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

the ivory house which he made, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?" The "ivory house" could not, of course, be built wholly of ivory, and it is evident that by the term is signified a palace, the rooms of which were inlaid with ivory. Another mention of such houses is made in Amos iii. 15: "And I will smite the winter house with the summer house; and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall have an end, saith the Lord."

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

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

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

"From his numbed hands the iv'ry studded reins, Dropped in the dust, are trailed along the plains."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of warriors, however, is evidently exaggerated, though not to such an extent as the account of Julius Cæsar's Elephants, which are said to have carried on their backs sixty soldiers, beside the wooden tower in which they fought. It is evident that, in the first place, no Elephant could carry a tower large enough to hold so many fighting men, much less one which would afford space for them to use their weapons.

A good account of the fighting Elephant is given by Topsel (p. 157):--"There were certain officers and guides of the Elephants, who were called _Elephantarchæ_, who were the governors of sixteen Elephants, and they which did institute and teach them martial discipline were called _Elephantagogi_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will take these passages in their order.

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

We now come to the habits of the animal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEHEMOTH.

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

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

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

It is now, however, agreed by all Biblical scholars and naturalists, that the hippopotamus, and no other animal, is the creature which was signified by the word Behemoth, and this interpretation is followed in the Jewish Bible.

We will now take the whole of the passage, and afterwards examine it by degrees, comparing the Authorized Version with the Jewish Bible, and noting at the same time one or two variations in the rendering of certain phrases. The passage is given as follows in the Jewish Bible, and may be compared with our Authorized Version:--

"Behold now the river-horse, which I have made with thee: he eateth grass like an ox.

"Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his vigour is in the muscles of his body.

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

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

"He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can alone reach his sword.

"That the mountains should bring forth food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.

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

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

"Behold, should a river overflow, he hasteth not: he feels secure should Jordan burst forth up to his mouth.

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

We will now take this description in detail, and see how far it applies to the now familiar habits of the hippopotamus. A little allowance must of course be made for poetical imagery, but we shall find that in all important details the account of the Behemoth agrees perfectly with the appearance and habits of the hippopotamus.

In the first place, it is evident that we may dismiss from our minds the idea that the Behemoth was an extinct pachyderm. The whole tenor of the passage shows that it must have been an animal then existing, and whose habits were familiar to Job and his friends. Now the date of the Book of Job could not have been earlier than about 1500 B.C., and in, consequence, the ideas of a palæozoic animal must be discarded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing can be more accurate than this description of the habits of the animal. I have now before me a number of sketches by Mr. T. Baines, representing various incidents in the life of the hippopotamus; and in one or two of them, the little islands that stud the river, as well as the banks themselves, are thickly clothed with reeds mixed with papyrus, the whole being exactly similar to those which are represented in the conventional style of Egyptian art. These spots are the favourite haunts of the hippopotamus, which loves to lie under their shadow, its whole body remaining concealed in the water, and only the eyes, ears, and nostrils appearing above the surface.

As reference will be made to this painting when we come to the Leviathan, it will be as well to describe it in detail. In order that the reader should fully understand it, I have had it translated, so to speak, from the conventional outline of Egyptian art into perspective, exactly as has been done with the Assyrian and Egyptian chariots.

In the foreground is seen the hunter, standing on a boat that closely resembles the raft-boat which is still in use in several parts of Africa. It is made of the very light wood called ambatch, by cutting down the requisite number of trees, laying them side by side so that their bases form the stern and their points the bow of the extemporized boat. They are then firmly lashed together, the pointed ends turned upwards, and the simple vessel is complete. It is, in fact, nothing more than a raft of triangular shape, but the wood is so buoyant that it answers every purpose.

In his hand the hunter grasps the harpoon which he is about to launch at the hippopotamus. This is evidently the same weapon which is still employed for that purpose. It consists of a long shaft, into the end of which a barbed iron point is loosely inserted. To the iron point is attached one end of a rope, and to the other end, which is held in the left hand of the harpooner, a float of ambatch wood is fastened.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIRDS.

THE LÄMMERGEIER, OR OSSIFRAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"For, because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach (_peres_) upon us, for that we sought Him not in due order" (1 Chron. xv. 12, 13). David again employed the word to signify the breaking up or destruction of the Philistines. "David smote them there, and said, The Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-perazim"--_i.e._ the Place of Breakings. The same word occurs again in that dread message to Belshazzar, written by the hand upon the wall, "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin," or _peres_, the last word signifying that the kingdom was broken up, and would be given to other rulers.

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

The Lämmergeier belongs to the vultures, but has much more the appearance of an eagle than a vulture, the neck being clothed with feathers, instead of being naked or only covered with down. It may at once be known by the tuft of long, hair-like feathers which depends from the beak, and which has gained for the bird the title of Bearded Vulture. The colour of the plumage is a mixture of different browns and greys, tawny below and beautifully pencilled above, a line of pure white running along the middle of each feather. When young it is nearly black, and indeed has been treated as a separate species under the name of Black Vulture.

It is one of the largest of the flying birds, its length often exceeding four feet, and the expanse of its wings being rather more than ten feet. In consequence of this great spread of wing, it looks when flying like a much larger bird than it really is, and its size has often been variously misstated. Its flight, as may be imagined from the possession of such wings, is equally grand and graceful, and it sweeps through the air with great force, apparently unaccompanied by effort.

The Lämmergeier extends through a very large range of country, and is found throughout many parts of Europe and Asia. It is spread over the Holy Land, never congregating in numbers, like ordinary vultures, but living in pairs, and scarcely any ravine being uninhabited by at least one pair of Lämmergeiers.

The food of the Lämmergeier is, like that of other vultures, the flesh of dead animals, though it does not feed quite in the same manner that they do. When the ordinary vultures have found a carcase they tear it to pieces, and soon remove all the flesh. This having been done, the Lämmergeier comes to the half-picked bones, eats the remaining flesh from them, and finishes by breaking them and eating the marrow. That a bird should be able to break a bone as thick and hard as the thigh-bone of a horse or ox seems rather problematical, but the bird achieves the feat in a simple and effectual manner.

Seizing the bone in its claws, it rises to an immense height in the air, and then, balancing itself over some piece of rock, it lets the bone fall, and sweeps after it with scarce less rapidity than the bone falls. Should the bone be broken by the fall, the bird picks the marrow out of the fragments; and should it have escaped fracture by reason of falling on a soft piece of ground instead of a hard rock, the bird picks it up, and renews the process until it has attained its object. It will be seen, therefore, that the name of Ossifrage, or Bone-breaker, may very properly be given to this bird.

Not only does it extract the marrow from bones in this peculiar manner, but it procures other articles of food by employing precisely the same system. If it sees a tortoise, many of which reptiles are found in the countries which it inhabits, it does not waste time and trouble by trying to peck the shell open, but carries its prey high in the air, drops it on the ground, and so breaks its shell to pieces. Tortoises are often very hard-shelled creatures, and the Lämmergeier has been observed to raise one of them and drop it six or seven times before the stubborn armour would yield. Snakes, too, are killed in a similar manner, being seized by the neck, and then dropped from a height upon rocks or hard ground. The reader may perhaps be aware that the Hooded Crow of England breaks bones and the shells of bivalve molluscs in a similar manner.

Mr. Tristram suggests, with much probability, that the "eagle" which mistook the bald head of the poet Æschylus for a white stone, and killed him by dropping a tortoise upon it, was in all likelihood a Lämmergeier, the bird being a denizen of the same country, and the act of tortoise-dropping being its usual mode of killing those reptiles.

We now see why the Lämmergeier is furnished with such enormous wings, and so great a power of flight, these attributes being needful in order to enable it to lift its prey to a sufficient height. The air, as we all know, becomes more and more attenuated in exact proportion to the height above the earth; and did not the bird possess such great powers of flight, it would not be able to carry a heavy tortoise into the thinner strata of air which are found at the height to which it soars.

The instinct of killing its prey by a fall is employed against other animals besides snakes and tortoises, though exerted in a somewhat different manner. The bird, as has already been mentioned, lives among mountain ranges, and it may be seen floating about them for hours together, watching each inch of ground in search of prey. Should it see a goat or other inhabitant of the rocks standing near a precipice, the Lämmergeier sweeps rapidly upon it, and with a blow of its wing knocks the animal off the rock into the valley beneath, where it lies helplessly maimed, even if not killed by the fall.

Even hares and lambs are killed in this manner, and it is from the havoc which the Lämmergeier makes among the sheep that it has obtained the name of Lämmergeier, or Lamb-Vulture. So swift and noiseless is the rush of the bird, that an animal which has once been marked by its blood-red eye seldom escapes from the swoop; and even the Alpine hunters, who spend their lives in pursuit of the chamois, have occasionally been put in great jeopardy by the sudden attack of a Lämmergeier, the bird having mistaken their crouching forms for the chamois, and only turned aside at the last moment.

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

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

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

THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE OR GIER-EAGLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE

GRIFFON VULTURE, OR EAGLE OF SCRIPTURE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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