future. Such matters are but slightly touched upon in these unconnected notices, and the defect is ill supplied by those who have executed the articles on Prophet' and Messiah.' One book of the series forms an obvious exception to what we observed just now about the Prophetic writings-the Book of Jonah. It is exceptional on any hypothesis, in its form and character; and also (as sober criticism convinces us) in its authorship and date. The article upon it in the Dictionary is an unsuccessful attempt (and a far weaker one than that which is made in the Cyclopædia) to controvert the conclusions which are suggested at once by the laws of nature, by Scriptural analogy, and by internal evidence. Though brought into conflict apparently with the judgment of the authors of the Canon, we are forced to believe that the proper place for this book was in the Hagiographa, among writings framed by pious men upon the basis of a traditional story.

We will not dwell long upon the biographical articles of the Dictionary. They are constructed for the most part on the principle that such notices ought not to be encumbered with the critical examination of the Biblical narratives, and that the writer's only task was to present a clear and careful resumé of all which can be learned from Scripture of the persons whose life they relate, elucidated and set forth by all the light procurable. The distinctness and coherence thus obtained are in some cases very remarkable; and while the leading characters are thus elaborately dealt with, care has been taken also not to omit any name however trivial and obscure, down to the twenty-one Meshullams, and the twenty-five Shemaiahs. Amongst those of greatest merit we would more particularly point out the biographies of Moses and Samuel, contributed by Dean Stanley-vivid sketches, which he has repeated at greater length in the first volume of his Jewish Lectures; as also those by the same author on Saul and David and some of their contemporaries and successors, which make us look forward with increased interest to his forthcoming second volume. In this latter cycle of lives he has been ably seconded by Mr. Grove, whose articles, moreover, on Elijah and Elisha (with the slight but significant critical observations introduced) are worthy of special notice; as also that on Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, by the same writer, which the Editor justly cites as an instance of the successful use of scanty and scattered materials in the construction of a vivid and accurate picture. Among the New Testament characters we are more particularly pleased with Mr. Davies's article on St. Paul, well seconded by the minor contributions (biographical and geographical also) of

Dr. Howson, the Nestor of this department of Biblical knowledge. Nor can we pass over Dean Stanley's remarkable article on Stephen, especially his comments on the martyr's speech, and his felicitous notice of the precedent there furnished by Scripture itself for the free treatment of the subject matter of Scripture narratives.

We now come to those departments in which English learning has an independent standing, and in which this country has been the instructor rather than the pupil of Germany; the departments of Geography, Oriental Learning, Monumental Researches, and (to a certain extent) of Science and Natural History. It is this portion of Dr. Smith's Dictionary that has assuredly the greatest absolute as well as relative value; unless it be that subsidiary department which treats of Texts, Versions, and Translations. We regret that we cannot notice more at length the learned labours of Messrs. Deutsch, Plumptre, Selwyn, Tregelles, and Westcott. Of these the most remarkable are unquestionably those of Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Westcott. The article Vulgate,' by the latter, is a masterly and exhaustive account of an elaborate and ungrateful subject, which has hitherto escaped the researches of German scholars, though of great moment in the textual criticism of the Bible. Mr. Deutsch's contributions on Samaritan Pen'tateuch' and Targums' are open to even higher praise. They combine a new and thoroughly original treatment of subjects on which hitherto each successive writer has been content to follow Gesenius, or still more ancient guides, with a freshness and vigour quite without parallel in the whole range of similar investigations abroad or at home. His description of the Methurgeman (p. 1639) is quite a resurrection, and his examination of the personal existence of Onkelos an admirable piece of historical criticism.

The geographical articles are worthy of all praise. They are based for the most part on the conclusions of Dr. Stanley, and other able and discerning English travellers who have continued and improved on the researches of Dr. Robinson. And they are written almost wholly by men who take rank among those travellers, Dr. Stanley himself having contributed two or three, and the others having been added principally by Messrs. Porter, Ffoulkes, Bonar, and Grove. Of these the latter gentleman occupies the chief place, not only as the largest contributor, but as the author of many of the principal articles, those on Palestine, Jordan, the Dead Sea, the tribal territories, and (for the natural topography) Jerusalem. We can hardly speak too highly of these masterly productions, which happily combine a careful

and impartial consideration of what others have advanced with the judgment of an independent and competent eye-witness. Mr. Grove's general superintendence also, and careful insertion of all necessary supplemental details, give this department of the Dictionary an unrivalled completeness and unity. It does not merely reach the highest level of existing knowledge in these matters, consolidating and presenting in the clearest form the results of the latest investigations, but also (transcending here what can be expected of a Cyclopædia) does something considerable to advance it.

One only exception we are compelled to dwell on; namely, Mr. Fergusson's peculiar theories on the topography of Jerusalem. We uttered our protest against these some years ago, when they were first propounded, and more especially against the article in question. Since his return from the East, Mr. Fergusson has lost no time in informing the public that his views are unchanged. We wish him a fair field for the prosecution of what we nevertheless regard as a hopeless contest against authority and fact. We shall look for his new arguments with interest; but we hope to read them in a more appropriate place than a Dictionary of the Bible.

The praise of being on a level with recently-acquired knowledge may be securely claimed too for that cognate department in which the records of Scripture are illustrated by the monuments of profane antiquity. Mr. Stuart Poole is no unworthy representative of English Egyptologists. But he proceeds on a vicious plan, when (as in his article on Egypt' more especially) instead of distinctly using the monumental records to illustrate Scripture, he supports a series of statements by promiscuous appeals now to one source of information, now to the other. And his reliance on the sacred writers is obviously misplaced when he cites Isaiah as an authority on the question of the ancient Shepherd dynasties, or St. Paul (art. Chronology') as determining the true duration of the Egyptian Captivity. His chronological system is an unsatisfactory piece of patchwork, grounded in great measure on the disputable authority of the LXX, and supported by a conjectural coincidence of the Hebrew and Egyptian calendars, which seems to us far from conclusive. His criticism, however, of synchronistic theories opposed to his own is able and generally conclusive; and except when carried away by a too eager desire to establish the harmonies he looks for, his articles are excellent and sound. Mr. Layard's article on Nineveh is precisely what is most appropriate to a Cyclopædia like this, and could come from no hand so well as from his own.

VOL. CXXI. NO. CCXLVII.

F

Mr. Rawlinson, who takes a wider range of kindred subjects in his contributions to the Dictionary, aims at something more than merely to register what is already ascertained, and shows more confidence perhaps in his interpretation of Assyrian and Persian inscriptions than others will always share. But no one could so fitly expound the conclusions which, in the hands of his brother and of Dr. Hinckes, are approximating gradually to the rank of ascertained facts, or have executed so well the articles which he has undertaken. The interesting subject of the Philistines' is ably handled by Mr. Bevan. And we must add to the articles of special merit Mr. Twisleton's masterly abstract of German, French, and English investigations on the subject of Phoenicia and the Phoenician cities.

The light thrown upon Jewish history by the new revelations proceeding from all these quarters is doubtless most remarkable, nor is it by any means fully developed yet. One thing we must observe in passing, upon which we often find ourselves at issue, both with Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Poole. Unreasonable, and indeed impossible as it is to regard the Jewish Scriptures as a homogeneous whole, we cannot grant that the confirmation of this or that detail by monumental testimony supplies even a presumptive proof of infallible accuracy in the rest of the Biblical narratives. On the contrary, it seems to us that the new evidences brought to light tend remarkably to confirm the broad distinctions laid down by independent criticism. That the historical period comprised in the books of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and illustrated by the Prophets, should receive new confirmation as well as new vividness from the unconscious witness of contemporary Gentile inscriptions, is a fact which we not only gladly welcome, but should be fully prepared to expect. But how is it with the times of the Egyptian deliverance, which criticism regards as prehistoric; or with those episodes of the Captivity which seem to be didactic works of a later age? Do not our newly-found witnesses help to substantiate the distinction which a searching analysis has suggested? We readily admit that fresh proofs have come to light of the reality of the historical basis in some of these matters (as in the case of Belshazzar), and of the life-like colouring of sacred tradition (more particularly in regard to the sojourn in Egypt). But do not the difficulties of harmonising names, facts, dates, characters, stand out all the more distinctly in contrast with those periods when all is plain? Where is the true or even suitable place amongst the scenes now newly disclosed to us in Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, for many of the

stories which we seek to verify? Who even (to go no further) was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? who the Darius of Daniel? who the Ahasuerus of Esther? These questions, we know, are confidently answered;-answered with eager and elaborate ingenuity in support of this hypothesis and that. But they are answered differently even by the associated contributors to the work before us. The ominous silence of Dr. Thompson (art. Memphis," Thebes'), seems to betoken the same disagreement with Mr. Poole upon the subject of Pharaoh which is avowedly entertained by Lord A. Hervey, and which another of his colleagues, Mr. Leathes, has more recently expressed in the Biblical Cyclopædia. Mr. Rawlinson's views of Darius, as also of Belshazzar and the capture of Babylon (art. 'Medes,' Persians,' Babylon'), are impugned by Mr. Westcott in the columns of the Dictionary itself (art. Darius'); while the identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes, supported perhaps by some singular coincidences, but contradicted by the general tenour of the history, is discredited by Mr. Bullock (art. Haman') if he is ready to abide by the consequences of his own suggestion. We do not presume to assert that further light may not some day alter the aspect of these questions, but we do say that thus far the conclusions arrived at by critics have to all appearance been confirmed; and we also repeat that no devout Christian, and we would add no devout Jew, need be troubled for a moment by the character which is thus assigned to some books of Scripture.

The department of Botany and Zoology has suffered in some measure from having changed hands three times during the issue of the work; but in those of Mr. Houghton it has received ample justice; and a copious Appendix brings up the earlier subjects to the level of the last. This department seems to us almost worthy to rank with the geographical articles, and is enriched with woodcuts which, though unequal in merit, are mostly of singular beauty and accuracy. It is a creditable feature of these articles that they tell their story with an unfaltering love of truth, undeterred by the fear of bringing the clear and definite conceptions of modern science into collision with those vague and often incorrect notions of natural phenomena which inspired men shared with all others of their own time and nation. Thus Mr. Houghton allows that in Isaiah's predictions (xiii. 21, xxxiv. 15) of the desolation of Babylon the prophet really intended that half-human satyrs would haunt the place: confesses that the fiery flying serpent' of Isaiah (xxx. 6) can have no existence in nature; and that the snail does not consume away and die by reason of its