first place, they set down the Amalekites with the descendants of Ad and Themud as the most ancient of the Arab nations, and then distinguish the Arabs into two classes, the Aboriginal and Adscititious or made Arabs, that is, not native Arabs, but made so by circumstances.' For the Aboriginal Arabs thus distinguished OTP the old people, in contra-distinction to those whom they esteemed as a new people. These were terms so appropriate, that this traditional distinction may well justify a belief that it was in this sense they were used, and by the Aboriginal Arabs; and that the country of Kedem is the same as the country of the children of Kedem, that is, of the Aboriginal Arabs, comprising, as I have already observed, the portion of Arabia on the confines of Palestine.

Of this country the Midianites and other descendants of Abraham appear to have occupied the part in the immediate vicinity of Palestine on the south-east, and the south, in the time of Balaam; but if he was of the aboriginal stock of the Arabs, as it is most likely, though he might have come from Midian, he could glory in his country only under its ancient name of Kedem, and possibly because the places of worship were at that time chiefly on the mountains, he boasts that he came from the mountains of Kedem.

Having now, I trust, satisfactorily proved both from what Mr. Bryant himself has said, and by what I have been able to advance in confirmation of it, that the conjectures of Sir W. Drummond on the story of Balaam, if understood as real history, have no foundation in the Mosaic text of sacred Scripture, the subject might be dismissed here, but that a mistake into which Sir W. has been led by the Abridgment seems to require some notice.

Sir W. has taken for granted that the Petra, which Mr. B. considers as the Pethor from which Balaam came, is the Petra of Arabia, situated near the extremity of the Elamitic bay, and about ten miles to the east of Eloth; whereas the Petra intended by Mr. B. was another city of the same name which " stood at a considerable distance to the north, near the river Arnon, in the region called both Edom and Midian, in the vicinity of Moab." (Page 18.) This Petra was also called Rekem, and though Reland is rather inclined to doubt whether there were two Petras, the authority

It may be objected to this tradition and the inference from it, that in Judges vi. v. 3. the Amalekites are distinguished from the Kedemites: the Vulgate, however, has preserved a word to which there is no correspondent word in the other versions, in the Polyglott or in the Hebrew; for it reads "Amalecitæ ceterique nationum Orientalium," a reading which with the Arabic tradition, and with what is said of Amalek as the agrees first of the nations, Num. xxiv. v. 20. It might, indeed, be considered as the stock of the Goim, and yet not of such antiquity as the stock of the Kedemites.

quoted by Lightfoot from the Gemara, in which it is called

, the eastern Kedem, as well as several other authorities quoted by Mr. B. leave no doubt on my mind of the fact. The situation of this eastern Rekem, Mr. B. has shown to be such as agrees with the tenor of the history, and with the expression the river (not rivers) of his people, an expression which probably induced him to reject Naharaim as a gloss. Did I know any authority for it, I Aram

.ארם נהרים for ארם החרים should wish to read

Hahorim, or the Aram of the Horites, for Aram Naharaim the Hebrew name of Mesopotamia, as we read Aram of Damascus, Aram Zoba for other parts of Syria; but as I know no authority, I can only mention this idea as conjectural, and adopt that of Mr. B. Even otherwise the difference of the reading would make little in the sense, as the Horites dwelt by the coast of Edom, (Num. xx. v. 23.) and less as to the point in question.

Sir W. has asked (p. 292.) who are the children of Omar, or the children of Ammon, spoken of by Mr. B., to which the proper answer will be in Mr. B.'s own words. "Cedrenus speaks of some of the Ishmaelites that inhabited Midian, Οἱ τὴν Μαδίαν κληρωσάμενοι, and adds Εἰσὶ καὶ οἱ ἐνδότεροι αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰεκτὰν, οἱ λεγόμενοι ̓Αμηνίται, τοῦτ' ἐστιν Ομηρίται. p. 421-2. There are others of the tribe of Jectan, more inland, who are styled Amanitæ, the same as the Omarita. Theophanes Monachus follows Cedrenus and almost in the same words." p. 108. In the next page he says, "Why these two families are represented as one and the same I cannot imagine, nor can I conceive why they are ascribed to Jectan, the Jokshan of Moses, as they are not to be found among his sons." That Mr. B. noticed this difficulty is a proof of the great attention to accuracy and truth with which he studied the Scriptures. The difficulty itself consists in supposing that the Jectan here mentioned was the Jokshan of Moses, whereas he may have been, and probably was, an Arab, the head of a tribe long known by the name of the Joktanites among the Arabs, as already stated on the authority of Michaelis, whose Spicilegium, I believe, Mr. B. had not seen; for if he had, such was the acuteness of his observation and the tenacity of his memory, that he would scarcely have failed to notice it. To him no labor of research was painful which promised the means of discovering or confirming truth; and the prodigious extent of his reading empowered him to bring together copious information on any of the subjects to which he turned his attention; and that to which it was especially devoted was the confirmation of the truth of the sacred writings, by the concurrent testimony to be collected from the other writings of antiquity still extant. Impressed with a serious sense of the importance of revealed truth, it was not without careful previous consideration and conviction in his own mind of the correctness of his sentiments, that he laid them before

the public, together with the arguments and authorities by which they were supported. Surely then it is not too much to expect that if his sentiments on any subject are controverted, they should not be so on the authority of an imperfect, and much less of an erroneous, representation. How far I have been able to vindicate his opinion in the present instance, I now submit with deference to the judgment of your readers; nor will I dissemble that in the endeavour to discharge the obligation of a higher duty, I feel a particular pleasure in testifying a gratefully cherished respect for the memory of Mr. Bryant.

As to the sacred writings themselves, it is so far from being strange that some passages in them are obscure; that,-considering their antiquity, the errors to which all transcripts are liable, notwithstanding the utmost human precaution, the deficiency of our knowledge of the geography of many parts of the countries to which they refer, and even of the precise signification of some of the words of the language in which they are written,-it is next to miraculous that they are at this day so intelligible, and their general truth and the principal facts are successively confirmed by the increase of general knowledge. That some few passages are obscure, may be granted without prejudice to the truth of the rest; but it must be a weak mind which will give up the general truth of the Scriptures because they contain a few things difficult to be understood; others will not reject the known truths on account of an apparent difficulty or contradiction. They will rather believe that if there be a veil over some portion of the repository of divine truth, the time will come when the veil shall be drawn away, and the full glory of the truth be displayed to all. I am far from attributing to Sir W. D. any wish to undermine the authority of the Scriptures; I am more inclined to believe that finding an opportunity, afforded by the Abridgment, of supporting a favorite mythological hypothesis or allegorical system of interpretation, he availed himself of it too precipitately, and that in his cooler judgment he will make a candid confession of it.

P. ROBERTS.

Oswestry,

Nov. 9th, 1815.

LOCI QUIDAM LUCIANI EMENDATI
ATQUE EXPLANATI.

A JOANNE SEAGER, A. B.

BICKNOR, WALLICE, IN COMITATU MONUMETHIÆ, RECTORE.

PARs IV.—[Vide No. xxv. p. 74.]

QUOM. CONSCR. SIT HIST. p. 9. tom. II. [632. E. Salmur.] Αγνοοῦντες ὡς οὐ στενῷ τῷ ἰσθμῷ διώρισται καὶ διατετείχισται ἡ ἱστορία πρὸς τὸ ἐγκώμιον, ἀλλά τι μέγα τεῖχος ἐν μέσῳ ἐστὶν αὐτῶν. Verius οὐ στενῷ τῷ (encl.) ἰσθμῷ κ. τ. λ.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. tom. II. p. 14. [666. B. Salmur.] *Ετι κἀκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ἄξιον, ὅτι οὐδὲ τερπνὸν ἐν αὐτῇ τὸ κομιδή μυθῶδες, καὶ τὸ τῶν ἐπαίνων μάλιστα πρόσαντες ΓΑΡ ἑκάτερον τοῖς ἀκούουσιν· ἢν μὴ τὸν συρφετὸν καὶ τὸν πολὺν δῆμον ̓ΕΠΙΝΟΗΙΣ, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δικαστικῶς, καὶ νὴ Δία συκοφαντικῶς προσέτι γε, ἀκροασομένους. Ita legendus et distinguendus iste locus, e meo quidem animo.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. tom. II. p. 15. [667. A. Salmur.] Εωρακέναι γάρ που σε εἰκὸς γεγραμμένον (Ηρακλέα) τῇ Ομφάλη δουλεύοντα πάνυ ἀλλόκοτον σκευὴν ἐσκευασμένον. ἐκείνην μὲν τὸν λέοντα αὐτοῦ περιβεβλημένην, καὶ τὸ ξύλον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ἔχουσαν, ὡς Ἡρακλέα δῆθεν οὖσαν· αὐτὸν δὲ ἐν κροκωτῷ καὶ πορφυρίδι ἔρια ξαίνοντα, καὶ παιόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ̓Ομφάλης τῷ σανδάλῳ. Restituendum ἐκείνην μὲν ΤΗΝ ΛΕΟΝΤΗΝ αὐτοῦ περιβεβλημένην. Sic Lucianus tom. II. p. 285. [995. A. Salmur.] ὅταν δὲ Ηρακλῆς αὐτὸς εἰσελθὼν μονωδῇ, ἐπιλαθόμενος αὑτοῦ, καὶ μήτε ΤΗΝ ΛΕΟΝΤΗΝ αἰδεσθεὶς, μήτε τὸ ῥόπαλον, ὃ περίκειται, σολοικίαν εὖ φρονῶν εἰκότως φαίη ἄν τις τὸ πρᾶγμα. De Saltatione.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. tom. II. p. 20. [670. E. Salmur.] Εἶτ ̓ ἐπῆγεν ὑπὲρ ̔ΑΥΤΟΥ τι ἐγκώμιον,

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 26. [674. C. Salmur.] Εἶτα μετὰ μικρὸν ἄλλος συλλογισμός. εἶτα ἄλλος. καὶ ὅλως ἐν ἅπαντι σχήματι συνηρώτηται αὐτῷ τὸ προοίμιον. ΚΑΙ τὸ τῆς κολακείας εἰς κόρον, καὶ τὰ ἐγκώμια φορτικὰ καὶ κομιδῇ βωμολοχικά. Ita scribendum et interpungendum existimo.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 30. [678. C. Salmur.] Eira μεταξὺ οὕτως εὐτελῆ ὀνόματα, καὶ δημοτικὰ, καὶ πτωχικά, πολλὰ παρενεβέβυστο, τὸ, ἐπέστειλεν ὁ στρατοπεδάρχης τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ, οἱ στρατιῶται ἠγόραζον τὰ ἐγχρῄζοντα, καὶ ἤδη λελουμένοι περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐγίγνοντο. Repono περὶ αὑτοὺς ἐγίγνοντο. quod valet corpora curabant: nisi quod hoc minime plebeium et abjectum.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. Η. [684. E. Salmur.]. Emendandum puto, καίτοι πόσα ἄλλα, μακρῷ ̓ΑΚΑΙΡΟΤΕΡΑ, ἑκὼν ἐγὼ

νῦν παρίημι. Legitur nunc ἀναγκαιότερα. Nulli, qui, lectis quæ præcedunt, quæ sequuntur, hanc emendationem ponderaverit, non me probaturum esse spero.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 40. [686. D. Salmur.] 'X' οὐδὲ ὅπλα ἐκεῖνός γε ᾔδει, οὐδὲ μηχανήματα, οἷά ἐστιν, οὐδὲ τάξεων ἢ καταλοχισμῶν ὀνόματα· πάνυ γοῦν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ πλαγίαν μὲν τὴν ὀρθίαν φάλαγγα, ἐπὶ κέρως δὲ λέγειν τὸ ἐπὶ μετώπου ἄγειν. Mendosa hac esse non dubitans, sic constituo : πάνυ γοῦν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, [τάξεων ἢ καταλοχισμῶν ὀνόματα scil.] πλαγίαν μὲν τὴν ὀρθίαν φάλαγγα, ἐπὶ κέρως δὲ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΙ τὸ ἐπὶ μετώπου ἄγειν.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 41. "Ηδη δ' ἐγώ τινος καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα συγγεγραφηκότος ἤκουσα, καὶ τὴν λῆψιν Οὐολογέσου, καὶ τὴν Οσρόου σφαγὴν, ὡς παραβληθήσεται τῷ λέοντι, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸν πριπόθητὸν ἡμῖν θριάμβον. Οὕτω πάνυ μαντικῶς ἅμα ἔχων ἔσπευδεν ἤδη πρὸς τὸ τέλος τῆς γραφής. Repurgandum οὕτω πάνυ μαντικῶς ̓́ΑΡΑ ἔχων

κ. τ. λ.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 49. [688. Ε. Salmur.] Ανέγνων γὰρ Δημητρίου Σαγαλασσέως παρθονικικά. ΟΥΧ ὡς ἐν γέλωτι ποιήσασθαι, καὶ ἐπισκώψαι τὰς ἱστορίας, οὕτω καλὰς οὖσας, ἀλλὰ τοῦ χρησίμου ἕνεκα. non οὐδ ̓ ὡς.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 50. [692. C. Salmur.] Μάλιστα δὲ, καὶ πρὸ τῶν πάντων, ἐλεύθερος ἔστω [ὁ ἱστοριοσυγγραφεὺς] τὴν γνώμην, καὶ μήτε φοβείσθω μηδένα, μηδὲ ἐλπιζέτω μηδέν. ἐπεὶ ὅμοιος ἔσται τοῖς φαύλοις δικασταῖς, πρὸς χάριν, ἢ πρὸς ἀπέχθειαν, ἢ ἐπὶ μισθῷ δικάζουσι. ἀλλὰ μὴ μελέτω αὐτῷ μήτε Φίλιππος ἐκκεκομμένος τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ὑπὸ ̓Αστέρος τοῦ ̓Αμφιπολίτου, τοῦ τοξότου ἐν ̓Ολύνθῳ, ἀλλὰ τοιοῦτος, οἷος ἦν, δειχθήσεται, μήτε ̓Αλέξανδρος ἀνιάσεται ἐπὶ τῇ Κλείτου σφαγῇ, ὠμῶς ἐν τῷ συμποσίῳ γενομένῃ, εἰ σαφῶς ἀναγράφοιτο. Lego μήτε (μελέτω scilt.) ΕΙ ' Αλέξανδρος ἀνιάσεται κ. τ. λ.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 51. [693. A. Salmur.] Ηγήσεται γὰρ (ὁ ἱστοριογράφος) ὅπερ δικαιότατον, ὑπ ̓ οὐδενὸς τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων αὐτὸς ἕξειν τὴν αἰτίαν, ἢν τὰ δυστυχῶς ἢ ἀνοήτως γεγενημένα, ὡς ἐπράχθη διηγῆται. οὐ γὰρ ποιητὴς αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ μηνυτὴς ἦν. ὥστε κἂν καταναυμαχῶνται, τότε οὐκ ἐκεῖνος ὁ καταδύων ἐστὶ, κἂν φεύγωσιν, οὐκ ἐκεῖνος ὁ διώκων, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ, εὔξασθαι δέον, μή τι παρέλιπεν.—μή τι hunc locum obscuriusculum reddere putat Gesnerus. Non obscuriusculum est μή τι, sed tenebris Cimmeriis involutum. Rescribendum ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ, εὔξασθαι δέον, ΝΗ ΔΙΑ, παρέλιπεν.

QUOM. CONSCR. S. H. p. 60. [699. C. Salmur.] Καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ παρατάξει μὴ πρὸς ἓν μέρος ὁράτω, μήδ' ἐς ἕνα ἱππέα ἢ πεζόν