supplies the want of sustenance under fatigue and scarcity; thus giving an extra stock of food without eating, till by exhaustion the skin of the prominences, instead of standing up, falls over, and hangs like empty bags on the side of the dorsal ridge. Now, when to these endowments are added a lofty stature and great agility; eyes that discover minute objects at a distance; a sense of smelling of prodigious acuteness-ever kept in a state of sensibility by the animal's power of closing the nostrils to exclude the acrid particles of the sandy deserts; a spirit, moreover, of patience, not the result of fear, but of forbearance, carried to the length of self-sacrifice in the practice of obedience, so often exemplified by the camel's bones in great numbers strewing the surface of the desert; when we perceive it furnished with a dense wool, to avert the solar heat and nightly cold, while on the animal, and to clothe and lodge his master when manufactured, and know that the female carries milk to feed him,-we have one of the most incontrovertible examples of Almighty power and beneficence in the adaptation of means to a direct purpose, that can well be submitted to the apprehension of man; for, without the existence of the camel, immense portions of the surface of the earth would be uninhabitable, and even impassable. Surely the Arabs are right, 'Job's beast is a monument of God's mercy! The two species are-1. The Bactrian camel (camelus Bactrianus of authors) is large and robust; naturally with two hunches, and originally a native of the highest table-lands of Central Asia, where even now, wild individuals

202. [Bactrian Camel.] may be found. The species extends through China, Tartary, and Russia, and is principally imported across the mountains into Asia Minor, Syria, and Persia. One appears figured in the processions of the ancient Persian satrapies among the bas-reliefs of Chehel Minar, where the Arabian species is not seen. It is also this species which, according to the researches of Burckhardt, constitutes the brown Taous variety of single-hunched Turkish or Toorkee camels commonly seen at Constantinople, there being a very ancient practice among breeders, not, it appears, attended with danger, of extirpating with a knife the foremost hunch of the animal soon after birth, thereby procuring more space for the packsaddle and load. It seems that this mode of rendering the Bactrian cross-breed

203. [Arabian Camel: baggage.]

2. The Arabian camel or dromedary (camelus dromedarius or Arabicus of naturalists, bacar; and female and young 17, Isa. lx. 6; Jer. ii. 23) is properly the species having naturally but one hunch, and considered as of Western-Asiatic or of African origin, although no kind of camel is figured on any monument of Egypt, not even where there are representations of live stock such as that found in a most ancient tomb beneath the pyramid of Gizeh; which shows herdsmen bringing their cattle and domesticated animals to be numbered before a steward and his scribe; and in which we see oxen, goats, sheep, asses, geese, and ducks, but neither horses nor camels. That they were not indigenous in the early history of Egypt is countenanced by the mythical tale of the priests describing the flight of Typhon, seven days' journey upon an ass. We find, however, camels mentioned in Genesis xii.; but being placed last among the cattle given by Pharaoh to Abraham, the fact seems to show that they were not considered as the most important part of his donation. This can be true only upon the supposition that only a few of these animals were delivered to him, and therefore that they were still rare in the valley of the Nile; though soon after there is abundant evidence of the nations of Syria and Palestine having whole herds of them fully domesticated. These seem to imply that the genus Camelus was originally an inhabitant of the elevated deserts of Central Asia, its dense fur showing that a cold but dry atmosphere was to be encountered, and that it came already domesticated, towards the south and west, with the oldest colonies of mountaineers whic are to be distinguished from earlier tribes who sub. dued the ass, and perhaps from others still more an

cient, who, taking to the rivers, descended by water, and afterwards coasted and crossed narrow seas.

Of the Arabian species two very distinct races are noticed; those of stronger frame but slower pace used to carry burdens, varying from 500 to 700 weight, and travelling little more than twenty-four miles per day; and those of lighter form bred for the saddle with single riders, whereof the fleetest serve to convey intelligence, &c., and travel at the rate of 200 miles in twenty-four hours. They are designated by several appellations, such as Deloul, the best coming

204. [Arabien Camel: saddle.]

from Oman, or from the Bishareens in Upper Egypt; also Hadjeens, Ashaary, Maherry, Reches, Badees at Herat, Rawahel, and Racambel in India, all names more or less implying swiftness, the same as Spouds, swift. Caravans of loaded camels have always scouts and flankers mounted on these light animals, and in earlier ages, Cyrus and others employed them in the line of battle, each carrying two archers. The Romans of the third and fourth centuries of our era, as appears from the 'Notitia,' maintained in Egypt and Palestine several alæ or squadrons, mounted on dromeda ries; probably the wars of Belisarius with the northern Africans had shown their importance in protecting the provinces bordering on the desert; such was the ala dromedariorum Antana at Ammata in the tribe of Judah, and three others in the Thebais. Buonaparte formed a similar corps, and in China and India the native princes and the East India Company have them also.

All camels, from their very birth, are taught to bend their limbs and lie down to receive a load or a rider. They are often placed circularly in a recumbent posture, and together with their loads form a sufficient rampart of defence against robhers on horseback. The milk of she-camels is still considered a very nutritive cooling drink, and when turned it becomes intoxicating. Their dung supplies fuel in the desert, and in sandy regions where wood is scarce; and occasionally it is a kind of resource for horses when other food is wanting in the wilderness. Their flesh, particu larly the hunch, is in request among the Arabs, but was forbidden to the Hebrews, more perhaps from motives of economy, and to keep the people from again becoming wanderers, than from any real uncleanness.

Camels were early a source of riches to the patriarchs, and from that period became an increasing object of rural importance to the several tribes

of Israel, who inhabited the grazing and border districts, but still they never equalled the numbers possessed by the Arabs of the desert. In what manner the Hebrews derived the valuable remunerations obtainable from them does not directly appear, but it may be surmised that by means of their camels they were in possession of the whole trade that passed by land from Asia Minor and Syria to the Red Sea and Egypt; and from the Red Sea and Arabia towards the north, and to the Phenician sea-ports. On swift dromedaries the trotting motion is so hard that to endure it the rider requires a severe apprenticeship; but riding upon slow camels is not disagreeable, on account of the measured step of their walk; ladies and women in general are conveyed upon them in a kind of wickerwork sedan, known as the takht-ravan of India and Persia. Those which carried the king's servants or guests, according to Philostratus, were always distinguished by a gilded boss on the forehead.

It is likely the word D achashteranim (Esth. viii. 10), rendered young dromedaries (though Bochart regards it as meaning mules), implies the swift postage or conveyance of orders, the whole verse showing that all the means of dispatch were set in motion at the disposal of government. With regard to the passage in Matt. xix. 24, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,' &c., and that in Matt. xxiii. 24, Ye strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,' it may be sufficient to observe, that both are proverbial expressions, similarly applied in the kindred languages of Asia.-C. H. S.

CAMPHIRE. [COPHER.]

CANA (Kava), a town in Galilee, not far from Capernaum, where Christ performed his first miracle by turning water into wine (John iv. 46), This Cana is not named in the Old Testament, but is mentioned by Josephus as a village of Galilee (Vita, § 16, 64; De Bell. Jud. i. 17. 5). The site has long been identified with the present Kefr Kenna, a small place about four miles northeast from Nazareth, on one of the roads to Tiberias. It is a neat village, pleasantly situated on the descent of a hill looking to the south-west, and surrounded by plantations of olive and other fruit trees. There is a large spring in the neighbourhood, enclosed by a wall, which, if this be the Cana of the New Testament, is doubtless that from which water was drawn at the time of our Lord's visit. It is also observable that waterpots of compact limestone are still used in this neighbourhood, and some old ones are, as might be expected, shown as those which once contained the miraculous wine. Here are also the remains of a Greek church, and of a house said to be that of Nathaniel, who was a native of Cana (John ii. 1-11). The view which we give is that of the traditional Cana.

There is a ruined place called Kâna el-Jelil, about eight miles N. E. from Nazareth, which Dr. Robinson is inclined to regard as the more probable site of Cana. His reasons, which are certainly of considerable weight, may be seen in Biblical Researches, iii. 204-208. Descriptions of Kefr Kenna may be found in Pococke, Burckhardt, Clarke, G. Robinson (Travels), Richarú. son, Monro, Schubert, &c.

CANAAN (; Xavady), son of Ham and grandson of Noah. The transgression of his father Ham (Gen. ix. 22-27), to which some suppose Canaan to have been in some way a party, gave occasion to Noah to pronounce that doom on the descendants of Canaan which was, perhaps, at that moment made known to him by one of those extemporaneous inspirations with which the patriarchal fathers appear in other instances to have been favoured [BLESSING]. That there is no just ground for the conclusion that the descendants of Canaan were cursed as an immediate consequence of the transgression of Ham, is shown by Professor Bush, who, in his Notes on Genesis, has fairly met the difficulties of the subject.

CANAAN, LAND OF, the ancient name of that portion of Palestine which lay to the west of the Jordan (Gen. xiii. 12; Num. xxxiii. 51; Deut. xi. 30: Judg. xxi. 12), the part beyond the Jordan eastward being distinguished by the general name of Gilead (comp. Judg. xxi. 12). The denomination Canaan included Philistia and Phoenicia (comp. Isa. xxiii. 11, and Gesenius thereon; Ezek. xvi. 29; Zeph. ii. 5). The name occurs on Phoenician coins (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iv. 409), and was not even unknown to the Carthaginians (Gresen. Gesch. d. Heb. Sprach. p. 16). For an account of the geography, &c. of the country, see PALESTINE.

CANAANITES (2; Sept. Kavavalos), e descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah, inhabitants of the land of Canaan and the adjoining districts. A general account of the different nations included in the term is given in the present article, and a more detailed account of each will be found under their respective names.

The Israelites were delivered from Egypt by Moses, in order that they might take possession of

the land which God had promised to their fathers. This country was then inhabited by the descendants of Canaan, who were divided into six or seven distinet nations, viz. the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exod. iii. 17, where the Girgashites are not mentioned; Deut. vii. 1, &c.). All these tribes are included in the most general acceptation of the term Canaanites; but the word, in its more restricted sense, as applied to one tribe, designated those who dwelt by the sea, and by the coasts of Jordan' (Num. xiii. 29). Besides these seven nations,' there were several tribes of the Canaanites who lived beyond the borders of the Promised Land, northward. These were the Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites (Gen. x. 17, 18), with whom, of course, the tribes of Canaanitish origin (or possibly other names given to some of those already mentioned), who these were the Amalekites, the Anakites, and the were dispossessed by the Israelites. The chief of Rephaim (or giants, as they are frequently called in our translation).* These nations, and especially the six or seven so frequently mentioned by name, the Israelites were commanded to dispossess and utterly to destroy (Exod. xxiii. 23; Num. xxxiii. 53; Deut. xx. 16, 17). The de

Israelites had no concern. There were also other

*Other tribes are mentioned in the promise to Abraham (Gen. xv. 19), viz. the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites. Of these the Kenites, or at least a branch of them, seem to have adhered to the Israelites, through their connection by marriage with Moses (Judg. iv. 11), and they were treated with kindness when the Amalekites were destroyed by Saul (1 Sam. xv. 6). The others are not elsewhere mentioned-the term Kenezite, applied to Caleb (Josh. xiv. 14), being a patro nymic. (See Josh. xv. 17.)

etruction, however, was not to be accomplished at once. The promise on the part of God was that he would put out those nations by little and little,' and the command to the Israelites corresponded with it; the reason given being, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee' (Exod. xxiii. 29; Deut. vii. 22).

The destructive war commenced with an attack on the Israelites, by Arad, king of the Canaanites, which issued in the destruction of several cities in the extreme south of Palestine, to which the name of Hormal was given (Num. xxi. 1-3). The Israelites, however, did not follow up this victory, which was simply the consequence of an unprovoked assault on them; but turning back, and compassing the land of Edom, they attempted to pass through the country on the other side of the Jordan, inhabited by a tribe of the Amorites. Their passage being refused, and an attack made on them by Sihon, king of the Amorites, they not only forced their way through his land, but destroyed its inhabitants, and proceeding onwards towards the adjoining kingdom of Bashan, they in like manner destroyed the inhabitants of that district, and slew Og, their king, who was the last of the Rephaim, or giants (Deut. iii. 11). The tract of which they thus became possessed was subsequently allotted to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh.

After the death of Moses the Israelites crossed the Jordan, and, under the conduct of Joshua, took possession of the greater part of the Promised Land, and destroyed its inhabitants. Several cities, however, still held out, particularly Jebus, afterwards Jerusalem, which was not taken till the time of David (2 Sam. v. 6), and Sidon, which seems never to have yielded to the tribe of Asher, to whom it was allotted (Judg. i. 31). Scattered portions also of the Canaanitish nations escaped, and were frequently strong enough to harass, though not to dispossess, the Israelites. The inhabitants of Gibeon, a tribe of the Hivites, made peace by stratagem, and thus escaped the destruction of their fellow-countrymen. Individuals from amongst the Canaanites seem, in later times, to have united themselves, in some way, to the Israelites, and not only to have lived in peace, but to have been capable of holding places of honour and power; thus Uriah, one of David's captains, was a Hittite (1 Chron. xi. 41). In the time of Solomon, when the kingdom had attained its highest glory and greatest power, all the remnants of these nations were made tributary, and hond-service was exacted from them (1 Kings ix. 20). The Girgashites seem to have been either wholly destroyed or absorbed in other tribes. We find no mention of them subsequent to the book of Joshua, and the opinion that the Gergesenes, or Gadarenes, in the time of our Lord, were their descendants, has very little evidence to support it (Rosenmüller, Scholia in Gen. x. 16; Reland, Palæstina, i. 27, p. 138). The Anakites were completely destroyed by Joshua, except in three cities, Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. xi. 21-23); and the powerful nation of the Amalekites, many times defeated and continually harassing the Israelites, were at last totally destroyed by the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. iv. 43). Even after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, there were survivors of five of the Canaanitish nations, with whom alliances had been

made by the Jews, contrary to the commands which had been given them. Some of the Canaanites, according to ancient tradition, left the land of Canaan on the approach of Joshua, and emigrated to the coast of Africa. Procopius (De Bello Vandalico, ii. 10) relates that there were in Numidia, at Tigisis (Tingis), two columns on which were inscribed, in Phoenician characters, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν οἱ φυγόντες ἀπὸ προσώπου Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Aporou vioû Navi-We are those who fled from the face of Joshua, the robber, the son of Naue. (Bochart, Peleg, i. 24; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 31, vol. i. p. 176, Smith's Transl.; Winer's Realwörterbuch, arts. 'Canaaniter' and Josua'.)

The manner in which the Israelites became possessed of the Promised Land has been so frequently brought as an objection to the inspired character of the Old Testament, and indeed is so far removed from the ordinary providential government of God, that it will be proper, in closing this account, to notice the difficulty which has been felt, and to advert to some of the hypotheses by which it is sought to be removed. Many have asserted, in order to alleviate the difficulty, that an allotment of the world was made by Noah to his three sons, and that by this allotment the Land of Promise fell to the share of Shem-that the descendants of Ham were therefore usurpers and interlopers, and that on this ground the Israelites, as the descendants of Shem, had the right to dispossess them. This explanation is as old as Epiphanius, who thus answered the objection of the Manichæans. Others justify the war on the ground that the Canaanites were the first aggressors--a justification which applies only to the territory on the other side of the Jordan. Michaelis, to whom we must refer for a lengthened investigation of the subject (Laws of Moses, b. ii. ch. iii. vol. 1, p. 111-179, Smith's Transl.), dissatisfied with these and other attempted apologies, asserts that the Israelites had a right to the land of Canaan, as the commou pasture land of their herdsmen, in consequence of the undisturbed possession and appropriation of it from the time of Abraham till the departure of Jacob into Egypt-that this claim had never been relinquished, and was well known to the Canaanites, and that therefore the Israelites only took possession of that which belonged to them. The same hypothesis is maintained by Jahn (Hebrew Commonwealth, ch. ii. § x. Stowe's Transl.). In the Fragments appended to Taylor's edition of Calmet's Dictionary (vol. iv. pp. 95, 96), another ground of justification is sought in the supposed identity of race of the Egyptian dynasty under which the Israelites were oppressed, with the tribes that overran Canaan-so that the destruction of the latter was merely an act of retributive justice for the injuries which their compatriots in Egypt had inflicted on the Israelites. To all these and similar attempts to justify, on the ground of legal right, the forcible occupation of the land by the Israelites, and the extermination (at least to a great extent) of the existing occupants, it is to be objected, that no such reason as any of these is hinted at in the sacred record. The right to carry on a war of extermination is there rested simply on the divine command to do so. That the Israelites were in struments in God's hand is a lesson not only continually impressed on their minds by the teaching of Moses, but enforced by their defeat whenever

they relied on their own strength. That there may have been grounds of justification, on the plea of human or legal right, ought not indeed to be denied, but it is, we imagine, quite clear, from the numerous attempts to find what these grounds were, that they are not stated in the Old Testament; and to seek for them as though they were necessary to the justification of the Israelites, seems to be an abandonment of the high ground on which alone their justification can be safely rested -the express command of God.

It may be said that this is only shifting the difficulty, and that just in proportion as we exculpate the Israelites from the charges of robbery and murder, in their making war without legal ground, we lower the character of the Being hose commands they obeyed, and throw doubt on those commands being really given by God. This has indeed been a favourite objection of infidels to the divine authority of the Old Testament. Such objectors wonld do well to consider whether God has not an absolute right to dispose of men as he sees fit, and whether an exterminating war, from which there was at least the opportunity of escape by flight, is at all more opposed to our notions of justice, than a destroying flood, or earthquake, or pestilence. Again, whether the fact of making a chosen nation of His worshippers the instruments of punishing those whose wickedness was notoriously great, did not much more impressively vindicate his character as the only God, who will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images, than if the punishment had been brought about by natural causes. Such considerations as these must, we apprehend, silence those who complain of injustice done to the Canaanites. But then it is objected further, that such an arrangement is fraught with evil to those who are made the instruments of punishment, and, as an example, is peculiarly liable to be abused by all who have the power to persecute. As to the first of these objections, it must be remembered, that the conduct of the war was never put into the hands of the Israelitesthat they were continually reminded that it was for the wickedness of those nations that they were driven out, and, above all, that they themselves would be exposed to similar punishment if they were seduced into idolatry—an evil to which they were especially prone. As to the example, it can apply to no case where there is not an equally clear expression of God's will. A person without such a commission has no more right to plead the example of the Israelites in justification of his exterminating or even barassing those whom he imagines to be God's enemies, than to plead the example of Moses in justification of his promulgating a new law purporting to come from God. In a word, the justification of the Israelites, as it appears to us, is to be sought in this alone, that they were clearly commissioned by God to accomplish this work of judgment, thus, at once, giving public testimony to, and receiving an awful impression of, His power and authority, so as in some measure to check the outrageous idolatry into which almost the whole world had sunk.

F. W. G. CANDACE, or, more correctly, KANDAKE (both the c's being hard), was the name of that queen of the Ethiopians (Kardán Baolλioσα Αιθιόπων), whose high treasurer was converted to

Christianity under the preaching of Philip the Evangelist (Acts viii. 27). The country oves which she ruled was not, as some writers allege, what is known to us as Abyssinia; it was that region in Upper Nubia which was called by the Greeks Meroë and is supposed to correspond to the present province of Atbara, lying between 13' and 18° north latitude. From the circumstance of its being nearly enclosed by the Atbara (Astaboras or Tacazze) on the right, and the Bahr ci Abiad, or White river, and the Nile on the left. it was sometimes designated the 'Island' of Meroë; but the ancient kingdom appears to have extended at one period to the north of the island as far as Mount Berkal. The city of Meroë stood near the present Assour, about twenty miles north of Shendy; and the extensive and magnificent ruins found not only there, but along the upper valley of the Nile, attest the art and civilization of the ancient Ethiopians. These ruins, seen only at a distance by Bruce and Burckhardt, have since been minutely examined and accurately described by Cailliaud (Voyage à Meroë), Rüppel (Reisen in Nubien, &c.), and other travellers. Meroë, from being long the centre of commercial intercourse between Africa and the south of Asia, became one of the richest countries upon earth; the 'merchandise' and wealth of Ethiopia (Isa. xlv. 14) was the theme of the poets both of Palestine and Greece; and since much of that affluence would find its way into the royal coffers, the circumstance gives emphasis to the phraseráons rĥs yáns, all the treasure' of Queen Candace. It is further interesting to know, from the testimonies of various profane authors, that for some time both before and after the Christian era, Ethiopia Proper was under the rule of female sovereigns, who all bore the appellation of 'Candace,' which was not so much a proper name as a distinctive title, common to every successive queen, like 'Pharaoh' and 'Ptolemy' to the kings of Egypt, and Cæsar' to the emperors of Rome. Thus Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi. 29) says that the centurions whom Nero sent to explore the country reported-regnare in Meroë feminam Candacen, quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit." Strabo also (p. 820, ed. Casaub.) speaks of a warrior-queen of Ethiopia called Candace, in the reign of Augustus, the same whom Dion Cassius (liv. 5) describes as queen of the Albiones dπèp AiyúπTOV OIKOûVTES. An insult having been offered to the Romans on the Ethiopian frontier of Egypt, Caius Petronius, the governor of the latter province, marched against the Ethiopians, and having defeated them in the field, took Pselca, and then crossing the sands which had long before proved fatal to Cambyses, advanced to Premnis, a strong position. He next attacked Napata, the capital of Queen Candace, took and destroyed it; but then retired to Premnis, where he left a garrison, whom the warlike queen assailed, but they were relieved by Petronius. This Napata, by Dion called Tenape, is supposed to have stood near Mount Berkal, and to have been a kind of second Meroë; and there is still in that neighbourhood (where there are likewise many splendid ruins) a village which bears the very similar name of Merawe. Eusebius, who flourished in the fourth century, says, that in his day the queens of Ethiopia continued to be called Candace.

A curious confirmation of the fact of female