Judah ben Karish (p), which are drawn from the same sources, are only systematically arranged, and are of similar value.28 Both these last wrote in Arabic; in Hebrew, however, we have R. Salomo Parchon, (before 1161,) from whose works De Rossi has extracted the most important, but still not very valuable, glosses.29 But among the learned Jews, R. David Kimchi30 soon surpassed all others in renown, and has remained even to the present time the classical lexicographer of the Hebrew. This celebrity he has certainly deserved, by the skilful use he has made of his predecessors, and especially of those who wrote in Arabic. To those who can have access to no copy of this now rare lexicon, its place may be in some degree supplied by the lexicon of Pagninus in the edition of Mercer, which is a translation and remoulding of the work of Kimchi, and contains the quintessence of the rabbinic interpreters.31

Among the Jewish commentators, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem, are the chief who occupy themselves with the explanation of words; though all these commentators have fixed with tolerable exactness the limits of the lexicon and of exegetical commentary, and in the latter are usually more brief with the lexical part, in order to gain room for the grammatical difficulties and the development of the sense. For characterising the three first it may be sufficient to remark, that

28 See extracts by Schnurrer in Eichhorn's Bibliothek, III. p. 951 sq. Two copies of the whole manuscript are in my possession, that of Gagnier (in Arabic letters) and that of Schnurrer.

29 'Lexicon Hebriacum selectum, quo ex antiquo et inedito R. Parchonis Lexico novas et diversas rariorum ac difficiliorum vocum significationes sistit J. B. de Rossi, Parmae 1805, 8vo.' Most of the explanations are drawn conjecturally from the connexion; as indeed the Rabbins are very wont to do.

30 His work appeared first at Naples, 1490. The Venetian edition of 1522, small folio, which is before me, bears a Hebrew title, and under it a Latin one: "Thesaurus linguae sanctae, sive Dictionarium Hebraicum.'

31 211238, h. e. Thesaurus Linguæ Sancta, sive Lexicon Hebraicum, auctore S. Pagnino Lucensi: nunc etc. recognitum opera Jo. Merceri, Antonii Cevallerii, et B. Cornelii Bertrami. Lugd. 1575, fol. 2 Tom. In the notes, the false translations of Kimchi's text by Pagninus are often corrected. [The copy of this work in the Andover library bears date Colon. Allobrog. i. e. Geneva, 1614. See Wolf Hist. Lexicor. Heb. p. 93.-ED.

Jarchi is almost wholly a traditional-talmudic interpreter; Aben Ezra beyond comparison more independent, more free from prejudice, and of sounder judgment; Kimchi a more skilful grammarian and compiler.32 From Tanchum of Jerusalem, who flourished in the thirteenth century, we have also an Arabic commentary on the earlier prophets, i. e. the historical books, in manuscript at Oxford; from which Pococke and Schnurrer have selected and published specimens; and of which I have also through the latter a fac-simile and copy.33

In order to read these Jewish interpreters with ease, whether they wrote in Hebrew or Arabic, some practice is certainly necessary; and especially the latter, whose manuscripts are all written with Hebrew characters, and contain many grammatical expressions which are not found in the lexicons. But the labour expended in this way does not often remain unrewarded. The hermeneutical value of these writers depends, in general, on the sources from which they draw, viz. tradition; Talmudic, Chaldaic, and Arabic usage; and the connexion: and then, in particular, it depends on the greater or less degree of sagacity and sound judgment in the individual; in which respect R. Jonah or Abulwalid holds the first place, while the so renowned Jarchi can properly claim only one of the lowest.

III. Kindred Languages.

The third, and indeed the most copious and important source of Hebrew lexicography, are the languages kindred with the Hebrew, usually denominated, (in the absence of any appropriate appellation already employed by earlier writers,) the Shemitish languages; an acquaintance with which in a lexical respect, and particularly for the etymological part of our investigations, is indispensable; since the two first sources already treated of, afford for the most part only information, and that not complete, in respect to the usus loquendi. We shall give here, in the first place, some general historical notices in regard to these kindred. dialects, having reference especially to the history and criticism of their lexicography; and then subjoin some remarks upon the proper use and application of them.

32 See the author's Commentary on Isaiah, I. p. 119 sq.

33R.Tanchum Hieros. ad libros V. T. Commentarii Arabici Specimen etc.' Tubing. 1791. 4to. Pococke intended to have published the whole; see his Theol. Works, p. 45.

The Shemitish stock of languages divides itself, in general, into three principal branches: First, the Aramaean, which was anciently spoken in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia, and may be subdivided into the Syriac or West Aramaean, and Chaldaic or East Aramaean. Besides these, we have still some relics in the dialect of the Samaritans, Zabians, and of Palmyra, which also belong to the Aramaean branch.-Second, the Canaanitish branch in Palestine and Phenicia. To this belongs the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the few remnants of the Phenician and Punic dialects; also the later Hebrew, or talmudic and rabbinic; which however is again intermingled with Aramaean. Third, the Arabic language, of which the Ethiopic is an early secondary branch. Of both these again, there are later half corrupted dialects; viz. of the former the Moorish and Maltese dialects, and of the latter the Amharic.

1. We begin with the Aramaean dialects, as the most simple, and in which also, next to the Hebrew, we possess the most ancient documents. The earliest trace of the Aramaean dialect in Mesopotamia, occurs in Gen. 31: 47; and even should this passage, as Vater assumes,34 not demonstrate, that already in the time of the patriarchs a different dialect from that of Palestine was spoken in Mesopotamia, still it proves this with certainty for the time of the writer, whom we cannot place later than the time of David or Solomon.* During the captivity, the exiled Hebrews learned to speak the East Aramaean dialect, as the mother tongue of the kingdom of Babylon, and brought it back with them to their native land; where at first it only corrupted and gave an Aramaean tinge to the ancient Hebrew,35 but afterwards entirely supplanted it. This was especially the case, when, under the Macedonic-Syrian dominion, new influences were superadded from other quarters. In Syria proper, at the same time, the Syriac language received an intermixture of Greek

34 Commentar über d. Pentat. in loc.

* It is well known that Gesenius places the date of the composition of the Pentateuch, in the time above specified. This view however is ably refuted by Prof. Stuart, in the article published in the preceding number of this work. Vol. II. p. 688 sq.-Ed.

35 At that time also many Aramaean words found their way into the ancient Persian dialects, but with Persian terminations. See them collected in Von Bohlen's Symbolae ad interpretationem Sac. Cod. ex lingua Persica, Lips. 1822. 4to. p. 10 sq.

words, which afterwards acquired and retained the right of citizenship.

The earliest document still extant in the proper Syriac dialect, is the version of the Old and New Testament, which most probably belongs to the end of the second century of the Christian era; about which time we find the Syrian literature in general to have been flourishing and productive.36 It embraced chiefly the christian theological literature, such as biblical exegesis, doctrinal theology and polemics, martyrologies and liturgies; but also history, philosophy, and the natural sciences.37 The Gnostic Bardesanes, a cotemporary of the Antonines, was the first writer of hymns; and Ephraem Syrus the most celebrated teacher and theologian in the orthodox church. It was chiefly Nestorians, however, who translated the Greek philosophers and physicians into their language; and in this way became afterwards, in the eighth century, the teachers of the Arabians. So late as in the thirteenth century, the Syrians had their last classical writer in Barhebraeus, (ob. 1286,) Jacobite Maphrian or suffragan bishop at Maraga; since which time the language has been ever more and more supplanted by the Arabic, until at last it has become limited to a few unimportant districts, and even here, e. g. in mount Lebanon, is more the language of books and of the learned, than the living language of a people.38 The

36 See Hug's Einleit. in das N. T. I. p. 364 sq.

37 See Ebedjesu Catal. libror. Chaldaicorum (i. e. Syriacorum) in Assemani Biblioth. tom. II. Hoffmann has also given a concise history of the Syriac literature in Bertholdt's Krit. Journal, vol. XIV; and a more copious one in the Prolegomena to his Grammatica Syriaca, Hal. 1827. 4to.

38 Burckhardt's Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 22, 186. [The statement in the text would seem to be rather too restricted. Niebuhr remarks, (Beschreibung von Arabien, p.91 sq. Reisebeschreibung, II. p. 352,) that the Syriac or Chaldee is still the vernacular language of the Syrian Christians in very many villages around Merdûn and Mosul; and this is also supported by the statements of Brown in his Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria, p. 405. Volney indeed contradicts the statement; but his authority is notoriously of very little value, in opposition to the well known conscientious accuracy of Niebuhr. The passing testimony of Burckhardt, as above cited, goes also to corroborate Niebuhr's statement. Hoffmann in his Prolegomena (1. c.) has endeavoured to overthrow the testimony of Niebuhr and Brown, by that of Volney, and by the fact that more recent travellers have not - VOL. III. No. 9.

3

manuscript treasures of the Syriac literature are great; the most of which are preserved in the library of the Vatican; and from these J. S. Assemani has published extracts of very great importance.39 But of all these treasures, comparatively very little has been printed.40

Of particular importance for our object, is the origin of the ancient native lexicons, with which we must be well acquainted, in order to judge correctly and fully of those which are now extant. The need of such helps was principally felt for the first time in the ninth and tenth centuries; during which period, under the first Abassides, many heads and hands were busied with

mentioned the circumstance. In 1831, Messrs. Smith and Dwight, American missionaries, in their tour through Armenia, visited a number of villages of Syrian Christians in the neighbourhood of Tebrîz, among whom the Syriac is still the common and vernacular language. They found there also an intelligent monk, a native of Mesopotamia, who assured them that this was also the vernacular language of his own country, and gave them information entirely corresponding with the statements of Niebuhr. The language is still written with the Syriac character; and Messrs. Smith and Dwight obtained copies of several religious tracts, which were said to be all the modern literature existing in the language. These are now in the hands of Mr Smith, in this country; and the Editor hopes to receive from him farther information on this interesting subject, to be communicated to the public through this work. That this language has sometimes been called the Chaldaic, is probably to be accounted for, as Mr Smith suggests, from the fact, that many of the Syrian Christians having gone over to the Roman Catholic communion, the pope constituted them into a separate religious community, and gave them the appellation of the Chaldee church, of which there is, in the same sense, a Chaldee patriarch; and for the same reason they now give this name to their language.-ED.

39 J. S. Assemani Biblioth. orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, 3 tom. in 4 vol. fol. Romae 1719-25.

40 The most important printed works are the following: Barhebraei Chronicon ed. Bruns et Kirsch, Syr. et Lat. Lips. 1789. 2 tom. 4to. with which, however, the numerous corrections of the text and translation must be used, which have been made by Lorsbach, Arnoldi, F. G. Mayer, and Bernstein; those of the last from a new collation of the manuscripts. S. Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia, Rom. 1737. 6 tom. fol. of which the three first volumes contain the Syriac works, and were edited by Petrus Benedictus. Steph. Ev. Assemani Acta Martyrum orient. et occidentalium.' 2 partes, Romae 1748. fol.