a man of great integrity and profound learning. But with respect to his edition of the book of Jofhua, he obferves, that though his profeffed defign was to correct and restore the Greek text, yet his latent intention was merely to confirm the authority of the Vulgate.' Differtation II. contains fome remarks on Origen's cele. brated Hexapla. The Septuagint verfion was made about 280 years before the birth of Chrift; and remained alone in ufe above 400 years: in its progress through this period, it underwent from various caufes, many and fignal alterations; infomuch that, in the days of Origen, the differences between the copies were amaz ingly, and, as he fays, lamentably great. The whole version before this time had been grofsly traduced, and repudiated by the Jewish nation. And because it had been fo, Aquila, a native of Pontus, and a profelyte to Judaifm, published, about the year of our Lord 130, another and moft literal verfion, which was immediately adopted by the Jews, and introduced into their fynagogues, instead of the Septuagint. N. B. This is to be underftood of his fecond edition. After him, Theodotion, an Ephefian, and Jewish profelyte, undertook a third tranflation, and made it public about the year 175.-This, as moft conformable to the Septuagint, obtained little or no credit among the Jews. Laftly, about the clofe of the fecond century, Symmachus, a learned Samaritan, published a fourth tranflation, which was highly esteemed both by Jews and Chriftians, especially the fecond edition. These four verfions Origen had in his hands; and from them compofed his Tetrapla, the lois of which is greatly to be lamented. For the author, being then able to read the fcrip ture only in Greek, and having the higheft efteem for the Sep tuagint verfion, rendered the text, which he placed in the first column, as perfect as he could, "adjufting the differences between the copies by the concurring fenfe of the other verfions." Çom. in Matth. tom. i. p. 381. Had he ftopt here, in my judgment, he had done well, But fome time after this, he learned the Hebrew language; and whilst he applied to the Jews for inftruction therein, he imbibed from them a lafting opinion of the fuperiority and per fection of the Hebrew fcriptures; which lowered his esteem for the Septuagint verfion. Accordingly, when he came, about the year 230, to compofe the Hexapla, he made the Hebrew the tandard, and gave preference to the feveral verfions, as they acceded to, and agreed with it. This is evident from the structure of the work. For in the first column, he placed the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; and in the fecond, the fame in Greek characters. This text he inferted manifeftly from fuch copy, as the Jews, his masters in Hebrew, beft approved; and recom recommended to him as the moft correct. In the third column, he inferted the verfion of Aquila; and in the fourth, that of Symmachus; the two Greek verfions that were then in the highest eftimation with the Jews. In the fifth, he placed the Septuagint verfion, not indeed in the form in which he found it, but modelled and accommodated to his Hebrew text. And as it appeared, when compared with that text, to be in fome places redundant, and in others deficient; fo he prefixed an obelus, or dagger, to all thofe redundancies; and fupplied the deficiences out of the other Greek verfions, under the fign of a ftar or afterifk. The fixth column contained the verfion of Theodotion, which was feemingly thrust into this lowest place, as being of little account in the opinion of the Jews.' From this representation he proceeds to fhew, what effect and influence the feveral editions, and particularly the Hexaplar edition, had on the original Septuagint text. And the effect, he says, was, that, instead of improving it, they manifeftly deftroyed and ruined its integrity. With refpect to Origen, many corruptions, he thinks, may juftly be ascribed to his wrong zeal, in preferring the later Hebrew copies, recommended by the Jews; and to his bad judgment in adopting, as he often did, the barbarous verfion of Aquila, not to mention the other two. By these means the Hexapla column of the Septuagint foon became, especially when the fignatures were omitted, a ftrange heterogeneous mixture; diffimilar in ftyle, and irregular in conftruction; of which the attentive reader has, at this time, fre quent occafion to complain. All the blame, however, muft not be laid on Origen's Hexa. pla. The editions of Lucian and Hefychius bore most probably a share in the mischief. Let us infpect only the book of Judges; and what amazing differences do we find therein between the Alexandrian and Vatican copies! Whence now could thefe differences, fo peculiar in their kind, take their rife, but from one or other of the last mentioned editions. Dr. Grabe, Epift. ad Millium, has clearly proved, in my opinion, that the Alex. MS. exhibits the reading of the Hexapla, and the Vatican that of Hefychius.' In an Appendix our author confiders the defects and redundancies of Origen's Hebrew text, and his confequent mifap. plication of obeli and afterifks in the Septuagint Greek. We perfectly agree with this learned writer, in fuppofing, that the Hebrew Bible, like other books, must have contracted fome faults in paffing through the hands of transcribers; and more faults of courfe, the oftener it was transcribed.'. But from whence does it appear, that Origen did not adopt the best Hebrew copy, which could at that time be procured? Cc 3 Was Was he not capable of forming a proper judgment of its integrity? Or, can it be supposed, that he submitted to the recommendation of the Jews, without a proper enquiry, or a due examination ?, The Septuagint, fays our author, underwent, from various caufes, many and fignal alterations; infomuch that, in the days of Origen, the differences between the copies were amazingly, and, as he fays, lamentably great.' If this was the cafe, why might not Origin admit the fuperiority of the Hebrew fcriptures, and endeavour to accommodate the Greek verfion to his Hebrew text? For our part, we have no great idea of the original verfion, which was afcribed to the Seventy elders, or of their abilities. The Hebrew was no more a familiar language, in the time of the Seventy interpreters, than it was in the fecond and third century. And, from all the fpecimens we have had of the Jewish literature, fince the time of Ezra, we can fcarcely believe, that any accurate translation of the Bible into Greek could be produced by Jewish Rabbies. Jerom repeatedly mentions it as a general belief, that only the five books of Mofes were tranflated by the seventy * but by whom, or at what time, the other books of the Old Teftament were fuppofed to be tranflated, he does not inform The fimiliarity between fome paffages in the New Testament, and the translation we call the Septuagint, is no proof, that this tranflation exifted, in the form we now have it, in the time of the apoftles For among the many and fignal alterations, which this verfion has undergone, we can eafily fuppose, that it might, in thefe places, be modelled and accommodated to the expreffions of the evangelical and apostolical writers, by fome over-zealous and injudicious Chriftian. This is certainly no improbable fuppofition, though we only startit as a conjecture, which we fhall not attempt to defend. us. The world is much obliged to this eminent writer for many curious and learned obfervations in this valuable tract. The new Annual Regißer, or General Repofitory of Hiftory, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783. To which is prefixed, A Short Review of the State of Knowlege, Literature, and Tafte, in this Country, from the Norman Conqueft, to the Acceffion of Edward the First. 8vo., 6s. 6d. half-bound. Robinfon. WE E noticed the first appearance of this periodical work, in our fifty-fecond volume, page 141; and from the dawn of excellence, entertained warm expectations of fuccefs. *Ariftaus & Jofephus & omnis fchola Judæorum quinque tantum libros Moyfi à LXX. tranflatos afferunt. Hier. in Ezek. c. v. The The fubfequent volumes have been equally distinguished by their difpaffionate examination of public events, and a candid relation of the efforts of party, earnest for diftinction, eager for emolument. The hiftorian has followed its mazy current, without being overwhelmed in the vortices, which frequently occur; and furveyed with an equal eye, the various changes, and the fudden revolutions of the political wheel. The paffages, felected from different publications, have been in general useful and entertaining. Of the literary department, and its execution, we can fay little with propriety. It is in fome degree a rival warfare, and we would willingly avoid Fraternas acies, alternaque regna profanis Decertata odiis.' In the laft volume, the medical, philofophical, and che mical works are characterized; and fome voluntary communications, by an anonymous correfpondent, inferted. The Foreign Literature is more extenfive, and better arranged, than in the former volumes. The fhort Review of the State of Knowlege, in the earlier periods of our hiftory, has been purfued with accuracy, and is now brought down to the middle of the thirteenth century. It concludes with the life, and an account of the writings, of that diftinguished perfonage Roger Bacon. This life is concife but exact, and drawn from the best fources. On the whole, this collection, from the early period of its appearance, its accuracy, and the judgment employed in the felection, deserves our commendation. It cannot be expected to be perfect; but, as we obferve fresh improvements in the fucceffive volumes, we have great reafon to hope that it will ftill farther advance in the future ones. We cannot refift tranfcribing the following beautiful origi hal fornet. SONNET to EXPRESSIO N. For charm'd with heav'nly fong, this bleeding breaft Cc4 MONTHLY CATALOGUE. POLITICA L. A Short Account of the Gentoo Mode of collecting the Revenues on the Coaft of Coromandel. 8vo. IS. Nourfe. T HE author of this account is Mr. Dalrymple, from whom we learn that the Gentoo conftitution is remarkable for its fingularity. It appears that among this people the land is not private property, but that all of it (the houses and gardens excepted) belongs to the community, and is cultivated by the public. Every village has its own refpective officers. Of these the chief is the headman, who is appointed to execute juftice. The accounts of the village are kept by one denominated the conicopoly. Befides thefe, it has a corn-meter, fmith, barber, aftrologer, doctor, &c. The produce of the ground is divided among the inhabitants in certain proportions. One share is appropriated to the pagodas and bramins, another to the govern ment, a third to the public officers, a fourth to the repair of tanks, or refervoirs of water, and the remainder distributed to the people. This is the general ftate of polity among the Gentoos, but fome innovations have been introduced by the Europeans. Fox and Pitt's Speeches in the House of Commons, June 8, 1784. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Debrett. Thefe Speeches relate to the Weftminster fcrutiny; and from the detail prefixed, it is evident that they are published by the party of Mr. Fox. Abftract of the Budget, or the Taxes for the Year 1784. 8vo. Is. 6d. Ridgeway. The Contents of this pamphlet are fufficiently obvious from its title. Some Obfervations on the evil Confequences that will probably arife from a Duty propofed to be laid on Coals. 8vo. 6d. Debrett. The tax to which this relates having been abandoned, any obfervations upon it now may be deemed fuperfluous. Remarks on Morbid Retentions of Urine. By Charles Brandon Trye. 8vo. 25. 6d. Murray. This firft effort, of a feemingly young author, is no unfavourable specimen of his modesty and his abilities. The great object of this little work is to recommend drawing off the urine, through a flexible catheter, by means of an exhausting fyringe, when the bladder has fo far loft its tone, that no urine follows the introduction of the ufual inftrument. The plan is not unpromifing; but our author mistakes its operation. The urine does not flow in confequence of the preffure of the atmosphere |