adhered to a literal substitution of our own for the Persian letters, and to have stated, by a general observation, the common power of these and other characters;-to have asserted in few words, that the former possesses the broad pronunciation of the French and Spanish, and the latter the softer tone of the Italians. We have said that our author, notwithstanding his deviation, for this purpose, from the literal characters of the original, does not at all times exhibit the original sound; and, without proceeding farther, we have only to refer to the last of these four examples to illustrate our assertion. Sir William Jones gives us two as, of different powers, in his Persic alphabet; to-wit, I or L, uniformly pronounced, after the French man وع دع ner, au, or like our own a in all; and or, which he denominates ain, demanding a far deeper pronunciation still, and verging towards the sound of the English o. If the name of Hafiz ), containing the first or least broad of these two as, be spelled, therefore, by our author with a view of exemplifying the distinctive pronunciation, Haufez, how comes it to pass that the name of Sadi (S), in which the latter or deeper-toned a is employed, is spelled with a common English a alone, without any superadded vowel to discriminate its increased profundity of sound? Upon the system of sir William Jones, they would be both pronounced by the English reader alike,—and he would not be far from the truth,—although the first syllable of Sadi is entitled to a broader tone than that of Hafiz: but upon the plan of our author, instead of possessing a broader, it must necessarily, from the abstraction of his diacritical u, be pronounced far more acutely. In reality, it has often occurred to us that even sir William Jones is not quite correct in the power he has assigned to the broader of these two as, in his alphabet. To us there is no doubt that, instead of being an a, and pronounced ain, it is strictly and properly an o, and should be pronounced oin; that it is altogether synonymous with the y, o, or oin of the Hebrews, which it perpetually resembles in sound, and from which it was probably derived. In truth, it can seldom be expressed otherwise in any European language; and of this, the words (an essence or perfume) is a sufficient example-a word uniformly rendered in Europe otr or atter (as otter of roses); though, were it characterised consistently with the alphabet of sir William Jones, it must be atr, or atter. There is another objection we must mention in the work before us; and this is, that the Persic is imprinted in a different character, not only from the Persic of sir William Jones, "whose Grammar it affects to follow, but from the general fashion which has hitherto prevailed in this country. There are three different hands common to the Persian copyists, which differ as widely from each other as the Roman, the Italic, and the German, among ourselves; these are denominated Niskhi, Talik, and Shekesteh. Of these, the former has hitherto been almost uniformly adopted in this country, as being most easily imitated by our type-founders, and, from its superior perspicuity, most readily acquired by our students. It is not, however, so elegant as the Talik; nor is it so common in Persian manuscripts. On these accounts, as we suppose-for not a syllable is offered upon the subject, notwithstanding the adoption of the former by his illustrious prototype-our editor has chosen to employ the latter. We object not to his choice, extrinsically considered; on the contrary, we are highly pleased to find the Talik type introduced to the English press; but we have a strong objection to the use of it in a work which pretends to be a continuation of the system proposed by sir William Jones, but in which not an iota of real instruction is communicated to the learner. That the public may form some judgement of the difference of the two styles, we will select an example; and the first two verses that occur to us are the following, from (bi) Nezámi, which our author spells, Nezzaumee. Had sir William Jones introduced these into his Grammar, they would have appeared thus: بهنكلم سختي صشو نا اصيد کز ابر سیه بارد آب سفید In the book before us, they assume the following appearance: سختي بارد آب سفید The sentiment is elegant, and well expressed in English. • In the hour of adversity be not without hope; For chrystal [crystal] rain falls from black clouds.' P. 116. The extracts are happily selected from prior publications of English orientalists, and afford a sufficient varicty; though we expected to have found some passages introduced from Mr. Champion's fragment of the Shah-nameh, as well as from Mr. Richardson's 'version of several of the gazels of Hafiz. Mr. Rousseau has offered us no specimen of his own powers of translating and we have some reason to suppose that the introductory essay is the work of a friend. The following admirable prayer, most excellently translated by Mr. Gladwin, is from the virtuous Sadi, whose name in this page we find spelled with two as- - Saadee. * O beneficent (God) bestow pardon on our conditions We have none, excepting Thee (for our) defender. Pardon our misdeeds, and instruct us in righteousness.' P.117. The merit of the following is altogether of a different kind: the kindred soul of Anacreon flames forth with all its wonted vigor in the bard of Shiraz. The version is by Mr. Nott, whose translations are now difficult to be acquired. ODE OF HAFIZ. ، Hither, boy, a goblet bring, . It is wine, boy, that can save • Wine's the sun; the moon, sweet soul! We will call the waning bowl: Bring the sun, and bring him soon, To the bosom of the moon! Dash us with this liquid fire, If the rose should fade, do you If the nightingale's rich throat Be not sad, whatever change My bright maid, unless it be Should it chance o'er-pow'r my mind, "Tis in wine: then, boy, supply Wine, till all my senses die! Unto Haufez, boy, do you Instant bring a cup or two: The Persian typography of this work has been superintend ed with great accuracy; and the diacritical points are placed more correctly than we have almost ever seen them before. The shorter vowel-marks-partaking much of the nature, and, when erroneously disposed, producing much of the confusion, of the Hebrew Masoretic-are judiciously omitted. ART. IX. Introduction to the New Testament. By John David Michaëlis, &c. (Continued from p. 323 of the present Volume.) THE primary question that offers itself in considering THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, is, When was it written?-for its authenticity has been admitted universally from the earliest ages. Some commentators having ascribed to it so late a date as 91, 92, 98, or 99, Michaëlis adverts to such topics as might throw most light on the subject, and concludes it to be highly CRIT. REV. Vol. 35. August, 1802.. 2 G probable (and we entirely concur with him) that the epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. St. John's Gospel was opposed to heretics, who maintained the same tenets with those, who are opposed in this epistle. In the gospel he has confuted them by argument: in the epistle he expresses only his disapprobation of them. I conclude therefore, that this epistle was written before his gospel; for if he had already given a complete confutation, when he wrote this epistle, he would have thought it unnecessary to have again declared the falsity." Vol. iv. P. 398. The question To whom was this epistle written? Michaëlis considers more difficult than the preceding; for though it were formerly called, in the Latin version, the Epistle of St. John to the Parthians, it is highly reasonable to believe, that, had it been addressed to them, it would have been written in the language of their country, or else in Syriac, which was the learned language of the Parthian empire, and especially of the Christians in it. The reason for affixing to it this address, the professor thinks, was derived from the frequent use of the terms light and darkness, as appropriate to the Persian philosophy; and admits it as probable, that it was designed to warn those Christians who were in danger of being infected with Zoroastrian principles; though he at the same time contends that the language of the epistle will not warrant the placing of St. John's readers eastward of the Euphrates. Having disallowed the suppositions of Lightfoot, who supposes it to have been written to the Corinthians; and of Benson, that the apostle addressed himself to the Christians in Galilee, he strongly favours the opinion of Lampe, who, appealing to Theodoret, contends, that it was not designed for -any particular community, but for the use of Christians at large. The only difficulty attending this opinion lies in the name of epistle; because the frequent use of the terms light and darkness, in the Persian sense, seems to imply a particular destination; whereas, if it were styled a treatise, this difficulty would be removed; and examples of treatises in which readers are addressed are not unfrequent in the second person. I consider, therefore, adds Michaëlis, that, which is commonly called the First Epistle of St. John, as a book or treatise, in which the apostle declared to the whole world his disapprobation of the doctrine of the Gnostics.' In considering the contents and design of this epistle, these `preliminary observations occur. That the design of this epistle was to combat the doctrine delivered by certain false teachers, appears from ch. ii. 18—26. iii. 7. iv. 1-3. and what this false doctrine was, may be inferred from the counter-doctrine delivered by St. John, ch. v. 1-6. The apostle here asserts that "Jesus is the Christ," and that he was the |