Chapter 2 No.2

The Camel and its master-Occasional fury of the animal-A boy killed by a Camel-Another instance of an infuriated Camel-Theory respecting the Arab and his Camel-Apparent stupidity of the Camel-Its hatred of a load, and mode of expressing its disapprobation-Riding a Camel through the streets-A narrow escape-Ceremony of weaning a young Camel-The Camel's favourite food-Structure of the foot and adaptation to locality-Difficulty in provisioning-Camel's hair and skin-Sal ammoniac and Desert fuel-The Camel and the needle's eye-Straining at a gnat and swallowing a Camel.

We now come to the general characteristics of the Camel.

The Camels know their master well, some of them being much more affectionate than others. But they are liable to fits of strange fury, in which case even their own masters are not safe from them. They are also of a revengeful nature, and have an unpleasant faculty of treasuring up an injury until they can find a time of repaying it. Signor Pierotti gives a curious example of this trait of character. As he was going to the Jordan, he found a dead Camel lying on the roadside, the head nearly separated from the body. On inquiry he found that the animal had a master who ill-treated it, and had several times tried to bite him. One evening, after the Camels had been unloaded, the drivers lay down to sleep as usual.

The Camel made its way to its master, and stamped on him as he slept. The man uttered one startled cry, but had no time for another. The infuriated Camel followed up its attack by grasping his throat in its powerful jaws, and shaking him to death. The whole scene passed so rapidly, that before the other drivers could come to the man's assistance he was hanging dead from the jaws of the Camel, who was shaking him as a dog shakes a rat, and would not release its victim until its head had been nearly severed from its body by sword-cuts.

A similar anecdote is told by Mr. Palgrave, in his "Central and Eastern Arabia:"-

"One passion alone he possesses, namely, revenge, of which he gives many a hideous example; while, in carrying it out, he shows an unexpected degree of forethoughted malice, united meanwhile with all the cold stupidity of his usual character. One instance of this I well remember-it occurred hard by a small town in the plain of Baalbec, where I was at the time residing.

"A lad of about fourteen had conducted a large camel, laden with wood, from that very village to another at half an hour's distance or so. As the animal loitered or turned out of the way, its conductor struck it repeatedly, and harder than it seems to have thought he had a right to do. But, not finding the occasion favourable for taking immediate quits, it 'bided its time,' nor was that time long in coming.

"A few days later, the same lad had to re-conduct the beast, but unladen, to his own village. When they were about half way on the road, and at some distance from any habitation, the camel suddenly stopped, looked deliberately round in every direction to assure itself that no one was in sight, and, finding the road clear of passers-by, made a step forward, seized the unlucky boy's head in its monstrous mouth, and, lifting him up in the air, flung him down again on the earth, with the upper part of his head completely torn off, and his brains scattered on the ground. Having thus satisfied its revenge, the brute quietly resumed its pace towards the village, as though nothing were the matter, till some men, who had observed the whole, though unfortunately at too great a distance to be able to afford timely help, came up and killed it.

"Indeed, so marked is this unamiable propensity, that some philosophers have ascribed the revengeful character of the Arabs to the great share which the flesh and milk of the camel have in their sustenance, and which are supposed to communicate, to those who partake of them over-largely, the moral or immoral qualities of the animal to which they belonged. I do not feel myself capable of pronouncing an opinion on so intricate a question, but thus much I can say, that the camel and its Bedouin master do afford so many and such divers points of resemblance, that I do not think our Arab of Shomer far in the wrong, when I once on a time heard him say, 'God created the Bedouin for the camel, and the camel for the Bedouin.'"

The reader will observe that Mr. Palgrave in this anecdote makes reference to the stupidity of the Camel. There is no doubt that the Camel is by no means an intellectual animal; but it is very possible that its stupidity may in a great measure be owing to the fact that no one has tried to cultivate its intellectual powers. The preceding anecdotes show clearly that the Camel must possess a strong memory, and be capable of exercising considerable ingenuity.

Still it is not a clever animal. If its master should fall off its back, it never dreams of stopping, as a well-trained horse would do, but proceeds at the same plodding pace, leaving his master to catch it if he can. Should it turn out of the way to crop some green thorn-bush, it will go on in the same direction, never thinking of turning back into the right road unless directed by its rider. Should the Camel stray, "it is a thousand to one that he will never find his way back to his accustomed home or pasture, and the first man who picks him up will have no particular shyness to get over; ... and the losing of his old master and of his former cameline companions gives him no regret, and occasions no endeavour to find them again."

He has the strongest objection to being laden at all, no matter how light may be the burden, and expresses his disapprobation by growling and groaning, and attempting to bite. So habitual is this conduct that if a kneeling Camel be only approached, and a stone as large as a walnut laid on its back, it begins to remonstrate in its usual manner, groaning as if it were crushed to the earth with its load.

The Camel never makes way for any one, its instinct leading it to plod onward in its direct course. What may have been its habits in a state of nature no one can tell, for such a phenomenon as a wild Camel has never been known in the memory of man. There are wild oxen, wild goats, wild sheep, wild horses, and wild asses, but there is no spot on the face of the earth where the Camel is found except as the servant of man. Through innate stupidity, according to Mr. Palgrave, it goes straight forwards in the direction to which its head happens to be pointed, and is too foolish even to think of stopping unless it hears the signal for halt.

As it passes through the narrow streets of an Oriental city, laden with goods that project on either side, and nearly fill up the thoroughfare, it causes singular inconvenience, forcing every one who is in front of it to press himself closely to the wall, and to make way for the enormous beast as it plods along. The driver or rider generally gives notice by continually calling to the pedestrians to get out of the way, but a laden Camel rarely passes through a long street without having knocked down a man or two, or driven before it a few riders on asses who cannot pass between the Camel and the wall.

One source of danger to its rider is to be found in the low archways which span so many of the streets. They are just high enough to permit a laden Camel to pass under them, but are so low that they leave no room for a rider. The natives, who are accustomed to this style of architecture, are always ready for an archway, and, when the rider sees an archway which will not allow him to retain his seat, he slips to the ground, and remounts on the other side of the obstacle.

Mr. Kennard had a very narrow escape with one of these archways. "I had passed beneath one or two in perfect safety, without being obliged to do more than just bend my head forward, and was in the act of conversing with one of my companions behind, and was therefore in a happy state of ignorance as to what was immediately before me, when the shouting and running together of the people in the street on either side made me turn my head quickly, but only just in time to feel my breath thrown back on my face against the keystone of a gateway, beneath which my camel, with too much way on him to be stopped immediately, had already commenced to pass.

"With a sort of feeling that it was all over with me, I threw myself back as far as I could, and was carried through in an almost breathless state, my shirt-studs actually scraping along against the stonework. On emerging again into the open street, I could hardly realize my escape, for if there had been a single projecting stone to stop my progress, the camel would have struggled to get free, and my chest must have been crushed in."

It will be seen from these instances that the charge of stupidity is not an undeserved one. Still the animal has enough intellect to receive all the education which it needs for the service of man, and which it receives at a very early age. The ordinary Camel of burden is merely taught to follow its conductor, to obey the various words and gestures of command, and to endure a load. The Deloul, however, is more carefully trained. It is allowed to follow its mother for a whole year in perfect liberty. Towards the expiration of that time the young animal is gradually stinted in its supply of milk, and forced to browse for its nourishment. On the anniversary of its birth, the young Deloul is turned with its head towards Canopus, and its ears solemnly boxed, its master saying at the same time, "Henceforth drinkest thou no drop of milk." For this reason the newly-weaned Camel is called Lathim, or the "ear-boxed." It is then prevented from sucking by a simple though cruel experiment. A wooden peg is sharpened at both ends, and one end thrust into the young animal's nose. When it tries to suck, it pricks its mother with the projecting end, and at the same time forces the other end more deeply into the wound, so that the mother drives away her offspring, and the young soon ceases to make the attempt.

The food of the Camel is very simple, being, in fact, anything that it can get. As it proceeds on its journey, it manages to browse as it goes along, bending its long neck to the ground, and cropping the scanty herbage without a pause. Camels have been known to travel for twenty successive days, passing over some eight hundred miles of ground, without receiving any food except that which they gathered for themselves by the way. The favourite food of the Camel is a shrub called the ghada, growing to six feet or so in height, and forming a feathery tuft of innumerable little green twigs, very slender and flexible. It is so fond of this shrub that a Camel can scarcely ever pass a bush without turning aside to crop it; and even though it be beaten severely for its misconduct, it will repeat the process at the next shrub that comes in sight.

It also feeds abundantly on the thorn-bushes which grow so plentifully in that part of the world; and though the thorns are an inch or two in length, very strong, and as sharp as needles, the hard, horny palate of the animal enables it to devour them with perfect ease.

There are several species of these thorn-shrubs, which are scattered profusely over the ground, and are, in fact, the commonest growth of the place. After they die, being under the fierce sun of that climate, they dry up so completely, that if a light be set to them they blaze up in a moment, with a sharp cracking sound and a roar of flame, and in a moment or two are nothing but a heap of light ashes. No wonder was it that when Moses saw the thorn-bush burning without being consumed he was struck with awe at the miracle. These withered bushes are the common fuel of the desert, giving out a fierce but brief heat, and then suddenly sinking into ashes. "For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool" (Eccl. vii. 6).

The dried and withered twigs of these bushes are also eaten by the Camel, which seems to have a power of extracting nutriment from every sort of vegetable substance. It has been fed on charcoal, and, as has been happily remarked, could thrive on the shavings of a carpenter's workshop.

Still, when food is plentiful, it is fed as regularly as can be managed, and generally after a rather peculiar manner. "Our guide," writes Mr. Hamilton, in the work which has already been mentioned, "is an elderly man, the least uncouth of our camel-drivers. He has three camels in the caravan, and it was amusing to see his preparations for their evening's entertainment. The table-cloth, a circular piece of leather, was duly spread on the ground; on this he poured the quantity of dourrah destined for their meal, and calling his camels, they came and took each its place at the feast. It is quaint to see how each in his turn eats, so gravely and so quietly, stretching his long neck into the middle of the heap, then raising his head to masticate each mouthful; all so slowly and with such gusto, that we could swear it was a party of epicures sitting in judgment on one of Vachette's chefs d'?uvre ."

The foregoing passages will show the reader how wonderfully adapted is the constitution of the Camel for the country in which it lives, and how indispensable it is to the inhabitants. It has been called "the ship of the desert," for without the Camel the desert would be as impassable as the sea without ships. No water being found for several days' journey together, the animal is able to carry within itself a supply of water which will last it for several days, and, as no green thing grows far from the presence of water, the Camel is able to feed upon the brief-lived thorn-shrubs which have sprung up and died, and which, from their hard and sharp prickles, are safe from every animal except the hard-mouthed Camel.

But these advantages would be useless without another-i.e. the foot. The mixed stones and sand of the desert would ruin the feet of almost any animal, and it is necessary that the Camel should be furnished with a foot that cannot be split by heat like the hoof of a horse, that is broad enough to prevent the creature from sinking into the sand, and is tough enough to withstand the action of the rough and burning soil.

Such a foot does the Camel possess. It consists of two long toes resting upon a hard elastic cushion with a tough and horny sole. This cushion is so soft that the tread of the huge animal is as noiseless as that of a cat, and, owing to the division of the toes, it spreads as the weight comes upon it, and thus gives a firm footing on loose ground. The foot of the moose-deer has a similar property, in order to enable the animal to walk upon the snow.

In consequence of this structure, the Camel sinks less deeply into the ground than any other animal; but yet it does sink in it, and dislikes a deep and loose sand, groaning at every step, and being wearied by the exertion of dragging its hard foot out of the holes into which they sink. It is popularly thought that hills are impracticable to the Camel; but it is able to climb even rocky ground from which a horse would recoil. Mr. Marsh, an American traveller, was much surprised by seeing a caravan of fifty camels pass over a long ascent in Arabia Petr?a. The rock was as smooth as polished marble, and the angle was on an average fifteen degrees; but the whole caravan passed over it without an accident.

The soil that a Camel most hates is a wet and muddy ground, on which it is nearly sure to slip. If the reader will look at a Camel from behind, he will see that the hinder legs are close together until the ankle-joint, when they separate so widely that the feet are set on the ground at a considerable distance from each other. On dry ground this structure increases the stability of the animal by increasing its base; but on wet ground the effect is singularly unpleasant. The soft, padded feet have no hold, and slip sideways at every step, often with such violence as to dislocate a joint and cause the death of the animal. When such ground has to be traversed, the driver generally passes a bandage round the hind legs just below the ankle-joint, so as to prevent them from diverging too far.

It must be remarked, however, that the country in which the animal lives is essentially a dry one, and that moist and muddy ground is so exceptional that the generality of Camels never see it in their lives. Camels do not object to mud an inch or two deep, provided that there is firm ground below; and they have been seen to walk with confident safety over pavements covered with mud and half-frozen snow.

The animals can ford rivers well enough, provided that the bed be stony or gravelly; but they are bad swimmers, their round bodies and long necks being scarcely balanced by their legs, so that they are apt to roll over on their sides, and in such a case they are sure to be drowned. When swimming is a necessity, the head is generally tied to the stern of a boat, or guided by the driver swimming in front, while another often clings to the tail, so as to depress the rump and elevate the head. It is rather curious that the Camels of the Sahara cannot be safely entrusted to the water. They will swim the river readily enough; but they are apt to be seized with illness afterwards, and to die in a few hours.

We now come to some other uses of the Camel.

Its hair is of the greatest importance, as it is used for many purposes. In this country, all that we know practically of the Camel's hair is that it is employed in making brushes for painters; but in its own land the hair plays a really important part. At the proper season it is removed from the animal, usually by being pulled away in tufts, but sometimes by being shorn like the wool of sheep, and it is then spun by the women into strong thread.

From this thread are made sundry fabrics where strength is required and coarseness is not an objection. The "black tents" of the Bedouin Arabs, similar to those in which Abraham lived, are made of Camel's hair, and so are the rugs, carpets, and cordage used by the nomad tribes. Even mantles for rainy or cold weather are made of Camel's hair, and it was in a dress of this coarse and rough material that St. John the Baptist was clad. The best part of the Camel's hair is that which grows in tufts on the back and about the hump, the fibre being much longer than that which covers the body. There is also a little very fine under-wool which is carefully gathered, and, when a sufficient quantity is procured, it is spun and woven into garments. Shawls of this material are even now as valuable as those which are made from the Cachmire goat.

The skin of the Camel is made into a sort of leather. It is simply tanned by being pegged out in the sun and rubbed with salt.

Sandals and leggings are made of this leather, and in some places water-bottles are manufactured from it, the leather being thicker and less porous than that of the goat, and therefore wasting less of the water by evaporation. The bones are utilized, being made into various articles of commerce.

So universally valuable is the Camel that even its dung is important to its owners. Owing to the substances on which the animal feeds, it consists of little but macerated fragments of aromatic shrubs. It is much used as poultices in case of bruises or rheumatic pains, and is even applied with some success to simple fractures. It is largely employed for fuel, and the desert couriers use nothing else, their Camels being furnished with a net, so that none of this useful substance shall be lost. For this purpose it is carefully collected, mixed with bits of straw, and made into little rolls, which are dried in the sun, and can then be laid by for any time until they are needed.

Mixed with clay and straw, it is most valuable as a kind of mortar or cement with which the walls of huts are rendered weather-proof, and the same material is used in the better-class houses to make a sort of terrace on the flat roof. This must be waterproof in order to withstand the wet of the rainy season, and no material answers the purpose so well as that which has been mentioned. So strangely hard and firm is this composition, that stoves are made of it. These stoves are made like jars, and have the faculty of resisting the power of the inclosed fire. Even after it is burned it has its uses, the ashes being employed in the manufacture of sal-ammoniac.

* * *

There are two passages in the New Testament which mention the Camel in an allegorical sense. The first of these is the proverbial saying of our Lord, "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. xix. 23, 24).

Now, this well-known but scarcely understood passage requires some little dissection. If the reader will refer to the context, he will see that this saying was spoken in allusion to the young and wealthy man who desired to be one of the disciples, but clung too tightly to his wealth to accept the only conditions on which he could be received. His possessions were a snare to him, as was proved by his refusal to part with them at Christ's command. On his retiring, the expression was used, "that a rich man shall hardly (or, with difficulty) enter the kingdom of heaven," followed by the simile of the Camel and the needle's eye.

Now, if we are to take this passage literally, we can but draw one conclusion from it, that a rich man can no more enter heaven than a camel pass through the eye of a needle, i.e. that it is impossible for him to do so. Whereas, in the previous sentence, Christ says not that it is impossible, but difficult (δυσκ?λω?) for him to do so. It is difficult for a man to use his money for the service of God, the only purpose for which it was given him, and the difficulty increases in proportion to its amount. But wealth in itself is no more a bar to heaven than intellect, health, strength, or any other gift, and, if it be rightly used, is one of the most powerful tools that can be used in the service of God. Our Lord did not condemn all wealthy men alike. He knew many; but there was only one whom He advised to sell his possessions and give them to the poor as the condition of being admitted among the disciples.

CAMEL GOING THROUGH A "NEEDLE'S EYE."

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."-Matt. xix. 24.

We will now turn to the metaphor of the Camel and the needle's eye. Of course it can be taken merely as a very bold metaphor, but it may also be understood in a simpler sense, the sense in which it was probably understood by those who heard it. In Oriental cities, there are in the large gates small and very low apertures called metaphorically "needle's-eyes," just as we talk of certain windows as "bull's-eyes." These entrances are too narrow for a Camel to pass through them in the ordinary manner, or even if loaded. When a laden Camel has to pass through one of these entrances, it kneels down, its load is removed, and then it shuffles through on its knees. "Yesterday," writes Lady Duff-Gordon from Cairo, "I saw a camel go through the eye of a needle, i.e. the low-arched door of an enclosure. He must kneel, and bow his head to creep through; and thus the rich man must humble himself."

There is another passage in which the Camel is used by our Lord in a metaphorical sense. This is the well-known sentence: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matt. xxiii. 24). It is remarkable that an accidental misprint has robbed this passage of its true force. The real translation is: "which strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel." The Greek word is διυλ?ζω, which signifies to filter thoroughly; and the allusion is made the pharisaical custom of filtering liquids before drinking them, lest by chance a gnat or some such insect which was forbidden as food might be accidentally swallowed.

THE BACTRIAN CAMEL.

General description of the animal-Its use in mountain roads-Peculiar formation of the foot-Uses of a mixed breed-Its power of enduring cold-Used chiefly as a beast of draught-Unfitness for the plough-The cart and mode of harnessing-The load which it can draw-Camel-skin ropes-A Rabbinical legend.

The second kind of Camel-namely, the Bactrian species-was probably unknown to the Jews until a comparatively late portion of their history. This species was employed by the Assyrians, as we find by the sculptures upon the ruins, and if in no other way the Jews would become acquainted with them through the nation by whom they were conquered, and in whose land they abode for so long.

The Bactrian Camel is at once to be distinguished from that which has already been described by the two humps and the clumsier and sturdier form. Still the skeletons of the Bactrian and Arabian species are so similar that none but a very skilful anatomist can distinguish between them, and several learned zoologists have expressed an opinion, in which I entirely coincide, that the Bactrian and Arabian Camels are but simple varieties of one and the same species, not nearly so dissimilar as the greyhound and the bulldog.

Unlike the one-humped Camel, the Bactrian species is quite at home in a cold climate, and walks over ice as easily as its congener does over smooth stone. It is an admirable rock-climber, and is said even to surpass the mule in the sureness of its tread. This quality is probably occasioned by the peculiar structure of the foot, which has an elongated toe projecting beyond the soft pad, and forming a sort of claw. In the winter time the riders much prefer them to horses, because their long legs enable them to walk easily through snow, in which a horse could only plunge helplessly, and would in all probability sink and perish.

A mixed breed of the one-humped and the Bactrian animals is thought to be the best for hill work in winter time, and General Harlan actually took two thousand of these animals in winter time for a distance of three hundred and sixty miles over the snowy tops of the Indian Caucasus; and though the campaign lasted for seven months, he only lost one Camel, and that was accidentally killed. Owing to its use among the hills, the Bactrian species is sometimes called the Mountain Camel.

It very much dislikes the commencement of spring, because the warm mid-day sun slightly melts the surface of the snow, and the frost of night converts it into a thin plate of ice. When the Camel walks upon this semi-frozen snow, its feet plunge into the soft substratum through the icy crust, against which its legs are severely cut. The beginning of the winter is liable to the same objection.

The mixed breed which has just been mentioned must be procured from a male Bactrian and a female Arabian Camel. If the parentage be reversed, the offspring is useless, being weak, ill-tempered, and disobedient.

The Bactrian Camel is, as has been mentioned, tolerant of cold, and is indeed so hardy an animal that it bears the severest winters without seeming to suffer distress, and has been seen quietly feeding when the thermometer has reached a temperature several degrees below zero. Sometimes, when the cold is more than usually sharp, the owners sew a thick cloth round its body, but even in such extreme cases the animal is left to find its own food as it best can. And, however severe the weather may be, the Bactrian Camel never sleeps under a roof.

This Camel is sometimes employed as a beast of burden, but its general use is for draught. It is not used for the plough, because it has an uncertain and jerking mode of pulling, and does not possess the steady dragging movement which is obtained by the use of the horse or ox.

BACTRIAN CAMEL.

"He saw a chariot of camels."-Isaiah xxi. 7.

It is almost invariably harnessed to carts, and always in pairs. The mode of yoking the animals is as simple as can well be conceived. A pole runs between them from the front of the vehicle, and the Camels are attached to it by means of a pole which passes over their necks. Oxen were harnessed in a similar manner. It was probably one of these cars or chariots that was mentioned by Isaiah in his prophecy respecting Assyria:-"And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels" (Isa. xxi. 7). The cars themselves are as simple as the mode of harnessing them, being almost exactly like the ox carts which have already been described.

The weight which can be drawn by a pair of these Camels is really considerable. On a tolerably made road a good pair of Camels are expected to draw from twenty-six to twenty-eight hundred weight, and to continue their labours for twenty or thirty successive days, traversing each day an average of thirty miles. It is much slower than the Arabian Camel, seldom going at more than two and a half miles per hour. If, however, the vehicle to which a pair of Bactrians are harnessed were well made, the wheels truly circular, and the axles kept greased so as to diminish the friction, there is no doubt that the animals could draw a still greater load to longer distances, and with less trouble to themselves. As it is, the wheels are wretchedly fitted, and their ungreased axles keep up a continual creaking that is most painful to an unaccustomed ear, and totally unheeded by the drivers.

The hair of the Bactrian Camel is long, coarse, and strong; and, like that of the Arabian animal, is made into rough cloth. It is plucked off by hand in the summer time, when it naturally becomes loose in readiness for its annual renewal, and the weight of the entire crop of hair ought to be about ten pounds. The skin is not much valued, and is seldom used for any purpose except for making ropes, straps, and thongs, and is not thought worth the trouble of tanning. The milk, like that of the Arabian animal, is much used for food, but the quantity is very trifling, barely two quarts per diem being procured from each Camel.

There is but little that is generally interesting in the Rabbinical writers on the Camel. They have one proverbial saying upon the shortness of its ears. When any one makes a request that is likely to be refused, they quote the instance of the Camel, who, it seems, was dissatisfied with its appearance, and asked for horns to match its long ears. The result of the request was, that it was deprived of its ears, and got no horns.

THE HORSE.

The Hebrew words which signify the Horse-The Horse introduced into Palestine from Egypt-Similarity of the war-horse of Scripture and the Arab horse of the present day-Characteristics of the Horse-Courage and endurance of the Horse-Hardness of its unshod hoofs-Love of the Arab for his Horse-Difficulty of purchasing the animal-The Horse prohibited to the Israelites-Solomon's disregard of the edict-The war-chariot, its form and use-Probable construction of the iron chariot-The cavalry Horse-Lack of personal interest in the animal.

Several Hebrew words are used by the various Scriptural writers to signify the Horse, and, like our own terms of horse, mare, pony, charger, &c., are used to express the different qualities of the animal. The chief distinction of the Horse seemed to lie in its use for riding or driving, the larger and heavier animals being naturally required for drawing the weighty springless chariots. The chariot horse was represented by the word Sus, and the cavalry horse by the word Parash, and in several passages both these words occur in bold contrast to each other. See, for example, 1 Kings iv. 26, &c.

* * *

Among the many passages of Scripture in which the Horse is mentioned, there are few which do not treat of it as an adjunct of war, and therefore it is chiefly in that light that we must regard it.

The Horse of the Scriptures was evidently a similar animal to the Arab Horse of the present day, as we find not only from internal evidence, but from the sculptures and paintings which still remain to tell us of the vanished glories of Egypt and Assyria. It is remarkable, by the way, that the first mention of the Horse in the Scriptures alludes to it as an Egyptian animal. During the terrible famine which Joseph had foretold, the Egyptians and the inhabitants of neighbouring countries were unable to find food for themselves or fodder for their cattle, and, accordingly, they sold all their beasts for bread. "And they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses and the flocks, and for the cattle of herds, and for the asses, and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year."

This particular breed of Horses is peculiarly fitted for the purposes of war, and is much less apt for peaceful duties than the heavier and more powerful breeds, which are found in different parts of the world. It is remarkable for the flexible agility of its movements, which enable it to adapt itself to every movement of the rider, whose intentions it seems to divine by a sort of instinct, and who guides it not so much by the bridle as by the pressure of the knees and the voice. Examples of a similar mode of guidance may be seen on the well-known frieze of the Parthenon, where, in the Procession of Horsemen, the riders may be seen directing their steeds by touching the side of the neck with one finger, thus showing their own skill and the well-trained quality of the animals which they ride.

Its endurance is really wonderful, and a horse of the Kochlani breed will go through an amount of work which is almost incredible. Even the trial by which a Horse is tested is so severe, that any other animal would be either killed on the spot or ruined for life. When a young mare is tried for the first time, her owner rides her for some fifty or sixty miles at full speed, always finishing by swimming her through a river. After this trial she is expected to feed freely; and should she refuse her food, she is rejected as an animal unworthy of the name of Kochlani.

Partly from native qualities, and partly from constant association with mankind, the Arab Horse is a singularly intelligent animal. In Europe we scarcely give the Horse credit for the sensitive intelligence with which it is endowed, and look upon it rather as a machine for draught and carriage than a companion to man. The Arab, however, lives with his horse, and finds in it the docility and intelligence which we are accustomed to associate with the dog rather than the Horse. It will follow him about and come at his call. It will stand for any length of time and await its rider without moving. Should he fall from its back, it will stop and stand patiently by him until he can remount; and there is a well-authenticated instance of an Arab Horse whose master had been wounded in battle, taking him up by his clothes and carrying him away to a place of safety.

WAR HORSE.

"He saith among the trumpets, Ha, Ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains and the shouting."-Job xxxix. 25.

Even in the very heat and turmoil of the combat, the true Arab Horse seems to be in his true element, and fully deserves the splendid eulogium in the Book of Job (xxxix. 19-25): "Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?

"Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terror.

"He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men.

"He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword.

"The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.

"He walketh the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.

"He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting."

In another passage an allusion is made to the courage of the Horse, and its love for the battle. "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? Every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." (Jer. viii. 6.) Even in the mimic battle of the djereed the Horse seems to exult in the conflict as much as his rider, and wheels or halts almost without the slightest intimation.

The hoofs of the Arab Horses are never shod, their owners thinking that that act is not likely to improve nature, and even among the burning sands and hard rocks the Horse treads with unbroken hoof. In such a climate, indeed, an iron shoe would be worse than useless, as it would only scorch the hoof by day, and in consequence of the rapid change of temperature by day or night, the continual expansion and contraction of the metal would soon work the nails loose, and cause the shoe to fall off.

A tender-footed Horse would be of little value, and so we often find in the Scriptures that the hardness of the hoof is reckoned among one of the best qualities of a Horse. See, for example, Isa. v. 28: "Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind." Again, in Micah iv. 13: "Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people." Allusion is here made to one mode of threshing, in which a number of Horses were turned into the threshing-floor, and driven about at random among the wheat, instead of walking steadily like the oxen.

In Judges v. 22 there is a curious allusion to the hoofs of the Horse. It occurs in the Psalm of Thanksgiving sung by Deborah and Barak after the death of Sisera: "Then were the horse-hoofs broken by the means of the prancings, the prancings of their mighty ones." It is easy now to see that these words infer a scornful allusion to the inferiority of the enemy's Horses, inasmuch as the hoofs of the best Horses would be "counted as flint," and would not be broken by the prancings.

Horses possessed of the qualities of courage, endurance, and sureness of foot are naturally invaluable; and even at the present day the Arab warrior esteems above all things a Horse of the purest breed, and, whether he buys or sells one, takes care to have its genealogy made out and hung on the animal's neck.

As to the mare, scarcely any inducement is strong enough to make an Arab part with it, even to a countryman, and the sale of the animal is hindered by a number of impediments which in point of fact are almost prohibitory. Signor Pierotti, whose long residence in Palestine has given him a deep insight into the character of the people, speaks in the most glowing terms of the pure Arab Horse, and of its inestimable value to its owner. Of the difficulties with which the sale of the animal is surrounded, he gives a very amusing account:-

"After this enumeration of the merits of the horse, I will describe the manner in which a sale is conducted, choosing the case of the mare, as that is the more valuable animal. The price varies with the purity of blood of the steed, and the fortunes of its owner. When he is requested to fix a value, his first reply is, 'It is yours, and belongs to you, I am your servant;' because, perhaps, he does not think that the question is asked with any real design of purchasing; when the demand is repeated, he either makes no answer or puts the question by; at the third demand he generally responds rudely with a sardonic smile, which is not a pleasant thing to see, as it is a sign of anger; and then says that he would sooner sell his family than his mare. This remark is not meant as a mere jest; for it is no uncommon thing for a Bedawy to give his parents as hostages rather than separate himself from his friend.

"If, however, owing to some misfortune, he determines on selling his mare, it is very doubtful whether he or his parents will allow her to leave their country without taking the precaution to render her unfit for breeding.

"There are many methods of arranging the sale, all of which I should like to describe particularly; however, I will confine myself to a general statement. Before the purchaser enters upon the question of the price to be paid, he must ascertain that the parents, friends, and allies of the owners give their consent to the sale, without which some difficulty or other may arise, or perhaps the mare may be stolen from her new master. He must also obtain an unquestionable warranty that she is fit for breeding purposes, and that no other has a prior claim to any part of her body. This last precaution may seem rather strange, but it arises from the following custom. It sometimes happens that, when a Bedawy is greatly in want of money, he raises it most easily by selling a member of his horse; so that very frequently a horse belongs to a number of owners, one of whom has purchased the right fore-leg, another the left, another the hind-leg, or the tail, or an ear, or the like; and the proprietors have each a proportionate interest in the profits of its labour or sale.

"So also the offspring are sold in a similar manner; sometimes only the first-born, sometimes the first three; and then it occasionally happens that two or three members of the foal are, as it were, mortgaged. Consequently, any one who is ignorant of this custom may find that, after he has paid the price of the mare to her supposed owner, a third person arises who demands to be paid the value of his part; and, if the purchaser refuse to comply, he may find himself in a very unpleasant situation, without any possibility of obtaining help from the local government. Whoever sells his mare entirely, without reserving to himself one or two parts, must be on good terms with the confederate chiefs in the neighbourhood, and must have obtained their formal sanction, otherwise they would universally despise him, and perhaps lie in wait to kill him, so that his only hope of escape would be a disgraceful flight, just as if he had committed some great crime. It is an easier matter to purchase a stallion; but even in this case the above formalities must be observed.

"These remarks only apply to buying horses of the purest blood; those of inferior race are obtained without difficulty, and at fair prices."

For some reason, perhaps the total severance of the Israelites from the people among whom they had lived so long in captivity, the use of the Horse, or, at all events, the breeding of it, was forbidden to the Israelites; see Deut. xvi. 16. After prophesying that the Israelites, when they had settled themselves in the Promised Land, would want a king, the inspired writer next ordains that the new king must be chosen by Divine command, and must belong to one of the twelve tribes. He then proceeds as follows:-"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."

The foresight of this prophetical writer was afterwards shown by the fact that many kings of Israel did send to Egypt for Horses, Egypt being the chief source from which these animals were obtained. And, judging from the monuments to which reference has been made, the Horse of Egypt was precisely the same animal as the Arab Horse of the present day, and was probably obtained from nomad breeders.

In spite of the prohibitory edict, both David and Solomon used Horses in battle, and the latter supplied himself largely from Egypt, disregarding as utterly the interdict against plurality of Horses as that against plurality of wives, which immediately follows.

David seems to have been the first king who established a force of chariots, and this he evidently did for the purpose of action on the flat grounds of Palestine, where infantry were at a great disadvantage when attacked by the dreaded chariots; yet he did not controvert the law by multiplying to himself Horses, or even by importing them from Egypt; and when he had an opportunity of adding to his army an enormous force of chariots, he only employed as many as he thought were sufficient for his purpose. After he defeated Hadadezer, and had taken from him a thousand chariots with their Horses together with seven hundred cavalry, he houghed all the Horses except those which were needed for one hundred chariots.

Solomon, however, was more lax, and systematically broke the ancient law by multiplying Horses exceedingly, and sending to Egypt for them. We learn from 1 Kings iv. 26 of the enormous establishment which he kept up both for chariots and cavalry. Besides those which were given to him as tribute, he purchased both chariots and their Horses from Egypt and Syria, the chariots being delivered at the rate of six hundred shekels of silver, and the Horses for an hundred and fifty shekels.

Chariots were far more valued in battle than horsemen, probably because their weight made their onset irresistible against infantry, who had no better weapons than bows and spears. The slingers themselves could make little impression on the chariots; and even if the driver, or the warrior who fought in the chariot, or his attendant, happened to be killed, the weighty machine, with its two Horses, still went on its destructive way.

Of their use in battle we find very early mention. For example, in Exod. xiv. 6 it is mentioned that Pharaoh made ready his chariot to pursue the Israelites; and in a subsequent part of the same chapter we find that six hundred of the Egyptian chariot force accompanied their master in the pursuit, and that the whole army was delayed because the loss of the chariot wheels made them drive heavily.

Then in the familiar story of Sisera and Jael the vanquished general is mentioned as alighting from his chariot, in which he would be conspicuous, and taking flight on foot; and, after his death, his mother is represented as awaiting his arrival, and saying to the women of the household, "Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the wheels of his chariot?"

During the war of conquest which Joshua led, the chariot plays a somewhat important part. As long as the war was carried on in the rugged mountainous parts of the land, no mention of the chariot is made; but when the battles had to be fought on level ground, the enemy brought the dreaded chariots to bear upon the Israelites. In spite of these adjuncts, Joshua won the battles, and, unlike David, destroyed the whole of the Horses and burned the chariots.

Many years afterwards, a still more dreadful weapon, the iron chariot, was used against the Israelites by Jabin. This new instrument of war seems to have cowed the people completely; for we find that by means of his nine hundred chariots of iron Jabin "mightily oppressed the children of Israel" for twenty years. It has been well suggested that the possession of the war chariot gave rise to the saying of Benhadad's councillors, that the gods of Israel were gods of the hills, and so their army had been defeated; but that if the battle were fought in the plain, where the chariots and Horses could act, they would be victorious.

So dreaded were these weapons, even by those who were familiar with them and were accustomed to use them, that when the Syrians had besieged Samaria, and had nearly reduced it by starvation, the fancied sound of a host of chariots and Horses that they heard in the night caused them all to flee and evacuate the camp, leaving their booty and all their property in the hands of the Israelites.

Whether the Jews ever employed the terrible scythe chariots is not quite certain, though it is probable that they may have done so; and this conjecture is strengthened by the fact that they were employed against the Jews by Antiochus, who had "footmen an hundred and ten thousand, and horsemen five thousand and three hundred, and elephants two and twenty, and three hundred chariots armed with hooks" (2 Macc. xiii. 2). Some commentators think that by the iron chariots mentioned above were signified ordinary chariots armed with iron scythes projecting from the sides.

By degrees the chariot came to be one of the recognised forces in war, and we find it mentioned throughout the books of the Scriptures, not only in its literal sense, but as a metaphor which every one could understand. In the Psalms, for example, are several allusions to the war-chariot. "He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; He burneth the chariot in the fire" (Ps. xlvi. 9). Again: "At Thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep" (Ps. lxxvi. 6). And: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God" (Ps. xx. 7). Now, the force of these passages cannot be properly appreciated unless we realize to ourselves the dread in which the war-chariot was held by the foot-soldiers. Even cavalry were much feared; but the chariots were objects of almost superstitious fear, and the rushing sound of their wheels, the noise of the Horses' hoofs, and the shaking of the ground as the "prancing horses and jumping chariots" (Nab. iii. 2) thundered along, are repeatedly mentioned.

See, for example, Ezek. xxvi. 10: "By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots." Also, Jer. xlvii. 3: "At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong horses, at the rushing of his chariots, and at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers shall not look back to their children for feebleness of hands." See also Joel ii. 4, 5: "The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.

"Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array."

In several passages the chariot and Horse are used in bold imagery as expressions of Divine power: "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place" (Ps. lxviii. 17). A similar image is employed in Ps. civ. 3: "Who maketh the clouds His chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind." In connexion with these passages, we cannot but call to mind that wonderful day when the unseen power of the Almighty was made manifest to the servant of Elisha, whose eyes were suddenly opened, and he saw that the mountain was full of Horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

The chariot and horses of fire by which Elijah was taken from earth are also familiar to us, and in connexion with the passage which describes that wonderful event, we may mention one which occurs in the splendid prayer of Habakkuk (iii. 8): "Was the Lord displeased against the rivers? was Thine anger against the rivers? was Thy wrath against the sea, that Thou didst ride upon Thine horses and Thy chariots of salvation?"

By degrees the chariot came to be used for peaceful purposes, and was employed as our carriages of the present day, in carrying persons of wealth. That this was the case in Egypt from very early times is evident from Gen. xli. 43, in which we are told that after Pharaoh had taken Joseph out of prison and raised him to be next in rank to himself, the king caused him to ride in the second chariot which he had, and so to be proclaimed ruler over Egypt. Many years afterwards we find him travelling in his chariot to the land of Goshen, whither he went to meet Jacob and to conduct him to the presence of Pharaoh.

At first the chariot seems to have been too valuable to the Israelites to have been used for any purpose except war, and it is not until a comparatively late time that we find it employed as a carriage, and even then it is only used by the noble and wealthy. Absalom had such chariots, but it is evident that he used them for purposes of state, and as appendages of his regal rank. Chariots or carriages were, however, afterwards employed by the Israelites as freely as by the Egyptians, from whom they were originally procured; and accordingly we find Rehoboam mounting his chariot and fleeing to Jerusalem, Ahab riding in his chariot from Samaria to Jezreel, with Elijah running before him; and in the New Testament we read of the chariot in which sat the chief eunuch of Ethiopia whom Philip baptized (Acts viii. 28).

As to the precise form and character of these chariots, they are made familiar to us by the sculptures and paintings of Egypt and Assyria, from both of which countries the Jews procured the vehicles. Differing very slightly in shape, the principle of the chariot was the same; and it strikes us with some surprise that the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Jews, the three wealthiest and most powerful nations of the world, should not have invented a better carriage. They lavished the costliest materials and the most artistic skill in decorating the chariots, but had no idea of making them comfortable for the occupants.

They were nothing but semicircular boxes on wheels, and of very small size. They were hung very low, so that the occupants could step in and out without trouble, though they do not seem to have had the sloping floor of the Greek or Roman chariot. They had no springs, but, in order to render the jolting of the carriage less disagreeable, the floor was made of a sort of network of leathern ropes, very tightly stretched so as to be elastic. The wheels were always two in number, and generally had six spokes.

To the side of the chariot was attached the case which contained the bow and quiver of arrows, and in the case of a rich man these bow-cases were covered with gold and silver, and adorned with figures of lions and other animals. Should the chariot be intended for two persons, two bow-cases were fastened to it, the one crossing the other. The spear had also its tubular case, in which it was kept upright, like the whip of a modern carriage.

Two Horses were generally used with each chariot, though three were sometimes employed. They were harnessed very simply, having no traces, and being attached to the central pole by a breast-band, a very slight saddle, and a loose girth. On their heads were generally fixed ornaments, such as tufts of feathers, and similar decorations, and tassels hung to the harness served to drive away the flies. Round the neck of each Horse passed a strap, to the end of which was attached a bell. This ornament is mentioned in Zech. xiv. 20: "In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness unto the Lord"-i.e. the greeting of peace shall be on the bells of the animals once used in war.

Sometimes the owner drove his own chariot, even when going into battle, but the usual plan was to have a driver, who managed the Horses while the owner or occupant could fight with both his hands at liberty. In case he drove his own Horse, the reins passed round his waist, and the whip was fastened to the wrist by a thong, so that when the charioteer used the bow, his principal weapon, he could do so without danger of losing his whip.

Thus much for the use of the chariot in war; we have now the Horse as the animal ridden by the cavalry.

As was the case with the chariot, the war-horse was not employed by the Jews until a comparatively late period of their history. They had been familiarized with cavalry during their long sojourn in Egypt, and in the course of their war of conquest had often suffered defeat from the horsemen of the enemy. But we do not find any mention of a mounted force as forming part of the Jewish army until the days of David, although after that time the successive kings possessed large forces of cavalry.

Many references to mounted soldiers are made by the prophets, sometimes allegorically, sometimes metaphorically. See, for example, Jer. vi. 23: "They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion." The same prophet has a similar passage in chap. l. 42, couched in almost precisely the same words. And in chap. xlvi. 4, there is a further reference to the cavalry, which is specially valuable as mentioning the weapons used by them. The first call of the prophet is to the infantry: "Order ye the buckler and shield, and draw near to battle" (verse 3); and then follows the command to the cavalry, "Harness the horses; and get up, ye horsemen, and stand forth with your helmets; furbish the spears, and put on the brigandines." The chief arms of the Jewish soldier were therefore the cuirass, the helmet, and the lance, the weapons which in all ages, and in all countries, have been found to be peculiarly suitable to the horse-soldier.

* * *

Being desirous of affording the reader a pictorial representation of the war and state chariots, I have selected Egypt as the typical country of the former, and Assyria of the latter. Both drawings have been executed with the greatest care in details, every one of which, even to the harness of the Horses, the mode of holding the reins, the form of the whip, and the offensive and defensive armour, has been copied from the ancient records of Egypt and Nineveh.

We will first take the war-chariot of Egypt.

This form has been selected as the type of the war-chariot, because the earliest account of such a force mentions the war-chariots of Egypt, and because, after the Israelites had adopted chariots as an acknowledged part of their army, the vehicles, as well as the trained Horses, and probably their occupants, were procured from Egypt.

The scene represents a battle between the imperial forces and a revolted province, so that the reader may have the opportunity of seeing the various kinds of weapons and armour which were in use in Egypt at the time of Joseph. In the foreground is the chariot of the general, driven at headlong speed, the Horses at full gallop, and the springless chariot leaping off the ground as the Horses bound along. The royal rank of the general in question is shown by the feather fan which denotes his high birth, and which is fixed in a socket at the back of his chariot, much as a coachman fixes his whip. The rank of the rider is further shown by the feather plumes on the heads of his Horses.

EGYPTIAN WAR-CHARIOTS.

"Come up, ye horses; and rage, ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth."-Jer. xlvi. 9.

"The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the prancing horses, and of the jumping chariots."-Nahum iii. 2.

"Like the noise of chariots ... shall they leap."-Joel ii. 5.

By the side of the chariot are seen the quiver and bow-case, the former being covered with decorations, and having the figure of a recumbent lion along its sides. The simple but effective harness of the Horses is especially worthy of notice, as showing how the ancients knew, better than the moderns, that to cover a Horse with a complicated apparatus of straps and metal only deteriorates from the powers of the animal, and that a Horse is more likely to behave well if he can see freely on all sides, than if all lateral vision be cut off by the use of blinkers.

Just behind the general is the chariot of another officer, one of whose Horses has been struck, and is lying struggling on the ground. The general is hastily giving his orders as he dashes past the fallen animal. On the ground are lying the bodies of some slain enemies, and the Horses are snorting and shaking their heads, significative of their unwillingness to trample on a human being. By the side of the dead man are his shield, bow, and quiver, and it is worthy of notice that the form of these weapons, as depicted upon the ancient Egyptian monuments, is identical with that which is still found among several half-savage tribes of Africa.

In the background is seen the fight raging round the standards. One chief has been killed, and while the infantry are pressing round the body of the rebel leader and his banner on one side, on the other the imperial chariots are thundering along to support the attack, and are driving their enemies before them. In the distance are seen the clouds of dust whirled into the air by the hoofs and wheels, and circling in clouds by the eddies caused by the fierce rush of the vehicles, thus illustrating the passage in Jer. iv. 13: "Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled." The reader will see, by reference to the illustration, how wonderfully true and forcible is this statement, the writer evidently having been an eye-witness of the scene which he so powerfully depicts.

* * *

The second scene is intentionally chosen as affording a strong contrast to the former. Here, instead of the furious rush, the galloping Horses, the chariots leaping off the ground, the archers bending their bows, and all imbued with the fierce ardour of battle, we have a scene of quiet grandeur, the Assyrian king making a solemn progress in his chariot after a victory, accompanied by his attendants, and surrounded by his troops, in all the placid splendour of Eastern state.

Chief object in the illustration stands the great king in his chariot, wearing the regal crown, or mitre, and sheltered from the sun by the umbrella, which in ancient Nineveh, as in more modern times, was the emblem of royalty. By his side is his charioteer, evidently a man of high rank, holding the reins in a business-like manner; and in front marches the shield-bearer. In one of the sculptures from which this Illustration was composed, the shield-bearer was clearly a man of rank, fat, fussy, full of importance, and evidently a portrait of some well-known individual.

ASSYRIAN CHARIOT OF STATE.

"Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots."-Jer. xvii. 25.

The Horses are harnessed with remarkable lightness, but they bear the gorgeous trappings which befit the rank of the rider, their heads being decorated with the curious successive plumes with which the Assyrian princes distinguished their chariot Horses, and the breast-straps being adorned with tassels, repeated in successive rows like the plumes of the head.

The reader will probably notice the peculiar high action of the Horses. This accomplishment seems to have been even more valued among the ancients than by ourselves, and some of the sculptures show the Horses with their knees almost touching their noses. Of course the artist exaggerated the effect that he wanted to produce; but the very fact of the exaggeration shows the value that was set on a high and showy action in a Horse that was attached to a chariot of state. The old Assyrian sculptors knew the Horse well, and delineated it in a most spirited and graphic style, though they treated it rather conventionally. The variety of attitude is really wonderful, considering that all the figures are profile views, as indeed seemed to have been a law of the historical sculptures.

* * *

Before closing this account of the Horse, it may be as well to remark the singular absence of detail in the Scriptural accounts. Of the other domesticated animals many such details are given, but of the Horse we hear but little, except in connexion with war. There are few exceptions to this rule, and even the oft-quoted passage in Job, which goes deeper into the character of the Horse than any other portion of the Scriptures, only considers the Horse as an auxiliary in battle. We miss the personal interest in the animal which distinguishes the many references to the ox, the sheep, and the goat; and it is remarkable that even in the Book of Proverbs, which is so rich in references to various animals, very little is said of the Horse.

THE ASS.

Importance of the Ass in the East-Its general use for the saddle-Riding the Ass not a mark of humility-The triumphal entry-White Asses-Character of the Scriptural Ass-Saddling the Ass-The Ass used in agriculture-The Ass's millstone-The water-wheel and the plough-Reminiscences of the Ass in the Scriptural narrative-Its value as property-The flesh of the Ass-The siege of Samaria and its horrors-Various legends respecting the Ass-The impostor and his fate-Samson and Balaam.

In the Scriptures we read of two breeds of Ass, namely, the Domesticated and the Wild Ass. As the former is the more important of the two, we will give it precedence.

* * *

In the East, the Ass has always played a much more important part than among us Westerns, and on that account we find it so frequently mentioned in the Bible. In the first place, it is the universal saddle-animal of the East. Among us the Ass has ceased to be regularly used for the purposes of the saddle, and is only casually employed by holiday-makers and the like. Some persons certainly ride it habitually, but they almost invariably belong to the lower orders, and are content to ride without a saddle, balancing themselves in some extraordinary manner just over the animal's tail. In the East, however, it is ridden by persons of the highest rank, and is decorated with saddle and harness as rich as those of the horse.

In England we should be very much surprised to see a royal prince, a judge, or a bishop travelling habitually on a donkey, but in Palestine it is just the animal which would be considered most appropriate for the purpose. For example, we find that Abraham, an exceptionally wealthy man, and a chief of high position, made use of the Ass for the saddle. It was on an Ass that he travelled when he made his three days' journey from Beersheba to Moriah, when he was called to prove his faith by sacrificing Isaac (see Gen. xxii. 3).

Then in Judges x. 3, 4, we find that riding upon the Ass is actually mentioned as a mark of high rank.

"And after him arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty and two years.

"And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead." So here we have the curious fact, that the sacred historian thinks it worth while to mention that great men, the sons of the chief man of Israel, each of them being ruler over a city, rode upon Ass colts. In the same book, xii. 13, 14, we have a similar record of Abdon, the judge who preceded Samson.

"After him Abdon the son of Hillel, a Pirathonite, judged Israel.

"And he had forty sons and thirty nephews" (or grandsons according to some translators) "that rode on threescore and ten ass colts: and he judged Israel eight years."

Thus we see that, so far from the use of the Ass as a saddle-animal being a mark of humility, it ought to be viewed in precisely the opposite light. In consequence of the very natural habit of reading, according to Western ideas, the Scriptures, which are books essentially Oriental in all their allusions and tone of thought, many persons have entirely perverted the sense of one very familiar passage, the prophecy of Zechariah concerning the future Messiah. "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (Zech. ix. 9).

Now this passage, as well as the one which describes its fulfilment so many years afterwards, has often been seized upon as a proof of the meekness and lowliness of our Saviour, in riding upon so humble an animal when He made His entry into Jerusalem. The fact is, that there was no humility in the case, neither was the act so understood by the people. He rode upon an Ass as any prince or ruler would have done who was engaged on a peaceful journey, the horse being reserved for war purposes. He rode on the Ass, and not on the horse, because He was the Prince of Peace and not of war, as indeed is shown very clearly in the context. For, after writing the words which have just been quoted, Zechariah proceeds as follows (ver. 10): "And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and He shall speak peace unto the heathen: and His dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth."

Meek and lowly was He, as became the new character, hitherto unknown to the warlike and restless Jews, a Prince, not of war, as had been all other celebrated kings, but of peace. Had He come as the Jews expected-despite so many prophecies-their Messiah to come, as a great king and conqueror, He might have ridden the war-horse, and been surrounded with countless legions of armed men. But He came as the herald of peace, and not of war; and, though meek and lowly, yet a Prince, riding as became a prince, on an Ass colt which had borne no inferior burden.

That the act was not considered as one of lowliness is evident from the manner in which it was received by the people, accepting Him as the Son of David, coming in the name of the Highest, and greeting Him with the cry of "Hosanna!" ("Save us now,") quoted from verses 25, 26 of Ps. cxviii.: "Save now, I beseech Thee, O Lord: O Lord, I beseech Thee, send now prosperity."

"Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord."

The palm-branches which they strewed upon the road were not chosen by the attendant crowd merely as a means of doing honour to Him whom they acknowledged as the Son of David. They were necessarily connected with the cry of "Hosanna!" At the Feast of Tabernacles, it was customary for the people to assemble with branches of palms and willows in their hands, and for one of the priests to recite the Great Hallel, i.e. Ps. cxiii. and cxviii. At certain intervals, the people responded with the cry of "Hosanna!" waving at the same time their palm-branches. For the whole of the seven days through which the feast lasted they repeated their Hosannas, always accompanying the shout with the waving of palm-branches, and setting them towards the altar as they went in procession round it.

Every child who could hold a palm-branch was expected to take part in the solemnity, just as did the children on the occasion of the triumphal entry. By degrees, the name of Hosanna was transferred to the palm-branches themselves, as well as to the feast, the last day being called the Great Hosanna.

The reader will now see the importance of this carrying of palm-branches, accompanied with Hosannas, and that those who used them in honour of Him whom they followed into Jerusalem had no idea that He was acting any lowly part.

Again, the action of the disciples in putting their mantles on the Ass, and setting their Master upon them, was one that signified their acknowledgment of Him as their Prince; and the same idea was typified by the laying of the clothes upon the road, together with the palm-branches. Compare also the passage in 2 Kings ix. 13. When Elisha sent the young prophet to call Jehu from among the council, and to anoint him King of Israel, the act of anointing was performed in a private chamber. Jehu, scarcely realizing the import of the act, seemed to think it a trick played upon him by some of his companions, the commanding officers of the army. When, however, they heard his account of the interview with the prophet, they at once accepted him as their king, and, as token thereof, "they hasted, and took every man his garment, and put it under him at the top of the stairs, and blew with trumpets, saying, Jehu is king."

White Asses were selected for persons of high rank, especially for those who exercised the office of judges. See Judges v. 10: "Speak, ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit in judgment, and walk by the way." Such Asses are still in use for similar purposes, and are bred expressly for the use of persons of rank. They are larger, and are thought to be swifter, than the ordinary breeds; but they are by no means hardy animals, and are said to be unsuitable for places near the sea-coast.

Both sexes used the Ass for riding, as they do now in the East. See for example Judges i. 14, where we find that Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, rode on an Ass when she went to ask her father to give her some springs of water, in addition to the land which he had previously given her as a dowry. Later in the Scriptural history we read that Abigail, the wife of the wealthy churl Nabal, rode to meet David on an Ass, when she went to deprecate his anger against her husband (1 Sam. xxv. 23). And, still later, the woman of Shunem, who acted so hospitably towards Elisha, rode on an Ass to meet him when her child had died from sunstroke in the field (see 2 Kings iv. 24).

Now all these women were of high rank, and certainly neither of them would have considered that riding on an Ass was an act of humility. We will cite them in succession, and begin with Achsah. She was the daughter of one of the most illustrious of the Israelites, a man of whom we read as being almost the equal of Joshua, one of the illustrious two who were included in the special exemption from the punishment of rebellion. Moreover, Caleb was a man of enormous territorial possessions, as we find from several passages in the Old Testament; a man who was able to give to his daughter not only a large amount of land as a dowry, but also the wells or springs which multiplied its value tenfold.

Next we come to the case of Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who himself belonged to the family of Caleb, and probably owed his wealth simply to the accident of his birth. It is related of Nabal, that his "possessions were in Carmel, and the man was very great, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats." Yet his wife, who undoubtedly ruled her household as a housewife should do, and who was thought worthy of becoming David's wife after the death of her cowardly husband, rode on an Ass when she went on a mission in which life and death were involved.

And lastly, the woman of Shunem, who rode on an Ass to meet Elisha, engaged in a mission in which the life of her only child was involved, was a woman of great wealth (2 Kings iv. 8), who was able not only to receive the prophet, but to build a chamber, and furnish it for him.

Not to multiply examples, we see from these passages that the Ass of the East was held in comparatively high estimation, being used for the purposes of the saddle, just as would a high-bred horse among ourselves.

Consequently, the Ass is really a different animal. In this country he is repressed, and seldom has an opportunity for displaying the intellectual powers which he possesses, and which are of a much higher order than is generally imagined. It is rather remarkable, that when we wish to speak slightingly of intellect we liken the individual to an Ass or a goose, not knowing that we have selected just the quadruped and the bird which are least worthy of such a distinction.

Putting aside the bird, as being at present out of place, we shall find that the Ass is one of the cleverest of our domesticated animals. We are apt to speak of the horse with a sort of reverence, and of the Ass with contemptuous pity, not knowing that, of the two animals, the Ass is by far the superior in point of intellect. It has been well remarked by a keen observer of nature, that if four or five horses are in a field, together with one Ass, and there be an assailable point in the fence, the Ass is sure to be the animal that discovers it, and leads the way through it.

SYRIAN ASSES.

"A bridle for the ass."-Prov. xxvi.

Take even one of our own toil-worn animals, turned out in a common to graze, and see the ingenuity which it displays when persecuted by the idle boys who generally frequent such places, and who try to ride every beast that is within their reach. It seems to divine at once the object of the boy as he steals up to it, and he takes a pleasure in baffling him just as he fancies that he has succeeded in his attempt.

Should the Ass be kindly treated, there is not an animal that proves more docile, or even affectionate. Stripes and kicks it resents, and sets itself distinctly against them; and, being nothing but a slave, it follows the slavish principle of doing no work that it can possibly avoid.

Now, in the East the Ass takes so much higher rank than our own animal, that its whole demeanour and gait are different from those displayed by the generality of its brethren in England. "Why, the very slave of slaves," writes Mr. Lowth, in his "Wanderer in Arabia," "the crushed and grief-stricken, is so no more in Egypt: the battered drudge has become the willing servant. Is that active little fellow, who, with race-horse coat and full flanks, moves under his rider with the light step and the action of a pony-is he the same animal as that starved and head-bowed object of the North, subject for all pity and cruelty, and clothed with rags and insult?

"Look at him now. On he goes, rapid and free, with his small head well up, and as gay as a crimson saddle and a bridle of light chains and red leather can make him. It was a gladdening sight to see the unfortunate as a new animal in Egypt."

Hardy animal as is the Ass, it is not well adapted for tolerance of cold, and seems to degenerate in size, strength, speed, and spirit in proportion as the climate becomes colder. Whether it might equal the horse in its endurance of cold provided that it were as carefully treated, is perhaps a doubtful point; but it is a well-known fact that the horse does not necessarily degenerate by moving towards a colder climate, though the Ass has always been found to do so.

There is, of course, a variety in the treatment which the Ass receives even in the East. Signor Pierotti, whose work on the customs and traditions of Palestine has already been mentioned, writes in very glowing terms of the animal. He states that he formed a very high opinion of the Ass while he was in Egypt, not only from its spirited aspect and its speed, but because it was employed even by the Viceroy and the great Court officers, who may be said to use Asses of more or less intelligence for every occasion. He even goes so far as to say that, if all the Asses were taken away from Egypt, not a man would be left.

The same traveller gives an admirable summary of the character of the Ass, as it exists in Egypt and Palestine. "What, then, are the characteristics of the ass? Much the same as those which adorn it in other parts of the East-namely, it is useful for riding and for carrying burdens; it is sensible of kindness, and shows gratitude; it is very steady, and is larger, stronger, and more tractable than its European congener; its pace is easy and pleasant; and it will shrink from no labour, if only its poor daily feed of straw and barley is fairly given.

"If well and liberally supplied, it is capable of any enterprise, and wears an altered and dignified mien, apparently forgetful of its extraction, except when undeservedly beaten by its masters, who, however, are not so much to be blamed, because, having learned to live among sticks, thongs, and rods, they follow the same system of education with their miserable dependants.

"The wealthy feed him well, deck him with fine harness and silver trappings, and cover him, when his work is done, with rich Persian carpets. The poor do the best they can for him, steal for his benefit, give him a corner at their fireside, and in cold weather sleep with him for more warmth. In Palestine, all the rich men, whether monarchs or chiefs of villages, possess a number of asses, keeping them with their flocks, like the patriarchs of old. No one can travel in that country, and observe how the ass is employed for all purposes, without being struck with the exactness with which the Arabs retain the Hebrew customs."

The result of this treatment is, that the Eastern Ass is an enduring and tolerably swift animal, vying with the camel itself in its powers of long-continued travel, its usual pace being a sort of easy canter. On rough ground, or up an ascent, it is said even to gain on the horse, probably because its little sharp hoofs give it a firm footing where the larger hoof of the horse is liable to slip.

The familiar term "saddling the Ass" requires some little explanation.

The saddle is not in the least like the article which we know by that name, but is very large and complicated in structure. Over the animal's back is first spread a cloth, made of thick woollen stuff, and folded several times. The saddle itself is a very thick pad of straw, covered with carpet, and flat at the top, instead of being rounded as is the case with our saddles. The pommel is very high, and when the rider is seated on it, he is perched high above the back of the animal. Over the saddle is thrown a cloth or carpet, always of bright colours, and varying in costliness of material and ornament according to the wealth of the possessor. It is mostly edged with a fringe and tassels.

The bridle is decorated, like that of the horse, with bells, embroidery, tassels, shells, and other ornaments. An example of the headstall worn by an Ass belonging to a wealthy man may be seen in the illustration.

As we may see from 2 Kings iv. 24, the Ass was generally guided by a driver who ran behind it, just as is the custom with the hired Asses in this country. Owing to the unchanging character of the East, there is no doubt that the "riders on asses" of the Scriptures rode exactly after the mode which is adopted at the present day. What that mode is, we may learn from Mr. Bayard Taylor's amusing and vivid description of a ride through the streets of Cairo:-

"To see Cairo thoroughly, one must first accustom himself to the ways of these long-eared cabs, without the use of which I would advise no one to trust himself in the bazaars. Donkey-riding is universal, and no one thinks of going beyond the Frank quarters on foot. If he does, he must submit to be followed by not less than six donkeys with their drivers. A friend of mine who was attended by such a cavalcade for two hours, was obliged to yield at last, and made no second attempt. When we first appeared in the gateway of an hotel, equipped for an excursion, the rush of men and animals was so great that we were forced to retreat until our servant and the porter whipped us a path through the yelling and braying mob. After one or two trials I found an intelligent Arab boy named Kish, who for five piastres a day furnished strong and ambitious donkeys, which he kept ready at the door from morning till night. The other drivers respected Kish's privilege, and henceforth I had no trouble.

"The donkeys are so small that my feet nearly touched the ground, but there is no end to their strength and endurance. Their gait, whether in pace or in gallop, is so easy and light that fatigue is impossible. The drivers take great pride in having high-cushioned red saddles, and in hanging bits of jingling brass to the bridles. They keep their donkeys close shorn, and frequently beautify them by painting them various colours. The first animal I rode had legs barred like a zebra's, and my friend's rejoiced in purple flanks and a yellow belly. The drivers ran behind them with a short stick, punching them from time to time, or giving them a sharp pinch on the rump. Very few of them own their donkeys, and I understood their pertinacity when I learned that they frequently received a beating on returning home empty-handed.

"The passage of the bazaars seems at first quite as hazardous on donkey-back as on foot; but it is the difference between knocking somebody down and being knocked down yourself, and one certainly prefers the former alternative. There is no use in attempting to guide the donkey, for he won't be guided. The driver shouts behind, and you are dashed at full speed into a confusion of other donkeys, camels, horses, carts, water-carriers, and footmen. In vain you cry out 'Bess' (enough), 'Piacco,' and other desperate adjurations; the driver's only reply is: 'Let the bridle hang loose!' You dodge your head under a camel-load of planks; your leg brushes the wheel of a dust-cart; you strike a fat Turk plump in the back; you miraculously escape upsetting a fruit-stand; you scatter a company of spectral, white-masked women; and at last reach some more quiet street, with the sensations of a man who has stormed a battery.

"At first this sort of riding made me very nervous, but presently I let the donkey go his own way, and took a curious interest in seeing how near a chance I ran of striking or being struck. Sometimes there seemed no hope of avoiding a violent collision; but, by a series of the most remarkable dodges, he generally carried you through in safety. The cries of the driver running behind gave me no little amusement. 'The hawadji comes! Take care on the right hand! Take care on the left hand! O man, take care! O maiden, take care! O boy, get out of the way! The hawadji comes!' Kish had strong lungs, and his donkey would let nothing pass him; and so wherever we went we contributed our full share to the universal noise and confusion."

This description explains several allusions which are made in the Scriptures to treading down the enemies in the streets, and to the chariots raging and jostling against each other in the ways.

The Ass was used in the olden time for carrying burdens, as it is at present, and, in all probability, carried them in the same way. Sacks and bundles are tied firmly to the pack-saddle; but poles, planks, and objects of similar shape are tied in a sloping direction on the side of the saddle, the longer ends trailing on the ground, and the shorter projecting at either side of the animal's head. The North American Indians carry the poles of their huts, or wigwams, in precisely the same way, tying them on either side of their horses, and making them into rude sledges, upon which are fastened the skins that form the walls of their huts. The same system of carriage is also found among the Esquimaux, and the hunters of the extreme North, who harness their dogs in precisely the same manner. The Ass, thus laden, becomes a very unpleasant passenger through the narrow and crowded streets of an Oriental city; and many an unwary traveller has found reason to remember the description of Issachar as the strong Ass between two burdens.

The Ass was also used for agriculture, and was employed in the plough, as we find from many passages. See for example, "Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass" (Isa. xxxii. 20). Sowing beside the waters is a custom that still prevails in all hot countries, the margins of rivers being tilled, while outside this cultivated belt there is nothing but desert ground.

The ox and the Ass were used in the first place for irrigation, turning the machines by which water was lifted from the river, and poured into the trenches which conveyed it to all parts of the tilled land. If, as is nearly certain, the rude machinery of the East is at the present day identical with those which were used in the old Scriptural times, they were yoked to the machine in rather an ingenious manner. The machine consists of an upright pivot, and to it is attached the horizontal pole to which the ox or Ass is harnessed. A machine exactly similar in principle may be seen in almost any brick-field in England; but the ingenious part of the Eastern water-machine is the mode in which the animal is made to believe that it is being driven by its keeper, whereas the man in question might be at a distance, or fast asleep.

The animal is first blindfolded, and then yoked to the end of the horizontal bar. Fixed to the pivot, and rather in front of the bar, is one end of a slight and elastic strip of wood. The projecting end, being drawn forward and tied to the bridle of the animal, keeps up a continual pull, and makes the blinded animal believe that it is being drawn forward by the hand of a driver. Some ingenious but lazy attendants have even invented a sort of self-acting whip, i.e. a stick which is lifted and allowed to fall on the animal's back by the action of the wheel once every round.

The field being properly supplied with water, the Ass is used for ploughing it. It is worthy of mention that at the present day the prohibition against yoking an ox and an Ass together is often disregarded. The practice, however, is not a judicious one, as the slow and heavy ox does not act well with the lighter and more active animal, and, moreover, is apt to butt at its companion with its horns in order to stimulate it to do more than its fair proportion of the work.

That the Ass was put to a similar use in turning the large millstones may be seen from Matt. xviii. 6. In the Authorized Version, the passage is rendered thus: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Now if we turn to the Greek Testament we find that the passage reads rather differently, a force being giving to it which it does not possess in the translation: "But whosoever shall scandalize [i.e. be a stumbling-block to] one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that an ass's millstone were hung about his neck, and he were sunk in the depth of the sea." The chief force of this saying lies in the word which is omitted in our translation. Our Lord specially selected the Ass's millstone on account of its size and weight, in contradistinction to the ordinary millstone, which was turned backwards and forwards by the hands of women.

There is a custom now in Palestine which probably existed in the days of the Scriptures, though I have not been able to find any reference to it. Whenever an Ass is disobedient and strays from its master, the man who captures the trespasser on his grounds clips a piece out of its ear before he returns it to its owner. Each time that the animal is caught on forbidden grounds it receives a fresh clip of the ear. By looking at the ears of an Ass, therefore, any one can tell whether it has ever been a straggler; and if so, he knows the number of times that it has strayed, by merely counting the clip-marks, which always begin at the tip of the ear, and extend along the edges. Any Ass, no matter how handsome it may be, that has many of those clips, is always rejected by experienced travellers, as it is sure to be a dull as well as a disobedient beast.

Signor Pierotti remarks that if the owners of the Asses were treated similarly for similar offences, the greater number would be marked as soon as they begin to walk, and of the adults there would be scarcely one who had any ear on his head.

The Ass being so universally useful, we need not be surprised at the prominence which it takes in the Scriptural narrative, and the frequency with which its name occurs. The wealthy personages of the olden time seemed to have esteemed the Ass as highly as the camel, the ox, the sheep, or the goat. Abraham, for example, is described as being a rich man, and possessing "sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels" (Gen. xii. 16). In a succeeding chapter (xxx. 43) the prosperity of Jacob is mentioned in almost exactly the same terms.

So, before Job's trials came upon him, "his substance was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen [i.e. 1,000], and five hundred she-asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east" (Job i. 3). And after his trials, when his wealth was restored to him twofold, the thousand she-asses are mentioned as prominently as the thousand yoke of oxen.

That the care of the Asses was an honourable post we learn from several passages. Take for example Gen. xxxvi. 24: "And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father." The charge of the Asses was, as the reader must see, a post of sufficient honour and importance to be trusted to the son of the owner. A similar case is recorded in the well-known instance of Saul, whose father had lost his herd of Asses, and who at once sent his son upon the important mission of recovering them. And it was during the fulfilment of this mission that he was anointed the first king of Israel.

Later in the sacred history we find that when David consolidated his power, and organized the affairs of his new kingdom, he divided the people in general, the army, the land, the produce, and the cattle, into departments, and appointed over each department some eminent man whose name is carefully given. After mentioning that the people and the army were divided into "courses," and that certain officers were set over each course, the sacred historian proceeds to state that one officer was appointed as overseer of the treasury, another of the granaries, another of the field-labourers, another over the vineyards, and so forth. He then mentions that even the cattle were divided into their several departments, the care of the hill-cattle being given to one man, and of the cattle of the plain to another, of the camels to a third, and of the Asses to a fourth.

It is scarcely necessary to mention that the flesh of the Ass was forbidden to the Jews, because the animal neither chewed the cud nor divided the hoof. How repulsive to them must have been the flesh of the Ass we may infer from the terrible description of the siege of Samaria by Benhadad. The sacred historian describes with painful fidelity the horrors of the siege, and of the dreadful extremity to which the people were reduced. No circumstance could be more terrible than the quarrel between the two mothers, who had mutually agreed to kill and eat their children, and yet on a par with that dreadful statement is mentioned the fact that even the flesh of the Ass was eaten, and that an Ass's head cost eighty pieces of silver.

Whether the milk of the she Ass were used or not is rather a doubtful point, but, in all probability, the milk was considered as lawful food, though the flesh might not be eaten.

As to the legends respecting the Ass, they are innumerable, and I shall only mention one or two of them.

The first is an old Rabbinical legend respecting the Flood and the admission of the creatures into the ark. It appears that no being could enter the ark unless specially invited to do so by Noah. Now when the Flood came, and overwhelmed the world, the devil, who was at that time wandering upon the earth, saw that he was about to be cut off from contact from mankind, and that his dominion would be for ever gone. The ark being at last completed, and the beasts called to enter it in their proper order, the turn of the Ass came in due course.

Unfortunately for the welfare of mankind, the Ass was taken with a fit of obstinacy, and refused to enter the vessel according to orders. After wasting much time over the obstinate animal, Noah at last lost patience, and struck the Ass sharply, crying at the same time to it, "Enter, thou devil!" Of course the invitation was at once accepted, the devil entered the ark, and on the subsiding of the water issued out to take his place in the newly begun world.

* * *

Since the Christian era, many curious legends have sprung up respecting the Ass. One of the most familiar of these legends refers to the black stripe along the spine and the cross-bar over the shoulder. This black cross is really believed by many persons to have been given to the animal in consequence of its connexion with our Lord. I need hardly tell the reader that it is the remnant of the stripes which in the zebra cover the animal from head to foot, which in the quagga cover the head, body, and part of the limbs, and which in one species of Wild Ass are not seen at all in the adult animal.

There is another Christian legend respecting the Ass of Palestine, which is thought to owe its superiority in size, swiftness, and strength to the fact that it helped to warm the infant Saviour in the manger, that it carried Him and His mother into Egypt and back again, and that it was used by the Lord himself and His disciples. Any one who ventures to hint that the Ass of Palestine owes its superiority over its European brother to the warmer climate, is thought to be a heretic by the pious but ignorant men who believe and disseminate such legends.

Signor Pierotti tells a story of a certain Russian monk who happened to visit Palestine, and in the course of his travels found the leg-bone of an Ass, which he took back with him and publicly exhibited as part of the identical animal on which the Virgin Mary and infant Saviour rode. (I need scarcely mention that there is no mention in the Scriptures of the fact that the Holy Family rode upon an Ass; though such a mode of travel was certainly the one which they would adopt.) For some time, this deception drew for the impostor many gifts from the superstitious but pious people, but the affair at last reached the ears of his superiors, and he paid the deserved penalty of his trickery.

There are recorded in the Scriptures two remarkable circumstances connected with the Ass, which, however, need but a few words. The first is the journey of Balaam from Pethor to Moab, in the course of which there occurred that singular incident of the Ass speaking in human language (see Numb. xxii. 21, 35). The second is the well-known episode in the story of Samson, where he is recorded as breaking the cords with which his enemies had bound him, and killing a thousand Philistines with the fresh jaw-bone of an Ass.

THE WILD ASS.

The Arod and Pere of Scripture-Various allusions to the Wild Ass-Its swiftness and wildness-The Wild Ass of Asia and Africa-Knowledge of the animal displayed by the sacred writers-How the Wild Ass is hunted-Excellence of its flesh-Sir R. K. Porter's meeting with a Wild Ass-Origin of the domestic Ass-The Wild Asses of Quito.

There are several passages of Scripture in which the Wild Ass is distinguished from the domesticated animal, and in all of them there is some reference made to its swiftness, its intractable nature, and love of freedom.

In the Hebrew Scriptures there are two words which are given in the Authorized Translation as Wild Ass, namely, Arod and Pere, and it is rather remarkable that both words occur in the same passage. If the reader will refer to Job xxxix. 5, he will see the following passage: "Who hath sent out the wild ass (Pere) free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass (Arod)?" Now there are only two places in the whole Hebrew Scriptures in which the word Arod occurs, and there are many doubts whether the word Arod is rightly translated. The first is that which has just been quoted, and the second occurs in Dan. v. 21: "And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses."

The Jewish Bible translates the word differently in the two passages. That in Job it renders as follows: "Who hath sent forth the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the untamed?" In the other passage, however, it follows the rendering of the Authorized Version, and gives the word as "wild asses." It is thought by several scholars that the two words refer to two different species of Wild Ass. It may be so, but as the ancient writers had the loosest possible ideas regarding distinction of species, and as, moreover, it is very doubtful whether there be any real distinction of species at all, we may allow the subject to rest, merely remembering that the rendering of the Jewish Bible, "the untamed," is a correct translation of the word Arod, though the particular animal to which it is applied may be doubtful.

We will now pass to the word about which there is no doubt whatever, namely, the Pere. This animal is clearly the species which is scientifically known as Asinus hemippus. During the summer time it has a distinct reddish tinge on the grey coat, which disappears in the winter, and the cross-streak is black. There are several kinds of Wild Ass known to science, all of which have different names. Some of our best zoologists, however, have come to the conclusion that they all really belong to the same species, differing only in slight points of structure which are insufficient to constitute separate species.

The habits of the Wild Ass are the same, whether it be the Asiatic or the African animal, and a description of one will answer equally well for the other. It is an astonishingly swift animal, so that on the level ground even the best horse has scarcely a chance of overtaking it. It is exceedingly wary, its sight, hearing, and sense of scent being equally keen, so that to approach it by craft is a most difficult task.

Like many other wild animals, it has a custom of ascending hills or rising grounds, and thence surveying the country, and even in the plains it will generally contrive to discover some earth-mound or heap of sand from which it may act as sentinel and give the alarm in case of danger. It is a gregarious animal, always assembling in herds, varying from two or three to several hundred in number, and has a habit of partial migration in search of green food, traversing large tracts of country in its passage.

It has a curiously intractable disposition, and, even when captured very young, can scarcely ever be brought to bear a burden or draw a vehicle. Attempts have been often made to domesticate the young that have been born in captivity, but with very slight success, the wild nature of the animal constantly breaking out, even when it appears to have become moderately tractable.

Although the Wild Ass does not seem to have lived within the limits of the Holy Land, it was common enough in the surrounding country, and, from the frequent references made to it in Scriptures, was well known to the ancient Jews. We will now look at the various passages in which the Wild Ass is mentioned, and begin with the splendid description in Job xxxix. 5-8:

"Who hath sent out the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?

"Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the barren lands (or salt places) his dwellings.

"He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver.

"The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he searcheth after every green thing."

Here we have the animal described with the minuteness and truth of detail that can only be found in personal knowledge; its love of freedom, its avoidance of mankind, and its migration in search of pasture. Another allusion to the pasture-seeking habits of the animal is to be found in chapter vi. of the same book, verse 5: "Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass?" or, according to the version of the Jewish Bible, "over tender grass?"

The same author has several other allusions to the Wild Ass. See, for example, chap. xi. 12: "For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt." And in chap. xxiv. 5, in speaking of the wicked and their doings, he uses the following metaphor: "Behold, as wild asses in the desert, go they forth to their work; rising betimes for a prey: the wilderness yieldeth food for them and their children," or for the young, as the passage may be more literally rendered. The same migratory habit is also mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah (chap. xiv. 6): "And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass." There is another allusion to it in Hosea viii. 9: "For they are gone up to Assyria, a wild ass alone by himself."

THE WILD ASS.

"As wild asses in the desert go they forth."-Job xxiv. 5.

Even in the earliest times of Jewish history we find a reference to the peculiar nature of this animal. In Gen. xvi. 12 it is prophesied of Ishmael, that "he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Now the real force of this passage is quite missed in the Authorized Version, the correct rendering being given in the Jewish Bible: "And he will be a wild ass (Pere) among men; his hand will be against all, and the hand of all against him, and in the face of all his brethren he shall dwell."

Allusion is made to the speed of the animal in Jer. ii. 24: "A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her." The fondness of the Wild Ass for the desert is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah. Foretelling the desolation that was to come upon the land, he uses these words: "Because the palaces shall be forsaken, the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens (or caves) for ever, and a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks."

These various qualities of speed, wariness, and dread of man cause the animal to be exceedingly prized by hunters, who find their utmost skill taxed in approaching it. Men of the highest rank give whole days to the hunt of the Wild Ass, and vie with each other for the honour of inflicting the first wound on so fleet an animal. With the exception of the Jews, the inhabitants of the countries where the Wild Ass lives eat its flesh, and consider it as the greatest dainty which can be found.

A very vivid account of the appearance of the animal in its wild state is given by Sir R. Kerr Porter, who was allowed by a Wild Ass to approach within a moderate distance, the animal evidently seeing that he was not one of the people to whom it was accustomed, and being curious enough to allow the stranger to approach him.

"The sun was just rising over the summit of the eastern mountains, when my greyhound started off in pursuit of an animal which, my Persians said, from the glimpse they had of it, was an antelope. I instantly put spurs to my horse, and with my attendants gave chase. After an unrelaxed gallop of three miles, we came up with the dog, who was then within a short stretch of the creature he pursued; and to my surprise, and at first vexation, I saw it to be an ass.

"Upon reflection, however, judging from its fleetness that it must be a wild one, a creature little known in Europe, but which the Persians prize above all other animals as an object of chase, I determined to approach as near to it as the very swift Arab I was on could carry me. But the single instant of checking my horse to consider had given our game such a head of us that, notwithstanding our speed, we could not recover our ground on him.

"I, however, happened to be considerably before my companions, when, at a certain distance, the animal in its turn made a pause, and allowed me to approach within pistol-shot of him. He then darted off again with the quickness of thought, capering, kicking, and sporting in his flight, as if he were not blown in the least, and the chase was his pastime. When my followers of the country came up, they regretted that I had not shot the creature when he was within my aim, telling me that his flesh is one of the greatest delicacies in Persia.

"The prodigious swiftness and the peculiar manner in which he fled across the plain coincided exactly with the description that Xenophon gives of the same animal in Arabia. But above all, it reminded me of the striking portrait drawn by the author of the Book of Job. I was informed by the Mehnander, who had been in the desert when making a pilgrimage to the shrine of Ali, that the wild ass of Irak Arabi differs in nothing from the one I had just seen. He had observed them often for a short time in the possession of the Arabs, who told him the creature was perfectly untameable.

"A few days after this discussion, we saw another of these animals, and, pursuing it determinately, had the good fortune to kill it."

* * *

It has been suggested by many zoologists that the Wild Ass is the progenitor of the domesticated species. The origin of the domesticated animal, however, is so very ancient, that we have no data whereon even a theory can be built. It is true that the Wild and the Domesticated Ass are exactly similar in appearance, and that an Asinus hemippus, or Wild Ass, looks so like an Asiatic Asinus vulgaris, or Domesticated Ass, that by the eye alone the two are hardly distinguishable from each other. But with their appearance the resemblance ends, the domestic animal being quiet, docile, and fond of man, while the wild animal is savage, intractable, and has an invincible repugnance to human beings.

This diversity of spirit in similar forms is very curious, and is strongly exemplified by the semi-wild Asses of Quito. They are the descendants of the animals that were imported by the Spaniards, and live in herds, just as do the horses. They combine the habits of the Wild Ass with the disposition of the tame animal. They are as swift of foot as the Wild Ass of Syria or Africa, and have the same habit of frequenting lofty situations, leaping about among rocks and ravines, which seem only fitted for the wild goat, and into which no horse can follow them.

Nominally, they are private property, but practically they may be taken by any one who chooses to capture them. The lasso is employed for the purpose, and when the animals are caught they bite, and kick, and plunge, and behave exactly like their wild relations of the Old World, giving their captors infinite trouble in avoiding the teeth and hoofs which they wield so skilfully. But, as soon as a load has once been bound on the back of one of these furious creatures, the wild spirit dies out of it, the head droops, the gait becomes steady, and the animal behaves as if it had led a domesticated life all its days.

THE MULE.

Ancient use of the Mules-Various breeds of Mule-Supposed date of its introduction into Palestine-Mule-breeding forbidden to the Jews-The Mule as a saddle-animal-Its use on occasions of state-The king's Mule-Mules brought from Babylon after the captivity-Obstinacy of the Mule-The Mule as a beast of burden-The "Mule's burden" of earth-Mules imported by the Ph?nicians-Legends respecting the Mule.

There are several references to the Mule in the Holy Scriptures, but it is remarkable that the animal is not mentioned at all until the time of David, and that in the New Testament the name does not occur at all.

The origin of the Mule is unknown, but that the mixed breed between the horse and the ass has been employed in many countries from very ancient times is a familiar fact. It is a very strange circumstance that the offspring of these two animals should be, for some purposes, far superior to either of the parents, a well-bred Mule having the lightness, surefootedness, and hardy endurance of the ass, together with the increased size and muscular development of the horse. Thus it is peculiarly adapted either for the saddle or for the conveyance of burdens over a rough or desert country.

The Mules that are most generally serviceable are bred from the male ass and the mare, those which have the horse as the father and the ass as the mother being small, and comparatively valueless. At the present day, Mules are largely employed in Spain and the Spanish dependencies, and there are some breeds which are of very great size and singular beauty, those of Andalusia being especially celebrated. In the Andes, the Mule has actually superseded the llama as a beast of burden.

Its appearance in the sacred narrative is quite sudden. In Gen. xxxvi. 24, there is a passage which seems as if it referred to the Mule: "This was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness." Now the word which is here rendered as Mules is "Yemim," a word which is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. The best Hebraists are agreed that, whatever interpretation may be put upon the word, it cannot possibly have the signification that is here assigned to it. Some translate the word as "hot springs," while the editors of the Jewish Bible prefer to leave it untranslated, thus signifying that they are not satisfied with any rendering.

MULES OF THE EAST.

"Be ye not as the horse and mule, which have no under standing."-Psalm xxxii. 9.

The word which is properly translated as Mule is "Pered;" and the first place where it occurs is 2 Sam. xiii. 29. Absalom had taken advantage of a sheep-shearing feast to kill his brother Amnon in revenge for the insult offered to Tamar: "And the servants of Absalom did unto Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king's sons arose, and every man gat him up upon his mule, and fled." It is evident from this passage that the Mule must have been in use for a considerable time, as the sacred writer mentions, as a matter of course, that the king's sons had each his own riding mule.

Farther on, chap. xviii. 9 records the event which led to the death of Absalom by the hand of Joab. "And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went away."

We see by these passages that the Mule was held in such high estimation that it was used by the royal princes for the saddle, and had indeed superseded the ass. In another passage we shall find that the Mule was ridden by the king himself when he travelled in state, and that to ride upon the king's Mule was considered as equivalent to sitting upon the king's throne. See, for example, 1 Kings i. in which there are several passages illustrative of this curious fact. See first, ver. 33, in which David gives to Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the captain of the hosts, instructions for bringing his son Solomon to Gihon, and anointing him king in the stead of his father: "Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon."

Then, in ver. 38, we are told that David's orders were obeyed, that Solomon was set on the king's Mule, was anointed by Zadok, and proclaimed as king to the people. In ver. 44 we are told how Adonijah, who had attempted to usurp the throne, and was at the very time holding a coronation feast, heard the sound of the trumpets and the shouting in honour of Solomon, and on inquiring was told that Solomon had been crowned king by Zadok, recognised by Nathan, accepted by Benaiah, and had ridden on the king's Mule. These tidings alarmed him, and caused him to flee for protection to the altar. Now it is very remarkable that in each of these three passages the fact that Solomon rode upon the king's Mule is brought prominently forward, and it was adduced to Adonijah as a proof that Solomon had been made the new king of Israel.

That the Mule should have become so important an animal seems most remarkable. In Levit. xix. 19 there is an express injunction against the breeding of Mules, and it is unlikely, therefore, that they were bred in Palestine. But, although the Jews were forbidden to breed Mules, they evidently thought that the prohibition did not extend to the use of these animals, and from the time of David we find that they were very largely employed both for the saddle and as beasts of burden. In all probability, the Mules were imported from Egypt and other countries, and that such importation was one of the means for furnishing Palestine with these animals we learn from 1 Kings x. 24, 25, in which the sacred writer enumerates the various tribute which was paid to Solomon: "All the earth sought to Solomon, to hear the wisdom which God had put in his heart.

"And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year." The same fact is recorded in 2 Chron. ix. 24.

In the time of Isaiah the Mule was evidently in common use as a riding animal for persons of distinction. See chap. lxvi. 20: "And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord, out of all nations, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to My holy mountain Jerusalem." Another allusion to the Mule as one of the recognised domesticated animals is found in Zech. xiv. 15: "So shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague."

The value of these animals may be inferred from the anxiety of Ahab to preserve his Mules during the long drought that had destroyed all the pasturage. "Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go into the land, unto all fountains of water, and unto all brooks: peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive, that we lose not all the beasts."

Now this Obadiah was a very great man. He was governor of the king's palace, an office which has been compared to that of our Lord High Chamberlain. He possessed such influence that, although he was known to be a worshipper of Jehovah, and to have saved a hundred prophets during Jezebel's persecution, he retained his position, either because no one dared to inform against him, or because he was too powerful to be attacked. Yet to Obadiah was assigned the joint office of seeking for pasturage for the Mules, the king himself sharing the task with his chamberlain, thus showing the exceeding value which must have been set on these appanages of royal state.

Their importance may be gathered from a passage in the Book of Ezra, in which, after enumerating with curious minuteness the number of the Jews who returned home from their Babylonish captivity, the sacred chronicler proceeds to remark that "their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty" (Ezra ii. 66, 67). There is a parallel passage in Neh. vii. 68, 69.

Seeing that the Mule was in such constant use as a riding animal, it is somewhat remarkable that we never find in the Scripture any mention of the obstinate disposition which is proverbially associated with the animal. There is only one passage which can be thought even to bear upon such a subject, and that is the familiar sentence from Ps. xxxii. 9: "Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee;" and, as the reader will see, no particular obstinacy or frowardness is attributed to the Mule which is not ascribed to the horse also.

Still, that the Mule was as obstinate and contentious an animal in Palestine as it is in Europe is evident from the fact that the Eastern mules of the present day are quite as troublesome as their European brethren. They are very apt to shy at anything, or nothing at all; they bite fiercely, and every now and then they indulge in a violent kicking fit, flinging out their heels with wonderful force and rapidity, and turning round and round on their fore-feet so quickly that it is hardly possible to approach them. There is scarcely a traveller in the Holy Land who has not some story to tell about the Mule and its perverse disposition; but, as these anecdotes have but very slight bearing on the subject of the Mule as mentioned in the Scriptures, they will not be given in these pages.

That the Mule was employed as a beast of burden as well as for riding, we gather from several passages in the Old Testament. See, for example, 1 Chron. xii. 40: "Moreover they that were nigh them, even unto Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen." We have also the well-known passage in which is recorded the reply of Naaman to Elisha after the latter had cured him of his leprosy: "And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth?" It does not necessarily follow that two of Naaman's Mules were to be laden with earth, but the probability is, that Naaman used the term "a Mule's burden" to express a certain quantity, just as we talk of a "load" of hay or gravel.

As Mules are animals of such value, we may feel some little surprise that they were employed as beasts of burden. It is possible, however, that a special and costly breed of large and handsome Mules, like those of Andalusia, were reserved for the saddle, and that the smaller and less showy animals were employed in the carriage of burdens.

Before parting entirely with the Mule, it will be well to examine the only remaining passage in which the animal is mentioned. It occurs in Ezek. xxvii. 14: "They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules." The chapter in which this passage occurs is a sustained lamentation over Tyre, in which the writer first enumerates the wealth and greatness of the city, and then bewails its downfall. Beginning with the words, "O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty," the prophet proceeds to mention the various details of its magnificence, the number and beauty of its ships built with firs from Senir, having oars made of the oaks of Bashan, masts of the cedars of Lebanon, benches of ivory, sails of "fine linen with broidered work from Egypt," and coverings of purple and scarlet from the isles of Elishah. The rowers were from Zidon and Arvad, while Tyre itself furnished their pilots or steersmen.

After a passing allusion to the magnificent army of Tyre, the sacred writer proceeds to mention the extent of the merchandise that was brought to this queen of ancient seaports: silver and other metals were from Tarshish, slaves and brass from Meshech, ivory and ebony from Dedan, jewellery and fine linen from Syria; wheat, honey, and oil from Jud?a; wine and white wool from Damascus, and so forth. And, among all these riches, are prominently mentioned the horses and Mules from Togarmah. Now, it has been settled by the best bibliographers that the Togarmah of Ezekiel is Armenia, and so we have the fact that the Ph?nicians supplied themselves with Mules and horses by importing them from Armenia instead of breeding those animals themselves, just as Palestine imported its horses, and probably its Mules also, from Egypt.

It is rather remarkable that the Arabs of Palestine very seldom breed the Mule for themselves, but, like the ancient Jews, import them from adjacent countries, mostly from the Lebanon district. Those from Cyprus are, however, much valued, as they are very strong, diligent, and steady, their pace being nearly equal to that of the horse. Mules are seldom used for agricultural purposes, though they are extensively employed for riding and for carrying burdens, especially over rocky districts.

The Mule is not without its legend. One of the oddest of these accounts for its obstinacy and its incapacity for breeding.

When the Holy Family was about to travel into Egypt, St. Joseph chose a Mule to carry them. He was in the act of saddling the animal, when it kicked him after the fashion of Mules. Angry with it for such misconduct, St. Joseph substituted an ass for the Mule, thus giving the former the honour of conveying the family into Egypt, and laid a curse upon it that it should never have parents nor descendants of its own kind, and that it should be so disliked as never to be admitted into its master's house, as is the case with the horse and other domesticated animals. This is one of the multitudinous legends which are told to the crowds of pilgrims who come annually to see the miraculous kindling of the holy fire, and to visit the tree on which Judas hanged himself.

SWINE.

The Mosaic prohibition of the pig-Hatred of Swine by Jews and Mahometans-A strange use of bacon-The prodigal son-Resistance to the persecution of Antiochus-Swine hated by the early Egyptians-Supposed connexion between Swine and diseases of the skin-Destruction of the herd of Swine-The locality of the event discovered-Pigs bred for the monasteries-The jewel of gold in a Swine's snout-The wild boar of the woods, and the beast of the reeds-The damage which it does to the vines-General account of the wild boar of Palestine-Excellence of its flesh.

Many are the animals which are specially mentioned in the Mosaic law as unfit for food, beside those that come under the general head of being unclean because they do not divide the hoof and chew the cud. There is none, however, that excited such abhorrence as the hog, or that was more utterly detested.

It is utterly impossible for a European, especially one of the present day, to form even an idea of the utter horror and loathing with which the hog was regarded by the ancient Jews. Even at the present day, a zealous Jew or Mahometan looks upon the hog, or anything that belongs to the hog, with an abhorrence too deep for words. The older and stricter Jews felt so deeply on this subject, that they would never even mention the name of the hog, but always substituted for the objectionable word the term "the abomination."

Several references are made in the Scriptures to the exceeding disgust felt by the Jews towards the Swine. The portion of the Mosaic law on which a Jew would ground his antipathy to the flesh of Swine is that passage which occurs in Lev. xi. 7: "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." But the very same paragraph, of which this passage forms the termination, treats of other unclean beasts, such as the coney (or hyrax) and the hare, neither of which animals are held in such abhorrence as the Swine.

This enactment could not therefore have produced the singular feeling with which the Swine were regarded by the Jews, and in all probability the antipathy was of far greater antiquity than the time of Moses.

How hateful to the Jewish mind was the hog we may infer from many passages, several of which occur in the Book of Isaiah. See, for example, lxv. 3, 4: "A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

"Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels." Here we have the people heaping one abomination upon another-the sacrifice to idols in the gardens, the burning of incense upon a forbidden altar and with strange fire, the living among the tombs, where none but madmen and evil spirits were supposed to reside, and, as the culminating point of iniquity, eating Swine's flesh, and drinking the broth in which it was boiled.

In the next chapter, verse 3, we have another reference to the Swine. Speaking of the wickedness of the people, and the uselessness of their sacrifices, the prophet proceeds to say: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he had cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood." We see here how the prophet proceeds from one image to another: the murder of a man, the offering of a dog instead of a lamb, and the pouring out of Swine's blood upon the altar instead of wine-the last-mentioned crime being evidently held as the worst of the three. Another reference to the Swine occurs in the same chapter, verse 17: "They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord."

Not only did the Jews refuse to eat the flesh of the hog, but they held in utter abomination everything that belonged to it, and would have thought themselves polluted had they been even touched with a hog's bristle. Even at the present day this feeling has not diminished, and both by Jews and Mahometans the hog is held in utter abhorrence.

Some recent travellers have made great use of this feeling. Signor Pierotti, for example, during his long sojourn in Palestine, found the flesh of the hog extremely beneficial to him. "How often has the flesh of this animal supported me, especially during the earlier part of my stay in Palestine, before I had learned to like the mutton and the goats' flesh! I give the preference to this meat because it has often saved me time by rendering a fire unnecessary, and freed me from importunate, dirty, and unsavoury guests, who used their hands for spoons, knives, and forks.

"A little piece of bacon laid conspicuously upon the cloth that served me for a table was always my best friend. Without this talisman I should never have freed myself from unwelcome company, at least without breaking all the laws of hospitality by not inviting the chiefs of my escort or the guides to share my meal; a thing neither prudent nor safe in the open country. Therefore, on the contrary, when thus provided I pressed them with the utmost earnestness to eat with me, but of course never succeeded in persuading them; and so dined in peace, keeping on good terms with them, although they did call me behind my back a 'dog of a Frank' for eating pork.

"Besides, I had then no fear of my stores failing, as I always took care to carry a stock large enough to supply the real wants of my party. So a piece of bacon was more service to me than a revolver, a rifle, or a sword; and I recommend all travellers in Palestine to carry bacon rather than arms, for the latter are often stolen, the former is never."

Such being the feelings of the Jews, we may conceive the abject degradation to which the Prodigal Son of the parable must have descended, when he was compelled to become a swine-herd for a living, and would have been glad even to have eaten the very husks on which the Swine fed. These husks, by the way, were evidently the pods of the locust-tree, or carob, of which we shall have more to say in a future page. We have in our language no words to express the depths of ignominy into which this young man must have fallen, nor can we conceive any office which in our estimation would be so degrading as would be that of swine-herd to a Jew.

How deeply rooted was the abhorrence of the Swine's flesh we can see from a passage in 2 Maccabees, in which is related a series of insults offered to the religion of the Jews. The temple at Jerusalem was to be called the Temple of Jupiter Olympus, and that on Gerizim was to be dedicated to Jupiter, the defender of strangers. The altars were defiled by forbidden things, and the celebration of the Sabbath, or of any Jewish ceremony, was punishable with death.

Severe as were all these afflictions, there was one which the Jews seem, from the stress laid upon it, to have felt more keenly than any other. This was the compulsory eating of Swine's flesh, an act which was so abhorrent to the Jews that in attempting to enforce it, Antiochus found that he was foiled by the passive resistance offered to him. The Jews had allowed their temples to be dedicated to the worship of heathen deities, they had submitted to the deprivation of their sacred rites, they had even consented to walk in procession on the Feast of Bacchus, carrying ivy like the rest of the worshippers in that most licentious festival. It might be thought that any people who submit to such degradation would suffer any similar indignity. But even their forbearance had reached its limits, and nothing could induce them to eat the flesh of Swine.

Several examples of the resistance offered by them are recorded in the book just mentioned. Eleazar, for example, a man ninety years old, sternly refused to partake of the abominable food. Some of the officials, in compassion for his great age, advised him to take lawful meat with him and to exchange it for the Swine's flesh. This he refused to do, saying that his age was only a reason for particular care on his part, lest the young should be led away by his example. His persecutors then forced the meat into his mouth, but he rejected it, and died under the lash.

Another example of similar, but far greater heroism, is given by the same chronicler. A mother and her seven sons were urged with blows to eat the forbidden food, and refused to do so. Thinking that the mother would not be able to endure the sight of her sons' sufferings, the officers took them in succession, and inflicted a series of horrible tortures upon them, beginning by cutting off their tongues, hands, and feet, and ending by roasting them while still alive. Their mother, far from counselling her sons to yield, even though they were bribed by promises of wealth and rank, only encouraged them to persevere, and, when the last of her sons was dead, passed herself through the same fiery trial.

Even among the ancient Egyptians this repugnance to the Swine prevailed, though there was a sort of Pariah caste among them who bred the animal and ate its flesh.

This we learn from Herodotus ("Euterpe," xlvii.):-"The Egyptians consider the pig to be an impure animal, and if therefore a man in passing near a pig should but touch it with his clothes, he goes at once to the river and plunges into it. In the next place, swine-herds, although they be native Egyptians, are the only men who are not allowed to enter into any of their temples, neither will any man give his daughter in marriage to one of them, nor take a wife from among them, but the swine-herds only marry among themselves.

"The Egyptians therefore do not think it right to sacrifice swine to any other deities, but to the moon and Bacchus they sacrifice them at the same time; that is to say, at the same full moon, and then they eat the flesh.... This sacrifice of pigs to the moon is performed in the following manner. When the sacrificer has killed the victims, he puts the tip of the tail, the spleen, and the caul together, covers them with the fat found in the belly of the animal, and then consumes it with fire. The rest of the flesh they eat during the full moon in which they offer the sacrifices, but on no other day would any man ever taste it. The poor among them, through want of money, make pigs out of dough; and, after baking them, offer them in sacrifice.

"On the eve of the festival of Bacchus, every one slays a pig before his door, and then restores it to the swine-herd that sold it, that he may carry it away. The rest of this festival to Bacchus, except as regards the pigs, the Egyptians celebrate much in the same manner as the Greeks do."

It has been conjectured, and with plausibility, that the pig was prohibited by Moses on account of the unwholesomeness of its flesh in a hot country, and that its almost universal repudiation in such lands is a proof of its unfitness for food. In countries where diseases of the skin are so common, and where the dreaded leprosy still maintains its hold, the flesh of the pig is thought, whether rightly or wrongly, to increase the tendency to such diseases, and on that account alone would be avoided.

It has, however, been shown that the flesh of Swine can be habitually consumed in hot countries without producing any evil results; and, moreover, that the prohibition of Moses was not confined to the Swine, but included many other animals whose flesh is used without scruple by those very persons who reject that of the pig.

Knowing the deep hatred of the Jews towards this animal, we may naturally wonder how we come to hear of herds of Swine kept in Jewish lands.

Of this custom there is a familiar example in the herd of Swine that was drowned in the sea (Matt. viii. 28-34). It is an open question whether those who possessed the Swine were Jews of lax principles, who disregarded the Law for the sake of gain, or whether they were Gentiles, who, of course, were not bound by the Law. The former seems the likelier interpretation, the destruction of the Swine being a fitting punishment for their owners. It must be here remarked, that our Lord did not, as is often said, destroy the Swine, neither did He send the devils into them, so that the death of these animals cannot be reckoned as one of the divine miracles. Ejecting the evil spirits from the maniacs was an exercise of His divine authority; the destruction of the Swine was a manifestation of diabolical anger, permitted, but not dictated.

The scene of so remarkable an event is naturally of great interest, especially as the statements of the Evangelists who mention it do not precisely agree. This subject is so well treated by Mr. Tristram in his "Land of Israel," that it must be given in his own words:-

"The field of the tombs at Gadara presents a vivid illustration of the circumstances connected with the healing of the demoniac in the country of the Gadarenes, or Gergesenes. With one exception, all the concomitant events of the miracle are exactly illustrated. We have beyond the city the field of tombs, these tombs suited for the refuge of demoniac outcasts, occupied as dwellings to the present day. We have a plain suited for the feeding of swine, with its roots and acorns, and we have a steep place hard by, of several hundred feet high, κρημν?ν. But then, it does not run down to the sea, but to the little river. This objection is, I think, fatal to the identification of Um Keis with the scene of the miracle.

"St. Mark (v. 2) tells us that our Lord was met immediately on His coming out of the ship. This place is three and a half hours distant from its shores. It is important also to observe that St. Matthew (viii. 28) reads not Gadarenes, but Gergesenes, and St. Luke states that the coast of the Gadarenes was over against Galilee (viii. 26). I should feel thereupon disposed fully to endorse the suggestion of Dr. Thomson, that St. Matthew, writing for those intimately acquainted with the topography of the country in detail, names the obscure and exact locality, Gergesa; while SS. Mark and Luke, writing for those at a distance, simply name the country of Gadara, as being a place of importance, and the acknowledged capital of the district. This is borne out by the statement of Josephus ('Bell. Jud.' 1, viii. 35).

"Dr. Thomson visited, at the mouth of the Wady Semakh, directly opposite Gennesaret, some ruins called by his guide Kerza, or Gerza, which he identifies with the Gergesa of St. Matthew. The discovery is most interesting and important. I visited the place myself from a boat, and observed the remains of a valley and a khan; but, unfortunately, I was not aware at the time of the interest attaching to the place, and did not ascertain, or at least note down, the name given to it by my boatmen.

"The statement of Origen exactly bears out the discovery of Dr. Thomson. After stating that Gadara was not the scene of the miracle, for these was thence no steep place into the sea, he states that Gergesa is an ancient city on the shores of the lake, by which is a steep place which runs down to it. In one important particular my memory corroborates the statement of Dr. Thomson, viz. that while there is here no precipice running sheer to the shore, but a narrow belt of land, the cliff behind is steep, and the sea so narrow, that a herd of swine, rushing frantically down, must certainly have been overwhelmed in the sea before they could recover themselves.

"While the tombs at Gadara are peculiarly interesting and remarkable, yet the whole region is so perforated everywhere by rock-chambers of the dead that we may be quite certain that a home for the demoniac will not be wanting whatever locality be assigned for the events recorded by the Evangelists."

Although that part of the country is well suited for feeding Swine, the animals are no longer kept. In the first place, there is a great want of spirit in matters of commerce; and in the second, the country is so unsettled that the merchants would probably be robbed. The woods, moreover, furnish nowadays but a scanty supply of acorns, and those are eaten by the Arabs instead of being given to pigs.

These animals are at the present day much neglected, because the Mahometans and Jews may not eat the flesh, and the Christians, as a rule, abstain from it, so that they may not hurt the feelings of their neighbours. Pigs are however reared in the various monasteries, and by the Arabs attached to them; the former eating the hog, and the latter only breeding it for sale. Signor Pierotti states that the pigs become as part of the family, who live and grow fat together with them. Though, he remarks, they are not so intelligent as those that listened to St. Anthony preaching in the Thebaid, they play with the children, understand the language of their masters, and do not disdain to play with the fowls, dogs, cats, asses, and horses, and are much more nimble than their European brethren, although they are smaller in size and not so spirited.

Although the pig was so detested by the Jews, they were evidently well acquainted with it. St. Peter, for example, in his Second Epistle, chap. ii. 22, refers to the habit of wallowing in the mire, a custom which is common to all the pachydermatous animals, which, in spite of their thick hide, are very sensitive to the attacks of flies, and cover themselves with mud in order to defend themselves against their tiny but dreaded enemies.

In connexion with the Swine, there is a passage in the Proverbs which requires a slight comment. It occurs in chap. xi. 22: "As a jewel (or pendant) of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion." The sacred writer refers here to the custom adopted by Oriental women of wearing a ring in the nostril-a custom which has existed to the present day, and is familiar to all those who have travelled in the East. The plan which is generally adopted is that of boring a hole through the nostril, passing a ring through it, and, when the wound has healed, hanging various jewels and other ornaments upon the ring, so as to constitute the "pendant of gold" mentioned in the proverb.

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

WILD BOAR OF PALESTINE.

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

We now come to the wild animal. Their is only one passage in the Scriptures in which the Wild Boar is definitely mentioned, and another in which a reference is made to it in a paraphrase.

The former of these is the well-known verse of the Psalms: "Why hast thou broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her?

"The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it" (Ps. lxxx. 12, 13). The second passage is to be found in Ps. lxviii. 30. In the Authorized Version it is thus rendered: "Rebuke the company of spearmen, the multitude of bulls, with the calves of the people." If the reader will refer to the marginal translation (which, it must be remarked, is of equal authority with the text), the passage runs thus: "Rebuke the beasts of the reeds," &c. Now, this is undoubtedly the correct rendering, and is accepted in the Jewish Bible.

Having quoted these two passages, we will proceed to the description and character of the animal.

In the former times, the Wild Boar was necessarily much more plentiful than is the case in these days, owing to the greater abundance of woods, many of which have disappeared by degrees, and others been greatly thinned by the encroachments of mankind. Woods and reed-beds are always the habitations of the Wild Boar, which resides in these fastnesses, and seems always to prefer the reed-bed to the wood, probably because it can find plenty of mud, in which it wallows after the fashion of its kind. There is no doubt whatever that the "beast of the reeds" is simply a poetical phrase for the Wild Boar.

If there should be any cultivated ground in the neighbourhood, the Boar is sure to sally out and do enormous damage to the crops. It is perhaps more dreaded in the vineyards than in any other ground, as it not only devours the grapes, but tears down and destroys the vines, trampling them under foot, and destroying a hundredfold as much as it eats.

If the reader will refer again to Ps. lxxx. he will see that the Jewish nation is described under the image of a vine: "Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it," &c. No image of a destructive enemy could therefore be more appropriate than that which is used. We have read of the little foxes that spoil the vines, but the Wild Boar is a much more destructive enemy, breaking its way through the fences, rooting up the ground, tearing down the vines themselves, and treading them under its feet. A single party of these animals will sometimes destroy an entire vineyard in a single night.

We can well imagine the damage that would be done to a vineyard even by the domesticated Swine, but the Wild Boar is infinitely more destructive. It is of very great size, often resembling a donkey rather than a boar, and is swift and active beyond conception. The Wild Boar is scarcely recognisable as the very near relation of the domestic species. It runs with such speed, that a high-bred horse finds some difficulty in overtaking it, while an indifferent steed would be left hopelessly behind. Even on level ground the hunter has hard work to overtake it; and if it can get upon broken or hilly ground, no horse can catch it. The Wild Boar can leap to a considerable distance, and can wheel and turn when at full speed, with an agility that makes it a singularly dangerous foe. Indeed, the inhabitants of countries where the Wild Boar flourishes would as soon face a lion as one of these animals, the stroke of whose razor-like tusks is made with lightning swiftness, and which is sufficient to rip up a horse, and cut a dog nearly asunder.

Although the Wild Boar is not as plentiful in Palestine as used to be the case, it is still found in considerable numbers. Whenever the inhabitants can contrive to cut off the retreat of marauding parties among the crops, they turn out for a general hunt, and kill as many as they can manage to slay. After one of these hunts, the bodies are mostly exposed for sale, but, as the demand for them is very small, they can be purchased at a very cheap rate. Signor Pierotti bought one in the plains of Jericho for five shillings. For the few who may eat the hog, this is a fortunate circumstance, the flesh being very excellent, and as superior to ordinary pork as is a pheasant to a barn-door fowl, or venison to mutton.

THE ELEPHANT.

The Elephant indirectly mentioned in the Authorized Version-Solomon's ivory throne-Ivory used in Egypt-Horns of ivory-The ivory palaces-Beds of ivory-The Tyrian ships-Ivory mentioned by Homer-Vessels of ivory-The Elephant as an engine of war-Antiochus and his Elephants-Oriental exaggeration-Self-devotion of Eleazar-Attacking the Elephants, and their gradual abandonment in war-The Talmudical writers on the Elephant-A funeral and an omen.

Except indirectly, the Elephant is never mentioned in the Authorized Version of the Canonical Scriptures, although frequent references are made to ivory, the product of that animal.

The earliest mention of ivory in the Scriptures is to be found in 1 Kings x. 18: "Moreover the king (i.e. Solomon) made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold." This passage forms a portion of the description given by the sacred historian of the glories of Solomon's palace, of which this celebrated throne, with the six steps and the twelve lions on the steps, was the central and most magnificent object. It is named together with the three hundred golden shields, the golden vessel of the royal palace, and the wonderful arched viaduct crossing the valley of the Tyrop?on, "the ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord," all of which glories so overcame the Queen of Sheba that "there was no more spirit in her."

We see, therefore, that in the time of Solomon ivory was so precious an article that it was named among the chief of the wonders to be seen in the palace of Solomon, the wealthiest and most magnificent monarch of sacred or profane history.

That it should not have been previously mentioned is very singular. Five hundred years had elapsed since the Israelites escaped from the power of Egypt, and during the whole of that time, though gold and silver and precious stones and costly raiment are repeatedly mentioned, we do not find a single passage in which any allusion is made to ivory. Had we not known that ivory was largely used among the Egyptians, such an omission would cause no surprise. But the researches of modern travellers have brought to light many articles of ivory that were in actual use in Egypt, and we therefore cannot but wonder that a material so valued and so beautiful does not seem to have been reckoned among the treasures which were brought by the Israelites from the land of their captivity, and which were so abundant that the Tabernacle was entirely formed of them.

In the various collections of Europe are many specimens of ivory used by the ancient Egyptians, among the chief of which may be mentioned an ivory box in the Louvre, having on its lid the name of the dynasty in which it was carved, and the ivory-tipped lynch-pins of the splendid war-chariot in Florence, from which the illustration on page 260 has been drawn.

The ivory used by the Egyptians was, of course, that of the African Elephant; and was obtained chiefly from Ethiopia, as we find in Herodotus ("Thalia," 114):-"Where the meridian declines towards the setting sun, the Ethiopian territory reaches, being the extreme part of the habitable world. It produces much gold, huge elephants, wild trees of all kinds, ebony, and men of large stature, very handsome and long-lived."

Solomon may have procured from the same source part of the ivory which he used so lavishly, but it is evident that he was also supplied from India. In 1 Kings x. 22 we read: "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." The reader will remark that an opinion has already been expressed that the country whence these articles were brought must be India, and this conjecture is strengthened by the Hebrew names given to the apes, the peacocks, and the ivory, which are almost identical with the words employed in the Cingalese language of the present day.

The usual Hebrew word for ivory is shen, i.e. a tooth, the Israelites being perfectly aware that it was the product of a tooth, and not of a horn. It is true that in one passage the word "horn" is used in connexion with the term "ivory," or "tooth," in such a manner that a reader of the English Version might imagine the sacred writers to think that ivory was obtained from the horn of some animal. This passage occurs in the prophet Ezekiel, xxvii. 15. Speaking of Tyre and her greatness, the prophet uses the following terms: "The men of Dedan were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of thine hand: they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony."

If we refer to the Hebrew Bible, we shall find that the literal translation of this passage runs as follows: "The men of Dedan were thy traders; many maritime settlements were the merchandise of thine hand: they offered thee as a price horns of teeth and ebony." It is evident that the word kerenoth, or horns, is used to represent the horn-like shape of the Elephant's tusk, as it appears when imported into the country, the use of the term shen, or tooth, showing that the shape and not material is to be implied by the term.

Now if the reader will look at a passage which has already been quoted (1 Kings x. 22), he will see that the marginal reading translates the word "ivory" as "elephants' teeth." This rendering is undoubtedly the correct one. The Hebrew word is shen-habbim, and there is little, if any, doubt that the term habbim is rightly translated as "elephants." A similar word, Habba, is found in the Assyrian inscriptions, and is thought by Sir H. Rawlinson to have the same signification.

It will be as well to mention here a curious version of Gen. 1. 1, in which Joseph is said to have placed the body of his father upon a bier of shin-daphin, or ivory.

After the passage in 1 Kings, ivory is repeatedly mentioned, sometimes in allusion to its smoothness and whiteness, and sometimes to its use as a luxurious appendage of the palace. For its use in the former sense, we may take the well-known passage in the Song of Solomon: "His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires" (Cant. v. 14). Also vii. 4, "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory."

For its use in the second of these senses we may take several passages. See, for example, Ps. xlv. 8: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad." It has been suggested that the words "ivory palaces" may signify boxes or chests inlaid with ivory, in which were deposited the royal garments, together with perfumes. Whether or not this be the case, it is evident that the ivory is here mentioned as a costly adjunct of royal luxury.

There are, however, passages in which ivory is distinctly mentioned as forming part of the adornment of houses. For example, see 1 Kings xxii. 39: "Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?" The "ivory house" could not, of course, be built wholly of ivory, and it is evident that by the term is signified a palace, the rooms of which were inlaid with ivory. Another mention of such houses is made in Amos iii. 15: "And I will smite the winter house with the summer house; and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord."

Chambers thus decorated are to be seen at the present day, and it is remarkable that ivory is still used, together with ebony, in panelling the walls of rooms-a combination which is mentioned in several of the passages which have already been quoted.

The use of ivory as an article of luxury is also mentioned in Amos vi. 4: "Woe to them ... that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches." And in Ezekiel xxvii. 6, the overwhelming wealth and luxury of Tyre are pictured by the costly materials of which the Assyrians built their ships-the planks of Senir fir, the masts of cedar, the oars of Bashan oak, the sails of fine linen, and the very benches on which the rowers sat, inlaid with ivory. How accurate was the prophet in the details of his bodings, is shown by the research of Mr. Layard, who found among the buried ruins of Nineveh great quantities of ivory, some manufactured, and some in its original state as imported-the uncut tusks, or "horns of ivory," to which reference has already been made.

The classical reader need scarcely be reminded of the parallel between passages of Scripture and those of profane authors, in which ivory is mentioned as a costly ornament. See, for example, the Iliad, book v. 484:-

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

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

(Lines 712, 713, Pope's Version.)

In ancient Greece, as well as in Assyria, the beds of the wealthy were adorned with ivory. Ulysses, for example (see Odyssey, book xxi.), king as he was, made his own bridal bed of hide thongs interlaced, and inlaid the posts with gold, ivory, and silver. And, in the beginning of the same book, we find that the key of the royal armoury was made of brass inlaid with ivory.

There is only one passage in the New Testament in which ivory is mentioned: "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her, for no man buyeth their merchandise any more; the merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, ... and all manner vessels of ivory." (Rev. xviii. 11, 12.)

* * *

Having now examined the passages in which ivory is mentioned, we turn to those in which the Elephant itself is named. These are only to be found in the Apocrypha, and in all of them the Elephant is described as an engine of war. If the reader will refer to the First Book of the Maccabees, he will find that the Elephant is mentioned at the very commencement of the book. "Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the dominion of two realms.

"Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy." (i. 16, 17.)

Here we see that the Elephant was considered as a most potent engine of war, and, as we may perceive by the context, the King of Egypt was so alarmed by the invading force, that he ran away, and allowed Antiochus to take possession of the country.

After this, Antiochus Eupator marched against Jerusalem with a vast army, which is thus described in detail:-"The number of his army was one hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and two and thirty elephants exercised in battle.

"And to the end that they might provoke the elephants to fight, they showed them the blood of grapes and mulberries.

"Moreover, they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every elephant they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads; and, besides this, for every beast were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best.

"These were ready at every occasion wheresoever the beast was; and whithersoever the beast went they went also, neither departed they from him.

"And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices; there were also upon every one two and thirty strong men that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him.

"As for the remnant of the horsemen, they set them on this side and that side at the two fronts of the host, giving them signs what to do, and being harnessed all over amidst the ranks." (1 Macc. vi. 30, &c.)

It is evident from this description that, in the opinion of the writer, the Elephants formed the principal arms of the opposing force, these animals being prominently mentioned, and the rest of the army being reckoned as merely subsidiaries of the terrible beasts. The thirty-two Elephants appear to have taken such a hold of the narrator's mind, that he evidently looked upon them in the same light that the ancient Jews regarded chariots of war, or as at the present day savages regard artillery. According to his ideas, the thirty-two Elephants constituted the real army, the hundred thousand infantry and twenty thousand cavalry being only in attendance upon these animals.

Taken as a whole, the description of the war Elephant is a good one, though slightly exaggerated, and is evidently written by an eye-witness. The mention of the native mahout, or "Indian that guided him," is characteristic enough, as is the account of the howdah, or wooden carriage on the back of the animal.

The number of warriors, however, is evidently exaggerated, though not to such an extent as the account of Julius C?sar'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 Elephantarch?, who were the governors of sixteen Elephants, and they which did institute and teach them martial discipline were called Elephantagogi.

"The Military Elephant did carry four persons on his bare back, one fighting on the right hand, another fighting on the left hand, a third, which stood fighting backwards from the Elephant's head, and a fourth in the middle of these, holding the rains, and guiding the Beast to the discretion of the Souldiers, even as the Pilot in a ship guideth the stem, wherein was required an equall knowledge and dexterity; for when the Indian which ruled them said, Strike here on the right hand, or else on the left, or refrain and stand still, no reasonable man could yield readier obedience."

This description is really a very accurate as well as spirited one, and conveys a good idea of the fighting Elephant as it appeared when brought into action.

Strangely enough, after giving this temperate and really excellent account of the war Elephant, the writer seems to have been unable to resist the fascination of his theme, and proceeds to describe, with great truth and spirit, the mode of fighting adopted by the animal, intermixed with a considerable amount of the exaggeration from which the former part of his account is free.

"They did fasten iron chains, first of all, upon the Elephant that was to bear ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty men, on either side two panniers of iron bound underneath their belly, and upon them the like panniers of wood, hollow, wherein they placed their men at armes, and covered them over with small boards (for the trunck of the Elephant was covered with a mail for defence, and upon that a broadsword, two cubits long); this (as also the wooden Castle, or pannier aforesaid) were fastened first to the neck and then to the rump of the Elephant.

"Being thus armed, they entered the battel, and they shewed unto the Beasts, to make them more fierce, wine, liquor made of Rice, and white cloth, for at the sight of any of these his courage and rage increaseth above all measure. Then at the sound of the Trumpet, he beginneth with teeth to strike, tear, beat, spoil, take up into the air, cast down again, stamp upon men under feet, overthrow with his trunck, and make way for his riders to pierce with Spear, Shield, and Sword; so that his horrible voice, his wonderful body, his terrible force, his admirable skill, his ready and inestimable obedience, and his strange and seldom-seen shape, produced in a main battel no mean accidents and overturns."

In this account there is a curious mixture of truth and exaggeration. As we have already seen, the number of soldiers which the animal was supposed to carry is greatly exaggerated, and it is rather amusing to note how the "towers" in which they fought are modified into "panniers." Then the method by which the animal is incited to the combat is partly true, and partly false. Of course an Elephant is not angered by seeing a piece of white cloth, or by looking at wine, or a liquor made of rice.

But that the wine, or the "liquor made of rice," i.e. arrack, was administered to the Elephant before it was brought into the battle-field, is likely enough. Elephants are wonderfully fond of strong drink. They can be incited to perform any task within their powers by a provision of arrack, and when stimulated by a plentiful supply of their favourite drink they would be in good fighting condition.

Next we find the writer describing the Elephant as being furnished with a coating of mail armour on its proboscis, the end of which was armed with a sword a yard in length. Now any one who is acquainted with the Elephant will see at once that such offensive and defensive armour would deprive the animal of the full use of the proboscis, and would, therefore, only weaken, and not strengthen, its use in battle. Accordingly we find that the writer, when describing with perfect accuracy the mode in which the Elephant fights, utterly omits all mention of the sword and the mailed proboscis, and describes the animal, not as striking or thrusting with the sword, but as overthrowing with the trunk, taking up into the air, and casting down again-acts which could only be performed when the proboscis was unencumbered by armour. The use of weapons was left to the soldiers that fought upon its back, the principal object of the huge animal being to trample its way through the opposing ranks, and to make a way for the soldiers that followed.

It may be easily imagined that, before soldiers become familiarized with the appearance of the Elephant, they might be pardoned for being panic-struck at the sight of so strange an animal. Not only was it formidable for its vast size, and for the armed men which it carried, but for the obedience which it rendered to its keeper, and the skill with which it wielded the strange but powerful weapon with which Nature had armed it.

At first, the very approach of so terrible a foe struck consternation into the soldiers, who knew of no mode by which they could oppose the gigantic beast, which came on in its swift, swinging pace, crushing its way by sheer weight through the ranks, and striking right and left with its proboscis. No other method of checking the Elephant, except by self-sacrifice, could be found; and in 1 Macc. vi. 43-46, we read how Eleazar, the son of Mattathias, nobly devoted himself for his country.

"Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran, perceiving that one of the beasts, armed with royal harness, was higher than all the rest, and supposing that the king was upon him.

"Put himself in jeopardy, to the end he might deliver his people, and get him a perpetual name.

"Whereupon he ran upon him courageously, through the midst of the battle, slaying on the right hand and on the left, so that they were divided from him on both sides.

"Which done, he crept under the elephant, and thrust him under, and slew him; whereupon the elephant fell down upon him, and he died."

I may here mention that the surname of Savaran, or Avaran, as it ought to be called, signifies one who pierces an animal from behind, and was given to him after his death, in honour of his exploit.

At first, then, Elephants were the most formidable engines of war that could be brought into the battle-field, and the very sight of these huge beasts, towering above even the helmets of the cavalry, disheartened the enemy so much that victory became easy.

After a while, however, when time for reflection had been allowed, the more intellectual among the soldiers began to think that, after all, the Elephant was not a mere engine, but a living animal, and, as such, subject to the infirmities of the lower animals. So they invented scheme after scheme, by which they baffled the attacks of these once dreaded foes, and sometimes even succeeded in driving them back among the ranks of their own soldiery, so maddened with pain and anger, that they dealt destruction among the soldiers for whom they were fighting, and so broke up their order of battle that the foe easily overcame them.

The vulnerable nature of the proboscis was soon discovered, and soldiers were armed with very sharp swords, set on long handles, with which they continually attacked the Elephants' trunks. Others were mounted on swift horses, dashed past the Elephant, and hurled their darts before the animal could strike them. Others, again, were placed in chariots, and armed with very long and sharply-pointed spears. Several of these chariots would be driven simultaneously against an Elephant, and sometimes succeeded in killing the animal. Slingers also were told off for the express purpose of clearing the "castles," or howdahs, of the soldiers who fought on the Elephants' backs, and their especial object was the native mahout, who sat on the animal's neck.

Sometimes they made way for the Elephant as it pressed forward, and then closed round it, so as to make it the central mark, on which converged a hail of javelins, arrows, and stones on every side, until the huge animal sank beneath its many wounds. By degrees, therefore, the Elephant was found to be so uncertain an engine of war, that its use was gradually discontinued, and finally abandoned altogether.

* * *

The Elephant which was employed in these wars was the Indian species, Elephas Indicus, which is thought to be more susceptible of education than the African Elephant. The latter, however, has been tamed, and, in the days of Rome's greatest splendour, was taught to perform a series of tricks that seem almost incredible. As, however, the Indian species is that with which we have here to do, I have selected it for the illustration.

It may be at once distinguished from its African relative by the comparatively small ears, those of the African Elephant reaching above the back of the head, and drooping well below the neck. The shape of the head, too, is different. In the Indian species, only the males bear tusks, and even many of them are unarmed. In the African species, however, both sexes bear tusks, those of the male furnishing the best ivory, with its peculiar creamy colour and beautiful graining, and those of the female being smaller in size, and producing ivory of a much inferior quality.

INDIAN ELEPHANT.

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

The Talmudical writers have not much to say about the Elephant, and what they do say is rather ludicrous than otherwise. The proboscis, say they, gives the animal a very ugly look, so that to dream of the trunk of an Elephant is a bad omen. Indeed, it is so odd a substitute for a nose, that when people look at it they say, "Praised be He who can thus transform His creatures."

Largest and strongest of earth's inhabitants, the Elephant is yet afraid of the smallest. The gnat attacks him, flies into the open end of the proboscis, and sucks his blood at its ease.

It is rather remarkable that there is an ironical adage respecting the Elephant and the eye of the needle, exactly similar to the familiar proverb of the camel and the needle's eye.

THE CONEY, OR HYRAX.

The Shaphan of Scripture, and the correct meaning of the word-Identification of the Shaphan with the Syrian Hyrax-Description of the animal-Its feet, teeth, and apparent rumination-Passages in which the Coney is mentioned-Habits of the animal-Its activity and wariness-The South African Hyrax, and its mode of life-Difficulty of procuring it-Similarity in appearance and habits of the Syrian species-Three species of Hyrax known to naturalists-The Talmudical writers on the Shaphan-The jerboa and the rabbit-A curious speculation and a judicious compromise.

Among the many animals mentioned in the Bible, there is one which is evidently of some importance in the Jewish code, inasmuch as it is twice named in the Mosaic law.

That it was also familiar to the Jews is evident from other references which are made to its habits. This animal is the Shaphan of the Hebrew language, a word which has very wrongly been translated in the Authorized Version as Coney, i.e. Rabbit, the creature in question not being a rabbit, nor even a rodent. No rabbit has ever been discovered in Palestine, and naturalists have agreed that the true Coney or Rabbit has never inhabited the Holy Land. There is no doubt that the Shaphan of the Hebrew Scripture, and the Coney of the Vulgate, was the Syrian Hyrax (Hyrax Syriacus). This little animal is rather larger than an ordinary rabbit, is not unlike it in appearance, and has many of its habits. It is clothed with brown fur, it is very active, it inhabits holes and clefts in rocks, and it has in the front of its mouth long chisel-shaped teeth, very much like those of the rabbit. Consequently, it was classed by naturalists among the rodents for many years, under the name of Rock Rabbit. Yet, as I have already mentioned, it is not even a rodent, but belongs to the pachydermatous group of animals, and occupies an intermediate place between the rhinoceros and the hippopotamus.

THE HYRAX.

"The Conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks."-Prov. xxx. 26.

If it be examined carefully, the rodent-like teeth will be seen to resemble exactly the long curved tusks of the hippopotamus, with their sharp and chisel-edged tips; the little feet, on a close inspection, are seen to be furnished with a set of tiny hoofs just like those of the rhinoceros; and there are many other points in its structure which, to the eye of a naturalist, point out its true place in nature.

In common with the rodents, and other animals which have similarly-shaped teeth, the Hyrax, when at rest, is continually working its jaws from side to side, a movement which it instinctively performs, in order that the chiselled edges of the upper and lower teeth may be preserved sharp by continually rubbing against each other, and that they may not be suffered to grow too long, and so to deprive the animal of the means whereby it gains its food. But for this peculiar movement, which looks very like the action of ruminating, the teeth would grow far beyond the mouth, as they rapidly deposit dental material in their bases in order to supply the waste caused at their tips by the continual friction of the edges against each other.

It may seem strange that an animal which is classed with the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus, all bare-skinned animals, should be clothed with a furry coat. The reader may perhaps remember that the Hyrax does not afford a solitary instance of this structure, and that, although the elephants of our day have only a few bristly hairs thinly scattered over the body, those of former days were clad in a thick and treble coat of fur and hair.

* * *

There are four passages of Scripture in which the Coney is mentioned-two in which it is prohibited as food, and two in which allusion is made to its manner of life. In order to understand the subject better, we will take them in their order.

The first mention of the Coney occurs in Leviticus xi. 5, among the list of clean and unclean animals: "The coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." The second is of a like nature, and is to be found in Deut. xiv. 7: "These ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you."

The remaining passages, which describe the habits of the Coney, are as follow. The first alludes to the rock-loving habits of the animal: "The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the conies." (Ps. civ. 18.) The second makes a similar mention of the localities which the animal frequents, and in addition speaks of its wariness, including it among the "four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceedingly wise." The four are the ants, the locusts, the spiders, and the Conies, which "are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks."

We will take these passages in their order.

It has already been mentioned that the Hyrax, a true pachyderm, does not merely chew the cud, but that the peculiar and constant movement of its jaws strongly resembles the act of rumination. The Jews, ignorant as they were of scientific zoology, would naturally set down the Hyrax as a ruminant, and would have been likely to eat it, as its flesh is very good. It must be remembered that two conditions were needful to render an animal fit to be eaten by a Jew, the one that it must be a ruminant, and the second that it should have a divided hoof. Granting, therefore, the presence of the former qualification, Moses points out the absence of the latter, thereby prohibiting the animal as effectually as if he had entered into a question of comparative anatomy, and proved that the Hyrax was incapable of rumination.

We now come to the habits of the animal.

As we may gather from the passages of Scripture which have already been mentioned, the Hyrax inhabits rocky places, and lives in the clefts that are always found in such localities. It is an exceedingly active creature, leaping from rock to rock with wonderful rapidity, its little sharp hoofs giving it a firm hold of the hard and irregular surface of the stony ground. Even in captivity it retains much of its activity, and flies about its cage with a rapidity that seems more suitable to a squirrel than to an animal allied to the rhinoceros and hippopotamus.

There are several species-perhaps only varieties-of the Hyrax, all of them identical in habits, and almost precisely similar in appearance. The best known of these animals is that which inhabits Southern Africa (Hyrax Capensis), and which is familiar to the colonists by its name of Klip-das, or Rock-rabbit. In situations which suit it, the Hyrax is very plentiful, and is much hunted by the natives, who esteem its flesh very highly. Small and insignificant as it appears to be, even Europeans think that to kill the Hyrax is a tolerable test of sportsmanship, the wariness of the animal being so great that much hunter's craft is required to approach it.

The following account of the Hyrax has been furnished to me by Lt.-Col. A. W. Drayson, R.A.:-"In the Cape Colony, and over a great portion of Southern Africa, this little creature is found. It is never, as far as my experience goes, seen in great numbers, as we find rabbits in England, though the caution of the animal is such as to enable it to remain safe in districts from which other animals are soon exterminated.

"As its name implies, it is found among rocks, in the crevices and holes of which it finds a retreat. When a natural cavity is not found, the klip-das scratches a hole in the ground under the rocks, and burrows like a common rabbit. In size it is about equal to a hare, though it is much shorter in the legs, and has ears more like those of a rat than a rabbit. Its skin is covered with fur, thick and woolly, as though intended for a colder climate than that in which it is usually found; and, when seen from a distance, it looks nearly black.

"The rock-rabbit is a very watchful creature, and usually feeds on the summit of any piece of rock near its home, always choosing one from which it can obtain a good view of the surrounding country. When it sees an enemy approaching, it sits rigidly on the rock and watches him without moving, so that at a little distance it is almost impossible to distinguish it from the rock on which it sits. When it does move, it darts quickly out of sight, and disappears into its burrow with a sudden leap.

"In consequence of its activity and cunning, the rock-rabbit is seldom killed by white men; and when a hunter does secure one, it is generally by means of a long shot. The natives usually watch near its burrow, or noiselessly stalk it.

"I once killed one of these animals by a very long shot from a rifle, as it was sitting watching us from the top of a large boulder, at a distance of a hundred and fifty yards or thereabouts. The Dutch Boers who were with me were delighted at the sight of it, as they said it was good eating; and so it proved to be, the flesh being somewhat like that of a hare, though in our rough field-cookery we could not do justice to it."

This short narrative excellently illustrates the character of the animal, which is classed among the "four things which be exceeding wise." It is so crafty that no trap or snare ever set has induced a Hyrax to enter it, and so wary that it is with difficulty to be killed even with the aid of fire-arms. "No animal," writes Mr. Tristram, "ever gave us so much trouble to secure.... The only chance of securing one is to be concealed, particularly about sunset or before sunrise, on some overhanging cliff, taking care not to let the shadow be cast below, and then to wait until the little creatures cautiously peep forth from their holes. They are said to be common by those who have not looked for them, but are certainly not abundant in Palestine, and few writers have ever had more than a single glimpse of one. I had the good fortune to see one feeding in the gorge of the Kedron, and then to watch it as it sat at the mouth of its hole, ruminating, metaphorically if not literally, while waiting for sunset."

Should the Hyrax manage to catch a glimpse of the enemy, it utters a shrill cry or squeal, and darts at once to its hole-an action which is followed by all its companions as soon as they hear the warning cry. It is a tolerably prolific animal, rearing four or five young at a birth, and keeping them in a soft bed of hay and fur, in which they are almost hidden. If surprised in its hole and seized, the Hyrax will bite very sharply, its long chisel-edged teeth inflicting severe wounds on the hand that attempts to grasp it. But it is of a tolerably docile disposition, and in a short time learns to know its owner, and to delight in receiving his caresses.

Three species of Hyrax are known to naturalists. One is the Klip-das, or Rock-rabbit, of Southern Africa; the second is the Ashkoko of Abyssinia; and the third is the Syrian Hyrax, or the Coney of the Bible. The two last species have often been confounded together, but the Syrian animal may be known by the oblong pale spot on the middle of its back.

The Talmudical writers were greatly perplexed about the proper reading of the word Shaphan, some of them thinking it to be a jerboa, and others considering it as the rabbit. Lewysohn sums up the arguments after a rather curious fashion. According to him, the strongest argument against the translation of the Biblical word Shaphan as "rabbit" is that the animal came from Spain, and was probably unknown to the earlier Talmudists, though the later writers might have known it.

Then, struck with the resemblance of the Hebrew word ??? (Sh'p'n) and Spain, he proceeds to discuss the probability of the Shaphan deriving its name from Spain, the country of its origin, or of Spain being so called on account of the number of rabbits which inhabited it. He comes at last to the conclusion that the jerboa was probably the animal which was prohibited in the Mosaic law; but that, as the rabbit answered in every respect to the Talmudical conditions, it may, for all practical purposes, be accepted as the representative of the Shaphan of Scripture.

BEHEMOTH.

Literal translation of the word Behemoth-Various theories respecting the identity of the animal-The Hippopotamus known to the ancient Hebrews-Geographical range of the animal-"He eateth grass like the ox"-Ravages of the Hippopotamus among the crops-Structure of the mouth and teeth-The "sword or scythe" of the Hippopotamus-Some strange theories-Haunts of the Hippopotamus-The Egyptian hunter-A valuable painting-Strength of the Hippopotamus-Rising of the Nile-Modern hunters-Wariness of the Hippopotamus-The pitfall and the drop-trap.

In the concluding part of that wonderful poem which is so familiar to us as the Book of Job, the Lord is represented as reproving the murmurs of Job, by showing that he could not even understand the mysteries of the universe, much less the purposes of the Creator. By presuming to bring a charge of injustice against his Maker, he in fact inferred that the accuser was more competent to govern the world than was the Creator, and thus laid himself open to the unanswerable irony of the splendid passages contained in chapters xl. xli., which show that man cannot even rule the animals, his fellow-creatures, much less control the destinies of the human race.

The passages with which we are at present concerned are to be found at the end of the fortieth chapter, and contain a most powerful description of some animal which is called by the name of Behemoth. Now this word only occurs once in the whole of the Scriptures, i.e. in Job xl. 15: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee," &c. Some commentators, in consequence of the plural termination of the word, which may be literally translated as "beasts," have thought that it was a collective term for all the largest beasts of the world, such as the elephant, the hippopotamus, the wild cattle, and their like. Others have thought that the elephant was signified by the word Behemoth; and some later writers, acquainted with pal?ontology, 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 pal?ozoic animal must be discarded.

We may also dismiss the elephant, inasmuch as it was most unlikely that Job should have known anything about the animal, and it is certain that he could not have attained the familiarity with its appearance and habits which is inferred by the context. Moreover, it cannot be said of the elephant that "he eateth grass as an ox." The elephant feeds chiefly on the leaves of trees, and when he does eat grass, he cannot do so "like an ox," but plucks it with his proboscis, and then puts the green tufts into his mouth. So characteristic a gesture as this would never have passed unnoticed in a description so full of detail.

That the hippopotamus was known to the ancient Hebrews is certain. After their sojourn in Egypt they had necessarily become familiarized with it; and if, as most commentators believe, the date of the Book of Job be subsequent to the liberation of the Israelites, there is no difficulty in assuming that Job and his companions were well acquainted with the animal. Even if the book be of an earlier date, it is still possible that the hippopotamus may, in those days, have lived in rivers where it is now as much extinct as it is in England. Mr. Tristram remarks on this point: "No hippopotamus is found in Asia, but there is no reason for asserting that it may not have had an eastern range as far as Palestine, and wallowed in the Jordan; for its bones are found in the débris of the rivers of Algeria, flowing into the Mediterranean, when tradition is quite silent as to its former existence.

"Several extinct species of hippopotamus have been found in the later tertiary deposits, both of England and other countries of Europe, embedded in gravel which contains shells of many existing species of the locality, showing that the temperature has not much changed, and that some of the fossil species were natives of cold and temperate climes."

There is no doubt that the hippopotamus and the urus were the two largest animals known to the Jews, and it is probably on that account that the former received the name of Behemoth.

Assuming, therefore, that the Behemoth is identical with the hippopotamus, we will proceed with the description.

The words "whom I made with thee" have been variously translated. Some Hebraists render them as, "whom I made near thee," i.e. near or in the country in which Job lived. Others read the words, "like as thee," i.e. that the Behemoth was the fellow-creature of Job. Others again understand them as signifying that the man and the animal were contemporaneous, and the passage should be read, "whom I made at the same time with thee." Whichever interpretation we adopt, it is evident that a parallel of some kind is drawn between the man and the beast.

"He eateth grass like the ox." The word which is here rendered "grass" is translated in Numb. xi. 5 as "leeks." It means, something that is green, and is probably used to signify green herbage of any description. Now it is perfectly true of the hippopotamus that it eats grass like an ox, or like cattle, as the passage may be translated. In order to supply its huge massive body with nourishment, it consumes vast quantities of food, as indeed may be inferred from the structure of its mouth and jaws. The mouth is enormously broad and shovel-shaped, so as to take in a large quantity of food at once; and the gape is so wide, that when the animal opens its jaws to their full extent it seems to split its head into two nearly equal portions. This great mobility of jaw is assisted by the peculiar form of the gape, which takes a sudden turn upwards, and reaches almost to the eyes.

Just as the mouth is formed to contain a vast quantity of food, so the jaws and teeth are made to procure it. From the front of the lower jaw the incisor teeth project horizontally, no longer performing the ordinary duties of teeth, but being modified into tusks, which are in all probability used as levers for prising up the vegetables on which the animal lives. But the most singular portion of the jaw is the mode in which the canine teeth are modified so as to resemble the incisor teeth of rodents, and to perform a similar office.

These teeth are very long, curved, and chisel-edged at their tips, their shape being preserved by continual attrition, just as has been mentioned of the hyrax. The material of the teeth is peculiarly hard, so much so, indeed, that it is in great request for artificial teeth, the "verniers" of philosophical instruments, and similar purposes. Consequently, with these teeth the hippopotamus can cut through the stems of thick and strong herbage as with shears, and the strength of its jaws is so great that an angered hippopotamus has been known to bite a man completely in two, and to crush a canoe to fragments with a single movement of its enormous jaws.

Keeping this description in our minds, we shall see how true is the statement in verse 19. This passage is not adequately rendered in the Authorized Version: the word which is translated as "sword" also signifies a scythe, and evidently having that meaning in the text. The passage is best translated thus: "His Maker hath furnished him with his scythe."

The havoc which such an animal can make among growing crops may be easily imagined. It is fond of leaving the river, and forcing its way into cultivated grounds, where it eats vast quantities of green food, and destroys as much as it eats, by the trampling of its heavy feet. Owing to the width of the animal, the feet are placed very far apart, and the consequence is that the hippopotamus makes a double path, the feet of each side trampling down the herbage, and causing the track to look like a double rut, with an elevated ridge between them.

Some little difficulty has been made respecting the passage in verse 20, "Surely the mountains bring him forth food." Commentators ignorant of the habits of the hippopotamus, and not acquainted with the character of the country where it lives, have thought that the animal only lived in the rivers, and merely found its food along its banks, or at most upon the marshes at the river-side. The hippopotamus, say they, is not a dweller on the mountains, but an inhabitant of the river, and therefore this passage cannot rightly be applied to the animal.

Now, in the first place, the word harim, which is translated as "mountains" in the Authorized Version, is rendered as "hills" by many Hebraists. Moreover, as we know from many passages of Scripture, the word "mountain" is applied to any elevated spot, without reference to its height. Such places are very common along the banks of the Nile, and are employed for the culture of vegetables, which would not grow properly upon the flat and marshy lands around them. These spots are very attractive to the hippopotamus, who likes a change of diet, and thus finds food upon the mountains. In many parts of Egypt the river runs through a mountainous country, so that the hills are within a very short distance of the water, and are easily reached by the hippopotamus.

The Talmudical writers exaggerated, after their custom, the dimensions, voracity, and other attributes of the Behemoth. They said that the animal devoured daily the herbage of a thousand hills, but that, in order to prevent the devastation of the world which such voracity would occasion, the herbage was miraculously renewed every night. Only two of the Behemoth were ever created, and, lest they should increase in numbers, and destroy every green thing on the face of the earth, they were made incapable of propagating their kind. There are other legends of the Behemoth too puerile to be narrated.

We will now proceed to the next verse. After mentioning that the Behemoth can eat grass like an ox, and finds its food upon the hills, the sacred writer proceeds to show that in its moments of repose it is an inhabitant of the rivers and marshy ground: "He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

"The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about."

Here I may remind the reader that the compound Hebrew word which is rendered in the Authorized Version as "shady trees" is translated by some persons as "wild lotuses"-a rendering which is followed by the editor of the Jewish Bible. Apparently, however, the Authorized Version gives a more correct meaning of the term. Judging from a well-known Egyptian painting, which represents a hunter in the act of harpooning the hippopotamus, the tall papyrus reeds are the plants that are signified by this word, which occurs in no other place in the Scriptures.

THE HIPPOPOTAMUS, OR BEHEMOTH OF SCRIPTURE.

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee."-Job xl. 15.

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.

THE EGYPTIAN HUNTER.

"He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens."-Job xl. 21.

(The attitude of the Hippopotamus is copied from the painting.)

In the meantime, guided by the float, the hunter follows the course of the animal, and, as soon as it comes within reach of his weapon, drives another spear into it, and so proceeds until the animal dies from loss of blood. The modern hunters never throw a second harpoon unless the one already fixed gives way, mainly employing a spear to inflict the last wounds. But if we may judge from this painting, the Egyptian hunter attached a new rope with every cast of his weapon, and, when the hippopotamus became weak from its wounds, gathered up the ropes and came to close quarters.

In the bow of the boat is the hunter's assistant, armed with a rope made lasso-wise into a noose, which he is throwing over the head of the hippopotamus, whose attitude and expression show evidently, in spite of the rudeness of the drawing, the impotent anger of the weakened animal.

Behind the hippopotamus are the tall and dense reeds and papyrus under the shelter of which the animal loves to lie, and on the surface of the water float the beautiful white flowers of the lotus.

In the Egyptian painting, the artist, in spite of the conventionalities to which he was bound, has depicted the whole scene with skill and spirit. The head and open mouth of the hippopotamus are remarkably fine, and show that the artist who drew the animal must have seen it when half mad with pain, and half dead from loss of blood.

The enormous strength of the hippopotamus is shown in verses 16, 18, the last of which passages requires a little explanation. Two different words are used here to express the bones of the animal. The first is derived from a word signifying strength, and means the "strong bones," i.e. those of the legs. These are hollow, and are therefore aptly compared to tubes or pipes of copper. The second term is thought by some Hebraists to refer to the rib-bones, which are solid, and therefore are not likened to tubes, but to bars of iron.

The 23d verse has been translated rather variously. The Authorized Version can be seen by reference to a Bible, and another translation, that of the Jewish Bible, is given on page 319. A third, and perhaps the best rendering of this passage is given by the Rev. W. Drake, in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible:" "Lo, the river swelleth proudly against him, yet he is not alarmed; he is securely confident though a Jordan burst forth against his mouth."

In all probability reference is here made to the annual rising of the Nile, and the inundations which it causes. In some years, when it rises much above its usual height, the floods become most disastrous. Whole villages are swept away, and scarcely a vestige of the mud-built houses is left; the dead bodies of human beings are seen intermixed with those of cattle, and the whole country is one scene of desolation. Yet the almost amphibious hippopotamus cares nothing for the floods, as long as it can find food, and so, "though the river swelleth proudly against him," he is not alarmed.

From the use of the word "Jordan" in the same verse, it might be thought that the river of Palestine was intended. This, however, is not the case. The word "Jordan" is simply used as a poetical term for any river, and is derived from a Hebrew word which signifies "descending quickly."

We now come to the last verse of this noble description: "He taketh it in with his eyes." These words have also been variously rendered, some translating them as "He receiveth it (i.e. the river) up to his eyes." But the translation which seems to suit the context best is, "Who will take him when in his sight? His nose pierceth through (i.e. detects) snares." Now, this faculty of detecting snares is one of the chief characteristics of the hippopotamus, when it lives near places inhabited by mankind, who are always doing their best to destroy it. In the first place, its body gives them an almost unlimited supply of flesh, the fat is very highly valued for many purposes, the teeth are sold to the ivory-dealers, and the hide is cut up into whips, or khoorbashes.

There is now before me a khoorbash, purchased from a native Egyptian who was beating a servant with it. The whip is identical with that which was used by the ancient Egyptians in urging the Israelites to their tasks, and the scene reminded the traveller so forcibly of the old Scriptural times that he rescued the unfortunate servant, and purchased the khoorbash, which is now in my collection.

Not content with hunting the hippopotamus, the natives contrive various traps, either pitfalls or drop-traps. The former are simply pits dug in the path of the animal, covered with sticks and reeds, and having at the bottom a sharp stake on which the victim is impaled, and so effectually prevented from escaping or damaging the pit by its struggles.

HIPPOPOTAMUS AND TRAP.

"His nose pierceth through snares."-Job xl. 24.

The drop-trap is a log of wood, weighted with stones, and having at one end an iron spike, which is sometimes poisoned. The path which the animal takes is watched, a conveniently overhanging branch is selected, and from that branch the cruel spear is suspended, by a catch or trigger, exactly over the centre of the path. There is no difficulty in finding the precise centre of the path, owing to the peculiar gait of the animal, which has already been described. One end of the trigger supports the spear, and to the other is attached a rope, which is brought across the path in such a way that when touched it relieves the spear, which is driven deeply into the animal's back. If well hung, the spear-blade divides the spine, and the wounded animal falls on the spot, but, even if it should miss a vital part, the poison soon does its fatal work.

In consequence of the continual persecution to which it is subjected, the hippopotamus becomes exceedingly wary, and, huge, clumsy, and blundering as it looks, is clever enough to detect either pitfall or drop-trap that have not been contrived with especial care. An old and experienced hippopotamus becomes so wary that he will be suspicious even of a bent twig, and, rather than venture across it, he will leave the path, force for himself a roundabout passage, and return to the path beyond the object that alarmed him.

Mr. T. Baines, to whose sketches I am indebted for the illustration, told me that the hippopotamus is possessed of much more intellect than might be expected from a creature of so dull, clumsy, and unpromising aspect. Apathetic it generally is, and, as long as it is left unmolested, does not care to molest even the human beings that intrude upon its repose.

It likes to lie in the shade of the reeds and rushes, and may be seen floating in the water, with only the nostrils, the eyes, and the ears above the surface, these organs being set in a line along the head, evidently for the purpose of allowing the whole body to be hidden under water while the three most important senses are capable of acting.

A canoe-man who knows the habits of the hippopotamus will fearlessly take his fragile vessel through a herd of the animals, knowing that, if he only avoids contact with them, they will not interfere with him. The only danger is, that a hippopotamus may rise under the canoe, and strike itself against the boat, in which case the animal is rather apt to consider the intruding object as an enemy, and to attack it, sometimes crushing the canoe between its teeth, and mostly upsetting it, and throwing the crew into the water. In such a case, the men always dive at once to the bottom of the river, and hold on to some weed or rock as long as they can exist without breathing. The reason for this proceeding is, that the hippopotamus always looks for its enemy upon the surface of the water, and, if the men were to swim to shore, they would be caught and killed before they had swum many strokes. But, as it sees nothing but the damaged canoe, its short-lived anger vanishes, and it sinks again into the river, leaving the men at liberty to regain and repair their vessel.

There is one passage in the description of the Behemoth which requires a few words of explanation: "He moveth his tail like a cedar" (v. 17).

Several commentators have imagined that this expression shows that the Behemoth must have been an animal which had a very long and powerful tail, and have adduced the passage as a proof that the crocodile was the animal that was signified by the Behemoth. Others, again, have shifted the position of the tail, and, by rendering it as the "proboscis," have identified the Behemoth with the elephant. There is, however, no necessity for straining the interpretation, the passage evidently signifying that the member in question is stiff and inflexible as the cedar-stem.

BIRDS.

THE

L?MMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

Difficulty of identifying the various birds mentioned in Scripture-The vultures of Palestine-The L?mmergeier, or Ossifrage of Scripture-The Hebrew word Peres, and its signification-The Ossifrage, or Bone-breaker-Appearance of the L?mmergeier-Its flight and mode of feeding-How the L?mmergeier kills snakes and tortoises, and breaks marrow-bones-Mode of destroying the chamois and mountain sheep-Nest of the L?mmergeier.

It has already been mentioned that even the best Biblical scholars have found very great difficulties in identifying several of the animals which are named in Scripture. This difficulty is greatly increased when we come to the Birds, and in many instances it is absolutely impossible to identify the Hebrew word with any precise species. In all probability, however, the nomenclature of the birds is a very loose one, several species being classed under the same title.

Even at the present day, the English language presents many similar instances of poverty, as is well known to all zoologists. Taking the birds as our first examples, how often do we not find the same word used to signify many distinct species, and, again, one species designated by several dissimilar words? The word Vulture, for example, is used to signify a great number of birds, including the L?mmergeier, the Condors, the Griffons, the Caracaras, and others; while the term Eagle has scarcely a less wide signification. Sometimes the name is applied in such a manner as to mislead those who are not scientific ornithologists, and we find such inappropriate titles as night-hawk, fern-owl, hedge-sparrow, reed-wren, &c., the birds in question being neither hawks, owls, sparrows, nor wrens.

Keeping this difficulty in mind, I shall mention all the species which are likely to have been classed under a single title, giving a general description of the whole, and a detailed account of the particular species which seems to answer most closely to the Hebrew word.

* * *

THE L?MMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

"These are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray."-Deut. xiv. 12.

Following the arrangement which has been employed in this work, I shall begin with the bird which has been placed by zoologists at the head of its class, namely, the L?mmergeier, the bird which may be safely identified with the Ossifrage of Scripture. The Hebrew word is "Peres," a term which only occurs twice when signifying a species of bird; namely, in Lev. xi. 13, and the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 12. The first of these passages runs as follows: "These ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray." The corresponding passage in Deuteronomy has precisely the same signification, though rather differently worded: "These are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray."

The reader will here notice that the sacred narrative gives no account of the appearance or habits of the bird, but merely classed it with the remainder of the predacious birds, all of which are declared to be unfit for food. We must therefore look for some assistance in the etymology of the word peres, which signifies one who breaks anything. The same word occurs in several other passages of Scripture.

For example, the word was much used by David in commemorating any remarkable event. When David sent Uzzah and Ahio to fetch the ark from Kirjath-jearim, the oxen which drew the cart stumbled and shook the ark, so that it seemed likely to fall. Uzzah, who walked by the side of the cart, while his brother marched in front of the oxen, instinctively put out his hand to uphold it, and fell dead by the side of the ark which he had touched without authority. In order to commemorate this event, David called the spot whereon it occurred Perez-Uzzah, or the Breaking of Uzzah, "because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah." (See 2 Sam. vi. 8.)

Reference to this event was afterwards made by David when he brought the ark into Jerusalem. Having taken warning by the solemn event which he had witnessed, he called together the priests and Levites, to whom he gave the commission to bring the ark with due honour, and "said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

"For, because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach (peres) upon us, for that we sought Him not in due order" (1 Chron. xv. 12, 13). David again employed the word to signify the breaking up or destruction of the Philistines. "David smote them there, and said, The Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-perazim"-i.e.

the Place of Breakings. The same word occurs again in that dread message to Belshazzar, written by the hand upon the wall, "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin," or peres, the last word signifying that the kingdom was broken up, and would be given to other rulers.

The word peres, then, signifies a breaker; and the Latin term Ossifraga, or Bone-breaker, is a very good translation of the word. How it applies to the L?mmergeier we shall presently see.

The L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeiers.

The food of the L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeier 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 ?schylus for a white stone, and killed him by dropping a tortoise upon it, was in all likelihood a L?mmergeier, the bird being a denizen of the same country, and the act of tortoise-dropping being its usual mode of killing those reptiles.

We now see why the L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeier 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 L?mmergeier makes among the sheep that it has obtained the name of L?mmergeier, 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 L?mmergeier, the bird having mistaken their crouching forms for the chamois, and only turned aside at the last moment.

The reason for employing so remarkable a mode of attack is to be found in the structure of the feet, which, although belonging to so large and powerful a bird, are comparatively feeble, and are unable, like those of the eagle, to grasp the living animal in a deadly hold, and to drive the sharp talons into its vitals. They are not well adapted for holding prey, the talons not possessing the hook-like form or the sharp points which characterise those of the eagle. The feet, by the way, are feathered down to the toes. The beak, too, is weak when compared with the rest of the body, and could not perform its work were not the object which it tears previously shattered by the fall from a height.

The nest of the L?mmergeier is made of sticks and sods, and is of enormous dimensions. It is almost always placed upon a lofty cliff, and contains about a wagon-load or so of sticks rudely interwoven, and supporting a nearly equal amount of sods and moss.

An allied species lives in Northern Africa, where it is called by a name which signifies Father Longbeard, in allusion to the beard-like tufts of the bill.

THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE OR GIER-EAGLE.

The Racham or Gier-Eagle identified with the Egyptian Vulture-Its appearance on the Egyptian monuments-Signification of the word Racham-Various translations of the word-The shape, size, and colour of the bird-Its value as a scavenger, and its general habits-The Egyptian Vultures and the griffons-Its fondness for the society of man-Nest of the Egyptian Vulture.

In the same list of unclean birds which has already been given, we find the name of a bird which we can identify without much difficulty, although there has been some little controversy about it. This is the so-called Gier-Eagle, which is named with the cormorant and the pelican as one of the birds which the Jews are forbidden to eat. The word which is translated as Gier-Eagle is Racham, a name which is almost identical with the Arabic name of the Egyptian Vulture, sometimes called Pharaoh's Chicken, because it is so often sculptured on the ancient monuments of Egypt. It is called by the Turks by a name which signifies White Father, in allusion to the colour of its plumage.

Before proceeding to a description of the bird, we will examine the other interpretations which have been given to the word racham.

In the first place, the word signifies "love," and is used in that sense in many passages of Scripture. According to Buxtorf, the bird in question is the merops or bee-eater, "a bird so called from the love and pity which is shown to its parents, because it nurtures them when hidden in the most lofty caves." Some of the Talmudists take it to be the woodpecker.

Another rendering of the word which has received much favour is, that the Racham is the hyacinthine gallinule, or sultana hen (Pophyrio veterum). This bird is allied to the rails, and is remarkable for the great length of its toes, by means of which it can walk on floating herbage as it lies on the surface of the water. The colour of the bird is a rich and variable blue, darker on the back and lighter on the throat and breast. It is on account of this purple hue that the bird has received the name of Porphyrio, or Purple Bird. It is spread over many parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

EGYPTIAN VULTURE, OR GIER-EAGLE.

"And the pelican, and the gier-eagle, and the cormorant."-Deut. xiv. 17.

The reading of racham as porphyrio is followed in the Septuagint, and the reading has been defended on the ground that the bird must belong to the aquatic group, being placed between the pelican and cormorant. The Jewish Bible follows our version, but affixes the mark of doubt to the word.

Although some of the Talmudists render the word as woodpecker, others identify it with the Egyptian Vulture. In Lewysohn's "Zoologie des Talmuds," there is a curious speculation on this subject. This bird, according to the authors whom he quotes, is the Schirkrek, and derives its name from its peculiar cry, which begins with a hiss (Schirk) and ends with a shriek (Rek). The bird utters its cry when the rising of the Nile is expected, and so has earned the name of Racham, or Love, this word being frequently used in the Scriptures as a metaphor for rain, dew, or any water that nourishes plants.

Without adopting the process of reasoning employed in this case, we may safely accept the conclusion, and consider the Racham as identical with the Egyptian Vulture (Neophron perenopterus).

This bird is not a very large one, being about equal to a raven in size, though its enormously long wings give it an appearance of much greater size. Its colour is white, with the exception of the quill feathers of the wings, which are dark-brown. The bill and the naked face and legs are bright ochreous yellow. It does not attain this white plumage until its third year, its colour before reaching adult age being brown, with a grey neck and dull yellow legs and face.

The Egyptian Vulture, although not large, is a really handsome bird, the bold contrast of pure white and dark brown being very conspicuous when it is on the wing. In this plumage it has never been seen in England, but one or two examples are known of the Egyptian Vulture being killed in England while still in its dark-brown clothing.

It inhabits a very wide range of country, being found throughout all the warmer parts of the Old World. Although it is tolerably plentiful, it is never seen in great numbers, as is the case with several of the vultures, but is always to be found in pairs, the male and female never separating, and invariably being seen close together. In fact, in places where it is common it is hardly possible to travel more than a mile or two without seeing a pair of Egyptian Vultures. Should more than two of these birds be seen together, the spectator may be sure that they have congregated over some food. It has been well suggested that its Hebrew name of Racham, or Love, has been given to it in consequence of this constant association of the male and female.

The Egyptian Vulture is one of the best of scavengers, not only devouring the carcases of dead animals, but feeding on every kind of offal or garbage. Indeed, its teeth and claws are much too feeble to enable it to cope with the true vultures in tearing up a large carcase, and in consequence it never really associates with them, although it may be seen hovering near them, and it never ventures to feed in their company, keeping at a respectful distance while they feed, and, when they retire, humbly making a meal on the scraps which they have left.

Mr. Tristram narrates an amusing instance of this trait of character. "On a subsequent occasion, on the north side of Hermon, we observed the griffons teaching a lesson of patience to the inferior scavengers. A long row of Egyptian vultures were sitting on some rocks, so intently watching a spot in a corn-field that they took no notice of our approach. Creeping cautiously near, we watched a score of griffons busily engaged in turning over a dead horse, one side of which they had already reduced to a skeleton.

"Their united efforts had just effected this, when we showed ourselves, and they quickly retired. The inferior birds, who dreaded us much less than them, at once darted to the repast, and, utterly regardless of our presence within ten yards of them, began to gorge. We had hardly retired two hundred yards, when the griffons came down with a swoop, and the Egyptian vultures and a pair or two of eagles hurriedly resumed their post of observation; while some black kites remained, and contrived by their superior agility to filch a few morsels from their lordly superiors."

So useful is this bird as a scavenger, that it is protected in all parts of the East by the most stringent laws, so that a naturalist who wishes for specimens has some difficulty in procuring the bird, or even its egg. It wanders about the streets of the villages, and may generally be found investigating the heaps of refuse which are left to be cleared away by the animals and birds which constitute the scavengers of the East.

It not only eats dead animal substances, but kills and devours great quantities of rats, mice, lizards, and other pests that swarm in hot countries. So tame is it, that it may even be observed, like the gull and the rook of our own country, following the ploughman as he turns up the ground, and examining the furrow for the purpose of picking up the worms, grubs, and similar creatures that are disturbed by the share.

Being thus protected and encouraged by man, there is good reason why it should have learned in course of time to fear him far less than its own kind. Indeed, it is so utterly fearless with regard to human beings, that it habitually follows the caravans as they pass from one town to another, for the sake of feeding on the refuse food and other offal which is thrown aside on the road.

Two articles of diet which certainly do not seem to fall within the ordinary range of vulture's food are said to be consumed by this bird. The first is the egg of the ostrich, the shell of which is too hard to be broken by the feeble beak of the Egyptian Vulture. The bird cannot, like the l?mmergeier, carry the egg into the air and drop it on the ground, because its feet are not large enough to grasp it, and only slip off its round and polished surface. Therefore, instead of raising the egg into the air and dropping it upon a stone, it carries a stone into the air and drops it upon the egg. So at least say the natives of the country which it inhabits, and there is no reason why we should doubt the truth of the statement.

The other article of food is a sort of melon, very full of juice. This melon is called "nara," and is devoured by various creatures, such as lions, leopards, mice, ostriches, &c. and seems to serve them instead of drink.

The nest of the Egyptian Vulture is made in some rocky ledge, and the bird does not trouble itself about selecting a spot inaccessible to man, knowing well that it will not be disturbed. The nest is, like that of other vultures, a large and rude mass of sticks, sods, bones, and similar materials, to which are added any bits of rag, rope, skin, and other village refuse which it can pick up as it traverses the streets. There are two, and occasionally three, eggs, rather variously mottled with red. In its breeding, as in its general life, it is not a gregarious bird, never breeding in colonies, and, indeed, very seldom choosing a spot for its nest near one which has already been selected by another pair.

The illustration on page 340 represents part of the nest of the Egyptian Vulture, in which the curious mixture of bones and sticks is well shown. The parent birds are drawn in two characteristic attitudes taken from life, and well exhibit the feeble beak, the peculiar and intelligent, almost cunning expression of the head, and the ruff of feathers which surrounds the upper part of the neck. In the distance another bird is drawn as it appears on the wing, in order to show the contrast between the white plumage and the dark quill feathers of the wings, the bird presenting a general appearance very similar to that of the common English sea-gull.

THE

GRIFFON VULTURE, OR EAGLE OF SCRIPTURE.

The Griffon Vulture identified with the Eagle of Scripture-The word Nesher and its signification-Geographical range of the Griffon-Its mode of flight and sociable habits-The featherless head and neck of the bird-The Vulture used as an image of strength, swiftness, and rapacity-Its powers of sight-How Vultures assemble round a carcase-Nesting-places of the Griffon-Mr. Tristram's description of the Griffon-Rock-caves of the Wady Hamam-Care of the young, and teaching them to fly-Strength of the Griffon-Its emblematical use in Egypt and Assyria-The god Nisroch-Noble aspect of the Griffon-Its longevity-Various attitudes assumed by the bird.

We now come to another word which will give us but little trouble in identification. This is the word Nesher, which is invariably translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible as Eagle, but which was undoubtedly a different bird, and has satisfactorily been identified with the Griffon Vulture, or Great Vulture (Gyps fulvus). The reasons for this conclusion are so inextricably interwoven with the various passages in which the bird is mentioned, that I shall not give them separately, but simply allude to them in the course of the article.

In the first place, the name Nesher is derived, according to many Hebraists, from a word which signifies the power of sight, and is given to the bird in consequence of its piercing vision. The Talmudical writers mention a curious proverb concerning the sight of the Vulture, namely, that a Vulture in Babylon can see a carcase in Palestine. Other scholars derive it from a word which signifies its longevity, while others again believe that the true derivation is to be found in a word which signifies ripping up or tearing with the beak.

* * *

The Griffon Vulture is found throughout a large portion of the Old World, inhabiting nearly all the warmer portions of this hemisphere. The colour of the adult bird is a sort of yellowish brown, diversified by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down that surrounds the neck. The head and neck are without feathers, but are sparingly covered with very short down of a similar character to that of the ruff.

It is really a large bird, being little short of five feet in total length, and the expanse of wing measuring about eight feet.

The Griffon Vulture is very plentiful in Palestine, and, unlike the lesser though equally useful Egyptian Vulture, congregates together in great numbers, feeding, flying, and herding in company. Large flocks of them may be seen daily, soaring high in the air, and sweeping their graceful way in the grand curves which distinguish the flight of the large birds of prey. They are best to be seen in the early morning, being in the habit of quitting their rocky homes at daybreak, and indulging in a flight for two or three hours, after which they mostly return to the rocks, and wait until evening, when they take another short flight before retiring to rest.

Allusion is made in the Scriptures to the gregarious habits of the Vultures: "Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together" (Matt xxiv. 28). That the Vulture, and not the eagle, is here signified, is evident from the fact that the eagles do not congregate like the Vultures, never being seen in greater numbers than two or three together, while the Vultures assemble in hundreds.

The featherless head of the Vulture is mentioned in the Book of Micah, chap. i. ver. 16: "Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee." It is evident that in this passage reference is made, not to the eagle, whose head is thickly covered with feathers, but to the Vulture, whose head and neck are but scantily sprinkled with white down. Some commentators, not aware that the word nesher should have been rendered as "vulture," have explained the passage by saying that the prophet referred to the moulting-time of the eagle; but the reader will see that such an explanation is at the best a forced one, whereas the reference to the bald head of the Vulture is both simple and natural.

The voracity of the Vulture, and its capacity for discovering food, are both mentioned in Job xxxix. 27-30: "Doth the eagle (nesher) mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?

"She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place.

"From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off.

"Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she."

See also Hab. i. 6-8, in which the prophet speaks of the Chaldeans, "that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling-places that are not theirs.

"They are terrible and dreadful: ... and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat."

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.

The wonderful powers of sight possessed by this bird are mentioned in the passage from Job xxxix. which has already been quoted.

Here it may be as well to say that, piercing as is the vision of the Vulture, its visual powers have been much exaggerated. It certainly does possess a vision of no ordinary capacity, which is 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.

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.

To describe this beautiful piece of mechanism would be outside the scope of the present work; but the reader can find it in every good work on comparative anatomy, and is strongly advised to make himself master of the means by which a result so apparently impossible is secured.

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.

The fondness of the Vulture for such localities is more than once mentioned in Holy Writ. One of these passages, which occurs in Job xxxix. 29, has already been quoted, and another, and equally forcible one, is to be found in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: "Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart, O thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the hill: though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle (nesher), I will bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord" (Jer. xlix. 16).

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 l?mmergeiers, 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.

"We were more successful in the Wady Hamam, the southwest end of the plain, the entrance from Hattin and the Buttauf, where we spent three days in exploration. The cliffs, though reaching the height of fifteen hundred feet, rise like terraces, with enormous masses of débris, and the wood is half a mile wide. By the aid of Giacomo, who proved himself an expert rope-climber, we reaped a good harvest of griffons' eggs, some of the party being let down by ropes, while those above were guided in working them by signals from others below in the valley. It required the aid of a party of a dozen to capture these nests. The idea of scaling the cliff with ropes was quite new to some Arabs who were herding cattle above, and who could not, excepting one little girl, be induced to render any assistance. She proved herself most sensible and efficient in telegraphing.

"While capturing the griffons' nests, we were re-enacting a celebrated siege in Jewish history. Close to us, at the head of the cliffs which form the limits of the celebrated Plain of Hattin, were the ruins of Irbid, the ancient Arbela, marked principally by the remains of a synagogue, of which some marble shafts and fragments of entablature, like those of Tell H?m, are still to be seen, and were afterwards visited by us.

"Hosea mentions the place apparently as a strong fortress: 'All thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle' (Hos. x. 14). Perhaps the prophet here refers to the refuges in the rocks below.

"The long series of chambers and galleries in the face of the precipice are called by the Arabs Kulat Ibn Maan, and are very fully described by Josephus. These cliffs were the homes of a set of bandits, who resided here with their families, and for years set the power of Herod the Great at defiance. At length, when all other attempts at scaling the fortress had failed, he let down soldiers at this very spot in boxes, by chains, who attacked the robbers with long hooks, and succeeded in rooting them all out. The exploit was familiar to us by an engraving of the Penny Magazine of old, and little did we dream that we should one day storm those very caves in a similar way ourselves. We could not but regret that Herod had neglected to leave his chains and grappling-irons for our use.

"The rock galleries, though now only tenanted by griffons, are very complete and perfect, and beautifully built. Long galleries wind backwards and forwards in the cliff side, their walls being built with dressed stone, flush with the precipice, and often opening into spacious chambers. Tier after tier rise one after another with projecting windows, connected by narrow staircases, carried sometimes upon arches, and in the upper portions rarely broken away. In many of the upper chambers to which we were let down, the dust of ages had accumulated, undisturbed by any foot save that of the birds of the air; and here we rested during the heat of the day, with the plains and lake set as in a frame before us. We obtained a full zoological harvest, as in three days we captured fourteen nests of griffons."

Although these caverns and rocky passages are much more accessible than most of the places whereon the Griffons build, the natives never venture to enter them, being deterred not so much by their height, as by their superstitious fears. The Griffons instinctively found out that man never entered these caverns, and so took possession of them.

As the young Griffons are brought up in these lofty and precipitous places, it is evident that their first flight must be a dangerous experiment, requiring the aid of the parent birds. At first the young are rather nervous at the task which lies before them, and shrink from trusting themselves to the air. The parents, however, encourage them to use their wings, take short flights in order to set them an example, and, when they at last venture from the nest, accompany and encourage them in their first journey.

Even this habit has been noted by the sacred writers, and been forcibly employed as an image of divine protection. See the Song of Moses, in which the aged leader, whose forty years' work was at last finished, recapitulates the mercies vouchsafed to the people of Israel, and exhorts them against the sin of ingratitude: "For the Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.

"He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye.

"As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings;

"So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him" (Deut. xxxii. 9-12).

The strength of flight of the Vulture is also noticed by the sacred writers. See, for example, Exod. xix. 4: "Ye have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' (nesherim) wings, and brought you unto myself."

This passage had a peculiar force when addressed to the Hebrews, the Vulture being one of the chief emblems of Egyptian power, and its outspread wings continually recurring on the grand monuments and temples with which they must have been so familiar.

Strangely enough, in their second captivity, the Jews met with the same emblem among the Assyrians. For example, their god Nisroch, whom we find mentioned as specially worshipped by Sennacherib, was a vulture-headed deity, bearing not only the head of the bird, but also its wings. The vast wings of the Vulture were by the Assyrians used as types of Divine power, and were therefore added, not only to human figures, but to those of beasts. The human-headed and vulture-winged bulls of Nineveh, with which we are now so familiar, are good examples of this peculiar imagery.

The name Nisroch, by the way, is evidently the same word as nesher, and bears even closer resemblance to the Arabic niss'r. This bird was also the war standard of Assyria, just as the eagle is that of France, and the metaphors used by Habbakuk and Jeremiah had therefore a doubly forcible sense.

We find the same bird employed as a visible emblem of Divine omnipresence and omniscience in the visions seen by Ezekiel and St. John: "And every one had four faces; the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle" (Ezek. x. 14). Then, in the Revelation, chap. iv. ver. 6, 7, is the account of a vision of very similar character: "In the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

THE VULTURE, OR EAGLE OF SCRIPTURE.

"Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."-Matt. xxiv 28.

"And the first beast was like a lion, and the second was like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle."

From these passages we shall see that the Griffon Vulture was not held by the Scriptural writers in the contempt with which we are apt to regard it. Not having any Vultures resident in our country, for the simple reason that there is not enough carrion in the whole of England to feed a single Vulture for a month, we have no practical knowledge of them, and are apt to confound, under the common title of Vulture, birds of most dissimilar aspect. Some of them, especially those which inhabit the West Indies, are mean-looking, slouching, sneaking, obscene birds, which, even when brought to this country, and nourished on fresh meat, cannot be regarded without inspiring a feeling of disgust.

But there are others which are really grand and noble birds, which excite admiration instead of disgust, and one of the chief among these is the Griffon Vulture. Scavenger though it be, it is not disgusting in its habits, and may even be called a cleanly bird. It is intelligent, after its way, and is quite as susceptible of human teaching as the falcon or the cormorant. It is not quarrelsome, and, even when feeding, does not try to drive away its neighbour, but feeds alongside of him with perfect amity and quiet.

In common with other birds of its order, the Griffon Vulture is a very long-lived bird, and even this characteristic is noticed in the well-known passage, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits: ... who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's" (Ps. ciii. 1, 5).

This passage has often been absurdly misinterpreted by commentators who have not appreciated the metaphorical style of all Oriental poetry. Taking the passage in its exact literal sense, and not knowing that reference is made to the Vulture and not to the eagle, they have taken for granted that the eagle had some mode of renewing its youth, and, in fact, after becoming old, went through some process by which it shook off the decrepitude of old age, and became young again. Others, seeing that such an interpretation was both strained and far-fetched, have thought that reference was made to the annual moult of the eagle, which they fancied to be of a very severe character, the whole of the feathers being shed at once, so as to leave the bird naked and helpless, and then being restored with added strength and beauty.

It is evident, however, that no such interpretation is needed, and that the Psalmist, when using the expression "renewing the youth like an eagle's," only employed a metaphorical expression significative of longevity.

If we recapitulate the various passages in which the Nesher is mentioned in the Scriptures, we shall find that the sacred writers were thoroughly acquainted with the bird, and that they wrote of it with an occasional fulness and an invariable precision which shows how familiar they were with a bird at once so plentiful and so conspicuous.

The illustration represents one of the rocky gorges so plentiful in Palestine, inhabited by a number of Griffon Vultures. Some of them are feeding upon the carcase of a dead animal, another is upon her nest, and several Vultures, who have gorged themselves with food after their fashion, are sitting listlessly on the rock, in some of the singular positions which this bird affects. There is, perhaps, no bird which has a more curious set of attitudes than the Griffon Vulture, or which exhibits so different an aspect at various times.

In flight it is one of the most magnificent birds that can be seen, and even when perched it often retains a certain look of majesty and grandeur. Sometimes, however, especially when basking in the sun, it assumes a series of attitudes which are absolutely grotesque, and convert the noble-looking bird into a positively ludicrous object. At one moment it will sit all hunched up, its head sunk between its shoulders, and one wing trailing behind it as if broken. At another it will bend its legs and sit down on the ankle-joint, pushing its feet out in front, and supporting itself by the stiff feathers of its tail. Often it will crouch nearly flat on the ground, partly spread its wings, and allow their tips to rest on the earth, and sometimes it will support nearly all the weight of its body on the wings, which rest, in a half doubled state, on the ground. I have before me a great number of sketches, taken in a single day, of the attitudes assumed by one of these birds, every one of which is strikingly different from the others, and transforms the whole shape of the bird so much that it is scarcely recognisable as the same individual.

THE EAGLE.

"Though thou shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle."-Jer. xlix. 16.

THE EAGLE.

Signification of the word Asniyeh-The Golden Eagle and its habits-The Imperial Eagle-Its solitary mode of life-The Short-toed Eagle-Its domestic habits and fondness for the society of man-The Osprey, or Fishing Eagle-Its mode of catching fish-Its distribution in Palestine.

As to the Eagle, rightly so called, there is little doubt that it is one of the many birds of prey that seem to have been classed under the general title of Asniyeh-the word which in the Authorized Version of the Bible is rendered as Osprey. A similar confusion is observable in the modern Arabic, one word, ogab, being applied indiscriminately to all the Eagles and the large falconid?.

The chief of the true Eagles, namely, the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysa?tos), is one of the inhabitants of Palestine, and is seen frequently, though never in great numbers. Indeed, its predacious habits unfit it for associating with its kind. Any animal which lives chiefly, if not wholly, by the chase, requires a large district in order to enable it to live, and thus twenty or thirty eagles will be scattered over a district of twice the number of miles. Like the lion among the mammalia, the Eagle leads an almost solitary life, scarcely ever associating with any of its kind except its mate and its young.

Although it lives principally by the chase, it has no objection to carrion, and, as has already been mentioned on page 342, may be seen feeding on a dead animal in company with the lesser vultures, though it retires before the lordly griffon. Being so thinly scattered, it would not be so conspicuous a bird as the griffon, which is not only very much larger, but associates in great numbers, and probably on that account no definite species of Eagle seems to be mentioned in Holy Writ.

Four or five species of Eagle are known to inhabit Palestine. There is, for example, the Imperial Eagle (Aquila mogilnik), which may be distinguished from the Golden Eagle by a white patch on the shoulders, and the long, lancet-shaped feathers of the head and neck. These feathers are of a fawn colour, and contrast beautifully with the deep black-brown of the back and wings. It is not very often seen, being a bird that loves the forest, and that does not care to leave the shelter of the trees. It is tolerably common in Palestine.

Then there are several of the allied species, of which the best example is perhaps the Short-toed Eagle (Circa?tus gallicus), a bird which is extremely plentiful in the Holy Land-so plentiful indeed that, as Mr. Tristram remarks, there are probably twice as many of the Short-toed Eagles in Palestine as of all the other species put together. The genus to which this bird belongs does not take rank with the true Eagles, but is supposed by systematic naturalists to hold an intermediate place between the true Eagles and the ospreys.

The Short-toed Eagle is seldom a carrion-eater, preferring to kill its prey for itself. It feeds mostly on serpents and other reptiles, and is especially fond of frogs. It is a large and somewhat heavily built bird, lightness and swiftness being far less necessary than strength in taking the animals on which it feeds. It is rather more than two feet in length, and is a decidedly handsome bird, the back being dark brown, and the under parts white, covered with crescent-shaped black spots.

THE OSPREY.

The Osprey, or Fishing Eagle-Its geographical range-Mode of securing prey-Structure of its feet-Its power of balancing itself in the air.

THE OSPREY.

"These are they of which ye shall not eat; the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey."

Deut. xiv. 12.

We now come to the Osprey itself (Pandion halia?tus), which was undoubtedly one of the birds grouped together under the collective term Asniyeh. This word occurs only in the two passages in Deut. xiv. and Lev. xi. which have been several times quoted already, and need not be mentioned again.

This fine bird is spread over a very large range of country, and is found in the New World as well as the Old. In consequence of its peculiar habits, it is often called the Fishing Eagle.

The Osprey is essentially a fish-eater. It seems very strange that a predacious bird allied to the eagles, none of which birds can swim, much less dive, should obtain its living from the water. That the cormorant and other diving birds should do so is no matter of surprise, inasmuch as they are able to pursue the fish in their own element, and catch them by superior speed. But any bird which cannot dive, and which yet lives on fish, is forced to content itself with those fish that come to the surface of the water, a mode of obtaining a livelihood which does not appear to have much chance of success. Yet the Osprey does on a large scale what the kingfisher does on a small one, and contrives to find abundant food in the water.

Its method of taking prey is almost exactly like that which is employed by the kingfisher. When it goes out in search of food, it soars into the air, and floats in circles over the water, watching every inch of it as narrowly as a kestrel watches a stubble-field. No sooner does a fish rise toward the surface to take a fly, or to leap into the air for sport, than the Osprey darts downwards, grasps the fish in its talons, drags the struggling prey from the water, and with a scream of joy and triumph bears it away to shore, where it can be devoured at leisure.

The bird never dives, neither does it seize the fish with its beak like the kingfisher. It plunges but slightly into the water, as otherwise it would not be able to use its strong wings and carry off its prey. In order to enable the bird to seize the hard and slippery body of the fish, it is furnished with long, very sharp, and boldly-hooked talons, which force themselves into the sides of the fish, and hold it as with grappling irons.

In order to enable it to hover over the water, and to watch the surface carefully, it is possessed of wonderful powers of flight, being able to balance itself in one spot without seeming to move a wing, and having the singular facility of doing so even when a tolerably strong breeze is blowing. It has even been observed to maintain its place unmoved when a sharp squall swept over the spot.

Although not very plentiful in Palestine, nor indeed in any other country, it is seen throughout the whole of that country where it can find a sufficiency of water. It prefers the sea-shore and the rivers of the coast, and is said to avoid the Sea of Galilee.

THE KITE, OR VULTURE OF SCRIPTURE.

The word Dayah and its signification-Dayah a collective term for different species of Kites-The Common or Red Kite plentiful in Palestine-Its piercing sight and habit of soaring-The Black Kite of Palestine and its habits-The Egyptian Kite-The Raah or Glede of Scripture-The Buzzards and their habits-The Peregrine Falcon an inhabitant of Central Palestine, and the Lanner of the eastern parts of the country.

In Lev. xi. 14 and Deut. xiv. 13, we find the Vulture among the list of birds which the Jews were not permitted to eat. The word which is translated as Vulture is dayah, and we find it occurring again in Isaiah xxxiv. 15, "There shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate." There is no doubt, however, that this translation of the word is an incorrect one, and that it ought to be rendered as Kite. In Job xxviii. 7, there is a similar word, ayah, which is also translated as Vulture, and which is acknowledged to be not a Vulture, but one of the Kites: "There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen." Both these words are nearly identical with modern Arabic terms which are employed rather loosely to signify several species of Kite. Buxtorf, in his Hebrew Lexicon, gives the correct rendering, translating dayah as Milvus, and the Vulgate in one or two places gives the same translation, though in others it renders the word as Vulture.

THE KITE, OR VULTURE OF SCRIPTURE.

"There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen."

Job xxviii. 7.

Mr. Tristram, who has given much attention to this subject, is inclined to refer the word ayah to the Common Kite (Milvus regalis), which was once so plentiful in this country, and is now nearly extinct; and dayah to the Black Kite (Milvus atra). He founds this distinction on the different habits of the two species, the Common or Red Kite being thinly scattered, and being in the habit of soaring into the air at very great heights, and the latter being very plentiful and gregarious.

We will first take the Red Kite.

This bird is scattered all over Palestine, feeding chiefly on the smaller birds, mice, reptiles, and fish. In the capture of fish the Kite is almost as expert as the osprey, darting from a great height into the water, and bearing off the fish in its claws. The wings of this bird are very long and powerful, and bear it through the air in a peculiarly graceful flight. It is indeed in consequence of this flight that it has been called the Glede, the word being derived from its gliding movements.

The sight of this bird is remarkably keen and piercing, and, from the vast elevation to which it soars when in search of food, it is able to survey the face of the country beneath, and to detect the partridge, quail, chicken, or other creature that will serve it for food. This piercing sight and habit of soaring render the passage in Job peculiarly appropriate to this species of Kite, though it does not express the habits of the other. Should the Kite suspect danger when forced to leave its nest, it escapes by darting rapidly into the air, and soaring at a vast height above the trees among which its home is made. From that elevation it can act as a sentinel, and will not come down again until it is assured of safety.

* * *

Of the habits of the Black Kite (Milvus atra), Mr. Tristram gives an admirable description. "The habits of the bird bear out the allusion in Isa. xxxiv. 15, for it is, excepting during the winter three months, so numerous everywhere in Palestine as to be almost gregarious. It returns about the beginning of March, and scatters itself over the whole country, preferring especially the neighbourhood of valleys, where it is a welcome and unmolested guest. It does not appear to attack the poultry, among whom it may often be seen feeding on garbage. It is very sociable, and the slaughter of a sheep at one of the tents will soon attract a large party of black kites, which swoop down regardless of man and guns, and enjoy a noisy scramble for the refuse, chasing each other in a laughable fashion, and sometimes enabling the wily raven to steal off with the coveted morsel during their contentions. It is the butt of all the smaller scavengers, and is evidently most unpopular with the crows and daws, and even rollers, who enjoy the amusement of teasing it in their tumbling flight, which is a man?uvre most perplexing to the kite."

The same writer proceeds to mention that the Black Kite, unlike the red species, is very careless about the position of its nest, and never even attempts to conceal it, sometimes building it in a tree, sometimes on a rock-ledge, and sometimes in a bush growing on the rocks. It seems indeed desirous of making the nest as conspicuous as possible, and hangs it all over with bits of cloth, strips of bark, wings of birds, and even the cast skins of serpents.

Another species (Milvus ?gyptiacus) is sometimes called the Black Kite from the dark hue of its plumage, but ought rather to retain the title of Egyptian Kite. Unlike the black kite, this bird is a great thief, and makes as much havoc among poultry as the red kite. It is also a robber of other birds, and if it should happen to see a weaker bird with food, it is sure to attack and rob it. Like the black kite, it is fond of the society of man, and haunts the villages in great numbers, for the purpose of eating the offal, which in Oriental towns is simply flung into the streets to be devoured by the dogs, vultures, kites, and other scavengers, without whom no village would be habitable for a month.

* * *

Whether the word raah, which is translated as Glede in Deut. xiv. 13, among the list of birds which may not be eaten, is one of these species of Kite, or a bird of a different group, is a very doubtful point. This is the only passage in which the word occurs, and we have but small grounds for definitely identifying it with any one species. The Hebrew Bible retains the word Glede, but affixes a mark of doubt to it, and several commentators are of opinion that the word is a wrong reading of dayah, which occurs in the parallel passage in Lev. xi. 14. The reading of the Septuagint follows this interpretation, and renders it as Vulture in both cases. Buxtorf translates the word raah as Rook, but suggests that dayah is the correct reading.

Accepting, however, the word raah, we shall find that it is derived from a root which signifies sight or vision, especially of some particular object, so that a piercing sight would therefore be the chief characteristic of the bird, which, as we know, is one of the attributes of the Kites, together with other birds of prey, so that it evidently must be classed among the group with which we are now concerned. It has been suggested that, granting the raah to be a species distinct from the dayah, it is a collective term for the larger falcons and buzzards, several species of which inhabit Palestine, and are not distinctly mentioned in the Bible.

Several species of buzzard inhabit the Holy Land, and there is no particular reason why they should be mentioned except by a collective name. Some of the buzzards are very large birds, and though their wings are short when compared with those of the vultures and eagles, the flight of the bird is both powerful and graceful. It is not, however, remarkable for swiftness, and never was employed, like the falcon, in catching other birds, being reckoned as one of the useless and cowardly birds of prey. In consonance with this opinion, to compare a man to a buzzard was thought a most cutting insult.

THE PEREGRINE FALCON, OR GLEDE OF SCRIPTURE.

"And the Glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind."-Deut. xiv. 13.

As a general rule, it does not chase its prey like the eagles or the large-winged falcons, but perches on a rock or tree, watches for some animal on which it can feed, pounces on it, and returns to its post, the whole movements being very like those of the flycatcher. This sluggishness of disposition, and the soft and almost owl-like plumage, have been the means of bringing the bird into contempt among falconers.

As to the large falcons, which seem to be included in the term raah, the chief of them is the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), which is tolerably common in the Holy Land. In his "Land of Israel," Mr. Tristram gives several notices of this bird, from which we may take the following picture from a description of a scene at Endor. "Dreary and desolate looked the plain, though of exuberant fertility. Here and there might be seen a small flock of sheep or herd of cattle, tended by three or four mounted villagers, armed with their long firelocks, and pistols and swords, on the watch against any small party of marauding cattle-lifters.

"Griffon vultures were wheeling in circles far over the rounded top of Tabor; and here and there an eagle was soaring beneath them in search of food, but at a most inconvenient distance from our guns. Hariers were sweeping more rapidly and closely over the ground, where lambs appeared to be their only prey; and a noble peregrine falcon, which in Central Palestine does not give place to the more eastern lanner, was perched on an isolated rock, calmly surveying the scene, and permitting us to approach and scrutinize him at our leisure."

The habit of perching on the rock, as mentioned above, is very characteristic of the Peregrine Falcon, who loves the loftiest and most craggy cliffs, and makes its nest in spots which can only be reached by a bold and experienced climber. The nests of this bird are never built in close proximity, the Peregrine preferring to have its home at least a mile from the nest of any other of its kinsfolk. Sometimes it makes a nest in lofty trees, taking possession of the deserted home of some other bird; but it loves the cliff better than the tree, and seldom builds in the latter when the former is attainable.

In the passage from the "Land of Israel" is mentioned the Lanner Falcon (Falco lanarius), another of the larger falcons to which the term raah may have been applied.

This bird is much larger than the Peregrine Falcon, and, indeed, is very little less than the great gerfalcon itself. It is one of the birds that were reckoned among the noble falcons; and the female, which is much larger and stronger than the male, was employed for the purpose of chasing the kite, whose long and powerful wings could not always save it from such a foe.

Although the Lanner has been frequently mentioned among the British birds, and the name is therefore familiar to us, it is not even a visitor of our island. The mistake has occurred by an error in nomenclature, the young female Peregrine Falcon, which is much larger and darker than the male bird, having been erroneously called by the name of Lanner.

THE LANNER FALCON.

In the illustration, a pair of Lanner Falcons are depicted as pursuing some of the rock-pigeons which abound in Palestine, the attitudes of both birds being taken from life.

THE HAWK.

The Netz or Hawk-Number of species probably grouped under that name-Rare occurrence of the word-The Sparrow-Hawk and its general habits-Its place of nesting-The Kestrel, or Wind-hover-Various names by which it is known in England-Its mode of feeding and curious flight-The Hariers-Probable derivation of the name-Species of Harier known to inhabit Palestine-Falconry apparently unknown to the ancient Jews.

There is no doubt that a considerable number of species are grouped together under the single title Netz, or Hawk, a word which is rightly enough translated. That a great number of birds should have been thus confounded together is not surprising, seeing that even in this country and at the present time, the single word Hawk may signify any one of at least twelve different species. The various falcons, the hariers, the kestrel, the sparrow-hawk, and the hobbies, are one and all called popularly by the name of Hawk, and it is therefore likely that the Hebrew word Netz would signify as many species as the English word Hawk. From them we will select one or two of the principal species.

In the first place, the word is of very rare occurrence. We only find it three times. It first occurs in Lev. xi. 16, in which it is named, together with the eagle, the ossifrage, and many other birds, as among the unclean creatures, to eat which was an abomination. It is next found in the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 15, neither of which portions of Scripture need be quoted at length.

That the word netz was used in its collective sense is very evident from the addition which is made to it in both cases. The Hawk, "after its kind," is forbidden, showing therefore that several kinds or species of Hawk were meant. Indeed, any specific detail would be quite needless, as the collective term was quite a sufficient indication, and, having named the vultures, eagles, and larger birds of prey, the simple word netz was considered by the sacred writer as expressing the rest of the birds of prey.

We find the word once more in that part of the Bible to which we usually look for any reference to natural history. In Job xxxix. 26, we have the words, "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and turn [or stretch] her wings toward the south?" The precise signification of this passage is rather doubtful, but it is generally considered to refer to the migration of several of the Hawk tribe. That the bird in question was distinguished for its power of flight is evident from the fact that the sacred poet has selected that one attribute as the most characteristic of the Netz.

Taking first the typical example of the Hawks, we find that the Sparrow-Hawk (Accipiter nisus) is plentiful in Palestine, finding abundant food in the smaller birds of the country. It selects for its nest just the spots which are so plentiful in the Holy Land, i.e. the crannies of rocks, and the tops of tall trees. Sometimes it builds in deserted ruins, but its favourite spot seems to be the lofty tree-top, and, in default of that, the rock-crevice. It seldom builds a nest of its own, but takes possession of that which has been made by some other bird. Some ornithologists think that it looks out for a convenient nest, say of the crow or magpie, and then ejects the rightful owner. I am inclined to think, however, that it mostly takes possession of a nest that is already deserted, without running the risk of fighting such enemies as a pair of angry magpies. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the bird resorts to the same nest year after year.

It is a bold and dashing bird, though of no great size, and when wild and free displays a courage which it seems to lose in captivity. As is the case with so many of the birds, the female is much larger than her mate, the latter weighing about six ounces, and measuring about a foot in length, and the former weighing above nine ounces, and measuring about fifteen inches in length.

* * *

The most plentiful of the smaller Hawks of Palestine is the Common Kestrel (Tinnunculus alaudarius). This is the same species with which we are so familiar in England under the names of Kestrel, Wind-hover, and Stannel Hawk.

KESTREL.

"Doth the Hawk fly by thy wisdom?"-Job xxxix. 26.

It derives its name of Wind-hover from its remarkable habit of hovering, head to windward, over some spot for many minutes together. This action is always performed at a moderate distance from the ground; some naturalists saying that the Hawk in question never hovers at an elevation exceeding forty feet, while others, myself included, have seen the bird hovering at a height of twice as many yards. Generally, however, it prefers a lower distance, and is able by employing this man?uvre to survey a tolerably large space beneath. As its food consists in a very great measure of field-mice, the Kestrel is thus able by means of its telescopic eyesight to see if a mouse rises from its hole; and if it should do so, the bird drops on it and secures it in its claws.

Unlike the sparrow-hawk, the Kestrel is undoubtedly gregarious, and will build its nest in close proximity to the habitations of other birds, a number of nests being often found within a few yards of each other. Mr. Tristram remarks that he has found its nest in the recesses of the caverns occupied by the griffon vultures, and that the Kestrel also builds close to the eagles, and is the only bird which is permitted to do so. It also builds in company with the jackdaw.

Several species of Kestrel are known, and of them at least two inhabit the Holy Land, the second being a much smaller bird than the Common Kestrel, and feeding almost entirely on insects, which it catches with its claws, the common chafers forming its usual prey. Great numbers of these birds live together, and as they rather affect the society of mankind, they are fond of building their nests in convenient crannies in the mosques or churches. Independently of its smaller size, it may be distinguished from the Common Kestrel by the whiteness of its claws.

The illustration is drawn from a sketch taken from life. The bird hovered so near a house, and remained so long in one place, that the artist fixed a telescope and secured an exact sketch of the bird in the peculiar attitude which it is so fond of assuming. After a while, the Kestrel ascended to a higher elevation, and then resumed its hovering, in the attitude which is shown in the upper figure. In consequence of the great abundance of this species in Palestine, and the peculiarly conspicuous mode of balancing itself in the air while in search of prey, we may feel sure that the sacred writers had it specially in their minds when they used the collective term Netz.

The Kestrel has a very large geographical range, being plentiful not only in England and Palestine, but in Northern and Southern Europe, throughout the greater part of Asia, in Siberia, and in portions of Africa. The bird, therefore, is capable of enduring both heat and cold, and, as is often the case with those creatures that are useful to man, is a perfect cosmopolitan.

It is easily trained, and, although in the old hawking days it was considered a bird which a noble could not carry, it can be trained to chase the smaller birds as successfully as the falcons can be taught to pursue the heron. The name Tinnunculus is supposed by some to have been given to the bird in allusion to its peculiar cry, which is clear, shrill, and consists of a single note several times repeated.

On page 361 the reader may see a representation of a pair of Harier Hawks flying below the rock on which the peregrine falcon has perched, and engaged in pursuing one of the smaller birds.

They have been introduced because several species of Harier are to be found in Palestine, where they take, among the plains and lowlands, the place which is occupied by the other hawks and falcons among the rocks.

The name of Harier appears to be given to these birds on account of their habit of regularly quartering the ground over which they fly when in search of prey, just like hounds when searching for hares. This bird is essentially a haunter of flat and marshy lands, where it finds frogs, mice, lizards, on which it usually feeds. It does not, however, confine itself to such food, but will chase and kill most of the smaller birds, and occasionally will catch even the leveret, the rabbit, the partridge, and the curlew.

When it chases winged prey, it seldom seizes the bird in the air, but almost invariably keeps above it, and gradually drives it to the ground. It will be seen, therefore, that its flight is mostly low, as suits the localities in which it lives, and it seldom soars to any great height, except when it amuses itself by rising and wheeling in circles together with its mate. This proceeding generally takes place before nest-building. The usual flight is a mixture of that of the kestrel and the falcon, the Harier sometimes poising itself over some particular spot, and at others shooting forwards through the air with motionless wings.

Unlike the falcons and most of the hawks, the Harier does not as a rule perch on rocks, but prefers to sit very upright on the ground, perching generally on a mole-hill, stone, or some similar elevation. Even its nest is made on the ground, and is composed of reeds, sedges, sticks, and similar matter, materials that can be procured from marshy land. The nest is always elevated a foot or so from the ground, and has occasionally been found on the top of a mound more than a yard in height. It is, however, conjectured that in such cases the mound is made by one nest being built upon the remains of another. The object of the elevated nest is probably to preserve the eggs in case of a flood.

At least five species of Hariers are known to exist in the Holy Land, two of which are among the British birds, namely, the Marsh Harier (Circus ?ruginosus), sometimes called the Duck Hawk and the Moor Buzzard, and the Hen Harier (Circus cyaneus), sometimes called the White Hawk, Dove Hawk, or Blue Hawk, on account of the plumage of the male, which differs greatly according to age; and the Ring-tailed Hawk, on account of the dark bars which appear on the tail of the female. All the Hariers are remarkable for the Circlet of feathers that surrounds the eyes, and which resembles in a lesser degree the bold feather-circle around the eye of the owl tribe.

* * *

Before taking leave of the Hawks, it is as well to notice the entire absence in the Scriptures of any reference to falconry. Now, seeing that the art of catching birds and animals by means of Hawks is a favourite amusement among Orientals, as has already been mentioned when treating of the gazelle (page 139), and knowing the unchanging character of the East, we cannot but think it remarkable that no reference should be made to this sport in the Scriptures.

It is true that in Palestine itself there would be but little scope for falconry, the rough hilly ground and abundance of cultivated soil rendering such an amusement almost impossible. Besides, the use of the falcon implies that of the horse, and, as we have already seen, the horse was scarcely ever used except for military purposes.

Had, therefore, the experience of the Israelites been confined to Palestine, there would have been good reason for the silence of the sacred writers on this subject. But when we remember that the surrounding country is well adapted for falconry, that the amusement is practised there at the present day, and that the Israelites passed so many years as captives in other countries, we can but wonder that the Hawks should never be mentioned as aids to bird-catching. We find that other bird-catching implements are freely mentioned and employed as familiar symbols, such as the gin, the net, the snare, the trap, and so forth; but that there is not a single passage in which the Hawks are mentioned as employed in falconry.

THE OWL.

The words which have been translated as Owl-The C?s, or Little Owl-Use made of the Little Owl in bird-catching-Habits of the bird-The Barn, Screech, or White Owl a native of Palestine-The Yansh?ph, or Egyptian Eagle Owl-Its food and nest-The Lilith, or Night Monster-Various interpretations of the word-The Kippoz probably identical with the Scops Owl, or Marouf.

In various parts of the Old Testament there occur several words which are translated as Owl in the Authorized Version, and in most cases the rendering is acknowledged to be the correct one, while in one or two instances there is a difference of opinion on the subject.

In Lev. xi. 16, 17, we find the following birds reckoned among those which are an abomination, and which might not be eaten by the Israelites: "The owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind;

"And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl."

Here, then, we have in close proximity the word Owl repeated three times, and the same repetition occurs in the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. Now the words which are here translated as Owl are totally different words in the Hebrew, so that if we leave them untranslated, the passages will run as follow: "And the Bath-haya'anah, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind;

"And the C?s, and the cormorant, and the Yansh?ph."

Taking these words in order, we find in the first place that the Jewish Bible accepts the translation of the words c?s and yansh?ph, merely affixing to them the mark of doubt. But it translates the word bath-haya'anah as Ostrich, without adding the doubtful mark. Now the same word occurs in several other passages of Scripture, the first being in Job xxx. 29: "I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls." In the marginal reading of the Authorized Version, which, as the reader must bear in mind, is of equal value with the text, the rendering is the same as that of the Jewish Bible, and in several other passages the same reading is followed. We therefore accept the word bath-haya'anah as the ostrich, and dismiss it from among the owls.

* * *

Coming now to the other words, we find in the passages already quoted the words c?s and yansh?ph. Both those words occur in other parts of Scripture, and evidently are the names of nocturnal birds that haunt ruins and lonely places. Taking them in order, we find the word c?s to occur again in Ps. cii. 6: "I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert." The Psalm in which this passage occurs is a penitential prayer, in which the writer uses many of the metaphors employed by Job when lamenting his afflictions, and describes himself as left alone among men.

The simile is equally just and feasible in this case, the Owl being essentially a bird of night, and associated with solitude and gloom. The particular species which is signified by the word c?s bears but very slightly on the subject, inasmuch as in general habits all the true Owls are very similar in hiding by day in their nests, and coming out at night to hunt for prey, their melancholy hoot, or startling shriek, breaking the silence of the night.

Still it is necessary to identify, if we can, some species with the word c?s, and it is very likely that the Little Owl, or Boomah of the Arabs (Athene Persica), is the bird which is signified by the word c?s. This species is probably identical with the Little Night Owl of England (Athene noctua). Though rare in England, it is very common in many parts of the Continent where it is much valued by bird-catchers, who employ it as a means of attracting small birds to their traps. They place it on the top of a long pole, and carry it into the fields, where they plant the pole in the ground. This Owl has a curious habit of swaying its body backwards and forwards, and is sure to attract the notice of all the small birds in the neighbourhood. It is well known that the smaller birds have a peculiar hatred to the Owl, and never can pass it without mobbing it, assembling in great numbers, and so intent on their occupation that they seem to be incapable of perceiving anything but the object of their hatred. Even rooks, magpies, and hawks are taken by this simple device.

Whether or not the Little Owl was used for this object by the ancient inhabitants of Palestine is rather doubtful; but as they certainly did so employ decoy birds for the purpose of attracting game, it is not unlikely that the Little Owl was found to serve as a decoy. We shall learn more about the system of decoy-birds when we come to the partridge.

THE LITTLE OWL.

"I am like an owl of the desert."-Ps. cii. 6.

The Little Owl is to be found in almost every locality, caring little whether it takes up its residence in cultivated grounds, in villages, among deserted ruins, or in places where man has never lived. As, however, it is protected by the natives, it prefers the neighbourhood of villages, and may be seen quietly perched in some favourite spot, not taking the trouble to move unless it be approached closely. And to detect a perched Owl is not at all an easy matter, as the bird has a way of selecting some spot where the colours of its plumage harmonize so well with the surrounding objects that the large eyes are often the first indication of its presence. Many a time I have gone to search after Owls, and only been made aware of them by the sharp angry snap that they make when startled.

The name Athene, by the way, has been given to this Owl because it is the species selected by the Greeks as the emblem of wisdom.

The common Barn Owl of England (Strix flammea) also inhabits Palestine, and if, as is likely to be the case, the word c?s is a collective term under which several species are grouped together, the Barn or White Owl is likely to be one of them.

Like the Little Owl, it affects the neighbourhood of man, though it may be found in ruins and similar localities. An old ruined castle is sure to be tenanted by the Barn Owl, whose nightly shrieks have so often terrified the belated wanderer, and made him fancy that the place was haunted by disturbed spirits. Such being the case in England, it is likely that in the East, where popular superstition has peopled every well with its jinn and every ruin with its spirit, the nocturnal cry of this bird, which is often called the Screech Owl from its note, should be exceedingly terrifying, and would impress itself on the minds of sacred writers as a fit image of solitude, terror, and desolation.

The Screech Owl is scarcely less plentiful in Palestine than the Little Owl, and, whether or not it be mentioned under a separate name, is sure to be one of the birds to which allusion is made in the Scriptures.

* * *

Another name now rises before us: this is the Yansh?ph, translated as the Great Owl, a word which occurs not only in the prohibitory passages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but in the Book of Isaiah. In that book, ch. xxxiv. ver. 10, 11, we find the following passage: "From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

"But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl (yansh?ph) also and the raven shall dwell in it: and He shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness." The Jewish Bible follows the same reading.

It is most probable that the Great Owl or Yansh?ph is the Egyptian Eagle Owl (Bubo ascalaphus), a bird which is closely allied to the great Eagle Owl of Europe (Bubo maximus), and the Virginian Eared Owl (Bubo Virginianus) of America. This fine bird measures some two feet in length, and looks much larger than its real size, owing to the thick coating of feathers which it wears in common with all true Owls, and the ear-like feather tufts on the top of its head, which it can raise or depress at pleasure. Its plumage is light tawny.

This bird has a special predilection for deserted places and ruins, and may at the present time be seen on the very spots of which the prophet spoke in his prediction. It is very plentiful in Egypt, where the vast ruins are the only relics of a creed long passed away or modified into other forms of religion, and its presence only intensifies rather than diminishes the feeling of loneliness that oppresses the traveller as he passes among the ruins.

The European Eagle Owl has all the habits of its Asiatic congener. It dwells in places far from the neighbourhood of man, and during the day is hidden in some deep and dark recess, its enormous eyes not being able to endure the light of day. In the evening it issues from its retreat, and begins its search after prey, which consists of various birds, quadrupeds, reptiles, fish, and even insects when it can find nothing better.

On account of its comparatively large dimensions, it is able to overcome even the full-grown hare and rabbit, while the lamb and the young fawn occasionally fall victims to its voracity. It seems never to chase any creature on the wing, but floats silently through the air, its soft and downy plumage deadening the sound of its progress, and suddenly drops on the unsuspecting prey while it is on the ground.

The nest of this Owl is made in the crevices of rocks, or in ruins, and is a very large one, composed of sticks and twigs, lined with a tolerably large heap of dried herbage, the parent Owls returning to the same spot year after year. Should it not be able to find either a rock or a ruin, it contents itself with a hollow in the ground, and there lays its eggs, which are generally two in number, though occasionally a third egg is found. The Egyptian Eagle Owl does much the same thing, burrowing in sand-banks, and retreating, if it fears danger, into the hollow where its nest has been made.

In the large illustration the two last-mentioned species are given. The Egyptian Eagle Owl is seen with its back towards the spectator, grasping in its talons a dead hare, and with ear-tufts erect is looking towards the Barn Owl, which is contemplating in mingled anger and fear the proceedings of the larger bird. Near them is perched a raven, in order to carry out more fully the prophetic words, "the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it."

* * *

Two more passages yet remain in which the word Owl is mentioned, and, curiously enough, both of them are found in the Book of Isaiah, the poet-prophet, who seized with a poet's intuition on the natural objects around him, and converted the simplest and most familiar incidents into glowing imagery and powerful metaphor.

If the reader will refer to Isaiah xxxiv. 13-15, he will find the following passages, which are, in fact, a continuation of the prophecy against Idumea, which has already been quoted. "And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

"There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow."

It has been already mentioned that the word which is translated as Owl, in the first of these passages, is bath-haya'anah, which is generally considered to signify the ostrich. In verse 14 we come to a new word, namely, lilith. In the marginal reading of the Authorized Version, this word is rendered as "night monster," and the Jewish Bible takes nearly the same view of the word by translating it as "a nocturnal one," evidently basing this interpretation upon the derivation of the word. Several Hebraists have thought that the word lilith merely represents some mythological being, like the dread Lamia of the ancients, a mixture of the material and spiritual-too ethereal to be seen by daylight, and too gross to be above the requirements of human food. The blood of mankind was the food of these fearful beings, and, according to old ideas, they could only live among ruins and desert places, where they concealed themselves during the day at the bottoms of wells or the recesses of rock-caverns, and stole out at night to seize on some unlucky wanderer, and suck his blood as he slept.

THE OWL.

"I am a companion to owls."-Job. xxx. 29.

The reader may remember that even our very imperfect version of the "Arabian Nights" repeatedly alludes to this belief, the evil spirit being almost invariably represented as dwelling in ruins, rocky places, and the interiors of wells.

Although it is very possible that the prophet may have referred to some of the mythological beings which were so universally supposed to inhabit deserted spots, and thus to have employed the word lilith as a term which he did not intend to be taken otherwise than metaphorically, it is equally possible that some nocturnal bird may have been meant, and in that case the bird in question must almost certainly have been an Owl of some kind. As to the particular species of Owl, that is a question which cannot be satisfactorily answered, especially as so many scholars find reason to doubt whether the word lilith represents an Owl, or indeed any ordinary inhabitant of earth. As, therefore, we have no data whereon to found a positive opinion, the question will be allowed to remain an open one.

The last word which is translated as Owl is kippoz, and occurs in ch. xxxiv. 15: "There shall the great owl make her nest."

Many Hebraists think that in this case the word kippoz is a mere clerical error for kippod, or hedgehog, and have translated the passage accordingly. The Septuagint and the Vulgate follow this reading; Buxtorf, in his Hebrew Lexicon, translates kippoz as Thrush, deriving the name from the dipping character of its flight. The Jewish Bible, following several other authorities, renders the word as "arrow-snake," while several scholars translate it as "darting serpent." This interpretation, however, is scarcely tenable, as the description of the Kippoz as making its nest, laying its eggs, and gathering them under its shadow, clearly points to a bird, and not a reptile. It is very true that the boa or python snake has been seen to coil itself round a heap of its eggs, but the sacred writer could hardly have had many opportunities of seeing such an act, while the custom of a bird gathering her young under the shadow of her wings must have been perfectly familiar to him. There is, moreover, the fact that the context speaks of the vultures, so that a bird of some kind was evidently in the mind of the writer. Mr. Tristram suggests that the Kippoz might be intended for the Scops Owl, called Marouf by the Arabs, and which is very common about ruins, caves, and the old walls of towns. Its note is well represented by the word kippoz.

"It is a migrant, returning to Palestine in spring. It is the smallest owl in the country, being little more than seven inches in length, with long ear-tufts, and its whole plumage most delicately mottled and speckled with grey and light brown."

This species is very plentiful on the continent of Europe, though it is rare in the British Isles. It feeds, as might be presumed from its diminutive size, on mice, small reptiles, and insects. Its scientific name, according to the nomenclature of the British Museum, is Ephialtes Scops.

THE NIGHT-HAWK.

Different interpretations of the word Tachmas-Probability that it signifies the Nightjar-Various names of the bird-Its remarkable jarring cry, and wheeling flight-Mode of feeding-Boldness of the bird-Deceptive appearance of its size.

We next come to the vexed question of the word Tachmas, which is rendered in the Authorized Version as Night-hawk.

This word only occurs among the list of prohibited birds (see Lev. xi. 16, and Deut. xiv. 15), and has caused great controversies among commentators. Some Hebraists have thought that the male ostrich was signified by tachmas, the word bath-haya'anah being supposed by them to signify the female ostrich. It is hardly probable, however, that the sacred writer should have mentioned separately the sexes of the same species, and we must therefore look for some other interpretation.

Going to the opposite extreme of size, some scholars have translated tachmas as Swallow. This again is not a very probable rendering, as the swallow would be too small a bird to be specially named in the prohibitory list. The balance of probability seems to lie between two interpretations,-namely, that which considers the word tachmas to signify the Night-hawk, and that which translates it as Owl. For both of these interpretations much is to be said, and it cannot be denied that of the two the latter is perhaps the preferable. If so, the White or Barn Owl is probably the particular species to which reference is made.

THE NIGHT-HAWK.

"The owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo."-Deut. xiv. 15.

Still, many commentators think that the Night-hawk or Nightjar is the bird which is signified by the word tachmas; and, as we have already treated of the owls, we will accept the rendering of the Authorized Version. Moreover, the Jewish Bible follows the same translation, and renders tachmas as Night-hawk, but affixes the mark of doubt.

It is not unlikely that the Jews may have reckoned this bird among the owls, just as is the case with the uneducated among ourselves, who popularly speak of the Nightjar as the Fern Owl, Churn Owl, or Jar Owl, the two last names being given to it on account of its peculiar cry. There are few birds, indeed, which have received a greater variety of popular names, for, besides the Goatsucker and the five which have already been mentioned, there are the Wheel-bird and Dor-hawk, the former of these names having been given to the bird on account of its wheeling round the trees while seeking for prey, and the latter on account of the dor-beetles on which it largely feeds.

This curious variety of names is probably due to the very conspicuous character of the Nightjar, its strange, jarring, weird-like cry forcing itself on the ear of the least attentive, as it breaks the silence of night. It hardly seems like the cry of a bird, but rather resembles the sound of a pallet falling on the cogs of a rapidly-working wheel. It begins in the dusk of evening, the long, jarring note being rolled out almost interminably, until the hearer wonders how the bird can have breath enough for such a prolonged sound. The hearer may hold his breath as long as he can, take a full inspiration, hold his breath afresh, and repeat this process over and over again, and yet the Nightjar continues to trill out its rapid notes without a moment's cessation for breath, the sound now rising shrill and clear, and now sinking as if the bird were far off, but never ceasing for an instant.

This remarkable cry has caused the uneducated rustics to look upon the bird with superstitious dread, every one knowing its cry full well, though to many the bird is unknown except by its voice. It is probable that, in the days when Moses wrote the Law, so conspicuous a bird was well known to the Jews, and we may therefore conjecture that it was one of those birds which he would specially mention by name.

The general habits of the Nightjar are quite as remarkable as its note. It feeds on the wing, chasing and capturing the various moths, beetles, and other insects that fly abroad by night. It may be seen wheeling round the branches of some tree, the oak being a special favourite, sometimes circling round it, and sometimes rising high in the air, and the next moment skimming along the ground. Suddenly it will disappear, and next moment its long trilling cry is heard from among the branches of the tree round which it has been flying. To see it while singing is almost impossible, for it has a habit of sitting longitudinally on the branch, and not across it, like most birds, so that the outline of its body cannot be distinguished from that of the bough on which it is seated. As suddenly as it began, the sound ceases, and simultaneously the bird may be seen wheeling again through the air with its noiseless flight.

Being a very bold bird, and not much afraid of man, it allows a careful observer to watch its movements clearly. I have often stood close to the tree round which several Nightjars were circling, and seen them chase their prey to the ground within a yard or two of the spot on which I was standing. The flight of the Nightjar is singularly graceful. Swift as the swallow itself, it presents a command of wing that is really wonderful, gliding through the air with consummate ease, wheeling and doubling in pursuit of some active moth, whose white wings glitter against the dark background, while the sober plumage of its pursuer is scarcely visible, passing often within a few feet of the spectator, and yet not a sound or a rustle will reach his ears. Sometimes the bird is said to strike its wings together over its back, so as to produce a sharp snapping sound, intended to express anger at the presence of the intruder. I never, however, heard this sound, though I have watched the bird so often.

Owing to the soft plumage with which it is clad, this bird, like the owls, looks larger than really is the case. It is between ten and eleven inches in length, with an expanse of wing of twenty inches, and yet weighs rather less than three ounces. Its large mouth, like that of the swallow tribe, opens as far as the eyes, and is furnished with a set of vibriss? or bristles, which remind the observer of the "whale-bone" which is set on the jaw of the Greenland whale. The scientific name of the bird is Caprimulgus Europ?us.

THE SWALLOW.

Identification of the smaller birds-Oriental indifference to natural history-Use of collective terms-The Swallow-Signification of the word Deror-The Bird of Liberty-Swallows and Swifts-The Sunbirds and Bee-eaters-Variety of small birds found in Palestine-The Swallows of Palestine-Swallows protected by man in various countries-Nesting of the Swallow-The Rufous Swallow and Martin-The Sis or Swift-Various species of Swift inhabiting the Holy Land-Talmudical notions of the Swift or Swallow-The leper and his offering-The cooking pot and the sacrificial vessel-Signification of the word Tzippor-deror.

Difficult as is the identification of the mammalia mentioned in the Bible, that of the birds is much more intricate.

Some of the larger birds can be identified with tolerable certainty, but when we come to the smaller and less conspicuous species, we are at once lost in uncertainty, and at the best can only offer conjectures. The fact is, the Jews of old had no idea of discriminating between the smaller birds, unless they happened to be tolerably conspicuous by plumage or by voice. We need not be much surprised at this. The Orientals of the present day do precisely the same thing, and not only fail to discriminate between the smaller birds, but absolutely have no names for them.

By them, the shrikes, the swallows, the starlings, the thrushes, the larks, the warblers, and all the smaller birds, are called by a common title, derived from the twittering sound of their voices, only one or two of them having any distinctive titles. They look upon the birds much as persons ignorant of entomology look at a collection of moths. There is not much difficulty in discriminating between the great hawk-moths, and perhaps in giving a name to one or two of them which are specially noticeable for any peculiarity of form or colour; but when they come to the "Rustics," the "Carpets," the "Wainscots," and similar groups, they are utterly lost; and, though they may be able to see the characteristic marks when the moths are placed side by side, they are incapable of distinguishing them separately, and, to their uneducated eyes, twenty or thirty species appear absolutely alike.

I believe that there is no country where a knowledge of practical natural history is so widely extended as in England, and yet how few educated persons are there who, if taken along a country lane, can name the commonest weed or insect, or distinguish between a sparrow, a linnet, a hedge-sparrow, and a chaffinch. Nay, how many are there who, if challenged even to repeat the names of twelve little birds, would be unable to do so without some consideration, much less to know them if the birds were placed before them.

Such being the case in this country, where the capability of observation is more or less cultivated in every educated person, we may well expect that a profound ignorance on the subject should exist in countries where that faculty is absolutely neglected as a matter of education. Moreover, in England we have a comparatively limited list of birds, whereas in Palestine are found nearly all those which are reckoned among British birds, and many other species besides. Those which reside in England reside also for the most part in Palestine, while the greater part of the migratory birds pass, as we might expect, into the Holy Land and the neighbouring countries.

If then we put together the two facts of an unobservant people and a vastly extended fauna, we shall not wonder that so many collective terms are used in the Scriptures, one word often doing duty for twenty or thirty species. The only plan, therefore, which can be adopted, is to mention generally the birds which were probably grouped under one name, and to describe briefly one or two of the most prominent.

It is, however, rather remarkable that the song of birds does not appear to be noticed by the sacred writers. We might expect that several of the prophets, especially Isaiah, the great sacred poet, who drew so many of his images from natural objects, would have found in the song of birds some metaphor expressive of sweetness or joy. We might expect that in the Book of Job, in which so many creatures are mentioned, the singing of birds would be brought as prominently forward as the neck clothed with thunder of the horse, the tameless freedom of the wild ass, the voracity of the vulture, and the swiftness of the ostrich. We might expect the song of birds to be mentioned by Amos, the herdman of Tekoa, who introduces into his rugged poem the rear of the old lion and the wail of the cub, the venom of the serpent hidden in the wattled wall of the herdman's hut, and the ravages of the palmer-worm among the olives. Above all, we might expect that in the Psalms there would be many allusions to the notes of the various birds which have formed such fruitful themes for the poets of later times. There are, however, in the whole of the Scriptures but two passages in which the song of birds is mentioned, and even in these only a passing allusion is made.

One of them occurs in Psalm civ. 12: "By them (i.e. the springs of water) shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches." This passage is perhaps rendered more closely in the Jewish Bible: "Over them dwell the fowls of the heaven; they let their voices resound (or give their voice) from between the foliage."

The other occurs in Eccles. xii. 4: "And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low." The word which is here translated as "bird," is that which is rendered in some places as "sparrow," in others as "fowl," and in others as "bird." Even in these passages, as the reader will have noticed, no marks of appreciation are employed, and we hear nothing of the sweetness, joyousness, or mournfulness of the bird's song.

* * *

We will now proceed to the words which have been translated as Swallow in the Authorized Version.

These are two in number, namely, der?r and agar. Hebraists are, however, agreed that the latter word has been wrongly applied, the translators having interchanged the signification of two contiguous words.

We will therefore first take the word deror. This word signifies liberty, and is well applied to the Swallow, the bird of freedom. It is remarkable, by the way, how some of the old commentators have contrived to perplex themselves about a very simple matter. One of them comments upon the bird as being "so called, because it has the liberty of building in the houses of mankind." Another takes a somewhat similar view of the case, but puts it in a catechetical form: "Why is the swallow called the bird of liberty? Because it lives both in the house and in the field." It is scarcely necessary to point out to the reader that the "liberty" to which allusion is made is the liberty of flight, the bird coming and going at its appointed times, and not being capable of domestication.

Several kinds of Swallow are known in Palestine, including the true Swallows, the martins, and the swifts, and, as we shall presently see, it is likely that one of these groups was distinguished by a separate name. Whether of not the word deror included other birds beside the Swallows is rather doubtful, though not at all unlikely; and if so, it is probable that any swift-winged insectivorous bird would be called by the name of Deror, irrespective of its size or colour.

The bee-eaters, for example, are probably among the number of the birds grouped together under the word deror, and we may conjecture that the same is the case with the sunbirds, those bright-plumed little beings that take in the Old World the place occupied by the humming-birds in the New, and often mistaken for them by travellers who are not acquainted with ornithology. One of these birds, the Nectarinia Ose?, is described by Mr. Tristram as "a tiny little creature of gorgeous plumage, rivalling the humming-birds of America in the metallic lustre of its feathers-green and purple, with brilliant red and orange plumes under its shoulders."

In order to account for the singular variety of animal life which is to be found in Palestine, and especially the exceeding diversity of species among the birds, we must remember that Palestine is a sort of microcosm in itself, comprising within its narrow boundaries the most opposite conditions of temperature, climate, and soil. Some parts are rocky, barren, and mountainous, chilly and cold at the top, and acting as channels through which the winds blow almost continuously. The cliffs are full of holes, rifts, and caverns, some natural, some artificial, and some of a mixed kind, the original caverns having been enlarged and improved by the hand of man.

As a contrast to this rough and ragged region, there lie close at hand large fertile plains, affording pasturage for unnumbered cattle, and of a tolerably equable temperature, so that the animals which are pastured in it can find food throughout the year. Through the centre of Palestine runs the Jordan, fertilizing its banks with perpetual verdure, and ending its course in the sulphurous and bituminous waters of the Dead Sea, under whose waves the ruins of the wicked cities are supposed to lie. Westward we have the shore of the Mediterranean with its tideless waves of the salt sea, and on the eastward of the mountain range that runs nearly parallel to the sea is the great Lake of Tiberias, so large as to have earned the name of the Sea of Galilee.

THE RUFOUS SWALLOW AND GALILEAN SWIFT.

"The turtle, and the crane, and the swallow observe the time of their coming."-Jer. viii. 7.

Under these favourable conditions, therefore, the number of species which are found in Palestine is perhaps greater than can be seen in any other part of the earth of the same dimensions, and it seems probable that for this reason, among many others, Palestine was selected to be the Holy Land. If, for example, the Christian Church had been originated under the tropics, those who lived in a cold climate could scarcely have understood the language in which the Scriptures must necessarily have been couched. Had it, on the contrary, taken its rise in the Arctic regions, the inhabitants of the tropics and temperate regions could not have comprehended the imagery in which the teachings of Scripture must have been conveyed. But the small and geographically insignificant Land of Palestine combines in itself many of the characteristics which belong respectively to the cold, the temperate, and the hot regions of the world, so that the terms in which the sacred writings are couched are intelligible to a very great proportion of the world's inhabitants.

This being the case, we naturally expect to find that several species of the Swallow are inhabitants of Palestine, if indeed so migratory a bird can be rightly said to be an inhabitant of any one country.

The chief characteristic of the Swallow, the "bird of freedom," is that it cannot endure captivity, but is forced by instinct to pass from one country to another for the purpose of preserving itself in a tolerably equable temperature, moving northwards as the spring ripens into summer, and southwards as autumn begins to sink into winter. By some marvellous instinct it traces its way over vast distances, passing over hundreds of miles where nothing but the sea is beneath it, and yet at the appointed season returning with unerring certainty to the spot where it was hatched. How it is guided no one knows, but the fact is certain, that Swallows, remarkable for some peculiarity by which they could be at once identified, have been observed to leave the country on their migration, and to return in the following year to the identical nest whence they started.

The habits of the Swallow are much the same in Palestine as they are in England. Its habit of making its nest among the habitations of mankind is mentioned in a well-known passage of the Psalms: "The sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even Thine altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God" (Ps. lxxxiv. 3). The Swallow seems in all countries to have enjoyed the protection of man, and to have been suffered to build in peace under his roof. We find the same idea prevalent in the New World as well as the Old, and it is rather curious that the presence of the bird should so generally he thought to bring luck to a house.

In some parts of our country, a farmer would not dare to kill a Swallow or break down its nest, simply because he thinks that if he did so his cows would fail to give their due supply of milk. The connexion between the milking of a cow in the field and the destruction of a Swallow's nest in the house is not very easy to see, but nevertheless such is the belief. This idea ranks with that which asserts the robin and the wren to be the male and female of the same species, and to be under some special divine protection.

Whatever may be the origin of this superstition, whether it be derived from some forgotten source, or whether it be the natural result of the confiding nature of the bird, the Swallow enjoys at the present day the protection of man, and builds freely in his houses, and even his places of worship. The heathen temples, the Mahometan mosques, and the Christian churches are alike inhabited by the Swallow, who seems to know her security, and often places her nest where a child might reach it.

The bird does not, however, restrict itself to the habitations of man, though it prefers them; and in those places where no houses are to be found, and yet where insects are plentiful, it takes possession of the clefts of rocks, and therein makes its nest. Many instances are known where the Swallow has chosen the most extraordinary places for its nest. It has been known to build year after year on the frame of a picture, between the handles of a pair of shears hung on the wall, on a lamp-bracket, in a table-drawer, on a door-knocker, and similar strange localities.

The swiftness of flight for which this bird is remarkable is noticed by the sacred writers. "As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come" (Prov. xxvi. 2). This passage is given rather differently in the Jewish Bible, though the general sense remains the same: "As the bird is ready to flee, as the swallow to fly away; so a causeless execration, it shall not come." It is possible, however, that this passage may allude rather to the migration than the swiftness of the bird.

Several species of Swallow inhabit the Holy Land. There is, for example, our common Swallow, which is one of the migratory species, while another, the Oriental Swallow (Hirundo cahirica), often remains in the warmer parts of the country throughout the year. This bird may be distinguished by the chestnut hue of the under parts.

Perhaps the most characteristic species is the Rufous or Russet Swallow (Hirundo rufula), a bird which is exceedingly rare even in the warmer parts of Europe, but is plentiful in Palestine. It may be easily known by the chestnut red of the back just above the tail, in the spot where the white patch occurs in our house martin. The under parts are differently coloured from those of the common Swallow, being pink instead of white.

Several Martins inhabit Palestine, among which are the two species with which we are so familiar in England, namely, the House Martin (Chelidon urbica) and the Sand Martin (Cotyle riparia). At least two other species of Martin are known to inhabit the Holy Land, but they do not call for any special notice.

* * *

Besides the word deror, which is acknowledged to signify the Swallow, there is another word which, by a curious transposition, has been translated as "crane," whereas there is little doubt that it signifies one of the Swallow tribe, and most probably represents the Swift. The word is sis, and occurs in two passages. The first occurs in Isa. xxxviii. 13, 14, in the well-known prayer of Hezekiah during his sickness: "From day even to night wilt thou make an end of me. Like a crane [sis], or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward." The Jewish Bible reads the words, "Like a chattering swallow," affixing the mark of doubt; while the Septuagint translates the word sis as "Chelidon," or Swallow, and this is probably the correct rendering of the word.

Accepting this as the true interpretation, we find that the word sis is very expressive of the perpetual chattering of the Swift, whose sharp, shrill cries often betray its presence while it is sailing in the air almost beyond the ken of human eyes. There is a wailing, melancholy sound about the bird's cry which makes Hezekiah's image exceedingly appropriate, and he could hardly have selected a more forcible metaphor.

The second passage occurs in Jer. viii. 7: "Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle, and the crane [sis], and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord." With regard to this passage, the Jewish Bible renders the word sis as Swallow, though with the mark of doubt.

Allusion is here made to the migratory habits of the Swift. There is, perhaps, no bird more conspicuous in this respect; for whereas the other migratory birds seem to straggle, as it were, into the country, the Swifts arrive almost simultaneously, so that on one day not a Swift will be seen, and on the next the air is full of their dark, glancing forms.

Like the Swallow, the Swift haunts the neighbourhood of man, and loves to build its simple nest in the roofs of houses. Almost any hole will do for a Swift to build in, provided that it be tolerably deep; for the bird loves darkness for its nest, though it is essentially in its habits a bird of light.

Perhaps the word "build" is scarcely the right one, inasmuch as the nest is even more simple than that of the sand-martin. This latter bird does indeed arrange with some regularity the feathers which compose its nest, as may be seen by a beautiful specimen obtained by Mr. Gould; whereas the Swift merely places together a quantity of hay, straw, hair, feathers, and similar materials, all of which are probably obtained from the ruins of a sparrow's nest which had occupied the hole before the Swift took possession of it.

Several species of Swift inhabit Palestine. The common Swift (Cypselus apus), with which we are so familiar, is very plentiful, and so is the Alpine Swift (Cypselus melba), a bird which is rare in England, though it occasionally visits our shores. It is much larger than the common Swift, and is brown above and white below, instead of being dusky black, like the common species.

The most characteristic species is, however, the Galilean Swift (Cypselus affinis). Of this kind, Mr. Tristram remarks that it is "very like the house-martin in general appearance and size. It resides all the year in the Jordan valley, where alone it is found, living in large communities, and has a pleasing note, a gentle and melodious wail, very different from the harsh scream of the other swifts. Its nests are very peculiar, being composed generally of straw and feathers, agglutinated together by the bird's saliva, like those of the edible swallow of Eastern Asia. They are without any lining, attached to the under side of an overhanging rock. It also sometimes takes possession of the nest of the rufus swallow for its purposes. The Galilean swift has a wide range, being found in India and Abyssinia."

It is possible that this may be the Sis mentioned by Hezekiah, its soft wailing cry being used as the metaphor to express his own complaining.

* * *

As might be expected, the Talmudical writers have much to say on this bird.

For example, the offering which a leper made at the cleansing of his infirmity might be the Tzippor-deror, the rather quaint reason being that it was a bird with sharp scratching claws, and was therefore very appropriately offered in connexion with a disease of the skin. Here we have rather a complication of terms, the word tzippor being used, as we shall presently see, to signify the sparrow in particular, or any little bird in general. The particular species, therefore, which is signified by the combination of the two words tzippor-deror is rather obscure, and the Talmudists themselves are rather uncertain about it. The interpretation of this compound word seems, however, to have been a difficulty, and the various renderings which have been suggested seem at last to have varied between the wild pigeon, or rock-dove, and the Swallow. An account of the various arguments is given by Lewysohn in his "Zoologie des Talmuds," page 206, and may be briefly epitomized, as follows, in favour of the Swallow, or, as we shall soon see, the Swift.

The reader may perhaps be acquainted with the legend respecting the death of Titus, how a gnat made its way through his nostril into his brain, and there grew and kept him in constant torture until he died, when, according to some writers, it had reached the size of a Tzippor-deror, and weighed two selaim. Others enlarged upon this story, and said that it grew as large as a wild pigeon, and weighed two pounds. Now, as twenty-five selaim are equal to one pound, it follows that the Tzippor-deror must have been very much less than the wild pigeon, and that therefore the two birds could not have been identical.

Another reason for believing the Tzippor-deror to be a much smaller bird than the pigeon is found in a curious rule respecting the eating of certain meats. The Jews were forbidden to eat date-shells with the heathen, unless they were cooked in a vessel with an opening so small that a Tzippor-deror could not have been introduced into the pot. The reason of this curious proviso was, that if any unclean flesh, such as that of the swine, or of any animal which had been offered to idols, had been cooked in that vessel, even the date-shells would become unclean. But, if the mouth of the pot were too small for a Tzippor-deror to be passed through it, such a vessel could not have been used in cooking meat, and might therefore be assumed to be clean. Here, then, we have another proof of the small size of the bird. With regard to this argument, I find myself perplexed as to the "date-shells." Dates have no shells, and need no cooking, while the stones are too hard and woody to be rendered edible by any amount of cooking. Still, the word employed by Lewysohn is "dattelschalen."

The leper's offering was not laid on the altar, but was submitted to a peculiar manipulation on the part of the priest. Among other points of ritual, the blood had to be mixed with a certain quantity of water, which it barely discoloured, staining it of a very pale red. As the amount of water was the fourth part of a "log," and is defined to be equal to the contents of six hen's eggs, it was evident that the bird whose blood would only discolour so small a volume of water must be a little one.

After giving all these details, the learned writer sums up his arguments by saying that he believes the Tzippor-deror to be the White Swallow, which is small, and has claws so sharp that by means of them it can cling to the wall. Now this action is one of the characteristics of the Swifts, who often cling to walls for a time, and then resume their flight. They do so in preference to sitting on the ground after the fashion of the Swallow, because the great length of the wings causes the Swift to find some little difficulty in rising from a level surface. After weighing all the various arguments that have been urged on the subject, we may conclude that the Tzippor-deror was the White, or Alpine Swift, which has been already described on page 389.

THE HOOPOE, OR LAPWING OF SCRIPTURE.

The "Dukiphath" of Scripture-Various interpretations of the word-The Hoopoe-Its beauty and ill reputation-The unpleasant odour of its nest-Food of the Hoopoe-Its beautiful nest, and remarkable gestures-A curious legend of Solomon and the Hoopoe.

In the two parallel chapters, Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv., there occurs the name of a bird which is translated in the Authorized Version, Lapwing: "And the stork, the heron after her kind, the lapwing, and the bat."

The Hebrew word is dukiphath, and various interpretations have been proposed for it, some taking it to be the common domestic fowl, others the cock-of-the-woods, or capercailzie, while others have preferred to translate it as Hoopoe. The Jewish Bible retains the word lapwing, but adds the mark of doubt. Commentators are, however, agreed that of all these interpretations, that which renders the word as Hoopoe (Upupa epops) is the best.

There would be no particular object in the prohibition of such a bird as the lapwing, or any of its kin, while there would be very good reasons for the same injunction with regard to the Hoopoe.

In spite of the beauty of the bird, it has always had rather an ill reputation, and, whether in Europe or Asia, its presence seems to be regarded by the ignorant with a kind of superstitious aversion. This universal distaste for the Hoopoe is probably occasioned by an exceedingly pungent and disagreeable odour which fills the nest of the bird, and which infects for a considerable time the hand which is employed to take the eggs.

The nest is, moreover, well calculated for retaining any unpleasant smell, being generally made in the hollow of a tree, and having therefore but little of that thorough ventilation which is found in nearly all nests which are built on boughs and sprays. The odour in question proceeds from a substance secreted from the tail-glands of the Hoopoe, and is not due, as was long supposed, to the food which was brought to the nest.

THE HOOPOE.

There was good reason for supposing that this evil odour was caused by the food, inasmuch as the Hoopoe is in the habit of raking about in very unsavoury places in search of insects. But it does not therefore follow that the insects which it finds are possessed of an evil smell. On the contrary, some of the worst-smelling insects-notably the lace-wing fly and many of the flower-haunting hemiptera-are invariably found upon the leaves of trees and the petals of flowers; while others which, like many of the scarab beetles, haunt the most repulsive substances, are in themselves bright, and clean, and sweet.

The food of the Hoopoe consists almost entirely of insects. They have been said to feed on earth-worms; but this notion seems to be a mistaken one, as in captivity they will not touch an earth-worm so long as they can procure an insect. Beetles of various kinds seem to be their favourite food, and when the beetles are tolerably large-say, for example, as large as the common cockchafer and dor-beetle-the bird beats them into a soft mass before it attempts to eat them. Smaller beetles are swallowed without any ceremony. The various boring insects which make their home in decaying wood are favourite articles of diet with the Hoopoe, which digs them out of the soft wood with its long curved beak.

It has already been mentioned that the nest is usually made in the hollow of a tree. In many parts of the country however, hollow trees cannot be found, and in that case the Hoopoe resorts to clefts in the rock, or even to holes in old ruins.

The bird is a peculiarly conspicuous one, not only on account of its boldly-barred plumage and its beautiful crest, but by its cry and its gestures. It has a way of elevating and depressing its crest, and bobbing its head up and down, in a manner which could not fail to attract the attention even of the most incurious, the whole aspect and expression of the bird varying with the raising and depressing of the crest.

Respecting this crest there is a curious old legend. As is the case with most of the Oriental legends, it introduces the name of King Solomon, who, according to Oriental notions, was a mighty wizard rather than a wise king, and by means of his seal, on which was engraven the mystic symbol of Divinity, held sway over the birds, the beasts, the elements, and even over the Jinns and Afreets, i.e. the good and evil spirits, which are too ethereal for the material world and too gross for the spiritual, and therefore hold the middle place between them.

On one of his journeys across the desert, Solomon was perishing from the heat of the sun, when the Hoopoes came to his aid, and flew in a dense mass over his head, thus forming a shelter from the fiery sunbeams. Grateful for this assistance, the monarch told the Hoopoes to ask for a boon, and it should be granted to them. The birds, after consulting together, agreed to ask that from that time every Hoopoe should wear a crown of gold like Solomon himself. The request was immediately granted, and each Hoopoe found itself adorned with a royal crown. At first, while their honours were new, great was the joy of the birds, who paused at every little puddle of water to contemplate themselves, bowing their heads over the watery mirror so as to display the crown to the best advantage.

Soon, however, they found cause to repent of their ambition. The golden crown became heavy and wearisome to them, and, besides, the wealth bestowed on the birds rendered them the prey of every fowler. The unfortunate Hoopoes were persecuted in all directions for the sake of their golden crowns, which they could neither take off nor conceal.

At last, the few survivors presented themselves before Solomon, and begged him to rescind his fatal gift, which he did by substituting a crest of feathers for the crown of gold. The Hoopoe, however, never forgets its former grandeur, and is always bowing and bending itself as it used to do when contemplating its golden crown in the water.

THE SPARROW.

Signification of the word Tzippor-The bird used for the leper's sacrifice-The Sparrow upon the house-top-Architecture of the East-Proclamation from the house-tops-The Blue Thrush, its appearance and habits-Little birds exposed for sale in the market-The two Sparrows sold for a farthing-Bird-catching-The net, the snare, and the trap-The Sparrow that builds her nest in the Temple-The Tree-Sparrow-Various Sparrows that inhabit Palestine-Birds kept in cages.

We have already discussed the signification of the compound word tzippor-deror, and will now take the word tzippor alone.

Like many other Hebrew terms, the word is evidently used in a collective sense, signifying any small bird that is not specially designated. In several portions of Scripture it is translated as Sparrow, and to that word we will at present restrict ourselves.

Much difficulty has been found in identifying the bird which is signified by this word, the various allusions not agreeing with each other. For example, in the marginal reading in Lev. xiv. 4 it is employed as a bird of sacrifice. When a leper had found that his disease had passed away, he was ordered to present himself before the priest, who would examine him, and decide whether the leprosy had really passed away or not. If he found that the man was right, a series of symbolic ceremonies had to be performed before the former leper could be restored to his place in the congregation.

These ceremonies lasted for eight days, and the first of them was the sacrificing of the Sparrow. "Then shall the priest command to take for him that shall be cleansed two birds [tzipporim or sparrows] alive and clean, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop." One of these birds was to be sacrificed over running water, and the other to be set free, this sacrifice being analogous to that of the scape-goat.

We see in this passage that the bird in question, whatever it might be, must be one of those birds which were considered as clean and fit for food. Indeed, the very use of the word "clean" shows that the leper was not restricted to any particular species. Had this been the case, there would have been no necessity for stipulating that the Tzipporim must belong to the list of clean birds-i.e. those which were permitted as food to the Israelites. Had any definite species been intended, there would have been no necessity for mentioning the word "clean" in connexion with the bird.

In the remaining ceremonies no such word is needed. There is no stipulation that the lamb to be sacrificed should be clean, or, in case the leper should be a poor man, that the doves which he offers should be clean. That the lamb should be without blemish is especially mentioned, because it would not be right to offer a maimed or diseased animal-he who presented himself before the Lord might not offer a sacrifice which cost him nothing, and therefore was no true sacrifice. But the lamb and the dove were known to be "clean" animals, so it was useless to use the word in connexion with them. If, therefore, the words "clean birds" (tzipporim) be mentioned, it is evident that the leper might select any of the Tzipporim, provided that it be one of the species that was acknowledged to be dean.

Here, then, we have an example that the Sparrow might be a bird of sacrifice. We will now pass to Ps. cii. 5-7, in which we find that the word is used as an emblem of solitude and misery: "By reason of the voice of my groaning, my bones cleave to my skin.

"I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert.

"I watch, and am as a sparrow alone upon the house-top."

The word which is here translated as "Sparrow" is tzippor, the same which is rendered as "bird" in Lev. xiv. 4. The Hebrew Bible more consistently uses the collective term "bird" in both instances, and renders the passage as, "I watch, and am as a lonely bird upon a roof."

Now, any one who knows the habits of the Sparrow is perfectly aware that it is a peculiarly sociable bird. It is quarrelsome enough with its fellows, and always ready to fight for a stray grain or morsel of food; but it is exceedingly gregarious, assembling together in little parties, enlivening the air with its merry though unmusical twitterings.

This cosmopolitan bird is plentiful in the coast towns of Palestine, where it haunts the habitations of men with the same dauntless confidence which it displays in England. It is often seen upon roofs or house-tops, but is no more apt to sit alone in Palestine than it is in England. On the contrary, the Sparrows collect in great numbers on the house-tops, attracted by the abundant supply of food which it finds there. This requires some little explanation.

The house-tops of the East, instead of being gabled and tiled as among ourselves, to allow the rain to run off, are quite flat, and serve as terraces or promenades in the evening, or even for sleeping-places; and from the house-tops proclamations were made. See, for example, 1 Sam. ix. 25: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house"-this being the ordinary place which would be chosen for a conversation. In order to keep out the heat of the mid-day sun, tents were sometimes pitched upon these flat house-tops. (See 2 Sam. xvi. 22.) Reference to the use of the house-tops as places for conversation are made in the New Testament. See, for example, Matt. x. 27: "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops." Another passage of a similar nature occurs in Luke xii. 3: "Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed on the house-tops."

These roofs, instead of being built with sloping rafters like those to which we are accustomed in this country, are made with great beams of wood laid horizontally, and crossed by planks, poles, and brushwood packed tightly together. As this roof would not keep out the rain, it is covered with a thick layer of clay mixed with straw, and beaten down as hard as possible. This covering has constantly to be renewed, as, even in the best made roofs, the heavy rains are sure to wash away some portion of the clay covering, which has to be patched up with a fresh supply of earth. A stone roller is generally kept on the roof of each house for the purpose of making a flat and even surface.

The earth which is used for this purpose is brought from the uncultivated ground, and is full of various seeds. As soon as the rains fall, these seeds spring up, and afford food to the Sparrows and other little birds, who assemble in thousands on the house-tops, and then peck away just as they do in our own streets and farm-yards.

It is now evident that the "sparrow alone and melancholy upon the house-tops" cannot be the lively, gregarious Sparrow which assembles in such numbers on these favourite feeding-places. We must therefore look for some other bird, and naturalists are now agreed that we may accept the Blue Thrush (Petrocossyphus cyaneus) as the particular Tzippor, or small bird, which sits alone on the house-tops. The colour of this bird is a dark blue, whence it derives its popular name. Its habits exactly correspond with the idea of solitude and melancholy. The Blue Thrushes never assemble in flocks, and it is very rare to see more than a pair together. It is fond of sitting on the tops of houses, uttering its note, which, however agreeable to itself, is monotonous and melancholy to a human ear.

In connexion with the passage already quoted, "What ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops," I will take the opportunity of explaining the passage itself, which scarcely seems relevant to the occasion unless we understand its bearings. The context shows that our Lord was speaking of the new doctrines which He had come to teach, and the duty of spreading them, and alludes to a mode of religious teaching which was then in vogue.

THE BLUE THRUSH, OR SPARROW OF SCRIPTURE.

"I am as a sparrow alone upon the house-tops."-Ps. cii. 7.

The long captivity of the Jews in Babylon had caused the Hebrew language to be disused among the common people, who had learned the Chaldaic language from their captors. After their return to Palestine, the custom of publicly reading the Scriptures was found to be positively useless, the generality of the people being ignorant of the Hebrew language.

Accordingly, the following modification was adopted. The roll of the Scriptures was brought out as usual, and the sacred words read, or rather chanted. After each passage was read, a doctor of the law whispered its meaning into the ear of a Targumista or interpreter, who repeated to the people in the Chaldaic language the explanation which the doctor had whispered in Hebrew. The reader will now see how appropriate is the metaphor, the whispering in the ear and subsequent proclamation being the customary mode of imparting religious instruction.

If the reader will now turn to Matt. x. 29, he will find that the word "sparrow" is used in a passage which has become very familiar to us. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

"Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." The same sentences are given by St. Luke (xii. 6), in almost the same words.

Now the word which is translated as "Sparrow" is strouthion, a collective word, signifying a bird of any kind. Without the addition of some epithet, it was generally used to signify any kind of small bird, though it is occasionally employed to signify even so large a creature as an eagle, provided that the bird had been mentioned beforehand. Conjoined with the word "great," it signifies the ostrich; and when used in connexion with a word significative of running, it is employed as a general term for all cursorial birds.

In the passages above quoted it is used alone, and evidently signifies any kind of little bird, whether it be a sparrow or not. Allusion is made by our Lord to a custom, which has survived to the present day, of exposing for sale in the markets the bodies of little birds. They are stripped of their feathers, and spitted together in rows, just as are larks in this country, and always have a large sale. Various birds are sold in this manner, little if any distinction being made between them, save perhaps in respect of size, the larger species commanding a higher price than the small birds. In fact, they are arranged exactly after the manner in which the Orientals sell their "kabobs," i.e. little pieces of meat pierced by wooden skewers.

It is evident that to supply such a market it is necessary that the birds should be of a tolerably gregarious nature, so that a considerable number can be caught at a time. Nets were employed for this purpose, and we may safely infer that the forms of the nets and the methods of using them were identical with those which are employed in the same country at the present day.

It is rather curious that the mode of bird-catching which is familiar to us under the name of bat-fowling is employed in the East. The fowlers supply themselves with a large net supported on two sticks, and, taking a lantern with them fastened to the top of a pole, they sally out at night to the places where the small birds sleep.

Raising the net on its sticks, they lift it to the requisite height, and hold the lantern exactly opposite to it, so as to place the net between the birds and the lantern. The roosting-places are then beaten with sticks or pelted with stones, so as to awaken the sleeping birds. Startled by the sudden noise, they dash from their roosts, instinctively make towards the light, and so fall into the net. Bird-catching with nets is several times mentioned in the Old Testament, but in the New the net is only alluded to as used for taking fish.

Beside the net, several other modes of bird-catching were used by the ancient Jews, just as is the case at the present day. Boys, for example, who catch birds for their own consumption, and not for the market, can do so by means of various traps, most of which are made on the principle of the noose, or snare. Sometimes a great number of hair-nooses are set in places to which the birds are decoyed, so that in hopping about many of them are sure to become entangled in the snares. Sometimes the noose is ingeniously suspended in a narrow passage which the birds are likely to traverse, and sometimes a simple fall-trap is employed.

To these nooses many allusions are made in the Scriptures. See, for example, Ps. cxxiv. 7: "Our soul is escaped as a bird (tzippor) out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped." Also Prov. vii. 23: "He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter ... as a bird hasteneth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life." There is one passage in Ecclesiastes, where both the fishing-net and the snare are mentioned in connexion with each other: "For man knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them" (ix. 12).

Allusion is also made to the snare by the prophet Amos in one of the passages where his rough, homely diction rises by successive steps into sublimity: "Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?" (iii. 5.)

So common was the use of the snare that it was frequently used as a familiar image by the sacred writers. "How long shall this man be a snare to us?" said Pharaoh's servants of Moses, through whom the waters of the sacred river had been polluted, and various other plagues had come upon the Egyptians. Idols are called snares in many parts of the Scriptures, and so is the society of the wicked. A forcible use of this image was made by Saul when he found that his daughter Michal loved David: "And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him" (1 Sam. xviii. 21). His device, or snare, not only failed, but, as we learn in the succeeding chapter, verses 11-16, David was "delivered from the snare of the fowler," by the very means which had been employed for entrapping him.

* * *

We now pass to another division of the subject. In Ps. lxxxiv. 1-3, we come upon a passage in which the Sparrow is again mentioned: "How amiable are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!

"My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

"Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even Thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God."

It is evident that we have in this passage a different bird from the Sparrow that sitteth alone upon the house-tops; and though the same word, tzippor, is used in both cases, it is clear that whereas the former bird was mentioned as an emblem of sorrow, solitude, and sadness, the latter is brought forward as an image of joy and happiness. "Blessed are they," proceeds the Psalmist, "that dwell in Thy house: they will be still praising Thee.... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

According to Mr. Tristram, this is probably one of the species to which allusion is made by the Psalmist. While inspecting the ruins in the neighbourhood of the Temple, he came upon an old wall. "Near this gate I climbed on to the top of the wall, and walked along for some time, enjoying the fine view at the gorge of the Kedron, with its harvest crop of little white tombs. In a chink I discovered a sparrow's nest (Passer cisalpinus, var.) of a species so closely allied to our own that it is difficult to distinguish it, one of the very kind of which the Psalmist sung.... The swallows had departed for the winter, but the sparrow has remained pertinaciously through all the sieges and changes of Jerusalem."

THE TREE-SPARROW, OR SPARROW OF SCRIPTURE.

"Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, where she may lay her young."-Ps. lxxxiv. 3.

The same traveller thinks that the Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) may be the species to which the sacred writer refers, as it is even now very plentiful about the neighbourhood of the Temple. In all probability we may accept both these birds as representatives of the Sparrow which found a home in the Temple. The swallow is separately mentioned, possibly because its migratory habits rendered it a peculiarly conspicuous bird; but it is probable that many species of birds might make their nests in a place where they felt themselves secure from disturbance, and that all these birds would be mentioned under the collective and convenient term of Tzipporim.

As we are engaged upon the word Sparrow, it may be mentioned that several species of Sparrow inhabit Palestine. There is, for example, the common House Sparrow, with which we are so familiar. Then, as has just been described, there is the Tree Sparrow-a bird which is very common in some parts of England, and never seen in others.

Beside these, there is the Marsh Sparrow, or Spanish Sparrow (Passer salicarius), which haunts the banks of the Jordan, and is found there in countless myriads. Mr. Tristram mentions that it builds so plentifully in the thorn-bushes of the Jordan valley, that he has seen the branches borne down by the weight of the nests. The same writer, in remarking upon the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of defining the precise bird which was signified by a Hebrew word, says that, exclusive of the crow tribe, the swifts, cuckoos, rollers, kingfishers, &c., nearly one hundred and fifty species of passerine birds are known to inhabit the Holy Land, any or all of which may be signified by the word tzippor.

In curious contrast to the generally unobservant nature of the Oriental, and to the almost entire absence in Scripture of any allusion to the song of birds, we find that not only do the Orientals of the present day keep singing-birds in cages, but that the custom was in all probability prevalent during the days when the various Scriptural books were written. Any of my readers who are familiar-as they ought to be-with that store-house of Oriental manners, the "Arabian Nights," will remember several allusions to birds kept in cages, some for their song, some for their beauty of plumage, and some for their powers of talking. The same custom is continued at the present day; and not only in Palestine, but in other Eastern countries, birds may be seen in cages hung outside the houses.

In two passages of the Scriptures the word "cage" is mentioned, but in one case the word evidently has another meaning, and in the other the signification is open to doubt.

The first of these passages occurs in Jer. v. 27: "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

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

There is but little doubt that the word which is rendered here as "cage" really signifies a trap, probably one of the basket-traps which are still employed in the East in bird-catching. One marginal reading gives the word as "coop." The whole of the context, however, shows that reference is made, not to keeping birds in cages, but to capturing them in traps, to which the houses of the wicked are compared.

The second mention of the word "cage" occurs in the Revelation, where the sacred writer compares Babylon with "a cage of every unclean bird." The word in this case signifies "prison," and we cannot definitely say that it represents a cage such as we understand by the word. There is, however, a passage in the Book of Job (xli. 5) which unmistakeably alludes to the custom of domesticating birds. Speaking of the leviathan and its strength, the sacred writer uses the following metaphor:-"Wilt thou play with him as with a bird, or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?"

THE CUCKOO.

The Cuckoo only twice mentioned in Scripture-Difficulty of identifying the Shachaph-The common species, and the Great Spotted Cuckoo-Depositing the egg-Conjectures respecting the Shachaph-Etymology of the word-The various gulls, and other sea-birds.

Only in two instances is the word Cuckoo found in the Authorized Version of the Bible, and as they occur in parallel passages they are practically reduced to one. In Lev. xi. 16 we find it mentioned among the birds that might not be eaten, and the same prohibition is repeated in Deut. xiv. 15, the Jews being ordered to hold the bird in abomination.

The Hebrew word is shachaph (the vowels to be pronounced as in "mat"), but as to the precise bird which is signified we can but conjecture. The etymology of the word gives us but little assistance. Shachaph is derived from a root that signifies leanness or slenderness; but it is not very easy to base an interpretation on such grounds. In the Jewish Bible the word is rendered as "Cuckoo," but with the addition of the doubtful mark.

It is possible that the bird may be the Shachaph of the Pentateuch, for several species of Cuckoo are known to inhabit the Holy Land. One of them is the species with which we are so familiar in this country by sound, if not by sight, and which possesses in Palestine the same habits as in England. It is rather remarkable, by the way, that the Arabic name for the bird is exactly the same as ours, the peculiar cry having supplied the name. Its habit of laying its eggs in the nests of other birds is well known, together with the curious fact, that although so large a bird, measuring more than a foot in length, its egg is not larger than that of the little birds, such as the hedge-sparrow, robin, or redstart.

THE GREAT SPOTTED CUCKOO.

"And the owl, and the night-hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind."-Lev. xi. 16; Deut. xiv. 15.

Besides this species, another Cuckoo inhabits Palestine, and is much more common. This is the Great Spotted Cuckoo (Oxylophus glandarius). The birds belonging to this genus have been separated from the other Cuckoos because the feathers on the head are formed into a bold crest, in some species, such as Le Vaillant's Cuckoo, reminding the observer of the crest of the cockatoo. This fine bird measures nearly sixteen inches in length, and can be distinguished, not only by the crested head, but by the reddish grey of the throat and chest, and the white tips of the wing and tail feathers.

This species lays its eggs in the nests of comparatively large birds, such as the rooks, crows, and magpies; and it is a remarkable fact, that just as the egg of the English Cuckoo is very small, so as to suit the nests of the little birds in which it is placed, that of the Great Spotted Cuckoo is as large as the average rook's egg, so as to be in proportion to the nests of the larger birds.

* * *

Many commentators believe that by the word shachaph was signified some species of sea-gull, or at all events some marine bird. As such birds live on fish, they would necessarily come into the class of unclean birds, and there is on that account some probability that the suggestion is a correct one.

Dr. Lewysohn has a very elaborate disquisition on the subject, in which he decides that the creature was one of the sea-birds, and derives its name of Shachaph, or "attenuated," from the meagreness of its proportions. Of the various sea-birds, he selects the petrel as the species which he thinks to have been signified by the word. This bird, as he says, is a very lean one, having many feathers, but very little flesh, so that its limbs are no larger than olives, and no one could make a meal of it. This last remark, however, tends to diminish rather than to establish his theory, as, if the bird could not be eaten, there would have been no object in prohibiting the Jews from eating it.

He further proceeds to observe that the bird is unable to scratch, and may therefore be given to a child as a playfellow, and that it is capable of being domesticated and living in a cage. There is, however, no argument here, and the theory is not a tenable one.

Mr. Tristram, with far more probability, suggests that if the bird be not one of the Cuckoos, and be really a sea-bird, it may be one of the shearwaters which live in such numbers on the sea-shore of Palestine. He mentions especially two species, the Great Shearwater (Puffinus cinereus) and the Manx Shearwater (Puffinus anglorum), both of which are extremely plentiful on the coast, skimming continually over the water, and being at the present day regarded by the Mahometans with superstitious awe, being thought to be the ever-restless souls of the condemned, who are doomed to fly backwards and forwards continually until the end of the world, clad in sombre plumage, and never permitted to rest.

Besides the shearwater, many species of gull inhabit the same coast, and it is not at all unlikely that the word shachaph was used in a collective sense, as we have seen to be the case with tzippor, and signified any of the marine birds, without aiming at distinction of species.

THE DOVE.

Parallel between the lamb and the Dove-Derivation of the Hebrew word Yonah-The Dove and the olive branch-Abram's sacrifice, and its acceptance-The sacrifice according to the law of Moses-The Dove-sellers of the Temple-Talmudical zoology-The story of Ilisch-The Dove and the raven-The Dove a type of Israel-The Beni-yonah, or Sons of Pigeons-Home-finding instinct of the pigeon-The Oriental Dove-cotes-Voice of the Dove-Its strength of wing-The Dove's dung of Samaria-Various pigeons of Palestine-The Rock-Dove and its multitudes-The Dove and the Griffon-The Turtle-Doves of Palestine, and their appearance and habits.

In giving the Scriptural history of the Doves and Pigeons, we shall find ourselves rather perplexed in compressing the needful information into a reasonable space. There is no bird which plays a more important part, both in the Old and the New Testaments, or which is employed so largely in metaphor and symbol.

The Doves and Pigeons were to the birds what were the sheep and lambs to the animals, and, like them, derived their chief interest from their use in sacrifice. Both the lamb and the young pigeon being emblems of innocence, both were used on similar occasions, the latter being in many instances permitted when the former were too expensive for the means of the offerer. As to the rendering of the Hebrew words which have been translated as Pigeon, Dove, and Turtle Dove, there has never been any discussion. The Hebrew word yonah has always been acknowledged to signify the Dove or Pigeon, and the word t?r to signify the Turtle Dove. Generally, the two words are used in combination, so that tor-yonah signifies the Turtle Dove.

Though the interpretation of the word yonah is universally accepted, there is a little difficulty about its derivation, and its signification apart from the bird. Some have thought that it is derived from a root signifying warmth, in allusion to the warmth of its affection, the Dove having from time immemorial been selected as the type of conjugal love. Others, among whom is Buxtorf, derive it from a word which signifies oppression, because the gentle nature of the Dove, together with its inability to defend itself, cause it to be oppressed, not only by man, but by many rapacious birds.

* * *

The first passage in which we hear of the Dove occurs in the earlier part of Genesis. Indeed, the Dove and the raven are the first two creatures that are mentioned by any definite names, the word nachosh, which is translated as "serpent" in Gen. iii. 1, being a collective word signifying any kind of serpent, whether venomous or otherwise, and not used for the purpose of designating any particular species.

Turning to Gen. viii. 8, we come to the first mention of the Dove. The whole passage is too familiar to need quoting, and it is only needful to say that the Dove was sent out of the ark in order that Noah might learn whether the floods had subsided, and that, after she had returned once, he sent her out again seven days afterwards, and that she returned, bearing an olive-branch (or leaf, in the Jewish Bible). Seven days afterwards he sent the Dove for the third time, but she had found rest on the earth, and returned no more.

It is not within the province of this work to treat, except in the most superficial manner, of the metaphorical signification of the Scriptures. I shall, therefore, allude but very slightly to the metaphorical sense of the passages which record the exit from the ark and the sacrifice of Noah. Suffice it to say that, putting entirely aside all metaphor, the characters of the raven and the Dove are well contrasted. The one went out, and, though the trees were at that time submerged, it trusted in its strong wings, and hovered above the watery expanse until the flood had subsided. The Dove, on the contrary, fond of the society of man, and having none of the wild, predatorial habits which distinguish the raven, twice returned to its place of refuge, before it was finally able to find a resting-place for its foot.

After this, we hear nothing of the Dove until the time of Abraham, some four hundred years afterwards, when the covenant was made between the Lord and Abram, when "he believed in the Lord, and it was counted to him for righteousness." In order to ratify this covenant he was ordered to offer a sacrifice, which consisted of a young heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtle-dove, and a young dove or pigeon. The larger animals were severed in two, but the birds were not divided, and between the portions of the sacrifice there passed a lamp of fire as a symbol of the Divine presence.

In after days, when the promise that the seed of Abram should be as the stars of heaven for multitude had been amply fulfilled, together with the prophecy that they should be "strangers in a land that was not theirs," and should be in slavery and under oppression for many years, the Dove was specially mentioned in the new law as one of the creatures that were to be sacrificed on certain defined occasions.

Even the particular mode of offering the Dove was strictly defined. See Lev. i. 14-17: "If the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons.

"And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar.

"And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar, on the east part, by the place of the ashes.

"And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire."

Here we have a repetition not only of the sacrifice of Abram, but of the mode in which it was offered, care being taken that the body of the bird should not be divided. There is a slight, though not very important variation in one or two portions of this passage. For example, the wringing off the head of the bird is, literally, pinching off, and had to be done with the thumb nail; and the passage which is by some translators rendered as the crop and the feathers, is by others translated as the crop and its contents-a reading which seems to be more consonant with the usual ceremonial of sacrifice than the other.

As a general rule, the pigeon was only sanctioned as a sacrificial animal in case one of more value could not be afforded; and so much care was taken in this respect, that with the exception of the two "sparrows" (tzipporim) that were enjoined as part of the sacrifice by which the cleansed leper was received back among the people (Lev. xiv. 4), no bird might be offered in sacrifice unless it belonged to the tribe of pigeons.

It was in consequence of the poverty of the family that the Virgin Mary brought two young pigeons when she came to present her new-born Son in the Temple. For those who were able to afford it, the required sacrifice was a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or Turtle Dove for a sin-offering. But "if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, the one for the burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering." The extraordinary value which all Israelites set upon the first-born son is well known, both parents even changing their own names, and being called respectively the father and mother of Elias, or Joseph, as the case may be. If the parents who had thus attained the summit of their wishes possessed a lamb, or could have obtained one, they would most certainly have offered it in the fulness of their joy, particularly when, as in the case of Mary, there was such cause for rejoicing; and the fact that they were forced to substitute a second pigeon for the lamb is a proof of their extreme poverty.

While the Israelites were comparatively a small and compact nation, dwelling around their tabernacle, the worshippers could easily offer their sacrifices, bringing them from their homes to the altar. But in process of time, when the nation had become a large and scattered one, its members residing at great distances, and only coming to the Temple once or twice in the year to offer their sacrifices, they would have found that for even the poor to carry their pigeons with them would have greatly increased the trouble, and in many cases have been almost impossible.

For the sake of convenience, therefore, a number of dealers established themselves in the outer courts of the Temple, for the purpose of selling Doves to those who came to sacrifice. Sheep and oxen were also sold for the same purpose, and, as offerings of money could only be made in the Jewish coinage, money-changers established themselves for the purpose of exchanging foreign money brought from a distance for the legal Jewish shekel. That these people exceeded their object, and endeavoured to overreach the foreign Jews who were ignorant of the comparative value of money and goods, is evident from the fact of their expulsion by our Lord, and the epithets which were applied to them.

As the Dove played so important a part in the Jewish worship, the Talmudical writers have investigated the subject with a curious minuteness.

In the first place, they discuss the reasons for its selection as the bird of sacrifice, and always endeavour to represent it as contrasted with the raven-all birds of the raven kind, i.e. the rooks, crows, magpies, and the like, being set down as cunning, deceptive, and thieving; while all the pigeon kind are mild, true, and loving. There is a curious story which illustrates this idea. A certain man named Ilisch, who understood the language of birds, was "once upon a time" in captivity, when he heard the cry of a raven, which called out to him, "Ilisch! Ilisch! flee! flee!" But Ilisch said within himself, "I believe not this lying bird." But next came a Dove, which said the same words. Then said Ilisch, "I believe this bird, because Israel is compared to a dove."

Here this Ilisch, whoever he may be, referred to the Talmudical writers on the subject of the Dove, which they delighted to compare with Israel in a variety of ways, some of them being very obscure and rather far-fetched. For example, of all birds the Dove is the most persecuted, being gentle, meek, and unable to resist. She cannot fight with her beak or her claws, and has only her wings, with which she will flee away if she is able, or if not, will fight with them. Now, as the wings are to the Dove, so is the law to Israel.

The wings are the strength of the Dove. Upheld by them she can fly for many hours, so that the birds of prey which are pursuing her cannot take her. Then comes a strange notion of the Dove's flight. When other birds are tired, they sit down and fold their wings to rest. But the tired Dove never ceases her flight; but when one wing is fatigued, she allows it to rest, and continues her flight with the other. So is it with Israel, who, though persecuted by the Gentiles, and deprived of half her strength, cannot be entirely crushed, but still survives and asserts herself.

One reason that is given for the gentle disposition of the Dove is that the bird has no gall, the gall being considered by the naturalists of old as the source and fountain of contention, the bitterness of the gall being supposed to infuse itself into the spirit. Probably on account of this anatomical peculiarity, the Dove was considered as the very pattern for married people, and the emblem of chastity, as it lives in the strictest monogamy, never desiring another mate. Unfortunately for these writers, the Raven, which is always mentioned by them in strong contrast with the Dove, is quite as remarkable for its attachment to its mate and young, and for the strictness of its monogamy, the same pair, when once mated, residing together for the whole of their lives.

Even the age of the Dove was made a matter of consideration by the Talmudists, so that in great measure the original benevolence of the Law was cramped by the restrictions which were laid upon it. As we are told by St. Paul, in Heb. ix., even under the old dispensation, without shedding of blood there was no remission of sins, and he who desired to obtain that remission was obliged to shed the blood of the sacrifice. Now, in order that poverty should be no restriction to the attainment of the greatest spiritual privileges, it was ordained that young pigeons or Turtle Doves might be substituted for the more costly animals.

These birds cost but very little. The peasant might take them from the dove-cote, which was the appendage of most households, and he who was too poor even to have a dove-cote of his own might go to the rocky side of the ravines, and take as many young as he pleased from the myriad nests which are placed in the clefts. Thus, at any time of the year, the poorest man or woman could obtain the means of sacrifice.

But the restrictive genius which was so sternly rebuked by our Lord soon made itself felt. All these birds, in order to be fit for sacrifice, must be Beni-yonah, i.e. Sons of Doves. The definition of this term is rather interesting, as it affords an excellent example of the hair-splitting character of these interpreters of the Law. According to them, a pigeon could only be ranked among the Beni-yonah for a short period of its life, and, if it were too young or too old, it might not be offered as a sacrifice.

The test of proper age lay in the feathers. If the bird were so young that the feathers could be pulled out without drawing blood, it was considered as being below age. If, on the contrary, blood followed the feathers, but the plumage of the neck exhibited a metallic lustre, it was reckoned as having passed the age of Beni-yonah. It might be a father, and not the son, of pigeons. When these feathers are visible, the bird changes its name, and is called T?r-a word which will be presently explained.

According to some of these old writers, the Dove was considered as having a superiority over other birds in the instinctive certainty with which it finds its way from one place to another. At the present time, our familiarity with the variety of pigeon known as the Carrier has taught us that the eye is the real means employed by the pigeon for the direction of its flight. Those who fly pigeons for long distances always take them several times over the same ground, carrying them to an increasing distance at every journey, so that the birds shall be able to note certain objects which serve them as landmarks.

Bees and wasps have recourse to a similar plan. When a young wasp leaves its nest for the first time, it does not fly away at once, but hovers in front of the entrance for some time, getting farther and farther away from the nest until it has learned the aspect of surrounding objects. The pigeon acts in precisely the same manner, and so completely does it depend upon eyesight that, if a heavy fog should come on, the best-trained pigeon will lose its way.

The old writers, however, made up their minds that the pigeon found its way by scent, which sense alone, according to their ideas, could guide it across the sea. They were not aware of the power possessed by birds of making their eyes telescopic at will, or of the enormous increase of range which the sight obtains by elevation. A pigeon at the elevation of several hundred yards can see to an astonishing distance, and there is no need of imagining one sense to receive a peculiar development when the ordinary powers of another are sufficient to obtain the object.

That dove-cotes were in use among the earlier Jews is well known. An allusion to the custom of keeping pigeons in cotes is seen in Isa. lx. 8: "Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?" or, as the Jewish Bible translates the passage, "as the doves to their apertures?" In this passage the sacred writer utters a prophecy concerning the coming of the world to the Messiah, the Gentiles flocking to Him as the clouds of pigeons fly homeward to their cotes.

The practice of pigeon-keeping has survived to the present day, the houses of wealthy men being furnished with separate pigeon-houses, built up of a number of earthen jars, and roofed over. Each jar is the habitation of a pair of pigeons, and the whole principle of this dove-cote is exactly the same as that which was employed by the late Mr. Waterton in erecting the starling-houses in his garden and grounds. Poorer people, who cannot afford to build a separate house for the pigeons, set up jars for them in their own houses, the pigeons gaining access to their nests through the door.

The Talmudical writers have even their regulations respecting the keeping of tame pigeons. No one was allowed to do so who had not a sufficiency of ground around his house to supply food for them. According to their regulations, the pigeon-house must not be within fifty paces of cultivated ground belonging to any one except the owner of the pigeons. The reason for this prohibition was, that as the pigeon was known to be an exceedingly voracious bird, it should not feed at the expense of a neighbour. It was conventionally supposed to feed by choice in the immediate vicinity of the house, and, when it had filled its crop, to be unwilling to fly farther than was absolutely necessary.

Being so familiar with this bird, it was to be expected that the writers of the Scriptures would make many references to it. The plaintive, monotonous cooing of the pigeon is several times mentioned. For example: "And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up, and her maids shall lead her as with the voice of doves, taboring upon their breasts" (Nah. ii. 7). The Jewish Bible gives this passage in another and certainly a more forcible manner: "And Huzzab shall be uncovered and brought up, and her maids shall sigh as the voice of doves, drumming upon their breasts." Here the prophet alludes to the ancient custom of beating the breast as a sign of sorrow (a custom that survived even in this country until a very recent date), accompanied with the moanings of distress.

The prophet Isaiah makes use of a similar metaphor: "I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward" (xxxviii. 14). Also in chap. lix. 11: "We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves."

THE ROCK DOVE.

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

The beauty of the bird is mentioned in many passages, several of which occur in the Song of Solomon. "Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast dove's eyes" (i. 15). "His eyes are the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set" (v. 12). And in several other places the beloved is spoken of as a Dove, as in the following passage: "My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her" (vi. 9).

Allusion is made to the peculiar metallic gleam of the Dove's plumage in a well-known passage of the Psalms: "Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold" (Ps. lxviii. 13).

The strong flight of the Dove is also mentioned by the Psalmist in an equally familiar passage: "And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Lo, then would I wander far off, and remain in the wilderness" (Ps. lv. 6, 7). It is scarcely necessary to advert to the well-known passages in which reference is made to the gentleness of the Dove.

That the pigeons which are not domesticated live in the rocks was known to the Scripture writers, who make several references to the fact.

See, for example: "O ye that dwell in Moab, leave the cities, and dwell in the rock, and be like the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of the hole's mouth" (Jer. xlviii. 28). See also Ezek. vii. 16: "But they that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one for his iniquity."

This is an especially graphic image. The deep valleys that run between the mountain ranges are literally crowded with pigeons who have made their nests in the cavities. Several of these are so well known that they go by the name of "Valleys of Pigeons."

In the Song of Solomon (ii. 14) is another reference to the rock-loving propensities of the Dove: "O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice." The Jewish Bible gives a slightly different rendering, translating the word which is given as "stairs" in the Authorized Version as "cliffs."

That the Doves were caught in nets is evident from a passage in Hosea (vii. 11, 12): "Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria.

"When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath heard."

There is one passage in the Old Testament about which great controversy has taken place. It occurs in 2 Kings vi. 25. When Ben-hadad besieged Samaria, and tried to reduce it by starvation, the famine was so great in the city that "an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver."

Objection has been taken to this passage on the score of the exceeding repulsiveness of the food. This objection, however, cannot hold good; for, although such diet must have been most repulsive, it could not have been more so than the flesh of the ass, an animal which was strictly forbidden as food, and held as unclean. Moreover, as we see in verse 29 that parents actually ate the flesh of their own children, it is evident that the mere repulsiveness of the food cannot be taken as an objection.

A far stronger objection is to be found in the fact that even all the dove-cotes of Samaria could not furnish a sufficient quantity for food, especially as the Doves themselves must have been killed and eaten long before the people were driven to such an extremity as to eat the flesh of their own children. It is far more probable that the "dove's-dung" was the name of a vegetable of some kind. We find a similar nomenclature in the popular names of many of our own plants, such as oxlip, cowslip, horse-tail, hart's-tongue, mouse-ear, maidenhair, and the like.

* * *

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

In the Holy Land are found all the species of Pigeons which inhabit England, together with one or two others. First, there is the Rock Pigeon, or Blue Rock Dove (Columba livia), which is acknowledged to be the origin of our domestic breeds of Pigeons, with all their infinite variety of colour and plumage. This species, though plentiful in Palestine, is not spread over the whole of the land, but lives chiefly on the coast and in the higher parts of the country. In these places it multiplies in amazing numbers, its increase being almost wholly unchecked by man, on account of the inaccessible cliffs in which it lays its eggs and nurtures its young, its only enemies being a few of the birds and beasts of prey, which can exercise but a trifling influence on these prolific birds.

In other parts of the country the Egyptian Rock Dove (Columba Schimperi) takes the place of the more northern species. It is a little smaller than our own Rock Dove, and has not the whitish plumage on the lower part of the back. This species is quite as numerous as the other, and builds in similar places. Mr. Tristram, while visiting the Wady (or Valley) Seim?n, which lies near the Lake of Gennesaret, witnessed an amusing example of the vast number of these Pigeons.

"No description can give an adequate idea of the myriads of rock pigeons. In absolute clouds they dashed to and fro in the ravine, whirling round with a rush and a whirr that could be felt like a gust of wind. It was amusing to watch them upset the dignity and the equilibrium of the majestic griffon as they swept past him. This enormous bird, quietly sailing along, was quite turned on his back by the sudden rush of wings and wind."

The writer of this description has been too modest. It is impossible to convey a better idea of the vast multitude of birds than has been given by this anecdote. We are all familiar with the clatter of Pigeons' wings as they dart from their resting-place, and can well imagine how great must have been the multitude of birds that would fairly turn the powerful griffon-vulture on its back. This description may be advantageously compared with the passage in Isa. lx. 8: "Who are these that fly as a cloud?" the sacred writer well knowing the force of his image when addressed to those who were familiar with the habits of the bird, whether it was the semi-domesticated House Pigeon or the wild Rock Dove. The Ring Dove (Columba palumbus) and the Stock Dove (Columba ?nas) are also found in Palestine.

These birds are taken in nets, into which they are decoyed by a very effective though cruel device.

When one of these birds is trapped or snared, it is seized by its capturers, who spare its life for the sake of using it as a decoy. They blind it by sewing its eyelids together, and then fasten it to a perch among trees. The miserable bird utters plaintive cries, and continually flaps its wings, thus attracting others of its kind, who settle on the surrounding branches and are easily taken, their whole attention being occupied by the cries of their distressed companion.

We now come to the Turtle Doves, several of which inhabit the Holy Land; but, as they are similar in habits, we will confine ourselves to the common species (Turtur auritus), with which we are so familiar in this country. The Hebrew word which is translated as Turtle, is t?r, a term which is usually employed in connexion with the word y?nah, or Dove, thus, t?r-y?nah. The name is evidently derived from the note of the bird.

The reader may remember that on page 414, a curious tradition has been mentioned respecting the word t?r; namely, that it represented the age, and not the species of a Dove. There is but little doubt, however, that the word really does represent a species, and that the Turtle Dove is the bird signified by the word t?r. For example, its migratory habits are noticed in the sacred writings. See the following passage in the Song of Solomon.

THE TURTLE DOVE.

"The voice of the turtle is heard in our land."-Cant. ii. 12.

"Lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land" (Cant. ii. 11, 12). The prophet Jeremiah also refers to the migration of this bird: "Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle, and the crane, and the swallow observe the time of their coming: but my people know not the judgment of the Lord" (viii. 7).

Beside this species, there is the Collared Turtle Dove (Turtur risorius), one variety of which is known in England as the Barbary Dove. It is a large species, measuring more than a foot in length. Another species is the Palm Turtle (Turtur Senegalensis), so called from its habit of nesting on palm-trees, when it is obliged to build at a distance from the habitations of man. It is a gregarious bird, several nests being generally found on one tree, and even, when it cannot find a palm, it will build among the thorns in multitudes. Like the common Dove, it is fond of the society of man, and is sure to make its nest among human habitations, secure in its knowledge that it will not be disturbed.

It is rather a small bird, being barely ten inches in length, and having no "collar" on the neck, like the two preceding species.

POULTRY.

Poultry plentiful in Palestine at the present day-The Domestic Fowl unknown in the early times of Israel-The eating and gathering of eggs-References to Poultry in the New Testament-The egg and the scorpion-The fatted fowl of Solomon-The hen brooding over her eggs-Poultry prohibited within Jerusalem-The cock-crowing.

At the present day, poultry are plentiful both in Palestine and Syria, and that they were bred in the time of the Apostles is evident from one or two references which are made by our Lord. How long the Domestic Fowl had been known to the Jews is extremely uncertain, and we have very little to guide us in our search.

That it was unknown to the Jews during the earlier period of their history is evident from the utter silence of the Old Testament on the subject. A bird so conspicuous and so plentiful would certainly have been mentioned in the Law of Moses had it been known to the Israelites; but, in all its minute and detailed provisions, the Law is silent on the subject.

Neither the bird itself nor its eggs are mentioned, although there are a few references to eggs, without signifying the bird which laid them. The humane provision in Deut. xxii. 6, 7, refers not to a domesticated, but to a wild bird: "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dams sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, that thou mayest prolong thy days."

That eggs were used for food, is seen from Job vi. 6: "Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?" So in Isa. lix. 5: "They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth."

There is another passage in the same book which refers to the gathering of eggs as mentioned in Deut. xxii. "And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth" (Isa. x. 14). The well-known passage in Luke xi. 11, 12, however, evidently refers to the ordinary hen's egg, which was used then for food just as is the case at the present day: "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

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

There is but one passage in the Old Testament which has ever been conjectured to refer to the Domestic Fowl. It occurs in 1 Kings iv. 22, 23, among the list of the daily provision of Solomon's household: "And Solomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal,

"Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallow-deer, and fatted fowl."

Now the word which is here rendered as "fatted fowl" is in the Hebrew, barberim. Judging by the etymology of the word, which is derived from a root that signifies whiteness, or purity, it has been thought that the correct rendering would be "fattened white" (birds). Some Hebraists have conjectured that the white birds in question were geese, this term including various white birds, swans among the number.

Many persons think that the fatted fowl mentioned in the above-quoted passage were really Domestic Fowl, which Solomon had introduced into Palestine, together with various other birds and animals, by means of his fleet. There may be truth in this conjecture, but, as there can be no certainty, we will pass from the Old Testament to the New.

THE DOMESTIC FOWL.

"As a hen doth gather her brood under her wings."-Luke xiii. 34.

We are all familiar with the passages in which the Domestic Fowl is mentioned in the New Testament. There is, for example, that touching image employed by our Lord when lamenting over Jerusalem: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" The reference is evidently made to the Domesticated Fowl, which in the time of our Lord was largely bred in the Holy Land.

Some writers have taken objection to this statement in consequence of a Rabbinical law which prohibited poultry from being kept within the walls of Jerusalem, lest in their search for food they should scratch up any impurity which had been buried, and so defile the holy city. But it must be remembered that in the time of Christ Jerusalem belonged practically to the Romans, who held it with a garrison, and who, together with other foreigners, would not trouble themselves about any such prohibition, which would seem to them, as it does to us, exceedingly puerile, not to say unjustifiable. Whether the Jews obeyed or disregarded the prohibition, it is evident that it would have been binding on the Jews alone, and that all Gentiles were exempt from it. Some commentators have even thought that the Domestic Fowl was not known in Palestine until imported by the Romans.

That the bird was common in the days of our Lord is evident from the reference to the "cock-crowing" as a measure of time.

Even on this subject there has been much controversy, some persons thinking that the words are to be understood in their literal sense, and others that they are merely metaphorical, and refer to the divisions of time under the Romans, which were marked by the blowing of trumpets, conventionally termed cock-crowings. There is, however, no necessity to search for a metaphorical meaning when the literal interpretation is clear and intelligible. At the present day, as in all probability in the time of our Lord, the crowing of the cocks is employed as a means of reckoning time during the night, the birds crowing at certain hours with almost mechanical regularity.

THE PEACOCK.

The foreign curiosities imported by Solomon-The word Tucciyim and its various interpretations-Identity of the word with the Cingalese name of the Peacock-Reasons why the Peacock should have been brought to Solomon-Its subsequent neglect and extirpation.

Among the many foreign objects which were imported by Solomon into Palestine, we find that the Peacock is specially mentioned. (See a passage which has already been mentioned in connexion with ivory and apes.) The sacred historian, after mentioning the ivory throne, the golden shields and targets, that all the vessels in Solomon's house were of gold, and that silver was so common as to be of no account, proceeds to give the reason for this profuse magnificence. "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks" (1 Kings x. 22).

The word which is here translated as Peacock is in the Hebrew tucciyim, and has been rendered in various modes. The Jewish Bible accepts the same translation as our own, and does not even affix the mark of doubt. Some Hebraists have rendered the word as "parrots," while others have tried to identify the Tucciyim with guinea-fowls.

In the identification of any animal, much must necessarily depend on the country in which it is found. Now, if the reader will refer to page 2 of this work, he will see that India and Ceylon are identified as the land visited by Solomon's ships. In the latter island are found all the three valuables which are mentioned in the above-quoted passage, and it is remarkable that the Cingalese name for the Peacock is so similar to the Hebrew word, that we have every reason to believe that the word tucciyim or tuyeyim is in reality a Hebraic form of the Cingalese tokei. A similar resemblance of name occurs in the Hebrew and Cingalese terms for ape and elephant.

THE PEACOCK.

"Once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." 1 Kings x. 22.

That this magnificent bird should have been one of those creatures that were imported by Solomon is almost certain. It would be imported for the same reason as the apes; namely, for the purpose of adding to the glories of Solomon's house, and no bird could have been selected which would have a more magnificent effect than the Peacock. Moreover, although unknown in Palestine, it is extremely plentiful in its native land, inhabiting the jungle by thousands, and, by a curious coincidence, being invariably most plentiful in those spots which are most frequented by tigers. In many parts of the country, great numbers of Peacocks frequent the temples, and live amicably with the sacred monkeys, passing their lives in absolute security, protected by the sanctity of the place.

Their numbers, therefore, would render them easily accessible to Solomon's envoys, who would purchase them at a cheap rate from the native dealers, while their surpassing beauty would render them sure of a sale on their arrival in Jerusalem. Indeed, their beauty made so great an impression that they are separately mentioned by the sacred chronicler, the Peacock and the ape being the only two animals that are thought worthy of enumeration.

It seems that after Solomon's death the breed of Peafowl was not kept up, owing in all probability to the troubles which beset the throne after that magnificent monarch died.

THE PARTRIDGE.

The word Kore and its signification-The Partridge upon the mountains-David's simile-The Desert Partridge and its habits-Hunting the Partridge with sticks-Eggs of the Partridge-A disputed reading, and probable signification of the passage-Egg-hunting in Palestine-The various species of Partridge-The Francolin and the Sand-grouse.

There is a bird mentioned in the Old Testament, which, although its name is only given twice, is a very interesting bird to all students of the Scriptures, both passages giving an insight into the manners and customs of the scarcely changing East. This is the bird called in the Hebrew Kore, a word which has been generally accepted as signifying some kind of Partridge. There is no doubt that, like most other Hebrew names of animated beings, the word is a collective one, signifying a considerable number of species.

The first passage occurs in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20. When David was being pursued by Saul, and had been forced to escape from the city and hide himself in the rocky valleys, he compared himself to the Partridge, which frequented exactly the same places: "The king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge upon the mountains."

The appositeness of this simile is perfect. The bird to which David alluded was in all probability the Desert Partridge (Ammoperdix Heyii), a species which especially haunts rocky and desert places, and even at the present day is exceedingly plentiful about the Cave of Adullam. The males, when they think themselves unobserved, are fond of challenging, or calling to each other in a loud ringing note, a peculiarity that has earned for the bird the Hebrew name of Kore, or "the caller."

It is a very active bird, not taking to flight if it can escape by means of its legs, and, when pursued or disturbed, running with great swiftness to some rocky cleft in which it may hide itself, taking care to interpose, as it runs, stones or other obstacles between itself and the object of its alarm. Thus, then, it will be seen how close was the parallel between this bird and David, who was forced, like the Partridge, to seek for refuge in the rocky caves.

But the parallel becomes even closer when we come to examine the full meaning of the passage. The Partridge is at the present day hunted on the mountains exactly as was the case in the time of David. The usual hunters are boys, who provide themselves with a supply of stout sticks about eighteen inches in length, and, armed with these, they chase the birds, hurling the sticks one after the other along the ground, so as to strike the Partridge as it runs. Generally, several hunters chase the same bird, some of them throwing the sticks along the ground, while others hurl them just above the bird, so that if it should take to flight, it maybe struck as it rises into the air. By pertinaciously chasing an individual bird, the hunters tire it, and contrive to come so close that they are certain to strike it.

THE GREEK PARTRIDGE.

"A partridge upon the mountains."-1 Sam. xxvi. 20.

Rude as this mode of bird-hunting may seem, it is still employed in some parts of England, and is effective even against birds far more active on the wing than the Partridge. I have seen snipe killed in the New Forest by being hunted down with sticks. Squirrels are chased and killed in a similar manner, except that the "bolts," or the sticks for squirrel-hunting, are weighted with lead at one end.

The reader will now see how perfect is the image. Driven from the city, David was forced to wander, together with the Desert Partridge, upon the hill-sides, and, like that bird, his final refuge is the rock. Then came the hunters and pursued him, driving him from place to place, as the boys hunt the Partridge, until he was weary of his life, and exclaimed in his despair, "I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul."

The second passage in which the word kore is found occurs in Jer. xvii. 11: "As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool." The marginal reading of this passage gives the sense in a slightly different form, and commences the verse as follows: "As the partridge gathereth (young) which she hath not brought forth, so he," &c. The Jewish Bible gives the whole passage rather differently from both these readings: "A partridge hatching what it hath not laid (or borne), is he that getteth (or maketh) riches, and not by right (or judgment): he shall leave them in the midst (or half) of his days, and at his end shall be base."

Taking all these readings, and comparing them with the original, with each other, and with the context, we can have but little doubt that reference is made by the prophet to the number of unborn, i.e. unhatched, eggs on which the Partridge sits, but which are so often taken from her before they can be hatched. Just as hunting the Partridge is an acknowledged sport among the inhabitants of the uncultivated parts of Palestine, so is searching for the eggs of the bird a regular business at the proper time of year.

The Partridges of Palestine are, like those of our own land, exceedingly prolific birds, laying a wonderful number of eggs, more than twenty being sometimes found in a single nest. These eggs are used for food, and the consumption of them is very great, so that many a Partridge has been deprived of her expected family: she has sat upon eggs, and hatched them not.

* * *

Of these birds several species inhabit Palestine. There is, for example, the Desert Partridge, which has already been mentioned. It is beautifully, though not brilliantly, coloured, and may be known by the white spot behind the eye, the purple and chestnut streaks on the sides, and the orange bill and legs. These, however, soon lose their colour after death.

Then there is the Greek Partridge (Caccabis saxatilis), which is even more plentiful than the preceding species, and is more widely spread. It is a large bird of its kind, being much larger than our English species, and may be known by its size, the dark red legs and beak, and the bold bars on the sides.

Mr. Tristram suggests, with much probability, that the Francolin, or Black Partridge of India, and the Sand-Grouse, may be included among the number of the birds which are included under the common name of Kore. The latter bird is extremely plentiful in Palestine, and, in all probability, was classed by the unobservant Jews with the true Partridge.

THE QUAIL.

Signification of the word Selav-Various passages in which the word is mentioned-The locust, the stork, and the sand-grouse-Spreading the birds around the camp-Migration of the Quail-Drying the Quails for food-Modes of catching the Quail in the East-The Quail-hunters of Northern Africa-Quarrelsome nature of the bird-Quail-fighting in the East-How the Quails were brought to the Israelites.

In one or two parts of the Old Testament is found a word which has been translated in the Authorized Version of the Bible as Quail.

The word is selav, and in every case where it is mentioned it is used with reference to the same occurrence; namely, the providing of flesh-meat in the wilderness, where the people could find no food. As the passages remarkably bear upon each other, it will be advisable to quote them in the order in which they come.

The first mention of the Selav occurs in Exod. xvi. Only a few days after the Israelites had passed the Red Sea, they began to complain of the desert land into which Moses had led them, and openly said that they wished they had never left the land of their slavery, where they had plenty to eat. According to His custom, pitying their narrow-minded and short-sighted folly, the natural result of the long servitude to which they had been subject, the Lord promised to send both bread and flesh-meat.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

THE QUAIL.

"The people asked, and He brought quails."-Psalm cv. 40.

"I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God.

"And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp" (ver. 11-13).

The next passage records a similar circumstance, which occurred about a year afterwards, when the Israelites were tired of eating nothing but the manna, and again wished themselves back in Egypt. "And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.

"And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers; and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp" (Numb. xi. 31, 32).

The last passage in which Quails are mentioned occurs in the Psalms. In Ps. cv. are enumerated the various wonders done on behalf of the Israelites, and among them is specially mentioned this gift of the Quails and manna. "The people asked, and He brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven" (ver. 40).

We now have to ask ourselves what the word selav really means. Some commentators have thought that it signified a species of locust, insects which travel in vast multitudes, and are always carried with the wind, thus agreeing with the statement that the Selavim were brought by the wind. Others have imagined that the Selavim were flying-fish, blown on shore as they rose from the sea after their fashion. Putting aside other reasons against these interpretations, the Psalms contain a passage which effectually contradicts them, and proves that the Selav was a bird of some kind.

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

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

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

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

"He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea" (Ps. lxxviii. 23-27).

From this passage it is evident that the Selavim which were sent together with the manna were birds of some kind-"fowls of wing," according to the literal sense of the Hebrew; so that the theory that they were insects or fish must be dismissed as untenable. The question now remains, with what species of bird are we to identify the Selav?

Respecting this question, there has been great discussion, chiefly arising from the fact that the various commentators endeavoured to show that the Selav was not the Quail, but some other bird. Some, for example, take it to be the white stork, which is very plentiful in Palestine, and sometimes flies in such numbers that the sky is darkened as the winged host passes by. They base this supposition on the stature of the bird, which is so tall that it stands about "two cubits high upon the face of the earth." So it does, but this is a very insufficient reason for translating the word selav as "stork."

In the first place, the words "as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth" certainly do not refer to the stature of the individual birds. They are popularly taken to signify that the earth was covered with the bodies of the Selavim to the depth of three feet.

This, however, can hardly have been the fact, as in that case they would have utterly overwhelmed the whole camp, and crushed the tents by their weight. Moreover, there would have been no need of gathering them up, as they would have lain so thickly on the ground that the only trouble would have been to make a passage through them. It is not very easy to force a passage through snow a yard in depth, while to do so through the same depth of birds would have been almost impossible.

Neither could the Israelites have "spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp." If the Selavim lay to the depth of a yard "as it were a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side of the camp," i.e. some eight or ten miles all round it, there would have been no space whereon the birds could have been spread. The sentence in question has a totally different signification, and refers to the height from the ground at which the birds fly. Taken in this sense, the whole passage falls into harmony, whereas in any other it involves a difficulty.

If the ordinary interpretation of selav by "Quail" be accepted, the description is exactly correct. The Quails fly in vast flocks, and, being weak-winged birds, never fly against the direction of the wind. They will wait for days until the wind blows in the required direction, and will then take wing in countless multitudes; so that in an hour or two a spot on which not a Quail could be seen is covered with them.

On account of their short wings, they never rise to any great height, even when crossing the sea, while on land they fly at a very low elevation, merely skimming over the ground, barely a yard or "two cubits high upon the face of the earth." We may now see how needless it is to attribute the two cubits to the stature of the bird, or to the depth at which they lay on the ground.

There are other reasons why the Selav could not be any species of stork. In the first place, all the stork tribe are included among the list of unclean birds, and it is not likely that the Almighty would have neutralized His own edicts by providing food which the Israelites were forbidden to eat. In the next place, even had the flesh of the stork been lawful, it is of so unpleasant a nature that the people could not have eaten it. For similar reasons we may dismiss the theories which consider the Selav to be a goose or water-fowl of any kind.

Some persons have thought that the sand-grouse is the Selav. In the first place, the flesh of this bird is hard, tasteless, and disliked by those who have tried it; so that the Israelites would not have been tempted to eat it. In the next, it is a strong-winged and swift-footed bird, and would not have satisfied the required conditions. It flies high in the air, instead of merely skimming over the ground, and when it alights is fresh and active, and cannot easily be caught. The Quail, on the contrary, after it has flown for any distance, is so completely tired out that when it alights it crouches to the earth, and will allow itself to be picked up by hand. It has even been trodden to death under a horse's feet.

Moreover, the flesh of the Quail is peculiarly excellent, and would be a great temptation to men who had passed so long a time without eating animal food. Another corroboration of the identity of the Quail and the Selav is to be found in the mode in which the flesh is prepared at the present day. As soon as the birds have arrived, they are captured in vast multitudes, on account of their weariness. Many are consumed at once, but great numbers are preserved for future use by being split and laid out to dry in the sun, precisely as the Israelites are said to have spread out the Selavim "all abroad for themselves round about the camp."

It is rather remarkable that the Arabs of the present day use a word almost exactly resembling selav to represent the Quail. The word is salwa, given by one of the older writers on the subject as selaw.

Accepting, therefore, the Selav and Quail to be identical, we may proceed to the description of the bird.

It is small, plump, and round-bodied, with the head set closely on the shoulders. Owing to this peculiarity of form, it has its Arab name, which signifies plumpness or fatness. The wings are pressed closely to the body, and the tail is pointed, very short, and directed downwards, so that it almost appears to be absent, and the bird seems to be even more plump than really is the case.

Several modes of capturing these birds are still practised in the East, and were probably employed, not only on the two occasions mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, but on many others of which the Scriptural narrative takes no notice. One very simple plan is, for the hunters to select a spot on which the birds are assembled, and to ride or walk round them in a large circle, or rather in a constantly diminishing spiral. The birds are by this process driven closer and closer together, until at the last they are packed in such masses that a net can be thrown over them, and a great number captured in it.

Sometimes a party of hunters unite to take the Quails, and employ a similar man?uvre, except that, instead of merely walking round the Quails, they approach simultaneously from opposite points, and then circle round them until the birds are supposed to be sufficiently packed. At a given signal they all converge upon the terrified birds, and take them by thousands at a time.

In Northern Africa these birds are captured in a very similar fashion. As soon as notice is given that a flight of Quails has settled, all the men of the village turn out with their great burnouses or cloaks. Making choice of some spot as a centre, where a quantity of brushwood grows or is laid down, the men surround it on all sides, and move slowly towards it, spreading their cloaks in their outstretched hands, and flapping them like the wings of huge birds. Indeed, when a man is seen from a little distance performing this act, he looks more like a huge bat than a human being.

As the men gradually converge upon the brushwood, the Quails naturally run towards it for shelter, and at last they all creep under the treacherous shade. Still holding their outspread cloaks in their extended hands, the hunters suddenly run to the brushwood, fling their cloaks over it, and so enclose the birds in a trap from which they cannot escape. Much care is required in this method of hunting, lest the birds should take to flight, and so escape. The circle is therefore made of very great size, and the men who compose it advance so slowly that the Quails prefer to use their legs rather than their wings, and do not think of flight until their enemies are so close upon them that their safest course appears to be to take refuge in the brushwood.

Boys catch the Quails in various traps and springes, the most ingenious of which is a kind of trap, the door of which overbalances itself by the weight of the bird.

By reason of the colour of the Quail, and its inveterate habit of keeping close to the ground, it easily escapes observation, and even the most practised eye can scarcely distinguish a single bird, though there may be hundreds within a very small compass. Fortunately for the hunters, and unfortunately for itself, it betrays itself by its shrill whistling note, which it frequently emits, and which is so peculiar that it will at once direct the hunter to his prey.

This note is at the same time the call of the male to the female and a challenge to its own sex. Like all the birds of its group, the Quail is very combative, and generally fights a battle for the possession of each of its many mates. It is not gifted with such weapons of offence as some of its kinsfolk, but it is none the less quarrelsome, and fights in its own way as desperately as the game-cock of our own country.

Indeed, in the East, it is used for exactly the same purpose as the game-cock. Battles between birds and beasts, not to say men, are the common amusement with Oriental potentates, and, when they are tired of watching the combats of the larger animals, they have Quail-fights in their own chambers. The birds are selected for this purpose, and are intentionally furnished with stimulating food, so as to render them even more quarrelsome than they would be by nature. Partridges are employed for the same cruel purpose; and as both these birds are easily obtained, and are very pugnacious, they are especially suited for the sport.

Two passages occur in the Scriptures which exactly explain the mode in which the Quails were sent to the Israelites. The first is in Ps. lxxviii. 26. The Psalmist mentions that the Lord "caused an east wind to blow in the heaven, and by His power He brought in the south wind." Here, on examining the geographical position of the Israelites, we see exactly how the south-east wind would bring the Quails.

The Israelites had just passed the Red Sea, and had begun to experience a foretaste of the privations which they were to expect in the desert through which they had to pass. Passing northwards in their usual migrations, the birds would come to the coast of the Red Sea, and there would wait until a favourable wind enabled them to cross the water. The south-east wind afforded them just the very assistance which they needed, and they would naturally take advantage of it.

It is remarkable how closely the Scriptural narrative agrees with the habits of the Quail, the various passages, when compared together, precisely coinciding with the character of the bird. In Exod. xvi. 13 it is mentioned that "at even the quails came up and covered the camp." Nocturnal flight is one of the characteristics of the Quail. When possible, they invariably fly by night, and in this manner escape many of the foes which would make great havoc among their helpless columns if they were to fly by day.

The identity of the Selav with the common Quail is now seen to be established. In the first place, we have the name still surviving in the Arabic language. Next, the various details of the Scriptural narrative point so conclusively to the bird, that even if we were to put aside the etymological corroboration, we could have but little doubt on the subject. There is not a detail which is not correct. The gregarious instinct of the bird, which induces it to congregate in vast numbers; its habit of migration; its inability to fly against the wind, and the necessity for it to await a favourable breeze; its practice of flying by night, and its custom of merely skimming over the surface of the ground; the ease with which it is captured; the mode of preserving by drying in the sun, and the proverbial delicacy of its flesh, are characteristics which all unite in the Quail.

* * *

Before closing our account of the Quail, it will be as well to devote a short space to the nature of the mode by which the Israelites were twice fed. Commentators who were unacquainted with the natural history of the bird have represented the whole occurrence as a miraculous one, and have classed it with the division of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, with the various plagues by which Pharaoh was induced to release the Israelites, and with many other events which we are accustomed to call miracles.

In reality, there is scarcely anything of a miraculous character about the event, and none seems to have been claimed for it. The Quails were not created at the moment expressly for the purpose of supplying the people with food, nor were they even brought from any great distance. They were merely assisted in the business on which they were engaged, namely, their migration or customary travel from south to north, and waiting on the opposite side of the narrow sea for a south-east wind. That such a wind should blow was no miracle. The Quails expected it to blow, and without it they could not have crossed the sea. That it was made to blow earlier than might have been the case is likely enough, but that is the extent of the miraculous character of the event. Taking the word in its ordinary sense, no miracle was wrought, simply because none was wanted. Granting to the fullest extent that He who arranged the course of the world can alter His arrangements as easily as He made them, we cannot but see that in this case no alteration was needed, and that, in consequence, none was made.

THE RAVEN.

Signification of the word Oreb-The Raven tribe plentiful in Palestine-The Raven and the Dove-Elijah and the Ravens-Various explanations of the circumstance-Feeding the young Ravens-Luis of Grenada's sermon-The white Raven of ancient times-An old legend-Reference to the blackness of the Raven's plumage-Desert-loving habits of the Raven-Its mode of attacking the eye-Notions of the old commentators-Ceremonial use of the Raven-Return of the Ravens-Cunning of the bird-Nesting-places of the Raven-The magpie and its character-The starling-Its introduction into Palestine-The Rabbi perplexed-Solution of the difficulty.

It is more than probable that, while the Hebrew word oreb primarily signifies the bird which is so familiar to us under the name of Raven, it was also used by the Jews in a much looser sense, and served to designate any of the Corvid?, or Crow tribe, such as the raven itself, the crow, the rook, the jackdaw, and the like. We will first take the word in its restricted sense, and then devote a brief space to its more extended signification.

As might be expected from the cosmopolitan nature of the Raven, it is very plentiful in Palestine, and even at the present time is apparently as firmly established as it was in the days when the various Scriptural books were written.

There are few birds which are more distinctly mentioned in the Holy Scriptures than the Raven, though the passages in which its name occurs are comparatively few. It is the first bird which is mentioned in the Scriptures, its name occurring in Gen. viii. 7: "And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;

"And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth."

Here we have, at the very outset, a characteristic account of the bird. It left the ark, and flew to and fro, evidently for the purpose of seeking food. The dove, which immediately followed the Raven, acted in a different manner. She flew from the ark in search of food, and, finding none, was forced to return again. The Raven, on the contrary, would find plenty of food in the bodies of the various animals that had been drowned, and were floating on the surface of the waters, and, therefore, needed not to enter again into the ark. The context shows that it made the ark a resting-place, and that it "went forth to and fro," or, as the Hebrew Bible renders the passage, "in going and returning," until the waters had subsided. Here, then, is boldly drawn the distinction between the two birds, the carrion-eater and the feeder on vegetable substances-a distinction to which allusion has already been made in the history of the dove.

THE RAVEN.

"Who provideth for the raven his food?"-Job xxxviii. 41.

Passing over the declaration in Lev. xi. 15 and Deut. xiv. 14, that every Raven (i.e. the Raven and all its tribe) is unclean, we come to the next historical mention of the bird. This occurs in 1 Kings xvii. When Elijah had excited the anger of Ahab by prophesying three years of drought, he was divinely ordered to take refuge by the brook Cherith, one of the tributaries of the Jordan. "And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens [orebim] to feed thee there.

"So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.

"And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook."

In this passage we have a history of a purely miraculous character. It is not one that can be explained away. Some have tried to do so by saying that the banished prophet found the nests of the Ravens, and took from them daily a supply of food for his sustenance. The repetition of the words "bread and flesh" shows that the sacred writer had no intention of signifying a mere casual finding of food which the Ravens brought for their young, but that the prophet was furnished with a constant and regular supply of bread and meat twice in the day. It is a statement which, if it be not accepted as the account of a miracle, must be rejected altogether.

I may here mention that an explanation of the passage has been offered by some commentators, who render the word orebim as "Arabs," and so arrive at the conclusion that the prophet was fed in his retirement by the Arab tribes which came to the brook for water. Others have thought that the Orebim were the inhabitants of a village called Orbo, near the Cherith. There is, however, no need of any such explanations. The account of the prophet's flight to the Cherith and of the daily supply of food which he received has been accepted as a simple statement of facts by all Jewish writers, and there is no alternative but either to accept it in the same sense or to reject it.

This part of the subject naturally leads to certain passages in which the feeding of the young Ravens is mentioned. See, for example, Job xxxviii. 41: "Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat." This passage is rendered rather differently and more forcibly in the Jewish Bible. "Who provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God, and wander for lack of meat?" A passage of similar import occurs in Ps. cxlvii. 9: "He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." An evident reference is made to these passages in Luke xii. 24: "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?"

In all these cases reference is made to a curious idea which prevailed respecting the Raven. It was thought that the Raven was a cruel parent, and that after the eggs were hatched it cared nothing for the young until they were full fledged. As, moreover, the bird was thought to be peculiarly late in attaining its plumage, the young Ravens must all die of hunger, were they not fed in some remarkable manner. This subject is treated at some length by Luis of Grenada in his Sermons. As the passage in question is a very curious one, I give both the original and a translation. For the latter I am indebted to the Rev. C. J. Smith, author of "Synonyms and Antonyms," who has preserved, with much success, the quaint structure of the language.

"Dominica XIV. post Pent. Concio 1:

"Nisi h?c enim omnia magnam nobis admirationis materiam divin?que providenti? notitiam pr?berent, nequaquam Dominus inter cetera sapienti? et providenti? su? argumenta hoc etiam commemoraret, cum ad Job ait: 'Quis pr?parat corvo escam suam, quando pulli ejus clamant ad Deum vagantes eò quòd non habeant cibos?'[1] Et in Psal.: 'Qui dat jumentis escam ipsorum et pullis corvorum invocantibus eum.'[2]

"Cur autem hoc in loco pullorum corvi pr?cipuè meminerit, in causa est, quod in his miro modo singularis providenti? cura elucet. Ait enim interpres quidam corvorum pullos eum implumes adhuc sunt, candorem pr? se ferre: ideoque a parentibus ut nothos negligi, quod eorum non referant colorem. Quo tempore divina providentia, qu? nusquam dormit, eos ad se clamantes alit. Vermiculos enim quosdam in nidulo nasci constituit, quorum esu sustentantur donec nono tandem die nascentibus plumis parentum colorem referant, atque ita demum ab illis nutriantur.

"Cum igitur divina providentia nulla in re neque animalculis istis etiam si a patribus deserantur desit, quanta ilia diffidentia est, qu? solis hominibus eam deesse profitetur? Si homo inter omnes inferioris hujus mundi creaturas nobilissimum et pulcherrimum animal est, si solus ipse Dei imagine insignitus, si ipse hujus magn? famili? princeps ac dominus est, si ejus obsequio cuncta militant, si omnia rerum conditor subiecit pedibus ejus oves et boves universas, insuper et pecora campi, &c. qui fieri potest ut cum hujus mundi moderator D?s nullum neque animalculum neque vermiculum a providenti? su? cura excludat, sed omnibus abunde omnia suppeditat, pium hominem (cujus obsequio cuncta destinavit) fame et inedia confici patiatur. Si pater aliquis filii sui familiam, servos, ancillas, et jumenta diligenter curaret, illisque necessaria abunde provideret, quomodo filium fame perire sineret, cujus familiam tanta cura fovet et alit? Quis enim hoc in animum inducere possit? H?c ijitur altera ratio est qua celestis Magister diffidentiam nostram curare, et spem alere atque fulcire studet."

"Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Sermon 1:

"For if it were not that all these things afford to us great matter of admiration and demonstration of the providence of God, it were in vain that the Lord, among other tokens of His wisdom and providence, had selected this also, when He saith in Job: 'Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, wandering for lack of meat.' And in the Psalms: 'Who giveth their own food to the cattle, and to the young ravens that call upon Him.'

"Now that in this place He hath been mainly mindful of the ravens' young, is partly for this cause, that marvellously in them the singular care of Providence doth show forth. For a certain annotator saith, that the young ravens while as yet they are unfledged do appear of whiteness, and therefore are neglected of their parents as if they were bastards, seeing that they resemble not their colour. At which time Divine Providence, who nowhere sleepeth, doth feed them who call upon Himself. For He causeth certain vermicles (small worms) to be bred in the little nest, by eating of which they are sustained, until at length on the ninth day, the feathers beginning to grow, they resemble the colour of their parents, and so come to be nourished by them.

"Seeing then that Divine Providence is never wanting in any matter, not even to these little creatures, though they be deserted of their parents, how great is that distrust which averreth that it is wanting unto men alone! If man be among all the creatures of this lower world the noblest and the fairest of things; if he alone be made illustrious by God's image; if he himself be of this great family the leader and lord; if in obedience to him all things serve; if the Constructor of all things hath put under his feet 'all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;' how shall it be that when the Lord, the Ruler of this world, shutteth out none, neither insect nor worm, from the care of His providence, but supplieth abundantly all things for all, He should suffer the righteous man, for whose service He hath appointed all things, to perish of hunger and lack of food?

"If it be that every father would diligently care for his son's household, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and cattle, and provide them abundantly with all things needful, how should He suffer His sons to perish whose families He cherisheth and feedeth with so great care? Who, indeed, could harbour such a thought? This then is another consideration whereby the heavenly Master seeks to cure our distrust, and to feed and stay our hope."

Some of the old writers improved on this legend by saying that the worms crawled into the mouths of the young Ravens, so that the birds had not even the trouble of picking them up.

Some of the ancient Jewish writers had an idea that the Raven was originally a white bird, and that its colour was changed by way of punishment for its evil disposition and deceitful conduct. A similar idea was held by the old mythological writers. They said that the Raven was formerly the favourite bird of Apollo, and that it was celebrated for its sweet song and snowy white plumage. Part of its duty was to bring water for its master from the fountain Hippocrene.

One day, instead of doing its duty, the bird amused itself in the garden, and at last fell asleep. Fearful when it awoke that it should be punished for its carelessness, the cunning Raven snatched up a snake, killed it, and brought it to Apollo, saying that the serpent had disputed the passage to the fountain, and that, after a long fight, it had just been killed. Apollo, angry with the bird for having told a lie, drove it from his presence, and as it fled its musical voice turned into a harsh croak, and its white plumage became black.

"'Liar!' exclaimed the god,

The Python-killer, as from his keen eye

The lightning darted, 'Me wouldst thou deceive

With such a wretched tale! Hence, hence! begone!

Black as thy falsehood fly through shuddering air,

A bird of lonely night! Dumb be thy voice

Of sweetest melody: henceforth thy cry

Tell but of woes and horrors, a wild shriek

Of darkness and dismay.'"

Knight's Quarterly Magazine

Reference to the blackness of the Raven's plumage is made in the Song of Solomon. "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.

"His beard is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy and black as a Raven." (Cant. v. 10, 11.) A similar expression is common among ourselves.

On account of its mode of life, the Raven cannot exist in a wild state in cultivated ground. Hence it has disappeared from the greater part of England, and is seldom to be seen except on wide moors or in large forests. Cultivated ground affords it scarcely any food, and it is therefore a bird of the wilderness rather than of the towns.

Like all feeders on carrion, it is wonderfully quick in detecting a dead or dying animal, and rivals the vulture itself in the sharpness of its vision. If any one who is passing over a part of the country where Ravens still survive, should wish to see one of the birds, he has only to lie flat on the ground, and keep his eyes nearly shut, so as only to see through the lashes. Should there be a Raven within many miles, it is sure to discover the apparently dead body, and to alight at no great distance, walking round and round, with its peculiar sidelong gait, and, if it be not checked in time, will make a dash at the eye of the prostrate individual, and probably blind him for life.

This habit of pecking at the eye is inherent in all the crow tribe, probably because they know instinctively that if the animal will allow its eye to be pecked out it must be dead; and if it should still possess life, it would be blinded for the moment, so as to allow its assailant to escape. The Scriptures note this custom of the Raven, as we see in Prov. xxx. 17: "The eye that mocketh at his father and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

The desert-loving habit of the Raven is noticed in Isa. xxxiv. 11: "The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and He shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness."

* * *

We will now pass to the notices of the Raven as given by the writers and commentators of the Talmud.

Being an unclean bird, and one of ill omen, it was not permitted to perch on the roof of the Temple. According to some writers, it was kept off by means of scarecrows, and according to others, by long and sharp iron spikes set so closely together that there was no room for the bird to pass between them. The latter is by far the more probable account, as the Raven is much too cunning a bird to be deceived by a scarecrow for any length of time. It might be alarmed at the first sight of a strange object, but in a very short time it would hold all scarecrows in supreme contempt.

Its carrion-eating propensities were well known to the ancient writers, who must have had many opportunities of seeing the Raven unite with the vultures in consuming the bodies, not only of dead animals, but of warriors killed in battle. So fond was the Raven of this food that, according to those writers, the very smell of human blood attracted the bird; and, if a man accidentally cut himself, or if he were bled for some illness, the odour of the blood would bring round the spot all the Ravens of the place.

The punctuality with which the Raven, in common with all its kin, returns to its roosting-place, was also familiar to the Talmudists, who made rather an ingenious use of this habit. The ceremonial law of the Jews required the greatest care in observing certain hours, and it was especially necessary to know the precise time which marked the separation of one day from another. This was ascertained easily enough as long as the day was clear, but in case of a dull, murky day, when the course of the sun could not be traced, some other plan was needed.

In the olden times, no artificial means of measuring time were known, and the devout Jew was consequently fearful lest he might unwittingly break the law by doing on one day an act which ought to have been done on another. A convenient method for ascertaining the time was, however, employed, and, as soon as the Ravens, rooks, and similar birds were seen returning to their homes, the sun was supposed to be setting.

This habit of returning regularly at the same time is mentioned by Mr. Tristram in his "Land of Israel:"-

"Of all the birds of Jerusalem, the raven is decidedly the most characteristic and conspicuous. It is present everywhere to eye and ear, and the odours that float around remind us of its use. On the evening of our arrival we were perplexed by a call-note, quite new to us, mingling with the old familiar croak, and soon ascertained that there must be a second species of raven along with the common Corvus corax. This was the African species (Corvus umbrinus, Hed.), the ashy-necked raven, a little smaller than the world-wide raven, and here more abundant in individuals.

"Beside these, the rook (Corvus agricola, Trist.), the common grey, or hooded crow (Corvus cornix, L.), and the jackdaw (Corvus monedula, L.), roost by hundreds in the sanctuary. We used to watch them in long lines passing over our tents every morning at daybreak, and returning in the evening, the rooks in solid phalanx leading the way, and the ravens in loose order bringing up the rear, generally far out of shot. Before retiring for the night, popular assemblies of the most uproarious character were held together in the trees of the Kedron and Mount Olivet, and not until sunset did they withdraw in silence, mingled indiscriminately, to their roosting-places on the walls.

"My companions were very anxious to obtain specimens of these Jerusalem birds, which could only be approached as they settled for the night; but we were warned by the Consul that shooting them so close to the mosque might be deemed a sacrilege by the Moslems, and provoke an attack by the guardians of the Haram and the boys of the neighbourhood. They finally determined, nevertheless, to run the risk; and stationing themselves just before sunset in convenient hiding-places near the walls, at a given signal they fired simultaneously, and, hastily gathering up the spoils, had retreated out of reach, and were hurrying to the tents before an alarm could be raised. The discharge of ten barrels had obtained fourteen specimens, comprising five species.

"The same man?uvre was repeated with equal success on another evening; but on the third occasion the ravens had learned wisdom by experience, and, sweeping round Siloam, chose another route to their dormitory."

Those who have tried to come within gunshot of a Raven, even in this country, can appreciate this anecdote, and can understand how the Raven would ever afterwards keep clear of a spot where the flash and smoke of fire-arms had twice appeared.

An anecdote which authenticates this cautious turn of mind in the Raven is given in Mr. Thompson's work on the "Natural History of Ireland." There was a large yard in which the sparrows used to congregate, and it was a custom of the owner to lay a train of corn for the sparrows to eat, and then to rake the whole line with a discharge from a gun concealed in an outhouse. A tame Raven lived about the premises, and as soon as it saw any one carrying a gun towards the fatal outhouse, it became much alarmed, and hurried off to hide itself. As soon as the gun was fired, out came the Raven from its place of concealment, pounced on one of the dead sparrows, carried it off, and ate it in its private haunt.

The nest to which the Raven returns with such punctuality is placed in some spot where it is safe from ordinary intruders. The tops of lofty trees are favoured localities for the nest, and so are old towers, the interior of caves, and clefts in lofty precipices. The nest is large and clumsy, and the bird, trusting in the inaccessible character of the locality, troubles itself very little about concealment. The Raven is a peculiarly domestic bird, and a pattern of conjugal affection. It pairs for life, and both male and female take their share of sitting on the eggs and nurturing the young.

* * *

The old writers of whom mention has been made admitted that all the Corvid? were signified by the word oreb. Sometimes they drew a distinction between them, but, as a rule, the word oreb might mean any of those birds, from a Raven to a starling.

The Magpie is one of those birds which is separately mentioned. Like the Raven, it was thought to be harsh and cruel to its young, so that whenever a man behaved badly to his children, either by neglect or by absolute cruelty, he was called a Magpie-man by way of derision. Similarly, a man of a morose or evil disposition was termed a Raven-hearted man. As, however, the Magpie is not entirely black, but has some white in its plumage, it was held to be rather a better bird than the Raven. Moreover, it is fond of haunting the habitations of men, so that it was held to be of a softer nature than the Raven, which always kept itself as far from mankind as possible.

Lastly, we come to the Starling, which, as I have already mentioned, is considered as one of the Raven tribe, and is ranked under the name of Oreb. The old writers had no very great opinion of this bird, which they considered as exceptionally quarrelsome, probably on account of its shrill, harsh cry. They had a curious proverb, "Two Starlings cannot sleep in one bed," by which they meant that two quarrelsome people ought not to associate together.

There is a rather curious legend respecting the introduction of the Starling into Palestine.

Many years ago, a strange bird appeared in Jerusalem. It was caught, and brought before a celebrated Rabbi for examination, in order that he might decide whether it belonged to the clean or the unclean birds. After examining it, he could not make up his mind to either side of the question, and left the disputed point to be settled in a different way.

He ordered the bird to be placed on the roof of a house, and to be carefully watched, in order that the birds which associated with it might be noticed. For some time no birds of any kind would recognise the stranger, until at last there came a Raven from Egypt, which claimed acquaintance with it. In consequence of this, the Starling was ever afterwards classed with the Raven, and considered as an unclean bird. The Egyptian Raven which is here mentioned is described as being a very small bird, scarcely larger, indeed, than the Starling itself.

THE OSTRICH.

Hebrew words designating the Ostrich-Description of the bird in the Book of Job-Ancient use of Ostrich plumes-Supposed heedlessness of eggs and young-Mode of depositing the eggs-Hatching them in the sand-Natural enemies of the Ostrich-Anecdote of Ostriches and their young-Alleged stupidity of the Ostrich-Methods of hunting and snaring the bird-The Ostrich in domestication-Speed of the Ostrich-The flesh of the bird prohibited to the Jews-Ostrich eggs and their uses-Food of the Ostrich-Mode of drinking-Cry of the Ostrich, and reference made to it in Micah.

There is rather a peculiarity about the manner in which this bird is mentioned in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, and, unless we go to the original Hebrew, we shall be greatly misled. In that version the Ostrich is mentioned only three times, but in the Hebrew it occurs eight times. If the reader will refer to page 370, he will see that the Hebrew word bath-haya'nah, which is translated in the Authorized Version as "owl," ought really to be rendered as "Ostrich." Taking this to be the case, we find that there are several passages in the Scriptures in which the word has been used in the wrong sense, and that in those places, instead of rendering the word as "owl," we ought to read it as "Ostrich."

The first mention of this bird occurs in Lev. xi. 16, and the parallel passage of Deut. xiv., in which the Ostrich is reckoned among the unclean birds, without any notice being given of its appearance or habits.

In the Book of Job, however, we have the Ostrich mentioned with that preciseness and fulness of description which is so often the case when the writer of that wonderful poem treats of living creatures.

"Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

"Who leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust,

"And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;

"Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath He imparted to her understanding.

"What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider." (Job xxxix. 13-19.)

There is rather a peculiarity in the translation of this passage, wherein the word which has been translated as "peacock" is now allowed to be properly rendered as "Ostrich," while the word which is translated as "Ostrich" ought to have been given as "feathers." The marginal translation gives the last words of ver. 13 in a rather different manner, and renders it thus:- "Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks, or the feathers of the stork and ostrich?" The Hebrew Bible renders the next verses as follows:-

"She would yet leave her eggs on the earth, and warm them in dust; and forget that the foot may crush them, or that the beast of the field may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, for those not hers; being careless, her labour is in vain."

In the same Book, chap. xxx., is another passage wherein this bird is mentioned. "I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.

"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls," or Ostriches, in the marginal and correct reading. The Jewish Bible also translates the word as Ostriches, but the word which the Authorized Version renders as "dragons" it translates as "jackals." Of this point we shall have something to say on a future page. A somewhat similar passage occurs in Isa. xliii. 20: "The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls" (Ostriches in marginal reading), "because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen." The Jewish Bible retains the same reading, except that the word "dragons" is given with the mark of doubt.

Accepting, therefore, the rendering of the Hebrew as Ostriches, let us see how far the passages of Scripture agree with the appearance and habits of the bird.

Here I may observe that, although in the Scriptures frequent allusions are made to the habits of animals, we are not to look for scientific exactness to the Scriptures. Among much that is strictly and completely true, there are occasional errors, to which a most needless attention has been drawn by a certain school of critics, who point to them as invalidating the truth of Scripture in general. The real fact is, that they have no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of the Scriptural teachings.

The Scriptures were written at various times, for instruction in spiritual and not in temporal matters, and were never intended for scientific treatises on astronomy, mathematics, zoology, or any such branch of knowledge. The references which are made to the last-mentioned subject are in no case of a scientific nature, but are always employed by way of metaphor or simile, as the reader must have seen in the previous pages. No point of doctrine is taught by them, and none depends on them.

The Spirit which conveyed religious instruction to the people could only use the means that existed, and could no more employ the scientific knowledge of the present time than use as metaphors the dress, arms, and inventions of the present day. The Scriptures were written in Eastern lands for Orientals by Orientals, and were consequently adapted to Oriental ideas; and it would be as absurd to look for scientific zoology in the writings of an ancient Oriental, as for descriptions of the printing press, the steam-engine, the photographic camera, or the electric telegraph.

So, when we remember that only a few years ago the real history of the Ostrich was unknown to those who had made zoology the study of their lives, we cannot wonder that it was also unknown to those who lived many centuries ago, and who had not the least idea of zoology, or any kindred science.

Still, even with these drawbacks, it is wonderful how accurate in many instances were the writers of the Scriptures, and the more so when we remember the character of the Oriental mind, with its love of metaphor, its disregard of arithmetical precision, and its poetical style of thought.

We will now take the passage in Job xxxix. In ver. 13 reference is made to the wings and feathers of the Ostrich. If the reader will refer to page 260, he will see that the feathers of the Ostrich were formerly used as the emblem of rank. In this case, they are shown as fastened to the heads of the horses, and also in the form of a plume, fixed to the end of a staff, and appended to a chariot, as emblematical of the princely rank of the occupier. In the ancient Egyptian monuments these Ostrich plumes are repeatedly shown, and in every case denote very high rank. These plumes were therefore held in high estimation at the time in which the Book of Job was written, and it is evidently in allusion to this fact that the sacred writer has mentioned so prominently the white plumes of the Ostrich.

Passing the next portion of the description, we find that the Ostrich is mentioned as a bird that is careless of its eggs, and leaves them "in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them."

Now it is true that the Ostrich is often known to take the greatest care of its eggs, the male collecting and sitting on them, and watching them with loving assiduity, and by some persons this fact has been brought forward as a proof that the writer of the Book of Job was mistaken in his statements. A further acquaintance with the habits of the bird tells us, however, that in those parts of the world which were known to the writer of that book the Ostrich does behave in precisely the manner which is described by the sacred writer.

Several females lay their eggs in the same nest, if the title of nest can be rightly applied to a mere hollow scooped in the sand, and, at least during the daytime, when the sun is shining, they simply cover the eggs with sand, so as to conceal them from ordinary enemies, and leave them to be hatched by the warm sunbeams. They are buried to the depth of about a foot, so that they receive the benefit of a tolerably equable warmth. So much, then, for the assertion that the Ostrich leaves her eggs "in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust."

We next come to the statement that she forgets that "the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them." It is evident from the preceding description that eggs which are buried a foot deep in the sand could not be crushed by the foot, even were they of a fragile character, instead of being defended by a shell as thick, and nearly as hard, as an ordinary earthenware plate. Neither would the wild beast be likely to discover much less to break them.

OSTRICH AND NEST.

"Who leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust."-Job xxxix. 14.

A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the Ostrich shows that, even in this particular, the sacred writer was perfectly correct. Besides the eggs which are intended to be hatched, and which are hidden beneath the sand to be hatched, a number of supplementary eggs are laid which are not meant to be hatched, and are evidently intended as food for the young until they are able to forage for themselves. These are left carelessly on the surface of the ground, and may easily be crushed by the hoof of a horse, if not by the foot of man. We meet, however, with another statement,-namely, that they may be broken by the wild beasts. Here we have reference to another fact in the history of the Ostrich. The scattered eggs, to which allusion is made, are often eaten, not only by beasts, but also by birds of prey; the former breaking the shells by knocking them against each other, and the latter by picking up large stones in their claws, rising above the eggs, and dropping the stones on them. The bird would like to seize the egg, rise with it in the air, and drop it on a stone, as mentioned on page 337, but the round, smooth surface of the egg defies the grasp of talons, and, instead of dropping the egg upon a stone, it is obliged to drop a stone upon the egg.

Up to the present point, therefore, the writer of the Book of Job is shown to be perfectly correct in his statements. We will now proceed to verse 16: "She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers." Now in the Jewish Bible the passage is rendered rather differently: "She is hardened against her young ones, for those not hers;" and, as we shall presently see, the reading perfectly agrees with the character of the Ostrich.

There has long existed a belief that the Ostrich, contrary to the character of all other birds, is careless of her young, neglects them, and is even cruel to them. That this notion was shared by the writer of the Book of Job is evident from the preceding passage. It also, prevailed for at least a thousand years after the Book of Job was written. See Lam. iv. 3: "Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness."

It is probable that this idea respecting the cruelty of the Ostrich towards its young is derived from the fact that if a flock of Ostriches be chased, and among them there be some very young birds, the latter are left behind by their parents, and fall a prey to the hunters. But, in reality, the Ostrich has no choice in the matter. The wide sandy desert affords no place of concealment in which it might hide its young. Nature has not furnished it with weapons by means of which it can fight for them; and consequently it is forced to use the only means of escape by which it can avoid sacrificing its own life, as well as the lives of the young.

It does not, however, leave the young until it has tried, by all means in its power, to save them. For example, it sometimes has recourse to the man?uvre with which we are so familiar in the case of the lapwing, and pretends to be wounded or lamed, in order to draw the attention of its pursuers, while its young escape in another direction. An instance of this practice is given by Mr. Andersson in his "Lake Ngami." "When we had proceeded little more than half the distance, and in a part of the plain entirely destitute of vegetation, we discovered a male and female ostrich, with a brood of young ones, about the size of ordinary barn-door fowls. We forthwith dismounted from our oxen, and gave chase, which proved of no ordinary interest.

"The moment the parent birds became aware of our intention, they set off at full speed-the female leading the way, and the cock, though at some little distance, bringing up the rear of the family party. It was very touching to observe the anxiety the birds evinced for the safety of their progeny. Finding that we were quickly gaining upon them, the male at once slackened his pace and diverged somewhat from his course; but, seeing that we were not to be diverted from our purpose, he again increased his speed, and, with wings drooping so as almost to touch the ground, he hovered round us, now in wide circles, and then decreasing the circumference until he came almost within pistol-shot, when he abruptly threw himself on the ground, and struggled desperately to regain his legs, as it appeared, like a bird that has been badly wounded.

"Having previously fired at him, I really thought he was disabled, and made quickly towards him. But this was only a ruse on his part, for, on my nearer approach, he slowly rose, and began to run in a different direction to that of the female, who by this time was considerably ahead with her charge." Nor is this a solitary instance of the care which the Ostrich will take of her young. Thunberg mentions that on one occasion, when he happened to ride near a place where an Ostrich was sitting on the eggs, the bird jumped up and pursued him, evidently with the object of distracting his attention from the eggs. When he faced her, she retreated; but as soon as he turned his horse, she pursued him afresh.

The care of the mother for the young is perhaps less needed with the Ostrich than with most birds. The young are able to run with such speed that ordinary animals are not able to overtake them, and, besides, they are protected by their colour as long as they are comparatively helpless. Their downy plumage harmonizes completely with the sandy and stony ground, even when they run, and when they crouch to the earth, as is their manner when alarmed, even the most practised eye can scarcely see them. Mr. Andersson, an experienced hunter, states that when the Ostrich chicks were crouching almost under his feet, he had the greatest difficulty in distinguishing their forms.

Owing to the great number of the eggs that are laid, the young are often very numerous, between thirty and forty chicks sometimes belonging to one brood. In the Ostrich chase which has already been described, the brood were eighteen in number, and so great was their speed that, in spite of their youth and diminutive size, Mr. Andersson only succeeded in capturing nine of them after an hour's severe chase.

We find, therefore, that we must acquit the Ostrich of neglecting its young, much more of cruelty towards them; and we will now turn to the next charge against the bird, that of stupidity.

In one sense, the bird certainly may be considered stupid. Like nearly all wild creatures which live on large plains, it always runs against the wind, so as to perceive by scent if any enemies are approaching. Its nostrils are very sensitive, and can detect a human being at a very great distance. So fastidious is it in this respect, that no hunter who knows his business ever attempts to approach the Ostrich except from leeward. If a nest is found, and the discoverer wishes the birds to continue laying in it, he approaches on the leeward side, and rakes out the eggs with a long stick.

The little Bosjesman, who kills so many of these birds with his tiny bow and arrow, makes use of this instinct when he goes to shoot the Ostrich, disguised in a skin of one of the birds. Should an Ostrich attack him, as is sometimes the case, he only shifts his position to windward, so as to allow the birds to catch the scent of a human being, when they instantly make off in terror.

When, therefore, the Ostriches are alarmed, they always run to windward, instinctively knowing that, if an enemy should approach in that direction, their powers of scent will inform them of the danger. Being aware of this habit, the hunters manage so that while one of them goes round by a long detour to frighten the game, the others are in waiting at a considerable distance to windward, but well on one side, so that no indication of their presence may reach the sensitive nostrils of the birds. As soon as the concealed hunters see the Ostriches fairly settled down to their course, they dash off at right angles to the line which the birds are taking, and in this way come near enough to use their weapons. The antelopes of the same country have a similar instinct, and are hunted in precisely the same manner.

Thus, then, in one sense the Ostrich may be considered as open to the charge of stupidity, inasmuch as it pursues a course which can be anticipated by enemies who would otherwise be unable to overtake it. But it must be remembered that instinct cannot be expected to prove a match for reason, and that, although its human enemies are able to overreach it, no others can do so, the instinct of running against the wind serving to guard it from any foe which it is likely to meet in the desert.

When captured alive and tamed, it certainly displays no particular amount of intellect. The Arabs often keep tame Ostriches about their tents, the birds being as much accustomed to their quarters as the horses. In all probability they did so in ancient times, and the author of the Book of Job was likely to be familiar with tame Ostriches, as well as with the wild bird.

Stupidity is probably attributed to the tame bird in consequence of the habit possessed by the Ostrich of picking up and eating substances which cannot be used as food. For example, it will eat knives, bits of bone or metal, and has even been known to swallow bullets hot from the mould. On dissecting the digestive organs of an Ostrich, I have found a large quantity of stones, pieces of brick, and scraps of wood. These articles are, however, not intended to serve as food, but simply to aid digestion, and the bird eats them just as domestic fowls pick up gravel, and smaller birds grains of sand. In swallowing them, therefore, the Ostrich does not display any stupidity, but merely obeys a natural instinct.

Lastly, we come to the speed of the Ostrich: "What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider."

This statement is literally true. When the Ostrich puts forth its full speed, there is no horse that can catch it in a fair chase. It may be killed by the ruse which has already been described, but an adult Ostrich can run away from the swiftest horse. When it runs at full speed, it moves its long legs with astonishing rapidity, covering at each stride an average of twenty-four feet, a fact from which its rate of speed may be deduced. In consequence of this width of stride, and the small impression made in the sand by the two-toed foot, the track of a running Ostrich is very obscure. Perhaps no better proof of the swiftness of the bird can be given than the extreme value set upon it by the Arabs. Although they are bred to the desert as much as the Ostrich itself, and are mounted on horses whose swiftness and endurance are proverbial, they set a very high value on the Ostrich, and to have captured one of these birds establishes an Arab's fame as a hunter.

Sometimes the Arabs employ the plan of cutting across the course of the bird, but at others they pursue it in fair chase, training their horses and themselves specially for the occasion. They furnish themselves with a supply of water, and then start in pursuit of the first flock of Ostriches they find. They take care not to alarm the birds, lest they should put out their full speed and run away out of sight, but just keep sufficiently near to force the birds to be continually on the move. They will sometimes continue this chase for several days, not allowing their game time to eat or rest, until at last it is so tired that it yields itself an easy prey.

In Southern Africa, snares are used for taking the Ostrich. They are in fact ordinary springes, but of strength suitable to the size of the bird. The cord is made fast to a sapling, which is bent down by main strength, and the other end is then formed into a noose and fastened down with a trigger. Sometimes the bird is enticed towards the snare by means of a bait, and sometimes it is driven over it by the huntsmen. In either case, as soon as the Ostrich puts its foot within the fatal noose, the trigger is loosed, the sapling is released, and, with a violent jerk, the Ostrich is caught by the leg and suspended in the air.

Why the flesh of the Ostrich should have been prohibited to the Jews is rather a mystery. It is much valued by most natives, though some of the Arab tribes still adhere to the Jewish prohibition, and those Europeans who have tried it pronounce it to be excellent when the bird is young and tender, but to be unpleasantly tough when it is old. Mr. Andersson says that its flesh resembles that of the zebra, and mentions that the fat and blood are in great request, being mixed together by cutting the throat of the bird, passing a ligature round the neck just below the incision, and then shaking and dragging the bird about for some time. Nearly twenty pounds of this substance are obtained from a single Ostrich.

The ancient Romans valued exceedingly the flesh of this bird. We are told that Heliogabalus once had a dish served at his table containing six hundred Ostrich brains, and that another emperor ate a whole Ostrich at a meal. As an adult Ostrich weighs some twenty-five stone, we may presume that the bird in question was a young one.

The eggs are most valuable articles of food, both on account of their excellent flavour and their enormous size. It is calculated that one Ostrich egg contains as much as twenty-five ordinary hen's eggs. Cooking the Ostrich egg is easily performed. A hole is made in the upper part of the egg, and the lower end is set on the fire. A forked stick is then introduced into the egg, and twirled between the hands, so as to beat up the whole of the interior. Europeans usually add pepper and salt, and say that this simple mode of cooking produces an excellent omelette.

The ordinary food of the Ostrich consists of the seeds, buds, and tops of various plants. It seems strange, however, that in the deserts, where there is so little vegetation, the bird should be able to procure sufficient food to maintain its enormous body. Each of the specimens which are kept at the Zoological Gardens eats on an average a pint of barley, the same quantity of oats, four pounds' weight of cabbage, and half a gallon of chaff, beside the buns, bread, and other articles of food which are given to them by visitors.

Although the Ostrich, like many other inhabitants of the desert, can live for a long time without water, yet it is forced to drink, and like the camel, which it resembles in so many of its ways, drinks enormously, taking in the water by a succession of gulps. When the weather has been exceptionally hot, the Ostrich visits the water-springs daily, and is so occupied in quenching its thirst that it will allow the hunter to come within a very short distance. It appears, indeed, to be almost intoxicated with its draught, and, even when it does take the alarm, it only retreats step by step, instead of scudding off with its usually rapid strides.

The camel-like appearance of the Ostrich has already been mentioned. In the Arabic language the Ostrich is called by a name which signifies camel-bird, and many of the people have an idea that it was originally a cross between a bird and a camel.

The cry of the Ostrich is a deep bellow, which, according to travellers in Southern Africa, so resembles the roar of the lion that even the practised ears of the natives can scarcely distinguish the roar of the animal from the cry of the bird. The resemblance is increased by the fact that both the lion and Ostrich utter their cry by night. It is evidently to this cry that the prophet Micah alludes: "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls" (Ostriches in marginal reading). The cry of the variety of Ostrich which inhabits Northern Africa is said to bear more resemblance to the lowing of an ox than the roar of the lion; but as the bird is smaller than its southern relative, the difference is probably accounted for.

It has been mentioned that the Ostrich has no weapons wherewith to fight for its young; still, though it be destitute of actual weapons, such as the spur of the gamecock or the beak and talons of the eagle, it is not entirely defenceless. Its long and powerful legs can be employed as weapons, and it can kick with such force that a man would go down before the blow, and probably, if struck on the leg or arm, have the limb broken. The blow is never delivered backward, as is the kick of the horse, but forward, like that of the kangaroo. The natives of the countries where it resides say that it is able to kill by its kick the jackal that comes to steal its eggs, and that even the hy?na and the leopard are repelled by the gigantic bird.

THE BITTERN.

Signification of the word Kippod-The Bittern and its general appearance-The bird of solitude-Difficulty of detecting the Bittern in its haunts-Mudie's description of the Bittern and its home-The strange cry of the bird-Superstitions connected with it-The Night-raven-Nest of the Bittern-Scarcity of the bird at the present day-Food of the Bittern-The bird formerly brought to table.

In the account of the hedgehog, page 80, it has been mentioned that the Hebrew word Kippod, which has been rendered in the Authorized Version as "Bittern," is in all probability the Syrian hedgehog, and that the Jewish Bible accepts that rendering without even affixing the mark of doubt to the word. As, however, some writers on the subject still adhere to the more familiar rendering, a short account will be given of the Bittern (Botauris stellaris).

The Bittern belongs to the same family as the herons, the cranes, and the storks, and has many of the habits common to them all. It is, however, essentially a bird of solitude, hating the vicinity of man, and living in the most retired spots of marshy ground. As it sits among the reeds and rushes, though it is a large bird, it is scarcely visible even to a practised eye, its mottled plumage harmonizing with surrounding objects in such a way that the feathers of the bird can scarcely be distinguished from the sticks, stones, and grass tufts among which it sits. The ground colour of the plumage is dark buff, upon which are sprinkled mottlings and streaks of black, chestnut, grey, and brown. These mottled marks harmonize with the stones and tufts of withered grass, while the longitudinal dashes of buff and black on the neck and breast correspond with the sticks and reeds.

In a similar manner the tiger, though so large an animal, can lie in a very small covert of reeds without being detected, its striped fur corresponding with the reeds themselves and the shadows thrown by them; and the leopard can remain hidden among the boughs of a tree, its spotted coat harmonizing with the broken light and shade of the foliage.

THE BITTERN.

"I will alto make it a possession for the bittern, and pools for water."-Isa. xiv. 23.

The following powerful description of the Bittern's home is given by Mudie: "It is a bird of rude nature, where the land knows no character save that which the untrained working of the elements impresses upon it; so that when any locality is in the course of being won to usefulness, the bittern is the first to depart, and when any one is abandoned, it is the last to return. 'The bittern shall dwell there' is the final curse, and implies that the place is to become uninhabited and uninhabitable, it hears not the whistle of the ploughman, nor the sound of the mattock; and the tinkle of the sheep-bell, or the lowing of the ox (although the latter bears so much resemblance to its own hollow and dismal voice, that it has given foundation to the name), is a signal for it to be gone.

"Extensive and dingy pools-if moderately upland, so much the better-which lie in the hollows, catching, like so many traps, the lighter and more fertile mould which the rains wash and the winds blow from the naked heights around, and converting it into harsh and dingy vegetation, and the pasture of those loathsome things which wriggle in the ooze, or crawl and swim in the putrid and mantling waters, are the habitation of the bittern.

"Places which scatter blight and mildew over every herb which is more delicate than a sedge, a carex, or a rush, and consume every wooded plant that is taller than the sapless and tasteless cranberry or the weeping upland willow; which shed murrain over the quadrupeds, chills which eat the flesh off their bones, and which, if man ventures there, consume him by putrid fever in the hot and dry season, and shake him to pieces with ague when the weather is cold and humid.

"Places from which the heath and the lichen stand aloof, and where even the raven, lover of disease, and battener upon all that expires miserably and exhausted, comes rarely and with more than wonted caution, lest that death which he comes to seal and riot upon in others should unawares come upon himself. The raven loves carrion on the dry and unpoisoning moor, scents it from afar, and hastens to it upon his best and boldest wing; but 'the reek o' the rotten fen' is loathsome to the sense of even the raven, and it is hunger's last pinch ere he come nigh to the chosen habitation, the only loved abode, of the bittern."

Secure in its retreat, the Bittern keeps its place even if a sportsman should pass by the spot on which it crouches. It will not be tempted to leave its retreat by noise, or even by stone throwing, for it knows instinctively that the quaking bogland which it selects as its home is unsafe for the step of man.

The very cry of the Bittern adds to this atmosphere of desolation. By day the bird is silent, but after the sun has gone down it utters its strange wild cry, a sound which exactly suits the localities in which it loves to make its habitation. During part of the year it only emits a sharp, harsh cry as it rises on the wing, but during the breeding season it utters the cry by which it summons its mate, one of the strangest love-calls that can be imagined. It is something between the neighing of a horse, the bellow of a bull, and a shriek of savage laughter. It is very loud and deep, so that it seems to shake the loose and marshy ground. There was formerly an idea that, when the Bittern uttered this booming cry, it thrust its bill into the soft ground, and so caused it to shake. In reality, the cry is uttered on the wing, the bird wheeling in a spiral flight, and modulating its voice in accordance with the curves which it describes in the air. This strange sound is only uttered by the male bird.

In every country inhabited by the Bittern we find that its deep sepulchral cry, booming out through the darkness, and heard at an immense distance, has been dreaded as the prophecy of some evil to come. In some parts both of England and Ireland it is known as the Night-raven, and under that title is held in the greatest fear. Allusion is made to this belief in the well-known passage from Middleton's "Witch":-

"At the Night-raven's dismal voice,

When others tremble, we rejoice;

And nimbly, nimbly, dance we still

To the echoes of a hollow hill."

Under the same title Goldsmith writes of it in his "Animated Nature." "I remember, in the place where I was a boy, with what terror the bird's note affected the whole village,-they considered it as the presage of some sad event, and generally found or made one to succeed it. I do not speak ludicrously, but if any person in the neighbourhood died, they supposed it could not be otherwise, for the night-raven had foretold it; but if nobody happened to die, the death of a cow or a sheep gave completion of the prophecy."

In some parts of England the Bittern is known by the odd title of Butter-bump, a fact which was mentioned in the Zoologist many years ago:-

"There'll either be rain, or else summat waur,

When Butter-bump sings upo' Potterie car."

About Fermanagh, in Ireland, the Bittern is called Bog-bluiter, i.e. Bog-bleater, just as the snipe is termed the Heather-bluiter.

Like most of the long-legged wading birds, the Bittern is able to change its shape, and apparently to alter its size, in an astonishing manner. When it is walking over the ground, with head erect and eye glanced vigilantly at surrounding objects, it looks a large, bold, vigorous, and active bird. Next minute it will sink its head in its shoulders, so that the long beak seems to project from them, and the neck totally disappears, the feathers enveloping each other as perfectly and smoothly as if it never had had a neck. In this attitude it will stand for an hour at a time on one leg, with the other drawn close to its body, looking as dull, inert, and sluggish a bird as can well be imagined, and reduced apparently to one half of its former size. The Bittern is represented in one of its extraordinary attitudes on the plate which illustrates the cormorant.

THE CORMORANT.

"But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it."-Isa. xxxiv. 11.

The nest of the Bittern is placed on the ground, and near the water, though the bird always takes care to build it on an elevated spot which will not be flooded if the water should rise by reason of a severe rain. There is, however, but little reason for the Bittern to fear a flood, as at the time of year which is chosen, for nest-building the floods are generally out, and the water higher than is likely to be the case for the rest of the year. The materials of the nest are found in marshes, and consist of leaves, reeds, and rushes.

It will be seen from the foregoing account, that if the word Kippod be translated as "Bittern," the imagery connected with it holds good, and that no more powerful figure could be imagined for the desolation of Babylon than the prophecy, "I will make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water" (Isa. xiv. 23).

Though once plentiful in England, the Bittern is now very scarce, and there are few who have seen it in its native haunts. Formerly, when swamps and marshes abounded, the Bittern abounded in proportion, but drainage and cultivation and railways have fairly driven the Bittern out of the country, and in a few years it will be as completely extinct in England as the bustard or the eagle. Even the great marshes of Essex are being reclaimed and rendered unfit for the occupation of the bird; and, from the upper part of the house where this account is written, I can see with the aid of the telescope cornfields, and pasture-lands, and barns, and ricks, and roads, diversifying the wide expanses which were once covered with brackish water at every flow of the tide, and at the ebb only left as quagmires through which the foot of man could not pass, and on which grew the rough and scanty herbage that flourishes under conditions that would kill almost any other vegetation.

No longer can the Bittern find a home there. Deep ditches intersect each other at short intervals, into which the moisture of the really rich soil is drained, and the water that once stood in stagnant pools which the Bittern loved is conducted into them, and discharged into the river at the ebb tide. By the abstraction of the moisture, the whole country has been lowered more than a foot, and, together with the stagnant pools, the Bittern has vanished never more to return. And here it may be mentioned that, although the Bittern inhabits none but desolate places, it only selects those which contain capabilities of cultivation. So, if the boom of the Bittern be heard, it may be accepted as deciding two things-firstly, that the ground is utterly deserted by man, and uncultivated; and secondly, that it ought to be occupied by him, and brought into cultivation.

At the present day, the Bittern is very plentiful in the swampy grounds which edge the Tigris, just as it used to be in the marshes which border the Thames. Should the time come when London will have passed away as completely as the great cities of old, and the banks of the Thames lie as desolate as those of the Tigris, the Bittern will reassume its sway, and its deep booming note will again be heard through the stillness of night.

As if to add to the general effect of its character, it is essentially a solitary bird, and in this characteristic entirely unlike its relatives the heron and the stork, which are peculiarly sociable, and love to gather themselves together in multitudes. But the Bittern is never found except alone, or at the most accompanied for a time by its mate and one or two young ones.

The localities in which it resides are sufficient evidence of the nature of its food. Frogs appear to be its favourite diet, but it also feeds on various fish, insects, molluscs, worms, and similar creatures. Dull and apathetic as it appears to be, it can display sufficient energy to capture tolerably large fish. Though the Bittern is only about two feet in total length, one of these birds was killed, in the stomach of which were found one perfect rudd eight inches in length and two in depth, together with the remains of another fish, of a full-grown frog, and of an aquatic insect. In another instance, a Bittern had contrived to swallow an eel as long as itself; while in many cases the remains of five or six full-grown frogs have been found in the interior of the bird, some just swallowed, and others in various stages of digestion.

In former times the Bittern was used as food in England, and was considered one of the delicacies of a rich man's table. Partly on account of its scarcity, and partly on account of a popular prejudice, it is never eaten at the present day, and those few specimens which are occasionally exposed for sale are merely purchased for the sake of their plumage. The flesh of the Bittern justifies the predilection which was formerly exhibited for it, as it is tender, well-flavoured, and fat.

THE HERON.

The Heron mentioned as an unclean bird-The Heron used for food in England, and considered as a delicacy-Sociable character of the bird, and its mode of feeding-Its enormous appetite-How the Heron fights-Ancient falconry-Nesting of the Heron-The papyrus marshes and their dangers-Description of the papyrus-Vessels of bulrushes-The Egret and its beautiful plumage-Uses of the train feathers.

The name of the Heron is only mentioned twice in the Scriptures-namely, in the two parallel passages of Lev. xi. 19 and Deut. xiv. 18; in both of which places the Heron is ranked among the unclean birds that might not be eaten.

In some of the cases where beasts or birds are prohibited as food, the prohibition seems scarcely needed. To us of the present day this seems to be the case with the Heron, as it is never brought to table. The reason for this disuse of the Heron as food is not that it is unfit for the table, but that it has become so scarce by the spread of cultivation and house-building, that it has been gradually abandoned as a practically unattainable article of diet. The flesh of the Heron, like that of the bittern, is remarkably excellent, and in the former days, when it was comparatively plentiful, and falconry was the ordinary amusement of the rich, the Heron formed a very important dish at every great banquet.

THE HERON.

"These are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... the stork, the heron after her kind."-Deut. xi. 13, 19.

The bird, however, must be eaten when young. A gentleman who liked to try experiments for himself in the matter of food, found that, if young Herons were properly cooked, they formed a most excellent dish, equal, in his opinion, to grouse. Wishing to have his own judgment confirmed by that of others, he had several of them trussed and dressed like wild geese, and served up at table under that name. The guests approved greatly of the bird, and compared it to hare, the resemblance being further increased by the dark colour of the flesh. There was not the slightest fishy flavour about the bird. This, however, is apt to be found in the older birds, but can be removed by burying them in the earth for several days, just as is done with the solan goose and one or two other sea-birds.

Several species of Heron inhabit Palestine, of which the common Heron (Ardea cinerea), with which we are so familiar in England, is perhaps the most plentiful; and it is to this bird that the prohibition chiefly extends. But there were several other species of the bird, as is implied by the language of the law, which prohibited the Heron "after her kind." The Egrets are probably included in this category; and, if the word kippod be really the hedgehog, it is tolerably certain that the bittern was included under the general term Anaphah, which is given in the Authorized Version as Heron. The Jewish Bible follows the same reading, but affixes the mark of doubt to the word.

The abundance of birds belonging to the Heron tribe is well shown by some of the paintings and carvings on Egyptian monuments, in which various species of Herons and other water-birds are depicted as living among the papyrus reeds, exactly the locality in which they are most plentiful at the present day.

Unlike the bittern, the Heron is a most sociable bird, and loves not only to live, but even to feed, in company with others of its own species. In Mr. Waterton's grounds, near Walton, I have watched the Herons feeding in close proximity to each other. The birds were fond of wading stealthily along the edge of the lake until they came to a suitable spot, where they would stand immersed in the water up to the thighs, waiting patiently for their prey. They stood as still as if they were carved out of wood, the ripples of the lake reflected on their plumage as the breeze ruffled the surface of the water. Suddenly there would be a quick dive of the beak, either among the reeds or in the water, and each stroke signified that the Heron had caught its prey.

Frogs and small fishes are the usual food of the Heron, though it often grapples with larger prey, having been seen to capture an eel of considerable size in its beak. Under such circumstances it leaves the water, with the fish in its mouth, and beats it violently against a stone so as to kill it. Now and then the bird is vanquished in the struggle by the fish, several instances being known in which an eel, in its endeavours to escape, has twisted itself so tightly round the neck of the bird that both have been found lying dead on the shore.

In one such case the Heron's beak had struck through the eyes of the eel, so that the bird could not disengage itself. In another the Heron had tried to swallow an eel which was much too large for it, and had been nearly choked by its meal. The eel must necessarily have been a very large one, as the Heron has a wonderful capacity for devouring fish. Even when quite young, it can swallow a fish as large as a herring, and when it is full grown it will eat four or five large herrings at a meal.

Now when we remember that an Englishman of average appetite finds one herring to form a very sufficient breakfast, we can easily imagine what must be the digestive power of a bird which, though very inferior to man in point of bulk, can eat four times as much at a meal. Even though the fish be much larger in diameter than the neck of the bird, the Heron can swallow it as easily as a small snake swallows a large frog. The neck merely seems to expand as if it were made of Indiarubber, the fish slips down, and the bird is ready for another.

Generally the Herons feed after sunset, but I have frequently seen them busily engaged in catching their prey in full daylight, when the sunbeams were playing in the water so as to produce the beautiful rippling effect on the Heron's plumage which has already been mentioned.

The Heron does not restrict itself to fishes or reptiles, but, like the bittern, feeds on almost any kind of aquatic animal which comes within its reach. When it lives near tidal rivers, it feeds largely on the shrimps, prawns, green crabs, and various other crustacea; and when it lives far inland, it still makes prey of the fresh-water shrimps, the water-beetles, and the boat-flies, and similar aquatic creatures. In fact, it acts much after the fashion of the lions, tigers, and leopards, which put up with locusts and beetles when they can find no larger prey.

The long beak of the Heron is not merely an instrument by which it can obtain food, but is also a weapon of considerable power. When attacked, it aims a blow at the eye of its opponent, and makes the stroke with such rapidity that the foe is generally blinded before perceiving the danger. When domesticated, it has been known to keep possession of the enclosure in which it lived, and soon to drive away dogs by the power of its beak. When it is young, it is quite helpless, its very long legs being unable to support its body, which is entirely bare of plumage, and has a very unprepossessing appearance.

The flight of the Heron is very powerful, its wings being very large in proportion to its slender body. Sometimes the bird takes to ascending in a spiral line, and then the flight is as beautiful as it is strong. When chased by the falcon it mostly ascends in this manner, each of the two birds trying to rise above the other.

The nest of the Heron is always made on the top of some lofty tree, whenever the bird builds in places where trees can be found; and as the bird is an eminently sociable one, a single nest is very seldom found, the Heron being as fond of society as the rook. In England the heronries are invariably found in clumps of trees, the nests of the birds being quite close together. In some parts of Palestine, however, where trees are very scarce, the Heron is obliged to choose some other locality for its nest, and in that case prefers the great thickets of papyrus reeds which are found in the marshes, and which are even more inaccessible than the tops of trees.

One of these marshes is well described by Mr. Tristram in his "Land of Israel." "The whole marsh is marked in the map as impassable; and most truly it is so. I never anywhere have met with a swamp so vast and utterly impenetrable. First there is an ordinary bog, which takes one up to one's knees in water; then, after half a mile, a belt of deeper swamp, where the yellow water lily (Nuphar lutea) flourishes; then a belt of tall reeds; the open water covered with white water-lily (Nymph?a alba); and beyond again an impenetrable wilderness of papyrus (Papyrus antiquorum), in the beautiful forest of which Dr. Thomson has not recognised the celebrated material of Egypt, though he has well described it under its Arabic name, 'babeer' ("Land and Book," 259).

"The papyrus extends right across to the east side. A false step off its roots will take the intruder over head in suffocating peat-mud. We spent a long time in attempting to effect an entrance, and at last gave it up, satisfied that the marsh birds were not to be had. In fact, the whole is simply a floating bog of several miles square; a very thin crust of vegetation covers an unknown depth of water; and, if the explorer breaks through this, suffocation is imminent. Some of the Arabs, who were tilling the plain for cotton, assured us that even a wild boar never got through it. We shot two bitterns, but in endeavouring to retrieve them I slipped from the root on which I was standing, and was drawn down in a moment, only saving myself from drowning by my gun, which had providentially caught across a papyrus stem."

It may here be mentioned that the bulrush of Scripture is undoubtedly the papyrus. The ark or basket of bulrushes, lined with slime and pitch, in which Moses was laid, was made of the papyrus, which at the present day is used for the manufacture of baskets, mats, sandals, and for the thatching of houses. Many tribes which inhabit the banks of the Nile make simple boats, or rather rafts, of the papyrus, which they cut and tie in bundles; and it is worthy of notice that the Australian native makes a reed boat in almost exactly the same manner.

Compare Is. xviii. 1, 2: "Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

"That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes." Did we not know that vessels are actually made of bulrushes at the present day, a custom which has survived from very ancient times, we might find a difficulty in understanding this passage, while the meaning is intelligible enough when it is viewed by the light of the knowledge that the Ethiopian of the present day takes gold, and ivory, and other merchandise down the Nile in his boat of papyrus (or bulrush) reeds tied together.

The papyrus runs from ten to fifteen or sixteen feet in height, so that the Herons are at no loss for suitable spots whereon to place their nests. The name "papyrus," from which our word "paper" is derived, is nothing more than a Latinized form of the old Arabic name "babeer." It is never found except in muddy and swampy places such as those which have already been mentioned. Thus we have in Job viii. 11 a reference to this quality of the papyrus: "Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag grow without water?"

* * *

The Egrets, which are probably included under the generic title of Anaphah, are birds of passage, and at the proper season are plentiful in Palestine. These pretty birds much resemble the heron in general form, and in general habits both birds are very much alike, haunting the marshes and edges of lakes and streams, and feeding upon the frogs and other inhabitants of the water. In countries where rice is cultivated, the Egret may generally be seen in the artificial swamps in which that plant is sown. The colour of the Egret is pure white, with the exception of the train. This consists of a great number of long slender feathers of a delicate straw colour. Like those which form the train of the peacock, they fall over the feathers of the tail, and entirely conceal them. The train of the Egret is highly valued in the East, brushes being made of them wherewith flies can be driven away, or delicate articles dusted. As the bird is a very shy and wary one, these feathers cannot be easily procured, especially as they do not make their appearance until the bird has reached its third year, and had time to learn the signs of approaching danger. The Egret is rather larger than the heron, a full-grown specimen measuring about four feet in length, whereas the heron is scarcely more than a yard in total length. The train-feathers of the Egret add, however, to the apparent size of the bird.

THE CRANE.

Various passages in which the Crane is mentioned-Its migratory habits, and loud voice-Geographical range of the Crane-The bird once plentiful in the fen districts of England-Its favourite roosting-places-Size of the Crane, and measurement of the wings-The Crane once used as food-Plumes of the Crane and their use-Structure of the vocal organs-Nest and eggs of the Crane.

In the description of the dove and the swallow two passages have been quoted in which the name of the Crane is mentioned, one referring to its voice, and the other to its migratory instinct. The first passage occurs in Isa. xxxviii. 14: "Like a crane or swallow, so did I chatter;" and the other in Jer. viii. 7: "The turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming."

It is rather remarkable that in both these cases the word "Crane" is used in connexion with the swallow, or rather the swift, and that in both instances the names of the birds should have been interchanged. If we refer to the original of these passages, we shall find that the former of them would run thus, "Like a sis or an agur" and the latter thus, "The turtle and the sis and the agur." That in these passages the interpretation of the words sis and agur have been interchanged has already been mentioned, and, as the former has been described under the name of swallow or swift, we shall now treat of the latter under the title of Crane.

THE CRANE.

"Like a crane ... so did I chatter."-Isa. xxxviii. 14.

The species here mentioned is the common Crane (Grus cinerea), a bird which has a very wide range, and has occasionally made its appearance in one or two parts of Great Britain. In Ireland it is thought to be common, but in that country the word Crane is simply a popular misnomer for the heron. As is the case with many wild birds, especially those of the larger kinds, the Crane appears to have been a much more frequent visitor of our shores than can be the case in the present day, when the land is thickly populated, and not a strange bird can show itself without running the risk of being shot.

As might be imagined, the Cranes favoured the great fen-districts of England, especially those of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, where it used to be found in large flocks. That in those days it bred in England is evident from Acts of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., in which reigns the taking of a Crane's egg was punished with a fine of twenty pence, in those days a considerable sum, being nearly four times the average daily wages of a working man. A small flock of Cranes was seen in Zetland in 1807, but at the present time drainage, cultivation, and house-building have as effectually extirpated the gregarious Crane as the solitary bittern.

The Crane performs its annual migrations in company, vast flocks of many thousand individuals passing like great clouds at an immense height, whence their trumpet-like cry is audible for a great distance round, and attracts the ear if not the eye to them. Thus we have at a glance both the characteristics to which reference is made in the Scriptures, namely, the noisy cry and the habit of migration.

It is a very gregarious bird, associating with its comrades in flocks, just as do the starlings and rooks of our own country, and, like these birds, has favourite roosting-places in which it passes the night. When evening approaches, the Cranes may be seen in large flocks passing to their roosting-places, and, on account of their great size, having a very strange effect. A fair-sized Crane will measure seven feet across the expanded wings, so that even a solitary bird has a very imposing effect when flying, while that of a large flock of Cranes on the wing is simply magnificent.

The spots which the Crane selects for its roosting-places are generally of the same character. Being in some respects a wary bird, though it is curiously indifferent in others, it will not roost in any place near bushes, rocks, or other spots which might serve to conceal an enemy. The locality most favoured by the Crane is a large, smooth, sloping bank, far from any spot wherein an enemy may be concealed. The birds keep a careful watch during the night, and it is impossible for any foe to approach them without being discovered. The Crane is noisy on the wing, and, whether it be soaring high over head on its long migratory journeys, or be merely flying at dusk to its roosting-place, it continually utters its loud, clangorous cry.

The food of the Crane is much like that of the heron, but in addition to the frogs, fish, worms, and insects, it eats vegetable substances. Sometimes it is apt to get into cultivated grounds, and then does much damage to the crops, pecking up the ground with its long beak, partly for the sake of the worms, grubs, and other creatures, and partly for the sake of the sprouting seeds.

Although by reason of its scarcity the Crane has been abandoned as food, its flesh is really excellent, and in former days was valued very highly, and was looked upon much in the same light as grouse or blackcock by ourselves at the present day. The two facts, that it was once comparatively plentiful and that it was highly valued for the table, are shown by an old record of the banquet following the enthronization of an Archbishop of Canterbury, at which two hundred and four Cranes were served at table. Even in those days the bird was a very valuable one, the average cost exceeding three shillings, so that none but the wealthy could indulge in such a luxury.

Like the egret, the Crane is remarkable for the flowing plumes of the back, which fall over the tail feathers, and form a train. These feathers are much used as plumes, both for purposes of dress and as brushes or flappers wherewith to drive off the flies. By reason of this conformation, some systematic zoologists have thought that it has some affinity to the ostrich, the rh?a, and similar birds, and that the resemblance is strengthened by the structure of the digestive organs, which are suited to vegetable as well as animal substances, the stomach being strong and muscular.

The peculiar voice of the Crane, which it is so fond of using, and to which reference is made in the Scriptures, is caused by a peculiar structure of the windpipe, which is exceedingly long, and, instead of going straight to the lungs, undergoes several convolutions about the breast-bone, and then proceeds to the lungs.

The Crane makes its nest on low ground, generally among osiers or reeds, and it lays only two eggs, pale olive in colour, dashed profusely with black and brown streaks.

THE STORK.

Signification of the Hebrew word Chasidah-Various passages in which it is mentioned-The Chasidah therefore a large, wide-winged, migratory bird-Its identification with the Stork-Derivation of its Hebrew name-The Stork always protected-Uses of the tail-Its mode of quartering the ground in search of food-Migratory habits of the Stork-Nesting of the bird, and its favourite localities-The fir-trees of Palestine-Love of the Stork for its young.

In the Old Testament there are several passages wherein is mentioned the word Chasidah. We will take these passages in their order. In the first place, we find that the Chasidah is enumerated in Lev. xi. 19 among the unclean creatures: "And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." The parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 18 has precisely the same words. Next we have the passage in Job xxxix. 13: "Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or the feathers of the chasidah and ostrich?" (marginal reading.) Next we come to Ps. civ. 16, 17: "The trees of the Lord are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which He hath planted.

"Where the birds make their nests: as for the chasidah, the fir-trees are her house."

Passing to the prophets, we find that Jeremiah uses the same word (viii. 7): "Yea, the chasidah in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord."

The last mention of the word occurs in Zech. v. 9: "Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; (for they had wings like the wings of a chasidah;) and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven."

We learn from these passages that, in the first place, the Chasidah was certainly a bird, as it is mentioned in connexion with other birds, and is said to have wings and feathers. Our next business is to find out what particular bird is meant by the Chasidah. It is evident from the passage in Jeremiah that it is a migratory bird; from that in the Psalms, that it builds its nest upon a fir-tree; and from those in Job and Zechariah, that it is a large-winged bird. These details very much narrow the question, which is still further limited by the fact that we have already identified the crane and the heron.

The Authorized Version invariably renders the word Chasidah as "Stork," and is undoubtedly right; though the Septuagint has no less than four different translations, reading it as "heron" in one place, "pelican" in another, "hoopoe" in another, and in the fourth instance leaving the word untranslated, but Gr?cized into the form of asida. It would have been better if the last-mentioned plan had been followed throughout.

There is, however, no doubt that the Authorized Version is perfectly correct; and it is followed by the Jewish Bible, in which no mark of doubt is affixed to the word.

In Buxtorf's Lexicon there is a curious derivation of the word. He says that the word Chasidah is derived from chesed, a word that signifies benevolence. This word is used in many familiar passages; such as, "unworthy of all the benefits," "according to the multitude of Thy mercies," "exercising pity," and so forth.

According to some writers, the name was given to the Stork because it was supposed to be a bird remarkable for its filial piety; "for the storks in their turn support their parents in their old age: they allow them to rest their necks on their bodies during migration, and, if the elders are tired, the young ones take them on their backs." According to others, the name is given to the Stork because it exercises kindness towards its companions in bringing them food; but in all cases the derivation of the word is acknowledged to be the same.

Partly in consequence of this idea, which is a very old and almost universal one, and partly on account of the great services rendered by the bird in clearing the ground of snakes, insects, and garbage, the Stork has always been protected through the East, as it is to the present day in several parts of Europe. The slaughter of a Stork, or even the destruction of its eggs, would be punished with a heavy fine; and in consequence of the immunity which it enjoys, it loves to haunt the habitations of mankind.

In many of the Continental towns, where sanitary regulations are not enforced, the Stork serves the purpose of a scavenger, and may be seen walking about the market-place, waiting for the offal of fish, fowls, and the like, which are simply thrown on the ground for the Storks to eat. In Eastern lands the Stork enjoys similar privileges, and we may infer that the bird was perfectly familiar both to the writers of the various Scriptural books in which it was mentioned, and to the people for whom these books were intended.

When they settle upon a tract of ground, the Storks divide it among themselves in a manner that seems to have a sort of system in it, spreading themselves over it with wonderful regularity, each bird appearing to take possession of a definite amount of ground. By this mode of proceeding, the ground is rapidly cleared of all vermin; the Storks examining their allotted space with the keenest scrutiny, and devouring every reptile, mouse, worm, grub, or insect that they can find on it. Sometimes they will spread themselves in this manner over a vast extent of country, arriving suddenly, remaining for several months, and departing without giving any sign of their intention to move.

The wings of the Stork, which are mentioned in Holy Writ, are very conspicuous, and are well calculated to strike an imaginative mind. The general colour of the bird is white, while the quill feathers of the wings are black; so that the effect of the spread wings is very striking, an adult bird measuring about seven feet across, when flying. As the body, large though it may be, is comparatively light when compared with the extent of wing, the flight is both lofty and sustained, the bird flying a very great height, and, when migrating, is literally the "stork in the heavens."

Next we come to the migratory habits of the Stork.

Like the swallow, the Stork resorts year after year to the same spots; and when it has once fixed on a locality for its nest, that place will be assuredly taken as regularly as the breeding-season comes round. The same pair are sure to return to their well-known home, notwithstanding the vast distances over which they pass, and the many lands in which they sojourn. Should one of the pair die, the other finds a mate in a very short time, and thus the same home is kept up by successive generations of Storks, much as among men one ancestral mansion is inhabited by a series of members of the same family.

So well is this known, that when a pair of Storks have made their nest in a human habitation their return is always expected, and when they arrive the absentees are welcomed on all sides. In many countries breeding-places are specially provided for the Storks; and when one of them is occupied for the first time, the owner of the house looks upon it as a fortunate omen.

The localities chosen by the Stork for its nest vary according to the surrounding conditions. The foundation which a Stork requires is a firm platform, the more elevated the better, but the bird seems to care little whether this platform be on rocks, buildings, or trees. If, for example, it builds its nest in craggy places, far from the habitations of man, it selects some flat ledge for the purpose, preferring those that are at the extreme tops of the rocks. The summit of a natural pinnacle is a favourite spot with the Stork.

In many cases the Stork breeds among old ruins, and under such circumstances it is fond of building its nest on the tops of pillars or towers, the summits of arches, and similar localities. When it takes up its abode among mankind, it generally selects the breeding-places which have been built for it by those who know its taste, but it frequently chooses the top of a chimney, or some such locality.

Sometimes, however, it is obliged to build in spots where it can find neither rocks nor buildings, and in such cases it builds on trees, and, like the heron, is sociable in its nesting, a whole community residing in a clump of trees. It is not very particular about the kind of tree, provided that it be tolerably tall, and strong enough to bear the weight of its enormous nest; and the reader will at once see that the fir-trees are peculiarly fitted to be the houses for the Stork.

As is the case with so many zoological words, botanical names seem to be frequently used in a collective sense by the scriptural writers, several species being signified by a single name. Thus the word which is in some cases translated as "fir," is in some rendered as "pine-tree," in others as "juniper," and in others as "cypress." In the present case it is undoubtedly translated rightly, though in the Jewish Bible it is rendered as "cypress:" "The trees of the Eternal satisfy themselves, the cedars of Lebanon which He hath planted; where birds make their nests: as for the stork, cypresses are its house."

THE STORK.

"As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house."-Ps. civ. 17.

The particular species of fir-tree to which the Psalmist alludes is probably the Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), which comes next to the great cedars of Lebanon in point of size. It was this tree that furnished the timber and planks for Solomon's temple and palace, a timber which was evidently held in the greatest estimation. This tree fulfils all the conditions which a Stork would require in nest-building. It is lofty, and its boughs are sufficiently horizontal to form a platform for the nest, and strong enough to sustain it. On account of its value, and the reckless manner in which it has been cut down without new plantations being formed, the Aleppo pine has vanished from many parts of Palestine wherein it was formerly common, and would afford a dwelling-place for the Stork.

There are, however, several other species of fir which are common in various parts of the country, each species flourishing in the soil best suited to it, so that the Stork would never be at a loss to find a nesting-place in a country which furnished so many trees suitable to its purposes.

As may be expected from the localities chosen by the Stork for its breeding-place, its nest is very large and heavy. It is constructed with very little skill, and is scarcely more than a huge quantity of sticks, reeds, and similar substances, heaped together, and having in the middle a slight depression in which the eggs are laid. These eggs are usually three, or perhaps four in number, and now and then a fifth is seen, and are of a very pale buff or cream colour.

As is the case with the heron, the young of the Stork are quite helpless when hatched, and are most ungainly little beings, with their long legs doubled under them, unable to sustain their round and almost naked bodies, while their large beaks are ever gaping for food. Those of my readers who have had young birds of any kind must have noticed the extremely grotesque appearance which they possess when they hold up their heads and cry for food, with their bills open to an almost incredible extent. In such birds as the Stork, the heron, and others of the tribe, the grotesque appearance is exaggerated in proportion to the length and gape of the bill.

The Stork is noted for being a peculiarly kind and loving parent to its young, in that point fully deserving the derivation of its Hebrew name, though its love manifests itself towards the young, and not towards the parent.

The Rev. H. B. Tristram mentions from personal experience an instance of the watchful care exercised by the Stork over its young. "The writer was once in camp near an old ruined tower in the plains of Zana, south of the Atlas, where a pair of storks had their nest. The four young might often be seen from a little distance, surveying the prospect from their lonely height, but whenever any of the human party happened to stroll near the tower, one of the old storks, invisible before, would instantly appear, and, lighting on the nest, put its feet gently on the necks of all the young, so as to hold them down out of sight till the stranger had passed, snapping its bill meanwhile, and assuming a grotesque air of indifference, as unconscious of there being anything under its charge." (Smith's "Dict. Bible," vol. iii. p. 1384.)

The snapping noise which is here mentioned is the only sound produced by the Stork, which is an absolutely silent bird, as far as voice is concerned.

* * *

There is another species of Stork found in Palestine, to which the fir-trees are especially a home. This is the Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), which in some parts of the country is even more plentiful than its white relative, which it resembles in almost every particular, except that it has a dark head and back, the feathers being glossed with purple and green like those of the magpie. This species, which is undoubtedly included in the Hebrew word chasidah, always makes its nest on trees whenever it can find them, and in some of the more densely wooded parts of Palestine is in consequence plentiful, placing its nest in the deepest parts of the forests. When it cannot obtain trees, it will build its nest on rocky ledges. It lays two or three eggs of a greenish white colour.

Like the preceding species, the Black Stork is easily domesticated. Colonel Montague kept one which was very tame, and would follow its keeper like a dog. Its tameness enabled its proceedings to be closely watched, and its mode of feeding was thereby investigated. It was fond of examining the rank grass and mud for food, and while doing so always kept its bill a little open, so as to pounce down at once on any insect or reptile that it might disturb.

Eels were its favourite food, and it was such an adept at catching them that it was never seen to miss one, no matter how small or quick it might be. As soon as it had caught one of these active fish, it went to some dry place, and then disabled its prey by shaking and beating it against the ground before swallowing it, whereas many birds that feed on fish swallow their prey as soon as it is caught. The Stork was never seen to swim as the heron sometimes does, but it would wade as long as it could place its feet on the bed of the stream, and would strain its head and the whole of its neck under water in searching for fish.

It was of a mild and peaceable disposition, and, even if angered, did not attempt to bite or strike with its beak, but only denoted its displeasure by blowing the air sharply from its lungs, and nodding its head repeatedly. After the manner of Storks, it always chose an elevated spot on which to repose, and took its rest standing on one leg, with its head so sunk among the feathers of its shoulders that scarcely any part of it was visible, the hinder part of the head resting on the back, and the bill lying on the fore-part of the neck.

Though the bird is so capable of domestication, it does not of its own accord haunt the dwellings of men, like the White Stork, but avoids the neighbourhood of houses, and lives in the most retired places it can find. It may generally be seen in marshy grounds, spending the greater part of its time in procuring food, or in going to and from its nest while engaged in the task of feeding its young.

THE SWAN.

Signification of the word Tinshemeth-The Gallinule and the Ibis-Appearance and habits of the Hyacinthine Gallinule-A strange use for the bird-The White or Sacred Ibis-The bird mentioned by Herodotus-The Glossy Ibis, or Black Ibis-Veneration with which the bird was regarded.

In the two parallel chapters of Lev. xi. 18 and Deut. xiv. 16, the Hebrew word tinshemeth is found, and evidently signifies some kind of bird which was forbidden as food. After stating (Lev. xi. 13) that "these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination," the sacred lawgiver proceeds to enumerate a number of birds, nearly all of which have already been described. Among them occurs the name of tinshemeth, between the great owl and the pelican.

What was the precise species of bird which was signified by this name it is impossible to say, but there is no doubt that it could not have been the Swan, according to the rendering of the Authorized Version. The Swan is far too rare a bird in Palestine to have been specially mentioned in the law of Moses, and in all probability it was totally unknown to the generality of the Israelites. Even had it been known to them, and tolerably common, there seems to be no reason why it should have been reckoned among the list of unclean birds.

On turning to the Hebrew Bible, we find that the word is left untranslated, and simply given in its Hebrew form, thereby signifying that the translators could form no opinion whatever of the proper rendering of the word. The Septuagint translates the Tinshemeth as the Porphyrio or Ibis, and the Vulgate follows the same rendering. Later naturalists have agreed that the Septuagint and Vulgate have the far more probable reading; and, as two birds are there mentioned, they will be both described.

IBIS AND GALLINULE (SWAN OF SCRIPTURES).

"These are they of which ye shall not eat ... the little owl, and the great owl, and the swan." Deut. xiv. 12, 16.

The first is the Porphyrio, by which we may understand the Hyacinthine Gallinule (Porphyrio veterum). All the birds of this group are remarkable for the enormous length of their toes, by means of which they are enabled to walk upon the loose herbage that floats on the surface of the water as firmly as if they were treading on land. Their feet are also used, like those of the parrots, in conveying food to the mouth. We have in England a very familiar example of the Gallinules in the common water-hen, or moor-hen, the toes of which are of great proportionate length, though not so long as those of the Purple Gallinule, which almost rivals in this respect the jacanas of South America and China. The water-rail, and corncrake or land-rail, are also allied to the Gallinules.

The Hyacinthine Gallinule derives its name from its colour, which is a rich and variable blue, taking a turquoise hue on the head, neck, throat, and breast, and deep indigo on the back. The large bill and the legs are red. Like many other birds, however, it varies much in colour according to age.

It has a very wide geographical range, being found in many parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and is common in the marshy districts of Palestine, where its rich blue plumage and its large size, equalling that of a duck, render it very conspicuous. The large and powerful bill of this bird betokens the nature of its food, which consists almost entirely of hard vegetable substances, the seeds of aquatic herbage forming a large portion of its diet. When it searches for food on the seashore, it eats the marine vegetation, mixing with this diet other articles of an animal nature, such as molluscs and small reptiles.

Though apparently a clumsy bird, it moves with wonderful speed, running not only swiftly but gracefully, its large feet being no hindrance to the rapidity of its movements. It is mostly found in shallow marshes, where the construction of its feet enables it to traverse both the soft muddy ground and the patches of firm earth with equal ease. Its wings, however, are by no means equal to its legs either in power or activity; and, like most of the rail tribe, it never takes to the air unless absolutely obliged to do so.

The nest of the Hyacinthine Gallinule is made on the sedge-patches which dot the marshes, much like that of the coot. The nest, too, resembles that of the coot, being composed of reeds, sedges, and other aquatic plants. The eggs are three or four in number, white in colour, and nearly spherical in form.

The ancients were well acquainted with the Hyacinthine Gallinule, and were in the habit of keeping it tamed in their houses, in which case it was prized by the men and hated by the women. There was a popular idea about the bird that it always detected any infidelity on the part of the female sex, and that when the master of the house came home the bird acquainted him with the crime by making gestures as if it wished to strangle itself.

There are several species of Gallinule, but that which has just been described is the most conspicuous, and therefore, if either of the Gallinules be the Tinshemeth of the Jewish lawgiver, we may safely conclude that the Hyacinthine Gallinule is the species.

* * *

As, however, the Ibis has an equal claim to the title of Tinshemeth, we will devote a few lines to a description of the bird. The particular species which would be signified by the word tinshemeth would undoubtedly be the White or Sacred Ibis (Ibis religiosa), a bird which derives its name of Sacred from the reverence with which it was held by the ancient Egyptians, and the frequency with which its figure occurs in the monumental sculptures. It was also thought worthy of being embalmed, and many mummies of the Ibis have been found in the old Egyptian burial-places, having been preserved for some three thousand years.

In his account of the various animals which were accounted sacred by the Egyptians, Herodotus mentions the Ibis, mixing up a considerable amount of truth with a few errors, and a good deal of superstition. Having heard of the relics of some winged serpents near the city of Buto, he went to see them. "When I arrived there I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe: there were heaps of these spinal bones, some large, some smaller, and some still less, and there were great numbers of them.

"The place in which these spinal bones lie scattered is of the following description:-It is a narrow pass between two mountains into a spacious plain; this plain is contiguous to the plain of Egypt. It is reported that, at the beginning of spring, winged serpents fly from Arabia towards Egypt; but that the ibises, a sort of bird, meet them at the pass, and do not allow the serpents to go by, but kill them. For this service the Arabians say that the ibis is highly reverenced by the Egyptians, and the Egyptians acknowledge that they reverence these birds for this reason.

"The ibis is of the following description. It is all over a deep black, it has the legs of a crane, its beak is much curved, and it is about the size of a crex. Such is the form of the black ones that fight with the serpents. But those that are commonly conversant among men (for there are two species) are bare on the head and the whole neck; have white plumage, except on the head, the throat, and the tips of the wings and extremity of the tail. In all these parts that I have mentioned they are of a deep black; in their legs and back they are like the other kind." (Herod. "Euterpe," 75, 76, Cary's translation.)

Putting aside the mention of the winged serpents, of which he only learned by hearsay, we find that Herodotus has given a very fair account of two species of Ibis,-namely, the Glossy or Green Ibis (Ibis falcinellus), and the White or Sacred Ibis, whose scientific names have already been given.

The Glossy Ibis has been known to come as far as the British shores, but it requires a much warmer climate than that of England in order to pass its life in a state of health. It has, however, a large geographical range, being found both in Northern Africa and Southern America. It derives its popular name from the rich glossy plumage, which shines with a metallic or rather a silken lustre that is singularly beautiful in life, and is with great difficulty preserved in stuffed specimens.

The principal hue of the bird is very deep green, but it is so "shot" with reflections of rich purple, blue, and gold, that it alters its hue with every change of light. At a little distance the deep green plumage looks quite black, as does that of the magpie, and on this account it has been called by Herodotus the Black Ibis.

This species is popularly called Abou Menzel, or Father Sickle-bill, on account of its slender curved beak, and in some places goes by the name of Abou Hannes, or Father John, because it makes its appearance upon or about St. John's Day. From all appearance, it does not feed upon snakes, seeming to restrict itself to molluscs and similar food; and, on account of this discrepancy with the account given by Herodotus, many writers have doubted whether it could really be the bird meant by that historian and traveller. But we must remember that, though he saw both the black and the white Ibis, he did not see either of them eat snakes; and as those who told him of their serpent-devouring habits stated at the same time that the snakes had wings like those of the bat, we may summarily dismiss their account from the argument.

The White Ibis, however, is the bird which was most highly venerated by the Egyptians, and probably for that very reason was placed among the list of prohibited birds in the ancient law. It is about as large as an ordinary hen, and, as its name imports, has the greater part of its plumage white, the ends of the wing-feathers and the coverts being black, with violet reflections. The long neck is black and bare, and has a most curious aspect, looking as if it were made of an old black kid glove, very much crumpled, but still retaining its gloss.

The reason for the extreme veneration with which the bird was regarded by the ancient Egyptians seems rather obscure. It is probable, however, that the partial migration of the bird was connected in their minds with the rise of the Nile, a river as sacred to the old Egyptians as the Ganges to the modern Hindoo. As soon as the water begins to rise, the Ibis makes its appearance, sometimes alone, and sometimes in small troops. It haunts the banks of the river, and marshy places in general, diligently searching for food by the aid of its long bill. It can fly well and strongly, and it utters at intervals a rather loud cry, dipping its head at every utterance. Specimens of these birds can be seen at the Zoological Gardens.

THE CORMORANT.

The word Shalak and its signification-The Greek Catarrhactes-Habits of the Cormorant-The bird trained to catch fish-Mode of securing its prey-Nests and eggs of the Cormorant-Nesting in fir-trees-Flesh of the bird.

Although in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures the word Cormorant occurs three times, there is no doubt that in two of the passages the Hebrew word ought to have been rendered as Pelican, as we shall see when we come presently to the description of that bird.

In the two parallel passages, Lev. xi. 17 and Deut. xiv. 17, a creature called the Shalak is mentioned in the list of prohibited meats. That the Shalak must be a bird is evident from the context, and we are therefore only left to discover what sort of bird it may be. On looking at the etymology of the word we find that it is derived from a root which signifies hurling or casting down, and we may therefore presume that the bird is one which plunges or sweeps down upon its prey.

All Hebraists have agreed that it is one of the sea-birds, and this view of the case seems to be taken in the Septuagint, where the word is rendered by Catarrhactes, a term that has the same derivation in Greek as the Shalak in Hebrew. It is indeed the same word from which we form our term "cataract," to express the manner in which the water plunges or is hurled down from a height.

In consequence of this derivation, several writers have thought that the Shalak might be the Solan goose, or gannet, a bird which lives on fish, and always takes its prey by darting down upon it from a height. This bird, however, although it certainly answers completely to the sense of the word shalak, is not common enough on the shores of Palestine to be specially mentioned among the unclean birds. Other writers, seeing this difficulty, have thought that the Shalak might be one of the terns, or sea-swallows, forgetful of the fact that these are not plunging birds, although exceedingly swift of flight.

Weighing, however, the opinions of the various Hebraists and naturalists, we may safely determine that the word shalak has been rightly translated in the Authorized Version. The Hebrew Bible gives the same reading, and does not affix the mark of doubt to the word, though there are very few of the long list of animals in Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. which are not either distinguished by the mark of doubt, or, like the Tinshemeth, are left untranslated.

The Cormorant belongs to the family of the pelicans, the relationship between them being evident to the most unpractised eye; and the whole structure of the bird shows its admirable adaptation for the life which it leads.

Its long beak enables it to seize even a large fish, while the hook at the end prevents the slippery prey from escaping. The long snake-like neck gives the bird the power of darting its beak with great rapidity, and at the same time allows it to seize prey immediately to the right or left of its course. Its strong, closely-feathered wings enable it to fly with tolerable speed, while at the same time they can be closed so tightly to the body that they do not hinder the progress of the bird through the water; while the tail serves equally when spread to direct its course through the air, and when partially or entirely closed to act as a rudder in the water. Lastly, its short powerful legs, with their broadly-webbed feet, act as paddles, by which the bird urges itself through the water with such wonderful speed that it can overtake and secure the fishes even in their own element. Besides these outward characteristics, we find that the bird is able to make a very long stay under water, the lungs being adapted so as to contain a wonderful amount of air.

The method of catching prey which is practised by the Cormorant is familiar to us from the fact that the Cormorant has been trained to play the same part in the water as the falcon in the air, and has been taught to catch fish, and bring them ashore for its master. So adroit are they, that if one of them should catch a fish which is too heavy for it another bird will come to its assistance, and the two together will bring the struggling prey to land. Trained birds of this description have been employed in China from time immemorial, and in later years they have been re-introduced into England, where they have often exhibited their really wonderful powers.

In the days of Charles I. these birds were kept in training, and there was attached to the Court a professed official, called the Kings Master of the Cormorants. These birds were usually caught and trained in Holland, and thence exported to England. The disturbed state of the country during the civil wars, added to the sport-destroying character of the Puritans, seems to have caused the sport to be abandoned in this country, and it is only within the last few years that they have been again employed. In order to prevent it from swallowing the fish which it takes, each bird has a ring or ligature passed round its neck.

The Cormorant is a most voracious bird, swallowing a considerable weight of fish at a meal, and digesting them so rapidly that it is soon ready for another supply. Although it is essentially a marine bird, hunger often takes it inland, especially to places where are lakes or large rivers. Mr. Waterton mentions, in his "Essays on Natural History," that the Cormorants often visited the lake at Walton Hall, and that they soon became so familiar and fearless, that after catching and eating their prey they would sit on the terrace and preen their feathers under the windows of the drawing-room.

The lake is by no means a large one, and it is probable that the birds were attracted by the absolute security which was felt by every winged creature within the domain. "His skill in diving," writes Mr. Waterton, "is most admirable, and his success beyond belief. You may know him at a distance, among a thousand water-fowl, by his upright neck, by his body being apparently half immersed in the water, and by his being perpetually in motion when not on land.

"While the ducks and teal and widgeons are stationary on the pool, the cormorant is seen swimming to and fro, as if in quest of something. First raising his body nearly perpendicular, down he plunges into the deep, and, after staying there a considerable time, he is sure to bring up a fish, which he invariably swallows head foremost. Sometimes half an hour elapses before he can manage to accommodate a large eel quietly in his stomach.

"You see him straining violently with repeated efforts to gulp it; and when you fancy that the slippery mouthful is successfully disposed of, all on a sudden the eel retrogrades upwards from its dismal sepulchre, struggling violently to escape. The cormorant swallows it again, and up again it comes, and shows its tail a foot or more out of its destroyer's mouth. At length, worn out with ineffectual writhings and slidings, the eel is gulped down into the cormorant's stomach for the last time, there to meet its dreaded and inevitable fate."

Mr. Fortune gives a somewhat similar account of the feeding of tame Cormorants in China. The birds preferred eels to all other food, and, in spite of the difficulty in swallowing the slippery and active creature, would not touch another fish as long as an eel was left. The bird is so completely at home in the water that it does not need, like the heron and other aquatic birds, to bring its prey ashore in order to swallow it, but can eat fish in the water as well as catch them. It always seizes the fish crosswise, and is therefore obliged to turn it before it can swallow the prey with the head downwards. Sometimes it contrives to turn the fish while still under water, but, if it should fail in so doing, it brings its prey to the surface, and shifts it about in its bill, making a series of little snatches at it until the head is in the right direction. When it seizes a very large fish, the bird shakes its prey just as a dog shakes a rat, and so disables it. It is said to eat its own weight of fish in a single day.

Sometimes, when it has been very successful or exceptionally hungry, it loads itself with food to such an extent that it becomes almost insensible during the process of digestion, and, although naturally a keen-eyed and wary bird, allows itself to be captured by hand.

The nest of the Cormorant is always upon a rocky ledge, and generally on a spot which is inaccessible except by practised climbers furnished with ropes, poles, hooks, and other appurtenances. Mr. Waterton mentions that when he descended the Raincliff, a precipice some four hundred feet in height, he saw numbers of the nests and eggs, but could not get at them except by swinging himself boldly off the face of the cliff, so as to be brought by the return swing into the recesses chosen by the birds.

The nests are mostly placed in close proximity to each other, and are made of sticks and seaweeds, and, as is usual with such nests, are very inartificially constructed. The eggs are of a greenish white on the outside, and green on the inside. When found in the nest, they are covered with a sort of chalky crust, so that the true colour is not perceptible until the crust is scraped off. Two to four eggs are generally laid in, or rather on, each nest. As may be imagined from the character of the birds' food, the odour of the nesting-place is most horrible.

Sometimes, when rocks cannot be found, the Cormorant is obliged to select other spots for its nest. It is mentioned in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society," that upon an island in the midst of a large lake there were a number of Scotch fir-trees, upon the branches of which were about eighty nests of the Cormorant.

The flesh of the Cormorant is very seldom eaten, as it has a fishy flavour which is far from agreeable. To eat an old Cormorant is indeed almost impossible, but the young birds may be rendered edible by taking them as soon as killed, skinning them, removing the whole of the interior, wrapping them in cloths, and burying them for some time in the ground.

From the account of this bird, the reader will see that it may well be the Shalak of the Old Testament. Owing to its size and its peculiar habits, it is a very conspicuous bird, and therefore likely to be selected by name by the ancient lawgiver. And although its flesh is not very agreeable, it can be eaten; and, as has been shown, can be rendered tolerably palatable by a very simple process. The flesh of the Solan goose is deprived in a similar manner of its naturally rank and fishy flavour.

THE PELICAN.

The Pelican of the wilderness-Attitudes of the bird-Its love of solitude-Derivation of the Hebrew word-Fantastic interpretation-Mode of feeding the young-Fables regarding the Pelican-Breeding-places of the bird-The object of its wide wings and large pouch-Colour of the Pelican.

On page 490 it has been mentioned that in two passages of Scripture, the word which is translated in the Authorized Version as Cormorant, ought to have been rendered as Pelican. These, however, are not the first passages in which we meet with the word kaath. The name occurs in the two parallel passages of Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. among the list of birds which are proscribed as food. Passing over them, we next come to Ps. cii. 6. In this passage, the sacred writer is lamenting his misery: "By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin.

"I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert."

In these sentences, we see that the Kaath was a bird of solitude that was to be found in the "wilderness," i.e. far from the habitations of man. This is one of the characteristics of the Pelican, which loves not the neighbourhood of human beings, and is fond of resorting to broad, uncultivated lands, where it will not be disturbed.

In them it makes its nest and hatches its young, and to them it retires after feeding, in order to digest in quiet the ample meal which it has made. Mr. Tristram well suggests that the metaphor of the Psalmist may allude to the habit common to the Pelican and its kin, of sitting motionless for hours after it has gorged itself with food, its head sunk on its shoulders, and its bill resting on its breast.

This is but one of the singular, and often grotesque, attitudes in which the Pelican is in the habit of indulging.

THE PELICAN.

"I am like a pelican in the wilderness."-Ps. cii. 6.

There are before me a number of sketches made of the Pelicans at the Zoological Gardens, and in no two cases does one attitude in the least resemble another. In one sketch the bird is sitting in the attitude which has just been described. In another it is walking, or rather staggering, along, with its head on one side, and its beak so closed that hardly a vestige of its enormous pouch can be seen. Another sketch shows the same bird as it appeared when angry with a companion, and scolding its foe in impotent rage; while another shows it basking in the sun, with its magnificent wings spread and shaking in the warm beams, and its pouch hanging in folds from its chin.

One of the most curious of these sketches shows the bird squatting on the ground, with its head drawn back as far as possible, and sunk so far among the feathers of the back and shoulders that only a portion of the head itself can be seen, while the long beak is hidden, except an inch or two of the end. In this attitude it might easily be mistaken at a little distance for an oval white stone.

The derivation of the Hebrew word kaath is a very curious one. It is taken from a verb signifying "to vomit," and this derivation has been explained in different ways.

The early writers, who were comparatively ignorant of natural history, thought that the Pelican lived chiefly on molluscs, and that, after digesting the animals, it rejected their shells, just as the owl and the hawk reject the bones, fur, and feathers of their prey. They thought that the Pelican was a bird of a hot temperament, and that the molluscs were quickly digested by the heat of the stomach: "conchas enim, calore ventris coctas, rursus evomit, ut testis rejectis, esculenta seligat."

At the present day, however, knowing as we do the habits of the Pelican, we find that, although the reasons just given are faulty, and that the Pelican lives essentially on fish, and not on molluscs, the derivation of the word is really a good one, and that those who gave the bird the name of Kaath, or the vomiter, were well acquainted with its habits.

The bird certainly does eat molluscs, but the principal part of its diet is composed of fish, which it catches dexterously by a sort of sidelong snatch of its enormous bill. The skin under the lower part of the beak is so modified that it can form, when distended, an enormous pouch, capable of holding a great quantity of fish, though, as long as it is not wanted, the pouch is so contracted into longitudinal folds as to be scarcely perceptible. When it has filled the pouch, it usually retires from the water, and flies to a retired spot, often many miles inland, where it can sit and digest at its ease the enormous meal which it has made.

As it often chooses its breeding-places in similar spots, far from the water, it has to carry the food with which it nourishes its young for many miles. For this purpose it is furnished, not only with the pouch which has been just mentioned, but with long, wide, and very powerful wings, often measuring from twelve to thirteen feet from tip to tip. No one, on looking at a Pelican as it waddles about or sits at rest, would imagine the gigantic dimensions of the wings, which seem, as the bird spreads them, to have almost as unlimited a power of expansion as the pouch.

In these two points the true Pelicans present a strong contrast to the cormorants, though birds closely allied. The cormorant has its home close by the sea, and therefore needs not to carry its food for any distance. Consequently, it needs no pouch, and has none. Neither does it require the great expanse of wing which is needful for the Pelican, that has to carry such a weight of fish through the air. Accordingly, the wings, though strong enough to enable the bird to carry for a short distance a single fish of somewhat large size, are comparatively short and closely feathered, and the flight of the cormorant possesses neither the grace nor the power which distinguishes that of the Pelican.

When the Pelican feeds its young, it does so by pressing its beak against its breast, so as to force out of it the enclosed fish. Now the tip of the beak is armed, like that of the cormorant, with a sharply-curved hook, only, in the case of the Pelican, the hook is of a bright scarlet colour, looking, when the bird presses the beak against the white feathers of the breast, like a large drop of blood. Hence arose the curious legend respecting the Pelican, which represented it as feeding its young with its own blood, and tearing open its breast with its hooked bill. We find that this legend is exemplified by the oft-recurring symbol of the "Pelican feeding its young" in ecclesiastical art, as an emblem of Divine love.

This is one of the many instances in which the inventive, poetical, inaccurate Oriental mind has seized some peculiarity of form, and based upon it a whole series of fabulous legends. As long as they restricted themselves to the appearance and habits of the animals with which they were familiarly acquainted, the old writers were curiously full, exact, and precise in their details. But as soon as they came to any creature of whose mode of life they were entirely or partially ignorant, they allowed their inventive faculties full scope, and put forward as zoological facts statements which were the mere creation of their own fancy. We have already seen several examples of this propensity, and shall find more as we proceed with the zoology of the Scriptures.

The fabulous legends of the Pelican are too numerous to be even mentioned, but there is one which deserves notice, because it is made the basis of an old Persian fable.

The writer of the legend evidently had some partial knowledge of the bird. He knew that it had a large pouch which could hold fish and water; that it had large and powerful wings; and that it was in the habit of flying far inland, either for the purpose of digesting its food or nourishing its young. Knowing that the Pelican is in the habit of choosing solitary spots in which it may bring up its young in safety, but not knowing the precise mode of its nesting, the writer in question has trusted to his imagination, and put forward his theories as facts.

Knowing that the bird dwells in "the wilderness," he has assumed that the wilderness in question is a sandy, arid desert, far from water, and consequently from vegetation. Such being the case, the nurture of the Pelican's young is evidently a difficult question. Being aquatic birds, the young must needs require water for drink and bathing, as well as fish for food; and, though a supply of both these necessaries could be brought in the ample pouches of the parents, they would be wasted unless some mode of storing were employed.

Accordingly, the parent birds were said to make their nest in a hollow tree, and to line it with clay, or to build it altogether of clay, so as to leave a deep basin. This basin the parent birds were said to use as a sort of store-pond, bringing home supplies of fish and water in their pouches, and pouring them into the pond. The wild beasts who lived in the desert were said to be acquainted with these nests, and to resort to them daily in order to quench their thirst, repaying their entertainers by protecting their homes.

In real fact, the Pelican mostly breeds near water, and is fond of selecting little rocky islands where it cannot be approached without danger. The nest is made on the ground, and is formed in a most inartificial manner of reeds and grass, the general mass of the nest being made of the reeds, and the lining being formed of grass. The eggs are white, of nearly the same shape at both ends, and are from two to five in number. On an average, however, each nest will contain about two eggs.

The parent birds are very energetic in defence of their eggs or young, and, according to Le Vaillant, when approached they are "like furious harpies let loose against us, and their cries rendered us almost deaf. They often flew so near us that they flapped their wings in our faces, and, though we fired our pieces repeatedly, we were not able to frighten them." When the well-known naturalist Sonnerat tried to drive a female Pelican from her nest, she appeared not to be frightened, but angry. She would not move from her nest, and when he tried to push her off, she struck at him with her long bill and uttered cries of rage.

In order to aid the bird in carrying the heavy weights with which it loads itself, the whole skeleton is permeated with air, and is exceedingly light. Beside this, the whole cellular system of the bird is honeycombed with air-cells, so that the bulk of the bird can be greatly increased, while its weight remains practically unaltered, and the Pelican becomes a sort of living balloon.

The habit of conveying its food inland before eating it is so characteristic of the Pelican that other birds take advantage of it. In some countries there is a large hawk which robs the Pelican, just as the bald-headed eagle of America robs the osprey. Knowing instinctively that when a Pelican is flying inland slowly and heavily and with a distended pouch it is carrying a supply of food to its home, the hawk dashes at it, and frightens it so that the poor bird opens its beak, and gives up to the assailant the fish which it was bearing homewards.

It is evident that the wings which are needed for supporting such weights, and which, as we have seen, exceed twelve feet in length from tip to tip, would be useless in the water, and would hinder rather than aid the bird if it attempted to dive as the close-winged cormorant does. Accordingly, we find that the Pelican is not a diver, and, instead of chasing its finny prey under water, after the manner of the cormorant, it contents itself with scooping up in its beak the fishes which come to the surface of the water. The very buoyancy of its body would prevent it from diving as does the cormorant, and, although it often plunges into the water so fairly as to be for a moment submerged, it almost immediately rises, and pursues its course on the surface of the water, and not beneath it. Like the cormorant, the Pelican can perch on trees, though it does not select such spots for its roosting-places, and prefers rocks to branches. In one case, however, when some young Pelicans had been captured and tied to a stake, their mother used to bring them food during the day, and at night was accustomed to roost in the branches of a tree above them.

One of the two passages to which allusion has already been made in which the word kaath has been wrongly translated, occurs in Isa. xxxiv. 10, 11: "From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

"But the cormorant [Pelican in margin] and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and He shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion and the stones of emptiness."

These words form part of a prophecy concerning Idum?a or Edom, in which the desolation that is to come upon the land is painted in the most vivid colours. The streams are to be turned into pitch, and the dust into brimstone; thorns are to come up in the palaces, and nettles and brambles in the fortresses, and the land is to be washed with blood. And so great is to be the desolation of the land, that even the Pelican, which keeps itself far from the habitations of men, is to possess it.

A similar figure is employed by the prophet Zephaniah, when writing of the utter destruction of Nineveh, that "rejoicing city, that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is no more beside me." In chap. ii. ver. 13, 14, the prophet writes as follows: "He will stretch out His hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness.

"And flocks shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations; both the cormorant [Pelican] and bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it, their voices shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the threshold: for He shall overcome the cedar work."

In both these passages the Jewish Bible renders the word kaath as Pelican. For a further explanation of them the reader is referred to the article on the hedgehog.

It will be now seen that, accepting the Kaath to be the Pelican, the imagery of the scriptural writers is as accurate as it is forcible. Though under some circumstances a thoroughly social bird, it is yet fond of retiring to the most solitary spots in order to consume at peace the prey that it has captured; and, as it sits motionless and alone for hours, more like a white stone than, a bird, it may well be accepted as a type of solitude and desolation.

The colour of the common Pelican is white, with a very slight pinky tinge, which is most conspicuous in the breeding season. The feathers of the crest are yellow, and the quill feathers of the wings are jetty black, contrasting well with the white plumage of the body. The pouch is yellow, and the upper part of the beak bluish grey, with a red line running across the middle, and a bright red hook at the tip. This plumage belongs only to the adult bird, that of the young being ashen grey, and four or five years are required before the bird puts on its full beauty. There is no difference in the appearance of the sexes. The illustration on page 496 represents a fine old male Crested Pelican (Pelecanus cristatus). The general colour is greyish white, with a slight yellowish tint on the breast. The pouch is bright orange, and the crest is formed of curling feathers.

REPTILES.

THE TORTOISE.

Reptiles in general-Looseness of the term "creeping things"-The Tzab of the Scriptures, translated as Tortoise-Flesh and eggs of the Tortoise-Its slow movements-Hibernation dependent on temperature-The "Water-Tortoises-Their food and voracity-Their eggs-Their odour terrifying the horses-The Dhubb lizard and its legends-Its armed tail, and the use made of it-Its food, and localities which it prefers.

We now come to a different class of animated beings. We have already found that the sacred writers were very loose in their nomenclature of the mammalia and birds, and we may therefore expect to find that even greater uncertainty prevails with regard to the Reptiles. It is evident that the sacred writers classed together the "creeping things" of the earth, without troubling themselves about zoological accuracy, and that by them a lizard, a centipede, and a caterpillar would have been alike classed as belonging to the "creeping things." For example, we learn in Deut. xiv. 19 that "every creeping thing that flieth" is unclean. On referring to Levit. xi. 21, we find that the same prohibition is repeated, but with an addition that shows that the sacred writer is treating of insects under the head of "creeping things." "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

"Even these of them may ye eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

"But all other flying creeping things which have four feet shall be an abomination unto you."

As to the particular species signified by these different insects, the reader is referred to that portion of the work which treats of entomology; and it is sufficient to observe that in this passage the term "creeping things" is employed to designate insects.

If we pass to verse 42 of the same chapter, we find that among the "creeping things" the centipedes, millepedes, and very probably the caterpillars, are ranked. "Whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat, for they are an abomination.

"Ye shall not make yourselves [or, your souls] abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby."

Again, in Ps. civ. 24, 25, different orders of animals are classed under the name of creeping things: "0 Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.

"So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts." In this passage it is probable that the sacred writer classed together all the inhabitants of the sea that creep and that do not swim with fins, and that under this term are first comprised the marine turtles, and perhaps snakes. Indeed, from verses 10 and 11 of Levit. xi. it is almost certain that marine and aquatic reptiles are signified: "All that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of every living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

"They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

This prohibition also includes the whole of the molluscs, and the marine worms, or annelids.

We will take these creatures in their order, and begin with those which are classed as Reptiles by the zoologists of the present day, and which are distinguished by having a bony skeleton, breathing by means of lungs and not of gills, having a heart with two auricles and one ventricle, and the skin being covered with horny plates or scales. The first in order are those which are covered with plates, and which are known as the Chelarians, including the Tortoises and Turtles.

* * *

In Levit. xi. 29, there occurs among the list of unclean beasts a word which is translated in the Authorized Version as "tortoise." The word is Tzab, and is rendered in the Hebrew Bible as "lizard," but with the mark of doubt affixed to it. As the correct translation of the word is very dubious, we shall examine it in both these senses.

THE DHUBB AND TORTOISE.

"These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind."-Levit. xi. 29.

The common Tortoise (Testudo Gr?ca) is very common in Palestine, and is so plentiful that it would certainly have been used by the Israelites as food, had it not been prohibited by law. At the present day it is cooked and eaten by the inhabitants of the country who are not Jews, and its eggs are in as great request as those of the fowl.

These eggs are hard, nearly spherical, thick-shelled, and covered with minute punctures, giving them a roughness like that of a file. In captivity the Tortoise is very careless about the mode in which they are deposited, and I have seen a large yard almost covered with eggs laid by Tortoises and abandoned. The white or albumen of the egg is so stiff and gelatinous that to empty one of them without breaking the shell is a difficult task, and the yolk is very dark, and covered with minute spots of black. When fresh the eggs are as good as those of the fowl, and many persons even think them better; the only drawback being that their small size and thick shell cause considerable trouble in eating them.

The flesh of the Tortoise is eaten, not only by human beings, but by birds, such as the l?mmergeier. In order to get at the flesh of the Tortoise, they carry it high in the air and drop it on the ground so as to break the shell to pieces, should the reptile fall on a stone or rock. If, as is not often the case in such a rocky land as that of Palestine, it should fall on a soft spot, the bird picks it up, soars aloft, and drops it again.

The Tortoises have no teeth, but yet are able to crop the herbage with perfect ease. In lieu of teeth the edges of the jaws are sharp-edged and very hard, so that they cut anything that comes between them like a pair of shears. Leaves that are pulpy and crisp are bitten through at once, but those that are thin, tough, and fibrous are rather torn than bitten, the Tortoise placing its feet upon them, and dragging them to pieces with its jaws. The carnivorous Tortoises have a similar habit, as we shall presently see.

This is the species from whose deliberate and slow movements the familiar metaphor of "slow as a Tortoise" was derived, and it is this species which is the hero of the popular fable of the "Hare and the Tortoise." Many of the reptiles are very slow in some things and astonishingly quick in others. Some of the lizards, for example, will at one time remain motionless for many hours together, or creep about with a slow and snail-like progress, while at others they dart from spot to spot with such rapidity that the eye can scarcely follow their movements. This however is not the case with the Tortoise, which is always slow, and, but for the defensive armour in which it is encased, would long ago have been extirpated.

During the whole of the summer months it may be seen crawling deliberately among the herbage, eating in the same deliberate style which characterises all its movements, and occasionally resting in the same spot for many hours together, apparently enjoying the warm beams of the sunshine.

As winter approaches, it slowly scrapes a deep hole in the ground, and buries itself until the following spring awakes it once more to active life. The depth of its burrow depends on the severity of the winter, for, as the cold increases, the Tortoise sinks itself more deeply into the earth.

* * *

Mention has been made of a species of Tortoise that inhabits the water. This is the Caspian Emys (Emys caspica), a small species, measuring about six inches in length. It belongs to the large family of the Terrapins, several of which are so well known in America, and has a long, retractile neck, very sharp jaws, and webbed feet, and a well-developed tail.

The body is flattish, and the colour is olive, with lines of yellow edged with black, and the head is marked with longitudinal streaks of bright yellow. After the death of the creature these yellow streaks fade away gradually, and at last become nearly black. The skin of the head is thin, but very hard. In general appearance it is not unlike the chicken Tortoise of America, a species which is often brought to England and kept in captivity, on account of its hardy nature and the little trouble which is needed for keeping it in health.

I have kept specimens of the Caspian Emys for some time, and found them to be more interesting animals than they at first promised to be. They were active, swimming with considerable speed, and snatching quickly at anything which they fancied might be food.

They were exceedingly voracious, consuming daily a quantity of meat apparently disproportioned to their size, and eating it in a manner that strongly reminded me of the mole when engaged on a piece of meat or the body of a bird or mouse. The Tortoise would plant its fore-paws firmly at each side of the meat, seize a mouthful in its jaws, and, by retracting its head violently, would tear away the piece which it had grasped.

They are most destructive among fish, and are apt to rise quietly underneath a fish as it basks near the surface of the water, grasp it beneath with its sharp-edged jaws, and tear away the piece, leaving the fish to die. It is rather remarkable that the Lepidosiren, or mud-fish of the Gambia, destroys fish in a precisely similar manner, though, as its jaws are much sharper than those of the Emys, it does not need the aid of fore-paws in biting out its mouthful of flesh.

Like the land Tortoise, it is one of the hibernators, and during the winter months buries itself deeply in the earth, choosing for this purpose the soft, muddy bed or bank of the pond in which it lives. Its eggs are white, and hard-shelled, but are more oval than those of the land Tortoise, and both ends are nearly alike. In fact, its egg might well be mistaken for that of a small pigeon. The shell has a porcelain-like look, and is very liable to crack, so that the resemblance is increased.

There is one drawback to these reptiles when kept as pets. They give out a very unpleasant odour, which is disagreeable to human nostrils, but is absolutely terrifying to many animals. The monkey tribe have the strongest objection to these aquatic Tortoises. I once held one of them towards a very tame chimpanzee, much to his discomfiture. He muttered and remonstrated, and retreated as far as he could, pushing out his lips in a funnel-like form, and showing his repugnance to the reptile in a manner that could not be mistaken.

Horses seem to be driven almost frantic with terror, not only by the sight, but by the odour of these Tortoises. In Southern Africa there are Tortoises closely allied to the Caspian Emys, and having the same power of frightening horses. In "Land and Water" for February 22d, 1869, there is an account of an adventure with one of those Tortoises, called in the catalogue of the British Museum the Reddish Pelamedusa. It is of an olive colour, and, when adult, there is a slight depression on either side of the vertebral line.

"Some very awkward accidents have occurred to parties from the terror caused by the fresh-water turtle (Pelamedusa subrufa). Carts have been smashed to fragments, riders thrown, and the utmost confusion caused by them. It is their smell, and it is certainly very disagreeable.

"My first acquaintance with the fact was in this wise. I was out shooting with two young ladies who had volunteered as markers; and, as you know, all our shooting is done from horseback. I had jumped off for a shot at some francolins near a knill, or water-hole, and, after picking up my birds, was coming round the knill to windward of the horses. In my path scrambled a turtle. I called out to my young friends, and told them of my find, on which one of them, in a hasty voice, said, 'Oh, please, Mr. L., don't touch it; you will frighten the horses!'

"Of course I laughed at the idea, and picked up the reptile, which instantly emitted its pungent odour-its means of defence. Though a long way off, the moment the horses caught the scent, away they flew, showing terror in every action. The girls, luckily splendid riders, tugged in vain at the reins; away they went over the Veldt, leaving me in mortal fear that the yawning 'aard-vark' holes (Orycteropus capensis) would break their necks. My own horse, which I had hitched to a bush, tore away his bridle, and with the ends streaming in the wind and the stirrups clashing about him, sped off home at full gallop, and was only recovered after a severe chase by my gallant young Amazons, who, after a race of some miles, succeeded in checking their affrighted steeds and in securing my runaway. But for some hours after, if I ventured to windward, there were wild-looking eyes and cocked ears-the smell of the reptile clung to me."

Should any of my readers keep any of those water Tortoises, they will do well to supply them plentifully with food, to give them an elevated rocky perch on which they can scramble, and on which they will sit for hours so motionless that at a little distance they can scarcely be distinguished from the stone on which they rest. They should also be weighed at regular intervals, as decrease of weight is a sure sign that something is wrong, and, as a general rule, is an almost certain precursor of death.

This little reptile is not without its legends. According to the old writers on natural history, it is of exceeding use to vine-growers in the season when there is excess of rain or hail. Whenever the owner of a vineyard sees a black cloud approaching, all he has to do is, to take one of these Tortoises, lay it on its back, and carry it round the vineyard. He must then go into the middle of the ground and lay the reptile on the earth, still on its back; and the effect of this proceeding would be that the cloud would pass aside from a place so well protected.

"But," proceeds the narrator, not wishing to be responsible for the statement, "such diabolical and foolish observations were not so muche to be remembered in this place, were it not for their sillinesse, that by knowing them men might learn the weaknesse of human wisdom when it erreth from the fountain of all science and true knowledge (which is Divinity), and the most approved assertions of nature. And so I will say no more in this place of the sweet-water tortoise."

THE DHUBB.

We now come to the second animal, which may probably be the Tzab of the Old Testament.

This creature is one of the lizards, and is a very odd-looking creature. It is certainly not so attractive in appearance that the Jews might be supposed to desire it as food; but it often happens that, as is the case with the turtle and iguana, from the most ungainly, in the latter animal even repulsive, forms are produced the most delicate meats.

The Dhubb, or Egyptian Mastigure, as the lizard is indifferently called, grows to a considerable size, measuring when adult three feet in length. Its colour is green, variegated with brown, and is slightly changeable, though not to the extent that distinguishes the chameleon. The chief peculiarity of this lizard consists in its tail, which is covered with a series of whorls or circles of long, sharply-pointed, hard-edged scales. The very appearance of this tail suggests its use as a weapon of defence, and it is said that even the dreaded cerastes is conquered by it, when the lizard and the snake happen to find themselves occupants of the same hole.

The ancients had a very amusing notion respecting the use of the spiny tail possessed by the Dhubb and its kin. They had an idea that, comparatively small though it was, it fed upon cattle, and that it was able to take them from the herd and drive them to its home. For this purpose, when it had selected an ox, it jumped on its back, and by the pricking of its sharp claws drove the animal to gallop in hope of ridding himself of his tormentor. In order to guide him in the direction of its home, it made use of its tail, lashing the ox "to make him go with his rider to the place of his most fit execution, free from all rescue of his herdsman, or pastor, or the annoyance of passengers, where, in most cruel and savage manner, he teareth the limbs and parts one from another till he be devoured."

This very absurd account is headed by an illustration, which, though bad in drawing and rude in execution, is yet so bold and truthful that there is no doubt that it was sketched from the living animal.

As it haunts sandy downs, rocky spots, and similar localities, it is well adapted for the Holy Land, which is the home of a vast number of reptiles, especially of those belonging to the lizards. In the summer time they have the full enjoyment of the hot sunbeams, in which they delight, and which seem to rouse these cold-blooded creatures to action, while they deprive the higher animals of all spirit and energy. In the winter time these very spots afford localities wherein the lizards can hibernate until the following spring, and in such a case they furnish the reptiles with secure hiding-places.

Although the Dhubb does not destroy and tear to pieces oxen and other cattle, it is yet a rather bloodthirsty reptile, and will kill and devour birds as large as the domestic fowl. Usually, however, its food consists of beetles and other insects, which it takes deliberately.

Whether or not the Dhubb be the same reptile as the Tzab of the Old Testament, the resemblance between the Hebrew and Arabic words is very remarkable.

THE LEVIATHAN OR CROCODILE.

Signification of the word Leviathan-Description in the Book of Job-Structure and general habits of the Crocodile-The throat-valve and its use-Position of the nostrils-Worship of the Crocodile-The reptile known in the Holy Land-Two legends respecting its presence there-Mode of taking prey-Cunning of the Crocodile-The baboons and the Crocodile-Speed of the reptile-Eggs and young of the Crocodile, and their enemies-Curious story of the ichneumon and ibis-Modes of capturing the Crocodile-Analysis of Job's description-The Crocodile also signified by the word Tannin. Aaron's rod changed into a Tannin-Various passages in which the word occurs-Use of the word by the prophet Jeremiah.

The word Leviathan is used in a rather loose manner in the Old Testament, in some places representing a mammalian of the sea, and in others signifying a reptile inhabiting the rivers. As in the most important of these passages the Crocodile is evidently signified, we will accept that rendering, and consider the Crocodile as being the Leviathan of Scripture. The Jewish Bible accepts the word Crocodile, and does not add the mark of doubt.

The fullest account of the Leviathan occurs in Job xli., the whole of which chapter is given to the description of the terrible reptile. As the translation of the Jewish Bible differs in some points from that of the Authorized Version, I shall here give the former, so that the reader may be able to compare them with each other.

"Canst thou draw out a crocodile with a hook, or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

"Canst thou put a reed into his nose, or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

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

"Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him as a servant for ever?

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

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

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

"Lay thine hand upon him, thou wilt no more remember the battle.

"Behold, the hope of him is in vain; shall not one be cast down at the sight of him?

"None is so fierce that dare stir him up; who then is able to stand before Me?

"Who hath forestalled Me that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is Mine.

"I will not be silent of his parts, nor of the matter of his power, nor of his comely proportion.

"Who can uncover the face of his garment? who would enter the double row in his jaw?

"Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

"The strength of his shields are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

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

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

"His snortings make light to shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning dawn.

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

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

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

"The flakes of his flesh are joined together, they are firm in themselves; yea, as hard as nether millstone.

"When he raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid; by reason of breakings they lose themselves.

"The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

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

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

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

"His under parts are like sharp points of potsherd; he speaketh sharp points upon the mire.

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

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

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

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

This splendid description points as clearly to the Crocodile as the description of the Behemoth which immediately precedes it does to the hippopotamus, and it is tolerably evident that the sacred poet who wrote these passages must have been personally acquainted with both the Crocodile and the hippopotamus. In both descriptions there are a few exaggerations, or rather, poetical licences. For example, the bones of the hippopotamus are said to be iron and copper, and the Crocodile is said to kindle live coals with his breath. These, however, are but the natural imagery of an Oriental poet, and, considering the subject, we may rather wonder that the writer has not introduced even more fanciful metaphors.

* * *

Before proceeding with the Biblical portion of the history of this formidable reptile, I will mention a few points connected with the Crocodile and its kin. There are several species of Crocodile in different parts of the world, ten species at least being known to science. Some inhabit India, some tropical America, some Asia, and some Africa, so that the genus is represented in nearly all the warmer parts of the world.

They are all known by the formation of the teeth, the lower canines fitting each into a notch on the side of the upper jaw. The feet are webbed to the tips, and though the reptile mostly propels itself through the water by means of its tail, it can also paddle itself gently along by means of its feet. The teeth are all made for snatching and tearing, but not for masticating, the Crocodile swallowing its prey entire when possible; and when the animal is too large to be eaten entire, the reptile tears it to pieces, and swallows the fragments without attempting to masticate them.

In order to enable it to open its mouth under water, the back of its throat is furnished with a very simple but beautiful contrivance, whereby the water is received on a membranous valve, and, in proportion to its pressure, closes the orifice of the throat. As the Crocodiles mostly seize their prey in their open jaws and hold it under water until devoured, it is evident that without such a structure as has been described the Crocodile would be as likely to drown itself as its prey. But the throat-valve enables it to keep its mouth open while the water is effectually prevented from running down its throat, and the nostrils, placed at the end of the snout, enable it to breathe at its ease, while the unfortunate animal which it has captured is being drowned beneath the surface of the water.

This position of the nostrils serves another purpose, and enables the Crocodile to breathe while the whole of its body is under the water, and only an inch or two of the very end of the snout is above the surface. As, moreover, the Crocodile, as is the case with most reptiles, is able to exist for a considerable time without breathing, it only needs to protrude its nostrils for a few moments, and can then sink entirely beneath the water. In this way the reptile is able to conceal itself in case it should suspect danger; and as, in such instances, it dives under the herbage of the river, and merely thrusts its nose into the air among the reeds and rashes, it is evident that, in spite of its enormous size, it baffles the observation of almost every foe.

The Crocodile is one of the many animals to which divine honours were paid by the Egyptians. This we learn from several sources. Herodotus, for example, in "Euterpe," chapter 69, writes as follows: "Those who dwell about Thebes and Lake M?ris, consider them to be very sacred; and they each of them train up a Crocodile, which is taught to be quite tame; and they put crystal and gold ear-rings into their ears, and bracelets on their fore-paws; and they give them appointed and sacred food, and treat them as well as possible while alive, and when dead, they embalm them, and bury them in sacred vaults.

"But the people who dwell about the city of Elephantine eat them, not considering them as sacred."

The reasons for this worship are several. At the root of them all lies the tendency of man to respect that which he fears rather than that which he loves; and the nearer the man approaches the savage state, the more is this feeling developed. By this tendency his worship is regulated, and it will be found that when man is sufficiently advanced to be capable of worship at all, his reverence is invariably paid to the object which has the greatest terrors for him. The Crocodile, therefore, being the animal that was most dreaded by the ancient Egyptians, was accepted as the natural type of divinity.

By degrees, though the worship of the Crocodile was retained, the worshippers thought themselves obliged to find reasons for their veneration, and some of them said that they considered the Crocodile a type of divinity because it had no tongue, and was therefore an emblem of divine power, which requires no tongue wherewith to speak. "For by a mute and silent way it ascendeth, and bringeth all things mortal to a vocal justice, which speaketh in action, though not in voyce, even as all that is in the Crocodile is action and not voyce."

Some said that they reverenced the Crocodile because it laid threescore eggs and lived threescore years, this being the span of human life. Others, and these give by far the best reason, say that divine honours are paid to the Crocodile because the time of laying the eggs and hatching the young foreshows the annual rising of the Nile, on which depends the prosperity of the whole country. Still there is no doubt that, whatever explanations may have been offered by the advocates of Crocodile worship, the true reason for it was nothing but the terror inspired by the animal.

* * *

Owing to the accuracy of the description in the Book of Job, which is evidently written by one who was personally acquainted with the Crocodile, it is thought by many commentators that the writer must have been acquainted with the Nile, in which river both the Crocodile and hippopotamus are found at the present day.

It is possible, however, that the hippopotamus and the Crocodile have had at one time a much wider range than they at present enjoy. Even within the memory of man the hippopotamus has been driven further and further up the Nile by the encroachments of man. It has long been said that even at the present day the Crocodile exists in Palestine in the river which is called "Nhar Zurka," which flows from Samaria through the plains of Sharon. Several of the older writers have mentioned its existence in this river, and, since this work was commenced, the long-vexed question has been set at rest; a Crocodile, eight feet in length, having been captured in the Nhar Zurka.

In her "Domestic Life in Palestine," Miss Rogers gives an old legend by which the people account for the presence of Crocodiles in this river. Many ages ago there dwelt upon the bank of the river an old man and his two sons, the elder of whom was idle and profligate, while the younger was industrious and virtuous.

The father died, and left them each an equal share of his wealth-the flocks and herds which fed on the rich banks of the river. In process of time, the elder brother wasted all his property by riotous living and neglect, while the younger brother had greatly increased his flocks and herds, and had become a wealthy man. The elder, being jealous of his brothers prosperity, sought in his mind how to do him an injury. Accordingly, he travelled to Egypt, brought some young Crocodiles thence, and turned them into the river, hoping that they would destroy his brother's flocks as they came to drink.

Some time afterwards, he went down to the river, and, as he had been accustomed to do, descended to the water to wash, when the Crocodiles seized him, dragged him into the water, and devoured him.

This is one legend. Another states that many years ago a colony of Egyptians had settled on the bank of the Nhar Zurka, and that they, being worshippers of the Crocodile, brought some of the young from the Nile and established them in the river, which thenceforward bore the name of Nhar Zurka, or the Crocodile River. The reader will doubtless have noticed that in both these legends the Crocodile is said to be an importation from the Nile, and is not held to be indigenous to the river.

Allusion is made in the former of these two legends to the mode in which the Crocodile seizes its prey. It does not attack it openly, neither, as some have said, does it go on shore for that purpose. It watches to see whether any animal comes to drink, and then, sinking beneath the surface of the water, dives rapidly, rises unexpectedly beneath the unsuspecting victim, seizes it with a sudden snap of its huge jaws, and drags it beneath the water. Should the intended prey be too far from the water to be reached by the mouth, or so large that it may offer a successful resistance, the Crocodile strikes it a tremendous blow with its tail, and knocks it into the water. The dwellers on the Nile bank say that a large Crocodile will with a single blow of its tail break all the four legs of an ox or a horse.

THE CROCODILE, THE LEVIATHAN OF SCRIPTURE.

"Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears."-Job xli. 7.

These cunning reptiles even contrive to catch birds as they come for water. On the banks of the Nile the smaller birds drink in a very peculiar manner. They settle in numbers on the flexible branches that overhang the stream, and when, by their weight, the branch bends downwards, they dip their beaks in the water. The Crocodile sees afar off a branch thus loaded, swims as near as possible, and then dives until it can see the birds immediately above it, when it rises suddenly, and with a snap of its jaws secures a whole mouthful of the unsuspecting birds.

Sir S. Baker, in his travels on the Nile, gave much attention to the Crocodile, and has collected a great amount of interesting information about the reptile, much of which is peculiarly valuable, inasmuch as it illustrates the Scriptural notices of the creature. He states that it is a very crafty animal, and that its usual mode of attack is by first showing itself, then swimming slowly away to a considerable distance, so as to make its intended victim think that danger is over, and then returning under water. It is by means of this man?uvre that it captures the little birds. It first makes a dash at them, open-mouthed, causing them to take to flight in terror. It then sails slowly away as if it were so baffled that it did not intend to renew the attack. When it is at a considerable distance, the birds think that their enemy has departed, and return to the branch, which they crowd more than ever, and in a minute or two several dozen of them are engulfed in the mouth of the Crocodile, which has swiftly dived under them.

On one occasion, Sir S. Baker was walking near the edge of the river, when he heard a great shrieking of women on the opposite bank. It turned out that a number of women had been filling their "gerbas" (water-skins), when one of them was suddenly attacked by a large Crocodile. She sprang back, and the reptile, mistaking the filled gerba for a woman, seized it, and gave the owner time to escape. It then dashed at the rest of the women, but only succeeded in seizing another gerba.

A short time previously a Crocodile, thought by the natives to be the same individual, had seized a woman and carried her off; and another had made an attack on a man in a very curious manner. A number of men were swimming across the river, supported, after their custom, on gerbas inflated with air, when one of them felt himself seized by the leg by a Crocodile, which tried to drag him under water. He, however, retained his hold on the skin, and his companions also grasped his arms and hair with one hand, while with the other they struck with their spears at the Crocodile. At last they succeeded in driving the reptile away, and got their unfortunate companion to land, where they found that the whole of the flesh was stripped from the leg from the knee downwards. The poor man died shortly afterwards.

These crafty reptiles also try to catch the baboons by lying in wait for them at their drinking places; but the baboons are generally more than a match for the Crocodile in point of cunning and quickness of sight. Sir S. Baker witnessed an amusing example of such an attempt and its failure.

"The large tamarind-trees on the opposite bank are generally full of the dog-faced baboons (Cynocephalus) at their drinking hour. I watched a large Crocodile creep slily out of the water and lie in waiting among the rocks at the usual drinking place before they arrived, but the baboons were too wide awake to be taken in so easily.

"A young fellow was the first to discover the enemy. He had accompanied several wise and experienced old hands to the extremity of a bough that at a considerable height overhung the river; from this post they had a bird's eye view, and reconnoitred before one of the numerous party descended to drink. The sharp eyes of the young one at once detected the Crocodile, who matched in colour so well with the rocks that most probably a man would not have noticed it until too late.

"At once the young one commenced shaking the bough and screaming with all his might, to attract the attention of the Crocodile and to induce it to move. In this he was immediately joined by the whole party, who yelled in chorus, while the large old males bellowed defiance, and descended to the lowest branches within eight or ten feet of the Crocodile. It was of no use-the pretender never stirred, and I watched it until dark. It remained still in the same place, waiting for some unfortunate baboon whose thirst might provoke his fate, but not one was sufficiently foolish, although the perpendicular bank prevented them from drinking except at that particular spot."

It may be imagined that if the Crocodile were to depend entirely for its food upon the animals that it catches on the bank or in the river, it would run a risk of starving. The fact is, that its principal food consists of fish, which it can chase in the water. The great speed at which the Crocodile darts through the water is not owing to its webbed feet, but to its powerful tail, which is swept from side to side, and thus propels the reptile after the manner of a man "sculling" a boat with a single oar in the stern. The whales and the fishes have a similar mode of propulsion.

On land, the tail is the Crocodile's most formidable weapon. It is one mass of muscle and sinew, and the force of its lateral stroke is terrible, sweeping away every living thing that it may meet. Fortunately for its antagonists, the Crocodile can turn but very slowly, so that, although it can scramble along at a much faster pace than its appearance indicates, there is no great difficulty in escaping, provided that the sweep of its tail be avoided. As the Crocodile of the Nile attains when adult a length of thirty feet, one moiety of which is taken up by the tail, it may easily be imagined that the power of this weapon can scarcely be exaggerated.

As if to add to the terrors of the animal, its head, back, and tail are shielded by a series of horny scales, which are set so closely together that the sharpest spear can seldom find its way through them, and even the rifle ball glances off, if it strikes them obliquely. Like many other reptiles, the Crocodile is hatched from eggs which are laid on shore and vivified by the warmth of the sun.

These eggs are exceedingly small when compared with the gigantic lizard which deposited them, scarcely equalling in dimensions those of the goose. There is now before me an egg of the cayman of South America, a fresh-water lizard but little smaller than the Crocodile of the Nile, and this is barely equal in size to an ordinary hen's egg. It is longer in proportion to its width, but the contents of the two eggs would be as nearly as possible of the same bulk. On the exterior it is very rough, having a granulated appearance, not unlike that of dried sharkskin, and the shell is exceedingly thin and brittle. The lining membrane, however, is singularly thick and tough, so that the egg is tolerably well defended against fracture.

When first hatched, the young Crocodile is scarcely larger than a common newt, but it attains most formidable dimensions in a very short time. Twenty or thirty eggs are laid in one spot, and, were they not destroyed by sundry enemies, the Crocodiles would destroy every living creature in the rivers. Fortunately, the eggs and young have many enemies, chiefly among which is the well-known ichneumon, which discovers the place where the eggs are laid and destroys them, and eats any young Crocodiles that it can catch before they succeed in making their way to the water.

The old writers were aware of the services rendered by the ichneumon, but, after their wont, exaggerated them by additions of their own, saying that the ichneumon enters into the mouth of the Crocodile as it lies asleep, and eats its way through the body, "putting the Crocodile to exquisite and intolerable torment, while the Crocodile tumbleth to and fro, sighing and weeping, now in the depth of water, now on the land, never resting till strength of nature faileth. For the incessant gnawing of the ichneumon so provoketh her to seek her rest in the unrest of every part, herb, element, throws, throbs, rollings, but all in vain, for the enemy within her breatheth through her breath, and sporteth herself in the consumption of those vital parts which waste and wear away by yielding to unpacificable teeth, one after another, till she that crept in by stealth at the mouth, like a puny thief, comes out at the belly like a conqueror, through a passage opened by her own labour and industry."

The author has in the long passage, a part of which is here quoted, mentioned that the ichneumon takes its opportunity of entering the jaws of the Crocodile as it lies with its mouth open against the beams of the sun. It is very true that the Crocodile does sleep with its mouth open; and, in all probability, the older observers, knowing that the ichneumon did really destroy the eggs and young of the Crocodile, only added a little amplification, and made up their minds that it also destroyed the parents. The same writer who has lately been quoted ranks the ibis among the enemies of the Crocodile, and says that the bird affects the reptile with such terror that, if but an ibis's feather be laid on its back, the Crocodile becomes rigid and unable to move. The Arabs of the present time say that the water-tortoises are enemies to the eggs, scratching them out of the sand and eating them.

* * *

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

In the beginning of that description, Job is asked in irony whether he can draw out Leviathan with a hook, or bore his jaw with a thorn. This is probably in allusion, not so much to the size and strength of the Crocodile, as to its cunning. At the present time the Arabs of the Nile assert that to catch a Crocodile with a hook is impossible. Mr. Lowth suggested to his boatmen that, if a large hook were baited with meat, a Crocodile might be caught. Yusef eagerly denied the possibility of such a capture: "Him too clever-crocodile looking out of his eye so" (making a squint)-"he see everything like one man, as crocodile like man-people thinking him was one man long time, very long time."

According to Herodotus, however, the Egyptians did take the Crocodile with a hook, which they first baited with a small pig, and let into the river, and then beat another pig so as to make it scream. The Crocodile, hearing the cries of the pig, swims to seize its prey, and swallows the baited hook instead of the living pig. As soon as it is caught, the hunters draw it on shore, and when it tries to attack them, they throw sand into its eyes so as to blind it. It is remarkable that the Arab hunters of the Nile still employ sand as their best defensive weapon when they have harpooned a hippopotamus and dragged it to the bank. The animal, finding that it cannot retreat, charges into the men, who repel it by throwing sand into its eyes.

The expression "boring his jaw with a thorn" probably refers to the fishermen's universal custom of stringing together the captured fish by a twig passed through the mouth. In the late Mr. Waterton's "Wanderings" there is an account of the method employed by the natives in catching the cayman, which is the Crocodile of tropical America. A steel hook was tried and found useless, but one of the natives made in a short time an ingenious hook, composed of four sharpened wooden spikes, with which he succeeded in catching the reptile, thus literally boring its jaw with a thorn.

Allusion is made to the impenetrable character of the scale in verses 7, 15, 16, 17, and from verses 26 to 30. Verse 8 is given better in the Jewish Bible than in the Authorized Version. "Lay thine hand upon him, thou wilt no more remember the battle." The same may be said of verse 22, which is thus rendered in the Authorized Version: "In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him." The marginal reading gives the last verse as "sorrow rejoiceth." Neither of these expressions is very intelligible, but the rendering of the Jewish Bible is not only clear, but forcible. "In his neck abideth strength, and before him danceth terror."

In verse 13 the marginal translation is nearly the correct one: "Who can come to him within his double bridle?" and the Jewish Bible gives the real meaning of the passage, showing that allusion is made to the double rows of teeth in both jaws, those of the upper interlacing into those of the lower. "Who would enter the double (row) in his jaw?" this reading being carried out by the following verse: "Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about" (Jewish Bible).

The quick sight of the Crocodile is mentioned in verse 18, his eyelids being compared to the "eyes of the morning," this metaphor being further illustrated by the hieroglyphs, wherein the eye of the Crocodile is employed as the emblem of day-dawn. The impossibility of domesticating this terrible reptile is shown in verses 4 and 5: "Will he make many supplications unto thee? Will he speak soft words unto thee?

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

Allusion is evidently made to the disagreeable nature of its flesh, which is penetrated with a strong musky odour, in verse 6: "Shall the companions make a banquet of him? Shall they part him among the merchants?"

And lastly, the foam raised by the lashing of the Crocodile's mighty tail, and the wake that is left behind it as it urges itself through the water, are mentioned in verses 31 and 32.

* * *

It is not unlikely that the word Leviathan also signified any of the larger inhabitants of the waters, whether marine or reptile, and that a whale or a Crocodile would be equally called by that name. In this sense we must interpret the well-known passage, Ps. civ. 24-26:

"O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.

"So is this great and wide sea" (i.e. the Mediterranean), "wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.

"There go the ships: there is that Leviathan, whom Thou hast made to play therein." In this passage the writer points to some large inhabitant of the Mediterranean, or the Great Sea, as it is called in Scripture, to distinguish it from the Sea of Galilee, and the only creature which would answer to the allusion must be one of the larger cetacean.

* * *

We also find that the Crocodile must be signified by the Hebrew word tannin, which occurs in several parts of Scripture, and which is sometimes translated as "dragon," and sometimes as "serpent," and sometimes as "whale." For example, in Exod. vii. 10, we find the well-known passage which relates the changing of Aaron's rod into a Tannin, or serpent, as the Authorized Version translates it. The Jewish Bible, however, simply renders the word as "huge creature." Next, we come to Deut. xxxii. 33: "Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps." This passage is rendered in the Jewish Bible as "Their wine is the fury of huge creatures, and the cruel venom [or head] of asps."

The same word occurs in Job vii. 12: "Am I a sea, or a whale [tannin], that thou settest a watch over me?" We also find it in Jer. ix. 11: "And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons [tannin];" and the same image is repeated in x. 22: "Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons." The same prophet again repeats the word in xiv. 6: "The wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons."

There is nothing in any of these passages which would give any clue as to the creature that was signified by the word tannin, but we obtain a clue to it in Ezek. xxix. 2-5: "Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:

"Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

"But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and T will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales; and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales.

"And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field, and to the fowls of the heaven."

See also xxxii. 2, 3: "Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale [tannin] in the seas; and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.

"Thus saith the Lord God, I will therefore spread out my net over thee with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my net."

There is a peculiar significance in the comparison of Pharaoh to the Crocodile. It is the master and terror of the Nile, of whom all animals stand in fear. It is ravenous, crafty, fierce, and relentless, keen-eyed to espy prey, and swift to devour it. Yet, in spite of all these evil qualities, the Egyptians venerated it, pampered it, hung it with costly jewels, and paid divine honours to it, exactly as they considered their despotic sovereign as a demigod during his life, and honoured him with an apotheosis after his death.

Like the Crocodile, secure in his scaly armour, Pharaoh thought himself invincible, but, though man could not conquer him, God could do so. Man could not "put a hook into his nose, or bore his jaws through with a thorn" (Job xli. 2); but the Lord could "put hooks in his jaws, and bring him up out of the midst of his rivers, and give him for meat to the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven."

Taking also the Tannin of Exod. vii. to be the Crocodile, we see how appropriate were all the circumstances. The miracle was performed in the presence of Pharaoh, who is afterwards spoken of under the emblem of the "dragon (tannin) that lieth in the midst of the river." The rod of the future high priest of the Lord was changed into the Crocodile, which was worshipped by the Egyptian priests and magicians; and when they imitated the miracle, Aaron's rod swallowed up those of the heathen in token that the Lord would destroy idolatry.

It is worthy of mention here that, although in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, the rods of both Moses and Aaron are mentioned as having been changed into serpents, the words which are translated as serpents are different. The rod of Aaron, the priest, was turned into a Tannin, i.e. Crocodile; that of Moses, the lawgiver, into a Nachash or serpent.

There is one passage which seems to imply that the word tannin may signify a cetacean. It occurs in Lam. iv. 3: "Even the sea-monsters [tannin] draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones." If the sacred writers were aware that the cetaceans were mammals and suckled their young, and that the Crocodile left its offspring to find food for themselves, there would be no doubt on the subject. But it is not at all likely that the Prophet Jeremiah, his soul torn by the crimes of his country and the calamities which he foresaw, persecuted by his own people, his life endangered by the forebodings that he was compelled to utter, imprisoned, exiled, and at last dying in a strange land, would have been versed in natural history, or would have troubled himself to inquire as to the manner in which the young of the Crocodile were fed. The sense of the passage is plain enough, and contains a rebuke to the people in that they neglect their children, and were worse than the ferocious inhabitants of the water, as we shall see on reading the whole of the passage: "Even the sea-monster draws out the breast; they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

"The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst; the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them."

THE LETH OR LIZARD.

Difficulty of identifying the Letaah-Probability that it is a collective and not a specific term-Various Lizards of Palestine-The Green or Jersey Lizard-The Cyprius, its appearance and habits-The Glass Snake or Scheltopusic-Translation of the word chomet-Probability that it signifies the Skink-Medicinal uses of the Lizard-The Seps tribe-The common Cicigna, and the popular belief concerning its habits-The Sph?nops and its shallow tunnel.

In Leviticus xi. 30, the word Lizard is used as the rendering of the Hebrew word letaah (pronounced as L'tah-ah). There are one or two difficulties about the word, but, without going into the question of etymology, which is beside the object of this work, it will be sufficient to state that the best authorities accept the rendering, and that in the Jewish Bible the word Lizard is retained, but with the mark of doubt appended to it.

In all probability, the sacred lawgiver employs the word letaah as a general term; so that, although he prohibits certain Lizards by name, as having been used for food by the various nations with whom the Israelites were necessarily brought in contact during their captivity, their wanderings, and their final conquest of Palestine, he implies that the whole of the Lizard tribe are to be considered as unfit to be eaten by the chosen people.

We shall presently examine some of those which are prohibited by name, and it will be sufficient in the present case to glance at the Lizard tribes of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria.

These lands absolutely swarm with Lizards. Even in our own country, Lizards are far more common than is generally known. I have caused the greatest surprise in an agricultural county by catching and showing to the field-labourers the common Scaly Lizard (Zootoca vivipara). The little reptile was exceedingly plentiful, and yet not one of the labourers, nor even their employers, had seen it.

In warmer parts of the earth, the Lizards are so numerous and so comparatively large that they force themselves upon the notice. For example, the well-known Green or Jersey Lizard (Lacerta viridis) is exceedingly plentiful, and may be seen darting among the leaves in search of prey, after the erratic manner of Lizards generally, which will remain absolutely motionless for hours together, then whisk about so rapidly that the eye can scarcely follow their movements, and subside into quiescence as suddenly as they started from it.

THE CYPRIUS, OR LIZARD OF SCRIPTURE.

"And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole."-Levit. xi. 30.

In many parts of the world, especially in France, where the terror inspired by nearly all reptiles is really ludicrous, this beautiful and harmless creature is feared as if it were a venomous serpent, and, to judge from experience, I doubt whether a cobra or a rattlesnake would excite more horror than a Green Lizard.

* * *

A very common species of Lizard, and therefore likely to be one of those which are grouped under the common name of Letaah, is the Cyprius (Plestiodon auratum). This handsome Lizard is golden-yellow in colour, beautifully spotted with orange and scarlet, and may be distinguished, even when the colours have fled after death, by the curiously formed ears, which are strongly toothed in front. It is very plentiful in Palestine, and, like others of its kin, avoids cultivated tracts, and is generally found on rocky and sandy soil which cannot be tilled. It is active, and, if alarmed, hides itself quickly in the sand or under stones.

It belongs to the great family of the Skinks, many of which, like the familiar blind-worm of our own country, are without external legs, and, though true Lizards, progress in a snake-like manner, and are generally mistaken for snakes. One of these is the Glass Snake or Scheltopusic (Pseudopus pallasii), which has two very tiny hind legs, but which is altogether so snake-like that it is considered by the natives to be really a serpent. They may well be excused for their error, as the only external indications of limbs are a pair of slightly-projecting scales at the place where the hind legs would be in a fully-developed Lizard.

Though tolerably plentiful, the Scheltopusic is not very often seen, as it is timid and wary, and, when it suspects danger, glides away silently into some place of safety. When adult, the colour of this Lizard is usually chestnut, profusely mottled with black or deep brown, the edge of each scale being of the darker colour. It feeds upon insects and small reptiles, and has been known to devour a nest full of young birds.

* * *

In Levit. xi. 30 is a Hebrew word, chomet, which is given in the Authorized Version as Snail. There is, however, no doubt that the word is wrongly translated, and that by it some species of Lizard is signified. The Jewish Bible follows the Authorized Version, but affixes the mark of doubt to the word. There is another word, shablul, which undoubtedly does signify the snail, and will be mentioned in its proper place.

It is most probable that the word chomet includes, among other Lizards, many of the smaller Skinks which inhabit Palestine. Among them we may take as an example the Common Skink (Scincus officinalis), a reptile which derives its specific name from the fact that it was formerly used in medicine, together with mummy, and the other disgusting ingredients which formed the greater part of the old Pharmacop?ia.

Even at the present day, it is used for similar purposes in the East, and is in consequence captured for the use of physicians, the body being simply dried in the sun, and then sent to market for sale. It is principally employed for the cure of sunstroke, nettle-rash, sand-blindness, or fever, and both patient and physician have the greatest confidence in its powers. It is said by some European physicians that the flesh of the Skink really does possess medicinal powers, and that it has fallen into disrepute chiefly because those powers have been exaggerated. In former days, the head and feet were thought to possess the greatest efficacy, and were valued accordingly.

Like all its tribe, the Skink loves sandy localities, the soil exactly suiting its peculiar habits. Although tolerably active, it does not run so fast or so far as many other Lizards, and, when alarmed, it has a peculiar faculty for sinking itself almost instantaneously under the sand, much after the fashion of the shore-crabs of our own country. Indeed, it is even more expeditious than the crab, which occupies some little time in burrowing under the wet and yielding sand, whereas the Skink slips beneath the dry and comparatively hard sand with such rapidity that it seems rather to be diving into a nearly excavated burrow than to be scooping a hollow for itself.

The sand is therefore a place of safety to the Skink, which does not, like the crab, content itself with merely burying its body just below the surface, but continues to burrow, sinking itself in a few seconds to the depth of nearly a yard.

The length of the Skink is about eight inches, and its very variable colour is generally yellowish brown, crossed with several dark bands. Several specimens, however, are spotted instead of banded with brown, while some are banded with white, and others are spotted with white. In all, however, the under-surface is silver grey.

* * *

It has been thought by several zoologists, that several of the Lizards belonging to the Seps family may be included in the general term of Chomet.

This theory is strengthened by the fact that those of the Sepsid? which have no visible feet, and which, after the custom of such Lizards, burrow in the sand, are even at the present day eaten by Arabs, under the convenient title of Sand-fishes.

Several species of the Sepsid? inhabit Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, and of these we will take two as examples.

The first is the Common Seps or Cicigna (Seps tridactylis), a nearly legless Lizard, having a very long and snake-like body, and four legs, so small and feeble as to be of scarcely any use in locomotion.

It bears some resemblance to the blindworm of England, feeds on much the same diet, and has similar habits. It is perfectly harmless, its teeth being too small, and its jaws too feeble, to hurt any creature larger than those on which it feeds; but, like the blindworm, it is much dreaded by the ignorant, who believe that it steals upon horses and other cattle by night, and bites them as they sleep.

Like other Lizards of its kind, it is one of the sand-lovers, burying itself when it suspects danger.

* * *

The second example of the Sepsid? is one that has its chief home in Egypt. This is the Capistrated Sph?nops (Sph?nops sepsoides). This reptile is also a burrower, but does not sink so deeply into the sand as those Lizards which have just been noticed. Indeed, it scarcely burrows deeply enough to cover it, so that with the foot the sand may be scraped off, and the reptile discovered.

Sometimes it has recourse to a substitute for a tunnel, and will crawl along the deep rut made by a cart-wheel rather than take the trouble of excavating a passage for itself. In consequence of this peculiarity, it may generally be found in any ridged ground, such as that which is employed in the cultivation of rice and other grain, and, as it prefers to follow the course of the ridges rather than leave them, it may be taken without much trouble. It is perfectly harmless, and, although when taken it struggles violently to escape, it never employs its teeth on the hand that holds it. The colour of the Sph?nops is pale brown, diversified with a black stripe on either side of the muzzle, and a longitudinal series of black dots along the body. The tail is conical and pointed.

THE CHAMELEON, MONITOR, AND GECKO.

Translation of the word Koach-Signification of the word, and its applicability to the Chameleon-Power of the reptile's grasp-The prehensile tail-Demeanour of the Chameleon on the ground-The independent eyes-Its frequent change of colour-Mode of taking prey-Strange notions respecting the Chameleon-The Monitor, or Land Crocodile-Its habits and use to mankind-The Nilotic Monitor, and its habit of destroying the eggs and young of the Crocodile-The Gecko or Ferret of Scripture.

In Levit. xi. 30 there occurs a word which has caused great trouble to commentators. The word is koach (pronounced as a dissyllable thus, ko-ach). Primarily, it signifies power and strength, but in this passage it signifies the name of some creature which is included in the list of unclean beasts. There is very little doubt that it signifies some species of lizard, and in the Authorized Version it is rendered as Chameleon. The Jewish Bible accepts the same translation, but appends to it the mark of doubt.

There are two lizards to which the term may possibly be applied-namely, the Chameleon and the Monitor; and, as the Authorized Version of the Scriptures accepts the former interpretation, we will first describe the Chameleon.

* * *

This reptile is very plentiful in the Holy Land, as well as in Egypt, so that the Israelites would be perfectly familiar with it, both during their captivity and after their escape. It is but a small reptile, and the reader may well ask why a name denoting strength should be given to it. I think that we may find the reason for its name in the extraordinary power of its grasp, as it is able, by means of its peculiarly-formed feet and prehensile tail, to grasp the branches so tightly that it can scarcely be removed without damage.

I once saw six or seven Chameleons huddled up together, all having clasped each other's legs and tails so firmly that they formed a bundle that might be rolled along the ground without being broken up. In order to show the extraordinary power of the Chameleon's grasp, I have had a figure drawn from a sketch taken by myself from a specimen which I kept for several months.

GECKO AND CHAMELEON.

"And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole."-Levit. xi. 30.

When the Chameleon wished to pass from one branch to another, it used to hold firmly to the branch by the tail and one hind-foot, and stretch out its body nearly horizontally, feeling about with the other three feet, as if in search of a convenient resting-place. In this curious attitude it would remain for a considerable time, apparently suffering no inconvenience, though even the spider-monkey would have been unable to maintain such an attitude for half the length of time.

The strength of the grasp is really astonishing when contrasted with the size of the reptile, as any one will find who allows the Chameleon to grasp his finger, or who tries to detach it from the branch to which it is clinging. The feet are most curiously made. They are furnished with five toes, which are arranged like those of parrots and other climbing birds, so as to close upon each other like the thumb and finger of a human hand. They are armed with little yellow claws, slightly curved and very sharp, and when they grasp the skin of the hand they give it an unpleasantly sharp pinch.

The tail is as prehensile as that of the spider-monkey, to which the Chameleon bears a curious resemblance in some of its attitudes, though nothing can be more different than the volatile, inquisitive, restless disposition of the spider-monkey and the staid, sober demeanour of the Chameleon. The reptile has the power of guiding the tail to any object as correctly as if there were an eye at the end of the tail. When it has been travelling over the branches of trees, I have often seen it direct its tail to a projecting bud, and grasp it as firmly as if the bud had been before and not behind it.

Sometimes, when it rests on a branch, it allows the tail to hang down as a sort of balance, the tip coiling and uncoiling unceasingly. But, as soon as the reptile wishes to move, the tail is tightened to the branch, and at once coiled round it. There really seems to be almost a separate vitality and consciousness on the part of the tail, which glides round an object as if it were acting with entire independence of its owner.

On the ground the Chameleon fares but poorly. Its walk is absolutely ludicrous, and an experienced person might easily fail to identify a Chameleon when walking with the same animal on a branch. It certainly scrambles along at a tolerable rate, but it is absurdly awkward, its legs sprawling widely on either side, and its feet grasping futilely at every step. The tail, which is usually so lithe and nimble, is then held stiffly from the body, with a slight curve upwards.

The eyes are strange objects, projecting far from the head, and each acting quite independently of the other, so that one eye may often be directed forwards, and the other backwards. The eyeballs are covered with a thick wrinkled skin, except a small aperture at the tip, which can be opened and closed like our own eyelids.

The changing colour of the Chameleon has been long known, though there are many mistaken ideas concerning it.

The reptile does not necessarily assume the colour of any object on which it is placed, but sometimes takes a totally different colour. Thus, if my Chameleon happened to come upon any scarlet substance, the colour immediately became black, covered with innumerable circular spots of light yellow. The change was so instantaneous that, as it crawled on the scarlet cloth, the colour would alter, and the fore-part of the body would be covered with yellow spots, while the hinder parts retained their dull black. Scarlet always annoyed the Chameleon, and it tried to escape whenever it found itself near any substance of the obnoxious hue.

The normal colour was undoubtedly black, with a slight tinge of grey. But in a short time the whole creature would become a vivid verdigris green, and, while the spectator was watching it, the legs would become banded with rings of bright yellow, and spots and streaks of the same colour would appear on the head and body.

When it was excited either by anger or by expectation-as, for example, when it heard a large fly buzzing near it-the colours were singularly beautiful, almost exactly resembling in hue and arrangement those of the jaguar. Of all the colours, green seemed generally to predominate, but the creature would pass so rapidly from one colour to another that it was scarcely possible to follow the various gradations of hue.

Some persons have imagined that the variation of colour depends on the wants and passions of the animal. This is not the case. The change is often caused by mental emotion, but is not dependent on it; and I believe that the animal has no control whatever over its colour. The best proof of this assertion may be found in the fact that my own Chameleon changed colour several times after its death; and, indeed, as long as I had the dead body before me, changes of hue were taking place.

The food of the Chameleon consists of insects, mostly flies, which it catches by means of its tongue, which can be protruded to an astonishing distance. The tongue is nearly cylindrical, and is furnished at the tip with a slight cavity, which is filled with a very glutinous secretion. When the Chameleon sees a fly or other insect, it gently protrudes the tongue once or twice, as if taking aim, like a billiard-player with his cue, and then, with a moderately smart stroke, carries off the insect on the glutinous tip of the tongue. The force with which the Chameleon strikes is really wonderful. My own specimen used to look for flies from my hand, and at first I was as much surprised with the force of the blow struck by the tongue as I was with the grasping power of the feet.

Among the wild legends with which the earlier naturalists adorned their accounts of all animals with which they were not personally familiar, those of the Chameleon are not the least curious. "Themselves," writes Topsel, an author of the sixteenth century, "are very gentle, never exasperated but when they are about wilde fig-trees.

"They have for their enemies the serpent, the crow, and the hawk. When the hungry serpent doth assault them, they defend themselves in this manner, as Alexander Mindius writeth. They take in their mouths a broad and strong stalk, under protection of which, as under a buckler, they defend themselves against their enemy the serpent, by reason that the stalk is broader than the serpent can gripe in his mouth, and the other parts of the cham?leon so firm and hard as the serpent cannot hurt them: he laboureth but in vain to get a prey, so long as the stalk is in the cham?leon's mouth.

"But if the cham?leon at any time see a serpent taking the air, and sunning himself under some green tree, he climbeth up into that tree, and setteth himself directly over the serpent; then out of his mouth he casteth a thread, like a spider, at the end of which hangeth a drop of poyson as bright as any pearl; by this string he letteth down the poyson upon the serpent, which, lighting upon it, killeth it immediately.

"And Scaliger reporteth a greater wonder than this in the description of the cham?leon; for he saith, if the boughs of the tree so grow as the perpendicular line cannot fall directly upon the serpent, then he so correcteth and guideth it with his fore-feet that it falleth upon the serpent within the mark of a hair's breadth.

"The raven and the crow are also at variance with the cham?leon, and so great is the adverse nature betwixt these twain, that if the crow eat of the cham?leon being slain by him, he dyeth for it except he recover his life by a bay-leaf, even as the elephant, after he hath devoured a cham?leon, saveth his life by eating of the wilde olive-tree.

"But the greatest wonder of all is the hostility which Pliny reporteth to be betwixt the cham?leon and the hawk. For he writeth that when a hawk flyeth over a cham?leon, she hath no power to resist the cham?leon, but falleth down before it, yeelding both her life and her limbs to be devoured by it, and thus that devourer that liveth upon the prey and blood of others hath no power to save her own life from this little beast."

It may here be remarked that the frog was said to save itself from the water-ducks by seizing a stick crosswise in its mouth, so that when the duck came to seize its prey, the stick came across the angles of the jaws, and prevented the frog from being swallowed.

* * *

So much for the Chameleon. We will now take the Nilotic Monitor (Hydrosaurus niloticus) and the Land Monitor (Psammosaurus scincus), the other reptiles which have been conjectured to be the real representatives of the Koach.

These lizards attain to some size, the former sometimes measuring six feet in length, and the latter but a foot or so less. Of the two, the Land Monitor, being the more common, both in Palestine and Egypt, has perhaps the best claim to be considered as the Koach of Scripture. It is sometimes called the Land Crocodile. It is a carnivorous animal, feeding upon other reptiles and the smaller mammalia, and is very fond of the eggs of the crocodile, which it destroys in great numbers, and is in consequence much venerated by the inhabitants of the country about the Nile.

The theory that this reptile may be the Koach of Leviticus is strengthened by the fact that even at the present day it is cooked and eaten by the natives, whereas the chameleon is so small and bony that scarcely any one would take the trouble of cooking it.

The Nilotic Monitor shares the same habit of devouring crocodiles' eggs, and consequently shares the respect of those who are endangered by the crocodile. It even eats the young crocodiles after they are hatched, chasing them through the water, and capturing them by means of its superior swiftness. It may be distinguished from the Land Monitor by the elevated keel which runs along the whole of the spine from the neck to the very end of the long tail. The general colour of the Nilotic Monitor is olive-grey, mottled with black. On the back of the neck are a series of curved bands of a whitish yellow.

It is mentioned on page 69, that the word anakah, which is translated as "ferret" in Levit. xi. 30, is certainly a lizard, and in all probability is one of the Geckos. I have therefore introduced into the same illustration on page 535 the commonest species of Gecko found in Palestine. The reader will observe the flat, fan-like expansions at the ends of the toes, by which it is able to adhere to flat surfaces.

SERPENTS.

Serpents in general-Signification of the Hebrew word Nachash-Various passages in which the Nachash is mentioned-The fiery Serpents of the wilderness-Explanation of the words "flying" and "fiery" as applied to Serpents-Haunts of the Serpent-The Cobra, or Asp of Scripture-Meaning of the word Pethen-The deaf Adder that stoppeth her ear-Serpent-charming in the East-Principle on which the charmers work-Sluggishness of the Serpent nature-Ceremony of initiation into Serpent-charming-Theories respecting the deaf Adder-Luis of Grenada's sermon-The Cerastes, or Horned Serpent-Appearance and habits of the reptile-The "Adder in the path."

As we have seen that so much looseness of nomenclature prevailed among the Hebrews even with regard to the mammalia, birds, and lizards, we can but expect that the names of the Serpents will be equally difficult to identify.

No less than seven names are employed in the Old Testament to denote some species of Serpent; but there are only two which can be identified with any certainty, four others being left to mere conjecture, and one being clearly a word which, like our snake or serpent, is a word not restricted to any particular species, but signifying Serpents in general. This word is nachash (pronounced nah-kahsh). It is unfortunate that the word is so variously translated in different passages of Scripture, and we cannot do better than to follow it through the Old Testament, so as to bring all the passages under our glance.

The first mention of the Nachash occurs in Gen. iii., in the well-known passage where the Serpent is said to be more subtle than all the beasts of the field, the wisdom or subtlety of the Serpent having evidently an allegorical and not a categorical signification. We find the same symbolism employed in the New Testament, the disciples of our Lord being told to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Allusion is made to the gliding movement of the Serpent tribe in Prov. xxx. 19. On this part of the subject little need be said, except that the movements of the Serpent are owing to the mobility of the ribs, which are pushed forward in succession and drawn back again, so as to catch against any inequality of the ground. This power is increased by the structure of the scales. Those of the upper part of the body, which are not used for locomotion, are shaped something like the scales of a fish; but those of the lower part of the body, which come in contact with the ground, are broad belts, each overlapping the other, and each connected with one pair of ribs.

When, therefore, the Serpent pushes forward the ribs, the edges of the scaly belts will catch against the slightest projection, and are able to give a very powerful impetus to the body. It is scarcely possible to drag a snake backwards over rough ground; while on a smooth surface, such as glass, the Serpent would be totally unable to proceed. This, however, was not likely to have been studied by the ancient Hebrews, who were among the most unobservant of mankind with regard to details of natural history: it is, therefore, no wonder that the gliding of the Serpent should strike the writer of the proverb in question as a mystery which he could not explain.

The poisonous nature of some of the Serpents is mentioned in several passages of Scripture; and it will be seen that the ancient Hebrews, like many modern Europeans, believed that the poison lay in the forked tongue. See, for example, Ps. lviii. 4: "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent" (nachash). Also Prov. xxiii. 32, in which the sacred writer says of wine that it brings woe, sorrow, contentions, wounds without cause, redness of eyes, and that "at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."

COBRA AND CERASTES, THE ASP AND ADDER OF SCRIPTURE.

"They are like the deaf asp (marginal translation) that stoppeth her ear, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely."-Ps. lviii. 4, 5.

"Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path."-Gen. xlix. 17.

The idea that the poison of the Serpent lies in the tongue is seen in several passages of Scripture. "They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips" (Ps. cxl. 3). Also in Job xx. 16, the sacred writer says of the hypocrite, that "he shall suck the poison of asps: the viper's tongue shall slay him."

As to the fiery Serpents of the wilderness, it is scarcely needful to mention that the epithet of "fiery" does not signify that the Serpents in question produced real fire from their mouths, but that allusion is made to the power and virulence of their poison, and to the pain caused by their bite. We ourselves naturally employ a similar metaphor, and speak of a "burning pain," of a "fiery trial," of "hot anger," and the like.

The epithet of "flying" which is applied to these Serpents is explained by the earlier commentators as having reference to a Serpent which they called the Dart Snake, and which they believed to lie in wait for men and to spring at them from a distance. They thought that this snake hid itself either in hollows of the ground or in trees, and sprang through the air for thirty feet upon any man or beast that happened to pass by.

"And surely if it be lawful to conjecture what kinds of Serpents those were which in the Scripture were called Fiery Serpents, and did sting the Israelites to death in the Wildernesse, until the Brazen Serpent was erected for their cure; among all the Serpents in the world, that kind of death and pain can be ascribed to none more properly than to these Cafezati, or Red-dart Serpents.

"For first, the Wildernesse, which was the place wherein they annoyed the people, doth very well agree to their habitation. Secondly, the Fiery Serpents are so called by figure, not that they are fiery, but, as all Writers do agree, either because they were red like fire; or else because the pain which they inflicted did burn like fire, or rather for both these causes together, which are joyntly and severally found in these Red Serpents. And therefore I will conclude for my opinion, that these Serpents (as the highest poyson in nature) were sent by God to afflict the sinning Israelites, whose poyson was uncurable, except by Divine miracle."

The places in which the Serpent is accustomed to lie are mentioned in various portions of the Old Testament. The habit of lying in hedges is mentioned in Ecclesiastes. "He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him" (Eccles. x. 8). The Prophet Amos alludes to its custom of haunting the walls of houses (see v. 18, 19): "The day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

"As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him." This passage refers also to the ordinary architecture of the East, the walls of common houses, such as those with which a herdman like Amos would be most familiar, being little more than hurdles covered with mud. Such walls would soon fall into disrepair, and would be full of holes, in which spiders, centipedes, lizards, and serpents hide themselves.

* * *

We will now take the various species of Serpents mentioned in the Bible, as nearly as they can be identified.

Of one species there is no doubt whatever. This is the Cobra (Naja haje), a serpent which is evidently signified by the Hebrew word pethen.

There are several passages in which this word occurs, nearly all of which contain some allusion to its poisonous nature, and one of them mentioning a characteristic which settles its identity beyond doubt.

In the very beginning of the Scriptural books we find a reference to the Pethen. The first occurs in Deut. xxxii. 33: "Their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

"Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps" (pethenim).

Next we come to the passage in Job xx. 14-16: "Yet his meat in his bowels is turned, it is the gall of asps (pethenim) within him.

"He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again: God shall cast them out of his belly.

"He shall suck the poison of asps (pethenim): the viper's (epheh) tongue shall slay him."

These passages clearly indicate the venomous nature of the Pethen, and there is another which occurs in Isaiah, in which the same quality is inferred though not directly stated. It occurs in chap. xi., which is devoted to a prophecy of the spiritual reign of the Messiah, and in which is found that allusion to Himself which our Lord quoted in the Temple (see ver. 2). The passage with which we have now to do occurs in verse 8: "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp (pethen), and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."

We may also find a passage in the Psalms, in which the Pethen is classed with the lion as being equally to be dreaded by the traveller. "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder (pethen), the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

All these passages agree in one point, namely, that the Pethen is a creature the bite of which is exceedingly venomous, but there is nothing in them to assist us in identifying it. The Pethen may be, as far as these passages are concerned, any kind of venomous Serpent. But there is just one allusion to the Pethen which enables us to decide at once as to its identity. It occurs in Ps. lviii. 3-5: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

"Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder (pethen) that stoppeth her ear;

"Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely." The last verse is rendered rather differently in the Jewish Bible: "Which will not hearken to the voice of whisperers, the cunning master of charms."

Here we have a clue to the identification of the Pethen. It is evidently a Serpent that was accustomed to be subjected to the action of charmers; and as we find that in the olden times and at the present day the cobra, a most venomous Serpent, was and is tamed by professional charmers, there is no doubt that the Egyptian cobra is the Pethen of Scripture. I say the Egyptian cobra, because there is a closely allied species, the cobra of India (Naja tripudians), which very much resembles the Naja haje, and which is also tamed by serpent-charmers. A passing allusion to this custom in taming Serpents is made by St. James in his General Epistle, chap. iii. 7: "For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind:

"But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."

How the serpent-charmers perform their feats is not very intelligible. That they handle the most venomous Serpents with perfect impunity is evident enough, and it is also clear that they are able to produce certain effects upon the Serpents by means of musical (or unmusical) sounds. But these two items are entirely distinct, and one does not depend upon the other.

In the first place, the handling of venomous snakes has been performed by Englishmen without the least recourse to any arts except that of acquaintance with the habits of Serpents. The late Mr. Waterton, for example, would take up a rattlesnake in his bare hand without feeling the least uneasy as to the behaviour of his prisoner. He once took twenty-seven rattlesnakes out of a box, carried them into another room, put them into a large glass case, and afterwards replaced them in the box. He described to me the manner in which he did it, using my wrist as the representative of the Serpent.

The nature of all Serpents is rather peculiar, and is probably owing to the mode in which the blood circulates. They are extremely unwilling to move, except when urged by the wants of nature, and will lie coiled up for many hours together when not pressed by hunger. Consequently, when touched, their feeling is evidently like that of a drowsy man, who only tries to shake off the object which may rouse him, and composes himself afresh to sleep.

A quick and sudden movement would, however, alarm the reptile, which would strike in self-defence, and, sluggish as are its general movements, its stroke is delivered with such lightning rapidity that it would be sure to inflict its fatal wound before it was seized. If, therefore, Mr. Waterton saw a Serpent which he desired to catch, he would creep very quietly up to it, and with a gentle, slow movement place his fingers round its neck just behind the head. If it happened to be coiled up in such a manner that he could not get at its neck, he had only to touch it gently until it moved sufficiently for his purpose.

When he had once placed his hand on the Serpent, it was in his power. He would then grasp it very lightly indeed, and raise it gently from the ground, trusting that the reptile would be more inclined to be carried quietly than to summon up sufficient energy to bite. Even if it had tried to use its fangs, it could not have done so as long as its captor's fingers were round its neck.

As a rule, a great amount of provocation is needed before a venomous Serpent will use its teeth. One of my friends, when a boy, caught a viper, mistaking it for a common snake. He tied it round his neck, coiled it on his wrist by way of a bracelet, and so took it home, playing many similar tricks with it as he went. After arrival in the house, he produced the viper for the amusement of his brothers and sisters, and, after repeating his performances, tried to tie the snake in a double knot. This, however, was enough to provoke the most pacific of creatures, and in consequence he received a bite on his finger.

There is no doubt that the snake-charmers trust chiefly to this sluggish nature of the reptile, but they certainly go through some ceremonies by which they believe themselves to be rendered impervious to snake-bites. They will coil the cobra round their naked bodies, they will irritate the reptile until it is in a state of fury; they will even allow it to bite them, and yet be none the worse for the wound. Then, as if to show that the venomous teeth have not been abstracted, as is possibly supposed to be the case, they will make the cobra bite a fowl, which speedily dies from the effects of the poison.

Even if the fangs were extracted, the Serpents would lose little of their venomous power. These reptiles are furnished with a whole series of fangs in different stages of development, so that when the one in use is broken or shed in the course of nature, another comes forward and fills its place. There is now before me a row of four fangs, which I took from the right upper jawbone of a viper caught in the New Forest.

In her interesting "Letters from Egypt," Lady Duff-Gordon gives an amusing account of the manner in which she was formally initiated into the mysteries of snake-charming, and made ever afterwards impervious to the bite of venomous Serpents:-

"At Kóm Omboo, we met with a Rifáee darweesh with his basket of tame snakes. After a little talk, he proposed to initiate me: and so we sat down and held hands like people marrying. Omar [her attendant] sat behind me, and repeated the words as my 'wakeel.' Then the Rifáee twisted a cobra round our joined hands, and requested me to spit on it; he did the same, and I was pronounced safe and enveloped in snakes. My sailors groaned, and Omar shuddered as the snakes put out their tongues; the darweesh and I smiled at each other like Roman augurs."

She believed that the snakes were toothless; and perhaps on this occasion they may have been so. Extracting the teeth of the Serpent is an easy business in experienced hands, and is conducted in two ways. Those snake-charmers who are confident of their own powers merely grasp the reptile by the neck, force open its jaws with a piece of stick, and break off the fangs, which are but loosely attached to the jaw. Those who are not so sure of themselves irritate the snake, and offer it a piece of cloth, generally the corner of their mantle, to bite. The snake darts at it, and, as it seizes the garment, the man gives the cloth a sudden jerk, and so tears away the fangs.

Still, although some of the performers employ mutilated snakes, there is no doubt that others do not trouble themselves to remove the fangs of the Serpents, but handle with impunity the cobra or the cerastes with all its venomous apparatus in good order.

We now come to the second branch of the subject, namely, the influence of sound upon the cobra and other Serpents. The charmers are always provided with musical instruments, of which a sort of flute with a loud shrill sound is the one which is mostly used in the performances. Having ascertained, from slight marks which their practised eyes easily discover, that a Serpent is hidden in some crevice, the charmer plays upon his flute, and in a short time the snake is sure to make its appearance.

As soon as it is fairly out, the man seizes it by the end of the tail, and holds it up in the air at arm's length. In this position it is helpless, having no leverage, and merely wriggles about in fruitless struggles to escape. Having allowed it to exhaust its strength by its efforts, the man lowers it into a basket, where it is only too glad to find a refuge, and closes the lid. After a while, he raises the lid and begins to play the flute.

The Serpent tries to glide out of the basket, but, as soon as it does so, the lid is shut down again, and in a very short time the reptile finds that escape is impossible, and, as long as it hears the sound of the flute, only raises its head in the air, supporting itself on the lower portion of its tail, and continues to wave its head from side to side as long as it hears the sound of the music.

The rapidity with which a cobra learns this lesson is extraordinary, the charmers being as willing to show their mastery over newly-caught Serpents as over those which have been long in their possession. Some persons have thought that all the snakes caught by the professional charmers are tame reptiles, which have been previously placed in the hole by the men, and which have been deprived of their fangs. Careful investigations, however, have proved that the snake is really attracted by the shrill notes of the flute, and that the charmers handle with unconcern the snakes which are in full possession of their fangs and poison-glands.

The allusion to the "deaf adder, which stoppeth her ears." needs a little explanation. Some species of Serpent are more susceptible to sound than others, the cobra being the most sensitive of all the tribe. Any of these which are comparatively insensible to the charmers efforts may be considered as "deaf adders." But there has been from time immemorial a belief in the East that some individual Serpents are very obstinate and self-willed, refusing to hear the shrill sound of the flute, or the magic song of the charmer, and pressing one ear into the dust, while they stop the other with the tail.

Louis of Grenada, one of whose quaint sermons has already been quoted, alludes in another discourse to this curious belief, in which it is evident that he fully concurred.

"Dominica XI. post Pent. Concio 1:

"'Furor illis secundum similitudinem serpentis sicut aspidis et obturantis aures suas; qu? non exaudit vocem incantantium, et venefici incantantis sapienter.'

"Vulgo enim ferunt aspidem cum incantatur ne lethali veneno homines inficiat, alteram aurem terr? affigere, alteram vero cauda in eam immissa obstruere ut ita demum veneni vis intus latentis ill?sa maneat.

"Ad hoc igitur modum cum sapiens incantatur, hoc est, divini verbi concionator obstinatos homines ad sanitatem perducere et lethale venenum peccati, quod in eorum mentibus residet delere contendit; illi contra (d?mone id operante) sic aures suas huic divin? incantationi claudunt ut nihil prorsus eorum qu? dicuntur advertant."

"Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, Sermon 1:

"'Their fury is after the likeness of the serpent, as the asp which even stoppeth her ears-which heedeth not the voice of the charmers; even of the wizard which charmeth wisely.'

"For they say commonly, the asp while she is charmed, so that she poisoneth not men with her deadly venom, layeth one of her ears to the ground and stoppeth the other by thereinto putting her tail, that so the strength of the poison which lurketh within may abide unhurt.

"After this manner, therefore, when the wise charmer-that is, the preacher of the Word of God-striveth to lead obstinate men to health, and to destroy the deadly poison of sin which dwelleth in their minds, they, on the other hand (the devil bringing this to pass), do so shut their ears to this divine charming that they heed nothing at all of these things which are said."

In order to show how widely this idea of the snake stopping its ears is spread, I insert the following extract from a commentary on the Psalms by Richard Rolle (Hermit) of Hampole. It is taken from the MS. in Eton College Library, No. 10, date 1450. R. Rolle died just a hundred years before his commentary was translated into the Northern dialect.

"'Furor illis sec?dm? similitudin? s?pentis: sicut aspidus surde et obturantis aures suas.' ? Wodnes til Tase after Te lykenying of nedder: als of snake doumbe and stoppand hir erres. ? Rightly calles he Ta? wode for Tai haue na witt to se whider Tai ga for Tai louke Taire eghen and rennes til Te fire Taire wodnes es domested Tat will not be t?ned als of Te snake Tat festes Te tane ere till Te erther and Te toTer stopis with hir? tayle swa Tai do Tat here noght godes worde Tai stoppe Tair? erres with lufe of erthely thyng Tat Tai delite Tai one and with Taire tayle Tat es with aide synes Tat Tai will noght amende."

It may be as well to remark, before passing to another of the Serpents, that snakes have no external ears, and that therefore the notion of the serpent stopping its ears is zoologically a simple absurdity.

THE CERASTES, OR SHEPHIPHON OF SCRIPTURE.

The word shephiphon, which evidently signifies some species of snake, only occurs once in the Scriptures, but fortunately that single passage contains an allusion to the habits of the serpent which makes identification nearly certain. The passage in question occurs in Gen. xlix. 17, and forms part of the prophecy of Jacob respecting his children: "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horses heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Putting aside the deeper meaning of this prophecy, there is here an evident allusion to the habits of the Cerastes, or Horned Viper, a species of venomous serpent, which is plentiful in Northern Africa, and is found also in Palestine and Syria. It is a very conspicuous reptile, and is easily recognised by the two horn-like projections over the eyes. The name Cerastes, or horned, has been given to it on account of these projections.

This snake has a custom of lying half buried in the sand, awaiting the approach of some animal on which it can feed. Its usual diet consists of the jerboas and other small mammalia, and as they are exceedingly active, while the Cerastes is slow and sluggish, its only chance of obtaining food is to lie in wait. It will always take advantage of any small depression, such as the print of a camel's foot, and, as it finds many of these depressions in the line of the caravans, it is literally "a serpent by the way, an adder in the path."

According to the accounts of travellers, the Cerastes is much more irritable than the cobra, and is very apt to strike at any object which may disturb it. Therefore, whenever a horseman passes along the usual route, his steed is very likely to disturb a Cerastes lying in the path, and to be liable to the attack of the irritated reptile. Horses are instinctively aware of the presence of the snake, and mostly perceive it in time to avoid its stroke. Its small dimensions, the snake rarely exceeding two feet in length, enable it to conceal itself in a very small hollow, and its brownish-white colour, diversified with darker spots, causes it to harmonize so thoroughly with the loose sand in which it lies buried, that, even when it is pointed out, an unpractised eye does not readily perceive it.

Even the cobra is scarcely so dreaded as this little snake, whose bite is so deadly, and whose habits are such as to cause travellers considerable risk of being bitten.

THE VIPER, OR EPHEH.

Passages in which the word Epheh occurs-El-effah-The Sand Viper, or Toxicoa-Its appearance and habits-The Acshub-Adder's poison-The Spuugh-Slange-The Cockatrice, or Tsepha-The Yellow Viper-Ancient ideas concerning the Cockatrice-Power of its venom.

We now come to the species of snake which cannot be identified with any certainty, and will first take the word epheh, which is curiously like to the Greek ophis. From the context of the three passages in which it occurs, it is evidently a specific, and not a collective name, but we are left in much doubt as to the precise species which is intended by it. The first of those passages occurs in Job xx. 16: "The viper's (epheh) tongue shall slay him." The second is found in Isa. xxx. 6: "The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper (epheh) and fiery flying serpent." The last of these passages occurs in ch. lix. 5 of the same book: "That which is crushed breaketh out into a viper" (epheh).

The reader will see that in neither of those passages have we the least intimation as to the particular species which is signified by the word epheh, and the only collateral evidence which we have on the subject fails exactly in the most important point. We are told by Shaw that in Northern Africa there is a small snake, the most poisonous of its tribe, which is called by the name of El-effah, a word which is absolutely identical with the Epheh of the Old Testament. But, as he does not identify the effah, except by saying that it rarely exceeds a foot in length, we gain little by its discovery.

Mr. Tristram believes that he has identified the Epheh of the Old Testament with the Sand-Viper, or Toxicoa (Echis arenicola). This reptile, though very small, and scarcely exceeding a foot in length, is a dangerous one, though its bite is not so deadly as that of the cobra or cerastes. It is variable in colour, but has angular white streaks on its body, and a row of whitish spots along the back. The top of the head is dark, and variegated with arrow-shaped white marks.

THE TOXICOA. (Supposed to be the viper of Scripture.)

"The viper's tongue shall slay him."-Job xx. 16.

The Toxicoa is very plentiful in Northern Africa, Palestine, Syria, and the neighbouring countries, and, as it is exceedingly active, is held in some dread by the natives. The Toxicoa is closely allied to the dreaded Horatta-pam snake of India (Echis carinata).

The old Hebraists can make nothing of the word, but it is not unlikely that a further and fuller investigation of the ophiology of Northern Africa may succeed where mere scholarship, unallied with zoological knowledge, has failed.

* * *

The next word is acshub (pronounced ?k-shoob). It only occurs in one passage, namely Ps. cxl. 3: "They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent (nachash); adder's (acshub) poison is under their lips." The precise species represented by this word is unknown. Buxtorf, however, explains the word as the Spitter, "illud genus quod venenum procul exspuit." Now, if we accept this derivation, we must take the word acshub as a synonym for pethen. We have already identified the Pethen with the Naja haje, a snake which has the power of expelling the poison to some distance, when it is out of reach of its enemy. Whether the snake really intends to eject the poison, or whether it is merely flung from the hollow fangs by the force of the suddenly-checked stroke, is uncertain. That the Haje cobra can expel its poison is an acknowledged fact, and the Dutch colonists of the Cape have been so familiarly acquainted with this habit, that they have called this reptile by the name of Spuugh-Slange, or Spitting Snake, a name which, if we accept Buxtorf's etymology, is precisely equivalent to the word acshub.

* * *

Another name of a poisonous snake occurs several times in the Old Testament. The word is tsepha, or tsiph?ni, and it is sometimes translated as Adder, and sometimes as Cockatrice. The word is rendered as Adder in Prov. xxiii. 32, where it is said that wine "biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Even in this case, however, the word is rendered as Cockatrice in the marginal translation.

It is found three times in the Book of Isaiah. Ch. xi. 8: "The weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." Also, ch. xiv. 29: "Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's (nachash) nest shall come forth a cockatrice (tsepha), and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." The same word occurs again in ch. lix. 5: "They hatch cockatrice' eggs." In the prophet Jeremiah we again find the word: "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."

This last passage gives us a little, but not much, assistance in identifying the Tsepha. We learn by it that the Tsepha was one of the serpents that were not subject to charmers, and so we are able to say that it was neither the cobra, which we have identified with the Pethen of Scripture, nor the Cerastes or Horned Snake, which has been shown to be the Shephiphon. Our evidence is therefore only of a negative character, and the only positive evidence is that which may be inferred from the passage in Isa. xiv. 29, where the Tsepha is evidently thought to be more venomous than the ordinary serpent or Nachash.

Mr. Tristram suggests that the Tsepha of Scripture may possibly be the Yellow Viper (Daboia xanthica), which is one of the largest and most venomous of the poisonous serpents which are found in Palestine, and which is the more dangerous on account of its nocturnal habits. This snake is one of the Katukas, and is closely allied to the dreaded Tic-polonga of Ceylon, a serpent which is so deadly, and so given to infesting houses, that one of the judges was actually driven out of his official residence by it.

As to the old ideas respecting the origin of the Cockatrice, a very few words will suffice for them. This serpent was thought to be produced from an egg laid by a cock and hatched by a viper. "For they say," writes Topsel, "that when a cock groweth old, he layeth a certain egge without any shell, in stead whereof it is covered with a very thick skin, which is able to withstand the greatest force of an easie blow or fall. They say moreover that this Egge is laid only in the summer time, about the beginning of Dog days, being not so long as a Hen's Egge, but round and orbicular. Sometimes of a dirty, sometimes of a boxy, and sometimes of yellowish muddy colour, which Egge, afterwards sat upon by a Snake or a Toad, bringeth forth the Cockatrice, being half a foot in length, the hinder part like a Snake, the former part like a Cock, because of a treble combe on his forehead.

"But the vulgar opinion of Europe is, that the Egge is nourished by a Toad, and not by a Snake; howbeit in better experience it found that the Cock doth sit on that Egge himself: whereof Serianus Semnius in his twelfth book of the Hidden Animals of Nature hath this discourse, in the fourth chapter thereof. 'There happened,' saith he, 'within our memory, in the city of Piriz?a, that there were two old Cocks which had laid Egges, and the common people (because of opinion that those Egges would engender Cockatrices) laboured by all meanes possible to keep the same Cocks from sitting on those Egges, but they could not with clubs and staves drive them from the Egges, until they were forced to break the Egges in sunder, and strangle the Cocks."

In this curious history it is easy to see the origin of the notion respecting the birth of the Cockatrice. It is well known that hens, after they have reached an advanced age, assume much of the plumage and voice of the male bird. Still, that one of them should occasionally lay an egg is no great matter of wonder, and, as the egg would be naturally deposited in a retired and sheltered spot, such as would be the favoured haunts of the warmth-loving snake, the ignorant public might easily put together a legend which, absurd in itself, is yet founded on facts. The small shell-less egg, so often laid by poultry, is familiar to every one who has kept fowls.

Around this reptile a wonderful variety of legends have been accumulated. The Cockatrice was said to kill by its very look, "because the beams of the Cockatrice's eyes do corrupt the visible spirit of a man, which visible spirit corrupted all the other spirits coming from the brain and life of the heart, are thereby corrupted, and so the man dyeth."

The subtle poison of the Cockatrice infected everything near it, so that a man who killed a Cockatrice with a spear fell dead himself, by reason of the poison darting up the shaft of the spear and passing into his hand. Any living thing near which the Cockatrice passed was instantly slain by the fiery heat of its venom, which was exhaled not only from its mouth, but its sides. For the old writers, whose statements are here summarized, contrived to jumble together a number of miscellaneous facts in natural history, and so to produce a most extraordinary series of legends. We have already seen the real origin of the legend respecting the egg from which the Cockatrice was supposed to spring, and we may here see that some one of these old writers has in his mind some uncertain floating idea of the respiratory orifices of the lamprey, and has engrafted them on the Cockatrice.

"To conclude," writes Topsel, "this poyson infecteth the air, and the air so infected killeth all living things, and likewise all green things, fruits, and plants of the earth: it burneth up the grasse whereupon it goeth or creepeth, and the fowls of the air fall down dead when they come near his den or lodging. Sometimes he biteth a Man or a Beast, and by that wound the blood turneth into choler, and so the whole body becometh yellow as gold, presently killing all who touch it or come near it."

I should not have given even this limited space to such puerile legends, but for the fact that such stories as these were fully believed in the days when the Authorized Version of the Bible was translated. The ludicrous tales which have been occasionally mentioned formed the staple of zoological knowledge, and an untravelled Englishman had no possible means of learning the history of foreign animals, except from such books which have been quoted, and which were in those days the standard works on Natural History. The translators of the Bible believed most heartily in the mysterious and baleful reptile, and, as they saw that the Tsepha of Scripture was an exceptionally venomous serpent, they naturally rendered it by the word Cockatrice.

THE FROG.

The Frog only mentioned in the Old Testament as connected with the plagues of Egypt-The severity of this plague explained-The Frog detestable to the Egyptians-The Edible Frog and its numbers-Description of the species.

Plentiful as is the Frog throughout Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, it is very remarkable that in the whole of the canonical books of the Old Testament the word is only mentioned thrice, and each case in connexion with the same event.

In Exod. viii. we find that the second of the plagues which visited Egypt came out of the Nile, the sacred river, in the form of innumerable Frogs. The reader will probably remark, on perusing the consecutive account of these plagues, that the two first plagues were connected with that river, and that they were foreshadowed by the transformation of Aaron's rod.

When Moses and Aaron appeared before Pharaoh to ask him to let the people go, Pharaoh demanded a miracle from them, as had been foretold. Following the divine command, Aaron threw down his rod, which was transformed into a crocodile-the most sacred inhabitant of the sacred river-a river which was to the Egyptians what the Ganges is to the Hindoos.

Next, as was most appropriate, came a transformation wrought on the river by means of the same rod which had been transformed into a crocodile, the whole of the fresh-water throughout the land being turned into blood, and the fish dying and polluting the venerated river with their putrefying bodies. In Egypt, a partially rainless country, such a calamity as this was doubly terrible, as it at the same time desecrated the object of their worship, and menaced them with perishing by thirst.

THE FROG. (Rana esculenta).

"And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly."-Exod. viii. 3.

The next plague had also its origin in the river, but extended far beyond the limits of its banks. The frogs, being unable to return to the contaminated stream wherein they had lived, spread themselves in all directions, so as to fulfil the words of the prediction: "If thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:

"And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs" (or dough).

Supposing that such a plague was to come upon us at the present day, we should consider it to be a terrible annoyance, yet scarcely worthy of the name of plague, and certainly not to be classed with the turning of a river into blood, with the hail and lightning that destroyed the crops and cattle, and with the simultaneous death of the first-born. But the Egyptians suffered most keenly from the infliction. They were a singularly fastidious people, and abhorred the contact of anything that they held to be unclean. We may well realize, therefore, the effect of a visitation of Frogs, which rendered their houses unclean by entering them, and themselves unclean by leaping upon them; which deprived them of rest by getting on their beds, and of food by crawling into their ovens and upon the dough in the kneading-troughs.

And, as if to make the visitation still worse, when the plague was removed, the Frogs died in the places into which they had intruded, so that the Egyptians were obliged to clear their houses of the dead carcases, and to pile them up in heaps, to be dried by the sun or eaten by birds and other scavengers of the East.

As to the species of Frog which thus invaded the houses of the Egyptians, there is no doubt whatever. It can be but the Green, or Edible Frog (Rana esculenta), which is so well known for the delicacy of its flesh. This is believed to be the only aquatic Frog of Egypt, and therefore must be the species which came out of the river into the houses.

Both in Egypt and Palestine it exists in very great numbers, swarming in every marshy place, and inhabiting the pools in such numbers that the water can scarcely be seen for the Frogs. Thus the multitudes of the Frogs which invaded the Egyptians was no matter of wonder, the only miraculous element being that the reptiles were simultaneously directed to the houses, and their simultaneous death when the plague was taken away.

It has, however, been suggested that, at the time of year at which the event occurred, the young Frogs were in the tadpole stage of existence, and therefore would not be able to pass over land. But, even granting that to be the case, it does not follow that the adult Frogs were not numerous enough to produce the visitation, and it seems likely that those who were not yet developed were left to reproduce the race after the full-grown Frogs had perished.

The Green Frog is larger than our common English species, and is prettily coloured, the back being green, spotted with black, and having three black stripes upon it. The under parts are yellowish. At night it keeps up a continued and very loud croaking, so that a pond in which a number of these Frogs are kept is quite destructive of sleep to any one who is not used to the noise.

Frogs are also mentioned in Rev. xvi. 13: "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." With the exception of this passage, which is a purely symbolical one, there is no mention of Frogs in the New Testament. It is rather remarkable that the Toad, which might be thought to afford an excellent symbol for various forms of evil, is entirely ignored, both in the Old and New Testaments. Probably the Frogs and Toads were all classed together under the same title.

FISHES.

FISHES.

Impossibility of distinguishing the different species of Fishes-The fishermen Apostles-Fish used for food-The miracle of the loaves and Fishes-The Fish broiled on the coals-Clean and unclean Fishes-The scientific writings of Solomon-The Sheat-fish, or Silurus-The Eel and the Mur?na-The Long-headed Barbel-Fish-ponds and preserves-The Fish-ponds of Heshbon-The Sucking-fish-The Lump-sucker-The Tunny-The Coryphene.

We now come to the Fishes, a class of animals which are repeatedly mentioned both in the Old and New Testaments, but only in general terms, no one species being described so as to give the slightest indication of its identity.

This is the more remarkable because, although the Jews were, like all Orientals, utterly unobservant of those characteristics by which the various species are distinguished from each other, we might expect that St. Peter and other of the fisher Apostles would have given the names of some of the Fish which they were in the habit of catching, and by the sale of which they gained their living.

It is true that the Jews, as a nation, would not distinguish between the various species of Fishes, except, perhaps, by comparative size. But professional fishermen would be sure to distinguish one species from another, if only for the fact that they would sell the best-flavoured Fish at the highest price.

We might have expected, for example, that the Apostles and disciples who were present when the miraculous draught of Fishes took place would have mentioned the technical names by which they were accustomed to distinguish the different degrees of the saleable and unsaleable kinds.

Or we might have expected that on the occasion when St. Peter cast his line and hook into the sea, and drew out a Fish holding the tribute-money in his mouth, we might have learned the particular species of Fish which was thus captured. We ourselves would assuredly have done so. It would not have been thought sufficient merely to say that a Fish was caught with money in its mouth, but it would have been considered necessary to mention the particular fish as well as the particular coin.

But it must be remembered that the whole tone of thought differs in Orientals and Europeans, and that the exactness required by the one has no place in the mind of the other. The whole of the Scriptural narratives are essentially Oriental in their character, bringing out the salient points in strong relief, but entirely regardless of minute detail.

* * *

We find from many passages both in the Old and New Testaments that Fish were largely used as food by the Israelites, both when captives in Egypt and after their arrival in the Promised Land. Take, for example, Numb. xi. 4, 5: "And the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

"We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely." Then, in the Old Testament, although we do not find many such categorical statements, there are many passages which allude to professional fishermen, showing that there was a demand for the Fish which they caught, sufficient to yield them a maintenance.

In the New Testament, however, there are several passages in which the Fishes are distinctly mentioned as articles of food. Take, for example, the well-known miracle of multiplying the loaves and the Fishes, and the scarcely less familiar passage in John xxi. 9: "As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

"Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

"Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

"Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

"Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise."

We find in all these examples that bread and Fish were eaten together. Indeed, Fish was eaten with bread just as we eat cheese or butter; and St. John, in his account of the multiplication of the loaves and Fishes, does not use the word "fish," but another word which rather signifies sauce, and was generally employed to designate the little Fish that were salted down and dried in the sunbeams for future use.

As to the various species which were used for different purposes, we know really nothing, the Jews merely dividing their Fish into clean and unclean.

Still, we find that Solomon treated of Fishes as well as of other portions of the creation. "And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes." (1 Kings iv. 33.)

Now it is evidently impossible that Solomon could have treated of Fishes without distinguishing between their various species. Comparatively young as he was, he had received such a measure of divine inspiration, that "there came of all people to know the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."

Yet, although some of his poetical and instructive writings have survived to our time, the whole of his works on natural history have so completely perished, that they have not even introduced into the language the names of the various creatures of which he wrote. So, in spite of all his labours, there is not a single word in the Hebrew language, as now known, by which one species of Fish can be distinguished from another, as to the distinction between the clean and unclean Fishes.

According to Levit. xi. the qualification for food lay simply in the possession of fins and scales. "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

"They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination" (ver. 9-11). There is a similar prohibition in Deut. xiv. 9.

Some of the species to which this prohibition would extend are evident enough. There are, for example, the Sheat-fishes, which have the body naked, and which are therefore taken out of the list of permitted Fishes. The Sheat-fishes inhabit rivers in many parts of the world, and often grow to a very considerable size. They may be at once recognised by their peculiar shape, and by the long, fleshy tentacles that hang from the mouth. The object of these tentacles is rather dubious, but as the fish have been seen to direct them at will to various objects, it is likely that they may answer as organs of touch.

1. Mur?na (Mur?na helena).? 2. Long-headed Barbel (Barbus longiceps).

3. Sheat-fish (Silurus macracanthus).

"All that have not fins and scales ... shall be an abomination unto you."-Levit. xi. 10.

As might be conjectured from its general appearance, it is one of the Fishes that love muddy banks, in which it is fond of burrowing so deeply that, although the river may swarm with Sheat-fishes, a practised eye is required to see them.

As far as the Sheat-fishes are concerned, there is little need for the prohibition, inasmuch as the flesh is not at all agreeable in flavour, and is difficult of digestion, being very fat and gelatinous. The swimming-bladder of the Sheat-fish is used in some countries for making a kind of isinglass, similar in character to that of the sturgeon, but of coarser quality.

The lowermost figure in the illustration on page 566 represents a species which is exceedingly plentiful in the Sea of Galilee.

On account of the mode in which their body is covered, the whole of the sharks and rays are excluded from the list of permitted Fish, as, although they have fins, they have no scales, their place being taken by shields varying greatly in size. The same rule excludes the whole of the lamprey tribe, although the excellence of their flesh is well known.

Moreover, the Jews almost universally declare that the Mur?na and Eel tribe are also unclean, because, although it has been proved that these Fishes really possess scales as well as fins, and are therefore legally permissible, the scales are hidden under a slimy covering, and are so minute as to be practically absent.

The uppermost figure in the illustration represents the celebrated Mur?na, one of the fishes of the Mediterranean, in which sea it is tolerably plentiful. In the days of the old Roman empire, the Mur?na was very highly valued for the table. The wealthier citizens built ponds in which the Mur?n? were kept alive until they were wanted. This Fish sometimes reaches four feet in length.

The rest of the Fishes which are shown in the three illustrations belong to the class of clean Fish, and were permitted as food. The figure of the Fish between the Mur?na and Sheat-fish is the Long-headed Barbel, so called from its curious form.

The Barbels are closely allied to the carps, and are easily known by the barbs or beards which hang from their lips. Like the sheat-fishes, the Barbels are fond of grubbing in the mud, for the purpose of getting at the worms, grubs, and larv? of aquatic insects that are always to be found in such places. The Barbels are rather long in proportion to their depth, a peculiarity which, owing to the length of the head, is rather exaggerated in this species.

The Long-headed Barbel is extremely common in Palestine, and may be taken with the very simplest kind of net. Indeed, in some places, the fish are so numerous that a common sack answers nearly as well as a net.

It has been mentioned that the ancient Romans were in the habit of forming ponds in which the Mur?n? were kept, and it is evident, from several passages of Scripture, that the Jews were accustomed to preserve fish in a similar manner, though they would not restrict their tanks or ponds to one species.

Allusion is made to this custom in the Song of Solomon: "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fish-pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rabbim." The Hebrew Bible renders the passage in a slightly different manner, not specifying the particular kind of pool. "Thine eyes are as the pools in Heshbon by a gate of great concourse."

Buxtorf, however, in his Hebrew Lexicon, translates the word as "piscina," i.e. fish-pond. Now among the ruins of Heshbon may still be seen the remains of a large tank, which in all probability was one of the "fish-pools" which are mentioned by the sacred writer.

If we accept the rendering of the Authorized Version, it is shown that tanks or ponds were employed for this purpose, by a passage which occurs in the prophecy of Isaiah: "The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish.

"Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks, shall be confounded.

"And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish" (xix. 8-10).

This passage, however, is rendered rather variously. The marginal translation of verse 10 substitutes the word "foundations" for "purposes," and the words "living things" for "fish." The Jewish Bible takes an entirely different view of the passage, and renders it as follows: "The fishers also shall groan, and all that cast angle into the river shall mourn, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall be languid.

"Moreover, they that work in combed flax and they that weave networks shall be confounded.

"And the props thereof shall be crushed; all working for wages are void of soul."

However, the mark of doubt is affixed to this last phrase, and it cannot be denied that the rendering of the Authorized Version is at all events more consistent than that of the Jewish Bible. In the former, we first find the fishers taking their prey with the hook and line, then with different kinds of nets, and lastly, placing the fish thus captured in sluices and ponds until they are wanted for consumption.

FISHES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN.

1. Sucking-fish (Echeneis remora).? 2. Tunny (Thynnus thynnus).

3. Coryphene (Coryph?na hippuris).

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters."-Levit. xi. 9.]

The accompanying illustration represents Fishes of the Mediterranean Sea, and it is probable that one of them may be identified, though the passage in which it is mentioned is only an inferential one. In the prophecy against Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the prophet Ezekiel writes as follows: "I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales" (xxix. 4).

Reference is here made to some inhabitant of the waters that has the power of adhesion, and two suggestions have been made respecting the precise signification of the passage. Some commentators think that the "Fishes" here mentioned are the Cuttles, which, although they are not Fishes at all, but belong to the molluscs, are called Fishes after the loose nomenclature of the Hebrew language, just as, even in our stricter and more copious language, we speak of the same creature as the Cuttle-fish, and use the word "shell-fish" to denote both molluscs and crustacea.

Others believe that the prophet made allusion to the Sucking-fish, which has the dorsal fins developed into a most curious apparatus of adhesion, by means of which it can fasten itself at will to any smooth object, and hold so tightly to it that it can scarcely be torn away without injury.

The common Sucking-fish (Echeneis remora) is shown in the upper part of the illustration.

There are, however, other fish which have powers of adhesion which, although not so remarkable as those of the Sucking-fish, are yet very strong. There is, for example, the well-known Lump-sucker, or Lump-fish, which has the ventral fins modified into a sucker so powerful that, when one of these fishes has been put into a pail of water, it has attached itself so firmly to the bottom of the vessel that when lifted by the tail it raised the pail, together with several gallons of water.

The Gobies, again, have their ventral fins united and modified into a single sucker, by means of which the fish is able to secure itself to a stone, rock, or indeed any tolerably smooth surface. These fishes are popularly known as Bull-routs.

The centre of the illustration is occupied by another of the Mediterranean fishes. This is the well-known Tunny (Thynnus thynnus), which furnishes food to the inhabitants of the coasts of this inland sea, and indeed constitutes one of their principal sources of wealth. This fine fish is on an average four or five feet in length, and sometimes attains the length of six or seven feet.

The flesh of the Tunny is excellent, and the fish is so conspicuous, that the silence of the Scriptures concerning its existence shows the utter indifference to specific accuracy that prevailed among the various writers.

The other figure represents the Coryphene (Coryph?na hippuris), popularly, though very wrongly, called the Dolphin, and celebrated, under that name, for the beautiful colours which fly over the surface of the body as it dies.

The flesh of the Coryphene is excellent, and in the times of classic Rome the epicures were accustomed to keep these fish alive, and at the beginning of a feast to lay them before the guests, so that they might, in the first place, witness the magnificent colours of the dying fish, and, in the second place, might be assured that when it was cooked it was perfectly fresh. Even during life, the Coryphene is a most lovely fish, and those who have witnessed it playing round a ship, or dashing off in chase of a shoal of flying-fishes, can scarcely find words to express their admiration of its beauty.

FISHES.