Although the Buffalo is now common in Greece, and tame in Italy, it was
known by neither the ancient Greeks nor Romans; for he never had a name
in the language of these people. The word _buffalo_, even indicates a
foreign origin, not derived either from the Greek or Latin tongues. In
effect, this animal is originally a native of the warmest climates of
Africa and India, and was not transported and naturalized in Italy,
till towards the seventh century. The moderns very improperly apply the
name of _bubalus_ to this animal, which, in Greek and Latin implies
indeed, an African animal, but very different from the buffalo, as it
is easy to demonstrate, by many passages of ancient authors. If we
would ascribe the bubalus to any particular genus, it rather belongs
to that of the antelope, than to that of the ox or the buffalo[B].
Belon having seen a small hunched ox at Cairo, which differed from
the buffalo and common ox, imagined it might be the _bubalus_ of the
ancients; but if he had carefully compared the characters of the
_bubalus_ given by the ancients, with those of this small ox, he would
have discovered his error; besides, we can speak of it with decision,
for we have seen this small hunched ox alive, and having compared
the description we have given of it with that of Belon, we can have
no doubt of its being the same animal. It was shewn at the fair at
Paris in 1752, under the name of the _zebu_; which we have adopted to
describe this animal by, for it is a particular breed of the ox, and
not a species of the buffalo or bubalus.
[B] Upon the first publication of Buffon's History, M. Caesani made
some remarks upon the assertion that the buffalo had no name in the
Greek or Latin languages and with a great display of erudition, in
a letter to Buffon, endeavoured to shew that there _were_ words in
both these languages which nearly approached to that of buffalo;
but M. Buffon himself justly remarks that Caetane rather proves the
possibility of deriving the name of buffalo from some words in the
Greek and Latin languages than that this name was really in use among
them.
Aristotle, speaking of oxen, only mentions the common ox, except
saying, that among the Arachotas in India, there are wild oxen, which
differ from the domestic ones as much as wild boars differ from hogs;
but in another part, he gives the description of a wild ox of Pæonia,
a province adjoining to Macedonia, which he calls _bonasus_. Thus the
common ox and the bonasus, are the only animals of this kind taken
notice of by Aristotle; and what must appear singular, the bonasus,
although fully described by this great philosopher, has not been
recognised by any of the Greek or Latin naturalists who have written
after him, all of whom have literally copied him on this subject; so
that to this day, there is no more than the name of bonasus known,
without the knowledge of the animal which it ought to be applied
to. If we consider, that Aristotle, in speaking of the wild oxen of
temperate climates, has only mentioned the bonasus; and that, on the
contrary, the Greek and Latin authors of succeeding ages, have not
spoken of the bonasus, but describe these wild oxen by the names of
_urus_ and _bison_, we shall be led to believe, that the bonasus must
be either the one or the other of these animals; indeed by comparing
what Aristotle has said of the bonasus, with what we know of the
bison, it is more than probable, that these two names indicate the
same animal. Julius Cæsar is the first who mentions the urus. Pliny
and Pausanias are also the first who speak of the bison. Since Pliny's
time, the name of _bubalus_ has been given indiscriminately to the
urus, or the bison, and this confusion has increased with time. To the
bonasus, bubalus, urus, and bison, have been added, the _catopleba_,
the _thur_, the _bubalus_ of Belon, the bisons of Scotland and America,
and all our naturalists have made as many different species as they
have found names. The truth is here so obscured by clouds, and so
surrounded with errors, that it will be difficult to clear up this part
of Natural History, which the contradiction of reports, the variety of
descriptions, the multiplicity of names, the diversity of places, the
difference of languages, and the obscurity of the times, seems to have
condemned to perpetual darkness.
I shall, therefore, give my opinion upon this subject, and afterwards
present the proofs upon which it is founded.
1. The animal at present called _buffalo_, (_fig. 137._) was not known
to the ancients.
2. The buffalo, at present domestic in Europe, is the same as the tame
or wild buffalo of India and Africa.
3. The _bubalus_ of the Greeks and Romans is neither the buffalo nor
the small ox of Belon, but the animal that the gentlemen of the Academy
of Sciences have described in treating of the _Barbary cow_, and which
we call the _bubalus_.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon_
[Illustration: FIG. 137. _Buffalo._]
[Illustration: FIG. 138. _Bison._]
4. The small ox of Belon which we have seen, and call by the name of
_zebu_, is no more than a variety in the species of the ox.
5. The _bonasus_ of Aristotle is the same animal as the bison (_fig.
138._) of the Latins.
6. The _bison_ of America might originally come from the bison of
Europe.
7. The _urus_ or _aurochs_, is the same animal as our common bull, in
his wild and natural state.
8. The bison only differs from the aurochs by accidental varieties, and
consequently he is, as well as the aurochs, of the same species as the
domestic ox; so that, it appears, all the denominations, and all the
pretended species of the ancient and modern naturalists may be reduced
to three; namely, the ox, the buffalo, and the bubalus.
I do not doubt that some of the propositions which I have laid down
will appear mere bold assertions, particularly to those who are
employed with the nomenclature of animals, or have endeavoured to
give a catalogue of them; nevertheless, there is not one of these
assertions which I am not able to prove. But before I enter into
critical discussions, each of which demand particular propositions, I
shall explain the observations and facts which conducted me into this
enquiry, and which having satisfied me, may also prove satisfactory to
others.
Domestic animals in very few respects resemble wild ones; their nature,
their size, and their form, are less constant, and more subject to
changes, especially in the exterior parts of the body. The influence of
climate, so powerful over all Nature, acts with more force upon captive
animals, than upon free. Food prepared by the hand of man, oftentimes
scantily given and ill-chosen, joined to the inclemency of a foreign
sky, in time produces alterations sufficiently deep to become constant,
and to be perpetuated from one generation to another. I do not pretend
to say, that this general cause of alteration is so powerful as to
essentially alter the nature of beings, whose constitution is so
fixed as that of animals; but it changes them in certain respects;
it disguises and transforms them externally; it takes away from some
parts, and gives rise to others; it paints them with various colours,
and by its action upon the habit of the body, it has an influence on
their dispositions, instincts, and most interior qualities. A single
part changed in a composition so perfect as that of an animal body,
is sufficient to make the whole sensible of the alteration; and it is
for this reason, that our domestic animals differ almost as much in
dispositions and instincts as in figure from those who continue at
large in their natural state. Of this, the sheep furnishes a striking
example; this species, such as it is at present, perishes in a very
short time, if man ceases from tending it with care: it is also greatly
changed, and very inferior to its original species. But to adhere to
our present subject; we see what changes the ox has gone through, from
the combined effects of climate, nourishment, and treatment, in a wild,
and in a domestic state.
The most general, and most remarkable variety in domestic and even
wild oxen, consists in that sort of hunch which some have between the
shoulders: this race of oxen are called _bisons_, and it has been
hitherto believed, that they were of a different species from the
common ox; but as we are assured, that they produce together, and that
the hunch diminishes in the first generation, and disappears in the
second or third, it is evident, that this hunch is only a variable and
accidental character, which does not prevent the bison from belonging
to the same species with the common ox. There were formerly in the
desart parts of Europe, wild oxen, some without hunches, and others
with them; thus the variety seems to be natural, and to proceed from
the abundance and more substantial quality of food; for we remarked,
when treating of the camels, that when those animals are lean, and
badly fed, they have not even the appearance of a hunch. The ox without
a hunch was named _vrochs_, and _turochs_, in the German tongue; and
the ox with a hunch, in the same language, was termed _visen_. The
Romans, who knew neither of these wild oxen before they saw them in
Germany, adopted those names; of _vrochs_ they made _vrus_; and of
_visen_, _bison_; and they never imagined that the wild ox described
by Aristotle, under the name of _bonasus_, could possibly be either of
these oxen, whose names they had thus latinised.
Another difference between the aurochs and the bison is the length of
the hair; the neck, shoulders, and throat of the bison are covered
with very long hairs; while the aurochs have all these parts covered
with a short hair, resembling that of the rest of the body, the front
excepted, which has frizzled hair. But this difference of the hair is
still more accidental than that of the hunch, and, like that, depends
on the food and climate, as we have already proved in the goats,
sheep, dogs, cats, &c. Thus, neither the hunch, nor the difference in
the quantity of hair, are specific characters, but merely simple and
accidental variations.
A variety still more extended, and to which naturalists have given more
of character than it really deserves, is the form of the horns; they
have not considered that, in our domestic cattle, the shape, size,
position, direction, and even number of horns, vary so strongly, that
it would be impossible to pronounce which is the true model of Nature.
The horns of some cows are curved and bent downwards; others have them
straight, long, and elevated. There are whole races of sheep, who have
sometimes two, sometimes four horns, and there are breeds of cows who
have no horns. These exterior, or, as I may say, accessory parts of the
body, have as little permanency as the colours of the hair, which in
domestic animals vary and combine in every manner. This difference in
the shape and direction of the horns, which is so common, must not then
be regarded as a distinctive character of the species; though, it is
upon this character alone that our naturalists have established their
species; and, as Aristotle, in the description he gives of the bonasus,
says, that its horns turn inwards, they have from that alone separated
it from all other oxen, and made it a particular species, without
having ever seen the individual. Upon this variation of the horns, in
domestic animals, we have quoted cows and ewes, rather than bulls and
rams, because the females are more numerous than the males, and we may
every where observe thirty cows or ewes for one bull or ram.
The mutilation of animals by castration seems to hurt the individual
only, and not to affect the species; nevertheless, it is certain,
that this custom restrains Nature on one side and weakens it on the
other. A single male, condemned to serve thirty or forty females, must
exhaust himself without satisfying them. The ardour of love must be
unequal; indifferent in the male, who exceeds the designs of Nature,
and too ardent in the female, who must be so limited; from thence all
the productions must chiefly be tinctured with feminine qualities, a
greater number of females will be produced than males; and even the
males possess more of the mother than the father. This is, without
doubt, the reason there are more girls than boys born in the countries
where men have a great number of wives, while among those where the
men are permitted to have but one, more males than females are born.
It is true, that among domestic animals they commonly withhold the
most beautiful from castration, to become the parent of a numerous
generation. The first productions of these chosen males will be strong
and vigorous; but from having too many copies from this single mould
the impression of Nature is deformed, or at least impaired, and not
preserved in its full perfection; the race must, therefore, be weakened
and degenerate; and this, perhaps, is the cause why more monsters are
to be found among domestic than wild animals, where the number of
males, which concur to generation, is equal to that of the females.
Moreover, when there is but one male to a great number of females they
have not the liberty of consulting their own taste, and, consequently,
deprived of those emotions which arise from spontaneous pleasures.
In the females there remains nothing poignant in their amours, and
they languish in expecting the cold approaches of a male that is not
of their own choice, who is frequently not accommodated to them, and
from whom they do not receive those flattering caresses as if he were
obliged to court a preference. From these sluggish amours insipid
beings must proceed, who will have neither that courage, spirit, nor
strength, which Nature only can bestow on every species by leaving to
individuals their faculties quite entire, especially the liberty of
choice between the sexes. It is well known, in the example of horses,
that the cross breed is always the finest; we ought not, therefore,
to confine our female cattle to a single male of their own country,
who already has too much the resemblance of his mother, and who,
consequently, far from improving the species, can only continue to
degrade it. Mankind, in this practice, have preferred their convenience
to every other advantage; they have not endeavoured to support, or to
embellish Nature, but submit her operations to them, that they may
enjoy her productions in a more despotic manner. The males are the
superior of each species; they have the most spirit, and are the least
tractable; a greater number of males in our flocks therefore would
render them less docile, more difficult to conduct and to watch.
To these causes of degeneration in domestic animals we must yet mention
another, which alone is capable of producing more changes than all the
rest put together, viz. the transportation of animals from one climate
to another; oxen, sheep, and goats, have been carried to all parts; in
every place they have felt the influence of the climate, and imbibed
impressions from every soil and every sky, so that nothing is more
difficult than to recognize, in this great number of varieties, those
who are the least estranged from the type of Nature.
Having thus explained the general causes of varieties among domestic
animals, I shall proceed to the particular proofs of what I have
advanced on the subject of oxen and buffaloes. I have said, 1st. _That
the animal at present known by the name of the buffalo was not known by
the ancient Greeks, and Romans._ This is evident, since none of their
authors have described, or even used, a name which can be applied to
it; besides, we are informed, by the annals of Italy, that the first
buffalo was brought there towards the end of the fifth century, A. D.
595.
2. _The Buffalo, at present domestic in Europe, is the same as the
wild or tame buffalo of India and Africa._ This needs no other proof,
than the comparison of our description of the buffalo, taken from an
animal we saw alive, with the remarks that travellers have given of
the buffaloes of Persia, Mogul, Bengal, Egypt, Guinea, and the Cape of
Good Hope. In all these countries this animal is the same, and does not
differ from our buffalo but in very slight differences.
3. _The Bubalus of the Greeks and Romans, is not the buffalo, nor the
small ox of Belon; but the animal that the gentlemen of the Academy
has described under the name of the cow of Barbary._ This appears
clear from Aristotle placing the bubalus with the stags and fallow
deer, and not with the oxen. In other parts, he speaks of him among
the roe-bucks, and says, that he but badly defends himself with his
horns, and that he flies from ferocious animals. Pliny, in speaking
of the wild oxen of Germany, says, that it is through ignorance that
the common people give the name of bubalus to these oxen, for the
bubalus is an animal of Africa, which in some measure resembles a
calf or a stag. The bubalus is then a timid animal, who has no other
resource than by flight to avoid the attack of ferocious animals,
who consequently from this circumstance must be swift, and possess
something of a make between the calf and a stag; all these characters,
not one of which apply to the buffalo, are found perfectly united in
the figure of the animal which _Horatius Fontana_ sent to Aldrovandus,
and of which the gentlemen of the Academy have given a figure and
description under the name of the _cow of Barbary_; and they have
thought, with me, that it was the bubalus of the ancients.[C]
[C] The zebu, or small ox of Belon, has none of the characters of the
bubalus; it differs from it almost as much as our ox differs from the
antelope: Belon also is the only naturalist who has considered this
small ox to be the bubalus of the ancients.
4. _The small ox of Belon is only a variety in the species of the ox._
We shall easily prove this, by only referring to the figure of the
animal given by Belon, Prosper Alpinus, Edwards, and to the description
we have made. We have seen it alive; his conductor told us, that he
brought him from Africa, where he was called _Zebu_; that he was
domestic; and that they used him to ride on. This animal is, in fact,
very gentle and familiar; he is of an agreeable figure, though heavy
and thick; nevertheless he so perfectly resembles the ox, that I cannot
give a more just idea of him, than by saying, if we were to look at a
very handsome bull, through a glass that diminishes objects one half,
the figure would very near approach that of the zebu.
5. _The Bonasus of Aristotle is the same as the bison of the Latins._
This proposition cannot be proved, without a critical discussion, with
the whole detail of which I shall not trouble the reader. Gesner, who
was a learned man, as well as a naturalist, and who thought with me,
that the bonasus might be the bison, has more carefully than any other
person examined and discussed the observations which Aristotle gives
on the bonasus, and at the same time has corrected many erroneous
expressions in the translation of Theodore Gaza, which nevertheless
all the naturalists have followed without examination: in adopting,
therefore, his elucidations, and in suppressing from the remarks of
Aristotle, whatever is obscure, contradictory or fabulous, they appear
to me reduced to the following description:
The bonasus is a wild ox of Poeonia, and is at least as big as a
domestic ox, and of the same make; he is covered from the shoulders to
the eyes with a long hair, like the mane of a horse; his voice is like
the ox; his horns are short, and curved round the ears; his legs are
covered with long hair, soft as wool, and his tail is small compared to
his size, although in other respects it resembles that of the ox. Like
the bull, he has the custom of pawing the ground with his feet; his
hide is hard, his flesh is tender, and good. By these characters, which
are all we can rely on from Aristotle, we see how near the bonasus
approaches towards the bison. Every part, in fact, agrees, the shape
of the horns excepted, but which, as we have already observed, greatly
varies in animals, who are, notwithstanding, of the same species. We
have seen such crooked horns, taken from an hunched ox of Africa, and
we shall hereafter prove, that this hunched ox is no other than the
bison. This we shall be able to confirm by the testimonies of ancient
authors. Aristotle mentions the bonasus as an ox of Poeonia; and
Pausanias, speaking of the Poeonian bulls, says, in two different
parts of his works, that these bulls are bisons; he even expressly
says, that the bulls of Poeonia, which he saw at the public games at
Rome, had very long hair upon the breast, and about the jaws. In short,
Julius Cæsar, Pliny, Pausanias, Solinus, &c. in speaking of wild oxen,
mention the aurochs and the bison, but take no notice of the bonasus.
It must, therefore, be supposed, that in less than four or five
centuries the species of the bonasus has been lost, unless we allow
that the names _bonasus_ and _bison_ indicate only the same animal.
6. _The bison of America might come originally from the bison of
Europe._ We have already laid down the foundation of this opinion in
our discourse on the animals of the two continents; they are the result
of the experience of M. de la Nux, who has given much information on
this subject. He has informed us, that the bisons, or hunched oxen,
of India and Africa, copulate with the bulls and cows of Europe, and
that the hunch is only an accidental character, which diminishes in
the first generation, and disappears in the second or third. Since
the bisons of India are of the same species as our oxen, and have,
consequently the same origin, is it not natural to extend this organ to
the bison of America? Every thing seems to concur in support of this
supposition. The bisons appear to be originally of cold and temperate
regions; their name is derived from the German language; the ancients
say that they were found in that part of Germany which borders on
Scythia; and there are now bisons in the north of Germany, in Poland,
and in Scotland; they might, therefore, have passed into America, or
even have come from thence, as they are animals common to the two
continents. The only difference between the bisons of Europe and those
of America is, that the latter are less. But even this difference is a
new presumption that they are of the same species, for we have already
remarked, that generally both domestic and wild animals, which have
passed of themselves, or have been transported, into America, have,
without any exception, diminished in size; besides, all the characters,
even the hunch, and the long hairs at the hinder parts, are the same
in the bisons of America and in those of Europe; thus we cannot refuse
to regard them, not only as animals of the same species but also of the
same race.
7. _The urus, or aurochs, is the same animal as the common bull, in
his wild and natural state._ This position is clear, as the figure and
constitution of the body of the aurochs is perfectly similar to that
of our domestic bull. The aurochs is only larger and stronger, like
every other animal who enjoys his liberty. The aurochs are still to be
met with in some provinces of the north. The young aurochs have been
taken from their mothers, and being reared, when of a proper age have
copulated with the domestic bulls and cows, so that we cannot doubt but
they are of the same species.
8. _To conclude, the bison differs from the aurochs by accidental
varieties only, and, consequently, is also of the same species as the
domestic ox._ The hunch, the length and quality of the hair, and the
form of the horns, are the sole characters by which we can distinguish
the bisons from the aurochs. But we have known the hunched oxen produce
with the domestic kind; we likewise know, that the length and quality
of the hair, in all animals, depend on the nature of the climate;
and we have remarked, that in oxen, goats, and sheep, the form of
the horns frequently varies. These differences, therefore, are not
sufficient to establish two distinct species; and since our domestic
oxen produce with the hunched oxen of India, we have reason to think
they would copulate with the bison, or hunched ox of Europe. There are,
in the almost innumerable varieties of these animals, in different
climates, two primitive kinds, both of which have long continued in a
natural state; the hunched ox, or bison, and the aurochs, or ox without
an hunch. These kinds have subsisted till this present time, either
in a wild or domestic state, and are scattered, or rather have been
transported, into all the climates of the earth. All the domestic oxen
without hunches have proceeded originally from the aurochs, and those
with the hunch from the bison. To give a just idea of these varieties
we shall make an enumeration of them as they are found in the different
parts of the world.
To begin with the north of Europe; the few oxen and cows of Iceland are
deprived of horns, although they are of the same kind as our oxen. The
size of these animals is rather relative to the plenty and quality of
pasture than to the nature of the climate. The Dutch fetch lean cows
from Denmark, which fatten prodigiously in their rich meadows, and
give a great deal of milk: these Denmark cows are larger than ours.
The bulls and cows of the Ukraine, where there is excellent pasture,
are said to be the biggest in Europe, and they are of the same kind as
our oxen. In Switzerland, where the tops of the mountains are covered
with an abundant and flourishing verdure, and which is solely reserved
as food for the cattle, the oxen are nearly double the size of those
in France, where commonly they are fed on the coarsest herbage, which
is refused by horses. Bad hay, and leaves, are the common food of our
oxen in winter, and in spring, when they should be refreshed, they are
excluded from the meadows; they, therefore, suffer still more in that
season than in winter, for they then have little or nothing given them
in the stable, but are driven into the roads, into fallow fields, or
into the woods, and are always kept at a distance from the fertile
lands, so that they are more fatigued than fed; at last, in summer,
they are permitted to enter the meadows, which are then stripped, and
parched with heat and drought; there is not, therefore, a single season
throughout the year in which these animals are amply or agreeably fed.
This is the sole cause which renders them weak, poor, and small;
for, in Spain, and in some cantons of the provinces of France, where
there is good pasture, and solely reserved for the oxen, they are much
stronger and larger.
In Barbary, and most part of Africa, where the ground is dry, and the
pasture poor, the oxen are still smaller, the cows give much less milk
than those in France, and the greatest part of them lose their milk
when their calves are taken from them. They are the same in some parts
of Persia, of Lower Ethiopia, and in Great Tartary, while in the same
countries, and at very small distances, as in Calmuck Tartary, in
Upper Ethiopia, and in Abyssinia, the oxen are a prodigious size. This
difference, therefore, depends more on the plenty of their food than on
the temperature of the climate. In the northern, temperate, and warm
regions, we equally find, at very small distances, small or large oxen,
according to the quantity and quality of the pasture, they are fed upon.
The breed of aurochs, or ox without a hunch, inhabits the cold and
temperate zones, and is not much dispersed in the southern countries.
On the contrary the breed of the bison, or hunched ox, occupies all the
southern provinces. In the whole continent of India, in the eastern
and southern islands of all Africa, from Mount Atlas to the Cape of
Good Hope, we find no others but hunched oxen; it even appears, that
this breed, which has prevailed in all the warm countries, has many
advantages over the others; for, like the bison, of which they are the
issue, their hair is softer, and more glossy than our oxen, who, like
the auroch, are furnished but with little hair, of a harsh nature.
These hunched oxen are also swifter, and more proper to supply the
place of the horse[D]; at the same time they are less clumsy, stupid,
and indolent than our oxen. They are more tractable, and sensible,
have more of that intelligence which renders them useful; they are
also treated with more care than our finest horses. The regard the
Indians have for these animals is so great that it has degenerated
into superstition, the last mark of blind respect. The ox, as the most
useful animal, has appeared to them the most worthy of being revered;
and they have made an idol of the object of their veneration, a kind of
beneficent and powerful divinity; for we are desirous of rendering all
we respect, great, and capable of doing much good, or much harm.
[D] At Surat, Persia, and in all the provinces of India, they are used
for carrying burdens and drawing a kind of coaches, and by constant
habit they acquire such a dexterity that few animals can outrun them.
_See Voyages della Valle, Owington, Mandelslo, Flacourt, Grosse, &c._
These hunched oxen vary perhaps more than ours in the colours of the
hair, and the figure of their horns, the handsomest are all white,
like the oxen of Lombardy. Some are destitute of horns, while others
have them very much elevated, and others so bent down, that they are
almost pendent. It even appears, that we must divide this first race
of bisons, or hunched oxen, into two secondary kinds; the one large,
and the other small, and this last is that of the _zebu_. Both of them
are found nearly in the same climates, and are equally mild and easily
managed; both have soft hair, and a hunch upon the back; this hunch is
nothing but an excrescence, a kind of wen, a piece of tender flesh, as
good to eat as the tongue of an ox. The hunches of some oxen weigh from
forty to fifty pounds, others have them much smaller. Some of these
oxen have prodigious large horns; there is one in the French king's
cabinet, which is three feet and a half in length, and seven inches in
diameter at the base; many travellers affirm that they have seen them,
of a capacity sufficient to contain fifteen, and even twenty pints of
water.
The method of castrating large cattle is not known in any part of
Africa, and it is but little practised in India. When the bulls undergo
this operation, it is not by cutting, but compressing their testicles;
and although the Indians keep a number of these animals to draw their
carriages, and work in their grounds, they do not by any means train
up so many as we do. As in all hot countries the cows give but little
milk; as the natives are but little acquainted with cheese and butter;
and as the flesh of the calves is not so good as in Europe, they
multiply the horned beasts less than we do. Besides, all those southern
provinces of Africa and Asia, being much less peopled than Europe,
there are a great number of wild oxen, who are taken when young; these
become tame of themselves, and submit to labour without any resistance;
they become so tractable, that they are managed with greater ease than
horses, the voice of their master is only requisite to direct and make
them obey; they are very careful of them in every respect, and give
them plenty of the best food. These animals, thus raised, appear to
be of a different nature from our oxen, who only know us by our bad
treatment; the goad, whip, and scarcity of food, render them stupid
and weak: in short, if we knew our own interest, we should treat what
is dependent on us with better usage. Men of inferior rank, and people
the least polished, seem to have a better sense than others of the
laws of equality, and the shades of natural equality. The servant of
the farmer may be said to be upon a level with his master; the horses
of the Arabs, and the oxen of the Hottentots, are favourite domestics,
companions in their exercises, assistants in their labour, and with
whom they share their habitation, their bed, and their tables. Man,
by this community, debases himself less than the beasts are elevated
and humanized. They become affectionate, sensible, and intelligent;
they there perform, through love, all that they do here through fear.
They do more; for as their nature is raised by the gentleness of their
education, and by the continuance of attention towards them, they
become capable of actions almost human. The Hottentots bring up their
oxen to war, and make use of them nearly in the same manner as the
Indians do of the elephants; they instruct these oxen to guard their
sheep, to conduct them from place to place, and to defend them from
strangers and ferocious beasts; they teach them to know friends from
enemies, to understand signs, and to obey the voice. Thus the most
stupid of men are the best preceptors of beasts.
All the southern parts of Africa and Asia are then inhabited with
bisons, or hunched oxen, among which is a great variety in respect to
size, colour, shape of the horns, &c. On the contrary, all the northern
countries of these two parts of the world, and the whole of Europe,
comprehending the adjacent island, as far as the Azores, have only oxen
without hunches, who derive their origin from the aurochs; and as the
aurochs, which is our ox in a wild state, is larger and stronger than
our domestic ones, so the bison, or wild hunched ox, is also stronger
and larger than the tame ox of India. He is also sometimes smaller, but
that depends only on the quantity of food. At Malabar, in Abyssinia,
and Madagascar, where the meadows are naturally spacious and fertile,
the bisons are of a prodigious size; in Africa and Arabia Petrea, where
the land is dry, the zebus, or bisons, are of a small size.
In every part of America oxen without hunches are generally diffused,
which the Spaniards and other Europeans have successively transported
thither; these oxen have considerably multiplied, but are become less
in these new countries. The species was absolutely unknown in South
America; but in all the northern parts, as far as Florida, Louisiana,
and even nearly to Mexico, the bisons, or hunched oxen, were found in
great numbers. These bisons, which formerly inhabited the woods of
Germany, Scotland, and other northern countries, have probably passed
from one continent to the other, and are become, like other animals,
smaller in this new world; and as they lived in climates more or less
cold, their hair became longer or shorter. Their beards and hair is
longer at Hudson's Bay than at Mexico, and in general their hair is
softer than the finest wool. We cannot, therefore, avoid believing
these bisons of the new continent are of the same species as those of
the old; they have preserved all the principal characters, as the hunch
upon the shoulders, the long hair under the muzzle, and on the hinder
parts of the body, and the short legs and tail; and by comparing what
Hernandes, Fernandes, and every other historian and traveller of the
new world have said, with what has been written concerning the bison
of Europe, we shall be convinced, that these animals are not of a
different species.
Thus the wild and domestic ox, the ox of Europe, Asia, America, and
Africa; the bonasus, the aurochs, the bison, and the zebu, are all
animals of the same species, which according to the differences of
climate, food, and treatment, have undergone all the variations we
have explained. The ox is the most useful animal, and also the most
universally dispersed; for, excepting South America, he has been found
in all parts; his constitution being equally formed to withstand the
ardour of the south, or rigours of the north. He appears to be ancient
in every climate; he is domestic in civilized nations, and wild in
desart countries or among unpolished people. He supports himself by his
own resources when in a state of nature, and never loses the qualities
relative to the service of man. The young wild calves, which are taken
from their mothers in India or Africa, become in a very short time, as
tractable as those of the domestic kind; and this natural conformity is
another striking proof of the identity of the species. The gentleness
of character in these animals indicates the natural flexibility of
their bodies; for in all species in which we have discovered the
character of gentleness, and which have been subjected to a domestic
state, there are more varieties than can be found in those which have
remained wild through their character of inflexibility.
If it be asked, whether the aurochs or the bison be the primitive race
of oxen, a satisfactory answer may be drawn from the facts we have
just laid down. The hunch of the bison is, as it has been observed,
no more than an accidental character, which is defaced and lost in
the mixture of the two kinds. The aurochs, or ox without a hunch, is,
then, the most powerful and predominant kind; if it were otherwise,
the hunch, instead of disappearing, would extend and remain upon every
one of this mixt breed. Besides, this hunch of the bison, like that of
the camel, is less the production of Nature than the effect of labour,
and the mark of slavery. From time immemorial, in almost every quarter
of the globe, the ox has been obliged to carry burdens; the habitual,
and often excessive load, has deformed their backs; and this deformity
has been afterwards propagated through generations. Undeformed oxen
are no longer to be seen, but in those countries where they have
not made use of them as beasts of burden. In all Africa, and in the
eastern continent, the oxen are hunched, occasioned by their having
always carried loads on their shoulders. In Europe, where they are only
employed for draught, they have not undergone this deformed alteration,
which in the first place probably proceeds from the compression of the
loads, and in the second from the abundance of food; for it disappears
when the animal is lean and poorly fed. Some enslaved and hunched oxen
might have escaped or been abandoned in the woods, and where their
posterity would be loaded with the same deformity, which, far from
disappearing, may have encreased by the abundance of food peculiar to
uncultivated countries, so that this second breed would spread over
all the desart lands of the north and south, and pass into the New
Continent, like other animals, whose nature can support the cold.
What still more confirms the identity of the species of the bison and
aurochs, is, the bisons of North America have so strong a smell, that
they have been called _Musk Oxen_ by most travellers; and, at the same
time, we find, by the accounts of many persons, that the aurochs, or
wild ox of Prussia and Livonia, has the same scent of musk.
There remains, therefore, but two species, the buffalo and the ox,
out of all the names placed at the head of this article, each of
which the ancient and modern naturalists have treated as separate and
distinct. These two animals, although greatly resembling each other,
both domestic, often living under the same roof, and fed in the same
meadows, have nevertheless constantly refused to unite though excited
to it by their keepers. Their natures are more distant than that of the
ass and the horse; there even appears to be a strong antipathy between
them, for it is affirmed, that cows will not suckle young buffaloes,
and the female buffaloes refuse the same kindness to the other calves.
The buffalo is of a more obstinate nature, and less tractable than the
ox. He obeys with great reluctance, and his temper is more coarse and
brutal. Next to the hog, he is the filthiest of all domestic animals,
and is very unwilling to be cleaned and dressed. His figure is very
clumsy, and forbidding; his look stupidly wild; he stretches out his
neck in an ignoble manner, and carries his head in a very bad posture,
almost always inclined towards the ground. He bellows hideously, with
a tone much stronger and deeper than that of the bull. His legs are
thin, his tail bare, his physiognomy dark, and his skin as black as
his hair. He differs chiefly from the ox by the colour of his hide,
which is easily perceived under his spare covering of hair. His body
is thicker and shorter than that of the ox; his legs are longer; his
head proportionally much less; his horns are not so round, black,
and partly compressed, and he has a tuft of frizzled hair over his
forehead. His hide is likewise thicker and harder than that of the ox.
His flesh is black, and hard, and not only disagreeable to the taste,
but repugnant to the smell. The milk of the female is not so good as
that of the cow, but she yields a greater quantity. In hot countries,
almost all the cheese is made of buffalo's milk. The flesh of the young
buffaloes, though killed during the sucking time, is not a bit better.
The hide alone is of more value than all the rest of the animal,
whose tongue is the only part that is fit to eat: this hide is firm,
pretty light, and almost impenetrable. As these animals are larger and
stronger than oxen they are very serviceable; they make them draw, and
not carry burdens; they lead them by the means of a ring passed through
their nose. Two buffaloes harnessed, or rather chained, to a carriage,
will draw as much as four strong horses. As they carry their necks and
heads low, they employ the whole weight of their body in drawing, and
their mass greatly surpasses that of a labouring horse, or ox.
The height and thickness of the buffalo alone indicates, that he is a
native of warm countries. The largest quadrupeds belong to the torrid
zone of the Old Continent; and the buffalo, for his magnitude, ought to
be placed next to the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus.
The camel is taller but less thick, and also a native of the southern
countries of Africa and Asia. Nevertheless, buffaloes live and multiply
in Italy, in France, and in other temperate provinces. Those kept in
the royal menagerie, have brought forth two or three times; the female
has but one at a birth, and goes with young about twelve months, which
is another proof of the difference between this species and that of the
cow, who only goes nine months. It appears also, that these animals are
more gentle and less brutal in their native country, and the warmer
the climate the more tractable is their nature. In Egypt they are more
tractable than in Italy; and in India more so than in Egypt. Those of
Italy have also more hair than those of Egypt, and those of Egypt more
than those of India. Their coat is never entirely covered, because they
are natives of hot countries; and in general, large animals of these
climates have little or no hair.
There are a great number of wild buffaloes in the countries of Africa
and India, which are watered by large rivers, and where extensive
pasturages are found. The wild buffaloes go in droves and make great
havock in cultivated lands, but they never attack the human species,
unless they are wounded, and are then very dangerous; for they make
directly at their enemy, throw him down, and trample him under their
feet. They are, however, greatly terrified at the sight of fire, and
are displeased at a red colour. Aldrovandus, Kolbe, and many other
naturalists and travellers, assure us, that no person dare wear red
cloaths in the country where the buffaloes are.[E] I know not whether
this aversion to fire and a red colour be general among the buffaloes:
for there are but few among our oxen who grow angry at the sight of red
cloaths.
[E] Sonnini says, that he did not perceive the buffaloes of Egypt to
be affected in this manner by a red colour, for all the inhabitants of
this country wear round their neck and breast a _chall_ of the same
colour, without the buffaloes appearing to be affected or irritated.
The buffalo, like all large animals of warm climates, is fond of
bathing, and even of remaining in the water; he swims well, and
boldly traverses the most rapid floods. As his legs are longer than
those of the ox, he runs also quicker. The Negroes of Guinea, and the
Indians of Malabar, where the buffaloes are very numerous, often hunt
them. They neither pursue nor attack them openly, but climbing up
the trees, or hiding themselves in the thickets, which the buffaloes
cannot penetrate, on account of their horns, they wait for and kill
them. Those people are fond of the flesh of the buffalo, and gain great
profit by vending their hides and horns, which are harder and better
than those of the ox.
The animal, called, at Congo, _Empacassa_ or _Pacassa_, though very
badly described by travellers, seems to me to be the buffalo; and
that which they have spoken of, under the name of _Empabunga_, or
_Impalunca_, in the same country, may possibly be the bubalus, whose
history we shall give with that of the antelope.