gard to this constellation, see Notes on ch. ix. 9. The word bands here has been supposed to refer to the girdle with which it is usually represented. Orion is here described as a man girded for action, and is the pioneer of winter. It made its appearance early in the winter, and was regarded as the precursor of storms and tempests. See the quotations in the Notes on ch.ix.y. Thus appearing in the autumn, this constellation seems to lead on the winter. It conies with strength. It spreads its influence over the air, the earth, the waters, and binds every thing at its pleasure. God here asks Job whether he had power to disarm this giant; to unloose his girdle; to divest him of strength; to control the seasons.'' Had he power over summer and winter, so as to cause them to go or come at his bidding, and to control all those law-s which produced them.''
32. Canst thou hring forth Mazzaroth in his season? Marg. " the tirelve sigiis;" that is, the twelve signs of the Zodiac. There lias been much diversity of opinion about the meaning of this word. It occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, and of course it is not easy to determine its signification. The LXX retain the word /(«f()i>(_)oj.9^, without attempting to translate it. Jerome renders it, Luciferum — Lucifer, the morningstar. The Chaldee, X^'^J^ ''':'^''^ — the constellations of the planets. Coverdale, " the morning-star;" and so Luther renders it. Rosenmiiller, sig7ia ccJestia — the celestial sig7is, and so Herder, Umbreit, Gesenius, and Noyes, ^'^ the Zodiac." Gesenius re gards the word nnjia — mazzaroth, as the same as riiPJ'O — mazzaloth, properly lodgiiigs, inns; and hence the lodgings of the sun, or the places or houses in which he appears in the heavens, and thus as meaning the signs in the Zodiac. Most of the
33 Knowest thou the ordinances " of heaven? canst thou
Hebrew interpreters adopt this view, but it rests on no certain foundation, and as we are not certain as to the meaning of the word, the only safe way is to retain the original, as is done in our common version. I do not see how it is possible to determine its meaning with certainty, and probably it is to be regarded as a name given to some constellation or cluster of stars supposed to exert an influence over the seasons, or connected with some change in the seasons, which we cannot now accurately understand. H Or canst thou guide Jlrcturiis? On the constellation " Arcturus" (pT4. — dish), see Notes on ch. ix. 9. The word rendered "guide" in the text, is in the margin "guide them." The Hebrew is, " and aish upon [or near — i"?] her sons, canst thou lead them.''" Herder and Umbreit render it, "And lead forth the Bear with her young," or her children. The reference is to the constellation Arcturus, or Ursa Jlajor in the northern sky. The " sons" referred to are the stars that accompany it, probably the stars that are now called the " tail of the bear." Umbreit. Another interpretation is suggested by Herder, which is that this constellation is represented as a nightly wanderer — a motiier, who is seeking her lost children, the stars, that are no longer visible, and that thus revolves around the heavens. But the probable reference is to the constellation conducted round and round the pole as by some unseen hand, like a mother with her children, and the question is, whether Job had skill and power to do this? God appeals to it as a manifestation of his majesty and power, and as far above the skill of man. Who ever looked upon that beautiful constellation and marked its regular revolutions, without feeling that its position
33. Knozcest thou the ordinances of heaven? The laws or statutes by which the motions of the heavenly bodies are governed. These were wholly unknown in the time of Job, and the discovery of some of those laws — for only a few of them are yet known — was reserved to be the glory of the modern system of astronomy. The suggestion of the great principles of the system gave immortality to the name Copernicus; and the discovery of those laws in modern times has conferred immortality on the names of Brahe, Kepler, and Newton. The laws which control the heavenly bodies are the most sublime that are known to man, and have done more to impress the human mind with a sense of the majesty of God than any other discoveries made in the material universe. Of course, all those laws were known to God himself, and he appeals to them in proof of his grealness and majesty. The grand and beautiful movements of the heavenly bodies in the time of Job were fitted to produce admiration; and one of the chief delights of those that dwelt under the splendor of an Oriental sky was to contemplate those movements, and to give names to those moving lights. The discoveries of science have enlarged the conceptions of man in regard to the starry heavens far towards immensity; have shown that these twinkling lights are vast worlds and systems, and at the same time have so disclosed the laws by which they are governed as to promote, where the heart is right, intelligent piety, and elevate the mind to more glorious views of the Creator. U Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? That is, 'dost thou assign the domin ion of the heavens over the earth.''' The reference is, undoubtedly, to the
34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee 1
influence of llie lieavenly bodies upon sublunary objecls. Tlie exact extent of that cannot be supposed to Uave been known in tlie days of Job, and it is probable that much more was ascribed to tlie influence of the stars on human aflairs tiian the truth would justify. Nor is its e.xtent now known. It is known tiuit the moon has an influence over tlie tides of the ocean; it may be that it lias to some extent over the weather; and it is not impossible that the other heavenly bodies may liave some effect on the changes observed in the earth which is not understood. Whatever it is, it was and is all known to God, and the idea here is, that it was a proof of his immense superiority over man.
34. Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of icaters maij cover thee? That is, canst thou command the clouds so that they shall send down abundant rain.' Bouillier supposes that there is an allusion here to the incantations which were pretended to be practised by the IMagi, by which they claimed the power of producing rain at pleasure. Comp. Jer. xiv. 22, " Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles [the idols that they worship] that can cause rain.'' Art not thou he, O Lord our God.'" The idea is, that it is God only who can cause rain, and that the control of the clouds from which rain descends is wholly bevond the reach of man.
35. Canst thou send lightnings? That is, lightning is wholly under the control of God. So it is now; for after all that man lias done to discover its laws, and to guard against it, yet still man has made no advances towards a power to wield it, nor is it possible that he ever should. It is one of the agencies in the universe that is always to be un-
that they may go, and say unto thee, ' Here we arc?
30 Who hath put wisdom in the inward " parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
der the divine direction, and however much man may subsidize to his purposes wind, and water, and steam, and air, yet there can be no prospect that the forked lightning can be seized by human hands and directed by human skill to purposes of utility or destiuction among men. Conip. Notes on ch. xxxvi. 31-33. H And say unto thee. Here tnc are. Marg. Behold us. That is, we are at your disposal. This language is derived from the condition of servants presenting themselves at the call of tlieir masters, and saying that they stood ready to obey tlieir commands. Comp. 1 Sam. iii. 4, 6, 9. Isa. vi. 8.
36. Who hath put wisdom in the inloard parts? There is great variety in the interpretation of this passage. Jerome renders it, Q,uis posuit in visceribns hominis sapientiam.' Vel quis dedit gallo intelligentiam.' " Who hath put wisdom in the inner parts of man? Or who has given to the cock intelligence.'" The LXX as strangely, " Who hath given to women skill in weaving, and a knowledge of the art of embroidering?" One of the Targums renders it, " Who lias given to the woodcock intelligence that he should praise his Master.'" Herder renders it,
" Who gave understanding to the flying clouds.' Or intelligence to the motcors of the air.'"
" W^ho placed wisdom in the dark clouds Who gave understanding to the forms of the air."'
Schultens and Rosenmilller explain it of the various phenomena that appear in the sky — as lightning, thunder, meteoric lights, &c. So Prof. Lee explains the words as referring to the ' tempest' and the ' thunder-storm.' According to that interpretation, the idea is, that these plierLomena appear
37 Who can number the clouds in widdom 1 or who can
to be 'endowed with intelligence. There is prooi'of plan and wisdom in iheir arraiii;enient and connection, and they show that it is not by cjiance that they are directed. One reason assigned ibr this interpretation is, that it accords with the connection. The course of the argument, it is remarked, relates to tlie various phenomena tliat appear in the sky — to the lightnings, tempests, and clouds. It is unnatural to suppose that a remark would be interposed here respecting tlie intellectual endowments of man, when the appeal to the clouds is again (ver. 37) immediately resumed. There can he no doubt that there is much weight in this observation, and that the connectiou demands this interpretation, and that it should be adopted if the words which are used will admit of it. The only difficulty relates to the words rendered "inward parts," and "heart." The former of these (mnu) according to the Hebrew interpreters, is derived from n^lU — tuahh, to cover over, to spread, to besmear; and is hence given to the veins, because covered with fat. It occurs only in this place, and in Ps. li. 6, "Behold thou desirest truth in the imoard parts " where it undoubtedly refers to the seat of the affections or thoughts in man. The xerh is often used as meaning to daub, overlay, or plaster, as in Lev. xiv. 42, Ezek. xxii. 2d, xiii. 12, J 4 Schultens, Lee, Umbreit, and others, have recourse in the explanation to the use of the Arabic word of the same letters with the Hebrew, meaning to wander^ to make, a random shot, &c., and thence apply it to lightning, and to meteors. Uuibreit supposes that there is allusion to the prevalent opinion in the East that the clouds and the phenomena of the air could be regarded as furnishing prophetic indications of what was to occur; or to the custom of predicting future events by tiie aspects of the
' stay the bottles of heaven, sky. It is a sufficient objection to this, however, that it cannot be supposed that the Almighty would lend his sanction to this opinion by appealing to it as if it were so. After all that has been written on the passage, and all the force of the difficulty which is urged, I do not see evidence that we are to depart from the common interpretation, to wit, that God means to appeal to the fact that he has endowed man with iutelligence as a proof of his greatness and supremacy. The connection is, indeed, not very apparent. It may be, however, as Noyes suggests, that the reference is to the mind of Job in particular, and to the intelligence with which he was able to perceive, and in some measure to comprehend, these various phenomena. The coiinection may be something like this: ' Look to the heavens, and contemplate these wonders. Explain them, if possible; and then ask who it is that has so endowed the mind of man that it can trace in them such proofs of the wisdom and power of the Almighty. The phenomena themselves, and the capacity to contemplate them, and to be instructed by them, are alike demonstrations of the stipremacy of the Most High.' IT Understanding to tlir. heart. To the mind. The common word to denote heart — 3? is not used Jiere, but a word ('^'!'^''^ from '^^'>^) meaning to look at, to view; and hence denoting the mind; the intelligent soul. Gescnius.
37. Who can number the clouds? The word here rendered clouds (C^priUJ), is applied to the clouds as made up o? small ■particles — asifthev were composed of fine dust, and hence the word number is applied to them, not as meaning that the clouds themselves were innumei'able, but that no one could estimate the number of particles which enter into their formation, "iT In wisdom. By his wisdom. Who has suflicient inlelli-
38 When tlie dust ' growcth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
39 Wilt thou hunt the prey
1 ii poured, or, is turiwil into mire.
•.;.'i;(.'j to do it? II Or iclio can stay liic. hott'cs of heuvcn? Slarg. as in If el), cause to lie down. The clouds:iie litre compared witli bottles, as if they held the vs-ater in the same manner. Conip. Notes on ch. xxvi. H. The word rendered "stay" in tiie text, and in the margin " cause to lie down," is rendered by Umbreit, "pour out," t'rom an Arabic signification of the word. Gesenius supposes that tiie meaning to "pour out" is derived from the idea of" causing to lie down," from the fact tiiat a buttle or vessel was made to lie down or was inclined to one side when its contents were poured out. TJiis explanation seems probable, thougii there is no other place in the Hebrew where tlie word is used in this signification. The sense of pouring out agrees \vell with the connection.
38. When the, dust gruircth into hardness. Marg. " /V poured, or, is turned into mire." The words liere used relate often to metals, and to the act of pouring them out^vhen fused, for the purpose of casting. The [)roper idea here is, ' when tlie dust ilows into a molten mass;' that is, when wet with rain it flows together and becomes hard. The sense is, that the rain operates on the clay a.s l.eat does on metals, and that when it is dissoh ed it flows together and thus becomes a solid mass. The object is tocomjtare the effect of rain vvit'i the usual effect in casting metals. ',[ Mnd the clods cleave fast together. That is, rhev are run together by the rain. Tliev form one mass of the same con- Biitency, and then are baked hard by the sun.
31). Wilt thou hnvt the prey for the lion? The appeal here is to the instincts with which Goil has endowed animals, and to the f;ut that lie had for the ' lion? or fill tlic tite of tlie young lions,
40 When they couch in tadt' dens, (tnd ahidc in the covert to lie in wait?
SO made them that they would secure their own food. He asks Job whether he would undertake to do what liie lion did by instinct in finding his food, and by his power and skill in seizing his ])rey. There was a wise adaptation of the lion for this purpose which man could neither originate nor explain. II Or fill the appetite of the young lions. Marg. as in Heb. life. The word life is here used for hunger, as the appetite is necessarily connected with the preservation of life. The meaning here is, ' Wouldst thou undertake to supply liis wants? It is done by laws, and in a manner which tliou can.st not explain. Tiiere are in the arrangement by which it is accomplished marks of wisdom which far surpass tlie skill of n;an to originate, and the instinct and power by which it is done are proof of the supremacy of the Most High.' No one can study the subject of the instincts of animals, or become in the least acquainted with Natural History, witiiout finding ever} where traces of the wisdom and goodness of
40. When thei/ couch in tlieir dens. For the purpose of springing upon their prey. II And abide in the covert to lie in wait? The usual posture of the lion when he seeks his prey. He places himself in some unobserved position in a dense thicket, or crouclies upon the ground so as not to he seen, and then springs suddenly upon his victim. The cornmon method of the lion in taking his prey is to sprin;' or throw himself upon it from tiie place of his ambush, with one vast Ibound, and to inflict the mortal blow with one stroke of his paw. If he misses his aim, however, he seldom attempts another spring at the same f.bject, but deliberatelv returns to the
41 Who provideth for the ra-;n " his food? when his young
thicket in which he lay in concealment. See the habits of the lion illustrated in the Edin. Ency., Art. MazoloiTij.
41. JVho provideth for the racen his food? The same thought is expressed in Ps. c.xlvii. i),
He giveth to tlie beast his food, And to the young ravens which cry
Comp. Mattli. vi. 26. Scheutzer (m loc.) suggests that the reason why the raven is specified here ratiier than other fowls is, that it is an otiensive bird, and that God means to state tliat no object, however regarded by man, is beneatli his notice. He carefully provides for the wants of all his creatures. U IVhen his young ones cry unto God, they loander for lack of meat. Bochart observes that tlie raven expels tiie young from the nest as soon as they are able to fly. In this condition, being unable to obtain food by tlieir own exertions, they make a croaking noise, and God is Said to hear it, and to supply their wants. JVoijes. There are various opinions expressed in regard to this subject by the Rabbinical writers, and by the ancients generally. Rabbi Eliezer ('cap. 21) says tliat, " When the old ravens see the young coming into the world which are not black, they regard them as the offspring of serpents, and fiee away from them, and God takes care of them." Rabbi Solomon says that in this condition they are nourished by the Hies and worms that are generated in their
ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
nests, and the same opinion was held by the Arabian writers, Haritius, Alkuazin, and Damir. Among the fathers of the church, Chrysostom, Olympiodorus, Gregory, and Isidorus, supposed that they were nurtured by dew descending from heaven. Pliny (Lib. X. c. 12) sa3's, that the old ravens expel the strongest of their young from tlie nest, and compel thein to fly. This is tlie time, according to many of the older commentators, when the young ravens are represented as calling upon God for food. See Scheutzer, Physica Sacra, in loc, and Bochart, Ilieroz. P. ii. L. ii. c. ii. I do not know tliat there is now supposed to be sufficient evidence to substantiate this fact in regard to the manner in which tlia ravens treat their young, and all the circumstances of the place before us will be met by the supposition that young birds seem to call upon God, and that he supplies their wants. The last three verses in this chapter s-hould not have been separated from the following. The appeal in this is to the animal creation, and this is continued through the whole of the next chapter. Tlie proper place for the division would have been at the close of verse 38, where the argument from the great laws of the material universe was ended. Then commences an appeal to his works of a higher order — the region of instinct and appetites, where creatures are governed by other than mere physical laws.
The nrgument in jiroof of the divine wis'lom and greatness, whicli was commenced at ver. 39 o'"tlie piovions cliuptor, is continued in tliis. Tlie nrgument is drawn from the instincts, habits, and power of tlie animal creation. It is, in substance, that the arrangements for the preservation of tlie brutes, tlieir instincts, and the power wliich they exhibit, farsuipass all the wisdom and skiU of man to have imparled them. He could not even eiplain those thingi which God had mad>'. In the prosecutionof this argument, God appeals (l.)Tothe wild goats of the rocks, and tlie hinds, and to the paternal care and tenderness with which he regards them, vs. l-'l. (-J.) To the wild ass exulting iii liis freedom, scorning restraint, and roaring at largo in the wilderness and in the extended [ilains, vs. 5-8. (3.) To the unicorn, and to his great strength, far surpassing that of man, and to the fict that he could not be subjugated as other animals are, and made subservient to the purposes of agriculture, vs. 9-12. (4.) To the wings and feathers of the ostrich. Especially, God asks of.lob whether Ae had ordained tiie remarkable laws by which she was governed in reference to her yonng. and which were so unlike the usual habits of the animal creation, vs. 13-18. (o.) 'I'o the horse— his strength, his majesty, his courage, his impatience for battle, vs. 19-25. (6.) To the hawk, evincing consummate wisdom in its instincts, ver. '26. (7.) To the eagle— the king of birds, and to tlie laws by which it secures its food. By an appeal to the habits and instincts of these animals, God designs to impress the mind with the conviction of his wisdom and greatness, and to show to man how incompetent he is to pronounce on his doings.
TT" NOW EST thou the time -^ when the wild goats of the
1. Knowcst thou the time ichcn the wild goats of the rock bring forth? That is, the particuhir season when the mountain goats bring forth their young. Of domestic animals — the sheep, the tame goat, &c., the habits would be fully understood. But the question here relates to the animals that roamed at large on inaccessible cliffs; that were buried in deep forests; that were far from the dwellings and observation of men; and the meaning is, that there were many facts in regard to such points of Natural History which Job could not explain. God knew all their instincts and habits, and on the inaccessible clitls, in tlie deep dell, in the dark forest, he was with them, and they were the obje-cts of his care. He not only regarded the condition of the domestic animals that had been brought into the service of man, and vk'iiere man perhaps might be disposed to claim that they owed much of their comfort to his care, but he re- garded also the wild, wandering beast of the mountain, where no such pretence could be advanced. The providence of God is over them; and in the periods of their lives when they seem most to need attention, when every shepherd and herdsman is most solicitous about his flocks and herds, then God is present, and his care is seen in their preservation. The particular point in the inquiry here is, not in regard to the time when these animals produced their young or the period of their gestation, whicli might probably be known, but in regard to the attention and care whicli was needful for them when they were so far removed from the observance ot man, and had no human aid. The " wild goat of the rock" here referred to, is, doubtless, the Ibex, or mountain goat, that has its dwellings among the rocks, or in stony places. The Hebrew term is '3J'J — yA-el-, or y"', from??'^ — y'lo^i to ascend, to go up.
2 Canst tliou number the months that they fulfil 1 or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
Tiiey liad tlieii- residence in tlie lofty rocks of mountains. Ps. civ. ly, " Tlie liigh lulls are a refuge for the wild goat.s. Heb. " For the goats of the roclfs"'— C":<ba Dibi'^. So in 1 Sam. xxiv. 2. [3.] " Saiil went to seek David and his men wpo7i the rocks of the icild goals;" that is, where were the wild goats — C'^br'^n. For a description of the toild goat, see Bochart, Ilieroz. P. i. Lib.iii. c. xxiii. The animal here referred to is, doubtless, the same which Burckhardt saw on the summit of Mount St. Catharine, adjacent to Mount Sinai, and which he thus describes in his Travels in Syria, p. 571: " As we approached the summit of the mountain (St. Catharine, adjacent to Mount Sinai), we s^iw at a distance a small flock of mountain goats feeding among the rocks. One of our Arabs lei"t us, and by a widely circuitous route endeavored to get to the leev/ard of them, and near enough to fire at them. lie enjoined us to remain in sight of them, and to sit down in order not to alarm them. He had nearlv reached a favorable spot Itehind a rock, when the goats suddenly look to flight. They could not have seen the Arab, but the wind changed, and thus they smelt him. The chase of the beden,as the wild goat is called, resembles that of the chamois of the Alps, and requires as much enterprise and patience. The Arabs make long circuits to surprise them, and endeavor to come upon them early in the morning, when they feed. The goats have a leader, who keeps watch, and on any suspicious smell, sound, or object, makes a noise, whicii is a signal to the flock to make their escape. They have much decreased of late, if we may believe the Arabs; who say that fifty years ago, if a stranger came to a tent, and the owner of it had no sheep to kill, he took his gun and
3 They bow themsehes, they ■ bring forth their young ones, | they cast out their sorrows.
went in search of a beden. They are, however, even now luore common here than in the Alps, or in the mountains to the east of the Red Sea. I had three or four of them brought to me at the convent, which 1 bought at three-fourths of a dollar each. The flesh is excellent, and has nearlv the same flavor as that of the deer. The Bedouins make water bags of their skins, and rings of their horns, which they wear on their thumbs. When the beden is met with in the plains, the dogs of the hunters easily catch him; but they cannot come up with him among the rocks, where lie can make leaps of twenty feet." IT Or canst thou mark when the kinds do caire? Tiie reference here is to the special care and protection of God manifested for them. The meaning is, that this animal seems to be always timid and apprehensive of danger, and that there is special care bestowed upon an animal so defenceless in enabling it to rear its young. The word hinds denotes the deer, the fawn, the most timid and defenceless, perhaps, of all animals.
2. Canst thou number the viouths, &c. That is, as they wander in the wilderness, as they live in inacce.ssible crags and cliffs of the rocks, it is impossible for man to be acquainted with their habits as he can with those of the domestic animals.
3. They bow themselves. Literally, they curt'fi or bend themselves; that is, they draw their limbs together. V They cast out their sorroics. That is, they cast forth the offspring of their pains, or the young whicli cause their pains. The idea seems to be, that tiiey do this without any of the care and attention whicli shepherds are obliged to show to their flocks at such seasons. They do it when God only guards them; when they are in
4 Their young ones are in good liking, thev grow up with corn; they go forth, and return not unto them.
the wilderness or on the rocks far away from li)e aliodes of man. Tlie leading thought in all this seems to be, that the tender care of God was over his creatures, in the most perilous and delicate state, and that all this was exercised where man could have no access to them, and could not even ohserve them.
4. Their yoiinrr ones arc in good Jiliing. Heb. "they are fat;" and hence it means that they are strong and robust. IT Thftii grow up loilh corn. Herder, Gesenius, Noyes, Umhreit, and Rosenmilller render this, " in tlie wilderness," or " field." T!ie proper and usual meaning of the word here used ("^3) is corn, or grain; but in Chaldee it has the sense of open fields, or country. Tlie same idea is found in the Arabic, and this sense seems to be required by the connection. The idea is not that they are nurtured with grain, which would require the care of man, but that that they are nurtured under the direct eye of God far away from human dwellings, and even when they go away from their dam and return no more to the place of their birth. This is one of the instances, therefore, in which the connection seems to require us to adopt a signification that does not elsewhere occur in the Hebrew, but which is found in the cognate languages. IT Theij go forth, and return not unto them. God guards and preserves them, even when they wander away from their datn, and are left helpless. IMany of the young of animals require long attention from man, many are kept for a considerable period bv the side of the mother, but the idea liere seems to be, that the young of the wild goat and of the fawn are thrown early on the providence of God, and are protected by him alone. The particular care of Providenee over
5 Who hath sent out the wild ass " free? or who hath loo.sed the bands of the wild ass?
these animals seems to be specitied because there are no others that are exposed to so many dangers in their early life. " Every creature then is a formidable enemy. The eagle, the falcon, the osprey, the wolf, the dog, and all the rapacious animals of the cat kind, are in continual employuieut to find out their retreat. But what is more unnatural still, the stag himself is a professed enemy, and she [the hind] is obliged to use all her arts to conceal her young from him, as from the most dangerous of her pursuers." Goldsmith's j\at. His. 5. JVho hath sent out the wild ass free? For a description of the wild ass, see Notes on ch. xi. 12. On the meaning of the word rendered free (■''^tis^), see Notes on Isa. Iviii. 6. These animals commonly "inlitibit the dry and mountainous parts of the deserts of Great Tartary, but not higher than about lat. 48"'. They are migratory, and arrive in vast troops to feed, during the summer, on the tracts to the north and east of the sea of Aral. About autumn they collect in herds of hundreds, and even thousands, and direct their course southward towards India to enjoy a warm retreat during winter. But they more usually retire to Persia, where they are found in the mountains of Casbin; and where part of them remain during the whole year. They are also said to penetrate to the southern parts of India, to the mountains of Malabar and Golconda. These animals were anciently found in Palestine, Syria, Arabia Deserta, Mesopotamia, Phrygia, •and Lycaonia, but they rarely occur in those regions at the present time, and seem to be almost entirely confined to Tartary, some parts of Persia and India, and Africa. Their manners resemble those of the wild horse. They assemble in troops under the conduct ol
6 Whose " house I have made the wilderness, and the ' barren fland his dweliinofs.
a leader or sentinel; and are extremely shy and vigilant. They will, however, stop in the midst of their course, and even suffer the approach of man for an instant, and then dart off with the utmost rapidity. They have been at all tinies celebrated for their swiftness. Their voice resembles tliat of the common ass, but is shriller." Roh. Ciilmtt. The Onager or wild ass is doubtless "the parent stock from wiiicli we liave derived the useful domestic animal, which seems to have degenerated the farther it has been removed from its parent seat in Central Asia. It is greatly distinguished in spirit and grace of form from the domestic ass. It is taller and more dignified; it holds the head higher, and the legs are more elegantlv shaped. Even the head, though large in proportion to the body, has a finer appearance, from the forehead being more arched; the neck by which it is sustained is much longer, and has a more graceful bend. It has a short mane of dark and woolly hair; and a stripe of dark bushy hair also runs along the ridge of the hack from the mane to the tail. The hnir of the bodv is of a silver graj', inclining to flaxen color in some parts, and white under the belly. The hair is soft and silken, similar in texture tothatofthe camel." Pict. Bible. It is of this animal, so difterent in spirit, energy, agility, and fippearance, from the domestic animal of that name, that we must think in order to understand this passage. We must think of them fleet as the wind, untamed and unbroken, wandering over vast plains in groups and herds, assembled hy thousands under a leader or guide, and hounding oft' with uncontrollable rapiilitv on the approach of man, if we would feel the force of the appeal which is here made. God asks of Job whether he
7 He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the "driver.
— who could not even subdue and tame this wild creature — had ordained the laws of its freedom; had held it as a captive, and then set it at liberty to exult over boundless plains in its conscious independence. The idea is, that it was one of the creatures of God, under no laws but such as he had been pleased to impose upon it, and wholly be\ond the government of man. X\ Or v:ho hath loosed the hands of the wild ass? As if he had been once a captive, and then set free. The illustration is derived from the feeling which attends a restoration to liberty. Tlie freedom of this animal seems to be as productive of exhilaration as if it had been a prisoner or slave, and had been suddenly emancipated.
6. Whose house I have made. God had ap])ointed its home in the desert. %.4nd the barren land his dicellings. INIarg. as in Heb. salt places. Sucli places were usuall}' barren. Ps. cvii. 34, " He turneth a fruitful land into barrenness." Heb. salincss. Thus Virgil, Geor. ii. 236-240,
P:(lsa autem tellus, et qua? perliibetur amara, Frugiliiis infeli.K: ea nee niansuescit arando Nee Baf-cho genus, aut pomis sua nomiiia eervat.
7. He scorneth the multitude of the citij. That is, he sets all this at defiance; he is not intimidated by it. He finds his home far away from the citv in the wild freedom of the wilderness. ^ Neither regardeth he the crying of the driver. Marg. exactor. The Hebrew word properly means a collector of taxes or revenue, and hence an oppressor, and a driver ofcattle. The allusion here is to a driver, and the meaning is, that he is not subject to restraint, but enjoys the most unlimited freedom.
8 The range of the mountains IS his pasture, and he searchetli after every green tiling.
8. The range of the moinuains is his jjiisUcre. The word rendered range ("1^"'^), means properly a s:arc/iing out, and then that wliicli is obtained by seaicb. The word range expresses tlie idea witli sutficient exactness. The usual range of tlie wild ass is the mountains. Pallas, who has given a lull description of the Iiabits of the Onager, or wild ass, states, that it especially loves desolate hills as its abode. Jlrts of the Society of Sciences of Petersburg, for the year 1777.
9. Will the unicorn be icilling to serve thee? In the previous part of the argument, God had appealed to the lion, the raven, the goats of the rock, the hind, and the wild ass; and the idea was, that, in the instincts of each of these classes of animals, there was some special proof of wisdom. He now turns to another class of the animal creation in proof of his own supremacy and power, and la3's the argument in the great strength and in the independence of the animal, and in the fact tliat man had not been able to subject his great strength to the purposes of husbandry. In regard to the animal here referred to, there has been great diversity of opinion among interpreters, nor is there as yet any one prevailing sentiment. Jerome renders it rhinoceros; the I. XX, finroy.fOMi;, the iinicorn; the Chaldee and the Syriac retain the Hebrew word; Gesenius, Herder, Unibreit, and Noyes, render it the buffalo; Schultens, alticorneni; Luther and Coverdale, the unicorn; RosenmiUler, the onyx, a large and fierce species of the antelope; Calmet supposes that the rhinoceros is intended; and Prof. Robinson, in an extended appendage to the article of Calmet (art. Unicorn), has endeavored to show that the wild buffalo is intended. Bochart, al»o, in a long
9 Will the unicorn " be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
and learned argument, has endeavored to show that the rhinoceros cannot be meant, llieroz. P. i. Lib. iii. c. xxvi. He maintains that a species of antelope is referred to, the rini of the Arabs. De Wette (Com. on Ps.xxii. 22), accords with the opinion of Gesenius, Robinson, and others, that the animal referred to is the buffalo of the Eastern continent, the hos biibalus of Linnffius, an animal which differs from the American buffalo only in the shape of the horns and the absence of the dewlap. The word which occurs here, and which is rendered unicorn (C^T re7?i,or CX'l reem), is used in the Scriptures only in the following places, where in the singular or plural it is uniformly rendered unicorn, or unicorns — Num.xxiii. 22. Deut. xxxiii. 17. Job xxxix. 9, 10. Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6, xcii. 10. and Isa. xxxii. 7. By a reference to these passages, it will be found that the animal had the following characteristics. (1.) It was distinguished for its strength. See ver. 11 of this chapter. Num. xxiii. 22, "He [that is, Israel, or the Israelites] hath as it were the strength of an unicorn " — ^'*.'!', reem. In Num. xxiv. 8 the same declaration is repeated. It is true that the Hebrew word in both these places (riEj-'^n) may denote rapidity of motion, speed; but in this place the notion of strength must be principally intended, for it was of the poicer of the people, and their ability manifested in the number of their hosts, that Buiaam is speaking. Bochart, however (Hieroz. P. i. Lib. iii. c. xxvii.), supposes that the word means, not strength, or agility, but height, and that the idea is, that the people referred to by Balaam was a lofty or elevated people. If the word means strength, it was most appropriate to compare a vast host of^peo- pie with the vigor and forre of an untamable wild animal. The idea of speed or of loftiness does not so well suit the connection. (2.) It was an animal that was not subjected to the Eervice of tilling the soil, and that was sujjposed to be incapable of being so trained. Tims in the place before us it is said, that he could not be so domeslic;'.ted that he would remain li.ko the ox at tlie crib; that he could not be yoked to the plough; that he could not be employed and safely left to pursue the work of the held; and that he could not be so sul)dued that it ^vould be safe to attempt to bring home the harvest by his aid. From ail these declarations, it is plain that lie was regarded as a wild and unlamed animal; an animal that was not tiien domesticated, and that could not be employed in husbandry. This Ciiaracteristic would agree with either the antelope, the onyx, tiie buiTalo, the rhinoceros, or the supposed unicorn. With which of them it will best accord, we may be able to determine when all his characteristics are examined. (3.) The strength of the animal was in his horns. This was one of his peculiar characteristics, and it is evidently by this that he is designed to be distinguisiied. Deut. xxxiii. 17, " His glory is like the firstling of a bullock, and his horns like the horns of unicorns." Ps. xcii. ID, " My horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn." Ps. xxii. 21, " Thou hast heard me [saved me] from the horns of the unicorns." It is true, indeed, as Prof. Robinson has remarked (Calmet, art. Unicorn), the word reem has in itself no reference to horns, nor is there in the Hebrew an allusion any where to the supposition tliat the animal here referred to has only one horn. Wherever, in the Scriptures, the animal is spoken of with any allusion to this member, the expression is in the plural, horns. The only variation from this, e\en in the common version, is in Ps. xcii. 10, where the Hebrew is simply, " My horn shalt thou exalt like an unicorn," where the word horn, as it stands in til? English version, is not expressed. There is, indeed, in this passage, some obvious allusion to the horns ot this animal, but all the force of the comparison will be retained if the word inserted in tiie ellipsis is in the plural number. The horn or horr.'i of the rccm were, however, beyond question, the principal scat of strength, and the instruments of assault an<i defence. See the passage in Deut. xxxiii. 17, " With them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth." (4.) There was some peculiar majesty or dignity in the horns of this animal tiiat attracted attention, and that made them the proper symbol of dominion and of roval authority. Thus in Ps. xcii. lOJ "My liorn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn," where the reference seems to be to a kingly authority or dominion, of which the horn was an appropriate symbol. These are all the characteristics of the animal referred to in the Scriptures, and the question is. With what known aiimal do they best correspond.' The principal animals referred to by those who have examined the subject at length are, the onyx or antelope; the buft'alo; the animal commonly referred to as the unicorn, and the rhinoceros. The principal^ characteristic of the vnicorn was supposed to be, that it had a long, slender horn pro jecting from the forehead; the horn of the rhinoceros is on the snout, or the nose. I. In regard to the antelope, or the 7?mof the modern Arabs, supposed by Bocliart to be tJie animal here referred to, it seems clear that there are few characteristics in common between the two animals. The onyx or antelope is not distinguished as this animal is for strength, nor for the fact that it is peculiarly untamable, nor that its strength is in its horns, nor that it is of such size and proportions that a comparison would naturally be suggested between it and the ox. In all that is said of the animal, we think of one greater in bulk, in strength, in untamableness, than the onyx; an animal more distiu guished for conquest and subduing other animals belure liini. Bociiait has collected much that is fabulous respecting this animal, from the Kab bins and the Arabic writers, which it is not needful here to repeat. See the Hieroz P. i. Lib. iii. c. x.wii., or Scheutzer, Physi. iSac. on IVum. xxiii. 22. II. The claims of the buffalo to be regarded as the animal here referred to, are much liigher than those of the onv.x, and tiie opinion that this is the animal intended is cnterlained by such names as those of Gcsenius, De Wette, Robinson, Umbreit, and Herder. 15ut the objections to this seem to me to be insuperable, and the arguments are not such as to carry conviction. The principal objections to llie opinion are (I.) that the account in regard to the horns of the r(e7n by no means agrees with the fact in regard to the bison, or buffalo. The butialo is an animal of the cow kind (Goldsmith), and the horns are short and crooked, and by no means distinguished for strength. They do not in fact surpass in this respect the horns of many other animals, and are not such as would occur ordinarily as the prominent characteristic in their description. It is true that thore are instances where the horns of tiie wild buffalo are large, but this does not appear to be the case ordinarily. BIr. Pennant mentions a pair of horns in the British Museum, which are six feet and a half long, and the hollow of which will hold five quarts. Father Lobo affirms that.«ome of the horns of the buttaloes in Abvssinia will hold ten quarts; and Dillon saw H'Jiue in India that were ten feet long. IJut these were manifestly extraordinary cases. (2.) The animal here referred to was evidently a stronger and a larger animal than the wild ox, or the buflalo. " The Oriental buflalo aj)pears to be so closely allied to our common ox, that without an attentive examination it might be easily mistaken for a variety of that animal. In point of size, it is rather superior to the ox; and upon an accurate inspec-.ion, it is observed to dilfer in the VOL. II. ] ]■ shape and magnitude of the head, the latter being larger than in the ox " liobhuioii, in Calinct. The animal here referred to was such as to make the contrast particularly striking between him and the ox. The latter could be employed for labor; the former, though greatly superior in strength, couid not. (:}.) The reem, it was supposed, could not be tamed and made to subserve domestic purposes. The buflalo, however, can be made as serviceable as the ox, and is actujilly domesticated and employed in agricultural purposes. Niebuhr remarks that he saw buflaloes not only in Egypt, but also at Bondiay, Surat, on the Euphrates, Tigris, Orontes, and indeed in all marshy regions and near large, rivers. Sonnini remarks that in Egypt the buffalo, though but recently domesticated, is more numerous than the common ox, and is there equally domestic, and in Italy they are known to be commonly employed in the Pontine marshes, where the fatal nature of the climate acts on common cattle, but affects buffaloes less. It is true that the animal has been comparatively recentiv domesticated, and that it was doidjlless known in the time of Job only as a wild, savage, ferocious animal; but still the description here is that of an animal not only that was not then tamed, but obviously of one that could not well be employed in domestic purposes. We are to remember that the language here is that of God himself, and that therefore it may be regarded as descriptive of what the essential nature of the animal was, rather than what it was supposed to be by the persons to whom the language was addressed. One of the principal arguments alleged for supposing that the animal here referred to by the reem was the buffalo, is, that the rhinoceros was probably unknown in the land where Job resided, and that the unicorn was altogether a fabulous animal. This difficulty will be" considered in the remarks to be made on the claims of each of those animals. III. It was an early opin ion, and the opinion was probably entertained by the authors ot* the Septuagint translation, and by the English translators as vreU as by others, that the animal here referred to was the miicorn. This animal was long supposed to be a fabulous animal, and it has not been until recently that the evidences of its existence have been confirmed. Those evidences are adduced by Rosenmilller, Morgenland, ii. p. 26S>, seq., and by Prof. Robinson, Cahnel, pp. 'J08, 909. They are, summarily, the following: (1.) Pliny mentions such an animal, and gives a description of it, though from his time for centuries it seems to have been unknown. His. jXut. 8. 2]. His language is, Asperrimam aulem feram moMocerotem reliquo corpore, equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephaiiti, Cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno coriiu nigro media fronte cubitorum ddum eminente. Hanc feram vivam negant capi. ' The unicorn is an exceeding fierce animal, resembling a horse as to the rest of his body, but naving the head like a stag, the feet like an elephant, and the tail like a wild boar; its roaring is loud; and it has a black horn of about two cubits projecting from the middle of the forehead.' (2.) The figure of the unicorn, in various attitudes, according to Niebuhr, is depicted on almost all the staircases in the ruins of Persepolis. Reiscbcschrcib. ii. S. 127. (3.) In 1530, Ludovico de Bartema, a Roman patrician, visited Mecca under the assumed character of a Mussulman, and among other curiosities that he mentions, he says, " On the other side of the caaba is a -walled court, in which we saw two unicorns that were pointed out to us as a rarity; and the}' are indeed truly remarkable. The larger of the two is built like a three-vear-old colt, and has a horn upon the forehead about three ells long. This animal has the color of a yellowish-brown horse, a head like a stag, a neck not very long, wiili a thin mane; the legs are small and fllender like those of a hind or roe; the hoofs of the fore feet are divided.
and resemble the hoofs of a goat. Rosenmilller,.'lite u. neue Moro-cn land, No. 377. Th. ii. S. 271, 27J (4.) Don Juan Gabriel, a Portugues<. colonel, who lived several years ii Abyssinia, assures us that in the region of vVgamof, in the Abyssinian province of Dainota, he had seen an animal of the form and size of a middle-sized horse, of a dark, chestnutbrown color, and with a whitish horn about five spans long upon its forehead; the mane and tail were black, and the legs long and slender. Several other Portuguese, who were placed in confinement upon a high mountain in the district Namna, by the Abyssinian king Saghedo, related that they had seen at the mountain several unicorns feeding. These accounts are confirmed by Father Lobo, who lived for a long time as a mis sionary in Abj'ssinia. (5.) Dr. Sparr man, the Swedish naturalist, who visited the Cape of Good Hope and the adjacent regions in 1772-1776, gives, in his Travels, the following account: — Jacob Kock, an observing peasant on Hippopotamus river, who had travelled over a considerable part of Southern Africa, found on the f<ice of a perpendicular rock, a drawing made by the Hottentots of an animal with a single horn. The Hottentots told him that the animal there represented was very like the horse on which he rode, but had a straight horn upon the forehead. They added, that these one-horned animals were rare; that they ran with great rapidity, and that they were very fierce. (6.) A similar animal is described as having been killed by a party of Hottentots in pursuit of the savage Bushmen in 17;)1 The animal resembled a horse, was of a light grey color, and with white stripes under the jaw. It had a single horn directly in front, as long as one's arm, and at tlie base about as thick. Towards the middle tiie horn was somewhat flattened, but had a sliarp point, it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but was fixed only in the skin. The head was like that of the horse, and the size about the same. These authorities are collected by Rosenniilller, Alte u. neue Morgenl.and, vol. ii. p. 269 seq., ed. Leipz. 1818. (7.) To tliese proofs one other IS added by Prof. Robinson. It is copied from the Quarterly Review for Oct. 1820 (vol. xxiv. p. 120), in a notice of Frazer's Tour through the Himlaya mountains. The information is contained in a letter from Maj. Latter, commanding in the rajah of Sikkim's territories, in the hilly country east of Nepaul. This letter states that the unicorn, so long. considered as a fabulous animal, actually exists in the interior of Thibet, where it is well known to the inhabitants. "In a Thibetian manuscript," says Maj. Latter, " containing the names of dif-. ferent animals, which I procured the other day from the hills, the unicorn is classed under the head of those whose hoofs are divided: it is called the one-horned tso'po. Upon inquiring what kind of an animal it was, to our astonishment, the person who brought the manuscript described exactly the unicorn of the ancients; saying that it was a native of the interior of Tliibet, about the size of a tattoo (a horse from twelve to thirteen hands high), fierce and extremely wild; seldom if ever caught alive, but frequently shot; and that the flesh was used for food. They go together in herds, like wild buffaloes, and are frequently to be met with on the borders of the great, desert, in that part of the country inhabited by wandering Tartars." (8.) To these proofs I add another, taken from the Narrative of the Rev. John Campbell, who thus speaks of it, in his " Travels in South Africa," vol. ii. p. 294. " While in the filashow territory, tlie Hottentots brought in a head different from any rhinoceros that had been previously killed. The common African rhinoceros has a crooked horn resembling a cock's spur, which rises about nine or ten inches above the nose, and inclines backward; immedi;itelv behind this is a short thick iiorn. But the head thev hroua;lit us had a straight horn projecting three feet from the forehead, about ten inches above the tip of the nose. The projection of this great horn very much resembles that of the fanciful unicorn in the British arms. It has a small, thick, horny substance, eight inches long, immediately behind it, and which can hardly be observed on the animal at the distance of one hundred yards, and seems to be designed for keeping fast that which is penetrated by the long horn; so that this species must look like the unicorn (in the sense ' one-horned ') when running in the field. The head resembled in size a nine-gallon cask, and measured three feet from the mouth to the ear; and being much larger than that of the one with the crooked horn, and which measured eleven feet in lengtii, the animal itself must have been still larger and more formidable. From its weight, and the position of the horn, it appears capable of overcoming any creature hitherto known." A fragment of the skull, with the horn, is deposited in the Museum of the London Missionary Society. These tes timonies from so many witnesses from different parts of the world, who write without concert, and yet who concur so almost entirely in the account of tlie size and figure of the animal, leave little room to doubt its real existence. That it is not better known, and that its existence has been doubted, is not wonderful. It is to be remembered that all accounts agree in the representation that it is an animal whose residence is in deserts or mountains, and that large parts of Africa and of Asia are still unexplored. We are to remember, also, that the giraffe has been discovered only within a few years, and that the same is true of the gnu, wjiich till recently was held to be a fable of the ancients. At the same time, however, that tlie existence of such an animal as that of the unicorn is in the highest degree probable, it is clear that it is not the animal referred to in tlie passage before us; for
(1.) it is in the highest degree improb- I able that it was so well known as is | supposed in the description here;! and (2.) the characteristics do not at all agree with the account of the rccin i of" the Scriptures. Neither in regard to the size of the animal, its strength, or the strength of its horns, does it coincide with the account of that animal in the Bible. IV. If neither of the opinions above referred to be correct, then the only remaining opinion that has weight is, that it refers to the rhinoceros. Besides tlie considerations above suggested, it may be added that the characteristics of the animal given in the Scriptures all agree with the rhinoceros. In size, strength, wildness, untamableness, and in the power and use of the horn, those characteristics agree accurately with the rhinoceros. The only argument of much weight against this opinion is presented by Prof. Robinson in the following language: " The reem was obviously an animal well known to the Hebrews, being every where mentioned with other animals common to the country, while the rliinoceros was never an inhabitant of the country, is nowhere else spoken of by the sacred writers, nor, according to Bochart, either by Aristotle in his treatise of animals, nor by Arabian writers." In reply to this we may observe, (1.) that the rccm is mentioned in the Scriptures only in seven places (see above), showing at least that it was probably an animal not very well known in that country, or it would have been oftener alluded to; (2.) it is not clear that in those places it is 'every where mentioned with other animals common to that countrv,' as in the passage before us there is no allusion to any domestic animal; nor is there in Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8. Ps..xcii. 10. In Ps. xxii. 21 they are mentioned in the same verse with 'lioris;' in Ps. xxix. 6, in connection with ' calves;' and in Isa. xxxiv. 7, with bnllocks and bulls — wild animals inhabiting Idumea. But the entire account is that of an animal that was untamed and that was evidently a foreign animal. (3.) What evidence is there that the Hebrews were well acquainted, as Prof. R. supposes, with the unld hii^ffalo? la this animal an inhabitant of Palestine.' Is it 'elsewhere' mentioned in the Scriptures.'' Is there any more evidence from the Bible that they were acquainted with it than with the rhinoceros? (4.) It cannot be reasonably supposed that the Hebrews were so unacquainted with the rhinoceros that there could be no allusion to it in their writings. This iinimal was found in Egypt and in the adjacent countries, and whoever was the writer of the book of Job, there are frequent references in the book to what was well known in Egypt; and at all events, the Hebrews hod lived too long in Egypt, and had had too much intercourse with the Egyptians, to be wholly ignorant of tiie existence and general character of an animal well known there, and we in fact find just about as frequent mention of it as we should on tiiis supposition. It does not seem, therefore, to admit of reasonable doubt that the rhinoceros is referred to in the passage before us. This animal, next to the elephant, is the most powerful of animals. It is usually about twelve feet long; from six to seven feet high; and the circumference of its bod J' is nearly equal to its length. Its bulk of body, therefore, is about that of the elephant. Its head is furnished with a horn, growing from tlie snout, sometimes three and a Jialf feet long. This horn is erect, and perpendicular to the bone on wliich it stands, and it has thus a greater purchase or power tiian it could have in anv other position. Bruce. Occasionally it is found with a double horn, one above the other, though this is not common. The horn is entirely solid, formed of the hardest bony substance, and so firmly growing on the upper maxillary bone as seemingly to make but a part of it, and so powerful as to justify all the allusions in the Scriptures to the horn of the recm. The skin of this animal
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furis naked, rough, and knotty, lying npon llie Ixnly in I'olds, and so tiiick as to Inrn the" edge nt" a scinR-tar, or to resist a inusket-ball. The legs are siiort, strong, and tiiick, and the iioofs divided into three parts, each pointing forward. It is a native of tiie deserts of Asia and Africa, and is iisuallv found iu tlie ox'ensive forests which are frequented hy the elepliant and the lion. It has never been domesticated; never employed in agricultural purposes; and thus, iis well as in size and strength, accords wiili the account which is given of the animal in the passage bel'ore us. Tlie i'ollnwing cut will furnish a good illustration of this animal:
TI Br icilling to serve thee. In ploughing and harrowing thy land, and conveying home the harvest, ver. 12. IF Or abide by thy crib. As the ox will. The word here used ("p?^) means properly to pass the night; and then to abide, remain, dwell. There is propriety in retaining here the original meaning of the word, and the sense is, Can he be domesticated or
10. Canst thou bind the unicorn icith his band in the furroio? Tliat is, with the common traces or cords which are employed in binding oxen to the plough. II Or tcill he harroio the valleys after thee? Tlie word " valleys" here is used to denote such ground as was capable of being
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strcngtli is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to liiin?
ploiislied or iNinowetl. Hilis ami iiiouiitains coulil mil thus be cultivated, tliougli the ^[).■ide vv;is in coiiinioii use in pliiniiiig the \iiie ilieve, and even in |ni'j';niiig iheiii fur seed. Isa. vii. 25. The phrase " after thee" indicates that the custom of driving cattle in Jian^wing then was the same as that practised now ■with oxen, when the person who employs liiem goes in advance of them. It shows that the)' were entirely under subjection, and it is here implied tliat the rcem could not be thus tameii.
11. IVilt thou trust Ibim? As tiiou dost tJie ox. In the domestic animals great confidence is of necessity placed, and tiie reliance on the fidelity «f theo.Y and the Jiorse is not usually misplaced. The idea here is, that the unicorn could not be so tamed that important interests could be safely intrusted to him. IT Because his strength is great? Wilt thou consider his strength as a reason why important interests might be intrusted to him.'' The strength of the ox, the camel, the horse, and the elephant was a reason why their aid vvas sought by man to do what he could, not himself do. The idea is, that man could not make use of the same reason for employing the rhinoceros. H IVilt thou hare thy labor to hivi P Or, rather, the atails of thy labor — the harvest.
12. Wilt thou believe him? That is, wilt thou trust him with the productions of the field.' The idea is, lluit he was an untamed and unsubdued animal. He could not be governed, like the camel or the ox. If tiie sheaves of the harvest were laid on him, there would be no certainty that he would convey them where the farmer wished them. H Jlnd gather it into thy barn? Or, rather, ' to thy
that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
13 Gavcst thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or ' wings and feathers unto the ostrich \
tlireshing-tioor,' lor so the word iierc used ("i"r:>) means. It was not common to gather a harvest into a barn^ but it was usually collected on a hard-trod place and there threshed and winnowed. For the use of the word, see Ruth iii. 2. Judges vi. 37. Num. xviii. 30. Isa. xxi 10.
13. Gavest thou the goodly irin^s ■itnio the peacoclis? In the jjrevious verses the ajjpeal had l)een to the wild and untamable animals of the desert. In the pro.secution of the ai-gtunent, it was natural to allude to the feathered tribes which resided there also, and which were distin guished for their strength or fleetness of wing, as proof of the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. The idea is, that these animals, far away from the abodes of man, where it could not be pretended that man had any thing to do with their training, had habits and instincts j)eculiar to tliemselves, which, showed great variety in the divine phms, and at the same lime consummate wisdom. Tl'.e ap^ieal in the following verses (13-18) is to the remarkable luibits of the ostrich, as illustrating the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. There has been very great variety in the translation of this verse, and it is important to ascertain its real meaning in order to know whether tliere is any allusion here to the peacock, or whether it refers wholly to the ostrich. The LXX did not understand the passage, and a ptirt of the words they endeavored to translate, but the others are retained without any attempt to explain them. Their version is, //rfoi/ij rtoTTOfif'ru))' r(f?.arroa, ^ai' ovD.d^hj dfiiila y.al vfoiia — " the wing of the exulting Neelassa if she conceives [or comprehends] the Asis ami
Nes.sa." Jerome renders it, " Tlie wing of tlie oslri'-li i^i like tlie v^■ings ot'tlie falcon and tiieliawU " Sclinltens renders it, " Tlie wing of the (islricli is exulting: but is it tlie wing a!id the plumage of the stork?" lie enumerates no less than tzccnty difercnt interpretations of the passage. Herder renders it,
" A wiii^ witli joyous cry is uplifted yonrler; Is it tlie win;; aiul feather of the ostrich?"
" 'J'he wing of the ostrich exults! Truly its "ing and plumage is like that of the stork!"
Prof. Lee renders it, " Wilt thou confide in the exulting of the wings of the ostrich ' Or in her choice feathers and liead-pluniage, when she leuveth iier eggs to the earth," &c So Coverdale renders it, " The ostrich (whose feathers are fairer than the wings of the sparrow-hawk), when he hath laid his eggs upon the ground, he breedeth tiiem in the dust, and forgetteth them." In none of these versions, and in none that I iiave examined except that of Luther and the common English version, is there any allusion to the peacock; and amidst all the variety of the rendering, and all the difficulty of the passage, there is a common sentiment that the ostrich alone is referred to as the particular subject of the description. It is certain that the description proceeds with reference only to the habits of the ostrich, and it is very evident to my mind that in the whole passage there is no allusion whatever to the peacock. Neither the sco))e of the passage, nor the words employed, it is believed, will admit of such a reference. There is great difficulty in the Hebrew text, whicii no one has been able fully to explain, but it is sufficient!} clear to make it manifest that the ostrich, and not the peacock, is the subject of the appeal. Tiie word which is rendered peacock, C"'25'1 — 7-cndnim, is derived from "i?'^ — rdndn, to give forth a tremulous and striduloiis sound; and tiien to give lortli tiie voice in vibrations; to shake or trill the voice; and then, as in lamentation or joy the voice is often given forth in that manner, the word comes to mean to uttci cries of joy, Isa.xii. 6, xxxv. 6; and also cries ol" lamentation or inourning. Lam. ii. 19. The prevailing sense of the word in the Scriptures is to rejoice; to shout for joy; to exult. The name is here given to the bird referred to, evidently from tJie sound wliich it made, and probably from its exulting or joyful cry. The word does not elsewhere occur in tlie Scriptures as applicable to a bird, and there is no reason whatever, either from its etymology, or from the connection in which it is found here, to suppose that it refers to the peacock. Another reason is suggested by Scheutzer (Phys. Sac. in loc), why the peacock cannot be intended here. It is, that the peacock is originally an East Indian fowl, and that it was imported at comparatively a late period in the Jewish history, and was doubtless unknown in the time of Job. In 1 Kings X. 22, and 2 Chron. ix. 21, it appears that peacocks were among the remarkable productions of distant countries that were imported for use or luxury by Solomon, a fact which would not have occurred had they been common in the patriarchal times. To these reasons to show that the peacock is not referred to here, Bochart, whose chapters on the subject deserve a careful attention (Hieroz. P. ii. L. ii. c. xvi., xvii.), has added the following: (1.) That if the peacock had been intended here, the allusion would not have been so brief. Of so remarkable a bird there would have been an extended description as there is of the ostrich, and of the unicorn and the horse. If the allusion is to the peacock, it is by a bare mention of the name, and by no argument, as in other cases, from the habits and instincts of the fowl. (2.) The word which is here used as a description of the bird referred to, n*^33'n — rendnim, derived from the musical properties of the bird, is by no means applicable to the peacock. It is of all fowls, perhaps, least distinguished for beauty ol" voice. (3.) The property ascribed to the fowl liere of " exulting in the wing," by no means agrees with tlie peacock. The glory and beauty of that bird is in the tail, and not in the loiiig. Yet the wing is here, from some cause, particularly specified. Bochart lias demonstrated at great length, and with entire clearness, that the peacock w^as a foreign fowl, and that it must have been unknown in Judea and Arabia, as it was in Greece and Rome, at a period long after the time in whicli the book of Job is commonly supposed to have been written. The proper translation of the Hebrew here then would be, ' The wing of the exulting fowls moves joijfulbj" — •^9^?? • The attention seems to be directed to the icing, as being lifted up, or as vibrating with rapidity, or as being triumphant in its movement jn eluding the pursuer. It is not its Leriutij particularly that attracts the attention, but its exulting, joyful, triumphant appearance. II Or icings and feathers unto the ostrich? Marg. " or, the feathers of the stork and ostrich." Most commentators have despaired of making any sense out of the Hebrew in this place, and thei-e have been almost as many conjectures as there have been expositors. The
A literal translation of it would be, ' Is it the wing of the stork, and the plumage,' or feathers? The object seems to be to institute a comparison of some kind between the ostrich and the stork. This comparison, it would seem, relates partly to the wings and pluuiage of the two birds, and partly to their habits and instincts — though tlie latter point of comparison appears to be couciied in the mere name. So far as I can understand the passage, the comparison relates^rst to the wings and plumage.
Tiie point of vision is that of the sudden appearance of the ostrich with exulting vving, and the attention is directed to it as in the bounding speed of its movements when in rapid flight. In this view the usual name is not given to the bird— HJ^I) ^"'-^, Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 13, xliii. 20. Jer 1. 3;>, but merely the name of fowls makingastridulousor whizzing sound — D"'33~i. The question is then asked whether it has the icing and plumage of the stork — evidently implying that the wing of the stork might be supposed to be adapted to sucti a flight, but that it was remarkable that with out such wings the ostrich was able to outstrip even the fleetest animal. The question is designed to turn the attention to the fact that tlie ostrich accomplishes its flight in this re markable manner icithout being en dowed with wings like the stork, which is capable of sustaining by its wings a long and rapid flight. The other point of the comparison seeuis couched in the wime given to the stork, and the design is to contrast the habits of the ostrich with those of this bird — particularly in reference to their care for their young. The name given to tlie stork is •T^'^O'!! — hhasida, meaning literally the pious, a name usually given to it — avis pia, from its tenderness toward its young — a virtue for which it was celebrated by the ancients. Pliny Hist. J\"ut. x; Aelian Hist. An. 3, 23. On the contrary, the Arabs call the ostricli the impious or ungodly bird, on account of its neglect and cruelty towards its young. The fact that the ostricn thus neglects its young, is dwelt upon in the passage befure us (vs. 14-17), and in this respect she is placed in strong contrast with the stork. The verse then, I suppose, may 1<3 rendered thus:
'• A wing of exulting fowls moves joyfully! Is it the wing ami the plumajje of tiie pious bird?"
meaning that both in regard to the wing and tiie habits of the two there was a strong contrast, and yet design ing to sliow that what seems to he a defect in the size and vigor of the wing, and wliat seems to be stupid forgelfulness of tiie bird in regard to its young, is proof of tiie wisdom of tiie Creator, wiio has so made it as to be able to outstrip the fleetest horse, and to be adaj'ted to its shy and timid mode of lile iii the desert. Tiie ostrich, whose principal ciiaracteristics are beautifully and strikingly detailed in this passage in Job, is a native of the torrid regions of Arabia and Africa. It is the largest of the feathered tribes, and is the connecting link between quadrupeds and fowls. It has the general properties and outlines of a bird, and yet retains many of the marks of the quadruped. In appearance, the ostrich resembles the camel, and is almost as tall; and in the Ea.st is called " tlie camel-bird." (Calme.t.) It is covered with a plumage that resembles hair more nearly than feathers; and its internal parts bear as near a resemblance to those of the quadruped as of the bird creation. Goldsmilh. See also Poiret's Travels in the Barhary States, as quoted liy Rosenmilller, Alte u. iieue Morgcnland, No. 770. A full description is there given of the appearance and liabits of the ostrich. Its head and bill resemble those of a duck; the neck may be compared with that of the swan, though it is much longer; the legs and thighs resemble those of a hen, but are fleshy and large. The end of the foot is cloven, and has two very large toes, which like the leg are covered witli scales. The lieight of the ostricli is usually seven feet from the head to the ground; but from the hack it is only four, so that the head and the neck are about three feet long. From the head to the end of the tail, when the neck is stretched in a right line, the length is se\en feet. One of the wings with the feathers spread out is three feet in length. At the end of the wing there is a species of spur, almost like the quill of a porcupine. It is an inch long, and is hollow, and of a bony substance. The plumage is generally white and black, though forne of liieni are said to be gray. There are no feathers on the sides of the thigh.s, nor under the wings. It has not, like most birds, feathers of various kinds, but they are all bearded with detached hairs or filaments, ^vitllout consistence;ind reciprdcal adherence. The feathers of the ostrich are almost as soft as down, and are therefore wholly unfit for flying, or to defend the body from external injury. The feathers of other birds iia\e the webs broader on one side than the other, but those of the ostrich iiave the shaft exactly in the middle. In other birds, the filaments that compose the feathers of the wings are firmly attached to each other, or are hooked together, so that they are adapted to catch and resist the air; on those of the ostrich no such attachments are found. The consequence is, that they cannot oppose to the air a suitable resistance, as is the case with other birds, and are therefore incapable of flying, and in fact never mount on tlie wing. The wing is used (see Notes on ver. 18) only to htilancc the bird, and to aid it in running. The great size of the bird — weighing seventy-five or eightypounds — would require an immense power of wing to elevate it in the air, and it has, therefore, been furnished with the means of surpassing all other animals in the rapidity with which it runs, so tiiat it may escape its pursuers. The ostrich is made to live in the wilderness, and it was called by the ancients " a lover of the deserts." It is shy and timorous in no common degree, and avoids the cultivated fields, and the abodes of man, and retreats into the utmost recesses of the desert. In those dreary wastes its subsistence is the few tufts of coarse grass which are scattered here and there, but it will eat almost any thing that comes in its way. It is the most voracious of animals, and \vill devour leather, glass, hair, iron, stones, or any thing that is given. V'alisnieri found the first stomach filled with a quantity of incongruous substances; gva-ss, nuts, cords, stones, glass, brass, copper, iron, tin, lead, and wood, and among the rest, a piece of stone that weighed more than a pound. It would seem that the ostrich is obliged to fill up the great capacity of its stomach in order to be at ease; but tliat, nutritious substances not occurring, it pours in whatever is at hand to supply the void. The flesh of the ostrich was forbidden by the laws of Moses to be eaten (Lev. xi. 13), but it is eaten by some of tlie savage nations of Africa, who hunt tiiem for their flesh, which they regard as a dainty. The principal value of the ostrich, however, and the principal reason why it is hunted, is in the long feathers that compose the wing and the tail, and which are used so extensivelv for ornaments. The an cients used these plumes in their helmets; the ladies in the East, as well as in the West, use them to decorate their persons, and tliey have been extensively employed also as badges of mourning on hearses. The Arabians assert that the ostrich never drinks, and the chosen place of its habitation — the waste, sandy desert — seems to confirm the assertion. As the ostrich, in the passage before us, is contrasted with the stork, the accompanying illustrations will serve to explain the passage.