neither this verse, nor its connexion, gives this sense to the idea, for it would then be rendered thus, "Noah began a husbandman," as the verb could only be understood, which in this construction of the Hebrew would be extremely difficult, nor would there be any sense in it. But if we translate he began to profane, in place of he began, it would read thus: " And Noah as a husbandman began to profane: he planted a vineyard.' Because after the flood he ought not to have begun his business by planting a vineyard.

So likewise would be better understood Gen. x. 8. 9., the

וכוש ילד את נמרד הוא החל :Hebrew of which is as follows

להיות גבר בָּאָרֶץ: הוא היה גבר ציד לפני יְהוָה עַל כֵּן יאמר כנמרד

“тт

גבור ציד לפני יהוה :

If this passage were rendered as in the English version, “ And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore, it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord;" we are obliged to understand that, before Nimrod, there was no government, which cannot have been the case, because the Eternal Being said to Noah and his children, after the flood, chap. ix. 6. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" therefore, we are obliged to conclude that there were judges and mighty persons who could, and who did, execute the commands of the Eternal Being; it is, therefore, certain, that Nimrod was not, and could not be, the first, who had the power of governing, and who could refrain to execute justice; but if we translate the word he began to profane, it would read thus: "And Cush begot Nimrod. He began to render it profane to be a powerful one on the earth" (because he abused his heavenly power); and this is the reason why he was called, Nimrod, which in Hebrew implies, we will rebel, from the root T Marad, he rebelled: and this is probably the reason why the greater part of the Hebrew commentators accused him of having persuaded mankind to idolatry; (although that which follows is an Hebrew criticism of itself separately, and we are obliged to connect it with this, in order to give the whole passage plainly ;) and the word Ty tsayid, hunting, implies not only what we call hunting of beasts, but to persuade mankind

to a certain aim, because T tsayid seems to correspond with the idea of overpowering, either by corporeal force, or by mental measures, as we find, Gen. xxv. 28. Ty Wynk PAY" D78”

2, which in the English bible is rendered, "And Jacob loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison." But if we consider that the Hebrew language abounds with double meanings, as already observed in a former part of these criticisms, we shall find here a most beautiful and sublime one, if we refer to the

ད

ויגדלו הנערים ויהי עשו איש :preceding verse, which is in Hebrew and is rendered in ידע ציד איש שדה ויעקב איש תם ישב אהלים

ITI

: T

the English version thus: "And the boys grew, and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field, and Jacob was a plain man dwelling in tents." Every one who is able to judge must allow, that the two clauses are contrary the one to the other; therefore no one can doubt that the words DAN imply a sincere man, a righteous man, and consequently, the predicate of Esau must imply the contrary: and this is certainly so, if we understand by the expression T persuading, and the whole of both verses may be translated thus: "And the boys grew up-Esau became a man who knew how to persuade a man of the field, (that is to say, a man of the world-a man who did not stay at home, but conversed with others :) but Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents: (that is, a man who was upright, because he was a domesticated man, and not corrupted by conversation with others:) Isaac loved Esau because he persuaded (that is, he deceived) with his mouth." We will now return to Gen. x. 8, 9., and add, that the word ", liphnah, implies, not only before, but sometimes,

which ותשחת הארץ לפני האלהים: .11 .against, as in Gen. vi

זז་

T ":

in the English Bible is thus rendered: "The earth also was corrupt before God." The word before is similar to the phrase in his sight, that is, against his will: the whole verse would be better rendered as follows: "And Cush begot Nimrod: he began to render it profane to be a powerful one on the earth: he was a powerful persuader against the Eternal Being; therefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, a powerful persuader against the Eternal Being.' The same remarks are applicable to

ויאמר יהוה הן עם אחד ושפה אחת לכלם וזה החלם .6 .Gen. xi

ny which in the English bible is rendered thus: “And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do." This rendering has no sense in it, for it implies, that, because they were one people, and had but one language, they ought not to do so, and the punishment of the Supreme Being would not exist in preventing it, which could not be expected from the Supreme Being; but if we translate the word D this began to profane them, we should render the passage thus: "The Eternal Being said, Behold one people, and one language to them all: and this began to profane them in order to act thus:" and therefore the Supreme Being scattered them and confused their language.

ON THE AFRICA OF PETRARCH.

THERE are no subjects on which Petrarch more delights to expatiate, than the transitory nature of human fame, and the fallibility of human expectations. Could we imagine this "frail good man" raised for a while from the dead, with all his old earthly feelings about him, with what an emphasis of astonishment might we fancy him reiterating his favorite maxims, in the view of his own literary destiny. With what chequered feelings of exultation and disappointment would he, whose love of praise, and morbid sensibility to the slightest manifestations of censure or contempt, equalled those of Rousseau himself, survey, amidst the strange and multifarious changes of these latter timesthe revolutions in religion and politics-the diffusion of learning over countries in his own time ignorant and barbarous-his own country almost alone unchanged, still unhappy and disunited as of old, and a slave "by its own compulsion" to native or foreign despots-how would he be surprised to learn, that his literary reputation rested almost exclusively on that part of his works which he himself least valued; and that the epithet "invaluable," at tached to his Latin writings by a great modern writer, had not sufficed to attract to them the attention of the learned world! Least of all, sensible as he appears to have become

latterly to the faults of his Latin poetry, would he be prepared for the utter oblivion into which the present poem has fallen; or would he easily believe, that the work, on which he at one time rested his renown, should have failed even of obtaining the melancholy notoriety of Chapelain's Pucelle, or Blackmore's Arthur! No work ever enjoyed a higher reputation in its own day, even while unpublished, and known only in fragments; its completion was expected by scholars as the crowning achievement of the first writer of the age; portions of it were handed about in the literary world, unknown to the author; crowned heads interceded for a sight of the unfinished wonder; and when after his death the manuscript was in danger of being lost, nothing could exceed the anxiety felt on the occasion by the republic of letters. But it is a common error with the mass of mankind to mistake talent of a particular kind for general ability; and the vanity of authors themselves co-operates in the decision of partial friends, and an ill-judging public. Hence it is, that so many men, calculated to shine in other branches of poetry, have wasted their powers on the chimerical attempt of writing an epic poem. Such a propensity is particularly visible in the Latin poets of modern times, though it is not confined to them. In our own language, the instances of a similar delusion are numerous. Not to speak of actual failures, it is probable that little would have been added either to the reputation of the poets themselves, or (except, perhaps, in the first-mentioned instance) to the public stock of intellectual enjoyment, had Dryden, Pope, Gray, and others who might be named, carried into execution their respective epic projects.

The Africa was conceived and begun in the author's 35th year, amidst the solitudes of Vaucluse. He had been from his earliest years an enthusiastic admirer of ancient Roman virtue, and his imagination had been more especially fascinated by the heroism and exploits of Scipio Africanus; a character certainly more calculated than almost any other in antiquity, to attract the admiration of a youthful mind. From the manner in which he speaks of his design, it is obvious, that he was not aware of the existence of a poem by Silius Italicus on the same subject. "Ennium de Scipione multa scripsisse non est dubium, rudi et impolito, ut ait Valerius, stylo. Cultior tamen de illius rebus liber metricus non apparet. De hoc igitur utcunque canere institui." Such was his ardor in prosecuting this favorite

design, that one of his friends, who seems to have exercised a certain degree of authority over him, was obliged to interdict him the use of pen and ink for ten days, through fear of injury to his health. Petrarch obeyed, though with great reluctance: the first day appeared insupportably long; on the second, he was afflicted with a head-ache which lasted till night; on the third, symptoms of fever began to appear; so that his friend was obliged to revoke the prohibition, and restore the poet to his books and his health. Compelled by other avocations to suspend his design, he resumed it after the lapse of many years, and brought it to a conclusion with a rapidity which surprised even himself. It remained unrevised at his death, and was accordingly ordered by him to be destroyed. From the immense number of errata,' amounting on an average to one in every two or three lines, it appears, that either the transcriber of the copy from which it was printed, or the corrector of the press, was a very illiterate person.

It is not with an intention of disputing the verdict passed by the learned world on this unfortunate work, that we now call the attention of our readers to the Africa. It is, in truth, a tedious, declamatory performance, destitute of almost all the elements which constitute an epic poem ; the story is meagre in the extreme, and most inartificially constructed, oscillating between the two extremes of dry historical detail and awkward fiction; nor is there the least display of character, or felicity in the conduct of the details. There are, however, a few scattered passages, descriptive, fanciful, and pathetic, which rise above the level of the rest; but it is in reflection that Petrarch principally excels. The principal, indeed the only charm of the poem, consists in the picture which it exhibits of the poet's own mind; of his piety, his patriotism, his thoughtful and even melancholy spirit, his characteristic weaknesses-but above all, his zeal for every thing Roman; a passion which in him was so strong, as to form a leading feature in his character. We know, indeed, no writer, whose peculiar disposition, opinions, and feelings, develope themselves more fully in his works. The present, like his other writings, is full of a flowing, sententious, high-wrought morality, drawn from

* We quote from "Francisci Petrarchæ Opera; Basileæ excudit Henrichus Petri." 1554.