that all the principal discrepancies arising from arbitrary and variable signs, not well understood, from partial obliterations of some copies, perhaps, or, lastly, from unavoidable ignorance and misapprehension, should relate only to NAMES OF PERSONS and PLACES, and mere NUMBERS.

H.

HESYCHIUS VINDICATED.

Ήπαρ, says Hesychius, ἔξω τοῦ σπλάγχνου, ἡ βαθύγειος γῆ. Martin. here observes-" Profundum solum, simile hepati succum habenti multum et dividenti per corpus; aut respiciendum ad pos" and Kuster observes" Videtur referendum ad gos, quod Hesychius hic cum ag confuderit." The following quotation from the Thesaurus Lingua Grace of H. Stephens is sufficient to vindicate Hesychius : " Agroetas apud Apollonii Schol. dicit ήπαρ, sicut et οὗτας, παρὰ πολλοῖς dici τὴν εὔκαρπον γῆν, terram frugiferam; per allegoricum illud, Promethei jecur ab aquila laniari, declarari dicens, optimam regionem Promethei ab Aeto fluvio vastari."

Trin. Coll. Camb. July 1. 1812.

E. H. BARKER.

ON THE TYRIAN INSCRIPTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

I feel myself much obliged to your correspondent ED. CALM, for his interpretation of the Tyrian Inscription, of which I gave some account in your Ninth Number. He will allow me, however, to make a few observations on the new readings which he proposes.

1. I do not find that E. C. has given a sufficient reason for setting aside the reading proposed by Barthelemy, and adopted by me, when we add an aleph to 3. The arguments, which I submitted to you on this subject, are not answered by your learned correspondent; he must, therefore, allow me to consider them in the mean time, at least, as valid.

2. E. C. reads the doubtful letter, of which I have said so much, as a mem in one place, and as a shin in all the other instances of its Occurrence. I think he will see, on further reflection, that he must make his choice between the two. The same letter (for the form is still the same) cannot have the power both of m and of sh.

3. E. C. reads the last letter of the first line as a daleth. I am still inclined to think with Barthelemy, Swinton, and Bayer, that it is a resh. Let its form be accurately examined, and compared with that of the resh in other parts of the Inscription.

,יתברך באלהי אמן - in the 65th chapter of Isaiah

4. TTN-constantly, or firmly beloved. I have, I confess, some difficulties about this new reading. was used, undoubtedly, in Hebrew, as a particle of affirmation, assent, &c. It repeatedly recurs as such in the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy, and seems to amount in signification to, "be it so,"" this is true,' -or some such expression. But I know of no example in Hebrew, which, I think, could strictly justify the phrase. In the Syro-Chaldaic, however, E. C. may find some authority for his reading. The word O occurs once as a substantive noun in the O. T. The passage is "shall bless himself in the God of truth." This version is strictly accurate, for is evidently in regimen; and therefore this translation is to be preferred to that of the LXX, who take adjectively λonσóvo γὰρ τὸν θεὸν τὸν αλήθινον. Now the Syriac translator renders these same "shall bless himself truly in God." The Syriac, indeed, has the verb in the Part. Ethp., while in the Hebrew it is in the Fut. Ithp.; and can only be translated and/ adverbially. In Syro-Chaldaic the word was probably thus written; and it is certainly used adverbially in the N. T. Thus in St. Matthew, 'Aμrv λéyw iμiv, &c. It appears, then, that amen gradually became more extended in its use and signification. But though I have said as much as I can in favor of the hypothesis of E. C. I am yet doubtful whether be consistent with the idiom of the Hebrew, or the Syriac, or the Chaldaic. I have likewise to observe, that 77, which

E. C. of course reads for TT, ought to be, (to serve his purpose) a participle. I believe, however, that he will find no example of the occurrence of TT, or 77, from which it can be inferred that it is ever used but as a substantive noun. recurs very frequently-" my love," or, "amica mea," as Jerome has it. But if be always used as a substantive noun, the difficulty, with respect to the reading proposed, becomes yet greater.

דודי In the Song of Solomon

5. The next remark, which I have to make, relates to the parti cle, which E. C. translates "otherwise. I recollect only one example, by which this interpretation can be sanctioned by the English version of the O. T.-T") -- "Otherwise it shall come to pass." (1 Kings, i. 21.) Now upon this single, and, I must add, dubious example, (for it is not authorised either by the Septuagint or by the Vulgate,) E. C. can hardly expect us to translate the in our Phoenician Inscription" otherwise," when ten thousand examples prove that the common meaning of this conjunctive particle was simply "and."

שמר שן .6

---

"preserved a second time." In order to suit the sense, which E. C. would give to the Inscription, the verb ought to be in the part. pret. Kal -Dw. It is true, that the vau is sometimes, though rarely, omitted.

7. ON " Benassur, safely preserved, son of Obedassur." E. C. connects these words with the preceding part of the sentence, by supposing the intervention of the conjunctive particle “with,” which, however, is not to be found in the original. I would suggest to E. C. that the use which he makes of the part. pret. Kal does not seem to be quite authorised; and his nominatives absolute are likewise rather unusual.

8. obp you" who equally heard their cries." I suppose, that E. C. translates the particle of similitude, by the word " equally." I do not recollect any authority for this. But where does he get the relative pronoun "who?" cannot be translated "their cries:" it signifies, "their voice." If the inscriber had intended to write "their cries," or rather "their voices," we should have had on. " and blessed them." I can find no conjunctive particle here which may be translated "and." 77 is the third person sing. of the fut. Kal-of the verb 77. How then can it be rendered in the past time?

- יברכם .9

10. In the new readings proposed by E. C. the collocation of the words does not always appear to me to be usual.

Upon the whole, then, I hope E. C. will pardon me, if I recommend it to him to re-consider the Inscription.

W. DRUMMOND.

Logie Almond, July 17. 1812.

CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL Journal.

In order to do justice to the common interpretation of Iliad I. 283. I shall bring into one view the arguments which support it. Professor Porson's version, as given by him in his note to the Orestes, line 663. is this:

"Rogo te ut iram contra Achillem tuam dimittas."

The Professor has not condescended to justify this version; yet my Cambridge opponent calls it an exquisite note. On the contrary I think it unworthy of his great name, as he uses assertion only for proof, and moralises with a lofty confidence on the prejudices of other critics, while he has hurried himself, and his readers, into an error.

1. While xícσoua, it is allowed, generally governs an accusative, a sufficient reason can be assigned why, in this place, it governs a noun in the dative. This verb signifies to beg, request, supplicate; but it does not exclusively imply a superior being for its object. On the other hand, soar and gouas suppose prayer or supplication to the Gods; and these govern the dative case. Now Homer, in this place, has given to xious the government of these verbs, because Nestor wished to impress on Agamemnon, that Achilles was the God, who alone was to protect the ships, and that the same humble supplication was to be presented to disarm his wrath, as the wrath of an offended deity. This is not a mere supposition: for Ulysses, when deputed in the Ninth Book to solicit his return, thus tells him, Eù dλλo05 πὲρ Παναχαιοὺς Τειρομένους ἐλέαιρε κατὰ στρατὸν, οἵ σε, θεὸν ὣς, Τίσουσι, line 301, &c.

2. Nestor could not hope to disarm Achilles of his wrath, unless he first could soften Agamemnon, who was the aggressor, and induce him to join in the supplication. But the king, he knew, had already given his word, that he would not ask him to stay, v. 173. Nestor

The remark in the text leads me to expose an obvious blunder of Lord Monboddo, Origin of Language, vol. ii. p. 158. " Every intelligent reader," says he, "though he do not understand Greek, may perceive, that Nestor uses a very improper argument to persuade Achilles to lay aside his anger, when he mentions that he was the bulwark of the Greeks." But this observation was made not to Achilles, but to Agamemnon. Nestor knew that no consideration was so likely to appease this prince, or to induce him to withdraw his menace, as to impress on his mind the sober conviction, that the hero, whom he threatened to disgrace, was necessary not only to the success, but even to the security, of the Greeks. Accordingly, when in the sequel Agamemnon became sensible that the fleet was to be preserved only by the person and valor of Achilles, his resentment is dissipated; and he sends the most humiliating offers to invite his return. The acknowledgment was made in the hearing of Achilles, and as it was made to the man who had dishonored him, it was calculated in the highest degree to gratify and to appease him. The object of Monboddo is to expose the insuffi ciency of Dr. Clarke, while, in truth, he only exposes his own folly.

VoL. VI. No. XI.

N

meets this objection, and says, Αὐτὰς ἔγωγε λίσσομαι ̓Αχιλλῆ which means, as I have already explained, "Do thou, Atrides, suppress thy own anger; and as thou hast declared that thou wilt not petition Achilles to stay here, I will take this upon myself, and supplicate him to dismiss his rage." Nestor, here using the present for the future tense, actually supplicates Achilles, while he meant that he would do it; and this indirect method of supplicating him would, he knew, be the most effectual way to do it. Moreover, the poet, in a line, put in the mouth of Thersites, thus alludes to the disputed verse, Il. II. 241.

̓Αλλὰ μάλ ̓ οὐκ ̓Αχιλλῆι χόλος φρεσὶν, ἀλλὰ μεθήμων.

This verse, the meaning of which being the following, 'Aya οὐκ ἐστὶ χόλος, ἀλλὰ μέθηκε χόλον, glances at the intercession of Nestor; and insinuates that he had been too successful in appeasing Pelides of his wrath. If Homer, therefore, may be allowed to be his own commentator, he establishes with certainty the common interpre

tation.

3. If Homer intended the sense maintained by my adversaries, he would have written not ἔγωΓΕ λίσσομαι, but ἐγὼ ΣΕ λίσσομαι. Porson has introduced the pronoun into his version; and perspicuity rendered it equally necessary in the original. On this supposition, moreover, it would have been sufficient in the poet to say, λίσσομαι μεθέμεν χόλον. The word 'Axa is not only redundant, but it renders the whole clause equivocal; the context alone being sufficient to make it evident, that Achilles was the object of Agamemnon's anger.

4. Nestor addressing Agamemnon does not say évos, but teòv μévos; and this insertion of the possessive renders his language emphatic, by contrasting it with 'Axa xónov in the ensuing clause. But the new interpretation destroys the contrast, and takes away all propriety from an expression, which would otherwise be very appropriate.

5. According to Porson's construction, éves and xoxo both express the resentment of Agamemnon, and are thus made synonymous, or nearly so. This confounds not only the meaning of two distinct words, but the character of two very different heroes, which Homer ever keeps distinct. Mévos sometimes is used in a good sense, and denotes courage, or strength of mind; and therefore the poet applies it to Atrides, who, though not wise and just, is ever sedate and decorous. On the other hand, xóλos means fury or rage, and perfectly suited the impetuous character of Achilles. The latter noun is never applied to Agamemnon, but when it is intended to distort or exaggerate his passion; and on the contrary, the former never to Achilles, but where it is intended to speak with respect of, or to dignify, his resentment. He resisted the deputies with great firmness, yet with great politeness and dignity. Accordingly, Ajax, on his return, says to Atrides, Κεῖνος γ ̓ οὐκ ἐθέλει σβέσσαι χόλον, ἀλλ ̓ ἔτι μᾶλλον Πιμπλώνεται μένεος, 11. Ιx. 678.

This remark my Cambridge opponent endeavours to set aside, by the following criticism: "By μs the poet means, the rage which he showed on the spot; but xixos must be considered equivalent to simultas. Χόλος. ὀργῆς ἐπιμόνη, says Hesychius. Παύειν μένος, and