Egyptians, however, having adopted this religion, if it deserve the name, would naturally choose such names and symbols, for the celestial bodies, as suited their purposes and their situation; and while they retained the ancient divisions of the zodiac, they probably altered some of the emblems by which it was represented. I have thought that these preliminary observations might not be improperly introduced, before I entered into a particular discussion concerning the zodiacs of Esneh and Dendera. Should this Memoir ever find its way to the press, it may require an apology; as, hitherto at least, it has been written under circumstances little favorable to the researches, about which its author has been employed. ADVERSARIA LITERARIA. NO. XXIX. Epitaphe de Bonaparte. Cyrnæus, toto semotus ab orbe, Prometheus, P. H. MARRON. Domine salvum pour les Grecs insurgés. Celse terrarum moderator orbis, Dira fac rumpat juga barbarorum : Alma Libertas, tua si triumphet P. H. MARRON. Ludovico XVIII, Gallia Regi, in festis baptismalibus Regií Dum solio, LUDOVICE, regnas. Regnas, subactis seditionibus, Hac luce suetas sollicitudines, Non tibi sint aliena festa. Tartarei evomitum barathri. Cadis nefandâ nocte, cadis miser, Nulla advocatâ ex arte Machaonis Pallentibus cùin decidua a labris Gaudia, de tenebrisque lucis Accendit almos jam radios novæ : Conjugis obsequiosa jusso !" Nec vana vox, nec consilia irrita. Undique ab insidiis catervæ. Sic publica imples vota, Princeps; Cui merita in patriam dedere, Decus Garumnæ nomine te suo Tollit honore caput coruscum. P. H. MARRON. H. Stephens' Reading of a Passage in Euripides. IN NO. XLIV. p. 469. were noticed two passages of Euripides, as cited by H. Stephens in his Thesaurus, in a manner singularly at variance with the received editions. A similar instance occurs in Vol. 1. col. 755. of the old edition, under the word Bλów: « Apud Euripidem metaphorice, Λέγουσα μύθους ὦ βλύων apixóny." The line alluded to is undoubtedly by Hec. 967.; but there the reading universally acknowledged is xλów. It is most probable, that H. Stephens (in thus attributing to Euripides a word never used by him, nor indeed by the other Tragedians, nor even by Aristophanes, all of whom instead of it employ Bgúw) was deceived by a typographical error of his copy. A farther inaccuracy which escaped his notice is, that Bauwv would have required ofs, not av. The Arak Atsa Root. M. It is remarkable that the root resembling the potato, lately brought to England for cultivation, from Santa Fé de Bogota, is an African root which grows near the Southern Atlas in Lower Susé, and called in that country, among the Arabs of Woled Abbusebah, by the same name that it bears in South America, viz. Arak Atsha or Alshan, like e, unquestionably true Arabic words, signifying the absorbing or thirsty root: arak the root, atshan thirsty. How has this root found its way to South America and there retained its original Arabic name? Were the ancient Arabs possessed of more nautical knowledge than we have on record? did they, at some remote period, (and many centuries before the discovery of America by Columbus,) cross the Western Ocean, and transport their plants to America? or are we to suppose that there has been a continent submerged, which once afforded communication between Africa and South America, now divided by an ocean 30 degrees across from shore to shore? J. G. JACKSON. NOTICE OF A Vindication of 1 John, ch. v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach: in which is given a new view of the external evidence, with Greek authorities for the authenticity of the verse, not hitherto adduced in its defence. By the Bishop of St. David's. We have had an opportunity, on several occasions, of expressing the high opinion, which we entertain of this pious, ingeni 'See the map in Shabeeny's Account of Timbuctoo, Housa, &c. p. 55. VOL. XXIV. NO. XLVII. M CI. JI. ous, and learned prelate. Our pages have, in many instances, been adorned and dignified by articles communicated, or recommended, by him. And we feel a particular gratification in announcing a publication, containing sentiments, which correspond with our own, on a most important subject. Our readers will recollect that, although we are- obliged to admit articles of different opinions, which do not swerve from a proper regard for Christianity, a leaning has been expressed by us to that side, which the Right Reverend author so ably supports. Such has been the part taken by a majority of our correspondents.' Although there has been in many Divines a tendency to subscribe to the opinion entertained by Porson, Griesbach, and the learned translator of Michaelis, that the verse in question is spurious, it is remarkable that later writers, besides Pearson, Stillingfleet, Bull, Grabe, Mill, Bengelius, Ernesti, Horsley, &c. have formed a different conclusion. 2 "I have taken several opportunities," says the author of the work under our consideration, “to express a different opinion from the opponents of the verse; and I can say with truth, that every renewed examination of the subject has added to my convictions of its authenticity. Among the latest inquirers, Mr. Nolan, in his profound and interesting Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, after stating the internal and external evidence of the verse, and the probability that the verse was suppressed by Eusebius, in the edition which he revised under the sanction of Constantine the Great, adds, I trust nothing further can be wanting to convince any ingenuous mind that 1 John, v. 7, really proceeded from St. John the Evangelist.' "Dr. Hales, in his learned work3 on Faith in the Holy Trinity, speaks with equal confidence on the authenticity of the verse: -To the authority of Griesbach on this question, I shall not hesitate to oppose and prefer the authority of a celebrated German editor and critic, the learned Ernesti; with whose observations I shall close this minute and elaborate survey of the whole external and internal evidence; which, I humbly trust, will be found exhaustive of the subject, and set the controversy at rest in future.' "Mr. Grier, in his recent Reply to Dr. Milner's End of Religious Controversy,' after noticing the invincible arguments' of Mr. Nolan, says, I feel compelled to abandon my former prejudices against the verse, and to think that a person should almost as soon doubt the genuineness of the rest of St. John's Epistle, as that of the disputed passage.' Among many others, we may quote an article in No. IV. by the learned translator of Daniel. |