names must be understood to comprise more than our term species, as the expression after their kind' indicates. The list, therefore, may be understood to exclude as unfit for food all the order Raptores, most if not all the family of Corvida, the hoopoe (lapwing, A. V.) amongst the Certhiada, perhaps all the order Grallatores, and the Pelicanida amongst the natatorial order. The list is confined,' as Hamilton Smith observes, 'nearly to the same genera and species as are at the present day rejected in all Christian countries.' *

Of Fish, such as were devoid of fins and scales were pronounced unfit for food. 'These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.' The whole families of the Siluride and the Squalide would, therefore, be excluded as being destitute of true scales. Eels, doubtless, came under the same category, although these fish do possess scales, so small, however, as probably to have been unobserved by the ancients. The modern Jews still abstain from eating eels. The fish without fins' probably mean the Raiada, or skate family, the large expanded pectoral and ventral fins characteristic of the group not being regarded as fins by the ancient Hebrews; at any rate, it is difficult otherwise to understand the meaning of the expression, for all fish have fins.

All Reptiles, Molluscs, Crustacea as crabs and lobsters, and the whole class of Annulata, with the single exception of the saltatorial Orthoptera, were forbidden as food by the law of Moses as coming under the category of 'creeping things that creep upon the earth, or that go on the belly,' or 'that multiply feet. It is true that the Conchiferous molluscs, such as oysters, are not disallowed by any precise definition; but there is little doubt that they would be considered 'abominable things.'

Of imported zoological specimens, especial mention is made of apes and peacocks, which the navy of Tharshish brought once in three years to Jerusalem. That the Hebrew words kôphim and tokeyim are correctly rendered 'apes' and 'peacocks' is unquestionable. The Hebrew terms are certainly of foreign origin. Let us hear what a very high authority on all matters connected with language says on this subject:

You remember the fleet of Tharshish which Solomon had at sea, together with the navy of Hiram, and which came once in three years, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks. The same navy which was stationed on the shore of the Red Sea is said to have

* 'Cyclop. of Biblical Literature,' vol. ii. p. 899, ed. 1856.

F 2

fetched

fetched gold from Ophir, and to have brought, likewise, great plenty of algum-trees and precious stones from Ophir.

Well, a great deal has been written to point out where this Ophir was; but there can be no doubt that it was in India. The names for apes, peacocks, ivory, and algum-trees are foreign words in Hebrew, as much as gutta-percha or tobacco are in English. Now if we wished to know from what part of the world gutta-percha was first imported into England, we might safely conclude that it came from that country where the name gutta-percha formed part of the spoken language. If, therefore, we can find a language in which the names for peacocks, apes, ivory, and algum-tree, which are foreign in Hebrew, are indigenous, we may be certain that the country in which that language was spoken must have been the Ophir of the Bible. That language is no other but Sanscrit.

Apes are called in Hebrew Koph, a word without an etymology in the Semitic languages, but nearly identical in sound with the Sanscrit name of ape, Kapi.

'Ivory is called either Karnoth-shen, horns of tooth; or shen-habbim. This habbim is again without a derivation in Hebrew, but it is most likely a corruption of the Sanscrit name for elephant, ibha, preceded by the Semitic article.

'Peacocks are called in Hebrew tukhi-im, and this finds its explanation in the name still used for peacock on the coast of Malabar, togëi, which in turn has been derived from the Sanscrit sikkin, meaning, furnished with a crest.

All these articles, ivory, gold, apes, peacocks, are indigenous in India, though of course they might have been found in other countries likewise. Not so the algum-tree, at least if interpreters are right in taking algum or almug for sandalwood. Sandalwood is found indigenous on the coast of Malabar only, and one of its numerous names there, and in Sanscrit, is valguka. This valgul(ka) is clearly the name which Jewish and Phoenician merchants corrupted into algum, and which in Hebrew was still further changed into almug.'

The question as to the identification of the algummin or almuggin trees of Solomon's fleet leads us to say a few words on the botany of the Bible. Space, however, compels us to be brief in our remarks.

Much remains to be done in this branch of Biblical natural history. The botany of the Bible,' says Dr. Balfour, in his useful little work whose title is given at the head of this article, 'can be fully worked out only by those who travel in Eastern countries, and who are acquainted with Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and other cognate languages. A great deal of valuable information may be gathered on the spot which cannot be otherwise

* Lectures on the Science of Language,' p. 189-191. By Max Müller, M.A. London, 1861.

obtained.'

obtained.' Another essential, in our opinion, is that the inquirer should, for a year or two at least, be resident in the country. It is a very difficult matter for mere visitors to obtain adequate information on such subjects. As an instance of the truth of this remark we quote an extract from a letter we received about two years since from Dr. Hooker, who had then lately returned from Palestine:

'I procured a great many plants, but very little information of any service to you, though I made every inquiry about the subject of your notes. You would hardly believe the difficulty in getting reliable information about the simplest subjects: e.g. Three to all appearance unexceptionable English resident authorities (including a Consul and a medical gentleman) assured me that the finest apples in Syria grew at Joppa and Askalon; the fact appeared so improbable that though one authority had eaten them, I could not resist prosecuting the inquiry, and at last found a gentleman that had property there, and knew a little of horticulture, who assured me that they were all quinces, the apples being abominable!'

We have no space to speak of the olive, with its twisted stems and silver foliage;' or of the pomegranate, whose 'tender green and scarlet blossoms,' says Professor Stanley, are amongst the most beautiful of sights, even when stripped of the associations which would invest the tamest of their kind with interest ;' or of the oaks of Moreh, of Mamre, and of Bethel the oak of tears.' * We must only just allude to the carob-tree (Ceratonia siliqua), the long sweet pods of which were doubtless the 'husks which the 'swine did eat' in the parable of the Prodigal Son; and to the sycamores,-not the tree commonly but erroneously called by this name in our own country, but the Ficus sycamorus, with leaves something resembling those of the mulberry, and with fruit like a fig, which grows in clusters on the trunk and large branches. In order to render the fruit of this tree palatable, it is necessary to scrape off a part of it, or to make incisions into it; hence Amos says of himself, 'I was a scraper of the sycamore fruit.'

The palm, so frequently alluded to in the Bible, appears to be becoming scarce in central Palestine. It is spoken of by Stanley as breaking the uniformity of the Syrian landscape by the rarity of its occurrence. . . . . Two or three in the gardens of Jerusalem, some few, perhaps, at Nablûs, one or two in the plain of Esdraelon, comprise nearly all the instances of the palm in central Palestine.' †

* See Dr. Hooker's paper on the Oaks of Palestine,' Transac. of Lin. Soc., vol. xxiii. p. 381.

+ Sinai and Palestine,' p. 144.

The

The mustard-tree of the New Testament demands more extended notice. "The 'kingdom of Heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.' 'It is obvious,' says Balfour, 'that it cannot be the common mustard of this country, which is an herb of annual growth; whereas the Evangelists speak of the plant as a tree having branches on which the fowls of the air lodge.' Again, our Lord alludes to the smallness of the seed in Matt. xvii. 20, and Luke xvii. 6. The mustard-plant then was a branching tree with a small seed.' From the conclusion that no mustardplant (Sinapis) can represent the 'great tree' of the parable-a conclusion, however, too hastily arrived at-writers have endeavoured to discover some tree indigenous to Palestine which should literally fulfil the Scriptural demands. It is now in this country almost universally allowed that the Salvadora persica is the tree signified. The late excellent Dr. Royle, an able botanist and an accomplished scholar, is the author of this theory. In a paper read before the Royal Asiatic Society, entitled, 'On the Identification of the Mustard-tree of Scripture,' this writer advances many very plausible arguments in favour of the claims of the Salvadora. The same thought occurred to Messrs. Irby and Mangles, who observed this tree near the Dead Sea.

'There was one curious tree,' they say, 'which we observed in great plenty, and which bore fruit in bunches resembling in appearance the currant with the colour of the plum; it has a pleasant, although strongly aromatic taste, exactly resembling mustard. The leaves have the same pungent flavour as the fruit, although not so strong. We think it probable that this is the tree our Saviour alluded to in the Parable of the mustard-seed, and not the plant which we have in the north.'

An additional argument in favour of the Salvadora is its Arabic name Khardal, which signifies mustard.' Its claims are thus summed up by Royle :

The Salvadora persica appears better calculated than any other tree that has yet been adduced to answer to everything that is required, especially if we take into account its name and the opinions held respecting it in Syria. We have in it a small seed, which sown in cultivated ground grows up and abounds in foliage. This being pungent may like the seeds have been used as a condiment, as mustard and cress is with us. The nature of the plant is to become arboreous, and thus it will form a large shrub or tree, twenty-five feet high, under which a horseman may stand when the climate and soil are

favourable;

favourable; it produces numerous branches and leaves, under which the birds may and do take shelter, as well as build their nests; it has a name in Syria which may be considered as traditional from the earliest times, of which the Greek is a correct translation; its seeds are used for the same purposes as mustard; and in a country where trees are not plentiful, that is, the shores of the Lake of Tiberias, this tree is said to abound, that is, in the very locality where the Parable is spoken.'

Notwithstanding all that has been advanced by Royle, the Salvadora persica is certainly not the tree in question. In the first place this tree is a tropical plant; it grows only in the small low valley of Engedi, near the Dead Sea, where Irby and Mangles saw it. We were sceptical some time ago as to the claims of the Salvadora persica, and requested Dr. Hooker just before his visit to Palestine two years since to pay particular attention to the localities of that tree. It is obvious that it is necessary for the plant of the parable to be a common one, otherwise it would never have been used in a parable at all. Dr. Hooker thus wrote to us on his return from the East: 'I could not hear of any other Syrian locality for this plant except the sub-tropical valley of Engedi. I do not believe at all it is found elsewhere in Syria; no one has ever seen or heard of it elsewhere. The vale of Engedi is doubtless the Ultima Thule of its northern wanderings.' Again, the Greek σivant is said to be a 'garden herb,' a definition which would not at all suit the Salvadora persica.† But if the mustard-plant of Scripture is not this tree, what is the plant denoted? We have not a shadow of doubt that it is nothing less than the common Sinapis nigra. Irby and Mangles speak of the usual mustard-plant growing wild as high as their horses' heads. Dr. Thomson has seen the wild mustard on the rich plain of Akkar as tall as the horse and the rider. As to the plant being called 'a tree,' or a 'great tree,' it is clear that the expression is not only an Oriental hyperbole, but that it is used with reference to some other thing. With respect to trees, properly so called, the σivami was no tree; but compared with the other pot-herbs of the garden, it might justly be called a tree, considering the great relative size which it attains. There is not a word in the New Testament about birds building their nests' in the branches of this plant; the Greek word simply denotes to 'settle or rest upon anything;' and if it is understood, as is most natural, of the small insessorial order of birds, the linnets, finches,

λάχανον.

† Moreover, the seed of the Salvadora persica, though small, is certainly larger than the seed of the fig, so common in Palestine.

and