246 
Hebrew was originally the Eaft-Aramic 
dialect, fince it 1s that employed by the 
Ur family; and that the Chaldee (as it: 
is called by our theologians) was the 
Wreit-Araimic dialect, fince it is that em- 
‘ ployed by the Haran family. 
Babylon (xi. 9.), Damatcus (xiv. 15.), 
probably Jerufalem (xiv. 13.), and many 
other tewns of confequence, were already 
at this time {cattered over Syria. It is 
therefore moft likely, that the migration 
of a fingle family would not materially 
affect the general diftribution of diale@ ; 
that the defcendants of Abraham would 
aequire the Welt-Aramic in the weit 
country to which they pafled ; and that 
they would not fuperinduce their-own 
Eaft-Aramic language on the inhabitants 
of Mamre, of Gofhen, and of Canaan. 
Tt is yet more obvioully certain, that the 
retreat of Abraham’s family could in no- 
thing affect the language of Ur or of 
Babylon; and that, if the Hebrew pre- 
vailed in the eaft country at the time of 
their departure, it would continue, not- 
withftanding their abfence, to be fpoken 
along the banks of the Tigris. 
Accordingly this identical diftribution 
of language appears ftill to have fubfifted 
in much later periods. Daniel, Ezra, Ne- 
nemiah, who from their earlieft years, 
were educated at Babylon, and can hardly 
have known the language of jerufalem, 
bequeath to us their works (fo far as thefe 
cen be feparated from interpolated mat- 
fer) in the Hebrew or Eaft-Aramic dia- 
le&. Whereas the fragment of Ezra 
(iii. 7. to vi. 18.), written after the ac- 
ceffion of the fecond Darius (iv. 24.), and 
the fragment (i. 4. to vil. 28.), of the 
book concerning Daniel, written after the 
death of Alexander (xi. 4.) (two compo- 
fitions which make their appearance at 
Jerufalem), are drawn up in the Weilt- 
Aramic dialeét. So is the Targum of 
Gnkelos and tue other vernacular litera- 
ture of Paleitine. 
So that, if Hebrew be the fitter name 
for the language of jerufalem, and Chal- 
dee for the language of Babylon, it is 
plain we, by a vulgar error, mifcal the 
Chaldee, Hebrew; and the Hebrew, 
Chaldee. The language of Babylon, or 
Eaft-Aramic, being commonly called 
Hebrew; and the language of Jerufalem 
or Weft. Aramic, being commonly called 
Chaldee ; 2 mifnomer, which has eventu- 
ally, if not intentionally, favoured the 
periuafion—that various writings, appa- 
rently put togeher at Babylon, are the 
unfophifticated archives of the Jewifh 
Ration. 
Criticifms on the Purfuits of Literature. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
O Roman author has written in {6 ~ 
falfe and vitiated a tafte, in di&tion 
fo horrid and ob{cure, innumbers fo rough, 
fo fcabrous, and inharmonious, crowded 
with metaphors unfufferably ftrained and 
confuled, as Perfius. - He might well fay 
of himfelf, that he had nothing to do with 
pale Pirene. Yet this is the writer whom 
the author of *‘ The Purfuits of Literature,’* 
and the epiftle to K. Lone, has chofen for 
his model, and far furpaffed his original 
in all the various faults of compofition 
mentio: ed above. it becomes, therefore, 
a fubject of furprife, to hear the « Briti/b 
Critic’ commend a paffage-in the fourth 
dialogue, v..132, -as truly poetical, which 
is overlaid with falfe and gaudy colours, 
and full of tumor and bombaft. What 
is the meaning of, paznting in chara@ers 
of lght—ot the j/pirit of the troudlous 
clime—his fieps ideal hafle—in femblance 
frail—furely here are thoughts encount ring 
thoughts in conflict fierce ? 
The fame may be faid of the following - 
incongruous and harfh expreffions: Albion 
erecis her energies—to bur/t with unappall’d 
profujion—filtr ating tea through earth and air 
andlight—a pluwial prelate with his lawny 
wwings—the natal [plendour of the chequer’d 
wefi—to hake peftilence with ' maddening 
Sweep—clof'd bis cloiffer'd day—foaming 
with th’ archdeacon’s critic blood—calm d 
the horrorsof Burkes claws in gold. Afid 
above all, as unrivalled pieces of obfcure 
and far-fought conceits, might be men- 
-tioned, the beginning of dialogue the fe- 
cond, on Bithop Wilkinion’s Journey to 
the Moon; the tedious, ill-conftruéted 
allegory of the commentators on Shakef- 
peare, transtormed into dogs; and the 
conteft of the tranilators of Gray’s Elegy. 
Such is the ftyle and manner of a writer, 
who dares to think he can fucceed ina 
fort of work, where, as he moft affectedly 
faysy, 
The great Axrancian drove his primal car. 
To thefe little ftri€tures I fhall add no 
more at prefent, becaufe Iam informed 
that a dijcourfe is preparing, to fhew, at 
large, from the four following circum- 
ftances, namely ; from the accumulation 
of ufelefs Greek quotations; from vainly 
fuppofing the whole world is alarmed and 
inquiring after the fatirift; from the ma- 
lignant unprovoked attack on many re- 
{peCtable chara&ters; and from bafely 
concealing his name; that, the author of 
‘¢ The Purfitits of Literature,” is, a PE- 
DANT, 2 COXCOMB, 2 SLANDERER, 2° 
cowaRp. Iain, Sir, yours, T.L.M. 
