Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

tion of him, and presumptive evidence of his existence, [as a gazelle, not a bull.]

Observe, that though what animals are extant in southern Africa only, may safely be considered as unknown to Job; yet proofs of their restriction to those countries must be produced, before we can admit the impossibility, or improbability, of his being informed of them, from some other part of the world.

This militates effectually against the observations of Mr. Parkhurst, that the double horned rhinoceros was known only in the southern regions of Asia and Africa, since certainly he was known to the Romans, who never penetrated to those southern regions; and we have the testimony of Mr. Bruce that he inhabits the forests of Ethiopia, in the north of Africa, from whence he might easily be known, and well known too, in Egypt, and from Egypt, in Arabia.

We are sure that the Romans had great commerce with Africa, and received from thence many cargoes of wild beasts; among them was the rhinoceros with two horns; this, I say, we suppose they received from Africa, for to suppose they received it from Asia, would infer the probability of its being still better known in Arabia, and, by consequence, to Job, than it is fair, at present, to infer.

The mention of the double horned rhinoceros being known at Rome, leads to a reflection on the hypercriticism of Bochart, who would vary a line of Martial, Spect. Epig. lib. iv. No. 82.

Namque gravem gemino cornû sic extulit ursum,
Jactat ut impositas taurus in astra pilas.

in which the poet says, "the rhinoceros tossed up a heavy bear with his double horn;" to

Namque gravi geminum cornû sic extulit urum. "the rhinoceros tossed up two wild bulls with his strong horn:" this emendation misled both Mr. Maittaire, and Dr. Mead, for a time.

:

Besides this testimony of Martial, we have the Domitian medal, in which the figure of the rhinoceros has two horns on the nose, very plain and the decisive authority of Pausanias, who says he saw it at Rome. "I saw also the Ethiopian BULL, which is also called rhinoceros, because a horn projects from the end of his nose, and a little ABOVE it, another [xav añλо UπTEρ AUTO 8 μeya] not large; but it has none on its head." [This description is correct; which I notice, because Mr. Taylor in his translation of Pausanias has made his author say, "a horn projects from the extremity of its nostril, and another small one UNDER it," which is contrary, as well to probability, as to nature.]

These authorities demonstrate that the double horned rhinoceros was known anciently in Rome, and if in Rome, why not in Egypt? since he is extant in Ethiopia; and if in Egypt, why not to the writer of the book of Job? since this is clearly the African species.

We are now prepared to consider what answers may be given to the objections of Mr. Parkhurst, &c. as 1st, that the rhinoceros stands connectedly distinguished from the beeve kind in sacred Scripture. Answer, he might even be reckoned by the Arabians, &c. in the days of Job, among the beeve kind, since Pausanias, who was many centuries later, calls him "Ethiopian BULL," [Taupys TYS TE Adios] or "bull of Ethiopia," as if he was known in Ethiopia by the name of a bull: but this name would not alter his character, or his form; the creature though called a bull, and ranged among the beeve kind, might nevertheless be the rhinoceros.

2dly, The strongest argument of Mr. Parkhurst is, that the rhinoceros does not push with his horns, as the reem is said to do, but rips up boughs of trees, &c. into laths. In answer, it may be queried, whether the import of the Hebrew word negur, on which Mr. P's argument is founded, is not fairly and correctly expressed by the extulit of Martial; for negur properly signifies to drive forward, to propel, and some have rendered it by to toss up, to elevate; and extulit signifies to take up; but then we may suppose the rhinoceros did not carry the bear on his horns, but endeavoured to jerk him as high as he well could, while counteracted by the resistance and struggles of his antagonist. Now, this is precisely what a bull would have done; no bull, a wild bull especially, would, strictly speaking, push his enemy, which enemy is not understood to be a fellow bull, but of another kind, but he would endeavour to thrust his horn into the body of his adversary, and would endeavour to throw him over his back; so far there is a resemblance in the action of these creatures: yet there must be a difference; for Jacob says, with these two horns, acting at the same instant, as I understand it, shall he push; this, Martial informs us, was strictly true of the double horned rhinoceros, who, taking the bear on both his horns, threw him up; but whether a bull would throw with both horns at the same instant, I protest I do not certainly know; but from the divergence of his horns, I suppose he would not, at least he would not in regard to such little balls as Martial supposes his bull might throw; for the poet seems to say, "The rhinoceros having raised the bear on his horns, or got him fairly on his two horns, extulit, threw him up, as easily as a bull would throw up little balls placed on his head." So that I think, upon the whole, the action of the rhinoceros as described by this ancient writer, may stand as a comment on the action which Jacob attributes to his reem.

3dly, As to the domestic labours, &c. mentioned by way of antiphrasis, as not to be intrusted to the reem, they suit the rhinoceros quite as well as the urus; since the rhinoceros when of full age is perhaps as untameable and untractable as any creature living. "In Bengal, Siam, and other southern parts of India, where the rhinoceros is perhaps still more common

[graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small]
[subsumed][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][subsumed][graphic][merged small][subsumed]
« AnteriorContinuar »