Of the interesting descriptions of the Nightingale's song, which have been quoted, Pliny's will be allowed by the reader of taste and discernment to deserve the prize for its accuracy and its eloquence. It is a singular fact that the peculiarity in the formation of the Nightingale, noticed by Sturm, has not been remarked by our professed Naturalists, Bewick and Bingley. On the epithets ποικιλόδειρος, χλωρηίς, and χλωραύχην, applied to the Nightingale by Hesiod, Homer, and Simonides, the reader will find abundant information in the New Greek Thesaurus p. 1283. d-1286. a. Some particulars respecting the Nightingale are given by Beckmann ad Antig. Caryst. p. 10-12., which merit perusal. The learned reader is well aware that the Greek Poets are in the habit of calling themselves and of being called Nightingales; and may I venture to express a pious hope that the time is not very distant, when the following words will be verified in the double sense? Apul. Flor. 3. Luscinia in solitudine Africana canticum adolescentia garriunt. The Nightingale, it seems, on the authority of Aristotle, whom Pliny follows, but about whose assertion modern Naturalists are silent, can sing for 15 days and nights without intermission; and 1 may be excused for taking as many pages to describe its song and its habits. Thetford, Nov. 1822. E. H. BARKER. HEBREW CRITICISM. יראת ה' ראשית דעת. THUS said the wisest man that ever lived, and no one, who is able to reflect, can dispute the truth contained in this sentence. Without this knowlege all other knowlege is useless. The fear of the Supreme Being is the only means by which we are restrained from extravagance and folly in prosperity, and assisted and supported in adversity. But the only way to acquire this knowlege is doubtless to walk in that path in which the Supreme Being himself has commanded us to walk in many parts of the Holy Scriptures. But how can we understand the Holy Scrip tures unless we understand the Hebrew language in which they were originally written, or have a correct and literal translation of it in our own vernacular tongue. It must be confessed that there are not many persons to be found who are sufficiently acquainted with the Hebrew to enable them to understand them in the original, and few if any good translations are to be found. The English authorized version is defective, and in many places erroneous. To translate one language into another is at all times attended with many difficulties; and every one who is acquainted with Hebrew will allow, that of all other languages the Hebrew is the most difficult to be translated into the modern languages. Besides the parabolical and allegorical expressions which we find in all ancient languages, and especially in the Hebrew, the tendency of the latter to equivocal expressions, adds, in no trifling degree, to its difficulties. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that most, if not all, translations of the Holy Scriptures into the modern languages are very defective, and particularly those which have been translated by persons, who were not only not sufficiently acquainted with the spirit of the Hebrew language, but also ignorant of the customs and manners of the Jews. These difficulties are considerably augmented by a negligent reading of the Hebrew, which may easily occur on account of the defect of characters for the vowels: for instance, in the authorized English version we find that has been .שור read The Holy Scriptures form an undivided whole, every verse of which is connected with the rest; and in those parts where it seems that a verse is abrupt and separate, the relation or connexion of such verse will always be found in another part. For instance, Gen. 3, 14. where the Almighty is represented as cursing the Serpent, saying, "Thou art cursed from all cattle, and from every beast of the field," has relation to Gen. 1. 24, 25. Therefore, if it were rendered, as it is in the English Bible, "thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field," it would imply, that all other beasts were cursed, and that would be unreasonable, and unworthy the Supreme Being, who is altogether just and righteous. We find that the beasts only were not blessed on their creation, and the reason is obvious, because if the Creator had once blessed them, he could not afterwards consistently curse the Serpent, which belongs to the beasts, according to Gen. 3, 1. "The Serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field." The Hebrew text of Gen. 3, 14. is as follows: -It appears the Trans ארור אתה מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה: lators of the English Bible were misled by the prefixed to the word all, considering it was the comparativum, as in Lev. 21. 10. S and the priest who is greater than his brethren, or great above his brethren; in this place the D is truly a D comparativum, but it seems that the translators of the English Bible forgot, that is comparative only when it is prefixed to a noun following an adjective, or to a verb which has an allusion to bodily or mental properties; as in the following ויאהב .30 .29 Genesis וְלָאם מלאם יאמץ .23 .25 .instances: Gen .21 .Lev אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו .49 .48 .Gen גם את רחל מלאה ותרב משאת בנימן ממשאת .34 .43 .Gen והכהן הגדול מאחין .10 וותרב חכמת שלמה מחכמת כל בניקדם 30 .4 Kings נכלם But the being cursed cannot be .ויחכם מכל האדם .31 .4 Kings considered as a property either of the mind or body, particularly Another proof, that the translators of the English Bible did not always consider the connexion of one part of Scripture with another, will be found in their translation of Gen. 49. 6. This כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם : passage in Hebrew is read thus دو py, and it is rendered in the English version thus: "for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they DIGGED DOWN A WALL. Every one, who is acquainted with the historical part of the Pentateuch, knows, that the indignation of Jacob against his two sons Simeon and Levi was caused by their cruelty to Sechem and Chamor, and to their brother Joseph. He says, therefore, in the first clause of the 7th verse, Execrated be their anger, for it is violent, and their wrath, because it is cruel: the former part alludes to their violence to Sechem and Chamor, and the latter to their cruelty to Joseph. In like manner the former part of the latter clause of the 6th verse alludes to their treatment of Sechem and Chamor, and the latter part to their cruelty to Joseph. But how can Joseph be compared to a wall? and what meaning is there in the expression, "they digged down a wall?" the Hebrew term, reudered in the English Bible digged down, is 17py from y to eradicate, to enervate; and if the translators had reflected that Joseph was compared by Moses in his blessing, Deut. 33. 17. to a bullock, (probably considering his two sons, each of whom became a separate, mighty, and powerful tribe, as the two horns of a bullock) they would not have read a wall, but i a bullock. This part of the clause should be rendered thus: in their self-will they enervated a bullock. It is surprising that for the space of upwards of 2,600 years, no one translator or commentator has entered into the spirit of the 29th Psalm, which was penned by David: only the writer of "the Zoar," a mysterious comment on the Pentateuch, seems to give a hint concerning it. If we attentively consider this Psalm, and particularly the English version of it, we find no connexion in it. We are told, for instance, in the third verse, "the voice of the Lord is upon the waters." If this is to be understood according to the usual meaning of the words, the following question arises concerning this voice, namely, where is it not? and this question is applicable to all the verses in which the word voice is used: moreover, the second clause of the 9th verse and the whole of the 10th verse, which are thus rendered in the English Bible, "and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory. The Lord sitteth upon the flood: yea, the Lord sitteth king for ever," would have no connexion whatever with the other verses. It was customary with the Poets of all nations to compose a national poem, which they usually commenced by invoking the assistance of some powerful and intelligent being, as we find Ovid and other ancient poets invoked the Muses, so likewise David seems to have acted in the same way: in the height of his ecstacy he invoked the patriarchs, and he seems to hear the voice of every one of them. The Psalm, therefore, would be properly rendered thus: Psalm 29.-A Psalm of David. 1. Ascribe to the Eternal Being, ye sons of the Mighty, ascribe to the Eternal Being glory and strength. 2. Ascribe to the Eternal Being the glory of his name: worship the Eternal Being in the beauty of holiness. 3. A voice! The Eternal Being is upon the waters: the Almighty of glory causes the thunder! the Eternal Being is upon the great waters. 4. A voice! The Eternal Being is powerful! A voice! The Eternal Being is full of Majesty ! 5. A voice! The Eternal Being rends the cedars: and the Eternal Being will rend the cedars of Lebanon! 6. And he makes them skip like a calf; and Lebanon and Sirion like a young rhinoceros. 7. A voice! The Eternal Being divides the flames of fire! 8. The Eternal Being shakes the wilderness! the Eternal Being makes the wilderness of Kadesh to tremble! 9. A voice! The Eternal Being makes the hinds to calve, and unrobes the forests! and in his temple the whole universe speaks of his glory! 10. The Eternal Being presided over the flood! and the Eternal Being will preside as king for ever! 11. The Eternal Being will give strength to his people: the Eternal Being will bless his people with peace. ENGLISH LATINITY. AFTER all the pains taken during a long initiation at school and college, how seldom is the mystery and craft of writing Latin acquired by an Englishman! Although neither the copia verborum nor the lucidus ordo may be wanting, yet still in the best specimen one is either disgusted with a mere cento of phrases culled from the earliest and latest, the best and worst periods of Roman literature, or else some unfortunate expression compels one to exclaim So Roman, yet so English all the while. The only exception, that the writer of this ever met with, was in the case of Charles Skinner Matthews, formerly of Trinity, and subsequently a fellow of Downing, College, Cambridge. The splendor of his talents was known but to few; but to those few, the regret occasioned by his untimely death will be as lasting, as the admiration of his intellectual attainments was unbounded. Of his powers in Latin versification, a specimen |