the King of beasts, and the Eagle the King of birds, and therefore [he might go on to say was no more a peculiarly fit symbol of the first, than of any other one of the dominant empires; but instead of this he goes on to say that therefore] the Kingdom of Babylon, which is described as the first and noblest Kingdom, and was the Kingdom then in being, [what an odd reason if one did not know the man] is said to partake of the nature of both. Instead of a lion the Vulgar Latin, and the Greek and Arabic Versions have a lioness; and it is Jerome's observation that the Kingdom of Babylon for its cruelty is compared not to a lion, but to a lioness, which naturalists say is the fiercer of the two." Then of course it is easy to say that "the Eagle's wings denote its swiftness and rapidity and the conquests of Babylon were very rapid 5"-but when we are told that it was "made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it," what are we to understand? Bishop Newton says, "What appears most probable is, that after the Babylonian empire was subverted, the people became more humane and gentle; their minds were

66

5

66

Bishop Newton found Lowth a poor ally as to the passages which he refers to, Jeremiah xlviii. 40, and Ezekiel xvii. 3. 12. On the former that commentator says, with great simplicity, Conquerors are often compared to Eagles and other birds of prey," and on the latter Conquerors are elsewhere represented by Eagles who are birds of prey, and remarkable for their swiftness." Of course the obvious comparison of a conqueror to a lion or an eagle, goes a very little way towards explaining the phænomenon of a lion with eagle's wings brought forward, and dealt with like the lion seen by the prophet.

humbled with their fortune; and they who vaunted as if they had been gods, [who says they did?] now felt themselves to be but men." That is to say, the taking

of a wild beast of horrible fierceness, ridding him of unnatural excrescences belonging to another genus of animals, raising him from his prone condition, and not only making him stand upon his feet like a man, but actually giving him a man's heart-this, which seems as if it could scarcely be supposed to be the work of any but its Creator-this is a symbol of subversion, degradation, humiliation, and to meet this we are to imagine that the people of Babylon, living under the tyranny of the fierce lioness, went about vaunting themselves (poor creatures) as if they had been gods, until they became more "humane and gentle," and quite pleasant affable companions, by a bloody revolution which transferred them from the tyranny of one wild beast to that of another.

And what becomes of these "humane and gentle people thus transferred from the lion, or rather perhaps the fierce and still more cruel lioness, to the bear; and recently wakened up to a conviction that they are men, women, and children, and not gods at all? "The very learned Bochart," says Bishop Newton, "recounts several particulars wherein the Persians resembled bears." Very likely they might, for more or less resemblance may be traced in most nations. I have not Bochart's work at hand, and am not encouraged to seek for it by the bishop's adding, "but the chief likeness consisted in what I have mentioned;" for what

does the reader imagine that to have been ?—just this, "for their cruelty and greediness after blood they are compared to a bear, which is a most voracious and cruel animal." So that the "humane and gentle people, who, even if we are in this matter to discriminate between Babylonians, Medes, and Persians, must have formed the bulk of the population in the Medo-Persian empire, do not seem to have been very much improved either in nature or condition.

66

I do not, however, mean to say that I admit this as an explanation of the symbol. The Bishop suggests that the cruelty (of which he gives a horrible description) is intimated in the command, Arise, devour much flesh." It may be so; though I cannot help thinking that we might just as well argue that the issuing such a command implied that the beast was to be employed in doing what he would not do from mere natural instinct. But supposing it true, I doubt whether this makes it peculiarly fitted to the Bear compared with the Lion. The Bishop tells us, "A bear, saith Aristotle, is an all-devouring animal; and so saith Grotius the Medo-Persians were great robbers and spoilers according to Jeremiah, li. 48. 56." In a note the Bishop quotes the words of Grotius, "Ursus ζωον παμφαγον [animal omnia vorans] ait Aristoteles VIII. 5, sic Medopersæ magni prædones," &c. I doubt very much, not only whether this is a true account of the animal which divine wisdom selected for the symbol, but whether it is the account which Aristotle meant to give. It is clear and one would think it must

have been obvious to every reader of the philosopher, that by a pamphagous animal he meant one that would eat all sorts of food as contradistinguished from those animals who were select in their feeding, and specifically carnivorous, graminivorous, &c.

Delusive systems of interpretation are so commonly rendered plausible by this species of word-catching, that I cannot pass by this instance without one or two remarks.

1. Aristotle immediately explains what he means by adding, "for it eats fruit"; and having mentioned its climbing trees, and further specified leguminous produce, honey, crabs, and ants, as articles of its diet, he adds that it also eats flesh, kai σаρкоpауεi. But even when the brute becomes sarcophagous, it seems that he is so perverse as to do it in a way which renders him worth less than nothing to these commentators. Instead of exhibiting the "greediness after blood" which makes him a fit type of the Medes and Persians he makes a point of waiting till the flesh is putrid.

But suppose, on the other hand, that these Medes and Persians had been as much distinguished by moderation and philosophical abstemiousness, as they are said to have been by "cruelty and greediness after blood," how would interpreters have seized on the popular belief that bears can subsist for an almost incredible length of time on their own fat, and by sucking their own paws. Instead of the ingenious and acute Grotius, we should have heard of the profoundly learned Brucker, and the Vignette before his pro

foundly learned History of Philosophy, representing a bear thus supporting existence, with the motto, “IPSE ALIMENTA SIBI."

2. Let the reader suppose the Medes and Persians to be as cruel and bloodthirsty as Bishop Newton represents-let him read the disgusting account given by that writer about their skinning people alive, and so forth-let him also suppose the Bear to be the most cruel and bloodthirsty beast in nature, and therefore (indeed therefore chiefly, if not only) most fit to typify the bloodthirsty Medes and Persians; will he not be surprised to find these very same Medes and Persians symbolized by an animal that never thirsts after blood, and would not think of tasting flesh? Yet it is so. Commentators of this school may say what they please, about the Bear, but they cannot deny (for they are plainly told viii. 20) that the Ram represents the same Medo-Persian empire which they have, without any such warranty, assigned to the Bear. And this I cannot but consider as a part of the evidence that their scheme for interpreting the Vision of the Four Beasts is erroneous. More evidence will appear; in the mean time I make these remarks chiefly to put readers on their guard. Many of them by the time they come to the explanation of the Ram in the next chapter, have forgotten why they were called on to believe that the Medes and Persians resembled Bears.

To return then to Bishop Newton's interpretation of the Vision; I have already intimated that the long and short of it, backed by the great names which he