"The third reason is, gratitude for the benefits conferred by them on mankind. For the cow not only ploughs the land itself, but produces those which perform the same useful office; sheep bring forth lambs twice (in the year*), and from their wool are made clothes and ornamental furniture, while their milk is an article of food, both itself, and the cheese made from it. The dog is required both for the chace, and as a guard†. . . . . the cat is a protection against the approach of the venomous asp, and other reptiles; and the ichneumon is useful in destroying the eggs of the crocodile, which would otherwise multiply so much as to render the river unapproachable. The ichneumon even wars with that animal itself, and overcomes it, by a wonderful stratagem. Having enveloped itself in mud, it watches its opportunity, while the crocodile sleeps with its mouth open on the shore, and then adroitly glides through its mouth into its stomach, and eating its way out, escapes unhurt, at the same time that it kills its enemy. The hawk is worshipped, because it destroys scorpions, horned snakes, and noxious creatures which endanger human life: though some suppose the reason to be from its being the bird selected by augurs for predicting future events." These remarks agree with an observation of Cicero, that the Egyptians only hold those animals sacred, which are of use to man, as the *Conf. also, Diodor. i. 36. This is the case at the present day. "Therefore," he adds, "they represent Anubis with a dog's head." I have elsewhere noticed this error, in speaking of the dog. Vide also suprà, Vol. I. (2d series) p. 440. Ibis, from its being the destroyer of serpents; and much might be added respecting the utility of the ichneumon, the crocodile, and the cat." "Goats, bulls, wolves, and others," continues Diodorus, "are reported to have been venerated for similar motives." The historian then proceeds to give other reasons, one of which, though highly improbable, deserves to be mentioned, "that in the early period of the Egyptian monarchy, the people being prone to rebellion against the Government, one of the Kings devised this method of sowing the seeds of discord among them, and preventing their union. He divided the country into several parts, to each of which he assigned a peculiar animal, — establishing its worship there, and forbidding it to be eaten. By which means, the same animal that was adored in one place, being regarded with no respect, and even despised, in another, all community of feeling was destroyed, and the animosity arising between neighbouring provinces, prevented their uniting against their rulers." The historian also refers, in another place*, to the supposed sojourn of the Gods on earth; when, in their visits to different places, they assumed the form of various animals; "a notion, which," he adds, "the poet having learnt during his stay in Egypt, introduced into his verses, — “ Και τε θεοι ξείνοισιν εοικότες αλλοδαποισι, Plutarch, in mentioning the same subject, says t, * Diodor. i, 12. + Plut. de Is. s. 72. "That the Gods, through a dread of Typho, metamorphosed themselves into animals, lying concealed in the bodies of Ibises, dogs, and hawks, is more extravagant than the most fanciful tales of fable. It is equally incredible, that the souls of those, who survive their bodies, should return to life again only through such animals. Of those, therefore, who wish to assign a political reason for their worship, some assert, that Osiris, having divided his army into several divisions, assigned to each a separate standard, distinguished by a particular animal, which afterwards became sacred, and was worshipped by the troops to whom it had been given. Others maintain, that it was in consequence of some of the later Kings, who wished to strike terror into their enemies, having decked themselves with gold and silver figures of those animals. Others, again, attribute it to the artifice of a crafty prince, who, perceiving the Egyptians to be of a volatile disposition, always inclined to change and novelty, and, from their numbers, invincible as long as they were guided by wise counsels and acted in concert, devised this sort of superstition, whilst they were yet dispersed up and down in their several habitations, as a means of propagating discord amongst them. For, amongst the different species of animals he enjoined them to worship, many bore a natural antipathy to each other, and some were eaten in one part of the country, and some in another. He therefore foresaw that, as each party would defend its own favourite animals, and resent whatever injuries they suffered, this must imperceptibly engender a hostile feeling amongst them, and prevent their plotting against the government." These were, of course, merely the fanciful notions of the uninstructed, as Diodorus justly observes. Many of the animals were worshipped, not from a particular respect paid to them, nor on account of any qualities they possessed, but solely because they had been chosen as emblems of certain Deities; and their selection for this purpose is a separate and independent question. That the reasons for it were often as capricious and ridiculous, as those stated by the historian, is very probable; and what could be more arbitrary than the adoption of the Ibis to represent the God Thoth, or the spotted Cow to be the emblem of Athor? For, if they looked upon the Ibis with a feeling of gratitude on account of its utility in destroying serpents, the reason for its being chosen as the peculiar type of the Egyptian Hermes could not originate there; nor does a Cow, however useful to mankind, appear to be a suitable representative of the Goddess Venus. It is, therefore, evident, that neither the benefits derived by man from the habits of certain animals, nor the reputed reasons for their peculiar choice as emblems of the Gods, were sufficient to account for the reverence paid to many of those they held sacred. Some, no doubt, may have been indebted to the first mentioned cause; and, however little connection appears to subsist between those animals and the Gods of whom they were the types, we may believe that the ox, cow, sheep, dog, cat, vulture, hawk, Ibis, and some others, were chosen from their utility to man. We may also see sufficient reasons for making some others sacred, in order to prevent their being killed for food, because their flesh was unwholesome, as was the case with certain fish of the Nile,-a precaution which extended to some of the vegetables of the country. But this will not account for the choice they made in many instances; for why should not the camel and horse have been selected for the first, and many other common animals and reptiles for the last-mentioned reason? There was, as Porphyry observes, some other hidden motive, independent of these; and whether it was, as Plutarch supposes, founded on rational grounds, (with a view to promote the welfare of the community,) on accidental or imaginary analogy, or on mere caprice, it is equally difficult to discover it, or satisfactorily to account for the selection of certain animals as the exclusive types of particular Deities. Porphyry gives another reason for the worship of animals, which is consistent with the speculative notions of the Egyptians; but still it offers no elucidation of the question respecting the preference shown to some before others, nor does it account for one or other being chosen to represent a particular attribute of the Deity. "The Egyptian priests," says that writer*, "profiting by their diligent study of philosophy, |