Page images
PDF
EPUB

believed the oracle of Apollo was much more to be depended on than the words of Creüsacredens, certius Apollinis esse oraculum Creüse dictis, or, that Æneas really had no great faith in the ghost of Creusa, and remained still at a loss where to go.—‹ An incertum Æneam non multum fidei habuisse Creüsæ umbræ ? num et post illam visam dicit,

Incerti quo fata ferant, ubi sistere detur ?'

this solution is almost ludicrous. I shall pass it, and return to the objection; which is plainly one of those kind of arguments, which, if they prove any thing at all, prove a great deal too much, For according to it, Anchises and Æneas should not, properly, have sooner acknowledged their mistake, as Ruxus states it; errorem agnoscere antea debuerat,' are his words: they should never have fallen into that mistake at all, they should have sailed for Hesperia from the beginning; whereas, they, first of all, attempted a settlement in Thrace. Here then is the proper objection; how came Eneas, so soon after the appearance of Creusa, even before he left the Coast of Troy, while his ships were yet building only, and his men assembling, to be entirely at a loss where to settle? for, says he:

-classemque sub ipso

Antandro, et Phrygiæ molimur montibus Idæ ;
Incerti quo fata ferant, ubi sistere detur;
Contrahimusque viros.

Now I think it is natural, from this passage, to conclude that Virgil meant here to show, that, from the words of Creusa, Æneas had been able to make out nothing at all, which could be of any service to direct his voyage. Apollo gave him afterwards a résponse which was obscure; but the prophecy of Creüsa had been utterly unintelligible to him, yet the question remains: if this really be Virgil's intention here, is he uniform, throughout, in the whole conduct of this part of the poem? has he put such words in the mouth of Creusa, as must naturally to Æneas appear unintelligible? yes; even contradictory; at least to me, the poet seems evidently, to have artfully managed her expressions with that very intention; Let us examine them: she tells Æneas,

Longa tibi exilia, et vastum maris æquor arandum;

Ad Terram Hesperiam venies, ubi Lydius arva

Inter opima virûm leni fluit agmine Tibris.
Illic, spes læta, regnumque, et regia conjux

Parta tibi.

Now, we must remember, that Eneas had never yet heard of the word Hesperia, as the proper name of a country; he is not informed of that, till long afterwards; when the Penates tell him, Est locus, Hesperiam Graii cognomine dicunts. LILIE From Creusa, then, he would naturally take it in its proper original VOL. VIII. Cl. Jl. NO. XV.

H

sense, as an adjective, the feminine of 'EXHEPIO; nay, he is even prevented, as it were, from any suspicion of her using it anew, as a proper name, or any otherwise than as an adjective, by her putting the substantive Terram before it. The expression, then, Terram Hesperiam, would convey to Eneas no other idea, than as if one should say, in English, a western land. Next, as to the other mark of Italy, ubi Lydius Tibris fluit; as Æneas was wholly ignorant of Italy, and its inhabitants, he could not possibly know that by Lydius Tibris, she meant the Tiber, where the Lydian Prince Tyrrhenus had settled some generations before: he must naturally understand it, then, in the common proper sense, as a river of Lydia; or at most, a river which ran from Lydia, through this western land; and this is what could not but quite confound him, and render the whole utterly unintelligible, for Lydia is a country lying far to the south east of Troy. And so the one part of her information must naturally appear to him to contradict the other. If one ask, why did not Creusa speak more plainly? the answer is easy, she knew no more; or was forbidden by the gods to reveal farther. According to the mythology of the poets, this was often the case with those who foretold future events; thus the prophet Helenus tells Æneas, he will discover a few useful hints of what was to befal him; but must conceal the rest ;

Pauca tibi è multis

-prohibent nam cetera Fata Scire Helenum, farique vetat Saturnia Juno.

This is the light in which the poet's intention appears to me; and in this view, I think his conduct is perfectly consistent, and extremely judicious in the whole management of this part of the

poem.

February 27th, 1761.

ON THE HEBREW BIBLE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

If the Communication of the present Article shall merit an entry in the Classical Journal, it is respectfully at your service. You are not wanting in able Correspondents in Oriental Literature, and,

Sir, in particular, am I desirous to submit the present Article for admission, where so able and sound a critic corresponds as Mr. Hails of Newcastle, whose defences of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and of our authorised English Translation, and whose valuable remarks on the genius and construction of the sacred Hebrew language, are irrefragable proofs of close reading, of an intimate knowledge of the subject, and superior attainment. Happy would it be for the cause of DIVINE TRUTH, had we a large increase of such learned advocates.

Having myself had a strong disposition to become closely acquainted with that language, reputed to have been spoken by the first generations of men; in which, as its votaries among the Hebrews say, the World was created; and wherein the Almighty revealed his will to mankind, I pursued the Hebrew first in the Bible, and at length in its more intimate dialects, especially the Chaldee, Syriac, and Ethiopic, making myself familiar also with the Hebrew and Chaldee Commentaries: this I attained without the aid of a Jew; being confident that whoever sets about so pious a study with exertion and humility will never fail of success through God."

My first difficulty was about the Hebrew points: not whether these additions to the letter of the sacred Text originated with the sacred Penmen in the first instance; but whether in any succeeding period of the Ancient Jewish Church, Ezra or any other authorised person applied them to the text for the uniformity and perpetuity of the reading and pronunciation; in which case, an absolute rejection of them would seem at least presumptuous and dangerous. I consulted Dr. Gill's book on the subject, also Whitfield on the Hebrew Vowel Points, and other treatises of the kind; but all to little purpose; for the question returned unresolved: whilst the Jews of all times, and in all countries, read the law in the original and unpointed Text. The argument for the divine authority of the Hebrew Punctuation seemed to me at best dubious and uncertain; I therefore studied the Hebrew according to the prevailing Masoretical Punctuation, without attaching to it the consequence due to a divinely inspired system.

For a short and clear discussion of the subject respecting the origin and use of the Hebrew points, I think it more judicious to state the question by a clear definition. First; The Hebrew Points are no original part of the letters, but additional; and are variously applied above, under, or in the body of the letters.-Secondly; The Points may be classed under three denominations. (1) The Reading or vowel points, with which the consonants are pronounced (2) The Diacritical points, which direct in the powers and reading of the letters; such is the point called Dagesh, which has many offices in reading Hebrew grammatically ;-and (3) The Accentual or Prosaical points, which mark the connexion and division

of words and sentences, and include also the direction to the tone in reading.

Now, Sir, from the foregoing considerations, allow me to presume that the whole obscurity, in which the history of the Masoretical punctuation is involved, consists in its progressive and systematic augmentation from a few first principles to its present refined and complicated form: that it was not all the work of one man, nor of one age or period, but of many that the last and fullest additions to the sacred letters of the Hebrew Text were those called Accents: and that if any at all were applied to the text in the time of Ezra, by him or by any authorised person since, most probably it was the adoption of one Point only, and from which all others first originated.

It is known to every scholar, and every one who has had but a slight inspection of ancient writings and MSS. will readily acknowledge, that it has been the custom of Scribes in various nations and languages to contract their writing occasionally by the adoption of a dash over, under, or in, the line of writing: a custom which seems very ancient, if we admit that in the frequent arbitrary insertion or omission of the letters Vau and Jod by the Hebrew scribes, the substitution was a point under or over the line of writing, and the word or words technically pronounced full or deficient accordingly, This will probably lead to the first rise of the Hebrew Punctua tion: (1) a point in the body of any letter supposes that letter to be pronounced double by the rule of Dagesh forte, thus Rabbi, Dy Immanuel, Shammah &c. (2)a Point over the line is the common substitute for the letter Vau: thus D Meoroth, lights or luminaries, Gen. ch. 1.16. which written full is written thus, ND and pronounced, as before, Meoroth. (3) a Point over Vau is the Point O. (4) a Point in the body of Vau is the point U. (5) a Point under a letter is the point I. Thus we have three Vocular expressions for the threefold position of a single point, and (6) the application of the single point serves also materially to mark the conjugations, and various accidence of Verbs and Participles, as may be seen in any gram

mar.

Having thus shown the several offices of the Dagesh Point as it is variously applied, I would consider it as the foundation of the system, and if any part of that system has a just claim to antiquity and importance, it is only from its extensive usefulness in reading Hebrew with propriety and accuracy. I could wish that an Edition of the Hebrew Bible was undertaken on this principle; namely, to print the Hebrew Text with the Diacritical Points only, and such an edition would be a happy mean between the two extremes, viz. the editions with the Points, or those altogether without them; in the former editions of the Hebrew Text, that

text is too much incumbered with points, of which the reader has little advantage; and in the latter editions the text is so completely dismantled and stripped, as to exclude all punctuatory assistance whatever. I apprehend such an edition as ishere proposed would prevent the objections and dangers of either extreme: a medium seems far preferable, and best designed for general use, especially among the Christians, who now begin to study the Hebrew on more liberal principles than formerly.

It is not my design to enlarge on the many advantages of such an edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, in which the diacritical points are exclusively adopted, as they at present stand in the printed edi tions. I shall only advert to one common and obvious advantage, in which, Sir, I apprehend my opinion will be consentaneous with that of most of your learned correspondents, namely, that the text thus printed would retain undisturbed all the essential and useful part of the punctuation, and be cleared of all the useless incumbrance with which it is now burthened, and present the Inspired Text in a far less innovatory form than hitherto, and much more lucid and intelligible.

1. This method proposes to retain the Dagesh point in all letters, in which it is found in the printed editions.

2. To retain the holem point over the line as it at present stands in the printed editions.

3. To retain the hirek point under the line, in all places where its jod letter is deficient, as in the name 7 David, which is also written TT with jod.

4. To retain the kibbutz point under the line where the same is observed in the printed editions.

5. To adopt the reading stops soph-pasuk and athnah. Then the characters, with their accompanying diacritical points, will present the following arrangement:

[blocks in formation]

8. Dagesh kibbutz,, &c.

In the next place it will be proper here to subjoin a few verses printed with the diacritical and other points, that nothing may be wanting to an explanation of the subject proposed for considera

« PreviousContinue »