Yes, surely, ye cast down among the crooks of war That the dove was a military ensign, may be gathered from the history in the Chronicon Samaritanum, where we read that "the Romans placed a pigeon [or dove] on Mount Gerizim to hinder them from going thither to worship with troops. Some Samaritans attempted to go up, but the bird discovered them, and cried out the Hebrews! The guards awoke, and slew those who were coming up." Understand a military sentry and ensign, and "the dove" becomes intelligible at once. The paleness of the kings who accompanied this banner, is extremely characteristic of their appearance when they saw their sacred emblem cast down, and trampled on by the Israelites; or, if they themselves in their haste did cast it down, that they might flee the more swiftly, the shame is equal. To complete the statement, it remains to be proved that the word here employed, now SHOPHETIM, means an instrument capable of use in war; because it is usually rendered "fire ranges," or "pots;" but in Ezek. xl. 43, we have this word where it can mean no such thing, but a kind of hooks, or catches; and so our version understands it, speaking of instruments for the use of the priests" and within were hooks"-SHOPHETIM, for the purpose of holding up the victim while flaying, or some of its parts after they were divided. And that somewhat of a hook, or catch, was anciently appended to spears or lances, we know from the construction of the ancient English brown-bill, from the Lochaber axes of Scotland, &c. Corresponding exactly to which is the spear of an Egyptian king in his chariot, which is still extant among the hieroglyphical sculptures of Egypt. If, then, this hooked implement was an Egyptian or Canaanitish weapon, either of war or a sacred badge of the priest accompanying the standard bearer; to see the venerated standard of the dove trampled on by enemies, together with the arms which should defend it, was an event which might well confound into paleness the kings which surrounded it, and who had expected victory from its assistance. Our reasonings lead us to conclude, 1st, That the dove was certainly used as a military ensign; 2dly, That as the Assyrians were eminent and ancient worshipers of the dove, it might be supposed to be appropriately their banner or standard: and this will authorize a translation of several passages of Scripture different from our present public version. Jeremiah, speaking of the ravages which would be committed in Judea by Nebuchadnezzar, says, "the land is desolate because of the fierceness of the dove." And again, "let us go to our own people to avoid the sword of the dove:" and in another place," they shall flee every one for fear of the sword of the dove."-Each of these places is intelligible, by supposing the king of the Chaldeans to be here referred to, who bore a dove in his ensigns, in memory of Semiramis. To illustrate Cantic. i. 15; iv. 1; and v. 12, where the eyes are compared to those of the dove, the author of "Scripture Illustrated" has these remarks. "Nothing can be a more striking instance of the necessity of acquaintance with the east, as well in its Natural History as in other articles, than the passages in which the eyes are compared to doves. Our translators say "to the eyes of doves," which may be understood to imply meekness, tenderness, &c. and therefore it has passed hitherto without correction. But the facts are, 1st, That our translators have added the word eyes; and 2dly, That they took the black for the white: they had in their ideas the white pigeon, or at least the light coloured turtle dove; whereas, the most common pigeon or dove, in the east, is the deep blue, or blue gray pigeon, whose brilliant plumage vibrates around his neck every sparkling hue, every dazzling flash of colour. And the passage, ch. v. 12, proves that the comparison of the author relates to this pigeon. The deep blue pigeon, standing amidst the foam of a waterfall, would be a blue centre surrounded by a bright space on each side of him. This, in the comparison, is the iris of the eye, surrounded by the white of the eye: but as the foam of this waterfall is not brilliant enough to satisfy the poet, he has placed the deep blue pigeon in a pond of milk, or in a garden basin of milk, and there, he says, he turns himself round, to parallel the dipping of the former verse. He wantons, sports, frisks, turns round: so sportive, mobile, and glittering is the eye, the iris of my beloved. The milk, then, denotes the white of the eye, and the pigeon surrounded by it; "the iris of the eye is like a deep blue pigeon, standing in the centre of a pool of milk." The comparison is certainly extremely poetical and picturesque. "This idea has not escaped the poets of Hindostan, for we have in Gitagovinda the following passage. "The glances of her eyes played like a pair of water birds of azure plumage, that sport near a full blown lotos on a pool in the season of dew.” "This leads us to consider the comparison of the eyes of the bride to the pools of Heshbon: dark, deep, and clear are her eyes; and so is a pigeon, and so are those pools, dark, deep, and clear. But were these pools surrounded by a border of dark coloured marble, analogous to the border of stibium, drawn along the eyelids of the spouse, and rendering them apparently larger, fuller, deeper?-As this comparison is used where ornaments of dress are more particularly subjects of consideration, I think it not impossible to be correct; and certainly it is by no means contradictory to the ideas contained in the simile recently illustrated." The mourning of the dove, Isai. xxxviii. 14; and lix. 11, alludes to the plaintive murmuring of this bird, particularly of the turtle dove, which is said to be disconsolate and to die with grief at the loss of its mate. To this may be referred the "tabering of the doves," Nah. ii. 7. CHIRIONIM, has The doves-dung, 2 Kings, vi. 25, been variously interpreted. Bochart, who has devoted seventeen pages to the discussion of this subject 58, observes that the Arabians give the name to a kind of moss which grows upon trees or stony ground; and also to a kind of pulse or pea, which is common in Judea, as may be seen 2 Sam. xvii. 28; the cicer sativum nigrum. This latter opinion is that of Dr. Shaw 59.— The ingenious Mr. Harmer, however, interprets this expression to mean strictly the dung of pigeons, which he thinks might be a valuable article as being of great use for quickening the growth of esculent plants, particularly melons, during the siege of Samaria. This opinion he illustrates by showing how much the Persians live on melons in the summer months, and that they use pigeons' dung in raising them. I add the following from Tavernier, p. 146. "There are above three thousand pigeon houses in Ispahan; for every man may build a pigeon house upon his own farm, which yet is very rarely done. All the other pigeon houses belong to the king, who draws a greater revenue from the dung than from the pigeons; which dung, as they prepare it, serves to cultivate their melons." Mr. Edwards, in his work "On the Style, &c. of the Scripture," p. 289, observes that it is not likely that they had much ground to cultivate in so populous a city, for gardens, nor is it reasonable to think that those distressed famished creatures who were so eager to relieve their present wants, would be much concerned to provide against the ensuing year. He is disposed, therefore, to understand it as meaning "the offals or refuse of all sorts of grain, which was wont to be given to pigeons at such a time of the year, when they had nothing abroad to feed upon; that this refuse grain, this tail-corn, these sweepings of the floor, these vile remains, are here called dung by way of contempt, which comports with the style of Scripture, which uses that word to denote the vileness and baseness of a thing. 2 Kings, ix. 37; Psal. lxxxiii. 10; Jer. viii. 2, and it is here joined with an Ass's head, which was the vilest sort of food; and therefore both together do fully express the extremity of the famine at that time. It is certain that it cannot mean pigeon's dung, strictly so called, for no excrements are capable of being food." As all the ancient Jewish writers understand the word literally, it may be well to remark, that the stress of the famine might have been so great as to have compelled the poor among the 58 Hieroz. part II. l. 1. c. 7. page 572-590. 59 Trav. p. 140. ed. 4to. besieged in Samaria to devour either the intestines of the doves, after the more wealthy had eaten the bodies; or as it might per haps be rendered, the crops, the contents of which, those who kept doves forced them to disgorge. There are not wanting in history, examples of those who, in the extremity of hunger, have been compelled to eat that at which their natures would otherwise reluct 60 DRAGON. This word is frequently to be met with in our English translation of the Bible. It answers generally to the Hebrew in, pan, ON, THAN, THANIN, and THANIM; and these words are variously rendered, dragons, serpents, sea-monsters, and whales. The following remarks, by my learned friend the Hon. James Winthrop of Cambridge, are ingenious. On the plural of is used and translated plurally in the following passages by the word "dragons." Job, xxx. 29; Psal. xliv. 19; Isai. xiii. 22; xxxiv. 13; xxxv. 7; Jer. ix. 11; xiv. 6; xlix. 33; and Mic. i. 8. In all these places utter desolation is the idea conveyed; and the animal is described as snuffing wind, wailing, and belonging to the desert. These characters seem hardly to apply to a dragon or serpent. In Ezek. xxix. 3, it is translated as of the singular number. The original is joined with a verb. n is used plurally in Lam. iv. 3, and translated "sea-monsters;" though the description of its manners rather applies to some wild beast than to a fish. The last letter is used as a plural termination, in conformity to the Chaldee; but the regular Hebrew letter would be. This word is in Psalm xci. 13, translated as of the singular number. In all other places it seems to be the singular of "whales," and is in some of them so translated. In Mal. i. 3, n is rendered "dragons." It is coupled with wilderness, and is the plural form of ¡n. The Rev. James Hurdis, in a dissertation relative to this subject 61, observes, that the word translated "whales,” in Gen. i. 21, occurs twenty-seven times in Scripture; and he attempts, with much ingenuity, to prove that it every where signifies the crocodile. That it sometimes has this meaning, he thinks is clear from Ezek. xxix. 3, " Behold I am against thee, Pharoah king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers." For to what could a king of Egypt be more properly compared than the crocodile? The same argument he draws from Isai. li. 9. "Art thou not he that hath cut Rahab [Egypt], and wounded the dragon 62❞ 60 See Fuller, Miscel. Sacr. 1. 6. c. 2. p. 724. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1. iii. c. 6. Josephus de Bello Jud. lib. vi. cap. ult. ad finem. 61 Critical Dissertation upon the true Meaning of the Word □ found in Gen. i. 21. Lond. 1790. 8vo. 62 Consult J. M. Glæsmer, De dracone insigni regum Ægyptiorum, ad illustr. Ezek. xxix. diatriba. In Biblioth. Brem. Class. vii. fas. 6. p. 976. Among the ancients the crocodile was the symbol of Egypt, and appears so on Roman coins 63. 66 From this ground Mr. Hurdis proceeds to explain all the other passages; and finds, that though in one or two instances there is reason to hesitate, yet upon the whole, it is probable that wherever this animal is mentioned, it is the crocodile; and therefore Gen. i. 21, should be rendered "great crocodiles," or "the great crocodiles." I insert his entire remarks upon Isai. xxxv. 7. The parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water. In the habitations of dragons where each lay shall be grass with reeds and rushes." What can be clearer than that the crocodile is the subject of the latter part of this verse? In this chapter, one of the most beautiful effusions of a fervid and inspired imagination, the prophet is figuratively describing the redemption of man, by the removal of every thing grievous to him, and the accession of every thing pleasant. The wilderness is to become a garden, and to blossom as the rose; it is to blossom abundantly, and to rejoice even with joy and singing; it is to break forth with streams, and to become pools and springs of waters. And these waters are to be without danger, for not only the crocodile shall not be found in them, but the very fear of him is to vanish; he is, it seems, to be for ever removed, and the habitation where he laid is to become grass with reeds and rushes. Here it is worthy of notice, that the crocodile was always considered as an inhabitant of the wilderness. And such he might well be deemed; for the deserts, as the reader may see in Mr. Irwin's charts, came very near to the banks of the Nile; and we may naturally suppose he would frequent those shores of the river which were desolate and not cultivated, because there he would be least molested. Accordingly, in Mal. i. 3, he is styled the crocodile of the wilderness. Again, in Isai. xliii. 20, 'the beasts of the region shall honour me, the crocodiles, and the daughters of the ostrich, because I give waters in the wilderness. And again, Ezek. xxix. 4, where hooks are to be put into his jaws, and he is to be brought up out of the midst of his rivers, it is as follows, and I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness.' When the crocodile thus delighted in unfrequented places, it will not appear wonderful that he should choose the ruins of old deserted towns and cities, which were near rivers and lakes, for his especial abode when out of the water. Of Babylon, therefore, it might properly be said, Isai. xiii. 22, that when she became desolate the crocodile should cry in her pleasant palaces;' and Jer. li. 13, that she should be a dwell 66 63 Scheuchzer, Phys. Sacr. in loc. 64 In the middle of the sixteenth century the ruins of ancient Babylon were visited by Rauwolf, who, among other particulars, mentions that they are now a receptacle of serpents and venomous creatures ;" and by other travellers the place thereabouts is represented as overrun with serpents, scorpions, and all sorts of venomous and unclean creatures." 66 |