tacitly fixed by the time of narration, so that all events spoken of as past, unless otherwise specified, are understood to have taken place anterior to the time of narration, and all those spoken of as future are considered as subsequent to such period. The tenses whose import is thus established by the time of narration itself may be termed, for convenience' sake, the absolute preterite and future. 2dly. Events may also be specified as to time with relation to some other period expressly intimated; in which case those spoken of as past are understood to take place anterior to such period, and those as future subsequent thereto; the tenses employed in this connection we shall name the relative past and future."

In the Indo-Germanic languages we find that the present is not restricted to a mere point of time, but is extended so as to require a separate form to designate it; so that they have three absolute tenses, and three corresponding relative ones. The use of the temporal forms of the Hebrew is more strictly philosophical; at the same time their construction is much more simple. The two absolute forms and up being modified by the particle 1, (waw, conversive,) give rise to two others, 3 and 57, which, when used in connection with the absolute tenses, are respectively termed relative future and relative past. His extended explication of the forms, illustrated by a citation of passages in which they occur, will convince the Hebrew scholar that there is not an indiscriminate use of the tenses, nor a want of distinction between them, but, on the contrary, he will perceive that they are employed in a definite way and subject to fixed rules, so that in no instance need there be doubt or uncertainty as to their signification. As the modes of the Hebrew verb present neither as many difficulties nor peculiarities as the tenses, and, moreover, as grammarians are more united in their views of them, we will not, at this time, attempt to enter into the merits of the subject. We can only speak of the chapter on the verbal modes in terms of general commendation.

It would be improper to omit to notice the extended view he has taken of the different particles; and considering the important part they have to act in expressing the relations of words and in modifying the meanings of propositions, we rejoice that he has bestowed so much laborious research upon their investigation. The translators of our version of the Bible, in many instances, seem to have misapprehended the relative power of some of the particles. Thus the inseparable particle, called waw conjunctive, has almost inva

riably been rendered and; but, if we examine its nature and origin, we find that it corresponds to other English particles, and it must often be rendered by a circumlocutory expression. Hence the critical acumen and discernment here displayed will be properly appreciated by the Biblical student.

The remainder of the volume is devoted to an examination of the prosody of the language. In this place he gives us a brief view of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry which distinguish it from prose. Perhaps no subject in the whole range of literature has been more fully discussed than this. So many visionary theories have been advocated, and so many contradictory views supported, that it was supposed impossible to discover its true nature and the laws which regulate its construction. Josephus affirms that the songs in the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, and in the thirty-third of Deuteronomy,* are written in hexameter verses; also that Davidt composed songs both in trimeter‡ and pentameter. Philo asserted that the Hebrew had metre resembling that used by the classic poets. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome were of the same opinion. This view of the subject has been ably refuted by J. Scaliger and other eminent scholars. But the matter was not fully investigated; and since that period many attempts have been made to restore the lost versification of the Hebrew. It would require a more extended notice than we are able in this place to give, to examine the merits of the numerous theories which have been proposed. We will, however, refer to a few.

In the early part of the seventeenth century Gomar published his "Lyra Davidis," in which he attempts to prove that the Hebrew poets used both metre and rhyme. Le Clerc advanced the most absurd of all hypotheses, that rhyme was the only characteristic of their poetry. The learned Bishop Hare also endeavored to find in the poetry of the ancient Hebrews those external decorations of metre and rhythm employed by the classic poets. His metrical system attracted much attention, perhaps less on account of its intrinsic merits than from the able manner in which it was refuted by Bishop Lowth. This learned prelate has bestowed great labor

* See his "Antiquities," lib. ii, c. 16, § 4, and lib. iv, c. 8, § 44.

† Ibid., lib. vii, c. 12, § 3.

Our author, by a strange mistake, calls this tetrameter.

and research upon the subject,* and the views he has advanced have been generally adopted by the most distinguished Hebrew scholars. He very clearly shows that the main characteristic of Hebrew poetry is its rhythm, or more particularly a species of rhythm in which a harmonious arrangement of the larger clauses of the verse is found, and which is denominated parallelism... This has been divided into,

I. "Synonymous, in which the second clause is entirely or almost a repetition of the first.

II. Antithetic, in which the second clause is the converse of the first.

III. Synthetic, in which the idea contained in the first clause is further developed in the succeeding ones."

This arrangement our author adopts, and the subdivisions he has given under each head will present to the scholar a clear and succinct account of the general construction of Hebrew poetry. His views on the subject are in the main correct, but we dissent from the opinion that the Hebrew poet never submitted to dictation with regard either to the number of words or syllables in his verses, or to their endings. We are willing to resign all hopes of ever knowing the character of the metre which the Hebrew poets employed; but that they made use of some kind of metre is evident from the following considerations:-1. A large part of their poetry was lyric, and used in the temple service, accompanied with musical instruments; consequently there must have been a regular measure and harmonious arrangement of words. 2. The use of certain particles, which grammarians call paragogic or redundant, and which seldom occur in prose compositions, appears to form a distinct poetic dialect. 3. The arrangement of the alphabetical poems very clearly proves the existence of metre. On this point Bishop

* His views are embodied in his Lectures on "Hebrew Poetry," and in the "Preliminary Dissertation" prefixed to his translation of Isaiah.

+ The learned bishop mentions three other characteristics, but the attention of modern investigators is chiefly directed to that of parallelism.

Bishop Jebb, in his "Sacred Literature," substitutes cognate for synonymous, and assigns satisfactory reasons for the change. A later writer has proposed the term gradational parallelism, as more applicable to the examples usually cited.

Lowth says, "We may safely conclude that the poems perfectly alphabeticalf consist of verses properly so called; of verses regulated by some observation of harmony or cadence, of measure, numbers, or rhythm. For it is not at all probable from the nature of the thing, or from examples of like kind in other languages, that a portion of mere prose, in which numbers and harmony are totally disregarded, should be laid out according to a scale of division which carries with it such evident marks of study and labor; of art in the contrivance, and exactness in the execution." De Wettet is of the opinion that the accents justify the presumption that a rhythmical system, different from mere parallelism, existed. Sir William Jones adduces the metrical arrangement of Arabic poetry as a proof of the existence of metre in the Hebrew. This distinguished Oriental scholar attempted to form a metrical system for the Hebrew from those now employed in the Arabic and cognate languages. But while we think that metre was an essential part of the poetry of the ancient Hebrews, we readily acknowledge that parallelism was an important characteristic. And as the correct pronunciation of the language has been so long lost, we regard all attempts to restore the metre visionary, and from the very nature of the case they must be unsuccessful.

The origin and nature of the accents has been a subject of almost as much controversy as the vowel points. Modern grammarians are generally united in the opinion that they are of recent origin, and that they were introduced into the system of Hebrew orthography for the purpose of accurately pointing out the relations of words and sentences. These relations our author distinguishes as logical and rhythmical, and by such a distinction he is enabled to explain the reason of their number, as well as of the variety and intricacy of their powers. The Hebrew accentual system has nothing corresponding to it in any other language. On this account grammarians have found so many difficulties connected with the

See his "Preliminary Dissertation" to Isaiah. This opinion is of the more consequence, because he here gives us his final views of the subject. Of the twelve alphabetical poems, three are perfectly so, viz., Psalms cxi and cxii, and Lament. iii.

See his "Einleitung in die Psalmen," translated by Professor Torrey for the Biblical Repository, vol. iv.

See his "Dissertation on the Asiatic Poetry."

subject, and have altogether failed of explaining its peculiarities. Hence many have asserted that the accents were of but little importance, and that for all the assistance they afford in the interpretation of the Bible they might as well be omitted. Such a view of their value is entirely erroneous, and has resulted from ignorance of the system, and from inability to explain its various relations. Our author, on the contrary, thinks that the accents are of very great importance for solving exegetical difficulties. This was also the opinion of the early Jewish grammarians. Thus Aben Ezra says, that "you should not be satisfied with any exposition not made according to the purport or meaning of the accents. ."* And an examination of our author's views of the accentual system will convince the scholar that a knowledge of its relations is of essential importance to an interpreter of the sacred writers.

After a careful investigation of the work before us, and from a comparison of its leading features with the views of others, we pronounce it to be the most complete and accurately developed grammar of the Hebrew that has ever been presented to the public.f The author has shown us that philology is itself "the science of the human mind," and that the laws which regulate the entire structure of language are greatly modified by the peculiar conformation of the mass of the nation to whom it belongs. Upon this principle the intricacies of the language are solved, the difficulties in a great measure removed, and all arbitrary distinctions rejected. The clearness with which all these features are developed renders it a most suitable text-book for the beginner, and the advanced scholar will find in it many things to admire. We believe the work is calculated to facilitate the study of the original Scripture, and thereby promote the glory of God, and extend the knowledge of his word. With these views of its value, we commend it to those who, not "mistaking ignorance for sanctity," desire to clearly understand the great truths God has revealed.

New-York, May 1st, 1841.

* This is quoted by Buxtorf, in his "Thesaurus Grammaticus Linguæ Sanctæ Hebracæ."

Since the cultivation of Hebrew literature among Christians, more than six hundred grammars of the language have been published.