No. 137.-2 CHRONICLES xxviii. 27.

And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem; but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel.

THE Israelites were accustomed to honour in a peculiar manner the memory of those kings who had reigned over them uprightly. On the contrary, some marks of posthumous disgrace followed those monarchs who left the world under the disapprobation of their people. The proper place of interment was in Jerusalem. There, in some appointed receptacle, the remains of their princes were deposited: and, from the circumstance of this being the cemetery for successive rulers, it was said, when one died and was so buried, that he was gathered to his fathers. Several instances occur in the history of the kings of Israel, wherein, on certain accounts, they were not thus interred with their predecessors, but in some other place in Jerusalem. So it was with Ahaz, who though brought into the city, was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel. In some other cases, perhaps to mark out a greater degree of censure, they were taken to a small distance from Jerusalem. It is said that Uzziah was buried with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, he is a leper. (2 Chron. xxvi. 23.) It was doubtless with a design to make a suitable impression on the minds of their kings while living, that such distinctions were made after their decease.. They might thus restrain them from evil or excite them to good, according as they were fearful of being execrated, or desirous of being honoured, when they were dead. The Egyptians had a custom in some measure similar to this; it was however general as to all persons, though it re

ceived very particular attention, as far as it concerned their kings. It is thus described in FRANKLIN's History of ancient and modern Egypt, vol. i. p. 374. "As soon as a man was dead, he was brought to his trial. The public accuser was heard. If he proved that the deceased had led a bad life, his memory was condemned, and he was deprived of the honours of sepulture. Thus, that sage people were affected with laws which extended even beyond the grave, and every one, struck with the disgrace inflicted on the dead person, was afraid to reflect dishonour on his own memory, and that of his family.

"But what was singular, the sovereign himself was not exempted from this public inquest upon his death. The public peace was interested in the lives of their sove reigns in their administration, and as death terminated all their actions, it was then deemed for the public welfare, that they should suffer an impartial scrutiny by a public trial, as well as the most common subject. Even some of them were not ranked among the honoured dead, and consequently were deprived of public burial. The Israelites would not suffer the bodies of some of their flagitious princes to be carried into the sepulchres appropriated to their virtuous sovereigns. The custom was singular: the effect must have been powerful and influential. The most haughty despot, who might trample on laws human and divine in his life, saw, by this solemn investigation of human conduct, that at death he also would be doomed to infamy and execration." What degree of conformity there was between the prac tice of the Israelites and the Egyptians, and with whom the custom first originated, may be difficult to ascertain and decide, but the conduct of the latter appears to be founded on the same principle as that of the former, and as it is more circumstantially detailed, affords us an agreeable explanation of a rite but slightly mentioned in the scriptures,

No. 138. EZRA iv. 14.

Maintenance from the king's palace.

MARG. Salted with the salt of the palace. Some have supposed these words refer to their receiving of a stipend from the king in salt; others, that it expresses an acknowledgment that they were protected by the king as flesh is preserved by salt. It is sufficient, however, to put an end to all these conjectures, to recite the words of a modern Persian monarch, whose court Char din attended some time. "Rising in wrath against an officer who had attempted to deceive him, he drew his sabre, fell upon him, and hewed him in pieces at the feet of the grand vizir, who was standing (and whose favour the poor wretch courted by this deception) and looking fixedly upon him, and the other great lords that stood on each side of him, he said with a tone of indig nation, I have then such ungrateful servants and traitors as these to eat my salt." (tom. iii. p. 149.) I am well informed, says Mr. Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. p. 448. 3d. edit.) that it is a common expression of the natives in the East Indies, "I eat such an one's salt," meaning, I am fed by him. Salt, among the eastern natives formerly was, as it still is, a symbol of hospitality and friendship. The learned Jos. Mede observes, (Works, p. 370. fol.) that in his time," when the emperor of Russia would shew extraordinary grace and favour to any, he sent him bread and salt from his table. And when he invited baron Sigismund, the emperor Ferdinand's embassador, he did it in this form, "Sigismund, you shall eat your bread and salt with us." So Tamerlane in his Institutes, mentioning one Share Behraum, who had quitted his service, joined the enemy, and fought against him, says, "at length my salt, which he had eaten, overwhelmed him with remorse, he again threw himself on my mercy, and humbled himself before me."

HARMER, vol. iv. p. 458.

No. 139.-NEHEMIAH vi. 5..

An open letter.

A LETTER has its Hebrew name from its being rolled or folded together. "The modern Arabs roll up their letters, and then flatten them to the breadth of an inch, and paste up the end of them instead of sealing them." (Niebuhr, p. 90.) The Persians make up their letters in "a roll about six inches long, and a bit of paper is fastened round it with gum, and sealed with an impres sion of ink, which resembles our printer's ink, but (is) not so thick." (HANWAY's Travels, vol. i. p. 317.) Letters were generally sent to persons of distinction in a bag or purse, and to equals they were also inclosed, but to inferiors, or those who were held in contempt, they were sent open, i. e. uninclosed. Lady M. W. Montague says, (Letters, vol. i. p. 136.) the bassa of Belgrade's answer to the English embassador going to Constantinople was brought to him in a purse of scarlet satin. But in the case of Nehemiah an insult was designed to be offered to him by Sanballat, in refusing him the mark of respect usually paid to persons of his station, and treating him contemptuously, by sending the letter without the customary appendages when presented to persons of respectability. HARMER, vol. ii. p. 129.

No. 140.-vii. 64. Genealogy.] Among the Chinese a tablet of ancestry is in every house: and references in conversation are often made to their actions. (MACARTNEY'S Embassy, p. 295.) This practice seems to correspond with the genealogical tables of the Jews, which they are so careful in preserving.

No. 141.-xiii. 25. Plucked off their hair.] To cut off the hair of guilty persons seems to be a punishment rather shameful than painful: yet it is thought that pain was added to disgrace, and that they tore off the hair with violence, as if they were plucking a bird alive. This is the genuine signification of the Hebrew word used in this passage. Sometimes they put hot ashes on the skin, after they had torn off the hair, to make the pain the more exquisite. Thus they served adulterers at Athens; as is observed by the Scholiast on Aristophanes in Nubibus. This kind of punishment was common in Persia. King Artaxerxes, instead of plucking off the hair of such of his generals as had been guilty of a fault, obliged them to lay aside the tiara, says Plutarch. (Apophthegm.) The emperor Domitian caused the hair and beard of the philosopher Apollonius to be shaved. (Philostrat. lib. iii. cap. 24.)

CALMET'S Dict. art. Punishment.