The Reém evidently known to the Jews—Various theories concerning the Unicorn—Supposed identity with the Indian Rhinoceros Passages of Scripture alluding to the strength, violent and intractable temper of the Reêm -The Reêm a two-horned animal—Its evident connection with the Ox tribe—Its presumed identity with the now extinct Urus—Mr. Dawkins' treatise on the Urus—Enormous size and dangerous Character of the Urus—Rabbinical legend of the Reém-Identity of the Urus with the modem varieties of cattle—The Bull hunts of Nineveh.
THERE are many animals mentioned in the Scriptures which cannot be identified with any certainty, partly because their names occur only once or twice in the sacred writings, and partly because, when they are mentioned, the context affords no clue to their identity by giving any hint as to their appearance or habits. In such cases, although the translators would have done better if they had simply given the Hebrew word without endeavoring to identify it with any known animal, they may be excused for committing errors in their nomenclature. There is one animal, however, for which no such excuse can be found, and this is the Reém of Scripture, translated as Unicorn in the authorized version.
Now the word Reém is mentioned seven times in the Old Testament, and is found, not in one, but several books, showing that it was an animal perfectly well known to those for whom the sacred books were written. It is twice mentioned in the Pentateuch, several times in the Psalms, once in the book of Job, once by Isaiah, and reference is once made to it in the historical books. In these various passages, abundant details are given of its aspect and habits, so that there is very little doubt as to the identity of the animal.
The Septuagint translates Reém by the word Monoceros, or the One-horned, which has been transferred to the Vulgate by the term Unicorns, a word having the same signification.
In an age when scientific investigation was utterly neglected, such a translation would readily be accepted without cavil, and there is no doubt that the generality of those who read the passages in question accepted them as referring to the Unicorn of heraldry with which we, as Englishmen, are so familiar. I may perhaps mention briefly that such an animal is a physiological impossibility, and that the Unicorn of the fables was a mere compound of an antelope, a horse, and a narwhal. The tusks or teeth of the narwhal were in former days exhibited as horns of the Unicorn, and so precious were they that one of diem was laid up in the cathedral of St. Denis, and two in the treasury of St. Mark's at Venice, all of which were exhibited in the year 1658 as veritable Unicorns' horns.
The physiological difficulty above mentioned seems to have troubled the minds of the old writers, who saw that an ivory horn had no business to grow upon the junction of the two bones of the skull, and yet felt themselves bound to acknowledge that such an animal did really exist. They therefore put themselves to vast trouble in accounting for such a phenomenon, and, in their determination to believe in the animal, invented theories nearly as wonderful as the existence of the Unicorn itself.
One of these theories, arguing that the two horns may be as easily fused together as the hoofs, is stated as follows. "Because the middle is equally distant from both the extremes and the hoof of this beast may be well said to be cloven and whole, because the horn is of the substance of the hoof, and the hoof of the substance of the horn, and therefore the horn is whole and the hoof cloven; for the cleaving either of the horn or of the hoof cometh from the defect of nature, and therefore God hath given to horses and asses whole hoofs, because there is greatest use of their legs, but unto Unicorns a whole and entire horn, that, as the ease of man is procured by the help of horses, so the health of them is procured by the horn of the Unicorn.”
This last sentence refers to the then universal belief, that the horn of the Unicorn was a panacea for all illness and an antidote to all poisons. It was thought to be so sensitive, that if a poisoned cup were but brought near it a thick moisture would exude from its surface and if fragments were thrown into the cup they would cause the liquid to swell and bubble, and at last to boil oven This supposed virtue forms the basis of an argument used by one of the writers on the subject, and, as the passage affords a good example of theological argument in 1658, it will be given entire.
After enumerating various animals (and, by the way, once actually hitting upon the "fish called Monoceros," i.e. the narwhal), the writer proceeds as follows, in the quaint and nervous English of his time: " Now our discourse of the Unicorn is of none of these beasts, for there is not any virtue attributed to their horns, and therefore the vulgar sort of infidel people, which scarcely believe any herb but such as they see in their own gardens, or any beast but such as is in their own flocks, or any knowledge but such as is bred in their own brains, or any birds which are not hatched in their own nests, have never made question of these; but of the true Unicorn, whereof there were more proofs in the world, because of the nobleness of his horn, they have ever been in doubt. By which distinction it appeareth unto me that there is some secret enemy in the inward degenerate nature of man, which continually blindeth the eyes of God His people, from beholding and believing the greatness of God His works.
“But to the purpose: that there is such a beast, the Scripture itself witnesseth, for David thus speaketh in the 92nd Psalm, Et erigetur cornu meus tanquam Monocerotis. That is, My horn shall be lifted up like the horn of a Unicorn.' Whereupon all divines that ever wrote have not only collected that there is a Unicorn, but also affirm the similitude to be betwixt the kingdom of David and the horn of the Unicorn, that as the horn of the Unicorn is wholesome to all beasts and creatures, so should be the kingdom of David to the generation of Christ.
“And do we think that David would compare the virtue of his kingdom and the powerful redemption of the world, unto a thing that is not, or is uncertain, or is fantastical? God forbid that over any man should so do despight to the Holy Ghost. For this cause we read also in Suidas, that good men who worship God and follow His laws are compared to Unicorns, whose greater parts, as their whole bodies, are unprofitable and untamable, yet their horn maketh them excellent; so in good men, although their fleshy parts be good for nothing, and fall down to the earth, yet their grace and piety exalteth their souls to the heavens.”
In late years, after the true origin of the Unicorn's horn was discovered, and the belief in its many virtues abandoned, the Reém, or Monoceros, was almost unhesitatingly identified with the rhinoceros of India, and for a long time this theory was the accepted one. It is now, however, certain that the Reêm was not the rhinoceros, and that it can be almost certainly identified with an animal which, at the time when the passages in question were written, was plentiful in Palestine, although, like the lion, it is now extinct.
We will now take in their order the seven passages in which the animal is mentioned, substituting the word Reêm for Unicorn.
The first of these passages occurs in Num. 23, where the remarkable prophecies of Balaam are recorded. “The Lord his God is with them, and the shout of a king is among them. God brought them out of Egypt, he hath as it were the strength of Reêm “(ver. 21, 22). From this passage we gain one piece of information, namely, that the Reêm was an exceptionally powerful animal. Indeed, it was evidently the strongest animal that was known to the prophet and his hearers, or it would not have been mentioned as a visible type of Divine power.
Next we come to Deut. 33, wherein another prophecy is revealed, namely, that of Moses, just before his death and mysterious burial. Speaking of Joseph and his tribe, the aged prophet uses these words, "Let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of Reêm: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth; and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh" (ver. 16, 17).
In this passage we gather more information. In the first place it is to be noticed that the Reêm is mentioned in connection with the domestic cattle, and that the name is used as one that is familiar to the hearers. Next, as the marginal reading gives the word, Reém is used in the singular and not in the plural number, so that the passage may be read, “his horns are like the horns of a Unicorn." Thus we come to the important point that the Reém was not a one-horned, but a two-horned animal.
It may here be remarked that the Reém horns were the emblem of the two tribes that sprung from Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, himself being typified by the Reém, and his two powerful sous by the horns.
“Be not Thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste Thee to help me.
“Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power (or the hand) of the dog.
“Save me from the lion's mouth: for Thou hast heard me from the horns of Reêm.”
In Psa. 92 there is another allusion to the powerful horns of the Reém. “For lo, Thine enemies, O Lord, for lo, Thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of Reêm.”
From these passages we gather the following important points. First, the Reêm was an animal familiar to the people of Palestine, as is evident from the manner in which its name is introduced into the sacred writings; secondly, it was the most powerful animal known to the Israelites; thirdly, it was a two-horned animal; fourthly, it was a savage and dangerous beast; and fifthly, it had some connection with the domesticated cattle.
This last-mentioned point is brought out more strongly in the remaining passages of Scripture. In Job, for example, a parallel is drawn between the wild and untamable Reêm and the beast of draft and burden.
In that magnificent series of passages in which the Lord answers Job out of the whirlwind, and which indeed are a worthy sequel to Elihu's impassioned discourse on the text that "God is greater than man," the wild animals are mentioned in evident contrast to the tame. First come the wild goats of the rock; then the wild ass, who "scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth the crying of the driver;" and then the Reêm, which is clearly contrasted with the tamed ox.
“Will Reém be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind Reêm with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust hin', because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labor to him? Wilt thou believe him that he will bring borne thy seed, and gather it in thy barn?" See chap. 39:9-12.
Now in these passages, the principal duties of the domesticated cattle are described—the plowing the furrow, the drawing of the harrow, and the carrying home of the ripened corn, for all which purposes the tameless spirit of Reêm renders him useless, in spite of his vast strength. The prophet Isaiah has a passage in which the Reém is evidently classed with the ox tribe. See chap. 34:6, 7.
“The sword of the Lord is filled with blood; it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And Reém shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”
“The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars; yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon. He maketh theta also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young Reêm.”
On turning to the Jewish Bible we find that the word Reém is translated as buffalo, and there is no doubt that this rendering is nearly the correct one, and at the present day naturalists are nearly all agreed that the Reêm of the Old Testament must have been the now extinct Urus. A smaller animal, the Bonassus or Bison, also existed in Palestine, and even to the present day continues to maintain itself in one or two spots, though it will probably be as soon completely erased from the surface of the earth as its gigantic congener.
That the Reêm was one of the two animals is certain, and that it was the larger is nearly as certain. The reason for deciding upon the Urus is, that its horns were of great size and strength, and therefore agree with the description of the Reêm; whereas those of the Bonassus, although powerful, are short, and not conspicuous enough to deserve the notice which is taken of them by the sacred writers.
Of the extinct variety we know but little. We do know, however, that it was a huge and most formidable animal, as is evident from the skulls and other bones which have been discovered.
Hitherto there has been considerable difficulty in treating of the ancient Urus, on account of the great confusion which existed in the various synonyms that were given to the animal. The tangled skein has, however, been carefully unraveled by Mr. W. Boyd Dawkins, M.A., F.R.S., who has published an exceedingly valuable paper on the subject in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, March 21, 1866.
After describing the general character of the Urus, he proceeds to remark: "The synonyms of the Bos Urus are in a state of very great confusion, arising from the fact that the two words denoting two distinct species, the Urox and the Aurochs, are derived from the same Sanscrit root, Ur, Aur or Or, that signifies a forest, or sandy waste. The root can be traced through many languages, and still survives in the Greek ὄρος (a mountain), the Norwegian Ore, the Icelandic Ure (the stony desert surrounding the base of the mountains); and is preserved without change in the old German Ur (a forest), and in Ur of the Chaldees. It appears also in the, Ural Mountains, and also in the canton of Uri, the crest of which is an ox-head." It is worthy of mention that, in the last-mentioned place, when new magistrates are elected, two ancient and gigantic horns, remarkable for their double curvature, are carried in solemn procession.
The presence of these horns affords a remarkable confirmation to a well-known passage in Julius Caesar's familiar “Commentaries." “The Uri are little inferior to elephants in size” ("magnitudine paullo infra elephantos"); “but are bulls in their nature, color, and figure. Great is their strength, and great their swiftness; nor do they space man or beast when they have caught sight of them. These, when trapped in pitfalls, the hunters diligently kilt. The youths, exercising themselves by this sort of hunting, are hardened by the toil; and those among them who have killed most, bringing with them the horns as testimonials, acquire great praise. But these Uri cannot be habituated to man or made tractable, not even when young. The great size of the horns, as well as the form and quality of them, differ much from the horns of our oxen. These, when carefully selected, they ring round the edge with silver, and use them for drinking cups at their ample feasts.”
The enormous size of the horns of an ox which was in all probability the Urus is mentioned by another writer, who also alludes to their use as drinking vessels. He states that some of these horns were so large as to hold about four gallons, and then proceeds to remark that their primitive use as drinking cups was the reason why Bacchus was represented as wearing horns, and was sometimes worshipped under the form of a bull.
It is worthy of notice, that the Sanscrit root Ur is retained in the name of the enormous Indian ox, the Gaur, a term which is formed from two words, namely, Gau, or Ghoo, a cow, and Ur, so that the name signifies Wild Cow.
As to the size of the animal Urus, it is evident, by measurement of certain remains, that it must have well deserved Caesar's comparison with the elephant. A skull that is described by Cuvier gave the following measurements. Width of skull between the bases of the horn-cores (i.e. the bony projections on which the hollow horns are set), rather more than twelve inches and an half. Circumference of the cores at the base, twelve inches and nine-tenths. Length of the cores, twenty-seven inches and nine-tenths; and distances between their tips, thirty-two inches and a half.
According to the proportions of the domesticated ox, these measurements indicated that the animal was twelve feet in length, and six feet and a half in height. Now, if the reader will sketch out on a wall an ox of these dimensions, he will appreciate the enormous dimensions of the ancient Urus, far better than can be done by merely reading figures in a book.
But this animal, gigantic as it was, is not the largest specimen that has been discovered. A portion of an Urus skull was discovered in the Avon, at Melksham, near Bath, the horn-cores of which, as described by Mr. H. Woods, were seventeen inches and a half in circumference, thirty-six inches and a hall' in length, and the distance from tip to tip was thirty-nine inches. Taking the same proportions as those of the ordinary ox, the author shows that the skull in question belonged to an animal very much larger than that which was described by Cuvier. In another specimen the distance between the tips of the horn-cores was forty-two inches, but their length only thirty-six.
Of course, the size of the horn-cores gives little indication of the dimensions of the horns themselves, and the principal point to be noticed is the shape of the core, which in some specimens, though not in all, instead of presenting the regular double curvature with which we are so familiar in our domestic oxen, first curves outwards, there bends backwards or a little downwards and forwards. This peculiarity in the shape of the horns is specially noted by Caesar, and we may therefore receive with more security his account of their enormous size.
A curious rabbinical legend of the Reêm is given in Lewysohn's “Zoologie des Talmuds." When the ark was complete, and all the beasts were commanded to enter, the Reêm was unable to do so, because it was too large to pass through the door. Noah and his sons therefore were obliged to tie the animal by a rope to the ark, and to tow it behind; and, in order to prevent it from being strangled, they tied the rope, not round its neck, but to its horn.
The same writer very justly remarks that the Scriptural and Talmudical accounts of the Reêm have one decided distinction. The Scripture speaks chiefly of its fierceness, its untamable nature, its strength, and its swiftness, as its principal characteristics, while the Talmud speaks almost exclusively of its size. It was evidently the largest animal of which the writers had ever heard, and, according to Oriental wont they exaggerated it preposterously. Whenever the Talmudical writers treat of animals with which they are personally acquainted, they are simple, straightforward, and accurate. But, as soon as they come te animals unknown to them except by hearsay, they go off into the wildest extravagances, such, for example, as asserting that the leopard is a hybrid between the wild boar and the lioness The exaggerated statements concerning the Reêm show therefore that the animal must have been extinct long before the time of the writers.
The question now crises, What is the distinction between the ancient Urus and our modern cattle? The answer is simple enough. The difference in the shape of the horn-cores is, as has been shown, not characteristic of the animal in general, but only of certain individuals; while other variations in the shape and length of certain bones are of too little consequence to be accepted as bases whereon to found a new genus or even species, and we may therefore assume that the Urus of Cæsar, the Reêm of Scripture, was nothing more than a very large variety of the ox, modified of course in aspect and habits by the locality in which it lived. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that Mr. Dawkins, in the treatise to which reference has already been made, has “traced the gigantic Urus from the earliest Pleistocene times through the pre-historic period at least as far as the twelfth century after Christ.”
The reader may remember that in Cæsar’s brief but graphic account of the Urus, he mentions that it was hunted by those who wished to distinguish themselves. Now, on many of the sculptures of Nineveh, there are delineations of bull hunts, which show, as Mr. Layard justly observes, that the wild bull appears to have been considered scarcely less formidable and noble game than the lion. The king himself is shown as attacking it, while the warriors partake of the sport either mounted or on foot.
The exact variety of the wild bull which is being chased is not very recognizable. It certainly is not the ordinary domestic animal, the shape approaching somewhat to that of the antelope. The body is covered with marks which are evidently intended to represent hair, though it does not follow that the hair need be thick and shaggy like that of the bison tribe.