the reader. The first is the manner in which the Dog, in spite of all
the social disadvantages under which it labours, displays one of the
chief characteristics of canine nature, namely, the yearning after
human society. The animal in question had already attached herself to
the guard-house, where she could meet with some sort of human
converse, though the inborn prejudices of the Moslem would prevent the
soldiers from inviting her to associate with them, as would certainly
have been done by European soldiers. She nestled undisturbed in the
orange-box, and, safe under the protection of the guard, brought up
her young family in their immediate neighbourhood. But, as soon as
Europeans arrived, her instinct told her that they would be closer
associates than the Turkish soldiers who were quartered in the
guard-house, and accordingly she removed herself and her family to the
shelter of their tents.
Herein she carried out the leading principle of a dog's nature. A dog
_must_ have a master, or at all events a mistress, and just in
proportion as he is free from human control, does he become less
dog-like and more wolf-like. In fact, familiar intercourse with
mankind is an essential part of a dogs true character, and the animal
seems to be so well aware of this fact, that he will always contrive
to find a master of some sort, and will endure a life of cruel
treatment at the hands of a brutal owner rather than have no master at
all.
The second point in this account is the singular local instinct which
characterises the Dogs of Palestine and other eastern countries, and
which is as much inbred in them as the faculty of marking game in the
pointer, the combative nature in the bulldog, the exquisite scent in
the bloodhound, and the love of water in the Newfoundland dog. In
England, we fancy that the love of locality belongs especially to the
cat, and that the Dog cares little for place, and much for man. But,
in this case, we find that the local instinct overpowered the yearning
for human society. Fond as was this dog of her newly-found friends,
and faithful as she was in her self-imposed service, she would not
follow them away from the spot where she had been born, and where she
had produced her own young.
This curious love for locality has evidently been derived from the
traditional custom of successive generations, which has passed from
the realm of reason into that of instinct. The reader will remember
that Sig. Pierotti mentions an instance where the dogs which he had
been accustomed to feed would follow him as far as the limits of
their particular district, but would go no farther. The late Albert
Smith, in his "Month at Constantinople," gives a similar example of
this characteristic. He first describes the general habits of the
dogs.
On the first night of his arrival, he could not sleep, and went to the
window to look out in the night. "The noise I heard then I shall never
forget. To say that if all the sheep-dogs, in going to Smithfield on a
market-day, had been kept on the constant bark, and pitted against the
yelping curs upon all the carts in London, they could have given any
idea of the canine uproar that now first astonished me, would be to
make the feeblest of images. The whole city rang with one vast riot.
Down below me, at Tophané--over-about Stamboul--far away at
Scutari--the whole sixty thousand dogs that are said to overrun
Constantinople appeared engaged in the most active extermination of
each other, without a moment's cessation. The yelping, howling,
barking, growling, and snarling, were all merged into one uniform and
continuous even sound, as the noise of frogs becomes when heard at a
distance. For hours there was no lull. I went to sleep, and woke
again, and still, with my windows open, I heard the same tumult going
on; nor was it until daybreak that anything like tranquillity was
restored.
"Going out in the daytime, it is not difficult to find traces of the
fights of the night about the limbs of all the street dogs. There is
not one, among their vast number, in the possession of a perfect skin.
Some have their ears gnawed away or pulled off; others have their eyes
taken out; from the backs and haunches of others perfect steaks of
flesh had been torn away; and all bear the scars of desperate combats.
[Illustration: "At evening let them return; and let them make a noise
like a dog, and go round about the city. Let them wander up and down
for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied"--PSALM lix. 14, 15.]
"Wild and desperate as is their nature, these poor animals are
susceptible of kindness. If a scrap of bread is thrown to one of them
now and then, he does not forget it; for they have, at times, a hard
matter to live--not the dogs amongst the shops of Galata or Stamboul,
but those whose 'parish' lies in the large burying-grounds and desert
places without the city; for each keeps, or rather is kept, to his
district, and if he chanced to venture into a strange one, the odds
against his return would be very large. One battered old animal, to
whom I used occasionally to toss a scrap of food, always followed
me from the hotel to the cross street in Pera, where the two
soldiers stood on guard, but would never come beyond this point.
He knew the fate that awaited him had he done so; and therefore,
when I left him, he would lie down in the road, and go to sleep
until I came back.
"When a horse or camel dies, and is left about the roads near the
city, the bones are soon picked very clean by these dogs, and they
will carry the skulls or pelves to great distances. I was told that
they will eat their dead fellows--a curious fact, I believe, in canine
economy. They are always troublesome, not to say dangerous, at night;
and are especially irritated by Europeans, whom they will single out
amongst a crowd of Levantines."
In the same work there is a short description of a solitary dervish,
who had made his home in the hollow of a large plane-tree, in front of
which he sat, surrounded by a small fence of stakes only a foot or so
in height. Around him, but not venturing within the fence, were a
number of gaunt, half-starved dogs, who prowled about him in hopes of
having an occasional morsel of food thrown to them. Solitary as he
was, and scanty as must have been the nourishment which he could
afford to them, the innate trustfulness of the dog-nature induced them
to attach themselves to human society of some sort, though their
master was one, and they were many--he was poor, and they were hungry.
Once in the Scriptures the word Greyhound occurs, namely, in Prov.
xxx. 29-31: "There be three things which go well, yea, four are comely
in going: a lion, which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not
away for any; a greyhound; an he-goat also; and a king, against whom
there is no rising up." But the word "Greyhound" is only employed
conjecturally, inasmuch as the signification of the Hebrew word
_Zarzir-mathnâim_ is "one girt about the loins." Some commentators
have thought that the horse might be signified by this word, and that
the girding about the loins referred to the trappings with which all
Easterns love to decorate their steeds. Probably, however, the word in
question refers neither to a horse nor a dog, but to a human athlete,
or wrestler, stripped, and girt about the loins ready for the contest.
THE WOLF.
Identity of the animal indisputable--its numbers, past and
present--The Wolf never mentioned directly--its general
habits--References in Scripture--its mingled ferocity and
cowardice--its association into packs--The Wolf's bite--How it
takes its prey--its ravages among the flocks--Allusions to this
habit--The shepherd and his nightly enemies--Mr. Tristram and
the Wolf--A semi-tamed Wolf at Marsaba.
There is no doubt that the Hebrew word _Zeëb_, which occurs in a few
passages of the Old Testament, is rightly translated as WOLF, and
signifies the same animal as is frequently mentioned in the New
Testament.
This fierce and dangerous animal was formerly very plentiful in
Palestine, but is now much less common, owing to the same causes which
have extirpated the lion from the country. It is a rather remarkable
fact, that in no passage of Holy Writ is the Wolf directly mentioned.
Its name is used as a symbol of a fierce and treacherous enemy, but
neither in the Old nor New Testament does any sacred writer mention
any act as performed by the Wolf. We have already heard of the lion
which attacked Samson and was killed by him, of the lion which slew
the disobedient prophet, and of the lions which spared Daniel when
thrown into their den. We also read of the dogs which licked Ahab's
blood, and ate the body of Jezebel, also of the bears which tore the
mocking children.
But in no case is the Wolf mentioned, except in a metaphorical sense;
and this fact is the more remarkable, because the animals were so
numerous that they were very likely to have exercised some influence
on a history extending over such a lengthened range of years, and
limited to so small a portion of the earth. Yet we never hear of the
Wolf attacking any of the personages mentioned in Scripture; and
although we are told of the exploit of David, who pursued a lion and a
bear that had taken a lamb out of his fold, we are never told of any
similar deed in connexion with the Wolf.
[Illustration: THE WOLF.
"_The wolf catcheth and scattereth the sheep_"--JOHN x. 12.]
This animal was then what it is now. Seldom seen by day, it lies
hidden in its covert as long as the light lasts, and steals out in
search of prey in the evening. This custom of the Wolf is mentioned in
several passages of Holy Scripture, such as that in Jer. v. 5, 6:
"These have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds. Wherefore
a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings
shall spoil them." In this passage the reader will see that the
rebellious Israelites are compared to restive draught cattle which
have broken away from their harness and run loose, so that they are
deprived of the protection of their owners, and exposed to the fury of
wild beasts. A similar reference is made in Hab. i. 8: "Their horses
also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the
evening wolves." The same habit of the Wolf is alluded to in Zeph.
iii. 3: "Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are
evening wolves."
Individually, the Wolf is rather a timid animal. It will avoid a man
rather than meet him. It prefers to steal upon its prey and take it
unawares, rather than to seize it openly and boldly. It is ever
suspicious of treachery, and is always imagining that a trap is laid
for it. Even the shallow device of a few yards of rope trailing from
any object, or a strip of cloth fluttering in the breeze, is quite
sufficient to keep the Wolf at bay for a considerable time. This fact
is well known to hunters, who are accustomed to secure the body of a
slain deer by simply tying a strip of cloth to its horn. If taken in a
trap of any kind, or even if it fancies itself in an enclosure from
which it can find no egress, it loses all courage, and will submit to
be killed without offering the least resistance. It will occasionally
endeavour to effect its escape by feigning death, and has more than
once been known to succeed in this device.
But, collectively, the Wolf is one of the most dangerous animals that
can be found. Herding together in droves when pressed by hunger, the
wolves will openly hunt prey, performing this task as perfectly as a
pack of trained hounds. Full of wiles themselves, they are craftily
wise in anticipating the wiles of the animals which they pursue; and
even in full chase, while the body of the pack is following on the
footsteps of the flying animal, one or two are detached on the flanks,
so as to cut it off if it should attempt to escape by doubling on its
pursuers.
There is no animal which a herd of wolves will not attack, and very
few which they will not ultimately secure. Strength avails nothing
against the numbers of these savage foes, which give no moment of
rest, but incessantly assail their antagonist, dashing by instinct at
those parts of the body which can be least protected, and lacerating
with their peculiar short, snapping bite. Should several of their
number be killed or disabled, it makes no difference to the wolves,
except that a minute or two are wasted in devouring their slain or
wounded brethren, and they only return to the attack the more excited
by the taste of blood. Swiftness of foot avails nothing against the
tireless perseverance of the wolves, who press on in their peculiar,
long, slinging gallop, and in the end are sure to tire out the swifter
footed but less enduring animal that flees before them. The stately
buffalo is conquered by the ceaseless assaults of the wolves; the bear
has been forced to succumb to them, and the fleet-footed stag finds
his swift limbs powerless to escape the pursuing band, and his
branching horns unable to resist their furious onset when once they
overtake him.
In the passage from Habakkuk which has already been quoted, allusion
is made to the ferocity of the Wolf, and the same characteristic is
mentioned in several other parts of Scripture. Take, for example, Gen.
xlix. 27: "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall
devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Or the
passage in Ezekiel xxii. 27: "Her princes in the midst thereof are
like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood." Or the well-known
metaphor of our Lord in Matt. vii. 15: "Beware of false prophets,
which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves."
That the Wolf is a special enemy to the sheep-fold is shown in many
parts of the Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments,
especially in the latter. In John x. 1-16, Jesus compares himself to a
good shepherd, who watches over the fold, and, if the wolves should
come to take the sheep, would rather give up His life than they should
succeed. But the false teachers are compared to bad shepherds, hired
for money, but having no interest in the sheep, and who therefore will
not expose themselves to danger in defence of their charge.
This metaphor was far more effective in Palestine, and at that time,
than it is in this country and at the present day. In this land, the
shepherd has no anxiety about the inroads of wild beasts, but in
Palestine one of his chief cares was to keep watch at night lest the
wolves should attack the fold, and to drive them away himself in case
they should do so. Therefore the shepherd's life was one which
involved no small danger as well as anxiety, and the metaphor used by
our Lord gains additional force from the knowledge of this fact.
A similar metaphor is used when Jesus wished to express in forcible
terms the dangers to which the chosen seventy would oft be subjected,
and the impossibility that they should be able to overcome the many
perils with which they would be surrounded. "Go your ways: behold, I
send you forth as lambs among wolves" (Luke x. 3).
The well-known fact of the ravages of wolves among sheep has been
employed by the prophet Isaiah in two passages, wherein he foretells
the peaceful state of the world when the kingdom of the Messiah shall
have been established: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and
the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young
lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them"
(Is. xi. 6). The second passage occurs in chapter lxv. 23-25, and is
of a similar character: "They shall not labour in vain, nor bring
forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord,
and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before
they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will
hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall
eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They
shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord."
Mr. Tristram several times met wolves while he was engaged in his
travels, and mostly saw solitary specimens. One such encounter took
place in the wilderness of Judah: "On my way back, I met a fine
solitary wolf, who watched me very coolly, at the distance of sixty
yards, while I drew my charge and dropped a bullet down the barrel.
Though I sent the ball into a rock between his legs as he stood
looking at me in the wady, he was not sufficiently alarmed to do more
than move on a little more quickly, ever and anon turning to look at
me, while gradually increasing his distance. Darkness compelled me to
desist from the chase, when he quietly turned and followed me at a
respectful distance. He was a magnificent animal, larger than any
European wolf, and of a much lighter colour."
Those who are acquainted with the character of the animal will
appreciate the truthfulness of this description. The cautious prowl at
a distance, the slow trot away when he fancied he might be attacked,
the reverted look, and the final turning back and following at a
respectful distance, are all characteristic traits of the Wolf, no
matter to what species it may belong, nor what country it may inhabit.
On another occasion, while riding in the open plain of Gennesaret, the
horse leaped over the bank of a little ditch, barely three feet in
depth. After the horse had passed, and not until then, a Wolf started
out of the ditch, literally from under the horse's hoofs, and ran off.
The animal had been crouching under the little bank, evidently
watching for some cows and calves which were grazing at a short
distance, under the charge of a Bedouin boy. The same author mentions
that one of the monks belonging to the monastery at Marsaba had
contrived to render a Wolf almost tame. Every evening at six o'clock
the Wolf came regularly across the ravine, had a piece of bread, and
then went back again. With the peculiar jealousy of all tamed animals,
the Wolf would not suffer any of his companions to partake of his good
fortune. Several of them would sometimes accompany him, but as soon as
they came under the wall of the monastery he always drove them away.
The inhabitants of Palestine say that the Wolves of that country are
not gregarious, and that they hunt singly, or at most in little packs
of few in number. Still they dread the animal exceedingly, and say
that one Wolf will do more damage in a flock of sheep than a whole
pack of jackals.
As a general rule, the Syrian wolf, like the Syrian bear, is of a
lighter colour than its European relatives, and appears to be a larger
and stronger animal.
THE FOX OR JACKAL.
The two animals comprehended under one name--The Jackal--its
numbers in ancient and modern Palestine--General habits of the
Jackal--Localities where the Jackal is found--Samson, and the
three hundred "foxes"--Popular objections to the narrative--The
required number easily obtained--Signor Pierotti's remarks upon
the Jackal--An unpleasant position--How the fields were set on
fire--The dread of fire inherent in wild beasts--The truth of
the narrative proved--The Fox and Jackal destructive among
grapes--Allusions to the Fox in the New Testament--Partially
tamed Foxes.
There are several passages in the Old Testament in which the word FOX
occurs, and it is almost certain that the Hebrew word _Shuâl_, which
is rendered in our translation as Fox, is used rather loosely, and
refers in some places to the Jackal, and in others to the Fox. We
will first take those passages in which the former rendering of the
word is evidently the right one, and will begin by examining those
characteristics of the animal which afford grounds for such an
assertion.
[Illustration: THE FOX OR JACKAL.
"_They shall be a portion for foxes._"--PSALM ixiii. 10. _The end of
the Scape Goat._]
Even at the present time, the Jackal is extremely plentiful in
Palestine; and as the numbers of wild beasts have much decreased in
modern days, the animals must have been even more numerous than they
are at present. It is an essentially nocturnal and gregarious animal.
During the whole of the day the Jackals lie concealed in their holes
or hiding-places, which are usually cavities in the rocks, in tombs,
or among ruins. At nightfall they issue from their dens, and form
themselves into packs, often consisting of several hundred
individuals, and prowl about in search of food. Carrion of various
kinds forms their chief subsistence, and they perform in the country
much the same task as is fulfilled by the dogs in the cities.
If any animal should be killed, or even severely wounded, the Jackals
are sure to find it out and to devour it before the daybreak. They
will scent out the track of the hunter, and feed upon the offal of the
beasts which he has slain. If the body of a human being were to be
left on the ground, the Jackals would certainly leave but little
traces of it; and in the olden times of warfare, they must have held
high revelry in the battle-field after the armies had retired. It is
to this propensity of the Jackal that David refers--himself a man of
war, who had fought on many a battle-field, and must have seen the
carcases of the slain mangled by these nocturnal prowlers: "Those that
seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the
earth. They shall fall by the sword; they shall be a portion for
foxes" (Ps. lxiii. 9, 10). Being wild beasts, afraid of man, and too
cowardly to attack him even when rendered furious by hunger, and
powerful by force of numbers, they keep aloof from towns and cities,
and live in the uninhabited parts of the country. Therefore the
prophet Jeremiah, in his Book of Lamentations, makes use of the
following forcible image, when deploring the pitiful state into which
Judæa had fallen: "For this our heart is faint; for these things our
eyes are dim: because of the mountain of Zion, which is desolate, the
foxes walk upon it" (Lam. v. 17). And Ezekiel makes use of a similar
image: "O Israel, thy prophets are like foxes in the desert."
But, by far the most important passage in which the Fox is mentioned,
is that wherein is recorded the grotesque vengeance of Samson upon the
Philistines: "And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took
firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst
between two tails. And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them
go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the
shocks and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives"
(Judges xv. 4, 5). Now, as this is one of the passages of Holy Writ to
which great objections have been taken, it will be as well to examine
these objections, and see whether they have any real force. The first
of these objections is, that the number of foxes is far too great to
have been caught at one time, and to this objection two answers have
been given. The first answer is, that they need not have been caught
at once, but by degrees, and kept until wanted. But the general tenor
of the narrative is undoubtedly in favour of the supposition that this
act of Samson was unpremeditated, and that it was carried into
operation at once, before his anger had cooled. The second answer is,
that the requisite number of Foxes might have been miraculously sent
to Samson for this special purpose. This theory is really so foolish
and utterly untenable, that I only mention it because it has been put
forward. It fails on two grounds: the first being that a miracle would
hardly have been wrought to enable Samson to revenge himself in so
cruel and unjustifiable a manner; and the second, that there was not
the least necessity for any miracle at all.
If we put out of our minds the idea of the English Fox, an animal
comparatively scarce in this country, and solitary in its habits, and
substitute the extremely plentiful and gregarious Jackal, wandering in
troops by night, and easily decoyed by hunger into a trap, we shall
see that double the number might have been taken, if needful.
Moreover, it is not to be imagined that Samson caught them all with
his own hand. He was at the head of his people, and had many
subordinates at his command, so that a large number of hunters might
have been employed simultaneously in the capture. In corroboration of
this point, I insert an extremely valuable extract from Signor
Pierotti's work, in which he makes reference to this very portion of
the sacred history:--
"It is still very abundant near Gaza, Askalon, Ashdod, Ekron, and
Ramleh. I have frequently met with it during my wanderings by night,
and on one occasion had an excellent opportunity of appreciating their
number and their noise.
"One evening in the month of January 1857, while it was raining a
perfect deluge, I was obliged, owing to the dangerous illness of a
friend, to return from Jerusalem to Jaffa. The depth of snow on the
road over a great part of the mountain, the clayey mud in the plain,
and the darkness of the night, prevented my advancing quickly; so that
about half-past three in the morning I arrived on the bank of a small
torrent, about half an hour's journey to the east of Ramleh. I wished
to cross: my horse at first refused, but, on my spurring it, advanced
and at once sank up to the breast, followed of course by my legs,
thus teaching me to respect the instinct of an Arab horse for the
future.
"There I stuck, without the possibility of escape, and consoled my
horse and myself with some provisions that I had in my saddle-bags,
shouting and singing at intervals, in the hope of obtaining succour,
and of preventing accidents, as I knew that the year before a mule in
the same position had been mistaken for a wild beast, and killed. The
darkness was profound, and the wind very high; but, happily, it was
not cold; for the only things attracted by my calls were numbers of
jackals, who remained at a certain distance from me, and responded to
my cries, especially when I tried to imitate them, as though they took
me for their music-master.
"About five o'clock, one of the guards of the English consulate at
Jerusalem came from Ramleh and discovered my state. He charitably
returned thither, and brought some men, who extricated me and my horse
from our unpleasant bath, which, as may be supposed, was not
beneficial to our legs.
"During this most uncomfortable night, I had good opportunity of
ascertaining that, if another Samson had wished to burn again the
crops in the country of the Philistines, he would have had no
difficulty in finding more than three hundred jackals, and catching as
many as he wanted in springs, traps, or pitfalls. (See Ps. cxl. 5.)"
The reader will now see that there was not the least difficulty in
procuring the requisite number of animals, and that consequently the
first objection to the truth of the story is disposed of.
We will now proceed to the second objection, which is, that if the
animals were tied tail to tail, they would remain on or near the same
spot, because they would pull in different directions, and that,
rather than run about, they would turn round and fight each other.
Now, in the first place, we are nowhere told that the tails of the
foxes, or jackals, were placed in contact with each other, and it is
probable that some little space was left between them. That animals so
tied would not run in a straight line is evident enough, and this was
exactly the effect which Samson wished to produce. Had they been at
liberty, and the fiery brand fastened to their tails, they would have
run straight to their dens, and produced but little effect. But their
captor, with cruel ingenuity, had foreseen this contingency, and, by
the method of securing them which he adopted, forced them to pursue a
devious course, each animal trying to escape from the dreaded
firebrand, and struggling in vain endeavours to drag its companion
towards its own particular den.
All wild animals have an instinctive dread of fire; and there is none,
not even the fierce and courageous lion, that dares enter within the
glare of the bivouac fire. A lion has even been struck in the face
with a burning brand, and has not ventured to attack the man that
wielded so dreadful a weapon. Consequently it may be imagined that the
unfortunate animals that were used by Samson for his vindictive
purpose, must have been filled with terror at the burning brands which
they dragged after them, and the blaze of the fire which was kindled
wherever they went. They would have no leisure to fight, and would
only think of escaping from the dread and unintelligible enemy which
pursued them.
When a prairie takes fire, all the wild inhabitants flee in terror,
and never think of attacking each other, so that the bear, the wolf,
the cougar, the deer, and the wild swine, may all be seen huddled
together, their natural antagonism quelled in the presence of a common
foe. So it must have been with the miserable animals which were made
the unconscious instruments of destruction. That they would stand
still when a burning brand was between them, and when flames sprang up
around them, is absurd. That they would pull in exactly opposite
directions with precisely balanced force is equally improbable, and it
is therefore evident that they would pursue a devious path, the
stronger of the two dragging the weaker, but being jerked out of a
straight course and impeded by the resistance which it would offer.
That they would stand on the same spot and fight has been shown to be
contrary to the custom of animals under similar circumstances.
Thus it will be seen that every objection not only falls to the
ground, but carries its own refutation, thus vindicating this episode
in sacred history, and showing, that not only were the circumstances
possible, but that they were highly probable. Of course every one of
the wretched animals must have been ultimately burned to death, after
suffering a prolonged torture from the firebrand that was attached to
it. Such a consideration would, however, have had no effect for
deterring Samson from employing them. The Orientals are never sparing
of pain, even when inflicted upon human beings, and in too many cases
they seem utterly unable even to comprehend the cruelty of which they
are guilty. And Samson was by no means a favourable specimen of his
countrymen. He was the very incarnation of strength, but was as
morally weak as he was corporeally powerful; and to that weakness he
owed his fall. Neither does he seem to possess the least trace of
forbearance any more than of self-control, but he yields to his own
undisciplined nature, places himself, and through him the whole
Israelitish nation, in jeopardy, and then, with a grim humour,
scatters destruction on every side in revenge for the troubles which
he has brought upon himself by his own acts.
There is a passage in the Old Testament which is tolerably familiar to
most students of the Scriptures: "Take us the foxes, the little foxes,
that spoil the vines, for our vines have tender grapes" (Solomon's
Song, ii. 15). In this passage allusion is made to the peculiar
fondness for grapes and several other fruits which exist both in the
Fox and the Jackal. Even the domesticated dog is often fond of ripe
fruits, and will make great havoc among the gooseberry bushes and the
strawberry beds. But both the Fox and the Jackal display a wonderful
predilection for the grape above all other fruit, and even when
confined and partly tamed, it is scarcely possible to please them
better than by offering them a bunch of perfectly ripe grapes. The
well-known fable of the fox and the grapes will occur to the mind of
every one who reads the passage which has just been quoted.
There are two instances in the New Testament where the Fox is
mentioned, and in both cases the allusion is made by the Lord himself.
The first of these passages is the touching and well-known reproach,
"The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the
Son of Man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. viii. 20). The
second passage is that in which He speaks of Herod as "that fox,"
selecting a term which well expressed the character of the cruel and
cunning ruler to whom it was applied.
The reader will remember that, in the history of the last-mentioned
animal an anecdote is told of a semi-tamed wolf that used to come
every evening for the purpose of receiving a piece of bread. At the
same monastery, three foxes used to enjoy a similar privilege. They
came regularly to the appointed place, which was not that which the
wolf frequented, and used to howl until their expected meal was given
to them. Several companions generally accompanied them, but were
always jealously driven away before the monks appeared with the bread.
THE HYÆNA.
The Hyæna not mentioned by name, but evidently alluded
to--Signification of the word Zabua--Translated in the
Septuagint as Hyæna--A scene described by the Prophet
Isaiah--The Hyæna plentiful in Palestine at the present day--its
well-known cowardice and fear of man--The uses of the Hyæna and
the services which it renders--The particular species of
Hyæna--The Hyæna in the burial-grounds--Hunting the
Hyæna--Curious superstition respecting the talismanic properties
of its skin--Precautions adopted in flaying it--Popular legends
of the Hyæna and its magical powers--The cavern home of the
Hyæna--The Valley of Zeboim.
Although in our version of the Scriptures the Hyæna is not mentioned
by that name, there are two passages in the Old Testament which
evidently refer to that animal, and therefore it is described in these
pages. If the reader will refer to the prophet Jeremiah, xii. 7-9, he
will find these words: "I have forsaken mine house, I have left mine
heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of
her enemies. Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest; it
crieth out against me: therefore have I hated it. Mine heritage is
unto me as a speckled bird; the birds round about are against her:
come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour." Now,
the word _zabua_ signifies something that is streaked, and in the
Authorized Version it is rendered as a speckled bird. But in the
Septuagint it is rendered as Hyæna, and this translation is thought by
many critical writers to be the true one. It is certain that the word
_zabua_ is one of the four names by which the Talmudical writers
mention the Hyæna, when treating of its character; and it is equally
certain that such a rendering makes the passage more forcible, and is
in perfect accordance with the habits of predacious animals.
The whole scene which the Prophet thus describes was evidently
familiar to him. First, we have the image of a deserted country,
allowed to be overrun with wild beasts. Then we have the lion, which
has struck down its prey, roaring with exultation, and defying any
adversary to take it from him. Then, the lion having eaten his fill
and gone away, we have the Hyænas, vultures, and other carrion-eating
creatures, assembling around the carcase, and hastening to devour it.
This is a scene which has been witnessed by many hunters who have
pursued their sport in lands where lions, hyænas, and vultures are
found; and all these creatures were inhabitants of Palestine at the
time when Jeremiah wrote.
At the present day, the Hyæna is still plentiful in Palestine, though
in the course of the last few years its numbers have sensibly
diminished. The solitary traveller, when passing by night from one
town to another, often falls in with the Hyæna, but need suffer no
fear, as it will not attack a human being, and prefers to slink out of
his way. But dead, and dying, or wounded animals are the objects for
which it searches; and when it finds them, it devours the whole of its
prey. The lion will strike down an antelope, an ox, or a goat--will
tear off its flesh with its long fangs, and lick the bones with its
rough tongue until they are quite cleaned. The wolves and jackals will
follow the lion, and eat every soft portion of the dead animal, while
the vultures will fight with them for the coveted morsels. But the
Hyæna is a more accomplished scavenger than lion, wolf, jackal, or
vulture; for it will eat the very bones themselves, its
tremendously-powerful jaws and firmly-set teeth enabling it to crush
even the leg-bone of an ox, and its unparalleled digestive powers
enabling it to assimilate the sharp and hard fragments which would
kill any creature not constituted like itself.
In a wild, or even a partially-inhabited country, the Hyæna is,
therefore, a most useful animal. It may occasionally kill a crippled
or weakly ox, and sometimes carry off a sheep; but, even in that case,
no very great harm is done, for it does not meddle with any animal
that can resist. But these few delinquencies are more than compensated
by the great services which it renders as scavenger, consuming those
substances which even the lion cannot eat, and thus acting as a
scavenger in removing objects which would be offensive to sight and
injurious to health.
The species which is mentioned in the Scriptures is the Striped Hyæna
(_Hyæna striata_); but the habits of all the species are almost
exactly similar. We are told by travellers of certain towns in
different parts of Africa which would be unendurable but for the
Hyænas. With the disregard for human life which prevails throughout
all savage portions of that country, the rulers of these towns order
executions almost daily, the bodies of the victims being allowed to
lie where they happened to fall. No one chooses to touch them, lest
they should also be added to the list of victims, and the decomposing
bodies would soon cause a pestilence but for the Hyænas, who assemble
at night round the bodies, and by the next morning have left scarcely
a trace of the murdered men.
Even in Palestine, and in the present day, the Hyæna will endeavour to
rifle the grave, and to drag out the interred corpse. The bodies of
the rich are buried in rocky caves, whose entrances are closed with
heavy stones, which the Hyæna cannot move; but those of the poor,
which are buried in the ground, must be defended by stones heaped over
them. Even when this precaution is taken, the Hyæna will sometimes
find out a weak spot, drag out the body, and devour it.
In consequence of this propensity, the inhabitants have an utter
detestation of the animal. They catch it whenever they can, in
pitfalls or snares, using precisely the same means as were employed
two thousand years ago; or they hunt it to its den, and then kill it,
stripping off the hide, and carrying it about still wet, receiving a
small sum of money from those to whom they show it. Afterwards the
skin is dressed, by rubbing it with lime and salt, and steeping it in
the waters of the Dead Sea. It is then made into sandals and leggings,
which are thought to be powerful charms, and to defend the wearer from
the Hyæna's bite.
[Illustration: THE HYÆNA.
"_I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the
fowls of the heaven._"--EZEK. xxix. 5.]
They always observe certain superstitious precautions in flaying the
dead animal. Believing that the scent of the flesh would corrupt the
air, they invariably take the carcase to the leeward of the tents
before they strip off the skin. Even in the animal which has been kept
for years in a cage, and has eaten nothing but fresh meat, the odour
is too powerful to be agreeable, as I can testify from practical
experience when dissecting a Hyæna that had died in the Zoological
Gardens; and it is evident that the scent of an animal that has lived
all its life on carrion must be almost unbearable. The skin being
removed, the carcase is burnt, because the hunters think that by this
process the other Hyænas are prevented from finding the body of their
comrade, and either avenging its death or taking warning by its fate.
Superstitions seem to be singularly prevalent concerning the Hyæna. In
Palestine, there is a prevalent idea that if a Hyæna meets a solitary
man at night, it can enchant him in such a manner as to make him
follow it through thickets and over rocks, until he is quite
exhausted, and falls an unresisting prey; but that over two persons he
has no such influence, and therefore a solitary traveller is gravely
advised to call for help as soon as he sees a Hyæna, because the
fascination of the beast would be neutralized by the presence of a
second person. So firmly is this idea rooted in the minds of the
inhabitants, that they will never travel by night, unless they can
find at least one companion in their journey.
In Northern Africa there are many strange superstitions connected with
this animal, one of the most curious of which is founded on its
well-known cowardice. The Arabs fancy that any weapon which has killed
a Hyæna, whether it be gun, sword, spear, or dagger, is thenceforth
unfit to be used in warfare. "Throw away that sword," said an Arab to
a French officer, who had killed a Hyæna, "it has slain the Hyæna, and
it will be treacherous to you."
At the present day, its numbers are not nearly so great in Palestine
as they used to be, and are decreasing annually. The cause of this
diminution lies, according to Signor Pierotti, more in the destruction
of forests than in the increase of population and the use of
fire-arms, though the two latter causes have undoubtedly considerable
influence.
There is a very interesting account by Mr. Tristram of the haunt of
these animals. While exploring the deserted quarries of Es Sumrah,
between Beth-arabah and Bethel, he came upon a wonderful mass of
hyænine relics. The quarries in which were lying the half-hewn blocks,
scored with the marks of wedges, had evidently formed the resort of
Hyænas for a long series of years. "Vast heaps of bones of camels,
oxen, and sheep had been collected by these animals, in some places to
the depth of two or three feet, and on one spot I counted the skulls
of seven camels. There were no traces whatever of any human remains.
We had here a beautiful recent illustration of the mode of foundation
of the old bone caverns, so valuable to the geologist. These bones
must all have been brought in by the Hyænas, as no camel or sheep
could possibly have entered the caverns alive, nor could any floods
have washed them in. Near the entrance where the water percolates,
they were already forming a soft breccia."
The second allusion to the Hyæna is made in 1 Sam. xiii. 18, "Another
company turned to the way of the border that looketh to the Valley of
Zeboim towards the wilderness," _i.e._ to the Valley of Hyænas.
The colour of the Striped Hyæna varies according to its age. When
young, as is the case with many creatures, birds as well as mammals,
the stripes from which it derives its name are much more strongly
marked than in the adult specimen. The general hue of the fur is a
pale grey-brown, over which are drawn a number of dark stripes,
extending along the ribs and across the limbs.
In the young animal these stripes are nearly twice as dark and twice
as wide as in the adult, and they likewise appear on the face and on
other parts of the body, whence they afterwards vanish. The fur is
always rough; and along the spine, and especially over the neck and
shoulders, it is developed into a kind of mane, which gives a very
fierce aspect to the animal. The illustration shows a group of Hyænas
coming to feed on the relics of a dead animal. The jackals and
vultures have eaten as much of the flesh as they can manage, and the
vultures are sitting, gorged, round the stripped bones. The Hyænas are
now coming up to play their part as scavengers, and have already begun
to break up the bones in their crushing-mills of jaws.
THE WEASEL.
Difficulty of identifying the Weasel of Scripture--The Weasel of
Palestine--Suggested identity with the Ichneumon.
The word Weasel occurs once in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore it
is necessary that the animal should be mentioned. There is a great
controversy respecting the identification of the animal, inasmuch as
there is nothing in the context which gives the slightest indication
of its appearance or habits.
The passage in question is that which prohibits the Weasel and the
mouse as unclean animals (see Lev. xi. 29). Now the word which is here
translated Weasel is _Choled_, or _Chol'd_; and, I believe, never
occurs again in the whole of the Old Testament. Mr. W. Houghton
conjectures that the Hebrew word Choled is identical with the Arabic
_Chuld_ and the Syriac _Chuldo_, both words signifying a mole; and
therefore infers that the unclean animal in question is not a Weasel,
but a kind of mole.
The Weasel does exist in Palestine, and seems to be as plentiful there
as in our own country. Indeed, the whole tribe of Weasels is well
represented, and the polecat is seen there as well as the Weasel.
It has been suggested with much probability, that, as is clearly the
case in many instances, several animals have been included in the
general term Weasel, and that among them may be reckoned the common
ichneumon (_Herpestes_), which is one of the most plentiful of animals
in Palestine, and which may be met daily.
The Septuagint favours the interpretation of Weasel, and, as there is
no evidence on either side, there we may allow the question to rest.
As, however, the word only occurs once, and as the animal, whatever it
may be, is evidently of no particular importance, we may reserve our
space for the animals which have more important bearings upon the Holy
Scriptures. The subject will be again mentioned in the account of the
Mole of the Old Testament.
THE FERRET.
Translation of the Hebrew word _Anakah_--The Shrew-mouse of
Palestine--Etymology of the word--The Gecko or Fan-foot, its
habits and peculiar cry--Repugnance felt by the Arabs of the
present day towards the Gecko.
Why the Hebrew word _Anakah_ should have been translated in our
version as Ferret there is little ground for conjecture.
The name occurs among the various creeping things that were reckoned
as unclean, and were prohibited as food (see Lev. xi. 29, 30): "These
also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creepeth
upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his
kind, and the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the
snail, and the mole." Now the word in question is translated in the
Septuagint as the Mygale, or Shrew-mouse, and it is probable that this
animal was accepted by the Jews as the Anakah. But, whether or not it
was the Shrew-mouse, it is certain that it is not the animal which we
call the Ferret. Mr. Tristram suggests that the etymology of the name,
_i.e._ Anâkah, the Groaner, or Sigher, points to some creature which
utters a mournful cry. And as the animal in question is classed among
the creeping things, he offers a conjecture that the Gecko,
Wall-lizard, or Fan-foot, may be the true interpretation of the word.
Being one of the lizards, it belongs to the "creeping things," and
frequently utters a mournful sound like the word "geck-o." It is
exceedingly plentiful, and inhabits the interior of houses, where it
can find the flies and other insects on which it lives. On account of
the structure of the toes, each of which is flattened into a disk-like
form, and furnished on the under surface with a series of plates like
those on the back of the sucking-fish, it can walk up a smooth,
perpendicular wall with perfect ease, and can even cling to the
ceiling like the flies on which it feeds.
The structure of the feet enables it to move about without the least
sound, and at first an observer is apt to be rather startled at the
mournful cry, and at the silent rapidity with which it darts from
place to place.
The Arabs of the present day are horribly afraid of the Gecko,
thinking that it poisons everything that it touches, and are even more
terrified than are ignorant people in England when they see a toad.
Both creatures are equally repulsive in aspect, and equally harmless
towards the human race.
THE BADGER.
Difficulty in identifying the _Tachash_ of Scripture--References
to "Badgers' skins"--The Dugong thought to be the Badger--The
Bedouin sandals--Nature of the materials for the
Tabernacle--Habits of the Badger--The species found in
Palestine--Uses of the Badgers' skins--Looseness of zoological
terms.
Until very lately, there was much difficulty in ascertaining whether
the word _Tachash_ has been rightly translated as Badger. It occurs in
several parts of the Scriptures, and almost invariably is used in
relation to a skin or fur of some sort. We will first examine the
passages in which the Badger is mentioned, and then proceed to
identify the animal.
Nearly all the references to the Badger occur in the book of Exodus,
and form part of the directions for constructing the Tabernacle and
its contents. The first notice of the word occurs in Exodus xxv. 5,
where the people of Israel are ordered to bring their offerings for
the sanctuary, among which offerings are gold, silver, and brass,
blue, purple, and scarlet, fine linen, goats' hair, rams' skins dyed
red, badgers' skins, and shittim wood--all these to be used in the
construction of the Tabernacle. Then a little farther on, in chapter
xxvi. 14, we find one of the special uses to which the badgers' skins
were to be put, namely, to make the outer covering or roof of the
tabernacle. Another use for the badgers' skins was to form an outer
covering for the ark, table of shewbread, and other furniture of the
Tabernacle, when the people were on the march.
In all these cases the badger-skin is used as a covering to defend a
building or costly furniture, but there is one example where it is
employed for a different purpose. This passage occurs in the book of
Ezekiel, chapter xvi. 10. The prophet is speaking of Jerusalem under
the image of a woman, and uses these words, "I anointed thee with oil;
I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badger's
skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with
silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy
hands, and a chain upon thy neck, and I put a jewel on thy forehead,
and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head."
So we have here the fact, that the same material which was used for
the covering of the Tabernacle, and of the sacred furniture, could
also be used for the manufacture of shoes. This passage is the more
valuable because of an inference which may be drawn from it. The
reader will see that the badger-skin, whatever it may have been, must
have been something of considerable value, and therefore, in all
probability, something of much rarity.
In the present instance, it is classed with the most luxurious robes
that were known in those days, and it is worthy of special mention
among the bracelet, earrings, necklace, and coronal with which the
symbolized city was adorned. If the reader will now refer to the
passage in which the children of Israel were commanded to bring their
offerings, he will see that in those cases also the badger-skins were
ranked with the costliest articles of apparel that could be found, and
had evidently been brought from Egypt, the peculiar home of all the
arts; together with the vast quantity of gold and jewels which were
used for the same sacred purpose.
Now we find that the badger-skins in question must possess three
qualities: they must be costly, they must be capable of forming a
defence against the weather, and they must be strong enough to be
employed in the manufacture of shoes. If we accept the word Tachash as
signifying a Badger, we shall find that these conditions have been
fulfilled.
But many commentators have thought that badger-skins could not have
been procured in sufficient numbers for the purpose, and have
therefore conjectured that some other animal must be signified by the
word Tachash.
A species of dugong (_Halicore hemprichii_) is the animal that has
been selected as the Badger of the Scriptures. It is one of the marine
mammalia, and always lives near the shore, where it can find the
various algæ on which it feeds. It is a gregarious animal, and, as it
frequently ascends rivers for some distance, it may be captured in
sufficient numbers to make both its flesh and skin useful. Moreover,
it is of considerable size, fourteen or fifteen feet in length being
its usual dimensions, so that a comparatively small number of the
skins would be required for the covering of the Tabernacle.
That shoes can be made of it is evident from the fact that at the
present day shoes, or rather sandals, are made from its hide, and are
commonly used by the Bedouins. But the very qualities and
peculiarities which render it a fit material for the sandal of a
half-naked Bedouin Arab, who has to walk continually over hard, hot,
sandy, and rough ground, would surely make it unsuitable for the
delicate shoes worn by a woman of rank who spends her time in the
house, and the rest of whose clothing is of fine linen and silk,
embroidered with gold and jewels. In our own country, the hobnailed
shoes of the ploughman and the slight shoe of a lady are made of very
different materials, and it is reasonable to conjecture that such was
the case when the passage in question was written.
[Illustration: THE BADGER.
"Thou shalt make a covering above of badgers' skins."--EX. xxvi. 14.]
Then Dr. Robinson, who admits that the hide of the dugong could hardly
have been used as the material for a lady's shoe, thinks that it would
have answered very well for the roof of the Tabernacle, because it was
large, clumsy, and coarse. It seems strange that he did not also
perceive that the two latter qualities would completely disqualify
such skins for that service. Everything clumsy and coarse was
studiously prohibited, and nothing but the very best was considered
fit for the Tabernacle of the Lord. By special revelation, Moses was
instructed to procure, not merely the ordinary timber of the country
for the framework--not only the fabrics which would keep out rain and
wind--not simply the metals in common use, from which to make the
lamps and other furniture--not the ordinary oils for supplying the
lamps; but, on the contrary, the finest linen, the most elaborate
embroidery, the rarest woods, the purest gold, the costliest
gems, were demanded, and nothing common or inferior was accepted.
The commonest material that was permitted was the long, soft
fleece of rams' wool; but, even in that case, the wool had to be dyed
of the regal scarlet--a dye so rare and so costly that none but the
wealthiest rulers could use it. Even the very oil that burned in the
lamps must be the purest olive-oil, prepared expressly for that
purpose.
The very fact, therefore, that any article was plentiful and could
easily be obtained, would be a proof that such article was not used
for so sacred a purpose; while it is impossible that anything coarse
and clumsy could have been accepted for the construction of that
Tabernacle within which the Shekinah ever burned over the
Mercy-seat--over which the cloud rested by day, and the fire shone by
night, visible external proofs of the Divine glory within.
We therefore dismiss from our minds the possibility of accepting any
material for it which was not exceptionably valuable, and which would
be employed in the uses of ordinary life. The great object of the
minutely-elaborate directions which were given through Moses to the
Israelites was evidently to keep continually before their eyes the
great truth that they owed all to God, and that their costliest
offerings were but acknowledgments of their dependence.
We will now presume that the Tachash of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel is
really the animal which we know by the name of Badger. It exists
throughout the whole of the district traversed by the Israelites,
though it is not very plentiful, nor is it easily taken. Had such been
the case, its fur would not have been employed in the service of the
sanctuary.
It is nocturnal in its habits, and very seldom is seen during the
hours of daylight, so that it cannot be captured by chase. It is not
gregarious, so that it cannot be taken in great numbers, as is the
case with certain wild animals which have been thought to be the
Tachash of Scripture. It is not a careless animal, so that it cannot
be captured or killed without the exercise of considerable ingenuity,
and the expenditure of much time and trouble. It is one of the
burrowing animals, digging for itself a deep subterranean home, and
always ready whenever it is alarmed to escape into the dark recesses
of its dwelling, from which it can scarcely be dislodged. It is not a
large animal, so that a considerable number of skins would be required
in order to make a covering which should overlap a structure
forty-five feet in length and fifteen in breadth. Were it a solitary
animal, there might be a difficulty in procuring a sufficient number
of skins. But it is partly gregarious in its habits, living together
in small families, seven or eight being sometimes found to inhabit a
single dwelling-place. It is, therefore, sufficiently rare to make its
skin valuable, and sufficiently plentiful to furnish the requisite
number of skins. All these facts tend to show that the cost of such a
covering must have been very great, even though it was the outermost,
and, consequently, the least valuable of the four. It has been
suggested that these skins were only used to lay over the lines where
the different sets of coverings overlapped each other, and that, in
consequence, they need not have been very numerous.
But we find that these same skins, which were evidently those which
formed the external roof, were used, when the Tabernacle was taken
down, for the purpose of forming distinct coverings for the ark of the
testimony, the table of shewbread, the seven-branched candlestick, the
golden altar, the various vessels used in the ministrations, and
lastly, the altar of sacrifice itself. Thus, when we recollect the
dimensions of the ark, the table, the candlestick, and the two altars,
we shall see that, in order to make separate covers for them, a
quantity of material would be used which would be amply sufficient to
cover the whole roof of the Tabernacle, even if it had, as was most
probably the case, a ridged, and not a flat roof.
We now come to our next point, namely, the aptitude of the Badger's
skin to resist weather. Any one who has handled the skin of the Badger
will acknowledge that a better material could hardly be found. The fur
is long, thick, and, though light, is moderately stiff, the hairs
falling over each other in such a manner as to throw off rain or snow
as off a penthouse. And, as to the third point, namely, its possible
use as a material for the manufacture of shoes, we may call to mind
that the skin of the Badger is proverbially tough, and that this very
quality has caused the animal to be subjected to most cruel treatment
by a class of sporting men which is now almost extinct.
The Septuagint gives little assistance in determining the precise
nature of the Tachash, and rather seems to consider the word as
expressive of the colour with which the fur was dyed than that of the
animal from which it was taken. Still, it must be remembered that not
only are zoological terms used very loosely in the Scriptures, but
that in Hebrew, as in all other languages, the same combination of
letters often expresses two different ideas, so that the word Tachash
may equally signify a colour and an animal. Moreover, it has been well
pointed out that the repeated use of the word in the plural number
shows that it cannot refer to colour; while its almost invariable
combination with the Hebrew word that signifies a skin implies that it
does not refer to colour, but to an animal.
What that animal may be, is, as I have already mentioned, conjectural.
But, as the authorized translation renders the word as Badger, and as
this reading fulfils the conditions necessary to its identification,
and as no other reading does fulfil them, we cannot be very far wrong
if we accept that translation as the correct one, and assume the
Tachash of the Scriptures to be the animal which we call by the name
of Badger.
THE BEAR.
The Syrian Bear--Identity of the Hebrew and Arabic titles--Its
colour variable according to age--Bears once numerous in
Palestine, and now only occasionally seen--Reason for their
diminution--Present localities of the Bear, and its favourite
haunts--Food of the Bear--Its general habits--Its ravages among
the flocks--The Bear dangerous to mankind--The Bear robbed of
her whelps--Illustrative passages--Its mode of fighting--Various
references to the Bear, from the time of Samuel to that of St.
John.
Whatever doubt may exist as to the precise identity of various animals
mentioned in the Scriptures, there is none whatever as to the creature
which is frequently alluded to under the name of Bear.
The Hebrew word is _Dôb_, and it is a remarkable fact that the name of
this animal in the Arabic language is almost identical with the Hebrew
term, namely, _Dubh_. The peculiar species of Bear which inhabits
Palestine is the Syrian Bear (_Ursus Isabellinus_), and, though it has
been variously described by different eye-witnesses, there is no doubt
that the same species was seen by them all. As is the case with many
animals, the Syrian Bear changes its colour as it grows older. When a
cub, it is of a darkish brown, which becomes a light brown as it
approaches maturity. But, when it has attained its full growth, it
becomes cream-coloured, and each succeeding year seems to lighten its
coat, so that a very old Bear is nearly as white as its relative of
the Arctic regions. Travellers, therefore, who have met the younger
specimens, have described them as brown in hue, while those who have
seen more aged individuals have stated that the colour of the Syrian
Bear is white.
Owing to the destruction of forests, the Bear, which is essentially a
lover of the woods, has decreased considerably in number. Yet, even at
the present time, specimens may be seen by the watchful traveller,
mostly about the range of Lebanon, but sometimes at a considerable
distance from that locality. Mr. Tristram, for example, saw it close
to the Lake of Gennesaret. "We never met with so many wild animals as
on one of those days. First of all, a wild boar got out of some scrub
close to us, as we were ascending the valley. Then a deer was started
below, ran up the cliff, and wound along the ledge, passing close to
us. Then a large ichneumon almost crossed my feet and ran into a
cleft; and, while endeavouring to trace him, I was amazed to see a
brown Syrian Bear clumsily but rapidly clamber down the rocks and
cross the ravine. He was, however, far too cautious to get within
hailing distance of any of the riflemen."
[Illustration: "As a roaring lion and a ranging bear, so is a wicked
ruler over the poor people."--PROV. xxviii. 15.]
The same author mentions that some of the chief strongholds of this
Bear are certain clefts in the face of a precipitous chasm through
which the river Leontes flows. This river runs into the sea a few
miles northward of Tyre, and assists in carrying off the melted snows
from the Lebanon range of mountains. His description is so
picturesque, that it must be given in his own words. "The channel,
though a thousand feet deep, was so narrow that the opposite ridge was
within gunshot. Looking down the giddy abyss, we could see the cliff
on our side partially covered with myrtle, bay, and caper
hanging from the fissures, while the opposite side was perforated
with many shallow caves, the inaccessible eyries of vultures,
eagles, and lanner falcons, which were sailing in multitudes
around. The lower part had many ledges clad with shrubs, the
strongholds of the Syrian Bear, though inaccessible even to goats. Far
beneath dashed the milk-white river, a silver line in a ruby setting
of oleanders, roaring doubtless fiercely, but too distant to be heard
at the height on which we stood. This _cleft_ of the Leontes was the
only true Alpine scenery we had met with in Palestine, and in any
country, and amidst any mountains, it would attract admiration."
On those elevated spots the Bear loves to dwell, and throughout the
summer-time generally remains in such localities. For the Bear is one
of the omnivorous animals, and is able to feed on vegetable as well as
animal substances, preferring the former when they can be found. There
is nothing that a Bear likes better than strawberries and similar
fruits, among which it will revel throughout the whole fruit season,
daintily picking the ripest berries, and becoming wonderfully fat by
the constant banquet. Sometimes, when the fruits fail, it makes
incursions among the cultivated grounds, and is noted for the ravages
which it makes among a sort of vetch which is much grown in the Holy
Land.
But during the colder months of the year the Bear changes its diet,
and becomes carnivorous. Sometimes it contents itself with the various
wild animals which it can secure, but sometimes it descends to the
lower plains, and seizes upon the goats and sheep in their pastures.
This habit is referred to by David, in his well-known speech to Saul,
when the king was trying to dissuade him from matching himself against
the gigantic Philistine. "And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to
go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a
youth, and he a man of war from his youth.... Thy servant kept his
father's sheep, and there came a lion and a bear, and took a lamb out
of the flock: and I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered
it out of his hand; and when he arose against me, I caught him by the
beard, and smote him, and slew him. Thy servant slew both the lion and
the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them,
seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God."--1 Sam. xvii.
33-36.
Though not generally apt to attack mankind, it will do so if first
attacked, and then becomes a most dangerous enemy. See, for example,
that most graphic passage in the book of the prophet Amos, whose
business as a herdsman must have made him conversant with the habits,
not only of the flocks and herds which he kept, but of the wild beasts
which might devour them:--"Woe unto you that desire the day of the
Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and
not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or
went into a house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit
him." (v. 19.)
Another reference to the dangerous character of the Bear is made in 2
Kings ii. 23, 24, in which is recorded that two she-bears came out of
the wood near Bethel, and killed forty-two of the children that mocked
at Elisha.
As the Bear is not swift of foot, but rather clumsy in its movements,
it cannot hope to take the nimbler animals in open chase. It prefers
to lie in wait for them in the bushes, and to strike them down with a
sudden blow of its paw, a terrible weapon, which it can wield as
effectively as the lion uses its claws. An allusion to this habit is
made in the Lamentations of Jeremiah (iii. 10), "He was unto me as a
bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places."
Harmless to man as it generally is, there are occasions on which it
becomes a terrible and relentless foe, not seeking to avoid his
presence, but even searching for him, and attacking him as soon as
seen. In the proper season of the year, hunters, or those who are
travelling through those parts of the country infested by the Bear,
will sometimes find the cubs, generally two in number, their mother
having left them in the den while she has gone to search for food.
Although they would not venture to take the initiative in an attack
upon either of the parents, they are glad of an opportunity which
enables them to destroy one or two Bears without danger to themselves.
The young Bears are easily killed or carried off, because at a very
early age they are as confident as they are weak, and do not try to
escape when they see the hunters approaching.
The only danger lies in the possibility that their deed may be
discovered by the mother before they can escape from the locality,
and, if she should happen to return while the robbers are still in
the neighbourhood, a severe conflict is sure to follow. At any time an
angry Bear is a terrible antagonist, especially if it be wounded with
sufficient severity to cause pain, and not severely enough to cripple
its movements. But, when to this easily-roused ferocity is added the
fury of maternal feelings, it may be imagined that the hunters have
good reason to fear its attack.
To all animals that rear their young is given a sublime and almost
supernatural courage in defending their offspring, and from the
lioness, that charges a host of armed men when her cubs are in danger,
to the hen, which defies the soaring kite or prowling fox, or to the
spider, that will give up her life rather than abandon her yet
unhatched brood, the same self-sacrificing spirit actuates them all.
Most terrible therefore is the wrath of a creature which possesses, as
is the case of the Bear, the strongest maternal affections, added to
great size, tremendous weapons, and gigantic strength. That the sight
of a Bear bereaved of her young was well known to both writers and
contemporary readers of the Old Testament, is evident from the fact
that it is mentioned by several writers, and always as a familiar
illustration of furious anger. See for example 2 Sam. xvii. 8, when
Hushai is dissuading Absalom from following the cautious counsel of
Ahithophel, "For thou knowest thy father and his men, that they be
mighty men of war, and they be chafed in their minds as a bear robbed
of her whelps in the field." Solomon also, in the Proverbs (xvii. 12),
uses the same image, "Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man,
rather than a fool in his folly."
When the Bear fights, it delivers rapid strokes with its armed paw,
tearing and rending away everything that it strikes. A blow from a
bear's paw has been several times known to strip the entire skin,
together with the hair, from a man's head, and, when fighting with
dogs, to tear its enemies open as if each claw were a chisel. This
mode of fighting is clearly alluded to by the prophet Hosea, who
seems, from the graphic force of his sentences, to have been an actual
spectator of some such combat, "I will meet them as a bear that is
bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart" (Hos.
xiii. 8).
That the Bear was a well-known animal both in the earlier and later
times of the Scripture is also evident from the fact that it was
twice used as a symbol exhibited to a seer in a vision. The first of
these passages occurs in the book of Daniel (vii. 5), when the prophet
is describing the wonderful vision of the four beasts:--"And behold
another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on
one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth
of it, and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." The
second allusion occurs in the Revelation, the seven-headed and
ten-crowned beast having a form like that of a leopard, but feet like
those of a Bear.
THE HEDGEHOG, OR BITTERN.
Various readings of the word _Kippôd_--The Jewish Bible and its
object--The Syrian Hedgehog and its appearance--Its fondness for
dry spots--The prophecies of Isaiah and Zephaniah, and their
bearing on the subject--The Porcupine supposed to be the
Kippôd--The Hedgehog and Porcupine called by the same name in
Greek and Arabic--Habits of the Porcupine--Its quills, and the
manner of their shedding.
In our Authorized Bible, there are one or two passages where the
Hebrew word _Kippôd_ is translated as BITTERN. For example, there is
Isaiah xiv. 22, 23, "I will cut off from Babylon the name, and
remnant, and son and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a
possession for the bittern, and pools of water, and I will sweep it
with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts."
Then there is another passage of the same prophet (xxxiv. 11), "But
the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it (_i.e._ Idumea), the
owl also and the raven shall dwell in it." The last mention of this
creature occurs in Zephaniah ii. 14, "And flocks shall lie down in the
midst of her (_i.e._ Nineveh), all the beasts of the nations: both the
bittern and the cormorant shall lodge in the upper lintels of it;
their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the
thresholds; for he shall uncover the cedar-work."
Now, in the "Jewish School and Family Bible," a new literal
translation by Dr. A. Benisch, under the superintendence of the Chief
Rabbi, the word Kippôd is translated, not as Bittern, but Hedgehog. As
I shall have to refer to this translation repeatedly in the course of
the present work, I will give a few remarks made by the translator in
the preface.
[Illustration: SYRIAN HEDGEHOG.
"_Pelican and hedgehog shall possess it._"--ISA. xxxiv. 11. (Jewish
Bible).]
After premising that both Christian and Jew agree in considering the
Old Testament as emanating from God, and reverencing it as such, he
proceeds to say that the former, as holding himself absolved from the
ceremonial law of the Mosaic dispensation, has not the interest in the
exact signification of every letter of the law which necessarily
attaches itself to the Jew, who considers himself bound by that law,
although some ceremonies, "by their special reference to the Temple in
Jerusalem and the actual existence of Israel in the Holy Land, are at
present not practicable."
He then observes that the translators of the authorized Anglican
version, whose many excellences he fully admits, could not be
considered as free agents, as they were bound by the positive
injunctions of their monarch, as well as by the less obvious, but more
powerful influence of Christian authorities, to alter the original
translation as little as possible, and to keep the ecclesiastical
words. Retaining, therefore, the renderings of the Anglican
translation whenever it can be done without infringing upon absolute
accuracy, the translator has marked with great care various passages
where he has felt himself obliged to give a different rendering to the
Hebrew. Whenever words, especially such as are evidently the names of
animals, cannot be rendered with any amount of probability, they have
not been translated at all, and to those about which there are good
grounds of doubt a distinctive mark is affixed.
Now to the word Hedgehog, by which the Hebrew Kippôd is rendered, no
such marking is attached in either of the three quoted passages, and
it is evident therefore that the rendering is satisfactory to the
highest authorities on the Hebrew language. And we have the greater
assurance of this accuracy, because, in the mere translation of the
name of an animal, no doctrinal point is involved, and so there can be
no temptation to the translator to be carried away by preconceived
ideas, and to give to the word that rendering which may tend to
establish his peculiar doctrinal ideas.
The Septuagint also translates Kippôd as [Greek: echinos] (_echinus_)
_i.e._ the Hedgehog, and this rendering is advocated by the eminent
scholar Gesenius, who considers it to be formed from the Hebrew word
_kaped_, _i.e._ contracted; reference being of course made to the
Hedgehog's habit of rolling itself up when alarmed, and presenting
only an array of bristles to the enemy. This derivation of the word is
certainly more convincing than a suggestion which has been made, that
the Hebrew Kippôd may signify the Hedgehog, because it resembles the
Arabic name of the same animal, viz. Kunfod.
As therefore the word Kippôd is translated as Hedgehog in the
Septuagint and Jewish Bible, and as Bittern in the authorized version,
we very naturally ask ourselves whether either or both of these
animals inhabit Palestine and the neighbouring countries. We find that
both are plentiful even at the present day, and that more than one
species of Hedgehog and Bittern are known in the Holy Land. About the
Bittern we shall treat in good time, and will now take up the
rendering of Hedgehog.
There are at least two species of Hedgehog known in Palestine, that of
the north being identical with our own well-known animal (_Erinaceus
Europoeus_), and the other being a distinct species (_Erinaceus
Syriacus_). The latter animal is the species which has been chosen for
illustration. It is smaller than its northern relative, lighter in
colour, and, as may be seen from the illustration, is rather different
in general aspect.
Its habits are identical with those of the European Hedgehog. Like
that animal it is carnivorous, feeding on worms, snails, frogs,
lizards, snakes, and similar creatures, and occasionally devouring the
eggs and young of birds that make their nest on the ground.
Small as is the Hedgehog, it can devour all such animals with perfect
ease, its jaws and teeth being much stronger than might be anticipated
from the size of their owner.
One or two objections that have been made to the translation of the
Kippôd as Hedgehog must be mentioned, so that the reader may see what
is said on both sides in dubious cases. One objection is, that the
Kippôd is (in Isaiah xiv. 23) mentioned in connexion with pools of
water, and that, as the Hedgehog prefers dry places to wet, whereas
the Bittern is essentially a marsh-dweller, the latter rendering of
the word is preferable to the former. Again, as the Kippôd is said by
Zephaniah to "lodge in the upper lintels," and its "voice to sing in
the windows," it must be a bird, and not a quadruped. We will examine
these passages separately, and see how they bear upon the subject. As
to Zephaniah ii. 13, the Jewish Bible treats the passage as
follows:--"And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and
destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and arid like the
desert. And droves shall crouch in the midst of her, all the animals
of nations: both pelican and hedgehog (Kippôd) shall lodge nightly in
the knobs of it, a voice shall sing in the windows; drought shall be
in the thresholds, for he shall uncover the cedar-work."
Now the reader will see that, so far from the notion of marsh-land
being connected with the Kippôd, the whole imagery of the prophecy
turns upon the opposite characteristics of desolation, aridity, and
drought. The same imagery is used in Isaiah xxxiv. 7-12, which the
Jewish Bible reads as follows, "For it is the day of the vengeance of
the Eternal, and the year of recompenses for the quarrel of Zion. And
the brooks thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof
into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It
shall not go out night nor day; the smoke of it shall go up for ever;
from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass
through it for ever and ever. Pelican and hedgehog (Kippôd) shall
possess it; owls also and ravens shall dwell in it; and he shall
stretch over it the line of desolation, and the stones of emptiness."
And to the end of the chapter the same idea of drought, desolation,
and solitude is carried out.
Thus, even putting the question in the simplest manner, we have two
long passages which directly connect the Kippôd with drought, aridity,
and desolation, in opposition to one in which the Kippôd and "pools of
water" are mentioned in proximity to each other. Now the fact is, that
the sites of Nineveh and Babylon fulfil both prophecies, being both
dry and marshy--dry away from the river, and marshy among the
reed-swamps that now exist on its banks.
So much for the question of locality.
As to the second objection, namely, that the Kippôd was to lodge in
the upper lintels, and therefore must be a bird, and not a quadruped,
it is sufficient to say that the allusion is evidently made to ruins
that are thrown down, and not to buildings that are standing upright.
As to the words, "their voices shall sing in the windows," the reader
may see, on reference to the English Bible, that the word "their" is
printed in italics, showing that it does not exist in the original,
and has been supplied by the translator. Taking the passage as it
really stands, "Both the cormorant and the bittern (Kippôd) shall
lodge in the upper lintels of it; a voice shall sing in the windows,"
it is evident that the voice or sound which sings in the windows does
not necessarily refer to the cormorant and Bittern at all. Dr. Harris
remarks that "the phrase is elliptical, and implies 'the voice of
birds.'"
THE PORCUPINE.
Presumed identity of the Kippôd with the Porcupine--The same
Greek name applied to the Porcupine and Hedgehog--Habits of the
Porcupine--the common Porcupine found plentifully in Palestine.
Although, like the hedgehog, the Porcupine is not mentioned by name in
the Scriptures, many commentators think that the word Kippôd signifies
both the hedgehog and Porcupine.
That the two animals should be thought to be merely two varieties of
one species is not astonishing, when we remember the character of the
people among whom the Porcupine lives. Not having the least idea of
scientific geology, they look only to the most conspicuous
characteristics, and because the Porcupine and hedgehog are both
covered with an armature of quills, and the quills are far more
conspicuous than the teeth, the inhabitants of Palestine naturally
class the two animals together. In reality, they belong to two very
different orders, the hedgehog being classed with the shrew-mice and
moles, while the Porcupine is a rodent animal, and is classed with the
rats, rabbits, beavers, marmots, and other rodents.
At the present day the inhabitants of the Holy Land believe the
Porcupine to be only a large species of hedgehog, and the same name is
applied to both animals. Such is the case even in the Greek language,
the word Hystrix ([Greek: hystrinx] or [Greek: hysthrix]) being
employed indifferently in either sense.
Its food is different from that of the hedgehog, for whereas the
hedgehog lives entirely on animal food, as has been already mentioned,
the Porcupine is as exclusively a vegetable eater, feeding chiefly on
roots and bark.
It is quite as common in Palestine as the hedgehog, a fact which
increases the probability that the two animals may have been mentioned
under a common title. Being a nocturnal animal, it retires during the
day-time to some crevice in a rock or burrow in the ground, and there
lies sleeping until the sunset awakens it and calls it to action. And
as the hedgehog is also a nocturnal animal, the similarity of habit
serves to strengthen the mutual resemblance.
The Porcupine is peculiarly fitted for living in dry and unwatered
spots, as, like many other animals, of which our common rabbit is a
familiar example, it can exist without water, obtaining the needful
moisture from the succulent roots on which it feeds.
The sharply pointed quills with which its body is covered are solid,
and strengthened in a most beautiful manner by internal ribs, that run
longitudinally along its length, exactly like those of the hollow iron
masts, which are now coming so much into use. As they are, in fact,
greatly developed hairs, they are continually shed and replaced, and
when they are about to fall are so loosely attached that they fall off
if pulled slightly, or even if the animal shakes itself. Consequently
the shed quills that lie about the localities inhabited by the
Porcupine indicate its whereabouts, and so plentiful are these quills
in some places that quite a bundle can be collected in a short time.
There are many species of Porcupines which inhabit different parts of
the world, but that which has been mentioned is the common Porcupine
of Europe, Asia, and Africa (_Hystrix cristata_).
THE MOLE.
The two Hebrew words which are translated as Mole--Obscurity of
the former name--A parallel case in our own language--The second
name--The Moles and the Bats, why associated together--The real
Mole of Scripture, its different names, and its place in
zoology--Description of the Mole-rat and its general
habits--Curious superstition--Discovery of the species by Mr.
Tristram--Scripture and science--How the Mole-rat finds its
food--Distinction between the Mole and the present animal.
There are two words which are translated as Mole in our authorized
version of the Bible. One of them is so obscure that there seems no
possibility of deciding the creature that is represented by it. We
cannot even tell to what class of the animal kingdom it refers,
because in more than one place it is mentioned as one of the unclean
birds that might not be eaten (translated as _swan_ in our version),
whereas, in another place, it is enumerated among the unclean creeping
things.
[Illustration: THE MOLE-RAT.
"_These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that
creep upon the earth ... the lizard, the snail, and the mole._"--LEV.
xi. 29, 30.]
We may conjecture that the same word might be used to designate two
distinct animals, though we have no clue to their identification. It
is rather a strange coincidence, in corroboration of this theory, that
our word Mole signifies three distinct objects--firstly, an animal;
secondly, a cutaneous growth; and thirdly, a bank of earth. Now,
supposing English to be a dead language, like the Hebrew, it may well
be imagined that a translator of an English book would feel extremely
perplexed when he saw the word Mole used in such widely different
senses.
The best Hebraists can do no more than offer a conjecture founded on
the structure of the word _Tinshemeth_, which is thought by some to be
the chameleon. Some think that it is the Mole, some the ibis, some the
salamander, while others consider it to be the centipede; and in
neither case have any decisive arguments been adduced.
We will therefore leave the former of these two names, and proceed to
the second, _Chephor-peroth_.
This word occurs in that passage of Isaiah which has already been
quoted when treating of the bat. "In that day a man shall cast his
idols of silver and his idols of gold, which they made each one to
himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; to go into the
clefts of the rocks and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of
the Lord and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake
terribly the earth."
It is highly probable that the animal in question is the Mole of
Palestine, which is not the same as our European species, but is much
larger in size, and belongs to a different order of mammalia. The true
Mole is one of the insectivorous and carnivorous animals, and is
allied to the shrews and the hedgehogs; whereas the Mole of Palestine
(_Spalax typhlus_) is one of the rodents, and allied to the rabbits,
mice, marmots, and jerboas. A better term for it is the Mole-rat, by
which name it is familiar to zoologists. It is also known by the names
of Slepez and Nenni.
In length it is about eight inches, and its colour is a pale slate. As
is the case with the true Moles, the eyes are of very minute
dimensions, and are not visible through the thick soft fur with which
the whole head and body are covered. Neither are there any visible
external ears, although the ear is really very large, and extremely
sensitive to sound. This apparent privation of both ears and eyes
gives to the animal a most singular and featureless appearance, its
head being hardly recognisable as such but for the mouth, and the
enormous projecting teeth, which not only look formidable, but really
are so. There is a curious superstition in the Ukraine, that if a man
will dare to grasp a Mole-rat in his bare hand, allow it to bite him,
and then squeeze it to death, the hand that did the deed will ever
afterwards possess the virtue of healing goitre or scrofula.
This animal is spread over a very large tract of country, and is very
common in Palestine. Mr. Tristram gives an interesting account of its
discovery. "We had long tried in vain to capture the Mole of
Palestine. Its mines and its mounds we had seen everywhere, and
reproached ourselves with having omitted the mole-trap among the
items of our outfit. From the size of the mounds and the shallowness
of the subterranean passages, we felt satisfied it could not be the
European species, and our hopes of solving the question were raised
when we found that one of them had taken up its quarters close to our
camp. After several vain attempts to trap it, an Arab one night
brought a live Mole in a jar to the tent. It was no Mole properly so
called, but the Mole-rat, which takes its place throughout Western
Asia. The man, having observed our anxiety to possess a specimen,
refused to part with it for less than a hundred piastres, and
scornfully rejected the twenty piastres I offered. Ultimately, Dr.
Chaplin purchased it for five piastres after our departure, and I kept
it alive for some time in a box, feeding it on sliced onions."
The same gentleman afterwards caught many of the Mole-rats, and kept
them in earthen vessels, as they soon gnawed their way through wood.
They fed chiefly on bulbs, but also ate sopped bread. Like many other
animals, they reposed during the day, and were active throughout the
night.
The author then proceeds to remark on the peculiarly appropriate
character of the prophecy that the idols should be cast to the Moles
and the bats. Had the European Mole been the animal to which reference
was made, there would have been comparatively little significance in
the connexion of the two names, because, although both animals are
lovers of darkness, they do not inhabit similar localities. But the
Mole-rat is fond of frequenting deserted ruins and burial-places, so
that the Moles and the bats are really companions, and as such are
associated together in the sacred narrative. Here, as in many other
instances, we find that closer study of the Scriptures united to more
extended knowledge are by no means the enemies of religion, as some
well-meaning, but narrow-minded persons think. On the contrary, the
Scriptures were never so well understood, and their truth and force so
well recognised, as at the present day; and science has proved to be,
not the destroyer of the Bible, but its interpreter. We shall soon
cease to hear of "Science _versus_ the Bible," and shall substitute
"Science and the Bible _versus_ Ignorance and Prejudice."
The Mole-rat needs not to dig such deep tunnels as the true Moles,
because its food does not lie so deep. The Moles live chiefly upon
earthworms, and are obliged to procure them in the varying depths to
which they burrow. But the Mole-rat lives mostly upon roots,
preferring those of a bulbous nature. Now bulbous roots are, as a
rule, situated near the surface of the ground, and, therefore, any
animal which feeds upon them must be careful not to burrow too deeply,
lest it should pass beneath them. The shallowness of the burrows is
thus accounted for. Gardens are often damaged by this animal, the
root-crops, such as carrots and onions, affording plenty of food
without needing much exertion.
The Mole-rat does not keep itself quite so jealously secluded as does
our common Mole, but occasionally will come out of the burrow and lie
on the ground, enjoying the warm sunshine. Still it is not easily to
be approached; for though its eyes are almost useless, the ears are so
sharp, and the animal is so wary, that at the sound of a footstep it
instantly seeks the protection of its burrow, where it may bid
defiance to its foes.
How it obtains its food is a mystery. There seems to be absolutely no
method of guiding itself to the precise spot where a bulb may be
growing. It is not difficult to conjecture the method by which the
Mole discovers its prey. Its sensitive ears may direct it to the spot
where a worm is driving its way through the earth, and should it come
upon its prey, the very touch of the worm, writhing in terror at the
approach of its enemy, would be sufficient to act as a guide. I have
kept several Moles, and always noticed that, though they would pass
close to a worm without seeming to detect its presence, either by
sight or scent, at the slightest touch they would spring round, dart
on the worm, and in a moment seize it between their jaws. But with the
Mole-rat the case is different. The root can utter no sound, and can
make no movement, nor is it likely that the odour of the bulb should
penetrate through the earth to a very great distance.
THE MOUSE.
Conjectures as to the right translation of the Hebrew word
_Akbar_--Signification of the word--The Mice which marred the
land--Miracles, and their economy of power--The Field-mouse--Its
destructive habits and prolific nature--The insidious nature of
its attacks, and its power of escaping observation--The Hamster,
and its habits--Its custom of storing up provisions for the
winter--Its fertility and unsociable nature--The Jerboa, its
activity and destructiveness--Jerboas and Hamsters eaten by
Arabs and Syrians--Various species of Dormice and Sand-rats.
That the Mouse mentioned in the Old Testament was some species of
rodent animal is tolerably clear, though it is impossible to state any
particular species as being signified by the Hebrew word _Akbar_. The
probable derivation of this name is from two words which signify
"destruction of corn," and it is therefore evident that allusion is
made to some animal which devours the produce of the fields, and which
exists in sufficient numbers to make its voracity formidable.
Some commentators on the Old Testament translate the word Akbar as
jerboa. Now, although the jerboa is common in Syria, it is not nearly
so plentiful as other rodent animals, and would scarcely be selected
as the means by which a terrible disaster is made to befall a whole
country. The student of Scripture is well aware that, in those
exceptional occurrences which are called miracles, a needless
development of the wonder-working power is never employed. We are not
to suppose, for example, that the clouds of locusts that devoured the
harvests of the Egyptians were created for this express purpose, but
that their already existing hosts were concentrated upon a limited
area, instead of being spread over a large surface. Nor need we fancy
that the frogs which rendered their habitations unclean, and
contaminated their food, were brought into existence simply to inflict
a severe punishment on the fastidious and superstitious Egyptians.
Of course, had such an exercise of creative power been needed, it
would have been used, but we can all see that a needless miracle is
never worked. He who would not suffer even a crumb of the miraculously
multiplied bread to be wasted, is not likely to waste that power by
which the miracle was wrought.
If we refer to the early history of the Israelitish nation, as told in
1 Sam. iv.--vi., we shall find that the Israelites made an
unwarrantable use of the ark, by taking it into battle, and that it
was captured and carried off into the country of the Philistines. Then
various signs were sent to warn the captors to send the ark back to
its rightful possessors. Dagon, the great fish-god, was prostrated
before it, painful diseases attacked them, so that many died, and
scarcely any seem to have escaped, while their harvests were ravaged
by numbers of "mice that marred the land."
The question is now simple enough. If the ordinary translation is
accepted, and the word Akbar rendered as Mouse, would the necessary
conditions be fulfilled, _i.e._ would the creature be destructive, and
would it exist in very great numbers? Now we shall find that both
these conditions are fulfilled by the common Field-mouse (_Arvicola
arvalis_).
This little creature is, in proportion to its size, one of the most
destructive animals in the world. Let its numbers be increased from
any cause whatever, and it will most effectually "mar the land." It
will devour every cereal that is sown, and kill almost any sapling
that is planted. It does not even wait for the corn to spring up, but
will burrow beneath the surface, and dig out the seed before it has
had time to sprout. In the early part of the year, it will eat the
green blade as soon as it springs out of the ground, and is an adept
at climbing the stalks of corn, and plundering the ripe ears in the
autumn.
When stacked or laid up in barns, the harvest is by no means safe, for
the Mice will penetrate into any ordinary barn, and find their way
into any carelessly-built stack, from which they can scarcely be
ejected. The rat itself is not so dire a foe to the farmer, as the
less obtrusive, but equally mischievous Field-mouse. The ferret will
drive the rats out of their holes, and if they have taken possession
of a wheat-stack they can be ejected by depriving them of access to
water. But the burrows of the Field-mouse are so small that a ferret
cannot make its way through them, and the nightly dew that falls on
the stack affords an ample supply of water.
[Illustration: THE FIELD-MOUSE.
"_Wherefore ye shall make images of your mice that mar the land._"--1
SAM. vi. 5.]
When the Field-mouse is deprived of the food which it loves best, it
finds a subsistence among the trees. Whenever mice can discover a
newly-planted sapling, they hold great revel upon it, eating away the
tender young bark as high as they can reach, and consequently
destroying the tree as effectually as if it were cut down. Even when
the young trees fail them, and no tender bark is to be had, the
Field-mice can still exert their destructive powers. They will then
betake themselves to the earth, burrow beneath its surface, and devour
the young rootlets of the forest trees. All botanists know that a
healthy tree is continually pushing forward fresh roots below the
ground, in order to gain sufficient nourishment to supply the
increasing growth above. If, therefore, these young roots are
destroyed, the least harm that can happen to the tree is that its
further growth is arrested; while, in many cases, the tree, which
cannot repair the injuries it has received, droops gradually, and
finally dies. Even in this country, the Field-mouse has proved itself
a terrible enemy to the agriculturist, and has devastated considerable
tracts of land.
So much for the destructive powers of the Field-mouse, and the next
point to be considered is its abundance.
Nearly all the rats and mice are singularly prolific animals,
producing a considerable number at a brood, and having several broods
in a season. The Field-mouse is by no means an exception to the
general rule, but produces as many young in a season as any of the
Mice.
Not only is it formidable from its numbers, but from the insidious
nature of its attacks. Any one can see a rabbit, a hare, or even a
rat; but to see a Field-mouse is not easy, even when the little
creatures are present in thousands. A Field-mouse never shows itself
except from necessity, its instinct teaching it to escape the
observation of its many furred and feathered enemies. Short-legged and
soft-furred, it threads its noiseless way among the herbage with such
gentle suppleness that scarcely a grass-blade is stirred, while, if it
should be forced to pass over a spot of bare ground, the red-brown hue
of its fur prevents it from being detected by an inexperienced eye.
Generally the Field-mouse is safe from human foes, and has only to
dread the piercing eye and swift wings of the hawk, or the silent
flight and sharp talons of the owl.
Although there can be no doubt that the Field-mouse is one of the
animals to which the name of Akbar is given, it is probable that many
species were grouped under this one name. Small rodents of various
kinds are very plentiful in Palestine, and there are several species
closely allied to the Field-mouse itself.
Among them is the Hamster (_Cricetus frumentarius_), so widely known
for the ravages which it makes among the crops. This terribly
destructive animal not only steals the crops for immediate
subsistence, but lays up a large stock of provisions for the winter,
seeming to be actuated by a sort of miserly passion for collecting and
storing away. There seems to be no bounds to the quantity of food
which a Hamster will carry into its subterranean store-house, from
seventy to one hundred pounds' weight being sometimes taken out of
the burrow of a single animal. The fact of the existence of these
large stores shows that the animal must need them, and accordingly we
find that the Hamster is only a partial hibernator, as it is awake
during a considerable portion of the winter months, and is
consequently obliged to live on the stores which it has collected.
It is an exceedingly prolific animal, each pair producing on an
average twenty-five young in the course of a year. The families are
unsociable, and, as soon as they are strong enough to feed themselves,
the young Hamsters leave their home, and make separate burrows for
themselves. Thus we see that the Hamster, as well as the Field-mouse,
fulfils the conditions which are needed in order to class it under the
general title of Akbar.
I have already stated that some translators of the Bible use the word
Jerboa as a rendering of the Hebrew Akbar. As the Jerboa certainly is
found in Palestine, there is some foundation for this idea, and we may
safely conjecture that it also is one of the smaller rodents which are
grouped together under the appellation of Mouse.
The Common Jerboa (_Dipus Ægyptiacus_) is plentiful in Palestine, and
several other species inhabit the same country, known at once by their
long and slender legs, which give them so curious a resemblance to the
kangaroos of Australia. The Jerboas pass over the ground with
astonishing rapidity. Instead of creeping stealthily among the
grass-blades, like the short-limbed field-mouse, the Jerboa flies
along with a succession of wonderful leaps, darting here and there
with such rapidity that the eye can scarcely follow its wayward
movements. When quiet and undisturbed, it hops along gently enough,
but as soon as it takes alarm, it darts off in its peculiar manner,
which is to the ordinary walk of quadrupeds what the devious course of
a frightened snipe is to the steady flight of birds in general.
It prefers hot and dry situations, its feet being defended by a thick
coating of stiff hairs, which serve the double purpose of protecting
it from the heat, and giving it a firm hold on the ground. It is
rather a destructive animal, its sharp and powerful teeth enabling it
to bite its way through obstacles which would effectually stop an
ordinary Mouse. That the Jerboa may be one of the Akbarim is rendered
likely by the prohibition in Lev. xi. 29, forbidding the Mouse to be
eaten. It would be scarcely probable that such a command need have
been issued against eating the common Mouse, whereas the Jerboa, a
much larger and palatable animal, is always eaten by the Arabs. The
Hamster is at the present day eaten in Northern Syria.
Beside these creatures there are the Dormice, several species of which
animal inhabit Palestine at the present day. There are also the
Sand-rats, one species of which is larger than our ordinary rats. The
Sand-rats live more in the deserts than the cultivated lands, making
their burrows at the foot of hills, and among the roots of bushes.
THE HARE.
The prohibitions of the Mosaic law--The chewing of the cud, and
division of the hoof--Identity of the Hare of
Scripture--Rumination described--The Hare a rodent and not a
ruminant--Cowper and his Hares--Structure of the rodent
tooth--The Mosaic law accommodated to its recipients--The Hares
of Palestine and their habits.
Among the many provisions of the Mosaic law are several which refer to
the diet of the Israelites, and which prohibit certain kinds of food.
Special stress is laid upon the flesh of animals, and the list of
those which may be lawfully eaten is a singularly restricted one, all
being excluded except those which "divide the hoof and chew the cud."
And, lest there should be any mistake about the matter, examples are
given both of those animals which may and those which may not be
eaten.
The ox, sheep, goat, and antelopes generally are permitted as lawful
food, because they fulfil both conditions; whereas there is a special
prohibition of the swine, because it divides the hoof but does not
chew the cud, and of the camel, coney, and hare because they chew the
cud, but do not divide the hoof. Our business at present is with the
last of these animals.
Considerable discussion has been raised concerning this animal,
because, as is well known to naturalists, the Hare is not one of the
ruminant animals, but belongs to the same order as the rat, rabbit,
beaver, and other rodents. Neither its teeth nor its stomach are
constructed for the purpose of enabling it to ruminate, i.e. to return
into the mouth the partially-digested food, and then to masticate it
afresh; and therefore it has been thought that either there is some
mistake in the sacred narrative, or that the Hebrew word has been
mistranslated.
[Illustration: THE SYRIAN HARE.
"_Nevertheless, these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or
of them that divide the cloven hoof: as the camel, and the hare, and
the coney._"--DEUT. xiv. 7.]
Taking the latter point first, as being the simplest of the two, we
find that the Hebrew word which is rendered as Hare is Arnebeth, and
that it is rendered in the Septuagint as Dasypus, or the Hare,--a
rendering which the Jewish Bible adopts. That the Arnebeth is really
the Hare may also be conjectured from the fact that the Arabic name
for that animal is Arneb. In consequence of the rather wide sense to
which the Greek word Dasypus (_i.e._ hairy-foot) is used, some
commentators have suggested that the rabbit may have been included in
the same title. This, however, is not at all likely, inasmuch as the
Hare is very plentiful in Palestine, and the rabbit is believed not
to be indigenous to that part of the world. And, even if the two
animals had been classed under the same title, the physiological
difficulty would not be removed.
Before proceeding further, it will be as well to give a brief
description of the curious act called rumination, or "chewing the
cud."
There are certain animals, such as the oxen, antelopes, deer, sheep,
goats, camels, &c. which have teeth unfitted for the rapid mastication
of food, and which therefore are supplied with a remarkable apparatus
by which the food can be returned into the mouth when the animal has
leisure, and be re-masticated before it passes into the true digestive
organs.
For this purpose they are furnished with four stomachs, which are
arranged in the following order. First comes the paunch or "rumen"
(whence the word "ruminating"), into which passes the food in a very
rough state, just as it is torn, rather than bitten, from the herbage,
and which is analogous to the crop in birds. It thence passes into the
second stomach, or "honeycomb," the walls of which are covered with
small angular cells. Into those cells the food is received from the
first stomach, and compressed into little balls, which can be
voluntarily returned into the mouth for mastication.
After the second mastication has been completed, the food passes at
once into the third stomach, and thence into the fourth, which is the
true digesting cavity. By a peculiar structure of these organs, the
animal is able to convey its food either into the first or third
stomach, at will, _i.e._ into the first when the grass is eaten, and
into the third after rumination. Thus it will be seen that an animal
which chews the cud must have teeth of a certain character, and be
possessed of the fourfold stomach which has just been described.
Two points are conceded which seem to be utterly irreconcilable with
each other. The first is that the Mosaic law distinctly states that
the Hare chews the cud; the second is, that in point of fact the Hare
is not, and cannot be, a ruminating animal, possessing neither the
teeth nor the digestive organs which are indispensable for that
process. Yet, totally opposed as these statements appear to be, they
are in fact, not so irreconcilable as they seem.
Why the flesh of certain animals was prohibited, we do not at the
present time know. That the flesh of swine should be forbidden food is
likely enough, considering the effects which the habitual eating of
swine's flesh is said to produce in hot countries. But it does seem
very strange that the Israelites should have been forbidden to eat the
flesh of the camel, the coney (or hyrax), and the Hare, and that these
animals should have been specified is a proof that the eating or
refraining from their flesh was not a mere sanitary regulation, but
was a matter of importance. The flesh of all these three animals is
quite as good and nutritious as that of the oxen, or goats, which are
eaten in Palestine, and that of the Hare is far superior to them.
Therefore, the people of Israel, who were always apt to take liberties
with the restrictive laws, and were crafty enough to evade them on so
many occasions, would have been likely to pronounce that the flesh of
the Hare was lawful meat, because the animal chewed the cud, or
appeared to do so, and they would discreetly have omitted the passage
which alluded to the division of the hoof.
To a non-scientific observer the Hare really does appear to chew the
cud. When it is reposing at its ease, it continually moves its jaws
about as if eating something, an action which may readily be mistaken
for true rumination. Even Cowper, the poet, who kept some hares for
several years, and had them always before his eyes, was deceived by
this mumbling movement of the jaws. Speaking of his favourite hare,
"Puss," he proceeds as follows: "Finding him exceedingly tractable, I
made it my custom to carry him always after breakfast into the garden,
where he hid himself generally under the leaves of a cucumber vine,
sleeping, _or chewing the cud_, till evening."
The real object of this continual grinding or mumbling movement is
simple enough. The chisel-like incisor teeth of the rodent animals
need to be rubbed against each other, in order to preserve their edge
and shape, and if perchance such friction should be wanting to a
tooth, as, for example, by the breaking of the opposite tooth, it
becomes greatly elongated, and sometimes grows to such a length as to
prevent the animal from eating. Instinctively, therefore, the Hare, as
well as the rabbit and other rodents, always likes to be nibbling at
something, as any one knows who has kept rabbits in wooden hutches,
the object of this nibbling not being to eat the wood, but to keep
the teeth in order.
But we may naturally ask ourselves, why the Mosaic law, an emanation
from heaven, should mention an animal as being a ruminant, when its
very structure shows that such an act was utterly impossible? The
answer is clear enough. The law was suited to the capacity of those
for whom it was intended, and was never meant to be a handbook of
science, as well as a code of religious duties and maxims. The Jews,
like other Orientals, were indifferent to that branch of knowledge
which we designate by the name of physical science, and it was
necessary that the language in which the law was conveyed to them
should be accommodated to their capabilities of receiving it.
It would have been worse than useless to have interrupted the solemn
revelation of Divine will with a lesson in comparative anatomy; the
object of the passage in question being, not to teach the Jews the
distinctive characteristics of a rodent and a ruminant, but to guard
against their mistaking the Hare for one of the ruminants which were
permitted as food. That they would in all probability have fallen into
that mistake is evident from the fact that the Arabs are exceedingly
fond of the flesh of the Hare, and accept it, as well as the camel, as
lawful food, because it chews the cud, the division of the hoof not
being considered by them as an essential.
Hares are very plentiful in Palestine, and at least two species are
found in that country. One of them, which inhabits the more northern
and hilly portion of Palestine, closely resembles our own species, but
has not ears quite so long in proportion, while the head is broader.
The second species, which lives in the south, and in the valley of the
Jordan, is very small, is of a light dun colour, and has very long
ears. In their general habits, these Hares resemble the Hare of
England.
CATTLE.
The cattle of Palestine, and their decadence at the present
day--Ox-flesh not used for food in modern times--Oxen of the
stall, and oxen of the pasture--The use of the ox in
agriculture--The yoke and its structure--The plough and the
goad--The latter capable of being used as a weapon--Treading out
the corn--The cart and its wheels--The ox used as a beast of
burden--Cattle turned loose to graze--The bulls of
Bashan--Curiosity of the ox-tribe--A season of drought--Branding
the cattle--An Egyptian field scene--Cattle-keeping an
honourable post--The ox as used for sacrifice--Ox-worship--The
bull Apis, and his history--Persistency of the
bull-worship--Jeroboam's sin--Various names of cattle--The
Indian buffalo.
Under this head we shall treat of the domesticated oxen of Scripture,
whether mentioned as Bull, Cow, Ox, Calf, Heifer, &c.
Two distinct species of cattle are found in Palestine, namely, the
ordinary domesticated ox, and the Indian buffalo, which lives in the
low-lying and marshy valley of the Jordan. Of this species we shall
treat presently.
The domesticated cattle are very much like our own, but there is not
among them that diversity of breed for which this country is famous;
nor is there even any distinction of long and short horned cattle.
There are some places where the animals are larger than in others, but
this difference is occasioned simply by the better quality and greater
quantity of the food.
As is the case in most parts of the world where civilization has made
any progress, Domesticated Cattle were, and still are, plentiful in
Palestine. Even at the present time the cattle are in common use,
though it is evident, from many passages of Holy Writ, that in the
days of Judæa's prosperity cattle were far more numerous than they are
now, and were treated in a better fashion.
To take their most sacred use first, a constant supply of cattle was
needed for the sacrifices, and, as it was necessary that every animal
which was brought to the altar should be absolutely perfect, it is
evident that great care was required in order that the breed should
not deteriorate, a skill which has long been rendered useless by the
abandonment of the sacrifices.
Another reason for their better nurture in the times of old is that in
those days the ox was largely fed and fatted for the table, just as is
done with ourselves. At the present day, the flesh of the cattle is
practically unused as food, that of the sheep or goat being always
employed, even when a man gives a feast to his friends. But, in the
old times, stalled oxen, _i.e._ oxen kept asunder from those which
were used for agricultural purposes, and expressly fatted for the
table, were in constant use. See for example the well-known passage in
the Prov. xv. 17, "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a
stalled ox and hatred therewith." Again, the Prophet Jeremiah makes
use of a curious simile, "Egypt is like a very fair heifer, but
destruction cometh; it cometh out of the north. Also her hired men are
in the midst of her like fatted bullocks [or, bullocks of the stall],
for they also are turned back, and are fled away together." (Jer.
xlvi. 20.) And in 1 Kings iv. 22, 23, when describing the glories of
Solomon's household, the sacred writer draws a distinction between the
oxen which were especially fattened for the table of the king and the
superior officers, and those which were consumed by the lower orders
of his household: "And Solomon's provision for one day was thirty
measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal, ten fat oxen,
and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside
harts, and roebucks, and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl." Again, in the
well-known parable of the king's marriage, there is an allusion to
fatted animals, and a distinction is made between the oxen of the
pasture and those of the stall. "Again, he sent forth other servants,
saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner,
my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready."
Calves--mostly, if not always, bull-calves--were largely used for food
in Palestine, and in the households of the wealthy were fatted for the
table. See, for example, the familiar parable of the prodigal son, in
which the rejoicing father is mentioned as preparing a great feast in
honour of his son's return, and ordering the fatted calf to be
killed--the calf in question being evidently one of the animals that
were kept in good condition against any festive occasion. And, even in
the earliest history of the Bible, the custom of keeping a fatted calf
evidently prevailed, as is shown by the conduct of Abraham, who, when
he was visited by the three heavenly guests, "ran unto the herd, and
fetched a calf, tender and good," and had it killed and dressed at
once, after the still existing fashion of the East.
But, even in the times of Israel's greatest prosperity, the chief use
of the ox was as an agricultural labourer, thus reversing the custom
of this country, where the horse has taken the place of the ox as a
beast of draught, and where cattle are principally fed for food.
Ploughing was, and is, always performed by oxen, and allusions to this
office are scattered plentifully through the Old and New Testaments.
When understood in this sense, oxen are almost always spoken of in
connexion with the word "yoke," and as each yoke comprised two oxen,
it is evident that the word is used as we employ the term "brace," or
pair. The yoke, which is the chief part of the harness, is a very
simple affair. A tolerably stout beam of wood is cut of a sufficient
length to rest upon the necks of the oxen standing side by side, and a
couple of hollows are scooped out to receive the crest of the neck. In
order to hold it in its place, two flexible sticks are bent under
their necks, and the ends fixed into the beam of the yoke. In the
middle of this yoke is fastened the pole of the plough or cart, and
this is all the harness that is used, not even traces being required.
It will be seen that so rude an implement as this would be very likely
to gall the necks of the animals, unless the hollows were carefully
smoothed, and the heavy beam adapted to the necks of the animals. This
galling nature of the yoke, so familiar to the Israelites, is used
repeatedly as a metaphor in many passages of the Old and New
Testaments. These passages are too numerous to be quoted, but I will
give one or two of the most conspicuous among them. The earliest
mention of the yoke in the Scriptures is a metaphor.