Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the suburbs. He says the suburbs extended two thousand cubits from the city on all sides. Allowing for the city the same space, one thousand cubits each side, as above, in examining the opinion of Maimonides, the ground occupied by both city and suburbs will be a figure of five thousand cubits each side. This will contain about 1,909 acres, from which, deducting the ground of the city, there are remaining 1,833 acres to be distributed among 191 families. This assigns about nine acres and a half to each family, not the one-half of the quantity of land allotted to the other families of the Israelites; and this seems to be an equitable proportion.

It appears then, that, previous to this mode of investigating the subject, we might reasonably conclude that Josephus was best qualified to understand the true meaning assigned by the Jews to the passage respecting the extent of the suburbs of the Levitical cities; and the investigation of the subject, with regard to the quantity of land which each mode of interpretation would assign to each Levitical family, places it, in my opinion, beyond a doubt that Josephus is correct. According to Le Clerc :

2,000 Cubits.

Suburbs and city, inclosed by a square each side A. of 2,000 cubits

...

...

Deduct city, forming a circle 2,000 cubits in di

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

305

...

[blocks in formation]

...

65 2 99

Leaves of land in the suburbs

That is, for each family one-third of an acre.

According to Maimonides:

7,000 Cubits.

Suburbs and city, inclosed by a square of 7,000

[blocks in formation]

Deduct city, a square, each side of 1,000 cubits

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

That is, for each family nineteen acres and some perches.

According to Josephus :

5,000 Cubits.

3

Suburbs and city, inclosed by a square, each side

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Deduct city, a square, each side of 1,000 cubits

Leaves of land in the suburbs

A. R. P.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

That is, about nine acres and a half to each family.
According to Bishop Cumberland:

1,000 Cubits.

A square on each side of the city, 1,000 cubits each side, the amount of the four squares will be

A. R. P.

305 2 1

This divided among 191 families, will allow to each a little more than an acre and a half.

According to Lowman: 4,000 Cubits.

A. R.

P.

4

...

...

305 2 1

The whole square, containing suburbs and city 1,222
The city, 2,000 cubits each side

Leaves in the suburbs

...

916 2 3

This allows to each family about four acres three roods. Lowman's supposition, that the two thousand cubits were measured "from without the city" into the centre of the city, cannot be maintained by reference to the original expression. There is an ambiguity in the expression "from without the city," as it is in our authorized version. It may mean, from a point without the city inwards, as Lowman has understood it; but the original words no signify "outside of the city." It is an expression that often occurs, as also the similar expression "outside of the camp." (Deut. xxii. 10. 12.) So that the measurement of the two thousand cubits was all taken outside of the city.

למחנה
מחוץ

In these two verses respecting the suburbs I prefer the reading of the Septuagint; and I think the fifth verse is merely a more full expression or explanation of the fourth.

We are not to suppose the Levites were the sole inhabitants of the Levitical cities, but they possessed inalienably the property of these cities. (See Levit. xxv. 32, &c.).

Vicarage, Donegal.

WILLIAM EWING.

XXIV.

ON A EUROPEAN NOTATION FOR EXTRA EUROPEAN

SOUNDS.

THE time was, when the project of writing the Hebrew or Arabic language in any but their native characters, was received with scorn by the learned; but in recent days, the serious evils entailed by the necessity of learning new alphabets have become more manifest with the progress of philology. It may here be not inexpedient concisely to recount them.

(1.) No one is able to learn a foreign language which is written in a new character, unless he systematically submits to a sort of scholastic drudgery. If even he should study diligently an hour a day for a month together, he would lose a very large part of the power of reading thus laboriously acquired, by a disuse of it for two or three months. The tendency, therefore, of the system is, to prevent all from acquiring such language, except those who pursue it with strictly professional objects. However light those may make of this difficulty whose profession leads them into daily familiarity with the foreign character, it is undeniable that numbers are entirely repelled by it from acquiring even an interest in the language which it conceals. The writer knows those who have been, more or less, acquainted with the Hebrew and Arabic languages and characters for twenty and fifteen years, who, nevertheless, to this day are forced to spell out the letters slowly and painfully, as a child of four years old in reading English.

(2.) Even those who have already acquired a foreign character so as to read fluently, seldom or never attain the same intimate familiarity with it as with the European type. Hence, if they desire to find a sentence in a work by running the eye over several pages, the labour lost is immense.

(3.) From the want of the distinction between small and capital letters, it must, in every case, be more difficult to find a required passage printed in any non-European type. Italics are another secondary advantage which we possess.

(4.) The great expense of printing in foreign types, and the far greater liability to misprints, are objections not to be despised.

(5.) The defective apparatus of stops and quotation marks generally to be complained of in Asiatic and African alphabets is another disadvantage. The Hebrew or Masoretic system is too refined and elaborate to be quoted as an exception of any practical interest.

(6.) By its legibility, simplicity, quickness of writing, freedom from diacritical points, which are so liable to be misplaced, -with its full provision for the exhibition of vowels in the text, the European type seems to have intrinsic advantages over Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, or Sanscrit.

(7.) For the purposes of modern philology, it is not desirable only, but almost essential, to be able to exhibit side by side, in the same type, the words of numerous and distant tongues. If the learned compile elaborate dictionaries, their work is comparatively useless, unless those who consult them can read the various types in which the foreign words are written; and this is not to be expected. It is hard to lay on a student of Swedish and Gothic the prohibition to consult a Comparative Dictionary, unless he has first learned the Sanscrit type; equally unfair to expect a student of Sanscrit to be able to read the Arabic, the Zend, the Burmese, or the Armenian. And if there must be a common system adopted, no one will question that the ordinary European alphabet should be its foundation.

This being conceded, it remains to inquire how unanimity may be attained concerning the particular method to be employed. The single general reply, is, I think, the following. By introducing no arbitrary inventions in detail, but by following analogies, just as algebraists have done in establishing their notations. Any system which proceeds on a just analogy will be easily learnt and remembered; and even if several such systems coexisted, they would not necessarily cause great inconvenience. In a short time, however, that system would prevail which united most secondary advantages, such as legibility, and convenience of writing and printing, with the essential demand of discriminating sounds aright. Hitherto, the chief mischief has arisen from introducing special shifts for special sounds, without reference to any general system, or to the demands of numerous languages. Printers are vexed, and

« PreviousContinue »