SERPENT'S HEAD. PLATE CXXXIV.

We have spoken generally of the Serpent tribe, in what we have been considering; but we ought not to dismiss this subject without examining more particularly the natural conformation of those parts which are the Seat of the Poison, as alluded to in Scripture. For this purpose, No. 1. offers the Head of a Rattle-Snake, in which the poisonous fangs appear raised, and projecting from the roof of the mouth. These fangs, in a state of rest, are folded down close on the part to which they adhere, and from which they rise; but when in a state of irritation, they start up, and present their sharp points, for the purpose of biting what they attack. These are understood to be the "cheek teeth" of Psalm lviii. 6.

No. 2. Shews the Bones of the same head, and the articulation of the upper jaw. The under jaw shews the natural teeth of the Serpent, by which it is enabled to hold its prey, &c. The upper jaw shews those formidable fangs, the poison of which ensures rapid destruction.

No. 3. The Fangs shewn at large, and pretty nearly of their natural size. The venom passes from the bag which contains it, down a slit in the tooth, and along the small crevice which opens toward the point of the tooth, into the wound made by the fang. The venom is secreted by glands, which collect it at the root of the fang. N. B. This explains why head is synonymous with poison; as in the Hebrew.

No. 4, 5. Two figures said to be common in India, representing an Indian deity, Chrishna, in the act of suffering under the attacks of a mortal Serpent, being infolded in its convolutions, so that he cannot escape; while the Serpent bites him in the foot. The other figure shews Chrishna triumphant over this Serpent, and crushing him, by trampling on his head. The question is, Whether there may be, in these two figures, any reference, however traditional, perverted, or obscure, to the great first promise, that the Seed of the woman, though "bruised by the Serpent in the heel," yet should "break the Serpent's head." As a natural reptile is certainly not the object of this threatening, it would be agreeable to know what this emblematic Serpent signified. Beyond all doubt, this Serpent implied a principle of evil; but was that evil natural or moral? or, was it natural evil coincident with moral?-For instance, death is a natural evil; a person stung by a Serpent, dies; but may death be crushed in its turn? May death, though an evil, natural and inevitable, yet meet with a conqueror who shall triumph over it? shall indeed submit to it, as it were, in his heel, the extremity of his person, but, in return, shall destroy the power of death; "and death itself shall die." Or, is this Serpent descriptive of moral evil? by which, whoever converses with men, even a deity (Chrishna), must expect to be attacked, and to be entangled, but over which he shall eventually triumph. Or, is this Serpent the type of some power, which has indeed the sting of death; which has brought "death into the world, and all our woe;" which extends moral evil, also, that it may introduce death, and which promotes the empire of these united principles, death and sin? If this emblem includes such ideas, then it may bear a question whether these figures be not references to that original promise, from which arise all our hopes as immortals, and all our expectations as Christians. Vide No. CCLXXIX.

No. 6. The Head of that most fatal Serpent, the Naja of the Indians, the Cobra da capello of the Portuguese. It appears that this is the Serpent with which the figures in the centre pieces are engaged; and it seems to have been chosen as an emblem, because the mark on its neck decidedly distinguishes it; while its highly exalted venom is so perfectly well known, that, to denote inevitable death, no creature more expressive could have been selected. Vide PLATE CXXX.

CORRECTIONS AND VINDICATIONS

OF SEVERAL STATEMENTS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THESE FRAGMENTS.

NUMBER I.

DR. GEDDES, in the "Critical Remarks," which accompany his new Translation of the Bible, has done us the honour to call the idea, started in the first number of these FRAGMENTS, that chemushim might mean officers, or officered, rather than in battle array, "a fanciful and ill-supported hypothesis." He also says, it appears to him to be a frivolous objection, "that the Israelites could not generally have procured arms, because Pharaoh was not such a fool as to trust them," &c. He then says, "If they had No arms when they came from Egypt, where found they those with which they so soon after fought and defeated the Amalekites?" Exod. xvii. 9. If the Doctor had given a more rational interpretation to the word, he would have saved us the present trouble; and as we do not wish to adopt his "rides, et licet rideas," or or "to give any fancy to be laughed at," we shall here attempt to support this "fanciful hypothesis."

The word occurs but in four places (as it is generally understood)—Exod. xiii. 18; Josh. i. 14; iv. 12; Judg. vii. 11. We mean to examine this last passage more particularly, as it will, we think, justify what may be said on the others.

And Gideon went down to the army of the Midianites, he and Phurath his servant [aid-de-camp], top, ketzah he chemushima party of the officers who were in the camp.... Gideon came, and behold a chief [man] was telling a dream to his fellow, and said, " Behold, a roll of barley-bread tumbled into the camp, and advanced unto the [general's] tent, and overturned it," &c.

Observe, 1. That HE Ahel, THE tent, is properly descriptive of a public tent, or tent of magnitude and importance; not a tent, a private tent (as in our translation), but THE tent, the most conspicuous tent: for the dream evidently refers to the total rout of the army: but many a tent of the lower classes might have been overturned; yet the army might have escaped entire destruction. Moreover, if this were the public, official tent of the kings, we see the completion of the dream, in the deaths of Zebah and Zalmunnah. Vide No. ccvi.

2. A chief man. We have taken the word man, put absolutely for chief, in No. CCLXV. 5. (the history of the Tower of Babel), where it seems necessary: and again in Solomon's Song, Nos. CCCLXXX. CCCCXLIII. where also it seems necessary and we do the same here, because the dream of a common soldier [consider what a common soldier is in the East] is by no means comparable in its supposable encouraging effect on the mind of Gideon, to that of a chief, or superior officer. Nor is the fearful sentiment, predicting defeat and overthrow, expressed by his fellow, equal in the lips of a mere soldier, to what it would be in those of an officer of rank. Moreover, an officer is most likely to have THE tent uppermost in his thoughts.

3. As to rendering ketzah—some, or a party, observe, it is so rendered, 1 Kings xii. 31; xiii. 33. He made priests of some, that is, a party-of the people [some of the lowest of the people, Eng. Tr.]; LXX. a party μépos T, some part. The word occurs

also, Gen. xvii. 2: "And Joseph took some of his brethren, even five men:" here we have both words ketzah and chemush: and we query, whether we should not understand the passage thus: "And Joseph took a company-portion-party, of the heads of families-principals (quasi officers) of his brethren, and introduced them before Pharaoh." This seems to be perfectly agreeable to the occasion: why he should select precisely five persons from among his brethren [unless this number might be regular and ordinary to a party], does not appear; but why he should introduce a party of the principals among them, common sense may tell us; as they were to solicit a very great, perhaps a singular, favour from the Monarch. Compare also Ezek. xxxiii. 2. Heb.

4. If we have been right in adopting the term chief, instead of common man, it will follow, that chemushim means officers; now under what pretence, or at what time, Gideon went down to the host, we cannot positively determine (for that he went the very same night in which he received directions to go, is not evident): but by the relation of a dream which, no doubt, had occurred during night, we may imagine it was (not late) in the morning. [For our own part, we always think of our famous king Alfred's visit to the Danish camp, accompanied by his servant, when we read this history of Gideon.]

On the whole it is apparent, that the history is cleared and improved, by supposing that Gideon drew his information from higher sources than mere soldiers, common men, that is to say, from officers and this, if well founded, is strengthened by the other places where this word occurs; which perfectly agree with the principle.

Josh. i. 14: "You shall pass over Jordan officered, before your brethren [that is, headed by], all your mighty men of valour, and shall help them." Or, if the reader prefer the old idea, "All your mighty men of valour shall pass over, properly officered." Either way the sense is clear, and applicable to circumstances. Chap. iv. 12: "Reuben, Gad, Manasseh, passed over properly officered, before Israel-about forty thousand passed over." As we think it may be doubted whether all these forty thousand were complete soldiers, or, mighty men of valour (which descriptive phrase is here omitted), it should seem that this character of military ability is rather applied to the officers, or leaders, than to the people, in the former passage.

Now, if these passages have been fairly illustrated, as we believe they have, it will follow, that we risk nothing in taking the word chemushim to signify leaders, or officers, in Exodus xiii. 18: "And the children of Israel went up properly OFFICERED, under appointed principals-leaders, chiefs, out of the land of Egypt:" which, as it is precisely what was intended in our former Fragment, and what the nature of the case absolutely requires, and what the book of Numbers specifically treats of at large, may be taken (we presume to think, without vanity) as something different from that "fanciful and ill-supported hypothesis," which Dr. Geddes has been pleased to call it.

Dr. Geddes farther has erred, by misquoting our words. We did not say the Israelites had NO arms: but, that they were not generally armed; and we marked the word generally in italics, for distinction; because we knew that Moses himself had been a general for the king, and therefore might have arms; and indeed, how did he slay the Egyptian (Exod. ii. 12.) if he had no arms? Moreover, that the Israelites, when in Egypt, had wars, and military expeditions, must be inferred from the mourning "of Ephraim, many days, over his sons, who were slain by the men of Gath, born in the land, because they came down to take away their cattle," 1 Chron. vii. 22. Understand this passage in whatever sense, we think it implies fighting, and weapons.

But the Doctor asks where the Israelites got the weapons with which they fought Amalek, chap. xvii. 9. ? we answer, partly from such as they had been allowed to procure, occasionally, in Egypt; but chiefly, from those spoils of the drowned soldiers of Pharaoh, whom they saw dead on the sea shores (chap. xiv. 30.), and yet, after all, there were not arms enough in the Israelitish camp to supply the whole multitude, but a chosen body was destined to attack their enemies.

NUMBER XIX.

The nick-name, which Charma (Ham) acquired from having laughed at his father, Satyavrata, when intoxicated, was Hásyasila, or, "the laugher;" and his descendants were called Hásyasílas, in Sanscrit, by which are understood the African Negroes, or the Ethiopians. Captain Wilford, on Egypt, &c. Asiat. Res. We do not perceive, in this appellation, any traces reducible to Hebrew etymology: but it corroborates the notion of the descent of the Negroes from Ham, and shews that it obtained in India also. The reader will not fail to notice the caution given, in loc. respecting the want of authenticity to this Fragment.

NUMBER CLI.

There is an error in saying, No. CLI. that, "Daniel is the first prophet who gives dates forward to following times." It is true, that Daniel is the first who seems to have calculated time systematically, and to have combined years, &c. into a confirmed and regular series; but Daniel himself had learned from the books of Jeremiah, that the captivity was to last "seventy years," which, in Jeremiah, was a date forward. Isaiah also says, "Within three-score and two years, shall Ephraim be broken," which is a date forward; and even so early as Abraham, four generations are predicted, which certainly is a calculation of time carried forward. The reader, therefore, will excuse this slip, and accept the writer's meaning, that is, that Daniel seems to look forward more precisely, more chronologically, than other prophets.

NUMBER CLVII.

Notwithstanding we ventured to propose the comparison of a bride on horseback to an officer of horse, and have applied this to the bride of Solomon, No. CLVII. and Solomon's Song, first day, Eclogue II.; and, notwithstanding it might be confirmed by a marriage procession in Chardin [Vide PLATE CXVI.], where several women ride on horses; yet, we ought to observe, 1. That the princess certainly did not travel all the way from Egypt on horseback. 2. Nor is it likely she should quit her carriage for a horse, on which, to make a public entry into Jerusalem: hence it will result, 3. That Solomon could hardly have seen his bride on horseback; to which add, 4. That the horses of Egypt are covered with ornaments of jewels, rubies, pearls, gold, &c.; so that in a poem where compliments are lavished on dress, it may be thought no mis-application of politeness, to refer the general brilliant appearance of this lady to that of brightly decorated horse, glittering among the guards of her royal father. Considering the esteem in which horses are held in Egypt, and the Egyptian horses, especially, throughout the East, at all times; considering the pomp of Pharaoh, and the splendour of such accoutrements, this may be no ill compliment; at least, it is as graceful as comparing the person of the lady to a horse, as usually understood; and perhaps the proposal to make, "golden bands with spotted edges of silver," that immediately follows, may allude to some of those trappings, which, though not used among ourselves, are an occasion of great expense, and are esteemed extremely magnificent, so as never to be omitted among the grandees in the East.

VINDICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT OF SOLOMON'S

SONG.

NUMBER CCCXLV. &c.

THE foregoing numbers were in the hands of the printer, when our publisher transmitted to us Mr. Williams's "New Translation of Solomon's Song, with Notes, and a Commentary." That gentleman observes, in his preface, that he " had adopted some ideas, and controverted others, of the Editor of Calmet." Our information leads us to believe, that Mr. W.'s work had been under his consideration little short of five and twenty years; and besides, it has had the advantage of having been circulated among his friends (to obtain their opinions) in a previous edition. We are pleased, therefore, to find, on the whole, that the arrangement of his version is very similar to that proposed by the Editor of Calmet, and that the corrections it has undergone since that private edition have contributed to increase the similarity.

As truth is the object of our researches, Mr. W. will excuse a vindication of some particulars in our own arrangement, and a correction of a mistake or two in himself. He has qualified us as learned and ingenious; and we beg leave to return the compliment; not even excepting those points on which we differ.

Mr. W. has seen the propriety of arranging the Eclogues into Morning and Evening; but his first evening (which is the first interview after the nuptials, of those who suppose, as he does, the marriage to have been completed) contains only one speech by the bridegroom and one by the bride. We had called this interview, which is much longer in our arrangement, " distance itself," though placed before the marriage, when distance might appear a propriety; but an interview after the marriage, so cold and abrupt as this arrangement implies, if it might coincide with the climate of Greenland, is little adapted to the warmer regions of Egypt and Judea. It has also the effect of converting what we accept as the morning of the second day into an evening; so that the bridegroom solicits his bride" to arise and come away," the virgins desire that "the foxes (jackals) should be taken for them," and the spouse wishes her "beloved to RETURN until the day breathe, and the shades flee away,”-in an evening! This supposes that jackals were taken by night, which may be true, though we do not recollect that Samson took his jackals by night; but certainly it forbids the rendering foxes; for what jolly fox-hunter would think of either evening, or night, for a fox-chase? Moreover, as the bridegroom is present, how could he "RETURN until," any future time? [The same incorrectness of times appears in a previous passage, "his left hand was under my head"-time past; "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem "-time present.] This arrangement also prevents the bride from closing the first evening in the same manner as she does the other evenings (which Mr. W. makes hereby sometimes morning, sometimes evening): whereas it should seem evident, that the poet preserves a correct uniformity in this particular: and this uniformity, it is presumed, establishes the arrangement proposed by the Editor of Calmet.

If the very first evening of Mr. W.'s arrangement be mistaken, it must necessarily influence the succeeding divisions of the poem; and the proof that it is mistaken, shall rest on the effect of the following remarks: not without observing, however, that again in the fourth evening, Mr. W. makes the bridegroom invite his bride"Come unto me from Lebanon-look from the top of Amana."-Was the bride at Lebanon; that he invites her to come from thence? Is evening the proper time to