Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations Been Discredited?

Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations Been Discredited? * BY ROBERT C. WEBB. Had this so-called "inquiry" into the merits of Joseph Smith's abilities "as a translator" been an episode within academic circles; had it been originated and wholly participated in by persons of attainment in the departments involved, and by methods recognized as scientific, it would undoubtedly have been inaugurated with a clear, plain statement and discussion of the precise issues at stake, thus, probably, reaching some approach to decision long since. Nor would it have included any such variety of "estimate" as was published in the first number of the new Survey magazine. Even under the present conditions, it would seem entirely superfluous to make further attempts to obtain a clear and precise statement or a really scientific discussion of the involved issues, were it not that this astounding "estimate" will be widely circulated as evidence that Mr. Smith was "self-deceived or an imposter," and this in spite of its plethora of erroneous statements and the essential rottenness of its logical methods. It is also probable that, if not effectually answered by a calm and scientific analysis, it may, to use its own words, serve in some cases "to cove'r up the truth and deceive those incapable of judging for themselves." For the information, therefore, of such people as are unlearned in the broad fields of Egyptological, Semitic and linguistic research, or who are unfamiliar with scientific and scholarly methods of investigation, it is only fair to state that this "inquiry" has been no inquiry at all in any real sense, and that, in spite of plausible arguments and the evident misuse of facts — unwitting and unintentional, of course — the attempt to discredit Smith's professed translations by any available means has not been -successful. In the first place, the original pamphlet effort, instead of embodying an honest attempt to present the involved facts, clearly, calmly, and intelligently, and explain to the reading public, largely composed of people who "do not know," just how and why the opinions of several prominent Egyptologists, embodied in personal letters, should be accepted as a final proof of Smith's incompetence as a translator or interpreter, presents merely a medley of opinions, apparently contradictory in several essential particulars, and leaves the general reader to digest them for himself. It furnishes absolutely no assistance to such a reader, but occupies the space proper to such with seventeen pages of elaborate argument leading up to a statement of the conditions under which people should be expected to "courageously readjust their system of belief," a result for which the author is evidently somewhat eager. Whatever may be the real facts at the bottom of the matter in hand, whatever the conclusion to be reached, after exhaustive examination of the claims and "proofs," or whatever the superficial appearances, no one can be excused for neglecting to use the scientific method of investigation, before forming an opinion. This, at any rate, is the only method employed by real scholars, when sufficiently interested to investigate at all. Such a method, in this case, must involve the following conditions: In the first place, for the time being, we must rule out of consideration the fact that Smith claimed direct divine guidance in this or any other matter; also, that many of the high lights of modern research declare all revelations impossible. True science need not be afraid to risk establishing the inspiration of even Joseph Smith. This rule will render us_ less eager to pounce upon the smallest argument that can be made to help discredit him. *From the Deseret News, November 15, 1913.

314 IMPROVEMENT ERA In the second place we musl determine to handle this hook, and its included plates, precisely as we would handle any other that miirht he brought to U for examination, judging it strictly on evidence that applies directly to it, and ruling out all inference, even the must plausible. Even if we find that its "translator" is. apparently, mistaken in some particulars, we must suppress the temptation to cry "imposter," remembering that science, as well as Hebrew and Egyptian, has its vocabulary of words and terms, and that this one is not in it. In the third place, we must confine our examination solely to the issue in hand: "Is there any shred of evidence that could be interpreted to show that the man who professed to caption and explain these plates could have known anything whatever of the Egyptian language?" In adhering to this narrow issue we must forget that the man, Joseph Smith, had anything to do with the matter. We must ignore all that we know of his character, his history and his educational equipment; and this, for the simple reason that, of our direct personal knowledge, we know nothing about the conditions under which this book was "translated," or otherwise produced. Consequently, we may be justified in heginning the investigation by supposing that a really competent Egyptologist — and there were a few in the world, even at the time this "translation" was supposedly made — might have been engaged to work upon it. Some unknown, unnamed and, perhaps, temporary associate of Smith's may have mastered Champollion's principles, read, as suggested, the "Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique," written in a language as impossible, presumably, to Smith, as the Latin of the Jesuit Kirscher, also mentioned in this connection, and may have instructed Mr. Smith in the newly discovered method of translation, or have been himself the real translator. This is one possibility that should render a careful investigator unwilling to bank too largely on Smith's "ignorance," even though such investigator be constitutionally unable to tolerate the idea of special divine guidance, or of any man's abilitv to find a "key" to the language in any way short of instruction from European savants. Smith, at least, was a wide reader and and an earnest student of Hebrew and other branches: perhaps, also, of Egyptian. It would be a sad lesson, indeed, for our pride and self-sufficiency, if after starting with the confident conviction that the "translator" of this book could have read no word of Egyptian — "because Smith was so ignorant" — to find that some of his most "evident errors" could be explained as misapprehension, precisely, of terms and phrases peculiar to this language, and to be found nowhere else. In the fourth place, and equally important, we must admit that all consideration of the date, evident or possible, of any of the drawings in discussion is irrelevant, for the simole reason that we are concerned solely with the professed "translator's" ability to give any kind of accurate and Egyptological judgment regarding them, and in no sense with his statements or possible opinions as to their dates, authorship or authority. The fact that Smith believed these drawings to illustrate a book by a very ancient author, even while they show, or may be held to show, that his copy, at least, dated from a comparatively recent period — and we could scarcely call him an "imposter" for not knowing this, or not mentioning it — has no bearing whatever on the accuracy or defensibility of any of his interpretations. Many very ancient books appeared in later transcriptions throughout Egyptian history. Notable among these may be mentioned the famous "Precepts of Ptah-Hotep," which has been called "the oldest book in the world," the only known copy of which was found in a tomb of the eleventh Dynasty, although it professes to have been composed sometime in the fifth Dynasty, about 1,000 years previous. Its script is archaic, but its sentiments are "strangely modern," in that it extols the virtues of the "ancient sages." The professed date of its composition, somewhere within 200 years after 3,500 B. C., would place it over 1,000 years before the earliest date assigned to Abraham. If, then, in similar fashion, Abraham also wrote a book, there is no essential absurdity in the supposition that a copv of it was found in the tomb of some person who died even 1,000 or 1,500 years after his day. In entering upon a thorough and scientific examination of this professed "translation" and its accompanying "facsimiles," we enter upon an entirely new phase of the discussion. The several efforts at elucidation to date have been merely desultory attempts to present the leading features of the "other

^\\\\W\V^i % g rr^JZX: ( 7 7 /J-L/J_J_Z7 '~? /7TX MJjMjlUMll EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE CUT. Fig. 1, The Angel of the Lord. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah, attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice. 4. The Altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh. 5, the idolatrous god of Elkenah. 6, the idolatrous god of Libnah. 7, the idolatrous god of Mahmackrah. 8, the idolatrous god of Korash. 9, the idolatrous god of Pharaoh. 10, Abraham in Egypt. 11, Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians. 12, Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeen. side," explaining involved situations as space would permit, even at the risk of seeming "verbose," with the view of offsetting some of the issues raised in Dr. Spalding's "Answer to Prof. John A. Widtsoe," and repeated in his new magazine. Another explanation of the fact that' a thorough consideration of the matter has not yet been undertaken has been published bv Spalding. This is that anything more than an apparently casual examination of the matter was not worth the "valuable time" of any of his corresoondents, also that "even less time could have been expended," in order to enable them to reach their supposed conclusive demonstrations. Dr. Spalding evidently considered the establishment of his contention so easy a matter that he neglected even to discuss the issues, as already indicated, and his correspondents, presumably, rated tne importance of Dr. Spalding's case at so light an estimate that they disposed of it as summarily as possible. Nor could one blame them too harshly. All of us have our prejudices, our convictions as to the limits of truth and possibility, and our standards for estimating the value of time. In proposing such an examination as we have just outlined it must be understood that it is intended in no sense to be an attempt to prove that Smith's professed translations are, or must be, correct. Such an avowal would expose

316 [MPRl >'l.M ENT ER
us al once to the chage of prejudice, which is an attitude distinctly unscientific. IImis, for example, in discussing the first plate of the three, it will be found far easier to prove what it is nut than to determine precisely what it is. There are, nevertheless, strong ami impelling reason, for believing that the man who originated the explanations, as we have them, of these plates knew enough of the Egyptian language to make his "mistakes," if any. not from sodden ignorance or gratuitous presumption, hut from following the letter of some text in that language. As we know, very many people can read perfectly books in Strange languages, ancient or modern, and yet be unfamiliar with some of the things, persons or events referred to. It is easy, also, to interpret a figurative reference literally, or a literal reference figuratively. Anyone familiar with literature about the Bible, for example, understands this. In one notable case, also, as it would seem, our "translator" showed, either such familiarity with the Egyptian method of "rebus -writing," as would enable him to appreciate the humor of the fantastic combinations of signs with which the scribes often amused themselves, or else his ability to "guess right" amounted to precise "intuition." liven on a superficial view of the matter, there is something suspiciously unusual, to say the least, about several of Smith s most severely-denounced "errors," which excites curiosity as to precisely why a presumably sane man should depart so far in these very small points from anything like what, as one might suppose, would be evident common sense. Such curious "errors" invite the attention of anyone interested in psychological peculiarities; they also provoke linguistic analysis. For example, as one might reasonably ask, what possible mental quirk could move a man to call a familiar offering table "Abraham in Egypt?" What possible eccentricity could persuade one that the "firmament of the heavens" could be indicated by a mummied hawk apparently propelling a gondola with his outstretched wings? Why should a double-faced seated figure be identified with the alleged central star of the universe, giving light and "power" to two others, represented by rampant cynocephali crowned with horned globes or disks? Coupled with these alleged "identifications," curiously remote from any associations that would occur to the casual observer, the recognition of Ra, the supreme god in his boat, and that of the four children of Horus, the Canopic gods, as the "four quarters" of the earth, which even Spalding's publications admit are "good guesses." There are a few other startlingly unfamiliar statements and identifications, which, as we have seen, have been, rather precipitately denounced as evidences of "self-deception" or "imposture," or both, but not as yet treated scientifically, even with the interest that an observant alienist would feel in analyzing the babblings of a lunatic. For even "babblings" have a scientific significance. In the Spalding literature the public has been thoroughly indoctrinated on the sufficiency of scholarly opinions, which, as we read, are "always accepted without question unless there is grave reason to doubt." In perfect accord with such a statement, when considered as a general proposition, and affecting matters involved in an exhaustive investigation, we may remark further that, in the field of Egyptology, the names of Sayce, Flinders-Petrie, von Bissing and Breasted are prominent, and, within his special field, that of Meyer also. Peters, although not an Egyptologist, stands well in the lines of his investigations. In addition to these, we have such prominent names as those of Deveria, Budge and Lythgoe, who appear in the list of the famous "eleven witnesses against the Book of Abraham" in certain recent missionary literature. Undoubtedly any statement in which such a jury of savants might agree would have great weight, and would be difficult indeed to controvert. We have no such unanimous statement, however, with the result that, if desirous of finding the truth of the matter in hand, we must pursue the investigations for ourselves. In their treatment of the first plate of the series these nine scientists have agreed only in endorsing the Egyptian origin claimed for it — and this statement cannot be made too emphatically — and in proposing names, more or less tentatively, be it said, for several of its figure-elements. They seem to consider that its general appearance is sufficiently familiar and Egyptian to warrant descriptions that, in view of the outcome, must seem hypothetical. They do not agree, however, in identifying this scene with any familiar in Egyptological research, and thus succeed only in leaving the reader in a sad quandary as to

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 317 which of the three proposed descriptions is right. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" We may see, therefore, that, in spite of the ingenious arguments attempting to prove that "there was absolutely no discrepancy in the replies of the scholars," by the asserted identity of their several figure-references, we find most radical variations in their identifications of the picture itself. Further, as we may assert without hesitation, the several variant proposed titles are positively not identical in any sense whatever, nor could they be held to be so by any Egyptologist whose learning is competent to establish any proposition connected with his science. Thus, the description, "an embalmer, nriest, or Anubis (whether these three words be in any sense 'synonymous' or not) preparing a dead person for the tomb" is proposed by Petrie, von Bissing, Meyer and Peters, also by Dr. Henry Woodward, F. R. S., of London, writing in 1903. The description, "Osiris rising from the dead," an incident in the mythological story of the death and resurrection of Osiris (whether "every dead Egyptian is an Osiris" or not) is proposed by Breasted; also, in a former book, by Deveria (1869). The description, "the mummy entombed, with Anubis standing bv its side," is proposed by Lythgoe (New York Times, Dec. 29, 1912), and evidently also by Budge (1903). In order that there may be no doubt in any reader's mind as to the confidence with which these several authorities make their diverse identifications, it seems desirable to quote them at length. In proposing the first identification, Dr. Petrie says: "No. 1 is the wellknown scene of Anubis preparing the dead man." Dr. von Bissing says: "Figure 1 should be commented upon as follows: The dead man is lying on a bier under which are standing the four canopic jars and before which is standing the offering table. The soul is leaving the body in the moment when the priest is opening the body with a knife for mummification." Dr. Meyer, on very similar lines, states that these plates are from the Book of the Dead, calling them "familiar scenes," and sees: "'the body of the dead lying a ba' [bier]; the canopic jars containing the entrails under it; the soul in the shape of a bird flying above it, and a priest approaching it." Dr. Peters says: "Apparently, the plate on page 50 represents an embalmer preparing a body for burial. At the head the soul is flying away in the form of a bird. Under the bed on which the body lies are the canopic jars to hold the organs and entrails removed from the body in the process of embalming. In the waters below the earth [Deveria calls this the "customary representation of the ground in Egyptian paintings"] I see a crocodile waiting to seize and devour the dead if he be not properly protected by ritual embalming against such a fate." Similarly certain of this description is Dr. Henry Woodward, who says: "I think all Smith's drawings are very bad copies of early genuine papyri engravings which he must have seen somewhere. * * * Abraham being sacrificed by Elkanah is an embalmer, knife in hand, preparing to disembowel a dead body to embalm it; and the gods are a row of mummypots." In proposing the second identification, the familiar scene from a mythological story, Dr. Breasted writes as follows: "Number 1 depicts a figure reclining on a couch, with a priest officiating and four jars beneath the couch. The reclining figure lifts one foot and both arms This figure represents Osiris rising from the dead. Over his head is a bird, in which form Isis is represented. The jars below, closed with lids carved in the forms of animals' heads, were used by the Egyptians to contain the viscera taken from the body of the dead man. This scene is depicted on Egyptian funeral papyri, on coffins and on late temple walls, unnumbered thousands of times. If desired, publications of fac-similes of this resurrection scene from papyri, coffins, tomb and temple walls could be furnished in indefinite numbers." , . . ,,,.,. It is notable that Dr. Breasted speaks of this resurrection scene, which is something very different from Petrie's "well known scene of Anubis preparing

318 IMPROVEMENT ERA the dead man." Lest', however, we hear further sophistical "reconciliations," we may quote Deveria, whose authority has been accepted by Spalding's publications. In his mind, at least, there is no commingling of the two. He says: "Fig. 1. The soul of Osiris, under the form of a hawk (which should have a human head). 2. Osiris coming to life on his funeral couch, which is in the shape of a lion. 3. The god Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris." He is further quoted as saying, "with respect to this papyrus, that he never saw the resurrection ot Osiris represented in funerary manuscripts. He is of the opinion that, if it exists, it must be extremely rare, and that if the present figure be not a modern imitation of the great bas-reliefs in which this mythological scene is represented, it has at all events been altered, for Anubis should have a jackal's head." (Deseret News, January 4, 1913.) Deveria's doubts as to the appearance of this scene "in funerary manuscripts" could not apply to either of the other scenes, thus showing sufficiently that he had in mind something different from either of them. In proposing the third identification, the authorities quoted are in all points equally emphatic, effectually destroying by their own words any hope of arguing that their identifications could be confused with either of the others proposed. Thus, Dr. Lythgoe is quoted as saying: "The figure of 'Abraham upon the altar' of the 'Mormon' version, Dr. Lythgoe explained, was merely the usual scene of the mummy upon its bier. The idolatrous priest bending over him, to sacrifice him, according to the 'Mormon' version, was, Dr. Lythgoe explained, merely the familiar figure of the god Anubis, 'protector of mummies.' Dr. Lythgoe pointed out the figure on a papyrus showing the progress of one Ani of the eighteenth dynasty toward thermal judgment by Osiris, god of the underworld. The picture of the god Anubis was shown in every picture where the mummy was shown, and always he was leaning over it in a position as if to keep it from harm." It is perfectly evident that Dr. Lythgoe is quoted with entire correctness in this interview, for the very excellent reason that the Papyrus of Ani mentioned by him contains no representation of any such embalming scene as is supposedly shown in the plate in question, whereas the tomb scene, showing Anubis protecting the mummy is present in the form of a handsome vignette. Neither can the scene be identified with a "resurrection" of any kind, since "the mummy does not rise from the dead, it is the soul which rises/' and the soul has risen in the world of the dead, leaving the body in the tomb. Lest anyone should suspect, however, that a newspaper writer, in misreporting the description of one scene could so accurately describe another, it may be in place to quote further from the same interview, where Dr. Lythgoe is reported to have said: "In the first of the 'Mormon' figures the gr d Anubis, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and a strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of the jackal's head usual to such a scene. And a knife had been drawn into the god's hand. Thus he was made into a shape from which it became possible to glean the idea of the attempted 'sacrifice of Isaac' [Abraham]." It is quite evident that the alleged addition of this knife also made it possible for at least one critic (von Bissing) "to glean the idea" of an embalming. Even on the supposition that Smith's interpretations are entirely gratuitous, the presence of the knife may be held to be established, since it is nearly the only feature that would suggest that this was a real "sacrifice," and not some one or other of a score of different interpretations. In this point, at any rate, we see a very good case of disagreement as between Lythgoe and von Bissing. Dr. Budge, who has translated the Book of the Dead, and written on it extensively, also prepared for publication the beautiful fac-similes of funerary papyri issued by the British Museum, is equally positive that this is the tomb scene, which is very familiar in papyri of the Book of the Dead. He writes, under date October 10, 1903: "No. 1, is an imitation of the scene from the Book of the Dead in which Anubis stands by the side of the deceased on his bier." It is notable that the Doctor makes no remarks to the effect that the god is either "embalming" or "resurrecting" the dead. In addition to the fact that no ingenuity could suffice to mutually identify

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 319 the three Egyptian incidents mentioned in these descriptions— unless every time we have an erect figure standing by, or approaching, a reclining figure on a bier or couch, we have a scene that may stand for any one of these three diverse descriptions according to preference, which is evidently not the case, even on the terms of our critics own statements— every one of them involves, by direct expression or evident implication, based on comparison with supposedly identical scenes, some change more or less radical. Thus, Dr. Petrie calls the standing figure Anubis, but he does not refer us to genuine examples in which that god is shown with a human, instead of a jackal's head. Dr. Breasted's note mwflTUiMflnni^ EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE CUT.

1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the sceptre of justice and judgment in his hand.
2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given* in the characters above his head.
3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt; referring to Abraham, as given in the ninth number of the Times and Seasons. (Also as given in the first fac-simile of this book.)
4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
6. Ulimlah, a slave belonging to the prince. Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of astronomy, in the king's court. on the attempted "reconciliation" between the diverse judgments, "Anubis" and "priest," stating that "the officiating priest wears the head of a wolf or jackal to impersonate Anubis," adds nothing to our enlightenment, because the figure in question is wearing no such head. Nor, seeing that this was the regular custom, as he states, is either proposed identification valid, for precisely the same reason. Also, while Dr. Deveria states that we have here "Anubis effecting the resurrection of Osiris," he asserts with equal confidence that Anubis "should have a jackal's head." He states again that the flying bird "should have a human head." Further, while Dr. Lythgoe goes to great length in his interview to identify this scene with the familiar Egyptian picture, "Anubis guarding the entombed mummy," he states with equal confidence, as reported, that this figure, as here shown, has a "human and strangely un-Egyptian head," also that "a knife has been drawn into the god's hand." This knife, in the opinion of Petrie, von Bissing and Meyer, involves no suspicion of "falsification," since, as seems evident, it furnishes a valuable confirmation of their description, "the dead being prepared for embalming." Dr. Budge, agreeing in his judgment with Dr. Lythgoe, evidently

320 IMPROVEMENT ERA believes thai thi« scene has been altered, since he remarks, "No. 1 is an imii.ition of the scene from the Book of the Dead," etc. Such a judgment he expresses directly on the third plate of the series, when he says, "It is a falsified copy." A perfectly similar implication seems to be involved in Dr. Peters' remark thai these plates are to be considered "a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals, apparently not of any one original, but of Egyptian originals in general." Now, in view of these evident contradictions, we require only a very meagre knowledge of Egyptian to understand that an attempt to state that the three events described must be identified because of the common feature in the pictures, an erect figure beside a reclining figure, which is either dead or resurgent, would involve only an insult to the intelligence of the public. In the history of art criticism, similarity of pose or composition in several paintings, or even identity of the figure-elements, do not suffice to establish the identity of subject in the two paintings. As well might wc compare one of Murillo's numerous paintings of the "Immaculate Conception" with the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin," and assert that these two supernal events were one and contemporaneous, because of the common element in the two, an erect female figure, known to be Mary, standing upon the clouds of heaven. Nor does the demonstration of these evident disagreements among these several noted authorities in any way impugn their competence to speak on matters Egyptian, so far as these are known. As real scholars, no one of them would argue that he could not be mistaken, misled by certain resemblances, etc., nor, in view of the evidently contrary opinions advanced by other capable Egyptologists, would he attempt to do more than to state reasons for preferring the opinion published over his own name. Anyone attempting to do more could serve no end better than to argue that several of these gentlemen must have been unable to express themselves with the clearness and exactitude proper to people of scholarly attainments. Another significant element in the criticism of the first plate is the silence of Dr. Sayce, as quoted in Spalding's pamphlet. Until we hear further, his silence may reasonably be construed to indicate his uncertainty as to the precise identification of this scene, and his consequent unwillingness to label it. In this view his act was that of a careful scholar, and distinctly an argument in favor of the present writer's contention in a former article, "that this plate is not familiar to Egyptologists and that no duplicate is known." Whether this conclusion be warranted or not, it is perfectly evident that several of these Egyptologists, if not all of them, are not telling the public just what this plate is, as it stands, but rather what, as they state, it should be, provided sundry changes were made to render it "correct." If, then, this scene represents an "embalming," as is held by four prominent Egyptologists and one Semitist, the difficulty remains that the erect figure has a human head, hence is not evidently "Anubis," as Dr. Petrie insists, nor yet an embalming priest who should wear the head of a wolf or jackal to impersonate him, as Dr.- Breasted states. If the flying bird represents the dead man's soul, as several hold, and should, for this reason, have a human head, as Deveria declares, with considerable show of accuracy, it evidently could not indicate "Isis" or the "Hawk of Horns," to follow either Breasted or Petrie, since Isis in the death chamber regularly has the hawk's head while the human-headed bird indicates the "soul," and is not identified with Isis in any exact and universal sense. If. again, we remove the knife from the hand of the erect figure, in obedience to the demand of Dr. Lythgoe, we remove also ihe essential element distinctly mentioned by Dr. von Bissing, who would, therefore, be obliged to revise his statement that this "priest" is "opening the body with a knife for mummification." The deeper we go into these attempts at "demonstration," the greater must be the uncertainty involved in this situation in the mind of the general. un-Egyptological reader, whom Spalding seeks to convince. How could such a person decide that Smith's explanations must be erroneous, on the authority of people who can give no better description of it? Would he not be merely more confused after Dr. Petrie has shown him some of his "dozens of examples" to prove it to be "Anubis preparing the body of the dead man,"

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 321 and after Dr. Breasted has referred him to examples inscribed on "funeral papyri, on coffins and on late temple walls, unnumbered thousands of times " to prove it to be "Osiris rising from the dead?" Then, again, although Dr Meyer, evidently holding this scene to be an "embalming," and mentioning a "priest," not "Anubis," we find that Dr. Budge, who was, as nearly as any man, a specialist on this ancient work, states that this scene represents that "in which Anubis stands by the side of the deceased on his bier," the tomb scene, which is as familiar in manuscripts' of the Book of the Dead as the other is not This, then, is the kind of complete assurance on the identity of this drawing to be derived from the examinations made by ten scholars competent to speak on Egyptian matters. They agree, to be sure, in denouncing Smith's captions, but this is not surprising — denouncing Smith is a sort of, habit — but they disagree in all other points. It seems fair, then, to hold, tentatively, at least, that if these experts succeed so poorly in demonstrating what this scene is, they have not perfectly established the competence of Egyptological science to tell us all that it is not, and cannot be. It may be argued, however, that this scene cannot represent the "attempted sacrifice of Abraham," as Smith stated, because of certain elements seen in it; notably, the Canopic vases, which do not seem to be the gods mentioned in the caption. While, as may be admitted, a certain cogency attaches to this objection, it applies with some force to other identifications, as proposed by some of the gentlemen already discussed. Thus, as we have seen, five of our witnesses state that this scene represents some god or priest in the act of embalming a dead man, but they overlook the fact, apparently, that the Canopic vases, closed and disposed in order beneath the bier, regularly indicate that the embalming has been completed and that the mummy is in its tomb. This may be gathered from the pictures shown in many papyri dealing with the embalming of the dead. If, then, these vases have been added in the one case, through misapprehension or habit, there is no insuperable objection to supposing that they have been added in the other, or, at least, that they represent some original feature, modified as we see them here. This furnishes some justification to the hypothetical explanation offered by the present writer in a former article: "The copyist of some later day [engaged in copying the manuscript and drawings in question], finding the images of the 'Canopic gods,' or of any similar animal-headed gods, for that matter, shown 'after the manner of hieroglyphics,' as previously stated, naturally disposed them in the order familiar in his day." Apart from this, it may be asked, properly enough, how else such a "sacrifice scene" as is decribed in the text of this book could be represented. Even considering the difficulty of the "Canopic vases," as just mentioned, the "sacrifice" explanation is the only one that does not involve more or less radical changes to make this drawing a consistent representation. Foremost, probably, among the changes that should be made, to bring this picture into harmony with the usual line of those found in funeral papyri, is the painfully agitated pose of the reclining figure. This pose, taken in connection with the other elements of the picture, and its occurrence in a funeral papyrus, seems quite exceptional. The "estimate" article, however, contains the following statement: "There are a few scenes which are more like the mummy at all It is the body of the dead awaiting the embalmers, and is the first of a series of five pictures showing the ritual embalming process in symbols This first one shows a nude figure lying upon a couch or bier. In order probably to indicate that it is a dead man, the limbs are shown in contorted positions. It lies on the right side, the right arm being under it the left leg and arm raised, the elbow being shown flexed, with the forearm and hand extending downward toward the face. The picture also shows Isis and Nebhat at the foot and head, respectively, evidently lamenting, but there is shown no priest, nor yet an offering table, Canopic vases or even a bird in the air or elsewhere. The second scene shows the winding of the mummy; the third, the mummy with a hawk's head borne away by the four sons of Horns: the fourth the mummy wearing the plumed crown of Osiris, and saluted by

322 IMPROVEMENT ERA Horus wearing the double crown; the fifth, the mummy on its bier, the Canopic vases beneath, and Anubis, jackal-headed, standing beside the bier in an attitude of protection. The case is in no sense one in point in this discussion, the picture on the wall of the J'hilae temple resembling that shown here only in the fact that it shows a reclining figure with limbs in contorted positions. The vigorous "estimate" article in the bishop's magazine attempts to justify, as far as possible, the former "reconciliations" on this scene, saying: "In reply to Dr. Webb, it is sufficient to say that, according to Egyptian theology, the mummy does not rise from the dead, it is the soul which rises. The difference between the expressions 'dead person' and 'Osiris rising from the dead,' in the interpretation of the scholars, is one of a very short duration of time." This argument is monumental; also, it is nonsensical. With all due allowance for Webb's alleged efforts "to cover up the truth and deceive," the reader must not forget that the discussion of these points involves precisely the divergence between the opinions of several men who call the reclining figure a "dead man" and of another who calls it "Osiris rising." If, then, the latter gentleman sees here Osiris rising bodily, he is evidently speaking of an event quite different from that in which "it is the soul which rises." The confusion is of our critic's own manufacture. But what a climax we have in the statement, "the difference * * * is one of a very short duration of time." The length of time involved is not the important point to consider; rather are we concerned with the events occurring in the period. In the case of the Egyptian dead this "very short duration of time" elapsing between the "moment when the priest is opening the body with a knife for mummification" to that which "represents Osiris rising from the dead" is a mere matter of about ten weeks, according to most authorities, during which "that which was once a man," disemboweled and stuffed with spices, lies immersed in its bath of sodium carbonate (natron). After this the body is wound in lengthy bandages, which are smeared with asphalt to make successive folds adhere, and is then ready to be placed in the heavy mummy case intended to protect him to the end of time. Although, comparatively speaking, the time occupied with the entire process is not long, it outrides, nevertheless, the duration of a single "session," thus effectually separating the events at its beginning and at its end, no matter how similar representations of them might seem in pictures. This is the very point on which we have been insisting hitherto, and here we see it involved in the words of our intrepid champion of scholarly inerrancy: "the difference * * * is one of a very short duration of time." In regard to the difference between the "soul" and the "ka" in Egyptian theology, and the use of "the word 'soul' in its non-technical Egyptian sense" — whatever that may be — which has emerged in this "estimate" article in the discussion of the identification of the flying bird, it is necessary only to quote such a passage as the following from Professor Erman : "The difference between the living and non-living was from the earliest times regarded by the Egyptians to be this, that the former were imbued with a special active force, which they call the Ka. Every mortal received this Ka at birth, if Re commanded it, and as long as he possessed it, as long as he is 'lord of a Ka,' and 'goes with his Ka,' so long is he one of the living. The Ka is seen by no one, but it was assumed that in appearance it was exactly the counterpart of the man. * * * When the man died, his Ka left him, but it was hoped that it would still concern itself with the body in which it had dwelt so long, and that at any rate it would occasionally reanimate it. And it was probably for the Ka that the grave was so carefully attended and provided with food, that it might not hunger or thirst. "In addition to this Ka, which always remained a vague and undefined conception, notwithstanding the constant allusions to it, the Egyptians dreamed also of a soul, which might be seen under various forms. At death it left the body and flew away, thus it was naturally a bird, and it was only probable that when the mourners were lamenting their loss, the dead man himself might be close at hand, sitting among the birds on the trees which he himself had planted." ("Handbook of Egyptian Religion," English translation, 1904 pp 86-87.) From the foregoing we may see that the real question before us has not

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 323 been conclusively answered. A perfectly conclusive treatment should inform us definitely Just why this first plate may not, positively, represent the "attempted sacrifice of Abraham," and would spend no time telling what it may be held to represent after sundry more or less radical changes have been made. Nor is there any particular scholarship involved in such a line of "explanation," as that we have read, since the charge of "falsification" positively has not been established. If it be still urged, it is only fair to insist that we be told in precisely what particulars the changes have been made from the assumed original form. We have not heard this as yet, and, in view of the several apparently haphazard "identifications" proposed, a conclusive demonstration is the only thing that can serve to offset, not only the assumed changes made by Smith and his associates, but also at least two of the diverse proposed identifications of the scholarly critics. Even with the most plausible explanation or identification, however, there could be no decisive settlement of the issue, .since, as with all Egyptian pictures, the present form, as appearing in a given papyrus, furnishes no certain indication of the form of the "copy" from which it was supposedly drawn. The Egyptian artists, like the scribes, seem to have allowed themselves considerable latitude as to details, and, while the various drawings of a given scene, such as the judgment of the dead before Osiris, agree in certain main features, it is safe to say that no two of them are precisely alike. Nor do they differ merely in treatment, but also in composition and in the identity of the several figure elements. Thus, sometimes it is Anubis who leads the dead before the judge, again it is some goddess, such as Maat, even Horus figures in this role on occasion. Why such variations were made is not always clear. The fact that they exist is evident, however. Assuming that such a book as the present one purports to be, were brought to an Egyptian artist for illustration, it is very probable that, seeing a copy of such a scene as the first plate professes to be, he would have concluded that it should represent some such scene as has been mentioned among our learned critics, and transform the gods described in the text into Canopic vases, and have placed the crocodile god in a more "orthodox" location. Similarly, in the third plate, such inevitable association of ideas with familiar scenes of similar composition may be called in to account for the Pharaoh and the Prince who look more like women. Why these figures were not changed by the wicked wood-engraver who, as we have heard already, "ignorantly copied" the hieroglyphics, changed heads and other details, for the purpose of making the pictures look more like what is described in the captions, it would be difficult to say. Sufficient is it to say that the known habits of the ancient Egyptian artists have not yet been taken, into consideration, although, obviously, as relevant as the other issues raised. In this third plate, despite the peculiar appearance of figures 2 and 4, we have as yet no explanation for fig. 6, nor any examples of similar figures in other papyri. One identification makes it Anubis, but with the evident implication that changes must be made in it to accommodate the description. Dr. von Bissing identifies it with the "shadow of the dead," but neglects to state that the shadow is regularly, or occasionally found in either the judgment or adoration scenes The shadow of the dead or of tne soul is one of the many obscure elements of Egyptian art and religion, which have no clear explanation. It is usually represented as a black and somewnat indefinite sort of bird, closely suggesting Dickens' remark on one of his characters, who had "the rudiments of a profile " Cases in which it is shown in human form are certainly rare. In addition to' these two evident guesses, without references, or attempts at demonstration we have also the remark of Dr. Lythgoe, as reported in the New ment In his identification, also, Dr. von Bissing remarks scholarly enough: "6 onlv may be interpreted in different ways, but never as Smith did. In this statement he is speaking with perfect accuracy if, as he assumes, this scene fenre^ents any occurrence in the Osirian court but that is the very point that has not been demonstrated. His remark would seem to apply with equal force o the identification proposed by Lythgoe, and, seemingly, also, to that pro-

324 IMPROVEMENT ERA posed by himself. In this point, also, a few examples of unmistakeable parallel- to this figure in such a situation arc in order, in the place of guesses, even of the learned. The headdress of fig. 5, apparently a lotus flower on a circlet, is by ii" means usual in Osirian scenes. With what appears to be a complacent willingness to make the most of every bit of evidence that may he forced into an argument against the claims made for this hook, our critics confidently proceed to make the most of the Fact that no translations are offered for the hieroglyphics on the second plate of the series. This fact, as is held, shows that the professed "translator" of this book knew no Egyptian at all. Thus: "Here indeed the Prophet's inspiration gave out. It does not even save him the blunder of numbering the hieroglyphics upside down. As remarked before, some of the more usual signs can he identified but they are very poorly and ignorantly copied, and his numbering the lines upside down shows that the Prophet did not know Egyptian. Deveria's attempted translation can be partly verified, [by whom, pray? J but the copying is far too poor to warrant a definite translation. It has been asked why the Prophet did not pretend to render the hieroglyphics if he was an imposter. It may be answered that there are usually some limits to imposition. [Is it possible! Strange that we never heard that before.] Besides, why should his inspiration have failed him when he came to pure hieroglyphics? The interpretation of common figures is quite a different matter from the translation of a hieroglyphic text which evidently did not mean anything to the Prophet." {Survey, page 24.) It is only the evident forcing of conclusions that gives this passage a title to quotation, and this, merely in order to bring out the following facts: First, as to the order or inversion in numbering the hieroglyphic lines and columns, there is no evidence before us that bmith is responsible for it. Had he had before him a papyrus written in hieroglyphic character, he would have had no difficulty in determining which was top and which was bottom of a given line or column. Even having only an ordinary hypocephalus in hand, this matter is none too obscure, owing to the frequent repetition of animal figures. Any knowledge that he may have had on this matter need not have been shared by his friends who superintended, or by the wood-engraver who did, the work of transferring this plate to the printing block. Such notes as he made on these several lines and columns need not have involved inversion or false order of numbering. Second, as to the translation. Even if our "translator" really could read Egyptian writing of any variety, that is no guarantee that he could entirely comprehend all references in the text — modern Egyptologists cannot do that. Thus, assuming him able to translate the left-hand panel, in which Deveria finds the name "Osiris She. senq," and Dr. Petrie, "Shish-ak," one could scarcely blame him for failure to understand the reference. If, in addition, he believed this to be a sacred document, a supposition entireiv correct, the caption, "writing that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the noly temple of God," is perfectly consistent. The further remark (9, 10, 11) "ought not to be revealed at the present time," seems a perfectly consistent comment on the passage rendered by Deveria, "O great God in Sekhem: O great God, lord of heaven, earth and hell." Very similar sentiments have been read on other hypocephali, but their relevance to the work of interpreting the figure elements is not evident. Third: On the assumption that the inscriptions on this chart resembled in any way those translated on other hypocephali, it is evident that tneir translation would throw very little light on the pictorial significance, which is the matter at issue in the mind of the "translator." How the rendering into English of a lot of prayers, formulae and magical pass-words, evidently intended for the use or benefit of the dead could assist the public in understanding these pictures it would be difficult to see. Prominent Egyptologists, attacking the problem of the real significance of these figures, have been obliged to attempt explanations by references to passages in the Book of the Dead, of which no sure indications exist on the hypocephalus itself, and, in some cases with indifferent success. Dr. Samuel Birch, commenting on a similar, but much fuller, document of this order, confesses on one point, at least, tnat "the esoteric mean-

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 325 ing of these scenes is unknown." (Proc. S. B. A., vi. 185.) Other authorities question the identifications of figures considered firmly established by most commentators. Nor do the contained inscriptions assist matters in any way. Fourth: Even on the supposition that the "translator" could not read these hieroglyphics, entirely, at least — for his comments may seem to indicate some variations of judgment on the several lines — we have two possible good alternatives to the precipitate theory that his "ignorance" in this matter is evidence of "imposture:" (1) The inscriptions on the originals from which these plates were copied may have been as bad and as unintelligible as we find them here. We learn in Petrie's "Abydos," part 1, that similar unintelligible or apparently meaningless inscriptions have been found on some hypocephali. Such a condition of affairs might reasonably be expected to lead one assuming the sacred nature of such a document to assert that this illegibility must clearly indicate the fact that these inscriptions should not yet be given to the world. The sole difference, then, between Smith and modern scholars, in this matter of illegible inscriptions, is that he invokes the providence of God to explain the condition, while they blame Smith and the wood-engraver. (2) As was indicated by the present writer in a former article, we have in this connection no proof of the "translator's" inability to translate a book like that in discussion, for the reason that "the illegible inscriptions which he did not pretend to translate furnished no clue to the character of the text which he did profess to translate. Hence we are at the end of the discussion [of this matter of hieroglyphic translation] precisely where we were before we began talking." In order to demonstrate the accuracy of this argument, it is necessary only to say that, like hypocephali, the larger drawings, at least, in funerary documents regularly contain the necessary inscriptions and explanations in hieroglyphic character, no matter whether that character be used in the text or not. Noted examples of this fact may be found in the hieratic papyri of Kerasher and of Queen Netchmet, both handsomely illustrated with drawings inscribed in hieroglyphics, as shown in the facsimile reproductions published by the British Museum in the large volume with the hieroglyphic papyrus of Hunefer. The hieratic character is very different in appearance from the hieroglyphic, although largely a cursive form of the same signs and letters, which appear in the explanations of the larger pictures. This difference seems to indicate the fact that these larger drawings and their inscriptions were supplied by a hand other than the one that wrote the text, which practice seems to have been so usual as to be called the "rule." The inference from this is, then, that, as a man who can read hieroglyphics may be puzzled w'th hieratic — just as a man who can read German, Greek or Russian printed text might be entirely unable to read the cursive script in any of these languages — so, also, a man familiar with hieratic might balk at hieroglyphics. The identity of the characters is not always entirely obvious, and in some forms of such script it is quite obscure. There are other differences in the practice of expressing words that might render the reader of one text uncertain of his ground in the other. Because of the various difficulties involved in mastering the reading and writing of hieroglyphics— and that evidently quite apart from their "sacred character"— we find, first, the invention of the earlier and later forms of the hieratic, and, finally, the production of the several forms of the demotic writing, the "writing of the people." This latter character appears on the Rosetta Stone, and other tablets, along with similar inscriptions in the hieroglyphic style, which most Egyptians could not That the professed "translator" of this book, then, could not— as they insist, because he did not— translate the hieroglyphics on the second and^ third plates of this series is no certain demonstration of his "ignorance" or imposture. This is true for the simple and evident reason that the presence of hieroglyph i'cs on these pictures gives us no clue whatever to the nature of the charactcr which he professed to have translated, whether that be hieratic Egyptian or some Semitic writing. The fact that this papyrus has been described as written in "hieroglyphics" is no clue to the real nature of the writing in a critical sense, since the word "heiroglyphics" was used in Smith s tune as now, in the

326 IMI'K< >\T.M ICNT ERA EXPLANATION OF THE FOREGOING CUT. Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years, according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Tnh-oh-eh. Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord. Fig. 3. Is made to represent God sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key- Words of Floly Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchisedeck, Abraham, and all to whom the priesthood was revealed. Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying 1,000; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time. Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs 15 other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the moon, the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kliflos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kaubeam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob. Fig. 6. Represents God sitting upon his throne revealing through the heavens the grand Keywords of the Priesthood; as also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove. Fig. 8. Contains writing that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the holy temple of God. Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time. Fig. 10. Also. Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen. Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be given in the own due time of the Lord. The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 327 popular sense, as indicating any kind of obscure ancient text. (Thus we read of "hieroglyphic inscriptions" made by American aborigines.) Fifth: Even on the theory that the "translator" could read the inscriptions on this plate, and that they were, in a way, relevant to the interpretation of the pictures, or even supposed to be so, there appeears to be no imperative reason why he should have published a direct translation, when the sense of the pictures is given in his own words. There may have been several references that would not be clear to him, even if he could read them perfectly — and even scholars find some references that are not perfectly clear — and a confession of this fact would seem to add nothing to the force of the identifications which he professed to give. As will be seen in the discussion of this plate, the point at issue is not why Smith _ did not translate these hieroglyphics — his remark, "the above translation is given as far as we have any right to give it at the present time," may be held to refer to the explanation of the figure elements, and not to the text — but as to whether there is any evidence adducible to uphold the contention that he could read them, and used them, even with some possible misapprehensions as to reference, in interpreting the figure-elements. In proposing his interpretations of these figures, in spite of apparent digressions and the use of words of doubtful or obscure etymology, there is strong evidence that Smit.h used something other than, mere guesswork, and that his judgments may be defended on Egyptological grounds. In the study of hypocephali one finds only meagre assistance, since comoaratively few Egyptologists have seriously attacked the matter of their interpretation, and but few thorough studies have been published. Prominent among those who have written on the subject are Dr. Samuel Birch of Lon- 'na, P. J. de Horrack of the Louvre Museum, Paris, Dr. C. Leemans of the Royal Museum of Leyden, and Dr. William Pleyte. Nothing in the line of a general discussion of this type of document has appeared beyond Dr. I.eeman's contribution, "Hypocephale Egyptien du Musee Royal Neerlandais" in the "Actes du Congres des Orientalistes a Leide" (1883) and the series of reproductions from the British Museum collection, with comments by Reynolds and Birch, in the "Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," vol. 6. From the data furnished by both these authorities it is evident that no two known hypocephali are entire duplicates, wide divergences being apparent both in the number and character of the figure elements and in the tenor and contents of the contained inscriptions. All, however, seem to be of the same general import. As to the total significance of the hypocephalus, considered as a type of document, there is no fully demonstrated conclusion, although Dr. Birch's theory that its circular shape indicates that it pictures "the eye of Shu or Plorus," the middle portion representing "the retina of the eye. and the narrow concentric ring between the center and the edge, the iris" (Proc. S. B. A. vi 40), has recevied some favorable consideration. He quotes certain inscriptions to prove his contention; but these may be held to indicate a theory of the ancient scribes, based on its shape, rather than an indication of the original idea involved in its first production. The arrangement of the figure elements within the circles, in inverse order. is held by most writers, following Horrack, to indicate the "two celestial hemispheres," those of night and day, or of the upper and the nether worlds. The funerary and magical— not to say, also, the esoteric— significance is argued by inscriptions, and by citations of apparently illuminating passages and rubrics in the Book of the Dead. That there is also an astronomical or cosmoloscical significance involved has been argued. Thus, Dr. Pleyte remarks: "The entire composition relates to the god Amon-Ra with the four rams heads, who occupies the center of the painting." ("Chapitres Supplementary du Livre des Morts." p. 62.) Dr. Birch also says: "Part of it alludes to the opposition of the sun and moon (as above, p. 40), referring possibly to a group on one specimen showing the barks of the sun and moon apparently coming into collision. M. de Horrack states in a letter to Birch, in, which he discusses a specimen, shown at Paris: "Other specimens represent the celestial and eternal generation of the sun, by the goddess Nut, or heaven,

328 IMPROVEMENT ERA leaning with outstretched arms over a scarabeus, the masculine principle of generation. This emblem refers, more particularly, to the material reconstruction of the being." (Proc. pp. 127-128.) Although the presence and significance of several of the figures has been explained, comctly or not, by quotations from the Book oi the Dead, the reason for the total juxtaposition is not fully- established, and some "identifications" have been severely criticized. Whatever may be the apparent meanings in any case, there can be no doubl of a secret significance not always discoverable, The assumed magical character of the group seems to be established by the presence of the mystical cow, in several specimens, also by numerous lunar baboons of esoteric odor, but, especially by the constant repetition of the figure of the talismanic Uzat or Utza eye, the symbol of health, perfect equilibrium, mastery of evil influences, resurrection, etc. In any examination it is fair to assume that the "hypocephalus" under discussion was used for the same purpose as others known, to us. This might be held to involve that, in its contained inscriptions or picture elements, it could have had no connection with any papyrus book that might have been found with the same mummy. It is only fair to insist, however, that such assumption involves only that, whatever may have been the "translator's" knowledge of the Egyptian language, his supposition that this plate belonged with the book — erroneous, perhaps — argues merely that he was not Egyptologically omniscient. His evident approximations to the meanings, or at least to the partial significances, of most of the pictures may be held to be a reasonable presumptive evidence that he really had such knowledge of Egyptian as would enable him to interpret them in the terms of the included inscriptions, if these, indeed, resembled those on. other known hypocephali. The first point that must impress one, in beginning an examinaton of this plate, is that it differs from other documents with which it is classed in several notable particulars. Among these may be mentioned the two faces, instead of the customary four, shown on the central seated figure (1), the unique design of the boat and its occupant (3) — most hypocephali have two boats shown here, the boat of the soul and the boat of Ra, the one above the other, in separate panels — and the entirely exceptional appearance of the "dove" figure in group 7. These departures from the usual cannot be made to argue modern changes for obscure reasons, apparently, since they represent no greater variations than, are found among other documents of the kind. Thus, as mentioned by Dr. Leemans, in his catalogue and discussion of known hypocephali, two such, both at Paris, show a double-faced figure at 1, one also having wings, instead of the usual four-faced figure. Also, as regards the peculiarity of group 7, which Deveria declared had "certainly been altered." there is no clear departure from the Egyptian style of drawing, and n,o greater variation from the usual than is found in the specimen shown in Petrie's "Abydos," in which there is neither "serpent" nor "dove" before the seated figure of "Horus-Min." Even on the supposition that the explanations offered for these plates are entirely gratuitous and groundless, it is far easier to believe that this group was originally as at present shown, than that anyone had changed a serpent into a dove to fit a description that would ordinarilv have occurred to no one. The composition, of the figures in panel 3 differs from other familiar hypocephali, although in general treatment this picture seems to be no evident departure from the Egyptian style. If it has been, altered, the work has been done so well that the "ignorant copying" of the Iveroglyphics and other points criticized seem all the more incomprehensible. In the consideration of the central figure of the present plate, it is to be o'-scrved that most descriptions and discussions, hitherto published, apply to it only partially, principally because such describe a four-headed crowned figure while the one shown here has only two heads and no crown* As a good example of the figure usual to this panel, we may quote the following ''escr'ntion from Or. T.eeman's paper: "We see here in the middle the God Num-Ra iAmon-Ra), crouching or seated, with four rams' heads; the bodv clothed with the cerements of a mummy, and composed of two bodies backto back, each having two heads. He wears the head-dress, called atf or atef

, , HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 329 in the hieroglyphic texts. This head-dress is composed of four sheaves of plants, each surmounted by the solar disk and set evenly on a disk; these sheaves being (each) flanked by an ostrich plume, and the whole set upon two goat's horns. The god holds on his knees the divine sceptre, with the emblems of the life divine and of stability * * * On either side a cynocephalus rampant, his head surmounted by a disk within a crescent, addresses his adoration to the god with raised hands. On either side of this panel a hieroglyphic inscription of four horizontal lines contains the prayers uttered by the cynocephali." As may be seen, the figure on our plate is only partially described in these sentences. Not only does it have, apparently, but two faces, looking in opposite directions, instead of four, but it lacks all of the elaborate head-dress, except the horns that should support it. In most hypocephali the head with four faces attaches directly to the top of the body, above the mark "X," and the symbolical sceptres stand on the knees on either side. In the present case the head and body seem to be offset to the right, and the sceptre, showing the sign of "stability," is held ini an outstretched hand and arm. From the shoulders, also, start branchlike ornaments, somewhat resembling the "apmatennu" shown on the standing figure in panel 2. These may indicate win»gs, such as appear on a hypocephalus in Paris, which are described as ''extended in the length of the outstretched arms." As to what these variations may indicate, we have no sure means of determining. According to general agreement, the seated figure in this panel represents the god Amen.-Ra in one of his numerous aspects, but as to the significance of the four rams' heads there is less certain agreement. On this point Leemans says: "It is the god Num-Ra, or Araon-Ra, identified with Ra, the sun. The four rams' heads, according to Champollion, characterize the god as the principle and motive [force] of the four elements of which he composes the created world, or the great spirit containing in himself these four gods, Phre, Su, Tmu and Osiris. We see there, with M. de Horrack and Dr. Pleyte, the spirit of the four cardinal points, the soul of the terrestrial world." Dr. Pleyte explains his interpretation as follows: "Anion with the four rams' heads [is] god of the cardinal points, because at the period with which he concerns himself the winds were represented by rams." Although Champollion figured and described this god among the deities of Egypt, the general sense of authorities is that its representation is peculiar to the hypocephalus. This seems to reduce the question of its functions and significance to what may be gathered int the inscriptions on documents of this type. Decribing a figure such as we have in the present instance, Champollion says: "In the center of this disk is shown the pantheistic god Anion Ra double-faced, winged, surrounded by the emblems of the four elements. The legend makes Amon-Ra 'lord of the zones of the material world.'" Dr. Leemans translates the inscriptions on the Leyden hypocephalus, with the following: On the right-hand panel, "O venerable soul, who dost shine in the heaven, who does illumine the two worlds;" on the left-hand panel: "O thou who dost rise in Nun" (the abyss of the celestial ocean,) "who dost illumine the worlds." Pleyte quotes a passage of similar import: "O Anion of the Amons, who art in heaven, turn thy face to the body of thy son. Make him healthy in the lower heaven." Dr. Birch, translating the circular inscription around the edge of a very elaborate hypocephalus in the British Museum, finds: "I am Amen, who is in the secret place: I am the accomplished spirit of the even of the sun, going in an:d coming forth from the accomplished multitude; I am the great soul whose form is clear; I am coming out of the Abyss at will: I have come; I proceed from the eye; I come forth from the abyss of Hades with the sun from the great house, a chief in Annu; I am the spirit coming from the Abyss of Hades * * * I proceed from the eye." He also renders the inscription on the right of the_ central group: _ O soul engendering his transformations, hiding his body at his births, dissipating turning back light transformed as the two eyes, transformed as the soul itself

• • • who gives terrors to his adversaries, etc." That on the left: O soul, greatest of afflicters, terrible lord, greatest of victors transforming into the warmth of the very symbolic eyes, doing away with the transformations of the mother (death), placing his body, hiding his body, by the life of his

330 IMPROVEMENT ERA form assuming the type of the lion, the greatest of victors, supplying the ceremonies," etc. On another hypocephalus shown in the S. B. A. Proceedings, the following inscription is found on the ring around the figure: "O box (of Turn) in the roofed house tall, tall spirit spirit, bull great god, Hying over the gods, creating his terrors, give thou life," etc. In the inscriptions on either side of the central figure are the following: "O god Kepra, in the midst of the boat; O great type in it. who gives all life and health to those gods dwelling in Hades forever;" and "O great soul producing the transformations of the flames, the transformations of the two symbolic eyes, the god, king, the ruler." On still another, Dr. Birch reads: "Oh the great god, living in the air, coming from the water, the sun goes to hear his word" (right-hand panel), and "Oh the noble god; the great god living in heaven; his power is; he prevails living; he gives all life, stability and health" (left-hand panel.) Similarly, Leemans, describing a hypocephalus in Paris, says: "The hieroglyphics seemed to describe him as 'Amon-Ra, lord of the throne of the two worlds.' " It would seem needless to seek for further translations from hypocephali, in order to enforce the lesson found in those already quoted. As must be evident, these prayers and ascriptions are addressed to a "soul of souls," the "Amen of Aniens," who is above the material sun. As such, the Egyptians undoubtedly believed that they were addressing in him the Supreme Being. If such a dignity is to be denied him, the description "signifying the first creation nearest to the celestial," or the first delegated source of power, light and "government," is by no means inapplicable, and certainly indicative of ability to understand the significance involved in the figure, even if not the language itself of the inscriptions. Since the panel containing this group is in the center of the figure, the relevance of the text to describing it is not altogether an inadmissible conclusion. This conclusion has been reached by several prominent authorities, at least, in dealing with hypocephali. As to the other remarks, about the measurement of time, etc., they must be from some other source; also the name Kolob, which will be discussed later. In regard to the two cynocephali shown in/ this same group, it may be said that the truth regarding their nature and function has not yet been brought out in this discussion. The present writer in his first article in the present series, although remarking on the fact that there were several differences in the figures of these apes, or baboons, in hypocephali, as compared with other types of document and inscription, quoted the explanations, as given in Petrie's "Abydos," which seem to have been ignored by other writers on hypocephali. Here, commenting on a hypocephalus showing only two of these figures, as does the present one, the author makes the following statements: "Two small apes, the final degradation of the eight adoring cynocephali [shown often in pictures representing the rising sun] may be noticed. These represent the four primeval pairs of gods of chaos, whose names were Nun and Nunt (moisture), Helm and Hehut (air), Kekui and Kekuit (darkness), Gereh and Gereht (rest); being called collectively Khemenu." This explanation seeems to be as inapplicable to the consideration of hypocephali, as the other one quoted, which identified the four-headed god with any concept uniting the "spirits of the four elements, Ra (fire), Shu (air), Geb (earth) and Usar (water)." Why should the spirit of moisture, for example, pray to the god of water, in behalf of a dead man, or in way of showing forth the "eternal and celestial generation of the Sun?" Apart from the fact that such characters as these figure in folk tales, fairy stories and "sunrtnyth" theories, it is fairly evident that, admitting the authority of such statements as the above, they indicate most forcibly the existence of an esoteric meaning. The Egyptians, like other ancient peoples, were much given to punning, and very frequently used words with a "double meaning" in dealing even with the mysteries of religion. This may partially explain the fantastic names of these "transformed openers of the eastern portals of heaven," to use Dr. Budge's words in referring to them. As a matter of fact, there is no need of speculating as to the significance of any such names, since it is by no means certain that we have to deal with any such concepts in the present case. The cynocephalus. or baboon, is one

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 331 of the- frequently recurring figures in Egyptian mythological pictures, although not so frequeat as the hawk or the jackal, for example. In general, it is supposed to be one of the symbols of Thoth — he of the ibis head — particularly when he figures in his character as the moon god. The baboon also figures in. astronomical charts, which often show two such animals, designating often the north and south. . In hypocephali such animals are frequently shown, not only in the central figure, as in this document — where two, four, six, and in one case, at least, eight appear in the attitude of adoration — but also in groups showing the lunar boat, etc., which do not appear here. Speaking of a hypocephalus showing such a boat, as above mentioned, Dr. Birch says: "This boat (of the sun) meets another having in front a drapery on which is seated Harpocrates (a baboon) naked, holding a flower in the right hand and a whip in the left; in the center of the boat is an ark, in which is a cynocephalus of Thoth, wearing a lunar disk, seated facing to the left; another cynocephalus is seated in, front of the ark offering a symbolic eye." (Proc. S. B. A., vi. 122.) In a letter already quoted M. de Horrack, commenting on a similar scene, says: "A second boat carries a cynocephalus seated in a shrine; he is another symbol of the Uza, or perfect equilibrium, but also an emblem of Thoth, whom he replaces very often, when this god is identified with the mooni." Similarly, Dr. Birch, in another similar connection, says: "A boat with a cynocephalus in a shrine, probably Thoth, adored by a cynocephalus holding the right symbolic eye, with housing at the prow, meeting the solar boat * * * * The esoteric meaning of these scenes is unknown.." (S. B. A., 185.) In the opinions of the Egyptologists above quoted the cynocephalus is evidently the symbol of Thoth, or the moon. In commenting on the appearance of these animals in the central panel, however, there is a slight diversity of opinion, due evidently to variations in the accompanying text, or to confusion of symbolic references. Thus, Dr. Birch finds the seated double figure "adored four times, scp ftu, by four cynocephali wearing lunar disks." (S. B. A., vi. 184.) His apparen.t supposition that the number of these animals shown indicates the number of times that adoration is made to the seated figure seems, in this case, at least, to be borne out by the text. Dr. Pleyte sees in a hypocephalus showing only two, as in the case before us, "the genii of the west and east saluting Amon-Ra, the sun. They are represented by cynocephali erect on- their hind paws and raising their fore paws in the attitude of prayer." (Chap. Sup.) This reference is admissible, of course, for a document showing only two such figures, but must be confusing where more appear. Judging, however, from the fact that very many of the best-made examples of hypocephalus have only two such figures, as has the specimen under discussion, leaving panels on either side for inscriptions, as shown here also, it may be assumed that such was the original arrangement, and that further cynocephali, four, six, and eight, were added, partly to fill these inscription panels, partly from a confusion, of their significance with that of the "four pairs of the primeval gods of chaos," as mentioned in Petrie's work. As has been indicated already, the latter, in the character of the "transformed openers of the eastern portals of heaven," are not shown crowned with the lunar disk. As to the ultimate significance of these figures, therefore, there seems to be no clearly demonstrated conclusion among the learned, beyond the fact that they evidently indicate some reference to the moon, as do the familiar companions or alternates of Thoth. Whether they indicate here the "genii of the west and east," the rising and setting of the moon, or the night sky, symbolizing the netherworld in some sense, it is quite certain that their appearance indicates some lunar idea twice repeated, or the idea of two moons, svmbolic, or otherwise. Such facts, coupled with the references in the text, as frequently used, to the "lord of the throne of the two worlds," as appears on a somewhat similar hypocephalus in Paris, or to the one "who illuminest the two worlds," could very readily be supposed to warrant such a description as "stars represented by the numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of" the body "signifying the first creation." Had such an explanation been offered in any book by a person known to possess a reading

332 IMPROVEMENT ERA knowledge of Egyptian, we should read attempts to explain or justify it from Ihe text. The figure shown in the second panel, evidently human in body, having two faces looking in opposite directions, and, as drawn, walking toward the left, strongly resembles that shown in most familiar hypocephali, except for the fact that, in several such cases, we have, evidently, two bodies with two pairs of arms and two pairs of legs, drawn, side by side, somewhat as youthful artists attempt to represent a line of marching soldiers. As in many other cases, the figure shown here carries in his left hand a form of sceptre, or symbolic staff, surmounted by the figure of an animal resembling the nearly ubiquitous jackal. Although some hypocephali, according to descriptions, show other variations, occasionally radical ones, the figure as we have it here may be taken as the type for this order of document. As to its description, we have the following, quoted from several authorities. Of such a double-bodied figure on the Leyden hypocephalus, Dr. Leemans writes: "We see, with M. de Horrack and Dr. Pleyte, in the two gods united, Anion, the supreme god of Thebes, who is identified with Ra." ("Actes du 6me congres," etc.) Similarly, Dr. Pleyte: "Between these barks one sees an upright god, with two human heads, four arms and four legs, crowned with the diadem of Anion. It is the sun god going from the east to the west, and looking toward the south and the north; the heads of the Apmatennu, gods protectors of the south and of the north coming forth from his shoulders." ("Chap, sup.") M. de Horrack states similarly: "It is Amon, the supreme god of Thebes, identified with Ra, the sun, under the name of Amon-Ra. As such, he receives all the qualifications attributed to the two deities, and represents (according to the late M. Deveria) the unseen and mysterious principle of Amon and the visible and brilliant power of Ra combined." (S. B. A., vi. 128.) Deveria, commenting on the figure in the present book, states: "Rammon-Ra, with two human heads, meant probably to represent both the invisible or mysterious principle of Amnon, and the visible or luminous principle of Ra, the sun; or else the double and simultaneous principle of father and son, which characterizes divinity in the religion of Egypt." In view of the evidently mystical or magical significance of the entire hypocephalus, it is fair to assume that the figurative interpretation of this figure, which is accepted, to a considerable extent, by most commentators on this type of document, is to be preferred to the "literal" interpretation given by Dr. Pleyte, as above, and by Petrie's "Abydos." The latter book sees here merely the "double god who personified the risin.g and the setting sun." The figure is not familiar, however, in Egyptian art, seeming to be, to a considerable extent, at least, proper to hypocephali, as remarked of No. 1 by Dr. Leemans, as above. The rising and the setting sun are also represented, in many hypocephali, at least, by the boats shown in( the space here occupied by panel 3. It is reasonable then, to assume that this figure represents some aspect of Amen or Ra, not indicated by either No. 3 or No. 7. Even, in default of direct proof of this contention, there is no clear reason for adopting a common-.place and literal interpretation. The two figures unified, or walking side by side, closelv suggest representations of a man and his Ka, as shown in. several Egyptian pictures. Such an analogy would seem to argue directly that this, also, is a representation of the visible and invisible manifestations of the sun god, the sun and his Ka: one yet separate. In this particular it represents another aspect of the supreme principle of the universe from that represented by Fig. 1., and may be separated from it, just as are Figs. 3 and 7, in the interpretations of Egyptologists. In some aspects also, it strongly suggests the discrimination made by Hindu thinkers, as found in the Upanishads and in the later philosophical formulations, between Brahman, the Absolute, and Brahma, the soul of the universe, the creator; "god withdrawn and god made manifest." It suggests also, the discrimination between the Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos. the Word withheld and the Word expressed, as found in, Philonic and Neo-Platonic literature. These examples are merely partial analogues, but serve to illustrate the idea of the essential doubleness involved in contemplating the idea of God's being and activities; it is what Deveria probably intended in his mention of the "double

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 333 and simultaneous principle of father and son," the idea evidently reached after in such ancient formularies of Christian belief as the Nicene Creed. This figure in panel 2 may then be held to signify an entirely distinct and new aspect of divine activity— that ini which the invisible first becomes visible, as when the body is considered as animated by the spirit of the man, or by his Ka. It is, therefore, a manifestation one step further removed from the ultimate source of life and power. It is scarcely remarkable, then, that one understanding the Egyptian language and the symbolism of its people should propose to explain this figure in the words; "the next (after Fig. 1) grand governing creation near to the celestial, * * * holding the key of power also." Whatever may be the source or significance of the other terms and descriptions found here — for their Egyptian source is not clear— it seems quite certain that the essential idea of this figure is expressed in this description. Like the Aeons of the Gnostics, the several grades of creation evidently contemplated in this description, involve the idea of succession in the out-working of the creative power. In. the description proposed for the plate in this book we find that figure 3 is "made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-Words of the Holy Priesthood." Although, as previously indicated, this figure differs from the representations found in the general run of hypocephali, it is not difficult to recognize here the sun god Ra in his boat, which was the Egyptian figure for the Supreme Being. This judgment is upheld by M. Deveria, who says: "The god Ra, the sun, with a hawk's head, seated in his boat. In the field the two symbolic eyes figuring, according to M. de Rouge, the fixed points of an astronomical period." Dr. Lythgoe of New York also states: "The representation is the most common of all in Egyptian papyri. It is the view of the 'Sun god in his boat.' The Mormon version is right in that this is the picture of a god, but it is the chief god of a polytheistic people instead of God, who was worshiped by monotheistic Abraham." Of course, the last sentence expresses the doctor's personal opinion, of the matter, and need not be considered in this connection, where the important matter is to show that the "interpreter" of these plates may have had some basis of Egyptological knowledge back of his identifications. This seems to be plainly indicated by the recognition of the sun's disk above the head of the seated figure and the sceptre of "power and authority" in his hand. The objection has been made recently that this identification involves only considerations of the most obvious character, since, "who would not guess that a person, apparently sitting upon a throne, would be most likely to be possessed of 'power and authority'? It is only such persons who are accustomed to sit upon thrones." This objection is very well taken, provided we assume it an established fact that the seat shown is obviously a throne in the eyes of all observers. There can be no doubt but what the usual idea among us of a throne connotes some kind of large and heavy arm chair with a high back, as is shown in the familiar pictures of our school days. This seat, although the conventional Egyptian picture of a throne, more closely resembles the uncomfortable chair described by Dickens, "the seat of which was very hard, angular, slippery and sloping." There are, however, some Egyptian pictures whose meaning is obvious, and on which an Egyptologist can say little more than the casual observer. The group marked 7 in this plate is also identified as "God sitting upon his throne revealing through the heavens, the grand Key-Words of the Priesthood; also, the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove." In this connection, again, the argument based on obviousness, might be urged, but it would scarcely reach the symbolical meaning of this group, as given by all comentators, hitherto. This group appears on most hypocephali, and may be considered to be an essential part of their symbolism. It is interpreted, as follows by several authorities: The seated figure is identified with Horus-Min, because of the fact that his person evidently combines the characteristic signs of these two deities, the bird body of Horus and the flail or whip of Min, the latter regularly represented as held aloft on the tips of the fingers of one hand. This sign is

334 IMPROVEMENT ERA represented in hypocephali l>y the umbrella-shaped object extending upward from the rear of the seated figure; the fingers of the hand regularly support it at the bend or hinge. This Min was originally, as it seems, a phallic god of the desert, of husbandry, etc., who was regularly represented with a head-dress composed of two upright palm plumes, and one hand supporting the flail or whip. He was later identified with the supreme god, Amen, and became his "avatar" in the capacity of creator or generator of the universe. Some authorities contend that this identification arose primarily from the fact that both Min and Amen were represented with the same head-dress of upright palm plumes, but this is a matter that need not concern us here. In most hypocephali this seated figure is opposed by a standing, serpentbodied, hawk-headed personage, offering him a sacred eye. Many commentators agree in calling this figure Nehebka, Nahbka or Nahab-Ka, quoting as authority certain passages from the "Book of the Dead." Whatever may be the truth of the matter, it is certain that this Nahab-Ka is not so important in Egyptian mythology that a certain conclusion, may be reached. This, however, is less important than the further interpretation of the group. Dr. Birch, commenting, says: "Behind the goddess with the (Uzat) eye in a disk, holding a lotus, the serpent Nahab-Ka, offering the right symbolic eye to a seated pantheistic type of Amen-Ra as Amsi, figures of part of the vignettes of the 162d and following chapters of the Ritual." (S. B. A., vi. 184.) M. de Horrack similarly says: "The seated deity, half man and half hawk, is a type of Amon, the generating principle; he holds the whip in his hand, and an ithyphallic serpent, with a hawk's head and human legs, offers him the mystical eye. All these different symbols represent on the on,e side the female, and on the other the male element, to express the idea of the eternal generative power." (S. B. A., vi. 127.) In similar effect, Dr. Leemans states: "The god with hawk's body is a form of Amon-Generator; he holds the arm with the whip in the sacred attitude, (which is) the masculine symbol of this same generation. This is why the serpen.t also offers to him the Utza. This serpent with the head of a hawk and the human legs is a variant of the same symbol, making allusion to the creative power. One sees therefore in this scene, on the one side the female principle, and on the other the male, expressing together the idea of eternal generation." ("Actes," etc.) At another place, Dr. Leemans explains and discusses the proposed. identification of this serpent god, saying: "This hawk-headed serpent with human legs is met with in the Book of the Dead, in the vignette of Chap. xvii. above lines 38-42. M. Pleyte gives him the name Nehebka. In the chapter cited, 1, 16, the dead calls himself 'eternally with the protection from destruction, like the serpent Nehebka,' or Nehbka. In Chap, xxx, 1, 3, the dead 'shall prosper through Nehebka;' in Chap, cxlix, 1, 3, he is asked about the 'crown of Turn established upon the head of Nehbka,' and, i, 42, the dead names himself Nehebka." ("Actes," etc., p. 123.) If, then, the identification in these scenes is correct, as Dr. Leemans seems inclined to doubt, it may be understood that the reference of this group is altogether benign and favorable to humanity. The significance of the serpent is, for the Egyptians, wholly sacred and benevolent, being the symbol of Isis, also, as the Urseus, a mark of royalty and god-like descent. It appears, further, in other honorable associations, as the symbols of gods, etc. It seems safe to say, therefore, that the proposed interpretation of this group is certainly strongly borne out by the facts stated in regard to it. In the first place, it represents God, as the Creator. It also represents such part of the "eternal generation" of the worlds as may be imaged by the "feminine principle," the element of motherhood and nurture, which is a concept by no means foreign to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as set forth in the Bible. In one point, however, this interpretation seems to be at fault, and this is in speaking of the "form of a dove." As recognized by Egyptologists, as we have seen, the head is rather that of a hawk, but, upon the question of this identification, we can furnish no further arguments. Even if the wrong bird is named, through association of ideas, perhaps, we see here no vitiation of the gen.eral identification, which is strikingly in accord with what science has demonstrated regarding this group.

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 335 It has been remarked that the identification of the "bird" figure as the "Holy Ghost" is an anachronism. This is, of course, the very point at issue between. "Mormonism" and other bodies. The data of the science of comparative religion, however, seem to argue with clearness to a pure primitive religion among mankind, which has been obscured and degraded throughout historic time, although never free from the traces of the purest and highest concepts, which we are accustomed to hear were not given to the world in any form until a late period. This judgment applies to a consideration of the religion of ancient Egypt as fully and accurately as to any other, despite the thick overlay of fantastic fable and misapplied parable. Of course, we have only traditional misapprehension and prejudice, on the one hand', and the monstrous theory of evolution, on the other, to prevent the clear recognition of the fact that, in every "dispensation" God's truth has been, given to the world, although most people have "loved darkness rather than light." In both groups, 3 and 7, we find mention of the "grand Key-words of the Priesthood," but have, as yet, found no clear justification for the statement. On the supposition, that the "translator" of this document might have had a working knowledge of Egyptian, one might propose, as explanation of his statement that he had reference to the Uzat eye, which is shown in both pictures. Although the full mystical symbolism of this object is not fully known, it seems to possess a sufficiently large number of known significations to warrant, in some measure, at least, the statements made on these two pictures. On the use of the eye as an amulet, Erman remarks: "To the eye, the amulet that occurs most frequently, it is impossible to assign a meaning; is it the eye of Horus, the model of all good gifts?" ("Handbook," p. 44.) As already seen., however, the shape of the hypocephalus, on this theorv a type of amulet, has been ascribed to its significance as the pupil of the divine eye. Also, Amen is represented as saying in one inscription, "I proceed from the eye." The Book of the Dead describes Mehurt, the cow of heaven, as the "eye of Ra." In connection with the use of the eye symbol on. hypocephali, we have the following: "According to the late M. de Rouge, the mystical eye, called Utza, conveys the idea of the renewal of a period, like the full moon, the solstices, the equinoxes, etc., and it designates here the accomplishment of the period of resurrection, always assimilated with the daily and annual revival of the sun." (S. B. A., vi. 127.) In other connections, "the sacred eye or the eye of Ra, or heaven, is the sun, a poetic symbolism used by poets throughout time. * * * * Horus says, I am he who resides in the middle of the eye. But there are usually two eyes represented, and called the eyes of Horus, the left and the right. They sometimes represent, the right the sun and the left the moon; but some other meaning must be inferred when it is said of Ra, 'Thou openest the two eyes and the earth is flooded with light.' " Again, as Erman records, "Horus and Set fight and Set puts out the eye of Horus. Thoth, however, separated the assailants and healed them. He spat on the eye of Horus and it became whole; Horus, however, took the eye and gave it to his father to eat, and by this offering of filial affection, Osiris became animated and mighty." As seen therefore, there are recognized among the significations of the Uzat eye some of the following: protection from evil influences, "the model of all good gifts," "perfect equilibrium," "renewal," "accomplishment," "resurrection," a symbol of divine power and presence, also of "filial devotion." It is altogether certain that, in this list, we have several terms very properly to be described as "key-words of the Priesthood," or service of God. Also, they are drawn from admitted significances of this symbol, which, in such connections, at least, is peculiarly Egyptian. The proposed explanation of Fig. 4, "answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang" [no matter about the poor transliteration], "signifying expanse, or the firmanent of the heavens," invites consideration at once, and establishes a strong suspicion in the perfectly unbiased mind that something quite other than guesswork has been employed in its formulation. On re-reading the sentence, however, the question naturally occurs as to whether this figure is stated to correspond to the idea of the "expanse, or firmament of the heavens," thus

336 1MPRI IVEMENT ERA ti dicating "the heavens," or as to whether the word by which it is supposedly described answers in sounid or meaning to the Hebrew word mentioned. In either case we have a statement which demands careful investigation, before launching the judgmenl that we have lure only an example of purely imaginative invention. Taking the two suppositions in order, we find much to justify either of them, and to support the suspicion that the author of this explanation knew something of the Egyptian language and symbolism. A casual examination of this figure reveals no trace of the idea "expanse," except in the "spreadingout" of the bird's wings; nor, of "firmament of the heavens," except in the fact that it is a bird that flies, hence figures in the "firmament." Surely, these reasons are insufficient to support the statements quoted. From the Egyptological point of view, however, every fresh element of investigation, furnishes fiesh justification for the proposed interpretation. I n the first place, not only this figure, but also Nos. 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, are in the half of the hypocephalus which Egyptologists have agreed to call the "celestial hemisphere" or the "upper heaven." Consequently, even if this figure have no other definite assignable meaning it may be characterized in the above terms. The explanation may be held to show, therefore, that its author possessed some critical knowledge of matters Egyptian, and that, also, before the same had been acquired by raanv Egyptologists. In the second place, the explanation is justified to the extent that, in all that may be said of this figure, it indicates an inhabitant of heaven, par excellence, and, hence, may be used, by metonomy, to indicate the "firmament" itself. This will be shown by an examination of the opinions of Egyptologists touching it, or in describing and commenting on precisely similar figures on HYPOCEPHALUS IX THE I'.RITISH MUSEUM.

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 337 other hypocephali. Thus, Dr. Birch: "In the lower compartment is the mummied akkar, hawk of Socharis in a boat." (S. B. A., vi. 184.) Again, he calls it "a boat with a phenix, rekh, with expanded wings and five lines of hieroglyphs: 'The rams and souls inviolate.'" (Ibid, p. 38.) The identification of this figure with that of Sokar or Socharis involves the use of a definite symbolic reference. This god, the ancient Memphite god of the dead, who is also largely identified with Osiris in the later papyri, in the form of Ptah-Seker-Ausar, and other compounded deities, appears in Egyptian mythology most particularly as a leading resident of the dark subterranean caverns, through which the sun passes during the fourth and fifth hours of the night. His caverns communicate direct with his place of burial in the upper world, through whose sides he daily thrusts his head "to get a view of the sun." He is conventionally represented as a mummy with a hawk's head, but ib also identified with the mummied sparrow hawk, which was borne around on the bark called "hennu," particularly on the occasion of his great festival at the time of the winter solstice. Beyond this, he is of little importance in later periods, except in such combinations of persons, signs and functions as the one mentioned above. His identification with Osiris, however, clearly settles his office as that of the "god of the resurrection," particularly of the resurrection of the soul into the heavenly life of the justified. As a type of this life, therefore, and of the soul's resurrection into it, there is an eminent fitness in the Egyptian symbolism, which places his bark in heaven. It is the symbol of the life in heaven; consequently, also, of heaven itself. These conclusions are amply justified by the inscriptions found in connection with this figure in other hypocephali. Thus, Leemans, describing the Leyden hypocephalus, says: "To the left of the central compartment (is) a third bark" — there are two on the right — "with the emblamed hawk, its wings extended, accompanied by the legend, amchi, 'justified' (declare digne), the title of the justified dead." ("Actes," etc.) Pleyte sees, also, "another (bark) with the embalmed hawk, the soul of the resurrected Osiris." ("Chap. Supp.") Similarly, M. de Horrack says of a Paris hypocephalus: "On the left, a mummified hawk expanding his wings over a boat symbolizes, more especially, the resurrection of the soul. Above the hawk is a hieroglyphical sign for Ba, the soul, and the forepart of a ram, both followed by plural terminations, and often used to express the same idea." (S. B. A., p. 128.) Identifying similarly, Dr. Birch mentions on another hypocephalus, "the six rams and three birds, emblem of the soul, and the hawk of Socharis." (Ibid, p. 185.) Mentioning sundry variations among hypocephali, Leemans mentions one in the Museum of Florence, in which are found "above the embalmed hawk, on the third boat, the hieroglyphics, 'the soul of the west (?)'" Discussing this "embalmed hawk," which he finds "symbolizing particularly the resurrection of the soul," Leemans has the following references, in accord with the findings of Birch and others: "In Chap, lxxi of the 'Book of the Dead' this hawk is represented in the vignette face to face with the cow Mehert. In the text he is addressed as, [one] 'come forth from Nun, the celestial abyss, the lord of Mehert,' and by the dead identified with himself, 'in order that he may be safe and that he may be able to recommence his life upon the earth.' " (Expressions like the latter may be held to refer to the resurrection of the body, since there are no clear indications of any such doctrine as reincarnation in Egyptian theology.) The passage cited from Chap, lxxi of the "Book of the Dead" reads as follows: "O hawk gone out of Nu, Lord of the cow Mehurit! May I be safe as thou art safe, who revealest thyself; may I free myself, may I be placed on earth, may I be loved by my Lord, the only face to me. I am a hawk in its VIGNETTE FROM CHAPTER 71 OF THE BOOK OF THE DEAD.

338 IMPROVEMENT ERA small hands; 1 shall cross over earth, through the wall of Horus, the sun of Isis. May I be safe as thou art safe thyself, who revealest thyself, may I free myself; may I be placed on earth; may I be loved by my Lord, the only face to me. I am the hawk in the South-sky, and Thoth in the North-sky, making the flame touch the rebels and making truth go up to the Master of Truth." ("Book of the Dead," Davis' Ed., p. 107.) Similarly, in another passage: "The Osiris N (the just dead) says, I go out towards heaven; I go across the brazen firmament, I kneel among the stars; salutations are given to me in the bark (Sekhti). I am invoked in the bark Maat, I gaze upon Ra in the naos (of his bark) for I join, myself with his disk every day." (Ibid, p. 75.) The real significance of such passages appears to better advantage in some earlier texts, in which the imagery is bolder, also more definite in its references. In illustration, we may quote the following from Erman: "The Egyptian could watch the stars as they sailed at night in that untroubled splendor which is exhibited by the gorgeous sky of his country. Of these he knew several which shone with especial brilliancy, the dog star, Orion, the morning star, and thought these must assuredly be gods who, like the sun god, had left the earth. But what about the innumerable host of nameless stars that surrounded even the least of these? Doubtless they were the dead, happy souls, who had found their way to heaven, and who now wandered in eternal glory with the gods. 'The great god, the lord of heaven' (i. e. the sun god) had held out his hand to them, or the goddess of heaven had taken them to herself, and had ranged them among the imperishable stars of her body. * * * Like a bird the dead flies up to heaven; 'he goes to heaven like the hawks and his feathers are like those of geese' ('Pyramid Texts,' 251); 'he rushes to heaven like a crane, he kisses heaven like the falcon, he leaps to heaven like the grasshopper' ('Pyr.,' 248): 'thus he flies away from you, ye men; he is no more upon the earth, he is in heaven' ('Pyr.,' 248) : 'with his brethren the gods,' where the goddess of heaven stretches out her hands to him. 'He ascends to heaven, to thee, O Re, with the head of a falcon and the wings of a goose * * * he moves his arms as a goose, and flaps his wings like a bird.' 'He who flies, flies, O ye men, and this one flies away from you' ('Pyr.,' 91). In heaven, however, the Goddess Nut 'places him as an imperishable star which is upon her' ('Pyr.,' 215); 'she it is who makes his life, she it is who gives birth to him. In the night he is begotten, in the night he is born; he belongs to those who are behind Re, to those who are before the morning star' ('Pyr.,' 3). 'He journeys to the east side of heaven, to the place where the gods are born, and where, with them' ('Pyr.,' 56). he will 'be born, renewed, rejuvenated.' "The sun god takes a kindly interest in the new inhabitant of heaven: 'I give thee,' he says, 'thy speech and thy body, and thou receivest the form of a god' ('Pyr.,' 206) ; 'he causes his body to become bright like those of the heavenly ones;' he takes him as an oarsman, in his ship ('Pyr.,' 248), or assigns him a place 'in the forepart, and the crew who row Re, they row him also' ('Pyr.,' 193). Or he even makes him the commanding officer of his oarsmen ('Pyr.,' 252), yea, he displaces his own celestial scribe, and sets the deceased man in his place ('Pyr.,' 257), so that he 'judges and is arbitrator, and gives commands to one that is greater than he,' ('Pyr.,' 193). * * * The exaggerated conceptions of the power of the illuminated dead in heaven, which find a place in many of the quotations already given, come even more prominently forward in others of these formulae. 'The dead is called a god outright; he is Thoth, 'the strongest of the gods' ('Pyr.,' 297), or he is 'Weneg' (i. e. Shu). 'the son. of Re, who supports heaven, leads the earth, judges the gods' ('Pyr.,' 257)." Dr. Erman then relates that the final glorification of the departed consists in devouring all the gods, the hosts of heaven, his own fellows, if not the universe itself. This similitude he characterizes as "cannibalistic," but it may not be impossible to see here a crude or unusually picturesoue statement of the doctrine of the ultimate union of the human soul with the divine, like the Moksha or Nirvana of Hindu thinkers. It certainly lends confirmation to the idea that a representation of the "resurrection of the soul," a flying bird in a god's bark, closely suggests a fitting metonomy for the "firmament of the heavens." It certainly suggests the "home of the soul." In discussing this figure, the question has been raised as to whether the

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 339 boat shown is the boat of the sun, the "bark of millions of years," and not simply the boat of Sokar, known as "hennu." While there is no indication that these two boats are identical in, any sense, there is good reason, as found in some of the passages quoted above, for believing that, as the symbol of the resurrected soul, the bird of Sokar would be represented in the boat of the sun. This is not however, essential to our argument. As noted above, there may be said to be somewhat of uncertainty as to the precise reference of the sentence proposing to describe this figure in the captions ascribed to Smith. The expression, "answers to the Hebrew word," etc, may mean either that the idea indicated "answers to," or is the same, or similar to, the idea expressed by the Hebrew word named, or that the word in Egyptian presumably describing this figure is similar to the Hebrew v/ord, in sound merely. We have already discussed the possibility that similarity or identity of meaning may be involved, having drawn from the opinions of noted authorities that the picture indicates the "resurrected soul," hence the proper inhabitant of heaven, the home of the stars and of the gods, hence, by no very remote figure, heaven, or the heavens. The argument from word similarity is also interesting. By agreement among the Egyptologists quoted above, we have seen that this figure indicates the "resurrection of the soul," under the "type of the hawk of Sokar, as a form of Osiris. The employment of such a bird figure to indicate this idea is strongly suggestive of another similtitude of the Egyptian mythology, which is quite as striking. It is that of the Phenix. According to the story, a beautiful bird, having scarlet and golden plumage, was wont to appear at periods centuries apart at the temple of Heliopolis, where, having lighted a fire upon an altar, it immolated itself. Immediately it was reduced to ashes, however, it would resurrect, with renewed youth and beauty, and return to its home in the distant interior of Arabia. Because of this periodical renewal of its youth, its rising from the dead, it became the symbol of longevity, also of the resurrection, and was held a sacred type of Osiris risen. One word for Phenix in Egyptian is Bennu, which has been rendered with the meanings "rising sun" and "returning;" the latter in reference to its periodical reappearances in the temple, for self-incineration.. The "period of the Phenix," accordingly, became important in Egyptian chronology, and was also considered the indicator of a renewal of happy and prosperous conditions. Hence, as we read, also, the Phenix became the type of Nile inundation, the sole source of plentiful crops and material prosperity in Egypt. This period has been variously specified as between 487, or 500 years, on. the one hand, and 1461, even to several thousand years, on the other. The period of 1,461 years is usually called the Sothiac Cycle, or three Phenix periods. The Phenix has also been called Rekh or Rekhu, the "burning one," the "firebrand," a term equally appropriate to its habit of burning itself or to its fiery plumage. This Egyptian word means "to burn," "to glow;" also as a noun, "the brand," "the glow." Although entirely unrelated, it strongly suggests the Hebrew word mentioned, whose first syllable is raq. If it was to some such similarity as this that the sentence above-quoted intends to call attention, we must conclude that its author knew enough of Egyptian to appreciate even a casual similarity of sounds. If we can establish this, indeed, there is no need to say more. There is also a word rek, with the meaning "time," "epoch," but there is no clear evidence making it 1,000 years. It may be that the writer estimates the Phenix Period at this duration. If so, he has the word, as above. There is also a word closely like recht (reht), which signifies "number," enumeration," "that which is counted, listed, etc." The Egyptian word for 1,000 is cha, (ha), which signifies also "numerous," "to be numerous," etc. The connection of this word with the figure shown in the plate may be held to be problematical, but may be traced, hypothetically r\t 1 P?l st* The Phenix bird, Bennu, is called Rekhu, the "brand," as just seen, also Cheper Tes-F, which means "Cheper (the sun) himself;" hence by no wide variation of idea, he admits the description, "that which shines, beams," "the

340 IM PR( >VEMENT ERA glorious appearance," or the "diadem," which meanings we find subsumed under the word cha, which, although spelled with different characters from that meaning 1,000, is sufficiently near to it in sound for the purposes of an Egyptian pun, of which there were many with less resemblance. W r may thus sec that, whether in the character of the Phenix or not — the phenix is more like the heron — this figure in the boat is certainly the "shining one," as representing the glorified soul, whose destiny is to win a place among the stars. Thus, whether as the "shining one" or the symbol for 1,000, a transference perfectly Egyptian, it is represented by a word closely like cha. If our "translator" had this correspondence in mind, we may see hew consistently it is reason.ed. If the reference is to some other line of symbolism, we have not as yet discovered it. The resemblances above noted certainly go some way toward justifying our suspicion that Smith knew Egyptian. The discussion to this point has shown that the explanations offered by Smith for the pictures on this hypocephalus diagram strongly suggest the fact that he was sufficiently acquainted with Egyptian matters to give perfectly possible and verifiable explanations of their meanings, although without mention of the fact that the total significance of this document is that of a funerary amulet or magical chart. As may be understood, however, the statement of this fact could add nothing in particular to the accuracy of any description of the figure elements, nor yet constitute a ground for a just charge nf error. With all due allowance for such knowledge of Egyptian language and figures as he may have posessed, this may have been one thing which he did not understand. There is no need, however, in speculating further on this point, since he offered no explanation of the total significance of the plate. Consequently we have no means of judging what he knew or did not know. In the figures numbered 4 and 5 in this. plate we have evidently the representation of the cow Hathor, as the goddess of the west, who receives the setting sun, to whom, as the goddess of the dawn, she gives a new birth on the following morning. Before her stand the four sons of Horus, as the Canopic gods, evidently in the position of supplicating her for the privilege of a new birth to the soul of the deceased. This latter judgment is borne out, seemingly, by the fact that at least one specimen of hypocephalus shows at this place, instead of these genii, the figure of the soul itself, pictured as a bird with human head and arms, in the attitude of supplication to the sacred cow. It must be admitted, however, that the intercession of these Canopic gods is not perfectly apparent, although the fact that they are represented as mummies strongly suggests some mission in, behalf of the deceased. They still continue to be the "gods of the four cardinal points" — or of the four "quarters," which is the same thing, as shown in any dictionary — and this is a fact that is, postively, not obvious to anyone not possessing a knowledge of Egyptian symbolism. The fact that they are not described in these captions as equivalent to any group of four stars, or to the "four seasons," or any other tetrad, is significant in the way of enforcing our conclusion that the "translator" of this book really possessed a knowledge of Egyptian. Explaining the cow figure at this point, M. Horrack says: "The cow represents the goddess Hathor, who fulfils the important role of the celestial mother, and personfies the lower hemisphere of the heaven into which the sun sets in the evening, to issue from it the next morning, as after a new birth. She is supposed in that character to receive the deceased on his arrival at the gates of the Occident." (S. B. A., vi. 127.) Similarly, M. de Horrack is quoted as saying: "The attributes with which the cow is crowned make evident in her the goddess Hathor. of whom she is the ordinary emblem. This divinity had the important role of celestial mother, and symbolized the inferior hemisphere, or the sky of night. It is in her womb that the sun. descends, in order to go forth on the morrow, after having there taken a new birth. In this quality she received, under the form of a cow, the deceased arriving at the west, and under this type, she received the name of Noub. Here [at the gate of the west] the deceased demands to be reborn, in the womb of the celestial mother. The vignettes of chapters 71 and 162 of the Ritual represent the figure of this cow, and the text prescribes * * * the placing

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 341 on the neck of the deceased an image of her made in good gold, and the painting of it also on the hypocephalus. In chap. 17:1, 13, she is called Mehur, the Utza of the sun. This symbol is the symbolic eye of Horus." (' Actes du 6me Congres," etc., p. 121.) _ These descriptions give, of course, onlv the account of Hathor's functions in the "lower hemisphere," or world of the dead. It cannot be pretended that they sum her activities or exhaust her significances in the mythology of Egypt. While failure to mention them may be held, therefore, to argue that the -translator" of this book either failed to recognize the funerary character of this hypocephalus, or at least, ignored it, there is no reason to argue that he did not understand the other,' and older, significances of this figure. Thus, although he states of this cow, "said by the Egyptians to be the sun," which may be called in question by sundry commentators, he is speaking of an object and a personage, suggesting in all phases of description close relation, to the idea of the sun and his doings. As the "celestial mother" she is the alternate of Nut (or Nout), who, as the cow of heaven, gives birth to the sun each morning, and to the moon in the evening; upon whose belly, also, the stars moved across the sky of night. When represented in human form, she is shown bending over the earth supported on her feet and finger tips, leaving her body to represent the sky, along which the sun, moon and stars move in similar fashion; being reborn of her each morning, or each evening. As the sky of the morning, Hathor is the goddess of the dawn, hence, of beauty, "love," etc., the prototype of Astarte, Ashtoreth, and other goddesses of similar significance. As the sky of the evening, the western sky, she receives the setting sun, also the souls of the departed. As the sky of the daytime, she is Hathor, properly Het-Her, the "house of Horus," which is to say "house of the sun." It may be seen, therefore, that in all her functions, she is intimately associated with the sun, including in herself all the phases of his manifestation in the visible sky, and very many of his hidden and "spiritual" activities. Thus, for example, she is called in the Book of the Dead, Mehurit, the "eye (or Utza) of Ra, or of Horus," a mystical similitude indicating probably that she is the type of the sun's eternal generation, and daily "resurrection." We may readily understand, therefore, how that an expression so apparently identifying her with the sun, as in the present case, may be said to be defensible on the terms of Egyptian symbolism. That it is outside the references of these terms may not be asserted, until, at least, the mythology of Egypt be reduced to something more closely like exact statement — if that ever becomes possible — and we understand accurately all the apparent contradictions, inconsistencies and confusions of functions and persons that now seem to confront us. If, then, one claim that Hathor may indicate the sun "by rhetorical figure only," we may hold that we have as accurate a statement as is needed, since the figure itself, with all its significances, is only a similitude, and a very elastic one, at that. We have, to the present time, made intelligible arguments and offered intelligible evidence to support the conclusion that, even if the "translator" of this book deviated from what may be held to be "strict accuracy" in his interpretations of the figures on this second plate, he did so through misapplying, perhaps, the facts of Egyptological language and symbolism, with which he may be assumed to have been familiar, to some extent. Some of his interpretations are entirely correct; others are defensible; all evade the suspicion of gratuitous invention or even of the cleverest "guess-work." This man is "nearly right" too many times to be merely a good "guesser." Even if he be held to have known "nothing of Egyptian," he had some very good working substitute for that scriptural faculty which can "understand all mysteries." It is easier to suppose, merely, that he "knewsome Egyptian." Nor, are we devoid of means to establish the suspicion that this was the case. Among the most astonishing "identifications" offered us in the captions to these plates is that calling the "simple offering table," so familiar in Egyptian pictures, "Abraham in Egypt." Had it been called any one of a thousand other things, one might have sought for some possible explanation in the dark depths of symbolic interpretation, without seeking to justify an inter-

342 IMPROVEMENT ERA pretation half so well calculated to provoke curiosity. It seems an in.teresting psychological situation, even if unwarranted in Egyptian language or symbolism. We will proceed, therefore, to discuss it. In a former article, the present writer pointed out the fact that a partial justification might be found for this interpretation! in the fact that the sign for this "offering table" is regularly used in hieroglyphic inscriptions as an equivalent of the syllable "ab." Two examples of this are shown herewith, taken from Budge's interlinear translation of the Rosetta Stone. As a matter of 'fact, this syllable "ab," indicated by the "offering table," may be the equilavent of any word, with any meaning, that may be represented, wholly or in part by this sound. Champollion gives the meaning "east" or "orient," as the most familiar sense; Erman's grammar gives "left" (German "links"), as the most familiar. We see in one of the Rosetta lines, herewith, that the meaning "desire" is assigned to it, as indicated by the determinative figure, a man with one hand pointing to his mouth , indicating actions of the person, as of sense, thought, speech, etc. It is noteworthy, however, that the graven text of the Stone shows at this place the same determinative figure that appears in the group next but one before this, a man with hand upraised, the determinative of "worship," also, apparently, of "people." Consequently, one translation renders this word as "purified," another "ab." The identification of this syllabic significance, in connection with a proposed rendering "Abraham," etc., is interesting, if not significant. Webb suggested, therefore, that, with the further fact that the lotus flower is a common symbol for Egypt, or Lower Egypt, the group might stand the interpretation "Ab(ram) and Egypt," etc. We find, however, the following comment in a certain "sincere and scientific" output of recent date. "His whole symbolical statement is full of errors and is its own refutation. To the layman it is unintelligible and to the expert it is ridiculous. * * * Anyone who can equate an offering-table and a man is clever indeed." It is interesting to read these statements; but, without pausing to inquire as to how the author of them is qualified to speak for either "laymen" or "experts," we will state for the benefit of the public that Webb's statement is not "full of errors," is not "its own refutation," a phrase which sounds well, merely, and that it is not "ridiculous." As to whether there is any essential "cleverness" involved in the act of "equating" an offering table and a man, we need only refer the reader to the constant practice of Egyptian scribes and artists. Here we will find that the process attributed to Webb — the "equating" — is a widely followed one. One example will suffice. In Egyptian books, bas-reliefs, etc., one will often see a female figure whose head is surmounted with an elongated rectangular object, having a short projection extending upward from one upper corner. We are told that this figure represents the goddess Isis. And how do we know this? The curious object on her head is the conventional representation of a throne, which is called in Egyptian "ast." It is used here in its phonetic value as an indicator of the name of the goddess Isis, which is, in the same language, "As" or "Ast." Clever people those Egyptians, who could "equate" a throne and a female deity! In his first article, although knowing the usual hieroglyphic value, "ab," of the object in question, Webb made a mistake in giving the equivalent, "hawt," an "altar," instead of the recognized "iab" or "ab," an offering table — that shows that no one should trust his memory in such matters, even if he is "sure." Webb offers no excuse or "explanation" for this. His error, however, does not vitiate the conclusion to which he was attempting to argue. The sound indicated by this object is "ab." Now, in explaining the evident meaning of the "translator" in calling this object in these pictures, "Abraham in Egypt," it is not necessary to assume that the Egyptian draughtsman,, or scribe, had any intention of using it as a hieroglyphic group. It is of less value in determining what these ancients intended to indicate, than in establishing the strongest kind of suspicion that Joseph Smith understood Egyptian. Unless, in the words of this "estimate" article, people "decide beforehand what they want to see, and then see it in

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 343 spite of all common sense," we must conclude that the "translator" of this book knew Egyptian signs and their values well enough to "play with" them, precisely as did some of the Egyptian, scribes before him. This may be explained, as follows: Knowing that the offering table has the hieroglyphic value "ab," and that the lotus is used hieroglyphically as the ideogram of Egypt, or of northern or lower Egypt, an acrostic naturally occurs to a mind interested in symbolic interpretations — and there were plenty of these to be made in the Egyptian texts. Examining closer in plate 1, we may see on the "floor" to the right of the offering table an elongated oval object, resembling to some extent the leaf of a willow. Such an object appears in hieroglyphics as the sign for "r," but is a picture of the human mouth and lips. This letter, rendered usually as "er," has among other significations, the meanings, "to, into, on, in," etc. It is not essentially absurd, therefore, to say, in, effect, "this group may mean 'Ab(ram) in Egypt.' " To say this merely indicates that we know the values of certaini signs having certain definite shapes. In the third plate we see this oval figure in the libation vase set upon the top of the table. Consequently, judging by appearances, we have the same possible reading here, also. There are, however, further interesting situations connected with this group, which may be held to show further that the man who wrote the words, "Abraham in Egypt," knew -Egyptian. The lotus flower, although regularly appearing in hieroglyphics with the phonetic value, "h" or "ha," is also used ideographically to indicate "Egypt" or "Northern Egypt," the hieroglyphic T Sekhent peri. enli sen \ nh J s-aha malet the people, those who desire [it] to set up a copy of ,i the middle of Sekhent Crown this JSi 9 !,L Icara ten en neterper neb neferu shrine this of the God Epiplianes, lord of beauties papyrus on SECTION OF LINE 10 OF THE ROSETTA STONE. \ iii th: i>" ■■■•'->> their house[s ], likewise [and] to make it to he ii SECTION OF LINE 13 OF THE ROSETTA STONE. ~u A aq-s em nb en aim nit It hath entered into the heart of the priests of i f f[=3; i i i dlerti Reset Meld ma .ash-sen tl>e temples theSouth andNorth, however many tliey of may be, SECTION OF LINE 5 OF THE ROSETTA STONE. Selected lines from Budge's translation of the Rosetta stone, explaining some points mentioned in the text, and illustrating the general character of hieroglyphic writing, which is, however, written from right to left, as is Hebrew and other Semitic languages. In selection from line 10 may be seen the table of offering used with the syllablic signification of "AB," as explained in the text. The hook before it is regularly the letter "S," here used as a determinative. It is regularly a verbal determinative. This line shows also the sekhent crown of the two Egypts. In line 13 may be seen another case in which the table is used with the value "AB," this time with a verbal sense. This line also shows the sign for "R." In the section from the fifth line may be seen the ideograms for upper and lower Egypts, with the values "reset" and "meht, respectively. In the 13th line is seen the word "neferu," indicated by three lutes, and translated beauties. It suggests the Hebrew word from which was derived the name "Nauvoo."

344 IMPROVEMENT ERA for the papyrus reed indicating "Southern Egypt." Many of the earlier translators of hieroglyphics, notably Champollion, translated this figure^ to indicate "Egypt," without qualification., and gave it the value "hm" (Coptic "chem"), the traditional name for the country. Later translators, notably Dr. Budge, as shown in the accompanying reproductions from his book, render it "meht" or '■mini," north, as indicating Lower Egypt. We have, therefore, a new possible rendering of the lotns, giving us some such possible combination as Ab-r-hm, on the one hand, or as Ab-r-m, on the other. In the second case, of course, the first letter ("m") of the word "mhti" is used, after the nsual fashion in the use of such figures as hieroglyphic letters. Lest, however, we hear further accusations of "errors" and "self-refutation," in this matter of using an ideogram with the phonetic signification of the thing or person indicated, we may quote the following from Dr. Erman's Egyptian grammar (Breasted's translation): "Sec. 70. Unusual Styles of Orthography — Sportive methods of writing, in, which ideograms serve as simple consonants, determinatives and unprecedented signs are used as ideograms are found as early as the middle empire, cf. e. g., — msdmt, 'cosmetic,' wherein (1) as determinative of ins, 'child,' represents this ^0 syllahle, (2) dw 'mountain' represents D, (3) mwb 'mother,' the syllable mt>. — But this wanton method first attains importance from the fact that ^¥'4^1 Ml such an orthography gradually superseded the old hieroglyphs in the Greek period. A summary of these signs may be found in Brugsch, 'Verzeichniss der Hieroglyphen mit Lautwert' (Leipzig 1872)." "Wanton method" this may be, but it is Egyptian, also it is defensible. We have, therefore, another good evidence of the fact that Joseph Smith was able, to this extent, at least, to read Egyptian. If, however, he could read it "to this extent," he probably knew very much more, else the suggestion to make this interpretation would scarcely have come to him. On completing its remarks on the first plate of the series in hand, Dr. Spalding's "estimate" article "winds back again" to the irrespressible issue of Smith's transliteration, particularly of the already-familiar "raukeeyang" and "shumahyeen," with "Jah-oh-eh" following in full force three pages later. Why the author of this article insists in harping on this matter is not easily understood, particularly since he does not favor us with the correct renderings. It may be that he wishes it to be understood that, as he says of Joseph Smith, he knows "some Hebrew." "Scholastikos (i. e. a 'scholar' or 'pedant') having a house to sell, used to carry around a stone from it as a sample." (So says Hierocles.) Lest, however, anyone unfamiliar with ancient languages should suspect that some very serious lapse from an understanding of Hebrew had been committed in these words, presumably, also, in all others, it seems desirable to explain just what is involved in this matter of "correct transliteration." In a language like Hebrew, for example, in which a "k" sound may represent any one of three letters, Kaph, Qoph, and, sometimes, Cheth; which has four "s" letters, Samekh, Sadhe, Sin, and Shin,; two "t" letters, Teth and Taw, and a ""g" sound in both Gimel and Ayin, it is quite necessary to adopt some system of arbitrary "diacritical marks" in order that a Hebraist, reading a word spelled in English letters, may know precisely which Hebrew equivalents are indicated. Such diacritical marks consist in dots, accents, ligatures, etc., placed above or below the consonant letters, and, by common consent among scholars, constituting such letters the indicators of the proper characters in the Hebrew. Of course, there is no other known device by which one could know which one of the two "t" letters or two "k" letters, for example, had been used in the original, but it would seem quite unnecessary to introduce it into a book intended to be read by those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew, and would have no occasion to consult a lexicon of that language. In the case of Joseph Smith's renderings of Hebrew words, as has already been indicated in a previous article, he was evidently more concerned with represent-

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 345 ing the pronunciations, as they had been taught to him, or as he understood them to be, than to "transliterate" in any sense proper to scholarly literature. As the present writer indicated in a previous article, Smith's renderings of accepted Hebrew sounds are correct, or admissible, with the sole probable exception of the hard ("ng") sound for Ayin, which, nevertheless, shows that he had been trained to discriminate carefully between the sound of this "guttural breathing" and that of Aleph, thus avoiding the common error, followed also by the translators of the Bible, of rendering both by "a" or some other simple vowel sound, according to Hebrew pointing. That he had been, taught to render these respective Hebrew characters by the indicated sounds seems evident — what else could be the explanation of "errors" of this description?— and that his instructor was a Sephardic Jew, as Dr. Peters has suggested, seems a reasonable explanation*. The hard sound of Ayin also explains his "Gnolaum," as indicated by the "estimate" article, being proposed for a word beginning with Ayin, but often rendered "olam." As to his explanation for "Shaumau," "to be high or the heavens," which our commentators consider worthy space in their magazine, we need remark only that we are concerned here more properly with defective English than with bad Hebrew. There is a verb shamah having the meaning "to be high." There is also a noun Shamayim, the "heavens," of which this word is evidently proposed as a singular form. Regarding the faulty transliteration, of the Hebrew name for God, yhzvh, as alleged, it may seem, as already indicated, to express the sound of the word, rather than the spelling. After substituting "y" for "j," as previously indicated, we have a pronunciation closely like "Yao-way," which is so close to the accredited "Yahweh" (pron. "Yah-way") "that it is needless to quibble over the difference." However, in his probable eagerness to make the most of even the smallest point against Smith's statements, Dr. Spalding consents to publish the following: "The word Jah-oh-eh is not an Egyptian word. This, be it understood, is the important point at issue. The Prophet showed by that one statement, 'called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh,' that he did not know the Egyptian language. That in itself was sufficient to prove the contention of the scholars that Joseph Smith was either self-deceived or an imposter." ("Survey," p. 22.) Now, although, as we are told, this "estimate" article is formed up "as sincerely and as scientifically as possible" — and there are always limits to possibility — it evidently lacks two very essential elements of true scientific treatment. These are fairness and the careful analysis of conditions. Any product lacking these elements, among others, is in- no sense really scientific. The constantly repeated conclusion to which it professedly argues, that Smith is in this matter, and then in that, shown to have been self-deceived, or worse, is more properly the premise with which it starts. Because the assumption that Smith might have read Egyptian — however he may have learned it — is intolerable to our friends, they will not consider for one moment what it might involve. Had they been willing to do so, their favorite conclusion would not leap so easily and so constantly to the fore. We have here a book and some explanations of pictures, professedly translated from the Egyptian language, or, in any event, from some language spoken among the Egyptians, although ascribed to a Semitic author. That this author might use Semitic words, particularly Semitic names, although this possibility seems to be denied in the discussion of the word "kolob," seems evident, provided such words could be expressed in Egvptian* letters. If the translator of this book, happening upon such a Semitic name, should fail to recognize its origin — a thing done occasionally by the best-equipped linguists — he might reasonably enough suppose it to be an Egyptian word, no resemblances being considered conclusive to the contrary, and would remark, as here, "called by the Egyptians," etc., as in the cases of the other strange words introduced by this same phrase, if, on the other hand, he recognized the actual origin, alleged for this word, he might consistently use the same form, intending, in this case, at least, to emphasize the peculiarity of its rendering in the Egyptian text. In neither case could he be justly charged with either "self-deception" or "imposture."

346 IMPROVEMENT ERA Whatever may have been the actual facts of the matter, however, it seems that the form of this word, as here given, furnishes an unusually good argument for the contention that it had been actually transcribed from an Egyptian text. This is true because there has been some real uncertainty as to the actual value of the hieroglyphic character which would be used to represent the Semitic letter Waw ("w"). The earlier Egyptologists, following close on < Coptic analogies, usually rendered it as "o," or "oil," but some later authorities prefer "u," while others again, following Semitic analogies, hold that it has no proper vowel sound, being a true correlative of Waw. (See, z. b. Ernian's grammar). If, then, we assume as a fact, that the "h" in the second syllable is inserted to indicate the long sound of the "o" — as must be the case if we are dealing with the name Yahweh — we may see that this name in Egyptian letters could easily be read in the form given by Smith. Since, also, the letter "e" is not expressed in Egyptian hieroglyphic, being always understood, where correct — although some have transliterated it from the characters usually rendered "a" and "i" — we may further understand, from the same conditions, the true Egyptian origin of the form Yahoh, as transcribed into Hebrew characters by Gesenius, familiar in Greek letters as the iao of the Alexandrian Gnostics. The whole question involved in the presumed appearance of a foreign word in the text in any language is as to whether it may be expressed in the characters, sound-equivalents, of that language. Thus, for example, there must be considerable difficulty in representing in English many Russian words, since some of the characteristic sounds composing them are unknown or inexpressible in English. It is similarly difficult to express the English "th," or even "j," in German, or the German "ch" in English. Although, in the Egyptian, several familiar sounds seem to have been unknown, while others are not clearly discriminated — thus "1" and "r," if known as separate sounds, are frequently represented by the same character, as in some Greek transliterations— there seem to be no words mentioned by Smith that might not have been found, or at least read, in a hieroglyphic manuscript. Even "Kolob" might have been read there. The Egyptian, scribes, however, had the evil habit of indolently, or purposely, botching words and sentences, making all kinds of unintelligible combinations, especially noticeable in. later times. Thus, there are words in Egyptian manuscripts which have no discoverable etymology, no apparent meaning or derivation. Some such state of affairs is referred to in Petrie's "Abydos," when it is said that the sign combinations on some hypocephali "correspond to no known words." If, therefore, Smith translated this book from an Egyptian papyrus, the presence of words having no apparent derivation — we find mention of "Oliblish," "Shagreel," etc. — is no conclusive proof that such words were "improvised." The name Egyptus might fall into this class to the extent, at least, that it was read as the possible rendering of an obsure combintion of characters, of which we find not a few, suggesting a familiar form — for few names are perfectly transferred from one language to another, particularly in ancient texts: thus we have the Egyptian "Ptulmis" for the Greek "Ptolemaios," etc. Several of his unfamiliar words, however, seem to have some suggestions of an etymology. Thus the word "rahleenos," said to mean "hieroglyphics," suggests a combination of some such roots as are found in the Hebrew raah "to see," liyn or lun, as nearly as we can transliterate here, "to abide, tc remain;" thus giving a rendering like, "things seen and remaining," a perfectly intelligible description of drawn or graven pictures. His Kae-e-vanrash is also interesting, suggesting an etymology that is both consistent and significant. Assuming that the "k" in this word is to be represented by the Hebrew Kaph ("k"), the, matter seems almost clear. As a correspondent, then, of the Hebrew Kaph Yodh Waw Nun (kywn), for which Gesenius proposes the meaning "image" or "statue," the first part of this word would be equivalent to the apparent name chiun of Amos v. 26. This name, however, is rendered into Greek letters by the translators of the Septuagint version as raiphan — whence the Remphan or Repham — of Acts vii. 43 — showing that a carelessly formed kaph had given them a rcsh ("r") in the manuscript, but particularly, that the pronuncia-

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 347 tion. of the word was probably KeYWaN or KeY VaN, a clear correspondent of the Arabic Kef Ye Waw Alif Nun, the name of a star worshiped among the ancient Semitic peoples, and supposed to be Saturn, a star of evil influence, to be propitiated by sacrifices, etc. The identification of this word as a star-name is shown by the translation of the Septuagint Greek rendering of the Amos passage: "And ye brought up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Raiphan, the images of them which ye had made for yourselves." The last syllable of this word closely suggests the obsolete Hebrew root RaASH, corresponding to the Arabic Re Ain Shin, and meaning "to move, to tremble," etc. (Whence the Hebrew ReSH "head," referring to its "moving or nodding"). <(The meaning of the total word would, then, be the "moving image" or the "moving Keyvan," which might apply to Saturn, or some other planet, or to such a fixed star as Algol (al Ghul, the "ghoul," the "demon"), which is noted for its rapid variations in magnitude (from the third to the seventh, in a few hours), and was also worshiped anciently as an influence to be propitiated. Some such discussions of names and terms would be undertaken by scholars in the case of any other book, presumably translated from an ancient language, and, perhaps, with no better demonstrations. This brings us to the word "Kolob," which has been frequently mentioned in, the present "inquiry." In the "estimate" article we find the following statement: "Sayce declared that the word is unknown to the Egyptian language. This is the important point, because Joseph Smith is commenting upon a text which, according to himself, was written in the Egyptian language." The inference is, of course, that here we have another "coined word" — hence Smith was an "imposter," etc.— but it is somewhat hasty. TJie word "Kolob," in spite of the evident misconception in this passage, is used as a proper name in the book under discussion, as is definitely stated (Chap. iii. 2). Consequently, its occurrence in an Egyptian text is not impossible; the sole question being as to whether it could be represented in the characters of that language. It would be absurd to argue that a foreign proper name could not appear in an Egyptian text, or that its alleged presence would argue the book a forgery. This, however, seems to be the clear implication in the above passage — for we assume that the author of this "estimate" article has read the book, which he undertakes so confidently to criticize: that is the only "scholarly" method of procedure. But, if this book is to be condemned because of the presence of proper names, not of Egyptian* origin, we must judge by the same canons that the Book of Esther is also a forgery. (What prototypical "Smith" perpetrated this "imposture?") In this book (Chap. ix. 6-10), we find a list of the names of certain "Agagites," several of which Gesenius supposes to be of Persian origin, but which closely suggest Sanskrit etymologies, particularly those having the familiar endin.g datta, "given." Thus, we have Aspatha, suggesting Asvatha (the name of the "holy fig tree" of heaven, the oriental correspondent of the Ash Ygdrasil of Norse mythology), although Gesenius suggests Asvadatta (" 'given by the horse' or Brahma in that form"); Aridatha, perhaps Haridatta ("given by Hari, or Vishnu, the "lotuseyed Hari, the remover of sin") ; Parmastha, perhaps Paramastha ("he who stands highest"); Poratha, perhaps Bharata ("he who should be helped"); Parshandatha, perhaps Varshandatta ("given by the rain," or the god of the rain), etc. These probable identifications are interesting in the present connection, since it is certain that the Sanskirt-reading Hindus were quite as "remote in language, religion and locality" from the Babylonians and Hebrews as were the Chaldeans and Egyptians, or as are "American and Chinese." In spite of the plain truth of all such arguments, the author of the "estimate" article delivers himself, as follows: "It is quite evident that 'Kolob' is used bv the Prophet as the name of the greatest of all the stars ('Kokaubeam'). That is, 'Kolob' is the name of a star or a word equivalent to 'star.' Now, 'Kolob' never means 'star' in Arabic, neither has it such a meaning in any other Semitic language. It is neither Egyptian nor Semitic in the sense in. which Smith used it." The statement that this word is not Egyptian is indicated, apparently, by its construction. A Semitic affinity might be admissible, however, precisely

348 tMPROVEMENT ERA on the ground of its construction* When we consider that Smith's transliterations arc not always exact — wc have contended that they were meant to indicate the sounds pf the words, rather than their spelling — as has been sufficiently indicated, we may conclude that this word might be correctly rendered 'Kalab,' a spelling closely suggesting a Semitic affinity. But, after having identified a word as Semitic, determined its derivation, meaning, etc., what nonsense it would be to say that it could not be Semitic "in. the sense in which Smith used it." The misuse of a word by Smith, or anyone else — and words are habitually misused in all languages — cannot divorce it from its proper affinities. But, as a matter of fact, Smith did not misuse this word. Neither is the word used by him "as a word equivalent to star," or as a word meaning "star," any more than the word "Mars" may be taken to mean "planet." Why will a "trained orientalist" stoop to this kind of "argument?" Smith used this word percisely as the "name of the greatest of all the stars," and no otherwise. Under some conditions, this prelatical "estimate" argument might seem like an attempt to "cover up the truth," as others have been, accused of doing. In order, however, that the reader may not be deceived by any such nonsense, it seems desirable to discuss the matter. The use of an ordinary word as a proper name, for stars, persons, etc., is common. Nor does it argue that a word so used is divorced from its proper affinities. Thus, in the Hebrew text of Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, we have the word Kesil, used well over sixty times in its primitive meaning of "fool," or "foolish person" — such a man as "hath no delight in understanding," etc. — and were our knowledge of Hebrew confined to these books, we might scout the idea that this word could be used as the name of a star or constellation. Yet, in Job (ix. 9 and xxxviii. 31) and Amos (v. 8), we find that precisely this thing is done. When, in the first passage, we read "canst thou * * * loose the bands of Orion?" we have this very word. The constellation of Orion is called m Hebrew, Kesil, the "fool," referring probably to the wickedness ascribed to him in mythological story. So with the word "Kalab," or a word identical in spelling and pronunciation with it: it has been used repeatedly as a star name, or as the component of star names, among Semitic peoples from very early times. Thus, the Arabian astronomers used the word kalab, a dog, and qalab, "heart," as a component in the names of several stars— the difference between the two words being that on.e begins with Kef ("k") and the other with Qaf ("q"), the latter sign being usually transliterated by "k" with a subscript dot. Thus, we have Al Kalb al Akhbar, "the greater dog" designating the constellation Canis Major, and Al Kalb al Asghar "the lesser dog, designating the constellation Canis Minor. Three different stars, one in Cepheus, one in Hercules and the third in Ophinchus, have been known as Al Kalb al Rai, "the shepherd's dog." One star, at least, the Beta of Canis Major has been called Al Kalb "the dog," according to some authorities. Thus m addition to other designations, "Brettman asserts that it also was Al Kalb, the dog, run.nmg in front of Sirius (the "Dog Star"), but this must have been from early times in the desert." ("Star Names," etc R H Allen, N. Y., 1899. p. 129.) ... In Similar fashion, the Arabians also used the word Qalb "heart " in star names Thus we have Al Qalb al Akrab, "the scorpion's heart," for Antares (the Alpha of Scorpio), and Al Qalb al Asad, "the lion's heart," for Regulus (the Alpha of Leo) The author above quoted says also of the constellation Perseus, The Celeub. Cheleub and Chelub of the 1515 Almagest, Alphonsine fables, and Bayers Uranometria, probably are from the Arabic Kullab the Heros weapon (1. e., Perseus'), although Grotius referred them to Kalb, a dog. (Ibid. p. 330). He also reminds us, in discussing the name of Canis Major, that "Al Biruni quoted the Al Kalb al Jabbar, the 'Dog of the Giant' Tone of its alternate designations] directly from the Greek conception of the hgure. Similarly it was the Persian's Kelbo Gavoro." (pp 407-408) These examples suffice to show that "Kolob" (or "Kalab") or any one of several words closely like it— for the "bad transliterations," of which we have heard so much must prevent us from conclusively determining its root and orthography— is entirely Semitic in the very sense in which Smith used it, as the name of a star

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 349 Furthermore, such usage goes very much further back tnan the Arabian astronomers. In the study of this word "Kolob" there emerges a very strong suggestion of something quite foreign to mere "invention," or even clever guesswork. Even by the admission of his critics, Smith evidently "guessed right" so often that one is nearly tempted to believe that he did not guess at all. We always come upon some interesting situation by following with this book precisely the method adopted with other books and documents. For example, we may find something of this kind by studying one passage in which "Kolob" is mentioned. This is Chap. iii. 3, and reads as follows: "And the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near to me, for I am the Lord thy God; I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." Now, had this passage been found in any other ancient work, or presumed ancient work, we should inevitably conclude that the clause, "because it is near to me," may be held to explain the relevancy of the name on the basis of its etymology. Hence, we should seek for some meaning that would seem to admit the explanation implied in the passage just quoted. Judging from the appearance and sound of this word, from the familiar suggestion in this passage in which it appears, and from the nomenclature of astronomy in all ages, we might be justified in assuming the meaning "dog" to apply to it. And this name is altogether familiar from very early times, as applied to certain stars and constellations, apparently "following" greater constellations or stars. Furthermore, it is found in name-combinations designating the star Sirius (the "Dog Star"), the largest and brightest of the fixed stars, truly the "great one," also the constellation of Canis Major, in Assyrian-Babylonian inscriptions, written in the native language of Abraham. The Assyrian word for dog is Kalbu, which appears also as the name of the constellation Canis Major (the "greater dog"), and in such combinations as Kalab-Samsi ("Dog of the Sun"), Kakkab Kalab-Mituti (Star "Dog of Death") and Kalab-Me (Constellation Canis Minor?) In a learned work, "Primitive Constellations of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Babylonians," by Robert Brown, Jr., F. S. A., M. R. A. S. (London, 1899), we find the following, in the discussion of the star and constellation of the "Dog." "In the W. A. I. ('Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia') II. vi. 19, where the Accadian name is lost, we have the Assyrian equivalent Kalab-Sam^i ('Dog-of-the-Sun'); and in the W. A. I. II. xlix, 63, we find the Kakkab-Likudu ('Star Dog-of-the-Sun'). In W. A. I. II. xlix 43, the 'star' or 'constellation' of the Dog, is said to betoken that 'forces are in the country.' Canis Major appears on the Euphratean boundary stone in exactly the same attitude as in our modern star maps, and on other boundary stones, e. g., those figured in W. A. I. III. xlv., the stellar Dog is a prominent object." (Vol. I., pp. 277-278.) At' another place the same author, discussing the Dog Star, writes as follows : "It is Seirios, brightest of fixed stars, the 'star of summer, that above all others glitters bright after he has bathed in ocean' (Iliad v. 5-6), 'the star that comes forth at harvest-time, and plain seen his rays shine forth amid the host of stars, in the darkness of night,' this is the star 'which men call by name the Dog of 'Orion' (Iliad xxii. 26-29). Whilst the Orion-sun is blinded in the Underworld, Seirios keeps watch above his head; and, 'brightest of all,' guides him, as it were, towards the healing east. And so, when Orion becomes a constellation Seirios attends the mighty hunter as his faithful hound. In Egypt of old, 'Sahu and Sodpit, Orion and Sirius, were the rulers of this mysterious world of nio-ht and stars;' and Sahu was a 'wild hunter' who chased 'the very gods themselves' (Maspero, 'The Dawn of Civilization,' 1894, pp. 96-97). Probably Sahu, like Orion, is a reduplication of an Euphratean original." (Ibid, pp. 255-256.) In the' last passage we may see that others than Smith have postulated an interchange of ideas, religious and mythological, between the peoples of the Euphratean region and Egypt, even though, as we are told in the present connection these peoples (Chaldeans, and others) were "as dissimilar and remote in language, religion and locality as are today American and Chinese." It all depends upon who says a thing. But, in this same discussion we are to find

350 IMPROVEMENT ERA that, not only the name of a star, as used by our "translator," but also the dignity ascribed to him, was, in a very real sense, a part of oriental tradition 1 hus, further: "In Homer the Dog (of Orion), whether also a constellation or not, is certainly a single star, Seirios, in whose name Aryan and Semitic derivations coalesce. On the Aryan side he is the 'Scorcher.' * * * On the Semitic side he is the 'glittering,' 'the burning one,' 'Lamp,' etc., as connected with the Phoenician 'Sirion,' a name given by them to the snow-crowned Mount Hermon (Deut. iii. 9), and with the Arabic siraj. * * * But this [i. e., the Greek] view of the star is not Asiatic. Thus, to quote the cosmogony of Zarathustra, as related by Plutarch (Peri Is. xlvii), doubtless on the excellent authority of Hermippos: 'Oromazes [Ahura-Mazda] adorned the heaven with stars, and one star before all he appointed as a guard and overseer, Seirios ' as being the brightest of the fixed stars. So, in the Avesta, Tistrya (Sirius) is ''the bright and glorious star, that gives happy dwelling' (Tir Yast., I. ap. Darmesteter), and that heads the stars against the 'glooms and planets' [which latter are considered to 'walk disorderly'] arranged by Angra-Mainyu (Ahriman, the 'Dark' or 'Hurtful' spirit, Zad. Sparam iv, 3)." (Ibid. pp. 275-277.) The discussion of this book and its plates could readily be enlarged to a considerable extent; but at the present time it is necessary only to notice a few of the numerous ill-grounded criticisms made against it, with the evident intention of creating a show of strong evidence. Some of these criticisms are of such a character as to be readily discounted, as, for example that there was no such Egyptian person as the "priest of Elkanah." On reading the text, one may easily see that the author represents this priest to have had his residence in Chaldea. As seen already, the fact that he is mentioned in an alleged Egyptian book does not make him Egyptian. Also, the argument based on apparent "hopeless mixing together" of Egyptians and Chaldeans is offered for considerably more than it is worth, as may be shown later. At one point the bishop's vicarious "estimate" rather oversteps itself in its desire to be destructive to the claims of Mr. Smith. Thus, rather confidently: "He makes the usual mistake of the common people of his time in using the word 'Pharaoh' as a proper noun." Dr. Spalding ought to be ashamed of himself for publishing such a sentence as this. This word "common" is very much misused, particularly by the class that is likely to Episcopalize, because of its love for elegance, dignity, and tinseled pretence. As used here the word means simply the kind of people who have small education and are compelled to labor for a livelihood — Christ himself came of such a stock. It is a pleasure, therefore, to find that this childish jibe is as ill-founded in fact as several others of the bishop's most confidently used arguments. The "error" making the word Pharaoh a proper noun, apparently, is far older than Mr. Smith, or any of the "common people of his time." Thus, in the Bible we read of "Shishak King of Egypt," and of "Hiram King of Tyre," Shishak and Hiram, being of course, proper names. We have also in several passages the expression' "Pharaoh King of Egypt" (Gen. xli, 46; Exodus vi, 11, 13, 27, 29; xiv 8" Deut' vii, 8; xi, 3; I Kings iii, 1; ix, 16; xi, 18; II Kings xvii, 7; Isa. xxxvi, 6; Acts vii 10). However, when men are "convinced" of the truth of this "higher criticism''' fad, which makes of the Bible a mere crazy patch work of antiquated error and ignorance, we may expect to hear them state that the Bible also was written Ly very "common people." What a grand thing it must be to be uncommon! Of very similar value is the attempt to noly the "canons of higher criticism" to the book itself. Thus we read that the book must have been made up by a person having the text of the King Tames translation before him, because it states that the Creator finished his work on the "seventh day," whereas certain older manuscripts of the Book of Genesis state that it was on the "sixth day." The assumption, of course, is that the manuscript giving "sixth" must be nearer the original reading than that giving "seventh," because older. This is a favorite argument of destructive criticism, and although tenable in many cases cannot be made to apply here, at least with the certainty of a demonstration. Considering the passage from the standpoint of the Hebrew text, there are several good reasons for believing that the reading "seventh" in Gen. ii. 2 is the original and proper one, in spite of the fact that it occurs in manuscripts