pressed and excited. The chief part of the performance consists in a succession of attitudes, contortions, and gestures, performed by the muscles of the thighs, abdomen, and loins. The performers possess a perfect command over every fibre of the body; and those parts of the human frame which are naturally quite incapable of voluntary motion have acquired a pliability and power that seem hardly less than supernatural. They were highly excited, I might say almost frantic, under the influence of the music, and of their own exhausting efforts. The spectators partook of the same intoxicating influence. They encouraged the dancers with occasional cheering, and swelled the hoarse music to a deafening note, by now and then pouring upon its thrilling, rapid tide, a brief loud chorus. The dancers occasionally stopped to get breath, but, by repeating their evolu. tions, speedily rose again to the state of phrensied excitement, which, for the moment, seemed to have subsided. It was a wild and very striking scene. I was not sorry to have stumbled upon it, though it left a painful impression upon my feelings. The motions and attitudes of the dancers were indecent and offensive in a high degree; and we were fain to turn our backs upon an exhibition which, from its singularity and novelty, we had witnessed with a lively interest (i. 132, seq.).

The same writer gives an account of a funeral dance:

'On entering the village, our attention was attracted by a group of twenty or thirty females, uttering doleful cries, and performing a sort of dance to a shrill and disagreeable music. Three of them were seated on the ground; one beating a large drum with the open hand, a second making a noise on a sort of shield covered with the untanned skin of a sheep or goat, while a third discoursed music with a rudely-constructed instrument. The strains were plaintive and melancholy. The rest danced in a long vaulting step, following each other in a circle around the musicians. They were dressed in loose tattered robes, in the usual style of the female peasantry. They threw their hands and arms around and aloft in the wildest manner, and brandished long, slender spears, all accompanying the music with loud and piteous cries. The number of performers increased during our stay, and a few women and girls seated themselves on the ground as spectators, though no men approached or gave any heed to the perform. ance. We halted at a short distance to observe this singular exhibition, which seemed at first to increase their excitement, and the velocity of their wild gyrations. In a short time, however, one of the dancers sprung forward, and snatched the instruments of music from the hands of the women seated within the circle, which in an instant

put an end to the performance; and the parties approached, and asked us for bucksheesh. We learned, on inquiry, that a person had recently died in the house before which this singular funeral ceremony was performed by the female relatives. We proceeded towards the temple, and soon heard behind us a renewal of this melancholy dirge' (i. 214).

DANIEL (H.my judge (is) God, A.M.4942; A.C.606; V. 606), a Hebrew prophet in the Chaldee-Persian period, of the tribe of Judah, and the race of David; who, in accordance with the prophecy in Isa. xxxix. 7, was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (Dan. i. seq.; comp. Jer. xxv. xxxvi.), transported, while yet young, to Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar, after the conquest of Jerusalem.

In company with three companions of his own nation, he underwent an educational discipline of three years' duration, after, in accordance with an Eastern custom (Gen xli. 45. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4. Esther ii. 4), he had received the name of Belteshazzar, Bel's treasure-keeper (Dan. i. 7). The aim seems to have been to convert Daniel to the religion of the Chaldæans; for which purpose he was provided with food, the eating of which would have been a breach of the law of his fathers. He, in consequence, obtained, by a trial, which proved that simple fare was conducive to health, permission to adhere to his national diet. This act of selfdenial and religious principle was, as such acts always are, rewarded of God with gifts of his Holy Spirit, so that the young man made marked progress in wisdom and spiritual knowledge; and the king found in him a counsellor far superior to the national magi.

An occasion soon put Daniel's skill to the test. Nebuchadnezzar, failing to obtain the interpretation of a dream from the magi, in whose class Daniel seems to have been formally recognised, was on the point of exterminating them in the true spirit of Eastern despotism, when the prophet offered his assistance; and, having received enlightenment in a vision, expounded the dream, in the name of the God of heaven that revealeth secrets.' The result was, that the monarch confessed, 'Of a truth your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings;' while he made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon;' so that he sat in the gate of the king,' or became prime vizier (ii.). His elevation seems to have aroused into action the dormant jealousy of the Chaldæan priesthood, who impelled the king to take a step, in requiring from his subjects the worship of an image of gold, which could not fail to compromise all faithful Jews, and might, at least in its consequences, reach the

obnoxious Hebrew minister. The plan was defeated by the fidelity of three servants of the most high God,' whose moral courage and miraculous preservation confirmed the monarch in his predilection towards the Hebrew race (iii.). After the deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the king had another dream which troubled Daniel as well as himself, but the interpretation of which, given by the sage, accompanied with seasonable advice, found complete fulfilment; after the penalty involved in which, Nebuchadnezzar declared, —‘I praise, and extol, and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment; and those that walk in pride, he is able to abase' (iv.). The acknowledgment may have been sincere, but wrought no vital change in the monarch's heart.

The book which bears Daniel's name, or what may be fragments of the original work, does not bring the prophet on the stage during the followers of Nebuchadnezzar, till the last day of the reign of Belshazzar, when, while carousing with his court, and desecrating the sacred utensils of the Hebrew sanctuary, that despot saw a handwriting on the wall, which, as decyphered by Daniel, announced his immediate downfall. Apparently the prophet, in the midst of those sudden and sometimes unaccountable reverses to which Oriental countries are specially liable, had fallen into neglect, if not disgrace; but he knew from the prophecies of Isaiah what was at hand, and already the name of Cyrus filled Asia with its renown. Hence he appeared before the terrified and half-inebriated prince with a confidence and dignity befitting his position; and, making mention of the loss of reason that had been inflicted on the conqueror of Jerusalem for his sins and folly, he announced the ruin of Belshazzar, and the coming dominion of the Persians. The bearing and the message of the prophet impressed the king so profoundly, that, perhaps in some vain hope of escape by his means, he lavished honours on his Hebrew slave (v.).

Under Darius, for whom Cyrus had captured Babylon, Daniel was the first of three presidents, in whose hands was the entire government of that mighty empire. So exalted a station could not fail to excite envy, and envy would find hope of revenge, especially in the imperfectly established relations of a new dynasty. The magian caste employed their great influence with Darius, to procure a decree, forbidding worship to be offered within thirty days to any being save the monarch himself. Daniel knew the evil intent of these men, and resolved, as becatne one with his convictions and in his office, to make his prayers in such a manner that they might be known of all. The consequence was, that Darius, taking Daniel's conduct as a wilful and open breach of his

commands, and even as an insult to himself, was driven, in his rage, to inflict on the prophet, without mitigation, the penalty threatened against disobedience. Asiatie monarchs were wont to have large parks stocked with wild animals, which served at once for the perilous amusement of the sovereign, and the punishment of his offending subjects. Into such an enclosure was Daniel cast. But the God whom he served so faithfully, preserved him unharmed. sight of this wonderful rescue drew from Darius a confession of the sovereignty of the God of Daniel, who now prospered in his reign, and in that of his successor Cyrus (vi.). That prince may have been influenced by the advice of the faithful Hebrew, in the act of liberality be performed, when he gave the Jews permission to return to their native land.

The

This is the last historical notice we have of Daniel; for the rest of the book is made up of accounts of visions and prophecies of various dates, during his long, varied, inte resting, and very important life.

Daniel appears as a man eminently distinguished for prudence, wisdom, and piety. His fame was great. At an early period, he is classed with the sages and righteous men, Noah and Job (Ezek. xiv. 14); and his name became proverbial for superior knowledge (Ezek. xxviii. 3). He was recognised as a prophet in the days and by the lips of Jesus Christ (Matt. xxiv. 15).

In Daniel we see the Hebrew qualities of mind brought out in a superior manner, and it cannot be denied that they present points of great excellence. In his piety, he may be taken as a representative of his race: their hardness of heart and indocility he did not share; yet had he enough of firmness and persistence to withstand the most powerful blandishments, as well as the most unsparing opposition. Placed in circumstances where all that Oriental pomp and opulence could give, and all that a gorgeous system of religious falsities could achieve for the perversion of his heart, he was found faithful to the depressed religion of his fathers, and the cause of an afflicted people; and so gained a high rank among the true servants of God. and became distinguished for that holiness which made the descendants of Abraham a peculiar people, and characterises the morality of the Bible.

During the captivity, Daniel held the important, yet perilous office of the representative of his people, at the Chaldæan court. For any thing but this, was he destined by those who undertook the charge of his education. His own force of character and prevailing piety placed him at once high in office near the monarch, and made him the centre of his nation's hope and strength. Wisely and faithfully did he acquit himself of the duties which hence arose.. Genius, as

well as piety, was requisite. Daniel proved equal to his position. In all ages, slaves have been of a sudden elevated to the right hand of Eastern despots. The rise of Daniel, as well as that of Nehemiah, is in keeping with Eastern customs. But ordinary viziers fall as suddenly as they rise; and when they fall, they perish. Daniel reached a very old age in a service, of all the most dangerous. At our first view, we see him under the protection of the devastator of his native land: our last presents him as the approved and influential servant of its friend and restorer. Viewed in this light, he appears an instrument in the hand of God, for the support and encouragement of captive Israel, a support and encouragement which were indispensable, if that people were ever to be again located in their native soil; and the miracles recorded in connection with him have an object and a reason which remove them from the class of ordinary wonder-workings, and go far to attest their credibility.

DANIEL, THE BOOK OF, contains, besides the particulars already stated, which regard the life of the prophet, many interesting details touching the Chaldee and MedoPersian monarchy, which are in accordance with what, from other sources, is known on the subjects; only that here, in Holy Scripture, we have more detailed, life-like, and impressive accounts, than we find in heathen writers (i.-vi.). In the seventh chapter, the writer narrates a dream which, in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, he had regarding four kingdoms prefigured under the image of four beasts. The kingdoms are described in ii. 31-45. Chapter the eighth tells how, in the third year of the same monarch's reign, Daniel saw in a vision a ram with two horns, which was assailed and subdued by a goat with a notable horn.' The ram denotes the king of the Medes and Persians; the goat, Alexander the Great. The ninth chapter states, that, in the first year of Darius, Daniel, while engaged in prayer for the speedy termination of the captivity, was divinely instructed, that, after seventy weeks, reconciliation should be made for iniquity, and everlasting righteousness be brought in. From the tenth to the twelfth chapters, information is given of the fate of the Persian, Macedonian, and Greek-Asiatic monarchies, down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; of the persecution of the Jews, and the establishment on earth of the kingdom of God.

A right understanding of the aim and purpose of a book goes far to establish or overthrow its credibility. This position is exemplified in the book of Daniel, and has been too much forgotten in critical discussions concerning it. The chief aim of the work we take to be the exhibition of the Jewish religion, in contrast with that of the magi. In the prosecution of this pur

ence.

pose, the writer sets forth various facts as bearing on his leading object, - facts which were within his own knowledge and experiHence, at the very first, Daniel ap peared superior to the sensual attractions of the court, and proved that even the dietetical regulations of Moses were conducive to health. The moral courage exhibited on this occasion created a favourable impression on behalf of the young man, and his three asso ciates; which went on increasing as they advanced in knowledge and culture, till at length the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream raised Daniel at once to the highest consideration. The presence and fame of these Hebrews in his court may well have made that monarch reflect on the possibility of their having truth on their side, the rather, probably, because he knew something of the falseness and deceptions of the established religion. Hence he may have resolved to put the skill and pretensions of both parties to the test. His dream afforded an opportunity. Objectors have said, that he was not likely to require the magians to say what was the substance, as well as the import, of the dream, as if any stretch of caprice and authority were too great for an Oriental tyrant. But our view supplies a sufficient reason for this command. The king felt that the exposition of a dream lay not entirely beyond human power. But, in the substance of his dream, he had a sure test in his own mind. This could be known to none save himself and the holy gods.' He therefore made this the prominent point. The result justified the course he took.

Now to us it seems all but impossible that the collision here implied should not have arisen. The genius of the two religions was essentially dissimilar. The moment Judaism came into contact with Magianism, a conflict was inevitable. The position and celebrity of Daniel made the court itself the field of action. And thus the question assumed a vital importance. Nor, apart from some influence such as that which must have resulted from the success with which Daniel maintained his righteous cause, can we well understand how, contrary to what was usual or likely, a decree should have been issued permitting the captives to return home. Viewed in the light, however, in which we have placed the book, it is seen to record most important events; which, in their issue, did something to undermine the deceptive system of Chaldee philosophy, to diffuse more correct impressions of divine power and pro vidence, and so to prepare the way for Christ.

In this, its main design and tendency, the book of Daniel had a yet wider and still more important aim, — namely, the advancement of that kingdom of God, of righteonsness, true holiness, and eternal life, which Jesus came to found, and of which Daniel had a foresight, and uttered predictions.

If these aims are borne steadily in mind, objections which have been taken to the authenticity of the book will disappear of themselves.

Besides the canonical writings which bear Daniel's name, there are extant in Greek, others which wear the features of spuriousness, and find their place in the Apocrypha. These are the history of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, the prayer of Azarias. and the song of the three children in the fiery furnace.

The book of Daniel, as well as that of Ezra, is peculiar, in being written in two languages. In the Hebrew are chapters i. ii. 3; also viii.-xii.: the remaining ii. 4 -vii. are written in Eastern Aramaic, or Chaldee.

It must also be remarked, that the first six chapters are distinguished from the six ensuing in this, that in the former, Daniel is spoken of in the third person, while in the latter he himself speaks in the first.

The book is without the name of its author, though the latter half professes to be composed by Daniel. It is worthy of notice, that the work consists of a number of parts more or less disconnected. It cannot, however, be hence inferred, that these parts proceeded from different hands. They may be pieces written at different periods in Daniel's life, and put together after its close, in the manner of a collection of separately published poems. The general tone of thought, and the deep, rich, oriental colouring; the intimate knowledge displayed of the manners and modes of action in Eastern courts; and the relations in which the Chaldeans and the Jews, especially the magi and Daniel, stand to each other, combine to make it probable, that the Daniel, whose history the book relates, is its author; and to give us an assurance, that, whoever the author was, we have here a reality, - -a transcript from actual life, -a page out of the world's history.

This, however, is a different question from that which asks, whether the condition in which the book now lies lies before us is that in which its materials proceeded from the prophet's pen. Evidences there are in the work, which show the working of a later hand. It appears not unlikely that some Israelite gathered together the several pieces which Daniel had himself put forth, adding to them such biographical notes as he might think desirable. An intimation of another hand is found so early as chap. i. 21 Nor was it likely that the prophet would himself have written, that among the magi none was found like himself (i. 19; see 20, and vi. 4).

The book of Daniel was held in high, though not the highest, estimation by the ancient Jews; but, so early as the third contury, it found ar ailant in Porphyry, the

Syrian Neoplatonist, who wrote against Christianity. This philosopher maintained, tha: the book was the work of a deceiver, written in Greek, in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (cir. 170, A.C.). His attacks, however, did not shake the prevalent belief in its authenticity. The celebrated Spinoza published doubts respecting its five first chapters, which regarded not the credibility of their contents, but the time when they were united with the rest.

It is in our own days, however, that the most strenuous and sweeping attacks have been made on the book of Daniel. Hezel threw doubt over chapters i.—vi.; Michaelis over iii.-vi.; and Corrodi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, de Wette, Bleek, and Kirms, have denied that Daniel was its author, ascribing its composition to some Jew living in the time of the Maccabees, with a view to encourage his nation in their struggle for liberty. The attacks made by these critics called into the field able defenders in Lüderwald, Stäudlin, Jahn, Hengstenberg, and Herbst. This is not the place to enter into so purely critical a question. Yet the writer must be permitted to say, that in his opinion the defence has been fairly and successfully conducted. It is equally clear, that the impulse which led to these recent questionings of the authenticity and credibility of our author had for its origin and support a deeply-rooted predetermination against those displays of the divine power, that men have designated miracles. Such a presumption renders it necessary to get in some way rid, either of the miraculous in a book, or of the book itself. But this is a state of mind as most alien to the spirit of criticism, so most adverse to a just judgment respecting the authorship of a Biblical writing. And it is no little curious, yet painful, to remark that some of the very men who in Germany have most strongly protested against all assumptions in the theologian, and have carried on the most rigorous processes of critical investigation, giving therein a model well worthy of imitation, have yet, with s lamentable inconsistency, entered on their Scriptural studies with a most decided and unsparing bias against all miracle, derived from schools of modern philosophy. persons of this state of mind, Daniel and other books may well appear unauthentic and incredible; but then these critics might as well have saved themselves the trouble of entering on an inquiry which could have only one issue. Having made up their minds against the very essence of the books, not to say of revealed religion, they would have acted consistently had they turned their talents and industry into some other channel.

To

DARIUS. Properly, like our word sovereign, Darius, in Persian Darawesh, is a regal title; but in Greek historians, and

others who have followed them, it is the name of several Persian kings, of whom three are mentioned in the Bible: -I. Darius the Mede (Dan. xi. 1), son of Ahasuerus (Dan. ix. 1), conqueror of Babylon (Dan. vi. 1). He is not Artaxerxes, or Astyages, still less Darius Hystaspis; but, since in vi. 29 he appears as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus, without doubt Cyaxeres II. son of Astyages, who followed his father in the government; gained the empire of Babylon; but, given up to self-indul. gence, surrendered nearly all power into the hands of his nephew and son-in-law, Cyrus: on which account, Herodotus, Ctesias, and other later historians, pass over Cyrus as a Median ruler, and begin the list of Medo-Persian kings with Cyrus. See the article CYRUS. - II. Darius Hystaspis, or son of Hystaspes (Ezra iv. 5; v. 5. Hag. i. 1; ii. 1. Zach. i. 1), ascended the Persian throne after the magian Smerdis (521 or 522, A.C.). In the second year of his reign, he confirmed the favour which Cyrus had granted to the Jews, permitting them to rebuild their temple, and considerably augmented his dominions by several fortunate conquests. He died after a reign of thirty-six years, 486, A.C.-III. Darius the Persian (Neh. xii. 22) is either Darius Nothus, a son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who (425, A.C.) ascended the throne a short time after his brother Xerxes II. and died (405, A.C.) after a troubled reign of nineteen years; or, as Nehemiah, in the passage just referred to, makes Darius the Persian a contemporary of the high priest Jaddua, who lived in Jerusalem at the time when it was entered by Alexander the Great, this third Darius has been held by Grotius and Le Clerc to be D. Codomanuus. If this is correct, then the narrative cannot have been written by Nehemiah. With Darius Cedomannus, however, the Persian kingdom came to an end. He is mentioned in Macc. i. 1. DARKNESS (T.) is, in the natural world, the partial or total absence of light; in which sense the word is often used in Scripture (Matt. xxvii. 45). God- around whom, in relation to mortal sight, is thick darkness (Deut. iv. 11. 2 Sam. xxii. 12), but to whom there is no darkness at all (Ps. cxxxix. 11, 12. Job xxxiv. 22) — divided the light from darkness, in creating the world (Gen. i. 4, 5, 18); caused darkness to prevail, for three days, over the land of Egypt (Exod. x. 21, 22); and placed a dark cloud between the Israelites and their Egyptian pursuers (Exod. xiv. 20. Josh. xxiv. 7). But the absence of light is, of all privations, the greatest. Hence darkness' came to signify a state of privation, want, distress, and calamity (Joel ii. 31. Job xxx. 26. Eccl. iv. 17). Spiritual darkness (Isa. xlix. 9; 1. 10) consists in a disordered and confused understanding, a corrupt will, and a troubled

heart, - evils which necessarily ensue one from another; a state of mind which inevitably brings forth works of darkness' (Rom. xiii. 12), confounding darkness and light together, or putting the one in place of the other (Isa. viii. 20). To meet the condition of those unhappy beings who sat and who still sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, the Lord Jesus appeared, guiding 'our feet into the way of peace' (Luke i. 79: comp. John i. 5; iii. 19. Eph. v. 8, 11. 1 John ii. 8, 9, 11).

'Darkness' is used tropically to denote I. What is hidden, secret, or private (Matt. x. 27); II. Death and the grave (Job x. 21, 22; xvii. 13); III. A, if not the, state of punishment (Matt. viii. 12; xxii. 13; xxv. 30); and, IV. The evil powers that there hold sway (Luke xxii. 53).

DAUGHTER (T. Tochter), a female child (Gen. xxxiv. 1), and generally the maidens (xxxiv. 16. Cant. v.8) or women (Luke xxiii. 28) of a land. The daughter of Zion' (Isa. i. 8) represents 'Judah and Jerusalem' (i.) under the figure of a female (Ezek. xxvii. 6, marg). An idiom is here employed which has extensive application both in Hebrew and Arabic. The words father, mother, son, and daughter, are used to characterise an object in an expressive and striking manner, when it is intended to represent that object as the origin or offspring of another; the masculine or feminine being preferred according to the nature of the case, or the usages of the language. Thus, rain is termed the father of life;' vinegar, the father of acidity;' bread, 'the father of soundness;' wine,' the mother of immorality;' the world, 'the mother of sense;' a wanderer, son of the road;' a robber, son of the mountain-gorge;' the moon, son (masculine, as in German) of night;' echo, daughter of the hill;' speech, 'daughter of the lips;' tears, 'daughters of the eyes.' Horace calls a ship the daughter of a wood ( Car.' lib. i. 14).

The usage is found in the Scriptures. A vizier was the king's father (Gen. xlv.8); sons of power' (marg.) are mighty warriors (Deut. iii. 18); son of the morning,' the morningstar, or dawn of day (Isa. xiv. 12); daughters of howling,' ostriches (Isa. xiii. 21). Not the least curious is mother of the way' Ezek. xxi. 21), for the open place where two or more roads meet, and where they seem to take their origin.

These remarks will give the reader some means of seeing how picturesque is the Hebrew tongue. Very beautifully does the phrase, father of life,' paint the rain and its lovely consequences, especially to those who know with what magical speed and rich luxuriance the fall of rain calls forth verdure, and all the treasure of the spring, in Eastern climes.

DAVID (H. a favourite. A. M. 4475; A.C. 1073; V. 1085), the youngest son of