Page images
PDF
EPUB

168 years before the death of Noah." And now comes a marvellous exposition of Scripture, to show that this Patriarch was the grand designer of this blessed enterprise. "We are told that Noah was a 'preacher of righteousness,' and this was his title, probably, before the flood. But nothing could more perfectly illustrate this character of a preacher of righteousness after the flood, than that he should be the first to establish a system of weights and measures for the use of all mankind, based upon the measure of the earth." (P. 228).

Mr. Taylor favours us with another passage of Scripture and exposition to show when the geometrical division of the earth took place. After bitterly complaining of "the English version" for representing both Parad and Peleg by the word division, thereby "obscuring the true sense of the latter word in some degree," as he is pleased to call it, since Parad means that which is separated from something else, whereas Peleg means that which is divided in itself, Mr. T. affirms that when "it is recorded that in Peleg's days the earth was divided, we ought to regard it, not as a declaration that in his days the earth was portioned out among mankind, but that in his days the entire superficies of the earth was divided into degrees, minutes, and seconds, each having a certain measure assigned to it, and the whole surface being intersected by these divisions." (P. 242.)

A mere tyro in Hebrew knows that the term earth is frequently used synecdochically for the produce or the inhabitants of the earth. When the Lord said to Adam, "Cursed is the ground (or earth) for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat it" (Gen. iii. 17), viz, the earth, the antecedent to which the pronoun refers, every one sees that earth stands for the produce of the earth. When we are told "the whole earth was of one language" (Gen. xi. 1), who does not perceive that by the

earth is meant the inhabitants of the earth? Accordingly, when the sacred writer says, that in the days of Peleg "the earth was divided," we at once see that the inhabitants of the earth are described. Mr. Taylor's explanation of this passage, however, is quite in keeping with his interpretation of Noah being "a preacher of righteousness," with his assertion that, in "the sublime passage of Job xxxviii. 1-7,” the creation of the earth is described in language borrowed apparently from the building of the Great Pyramid (p. 262); that "the second instance of a reference to the Great Pyramid in the Scriptures is found in the 118th Psalm, verse 22 (p. 270); that the third reference is to be found in Zech. iv. 7, in the words, 'Grace, grace unto it' (p. 273); and that our Lord Jesus gives us the fourth illustration of the Great Pyramid in Scripture, when he describes the corner-stone in these terms, 'Whosoever shall fall on that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to pieces." "

We grieve to see so good and laborious a man as Mr. Taylor evidently is, misapplying the Bible in so lamentable a manner. There is hardly a single explanation of Scripture in this work in which Mr. Taylor does not violate the first principles of exegesis.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

the records of Scripture, and the extraordinary conclusion at which the Baron has arrived respecting important events narrated in the sacred volume. From the simple reading of the Book of Genesis, and a comparison of the genealogies given in the 11th chapter, we see that man was created a little more than 4,000 years B.C., that the Deluge took place about 1656 B.C., and that the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt was about 430 years. M. Bunsen declares that man existed upon earth about 20,000 years B.C., that the Deluge occurred 10,000 years B.C., and that the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt lasted 1,434 years! At these conclusions our author arrived from the remaining fragments of Monetho's History of Egypt and scattered hieroglyphic inscriptions. This Monetho, however, tells us himself that he derived his information from priestly registers and popular traditions (Joseph. c., Apion, i., 16, 26), which are most conflicting and contradictory. Add to this, that Monetho was most partial and untrustworthy upon this subject. In his days the Jewish Scriptures were translated into Greek, and this Egyptian philosopher read for the first time the Jewish account of God's dealings with the Egyptians. Deeply wounded at this humiliating description which the Septuagint gave of the plagues brought upon his people; how the Jews ultimately departed from his country laden with vessels of gold and silver, the incensed historian asked some of the Jews, so the traditions tell us, whether the Septuagint was a faithful version of their history and creed. Having been told that it was, Monetho hereupon incited his countrymen to demand of the Jews the return of those vessels of gold and silver which their own books say they had borrowed from the Egyptians and carried away. Whereupon the Jews replied that the book which relates this, states also that the Egyptians kept their forefathers in bondage upwards of 400

years, and made them build Pithon and Rameses without paying them. Now, if Monetho and his countrymen would pay them for building those places, they in return would replace the costly vessels.

It is this Monetho, the notorious enemy of the Jews, that M. Bunsen trusts for the narrative about the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt rather than to the revealed word of God.

We shall now show how our author deals with the Bible. Nothing can be plainer than the threatening and the description of the death of the first-born-"And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt, and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill, and all the first-born of beasts." (Exod. xi. 4, 5.) "And it came to pass that at midnight, the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne, unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of cattle." (Exod. xii. 29.) M. Bunsen's interpretation of this passage is: "As to the statement about the destruction of the first-born, I believe that divine judgment was in part executed by the Solymites, who, according to the annals, were called in by the Israelites, and committed great cruelties in the land. The name is not strictly historical, as there cannot have been Solymites before Jerusalem took the place of Jebus. But that name was Monetho's time current as a designation of the inhabitants of Judea or Palestine. We are therefore entitled to assume that the Egyptian annals spoke of Palestinean tribes as the invaders." (P. 202.)

222

[blocks in formation]

Abraham lived 175 years.

...

...

180 do.

[ocr errors]

...

147 do.

[ocr errors]

...

110 do.

Isaac Jacob Joseph Here it is not a question of a solitary exception in the case of one individual. It is true that no instance can be adduced demonstrably historical of any one reaching the age of 180; such a case, however, as an exception would not contravene the laws of nature. But that the three patriarchs should have lived, one after the other, 150 years and even more, and the viceroy Joseph, their successor, 110, cannot be historical. There must be a means of detecting some blunder here, or else the historical nature of the narrative will be liable to grave suspicion. None but those who still cling to the infatuation that the antediluvian patriarchs, as well as Noah and Shem, lived from 600 to 1,000 years, have any excuse to offer for such purely childish delusions, persistence in which can only be productive of doubt and unbelief." (P. 340.)

We ask, what reliance can we place upon this critic's deciphering and expounding half obliterated and contradictory hieroglyphics and temple records, when he treats the plain words of Scripture in such an arbitrary and violent manner?

ETUDES SUR LE ROLE POLITIQUE DE

LA FRANCE. Par Antoine Arago. A GREAT name is a heavy burthen, and if it be true, as the French proverb has it, that noblesse oblige, the inheritance of a great name also imposes its especial duties. "Stat magni nominis umbra;" the second generation, if it appear at all prominently on the world's stage, is bound to keep up at least the tradition of its ancestral dignity, and its works are sure to be scanned by critical and severe eyes. The name of Arago is one of those which impose such obligations; and it was, therefore, with feelings of mingled interest and curiosity that we received the volume mentioned above, in which one of the Aragos of

the present generation has pretended to discuss the more abstruse questions connected with the politics of the world as they present themselves to the minds of philosophical inquirers at the present day. Alas! our disappointment has been more than equal to our anticipations; and we must at once say that if he continue as he has begun, M. Antoine Arago will not revive the prestige of his great namesake, if at least the present work is to be taken as an indication of what the future is to bring forth.

It is not, however, on the score of any deficiency of literary merit, or on account of a less comprehensive view of politics than his predecessor had possessed, that we have been so much disappointed with M. Antoine Arago's book. It has, indeed, many of the artistic qualities of François Arago's style of work; and it is written (no small praise for a French author under the Imperial rule) with a marked attention to the rules of grammar and of verbal logic; whilst the political notions it conveys are at least of equal value to those propounded in former days by the late somewhat inconsistent and very illnatured Secretary of the Académie des Sciences. But there was an excuse for the errors and the mistakes of the elder Arago in these matters, in the mere fact that his studies and pursuits were not such as to enable him to know much about the political affairs he so delighted in embroiling; and in his own walk of science he was a brilliant, if not a very sound, scholar. Antoine Arago has retained, as we said, much of the artistic power of his namesake, but he has exaggerated his defects, and thus has produced a book which may be read without much effort, or even with some kind of pleasure, but which will not fail to disgust any one who is capable of seeing through the wordy chauvanism of the author to some of the real bearings of the weighty problems agitated by this feeble courtier, as we suspect, of the clique which oscillates about the small sun of the Palais Royal.

Now, even the great Arago was habitually unjust whenever a question arose in which England was concerned; and he was about as ignorant of English principles of conduct, or, what was still more culpable, of English history, as any of his countrymen have been from the days of Montesquieu and Voltaire downwards. But even the superficial philosophy of François Arago in these things grows profound when compared with that of his successor; and it is difficult to say whether there be more of bad faith than of shameful ignorance in the accounts given of the proceedings of our Government in some of the more important events of modern times. No doubt the manifest interest of a nation like England, being of a permanent and serious nature, must impress upon its rulers a policy of a sufficiently stable character to assume in the eyes of foreigners a traditionary form. But what Englishman will believe that Lords Palmerston, Aberdeen, and Malmesbury have ever come to a distinct understanding as to the policy England should observe in the matters of the Suez Canal and the Euphrates Valley Railway? We cite these two special illustrations because M. Antoine Arago dwells particularly upon them, and cites them as illustrations of our wonderful machiavellism in thwarting the natural tendencies of the human race for our own peculiar commercial advantage. The remarks he makes on these subjects are, however, so peculiar, yet they are, after all, so decidedly reflexes of similar accusations made by men who ought to know better than to repeat such nonsense, that we propose to say something upon them in reply.

M. Arago, in an early part of his work, incidentally admits that it has been practically demonstrated that railways furnish the best, the cheapest, and the most certain modes of intercommunication between extreme points of any social region; yet in the subsequent parts he boldly asserts that canals are more efficient means of diffusing civilization than any

other elements of traffic. This is a small inconsistency, no doubt, but it may be explained by the desire to make a point, or to give effect to a sneer, at English opposition to the Suez Canal scheme: for, evidently the man who could propound the two opinions could know but little of the reasons for either of them. But if we admit, for the sake of argument, all the wonderful cosmic advantages of a canal through the Isthmus of Suez, it remains to be proved that England has originated the evident repugnance of the Turkish Government to a scheme which is avowed by its most ardent partizans to be intended to ensure, sooner or later, the annihilation of the Turkish influence in Egypt. This is, after all, a question to be decided by the respective governments of Turkey and of Egypt; and the intervention of the Western Powers, under any pretext whatsoever, is a sheer piece of impertinence. On this score we ourselves blame the busy, mischief-making interference of Lords Palmerston and Stuart de Redcliffe, quite as much as we do that of the patrons of M. de Lesseps, that architype of stock-jobbery and humbug; we say this advisedly, because we happen to know something of the conduct adopted in England to influence public opinion in favour of the Suez Canal; and we are prepared to show professionally that, first, the canal could not possibly be executed for less than twice the present estimates; and, second, that even when executed, it could only be kept open by dint of heavy annual outlays, and such exorbitant working expenses as would render it utterly impossible to carry on the experiment for any length of time. The fact is, that the same physical laws which caused the formation of the Isthinus of Suez, and of the Delta of the Nile, will always prevent the maintenance of a navigable passage through the Isthmus. If Lord Palmerston, had, therefore, had the common sense to leave this scheme to its natural fate, its inherent defects would soon have caused it to sink into oblivion—or the

ruin of its propounders would have quietly settled the question. Under any circumstances, the duty and the interest of England were to leave the nations which so anxiously desired the execution of the canal to do the works at their own risk, and then to have used it for her own purposes. Lord Palmerston has, however, succeeded in removing a question of purely a commercial nature into the regions of national contests; and thus has furnished the pretext for the interference of other States. Left to itself, the Suez Canal scheme must have come to nought: opposed with the usual impertinent, ignorant violence of the Palmerston school, it has arrayed on its side the passions of nearly every nation in Europe. The wretched nonsense about the development of civilization, either latitudinally or longitudinally, which has been bandied about by the paid advocates of M. de Lesseps, would soon have opened the eyes of the thinking part of European politicians and capitalists to the inherent defects of the scheme, it was found necessary to defend upon such visionary grounds. The result of the interference of our politicians in this matter, small though it has been, has hitherto simply been to create the belief that England has a direct interest in opposing the prosperity of the rest of the world a proposition so monstrous that it could only have originated in our own folly, or in the disordered imaginations of such men as Antoine Arago.

Before going further, we would ask the class of continental Chauvins, to which M. Arago belongs, whether in his abuse of England it ever occurred to him that any of our Governments of the day were susceptible of being turned out of office at a very short notice from either the Crown or the Legislature. He and his contemporaries of the Anglo-phobian school can hardly be expected to know much of the workings of a free constitution. But the traditions of M. Arago's own family ought to have taught him that in a free country,

the

opinions of any ministry of to-day might differ, toto cælo, from those of their successors of the morrow; and that therefore there is always danger in holding the nation responsible for the acts of its temporary ser

vants.

We who flatter ourselves that as authors and professional men we come in contact with all classes and conditions, both at home and abroad, can assure M. Arago, and M. de Lesseps even, that Englishmen regard the whole story of this Suez Canal with as much of indifference as to its results, as of contempt for the unblushing quackery with which it has been propounded; and that they will be very willing to give its schemes all the rope they may require.

The funniest part of M. Arago's diatribes against England is, however, the one in which he pretends to discuss the motives of our government in the Eastern affairs of 1839, 1840, and 1841. The peculiar form given to the book before us, it is true, renders it difficult to say to what precise extent the words employed convey the author's meaning; but it would seem that he believes that the successive ministers of our country have consistently aimed, during the last sixty years, to facilitate the communications between England and its Indian possessions, at the same time that they aimed at rendering the traffic between those extreme points unproductive at least, if not onerous, to the nations across whose territory it was to pass. With this deeplylaid plot in view, the expedition of Colonel Chesney (which, by the way, only produced a very worthless report of the de Lessep's style) was sent to survey the country between the head of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean-avowedly for the purpose of re-opening the navigation of the Euphrates, but really for the purpose of making a railway! Now, at the time when Colonel Chesney wrote his book, railroads were but in their infancy; and France itself could only boast of the Versailles, St. Cloud, St. Germain, and St. Etienne lines, or a

« PreviousContinue »