“I visited the Temple of Serpents in this town, where thirty of these monstrous deities were asleep in various attitudes.  Each day at sunset, a priest brings them a certain number of sheep, goats, fowls, etc., which are slaughtered in the temple and then divided among the ‘gods.’  Subsequently during the night they (? the priests) spread themselves about the town, entering the houses in various quarters in search of further offerings.  It is forbidden under penalty of death to kill, wound, or even strike one of these sacred serpents, or any other of the same species, and only the priests possess the privilege of taking hold of them, for the purpose of reinstating them in the temple should they be found elsewhere.”

It would be tedious and unnecessary to adduce more instances of wild animals being nurtured in the encampments of savages, either as pets or as sacred animals.  It will be found on inquiry that few travellers have failed altogether to observe them.  If we consider the small number of encampments they severally visited in their line of march, compared with the vast number that are spread over the whole area, which is or has been inhabited by rude races, we may obtain some idea of the thousands of places at which half-unconscious attempts at domestication are being made in each year.  These thousands must themselves be multiplied many thousandfold, if we endeavour to calculate the number of similar attempts that have been made since men like ourselves began to inhabit the world.

My argument, strong as it is, admits of being considerably strengthened by the following consideration:—­

The natural inclination of barbarians is often powerfully reinforced by an enormous demand for captured live animals on the part of their more civilised neighbours.  A desire to create vast hunting-grounds and menageries and amphitheatrical shows, seems naturally to occur to the monarchs who preside over early civilisations, and travellers continually remark that, whenever there is a market for live animals, savages will supply them in any quantities.  The means they employ to catch game for their daily food readily admits of their taking them alive.  Pit-falls, stake-nets, and springes do not kill.  If the savage captures an animal unhurt, and can make more by selling it alive than dead, he will doubtless do so.  He is well fitted by education to keep a wild animal in captivity.  His mode of pursuing game requires a more intimate knowledge of the habits of beasts than is ever acquired by sportsmen who use more perfect weapons.  A savage is obliged to steal upon his game, and to watch like a jackal for the leavings of large beasts of prey.  His own mode of life is akin to that of the creatures he hunts.  Consequently, the savage is a good gamekeeper; captured animals thrive in his charge, and he finds it remunerative to take them a long way to market.  The demands of ancient Rome appear to have penetrated Northern Africa as far or farther than the steps of our modern explorers.  The chief centres of import of wild animals were Egypt, Assyria (and other Eastern monarchies), Rome, Mexico, and Peru.  I have not yet been able to learn what were the habits of Hindostan or China.  The modern menagerie of Lucknow is the only considerable native effort in those parts with which I am acquainted.