We have two reasons for introducing the elephant in this work; the first is, that many persons, among whom CALMET is included, consider this animal as the Behemoth of Job xl. The second is, that his most valued production, ivory, is denoted in Scripture under a periphrasis, which, to be justified, requires an appeal to his figure.

As to the first particular, it must be acknowledged, that the elephant is sufficiently large to be included among the behemah, or quadrupeds of great magnitude, which form a division in Hebrew zoology. We must admit his strength, as well as his magnitude, his feeding on vegetables, and many other particulars, which are common to him with the hippopotamos; yet, there are some particulars which agree better with this last mentioned animal, and we can by no means remove the difficulty which arises from the natural companionization of the hippopotamos with the crocodile; which we suppose is certainly the leviathan. This association struck Pliny long ago, who says, lib. xxviii. cap. 8. "There is a certain relation between the crocodile and the hippopotamos, who live and feed in the same river." Bochart observes further, that words ending in oth are Egyptian; as Tóth, Phaoth, Phamenôth, &c. not being plurals, but singulars. The word behemoth agrees with this remark, and seems to be so applied par excellence. The word behemah is used by the Arabs of the present day, as the word behemah was used anciently by the Hebrews, to denote large beasts.

But the elephant undoubtedly yielded ivory. The first time this is mentioned in Scripture, is in the reign of Solomon. If the forty-fifth Psalm was written before the Canticles, and before Solomon had con

structed his royal and magnificent throne, then that is the first mention of this commodity. It is spoken of as used in decorating those boxes of perfume, whose odours were employed to exhilarate the king's spirits: "Ivory palaces, by which they have made thee glad." This shows the application of it; and the same appears, 1 Kings, x. 18. where mention is made of the throne of Solomon, decorated with ivory, and inlaid with gold: the beauty of these materials, relieving the splendour, and heightening the lustre of each other. Ivory is here described as shen gedul, "great tooth," which shows clearly, that it was imported in the whole tusk.

It was, however, ill described as a tooth; for tooth it is not, but a weapon of defence, not unlike the tusks of a wild boar, and for the same purposes as the horns of other animals. This has prompted Ezekiel to use another periphrasis for describing it; and this prophet calls it "horns of teeth," kerenuth shen. This, however, is liable to great objection, since the idea of horns and of teeth, to those who had never seen an elephant, must have been very confused, if not contradictory. Nevertheless, the combination is ingenious; for the defences which furnish the ivory, answer the purposes of horns; while, by issuing from the mouth, they are not unaptly allied to teeth: and I believe they are still called so among the dealers, who know perfectly well that the elephant has teeth, expressly formed for mastication of food; and that his grinders are of no trifling weight and dimensions. Bochart was desirous of finding elephants themselves in Scripture, and he was for reading, 1 Kings, x. 22. shen-kahabim instead of shen-habbim; which is much better broken into two words, shen,

tooth, and habenim, ebony wood; for which we have the authority of Ezek. xxvii. 15. As to beds, and houses of ivory, they can only mean adorned, not constructed of ivory, vide, Esth. i. 6; from Ezek. xxvii. 6. Benches made for the rowers of the Tyrian ship of ivory, the daughter of steps, we have dismissed the ivory altogether, in FRAGMENT, No. 217. Indeed, fossil ivory is so extremely brittle that it is utterly unfit for any use requiring firmness; surely then, much more for such a situation as seats for rowers, which must needs require all the strength, resistance, and durability of oak itself.

By considering the figure we perceive clearly, what induced the Hebrews to describe the tusks as teeth; i.e. their projection from the mouth, where teeth are naturally expected; while at the same time, they have much the character and uses of horns, be

ing evidently capable of making a stout resistance, if the creature be attacked, and of being used as most formidable and deadly weapons.

If we might trust to the Chaldee interpreter, the knowledge of ivory would be much more ancient than we have supposed it; for, this authority informs us, that Joseph placed his father Jacob "on a bed of ivory," desindaphin. I would not altogether reject this supposition, for ivory might be known in Egypt, either from Ethiopia, or by the caravans from the central parts of Africa; or, it might be procured from India by means of trading vessels, or trading merchants: and certainly its beauty and ornament would well become the residence of the nazir, or lord steward of the royal household of the Egyptian Pharaohs.

refines honey; and by whom the feet of the fly are taken as allusions to the rays of the sun," Winkelman, Monum. Ined. p. 13.

It appears from this, that Bellori considered the god of flies as the god of bees, at the same time: might this be one reason wherefore honey was forbid to be offered on the altar of the Lord? as we find prohibited, Deut. ii. 11.

It is well known that the "god of flies" was called in Hebrew Beelzebub, and was considered as the patron deity of medicine, for this is clearly implied in the conduct of Ahaziah, 2 Kings, i. Moreover, that the same deity had power over evil spirits, and was capable of expelling them, appears from the opinions of the Pharisees, Matth. xii. 24; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15. where they accuse our Lord of combination with Beelzebub. If we look into heathen antiquity, we find the Greek mythology considered Apollo as the god of medicine, and attributed also to Apollo those possessions by a pythonic spirit, which occasionally perplexed spectators, and of which we have an instance, Acts xvi. 19. Apollo too was the sun: and Bellori is correct in referring his gem to that deity. On these principles, I apprehend we see the reason why Ahaziah sent to Beelzebub to inquire the issue of his accident: since Beelzebub was Apollo, and Apollo was the god of physic. We see also the reason of that apparently strange expression of the scribes, Mark iii. 22. "He hath Beelzebub," i.e. he is possessed by a pythonic spirit; as we read, verse 30. "because they said, he hath an unclean spirit ;" i.e. a heathen deity.

To this agrees the contrast in the following verses between an impure spirit, and the Holy Ghost; it illustrates also the propriety of our Lord's assertion, 35*

Matth. xii. 28. that he cast out devils, not by a pythonic spirit, not by the god of physic, but by "the Spirit of God."

The Jews, who changed Beelzebub into Beelzebul, "god of a dunghil," perhaps had a reference to the Greek of pytho, which signifies putrefied in Homer epythonto means, become rotten, Pausanias, in Delphos.

In No. 1. in our Plate, we have a fly formed in such a manner, that a human face appears described by his shoulders, while his head, wings, &c. denote the insect: this allegory deserves notice, as being strictly "god of the fly."

No. 2. Is a head bearded and laureated, like a Jupiter, with two flies below, denoting the deity which governed them.

No. 3. Is a medal of Delphos, where Apollo had a magnificent temple, and from whence he was named the Delphian. Goltzius, Tab. viii. On one side is the goats' head, in allusion to the story of the pythian virtue, or afflatus, being discovered by a goat, which occasioned its being afterward solicited by a priestess, who gave oracles, &c. with the greatest applause: who was called the pythoness, and who received the inspiring effluvia while sitting on the sacred tripos in the temple. The quiver, and other figures on this face of the medal, are direct references to Apollo. On the reverse of the medal is a fly: the same on the reverse of No. 4. Now these medals not only prove that Apollo was the god of the fly, i.e. Beelzebub; but they prove, that under this character he was peculiarly connected with the idea of a pythonic spirit, an oracular inspiration, and therefore was proper to be applied to in respect of future events; and especially on subjects of a medical nature.

"NORDEN tells us, that when he and his company were at Essuaen, an express arrived there, despatched by an Arab prince, who brought a letter directed to the reys, or master of their barque, enjoining him not to set out with his barque, or carry them any further adding, that in a day's time he should be at Essuaen, and there would give his orders relative to them. "The letter, however, according to the usage of the Turks," says this author, "was open; and as the reys was not on board, the pilot carried it to one of our fathers to read," p. 109.

"Sanballat's sending his servant then with an open letter, which is mentioned, Nehem. vi. 5. does not appear an odd thing, it should seem; but if it was according to their usages, why is this circumstance complained of, as it visibly is? Why indeed is it mentioned at all? Why! Because, however the sending letters open to common people may be customary in these countries, it is not according to their usages to send them so to people of distinction. So Dr. Pococke, in his account of that very country where Norden was when this letter was brought, gives us, among other things, in the 57th plate, the figure of a Turkish letter put into a satin bag, to be sent to a great man, with a paper tied to it directed and sealed, and an ivory button tied on the wax. So lady Montague says the bassa of Belgrade's answer to the English ambassador, going to Constantinople, was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin, Letters, vol. i. p. 136. "The great emir, indeed, of the Arabs, according to d'Arvieux, was not wont to enclose his letters in these bags, any more than to have them adorned with flourishes; but that is supposed to have been owing to the unpoliteness of the Arabs; and he tells us, that when he acted as secretary to the emir, he supplied these defects, and that his doing so was highly acceptable to the emir, Voy. dans la Pal. p.

58, 59. Had this open letter then come from Geshem, who was an Arab, Nehem. vi. 1. it might have passed unnoticed; but as it was from Sanballat, the enclosing it in a handsome bag was a ceremony Nehemiah had reason to expect from him, since he was a person of distinction in the Persian court, and then governor of Judea; and the not doing it was the greatest insult, insinuating, that though Nehemiah was, according to him, preparing to assume the royal dignity, he should be so far from acknowledging him in that character, that he would not even pay him the compliment due to every person of distinction. The MS. Chardin gives us a like account of the Eastern letters, adding this circumstance, that those that are unenclosed, as sent to common people, are usually rolled up; in which form their paper commonly appears, Note on Jer. xxxvi. 2. A letter, in the form of a small roll of paper, would appear very odd in our eyes, but it seems is very common there.]

"If this is the true representation of the affair, commentators have given but a poor account of it. Sanballat sent him a message, says one of them, "pretending, it is likely, special respect and kindness unto him, in informing him what was laid to his charge." So far Mr. Harmer, Obs. vol. ii. p. 129.

Contrast with this open letter to Nehemiah the closed, rolled, or folded letter, sent by Sennacherib to Hezekiah, 2 Kings, xix. 14. We read, verse 9. "He sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying"-" And Hezekiah received the [sepher] letter at the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord." It was therefore folded, or rolled, and, no doubt, enclosed in a proper envelope; and I would not be certain whether this action of taking the letter from its case is not expressed here by the word peresh, which signifies to divide, to separate.