In this concentrated proposition are contained, the mode of giving, _so_; the character of the recipient, _his beloved_; and we reasonably expect to be next told what the Lord will give, and the text accordingly proceeds to say, _sleep_. Whereas, if either Mr. Trench's or MR. MARGOLIOUTH's version of the clause could properly be accepted, the gift would remain entirely unmentioned; after attention had been called to the giver, to his mode of giving, and to the recipient who might expect his bounty. But whilst Mr. Trench is constrained to interpolate _in their_, apparently unconscious that the Hebrew requires _beloved_ to be in the singular number, MR. MARGOLIOUTH translates [Hebrew: SHN'] as if it were a participle, which Luther seems also to have heedlessly done. Yet unless [Hebrew: SHN'] be a noun, derived with a little irregularity from [Hebrew: YSHN], _he slept_, it has nothing to do with sleep. It cannot be the participle of [Hebrew: YSHN], for that verb has a participle in the usual form, not wanting the initial [Hebrew: Y], which occurs in several places in the Old Testament, and is used by Mendelsohn in the very sentence MR. MARGOLIOUTH has quoted from that Jewish expositor. The critic who will not acknowledge [Hebrew: SHN'] to be a noun in this clause, is therefore tied up to translating it as either the participle or the preterite of [Hebrew: SHN'], _to change_, or _to repeal_, and would thus make the clause really unintelligible. HENRY WALTER. {643} N. B. inquires, whether the translation of Psalm cxxvii. 2. adopted by Mr. Trench has the sanction of any version but that of Luther. I beg leave to inform him that the passage was translated in the same manner by Coverdale: "For look, to whom it pleaseth Him He giveth it in sleep." De Wette also, in modern times, has "Giebt er seinen Geliebten im Schlafe." Vatablus, in his Annotations, approves of such a rendering: "Dabit in somno dilectis suis." It has also been suggested in the notes of several modern critics. Not one of the ancient versions sanctions this translation. The sense of the passage will be much the same whichever of these translations be adopted. But the common rendering appears to me to harmonise best with the preceding portion of it. S. D. * * * * * MAJOR ANDRÉ. (Vol. viii., pp. 174. 604.) The following extracts and cuttings from newspapers, relative to the unfortunate Major André, may interest your correspondent SERVIENS. I believe I have some others, which I will send when I can lay my hand upon them. I inclose a pencil copy of the scarce print of a sketch from a pen-and-ink drawing, made by André himself on Oct. 1, 1780, of his crossing the river when he was taken: