Although the Elk (_fig. 149._) and the Rein-deer (_fig. 150._) are
animals of different species, we shall treat of them together, because
it is scarcely possible to write the history of the one without
borrowing a great deal from the other. The greatest part of ancient,
and even modern authors, have confounded them, or described them by
equivocal denominations which might be applied to both. The Greeks had
no knowledge either of the elk or the rein-deer, for Aristotle makes
no mention of them; and, among the Latins, Julius Cæsar is the first
who has made use of the word _Alce_. Pausanias, who wrote above a
hundred years after Julius Cæsar, is also the first Greek author who
takes notice of this name of [Greek: Alchê]; and Pliny, who was nearly
contemporary with Pausanias, has very obscurely indicated the elk and
the rein-deer under the names _alce_, _machlis_, and _tarandus_. We
cannot, therefore, say, that the name _alce_, is properly Greek or
Latin; it seems to have been derived from the Celtic tongue, in which
the elk is named _elch_ or _elk_. The Latin name of the rein-deer is
still more uncertain; many naturalists have thought that this was the
_machlis_ of Pliny, because this author, in speaking of the animals
of the north, quotes, at the same time, the _alce_ and the _machlis_,
and says that the last particularly belongs to Scandinavia, and was
never seen at Rome, nor even in all the extent of the Roman empire.
Nevertheless, we find in Cæsar's Commentaries a passage that we can
scarcely apply to any other animal than the rein-deer, and which seems
to prove, that he existed at that time in the forests of Germany; and
fifteen centuries after Julius Cæsar, Gaston Phoebus seems to speak
of the rein-deer under the name of the _rangier_, as an animal which
existed in his time in our forests of France: he even gives a tolerable
description of this animal[Q], and of the method of taking and hunting
him. As his description cannot be applied to the elk, and as he gives,
at the same time, the manner of hunting the stag, the fallow-deer, the
wild goat, the chamois goat, &c. it cannot be supposed, that under the
article of the _rangier_ he intended to speak of any of those animals,
or that he was deceived in the application of the name.
[Q] The Rangier is very much like the stag, but has considerably
larger horns: when he is very much pressed in the chace he puts his
hind parts against a tree, and bends his head to the ground, in which
situation he is perfectly secure, as his horns completely defend his
whole body, and the dogs are afraid to approach him. He is not higher
than the fallow-deer, but more bulky; he is hunted with dogs, but he
is more commonly shot with arrows, or taken in snares. He feeds in the
same manner as the stag and fallow-deer, and lives to a great age. _La
Venerie de Jacques Dufouilloux._
It appears, then, from these positive testimonies, that the rein-deer
formerly existed in France, at least in the mountainous parts, such as
the Pyrennees, near which Gaston Phoebus dwelt as lord of the county
of Foix, and that since his time they had been destroyed like the
stags, who were heretofore common in this country. It is certain that
the rein-deer is now to be found only in the most northern countries;
but we also know, that the climate of France was formerly much more
damp and cold, occasioned by the number of woods and morasses, which
have since been cut down and drained. By the letter of the Emperor
Julian, we learn what was the rigour of cold at Paris in his time: the
description he gives of the ice on the Seine perfectly resembles what
the Canadians say of the ice on the rivers of Quebec. Gaul, under the
same latitude as Canada, was, two thousand years ago, what Canada is
at present; that is to say, a climate cold enough for these animals to
live in, which are now only to be met with in the regions of the north.
By comparing and combining the above testimonies, it appears to me,
that the forests of Gaul and Germany were stocked with elks and
rein-deer, and that the passages in Cæsar's Commentaries, can only
be applied to those two animals. As the land was cultivated, and the
waters became gradually dried up, the temperature of the climate
became more mild, and those animals, who delight in cold, immediately
abandoned the flat countries, and retired into the snowy region, where
they lived in the time of Gaston de Foix; and if they are no longer
to be found there, it is because this temperature has been ever since
increasing in heat by the almost entire destruction of the forests,
by the successive lowering of the mountains, the diminution of the
waters, the multiplication of mankind, and by the continual increase
of culture, and every other improvement. I am likewise of opinion that
Pliny has borrowed from Cæsar almost all he has written of these two
animals, and that he was the first author of the confusion in their
names. He mentions at the same time the _alce_ and the _machlis_,
from which we ought naturally to conclude, that these two names mean
two different animals: however, if we remark, 1. That he only simply
names the alce without any description whatever. 2. That he alone
has used the name _machlis_, which word is not to be found in either
Greek or Latin, but appears to be coined, and which, according to
Pliny's commentators, is changed into that of _alce_ in many ancient
manuscripts. 3. That he attributes to the machlis all what Julius
Cæsar gives to the alce; we cannot doubt but the passage in Pliny is
corrupted, and that these two names mean the same animal, namely, the
elk. This question once decided will also decide another. The _machlis_
being the _elk_, the _tarandus_ must be the _rein-deer_. This name of
_tarandus_ is not to be found in any author before Pliny, and in the
interpretation of which, authors have greatly varied; however, Agricola
and Elliot have not hesitated to apply it to the rein-deer; and for the
reasons just deduced, we subscribe to their opinion. Besides, we must
not be surprised at the silence of the Greeks on the subject of these
two animals, nor at the ambiguity with which the Latins have spoken
of them, since the northern climates were absolutely strangers to the
first, and only known to the second by relation.
The elk is only found on this, and the rein-deer on the other, side of
the polar circle in Europe and in Asia. We find them in America, in the
lower latitudes, because the cold is greater there than in Europe. The
rein-deer can bear the most excessive cold; he is found in Spitsbergen;
he is common in Greenland, and in the most northern parts of Lapland
and Asia. The elk does not approach so near the pole; he inhabits
Norway, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, and all the provinces of
Siberia and Tartary, even to the north of China. We meet with him under
the name of _Orignal_, and the rein-deer under that of _Caribou_ in
Canada, and in all the northern parts of America. Those naturalists,
who doubted whether the Orignal was the elk, and the Caribou the
rein-deer, had not compared Nature with the testimonies of travellers.
These are certainly the same animals, though like all the rest in the
New Continent smaller than those in the Old.
We may form a more perfect idea of the elk and rein-deer, by comparing
them with the stag; the elk is taller, thicker, and stands more erect
upon his legs; his neck is shorter, his hair longer, and his antlers
wider and heavier than those of the stag. The rein-deer is shorter,
his legs are smaller and thicker, and his feet much larger; his hair
is very thickly furnished, and his horns much longer and divided into
a great number of branches, with flat terminations; while those of
the elk appear to have been cut or broached at the edges. Both have
long hair under the neck, short tails, and ears much longer than those
of the stag; they do not leap nor bound like the roe-buck, but their
pace is a kind of trot, so easy and quick, that they go over almost
as much ground in the same time, without being in the least fatigued;
for they will sometimes continue their trot for two days together,
without resting. The rein-deer lives upon the mountains; and the elk
dwells in low lands and damp forests; both go in herds like the stags,
and both can be tamed, but the rein-deer with greater ease than the
elk. The last, like the stag, has never lost his liberty, while the
rein-deer has been rendered domestic by the most unenlightened part of
mankind. The Laplanders have no other cattle. In this icy climate,
which receives only the oblique rays of the sun, where the night and
the day comprehend two seasons; where the snow covers the earth from
the beginning of autumn to the end of spring, and where the verdure
of the summer consists in the bramble, juniper, and moss, where could
man expect to procure necessary nourishment for cattle? The horse,
the ox, the sheep, and all the other useful animals, could not find
subsistence there, nor resist the rigour of the cold; it was therefore
necessary to search among the inhabitants of the forest for the least
wild and profitable animals; the Laplanders have done what we should be
obliged to do ourselves if we were to lose our cattle; we should then
be forced to tame the stags, and the roe-bucks of our forests to supply
their place; this I am persuaded, we should easily accomplish, and soon
derive as much advantage from them as the Laplanders do from their
rein-deer. This example ought to make us sensible how far Nature has
extended her liberality towards us; we do not make use of one half her
treasure, for her bounty is more immeasurable than we can imagine; she
has bestowed on us the horse, the ox, the sheep, and all other domestic
animals, to serve, to feed, and clothe us; and she has other species
in reserve, which would ably supply the deficiency, and which only
require us to subdue, and make them useful to our wants. Man is not
acquainted with the powers of Nature, nor how far her productions are
to be improved by the exertions of his capacity; instead of exploring
her unknown treasures, he is constantly abusing those with which he is
acquainted.
By comparing the advantages which the Laplanders derive from the
rein-deer with those we experience from the domestic animals, we shall
see that he is worth two or three of them. He is used as a horse to
draw sledges and carriages; he travels with great speed and swiftness,
travelling thirty leagues a day with ease, and runs with as much
certainty on frozen snows as upon the mossy down. The female affords
milk more substantial and nourishing than that of the cow. The flesh
is excellent food. His hair makes an exceeding good fur, and his hide
makes a very supple and durable leather. Thus the rein-deer alone
affords all that we derive from the horse, the ox, and the sheep.
The manner in which the Laplanders rear and train these animals
deserves our particular attention. Olaus, Schæffer, and Regnard, have
given interesting details on this subject, of which the following
is an abstract: The horns of the rein-deer, say these authors, are
larger and divided into a greater number of branches than those of
the stag. The food of this animal, in the winter season, is a white
moss, which he finds under the deepest snow, and which he ploughs up
with his horns, or digs up with his feet. In summer he lives upon the
buds and leaves of trees in preference to herbs, which his forward
spreading horns will not permit him to brouze on with facility. He
runs upon the snow and sinks but little, by reason of his broad feet.
These animals are very mild, and are kept in herds, which turn out
greatly to the profit of their owners; the milk, hide, sinews, bones,
hoofs, horns, hair, and the flesh, are all useful and good. The richest
Laplanders have herds of four or five hundred, and the poorest have
ten or twelve. They are led out to pasture, and shut up in inclosures
during the night, to shelter them from the outrages of the wolves.
If taken to another climate they die in a short time. Many centuries
since, Steno, prince of Sweden, sent six to Frederic, duke of Holstein;
and more recently, in 1533, Gustavus, king of Sweden, sent ten over
to Prussia, both males and females; but they all perished, without
producing either in a domestic or free state. "I would fain (says M.
Regnard) have brought some rein-deer alive into France; many persons
have in vain attempted it, and last year three or four were conducted
to Dantzic, where they soon died, not being able to bear the heat of
that climate."
There are both wild and tame rein-deer in Lapland. In the rutting
season the females are let loose to seek the wild males in the woods;
and as these wild males are more robust, and stronger than the domestic
ones, the breed from this mixture are preferred for harness. These
rein-deer are not so gentle as the others, for they not only sometimes
refuse to obey those who guide them, but often turn and furiously
attack them with their feet, so that they have no other resource than
to cover themselves with the sledge until the fury of the beast is
subsided. This sledge is so light that the Laplander can with ease
turn it over himself; the bottom of it is covered with the skins of
young rein-deers, the hair of which is turned backwards, so that the
sledge glides easily forwards, and is prevented from recoiling on the
mountains. The harness of the rein-deer is only a collar made of the
skin, with the hairs remaining on it, from whence a trace is brought
under the belly, between the legs, and fastened to the fore part of the
sledge. The Laplander has only a single cord, as a rein, fastened to
the animal's horn, which he throws sometimes on one side and sometimes
on the other of the beast, according as he would direct him to the
right or left. They can travel four or five leagues an hour; but the
quicker he goes the more inconvenient is the motion, and a person must
be well accustomed, and travel often, to be able to sit in the sledge,
and prevent it from turning over.
The rein-deer have outwardly many things in common with the stag, and
the formation of their interior parts is nearly the same. From this
conformity of Nature, analogous customs and similar effects result.
The rein-deer sheds his horns every year like the stag, and, like him,
makes very good venison. The rutting season of both is towards the end
of September. The females of both species go eight months with young,
and produce but one at a birth. The males have the same disgustful
smell in their rutting time; and among the female rein-deer there are
also found some who are barren. The young rein-deer, like the young
fawns of the stag, are variously coloured; it is at first of a reddish
colour, and becomes, as they grow old, almost of an entire brown. The
young follow their mothers two or three years, and they do not attain
their full growth till the age of four; it is at this age that they
begin to dress and exercise them for labour. In order to render them
more manageable they are castrated when young, which operation the
Laplanders perform with their teeth. The uncastrated males are very
difficult to manage, and they therefore make use only of those which
are gelded, among which they choose the most lively and nimble to
draw their sledges, and the more heavy to carry their provisions and
baggage. They keep only one stallion rein-deer for five or six females.
These animals are troubled with an insect, called the gad-fly, who
burrowing under their skins deposit their eggs, so that sometimes by
the end of winter the worms that proceed from them render their skins
as full of holes as a sieve.
The herds of rein-deer require a great deal of care; they are subject
to elope, and voluntarily strive to regain their natural liberty:
they must be closely attended, and narrowly watched, and never led to
pasture but in open places; and in case the herd is numerous they have
need of many persons to keep them together, and to run after those
which attempt to stray. They are all marked, that they may be known
again, for it often happens that they stray in the woods, or mix with
other herds. In short, the Laplanders are continually occupied in the
care of their rein-deer, which constitute all their wealth, and they
know well how to procure every convenience, or, more properly, all the
necessities of life, from these animals. In the winter season they
cloath themselves from head to foot with the furs of the rein-deer,
which are impenetrable to frost or rain; and in summer they make use
of the hides from which the fur has fallen off. They also spin the
hair, and cover the sinews which they take from the body of the dead
animal, for cordage and thread. They eat the flesh, drink the milk,
and of the latter they also make very rich cheese. This milk, when
churned, gives, instead of butter, a kind of suet. This particularly,
as well as the largeness of the horns, and the plenty of fat he affords
at the beginning of the rutting season, are so many proofs of the
superabundance of nourishment; and what still more strongly proves his
superabundance to be excessive, or at least greater than any other
species, is that the rein-deer is the only animal where the female
has horns as well as the male, and this last is the only one also who
sheds his horns and renews them even when castrated. For in stags,
fallow-deer, and roe-bucks, who have undergone this operation, the
horns of the animal remain always in the same state they were at the
moment of castration. Thus the rein-deer is, of all animals, that in
which the superfluity of nutritive matter is the most apparent, and
this, perhaps, is less owing to the nature of the animal than to the
quality of its food, for the white moss, which is his only aliment
during the winter, is a _lichen_, whose substance resembles that of
the mushroom; it is very nourishing, and is more loaded with organic
molecules, than the leaves or buds of trees, and it is for this reason
that the rein-deer has larger horns, and affords more fat than the
stag; and that the females, and those that are castrated, are not
deprived of horns: it is the cause also of the great variety that is
found in the size of the horns, and of the figure and number of the
branches, beyond what is possessed by any other of the deer kind. The
males who had been neither hunted nor confined, and who feed amply, and
at pleasure, on this substantial aliment, have prodigious large horns,
which extend backward as far as the crupper, and forwards beyond the
muzzle. Those which are gelded have smaller horns, yet much larger
than the stag, and those of the females are still less. Thus the horns
of the rein-deer, differ not only, like others, according to age, but
also according to sex and castration. The horns, therefore, are so
exceedingly different in individuals, that it is not to be wondered at
that authors have differed so much upon this subject.
Another singularity, which is common to the rein-deer and the elk, we
must not omit. When these animals run, their hoofs at every step make
a crackling noise, as if all their limbs were disjointed; and it is
this noise, or perhaps the scent, which informs the wolves of their
approach, who way-lay them, and if the wolves are many in number, they
will attack and kill him; for the rein-deer is able to defend himself
against a single wolf, not, as may be imagined, with his horns, for
they are rather of disservice than of use, but with his fore-feet,
which are very strong, and with which he strikes the wolf with such
force, as to stun, or drive him away; after which he flies with such
speed as to be no longer in danger of being overtaken. He has a more
dangerous, though a less numerous, and a less frequent enemy, in the
_rosomack_, or _glutton_; this animal is more voracious, but heavier
than the wolf; he does not pursue the rein-deer, but conceals himself
in a tree, and waits the arrival of his prey; as soon as the rein-deer
comes within his reach, he darts upon him, fastens himself with his
nails upon his back, and tearing his head or neck with his teeth, never
quits his place till he has killed him. He makes the like attacks,
and uses the stratagems to conquer the elk, who is stronger than the
rein-deer. This _rosomack_, or _glutton_ of the north, is the same
animal as the _carcajou_ or _quincajou_, of North America; his battles
with the _orignal_ are celebrated; and, as we have formerly said, the
_orignal_ of Canada is the same as the elk of Europe. It is singular,
that this animal, who is scarce bigger than a badger, is able to
conquer an elk, whose size exceeds that of a horse, and whose strength
is so great, that with a single stroke of his foot he can kill a wolf.
But it is attested by so many authorities, that we cannot have the
least doubt of its being the fact.
The elk and rein-deer are both ruminating animals, as their method
of feeding, and the formation of their interior parts demonstrate;
nevertheless, Tornæus Scheffer, Regnard, Hulden, and others, have
affirmed, that the rein-deer does not ruminate. Ray justly declares
this to be incredible; and, in fact, the rein-deer does ruminate like
every other animal who has many stomachs. A domestic rein-deer does
not live more than fifteen or sixteen years, but it must be presumed,
that his life is of a longer duration in a wild state; for this
animal being four years before he arrives at his full growth, ought
to live twenty-eight or thirty years when in his natural state. The
Laplanders hunt the wild rein-deers by different methods, according
to the difference of seasons. In the rutting season they make use of
their domestic females to attract the wild males. They shoot them with
the musket, or with the bow, and they deliver their arrows with such
strength, that notwithstanding the thickness of their hair and hide,
they often kill one of these beasts with a single arrow.
We have collected the facts in the history of the rein-deer with
the greater care and circumspection, because we could not acquire
personal information on the subject, as it is impossible to keep such
an animal alive in these parts. Having mentioned my regret on this
subject to some of my friends, Mr. Colinson, Member of the Royal
Society in London, a gentleman as commendable for his virtues, as for
his literary merit, was so kind as to send me over the skeleton of a
rein-deer, and I received from Canada the foetus of a caribou. By
means of these two species, and of several horns which were brought to
me from different places, I have been enabled to verify the general
resemblances, and the principal differences between the rein-deer and
the stag.
With respect to the elk, I saw a living one about fifteen years ago;
but as he continued only a few days in Paris, I had not time to
have a drawing finished; and that was the only one by which I had
an opportunity to verify the description which the gentlemen of the
Academy of Sciences had formerly given of this animal, and to assure
myself that it was exact, and perfectly conformable to Nature.[R]
[R] With respect to the figures of animals, we have in all cases
endeavoured to be more correct than the French edition, by the addition
of many original figures accurately studied from the life, and whenever
living subjects could not be obtained, by comparing those drawings with
preserved figures in different cabinets, by which means we have been
enabled to remedy several defects; and in no one more so than in our
figure of the _Elk_.
"The elk (says the compiler of the Memoirs of the Academy) is
remarkable for the length of his hair, the bigness of his ears, the
smallness of his tail, and the form of his eye, the great angle of
which is very wide, as well as the mouth, which is much larger than
that of oxen, stags, or other animals who have cloven feet. The elk
which we dissected was nearly of the size of a stag. The length of
his body was five feet and a half, from the end of the muzzle to the
beginning of the tail, which is only two inches long; as it was of a
female, the head had no horns; and the neck was only nine inches long
and nearly of the same breadth. The ears were nine inches long, and
four wide. The colour of the hair was not much unlike that of the ass,
the grey tinge of which sometimes approaches that of the camel; but it
differed in other respects, for it was shorter, and from that of the
camel, which is much finer. The length of the hair was three inches,
and its thickness equalled that of the largest mane of a horse; this
thickness gradually diminished towards the extremity which was very
pointed; towards the root it also diminished, but, all of a sudden,
grew thicker again; and this end was of a different colour from the
rest of the hair, being white and diaphanous, like the bristles of a
hog. The hair was as long as that of a bear, but straighter, thicker,
flatter, and all of the same kind. The upper lip was large and
loosened from the gums, but not so large as Solinus has described it,
nor as Pliny has given to the animal which he terms _machlis_. These
authors say, that this beast is constrained to go backwards when he
is at pasture to prevent his lip from entangling between his teeth.
We observed in the dissection, that Nature had provided against this
inconvenience by the size and strength of the muscles, destined to
elevate the upper lip. We also found the articulations of the leg very
strongly bound together by ligaments, whose firmness and thickness
might have given rise to the opinion that the _alce_ was not able to
raise himself up when once he was down. His feet were like those of
the stag, having no peculiarity except that of being larger. We have
observed, that the great angle of the eye was slit downwards much more
than in the stag, fallow-deer, and roe-buck, but this slit was not in
the direction of the opening of the eye, but made an angle with the
line which goes from one corner of the eye to the other; the inferior
lachrymal gland was an inch and a half long. We found a part in the
brain, which, from its size, seemed to point out a connection with
that of the smell, which, according to Pausanias, is more exquisite in
the elk, than in any other animal; for the olfactory nerves, commonly
called the _namillary nocesses_, were without comparison larger than in
any other animal we ever dissected. As for the bit of flesh which some
authors have placed upon his back, and others under his chin, if they
have not been deceived, or have not been too credulous, those things
were peculiar to those elks of which they have spoken."
We can add our own testimony to that of the gentlemen of the Academy,
for in the female elk, which we saw alive, there was no bunch either
under the chin or on the neck; nevertheless, Linnæus, who ought to be
acquainted with elks better than we can pretend to be, as he lives
in the same country, makes mention of this bunch, and has even given
it as an essential character of the elk: _Alces cervus cornibus a
caulibus palmatis caruncula gutturali_. Linnæus, Syst. Nat. Edit. X.
p. 66.--There is no other method of reconciling this assertion of
Linnæus, with our negation, than by supposing this bunch, or _guttural
caruncula_, to belong to the male elk which we have not seen. But if
that be the case, this author should not have made it an essential
character of the species, since the female has it not; perhaps also,
this bunch is only a common disorder among the elks, a kind of wen; for
in the two figures of this animal, given by Gesner, the first, who has
no horns, has a thick caruncula under the neck; and in the second,
which represents a male elk with horns, there is no caruncula.
In general the elk is much larger and stronger than the stag or
rein-deer. His hair is so rough, and his hide so hard, that a musket
ball can scarcely penetrate it. His legs are very firm, with so much
agility and strength, especially in the fore feet, that he can kill
a man or a wolf, and even break a tree by one single stroke with his
foot. Nevertheless, he is hunted nearly as we hunt the stag, with
men and dogs. It is affirmed, that when he is pursued he often falls
down all at once, without being either shot or wounded. From this
circumstance some have presumed that this animal was subject to the
epilepsy, and on this presumption (which is not well founded, since
fear alone might produce the same effect) this absurd conclusion has
been drawn, that his hoof is a remedy for the epilepsy, and even a
preventative against it; and this ridiculous opinion has been so
universally dispersed, that many people still wear rings, the collet of
which incloses a small piece of the hoof of an elk.
As there are but few people in the northern parts of America, all
animals, and particularly elks, are in greater numbers there than
in the north of Europe. The savages are not ignorant of the art of
hunting and taking the elks; they follow them by the track of their
feet, and very often for many days together, and by address and
perseverance they often gain their end. Their method of hunting them
in winter is particularly singular. "They make use of rackets (says
Denys), by means of which they walk on the snow without sinking. The
_orignal_ does not get forward very fast, because his sinking in the
snow greatly fatigues him. He eats nothing but the young shoots of
the trees, therefore, where the savages find the trees eaten, they
presently meet with the animals, which are never far off, and which
they approach very easily. They throw darts at them, which are large
clubs, having at the end a large pointed bone, which pierces like a
sword. If there be many orignals in one troop the savages put them to
flight, for then the orignals, placing themselves in a rank, describe a
large circle, sometimes more than two leagues, and which, by frequently
traversing, they harden so much with their feet that they no longer
sink in. The savages wait for and kill them as they pass, with their
darts." In comparing this relation with those we have already quoted,
we find, that the savage and the _orignal_ of America, are exact
copies of the Laplander and elk of Europe.