most unsettled tribe: but, in admitting this, we are compelled to the conclusion that the genealogical lists of the Bible are national and ethnographic rather than personal, that they are a form employed to express the author's views of the consanguinity of the tribes or families, and that they are generally the result of historical research, or, as in the instance under discussion, the reflex of the actual distribution of the Hebrew families in the author's time. The lists thus lose materially in their immediate value, since they have no literal truth; but they gain as essentially in historical importance: they are not domestic records, but comprehensive political documents. This fact, so momentous for the exposition of many portions of the Bible, and confirmed by almost all the lists hitherto explained, is strongly corroborated by the very difficulties just discussed. It is not the place here to examine in detail the table inserted in the Book of Chronicles, as many of its deviations occur in the subordinate branches here not introduced; but it may be observed, that it agrees much more with the list in Numbers than with that of this chapter: and this circumstance adds weight to the conjecture, probable in itself, that the list in Numbers is the more authentic one, because copied from the real division of the people; and that, therefore, in cases of discrepancy, it is of higher authority than that of Genesis, which is derived from the more uncertain sources of tradition.-To

sum up our estimate on the character of this genealogy, we remark, that the author, believing the immigration of seventy Israelites into Egypt to be a historical fact, made up that number by mentioning, in addition to the individuals introduced in the narrative, the founders of the Hebrew families existing in his time, unconcerned or forgetting that thus, including the wives and daughters alluded to by him, but perhaps no more known by name, the amount became considerably higher than seventy.

The sons are arranged according to their mothers; and as the children of the maids were regarded as those of their mistresses, the descendants of Zilpah follow after those of Leah, and the offspring of Bilhah after those of Rachel.

The text remarks the number of Leah's progeny, or "the sons and daughters" to have been thirty-three (ver. 15): considering this distinct statement, it is indeed a surprising peculiarity of the style, that thirty-two only are enumerated, and that as Leah had before died in Canaan (xlix. 31), Jacob himself is included in the former number, no doubt with reference to the introductory sentence, “The following came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons" (ver.8).

28-34. When the patriarch had arrived in the province of Goshen, named by Joseph as his future abode (xlv. 10), he sent Judah, distinguished by courage not less than by ability, to the royal residence, to announce him to Joseph, and to direct the

latter to that part of Goshen where he had halted, awaiting his son's arrival (ver. 28). On the one hand, his cattle prevented him from proceeding farther into the land; and, on the other hand, the filial affection of Joseph demanded that he should go to meet his venerable and much tried father. In the embrace of his son, Jacob found the sum of all earthly joys still left to him (ver. 30); and the sight of his father compensated Joseph for all his past sufferings, which he had not ceased to feel, even in the dazzling splendour of his greatness (xli. 52). He then concerted with his brothers the plan for obtaining Pharaoh's sanction to their residing in Goshen. His principal argument was, that in this province they would be withdrawn from the eyes of the Egyptians, who held all shepherds in abomination. The pastors formed in Egypt a considerable portion of the fourth caste, to which besides belonged poulterers, fowlers, fishermen, labourers, servants, and common people. The excellence of the pastures, the salubrity of the air, and the hereditary descent of the same occupation from father to son, so favourable to the accumulation of valuable experience, combined to bring the breeding of cattle at an early period to a very considerable degree of perfection; so that, for instance, the sheep regularly brought forth lambs, and were shorn twice every year. Yet the shepherds were deeply despised. Swineherds, almost shunned in India also, were not admitted in any Egyp

tian temple, and were allowed to intermarry only among themselves. On the sculptures, pastors invariably appear as "dirty and unshaven; and at Beni Hassan and the tombs near the pyramids of Geezeh they are found caricatured as a deformed and unseemly race." To express their utmost detestation against the two impious kings, Cheops and Chephren, who closed all temples and prohibited all sacrifices, the Egyptians called the pyramids they built not by their own names, but by the name of a shepherd, Philition. The intense contempt entertained against shepherds by a nation worshipping animals is not less curious than the animal worship itself; but it may be accounted for by the fact, that in each district some animals only were held sacred, while others were regarded as impure, as for instance the pig, the slightest contact with which rendered any one unclean, and obliged him to perform an ablution in the river; although, strangely enough, it was in certain seasons sacrificed to the moon and to Bacchus, no doubt as an emblem of prolificness; and on these occasions its flesh was freely eaten. If we hereto add, that the pastors were, by their occupation, accustomed to kill the sacred animals, we cannot doubt that the aversion borne against them was of a religious character, though it was naturally increased by their dependence, poverty, negligent habits, and consequent physical and mental degradation. It is scarcely plausible to ascribe it to "the previous occupation of Egypt by a pastor

race, who had committed great cruelties during their possession of the country": this opinion, based as it is on the uncertain event of the invasion of the Hycsos, leaves the fact unexplained why the Egyptians should have so thoroughly despised or "abominated" persons belonging to their own people, and forming a most useful, if not indispensable, class of society: though they might possibly, in many districts, have forced a subjugated tribe or people to tend their flocks, like a kind of Helots or Pariahs, and thus the contempt of the shepherds gradually spreading through the whole country might have been extended upon native Egyptians also. Nor can that animosity be attributed to the circumstance that the eastern boundaries of the land were constantly infested and endangered by nomadic shepherds, against whom the Egyptians were always compelled to send armies: such courage and valour would have inspired with respect rather than contempt a nation among which warriors occupied the second rank in society; and similar attacks could scarcely be apprehended from their own countrymen, settled and closely controlled in the interior of the land. Nor is it credible that the love of agriculture should have engendered a hatred against the breeding of cattle, perhaps supposed to be inseparable from savage barbarism: for, on the one hand, the Egyptians were not an exclusively agricultural people; and, on the other hand, the twopursuits referred to have such numerous interests

in common, and complete each other in so many respects, that a permanent antagonism between them is unnatural. It appears, indeed, that some portions of the Egyptians entertained more rational and more friendly feelings towards the feeders of their cattle; the inhabitants of the Mendesian district, for instance, honoured the goatherds, because they worshipped Pan in the goats, and observed general and public mourning on the death of a certain he-goat. -However, Jacob's family was superior to the generality of Egyptian pastors in one essential point. While the latter tended and provided for the herds and flocks of the rich, the former were themselves proprietors of large numbers of cattle, which they kept in accordance with their ancestral customs. This circumstance, though insufficient to remove the national prejudice against the occupation of the Hebrews, and therefore rendering their settlement at Goshen or Rameses, "the district of shepherds," advisable,necessarily raised their social position in the eyes of the Egyptians, who therefore at a later time did not scruple to enter with them into the most intimate and unreserved intercourse. Yet the temporary isolation of the Hebrews could not but be favourable for their special and peculiar development, and for the preservation of the purity of their faith, though, in the lapse of centuries, they had not moral fortitude enough to withstand the corrupting influence of Egyptian idolatry, by which they were ensnared to a very deplorable extent.

1-12. In conformity with the plan devised before, Joseph endeavoured to obtain Pharaoh's permission for the settlement of his family in Goshen, a district considered by him both for its position and its natural fertility peculiarly adapted for a colony of breeders of cattle. The five brothers presented by him to the king distinctly named that province, once more repeating that their occupation had been hereditary in their family for generations, since they regarded this circumstance both as congenial to Egyptian feeling, and as a powerful reason for their perfect seclusion in a separate and agricultural district. Pharaoh, in granting this request, addressed his reply, not to the brothers, but, in order to invest it with official dignity, to Joseph, his grand-vizier; though not so authoritative as on a previous occasion, it is certainly not less formal; and in order to manifest his undiminished benevolence towards the strangers, he not only modified his former general permission by specifying Goshen as that "best part" of the country where they were to settle; but he added, as a new favour, his readiness to appoint them his own head-shepherds, functionaries of no little influence in the households of eastern princes, and deemed sufficiently important to be enumerated among the chief public officials: and as if once more, and in the very presence

of the brothers, to show the unlimited confidence he placed in Joseph's wisdom and perfect integrity, he committed the decision to his discretion, certain that not even the strongest affection for his family would bias his judgment to the prejudice of the royal interests. It seems that Joseph took every precaution to let his brothers appear as harmless and inoffensive shepherds, not likely at any future period to become dangerous to the safety or tranquillity of the state; they were merely come "to sojourn in the land"; the cause of their change of abode was exclusively the want of pasturage in Canaan, as if they contemplated to return thither after the expiration of the years of famine; and they explicitly stated, "we were herdsmen from our youth to this time, both we and our fathers" (xlvi. 34).—It may be surprising that only after the interview of the brothers was finished, and had been attended with the desired result, Joseph introduced his father separately to Pharaoh (ver.7). But this circumstance is interestingly significant in more than one respect. The meeting between the king of Egypt and the representatives of the future tribes of Israel, was designed to possess a public and political character; it was intended to show that the privileges were granted to them in due form; and Joseph's presence has here a similar im

portance as that of Phichol, the statecouncillor, at the conclusion of the treaty between the king of the Philistines and Abraham (see pp. 285, 286). But the interest taken by Pharaoh in Jacob was purely personal; and as if to express this in some striking manner, the king, avoiding all allusion to public matters, inquired after his age (ver. 8): which question, if indeed trivial, is judiciously chosen, not only to mark the private character of the interview, but to elicit an answer full of interest, and affording another reason why Jacob was not before presented to Pharaoh. The patriarch, though far from having reached the age which had hitherto been usual in his family, and irrespective of the rapid decrease of his vital powers, had, in his mind, concluded his earthly career: he either dwells with his reminiscences on the tempestuous and gloomy past, or he anticipates with his thoughts the eventful future, either his own death and burial, or the last prophetic blessings to be bestowed on his sons and grandsons; he has renounced the present; he has retired from the stage of active life, and yielded it to his sons, who henceforth occupy the foreground in the progress of events; the real "history" of Jacob ceases with his arrival in Goshen, and that of the next generation begins: though still for a while hovering over the scene, he appears like the herald of remote occurrences, and like a spirit almost impatiently hast

ening beyond the boundaries of Time to the spheres of Eternity. But though, from these reasons, his presence would have been inappropriate, when the political and social position of the tribes was discussed; he was personally an individual so venerable, and so important by the ideas embodied in his life, that it would have been a serious omission had he not been brought before the king, to express his long and varied experience in a few words equally characterised by melancholy and resignation (ver. 9). It will ever be a matter of surpassing interest to contemplate the aspiring but crafty Jacob gradually become the conqueror Israel; to pursue the phases by which the spiritual birthright, dishonestly wrested from Esau, was by misfortune, repentance, and atonement, ultimately deserved and permanently maintained; and to consider that when the season of prosperity at length arrived, Jacob was unable to enjoy it, because, though at peace with himself and reconciled with God, he felt the oppressive burden of his past miseries, the consequence of early sins. However, the uncertain wanderings of the Hebrews were now for several successive centuries to give way to a more constant mode of life; Joseph assigned to his brothers and their families "possessions" in the land of Goshen, where their descendants long resided in undisturbed tranquillity, growing in numbers and in wealth; till their