ae 
every thing relatin 
124 On the Existence of the Unicorn, 
zontal direction, proceeding from the upper jaw, and finally, belonging 
to an inhabitant of the waves, is certainly far less natural. Yet 
this is a cetaceous animal, concerning whose existence there is no 
doubt, and which is common in the northern seas; and the armed fox, 
which M. Duhamel, afier M. de Mannevillette, made known to Us, 
presents a phenomenon still more extraordinary, since it has a hom, 
small indeed, but placed on the backside of the head; a most singu- 
lar character, and altogether peculiar to this species. 
2. Several authors have spoken of the unicorn. First, if we open 
the sacred scriptures, we shall see that David and the prophets were 
well acquainted with it. But as the commentaries speak of this an- 
imal only in a figurative manner, we respect their silence, and pass 
over a proof, which alone would, perhaps, be sufficient for our pul 
pose. It satisfies us to know that they have made mention of it. 
Pliny, whom none will suspect of connivance with the sacred wri 
ters, gives a description of the unicorn in his eighth book, adding 
that it cannot be taken alive. ; 
Accordingly, Hieronymus Lupus and Bathasar Tellez found, in 
Abyssinia, a quadruped of the size of a horse, and whose front was 
armed with a horn. 
Finally, the respectable Leibnitz announces, in his Protogea, % 
the authority of the celebrated Otho Cuérike, that, in 1668, there 
was dug up, from a quarry of limestone in the mountain of Zeuti- 
queslberg, in the territory of Quedelimburg, the skeleton of a land 
quadruped, flat on the back parts of the head, but the head itsell 
elevated, and bearing in front a horn about ten feet in length 
terminated ina point. This skeleton was broken up by the work- 
men; nevertheless, the head and some of the.ribs were sent 10 the 
princess Abbesse. ‘These details are accompanied with an engraving: 
3. As yet there is no sufficient proof found of the nonexistence © 
the unicorn. The account of it has no appearance of fable, 
several authors, at different times and emong different people, have 
mentioned it in a positive manuer, as we have just seen. What ful 
ther objection then is there? ‘That the ancients attributed to the hora 
of our quadruped properties so extraordinary and ridiculous, that 
g to it can be no more than a fable. What! # 
would be deemed suflicient then that falsehood or ignorance should 
add to real facts, compared with which they should be regarded as 
mere tales! it would suffice that malice should spread the poisonous 
venom of calumny over the sacred truth, for which it ought hence 
