DOG

the animal world, it was necessary to form a party among the animals themselves; to conciliate by caresses those which were capable of attachment and obedience, in order to oppose them to the other species. Hence the training of the dog seems to have been the first art invented by man ; and the result of this art was the conquest and peaceable possession of the earth' (Buffon, iv. 4). Though mankind may not now be so dependent on the dog as in the early stages of society, as they have obtained various substitutes for its help, particularly in the use of firearms and other weapons, yet even still we could ill afford to dispense with it. To be deprived of it would be an incalculable loss

to man.

Buffon reckons only one species of dog; but the number of races is so great, and there is among them such variety in point of size, figure, colour, quantity of hair, etc., that the natural conclusion appears to be, that many of them constitute different species, or at least that they have sprung from originally different species, though of these we may now have few or no examples. To believe that all the variety of dogs which we see are of one species is not easy. Other celebrated naturalists have formed tabular views of the origin and relation of the varieties of dogs; yet no one having seen that origin, nor proved experimentally what are the results of varieties intermingling with each other, and all of them being at variance in their conclusions, we are not prepared to admit the opinions of any of them (Edin. Encyc. viii. 27).

The first mention which we have of the dog in the Scriptures is in the land of Egypt at the time of the exodus: Against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast' (Exod. xi. 7; see also xxii. 31). Job also mentions it; and it would appear that it was employed in his day as the shepherd's dog is in modern times, in guarding or guiding their flocks: 'But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock' (Job. xxx. 1). Among the Jews dogs appear to have been reckoned despicable, vile animals. By the law of Moses the price of a dog is associated with the hire of a whore, and neither was to be brought into the house of the Lord for any vow, for both were an abomination to the Lord' (Deut. xxiii. 18; see also Is. lxvi. 3).

In Eastern cities dogs are often very numerous many of them have no masters, and are usually in a starving condition. They are particularly noisy during the night, when they go about devouring all manner of offal, and whatever else they can find. Speaking of Cairo, Mr. W. Rae Wilson says: During the whole day the dogs of the city were perfectly quiet; but the moment the sun went down they commenced a hideous bark or yell, which continued without interruption till sunrise. The noise, to those unaccustomed to it, is most disturbing, and places a complete embargo on sleep' (Wilson, Trav. in Egypt and Holy Land, 68, 69). In this we have an illustration of David's prayer regarding his enemies: 'Let them return at evening; let them make a noise like a dog, and

DOR

go round about the city; let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied' (Ps. lix. 14, 15). To be eaten by the dogs was of course a great degradation; and with this fate several of the kings of Israel were threatened: Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat, and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat' (1 Kings xiv. 11). The same judgment is pronounced on Baasha (xvi. 4); and on Ahab and his wife Jezebel (xxi. 23, 24). Of Jezebel's sad fate we have a particular account in 2 Kings ix. 30-37.

The appellation of dog was very contemptuous, and expressive of great insignificance: Am I a dog,' said the boasting Philistine to David, 'that thou comest to me with staves?' (1 Sam. xvii. 43). The phrase, a dead dog' was still more so (1 Sam. xxiv. 14; 2 Sam. ix. 8; xvi. 9); and probably 'a dog's head' was worse still. The appellation was also expressive of great wickedness and cruelty. When Elisha foretold to Hazael, the Syrian general, the bloody deeds and the other evils he would do to the Israelitish nation, the other, disdaining to be so accused, replied, 'But what is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing?' (2 Kings viii. 12, 13.) It is probably in reference to the ferociousness of his enemies that David uses the word in Ps. xxii. 16, 20. Ungodly and unprincipled men are also called dogs (Matt. vii. 6; Phil. iii. 2; Rev. xxii. 15).

It is not unlikely the Jews were accustomed to call the Gentiles dogs: at all events, our Lord uses the word antithetically of the Jews in his answer to the Syrophoenician woman: 'It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs;' but she takes up the word, and following out the figure skilfully, turns the objec tion into an argument in her own favour: Truth, Lord; but the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table' There is in this great faith and singular beauty. Our Lord was struck with admiration of it: '0 woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt' (Matt. xv. 21-28; Mark vii. 26).

'His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs; they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.' How striking a description is this of many ministers! Careless, negligent, indolent-they do not faithfully instruct nor warn their people of their sin and danger. The allusion to dumb dogs may be merely figurative, but there are said to be such dogs in the East; the dogs which the Esquimaux employ in drawing their sledges never bark; and the same is also said to be the case with the dogs of Greenland and Kamtschatka. 'Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough; they all look to their own way, every one for his gain from his quarter;' they never get enough of worldly things, but are ever grasping at more (Is. lvi. 10, 11).

In the East the Mohammedans to the present day manifest their hatred and contempt of Christianity by calling Christians dogs. Even among ourselves it is very contemptuous to call any one a dog.

DOR, a city on the shore of the Mediterran

DRACHMA

ment (Song ii. 14; v. 2; vi. 9; Ps. lxxiv. 19); to the softness of its eyes (Song i. 15; iv. 1; v. 12); perhaps to the migratory habits of the turtle (Ps. lv. 6-8); at all events, to its return as a sign of summer having come: The voice of the turtle is heard in our land' (Song ii. 12; see also Jer. viii. 7). It was in the likeness or form of a dove that the spirit descended on our Lord at his baptism (Matt. iii. 16; Luke iii. 22); perhaps in token of the accomplishment in him of the promise (Is. lxi. 1-3; see Luke iv. 16-22).

DRACH'MA, an Attic silver coin, but current among the Romans. It was reckoned of about the same value as the Roman denarius, which was about 74d. of our money. In Luke xv. 8, 9, it is improperly rendered a piece of money' in our translation. The original term ought to have been transferred.

The dedrachma (dis dpaxun), a double drachma; a silver coin equal in value to two drachmæ, and also to about half a Jewish shekel. In Matt. xvii. 24 the word is improperly rendered 'tribute money.' Here also the original term ought to have been transferred, as it should be as to coins generally.

DRAG'ON. It is scarcely necessary to remark that the monstrous fantastic animals, the existence of which was so generally credited in ancient times, and of which the older writers of natural history give descriptions, are mere creatures of the imagination. On this account it is matter of regret that the name should have been introduced into our own and other translations of the Scriptures, as the association is apt to suggest the idea that the animals therein referred to are also monstrous fantastic creatures, more especially as it is not always easy to determine the animals which are intended.

In the E. T. of the O. T. dragon is the word used for the Hebrew, than, n, thanin, Don, thanim. It does not appear to be the name of a particular species of animal: it includes animals very different in kind, agreeing in nothing, unless perhaps in being monstrous, noxious, and hateful to man. It plainly included both land and water animals; and of water animals, inhabitants both of the sea and the rivers, which shews that the word is of a somewhat general term.

In the following passages the word is used of inhabitants of the waters: And God created great D', thaninim (E. T. whales), and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly' (Gen. i. 21). Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength; thou brakest the heads of Dn, thaninim (E. T. dragons, marg. whales) in the waters' (Ps. lxxiv. 13). He shall slay the П, thanin (E. T. dragon), that is in the sea' (Is. xxvii. 1). In Ezek. xxix. 3, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, is spoken of under the figure of the great D', thanim (E. T. dragon), that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.' Here the reference is plainly to the crocodile, which abounds in the Nile. So also xxxii. 2-4, in the following address to Pharaoh: Thou art as a D'IN, thanim (E. T. whale, marg. dragon),

DRAGON

in the seas, and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers. I will therefore spread out my net over thee, and they shall bring thee up in my net. Then I will leave thee upon the land, and I will cast thee forth upon the open field,' etc. Here, besides having a description of an inhabitant of the waters, we have it brought to dry land (see also Job vii. 12).

It is no less plain that land animals are denominated thanim. They are described as inhabiting deserts, and particularly the ruins of cities. 'I am,' says Job, a brother to thanim (E. T. dragons), and a companion to owls' (marg. ostriches; Job xxx. 29). He could never have thought of saying he was a brother to fishes or crocodiles, or other inhabitants of the sea or the rivers. Ostriches, the other bird here referred to, haunt open, sandy, desert plains, where they can roam at large, and which they traverse in every direction with inconceivable speed. Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, shall never be inhabited; but wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures, and owls (marg. ostriches) shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there; and the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and thanim (E. T. dragons) in their pleasant palaces' (Is. xiii. 19-22; see also xliii. 19, 20). There is a similar denunciation upon Idumæa: It shall lie waste from generation to generation; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it; and he shall stretch out upon it the lime of confusion and the stones of emptiness. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof, and it shall be an habitation of thanim (E. T. dragons), and a court for owls' (marg. ostriches; xxxiv. 10, 11, 13; read also ver. 14 and 15, and xxxv. 7). In Jer. ix. 10, 11, we have a scarcely less striking picture of desolation: For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing, and for the habitations of the wilderness a lamentation, because they are burned up so that none can pass through them; neither can man hear the voice of the cattle; both the fowl of the heavens and the beast are fled; they are gone. And I will make Jerusalem heaps, a den of thanim (E. T. dragons), and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant' (see also x. 22; xiv. 6; xlix. 33).

6

These passages shew plainly that the thanim of the Scriptures were real animals, not the imaginary creatures of the Greeks and Romans and other nations of antiquity. The other animals mentioned were real animals, and there is no reason for supposing that the thanim were not equally so. What kind of animals these thanim were which inhabited the deserts and the ruins of cities we cannot certainly say. It is a very common opinion that they were serpents-large, poisonous, deadly serpents; an opinion which appears as likely as any other, especially as serpents would be very ready to make their abode amidst the ruins of cities, and as the words thanin and thaninim are used of serpents in Exod. vii. 9-12. There may even

have been different species of them, both great and small, and it is not even necessary to exclude the idea of other animals besides serpents being included under these designations, as there were entirely different species of creatures included among the thanim of the waters.

There are few characteristics of the thanim given in the Scriptures. Jeremiah, describing a terrible drought, says: The wild asses did stand in the high places; they snuffed up the wind like thanim (E. T. dragons), their eyes did fail because there was no grass' (xiv. 6). 'Even the thanin (E. T. sea-monsters, marg. seacalves) draw out the breast; they give suck to their young ones' (Lam. iv. 3). This would apply to whales and other cetacea.

|

I will wail and howl; I will make a wailing like | the thanim' (E. T. dragons; Micah i. 8). The voice of the crocodile is a loud hollow growling of the most terrific description, which has been compared to the roaring of a bull' (Edin. Encyc. vii. 355). Serpents emit a hissing sound, but we are not aware that the hiss of any species is like wailing. 'Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me; he hath crushed me; he hath made me an empty vessel; he hath swallowed me like a thanin (E. T. drugon); he hath filled his belly with my delicates; he hath cast me out' (Jer. li. 34). Here we appear to have more than one allusion to serpents. Some species on seizing their prey twist themselves in wreaths round its body, and by contractile efforts crush it to death.* This method of seizing their prey is confined to the larger kinds. The smaller sorts are able by their mouth and teeth to seize and hold their victims. There is no mastication, the food being swallowed entire. To facilitate deglutition, there is a peculiar construction of the jaw-bones. The mouth can be opened very wide, and larger animals admitted than from the ordinary size of the creature one would be led to suppose. The boa-constrictor is a remarkable example of this. It is the largest species of serpent, being upwards of twenty feet in length, or, according to some travellers, more than double that length. It is capable of swallowing deer, goats, and men entire. When resistance is offered by its prey, it crushes it to death by embracing it in the wreaths of its body. By thus crushing the bones it is able to reduce a buffalo to such a soft state as to swallow it whole. It suspends itself from the branches of trees by means of its prehensile tail, and in this manner is prepared to drop upon any animal passing beneath. Sometimes it fixes itself by the tail to a tree, and suffers its body to float in the stream at those places where oxen and other animals come to drink, which it then seizes in its fatal embrace. Whether we consider the great extent of gape and dilatable gullet, and consequent power of swallowing, the enormous crushing force which it can exert when twisted round its prey, its courage, or its locomotive

6

DRESS. Of the dress of the Jews in ancient times we have only incidental notices in the Scriptures; and hence we are able to form but imperfect ideas of them. It is commonly sup posed, indeed, that the customs of Eastern nations change so little that their dress in the present day may be taken as authority for that of the ancient Jews. But the dress of the nations of the East, even of those which are nearest to Palestine, differ materially from each other. Changes, too, have taken place in the dress of some of them at least, as well as of the nations of the West. We are therefore not entitled to draw our ideas of the dress of the Jews in ancient times from that of the East in the present day, but must be content with the incidental notices on the subject which we meet with in the Scriptures, few and imperfect though they be.

Though it is often not necessary in a translation of the Scriptures to convey an exact idea of the form of the dress referred to, when nothing in the passages where it is mentioned depends on that circumstance, yet we should avoid the use of terms which would convey false notions in this or any other particular. A general term, such as garment, raiment, clothes, may be suffi cient when nothing depends on its form; but where some distinction is implied it is necessary to use names more definite. The Oriental modes of dress were so different from the modern European that it is seldom or never advisable to employ terms for expressing them which are used as the names of our garments, as these could scarcely fail to convey false ideas of them. Such a practice, if generally adopted in translations of the Scriptures for the various countries of the world, would assign a vast variety of dress for the Jews and other nations of the East. Had the original names been retained when our own translation was made, they might long ago have been naturalised among us, as ephod, shekels, homer, and other words have been.

Of all the modes of translation, the introduction of modern names for ancient things is perhaps the worst. They not only fail to convey correct ideas of them, but they convey false

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder; The young lion and thanin (E. T. dragon: serpent) shalt thou trample under feet.'

E. T. of the Scriptures: e.g., in the word coat. We read of Joseph's coat of many colours' (Gen. xxxvii. 3); of Aaron's 'broidered coat' (Exod. xxviii. iv.); of Samuel's little coat'