"One is so near to another that no air can come between them.

"They are joined one to another, they stick together that they cannot

be sundered.

"His snortings make light to shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids

of the morning dawn.

"Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

"His breath kindleth live coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

"In his neck abideth strength, and before him danceth terror.

"The flakes of his flesh are joined together, they are firm in

themselves; yea, as hard as nether millstone.

"When he raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid; by reason of

breakings they lose themselves.

"The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart,

nor the habergeon.

"He esteemeth iron as straw, and copper as rotten wood.

"The arrow cannot make him flee: sling-stones are turned with him into

stubble.

"Clubs are counted as stubble; he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

"His under parts are like sharp points of potsherd; he speaketh sharp

points upon the mire.

"He maketh the deep to boil like a pot; he maketh the sea like a pot

of ointment.

"He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be

hoary.

"Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

"He beholdeth all high things; he is a king over all the children of

pride."

This splendid description points as clearly to the Crocodile as the

description of the Behemoth which immediately precedes it does to the

hippopotamus, and it is tolerably evident that the sacred poet who

wrote these passages must have been personally acquainted with both

the Crocodile and the hippopotamus. In both descriptions there are a

few exaggerations, or rather, poetical licences. For example, the

bones of the hippopotamus are said to be iron and copper, and the

Crocodile is said to kindle live coals with his breath. These,

however, are but the natural imagery of an Oriental poet, and,

considering the subject, we may rather wonder that the writer has not

introduced even more fanciful metaphors.

Before proceeding with the Biblical portion of the history of this

formidable reptile, I will mention a few points connected with the

Crocodile and its kin. There are several species of Crocodile in

different parts of the world, ten species at least being known to

science. Some inhabit India, some tropical America, some Asia, and

some Africa, so that the genus is represented in nearly all the warmer

parts of the world.

They are all known by the formation of the teeth, the lower canines

fitting each into a notch on the side of the upper jaw. The feet are

webbed to the tips, and though the reptile mostly propels itself

through the water by means of its tail, it can also paddle itself

gently along by means of its feet. The teeth are all made for

snatching and tearing, but not for masticating, the Crocodile

swallowing its prey entire when possible; and when the animal is too

large to be eaten entire, the reptile tears it to pieces, and swallows

the fragments without attempting to masticate them.

In order to enable it to open its mouth under water, the back of its

throat is furnished with a very simple but beautiful contrivance,

whereby the water is received on a membranous valve, and, in

proportion to its pressure, closes the orifice of the throat. As the

Crocodiles mostly seize their prey in their open jaws and hold it

under water until devoured, it is evident that without such a

structure as has been described the Crocodile would be as likely to

drown itself as its prey. But the throat-valve enables it to keep its

mouth open while the water is effectually prevented from running down

its throat, and the nostrils, placed at the end of the snout, enable

it to breathe at its ease, while the unfortunate animal which it has

captured is being drowned beneath the surface of the water.

This position of the nostrils serves another purpose, and enables the

Crocodile to breathe while the whole of its body is under the water,

and only an inch or two of the very end of the snout is above the

surface. As, moreover, the Crocodile, as is the case with most

reptiles, is able to exist for a considerable time without breathing,

it only needs to protrude its nostrils for a few moments, and can then

sink entirely beneath the water. In this way the reptile is able to

conceal itself in case it should suspect danger; and as, in such

instances, it dives under the herbage of the river, and merely thrusts

its nose into the air among the reeds and rashes, it is evident that,

in spite of its enormous size, it baffles the observation of almost

every foe.

The Crocodile is one of the many animals to which divine honours were

paid by the Egyptians. This we learn from several sources. Herodotus,

for example, in "Euterpe," chapter 69, writes as follows: "Those who

dwell about Thebes and Lake Moeris, consider them to be very sacred;

and they each of them train up a Crocodile, which is taught to be

quite tame; and they put crystal and gold ear-rings into their ears,

and bracelets on their fore-paws; and they give them appointed and

sacred food, and treat them as well as possible while alive, and when

dead, they embalm them, and bury them in sacred vaults.

"But the people who dwell about the city of Elephantine eat them, not

considering them as sacred."

The reasons for this worship are several. At the root of them all lies

the tendency of man to respect that which he fears rather than that

which he loves; and the nearer the man approaches the savage state,

the more is this feeling developed. By this tendency his worship is

regulated, and it will be found that when man is sufficiently advanced

to be capable of worship at all, his reverence is invariably paid to

the object which has the greatest terrors for him. The Crocodile,

therefore, being the animal that was most dreaded by the ancient

Egyptians, was accepted as the natural type of divinity.

By degrees, though the worship of the Crocodile was retained, the

worshippers thought themselves obliged to find reasons for their

veneration, and some of them said that they considered the Crocodile a

type of divinity because it had no tongue, and was therefore an emblem

of divine power, which requires no tongue wherewith to speak. "For by

a mute and silent way it ascendeth, and bringeth all things mortal to

a vocal justice, which speaketh in action, though not in voyce, even

as all that is in the Crocodile is action and not voyce."

Some said that they reverenced the Crocodile because it laid

threescore eggs and lived threescore years, this being the span of

human life. Others, and these give by far the best reason, say that

divine honours are paid to the Crocodile because the time of laying

the eggs and hatching the young foreshows the annual rising of the

Nile, on which depends the prosperity of the whole country. Still

there is no doubt that, whatever explanations may have been offered by

the advocates of Crocodile worship, the true reason for it was nothing

but the terror inspired by the animal.

Owing to the accuracy of the description in the Book of Job, which is

evidently written by one who was personally acquainted with the

Crocodile, it is thought by many commentators that the writer must

have been acquainted with the Nile, in which river both the Crocodile

and hippopotamus are found at the present day.

It is possible, however, that the hippopotamus and the Crocodile have

had at one time a much wider range than they at present enjoy. Even

within the memory of man the hippopotamus has been driven further and

further up the Nile by the encroachments of man. It has long been said

that even at the present day the Crocodile exists in Palestine in the

river which is called "Nhar Zurka," which flows from Samaria through

the plains of Sharon. Several of the older writers have mentioned its

existence in this river, and, since this work was commenced, the

long-vexed question has been set at rest; a Crocodile, eight feet in

length, having been captured in the Nhar Zurka.

In her "Domestic Life in Palestine," Miss Rogers gives an old legend

by which the people account for the presence of Crocodiles in this

river. Many ages ago there dwelt upon the bank of the river an old man

and his two sons, the elder of whom was idle and profligate, while the

younger was industrious and virtuous.

The father died, and left them each an equal share of his wealth--the

flocks and herds which fed on the rich banks of the river. In process

of time, the elder brother wasted all his property by riotous living

and neglect, while the younger brother had greatly increased his

flocks and herds, and had become a wealthy man. The elder, being

jealous of his brothers prosperity, sought in his mind how to do him

an injury. Accordingly, he travelled to Egypt, brought some young

Crocodiles thence, and turned them into the river, hoping that they

would destroy his brother's flocks as they came to drink.

Some time afterwards, he went down to the river, and, as he had been

accustomed to do, descended to the water to wash, when the Crocodiles

seized him, dragged him into the water, and devoured him.

This is one legend. Another states that many years ago a colony of

Egyptians had settled on the bank of the Nhar Zurka, and that they,

being worshippers of the Crocodile, brought some of the young from the

Nile and established them in the river, which thenceforward bore the

name of Nhar Zurka, or the Crocodile River. The reader will doubtless

have noticed that in both these legends the Crocodile is said to be an

importation from the Nile, and is not held to be indigenous to the

river.

Allusion is made in the former of these two legends to the mode in

which the Crocodile seizes its prey. It does not attack it openly,

neither, as some have said, does it go on shore for that purpose. It

watches to see whether any animal comes to drink, and then, sinking

beneath the surface of the water, dives rapidly, rises unexpectedly

beneath the unsuspecting victim, seizes it with a sudden snap of its

huge jaws, and drags it beneath the water. Should the intended prey be

too far from the water to be reached by the mouth, or so large that it

may offer a successful resistance, the Crocodile strikes it a

tremendous blow with its tail, and knocks it into the water. The

dwellers on the Nile bank say that a large Crocodile will with a

single blow of its tail break all the four legs of an ox or a horse.

These cunning reptiles even contrive to catch birds as they come for

water. On the banks of the Nile the smaller birds drink in a very

peculiar manner. They settle in numbers on the flexible branches that

overhang the stream, and when, by their weight, the branch bends

downwards, they dip their beaks in the water. The Crocodile sees afar

off a branch thus loaded, swims as near as possible, and then dives

until it can see the birds immediately above it, when it rises

suddenly, and with a snap of its jaws secures a whole mouthful of the

unsuspecting birds.

Sir S. Baker, in his travels on the Nile, gave much attention to the

Crocodile, and has collected a great amount of interesting information

about the reptile, much of which is peculiarly valuable, inasmuch as

it illustrates the Scriptural notices of the creature. He states that

it is a very crafty animal, and that its usual mode of attack is by

first showing itself, then swimming slowly away to a considerable

distance, so as to make its intended victim think that danger is over,

and then returning under water. It is by means of this manoeuvre that

it captures the little birds. It first makes a dash at them,

open-mouthed, causing them to take to flight in terror. It then sails

slowly away as if it were so baffled that it did not intend to renew

the attack. When it is at a considerable distance, the birds think

that their enemy has departed, and return to the branch, which they

crowd more than ever, and in a minute or two several dozen of them are

engulfed in the mouth of the Crocodile, which has swiftly dived under

them.

On one occasion, Sir S. Baker was walking near the edge of the river,

when he heard a great shrieking of women on the opposite bank. It

turned out that a number of women had been filling their "gerbas"

(water-skins), when one of them was suddenly attacked by a large

Crocodile. She sprang back, and the reptile, mistaking the filled

gerba for a woman, seized it, and gave the owner time to escape. It

then dashed at the rest of the women, but only succeeded in seizing

another gerba.

[Illustration: THE CROCODILE, THE LEVIATHAN OF SCRIPTURE.

"Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish

spears."--JOB xli. 7.]

A short time previously a Crocodile, thought by the natives to be the

same individual, had seized a woman and carried her off; and another

had made an attack on a man in a very curious manner. A number

of men were swimming across the river, supported, after their

custom, on gerbas inflated with air, when one of them felt himself

seized by the leg by a Crocodile, which tried to drag him under water.

He, however, retained his hold on the skin, and his companions also

grasped his arms and hair with one hand, while with the other they

struck with their spears at the Crocodile. At last they succeeded in

driving the reptile away, and got their unfortunate companion to land,

where they found that the whole of the flesh was stripped from the leg

from the knee downwards. The poor man died shortly afterwards.

These crafty reptiles also try to catch the baboons by lying in wait

for them at their drinking places; but the baboons are generally more

than a match for the Crocodile in point of cunning and quickness of

sight. Sir S. Baker witnessed an amusing example of such an attempt

and its failure.

"The large tamarind-trees on the opposite bank are generally full of

the dog-faced baboons (_Cynocephalus_) at their drinking hour. I

watched a large Crocodile creep slily out of the water and lie in

waiting among the rocks at the usual drinking place before they

arrived, but the baboons were too wide awake to be taken in so easily.

"A young fellow was the first to discover the enemy. He had

accompanied several wise and experienced old hands to the extremity of

a bough that at a considerable height overhung the river; from this

post they had a bird's eye view, and reconnoitred before one of the

numerous party descended to drink. The sharp eyes of the young one at

once detected the Crocodile, who matched in colour so well with the

rocks that most probably a man would not have noticed it until too

late.

"At once the young one commenced shaking the bough and screaming with

all his might, to attract the attention of the Crocodile and to induce

it to move. In this he was immediately joined by the whole party, who

yelled in chorus, while the large old males bellowed defiance, and

descended to the lowest branches within eight or ten feet of the

Crocodile. It was of no use--the pretender never stirred, and I

watched it until dark. It remained still in the same place, waiting

for some unfortunate baboon whose thirst might provoke his fate, but

not one was sufficiently foolish, although the perpendicular bank

prevented them from drinking except at that particular spot."

It may be imagined that if the Crocodile were to depend entirely for

its food upon the animals that it catches on the bank or in the river,

it would run a risk of starving. The fact is, that its principal food

consists of fish, which it can chase in the water. The great speed at

which the Crocodile darts through the water is not owing to its webbed

feet, but to its powerful tail, which is swept from side to side, and

thus propels the reptile after the manner of a man "sculling" a boat

with a single oar in the stern. The whales and the fishes have a

similar mode of propulsion.

On land, the tail is the Crocodile's most formidable weapon. It is one

mass of muscle and sinew, and the force of its lateral stroke is

terrible, sweeping away every living thing that it may meet.

Fortunately for its antagonists, the Crocodile can turn but very

slowly, so that, although it can scramble along at a much faster pace

than its appearance indicates, there is no great difficulty in

escaping, provided that the sweep of its tail be avoided. As the

Crocodile of the Nile attains when adult a length of thirty feet, one

moiety of which is taken up by the tail, it may easily be imagined

that the power of this weapon can scarcely be exaggerated.

As if to add to the terrors of the animal, its head, back, and tail

are shielded by a series of horny scales, which are set so closely

together that the sharpest spear can seldom find its way through them,

and even the rifle ball glances off, if it strikes them obliquely.

Like many other reptiles, the Crocodile is hatched from eggs which are

laid on shore and vivified by the warmth of the sun.

These eggs are exceedingly small when compared with the gigantic

lizard which deposited them, scarcely equalling in dimensions those of

the goose. There is now before me an egg of the cayman of South

America, a fresh-water lizard but little smaller than the Crocodile of

the Nile, and this is barely equal in size to an ordinary hen's egg.

It is longer in proportion to its width, but the contents of the two

eggs would be as nearly as possible of the same bulk. On the exterior

it is very rough, having a granulated appearance, not unlike that of

dried sharkskin, and the shell is exceedingly thin and brittle. The

lining membrane, however, is singularly thick and tough, so that the

egg is tolerably well defended against fracture.

When first hatched, the young Crocodile is scarcely larger than a

common newt, but it attains most formidable dimensions in a very short

time. Twenty or thirty eggs are laid in one spot, and, were they not

destroyed by sundry enemies, the Crocodiles would destroy every living

creature in the rivers. Fortunately, the eggs and young have many

enemies, chiefly among which is the well-known ichneumon, which

discovers the place where the eggs are laid and destroys them, and

eats any young Crocodiles that it can catch before they succeed in

making their way to the water.

The old writers were aware of the services rendered by the ichneumon,

but, after their wont, exaggerated them by additions of their own,

saying that the ichneumon enters into the mouth of the Crocodile as it

lies asleep, and eats its way through the body, "putting the Crocodile

to exquisite and intolerable torment, while the Crocodile tumbleth to

and fro, sighing and weeping, now in the depth of water, now on the

land, never resting till strength of nature faileth. For the incessant

gnawing of the ichneumon so provoketh her to seek her rest in the

unrest of every part, herb, element, throws, throbs, rollings, but all

in vain, for the enemy within her breatheth through her breath, and

sporteth herself in the consumption of those vital parts which waste

and wear away by yielding to unpacificable teeth, one after another,

till she that crept in by stealth at the mouth, like a puny thief,

comes out at the belly like a conqueror, through a passage opened by

her own labour and industry."

The author has in the long passage, a part of which is here quoted,

mentioned that the ichneumon takes its opportunity of entering the

jaws of the Crocodile as it lies with its mouth open against the beams

of the sun. It is very true that the Crocodile does sleep with its

mouth open; and, in all probability, the older observers, knowing that

the ichneumon did really destroy the eggs and young of the Crocodile,

only added a little amplification, and made up their minds that it

also destroyed the parents. The same writer who has lately been quoted

ranks the ibis among the enemies of the Crocodile, and says that the

bird affects the reptile with such terror that, if but an ibis's

feather be laid on its back, the Crocodile becomes rigid and unable

to move. The Arabs of the present time say that the water-tortoises

are enemies to the eggs, scratching them out of the sand and eating

them.

We will now pass to the description of the Crocodile in the Book of

Job.

In the beginning of that description, Job is asked in irony whether he

can draw out Leviathan with a hook, or bore his jaw with a thorn. This

is probably in allusion, not so much to the size and strength of the

Crocodile, as to its cunning. At the present time the Arabs of the

Nile assert that to catch a Crocodile with a hook is impossible. Mr.

Lowth suggested to his boatmen that, if a large hook were baited with

meat, a Crocodile might be caught. Yusef eagerly denied the

possibility of such a capture: "Him too clever--crocodile looking out

of his eye so" (making a squint)--"he see everything like one man, as

crocodile like man--people thinking him was one man long time, very

long time."

According to Herodotus, however, the Egyptians did take the Crocodile

with a hook, which they first baited with a small pig, and let into

the river, and then beat another pig so as to make it scream. The

Crocodile, hearing the cries of the pig, swims to seize its prey, and

swallows the baited hook instead of the living pig. As soon as it is

caught, the hunters draw it on shore, and when it tries to attack

them, they throw sand into its eyes so as to blind it. It is

remarkable that the Arab hunters of the Nile still employ sand as

their best defensive weapon when they have harpooned a hippopotamus

and dragged it to the bank. The animal, finding that it cannot

retreat, charges into the men, who repel it by throwing sand into its

eyes.

The expression "boring his jaw with a thorn" probably refers to the

fishermen's universal custom of stringing together the captured fish

by a twig passed through the mouth. In the late Mr. Waterton's

"Wanderings" there is an account of the method employed by the natives

in catching the cayman, which is the Crocodile of tropical America. A

steel hook was tried and found useless, but one of the natives made in

a short time an ingenious hook, composed of four sharpened wooden

spikes, with which he succeeded in catching the reptile, thus

literally boring its jaw with a thorn.

Allusion is made to the impenetrable character of the scale in verses

7, 15, 16, 17, and from verses 26 to 30. Verse 8 is given better in

the Jewish Bible than in the Authorized Version. "Lay thine hand upon

him, thou wilt no more remember the battle." The same may be said of

verse 22, which is thus rendered in the Authorized Version: "In his

neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him."

The marginal reading gives the last verse as "sorrow rejoiceth."

Neither of these expressions is very intelligible, but the rendering

of the Jewish Bible is not only clear, but forcible. "In his neck

abideth strength, and before him danceth terror."

In verse 13 the marginal translation is nearly the correct one: "Who

can come to him within his double bridle?" and the Jewish Bible gives

the real meaning of the passage, showing that allusion is made to the

double rows of teeth in both jaws, those of the upper interlacing into

those of the lower. "Who would enter the double (row) in his jaw?"

this reading being carried out by the following verse: "Who can open

the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about" (Jewish

Bible).

The quick sight of the Crocodile is mentioned in verse 18, his eyelids

being compared to the "eyes of the morning," this metaphor being

further illustrated by the hieroglyphs, wherein the eye of the

Crocodile is employed as the emblem of day-dawn. The impossibility of

domesticating this terrible reptile is shown in verses 4 and 5: "Will

he make many supplications unto thee? Will he speak soft words unto

thee?

"Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy

maidens?"

Allusion is evidently made to the disagreeable nature of its flesh,

which is penetrated with a strong musky odour, in verse 6: "Shall the

companions make a banquet of him? Shall they part him among the

merchants?"

And lastly, the foam raised by the lashing of the Crocodile's mighty

tail, and the wake that is left behind it as it urges itself through

the water, are mentioned in verses 31 and 32.

It is not unlikely that the word Leviathan also signified any of the

larger inhabitants of the waters, whether marine or reptile, and that

a whale or a Crocodile would be equally called by that name. In this

sense we must interpret the well-known passage, Ps. civ. 24-26:

"O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them

all: the earth is full of Thy riches.

"So is this great and wide sea" (_i.e._ the Mediterranean), "wherein

are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

"There go the ships: there is that Leviathan, whom Thou hast made to

play therein." In this passage the writer points to some large

inhabitant of the Mediterranean, or the Great Sea, as it is called in

Scripture, to distinguish it from the Sea of Galilee, and the only

creature which would answer to the allusion must be one of the larger

cetacean.

We also find that the Crocodile must be signified by the Hebrew word

_tannin_, which occurs in several parts of Scripture, and which is

sometimes translated as "dragon," and sometimes as "serpent," and

sometimes as "whale." For example, in Exod. vii. 10, we find the

well-known passage which relates the changing of Aaron's rod into a

Tannin, or serpent, as the Authorized Version translates it. The

Jewish Bible, however, simply renders the word as "huge creature."

Next, we come to Deut. xxxii. 33: "Their wine is the poison of

dragons, and the cruel venom of asps." This passage is rendered in the

Jewish Bible as "Their wine is the fury of huge creatures, and the

cruel venom [or head] of asps."

The same word occurs in Job vii. 12: "Am I a sea, or a whale

[_tannin_], that thou settest a watch over me?" We also find it in

Jer. ix. 11: "And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons

[_tannin_];" and the same image is repeated in x. 22: "Behold, the

noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north

country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons."

The same prophet again repeats the word in xiv. 6: "The wild asses did

stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons."

There is nothing in any of these passages which would give any clue as

to the creature that was signified by the word _tannin_, but we obtain

a clue to it in Ezek. xxix. 2-5: "Son of man, set thy face against

Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all

Egypt:

"Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee,

Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his

rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for

myself.

"But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and T will cause the fish of thy

rivers to stick unto thy scales; and I will bring thee up out of the

midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto

thy scales.

"And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the

fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt

not be brought together nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to

the beasts of the field, and to the fowls of the heaven."

See also xxxii. 2, 3: "Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh

king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the

nations, and thou art as a whale [_tannin_] in the seas; and thou

camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet,

and fouledst their rivers.

"Thus saith the Lord God, I will therefore spread out my net over thee

with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my

net."

There is a peculiar significance in the comparison of Pharaoh to the

Crocodile. It is the master and terror of the Nile, of whom all

animals stand in fear. It is ravenous, crafty, fierce, and relentless,

keen-eyed to espy prey, and swift to devour it. Yet, in spite of all

these evil qualities, the Egyptians venerated it, pampered it, hung it

with costly jewels, and paid divine honours to it, exactly as they

considered their despotic sovereign as a demigod during his life, and

honoured him with an apotheosis after his death.

Like the Crocodile, secure in his scaly armour, Pharaoh thought

himself invincible, but, though man could not conquer him, God could

do so. Man could not "put a hook into his nose, or bore his jaws

through with a thorn" (Job xli. 2); but the Lord could "put hooks in

his jaws, and bring him up out of the midst of his rivers, and give

him for meat to the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven."

Taking also the Tannin of Exod. vii. to be the Crocodile, we see how

appropriate were all the circumstances. The miracle was performed in

the presence of Pharaoh, who is afterwards spoken of under the emblem

of the "dragon (_tannin_) that lieth in the midst of the river." The

rod of the future high priest of the Lord was changed into the

Crocodile, which was worshipped by the Egyptian priests and magicians;

and when they imitated the miracle, Aaron's rod swallowed up those of

the heathen in token that the Lord would destroy idolatry.

It is worthy of mention here that, although in the Authorized Version

of the Scriptures, the rods of both Moses and Aaron are mentioned as

having been changed into serpents, the words which are translated as

serpents are different. The rod of Aaron, the priest, was turned into

a Tannin, _i.e._ Crocodile; that of Moses, the lawgiver, into a

Nachash or serpent.

There is one passage which seems to imply that the word _tannin_ may

signify a cetacean. It occurs in Lam. iv. 3: "Even the sea-monsters

[_tannin_] draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones."

If the sacred writers were aware that the cetaceans were mammals and

suckled their young, and that the Crocodile left its offspring to find

food for themselves, there would be no doubt on the subject. But it is

not at all likely that the Prophet Jeremiah, his soul torn by the

crimes of his country and the calamities which he foresaw, persecuted

by his own people, his life endangered by the forebodings that he was

compelled to utter, imprisoned, exiled, and at last dying in a strange

land, would have been versed in natural history, or would have

troubled himself to inquire as to the manner in which the young of the

Crocodile were fed. The sense of the passage is plain enough, and

contains a rebuke to the people in that they neglect their children,

and were worse than the ferocious inhabitants of the water, as we

shall see on reading the whole of the passage: "Even the sea-monster

draws out the breast; they give suck to their young ones: the daughter

of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

"The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for

thirst; the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto

them."

THE LETÂÂH OR LIZARD.

Difficulty of identifying the Letââh--Probability that it is a

collective and not a specific term--Various Lizards of

Palestine--The Green or Jersey Lizard--The Cyprius, its

appearance and habits--The Glass Snake or

Scheltopusic--Translation of the word _chomet_--Probability that

it signifies the Skink--Medicinal uses of the Lizard--The Seps

tribe--The common Cicigna, and the popular belief concerning its

habits--The Sphænops and its shallow tunnel.

In Leviticus xi. 30, the word Lizard is used as the rendering of the

Hebrew word _letââh_ (pronounced as L'tâh-âh). There are one or two

difficulties about the word, but, without going into the question of

etymology, which is beside the object of this work, it will be

sufficient to state that the best authorities accept the rendering,

and that in the Jewish Bible the word Lizard is retained, but with the

mark of doubt appended to it.

In all probability, the sacred lawgiver employs the word _letââh_ as a

general term; so that, although he prohibits certain Lizards by name,

as having been used for food by the various nations with whom the

Israelites were necessarily brought in contact during their captivity,

their wanderings, and their final conquest of Palestine, he implies

that the whole of the Lizard tribe are to be considered as unfit to be

eaten by the chosen people.

We shall presently examine some of those which are prohibited by name,

and it will be sufficient in the present case to glance at the Lizard

tribes of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria.

These lands absolutely swarm with Lizards. Even in our own country,

Lizards are far more common than is generally known. I have caused the

greatest surprise in an agricultural county by catching and showing to

the field-labourers the common Scaly Lizard (_Zootoca vivipara_). The

little reptile was exceedingly plentiful, and yet not one of the

labourers, nor even their employers, had seen it.

In warmer parts of the earth, the Lizards are so numerous and so

comparatively large that they force themselves upon the notice. For

example, the well-known GREEN or JERSEY LIZARD (_Lacerta viridis_) is

exceedingly plentiful, and may be seen darting among the leaves in

search of prey, after the erratic manner of Lizards generally, which

will remain absolutely motionless for hours together, then whisk about

so rapidly that the eye can scarcely follow their movements, and

subside into quiescence as suddenly as they started from it.

[Illustration: THE CYPRIUS, OR LIZARD OF SCRIPTURE.

"_And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail,

and the mole._"--LEVIT. xi. 30.]

In many parts of the world, especially in France, where the terror

inspired by nearly all reptiles is really ludicrous, this beautiful

and harmless creature is feared as if it were a venomous serpent, and,

to judge from experience, I doubt whether a cobra or a rattlesnake

would excite more horror than a Green Lizard.

A very common species of Lizard, and therefore likely to be one of

those which are grouped under the common name of Letââh, is the

Cyprius (_Plestiodon auratum_). This handsome Lizard is golden-yellow

in colour, beautifully spotted with orange and scarlet, and may be

distinguished, even when the colours have fled after death, by the

curiously formed ears, which are strongly toothed in front. It is very

plentiful in Palestine, and, like others of its kin, avoids cultivated

tracts, and is generally found on rocky and sandy soil which cannot be

tilled. It is active, and, if alarmed, hides itself quickly in the

sand or under stones.

It belongs to the great family of the Skinks, many of which, like the

familiar blind-worm of our own country, are without external legs,

and, though true Lizards, progress in a snake-like manner, and are

generally mistaken for snakes. One of these is the GLASS SNAKE or

SCHELTOPUSIC (_Pseudopus pallasii_), which has two very tiny hind

legs, but which is altogether so snake-like that it is considered by

the natives to be really a serpent. They may well be excused for their

error, as the only external indications of limbs are a pair of

slightly-projecting scales at the place where the hind legs would be

in a fully-developed Lizard.

Though tolerably plentiful, the Scheltopusic is not very often seen,

as it is timid and wary, and, when it suspects danger, glides away

silently into some place of safety. When adult, the colour of this

Lizard is usually chestnut, profusely mottled with black or deep

brown, the edge of each scale being of the darker colour. It feeds

upon insects and small reptiles, and has been known to devour a nest

full of young birds.

In Levit. xi. 30 is a Hebrew word, _chomet_, which is given in the

Authorized Version as SNAIL. There is, however, no doubt that the word

is wrongly translated, and that by it some species of Lizard is

signified. The Jewish Bible follows the Authorized Version, but

affixes the mark of doubt to the word. There is another word,

_shablul_, which undoubtedly does signify the snail, and will be

mentioned in its proper place.

It is most probable that the word _chomet_ includes, among other

Lizards, many of the smaller Skinks which inhabit Palestine. Among

them we may take as an example the COMMON SKINK (_Scincus

officinalis_), a reptile which derives its specific name from the fact

that it was formerly used in medicine, together with mummy, and the

other disgusting ingredients which formed the greater part of the old

Pharmacopoeia.

Even at the present day, it is used for similar purposes in the East,

and is in consequence captured for the use of physicians, the body

being simply dried in the sun, and then sent to market for sale. It is

principally employed for the cure of sunstroke, nettle-rash,

sand-blindness, or fever, and both patient and physician have the

greatest confidence in its powers. It is said by some European

physicians that the flesh of the Skink really does possess medicinal

powers, and that it has fallen into disrepute chiefly because those

powers have been exaggerated. In former days, the head and feet were

thought to possess the greatest efficacy, and were valued accordingly.

Like all its tribe, the Skink loves sandy localities, the soil exactly

suiting its peculiar habits. Although tolerably active, it does not

run so fast or so far as many other Lizards, and, when alarmed, it has

a peculiar faculty for sinking itself almost instantaneously under the

sand, much after the fashion of the shore-crabs of our own country.

Indeed, it is even more expeditious than the crab, which occupies some

little time in burrowing under the wet and yielding sand, whereas the

Skink slips beneath the dry and comparatively hard sand with such

rapidity that it seems rather to be diving into a nearly excavated

burrow than to be scooping a hollow for itself.

The sand is therefore a place of safety to the Skink, which does not,

like the crab, content itself with merely burying its body just below

the surface, but continues to burrow, sinking itself in a few seconds

to the depth of nearly a yard.

The length of the Skink is about eight inches, and its very variable

colour is generally yellowish brown, crossed with several dark bands.

Several specimens, however, are spotted instead of banded with brown,

while some are banded with white, and others are spotted with white.

In all, however, the under-surface is silver grey.

It has been thought by several zoologists, that several of the Lizards

belonging to the Seps family may be included in the general term of

Chomet.

This theory is strengthened by the fact that those of the Sepsidæ

which have no visible feet, and which, after the custom of such

Lizards, burrow in the sand, are even at the present day eaten by

Arabs, under the convenient title of Sand-fishes.

Several species of the Sepsidæ inhabit Egypt, Palestine, and Syria,

and of these we will take two as examples.

The first is the COMMON SEPS or CICIGNA (_Seps tridactylis_), a nearly

legless Lizard, having a very long and snake-like body, and four legs,

so small and feeble as to be of scarcely any use in locomotion.

It bears some resemblance to the blindworm of England, feeds on much

the same diet, and has similar habits. It is perfectly harmless, its

teeth being too small, and its jaws too feeble, to hurt any creature

larger than those on which it feeds; but, like the blindworm, it is

much dreaded by the ignorant, who believe that it steals upon horses

and other cattle by night, and bites them as they sleep.

Like other Lizards of its kind, it is one of the sand-lovers, burying

itself when it suspects danger.

The second example of the Sepsidæ is one that has its chief home in

Egypt. This is the CAPISTRATED SPHÆNOPS (_Sphænops sepsoides_). This

reptile is also a burrower, but does not sink so deeply into the sand

as those Lizards which have just been noticed. Indeed, it scarcely

burrows deeply enough to cover it, so that with the foot the sand may

be scraped off, and the reptile discovered.

Sometimes it has recourse to a substitute for a tunnel, and will crawl

along the deep rut made by a cart-wheel rather than take the trouble

of excavating a passage for itself. In consequence of this

peculiarity, it may generally be found in any ridged ground, such as

that which is employed in the cultivation of rice and other grain,

and, as it prefers to follow the course of the ridges rather than

leave them, it may be taken without much trouble. It is perfectly

harmless, and, although when taken it struggles violently to escape,

it never employs its teeth on the hand that holds it. The colour of

the Sphænops is pale brown, diversified with a black stripe on either

side of the muzzle, and a longitudinal series of black dots along the

body. The tail is conical and pointed.

THE CHAMELEON, MONITOR, AND GECKO.

Translation of the word _Koach_--Signification of the word, and

its applicability to the Chameleon--Power of the reptile's

grasp--The prehensile tail--Demeanour of the Chameleon on the

ground--The independent eyes--Its frequent change of

colour--Mode of taking prey--Strange notions respecting the

Chameleon--The Monitor, or Land Crocodile--Its habits and use to

mankind--The Nilotic Monitor, and its habit of destroying the

eggs and young of the Crocodile--The Gecko or Ferret of

Scripture.

In Levit. xi. 30 there occurs a word which has caused great trouble to

commentators. The word is _koach_ (pronounced as a dissyllable thus,

ko-ach). Primarily, it signifies power and strength, but in this

passage it signifies the name of some creature which is included in

the list of unclean beasts. There is very little doubt that it

signifies some species of lizard, and in the Authorized Version it is

rendered as CHAMELEON. The Jewish Bible accepts the same translation,

but appends to it the mark of doubt.

There are two lizards to which the term may possibly be

applied--namely, the Chameleon and the Monitor; and, as the Authorized

Version of the Scriptures accepts the former interpretation, we will

first describe the Chameleon.

This reptile is very plentiful in the Holy Land, as well as in Egypt,

so that the Israelites would be perfectly familiar with it, both

during their captivity and after their escape. It is but a small

reptile, and the reader may well ask why a name denoting strength

should be given to it. I think that we may find the reason for its

name in the extraordinary power of its grasp, as it is able, by means

of its peculiarly-formed feet and prehensile tail, to grasp the

branches so tightly that it can scarcely be removed without damage.

I once saw six or seven Chameleons huddled up together, all having

clasped each other's legs and tails so firmly that they formed a

bundle that might be rolled along the ground without being broken up.

In order to show the extraordinary power of the Chameleon's grasp, I

have had a figure drawn from a sketch taken by myself from a specimen

which I kept for several months.

[Illustration: GECKO AND CHAMELEON.

"_And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail,

and the mole._"--LEVIT. xi. 30.]

When the Chameleon wished to pass from one branch to another, it used

to hold firmly to the branch by the tail and one hind-foot, and

stretch out its body nearly horizontally, feeling about with the other

three feet, as if in search of a convenient resting-place. In this

curious attitude it would remain for a considerable time, apparently

suffering no inconvenience, though even the spider-monkey would have

been unable to maintain such an attitude for half the length of time.

The strength of the grasp is really astonishing when contrasted with

the size of the reptile, as any one will find who allows the Chameleon

to grasp his finger, or who tries to detach it from the branch to

which it is clinging. The feet are most curiously made. They are

furnished with five toes, which are arranged like those of parrots and

other climbing birds, so as to close upon each other like the thumb

and finger of a human hand. They are armed with little yellow claws,

slightly curved and very sharp, and when they grasp the skin of the

hand they give it an unpleasantly sharp pinch.

The tail is as prehensile as that of the spider-monkey, to which the

Chameleon bears a curious resemblance in some of its attitudes, though

nothing can be more different than the volatile, inquisitive, restless

disposition of the spider-monkey and the staid, sober demeanour of the

Chameleon. The reptile has the power of guiding the tail to any object

as correctly as if there were an eye at the end of the tail. When it

has been travelling over the branches of trees, I have often seen it

direct its tail to a projecting bud, and grasp it as firmly as if the

bud had been before and not behind it.

Sometimes, when it rests on a branch, it allows the tail to hang down

as a sort of balance, the tip coiling and uncoiling unceasingly. But,

as soon as the reptile wishes to move, the tail is tightened to the

branch, and at once coiled round it. There really seems to be almost a

separate vitality and consciousness on the part of the tail, which

glides round an object as if it were acting with entire independence

of its owner.

On the ground the Chameleon fares but poorly. Its walk is absolutely

ludicrous, and an experienced person might easily fail to identify a

Chameleon when walking with the same animal on a branch. It certainly

scrambles along at a tolerable rate, but it is absurdly awkward, its

legs sprawling widely on either side, and its feet grasping futilely

at every step. The tail, which is usually so lithe and nimble, is then

held stiffly from the body, with a slight curve upwards.

The eyes are strange objects, projecting far from the head, and each

acting quite independently of the other, so that one eye may often be

directed forwards, and the other backwards. The eyeballs are covered

with a thick wrinkled skin, except a small aperture at the tip, which

can be opened and closed like our own eyelids.

The changing colour of the Chameleon has been long known, though there

are many mistaken ideas concerning it.

The reptile does not necessarily assume the colour of any object on

which it is placed, but sometimes takes a totally different colour.

Thus, if my Chameleon happened to come upon any scarlet substance, the

colour immediately became black, covered with innumerable circular

spots of light yellow. The change was so instantaneous that, as it

crawled on the scarlet cloth, the colour would alter, and the

fore-part of the body would be covered with yellow spots, while the

hinder parts retained their dull black. Scarlet always annoyed the

Chameleon, and it tried to escape whenever it found itself near any

substance of the obnoxious hue.

The normal colour was undoubtedly black, with a slight tinge of grey.

But in a short time the whole creature would become a vivid verdigris

green, and, while the spectator was watching it, the legs would become

banded with rings of bright yellow, and spots and streaks of the same

colour would appear on the head and body.

When it was excited either by anger or by expectation--as, for

example, when it heard a large fly buzzing near it--the colours were

singularly beautiful, almost exactly resembling in hue and arrangement

those of the jaguar. Of all the colours, green seemed generally to

predominate, but the creature would pass so rapidly from one colour to

another that it was scarcely possible to follow the various gradations

of hue.

Some persons have imagined that the variation of colour depends on the

wants and passions of the animal. This is not the case. The change is

often caused by mental emotion, but is not dependent on it; and I

believe that the animal has no control whatever over its colour. The

best proof of this assertion may be found in the fact that my own

Chameleon changed colour several times after its death; and, indeed,

as long as I had the dead body before me, changes of hue were taking

place.

The food of the Chameleon consists of insects, mostly flies, which it

catches by means of its tongue, which can be protruded to an

astonishing distance. The tongue is nearly cylindrical, and is

furnished at the tip with a slight cavity, which is filled with a very

glutinous secretion. When the Chameleon sees a fly or other insect, it

gently protrudes the tongue once or twice, as if taking aim, like a

billiard-player with his cue, and then, with a moderately smart

stroke, carries off the insect on the glutinous tip of the tongue. The

force with which the Chameleon strikes is really wonderful. My own

specimen used to look for flies from my hand, and at first I was as

much surprised with the force of the blow struck by the tongue as I

was with the grasping power of the feet.

Among the wild legends with which the earlier naturalists adorned

their accounts of all animals with which they were not personally

familiar, those of the Chameleon are not the least curious.

"Themselves," writes Topsel, an author of the sixteenth century, "are

very gentle, never exasperated but when they are about wilde

fig-trees.

"They have for their enemies the serpent, the crow, and the hawk. When

the hungry serpent doth assault them, they defend themselves in this

manner, as Alexander Mindius writeth. They take in their mouths a

broad and strong stalk, under protection of which, as under a buckler,

they defend themselves against their enemy the serpent, by reason that

the stalk is broader than the serpent can gripe in his mouth, and the

other parts of the chamæleon so firm and hard as the serpent cannot

hurt them: he laboureth but in vain to get a prey, so long as the

stalk is in the chamæleon's mouth.

"But if the chamæleon at any time see a serpent taking the air, and

sunning himself under some green tree, he climbeth up into that tree,

and setteth himself directly over the serpent; then out of his mouth

he casteth a thread, like a spider, at the end of which hangeth a drop

of poyson as bright as any pearl; by this string he letteth down the

poyson upon the serpent, which, lighting upon it, killeth it

immediately.

"And Scaliger reporteth a greater wonder than this in the description

of the chamæleon; for he saith, if the boughs of the tree so grow as

the perpendicular line cannot fall directly upon the serpent, then he

so correcteth and guideth it with his fore-feet that it falleth upon

the serpent within the mark of a hair's breadth.

"The raven and the crow are also at variance with the chamæleon, and

so great is the adverse nature betwixt these twain, that if the crow

eat of the chamæleon being slain by him, he dyeth for it except he

recover his life by a bay-leaf, even as the elephant, after he hath

devoured a chamæleon, saveth his life by eating of the wilde

olive-tree.

"But the greatest wonder of all is the hostility which Pliny reporteth

to be betwixt the chamæleon and the hawk. For he writeth that when a

hawk flyeth over a chamæleon, she hath no power to resist the

chamæleon, but falleth down before it, yeelding both her life and her

limbs to be devoured by it, and thus that devourer that liveth upon

the prey and blood of others hath no power to save her own life from

this little beast."

It may here be remarked that the frog was said to save itself from the

water-ducks by seizing a stick crosswise in its mouth, so that when

the duck came to seize its prey, the stick came across the angles of

the jaws, and prevented the frog from being swallowed.

So much for the Chameleon. We will now take the NILOTIC MONITOR

(_Hydrosaurus niloticus_) and the LAND MONITOR (_Psammosaurus

scincus_), the other reptiles which have been conjectured to be the

real representatives of the Koach.

These lizards attain to some size, the former sometimes measuring six

feet in length, and the latter but a foot or so less. Of the two, the

Land Monitor, being the more common, both in Palestine and Egypt, has

perhaps the best claim to be considered as the Koach of Scripture. It

is sometimes called the Land Crocodile. It is a carnivorous animal,

feeding upon other reptiles and the smaller mammalia, and is very fond

of the eggs of the crocodile, which it destroys in great numbers, and

is in consequence much venerated by the inhabitants of the country

about the Nile.

The theory that this reptile may be the Koach of Leviticus is

strengthened by the fact that even at the present day it is cooked and

eaten by the natives, whereas the chameleon is so small and bony that

scarcely any one would take the trouble of cooking it.

The Nilotic Monitor shares the same habit of devouring crocodiles'

eggs, and consequently shares the respect of those who are endangered

by the crocodile. It even eats the young crocodiles after they are

hatched, chasing them through the water, and capturing them by means

of its superior swiftness. It may be distinguished from the Land

Monitor by the elevated keel which runs along the whole of the spine

from the neck to the very end of the long tail. The general colour of

the Nilotic Monitor is olive-grey, mottled with black. On the back of

the neck are a series of curved bands of a whitish yellow.

It is mentioned on page 69, that the word _anâkah_, which is

translated as "ferret" in Levit. xi. 30, is certainly a lizard, and in

all probability is one of the Geckos. I have therefore introduced into

the same illustration on page 535 the commonest species of Gecko found

in Palestine. The reader will observe the flat, fan-like expansions at

the ends of the toes, by which it is able to adhere to flat surfaces.

SERPENTS.

Serpents in general--Signification of the Hebrew word

_Nachash_--Various passages in which the Nachash is

mentioned--The fiery Serpents of the wilderness--Explanation of

the words "flying" and "fiery" as applied to Serpents--Haunts of

the Serpent--The Cobra, or Asp of Scripture--Meaning of the word

_Pethen_--The deaf Adder that stoppeth her ear--Serpent-charming

in the East--Principle on which the charmers work--Sluggishness

of the Serpent nature--Ceremony of initiation into

Serpent-charming--Theories respecting the deaf Adder--Luis of

Grenada's sermon--The Cerastes, or Horned Serpent--Appearance

and habits of the reptile--The "Adder in the path."

As we have seen that so much looseness of nomenclature prevailed among

the Hebrews even with regard to the mammalia, birds, and lizards, we

can but expect that the names of the Serpents will be equally

difficult to identify.

No less than seven names are employed in the Old Testament to denote

some species of Serpent; but there are only two which can be

identified with any certainty, four others being left to mere

conjecture, and one being clearly a word which, like our snake or

serpent, is a word not restricted to any particular species, but

signifying Serpents in general. This word is _nâchâsh_ (pronounced

nah-kahsh). It is unfortunate that the word is so variously translated

in different passages of Scripture, and we cannot do better than to

follow it through the Old Testament, so as to bring all the passages

under our glance.

The first mention of the Nâchâsh occurs in Gen. iii., in the

well-known passage where the Serpent is said to be more subtle than

all the beasts of the field, the wisdom or subtlety of the Serpent

having evidently an allegorical and not a categorical signification.

We find the same symbolism employed in the New Testament, the

disciples of our Lord being told to be "wise as serpents, and harmless

as doves."

Allusion is made to the gliding movement of the Serpent tribe in Prov.

xxx. 19. On this part of the subject little need be said, except that

the movements of the Serpent are owing to the mobility of the ribs,

which are pushed forward in succession and drawn back again, so as to

catch against any inequality of the ground. This power is increased by

the structure of the scales. Those of the upper part of the body,

which are not used for locomotion, are shaped something like the

scales of a fish; but those of the lower part of the body, which come

in contact with the ground, are broad belts, each overlapping the

other, and each connected with one pair of ribs.

When, therefore, the Serpent pushes forward the ribs, the edges of the

scaly belts will catch against the slightest projection, and are able

to give a very powerful impetus to the body. It is scarcely possible

to drag a snake backwards over rough ground; while on a smooth

surface, such as glass, the Serpent would be totally unable to

proceed. This, however, was not likely to have been studied by the

ancient Hebrews, who were among the most unobservant of mankind with

regard to details of natural history: it is, therefore, no wonder that

the gliding of the Serpent should strike the writer of the proverb in

question as a mystery which he could not explain.

The poisonous nature of some of the Serpents is mentioned in several

passages of Scripture; and it will be seen that the ancient Hebrews,

like many modern Europeans, believed that the poison lay in the forked

tongue. See, for example, Ps. lviii. 4: "Their poison is like the

poison of a serpent" (_nâchâsh_). Also Prov. xxiii. 32, in which the

sacred writer says of wine that it brings woe, sorrow, contentions,

wounds without cause, redness of eyes, and that "at the last it biteth

like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."

[Illustration: COBRA AND CERASTES, THE ASP AND ADDER OF SCRIPTURE.

"_They are like the deaf asp_ (marginal translation) _that stoppeth

her ear, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming

never so wisely._"--PS. lviii. 4, 5.

"_Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path._"--GEN.

xlix. 17.]

The idea that the poison of the Serpent lies in the tongue is seen in

several passages of Scripture. "They have sharpened their tongues like

a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips" (Ps. cxl. 3). Also in

Job xx. 16, the sacred writer says of the hypocrite, that "he shall

suck the poison of asps: the viper's tongue shall slay him."

As to the fiery Serpents of the wilderness, it is scarcely needful to

mention that the epithet of "fiery" does not signify that the Serpents

in question produced real fire from their mouths, but that allusion is

made to the power and virulence of their poison, and to the pain

caused by their bite. We ourselves naturally employ a similar

metaphor, and speak of a "burning pain," of a "fiery trial," of "hot

anger," and the like.

The epithet of "flying" which is applied to these Serpents is

explained by the earlier commentators as having reference to a Serpent

which they called the Dart Snake, and which they believed to lie in

wait for men and to spring at them from a distance. They thought that

this snake hid itself either in hollows of the ground or in trees, and

sprang through the air for thirty feet upon any man or beast that

happened to pass by.

"And surely if it be lawful to conjecture what kinds of Serpents those

were which in the Scripture were called Fiery Serpents, and did sting

the Israelites to death in the Wildernesse, until the Brazen Serpent

was erected for their cure; among all the Serpents in the world, that

kind of death and pain can be ascribed to none more properly than to

these Cafezati, or Red-dart Serpents.

"For first, the Wildernesse, which was the place wherein they annoyed

the people, doth very well agree to their habitation. Secondly, the

Fiery Serpents are so called by figure, not that they are fiery, but,

as all Writers do agree, either because they were red like fire; or

else because the pain which they inflicted did burn like fire, or

rather for both these causes together, which are joyntly and severally

found in these Red Serpents. And therefore I will conclude for my

opinion, that these Serpents (as the highest poyson in nature) were

sent by God to afflict the sinning Israelites, whose poyson was

uncurable, except by Divine miracle."

The places in which the Serpent is accustomed to lie are mentioned in

various portions of the Old Testament. The habit of lying in hedges is

mentioned in Ecclesiastes. "He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it;

and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him" (Eccles. x. 8).

The Prophet Amos alludes to its custom of haunting the walls of houses

(see v. 18, 19): "The day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

"As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into

the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him."

This passage refers also to the ordinary architecture of the East, the

walls of common houses, such as those with which a herdman like Amos

would be most familiar, being little more than hurdles covered with

mud. Such walls would soon fall into disrepair, and would be full of

holes, in which spiders, centipedes, lizards, and serpents hide

themselves.

We will now take the various species of Serpents mentioned in the

Bible, as nearly as they can be identified.

Of one species there is no doubt whatever. This is the COBRA (_Naja

haje_), a serpent which is evidently signified by the Hebrew word

_pethen_.

There are several passages in which this word occurs, nearly all of

which contain some allusion to its poisonous nature, and one of them

mentioning a characteristic which settles its identity beyond doubt.

In the very beginning of the Scriptural books we find a reference to

the Pethen. The first occurs in Deut. xxxii. 33: "Their vine is of the

vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes

of gall, their clusters are bitter:

"Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps"

(_pethenim_).

Next we come to the passage in Job xx. 14-16: "Yet his meat in his

bowels is turned, it is the gall of asps (_pethenim_) within him.

"He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again: God

shall cast them out of his belly.

"He shall suck the poison of asps (_pethenim_): the viper's (_epheh_)

tongue shall slay him."

These passages clearly indicate the venomous nature of the Pethen, and

there is another which occurs in Isaiah, in which the same quality is

inferred though not directly stated. It occurs in chap. xi., which is

devoted to a prophecy of the spiritual reign of the Messiah, and in

which is found that allusion to Himself which our Lord quoted in the

Temple (see ver. 2). The passage with which we have now to do occurs

in verse 8: "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp

(_pethen_), and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice'

den."

We may also find a passage in the Psalms, in which the Pethen is

classed with the lion as being equally to be dreaded by the traveller.

"Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder (_pethen_), the young lion

and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

All these passages agree in one point, namely, that the Pethen is a

creature the bite of which is exceedingly venomous, but there is

nothing in them to assist us in identifying it. The Pethen may be, as

far as these passages are concerned, any kind of venomous Serpent. But

there is just one allusion to the Pethen which enables us to decide at

once as to its identity. It occurs in Ps. lviii. 3-5: "The wicked are

estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born,

speaking lies.

"Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf

adder (_pethen_) that stoppeth her ear;

"Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so

wisely." The last verse is rendered rather differently in the Jewish

Bible: "Which will not hearken to the voice of whisperers, the cunning

master of charms."

Here we have a clue to the identification of the Pethen. It is

evidently a Serpent that was accustomed to be subjected to the action

of charmers; and as we find that in the olden times and at the present

day the cobra, a most venomous Serpent, was and is tamed by

professional charmers, there is no doubt that the Egyptian cobra is

the Pethen of Scripture. I say the Egyptian cobra, because there is a

closely allied species, the cobra of India (_Naja tripudians_), which

very much resembles the Naja haje, and which is also tamed by

serpent-charmers. A passing allusion to this custom in taming Serpents

is made by St. James in his General Epistle, chap. iii. 7: "For every

kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the

sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind:

"But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly

poison."

How the serpent-charmers perform their feats is not very intelligible.

That they handle the most venomous Serpents with perfect impunity is

evident enough, and it is also clear that they are able to produce

certain effects upon the Serpents by means of musical (or unmusical)

sounds. But these two items are entirely distinct, and one does not

depend upon the other.

In the first place, the handling of venomous snakes has been

performed by Englishmen without the least recourse to any arts except

that of acquaintance with the habits of Serpents. The late Mr.

Waterton, for example, would take up a rattlesnake in his bare hand

without feeling the least uneasy as to the behaviour of his prisoner.

He once took twenty-seven rattlesnakes out of a box, carried them into

another room, put them into a large glass case, and afterwards

replaced them in the box. He described to me the manner in which he

did it, using my wrist as the representative of the Serpent.

The nature of all Serpents is rather peculiar, and is probably owing

to the mode in which the blood circulates. They are extremely

unwilling to move, except when urged by the wants of nature, and will

lie coiled up for many hours together when not pressed by hunger.

Consequently, when touched, their feeling is evidently like that of a

drowsy man, who only tries to shake off the object which may rouse

him, and composes himself afresh to sleep.

A quick and sudden movement would, however, alarm the reptile, which

would strike in self-defence, and, sluggish as are its general

movements, its stroke is delivered with such lightning rapidity that

it would be sure to inflict its fatal wound before it was seized. If,

therefore, Mr. Waterton saw a Serpent which he desired to catch, he

would creep very quietly up to it, and with a gentle, slow movement

place his fingers round its neck just behind the head. If it happened

to be coiled up in such a manner that he could not get at its neck, he

had only to touch it gently until it moved sufficiently for his

purpose.

When he had once placed his hand on the Serpent, it was in his power.

He would then grasp it very lightly indeed, and raise it gently from

the ground, trusting that the reptile would be more inclined to be

carried quietly than to summon up sufficient energy to bite. Even if

it had tried to use its fangs, it could not have done so as long as

its captor's fingers were round its neck.

As a rule, a great amount of provocation is needed before a venomous

Serpent will use its teeth. One of my friends, when a boy, caught a

viper, mistaking it for a common snake. He tied it round his neck,

coiled it on his wrist by way of a bracelet, and so took it home,

playing many similar tricks with it as he went. After arrival in the

house, he produced the viper for the amusement of his brothers and

sisters, and, after repeating his performances, tried to tie the snake

in a double knot. This, however, was enough to provoke the most

pacific of creatures, and in consequence he received a bite on his

finger.

There is no doubt that the snake-charmers trust chiefly to this

sluggish nature of the reptile, but they certainly go through some

ceremonies by which they believe themselves to be rendered impervious

to snake-bites. They will coil the cobra round their naked bodies,

they will irritate the reptile until it is in a state of fury; they

will even allow it to bite them, and yet be none the worse for the

wound. Then, as if to show that the venomous teeth have not been

abstracted, as is possibly supposed to be the case, they will make the

cobra bite a fowl, which speedily dies from the effects of the poison.

Even if the fangs were extracted, the Serpents would lose little of

their venomous power. These reptiles are furnished with a whole series

of fangs in different stages of development, so that when the one in

use is broken or shed in the course of nature, another comes forward

and fills its place. There is now before me a row of four fangs, which

I took from the right upper jawbone of a viper caught in the New

Forest.

In her interesting "Letters from Egypt," Lady Duff-Gordon gives an

amusing account of the manner in which she was formally initiated into

the mysteries of snake-charming, and made ever afterwards impervious

to the bite of venomous Serpents:--

"At Kóm Omboo, we met with a Rifáee darweesh with his basket of tame

snakes. After a little talk, he proposed to initiate me: and so we sat

down and held hands like people marrying. Omar [her attendant] sat

behind me, and repeated the words as my 'wakeel.' Then the Rifáee

twisted a cobra round our joined hands, and requested me to spit on

it; he did the same, and I was pronounced safe and enveloped in

snakes. My sailors groaned, and Omar shuddered as the snakes put out

their tongues; the darweesh and I smiled at each other like Roman

augurs."

She believed that the snakes were toothless; and perhaps on this

occasion they may have been so. Extracting the teeth of the Serpent is

an easy business in experienced hands, and is conducted in two ways.

Those snake-charmers who are confident of their own powers merely

grasp the reptile by the neck, force open its jaws with a piece of

stick, and break off the fangs, which are but loosely attached to the

jaw. Those who are not so sure of themselves irritate the snake, and

offer it a piece of cloth, generally the corner of their mantle, to

bite. The snake darts at it, and, as it seizes the garment, the man

gives the cloth a sudden jerk, and so tears away the fangs.

Still, although some of the performers employ mutilated snakes, there

is no doubt that others do not trouble themselves to remove the fangs

of the Serpents, but handle with impunity the cobra or the cerastes

with all its venomous apparatus in good order.

We now come to the second branch of the subject, namely, the influence

of sound upon the cobra and other Serpents. The charmers are always

provided with musical instruments, of which a sort of flute with a

loud shrill sound is the one which is mostly used in the performances.

Having ascertained, from slight marks which their practised eyes

easily discover, that a Serpent is hidden in some crevice, the charmer

plays upon his flute, and in a short time the snake is sure to make

its appearance.

As soon as it is fairly out, the man seizes it by the end of the tail,

and holds it up in the air at arm's length. In this position it is

helpless, having no leverage, and merely wriggles about in fruitless

struggles to escape. Having allowed it to exhaust its strength by its

efforts, the man lowers it into a basket, where it is only too glad to

find a refuge, and closes the lid. After a while, he raises the lid

and begins to play the flute.

The Serpent tries to glide out of the basket, but, as soon as it does

so, the lid is shut down again, and in a very short time the reptile

finds that escape is impossible, and, as long as it hears the sound of

the flute, only raises its head in the air, supporting itself on the

lower portion of its tail, and continues to wave its head from side to

side as long as it hears the sound of the music.

The rapidity with which a cobra learns this lesson is extraordinary,

the charmers being as willing to show their mastery over newly-caught

Serpents as over those which have been long in their possession. Some

persons have thought that all the snakes caught by the professional

charmers are tame reptiles, which have been previously placed in the

hole by the men, and which have been deprived of their fangs. Careful

investigations, however, have proved that the snake is really

attracted by the shrill notes of the flute, and that the charmers

handle with unconcern the snakes which are in full possession of their

fangs and poison-glands.

The allusion to the "deaf adder, which stoppeth her ears." needs a

little explanation. Some species of Serpent are more susceptible to

sound than others, the cobra being the most sensitive of all the

tribe. Any of these which are comparatively insensible to the charmers

efforts may be considered as "deaf adders." But there has been from

time immemorial a belief in the East that some individual Serpents are

very obstinate and self-willed, refusing to hear the shrill sound of

the flute, or the magic song of the charmer, and pressing one ear into

the dust, while they stop the other with the tail.

Louis of Grenada, one of whose quaint sermons has already been quoted,

alludes in another discourse to this curious belief, in which it is

evident that he fully concurred.

"_Dominica XI. post Pent. Concio_ 1:

"'Furor illis secundum similitudinem serpentis sicut aspidis et

obturantis aures suas; quæ non exaudit vocem incantantium, et venefici

incantantis sapienter.'

"Vulgo enim ferunt aspidem cum incantatur ne lethali veneno homines

inficiat, alteram aurem terræ affigere, alteram vero cauda in eam

immissa obstruere ut ita demum veneni vis intus latentis illæsa

maneat.

"Ad hoc igitur modum cum sapiens incantatur, hoc est, divini verbi

concionator obstinatos homines ad sanitatem perducere et lethale

venenum peccati, quod in eorum mentibus residet delere contendit; illi

contra (dæmone id operante) sic aures suas huic divinæ incantationi

claudunt ut nihil prorsus eorum quæ dicuntur advertant."

"_Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, Sermon_ 1:

"'Their fury is after the likeness of the serpent, as the asp which

even stoppeth her ears--which heedeth not the voice of the charmers;

even of the wizard which charmeth wisely.'

"For they say commonly, the asp while she is charmed, so that she

poisoneth not men with her deadly venom, layeth one of her ears to the

ground and stoppeth the other by thereinto putting her tail, that so

the strength of the poison which lurketh within may abide unhurt.

"After this manner, therefore, when the wise charmer--that is, the

preacher of the Word of God--striveth to lead obstinate men to health,

and to destroy the deadly poison of sin which dwelleth in their minds,

they, on the other hand (the devil bringing this to pass), do so shut

their ears to this divine charming that they heed nothing at all of

these things which are said."

In order to show how widely this idea of the snake stopping its ears

is spread, I insert the following extract from a commentary on the

Psalms by Richard Rolle (Hermit) of Hampole. It is taken from the MS.

in Eton College Library, No. 10, date 1450. R. Rolle died just a

hundred years before his commentary was translated into the Northern

dialect.

"'Furor illis se[~c]d[~m] similitudin[~e] [~s]pentis: sicut aspidus

surde et obturantis aures suas.' ¶ Wodnes til Þase after Þe lykenying

of nedder: als of snake doumbe and stoppand hir erres. ¶ Rightly

calles he Þa[~i] wode for Þai haue na witt to se whider Þai ga for Þai

louke Þaire eghen and rennes til Þe fire Þaire wodnes es domested Þat

will not be [~t]ned als of Þe snake Þat festes Þe tane ere till Þe

erther and Þe toÞer stopis with hi[~r] tayle swa Þai do Þat here noght

godes worde Þai stoppe Þai[~r] erres with lufe of erthely thyng Þat

Þai delite Þa[~i] one and with Þaire tayle Þat es with aide synes Þat Þai

will noght amende."

It may be as well to remark, before passing to another of the

Serpents, that snakes have no external ears, and that therefore the

notion of the serpent stopping its ears is zoologically a simple

absurdity.

THE CERASTES, OR SHEPHIPHON OF SCRIPTURE.

The word _shephiphon_, which evidently signifies some species of

snake, only occurs once in the Scriptures, but fortunately that single

passage contains an allusion to the habits of the serpent which makes

identification nearly certain. The passage in question occurs in Gen.

xlix. 17, and forms part of the prophecy of Jacob respecting his

children: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path,

that biteth the horses heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Putting aside the deeper meaning of this prophecy, there is here an

evident allusion to the habits of the CERASTES, or HORNED VIPER, a

species of venomous serpent, which is plentiful in Northern Africa,

and is found also in Palestine and Syria. It is a very conspicuous

reptile, and is easily recognised by the two horn-like projections

over the eyes. The name Cerastes, or horned, has been given to it on

account of these projections.

This snake has a custom of lying half buried in the sand, awaiting the

approach of some animal on which it can feed. Its usual diet consists

of the jerboas and other small mammalia, and as they are exceedingly

active, while the Cerastes is slow and sluggish, its only chance of

obtaining food is to lie in wait. It will always take advantage of any

small depression, such as the print of a camel's foot, and, as it

finds many of these depressions in the line of the caravans, it is

literally "a serpent by the way, an adder in the path."

According to the accounts of travellers, the Cerastes is much more

irritable than the cobra, and is very apt to strike at any object

which may disturb it. Therefore, whenever a horseman passes along the

usual route, his steed is very likely to disturb a Cerastes lying in

the path, and to be liable to the attack of the irritated reptile.

Horses are instinctively aware of the presence of the snake, and

mostly perceive it in time to avoid its stroke. Its small dimensions,

the snake rarely exceeding two feet in length, enable it to conceal

itself in a very small hollow, and its brownish-white colour,

diversified with darker spots, causes it to harmonize so thoroughly

with the loose sand in which it lies buried, that, even when it is

pointed out, an unpractised eye does not readily perceive it.

Even the cobra is scarcely so dreaded as this little snake, whose bite

is so deadly, and whose habits are such as to cause travellers

considerable risk of being bitten.

THE VIPER, OR EPHEH.

Passages in which the word _Epheh_ occurs--El-effah--The Sand

Viper, or Toxicoa--Its appearance and habits--The

Acshub--Adder's poison--The Spuugh-Slange--The Cockatrice, or

Tsepha--The Yellow Viper--Ancient ideas concerning the

Cockatrice--Power of its venom.

We now come to the species of snake which cannot be identified with

any certainty, and will first take the word _epheh_, which is

curiously like to the Greek _ophis_. From the context of the three

passages in which it occurs, it is evidently a specific, and not a

collective name, but we are left in much doubt as to the precise

species which is intended by it. The first of those passages occurs in

Job xx. 16: "The viper's (_epheh_) tongue shall slay him." The second

is found in Isa. xxx. 6: "The burden of the beasts of the south: into

the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old

lion, the viper (_epheh_) and fiery flying serpent." The last of these

passages occurs in ch. lix. 5 of the same book: "That which is crushed

breaketh out into a viper" (_epheh_).

The reader will see that in neither of those passages have we the

least intimation as to the particular species which is signified by

the word _epheh_, and the only collateral evidence which we have on

the subject fails exactly in the most important point. We are told by

Shaw that in Northern Africa there is a small snake, the most

poisonous of its tribe, which is called by the name of _El-effah_, a

word which is absolutely identical with the Epheh of the Old

Testament. But, as he does not identify the _effah_, except by saying

that it rarely exceeds a foot in length, we gain little by its

discovery.

Mr. Tristram believes that he has identified the Epheh of the Old

Testament with the Sand-Viper, or Toxicoa (_Echis arenicola_). This

reptile, though very small, and scarcely exceeding a foot in length,

is a dangerous one, though its bite is not so deadly as that of the

cobra or cerastes. It is variable in colour, but has angular white

streaks on its body, and a row of whitish spots along the back. The

top of the head is dark, and variegated with arrow-shaped white marks.

[Illustration: THE TOXICOA. (Supposed to be the viper of Scripture.)

"_The viper's tongue shall slay him._"--JOB xx. 16.]

The Toxicoa is very plentiful in Northern Africa, Palestine, Syria,

and the neighbouring countries, and, as it is exceedingly active, is

held in some dread by the natives. The Toxicoa is closely allied to

the dreaded Horatta-pam snake of India (_Echis carinata_).

The old Hebraists can make nothing of the word, but it is not unlikely

that a further and fuller investigation of the ophiology of Northern

Africa may succeed where mere scholarship, unallied with zoological

knowledge, has failed.

The next word is _acshub_ (pronounced [)a]k-shoob). It only occurs in

one passage, namely Ps. cxl. 3: "They have sharpened their tongues

like a serpent (_nachash_); adder's (_acshub_) poison is under their

lips." The precise species represented by this word is unknown.

Buxtorf, however, explains the word as the Spitter, "illud genus quod

venenum procul exspuit." Now, if we accept this derivation, we must

take the word _acshub_ as a synonym for _pethen_. We have already

identified the Pethen with the Naja haje, a snake which has the power

of expelling the poison to some distance, when it is out of reach of

its enemy. Whether the snake really intends to eject the poison, or

whether it is merely flung from the hollow fangs by the force of the

suddenly-checked stroke, is uncertain. That the Haje cobra can expel

its poison is an acknowledged fact, and the Dutch colonists of the

Cape have been so familiarly acquainted with this habit, that they

have called this reptile by the name of Spuugh-Slange, or Spitting

Snake, a name which, if we accept Buxtorf's etymology, is precisely

equivalent to the word _acshub_.

Another name of a poisonous snake occurs several times in the Old

Testament. The word is _tsepha_, or _tsiphôni_, and it is sometimes

translated as Adder, and sometimes as Cockatrice. The word is rendered

as Adder in Prov. xxiii. 32, where it is said that wine "biteth like a

serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Even in this case, however, the

word is rendered as Cockatrice in the marginal translation.

It is found three times in the Book of Isaiah. Ch. xi. 8: "The weaned

child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." Also, ch. xiv. 29:

"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote

thee is broken: for out of the serpent's (_nachash_) nest shall come

forth a cockatrice (_tsepha_), and his fruit shall be a fiery flying

serpent." The same word occurs again in ch. lix. 5: "They hatch

cockatrice' eggs." In the prophet Jeremiah we again find the word:

"For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will

not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."

This last passage gives us a little, but not much, assistance in

identifying the Tsepha. We learn by it that the Tsepha was one of the

serpents that were not subject to charmers, and so we are able to say

that it was neither the cobra, which we have identified with the

Pethen of Scripture, nor the Cerastes or Horned Snake, which has been

shown to be the Shephiphon. Our evidence is therefore only of a

negative character, and the only positive evidence is that which may

be inferred from the passage in Isa. xiv. 29, where the Tsepha is

evidently thought to be more venomous than the ordinary serpent or

Nachash.

Mr. Tristram suggests that the Tsepha of Scripture may possibly be the

Yellow Viper (_Daboia xanthica_), which is one of the largest and most

venomous of the poisonous serpents which are found in Palestine, and

which is the more dangerous on account of its nocturnal habits. This

snake is one of the Katukas, and is closely allied to the dreaded

Tic-polonga of Ceylon, a serpent which is so deadly, and so given to

infesting houses, that one of the judges was actually driven out of

his official residence by it.

As to the old ideas respecting the origin of the Cockatrice, a very

few words will suffice for them. This serpent was thought to be

produced from an egg laid by a cock and hatched by a viper. "For they

say," writes Topsel, "that when a cock groweth old, he layeth a

certain egge without any shell, in stead whereof it is covered with a

very thick skin, which is able to withstand the greatest force of an

easie blow or fall. They say moreover that this Egge is laid only in

the summer time, about the beginning of Dog days, being not so long as

a Hen's Egge, but round and orbicular. Sometimes of a dirty, sometimes

of a boxy, and sometimes of yellowish muddy colour, which Egge,

afterwards sat upon by a Snake or a Toad, bringeth forth the

Cockatrice, being half a foot in length, the hinder part like a Snake,

the former part like a Cock, because of a treble combe on his

forehead.

"But the vulgar opinion of _Europe_ is, that the Egge is nourished by

a Toad, and not by a Snake; howbeit in better experience it found that

the Cock doth sit on that Egge himself: whereof _Serianus Semnius_ in

his twelfth book of the Hidden Animals of Nature hath this discourse,

in the fourth chapter thereof. 'There happened,' saith he, 'within our

memory, in the city of Pirizæa, that there were two old Cocks which

had laid Egges, and the common people (because of opinion that those

Egges would engender Cockatrices) laboured by all meanes possible to

keep the same Cocks from sitting on those Egges, but they could not

with clubs and staves drive them from the Egges, until they were

forced to break the Egges in sunder, and strangle the Cocks."

In this curious history it is easy to see the origin of the notion

respecting the birth of the Cockatrice. It is well known that hens,

after they have reached an advanced age, assume much of the plumage

and voice of the male bird. Still, that one of them should

occasionally lay an egg is no great matter of wonder, and, as the egg

would be naturally deposited in a retired and sheltered spot, such as

would be the favoured haunts of the warmth-loving snake, the ignorant

public might easily put together a legend which, absurd in itself, is

yet founded on facts. The small shell-less egg, so often laid by

poultry, is familiar to every one who has kept fowls.

Around this reptile a wonderful variety of legends have been

accumulated. The Cockatrice was said to kill by its very look,

"because the beams of the Cockatrice's eyes do corrupt the visible

spirit of a man, which visible spirit corrupted all the other spirits

coming from the brain and life of the heart, are thereby corrupted,

and so the man dyeth."

The subtle poison of the Cockatrice infected everything near it, so

that a man who killed a Cockatrice with a spear fell dead himself, by

reason of the poison darting up the shaft of the spear and passing

into his hand. Any living thing near which the Cockatrice passed was

instantly slain by the fiery heat of its venom, which was exhaled not

only from its mouth, but its sides. For the old writers, whose

statements are here summarized, contrived to jumble together a number

of miscellaneous facts in natural history, and so to produce a most

extraordinary series of legends. We have already seen the real origin

of the legend respecting the egg from which the Cockatrice was

supposed to spring, and we may here see that some one of these old

writers has in his mind some uncertain floating idea of the

respiratory orifices of the lamprey, and has engrafted them on the

Cockatrice.

"To conclude," writes Topsel, "this poyson infecteth the air, and the

air so infected killeth all living things, and likewise all green

things, fruits, and plants of the earth: it burneth up the grasse

whereupon it goeth or creepeth, and the fowls of the air fall down

dead when they come near his den or lodging. Sometimes he biteth a Man

or a Beast, and by that wound the blood turneth into choler, and so

the whole body becometh yellow as gold, presently killing all who

touch it or come near it."

I should not have given even this limited space to such puerile

legends, but for the fact that such stories as these were fully

believed in the days when the Authorized Version of the Bible was

translated. The ludicrous tales which have been occasionally mentioned

formed the staple of zoological knowledge, and an untravelled

Englishman had no possible means of learning the history of foreign

animals, except from such books which have been quoted, and which were

in those days the standard works on Natural History. The translators

of the Bible believed most heartily in the mysterious and baleful

reptile, and, as they saw that the Tsepha of Scripture was an

exceptionally venomous serpent, they naturally rendered it by the word

Cockatrice.

THE FROG.

The Frog only mentioned in the Old Testament as connected with

the plagues of Egypt--The severity of this plague explained--The

Frog detestable to the Egyptians--The Edible Frog and its

numbers--Description of the species.

Plentiful as is the Frog throughout Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, it is

very remarkable that in the whole of the canonical books of the Old

Testament the word is only mentioned thrice, and each case in

connexion with the same event.

In Exod. viii. we find that the second of the plagues which visited

Egypt came out of the Nile, the sacred river, in the form of

innumerable Frogs. The reader will probably remark, on perusing the

consecutive account of these plagues, that the two first plagues were

connected with that river, and that they were foreshadowed by the

transformation of Aaron's rod.

When Moses and Aaron appeared before Pharaoh to ask him to let the

people go, Pharaoh demanded a miracle from them, as had been foretold.

Following the divine command, Aaron threw down his rod, which was

transformed into a crocodile--the most sacred inhabitant of the sacred

river--a river which was to the Egyptians what the Ganges is to the

Hindoos.

Next, as was most appropriate, came a transformation wrought on the

river by means of the same rod which had been transformed into a

crocodile, the whole of the fresh-water throughout the land being

turned into blood, and the fish dying and polluting the venerated

river with their putrefying bodies. In Egypt, a partially rainless

country, such a calamity as this was doubly terrible, as it at the

same time desecrated the object of their worship, and menaced them

with perishing by thirst.

[Illustration: THE FROG (_Rana esculenta_).

"_And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly._"--EXOD. viii. 3.]

The next plague had also its origin in the river, but extended far

beyond the limits of its banks. The frogs, being unable to return to

the contaminated stream wherein they had lived, spread themselves in

all directions, so as to fulfil the words of the prediction: "If thou

refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with

frogs:

"And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up

and come into thine house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy

bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into

thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs" (or dough).

Supposing that such a plague was to come upon us at the present day,

we should consider it to be a terrible annoyance, yet scarcely worthy

of the name of plague, and certainly not to be classed with the

turning of a river into blood, with the hail and lightning that

destroyed the crops and cattle, and with the simultaneous death of the

first-born. But the Egyptians suffered most keenly from the

infliction. They were a singularly fastidious people, and abhorred the

contact of anything that they held to be unclean. We may well realize,

therefore, the effect of a visitation of Frogs, which rendered their

houses unclean by entering them, and themselves unclean by leaping

upon them; which deprived them of rest by getting on their beds, and

of food by crawling into their ovens and upon the dough in the

kneading-troughs.

And, as if to make the visitation still worse, when the plague was

removed, the Frogs died in the places into which they had intruded, so

that the Egyptians were obliged to clear their houses of the dead

carcases, and to pile them up in heaps, to be dried by the sun or

eaten by birds and other scavengers of the East.

As to the species of Frog which thus invaded the houses of the

Egyptians, there is no doubt whatever. It can be but the GREEN, or

EDIBLE FROG (_Rana esculenta_), which is so well known for the

delicacy of its flesh. This is believed to be the only aquatic Frog of

Egypt, and therefore must be the species which came out of the river

into the houses.

Both in Egypt and Palestine it exists in very great numbers, swarming

in every marshy place, and inhabiting the pools in such numbers that

the water can scarcely be seen for the Frogs. Thus the multitudes of

the Frogs which invaded the Egyptians was no matter of wonder, the

only miraculous element being that the reptiles were simultaneously

directed to the houses, and their simultaneous death when the plague

was taken away.

It has, however, been suggested that, at the time of year at which the

event occurred, the young Frogs were in the tadpole stage of

existence, and therefore would not be able to pass over land. But,

even granting that to be the case, it does not follow that the adult

Frogs were not numerous enough to produce the visitation, and it

seems likely that those who were not yet developed were left to

reproduce the race after the full-grown Frogs had perished.

The Green Frog is larger than our common English species, and is

prettily coloured, the back being green, spotted with black, and

having three black stripes upon it. The under parts are yellowish. At

night it keeps up a continued and very loud croaking, so that a pond

in which a number of these Frogs are kept is quite destructive of

sleep to any one who is not used to the noise.

Frogs are also mentioned in Rev. xvi. 13: "And I saw three unclean

spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the

mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." With

the exception of this passage, which is a purely symbolical one, there

is no mention of Frogs in the New Testament. It is rather remarkable

that the Toad, which might be thought to afford an excellent symbol

for various forms of evil, is entirely ignored, both in the Old and

New Testaments. Probably the Frogs and Toads were all classed together

under the same title.

FISHES.

FISHES.

Impossibility of distinguishing the different species of

Fishes--The fishermen Apostles--Fish used for food--The miracle

of the loaves and Fishes--The Fish broiled on the coals--Clean

and unclean Fishes--The scientific writings of Solomon--The

Sheat-fish, or Silurus--The Eel and the Muræna--The Long-headed

Barbel--Fish-ponds and preserves--The Fish-ponds of Heshbon--The

Sucking-fish--The Lump-sucker--The Tunny--The Coryphene.

We now come to the FISHES, a class of animals which are repeatedly

mentioned both in the Old and New Testaments, but only in general

terms, no one species being described so as to give the slightest

indication of its identity.

This is the more remarkable because, although the Jews were, like all

Orientals, utterly unobservant of those characteristics by which the

various species are distinguished from each other, we might expect

that St. Peter and other of the fisher Apostles would have given the

names of some of the Fish which they were in the habit of catching,

and by the sale of which they gained their living.

It is true that the Jews, as a nation, would not distinguish between

the various species of Fishes, except, perhaps, by comparative size.

But professional fishermen would be sure to distinguish one species

from another, if only for the fact that they would sell the

best-flavoured Fish at the highest price.

We might have expected, for example, that the Apostles and disciples

who were present when the miraculous draught of Fishes took place

would have mentioned the technical names by which they were accustomed

to distinguish the different degrees of the saleable and unsaleable

kinds.

Or we might have expected that on the occasion when St. Peter cast his

line and hook into the sea, and drew out a Fish holding the

tribute-money in his mouth, we might have learned the particular

species of Fish which was thus captured. We ourselves would assuredly

have done so. It would not have been thought sufficient merely to say

that a Fish was caught with money in its mouth, but it would have

been considered necessary to mention the particular fish as well as

the particular coin.

But it must be remembered that the whole tone of thought differs in

Orientals and Europeans, and that the exactness required by the one

has no place in the mind of the other. The whole of the Scriptural

narratives are essentially Oriental in their character, bringing out

the salient points in strong relief, but entirely regardless of minute

detail.

We find from many passages both in the Old and New Testaments that

Fish were largely used as food by the Israelites, both when captives

in Egypt and after their arrival in the Promised Land. Take, for

example, Numb. xi. 4, 5: "And the children of Israel also wept again,

and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

"We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely." Then, in the

Old Testament, although we do not find many such categorical

statements, there are many passages which allude to professional

fishermen, showing that there was a demand for the Fish which they

caught, sufficient to yield them a maintenance.

In the New Testament, however, there are several passages in which the

Fishes are distinctly mentioned as articles of food. Take, for

example, the well-known miracle of multiplying the loaves and the

Fishes, and the scarcely less familiar passage in John xxi. 9: "As

soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there,

and fish laid thereon, and bread.

"Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

"Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes,

an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet

was not the net broken.

"Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst

ask Him, Who art Thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

"Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish

likewise."

We find in all these examples that bread and Fish were eaten together.

Indeed, Fish was eaten with bread just as we eat cheese or butter; and

St. John, in his account of the multiplication of the loaves and

Fishes, does not use the word "fish," but another word which rather

signifies sauce, and was generally employed to designate the little

Fish that were salted down and dried in the sunbeams for future use.

As to the various species which were used for different purposes, we

know really nothing, the Jews merely dividing their Fish into clean

and unclean.

Still, we find that Solomon treated of Fishes as well as of other

portions of the creation. "And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree

that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the

wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things,

and of fishes." (1 Kings iv. 33.)

Now it is evidently impossible that Solomon could have treated of

Fishes without distinguishing between their various species.

Comparatively young as he was, he had received such a measure of

divine inspiration, that "there came of all people to know the wisdom

of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his

wisdom."

Yet, although some of his poetical and instructive writings have

survived to our time, the whole of his works on natural history have

so completely perished, that they have not even introduced into the

language the names of the various creatures of which he wrote. So, in

spite of all his labours, there is not a single word in the Hebrew

language, as now known, by which one species of Fish can be

distinguished from another, as to the distinction between the clean

and unclean Fishes.

According to Levit. xi. the qualification for food lay simply in the

possession of fins and scales. "These shall ye eat of all that are in

the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the

seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,

of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in

the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

"They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their

flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination" (ver. 9-11).

There is a similar prohibition in Deut. xiv. 9.

Some of the species to which this prohibition would extend are evident

enough. There are, for example, the Sheat-fishes, which have the body

naked, and which are therefore taken out of the list of permitted

Fishes. The Sheat-fishes inhabit rivers in many parts of the world,

and often grow to a very considerable size. They may be at once

recognised by their peculiar shape, and by the long, fleshy tentacles

that hang from the mouth. The object of these tentacles is rather

dubious, but as the fish have been seen to direct them at will to

various objects, it is likely that they may answer as organs of touch.

[Illustration: 1. MURÆNA (Muræna helena).

2. LONG-HEADED BARBEL (Barbus longiceps).

3. SHEAT-FISH (Silurus macracanthus).

"_All that have not fins and scales ... shall be an abomination unto

you._"--LEVIT. xi. 10.]

As might be conjectured from its general appearance, it is one of the

Fishes that love muddy banks, in which it is fond of burrowing so

deeply that, although the river may swarm with Sheat-fishes, a

practised eye is required to see them.

As far as the Sheat-fishes are concerned, there is little need for the

prohibition, inasmuch as the flesh is not at all agreeable in flavour,

and is difficult of digestion, being very fat and gelatinous. The

swimming-bladder of the Sheat-fish is used in some countries for

making a kind of isinglass, similar in character to that of the

sturgeon, but of coarser quality.

The lowermost figure in the illustration on page 566 represents a

species which is exceedingly plentiful in the Sea of Galilee.

On account of the mode in which their body is covered, the whole of

the sharks and rays are excluded from the list of permitted Fish, as,

although they have fins, they have no scales, their place being taken

by shields varying greatly in size. The same rule excludes the whole

of the lamprey tribe, although the excellence of their flesh is well

known.

Moreover, the Jews almost universally declare that the Muræna and Eel

tribe are also unclean, because, although it has been proved that

these Fishes really possess scales as well as fins, and are therefore

legally permissible, the scales are hidden under a slimy covering, and

are so minute as to be practically absent.

The uppermost figure in the illustration represents the celebrated

Muræna, one of the fishes of the Mediterranean, in which sea it is

tolerably plentiful. In the days of the old Roman empire, the Muræna

was very highly valued for the table. The wealthier citizens built

ponds in which the Murænæ were kept alive until they were wanted. This

Fish sometimes reaches four feet in length.

The rest of the Fishes which are shown in the three illustrations

belong to the class of clean Fish, and were permitted as food. The

figure of the Fish between the Muræna and Sheat-fish is the

Long-headed Barbel, so called from its curious form.

The Barbels are closely allied to the carps, and are easily known by

the barbs or beards which hang from their lips. Like the sheat-fishes,

the Barbels are fond of grubbing in the mud, for the purpose of

getting at the worms, grubs, and larvæ of aquatic insects that are

always to be found in such places. The Barbels are rather long in

proportion to their depth, a peculiarity which, owing to the length of

the head, is rather exaggerated in this species.

The Long-headed Barbel is extremely common in Palestine, and may be

taken with the very simplest kind of net. Indeed, in some places, the

fish are so numerous that a common sack answers nearly as well as a

net.

It has been mentioned that the ancient Romans were in the habit of

forming ponds in which the Murænæ were kept, and it is evident, from

several passages of Scripture, that the Jews were accustomed to

preserve fish in a similar manner, though they would not restrict

their tanks or ponds to one species.

Allusion is made to this custom in the Song of Solomon: "Thy neck is

as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fish-pools in Heshbon, by the

gate of Bath-rabbim." The Hebrew Bible renders the passage in a

slightly different manner, not specifying the particular kind of pool.

"Thine eyes are as the pools in Heshbon by a gate of great concourse."

Buxtorf, however, in his Hebrew Lexicon, translates the word as

"piscina," _i.e._ fish-pond. Now among the ruins of Heshbon may still

be seen the remains of a large tank, which in all probability was one

of the "fish-pools" which are mentioned by the sacred writer.

If we accept the rendering of the Authorized Version, it is shown that

tanks or ponds were employed for this purpose, by a passage which

occurs in the prophecy of Isaiah: "The fishers also shall mourn, and

all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that

spread nets upon the waters shall languish.

"Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks,

shall be confounded.

"And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make

sluices and ponds for fish" (xix. 8-10).

This passage, however, is rendered rather variously. The marginal

translation of verse 10 substitutes the word "foundations" for

"purposes," and the words "living things" for "fish." The Jewish Bible

takes an entirely different view of the passage, and renders it as

follows: "The fishers also shall groan, and all that cast angle into

the river shall mourn, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall

be languid.

"Moreover, they that work in combed flax and they that weave networks

shall be confounded.

"And the props thereof shall be crushed; all working for wages are

void of soul."

However, the mark of doubt is affixed to this last phrase, and it

cannot be denied that the rendering of the Authorized Version is at

all events more consistent than that of the Jewish Bible. In the

former, we first find the fishers taking their prey with the hook and

line, then with different kinds of nets, and lastly, placing the fish

thus captured in sluices and ponds until they are wanted for

consumption.

[Illustration: FISHES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN.

1. SUCKING-FISH (Echeneis remora).

2. TUNNY (Thynnus thynnus).

3. CORYPHENE (Coryphæna hippuris).

"_These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters._"--LEVIT. xi. 9.]

The accompanying illustration represents Fishes of the Mediterranean

Sea, and it is probable that one of them may be identified, though the

passage in which it is mentioned is only an inferential one. In the

prophecy against Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the prophet Ezekiel writes as

follows: "I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of

thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of

the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick

unto thy scales" (xxix. 4).

Reference is here made to some inhabitant of the waters that has the

power of adhesion, and two suggestions have been made respecting the

precise signification of the passage. Some commentators think that the

"Fishes" here mentioned are the Cuttles, which, although they are not

Fishes at all, but belong to the molluscs, are called Fishes after the

loose nomenclature of the Hebrew language, just as, even in our

stricter and more copious language, we speak of the same creature as

the Cuttle-fish, and use the word "shell-fish" to denote both molluscs

and crustacea.

Others believe that the prophet made allusion to the Sucking-fish,

which has the dorsal fins developed into a most curious apparatus of

adhesion, by means of which it can fasten itself at will to any smooth

object, and hold so tightly to it that it can scarcely be torn away

without injury.

The common Sucking-fish (_Echeneis remora_) is shown in the upper part

of the illustration.

There are, however, other fish which have powers of adhesion which,

although not so remarkable as those of the Sucking-fish, are yet very

strong. There is, for example, the well-known Lump-sucker, or

Lump-fish, which has the ventral fins modified into a sucker so

powerful that, when one of these fishes has been put into a pail of

water, it has attached itself so firmly to the bottom of the vessel

that when lifted by the tail it raised the pail, together with several

gallons of water.

The Gobies, again, have their ventral fins united and modified into a

single sucker, by means of which the fish is able to secure itself to

a stone, rock, or indeed any tolerably smooth surface. These fishes

are popularly known as Bull-routs.

The centre of the illustration is occupied by another of the

Mediterranean fishes. This is the well-known Tunny (_Thynnus

thynnus_), which furnishes food to the inhabitants of the coasts of

this inland sea, and indeed constitutes one of their principal sources

of wealth. This fine fish is on an average four or five feet in

length, and sometimes attains the length of six or seven feet.

The flesh of the Tunny is excellent, and the fish is so conspicuous,

that the silence of the Scriptures concerning its existence shows the

utter indifference to specific accuracy that prevailed among the

various writers.

The other figure represents the Coryphene (_Coryphæna hippuris_),

popularly, though very wrongly, called the Dolphin, and celebrated,

under that name, for the beautiful colours which fly over the surface

of the body as it dies.

The flesh of the Coryphene is excellent, and in the times of classic

Rome the epicures were accustomed to keep these fish alive, and at the

beginning of a feast to lay them before the guests, so that they

might, in the first place, witness the magnificent colours of the

dying fish, and, in the second place, might be assured that when it

was cooked it was perfectly fresh. Even during life, the Coryphene is

a most lovely fish, and those who have witnessed it playing round a

ship, or dashing off in chase of a shoal of flying-fishes, can

scarcely find words to express their admiration of its beauty.

FISHES.