morceau of philological criticism, in which he claims for Noah's curse a retrospective fulfilment in the names of Canaan and Ham. The verb, from which Canaan is derived, literally denotes to submit one's self, to bend the knee; and by putting these two definitions together, (though in common cases a word bears but one meaning at a time,) the very convenient signification of self-submissive knee-bender is obtained for Canaan. Now, unless the Almighty had intended that Canaan's posterity should be slaves forever, he would never have suffered Ham to have imposed upon his son a name, from which a reviewer of the nineteenth century could extract this doubledistilled meaning. We are also told that "the Hebrew verb, from which the noun Ham is derived, signifies generator or parent, also hot, and in the Coptic and other dialects hot and black, or burnt black," from which sentence we may infer, that Hebrew verbs correspond to both nouns and adjectives in other languages, as also that the Coptic is a dialect of the Hebrew, seeing that a Hebrew verb has a signification in the Coptic. The Hebrew verb, from which Ham is derived, means in Hebrew, to be or to become warm. We are not aware that this verb is used in the Coptic, though we find in our lexicons a Coptic adjective, probably of kindred derivation, which means black. But even if Ham does mean warm in the Hebrew, and Chemi black in the Coptic, what has all this to do with the question of negro slavery? No one doubts that Ham's posterity are both warm and black; but they are warmer and blacker in Guinea than in North America. If the name of their progenitor was prophetical, let then his posterity remain where they can best fulfil the prophecy.*

We come now to the alleged fulfilment of Noah's prophecy in the Canaanites, who were subdued under Joshua.

"Ham had more sons than Canaan, the knee-bender, but it does not appear that the duty of being servant of servants was obligatory on any other branch of Ham's family. Some of the other branches became distinguished for their arts and arms, but not the knee-bender, Canaan. We learn from the

* Our author, in defining the name of Ham, heaps upon the poor man's head all the meanings that he can find for the whole circle of cognate words. He makes Ham to denote the parent or generator of the black race of men in hot climates! The whole paragraph is a rare philological curiosity.

Bible that the Jews, the descendants of Canaan, [probably misprinted for Shem,] made slaves of the Canaanites; that some were reduced to absolute slavery, and the others made tributaries. Instead of coming to Joshua in arms to fight for liberty, the Gibeonites and some other tribes of the land of Canaan submitted without a struggle, and, like true negroes, begged Joshua to make slaves of them. They even resorted to artifice to get the boon of slavery conferred upon them. See chap. ix. Joshua. Joshua made them hewers of wood and drawers of water to this day, say the Scriptures. These hewers of wood and drawers of water correspond, no doubt, to our domestic servants of the same race of people at the present day, and to the slaves of our mechanics and small farmers.

"But the great mass of the Canaanites were reduced to another species of slavery, evidently corresponding to the kind of slavery at present existing on our large plantations. Joshua divided the land among the twelve tribes of Israel. Each tribe reduced the negroes or Canaanites, which fell to its lot, to tributaries, who dwelt among them." - pp. 324, 325.

We are happy to learn that "the slaves on our large plantations" are merely "tributaries; " for what else can we infer from the paragraph just quoted? A tributary is a person, who, on condition of the periodical payment of a stipulated sum, is left to dispose of his time and industry at pleasure, and to enjoy without molestation whatever property he may in any way obtain. We had supposed that the time and industry of the plantation slaves were entirely at the arbitrary disposal of their masters; but are glad to be corrected on so high authority.

It is a mistake to suppose that the Gibeonites were subjected to domestic servitude. They were simply servants in and about the sanctuary and temple. Joshua's declaration to them is, "There shall none of you be freed from being bondmen and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." In the subsequent portions of Jewish history, we find the Gibeonites repeatedly referred to in connexion with the priests and Levites, as attached to the ecclesiastical establishment, but never as the servants or slaves of individuals; and the passage above quoted is the first intimation, that we have ever had, that they were subject to domestic service.

But the fate of the Gibeonites, whatever it was, was not that of the posterity of Canaan generally. Canaan had eleven

sons, who became the heads of as many tribes; and the Gibeonites were but an insignificant branch of one of those tribes. Five of these tribes settled in Syria and Phoenicia, and had nothing to do with the wars of Joshua. The remaining six, with the exception of the Gibeonites, after protracted and at times successful struggles for supremacy, were made tributaries to the Israelites, some of them not however till the days of Solomon, four or five hundred years after the commencement of hostilities against them by Joshua.

It is assumed in the passage above quoted, that the Canaanites were negroes. Of this we have not the slightest proof; and, intimately as their history is interwoven with that of the Hebrews, it is surprising that the difference of color, if it existed, should not have been mentioned. Especially, if blackness had been a part of Canaan's curse, would it not have been specified as one of the grounds for subduing and enslaving his posterity? Or would not Moses and Joshua have sometimes appealed to the prejudice of color, in their efforts to procure an entire severance of sympathy between their people and the Canaanites? Would the Isrealites have been so prone to contract intermarriages with the Canaanites, as they always were from the days of Joshua to those of Ezra, had the barrier of a different skin been interposed? And in the frequent mention of such marriages in terms of reprobation by the sacred writers, must not some reference have been had to the mulatto issue of these connexions? Was Bathsheba black? Was Solomon a mulatto? His mother was the wife of Uriah the Hittite; and the Hittites were of the posterity of Canaan. Moreover the Phoenicians were descendants of Canaan, and Carthage was founded by a Phoenician colony. Was Cadmus black? Hannibal black? We do not know; for there is no mention made of their whiteness by any ancient historian. But how is it to be accounted for, that in the detailed narratives, which have come down to us of the Punic wars, no mention is made of the blackness of the Carthaginians, if they were black?

Was

"Some of the other branches [of Ham's posterity] became distinguished for their arts and arms, but not the knee-bender, Canaan." There are a few trifling exceptions to this sweeping remark, which was no doubt intended to be taken cum grano salis. In the art of navigation the Phoenician descendants of Canaan took precedence of all the nations of antiquity, and controlled the commerce of the world. In some departments VOL. XXXIV. 3D S. VOL. XVI. NO. 1.

5

of mechanical art the Phoenicians were distinguished. Solomon, when about to build the temple, sent for workmen to the king of Tyre; for," said he, "thou knowest that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians." The letters, arts, and civilization of Greece have been generally traced to a Phoenician origin; and the alphabet used by our brethren of the Southern Review consists for the most part of " the letters Cadmus gave." The Phoenician cities and colonies were also renowned for various branches of manufacture; and the Tyrian purple, if elsewhere equalled, has never been surpassed. We had supposed too that the Carthaginian descendants of Canaan had attained some eminence in "arts and arms.' The Romans certainly thought so, while the scales of victory so long wavered, and when the future empress of the world left of her own dead, on the plains of Cannæ, a number larger than that of the Carthaginian army. But we will say no more of Tyre and Sidon, or of Carthage, though, if the curse of Canaan were hereditary, they must have had their part of it.

How was it with regard to the Canaanites more immediately connected with the history of the Hebrews? Were they entitled to any renown in "arts and arms?" They were indeed ultimately subdued; but have we not ample evidence that they were brave and warlike, and that they had made a good degree of progress in the arts of life? The spies first sent by the Israelites into the land of Canaan reported: "The people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled and very great." Moses promises his people in that land "great and goodly cities, and houses full of all good things, wells, vineyards, and olive-trees." Moses again says to his people: "Hear, O Israel; Thou art to pass over Jordan, to go in to possess nations mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven." Of the Amorites, one of the tribes descended from Canaan, God says, through the prophet Amos: "Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks." The very same miraculous victories of Jericho and Ai, that induced the Gibeonites to make their fraudulent treaty of submission, roused all the other inhabitants of the land to prompt, vigorous, and persevering resistance, so that "they gathered themselves together to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord." After the entire conquest of the host enlisted in that cam

paign, and the destruction of five kings, we are told of the surviving kings, that, undaunted by the series of splendid victories which Joshua had gained, "they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea-shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many." Nearly two hundred years after the death of Joshua, we find the Israelites under cruel bondage to Jabin, king of Canaan, who had nine hundred chariots of iron." The Jewish Scriptures throughout recognise the superior strength and prowess of the Canaanites, and ascribe their subjugation and destruction to 'divine interposition. Their constant testimony is that of the psalmist: "They [the Israelites] got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them; but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favor unto them." So much for the "arts and arms" of "the knee-bender Canaan."

The identity of the present negro races with the Canaanites is the next point argued by the Southern Reviewer. To establish this point no historical testimony is adduced; but reliance is placed solely upon circumstantial evidence. The negro races, having no records or genealogical tables by which to trace their descent, cannot of course plead not guilty to the charge of being descended from Canaan, and the fact, that they are slaves, slaves in condition, slaves in bodily, mental, and moral constitution, is deemed amply sufficient to substantiate the charge. But Ham had three sons besides Canaan. Where are the posterity of Cush, Mizraim, and Phut? We are told by the Reviewer that the posterity of Canaan are always passive under slavery. Have the occasional insurrections among the slaves sprung from individuals of the other races enslaved by mistake? Were Cinquez and his brethren of Amistad fame descendants of Phut? Or was there an overlarge mingling of the seed of Cush among the negroes of St. Domingo? If the posterity of the four sons of Ham occupy together the continent of Africa, while the children of Canaan alone are created to be slaves, then must the supercargo of a slave-ship stand in need of special divine illumination, in order to know whom he shall purchase, and whom reject. It is impossible to trace historically the fate of the descendants of Canaan; but, as they were during the whole of their known history intimately connected in their fortunes with the posterity of Shem and Japheth, and as we have no proof that they were ever