stitute so close an inspection of them, that they consider the animal unfit for sacrifice if a single black or white hair is found on him." Besides, says Plutarch, the Egyptians celebrated certain feast days, on which they, in order to revile and disgrace Typhon, abused men who had red hair. Diodorus, of Sicily, says, in ancient times the Egyptians offered men, who like Typhon had red hair, at the tomb of Osiris.

1

Now, the choice of red colour to designate the evil and the base is not certainly arbitrary. It depends in all probability among the Egyptians, as among the Hebrews, upon the fact that red is the colour of blood.2 Thence it might be supposed that both of these nations came, independently of one another, to one and the same symbolic designation. With reference to this, it is proper to remark further, that these two are the only nations among whom red is found as a fixed and nationally recognised designation of evil, and that the connection of the colour with the thing designated is a looser one, than, for example, in the case of white as the colour of innocence, and black as the colour of mourning, then also, it may be added, that among both these nations this symbolic view obtains influence directly upon the offering of sacrifices, among the Israelites only in particular cases, but among the Egyptians generally. If we take this into consideration, a dependence of one of these nations upon the other will appear very probable, and then we can decide for ourselves whether the origin of the symbolic designation was not among the Egyptians.

Finally, it is evident from the foregoing remarks, that the Egyptian reference in Num. xix. by no means respects the whole rite, but is a very partial one; it is limited to the identity of the symbolic import of the red colour, to which may perhaps also be added, that the colour has an influence in the choice of the

11. 88.

According to Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 234, Typhon has the red colour, "as the personified burning heat, which dries up the fertilizing Nile, and scorches every thing." But no proof for this derivation of the red colour is adduced. We could quote in our favour Goulianof, who in the Archéologie Eg. Leipz. 1839, t. 3. p. 89 seq. has a separate section entitled: Etude des allegories de la couleur rouge, in which it is attempted to show, that red as the colour of blood is the colour of impiety. Compare the section, p. 422, seq.: Etude des allég. attaches a la couleur pourpre ou éccarlate. But we do not consider him as good authority.

1

victim. There is no direct authority for finding, with Spencer,2 who has followed Thomas Aquinas and Du Voisin, in the choice of the heifer instead of the bullock, which on other occasions was taken, a reference, and indeed a hostile one, to an Egyptian custom, he supposes the designation of the heifer for an offering of purification is a practical derision of the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow, since the choice of the heifer is sufficiently explained by the reasons already given, without such a reference. Yet it may be remarked, that the position taken by us, by no means excludes the reference claimed by Spencer, but, on the other hand, both may very easily be reconciled. If the heifer was chosen instead of the bullock commonly offered, in order to designate it as impersonated sin, there would even in this be found the strongest opposition to the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow.

LAWS WITH REFERENCE TO FOOD.

The Egyptians and the Israelites stand alone among the nations of antiquity, in reference to the great care which they bestowed upon the selection of food. Among both, regulations of this kind had extensive influence. Through these laws, some of the most important means of subsistence were either withdrawn, or at least made odious, as, for example, fish, which could not be

1 Witsius, Aeg. p. 115, seeks to destroy the connection between the red bullock which was sacrificed by the Egyptians and the red heifer, by the following remarks: Aegyptii rufos boves immolabant non quod pretiosiores eos aut diis suis gratiores esse existimarent, sed ex odio et contemptu. Dictabant enim θύσιμον οὐ φίλον εἶναι θεοῖς. (Compare Schmidt, De Sacerdotibus et Sacrif. Aeg. Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2, S. 237.) But if the significance of the red colour of the heifer is correctly determined, this remark serves rather to bring both nearer each other.

2 This author, p. 486, after he has referred to passages by which it is proved that the cow is considered sacred among the Egyptians, says: Cum itaque eo dementiae et impietatis prolapsi essent Aeg., ut vaccam tanto cultu studioque honorarent: deus vaccam multa cum cerimonia mactari voluit et lixivium ex illius ceneribus ad populi immunditias expurgandas confici; ut Aeg. vanitatem sugillaret et per hanc disciplinam, cum Aegypti more sensuque pugnantem, Israelite ad cultus illius vaccini contemptum atque odium sensim perducerentur.

eaten by the priests,' and the leguminous fruits. How much the regulations which had reference to food influenced them in life, is best shown by the passages collected by Spencer.3

This fact indeed leads us to conjecture, that the Israelitish laws respecting food were not without an allusion to Egyptian customs. If no such thing is supposed, the coincidence perceived between the two nations appears very remarkable. That the admission of such a reference detracts from the dignity of the Israelitish law, no one should affirm. This depends wholly upon the manner in which the reference is understood. That a distinction of food originated very anciently, is indeed certain without argument, since the different nature of animals, in very many respects, speaks a language of signs, clear without reasoning to the allegorizing mind of antiquity. Thus, we find, even in the time of the flood, the distinction made between the clean and unclean beasts and birds. But that a beginning merely was made so anciently, these same passages show, since there is not a trace of a distinction between the clean and unclean wild beasts found in them. Now in Egypt from these first elements a complete system was formed. The Mosaic code of laws found a people which was accustomed to a distinction of food of extensive application. In these circumstances it was natural,-which, in case the Israelites yet occupied the position of the patriarchs, would have been entirely unnatural,—that the laws of diet had reference, not merely to individual things, but that they extended into the whole province concerned, even to its furthest limits, and arranged all its parts with respect to the fundamental idea of the Israelitish religion. The fear of too great minuteness could not here have had any place, since the laws were made for a people accustomed to law, and its advantages and blessings would not be allowed to remain unenjoyed. Besides, if the ground had been left unoccupied, it would have been immediately seized upon, or rather retained in possession by the opposer, whom it was important to expel from the borders of the Israelitish jurisdiction in which he had already so strongly intrenched himself.

1 See Herod. 2. 37. Plut. De Isid. et Os. p. 363.

2 Larcher zu Herod. 2. S. 252 ff.

Page 130. See also the wonderful passage of Porphyry, De Abstinentia, B. 4, c. 7.

Gen. vii. 2, 3; viii. 20.

Not the existence alone of certain dietetic rules is common to the Egyptians and Israelites, but they also both agree in this, that these regulations have in them a religious-ethical significance. In respect to those of the Israelites, this could be denied, and a mere dietetic object asserted only in a time, which through its peculiar impiety has lost the key to those phenomena which take root on religious ground. From the reception of dietetic reasons merely, the designation of animals not to be eaten as unclean, an abomination, a terror, is not accounted for, neither is the founding of the prohibition, on the declaration that Israel" is a consecrated people to the Lord its God," nor this command, "its dead body you shall not touch." This permission, "To the stranger which is in thy gates mayest thou give it, that he may eat it, or thou mayest sell it to a stranger," is also explainable only on the supposition that the uncleanness was founded on symbolic reasons, which applied only to the Israelites. We have in Deut. xxiii. 18 (19), as good as an express declaration of the reason of the prohibition of certain kinds of food: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog, i. e. (as appears from ver. 17 [18,]) of licentious men, into the house of the Lord." From which we see that the dog and other animals placed on an equality with it, as the representatives of moral uncleanness, were unclean. Indeed, in accordance with the general character of the law, it cannot be supposed to have a dietetic object. Moses would fall entirely below his station, if he here for the time acted as a mere guardian of health by appealing to the fears of the people.1

That also among the Egyptians the prohibitions of food rest on religious-moral grounds, cannot be doubted. They abstain from that food which stands in any supposed relation to Typhon, the evil principle; and the reason of the hatred against certain animals lies, among them, above all in this, that they are considered the representatives and the physical manifestation of Typhon, as Typhoically infected. Thus they abstain, according to Plutarch, from fish, because they come out of the sea, which belongs to the dominion of Typhon. The swine was hated by them,

1 Besides, even Spencer argued against the dietetic view: "deum animalia nonnulla inter impura imposuisse, quae veterum gula non tantum salubria sed mensarum suarum delitias habuit," e. g. the hare.

De Isid. p. 363.

on account of its filthy habits, as the incarnation of the unclean spirit." In general," says Plutarch, "they consider all hurtful plants and animals, as well as all unfortunate events, as the acts of Typhon." To the religious significance, a moral was joined. The representatives of Typhon, in the animal kingdom, were considered at the same time as symbols of the men devoted to him. "The guilty person," remarks Champollion," appears under the figure of huge swine, upon which is written, in great letters, 'gormandizing and gluttony,' without doubt the capital crime of the culprit, perhaps of a glutton of that time."

But together with this agreement between the Egyptian and the Israelitish regulations in respect to food, there is a very important difference, which is adapted to meet all apprehensions which might arise from a supposed too near contact of the two, and which fully excludes the supposition of a crude transferring of a heathenish institution. Among the Egyptians, the separation between the rational and irrational creation was removed,3

1 Compare upon the relation in which unclean animals are placed to Typhon, Jablonski Panth. Aeg. 3. p. 67, 8.

Briefe, S. 153.

The notions of the Egyptians with regard to animals, were, many of them, strange and exceedingly ridiculous. Many of them were looked upon as deities, and worshipped, throughout the country. Others were mere emblems of the gods. Some were honoured as good, and others were execrated as bad. The same animal was venerated in one province, and served up, as a delicacy of the table, in another. Keepers, of both sexes, were appointed to take charge of the sacred animals, and a revenue was provided for the maintenance both of the keepers and the animals. This employment was considered particularly honourable, and was executed by persons of the first caste. While living, animals were treated with all the respect which belongs to the most honoured human beings; and although they could neither understand nor enjoy them, were provided with all the luxuries and surrounded by all the comforts which wealth can bestow; and when they died, they were lamented and embalmed as if they were most dear friends. Different authors have attempted to account for these facts in different ways. After enumerating several theories, Wilkinson (Manners and Customs, Second Series, Vol. II. p. 108) says: "It is therefore evident, that neither the benefits derived by man from the habits of certain animals, nor the reputed reasons for their peculiar choice as emblems of the gods, were sufficient to account for the reverence paid to many of those they held sacred. Some, no doubt, may have been indebted to the first-mentioned cause; and, however little connection appears to subsist between these animals and the