sitions are very plausible, it seems more easy to imagine that the nanse of Scamander had been applied before the time of Strabo to the Easternmost branch, formerly called Simoeis. The geo

rapher remarks also, that there were no hot waters in his time at the Homeric fountains of the Scamander, and supposes they had failed in the lapse of time. Their condition, therefore, seems to have been the same in his time as it is now.

In Ptolemy the order of names argues only that which appears sufficiently from Homer, namely, that the Simoeis was the Easternmost branch of the river, and it will therefore equally support the hypothesis advanced in the preceding pages, or the opinion of those, who take one of the streams which run into the Méinder from the Northward to have been the Simoeis, aud Troy consequently to have been upon the heights towards the Upper Dardanelles.1

The words of Pliny 2 warrant the conjecture, that the waters of the Troad were in the same state in his time, as they are at the present day, namely, a new mouth of the Scamander to the South of Sigaum, formed by an artificial canal, and the old Scumander, at the mouth of the Méinder.

Dionysius Periegetes, in two passages where he speaks of the Xanthus and Simoeis, designates the latter by the epithet of Idæan, thus affording an argument that it was the Méinder, the only stream on this side, which has its sources in the highest parts of the mountain. It may be asked how it happens, that these three authors call this branch of the river Simveis, at a period, when we have already supposed it to have been known in the country by the name of Scamander. The answer would be, that as the name of Simoeis must, upon the supposition already advanced, have then been obsolete, these writers must have spoken of the Homeric Simoeis, which was the more likely, as they were the authors of mere compilations, and in all probability had never been upon the spot. But it must be allowed, that very little reliance can be placed upon such information.

There are some other points upon which we cannot institute a comparison between the Homeric topography and the actual state of the country, until we are in possession of an accurate survey of the whole region. Until the levels have been examined, no wellfounded conjecture can be made as to the line of coast in the time of the Trojan war, and the probable direction of the river in the lower part of its course. The levels, also, will best determine how far from the sea the two streams may have joined in former ages, and in what part of the ancient line of the coast the mouth of the river is likely to have been.

When we have a more perfect knowledge of the country, some of those features of the Homeric topography, which are not of a nature to undergo much change in the lapse of time, may be more clearly recognised, and it may then also be determined, whether any of the streams which run into the Méinder from the northward are sufficient in size, or length of course, or permanence, to be the Idæan Simoeis. It may then perhaps be admitted that Dr. Clarke's conjectures are just—that the river of Kalifát is the Simoeis, and that the springs of Bunar-bashi were only called the sources of the Scamander, as discharging their waters into that river. In the present view of the question, however, it appears difficult to believe, that a river, stagnant in the month of March, as Dr. Clarke describes the Kalifátli, should have been the Simoeis of Homer : and it seems almost necessary to conclude, that if the Méinder must be the Scamander of Homer, there is nothing left for it but to make the Thímbrek the Simoeis.

It has been said that the distance of Bunar-bashi from the sea is irreconcileable with the events in the Iliad,? which took place on the day of the death of Patroclus, for that if Troy was at Bunár-bashi, the Greeks having twice pursued the enemy to the walls of the oity, and having been twice driven back again to their camp, must have fought over a space of forty or fifty miles in one day. But supposing the distance from the coast to Bunar-bashi to be now ten miles, we must first deduct, in order to calculate

4

the space passed over on that day, the new land, which Strabo in his time reckoned at six stadia, together with the breadth of the Grecian encampment, which we may suppose to have been considerable, as the Greeks were pressed for room, and drew up their ships on the shore in several lines.' We cannot reckon less than two miles for these two deductions, which will reduce the distance fought over to thirty-two miles, a feat not impracticable for combatants who moved in chariots. But even if such an exertion were beyond the powers of men in these degenerate days, it was not so extraordinary an action for heroes, who could hurl a rock, which two men could not lift, even in the days of the poet;? who could distinguish a voice from one end to another of a camp, three or four miles long; 3 who could make themselves beard from the centre to either wing of it;who could build a complete fortification with walls and towers, and a palisaded ditch in a single day; ' or who could see so clearly, that Helen is able from the walls of Troy to point out and minutely describe all the leaders of the Grecian host, when the whole of the Trojan army lay between. It is evident that all these are fictions, which the Muse allows and encourages, and they are connected with some of the features of the Iliad, which delight and astonish us the most. At one time the poet found it convenient to magnify beyond possibility, the common occurrences of war; at another, to bring together the actions of an extensive field, in order to present them to view in one continued scene.

It would not be fair to conclude by a parity of reasoning, that Homer has magnified the scene as well as the actions of the war, and that Troy might therefore have been a small place, situated in a narrow district. The Trojan war is an event which we cannot disbelieve, without undermining the whole fabric of ancient history. Being an expedition undertaken by the united forces of all the states of Greece, agaist those of Asia and Europe, and an expedition, that involved in war all the country from Paphlagonia on the East to Pæonia on the West, the numbers engaged on both sides (without referring to Homer or to the opinions of antiquity) cannot be estimated at less than a hundred thousand, and such being the numbers, we cannot allow them a space smaller than that between Kum-Kale and Bunár-bashi for their encampments and military operations

ON MR. BELLAMY'S NEW TRANSLATION

OF THE BIBLE.

I have just seen an advertisement of a new translation of the Bible, the first part of which was to be published in the beginning of this month, by John BELLAMY, author of The History of all Religions.

I most heartily concur in the opinion of those who wish to see a new edition of the authorised version of the Bible, undertaken by authority, and corrected and improved by all the aids of sacred criticism. But a work so important and so difficult, indispensably requires much depth and variety of learning, combined with a sober judgment, and correct principles of criticism. Before public

and extensive patronage, therefore, is given to a new translation of the Bible, it is right to inquire how far the translator is qualified for the task : how far he manifests competent learning, sound judgment, and correct principles of Biblical Criticism.

In the advertisement to which I have alluded, the author refers to some of our most learned writers, who were decidedly of opinion, that a new translation of the Scriptures was absolutely necessary.” Amongst these writers I recognise the names of some who have rendered essential services to the cause of sacred literature, by correcting the present Hebrew text from the collated Hebrew MSS., and the ancient versions. Such were Archbishop Newcome, Bishop Lowth, Dr. Kennicott, and Dr. Blayney. And we might naturally suppose from the authority of these learned writers being referred to, that the same principles of criticism on which they uniformly proceeded in their emendation of the authorised version, are adopted by Mr. Bellamy. But on referring to No. xiv. of the Classical Journal, your readers will find that his principles of criticism are entirely at variance with those of the above-mentioned critics, and that, whatever may be Mr. BelLAMY's learning and judgment in other respects, his ideas of Hebrew grammar, and of the meaning of many Hebrew words, differ widely from common and established authority.

For proof of what is here advanced, I refer to a paper in No. xiv. of the Classical Journal, p. 221, &c. intitled “ Biblical Criticism." Let us see, in the first place, what opinion My. B. there gives of those "most learned writers," as he justly calls them, Newcome, Lowth, Kennicott, and Blayney. “ I shall now," says

he, “after having given undeniable proof of the lamentable errors of Kennicott, and his supporters, leave the learned and reflecting seader to form his own opinion of Mr. H. for the liberty he has taken in saying, we have a specimen of Mr. B.'s modesty in charging Dr. Kennicott and De Rossi with ignorance of the Hebrew. I certainly have charged them with ignorance of the Hebrew, and I have not only charged them with ignorance, but have also substantiated that charge." p. 236. “ Were it not for the care and attention of learned men in the present day, the Bible would soon be corrupted by such menders as Kennicott, De Rossi, and others, who lean on those broken reeds." p. 237. Now among those who lean on such “broken reeds” as Kennicott and De Rossi,-Newcome, Lowth, and Blayney must clearly be numbered. “ It is as easy to point out numbers of errors in Lowth and Leusden, as it has been the many false translations of those sober critics, Kennicott and De Rossi.” p. 238. So much for Mr. B.'s opinion of these “most learned writers," whose authority he has quoted in his advertisement.

Let us now examine how far Mr. B. agrees with these eminent critics on the present state of the Hebrew text.

Dr. Kennicott's collation of Hebrew MSS. appears to have arisen from the result of a comparison which he instituted between the parallel passages || Chron. xi. and || | Sam. xxiii. This comparison enabled him to detect many manifest errors in the present Hebrew text, and led him to conjecture that an extensive collation of Hebrew MSS. would lead to the correction of many errors of transcribers, and consequently to the elucidation of many important passages of scripture. And the result is generally allowed to have answered his expectations, and to have restored many readings, apparently genuine, which had before been either altogether lost, or bad existed only in the early versions made from ancient Hebrew copies.

It is scarcely necessary to prove that the same opinion was entertained respecting the errors of the present Hebrew text, by Archbishop Newcome, Bishop Lowth, and Dr. Blayney, and indeed by almost every critic who, since the publication of Dr. Kennicott's collations, has endeavoured to improve the authorised version. On this subject I will only quote that accurate Hebrew scholar, and elegant and enlightened critic, Bishop Lowth.

“ All writings transmitted to us like these,” i. e. the writings of the Old Testament, "from early times, the original copies of which have long ago perished, have suffered in their passage to us by the mistakes of many transcribers through whose hands we have received them

i errors continually accumulating w proportion to the number of transcripts, and the streaun generally becoming more impure, the more distant it is from the source. Now the Hebrew writings of the