authors say, the time of this Yau corresponded to that of Joshua; and seems to refer to the miraculous solstice at his command." But since Joshua wanted only six hours of additional day-light, this story of ten days cannot apply to his miracle. The same answer may be given to the very ambiguous notice, and indeed "inextricable difficulties" (says PARKHURST) of Herodotus's account. We shall use Dr. BELOE'S translation. 66 During the above period [of the reigns of the kings] the Sun, they told me had four times deviated from his ordinary course, having twice risen where he uniformly goes down, and twice gone down where he uniformly rises. This, however, had produced no alteration in the climate of Egypt; the fruits of the earth, and the phenomena of the Nile, had always been the same, nor had any extraordinary or fatal diseases occurred." Surely this prodigy could not refer to a six hours' prolongation of day-light.

Waiving all reference to the precession of the equinoxes, &c. &c. and to astronomical calculations, which this passage has been (unadvisedly) brought to establish, and which, if admitted, would overset the whole Mosaic cosmogony and chronology; we shall remind the reader, that we have already explained in No. cxxII. a passage of Herodotus, which the very recorder tells us, he considered as inexplicable. Now, on the passage under present consideration, we should recollect, (1) that the Egyptian priests certainly did not speak in Greek to Herodotus; but, he translated what they said in their own way and language; (2) that their expressions were, in all probability, hieroglyphical; and, referring to past historical facts, they might express in words, the symbols which recorded those facts.

First, then, In the course of the Nile, (which the Egyptian priests would call Egypt) there are bendings of the river wherein the passengers are at a loss to pay their devotions, the Sun appearing to rise in the west, and to set in the east: this is noticed by Pliny, and Bruce; but we shall only subjoin the following translation from PAUL Lucas: "From Hou we passed to Cassar, which is a quarter of a mile from the Nile; and although this village is to the left [i. e. going south, going up the Nile] yet it is to the west: because the river bends (turns back; détourne) in this place, to run south, as if it would remount to its source." Consequently, here the Sun, though rising in the east, i. e. to the left hand of a person going south, would seem to rise in the west. This might be of use to explain the passage, could we suppose Herodotus had mistaken a geographical, for a chronological, fact.

But we prefer, by very much, the conjecture, that because the history did little honour to their country, the Egyptian priests related it to Herodotus, without explaining their symbolical expressions: and he has faithfully given them; but, as in the former case, without understanding them. Now, we know, that in Scripture, the Sun, and Moon, and other heavenly bodies, denote superiors; the governing powers of states and empires; [so the Sun, Moon, and stars, i. e. his father, mother, &c. made obeisance to Joseph this is the earliest instance we recollect of this application. See also Joel ii. 10. compared with Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xiii. 24; Luke xxiii. 45. "the Sun shall be turned into darkness," &c. Rev. vi. 12; viii. 12.] and our notion is, that the same symbol will apply to this passage of Herodotus; and explain it, to the following import"During the period of time wherein our kings reigned, as above referred to, the government had been twice wrested from the hands of the lawful prince on the throne:(whether by conquest; or rather, by insurrections of the people)-so that what had been due authority, was degraded, and rendered vile; and what had been vile, usurped authority by violence: twice has power and influence been assumed by those who had no right to it; and twice have the lawful representatives of our progenitor Mizraim, &c. been reduced to the lowest condition: the Sun, of government, contrary to Nature, rose

in the west, and set in the east: nevertheless, the climate of Egypt, and the course of the Nile continued the same." Thus, as Herodotus sometimes contributes to explain Scripture, may Scripture contribute to explain Herodotus; when the ideas of both refer to the same objects; or, to similar modes of figurative expression.

*** In addition to what has been said on the uncertainty whether Herodotus cor rectly understood the Egyptian priests, we must consider the doubts which have been started by the learned, Whether these priests, in the days of Herodotus, were accurately acquainted with the import of their ancient hieroglyphics; and whether they possessed authentic histories of their country. For-to say nothing of the devastations committed by Nebuchadnezzar, who ransacked Egypt; as foretold by Ezekiel, chap. xxxix. 19; xxx. 10. it is certain, that Cambyses, about 525 years ante A. D. conquered Egypt, pillaged the temples, and proscribed the priests: this tyranny lasted forty years: then the Egyptians revolted; but were subdued by Xerxes. About 463 years ante A. D. they again revolted, and so continued during five years. It was in this interval of five years that Herodotus visited Egypt: and the question, whether amidst such distressing revolutions the priests had preserved their books with their true interpretations, is, to say the least, attended with considerable difficulties.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE, No. 98.

The reader will consider this Plate under two distinct ideas: first, the GEOGRAPHICAL situation of the places; shewing the distances of the towns, and their relative bearings; without any reference to the light, or shadow, but merely as a MAP of the country. Secondly, as a kind of DIAL, entirely distinct from the former conception of it, and without any reference to the Map, or Geography, shewing only the hours, and distinguishing those hours during which the day-light, and twilight, continued, from those of the night; thereby ascertaining what proportion of time was required to unite the last day-light of the preceding day, with the first day-light of the subsequent day: in order to unite the two days into one continuation of light; which interval between these two periods of lights (i. e. the foregoing evening and the following morning) is the time of the duration of this miracle.

In order to render this principle more sensible to the eye of the reader, the Plate represents the supposed horizon which might be visible to Joshua; and is thus divided: the Sun, rising toward the north-east part of the heavens, preserved a continued course till it arrived at nearly the north-west part of the heavens; where, at half-past seven o'clock, it is supposed to be (naturally) setting; and the twilight to be beginning, which would extend beyond nine o'clock; from which time to three o'clock in the morning, would be night; about three o'clock day would begin to break, and twilight would increase to perfect day, at Sun-rise, about half-past four o'clock.. During all this time the Moon, being nearly full, would be above the horizon; having risen about five or six o'clock in the evening, and continuing above the horizon till about five o'clock the next morning. Her station is marked at Sun-setting.

The hours of the day according to our division of them, are marked on the circular outline.

The distances of the towns, &c. may be gathered by the scale.

The course of Joshua's army is marked on the Plate, by a white path, &c. The Ajalon inserted is that in the tribe of Dan. The " Valley of Oaks" is conjectural. The small distance from Gibeon to Bethhoron, shews that there had been much hard fighting round about Gibeon, which had consumed many hours of time; the march from Gilgal to Gibeon being performed during a night; whereas, from Gibeon to Bethhoron, and to the Valley of Oaks, a much shorter space, occupied nearly a whole day.

No. CLV. SALT USED IN SWEARING FOR JUDICIAL PURPOSES.

"THE hill word deebeen is an oath: there is no particular officer for administering oaths; any person may do it: the form in general use at these trials, is, for a mountaineer to put a little Salt on the blade of a tulwar, or scymetar, when he says, “If you decide contrary to your judgment, and falsely, may this Salt be your death:" the person swearing having repeated this imprecation, and applied it to himself, that part of the blade where the Salt is, is held to his mouth, which he opens, and the Salt is washed off into his mouth with some water, that he may swallow it." Asiatic Researches, Vol. iv. page 79.

Is this the remains of any ancient custom? Is any supposed sanctity herein attributed to Salt May this oath, confirmed by Salt, be any ramification of ancient usages, or ideas, contained in the phrase "covenant [q. oath] of Salt?" The ancients certainly attached the idea of peculiar sanctity to Salt: it was used at all entertainments, all sacrifices, &c. [compare Lev. ii. 13.] hence Homer bestows on it the striking epithet of eos ads, "divine Salt." Vide FRAGMENTS, No. CXXX.

No. CLVI. MURDER IN TERROR TO ADVERSARIES.

IN a communication from Sir John Shore, now Lord Teignmouth, the Governor General, to the Society at Calcutta, he mentions a custom of the Brahmins, of sitting at a person's door, with some implement of suicide in their hands, and threatening to kill themselves, unless that which they demand be granted to them: this, when their demand is not excessive, is usually complied with, through fear of their Self-Murder. After which His Excellency relates the following history, as it appeared on a trial before the English court of justice.

"Beechuk and Adher were two Brahmins, and zemindars, or proprietors of landed estates, the extent of which did not exceed eight acres. The village in which they resided was the property of many other zemindars. A dispute which originated in a competition for the general superintendance of the revenues of the village, had long subsisted between the two brothers, and a person named Gowry. The officer of government, who had conferred this charge upon the latter, was intimidated into a revocation of it (by the threats of the mother of Beechuk and Adher to swallow poison), as well as to a transfer of the management to the two Brahmins. By the same means of intimidation, he was deterred from investigating the complaint of Gowry, which had been referred to his enquiry by his superior authority. But the immediate cause which instigated these two Brahmins to murder their mother, was, an act of violence, said to have been committed by the emissaries of Gowry (with or without his authority; and employed by him for a different purpose), in entering their house during their absence at night, and carrying off forty rupees, the property of Beechuk and Adher, from the apartments of their women.

"Beechuk first returned to his house; where his mother, his wife, and his sister-inlaw, related what had happened. He immediately conducted his mother to an adjacent rivulet, where, being joined in the grey of the morning by his bother Adher, they called out aloud to the people of the village, that although they would overlook the assault, as an act that could not be remedied, yet the forty rupees must be re

turned. To this exclamation no answer was received; nor is there any certainty that it was even heard by any person; nevertheless, Beechuk without any further hesitation drew his scymetar, and at one stroke severed his mother's head from her body; with the professed view, as entertained and avowed both by parent and son, that the mother's spirit, excited by the beating of a large drum during forty days, might for ever haunt, torment, and pursue to death, Gowry and the others concerned with him. The last words which the mother pronounced were, that she would blast the said Gowry, and those concerned with him.'

"The violence asserted to have been committed by the emissaries of Gowry in forcibly entering the female apartments of Beechuk and Adher, might be deemed an indignity of high provocation [vide FRAGMENTS, NO. Xxv.]: but they appear to have considered this outrage as of less importance than the loss of the money, which might, and would, have been recovered with due satisfaction, by application to the court of justice at Benares. The act which they perpetrated had no other sanction than what was derived from the local prejudices of the place where they resided: it was a crime against their religion: and the two brothers themselves quoted an instance of a Brahmin, who six or seven years before had lost his caste, and all intercourse with the other Brahmins, for an act of the same nature. But in truth, Beechuk and Adher, although Brahmins, had no knowledge or education suitable to the high distinctions of their caste, of which they preserved the pride only; being as grossly ignorant and prejudiced as the meanest peasants in any part of the world. They seemed surprised when they heard the doom of forfeiture of caste pronounced against them by a learned Pandit, and they openly avowed that so far from conceiving they had committed a barbarous crime, both they and their mother considered this act as a vindication of their honour, not liable to any religious penalty." Asiatic Researches, vol. iv.

Sir John Shore gives two other instances of a like nature; one of which is, the Murder of a daughter by a Brahmin who was provoked by an adversary. These instances are all of Brahmins; and probably are not general in India; but if we guess rightly, the idea connected with them is of ancient date; and we think we have an instance of it, 2 Kings iii. 27. The king of Moab made a desperate attempt, and risked his own person, to attack the king of Edom, then united with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, against him but failing in his attempt, "he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead, and offered him up, a whole burnt offering [ascension-offering] upon the wall. And great was the foaming with rage upon Israel. And they (the kings of Edom and Judah) went away from off him, and returned to their own land.” Does our extract suggest a reason why the king of Moab offered his son on the wall -publicly? i. e. that it might plainly appear to the attacking armies to what straits they had reduced him, q. d. “You see the whole process: the child brought out—the wood—the fire-the bloody knife-why will you force me to the slaughter?-do you proceed? let his embittered spirit haunt you, terrify you, blast you even to death." If these Brahmins thought they had such a right over the life of their mother, with her consent, might not the king of Moab think he had such a right over the life of his son? who perhaps was hero enough voluntarily to suffer it (like the son of Idomeneus, in FENELON'S Telemachus.) Also, from whence was the "foaming rage" against Israel? no doubt from Moab, thus deprived of her prince: but, probably, also from Edom, q. d. "These Israelites, not having such customs among themselves, despise our institutions; they push this king to extremities, and call his behaviour superstitious, profane, impious; whereas we, being aware of this custom, and indeed respecting it, sympathize with the distressed king, and hate those who abominate what he is doing." Is this a natural solution of the difficulty, whence was this rage? and why? and, wherefore Israel VOL. III.

2 R

returned disgusted, as it should seem, into their own land. Did Edom also suppose itself to be haunted by the spirit of this sacrifice, and feeling this terror flee to avoid it? at the same time cursing Israel who had brought it upon them. If this conjecture be applicable, the king of Moab did not merely by this sacrifice implore assistance from his gods; but he took this method of terrifying his adversaries, after his own personal valour had proved ineffectual to deliver himself and his country from them. The reader will notice more particularly the ideas of the Brahmins, as related in the foregoing number, on the disposal of the life of another person; especially of a parent's power over the life of his child (which, in the instance given by Sir John, was without the child's consent, the daughter being an infant), as perhaps it may be found to bear pretty strongly on some circumstances noticed in Scripture. It is certain, that parental power extended even to the depriving a child of life, among the Romans, the Gauls, the Persians, and other ancient nations.

As instances of this power, either directly or indirectly, asserted, might be mentioned that of Virginia, stabbed by her father, before the very tribunal: but that was a case of violation, which the sturdy Roman feared more than the death either of his child, or himself. To the same principle might be referred, the sacrifice of Iphigenia by her father, rather as her parent, than as a magistrate; but that was understood to be from public motives, to deliver his army: so we read in Sanchoniatho, that "Cronus in a time of pestilence, made his only son a whole burnt offering [as did the king of Moab] in compliance with an ancient custom of princes so to do: such sacrifices being offered as REDEMPTION-OFFERINGS, to appease avenging demons, and drive off general destruction." This history shews that the principle is ancient, and the instances given above shew its continuance; to which we add from NIEBUHR, p. 34. French edit. "The husband has not the right to kill his wife, even for adultery; but the father, the brother, or other near relation, may deprive her of life, with impunity; or, at least, on paying a trifling fine; justifying himself by the principle that by her bad conduct she had dishonoured the family, and that after this satisfaction, nobody would dare to reproach them with it at all." [This, however, implies guilt in the sufferer.]

May this principle of parental power over children connect with the instances of Abraham's offering up his son Isaac; no doubt with Isaac's consent?-of Judah's ordering his daughter-in-law Tamar to be burnt, for the supposed crime of adultery, Gen. xxxviii. 24 ?-of the law which restrained the parents from slaying their son till the magistrates had cognizance of the facts, Deut. xxi. 18-of Jepthah's power over his daughter, whether she were actually slain, or only consecrated; to which she expressed her consent?-of Saul's ordering his son Jonathan to be slain, for supposed disobedience of orders-of the expression, Micah vi. 7, though "I should give my first born for the sin of my person?"- And, to crown the whole,-of the great SoN OF GOD, who suffered under his Father's commands, in profound obedience, yet perfectly with his own consent, "the Just for the unjust, as a redemption-offering, that he might bring us to God?"

THE reader may see in No. XLIX. Some description of an Eastern Marriage Procession it was not our design to have enlarged on that subject; but, in consequence of further reflecting on it, certain additional circumstances seem to have become clearer than they were before; and we take this opportunity of submitting them to the reader's deter nination. [Compare also the PLATE, No. 117.]