THE HEBREW COMMONWEALTH. I.-ORIGIN OF CIVIL SOCIETY. N observance of the laws of marriage, and a regard to the rights of private property, presuppose a mutual understanding among men, not to disturb each other in their possessions, or to repel lawless aggressors by force, or to punish them as they deserve, and thus to deter all from encroaching on the rights of others. To secure these purposes the combined strength of many individuals is often requisite, and consequently, in the early stages of human improvement, a numerous family, particularly of males, is earnestly desired and highly valued as a means of defence. But the members of one family, however numerous, are not always able to maintain their own rights, and often needing the aid of those in their vicinity, they readily grant them assistance in similar circumstances. This need of mutual support against the attacks of wild beasts, and of human foes, and a consequent willingness to help one another, induced men to form compacts for their common defence. These compacts were confirmed by the religious sanction of an oath. Men were therefore soon united respecting the external observances of religion, and the public worship of God was very early introduced. Such is the origin of civil society, as appears both from the natural course of human affairs and from history. The most ancient law, which we call common law, and the earliest statutes of which we have any knowledge, refer only to marriage, private property, the punishment of transgressors, and the duties of religion.* As new cccasions and new necessities arose, these first principles of society were gradually • Goguet, l'Origin des Loix, des Arts, &c. t. i. p. 1 & 11. strengthened, improved, and enlarged by other compacts and laws, either expressly enacted or tacitly admitted. As individuals endeavoured to increase their property, to lighten their labours, to attain more of comfort and enjoyment, and in every way to improve their circumstances, society itself acquired firmness and strength; and was aided in its progress by an increasing abundance of food, as well as by inventions and improvements in the arts. Individuals multiplied, and became more powerful against their external foes; and as their internal regulations kept pace with their increase and their growing strength, the whole community was continually rising to a still higher degree of perfection. History exhibits a great difference in this respect between the Nomadic and the settled nations; a difference which can be easily accounted for by a view of the circumstances of these two states of society. The social bond was very weak among those who lived as herdsmen and hunters, for they were continually roving about with their herds, and attached themselves to no fixed abode; and though they were for the most part related to each other, their residence together was entirely voluntary. (Gen. xiii. 9-12.) As they retained this mode of life from a love of independence, they willingly renounced the pleasures and advantages of a society more closely united, rather than restrict their liberty by civil laws. They did not even wish to reach any higher degree of perfection. If their chiefs or emirs had more enlightened views, and were desirous of improvement, they could not contravene the prejudices of their subjects without subverting their own authority. In such a state of society it was difficult to prevent rapine and its attendant evils, for expert robbers could easily commit depredations upon the wandering herds, and escape unpunished. Men, on the contrary, who have fixed dwellings and employ themselves in tillage, become attached to the soil which affords nourishment to themselves and their families, and are reluctant to tear themselves from their immoveable property. They are desirous to improve their possessions, II. CIVIL SOCIETY BEFORE THE FLOOD. 13, comp. ix. 3-6. Gen. iv. 26, comp. vi. 2.) Those famous heroes of great stature, the giants of the old world, who are mentioned as the authors of these crimes, were either powerful chiefs who engaged in open wars, or perhaps mere wandering thieves who, with their lawless bands, everywhere plundered and murdered the defenceless. The prevailing form of government during this period was probably the patriarchal ; though the patriarchs were either unable to restrain and bring to punishment strong-handed transgressors, or swayed by the ties of relationship, and in some cases perhaps by a participation in the spoil, they were unwilling to exert their authority for this purpose. III. CIVIL SOCIETY AFTER THE FLOOD. and to secure them from the attacks of robbers and wild beasts. The bond of social life is more closely drawn; the community is enlivened by a spirit of activity, whence arise inventions and improvements in the arts, a greater abundance and variety of food, and many comforts and pleasures which all have a tendency to elevate the human character. The necessity of reciprocal aid for the common defence renders compacts more firm and durable. Thence men derive succour in sudden emergencies. They readily relinquish the privileges of complete independence when such important advantages can be gained by so small a sacrifice. They experience the happiness resulting from a community closely connected, and will not part with it unless hostile invasions, or other adverse occurrences, compel them to separate. A community may be scattered by distant emigrations, or broken up by The family of Noah retained a knowledge of failures in husbandry; and these circumstances the first principles of civil society and of the may occasion a return to the savage state. A infant arts which had existed before the Deluge; second elevation to civil society after such a and some of them again applying themselves to relapse is slow and difficult. husbandry, we find them in Egypt and Southern Asia soon reunited as political communities. At first the new race of men seem to have acknowledged the patriarchal authority of Noah and his lineal descendants. But after the dispersion which followed the unsuccessful attempt to build the tower of Babel, Nimrod, the celebrated hunter and hero, laid the foundation of the Babylonian kingdom. In consequence of the protection which he afforded to the people against wild beasts, he might have become by their own consent their leader and chief, or turning his weapons of hunting against men, he might have compelled them to submit to his dominion. His name seems to favour the latter supposition.* His empire extended from Babylon in Mesopotamia towards the north over Calneh (Ctesiphon), as far as Accad (Nisibis) and Erech (Edessa), including the whole land of Shinar. But, however powerful this empire was for those times, we cannot suppose it to have been either populous or well organized. Even the four cities which are mentioned as the strongholds of this kingdom were nothing more than small villages slightly As this was the first attempt to estafortified. blish an extensive domain, it must have been universally disagreeable to the men of that period; consequently, we shall find that it was of short duration, and Nimrod's Babylon must not be regarded as the germ of that great universal monarchy which began, as will be shown hereafter, in a later age and among a different people. In the fragments of antediluvian history preserved by Moses there is nothing explicit respecting civil societies. If there was any authentic information on this subject extant in his time it did not appertain to the book of Genesis, which was designed merely as an introduction to the history of the Mosaic legislation. As such, it preserves a knowledge of the Creator, gives a general view of the conduct of men, and a more particular account of the ancestors of the Hebrews, from the creation of the world to the origin of the Hebrew Commonwealth. The first man undoubtedly kept his children and other descendants about him as long as possible, and exercised paternal authority over them. Cain was the first who separated from his father's society, and he was impelled to this step through fear of punishment for the murder of his brother. In the course of time, various motives, such as a desire to obtain land for cultivation or pasturage for cattle, might induce others to follow his example. Thus there arose separate families, which were governed by their own patriarchs. This is the state of nature, that Golden Age, which the prophets and poets of later times have painted in the liveliest colours, and exhibited as a picture of perfect happiness.* When families had increased to tribes and nations, then, without doubt, civil societies began. Even at this early period we find that men were engaged in agriculture and in the improvement of the arts; that the laws of marriage, the rights of private property, and the public institutions of religion were recognized and observed. (Gen. ii. 15; iv. 2, 3, 17–22; v. 29.) These societies, however, during the ten generations enumerated in the fifth chapter of Genesis, were very imperfect; for those lawless deeds of violence which arose from profligacy and impiety prove but too clearly that the power of the strong then generally passed for right. (Gen. vi. 4, 11, Isa. ii. 4; xi. 6-9; lxv. 17-25. Joel iii. 18. Micah iv. 1-5. Ovid. Metam. 1. 89. Virgil, Ecl. iv. The kingdom of Assyria was established soon after in the region afterwards denominated Adiabene, situated between the rivers Lycus and Caprus, (the greater and smaller Zab.) The cities or fortified places of this empire were Nineveh, Rehoboth, Calah and Resen. The latter being distinguished by Moses as a great city," was probably at that period the metropolis. This monarchy was also of small extent, and for a succession of ages it entirely disappears from history, either because it had received no accession during that time or had been subjected to a 66 ⚫ from D to rebel. Gen. x. 8-10. Perizonius, Orig. Babyl. 112, 230-239, 263, 304. foreign yoke. Balaam prophesied respecting its future power and final overthrow, (Numb. xxiv. 22, 24,) but as late as the reign of David it was an inconsiderable state. The Assyrians seem first to have distinguished themselves about two hundred years after David, and in the time of Isaiah their dominion extended to the Mediterranean sea. What the Greeks have related therefore of a great and very ancient Assyrian monarchy, is altogether unfounded.* | Thus anciently did the people of southern Asia establish political communities which they gradually perfected; while the tribes who wandered to more distant regions, sank into a state of barbarism from which they rose by slow degrees, and in which some remain at the present day. the Joktanites emigrated Arabians, in distinction from the Cushites, whom alone they acknowledge as the original inhabitants of the country.* In the reign of Asa, the Cushite monarch Zerah invaded Judea with a numerous host, and at another time Sennacherib hastened home to Assyria on account of a false rumour that Tirhaka, king of Cush, was leading an army against him. (2 Chron. xiv. 9. 2 Kings xix. 9. Isa. xxxvii. 8, 9.) At an early period they crossed According to the unanimous testimony of the the straits of Babel-Mandel and founded the ancients, Menes was the first king of Egypt. African Cush, anciently called Æthiopia and now His reign commenced about the middle of the Abyssinia, which was often united with the second century after the Flood. Shuckford dates Arabian Cush, and governed by the same king.t it in the year 116, and Silberschlag 195 after the Heeren has rendered it probable that the order flood, but Gatterer in 153.† The site of his king- of Egyptian priests, which included the royal dom was This, afterwards called Ptolemais, be- family, was composed of Cushites who emigrated tween the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh from Abyssinia and established governments in degrees of north latitude. About the same time Egypt. If this were so, the Abyssinian Cushites a second kingdom was founded at Thebes, and must have penetrated to Egypt as early as the twenty years later, a third, at Memphis. As middle of the second century after the flood.‡ Herodotus was told by the Egyptian priests that Menes reigned over the Thebain nomos or district, and that the rest of Egypt was then a marsh, it is obvious that by the Thebain nomos, he understands all Upper Egypt and the Heptanomis, as he afterwards observes himself, that Thebes was once the name of all Egypt. Perhaps Menes gave up the southern district to one of his sons, and soon after, having confined the overflowings of the Nile by a dike, founded Memphis. It appears that he here placed another of his sons. The declaration of Herodotus, that Egypt was then a marsh, can be understood of the Delta only; and even this district must have been so much raised by deposits from the Nile, as to become dry and habitable at a very early period. Tanis or Zoan at the Tanitic mouth of the Nile, is mentioned as a well known town only 200 years later; and Hebron, which was no new city in the time of Abraham, 367 years after the Deluge, was built but seven years before Zoan. (Numb. xiii. 22.) Besides the road from Canaan to Egypt was easily travelled by Abraham, but if the Delta had then been a marsh, it is hardly possible that he could have entered the country from the great plain east of Egypt, especially as the Bay of Heroopolis must at that time have extended much farther north than at present. Homer indeed says that Pharos in his time was a day's sail from Egypt, but by Egypt he means the Nile, from which Pharos is a day's sail distant at the present day.§ The Cushites, descendants of Ham, established themselves very early in south-western Arabia. They probably emigrated thither and founded a state immediately after the first dispersion of the tribes; which seems the more likely, as Nimrod, the founder of the kingdom of Shinar, was a Cushite. (Gen. x. 8.) They therefore had possession of Arabia before the Joktanites. Hence some of the Arabs themselves denominate But NOTE. In the tables of Suessmilch,§ in which he computes the increase of population after the Creation and Deluge, it is supposed that there were upon the earth, at the middle of the second century after the Deluge, only about 131,072, or 262,144 persons; and at the end of this century not more than 1,048,576, or 2,097,152,-a number scarcely adequate to the founding of so many and such remote states, allowing them to be of small extent. In the computation of Euler, quoted by Suessmilch (s. 295), the number is still less. This led Michaelis to suppose that the chronology deduced from Gen. xi. 10-25, is incorrect, and that in this genealogy some families are omitted. But he could adduce no example of such omission in those genealogical tables with which the chronology is interwoven. the difficulty vanishes when we observe that the calculations of both Suessmilch and Euler proceed on the supposition, that population then increased in general no faster than it does at the present day. When will men cease to measure the old world by the standard of the new, and to believe that every thing in ancient times must have been just as it is now? Let any one examine Suessmilch's periods of duplication, which in the first century are placed at 10, and in the second at 15 years, and also Euler's mode of computing, and compare them with the condition of the ancient world, when life was long, deaths unfrequent, and nothing to prevent or hinder early marriages, and their incorrectness will be perceived at once. Who will believe that Adam, • Pocock, Specimen, Hist. Arab. p. 39. Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 215. + Michaelis, Spicil. Geogr. Hebr. ext. p. i. p. 143–157 Heeren, Ideen ueber die Politik, den Verkeha und den Handel der Alten Welt. th. i. s. 230, 305-317, 344 ff. comp. 419 ff. Gottl. Ord. in den Verord. des Menschl. Geschl. th. i. viii. s. 92. Eichhorn's Repert. th. xiii. s. 168-177. during the first ten years of his life, had only two, or (according to Euler) during the first eighteen years, only six children; so that at the close of the ten years there were only four, or of the eighteen years, only eight persons upon the earth? Or that from the marriages of the three sons of Noah, there were but six children in ten years? Gatterer instituted a new mode of computation,* according to which the rate of increase is much greater: but even he seems to make the period of duplication too long, and the number of children by one marriage too small, for such remote antiquity. I might here introduce my own calculations, by which I have shown a much more rapid increase of population after the Flood; but I will in this place merely suggest the inquiry, whether in the enumeration of the family of Noah, as well as of that of Jacob, (Gen. xlvi. 8-27,) the servants are not omitted? If they are, then there will not be the least difficulty remaining in regard to the rapid increase of population during this period. IV. CIVIL SOCIETY AT THE TIME OF ABRAHAM. In the tenth generation after Noah, while Abraham dwelt in Canaan (from 367 to 467 after the Flood), there were in that country several small states and kingdoms, which had been founded by the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. These Canaanites frequently occur in the Arabian poets, historians, and scholiasts, un occur long before his time on the southern boundaries of Canaan, and Balaam calls them one of the most ancient people, and their king the most powerful monarch whom he knew. (Numb. xxiv. 20.) They attacked the rear of the Hebrews in their march through Arabia Petrea. For this offence they were punished at the time, and destined to extermination. They defeated those Hebrews who attempted to penetrate into Canaan contrary to the command of God. In later times they united with the Moabites and Ammonites, and afterwards with the Midianites, against the Hebrews. They were vanquished by Saul, by David, and finally by the Simeonites, in the reign of Hezekiah. (Exod. xvii. 8—16. Numb. xiv. 40-45. Gen. xxxvi. 12. 1 Chron. i. 36. Gen. xiv. 7. Judg. iii. 12, 13; vi. 3, 4. 1 Sam. xv. 27; viii. 11; xxx. 1-25. 2 Sam. viii. 12. 1 Chron. iv. 42, 43.) They were Nomades, who subsisted principally by pillage, and led a wandering life, though we find them for the most part on the southern borders of Palestine. (Gen. xiv. 7. Numb. xiii. 29, 30; xiv. 45. 1 Sam. xv. 7; xxvii. 8-10; xxx. 1, 9, 15, 16.) II. The Canaanites who emigrated to the northern coasts of Canaan, and built Zidon, their most ancient capital. (Gen. x. 15.) III. The Canaanites who took possession of the interior of Palestine.* The states in Palestine founded by these Canaanitish tribes were small, and generally con fined within the circle of a single city. The greater part of the land was unoccupied, and der the name of Amalekites laclac) country without h, at Hebron, were not subject Abraham could pasture his herds in the open hinderance. It appears that the с (عَمَالِيقٌ عِمليق) as a very ancient, numerous, and celebrated people who inhabited Arabia before the Joktanites; and some of whom removed to Canaan, whence they were expelled by the Hebrews. Herodotus also says that the Phenicians (who are the same as the Canaanites) originally dwelt on the coasts of the Red Sea, whence they emigrated to the Mediterranean, and there engaged in navigation to distant countries.t When Abraham arrived in Canaan, it is observed in Genesis that "the Canaanite was then in the land;" a plain intimation that the Canaanites had emigrated thither not long before. The enumeration of the Canaanites among the Amalekites who inhabited Arabia Petrea, but made distant excursions into other countries, is also an indication that Arabia was their original residence.‡ Of these Canaanites there were three distinct classes. I. The Canaanites who remained in Arabia, and formed a numerous people, of whom in the seventh century there were distinguished families still in existence. In the Bible these are called Amalekites. They were not descended from Amalek, the grandson of Esau; for they children of Heth, to a king. Neither did Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, three brothers in alliance with Abraham, bear the regal title, though they as well as he maintained a body of armed servants. Gerar, aftewards Philistia, and Salem, afterwards Jerusalem, were governed by the kings Abimelech and Melchizedek. (Gen. xxiii. 4-18; xiv. 13, 14, 24, 18-20; xxi. 22-34; xxvi. 1-16.) The five cities in the vale of Siddim, which is now covered by the Dead Sea, viz. Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela or Zoar, were under regal government. Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (or Elymais, the ancient name of Persia), had made the kings of these cities tributary to him. After thirteen years of subjection they threw off the yoke, and in conjunction with their neighbours, the Rephaims of Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzims of Ham, the Emims of Shaveh Kiriathaim, the Horites (or dwellers in caves) of Mount Seir, the Amalekites of Kadesh, and the Amorites of Hazezon Tamar, they in the following year made war upon their oppressor; but they and all their allies were vanquished in one battle. Though this successful expedition of the Elamite king appears so formidable, when we view the number of nations concerned in it, the contending armies must have been very small: for Abraham, as soon as he heard that Lot was among the captives, pursued the victorious troops with only his three hundred and Gen. xii. 6, comp. Michaelis, Spicil. Geogr. Hebr. ext. p. i. p. 167–176. eighteen armed servants and the bands of his confederates, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner. He overtook them at Dan, near the source of the Jordan, attacked them by surprise in the night, retook all their booty, and drove them to Hobah, north of Damascus. (Gen. xiv.) It appears that Elam was the most powerful kingdom of that period, and that Shinar, which (with Elassar and Goiim, two nations equally unknown,) was in alliance with Elam, had lost the superiority it possessed under Nimrod. Had Djemjid been a Persian instead of a Mede, the tradition respecting him would correspond very well with the scriptural account of Chedorlaomer, for Zoroaster dates the commencement of the empire which he founded, a few generations after Noah. This indeed is somewhat too early; but the custom of omitting some families in the genealogical tables will easily account for such an error.* About the year 380 after the Flood, Abraham found in Egypt not only a well-cultivated soil and an abundance of food, but also a Pharaoh upon the throne who had his ministers and courtiers, and who did not, like the petty king of Gerar, enter into an alliance with the patriarch as with an equal. (Gen. xii. 10-20; xxi. 2232.) The Thinitic dynasty was then extinct, and the reigning monarch was of the dynasty of Memphis, whose dominions included a part of Upper and all Lower Egypt. That this part of Egypt was then dry, and had been for a long period habitable, appears from the remark already made respecting the antiquity of the city Tanis or Zoan. (Numb. xiii. 22. Gen. xxiii. 2.) NOTE.-Greece was peopled principally by colonies from Asia Minor. These colonists were called Pelasgi, because they came by sea (λayos). About the time of the death of Abraham, İnachus led the first colony to Argos. About one hundred and thirty years after this, during the latter part of the life of Jacob, the Pelasgi sailed from Arcadia to Italy. V. CIVIL SOCIETY AT THE TIME OF JACOB. During the two hundred and fifteen years which intervened between the arrival of Abraham in Canaan, and the journey of Jacob to Egypt, the petty states of Canaan appear to have made but little progress, with the exception of those on the coast, who carried on an extensive trade by sea. (Gen. xxxiv.; xlix. 13.) Egypt, on the contrary, had advanced in civilization with a rapid pace. Towards the close of this period, the Thebain or Diospolitic dynasty became extinct, and all Egypt was united under the sceptre of the Memphian Pharaoh, whose power was greatly increased in consequence of this union. To this monarch Jacob was presented by his son Joseph, in the 582nd year after the Flood. A well-regulated court, dignified courtiers, a life-guard, a strict ceremonial at audience, a powerful prime minister, high officers of state, a state prison under the com • Zend-Avesta, th. i. s. 92; ii. 132. 197. 265. 304-308; iii. 99. 116. 121. mand of the captain of the life-guard, a scrupulous distinction of rank; all indicate a rich, flourishing, and well-ordered government.* The learned, and the labouring class of people, composed two separate tribes. The learned class were not devoted to the cultivation of the sciences merely, but all the religious and civil offices of the government were in their hands. For their public services they received a stated salary from the king, although they owned large estates in land. This class was divided into three orders. They kept their knowledge secret, and preserved it in hieroglyphics, the care and explanation of which were intrusted to the order of †, who were set apart for this purpose. Priests, and physicians, or embalmers, were retained in the service of the great. The The labouring class comprehended husbandmen, mechanics, artists, and merchants. The works of art with which Egypt abounded, were various and costly. The watermen, who were so useful on account of the frequent inundations of the Nile, formed a distinct tribe. Shepherds, particularly Nomades who neglected agriculture, though numerous, were, from motives of policy, held in great disrepute. commencement of the military order is seen in the royal life-guard, if indeed this institution does not rather imply that such an order had been previously organized. In later times the soldiery was divided into two classes, (Kalaoiριες τε και Ερμοτυβιες,) and when in its most flourishing state consisted of 400,000 or 600,000 men. They had lands assigned to them in Lower Egypt, where most of them were settled. Each class was obliged to furnish an annual quota of 1,000 men for the royal life-guard, who received pay, during their term of service, in natural productions. At this time the king of Egypt, through his minister, provided against an impending famine, by purchasing great quantities of corn, in which he afterwards carried on an extensive trade, to the advantage of the crown. The Egyptians had hitherto been free from taxation, but during the famine they sold their lands to the king for corn and when he afterwards made a new and proportional division of landed property among the people, he required a fifth part of the produce as a tax. The priests were maintained during the famine by their salary. Their lands were therefore not sold, and they were exempt from taxation. The same privilege was afterwards extended to the soldiery.¶ Egypt at this early period was so celebrated for its affluence, that caravans of Ishmaelite or Midianite merchants went thither through Palestine and Arabia Petrea, with the productions of their country. It appears that they also purchased slaves on the way. (Gen. xxxvii. 25—28; |