homines, bonitas. Prejudice and habit will revolt at such a proposal; but some advances have already been made toward it even by the most determined abettors of the common system; as in the words ibi, tibi, sibi. And in the Greek very considerable advances have been made, as regì, perà, Aéyw, and very many others. Few, I believe, are offended at the word by being read as if there were two consonants; why then should they be shocked, if the Latin ego were read in a similar manner? In the Greek, indeed, we commonly make a distinction between the long and short vowels. In speaking peas, the sound of the long vowel is attended to ; ἔμεo is pronounced as if it were written ἔμμεο : so of ὤλεσα,

Gov and numberless others: and why the same distinction should be denied to the Latin I know not: the difference in point of orthography is not worth mentioning. There are some, I fear, almost incorrigible cases, in which no distinction can be well devised: they occur where the vowel in the antepenultima is said to be pure, i.e. where it is succeeded by another vowel in the following syllable, as in the words ablueret, Iliadis, or to take a verse "Jam neque Hamadryades rursum nec carmina nobis:" in such instances I believe the reading must ever be as if the antepenultima were long: but to insist once more upon the argument, this is no reason why we should not establish a distinction when we can.

As to myself, Mr. Editor, though you see my inclination and good-will, I have not had the courage at present to escape from the trammels of my youth, nor to emancipate myself from that "tyrant custom which has shackled man:" though I am aware that a few of our best scholars have partly acted upon the system which I have been endeavouring to uphold. I should be glad to see a fuller discussion of the subject, remaining (though rather idle of late) still sincerely your's,

Nov. 27. 1811.

GRANTA

A Defence of the Account of the Fall of Man in Genesis.

SIR,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

I CANNOT but consider it as a subject of lamentation,.

that writers of ability, who undertake to illustrate any obscure parts of Scripture, do too often set them in a less favorable light than before, rather than properly display to others the strong sense and important truths, which pervade all parts of that guide to our paths, but which indeed are too briefly hinted, rather than sufficiently expressed, at full

length; and, in fact, when even fully expressed, yet those great truths are delivered in the highly-figurative style of oriental nations, more than in such a precise mode of common language, as to be always obviously understood by every reader. Such, according to my opinion, is the case with respect to the difference between two learned writers in your JOURNAL, concerning the animal meant by the word Nachasch; for in truth I find not the least sufficient reason to affirm, that any animal whatever spoke to Eve with any audible voice, nor even that the evil principle of the world, called Satan, spoke audibly to her, but only that the author of that relation gives the name of the animal called Nachasch (whatever animal it may be) to that evil spirit otherwise called Satan by the Jews afterwards, but Diabolus by the Heathens, and believed to exist equally by Heathens, Jews, and Christians, and to have been the cause of intermixing evil in the events of a world otherwise replete with works of wisdom and benevolence. As to the truth of this prevalent opinion, if any persons are so sceptical as to doubt it, this is totally foreign from the subject under consideration, which has no concern with any thing more, than what in the age when the book was writ was the current belief of those, for whose benefit it was written. Both the above learned writers, therefore, are equally in error, when they affirm that any animal whatever was visible to Eve, or even spoke to her with audible words; for where can they produce the least evidence, that Eve saw any form whatever? and as to speaking to her, it may mean only suggested internally to her thoughts such or such questions for her determination, which the supernatural power, always ascribed to that evil spirit, enabled it to do, even in the confession of all our learned lawyers of the land; otherwise they would never suffer a criminal to be accused of acting by instigation of the devil, and yet never deem it necessary to bring any proof that the devil ever spoke audibly to him. Universal opinion therefore confirms, that the supernatural evil spirit in question could communicate thoughts to the mind of Eve without audible words, such as mortals are forced to use in their discourses with one another, to communicate their several opinions and reasons. It was then this evil spirit, which was reputed to have accosted Eve, but which in the early age of Moses might not have obtained the name of Satan; therefore he gives it the name of some animal called Nachasch, possibly on account of its having some similar disposition; but if one man calls another man a dog, does it follow that he has the form of a dog, or only that he is accused of having some similar dispositions? Why then should your correspondents suppose that the evil spirit, which accosted Eve, appeared in the form either of a serpent or a monkey, or any other form, merely because the author of the relation gives him the name of Nachasch? I find not the least syllable mentioned concerning the form of the being there mentioned; for they have no right to conclude what the form was from the adventitious name given there as descriptive solely of the character of that supernatural being. If it be urged, that although no form is mentioned, yet it is said, that he spoke to Eve: but though this be meant ever so literally, yet hence nothing

more can be concluded, than that it had the form of a man, if it spoke like a man; and in truth, a young man was more likely to persuade a young woman out of her duty and her wits, than a serpent or a monkey. There is no sufficient reason, however, to understand spoke and said to mean literally audible words, but only suggested such or such thoughts internally to the mind of Eve. Is it not still a common expression of others, said I to myself? and did ever any one conceive this phrase to mean that I spoke audibly to myself? Such figurative phrases are common in all languages and ages of the world; but if understood literally, cannot fail to introduce the appearance of absurdity, and a subject for ridicule instead of illustration; accordingly, the Jews by such literal senses have rendered this account truly ridiculous.

We have then only to inquire farther, what animal it was which was meant by Nachasch, the name thus given to the evil spirit, which tempted Eve, and this has certainly been deemed a serpent in all ages, both of the Jewish and Christian world; it is also allowed, that in other places of scripture it does sometimes mean this animal; we ought therefore to have some good reason before we reject an ancient interpretation, confirmed by a long succession of ages. It is likewise so rendered in the ancient Chaldee paraphrase of Jerusalem, Tibi verò, O Serpens, non erit medela, &c. and again, in the Epistle of Barnabas; some circumstances also are afterwards mentioned with respect to the punishment denounced for the transgression in question, which seem to allude expressly to the form of a serpent being signified by the name Nachasch; and moreover at the beginning of the account, allusion is made to the disposition of a serpent. We will therefore examine these two sentences more minutely. The account begins with saying, that the Nachasch was both a wild animal and a subtle one; now these properties will at least suit well enough with a serpent, but subtle in the Latin callidus, and in the septuagint Greek góvos had a very particular propriety, when applied to a serpent, according to the current opinions of the ancients, and is accordingly so applied in other parts of scripture. Bochart, in his Hierozoicon lib. I. c. 3 and 4. has collected a variety of accounts from ancient authors to this purport, which, whether true or false, is immaterial, so long as they were generally believed true. For opóvuos φρόνιμος Symmachus and Aquila substituted mávoupyos, versed in all kinds of craft, which may indeed be less liable to be misunderstood, but @govos was better in one respect, as it implies a good kind of craft, answering to our word shrewd, whereas the other implies more of the bad cunning of a fox; and the examples of shrewdness imputed by the ancients to serpents, are all to some good end; they were by them even thought intelligent enough to foretel future events, and to have supernatural knowledge, on which account Esculapius is generally represented with two serpents entwined round his staff. This character of the Nachasch for shrewdness or sagacity is afterwards confirmed by Eve's saying, The Nachasch beguiled me. Nothing more occurs concerning its character until God pronounces the punishment on

it, "on thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, all the days of thy life.' These words again show, that they allude to the nature of a serpent, which is again confirmed by what follows: "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bite man's heel." Bochart, as above, produces repeated notices from the ancients, that the heads of serpents were thought by them the only vulnerable part, and to be the seat of their hearts and of their lives; and also that they eat earth. Nicander in his Theriaca says of a serpent aridos sulcos depascitur v. 373. and Phile says Víλov v šobía, nudum pulverem edit c. 59. All these circumstances in the character of the Nachasch, confirm, that it was used here as the name of a serpent, and in that sense was given as a name to the supernatural Satan of the Jews. But I was sorry to find Sir W. D. to mistake so much these words, upon thy belly shalt thou go all the days of thy life," as to conclude from them, that the Nachasch once walked erect: (p. 241.) this was indeed, one of the strange fanciful opinions propagated by the Jewish Rabbins, and believed by too many Christians, that the form of the Nachasch was changed as a punishment to it. Yet the above words afford no foundation for this opinion; they only denounce that the serpent should continue ever thereafter to crawl on its belly in an ignominious manner, the same as it had done before, (so shalt thou go all the days of thy life). Accordingly, Bochart thus censures this idle tale, invented by the Jewish commentators, and still adhered to even by philosophic critics; "Mihi non est verisimile Deum mutasse quidquam in naturâ serpentis, sed tantùm quod erat in ejus naturâ cessit in pœnam, ut in homine nuditas, et in muliere partus." c. 4. Sir W. D. speaks also, as being equally certain of the Nachasch talking audibly "It is quite clear that Nachasch could talk," p. 241. But said in this oriental parable, as I have shown, may be only a figurative phrase for instilling thoughts in a supernatural manner into the mind of another person, to be the subject of their meditation. In Esop was it ever inquired, whether the animals there really spoke in an audible manner the Greek words attributed to them? or rather only that the author ascribed such thoughts to them, as might have occurred to them in case they were capable of thinking, and which, if spoken, would have such or such a meaning. It can then be no more concluded,, that the Nachasch really talked, than that it was a real serpent, because such a name was given to it, and such words ascribed to it. But it may be urged perhaps, that the punishment is denounced directly against a serpent itself by the Deity, and not against Satan, as is proved by the form and other properties of a serpent there ascribed to it. Yet why should such a prophetic denunciation of what was to happen in future differ from other prophetic denunciations found in the Jewish prophecies, and even in their histories, as well as in the didactic discourses of our Saviour himself, of teaching literal truths by allegoric words? In history we read, that the thistle sent a message to the cedar that was in Lebanon, 2. K. 14. the words here are only relative to a thistle and cedar, but while one thing is spoken of, a different one is meant, namely, the kings of Israel

and Judah; this is the essential nature of every allegory, which has accordingly been relished as an expressive mode of information in all nations and languages. Since then the name of serpent was given at first to the supernatural agent so called Nachasch, this offered an obvious opportunity of continuing afterwards the denunciation of punishment destined for it in the same allegoric words, as if they related to the serpent only, its nature and properties, although in reality they meant the supernatural agent itself so named: and the articles of similarity between the two are left to readers themselves to discern by their own intellects, namely, that as the serpent should go on all its future life to crawl ignominiously on its belly, shunned and detested by the human race, yet ever biting them insidiously, while they reciprocally should aim destruction to his most vital part, the head; so should that evil supernatural being crawl through the world to the end of it in a detested state, shunned and abhorred by men for his treachery and injuries, until at last the offspring of man should put an end to his evil practices. This the Jews always expected to be effected by their Messiah. How then from this extension of the allegoric relation to the punishment denounced against the serpent, can it be concluded that the agent named Nachasch was a real serpent any more than from the mere name itself at first given to him? This allegoric conclusion was a natural consequence of the allegoric commencement; and that any one should on account of the punishment here denounced maintain that it was a real serpent, which both talked and before walked upright, is as unsolid a conclusion as that the above supernatural agent really afterwards crept upon his belly, bit man's heels and eat dust. "Amphora cœpit institui, cur urceus exit? Quod sic mihi ostendis incredulus lego:" yet it is from such literal but erroneous senses that Sir W. D. deduces the absurdities, which he ascribes equally to the explanations of both writers; and, in fact, they must of necessity exist equally in every literal explanation of allegoric phrases of any kind whatever, just as in the case of the thistle if it spoke, or sent a message, or if the cedar received and read, or heard the message read by others. Therefore in the above criticisms, I acknowledge much learning and wit, and a ready use of the opportunities afforded for them, but cannot find complete satisfaction in them, or a clear explanation to others of what they find to be doubtful and obscure, through the contradictory accounts given by those different writers, who while they differ with very learned abilities about the senses of ancient words, have both of them thus exposed and brought upon themselves some oblique arrows from Sir W..D. where neither of them was sufficiently covered by the shield of consistent senses in his explication of this ancient parable. With respect however to the senses of ancient words in this scriptural account, I may observe farther, that as there is no sufficient foundation for altering the Septuagint word φρόνιμος for πανουργος, which Aristotle expressly describes to be the character rather of the fox, as implying roguish craft; so the former epithet is confirmed by our Saviour, "Be ye shrewd (góvuo) as serpents, yet inoffensive as doves," which word, however, thus implying a commendable kind of Vol. v. No. IX.