tarum. To Mr. Jacobs it appeared an objection to the Analecta that the Gnomological remains of Solon and Mimnermus, the Jambi of the younger Simonides, the odes of Sappho and Erinne, the hymns of Callimachus, the Idyllia of the Bucolic writers, the Silli of Timin, the Parodies of Matron, fhould have found their way into it, as they certainly do not belong to the clafs of epigrams, though they might without difficulty have been admitted into the Corone of Melcager and Philip. He therefore chofe to exclude them from this collection, whilft he retained at the fame time the lyric fragments of Archilochus and Bacchylides, of the Cean Simonides and the writers of Scolia, together with the elegics of Jon, Crates, Phanocles, and other compofitions of a fimilar kind. To confine our obfervations to the elegiac poets only, if the fragments juft mentioned appeared to claim a place in this collection, why fhould not likewife the poems of Tyrtaus, the elegies of Euphorion and Alexander, which being lefs generally known, were omitted in the Analeta, and the ftill more excellent pieces of the two Colophonian bards, Xenocles and Hermefianax, have been received into it? To the last Brunck would doubtlefs not have objected, if the fecond edition of the Epistolæ Criticæ of Ruhnken had come into his hands. We pafs over many other pieces preferved by A:benæus. Whether Mr. J. has referved them for his fupplemental volume we cannot tell, as in the pretace thefe deficiencies are not noticed. A diligent fearch after whatever may with propriety be called epigram, particularly when compofed by any of thofe writers who have already been honoured with a place in this collection, fhould, in our judgment, be strongly recommended to him, as being more immediately connected with the avowed plan of this work. For even in regard to thefe, the imperfection is equally great, and more ftriking. It is a circumftance calculated to deceive the reader, when he obferves now and then an epigram introduced, which is not to be found in the Analeta (as for example, tom, i, p. 138) if the fame is not done with refpect to others interted even by H. Stephens in his Anthologia, and for the omiffion of which Brunck had been cenfured by the Dutch Reviewers, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. p. ii. p. 28. &c. Befides the epigrams of Meleager, of Anyte, and of Afclepiades, which are mentioned there, thofe of the Homeride are likewife wanting, as alfo four by Anacreon, to be found in the laft Leipfic edition, together with the introductory poem to the collection of Agathias (Fabric, Biblioth. Gr. vol. ii. p. 692) and others, which we hope have not efcaped the obfervation of the editor. We should likewife be glad to direct his attention more especially to the 'Adoola, among which the greatest additions might be made to the clafs of infcriptions. Here we fhould with more particularly that a proper diftinction should be made between the 'En drawn up for general inspection, and found on public monuments, and the mere fports of fancy, called by Maffei exercitamenta; and that in regard to the former, that order of time should be obferved to which Brunck had indeed not attended in thefe poems, but of which however he had expreffed his approbation, in preference to the common divifion into books first introduced by Agathias. The Ars critica lapidaris of the celebrated Maffei, joined with a variety of remarks difperfed through the works of modern antiquaries, might greatly greatly facilitate this undertaking. The famous infeription in the Nanian Library, brought from the Levant in 1758, fhould have appeared at the head of this lift. This feems, however, to have been entirely overlooked, though by Zanetti (Due antichiffime Greche Infcrim zioni, spiegate e indirizzate à S. E. il Sign. G. Nani, Venet. 1755, 4to.); the editor of Daniel fecundum LXX. é Tetraplis Origenis, 1772, p. 388; Villoifon (in Anecdot. Græc, tom. ii. p. 120.); Bayer (de Numis Hebræo-Samaritanis, Valent. 1781, cap. ix.) and others, it is thought highly deferving of further clucidation. In regard to the reft, ancient and modern pieces are here thrown promifcuoufly toge ther. Metrical inferiptions of a later date the editor of the Analecta appears indeed intentionally to have rejected (fee L. in vol. iii. p. 258). Unfortunately alfo others of refpectable antiquity have Thared the fame fate; as, for inftance, that which was published by Corfini in the Infcript. Attic. (Florent, 1752); from the Marmor Sponianum (Spon. pop. attic. 4.) p. i. viii; another difcovered at Delphi in the Infcrip. antiq. of Cyriacus of Ancona (Rom. 1749) p. xxviii.; feveral in Falconerium fcript. Athletic. (Rom. 1668, as also in Gronov. Thefaur. vol. viii); and in Buonarrotti Offervaz. fpra alcuni Frammenti di vafi antichi di vetro (Florent. 1716) among which one is particularly diftinguished by the corrections made in it by Maffei, Art. Critic. lapidar. p. 110. That this fhould be the cafe in regard to fuch as have been very recently difcovered; as, for example, one found at Eleufis (Villoifon Prolegom, ad Hom. Iliad. p. lv), and another at Naples (Bibl. d. a. Litt. II. St. Ined. p. 3) muft, of course, be expected. Of the antiquarian collections made by Fabretti, Muratori, and Chandler, Brunck has indeed availed himfelf; but even here a careful revifion of thefe materials would have amply rewarded the in duftry of the editor. In refpect to the text of the prefent Anthologia, it is, as we have already obferved, exactly formed on that of Brunck, the ground of which is known to be the copy of the Salmafian MS., taken by Boubier. It has long been matter of just complaint that Brunck has, in none of his other works, in fo arbitrary a manner, made the readings of ancient MSS. give way to conjectures often recommended only by the name of their author, or, perhaps, at the most, by the concurring opinion of fome other critic. He endeavours indeed occafionally to atone for this unfatisfactory mode of criticifm, by the voluntary acknowledgment of his errors. In all fuch inftances, fays the preface, the new editor has thought it incumbent on him to restore the fcriptura membranarum, and to mark the premature correction in notes placed under the text. Notwithstanding this declaration, we have not unfrequently found that the falle correction, though Br. had in the most decided manner pronounced judgment on it, ftill retains its place in the text, whilst the old reading, or better emendation, is banished to the notes; as in Meleag. xii. 3; cxviii. 3: and Alcæus Meffinius III. 2. We conceive that Mr. J. will hereafter, in his com mentary, find frequent occafion to vindicate against hafty conjectures, readings of the MSS. which he has not now, in oppofition to the authority of the Analečta, ventured to re-admit into the text, such as, Erinne iii. 4. ἄμματα, τών (comp. Meleag. cxxv) Mofch; 5, πλῆσον ; Quint. Max. xi. 4. rp, with a change in the punctuation. Still more reprehenfible is the conduct of the editor, where he allows not only conjectures for which there may be reasonable grounds (as, for intance, Meleag. iv. 7. comp. Burmann. ad Propert. p. 698) but likewife others of a contrary defcription to retain their places in the text, without informing us what was before the vulgar reading; as, for example, again in Meleag. Ixiv. 4. lxxxvi. 2. xciii. 5. (where the emendation propofed by Manfo, in his edition, p. 37, should be adopted.) So in Scol. x. tom. i. p. 89, 'Oμiv is a change fuggefted by Cafaubon, which deftroys the Hendecafyllable that ought to run thus: πλούτου μητέρ ̓ Ολυμπίαν ἀείδω. Indeed, in regard to the meafures, the Scolia, which have, perhaps, fuffered moft in this refpect, require the affiftance of a Bentley, or a Reiz; and should, in our opinion, be reformed on the model of that on Harmodius and Ariftogiton, which appears to have come down to us with little or no alteration. Upon the whole then, we do not hesitate to fay, that, though fome progrefs may have been made by the publication of the prefent work, it can by no means be confidered to be a complete edition of the Anthologia, nor fuch a one as might have been expected from Mr. J., if he had not fo ftrictly confined himself to the readings approved of by the author of the Analeta. It muft indeed be owned that many of the corrections fuggested by other writers, are little more than mere lufus ingenii; whilft, on the contrary, the neceffity of others is fo evident, that it cannot but ftrike us at the firft fight. Such are in Meleag. viii. 4. plas pointed out in the Biblioth. Crit. lxxxix. 5, TpiJσanis ludzijaw by Manfs; the alterations recommended by Rubnken, Antiphil. xlv. 3, 4; with others which would probably have occurred to Mr. J. himfelf, as, Meleag. i. 7. Mehavin. for Maxion; Arifton, tom. ii. p. 235. n. iii. (Anal. tom. ii. p. 258) xváły instead of κύκλω ; and, in the fame place, πῶμα fur σῶμα, according to the reading of Brunck; or oñux, as it is in Reifke, Anthol. p. 151. Comp. Anal. tom. i. p. 243. n. lxxvii. Of the fifth volume, containing the indexes, an account will be given in our next number. ITALY. ART. 76. Hebraicarum Antiquitatum opus, in lucem editum et in duas libros diftributum, au&ore Jofeph Maria Pulci-Doria, Sanita Metropalitane Neapolitanae ecclefia Canonico Prefbytero. Liber I. 319 pp. Liber II. 288 pp. 4to. Naples. The author has, in this work, availed himself more frequently of the writings of ancient than of modern times; and though we are exprefsly informed that he is very converfant in the prefent European languages, it certainly does not appear from thefe volumes, that he is at all acquainted with the names of Michaëlis, Faber, and others, who have diftinguished themselves in this department of literature. Nor has he paid any attention to the writings of modern travellers, who, notwithstanding notwithstanding the late date of their accounts, may contribute effentially to the elucidation of Hebrew antiquities. For as the Arabs and Hebrews have unquestionably one common origin, it cannot be doubted but their manners and ufages muft, at least in the more ancient times, have been nearly the fame; and that thefe primeval manners have remained, in a great measure, unadulterated among the free Arabs, we may cafily be convinced, on a comparison of the relations of modern travellers with the biblical accounts. The author has, however, drawn very largely from the works of the Rabbins and Talmudical writers. Indeed this is what principally characterizes the volumes now before us, into which, among other more important matter, the ridiculous ftories retailed by them, are too frequently admitted. What perfon employed in making refearches into the ufeful parts of Hebrew antiquities would, for inftance, with to learn from the author of the Zeror Hamor that, in the Decalogue there are contained 613 letters, and fo many precepts? Or, from the Talmudifts, that no implements of iron were found neceffary in the building of the Temple, the ftones being all cut and polifhed by a certain worm? It is owing to this predilection for the Rabbins, that Mr. P. D. not unfrequently prefents his readers with what may more properly be denominated Jewish than Hebrew antiquities. The only fource of Hebrew antiquities on which we can fafely depend, are the books of the Old Teftament, both canonical and apocryphal, rightly understood. That the author likewise so often refers to paffages in the Fathers, is to be afcribed to the practice of thofe of his own communion, to which we fhould therefore not have objected, if he had shown greater judgment in the selection of them. What good purpose can poffibly be antwered by the quotation of paffages like the following, vol. i. p. 141: Tradunt Hebræi, inquit Hieronymus, quod Eliezer in fanctificatione ejus, boc eft, in circumcifione juraverit. Nos autem dicimus, juraffe eum in femine Abraha, quod eft Chriftus, quia ex illo nafciturus erat juxta Evangeliftam Matthæum loquentem: Liber generationis Jefu Chrifti filii David, filii Abraham. Nor are we altogether fatisfied with the order adopted by the author in this work. It muft indeed be confeffed, that all the part from c. 2. of the 1. book to c. 13, does really belong to the religious antiquities of the Hebrews; but from c. 14 to c. 21, we have an account of their domestic œconomy, whilft in cc. 22-5, the author again returns to the confideration of their religious fervice. So from c. 26 to c. 30, Mr. P. treats of their ancient political establishment, to which c. 31-5 of the 2d volume have likewife a reference. Again the 36 chapter relates to Profelytes, and, of courfe, to their ecclefiaftical antiquities; whereas, in c. 37, an account is given of their marriages, which appertain more strictly to their domeltic regimen. From c. 38 to c. 43, the fabject of their political government is again refumed; and, laftly, in c. 44, he enters on that of their different fects, and religious opinions. The contents of the fecond book have little or no relation to Hebrew antiquities, the 16. chapter on the Talmud of the Hebrews only excepted, which, if the author had in the introduction to this work prefented his readers with an effay on the fources of the Hebrew antiquities, would certainly have deserved a place in it. The remaining chapters would alfo have been better adapted to fuch fuch an introduction to the O. T. or to a work on the fubject of Rabbinical literature, than to the prefent one. Some opinions, which are at leaft very problematical, are likewife maintained by our author. Thus, for instance, it will hardly be generally allowed, that the Hebrew language is coeval with the world itself, as fome arguments might be adduced to show that it is only a daughter of the firit language; but it is doubtless most probable, that the ancient Samaritan was the Hebrew alphabet, and that the vowel points were added by the Maforeths. That it was the intention of Mr. P. to give a full account of the He-brew antiquities is evident. Notwithstanding this, we find, on the one hand, many omifiions in this work, with which others, profeffedly lefs comprehenfive, cannot be charged, and, on the other, much extraneous matter, which was by no means neceflary in order to render it complete. In chapter iii. which treats of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Mr. P. might have taken the opportunity to inform his readers, that the religious fervice of the ancient Hebrews was, at firit, performed in the open air, then under fhady trees, or in the groves, which may indeed be proved from records preferved in the book of Genefs. The mountains were also, in those remote times, the fcene of this fervice, though, to prevent them from falling into idolatry, this practice was afterwards prohibited. So likewife, in p. 29, where the injunction not to appear in the Temple empty-handed is mentioned, the author might have added, that this commandment moft probably originated in the cuftom of the eaftern people, who were never allowed to approach their earthly governors without fuch prefents. P. 89, the mufic of the Hebrews is greatly extolled, on account of the very extraordinary effects which it is faid to have produced, though Mr. P. does not believe that the Hebrews were acquainted with harmony, but takes it for granted that the different voices fung in unifon, and that therefore the mufic of this nation was remarkable for. its fimplicity. It has not once occurred to him to hint, that the exalted nature of the matter itself may poffibly have contributed not a little to produce this effect. Had Mr. P. read Herder's Geißt der He bräischen Poësie, he would, from vol. ii. p. 272, have been enabled to affign a probable reason why David's mufic was found powerful enough to difpel the melancholy of Saul. In p. 171, the author obferves that it was ufual with the Hebrews to prefent each other with clothes, which remark might have been confirmed from the accounts of mo dern travellers, by whom we are informed that this is ftill the cuftom among the eastern people. In the fame manner the author has barely mentioned the circumftance of the Hebrews living in tents, which might certainly have been further illuftrated by referring to modern travellers. So again in vol. ii. p. 3, where he treats of the fucceffion of the Ifraelitish kings, nothing is faid of the cultom by which the new king inherited the harem of his predeceffors though this is neceffary to the proper explanation of 2 Sam. xii. 8. Notwithstanding thefe defects, however, and the very inaccurate manner in which the Hebrew, Greek, and even Latin words are often printed, this work will be found to contain much useful information, drawn chiefly from fources which have hitherto been very imperfectly explored, and may therefore be confidered as a valuable acceffion to Biblical Literature. HUNGARY |
