been to ventilate an immense vessel, more than twice the length of the largest ocean steam-ship1!

It is likewise certain, that the human race was not at that time (B.C. 2348) reduced to a single family of seven persons; for the greatest nations of primæval antiquity, such as the Egyptians and Assyrians, must have been settled and flourishing at the same period; which is ascertained, not only from the inscriptions of Egypt, but from the historical fact, that long intervals of time are absolutely requisite for the growth of any nation from a small colony of individuals, and equally so for the gradual formation of language and a settled government; in fact, the early origin of the great kingdoms known to the Hebrews at the period of the composition of Genesis may even then have been so remote, that no real history was probably in existence with respect to their aboriginal state, and the writer of the diluvial myth naturally introduced the popular opinions of his own time into the narrative.

Thus the earth was described as exempted from the divine curse after the deluge, in consequence of the grateful nature of a burnt sacrifice2 offered to the Deity: the allwise and allgracious God, with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turning, was represented as repenting that he had created the human race3, and he was supposed to have wished to destroy all terrestrial beings on account of the sins of the human race, and to have given a sanction to the cruel custom of sanguinary vengeance in case of bloodshed4.

More enlightened views of the divine character and

1 The Great Britain steam-ship is 289 feet in length, by 51 in its main breadth, and 324 in the depth of the hold; while the dimensions of the Ark (calculating the cubit at a Flemish ell of two feet three inches) would have been 675 feet in length, by 112 wide and 67 high.

2 Gen. viii. 21.

3 Gen. vi. 6.

4 Gen. ix. 5.

attributes were happily adopted in subsequent ages, and the ancient legend of the flood may now be regarded as a beautiful illustration of those early Hebrew ideas on retributive punishment and the peopling of the world', which have been necessarily modified by the gradual advancement of knowledge and civilization.]

1 The supposed renewal of animal life after the flood from single pairs of a large number of species does not accord with the investigations of science in modern times. Indeed it would have been impossible, in the case even of the lower animals, that a very small number of each species could have remained alive in the ordinary course of nature and in the midst of rapacious neighbours.

At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1846, Professor Agassiz, the greatest ichthyologist of our time, observed of certain species of freshwater fish, which are only found in the Danube, the Rhine and a few other European rivers, that these freshwater animals must have been created in the very streams in which they now live, and in the same proportion as at present. They leave the egg in so short a time, he said, that it was quite impossible that they could have been transported to the rivers in which they are living, either by birds or otherwise. The learned Dean of Westminster, Dr. Buckland, supported the view of Prof. Agassiz respecting the origin of the distribution of freshwater fishes; and remarked generally "the improbability that any herbivorous animals had been created in pairs only, as they would soon have been exterminated by the carnivorous species. He believed, that not only were groups of species created where they are now found, but also multitudes of individuals of each species."—Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1846, p. 1025.

202

CHAPTER X.

PEDIGREE OF THE DESCENDANTS OF NOAH.

An important ethnographical document is here presented, relating to the origin and descent of all the nations then known, arranged according to their probable connections, in which geographical position and language appear to have mainly guided the writer. A kind of system may thus be discerned in the plan pursued, and the genealogical table was separated into three large divisions, named from the three sons of Noah, their order being however transposed, so as to enable the narrator afterwards to pass directly from Shem to the Hebrew patriarchs.

In verses 2-5 are included the descendants of Japheth to the west and north beyond the Taurus as far as Media, and who may be regarded generally be regarded generally as the Caucasian tribes. Verses 6-20 include the descendants of Ham in the south; and from verse 21 to the end of the chapter the descendants of Shem, or the Semitic race, are enumerated. These principal branches have their offshoots, and the younger collateral member of the family, according to the intention of the author, is added as a son to the elder one; so that the whole genealogical table becomes in some measure a family tree, whilst the name of each people is mentioned as if it were the head of a race,-a mode of individualizing which imparts to the whole narrative an epic character'.

1 See Gesenius, in the Encycl. under Bibl. Geographie.

This form was sufficiently suited to a period antecedent to the advancement of civilization by historical research; and as the Greeks in a similar manner individualized Æolus, Dorus, Ion, Achæus, &c., in order to connect them genealogically with Deucalion1, so by a mixture of castes the Hindoos derived from their own stock all the neighbouring nations as well as barbaric tribes, and even foreign races whose names they had scarcely ever heard; and from the name of the people they formed that of a general patriarchal ancestor, who had fallen away from the Brahminical religion 2.

On the other hand, at a later period, after the introduction of Mahommedanism, the Arabians and Persians appropriated to themselves the Biblical genealogy, with a view to connect even the most scattered nations as far as possible with Noah and his sons. This adopted line of ancestors has been erroneously represented as originating in an independent tradition, which had been preserved among these nations.

In the fourth century, as is well known, Epiphanius advanced the opinion that Noah's three sons had met at Rhinokorura (in the north of Arabia Petræa), in order to divide the earth among themselves. The narrow-minded bishop of Brescia, Philastrius, enumerated the contrary

1 See Apollodor. Biblioth. ii. 1. [The offspring of Deucalion and Pyrrha, after the deluge, were two sons, Hellen and Amphictyon, and a daughter, Protogeneia. Hellen had three sons, Dorus, Xuthus and Æolus, among whom he divided his territory; Æolus reigned in Thessaly; Xuthus received Peloponnesus, and his sons were Achæus and Ion; while Dorus occupied the country lying opposite to the Peloponnesus, on the northern side of the Corinthian gulf: these three gave to the inhabitants of their respective countries the names of Æolians, Achæans and Ionians, and Dorians.-Grote's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 136.]

2 Menu 10, especially verses 22, 44.

3 Hæres. 66, 83.

opinion as the hundred-and-eighteenth heresy; and from his time, until Schlözer, it was a received article of faith among Christians to date the history of the world from the Flood, connecting with it the division of the earth among the sons of Noah,-an error which even the author of this genealogy himself could not have sanctioned, as in some instances he is manifestly doubtful, and in others he departs from his genealogy, or at least takes no pains to obviate the contradictions contained in it. It is true that the compiler had in view that generally trustworthy criterion of national affinity, language,-so far, that is to say, as he or the authority whom he followed were acquainted with it; and hence some facts in this table are ascertained to be correct, as for instance the original affinity of the Arabians and Æthiopians. Nevertheless many inaccuracies have crept in, of which some probably arose from ignorance, as the connection of Persia (Elam2) with the Semitic race; whilst others, which will be explained hereafter, were purposely admitted; and the occurrence

1 Thus in Gen. x. 7, Sheba and Dedan are the great grandsons of Ham, while in Gen. xxv. 3, they are the grandsons of Abraham: Joktan, in x. 25, is the son of Eber, who is the great grandson of Shem, and in xxv. 2, Jokshan is the son of Abraham. Aram is the son of Shem in x. 22, but the grandson of Nahar, brother of Abraham in xxii. 21, and Aran is the grandson of Seir in xxxvi. 28. Uz is the son of Aram in x. 23, and he appears again as the grandson of Seir in xxxvi. 28, while Huz (probably the same name) is the son of Nahor in xxii. 21.

2 [Elam may perhaps have corresponded with the territory of Elymais, in which case it would have been very near to Persia, and may have included the Persian nation. "The Elymæi, or Elamæi, seem to have been the oldest inhabitants not only of Susiana proper but also of Persia, whence the sacred writers, under the name of Elam, comprehended the country of the Persians in general." See Isaiah xxi. 2; Jer. xxv. 25, (all the kings of Elam and all the kings of the Medes); Ezra iv. 9 (the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites and the Elamites); Dan. viii. 2; Isaiah xxii. 6; Jer. xlix. 34.-Kitto's Cycl. of Biblical Literature, Art. "Elam."]