Chapter II (9)

The first mention of the Selâv occurs in Exod. xvi. Only a few days after the Israelites had passed the Red Sea, they began to complain of the desert land into which Moses had led them, and openly said that they wished they had never left the land of their slavery, where they had plenty to eat. According to His custom, pitying their narrow-minded and short-sighted folly, the natural result of the long servitude to which they had been subject, the Lord promised to send both bread and flesh-meat.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

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

"I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God.

"And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp" (ver. 11-13).

The next passage records a similar circumstance, which occurred about a year afterwards, when the Israelites were tired of eating nothing but the manna, and again wished themselves back in Egypt. "And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.

"And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers; and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp" (Numb. xi. 31, 32).

The last passage in which Quails are mentioned occurs in the Psalms. In Ps. cv. are enumerated the various wonders done on behalf of the Israelites, and among them is specially mentioned this gift of the Quails and manna. "The people asked, and He brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven" (ver. 40).

We now have to ask ourselves what the word _selâv_ really means. Some commentators have thought that it signified a species of locust, insects which travel in vast multitudes, and are always carried with the wind, thus agreeing with the statement that the Selavim were brought by the wind. Others have imagined that the Selavim were flying-fish, blown on shore as they rose from the sea after their fashion. Putting aside other reasons against these interpretations, the Psalms contain a passage which effectually contradicts them, and proves that the Selâv was a bird of some kind.

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

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

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

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

"He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea" (Ps. lxxviii. 23-27).

From this passage it is evident that the Selavim which were sent together with the manna were birds of some kind--"fowls of wing," according to the literal sense of the Hebrew; so that the theory that they were insects or fish must be dismissed as untenable. The question now remains, with what species of bird are we to identify the Selâv?

Respecting this question, there has been great discussion, chiefly arising from the fact that the various commentators endeavoured to show that the Selâv was not the Quail, but some other bird. Some, for example, take it to be the white stork, which is very plentiful in Palestine, and sometimes flies in such numbers that the sky is darkened as the winged host passes by. They base this supposition on the stature of the bird, which is so tall that it stands about "two cubits high upon the face of the earth." So it does, but this is a very insufficient reason for translating the word _selâv_ as "stork."

In the first place, the words "as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth" certainly do not refer to the stature of the individual birds. They are popularly taken to signify that the earth was covered with the bodies of the Selavim to the depth of three feet.

This, however, can hardly have been the fact, as in that case they would have utterly overwhelmed the whole camp, and crushed the tents by their weight. Moreover, there would have been no need of gathering them up, as they would have lain so thickly on the ground that the only trouble would have been to make a passage through them. It is not very easy to force a passage through snow a yard in depth, while to do so through the same depth of birds would have been almost impossible.

Neither could the Israelites have "spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp." If the Selavim lay to the depth of a yard "as it were a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side of the camp," _i.e._ some eight or ten miles all round it, there would have been no space whereon the birds could have been spread. The sentence in question has a totally different signification, and refers to the height from the ground at which the birds fly. Taken in this sense, the whole passage falls into harmony, whereas in any other it involves a difficulty.

If the ordinary interpretation of _selâv_ by "Quail" be accepted, the description is exactly correct. The Quails fly in vast flocks, and, being weak-winged birds, never fly against the direction of the wind. They will wait for days until the wind blows in the required direction, and will then take wing in countless multitudes; so that in an hour or two a spot on which not a Quail could be seen is covered with them.

On account of their short wings, they never rise to any great height, even when crossing the sea, while on land they fly at a very low elevation, merely skimming over the ground, barely a yard or "two cubits high upon the face of the earth." We may now see how needless it is to attribute the two cubits to the stature of the bird, or to the depth at which they lay on the ground.

There are other reasons why the Selâv could not be any species of stork. In the first place, all the stork tribe are included among the list of unclean birds, and it is not likely that the Almighty would have neutralized His own edicts by providing food which the Israelites were forbidden to eat. In the next place, even had the flesh of the stork been lawful, it is of so unpleasant a nature that the people could not have eaten it. For similar reasons we may dismiss the theories which consider the Selâv to be a goose or water-fowl of any kind.

Some persons have thought that the sand-grouse is the Selâv. In the first place, the flesh of this bird is hard, tasteless, and disliked by those who have tried it; so that the Israelites would not have been tempted to eat it. In the next, it is a strong-winged and swift-footed bird, and would not have satisfied the required conditions. It flies high in the air, instead of merely skimming over the ground, and when it alights is fresh and active, and cannot easily be caught. The Quail, on the contrary, after it has flown for any distance, is so completely tired out that when it alights it crouches to the earth, and will allow itself to be picked up by hand. It has even been trodden to death under a horse's feet.

Moreover, the flesh of the Quail is peculiarly excellent, and would be a great temptation to men who had passed so long a time without eating animal food. Another corroboration of the identity of the Quail and the Selâv is to be found in the mode in which the flesh is prepared at the present day. As soon as the birds have arrived, they are captured in vast multitudes, on account of their weariness. Many are consumed at once, but great numbers are preserved for future use by being split and laid out to dry in the sun, precisely as the Israelites are said to have spread out the Selavim "all abroad for themselves round about the camp."

It is rather remarkable that the Arabs of the present day use a word almost exactly resembling _selâv_ to represent the Quail. The word is _salwa_, given by one of the older writers on the subject as _selaw_.

Accepting, therefore, the Selâv and Quail to be identical, we may proceed to the description of the bird.

It is small, plump, and round-bodied, with the head set closely on the shoulders. Owing to this peculiarity of form, it has its Arab name, which signifies plumpness or fatness. The wings are pressed closely to the body, and the tail is pointed, very short, and directed downwards, so that it almost appears to be absent, and the bird seems to be even more plump than really is the case.

Several modes of capturing these birds are still practised in the East, and were probably employed, not only on the two occasions mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, but on many others of which the Scriptural narrative takes no notice. One very simple plan is, for the hunters to select a spot on which the birds are assembled, and to ride or walk round them in a large circle, or rather in a constantly diminishing spiral. The birds are by this process driven closer and closer together, until at the last they are packed in such masses that a net can be thrown over them, and a great number captured in it.

Sometimes a party of hunters unite to take the Quails, and employ a similar manoeuvre, except that, instead of merely walking round the Quails, they approach simultaneously from opposite points, and then circle round them until the birds are supposed to be sufficiently packed. At a given signal they all converge upon the terrified birds, and take them by thousands at a time.

In Northern Africa these birds are captured in a very similar fashion. As soon as notice is given that a flight of Quails has settled, all the men of the village turn out with their great burnouses or cloaks. Making choice of some spot as a centre, where a quantity of brushwood grows or is laid down, the men surround it on all sides, and move slowly towards it, spreading their cloaks in their outstretched hands, and flapping them like the wings of huge birds. Indeed, when a man is seen from a little distance performing this act, he looks more like a huge bat than a human being.

As the men gradually converge upon the brushwood, the Quails naturally run towards it for shelter, and at last they all creep under the treacherous shade. Still holding their outspread cloaks in their extended hands, the hunters suddenly run to the brushwood, fling their cloaks over it, and so enclose the birds in a trap from which they cannot escape. Much care is required in this method of hunting, lest the birds should take to flight, and so escape. The circle is therefore made of very great size, and the men who compose it advance so slowly that the Quails prefer to use their legs rather than their wings, and do not think of flight until their enemies are so close upon them that their safest course appears to be to take refuge in the brushwood.

Boys catch the Quails in various traps and springes, the most ingenious of which is a kind of trap, the door of which overbalances itself by the weight of the bird.

By reason of the colour of the Quail, and its inveterate habit of keeping close to the ground, it easily escapes observation, and even the most practised eye can scarcely distinguish a single bird, though there may be hundreds within a very small compass. Fortunately for the hunters, and unfortunately for itself, it betrays itself by its shrill whistling note, which it frequently emits, and which is so peculiar that it will at once direct the hunter to his prey.

This note is at the same time the call of the male to the female and a challenge to its own sex. Like all the birds of its group, the Quail is very combative, and generally fights a battle for the possession of each of its many mates. It is not gifted with such weapons of offence as some of its kinsfolk, but it is none the less quarrelsome, and fights in its own way as desperately as the game-cock of our own country.

Indeed, in the East, it is used for exactly the same purpose as the game-cock. Battles between birds and beasts, not to say men, are the common amusement with Oriental potentates, and, when they are tired of watching the combats of the larger animals, they have Quail-fights in their own chambers. The birds are selected for this purpose, and are intentionally furnished with stimulating food, so as to render them even more quarrelsome than they would be by nature. Partridges are employed for the same cruel purpose; and as both these birds are easily obtained, and are very pugnacious, they are especially suited for the sport.

Two passages occur in the Scriptures which exactly explain the mode in which the Quails were sent to the Israelites. The first is in Ps. lxxviii. 26. The Psalmist mentions that the Lord "caused an east wind to blow in the heaven, and by His power He brought in the south wind." Here, on examining the geographical position of the Israelites, we see exactly how the south-east wind would bring the Quails.

The Israelites had just passed the Red Sea, and had begun to experience a foretaste of the privations which they were to expect in the desert through which they had to pass. Passing northwards in their usual migrations, the birds would come to the coast of the Red Sea, and there would wait until a favourable wind enabled them to cross the water. The south-east wind afforded them just the very assistance which they needed, and they would naturally take advantage of it.

It is remarkable how closely the Scriptural narrative agrees with the habits of the Quail, the various passages, when compared together, precisely coinciding with the character of the bird. In Exod. xvi. 13 it is mentioned that "at even the quails came up and covered the camp." Nocturnal flight is one of the characteristics of the Quail. When possible, they invariably fly by night, and in this manner escape many of the foes which would make great havoc among their helpless columns if they were to fly by day.

The identity of the Selâv with the common Quail is now seen to be established. In the first place, we have the name still surviving in the Arabic language. Next, the various details of the Scriptural narrative point so conclusively to the bird, that even if we were to put aside the etymological corroboration, we could have but little doubt on the subject. There is not a detail which is not correct. The gregarious instinct of the bird, which induces it to congregate in vast numbers; its habit of migration; its inability to fly against the wind, and the necessity for it to await a favourable breeze; its practice of flying by night, and its custom of merely skimming over the surface of the ground; the ease with which it is captured; the mode of preserving by drying in the sun, and the proverbial delicacy of its flesh, are characteristics which all unite in the Quail.

Before closing our account of the Quail, it will be as well to devote a short space to the nature of the mode by which the Israelites were twice fed. Commentators who were unacquainted with the natural history of the bird have represented the whole occurrence as a miraculous one, and have classed it with the division of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, with the various plagues by which Pharaoh was induced to release the Israelites, and with many other events which we are accustomed to call miracles.

In reality, there is scarcely anything of a miraculous character about the event, and none seems to have been claimed for it. The Quails were not created at the moment expressly for the purpose of supplying the people with food, nor were they even brought from any great distance. They were merely assisted in the business on which they were engaged, namely, their migration or customary travel from south to north, and waiting on the opposite side of the narrow sea for a south-east wind. That such a wind should blow was no miracle. The Quails expected it to blow, and without it they could not have crossed the sea. That it was made to blow earlier than might have been the case is likely enough, but that is the extent of the miraculous character of the event. Taking the word in its ordinary sense, no miracle was wrought, simply because none was wanted. Granting to the fullest extent that He who arranged the course of the world can alter His arrangements as easily as He made them, we cannot but see that in this case no alteration was needed, and that, in consequence, none was made.

THE RAVEN.

Signification of the word _Oreb_--The Raven tribe plentiful in
Palestine--The Raven and the Dove--Elijah and the
Ravens--Various explanations of the circumstance--Feeding the
young Ravens--Luis of Grenada's sermon--The white Raven of
ancient times--An old legend--Reference to the blackness of the
Raven's plumage--Desert-loving habits of the Raven--Its mode of
attacking the eye--Notions of the old commentators--Ceremonial
use of the Raven--Return of the Ravens--Cunning of the
bird--Nesting-places of the Raven--The magpie and its
character--The starling--Its introduction into Palestine--The
Rabbi perplexed--Solution of the difficulty.

It is more than probable that, while the Hebrew word _oreb_ primarily signifies the bird which is so familiar to us under the name of RAVEN, it was also used by the Jews in a much looser sense, and served to designate any of the Corvidæ, or Crow tribe, such as the raven itself, the crow, the rook, the jackdaw, and the like. We will first take the word in its restricted sense, and then devote a brief space to its more extended signification.

As might be expected from the cosmopolitan nature of the Raven, it is very plentiful in Palestine, and even at the present time is apparently as firmly established as it was in the days when the various Scriptural books were written.

There are few birds which are more distinctly mentioned in the Holy Scriptures than the Raven, though the passages in which its name occurs are comparatively few. It is the first bird which is mentioned in the Scriptures, its name occurring in Gen. viii. 7: "And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;

"And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth."

Here we have, at the very outset, a characteristic account of the bird. It left the ark, and flew to and fro, evidently for the purpose of seeking food. The dove, which immediately followed the Raven, acted in a different manner. She flew from the ark in search of food, and, finding none, was forced to return again. The Raven, on the contrary, would find plenty of food in the bodies of the various animals that had been drowned, and were floating on the surface of the waters, and, therefore, needed not to enter again into the ark. The context shows that it made the ark a resting-place, and that it "went forth to and fro," or, as the Hebrew Bible renders the passage, "in going and returning," until the waters had subsided. Here, then, is boldly drawn the distinction between the two birds, the carrion-eater and the feeder on vegetable substances--a distinction to which allusion has already been made in the history of the dove.

"_Who provideth for the raven his food?_"--JOB xxxviii. 41.]

Passing over the declaration in Lev. xi. 15 and Deut. xiv. 14, that every Raven (_i.e._ the Raven and all its tribe) is unclean, we come to the next historical mention of the bird. This occurs in 1 Kings xvii. When Elijah had excited the anger of Ahab by prophesying three years of drought, he was divinely ordered to take refuge by the brook Cherith, one of the tributaries of the Jordan. "And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens [_orebim_] to feed thee there.

"So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.

"And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the brook."

In this passage we have a history of a purely miraculous character. It is not one that can be explained away. Some have tried to do so by saying that the banished prophet found the nests of the Ravens, and took from them daily a supply of food for his sustenance. The repetition of the words "bread and flesh" shows that the sacred writer had no intention of signifying a mere casual finding of food which the Ravens brought for their young, but that the prophet was furnished with a constant and regular supply of bread and meat twice in the day. It is a statement which, if it be not accepted as the account of a miracle, must be rejected altogether.

I may here mention that an explanation of the passage has been offered by some commentators, who render the word _orebim_ as "Arabs," and so arrive at the conclusion that the prophet was fed in his retirement by the Arab tribes which came to the brook for water. Others have thought that the Orebim were the inhabitants of a village called Orbo, near the Cherith. There is, however, no need of any such explanations. The account of the prophet's flight to the Cherith and of the daily supply of food which he received has been accepted as a simple statement of facts by all Jewish writers, and there is no alternative but either to accept it in the same sense or to reject it.

This part of the subject naturally leads to certain passages in which the feeding of the young Ravens is mentioned. See, for example, Job xxxviii. 41: "Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat." This passage is rendered rather differently and more forcibly in the Jewish Bible. "Who provideth for the raven his food, when his young ones cry unto God, and wander for lack of meat?" A passage of similar import occurs in Ps. cxlvii. 9: "He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry." An evident reference is made to these passages in Luke xii. 24: "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?"

In all these cases reference is made to a curious idea which prevailed respecting the Raven. It was thought that the Raven was a cruel parent, and that after the eggs were hatched it cared nothing for the young until they were full fledged. As, moreover, the bird was thought to be peculiarly late in attaining its plumage, the young Ravens must all die of hunger, were they not fed in some remarkable manner. This subject is treated at some length by Luis of Grenada in his Sermons. As the passage in question is a very curious one, I give both the original and a translation. For the latter I am indebted to the Rev. C. J. Smith, author of "Synonyms and Antonyms," who has preserved, with much success, the quaint structure of the language.

"Dominica XIV. post Pent. Concio 1:

"Nisi hæc enim omnia magnam nobis admirationis materiam divinæque providentiæ notitiam præberent, nequaquam Dominus inter cetera sapientiæ et providentiæ suæ argumenta hoc etiam commemoraret, cum ad Job ait: 'Quis præparat corvo escam suam, quando pulli ejus clamant ad Deum vagantes eò quòd non habeant cibos?'[1] Et in Psal.: 'Qui dat jumentis escam ipsorum et pullis corvorum invocantibus eum.'[2]

[1] Job xxxviii.

[2] Ps. cxlvii.

"Cur autem hoc in loco pullorum corvi præcipuè meminerit, in causa est, quod in his miro modo singularis providentiæ cura elucet. Ait enim interpres quidam corvorum pullos eum implumes adhuc sunt, candorem præ se ferre: ideoque a parentibus ut nothos negligi, quod eorum non referant colorem. Quo tempore divina providentia, quæ nusquam dormit, eos ad se clamantes alit. Vermiculos enim quosdam in nidulo nasci constituit, quorum esu sustentantur donec nono tandem die nascentibus plumis parentum colorem referant, atque ita demum ab illis nutriantur.

"Cum igitur divina providentia nulla in re neque animalculis istis etiam si a patribus deserantur desit, quanta ilia diffidentia est, quæ solis hominibus eam deesse profitetur? Si homo inter omnes inferioris hujus mundi creaturas nobilissimum et pulcherrimum animal est, si solus ipse Dei imagine insignitus, si ipse hujus magnæ familiæ princeps ac dominus est, si ejus obsequio cuncta militant, si omnia rerum conditor subiecit pedibus ejus oves et boves universas, insuper et pecora campi, &c. qui fieri potest ut cum hujus mundi moderator Dñs nullum neque animalculum neque vermiculum a providentiæ suæ cura excludat, sed omnibus abunde omnia suppeditat, pium hominem (cujus obsequio cuncta destinavit) fame et inedia confici patiatur. Si pater aliquis filii sui familiam, servos, ancillas, et jumenta diligenter curaret, illisque necessaria abunde provideret, quomodo filium fame perire sineret, cujus familiam tanta cura fovet et alit? Quis enim hoc in animum inducere possit? Hæc ijitur altera ratio est qua celestis Magister diffidentiam nostram curare, et spem alere atque fulcire studet."

"Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Sermon 1:

"For if it were not that all these things afford to us great matter of admiration and demonstration of the providence of God, it were in vain that the Lord, among other tokens of His wisdom and providence, had selected this also, when He saith in Job: 'Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, wandering for lack of meat.' And in the Psalms: 'Who giveth their own food to the cattle, and to the young ravens that call upon Him.'

"Now that in this place He hath been mainly mindful of the ravens' young, is partly for this cause, that marvellously in them the singular care of Providence doth show forth. For a certain annotator saith, that the young ravens while as yet they are unfledged do appear of whiteness, and therefore are neglected of their parents as if they were bastards, seeing that they resemble not their colour. At which time Divine Providence, who nowhere sleepeth, doth feed them who call upon Himself. For He causeth certain vermicles (small worms) to be bred in the little nest, by eating of which they are sustained, until at length on the ninth day, the feathers beginning to grow, they resemble the colour of their parents, and so come to be nourished by them.

"Seeing then that Divine Providence is never wanting in any matter, not even to these little creatures, though they be deserted of their parents, how great is that distrust which averreth that it is wanting unto men alone! If man be among all the creatures of this lower world the noblest and the fairest of things; if he alone be made illustrious by God's image; if he himself be of this great family the leader and lord; if in obedience to him all things serve; if the Constructor of all things hath put under his feet 'all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;' how shall it be that when the Lord, the Ruler of this world, shutteth out none, neither insect nor worm, from the care of His providence, but supplieth abundantly all things for all, He should suffer the righteous man, for whose service He hath appointed all things, to perish of hunger and lack of food?

"If it be that every father would diligently care for his son's household, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and cattle, and provide them abundantly with all things needful, how should He suffer His sons to perish whose families He cherisheth and feedeth with so great care? Who, indeed, could harbour such a thought? This then is another consideration whereby the heavenly Master seeks to cure our distrust, and to feed and stay our hope."

Some of the old writers improved on this legend by saying that the worms crawled into the mouths of the young Ravens, so that the birds had not even the trouble of picking them up.

Some of the ancient Jewish writers had an idea that the Raven was originally a white bird, and that its colour was changed by way of punishment for its evil disposition and deceitful conduct. A similar idea was held by the old mythological writers. They said that the Raven was formerly the favourite bird of Apollo, and that it was celebrated for its sweet song and snowy white plumage. Part of its duty was to bring water for its master from the fountain Hippocrene.

One day, instead of doing its duty, the bird amused itself in the garden, and at last fell asleep. Fearful when it awoke that it should be punished for its carelessness, the cunning Raven snatched up a snake, killed it, and brought it to Apollo, saying that the serpent had disputed the passage to the fountain, and that, after a long fight, it had just been killed. Apollo, angry with the bird for having told a lie, drove it from his presence, and as it fled its musical voice turned into a harsh croak, and its white plumage became black.

"'Liar!' exclaimed the god,
The Python-killer, as from his keen eye
The lightning darted, 'Me wouldst thou deceive
With such a wretched tale! Hence, hence! begone!
Black as thy falsehood fly through shuddering air,
A bird of lonely night! Dumb be thy voice
Of sweetest melody: henceforth thy cry
Tell but of woes and horrors, a wild shriek
Of darkness and dismay.'"

_Knight's Quarterly Magazine_

Reference to the blackness of the Raven's plumage is made in the Song of Solomon. "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.

"His beard is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy and black as a Raven." (Cant. v. 10, 11.) A similar expression is common among ourselves.

On account of its mode of life, the Raven cannot exist in a wild state in cultivated ground. Hence it has disappeared from the greater part of England, and is seldom to be seen except on wide moors or in large forests. Cultivated ground affords it scarcely any food, and it is therefore a bird of the wilderness rather than of the towns.

Like all feeders on carrion, it is wonderfully quick in detecting a dead or dying animal, and rivals the vulture itself in the sharpness of its vision. If any one who is passing over a part of the country where Ravens still survive, should wish to see one of the birds, he has only to lie flat on the ground, and keep his eyes nearly shut, so as only to see through the lashes. Should there be a Raven within many miles, it is sure to discover the apparently dead body, and to alight at no great distance, walking round and round, with its peculiar sidelong gait, and, if it be not checked in time, will make a dash at the eye of the prostrate individual, and probably blind him for life.

This habit of pecking at the eye is inherent in all the crow tribe, probably because they know instinctively that if the animal will allow its eye to be pecked out it must be dead; and if it should still possess life, it would be blinded for the moment, so as to allow its assailant to escape. The Scriptures note this custom of the Raven, as we see in Prov. xxx. 17: "The eye that mocketh at his father and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it."

The desert-loving habit of the Raven is noticed in Isa. xxxiv. 11: "The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and He shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness."

We will now pass to the notices of the Raven as given by the writers and commentators of the Talmud.

Being an unclean bird, and one of ill omen, it was not permitted to perch on the roof of the Temple. According to some writers, it was kept off by means of scarecrows, and according to others, by long and sharp iron spikes set so closely together that there was no room for the bird to pass between them. The latter is by far the more probable account, as the Raven is much too cunning a bird to be deceived by a scarecrow for any length of time. It might be alarmed at the first sight of a strange object, but in a very short time it would hold all scarecrows in supreme contempt.

Its carrion-eating propensities were well known to the ancient writers, who must have had many opportunities of seeing the Raven unite with the vultures in consuming the bodies, not only of dead animals, but of warriors killed in battle. So fond was the Raven of this food that, according to those writers, the very smell of human blood attracted the bird; and, if a man accidentally cut himself, or if he were bled for some illness, the odour of the blood would bring round the spot all the Ravens of the place.

The punctuality with which the Raven, in common with all its kin, returns to its roosting-place, was also familiar to the Talmudists, who made rather an ingenious use of this habit. The ceremonial law of the Jews required the greatest care in observing certain hours, and it was especially necessary to know the precise time which marked the separation of one day from another. This was ascertained easily enough as long as the day was clear, but in case of a dull, murky day, when the course of the sun could not be traced, some other plan was needed.

In the olden times, no artificial means of measuring time were known, and the devout Jew was consequently fearful lest he might unwittingly break the law by doing on one day an act which ought to have been done on another. A convenient method for ascertaining the time was, however, employed, and, as soon as the Ravens, rooks, and similar birds were seen returning to their homes, the sun was supposed to be setting.

This habit of returning regularly at the same time is mentioned by Mr. Tristram in his "Land of Israel:"--

"Of all the birds of Jerusalem, the raven is decidedly the most characteristic and conspicuous. It is present everywhere to eye and ear, and the odours that float around remind us of its use. On the evening of our arrival we were perplexed by a call-note, quite new to us, mingling with the old familiar croak, and soon ascertained that there must be a second species of raven along with the common _Corvus corax_. This was the African species (_Corvus umbrinus_, Hed.), the ashy-necked raven, a little smaller than the world-wide raven, and here more abundant in individuals.

"Beside these, the rook (_Corvus agricola_, Trist.), the common grey, or hooded crow (_Corvus cornix_, L.), and the jackdaw (_Corvus monedula_, L.), roost by hundreds in the sanctuary. We used to watch them in long lines passing over our tents every morning at daybreak, and returning in the evening, the rooks in solid phalanx leading the way, and the ravens in loose order bringing up the rear, generally far out of shot. Before retiring for the night, popular assemblies of the most uproarious character were held together in the trees of the Kedron and Mount Olivet, and not until sunset did they withdraw in silence, mingled indiscriminately, to their roosting-places on the walls.

"My companions were very anxious to obtain specimens of these Jerusalem birds, which could only be approached as they settled for the night; but we were warned by the Consul that shooting them so close to the mosque might be deemed a sacrilege by the Moslems, and provoke an attack by the guardians of the Haram and the boys of the neighbourhood. They finally determined, nevertheless, to run the risk; and stationing themselves just before sunset in convenient hiding-places near the walls, at a given signal they fired simultaneously, and, hastily gathering up the spoils, had retreated out of reach, and were hurrying to the tents before an alarm could be raised. The discharge of ten barrels had obtained fourteen specimens, comprising five species.

"The same manoeuvre was repeated with equal success on another evening; but on the third occasion the ravens had learned wisdom by experience, and, sweeping round Siloam, chose another route to their dormitory."

Those who have tried to come within gunshot of a Raven, even in this country, can appreciate this anecdote, and can understand how the Raven would ever afterwards keep clear of a spot where the flash and smoke of fire-arms had twice appeared.

An anecdote which authenticates this cautious turn of mind in the Raven is given in Mr. Thompson's work on the "Natural History of Ireland." There was a large yard in which the sparrows used to congregate, and it was a custom of the owner to lay a train of corn for the sparrows to eat, and then to rake the whole line with a discharge from a gun concealed in an outhouse. A tame Raven lived about the premises, and as soon as it saw any one carrying a gun towards the fatal outhouse, it became much alarmed, and hurried off to hide itself. As soon as the gun was fired, out came the Raven from its place of concealment, pounced on one of the dead sparrows, carried it off, and ate it in its private haunt.

The nest to which the Raven returns with such punctuality is placed in some spot where it is safe from ordinary intruders. The tops of lofty trees are favoured localities for the nest, and so are old towers, the interior of caves, and clefts in lofty precipices. The nest is large and clumsy, and the bird, trusting in the inaccessible character of the locality, troubles itself very little about concealment. The Raven is a peculiarly domestic bird, and a pattern of conjugal affection. It pairs for life, and both male and female take their share of sitting on the eggs and nurturing the young.

The old writers of whom mention has been made admitted that all the Corvidæ were signified by the word _oreb_. Sometimes they drew a distinction between them, but, as a rule, the word _oreb_ might mean any of those birds, from a Raven to a starling.

The MAGPIE is one of those birds which is separately mentioned. Like the Raven, it was thought to be harsh and cruel to its young, so that whenever a man behaved badly to his children, either by neglect or by absolute cruelty, he was called a Magpie-man by way of derision. Similarly, a man of a morose or evil disposition was termed a Raven-hearted man. As, however, the Magpie is not entirely black, but has some white in its plumage, it was held to be rather a better bird than the Raven. Moreover, it is fond of haunting the habitations of men, so that it was held to be of a softer nature than the Raven, which always kept itself as far from mankind as possible.

Lastly, we come to the Starling, which, as I have already mentioned, is considered as one of the Raven tribe, and is ranked under the name of Oreb. The old writers had no very great opinion of this bird, which they considered as exceptionally quarrelsome, probably on account of its shrill, harsh cry. They had a curious proverb, "Two Starlings cannot sleep in one bed," by which they meant that two quarrelsome people ought not to associate together.

There is a rather curious legend respecting the introduction of the Starling into Palestine.

Many years ago, a strange bird appeared in Jerusalem. It was caught, and brought before a celebrated Rabbi for examination, in order that he might decide whether it belonged to the clean or the unclean birds. After examining it, he could not make up his mind to either side of the question, and left the disputed point to be settled in a different way.

He ordered the bird to be placed on the roof of a house, and to be carefully watched, in order that the birds which associated with it might be noticed. For some time no birds of any kind would recognise the stranger, until at last there came a Raven from Egypt, which claimed acquaintance with it. In consequence of this, the Starling was ever afterwards classed with the Raven, and considered as an unclean bird. The Egyptian Raven which is here mentioned is described as being a very small bird, scarcely larger, indeed, than the Starling itself.

THE OSTRICH.

Hebrew words designating the Ostrich--Description of the bird in
the Book of Job--Ancient use of Ostrich plumes--Supposed
heedlessness of eggs and young--Mode of depositing the
eggs--Hatching them in the sand--Natural enemies of the
Ostrich--Anecdote of Ostriches and their young--Alleged
stupidity of the Ostrich--Methods of hunting and snaring the
bird--The Ostrich in domestication--Speed of the Ostrich--The
flesh of the bird prohibited to the Jews--Ostrich eggs and their
uses--Food of the Ostrich--Mode of drinking--Cry of the Ostrich,
and reference made to it in Micah.

There is rather a peculiarity about the manner in which this bird is mentioned in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, and, unless we go to the original Hebrew, we shall be greatly misled. In that version the Ostrich is mentioned only three times, but in the Hebrew it occurs eight times. If the reader will refer to page 370, he will see that the Hebrew word _bath-haya'nah_, which is translated in the Authorized Version as "owl," ought really to be rendered as "Ostrich." Taking this to be the case, we find that there are several passages in the Scriptures in which the word has been used in the wrong sense, and that in those places, instead of rendering the word as "owl," we ought to read it as "Ostrich."

The first mention of this bird occurs in Lev. xi. 16, and the parallel passage of Deut. xiv., in which the Ostrich is reckoned among the unclean birds, without any notice being given of its appearance or habits.

In the Book of Job, however, we have the Ostrich mentioned with that preciseness and fulness of description which is so often the case when the writer of that wonderful poem treats of living creatures.

"Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

"Who leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust,

"And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;

"Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath He imparted to her understanding.

"What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider." (Job xxxix. 13-19.)

There is rather a peculiarity in the translation of this passage, wherein the word which has been translated as "peacock" is now allowed to be properly rendered as "Ostrich," while the word which is translated as "Ostrich" ought to have been given as "feathers." The marginal translation gives the last words of ver. 13 in a rather different manner, and renders it thus:--"Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks, or the feathers of the stork and ostrich?" The Hebrew Bible renders the next verses as follows:--

"She would yet leave her eggs on the earth, and warm them in dust; and forget that the foot may crush them, or that the beast of the field may break them.

"She is hardened against her young ones, for those not hers; being careless, her labour is in vain."

In the same Book, chap. xxx., is another passage wherein this bird is mentioned. "I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.

"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls," or Ostriches, in the marginal and correct reading. The Jewish Bible also translates the word as Ostriches, but the word which the Authorized Version renders as "dragons" it translates as "jackals." Of this point we shall have something to say on a future page. A somewhat similar passage occurs in Isa. xliii. 20: "The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls" (Ostriches in marginal reading), "because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My people, My chosen." The Jewish Bible retains the same reading, except that the word "dragons" is given with the mark of doubt.

Accepting, therefore, the rendering of the Hebrew as Ostriches, let us see how far the passages of Scripture agree with the appearance and habits of the bird.

Here I may observe that, although in the Scriptures frequent allusions are made to the habits of animals, we are not to look for scientific exactness to the Scriptures. Among much that is strictly and completely true, there are occasional errors, to which a most needless attention has been drawn by a certain school of critics, who point to them as invalidating the truth of Scripture in general. The real fact is, that they have no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of the Scriptural teachings.

The Scriptures were written at various times, for instruction in spiritual and not in temporal matters, and were never intended for scientific treatises on astronomy, mathematics, zoology, or any such branch of knowledge. The references which are made to the last-mentioned subject are in no case of a scientific nature, but are always employed by way of metaphor or simile, as the reader must have seen in the previous pages. No point of doctrine is taught by them, and none depends on them.

The Spirit which conveyed religious instruction to the people could only use the means that existed, and could no more employ the scientific knowledge of the present time than use as metaphors the dress, arms, and inventions of the present day. The Scriptures were written in Eastern lands for Orientals by Orientals, and were consequently adapted to Oriental ideas; and it would be as absurd to look for scientific zoology in the writings of an ancient Oriental, as for descriptions of the printing press, the steam-engine, the photographic camera, or the electric telegraph.

So, when we remember that only a few years ago the real history of the Ostrich was unknown to those who had made zoology the study of their lives, we cannot wonder that it was also unknown to those who lived many centuries ago, and who had not the least idea of zoology, or any kindred science.

Still, even with these drawbacks, it is wonderful how accurate in many instances were the writers of the Scriptures, and the more so when we remember the character of the Oriental mind, with its love of metaphor, its disregard of arithmetical precision, and its poetical style of thought.

We will now take the passage in Job xxxix. In ver. 13 reference is made to the wings and feathers of the Ostrich. If the reader will refer to page 260, he will see that the feathers of the Ostrich were formerly used as the emblem of rank. In this case, they are shown as fastened to the heads of the horses, and also in the form of a plume, fixed to the end of a staff, and appended to a chariot, as emblematical of the princely rank of the occupier. In the ancient Egyptian monuments these Ostrich plumes are repeatedly shown, and in every case denote very high rank. These plumes were therefore held in high estimation at the time in which the Book of Job was written, and it is evidently in allusion to this fact that the sacred writer has mentioned so prominently the white plumes of the Ostrich.

Passing the next portion of the description, we find that the Ostrich is mentioned as a bird that is careless of its eggs, and leaves them "in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them."

Now it is true that the Ostrich is often known to take the greatest care of its eggs, the male collecting and sitting on them, and watching them with loving assiduity, and by some persons this fact has been brought forward as a proof that the writer of the Book of Job was mistaken in his statements. A further acquaintance with the habits of the bird tells us, however, that in those parts of the world which were known to the writer of that book the Ostrich does behave in precisely the manner which is described by the sacred writer.

Several females lay their eggs in the same nest, if the title of nest can be rightly applied to a mere hollow scooped in the sand, and, at least during the daytime, when the sun is shining, they simply cover the eggs with sand, so as to conceal them from ordinary enemies, and leave them to be hatched by the warm sunbeams. They are buried to the depth of about a foot, so that they receive the benefit of a tolerably equable warmth. So much, then, for the assertion that the Ostrich leaves her eggs "in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust."

We next come to the statement that she forgets that "the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them." It is evident from the preceding description that eggs which are buried a foot deep in the sand could not be crushed by the foot, even were they of a fragile character, instead of being defended by a shell as thick, and nearly as hard, as an ordinary earthenware plate. Neither would the wild beast be likely to discover much less to break them.

"_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.