this, if I mistake not, was the precise month and day of the month, on which Noah entered the ark, and the floods came. Moses says, Gen. vii. 11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, IN THE SECOND the MONTH, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up....in the self same day entered Noah....into the ark. Hence, I think, there can be no doubt, but in this history of Osiris we have a memorial of the patriarch and the deluge. As this event happened, according to the Egyptian traditions, when the sun entered Scorpio, that sign is continually commemorated in the diluvian hieroglyphics. Mention has been made that the moon was an emblem of the ark. Meen, Menes, Manes, Selene, were all terms by which the lunar god was in different countries distinguished. The lunette did not relate to the planet in the heavens, but to the patriarch and to the ark; for the lunette greatly resembled the sacred ship, under which semblance the ark was described; it was accordingly reverenced under this type in many places; especially in Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia, and Cappadocia. One of the most superb temples that ever was built, was at Cabeira in Armenia; of which Strabo gives, l. xii. a particular description. He styles it the temple of Meen, and adds, "This, too, as well as many others, is a temple of the lunar god." He mentions temples of the like nature in Phrygia, Albania, and at Antioch in Pisidia; also in Antioch of Syria. He styles them temples "of the lunar deity of the ark." In In consequence of adopting the moon as an hieroglyphic of the ark, the Egyptians esteemed the moon the mother of all beings; for the ark and the moon were synonymous terms. Analogous to the above, we are informed by Plutarch, that the chief concern of the Egyptians was shown at the disappearing of Osiris, which they styled the interment of the deity. At this season they constructed, by way of memorial, an ark in the shape of a crescent, or new moon. this the image of Osiris was for a time concealed. After he had been reputed for some time lost, it was a custom among the Egyptians to go in quest of him; and the process, as described by Plutarch, Isis et Osiris, p. 866. was very remarkable. "Upon the nineteenth of the month, that is, two days after his entrance into the ark, the Egyptians go down at night to the sea; at which time the priests and supporters carry the sacred vehicle. In this is a golden vessel in the form of a ship or boat; into which they pour some of the river water. Upon this being performed, a shout of joy is raised, and Osiris is supposed to be found. On this recovery of Osiris, the priests brought a sample of the most fruitful kind of earth, and put it into the water which was in the sacred boat. To this they added the richest gums and spices; and the whole was moulded up into the form of a vessel resembling a lunette." What is alluded to in this ceremony, I think, wants little explanation. There seem likewise to have been sacred cups in the form of boats called by the same name scyphi, whence, probably, our English word skiff, of which they made a religions use in the prosecution of their mysteries; they were also introduced at festivals, and upon other solemn occasions. It is said of Hercules, Macrob, Sat. l. v. c. 21. that he traversed a vast sea in a cup or skiff, which Nereus or Oceanus lent him for his preservation. This scyphus, it seems, was made of wood, and well secured with pitch to preserve it from decay. There were many cups formed in imitation of this vessel; which were esteemed sacred, and only used upon particular occasions. That they were made after the prototype, in the shape of a boat or ship, may be known from a fragment of Menander, which has been preserved by Atheneus, from the play called Nauclerus. One neighbour tells another, that Theophilus, a common friend, is returned safe to his son; and, with much good nature, offers to treat him, upon this joyful occasion, with a cup of wine. The dialogue runs thus: "A. And first of all I make you an offer to partake of this fine cup. ? "St. What cup "A. Why this boat: don't you understand me, you simpleton?" In another place this person speaks of the same ship. "True," says he, "I have saved it; and a noble ship it is; the very same which one Callicles, a silversmith, built, and of which Euphranor of Thurium, a boon companion, has oftentimes the steerage. What was alluded to by cups of this particular form, may, I think, be inferred from their invoking, upon these occasions, Zeus the saviour and deliverer. In a fragment of Antiphanes, there is a description of a merry making, when the deity is spoken of under that title. "The name of Harmodius was remembered: they struck up a pæan; and one jolly fellow took up the large bowl, called the ship of Zeus the preserver," Atheneus, l. xv. The like is mentioned, in the same place, with much humour, in a fragment of the comedian Alexis; "Fill up; fill up; I shall empty this noble vessel to Jupiter the preserver. This Jupiter the preserver is, in my opinion, the most beneficent of all the gods. If I burst, I don't care. I drink with a good will and a safe conscience." The same author tell us, that the person whom the Grecians invoked after supper by the title of Zeus the preserver, was no other than Dio-Nusus. And he adds, what points out the person more particularly, that he was styled also the great dispenser of rains. Thus we see that reference was made to the ark both by a lunette and by a lunette shaped boat. Various other types were used to commemorate this great event. That the Apis and Mneuis were both representations of an ancient personage is certain; and who that personage was may be known by the account given of him by Diodorus. Mneues, or, as the ancient Dorians expressed it, Mneuas, is a compound of Men-Neuas, and relates to the same person, who in Crete was styled Mi-nos, and Menu in the East Indies. Diodorus speaks of Mneues as the first lawgiver; and says, that he lived after the era of the gods and heroes, when a change was made in the manner of life among men. L. i. p. 84; and p. 84. he describes him as a man of a most exalted soul, and a great promoter of civil society. He was the same as Menes, whom the Egyptians represented as their first king, and a great benefactor. This was the person who first sacrificed to the gods, and brought about the great change in diet; a circumstance which occurs continually in the history of the first ages. We find it made a characteristic of almost every ancient personage, that he withdrew mankind from their savage and bloody repasts. The reader is requested to consider the singular command given to Noah to abstain from eating flesh with the life thereof. To this foul and most unnatural manner of feeding, the poets and mythologists continually allude; and memorials of it were kept up in all their rites and mysteries, where one part of the ceremony consisted in eating raw flesh, which was often torn from the animal when alive. Menes, who put a stop to this cruel practice, and introduced a more mild diet, is styled Meen by Herodotus, and was the same person whom the Egyptians reverenced under the symbol of the sacred bull; especially as it was called by the same naine Mneuas and Mneuis. The name of Apis I imagine to have been an Egyptian term for father. The name of the earth itself among the Scythians was Apia, the feminine of Apis; they esteemed her their common parent; they also gave the title of Pappaius to Zeus, whom they looked upon as their father, Herod. I. ix. c. 59. One term explains the other precisely. And that we may not be at a loss to know who was meant by this reputed father Apis, Epiphanius tells us, Hæres. l. i. p. 11. that he was the same as Inachus, in whose days the deluge happened. Osiris, the planter of the vine, the inventor of the plough, the great husbandman, was no other than Noah; and to him these animals were sacred. Plutarch accordingly informs us, "that the bulls, both that which was called Apis, and the other named Mneuas, were alike sacred to Osiris." They were looked upon as living oracles, and real deities; and to be animated, as it were, by the very soul of the personage whom they represented. The Egyptians imagined that the ark had a resemblance to the new moon, which I have shown to have been a favourite emblem. There is reason to think that they made use of some art to impress the figure of a crescent upon the sides of these sacred animals, as it is certain that white marks of this sort were generally seen upon them. Black cattle were generally chosen that these impressions might more plainly appear. These animals are said, Diodorus, 1. i. to have a sacred regard paid to them, "as being emblems of husbandry, which Osiris found out; and they were designed as memorials of the fruits of the earth being propagated; and of the persons to whom the world was indebted for those blessings; that the remembrance of so great benefactions might last to the latest generations." But they were not only representatives of the person or persons by whom the world had been so much benefited, but of the machine likewise in which they had been preserved. This was described as a crescent, and called Theba, Baris, Argus. In consequence of which we find that these terms, and the name of an ox, or bull, were among the eastern nations synonymous. The Syrians, like the people at MoMemphis, held a cow in great reverence; and to what they alluded may be known by the etymologists who have commented upon their worship. In Etymolog. Magnum, we find "The sacred heifer of the Syrians is no other than Thebah, the ark." Again, the scholiast upon Lycophron, verse 1,026, says, "The ark among the Syrians is styled a cow ;" undoubtedly because it was so typified. And it is said of Isis, that, during the rage of Typhon, “she enclosed Osiris in a bull of wood," by which is meant the ark. We see then to what the bull refers, as well as its name. In the account given by Kircher of the Pamphilian Obelisk there is introduced from the Bembine table a representation of the Egyptian Apis. He is described with his horns luniformes; and upon his back is the mysterious dove. Before it, in a garden pot, is a plant of some kind, as an emblem of husbandry. It is an hieroglyphic as curious as it is ancient, and wonderfully illustrates the history of which I have treated. It is supposed that many of the figures on the celestial globe refer to this great epoch in ancient history: thus we find by Martianus Capella, that the ancients esteemed the ark an emblem of the heavens. And when men began to distinguish the stars in the firmament, and to reduce them to particular constellations, there is reason to suppose, that most of the asterisms were formed with the like reference, or the figures were used as historical memorandums. The watery sign Aquarius, and the great effusion of that element, perhaps related to this history. Hegesianax maintained that it was Deucalion, and referred to the deluge, Hygin. Poet. Astronom. c. 29. p. 482. Noah was represented, as we may infer from Berosus, Euseb. Chron. p. 6. under the resemblance of a his sons. fish by the Babylonians; and those representations of fishes in the sphere probably related to him and The reasons given for their being placed there were, that Venus, when she fled from Typhon, took the form of a fish; and that the fish, styled Notius, saved Isis in some great extremity; for which reason Venus placed the fish Notius and his sons among the stars. By this we may perceive, that Hyginus speaks of these asterisms as representations of persons and he mentions from Eratosthenes, that Notius was the father of mankind. It is said of Noah, that after the deluge, he built the first altar to God, which is a circumstance always taken notice of by Gentile writers. He is likewise mentioned as the first planter of the vine; and the inventor of wine itself and of zuth, or ferment, by which similar liquors were manufactured: we may therefore suppose that the altar and cup, found in the heavens, related to these circumstances. The history of the raven is well known, which Noah sent out of the ark by way of experiment; but it disappointed him, and never returned. This bird is figured in the sphere: and a tradition, Hygin. c. 40. p. 432. is mentioned that the raven was once sent on a message by Apollo; but deceived him, and did not return when he was expected. The Pleiades, or Peleiades, or doves, were placed in the heavens to denote by their rising, an auspicious season for mariners to sail. The Argo, also, that sacred ship, which was said to have been formed by divine wisdom, was there, and was certainly no other than the ark, Hygin. c. 14. p. 45. It was called by Plutarch the ship of Osiris; that Osiris, who, as I have mentioned, was exposed in an ark to avoid the fury of Typhon. The vessel in the celestial sphere, says he, Isis et Osiris, vol. ii. p. 359. which the Grecians called the Argo, is a representation of the ship of Osiris, which, out of reverence, has been placed in the heavens. The very name of the Argo shows what it alluded to; for Argus, as it should be truly expressed, signifies precisely an ark, and was synonymous to Theba. It is made use of in that sense by the priests and diviners of the Philistines, who, when the ark of God was to be restored to the Israelites, put the presents of atonement which were to accompany it, into an 18 ARGOZ, or sacred receptacle. The constellation of the Argo, as it is delineated, represents the hinder part only of a ship: the fore part being hid in clouds. It was supposed to have been oracular, and conducted at the will of the Deity. Upon the rudder is a very bright star, the chief in the asterism, which was called Canopus, and was too low in the southern hemisphere to be easily seen in Greece. It was placed on the rudder of the VOL. IV. 66 ark to show by whose influence it was directed. Yet in doing this, they lost sight of the great Director, by whose guidance it had been really conducted; and gave all the honour to a man; for under the character of Canopus, as well as Canobus, is veiled the history of the patriarch Noah. We have shown that the serpent was an hieroglyphic relating to the deluge, as was also the mundane egg. Many other things, on account of some real or fancied analogy, were employed for the same purpose. We shall merely name some them, and leave it to the reader's ingenuity to apply them. The bee hive. The lotus; a water lily, whose broad leaf, in the greatest inundations of the Nile, rises with the flood, and is never overwhelmed. A serpent crowned with the lotus. A man rising out of or supported by the same sacred flower. A frog, upon the same hallowed seat. The tortoise, shell fish, &c. Others might be added; but as these are some of the most obvious, and as the article is extended to considerable length, we shall hasten to conclude. All these emblems were originally the best that could be devised for putting the people in mind of what had passed in the infancy of the world. The whole was designed as a display of God's wisdom and goodness, and to transmit, to latest posterity, memorials of the preservation of mankind. The symbols in ancient times were instead of writing; harmless, if not abused; nay, of great consequence when directed to a proper purpose. And when properly applied, they were as innocent as the elementary characters in which the same histories were in after times recorded. It is true, that these symbols were at last perverted; and the memorials above mentioned degenerated into idolatrous rites and worship. It was accordingly the purpose of Providence, in its dispensations to the Israelites, to withdraw them from this idolatry of the Gentiles; and this was effected, not by denying them the use of those characters, which were the current types of the world, and to which they had constantly been used; but to adapt the same to a better purpose, and defeat the evil by a contrary destination. I have dwelt long upon the history of the deluge, because I thought it an object of great moment. We accordingly find it a circumstance universally known; and, however the memorials may have been abused, yet traditions of it were kept up with great reverence in all the rites and ceremonies of the Gen tile world. And it is observable, that the further we go back, the more vivid the traces appear, especially in those countries which were nearest to the scene of action. But the reverse of this would happen, if the whole were originally a fable. The history would not only be less widely diffused; but the more remote our researches, the less light we should obtain: and however we might strain our sight, the objects would by degrees grow faint; and the scene terminate in clouds and darkness. Besides this, there would not be that correspondence and harmony in the traditions of different nations, which we see so plainly to have subsisted. This could not be the result of chance; but must necessarily have arisen from the same history being universally acknowledged. These evidences are derived to us through the hands of people who were of different ages and countries; and consequently widely separated from each other: and, what is extraordinary, they did not know, in many instances, the purport of the data which they transmitted, nor the value and consequence of their intelligence. In their mythology they adhered to the letter, without considering the meaning; and acquiesced in the hieroglyphic, though they were strangers to the purport. In respect to ourselves, it is a happy circumstance not only that these histories have been transmitted to us, but that, after an interval of so long date, we should be enabled to see into the hidden mystery, and from these crude materials obtain such satisfactory truths. OF BEARDS. Tarry at Jericho till your beards be grown, 2 Sam. as to beg for the sake of it: By your beard, by the life x. 5; 1 Chron. xix. 5. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, [namely,] by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard, Isai. vii. 20. On all their heads shall be baldness; and every beard shall be cut off, Isai. xv. 2. For every head shall be bald, and every beard clipped, Jer. xlviii. 37. WE think the whole of these passages receive considerable elucidation from a circumstance mentioned by Mr. Volney in his Travels through Egypt, and Syria, vol. i. p. 117, 118. Ali, afterward a bey, was sold by the slave merchants at Cairo to some Jews, who made him a present to Ibrahim Bey. "Ali performed for his patron the usual services of the mamalukes, which are nearly similar to those of the pages to our princes. He received the customary education which consists in learning to manage a horse well, fire the carbine and pistol, throw the djerid, use the sabre, and even a little reading and writing. In all these exercises he displayed great activity and fire... About the age of eighteen or twenty his patron suffered him to let his beard grow, that is to say, gave him his freedom; for among the Turks, to want mustachios and beard, is thought only fit for SLAVES and women, and hence arises the unfavourable impression they receive on the first sight of an European." The following is from Mr. Burder's Oriental Cus of your beard. God preserve your blessed beard. When they would express their value for any thing, they say, it is worth more than his beard. These things show the energy of that thought of Ezekiel, chap. v. verses 1, 5. where the inhabitants of Jerusalem are compared to the hair of his head and beard. It intibeard was to the Jews, yet they should be consumed mates that though they had been as dear to God as the and destroyed, Harmer, vol. ii. p. 55. When Peter the Great attempted to civilize the Russians, and introduced the manners and fashions of the more refined parts of Europe, nothing met with more opposition than the cutting off their beards, and many of those, who were obliged to comply with this command, testified such great veneration for their beards, as to order them to be buried with them. Irwin also, in his voyage up the Red Sea, says, that the signing a treaty of peace with the vizier of Yambo, they swore by their beards, the most solemn oath they can take. D'Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab, who, having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life rather than to suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. When Joab took Amasa by the beard to kiss him, 2 Sam. xx. 9. Mr. Harmer, vol. ii. p. 54. supposes we are to understand this expression as referring to the practice of kissing the beard itself, which was a customary thing. D'Arvieux, Voy. dans la Pal. p. 71. describing the assembling together of several petty Arab princes at an entertainment, says, that "all the emirs came just together a little time after, accompanied by their friends and attendants; and after the usual civilities, caresses, kissings of the beard and of the hand, which every one gave and received according to his rank and dignity, they sat down upon matts." Vide FRAGMENT, No. 80, and article BEARD, in Dictionary. 1 CHRONICLES, XI. 5, 6, 2 SAMUEL, V. 6—8. And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless, David took the castle of Zion, which [is] the city of David. And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief. And the king and his men went to Jerusalem, unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake to David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; thinking, David cannot come in hither. Nevertheless, David took the strong hold of Zion; the same [is] the city of David. And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, [that are] hated of David's soul, [he shall be chief and captain.] Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. THE reason of placing the whole sentence together being obvious, let us proceed to consider the several parts of it, in the two chapters. The words inhabitants of Jebus, which are not in the original of Samuel, are not in the Vatican copy of the LXX, in Chronicles; but the Alexandrian translates regularly according to the present Hebrew text. In Samuel there is a clause or two in the speech of the Jebusites, which is omitted in Chronicles for brevity; as the history in Chronicles is regular, and the sense complete without it. But though the history be regular and very intelligible in Chronicles, yet the additional clauses in Samuel make the history there remarkably perplexed; and, as Dr. Delany observes, incumber it with more difficulties than are ordinarily to be met with. In full proportion to the difficulties has been the number of different interpretations; and yet there seems to be very sufficient room for offering another interpretation, in some material points differing from them all. The words in Samuel, so far as the text in Chronicles coincides, are clear and determinate in their meaning; And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. But the succeeding words in Samuel are very difficult; or, at least, have been variously interpreted. The present English translation is, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thinking David cannot come in hither. The chief difficulty here lies in determining who are these blind and lame; whether Jebusites, or the Jebusite deities called blind and lame by way of derision. The latter opinion has been maintained by some considerable writers; but seems indefensible. For however David and the Israelites might be disposed to treat such idols with scorn and contempt, it is not at all likely the Jebusites should revile their own deities; and we must remember, that these dei ties are supposed to be here called blind and lame by the Jebusites themselves. But, admitting them to be idol deities, what meaning can there be in the Jebusites telling David, he should not come into the citadel, unless he took away the deities upon the walls? If he could scale the walls, so as to reach these guardian deities, he need not ask leave of the Jebusites to enter the citadel. But, which is much more difficult to be answered, what can possibly be the meaning of the last line, Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house? For, Who said? Did the Jebusites say, their own deities, before expressed by the blind and the lame, should not come into the house; should not, according to some, come where they were; or, should not, according to others, come into the house of the Lord? Or, could these deities say, David and his men should not come into the house? The absurdity of attributing such a speech, or any speech to these idols, is too clear to need illustration; and it is a known part of their real character, that they have mouths, but speak not. But, though these deities could not denounce these words, yet the Jebusites might; and it is possible, it has been said, that the blind and the lame, in this latter part of the sentence, may signify the Jebusites; not any particular Jebusites, so maimed: but the Jebusites in general, called blind and lame, for putting their trust in blind and lame idols. This seems too refined an interpretation; and we may safely conclude, that the same expression of the blind and lame means the same beings in the two different parts of the same sentence. It has been further observed, that these blind and lame are here spoken of as different from the Jebusites; Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind; and if they were differ ent, it requires no great skill at deduction to deter. mine they were not the same. Perhaps then these blind and lame were, in fact, a few particular wretches, who laboured under these infirmities of blindness and lameness; and therefore were different from the general body of the Jebusites. But here it will not be demanded at once, how we can then account rationally for that bitterness with which David expresses himself here against these blind and lame; and how it was possible for a man of David's humanity to detest men for mere unblameable, and indeed pitiable, infirmities? And lastly, the authors of the Universal History, in their note on this transaction, mention the following, as the first plausible argument against the literal acceptation; "How could David distinguish the halt, or the lame, or the blind, from able men, when posted upon lofty walls; since those infirmities are not discernible but near at hand?" |