palatable when the animal is young and not poorly fed. It is inferior to good beef, although, when the present writer first ate it, he mistook it for coarse beef; but it is at least equal, if not superior, to horse-flesh.

5. Coney.'-The original is jp shaphan; and the particulars stated of it in the texts where its name occurs shew that it could hardly have been the 'coney,' or rabbit, which, indeed, is an animal not found in Syria or Palestine. The other places where the shaphan is named are Deut. xiv. 7; Ps. civ. 18; Prov. xxx. 26. Bruce seems to have been the first to point out that it was probably the Ushkoko, or Ganam Israil, the Wabber of the Arabs,

INSIDE OF A CAMEL'S FOOT.-A, is the cushion on which the animal treads, shewn as lifted out of its bed.

renders the division incomplete, and Moses, for the purposes of the law, therefore decides that it divides not the hoof. Under this nicely balanced state of the question it has been conjectured that the determination against the use of the camel for food was made with the view of protecting the life of a labouring animal-a beast of burden. But the camel was but little in use as such among the Jews: and on the same ground the life of the ox would equally have required protection; for that was, far more than the camel, a labouring animal among the Hebrews. It seems more likely that the intention of this law was that of keeping the Israelites distinct from the other descendants of Abraham, with whom their connection and coincidence in manners were otherwise so close. That it actually had this effect appears from an anecdote related by Theophanes, who (sub Ann. 622) relates that when Mohammed appeared under so many imposing circumstances, many of the Jews in Arabia were disposed to recognise him as the Messiah, and, accordingly, adopted the religion which he taught. But, after a while, they became much offended by his eating of camel's flesh, which was forbidden by the Mosaical law. On this the author of the History of the Dispersion of the Jews,' in the Universal History (xiii. 210), remarks: 'It seems somewhat surprising that they, who scrupled not to abandon their old law for this new one, should be so squeamish at Mohammed's transgressing it in so inconsiderable a point; though it is not strange to meet with such contrasts among mankind, especially among the Jews. The interdiction of the camel, and, of course, its milk, was thus well calculated to prevent them from entertaining any desire to continue in Arabia, or from again devoting themselves to the favourite occupation of nomade herdsmen, from which it was obviously the intention of many of the laws to wean them. In Arabia, a people would be in a very uncomfortable condition who could neither cat the flesh of the camel nor drink its milk. Of the constant use of its milk by the Arabs we have already spoken; and if we wanted a medical reason for its interdiction, it might be found in the fact that to its constant use is attributed the obstructions and indurations of the stomach, which form one of the most common complaints of the Arabs. They rarely kill the camel or any other animal for ordinary food; but when a camel happens to be lamed in a caravan it is killed, and a general feast is made on its flesh. Camels are also killed on great festival occasions, and sometimes to give a large entertainment in honour of a distinguished guest. Sometimes also a man vows to sacrifice a camel if he obtain this or that blessing. as, for instance, if his mare brings forth a female; and in that case he slaughters the animal, and feasts his friends on the flesh. Burckhardt (Notes on the Bedouins) mentions the rather remarkable fact, that the Arabs know no remedy against the three most dangerous diseases to which camels are subject; but they believe that the Jews in their sacred books have remedies mentioned, which they withhold through hatred and malice. The flesh of the camel is coarse-grained, but is rather juicy and

SYRIAN HYRAX,

and in scientific zoology one of the small genus Hyrax, distinguished by the specific name of Syrian (Hyrax Syriacus). Externally the Hyrax is somewhat of the size, form, and brownish colour of the rabbit; and although it has short round ears, it is sufficiently like for inexact observers to mistake the one for the other. Its internal structure, however, as well as its whole osteology, represents that of a rhinoceros in miniature, and has no appearance of the complicated fourfold stomachs of ruminating animals; and therefore the hyrax is not a ruminant; neither is it a rodent, like the hare and rabbit, as it wants the peculiar incisor teeth calculated for nibbling, which distinguishes that genus of animals; but it is in some respects an anomalous creature, nearly allied to the great Pachydermata of systematic zoology. This being the case, Col. Hamilton Smith suggests: It may be that the peculiar structure of their anterior teeth is convenient for stripping off the seeds of grapes and tritica, and that these in part retained in the mouth cause a practice of working the jaws, which to common observers may appear to be chewing the cud.' There must certainly be something to produce that appearance, or it cannot be correct to regard it as the Shaphan of Scripture. The intention of the law is to confine the Israelites to the use for food of such ruminating animals as completely divide the hoof. One of the two signs will not do; both must exist, and both must be perfect. Thus the camel, although it ruminates, yet as it does not completely divide the hoof, is excluded; and thus the swine, although it completely divides the hoof, but does not ruminate, is also interdicted. So there are certain animals which do not ruminate, although from the motion of their jaws they seem to do so, and are popularly regarded as ruminating creatures. These it was necessary to exclude, not by teaching natural history, and by instructing the people how to distinguish scientifically between those that chew the cud and those that only seem to do so, but to give some easy and popular rule which should be universally appli..

cable in such cases; and the rule given was that no animal popularly held to ruminate should be regarded as fit for food unless it were cloven-footed. And this rule was most effectual for its intended purpose, because all real ruminants are cloven-footed, although all cloven-footed animals are not ruminants. This seems the obvious explanation of the sense in which the Shaphan is assumed to be a ruminating animal; and under that view we may admit it to have been the hyrax, which is not a ruminating animal, although we cannot regard the point as entirely established; and we should have held that fact a sufficient ground for its rejection, were it not for the consideration that the difficulty thereby avoided would recur in the next verse, where the hare, the identity of which is beyond dispute, is in like manner described, in conformity with common opinion, as a ruminant, which it certainly is not. The hyrax is of clumsier structure than the rabbit, without tail, having long bristly hairs scattered over the general fur; the feet are naked below, and all the nails are flat and rounded, save those on each inner toe of the hind feet, which are long and awl-shaped; therefore it cannot dig, but is framed to reside not like rabbits in burrows, but in the clefts of the rocks-a characteristic indicated in Ps. civ. 18. Such of the animal's habits as illustrate Prov. xxx. 26, are noticed under that text.

6. Hare.'-The original word is n

arnebeth; and that it denotes the hare is one of the best established facts in the zoology of Scripture. Not only has the animal a name which is essentially the same as the Hebrew in all the Syro-Arabian languages, but the Jews themselves have from ancient times understood the prohibition as applying to the hare, which they accordingly abstained from eating. This animal being highly prized by the Greeks and Romans, they could not but notice the abstinence of the Jews from it as a singular circumstance (Martial, xiii. 87; Plutarch, Symposium, ix. 3). The considerations which have been produced in the preceding note therefore apply with peculiar force in the present instance; for it is manifest that the animal is said to chew the cud entirely with reference to that action of the jaws which cursory ob

SYRIAN HARE.

6

servers might take for the process of rumination. The hare belongs to the order of rodentia, or gnawers; and, in common with porcupines, squirrels, beavers, and rats, it has incisor teeth set like chisels, and adapted to cutting, gnawing, and nibbling. The stomach of the rodents is single, and except when they may masticate some small portion of food received in the hollow of the cheek, is more that of the lips; when in a state of repose, the animals are engaged in working the incisor teeth upon each other. This practice,' writes Col. Hamilton Smith, 'is a necessary condition of existence; for the friction keeps them fit for the purpose of nibbling, and prevents their growing beyond their proper length. It is a provision of nature in the whole order of rodents, that if by any accident the four cutting teeth be rendered inefficient, by not closing upon each other at the exact line of contact, they grow rapidly beyond serviceable use, and impede feeding till the animal perishes from want. As hares do not subsist on hard substances, like most of the genera of the order, but on tender shoots and grasses, they have more cause, and therefore a more constant craving, to abrade their teeth; and this they do in a manner which, combined with a slight trituration of the occasional contents of the cheeks, even modern writers, not zoologists, have mistaken for real rumination.'

There are two species of hare which must have been known to the Jews, both figured in Hemprich and Ehrenberg's great work the Symbola Physicæ, from which our engraving is copied. The Syrian hare (Lepus Syriacus) is nearly equal in size to the common European hare, having the fur ochry buff; the other, the Sinai hare (Lepus Sinaiticus), or hare of the desert, is smaller, and of a brownish colour. They reside in the localities indicated by their names, and are chiefly distinguished from the common hare by greater length of ears, and by a black tail with white fringe.

The use of the hare for food is not forbidden to Mohammedans in their Koran, and is distinctly allowed, by the example of Mohammed himself, in the Mischat-ul-Masabih; but the Moslem doctors have classed its flesh among meats which, although not legally forbidden, are abominable. Dr. Russell, who does not seem to be aware of this fact, in his Natural History of Aleppo, attributes the abstinence of the Turks from the hare merely to dislike. It is, however, remarkable that the Bedouin Arabs, the Eelauts of Persia, and other Mohammedan nomades, who in general pay little attention to religion, pursue hares with great eagerness, and eat them openly without the least scruple. The animals are found in considerable numbers in the deserts of Western Asia, which these nomades inhabit, or through which they frequently pass. They are usually dressed entire without any preparation; being baked in a hole digged in the ground for the purpose; and, thus cooked, are much relished by all nomades.

7. The swine. The prohibition of the hog is by no means peculiar to the Hebrews. All their neighbours, the Egyptians, the Arabs, and the Phoenicians, concurred in disliking the hog, and interdicting its use. Herodotus is very particular in his information as to the estimation in which the hog was held by the first of these nations. We have already mentioned that, on account of their reputed sanctity, the Egyptians abstained from different animals in different parts of the kingdom. But they all concurred in abstaining from the cow, which was universally sacred. The only other animal which the Egyptians in general refrained from using was the hog, which they regarded as unclean. If an Egyptian happened, in passing, to touch a hog, he immediately hastened to the river to wash himself. Swineherds, though native Egyptians, were not allowed to enter the temples; and as no one would form a connection by marriage with them, they were obliged to intermarry exclusively among themselves. Yet the Egyptians sacrificed the hog to Luna and Bacchus, when the moon was at the full, and afterwards feasted on the flesh, which they would have disdained on any other occasion. The historian adds: Why they abhor offerings of swine in their other festivals, and in this should sacrifice them, is indeed explained by the Egyptians; but although I know the

reason assigned, I think it not fit to be mentioned' (Euterpe, ii. 94). The Egyptians, then, did sometimes eat pork; and we hence see that Moses, by directing a total abstinence, precluded one of the acts of idolatry to which the Egyptians were addicted. But the principal reason for interdicting swine's flesh was probably dietetical. It was a remark made by the ancient physicians, and confirmed by the modern, that persons who indulged in pork were peculiarly liable to leprosy and other cutaneous disorders. Michaelis observes on this subject: Whoever is afflicted with any cutaneous diseases must carefully abstain from swine's flesh if he wishes to recover. It has likewise been long ago observed, that the eating of swine's flesh produces a peculiar susceptibility of itchy disorders. Now, in the whole tract of country in which Palestine lies, something more to the south, and something more to the north, the leprosy is an endemic disease: in Egypt it is peculiarly common; and the Israelites left that country so far infected with it that Moses was obliged to make many regulations on the subject, that the contagion might be weakened, and the people tolerably guarded against its influence.' He adds: Every physician will interdict a person labouring under any cutaneous disease from eating pork; and it has been remarked in Germany that such diseases are in a peculiar manner to be met with in those places where a great deal of pork is eaten.' Michaelis also observes that, although pork was forbidden as food, the Hebrews were not forbidden to keep swine as articles of trade. We agree that they might do so, and shall be prepared to shew that they actually did so, after people of Greek descent, and others who liked pork, began to settle in towns upon their borders (see the note on Luke viii. 32); but it does not appear to us very likely that they did so in the earlier ages of their history, when, as we believe, most of their neighbours participated in their objections to swine's flesh. Michaelis omits to observe one very important fact operating to the interdiction of pork; this is, that, of all animals, the hog is the only one subject to leprosy, and also to measles and a disorder resembling the king's evil. The Hebrews were aware of this, and had a saying that the hogs received nine out of ten measures of leprosy that descended on the world. We can perceive, however, that so far as the law is concerned, the hog was not more unclean than the ass or camel; but these animals are useful in other respects than for food; and as the hog is of little use but for food, and its habits are filthy and disagreeable, a people who may not use it as meat, naturally come to regard it with an aversion which does not apply to other animals equally disallowed as food. But we think the extent of this aversion has been exaggerated. The Mohammedans detest the hog quite as much as it was possible for the Jews to do, and none are kept for any purpose by them; but if they encounter a wild hog, they will capture it alive or dead, and carry it, even in their arms, to Christians, either for sale, or as an acceptable present. The only pork we ever tasted, while residing in Mohammedan Asia, was procured in this manner from Moslems. There is nothing in the law to prevent the Jews from doing the same, if they knew persons by whom pork might be eaten. It is true that, if they touched the dead carcase of an animal not allowed for food, they became unclean till the evening; but this was equally the case if they touched a human corpse, or even the carcase of an animal fit for food, unless it had been slaughtered in the usual way. There was nothing to prevent them from handling hogs, or any other unclean animals, while alive. It may be added that the flesh of the hogs of Palestine is of very indifferent quality, and will bear no comparison with that which our own swine afford.

9, 10. Whatsoever hath fins and scales, etc.-In these two following verses, the law points out an important difference in the flesh of marine animals, as indicated by the presence or absence of scales and fins. As examples of fish destitute of scales, we might refer to the shark, the ray, and the sun-fish; and, as habitants of the water without fins, such animals as the seal and the walrus may be meant. We may observe that the fish with fins and scales are generally to this day regarded as wholesome, and often delicious, V

VOL. I.

while the rest that differ in these particulars are frequently looked upon with disgust, and sometimes with horror, from a belief that they are sometimes poisonous. It is interesting to remark how the sentiments of mankind do generally, in this instance, coincide with the Divine precept.

13. Fowls.-The article of prohibited birds differs from the others in the absence of a systematic distinction. Twenty species of then known birds are mentioned as forbidden, by which we must understand that all others were allowed; and may collect that the general object was to prohibit the use of birds feeding on flesh and carrion, and to allow in preference those which feed on vegetable substances. It is now, in several instances, difficult to ascertain what the prohibited birds are; though this must have been well known while the Israelites maintained a national existence in Palestine. At present, dispersed as they are, and much obscurity having fallen upon their language, they are placed in the predicament of not understanding, and of expounding by guess, a statute which they still think themselves bound to observe. The scientific distinctions, with regard to the other class of animals, precludes the uncertainty which here attends a mere enumeration by name. But although no scientific distinction is established in the case of birds, the order of enumeration seems to exhibit a very accurate classification of the species, so far as the details can be ascertained. It is observable that the species mentioned are of birds which, except in case of necessity, are not usually eaten in scarcely any country.

'Eagle.'-See Deut. xxxii. 11, and Ezek. xvii. 3. 'Ossifrage.' peres.-The Sept. has here ypúų, and the Vulgate gryphus, whence our griffon. The bird is only mentioned here, and in the parallel text, Deut. xiv. 12, so that we have few intimations to guide us in its identification. The Hebrew word means breaker,' which has suggested to our translators and others the idea of its being the same with the ossifrage,' or 'bone-breaker,' which has been regarded as the same with the Aquila ossifraga of Buffon, or the Great Sea Eagle' of Pennant; and which obtained that name under the impression that it broke or crushed for food the bones of the animals which formed its prey. It is now, however, known that no bird is in that sense a bone-breaker.' If done at all, it must be by the beak; and the beaks of birds of prey, although powerful, are so only in striking, tearing, and holding, not in masticating or in crushing bones, for which the organ is utterly unsuited. And then, if they could crush them, their stomachs, far less vigorous than in some other orders, would not enable them to digest what they have taken, nor have remains of bones ever been found within them. This consideration disposes of the claim of the sea-eagle to be regarded as identified with the peres from reference to any consideration arising out of the signification of the name. But if any reliance is to be placed thereon as a clue to identification, there is another bird manifestly entitled to the name, and which (and not the sea-eagle) is now known to have been the bird to which the Romans applied the name of ossifrage. This is the Gypatos barbatos-the Lämmer Geyer of the Swiss-the largest flying bird of the old continent, and little, if at all, inferior to the condor of South America. It inhabits the highest ranges of mountains in Europe, Western Asia, and Africa; and although sometimes feeding on carrion, and not appearing to take up its prey like eagles in its talons, it pursues the chamois, young ibex, or mountain-deer, or marmot, among precipices, until it drives, or by a rush of its wings forces, the game over the brink, to be dashed in pieces below, and thus deservedly obtains the name of bone-breaker. Ornithologists have scarcely yet determined whether to place the bird with eagles or with vultures. Its head and neck are not naked, as in the latter, but covered with whitish narrow feathers; the rest of the plumage being nearly all black and brown. It often measures four feet two or three inches from the point of the bill to the end of the tail; and the spread of its wings is sometimes not less than ten feet across. This, then, being the ancient ossifrage, and there being a reason which does not elsewhere exist for the name 321

but the probabilities are at least equally in favour of our version.

14. Vulture.' daah.-This bird occurs only here and in Deut. xiv. 13, where, however, by an error of the copyists, the text has raah, and is there rendered by 'glede.' The Septuagint renders it by you, gyps, and the Vulgate by milvus, kite.' We see no reason to dissent from the majority of versions and interpreters in supposing the kite rather than the vulture to be here intended. The name, when taken in its full acceptation, denotes that kind of flight which is at once swift, varied, and majestic: this agrees very well with the kite or glede, which is characterised by the easy and swift motion with which it glides through the air, for the bird has, in proportion to its bulk, very long wings, with a forked tail extending beyond them. It rises to a towering height, hangs apparently motionless in the sky, and darts down with immeuse ve

VULTURE (Milcus ictinus).

locity; but the legs and claws being weak, it is cowardly, and feeds upon carrion, fish, small birds, and even insects. From their habits, this kite is in Egypt often seen in company with vultures, both in their flight, and while engaged in their foul but useful task of devouring the carrion and offal of meat, which would otherwise pollute the air by its decomposition. It is not known with certainty that the kite of Europe and that of Egypt are the same species, though there is no want of scientific names for both species found in the valley of the Nile, one of which is certainly distinct from that of Europe, and the other, if not so, is a strongly marked variety. One of them is the milvus ictinus of Savigny, which is distinguished also by other names in different states of its plumage. Its head and throat are of a whitish colour, streaked with brown; the body grey-brown above, and ferruginous below. The other, called milvus ater, or the black kite, has the head, neck, and back, dark rusty grey; the scapulars bordered with rusty; the wing coverts and pinions black, the latter tipped with white; and tail grey above and white beneath. The habits of both species are much the same; and the probability is, that both species extend into Palestine and

than the preceding, is supposed to denote the vulture; but respecting vultures see the note on Job xxviii. 7, where a species of vulture is more certainly indicated.

15. Raven.' See Gen. viii. 7. The expression 'after his kind' is doubtless for the purpose of including all the birds of this genus, as the crow, the pie, etc.

16. Owl - bath-hayyanah.-This is generally agreed to denote not the owl, but the ostrich (Struthio camelus), for which see Job xxxix. 13 and 14.

-Night-hawk. Denn tachmas.-This name, if we refer to its signification, assigns a violent and rapacious character to the bird it designates. The reasons on which Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 232) takes it for the male ostrich, appears wholly untenable, because that bird is cruel to its young; and because the female ostrich is especially designated in the preceding clause. Others think it the ear-owl (Strix otis). The rendering of the Authorized Version is, however, quite as good as any other, and has better authority in its favour. The night-hawk is indicated both by the Septuagint yλaút, and the Vulgate noctua; and although the Targum of Jonathan indicates a swallow, that rather corroborates than weakens this identification, as, in fact, the genera to which the night-hawk and swallow belong, are nearly allied, and the former so much resembles the latter in the velocity and action of its flight, that it might be mistaken for it when seen on the wing at night. It is also known that the night-hawk of Europe (caprimulgus Europaeus), or a species nearly allied to it, is an inhabitant of Syria; and the bad name of tachmas which it bears, may be sufficiently explained by its belonging to a genus highly connected with the superstitions of all countries, from their nocturnal habits, large and remarkable eyes, wide mouths, plaintive cry, and sudden and inaudible flight. Nevertheless it is a very harmless bird, voracious only of moths (phalena) that are about at night. Towards all other animals it is absolutely harmless, although, among other enormities, wrongfully accused of sucking the udders of goats; and being regarded as an

indication of misfortune and death to those who happen to see it glide past them after the evening twilight. The names night-hawk' and 'night-raven (which it also bears) might seem to imply a bulky species, with powers similar to those which the day-birds possess; but in fact the bird is not so large as the thrush, and very feeble, both in beak and talons. It thus appears that it is not always the size of a bird, nor its power of inflicting injury, that determines the importance attached to its name, but the opinions, true or false, which may have been entertained concerning it.

-Cuckoo' shachaph.-As the Greek version renders this term by Aápov, and the Vulgate by larus, we are led to suppose that some of the lesser kinds of sea-fowl are meant; and from the nature of the original word, which denotes slenderness and wasting, one would feel inclined to think that the 'terns' must be here alluded to. The terns (Sterna) are slender birds, and resemble, with their long wings and forked tail, the common swallow; whence they are called in French and English, seaswallows. Some writers think the sea-mew is intended, but Dr. Shaw inclines to the saf-saf-the name of which is not unlike the Hebrew of the text. This is a graminivorous and gregarious bird; of which there are two species described by the Doctor in his Travels, p. 252.

The cuckoo, though probably not denoted by the Hebrew name shachaph, is known in Palestine, to which it comes on the approach of winter, and quits in spring. Mr. Buckingham, travelling across the mountains from Damascus to Sidon in April, heard the voice of the cuckoo loud, distinct, and clear, at the time the ground was covered with deep snow, The Arabs call it Teer el- Yakub, or 'Jacob's Bird,' under the belief that it pronounces the name of Jacob, to the Arabic sound of which the note of the bird has indeed considerable resemblance. See Kitto's Natural History of Palestine, p. 403.

CUCKOO. SEA-SWALLOW (Sterna hirundo).

'Hawk.' netz; Sept. lépag; Vulg. accipiter. This, like the Arabic naz, appears to be a common name to several species of raptorial birds, like our own word 'falcon.' Western Asia and Lower Egypt, and consequently the intermediate countries of Syria and Palestine, are the residence of a considerable number of species of hawks, which are migratory, as followers upon birds of passage, or remain in a region so abundantly stocked with pigeon and turtle-dove as Palestine, and affording such a variety of ground for hunting this particular bird-abounding as it does in mountain and forest, plain, desert, marsh, river, and sea-coast. The hierax, or sacred hawk of Egypt, so abundantly represented on all the ancient monuments of that country, is called by Sir J. G. Wilkinson, Falco areoris, but seems to be the same, or only a variety of the common peregrine falcon, which, from its extensive diffusion, is doubtless to be found also in Palestine. This