If the Abyssinian rhinoceros had invariably two horns, it seems to me improbable the Septuagint would call him Monoceros, especially as they must have seen an animal of this kind exposed at Alexandria in their time, then first mentioned in history, at an exhibition given by Ptolemy Philadelphus at his accession to the crown, before the death of his father, of which we have already made mention. The principal reason of translating the word Reem, Unicorn, and not Rhinoceros, is from a prejudice that he must have had but one horn. But this is by no means so well-founded, as to be admitted as the only argument for establishing the existence of an animal which never has appeared, after the search of so many ages. Scripture speaks of the horns of the unicorn[39], so that, even from this circumstance, the reem may be the rhinoceros, as the Asiatic, and part of the African rhinoceros, may be the unicorn. It is something remarkable, that, notwithstanding Alexander’s expedition into India, this quadruped was not known to Aristotle[40]. Strabo and Athenæus both speak of him from report, as having been seen in Egypt. Pausanius calls him an Ethiopic bull; the same manner the Romans called the elephants _Lucas bovis_, Lucanian oxen, as being first seen in that part of Magna Grecia. Pompey exhibited him first in Italy, and he was often produced in games as low as Heliogabalus. As all these were from Asia, it seems most probable they had but one horn, and they are represented as such in the medals of Domitian. Yet Martial[41] speaks of one with two horns; and the reality of the rhinoceros so armed being till now uncertain, commentators have taken pains to persuade us that this was an error of the poet; but there can be now no doubt that the poet was right, and the commentators wrong, a case that often happens.