Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

is no objection to the theory herein suggested that Shalmaneser in his eighteenth year writes: "I crossed the Euphrates the sixteenth time. Hazael of Damascus advanced to battle against me. One thousand one hundred and twenty-one of his chariots, four hundred and seventy of his horsemen, together with his provisions, I took from him." So also in his twentyfirst year: "I marched against the cities of Hazael of Damascus, of whose towns I took possession" (pp. 197, 198). For in both these cases the war was waged specifically against the king of Damascus, or Syria, only. There was no league; no allies were summoned or joined with him. It is distinctly stated that Hazael himself advanced against the great king in the invasion in his eighteenth year; he being present, and the responsible head, would be nained, even if his son Ben-hadad directed the battle. In the invasion in his twenty first year there seems to have been no resistance by battle in the open field, nor does Shalmaneser say who commanded in the defensive operations, but simply that he marched against the cities of Hazael of Damascus, and took them.

Thus, then, we secure a perfect synchronization of the events in the history of Israel and Assyria during the first twentyone years of the reign of Shalmaneser II., and vindicate the general accuracy of the biblical chronology for that period.

It is probable that the victories of Shalmaneser over the league of which the king of Hamath was the head were not so decisive as to break up the confederacy until that of his fourteenth year, after which no more is heard during his reign of any resistance to his authority by this brave people, the Hittites, whose own records are as yet lost to history.

It is probable, also, that the subsequent two expeditions, directed solely against Hazael, were in revenge for the aid lent to Irchulin, the animus being indicated by the constant naming of Ben-hadad in connection with each battle and defeat.

After his twenty-first year, Shalinaneser did not invade the kingdom of Damascus, nor is there any record of his having afterward received tribute from Israel. The tribute was either silently paid, or, what is more probable, was repudiated, after the fourteenth year of Jehoahaz. It is not at all likely that it was paid during the successful reign of Jehoash, nor by his successor, the still more prosperous Jeroboam II. The early

years of Jehu give no indication of his having any intercourse whatever with the Assyrians, nor of any strait which would compel him to seek help by the payment of tribute; but the later years of his son, and these only during the reign of Shalmaneser II., meet all the conditions required, and the conclusion seems necessarily to follow that this unfortunate Ja-u-a abal Hu-um-ri-i, whose "given" name, Ahaz, seems to have been unknown to the great king, did, in his fourteenth year, pay tribute to Shalmaneser II., in that monarch's eighteenth year, cir. B. C. 843.

[ocr errors]

P. S.-It was not the purpose of this paper to attempt the identification of the locality Sir-'lai. But if, as Schrader (p. 189) says, this adjective means the Sirlite," then clearly the name of the place was "Sir." The fact, therefore, may be historically important, that this name still remains as the name of a place in the very region where the battle of Karkar was fought; but the profound significance of this fact in relation to the Sirlite engaged in that battle has not hitherto been noted, nor its connection therewith even suggested. If, however, the statement of C. R. Conder, R. E., (Heth and Moab, p. 19), is true, that "there is no better guide to identification than the discovery of an ancient name," and that, "whatever may have been written concerning the migration of sites, we have not as yet any clearly proven case in which a Semitic indigenous title has wandered away from the original spot to which it was applied for geographical or religious reasons," then it is a fair and strong presumption, and may be strenuously urged, that it was from this "Sir," at a time when danger was so imminent and great, that the Sirlite Prince Ahaabbu gathered its entire armament, and joined the other allied forces in resistance to the Assyrian.

On Kiepert's map, accompanying Dr. Robinson's Biblical Researches, Sir stands on the Nahr, or river, Barid; as also on the map found in the third volume of Dr. Thomson's late edition of The Land and the Book-near lat. 34° 25, long. 36° 5. It seems to have been Dr. Thomson's headquarters, from which he made various and frequent excursions while in that immediate neighborhood, as may be seen by reference to the index to that volume under Sir, es.

The suggestion of this Sir-as the country of A-ha-ab-bu Sir-'-lai, made now and herein for the first time-is sent forth with the hope that it may elicit more and better information as to that part of Northern Syria, once dominated by that numerous and powerful people, the Chatti, or Hittites, who, so long, so fiercely and successfully resisted the power of Egypt, and, for a time, of Assyria-the country of the great and powerful Shalmaneser II.

Joseph Horner

ART. VII.-DE PRESSENSÉ BEFORE THE FRENCH SENATE-A DISCOURSE ON IMMORAL LITERATURE.

[M. DE PRESSENSÉ is a statesman as well as a theologian and Christian minister. He takes great interest in public affairs, and often suggests legislation affecting public morality. Recently he delivered before the Senate the address given below, in response to a general movement for reform in the common literature which has been instrumental in the spread of licentiousness, especially among the youth. France is without an Anthony Comstock; but Pressense's headship of reform will accomplish a moral revolution, and deliver France from the chains of a debasing vice. The address is not without its warning to America; hence we publish it.-EDITOR.]

GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE: The committee to which was referred the petition requesting the suppression of immoral literature is unanimous in the opinion that it is fitting to give the greatest emphasis to the consideration of this question in view of its transcendent importance. It behooves us to use our power against a lamentable scandal which goes on increasing from day to day; and the number of the petitioners deserves to be taken into serious consideration. This number has surpassed thirty-three thousand signatures, without one of those organizations, more or less factious, which may attain results numerically much larger, but which rob the movement of all spontaneity and all sincerity. I add that if we analyze, as we have done with great care, the origin of this petition, whose initiative was taken by the League for the Elevation of Public Morality, its importance appears with more brilliancy.

We then recognize immediately, gentlemen of the Senate, that there is a powerful movement of opinion at all points of the country, and that outside of all parties, and outside of all churches; it is, indeed, a public opinion in its most generous form, which, from one end of France to the other, has awakened in presence of scandals that are veritably intolerable, and which a relative impunity would make still more intolerable.

Permit me to analyze very rapidly the origin of these petitions. We there find signatures which belong to all classes of society; a large body of the teaching corps of the land--academic rectors, general inspectors, heads of institutions, directors of primary schools, secondary teachers, members of public

administrations, councilors general and councilors municipal, mayors, judges of the peace, notaries, advocates, and ecclesiastics. Now the petition is signed by the curate, the rabbi, and the pastor; and again by the leading free-thinker, the curate, and the pastor. Then follow the mercantile and the industrial classes, the workingmen and the peasants. All sections of France are in this way represented-the miners of the valleys of the North and the Loire, the fishermen of Brittany, the mountaineers of the Cevennes, the workmen of Lyons and of Paris, and the agriculturists of the South and the West. One can say, without exaggeration, that among these thirty-three thousand signatures are to be found representatives of all political parties, and of all schools, philanthropic or religions. A coalition of consciences has veritably determined these petitions.

What strikes me above all is, that we see figure in the first rank of these petitioners the men who have in charge the souls of the youth of France. It is thus, for example, that one of the last petitions that we have received is signed by the lectur ers of our higher schools, by the professors of the College de France, and the School of Advanced Studies and the Sorbonne. The Institute of France" is thus represented in its divers sections. The last petition, which reached us a few days ago, bears the name of nearly all the professors of the law faculty of Paris, with the dean at the head.

I am therefore justified in saying that we are in presence of a movement of public opinion that is earnest and profound. And I may be permitted to add that I have been able to convince myself of this practically. Having been called by the initiators of these petitions, who form a part of the League for the Elevation of Public Morality, to explain the object of them, I have given several lectures at various points of the country in the large cities-at Rouen, Lyons, Havre, Paris, and elsewhere -before audiences of all grades, in the theaters and in working. men's clubs. And let me say that I have been glad to see the public conscience tremble; I have been able to realize that, if evil has its unwholesome ardor, the good, also, has its passion.

Let us consider now the precise object of these petitions. If a new law now appears necessary, we shall certainly not hesitate to propose it; for I think that no one would raise the question of the "liberty of the press" in the case of the licentious

press. This word is disagreeable, but I do not seek agreeable words for things so hideous. I think that no one could desire to cover such merchandise with the noble standard of the liberty of the press; bold license, especially in this domain, is that which is most hostile and most mortal to true liberty. There is not a political man who would dare in such a case to plead the liberty of the press. I wish no other proof than the words pronounced on the tribune of the Chamber of Depu ties by a man whom no one will accuse of being a conservative, M. George Périn. He used this noble language in the session of January 28, 1881:

Nobody in this chamber defends the licentious press. Nobody considers as journalistic articles the odious outrages committed against decency and public morality. Nobody gives the name of journalist to the vagabonds who publish these ignominies.

The honorable M. Floquet, who acted so prominent à part in the law of 1881, uses words stamped with the same energy and the same dignity. From this I conclude that if a new law regarding the press were necessary to conjure the disorder that we attack, we would demand it without scruple; but we have no need of it. The petitioners ask no such thing. Surely to fix the object which they pursue, permit me to quote to you the essential portion of their petition. I read it:

Gentlemen of the Senate: The undersigned have the honor to ask the reference to the Minister of Justice, with emphatic recommendation, of the petition by which they call the attention of the honorable assembly to the impunity granted almost constantly to the violations against decency committed despite of the formal articles 23 and 28 of the law concerning the press of the 29th of July, 1881, and the articles 1 and 2 of the law of the 2d of August, 1882. The obscene pictures that appeal to the eye, the filthy publications with which peddlers importune those who pass, the sheets that vie with each other in lubricity, and which are distributed gratuitously on the public ways; obscene journals, with or without literary merit, sold at a low price at the doors of the workshops and the colleges-all these form a rising wave of infamy which is threatening the honor and the security of our homes. . . . We have the honor to request the Senate to demand of the keeper of the seals the earnest application of the existing laws.

It is well understood, therefore, gentlemen of the Senate, that in the opinion of the petitioners the existing laws are suf

« PredošláPokračovať »