124 On the Existence of the Unicorn. 



zonlal 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, after M. de Mannevillette, made known to us, 

 presents a phenomenon still more extraordinary, since it has a horn, 

 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 pur- 

 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 Batliasar 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 Frotogea, on 

 the authority of the celebrated Otho Guerike, that, in 1663, there 

 was dug up, from a quarry of limestone in the mountain of Zeuni- 

 queslberg, in the territory of Quedelimburg, the skeleton of a land 

 quadruped, flat on the back parts of the head, but the head itself 

 elevated, and bearing in front a horn about ten feet in length and 

 terminated in a point. This skeleton was broken up by the work- 

 men ; nevertheless, the head and some of the ribs were sent to the 

 princess Abbesse. These details are accompanied with an engraving. 



3. As yet there is no sufiicient proof found of the nonexistence of 

 the unicorn. The account of it has no appearance of fable, and 

 several authors, at different times and among difix3rent people, have 

 mentioned it in a positive manner, as vi^e have just seen. What fur- 

 ther objection then is there ? That the ancients attributed to the horn 

 of our quadruped properties so extraordinary and ridiculous, that 

 every thing relating to it can be no more than a fable. What ! it 

 would be deemed sufficient 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 calumnv over the sacred Irutli. for \vhich it ought hence- 



