the second of the eagle kind is the vulture; since the vulture could hardly be omitted in this list, and its proper place among its associates should seem to be earlier than this.

As modern naturalists, this is the proper place where we should expect to find the hawk; and the order is so natural, that we think we risk little in supposing that it was adopted even in the days of Moses; for, though we are well aware that we must not judge of the natural history of that ancient writer by the Linnean system; yet where nature has appointed an order, as we may safely say in this instance, what should forbid the earliest of the naturalists from observing it?

In favour of the hawk are Jerom, the Arabs, Munster, Castalio, Junius, Diodati, Buxtorff, Schindler, and others.

VERSE 14.

The kite. This follows the hawk with propriety. The Hebrew name implies rapacity; and this agrees well with the kite. As there are several kinds of these birds, we shall not particularize any; no doubt but all their classes were meant to be included under one name that was best known. The person who should have eaten one species of eagle, or of hawk, because another species was named in the text, would have found the consequences of this transgression in the punishment of his prevarication. Every RAVEN, after his kind. This genus no doubt includes the crow, the pie, &c. and therefore, coming after the hawk and kite, closes this list of birds of prey with great propriety.

It will be observed that the foregoing birds are birds of wing, high-flyers, such as roam to great distances, and prey wherever they can. Mr. Bruce describes multitudes of birds as following the armies following the armies in Abyssinia; and I should think it likely that among them would be found most, or all, of those enumerated above. Perhaps they are not only birds of prey, but they feed on human carcasses; which would be a further cause of their pollution and unfitness.

VERSE 16.

We are now directed to a very different class of birds, which commences with, the owl, say our translators; but this is clearly a mistake: the word describes "the daughter of screams," i.e. the ostrich. See this confirmed in FRAGMENT, No. 144.

Is it not astonishing that this bird should have been described as, 1st, the ostrich, by the LXX; 2dly, sirenes, which bird is apparently a creature of fancy; 3dly, the owl; and 4thly, the nightingale? What have these birds in common, that can justify such variations? The three Chaldee versions, Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Paraphrase, read naamah, which is the Arabic name for the ostrich: Maimonides and the Talmud agree with them.

The night hawk. That this is a voracious bird seems clear from the import of its name; and interpreters are generally agreed to describe it as flying by night. On the whole, it should seem to be the night owl, strix orientalis; which Hasselquist thus describes: "It is of the size of the common owl, and lodges in the large buildings or ruins of Egypt and Syria, and sometimes even in the dwelling houses. The Arabs settled in Egypt call it massasa, and the Syrians, banu. It is extremely voracious in Syria; to such a degree, that if great care is not taken to shut the windows at the coming on of night, he enters the houses, and kills the children: the women, therefore, are very much afraid of him."

The cuckow. The strength of the versions is in favour of the sea-mew; the original name may denote a slender bird; but the sea-men, as a water bird, seems to be very ill placed in this part of the list: I should be almost tempted to adopt the notion of Dr. Shaw, which I transcribe below, but that I do not see wherefore a granivorous and gregarious bird should be excluded; can his want of the hinder toe be a sufficient reason? I hardly think it. Travels, p. 252. fol. edit.

"The rhaad, or saf-saf, is a granivorous and gre garious bird, which wanteth the hinder toe. There are two species of it; the smaller whereof is of the size of an ordinary pullet, but the larger is near as big as the hoobaara, differing also from the lesser in having a black head, with a tuft of dark blue feathers immediately below it. The belly of them both is white, the back and the wings of a buff colour, spotted with brown; whilst the tail is lighter, marked all along with black transverse streaks. The beak and the legs are stronger than in birds of the partridge kind. Rhaad, which denotes thunder, in the language of this country, is supposed to be the name that hath been given to this bird from the noise it maketh in springing from the ground; as saf-saf, the other name, very naturally expresseth the beating of the air, when it got upon the wing:""And is not unlike in name to the sahaph, or sah-haf, which, Lev. xii. 10. we translate cuckow." Note.

Dr. Geddes renders, "the horn owl;" but is this distinct enough from the foregoing?

The hawk, after his kind. This bird seems to be strangely placed here: we had kites of all sorts in verse 14. now, after the ostrich, and owl, birds of no kind comparatively, we have the hawks, a genus much more likely to have been included before, after the eagles and vultures.

I have no determinate opinion on the species of this bird; can it be the ibis? That bird, so common in Egypt, could hardly be omitted in the list. Can it be the curlew? Hasselquist mentions the plover of Egypt, and the three toed plover. We should seem to want a wild bird.

I shall add further, that if Mr. Bruce's abou hannes, vol. v. p. 172. be, e supposes, the ancient ibis of Egypt, perhaps the Hebrew name netj is still appropriated to it; for abou is merely the Arabic word for father, and ha-nes resembles the Hebrew name used in this passage, q. ha-netj.

Mr. Bruce begins his account of the abou hannes by saying, "the ancient and true name of this bird seems to be lost; the present is fancifully given to it," &c. Perhaps it is rather disguised than lost; but this is conjecture.

This bird is not now found in Egypt, though anciently it was worshipped there, and was very numerous; it is therefore not the ibis of Hasselquist. I suspect that the Arabic title, father, is some remains of the ancient idolatry, of which this bird was the object.

VERSE 17.

The little owl. Such is the translation of the LXX, Aquila, Theodotion, and Jerom; but why should the owl be introduced here? he was named in the former verse. Our translators seem to have thought the owl a convenient bird, as we have three owls in two verses. Among the Rabbins, some have thought this bird to be the pelican, and Bochart takes pains to prove it. Dr. Geddes thinks this bird is the cormorant, and the following the sea gull: as I rather take the following for the cormorant, I should incline to render this the sea gull. This begins the list of water birds, whatever bird it be.

The cormorant. Dr. Geddes renders, the "sea gull;" and observes, "that this is a plunging bird I have little doubt. Some modern critics think it is the pelican bassanus of Linnæus. The Chaldee and Syriac version, fish catcher, favours this rendering; nor less the Greek cataractes, which, according to Aristotle, draws for its food fishes from the bottom of the sea." I think this is a clear description of the cormorant, which certainly is one of the best of plungers; and which lives wholly on fish: moreover, which in some parts of Asia is used as a fish catcher for its master; who, by putting a collar round its neck, prevents it from swallowing the fish it has caught, which the bird therefore brings to the boat, and is afterward fed with a part of its prey. To this bird also agrees the description of Aristotle. Suidas says, "the cataractes is a kind of sea bird;" Aristotle adds, "smaller than a hawk." Appian, in Ixeuticis, describes the cataractes exactly according to the manner of the gannet on the coast of Scotland. At any rate this is meant for a water bird; and therefore demonstrates the impropriety of the preceding and following bird being rendered "owl!"

The great owl. This is strangely placed, after the little owl, and among water birds. The LXX render ibis; and this seems to be a very proper place for the ibis; which yet, I suppose, is not the an

cient ibis of Egypt, but that which in later ages received this name. The following is Hasselquist's account of this bird. "Ardea ibis: This bird is about the size of a raven-hen. It is found in lower Egypt, especially in places not overflowed by the Nile: and at length in those from which the water is withdrawn. He feeds on insects and small frogs, which abound in Egypt, both before and after the inundation of the Nile; in which he is of great service to the country. They assemble morning and evening, especially in the gardens, in such great numbers, that the palmtrees are covered with them. When he reposes himself, he sits upright, so as to cover his feet with his tail, and to straighten his neck and breast." As a bird of this character and description suits the situation assigned him in this place, I should think him preferable, at any rate, to "the great owl." Mr. Parkhurst, admitting that it should be of the ibis kind, supposes it may be the bittern, from the droning noise which that bird makes by blowing, which is one of the significations of the root of its Hebrew name.

The swan. This bird, in Hebrew tinschemet, is extremely doubtful: the LXX render porphyrion, or purple hen, which is a water bird, not unlike in form to those which have preceded it. His name is derived from his general colour. Dr. Geddes observes, that "the root signifies to breathe out, to respire. If etymology were our guide, I would say that it points to a well known quality in the swan, that of being able to respire a long time with its bill and neck under water, and even plunged in the mud." Mr. Parkhurst thinks, the conjecture of Michaelis not improbable, "that it is the goose, which every one knows is remarkable for its manner of breathing out, or hissing, when provoked." Michaelis observes, p. 221. "What makes me conjecture this is, that the same Chaldee interpreters, who, in Leviticus, render obija, do not employ this word in Deuteronomy, but substitute "the white kak," which, according to Buxtorf, Dict. p. 2107. denotes the goose." Perhaps Egypt has birds of the wild goose kind; one of which is here alluded to; and so I find Norden, vol. ii. p. 36. mentions, "a goose of the Nile, whose plumage was extremely beautiful. It was of an exquisite aromatic taste, smelled of ginger, and had a great deal of flavour." Can a bird of this kind be the Hebrew tinschemet?

The pelican, in Hebrew kaat, and in the Eastern versions, kik, kok, or kak. As the bird before this was called the white kak, it seems to suppose a similarity between that and this, though a difference of colour. The Talmud describes it as a water bird, with a long neck; the LXX read palecas, and the Vulgate, onocrotalus; on the whole, this bird is pretty well determined.

The gier eagle. No eagle is a water bird; so that, this being a list of water birds, we ought not to expect to find an eagle in it. I perceive that most

interpreters are willing to render the Hebrew word racham by that kind of Egyptian vulture which is now called rachami, and is abundant in the streets of Cairo, vultur percnopterus. The description which Hasselquist gives of this bird is horrible; but, especially, it does not agree with a water bird, which is what we want: "It is hardly ever seen in the fields, or around the lakes: it is an impure bird, and a carrion eater." Mr. Parkhurst wants a water fowl; and Dr. Geddes says, "it is not easy to conceive how this bird came by its name, rachum." But I think, by tracing it, we may advance some way toward ascertaining this bird. Jonathan and the Syrian interpreter translate, serakreka; Onkelos, jerakreka; the Talmud, serakrak. Meninski, in his Lexicon, mentions a bird named by the Arabians sirikrak, sikirrak, &c. It is not of the pie kind, though so understood by Meniuski. I observe Dr. Shaw mentions, "the shaga-rag, of the bigness and shape of a jay, though with a smaller bill, and shorter legs. The back is brownish; the head, neck, and belly of a light green; and upon the wings and tail there are several spots or rings of a deep blue. It makes a squalling, and builds in the banks of the Shelliff, Booberak, and other rivers." This description approaches to that of the kingfisher or halcyon: the name is sufficiently near to that of the versions; and if the halcyon may be supposed to be the racham, we see at once that it is a water bird; and the histories of this bird's tender affection unite in the character of the racham. "The kingfisher frequents the banks of rivers, and feeds on fish. To compare small things with great, it takes its prey after the manner of the ospray, balancing itself at a certain distance over the water for a considerable space, then darting below the surface, brings the prey up in its feet. It makes its nest in holes in the sides of the cliffs. The nest is very fœtid, by reason of the remains of fish brought to feed the young." Vide Pennant's British Zoology, vol. ii. p. 247. See Ovid, Metam. lib. xi. for the tenderness of the halcyon, and Theoc. Idyll. vii. 57; Virg. Georg. iii. 338; Silius Ital. lib. xiv. 275. No doubt there are several kinds of halcyons; that some are known in Egypt we are informed by Hasselquist, who gives this account of them: "Alcedo rudis, frequents the banks of the Nile, and takes the fish by thrusting his long bill into the water like the gull. Alcedo Egyptia, is found in lower Egypt, makes his nest on the date-trees, and the sycamores, which grow around Cairo. Feeds on frogs, insects and fish, which it finds in the fields. Its voice resembles that of the raven." Without determining on the probability of this conjecture, I think we may be sure that the rachami of Cairo is not the racham of Moses; as a bird so well known, and hardly capable of being lost, would certainly have been acquiesced in by commentators, had it been the bird designed, notwithstanding the remarks of Bruce, vol. v. 163, &c.

The stork. It is pretty well agreed that the Hebrew chasidah is either the stork or the heron; the stork is by much the most probable: and indeed, as the heron is not a bird of passage, which the stork is well known to be, I think we may acquiesce in this bird as the chasidah. Vide Parkhurst, Dictionary, p. 253. 4to.

The heron. This bird should rather be included among the storks, as it resembles them closely. As commentators are quite at a loss on this subject, insomuch that Dr. Geddes retains the original word, "anaphas of every kind," I shall be excused if I extract from Dr. Shaw the description of a bird which answers to what the passage and order requires. It is probable that some bird very near akin to this is what was designed by the sacred writer.

"The boo-onk, or long neck, is of the bittern kind, somewhat less than the lapwing. The neck, the breast, and the belly are of a light yellow; but the back and upper part of the wings are of a jet black. The tail is short; the feathers of the neck long, and streaked with white, or a light yellow. The bill, which is three inches long, is green, in fashion like to the stork's; and the legs, which are short and slender, are of the same colour. In walking or in searching for food, it throweth out its neck seven or eight inches, from whence the Arabs call it boo-onk, the long neck, or the father of the neck."

This is reckoned by the Dr. among water birds: it seems to be a smaller bird, but allied in form and manners to the kinds under prohibition.

The lapwing, or the upupa. This is pretty generally considered as the bird designed by the original word dukiphath, so called from its crest. It seems, that the Egyptians call the hoopoe, kukupha, and the Syrians, kikupha; which is near enough to the Hebrew dukiphath; which, therefore, we conclude is the hoopoe.

The bat. This rendering has the authority of most versions and commentators.

The number of birds prohibited is twenty. For the sake of shewing the correct natural order in which Moses has placed them, we shall range them systematically; as it will prove that the system of Moses was that of nature: also we have distinguished those which we have tolerable authority to imagine are correctly rendered.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these ye may eat of, every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth." This passage is surely expressed with sufficient obscurity: fowls, going on all four, fly ing, creeping, legs above their feet!

Observe, 1st, the word all is here taken with restrictions, since some are excepted. 2dly, The word rendered "fowl," should have been rendered, a creeper, or crawler; the present expression gives us the idea of a bird. The passage would read thus literally: "All winged reptiles, or creepers, having wings, walking on four feet, are abomination to you: but yet, these ye may eat, from among all winged creepers going on four, those which have in them JOINTS, O caroim, at the upper part of their Dy hind legs, regeli, for the purpose of leaping a from of the earth." This means to describe the locust, &c. arbah. These parts of the locust had exercised the critical inquiries of Michaelis, q. xxx. which Niebuhr answered, by information, that "arbah is the name at Bagdad, and at Maskat, at Bagdad, and at Maskat, of those locusts of passage, which devour all that they meet with, and then go further. Chagab, is also a locust known at Maskat. Rijelin are the two hind legs. Kirraim are the joints." By these terms I understand the joints of the hinder leg, those very conspicuous ones which unite the muscular thigh with the slender leg. The distinction I presume is this, the locust has usually, besides his wings, six legs; four for crawling, and two for leaping: such as may have four legs only, are forbidden; since they only creep with such feet, though they also fly

1st, The locust, no arbah. This is, as Niebuhr observes, the migratory locust.

2dly, Salom, or solam, yo, perhaps, as this name implies a rugged or craggy form. It is clearly a species of locust: but Golius thinks it is a locust before its wings appear; so that this, and the others, rather describe a state than a species.

3dly, Chargol . There is a story that this locust fights against serpents; and such is the import of its name in the Greek, Opious; but the foundation of this in the nature of the creature is not

known.

4thly, Chagab, n. A species of locust, says Niebuhr.

Without being able to identify the kind of each of these locusts, we may perceive that our translation errs in rendering, "the beetle." As to rendering the "grasshopper," certainly that insect is the nat ural representative of the locust tribe among us. Several kinds of locusts, and probably the very kinds mentioned above, though we are unable to appropriate them, are eaten by the Arabs; who broil, boil, fry, or stew them. They are brought to market regularly, in baskets, bags, &c. in a dried, or salted state, &c. in vast quantities; as we do shrimps, or prawns, &c.

VERSE 29.

The weasel. Most versions and commentators have been content to render the Hebrew choled, by weasel; but Bochart thought it was the mole; observing, that the Syriac chuleda, the Turkish chuld, the Arabic chold, all signify the mole: which also is called Khuld at Aleppo, Russell, vol. ii. p. 182.

The MOUSE, achbar. [JERBOA, Prov. xxx. 26.] This being an animal which burrows in the ground, it is likely that it should be pretty much assimilated to the creature which precedes it.

The tortoise. All who know the tortoise, know that it partakes of the nature of the amphibia too much to be, with propriety, placed among those creatures with whom we here find it associated. Dr. Shaw tells us, "the ar tjab, of this passage is a kind of lisard, called in Arabic dab, or dhab; it agrees nearly in the shape, and in the pointed annuli, or scales of the tail, with the caudiverbera," or shaketail. With this idea the Lxx agree, who call it the "land crocodile ;" the Vulgate," crocodile," simply: the great crocodile it certainly is not; but a lizard

only, not a tortoise, could have received this name. Bochart, Damir, and Avicenna, countenance the opinion of Dr. Shaw.

The ferret. Dr. Geddes renders this the newt. According to the import of the Hebrew word, its name seems to be taken from the cry it emits; and this is supposed by the generality of interpreters. "The Hebrews have named it anakah, because of its very sharp cries, which might be mistaken for groans and moanings. "If we examine the etymology of the Hebrew name, we shall find that the anakah is a spotted, or starred lizard, which utters sharp cries." Pliny, lib. xxix. cap. 4. mentions the "galeotes, covered with red spots, and its cries are sharp." I think the above descriptions are precisely those of the gekko, for which, vide plate on Deut. xxxii. 33. and, as a lizard is clearly the kind of animal intended; and as besides the gekko, few if any lizards cry, that animal seems to be strongly hinted at here. I would further observe, that, as its name in the Indies, tockai, and in Egypt, gekko, is formed from its voice, so the Hebrew name anakah, or perhaps anakkah, seems to be formed in like manner; the double k being equally observable in all these appellations. If these remarks are admissible, this lizard is sufficiently identified.

The chameleon. The rendering of coach by chameleon has the sanction of the LXX and Vulgate. Bochart prefers the guaril of the Arabs; which is a strong lizard; and this quality is denoted both by the Arabic and the Hebrew word. It is said that this lizard fights against serpents, and even kills them sometimes; from whence the Greeks have given it a name. Its flesh is hot, and is reckoned very fattening, especially by the women; and, together with its blood, skin, &c. is used in medicine. Dr. Shaw names it "the warral, or guaral, which, according to Leo, Afric. lib. ix. is sometimes thirty inches in length; being usually of a bright reddish colour, with darkish spots."

The lizard. As the companions of this creature are lizards also, this should have some mark of distinction. Bochart has made it very probable that this is a species of red lizard, called by the Arabs wachra. Some take it to be the salamander; to which, perhaps, it has some resemblance, in shape and size, though not in colour.

The SNAIL, chomet. This is the rendering of many commentators, including the Rabbins; but the LXX and St. Jerom read lisard; and indeed the place rather requires a lizard than a snail. The Arabic versions have the chameleon or stellio. According to the Talmudists, chometon means sand; and Bochart seeks, to answer the name, for a lizard which lives in the sand, which he finds in the Arabian lizard chulca; whose colour is azure, and which is mentioned by Arab writers.

The MOLE, tinshemeth. This word rather denotes a lizard; and according to the signification of the root, neshem, to breathe, it applies peculiarly to the chameleon, of which the story went that it lived on air. This, though not true, has been popular. Pliny reports, lib. viii. cap. 33. that "this is the only animal which neither eats nor drinks. He stands up, his mouth always open; and the air serves him as aliment." And the same says Ovid, Metam. lib. xv. 411.

Id quoque, quod ventis animal nutritur et aurâ.

And every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth shall be an abomination: that is to say, creeping insects of all kinds: whatsoever goeth upon the belly, i.e. serpents; whatsoever goeth on all four, i.e. locusts, &c. and lizards; whatsoever hath more feet than four, i.e. scolopendras, scorpions, &c.

In this verse the law is made general; yet there are, undoubtedly, serpents which are good to eat ; even the rattlesnake is reckoned a dainty by some persons in America; and many people in Egypt, &c. in a manner live on serpents. Lizards also are good; the guano is hunted for its flesh, which is esteemed extremely delicate. And among insects, the palmtree worms of Martinico are considered as exquisite; their flavour being exceedingly aromatic. These, however, are not sufficient to justify the character of the rest of their tribe. This general prohibition is founded on the most correct views of propriety, and on the general unfitness by nature of the creatures prohibited.