TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

IN the Classical Journal, No. VII. of September, 1811, p. 125, J. H. M. S. expressed a wish for some information concerning the difficult text, Gen. xxxvi. 24: and, having waited nearly a year, expecting that some of your learned correspondents would give an answer, and solve some difficulties respecting it, without effect, I ventured to send some cursory remarks, which you obligingly inserted in No. XI. p. 34. In them I endeavoured to show the probability that Anah, while feeding the asses of his father, accidentally, or without any intention of producing it, found a creature among them which, from its appearance, clearly showed his maternal origin, though his father might not be immediately known; that this creature was a male mule, produced by the accidental junction of a strayed horse with one of the asses which Anah fed, as seemed to be supported by the LXX., by Aquila and Theodotion; that the name seemed to be providentially given to him, and to be descriptive of his particular appearance, as the son of his mother, and that this might have some reference to the Jewish law afterwards to be given; and that seemed to be a compound word, formed" of as either formative of the proper name, or as the "representative of formavit, &c.; or rather of its derivative , Jetsurim, lineamenta, or features; of the particle

66

66

ab,

or from; and of DN mater, or mother; importing that the mule, "or new animal, found by Anah, being most probably the offspring "of a she-ass, from the junction of a horse, aud which would, "therefore, more particularly bear the lineaments of his mother, "was thus remarkably distinguished as the son of his mother." ib. p. 35. And I may here observe, that the name DN1, Jemin-em, or, in short, D, Jemim, might be immediately and naturally pronounced by Anah, by way of exclamation, on first beholding him; just as an Englishman, who, in feeding asses, had found beside a she-ass a mule of this kind, would have exclaimed, "This (or he) is his mother's son." And being convinced that D,

as found in the Sacred Text in this place, was a very different word from DN of Deut. ii. 10, and from found in the Samaritan text, and that the ideal meaning which I had ventured to give was beautifully descriptive of this kind of geniture, I could not agree with those who rendered it Emims or Giants, as in Deut. ii. 10, 11, however learned they might be, or however respectably supported. It was not therefore to be expected that I should give any quotations from those authors who were of the latter opinion.

In the Classical Journal, No, XIII. p. 140, J. H. M, S. thanked me, and asked the two following questions: "Does not the interpretation of the Septuagint seem to insinuate that they were ignorant of the signification of DT? or, if not, why did they render it by τὸν Ἰαμεῖν, and not by τὸν ἡμίονον, in the Greek language : 2d. "Cannot this word be supposed to be the same with that in Deut. ii. 10 and 11, which would clear up all the difficulty at once?" To the first I answer, that, according to the interpretation I have given in No. XI., the LXX. have given the true name of the animal, only a little altered according to the Greek manner : and though it might be justly called an iovos, they may not have felt warranted to change the proper name already given to it, and by which it was probably called in their time; or perhaps they were not permitted to do so. But though they seem to have retained the proper name, they may not have known the full import of its etymology, or meaning; like other translators of the Sacred Scriptures in every age, who have translated many passages which they did not understand, sometimes correctly and at other times improperly, as appears evident from some of their paraphrastic translations of them.

The other question, whether DD caunot be supposed the same with DN, found in Deut. ii. 10 and 11, has been fully answered in No. XI. p. 39; first, by showing that the two words are very different; and secondly, by giving what I conceive to be a good interpretation of the former, and thus rendering unnecessary all further suppositions.

I therefore considered that, though I had not fully satisfied J. H. M. S., yet some of your learned correspondents might be able to produce some more satisfactory information on the subject. I accordingly waited, in expectation that some answer would be given. At last, in No. XV. p. 25, appeared J. M. with “Remarks, borrowed and original," upon : he, no doubt, means DA, for it is this word, as thus found in the Sacred Text, concerning which the question is; for it will not be permitted by your learned readers, to J. H. M. S. or J. M., according to the rules of sober criticism, to add one letter to the original word, while a good ideal meaning is so obvious; and much less to suppose that, even

besides the addition of one Hebrew letter, another might be changed; or that DD' might be supposed to be D. In the few observations which I ventured to make in No. XI. I only professed to give a "few cursory remarks;" without promising any further particular investigation or discussion of the question: though I was anxious to endeavour to throw some light on the subject. In the course of these remarks I have stated the result of the various collations of De Rossi, &c., and, as I humbly conceive, sufficiently accounted for the erroneous insertion of the second Jod, about or soon after the time of the Jewish Targumists; and shown that this was most probably the reason of its being found in so many MSS. see XI. p. 36. And I called to mind that D of Gen. xxxvi. 24, and DNI of Deut. ii. 10, were different words, having distinct significations in the two places mentioned; giving at the same time what I conceived to be the true ideal meaning of that in Genesis, with some quotations which I thought might be illustrative of the subject, in which I considered myself fully supported by the LXX. and other Greek translators, and in some degree by all who rendered the word mules, without wishing to make any useless animadversions on any interpreter, or unnecessarily to bring forward their erroneous suppositions: and finding him, whom J. M. justly styles the "Prince of Commentators," "the Colossus of Biblical Criticism;" the giant Poole napping on his flowery couch on this occasion, on his sweet bed of Jemims, Emims, and Aimims, (all fragrant in their season and place,) I did not wish to disturb his repose. And for all this, his learned brother J. M. seems greatly offended with M. S. M., but evidently without cause, as his silence was intended to prevent the exposure of his friend. But as J. M. has thus uselessly brought forth his giant, we may just have a little play with him, without endeavouring to hurt him, or even to pluck a single laurel from his brow. Palmam qui meruit ferat.

T

J. M. proceeds; and with other interpreters asserts, that the Hebrew word D (meaning D) cannot signify mules, and attempts to support this assertion by the three following arguments, which are stated in Poole, from Bochart and others. Imo. Quia illa vox nusquam mulos significat: muli autem dicuntur. 2ndo. Non diceretur invenisse mulos Ana, quia N, licet in S. S. exstet locis plus 400, nusquam significat excogitare quod non est, sed reperire rem jam exstantem. Stio. Probabile est mulorum usum in illis locis non fuisse tam vetustum, &c. &c. nec ante Davidis tempora, ut docet Bochartus, leguntur mulis usi.

These arguments I shall consider in their order; begging the reader to remember, that I render Jemim or Yemim as a proper name in the singular number, and consider it a mule, and not

mules. On the first argument I observe, that it has been acknowledged by M. S. M. that the word is no-where else rendered mules, and that in every other place mules are called by different names, as he has fully shown No. XI. p. 40. And he has ventured to assign ideal meanings, formed according to received analogies, to each. I think indeed that the rendering by the proper name Jemim or Yemim is the, most correct, as retaining the original word, with its beautiful ideal meaning. Though as the Jemim is, notwithstanding, a mule, it may be paraphrastically rendered the mule. But though be not rendered mules in any other place, and ought not to be rendered mules here, these are no good reasons why it may not be rendered Jemim, as a singular proper name; nor why this Jemim may not be a mule. And M. S. M. has shown that this proper name has been retained as a single individual by the LXX., Aquila, and Theodotion. I am aware that Bochart adds the second, and that he is followed by Mr. Poole and others, and that they are supported by the numerous MSS. mentioned by De Rossi, and found in Kennicott and others: but having traced this to its source among the Jewish Targumists, and finding no such letter in the present text, and that the ideal meaning agrees in every respect with the Hebrew context, and with the signification of the Hebrew word NY, I cannot but conclude that Jemim, or Yemim, is the true literal rendering, and that this Jemim is a mule. The second, being founded on an erroneous interpretation of Junius, Piscator, and Versio Belgica, proves nothing in favor of the point in question, as their artem excogitare must be wholly rejected, as being an interpretation which is contradicted by the 400 instances mentioned, and which will not bear. But according to the ideal meaning given by M. S. M., Ana found a rem jam exstantem, a thing already existing, concerning the production of which he might, and most probably did, know nothing. Therefore this argument will be considered as rather in favor of M. S. M. The third argument, that mules were probably not in use in those parts at this early period, will readily be granted, as it is contended that the creature which Ana found was the first mule ever seen in that country. Why we hear nothing of mules afterwards, until the days of David, may be difficult to determine; unless we suppose that, considering the animal as a kind of useless monster, they immediately put it to death.

J. M. now proceeds to give the extracts from Poole in favor of the rendering Emim or Giants; but being only supported either by the addition of one or more Hebrew letters, or the addition and mutation of others, and all at best but unnecessary suppositions, which are contrary to the Hebrew text; they cannot be considered as proving any thing, however ingenious, however beautiful they