6

the Old Testament are we told that the Serpent,' the Tempter of Eve, is Satan; it is first positively asserted in Wis. ii. 24: 'Nevertheless, through envy of the Devil came death into the 'world; and they that hold of his side do find it.' Compare this with Rev. xx. 2:-'And He laid hold on the Dragon, that old 'Serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, &c.' Closely allied to this is the awful fact of demoniacal possession, first clearly enunciated in Tobit, and confirmed by our Lord's miracles of casting out demons, and His own declaration that 'Beelzebub' (Baalzebub, the God of Ekron) is 'the Prince of the Demons.' It is unfortunate that our translation makes no distinction between the Devil and a Demon, which can very clearly be distinguished from each other in the originals, both Hebrew and Greek: Satan, both in Hebrew and Greek, and Aiáßoλos, in Greek, is never found in the plural number, when applied to the Evil Spirit; Δαίμων and Δαιμόνιον are so frequently. In Jewish theology these two classes are distinct, Satan being a pure Spirit of like nature with the angels, while the Shedim, or demons, are half human. These last are identified with the Nephilim, or 'Fallen ones,' the giants, the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 2); half angelic, half human, in many Jewish writings-most conspicuously in the Book of Enoch. This book is not only quoted by a canonical writer, S. Jude who does not hesitate to cite the words of Enoch as a prophecy to be yet fulfilled-but he confirms the Apocryphal tradition of fall of Angels by reason of their intercourse with the 'daughters of men.' As, however, this interpretation is by no means universally accepted now-though it was by the early Fathers--we shall give two or three reasons to confirm our opinion. First, S. Jude is writing against the most depraved sect of the Gnostics, who 'forbidding to marry,' yet indulged in the most hideous debauchery; who turned the grace of God 'into lasciviousness:' 'filthy dreamers, who defiled the flesh.' Having thus described them, he denounces the wrath of God upon them, and gives them examples as a warning: 1st, from the heathen, or Gentiles, the men of Sodom; 2d, from the chosen people, the Israelites, in the destruction of the 24,000 in the matter of Baal-peor;' 3d, the angels who were seduced by the beauty of women. Now it will be noted that the Fall' of angels mentioned here cannot be the fall of Satan and his companions, as recorded by Milton, and not in the Bible-though 'Paradise Lost' seems to be regarded by Protestants as Canonical-but of the Fall' mentioned Gen. vi. 2; for these last are said to be reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day; and in the parallel passage in S. Peter, God' spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them

'down to hell (Tаρтаρáσas), and delivered them into chains of 'darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.' On the contrary, Satan is one, not many; when he fell, he fell alone: there are no 'devils' in the plural number; he is not kept in chains of darkness on the contrary, he is the 'Prince of the powers of the air; walking to and fro on the earth, and even appearing in the presence of God (Job i.). S. Jude, then, and S. Peter, are both referring to the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, and, as far as the matter of this Fall of Angels goes, confirms the history contained in that book.

There is an adaptation of another Apocryphal Book less known, and perhaps even more curious than the above. In the Book of Zohar, which we have before mentioned as one of the oldest of the Kabbalistic Books, we have a description of the chief of the female demons, probably Lilith, so famous in the Talmud, (the word is generally interpreted Power of the Night') the mother of many demons, the wife of Samael, the name in this Book by which Satan is known. She is there represented as the personification of vice and sensuality; she is called The Harlot,' the 'Mother of Abominations' B

: commonly, however, these various attributes are summed up into one, and she is called 'The Beast'. It is superfluous to ask our readers to compare this with certain passages in the Apocalypse, for they must have immediately suggested themselves; but we may be permitted to hint that a deeper study of ancient Jewish writings will supply a key for understanding the figurative character of that Book far better and more congenial than modern Protestant controversialists, or their favourite authority as a commentary on the Apocalypse, the pages of the infidel Gibbon.

In these days of Biblical criticism and exposition it is not too much to ask for one learned work on the Apocrypha; one which will amend the very careless, and often absolutely faulty, translations in our authorised version, and will supply us with a commentary and notes at once explaining the theological system of the Alexandrian writers, and showing its close connexion with the perfected revelation in the New Testament. We should find it almost impossible to suggest a work more urgently needed, for there is no subject on which so great a prejudice exists as on the Apocrypha. To remove this, to restore this portion of the Holy Scripture to its proper estimation in the minds of churchmen, would be a work worthy of the labour of our most learned divines.

275

Art. II-1. Historia Regis Henrici Septimi, a Bernardo Andrea Tholosate conscripta; necnon alia quædam ad eundem Regem spectantia. Edited by JAMES GAIRDNER. Published by the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman, and Roberts. 1858. 8vo. p. 478.

2. Letters and Papers illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII. Edited by JAMES GAIRDNER. Published by the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. Vol. I. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. 1861. P. 452. 8vo.

3. Letters and Papers illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII. Edited by JAMES GAIRDNER. Published by the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. Vol. II. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green. 8vo. p. 425. 1863.

THERE is no necessity to institute any comparison of the respective values of the two series of works which have now for some years past been issuing from the press under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. We speak of the Calendars of State Papers which commence with the reign of Henry VIII., and the Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages, which are supposed to terminate with the commencement of that monarch's reign. Both these series are for the most part extremely carefully edited. Indeed, both the editorial and the mechanical part of the work is well done, and there is a sumptuousness of execution in the get-up of the volumes which is deserving of the highest praise. Such works could never have been executed by private enterprise. Very creditable works of antiquarian research have, indeed, been put forth from time to time by private societies, and English history is much indebted to the Camden Society, as well as to other companies of literary men who have united for the express purpose of supplying the public with printed copies of manuscripts in which they were interested, and which, unless guaranteed by subscription, never could have had sufficient sale to pay the expenses of publication. No societies of this kind, however, have had any long period of duration, and even in those cases

where the greatest amount of success has been attained, that result has been mainly due to the particular interest felt by certain individuals for particular subjects. And thus a somewhat miscellaneous collection of historical papers of more or less value has been made. We have no wish to speak in disparaging terms of these societies, or to underrate the value of the, for the most part, unpaid labours of their editors. But it is the very fact that these labours were unpaid, or at least very inadequately remunerated, that has caused the entire want of uniformity which these volumes exhibit. No such remark can be applied to either of the series of publications now under our consideration. It may perhaps be true that the editors are underpaid, and we believe it was even argued in the House of Commons, that such was the interest felt in this kind of work, that competent scholars could be procured to do it for much less than it was worth, and that therefore it would be absurd to pay them at a higher rate than what was necessary to ensure the work being well done. It is not our province to adjust the claims of supply and demand, or to inquire here how far they are applicable, or should have been thought applicable, to this case. But certain it is, that editors have been found to do these works in a style which reflects great credit on themselves, as well as on the present Master of the Rolls, with whom the publication of at least one of the series originated.

The longer we live, and the longer the world's history goes on, the more does the truth impress itself upon our minds, that history cannot be written except from contemporaneous documents. With regard to medieval history, what are called State Papers have scarcely any existence; we are therefore compelled to rely for our facts, as well as for much of the colouring of those facts, upon annals and histories which are contemporary, or at least nearly contemporary, with the events narrated. And up to nearly the present time, readers of history have been obliged to trust to modern historians, whose bias may have led them to give a preference to some sources of information, and to neglect others equally valuable, or whose indolence has caused them either wholly to neglect, or to pay but little attention to important documents which were within their reach.

The reign of Henry VII. may be considered as the bridge between medieval and modern history, at any rate, so far as this country is concerned. Or it may be spoken of as a piece of border-land which overlaps both territories. And, in point of fact, it is the only reign which has found its way into both these series of publications. Perhaps the most interesting of all the volumes issued under the head of Calendars, is the Calendar of State Papers extending over the whole of this

reign, which M. Bergenroth has published, from the archives of Simancas; and it is certainly the only one which has touched upon the ground which seems exclusively to belong to the chronicles and memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages. Probably this volume, and the three published by Mr. Gairdner, are nearly exhaustive of the original papers of the reign of the first Tudor king. We must profess ourselves of opinion that the division between medieval and modern history, so far as our own country is concerned, ought to be placed at the beginning, and not at the end of Henry VII.'s reign. The division is of course somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to us more reasonable to anticipate the break by twenty-four years, and to conceive the commencement of our modern history to be at the accession of the house of Tudor. On this account we much regret that in two of the three volumes whose titles are placed at the head of this article, Mr. Gairdner has coupled together the reigns of Richard III. and of Henry VII. No doubt reasons for treating any two consecutive reigns, as coming under one period of history, may be found, and for particular purposes it might even be considered expedient to take portions of history, independently of the commencement or conclusion of a given reign. Still, the division according to reigns is the most convenient, and still more, should that according to dynasties be preserved, as that is in all probability the mode in which we have all of us been initiated into English history. Those who know least of the subject are accustomed to the established divisions of the different reigning houses from the Norman Conquest to the accession of the house of Brunswick; and for those who are best acquainted with the history of the country, it happens that the change of dynasty has been connected, in many cases, with other political changes, from which important results have issued.

The three volumes, then, which have been published by Mr. Gairdner are open to the charge of having coupled together reigns which, in our opinion, should have been separated. If the documents of the reign of Richard III. which have been inserted in the last two volumes had been omitted, we should have been able to speak without any abatement of praise as to the contents of the three, or as they would then have had to be described, the two volumes of the Chronicles of the reign of Henry VII.

In order fully to appreciate the value of these publications, we must bear in mind how scanty are the original sources of information for this reign. The reader has only to look at the references at the foot of the page, or in the margin of any history of the time, compiled from previously printed documents,