Читать книгу Bible Animals - John George Wood - Страница 4

The Monkey tribe rarely mentioned in Scripture—Why the Ape was introduced into Palestine—Solomon's ships, and their cargo of Apes, peacocks, ivory and gold—Various species of Monkey that might have been imported—The Rhesus Monkey—The Hoonuman or Entellus—Habits of the Monkey, and reverence in which it is held by the natives—The Egyptians and their Baboon worship—Idols and memorials—The Wanderoo—its singular aspect—Reasons why it should be introduced into Palestine—General habits of the Wanderoo—its love of curiosities—Probability that Solomon had a menagerie—Various species of Monkey that maybe included in the term "Kophim"—The Satyr of Scripture—Babylon in its glory and fall—Fulfilment of prophecy—Judaic ideas of the Satyrs, or Seirim.

Animals belonging to the monkey tribe are but sparingly mentioned in Holy Writ. If, as is possible, the Satyr of Scripture signifies some species of baboon, there are but three passages either in the Old or New Testament where these animals are mentioned. In 1 Kings x. 22, and the parallel passage 2 Chron. ix. 21, the sacred historian makes a passing allusion to apes as forming part of the valuable cargoes which were brought by Solomon's fleet to Tharshish, the remaining articles being gold, ivory, and peacocks. The remaining passage occurs in Is. xiii. 21, where the prophet foretells that on the site of Babylon satyrs shall dance.

The reason for this reticence is simple enough. No monkey was indigenous to Palestine when the various writers of the Bible lived, and all their knowledge of such animals must have been derived either from the description of sailors, or from the sight of the few specimens that were brought as curiosities from foreign lands. Such specimens must have been extremely rare, or they would not have been mentioned as adjuncts to the wealth of Solomon, the wealthiest, as well as the wisest monarch of his time. To the mass of the people they must have been practically unknown, and therefore hold but a very inferior place in the Scriptures, which were addressed to all mankind.

There is scarcely any familiar animal, bird, reptile or insect, which is not used in some metaphorical sense in the imagery which pervades the whole of the Scriptures. For example, the various carnivorous animals, such as the lion, wolf, and bear, are used as emblems of destruction in various ways; while the carnivorous birds, such as the eagle and hawk, and the destructive insects, such as the locust and the caterpillar, are all similarly employed in strengthening and illustrating the words of Holy Writ.

But we never find any animal of the monkey tribe mentioned metaphorically, possibly because any monkeys that were imported into Palestine must only have been intended as objects of curiosity, just as the peacocks which accompanied them were objects of beauty, and the gold and ivory objects of value—all being employed in the decoration of the king's palace.

The question that now comes before us is the species of monkey that is signified by the Hebrew word Kophim. In modern days, we distinguish this tribe of animals into three great sections, namely, the apes, the baboons, and the monkey; and according to this arrangement the ape, being without tails, must have been either the chimpanzee of Africa, the orang-outan of Sumatra, or one of the Gibbons. But there is no reason to imagine that the word Kophim was intended to represent any one of these animals, and it seems evident that the word was applied to any species of monkey, whether it had a tail or not.

Perhaps the best method of ascertaining approximately the particular species of monkey, is to notice the land from which the animals came. Accordingly, we find that the ships of Solomon brought gold, ivory, apes, and peacocks, and that they evidently brought their cargoes from the same country. Consequently, the country in question must produce gold, and must be inhabited by the monkey tribe, by the elephant, and by the peacock. If the peacock had not been thus casually mentioned, we should have been at a loss to identify the particular country to which reference is made; but the mention of that bird shows that some part of Asia must be signified. It is most probable that the vessels in question visited both India and Ceylon, although, owing to the very imperfect geographical knowledge of the period, it is not possible to assert absolutely that this is the case. In India, however, and the large island of Ceylon, gold, elephants, peacocks, and monkeys exist; and therefore we will endeavour to identify the animals which are mentioned under the general term Apes, or Kophim.

THE RHESUS AND ENTELLUS.

"Bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes."—1 Kings x. 22.

We are quite safe in suggesting that some of the apes in question must have belonged to the Macaques, and it is most likely that one of them was the Rhesus, or Bhunder, scientifically named Macacus Rhesus.

This animal is very plentiful in India, and is one of the many creatures which are held sacred by the natives. Consequently, it takes up its quarters near human habitations, feeling sure that it will not be injured, and knowing that plenty of food is at hand. It is said that in some parts of India the natives always leave one-tenth of their grain-crops for the monkeys, and thus the animals content themselves with this offering, and refrain from devastating the fields, as they would otherwise do. This story may be true or not. It is certainly possible that in a long series of years the monkeys of that neighbourhood have come to look upon their tithe as a matter belonging to the ordinary course of things; but whether it be true or not, it illustrates the reverence entertained by the Hindoos for their monkeys.

In many places where grain and fruit crops are cultivated, the monkeys get rather more than their share, plundering without scruple, and finding no hindrance from the rightful owners, who dare not drive them away, lest they should injure any of these sacred beings. However, being unmindful of the maxim, "qui facit per alium, facit per se," they are only too glad to avail themselves of the assistance of Europeans, who have no scruples on the subject. Still, although they are pleased to see the monkeys driven off, and their crops saved, they would rather lose all their harvest than allow a single monkey to be killed, and in the earlier years of our Indian colony, several riots took place between the natives and the English, because the latter had killed a monkey through ignorance of the reverence in which it was held.

Another monkey which may probably have been brought to Palestine from India is the Hoonuman, Entellus, or Makur, which is more reverenced by the Hindoos than any other species. Its scientific title is Presbytes entellus. In some parts of India it is worshipped as a form of divinity, and in all it is reverenced and protected to such an extent that it becomes a positive nuisance to Europeans who are not influenced by the same superstitious ideas as those which are so prevalent in India. Being a very common species, it could easily be captured, especially if, as is likely to be the case, it was fearless of man through long immunity from harm. The sailors who manned Solomon's navy would not trouble themselves about the sacred character of the monkeys, but would take them without the least scruple wherever they could be found.

The Hoonuman would also be valued by them on account of its docility when taken young, and the amusing tricks which it is fond of displaying in captivity as well as in a state of freedom. Moreover, it is rather a pretty creature, the general colour being yellowish, and the face black.

Perfectly aware of the impunity with which they are permitted to act, these monkeys prefer human habitations to the forests which form the natural home of their race, and crowd into the villages and temples, the latter being always swarming with the long-tailed host. As is the case with the Rhesus, the Hoonuman monkeys are much too fond of helping themselves from the shops and stalls, and if they can find a convenient roof, will sit there and watch for the arrival of the most dainty fruits.

However, the natives, superstitious as they are, and unwilling to inflict personal injury on a monkey, have no scruple in making arrangements by which a monkey that trespasses on forbidden spots will inflict injury on itself. They may not shoot or wound in any way the monkeys which cluster on their roofs, and the animals are so perfectly aware of the fact, that they refuse to be driven away by shouts and menacing gestures. But, they contrive to make the roofs so uncomfortable by covering them with thorns, that the monkeys are obliged to quit their points of vantage, and to choose some spot where they can sit down without fear of hurting themselves.

That the Hindoos should pay homage almost divine to a monkey, does seem equally absurd and contemptible. But, strange as this superstition may be, and the more strange because the intellectual powers of the educated Hindoos are peculiarly subtle and penetrating, it was shared by a greater, a mightier, and a still more intellectual race, now extinct as a nation. The ancient Egyptians worshipped the baboon, and ranked it among the most potent of their deities; and it can but strike us with wonder when we reflect that a people who could erect buildings perfectly unique in the history of the world, who held the foremost place in civilization, who perfected arts which we, at a distance of three thousand years, have only just learned, should pay divine honours to monkeys, bulls, and snakes. Such, however, was the case; and we find that the modern Hindoo shows as great reverence for the identical animals as did the Egyptian when Pharaoh was king, and Joseph his prime minister.

It is said by some, that neither the Egyptian of the ancient times, nor the Hindoo of the present day, actually worshipped those creatures, but that they reverenced them as external signs of some attribute of God. Precisely the same remarks have been made as to the worship of idols, and it is likely enough that the highly educated among the worshippers did look upon a serpent merely as an emblem of divine wisdom, a bull as an image of divine strength, and a monkey as an external memorial of the promised incarnation of divinity. So with idols, which to the man of educated and enlarged mind were nothing but visible symbols employed for the purpose of directing the mind in worship. But, though this was the case with the educated and intellectual, the ignorant and uncultivated, who compose the great mass of a nation, did undoubtedly believe that both the living animal and the lifeless idol were themselves divine, and did worship them accordingly.

THE WANDEROO.

There is one species of monkey, which is extremely likely to have been brought to Palestine, and used for the adornment of a luxurious monarch's palace. This is the Wanderoo, or Nil-Bhunder (Silenus veter). The Wanderoo, or Ouanderoo, as the name is sometimes spelled, is a very conspicuous animal, on account of the curious mane that covers its neck and head, and the peculiarly formed tail, which is rather long and tufted, like that of a baboon, and has caused it to be ranked among those animals by several writers, under the name of the Lion-tailed Baboon. That part of the hairy mass which rolls over the head is nearly black, but as it descends over the shoulders, it assumes a greyer tinge, and in some specimens is nearly white, reminding the observer of the huge wigs which were so prevalent in the time of Charles II, or of the scarcely less enormous head-dresses with which our judges are decorated. As is the case with many animals, the mane is not seen in the young specimens, and increases in size with age, only reaching its full dimensions when the animal has attained adult age. Moreover, the grey hue belongs exclusively to the elder monkeys, and only in the oldest specimens is the full, white, venerable, wig-like mane to be seen in perfection.

In captivity, the general demeanour of this monkey corresponds with its grave and dignified aspect. It seems to be more sedate than the ordinary monkeys, to judge from the specimens which have lived in the Zoological Gardens, and sits peering with its shiny brown eyes out of the enormous mane, with as much gravity as if it were really a judge deciding an important case in law. Not that it will not condescend to the little tricks and playful sallies for which the monkeys are so celebrated; but it soon loses the vivacity of youth, and when full-grown, presents as great a contrast to its former vivacity, as does a staid full-grown cat sitting by the fire, to the restless, lively, playful kitten of three months old. During its growth, it can be taught to go through several amusing performances, but it has little of the quick, mercurial manner, which is generally found among the monkey tribe.

The docility of the Wanderoo often vanishes together with its youth. The same animal may be gentle, tractable, and teachable when young, and yet, when a few years have passed over its head and whitened its mane, may be totally obstinate and dull, refusing to perform the feats which it accomplished in its youth, or to learn others more suitable to its years. Consistent kind treatment will, however, have its effect upon the creature, but as a general rule, an old Wanderoo is apt to be a treacherous and spiteful animal.

The natives of the country in which the Wanderoo lives, attribute to it the wisdom which its venerable aspect seems to imply, much as the ancient Athenians venerated the owl as the bird of wisdom, and the chosen companion of the learned Minerva. In many places, the Wanderoo is thought to be a sort of king among monkeys, and to enjoy the same supremacy over its maneless kinsfolk, that the king-vulture maintains over the other vultures which are destitute of the brilliant crest that marks its rank.

I am induced to believe that the Wanderoo must have been one of the monkeys which were brought to Solomon, for two reasons.

In the first place, it is a native both of India and Ceylon, and therefore might have formed an article of merchandise, together with the peacock, gold, and ivory. And if, as is extremely probable, the Tharshish of the Scripture is identical with Ceylon, it is almost certain that the Wanderoo would have been brought to Solomon, in order to increase the glories of his palace. Sir Emerson Tennant points out very forcibly, that in the Tamil language, the words for apes, ivory, and peacocks, are identical with the Hebrew names for the same objects, and thus gives a very strong reason for supposing that Ceylon was the country from which Solomon's fleet drew its supplies.

Another reason for conjecturing that the Wanderoo would have been one of the animals sent to grace the palace of Solomon is this. In the days when that mighty sovereign lived, as indeed has been the case in all partially civilized countries, the kings and rulers have felt a pride in collecting together the rarest objects which they could purchase, giving the preference to those which were in any way conspicuous, whether for intrinsic value, for size, for beauty, or for ugliness. Thus, giants, dwarfs, and deformed persons of either sex, and even idiots, were seen as regular attendants at the court, a custom which extended even into the modern history of this country, the "Fool" being an indispensable appendage to the train of every person of rank. Animals from foreign lands were also prized, and value was set upon them, not only for their variety, but for any external characteristic which would make them especially conspicuous.

Ordinary sovereigns would make collections of such objects, simply because they were rare, and in accordance with the general custom; and in importing the "apes" and peacocks together with the gold and ivory, Solomon but followed the usual custom. He, however, on whom the gift of wisdom had been especially bestowed, would have another motive besides ostentation or curiosity. He was learned in the study of that science which we now call Natural History. It is, therefore, extremely probable, that he would not neglect any opportunities of procuring animals from distant lands, in order that he might study the products of countries which he had not personally visited, and it is not likely that so conspicuous an animal as the Wanderoo would have escaped the notice of those who provided the cargo for which so wealthy a king could pay, and for which they would demand a price proportionate to its variety.

There is perhaps no monkey which is so conspicuous among its kin as the Wanderoo, and certainly no monkey or ape inhabiting those parts of the world to which the fleet of Solomon would have access. Its staid, sedate manners, its black body, lion-like tail, and huge white-edged mane, would distinguish it so boldly from its kinsfolk, that the sailors would use all their efforts to capture an animal for which they would be likely to obtain a high price.

The peculiar and unique character of Solomon affords good reason for conjecture that, not only were several species of the monkey tribe included under the general word Kophim, but that the number of species must have been very large. An ordinary monarch would have been content with one or two species, and would probably have been perfectly satisfied if a number of monkeys had been brought from beyond seas, irrespective of distinction of species. But, if we consider the character of Solomon, we shall find that he would not have been content with such imperfect knowledge. We are told that he wrote largely of the various productions of the earth, and, to judge him by ourselves, it is certain that with such magnificent means at his command, he would have ransacked every country that his ships could visit, for the purpose of collecting materials for his works. It is therefore almost certain that under the word Kophim may be included all the most plentiful species of monkey which inhabit the countries to which his fleet had access, and that in his palace were collected together specimens of each monkey which has here been mentioned, besides many others of which no special notice need be taken, such as the Bonnet Monkeys, and other Macaques.

We now come to the vexed question of the Satyrs, respecting which word great controversies have been raised. The Hebrew word Seirim merely signifies "hairy beings," and does not seem to be applied to any definite species of animal. Several scholars, therefore, translate the word by "wild goats," and instead of reading the passages (Is. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 14) "Satyrs shall dance there," they read them, "The he-goats shall skip there." This is certainly an easier interpretation than that which is accepted in our translation, but whether it is more correct may be doubted. Moreover, the word "goat" would not convey the idea of utter desolation which the prophecy implied, and which has been so signally fulfilled in the Babylon of the present day. The vast palaces and temples have sunk into shapeless heaps of ruins, affording scarcely a trace by which the buildings can be identified. The many massive gates, for which the city was famous, have disappeared. The double lines of fortification are only to be distinguished by a few scattered mounds, while the wonderful palace of Nebuchadnezzar has left but a few shattered walls as relics of an edifice whose fame spread over the world.

What precise animal was meant by the word Seirim cannot be ascertained, nor is it even certain whether the word signified any particular species at all. The ancient commentators identified Seirim with the semi-human creatures of mythology, known as Satyrs, and strengthened this opinion by a reference to Lev. xvii. 7, where the Israelites are warned against worshipping Seirim, or "devils" according to our translation. In common with all the civilized world, they fully believed that Satyrs were veritable inhabitants of the woods and deserts, with forms half man half goat, with powers more than human, and with passions below humanity. Of course we cannot now accept such an interpretation, but must grant, either that a mere metaphor of desolation was intended, or that the prophecy alluded to various wild animals that inhabit deserted places. Accept which interpretation we will, it is impossible to identify any particular animal with the "Satyr" of Isaiah, and therefore it will be better to decline giving any opinion on a subject which cannot be definitely explained.