The oryx next became the subject of conversation, and Swartboy could
tell more about it than any one. Of the oryx Congo knew very little, as
the region most frequented by this beautiful antelope lies farther west
than the country of the Kaffir tribes. Its headquarters are in the land
of the Namaquas, though it is thinly scattered all around the borders of
the Great Kalihari Desert.
The oryx is a desert-dwelling antelope, can live without water, and
grows fat even on the plants that thinly vegetate over the barren soil.
It is a bold creature--often beats off the lion, or kills him by
impalement on its long bayonet-like horns. Of the truth of this fact
our yagers had that day had proof. The oryx when hunted does not, like
many other antelopes, make for either water or cover. It strikes in a
straight line for its desert home, trusting to its heels for safety.
And its confidence in them is seldom misplaced. A swift horse alone can
overtake and bring it to a stand; unless it be very fat, and then it is
more easily "blown."
An interesting point occurred in the conversation about the oryx.
Arend and some of the others had read in several books of travellers
that the oryx was supposed to be the fabled "unicorn," derived from
Egyptian sculptures. They asked if this was the case. Their question
was not put to Swartboy, you may be sure, but to Hans the naturalist, of
course.
Hans regarded the supposition as a very silly one. A mere fancy of some
early South African traveller, that had been repeated, parrot-like, in
the books of other travellers and the writings of several
closet-naturalists. The supposition of the oryx being the original of
the unicorn rested only upon the fact that its horns when seen _en
profile_ appear as but one; and the unicorn is so figured on the
Egyptian sculptures. Now this argument can be advanced in favour of
several other antelopes, and therefore falls at once to the ground as
regards the oryx.
Hans mentioned several reasons why the gemsbok could not be the "fabled
unicorn." Its form, and particularly the shape of its head, are quite
unlike the sculptures of that famous creature. Its horns, both in
length and "set," even when seen _en profile_, differ altogether from
that of the unicorn, which points forward, whereas the horns of the oryx
extend backward almost horizontally, and sometimes even touching the
flanks of the animal.
"No," continued Hans; "if the Egyptian unicorn be not a fable--if it be
the representation of any animal in Africa, that animal is the gnoo; and
I regard it as something singular that the resemblance between the
gnoo--I mean the common species, not the `brindled'--and the fabled
unicorn, has not long since been noticed by naturalists and travellers.
"I should fancy that no one could look upon the pictures of both without
being struck by this resemblance. Their forms, both of head and body,
the elegant rounding of limb, the split hoof, the long tufted tails, the
proud arching necks, with full flowing mane,--all these points go to
show that the gnoo was copied for the unicorn. The _one_ horn is the
only circumstance that appears to invalidate my theory, but even in this
respect the gnoo bears a much greater resemblance to the unicorn than
does the oryx. The horns of the gnoo are set in such a manner that it
often appears a _unicorn_. Their tips do not rise above the level of
the skull; and in consequence of this, and also from the manner in which
the animal frequently carries its head, only one horn is visible, the
other being, inconspicuous against the dark ground of the head and mane.
Often only half the horn appears at a distance, and is then seen
pointing forward and `set,' very similarly to the brow ornaments of the
unicorn.
"The horn of the unicorn is usually represented quite straight in modern
paintings; but this is not correct, according to the Egyptian sculpture,
where a curve is given,--a positive imitation of the curve in the horns
of the oryx! Even though it were straight, this would scarce invalidate
my theory, for the horns of the young oryx are straight also, and we
might suppose a young one to be represented.
"I do not beg the question in this way, however," continued Hans, "for I
know that whatever animal the Egyptians meant on their sculptures must
have been well known to them, and it is not likely that they would have
pictured a specimen of immature age. The singular character of the
gnoo, its odd and eccentric habits, as well as the eccentricity of its
form and appearance, must have drawn attention to it from the earliest
times, and such an animal would not fail to be pictured by the
Egyptians. As to the one horn, I regard the existence of that, either
as the result of imperfect observation on the part of the Egyptian
sculptors, or, what is more likely, a want of knowledge of their art.
Egyptian sculpture is at best but a rude affair, and the peculiar curve
and set of the oryx horns are difficult to depict. Even in this very
hour of high art, our painters do not give the most correct delineation
of the head of a gemsbok. So, you see, I make out a tolerably clear
case, that the gnoo of South Africa is the original of that mysterious
celebrity--the _unicorn_."
The naturalist had fairly established his point, to the satisfaction of
all the young yagers, who then asked him some questions about the
unicorn mentioned in the Bible.
"As to the unicorn of Scripture," replied Hans, "that is a very
different affair. There can be no mistake about the animal meant by Job
when he wrote, `Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?
or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him because
his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?' This is,
in reality, a unicorn--the _one-horned rhinoceros_."
Resuming the subject of the oryx, Hans informed his companions that this
animal formed the type of a genus of animals called _Oryx_, of which
there were three other species,--the "addax," the "abu-harb," and the
"algazel."
The "addax" (_Oryx addax_) is a native of Central Africa generally, and
is nearly as large as the oryx; but its horns, instead of being
straight, are twisted spirally. They are smaller in the female, which
is agreeable to the usual disposition of these appendages, though
contrary to that of the horns of the gemsbok. The colour of the addax
is greyish-white over the body, and reddish-brown upon the head and
neck, with a white patch across the face. It is not gregarious, but
lives in pairs on the sandy deserts, for traversing which its broad
hoofs are peculiarly adapted. It was known to the ancients, and Pliny
speaks of it under the name _Strepsiceros_.
The "abu-harb" (_Oryx leucoryx_) is also a large powerful antelope, with
long sharp horns slightly curved backward. Its colour is cream-white,
with a brown mark on the forehead, another on the cheeks, and a
rust-brown colour over the neck and throat. In form it bears a good
deal of resemblance to the oryx, and was really the animal known by this
name to the Greeks and Romans. But naturalists now apply the name
"oryx" to the gemsbok or Cape oryx, (_Oryx Capensis_).
The "abu-harb" is a native of Kordofan and Sennaar, and it is one of
those that are found upon the sculptures of Nubia and Egypt. Unlike the
addax, it is gregarious in its habits, and lives in large herds.
The fourth species of oryx is the "algazel," (_Oryx algazella_). This
is also a native of Central Africa, but less is known of it than of any
of the other three; and there are naturalists who regard it as merely a
variety of the "abu-harb."
When Hans had finished his learned discourse, it was full time for
retiring to rest, so the whole party crept into their wagons, and went
to sleep.