their menageries. Why then not the Elephant likewise, as a foreign and amazing curiosity, if he had been accessible by them?

On all points, it is agreed, that the alluvial soil of Egypt was a deposit of the Nile; and probably we must acknowlege this soil to have been so old, as to have kept equal pace with the geogenetical' development of the land. So, in proportion as the under channel or valley of the hill emerged from the morass, by means of the continued alluvies of the river, the population of the country appears to have followed, in precisely the same degree. But, as to the geographical point, from whence we must imagine the formation of Egypt properly so called to have commenced, opinions are greatly divided. Many critics may choose to trace the whole up to Æthiopia; but, I confess, that I can assent to no such an idea. It is apparent from many circumstances, that the boundary of the Egyptians on the side of the Ethiopians was extremely confined. We must in this case presume, that they had neighbors, and totally forgot their civilisation, notwithstanding there was no such an insurmountable chasm between the two places to have occasioned it, which in a people, who so carefully preserved their ancient traditions, can in no way be believed. In my opinion, their ignorance of the Elephant throws no unimportant weight into the scale of arguments, which may be produced on both sides.

Much earlier than the Elephant himself, ivory was known as a costly spoil won from the dead animal, in those lands, within whose territory our ancient history of the world is circumscribed. Accordingly, of this I discern a vestige even in the geography of Egypt; I allude to the name of the city Elephantine, which was situated in an island on the Nile, over against Syene. It is clear, that all the Greek names of Egyptian cities before the time of Alexander the Great originated with the Ionians, who had settled in Egypt under Psammetichus, or with the race of interpreters who sprang up in consequence of this settlement; and we may boldly assert, that the Greek name expressed the sense of the original: yet I am persuaded that we must not understand Elephantine as the city of Elephants, (what could these have had to do with a rocky islet on the Nile ?) but as the city of Ivory. Nothing is more natural, than that the inhabitants of upper Ethiopia came as far as this southern limit, to exchange their Elephants' teeth for other ware. The acute Bochart 2 imagines

'Geogenischen entwickelung des Landes.

2 Hierozoic. 1. ii. c. 23. "Sed olim utrosque (Ethiopes et Egyptios) aut alterutros elephantum phil appellasse, ex eo mihi suspicio est, quod Phil urbs in Egypti et Ethiopia confiniis, ex Herodoto et Plinio videtur eadem esse cum aliorum Elephantine."

Elephantine to be one and the same place as Philæ, as, if this had been its name in a former Egyptian translation. Hence, therefore, it would incontestably seem, that the Elephant, or at least ivory, bore, as in Egypt, a widely-extended name in the East, to which I shall, in the sequel, retrace it. Herodotus merely calls Phila the city Elephantine: Strabo, who had travelled through this region, accurately distinguishes the two: Elephantine lay below the cataracts, Philæ above them, a hundred stadia farther on the land side, also, in an island on the Nile. However, it is not improbable that both places, on account of a similar appropriation, as staple marts of the Æthiopian trade, bore one and the same name. The Ethiopians could descend the Nile as far as Philæ, where they must have unladed their wares on account of the Cataracts, and brought them by land to Elephantine, where, again, they might have shipped them. It is also conceivable, that the Ionians named the city which lay the nearest to them in their own language, but left to the rarely frequented Philæ its Egyptian name. Jomard, in his excellent description of Elephantine, supposes with Bochart, that the names of Philæ and Elephantine are synonymous in Egyptian and Greek, and that as a general title they designated the whole island-group of the Cataracts. He attempts by very sensible arguments to show, that Herodotus intended by the city Elephantine the Philæ of Strabo. The intricate passage in Pliny 3 is rather favorable than opposed to this opinion; consequently, Bochart is correct to a certain degree.

We must not in this place forget to observe, that the word éλépas, which the Romans derived immediately from the Greeks, and the nations of modern Europe from them, does by no means originally signify in Greek the Elephant, but simply, Ivory. In which last sense it frequently occurs in Homer, and once in Hesiod; from whence it is proved, that ivory had long been well known to the Greeks of this period, i. e. from 800 to 900 years before our æra. They understood the art of dressing and turning it. The Mæonian 5 and Carian women dyed it here and there with purple, for the sake of increasing the effect of its glossy whiteness; and thus ornamented it was used as the cheek-part of horse-harness. The nuptial couch of Ulysses, and the chair of

1

4

Through the never to be sufficiently praised labors of the French savans, every one may now ascertain the situation of both places and their remains, as accurately as if he had been on the spot. Refer to the topographical chart of the course of the Nile in the neighborhood of the Cataracts. Descr. de l'Egypte, Antiquités, T. i. Pl. 30, and the description in the first volume of the text.

2 Descr. de l'Egypte, Antiquités T. i. c. 3. §. 6.

3. Hist. Nat. L. v. c. 9. 4 Od. viii. 404. 405. xix. 56.

5 Il. iv. 141 seq.

Penelope were inlaid with it: the palace of Menelaus glistened ' with gold, silver, electrum and ivory. Although it was certainly accounted costly, yet it must have been turned in considerable quantities for the poet to have been able to figure to himself a gate entirely covered with it, even if his language were allegorical. It cannot be a matter of doubt, by means of which nation Ivory came so early into Greece. But it is in no wise an unimportant question, as far as relates to the history of the commerce of nations, whether the Phoenicians brought the ivory, which they sold in Asia Minor and Greece, from Africa or India. Every probability is in favor of the first. That an ancient trade existed from India to the West, perhaps later above Colchis and the Black Sea, I will not deny: but then it proceeded with difficulty through Persia, and, as we shall shortly see, the Persians were perfectly unacquainted with India properly so called, until the time of Darius Hystaspis. Besides which, we have express evidence, that the ships of King Solomon sailed in partnership with those of the Phoenicians from the Arabian Gulf to the land of Ophir; that they brought from thence, together with other things, costly Ivory in great quantity for his splendid throne, and the building of his Temple; and Ophir, according to the more probable ideas of interpreters, is a part of the Eastern coast of Africa, perhaps Sofala or Mozambique. Lastly, it is evident from the nature of the case, that Africa could always produce more ivory for foreign marts than India.

3

In Asia, the Elephant is absolutely a native only to the south of the great chain of mountains:-in both the peninsulas of India, and in the islands which lie over against them. Through the numerous population of these territories, their habitations were either confined to the tracts of country which the human settlements had not reached, or where nature opposed insurmountable obstacles to these settlements: to the midst of valleys, and woody lands abounding in water at the foot of a chain of mountains. In Africa, on the contrary, the Elephant is frequent in the southern points (where alone the European settlers have in some degree driven him back), all along the western coast as far as Senegal, all along the eastern coast, as it appears with some few interruptions, as far as Abyssinia; and also in Nigritia, right across the whole of that part of the world. If we only cast a glance upon the map, we shall perceive, how, on the other hand, the Asiatic line of land dwindles away altogether. We know not how far over the interior of unexplored Africa the Elephant may be spread; yet, at

Od. xix. 55. 56. xxiii. 200. iv. 73.

2 Od. xix. 562-565.-αἱ δ ̓ ἐλέφαντι· Τῶν οἱ μὲν κ ̓ ἔλθωσι διὰ πριστοῦ ἐλέφαντος. 3 Robertson's Historical Disquisition concerning Ancient India, §. 1. p. 9.

least, it cannot be denied, that the requisites for the increase of the species are there found united: for, although no mouths of great rivers appear on the coast, nevertheless they may possibly exist, disgorging themselves either into lakes, or being lost in the sand.

Still further, as the very ancient taming of the Elephant in India must have increased the quantity of ivory, so it must have in a greater proportion decreased the trade; for the value of the teeth of the dead beast is not to be compared with that of the living, when carefully broken in for an important purpose. The Elephant-hunt appears always to have been in India a royal preroga tive, and to have been conducted with a particular forbearance, not to diminish the propagation of the species.

Hence, the Indians in the age to which our earliest accounts of Asiatic traffic reach, were acquainted with all the conveniences of life, and were aware, that too great an inland consumption would necessarily decrease the export. In the Amara-Kosha,' a book probably written nearly two thousand years ago, ivory is mentioned as a common material, from which they carved dolls for children.

One principal thing here to be observed, is, that the African Elephants are far more richly furnished with ivory than the Indian. In Africa, the long projecting tusks are common to both sexes, but in India, in the female Elephants the length of them only extends to a few inches: yet in Ceylon, which has very generally been famed for its powerful and warlike Elephants, and indeed was so of old,' there is a numerous variety of both sexes, which entirely want the tusks. Since the naturalist Cuvier, who first elucidated the characteristic difference of both sorts of Elephants, particularly with respect to the internal construction of the molar teeth, has at least left it doubtful, whether the African

'See Colebrooke's Cosha, p. 245. §. 29, with his remarks.

La Ménagerie du Muséum national d'histoire naturelle par Lacerpéde, Cuvier, et Geoffroi. Paris 1805. 12mo. T. i. p. 95.

3 Ælian, de Natura Animal. L. 16. c. 18.

This fact is attested in a very credible MS. paper in Dutch, which was most obligingly communicated to me from the library of the Leopoldinian Academy. "Beschryving van de Olifanten, zoodanig dezælve op het eiland Ceilon bevonden worden, getrokken uit het Relaas van verscheyde olifante bediende." Two sorts of Elephants are in Ceylon, those with tusks, and the Aliassi, the tusks of which are wanting in both sexes. The females are difficult to be distinguished, since only few of the tusked species have tusks of several inches. The tusked males often keep company with the females of the other species, but, from this intercourse, only Aliassis proceed. They are, in general, beyond all comparison, the most frequent; and where one tusked beast may be found, from five and twenty to thirty Aliassis may be discovered.

Elephants do not, probably, at a stated time shed their tusks, as well as their molars, that may well be admitted, which the express ly affirming testimony of a Greek writer declares. Ælian says, that the Elephants in Mauritania every ten years drop "the horns," by which, he means the tusks. But, alas! he has not recorded the source from whence he extracted his information (if it possibly be from the writings of King Juba, it would not be without weight); but he mixes, like a compiler without judgment, facts with legends in such bad taste, that they only serve to make doubtful that which is authentic. Yet is it a fact well known, that by no means all the ivory that forms part of the African traffic proceeds from dead Elephants, but that in the woodlands there, Elephants' teeth are frequently found; from which circumstance, the preceding assertion acquires a greater degree of probability. The matter deserves to be investigated by future travellers.

SOME ACCOUNT OF

An Excursion from Rome to Horace's Sabine Farm.

Ir had often been one of the wishes that I was most fond of indulging, to visit the delightful spot in the Sabine mountains which had attractions enough to invite Horace from the luxuries of Rome, and from the splendid villas of Tibur; but I could scarcely believe that I should ever realise the wish. It was too much to suppose that circumstances would even allow me to reach Rome itself, and when arrived there, the further happiness of exploring the secluded corner, the ridens angulus, the few acres embosomed amidst mountains, where the poet used to seclude himself from the tumult of cities, this was what I really dared not hope. I was aware that the distance from Rome could not be less than from thirty to thirtyfive miles, that the place itself was difficult to find, and that the road had the reputation of being too much infested by banditti to render it safe travelling, except in a strong party. Upon consulting Nibby, the great authority upon these subjects, the only encouragement which he gave was this, "Questo viaggio è incommodo un poco, ma questo incommodo è compensato dal piacere di visitare que' luoghi, de'quali si è udito parlare fin dalla infanzia. La maucanza delle locande è compensata dalla ospitalità degli abi

'Ménagerie, &c. T. i. p. 107. 2 Ælian, de Natura Animal. L. 14. c. 5. 3 General Zoology, by G. Shaw, London, 1800, v. 1. p. i. page 213. 4 The excursion will be attended with some inconvenience, but it will be compensated by the pleasure of visiting those places, of which one