Chapter II (3)

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

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

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

"Besides, I had then no fear of my stores failing, as I always took care to carry a stock large enough to supply the real wants of my party. So a piece of bacon was more service to me than a revolver, a rifle, or a sword; and I recommend all travellers in Palestine to carry bacon rather than arms."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swine are at the present day much neglected in Palestine, because the Mahometans and Jews may not eat the flesh, and the Christians, as a rule, abstain from it, so that they may not hurt the feelings of their neighbours. Pigs are, however, reared in the various monasteries, and by the Arabs attached to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ELEPHANT.

The Elephant indirectly mentioned in the Authorized
Version--The Elephant as an engine of war--Antiochus and
his Elephants--Oriental exaggeration--Self-devotion of
Eleazar--Attacking the Elephants, and their gradual abandonment
in war.

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

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

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

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

In the various collections of Europe are many specimens of ivory used by the ancient Egyptians, among the chief of which may be mentioned an ivory box in the Louvre, having on its lid the name of the dynasty in which it was carved, and the ivory-tipped lynch-pins of the splendid war-chariot in Florence, from which the illustration on page 309 has been drawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

The Elephant, whether of Asia or Africa, always lives in herds varying greatly in numbers, and invariably found in the deepest forests, or in their near vicinity. Both species are fond of water, and never wander far from some stream or fountain, although they can, and do, make tolerably long journeys for the purpose of obtaining the needful supply of liquid.

They have a curious capability of laying up a store of water in their interior, somewhat after the fashion of the camel, but also possess the strange accomplishment of drawing the liquid supply from their stomachs by means of their trunks, and scattering it in a shower over their backs to cool their heated bodies.

When drinking, the Elephant inserts the tip of his trunk into the stream, fills it with water, and then, turning it into his throat, discharges the contents.

The strangest portion of the Elephant is the trunk, or proboscis. This wonderful appendage is furnished at its extremity with a finger-like projection, with which the animal can pluck a single blade of grass or pick up a small object from the ground.

The value of the proboscis to the Elephant can be estimated when it is considered that without its aid the animal must soon starve to death. The short, thick neck and projecting tusks would entirely prevent it from reaching any of the vegetation upon which it feeds.

With the trunk, however, the Elephant readily carries its food to its mouth, and employs the useful member just as if it were a long and flexible arm.

The Elephant bears a worldwide fame for its capabilities as a servant and companion of man, and for the extraordinary development of its intellectual faculties. The Indian or Asiatic Elephant is the variety that is considered most docile and easy to train; these are almost invariably taken in a wild state from their native forests. The Indian hunters usually proceed into the woods with trained female Elephants. These advance quietly, and by their blandishments so occupy the attention of any unfortunate male that they meet that the hunters are enabled to tie his legs together and fasten him to a tree. His treacherous companions now leave him to struggle in impotent rage until he is so subdued by hunger and fatigue that the hunters can drive him home between two tame elephants. When once captured, he is easily trained.

The following curious instance of intelligence in an Elephant is given by a traveller in Ceylon:

"One evening, while riding in the vicinity of Kandy, my horse showed some excitement at a noise which was heard in the thick jungle, sounding something like '_Urmph! Urmph!_' uttered in a hoarse and dissatisfied tone. A turn in the forest explained the mystery, by bringing me face to face with a tame working Elephant unaccompanied by any driver or attendant. He was laboring painfully with a heavy beam of timber, which he had balanced across his tusks and was carrying to the village from which I had come.

"The pathway being narrow, he was compelled to bend his head to one side to permit the passage of the long piece of wood, and the exertion and inconvenience combined, led him to utter the dissatisfied sounds which had frightened my horse.

"On seeing us halt, the Elephant raised his head, looked at us for a moment, then dropped the timber, and forced himself backward among the bushes at the side of the road, so as to leave us plenty of room to pass.

"My horse still hesitated; the Elephant observed this, and impatiently crowded himself still deeper in the jungle, repeating his cry of, '_Urmph! Urmph!_' but in a voice evidently meant to encourage us to come on. Still the horse trembled; and, anxious to observe the conduct of the two sagacious creatures, I forbore any interference. Again the Elephant wedged himself farther in among the trees and waited for us to pass him. At last the horse timidly did so, after which I saw the wise Elephant come out of the wood, take up the heavy timber upon his tusks, and resume his route, hoarsely snorting, as before, his discontented remonstrance."

Although so valuable an animal for certain kinds of work, the Elephant is hardly so effective an assistant as might be supposed. The working Elephant is always a delicate animal, and requires watchfulness and care; as a beast of burden he is unsatisfactory, for, although in the matter of mere strength there is hardly any weight that could be conveniently placed on him which he could not carry, it is difficult to pack it without causing abrasions of the Elephant's skin, which afterwards ulcerate.

His skin is easily chafed by harness, especially in wet weather. Either during long droughts, or too much moisture, his feet are also liable to sores which render him useless for months.

In India the Elephant is used more for purposes of state display or for hunting than for hard labor. It is especially trained for tiger-hunting, and, as there is a natural dread of the terrible tiger deeply implanted in almost all Elephants, it is no easy matter to teach the animal to approach his powerful foe.

A stuffed tiger-skin is employed for this purpose, and is continually shown to the Elephant until he learns to lose all distrust of the inanimate object, and to strike it, to crush it with his feet, or to pierce it with his tusks.

After a while a boy is put inside the tiger-skin, in order to accustom the Elephant to the sight of the tiger in motion.

The last stage in the proceedings is to procure a dead tiger, and to substitute it for the stuffed skin. Even with all this training, it most frequently happens that when the Elephant is brought to face a veritable living tiger the furious bounds, the savage yells, and gleaming eyes of the beast are so terrifying that he turns tail and makes a hasty retreat. Hardly one Elephant out of ten will face an angry tiger. The Elephant, when used in tiger-hunting, is always guided by a native driver, called a mahout, who sits astride of the animal's neck and guides its movements by means of the voice and the use of an iron hook at the end of a short stick.

The hunters who ride upon the Elephant sit in a kind of box called a howdah, which is strapped firmly upon the animal's back, or else merely rests upon a large flat pad furnished with cross-ropes for maintaining a firm hold. The Elephant generally kneels to enable the riders to mount, and then rises from the ground with a peculiar swinging motion that is most discomposing to beginners in the art.

The chase of the tiger is among the most exciting and favourite sports in India. When starting on a hunt, a number of hunters usually assemble, mounted on Elephants trained for the purpose, and carrying with them a supply of loaded rifles in their howdahs, or carriages mounted on the Elephants' backs. Thus armed, they proceed to the spot where a tiger has been seen. The animal is usually found hidden in the long grass or jungle, which is frequently eight or more feet in height; and when roused, it endeavours to creep away under the grass. The movement of the leaves betrays him, and he is checked by a rifle-ball aimed at him through the jungle. Finding that he cannot escape without being seen, he turns round and springs at the nearest Elephant, endeavouring to clamber up it and attack the party in the howdah. This is the most dangerous part of the proceedings, as many Elephants will turn round and run away, regardless of the efforts of their drivers to make them face the tiger. Should, however, the Elephant stand firm, a well-directed ball checks the tiger in his spring; and he then endeavours to again escape, but a volley of rifle-balls from the backs of the other Elephants, who by this time have come up, lays the savage animal prostrate, and in a very short time his skin decorates the successful marksman's howdah.

THE CONEY, OR HYRAX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

We will take these passages in their order.

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

We now come to the habits of the animal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.