dedicated to this god. Remeses is called in it, "beloved of Hapi Môou, the father of the gods." "The passage which contains the praise of the god of the Nile, represents him at the same time as the heavenly Nile, the primitive water, the great Nilus, whom Cicero* declares to be the father of the highest deities, even of Ammon; and of this I am myself also convincedt from other inscriptions on the monuments.” Yet far more convincing than the knowledge of Egyptian affairs which the author exhibits, is here also the unpremeditated manner in which he exhibits this knowledge, and the want of every explanatory remark, resting upon the supposition, that such a thing is not necessary for his immediate readers. The Second Plague-the Frogs. The account of the second plague, the frogs, furnishes us far less abundant spoil than that of the first. It is implied in the account itself, in chap. 8: 5, that the waters of Egypt, even in ordinary circumstances, contain many frogs; and from the nature of these waters, we could scarcely imagine it to be otherwise. The statements of travellers in regard to this are, however, very scanty. Hasselquist mentions frogs among the Mosaic plagues which even now visit both natives and foreigners. According to Sonnini, the stagnant waters about Rosetta are filled with thousands of frogs, which make very much noise.|| * De nat. Deor. "Anaglyphum in vico Karnak repertuin," remarks Creuzer, (in Comm. Herod. p. 212,) who also, pp. 186-188, treats expressly of the divine honors paid to the Nile, "terna Pharaonis initia exhibit. Etenim primo loco sacerdotes eum aspergunt lustrantque sacra unda Nili," etc. Compare also upon the deity of the Nile, Jabl. Panth. t. 2. p. 171. + p. 254. § Th. III. S. 365. || An account of the different kinds of frogs in Egypt is found in the Descr. t. 24. p. 134 seq. That a sudden appearance of animals,—which though always present in a land, ordinarily are scarcely noticed at all,in untold numbers so as to become a plague, has not been unknown in Egypt at other times, is shown by what M acrizi says of the destructions by worms: "In 791-2, the worms which destroyed books and woollen cloth, multiplied in a wonderful manner. A credible man assured us, that these animals ate 1500 pieces of cloth-more than fifteen camel loads. I was persuaded from what I myself saw, that this declaration was not exaggerated, and that the worms had destroyed in the region of the sea, a great quantity of wood and cloth. I saw at Matariah, garden-walls which were entirely pierced through by these little animals. About the year 821, this plague made its appearance in the quarter of Hosaïnïah, just out of Cairo. The worms, after they had consumed provisions, cloth, etc., which caused an incalculable loss to the inhabitants, seized upon the walls of the houses, and gnawed the rafters until they were pierced entirely through. The owners quickly tore down the buildings which the worms had spared, so that the quarter near was entirely laid waste. These animals carried their devastations even to the houses which stand hard by the Gate of Conquest and Victory." The Third Plague-the, Gnats. As respects the third plague, it is now generally agreed, that by □, kinnim, gnats are meant. These are even in ordinary years very troublesome in Egypt. Herodotus,t as early as his time, speaks of the great trouble which the gnats cause, and of the precautions which are taken to guard against them. The passages in modern travellers are collected in Oedmann,‡-according to the testimony of Maillet f B. 2. c. 195. ‡ I. S. 74 ff. * In Quatremère, t. 1. p. 121. and Pococke, they often darken the air in Cairo,— in Hartmann,* and last in Eichhorn.t Hartmann comprises the results in the following words: "All travellers speak of these gnats as an ordinary plague of the country. In cool weather they are especially bold. They pursue the men, prevent them from eating, disturb their sleep, and cause swellings which are sensibly painful. What Sonnini‡ says of these gnats, in his account of his abode in Rosetta, is of peculiar interest: "It is asserted that the multitude of gnats, with which the streets and the inside of the houses were then filled, owe their origin to this employment (the drying of rice about the end of October). Indeed, there are fewer of them at other times. After the rice harvest, they go forth in multitudes from the overflowed fields in which the preceding generation laid their eggs. They come to trouble men, they make wounds, in order to suck their blood, not less burning than those of the Maringonins of South America." These passages show that the time of the extraordinary public calamities corresponded merely to that of the extraordinary plague. The first plague, the changing of water to blood, transfers us to the period of the increase of the Nile, the gnats begin to multiply at the end of the inundation. The Fourth Plague—the Flies. The animals which constitute the fourth plague are designated by y, arob. This word originally can scarcely have any other signification than the mingling, but it was secondarily applied to a distinct species of animals, which in Egypt especially compose the vermin or insects. That they were flies is argued: 1. From the authority of the Septuagint, which translates y, by dog-fly, Kvvouvia. 2. From the appropriate connection of gnats and flies. 3. From the fact that flies belong to the common inconveniences of Egypt. Th. 1. S. 246. * S. 250. + S. 17, 18. How troublesome flies are in Egypt even in ordinary circumstances, is most clearly shown by the description of Sonnini:* "The most numerous and troublesome insects in Egypt are the flies (musca domestica L.) Men and animals are grievously tormented by them. It is impossible to form an adequate conception of their fury when they wish to fix themselves upon any part of the body. If they are driven away, they light again the same instant, and their pertinacity wearies the most patient. They especially love to light in the corners of the eyes, or on the edge of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which they are attracted by a slight moisture." The description of the dog-fly by Philot is, for substance, entirely in accordance with this account. By this name insects incredibly monstrous are often designated. Aside from a little exaggeration, it is impossible to disbelieve in Philo. The name, dog-fly, is probably chosen to distinguish these insects from another very widely diffused species of flies, which is smaller and less troublesome. Abdollatiph§ says: "In consequence of the great dampness of the air, bugs, flies and fleas continue here a great part of the year." In Jomard, just as here, flies and gnats are associated together, as plagues of Egypt: "The remark also that these cold seasons free the land from the plague of innumerable flies and gnats, whose bites are so troublesome and painful.” As the threatened plague made its appearance, Pharaoh caused Moses and Aaron to be called and said to them: "Sacrifice to your God in the land." But Moses answered: "It is not meet to do so; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. If we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us?" Ex. chap. 8: 22(26), That there is here a reference to Egyptian customs has always been acknowledged, * Th. 3. S. 226. + See in proof of this Michaelis Suppl. p. 1960, p. 2. 512. § p. 5. De Sacy. According to the common theory, the very bitter exasperation to be apprehended by the Israelites from the Egyptians, was because the latter sacrificed animals which the former considered sacred. But there are two arguments against this supposition: 1. The designation, abomination, is not appropriate to the consecrated animals. This indicates that the animals which the Israelites slaughtered were not too good, but too bad for offerings. 2. The animals which were commonly taken among the Israelites for offerings were also among the Egyptians not sacred. The only one of the larger domestic animals which was generally considered as sacred, the cow,* was also among the Israelites except in the case in Num. xix, which is entirely by itself, not offered. The animals most commonly sacrificed, oxen, were also both sacrificed and eaten by the Egyptians. The offence is rather that the Israelites omit the inquiry concerning the cleanness of animals, which is practised with the greatest caution by the Egyptians. That only clean animals were sacrificed by the Egyptians, Herodotus says, in 2. 45, where he acquits the Egyptians from the imputation of offering human sacrifices: "For since they are not allowed to sacrifice any animals except the swine and the bullock, and calves, namely, those that are clean among them, and the goose, how can they offer men?" What stress is laid upon cleanness, and how truly it is considered as an abomination to offer an unclean animal, is seen from Herodotus. Only a red ox could be offered, and a single black hair rendered it unclean. They also placed dependence upon a multitude of marks besides this; the tongue and tail were accurately examined, etc. Each victim must, after a prescribed examination in confirmation of its fitness, be sealed on the horns. To offer an unsealed ox was prohibited on penalty of death.f * Compare Herod. B. 2. c. 41. Heeren, S. 363. t B. 2. c. 38. See also Bähr on the passage, The intolerant fanaticism of the Egyptians, which the answer of |