some disadvantages, and is in some cases the most eligible method, and not in others.

One Monsieur le Cene, a French writer, who, in the end of the last century, wrote what he called a Project for a new Translation of the Bible into French, has recommended a fourth method, which is, to give in the version the exact value expressed in the money or measures of the country into whose language the version is made. The anonymous author of an Essay, in English, for a new translation, has adopted this idea; or rather, without naming Le Cene, has turned into English, and transferred to our use, all those remarks of the Frenchman which he accounted applicable to the English version. This fourth method, though much approved by some on account of its supposed perspicuity, is, in my judgment, the worst of them all; nor do I know a single instance wherein I could say that it ought to be adopted.* 2. But, before I enter on the discussion of these methods, it is proper here to premise, that as to measures, the inquiry may well be confined to those called measures of capacity. The smaller length measures have originally, in every country, been borrowed from some of the proportions which take place in the human body. Hence inch, hand-breadth, span, foot, cubit. The larger measures, pace, furlong, mile, are but multiples of the less. Now, as there is not an exact uniformity of measure in the parts of individuals, it would naturally follow, that different nations would establish for themselves standard measures, not much different from those of others, nor yet entirely the same. And this is what, in such measures, has actually happened. When any of them, therefore, is mentioned, we know the measure nearly, but cannot know it accurately, till we are informed of what nation it is the inch, span, foot, cubit, &c. The names have by use acquired a latitude and a currency in these different applications. As to superficial measure, we know it is reckoned no otherwise than by the square of the long measure. Whereas, the cubical form, not answering so well in practice to the mensuration of solids, the standards for them have generally been fixed without any regard to measures of length or surface. It is with these alone, therefore, that we are here concerned.

3. Now, the best way of determining our choice properly, among the different methods of translating above-mentioned, is

Till I read it lately in Dr. Geddes's prospectus, I did not know that Le Cene had published a version of the Scriptures. The attentive reader will perceive that the criticisms which follow in relation to him do not refer to that translation, which I never saw, but solely to his plan. If his version be conformable to his own rules, it is certainly a curiosity of its kind. But that cannot be; otherwise the learned doctor, though not profuse in its praise, would not, on some points, have spoken so favourably as he has done. Could he have said, for instance, that he is very seldom biassed by party prejudices? If Le Cene was faultless on this article, much may be said to exculpate Beza. Their parties were different, but their error was the same. See Diss. X. Part v. sect. 13.

by attending to the scope of the passages wherein the mention of money and measures is introduced. First, then, it sometimes happens, that accuracy, in regard to the value of these, is of importance to the sense. Secondly, it sometimes happens, that the value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure, is of no consequence to the import of the passage. Thirdly, it happens also, sometimes, that though the real value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure, does not affect the sense of the passage, the comparative value of the different articles mentioned is of some moment for the better understanding of what is said. Let us consider what methods suit best the several cases now mentioned.

66

4. First, I observed that accuracy, in regard to the value of the measures or coins mentioned, is sometimes of importance to the sense. When this is the case, and when we have no word exactly corresponding in import to the original term, that term ought to be retained in the version, and explained in the margin, according to the first method taken notice of. An instance, where the knowledge both of the capacity of the measure and of the value of the coin are essential to the sense, we have in that public cry, Xovič σirov dnvapiov, which our translators render, a measure of wheat for a penny," Rev. vi. 6. It is evidently the intention of the writer to inform us of the rate of this necessary article, as a characteristic of the time whereof he is speaking. But our version not only gives no information on this head, but has not even the appearance of giving any, which the word chanix would have had, even to those who did not understand it. But to say a measure, without saying what measure, is to say just nothing at all. The word penny here is also exceptionable, being used indefinitely, insomuch that the amount of the declaration is, a certain quantity of wheat for a certain quantity of money. This suggests no idea of either dearth or plenty; and can be chracteristical of no time, as it holds equally of every time. In this case, the original term, notwithstanding its harshness, ought to be retained in the text, and explained in the margin. Again, it was doubtless the intention of the sacred penman to acquaint us at how low a price our Saviour was sold by his treacherous disciple, when he informs us, (Matt. xxvi. 15,) that the chief priests agreed to give Judas τριακοντα αργύρια. In like manner, when the evangelist (John xii. 5) mentioned the indignant observation of Judas, that the ointment wherewith our Lord's feet were anointed might have been sold for more than τριακοσίων δηναρίων, it was doubtless his view to acquaint us with the value of the gift. Once more, when Philip (John vi. 7) remarked to our Lord, who had proposed to feed the multitude in the desert, diaкоσiwv Envaρiwv aproι, "two hundred pennyδιακοσίων δηναρίων άρτοι, worth of bread," as it runs in the common version, "is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little," it was the

design of the historian to supply us with a kind of criterion for computing the number of the people present. But this could be no criterion, unless we knew the value of the Envagiov.

5. "But," say those modern correctors, " in the examples above-mentioned, when the knowledge of the value of the coin, and the capacity of the measure, is of importance to the sense, no method can be equal, in point of perspicuity, to that recommended by us, whereby both are reduced to an equivalent in the monies and measures of the country. Thus, the first passage quoted would be rendered, A measure of wheat, capable of supporting a man for one day," for thus Le Cene proposes to translate xovie, "for sevenpence halfpenny. The second, The chief priests covenanted with Judas for three pounds fifteen shillings sterling. The third, Why was not this ointment sold for nine pounds seven shillings and sixpence? And the fourth, Six pounds five shillings would not purchase bread sufficient."

The exceptions against this method are many. In the first place, it is a mere comment, and no translation. Considered as a comment, it may be good; but that must be egregiously wrong as a version, which represents an author as speaking of what he knew nothing about, nay, of what had no existence in his time. And such, surely, is the case with our sterling money, which an interpretation of this sort would represent as the current coin of Judea in the time of our Saviour. Nothing ought to be introduced by the translator from which the English reader may fairly deduce a false conclusion in regard to the manners and customs of the time. Besides, as the comparative value of their money and measures with ours is not founded on the clearest evidence, is it proper to give a questionable point the sanction, as it were, of inspiration? Add to all this, that no method can be devised which would more effectually than this, destroy the native simplicity and energy of the expression. What is expressed in round numbers in the original, is, with an absurd minuteness, reduced to fractions in the version. Nothing can be more natural than the expression, Two hundred denarii would not purchase bread enough to afford every one of them a little. This is spoken like one who makes a shrewd guess from what he sees. Whereas, nothing can be more unnatural than, in such a case, to descend to fractional parts, and say, Six pounds five shillings would not purchase. This is what nobody would have said, that had not previously made the computation. Just so, the round sum of three hundred denarii might very naturally be conjectured, by one present, to be about the value of the ointment. But, for one to go so nearly to work as to say, Nine pounds seven shillings and sixpence might have been gotten for this liquor, would directly suggest to the hearers that he had weighed it, and computed its value at so much a pound. There is this additional absurdity in the last example, that it is said ɛavw, more than;

consequently it is mentioned, not as the exact account, but as a plausible conjecture, rather under than above the price. But does any body in conjectures of this kind, acknowledged to be conjectures, descend to fractional parts?

6. Now, if this method would succeed so ill in the first of the three cases mentioned, it will be found to answer still worse in the other two, where little depends on the knowledge of the value. In the second, I may say, nothing depends on it. Now there are several passages wherein coins and measures are mentioned, in which the value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure, is of no conceivable consequence to the import of the passage. In this case, either the second or the third method above specified, is preferable to the introduction of a foreign term not used in other places of the version, and nowise necessary to the sense. But let it be observed of the second method, that I am never for using such names of coins and measures as are peculiarly modern or European, and not applied to the money and measures of ancient and oriental countries; for such terms always suggest the notion of a coincidence with us in things wherein there was actually no coincidence.

We read in the common version, "Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel,” ὑπο τον μόδιον "but on a candlestick," Matt. v. 15. Every person must be sensible, that the size of the measure is of no consequence here to the sense, the intention being solely to signify, that a light is brought, not to be covered up, but to be placed where it may be of use in lighting the household. The general term corn-measure perfectly answers the author's purpose in this place, and as nowhere, but in the expression of this very sentiment, does the word μodios occur in the Gospels, there is no reason for adopting it. The term bushel serves well enough for conveying the import of the sentiment; but as it indirectly suggests an untruth, namely, the ancient use of that measure in Judea, it is evidently improper. For an example in money, our Lord says, when the Pharisees interrogated him about the lawfulness of paying the tribute imposed by their conquerors, Επιδειξατε μοι δηνάριον, rendered in the common version, "show me a penny," Luke xx. 24; the sequel evinces that it was of no importance what the value of the money was the argument is affected solely by the figure and inscription on it. And if in no other place of the Gospels the value of that coin had affected the sense more than it does here, it might have been rendered by the general phrase piece of money. Now let us see how Le Cene's method does with these two examples. In the first he would say, Neither do men light a candle to put it under a measure which contains about a pint less than a peck; or, according to the manner which he sometimes adopts, containing such a precise number of eggs, (I do not recollect how many ;) would not this particularity in fixing the

capacity of the measure but too manifestly convey the insinuation that there would be nothing strange or improper in men's putting a lighted candle under any other measure larger or smaller than that whereof the capacity is, as a matter of principal moment, so nicely ascertained? A strange way this of rendering Scripture perspicuous!

Nor does it answer better in coins than in measures. When our Lord said Επιδειξατε μοι δηνάριον, the very words imply that it was a single piece he wanted to see; and what follows supplies us with the reason. But how does this suit Le Cene's mode of reduction? Shew me sevenpence-halfpenny. Have we any such piece? The very demand must, to an English reader, appear capricious, and the money asked could not be presented, otherwise than in different pieces, if not in different kinds. It is added, "Whose image and superscription hath it?" Is this a question which any man would put, Whose image and superscription hath sevenpence-halfpenny?" But there may have been formerly sevenpence-halfpenny pieces, though we have none now." Be it so. Still, as it is unsuitable to have the head and inscription of a Roman emperor on what must, from the denomination, be understood to be British coin, they ought, for the sake of consistency, and for making the transformation of the money complete, to render the reply to the aforesaid question, George's instead of Caesar's. If this be not translating into English, it is perhaps superior: it is what some moderns call Englishing, making English, or doing into English; for all these expressions are used. Poems done in this manner are sometimes more humbly termed imitations.

7. I observed a third case that occurs in the Gospels with respect to money and measures, which is, when the value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure mentioned, does not, but the comparative value of the articles specified does, affect the sense. Of this kind some of our Lord's parables furnish us with excellent examples. Such is the parable of the pounds, Luke xix. 13, &c. I shall here give as much of it as is necessary for my present purpose, first in the vulgar translation, then in Le Cene's manner. 13. He called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.-16. The first came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant, because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities." Nothing can be more manifest, than that it is of no consequence to the meaning and design of this brief narration what the value of the pound was, great or little; let it suffice, that it here represents the whole of what we receive from our Creator to be laid out in his service. In the accounts