law marched forth among all men. Each try in mechanical art, and our hardy endurance | deadly war in which Vespasian and his when subjected to violences in the cause of son turned Judæa into a wilderness, the our law. What is most marvellous, this law, historian calmly claims it as conceded by without allurement, without any bait of pleas- the conscience of the Gentiles, that the ure, itself by itself, has proved strong; and as Jews are their superiors in practical God permeates the whole world, so has his morality. No trace of sacerdotalism, or what (in an evil sense) we call Pharisaism, shows itself in his argument; and from his sentiments elsewhere we may fairly infer those of his fellows and equals, especially since he was of a high priestly family, and, as such, was put forward into responsible office at a very early age. Elsewhere (§23 of his own life) he tells us, that when certain foreign nobles came over for protection to the city in which he was governor, the populace cried out that they must not remain unless they would be circumcised. But Josephus replied, "that they must in no case be constrained, for every man must show piety to God according to his own convictions, not by compulsion; and that they must not let those men repent of having come to them for refuge." The multitude gave way, and all the wants of the fugitives were supplied abundantly (days). In modern Europe it has taken six centuries of fighting and two of argument before this simple and fundamental truth could become established even as a theory in Christendom. Josephus was eminently a Pharisee, and in his early youth not a little ascetic (ok2npaywynoas lavτòv), and we see what his doctrine was. ... man himself, who looks upon his own country and home, will not disown what I am saying. Now we must impute to all men voluntary baseness, if they cherish zeal for things foreign and inferior, in preference to what is native and excellent: if this be not their conduct, our accusers must leave off slandering us. We claim nothing invidious in honoring the enactor of them four laws], and in believing the annunciations which he made concerning God. Nay, if we did not of ourselves under stand the excellence of his laws, yet at least by the multitude (20ovs) of the emulous [or zealous proselytes], we should be led onward to be very proud of them. 45. Concerning our laws, more words were not needed; for they are seen in themselves, not teaching impiety, but the truest devoutness; nor exhorting to misanthropy, but to fellowship (or free communication) of goods, being foes of injustice, studious of the just, banishing idleness and expensive habits, teaching men to be self-supporting (avrupkɛiç) and industrious, forbidding wars of ambition, but training men to be brave in self-defence; laws which are inexorable in punishment, undeceivable by got-up harangues, but ever seeking confirmation of facts: for these we always present, as more manifest (or decisive) than composed speeches. On which account I may boldly say that we have been to other nations expounders of very many and very noble lessons. For what is nobler than piety never transgressed? And what more just than to yield obedience to the laws? And what is more profitable than mutual concord; and not to stand aloof in calamity, nor become wantonly factious in success: but in war to despise death, and in peace to be devoted to arts or agriculture, and retain a firm persuasion that God surveys everything everywhere? Now if among other nations such precepts were either earlier written or more firmly observed, we should owe them thanks, as having been their disciples. But if we are seen to be pre-eminent in their observance, and we have proved that the origination of them was from us, then . . . etc.... The reader's attention is called to the tone of this extract. The writer elsewhere avows that the Jews have cere monial restrictions and prohibitions of food which may be highly unacceptable to foreigners, as mortifying their palates; but his panegyric of the Hebrew law turns entirely on what all mankind avow to be pure morals; and at a time when the cultivated Romans still retained a bitter hatred of Judaism on account of the But he narrates at full a remarkable story, which, if I can sufficiently abridge it, will surely interest the reader. Thescene of the tale is Adiabene, a small country in the north-east of Assyria, chiefly the valley of the greater Zab. The little potentate who there reigned, acknowledged as his suzerain the Parthian king of kings. A very young king named Izates had ascended the throne, through the special affection of his father, in preference to his elder brothers, born of other wives. The mother of Izates was Helena, who had been converted to Jewish belief simultaneously with her son, but by a different Jewish teacher. The instructor of Izates bore a name familiar to us Ananias. He was a travelling merchant, and through selling his wares to the king's wives, had obtained introduction to Izates. When the young man conferred with his mother, and found her to be full of zeal for Jewish habits and institutions, through admiration of the religious doctrine, he proposed to accept circumcision in order to be a true Jew. But through political fears she dissuaded him, and appealed to Ananias; who forth- deeds of "these kings" to Jerusalem, but with vehemently deprecated the king's no further account appears in his works. idea as offensive to his people; urging It is just possible that "these kings that, whatever his zeal for Judaism, he meant only Izates and his mother; yet he could without circumcision revere God, distinctly repeats that he has more to tell which was a far more cardinal matter of Monobazus. (KUρLÚTEPOV). This for a while quieted the This narrative suggests many comments. young man. But after this a third Jew, Three Jews-apparently such as we call called Eleazar, arrived from Galilee, who laymen-are mentioned as zealous in held just the opposite doctrine; and find- converting foreigners, and all gain respecting Izates engaged in reading the law of ful submission. Between Ananias and Moses, abruptly charged him with dis- Eleazar the same controversy is opened, obedience and impiety in remaining uncir- as between Paul and the over-zealous cumcised. He carried his point with the brethren who came from James. Ananias, zealous convert, who obeyed him without like Paul and James, did not wish the Gencommunicating his purpose to his mother tiles to be subject to circumcision → which and to Ananias. They were frightened was the test ordinance, implying that he when they learned what he had done, but who received it accepted the whole nahad to bear it. After this his mother tional law of Moses. Josephus held with made a progress to Jerusalem, carrying the two apostles, that piety to God was with her thank-offerings. It was just in paramount and sufficient; Eleazar held the crisis of a great famine (this was in with those whom Paul treats as seducers the reign of Claudius Cæsar, as is clear in and corruptors of his Galatian converts, the connection), and Queen Helena was that without circumcision no one can fully only too happy to be able to buy, at large obey God and be a true saint. Many perexpense, corn from Alexandria and dry sons imagine that this controversy was figs from Cyprus which she distributed to originated by one man, Paul: that withthe needy, and left a lasting memory of out his individualism the question might her bounty. Izates at home hearing of not have arisen, and would not have been the distress sent large sums of money to fought out for the freedom of the Gentile. the chief men in Jerusalem for the But it is clear that Josephus, intimate as public relief. The Parthian king hap- were his relations with the chief priests, pening to be expelled from the throne by the Pharisees, and the Essenes, was as his satraps, took refuge with, Izates; who decided as Paul himself against the necesespoused his cause so vigorously as to sity of circumcision-except for those effect a conciliation and restore him to who desired to become Jews nationally.. royalty, for which service he was rewarded The same doctrine is held universally by by a valuable addition to his territory. all the modern Jews, who certainly have His zeal for Judaism so mounted up, that not learned it from Christians. No doubt, before long he sent five young boys, his as soon as professed reverence arose for sons, to be taught accurately the Hebrew the Mosaic scriptures, a narrow-minded language and institutions. His mother teacher who enforced every tittle of the also repeated her visits to Jerusalem. A law had a momentary advantage over the result which he could hardly have expected followed. His eldest brother, Monobazus, and his kinsfolk, seeing that Izates had gained high credit with all men (ζηλωτὸν παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώφοις γεγενημένον) for his piety, formed the like desire of abandoning their native cultus for that of the Jews. But this was more than the chief nobles could bear, and they intrigued with a king of the Arabs first, and next with the Parthian king, to effect the deposition of Izates. Space does not allow us to detail how their plans failed, nor does it here signify; but Izates remained on the throne until his death, after a reign of twenty-four years. Though he had many sons, he made his eldest brother Monobazus his successor. The historian had promised to tell us more of the good larger-minded with the young, inexperienced, and enthusiastic; but with time and discussion the sounder doctrine was sure to prevail. Further we must view the details of this remarkable case as an illustration of the historian's emphatic declaration already quoted, that in all nations there was much zeal among the masses of mankind for the Jewish form of piety. Only in the case of an eminent royal convert could we expect details to be preserved in history. But it must be added: there is no reason whatever to make deductions from Jose. phus's statements on the ground that they oppose those of Roman literature. The Roman writers say indeed little about the Jews, but what they say is certainly confirmatory. Herodotus had too much rev erence for foreign religion to despise circumcision; though he had no knowledge of its origin with the Egyptians, Arabs, and Syrians through ideas of cleanliness. But to the Romans, presented as a religious ordinance, it seemed emphatically ludicrous: such, no doubt, it was to the poet Horace. Yet his mention of the Jews is quite kindly. When he wishes to escape from a troublesome companion he tells us how his friend Aristius Fuscus teased him, declining his request by an off-hand invention: " To-day is the thirtieth sabbath you surely would not wish me to insult the Jews." This was of course said in jest. Elsewhere the poet has the phrase: "We poets are numerous, and like Jews we will press you into our corps: " a clear intimation how active was Jewish proselytism in Rome under Augustus Cæsar. No emperor was likely to be fond of the Jews; for it was no easy matBetween the era of Antiochus Epiphter to hinder Roman soldiers from insult- anes and the emperor Nero, it appears ing their religion, out of which popular certain that the Jews made a very benefitumults arose; and since they every cial impression on the mind of western seventh year left the land uncultivated, no Asia and the Roman world, preparing it tribute could be collected in that year-a (it may seem) for Christianity. The equisore annoyance to the government. But table character of their domestic instituafter the terrible war of Vespasian the sen- tions was in harmony with their nobler timent of the Romans became very bitter, religion. The historian Josephus many and their writers pour out little but slander times insists on the excellence of their on the unhappy and crushed people. The social practices and sentiments. What he ignorance of Tacitus concerning the Jewish says of their simplicity of life and the abhistory is as thorough, but not as disgrace- sence of luxury, may have been colored by ful, as his hatred and spite; yet he testi- the contrast reflected from Roman extravfies in his own emphatic way to their suc- agances; but what he says in detail of the cess in winning proselytes before their honor paid to industry, the zeal of all to be final overthrow. "These ceremonies," self-supporting (abrúpкes), the approval of says he, of the sabbaths and other rites personal work (aurovpyia), and their freenative to Judæa, "are defended by antiq-dom in imparting goods to one another, uity; the rest of their institutions, ill omened and foul, have prevailed by their depravity. For all the worst characters used to discard the religion of their ancestors, and carry to Jerusalem tribute and small payments: whereby the resources of the Jews were swollen." He proceeds to slander them as impure: "Inter se nihil inlicitum." But there is no motive for quoting farther. It suffices that he attests their zeal and their success in making proselytes. He acknowledges the noble purity of their theology. "The Egyptians," says he, "worship many animals and artificial figures, but the Jews apprehend a single God and by the mere intellect; regarding those as profane, who fashion out of perishable material images of gods in the form of men. The Highest and Eternal One, they maintain, is unchangeable and imperishable." Knowing this to be the nobler and truer doctrine, knowing the vile trash which heathen priests and poets taught as religion, this eminent writer nevertheless stigmatizes as "pessimus" whoever abandoned such follies for the nobler tenets of the Jews. To keep up the national observances, however puerile, however monstrous, was with a Roman the first duty of man. Tacitus, like Pliny and Trajan, regarded it as a capital crime to cast off one's ancestral religion; and all three are typical Romans. Yet, wonderful to add, great historians have convinced themselves, and have persuaded the world, that in religion the Romans were essentially and systematically tolerant. In fact, despotism was the only Roman idea of rule, in things ecclesiastical or political alike. Against a man who pleaded conscientious objection they were savage: to hypocritical and subservient atheism they had no repugnance at all. which he calls Kowwvia (community, fellowship), and ¿vádoσıç (yielding up, or distribution), must be accepted literally. We have full reason to believe that mechanical art and rustic labor were as honorable then in Judæa as now in the American Union or at Salt Lake, and that many doctors of the law maintained themselves with their hands. The case of St. Paul is an obvious illustration. Moreover, the laws of Judæa were equitable and the punishment mild. Tacitus himself declares that "among themselves the fidelity of the Jews was rigid (obstinata), and their tender mercy prompt." Such a people, it might seem, had deserved to live, even in the Roman empire. Not so thought Roman wisdom. That model emperor Titus, "the delight of mankind," took counsel with his high officers whether to save the Temple of Jeru salem, a building esteemed magnificent. But they argued, that out of Jerusalem had come two detestable religions, the Jewish and the Christian, which would best be destroyed by uprooting their original home; therefore the Temple and the city were to be utterly demolished. After Roman cruelty had done its worst upon the oppressed and ruined nation, Christian animosity succeeded, to play a like part. Jewish proselytism ceased, indeed became impossible, after the violent and deadly war; yet the Jews and their religion have long survived the domineering, oppressive, and self-destroying rule of Rome; it has undergone no deterioration by the lapse of centuries; yet they still have to plead for toleration and justice from Sclavonic Eu rope. From Temple Bar. LADY CAROLINE LAMB. "WHAT do you think of Mrs. Felix Lorraine, Miss Manvers?' asked Vivian Grey. "Oh, I think her a very amusing woman, a very clever woman, a very-but-' "But what?' "But I can't exactly make her out.' "Nor I, nor I. She's a dark riddle, and although I am a very Edipus, I confess I have not yet unravelled it.' Mrs. Felix Lorraine is said to have been intended for Lady Caroline Lamb; and as it is the fashion to identify the prime minister with the opinions of his hero, we may accept this as Lord Beaconsfield's (or rather Mr. Disraeli's) verdict on the wife of one of his predecessors in the premiership. But if Lady Caroline was a dark riddle" fifty years ago, its solution is not very difficult at the present day. The direct descendant of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, had an hereditary gift of ready wit, a strong, if whimsical, will, Whig prepossessions, undoubted fire of temper, and something akin, if not amounting, to fire of genius. With these qualities Caroline Ponsonby combined warmth of heart, charm of manner, and generosity of disposition, which made her for a time admired by every circle and adored by her own. But in this "cup of blessing" was one bitter drop which poisoned the whole. Forever in extremes, Lady Caroline held no measure in her likings, knew no restraint to her caprices, so that her very virtues became more mischievous than the vices of self-controlled, prudent people. Related as she was to all the great Whig families, no child could have entered the world with brighter prospects or more distinguished associations. Her father was third Earl of Besborough, her mother second daughter of the first Earl of Spencer. Her eldest brother, Viscount Duncannon, was an excellent Irish landlord, a useful statesman, and "more than a match," says Sir Denis le Marchant, "for Mr. O'Connell." The second brother, Frederick, with indolent manners and a face and dis position of feminine sweetness, became a daring cavalry officer, followed Wellington from the Peninsula to Waterloo (where he received fifteen wounds), and was made K.C.B., lieutenant-general, and governor of Malta. William, the third brother, entered the navy, but, marrying a daughter of the Earl of Shaftesbury, settled on his estates in Dorsetshire, went into Parlia ment, and was raised to the peerage as Lord De Mauley. Caroline the only daughter was born in 1785. Three years afterwards her mother had a paralytic stroke, and was ordered to Italy, whither she took the little girl. Lady Besborough rapidly growing so much worse as to be supposed near death, returned to England, leaving her daughter in charge of a servant, with whom the little Lady Caroline remained six years. This ill-assorted companionship amidst the romance of Italian scenery and people, unconsciously moulded her mind at its most impressionable period, and influenced it for life. At nine years of age, she was sent to Devonshire House, to be educated with her cousins, and became the pet of the duke, admitted to his room when his daughters were excluded, and lisping politics while he toasted his muffin and sipped his tea. Here, too, she devoured Burns's poems, which, she says, "awakened her mind." They are not food for babes, and probably stimulated an imagination already too vivid. shire House was a strange, disorderly establishment, characteristic perhaps of the giddy career of its beautiful mistress. Devon Though the children were served on silver, they were allowed to carry their plates into the kitchen to be replenished. Lady Georgiana Cavendish's chief amusement was hunting butterflies; Lady Caroline Ponsonby excelled in "breaking in " horses and polishing Derbyshire spar. Their governess does not appear to have imparted to them much of the "useful knowledge" for which her mother, Mrs. Trimmer, was famous. "We had no idea that bread and butter was made," says | to accompany him in boy's clothes and Lady Caroline, "and no doubt that fine act as his secretary. Lady Caroline was horses were fed on beef." They also then nineteen, slender and graceful in figthought the world was divided into paupcrs and nobles, and that the money of the latter knew no limit, an illusion which clung to her through life. In about a year Lady Spencer took charge of her granddaughter, and was so alarmed by her waywardness and eccentricity that eminent doctors were consulted as to her state of mind. They said she had been overtaxed by her governess, and overindulged by her parents; "she was not mad, but might be made so;" and to avert the danger, the over-active brain was ordered to rest for some years. To debar so quick a child from study and discipline, and never contradict her for fear of outbursts of passion which might injure her health, was a decision of doubtful wisdom. ure, with small, regular features, a pale She was fond of saying startling things, to which a slight lisp gave additional piquancy. William Harness was dancing with her at a great ball, when she confounded him by demanding: "Gueth how many pairth of thilk stockingth I have on?" His wit not being equal to the divination, she raised her skirts above a pretty ankle, and, pointing to a little foot, said, "Thix." When old enough to disregard the doctors' embargo on study, Lady Caroline had learnt with avidity, though without system. She soon acquired French and Italian, music and painting, could write an ode of Sappho, or.dash off a spirited caricature. She rode and wrote as fearlessly as she talked. No wonder William Lamb, once attracted by a girl so bewitching and original, found all others commonplace. He again proposed, and, unhappily, he was not again refused - "because," she says, "I adored him." At thirteen, Lady Caroline, a precociously politician, sentimentalist, and poetess, drank Fox's health and confusion to the Tories in bumpers of milk, and fell in love | with the idea of William Lamb, whom she had never seen, because he was "a friend of liberty." And "when I did see him," she asks, "could I change? No; I was more attached than ever. He was beautiful, far the cleverest person then about, the most daring in his opinions and independence. He thought of me but as a child, yet he liked me much." They first met when Lady Caroline accompanied her cousins on a visit to Lady Melbourne at Brocket Hall; and William Lamb exclaimed: "Of all the Devonshire House girls that is the one for me." The strange fellowship between the undisciplined enthusiast of thirteen and the calm, cultivated, elegant youth of twenty ripened into a passion as profound on his side as it was intense on hers, which ought to have been the blessing of both lives, but which it was her unhappy destiny to turn into a curse. William Lamb was a younger son, a barrister who once had the delightful sensation (not equalled, he said in after life, by that of being made prime minister) of seeing his name on the back of a brief. His prospects of marriage, therefore, were rather remote. Peniston Lamb's death in 1805 making him heir to the Melbourne title and estates, he hastened to lay his brighter fortunes at Lady Caroline's feet. To his amazement she refused him, alleg. ing that she feared her violent temper would wreck their happiness. But to his still greater amazement she added a wish The bridegroom soon had cause to admit how reasonable were the grounds on which his first offer had been rejected. Although marriage was her absolutely free choice, the bride, according to her own account, was seized during the ceremony with one of her ungovernable fits of passion. "I stormed at the bishop," she says, "tore my valuable dress to pieces, and was carried nearly insensible to the carriage which was to convey me forever from my home." This storm apparently cleared the atmosphere. The honeymoon passed peacefully. The young couple rode and read together, and she used to refer to that quiet time, when "William taught me all I |