Oxford English Prize Essay for 1821-The Study of Modern History. By D. K. SANDFORD Remarks on the different Methods of Ploughing adopted by the Romans, illustrating the didactic Precepts of the Notice of Professor GAISFORD'S Publications; with ADVERSARIA LITERARIA, No. XXIX.-Epitaphe de Bonaparte.-Domine salvum pour les Grecs insurgés.- Ludovico XVIII, Galliæ Regi, in festis Baptismalibus Regii Burdigalæ Ducis.-H. Stephens's Reading of a Passage in Euripides.-The Arak Atsa Root...... 174 Notice of a Vindication of 1 John v, 7. from the Objec- Oxford English Prize Essay for 1809:-The Love of Classical Criticism (Emendation of Catullus) ...... 210 An Inquiry into the Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology. Part IV. By R. P. KNIGHT...... 213 On the Origin, Progress, Prevalence, and Decline of Idolatry. Part VI. By the Rev. G. TOWNSEND .... 229 African Fragments. No. 11. By J. GREY JACKSON 243 Memoir on the Antiquity of the Zodiacs of Esneh and Critique on Mr. BELLAMY'S New Translation of the Bible. 283 Cambridge Prize Poems for 1821.-Maria Scotorum Regina. Erailev äμa σrovdálwv.—Porsonian Prize Notice of Professor COUSIN'S Edition of the two first - Nuga-Fragment of Thucydides.-On the quantity of in the Orthography of Classical Names.—Misquotations. On the Eleau Inscription. By Sir W. GELL ............. 401 On the Plagiarisms of Dr. BLOMFIELD. By G. BURGES 402 Place the Oblong Zodiac of Dendera opposite page 251. THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. No. XLVII. SEPTEMBER, 1821. ON THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS, PREVALENCE, AND DECLINE OF IDOLATRY. BY THE REV. GEORGE TOWNSEND. PART V. [Continued from No. XLVI. p. 341.] SECTION VII.-Origin of Oracles. Ir seems necessary that some notice should be taken of another subject, from its intimate connexion with the history of the ancient Idolatry-"the Origin of Oracles among the Heathen Nations." I do not wish to enforce my opinion as entirely correct, yet I cannot but think it is as well supported by internal evidence, as the generality of those positions which are not warranted by direct testimony. The Levitical law was not a collection of arbitrary and positive enactments, which were imposed for the first time by Moses, and the greater part of which had been utterly unknown before; it was a renewal of the patriarchal ritual and worship, with such changes, omissions, and additions, as were suited to the circumstances of the tribes of Israel, on their leaving Egypt and commencing their wanderings in the wilderness. A minute resemblance, or more properly an entire coincidence, is proved to have existed in many respects between the Patriarchal and Levitical ritual and worship, by every proof and testimony which can possibly be collected on the subject. Our best divines are, I believe, unanimous on the point. There has ever existed a wonderful similarity between the customs of those nations, who pretend to great antiquity, the religious code of the Jewish lawVOL. XXIV. CI. JI. NO. XLVII. A giver, and the early patriarchal notions. Such books as Burder's Oriental Customs; Harmer's Observations; Ward's History of the Hindoos, &c. &c. abound with the most ample confirmation of this fact. To mention only a few out of many, the Hindoos give permission to a husband to marry a second wife, if the first prove barren; wives are chosen from the branches of their own families who may live at a distance, rather than from among strangers, with whom they may have contracted habits of friendship; a goat is frequently permitted to run wild, as if conse crated; the first-born are often devoted to their gods. The Hindoo laws relating to personal cleanliness are nearly, sometimes exactly, similar to those prescribed by Moses. Like the Hebrew Nazarites, the Hindoos offer their hair; and many other minor, as well as more important coincidences, may be added. Stronger evidence than these instances afford, to prove the early identity between the Patriarchal and Mosaic Religion, is found in the singular fact, that the ancient Egyptians had so many enactments among them similar to those afterwards appointed by Moses; so many indeed, that Dr. Spencer wrote his celebrated treatise De Legibus Hebræorum, to prove that the Israelites borrowed from the Egyptians: I need not observe that Spencer's reasoning has been long known to be fallacious. Unless too there were some decided resemblance between the Patriarchal religion, and the worship of the surrounding idolatrous nations, on what "known principle of the human mind," to use the celebrated expression of Mr. Gibbon, can we account for the frequent lapses of the Jews into idolatry? Even immediately after their deliverance from the Red Sea, when that most stupendous miracle, the parting of the waters, was still fresh in their memory, we find they complied with the invitations of the first idolatrous tribe they came near, and sacrificed to Baal Meon. To express his abhorrence of their crime, Moses changed the word into Baal Peor; and Mr. Faber has certainly given us a most ingenious solution of the reasons which influenced the newly delivered Israelites to comply with this worship. He proves that the traditional religion was the same, and the Jews were only led to comply with the idolatrous additions which had been made to the original patriarchal ritual, in consequence of their agreeing in opinion with the idolaters, on the several points of faith, common to both religions. I shall close this paragraph with one additional proof, deduced from the narrative of Lieutenant-Colonel Fitzclarence. The plan of the temple of Solomon was the same as that of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. In his progress through India, Lieutenant-Colonel Fitzclarence |