THE DOMESTIC FOWL. 27 



special mention of them by name in the Old Testament may be 

 considered as doubtful. It is curious that several creatures 

 with which we may believe that the ancient Egyptians must 

 have been acquainted, are quite omitted from their paintings 

 and sculptures. Thus, there seems to be no representation of 

 Pigeons or of Camels in their tombs or temples: whereas 

 other things, which we should have less expected to find, as a 

 flock of Domestic Geese, are depicted with great accuracy. I 

 have been anxious to find portraits of some of the Fancy Pi- 

 geons upon ancient monuments, but cannot, though I have 

 found mention of several in ancient literature. 



The apparent omission of the name of the Domestic Fowl 

 from the Old Testament may possibly have arisen from this 

 cause, namely : that tending them would be the occupation of 

 women, whose domestic employments are less prominently 

 brought forward by Oriental writers than the active enterprises 

 of men ; and also, that the birds specially named there are the 

 unclean birds, which are to be avoided, whereas those which 

 may be eaten are classed in a lump as " clean." See Leviticus, 

 xi. 13, and Deuteronomy, xiv. 11. "Of all clean birds ye 

 shall eat. But these are they which ye shall not eat; the 

 eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey," &c. Turtle-doves and 

 young pigeons are only mentioned as objects of sacrifice, not 

 as articles of food. 



Aristotle, who wrote about 350 years before Christ, speaks 

 o them as familiarly as a natural historian of the present day 

 would. It is unnecessary more than to allude to the beautiful 

 comparisons taken from them in the New Testament. The 

 Roman authors of the commencement of the Christian era re- 

 corded that they were classed into such a number of distinct 

 varieties as could only have been the result of long cultivation. 

 Whether we suppose that different breeds were collected and 

 imported from different native stations, or assume that the dif- 

 ferences of those breeds were the artificial result of domestica- 



