3202 Tue ZooLoGIst—SEPTEMBER, 1872. 
told by the back of that motionless, fearless, speechless form. The 
trust of Daniel is not in his strength, he is evidently too feeble to 
contend with lions; nor is it in his activity, there are no means of 
escape ; nor is it in strategy, there is no scope for scheming: his 
only hope, his only trust, is in that God whom he has served, and 
whom he knows is able to save to the uttermost. This implicit 
trust seems to have been shared by the monarch who blindly 
consented to the murder, who weakly yielded to an imposition ; 
for he tells Daniel: “ Thy God whom thou servest continually, He 
will deliver thee ;” apparently weak and foolish words uttered by 
a weak and foolish man; but Daniel knew them to be true. 
It is worthy of notice that this judicious painter has declined to 
avail himself of a portion of the narrative which might fairly have 
been introduced for sensational effect: I allude to the presence of 
an angel standing between the lions and their victim. Daniel’s own 
account of his deliverance would fully have justified this: “My 
God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths that they 
have not hurt me.” I can easily imagine how a painter with less 
skill, or less judgment, would have introduced this supernatural 
guardian, and thus destroyed the seeming truthfulness of a scene 
which is now perfect in its severe simplicity. I verily believe that 
a Bible illustrated in this way would do much to arrest the spread 
of infidelity. The common effect of Bible pictures is to render 
the text incredible, often ridiculous, and thus pander to unbelief. 
There is still another picture of animals (and a very pretentious 
picture it is), No. 504, Goats in Distress: Mountains of Mont 
Dore, Auvergne, France, by A. F. A. Schenck. There is a kind of 
merit in this painting wanting in the lifeless herds and flocks to 
which I have alluded. It represents the goats as living; nor do I 
suppose the extravagant attitudes, in which Mr. Schenck has 
placed them, utterly impossible; further, I believe the drawing of 
the goats to be anatomically correct; but I must add such perform- 
ances give me no pleasure: it is difficult, doubtless, for acrobats 
to tie themselves in knots, but the difficulty does not enhance the 
satisfaction of the sensible beholder; he only regrets that such 
contortions are possible. And so, although I admit the painting 
of the goats to be good, and although I suppose that goats can be 
and have been forced into these revolting attitudes, I can only 
regard the representation of such feats as repulsive in the 
~ extreme. 
Epwarp NEWMAN. 
‘f 
