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

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

inhabitants can contrive to cut off the retreat of marauding parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

barn-door fowl or venison to mutton.

[Illustration: chase]

[Illustration: INDIAN ELEPHANT.]

THE ELEPHANT.

The Elephant indirectly mentioned in the Authorized

Version--The Elephant as an engine of war--Antiochus and

his Elephants--Oriental exaggeration--Self-devotion of

Eleazar--Attacking the Elephants, and their gradual abandonment

in war.

Except indirectly, the Elephant is never mentioned in the Authorized

Version of the Canonical Scriptures, although frequent references

are made to ivory, the product of that animal.

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

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

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

a portion of the description given by the sacred historian of the

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

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

and most magnificent object. It is named together with the three

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

the wonderful arched viaduct crossing the valley of the Tyropœon,

"the ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord," all of

which glories so overcame the Queen of Sheba that "there was no more

spirit in her."

[Illustration: KING SOLOMON, SEATED UPON HIS THRONE, RECEIVES THE

QUEEN OF SHEBA.]

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

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

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

monarch of sacred or profane history.

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

Five hundred years had elapsed since the Israelites escaped from

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

and silver and precious stones and costly raiment are repeatedly

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

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

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

researches of modern travellers have brought to light many articles

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

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

to have been reckoned among the treasures which were brought by the

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

abundant that the Tabernacle was entirely formed of them.

[Illustration: INDIAN ELEPHANTS.]

In the various collections of Europe are many specimens of ivory

used by the ancient Egyptians, among the chief of which may be

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

the dynasty in which it was carved, and the ivory-tipped lynch-pins

of the splendid war-chariot in Florence, from which the illustration

on page 309 has been drawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and long-lived."

The passages in the Bible in which the Elephant itself is named are

only to be found in the Apocrypha, and in all of them the Elephant

is described as an engine of war. If the reader will refer to

the First Book of the Maccabees, he will find that the Elephant

is mentioned at the very commencement of the book. "Now when the

kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over

Egypt, that he might have the dominion of two realms.

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

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

17.)

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

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

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

Antiochus to take possession of the country.

After this, Antiochus Eupator marched against Jerusalem with a vast

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

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

two and thirty elephants exercised in battle.

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

showed them the blood of grapes and mulberries.

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

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

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

every beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best.

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

whithersoever the beast went they went also, neither departed they

from him.

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

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

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

them, beside the Indian that ruled him.

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

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

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

&c.)

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

writer, the Elephants formed the principal arms of the opposing

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

the army being reckoned as merely subsidiaries of the terrible

beasts. The thirty-two Elephants appear to have taken such a hold of

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

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

present day savages regard artillery. According to his ideas, the

thirty-two Elephants constituted the real army, the hundred thousand

infantry and twenty thousand cavalry being only in attendance upon

these animals.

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

one, though slightly exaggerated, and is evidently written by an

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

guided him," is characteristic enough, as is the account of the

howdah, or wooden carriage on the back of the animal.

The number of warriors, however, is evidently exaggerated, though

not to such an extent as the account of Julius Cæsar's Elephants,

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

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

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

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

to use their weapons.

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

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

who were called _Elephantarchæ_, who were the governors of sixteen

Elephants, and they which did institute and teach them martial

discipline were called _Elephantagogi_.

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

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

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

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

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

ship guideth the stem, wherein was required an equall knowledge and

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

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

reasonable man could yield readier obedience."

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

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

brought into action.

Strangely enough, after giving this temperate and really excellent

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

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

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

intermixed with a considerable amount of the exaggeration from which

the former part of his account is free.

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

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

two panniers of iron bound underneath their belly, and upon them

the like panniers of wood, hollow, wherein they placed their men

at armes, and covered them over with small boards (for the trunck

of the Elephant was covered with a mail for defence, and upon that

a broadsword two cubits long); this (as also the wooden Castle, or

pannier aforesaid) were fastened first to the neck and then to the

rump of the Elephant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

terrible force, his admirable skill, his ready and inestimable

obedience, and his strange and seldom-seen shape, produced in a main

battel no mean accidents and overturns."

[Illustration: THE WAR ELEPHANT.]

In this account there is a curious mixture of truth and

exaggeration. As we have already seen, the number of soldiers which

the animal was supposed to carry is greatly exaggerated, and it is

rather amusing to note how the "towers" in which they fought are

modified into "panniers." Then the method by which the animal is

incited to the combat is partly true, and partly false. Of course

an Elephant is not angered by seeing a piece of white cloth, or by

looking at wine, or a liquor made of rice.

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

was administered to the Elephant before it was brought into the

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

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

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

supply of their favourite drink they would be in good fighting

condition.

Next we find the writer describing the Elephant as being furnished

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

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

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

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

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

battle. Accordingly we find that the writer, when describing with

perfect accuracy the mode in which the Elephant fights, utterly

omits all mention of the sword and the mailed proboscis, and

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

but as overthrowing with the trunk, taking up into the air, and

casting down again--acts which could only be performed when the

proboscis was unencumbered by armour. The use of weapons was left to

the soldiers that fought upon its back, the principal object of the

huge animal being to trample its way through the opposing ranks, and

to make a way for the soldiers that followed.

It may be easily imagined that, before soldiers become familiarized

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

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

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

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

the skill with which it wielded the strange but powerful weapon with

which Nature had armed it.

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

consternation into the soldiers, who knew of no mode by which

they could oppose the gigantic beast, which came on in its swift,

swinging pace, crushing its way by sheer weight through the ranks,

and striking right and left with its proboscis. No other method of

checking the Elephant, except by self-sacrifice, could be found; and

in 1 Macc. vi. 43-46, we read how Eleazar, the son of Mattathias,

nobly devoted himself for his country.

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

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

supposing that the king was upon him,

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

and get him a perpetual name.

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

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

divided from him on both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disheartened the enemy so much that victory became easy.

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

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

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

as such, subject to the infirmities of the lower animals. So they

invented scheme after scheme, by which they baffled the attacks of

these once dreaded foes, and sometimes even succeeded in driving

them back among the ranks of their own soldiery, so maddened with

pain and anger, that they dealt destruction among the soldiers for

whom they were fighting, and so broke up their order of battle that

the foe easily overcame them.

The vulnerable nature of the proboscis was soon discovered, and

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

with which they continually attacked the Elephants' trunks. Others

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

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

placed in chariots, and armed with very long and sharply-pointed

spears. Several of these chariots would be driven simultaneously

against an Elephant, and sometimes succeeded in killing the animal.

Slingers also were told off for the express purpose of clearing the

"castles," or howdahs, of the soldiers who fought on the Elephants'

backs, and their especial object was the native mahout, who sat on

the animal's neck.

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

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

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

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

therefore, the Elephant was found to be so uncertain an engine of

war, that its use was gradually discontinued, and finally abandoned

altogether.

* * * * *

The Elephant which was employed in these wars was the Indian

species, _Elephas Indicus_, which is thought to be more susceptible

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

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

taught to perform a series of tricks that seem almost incredible.

As, however, the Indian species is that with which we have here to

do, I have selected it for the principal illustrations.

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

comparatively small ears, those of the African Elephant reaching

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

shape of the head, too, is different. In the Indian species, only

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

African species, however, both sexes bear tusks, those of the male

furnishing the best ivory, with its peculiar creamy colour and

beautiful graining, and those of the female being smaller in size,

and producing ivory of a much inferior quality.

[Illustration: AFRICAN ELEPHANTS.]

The Elephant, whether of Asia or Africa, always lives in herds

varying greatly in numbers, and invariably found in the deepest

forests, or in their near vicinity. Both species are fond of

water, and never wander far from some stream or fountain, although

they can, and do, make tolerably long journeys for the purpose of

obtaining the needful supply of liquid.

They have a curious capability of laying up a store of water in

their interior, somewhat after the fashion of the camel, but also

possess the strange accomplishment of drawing the liquid supply from

their stomachs by means of their trunks, and scattering it in a

shower over their backs to cool their heated bodies.

When drinking, the Elephant inserts the tip of his trunk into the

stream, fills it with water, and then, turning it into his throat,

discharges the contents.

The strangest portion of the Elephant is the trunk, or proboscis.

This wonderful appendage is furnished at its extremity with a

finger-like projection, with which the animal can pluck a single

blade of grass or pick up a small object from the ground.

The value of the proboscis to the Elephant can be estimated when it

is considered that without its aid the animal must soon starve to

death. The short, thick neck and projecting tusks would entirely

prevent it from reaching any of the vegetation upon which it feeds.

With the trunk, however, the Elephant readily carries its food to

its mouth, and employs the useful member just as if it were a long

and flexible arm.

The Elephant bears a worldwide fame for its capabilities as a

servant and companion of man, and for the extraordinary development

of its intellectual faculties. The Indian or Asiatic Elephant is the

variety that is considered most docile and easy to train; these are

almost invariably taken in a wild state from their native forests.

The Indian hunters usually proceed into the woods with trained

female Elephants. These advance quietly, and by their blandishments

so occupy the attention of any unfortunate male that they meet that

the hunters are enabled to tie his legs together and fasten him to

a tree. His treacherous companions now leave him to struggle in

impotent rage until he is so subdued by hunger and fatigue that the

hunters can drive him home between two tame elephants. When once

captured, he is easily trained.

The following curious instance of intelligence in an Elephant is

given by a traveller in Ceylon:

"One evening, while riding in the vicinity of Kandy, my horse showed

some excitement at a noise which was heard in the thick jungle,

sounding something like '_Urmph! Urmph!_' uttered in a hoarse and

dissatisfied tone. A turn in the forest explained the mystery, by

bringing me face to face with a tame working Elephant unaccompanied

by any driver or attendant. He was laboring painfully with a heavy

beam of timber, which he had balanced across his tusks and was

carrying to the village from which I had come.

"The pathway being narrow, he was compelled to bend his head

to one side to permit the passage of the long piece of wood, and

the exertion and inconvenience combined, led him to utter the

dissatisfied sounds which had frightened my horse.

[Illustration: ELEPHANTS' WATERING-PLACE.]

"On seeing us halt, the Elephant raised his head, looked at us for a

moment, then dropped the timber, and forced himself backward among

the bushes at the side of the road, so as to leave us plenty of room

to pass.

"My horse still hesitated; the Elephant observed this, and

impatiently crowded himself still deeper in the jungle, repeating

his cry of, '_Urmph! Urmph!_' but in a voice evidently meant to

encourage us to come on. Still the horse trembled; and, anxious to

observe the conduct of the two sagacious creatures, I forbore any

interference. Again the Elephant wedged himself farther in among the

trees and waited for us to pass him. At last the horse timidly did

so, after which I saw the wise Elephant come out of the wood, take

up the heavy timber upon his tusks, and resume his route, hoarsely

snorting, as before, his discontented remonstrance."

Although so valuable an animal for certain kinds of work, the

Elephant is hardly so effective an assistant as might be supposed.

The working Elephant is always a delicate animal, and requires

watchfulness and care; as a beast of burden he is unsatisfactory,

for, although in the matter of mere strength there is hardly any

weight that could be conveniently placed on him which he could not

carry, it is difficult to pack it without causing abrasions of the

Elephant's skin, which afterwards ulcerate.

His skin is easily chafed by harness, especially in wet weather.

Either during long droughts, or too much moisture, his feet are also

liable to sores which render him useless for months.

In India the Elephant is used more for purposes of state display

or for hunting than for hard labor. It is especially trained for

tiger-hunting, and, as there is a natural dread of the terrible

tiger deeply implanted in almost all Elephants, it is no easy matter

to teach the animal to approach his powerful foe.

A stuffed tiger-skin is employed for this purpose, and is

continually shown to the Elephant until he learns to lose all

distrust of the inanimate object, and to strike it, to crush it with

his feet, or to pierce it with his tusks.

After a while a boy is put inside the tiger-skin, in order to

accustom the Elephant to the sight of the tiger in motion.

[Illustration: TIGER.]

The last stage in the proceedings is to procure a dead tiger, and to

substitute it for the stuffed skin. Even with all this training, it

most frequently happens that when the Elephant is brought to face

a veritable living tiger the furious bounds, the savage yells, and

gleaming eyes of the beast are so terrifying that he turns tail and

makes a hasty retreat. Hardly one Elephant out of ten will face an

angry tiger. The Elephant, when used in tiger-hunting, is always

guided by a native driver, called a mahout, who sits astride of the

animal's neck and guides its movements by means of the voice and the

use of an iron hook at the end of a short stick.

[Illustration: THE TIGER IN THE REEDS.]

The hunters who ride upon the Elephant sit in a kind of box called

a howdah, which is strapped firmly upon the animal's back, or else

merely rests upon a large flat pad furnished with cross-ropes for

maintaining a firm hold. The Elephant generally kneels to enable

the riders to mount, and then rises from the ground with a peculiar

swinging motion that is most discomposing to beginners in the art.

The chase of the tiger is among the most exciting and favourite

sports in India. When starting on a hunt, a number of hunters

usually assemble, mounted on Elephants trained for the purpose, and

carrying with them a supply of loaded rifles in their howdahs, or

carriages mounted on the Elephants' backs. Thus armed, they proceed

to the spot where a tiger has been seen. The animal is usually

found hidden in the long grass or jungle, which is frequently

eight or more feet in height; and when roused, it endeavours to

creep away under the grass. The movement of the leaves betrays him,

and he is checked by a rifle-ball aimed at him through the jungle.

Finding that he cannot escape without being seen, he turns round

and springs at the nearest Elephant, endeavouring to clamber up it

and attack the party in the howdah. This is the most dangerous part

of the proceedings, as many Elephants will turn round and run away,

regardless of the efforts of their drivers to make them face the

tiger. Should, however, the Elephant stand firm, a well-directed

ball checks the tiger in his spring; and he then endeavours to

again escape, but a volley of rifle-balls from the backs of the

other Elephants, who by this time have come up, lays the savage

animal prostrate, and in a very short time his skin decorates the

successful marksman's howdah.

[Illustration: tiger]

[Illustration: jungle scene]

THE CONEY, OR HYRAX.

The Shaphan of Scripture, and the correct meaning of

the word--Identification of the Shaphan with the Syrian

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

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

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

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

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

Hyrax known to naturalists.

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

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

twice named in the Mosaic law.

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

references which are made to its habits. This animal is the

Shaphan of the Hebrew language, a word which has very wrongly been

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

creature in question not being a rabbit, nor even a rodent. No

rabbit has ever been discovered in Palestine, and naturalists

have agreed that the true Coney or Rabbit has never inhabited

the Holy Land. There is no doubt that the Shaphan of the Hebrew

Scripture, and the Coney of the Vulgate, was the SYRIAN HYRAX

(_Hyrax Syriacus_). This little animal is rather larger than an

ordinary rabbit, is not unlike it in appearance, and has many of

its habits. It is clothed with brown fur, it is very active, it

inhabits holes and clefts in rocks, and it has in the front of

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

rabbit. Consequently, it was classed by naturalists among the

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

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

pachydermatous group of animals, and occupies an intermediate place

between the rhinoceros and the hippopotamus.

[Illustration: THE HYRAX.]

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

resemble exactly the long curved tusks of the hippopotamus, with

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

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

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

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

place in nature.

In common with the rodents, and other animals which have

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

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

instinctively performs, in order that the chiselled edges of the

upper and lower teeth may be preserved sharp by continually rubbing

against each other, and that they may not be suffered to grow too

long, and so to deprive the animal of the means whereby it gains

its food. But for this peculiar movement, which looks very like the

action of ruminating, the teeth would grow far beyond the mouth,

as they rapidly deposit dental material in their bases in order to

supply the waste caused at their tips by the continual friction of

the edges against each other.

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

elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus, all bare-skinned

animals, should be clothed with a furry coat. The reader may perhaps

remember that the Hyrax does not afford a solitary instance of this

structure, and that, although the elephants of our day have only a

few bristly hairs thinly scattered over the body, those of former

days were clad in a thick and treble coat of fur and hair.

* * * * *

There are four passages of Scripture in which the CONEY is

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

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

subject better, we will take them in their order.

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

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

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

second is of a like nature, and is to be found in Deut. xiv. 7:

"These ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that

divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney:

for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are

unclean unto you."

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

are as follow. The first alludes to the rock-loving habits of the

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

rocks for the conies." (Ps. civ. 18.) The second makes a similar

mention of the localities which the animal frequents, and in

addition speaks of its wariness, including it among the "four things

which are little upon the earth, but they are exceedingly wise." The

four are the ants, the locusts, the spiders, and the Conies, which

"are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks."

We will take these passages in their order.

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

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

movement of its jaws strongly resembles the act of rumination. The

Jews, ignorant as they were of scientific zoology, would naturally

set down the Hyrax as a ruminant, and would have been likely to

eat it, as its flesh is very good. It must be remembered that two

conditions were needful to render an animal fit to be eaten by a

Jew, the one that it must be a ruminant, and the second that it

should have a divided hoof. Granting, therefore, the presence of the

former qualification, Moses points out the absence of the latter,

thereby prohibiting the animal as effectually as if he had entered

into a question of comparative anatomy, and proved that the Hyrax

was incapable of rumination.

We now come to the habits of the animal.

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

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

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

exceedingly active creature, leaping from rock to rock with

wonderful rapidity, its little sharp hoofs giving it a firm hold

of the hard and irregular surface of the stony ground. Even in

captivity it retains much of its activity, and flies about its cage

with a rapidity that seems more suitable to a squirrel than to an

animal allied to the rhinoceros and hippopotamus.

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

all of them identical in habits, and almost precisely similar in

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

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

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

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

by the natives, who esteem its flesh very highly. Small and

insignificant as it appears to be, even Europeans think that to kill

the Hyrax is a tolerable test of sportsmanship, the wariness of

the animal being so great that much hunter's craft is required to

approach it.

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

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

of Southern Africa, this little creature is found. It is never, as

far as my experience goes, seen in great numbers, as we find rabbits

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

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

exterminated.

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

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

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

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

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

those of a rat than a rabbit. Its skin is covered with fur, thick

and woolly, as though intended for a colder climate than that in

which it is usually found; and, when seen from a distance, it looks

nearly black.

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

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

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

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

watches him without moving, so that at a little distance it is

almost impossible to distinguish it from the rock on which it sits.

When it does move, it darts quickly out of sight, and disappears

into its burrow with a sudden leap.

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

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

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

its burrow, or noiselessly stalk it.

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

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

boulder, at a distance of a hundred and fifty yards or thereabouts.

The Dutch Boers who were with me were delighted at the sight of

it, as they said it was good eating; and so it proved to be, the

flesh being somewhat like that of a hare, though in our rough

field-cookery we could not do justice to it."

This short narrative excellently illustrates the character of the

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

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

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

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

Tristram, "ever gave us so much trouble to secure.... The only

chance of securing one is to be concealed, particularly about sunset

or before sunrise, on some overhanging cliff, taking care not to

let the shadow be cast below, and then to wait until the little

creatures cautiously peep forth from their holes. They are said to

be common by those who have not looked for them, but are certainly

not abundant in Palestine, and few writers have ever had more than a

single glimpse of one. I had the good fortune to see one feeding in

the gorge of the Kedron, and then to watch it as it sat at the mouth

of its hole, ruminating, metaphorically if not literally, while

waiting for sunset."

Should the Hyrax manage to catch a glimpse of the enemy, it utters a

shrill cry or squeal, and darts at once to its hole--an action which

is followed by all its companions as soon as they hear the warning

cry. It is a tolerably prolific animal, rearing four or five young

at a birth, and keeping them in a soft bed of hay and fur, in which

they are almost hidden. If surprised in its hole and seized, the

Hyrax will bite very sharply, its long chisel-edged teeth inflicting

severe wounds on the hand that attempts to grasp it. But it is of a

tolerably docile disposition, and in a short time learns to know its

owner, and to delight in receiving his caresses.

Three species of Hyrax are known to naturalists. One is the

Klip-das, or Rock-rabbit, of Southern Africa; the second is the

Ashkoko of Abyssinia; and the third is the Syrian Hyrax, or the

Coney of the Bible. The two last species have often been confounded

together, but the Syrian animal may be known by the oblong pale spot

on the middle of its back.

[Illustration: HIPPOPOTAMUS.]

BEHEMOTH.

Literal translation of the word Behemoth--Various theories

respecting the identity of the animal--The Hippopotamus known

to the ancient Hebrews--Geographical range of the animal--"He

eateth grass like the ox"--Ravages of the Hippopotamus among

the crops--Structure of the mouth and teeth--The "sword or

scythe" of the Hippopotamus--Some strange theories--Haunts

of the Hippopotamus--The Egyptian hunter--A valuable

painting--Strength of the Hippopotamus--Rising of the

Nile--Modern hunters--Wariness of the Hippopotamus--The pitfall

and the drop-trap.

In the concluding part of that wonderful poem which is so familiar

to us as the Book of Job, the Lord is represented as reproving the

murmurs of Job, by showing that he could not even understand the

mysteries of the universe, much less the purposes of the Creator.

By presuming to bring a charge of injustice against his Maker, he

in fact inferred that the accuser was more competent to govern

the world than was the Creator, and thus laid himself open to the

unanswerable irony of the splendid passages contained in chapters

xl. xli., which show that man cannot even rule the animals, his

fellow-creatures, much less control the destinies of the human race.

The passages with which we are at present concerned are to be found

at the end of the fortieth chapter, and contain a most powerful

description of some animal which is called by the name of Behemoth.

Now this word only occurs once in the whole of the Scriptures,

_i.e._ in Job xl. 15: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee,"

&c. Some commentators, in consequence of the plural termination

of the word, which may be literally translated as "beasts," have

thought that it was a collective term for all the largest beasts of

the world, such as the elephant, the hippopotamus, the wild cattle,

and their like. Others have thought that the elephant was signified

by the word Behemoth; and some later writers, acquainted with

palæontology, have put forward a conjecture that the Behemoth must

have been some extinct pachydermatous animal, like the dinotherium,

in which might be combined many of the qualities of the elephant and

hippopotamus.

It is now, however, agreed by all Biblical scholars and naturalists,

that the hippopotamus, and no other animal, is the creature which

was signified by the word Behemoth, and this interpretation is

followed in the Jewish Bible.

We will now take the whole of the passage, and afterwards examine it

by degrees, comparing the Authorized Version with the Jewish Bible,

and noting at the same time one or two variations in the rendering

of certain phrases. The passage is given as follows in the Jewish

Bible, and may be compared with our Authorized Version:--

"Behold now the river-horse, which I have made with thee: he eateth

grass like an ox.

"Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his vigour is in the

muscles of his body.

"He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are

wrapped together.

"His bones are pipes of copper; his bones are like bars of iron.

"He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can alone

reach his sword.

"That the mountains should bring forth food for him, and all the

beasts of the field play there.

"He lieth under wild lotuses, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

"Wild lotuses cover him with their shadow; willows of the brook

compass him about.

"Behold, should a river overflow, he hasteth not: he feels secure

should Jordan burst forth up to his mouth.

"He taketh it in with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

We will now take this description in detail, and see how far it

applies to the now familiar habits of the hippopotamus. A little

allowance must of course be made for poetical imagery, but we shall

find that in all important details the account of the Behemoth

agrees perfectly with the appearance and habits of the hippopotamus.

In the first place, it is evident that we may dismiss from our minds

the idea that the Behemoth was an extinct pachyderm. The whole tenor

of the passage shows that it must have been an animal then existing,

and whose habits were familiar to Job and his friends. Now the date

of the Book of Job could not have been earlier than about 1500

B.C., and in consequence, the ideas of a palæozoic animal must be

discarded.

We may also dismiss the elephant, inasmuch as it was most unlikely

that Job should have known anything about the animal, and it is

certain that he could not have attained the familiarity with its

appearance and habits which is inferred by the context. Moreover,

it cannot be said of the elephant that "he eateth grass as an ox."

The elephant feeds chiefly on the leaves of trees, and when he

does eat grass, he cannot do so "like an ox," but plucks it with

his proboscis, and then puts the green tufts into his mouth. So

characteristic a gesture as this would never have passed unnoticed

in a description so full of detail.

That the hippopotamus was known to the ancient Hebrews is

certain. After their sojourn in Egypt they had necessarily become

familiarized with it; and if, as most commentators believe, the

date of the Book of Job be subsequent to the liberation of the

Israelites, there is no difficulty in assuming that Job and his

companions were well acquainted with the animal. Even if the book

be of an earlier date, it is still possible that the hippopotamus

may, in those days, have lived in rivers where it is now as much

extinct as it is in England. Mr. Tristram remarks on this point: "No

hippopotamus is found in Asia, but there is no reason for asserting

that it may not have had an eastern range as far as Palestine, and

wallowed in the Jordan; for its bones are found in the _débris_

of the rivers of Algeria, flowing into the Mediterranean, when

tradition is quite silent as to its former existence."

[Illustration: THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.]

There is no doubt that the hippopotamus and the urus were the two

largest animals known to the Jews, and it is probably on that

account that the former received the name of Behemoth.

Assuming, therefore, that the Behemoth is identical with the

hippopotamus, we will proceed with the description.

"He eateth grass like the ox." The word which is here rendered

"grass" is translated in Numb. xi. 5 as "leeks." It means, something

that is green, and is probably used to signify green herbage of

any description. Now it is perfectly true of the hippopotamus

that it eats grass like an ox, or like cattle, as the passage

may be translated. In order to supply its huge massive body with

nourishment, it consumes vast quantities of food. The mouth is

enormously broad and shovel-shaped, so as to take in a large

quantity of food at once; and the gape is so wide, that when the

animal opens its jaws to their full extent it seems to split its

head into two nearly equal portions. This great mobility of jaw is

assisted by the peculiar form of the gape, which takes a sudden turn

upwards, and reaches almost to the eyes.

[Illustration: THE GREAT JAWS OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.]

Just as the mouth is formed to contain a vast quantity of food,

so the jaws and teeth are made to procure it. From the front of

the lower jaw the incisor teeth project horizontally, no longer

performing the ordinary duties of teeth, but being modified into

tusks, which are in all probability used as levers for prising up

the vegetables on which the animal lives. But the most singular

portion of the jaw is the mode in which the canine teeth are

modified so as to resemble the incisor teeth of rodents, and to

perform a similar office.

[Illustration: THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.]

These teeth are very long, curved, and chisel-edged at their tips,

their shape being preserved by continual attrition, just as has been

mentioned of the hyrax. The material of the teeth is peculiarly

hard, so much so, indeed, that it is in great request for artificial

teeth, the "verniers" of philosophical instruments, and similar

purposes. Consequently, with these teeth the hippopotamus can cut

through the stems of thick and strong herbage as with shears, and

the strength of its jaws is so great that an angered hippopotamus

has been known to bite a man completely in two, and to crush a canoe

to fragments with a single movement of its enormous jaws.

Keeping this description in our minds, we shall see how true is the

statement in verse 19. This passage is not adequately rendered in

the Authorized Version: the word which is translated as "sword" also

signifies a scythe, and evidently having that meaning in the text.

The passage is best translated thus: "His Maker hath furnished him

with his scythe."

The havoc which such an animal can make among growing crops may be

easily imagined. It is fond of leaving the river, and forcing its

way into cultivated grounds, where it eats vast quantities of green

food, and destroys as much as it eats, by the trampling of its heavy

feet. Owing to the width of the animal, the feet are placed very far

apart, and the consequence is that the hippopotamus makes a double

path, the feet of each side trampling down the herbage, and causing

the track to look like a double rut, with an elevated ridge between

them.

Some little difficulty has been made respecting the passage in

verse 20, "Surely the mountains bring him forth food." Commentators

ignorant of the habits of the hippopotamus, and not acquainted with

the character of the country where it lives, have thought that the

animal only lived in the rivers, and merely found its food along

its banks, or at most upon the marshes at the river-side. The

hippopotamus, say they, is not a dweller on the mountains, but an

inhabitant of the river, and therefore this passage cannot rightly

be applied to the animal.

Now, in the first place, the word _harim_, which is translated

as "mountains" in the Authorized Version, is rendered as "hills"

by many Hebraists. Moreover, as we know from many passages of

Scripture, the word "mountain" is applied to any elevated spot,

without reference to its height. Such places are very common

along the banks of the Nile, and are employed for the culture

of vegetables, which would not grow properly upon the flat and

marshy lands around them. These spots are very attractive to the

hippopotamus, who likes a change of diet, and thus finds food

upon the mountains. In many parts of Egypt the river runs through

a mountainous country, so that the hills are within a very short

distance of the water, and are easily reached by the hippopotamus.

[Illustration: THE HIPPOPOTAMUS EATING GRASS.]

We will now proceed to the next verse. After mentioning that the

Behemoth can eat grass like an ox, and finds its food upon the

hills, the sacred writer proceeds to show that in its moments of

repose it is an inhabitant of the rivers and marshy ground: "He

lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

"The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the

brook compass him about."

Here I may remind the reader that the compound Hebrew word which is

rendered in the Authorized Version as "shady trees" is translated

by some persons as "wild lotuses"--a rendering which is followed by

the editor of the Jewish Bible. Apparently, however, the Authorized

Version gives a more correct meaning of the term. Judging from a

well-known Egyptian painting, which represents a hunter in the

act of harpooning the hippopotamus, the tall papyrus reeds are the

plants that are signified by this word, which occurs in no other

place in the Scriptures.

Nothing can be more accurate than this description of the habits

of the animal. I have now before me a number of sketches by Mr.

T. Baines, representing various incidents in the life of the

hippopotamus; and in one or two of them, the little islands that

stud the river, as well as the banks themselves, are thickly clothed

with reeds mixed with papyrus, the whole being exactly similar to

those which are represented in the conventional style of Egyptian

art. These spots are the favourite haunts of the hippopotamus, which

loves to lie under their shadow, its whole body remaining concealed

in the water, and only the eyes, ears, and nostrils appearing above

the surface.

As reference will be made to this painting when we come to the

Leviathan, it will be as well to describe it in detail. In

order that the reader should fully understand it, I have had it

translated, so to speak, from the conventional outline of Egyptian

art into perspective, exactly as has been done with the Assyrian and

Egyptian chariots.

In the foreground is seen the hunter, standing on a boat that

closely resembles the raft-boat which is still in use in several

parts of Africa. It is made of the very light wood called ambatch,

by cutting down the requisite number of trees, laying them side by

side so that their bases form the stern and their points the bow of

the extemporized boat. They are then firmly lashed together, the

pointed ends turned upwards, and the simple vessel is complete. It

is, in fact, nothing more than a raft of triangular shape, but the

wood is so buoyant that it answers every purpose.

In his hand the hunter grasps the harpoon which he is about to

launch at the hippopotamus. This is evidently the same weapon which

is still employed for that purpose. It consists of a long shaft,

into the end of which a barbed iron point is loosely inserted. To

the iron point is attached one end of a rope, and to the other end,

which is held in the left hand of the harpooner, a float of ambatch

wood is fastened.

When the weapon is thrown, the furious struggles of the wounded

animal disengage the shaft of the harpoon, which is regained by the

hunter; and as it dashes through the water, throwing up spray as it

goes, the ambatch float keeps the end of the rope at the surface, so

that it can be seen as soon as the animal becomes quieter. Sometimes

it dives to the bottom, and remains there as long as its breath

can hold out; and when it comes up to breathe, it only pushes the

nostrils out of the water under the shadow of the reeds, so that but

for the float it might manage to escape.

[Illustration: A HIPPOPOTAMUS HUNT IN EGYPT.

(This picture is taken from an ancient Egyptian painting.)]

In the meantime, guided by the float, the hunter follows the course

of the animal, and, as soon as it comes within reach of his weapon,

drives another spear into it, and so proceeds until the animal dies

from loss of blood. The modern hunters never throw a second harpoon

unless the one already fixed gives way, mainly employing a spear to

inflict the last wounds. But if we may judge from this painting, the

Egyptian hunter attached a new rope with every cast of his weapon,

and, when the hippopotamus became weak from its wounds, gathered up

the ropes and came to close quarters.

In the bow of the boat is the hunter's assistant, armed with a rope

made lasso-wise into a noose, which he is throwing over the head

of the hippopotamus, whose attitude and expression show evidently,

in spite of the rudeness of the drawing, the impotent anger of the

weakened animal.

Behind the hippopotamus are the tall and dense reeds and papyrus

under the shelter of which the animal loves to lie, and on the

surface of the water float the beautiful white flowers of the lotus.

In the Egyptian painting, the artist, in spite of the

conventionalities to which he was bound, has depicted the whole

scene with skill and spirit. The head and open mouth of the

hippopotamus are remarkably fine, and show that the artist who drew

the animal must have seen it when half mad with pain, and half dead

from loss of blood.

The enormous strength of the hippopotamus is shown in verses 16,

18, the last of which passages requires a little explanation. Two

different words are used here to express the bones of the animal.

The first is derived from a word signifying strength, and means the

"strong bones," _i.e._ those of the legs. These are hollow, and are

therefore aptly compared to tubes or pipes of copper. The second

term is thought by some Hebraists to refer to the rib-bones, which

are solid, and therefore are not likened to tubes, but to bars of

iron.

The 23d verse has been translated rather variously. The Authorized

Version can be seen by reference to a Bible, and another

translation, that of the Jewish Bible, is given on page 374. A

third, and perhaps the best rendering of this passage is given by

the Rev. W. Drake, in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible:" "Lo, the

river swelleth proudly against him, yet he is not alarmed; he is

securely confident though a Jordan burst forth against his mouth."

In all probability reference is here made to the annual rising of

the Nile, and the inundations which it causes. In some years,

when it rises much above its usual height, the floods become most

disastrous. Whole villages are swept away, and scarcely a vestige of

the mud-built houses is left; the dead bodies of human beings are

seen intermixed with those of cattle, and the whole country is one

scene of desolation. Yet the almost amphibious hippopotamus cares

nothing for the floods, as long as it can find food, and so, "though

the river swelleth proudly against him," he is not alarmed.

From the use of the word "Jordan" in the same verse, it might be

thought that the river of Palestine was intended. This, however, is

not the case. The word "Jordan" is simply used as a poetical term

for any river, and is derived from a Hebrew word which signifies

"descending quickly."

We now come to the last verse of this noble description: "He taketh

it in with his eyes." These words have also been variously rendered,

some translating them as "He receiveth it (_i.e._ the river) up to

his eyes." But the translation which seems to suit the context best

is, "Who will take him when in his sight? His nose pierceth through

(_i.e._ detects) snares." Now, this faculty of detecting snares is

one of the chief characteristics of the hippopotamus, when it lives

near places inhabited by mankind, who are always doing their best

to destroy it. In the first place, its body gives them an almost

unlimited supply of flesh, the fat is very highly valued for many

purposes, the teeth are sold to the ivory-dealers, and the hide is

cut up into whips, or khoorbashes.

There is now before me a khoorbash, purchased from a native Egyptian

who was beating a servant with it. The whip is identical with that

which was used by the ancient Egyptians in urging the Israelites to

their tasks, and the scene reminded the traveller so forcibly of the

old Scriptural times that he rescued the unfortunate servant, and

purchased the khoorbash, which is now in my collection.

Not content with hunting the hippopotamus, the natives contrive

various traps, either pitfalls or drop-traps. The former are simply

pits dug in the path of the animal, covered with sticks and reeds,

and having at the bottom a sharp stake on which the victim is

impaled, and so effectually prevented from escaping or damaging the

pit by its struggles.

The drop-trap is a log of wood, weighted with stones, and having at

one end an iron spike, which is sometimes poisoned. The path which

the animal takes is watched, a conveniently overhanging branch is

selected, and from that branch the cruel spear is suspended, by a

catch or trigger, exactly over the centre of the path. There is no

difficulty in finding the precise centre of the path, owing to the

peculiar gait of the animal, which has already been described. One

end of the trigger supports the spear, and to the other is attached

a rope, which is brought across the path in such a way that when

touched it relieves the spear, which is driven deeply into the

animal's back. If well hung, the spear-blade divides the spine, and

the wounded animal falls on the spot, but, even if it should miss a

vital part, the poison soon does its fatal work.

[Illustration: HIPPOPOTAMUS AND TRAP.]

In consequence of the continual persecution to which it is

subjected, the hippopotamus becomes exceedingly wary, and, huge,

clumsy, and blundering as it looks, is clever enough to detect

either pitfall or drop-trap that have not been contrived with

especial care. An old and experienced hippopotamus becomes so wary

that he will be suspicious even of a bent twig, and, rather than

venture across it, he will leave the path, force for himself a

roundabout passage, and return to the path beyond the object that

alarmed him.

Mr. T. Baines, to whose sketches I am indebted for the illustration,

told me that the hippopotamus is possessed of much more intellect

than might be expected from a creature of so dull, clumsy, and

unpromising aspect. Apathetic it generally is, and, as long as it is

left unmolested, does not care to molest even the human beings that

intrude upon its repose.

It likes to lie in the shade of the reeds and rushes, and may be

seen floating in the water, with only the nostrils, the eyes, and

the ears above the surface, these organs being set in a line along

the head, evidently for the purpose of allowing the whole body to be

hidden under water while the three most important senses are capable

of acting.

A canoe-man who knows the habits of the hippopotamus will fearlessly

take his fragile vessel through a herd of the animals, knowing

that, if he only avoids contact with them, they will not interfere

with him. The only danger is, that a hippopotamus may rise under

the canoe, and strike itself against the boat, in which case the

animal is rather apt to consider the intruding object as an enemy,

and to attack it, sometimes crushing the canoe between its teeth,

and mostly upsetting it, and throwing the crew into the water. In

such a case, the men always dive at once to the bottom of the river,

and hold on to some weed or rock as long as they can exist without

breathing. The reason for this proceeding is, that the hippopotamus

always looks for its enemy upon the surface of the water, and, if

the men were to swim to shore, they would be caught and killed

before they had swum many strokes. But, as it sees nothing but the

damaged canoe, its short-lived anger vanishes, and it sinks again

into the river, leaving the men at liberty to regain and repair

their vessel.

There is one passage in the description of the Behemoth which

requires a few words of explanation: "He moveth his tail like a

cedar" (v. 17).

Several commentators have imagined that this expression shows that

the Behemoth must have been an animal which had a very long and

powerful tail, and have adduced the passage as a proof that the

crocodile was the animal that was signified by the Behemoth. Others,

again, have shifted the position of the tail, and, by rendering it

as the "proboscis," have identified the Behemoth with the elephant.

There is, however, no necessity for straining the interpretation,

the passage evidently signifying that the member in question is

stiff and inflexible as the cedar-stem.

[Illustration: lily pad scene]

[Illustration: BABOON.]

THE APE.

The Monkey tribe rarely mentioned in Scripture--Why the Ape

was introduced into Palestine--Solomon's ships, and their

cargo of Apes, peacocks, ivory, and gold--Various species of

Monkey that might have been imported--Habits of the Monkey, and

reverence in which it is held by the natives--The Egyptians and

their Baboon worship--Idols and memorials--The Wanderoo--its

singular aspect--Reasons why it should be introduced into

Palestine--General habits of the Wanderoo--Various species of

Monkey that may be included in the term "Kophim."

Animals belonging to the monkey tribe are but sparingly mentioned in

Holy Writ. If, as is possible, the Satyr of Scripture signifies some

species of baboon, there are but three passages either in the Old or

New Testament where these animals are mentioned. In 1 Kings x. 22,

and the parallel passage 2 Chron. ix. 21, the sacred historian makes

a passing allusion to apes as forming part of the valuable cargoes

which were brought by Solomon's fleet to Tharshish, the remaining

articles being gold, ivory, and peacocks. The remaining passage

occurs in Is. xiii. 21, where the prophet foretells that on the site

of Babylon satyrs shall dance.

The reason for this reticence is simple enough. No monkey was

indigenous to Palestine when the various writers of the Bible lived,

and all their knowledge of such animals must have been derived

either from the description of sailors, or from the sight of the few

specimens that were brought as curiosities from foreign lands. Such

specimens must have been extremely rare or they would not have been

mentioned as adjuncts to the wealth of Solomon, the wealthiest, as

well as the wisest monarch of his time. To the mass of the people

they must have been practically unknown, and therefore hold but a

very inferior place in the Scriptures, which were addressed to all

mankind.

There is scarcely any familiar animal, bird, reptile or insect,

which is not used in some metaphorical sense in the imagery which

pervades the whole of the Scriptures. For example, the various

carnivorous animals, such as the lion, wolf, and bear, are used

as emblems of destruction in various ways; while the carnivorous

birds, such as the eagle and hawk, and the destructive insects, such

as the locust and the caterpillar, are all similarly employed in

strengthening and illustrating the words of Holy Writ.

But we never find any animal of the monkey tribe mentioned

metaphorically, possibly because any monkeys that were imported into

Palestine must only have been intended as objects of curiosity,

just as the peacocks which accompanied them were objects of beauty,

and the gold and ivory objects of value--all being employed in the

decoration of the king's palace.

The question that now comes before us is the species of monkey

that is signified by the Hebrew word Kophim. In modern days, we

distinguish this tribe of animals into three great sections, namely,

the apes, the baboons, and the monkey; and according to this

arrangement the ape, being without tails, must have been either the

chimpanzee of Africa, the orang-outan of Sumatra, or one of the

Gibbons. But there is no reason to imagine that the word Kophim was

intended to represent any one of these animals, and it seems evident

that the word was applied to any species of monkey, whether it had a

tail or not.

Perhaps the best method of ascertaining approximately the

particular species of monkey, is to notice the land from which the

animals came. Accordingly, we find that the ships of Solomon brought

gold, ivory, apes, and peacocks, and that they evidently brought

their cargoes from the same country. Consequently, the country in

question must produce gold, and must be inhabited by the monkey

tribe, by the elephant, and by the peacock. If the peacock had not

been thus casually mentioned, we should have been at a loss to

identify the particular country to which reference is made; but the

mention of that bird shows that some part of Asia must be signified.

It is most probable that the vessels in question visited both India

and Ceylon, although, owing to the very imperfect geographical

knowledge of the period, it is not possible to assert absolutely

that this is the case. In India, however, and the large island of

Ceylon, gold, elephants, peacocks, and monkeys exist; and therefore

we will endeavour to identify the animals which are mentioned under

the general term Apes, or Kophim.

[Illustration: THE RHESUS MONKEY.]

We are quite safe in suggesting that some of the apes in question

must have belonged to the Macaques, and it is most likely that one

of them was the RHESUS MONKEY.

[Illustration: FEEDING THE MONKEYS IN INDIA.]

This animal is very plentiful in India, and is one of the many

creatures which are held sacred by the natives. Consequently, it

takes up its quarters near human habitations, feeling sure that it

will not be injured, and knowing that plenty of food is at hand.

It is said that in some parts of India the natives always leave

one-tenth of their grain-crops for the monkeys, and thus the animals

content themselves with this offering, and refrain from devastating

the fields, as they would otherwise do. This story may be true or

not. It is certainly possible that in a long series of years the

monkeys of that neighbourhood have come to look upon their tithe as

a matter belonging to the ordinary course of things; but whether

it be true or not, it illustrates the reverence entertained by the

Hindoos for their monkeys.

In many places where grain and fruit crops are cultivated, the

monkeys get rather more than their share, plundering without

scruple, and finding no hindrance from the rightful owners, who dare

not drive them away, lest they should injure any of these sacred

beings. However, being of the opinion that no evil will follow a

foreigner's action, they are only too glad to avail themselves of

the assistance of Europeans, who have no scruples on the subject.

Still, although they are pleased to see the monkeys driven off, and

their crops saved, they would rather lose all their harvest than

allow a single monkey to be killed, and in the earlier years of the

Indian colony, several riots took place between the natives and the

English, because the latter had killed a monkey through ignorance of

the reverence in which it was held.

[Illustration: TROUBLESOME NEIGHBORS.]

Another monkey which may probably have been brought to Palestine

from India is the HOONUMAN, ENTELLUS, or MAKUR, which is more

reverenced by the Hindoos than any other species. Its scientific

title is _Presbytes entellus_. In some parts of India it is

worshipped as a form of divinity, and in all it is reverenced and

protected to such an extent that it becomes a positive nuisance to

Europeans who are not influenced by the same superstitious ideas as

those which are so prevalent in India. Being a very common species,

it could easily be captured, especially if, as is likely to be the

case, it was fearless of man through long immunity from harm. The

sailors who manned Solomon's navy would not trouble themselves about

the sacred character of the monkeys, but would take them without the

least scruple wherever they could be found.

[Illustration: MONKEYS ENTERING A PLANTATION.]

The Hoonuman would also be valued by them on account of its docility

when taken young, and the amusing tricks which it is fond of

displaying in captivity as well as in a state of freedom. Moreover,

it is rather a pretty creature, the general colour being yellowish,

and the face black.

[Illustration: SLOTHFUL MONKEYS.]

Perfectly aware of the impunity with which they are permitted to

act, these monkeys prefer human habitations to the forests which

form the natural home of their race, and crowd into the villages and

temples, the latter being always swarming with the long-tailed host.

As is the case with the Rhesus, the Hoonuman monkeys are much too

fond of helping themselves from the shops and stalls, and if they

can find a convenient roof, will sit there and watch for the arrival

of the most dainty fruits.

However, the natives, superstitious as they are, and unwilling to

inflict personal injury on a monkey, have no scruple in making

arrangements by which a monkey that trespasses on forbidden spots

will inflict injury on itself. They may not shoot or wound in any

way the monkeys which cluster on their roofs, and the animals

are so perfectly aware of the fact, that they refuse to be driven

away by shouts and menacing gestures. But, they contrive to make

the roofs so uncomfortable by covering them with thorns, that the

monkeys are obliged to quit their points of vantage, and to choose

some spot where they can sit down without fear of hurting themselves.

[Illustration: A PRIVILEGED RACE.]

That the Hindoos should pay homage almost divine to a monkey,

does seem equally absurd and contemptible. But, strange as

this superstition may be, and the more strange because the

intellectual powers of the educated Hindoos are peculiarly subtle

and penetrating, it was shared by a greater, a mightier, and a

still more intellectual race, now extinct as a nation. The ancient

Egyptians worshipped the baboon, and ranked it among the most

potent of their deities; and it can but strike us with wonder

when we reflect that a people who could erect buildings perfectly

unique in the history of the world, who held the foremost place in

civilization, who perfected arts which we, at a distance of three

thousand years, have only just learned, should pay divine honours to

monkeys, bulls, and snakes. Such, however, was the case; and we find

that the modern Hindoo shows as great reverence for the identical

animals as did the Egyptian when Pharaoh was king, and Joseph his

prime minister.

It is said by some, that neither the Egyptian of the ancient times,

nor the Hindoo of the present day, actually worshipped these

creatures, but that they reverenced them as external signs of some

attribute of God. Precisely the same remarks have been made as

to the worship of idols, and it is likely enough that the highly

educated among the worshippers did look upon a serpent merely as

an emblem of divine wisdom, a bull as an image of divine strength,

and a monkey as an external memorial of the promised incarnation of

divinity. So with idols, which to the man of educated and enlarged

mind were nothing but visible symbols employed for the purpose of

directing the mind in worship. But, though this was the case with

the educated and intellectual, the ignorant and uncultivated, who

compose the great mass of a nation, did undoubtedly believe that

both the living animal and the lifeless idol were themselves divine,

and did worship them accordingly.

There is one species of monkey, which is extremely likely to have

been brought to Palestine, and used for the adornment of a luxurious

monarch's palace. This is the WANDEROO, or NIL-BHUNDER (_Silenus

veter_). The Wanderoo, or Ouanderoo, as the name is sometimes

spelled, is a very conspicuous animal, on account of the curious

mane that covers its neck and head, and the peculiarly formed tail,

which is rather long and tufted, like that of a baboon, and has

caused it to be ranked among those animals by several writers, under

the name of the Lion-tailed Baboon. That part of the hairy mass

which rolls over the head is nearly black, but as it descends over

the shoulders, it assumes a greyer tinge, and in some specimens is

nearly white. As is the case with many animals, the mane is not

noticeable in the young specimens, but increases in size with age,

only reaching its full dimensions when the animal has attained adult

age. Only in the oldest specimens is the full, white, venerable,

wig-like mane to be seen in perfection.

In captivity, the general demeanour of this monkey corresponds with

its grave and dignified aspect. It seems to be more sedate than the

ordinary monkeys, to judge from the specimens which have lived in

the Zoological Gardens, and sits peering with its shiny brown eyes

out of the enormous mane, with as much gravity as if it were really

a judge deciding an important case in law. Not that it will not

condescend to the little tricks and playful sallies for which the

monkeys are so celebrated; but it soon loses the vivacity of youth,

and when full-grown, presents as great a contrast to its former

vivacity, as does a staid full-grown cat sitting by the fire, to the

restless, lively, playful kitten of three months old. During its

growth, it can be taught to go through several amusing performances,

but it has little of the quick, mercurial manner, which is generally

found among the monkey tribe.

[Illustration: THE WANDEROO.]

The docility of the Wanderoo often vanishes together with its youth.

The same animal may be gentle, tractable, and teachable when young,

and yet, when a few years have passed over its head and whitened its

mane, may be totally obstinate and dull.

[Illustration: THE ENEMY DISCOVERED.]

The natives of the country in which the Wanderoo lives, attribute

to it the wisdom which its venerable aspect seems to imply, much as

the ancient Athenians venerated the owl as the bird of wisdom, and

the chosen companion of the learned Minerva. In many places, the

Wanderoo is thought to be a sort of king among monkeys, and to enjoy

the same supremacy over its maneless kinsfolk, that the king-vulture

maintains over the other vultures which are destitute of the

brilliant crest that marks its rank.

I am induced to believe that the Wanderoo must have been one of the

monkeys which were brought to Solomon, for two reasons.

In the first place, it is a native both of India and Ceylon, and

therefore might have formed an article of merchandise, together with

the peacock, gold, and ivory. And if, as is extremely probable, the

Tharshish of the Scripture is identical with Ceylon, it is almost

certain that the Wanderoo would have been brought to Solomon, in

order to increase the glories of his palace. Sir Emerson Tennant

points out very forcibly, that in the Tamil language, the words for

apes, ivory, and peacocks, are identical with the Hebrew names for

the same objects, and thus gives a very strong reason for supposing

that Ceylon was the country from which Solomon's fleet drew its

supplies.

Another reason for conjecturing that the Wanderoo would have been

one of the animals sent to grace the palace of Solomon is this. In

the days when that mighty sovereign lived, as indeed has been the

case in all partially civilized countries, the kings and rulers have

felt a pride in collecting together the rarest objects which they

could purchase, giving the preference to those which were in any way

conspicuous, whether for intrinsic value, for size, for beauty, or

for ugliness. Thus, giants, dwarfs, and deformed persons of either

sex, and even idiots, were seen as regular attendants at royal

courts, a custom which extended even into the modern history of

England, the "Fool" being an indispensable appendage to the train of

every person of rank. Animals from foreign lands were also prized,

and value was set upon them, not only for their variety, but for any

external characteristic which would make them especially conspicuous.

Ordinary sovereigns would make collections of such objects, simply

because they were rare, and in accordance with the general custom;

and in importing the "apes" and peacocks together with the gold and

ivory, Solomon but followed the usual custom. He, however, on whom

the gift of wisdom had been especially bestowed, would have another

motive besides ostentation or curiosity. He was learned in the study

of that science which we now call Natural History. It is, therefore,

extremely probable, that he would not neglect any opportunities of

procuring animals from distant lands, in order that he might study

the products of countries which he had not personally visited, and

it is not likely that so conspicuous an animal as the Wanderoo would

have escaped the notice of those who provided the cargo for which so

wealthy a king could pay, and for which they would demand a price

proportionate to its variety.

[Illustration: BONNET MONKEYS.]

There is perhaps no monkey which is so conspicuous among its kin

as the Wanderoo, and certainly no monkey or ape inhabiting those

parts of the world to which the fleet of Solomon would have access.

Its staid, sedate manners, its black body, lion-like tail, and huge

white-edged mane, would distinguish it so boldly from its kinsfolk,

that the sailors would use all their efforts to capture an animal

for which they would be likely to obtain a high price.

The peculiar and unique character of Solomon affords good reason

for conjecture that, not only were several species of the monkey

tribe included under the general word Kophim, but that the number

of species must have been very great. He wrote largely of the

various productions of the earth, and, to judge him by ourselves,

it is certain that with such magnificent means at his command, he

would have ransacked every country that his ships could visit, for

the purpose of collecting materials for his works. It is therefore

almost certain that under the word Kophim may be included all the

most plentiful species of monkey which inhabit the countries to

which his fleet had access, and that in his palace were collected

together specimens of each monkey which has here been mentioned,

besides many others of which no special notice need be taken, such

as the Bonnet Monkeys, and other Macaques.

[Illustration: THE BAT.]

THE BAT.

The Bat mentioned always with abhorrence--Meaning of the Hebrew

name--The prohibition against eating Bats--The edible species,

their food and mode of life--The noisome character of the Bat,

and the nature of its dwelling-place--Its hatred of light--Mr.

Tristram's discoveries--Bats found in the quarries from which

the stone of the Temple was hewn--Edible Bats in a cave near the

centre of Palestine--Another species of long-tailed Bat captured

in the rock caves where hermits had been buried--Other species

which probably inhabit Palestine.

Among the animals that are forbidden to be eaten by the Israelites

we find the BAT prominently mentioned, and in one or two parts of

Scripture the same creature is alluded to with evident abhorrence.

In Isaiah ii. 20, for example, it is prophesied that when the day of

the Lord comes, the worshippers of idols will try to hide themselves

from the presence of the Lord, and will cast their false gods to the

bats and the moles, both animals being evidently used as emblems of

darkness and ignorance, and associated together for a reason which

will be given when treating of the mole. The Hebrew name of the Bat

is expressive of its nocturnal habits, and literally signifies some

being that flies by night, and it is a notable fact that the Greek

and Latin names for the bat have also a similar derivation.

In Lev. xi. 20, the words, "All fowls that creep, going upon all

four, shall be an abomination unto you," are evidently intended

to apply to the bat, which, as is now well known, is not a bird

with wings, but a mammal with very long toes, and a well developed

membrane between them. Like other mammals, the Bat crawls, or walks,

on all four legs, though the movement is but a clumsy one, and

greatly different from the graceful ease with which the creature

urges its course through the evening air in search of food.

Perhaps the prohibition to eat so unsightly an animal may seem

almost needless; but it must be remembered that in several parts

of the earth, certain species of Bat are used as food. These are

chiefly the large species, that are called Kalongs, and which

feed almost entirely on fruit, thus being to their insectivorous

relatives what the fruit-loving bear is among the larger carnivora.

These edible Bats have other habits not shared by the generality

of their kin. Some of the species do not retire to caves and

hollow trees for shelter during their hours of sleep, but suspend

themselves by their hind legs from the topmost branches of the trees

whose fruit affords them nourishment. In this position they have a

most singular aspect, looking much as if they themselves were large

bunches of fruit hanging from the boughs. Thus, they are cleanly

animals, and are as little repulsive as bats can be expected to be.

But the ordinary bats, such as are signified by the "night-fliers"

of the Scriptures, are, when in a state of nature, exceedingly

unpleasant creatures. Almost all animals are infested with parasitic

insects, but the Bat absolutely swarms with them, so that it is

impossible to handle a Bat recently dead without finding some of

them on the hands. Also, the bats are in the habit of resorting

to caverns, clefts in the rocks, deserted ruins, and similar dark

places, wherein they pass the hours of daylight, and will frequent

the same spots for a long series of years. In consequence of this

habit, the spots which they select for their resting place become

inconceivably noisome, and can scarcely be entered by human beings,

so powerful is the odour with which they are imbued.

Sometimes, when travellers have been exploring the chambers of

ruined buildings, or have endeavoured to penetrate into the recesses

of rocky caves, they have been repelled by the bats which had taken

up their habitation therein. No sooner does the light of the torch

or lamp shine upon the walls, than the clusters of bats detach

themselves from the spots to which they had been clinging, and fly

to the light like moths to a candle. No torch can withstand the

multitude of wings that come flapping about it, sounding like the

rushing of a strong wind, while the bats that do not crowd around

the light, dash against the explorers, beating their leathery wings

against their faces, and clinging in numbers to their dress. They

would even settle on the face unless kept off by the hands, and

sometimes they force the intruders to beat a retreat. They do not

intend to attack, for they are quite incapable of doing any real

damage; and, in point of fact, they are much more alarmed than those

whom they annoy. Nocturnal in their habits, they cannot endure the

light, which completely dazzles them, so that they dash about at

random, and fly blindly towards the torches in their endeavours to

escape.

[Illustration: BATS' RESTING-PLACE.]

If, then, we keep in mind the habits of the bats, we shall

comprehend that their habitations must be inexpressibly revolting

to human beings, and shall the better understand the force of the

prophecy that the idols shall be cast to the bats and the moles.

No particular species of Bat seems to be indicated by the Hebrew

word Hatalleph, which is evidently used in a comprehensive sense,

and signifies all and any species of Bat. Until very lately, the

exact species of Bats which inhabit Palestine were not definitely

ascertained, and could only be conjectured. But, Mr. Tristram, who

travelled in the Holy Land for the express purpose of investigating

its physical history, has set this point at rest, in his invaluable

work, "The Land of Israel," to which frequent reference will be made

in the course of the following pages.

Almost every cavern which he entered was tenanted by bats, and he

procured several species of these repulsive but interesting animals.

While exploring the vast quarries in which the stone for the Temple

was worked beneath the earth, so that no sound of tool was heard

during the building, numbers of bats were disturbed by the lights,

and fluttered over the heads of the exploring party.

On another occasion, he was exploring a cave near the centre of

Palestine, when he succeeded in procuring some specimens, and

therefore in identifying at least one species. "In climbing the

rocks soon afterwards, to examine a cave, I heard a singular whining

chatter within, and on creeping into its recesses, a stone thrown

up roused from their roosting-places a colony of large bats, the

soft waving flap of whose wings I could hear in the darkness. How

to obtain one I knew not; but on vigorously plying my signal

whistle, all the party soon gathered to my help. B. suggested

smoking them, so a fire of brushwood was kindled, and soon two or

three rushed out. Two fell to our shot, and I was delighted to find

myself the possessor of a couple of large fox-headed bats of the

genus Pteropus (_Xantharpya ægyptiaca_), and extending twenty and

a half inches from wing to wing. As none of the bats of Palestine

are yet known, this was a great prize, and another instance of the

extension westward of the Indian fauna." These Bats belong to the

fruit-eating tribe, and are closely allied to the Flying Foxes of

Java, Australia, and Southern Africa. Therefore, this would be one

of the species commonly used for food, and hence the necessity for

the prohibition. The present species extends over the greater part

of Northern Africa and into parts of Asia.

[Illustration: GREAT FOX-HEADED BAT, OR FLYING FOX.]

The same traveller subsequently discovered several more species of

bats. On one occasion, he was exploring some caves, near the site of

the ancient Jericho. On the eastern face of the cliffs are a number

of caves, arranged in regular tiers, and originally approached

by steps cut out of the face of the rock. These staircases are,

however, washed away by time and the rains, and in consequence the

upper tiers were almost inaccessible. In some of these caves the

walls were covered with brilliant, but mutilated frescoes; and in

others, hermits had lived and died and been buried. Mr. Tristram and

his companions had penetrated to the second tier, and there made a

curious discovery.

[Illustration: CAVE NEAR THE SITE OF ANCIENT JERICHO.]

"In the roof of this was a small hole, athwart which lay a stick.

After many efforts, we got a string across it, and so hauled up

a rope, by which, finding the stick strong enough, we climbed,

and with a short exercise of the chimney-sweeper's art, we found

ourselves in a third tier of cells, similar to the lower ones, and

covered with the undisturbed dust of ages. Behind the chapel was a

dark cave, with an entrance eighteen inches high. Having lighted

our lantern, we crept in on our faces, and found the place full of

human bones and skulls; with dust several inches deep. We were in an

ancient burying-place of the Anchorites, or hermits of the country,

whose custom it was to retire to such desert and solitary places.

"Their bones lay in undisturbed order, probably as the corpses had

been stretched after death.

"After capturing two or three long-tailed bats, of a species new

to us, which were the only living occupants of the cave, we crept

out, with a feeling of religious awe, from this strange, sepulchral

cavern."

Besides the species of bats that have been described, it is probable

that representatives of several more families of bats inhabit

Palestine.

[Illustration: bat]

[Illustration: LEOPARDS.]

[Illustration: BIRDS.]

[Illustration: bird and nest]

[Illustration: ossifrage]

THE LÄMMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

Difficulty of identifying the various birds mentioned in

Scripture--The vultures of Palestine--The Lämmergeier, or

Ossifrage of Scripture--Appearance of the Lämmergeier--Its

flight and mode of feeding--Nest of the Lämmergeier.

It has already been mentioned that even the best Biblical scholars

have found very great difficulties in identifying several of the

animals which are named in Scripture. This difficulty is greatly

increased when we come to the BIRDS, and in many instances it is

absolutely impossible to identify the Hebrew word with any precise

species. In all probability, however, the nomenclature of the birds

is a very loose one, several species being classed under the same

title.

[Illustration: THE LÄMMERGEIER.]

Keeping this difficulty in mind, I shall mention all the species

which are likely to have been classed under a single title, giving

a general description of the whole, and a detailed account of the

particular species which seems to answer most closely to the Hebrew

word.

* * * * *

Following the arrangement which has been employed in this work, I

shall begin with the bird which has been placed by zoologists at

the head of its class, namely, the LÄMMERGEIER, the bird which may

be safely identified with the Ossifrage of Scripture. The Hebrew

word is "Peres," a term which only occurs twice when signifying a

species of bird; namely, in Lev. xi. 13, and the parallel passage in

Deut. xiv. 12. The first of these passages runs as follows: "These

ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be

eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and

the ospray." The corresponding passage in Deuteronomy has precisely

the same signification, though rather differently worded: "These are

they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and

the ospray."

The word _peres_ signifies a breaker; and the Latin term Ossifraga,

or Bone-breaker, is a very good translation of the word. How it

applies to the Lämmergeier we shall presently see.

The Lämmergeier belongs to the vultures, but has much more the

appearance of an eagle than a vulture, the neck being clothed

with feathers, instead of being naked or only covered with down.

It may at once be known by the tuft of long, hair-like feathers

which depends from the beak, and which has gained for the bird the

title of Bearded Vulture. The colour of the plumage is a mixture of

different browns and greys, tawny below and beautifully pencilled

above, a line of pure white running along the middle of each

feather. When young it is nearly black, and indeed has been treated

as a separate species under the name of Black Vulture.

It is one of the largest of the flying birds, its length often

exceeding four feet, and the expanse of its wings being rather more

than ten feet. In consequence of this great spread of wing, it

looks when flying like a much larger bird than it really is, and

its size has often been variously misstated. Its flight, as may be

imagined from the possession of such wings, is equally grand and

graceful, and it sweeps through the air with great force, apparently

unaccompanied by effort.

The Lämmergeier extends through a very large range of country, and

is found throughout many parts of Europe and Asia. It is spread

over the Holy Land, never congregating in numbers, like ordinary

vultures, but living in pairs, and scarcely any ravine being

uninhabited by at least one pair of Lämmergeiers.

The food of the Lämmergeier is, like that of other vultures, the

flesh of dead animals, though it does not feed quite in the same

manner that they do. When the ordinary vultures have found a carcase

they tear it to pieces, and soon remove all the flesh. This having

been done, the Lämmergeier comes to the half-picked bones, eats the

remaining flesh from them, and finishes by breaking them and eating

the marrow. That a bird should be able to break a bone as thick and

hard as the thigh-bone of a horse or ox seems rather problematical,

but the bird achieves the feat in a simple and effectual manner.

Seizing the bone in its claws, it rises to an immense height in the

air, and then, balancing itself over some piece of rock, it lets the

bone fall, and sweeps after it with scarce less rapidity than the

bone falls. Should the bone be broken by the fall, the bird picks

the marrow out of the fragments; and should it have escaped fracture

by reason of falling on a soft piece of ground instead of a hard

rock, the bird picks it up, and renews the process until it has

attained its object. It will be seen, therefore, that the name of

Ossifrage, or Bone-breaker, may very properly be given to this bird.

Not only does it extract the marrow from bones in this peculiar

manner, but it procures other articles of food by employing

precisely the same system. If it sees a tortoise, many of which

reptiles are found in the countries which it inhabits, it does not

waste time and trouble by trying to peck the shell open, but carries

its prey high in the air, drops it on the ground, and so breaks its

shell to pieces. Tortoises are often very hard-shelled creatures,

and the Lämmergeier has been observed to raise one of them and

drop it six or seven times before the stubborn armour would yield.

Snakes, too, are killed in a similar manner, being seized by the

neck, and then dropped from a height upon rocks or hard ground. The

reader may perhaps be aware that the Hooded Crow of England breaks

bones and the shells of bivalve molluscs in a similar manner.

Mr. Tristram suggests, with much probability, that the "eagle" which

mistook the bald head of the poet Æschylus for a white stone, and

killed him by dropping a tortoise upon it, was in all likelihood

a Lämmergeier, the bird being a denizen of the same country, and

the act of tortoise-dropping being its usual mode of killing those

reptiles.

[Illustration: A SUCCESSFUL DEFENCE.]

We now see why the Lämmergeier is furnished with such enormous

wings, and so great a power of flight, these attributes being

needful in order to enable it to lift its prey to a sufficient

height. The air, as we all know, becomes more and more attenuated in

exact proportion to the height above the earth; and did not the bird

possess such great powers of flight, it would not be able to carry a

heavy tortoise into the thinner strata of air which are found at the

height to which it soars.

The instinct of killing its prey by a fall is employed against other

animals besides snakes and tortoises, though exerted in a somewhat

different manner. The bird, as has already been mentioned, lives

among mountain ranges, and it may be seen floating about them for

hours together, watching each inch of ground in search of prey.

Should it see a goat or other inhabitant of the rocks standing near

a precipice, the Lämmergeier sweeps rapidly upon it, and with a blow

of its wing knocks the animal off the rock into the valley beneath,

where it lies helplessly maimed, even if not killed by the fall.

Even hares and lambs are killed in this manner, and it is from

the havoc which the Lämmergeier makes among the sheep that it has

obtained the name of Lämmergeier, or Lamb-Vulture. So swift and

noiseless is the rush of the bird, that an animal which has once

been marked by its blood-red eye seldom escapes from the swoop; and

even the Alpine hunters, who spend their lives in pursuit of the

chamois, have occasionally been put in great jeopardy by the sudden

attack of a Lämmergeier, the bird having mistaken their crouching

forms for the chamois, and only turned aside at the last moment.

The reason for employing so remarkable a mode of attack is to be

found in the structure of the feet, which, although belonging to

so large and powerful a bird, are comparatively feeble, and are

unable, like those of the eagle, to grasp the living animal in a

deadly hold, and to drive the sharp talons into its vitals. They

are not well adapted for holding prey, the talons not possessing

the hook-like form or the sharp points which characterise those of

the eagle. The feet, by the way, are feathered down to the toes.

The beak, too, is weak when compared with the rest of the body,

and could not perform its work were not the object which it tears

previously shattered by the fall from a height.

[Illustration: STRUCK FROM A DIZZY HEIGHT.]

The nest of the Lämmergeier is made of sticks and sods, and is of

enormous dimensions. It is almost always placed upon a lofty cliff,

and contains about a wagon-load or so of sticks rudely interwoven,

and supporting a nearly equal amount of sods and moss.

An allied species lives in Northern Africa, where it is called by a

name which signifies Father Longbeard, in allusion to the beard-like

tufts of the bill.

[Illustration: bird feeding young]

THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE, OR GIER-EAGLE.

The Râchâm or Gier-Eagle identified with the Egyptian

Vulture--Its appearance on the Egyptian monuments--The shape,

size, and colour of the bird--Its value as a scavenger, and its

general habits--The Egyptian Vultures and the griffons--Its

fondness for the society of man--Nest of the Egyptian Vulture.

In the same list of unclean birds which has already been given,

we find the name of a bird which we can identify without much

difficulty, although there has been some little controversy about

it. This is the so-called Gier-Eagle, which is named with the

cormorant and the pelican as one of the birds which the Jews are

forbidden to eat. The word which is translated as Gier-Eagle is

Râchâm, a name which is almost identical with the Arabic name of the

EGYPTIAN VULTURE, sometimes called Pharaoh's Chicken, because it is

so often sculptured on the ancient monuments of Egypt. It is called

by the Turks by a name which signifies White Father, in allusion to

the colour of its plumage.

This bird is not a very large one, being about equal to a raven in

size, though its enormously long wings give it an appearance of much

greater size. Its colour is white, with the exception of the quill

feathers of the wings, which are dark-brown. The bill and the naked

face and legs are bright ochreous yellow. It does not attain this

white plumage until its third year, its colour before reaching adult

age being brown, with a grey neck and dull yellow legs and face.

The Egyptian Vulture, although not large, is a really handsome

bird, the bold contrast of pure white and dark brown being very

conspicuous when it is on the wing. In this plumage it has never

been seen in England, but one or two examples are known of the

Egyptian Vulture being killed in England while still in its

dark-brown clothing.

It inhabits a very wide range of country, being found throughout

all the warmer parts of the Old World. Although it is tolerably

plentiful, it is never seen in great numbers, as is the case with

several of the vultures, but is always to be found in pairs, the

male and female never separating, and invariably being seen close

together. In fact, in places where it is common it is hardly

possible to travel more than a mile or two without seeing a pair

of Egyptian Vultures. Should more than two of these birds be seen

together, the spectator may be sure that they have congregated

over some food. It has been well suggested that its Hebrew name

of Râchâm, or Love, has been given to it in consequence of this

constant association of the male and female.

[Illustration: EGYPTIAN VULTURE, OR GIER-EAGLE.]

The Egyptian Vulture is one of the best of scavengers, not only

devouring the carcases of dead animals, but feeding on every kind of

offal or garbage. Indeed, its teeth and claws are much too feeble

to enable it to cope with the true vultures in tearing up a large

carcase, and in consequence it never really associates with them,

although it may be seen hovering near them, and it never ventures

to feed in their company, keeping at a respectful distance while

they feed, and, when they retire, humbly making a meal on the scraps

which they have left.

Mr. Tristram narrates an amusing instance of this trait of

character. "On a subsequent occasion, on the north side of Hermon,

we observed the griffons teaching a lesson of patience to the

inferior scavengers. A long row of Egyptian vultures were sitting on

some rocks, so intently watching a spot in a corn-field that they

took no notice of our approach. Creeping cautiously near, we watched

a score of griffons busily engaged in turning over a dead horse, one

side of which they had already reduced to a skeleton.

"Their united efforts had just effected this, when we showed

ourselves, and they quickly retired. The inferior birds, who dreaded

us much less than them, at once darted to the repast, and, utterly

regardless of our presence within ten yards of them, began to gorge.

We had hardly retired two hundred yards, when the griffons came down

with a swoop, and the Egyptian vultures and a pair or two of eagles

hurriedly resumed their post of observation; while some black kites

remained, and contrived by their superior agility to filch a few

morsels from their lordly superiors."

So useful is this bird as a scavenger, that it is protected in all

parts of the East by the most stringent laws, so that a naturalist

who wishes for specimens has some difficulty in procuring the bird,

or even its egg. It wanders about the streets of the villages, and

may generally be found investigating the heaps of refuse which are

left to be cleared away by the animals and birds which constitute

the scavengers of the East.

It not only eats dead animal substances, but kills and devours great

quantities of rats, mice, lizards, and other pests that swarm in

hot countries. So tame is it, that it may even be observed, like

the gull and the rook of our own country, following the ploughman

as he turns up the ground, and examining the furrow for the purpose

of picking up the worms, grubs, and similar creatures that are

disturbed by the share.

Being thus protected and encouraged by man, there is good reason

why it should have learned in course of time to fear him far less

than its own kind. Indeed, it is so utterly fearless with regard to

human beings, that it habitually follows the caravans as they pass

from one town to another, for the sake of feeding on the refuse food

and other offal which is thrown aside on the road.

Two articles of diet which certainly do not seem to fall within the

ordinary range of vulture's food are said to be consumed by this

bird. The first is the egg of the ostrich, the shell of which is

too hard to be broken by the feeble beak of the Egyptian Vulture.

The bird cannot, like the lämmergeier, carry the egg into the air

and drop it on the ground, because its feet are not large enough

to grasp it, and only slip off its round and polished surface.

Therefore, instead of raising the egg into the air and dropping it

upon a stone, it carries a stone into the air and drops it upon the

egg. So at least say the natives of the country which it inhabits,

and there is no reason why we should doubt the truth of the

statement.

The other article of food is a sort of melon, very full of juice.

This melon is called "nara," and is devoured by various creatures,

such as lions, leopards, mice, ostriches, &c. and seems to serve

them instead of drink.

The nest of the Egyptian Vulture is made in some rocky ledge, and

the bird does not trouble itself about selecting a spot inaccessible

to man, knowing well that it will not be disturbed. The nest is,

like that of other vultures, a large and rude mass of sticks,

sods, bones, and similar materials, to which are added any bits of

rag, rope, skin, and other village refuse which it can pick up as

it traverses the streets. There are two, and occasionally three,

eggs, rather variously mottled with red. In its breeding, as in

its general life, it is not a gregarious bird, never breeding in

colonies, and, indeed, very seldom choosing a spot for its nest near

one which has already been selected by another pair.

The illustration on page 420 represents part of the nest of the

Egyptian Vulture, in which the curious mixture of bones and sticks

is well shown. The parent birds are drawn in two characteristic

attitudes taken from life, and well exhibit the feeble beak, the

peculiar and intelligent, almost cunning expression of the head,

and the ruff of feathers which surrounds the upper part of the

neck. In the distance another bird is drawn as it appears on the

wing, in order to show the contrast between the white plumage and

the dark quill feathers of the wings, the bird presenting a general

appearance very similar to that of the common sea-gull.

THE

GRIFFON VULTURE, OR EAGLE OF SCRIPTURE.

The Griffon Vulture identified with the Eagle of

Scripture--Geographical range of the Griffon--Its mode of

flight and sociable habits--The featherless head and neck of

the bird--The Vulture used as an image of strength, swiftness,

and rapacity--Its powers of sight--How Vultures assemble round

a carcase--Nesting-places of the Griffon--Mr. Tristram's

description of the Griffon--Rock-caves of the Wady Hamâm--Care

of the young, and teaching them to fly--Strength of the Griffon.

The Griffon Vulture is found throughout a large portion of the Old

World, inhabiting nearly all the warmer portions of this hemisphere.

The colour of the adult bird is a sort of yellowish brown,

diversified by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down

that surrounds the neck. The head and neck are without feathers, but

are sparingly covered with very short down of a similar character to

that of the ruff.

It is really a large bird, being little short of five feet in total

length, and the expanse of wing measuring about eight feet.

The Griffon Vulture is very plentiful in Palestine, and, unlike the

lesser though equally useful Egyptian Vulture, congregates together

in great numbers, feeding, flying, and herding in company. Large

flocks of them may be seen daily, soaring high in the air, and

sweeping their graceful way in the grand curves which distinguish

the flight of the large birds of prey. They are best to be seen in

the early morning, being in the habit of quitting their rocky homes

at daybreak, and indulging in a flight for two or three hours, after

which they mostly return to the rocks, and wait until evening, when

they take another short flight before retiring to rest.

Allusion is made in the Scriptures to the gregarious habits of the

Vultures: "Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be

gathered together" (Matt. xxiv. 28). That the Vulture, and not the

eagle, is here signified, is evident from the fact that the eagles

do not congregate like the Vultures, never being seen in greater

numbers than two or three together, while the Vultures assemble in

hundreds.

There is also a curious passage in the Book of Proverbs, chap. xxx.

ver. 17, which alludes to the carnivorous nature of the bird: "The

eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother,

the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles

shall eat it."

Allusion is made in several passages to the swiftness of the

Vulture, as well as its voracity. See, for example, a portion of

David's lamentation over the bodies of Saul and Jonathan, who,

according to the poet's metaphor, "were lovely and pleasant in their

lives, and in their death they were not divided; they were swifter

than eagles, they were stronger than lions."

The "bitter" people--namely, the Chaldeans--are again mentioned in

a very similar manner by the prophet Jeremiah: "Our persecutors are

swifter than the eagles of the heavens; they pursued us upon the

mountains, they laid wait for us in the wilderness" (Lam. iv. 19).

There is something peculiarly appropriate in employing the Vulture

as an image of strength and swiftness when applied to warriors, the

bird being an invariable attendant on the battle, and flying to the

field of death with marvellous swiftness. All who had ever witnessed

a battle were familiar with the presence of the Vulture--the scene

of carnage, and the image which is employed, would be one which

commended itself at once to those for whom it was intended. And, as

the earlier history of the Jewish nation is essentially of a warlike

character, we cannot wonder that so powerful and familiar an image

should have been repeatedly introduced into the sacred writings.

Wonderful powers of sight are possessed by this bird. Its eyes

are able to assume either a telescopic or a microscopic character,

by means of a complex and marvellous structure, which can alter the

whole shape of the organ at the will of the bird.

[Illustration: VULTURES.]

Not only can the eye be thus altered, but it changes

instantaneously, so as to accommodate itself to the task which it is

to perform. A Vulture, for example, sees from a vast height the body

of a dead animal, and instantly swoops down upon it like an arrow

from a bow. In order to enable the bird to see so distant an object,

the eye has been exercising its telescopic powers, and yet, in a

second or two, when the Vulture is close to its prey, the whole form

of the eye must be changed, or the bird would mistake its distance,

and dash itself to pieces on the ground.

By means of its powerful eyes, the Vulture can see to an enormous

distance, and with great clearness, but neither so far nor so

clearly as is popularly supposed. It is true that, as soon as a

carcase is discovered, it will be covered with Vultures, who arrive

from every side, looking at first like tiny specks in the air,

scarcely perceptible even to practised eyes, and all directing their

flight to the same point. "Where the carcase is, there will the

vultures be gathered together." But, although they all fly towards

the same spot, it does not follow that they have all seen the same

object. The fact is, they see and understand each other's movements.

A single Vulture, for example, sees a dead or dying sheep, and

swoops down upon it. The other Vultures which are flying about

in search of food, and from which the animal in question may be

concealed, know perfectly well that a Vulture soars high in the air

when searching for food, and only darts to the earth when it has

found a suitable prey. They immediately follow its example, and

in their turn are followed by other Vultures, which can see their

fellows from a distance, and know perfectly well why they are all

converging to one spot.

In this way all the Vultures of a neighbourhood will understand, by

a very intelligible telegraph, that a dead body of some animal has

been found, and, aided by their wonderful powers of flight, will

assemble over its body in an almost incredibly short space of time.

The resting-place of the Griffon Vulture is always on some lofty

spot. The Arabian Vulture will build within easy reach, the eagle

prefers lofty situations, but nothing but the highest and most

inaccessible spots will satisfy the Vulture. To reach the nest of

this bird is therefore a very difficult task, only to be attempted

by experienced and intrepid cragsmen; and, in consequence, both the

eggs and young of the Griffon Vulture cannot be obtained except for

a very high price. The birds are fond of building in the rock-caves

which are found in so many parts of Palestine, and in some places

they fill these places as thickly as rooks fill a rookery.

In Mr. Tristram's "Land of Israel," there is a very graphic

description of the Griffon's nests, and of the difficulty

experienced in reaching them. "A narrow gorge, with limestone

cliffs from five hundred to six hundred feet high, into which the

sun never penetrates, walls the rapid brook on each side so closely

that we often had to ride in the bed of the stream. The cliffs

are perforated with caves at all heights, wholly inaccessible to

man, the secure resting-place of hundreds of noble griffons, some

lämmergeiers, lanner falcons, and several species of eagle....

One day in the ravine well repaid us, though so terrific were the

precipices, that it was quite impossible to reach any of the nests

with which it swarmed.