testimonies were worthy of unhesitating reliance, then indeed it might be naturally inferred that these books would have removed much of the thick darkness in which the subject is enveloped, and have given us some satisfactory information concerning the state and progress of medical knowledge in Egypt at that early period. But the almost unanimous opinion of scholars is against their genuineness; they are commonly deemed compilations of a later date, and therefore could have afforded us no certain guidance. The existence even of their supposed author has been thought exceedingly doubtful; and in the language of one of the noblest historians, as true as it is beautiful, we may with propriety say, "For what this man was, it is known to God: envy and aged time hath partly defaced, and partly worn out the certain knowledge of him." This being the case, the clearest conception obtainable upon the point must be drawn from a comparison of what is mentioned in the Scriptures, with the notices which are to be found in the Second Book of Herodotus. ing disease, and to accomplish a recovery from its hurtful dominion, Thus far the physician of ancient Egypt would bear some resemblance in professional character to the physician of England in modern times. The resemblance of course could be only general, as the extremely limited knowledge of botanical and mineralogical science possessed in those primitive times, must necessarily place the Egyptian practitioner very far below those of our own age and country. But these physicians, evidently the regular professional attendants of Joseph, were commanded to embalm the body of his father. This is a circumstance of considerable importance towards gaining a full and an exact conception of those duties which were connected with their official station. It is to be remembered that embalming, from what we are told of the nature of the process, would come under the general designation of a surgical operation. Several steps in the course of performing it were strictly of this character,-such, for instance, as extracting the brain with a piece of crooked iron, making an incision in the side with an Ethiopian stone, in order to draw out the intestines, and, after due application of drugs and spices, sewing up the body, all of which were parts of the mode of embalm From the inspired narrative we learn that Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father, and that in obedience to this command, they proceeded to perform the work. It is important to observe here that the term Ning practised by this people. These rendered in our version physician, comes from the Hebrew verb 827 which, in its most literal sense, signifies to mend or repair, and from thence comes to mean, to heal or cure. Of these significations the most appropriate examples may be found in Ps. Ix. 2, and Num. xii. 13. Carefully bearing in mind the derivation of the word, it would seem to denote the administration of medical substances with a view to check the progress of any exist facts of course will warrant an immediate conclusion, that the profession of medicine and the practice of surgery were united in the capacity of those who, in the inspired narrative, are denominated physicians. Such being a concise statement of what is contained in, and of what may be inferred from, the scriptural account, let us now inquire whether anything can be found in the notices of Herodotus tending to corroborate or shed any light upon these points. We shall first transcribe, and then attempt a translation of his words; after which it may be desirable to make a few observations naturally suggested by them. In Lib. II. cap. 84, he thus writes, Ἡ δὲ ἱητρική κατὰ τάδε σφι δέδασται. μιῆς νούσου ἕκαστος ἰητρός ἐστι, καὶ οὐ πλεονων. παντα δ' ἰητρῶν ἐστὶ πλέα. οἱ μὲν γὰρ, ὀφθαλμῶν ἰητροὶ κατεστέασι οἱ δὲ, κεφαλῆς· δι δὲ, ὀδόντων οἱ δὲ, τῶν κατὰ νηδύν o de, τῶν ἀφανέων νόυσων. Of which passage the following may be taken as a correct expression in English: "The art of healing is thus distributed among them: each physician attends to the cure of one disease, and no more: all places abound with physicians: some attempt the cure of disorders in the eyes; some, those of the head; some, those of the teeth; some, those of the bowels; and some, those diseases which are of a more obscure character." From this account it is very evident that, in the time of the historian, and even still earlier, medical science was a regularly established thing, that it numbered multitudes among its professors, and that from hence it must have been regarded as a science of great importance and value. In addition to this, it may perhaps be fairly presumed, from the fact of one malady only occupying the exclusive attention of each physician, that they attained to considerable skill in their respective departments of the art. Neither is the idea at all discountenanced that surgery constituted a part of their practice; on which supposition the narrative of Herodotus, in all its main features, will most strictly harmonize with the information we have already drawn from the relation of Moses. Whether the physicians of whom the old Greek historian writes, did or did not perform the process of embalming, is not positively mentioned. But in the opening of cap. 86, having previously spoken of the people carrying their departed relatives to be embalmed, he observes, Εἰσὶ δὲ ὅι ἐπ' αὐτῷ τούτῳ κατέαται, καὶ τέχνην ἔχουσι ταύτην. "But there are persons devoted to this same practice, and who especially possess this art.” This sentence seems to indicate that embalming was of itself a distinct profession. In reflecting upon it, the suggestion has sometimes occurred to us, that these persons who thus practised it, were from among the physicians, particularly as the process required considerable knowJedge of anatomy, and also of the chemical properties of the different substances which were employed. Putting away, however, this supposition, and receiving the statement of the writer in its most literal sense, it may be very fairly presumed, that during the years which had elapsed from the time of Joseph, a slight change had taken place, and that the art of embalming, having been first practised by the physicians, but in time coming much more extensively into use, was at length exclusively confined to the attention of a separate class of persons. But our space will not permit us to enlarge further on the physicians. We must now proceed to notice the practice itself of embalming.In doing this, there are three lights in which we may contemplate it,the origin of the custom,-the nature of the process,-and the specific design with which it was performed on the body of the deceased patriarch. First, its origin.-It will be conceded at once, that the observance is one of a very peculiar nature; and just in proportion to this peculiarity, the question of its origin becomes curious and interesting. Hence there has been no lack of opinions expressed respecting this point. Many persons of clear intellect and acute perception, have thought, and reasoned, and written upon it. Some have imagined that it arose from the want of appropriate burial places, owing to the wide-spreading inundations of the Nile. Others have supposed it to spring from the repugnance of the people to burn the bodies of their dead, because they deemed fire a wild beast, somewhat like the Persians who had a similar repugnance, thinking that fire was a god. It has been conceived again to have originated in a feeling of strong affection for the remains of departed relatives or friends. In the beautiful tale of Rasselas, chap. 48. Imlac is made to utter the following sentiments: "I have long believed that the practice of embalming arose only from tenderness to the remains of relations or friends: and to this opinion I am more inclined, because it seems impossible that this care should have been general: had all the dead been embalmed, their repositories must, in time, have been more spacious than the dwellings of the living. I suppose only the rich or honourable were secured from corruption, and the rest left to the course of nature.” This language may perhaps be regarded as expressing Dr. Johnson's own idea of the subject. We are free, however, to confess ourselves that none of these views appear to us to furnish a satisfactory solution of the inquiry. There must, we think, have been some deeper cause than any of the circumstances comprehended in the above mentioned opinions. One part of what is put forth in Rasselas, is especially open to objection, viz. that "only the rich or honourable were secured from corruption," in this way,-an N. S. NO. 135. opinion directly refuted by the testimony of Herodotus, who most expressly asserts, that there were three modes of embalming, differing in expensiveness, and thereby adapted to the rich, the middle classes, and the poor. Now the existence of these three modes is a proof that they were, to a certain extent, used, and if used, the declaration of Imlac becomes at once untenable. To what source then may it be most probably traced? We may lay it down as an axiom, that there will always be a correspondence more or less perceptible between what a people believe, and what they do; nor can there be, in the intellectual and moral history of man, a chapter of more affecting interest, than that which records his views of the future destiny of the soul, and his conduct as grafted upon these views. What then was the idea or belief of the Egyptians concerning the state of the soul after death? Let Herodotus answer this question, by what is contained in Lib. II. cap. 123, πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπ τιόι εἰσι οἱ ειπόντες, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός ἐστι, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος, ἐς ἄλλο ζῶον αἰεὶ γινόμενον ἐσδύεται: ἐπεὶν δὲ περιἐλθῃ πάντα τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θα λάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ, αὖτις ἐς ανθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνειν : τήν περιήλυσιν δὲ αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν rpioxilioioi ereσt. In English as follows, "The Egyptians are the first who have avowed the opinion, that the soul of man is immortal; and that, the body dissolving, it enters without interruption into some other living creature: and' when it has gone the round of all the creatures of the earth, and of the sea, and of all winged creatures, it enters again into a human body; and that this circling round is accomplished by it in three thousand years." Now Y these are the facts which have always appeared to us to give the most natural and convincing explanation of the question we are considering. Whether there be anything in the declaration of the historian which has eluded our search or detection, it is not for us to say; but very often have we wondered that it has not induced a greater simplicity, and oneness of sentiment on the origin of embalming. For if the people thought that the soul after leaving the body was destined to become the tenant of other corporeal abodes, through a circling period of three thousand years, how perfectly natural was their solicitude to preserve the body it had forsaken, prompted by the soothing hope that the soul being once more united to it, would rekindle the light which of old had sparkled in its eyes, the beauty which shone in its countenance, the vigour which had nerved its limbs, and the activity and pleasure which had distinguished its previous being! Whether or not this may be the true, or the most probable account of the origin of the custom, we would not confidently aver; but we have no hesitation in saying, that it is the view which most strongly commends itself to our own judgment. Secondly, the nature of the process. In entering upon this part of the investigation we must just glance at the original Hebrew and Greek terms made use of to describe the process. The former word signifies to season, to spice, to give a flavour to, and from thence to embalm the latter, rapixevw, derived from ταρίχος, salt-fish or salt meat, means to season with salt, to salt, and then to season generally. Guided by the primitive significations of these tering, we may thus define the word embalming, to saturate a body with those aromatic substances, the chemical properties of which shall absorb completely every corrupting element, and thus perserve it from putrefaction. Turning from this definition to the minute and valuable description of the process, which Herodotus has given us, we find it to correspond in the most exact manner with our own conception of it. We must present our readers with this description, and most gladly would we do it in the author's own words, but the passage is rather long, and with a translation would occupy more room than we can spare; the reader must therefore be contented with a translation, which we shall strive to render as correct and expressive as possible. It is as follows, "Those done in the most costly manner, they thus embalm. First, they extract the brain through the nostrils, partly with a crooked piece of iron, and partly by pouring in drugs: then making an incision in the side with a sharp Ethiopian stone, through this they draw out the whole of the intestines: well cleaning these, and washing them in palm-wine, they next cover them all over with pounded spices: afterwards, filling the body with powder of pure myrrh, casia, and other odoriferous substances, except frankincense, they sew it up again. Then, having done this, they spread it all over with nitre, keeping it up in this state for seventy days, a period of time they are not permitted to exceed. When the seventy days are expired, washing the corpse, they roll it up entirely in nicely cut bandages of cotton, dipping them in a gum which the Egyptians use very much in the place of glue. Then at length the relatives receive it back, and having made for it a wooden case resembling the human shape, they enclose it therein and having thus shut it up, they deposit it in the apartment appropriated to their dead, fixing it in an upright position against the wall. This is the way in which they prepare those embalmed after the most expensive manner." Such is the instructive relation of our author. It is not requisite to quote the account of the other two modes, as they are fundamentally the same, differing merely in the circumstances of being less elaborate and not so expensive. With all the main features of this narrative, Diodorus Siculus agrees, adding at the same time, that the appearance of the whole body was surprisingly retained, and even the hairs of the eye-lids so entirely preserved, that the deceased might be at once recognized by their features. But we must now hasten to say a little, Thirdly, on the specific view with which the process was performed, on the body of the departed patriarch. It may be safely asserted, that this view was altogether a distinct one, from those which influenced the conduct of the Egyptians. Jacob and Joseph did not entertain those dim and clouded conceptions of a future state, which generally prevailed among the people of that land. Like their ancestors Abraham and Isaac, they were acquainted with the character of the only true God-a Being of infinite and unchangeable perfection, and bad at least some faint glimpses of that brighter world in which their journeyings would cease, their tribulations end, and every tear be wiped from their eyes for ever. How far they were acquainted with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, a truth so sublime in itself, and so clearly revealed in the gospel, we cannot say. But this we know from an infallible source, that they were experimentally familiar with the glorious principle of saving faith, that faith which, like a star of light, guided their feet, shone upon their way, and allured them sweetly along towards a better country, that is a heavenly one. The indubitable proof of this may be derived from many passages in the Book of Genesis, compared with several statements of Christ, many declarations of St. Paul, and still more especially with the noble and animating recital in the 11th chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The patriarch being venerable from age, and yet more so from the heavy sorrows under which he had been bowed down, and Joseph filling so exalted a station in Egypt, he would doubtless be embalmed after the most finished and costly manner. But why was he embalmed at all? Not surely because he wished, or his son intended, that he should not be put into the grave. For what reason then? This is the question to be answered, a question too, which, we think, may be answered most satisfactorily. Let it be remembered then, that the heat of the climate was very great, and the customary season of mourning exceedingly protracted; that Jacob had charged his sons to bury him with his fathers in the field of Machpelah, before Mamre, that the distance from Egypt to this place was very considerable, and their modes of travelling far from being expeditious. When all these circumstances are taken into the account, they will show in the clearest manner, that there was a real necessity for Joseph to command his servants the physicians to embalm his father. Besides which the proceeding may, perhaps, be regarded as expressing in some measure the ardour of filial love to a parent so honoured, so afflicted, so kind, and now called away to his celestial home. But |