« ForrigeFortsett »
"A manuscript of the book of Ezra, in his own handle uriting, is said to be still preserved in the German Synagogue at Jerusalem. Rab. Enoch Zundel."
That there may be a Synagogue of German Jews, at Jerusalem, we will not deny; although we do not recollect to have before met with any particular notice of them as separate from other Jews. But as to the manuscript in the handueriting of Ezra, — this story is not a whit behind the ineflable Bar Bar Hanna himself. No wonder such a critic as Rabbi Zundel should give a hearty recommendation to Mr. Roy's book, and believe him to be a better scholar than Ge
Pasted on the inner page of the cover, we find another recommendation from that extraordinary
A more difficult and graver task we have, in disposing of
, we bare the honor of a little acquaintance. The number of clergymen, including the différent denominations, is no less than twenty-one. Many of these gentlemen, to our certain knowledge, are bighly respectable men in their profession; others with whom we are not acquainted, we doubt not are worthy of the same commendation. How much all or any one of them knows of the Hebrew, we do hope and trust will not be judged of from the opinion they have given of Mr. Ross book.
they felt kindly disposed to patronize literary efforts in our own land, and this was in itself a commendable motive for giving their names.
We do not know these facts; but we reason from analogy that they are probable. We have had the fortune, be it good or ill, to be besieged at times by authors, who have managed matters as above described ; nay, this very same book has been urged on us in this way. We conclude, therefore, that others may
have been treated in like manner. But what will these gentlemen now say, in view of facts respecting this worse than worthless book, which are developed in the preceding pages? We could fill a volume with other facts equally disgraceful to a book that wears the name of a Lexicon. Facts, too, are stubborn things. If these gentlemen have in reality any good acquaintance with Hebrew, they must know, from the bare presentation of such facts as we have detailed, that the book is really worse than useless, and that it will serve only to mislead the tyro
every step that he takes. If they are not acquainted with Hebrew, then we have a right to ask, and to urge the question in a serious manner, too, How came they to commend a work which they had not examined, and which they were unable to appreciate ?
We do seriously think, much as we respect them, that the public have a right to ask, and probably will ask these questions ; certainly, that part of the public who can do what Mr. Roy, as it would seem, cannot, i. e. distinguish a Qamets from a Qamets Hhateph. The reputation of the city of New York, the great metropolis of our country as to population and trade, and nobly striving to become so as to literature, is deeply implicated and committed by this act of so many of her clergy. What will England and all Europe think of such an imposing phalanx of metropolitan clergy, highly recommending a book which would do dishonor to a student of three months' standing in Hebrew? We do not misrepresent the book. We appeal to facts now before the reader.
We affirm, in view of them, that such a book would disgrace a student of common sense and information, who had been three months devoted to the Hebrew. Let this be contradicted upon good grounds, if it can.
These gentlemen, the recommenders, have so given their pames, as to mislead many hundreds (we believe as many as
We suppose, that Mr. Roy carried to them his specimen
sheet; that they looked hastily over it ; that Mr. Roy gare them some of the details of his plan, and urged on them the dangers of neology in Gesenius; and that
, to get rid of his importunity, they gave him their names. When the Char cellor of New York University had done this, what hazard could there be, if others followed his example? Besióis;
five hundred, at least) of subscribers, who have paid mous price for a book, that cannot possibly do any them, but plunge them into error, and keep them is the true nature and meaning of Hebrew words, ju as they use it. Without intention, doubtless, but su a wrong, a great wrong,
has been done to the il individuals, to the sacred literature of our land, ai good name of our country. What must the En German philologists think of such a book as this Le
The gentlemen concerned with these remarks, a cated in them, owe it to themselves, to the subscribe work, to the country, and to the name and interests literature, to undo, so far as may be now, the misch they have inadvertently been doing. We cannot ment think, that they can endure the thought of ha names go down to posterity in connexion with such scribable mass of blunders as this Lexicon exhibits. them right the wrong which has been done; come abjure such a book; and make some atonement to t subscribers, and to our injured name, and to the rej our great metropolis.
It is time that clergymen should look well to th of giving their names to books before they have re or, if they have read them, and are not able to fo lightened judgment respecting them, let them be they give their names. We do not mean this latt be understood of the gentlemen in New York, whic are given to Mr. Roy's Lexicon ; for we do not kno of their Hebrew acquisitions, to be able to judge ho might rightly decide respecting this book. But v and with all the serious conviction of truth that we that, to recommend a book which we do not verily be a good one, from thorough examination, and fr to judge, is not doing as we would be done by, n fairly and uprightly with the public.
As to Mr. Roy, we have no personal knowledg and no prejudices against him. But the empty pr his Preface have filled us with serious dissatisfacti cially his pretensions to Rabbinic literature, by whi fesses to correct the errors of other lexicographers. literature! Why, there are scarcely a dozen pla Lexicon, where there is any ground to suppose he
five hundred, at least) of subscribers, who have paid an enormous price for a book, that cannot possibly do any thing for thein, but plunge them into error, and keep them ignorant of the true nature and meaning of Hebrew words, just as long as they use it. Without intention, doubtless, but still in fact
, a wrong,
a great wrong, — has been done to the interests of individuals, to the sacred literature of our land, and to the good name of our country, What must the English and German philologists think of such a book as this Lexicon?
The gentlemen concerned with these remarks, and implicated in them, owe it to themselves, to the subscribers for the work, to the country, and to the name and interests of sacred literature, to undo, so far as may be now, the mischiefs which they have inadvertently been doing. We cannot for a moment think, that they can endure the thought of having their names go down to posterity in connexion with such an indescribable mass of blunders as this Lexicon exhibits. If not, let them right the wrong
which has been done; corne out and abjure such a book ; and make some atonement to the injured subscribers, and to our injured name, and to the reputation of our great metropolis.
It is time that clergymen should look well to this subject of giving their names to books before they have read thein; or, if they have read them, and are not able to form an enlightened judgment respecting them, let them beware how they give their names. We do not mean this latter part to be understood of the gentlemen in New York, whose names
the Rabbins; and even in these, we strongly suspect that he merely repeats what others had furnished to his hand. We believe him to be quite as innocent of Rabbinism, (so far as respects his own personal reading and investigation,) as Jerome was of Ciceronianism. The Romanists tell us, that Jerome was severely flogged by an angel, for being too Ciceronian; in the opinion of Erasmus, this castigation was quite undeserved. Mr. Roy is equally guiltless of Rabbinism, excepting the taste for its crudities, and the desire to pass these off upon the world as profound matters.
Mr. Roy gives us, as his title, " Professor of Oriental Languages in New York.” Does he mean, of the State or of the City ? If of either, let New York look well to her appointment. If of neither, then whose professor is Mr. Roy ? The name is full enough of sound ; how much must we now suppose it actually to signify ?
There is one gentleman, to whom we are strangers, whose name appears first in the American Baptist; then, among Mr. Roy's particular eulogists on page 9 of his Lexicon; and again on the back part of the front cover, where he tells us, that having examined the whole work,” he can say of all of it, what he had before said of a specimen. He tells us, that he is authorized to say, that this work is not merely a Lexicon, but, in regard to the use of numerous words, a Concordance also of the biblical Hebrew.” He is not content with even this, but goes on to tell us of " new significations of words discovered by the author, and the distinguished advantages to be enjoyed in consequence of the writer's having plunged so deep into Talmudic and Rabbinic authorities. How much there is in all this on which the reader can depend, we have given him an opportunity to judge, in the pre
One circumstance, on the very first reading of the list of recommendations, struck us as very singular. There are at least four Professors of Hebrew in the city of New York, (not Professors of New York, but of some of its highly respectable institutions,) whose names are not on the list of recommendations. These gentlemen are Professors Turner, Robinson, Bush, and Nordheimer. Of the qualifications of these gentlemen to judge of Mr. Roy's work, we entertain not the slightest doubt. We are acquainted with them all, and can vouch for their scholarship. The public would naturally expect to see their names attached to such a novel and com
are given to Mr. Roy's
Lexicon ; for we do not know enough of their Hebrew acquisitions, to be able to judge how far they might rightly decide respecting this book. But we do say, and with all the serious conviction of truth that we can have, that, to recommend a book which we do not verily beliere to be a good one, from thorough examination, and from ability to judge, is not doing as we would be done by, nor dealing fairly and uprightly with the public.
As to Mr. Roy, we have no personal knowledge of hin, and no prejudices against him. But the empty pretences of bis Preface have filled us with serious dissatisfaction ; especially his pretensions to Rabbinic literature, by which he professes to correct the errors of other lexicographers. Rabbinic literature! Why, there are scarcely a dozen places in his
Lexicon, where there is any ground to suppose he consulted
manding exhibition of lexicographical ability, publis city of New York. But not a word from them reader has already been put in possession of facts, we trust, will easily enable him to divine the reason gentlemen know better than to commit their rep such a hazardous act as recommending such a bo gentlemen who have ventured to do so, we do hope will seriously reconsider this matter; for it is a than might at first be apprehended. The solid in Hebrew literature are at stake in this country. greatly hazarded by such a book. The purchasers thus been taken in, will be slow to repair them another and a better purchase. They will natural ! they may again be deceived.
We have adverted to the fact, that Mr. Roy o claims in his Preface, that this work “is designed act the German Neology of Gesenius.” Mr. Woll “Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon is a dangerous book the hands of any student of theology, as the author del, and his opinions are interspersed through eve his work.” This last statement is so utterly groun we are thrown into some perplexity respecting eith ity or the veracity of Mr. Wolf, and left to a paini tive. We enter upon no contradiction of such an a The Lexicon of Gesenius is before the world ; it through the hands of Professor Robinson, who has, least, as little zeal as Mr. Wolf to propagate neolo
What progress such a scholar as Mr. Roy ca opposing the Coryphæus of Hebrew literature in cannot be doubtful for a single moment to any inte well-informed reader. If we wished for neology we should wish it to have such opponents as Every man in our community, who understands tl ture of the case, and who wishes that neology make incursions upon our lexicography or the spontaneously say, respecting such a work as Mr.
“ Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis,
ART. IX. — CRITICAL NOTICES.
1. – Some Inquiries in the Province of Kemaon relative to
Geology and other Branches of Natural Science. By
manding exhibition of lexicographical ability, published in the
We have adverted to the fact, that Mr. Roy openly pro-
, and left to a painful alternative. We enter upon no contradiction of such an affirmation. The Lexicon of Gesenius is before the world; it has passed through the hands of Professor Robinson, who has, to say the least, as little zeal as Mr. Wolf to propagate neology.
It was always to us a matter of great regret, that we had no means of knowing any thing certain respecting the structure and composition of the famous Himalaya Mountains. High mountains present admirable facilities for ascertaining the relative situation and age of the rocky layers which repose upon their sides; and we justly supposed that the giant Himalaya had opened wide the book of nature, and left its pages for the instruction of man.
At this time, while public attention in Europe and America is devoted to the interesting subjects of geological research, and the sublime revelations discovered on "tables of stone,” call forth our feelings of admiration and delight, we cannot fail to rejoice to receive from the distant mountains of India, such evidence as is now before us, of the wide spreading of science in that portion of the world.
It is surprising, that the British government has never ordered a regular geological survey of its valuable possessions in India. It would seem, that a country teeming with mines of gold and diamonds, besides many other more useful minerals, should have called forth a most minute scrutiny, even were there nothing more to be gained than mere commercial wealth. In the few instances where the government has patronized the travels of scientific men, our author observes, that “the motives have been, rather the extension of commerce than the promotion of science; and often so exclusively, as was calculated to defeat, rather than to serve, even the mere object in view;" for they were generally so overloaded and crippled with instructions, that they were unable to make such explorations as would turn to any account. Such instructions are altogether useless, and worse than useless ; for the scientific explorer knows best what ought to be done, while those who give the instructions perhaps know nothing about the country in question, and are wholly incompetent to direct a complicated and difficult survey.
The author visited India as an Assistant Surgeon in the army, and while performing the arduous and responsible duties VOL. XLVI.—NO. 99
What progress such a scholar as Mr. Roy can make in opposing the Coryphæus of Hebrew literature in Germany, cannot be doubtful for a single moment to any intelligent and well-informed reader. If we wished for neology to triumph, we should wish it to have such opponents as Mr. Roy. Every man in our community, who understands the true nature of the case, and who wishes that neology may never make incursions upon our lexicography or theology, wil spontaneously say, respecting such a work as Mr. Roy's
, “Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis,