« PreviousContinue »
tion having been made by letters, mistakes may very easily have occurred in the transcription of copies. We have, however, no evidence that numbers were anciently denoted in Hebrew manuscripts by combinations of letters; and we cannot admit the propriety of changes in the text, resting on mere conjecture. In profane history, we meet with details of a similar kind, which are not less surprising, and which may therefore be cited as very important examples to corroborate the statements of Scripture. At the passover celebrated at the period of Hezekiah's reformation, there were offered two thousand head of cattle and seventeen thousand sheep. The victims at the dedication of Solomon's Temple, were twenty-two thousand bullocks and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. Crasus, according to the account in Herodotus, offered to the Delphian Apollo three thousand of each species of animals allowed for sacrifice (Clio 50). The number of victims, in the former instances, is not comparatively greater than in this latter case. The victims killed at the passover, and at the dedication of the Temple, were peace-offerings, only a portion of which was consumed upon the altar, the principal part serving for the entertainment of the people at those times of national festivity. The festival continued, on each of these occasions, for fourteen days, and the concourse of persons from all parts of the land was immense. It is not for us to judge of ancient manners, and more especially of ancient religious ceremonials, by any application to them of our own notions of fitness. We have too often had occasion to notice the hasty judgements pronounced upon Biblical subjects, by persons who might find the remedy for their flippancy and rashness in an enlargement of their knowledge. The passage in Herodotus to which we have referred, strikes us as of some moment.
When Cræsus was meditating his designs against the Persians, Sandanis, a Lydian, attempted to dissuade him from his purpose, by reasonings which we cannot be surprised to find were disregarded by the monarch. The poverty of the Persians, and the barrenness of their country, might seem good reasons against invading them; but they who delight in war' would not be turned aside from their pursuit of it by considerations which could not extinguish their love of glory, or their hope of conquest. If Persia did not produce figs', it was a field where the Lydian king might gather the laurels of victory; and these have been sought by many of the mighty since his day in very sterile soils. An extract from one of the epistles of Julian, is given by M. Larcher, in a note on this speech of Sandanis.
Où güxa di FXovos spáry..] Unacquainted both with figs. “ The historian, Herodotus, wishing to prove that a country is totally wild and
uncultivated, contents himself with saying, that neither figs, nor any thing else that is good, grows there; as if there were no other fruit superior to figs, or as if the people among whom this fruit grew, could want no earthly good. Homer praises fruits, some for their size, some for their colour, and some for the beauty of their form. The fig is the only fruit to which he allows sweetness. He gives to honey the epithe of green, as if fearing rashly to call that sweet which is sometime bitter ; but the quality of sweetness he allows only to the fig, in common with nectar, as if it were the only sweet thing in nature.” Vol. I. p. 108. Clio 71.
The temple of Jupiter Belus (Clio 181) was situated within a consecrated inclosure; and the description very clearly illustrates the different import of the words ipòr and vaós.
• We must bear in mind', remarks M. Larcher, “that a temple of the ancients was very different from one of our churches. It comprised a considerable extent of ground, enclosed by walls, within which there were courts, a grove, pieces of water, sometimes habitations for the priests, and, lastly, the temple properly so called, and into which, most usually, the priest only was admitted. The entire precinct was called sù iepór, or, in the Ionian dialect, tò ipòr. The temple, properly so called, or the habitation of the god, was named væòs, and in Ionian rnos, “cella.”
This account is entirely correct; but M. Larcher is clearly in error when he represents, that in the Sacred Writings, the • vaòs is that part of the temple at Jerusalem, into which the
priests only were permitted to enter-the Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies!' (Vol. I. p. 471.) In the Scriptures, vaòs has not this restricted meaning; and the priests were not admitted into the Holy of Holies.
In commenting on the infamous custom established among the Babylonians, related in the Clio 199, M. Larcher notices the objections of Voltaire, which have been subsequently urged against the credibility of so shameful a practice. Superstition certainly reconciles mankind to very gross observances, and harmonizes all sorts of contradictions; still, it is very revolting to believe, that a law of so flagitious a character could be in force among any people advanced in civilization. There would be no difficulty in crediting the account as a limited description of an immoral usage; but it may reasonably be doubted, whether a compulsory law, rendering the practice one of universal obligation, was ever in existence. M. Larcher adduces, in confirmation of the account, the authority of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived a century and a half before the time of Herodotus. The passage to which he refers, is found, not in the genuine writings of the Prophet, but in the Apocryphal Book of Baruch, which, though it might be assumed by Larcher, on the ground of its being acknowledged by the Romish Church as canonical, we cannot consider as an independent authority. It was of much
later origin, and the passage was probably introduced from the page
of the Historian. M. Larcher appears to us very unneces. sarily to perplex himself with the passagem Mulieres autem circumdatæ funibus in viis sedent.'
By these women encircled with cords, we may understand those who, as Herodotus relates, sat in the alleys of the sacred precinct, inclosed with cords; or perhaps the prophet meant to say, that their heads were bound with cords, as both Strabo and Herodotus assert.'
The funes, we suppose, were girdles of cord, zona, with which these women were severally encircled. The connection evidently shews this to be the meaning of the words.
M. Larcher adopts the opinion of Wesseling respecting the age of Sesostris, and places him 1356 years before the common era, and 88 before the taking of Troy. Of this great conqueror, we may admit the existence; but so much of fable has been blended with the facts of his history, by the writers who have described his exploits, that we must be satisfied to leave the period in which he flourished, as well as the particulars of his reign, in the obscurity with which the conflicting accounts of this and some other early personages have transmitted them to us.
On the uses of the word 'Tyrant', we have the following judicious remarks:
• Επιδαύρου τύραννος
• 'Etidaúcou rúgarros. Tyrant of Epidaurus. The poets frequently confound the τύραννος with the βασιλεύς; but the prose
writers seem to mark the distinction: for instance, they have never called the kings of Persia, of Lacedæmon, or of Athens, « tyrants"; but they have given
; that name to the kings of Syracuse, to Pisistratus, &c. “ Tyrant", with the Greek writers, ordinarily signifies an usurper, one who governs a people against their will, without their consent, even though he should regulate his administration strictly according to justice. Pisistratus, therefore, was a tyrant, though his government was mild. Hieron was so likewise, though Xenophon gives him great praise in the treatise which he has entitled, “ Hieron sive Tyrannicus." In this work, he always calls him thựavos; and this has given some room to imagine, that amongst the Greeks the term conveyed no reproach ; whereas in French (and in English) it is unequivocal. It signifies also, in our language, a prince who has succeeded legitimately to the throne, but who governs in a manner contrary to the well-being, the wishes, and the primitive object of society. But let us hear what Xenophon says on this point : « Socrates thought that tyranny and royalty were two species of government essentially different. That in which the subjects were governed by their own consent, and according to known laws, he considered royalty ; but he deemed that tyranny, in which the subjects were governed against their will, contrary to law, and according to the caprice of the prince."
Cornelius Nepos also says: “Omnes autem et habentur et dicuntur tyranni, qui potestate sunt perpetuâ in eâ civitate, quæ libertate usa
• To these authorities, I will add that of Herodotus himself. When the Lacedæmonians wished to restore the Pisistratidæ in Athens, Sosicles of Corinth said to them: “If it seems best to you that cities should be governed by tyrants, why do you not give an example by establishing one over yourselves ?” 'It appears then, that he made a decided difference between the túgarros and the Beasheds ; for we know that the Lacedæmonians were governed by kings. p. 566.
It is not necessary for us to provide such information for our readers as that which is comprised in the first sentence of the following extract; the remarks, however, which it introduces, are too important to be omitted :
Ajax, the son of Telamon, distinguished himself at the siege of Troy; but, after the death of Achilles, having contested with Ulysses for the arms of the deceased hero, and Ulysses having obtained them, he killed himself in despair. Homer, in his Odyssey, places him in the Elysian fields; and at this I am not surprised, for there were many points of morality which at that time of day were not well understood, insomuch that they did not consider suicide as infringing upon its principles, but even authorized the act. But I have always been astonished that Fénélon, the pious and learned Archbishop of Cambray, should, in his Telemachus, have placed Ajax in the regions of the blessed. It is true, he assigns to this prince a degree of happiness inferior to that of the kings who occupied themselves exclusively in rendering their subjects happy; but, still, he has placed him in the abode of happiness, and this is a bad example. Vol. II. p. 486.
. This note is very creditable to the moral perception of the learned Translator. We could wish, however, that he had furnished us with the means of determining, whether it was equally correct in relation to other violations of great principles, as well as in respect to suicide. We cannot extricate from his censure the good Archbishop, who has unquestionably greatly offended against the laws of morality, by assigning a place in the regions of felicity, to such a person as Ajax; but it strikes us, that the suicide is the only circumstance to which M. Larcher objects as requiring his exclusion. The example is bad; but it is not the only one deserving of reprobation in the Archbishop's survey of the fields of Elysium. The wrathful Achilles, fit only to destroy cities, to subvert kingdoms, and to fill the world with confusion and trouble, is also among the beatified. We are indeed told, by the Author of Telemachus, that the reward of courage and
prowess, is much less than that of wisdom, integrity, and bene• volence.' Fenelon was the disciple of a Teacher who has not recognized courage and prowess as moral virtues; and if he had delivered only the lessons of his Master, we should not have read, in any of the descriptions which his pen might have drawn of the scenes of unfading bliss, that they who were only great in • battle, but neither amiable nor virtuous', were admitted to its
enjoyment. The endowments of the brute would not have been confounded with the qualities of the saint, if the excellent Archbishop had not sometimes lost sight of the principles which constitute the true greatness of human character, and take men out of the circle of vulgar admiration. We expect from Christian writers, in works of fiction as well as in those which are of a more serious description, such representations as shall not be inconsistent with the maxims which they have received, to guide them in their award of praise and approbation; nor give sanction to the corrupt practices in which so many of the evils that afflict the world originate. “ The wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentlem-full of mercy and good fruits”, and should never be separated from the glory which is given to man as his ultimate possession. We should have been glad to find ourselves anticipated in this course of remark by M. Larcher; but his silence in the one case, compared with the explicit reprobation of the · bad example' in the other, induces the fear, that his estimate of moral principles was a very defective one, and that' military glory' was one of the idols to which he had no objection to offer sacrifice.
Art. IV. A Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament ; in
cluding the Biblical Chaldee. Edited, with Improvements, from the German Works of GESENIUS. By Josiah W. Gibbs, A.M., of the Theological Seminary, Andover, North America. 8vo. pp.
656. Price 25s. London, 1828. THE basis of the present work is the smaller lexicon of Pro
fessor Gesenius, published at Leipsic in 1815, to which additions have been made from the Thesaurus or larger lexicon, and which has received corrections from the Professor's Commentary on Isaiah, and his other philological works illustrative of Biblical Hebrew. The American Editor has conferred a substantial benefit on the students of the language in the United States, by translating this Lexicon for their use; and the English publishers deserve the thanks of those who are prosecuting the study of the sacred tongue in this country, by the republication of it in the present form.
Gesenius has obtained great celebrity as a Hebrew lexicographer. A translation of his larger work, by Christopher Leo, has recently been issued from the Cambridge University press, in two handsome quarto volumes; and his Grammar, as well as his Lexicon, has been adopted as the basis of the instruction given by the professors of the most popular of the American theological seminaries, in the branch of learning to which they relate. The present Editor eulogises the soundness