Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

than in Ethiopia, and where the natives are accustomed to tame elephants, he is regarded as an irreclaimable animal, of which no domestic use can be made," Buffon's note, art. Rhinoceros.

Let us now attend to modern information in relation to the rhinoceros. The first correct intelligence we had of this creature, was from Dr. Parsons, in Phil. Trans. vol. xlii. p. 523. who gave drawings, &c. of a young one, supposed to be only two years old: with this paper he gives the delineations of a double horn, then in sir Hans Sloane's collection. The Dr. resumed the subject in vol. Ivi. p. 32. on occasion of a double horn, then recently received by Dr. Mead. Mr. Bruce mentions the animal as found in Abyssinia; and Dr. Sparrman mentions him in south Africa. We find him also in the East Indies; and have a description and delineation of him, in Phil. Trans. vol. lxxxiii. p. 3. by Mr. Bell, surgeon to the East India company. I omit Buffon and other naturalists, who give figures of the single horned rhinoceros only; but I cannot help wishing that men of learning and talents, would exercise toward each other that liberality to which they are respectively entitled: when I read the reflections of Sparrman on Buffon, or those of Bruce on Sparrman, I am ashamed of reading what those authors should have been ashamed of writing: because animals differ in different countries, therefore their describers are not worthy of credit!! &c. To me it appears that the north African species of folding skin rhinoceros has usually a single horn; but that in this country some are found with two horns; then I observe the rhinoceros of Bencoolen, East India, has much less of those folding skins, but has two horns; then, that the south African rhinoceros has no folding skins, yet has two horns. Now, in this gradual diminution and disappearance of the folding skin, what is there contrary to nature? It is true, this may distinguish different species; but if so, why should naturalists blame each other? Why not accept each other's information with gratitude? If nature has this variety, where is the crime of reporting it?

PLATE I. RHINOCEROS, REEM, UNICORN. The upper figure shows the urus, or wild bull, of the forests of Poland. This animal is of great force and magnitude, and of long life. "It grows to a size that scarce any other animal but the elephant is found to equal. The female exceeds the largest of our bulls in size." It is very wild, irritable, and violent; but whether any of the beeve kind may be truly said to be untameable, may, I think, be doubted, since this kind seems to be peculiarly designed by Providence, as the companion of man, in all his states of civilization; and in all parts of the world.

The under figure shows the rhinoceros, of the ordinary, or at least, the best known species, having but one horn. The contradiction is equally great in the LXX, whether they designed to describe a bull, hav

ing two horns, by the name of monoceros, i.e. one horned; or whether they designed the double horned rhinoceros: but, when we consider that a wild bull having only one horn, would be contrary to the nature of the beeve kind, and indeed would be a monster; whereas a unicorn, or single horned rhinoceros, would suit some passages of Scripture, and be perfectly well known to their readers; while another species of rhinoceros having two horns, would suit other passages of Scripture, where a similar animal was meant, and this also was not unknown to their readers; we cannot but approve of the choice they made in preferring the rhinoceros to the urus, as the proper animal meant by the Hebrew reem: we consider also this choice, and this opinion, of the Egyptian translators, who certainly knew the animal most likely to be meant by the sacred poet, as no despicable authority on this side of the question.

PLATE II. DOUBLE HORN OF THE RHINOCEROS.

The DOUBLE horn of this creature, being that part of his figure which has been most called in question, and which stands most in need of authorities, we have collected on this Plate several delineations of this particular article.

No. 1. This is a copy of the Domitian medal, in which the double horn of this creature is distinctly apparent; it is said to be apparent also on the Prenestine pavement, made in the time, and perhaps by the order, of Sylla the dictator.

No. 2. The head of the double horned rhinoceros, from Mr. Bruce; who tells us, that this species in Abyssinia differs little, or nothing, in any other respect from the single horned kind. Mr. Bruce's figure is a close resemblance to Buffon's; for which this observation may account.

No. 3. The head of the double horned rhinoceros from Mr. Bell's account, in the Philosophical Transactions. This figure differs essentially from Buffon's and Mr. Bruce's; in nothing more than in the almost total absence of the folding skins: but we have copied the head only.

No. 4. Is a double horned rhinoceros, in which the folding skins are by no means obliterated, though they are very much diminished from those of Mr. Bruce. This is from Harris's Voyages, vol. i. p. 465. He ranks it as an East Indian kind; though he quotes Kolben, who was among the first who mentioned the double horned species as native of south Africa. We have given this figure at full length, because, by comparing it with the second figure in the former Plate, the diminution of the folding skin is very discernible. The figure agrees sufficiently with that given by Mr. Bell; which is yet considerably smoother, and has, in fact, very slight traces, that any folding skin appertains to the genus; of which characteristic appearance it would never have raised any suspicion, had this species only been known.

No. 5. Double horn delineated by Dr. Parsons, from sir Hans Sloane's collection. Whether they crossed each other on the animal, is uncertain. It is most likely they did not, but that by drying they were crossed by the corrugations of the skin that joins them together. However, I have drawn them as they appeared to me. The straight horn is twenty-five inches long; the curved one somewhat shorter, and the two diameters of the bases thirteen inches.' From this account both horns appear to be nearly equal in strength, power, magnitude, &c. The Dr. mentions a horn in sir Hans's collection thirty-seven inches long, above three feet! another, thirty-two inches long and Buffon mentions one three feet eight inches in length: what formidable weapons are these! equal in length to the horns of bulls!

دو

No. 6. Horn delineated by Dr. Parsons, from Dr. Mead's collection. "The length of the anterior horn, measuring with a string along the convex fore part, is twenty inches; perpendicular height, eighteen circumference at the base, twenty one and a half. The posterior horn is in perpendicular height nine inches and a quarter; circumference round the base, eighteen inches; length of both bases together on the nasal bones, fourteen inches; and the weight of both together, fourteen pounds ten ounces." Brought from Angola, in Africa.

No. 7. A double horn from Buffon, the tips not perfect, but the union at bottom very compact.

No. 8. The skull of a double horned rhinoceros ; showing the connection of the horns with the os frontis, from Mr. Bell's figure in the Philosophical

[merged small][ocr errors]

No. 9. The figure of one of those horns which are worn in Abyssinia by the soldiery, in triumph after a victory. If there be any probability in the idea that when the horn is mentioned in Scripture, it may allude to the wearing of such a token of exultation, or, indeed, on merely common ideas, without such a reference, is it more likely the allusion should be to the two horns of a bull, which project one on each side of the head, or to a single horn erect in the middle of the forehead? If the Psalmist had said, my horns, plural, shalt thou project sideways, the phrase might have alluded to a bull; but, when he says, my horn, singular, shalt thou exalt, or cause to stand erect, we must seek some other animal as the subject of comparison: because a bull, and the whole beeve kind is out of the question, as their horns do not stand erect, nor are, in that sense, exalted.

The series of double horns here offered deserves notice, as indicating several varieties: in No. 7. they are strongly united : in No. 6. they are pretty closely united at bottom, but not quite in No. 5. they are somewhat wider asunder: and in No. 8. the distance between them is considerable.

N.B. This inquiry has proceeded on the principle that the reem, or rim, and the raam, are the same animal, though the name be differently spelled: but, does one denote the unicornis, the other the bicornis? or are they different animals?

OF THE JACKALL, THE FOX OF SCRIPTURE.

We have elsewhere given our reasons for supposing that the true fox was extremely rare in Judea, and is scarcely, if at all, mentioned in Scripture. The jackall is the creature meant by the Hebrew word shuol; and having an opportunity, we translate from Rozier, a few extracts from the natural history of the jackall, by M. Guldenstædt, Nov. Comment. Acad. Petrop. vol. xx. 1775.

"The country of the jackall is Asia Minor, and the regions around it. . . . The instinct of this creature leads it to mountainous or hilly parts, rather than to open countries." Yet its boldness is so great, that it not only prowls into inhabited places, but approaches travellers, whether during the daytime, or when they repose at night under their tents; it even accompanies them sometimes, in their journey, for a considerable length of time.

The jackall is less dangerous than the wolf; he is carnivorous, kills smaller animals, devours carcasses, even those of mankind; swallows greedily whatever

is made of leather; loves grapes, yet can live loug on food, of which farinaceous vegetables and bread is the principal part.

The ears of the jackall are brown not black: which distinguishes it from the fox. The jackall hardly exceeds the fox in size; in his general appearance he holds a middle station between the wolf and the fox. Gmelin mentions some three feet in length: but rarely do jackalls attain such dimensions.

I do not think the colour of this animal is so beautiful as authors have described it: and certainly, I see not in it the brilliancy of gold. The upper part of the animal is a dirty yellow, deeper on the back, lighter on the sides: whitish yellow on the belly. The feet are of one colour, a reddish brown. The tail is of the same colour as the back, black at the tip. Each hair of the back is marked with four bands, white at the base, then black, then foxy and black at the point. The hairs of the tail are white at the base, the rest is black. The length of a jackall is about

[graphic][merged small]
[graphic][merged small]

We have remarked, on the subject of the words rendered cruise by our translators, that one of them seems to be totally different from that which bids fairest to explain the story of the widow's cruise of oil, or king Saul's cruise of water: that word we now mean to examine, and to endeavour to direct its application.

TJELACHIT, лny, is used to denote a vessel of some capacity, a vessel to be turned upside down, in order that the inside may be thoroughly wiped, 2 Kings, xxi. 13. This implies at least, that the opening of such a dish be not narrow, but capacious; that the dish be of a certain depth, yet that the hand may readily reach to the bottom of it, and there may freely move, so as to wipe it thoroughly, &c.

This vessel was capable also of bearing the fire, and of standing conveniently on a fire; for so we read, 2 Chron. xxxv. 13. "The priests, &c. boiled parts of the holy offerings in pans, tjelachut, and distributed them speedily among the people." Meaning, perhaps, that this was not the very kind of boiler which they would have chosen, had time permitted a choice; but that haste, and multiplicity of business, made them use whatever first came to hand, that was capable of the service. This application of these vessels, how ever, shows that they must have been of some capacity and some depth; as a very marrow, or a very small dish, would not have answered the purpose required. [Or, was this speedy distribution of these viands, because they were best eaten hot]

Now I think I have found a kind of dish or pan, which answers these descriptions, in the hands of a confectioner of the grand seignior's seraglio, Estampes du Levant, plate xiii. who is carrying a deep

[blocks in formation]

dish, full of heated viands, recently taken off the fire, upon which he has put a cover, in order that those viands may retain their heat and flavour. His being a confectioner, makes me think they are delicacies which he carries: to this agrees his desire of preserv ing their heat: and the shape of the vessel is evidently calculated for standing, &c. over a fire. Moreover, it is capable of being rested on its side, for the purpose of being thoroughly wiped; and a dish whose use was to contain delicacies, is most likely to receive such attention; for the comparison evidently implies some assiduity and exertion to wipe from the dish every particle inconsistent with complete cleanliness: i.e. the entire removal of offensive matters. This dish, I suppose, is of earth or china, rather than of metal.

We are now prepared to see the import of Elisha's direction to the men of Jericho, 2 Kings, ii. 20. "Bring me a new tjelachit," one of the vessels used in your cookery, in those parts of your cookery which you esteem the most delicate: a culinary vessel, but of the superior kind; "and put salt therein," what you constantly use in your food; what will readily mix with the water: and this shall be a sign to you, that in your future use of this stream, you shall find it salubrious, and fit for daily service in preparing, or accompanying, daily food.

There is a striking picture of sloth sketched out very simply, but very strongly, by the sagacious Solomon, Prov. xix. 24. and which is repeated almost verbatim, chap. xxvi. 15.

A slothful man bideth his hand in the tjelachit; But will not re-bring it to his mouth.

« AnteriorContinuar »