suisque numeris absolvant. Prima dos est, nervis, torisque validis esse instructam, unde vires subministrantur. Altera, ut bene compactum et firmum corpus, non humile maneat, sed in altum consurgat et excrescat. Utrumque eleganter complexus est Propheta. Hæc propria est facies orationis. Improprie, in isto corpore reip. Judaicæ, illud D']) Filios nervis compegi et corroboravi, est opibus

et divitiis, qui sunt nervi rerum, feci invalescere; in proceram extuli staturam, est ad Majestatis culmen evexi. Suspicor subtilius hoc discrimen, quod natura linguæ adfert, etiam de industria captatum esse Esai. xxiii.

non firmos לא גדלתי בחורים רוממתי בתולות .4

* *

eduxi juvenes, non proceras educavi virgines. Nempe laus juvenum in compacto robore membrorum; quum Virginum potius decus consistat in erecta et proceriore statura. * Hisce præmunitis, non alienum, nec audax nimis videbitur, quod Jobi vii. 17, verba UN convertere sustineam, Quid est Mortalis, O deus fortis, quod tu te implices cum eo? Adversus eum descendas in arenam, tanquam luctator, et gravis adversarius, cum eo manus conserens, digladiansque?*

In the primitive significations of Hebrew words, as minutely extracted in this manner from the arabic by Schultens, I confess, that there has always appeared to me more ingenuity of investigation, than solidity of reasoning. With respect to the word in question the idea of magnitude in size or quantity, which had been affixed to it by preceding lexicographers, he considers as a secondary sense of it only, and for its primary sense refers to his favourite Arabic, which furnishes him with the idea of implication. But he does not mention the second signification of the word as given in the Lexicon of Castellus, which is Liquavit butyrum, adipemve. How is the

* §. cxcix, cci, ceii, eciii, cev.

idea of twisting, as in the case of a rope, to be associated with that of melting, as in the case of butter or fat? Both are compatible enough with that of magnitude; for as the act of twisting the several parts of a rope together increases their bulk by combination, so also does the act of melting enable the butter or fat to cover a larger surface. I will not however stop to dispute the primary sense of the word, having other objections to his system.

I do not understand upon what rational principle it can be maintained, that the same word is always to retain its primary meaning in all the allied languages,, into which it may be adopted. Thus it is admitted, that in Arabic signifies to twist, and also to contend. But what does it signify in Syriac and Ethiopic? In Syriac, as also in Talmudical Chaldee, it signifies only to twist; and in Ethiopic it signifies only to contend; so that no more than one of the two senses applied to it in Arabic is applicable to it either in Syriac or Ethiopic, and not even that indifferently. But it may be said, are lexicographers in Syriac and Ethiopic to be trusted? May not upon a minute search passages be found in both these languages, where both the senses alluded to occur? It is impossible to prescribe limits to those, who wire-draw meanings from words for the establishment of a particular hypothesis; yet surely the chances of their being right are against them when they can only obtain a colour for the probability of their interpretation, perhaps in one only out of a hundred instances.

Now if this argument has weight when applied to the use of the word in Syriac and Ethiopic upon a comparison with the Arabic, it has much more weight when applied to its use in Hebrew upon the same comparison. In the Bible occurs as a verb more than a hundred times, and as a noun more than five hundred times; yet is it only in one of these numerous instances, that Schultens labours to fix upon the word the signification of implicare. Grant

ing therefore that such is its meaning in Arabic, and that it is capable of bearing the same meaning in the passage of Job alluded to, can we possibly admit this to be the true sense of it, when we recollect that it is indisputably used more than six hundred times in a different signification? The other passages of Scripture, to which he refers, are so explained as not to exclude the usual meaning of the word, although it is supposed to invest them with a certain recondite sense, of which the vulgar linguist would never form the slightest suspicion.

That languages derived from a common source do not always use the same word in the same sense, is a remark too trite to require confirmation. The caprice of colloquial usage disdains the precision of philosophical uniformity. Nor does the same word in the same language bear in every age the same signification. To give an instance in our own language upon a comparison with the German. The word Knave in English has now no such meaning as the annalogous term Knabe* in German, in which language it means a Boy. This however was once its meaning also in English; but such a sense of it is become obsolete. Nay, words are sometimes found completely to change their meaning. Thus when the present version of the Bible was made, the verb let signified to hinder, as 2 Thess. ii. 7; "he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way." But at present it is only used in the opposite sense of permitting.

Another observation likewise may be added, which militates against the theory of Schultens. The nearer we approach the fountain head of the languages in question, the greater I apprehend must be the probability of our discovering the primitive senses of words. But the direct reverse of this takes place in the theory before us, particularly with respect to the word more immediately *Knabe in Germany, answers to Knave in English, as Grabe answers to Grave.

under investigation. For Schultens himself admits, that the derivative, not the primitive, signification of it al most universally occurs in ancient Hebrew, which has ceased to be spoken for more than two thousand years, while its primitive, not its derivative, signification almost as universally occurs in modern Arabic.

But omitting all further consideration of the refined, the laborious, and the complicated investigations of Schultens, I proceed to contemplate the general principles of the position, that the knowledge of Hebrew has been considerably extended by a more comprehensive and accurate study in modern times of what are termed its kindred dialects. It has been asserted, and certainly not without strong presumptive reasoning, that by these the significations attributed to many obscure Hebrew words may be incidentally confirmed, and sometimes indeed new significa tions discovered, that the defects of that language, arising from the paucity of its remains, and other incidental causes, may be often supplied, and that its analogies in general may be appropriately elucidated. Upon the ability however of thus supplying its defects, much has indeed been written, but too much perhaps assumed. It has been conceived with respect to single words, that the etymons of many, not otherwise apparent, may in this way be effectually detected; and not only the primitive senses of their respective roots be restored, but in several instances their derivative or secondary, when in direct opposition to their primitive senses, satisfactorily investigated; and that the meanings of some, usually esteemed dubious, may be illustrated, those of others, which but seldom occur, be detected, and those of a few, which occur but once, be successfully explored. Nor has the utility of these cognate languages been supposed to consist in the mere supply of etymological deficiencies, but likewise of illuminating with the blaze of day many singular phrases and idioms, altogether abhorrent from European usage.

In this ingenious argument there seems to be some theoretical truth combined with much practical uncertainty. If however we give it its full weight, and admit the occasional felicity of its application, still must we regard that application as a task of no common difficulty and delicacy. The translator who attempts to tread on this alluring ground is under the constant temptation of forsaking every beaten track and of wandering into perpetual intricacies; of substituting philosophical speculation for logical deduction, and critical refinement for solid reasoning. Ever prying after discoveries, his imagination is disposed to convert the wild weed into a highly cultivated flower, and the mean plant of daily occurrence into an exotic of inestimable rarity; and always eager for novelties, he is usually more intent upon displaying his own talent at singular research, than upon explaining the word of God with unaffected simplicity. Nor will those, who are most zealous to enrich Hebrew with the spoils of its kindred dialects, admit, that the enterprize is one of vulgar accomplishment; or that the weapon, to be successfully used in this war of words, may be wielded by every arm.

To elucidate indeed a language of such remote antiquity, as the Hebrew, by others, of which, how much soever originally allied to it, we possess, at this very distant period of time, nothing like coeval remains, nothing but what in point of date is at least posterior to it many centuries, must always appear an arduous, and often prove an abortive, undertaking. The signification of words in all languages are in a constant state of fluctuation, and are undergoing perpetual modifications. Political changes in the forms and principles of governments, commercial connexions with foreign nations, pursuits previously unknown, the introduction of novel, or the amelioration of ancient, codes of faith, the cultivation of literature and science, the refinement of manners, and the general improvement in all the arts and luxuries of life, with many similar causes,