: of rendering proper names; seem highly probable: or, perhaps, it was pronounced Jamem originally, and in the days of the LXX.; and afterwards, or until the Jewish Targumists had settled that it was in the plural number. And the LXX. seem, as already observed, to have wished to retain the original word, and, perhaps, its pronunciation as nearly as the Greek manner would allow; as the change made is very small indeed. Dr. Geddes observes, that the Targumists render mules,' and also the Persic; and that the Sept. and other three Greek translators retained the Hebrew word, though it was difficult to say whether they followed the Hebrew or Samaritan lection. And in the copies of the Sept. he found it in all the following varieties— αίμην, ἀμην, αἰαμην, ἐαμιν, ἐαμειν, ἰαμειν, ἰαμιν, ἰαμην. One MS. only has ἰαμειμ; and Jeron read Jamim and this I take to be the original reading." Crit. Rem. on. Heb. S.S. But the Dr. has omitted to collate the article, which might have thrown some light upon the subject. He renders hot-baths. May not these different readings have been produced in copying even from a MS. written according to the present reading, apa, which seems to be correct? For taking it for granted that the rendering of the word is there distinguished from that of its prefix, and that the jod was, as in that of apy, rendered by the LXX.; the change, or transposition, of the first two letters is easily thus accounted for, in the 1st and 3d.; in the 2d. the is omitted; in the 4th and 5th. & might easily occur, and be written for, as there is another in the word: (and this, with the Samaritan reading, may have confirmed the idea to some, that the emims, or giants, were meant ;) the 6th is correct, and so is the 9th, only with a final instead of ", and therefore more like unto the Hebrew original; and the various readings of the remaining letters, as found in the above different. copies, might have happened in transcribing: or, would you conclude, that μny comes nearer to the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, than paw of the present copy of the Septuagint? At any rate the difference is but small; and, therefore, these various readings seem rather to confirm the truth of the original, and to support the etymology above given, than to diminish our belief of either; and particularly so, if the mas. sing. article be constantly present. μειν ε Among the various readings published by Dr. Holmes, I observe those which hereafter follow. I may first notice that, in some, the article is substituted for the pronoun ouros. The Dr. having just mentioned, "euge Tòv inμ.] gignere fecit mulos. Arab. 3.," immediately passes on to the word "'Iausiv]" without paying any. He should have excepted Onkelos. 2 It may be asked, Did the Samaritan text then exist? " . * 66 * attention to the article, whether present or absent, or in what case, gender, or number; and he gives the following various readings, to which the reasoning above applied to those of Dr. Geddes seems equally applicable; "'Iauv, 55. 71.; 'Iaμnv,59. ; Iaμeu, 78.; Jamim, Thir.; 'Eapiv, 19.76. 84. 134. Compl. Copt.; 'Eauen, 15. 130." &c.; and "Aiuv, 30.; 'Auny, 72.; Αἰαμην, 106.; Αἰαμιν, cum super a initialem (quasi α ἰαμιν, Aquila scil. versionem, induxerit ex margine in textum Librarius), 75." But may not this alpha be as the rendering of the, for so it seems above expressed by De Rossi, and in a quotation from Hieron. by Michaelis (Sup. ad Lex. Heb.)? And so probably 30 and 106. Dr. Holmes proceeds: "fontem Arab. 1. 2. Ita Syrus, teste Theodoret. 1. c. The learned Poole, in his Synopsis, having disapproved of the renderings seas, waters, and warm-waters, says, "Alii vocem Hebræam Græce exprimunt, 'Iausi, ut quam aliter reddi posse desperaverint: ità ó Aq. Sym. et Th. in Boch. Hier. 242. 30." &c. And, " Alii mulos vertunt:" and quotes a most numerous and respectable list of authorities for this last opinion. Many interpreters finding, in the present text, as written according to the masoretic punctuation, a new word (nomen inauditum, says J. Clericus), and not being satisfied with the meaning given to it by the more early translators, have considered it rather as the same as that found in Deut. ii. 10. DONT, ha-emim, and rendered the Emims; a gigantic people who inhabited the land of Moab before the Moabites dwelt there. And they are confirmed. in their opinion by Onkelos, the first Targumist, who renders , gigantes; by which name, they think, he understands the Emims; and still farther, by the reading of the Samaritan text, which is DN, ha-emim-See J. Clericus, Vol. 1. But the two words found in the text above mentioned, and the Samaritan just quoted, are very different, being all distinct words. That the word in Deuteronomy means the people called Emims, as explained by the context, is generally allowed. And, that of the present text, is a different word, and a proper name, are believed by the greater number of translators. But should the Samaritan text be considered as the true original Hebrew reading, may we not rather consider it as still further illustrative of the sense of mule or mules above mentioned, which is supported by the LXX. and by far the greater number of interpreters; than to adopt a new meaning founded on a conjecture, which neither the context nor the structure of the word will bear. Now, in this last reading, an aleph and a second jod exist, in addition to the letters found Rather for the reasons above assigned, or to retain a proper name, and probably as pronounced in their time. : in D, and rendered in the singular number by the LXX. and considering, with the second jod inserted, as plural, and signifying mules; and the N, as signifying the first, the beginning, or first-born: NT would then signify, according to the foregoing etymology, that this mule which was found by Anah, and which, no doubt, had the most particular features of its mother, (for its father they probably knew not at that time,) was the first ever produced, or, the first-born of mules, ròv 'Iaμsiv of the Septuagint, or the mule. But though this reading, thus explained, seems highly significant, I would still conclude, that D, as now found in the text, is the proper original word; and that, without the second jod, which may have been added afterwards, as above mentioned: that, though it has the termination of a masculine plural, it ought to be considered as a noun singular, and of the masculine gender, according to the LXX.; and that, therefore, it should be rendered the mule, taking it for granted, that this was the original name of that found by Anah in the wilderness, though it be no-where else found in this sense. Indeed, it seems probable, that this name was given as descriptive of the origin of this illegitimate offspring; and that this passage of Scripture was inserted, in the first place, to show this origin, and among what people it was first found; and 2dly. as being connected with the fulfilment of a particular prophecy of the Old Testament, which I purpose hereafter to point out. For it has been particularly observed by expositors, that though mules are frequently spoke of afterwards in Scripture, namely, from the days of David and Absalom, another Hebrew word is constantly used, viz., pered, or its feminine, pirdah, or their regularly formed plurals. The only exception to which is in Esther, viii. 10. 14. where a different animal is probably intended. And the name may have been so used for the reason already given, namely, as descriptive of this kind of animal, or of the species; which, with the most striking appearance of the ass, is a spurious breed, divided or separated from the genuine breed of asses; as the root T, parad, (from which pered, a mule, comes) signifies separare, dividi, vel dividere se vid. pag. et Rechenb. Lex. And Pagninus observes on TE, mulus, &c. A separando denominatur, quia nascitur ex separatione animalium quæ sunt unius generis. But may not the name be rather given to the mules themselves as a stigma applied to their kind; or, as being creatures separated from the other animals, and particularly from the ass, whose chief likeness they bear; without particular reference to their parents, though their origin will naturally come in mind. To conclude, if you consider the rendering of the Septuagint to be correct, then the English version of it, according to the above explanation, would be- This is Ana, who found the Jamein (or, the mule,) in the wilderness," &c. And the rendering of the Hebrew, as thus explained by the LXX. "This (is that) Anah, who found the mule in the wilderness," &c. differing only from the English translators in rendering D as a singular, instead of a plural, noun. Your correspondent, J. H. M. S. will find, that the quotation. in Brotier's note is from the Vulgate. "Iste est Ana, qui invenit aquas calidas, &c.; for what reason this interpreter could render warm waters," can scarcely be imagined. Munster observes, "Hallucinatus est in hâc dictione interpres noster, qui vertit aquas calidas, legens scilicet D," &c. Crit. Sacr. By thus understanding the Hebrew, it may be accounted for why he rendered waters; but why warm waters, authors are at a loss to say. Fagius observes, "Sed quòd adjecit calidas, nulla planè ex ipso textu apparet causa," ib. The reading of Tremellius, " qui invenit mulos," agrees with the English, and other translations; though reasons have been above assigned why his note seems not to accord with the meaning of the original, and why it may be preferable to read mulum instead of mulos. The subject may probably be further illustrated by other various readings of the Latin, and other translators; but fearing I have already tried your patience too much, and expecting to see the subject treated by a more able hand, I remain, Sir, Your's, &c. M. S. M. SPECIMENS OF PERSIAN POETRY. ليت شعري ليت شعرب AL MOHALEBBEE. SIR, TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. NO I. To attempt to define the laws of Persian, Arabic, or Turkish poetry, after the unwearied labors of Sir William Jones, and especially in such a compass as the present, were needless, and See CLASSICAL JOURNAL, NO. VII. p. 125. would partake of a greater degree of folly than utility. Suffice it here to endeavor to point out the beauties, the energetic language, and the apt allusions, with which the Persian poets abound; the wild strain, which pervades their writings; how a poet will hurry from "ruby-colored wine," to his mistress, how he will forsake his mistress for morality, how he will once more exchange morality for the pleasures of life, and the exhilarating goblet: and how fanatics will symbolise the most bacchanalian ode into enthusiastic visions, and sublimate a mistress into a type of divine love. Not one hundredth part of the ghazals in this language have received an European version: not one quarter of the works: but as so many of the most admired still remain untranslated in the oriental collections, I first propose to translate the whole, and then to add specimens from MSS. in my possession, which I shall regularly transmit to your Journal, as being the most useful repertory of miscellaneous literature. In these specimens I shall adduce no oriental language but the Persian, as I intend to give examples of the others in another way; and these I shall occasionally contrast with some of our European poets. The Persian is a most soft, elegant, and copious language, as capable of the sublime, as it is of the pathetic, as richly polished as the Latin, as determinate and highly finished as the Greek, as capable of being the channel of history, science, or poetry, as either. Its use is undeniable, to the person whose connections require an intercourse with India and the East, and to the student, who employs his hours in the advancement of useful knowledge: it lends a polish to the Turkish, it gives grace to the Hindoostanee, and bestows elegance, harmony, and propriety on the Malayoō. It incorporates into itself a number of Arabic words and sentences, and often adopts the Arabic forms, so that it is absolutely and necessarily impossible, that any person can be master of this most rich and polished language, who is not also. versed in the Arabic: it retains a number of terms from the more ancient language of the country, which it possesses in common with the Sanskrita, as the former was, in the opinion of those who have investigated the point, a dialect of the latter, which also accounts for its possessing so many in common with the Latin and the Greek. Etymological pursuits are for the most part, vague, fanciful, and chimerical, for want of proof to support them; there is scarcely a tongue in Europe which has not several terms in common with the Persian, and perhaps not one in the earth which cannot find some of its terms in some other; but to prove, whence arose this similarity-hic labor-hoc opus est: yet with respect to those, which the Persian has in common with the Latin, and which can also be found in the Sanskrita, the connection is not merely probable, but certain. A variety of things in the classic page are capable of receiving elucidation from the East, and the study of eastern literature, although it be neglected, is an essential point in a liberal education: and surely to a reflecting mind it must appear strange that any two people should engross almost the whole of our attention, when so many others, even if their writings cannot be put in competition with those of the venerable authors of Greece and Rome, at least deserve some portion of our study. The objections |