So common was the use of the snare that it was frequently used as a

familiar image by the sacred writers. "How long shall this man be a

snare to us?" said Pharaoh's servants of Moses, through whom the

waters of the sacred river had been polluted, and various other

plagues had come upon the Egyptians. Idols are called snares in many

parts of the Scriptures, and so is the society of the wicked. A

forcible use of this image was made by Saul when he found that his

daughter Michal loved David: "And Saul said, I will give him her, that

she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be

against him" (1 Sam. xviii. 21). His device, or snare, not only

failed, but, as we learn in the succeeding chapter, verses 11-16,

David was "delivered from the snare of the fowler," by the very means

which had been employed for entrapping him.

We now pass to another division of the subject. In Ps. lxxxiv. 1-3, we

come upon a passage in which the Sparrow is again mentioned: "How

amiable are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!

"My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord; my

heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

"Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for

herself, where she may lay her young, even Thine altars, O Lord of

hosts, my King, and my God."

It is evident that we have in this passage a different bird from the

Sparrow that sitteth alone upon the house-tops; and though the same

word, _tzippor_, is used in both cases, it is clear that whereas the

former bird was mentioned as an emblem of sorrow, solitude, and

sadness, the latter is brought forward as an image of joy and

happiness. "Blessed are they," proceeds the Psalmist, "that dwell in

Thy house: they will be still praising Thee.... For a day in Thy

courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the

house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

According to Mr. Tristram, this is probably one of the species to

which allusion is made by the Psalmist. While inspecting the ruins in

the neighbourhood of the Temple, he came upon an old wall. "Near this

gate I climbed on to the top of the wall, and walked along for some

time, enjoying the fine view at the gorge of the Kedron, with its

harvest crop of little white tombs. In a chink I discovered a

sparrow's nest (_Passer cisalpinus_, var.) of a species so closely

allied to our own that it is difficult to distinguish it, one of the

very kind of which the Psalmist sung.... The swallows had departed for

the winter, but the sparrow has remained pertinaciously through all

the sieges and changes of Jerusalem."

[Illustration: THE TREE-SPARROW, OR SPARROW OF SCRIPTURE.

"_Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, where she may lay her

young._"--PS. lxxxiv. 3.]

The same traveller thinks that the TREE SPARROW (_Passer montanus_)

may be the species to which the sacred writer refers, as it is even

now very plentiful about the neighbourhood of the Temple. In all

probability we may accept both these birds as representatives of the

Sparrow which found a home in the Temple. The swallow is separately

mentioned, possibly because its migratory habits rendered it a

peculiarly conspicuous bird; but it is probable that many species of

birds might make their nests in a place where they felt themselves

secure from disturbance, and that all these birds would be mentioned

under the collective and convenient term of Tzipporim.

As we are engaged upon the word Sparrow, it may be mentioned that

several species of Sparrow inhabit Palestine. There is, for example,

the common House Sparrow, with which we are so familiar. Then, as has

just been described, there is the Tree Sparrow--a bird which is very

common in some parts of England, and never seen in others.

Beside these, there is the MARSH SPARROW, or SPANISH SPARROW (_Passer

salicarius_), which haunts the banks of the Jordan, and is found there

in countless myriads. Mr. Tristram mentions that it builds so

plentifully in the thorn-bushes of the Jordan valley, that he has seen

the branches borne down by the weight of the nests. The same writer,

in remarking upon the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of

defining the precise bird which was signified by a Hebrew word, says

that, exclusive of the crow tribe, the swifts, cuckoos, rollers,

kingfishers, &c., nearly one hundred and fifty species of passerine

birds are known to inhabit the Holy Land, any or all of which may be

signified by the word _tzippor_.

In curious contrast to the generally unobservant nature of the

Oriental, and to the almost entire absence in Scripture of any

allusion to the song of birds, we find that not only do the Orientals

of the present day keep singing-birds in cages, but that the custom

was in all probability prevalent during the days when the various

Scriptural books were written. Any of my readers who are familiar--as

they ought to be--with that store-house of Oriental manners, the

"Arabian Nights," will remember several allusions to birds kept in

cages, some for their song, some for their beauty of plumage, and some

for their powers of talking. The same custom is continued at the

present day; and not only in Palestine, but in other Eastern

countries, birds may be seen in cages hung outside the houses.

In two passages of the Scriptures the word "cage" is mentioned, but in

one case the word evidently has another meaning, and in the other the

signification is open to doubt.

The first of these passages occurs in Jer. v. 27: "For among my people

are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they

set a trap, they catch men.

"As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit."

There is but little doubt that the word which is rendered here as

"cage" really signifies a trap, probably one of the basket-traps which

are still employed in the East in bird-catching. One marginal reading

gives the word as "coop." The whole of the context, however, shows

that reference is made, not to keeping birds in cages, but to

capturing them in traps, to which the houses of the wicked are

compared.

The second mention of the word "cage" occurs in the Revelation, where

the sacred writer compares Babylon with "a cage of every unclean

bird." The word in this case signifies "prison," and we cannot

definitely say that it represents a cage such as we understand by the

word. There is, however, a passage in the Book of Job (xli. 5) which

unmistakeably alludes to the custom of domesticating birds. Speaking

of the leviathan and its strength, the sacred writer uses the

following metaphor:--"Wilt thou play with him as with a bird, or wilt

thou bind him for thy maidens?"

THE CUCKOO.

The Cuckoo only twice mentioned in Scripture--Difficulty of

identifying the Shachaph--The common species, and the Great

Spotted Cuckoo--Depositing the egg--Conjectures respecting the

Shachaph--Etymology of the word--The various gulls, and other

sea-birds.

Only in two instances is the word CUCKOO found in the Authorized

Version of the Bible, and as they occur in parallel passages they are

practically reduced to one. In Lev. xi. 16 we find it mentioned among

the birds that might not be eaten, and the same prohibition is

repeated in Deut. xiv. 15, the Jews being ordered to hold the bird in

abomination.

The Hebrew word is _shachaph_ (the vowels to be pronounced as in

"mat"), but as to the precise bird which is signified we can but

conjecture. The etymology of the word gives us but little assistance.

_Shachaph_ is derived from a root that signifies leanness or

slenderness; but it is not very easy to base an interpretation on such

grounds. In the Jewish Bible the word is rendered as "Cuckoo," but

with the addition of the doubtful mark.

It is possible that the bird may be the Shachaph of the Pentateuch,

for several species of Cuckoo are known to inhabit the Holy Land. One

of them is the species with which we are so familiar in this country

by sound, if not by sight, and which possesses in Palestine the same

habits as in England. It is rather remarkable, by the way, that the

Arabic name for the bird is exactly the same as ours, the peculiar cry

having supplied the name. Its habit of laying its eggs in the nests of

other birds is well known, together with the curious fact, that

although so large a bird, measuring more than a foot in length, its

egg is not larger than that of the little birds, such as the

hedge-sparrow, robin, or redstart.

[Illustration: THE GREAT SPOTTED CUCKOO.

"_And the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after

his kind._"--LEV. xi. 16; DEUT. xiv. 15.]

Besides this species, another Cuckoo inhabits Palestine, and is much

more common. This is the GREAT SPOTTED CUCKOO (_Oxylophus

glandarius_). The birds belonging to this genus have been separated

from the other Cuckoos because the feathers on the head are formed

into a bold crest, in some species, such as Le Vaillant's Cuckoo,

reminding the observer of the crest of the cockatoo. This fine bird

measures nearly sixteen inches in length, and can be distinguished,

not only by the crested head, but by the reddish grey of the throat

and chest, and the white tips of the wing and tail feathers.

This species lays its eggs in the nests of comparatively large birds,

such as the rooks, crows, and magpies; and it is a remarkable fact,

that just as the egg of the English Cuckoo is very small, so as to

suit the nests of the little birds in which it is placed, that of the

Great Spotted Cuckoo is as large as the average rook's egg, so as to

be in proportion to the nests of the larger birds.

Many commentators believe that by the word _shachaph_ was signified

some species of sea-gull, or at all events some marine bird. As such

birds live on fish, they would necessarily come into the class of

unclean birds, and there is on that account some probability that the

suggestion is a correct one.

Dr. Lewysohn has a very elaborate disquisition on the subject, in

which he decides that the creature was one of the sea-birds, and

derives its name of Shachaph, or "attenuated," from the meagreness of

its proportions. Of the various sea-birds, he selects the petrel as

the species which he thinks to have been signified by the word. This

bird, as he says, is a very lean one, having many feathers, but very

little flesh, so that its limbs are no larger than olives, and no one

could make a meal of it. This last remark, however, tends to diminish

rather than to establish his theory, as, if the bird could not be

eaten, there would have been no object in prohibiting the Jews from

eating it.

He further proceeds to observe that the bird is unable to scratch, and

may therefore be given to a child as a playfellow, and that it is

capable of being domesticated and living in a cage. There is, however,

no argument here, and the theory is not a tenable one.

Mr. Tristram, with far more probability, suggests that if the bird be

not one of the Cuckoos, and be really a sea-bird, it may be one of the

shearwaters which live in such numbers on the sea-shore of Palestine.

He mentions especially two species, the Great Shearwater (_Puffinus

cinereus_) and the Manx Shearwater (_Puffinus anglorum_), both of

which are extremely plentiful on the coast, skimming continually over

the water, and being at the present day regarded by the Mahometans

with superstitious awe, being thought to be the ever-restless souls of

the condemned, who are doomed to fly backwards and forwards

continually until the end of the world, clad in sombre plumage, and

never permitted to rest.

Besides the shearwater, many species of gull inhabit the same coast,

and it is not at all unlikely that the word _shachaph_ was used in a

collective sense, as we have seen to be the case with _tzippor_, and

signified any of the marine birds, without aiming at distinction of

species.

THE DOVE.

Parallel between the lamb and the Dove--Derivation of the Hebrew

word _Yonâh_--The Dove and the olive branch--Abram's sacrifice,

and its acceptance--The sacrifice according to the law of

Moses--The Dove-sellers of the Temple--Talmudical zoology--The

story of Ilisch--The Dove and the raven--The Dove a type of

Israel--The Beni-yonâh, or Sons of Pigeons--Home-finding

instinct of the pigeon--The Oriental Dove-cotes--Voice of the

Dove--Its strength of wing--The Dove's dung of Samaria--Various

pigeons of Palestine--The Rock-Dove and its multitudes--The Dove

and the Griffon--The Turtle-Doves of Palestine, and their

appearance and habits.

In giving the Scriptural history of the Doves and Pigeons, we shall

find ourselves rather perplexed in compressing the needful information

into a reasonable space. There is no bird which plays a more important

part, both in the Old and the New Testaments, or which is employed so

largely in metaphor and symbol.

The Doves and Pigeons were to the birds what were the sheep and lambs

to the animals, and, like them, derived their chief interest from

their use in sacrifice. Both the lamb and the young pigeon being

emblems of innocence, both were used on similar occasions, the latter

being in many instances permitted when the former were too expensive

for the means of the offerer. As to the rendering of the Hebrew words

which have been translated as Pigeon, Dove, and Turtle Dove, there has

never been any discussion. The Hebrew word _yonâh_ has always been

acknowledged to signify the Dove or Pigeon, and the word _tôr_ to

signify the Turtle Dove. Generally, the two words are used in

combination, so that _tor-yonâh_ signifies the Turtle Dove.

Though the interpretation of the word _yonâh_ is universally accepted,

there is a little difficulty about its derivation, and its

signification apart from the bird. Some have thought that it is

derived from a root signifying warmth, in allusion to the warmth of

its affection, the Dove having from time immemorial been selected as

the type of conjugal love. Others, among whom is Buxtorf, derive it

from a word which signifies oppression, because the gentle nature of

the Dove, together with its inability to defend itself, cause it to be

oppressed, not only by man, but by many rapacious birds.

The first passage in which we hear of the Dove occurs in the earlier

part of Genesis. Indeed, the Dove and the raven are the first two

creatures that are mentioned by any definite names, the word

_nachosh_, which is translated as "serpent" in Gen. iii. 1, being a

collective word signifying any kind of serpent, whether venomous or

otherwise, and not used for the purpose of designating any particular

species.

Turning to Gen. viii. 8, we come to the first mention of the Dove. The

whole passage is too familiar to need quoting, and it is only needful

to say that the Dove was sent out of the ark in order that Noah might

learn whether the floods had subsided, and that, after she had

returned once, he sent her out again seven days afterwards, and that

she returned, bearing an olive-branch (or leaf, in the Jewish Bible).

Seven days afterwards he sent the Dove for the third time, but she had

found rest on the earth, and returned no more.

It is not within the province of this work to treat, except in the

most superficial manner, of the metaphorical signification of the

Scriptures. I shall, therefore, allude but very slightly to the

metaphorical sense of the passages which record the exit from the ark

and the sacrifice of Noah. Suffice it to say that, putting entirely

aside all metaphor, the characters of the raven and the Dove are well

contrasted. The one went out, and, though the trees were at that time

submerged, it trusted in its strong wings, and hovered above the

watery expanse until the flood had subsided. The Dove, on the

contrary, fond of the society of man, and having none of the wild,

predatorial habits which distinguish the raven, twice returned to its

place of refuge, before it was finally able to find a resting-place

for its foot.

After this, we hear nothing of the Dove until the time of Abraham,

some four hundred years afterwards, when the covenant was made between

the Lord and Abram, when "he believed in the Lord, and it was counted

to him for righteousness." In order to ratify this covenant he was

ordered to offer a sacrifice, which consisted of a young heifer, a

she-goat, a ram, a turtle-dove, and a young dove or pigeon. The larger

animals were severed in two, but the birds were not divided, and

between the portions of the sacrifice there passed a lamp of fire as a

symbol of the Divine presence.

In after days, when the promise that the seed of Abram should be as

the stars of heaven for multitude had been amply fulfilled, together

with the prophecy that they should be "strangers in a land that was

not theirs," and should be in slavery and under oppression for many

years, the Dove was specially mentioned in the new law as one of the

creatures that were to be sacrificed on certain defined occasions.

Even the particular mode of offering the Dove was strictly defined.

See Lev. i. 14-17: "If the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the

Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or

of young pigeons.

"And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head,

and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at

the side of the altar.

"And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it

beside the altar, on the east part, by the place of the ashes.

"And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide

it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood

that is upon the fire."

Here we have a repetition not only of the sacrifice of Abram, but of

the mode in which it was offered, care being taken that the body of

the bird should not be divided. There is a slight, though not very

important variation in one or two portions of this passage. For

example, the wringing off the head of the bird is, literally, pinching

off, and had to be done with the thumb nail; and the passage which is

by some translators rendered as the crop and the feathers, is by

others translated as the crop and its contents--a reading which seems

to be more consonant with the usual ceremonial of sacrifice than the

other.

As a general rule, the pigeon was only sanctioned as a sacrificial

animal in case one of more value could not be afforded; and so much

care was taken in this respect, that with the exception of the two

"sparrows" (_tzipporim_) that were enjoined as part of the sacrifice

by which the cleansed leper was received back among the people (Lev.

xiv. 4), no bird might be offered in sacrifice unless it belonged to

the tribe of pigeons.

It was in consequence of the poverty of the family that the Virgin

Mary brought two young pigeons when she came to present her new-born

Son in the Temple. For those who were able to afford it, the required

sacrifice was a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a

young pigeon or Turtle Dove for a sin-offering. But "if she be not

able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young

pigeons, the one for the burnt-offering and the other for a

sin-offering." The extraordinary value which all Israelites set upon

the first-born son is well known, both parents even changing their own

names, and being called respectively the father and mother of Elias,

or Joseph, as the case may be. If the parents who had thus attained

the summit of their wishes possessed a lamb, or could have obtained

one, they would most certainly have offered it in the fulness of their

joy, particularly when, as in the case of Mary, there was such cause

for rejoicing; and the fact that they were forced to substitute a

second pigeon for the lamb is a proof of their extreme poverty.

While the Israelites were comparatively a small and compact nation,

dwelling around their tabernacle, the worshippers could easily offer

their sacrifices, bringing them from their homes to the altar. But in

process of time, when the nation had become a large and scattered one,

its members residing at great distances, and only coming to the Temple

once or twice in the year to offer their sacrifices, they would have

found that for even the poor to carry their pigeons with them would

have greatly increased the trouble, and in many cases have been almost

impossible.

For the sake of convenience, therefore, a number of dealers

established themselves in the outer courts of the Temple, for the

purpose of selling Doves to those who came to sacrifice. Sheep and

oxen were also sold for the same purpose, and, as offerings of money

could only be made in the Jewish coinage, money-changers established

themselves for the purpose of exchanging foreign money brought from a

distance for the legal Jewish shekel. That these people exceeded their

object, and endeavoured to overreach the foreign Jews who were

ignorant of the comparative value of money and goods, is evident from

the fact of their expulsion by our Lord, and the epithets which were

applied to them.

As the Dove played so important a part in the Jewish worship, the

Talmudical writers have investigated the subject with a curious

minuteness.

In the first place, they discuss the reasons for its selection as the

bird of sacrifice, and always endeavour to represent it as contrasted

with the raven--all birds of the raven kind, _i.e._ the rooks, crows,

magpies, and the like, being set down as cunning, deceptive, and

thieving; while all the pigeon kind are mild, true, and loving. There

is a curious story which illustrates this idea. A certain man named

Ilisch, who understood the language of birds, was "once upon a time"

in captivity, when he heard the cry of a raven, which called out to

him, "Ilisch! Ilisch! flee! flee!" But Ilisch said within himself, "I

believe not this lying bird." But next came a Dove, which said the

same words. Then said Ilisch, "I believe this bird, because Israel is

compared to a dove."

Here this Ilisch, whoever he may be, referred to the Talmudical

writers on the subject of the Dove, which they delighted to compare

with Israel in a variety of ways, some of them being very obscure and

rather far-fetched. For example, of all birds the Dove is the most

persecuted, being gentle, meek, and unable to resist. She cannot fight

with her beak or her claws, and has only her wings, with which she

will flee away if she is able, or if not, will fight with them. Now,

as the wings are to the Dove, so is the law to Israel.

The wings are the strength of the Dove. Upheld by them she can fly for

many hours, so that the birds of prey which are pursuing her cannot

take her. Then comes a strange notion of the Dove's flight. When other

birds are tired, they sit down and fold their wings to rest. But the

tired Dove never ceases her flight; but when one wing is fatigued,

she allows it to rest, and continues her flight with the other. So is

it with Israel, who, though persecuted by the Gentiles, and deprived

of half her strength, cannot be entirely crushed, but still survives

and asserts herself.

One reason that is given for the gentle disposition of the Dove is

that the bird has no gall, the gall being considered by the

naturalists of old as the source and fountain of contention, the

bitterness of the gall being supposed to infuse itself into the

spirit. Probably on account of this anatomical peculiarity, the Dove

was considered as the very pattern for married people, and the emblem

of chastity, as it lives in the strictest monogamy, never desiring

another mate. Unfortunately for these writers, the Raven, which is

always mentioned by them in strong contrast with the Dove, is quite as

remarkable for its attachment to its mate and young, and for the

strictness of its monogamy, the same pair, when once mated, residing

together for the whole of their lives.

Even the age of the Dove was made a matter of consideration by the

Talmudists, so that in great measure the original benevolence of the

Law was cramped by the restrictions which were laid upon it. As we are

told by St. Paul, in Heb. ix., even under the old dispensation,

without shedding of blood there was no remission of sins, and he who

desired to obtain that remission was obliged to shed the blood of the

sacrifice. Now, in order that poverty should be no restriction to the

attainment of the greatest spiritual privileges, it was ordained that

young pigeons or Turtle Doves might be substituted for the more costly

animals.

These birds cost but very little. The peasant might take them from the

dove-cote, which was the appendage of most households, and he who was

too poor even to have a dove-cote of his own might go to the rocky

side of the ravines, and take as many young as he pleased from the

myriad nests which are placed in the clefts. Thus, at any time of the

year, the poorest man or woman could obtain the means of sacrifice.

But the restrictive genius which was so sternly rebuked by our Lord

soon made itself felt. All these birds, in order to be fit for

sacrifice, must be Beni-yonâh, _i.e._ Sons of Doves. The definition of

this term is rather interesting, as it affords an excellent example of

the hair-splitting character of these interpreters of the Law.

According to them, a pigeon could only be ranked among the Beni-yonâh

for a short period of its life, and, if it were too young or too old,

it might not be offered as a sacrifice.

The test of proper age lay in the feathers. If the bird were so young

that the feathers could be pulled out without drawing blood, it was

considered as being below age. If, on the contrary, blood followed the

feathers, but the plumage of the neck exhibited a metallic lustre, it

was reckoned as having passed the age of Beni-yonâh. It might be a

father, and not the son, of pigeons. When these feathers are visible,

the bird changes its name, and is called Tôr--a word which will be

presently explained.

According to some of these old writers, the Dove was considered as

having a superiority over other birds in the instinctive certainty

with which it finds its way from one place to another. At the present

time, our familiarity with the variety of pigeon known as the Carrier

has taught us that the eye is the real means employed by the pigeon

for the direction of its flight. Those who fly pigeons for long

distances always take them several times over the same ground,

carrying them to an increasing distance at every journey, so that the

birds shall be able to note certain objects which serve them as

landmarks.

Bees and wasps have recourse to a similar plan. When a young wasp

leaves its nest for the first time, it does not fly away at once, but

hovers in front of the entrance for some time, getting farther and

farther away from the nest until it has learned the aspect of

surrounding objects. The pigeon acts in precisely the same manner, and

so completely does it depend upon eyesight that, if a heavy fog should

come on, the best-trained pigeon will lose its way.

The old writers, however, made up their minds that the pigeon found

its way by scent, which sense alone, according to their ideas, could

guide it across the sea. They were not aware of the power possessed by

birds of making their eyes telescopic at will, or of the enormous

increase of range which the sight obtains by elevation. A pigeon at

the elevation of several hundred yards can see to an astonishing

distance, and there is no need of imagining one sense to receive a

peculiar development when the ordinary powers of another are

sufficient to obtain the object.

That dove-cotes were in use among the earlier Jews is well known. An

allusion to the custom of keeping pigeons in cotes is seen in Isa. lx.

8: "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their

windows?" or, as the Jewish Bible translates the passage, "as the

doves to their apertures?" In this passage the sacred writer utters a

prophecy concerning the coming of the world to the Messiah, the

Gentiles flocking to Him as the clouds of pigeons fly homeward to

their cotes.

The practice of pigeon-keeping has survived to the present day, the

houses of wealthy men being furnished with separate pigeon-houses,

built up of a number of earthen jars, and roofed over. Each jar is the

habitation of a pair of pigeons, and the whole principle of this

dove-cote is exactly the same as that which was employed by the late

Mr. Waterton in erecting the starling-houses in his garden and

grounds. Poorer people, who cannot afford to build a separate house

for the pigeons, set up jars for them in their own houses, the pigeons

gaining access to their nests through the door.

The Talmudical writers have even their regulations respecting the

keeping of tame pigeons. No one was allowed to do so who had not a

sufficiency of ground around his house to supply food for them.

According to their regulations, the pigeon-house must not be within

fifty paces of cultivated ground belonging to any one except the owner

of the pigeons. The reason for this prohibition was, that as the

pigeon was known to be an exceedingly voracious bird, it should not

feed at the expense of a neighbour. It was conventionally supposed to

feed by choice in the immediate vicinity of the house, and, when it

had filled its crop, to be unwilling to fly farther than was

absolutely necessary.

Being so familiar with this bird, it was to be expected that the

writers of the Scriptures would make many references to it. The

plaintive, monotonous cooing of the pigeon is several times mentioned.

For example: "And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be

brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves,

taboring upon their breasts" (Nah. ii. 7). The Jewish Bible gives this

passage in another and certainly a more forcible manner: "And Huzzab

shall be uncovered and brought up, and her maids shall sigh as the

voice of doves, drumming upon their breasts." Here the prophet alludes

to the ancient custom of beating the breast as a sign of sorrow (a

custom that survived even in this country until a very recent date),

accompanied with the moanings of distress.

The prophet Isaiah makes use of a similar metaphor: "I did mourn as a

dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward" (xxxviii. 14). Also in chap.

lix. 11: "We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves."

[Illustration: THE ROCK DOVE.

"O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rocks."--CANT. ii. 14.]

The beauty of the bird is mentioned in many passages, several of which

occur in the Song of Solomon. "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold,

thou art fair; thou hast dove's eyes" (i. 15). "His eyes are the eyes

of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set" (v.

12). And in several other places the beloved is spoken of as a Dove,

as in the following passage: "My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she

is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare

her" (vi. 9).

Allusion is made to the peculiar metallic gleam of the Dove's plumage

in a well-known passage of the Psalms: "Though ye have lien among the

pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and

her feathers with yellow gold" (Ps. lxviii. 13).

The strong flight of the Dove is also mentioned by the Psalmist in an

equally familiar passage: "And I said, Oh that I had wings like a

dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Lo, then would I

wander far off, and remain in the wilderness" (Ps. lv. 6, 7). It is

scarcely necessary to advert to the well-known passages in which

reference is made to the gentleness of the Dove.

That the pigeons which are not domesticated live in the rocks was

known to the Scripture writers, who make several references to the

fact.

See, for example: "O ye that dwell in Moab, leave the cities, and

dwell in the rock, and be like the dove that maketh her nest in the

sides of the hole's mouth" (Jer. xlviii. 28). See also Ezek. vii. 16:

"But they that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the

mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one

for his iniquity."

This is an especially graphic image. The deep valleys that run between

the mountain ranges are literally crowded with pigeons who have made

their nests in the cavities. Several of these are so well known that

they go by the name of "Valleys of Pigeons."

In the Song of Solomon (ii. 14) is another reference to the

rock-loving propensities of the Dove: "O my dove, that art in the

clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy

countenance, let me hear thy voice." The Jewish Bible gives a slightly

different rendering, translating the word which is given as "stairs"

in the Authorized Version as "cliffs."

That the Doves were caught in nets is evident from a passage in Hosea

(vii. 11, 12): "Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they

call to Egypt, they go to Assyria.

"When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them

down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their

congregation hath heard."

There is one passage in the Old Testament about which great

controversy has taken place. It occurs in 2 Kings vi. 25. When

Ben-hadad besieged Samaria, and tried to reduce it by starvation, the

famine was so great in the city that "an ass's head was sold for

fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's

dung for five pieces of silver."

Objection has been taken to this passage on the score of the exceeding

repulsiveness of the food. This objection, however, cannot hold good;

for, although such diet must have been most repulsive, it could not

have been more so than the flesh of the ass, an animal which was

strictly forbidden as food, and held as unclean. Moreover, as we see

in verse 29 that parents actually ate the flesh of their own children,

it is evident that the mere repulsiveness of the food cannot be taken

as an objection.

A far stronger objection is to be found in the fact that even all the

dove-cotes of Samaria could not furnish a sufficient quantity for

food, especially as the Doves themselves must have been killed and

eaten long before the people were driven to such an extremity as to

eat the flesh of their own children. It is far more probable that the

"dove's-dung" was the name of a vegetable of some kind. We find a

similar nomenclature in the popular names of many of our own plants,

such as oxlip, cowslip, horse-tail, hart's-tongue, mouse-ear,

maidenhair, and the like.

We now come to the various species of Pigeons which inhabit Palestine.

In the Holy Land are found all the species of Pigeons which inhabit

England, together with one or two others. First, there is the Rock

Pigeon, or Blue Rock Dove (_Columba livia_), which is acknowledged to

be the origin of our domestic breeds of Pigeons, with all their

infinite variety of colour and plumage. This species, though plentiful

in Palestine, is not spread over the whole of the land, but lives

chiefly on the coast and in the higher parts of the country. In these

places it multiplies in amazing numbers, its increase being almost

wholly unchecked by man, on account of the inaccessible cliffs in

which it lays its eggs and nurtures its young, its only enemies being

a few of the birds and beasts of prey, which can exercise but a

trifling influence on these prolific birds.

In other parts of the country the Egyptian Rock Dove (_Columba

Schimperi_) takes the place of the more northern species. It is a

little smaller than our own Rock Dove, and has not the whitish plumage

on the lower part of the back. This species is quite as numerous as

the other, and builds in similar places. Mr. Tristram, while visiting

the Wady (or Valley) Seimûn, which lies near the Lake of Gennesaret,

witnessed an amusing example of the vast number of these Pigeons.

"No description can give an adequate idea of the myriads of rock

pigeons. In absolute clouds they dashed to and fro in the ravine,

whirling round with a rush and a whirr that could be felt like a gust

of wind. It was amusing to watch them upset the dignity and the

equilibrium of the majestic griffon as they swept past him. This

enormous bird, quietly sailing along, was quite turned on his back by

the sudden rush of wings and wind."

The writer of this description has been too modest. It is impossible

to convey a better idea of the vast multitude of birds than has been

given by this anecdote. We are all familiar with the clatter of

Pigeons' wings as they dart from their resting-place, and can well

imagine how great must have been the multitude of birds that would

fairly turn the powerful griffon-vulture on its back. This description

may be advantageously compared with the passage in Isa. lx. 8: "Who

are these that fly as a cloud?" the sacred writer well knowing the

force of his image when addressed to those who were familiar with the

habits of the bird, whether it was the semi-domesticated House Pigeon

or the wild Rock Dove. The Ring Dove (_Columba palumbus_) and the

Stock Dove (_Columba ænas_) are also found in Palestine.

These birds are taken in nets, into which they are decoyed by a very

effective though cruel device.

When one of these birds is trapped or snared, it is seized by its

capturers, who spare its life for the sake of using it as a decoy.

They blind it by sewing its eyelids together, and then fasten it to a

perch among trees. The miserable bird utters plaintive cries, and

continually flaps its wings, thus attracting others of its kind, who

settle on the surrounding branches and are easily taken, their whole

attention being occupied by the cries of their distressed companion.

We now come to the Turtle Doves, several of which inhabit the Holy

Land; but, as they are similar in habits, we will confine ourselves to

the common species (_Turtur auritus_), with which we are so familiar

in this country. The Hebrew word which is translated as Turtle, is

_tôr_, a term which is usually employed in connexion with the word

_yônâh_, or Dove, thus, _tôr-yônâh_. The name is evidently derived

from the note of the bird.

The reader may remember that on page 414, a curious tradition has been

mentioned respecting the word _tôr_; namely, that it represented the

age, and not the species of a Dove. There is but little doubt,

however, that the word really does represent a species, and that the

Turtle Dove is the bird signified by the word _tôr_. For example, its

migratory habits are noticed in the sacred writings. See the following

passage in the Song of Solomon.

[Illustration: THE TURTLE DOVE.

"_The voice of the turtle is heard in our land._"--CANT. ii. 12.]

"Lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear

on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice

of the turtle is heard in our land" (Cant. ii. 11, 12). The prophet

Jeremiah also refers to the migration of this bird: "Yea, the stork in

the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle, and the crane,

and the swallow observe the time of their coming: but my people know

not the judgment of the Lord" (viii. 7).

Beside this species, there is the Collared Turtle Dove (_Turtur

risorius_), one variety of which is known in England as the Barbary

Dove. It is a large species, measuring more than a foot in length.

Another species is the Palm Turtle (_Turtur Senegalensis_), so called

from its habit of nesting on palm-trees, when it is obliged to build

at a distance from the habitations of man. It is a gregarious bird,

several nests being generally found on one tree, and even, when it

cannot find a palm, it will build among the thorns in multitudes. Like

the common Dove, it is fond of the society of man, and is sure to make

its nest among human habitations, secure in its knowledge that it will

not be disturbed.

It is rather a small bird, being barely ten inches in length, and

having no "collar" on the neck, like the two preceding species.

POULTRY.

Poultry plentiful in Palestine at the present day--The Domestic

Fowl unknown in the early times of Israel--The eating and

gathering of eggs--References to Poultry in the New

Testament--The egg and the scorpion--The fatted fowl of

Solomon--The hen brooding over her eggs--Poultry prohibited

within Jerusalem--The cock-crowing.

At the present day, poultry are plentiful both in Palestine and Syria,

and that they were bred in the time of the Apostles is evident from

one or two references which are made by our Lord. How long the

Domestic Fowl had been known to the Jews is extremely uncertain, and

we have very little to guide us in our search.

That it was unknown to the Jews during the earlier period of their

history is evident from the utter silence of the Old Testament on the

subject. A bird so conspicuous and so plentiful would certainly have

been mentioned in the Law of Moses had it been known to the

Israelites; but, in all its minute and detailed provisions, the Law is

silent on the subject.

Neither the bird itself nor its eggs are mentioned, although there are

a few references to eggs, without signifying the bird which laid

them. The humane provision in Deut. xxii. 6, 7, refers not to a

domesticated, but to a wild bird: "If a bird's nest chance to be

before thee in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones,

or eggs, and the dams sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou

shalt not take the dam with the young: but thou shalt in any wise let

the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee,

that thou mayest prolong thy days."

That eggs were used for food, is seen from Job vi. 6: "Can that which

is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white

of an egg?" So in Isa. lix. 5: "They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave

the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth."

There is another passage in the same book which refers to the

gathering of eggs as mentioned in Deut. xxii. "And my hand hath found

as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are

left, have I gathered all the earth" (Isa. x. 14). The well-known

passage in Luke xi. 11, 12, however, evidently refers to the ordinary

hen's egg, which was used then for food just as is the case at the

present day: "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,

will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give

him a serpent?

"Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?"

There is but one passage in the Old Testament which has ever been

conjectured to refer to the Domestic Fowl. It occurs in 1 Kings iv.

22, 23, among the list of the daily provision of Solomon's household:

"And Solomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine

flour, and threescore measures of meal,

"Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred

sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl."

Now the word which is here rendered as "fatted fowl" is in the Hebrew,

_barberim_. Judging by the etymology of the word, which is derived

from a root that signifies whiteness, or purity, it has been thought

that the correct rendering would be "fattened white" (birds). Some

Hebraists have conjectured that the white birds in question were

geese, this term including various white birds, swans among the

number.

Many persons think that the fatted fowl mentioned in the above-quoted

passage were really Domestic Fowl, which Solomon had introduced into

Palestine, together with various other birds and animals, by means of

his fleet. There may be truth in this conjecture, but, as there can be

no certainty, we will pass from the Old Testament to the New.

THE DOMESTIC FOWL.

"_As a hen doth gather her brood under her wings._"--LUKE xiii. 34.

We are all familiar with the passages in which the Domestic Fowl is

mentioned in the New Testament. There is, for example, that touching

image employed by our Lord when lamenting over Jerusalem: "O

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them

that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children

together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would

not!" The reference is evidently made to the Domesticated Fowl, which

in the time of our Lord was largely bred in the Holy Land.

Some writers have taken objection to this statement in consequence of

a Rabbinical law which prohibited poultry from being kept within the

walls of Jerusalem, lest in their search for food they should scratch

up any impurity which had been buried, and so defile the holy city.

But it must be remembered that in the time of Christ Jerusalem

belonged practically to the Romans, who held it with a garrison, and

who, together with other foreigners, would not trouble themselves

about any such prohibition, which would seem to them, as it does to

us, exceedingly puerile, not to say unjustifiable. Whether the Jews

obeyed or disregarded the prohibition, it is evident that it would

have been binding on the Jews alone, and that all Gentiles were exempt

from it. Some commentators have even thought that the Domestic Fowl

was not known in Palestine until imported by the Romans.

That the bird was common in the days of our Lord is evident from the

reference to the "cock-crowing" as a measure of time.

Even on this subject there has been much controversy, some persons

thinking that the words are to be understood in their literal sense,

and others that they are merely metaphorical, and refer to the

divisions of time under the Romans, which were marked by the blowing

of trumpets, conventionally termed cock-crowings. There is, however,

no necessity to search for a metaphorical meaning when the literal

interpretation is clear and intelligible. At the present day, as in

all probability in the time of our Lord, the crowing of the cocks is

employed as a means of reckoning time during the night, the birds

crowing at certain hours with almost mechanical regularity.

THE PEACOCK.

The foreign curiosities imported by Solomon--The word _Tucciyim_

and its various interpretations--Identity of the word with the

Cingalese name of the Peacock--Reasons why the Peacock should

have been brought to Solomon--Its subsequent neglect and

extirpation.

Among the many foreign objects which were imported by Solomon into

Palestine, we find that the Peacock is specially mentioned. (See a

passage which has already been mentioned in connexion with ivory and

apes.) The sacred historian, after mentioning the ivory throne, the

golden shields and targets, that all the vessels in Solomon's house

were of gold, and that silver was so common as to be of no account,

proceeds to give the reason for this profuse magnificence. "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" (1 Kings x. 22).

The word which is here translated as Peacock is in the Hebrew

_tucciyim_, and has been rendered in various modes. The Jewish Bible

accepts the same translation as our own, and does not even affix the

mark of doubt. Some Hebraists have rendered the word as "parrots,"

while others have tried to identify the Tucciyim with guinea-fowls.

In the identification of any animal, much must necessarily depend on

the country in which it is found. Now, if the reader will refer to

page 2 of this work, he will see that India and Ceylon are identified

as the land visited by Solomon's ships. In the latter island are found

all the three valuables which are mentioned in the above-quoted

passage, and it is remarkable that the Cingalese name for the Peacock

is so similar to the Hebrew word, that we have every reason to believe

that the word _tucciyim_ or _tuyeyim_ is in reality a Hebraic form of

the Cingalese tokei. A similar resemblance of name occurs in the

Hebrew and Cingalese terms for ape and elephant.

That this magnificent bird should have been one of those creatures

that were imported by Solomon is almost certain. It would be imported

for the same reason as the apes; namely, for the purpose of adding to

the glories of Solomon's house, and no bird could have been selected

which would have a more magnificent effect than the Peacock. Moreover,

although unknown in Palestine, it is extremely plentiful in its native

land, inhabiting the jungle by thousands, and, by a curious

coincidence, being invariably most plentiful in those spots which are

most frequented by tigers. In many parts of the country, great numbers

of Peacocks frequent the temples, and live amicably with the sacred

monkeys, passing their lives in absolute security, protected by the

sanctity of the place.

Their numbers, therefore, would render them easily accessible to

Solomon's envoys, who would purchase them at a cheap rate from the

native dealers, while their surpassing beauty would render them sure

of a sale on their arrival in Jerusalem. Indeed, their beauty made so

great an impression that they are separately mentioned by the sacred

chronicler, the Peacock and the ape being the only two animals that

are thought worthy of enumeration.

It seems that after Solomon's death the breed of Peafowl was not kept

up, owing in all probability to the troubles which beset the throne

after that magnificent monarch died.

THE PARTRIDGE.

The word _Kore_ and its signification--The Partridge upon the

mountains--David's simile--The Desert Partridge and its

habits--Hunting the Partridge with sticks--Eggs of the

Partridge--A disputed reading, and probable signification of the

passage--Egg-hunting in Palestine--The various species of

Partridge--The Francolin and the Sand-grouse.

There is a bird mentioned in the Old Testament, which, although its

name is only given twice, is a very interesting bird to all students

of the Scriptures, both passages giving an insight into the

manners and customs of the scarcely changing East. This is

the bird called in the Hebrew Kore, a word which has been generally

accepted as signifying some kind of Partridge. There is no doubt that,

like most other Hebrew names of animated beings, the word is a

collective one, signifying a considerable number of species.

[Illustration: THE PEACOCK.

"Once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and

silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." 1 KINGS x. 22.]

The first passage occurs in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20. When David was being

pursued by Saul, and had been forced to escape from the city and hide

himself in the rocky valleys, he compared himself to the Partridge,

which frequented exactly the same places: "The king of Israel is come

out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge upon the

mountains."

The appositeness of this simile is perfect. The bird to which David

alluded was in all probability the Desert Partridge (_Ammoperdix

Heyii_), a species which especially haunts rocky and desert places,

and even at the present day is exceedingly plentiful about the Cave of

Adullam. The males, when they think themselves unobserved, are fond of

challenging, or calling to each other in a loud ringing note, a

peculiarity that has earned for the bird the Hebrew name of Kore, or

"the caller."

It is a very active bird, not taking to flight if it can escape by

means of its legs, and, when pursued or disturbed, running with great

swiftness to some rocky cleft in which it may hide itself, taking care

to interpose, as it runs, stones or other obstacles between itself and

the object of its alarm. Thus, then, it will be seen how close was the

parallel between this bird and David, who was forced, like the

Partridge, to seek for refuge in the rocky caves.

But the parallel becomes even closer when we come to examine the full

meaning of the passage. The Partridge is at the present day hunted on

the mountains exactly as was the case in the time of David. The usual

hunters are boys, who provide themselves with a supply of stout sticks

about eighteen inches in length, and, armed with these, they chase the

birds, hurling the sticks one after the other along the ground, so as

to strike the Partridge as it runs. Generally, several hunters chase

the same bird, some of them throwing the sticks along the ground,

while others hurl them just above the bird, so that if it should take

to flight, it maybe struck as it rises into the air. By

pertinaciously chasing an individual bird, the hunters tire it, and

contrive to come so close that they are certain to strike it.

[Illustration: THE GREEK PARTRIDGE.

"_A partridge upon the mountains._"--1 SAM. xxvi. 20.]

Rude as this mode of bird-hunting may seem, it is still employed in

some parts of England, and is effective even against birds far more

active on the wing than the Partridge. I have seen snipe killed in the

New Forest by being hunted down with sticks. Squirrels are chased and

killed in a similar manner, except that the "bolts," or the sticks for

squirrel-hunting, are weighted with lead at one end.

The reader will now see how perfect is the image. Driven from the

city, David was forced to wander, together with the Desert Partridge,

upon the hill-sides, and, like that bird, his final refuge is the

rock. Then came the hunters and pursued him, driving him from place to

place, as the boys hunt the Partridge, until he was weary of his life,

and exclaimed in his despair, "I shall now perish one day by the hand

of Saul."

The second passage in which the word _kore_ is found occurs in Jer.

xvii. 11: "As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so

he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the

midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool." The marginal

reading of this passage gives the sense in a slightly different form,

and commences the verse as follows: "As the partridge gathereth

(young) which she hath not brought forth, so he," &c. The Jewish Bible

gives the whole passage rather differently from both these readings:

"A partridge hatching what it hath not laid (_or_ borne), is he that

getteth (_or_ maketh) riches, and not by right (_or_ judgment): he

shall leave them in the midst (_or_ half) of his days, and at his end

shall be base."

Taking all these readings, and comparing them with the original, with

each other, and with the context, we can have but little doubt that

reference is made by the prophet to the number of unborn, _i.e._

unhatched, eggs on which the Partridge sits, but which are so often

taken from her before they can be hatched. Just as hunting the

Partridge is an acknowledged sport among the inhabitants of the

uncultivated parts of Palestine, so is searching for the eggs of the

bird a regular business at the proper time of year.

The Partridges of Palestine are, like those of our own land,

exceedingly prolific birds, laying a wonderful number of eggs, more

than twenty being sometimes found in a single nest. These eggs are

used for food, and the consumption of them is very great, so that many

a Partridge has been deprived of her expected family: she has sat upon

eggs, and hatched them not.

Of these birds several species inhabit Palestine. There is, for

example, the Desert Partridge, which has already been mentioned. It is

beautifully, though not brilliantly, coloured, and may be known by the

white spot behind the eye, the purple and chestnut streaks on the

sides, and the orange bill and legs. These, however, soon lose their

colour after death.

Then there is the Greek Partridge (_Caccabis saxatilis_), which is

even more plentiful than the preceding species, and is more widely

spread. It is a large bird of its kind, being much larger than our

English species, and may be known by its size, the dark red legs and

beak, and the bold bars on the sides.

Mr. Tristram suggests, with much probability, that the Francolin, or

Black Partridge of India, and the Sand-Grouse, may be included among

the number of the birds which are included under the common name of

Kore. The latter bird is extremely plentiful in Palestine, and, in all

probability, was classed by the unobservant Jews with the true

Partridge.

THE QUAIL.

Signification of the word _Selâv_--Various passages in which the

word is mentioned--The locust, the stork, and the

sand-grouse--Spreading the birds around the camp--Migration of

the Quail--Drying the Quails for food--Modes of catching the

Quail in the East--The Quail-hunters of Northern

Africa--Quarrelsome nature of the bird--Quail-fighting in the

East--How the Quails were brought to the Israelites.

In one or two parts of the Old Testament is found a word which has

been translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible as QUAIL.

The word is _selâv_, and in every case where it is mentioned it is

used with reference to the same occurrence; namely, the providing of

flesh-meat in the wilderness, where the people could find no food. As

the passages remarkably bear upon each other, it will be advisable to

quote them in the order in which they come.

The first mention of the Selâv occurs in Exod. xvi. Only a few days

after the Israelites had passed the Red Sea, they began to complain of

the desert land into which Moses had led them, and openly said that

they wished they had never left the land of their slavery, where they

had plenty to eat. According to His custom, pitying their

narrow-minded and short-sighted folly, the natural result of the long

servitude to which they had been subject, the Lord promised to send

both bread and flesh-meat.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

[Illustration: THE QUAIL.

"_The people asked, and He brought quails._"--PSALM cv. 40.]

"I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto

them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall

be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God.

"And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the

camp" (ver. 11-13).

The next passage records a similar circumstance, which occurred about

a year afterwards, when the Israelites were tired of eating nothing

but the manna, and again wished themselves back in Egypt. "And there

went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea, and

let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side,

and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the

camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.

"And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the

next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least

gathered ten homers; and they spread them all abroad for themselves

round about the camp" (Numb. xi. 31, 32).

The last passage in which Quails are mentioned occurs in the Psalms.

In Ps. cv. are enumerated the various wonders done on behalf of the

Israelites, and among them is specially mentioned this gift of the

Quails and manna. "The people asked, and He brought quails, and

satisfied them with the bread of heaven" (ver. 40).

We now have to ask ourselves what the word _selâv_ really means. Some

commentators have thought that it signified a species of locust,

insects which travel in vast multitudes, and are always carried with

the wind, thus agreeing with the statement that the Selavim were

brought by the wind. Others have imagined that the Selavim were

flying-fish, blown on shore as they rose from the sea after their

fashion. Putting aside other reasons against these interpretations,

the Psalms contain a passage which effectually contradicts them, and

proves that the Selâv was a bird of some kind.

"He had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of

heaven,

"And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the

corn of heaven.

"Man did eat angels' food: He sent them meat to the full.

"He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven; and by His power He

brought in the south wind.

"He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as

the sand of the sea" (Ps. lxxviii. 23-27).

From this passage it is evident that the Selavim which were sent

together with the manna were birds of some kind--"fowls of wing,"

according to the literal sense of the Hebrew; so that the theory that

they were insects or fish must be dismissed as untenable. The

question now remains, with what species of bird are we to identify the

Selâv?

Respecting this question, there has been great discussion, chiefly

arising from the fact that the various commentators endeavoured to

show that the Selâv was not the Quail, but some other bird. Some, for

example, take it to be the white stork, which is very plentiful in

Palestine, and sometimes flies in such numbers that the sky is

darkened as the winged host passes by. They base this supposition on

the stature of the bird, which is so tall that it stands about "two

cubits high upon the face of the earth." So it does, but this is a

very insufficient reason for translating the word _selâv_ as "stork."

In the first place, the words "as it were two cubits high upon the

face of the earth" certainly do not refer to the stature of the

individual birds. They are popularly taken to signify that the earth

was covered with the bodies of the Selavim to the depth of three feet.

This, however, can hardly have been the fact, as in that case they

would have utterly overwhelmed the whole camp, and crushed the tents

by their weight. Moreover, there would have been no need of gathering

them up, as they would have lain so thickly on the ground that the

only trouble would have been to make a passage through them. It is not

very easy to force a passage through snow a yard in depth, while to do

so through the same depth of birds would have been almost impossible.

Neither could the Israelites have "spread them all abroad for

themselves round about the camp." If the Selavim lay to the depth of a

yard "as it were a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on

the other side of the camp," _i.e._ some eight or ten miles all round

it, there would have been no space whereon the birds could have been

spread. The sentence in question has a totally different

signification, and refers to the height from the ground at which the

birds fly. Taken in this sense, the whole passage falls into harmony,

whereas in any other it involves a difficulty.

If the ordinary interpretation of _selâv_ by "Quail" be accepted, the

description is exactly correct. The Quails fly in vast flocks, and,

being weak-winged birds, never fly against the direction of the wind.

They will wait for days until the wind blows in the required

direction, and will then take wing in countless multitudes; so that in

an hour or two a spot on which not a Quail could be seen is covered

with them.

On account of their short wings, they never rise to any great height,

even when crossing the sea, while on land they fly at a very low

elevation, merely skimming over the ground, barely a yard or "two

cubits high upon the face of the earth." We may now see how needless

it is to attribute the two cubits to the stature of the bird, or to

the depth at which they lay on the ground.

There are other reasons why the Selâv could not be any species of

stork. In the first place, all the stork tribe are included among the

list of unclean birds, and it is not likely that the Almighty would

have neutralized His own edicts by providing food which the Israelites

were forbidden to eat. In the next place, even had the flesh of the

stork been lawful, it is of so unpleasant a nature that the people

could not have eaten it. For similar reasons we may dismiss the

theories which consider the Selâv to be a goose or water-fowl of any

kind.

Some persons have thought that the sand-grouse is the Selâv. In the

first place, the flesh of this bird is hard, tasteless, and disliked

by those who have tried it; so that the Israelites would not have been

tempted to eat it. In the next, it is a strong-winged and swift-footed

bird, and would not have satisfied the required conditions. It flies

high in the air, instead of merely skimming over the ground, and when

it alights is fresh and active, and cannot easily be caught. The

Quail, on the contrary, after it has flown for any distance, is so

completely tired out that when it alights it crouches to the earth,

and will allow itself to be picked up by hand. It has even been

trodden to death under a horse's feet.

Moreover, the flesh of the Quail is peculiarly excellent, and would be

a great temptation to men who had passed so long a time without eating

animal food. Another corroboration of the identity of the Quail and

the Selâv is to be found in the mode in which the flesh is prepared at

the present day. As soon as the birds have arrived, they are captured

in vast multitudes, on account of their weariness. Many are consumed

at once, but great numbers are preserved for future use by being split

and laid out to dry in the sun, precisely as the Israelites are said

to have spread out the Selavim "all abroad for themselves round about

the camp."

It is rather remarkable that the Arabs of the present day use a word

almost exactly resembling _selâv_ to represent the Quail. The word is

_salwa_, given by one of the older writers on the subject as _selaw_.

Accepting, therefore, the Selâv and Quail to be identical, we may

proceed to the description of the bird.

It is small, plump, and round-bodied, with the head set closely on the

shoulders. Owing to this peculiarity of form, it has its Arab name,

which signifies plumpness or fatness. The wings are pressed closely to

the body, and the tail is pointed, very short, and directed downwards,

so that it almost appears to be absent, and the bird seems to be even

more plump than really is the case.

Several modes of capturing these birds are still practised in the

East, and were probably employed, not only on the two occasions

mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, but on many others of which the

Scriptural narrative takes no notice. One very simple plan is, for the

hunters to select a spot on which the birds are assembled, and to ride

or walk round them in a large circle, or rather in a constantly

diminishing spiral. The birds are by this process driven closer and

closer together, until at the last they are packed in such masses that

a net can be thrown over them, and a great number captured in it.

Sometimes a party of hunters unite to take the Quails, and employ a

similar manoeuvre, except that, instead of merely walking round the

Quails, they approach simultaneously from opposite points, and then

circle round them until the birds are supposed to be sufficiently

packed. At a given signal they all converge upon the terrified birds,

and take them by thousands at a time.

In Northern Africa these birds are captured in a very similar fashion.

As soon as notice is given that a flight of Quails has settled, all

the men of the village turn out with their great burnouses or cloaks.

Making choice of some spot as a centre, where a quantity of brushwood

grows or is laid down, the men surround it on all sides, and move

slowly towards it, spreading their cloaks in their outstretched hands,

and flapping them like the wings of huge birds. Indeed, when a man is

seen from a little distance performing this act, he looks more like a

huge bat than a human being.

As the men gradually converge upon the brushwood, the Quails naturally

run towards it for shelter, and at last they all creep under the

treacherous shade. Still holding their outspread cloaks in their

extended hands, the hunters suddenly run to the brushwood, fling their

cloaks over it, and so enclose the birds in a trap from which they

cannot escape. Much care is required in this method of hunting, lest

the birds should take to flight, and so escape. The circle is

therefore made of very great size, and the men who compose it advance

so slowly that the Quails prefer to use their legs rather than their

wings, and do not think of flight until their enemies are so close

upon them that their safest course appears to be to take refuge in the

brushwood.

Boys catch the Quails in various traps and springes, the most

ingenious of which is a kind of trap, the door of which overbalances

itself by the weight of the bird.

By reason of the colour of the Quail, and its inveterate habit of

keeping close to the ground, it easily escapes observation, and even

the most practised eye can scarcely distinguish a single bird, though

there may be hundreds within a very small compass. Fortunately for the

hunters, and unfortunately for itself, it betrays itself by its shrill

whistling note, which it frequently emits, and which is so peculiar

that it will at once direct the hunter to his prey.

This note is at the same time the call of the male to the female and a

challenge to its own sex. Like all the birds of its group, the Quail

is very combative, and generally fights a battle for the possession of

each of its many mates. It is not gifted with such weapons of offence

as some of its kinsfolk, but it is none the less quarrelsome, and

fights in its own way as desperately as the game-cock of our own

country.

Indeed, in the East, it is used for exactly the same purpose as the

game-cock. Battles between birds and beasts, not to say men, are the

common amusement with Oriental potentates, and, when they are tired of

watching the combats of the larger animals, they have Quail-fights in

their own chambers. The birds are selected for this purpose, and are

intentionally furnished with stimulating food, so as to render them

even more quarrelsome than they would be by nature. Partridges are

employed for the same cruel purpose; and as both these birds are

easily obtained, and are very pugnacious, they are especially suited

for the sport.

Two passages occur in the Scriptures which exactly explain the mode in

which the Quails were sent to the Israelites. The first is in Ps.

lxxviii. 26. The Psalmist mentions that the Lord "caused an east wind

to blow in the heaven, and by His power He brought in the south wind."

Here, on examining the geographical position of the Israelites, we see

exactly how the south-east wind would bring the Quails.

The Israelites had just passed the Red Sea, and had begun to

experience a foretaste of the privations which they were to expect in

the desert through which they had to pass. Passing northwards in their

usual migrations, the birds would come to the coast of the Red Sea,

and there would wait until a favourable wind enabled them to cross the

water. The south-east wind afforded them just the very assistance

which they needed, and they would naturally take advantage of it.

It is remarkable how closely the Scriptural narrative agrees with the

habits of the Quail, the various passages, when compared together,

precisely coinciding with the character of the bird. In Exod. xvi. 13

it is mentioned that "at even the quails came up and covered the

camp." Nocturnal flight is one of the characteristics of the Quail.

When possible, they invariably fly by night, and in this manner escape

many of the foes which would make great havoc among their helpless

columns if they were to fly by day.

The identity of the Selâv with the common Quail is now seen to be

established. In the first place, we have the name still surviving in

the Arabic language. Next, the various details of the Scriptural

narrative point so conclusively to the bird, that even if we were to

put aside the etymological corroboration, we could have but little

doubt on the subject. There is not a detail which is not correct. The

gregarious instinct of the bird, which induces it to congregate in

vast numbers; its habit of migration; its inability to fly against the

wind, and the necessity for it to await a favourable breeze; its

practice of flying by night, and its custom of merely skimming over

the surface of the ground; the ease with which it is captured; the

mode of preserving by drying in the sun, and the proverbial delicacy

of its flesh, are characteristics which all unite in the Quail.

Before closing our account of the Quail, it will be as well to devote

a short space to the nature of the mode by which the Israelites were

twice fed. Commentators who were unacquainted with the natural history

of the bird have represented the whole occurrence as a miraculous one,

and have classed it with the division of the Red Sea and of the

Jordan, with the various plagues by which Pharaoh was induced to

release the Israelites, and with many other events which we are

accustomed to call miracles.

In reality, there is scarcely anything of a miraculous character about

the event, and none seems to have been claimed for it. The Quails were

not created at the moment expressly for the purpose of supplying the

people with food, nor were they even brought from any great distance.

They were merely assisted in the business on which they were engaged,

namely, their migration or customary travel from south to north, and

waiting on the opposite side of the narrow sea for a south-east wind.

That such a wind should blow was no miracle. The Quails expected it to

blow, and without it they could not have crossed the sea. That it was

made to blow earlier than might have been the case is likely enough,

but that is the extent of the miraculous character of the event.

Taking the word in its ordinary sense, no miracle was wrought, simply

because none was wanted. Granting to the fullest extent that He who

arranged the course of the world can alter His arrangements as easily

as He made them, we cannot but see that in this case no alteration was

needed, and that, in consequence, none was made.

THE RAVEN.

Signification of the word _Oreb_--The Raven tribe plentiful in

Palestine--The Raven and the Dove--Elijah and the

Ravens--Various explanations of the circumstance--Feeding the

young Ravens--Luis of Grenada's sermon--The white Raven of

ancient times--An old legend--Reference to the blackness of the

Raven's plumage--Desert-loving habits of the Raven--Its mode of

attacking the eye--Notions of the old commentators--Ceremonial

use of the Raven--Return of the Ravens--Cunning of the

bird--Nesting-places of the Raven--The magpie and its

character--The starling--Its introduction into Palestine--The

Rabbi perplexed--Solution of the difficulty.

It is more than probable that, while the Hebrew word _oreb_ primarily

signifies the bird which is so familiar to us under the name of RAVEN,

it was also used by the Jews in a much looser sense, and served to

designate any of the Corvidæ, or Crow tribe, such as the raven itself,

the crow, the rook, the jackdaw, and the like. We will first take the

word in its restricted sense, and then devote a brief space to its

more extended signification.

As might be expected from the cosmopolitan nature of the Raven, it is

very plentiful in Palestine, and even at the present time is

apparently as firmly established as it was in the days when the

various Scriptural books were written.

There are few birds which are more distinctly mentioned in the Holy

Scriptures than the Raven, though the passages in which its name

occurs are comparatively few. It is the first bird which is mentioned

in the Scriptures, its name occurring in Gen. viii. 7: "And it came to

pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark

which he had made;

"And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the

waters were dried up from off the earth."

Here we have, at the very outset, a characteristic account of the

bird. It left the ark, and flew to and fro, evidently for the purpose

of seeking food. The dove, which immediately followed the Raven, acted

in a different manner. She flew from the ark in search of food, and,

finding none, was forced to return again. The Raven, on the contrary,

would find plenty of food in the bodies of the various animals that

had been drowned, and were floating on the surface of the waters, and,

therefore, needed not to enter again into the ark. The context shows

that it made the ark a resting-place, and that it "went forth to and

fro," or, as the Hebrew Bible renders the passage, "in going and

returning," until the waters had subsided. Here, then, is boldly drawn

the distinction between the two birds, the carrion-eater and the

feeder on vegetable substances--a distinction to which allusion has

already been made in the history of the dove.

[Illustration: THE RAVEN.

"_Who provideth for the raven his food?_"--JOB xxxviii. 41.]

Passing over the declaration in Lev. xi. 15 and Deut. xiv. 14, that

every Raven (_i.e._ the Raven and all its tribe) is unclean, we come

to the next historical mention of the bird. This occurs in 1 Kings

xvii. When Elijah had excited the anger of Ahab by prophesying three

years of drought, he was divinely ordered to take refuge by the brook

Cherith, one of the tributaries of the Jordan. "And it shall be, that

thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens

[_orebim_] to feed thee there.

"So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went

and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.

"And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread

and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook."

In this passage we have a history of a purely miraculous character. It

is not one that can be explained away. Some have tried to do so by

saying that the banished prophet found the nests of the Ravens, and

took from them daily a supply of food for his sustenance. The

repetition of the words "bread and flesh" shows that the sacred writer

had no intention of signifying a mere casual finding of food which the

Ravens brought for their young, but that the prophet was furnished

with a constant and regular supply of bread and meat twice in the day.

It is a statement which, if it be not accepted as the account of a

miracle, must be rejected altogether.

I may here mention that an explanation of the passage has been offered

by some commentators, who render the word _orebim_ as "Arabs," and so

arrive at the conclusion that the prophet was fed in his retirement by

the Arab tribes which came to the brook for water. Others have thought

that the Orebim were the inhabitants of a village called Orbo, near

the Cherith. There is, however, no need of any such explanations. The

account of the prophet's flight to the Cherith and of the daily supply

of food which he received has been accepted as a simple statement of

facts by all Jewish writers, and there is no alternative but either to

accept it in the same sense or to reject it.

This part of the subject naturally leads to certain passages in which

the feeding of the young Ravens is mentioned. See, for example, Job

xxxviii. 41: "Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young

ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat." This passage is

rendered rather differently and more forcibly in the Jewish Bible.

"Who provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto

God, and wander for lack of meat?" A passage of similar import occurs

in Ps. cxlvii. 9: "He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young

ravens which cry." An evident reference is made to these passages in

Luke xii. 24: "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap;

which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much

more are ye better than the fowls?"

In all these cases reference is made to a curious idea which prevailed

respecting the Raven. It was thought that the Raven was a cruel

parent, and that after the eggs were hatched it cared nothing for the

young until they were full fledged. As, moreover, the bird was thought

to be peculiarly late in attaining its plumage, the young Ravens must

all die of hunger, were they not fed in some remarkable manner. This

subject is treated at some length by Luis of Grenada in his Sermons.

As the passage in question is a very curious one, I give both the

original and a translation. For the latter I am indebted to the Rev.

C. J. Smith, author of "Synonyms and Antonyms," who has preserved,

with much success, the quaint structure of the language.

"Dominica XIV. post Pent. Concio 1:

"Nisi hæc enim omnia magnam nobis admirationis materiam divinæque

providentiæ notitiam præberent, nequaquam Dominus inter cetera

sapientiæ et providentiæ suæ argumenta hoc etiam commemoraret, cum ad

Job ait: 'Quis præparat corvo escam suam, quando pulli ejus clamant ad

Deum vagantes eò quòd non habeant cibos?'[1] Et in Psal.: 'Qui dat

jumentis escam ipsorum et pullis corvorum invocantibus eum.'[2]

[1] Job xxxviii.

[2] Ps. cxlvii.

"Cur autem hoc in loco pullorum corvi præcipuè meminerit, in causa

est, quod in his miro modo singularis providentiæ cura elucet. Ait

enim interpres quidam corvorum pullos eum implumes adhuc sunt,

candorem præ se ferre: ideoque a parentibus ut nothos negligi, quod

eorum non referant colorem. Quo tempore divina providentia, quæ

nusquam dormit, eos ad se clamantes alit. Vermiculos enim quosdam in

nidulo nasci constituit, quorum esu sustentantur donec nono tandem die

nascentibus plumis parentum colorem referant, atque ita demum ab illis

nutriantur.

"Cum igitur divina providentia nulla in re neque animalculis istis

etiam si a patribus deserantur desit, quanta ilia diffidentia est, quæ

solis hominibus eam deesse profitetur? Si homo inter omnes inferioris

hujus mundi creaturas nobilissimum et pulcherrimum animal est, si

solus ipse Dei imagine insignitus, si ipse hujus magnæ familiæ

princeps ac dominus est, si ejus obsequio cuncta militant, si omnia

rerum conditor subiecit pedibus ejus oves et boves universas, insuper

et pecora campi, &c. qui fieri potest ut cum hujus mundi moderator Dñs

nullum neque animalculum neque vermiculum a providentiæ suæ cura

excludat, sed omnibus abunde omnia suppeditat, pium hominem (cujus

obsequio cuncta destinavit) fame et inedia confici patiatur. Si pater

aliquis filii sui familiam, servos, ancillas, et jumenta diligenter

curaret, illisque necessaria abunde provideret, quomodo filium fame

perire sineret, cujus familiam tanta cura fovet et alit? Quis enim hoc

in animum inducere possit? Hæc ijitur altera ratio est qua celestis

Magister diffidentiam nostram curare, et spem alere atque fulcire

studet."

"Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Sermon 1:

"For if it were not that all these things afford to us great matter of

admiration and demonstration of the providence of God, it were in vain

that the Lord, among other tokens of His wisdom and providence, had

selected this also, when He saith in Job: 'Who provideth for the raven

his food? when his young ones cry unto God, wandering for lack of

meat.' And in the Psalms: 'Who giveth their own food to the cattle,

and to the young ravens that call upon Him.'

"Now that in this place He hath been mainly mindful of the ravens'

young, is partly for this cause, that marvellously in them the

singular care of Providence doth show forth. For a certain annotator

saith, that the young ravens while as yet they are unfledged do appear

of whiteness, and therefore are neglected of their parents as if they

were bastards, seeing that they resemble not their colour. At which

time Divine Providence, who nowhere sleepeth, doth feed them who call

upon Himself. For He causeth certain vermicles (small worms) to be

bred in the little nest, by eating of which they are sustained, until

at length on the ninth day, the feathers beginning to grow, they

resemble the colour of their parents, and so come to be nourished by

them.

"Seeing then that Divine Providence is never wanting in any matter,

not even to these little creatures, though they be deserted of their

parents, how great is that distrust which averreth that it is wanting

unto men alone! If man be among all the creatures of this lower world

the noblest and the fairest of things; if he alone be made illustrious

by God's image; if he himself be of this great family the leader and

lord; if in obedience to him all things serve; if the Constructor of

all things hath put under his feet 'all sheep and oxen, yea, and the

beasts of the field;' how shall it be that when the Lord, the Ruler of

this world, shutteth out none, neither insect nor worm, from the care

of His providence, but supplieth abundantly all things for all, He

should suffer the righteous man, for whose service He hath appointed

all things, to perish of hunger and lack of food?

"If it be that every father would diligently care for his son's

household, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and cattle, and

provide them abundantly with all things needful, how should He suffer

His sons to perish whose families He cherisheth and feedeth with so

great care? Who, indeed, could harbour such a thought? This then is

another consideration whereby the heavenly Master seeks to cure our

distrust, and to feed and stay our hope."

Some of the old writers improved on this legend by saying that the

worms crawled into the mouths of the young Ravens, so that the birds

had not even the trouble of picking them up.

Some of the ancient Jewish writers had an idea that the Raven was

originally a white bird, and that its colour was changed by way of

punishment for its evil disposition and deceitful conduct. A similar

idea was held by the old mythological writers. They said that the

Raven was formerly the favourite bird of Apollo, and that it was

celebrated for its sweet song and snowy white plumage. Part of its

duty was to bring water for its master from the fountain Hippocrene.

One day, instead of doing its duty, the bird amused itself in the

garden, and at last fell asleep. Fearful when it awoke that it should

be punished for its carelessness, the cunning Raven snatched up a

snake, killed it, and brought it to Apollo, saying that the serpent

had disputed the passage to the fountain, and that, after a long

fight, it had just been killed. Apollo, angry with the bird for having

told a lie, drove it from his presence, and as it fled its musical

voice turned into a harsh croak, and its white plumage became black.

"'Liar!' exclaimed the god,

The Python-killer, as from his keen eye

The lightning darted, 'Me wouldst thou deceive

With such a wretched tale! Hence, hence! begone!

Black as thy falsehood fly through shuddering air,

A bird of lonely night! Dumb be thy voice

Of sweetest melody: henceforth thy cry

Tell but of woes and horrors, a wild shriek

Of darkness and dismay.'"

_Knight's Quarterly Magazine_

Reference to the blackness of the Raven's plumage is made in the Song

of Solomon. "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten

thousand.

"His beard is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy and black as

a Raven." (Cant. v. 10, 11.) A similar expression is common among

ourselves.

On account of its mode of life, the Raven cannot exist in a wild state

in cultivated ground. Hence it has disappeared from the greater part

of England, and is seldom to be seen except on wide moors or in large

forests. Cultivated ground affords it scarcely any food, and it is

therefore a bird of the wilderness rather than of the towns.

Like all feeders on carrion, it is wonderfully quick in detecting a

dead or dying animal, and rivals the vulture itself in the sharpness

of its vision. If any one who is passing over a part of the country

where Ravens still survive, should wish to see one of the birds, he

has only to lie flat on the ground, and keep his eyes nearly shut, so

as only to see through the lashes. Should there be a Raven within many

miles, it is sure to discover the apparently dead body, and to alight

at no great distance, walking round and round, with its peculiar

sidelong gait, and, if it be not checked in time, will make a dash at

the eye of the prostrate individual, and probably blind him for life.

This habit of pecking at the eye is inherent in all the crow tribe,

probably because they know instinctively that if the animal will allow

its eye to be pecked out it must be dead; and if it should still

possess life, it would be blinded for the moment, so as to allow its

assailant to escape. The Scriptures note this custom of the Raven, as

we see in Prov. xxx. 17: "The eye that mocketh at his father and

despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it

out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

The desert-loving habit of the Raven is noticed in Isa. xxxiv. 11:

"The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the

raven shall dwell in it: and He shall stretch out upon it the line of

confusion, and the stones of emptiness."

We will now pass to the notices of the Raven as given by the writers

and commentators of the Talmud.

Being an unclean bird, and one of ill omen, it was not permitted to

perch on the roof of the Temple. According to some writers, it was

kept off by means of scarecrows, and according to others, by long and

sharp iron spikes set so closely together that there was no room for

the bird to pass between them. The latter is by far the more probable

account, as the Raven is much too cunning a bird to be deceived by a

scarecrow for any length of time. It might be alarmed at the first

sight of a strange object, but in a very short time it would hold all

scarecrows in supreme contempt.

Its carrion-eating propensities were well known to the ancient

writers, who must have had many opportunities of seeing the Raven

unite with the vultures in consuming the bodies, not only of dead

animals, but of warriors killed in battle. So fond was the Raven of

this food that, according to those writers, the very smell of human

blood attracted the bird; and, if a man accidentally cut himself, or

if he were bled for some illness, the odour of the blood would bring

round the spot all the Ravens of the place.

The punctuality with which the Raven, in common with all its kin,

returns to its roosting-place, was also familiar to the Talmudists,

who made rather an ingenious use of this habit. The ceremonial law of

the Jews required the greatest care in observing certain hours, and it

was especially necessary to know the precise time which marked the

separation of one day from another. This was ascertained easily enough

as long as the day was clear, but in case of a dull, murky day, when

the course of the sun could not be traced, some other plan was needed.

In the olden times, no artificial means of measuring time were known,

and the devout Jew was consequently fearful lest he might unwittingly

break the law by doing on one day an act which ought to have been done

on another. A convenient method for ascertaining the time was,

however, employed, and, as soon as the Ravens, rooks, and similar

birds were seen returning to their homes, the sun was supposed to be

setting.

This habit of returning regularly at the same time is mentioned by Mr.

Tristram in his "Land of Israel:"--

"Of all the birds of Jerusalem, the raven is decidedly the most

characteristic and conspicuous. It is present everywhere to eye and

ear, and the odours that float around remind us of its use. On the

evening of our arrival we were perplexed by a call-note, quite new to

us, mingling with the old familiar croak, and soon ascertained that

there must be a second species of raven along with the common _Corvus

corax_. This was the African species (_Corvus umbrinus_, Hed.), the

ashy-necked raven, a little smaller than the world-wide raven, and

here more abundant in individuals.

"Beside these, the rook (_Corvus agricola_, Trist.), the common grey,

or hooded crow (_Corvus cornix_, L.), and the jackdaw (_Corvus

monedula_, L.), roost by hundreds in the sanctuary. We used to watch

them in long lines passing over our tents every morning at daybreak,

and returning in the evening, the rooks in solid phalanx leading the

way, and the ravens in loose order bringing up the rear, generally far

out of shot. Before retiring for the night, popular assemblies of the

most uproarious character were held together in the trees of the

Kedron and Mount Olivet, and not until sunset did they withdraw in

silence, mingled indiscriminately, to their roosting-places on the

walls.

"My companions were very anxious to obtain specimens of these

Jerusalem birds, which could only be approached as they settled for

the night; but we were warned by the Consul that shooting them so

close to the mosque might be deemed a sacrilege by the Moslems, and

provoke an attack by the guardians of the Haram and the boys of the

neighbourhood. They finally determined, nevertheless, to run the risk;

and stationing themselves just before sunset in convenient

hiding-places near the walls, at a given signal they fired

simultaneously, and, hastily gathering up the spoils, had retreated

out of reach, and were hurrying to the tents before an alarm could be

raised. The discharge of ten barrels had obtained fourteen specimens,

comprising five species.

"The same manoeuvre was repeated with equal success on another

evening; but on the third occasion the ravens had learned wisdom by

experience, and, sweeping round Siloam, chose another route to their

dormitory."

Those who have tried to come within gunshot of a Raven, even in this

country, can appreciate this anecdote, and can understand how the

Raven would ever afterwards keep clear of a spot where the flash and

smoke of fire-arms had twice appeared.

An anecdote which authenticates this cautious turn of mind in the

Raven is given in Mr. Thompson's work on the "Natural History of

Ireland." There was a large yard in which the sparrows used to

congregate, and it was a custom of the owner to lay a train of corn

for the sparrows to eat, and then to rake the whole line with a

discharge from a gun concealed in an outhouse. A tame Raven lived

about the premises, and as soon as it saw any one carrying a gun

towards the fatal outhouse, it became much alarmed, and hurried off to

hide itself. As soon as the gun was fired, out came the Raven from its

place of concealment, pounced on one of the dead sparrows, carried it

off, and ate it in its private haunt.

The nest to which the Raven returns with such punctuality is placed in

some spot where it is safe from ordinary intruders. The tops of lofty

trees are favoured localities for the nest, and so are old towers, the

interior of caves, and clefts in lofty precipices. The nest is large

and clumsy, and the bird, trusting in the inaccessible character of

the locality, troubles itself very little about concealment. The Raven

is a peculiarly domestic bird, and a pattern of conjugal affection. It

pairs for life, and both male and female take their share of sitting

on the eggs and nurturing the young.

The old writers of whom mention has been made admitted that all the

Corvidæ were signified by the word _oreb_. Sometimes they drew a

distinction between them, but, as a rule, the word _oreb_ might mean

any of those birds, from a Raven to a starling.

The MAGPIE is one of those birds which is separately mentioned. Like

the Raven, it was thought to be harsh and cruel to its young, so that

whenever a man behaved badly to his children, either by neglect or by

absolute cruelty, he was called a Magpie-man by way of derision.

Similarly, a man of a morose or evil disposition was termed a

Raven-hearted man. As, however, the Magpie is not entirely black, but

has some white in its plumage, it was held to be rather a better bird

than the Raven. Moreover, it is fond of haunting the habitations of

men, so that it was held to be of a softer nature than the Raven,

which always kept itself as far from mankind as possible.

Lastly, we come to the Starling, which, as I have already mentioned,

is considered as one of the Raven tribe, and is ranked under the name

of Oreb. The old writers had no very great opinion of this bird, which

they considered as exceptionally quarrelsome, probably on account of

its shrill, harsh cry. They had a curious proverb, "Two Starlings

cannot sleep in one bed," by which they meant that two quarrelsome

people ought not to associate together.

There is a rather curious legend respecting the introduction of the

Starling into Palestine.

Many years ago, a strange bird appeared in Jerusalem. It was caught,

and brought before a celebrated Rabbi for examination, in order that

he might decide whether it belonged to the clean or the unclean birds.

After examining it, he could not make up his mind to either side of

the question, and left the disputed point to be settled in a different

way.

He ordered the bird to be placed on the roof of a house, and to be

carefully watched, in order that the birds which associated with it

might be noticed. For some time no birds of any kind would recognise

the stranger, until at last there came a Raven from Egypt, which

claimed acquaintance with it. In consequence of this, the Starling was

ever afterwards classed with the Raven, and considered as an unclean

bird. The Egyptian Raven which is here mentioned is described as being

a very small bird, scarcely larger, indeed, than the Starling itself.

THE OSTRICH.

Hebrew words designating the Ostrich--Description of the bird in

the Book of Job--Ancient use of Ostrich plumes--Supposed

heedlessness of eggs and young--Mode of depositing the

eggs--Hatching them in the sand--Natural enemies of the

Ostrich--Anecdote of Ostriches and their young--Alleged

stupidity of the Ostrich--Methods of hunting and snaring the

bird--The Ostrich in domestication--Speed of the Ostrich--The

flesh of the bird prohibited to the Jews--Ostrich eggs and their

uses--Food of the Ostrich--Mode of drinking--Cry of the Ostrich,

and reference made to it in Micah.

There is rather a peculiarity about the manner in which this bird is

mentioned in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, and, unless we

go to the original Hebrew, we shall be greatly misled. In that version

the Ostrich is mentioned only three times, but in the Hebrew it occurs

eight times. If the reader will refer to page 370, he will see that

the Hebrew word _bath-haya'nah_, which is translated in the Authorized

Version as "owl," ought really to be rendered as "Ostrich." Taking

this to be the case, we find that there are several passages in the

Scriptures in which the word has been used in the wrong sense, and

that in those places, instead of rendering the word as "owl," we ought

to read it as "Ostrich."

The first mention of this bird occurs in Lev. xi. 16, and the parallel

passage of Deut. xiv., in which the Ostrich is reckoned among the

unclean birds, without any notice being given of its appearance or

habits.

In the Book of Job, however, we have the Ostrich mentioned with that

preciseness and fulness of description which is so often the case when

the writer of that wonderful poem treats of living creatures.

"Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers

unto the ostrich?

"Who leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust,

"And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast

may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers:

her labour is in vain without fear;

"Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath He imparted to

her understanding.

"What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and

his rider." (Job xxxix. 13-19.)

There is rather a peculiarity in the translation of this passage,

wherein the word which has been translated as "peacock" is now allowed

to be properly rendered as "Ostrich," while the word which is

translated as "Ostrich" ought to have been given as "feathers." The

marginal translation gives the last words of ver. 13 in a rather

different manner, and renders it thus:--"Gavest thou the goodly wings

unto the peacocks, or the feathers of the stork and ostrich?" The

Hebrew Bible renders the next verses as follows:--

"She would yet leave her eggs on the earth, and warm them in dust; and

forget that the foot may crush them, or that the beast of the field

may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, for those not hers; being

careless, her labour is in vain."

In the same Book, chap. xxx., is another passage wherein this bird is

mentioned. "I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried

in the congregation.

"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls," or Ostriches, in

the marginal and correct reading. The Jewish Bible also translates the

word as Ostriches, but the word which the Authorized Version renders

as "dragons" it translates as "jackals." Of this point we shall have

something to say on a future page. A somewhat similar passage occurs

in Isa. xliii. 20: "The beast of the field shall honour me, the

dragons and the owls" (Ostriches in marginal reading), "because I give

waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to

My people, My chosen." The Jewish Bible retains the same reading,

except that the word "dragons" is given with the mark of doubt.

Accepting, therefore, the rendering of the Hebrew as Ostriches, let us

see how far the passages of Scripture agree with the appearance and

habits of the bird.

Here I may observe that, although in the Scriptures frequent allusions

are made to the habits of animals, we are not to look for scientific

exactness to the Scriptures. Among much that is strictly and

completely true, there are occasional errors, to which a most needless

attention has been drawn by a certain school of critics, who point to

them as invalidating the truth of Scripture in general. The real fact

is, that they have no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of

the Scriptural teachings.

The Scriptures were written at various times, for instruction in

spiritual and not in temporal matters, and were never intended for

scientific treatises on astronomy, mathematics, zoology, or any such

branch of knowledge. The references which are made to the

last-mentioned subject are in no case of a scientific nature, but are

always employed by way of metaphor or simile, as the reader must have

seen in the previous pages. No point of doctrine is taught by them,

and none depends on them.

The Spirit which conveyed religious instruction to the people could

only use the means that existed, and could no more employ the

scientific knowledge of the present time than use as metaphors the

dress, arms, and inventions of the present day. The Scriptures were

written in Eastern lands for Orientals by Orientals, and were

consequently adapted to Oriental ideas; and it would be as absurd to

look for scientific zoology in the writings of an ancient Oriental, as

for descriptions of the printing press, the steam-engine, the

photographic camera, or the electric telegraph.

So, when we remember that only a few years ago the real history of the

Ostrich was unknown to those who had made zoology the study of their

lives, we cannot wonder that it was also unknown to those who lived

many centuries ago, and who had not the least idea of zoology, or any

kindred science.

Still, even with these drawbacks, it is wonderful how accurate in many

instances were the writers of the Scriptures, and the more so when we

remember the character of the Oriental mind, with its love of

metaphor, its disregard of arithmetical precision, and its poetical

style of thought.

We will now take the passage in Job xxxix. In ver. 13 reference is

made to the wings and feathers of the Ostrich. If the reader will

refer to page 260, he will see that the feathers of the Ostrich were

formerly used as the emblem of rank. In this case, they are shown as

fastened to the heads of the horses, and also in the form of a plume,

fixed to the end of a staff, and appended to a chariot, as

emblematical of the princely rank of the occupier. In the ancient

Egyptian monuments these Ostrich plumes are repeatedly shown, and in

every case denote very high rank. These plumes were therefore held in

high estimation at the time in which the Book of Job was written, and

it is evidently in allusion to this fact that the sacred writer has

mentioned so prominently the white plumes of the Ostrich.

Passing the next portion of the description, we find that the Ostrich

is mentioned as a bird that is careless of its eggs, and leaves them

"in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the

foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them."

Now it is true that the Ostrich is often known to take the greatest

care of its eggs, the male collecting and sitting on them, and

watching them with loving assiduity, and by some persons this fact has

been brought forward as a proof that the writer of the Book of Job was

mistaken in his statements. A further acquaintance with the habits of

the bird tells us, however, that in those parts of the world which

were known to the writer of that book the Ostrich does behave in

precisely the manner which is described by the sacred writer.

Several females lay their eggs in the same nest, if the title of nest

can be rightly applied to a mere hollow scooped in the sand, and, at

least during the daytime, when the sun is shining, they simply cover

the eggs with sand, so as to conceal them from ordinary enemies, and

leave them to be hatched by the warm sunbeams. They are buried to the

depth of about a foot, so that they receive the benefit of a tolerably

equable warmth. So much, then, for the assertion that the Ostrich

leaves her eggs "in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust."

We next come to the statement that she forgets that "the foot may

crush them, or that the wild beast may break them." It is evident from

the preceding description that eggs which are buried a foot deep in

the sand could not be crushed by the foot, even were they of a fragile

character, instead of being defended by a shell as thick, and nearly

as hard, as an ordinary earthenware plate. Neither would the wild

beast be likely to discover much less to break them.

[Illustration: OSTRICH AND NEST.

"_Who leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the

dust._"--JOB xxxix. 14.]

A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the Ostrich shows

that, even in this particular, the sacred writer was perfectly

correct. Besides the eggs which are intended to be hatched, and which

are hidden beneath the sand to be hatched, a number of supplementary

eggs are laid which are not meant to be hatched, and are evidently

intended as food for the young until they are able to forage for

themselves. These are left carelessly on the surface of the ground,

and may easily be crushed by the hoof of a horse, if not by the foot

of man. We meet, however, with another statement,--namely, that they

may be broken by the wild beasts. Here we have reference to another

fact in the history of the Ostrich. The scattered eggs, to which

allusion is made, are often eaten, not only by beasts, but also by

birds of prey; the former breaking the shells by knocking them against

each other, and the latter by picking up large stones in their claws,

rising above the eggs, and dropping the stones on them. The bird would

like to seize the egg, rise with it in the air, and drop it on a

stone, as mentioned on page 337, but the round, smooth surface of the

egg defies the grasp of talons, and, instead of dropping the egg upon

a stone, it is obliged to drop a stone upon the egg.

Up to the present point, therefore, the writer of the Book of Job is

shown to be perfectly correct in his statements. We will now proceed

to verse 16: "She is hardened against her young ones, as though they

were not hers." Now in the Jewish Bible the passage is rendered rather

differently: "She is hardened against her young ones, for those not

hers;" and, as we shall presently see, the reading perfectly agrees

with the character of the Ostrich.

There has long existed a belief that the Ostrich, contrary to the

character of all other birds, is careless of her young, neglects them,

and is even cruel to them. That this notion was shared by the writer

of the Book of Job is evident from the preceding passage. It also,

prevailed for at least a thousand years after the Book of Job was

written. See Lam. iv. 3: "Even the sea monsters draw out the breast,

they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is

become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness."

It is probable that this idea respecting the cruelty of the Ostrich

towards its young is derived from the fact that if a flock of

Ostriches be chased, and among them there be some very young birds,

the latter are left behind by their parents, and fall a prey to the

hunters. But, in reality, the Ostrich has no choice in the matter. The

wide sandy desert affords no place of concealment in which it might

hide its young. Nature has not furnished it with weapons by means of

which it can fight for them; and consequently it is forced to use the

only means of escape by which it can avoid sacrificing its own life,

as well as the lives of the young.

It does not, however, leave the young until it has tried, by all means

in its power, to save them. For example, it sometimes has recourse to

the manoeuvre with which we are so familiar in the case of the

lapwing, and pretends to be wounded or lamed, in order to draw the

attention of its pursuers, while its young escape in another

direction. An instance of this practice is given by Mr. Andersson in

his "Lake Ngami." "When we had proceeded little more than half the

distance, and in a part of the plain entirely destitute of vegetation,

we discovered a male and female ostrich, with a brood of young ones,

about the size of ordinary barn-door fowls. We forthwith dismounted

from our oxen, and gave chase, which proved of no ordinary interest.

"The moment the parent birds became aware of our intention, they set

off at full speed--the female leading the way, and the cock, though at

some little distance, bringing up the rear of the family party. It was

very touching to observe the anxiety the birds evinced for the safety

of their progeny. Finding that we were quickly gaining upon them, the

male at once slackened his pace and diverged somewhat from his course;

but, seeing that we were not to be diverted from our purpose, he again

increased his speed, and, with wings drooping so as almost to touch

the ground, he hovered round us, now in wide circles, and then

decreasing the circumference until he came almost within pistol-shot,

when he abruptly threw himself on the ground, and struggled

desperately to regain his legs, as it appeared, like a bird that has

been badly wounded.

"Having previously fired at him, I really thought he was disabled, and

made quickly towards him. But this was only a ruse on his part, for,

on my nearer approach, he slowly rose, and began to run in a different

direction to that of the female, who by this time was considerably

ahead with her charge." Nor is this a solitary instance of the care

which the Ostrich will take of her young. Thunberg mentions that on

one occasion, when he happened to ride near a place where an Ostrich

was sitting on the eggs, the bird jumped up and pursued him, evidently

with the object of distracting his attention from the eggs. When he

faced her, she retreated; but as soon as he turned his horse, she

pursued him afresh.

The care of the mother for the young is perhaps less needed with the

Ostrich than with most birds. The young are able to run with such

speed that ordinary animals are not able to overtake them, and,

besides, they are protected by their colour as long as they are

comparatively helpless. Their downy plumage harmonizes completely

with the sandy and stony ground, even when they run, and when they

crouch to the earth, as is their manner when alarmed, even the most

practised eye can scarcely see them. Mr. Andersson, an experienced

hunter, states that when the Ostrich chicks were crouching almost

under his feet, he had the greatest difficulty in distinguishing their

forms.

Owing to the great number of the eggs that are laid, the young are

often very numerous, between thirty and forty chicks sometimes

belonging to one brood. In the Ostrich chase which has already been

described, the brood were eighteen in number, and so great was their

speed that, in spite of their youth and diminutive size, Mr. Andersson

only succeeded in capturing nine of them after an hour's severe chase.

We find, therefore, that we must acquit the Ostrich of neglecting its

young, much more of cruelty towards them; and we will now turn to the

next charge against the bird, that of stupidity.

In one sense, the bird certainly may be considered stupid. Like nearly

all wild creatures which live on large plains, it always runs against

the wind, so as to perceive by scent if any enemies are approaching.

Its nostrils are very sensitive, and can detect a human being at a

very great distance. So fastidious is it in this respect, that no

hunter who knows his business ever attempts to approach the Ostrich

except from leeward. If a nest is found, and the discoverer wishes the

birds to continue laying in it, he approaches on the leeward side, and

rakes out the eggs with a long stick.

The little Bosjesman, who kills so many of these birds with his tiny

bow and arrow, makes use of this instinct when he goes to shoot the

Ostrich, disguised in a skin of one of the birds. Should an Ostrich

attack him, as is sometimes the case, he only shifts his position to

windward, so as to allow the birds to catch the scent of a human

being, when they instantly make off in terror.