reduced them to their present form, the contents of the Old Testament very satisfactorily determine. We discover Joshua i. 8. mentioning the D, which he elsewhere particularises as the, and David citing, as a thing well known, a roll manuscript (Ps. xl. 8. ) in which the laws of offerings were specified, by which nothing else could be intended, than the law which we find in the Pentateuch. Similar mention is made of it in the historical books: 2 Kings xxii. 11. (T .Chron 2 (כל הכתוב בתורת יהוה) .10 .Chron. xvi 1 (התורה xvii. 9. (7) 2 Chron. xxxi. 3.; & xxxv. 26. ( ) Nehem. viii. 3, 8, 18.; ix. 3. (). Such arguments as these contain sufficient and intrinsically solid force to establish them: his citation from the fortieth Psalm alone (8. v.) establishes his position, as David's allusion cannot be mistaken. The" MEGILLATH SEPHER" could, in this instance, be a name applicable to no other book, because the context restricts it to this particular division of the sacred records. "na 50 (says Rosenmüller,) volumen libri, h. e. liber, qui oblongis membranis convolvitur, nam, quemadmodum Latinis volumen a volvendo, ita Hebræis a convolvit, et adhuc Judæi non solum in libris, qui vulgata forma plicabilibus foliis constant, sed in Synagogis in oblongis membranis, quæ ex antiquo more super cylindrum seu axem ligneum in orbem circumvolvuntur, legem scriptam habent. Per hoc, autem, libri volumen Davidis tempore, cum hæc scriberet, intelligi aliud non potest, quam Pentateuchus." As Eichhorn well urges, the author of these books must have both lived and written at the time of the delivery of the law a later writer must necessarily have been ignorant of many circumstances connected with it, which long prior to his day would have descended to oblivion. Add to this, as we shall more fully exhibit in the sequel, that these books are quoted in many subsequent parts of scripture, in a great variety of which they are unequivocally referred to Moses. We trace extracts from the Genesis and the Exodus in Psalms civ. cv. cvi. cvii. which, with the preceding observations, amount almost to a positive conclusion; in David's last charge to Solomon, obedience to "the statutes, the commandments, the judgments and testimony of God, AS WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES," is strongly enforced: we may therefore define, without violence, the DD to be the corpus juris Mosaici, which was the standard of religion, and continued IV. ii. pp. 246, 247. § 407. 2 V. ii. p. 250. § 409. to be such with Judah and Benjamin, after the revolt of the ten tribes. 'And," with the exception of these five books, we discover none of the canonical scriptures of the Old Testament, among the descendants of the members of the Israelitish kingdom :" (whereas) "from this time to its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, there was, almost every fifty years, in the kingdom of Judah, a renewal of the law, and a reforin of the worship of God undertaken, according to it." Hence (2 Chron. xvii. 9.) we remark Jehoshaphat commanding the Levites to instruct the people throughout all the cities of Judah from the ID, and (2 Chron. xxiii. 18.) Jehoiada the priest, as well as (2 Chron. xxxi. 3.) Hezekiah arranging, in times of great corruption, the All of which .ככתוב בתורת משה,worship of the Sanctuary 2 wholesome regulations were neutralised by Manasseh's irreligious reign; but, at the expiration of it, we see Josiah proceeding to a fresh reform according to the model (nach der vorschrift) of these books (2 Chron.xxxiv-xxxv.). We find Jeremiah admonishing his contemporaries to observe them, and Daniel (ix. 11.) citing their defection from them, as the cause of the captivity; at the termination of it, the service of God was arranged according to the precepts therein contained ;3-the burnt offerings, the feast of Tabernacles, and of the new moon (Ezra iii. 2. et seqq.) were solemnised, (Nehem. viii. 1, 3, 8, 14, 18.; ix. 3.) The reasons produced in § 410 (dass Esras kann sie nicht abgefasst haben) that Ezra is not the author of the Pentateuch, are not to be answered: but we abstain from entering into the various minutiae of the question, in which he has indulged himself, in §§ 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, and content ourselves with transcribing a note from p. 267.: "Josephus in Antiq. Jud. lii. c. 19. § 9. gives the same explanation of the name Mauons. U signifies in Cophtic WATER, and OTXE to preserve from, or rescue. In the sound of the Egyptian word is only as well imitated as it could be; but means extrahens, not extractus, as we must interpret his name on the authority of Moses himself, (Ex. xxv. 10.) So likewise OYBCPER (Gen. xli. 43.) is artificially imitated in 7728." Gentile historians corroborate the proofs which we extract from the writings themselves; and much has been collected, and yet I V. ii. թ. 251. 252. § 409. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. may be collected from the remains of Sanchoniatho preserved in Eusebius ;-if we had a perfect library of Egyptian and Ethiopic MSS., much more, illustrative of these times, would be discovered. We find the truth of Scriptural allusions in the pages of Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo; and much more shall we ascertain, as we proceed in our acquaintance with Sanscrit literature, the key of all knowledge. Moses admits, in fact, the existence of certain ancient documents, when he makes mention of the SEPHER YASHER, the SEPHER MELACHEMOTH YEHOVAH, and the like; and his intention was, undeniably, to write a true history of the Creation, brought down to his own time. Sacred stones, pillars, altars, and other memorials of primitive events, doubtless, were powerful auxiliaries to his undertaking; but these, without such a compilation, as the historical parts of the , would soon have become the mere commemorators D. G. WAIT. of uncertain tradition. St. John's Coll. Cambridge. NUGE. No. IV. [Continued from No. L. p. 354.] Part of the lines prefixed by D. Heinsius to his books De Contemptu Mortis. Μήτε βίον στυγέοιμι, κακῶν γεννήτορα πάντων, Calmly he look'd on either life, and here In No. X. of the Retrospective Review, p. 220, notes, an anecdote of Edward I. while besieged at Conway, is given from an old chronicle: "Et Rex habuit paucum de vino, quasi vix unam lagenam, et fecit miscere in aqua, et dare omnibus qui cum illo fuerunt; et dixit: In necessitate omnia sunt communia, et omnes habebimus unam diætam donec Deus melius nobis suc currat." Is this a genuine anecdote, or a copy of similar stories in ancient writers? Ib. p. 234. art. on Dr. H. More's Philosophical Poems. Strange sights do struggle in my restless thought, Walk in my boundless mind This is perhaps the original of the most poetical passage Gray: Yet oft before his infant eyes would run The lines from Storer, in p. 279, Nature hath powr'd enough in each man's lappe, Could each man learne to use his private happe, Are a translation from Claudian, Ruf. I. Natura beatis Omnibus esse dedit, si quis cognoverit uti. in The designation of time (p. 282.) "Now at such time as lawyers walke the streets," &c. in the manner of Homer: Od. M. ἦμος δ ̓ ἐπὶ δόρπον ἀνὴρ ἀγορῆθεν ἀνέστη, Κρίνων νείκεα πολλὰ δικα Coμévæv a¡šnāv, x. T. X. Finally, the idea of the singular marriage ceremonies in p. 330-1 (quotation from Chapman) was very possibly (annotators ought never to be too positive) taken from Musæus, 1. 274—282. *Ην γάμος, ἀλλ ̓ ἀχόρευτον ἔην λέχος, κ. T. A. Chapman, as the translator of Homer, and continuator of Marlowe's poem of Hero and Leander, was probably not unacquainted with Musæus. Jeremy Taylor's Sermon, "The House of Feasting," p. 288, vol. i. ed. 1817. "Ebrius et petulans, qui nullum forte cecidit, Pelidæ. [Juv. Sat. III.] A drunkard and a glutton feels the torments of a restless night, although he hath not killed a man; that is, just like murderers and persons of an affrighted conscience." This, and another still more curious mistranslation in the same page, with which we shall not trouble our reader, are instances of the ease with which the drift of a passage may be mistaken, when it is quoted from recollection, without regard to the context. Such petty oversights detract nothing from the reputation of a writer, whose learning would appear extraordinary, were it not accompanied by a genius still more wonderful. An error of the same 66 Vol. kind occurs in Potter's Antiquities, a work which in this respect, as in some others, is far from being sufficiently correct. II. p. 151, ed. 1775. (of the Naval Affairs of the Grecians.) Being safely landed, they discharged whatever vows they had made to the Gods, besides which they usually offered a sacrifice called ἀποβατήριον, to Jupiter surnamed ἀποβατήριος - These devotions were sometimes paid to Nereus, Glaucus, &c.more especially to Neptune-Thus the heroes in Homer (Od. г. 4.) Αἱ [Ο] δὲ Πύλον, Νηλῆος ἐϋκτίμενον πτολιέθρον, ἶξον· τοὶ δ ̓ ἐπὶ θινὶ θαλάσσης ἱερὰ ῥέζον ταύρους παμμέλανας Ενοσίχοθνι κυανοχαίτη.” The meaning is, "They (the Pylians, understood from Пúλov) were, at the time the Ithacans landed, sacrificing to Neptune on the shore." Potter's translation militates with the grammar of the passage, as well as with the context. In a copy of Virgil which is in our possession, an overofficious hand has taken the trouble to fill up some of the unfinished verses. One of these attempts is worth transcribing : Æn. X. 16. at non Venus aurea contra Pauca refert; neque enim contenta est fœmina paucis. The sarcasm, at least, is worthy of Virgil. Blomf. Gloss. in Agam. 61. (Toλuávopos àμpi yuvaixos.) Does not Lycophron somewhere call Helen τὴν πεντέγαμβρον ? We have not the means of referring to the passage; it may be a slip of our memory, as probably as of Dr. Blomfield's, who has only quoted one passage of Lycophron on the occasion, 1. 851, after Stanley.-Gloss on 1. 81. We quote a sentence of this note, as illustrative of the connexion between certain passages from various writers, quoted by Cæcilius Metellus, in the Misc. Class., which the writer in Blackwood' was so much at a loss to discover. "Poetis autem mos est, quum tropum paullo audaciorem adhibent, epithetum statim adjungere, quod notionem ejus circumscribat ac definiat."-1. 869 sqq.-Of this beautiful passage there is an animated translation in Mr. Mitchell's article Having alluded to one of the Magazines, we take the opportunity of referring to a passage in the London Magazine for March, (we think p. 226.) containing some judicious observations respecting the dolphin of the ancients. The whole article (a narrative of a sea-voyage) is well worth perusal. We may likewise be allowed to recommend the Life of J. Warton, in the same number. |