east of the Jordan. The following list of passages contains abundant examples of this usage ::-Numb. xxxii. 39; Deut. xxxiv. 1; Josh. xxii. 9, 13; Judg. v. 17; x. 4; xx. 1; 2 Kings x. 33; 1 Chron. ii. 23. We shall here quote Josh. xxii. 9, 13, as an instance, leaving the reader to consult the other passages at his leisure: 'And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh returned, and departed from the children of Israel out of Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan, to go unto the country of Gilead, to the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses. And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead,' &c. Here the phrases, country of Gilead,' land of Gilead,' manifestly signify the possessions of the two and a half tribes which dwelt on the east side of the Jordan. Gilead, in the stricter sense, is incorrectly stated by Dr Kitto (see at Gen. xxxi. 25, and Josh. xiii. 11) to be the district of country lying between the Jarmuk and the Jabbok, although, perhaps, not quite reaching the former river, and extending south of the latter. The district in question comprised a region which lay, in about equal parts, to the north and south of the Jabbok. The northern part belonged to Og, king of Bashan, and the southern to Sihon, king of the Amorites. Both these statements are clearly deducible from Deut. iii. 12, 13, compared with Josh. xii. 2-5. From the former passage it appears, that half of Gilead fell to the lot of Gad, whilst the rest of Gilead (formerly the possession of Og of Bashan) was given to Manasseh. From the latter passage we find, that the southern part of Gilead was part of Sihon's kingdom; but especially that the boundary betwixt the two parts of Gilead (which are in these passages called halves) was formed by the Jabbok. Turning now to the texts at present under consideration, it will be seen, from the above remarks, that in any case they refer to entirely distinct districts of country. In verse 13, Gilead is used in the vague and loose sense which, as above shewn, it frequently bears in the Old Testament; whereas in the 19th verse, the word is used in the stricter sense, as denoting a certain district north and south of the Jabbok, of which the northern half was in the kingdom of Og, and the southern in the kingdom of Sihon. The son of Geber, or Ben-Geber, had for his province Bashan proper, with only a small part of the half Gilead north of the Jabbok, which, though part of Og's territories, did not belong to the region called Bashan; and the province assigned to Geber, the son of Uri, was included in Gilead proper, comprehending the parts both north and south of the river Jabbok, with the exception of Ramoth-Gilead, which belonged to Ben-Geber and Mahanaim, which was Abinadab's province (v. 14), both these places being in North Gilead. We have said that Ben-Geber had Bashan proper and a small part of North Gilead. The correctness of this statement with regard to Bashan, can only be established by an examination of the question, Whether Argob and Havoth Jair refer to the same or to different regions? In Note 9, Appendix to Vol. I., it was simply stated that they were different names for the same thing; and we shall now give very briefly the reasons on which the statement rests. We remark, first, that the English version of verse 13 produces the impression that the Havoth of Jair and Argob are different regions, only because the translation is inaccurate. In the original it stands: 'BenGeber in Ramoth-Gilead; to him the Havoth of Jair, the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him the region of Argob,' &c. The absence of the copulative suggests that the latter clause is in apposition with the former. This view is confirmed when we compare the present text with Deut. iii. 4; also Deut. iii. 13, 14, and Josh. xiii. 30, 31. From the first passage it appears, that Argob, with the sixty towns of Jair, constituted the kingdom of Bashan. Again, from the 13th and 14th verses of the same chapter, we find that Argob itself was equivalent to Bashan; for it is said: And the rest of Gilead and all Bashan [which two made up] the kingdom of Og, gave I to

the half tribe of Manasseh; the whole territory of Argob, even all Bashan' (19). Still more decisive is verse 14: Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called it-Bashan, namely [for such is the literal meaning of the words, Havoth Jair

till this day.' In this last verse Bashan is given, as it were, parenthetically, as synonymous with Argob; and it is expressly stated, that the district received the new name Havoth Jair. This name means simply, 'Jair's dwellingplaces;' and while it signified more particularly the cities which Machir's descendants, Jair and Nobah, took, as in Joshua xiii. 30, it was also employed as the name of the whole country of Bashan, from the circumstance that Jair (and Nobah under him) conquered the latter. It follows, from these various passages, that Argob, Bashan, and Havoth Jair are all names of the same territory, only that the last mentioned is used sometimes (as in Deut. iii. 4, and in Josh. xiii. 30) more specifically to denote the towns which belonged to the territory to which these various names applied. The district of Ben-Geber then comprised the region of Bashan, with the country about Ramoth-Gilead; and that of Geber, son of Uri, included the whole of Gilead, with the exception of Ramoth-Gilead and Mahanaim.-(See Keil's Commentar in loco; also, Hengstenberg, Genuineness of the Pentateuch.)

NOTE 36, p. 267.-In a note on chap. iv. 6, Dr Kitto represents Adoniram as being over those who collected the taxes and tributes. This is in contradiction to chap. v. 13, 14, where Adoniram is plainly stated to be the officer who was over the levy of labourers. He could not well be both; nor, in truth, is there the slightest reason to suppose that he was, seeing that 2, which our translators have rendered by 'tribute' in chap. iv. 6, and by 'levy' in chap. v. 13, 14, never means tribute, whether in the sense of contribution in money or goods, or labour, but always those who perform such compulsory labour. even compulsory The word is exclusively used in application to persons, except in the single case of Esther x. 1, where it undoubtedly signifies tribute, following the Chaldee use of the word -from which nothing can be inferred in regard to the use of the word in pure Hebrew. Adoniram was, accordingly, superintending officer of the 30,000 men who performed compulsory labour (in German, Fröhner).

NOTE 37, p. 267.-The addition, and the Giblites' (in v. 18), seems to come in very awkwardly and superfluously, after the general statement that the stones for the Temple were hewn by both Jewish and Tyrian builders. The perception of this naturally suggests an inquiry as to the state of the Hebrew text. One reading of the Septuagint version gives in the part of the verse corresponding to the word in our Hebrew text, xai ibaλov aurous, which shews, at all events, that the translator had a verb and not a noun in his text. Now, there is one verb which is very little different in its appearance from the above word, and which gives a very suitable meaning, as we shall immediately shew. We refer to the verb, of which the part used in verse 18 would be the future conversive Hiphil, ; a word differing very little

from that in the Hebrew text. The meaning of the former word is, and they provided them (the stones) with a boundary'-that is, they bevelled them. That this is the correct reading, strongly confirmed by the interesting fact, that the very peculiar method of hewing called bevelling is seen in the great stones which are still found at Jerusalem, and regarded with certainty as the remains of the original wall of the Temple of Solomon. Dr Robinson remarks (Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. i. p. 423, first ed.) that, 'It is not, however, the great size of these stones alone which arrests the attention of the beholder, but the manner in which they are hewn gives them also a peculiar character. In common parlance, they are said to be bevelled; which here means, that after

the whole face has first been hewn and squared, a narrow strip along the edges is cut down a quarter or half an inch lower than the rest of the surface. When these bevelled stones are laid up in a wall, the face of it, of course, exhibits lines or grooves, formed by these depressed edges at their junction, marking more distinctly the elevation of the different courses, as well as the length of the stones of which they are composed. The face of the wall has then the appearance of many panels.' Dr Robinson views it as completely ascertained, that these stones belonged to the original building; and the proof of it will be found in his work, at page 425, seq. Such being the case, it would be strange if no mention of so peculiar a method of hewing had been made in the account of the building of the Temple; and as the 18th verse was the proper place for such a notice, the presumption is very strong that the reading here proposed is the correct one (see Thenius in loco, who first suggested this view).

NOTE 38, p. 277.-The statements in this verse, and in 2 Chron. ii. 14, regarding Hiram's parentage, may easily be harmonised in either of two ways. If we regard 'Dan' in

the latter text as referring to the tribe of Dan, then we may suppose that his mother belonged to that tribe by birth, but was married to a Naphtalite, so that she belonged as a widow to the tribe of Naphtali. Being afterwards married to a Tyrian, by whom she had Hiram, she would naturally be spoken of as a woman of Naphtali when reference was made to her origin. If, again, we regard 'Dan' as meaning the city Dan or Laish, in the north of Palestine, which the Danites seized (Judges xviii., &c.), then the mother of Hiram might be said to be of the daughters of Dan, because she belonged to that city, and of the tribe of Naphtali, simply because she was so. The two things might quite well consist, especially as the city Dan lay within the territory which belonged to the tribe of Naphtali.

NOTE 39, p. 288.-There has been a great variety of interpretations of this passage, and without attempting to state them all, we shall here present briefly the two views which have been most recently propounded; the one by Gesenins, followed by Keil (Commentar, &c.), and the other by Thenius (Commentar). The word on which the dispute turns, as it stands in our present Hebrew text, is (without the punctuation) p. This word may be pointed in two ways, which afford entirely different meanings-namely, either

, which means a collection, an assemblage, a gathering; or, which signifies from Koa. The former punctuation is that which obtains in our present Hebrew text. On the supposition that that reading is correct, Gesenius gives to mikveh-whose general signification, as above stated, is 'collection,' &c.-the special meaning of a caravan of merchants in the first part of the verse, and of a troop of horses in the second member. According to this view, the verse would be translated: With regard to the bringing up of the horses which Solomon got from Egypt, caravans of the king's merchants brought a troop (or brought them by troops) for a price.' The translation which is given in the English version, also supposes the correctness of the Hebrew text; but gives an unheard-of meaning to mikveh, which it translates 'linen yarn.' (Dr Kitto states that they give this meaning to Koa; but this is incorrect, for then what becomes of the preposition The other method of punctuation has been adopted by the Vulgate, which accordingly translates: Et educebantur equi Salomeni de Ægypto et de Coa,' &c. This translation might be very plausible if such a place as Koa were known to exist. The Septuagint, on the other hand, is evidently founded on a different reading of the Hebrew, inasmuch as it gives ἐξ "Αιγυπτου καὶ ἐκ Θέκους, which presupposes in the Hebrew text yippy from Tekoa. We shall here

)?

of it in the second instance must have arisen from a repetition of the first by mistake, while the present Hebrew text, on the contrary, has erroneously put mikveh in the first case as well as in the second, the eye of the transcriber having misled him, by a wandering glance at the second.' Thenius, therefore, reads ip in the first member, and in the second, according to which the verse is to be read as follows:-'With regard to the bringing up of the horses which Solomon used to get from Egypt; the merchants of the king brought them up from Tekoa in troops, being bought with a price.' Thenius says, that the usual old way from Egypt to Palestine through Beersheba and by Tekoa, was plainly the most suitable for the purpose of this traffic; and that the Egyptians themselves brought the horses the length of Tekoa, in order to make sure that they would not be ruined on the way to Palestine.

NOTE 40, p. 293.-It is interesting to trace the changes in the relations existing between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin at the different periods of their history. Previous to the period of the kings, there is no evidence of any peculiar intimacy existing between these tribes. The passage in Judges i. 8, compared with verse 21, cannot with propriety be adduced as proof, for that both Judah and Benjamin are spoken of in connection with Jerusalem is to be attributed to the peculiar situation of that city, as in a manner common to both tribes. On the contrary, the sad episode in the history of Benjamin related in the three last chapters of Judges, shews that at least there was no such connection subsisting between it and Judah, as to make the latter be guided rather by private predilection for Benjamin than by a sense of what was due to the community, much less to identify itself with that tribe as having one interest in common with it. Again, during that part of the reign of Saul in which his chief employment was the incessant persecution of David, a measure of hostility and party feeling seems to have arisen between the two tribes; and this alienation of feeling seems to have been much angmented during the civil war which was carried on between the partisans of David and those of Saul's son, Ishbosheth. In 1 Samuel xxii. 7, 8, we are told that Saul said unto his servants who stood about him: 'Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds; that all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? At first sight, these reproaches would seem to imply the existence of a feeling of lukewarmness towards Saul on the part of his servants, and of partiality towards David. Not so, however: they imply no lack of zeal in the Benjamites for Saul; they are merely the querulous utterances of a weak man, madly bent on revenge. But a more certain inference can be drawn from Saul's allusion to the giving of fields and vineyards; this allusion would have no effect on the minds of the followers of Saul, in the way of quickening their zeal, if it were not true that Saul had actually given them fields and vineyards. Consequently, we take this passage as containing an indication of partial conduct towards the tribes on the part of the king; he chose his body-guard from the Benjamites, and, not content with this mark of favour, bestowed on them grants of land and vineyards, which could have come into his hands only by unjust forfeiture of others' property. Perhaps we should find an instance of this injustice and favouritism in the passage 2 Sam. iv. 2, 3, where it is parenthetically noticed that Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin; and the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were sojourners there unto this day--especially as we know from 2 Sam. xxi. 2, that Saul massacred the Gibeonites. It would thus appear that the Beerothites, whose city Beeroth belonged to the Gibeonite republic (see Joshua ix. 18), had time to escape to a foreign land (they became Gerim in Gittaim); and that Saul bestowed their

deserted city upon his favourite tribe of Benjamin. Be this as it may, Saul's partiality towards Benjamin had its desired effect; the Benjamites became firmly attached to himself, and continued to be so to his family after his death. Abundant evidence of their attachment to Saul's successor, Ish-bosheth, is found in the brief history of the civil war which followed, under the conduct of Joab and Abner; particularly in 2 Sam. ii., see verses 15, 25, 31, where it appears that Abner's soldiers were at least chiefly, if not solely, composed of Benjamites. After the termination of the civil war, and particularly after the transference of the court from Hebron to Jerusalem, a decided change of sentiment took place between the two tribes. This change arose, doubtless, partly from a gradually growing conviction that the cause of Saul's house was hopeless, as David was ever waxing stronger, while the former became weaker and weaker. The defection of Abner, and the murder of the King Ish-bosheth, clenched this conviction; and the Benjamites, entertaining hope no longer of obtaining a king belonging to their own tribe, turned their eyes towards David, who was already a king at Hebron; and doubtless familiar with his glorious reputation for brave, and not less for generous and noble-hearted deeds, and mindful of his romantic attachment to Jonathan, so honourable to both, they must have willingly acquiesced in the general will of the people of Israel, and have become all the firmer friends that they had been enemies heretofore. This good-will was converted into intimacy, when Jerusalem became the capital of the kingdom, and the two tribes gradually came to be regarded and spoken of as one (see 1 Kings xi. 13 and xii. 20; as also 2 Sam. xix. 43). The fact stated in 2 Sam. xix. 16, 17, is significant as illustrating the working of the partiality of the Benjamites for David, which did not fail to shew itself even in the hour of adversity.

In

NOTE 41, p. 318.-The procedure of the son of the prophets,' narrated in the section 35-43, appears at first sight of a very eccentric and arbitrary character. particular, one is somewhat at a loss to know what was the design which the prophet had in view in seeking to be wounded; and also why he should denounce destruction on the man who refused to comply with his apparently mad request. As regards the latter, we might be disposed to perceive in it an instance of the abuse of supernatural gifts, analogous to those which we find the apostle Paul so severely censuring in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (chaps. xii., xiii., xiv.), were it not that it is expressly stated in verse 35, that the prophet spoke in the word of the Lord. We must, therefore, suppose that the man knew that he was being addressed by a prophet, and that it was his duty to obey his command. As for the design of the prophet, it seems to have been as follows:-He desired to communicate to Ahab an intimation of the fatal consequences of having let go out of his hands a man whom God designed to be utterly destroyed; but he knew that the direct and blunt annunciation of this unpalatable message would be attended with danger, and therefore, like Nathan in the case of David's great transgression (2 Sam. xii.), he adopts a plan which would secure the same end in a more circuitous way. That plan was, to go to the king as one of those who had been engaged in battle, and to represent himself as having let escape a prisoner intrusted to his care by his comrade. In order to make his story sure of credit on the part of the king, the prophet took the most effectual steps in getting himself wounded, for how otherwise could he have come by these cuts on his body than by having received them in battle? In order to escape recognition-no doubt he had met Ahab before-he disguised his face by tying round it a head-band (for this, not ashes, is the meaning of Es, which is the Chaldee

and is translated by the Septuagint rsλaus). Under this disguise, and with this story, he obtains a judgment on the case from the king, and then intimates to the latter that he has judged himself.

NOTE 42, p. 328.-In Note 14, Appendix, Vol. I., one of the proofs that the Gilgal so often mentioned in

Scripture is not always, nor even commonly, that east of Jericho, was founded on the words in verse 2 of this chapter: So they went down (from Gilgal) to Bethel.' We now add, that the whole of this chapter, taken together, leads incontestably to the same conclusion which was come to in the note referred to. Observe the progress of the journey of Elijah and Elisha. They set out from Gilgal, and proceed to Bethel; from Bethel, they advance to Jericho; and, finally, from Jericho to Jordan. Does this order of succession not put beyond doubt that Gilgal was at the extreme west end of their journey, and that they advanced in a continued easterly direction from thence to the Jordan? Jordan lay east of Jericho; Jericho lay east of Bethel; does it not follow naturally that Bethel, in turn, lay east of Gilgal? It may also be remarked here, in passing, that Bethel, which, since Dr Robinson's Researches were published, has generally been identified with Beitin, has recently been held to be represented by Sinjil, situated midway between Jiljilia (Gilgal) and Seilun (Shiloh)-for example, by Thenius and Keil. It is certainly in favour of this view, that in the vicinity of Sinjil is Turmus Aya, which may be taken to represent the Ai mentioned in Joshua as being near Bethel.

In his note on the schools of the prophets (1 Sam. x.), Dr Kitto has collected all the particulars contained in the sacred history concerning these institutions. It must be observed, however, that we have no right to regard the whole of these as forming features of these institutions from the beginning. These schools of the prophets, in fact, seem to have undergone a gradual development, from being casual and temporary assemblages of spiritually minded men collected into one place at Ramah, for the sake of the instruction and spiritual guidance which Samuel was so well qualified to impart, into regular and systematic associations, under the direction of a prophet; and hence bearing the title of Sons of the Prophets. This change in the character of the 'schools' necessarily arose out of the altered state of the times. It was indispensable that those who remained true to God in an idolatrous and wicked age, as was that of Ahab's reign, as well as of most of his successors, should unite together, not only in order to be able more effectively to resist the wickedness and idolatry which prevailed, but even for the sake of personal safety. In these unhappy times, accordingly, the spiritually minded in Israel assembled together in various places (as Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho), formed one fraternity, living under one roof (2 Kings vi. 1), and eating at one table (2 Kings iv. 38, &c.), with exception of those who were married and had houses of their own (2 Kings iv. 1, seq.). The control of these fraternities resided in Elijah during his lifetime, and after his death passed over to Elisha. Instances of public prophetic services performed by these 'sons of the prophets,' are scattered up and down the history of the period (see, for example, 1 Kings xx. 35, &c.)

NOTE 43, p. 354.-This concluding summary of the reign of Jehu gives us an opportunity of noticing an important circumstance in it, not mentioned in the sacred history, but the knowledge of which is obtained from the Nineveh inscriptions. In the centre of the mound of Nimroud, where, as is well known, Mr Layard carried on his principal researches during his first expedition, that indefatigable savant discovered an obelisk of black marble, sculptured on the four sides, and bearing in all twenty small bass-reliefs, with an inscription of 210 lines written above, below, and between the sculptures. The whole was in the best preservation, scarcely a character of the inscription being wanting; and the figures were as sharp and well defined as if carved only a few days before.

The sculptures were at first sight conjectured to have been designed to represent the presents brought as tribute by subject nations to the king in whose honour the obelisk was erected; and the inscriptions were supposed to contain a narrative of his warlike exploits. These conjectures have been fully verified by the important investigations of Colonel Rawlinson and Dr Hincks, the coryphæi of cuneatic literature. In his Commentary on the Cuneiform

Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, published first in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, and subsequently in the form of a pamphlet (1850), the former of these scholars communicated a translation of the obelisk inscription, of which he states: Although considerable difficulty still attaches to the pronunciation of the proper names, and although the meaning of particular passages is still unknown to me, I hold the accurate ascertainment of the general purport of the legend to be no more subject to controversy than my decipherment of the Persian inscription of Behistun' (regarding the latter, see Kitto's note on Ezra, vi. 1). We cannot here enter into the contents of this inscription, and must rest satisfied with stating, that it gives the military annals, for thirty-one years, of a certain Assyrian king, whose name has been variously read-being at first read by Rawlinson, Temen-bar, and subsequently (Outlines of Assyrian History, 1852), Divanubara; and more recently, Shalmanubar, and by Dr Hincks, Divanubar. Besides this historical inscription, there are on the obelisk, epigraphs engraved above the five series of figures. In his Commentary, Rawlinson notices the second line of gifts in the following way: The second line of offerings is said to have been sent by Yahua, son of Hubiri, a prince of whom there is no mention in the annals, and of whose native country, therefore, I am ignorant.' Most likely, no one of our readers would be able to conjecture, any more than the learned author, who is referred to in the epigraph | just quoted. Well, it was ascertained about two years after, by both Hincks and Rawlinson, independently of each other-being, indeed, separated by a distance of thousands of miles at the time when they made the discovery-that the Yahua of the obelisk is none other than Jehu, king of Israel. The following are the words in which the learned officer communicated his discovery to the Athenæum of March 27, 1852:-'The tribute depicted in the second compartment upon the obelisk comes from Israel; it is the tribute of Jehu. The names are Yahua, the son of Khumriya, or ", the son of 2. Jehu is usually called in the Bible the son of Nimshi, although Jehoshaphat was his actual father (2 Kings ix. 2); but the Assyrians taking him for the legitimate successor to the throne, named as his father (or rather ancestor) Omri, the founder of the kingdom of Samaria; Omri's name being written on the obelisk as it is in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser-where

the kingdom of Israel is always called the country of Beth Omri. If this identification of name were the only argument in favour of Jehu, I should not so much depend on it; but the king of Syria is also named on the obelisk Khazail, which is exactly the N1, (2 Chron. xxii. 6) Hazael of Scripture, who was the contemporary of Jehu; and in the inscriptions of the obelisk king's father. there is also a notice of Ithbaal, king of Sidon, who was the father of Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, and a contemporary of Jehu.' Dr Hincks had announced the same discovery previously-December 27, 1851-in the Athenæum, in very similar, we might almost say identical words. Such and so interesting is the first point of contact between the history of Israel and that of Assyria, so far, at least, as has hitherto been ascertained from the monuments; and it serves to shew how early the Israelitish kingdom began to succumb before the superior power of Assyria. It furnishes also a fixed point for Assyrian chronology, which, till the discovery just mentioned was made, was in a most indefinite and unsatisfactory condition; and, together with other discoveries already made and to be made, will perhaps serve to settle the longagitated disputes occasioned by the classical discrepancies regarding Assyrian history.

NOTE 44, p. 364.-A notice of the incursion of Pul into the land of Israel, mentioned in verse 19, has been discovered on the monuments of Nineveh. In the southwest palace at Nimroud, a series of slabs was discovered, which had been brought from the central palace-where the black obelisk described in last note was got-containing the annals of a king whose name could not be found. Here we remark parenthetically, that it is quite ascertained

from the inscriptions, and the whole appearance of the ruins, that the south-west palace, erected by the son of Sennacherib, was built with materials taken from all the other palaces existing in the vicinity-the latter having been erected by a prior dynasty, and in consequence destroyed by that which succeeded it. As a proof of the above assertion, it is enough to state, that the slabs have the appearance of being taken at random; the sculptures and inscriptions were found turned inwards, in order to be concealed; and the stones lopped off or chiseled down, to suit the dimensions of the rooms.

To return. Dr Hincks discovered amongst a list of kings who paid tribute to the nameless king in the eighth year of his reign, the name Mi.na.kh.i.im.mi Sâ.mi.ri.n'd.āyi, which is evidently Menahem of Samaria. This discovery, taken in connection with sacred history, served to determine what had previously been unknown-the name of the king whose annals were recorded on the tablets referred to; for according to verse 19, the Assyrian king to whom Menahem paid tribute bore the name of Pul. It is a singular circumstance that this king's name should have been so completely obliterated as, till quite recently, to baffle all attempts at identification. Dr Hincks, in the letter to the Athenæum announcing the discovery of Menahem's name (Jan. 3, 1852), accounted for the absence of Pul's name in the inscriptions recording his annals by observing that Pul was the predecessor of Sargon, and of a different family; and that Esar-haddon, the grandson of the latter king, and builder of the south-west palace, had defaced the name.

This view of Pul, as the terminal member of an old dynasty, has been recently urged with much force by Colonel Rawlinson (in the Athenæum for March 18 and April 15, 1854).

The letter of the former date, amongst other things, contains a summary by the learned colonel of Assyrian chronology, intended to bring into one view what had up till then been accomplished in that department of inquiry. As an opportunity will occur of briefly noticing this subject elsewhere, we shall not here enter on it, further than to remark, that according to Rawlinson, the higher of the two dynasties into which the Assyrian kings are divided, was terminated by a king whose name he reads Phal-luka. In this view, two points remained doubtful: one, whether the name of the king in question was correctly read Phal-luka; and the other, whether the king so designated really occupied the position in the dynasty which the above view assigned to him. A subsequent discovery made by Rawlinson, and announced in the letter of the second of the above dates, settled conclusively the former of these doubtful points. In that letter, the author proceeds to say: "The discovery which I have now to announce is, that within the last few days the workmen employed in the service of the British Museum have disinterred from the ruins of the south-east palace at Nimroud a perfect statue of the god Nebo, inscribed across the breast with a legend of twelve lines, which states that the figure in question was executed by a certain sculptor of Calah, and dedicated by him to his lord, Phal-luka, king of Assyria, and to his lady, Sammuramit, queen of the palace.' The way in which this discovery is applied, we shall indicate in the learned writer's own words.

Now, the immediate result of this new inscription is the verification of the reading of the cuneiform name of Phal-luka, and the determinate identification of the king to whom the name belonged with the monarch whose title is written aλax by the Septuagint, and Belochus by Eusebius; for as Belochus and Semiramis are the only sovereigns in the Greek-Assyrian lists who reign jointly, so the union of Phal-luka and Sammuramit on the statue of Nebo affords the only instance, in the whole range of the cuneiform inscriptions, of a royal Assyrian lady being placed on an equality with her husband, or, indeed, of a queen of Nineveh being ever mentioned by name.'

The identity of Phal-luka of the inscriptions with the Pul of Scripture is suggested by the similarity of the names, and proved by the circumstance, that Phal-luka was the second king in succession from King Shalmanubar, the