Part 18 (1/2)

PRUDENTIUS (410), in his _Cathemerinon_, IV., has several verses on the den episode, of which this is one:

”Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntas Quas messoribus Habakkuk propheta Agresti bonus exhibebat arte.”

JEROME (420), though excluding this and the other Additions from the canon, according to what he writes in his preface to Daniel, ”veru anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus,” retains it in his Bible. In his _Onomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicis_ he includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambac.u.m, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel.

But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius, ?et? t??

?p???? ????t??. (_D.C.B._ II. 336a).

HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (438), in his St?????? on the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whether he was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon, e?pe?? t? saf?? ??? ???.

THEODORET(457), towards the close of _Ep._ CXLV., quotes v. 36 with clear belief in the miracle. He also comments on vv. 1, 2 as if forming v. 14 of Dan. xii.; and then ceases.

We see, then, that the more than respectful references to this piece in the writers of ancient Christendom, if not quite so frequent as the citations of the Song and of Susanna, are still numerous and clear.

ART.

This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for artistic ill.u.s.tration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.

Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on gla.s.s from the catacombs (_D.C.A._ art. _Gla.s.s_, p. 733a). Garrucci (_Vetri_, XIII.

13) has a gla.s.s vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (_D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of_, p. 877b). In _Paganism in Christian Art_ in the same Dictionary (p. 1535a), it is said, ”Hercules feeding the fabled dragon with cakes of poppy-seed appears to have furnished the motive for the representation of the apocryphal story of Daniel killing the dragon at Babylon.” Presumably this means the dragon Ladon in the garden of the Hesperides. But the connection between the two dragon episodes of Hercules and Daniel seems a little difficult to establish by indisputable evidence.

In Walter Lowrie's _Christian Art and Archaeology_ (Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold gla.s.s, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly ent.i.tled under the figure itself, as 'Daniel slaying Bel.' The picture is said to be taken from Garrucci, _Storia dell' Arte_, but no further reference is given. On p. 365 of Lowrie's book is a smaller scene of the same in gla.s.s, again with an erroneous description on p.

xxi. as ”Daniel and Bel.” No dates are suggested for the above pieces of gla.s.s, but they appear to be very ancient.

In the Vatican cemetery a representation of Daniel's destruction of the dragon has been found on a sarcophagus; nor is this a solitary instance.

(_See O.T. in Art, D.C.A._ p. 1459a.) And on the south side of the Angel Choir in Lincoln Minster, among a series of sculptures in the spandrils of the triforium arches, occurs a figure, described by c.o.c.kerell, the architect, as that of the ”Angel of Daniel,” with a monster under his feet, deemed to be ”the old Dragon ” (Archaeol.

Inst.i.tute's _Memoirs of Lincoln_, Lond. 1850, p. 222).

Habakkuk with the loaves often appears in representations of the lions'

den (_O.T. in Art_, 1459a). In fact there is reason to think that this apocryphal scene was at least as frequently represented as the corresponding canonical one; _e.g._ on a sarcophagus at Rome figured in the frontispiece to Burgon's _Letters from Rome_, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this in _D.C.A._ art. _Sculpture_, p. 1868. A sarcophagus of the 4th century also, like Burgon's, in the Lateran Museum (though not, it would seem, identical) is mentioned in W. Lowrie's _Art and Archaeology_, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.

In Bohn's edition of Didron's _Christian Iconography_ (Lond. 1886, II.

210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in the _Speculum hum. salv._ (_circ._ 1350), in the library of Lord Coleridge, portraying Daniel among the lions. The appearance of Habakkuk guided by the angel in the background, carrying food, identifies the scene with Bel and the Dragon, and not with the history of Dan. vi. Even in representations of this, the canonical den-scene, it is noteworthy how often Daniel is shown in a sitting posture, although all mention of this is confined to v. 40 of the apocryphal story.

It is a little remarkable that Daniel's dramatic disclosure of the priests' trick (v. 21) has not, so far as the writer is aware, commended itself to artists. The ash-strewn floor of Bel's temple, the tell-tale footmarks, and the emotions of exultation and surprise on the face of Daniel and the King respectively, with a possible introduction of the detected impostors at the side, might make, in capable hands, a very effective picture.

”EXAMPLE OF LIFE AND INSTRUCTION OF MANNERS.”

The whole story, in addition to proving the vanity of idols, shews how G.o.d watches over the fate of those who bravely discharge his work; while idolaters and persecutors meet with punishment. Religious fraud, deceit under mask of piety, is dealt with very severely. Retribution is not to be escaped. Even J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K. _Comm. Introd._), who regards the story as ”essentially apocryphal,” admits ”an edifying element.”[84].

This element might perhaps be used with advantage more than it is by missionaries to idolatrous peoples.

The sordidness and trickery of heathen priests[85] is contrasted with the uprightness and single-minded devotion of Daniel. His G.o.d moreover delivers him, but their G.o.ds do not deliver them. The Bel of this history is as dumb as the Baal of I. Kings xviii.; their names and characters quite agree.