14 ANIMAL PAEASITES. 



which, like the pig, the Hyrax belongs, as is universally known, 

 harbour Cysticerci in particular abundance. 1 



This view finds further support from the fact that Aristotle, in 

 his ' Historia Animalium/ lib. viii, § 21, speaks of the Cysticerci of 

 the pig {yakaCn — grando) as a disorder of the pig which had been 

 known for ages, and which he mentions, together with two other 

 diseases in swine, namely, the scurvy in the gums (jSooy^ov) and 

 inflammation of the spleen (? koovgciv). Of the animal nature of 

 this disease nothing was known either amongst the Ancients or in 

 the Middle Ages. Even before Aristotle, Hippocrates regarded 

 the Cysticerci as hydatids, and the example of both was followed 

 up to the time of the celebrated Iledi, surgeon to Cosmo III, in 

 1684, and the Konigsberg surgeon, Hartmann, in 1G85. What- 

 ever produced a swelling similar to the cystic worms was men- 



1 In attempts at the zoological determination of the animal " shaphan," the following 

 particulars must be taken into consideration : 



1. The uncloven hoofs. 



2. The rumination, or a movement of cutaneous and muscular parts of the face 

 similar to rumination; as it is well known that many Rodentia have the habit of clean- 

 ing themselves sitting up on their hind legs, whilst at the same time they distort the 

 face (the upper lips and cheeks), or as we say " make faces," a movement which in snch 

 animals may easily be taken for rumination by those who only judge by appearances, 

 and do not inquire into anatomical structure. 



3. The occurrence of Cysticerci or encysted Helmintha of other kinds in the liver, the 

 abdomen, or the muscles of the animal in question, and — 



4. The occurrence of this animal in Egypt, Syria, &c, but especially in the vicinity of 

 and upon the mountains Iloreb and Sinai. 



The linguistic knowledge of the author, who was once destined for the theo- 

 logical profession, is not sufficient to enable him to determine whether in the words 

 (Till TwVD'^ tne word H13 might be taken not merely in a passive sense, as 



" that which is bitten, or the morsel," but also in an active sense, as " that which bites ■ 

 the masticating organs, or the lips and cheeks," so that these verses might also be trans- 

 lated "nam ascendens facit id, quod disserat," i. e., " by the movement of the upper lip 

 and the cutaneous and muscular parts of the face it makes faces," whilst, according to the 

 ordinary translation, they run, "nam ascendens facit id, quod jamjam dissecatum erat." 

 Although in a linguistic point of view there is nothing to object against this attempt to 

 restore the ancient Moses hi integrum, yet M. Michael, teacher of Hebrew in the Gym- 

 nasium of Zittau, from whom I made inquiries on this subject, thought that the words 

 PH.!) "H.3> hy which the statement in the previous verses is paraphrased in verse 



T •• - T 



7, as well as the parallel passage in Deuteronomy, chap, xiv, v. 8, were in opposition to 

 this attempted interpretation. In the latter place we should not then read " it cheweth 

 not the cud" (that is, " rumination is not given to it"), but, " ruminating organs are not 

 given to it," by which the possession of lips would be denied to the pig. Whether my 

 attempted interpretation be possible may be decided by linguists ! If it be impossible, 

 we must suppose that the making of faces has been confounded with rumination. 



