Now this Obadiah was a very great man. He was governor of the king's

palace, an office which has been compared to that of our Lord High

Chamberlain. He possessed such influence that, although he was known

to be a worshipper of Jehovah, and to have saved a hundred prophets

during Jezebel's persecution, he retained his position, either because

no one dared to inform against him, or because he was too powerful to

be attacked. Yet to Obadiah was assigned the joint office of seeking

for pasturage for the Mules, the king himself sharing the task with

his chamberlain, thus showing the exceeding value which must have been

set on these appanages of royal state.

Their importance may be gathered from a passage in the Book of Ezra,

in which, after enumerating with curious minuteness the number of the

Jews who returned home from their Babylonish captivity, the sacred

chronicler proceeds to remark that "their horses were seven hundred

thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; their camels,

four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred

and twenty" (Ezra ii. 66, 67). There is a parallel passage in Neh.

vii. 68, 69.

Seeing that the Mule was in such constant use as a riding animal, it

is somewhat remarkable that we never find in the Scripture any mention

of the obstinate disposition which is proverbially associated with the

animal. There is only one passage which can be thought even to bear

upon such a subject, and that is the familiar sentence from Ps. xxxii.

9: "Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no

understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest

they come near unto thee;" and, as the reader will see, no particular

obstinacy or frowardness is attributed to the Mule which is not

ascribed to the horse also.

Still, that the Mule was as obstinate and contentious an animal in

Palestine as it is in Europe is evident from the fact that the Eastern

mules of the present day are quite as troublesome as their European

brethren. They are very apt to shy at anything, or nothing at all;

they bite fiercely, and every now and then they indulge in a violent

kicking fit, flinging out their heels with wonderful force and

rapidity, and turning round and round on their fore-feet so quickly

that it is hardly possible to approach them. There is scarcely a

traveller in the Holy Land who has not some story to tell about the

Mule and its perverse disposition; but, as these anecdotes have but

very slight bearing on the subject of the Mule as mentioned in the

Scriptures, they will not be given in these pages.

That the Mule was employed as a beast of burden as well as for riding,

we gather from several passages in the Old Testament. See, for

example, 1 Chron. xii. 40: "Moreover they that were nigh them, even

unto Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on

camels, and on mules, and on oxen." We have also the well-known

passage in which is recorded the reply of Naaman to Elisha after the

latter had cured him of his leprosy: "And Naaman said, Shall there not

then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of

earth?" It does not necessarily follow that two of Naaman's Mules were

to be laden with earth, but the probability is, that Naaman used the

term "a Mule's burden" to express a certain quantity, just as we talk

of a "load" of hay or gravel.

As Mules are animals of such value, we may feel some little surprise

that they were employed as beasts of burden. It is possible, however,

that a special and costly breed of large and handsome Mules, like

those of Andalusia, were reserved for the saddle, and that the smaller

and less showy animals were employed in the carriage of burdens.

Before parting entirely with the Mule, it will be well to examine the

only remaining passage in which the animal is mentioned. It occurs in

Ezek. xxvii. 14: "They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs

with horses and horsemen and mules." The chapter in which this passage

occurs is a sustained lamentation over Tyre, in which the writer first

enumerates the wealth and greatness of the city, and then bewails its

downfall. Beginning with the words, "O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of

perfect beauty," the prophet proceeds to mention the various details

of its magnificence, the number and beauty of its ships built with

firs from Senir, having oars made of the oaks of Bashan, masts of the

cedars of Lebanon, benches of ivory, sails of "fine linen with

broidered work from Egypt," and coverings of purple and scarlet from

the isles of Elishah. The rowers were from Zidon and Arvad, while Tyre

itself furnished their pilots or steersmen.

After a passing allusion to the magnificent army of Tyre, the sacred

writer proceeds to mention the extent of the merchandise that was

brought to this queen of ancient seaports: silver and other metals

were from Tarshish, slaves and brass from Meshech, ivory and ebony

from Dedan, jewellery and fine linen from Syria; wheat, honey, and oil

from Judæa; wine and white wool from Damascus, and so forth. And,

among all these riches, are prominently mentioned the horses and Mules

from Togarmah. Now, it has been settled by the best bibliographers

that the Togarmah of Ezekiel is Armenia, and so we have the fact that

the Phoenicians supplied themselves with Mules and horses by importing

them from Armenia instead of breeding those animals themselves, just

as Palestine imported its horses, and probably its Mules also, from

Egypt.

It is rather remarkable that the Arabs of Palestine very seldom breed

the Mule for themselves, but, like the ancient Jews, import them from

adjacent countries, mostly from the Lebanon district. Those from

Cyprus are, however, much valued, as they are very strong, diligent,

and steady, their pace being nearly equal to that of the horse. Mules

are seldom used for agricultural purposes, though they are extensively

employed for riding and for carrying burdens, especially over rocky

districts.

The Mule is not without its legend. One of the oddest of these

accounts for its obstinacy and its incapacity for breeding.

When the Holy Family was about to travel into Egypt, St. Joseph chose

a Mule to carry them. He was in the act of saddling the animal, when

it kicked him after the fashion of Mules. Angry with it for such

misconduct, St. Joseph substituted an ass for the Mule, thus giving

the former the honour of conveying the family into Egypt, and laid a

curse upon it that it should never have parents nor descendants of its

own kind, and that it should be so disliked as never to be admitted

into its master's house, as is the case with the horse and other

domesticated animals. This is one of the multitudinous legends which

are told to the crowds of pilgrims who come annually to see the

miraculous kindling of the holy fire, and to visit the tree on which

Judas hanged himself.

SWINE.

The Mosaic prohibition of the pig--Hatred of Swine by Jews and

Mahometans--A strange use of bacon--The prodigal son--Resistance

to the persecution of Antiochus--Swine hated by the early

Egyptians--Supposed connexion between Swine and diseases of the

skin--Destruction of the herd of Swine--The locality of the

event discovered--Pigs bred for the monasteries--The jewel of

gold in a Swine's snout--The wild boar of the woods, and the

beast of the reeds--The damage which it does to the

vines--General account of the wild boar of Palestine--Excellence

of its flesh.

Many are the animals which are specially mentioned in the Mosaic law

as unfit for food, beside those that come under the general head of

being unclean because they do not divide the hoof and chew the cud.

There is none, however, that excited such abhorrence as the hog, or

that was more utterly detested.

It is utterly impossible for a European, especially one of the present

day, to form even an idea of the utter horror and loathing with which

the hog was regarded by the ancient Jews. Even at the present day, a

zealous Jew or Mahometan looks upon the hog, or anything that belongs

to the hog, with an abhorrence too deep for words. The older and

stricter Jews felt so deeply on this subject, that they would never

even mention the name of the hog, but always substituted for the

objectionable word the term "the abomination."

Several references are made in the Scriptures to the exceeding disgust

felt by the Jews towards the Swine. The portion of the Mosaic law on

which a Jew would ground his antipathy to the flesh of Swine is that

passage which occurs in Lev. xi. 7: "And the swine, though he divide

the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is

unclean to you." But the very same paragraph, of which this passage

forms the termination, treats of other unclean beasts, such as the

coney (or hyrax) and the hare, neither of which animals are held in

such abhorrence as the Swine.

This enactment could not therefore have produced the singular feeling

with which the Swine were regarded by the Jews, and in all probability

the antipathy was of far greater antiquity than the time of Moses.

How hateful to the Jewish mind was the hog we may infer from many

passages, several of which occur in the Book of Isaiah. See, for

example, lxv. 3, 4: "A people that provoketh me to anger continually

to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon

altars of brick;

"Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat

swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels."

Here we have the people heaping one abomination upon another--the

sacrifice to idols in the gardens, the burning of incense upon a

forbidden altar and with strange fire, the living among the tombs,

where none but madmen and evil spirits were supposed to reside, and,

as the culminating point of iniquity, eating Swine's flesh, and

drinking the broth in which it was boiled.

In the next chapter, verse 3, we have another reference to the Swine.

Speaking of the wickedness of the people, and the uselessness of their

sacrifices, the prophet proceeds to say: "He that killeth an ox is as

if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he had cut off a

dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's

blood." We see here how the prophet proceeds from one image to

another: the murder of a man, the offering of a dog instead of a lamb,

and the pouring out of Swine's blood upon the altar instead of

wine--the last-mentioned crime being evidently held as the worst of

the three. Another reference to the Swine occurs in the same chapter,

verse 17: "They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the

gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the

abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the

Lord."

Not only did the Jews refuse to eat the flesh of the hog, but they

held in utter abomination everything that belonged to it, and would

have thought themselves polluted had they been even touched with a

hog's bristle. Even at the present day this feeling has not

diminished, and both by Jews and Mahometans the hog is held in utter

abhorrence.

Some recent travellers have made great use of this feeling. Signor

Pierotti, for example, during his long sojourn in Palestine, found the

flesh of the hog extremely beneficial to him. "How often has the flesh

of this animal supported me, especially during the earlier part of my

stay in Palestine, before I had learned to like the mutton and the

goats' flesh! I give the preference to this meat because it has often

saved me time by rendering a fire unnecessary, and freed me from

importunate, dirty, and unsavoury guests, who used their hands for

spoons, knives, and forks.

"A little piece of bacon laid conspicuously upon the cloth that served

me for a table was always my best friend. Without this talisman I

should never have freed myself from unwelcome company, at least

without breaking all the laws of hospitality by not inviting the

chiefs of my escort or the guides to share my meal; a thing neither

prudent nor safe in the open country. Therefore, on the contrary, when

thus provided I pressed them with the utmost earnestness to eat with

me, but of course never succeeded in persuading them; and so dined in

peace, keeping on good terms with them, although they did call me

behind my back a 'dog of a Frank' for eating pork.

"Besides, I had then no fear of my stores failing, as I always took

care to carry a stock large enough to supply the real wants of my

party. So a piece of bacon was more service to me than a revolver, a

rifle, or a sword; and I recommend all travellers in Palestine to

carry bacon rather than arms, for the latter are often stolen, the

former is never."

Such being the feelings of the Jews, we may conceive the abject

degradation to which the Prodigal Son of the parable must have

descended, when he was compelled to become a swine-herd for a living,

and would have been glad even to have eaten the very husks on which

the Swine fed. These husks, by the way, were evidently the pods of the

locust-tree, or carob, of which we shall have more to say in a future

page. We have in our language no words to express the depths of

ignominy into which this young man must have fallen, nor can we

conceive any office which in our estimation would be so degrading as

would be that of swine-herd to a Jew.

How deeply rooted was the abhorrence of the Swine's flesh we can see

from a passage in 2 Maccabees, in which is related a series of insults

offered to the religion of the Jews. The temple at Jerusalem was to be

called the Temple of Jupiter Olympus, and that on Gerizim was to be

dedicated to Jupiter, the defender of strangers. The altars were

defiled by forbidden things, and the celebration of the Sabbath, or of

any Jewish ceremony, was punishable with death.

Severe as were all these afflictions, there was one which the Jews

seem, from the stress laid upon it, to have felt more keenly than any

other. This was the compulsory eating of Swine's flesh, an act which

was so abhorrent to the Jews that in attempting to enforce it,

Antiochus found that he was foiled by the passive resistance offered

to him. The Jews had allowed their temples to be dedicated to the

worship of heathen deities, they had submitted to the deprivation of

their sacred rites, they had even consented to walk in procession on

the Feast of Bacchus, carrying ivy like the rest of the worshippers in

that most licentious festival. It might be thought that any people who

submit to such degradation would suffer any similar indignity. But

even their forbearance had reached its limits, and nothing could

induce them to eat the flesh of Swine.

Several examples of the resistance offered by them are recorded in the

book just mentioned. Eleazar, for example, a man ninety years old,

sternly refused to partake of the abominable food. Some of the

officials, in compassion for his great age, advised him to take lawful

meat with him and to exchange it for the Swine's flesh. This he

refused to do, saying that his age was only a reason for particular

care on his part, lest the young should be led away by his example.

His persecutors then forced the meat into his mouth, but he rejected

it, and died under the lash.

Another example of similar, but far greater heroism, is given by the

same chronicler. A mother and her seven sons were urged with blows to

eat the forbidden food, and refused to do so. Thinking that the mother

would not be able to endure the sight of her sons' sufferings, the

officers took them in succession, and inflicted a series of horrible

tortures upon them, beginning by cutting off their tongues, hands, and

feet, and ending by roasting them while still alive. Their mother, far

from counselling her sons to yield, even though they were bribed by

promises of wealth and rank, only encouraged them to persevere, and,

when the last of her sons was dead, passed herself through the same

fiery trial.

Even among the ancient Egyptians this repugnance to the Swine

prevailed, though there was a sort of Pariah caste among them who bred

the animal and ate its flesh.

This we learn from Herodotus ("Euterpe," xlvii.):--"The Egyptians

consider the pig to be an impure animal, and if therefore a man in

passing near a pig should but touch it with his clothes, he goes at

once to the river and plunges into it. In the next place, swine-herds,

although they be native Egyptians, are the only men who are not

allowed to enter into any of their temples, neither will any man give

his daughter in marriage to one of them, nor take a wife from among

them, but the swine-herds only marry among themselves.

"The Egyptians therefore do not think it right to sacrifice swine to

any other deities, but to the moon and Bacchus they sacrifice them at

the same time; that is to say, at the same full moon, and then they

eat the flesh.... This sacrifice of pigs to the moon is performed in

the following manner. When the sacrificer has killed the victims, he

puts the tip of the tail, the spleen, and the caul together, covers

them with the fat found in the belly of the animal, and then consumes

it with fire. The rest of the flesh they eat during the full moon in

which they offer the sacrifices, but on no other day would any man

ever taste it. The poor among them, through want of money, make pigs

out of dough; and, after baking them, offer them in sacrifice.

"On the eve of the festival of Bacchus, every one slays a pig before

his door, and then restores it to the swine-herd that sold it, that he

may carry it away. The rest of this festival to Bacchus, except as

regards the pigs, the Egyptians celebrate much in the same manner as

the Greeks do."

It has been conjectured, and with plausibility, that the pig was

prohibited by Moses on account of the unwholesomeness of its flesh in

a hot country, and that its almost universal repudiation in such lands

is a proof of its unfitness for food. In countries where diseases of

the skin are so common, and where the dreaded leprosy still maintains

its hold, the flesh of the pig is thought, whether rightly or wrongly,

to increase the tendency to such diseases, and on that account alone

would be avoided.

It has, however, been shown that the flesh of Swine can be habitually

consumed in hot countries without producing any evil results; and,

moreover, that the prohibition of Moses was not confined to the Swine,

but included many other animals whose flesh is used without scruple by

those very persons who reject that of the pig.

Knowing the deep hatred of the Jews towards this animal, we may

naturally wonder how we come to hear of herds of Swine kept in Jewish

lands.

Of this custom there is a familiar example in the herd of Swine that

was drowned in the sea (Matt. viii. 28-34). It is an open question

whether those who possessed the Swine were Jews of lax principles, who

disregarded the Law for the sake of gain, or whether they were

Gentiles, who, of course, were not bound by the Law. The former seems

the likelier interpretation, the destruction of the Swine being a

fitting punishment for their owners. It must be here remarked, that

our Lord did not, as is often said, destroy the Swine, neither did He

send the devils into them, so that the death of these animals cannot

be reckoned as one of the divine miracles. Ejecting the evil spirits

from the maniacs was an exercise of His divine authority; the

destruction of the Swine was a manifestation of diabolical anger,

permitted, but not dictated.

The scene of so remarkable an event is naturally of great interest,

especially as the statements of the Evangelists who mention it do not

precisely agree. This subject is so well treated by Mr. Tristram in

his "Land of Israel," that it must be given in his own words:--

"The field of the tombs at Gadara presents a vivid illustration of the

circumstances connected with the healing of the demoniac in the

country of the Gadarenes, or Gergesenes. With one exception, all the

concomitant events of the miracle are exactly illustrated. We have

beyond the city the field of tombs, these tombs suited for the refuge

of demoniac outcasts, occupied as dwellings to the present day. We

have a plain suited for the feeding of swine, with its roots and

acorns, and we have a steep place hard by, of several hundred feet

high, [Greek: krêmnon]. But then, it does not run down to the sea, but

to the little river. This objection is, I think, fatal to the

identification of Um Keis with the scene of the miracle.

"St. Mark (v. 2) tells us that our Lord was met _immediately_ on His

coming out of the ship. This place is three and a half hours distant

from its shores. It is important also to observe that St. Matthew

(viii. 28) reads not Gadarenes, but Gergesenes, and St. Luke states

that the coast of the Gadarenes was over against Galilee (viii. 26). I

should feel thereupon disposed fully to endorse the suggestion of Dr.

Thomson, that St. Matthew, writing for those intimately acquainted

with the topography of the country in detail, names the obscure and

exact locality, _Gergesa_; while SS. Mark and Luke, writing for those

at a distance, simply name the country of Gadara, as being a place of

importance, and the acknowledged capital of the district. This is

borne out by the statement of Josephus ('Bell. Jud.' 1, viii. 35).

"Dr. Thomson visited, at the mouth of the Wady Semakh, directly

opposite Gennesaret, some ruins called by his guide _Kerza_, or

_Gerza_, which he identifies with the Gergesa of St. Matthew. The

discovery is most interesting and important. I visited the place

myself from a boat, and observed the remains of a valley and a khan;

but, unfortunately, I was not aware at the time of the interest

attaching to the place, and did not ascertain, or at least note down,

the name given to it by my boatmen.

"The statement of Origen exactly bears out the discovery of Dr.

Thomson. After stating that Gadara was not the scene of the miracle,

for these was thence no steep place into the sea, he states that

Gergesa is an ancient city on the shores of the lake, by which is a

steep place which runs down to it. In one important particular my

memory corroborates the statement of Dr. Thomson, viz. that while

there is here no precipice running sheer to the shore, but a narrow

belt of land, the cliff behind is steep, and the sea so narrow, that a

herd of swine, rushing frantically down, must certainly have been

overwhelmed in the sea before they could recover themselves.

"While the tombs at Gadara are peculiarly interesting and remarkable,

yet the whole region is so perforated everywhere by rock-chambers of

the dead that we may be quite certain that a home for the demoniac

will not be wanting whatever locality be assigned for the events

recorded by the Evangelists."

Although that part of the country is well suited for feeding Swine,

the animals are no longer kept. In the first place, there is a great

want of spirit in matters of commerce; and in the second, the country

is so unsettled that the merchants would probably be robbed. The

woods, moreover, furnish nowadays but a scanty supply of acorns, and

those are eaten by the Arabs instead of being given to pigs.

These animals are at the present day much neglected, because the

Mahometans and Jews may not eat the flesh, and the Christians, as a

rule, abstain from it, so that they may not hurt the feelings of their

neighbours. Pigs are however reared in the various monasteries, and by

the Arabs attached to them; the former eating the hog, and the latter

only breeding it for sale. Signor Pierotti states that the pigs become

as part of the family, who live and grow fat together with them.

Though, he remarks, they are not so intelligent as those that listened

to St. Anthony preaching in the Thebaid, they play with the children,

understand the language of their masters, and do not disdain to play

with the fowls, dogs, cats, asses, and horses, and are much more

nimble than their European brethren, although they are smaller in size

and not so spirited.

Although the pig was so detested by the Jews, they were evidently well

acquainted with it. St. Peter, for example, in his Second Epistle,

chap. ii. 22, refers to the habit of wallowing in the mire, a custom

which is common to all the pachydermatous animals, which, in spite of

their thick hide, are very sensitive to the attacks of flies, and

cover themselves with mud in order to defend themselves against their

tiny but dreaded enemies.

In connexion with the Swine, there is a passage in the Proverbs which

requires a slight comment. It occurs in chap. xi. 22: "As a jewel (or

pendant) of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is

without discretion." The sacred writer refers here to the custom

adopted by Oriental women of wearing a ring in the nostril--a custom

which has existed to the present day, and is familiar to all those who

have travelled in the East. The plan which is generally adopted is

that of boring a hole through the nostril, passing a ring through it,

and, when the wound has healed, hanging various jewels and other

ornaments upon the ring, so as to constitute the "pendant of gold"

mentioned in the proverb.

The image used by our Lord of casting pearls before Swine needs no

explanation.

We now come to the wild animal. Their is only one passage in the

Scriptures in which the WILD BOAR is definitely mentioned, and another

in which a reference is made to it in a paraphrase.

The former of these is the well-known verse of the Psalms: "Why hast

thou broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do

pluck her?

"The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the

field doth devour it" (Ps. lxxx. 12, 13). The second passage is to be

found in Ps. lxviii. 30. In the Authorized Version it is thus

rendered: "Rebuke the company of spearmen, the multitude of bulls,

with the calves of the people." If the reader will refer to the

marginal translation (which, it must be remarked, is of equal

authority with the text), the passage runs thus: "Rebuke the beasts of

the reeds," &c. Now, this is undoubtedly the correct rendering, and is

accepted in the Jewish Bible.

Having quoted these two passages, we will proceed to the description

and character of the animal.

In the former times, the Wild Boar was necessarily much more plentiful

than is the case in these days, owing to the greater abundance of

woods, many of which have disappeared by degrees, and others been

greatly thinned by the encroachments of mankind. Woods and reed-beds

are always the habitations of the Wild Boar, which resides in these

fastnesses, and seems always to prefer the reed-bed to the wood,

probably because it can find plenty of mud, in which it wallows after

the fashion of its kind. There is no doubt whatever that the "beast of

the reeds" is simply a poetical phrase for the Wild Boar.

If there should be any cultivated ground in the neighbourhood, the

Boar is sure to sally out and do enormous damage to the crops. It is

perhaps more dreaded in the vineyards than in any other ground, as it

not only devours the grapes, but tears down and destroys the vines,

trampling them under foot, and destroying a hundredfold as much as it

eats.

[Illustration: WILD BOAR OF PALESTINE.

"The Boar out of the wood doth waste it."--PS. lxxx. 13.]

If the reader will refer again to Ps. lxxx. he will see that the

Jewish nation is described under the image of a vine: "Thou hast

brought a vine out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen and

planted it," &c. No image of a destructive enemy could therefore

be more appropriate than that which is used. We have read of

the little foxes that spoil the vines, but the Wild Boar is a much

more destructive enemy, breaking its way through the fences, rooting

up the ground, tearing down the vines themselves, and treading them

under its feet. A single party of these animals will sometimes destroy

an entire vineyard in a single night.

We can well imagine the damage that would be done to a vineyard even

by the domesticated Swine, but the Wild Boar is infinitely more

destructive. It is of very great size, often resembling a donkey

rather than a boar, and is swift and active beyond conception. The

Wild Boar is scarcely recognisable as the very near relation of the

domestic species. It runs with such speed, that a high-bred horse

finds some difficulty in overtaking it, while an indifferent steed

would be left hopelessly behind. Even on level ground the hunter has

hard work to overtake it; and if it can get upon broken or hilly

ground, no horse can catch it. The Wild Boar can leap to a

considerable distance, and can wheel and turn when at full speed, with

an agility that makes it a singularly dangerous foe. Indeed, the

inhabitants of countries where the Wild Boar flourishes would as soon

face a lion as one of these animals, the stroke of whose razor-like

tusks is made with lightning swiftness, and which is sufficient to rip

up a horse, and cut a dog nearly asunder.

Although the Wild Boar is not as plentiful in Palestine as used to be

the case, it is still found in considerable numbers. Whenever the

inhabitants can contrive to cut off the retreat of marauding parties

among the crops, they turn out for a general hunt, and kill as many as

they can manage to slay. After one of these hunts, the bodies are

mostly exposed for sale, but, as the demand for them is very small,

they can be purchased at a very cheap rate. Signor Pierotti bought one

in the plains of Jericho for five shillings. For the few who may eat

the hog, this is a fortunate circumstance, the flesh being very

excellent, and as superior to ordinary pork as is a pheasant to a

barn-door fowl, or venison to mutton.

THE ELEPHANT.

The Elephant indirectly mentioned in the Authorized

Version--Solomon's ivory throne--Ivory used in Egypt--Horns of

ivory--The ivory palaces--Beds of ivory--The Tyrian ships--Ivory

mentioned by Homer--Vessels of ivory--The Elephant as an engine

of war--Antiochus and his Elephants--Oriental

exaggeration--Self-devotion of Eleazar--Attacking the Elephants,

and their gradual abandonment in war--The Talmudical writers on

the Elephant--A funeral and an omen.

Except indirectly, the Elephant is never mentioned in the Authorized

Version of the Canonical Scriptures, although frequent references are

made to ivory, the product of that animal.

The earliest mention of ivory in the Scriptures is to be found in 1

Kings x. 18: "Moreover the king (_i.e._ Solomon) made a great throne

of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold." This passage forms a

portion of the description given by the sacred historian of the

glories of Solomon's palace, of which this celebrated throne, with the

six steps and the twelve lions on the steps, was the central and most

magnificent object. It is named together with the three hundred golden

shields, the golden vessel of the royal palace, and the wonderful

arched viaduct crossing the valley of the Tyropoeon, "the ascent by

which he went up unto the house of the Lord," all of which glories so

overcame the Queen of Sheba that "there was no more spirit in her."

We see, therefore, that in the time of Solomon ivory was so precious

an article that it was named among the chief of the wonders to be seen

in the palace of Solomon, the wealthiest and most magnificent monarch

of sacred or profane history.

That it should not have been previously mentioned is very singular.

Five hundred years had elapsed since the Israelites escaped from the

power of Egypt, and during the whole of that time, though gold and

silver and precious stones and costly raiment are repeatedly

mentioned, we do not find a single passage in which any allusion is

made to ivory. Had we not known that ivory was largely used among the

Egyptians, such an omission would cause no surprise. But the

researches of modern travellers have brought to light many articles of

ivory that were in actual use in Egypt, and we therefore cannot but

wonder that a material so valued and so beautiful does not seem to

have been reckoned among the treasures which were brought by the

Israelites from the land of their captivity, and which were so

abundant that the Tabernacle was entirely formed of them.

In the various collections of Europe are many specimens of ivory used

by the ancient Egyptians, among the chief of which may be mentioned an

ivory box in the Louvre, having on its lid the name of the dynasty in

which it was carved, and the ivory-tipped lynch-pins of the splendid

war-chariot in Florence, from which the illustration on page 260 has

been drawn.

The ivory used by the Egyptians was, of course, that of the African

Elephant; and was obtained chiefly from Ethiopia, as we find in

Herodotus ("Thalia," 114):--"Where the meridian declines towards the

setting sun, the Ethiopian territory reaches, being the extreme part

of the habitable world. It produces much gold, huge elephants, wild

trees of all kinds, ebony, and men of large stature, very handsome and

long-lived."

Solomon may have procured from the same source part of the ivory which

he used so lavishly, but it is evident that he was also supplied from

India. In 1 Kings x. 22 we read: "For the king had at sea a navy of

Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of

Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks."

The reader will remark that an opinion has already been expressed that

the country whence these articles were brought must be India, and this

conjecture is strengthened by the Hebrew names given to the apes, the

peacocks, and the ivory, which are almost identical with the words

employed in the Cingalese language of the present day.

The usual Hebrew word for ivory is _shen_, i.e. a tooth, the

Israelites being perfectly aware that it was the product of a tooth,

and not of a horn. It is true that in one passage the word "horn" is

used in connexion with the term "ivory," or "tooth," in such a manner

that a reader of the English Version might imagine the sacred writers

to think that ivory was obtained from the horn of some animal. This

passage occurs in the prophet Ezekiel, xxvii. 15. Speaking of Tyre and

her greatness, the prophet uses the following terms: "The men of Dedan

were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of thine hand:

they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony."

If we refer to the Hebrew Bible, we shall find that the literal

translation of this passage runs as follows: "The men of Dedan were

thy traders; many maritime settlements were the merchandise of thine

hand: they offered thee as a price horns of teeth and ebony." It is

evident that the word _kerenoth_, or horns, is used to represent the

horn-like shape of the Elephant's tusk, as it appears when imported

into the country, the use of the term _shen_, or tooth, showing that

the shape and not material is to be implied by the term.

Now if the reader will look at a passage which has already been quoted

(1 Kings x. 22), he will see that the marginal reading translates the

word "ivory" as "elephants' teeth." This rendering is undoubtedly the

correct one. The Hebrew word is _shen-habbim_, and there is little, if

any, doubt that the term _habbim_ is rightly translated as

"elephants." A similar word, _Habba_, is found in the Assyrian

inscriptions, and is thought by Sir H. Rawlinson to have the same

signification.

It will be as well to mention here a curious version of Gen. 1. 1, in

which Joseph is said to have placed the body of his father upon a bier

of _shin-daphin_, or ivory.

After the passage in 1 Kings, ivory is repeatedly mentioned, sometimes

in allusion to its smoothness and whiteness, and sometimes to its use

as a luxurious appendage of the palace. For its use in the former

sense, we may take the well-known passage in the Song of Solomon: "His

hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright

ivory overlaid with sapphires" (Cant. v. 14). Also vii. 4, "Thy neck

is as a tower of ivory."

For its use in the second of these senses we may take several

passages. See, for example, Ps. xlv. 8: "All thy garments smell of

myrrh, aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have

made thee glad." It has been suggested that the words "ivory palaces"

may signify boxes or chests inlaid with ivory, in which were deposited

the royal garments, together with perfumes. Whether or not this be the

case, it is evident that the ivory is here mentioned as a costly

adjunct of royal luxury.

There are, however, passages in which ivory is distinctly mentioned as

forming part of the adornment of houses. For example, see 1 Kings

xxii. 39: "Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and

the ivory house which he made, are they not written in the book of the

chronicles of the kings of Israel?" The "ivory house" could not, of

course, be built wholly of ivory, and it is evident that by the term

is signified a palace, the rooms of which were inlaid with ivory.

Another mention of such houses is made in Amos iii. 15: "And I will

smite the winter house with the summer house; and the houses of ivory

shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord."

Chambers thus decorated are to be seen at the present day, and it is

remarkable that ivory is still used, together with ebony, in panelling

the walls of rooms--a combination which is mentioned in several of the

passages which have already been quoted.

The use of ivory as an article of luxury is also mentioned in Amos vi.

4: "Woe to them ... that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch

themselves upon their couches." And in Ezekiel xxvii. 6, the

overwhelming wealth and luxury of Tyre are pictured by the costly

materials of which the Assyrians built their ships--the planks of

Senir fir, the masts of cedar, the oars of Bashan oak, the sails of

fine linen, and the very benches on which the rowers sat, inlaid with

ivory. How accurate was the prophet in the details of his bodings, is

shown by the research of Mr. Layard, who found among the buried ruins

of Nineveh great quantities of ivory, some manufactured, and some in

its original state as imported--the uncut tusks, or "horns of ivory,"

to which reference has already been made.

The classical reader need scarcely be reminded of the parallel between

passages of Scripture and those of profane authors, in which ivory is

mentioned as a costly ornament. See, for example, the Iliad, book v.

484:--

"From his numbed hands the iv'ry studded reins,

Dropped in the dust, are trailed along the plains."

(_Lines_ 712, 713, POPE'S _Version_.)

In ancient Greece, as well as in Assyria, the beds of the wealthy were

adorned with ivory. Ulysses, for example (see Odyssey, book xxi.),

king as he was, made his own bridal bed of hide thongs interlaced, and

inlaid the posts with gold, ivory, and silver. And, in the beginning

of the same book, we find that the key of the royal armoury was made

of brass inlaid with ivory.

There is only one passage in the New Testament in which ivory is

mentioned: "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over

her, for no man buyeth their merchandise any more; the merchandise of

gold, and silver, and precious stones, ... and all manner vessels of

ivory." (Rev. xviii. 11, 12.)

Having now examined the passages in which ivory is mentioned, we turn

to those in which the Elephant itself is named. These are only to be

found in the Apocrypha, and in all of them the Elephant is described

as an engine of war. If the reader will refer to the First Book of the

Maccabees, he will find that the Elephant is mentioned at the very

commencement of the book. "Now when the kingdom was established before

Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the

dominion of two realms.

"Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with

chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy." (i. 16, 17.)

Here we see that the Elephant was considered as a most potent engine

of war, and, as we may perceive by the context, the King of Egypt was

so alarmed by the invading force, that he ran away, and allowed

Antiochus to take possession of the country.

After this, Antiochus Eupator marched against Jerusalem with a vast

army, which is thus described in detail:--"The number of his army was

one hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and two

and thirty elephants exercised in battle.

"And to the end that they might provoke the elephants to fight, they

showed them the blood of grapes and mulberries.

"Moreover, they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every

elephant they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and

with helmets of brass on their heads; and, besides this, for every

beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best.

"These were ready at every occasion wheresoever the beast was; and

whithersoever the beast went they went also, neither departed they

from him.

"And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered

every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices; there

were also upon every one two and thirty strong men that fought upon

them, beside the Indian that ruled him.

"As for the remnant of the horsemen, they set them on this side and

that side at the two fronts of the host, giving them signs what to do,

and being harnessed all over amidst the ranks." (1 Macc. vi. 30, &c.)

It is evident from this description that, in the opinion of the

writer, the Elephants formed the principal arms of the opposing force,

these animals being prominently mentioned, and the rest of the army

being reckoned as merely subsidiaries of the terrible beasts. The

thirty-two Elephants appear to have taken such a hold of the

narrator's mind, that he evidently looked upon them in the same light

that the ancient Jews regarded chariots of war, or as at the present

day savages regard artillery. According to his ideas, the thirty-two

Elephants constituted the real army, the hundred thousand infantry and

twenty thousand cavalry being only in attendance upon these animals.

Taken as a whole, the description of the war Elephant is a good one,

though slightly exaggerated, and is evidently written by an

eye-witness. The mention of the native mahout, or "Indian that guided

him," is characteristic enough, as is the account of the howdah, or

wooden carriage on the back of the animal.

The number of warriors, however, is evidently exaggerated, though not

to such an extent as the account of Julius Cæsar's Elephants, which

are said to have carried on their backs sixty soldiers, beside the

wooden tower in which they fought. It is evident that, in the first

place, no Elephant could carry a tower large enough to hold so many

fighting men, much less one which would afford space for them to use

their weapons.

A good account of the fighting Elephant is given by Topsel (p.

157):--"There were certain officers and guides of the Elephants, who

were called _Elephantarchæ_, who were the governors of sixteen

Elephants, and they which did institute and teach them martial

discipline were called _Elephantagogi_.

"The Military Elephant did carry four persons on his bare back, one

fighting on the right hand, another fighting on the left hand, a

third, which stood fighting backwards from the Elephant's head, and a

fourth in the middle of these, holding the rains, and guiding the

Beast to the discretion of the Souldiers, even as the Pilot in a ship

guideth the stem, wherein was required an equall knowledge and

dexterity; for when the Indian which ruled them said, Strike here on

the right hand, or else on the left, or refrain and stand still, no

reasonable man could yield readier obedience."

This description is really a very accurate as well as spirited one,

and conveys a good idea of the fighting Elephant as it appeared when

brought into action.

Strangely enough, after giving this temperate and really excellent

account of the war Elephant, the writer seems to have been unable to

resist the fascination of his theme, and proceeds to describe, with

great truth and spirit, the mode of fighting adopted by the animal,

intermixed with a considerable amount of the exaggeration from which

the former part of his account is free.

"They did fasten iron chains, first of all, upon the Elephant that was

to bear ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty men, on either side two

panniers of iron bound underneath their belly, and upon them the like

panniers of wood, hollow, wherein they placed their men at armes, and

covered them over with small boards (for the trunck of the Elephant

was covered with a mail for defence, and upon that a broadsword, two

cubits long); this (as also the wooden Castle, or pannier aforesaid)

were fastened first to the neck and then to the rump of the Elephant.

"Being thus armed, they entered the battel, and they shewed unto the

Beasts, to make them more fierce, wine, liquor made of Rice, and white

cloth, for at the sight of any of these his courage and rage

increaseth above all measure. Then at the sound of the Trumpet, he

beginneth with teeth to strike, tear, beat, spoil, take up into the

air, cast down again, stamp upon men under feet, overthrow with his

trunck, and make way for his riders to pierce with Spear, Shield, and

Sword; so that his horrible voice, his wonderful body, his terrible

force, his admirable skill, his ready and inestimable obedience, and

his strange and seldom-seen shape, produced in a main battel no mean

accidents and overturns."

In this account there is a curious mixture of truth and exaggeration.

As we have already seen, the number of soldiers which the animal was

supposed to carry is greatly exaggerated, and it is rather amusing to

note how the "towers" in which they fought are modified into

"panniers." Then the method by which the animal is incited to the

combat is partly true, and partly false. Of course an Elephant is not

angered by seeing a piece of white cloth, or by looking at wine, or a

liquor made of rice.

But that the wine, or the "liquor made of rice," _i.e._ arrack, was

administered to the Elephant before it was brought into the

battle-field, is likely enough. Elephants are wonderfully fond of

strong drink. They can be incited to perform any task within their

powers by a provision of arrack, and when stimulated by a plentiful

supply of their favourite drink they would be in good fighting

condition.

Next we find the writer describing the Elephant as being furnished

with a coating of mail armour on its proboscis, the end of which was

armed with a sword a yard in length. Now any one who is acquainted

with the Elephant will see at once that such offensive and defensive

armour would deprive the animal of the full use of the proboscis, and

would, therefore, only weaken, and not strengthen, its use in battle.

Accordingly we find that the writer, when describing with perfect

accuracy the mode in which the Elephant fights, utterly omits all

mention of the sword and the mailed proboscis, and describes the

animal, not as striking or thrusting with the sword, but as

overthrowing with the trunk, taking up into the air, and casting down

again--acts which could only be performed when the proboscis was

unencumbered by armour. The use of weapons was left to the soldiers

that fought upon its back, the principal object of the huge animal

being to trample its way through the opposing ranks, and to make a way

for the soldiers that followed.

It may be easily imagined that, before soldiers become familiarized

with the appearance of the Elephant, they might be pardoned for being

panic-struck at the sight of so strange an animal. Not only was it

formidable for its vast size, and for the armed men which it carried,

but for the obedience which it rendered to its keeper, and the skill

with which it wielded the strange but powerful weapon with which

Nature had armed it.

At first, the very approach of so terrible a foe struck consternation

into the soldiers, who knew of no mode by which they could oppose the

gigantic beast, which came on in its swift, swinging pace, crushing

its way by sheer weight through the ranks, and striking right and left

with its proboscis. No other method of checking the Elephant, except

by self-sacrifice, could be found; and in 1 Macc. vi. 43-46, we read

how Eleazar, the son of Mattathias, nobly devoted himself for his

country.

"Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran, perceiving that one of the beasts,

armed with royal harness, was higher than all the rest, and supposing

that the king was upon him.

"Put himself in jeopardy, to the end he might deliver his people, and

get him a perpetual name.

"Whereupon he ran upon him courageously, through the midst of the

battle, slaying on the right hand and on the left, so that they were

divided from him on both sides.

"Which done, he crept under the elephant, and thrust him under, and

slew him; whereupon the elephant fell down upon him, and he died."

I may here mention that the surname of Savaran, or Avaran, as it ought

to be called, signifies one who pierces an animal from behind, and was

given to him after his death, in honour of his exploit.

At first, then, Elephants were the most formidable engines of war that

could be brought into the battle-field, and the very sight of these

huge beasts, towering above even the helmets of the cavalry,

disheartened the enemy so much that victory became easy.

After a while, however, when time for reflection had been allowed, the

more intellectual among the soldiers began to think that, after all,

the Elephant was not a mere engine, but a living animal, and, as such,

subject to the infirmities of the lower animals. So they invented

scheme after scheme, by which they baffled the attacks of these once

dreaded foes, and sometimes even succeeded in driving them back among

the ranks of their own soldiery, so maddened with pain and anger,

that they dealt destruction among the soldiers for whom they were

fighting, and so broke up their order of battle that the foe easily

overcame them.

The vulnerable nature of the proboscis was soon discovered, and

soldiers were armed with very sharp swords, set on long handles, with

which they continually attacked the Elephants' trunks. Others were

mounted on swift horses, dashed past the Elephant, and hurled their

darts before the animal could strike them. Others, again, were placed

in chariots, and armed with very long and sharply-pointed spears.

Several of these chariots would be driven simultaneously against an

Elephant, and sometimes succeeded in killing the animal. Slingers also

were told off for the express purpose of clearing the "castles," or

howdahs, of the soldiers who fought on the Elephants' backs, and their

especial object was the native mahout, who sat on the animal's neck.

Sometimes they made way for the Elephant as it pressed forward, and

then closed round it, so as to make it the central mark, on which

converged a hail of javelins, arrows, and stones on every side, until

the huge animal sank beneath its many wounds. By degrees, therefore,

the Elephant was found to be so uncertain an engine of war, that its

use was gradually discontinued, and finally abandoned altogether.

The Elephant which was employed in these wars was the Indian species,

_Elephas Indicus_, which is thought to be more susceptible of

education than the African Elephant. The latter, however, has been

tamed, and, in the days of Rome's greatest splendour, was taught to

perform a series of tricks that seem almost incredible. As, however,

the Indian species is that with which we have here to do, I have

selected it for the illustration.

It may be at once distinguished from its African relative by the

comparatively small ears, those of the African Elephant reaching above

the back of the head, and drooping well below the neck. The shape of

the head, too, is different. In the Indian species, only the males

bear tusks, and even many of them are unarmed. In the African species,

however, both sexes bear tusks, those of the male furnishing the best

ivory, with its peculiar creamy colour and beautiful graining, and

those of the female being smaller in size, and producing ivory of a

much inferior quality.

[Illustration: INDIAN ELEPHANT

"They brought thee for a present horns of Ivory"--EZ. xxvii. 15.]

The Talmudical writers have not much to say about the Elephant, and

what they do say is rather ludicrous than otherwise. The proboscis,

say they, gives the animal a very ugly look, so that to dream of the

trunk of an Elephant is a bad omen. Indeed, it is so odd a substitute

for a nose, that when people look at it they say, "Praised be He who

can thus transform His creatures."

Largest and strongest of earth's inhabitants, the Elephant is yet

afraid of the smallest. The gnat attacks him, flies into the open end

of the proboscis, and sucks his blood at its ease.

It is rather remarkable that there is an ironical adage respecting the

Elephant and the eye of the needle, exactly similar to the familiar

proverb of the camel and the needle's eye.

THE CONEY, OR HYRAX.

The Shaphan of Scripture, and the correct meaning of the

word--Identification of the Shaphan with the Syrian

Hyrax--Description of the animal--Its feet, teeth, and apparent

rumination--Passages in which the Coney is mentioned--Habits of

the animal--Its activity and wariness--The South African Hyrax,

and its mode of life--Difficulty of procuring it--Similarity in

appearance and habits of the Syrian species--Three species of

Hyrax known to naturalists--The Talmudical writers on the

Shaphan--The jerboa and the rabbit--A curious speculation and a

judicious compromise.

Among the many animals mentioned in the Bible, there is one which is

evidently of some importance in the Jewish code, inasmuch as it is

twice named in the Mosaic law.

That it was also familiar to the Jews is evident from other references

which are made to its habits. This animal is the Shaphan of the Hebrew

language, a word which has very wrongly been translated in the

Authorized Version as Coney, _i.e._ Rabbit, the creature in question

not being a rabbit, nor even a rodent. No rabbit has ever been

discovered in Palestine, and naturalists have agreed that the

true Coney or Rabbit has never inhabited the Holy Land. There

is no doubt that the Shaphan of the Hebrew Scripture, and the Coney of

the Vulgate, was the SYRIAN HYRAX (_Hyrax Syriacus_). This little

animal is rather larger than an ordinary rabbit, is not unlike it in

appearance, and has many of its habits. It is clothed with brown fur,

it is very active, it inhabits holes and clefts in rocks, and it has

in the front of its mouth long chisel-shaped teeth, very much like

those of the rabbit. Consequently, it was classed by naturalists among

the rodents for many years, under the name of Rock Rabbit. Yet, as I

have already mentioned, it is not even a rodent, but belongs to the

pachydermatous group of animals, and occupies an intermediate place

between the rhinoceros and the hippopotamus.

[Illustration: THE HYRAX.

"_The Conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the

rocks._"--PROV. xxx. 26.]

If it be examined carefully, the rodent-like teeth will be seen to

resemble exactly the long curved tusks of the hippopotamus, with

their sharp and chisel-edged tips; the little feet, on a close

inspection, are seen to be furnished with a set of tiny hoofs just

like those of the rhinoceros; and there are many other points in its

structure which, to the eye of a naturalist, point out its true place

in nature.

In common with the rodents, and other animals which have

similarly-shaped teeth, the Hyrax, when at rest, is continually

working its jaws from side to side, a movement which it instinctively

performs, in order that the chiselled edges of the upper and lower

teeth may be preserved sharp by continually rubbing against each

other, and that they may not be suffered to grow too long, and so to

deprive the animal of the means whereby it gains its food. But for

this peculiar movement, which looks very like the action of

ruminating, the teeth would grow far beyond the mouth, as they rapidly

deposit dental material in their bases in order to supply the waste

caused at their tips by the continual friction of the edges against

each other.

It may seem strange that an animal which is classed with the elephant,

the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus, all bare-skinned animals, should

be clothed with a furry coat. The reader may perhaps remember that the

Hyrax does not afford a solitary instance of this structure, and that,

although the elephants of our day have only a few bristly hairs thinly

scattered over the body, those of former days were clad in a thick and

treble coat of fur and hair.

There are four passages of Scripture in which the Coney is

mentioned--two in which it is prohibited as food, and two in which

allusion is made to its manner of life. In order to understand the

subject better, we will take them in their order.

The first mention of the Coney occurs in Leviticus xi. 5, among the

list of clean and unclean animals: "The coney, because he cheweth the

cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." The second is

of a like nature, and is to be found in Deut. xiv. 7: "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: for they chew the

cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you."

The remaining passages, which describe the habits of the Coney, are as

follow. The first alludes to the rock-loving habits of the animal:

"The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the

conies." (Ps. civ. 18.) The second makes a similar mention of the

localities which the animal frequents, and in addition speaks of its

wariness, including it among the "four things which are little upon

the earth, but they are exceedingly wise." The four are the ants, the

locusts, the spiders, and the Conies, which "are but a feeble folk,

yet make they their houses in the rocks."

We will take these passages in their order.

It has already been mentioned that the Hyrax, a true pachyderm, does

not merely chew the cud, but that the peculiar and constant movement

of its jaws strongly resembles the act of rumination. The Jews,

ignorant as they were of scientific zoology, would naturally set down

the Hyrax as a ruminant, and would have been likely to eat it, as its

flesh is very good. It must be remembered that two conditions were

needful to render an animal fit to be eaten by a Jew, the one that it

must be a ruminant, and the second that it should have a divided hoof.

Granting, therefore, the presence of the former qualification, Moses

points out the absence of the latter, thereby prohibiting the animal

as effectually as if he had entered into a question of comparative

anatomy, and proved that the Hyrax was incapable of rumination.

We now come to the habits of the animal.

As we may gather from the passages of Scripture which have already

been mentioned, the Hyrax inhabits rocky places, and lives in the

clefts that are always found in such localities. It is an exceedingly

active creature, leaping from rock to rock with wonderful rapidity,

its little sharp hoofs giving it a firm hold of the hard and irregular

surface of the stony ground. Even in captivity it retains much of its

activity, and flies about its cage with a rapidity that seems more

suitable to a squirrel than to an animal allied to the rhinoceros and

hippopotamus.

There are several species--perhaps only varieties--of the Hyrax, all

of them identical in habits, and almost precisely similar in

appearance. The best known of these animals is that which inhabits

Southern Africa (_Hyrax Capensis_), and which is familiar to the

colonists by its name of Klip-das, or Rock-rabbit. In situations which

suit it, the Hyrax is very plentiful, and is much hunted by the

natives, who esteem its flesh very highly. Small and insignificant as

it appears to be, even Europeans think that to kill the Hyrax is a

tolerable test of sportsmanship, the wariness of the animal being so

great that much hunter's craft is required to approach it.

The following account of the Hyrax has been furnished to me by

Lt.-Col. A. W. Drayson, R.A.:--"In the Cape Colony, and over a great

portion of Southern Africa, this little creature is found. It is

never, as far as my experience goes, seen in great numbers, as we find

rabbits in England, though the caution of the animal is such as to

enable it to remain safe in districts from which other animals are

soon exterminated.

"As its name implies, it is found among rocks, in the crevices and

holes of which it finds a retreat. When a natural cavity is not found,

the klip-das scratches a hole in the ground under the rocks, and

burrows like a common rabbit. In size it is about equal to a hare,

though it is much shorter in the legs, and has ears more like those of

a rat than a rabbit. Its skin is covered with fur, thick and woolly,

as though intended for a colder climate than that in which it is

usually found; and, when seen from a distance, it looks nearly black.

"The rock-rabbit is a very watchful creature, and usually feeds on the

summit of any piece of rock near its home, always choosing one from

which it can obtain a good view of the surrounding country. When it

sees an enemy approaching, it sits rigidly on the rock and watches him

without moving, so that at a little distance it is almost impossible

to distinguish it from the rock on which it sits. When it does move,

it darts quickly out of sight, and disappears into its burrow with a

sudden leap.

"In consequence of its activity and cunning, the rock-rabbit is seldom

killed by white men; and when a hunter does secure one, it is

generally by means of a long shot. The natives usually watch near its

burrow, or noiselessly stalk it.

"I once killed one of these animals by a very long shot from a rifle,

as it was sitting watching us from the top of a large boulder, at a

distance of a hundred and fifty yards or thereabouts. The Dutch Boers

who were with me were delighted at the sight of it, as they said it

was good eating; and so it proved to be, the flesh being somewhat like

that of a hare, though in our rough field-cookery we could not do

justice to it."

This short narrative excellently illustrates the character of the

animal, which is classed among the "four things which be exceeding

wise." It is so crafty that no trap or snare ever set has induced a

Hyrax to enter it, and so wary that it is with difficulty to be killed

even with the aid of fire-arms. "No animal," writes Mr. Tristram,

"ever gave us so much trouble to secure.... The only chance of

securing one is to be concealed, particularly about sunset or before

sunrise, on some overhanging cliff, taking care not to let the shadow

be cast below, and then to wait until the little creatures cautiously

peep forth from their holes. They are said to be common by those who

have not looked for them, but are certainly not abundant in Palestine,

and few writers have ever had more than a single glimpse of one. I had

the good fortune to see one feeding in the gorge of the Kedron, and

then to watch it as it sat at the mouth of its hole, ruminating,

metaphorically if not literally, while waiting for sunset."

Should the Hyrax manage to catch a glimpse of the enemy, it utters a

shrill cry or squeal, and darts at once to its hole--an action which

is followed by all its companions as soon as they hear the warning

cry. It is a tolerably prolific animal, rearing four or five young at

a birth, and keeping them in a soft bed of hay and fur, in which they

are almost hidden. If surprised in its hole and seized, the Hyrax will

bite very sharply, its long chisel-edged teeth inflicting severe

wounds on the hand that attempts to grasp it. But it is of a tolerably

docile disposition, and in a short time learns to know its owner, and

to delight in receiving his caresses.

Three species of Hyrax are known to naturalists. One is the Klip-das,

or Rock-rabbit, of Southern Africa; the second is the Ashkoko of

Abyssinia; and the third is the Syrian Hyrax, or the Coney of the

Bible. The two last species have often been confounded together, but

the Syrian animal may be known by the oblong pale spot on the middle

of its back.

The Talmudical writers were greatly perplexed about the proper reading

of the word Shaphan, some of them thinking it to be a jerboa, and

others considering it as the rabbit. Lewysohn sums up the arguments

after a rather curious fashion. According to him, the strongest

argument against the translation of the Biblical word Shaphan as

"rabbit" is that the animal came from Spain, and was probably unknown

to the earlier Talmudists, though the later writers might have known

it.

Then, struck with the resemblance of the Hebrew word [Hebrew: Sh'p'n]

and Spain, he proceeds to discuss the probability of the Shaphan

deriving its name from Spain, the country of its origin, or of Spain

being so called on account of the number of rabbits which inhabited

it. He comes at last to the conclusion that the jerboa was probably

the animal which was prohibited in the Mosaic law; but that, as the

rabbit answered in every respect to the Talmudical conditions, it may,

for all practical purposes, be accepted as the representative of the

Shaphan of Scripture.

BEHEMOTH.

Literal translation of the word Behemoth--Various theories

respecting the identity of the animal--The Hippopotamus known to

the ancient Hebrews--Geographical range of the animal--"He

eateth grass like the ox"--Ravages of the Hippopotamus among the

crops--Structure of the mouth and teeth--The "sword or scythe"

of the Hippopotamus--Some strange theories--Haunts of the

Hippopotamus--The Egyptian hunter--A valuable painting--Strength

of the Hippopotamus--Rising of the Nile--Modern

hunters--Wariness of the Hippopotamus--The pitfall and the

drop-trap.

In the concluding part of that wonderful poem which is so familiar to

us as the Book of Job, the Lord is represented as reproving the

murmurs of Job, by showing that he could not even understand the

mysteries of the universe, much less the purposes of the Creator. By

presuming to bring a charge of injustice against his Maker, he in fact

inferred that the accuser was more competent to govern the world than

was the Creator, and thus laid himself open to the unanswerable irony

of the splendid passages contained in chapters xl. xli., which show

that man cannot even rule the animals, his fellow-creatures, much less

control the destinies of the human race.

The passages with which we are at present concerned are to be found at

the end of the fortieth chapter, and contain a most powerful

description of some animal which is called by the name of Behemoth.

Now this word only occurs once in the whole of the Scriptures, _i.e._

in Job xl. 15: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee," &c. Some

commentators, in consequence of the plural termination of the word,

which may be literally translated as "beasts," have thought that it

was a collective term for all the largest beasts of the world, such as

the elephant, the hippopotamus, the wild cattle, and their like.

Others have thought that the elephant was signified by the word

Behemoth; and some later writers, acquainted with palæontology, have

put forward a conjecture that the Behemoth must have been some extinct

pachydermatous animal, like the dinotherium, in which might be

combined many of the qualities of the elephant and hippopotamus.

It is now, however, agreed by all Biblical scholars and naturalists,

that the hippopotamus, and no other animal, is the creature which was

signified by the word Behemoth, and this interpretation is followed in

the Jewish Bible.

We will now take the whole of the passage, and afterwards examine it

by degrees, comparing the Authorized Version with the Jewish Bible,

and noting at the same time one or two variations in the rendering of

certain phrases. The passage is given as follows in the Jewish Bible,

and may be compared with our Authorized Version:--

"Behold now the river-horse, which I have made with thee: he eateth

grass like an ox.

"Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his vigour is in the

muscles of his body.

"He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped

together.

"His bones are pipes of copper; his bones are like bars of iron.

"He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can alone reach

his sword.

"That the mountains should bring forth food for him, and all the

beasts of the field play there.

"He lieth under wild lotuses, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

"Wild lotuses cover him with their shadow; willows of the brook

compass him about.

"Behold, should a river overflow, he hasteth not: he feels secure

should Jordan burst forth up to his mouth.

"He taketh it in with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

We will now take this description in detail, and see how far it

applies to the now familiar habits of the hippopotamus. A little

allowance must of course be made for poetical imagery, but we shall

find that in all important details the account of the Behemoth agrees

perfectly with the appearance and habits of the hippopotamus.

In the first place, it is evident that we may dismiss from our minds

the idea that the Behemoth was an extinct pachyderm. The whole tenor

of the passage shows that it must have been an animal then existing,

and whose habits were familiar to Job and his friends. Now the date of

the Book of Job could not have been earlier than about 1500 B.C., and

in, consequence, the ideas of a palæozoic animal must be discarded.

We may also dismiss the elephant, inasmuch as it was most unlikely

that Job should have known anything about the animal, and it is

certain that he could not have attained the familiarity with its

appearance and habits which is inferred by the context. Moreover, it

cannot be said of the elephant that "he eateth grass as an ox." The

elephant feeds chiefly on the leaves of trees, and when he does eat

grass, he cannot do so "like an ox," but plucks it with his proboscis,

and then puts the green tufts into his mouth. So characteristic a

gesture as this would never have passed unnoticed in a description so

full of detail.

That the hippopotamus was known to the ancient Hebrews is certain.

After their sojourn in Egypt they had necessarily become familiarized

with it; and if, as most commentators believe, the date of the Book of

Job be subsequent to the liberation of the Israelites, there is no

difficulty in assuming that Job and his companions were well

acquainted with the animal. Even if the book be of an earlier date, it

is still possible that the hippopotamus may, in those days, have lived

in rivers where it is now as much extinct as it is in England. Mr.

Tristram remarks on this point: "No hippopotamus is found in Asia, but

there is no reason for asserting that it may not have had an eastern

range as far as Palestine, and wallowed in the Jordan; for its bones

are found in the _débris_ of the rivers of Algeria, flowing into the

Mediterranean, when tradition is quite silent as to its former

existence.

"Several extinct species of hippopotamus have been found in the later

tertiary deposits, both of England and other countries of Europe,

embedded in gravel which contains shells of many existing species of

the locality, showing that the temperature has not much changed, and

that some of the fossil species were natives of cold and temperate

climes."

There is no doubt that the hippopotamus and the urus were the two

largest animals known to the Jews, and it is probably on that account

that the former received the name of Behemoth.

Assuming, therefore, that the Behemoth is identical with the

hippopotamus, we will proceed with the description.

The words "whom I made with thee" have been variously translated. Some

Hebraists render them as, "whom I made near thee," _i.e._ near or in

the country in which Job lived. Others read the words, "like as thee,"

_i.e._ that the Behemoth was the fellow-creature of Job. Others again

understand them as signifying that the man and the animal were

contemporaneous, and the passage should be read, "whom I made at the

same time with thee." Whichever interpretation we adopt, it is evident

that a parallel of some kind is drawn between the man and the beast.

"He eateth grass like the ox." The word which is here rendered "grass"

is translated in Numb. xi. 5 as "leeks." It means, something that is

green, and is probably used to signify green herbage of any

description. Now it is perfectly true of the hippopotamus that it eats

grass like an ox, or like cattle, as the passage may be translated. In

order to supply its huge massive body with nourishment, it consumes

vast quantities of food, as indeed may be inferred from the structure

of its mouth and jaws. The mouth is enormously broad and

shovel-shaped, so as to take in a large quantity of food at once; and

the gape is so wide, that when the animal opens its jaws to their full

extent it seems to split its head into two nearly equal portions. This

great mobility of jaw is assisted by the peculiar form of the gape,

which takes a sudden turn upwards, and reaches almost to the eyes.

Just as the mouth is formed to contain a vast quantity of food, so

the jaws and teeth are made to procure it. From the front of the lower

jaw the incisor teeth project horizontally, no longer performing the

ordinary duties of teeth, but being modified into tusks, which are in

all probability used as levers for prising up the vegetables on which

the animal lives. But the most singular portion of the jaw is the mode

in which the canine teeth are modified so as to resemble the incisor

teeth of rodents, and to perform a similar office.

These teeth are very long, curved, and chisel-edged at their tips,

their shape being preserved by continual attrition, just as has been

mentioned of the hyrax. The material of the teeth is peculiarly hard,

so much so, indeed, that it is in great request for artificial teeth,

the "verniers" of philosophical instruments, and similar purposes.

Consequently, with these teeth the hippopotamus can cut through the

stems of thick and strong herbage as with shears, and the strength of

its jaws is so great that an angered hippopotamus has been known to

bite a man completely in two, and to crush a canoe to fragments with a

single movement of its enormous jaws.

Keeping this description in our minds, we shall see how true is the

statement in verse 19. This passage is not adequately rendered in the

Authorized Version: the word which is translated as "sword" also

signifies a scythe, and evidently having that meaning in the text. The

passage is best translated thus: "His Maker hath furnished him with

his scythe."

The havoc which such an animal can make among growing crops may be

easily imagined. It is fond of leaving the river, and forcing its way

into cultivated grounds, where it eats vast quantities of green food,

and destroys as much as it eats, by the trampling of its heavy feet.

Owing to the width of the animal, the feet are placed very far apart,

and the consequence is that the hippopotamus makes a double path, the

feet of each side trampling down the herbage, and causing the track to

look like a double rut, with an elevated ridge between them.

Some little difficulty has been made respecting the passage in verse

20, "Surely the mountains bring him forth food." Commentators ignorant

of the habits of the hippopotamus, and not acquainted with the

character of the country where it lives, have thought that the animal

only lived in the rivers, and merely found its food along its banks,

or at most upon the marshes at the river-side. The hippopotamus, say

they, is not a dweller on the mountains, but an inhabitant of the

river, and therefore this passage cannot rightly be applied to the

animal.

Now, in the first place, the word _harim_, which is translated as

"mountains" in the Authorized Version, is rendered as "hills" by many

Hebraists. Moreover, as we know from many passages of Scripture, the

word "mountain" is applied to any elevated spot, without reference to

its height. Such places are very common along the banks of the Nile,

and are employed for the culture of vegetables, which would not grow

properly upon the flat and marshy lands around them. These spots are

very attractive to the hippopotamus, who likes a change of diet, and

thus finds food upon the mountains. In many parts of Egypt the river

runs through a mountainous country, so that the hills are within a

very short distance of the water, and are easily reached by the

hippopotamus.

The Talmudical writers exaggerated, after their custom, the

dimensions, voracity, and other attributes of the Behemoth. They said

that the animal devoured daily the herbage of a thousand hills, but

that, in order to prevent the devastation of the world which such

voracity would occasion, the herbage was miraculously renewed every

night. Only two of the Behemoth were ever created, and, lest they

should increase in numbers, and destroy every green thing on the face

of the earth, they were made incapable of propagating their kind.

There are other legends of the Behemoth too puerile to be narrated.

We will now proceed to the next verse. After mentioning that the

Behemoth can eat grass like an ox, and finds its food upon the hills,

the sacred writer proceeds to show that in its moments of repose it is

an inhabitant of the rivers and marshy ground: "He lieth under the

shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

"The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook

compass him about."

Here I may remind the reader that the compound Hebrew word which is

rendered in the Authorized Version as "shady trees" is translated by

some persons as "wild lotuses"--a rendering which is followed by the

editor of the Jewish Bible. Apparently, however, the Authorized

Version gives a more correct meaning of the term. Judging from a

well-known Egyptian painting, which represents a hunter in the act of

harpooning the hippopotamus, the tall papyrus reeds are the plants

that are signified by this word, which occurs in no other place in the

Scriptures.

Nothing can be more accurate than this description of the habits of

the animal. I have now before me a number of sketches by Mr. T.

Baines, representing various incidents in the life of the

hippopotamus; and in one or two of them, the little islands that stud

the river, as well as the banks themselves, are thickly clothed with

reeds mixed with papyrus, the whole being exactly similar to those

which are represented in the conventional style of Egyptian art. These

spots are the favourite haunts of the hippopotamus, which loves to lie

under their shadow, its whole body remaining concealed in the water,

and only the eyes, ears, and nostrils appearing above the surface.

As reference will be made to this painting when we come to the

Leviathan, it will be as well to describe it in detail. In order that

the reader should fully understand it, I have had it translated, so to

speak, from the conventional outline of Egyptian art into perspective,

exactly as has been done with the Assyrian and Egyptian chariots.

In the foreground is seen the hunter, standing on a boat that closely

resembles the raft-boat which is still in use in several parts of

Africa. It is made of the very light wood called ambatch, by cutting

down the requisite number of trees, laying them side by side so that

their bases form the stern and their points the bow of the

extemporized boat. They are then firmly lashed together, the pointed

ends turned upwards, and the simple vessel is complete. It is, in

fact, nothing more than a raft of triangular shape, but the wood is so

buoyant that it answers every purpose.

In his hand the hunter grasps the harpoon which he is about to launch

at the hippopotamus. This is evidently the same weapon which is still

employed for that purpose. It consists of a long shaft, into the end

of which a barbed iron point is loosely inserted. To the iron point is

attached one end of a rope, and to the other end, which is held in the

left hand of the harpooner, a float of ambatch wood is fastened.

[Illustration: THE HIPPOPOTAMUS, OR BEHEMOTH OF SCRIPTURE.

"_Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee._"--JOB xl. 15.]

When the weapon is thrown, the furious struggles of the wounded animal

disengage the shaft of the harpoon, which is regained by the

hunter; and as it dashes through the water, throwing up spray

as it goes, the ambatch float keeps the end of the rope at the

surface, so that it can be seen as soon as the animal becomes quieter.

Sometimes it dives to the bottom, and remains there as long as its

breath can hold out; and when it comes up to breathe, it only pushes

the nostrils out of the water under the shadow of the reeds, so that

but for the float it might manage to escape.

[Illustration: THE EGYPTIAN HUNTER.

"_He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and

fens._"--JOB xl. 21.

(The attitude of the Hippopotamus is copied from the painting.)]

In the meantime, guided by the float, the hunter follows the course of

the animal, and, as soon as it comes within reach of his weapon,

drives another spear into it, and so proceeds until the animal dies

from loss of blood. The modern hunters never throw a second harpoon

unless the one already fixed gives way, mainly employing a spear to

inflict the last wounds. But if we may judge from this painting, the

Egyptian hunter attached a new rope with every cast of his weapon,

and, when the hippopotamus became weak from its wounds, gathered up

the ropes and came to close quarters.

In the bow of the boat is the hunter's assistant, armed with a rope

made lasso-wise into a noose, which he is throwing over the head of

the hippopotamus, whose attitude and expression show evidently, in

spite of the rudeness of the drawing, the impotent anger of the

weakened animal.

Behind the hippopotamus are the tall and dense reeds and papyrus under

the shelter of which the animal loves to lie, and on the surface of

the water float the beautiful white flowers of the lotus.

In the Egyptian painting, the artist, in spite of the

conventionalities to which he was bound, has depicted the whole scene

with skill and spirit. The head and open mouth of the hippopotamus are

remarkably fine, and show that the artist who drew the animal must

have seen it when half mad with pain, and half dead from loss of

blood.

The enormous strength of the hippopotamus is shown in verses 16, 18,

the last of which passages requires a little explanation. Two

different words are used here to express the bones of the animal. The

first is derived from a word signifying strength, and means the

"strong bones," _i.e._ those of the legs. These are hollow, and are

therefore aptly compared to tubes or pipes of copper. The second term

is thought by some Hebraists to refer to the rib-bones, which are

solid, and therefore are not likened to tubes, but to bars of iron.

The 23d verse has been translated rather variously. The Authorized

Version can be seen by reference to a Bible, and another translation,

that of the Jewish Bible, is given on page 319. A third, and perhaps

the best rendering of this passage is given by the Rev. W. Drake, in

Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible:" "Lo, the river swelleth proudly

against him, yet he is not alarmed; he is securely confident though a

Jordan burst forth against his mouth."

In all probability reference is here made to the annual rising of the

Nile, and the inundations which it causes. In some years, when it

rises much above its usual height, the floods become most disastrous.

Whole villages are swept away, and scarcely a vestige of the mud-built

houses is left; the dead bodies of human beings are seen intermixed

with those of cattle, and the whole country is one scene of

desolation. Yet the almost amphibious hippopotamus cares nothing for

the floods, as long as it can find food, and so, "though the river

swelleth proudly against him," he is not alarmed.

From the use of the word "Jordan" in the same verse, it might be

thought that the river of Palestine was intended. This, however, is

not the case. The word "Jordan" is simply used as a poetical term for

any river, and is derived from a Hebrew word which signifies

"descending quickly."

We now come to the last verse of this noble description: "He taketh it

in with his eyes." These words have also been variously rendered, some

translating them as "He receiveth it (_i.e._ the river) up to his

eyes." But the translation which seems to suit the context best is,

"Who will take him when in his sight? His nose pierceth through

(_i.e._ detects) snares." Now, this faculty of detecting snares is one

of the chief characteristics of the hippopotamus, when it lives near

places inhabited by mankind, who are always doing their best to

destroy it. In the first place, its body gives them an almost

unlimited supply of flesh, the fat is very highly valued for many

purposes, the teeth are sold to the ivory-dealers, and the hide is cut

up into whips, or khoorbashes.

There is now before me a khoorbash, purchased from a native Egyptian

who was beating a servant with it. The whip is identical with that

which was used by the ancient Egyptians in urging the Israelites to

their tasks, and the scene reminded the traveller so forcibly of the

old Scriptural times that he rescued the unfortunate servant, and

purchased the khoorbash, which is now in my collection.

Not content with hunting the hippopotamus, the natives contrive

various traps, either pitfalls or drop-traps. The former are simply

pits dug in the path of the animal, covered with sticks and reeds, and

having at the bottom a sharp stake on which the victim is impaled, and

so effectually prevented from escaping or damaging the pit by its

struggles.

[Illustration: HIPPOPOTAMUS AND TRAP.

"_His nose pierceth through snares._"--JOB xl. 24.]

The drop-trap is a log of wood, weighted with stones, and having at

one end an iron spike, which is sometimes poisoned. The path which the

animal takes is watched, a conveniently overhanging branch is

selected, and from that branch the cruel spear is suspended, by a

catch or trigger, exactly over the centre of the path. There is no

difficulty in finding the precise centre of the path, owing to the

peculiar gait of the animal, which has already been described. One end

of the trigger supports the spear, and to the other is attached a

rope, which is brought across the path in such a way that when touched

it relieves the spear, which is driven deeply into the animal's back.

If well hung, the spear-blade divides the spine, and the wounded

animal falls on the spot, but, even if it should miss a vital part,

the poison soon does its fatal work.

In consequence of the continual persecution to which it is subjected,

the hippopotamus becomes exceedingly wary, and, huge, clumsy, and

blundering as it looks, is clever enough to detect either pitfall or

drop-trap that have not been contrived with especial care. An old and

experienced hippopotamus becomes so wary that he will be suspicious

even of a bent twig, and, rather than venture across it, he will leave

the path, force for himself a roundabout passage, and return to the

path beyond the object that alarmed him.

Mr. T. Baines, to whose sketches I am indebted for the illustration,

told me that the hippopotamus is possessed of much more intellect than

might be expected from a creature of so dull, clumsy, and unpromising

aspect. Apathetic it generally is, and, as long as it is left

unmolested, does not care to molest even the human beings that intrude

upon its repose.

It likes to lie in the shade of the reeds and rushes, and may be seen

floating in the water, with only the nostrils, the eyes, and the ears

above the surface, these organs being set in a line along the head,

evidently for the purpose of allowing the whole body to be hidden

under water while the three most important senses are capable of

acting.

A canoe-man who knows the habits of the hippopotamus will fearlessly

take his fragile vessel through a herd of the animals, knowing that,

if he only avoids contact with them, they will not interfere with him.

The only danger is, that a hippopotamus may rise under the canoe, and

strike itself against the boat, in which case the animal is rather apt

to consider the intruding object as an enemy, and to attack it,

sometimes crushing the canoe between its teeth, and mostly upsetting

it, and throwing the crew into the water. In such a case, the men

always dive at once to the bottom of the river, and hold on to some

weed or rock as long as they can exist without breathing. The reason

for this proceeding is, that the hippopotamus always looks for its

enemy upon the surface of the water, and, if the men were to swim to

shore, they would be caught and killed before they had swum many

strokes. But, as it sees nothing but the damaged canoe, its

short-lived anger vanishes, and it sinks again into the river,

leaving the men at liberty to regain and repair their vessel.

There is one passage in the description of the Behemoth which requires

a few words of explanation: "He moveth his tail like a cedar" (v. 17).

Several commentators have imagined that this expression shows that the

Behemoth must have been an animal which had a very long and powerful

tail, and have adduced the passage as a proof that the crocodile was

the animal that was signified by the Behemoth. Others, again, have

shifted the position of the tail, and, by rendering it as the

"proboscis," have identified the Behemoth with the elephant. There is,

however, no necessity for straining the interpretation, the passage

evidently signifying that the member in question is stiff and

inflexible as the cedar-stem.

BIRDS.

THE LÄMMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

Difficulty of identifying the various birds mentioned in

Scripture--The vultures of Palestine--The Lämmergeier, or

Ossifrage of Scripture--The Hebrew word Peres, and its

signification--The Ossifrage, or Bone-breaker--Appearance of the

Lämmergeier--Its flight and mode of feeding--How the Lämmergeier

kills snakes and tortoises, and breaks marrow-bones--Mode of

destroying the chamois and mountain sheep--Nest of the

Lämmergeier.

It has already been mentioned that even the best Biblical scholars

have found very great difficulties in identifying several of the

animals which are named in Scripture. This difficulty is greatly

increased when we come to the BIRDS, and in many instances it is

absolutely impossible to identify the Hebrew word with any precise

species. In all probability, however, the nomenclature of the birds is

a very loose one, several species being classed under the same title.

Even at the present day, the English language presents many similar

instances of poverty, as is well known to all zoologists. Taking the

birds as our first examples, how often do we not find the same word

used to signify many distinct species, and, again, one species

designated by several dissimilar words? The word Vulture, for example,

is used to signify a great number of birds, including the Lämmergeier,

the Condors, the Griffons, the Caracaras, and others; while the term

Eagle has scarcely a less wide signification. Sometimes the name is

applied in such a manner as to mislead those who are not scientific

ornithologists, and we find such inappropriate titles as night-hawk,

fern-owl, hedge-sparrow, reed-wren, &c., the birds in question being

neither hawks, owls, sparrows, nor wrens.

Keeping this difficulty in mind, I shall mention all the species which

are likely to have been classed under a single title, giving a general

description of the whole, and a detailed account of the particular

species which seems to answer most closely to the Hebrew word.

[Illustration: THE LÄMMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

"_These are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the

ossifrage, and the ospray._"--DEUT. xiv. 12]

Following the arrangement which has been employed in this work, I

shall begin with the bird which has been placed by zoologists at the

head of its class, namely, the LÄMMERGEIER, the bird which may be

safely identified with the Ossifrage of Scripture. The Hebrew word is

"Peres," a term which only occurs twice when signifying a species of

bird; namely, in Lev. xi. 13, and the parallel passage in Deut. xiv.

12. The first of these passages runs as follows: "These ye shall have

in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an

abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray." The

corresponding passage in Deuteronomy has precisely the same

signification, though rather differently worded: "These are they of

which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray."

The reader will here notice that the sacred narrative gives no account

of the appearance or habits of the bird, but merely classed it with

the remainder of the predacious birds, all of which are declared to be

unfit for food. We must therefore look for some assistance in the

etymology of the word _peres_, which signifies one who breaks

anything. The same word occurs in several other passages of Scripture.

For example, the word was much used by David in commemorating any

remarkable event. When David sent Uzzah and Ahio to fetch the ark from

Kirjath-jearim, the oxen which drew the cart stumbled and shook the

ark, so that it seemed likely to fall. Uzzah, who walked by the side

of the cart, while his brother marched in front of the oxen,

instinctively put out his hand to uphold it, and fell dead by the side

of the ark which he had touched without authority. In order to

commemorate this event, David called the spot whereon it occurred

Perez-Uzzah, or the Breaking of Uzzah, "because the LORD had made a

breach upon Uzzah." (See 2 Sam. vi. 8.)

Reference to this event was afterwards made by David when he brought

the ark into Jerusalem. Having taken warning by the solemn event which

he had witnessed, he called together the priests and Levites, to whom

he gave the commission to bring the ark with due honour, and "said

unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify

yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of

the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

"For, because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a

breach (_peres_) upon us, for that we sought Him not in due order" (1

Chron. xv. 12, 13). David again employed the word to signify the

breaking up or destruction of the Philistines. "David smote them

there, and said, The Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies before

me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that

place Baal-perazim"--_i.e._ the Place of Breakings. The same word

occurs again in that dread message to Belshazzar, written by the hand

upon the wall, "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin," or _peres_, the last

word signifying that the kingdom was broken up, and would be given

to other rulers.

The word _peres_, then, signifies a breaker; and the Latin term

Ossifraga, or Bone-breaker, is a very good translation of the word.

How it applies to the Lämmergeier we shall presently see.

The Lämmergeier belongs to the vultures, but has much more the

appearance of an eagle than a vulture, the neck being clothed with

feathers, instead of being naked or only covered with down. It may at

once be known by the tuft of long, hair-like feathers which depends

from the beak, and which has gained for the bird the title of Bearded

Vulture. The colour of the plumage is a mixture of different browns

and greys, tawny below and beautifully pencilled above, a line of pure

white running along the middle of each feather. When young it is

nearly black, and indeed has been treated as a separate species under

the name of Black Vulture.

It is one of the largest of the flying birds, its length often

exceeding four feet, and the expanse of its wings being rather more

than ten feet. In consequence of this great spread of wing, it looks

when flying like a much larger bird than it really is, and its size

has often been variously misstated. Its flight, as may be imagined

from the possession of such wings, is equally grand and graceful, and

it sweeps through the air with great force, apparently unaccompanied

by effort.

The Lämmergeier extends through a very large range of country, and is

found throughout many parts of Europe and Asia. It is spread over the

Holy Land, never congregating in numbers, like ordinary vultures, but

living in pairs, and scarcely any ravine being uninhabited by at least

one pair of Lämmergeiers.

The food of the Lämmergeier is, like that of other vultures, the flesh

of dead animals, though it does not feed quite in the same manner that

they do. When the ordinary vultures have found a carcase they tear it

to pieces, and soon remove all the flesh. This having been done, the

Lämmergeier comes to the half-picked bones, eats the remaining flesh

from them, and finishes by breaking them and eating the marrow. That a

bird should be able to break a bone as thick and hard as the

thigh-bone of a horse or ox seems rather problematical, but the bird

achieves the feat in a simple and effectual manner.

Seizing the bone in its claws, it rises to an immense height in the

air, and then, balancing itself over some piece of rock, it lets the

bone fall, and sweeps after it with scarce less rapidity than the bone

falls. Should the bone be broken by the fall, the bird picks the

marrow out of the fragments; and should it have escaped fracture by

reason of falling on a soft piece of ground instead of a hard rock,

the bird picks it up, and renews the process until it has attained its

object. It will be seen, therefore, that the name of Ossifrage, or

Bone-breaker, may very properly be given to this bird.

Not only does it extract the marrow from bones in this peculiar

manner, but it procures other articles of food by employing precisely

the same system. If it sees a tortoise, many of which reptiles are

found in the countries which it inhabits, it does not waste time and

trouble by trying to peck the shell open, but carries its prey high in

the air, drops it on the ground, and so breaks its shell to pieces.

Tortoises are often very hard-shelled creatures, and the Lämmergeier

has been observed to raise one of them and drop it six or seven times

before the stubborn armour would yield. Snakes, too, are killed in a

similar manner, being seized by the neck, and then dropped from a

height upon rocks or hard ground. The reader may perhaps be aware that

the Hooded Crow of England breaks bones and the shells of bivalve

molluscs in a similar manner.

Mr. Tristram suggests, with much probability, that the "eagle" which

mistook the bald head of the poet Æschylus for a white stone, and

killed him by dropping a tortoise upon it, was in all likelihood a

Lämmergeier, the bird being a denizen of the same country, and the act

of tortoise-dropping being its usual mode of killing those reptiles.

We now see why the Lämmergeier is furnished with such enormous wings,

and so great a power of flight, these attributes being needful in

order to enable it to lift its prey to a sufficient height. The air,

as we all know, becomes more and more attenuated in exact proportion

to the height above the earth; and did not the bird possess such great

powers of flight, it would not be able to carry a heavy tortoise into

the thinner strata of air which are found at the height to which it

soars.

The instinct of killing its prey by a fall is employed against other

animals besides snakes and tortoises, though exerted in a somewhat

different manner. The bird, as has already been mentioned, lives among

mountain ranges, and it may be seen floating about them for hours

together, watching each inch of ground in search of prey. Should it

see a goat or other inhabitant of the rocks standing near a precipice,

the Lämmergeier sweeps rapidly upon it, and with a blow of its wing

knocks the animal off the rock into the valley beneath, where it lies

helplessly maimed, even if not killed by the fall.

Even hares and lambs are killed in this manner, and it is from the

havoc which the Lämmergeier makes among the sheep that it has obtained

the name of Lämmergeier, or Lamb-Vulture. So swift and noiseless is

the rush of the bird, that an animal which has once been marked by its

blood-red eye seldom escapes from the swoop; and even the Alpine

hunters, who spend their lives in pursuit of the chamois, have

occasionally been put in great jeopardy by the sudden attack of a

Lämmergeier, the bird having mistaken their crouching forms for the

chamois, and only turned aside at the last moment.

The reason for employing so remarkable a mode of attack is to be found

in the structure of the feet, which, although belonging to so large

and powerful a bird, are comparatively feeble, and are unable, like

those of the eagle, to grasp the living animal in a deadly hold, and

to drive the sharp talons into its vitals. They are not well adapted

for holding prey, the talons not possessing the hook-like form or the

sharp points which characterise those of the eagle. The feet, by the

way, are feathered down to the toes. The beak, too, is weak when

compared with the rest of the body, and could not perform its work

were not the object which it tears previously shattered by the fall

from a height.

The nest of the Lämmergeier is made of sticks and sods, and is of

enormous dimensions. It is almost always placed upon a lofty cliff,

and contains about a wagon-load or so of sticks rudely interwoven, and

supporting a nearly equal amount of sods and moss.

An allied species lives in Northern Africa, where it is called by a

name which signifies Father Longbeard, in allusion to the beard-like

tufts of the bill.

THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE OR GIER-EAGLE.

The Râchâm or Gier-Eagle identified with the Egyptian Vulture--Its

appearance on the Egyptian monuments--Signification of the word

_Râchâm_--Various translations of the word--The shape, size, and

colour of the bird--Its value as a scavenger, and its general

habits--The Egyptian Vultures and the griffons--Its fondness for the

society of man--Nest of the Egyptian Vulture.

In the same list of unclean birds which has already been given, we

find the name of a bird which we can identify without much difficulty,

although there has been some little controversy about it. This is the

so-called Gier-Eagle, which is named with the cormorant and the

pelican as one of the birds which the Jews are forbidden to eat. The

word which is translated as Gier-Eagle is Râchâm, a name which is

almost identical with the Arabic name of the EGYPTIAN VULTURE,

sometimes called Pharaoh's Chicken, because it is so often sculptured

on the ancient monuments of Egypt. It is called by the Turks by a name

which signifies White Father, in allusion to the colour of its

plumage.

Before proceeding to a description of the bird, we will examine the

other interpretations which have been given to the word _râchâm_.

In the first place, the word signifies "love," and is used in that

sense in many passages of Scripture. According to Buxtorf, the bird in

question is the merops or bee-eater, "a bird so called from the love

and pity which is shown to its parents, because it nurtures them when

hidden in the most lofty caves." Some of the Talmudists take it to be

the woodpecker.

Another rendering of the word which has received much favour is, that

the Râchâm is the hyacinthine gallinule, or sultana hen (_Pophyrio

veterum_). This bird is allied to the rails, and is remarkable for the

great length of its toes, by means of which it can walk on floating

herbage as it lies on the surface of the water. The colour of the bird

is a rich and variable blue, darker on the back and lighter on the

throat and breast. It is on account of this purple hue that the bird

has received the name of _Porphyrio_, or Purple Bird. It is spread

over many parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

[Illustration: EGYPTIAN VULTURE, OR GIER-EAGLE.

"_And the pelican, and the gier-eagle, and the cormorant._"--DEUT.

xiv. 17.]

The reading of _râchâm_ as _porphyrio_ is followed in the Septuagint,

and the reading has been defended on the ground that the bird must

belong to the aquatic group, being placed between the pelican and

cormorant. The Jewish Bible follows our version, but affixes the mark

of doubt to the word.

Although some of the Talmudists render the word as woodpecker, others

identify it with the Egyptian Vulture. In Lewysohn's "Zoologie des

Talmuds," there is a curious speculation on this subject. This bird,

according to the authors whom he quotes, is the Schirkrek, and

derives its name from its peculiar cry, which begins with a hiss

(Schirk) and ends with a shriek (Rek). The bird utters its cry when

the rising of the Nile is expected, and so has earned the name of

Râchâm, or Love, this word being frequently used in the Scriptures as

a metaphor for rain, dew, or any water that nourishes plants.

Without adopting the process of reasoning employed in this case, we

may safely accept the conclusion, and consider the Râchâm as identical

with the Egyptian Vulture (_Neophron perenopterus_).

This bird is not a very large one, being about equal to a raven in

size, though its enormously long wings give it an appearance of much

greater size. Its colour is white, with the exception of the quill

feathers of the wings, which are dark-brown. The bill and the naked

face and legs are bright ochreous yellow. It does not attain this

white plumage until its third year, its colour before reaching adult

age being brown, with a grey neck and dull yellow legs and face.

The Egyptian Vulture, although not large, is a really handsome bird,

the bold contrast of pure white and dark brown being very conspicuous

when it is on the wing. In this plumage it has never been seen in

England, but one or two examples are known of the Egyptian Vulture

being killed in England while still in its dark-brown clothing.

It inhabits a very wide range of country, being found throughout all

the warmer parts of the Old World. Although it is tolerably plentiful,

it is never seen in great numbers, as is the case with several of the

vultures, but is always to be found in pairs, the male and female

never separating, and invariably being seen close together. In fact,

in places where it is common it is hardly possible to travel more than

a mile or two without seeing a pair of Egyptian Vultures. Should more

than two of these birds be seen together, the spectator may be sure

that they have congregated over some food. It has been well suggested

that its Hebrew name of Râchâm, or Love, has been given to it in

consequence of this constant association of the male and female.

The Egyptian Vulture is one of the best of scavengers, not only

devouring the carcases of dead animals, but feeding on every kind of

offal or garbage. Indeed, its teeth and claws are much too feeble to

enable it to cope with the true vultures in tearing up a large

carcase, and in consequence it never really associates with them,

although it may be seen hovering near them, and it never ventures to

feed in their company, keeping at a respectful distance while they

feed, and, when they retire, humbly making a meal on the scraps which

they have left.

Mr. Tristram narrates an amusing instance of this trait of character.

"On a subsequent occasion, on the north side of Hermon, we observed

the griffons teaching a lesson of patience to the inferior scavengers.

A long row of Egyptian vultures were sitting on some rocks, so

intently watching a spot in a corn-field that they took no notice of

our approach. Creeping cautiously near, we watched a score of griffons

busily engaged in turning over a dead horse, one side of which they

had already reduced to a skeleton.

"Their united efforts had just effected this, when we showed

ourselves, and they quickly retired. The inferior birds, who dreaded

us much less than them, at once darted to the repast, and, utterly

regardless of our presence within ten yards of them, began to gorge.

We had hardly retired two hundred yards, when the griffons came down

with a swoop, and the Egyptian vultures and a pair or two of eagles

hurriedly resumed their post of observation; while some black kites

remained, and contrived by their superior agility to filch a few

morsels from their lordly superiors."

So useful is this bird as a scavenger, that it is protected in all

parts of the East by the most stringent laws, so that a naturalist who

wishes for specimens has some difficulty in procuring the bird, or

even its egg. It wanders about the streets of the villages, and may

generally be found investigating the heaps of refuse which are left to

be cleared away by the animals and birds which constitute the

scavengers of the East.

It not only eats dead animal substances, but kills and devours great

quantities of rats, mice, lizards, and other pests that swarm in hot

countries. So tame is it, that it may even be observed, like the gull

and the rook of our own country, following the ploughman as he turns

up the ground, and examining the furrow for the purpose of picking up

the worms, grubs, and similar creatures that are disturbed by the

share.

Being thus protected and encouraged by man, there is good reason why

it should have learned in course of time to fear him far less than its

own kind. Indeed, it is so utterly fearless with regard to human

beings, that it habitually follows the caravans as they pass from one

town to another, for the sake of feeding on the refuse food and other

offal which is thrown aside on the road.

Two articles of diet which certainly do not seem to fall within the

ordinary range of vulture's food are said to be consumed by this bird.

The first is the egg of the ostrich, the shell of which is too hard to

be broken by the feeble beak of the Egyptian Vulture. The bird cannot,

like the lämmergeier, carry the egg into the air and drop it on the

ground, because its feet are not large enough to grasp it, and only

slip off its round and polished surface. Therefore, instead of raising

the egg into the air and dropping it upon a stone, it carries a stone

into the air and drops it upon the egg. So at least say the natives of

the country which it inhabits, and there is no reason why we should

doubt the truth of the statement.

The other article of food is a sort of melon, very full of juice. This

melon is called "nara," and is devoured by various creatures, such as

lions, leopards, mice, ostriches, &c. and seems to serve them instead

of drink.

The nest of the Egyptian Vulture is made in some rocky ledge, and the

bird does not trouble itself about selecting a spot inaccessible to

man, knowing well that it will not be disturbed. The nest is, like

that of other vultures, a large and rude mass of sticks, sods, bones,

and similar materials, to which are added any bits of rag, rope, skin,

and other village refuse which it can pick up as it traverses the

streets. There are two, and occasionally three, eggs, rather variously

mottled with red. In its breeding, as in its general life, it is not a

gregarious bird, never breeding in colonies, and, indeed, very seldom

choosing a spot for its nest near one which has already been selected

by another pair.

The illustration on page 340 represents part of the nest of the

Egyptian Vulture, in which the curious mixture of bones and sticks is

well shown. The parent birds are drawn in two characteristic attitudes

taken from life, and well exhibit the feeble beak, the peculiar and

intelligent, almost cunning expression of the head, and the ruff of

feathers which surrounds the upper part of the neck. In the distance

another bird is drawn as it appears on the wing, in order to show the

contrast between the white plumage and the dark quill feathers of the

wings, the bird presenting a general appearance very similar to that

of the common English sea-gull.

THE

GRIFFON VULTURE, OR EAGLE OF SCRIPTURE.

The Griffon Vulture identified with the Eagle of Scripture--The word

_Nesher_ and its signification--Geographical range of the Griffon--Its

mode of flight and sociable habits--The featherless head and neck of

the bird--The Vulture used as an image of strength, swiftness, and

rapacity--Its powers of sight--How Vultures assemble round a

carcase--Nesting-places of the Griffon--Mr. Tristram's description of

the Griffon--Rock-caves of the Wady Hamâm--Care of the young, and

teaching them to fly--Strength of the Griffon--Its emblematical use in

Egypt and Assyria--The god Nisroch--Noble aspect of the Griffon--Its

longevity--Various attitudes assumed by the bird.

We now come to another word which will give us but little trouble in

identification. This is the word _Nesher_, which is invariably

translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible as Eagle, but which

was undoubtedly a different bird, and has satisfactorily been

identified with the GRIFFON VULTURE, or Great Vulture (_Gyps fulvus_).

The reasons for this conclusion are so inextricably interwoven with

the various passages in which the bird is mentioned, that I shall not

give them separately, but simply allude to them in the course of the

article.

In the first place, the name Nesher is derived, according to many

Hebraists, from a word which signifies the power of sight, and is

given to the bird in consequence of its piercing vision. The

Talmudical writers mention a curious proverb concerning the sight of

the Vulture, namely, that a Vulture in Babylon can see a carcase in

Palestine. Other scholars derive it from a word which signifies its

longevity, while others again believe that the true derivation is to

be found in a word which signifies ripping up or tearing with the

beak.

The Griffon Vulture is found throughout a large portion of the Old

World, inhabiting nearly all the warmer portions of this hemisphere.

The colour of the adult bird is a sort of yellowish brown, diversified

by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down that surrounds

the neck. The head and neck are without feathers, but are sparingly

covered with very short down of a similar character to that of the

ruff.

It is really a large bird, being little short of five feet in total

length, and the expanse of wing measuring about eight feet.

The Griffon Vulture is very plentiful in Palestine, and, unlike the

lesser though equally useful Egyptian Vulture, congregates together in

great numbers, feeding, flying, and herding in company. Large flocks

of them may be seen daily, soaring high in the air, and sweeping their

graceful way in the grand curves which distinguish the flight of the

large birds of prey. They are best to be seen in the early morning,

being in the habit of quitting their rocky homes at daybreak, and

indulging in a flight for two or three hours, after which they mostly

return to the rocks, and wait until evening, when they take another

short flight before retiring to rest.

Allusion is made in the Scriptures to the gregarious habits of the

Vultures: "Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be

gathered together" (Matt xxiv. 28). That the Vulture, and not the

eagle, is here signified, is evident from the fact that the eagles do

not congregate like the Vultures, never being seen in greater numbers

than two or three together, while the Vultures assemble in hundreds.