"They saw neither sun moon or stars." p. 52. Again, "They neither ate, slept or labored, or even worshipped God in the sanctuary without arms and ammunition at hand." p. 72. Neither should always be followed by nor; either by or. Speaking of an error of sentiment and feeling which the Puritans indulged, the writer says, p. 114, "This produced uncharitableness towards others, and the bad effects of the religious sentiment perverted." We suppose the writer designed to speak of a perversion of religious sentiment. The following requires no comment. "We have already mentioned Colonel John Washington. Lawrence Washington was his son; Augustus Washington his" p. 153. "He gave them their choice, to labor for six hours a day or have nothing to eat." p. 42. The unnecessary introduction of the word for here conveys an idea of price which was not intended. The following is somewhat objectionable for a similar reason. "East Jersey, the property of Carteret, being exposed to sale, Penn purchased it for twelve Quakers." We give a few examples of the wrong use of words. Speaking of the claims which the Dutch made to the country bordering on the Connecticut river, the writer says, p. 47, "The court of England disowned those claims," meaning, probably, that the court of England denied the justness of the claims of the Dutch. The meaning of disown is not to admit as one's own. One person cannot disown the claims of another. Again: "The Indian chief freely gave land to Williams whose neighborhood he now coveted." p. 67. Neighborhood signifies either a community of neighbors or the place they occupy, and the word cannot be appropriately applied to proximity of person. Again: "The governor left the province, and Leisler assumed to administer the government." To assume to do a thing is an impropriety of speech. Again: "The son of Pocahontas survived and reared an offspring which is per petuated in some of the best families of Virginia," p. 45. Surely that identical offspring could not have been perpetuated! Characters, principles, races, etc., may be perpetuated, but that persons may be perpetuated is a new thing in philosophy. We select a few examples which show an occasional lowering of the style unbecoming the dignity of a historian. "At last a few followers having joined him, he fixed at Seekonk, since Rehoboth, within the limits of the Plymouth colony," p. 67. "Afterwards they changed their location and fixed where Albany now stands." p. 92. "Soon after this Zeisberger led a party who fixed for a time on the Alleghany river," etc. etc. p. 260. "They gave notice that Massasoit, the Sachem of the Pokanokets was hard by." "The high manner of Vane, his profound religious feeling, and his great knowledge so wrought in his favor," etc. p. 65. "This would naturally breed quarrels and bloodshed." p. 15. We close by noticing a few strictly ungrammatical phrases. "He therefore sent out two ships ladened with conscientious Huguenots." p. 27. (There is no such participle as ladened.) "The natives were as kindly as their climate and soil," p. 34. "The admiral, with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers, were empowered to govern the colony until his arrival." p. 43. (That is, the admiral were empowered.) "Before spring, half of their number, among whom was the governor and his wife," etc. p. 58. "The whole settlement, thus constantly excited, were in the feverish condition of intense and continual fear," p. 72. "Fear and terror was on every side." p. 124. Every one of Dade's army were killed on the fatal field." p. 322. "If force was employed against them, they would repel it by force." p. 176. "A large quantity of ammunition and stores were deposited at Concord." p. 193. We add, from the questions, a few examples of the use of he wrong case of the pronoun. 1 "Who did he send as leader of the colony?" p. 26. "Who did the Plymouth company send out?" p. 37. "What did the proprietors obtain ?-Who make governor ?" p. 63. "Who did he send to take the country?" p. 95. "Who did Queen Anne make governor?" p. 134. We might have made a much larger collection of similar examples. Those we have selected are taken exclusively from the common school edition of Mrs. Willard's works, although we notice, generally, the same, and even more numerous errors in the larger history, called the library edition. We ought, perhaps, here to remark, that Mrs. Willard's history is not a recent work, as many suppose; and that the sentences we have selected have not, therefore, gone forth in haste from the hands of the writer, without sufficient time for their revision. The original work, if we mistake not, was published more than fifteen years ago; but in the changes through which it has passed, to its present improved form, well may we ask, where are the corrections? In our remarks, we trust we have not gone beyond the legitimate province of the reviewer; we have spoken of works, now the property of the public, with that freedom which we believed the subject demanded; and should the cause of education gain any thing by our efforts, we shall deem ourselves most amply rewarded. ARTICLE VIII. DOMINICI DIODATI I. C. NEAPOLITANI, DE CHRISTO GRÆCE LOQUENTE EXERCITATIO. Translated by Rev. O. T. DOBBIN, LL, D., of Western Independent College, Exeter, England. Continued from page 366, Vol. I. PART III.—Answers to the positions and objections of those who advocate other views. As we have now, we conceive, more than demonstrated our assertion that the Jews, from the time of the Maccabees, and that the Lord Christ used the Hellenistic tongue, it now only remains that we weigh the opinions of others on this point. The remainder of our plan, then, engages us in the double task of canvassing and refuting the various theories of our opponents, and of meeting the objections which the patrons of these theories urge against our own hypothesis. CHAPTER I.-The various opinions concerning the language of Christ are described and refuted. There are three opinions upon this subject. Of these the first is, that Christ spoke Hebrew, which has met with but a small share of public approbation. The second is, that he used the Latin tongue. This is confined to but one or two. The third, and the most commonly received is, that he spoke the Chaldee or Syriac. These we shall refute in order. But pardon, gentle reader, the preliminary observation, that we speak here of the language naturally spoken by Christ, or which is the same thing, of that which prevailed in Judea during the period of his life. For, apart from this question, who will deny that he knew all languages? The mere accident of his using a Chaldee or Hebrew word occasionally does not, by any means, of necessity imply that he commonly spoke these tongues, or that either was his vernacular language. Far from it. To our purpose however. 1. The Hebrew tongue was neither vernacular to Christ nor to the Jews of his day. Some suppose that Christ spoke Hebrew, on the ground that that language was more sacred than any other: just as if sacredness could characterize the tones and modulation of a tongue. Otho Sperling' was of this opinion, together with a few others to whom the Sacred History must have been very imperfectly known. The great body of the learned teach us that this language ceased to be vernacular after the Babylonish captivity. In the reign of Jehoiachim, the Chaldeans. came up against Judea and inflicted the direst cruelties upon the inhabitants: many were slain; and of those who survived, the greater part was carried captive to Babylon. There they were constrained to learn and use the language of their captors; and thus they gradually forgot their own during the course of seventy years. Their dispersion amongst the Chaldeans, and their intermarriages with the women of the country, would aid in producing this effect, as all the children of such connections would speak only the language of the native Chaldeans. It is natural also to believe, that the elder members of the Jewish community must have died off during this long period, while the juniors, born and brought up among the Chaldeans, would be ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, and use only the dialect of the country with which they were familiar from childhood. From all this it would readily happen that, when the Hebrews returned to the land of their fathers, they could not understand the language of their fathers. Nehemiah tells us that, when the book of the law was read in Hebrew in the temple, the people wept because they could not understand it, and when Ezra interpreted the divine statutes in Chaldee they were affected with the liveliest joy. Hence it came to pass that, after the return of Ezra, the law 1 Sperlingius de Num, non cusis, cap. 18, p. 110. 2 Jerem. cap. 25; lib. 2 Paralip. cap. 36. 3 V. Nehemiam, cap. 8, et Interpr. ibi. |