His voice speaks in the Summer's gladness- And in the great and rolling seas. Bencath, the rich and teeming land; THE MAGICIANS OF EGYPT. BY THE REVEREND HENRY CHRISTMAS, M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A. By a long train of events the Almighty had been preparing to rescue his chosen people from the tyrannic rule of Amenophis, the then King of Egypt, and the Pharaoh of Moses. The monarch, unwilling to lose such profitable slaves as were the Israelites, refused to let the children of Israel go into the desert, to sacrifice to the Lord their God; and Moses was commissioned to perform a miracle to prove to that prince his divine mission, and to convince the doubting Israelites that he had more than human title to command them. Aaron, by his order, cast down in the presence of Pharaoh his rod, and it became a serpent. "Then Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers, now the magicians of Egypt; they also did so with their enchantments, for they cast down every man his rod and they became serpents." Our translation is a good one, but taking the etymological signification of the words, we shall have-" Then Pharaoh called the men of learning, the revealers-now the decipherers of Egypt did so with their fumigations." This lets us into two facts-first, that these wise men were discoverers of hidden things; next, that they used lustral fires, or incense, in their enchantments. Whatever were the means, the event-for we will not yet say the effectis certain." And they became serpents; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." Afterwards we hear, that when Moses had stretched his rod over all the waters of Egypt, and they became blood, that the magicians did so with their enchantments, and Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Again, when the frogs were miraculously multiplied by Moses, we are told-" And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought frogs upon the land of Egypt." But in the plague of lice the case is different; for the reading is, "And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not; so there were lice upon man and upon beast." After this we hear of the magicians but once more in all this relation (ix. 11), " And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians." It has been proposed to read with regard to the lice" And the magicians acted with their enchantments to remove the lice, but they could not; so there were lice upon man and upon Thus, then, is related the power of the Egyptian magicians; and I And first, it must be remarked, that it is rather by conjectures drawn from other sources, than by information from the sacred record, that we suppose serpents to be the animals into which the rods were changed; since the word tannim, translated serpents in this text, is elsewhere rendered whales, and is, in fact, as doubtful in its interpretation as the much-disputed nachash, the animal under whose shape Satan tempted Eve, and on which passage, after enumerating many other conjectures, Dr. Clarke writes much and learnedly to prove that the nachash was an ourang-outang. I cannot easily coincide with the Doctor, nor will the generality of the world; but in the case under consideration there is good reason to translate tannim by "serpents." And in addition to many other arguments which have been brought, I beg leave to present one which has, I believe, been totally overlooked. Attempts have been made, and very successfully, ot prove that Moses, in some respects, coincides with Mercury; for, in fact, the acts and powers of Moses have been parcelled out among the divinities of Greece, as the miracles of the Almighty were among those of Egypt. Particular stress is laid upon the rod of Moses, as being the same with the caduceus of Mercury. Now we can hardly think it accidental that serpents were so represented as twisted round the rod of Mercury, as that he should take them by the tail. If, then, the caduceus of Mercury be the rod of Moses, how strong a presumption is there that this miracle was especially alluded to by the accompanying serpents. But supposing, as we have indeed every reason to do, that the rods were changed into serpents and nothing else, we may easily see that the magicians of Pharaoh had, in all probability, as full a certainty of what kind of miracle Moses was about to attempt in the first instance, as they had in the second and third. The change of the rod was given by God to Moses as a sign to his own people, in case they should prove incredulous. They did prove so; and we find afterward their incredulity removed: hence we are authorized to believe that the sign was given and accepted. If this was the case, we have only to suppose, or rather to conclude, that the magicians prepared themselves in the interim for the performance of a trick, which has been a favourite exploit of legerdemain in the east from time immemorial, as says Huctius; and innumerable authors assure us, that in every age there have existed persons who pretended to render serpents harmless, and to perform all manner of tricks with them. Herodotus, in the seventy-fourth chapter of the second book of his history, mentions όφεις ανθρωπῶν οὐδάμου δηλήμονης, serpents in no wise hurtful to men; from which we find that we are not obliged to suppose any danger to the magicians of Egypt from the handling and carrying about of the reptiles. Many learned and intelligent critics have exercised much ingenuity, and displayed much industry in collecting accounts of the astonishing skill shown by eastern jugglers in past times, and at the present day; but surely no one who has witnessed the performances of that nature at our theatres and places of public resort, can hesitate in believing the possibility of a change, or a pretended change, like that of a rod into a serpent. Instead of attempting to explain how such a metamorphosis might be imitated, I will relate what I have witnessed, and what I doubt not has been witnessed by many. In the year 1822, I saw a man, who was (as I am told by a French gentleman, who saw and conversed with him in the Portuguese language) a native of that country, but who called himself an Indian, and assumed the name of Kian Kan Kruse. This man performed many things apparently as wonderful as those done by the magicians of Pharaoh. Among other proofs of his astonishing dexterity, I saw him offer some singular looking substance to a gentleman who was present, and desire him to put it in his mouth, telling him it was a dried fruit much admired in India, but if he did not like the taste to replace it on a plate. I saw the substance in the first place, and it certainly was a very nondescript sort of thing; but when, not liking the taste, the gentleman replaced it on the plate, there was a little anger, and no little disgust, exhibited by him to see a toad on the plate. This I cannot pretend to explain; but I should be very much ridiculed did I profess to believe that Kian Kan Kruse changed into a toad that which was not previously such, that he possessed the ars magica, or that he had dealings with the infernal powers. This man, I would observe, en passant, shot himself by accident (at least, so I have heard) in attempting, at a public exhibition, to discharge a pistol down his throat. What I have related of him is not at all extraordinary. Many other jugglers have performed feats as extraordinary, and we have no reason to believe that such powers are confined to our times. Indeed we have the testimony of Apuleius, who lived one thousand seven hundred years ago; for he, in the first book of his "Metamorphoses," has the following passage:-" Circulatorem adspexi equestrem spatham preacutam mucrone infesto devorasse, et mox eundem et venatoriam lanceam in ima viscera condidisse." Here we have the horseman burying the lance in his body, and swallowing his sword in spite of the point, with as much gout as did any of those who amuse the curious of our time. To return to the magicians of Egypt. I think there can be no doubt that they had previous knowledge of what Moses was about to do, and that they had abundance of skill to effect the appearance of such a transformation. With these admissions, why bring in magic?-why attribute that to supernatural influence which may so well be explained naturally? Again, Pharaoh supposed the magicians to be really so, and not merely jugglers, and he likewise supposed Moses to belong to the same class. He of course knew; for how could he be ignorant of the education of Moses, and that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, which at once shows the absurdity of supposing the king himself to have been a magician. But it may be fairly asked, if the Egyptian magicians could inflict plagues, why could they not remove them? They might have sophistry enough to satisfy the king, already a firm believer; but what a tale does the omission tell against them. Pharaoh's fault seems to have been, that he did not examine with sufficient attention the proofs of miraculous power on both sides; otherwise, can he be blamed for not hearkening to the voice of one man, who supported his opinions by miracles, when many others, who were equally capable of proving their advice by miraculous testimony, advised a course diametrically opposite. We are told by St. Paul that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses; and we thus find them the advocates of tyranny and oppression. Having mentioned these names, I will just remark that they appear to be widely known in tradition by these appellations. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel calls them Janis and Jambris; the Babylonian Talmud, Joanne and Mambre; Rabbi Tarcum, Jonos and Jambres. Numenius, quoted by Eusebius, calls them Jamnes and Jambres; and Pliny was aware of their names, or nearly so; for, in that very incorrect but amusing work "De Hist. Nat.," book xxx., chap. 2, he says, "Est et alia magices factio à Mose et Jamne et Jotape, sed multis millibus annorum post Zoroastrem."-There is also another faction of magic, taking its origin from Moses, and Jamnes, and Jotapes, but many thousand years after Zoroaster. do not quote more from this book, because it is evident that Pliny took up with any tradition that offered itself, and recorded it as historic truth. A singular statement is made by Abul Faragi, who says dis I tinctly, that, at the command of Pharaoh's daughter, Moses was educated by the wise men Jamnes and Jambres. The second instance is that awful judgment which the Almighty inflicted upon the land of Egypt by changing the waters into blood, which the magicians imitated with their enchantments, as they did the change of the rod into a serpent; but this was likewise known beforehand, and the remarks made on the previous case are equally applicable here. To this we may add, that from this the criminality of Pharaoh appears more clearly to be what we have stated; for, had the Egyptians really performed the change of the water into blood, their miracle was as great, and consequently to all appearance as divine in its character, as that of Moses. For, as the learned Dr. Hugh Farmer acutely observes, "if any person could change a small quantity of water into blood, he could equally well change a large quantity;" and as Moses had already performed the miracle upon the river, and large bodies of water, there only remained small quantities for the magicians to operate upon. Before quitting the subject, I will quote a story told by Valerius Maximus of Xerxes, the King of Persia :-" Before he destroyed Athens, while he was deliberating about invading Lacedamon, a wonderful prodigy occurred at supper, for the wine poured out in his cup was changed into blood, and not once only, but twice and a third time; and the magi being consulted about this event, advised him to abstain from his enterprize. And if (adds the historian) any vestige of sense had been left in his mind he would have desisted, having been before often warned concerning Leonidas and the Spartans." There is a circumstance connected with this anecdote that is not mentioned, and yet well deserves notice. We know well how often omens were produced to suit occasions; and we know that there were some persons of great rank, power, and interest, who might be supposed to have great influence with the magi, and who are well known to have been justly and inveterately opposed to the mad expedition of Xerxes. Here, then, is a key to this mystery, very easy and very natural. The wisdom of Artabanus has been deservedly extolled; but if, as I think we have much reason to believe, the magi were by him instructed thus to act, we ought to consider him as a genius of the first order, and deeply to lament the infatuation which induced the Persian monarch to act contrary to the advice of so excellent a counsellor. With regard to the second of the Egyptian miracles, as it possesses no remarkable feature to distinguish it from the first, we shall say no more, but proceed to that of the frogs. Here again we find the plague foretold, and its effects imitated by the magicians. To this all the same remarks may be applied, and I add the testimony of Dr. Clarke. He says, "A little juggling may well perform such a miracle as that attributed to the magicians in this case. Frogs were but too plentiful; and their miracle was not required, like that of Moses, to continue its effects. But here we ask, why did not the Egyptians remove the plagues, if they could inflict them ?-and why did they not produce animals of some other kind, in the formation or creation of which there would have been less suspicion excited, than |