ination (as hundreds) as many times as there are units of that denomination required. Greek names of months, instead of Roman, are also employed in dates. These volumes have respectively 227, 298, 457, 317, and 292 leaves; and as they contain all that any collation ascribes to this edition, we may regard the copy as exceptionally perfect. It is full bound in Russia, handsomely tooled, and adorned with gold edges. Who, now, were the scholars that were waiting for this edition; and whose use of it, individually, was in the minds of Aldus and his collaborators as they proceeded? Five eminent Greek scholars were alive when it was projected, four of whom unhappily died before the first volume appeared. Angelo Poliziano, Paolo Barbo da Soncino, and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola left the world in 1494; Ermolao Barbaro died in 1493; but Marsiglio Ficino lived till 1499. Giovanni de' Medici, afterwards Pope Leo X. had learned Greek from Demetrius Chalcondylas and Angelo Poliziano, and was assuredly thought of as a purchaser and patron of this book. Cardinal Bembo was twenty-five years old when the first volume of Aristotle was printed, and so was Bernardo Dovizi da Bibbiena. Of three commentators upon Aristotle, now to be named, Valeriano Bolzani was fifty-five, and he overlived its publication far into the next century; Pietro Pomponazzo was more than thirty, and Jacopo Sadoleto over twenty-five. Francesco Guicciardini, and Giulio Giusto Scaliger, were only boys, yet perhaps had learned from their elders how important to their future progress was the auspicious publication now taking place. In foreign countries, too, were many eyes directed toward the presses of Venice, from which were promised them, in this preface, boundless satisfaction in a long succession of Greek authors. Guillaume Budé was thirty-two years old in 1495, Johann Reuchlin was forty. So was Lefèvre d'Étaples, who had already written an introduction to Aristotle's physical works. Cardinal Ximenes, alive to every interest of learning, was nearly sixty; Erasmus was less than thirty. Three Englishmen, at least, were eager for its appearance: Thomas Linacer, John Colet, and William Grocyn. All these were stars of the first magnitude, whose light has come down to us. Hundreds of lesser luminaries, now lost or neglected, participated in their interest, or were ready to buy the book as soon as it was obtainable. This is no mere conjecture; for Fabricius asserts, "Haec quidem editio aldina jam Erasmi aetate perrara fuit." Clément, in his Bibliothèque curieuse, tells us that it is extremely difficult to bring together all the parts of this Aristotle; and that the royal library of Dresden possessed but two volumes and part of another. Renouard, in our day, informs us that complete copies of this edition, in good condition, are extremely rare; and narrates with much satisfaction, the singular and happy accident by which he himself was enabled to complete one which he had gladly purchased in a mutilated state. To what rare good fortune, then, is it to be ascribed that the Library of Congress, collected in the present century, possesses a perfect copy, in unexceptionable condition? Both within and without the cover, every volume of our copy bears the name and the arms of Thomas Grenville, the accomplished and fortunate Englishman, who purchased a princely collection of books, with the salary afforded by a sinccure office. Dying in 1844, he left his library to the British Museum, which already had a copy of this edition, derived from the collection of King George III. Being sold as a duplicate, it was happily purchased for us, probably by the intervention of Henry Stevens, and we may conjecture, at the impulse of Edward Everett, just then appointed our minister at the Court of London. Such a scholar as Mr. Everett would surely feel a high satisfaction in securing for his country such a treasure of bibliography and of the noblest learning. ARTICLE V. THE HEBREW TENSE. BY REV. A. B. RICH, D.D., WEST LEBANON, N. H. "THE whole of antiquity," said Jerome, "affirms that Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, was the beginning of human speech." This was a prevalent idea down to the seventeenth century. Occasionally, however, a writer was found bold enough to question this belief, and give the honor to some other tongue. For example, Goropius, who published a work at Antwerp, in the year 1580, endeavored to prove that Dutch was the language spoken in Paradise. André Kempre maintained that God spoke to Adam in Swedish, that Adam answered him in Danish, and that the serpent spoke to Eve in French. The Persians have a tradition that the serpent spoke in Arabic, Adam and Eve in Persian, and Gabriel in the Turkish language. In a work published at Madrid, as late as 1814, it was claimed that the Basque was the language spoken by Adam and Eve. The author of this volume did not speak without authority; for a grave, deliberative assembly had decided that on this point no doubt could exist in their minds, and that "it was impossible to bring forward any serious or rational objection." It was while these unscientific discussions were going on, during the latter part of the seventeenth century, that Leibnitz, the contemporary and rival of Newton, came upon the stage. He boldly attacked former opinions, and set himself to the task of collecting the materials necessary to a correct decision of the question. "The study of languages," said he, "must not be conducted according to any other principles than those of the exact sciences. Why begin with the unknown, instead of the known? It stands to reason. that we ought to begin with studying the modern languages which are within our reach, in order to compare them with one another, to discover their differences and affinities, and then to proceed to those which have preceded them in former ages, in order to show their filiation and origin, and then to ascend, step by step, to the most ancient tongues; the analysis of which must lead us to the most trustworthy conclusions." 1 Pursuing this method, his labors, together with those of his successors, raised the study of comparative philology to the rank of an important science, and demonstrated that we have no more reason to suppose the Hebrew to have been the original language of the race, than the Basque, the Turkish, or the Dutch.2 Nevertheless, this extensive classification of languages, living and dead, and the analysis of their grammatical forms, have proved that the Hebrew is one of the oldest dialects in existence; that it belongs to a family of which two other branches are in existence - the Arabic and the Aramaic. John Nicholson, the translator of Ewald's Hebrew Grammar, says: "The Hebrew language belongs to the Semitic, or, as it is more appropriately called, the Syro-Arabian family of languages; and it occupies a central point amidst all the branches of this family, as well with reference to the geographical position of the country in which it prevailed, as with reference to the degree of development to which it attained. In point of antiquity, however, it is the oldest form of human speech known to us, and, from the earliest civilization, as well as from the religious advantages of the Hebrews, has preserved to us the oldest and purest form of the Syro-Arabian language." 3 The student of Hebrew finds abundant evidence that the language is ancient. Max Müller has shown that, in the most ancient form of speech, the roots were bi-literal. The first stage of progress from that point of departure would be to a state in which the roots are mainly tri-literal. And here we find the Hebrew. This is the law according to Dissertation on the Origin of Nations. 2 See "Science of Language." By Max Müller, chap. iv. which the language is framed, as also the cognate dialects — the Arabic and Aramean. While this point was being reached, however, another process had been going on. Roots were combined by dropping one or more radical letters. A good example of this is seen in the paradigm of the verb, in which the secondary root the pronominal-loses one or more of its radical letters, and the remainder is prefixed or suffixed to the verbal root. This work of condensation had not proceeded far, as the language shows, before it was arrested by reducing the language to writing. There seems to be internal evidence, then, that the language existed for a time as a spoken language, but not so long as from Adam to Moses -- a period of twenty-five hundred years. Passing by the confusion of tongues, which there is reason to believe affected every dialect of the race, we shall find the Hebrew among the related dialects which sprung up as the tribes diverged from Babel. To us, or to one speaking any of the Indo-European languages, no other feature of the Hebrew seems so unique as the method of denoting the time in which an action takes place. No other makes the Hebrew student more difficulty. It is of the first importance, then, that he have a true conception of the Hebrew Tense. But our view of this subject will be affected by the idea we have of time in the abstract. Time, as Nordheimer has said, "consists of a constant flow or succession of moments, whose beginning and end are lost in eternity." Webster defines it as "a particular portion or part of duration, whether past, present, or future." In this latter definition, three distinctions of time are assumed, equally important, as it would appear, and the modifications of these three make up the frame-work of the tenses in Occidental languages. But the present, though deriving importance from the fact that all events take place in it, can hardly with propriety be called a tense" a portion or part of duration." It is only |