Chaldean interpreter to the Germans: all looked for the Magogue of Scripture in the west of Europe." In Welsh, Magog denotes the land of Gog, or land of swiftness, a term not inapplicable to the Gaulish invasions: nor is it unlikely that a paranomasia would be used, as Taliessin calls the Saxons Allmyn, not simply as meaning Alemanni, but because that word denoted foreigners in a contemptuous sense. 2 Gogo, which Mr. Penn adroitly renders Gogue with Moreri, is the name of the first Maire du Palais of the Franks, a personage well known in medieval history. Being an Austrasian by birth, he was literally of the land of Magogue. Thus France appears to be the land from whence Gog is to emerge. The objection which arises from the fifth verse, Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them, is resolved by Mr. Penn into a comparison. This, he observes, is a very common form, in which the particle denoting comparison is not expressed, but understood; "and the comparison is only marked by the peculiar relation established between the members of the sentence. .... The European nations are the proper objects of the prophecy; the Asiatic and African nations are introduced as familiar patterns of illustration." The principal examples in which the comparative is omitted, he adds, may be found in Noldius' Lexicon of Hebrew Particles, p. 358. See Exod. xix. 4. Jerem. ix. 3. lbid. xv. 18. xxvi. 18. Ezek. iv. 12.3 In the sixth verse, we read of Gomer, and all his bands, the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands. Here Mr. Penn has employed a great deal of learning to prove that the Gauls (Kelta and Galata) are the descendants of Gomer.4 1 Pp. 49-50. 2 Turner's Vindication of the Ancient British Poems.-The word ma is now obsolete; Man is the familiar form. 3 Pp. 97-99. 4 The following table may be useful to the reader. See Genesis x. 21. Japheth, eldest son of Noah. For a minute investigation of this subject, see Wells's Sacred Geography. The word Gomari, which Josephus applies to this nation, is almost the same in pronunciation with the British Cymry. Mr. Turner has shewn the identity of the Cymry and Kimmerii; while such as prefer a more circuitous route, may arrive at the same conclusion by these stages: 2 Gomari Kimmerii Kimbri Cymry (pron. Kumri). The word Galata comes from Calt, a Gaulish appellation, which in the plural number, according to Dr. Gillies,1 becomes Celt (or, to mark the pronunciation, Kelt); the g is a change sustained in the oblique cases: hence the word Galli appears to have flowed. On Togarmah, Michaelis observes, that, "if Gomer denotes the Gauls, Togarmah must denote some nation of the Gauls." This name is found in the Gallic settlements in Asia Minor (the Trochmi), and is derived by Strabo from a leader of some such name.3 Other coincidences are subjoined, which it is not necessary to follow. Perhaps our readers have already anticipated the conclusion, that the invasion of Russia is prefigured here. Succeeding events have assisted this opinion, as fully as the most sanguine commentator could wish, but there are incidental difficulties. Is it satisfactory, for example, to say that c. xxxix. v. 7, 9, 12, 17, refer to believers in general? Such, however, as insist on the accomplishment of the prophecy in recent events, are not adopting a conclusion by any means rash; and the book deserves attention from every biblical student. Major Rennell had previously explained these chapters by the Scythian invasion of Media, but his hypothesis required a dislocation of chronology to be plausible for a moment. • Hist. of the World, from Alexander to Augustus. 2 Spiceleg. Geog. Heb. Ext. p. 74. 3 As the Greeks knew nothing of Keltic, we suspect the leader's name to be merely an appellative, as Lutarius, who commanded the Gallic migration, is evidently the Úrp, surnamed Lluyddog (or with the mighty host) of the Triads. 4 Geography of Herodotus, p. 111. Something we will add for future interpreters of prophecy.The junction of the two continents is evidently the scene of this; and in order to understand it, a knowlege of Hebrew, Persian, and Keltic, is necessary, to fix the localities. Few orientalists are Keltic scholars, and Mr. Penn does not appear to be much acquainted with Gallic. CLASSICAL CRITICISM. [Passage in Cicero.] MAY I be allowed to lay before your readers an attempt to illustrate a passage in Cicero, Act 1. Lib. 11. in Verrem, which, I feel convinced, must have tried the patience of some of them? Should my attempt, however, be deemed a failure, I shall feel great pleasure, in seeing this passage more satisfactorily cleared up. I may just observe that I have followed, in some measure, the interpretation of James Menard, whose commentaries are subjoined to the edition of the Orations by Grævius. A person of the name of Minucius dies intestate: his property by law devolves to the Minucian family; some one, whose name is not given, lays claim to the property, in consequence of supposing himself the heir, by virtue of a will of the deceased, which, it is believed, had been destroyed, or concealed. But not content with commencing an action for the estate in the usual manner, first per litem vindiciarum, and afterwards, by the action de jure dominii, he applies to the Prætor, whom he bribes, and who, in consequence, inserts this clause in his edictum urbanum, for the express purpose of favoring the claimant." Ex Edicto Urbano: Si de hereditate ambigitur, si possessor, (sic cum Ernestio interpunge et intellige) sponsionem non faciet." Cicero adds: "Quid id ad Prætorem, uter possessor est? nonne id quæri oportet, utrum possessorem esse oporteat? Ergo quia possessor est, non moves possessione; si possessor non esset, non dares." Now in order to understand all this, it appears to me necessary to keep the following circumstances in view: 1st. That the whole passage respects the temporary possession of the estate, during the law-suit; 2d. that the claimant had applied to the Prætor for temporary possession; 3d. that the Prætor, by the clause in the edict, partly quoted by Cicero, "si tabulæ testamenti non proferrentur," gave up the temporary possession of the estate to the claimant; and 4th. that the Prætor remitted to this constituted possessor the usual obligation of giving security not to do any damage to the estate during the law-suit. In the passage in question, which I have just quoted, the word sponsio, according to Menard, who seems to be right, is put for satisdatio; this is also the opinion of Ernesti, who has this note on the words of the text: "Non moves possessione, i.e. etsi non satisdet, quod qui recusabant possessione movebantur ex jure." I thus freely translate the passage. From the Edictum Urbanum. In a contest respecting an heirship, if there is a possessor, he shall not be bound to give security not to do damage during the action. What does it signify to the Prætor who is the possessor? Ought he not rather to enquire who deserves to be the possessor? Now, by the clause in your edict, because such a person happens to be the possessor, you do not remove him from the possession even although he gives no security; but you make no provision for delivering over the possession to the right person, should the other be found to be improperly in possession. Cicero here adds: "Nusquam enim scribis, neque tu aliud edicto amplecteris, nisi eam causam pro quâ pecuniam acceperas." Thus out of two members which should constitute this clause of the edict, you insert one only; which is a convincing proof, that it was not composed for general purposes, but for this particular cause. It is quite clear that the Prætor ought to have given temporary possession of the estate to the Minucian family, who, as next of kin to the deceased, were intitled to it, by a law of the twelve tables; and not to the claimant, who only supposed himself the heir, but produced no will to prove his title, and who, consequently, could have no just pretensions to the estate. In this interpretation your readers will perceive that I have differed toto cœlo from Asconius, who, I say it with due reverence, seems to me to have forgotten himself intirely on this occasion. Lancaster, Jan., 1826. W. D. NOTES ON THE ANTIGONE. [Concluded from No. LXIV.] 737. ἥτις ἀνδρός ἐσθ' ἑνὸς] This sentence was meant in one sense by Hæmon and understood in another by his father, as appears from the context. Hæmon meant to say, that the city was not deserving of the name, which consisted of but one citizen thereby intending to insinuate that the tyrannical conduct of his father would cause all the inhabitants of Thebes to forsake their country. Creon interpreted the words to signify, that Hæmon judged that to be no city which was under the dominion of one man. In the former sense, the sentiment is the same as CE. R. 56. ὡς οὐδέν ἐστιν οὔτε πύργος οὔτε ναῦς, 742. διὰ δίκης ἰων πατρί] Verbs of motion followed by διὰ with a genitive case signify, to be involved or engaged in the action denoted by the noun: here-" engaged in litigation with your father." So Phcn. 20. καὶ πᾶς σὸς οἶκος βήσεται δι' αἵματος. 489. καὶ μὴ δι ̓ ἔχθρας τῷδε καὶ φόνου μολών. See Phoen. 395. E. C. 899. Or. 1361. Andr. 417. In the former part of this line Porson at Orest. 301. reads παι κάκιστε for παγκάκιστε. But to this alteration Schæffer objects, on the authority of Herman, who contends, Hom. H. to Apoll. 14. that where the interjection is used with a substantive and adjective, it is placed immediately before that word which is emphatic. "Qui oixтpoì Taïdes dicit, miseros alloquitur qui sunt pueri; qui & Taïdes oixтpoí, pueros, qui sunt miseri." If this be true, à яaï xáxiσтe cannot stand here, since ὦ κάκιστε παῖ would be required. ὦ παγκακίστη καὶ φίλων διαφθορά. Hipp. 680. 756. doúλeuμa] for Souλos, the abstract for the concrete. See above, 320. 758. Andes;] This must not be mistaken for åλnlès verum, which is oxyton. "Andes interrogatively is the language of one who is astonished at a preceding remark; and sometimes, as Brunck contends at Ran. Aristoph. 840., it conveys an ironical question: in Latin, Itane? " (Ε. R. 350. Αληθες; ἐννέπω σε τῷ κηρύγματι is it so ? |