fore the LORD, and he said, Who am I, O LORD God? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto ?

Pococke has given the figure of a person half sitting and half kneeling, that is, kneeling so as to rest the most muscular part of his body on his heels. This, he observes, is the manner in which inferior persons sit at this day before great men, and is considered as a very humble posture. In this manner, probably, David sat before the Lord, when he went into the sanctuary, to bless him for his promise respecting his family.-HARMER.

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts.

See on 2 Sam. 12. 31.

David had scarce ended his wars with the Philistines, but he was engaged in another with the Moabites, of which the scripture history gives, as I understand it, the following account. "He also smote Moab, and he measured them by a line," i. e. in one tract of the country, to throw them down level with the ground. Then he measured out two tracts, one to put to death, and one full tract to preserve alive; and Moab became David's servants, bringing him gifts. When he had beat the Moabites, he ordered a general survey to be made of the whole country; in one part or tract of which he levelled Moab with the ground, i. e. razed so many of their towns and fortresses, as he thought necessary to secure his conquest. He then proceeded to animadvert on the inhabitants, measuring out two tracts, or parts of the country; one line or tract for death, and the fulness of a line, a very large tract of the country, to keep alive, i. e. to cut off the inhabitants of the one, those who had been most active in the war against him, and to preserve the far larger part of them alive; and thus made the whole nation tributary to his crown. Who was the aggressor in these two last actions, the scripture history doth not determine. Some authors seem inclined to give David the credit of it, though without any shadow of proof. I apprehend the contrary may be collected from what the Psalmist says: "That Edom, Moab, Ammon, Amalek, the Syrians under Hadadezer, and other nations, had consulted together with one consent to cut off Israel from being a nation; and that the name of Israel might be no more in remembrance. This seems plainly to refer to the history of the wars with these very nations, related in Samuel. Against such a cruel confederacy as this, David had a right to defend himself, and to take such a vengeance on his enemies, as was necessary to his own and his people's future safety. If this powerful league, to extirpate the Israelites, was a justifiable compact, because Israel was a common enemy, who ravaged ad libitum, not from the common misunderstanding of states, but from an insatiable appetite for blood and murder, as some writers choose to represent them; it will certainly follow, that there may be occasions that will justify this severe execution, in the utter excision of nations; and that if the Moabites, Amalekites, Philistines, and other nations, were common enemies to the Hebrews, and ravaged them, ad libitum, from an insatiable appetite for blood and murder, David had a right to extirpate them, whenever he could, without deserving the charge of barbarity, and a blood-thirsty spirit. This was certainly the character of many of the enemies of the Hebrew nation, but can never be applicable to the Hebrews themselves. It is allowed, that they were to maintain a perpetual hostility with, and extirpate, if they could, the seven nations, because God had proscribed them, and their own prosperity, and almost being, depended on it. But as to the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, they were expressly forbid to meddle with them, and invade any of their territories, by beginning hostilities against them. And from the whole history of the Hebrew nation, from their first settlement in Canaan, to their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, there is scarce one instance

to be produced, of their invading the neighbouring nations, without being first attacked by them, or of their plundering them any further than as their victories over them, gained in their own defence, gave them a right to it, by the common usages and laws of war. During the period preceding the regal government, we read of nothing almost but their grievous oppressions by the Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Midianites, Philistines, and other neighbouring nations, who forced them into dens, mountains, and strongholds, deprived them of all manner of arms for their defence, and destroyed the increase of their lands, so that there was no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass. But we have not a single intimation of the Hebrews invading, plundering, and destroying them. And indeed it was not possible that as a nation they could, during this long period, make any considerable invasions upon the neighbouring states. For they had no kings, no settled government, no generals and captains to lead them, traordinary manner, and at particular seasons, being nor standing armies to protect them; God, in a very expleased to raise them up proper persons, to give them some temporary relief from those who enslaved and despoiled them; which made them at last resolve to have a king, who might be always ready to protect and defend them. They were in themselves an easy quiet people, never inured to war, employed in husbandry, and raising of cattle; and so far from being a common enemy to all the nations round them, as that they took every method to cultivate their friendship, taking their daughters to be their wives, and giving their daughters to their sons, forsaking their own God, and following after the gods of every neighbouring nation. And yet they were almost perpetually under oppression, and their too great fondness to be on good terms with their oppressors, was the very reason why God sold them into their enemies' hands, and suffered them so often to groan, by turns, under the yoke of every petty state, that had a mind to enslave them. And as for David, he had hitherto been engaged in no wars against any of his neighbours, except two defensive ones against the Philistines; who, upon his first accession to the throne of Israel, invaded his dominions, with an intention to deprive him of his kingdom, or render him and his people wholly dependant on their power. If therefore the Moabites joined in the confederacy with the Ammonites, Edomites, Philistines, and others, to extirpate the Hebrew nation, David treated them with comparative lenity and moderation, if he cut off even two thirds of them, whom he found in arms against him; and especially, if he put to the sword but one half of them, who intended his utter destruction, and the entire extirpation of his people. And as this is certain, that the Amalekites, Philistines, Moabites, and other nations, were perpetual and inveterate enemies to the Hebrews, and invaded them whenever they were able, the Hebrews had a right to make reprisals, to attack them on every occasion that offered, and to treat them with that severity, that was necessary to their own peace and safety for the future. I may add, what Bishop Patrick and others_observe, that the Jewish writers affirm, that David exercised this severity on the Moabites, because they had slain his parents and brethren, whom he committed to the custody of the king of Moab, during his exile. But I lay no great stress on this tradition, as it is wholly unsupported by the scripture history; and because David's treatment of them is sufficiently justified by the ancient law of nations; as to which my reader will be abundantly satisfied by consulting Grotius. CHANDLER.

The war laws of the Israelites are detailed by Moses in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy. I shall at present only take notice of those particulars that relate to the course they were to pursue towards foreign nations, and postpone those that regard levies, the division of plunder, &c. until I come to treat of private law. Of a declaration of war, before proceeding to hostilities, Moses says nothing; and, therefore, seems not to have deemed it so indispensably necessary as the Romans did. The disputes concerning its necessity are so well known, that I shall not trouble my readers with any remarks upon them. At present, we do not consider this solemnity as at all essential to the lawfulness of a war, but commence hostilities without any previous announcement of our intention, whenever we conceive that the injuries offered us require them. Moses appears (Numb. xxxi.) to have done the same; and to have

attacked the Midianites, without giving them time to arm; and hence (ver. 49) he did not lose a single man, which would otherwise have been incomprehensible. The word NY, so often repeated in that chapter, and probably wrong pointed by the Jews, signifies in Arabic, an inroad, or attack by surprise. On the other hand, it was the injunetion of Moses, that a hostile city should be summoned before an attack, and if it surrendered without fighting, that its inhabitants should have their lives granted, upon the condition of becoming tributaries. If, however, a city should make resistance, then all the men in it were to be put to the sword; and the women and children to become captives to the Israelites. The former of these particulars, viz. massacring all the men, stamps their war law with a much greater degree of severity than is manifested in ours; for although we must take into the account, that among ancient nations all the males who could bear arms actually did so when it was necessary, and that there was no such distinction between soldier and citizen as among us; yet even in the case of a city being taken by storm, we are wont to give quarter; and no Frenchman will have any anxiety to be reminded that bois-le-duc forms a solitary exception to this practice. Still, however, it is not contrary to the law of nature, if we get the upper hand, to kill our enemy, who either himself bears arms in order to kill us, or hires others in his room for that purpose. The Israelites could not regulate their conduct by our more merciful law of nations, which is, by several thousand years, of later date; but they acted precisely as their vanquished foes would have done, had they been lucky enough to have been the conquerors; and they therefore merit the praise of magnanimity, if, to lessen the evils of war, we see them refraining in the smallest degree from insisting on requital of like for like to the utmost. The enemies with whom the Israelites had to do, were wont not merely to put the vanquished to death, but at the same time to exercise great cruelties upon them. The Bible is full of relations to this purport. Sometimes infants and sucklings were massacred, and their bodies collected into heaps; for which we find in Hebrew a particular term, ; sometimes pregnant women were ripped up, 2 Kings viii, 12. Amos i. 13; sometimes people were laid upon thorns, and put to death with thrashing wains, Judg. viii. 7-16. Ámos i. 3. Sometimes even royal princes were burnt alive, 2 Kings iii. 27. I will not relate all the cruelties of those nations with whom the Israelites had to carry on war, and might, according to the law of nature, have repaid like for like. The law of nations, according to which the Israelites had to act, was made by those nations themselves; for this law is founded on the manners of nations, and on the permission which we have to treat others as they treat us. If we do not choose to confine our attention to the details given in scripture, we may resort to profane history, where we shall find the Romans (who behaved to their enemies much more harshly than we do) complaining of the barbarous conduct of the Carthaginians towards their prisoners; and these Carthaginians were the direct descendants of those Canaanites, and had an Asiatic law of nations. We need not, therefore, now wonder that David (2 Sam. viii. 2) should have made the vanquished Moabites lie down together on the ground, and with a measuringline have marked off two thirds of them for death, and spared the remaining third, after being thus subjected to the fear of sharing the fate of their brethren. He acted here with more clemency than the Mosaic law prescribed, by which he would have been justified in putting them all to death. For as to the assertion of some writers, that the severe law of Moses on this point did not extend beyond the Canaanites, it is contrary to the clearest evidence; for Moses expressly says, (Deut. xx. 15, 16, compared with 13,) "Thus shalt thou do unto those cities which are far from thee, and not of the cities of these nations; but of those nations whose land Jehovah giveth thee, thou shalt let nothing that breatheth live." David acted with much greater severity (2 Sam. xii. 31) to the inhabitants of Rabbah, the Ammonitish capital. He put them all to death together, and that with most painful and exquisite tortures; which, however, were not unusual in other countries of the East. But we must consider how very different this war was from other wars. The Ammonites had not only resisted to the last extremity, (which alone by the Mosaic law was sufficient to justify the victors in putting them to death,)

but they had, moreover, by their gross contempt of the ambassadors whom David had sent with the best intentions, been guilty of a most outrageous breach of the law of nations, and manifested their implacable hatred against the Israelites. They shaved half their beards, (an insult which, according to the account of D'Arvieux, the Arabs of the present day reckon as great an evil as death itself,) and then they cut off the lower half of their garments, and in this ignominious plight sent them back into their own country. Nor was this so much the particular act of the Ammonitish king, as of his principal subjects, who had incited him to it, (2 Sam. x. 3,) which so much the more clearly demonstrated their universal enmity against the Israelites; and a violation of the law of nations so very unusual justly provoked them to take severer revenge, than they were wont to exercise in common wars.

If we admit the maxim, that the law both of nature and nations allows me to treat my enemies as they, if victorious, would have treated me, the story in 1 Sam. xi. 2 furnishes a strong vindication of David's conduct. These same Ammonites had, in the beginning of his predecessor's reign, been so extremely cruel as to grant to the Israelitish city, Jabesh, which they had invested, and which was inclined to surrender without resistance, no other terms of capitu. lation than that, by way of insult to the Israelites in general, all its inhabitants should submit to have their right eyes put out. Now to an enemy of this description, and who at last seized their ambassadors, whose persons the laws both of nations and nature hold sacred, could any punishment in use in the East, have been too cruel ?-We find, however, that the character of the Ammonites was the same in every age. The prophet Amos (i. 13) speaks of them as ripping up the bellies of women with child, not in the fury of a storm, but deliberately, in order to lessen the number of the Israelites, and thus to enlarge their own borders. If these acts of David, then, appear to us, I will not say severe, (for who will deny that? or who that lives in our days would not wish to have acted differently in his place?) but unjust, it is owing, either to our confounding the modern with the ancient law of nations, or with the law of nature itself; and thus judging of them by quite a different rule from that which we are wont to apply to similar actions, which we know from our youth. I may at any rate put this question, "Has a magistrate a right to proceed more severely against a band of robbers than one nation against another, that has behaved with as much hostility and cruelty as robbers can do ?"-If it is answered, "Yes, for the robbers are subjects;"-then would robbers, particularly if natives of foreign lands, in order to escape painful deaths, have only to declare, that they wish to be considered not as subjects, but as enemies; since they do not generally desire the protection of the magistrate, but have their abode in the forests. But on such banditti we inflict, not merely capital punishment, but that punishment aggravated by torture; as, for instance, breaking on the wheel. Now, if this is not unjust, and if a robber, even though a foreigner, cannot with effect urge against it the plea of wishing to be treated as an enemy; certainly David's procedure towards the Ammonites, who had in fact been more cruel to the Israelites than most modern banditti are wont to be, should not be condemned as absolutely unjust; although, no doubt, it would have been much more laudable if he had displayed greater clemency and magnanimity. Further; as we in our childish years read the Roman authors, who think and write with great partiality for their countrymen, we are commonly impressed with very favourable ideas of the moderation and equity of the Roman people in war. But these ideas are by no means just; for the Romans, except when their own interest required the contrary, were a severe people; and with so much the worse reason, that their wars, in which they manifested such inexorable severity, were for the most part unjust. This people, of whose war laws we are apt to think so highly, for a long time, even to the days of Cæsar, massacred their prisoners in cold blood, whenever they survived the disgrace of the triumph; and they very frequently put to death the magistrates and citizens of conquered cities, after making them undergo a flagellation, which, perhaps, in point of physical pain, was not different from the punishments inflicted by David on the Ammonites. Lacerare who remarks, that by reason of these inexorable severities, corpora virgis is the phrase in which it is described by Livy,

(of which we know nothing in our wars,) some cities defended themselves to the last extremity, rather than submit. Thus acted the Romans towards those nations that certainly were not Ammonites in cruelty, or in the malice of their injuries. And if, nevertheless, not contented with keeping silence on the subject, we re-echo the Latin writers in their phrases of Roman justice and mercy, why should David be called an oppressor and a barbarian, because to the very scum of cruel and inhuman enemies, who from universal national hatred had so grossly and unjustly violated the sacred rights of ambassadors, he acted with rigour, and put them to painful deaths? There seems here to be an unfairness in our way of judging, which David does not deserve, merely because he is an Oriental, and because on other occasions the Bible speaks so much in his praise. This severity has, nevertheless, always been a stigma on the character of David, with those who do not attend to the arbitrary and variable nature of the law of nations, and judge of it according to the very humane war laws of modern times. Hence some friends of religion have been at pains to represent his conduct in a more humane point of view than it is described in the Bible itself. The late Professor Dantz of Jena, published a Dissertation, De mitigata Davidis in Ammonitas Crudelitate, which experienced the highest approbation both in and out of Germany, because people could not imagine a war law so extremely different from modern manners, as that which the common interpretation of 2 Sam. xii. 31 implies. Of that passage he gives this explanation; that David merely condemned his Ammonitish captives to severe bodily labours; to hewing and sawing of wood; to burning of bricks, and working in iron mines. But how much soever this exposition may be approved, it has but little foundation: it does great violence to the Hebrew words, of which, as this is not the place to complain philologically, I must be satisfied with observing, that it takes them in a very unusual, and till then unknown, acceptation; and for this no other reason is assigned, than that David had previously repented of his sins of adultery and murder; and being in a state of grace, could not be supposed capable of such cruelties. But a proof like this, taken from the king's being in a state of regeneration, is quite indecisive. We must previously solve the question, whether, considering the times in which he lived, and the character of the enemy, who had given such proofs, to what atrocities their malignant dispositions towards the Israelites would have carried them, had they been the victors, the punishment he inflicted on them was too severe or else from the piety of a king, I might in like manner demonstrate, in opposition to facts, that such and such malefactors were not broken on the wheel, but that they must only have gone to the wheel, in order to draw water. But allowing even that David carried severity of punishment too far, it is entirely to be ascribed to the rude manners of his age: as in the case of still more blameless characters, even of Abraham himself, we find that the customs of their times betrayed them into sins of ignorance, although some of their contemporaries questioned the lawfulness of the acts which involved those sins. It is further to be remarked, that towards the most cruel foes of the Israelites, and who had besides done himself an injury altogether unparalleled, David would have been acting with more mildness than the Mosaic law authorized, even towards any common enemy, if he had only condemned the Ammonites to servile labours. And besides this, those labours which Dantz alleges, are, some of them at least, not at all suited to the circumstances of either the country or the people. Firewood, for instance, is so scarce in Palestine, that a whole people certainly could not have been converted into hewers and sawyers of wood. For the sanctuary and the altar, the Gibeonites had it already in charge to provide wood; while the common people throughout the country principally made use of straw, or dried dung, for fuel. When Solomon, many years after, made the timber required for the temple to be felled, it was by the heads of the remnant of the Canaanites; and therefore the Ammonites were not employed in it.-In Palestine, again, mines of different sorts were wrought. Now, of all mines, none are more wholesome to work in than those of iron; because that metal is very friendly to the human constitution, is actually mixed with our blood, (as experiments made with blood clearly show,) is often used in medicine, and is almost never hurtful to us, ex

cept when forged into edgetools and weapons. Hence it has been observed, that in iron-works and forges, we generally find the healthiest and longest-lived people. Other sorts of mines, on the contrary, by reason of the lead and arsenic which they contain, are very often unwholesome, and even fatal to life. Can it then be believed that David would have condemned a people that he wanted to punish, to labour in iron-works, wherein they were sure to enjoy a long life of health and activity, while, perhaps, his own native subjects had to labour in unwholesome mines for the more precious metals? A king who had mines in his dominions, and wished to use them for the purposes of punishment, would probably have heard what sorts of them were favourable, and what hostile to health, and not have gone so preposterously to work. The applause bestowed on this dissertation of Dantz, from the humanity it displayed, was probably what moved the late Wahner to write a dissertation of a similar tendency, which was published at Gottingen in the year 1738, under the following title, David Moabitarum Victor crudelium numero eximitur. But

it could not obtain equal approbation, because in the conduct of David towards the Moabites, 2 Sam. viii. 2, there is less appearance of cruelty; inasmuch as he merely enforced the war law as prescribed by Moses, and indeed far less rigorously. Wahner gives three different and new explanations of the passage, according to which none of the vanquished Moabites were put to death; but they are all somewhat forced and there was no necessity, by a different translation of the text, to free David from the charge of cruelty; for in putting but two thirds of them to death, he acted unquestionably with one third more clemency than the Mosaic law required.-The war which Saul carried on against the Amalekites, and in which to the utmost of his power he extirpated the whole people, sparing only their king, is yet blamed, not on account of its rigour, but for the conqueror's clemency to the king, 1 Sam. xv. But I will not by any means adduce this for an example; but merely appeal to the precepts of Moses, the rigour of which David so much relaxed, in the cases of the Moabites. -MICHAELIS.

Ver. 13. And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the Valley of Salt, being eighteen thousand men. These great successes over the Syrians and Edomites greatly heightened the reputation and character of David; or, as the historian observes, he got himself a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians, and Edomites, in the Valley of Salt. He was regarded and celebrated by all the neighbouring princes and states, as a brave commander, and glorious prince and conqueror. To get a name, in the eastern style, doth not mean to be called by this or the other particular name, which is a ridiculous interpretation of the words, but to be spoken of with admiration and praise, as an excellent prince, and a fortunate victorious soldier. Thus it is joined with praise, "I will make you a name, and a praise among all people." It is said of God himself, upon account of the signs and wonders he wrought in Egypt. "Thou hast made thee a name at this day" which our version in another place renders: "Thou hast gotten thee renown at this day." Thus David got himself a name, i. e. as God tells him by Nathan the prophet: "I was with thee wheresoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth," i. e. made thee to be esteemed and reverenced in all countries round about, as a mighty prince and successful warrior; a name that he must have had even from the Syrians, and all his enemies whom he subdued by his conduct and valour.

There is some difficulty in this short history of the conquest of the Edomites. In the book of Chronicles, it is said, that Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, smote Edom in the Valley of Salt, eighteen thousand men. 1 Chron. xviii. 12. In the 60th Psalm, Title, that when Joab returned, he smote of Edom, in the Valley of Salt, twelve thousand men. In the book of Samuel, 2 Sam. viii. 13, that David got himself a name, when he returned from smiting the Syrians, in the Valley of Salt. Part of this difficulty is easily obviated, as the rout and slaughter of the Edomitish army, in which they lost six thousand of their men, was

begun by David and Abishai. And as, after Joab's joining the army, twelve thousand more of the Edomites were cut off, the slaughter of those twelve thousand is ascribed to Joab, which, with six thousand cut off under David and Abishai, before Joab came up with his reinforcement, make up the number eighteen thousand; the whole eighteen thousand being ascribed to David, as they were cut off by his army, that fought under him; and to Abishai, who was chief commander under him in this action; so that what was done by the one, was done by the other also. But there is also another difficulty, how to reconcile the two different accounts; the one, that David smote the Syrians, the other, that he smote the Edomites, in the Valley of Salt. The altering the pointing of the words, as we have them in Samuel, and the repeating a single word, ano Kovor, from the first part of the account, will entirely remove this difficulty; and I render the passage thus: David got himself a name, when he returned from smiting the Syrians, in the Valley of Salt, by smiting eighteen thousand men. Or, he got himself a name in the Valley of Salt, by smiting eighteen thousand men, after he returned from smiting the Syrians. And without this repetition of the word n smiting, or by smiting, the construction and sense is quite imperfect. Le Clerc, F. Houbigant, and others, add this supplement, and this alone renders all the other emendations of the learned Father quite unnecessary. The version of the Vulg. Latin confirms the interpretation, which thus renders the place: Fecit sibi quoque David nomen cum reverteretur capta Syria, in valle Salinarum, cafis decem et octo millibus." "David also got him a name when he returned from the capture of Syria, having slain eighteen thousand men."-CHANDLER.

Ver. 16. And Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, was recorder.

That is, as is generally believed, remembrancer or writer of chronicles, an employment of no mean estimation in the eastern world, where it was customary with kings to keep daily registers of all the transactions of their reign and a trust, which, whoever discharged to purpose, must be let into the true springs and secrets of action, and consequently must be received into the utmost confidence. -BURDER.

Ver. 18. And Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites: and David's sons were chief rulers.

These guards are called in the text, the Cherethites and the Pelethites, but what they were is variously conjectured. That they were soldiers is evident from their being mentioned as present at the proclamation of King Solomon against Adonijah, which could not evidently have been done without some armed force to protect the persons that proclaimed him: and that they were not common soldiers, but the constant guards of David's person, is manifest from the title of paropúdaxes, keepers of the body, which Josephus gives them. Some are of opinion that they were men of gigantic stature; but we find no ground for that, though they were doubtless proper and robust men, (as we speak,) and of known fidelity to their prince, 2 Sam. xv. 18, and xx. 7. Others again think that they were Philistines; but it is hardly supposable, that David would have any of these hated, uncircumcised people to be his bodyguard; neither can we believe that Israelitish soldiers would have took it patiently to see foreigners of that nation put in such places of honour and trust. It is much more likely, then, that they were some select men of the tribe of Judah, which had their names from the families they sprung from, one of which is mentioned, 1 Sam. xxx. 14, and the other, 1 Chron. ii. 33, unless we will come into the notion of others, who, as they find that there were men of this denomination among the Philistines, think that these guards of David's, which were originally of his own tribe, had these exotic names given them from some notable exploit or signal victory gained over the Philistines of this name, as (in 1 Sam. xxx. 14) we have express mention of one action against them.-STACKHOUSE.

CHAPTER IX.

Ver. 11. Then said Ziba unto the king, According to all that my lord the king hath command

ed his servant, so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table, as one of the king's sons. See on 2 Kings 9. 11.

CHAPTER X.

Ver. 4. Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.

This was one of the greatest indignities that the malice of man could invent in those countries, where all people thought their hair so great an ornament, that some would have rather submitted to die, than part with it. What a foul disgrace and heavy punishment this was accounted in ancient times, we may learn from Nicholaus Damascenus, as mentioned by Stobæus, (Tit. 42.) who says, that among the Indians the king commanded the greatest offenders to be shaven, as the heaviest punishment that he could inflict upon them; and, to the like purpose, Plutarch (in Egesil) tells us, that, whenever a soldier, among the Lacedemonians, was convicted of cowardice, he was obliged to go with one part of his upper lip shaved, and the other not. Nay, even at this day, no greater indignity can be offered to a man of Persia, than to cause his beard to be shaved; and therefore, Tavernier, in his travels, relates the story, that when the Sophi caused an ambassador of Aurengzeb's to be used in this manner, telling him that he was not worthy to wear a beard, the emperor (even in the manner as David here did) most highly resented the affront that was done to him in the person of his ambassador. And, as shaving David's ambassadors was deservedly accounted a grievous affront, so the cutting off half the beard (which made them look still more ridiculous) was a great addition to it, where beards were held in great veneration; and where long habits down to the heels were worn, especially by persons of distinction, without any breeches or drawers, the cutting their garments, even to the middle, thereby to expose their nakedness, was such a brutal and shameless insult, as would badly become a man of David's martial spirit, and just sentiments of honour, to have tamely passed by.-STACKHOUSE.

tells us,

The customs of nations in respect to this part of the human countenance, have differed, and still do differ, so widely, that it is not easy, among us, who treat the beard as an encumbrance, to conceive properly of the importance which is attached to it in the East. The Levitical laws have noticed the beard, but the terms in which most of them are expressed, are somewhat obscure; i. e. they are obscure to us, by the very reason of their being familiar to the persons to whom they were addressed. Perhaps the following quotations may contribute to throw a light, at least upon some of them: "The first care of an Ottoman prince, when he comes to the throne, is, to let his beard grow, to which Sultan Mustapha added, the dying of it black, in order that it might be more apparent on the day of his first appearance, when he was to GIRD ON THE SABRE; a ceremony by which he takes possession of the throne, and answering the coronation among us.' (Baron du Tott.) So, De la Motraye "that the new Sultan's beard had not been permitted to grow, but only since he had been proclaimed emperor: and was very short, it being customary to shave the Ottoman princes, as a mark of their subjection to the reigning emperor." "In the year 1764, Kerim Khan sent to demand payment of the tribute due for his possessions in Kermesir: but, Mir Mahenna maltreated the officer who was sent on the errand, and caused his beard to be cut of Kerim Khan then sent a strong army against him, which conquered Bender Rigk, and all the territories of Mir Mahenna." (Niebuhr.) This will remind the reader of the insult offered to the ambassadors of David, by Hanun, (2 Sam. x.) which insult, however, seems to have had a peculiarity in it-of shaving one half of the beard; i. e. the beard on one side of the face. On this subject, we translate from Niebuhr (French edit.) the following remarks: "The Orientals have divers manners of letting the beard grow; the Jews, in Turkey, Arabia, and Persia, preserve their beard from their youth; and it differs from that of the Christians and Mohammedans, in that they do not shave it

either at the aers, or the temples. The Arabs keep their whiskers very short; some cut them off entirely; but they never shave off the beard. In the mountains of Yemen, where strangers are seldom seen, it is a disgrace to appear shaven; they supposed our European servant, who had only whiskers, had committed some crime, for which we had punished him, by cutting off his beard. On the contrary, the Turks have commonly long whiskers; the beard among them is a mark of honour. The slaves and certain domestics of the great lords, are forced to cut it off, and dare not keep any part of it, but whiskers; the Persians have long whiskers, and clip their beard short with scissors, which has an unpleasant appearance to strangers. The Kurdes shave the beard, but leave the whiskers, and a band of hair on the cheeks." "The true Arabs have black beards, yet some old men die their white beards red; but this is thought to be to hide their age; and is rather blamed than praised. The Persians blacken their beards much more; and, probably, do so to extreme old age, in order to pass for younger than they really are. The Turks do the same in some cases. [How differently Solomon thought! Prov. xx. 29, 'The glory of young men is their strength, and the beauty of old men is the gray head.']-When the younger Turks, after having been shaven, let their beards grow, they recite a fatha, [or kind of prayer,] which is considered as a vow never to cut it off; and when any one cuts off his beard, he may be very severely punished, (at Basra, at least, to 300 blows with a stick.) He would also be the laughing-stock of those of his faith. A Mohammedan, at Basra, having shaved his beard when drunk, fled secretly to India, not daring to return, for fear of public scorn, and judicial punishment.'

"Although the Hebrews took great care of their beards, to fashion them when they were not in mourning, and on the contrary, did not trim them when they were in mourning, yet I do not observe that their regard for them amounted to any veneration for their beard. On the contrary, the Arabians have so much respect for their beards, that they look on them as sacred ornaments given by God, to distinguish them from women. They never shave them: nothing can be more infamous than for a man to be shaved; they make the preservation of their beards a capital point of religion, because Mohammed never cut off his: it is likewise a mark of authority and liberty among them, as well as among the Turks; the Persians, who clip them, and shave above the jaw, are reputed heretics. The razor is never drawn over the grand seignior's face: they who serve in the seraglio, have their beard shaved, as a sign of servitude: they do not suffer it to grow till the sultan has set them at liberty, which is bestowed as a reward upon them, and is always accompanied with some employment. Unmarried young men may cut their beards; but when married, especially if parents, they forbear doing so, to show that they are become wiser, have renounced the vanities of youth, and think now of superior things. When they comb their beards, they hold a handkerchief on their knees, and gather carefully the hairs that fall: and when they have got together a proper quantity, they fold them up in paper, and carry them to the place where they bury the dead. Among them it is more infamous for any one to have his beard cut off, than among us to be publicly whipped, or branded with a hot iron. Many men in that country would prefer death to such a punishment. The wives kiss their husbands' beards, and children their fathers', when they come to salute them: the men kiss one another's beards reciprocally, when they salute in the streets, or come from a journey.-They say, that the beard is the perfection of the human face, which would be more disfigured by having this cut off, than by losing the nose.

"They admire and envy those, who have fine beards: Pray do but see,' they cry, 'that beard; the very sight of it would persuade any one, that he, to whom it belongs, is an honest man.' If anybody with a fine beard is guilty of an unbecoming action, What a disadvantage is this,' they say, 'to such a beard! How much such a beard is to be pitied! If they would correct any one's mistakes, they will tell him, 'For shame of your beard! Does not the confusion that follows light on your beard?' If they entreat any one, or use oaths in affirming or denying any thing, they say, 'I conjure you by your beard,-by the life of your beard,-to grant me this,'-or, 'by your beard, this is, or is not, so.' They say further, in the way of acknowledgment, May God preserve your blessed beard!

May God pour out his blessings on your beard! And, in comparisons, 'This is more valuable than one's beard.'" Mœurs des Arabes, par M. D'Arvieux, chap. vii. These accounts may contribute to illustrate several passages of scripture.

The dishonour done by David to his beard, of letting his spittle fall on it, (1 Sam. xxi. 13,) seems at once to have convinced Achish of his being distempered: q. d." No man in good health, of body and mind, would thus defile what we esteem so honourable as his beard." If the beard be thus venerated, we perceive the import of Mephibosheth's neglect, in his not trimming it, 2 Sam. xix. 24. We conceive, also, that after the information given us, as above, that men kiss one another's beards, when they salute in the streets, or when one of them is lately come from a journey; we may discover traces of deeper dissimulation in the behaviour of Joab to Amasa (2 Sam. xx. 9) than we have heretofore noticed: "And Joab held in his right hand the beard of Amasa, that he might give it a kiss."-No wonder then, that while this act of friendship, of gratulation after long absence, occupied Amasa's attention, he did not perceive the sword that was in Joab's left hand. The action of Joab was, indeed, a high compliment, but neither suspicious nor unusual; and to this compliment Amasa paying attention, and, no doubt, returning it with answerable politeness, he could little expect the fatal event that Joab's perfidy produced. Was the behaviour of Judas to Jesus something like this behaviour of Joab to Amasa ?—a worthy example worthily imitated!-With this idea in our minds, let us hear the Evangelists relate the story; Matt. xxvi. 49, "And coming directly to Jesus, he said, Hail [joy to thee] Rabbi! and kissed him:" so says Mark xiv. 45. But Luke seems to imply, that Judas observed a more respectful manner, in his salutation. Jesus, according to Matthew, before he received the kiss from Judas, had time to say, "Friend [in what manner] unto what purpose art thou come?" And while Judas was kissing him-suppose his beard-Jesus might easily, and very aptly express himself, as Luke relates, "Ah! Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man by a kiss ?" The cutting off the beard is mentioned (Isaiah xv. 2) as a token of mourning; and as such it appears to be very expressive, Jer. xli. 5: "Fourscore men came from Samaria, having their beards shaven, and their clothes rent."-See, also, chap. xlviii. 37. Is not this custom somewhat illustrated by the idea which the Arabs attached to the shaven servant of Niebuhr, i. e. as a kind of punishment suffered for guilt, expressed or implied?— TAYLOR IN CALMET.

While the Orientals had their emblems of honour, and tokens of regard, they had also peculiar customs expressive of contempt or dislike; of which the first I shall mention is cutting off the beard. Even to talk disrespectfully of a Persian's beard, is the greatest insult that can be offered to him, and an attempt to touch it would probably be followed by the instant death of the offender. Cutting off the beard is reckoned so great a mark of infamy among the Arabs, that many of them would prefer death to such a dishonour. They set the highest value upon this appurtenance of the male; for when they would express their value for a thing, they say it is worth more than his beard; they even beg for the sake of it," By your beard, by the life of your beard, do."-PAXTON.

When Peter the Great attempted to civilize the Russians, and introduced the manners and fashions of the more refined parts of Europe, nothing met with more opposition than the cutting off their beards, and many of those who were obliged to comply with this command, testified such great veneration for their beards, as to order them to be buried with them. Irwin also, in his voyage up the Red Sea, says, that at signing a treaty of peace with the vizier of Yambo, they swore by their beards, the most solemn oath they can take. D'Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab, who, having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life rather than to suffer his surgeon to take off his beard.-BURDER.

This shows, according to the oriental mode of thinking, the magnitude of the affront which Hanan offered to the ambassadors of David, when he took them and shaved off the one half of their beards. It was still, in times comparatively modern, the greatest indignity that can be offered in Persia. Shah Abbas, king of that country, enraged that the emperor of Hindostan had inadvertently addressed him by