LION. a7% 
e) 
attack upon human beings, and that, in point of fact, he will rather shun a conflict 
when possible. “There is nearly always,’ writes Mr. Drummond, “some explana- 
tion of its behaviour when it acts otherwise: either the hunter has approached so 
near before being discovered that the animal is afraid to turn tail, and, urged by 
its very fears, makes a charge; or it may be half-famished, and having got hold of 
some prey, either of your killing or its own, will not quit it without a contest; or, 
if a lioness with cubs, will fight in defence of their supposed danger.” Sir Samuel 
Baker's testimony is of a very similar character, when he mentions that the expert 
swordsmen of Central Africa have no dread of the lion when undisturbed by 
sportsmen, although they hold him in the highest respect when he becomes the 
object of chase. Again, in another passage, the same writer mentions that among 
the Hamran Arabs of the Sudan the lions, although numerous, are never regarded 
as dangerous. 
That lions, especially when hungry, will, however, on occasion attack human 
beings,—on foot or when mounted,—there is abundant evidence. Livingstone 
relates the well-known instance of a hunter engaged in stalking a rhinoceros, when, 
on looking back, he was horrified to find that he himself was being stalked by a 
lion. Mr. Drummond also records an instance where a lion, driven by hunger, 
attacked him personally; and he believes that there are some lions which will 
always make unprovoked attacks. This view he supports by an account of an 
attack made upon three natives in Eastern Africa. The three natives in question 
were passing along the edge of a certain lagoon, “when, without further warning 
than a slight rustle, a lion sprang upon the foremost, crushing him to the ground. 
His terrified comrades, throwing away the chance of shooting the brute while it 
was still upon its first victim and its eyes probably closed, rushed to the nearest 
trees for safety, but, once there, feeling ashamed of their cowardly desertion of an 
old companion, they descended, and walking forward together were just on the 
point of firing, when, with a roar that almost deprived them of the power to run, 
the lion charged, caught the hindmost, and after shaking him for a second or two 
gave chase to the other, who, however, had profited by the time to remove himself, 
by a bare foot or so, out of reach of the spring the enraged animal gave as it saw 
that one had so far escaped. It then returned to its last victim, not yet dead, took 
him up in its mouth, dropped him, tossed him from paw to paw as a cat does a 
mouse, and at last, as if wearied by so much unaccustomed gentleness, it allowed 
its savage nature to gain the mastery, and with one crunch of its powerful jaw put 
him out of his pain.” The sole survivor of this tragedy, after having been besieged 
for hours in a tree, during which he had a hairbreadth escape when descending to 
reach his gun, finally had the satisfaction of putting a bullet through the ribs of 
the lon. 
With regard to the dangers of lion-hunting in Africa, which is mostly con- 
ducted on foot, those who have had the most experience, and are therefore the 
best entitled to speak with authority, are in accord as to their reality. Gordon 
Cumming says that lion-hunting, under any circumstances, must of necessity be a 
dangerous pursuit ; but that it may be followed to a certain extent with comparative 
immunity from harm by those who have the necessary nerve and coolness, coupled 
with sufficient knowledge of the habits of the animals. Mr. Selous, writing in 1881, 
