Such are all the places, all the regions and deserts, which we saw during the journey above mentioned, in the reign of our prince; and we implore for us and all Muhamedans the mercy of God. This Itinerary was written and composed the ninth day of the month Jumad Atthenie,' year 1203 (q. d.) 1789. A. D. The position of Tafilelt, from whence a caravan departs every autumn for Timbuctoo, is tolerably well ascertained by the above itinerary, which corroborates that of Shabeeny. I have said, that it is eight horse journies from the ruins of Pharoah to Tafilelt, or 15 caravan journies. The information recorded by me in my account of Marocco, and in Shabeeny, respecting Tafilelt, I procured partly from intelligent Moors who had often performed the journey, but principally from Signor Francisco Chiappé, an Italian gentleman, whom I knew well, and who had been European chargé des affaires, or Minister for European affairs, at the Court of Marocco, during a great part of the reign of the Sultan Seedy Muhamed, father to the present Emperor. He was a gentleman of great veracity, and had accompanied the Emperor personally twice from Fas to Tafilelt. My description of the country, rivers, and soil east of the Atlas mountains is exclusively from him. He had an itinerary, which he showed me at Laraiche, of both journies, from which he allowed me to take extracts, and would have given them to me if I had expressed a desire to have them: but Europe at that time was not so interested in discovering Africa as it is now. I have every reason to think Signor F. Chiappé's report perfectly correct. I have neither added to, nor diminished from, it, but have given an epitome of his observations. I think it expedient thus publicly to declare this circumstance, as it is now become valuable to know on what authority or foundation our intelligence rests respecting the interior of North Africa; Mr. Walckenaer, the intelligent author of Recherches Géographiques sur l'intérieur de l'Afrique Septentrionale, observes, page 281, "Ainsi donc les renseignements qu'a obtenus M. Jackson, s'accordent avec ceux de l'Itinéraire d'Achmed relativement à la position de Tafilelt." Mr. Walckenaer, page 279 of his interesting work, the principal object of which is to fix the position of Timbuctoo, doubts 'The French translation of this itinerary has it Dgioumadit; but there is no such month in the Muhamedan Kalendar: there is the month of Jumad ellule and Jumad Atthenie, q. d. the first Jumad and the second Jumad. That this itinerary is dated in the second Jumad is unquestionable, as the Latin translation has it mensis gemaditsania, which is but a slight variation from Jumad Atthenie, if not an error of the press. the existence of a river E. of the mountains of Atlas which runs from the South West to the North East,' and he observes that it is probably an error of the printer, and therefore turns this river from the North West to the South East; for in quoting a passage from my account of Marocco he says, "Une rivière qui prend sa source dans la chaîne d'Atlas arrose cette vaste plaine, et coule du Nord-Ouest au Sud-Est." What authority the learned geographer has had for turning the course of this river, or for reversing my words, or why he should imagine it more probable to run South East into the great desert, than North East into the desert of Angad, I know not. Hamed bel Hassen has not informed him that the river Ziz or the river Filelly so runs; but if he had so informed him, I can only say that his report differs from that of my friend Signor F. Chiappé, whose intelligence was never doubted, whose veracity stands unimpeached. 2 The learned geographer thinks I have placed Tafilelt too near the ruins of Pharoah in my map: and as the true situation of Tafilelt has now become important, as auxiliary to the discovery of that of Timbuctoo, I should think it reprehensible were I to omit making the following observations, on which I shall leave the intelligent reader and learned geographer to 1 Jackson's Account of Marocco, enlarged Ed. p. 22.—I have said that Tafilelt is 15 caravan journies from the ruins of Pharoah: 6 among the mountains in craggy serpentine paths, at 10 English miles a day 9 in the plains, at 20 do. a day 60 180 -240 miles. I have also said that Tafilelt is 8 days from the ruins of Pharoah, horse travelling, viz.— 3 days among the mountains, at 20 miles a day 5 days in the plains, at 35 miles a day 60 175 235 miles. Signor Chiappé performed this journey from Fas to Tafilelt in 9 days and a half, travelling 8 or 10 hours each day. And I think if we ever shall perform the journey we shall find it nearly as here stated, taking the medium, viz. 237 English miles, or 203 geographical miles; thus there is a difference of 12 geographical miles between my calculation and that of Achmed bel Hassen. 2" M. Jackson, dans sa carte, place Tafilet beaucoup trop près des Ruines de Pharaon d'après la distance qu'il indique dans son texte. Ces contradictions ne doivent pas nous surprendre. Ce sont les habitans du pays bien instruits qui ont fourni à M. Jackson les matériaux de ses descriptions, mais ce ne sont pas eux qui ont dressé sa carte." Vide Walckenaer, Recherches géographiques sur l'Afrique, &c. p. 280. make their deductions. With regard to M. Walckenaer's opinion that Tafilelt has been placed by me, on the map, too near the ruins of Pharoah, I should observe, that although the map here alluded to was made principally to show the track across the Sahara to Timbuctoo, yet Tafilelt is considered to be, by all those who have performed the journey, distant in a right line from Marocco, two-thirds of the distance which it is from Fas: this on a reference to my map of the track of the caravans, will be found to be the case. Some allowance should also be made for the windings of the road, in the mountains of Atlas, which appear to have been overlooked by M. Walckenaer, and which are so circuitous that they prolong the journey out of all proportion with the lineal distance to Tafilelt. I conceive this to be another argument in favor of my position of Timbuctoo, as marked in my map of the caravan tracks. JAMES G. JACKSON. REMARKS ON Mr. Bellamy's New Translation of the Old Testament. PART II. [Concluded from No. 51. p. 131.] In the beginning of the 21st chapter, two different events are related; one is the destruction of the cities and people of King Arad, the Canaanite, and the other is the setting up by Moses of the brazen serpent. The first of these subjects Mr. Bellamy, rejecting the authorised version, on account, I suppose, of its want of perspicuity, translates as follows: Ver. 1. Now the Canaanite, king of Arad who dwelt in the South, heard when Israel came by the way of the spies; and he fought against Israel, and took some of him captives. 2. Then Israel vowed a vow before Jehovah, and he said, Surely delivering, thou wilt give even this people into my hand, and I will separate their cities. 3. Now Jehovah, &c. &c. My reason for queting these verses, Sir, is to show that Mr. B. bas here been guilty of an error, which no one, acquainted with the simplest rules of Hebrew construction, could commit. In the passage just quoted, he has rendered the words in delivering, thou wilt give, mistaking the infinitive for a present participle, and thus manifesting his ignorance of the idiom of the language. I will now quote for his benefit the words of the learned Buxtorf upon this peculiar construction of the Hebrew: "Verbum finitum quodvis regit suum infinitum, ad majorem certitudinem et evidentiam exprimendam. "Infinitum sæpius præcedit et sub prima radicali notatur cum Kametz, si in Kal sit et ex verbis perfectis aut bisyllabis, per Ex .מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַנֵּן אָכֹל תּאכֵל,fectorum formam imitantibus : ut omni arbore horti comedendo comedes, Gen. ii. 16. hoc est, libere, prorsus comedes." See Thes. Gram. p. 498. And again, Quando infinitivus sequitur, tum continuatio et frequentatio indicatur:" ut, D. Et benedixit benedicendo vobis, Jos. xxiv. ver. 10, hoc est, subinde, sine intermissione benedixit vobis. Thes. Gram. p. 499. In this chapter the 8th and 9th verses are thus rendered in the authorised version. 8. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." 9. "And Moses made a serpent of Brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of Brass, he lived." This translation has hitherto been supposed to convey very fairly and literally, the meaning of the original, and which is, in this passage, by no means obscure. But "objectors" have, it seems, been busy, and that is quite sufficient to induce our learned author to put forth his gigantic strength, and crush them. This desideratum he accomplishes in two ways; first, by a new version of the passage; secondly, by a note to explain it, consisting of more than three pages, at once argumentative, critical, and didactic. His rendering as usual is remarkable, as well for its perspicuity as for its grammatical accuracy. Ver. 8. "And Jehovah said to Moses, Prepare before thee a serpent which set before him for a sign; then it shall be, whosoever shall be bitten, and looketh to him, that he shall live." 9. "Then Moses prepared a serpent of Brass, and he put it for the sign, so it was, if the serpent had bitten a man, when he trusted through the serpent of Brass, then he lived." Part of the note which is, not unaptly, attached to this " New Translation," I will quote as a specimen: "The Clause by an ow ́ve sim otho gnal nees, is rendered, and set it upon a pole. The word Notho is translated by the neuter pronoun it; but it is a compound word, of N oth, by, before, on, to, &c., and 1 vau postfixed, the pronoun him, as in the following clause of this verse. Heb. Before him.” Our learned critic has here confounded the conjunction ↳ vau in D with the relative pronoun which, and has so obviously shown his ignorance of the word, that it would be a waste of time to dwell upon it. He then proceeds to show his critical acumen on, rendered in our version, "a fiery serpent:" in his observations on this word, he introduces the Seraphim, Cherubim, the Egyptian Serapis, and Joseph; but I have not been able as yet to discover the precise meaning of this part of his note. Our Critic, in the 32nd verse of this chapter, again tries his skill on a subject, which makes a prominent figure in his introduction : but before I proceed to examine this verse, I shall, in order to obviate the charge of misrepresentation, quote the most material part of what Mr. B. has written upon this head.—“ Serious errors," he says, "have also been made by those translators who have translated according to Keri, and others, who have translated according to Chetib. It may be necessary to explain these terms. The Keri translators endeavour to give the sense of the text, and frequently omit some important word, or attempt to alter the original. But by Chetib is meant the true text, which should be translated so as not to reject a single word in the original. Hitherto the Keri and Chetib translators stand opposed to each other, and have been so understood even by Jews themselves, ever since the dispersion of that people." And again," I have therefore endeavoured to reconcile the Keri translators, or those who have attempted to give the sense of the passage, by rejecting a word or words, with Chetib, or those who have adhered to the whole of the original text, who must have given the true sense when they abided by the very letter; and these were the ancient Hebrews. Had the Keri translators understood the accentual reading, there had been no necessity for them to have rejected any part of the sacred text; there would have been no necessity, as has been asserted by the later Masorites, for No lo, i. e. not, to be read as 1 lov, to him; and so for other words." Without making any observations on the confused ideas of our Critic on the subject, I shall merely remark that, notwithstanding the lofty position which he has assumed on this occasion, he has, with the exception of two passages, followed like all other translators the Keri reading in his new translation of Genesis; and in those two passages Mr. Whittaker has shown him to have been guilty of the most flagrant violation of grammar. Although there are between 70 and 80 Keri readings in the Pentateuch, the one which I am about to examine is, I believe, only the third which Mr. B. has attempted to "reconcile with the Chetib;" and his attempt, VOL. XXVI. Introduction, p. 16. NO. LII. Y |