merits or demerits of this part of my book? If he is, why does he not say something on this point? If he is not, why does he give a general judgment on a performance that comes not before his tribunal? The story of my Hebrew Chrestomathy is short, and I must beg the liberty of telling it.

For some months after being advertised that my sixth edition of the Grammar was exhausted, I deliberated on the question, whether I should engage in a re-publication. My mind at first inclined against it, until I received a copy of Roediger, and was told that Prof. C. did not intend to alter his stereotype plates, and give us Roediger's emendations. I felt decided that they were too important to be withheld. The next question was: Cannot the expense of a separate Chrestomathy be saved by concentration, and by combination with the Grammar, so that indigent students may be put to less expense? This I believed to be feasible. Then came the question: Is it for the interests of Heb. literature in our country, to give up this whole affair to Prof. Conant's translation of Gesenius (three editions back of the recent one), and his Chrestomathic Notes? I investigated this question as impartially as I was able. While thinking on it, 1 questioned more than one teacher, who had employed his Chrestomathy in teaching Hebrew; and by more than one I was assured, that his Exercises, and the Chrestomathic portion of his book, had been found by them incompetent to effect what they desired. On stricter examination, I was led to believe that they were in the right. It was my deliberate judgment, after all this, that the interests of Hebrew could not be safely left in such hands. I may have erred in my judgment; but it is a judgment formed after getting all the light I could obtain. It is my deliberate judgment now, after a very recent and renewed examination. And on this point I have to say, that none but the experienced in teaching Hebrew, are competent to form an enlightened judgment in respect to such a matter. "Procul, O procul!" I might say to the inexperienced, without any breach of comity. I do not regard Prof. C.'s Chrestomathy as a thorough radical analysis of the forms, syntax, vowels, and accents of the Hebrew. After all the information which it gives a beginner, it still leaves him in the dark as to many things which he should know, and which ought to be explained to him.

With such views, honestly entertained, although I possibly may have been mistaken, I engaged in the appalling labour of writing Chrestomathic notes entirely de novo. I do not challenge competition, for I do not deal in challenges; but I invite

I

every and any competent judge in the country to make the comparison. Perhaps my reviewer may be disposed to accept the invitation. So much the better; for then at least he cannot well pass over this part of my book, (so important as the subject is to a beginner in Hebrew), in such deep silence as he has now maintained. It certainly is no great matter, to be able, after two or three year's labour, to translate the German part of Gesenius' Grammar verbum verbo. Even a man who knew nothing of the Hebrew might do this. But it is another thing to analyze the Hebrew language, and develop all its idioms. Excepting the very brief, and I must think unsatisfactory, work of Prof. C., in regard to these last matters, what evidence have the public of his attainments in Hebrew? I know of none. When the reviewer places the superior merits of Prof. C.'s work on the sole basis of accurately translating Gesenius, how much has he achieved toward showing the superiority of the work as a whole? Just nothing at all, or next to nothing. The sensible reader is more concerned to know, whether what he has before him is correct and adequate to impart the information needed, than he is to know whether it comes from Gesenius, or from some other person. The reviewer has failed, and signally failed, to set my book in a full and fair light, by suppressing all notice of anything it contains, except alleged errors in translating the German. Is this equal and exact justice? If so, then Aixn must have changed her whole mien since the days of yore. I need not ask, whether it is generous.

It is time to hasten toward a conclusion. But I promised my reviewer a conference on the subject of the alleged accuracy of Prof. C.'s translation. He has endorsed the claims of the Professor in the most unlimited manner, as I have already stated. First he avers (p. 257), that “his translation is distinguished by clearness, elegance, and accuracy;" and then (p. 258), that "it has the highest excellence of which such a work is susceptible." As to all the charges against me of error, made by my “rival,” he affirms that he has "examined them carefully ;" and although he does not say that this allegation applies to the whole work, yet the unlimited commendation which he has given to the whole, would seem to oblige us to suppose, that he has gone over the whole ground carefully.

We have already passed in review the first salutation of the Critique, which concerns the first sentence of the Grammar, and in respect to which two errors are strongly charged on me, in a tone bordering upon sarcasm and contempt. We have also seen,

that in this very sentence, my "rival" has wholly missed the main idea, and conveyed one neither apposite nor true. 'E ¿vízor — Asovra. No inconsiderable portion of the Critique, if thoroughly scanned, would come out in the same way, or in such a way as to show its entire insignificance. Such mistakes as the book of Kings, instead of Judges, i. e. a mere lapsus pennae, he can find, and other like matter; and for myself I should thank any man for a friendly suggestion of such, or of any other, errors. But since obtuseness, ignorance of either the German or Hebrew, want of power to appreciate the object and worth of any grammatical position, absurdities, ludicrous representations, contradictions, ostentatious parade, and crudities, are all deduced from such premises, and charged on me, it will not be amiss to inquire, whether he who would cast out-rather, tear out—the mote from his brother's eye, may not possibly have a beam in his own.

I invite his Sponsor now to an excursus with me for the sake of examination and discovery. He can do no less than to accept my friendly and hearty invitation. I have not been searching through the rival translation, in order to pick out its weakest spots, so that we may direct our steps toward them. I open the book simply in a fortuitous manner, and the opening presents to me § 6. To keep within moderate limits, we will take only the first two pages of this Section, in order that we may have room to look a little elsewhere.

As Prof. C. has set the example of descending to minutiae, in his criticisms on me, of course he cannot object to my applying the same process to himself. In one thing, however, I shall not imitate his example. I cannot descend to the utterance of Schimpfrede; for from the very bottom of my heart I regard dealing in this as altogether unworthy of a scholar and a gentleman. To me it seems a certain index of consciousness that one has a poor cause to support, and of a persuasion that what is wanting in argument must be made up by violence of assertion and abusive vituperation. In passing through the slight ordeal to which I must now subject him, in order to see whether my reviewer is able and willing to redeem the pledge made by his endorsement, Prof. C. is secure from all hard names, all charges of ridiculous absurdities, and all allegations of incompetency to translate. What I soberly think of his other labours in respect to the Hebrew, may be deduced from my previous remarks on the Chrestomathic part of his book, and on the subject of the Hebrew article. Even there I do not impeach his ability. I merely state, that so far as I am able to judge, the

.I

public have as yet no good reason before them, for thinking him to be possessed of a philosophical and radical knowledge of the Hebrew. To my eye, before this controversy had any being, there was nothing in his book, that looked much beyond “trecentos versus in horâ, stans pede in uno." But of this the public must judge for themselves. It would certainly be far enough from propriety, for me to say, that he is not able to do many things which he has not yet done. Those that he has done are before us; and it is lawful to keep in our eye, while we look at a portion of them, the fact that he claims the honour, and the exclusive honour, of having faithfully and exactly, in all respects great and small, given Roediger's Gesenius to our public in an English dress. Such a part as Prof. Davies had performed, has now the seal of Prof. C. affixed to it. All this is superscribed, moreover, by my reviewer; and has his broad seal affixed. Whether the motto on this is Noli me tangere, or some gentler sentiment, I have hardly been able to make out. But to the work without any further parleying.

66

In § 6, first paragraph, (p. 33 in C.'s edition), the original has von der Aussprache abhängig sind, und erst dadurch begreiflich werden;" i. e. [many grammatical peculiarities and changes] are dependent on the pronunciation, and only thereby become comprehensible C.,* "are regulated and explained by the pronunciation." To be regulated by and to be dependent on, are two ideas diverse in themselves, and may be quite different. Clearly they are not synonymous here. To be explained is quite a different shade of idea from becoming comprehensible; the latter belongs to the thing itself, the other to the act of an exegete.

"Namentlich" (same paragraph), namely, or equivalent to our phrase for example. C., "particularly," which means more than the original asserts. In point of fact it may be true, because the Arabic is a living language, and we can more easily make the comparison needed; but this is not the assertion of the original. (Ib.), "Annäherung," approach, approximation; C., "resemblance."

P. 34, 2nd paragraph:† “In den Gewohnheiten der heutigen Juden liegt viel Widersprechendes,” i. e. in the usages of the Jews of the present time lies much which is contradictory. C., “The pronunciation of the Jews of the present day is not uniform." Ge

* I beg the liberty to designate the version of Prof. C. by the initial letter of his name, as also the German or original by R. Roediger.

In all cases where the German is quoted, I refer to the corresponding part in C.'s translation, and designate where it is there found.

3*

wohnheiten does not mean simply pronunciation; and as to is not uniform, it is far enough from expressing the original. It is one thing to say that usages are not uniform, and quite another to say, as the original has done, that they are contradictory. In the sequel, indem is wholly omitted. R., “sich die pölnischen und deutschen Juden an die syrische... anschliessen;” i. e, since (or, inasmuch as) the Polish and German Jews approach near to (or, join themselves to) the Syriac. C., "The Polish and German Jews adopt the Syriac." Now it is one thing to approximate towards the Syriac, (which is what R. asserts), and a very different one to adopt it.-(Ib.), "Christen;" i. e. Christians. C., "Christian scholars." (Ib.), R., “mehr und mit grösserem Rechte;" i. e. [the Spanish and Portuguese Jews approximate] more, and with more right [to the Arabic pronunciation]. C., "more properly prefer." In this he has apparently made mehr into a qualification of grösserem Rechte, (which would then read more greater), or else he has wholly omitted it, and along therewith the whole idea of approximating nearer or more. To prefer is quite distinct from actual approximation. In fact this is an unfortunate exhibition of "accuracy in the highest degree;" and I believe even my reviewer must begin to think in a case, like the present, where one might almost say "quot voces tat errores," that his careful examination of this passage was mingled with a little of haste.

Par. 3, p. 34, "nur;" i. e. only, but. C., "however." (Ib.), ❝und sie mussten sich behelfen, so gut sie konnten ;" i. e. they were obliged to help themselves as well as they could. C., “in which cases they had to make what shifts they could." accuses me of trespassing on the dignity that original German. It may be well to look to the dignity of his version here. "Und," and, he renders "in which cases."

Prof. C. often belongs to the

Ib., par. 4, "The following list,” (added by C.), is not in the original; nor does what follows resemble a list. It is an exhibition of remarks on a few letters of peculiar sound. (Ib.), “bei deren Aussprache etwas Besonderes zu bemerken ist;" i. e. in respect to the pronunciation of which something peculiar is to be noted. C.," whose pronunciation requires special attention." To require special attention and to have something peculiar which ought to be noted, are two ideas quite distinct and different. What follows in C. is very paraphrastic.

Ib. par. 5, "leiseste," softest, most slender. C., "lightest." Light is not a good word to apply to pronunciation. (Ib.) "Luftstoss," expiration. L., "breathing." It is well enough, since it is