tion we make every character feel and act as we imagine such a character would really act had he been so situated. We cannot tell, however, or even guess, how he would act but by our own feelings, nor will our own feelings instruct us, unless we place ourselves in his situation. It is obvious, then, that the more plastic and yielding our feelings are, the more liable are we also to be affected by every influence which is exercised over us, and the more do we identify ourselves with the interests and passions, the fears and hopes, the enjoyments and privations, of others. Hence we can more easily place ourselves in their situations and guess how they would feel and act in them. It is this susceptibility of feeling that constitutes genius; for a man of obtuse feelings can never succeed in drawing characters, because in whatever situation you place him, his feelings scarely suffer a change, and what he cannot feel himself, he cannot imagine in others. There will, therefore, be as little variety in his characters as there is in his feelings, and a tame uniform sameness must necessarily characterise them all. It is different with the enraptured bard or the writer of exquisite feeling, who identifies himself with all the interests of humanity, who feels those very emotions and passions which he so ardently describes, whose bosom glows with that refined generosity, that tender sensibility, that heroic magnanimity which characterise his heroes, and who, in a word, finds nothing so exalted in the nature of man, nor conceives any thing so generous in the ardor of his affections, of which he does not believe himself capable. It is evident, however, that though he has this advantage over the writer of dull and obtuse feelings, he cannot still pretend to say how he would feel in the situations in which he places others, as he has not been actually in them himself, and therefore he who paints at a venture, and not from actual experience, can have no certainty of giving a faithful portrait of human nature. He may approach so near it, however, that it will be difficult to distinguish the copy from the original.

To this entire theory of perfection, it will be objected, that all animals, but man in particular, are not gifted with such qualities, instincts, and powers as are best fitted to attain the end for which they were created, or that if they do possess them, they possess others that are destructive of them; that the seeds of imperfection are thickly planted in the nature of man, that he has a continual propensity to

evil, that this propensity is eternally, though insensibly, seducing him from the proper end of his creation, and that consequently there can be no perfection in a being composed of such heterogeneous and discordant elements. A reply to this objection will form the subject of another article. M. M. D.

OBSERVATIONES QUÆDAM

AD N. T. A SCRIPTORIBUS ORIENTALIBUS.

No. II. [Concluded from No. LIII. p. 161.]

8.-IN loco Luc. i. 63, 64. ubi de Zacharia, postquam obmutuit, dicitur: καὶ αἰτήσας πινακίδιον ἔγραψε λέγων· ̓Ιωάννης ἐστὶ Tò ovoμa aůτoũ. recte quidem adnotarunt Kypkius, Kuinoelius aliique interpretes, vocabulum Aéywv vertendum esse hunc in modum, et respondere fere Hebraico, coll. locis Josephi Archæol. xi. 3, 4. xiii, 4. §. 1. Quum vero non desint interpretes qui hac phrasi offendantur, et vere locutum esse Zachariam jam non amplius elinguem, haud supervacaneum erit adnotare, dicendi vocabulum apud Chaldæos Syrosque sexcenties de eo etiam, quod aliquis scribit, adhiberi. Dan. vii. 1, 2. de Daniele dicitur: postea notavit somnium et summam verborum dixit, i. e. narravit, scripto mandavit. Comm. 2.

.

NINT Exorsus est Daniel et dixit, i. e. scripsit. Apud

-T: "T

Barhebræam, ubicunque de epistolis conscribendis et mittendis sermo, ita instituitur oratio. Pag. 316. lin. 4. 2D (4) DO lo scripsit epistolas ad Zangium, et dixit, i. e. hujus argumenti. Quæ enim aliquis scribit, ea simul dixisse videtur amico suo. Pag. 513. lin. 1. olo o; miserunt

scripta et dixerunt, i. e. in quibus hæc dixerunt, hujus argumenti. Cf. pag. 51. lin. 11. pag. 236. lin. 12, 13. Plenani habes dictionem in ipso codice sacro 2 Paralipom. ii. 10. DTINTOX”

T:

T

et Huramus locutus est (i. e. h. 1. responsum dedit) scripto s. per literas.

:

9. Luc. ix. 51. καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐστήριξε εἰς ̔Ιερουσaλ, (i. e. proposuit sibi Hierosolyma proficisci); et paulo post ν. 53. ὅτι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμενον εἰς ̔Ιερουσαλὴμ (quoniam Hierosolyma proficiscendi consilium ceperat). Recte ad hunc locum illustrandum notarunt interpretes (vid. Schleusnerum s. v. orŋρίζω) formulam στηρίζω τὸ πρόσωπον apud LXX interpretes respondere Hebraicæ faciem ponere ad aliquid, i. e. alíquid faciendi consilium capere (Jerem. xxi. 10. Ezech. vi. 2). Præterea autem observandum hancce phrasin Hebræam cum phrasi cognata inprimis de proficiscendi consilio et de ipso itinere usurpari (Jer. xlii. 15. 17. xliv. 12. 2 Reg. xii. 18. Dan. xi. 17. Gen. xxxi. 21. 2 Paralip. xx. 3. xxxii. 2. Dan. ix. 3), eandemque Syris et Arabibus quam familiarissimam esse, adeoque in lingua Persica et Turcica esse obviam. Syriace dicitur Barhebr. Chron. pag. 187. lin. 4. pag. 244. lin.

פנים

Y

·T

Y

5. Barhebr. pag. 333. lin. 7. 492. lin. 4. open 334 pag. 376. lin. 9. 576. lin. 5. 584. lin. 2. inf. v. C. pag. 201:

Hierosolyma versus directe erant ܠܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܣܝܡ ܗܘܝ ܐܦܘܗܝ

facies eorum, i. e. Hierosolyma tendebant. Arabes eodem sensu

w

dicunt & convertit se aliquo, i. e. profectus est, v. c. in Bohaeddini vit. Salad. pag. 12:

وكان قد عزم علي التوجه الي دمشق

et firmus mansit in consilio Damascum proficiscendi: Persæ

یوز طوطق Turca, روي آوردن et روي نهادن

Ita enim in Humajun nameh (Gramm. Meninsk. pag. 190..

(vestis furto ablatæ) faciem versus urbem posuit, i. e. urbem

ad inquisitionem ejus در طلبش روي بشهره نهاد : .ed. maj

حست

وجو ايجون شهر متوجه : petiit, ubi interpres Turcicus in Locmani یوز وتبق Pari modo occurrit Turcicum اولوب.

fab. Leonis et Tauri, pag. 142. Gramm. Meninsk. recent. (Vindob. 1756. 4):

اوکور بونی کور دکدن صکره اورادن فجهغه يوز طوتدي

postquam taurus hoc vidit, ad illius fugiendam faciem posuit,

i. e. se in fugam dedit. Eadem phrasis legitur in Chronico Peregrinorum, p. 7. 8. 11. ed. Const.

10.—Luc. ix. 58. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν xalvy, i. e. non habet domicilium fixum sibique proprium. Eaden phrasi Saladinus apud Barhebræum, pag. 406. utitur in

303; non remanet Francis in ora maritima, ubi caput reclinent, præter Tyrum, quam si ceperimus, desperandum est iis de exitu, et liberati şumus,

11.-Ad locum celeberrimum Joh. vi. 32-34. in quo Redemtor se ipsum pani cœlesti, panique vita comparat, et ad formulam, qua idem in sacra cœna instituenda usus est, in qua contra panis corporis Christi exhibet symbolum et imaginem, præter loca Siracida (xxiv. 19. 21) et Philonis a Wetstenio laudata, in quibus lex Mosaica cibus cœlestis vocatur, conferri potest locus carminis Samaritani inediti, quod cum multis id genus aliis in codice Harleiano, Musei Britannici Londinensis (cujus aliquam partem mox vulgaturi sumus) extat, et in celebranda lege Mosaica versatur. Comma carminis decimum quintum, cujus duo hemistichia-alphabeticum enim est carmen a litera Samech ordinatur, ita habent:

סוברה לחיינו לוחי בריתה

סוברה דלא בטלה לעלם עלמים

Alimentum vitæ nostræ

(sunt) tabulæ legis,

Alimentum nunquam deficiens,

in secula seculorum.

Interpretatio Arabica e regione posita, in qua plerumque metaphoræ audaciores glossematibus satis dilutis cesserunt, ita

sonat:

h. 1. materiam potat. Eadem imagine, qua scriptores Apocryphi et poëta Samaritanus, quem his fere coævum censeo, de sapientia Dei, quam in lege Mosaica conspicuam esse et in eam quasi descendisse censebant (Sic 1. c. comm. 23. Bar. 3. 37), Redemtor de se utitur, in quem verbum s. sapientia Dei descenderat.

12.—Act. vii, 56. Ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνεῳγμένους, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ex hoc uno loco abunde patet, quam falsa sit eorum opinio, qui uiòv Toũ άvôρúñav vel hominem, universe, vel prophetam indicare existimant, et unice veram esse eorum sententiam, qui Messiam h. 1. Christum hoc attributo notari docuerunt. Admodum verisimilis est porro eorumdem sententia, fluxisse hoc Messiæ epitheton e loco Dan. vii. 13. Utrumque mirifice confirmatur locis quibusdam libri apocryphi, qui ab Henocho nomen habet, et nuper a Ven. Laurence, Oxoniensi, ex Æthiopica lingua conversi publici juris factus est (The book of Enoch, the prophet, an apocryphal production supposed to have been lost for ages, but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic Ms. in the Bodleian Library, by Rich. Laurence. Oxford, 1821). In hoc enim libro, quem exeunte Herodis Magui regno exaratum esse bene monstravit editor, et in quo Danielis liber sæpissime imitando expressus est, hæc Messiæ periphrasis haud raro ita occurrit, ut eandem et Judæis circa Christum natum familiarem, et e Danielis libro petitam esse facile sibi persuadeas: Vide cap. xlvi. 1-3. lxi. 10. 13. 17. lxviii. 38. lxix. 1.

13.--Capillus de capite decidens (Act. xxvii. 34.) de re admodum vili et tenui non solum in V. T. per proverbium dicitur (2 Sam. xiv. 11. cf. Vorst. de Adag. N. T. c. 6) sed etiam apud Arabes. Apud Meidanium in magna proverbiorum sylloge adhuc inedita hoc etiam legitur apoiμior: il mo agos böll vilior, quam capillus decidens.

14.-Mirati sunt interpretes, cur idolum Baal Rom. xi, 4. et subinde apud LXX interpretes (Zeph. i. 4. Hos. ii. 8) cum articulo femineo ( Báaλ) legatur, alibi cum masculo (Num. xxii, 41. 1 Sam. xvi, 31), variasque ejus rei causas excogitarunt, quarum tamen nulla satisfacit. Vera causa ex nostra qualicunque opinione quærenda est in usu loquendi Rabbinorum et Arabum,