Early Christian Literature And ArtLiterature.The following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or less directly upon this book.NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phraseτὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶνin Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck'sEncyclopædia(I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion und so alle Folgenden." But see underCyprian.CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers,Strom.I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in this piece:τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ Ἀμβακοὺβ[83]προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.[83]So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with finalμ. A misprint may he suspected.TERTULLIAN (†240). Inde Jejun.VII. (end) reference is made to vv. 35-39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. Inde Oratione, 29, he quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. Inde Idol.XIX. he says that "Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere."ORIGEN (†254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with Julius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of hisStrom, bk. X. expounds Bel. He also quotes it in hisExhort, ad martyrium, § 33.CYPRIAN (†258) inad Fortunatum, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ's, text. The same verse is again quoted by him inEp.lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16-18, apparently based on Θ's version. In the case of v. 5 inEp.lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings of some MSS. as given by Hartel.Cf.Prof. Swete'sIntrod.1902, p. 47.PSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, inOratioII. 2, following Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.PASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century,see D.C.B., Mary, 1142b). In the First Latin form vv. 33-39 are clearly referred to.ATHANASIUS (†373) in hisDiscourse against Arians, II. 8, quotes v. 5 as words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.EPHREM SYRUS (†378). In the hymnde Jejuniothere is, according to T.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, "cum Daniel jejunavit."GREGORY NAZIANZEN (†390) in his poeticalPræcepta ad Virgineshas the line, speaking of Daniel,ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.AMBROSE (†397), in his Commentary inEp. ad Rom. I. 23, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel, 1527, IV. p. 768).CHRYSOSTOM (†407),In Danielem, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and the Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration of tone.PRUDENTIUS (†410), in hisCathemerinon, IV., has several verses on the den episode, of which this is one:"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntasQuas messoribus Habakkuk prophetaAgresti 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 hisOnomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicishe includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel. But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius,Πετὶ τῶν οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (D.C.B.II. 336a).HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in hisΣτιχηρόνon the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whetherhe was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon,εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.THEODORET(†457), towards the close ofEp.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 illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the catacombs (D.C.A.art.Glass, p. 733a). Garrucci (Vetri, XIII. 13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of, p. 877b). InPaganism in Christian Artin 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 theapocryphal 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'sChristian Art and Archæology(Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly entitled 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 glass, again with an erroneous description on p. xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of glass, 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 Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," witha monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol. Institute'sMemoirs 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'sLetters from Rome, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this inD.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'sArt and Archæology, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.In Bohn's edition of Didron'sChristian Iconography(Lond. 1886, II. 210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in theSpeculum 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 isnoteworthy 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.
Early Christian Literature And ArtLiterature.The following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or less directly upon this book.NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phraseτὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶνin Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck'sEncyclopædia(I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion und so alle Folgenden." But see underCyprian.CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers,Strom.I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in this piece:τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ Ἀμβακοὺβ[83]προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.[83]So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with finalμ. A misprint may he suspected.TERTULLIAN (†240). Inde Jejun.VII. (end) reference is made to vv. 35-39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. Inde Oratione, 29, he quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. Inde Idol.XIX. he says that "Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere."ORIGEN (†254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with Julius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of hisStrom, bk. X. expounds Bel. He also quotes it in hisExhort, ad martyrium, § 33.CYPRIAN (†258) inad Fortunatum, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ's, text. The same verse is again quoted by him inEp.lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16-18, apparently based on Θ's version. In the case of v. 5 inEp.lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings of some MSS. as given by Hartel.Cf.Prof. Swete'sIntrod.1902, p. 47.PSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, inOratioII. 2, following Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.PASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century,see D.C.B., Mary, 1142b). In the First Latin form vv. 33-39 are clearly referred to.ATHANASIUS (†373) in hisDiscourse against Arians, II. 8, quotes v. 5 as words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.EPHREM SYRUS (†378). In the hymnde Jejuniothere is, according to T.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, "cum Daniel jejunavit."GREGORY NAZIANZEN (†390) in his poeticalPræcepta ad Virgineshas the line, speaking of Daniel,ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.AMBROSE (†397), in his Commentary inEp. ad Rom. I. 23, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel, 1527, IV. p. 768).CHRYSOSTOM (†407),In Danielem, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and the Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration of tone.PRUDENTIUS (†410), in hisCathemerinon, IV., has several verses on the den episode, of which this is one:"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntasQuas messoribus Habakkuk prophetaAgresti 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 hisOnomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicishe includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel. But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius,Πετὶ τῶν οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (D.C.B.II. 336a).HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in hisΣτιχηρόνon the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whetherhe was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon,εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.THEODORET(†457), towards the close ofEp.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 illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the catacombs (D.C.A.art.Glass, p. 733a). Garrucci (Vetri, XIII. 13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of, p. 877b). InPaganism in Christian Artin 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 theapocryphal 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'sChristian Art and Archæology(Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly entitled 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 glass, again with an erroneous description on p. xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of glass, 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 Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," witha monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol. Institute'sMemoirs 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'sLetters from Rome, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this inD.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'sArt and Archæology, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.In Bohn's edition of Didron'sChristian Iconography(Lond. 1886, II. 210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in theSpeculum 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 isnoteworthy 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.
The following examples from primitive Christian writings bear more or less directly upon this book.
NEW TESTAMENT. Compare B.V.M.'s words in St. Luke i. 38 with Daniel's at the end of v. 9, Θ. With John xviii. 35 compare Bel 38, Ο´ and Θ, as to a Gentile being taken for a Jew. Moreover the phraseτὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶνin Acts xvii. 23 is very like a reminiscence of Bel 27, Θ, end. But A. Scholz's idea that our Lord's words in John x. 9 are based on vv. 3, 6, 13 has little likelihood: "gegensätzlich so nahe verwandt, dass in den Evangelium darauf Bezug genommen sein könnte" (note on v. 13).
IRENÆUS (†200) in IV. ix. 1 quotes vv. 4, 5, 24, as coming from Daniel, apparently without the smallest misgiving. His quotations accord with Θ as against Ο´, v. 4 being the same in both. As Schürer says in Hauck'sEncyclopædia(I. 640): "Irenäus benuzt die Uebersetzung des Theodotion und so alle Folgenden." But see underCyprian.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (†220) refers,Strom.I. 21 (middle, ed. Potter, Oxf. 1715), among a chain of historic events, to the closing scene in this piece:τότε διὰ δράκντα Δανιὴλ εἰς λάκκον λεόντων βληθεὶς, ὑπὸ Ἀμβακοὺβ[83]προνοίᾳ θεῦ τραφεὶς, ἑβδομαῖος ἀνασώζεται.
[83]So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with finalμ. A misprint may he suspected.
[83]So spelt in Migne in this instance, though elsewhere with finalμ. A misprint may he suspected.
TERTULLIAN (†240). Inde Jejun.VII. (end) reference is made to vv. 35-39; and in IX. the story is again mentioned. Inde Oratione, 29, he quotes vv. 33, 34, seemingly with full acceptance. Inde Idol.XIX. he says that "Daniel nec Belum nec draconem colere."
ORIGEN (†254). Besides the question dealt with in his controversy with Julius Africanus, Origen in the Fragment of hisStrom, bk. X. expounds Bel. He also quotes it in hisExhort, ad martyrium, § 33.
CYPRIAN (†258) inad Fortunatum, 11, quotes v. 5, apparently following a translation of the Ο´, and not of Θ's, text. The same verse is again quoted by him inEp.lviii. 5 in exactly the same words. It is curious that both passages are preceded, in the same sections, by a quotation of Dan. iii. 16-18, apparently based on Θ's version. In the case of v. 5 inEp.lviii. there is a slight variation in the readings of some MSS. as given by Hartel.Cf.Prof. Swete'sIntrod.1902, p. 47.
PSEUDO-CYPRIAN (3rd century?) gives parts of vv. 37, 38, inOratioII. 2, following Ο´ a little more closely than Θ.
PASSING OF MARY (3rd or 4th century,see D.C.B., Mary, 1142b). In the First Latin form vv. 33-39 are clearly referred to.
ATHANASIUS (†373) in hisDiscourse against Arians, II. 8, quotes v. 5 as words of Daniel, which he also refers to in III. 30.
EPHREM SYRUS (†378). In the hymnde Jejuniothere is, according to T.J. Lamy (Mechlin, 1886), a reference to Bel and the Dragon, "cum Daniel jejunavit."
GREGORY NAZIANZEN (†390) in his poeticalPræcepta ad Virgineshas the line, speaking of Daniel,ἀερίην δ᾽ ἐνὶ χρσὶν ἐδέξατο δαῖτα προφήτου.
AMBROSE (†397), in his Commentary inEp. ad Rom. I. 23, writes, "Coluerunt et serpentem draconem quem occidit Daniel, homo dei" (Basel, 1527, IV. p. 768).
CHRYSOSTOM (†407),In Danielem, cap. XIII. (XIV.) comments on Bel and the Dragon as part of the book, seemingly without reserve or alteration of tone.
PRUDENTIUS (†410), in hisCathemerinon, IV., has several verses on the den episode, of which this is one:
"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntasQuas messoribus Habakkuk prophetaAgresti bonus exhibebat arte."
"Cernit forte procul dapes ineuntasQuas messoribus Habakkuk prophetaAgresti 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 hisOnomasticon de Nominibus Hebraicishe includes under Daniel, Astyages, Bel, Ambacum, without distinction from the rest of the names in Daniel. But for this last work he was chiefly indebted to Eusebius,Πετὶ τῶν οπικῶν ὀνομάτων. (D.C.B.II. 336a).
HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM (†438), in hisΣτιχηρόνon the XII prophets, says of Habakkuk that, whetherhe was the same Habakkuk as an angel carried to Babylon,εἰπεῖν τὸ σαφὲς οὐκ ἔχω.
THEODORET(†457), towards the close ofEp.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.
This apocryphal tract has afforded two fairly popular subjects for artistic illustration, viz., Daniel destroying the dragon, and Daniel and Habakkuk in the lions' den.
Daniel destroying the Dragon is a subject represented on glass from the catacombs (D.C.A.art.Glass, p. 733a). Garrucci (Vetri, XIII. 13) has a glass vessel in which Christ is represented with Daniel, who is giving cakes to the dragon (D.C.A. Jesus Christ, Representations of, p. 877b). InPaganism in Christian Artin 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 theapocryphal 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'sChristian Art and Archæology(Lond. and New York, 1901, p. 363) is a woodcut of a fragment of gold glass, with Daniel slaying the Dragon. This is correctly described on p. 209, but is wrongly entitled 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 glass, again with an erroneous description on p. xxi. as "Daniel and Bel." No dates are suggested for the above pieces of glass, 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 Cockerell, the architect, as that of the "Angel of Daniel," witha monster under his feet, deemed to be "the old Dragon " (Archæol. Institute'sMemoirs 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'sLetters from Rome, thought by him to be of about the 5th century (p. 244). There is also a woodcut of this inD.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'sArt and Archæology, p. 260, as carved with the same subject of Daniel and Habakkuk.
In Bohn's edition of Didron'sChristian Iconography(Lond. 1886, II. 210) there is a woodcut of a miniature in theSpeculum 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 isnoteworthy 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.