should be taken off by sudden death; neither immediately from myself nor mediately by another. I pronounce, therefore, a much heavier sentence on whoever shall destroy Cain. Moreover, to shew that Cain is a person suffering under punishment, since no one else has power to do it; since he resists the justice of his fellow-men; since his crime has called me to be his judge, I shall brand his forehead with a Mark of his crime; and then, whoever observes this Mark will avoid his company: they will not smite him, but they will hold no intercourse with him, fearing his irascible passions may take offence at some unguarded word, and should again transport him into a fury, which may issue in bloodshed. Beside this, all mankind, wherever he may endeavour to associate, shall fear to pollute themselves by conference with him." -The uneasiness continually arising from this state of sequestration led the unhappy Cain to seek repose in a distant settlement.

If this conception of the history be just, and if the quotation from Menu be genuine, we have here one of the oldest traditions in the world; in confirmation, not only of the history, as related in Genesis, but of our public version of the passage.

No. CCCXLII. DISTINCTION OF MEATS.

THERE must undoubtedly have been some original from which the various nations, with which we are acquainted, derived their institutions, whether political or religious:—that among these institutions we find restrictions in the choice of Food, certain creatures permitted, certain others prohibited, opens a wide field for remark. In Leviticus, chap. xi. Moses forbids, as unclean, all QUADRUPEDS-First, those which are carnivorous, or live by rapine-with all that have uncloven hoofs.-Secondly, he adds, that creatures which may be received as clean must chew the cud: and to complete his principles of discrimination, he selects some instances of creatures which he pronounces unclean, because, though they possess some of these requisite characters, yet one such character may be wanting: he notes, especially, the camel. Among BIRDS, Moses prohibits-First, the rapacious kinds, birds of prey;-Secondly, sundry of the web-footed kinds, or water-birds. Also he prohibits, indiscriminately, all kinds of creatures that creep on all-four. [Vide the NATURAL HISTORY, ap. Vol. iv. ad fin.] These directions of Moses, compared with those of Menu on the same subject, will furnish the reflective reader with matter for meditation. Whence the admission of this? Whence the rejection of that? What cause determined the agreement or the disagreement of their choice, their exceptions, &c. ?

Menu forbids the Brahmen from eating "the milk of a camel, or any quadruped with the hoof not cloven;" he orders "to be SHUNNED, quadrupeds with uncloven hoofs; carnivorous birds; such as live in towns-the sparrow, the water-bird, plava; the phenicopteros-the chacraráca-the town-cock-the sarasa-the rajjuvala-the woodpecker-the parrot: BIRDS THAT STRIKE WITH THEIR BEAKS-web-footed birds—those which wound with strong talons-those which dive to devour fish-the heron-the raven-all amphibious fish-eaters: also, TAME HOGS, and fish of every sort." [He excepts, however, some kinds of birds, whose names, being wholly Indian, would "Let him not eat the flesh of any solitary convey no information to the reader.] animal, nor of unknown beasts or birds, though, by general words, declared eatable: nor of any creature with five claws. But the hedge-hog, porcupine, lizard, tortoise, rabbit, or hare, are lawful, among five-toed animals; and all creatures (CAMELS EXCEPTED) which have but one row of teeth." Such are the distinctions appointed by Menu between creatures clean and unclean.

Under the word ABSTINENCE, in the Dictionary, is a query, whether Flesh were eaten as food before the Deluge? We have been of opinion that it was not commonly eaten. The following observations, ascribed to Menu, seem to corroborate that opinion:

"No doubt, in the primeval sacrifices by holy men, and in oblations by those of the priestly and military tribes, the Flesh of such beasts and birds as may legally be

eaten WAS PRESENTED TO THE DEITIES.

"It is delivered as a rule of the gods, that Meat [that is, Flesh] must be swallowed only for the purpose of sacrifice; but it is a rule of gigantic demons, that it may be swallowed for any other purpose.

"On a solemn offering to a guest, at a sacrifice, and in holy rites, to the manes, or to the gods;-but on those occasions only may cattle be slain. This law Menu enacted."

This concluding reference to Menu seems to mark this custom as a truly primitive tradition (for as tradition only can the laws, ascribed to that ancient legislator, be regarded, and of no farther authority). The consequences, however, are important: if cattle could lawfully be slain only at a sacrifice; if, at a sacrifice, the Flesh was to be eaten, eaten in honour of the Divinity, sacred joy succeeding solemn expiation-how awful was such an occurrence to those who only, on such occasions, swallowed Flesh Meat! We, who in these climates slay and eat Flesh daily, should place ourselves in the condition of those who partook of it only on sacrificial occasions, in order to conceive the sensations of such primitive worshippers; in order, we say, to acquire some faint idea of that deep impression which the peculiarity of this rite must have made on their minds. What did they suppose, when they saw the destined offering taker. from its peaceful meadow to be slain;- when the animal struggled in the convulsion: of death;-when the victim was presented to the Deity;-when much of it was con sumed by fire;—when a part of it was reserved as food; and-when each individual was called to participate in a kind of sustenance, which only entered his lips when the solemnities of worship rendered such participation a duty? The importance and the dignity of such institutions must have been enhanced by the infrequency of their recurrence. What was their import, and what their effect? What was the expectation they involved, and what the efficacy they implied and included:

No. CCCXLIII. THRONE OF MAJESTY.

THE Throne of Solomon is described as having been extremely magnificent (1 Kings x. 18.), having twelve lions; but on what part of it these ornamental animals were placed is not easy to determine, as we have no accurate idea of its form and construction. We shall therefore now merely extract a description of the Mogul's Throne, which we find had divers steps also, and, on the top of its ascent, four lions; wherein it seems to bear a partial resemblance to Solomon's stately Seat of Majesty. "And further they told me, that he [the Mogol] hath at Agra a most glorious Throne within his palace, ascended by divers steps, which are covered with plates of silver; upon the top of which ascent stand four lions, upon pedestals of curious coloured marble; which lions are all made of massy silver, some part of them gilded with gold, and beset with precious stones. Those lions support a canopy of fine gold, under which the Mogol sits when he appears in his greatest state and glory." Sir. Thomas Roe's Voyage, p. 456.

Thrones were of different kinds; sometimes they resembled a stool, sometimes a chair, sometimes a sofa, and sometimes they were as large as a bed. One of the Thrones of Tippoo Saib was the back of a very large royal tiger, made of gold, studded with precious stones; and that part of his back which was employed as a seat, was covered with fine chintzes, &c. by way of cushions.

No. CCCXLIV. ROCKS USED AS FORTRESSES.

SAMSON, we are told (Judges xv. 8.), took his station in the Rock Etam, whence he suffered himself to be dislodged by the persuasion of his brethren, not by the force of his enemies and David, it is said, repeatedly hid himself in the caves of Rocks. It appears that Rocks are still resorted to in the East, as places of security, and some of them are even capable of sustaining a siege, a siege at least equal to any the Philistine army could have laid to the residence of Samson. So we read in De la Roque, p. 205: "The Grand Seignior, wishing to seize the person of the emir, gave orders to the pacha to take him prisoner: he accordingly came in search of him, with a new army, in the district of Chouf; which is a part of Mount Lebanon, wherein is the village of Gesin, and close to it the Rock which served for retreat to the emir. It is named in Arabic Magara Gesin, the cavern of Gesin,' by which name it is famous. The pacha pressed the emir so closely, that this unfortunate prince was obliged to shut himself up in the cleft of a great Rock, with a small number of his officers. The pacha besieged him here several months, and was going to blow up the Rock by a mine, when the emir capitulated."

Thus David might wander from place to place, yet find many fastnesses in Rocks, or caverns, wherein to hide himself from Saul. Observe, too, that this cleft in the Rock is called a cavern; so that we are not obliged always to suppose, that what the Scripture calls caves or caverns were under ground, though such is the idea conveyed by our English word.

We may remark also, that before the invention of gun-powder, and its explosive power, was known, fastnesses of this kind were, in a manner, absolutely impregnable; and indeed we have, in Bruce, accounts of very long sieges sustained by individuals and their families, or adherents, upon Rocks; and which at last terminated by capitulation.

The idea of retiring to Rocks for security, of considering the protection of God as a Rock, &c. which often occurs in Scripture, will appear extremely natural from the subject of this article.

The number of caves and dwelling places in Rocks which late travellers have discovered, as well in parts of Judea as in Egypt, greatly exceeds what had formerly been supposed. Many of these are still occupied as retreats by the inhabitants; and Denon gives an account of skirmishes and combats, fought in the grottos or caverns of Egypt, by the Arab residents, against their invaders under Buonaparte. On the east of the Jordan, as Seetzen reports, entire families, with their cattle and flocks, take possession of caves and caverns in Rocks and secluded places, where they are not easily discovered, and whence they could not easily be dislodged.

No. CCCXLV. AN ATTEMPT TO ARRANGE

THE SONG OF SONGS OF SOLOMON,

AND TO ILLUSTRATE PARTS OF IT

BY MEANS OF ENGRAVINGS.

INTRODUCTION.

THE first principle to be considered in analysing this Poem is, the Arrangement of its parts; for it evidently appears to be not one continued, or uniform ode, but a composition of several odes into one connected series.

Beside the termination of the Poem, there are three places where the author has decidedly marked the close of a subject. These are, the lively adjurations addressed by the Bride to the daughters of Jerusalem. These three periods close by the same words, uttered by the same person (the Bride), who, when she is the last speaker, concludes in the same manner with very slight variations. They occur at the end of the first day, the end of the second day, and the end of the fifth day; but at the end of the Poem this conclusion is not maintained.

If, then, these passages be admitted as divisions of the Poem originally intended to be marked as closes, we have only to ascertain two other divisions, in order to render the parts of the Poem pretty nearly commensurate to each other in length, and complete in the subject which each includes. By attending to the sentiments and expressions, we shall find little difficulty in perceiving such a change of person and occurrence, that the ending of the third day must be where we have placed it; because the following words, relating to a dream of the over-night, imply that they are spoken in a morning; and they are so totally distinct from the foregoing sentiments, as to demonstrate a total change of scene and of subject. The same may be said of the close of the fourth day. There is such a determinate change of style, subject, and person speaking, in the succeeding verses, that every feeling of propriety forbids our uniting them. These principles, then, divide the Poem into six divisions, each of which we have considered as one day.

It has been usual with commentators to regard these six days as succeeding the day of marriage: a mistake, as we suppose, which has misled them into many mazes of error. On the contrary, they are here considered as preceding the day of marriage; and, we think, the Poet has distinctly marked the sixth day, as being itself the day of that union; which accounts for its termination with the Morning Eclogue, and the omission of the evening visit of the Bridegroom to the Bride; as then the Sabbath, to which no allusion appears in any preceding day, would be beginning, in whose solemnities the Jewish Bridegroom would be attentively engaged.

Other interpreters have supposed these Eclogues to be so absolutely distinct as to have no connection with each other, and not to form a regular series: a supposition, that considerably impairs their beauty, as a whole, and the effect of each of them singly; while it leaves undecided the reason for their association, or for their appearance and preservation in one book.

No. CCCXLVI. OF THE TIME OF THE YEAR.

THAT the Time of the Year is Spring has always been supposed; and, indeed, it is so clearly marked as to need no support from reasonings. The mention of sundry particulars in the poem demonstrates it. Mr. Harmer has identified the month to be April; and, in Judea, we may say of April, as in England has been said of May, that "April is the mother of love."

No. CCCXLVII. OF THE DIVISIONS OF EACH DAY.

WE have supposed it right to divide each Day into two parts, Morning and Evening; because there appears to be such appropriations of persons and sentiments, as detach each Eclogue from its companion.

It should be remembered that the Noon of the Day is too hot in Judea to permit exertion of body or mind; and that no person of the least degree of respectability is abroad at that time of the day. The Turks have a proverb importing, that " only Franks and dogs walk about at Noon." And in Europe itself, as in Spain and Portugal, while the natives at noon sleep the siesta, "the streets," say they, "are guarded by Englishmen and dogs."

Since, then, Noon is the time for repose in the East (vide 2 Sam. iv. 5.), we are not to expect that an Eastern poet should depart from the manners of his country by representing this part of the Day as a fit time for visiting, or conversation, or enjoyment. Neither can we suppose that Night is a fit time for visiting, or conversation, among recent acquaintances especially. Whatever our own unhappy manners may ordain, in respect of encroaching on the proper repose of night, the East knows nothing of such revels; nor of those assignations, which, under favour of night, furnish too much occasion for repentance on the morrow.

Such considerations restrict these Eclogues to two parts of the Day, Morning and Evening. The Morning, among the Oriental nations, is very early; the cool of the day, day-break, before the heat comes on; and the Evening is also the cool of the day, after the heat is over.

The mornings of this poem are mostly occupied by conversations of the Bride with her female visitors, or with her attendants, in her own apartments. But on the morning of the second day the Bride, observing her beloved engaging in a hunting-party, is agreeably surprised by a visit from him, and sees him from the upper story of her apartments, and through the cross-bars of her windows. He solicits a view of her countenance: but the poem seems to insinuate his farther waiting for that till the next morning; when she, being intent on considering his palanquin, suffers herself to be surprised; and the Bridegroom compliments her beauty, which, for the first time, he has an opportunity-not properly of considering-but merely of glancing at.

The Evening is the regular time when the Bride expects to be visited by her Spouse; accordingly he visits her on the first Evening; but on the second Evening she describes her anxiety, occasioned by his failure in this expected attention, for which she had waited even into night, when it was too late to suppose he would come, and she must needs relinquish all thoughts of seeing him. On the other Evenings he punctually pays his attendance; and though the import of the conversation between them be usually to the same effect, yet the variety of phraseology and metaphor employed by both parties gives a characteristic richness, elegance, and interest to this poem ; in which, if it be equalled, it is by very few ;-but certainly it is not surpassed by any. [Vide, No. CCCCXCIX.]