16 



which makes his neck to be "clothed in thunder." It is now considered 

 to be a mistranslation, for it appears that the same word signifies in the 

 Hebrew, " thunder '* and a " horse's mane." The translation ought 

 to have been "flowing mane." The interjection. "Ha! ha!" too, 

 appears to be a mistake, for that simply expresses wonder or surprise, 

 which is by no means consonant with the feeling attributed to the horse 

 at the moment of action. It ought to have been, " let us advance," or, 

 *' let us go on." These corrections of our version we owe to M. Ernest 

 Renan, a distinguished French Orientalist, to whose translation of the 

 Book of Job my attention was directed by my learned and accomplished 

 friend the Dean of St Paul's. 



A comparison of the powers, for labour, of the different animals 

 which man has employed to assist him is not only a subject of rational 

 curiosity, but one that throws a broad light on the condition and 

 progress of society. These are the dog, the ox, the buflfalo, the horse, 

 the ass, the elephant, and the llama. 



According to Captain Lyon, quoted by Sir John Richardson, an 

 Esquimaux dog will draw in a sledge a load of 160 pounds, going at 

 the rate of a mile in nine minutes, or near seven miles an hour. An 

 English dray-horse will easily draw a ton on a good road, going, however, 

 at not more than the rate of three miles an hour. In this case, the 

 draught power of the horse is equal to that of fourteen dogs, while the 

 pace of the dog is near seven times that of the horse; but the dog 

 must have ice or frozen snow to travel over. On an ordinary road, he 

 would probably be over-draughted with a load of twenty-five pounds, 

 while his speed would hardly equal that of the horse. In this case it 

 would take ninety dogs to equal one horse, and the cost of keeping them 

 would be as great as that of keeping four packs of fox-hounds. 



In India it has been ascertained that the average burden of an ass 

 is 100 lbs. ; of a bullock or mule, 200 lbs. ; of a camel, 400 lbs. ; and of 

 an elephant 800 lbs. One elephant, then, is equal to two camels, to 

 four bullocks or mules, and to eight asses. The respective merits of 

 these animals as beasts of burden, cannot however, be measured by 

 their mere capacity for bearing a load. The first cost of the elephant, 

 for example, is ten times that of a camel, and his keep costs as much as 

 that of eight camels. This is, indeed, in some measure, compensated 

 by the better constitution and higher longevity of the elephant, whose 

 length of life is full ten times that of the camel — equal, indeed, to that 

 of man himself; that is, three score and ten, or even four score. Had 

 his life, I may add, been proportioned to his bulk, it ought to have been 



