This bird is met with in some places in the south of Syria and in Barbary, but is no where so frequent as in Egypt and about Cairo. It is called, by the Europeans, Poule de Faraone, the hen or bird of Pharaoh. It is a vulture of the lesser kind, not being much larger than our rook or crow, though, by the length of its wings, and the erect manner in which it carries its head, it appears considerably larger. In Egypt and all over Barbary it is called Rachamah, and yet it has been very much doubted what bird this was, as well as what was the origin of that name. Some of the Arabs will have it derived from Archam, which signifies variegated, or of different colours. It has been answered, that this is not the derivation, as archam in Arabic signifies variegated, or of more colours than two or three blended together, whereas this is in its feathers only black and white, separate from one another, and cannot be called variegated. But I must here observe, that this is by no means a proper interpretation of the Arabic word. Among many examples I could give, I shall adduce but one. There is a particular kind of sheep in Arabia Felix, whose head and part of the neck are black, and the rest of the beast white; it is chiefly found between Mocha and the Straits of Babelmandeb. This in Arabic is called Rachama, for no other reason but because it is marked black and white, which are precisely the two colours which distinguish the bird before us.

But I still am induced to believe the origin of this bird’s name has an older and more classical derivation than that which we have just spoken of. We know from Horus Apollo, in his book upon Hieroglyphics, that the Rachma, or she-vulture, was sacred to Isis, and that its feathers adorned the statue of that goddess. He says it was the emblem of parental affection, and that the Egyptians, about to write an affectionate mother, painted a she-vulture. He says further, that this female vulture, having hatched its young ones, continues with them one hundred and twenty days, providing them with all necessaries; and, when the stock of food fails them, she tears off the fleshy part of her thigh, and feeds them with that and the blood which flows from the wound. Rachama, then, is good Hebrew, it is from Rechem, female love, or attachment, from an origin which it cannot have in men. In this sense we see it used with great propriety in the first book of Kings66, in Isaiah67, and in Lamentations68, and it seems particularly to mean what the Egyptians made it a hieroglyphic of in very ancient ages, and before the time of Moses, maternal affection towards their progeny. No mention is here made of the male Rachama, nor was he celebrated for any particular quality.

From this silence, or negative personage in him, arose a fable that there was no male in this species. Horus Apollo69, after naming this bird always in the feminine gender, tells us roundly, that there is no male of the kind, but that the female conceives from the south wind. Plutarch70, Ammianus71, and all the Greeks, say the same thing; and Tzetzes72, after having repeated the same story at large, tells us that he took it all from the Egyptians, so there seems to be little doubt either of the origin or meaning of the name.

The fathers in the first ages, after the death of Christ, seem to have been wonderfully pressed in point of argument before they could have recourse to a fable like this to vindicate the possibility of the Virgin Mary’s conception without human means. Tertullian73, Orgines74, Bazil75, and Ambrosius76, are all wild enough to found upon this ridiculous argument, and little was wanting for some of these learned ones to land this fable upon Moses, who probably knew it as a vulgar error before his time, but was very far from paying any regard to it; on the contrary, it is with the utmost propriety and precision, that, speaking to the people, he calls it Rachama in the feminine, because he was then giving them a list of birds forbidden to be ate77, among which he selected the female vulture, as that was best known, and the great object of idolatry and superstition; and the male, and all the lesser abominations of that species, he included together in the word that followed his kind; though the English translator, by calling the female vulture him, has introduced an impropriety that there was not the least foundation for. That Moses was not the author of or believer in this Egyptian fable, is plain from a verse in Exodus, where, at another time, he speaks of this bird, as a male, and calls him Racham, and not Rachama.

It will not be improper that I here take notice, that the English translator, by his ignorance of language, has lost all the beauty and even the sense of the Hebrew original. He makes God say, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles wings, and brought you unto myself78”. Now, if the expression had been really Eagle, the word would have been Nisr, and would have signified nothing; but, in place of eagle, God says Vulture, the emblem of maternal affection and maternal tenderness towards his children, which has a particular connection with, “brought you unto myself;” so that the passage will run thus, Say to the children of Israel, See how I have punished the Egyptians, while I bore you up on the wings of the Rachama, that is, of parental tenderness and affection, and brought you home to myself. It is our part to be thankful that the truths of Holy Scripture are preserved to us entire, but still it is a rational regret that great part of the beauty of the original is lost.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, this bird has been mistaken nearly by all the interpreters Hebrews, Syrians, and Samaritans; the Greeks, from imaginations of their own, have thought it to be the pelican, the stork, the swan, and the merops. Bochart, after a variety of guesses, acknowledges his own ignorance, and excuses it by laying equal blame upon others. Hitherto, says he, we have not been able to condescend upon what bird this was, because those that have wrote concerning it were as ignorant in the natural history of things as they were skilful in the interpretation of words.

The point of the beak of this bird is black, very sharp and strong for about three quarters of an inch, it is then covered by a yellow, fleshy membrane, which clothes it as it were both above and below, as likewise the forepart of the head and throat, and ends in a sharp point before, nearly opposite to where the neck joins the breast; this membrane is wrinkled, and has a few hairs growing thinly scattered upon the lower part of it. It has large, open nostrils, and prodigious large ears, which are not covered by any feathers whatever. The body is perfect white from the middle of the head, where it joins the yellow membrane, down to the tail. The large feathers of its wing are black; they are six in number. The lesser feathers are three, of an iron-grey, lighter towards the middle, and these are covered with three others lesser still, but of the same form, of an iron rusty colour; those feathers that cover the large wing-feathers are at the top for about an inch and a quarter of an iron-grey, but the bottom is pure white. The tail is broad and thick above, and draws to a point at the bottom. It is not composed of large feathers, and is not half an inch longer than the point of its wings. Its thighs are cloathed with a soft down-like feather, as far as the joint. Its legs are of a dirty white, inclining to flesh colour, rough, with small tubercules which are soft and fleshy. It has three toes before and one behind; the middle of these is considerably the longest; they are armed with black claws, rather strong than pointed, or much crooked. It has no voice that ever I heard, generally goes single, and oftener sits and walks upon the ground than upon trees. It delights in the most putrid and slinking kind of carrion, has itself a very strong smell, and putrifies very speedily.

It is a very great breach of order, or police, to kill any one of these birds near Cairo. But as there are few of its species in Egypt, and its name is the same all over Africa and Arabia, it seems to me strange that the Arabian or Hebrew writers should have found so much difficulty in discovering what was the bird. It lays but two eggs, and builds its nest in the most desert parts of the country. More of its history or manners I do not know. The books are full of fanciful stories concerning it, which the instructed reader at first sight will know to be but fable.

Abba Gumba.

Heath. Sc.

London Publish’d Dec.^r 1.^st 1789. by G. Robinson & Co.