CHAPTER I

Produced by Jonathan Ingram, KD Weeks and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This

file was produced from images generously made available

by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)

Transcriber's Note

Marginal notes are used for multiple purposes in this edition. Footnotes

and section headers were both printed in the margins. For this text

version, numbered marginal footnotes have been moved to the end of their

paragraphs. The headers have been moved to appear on a separate line at

the beginning of each section. Redundant sidenotes merely indicating

Part and Section numbers have been removed.

Those notes which serve as paragraph descriptions, at or near

the head of a paragraph, precede that paragraph. Those which serve to

annotate specific points are inserted parenthetically as [SN: notes].

Italics are used freely, and have been rendered using _underscore_

characters. Superscripted characters are rendered as {x}.

Please consult the more detailed notes at the end of this text.

THE ENGLISH LIBRARY

THE WORKS OF

SIR THOMAS BROWNE

VOLUME II

[Illustration: Sir Thomas Browne's Skull]

THE WORKS OF

SIR THOMAS BROWNE

Edited by

CHARLES SAYLE

VOLUME II

LONDON

GRANT RICHARDS

1904

Edinburgh T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty

PREFATORY NOTE

The frontispiece to this volume is reproduced from a photograph kindly

lent to me for the purpose by Mr. Charles Williams, F.R.C.S.E., of

Norwich, whose note upon the measurements of Sir Thomas Browne's skull

appeared as Appendix II. in the edition of Browne's _Hydriotaphia_ and

_Garden of Cyrus_, published in the 'Golden Treasury Series,' by Messrs.

Macmillan and Co., in 1896.

The identification of the author quoted in the margin of page 233 (Book

v. Chapter x.). I owe to Mr. W. Aldis Wright.

C.S.

_May 1, 1904._

CONTENTS

PAGE

PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA

THE THIRD BOOK (_continued_):

11. Of Griffins, 1

12. Of the Phœnix, 4

13. Of Frogs, Toads, and Toad-stone, 13

14. Of the Salamander, 18

15. Of the Amphisbæna, 22

16. Of the Viper, 26

17. Of Hares, 33

18. Of Moles, or Molls, 42

19. Of Lampries, 46

20. Of Snayls, 48

21. Of the Chameleon, 50

22. Of the Ostrich, 62

23. Of Unicorns Horn, 66

24. That all animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea, 73

25. Concerning the common course of Diet, in making choice of

some Animals, and abstaining from eating others, 76

26. Of Sperma-Ceti, and the Sperma-Ceti Whale, 85

27. Compendiously of Sundry Tenents concerning other Animals,

which examined, prove either false or dubious, 89

28. Of some others, 103

THE FOURTH BOOK:

1. Of the Erectness of Man, 109

2. Of the Heart, 113

3. Of Pleurisies, 116

4. Of the Ring-finger, 117

5. Of the right and left Hand, 122

6. Of Swimming and Floating, 134

7. Concerning Weight, 138

8. Of the passage of Meat and Drink, 142

9. Of Sneezing, 144

10. Of the Jews, 147

11. Of Pigmies, 155

12. Of the great Climacterical year, that is, Sixty-three, 160

13. Of the Canicular or Dog daies, 183

THE FIFTH BOOK:

1. Of the Picture of the Pelecan, 202

2. Of the Picture of Dolphins, 205

3. Of the Picture of a Grashopper, 207

4. Of the Picture of the Serpent tempting Eve, 209

5. Of the Picture of Adam and Eve with Navels, 212

6. Of the Pictures of Eastern Nations, and the Jews at

their Feasts, especially our Saviour at the Passover, 215

7. Of the Picture of our Saviour with long hair, 224

8. Of the Picture of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, 226

9. Of the Picture of Moses with horns, 227

10. Of the Scutcheons of the Tribes of Israel, 229

11. Of the Pictures of the Sibyls, 233

12. Of the Picture describing the death of Cleopatra, 235

13. Of the Pictures of the Nine Worthies, 237

14. Of the Picture of Jephthah sacryficing his daughter, 241

15. Of the Picture of John the Baptist, 245

16. Of the Picture of St. Christopher, 247

17. Of the Picture of St. George, 249

18. Of the Picture of Jerom, 251

19. Of the Pictures of Mermaids, Unicorns, and some others, 253

20. Of the Hieroglyphical Pictures of the Egyptians, 258

21. Of the Picture of Haman hanged, 260

22. Compendiously of many questionable Customs, Opinions,

Pictures, Practices, and Popular Observations, 264

23. Of some others, 276

THE SIXTH BOOK:

1. Concerning the beginning of the World, 283

2. Of mens Enquiries in what season or Point of the

Zodiack it began, 300

3. Of the Divisions of the seasons and four Quarters

of the year, 302

4. Of some computation of days and deductions of one part

of the year unto another, 309

5. A Digression of the wisdom of God in the site and

motion of the Sun, 313

6. Concerning the vulgar opinion, that the Earth was

slenderly peopled before the Flood, 319

7. Of East and West, 338

8. Of the River Nilus, 349

9. Of the Red Sea, 363

10. Of the Blackness of Negroes, 367

11. Of the same, 380

12. A Digression concerning Blackness, 387

13. Of Gypsies, 395

14. Of some others, 397

PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA

THE THIRD BOOK--_continued_

CHAPTER XI

Of Griffins.

That there are Griffins in Nature, that is a mixt and dubious Animal, in

the fore-part resembling an Eagle, and behind, the shape of a Lion, with

erected ears, four feet and a long tail, many affirm, and most, I

perceive, deny not. The same is averred by _Ælian_, _Solinus_, _Mela_,

and _Herodotus_, countenanced by the Name sometimes found in Scripture,

and was an Hieroglyphick of the Egyptians.

Notwithstanding we find most diligent enquirers to be of a contrary

assertion. For beside that _Albertus_ and _Pliny_ have disallowed it,

the learned _Aldrovandus_ hath in a large discourse rejected it;

_Mathias Michovius_ who writ of those Northern parts wherein men place

these Griffins, hath positively concluded against it; and if examined by

the Doctrine of Animals, the invention is monstrous, nor much inferiour

unto the figment of Sphynx, Chimæra, and Harpies, for though there be

some flying Animals of mixed and participating Natures, that is, between

Bird and quadruped, yet are their wings and legs so set together, that

they seem to make each other; there being a commixtion of both, rather

then an adaptation or cement of prominent parts unto each other, as is

observable in the Bat, whose wings and fore-legs are contrived in each

other. For though some species there be of middle and participating

Natures, that is, of Bird and Beast, as Bats and some few others, yet

are their parts so conformed and set together, that we cannot define the

beginning or end of either; there being a commixtion of both in the

whole, rather then an adaptation or cement of the one unto the other.

Now for the word γρὺπς or _Gryps_, sometimes mentioned in Scripture [SN:

_Levit. 11._], and frequently in humane Authors, properly understood, it

signifies some kind of Eagle or Vulture, from whence the Epithete

_Grypus_ for an hooked or Aquiline Nose. Thus when the Septuagint makes

use of this word, _Tremellius_ and our Translation hath rendred it the

Ossifrage, which is one kind of Eagle. And although the Vulgar

Translation, and that annexed unto the Septuagint, retain the word

_Gryps_, which in ordinary and school construction is commonly rendred a

Griffin, yet cannot the Latine assume any other sense then the Greek,

from whence it is borrowed. And though the Latine _Gryphes_ be altered

somewhat by the addition of an _h_, or aspiration of the letter π, yet

is not this unusual; so what the Greeks call τρόπαιον, the Latine will

call _Trophæum_; and that person which in the Gospel is named Κλέοπας,

the Latines will render _Cleophas_. And therefore the quarrel of

_Origen_ was unjust, and his conception erroneous, when he conceived the

food of Griffins forbidden by the law of _Moses_: that is, Poetical

Animals, and things of no existence. And therefore when in the Hecatombs

and mighty Oblations of the Gentiles, it is delivered they sacrificed

Gryphes or Griffins; hereby we may understand some stronger sort of

Eagles. And therefore also when its said in _Virgil_ of an improper

Match, or _Mopsus_ marrying _Nysa_, _Jungentur jam gryphes equis_; we

need not hunt after other sense, then that strange unions shall be made,

and different Natures be conjoined together.

As for the testimonies of ancient Writers, they are but derivative, and

terminate all in one _Aristeus_ a Poet of _Proconesus_; who affirmed

that near the _Arimaspi_, or one-eyed Nation, Griffins defended the

Mines of Gold. But this, as _Herodotus_ delivereth, he wrote by

hear-say; and _Michovius_ who hath expresly written of those parts,

plainly affirmeth, there is neither Gold nor Griffins in that Country,

nor any such Animal extant; for so doth he conclude, _Ego vero contra

veteres authores, Gryphes nec in illa septentrionis, nec in aliis orbis

partibus inveniri affirmarim_.

Lastly, Concerning the Hieroglyphical authority, although it nearest

approach the truth, it doth not infer its existency. The conceit of the

_Griffin_ properly taken being but a symbolical phansie, in so

intollerable a shape including allowable morality. So doth it well make

out the properties of a _Guardian_, or any person entrusted; the ears

implying attention, the wings celerity of execution, the Lion-like

shape, courage and audacity, the hooked bill, reservance and tenacity.

It is also an Emblem of valour and magnanimity, as being compounded of

the Eagle and Lion, the noblest Animals in their kinds; and so is it

appliable unto Princes, Presidents, Generals, and all heroick

Commanders; and so is it also born in the Coat-arms of many noble

Families of _Europe_.

But the original invention seems to be Hieroglyphical, derived from the

Egyptians, and of an higher signification. By the mystical conjunction

of Hawk and Lion, implying either the Genial or the sydereous Sun, the

great celerity thereof, and the strength and vigour in its operations.

And therefore under such Hieroglyphicks _Osyris_ was described; and in

ancient Coins we meet with Gryphins conjointly with _Apollo's_,

_Tripodes_ and Chariot wheels; and the marble Gryphins at Saint _Peters_

in _Rome_, as learned men conjecture, were first translated from the

Temple of _Apollo_. Whether hereby were not also mystically implied the

activity of the Sun in Leo, the power of God in the Sun, or the

influence of the Cœlestial _Osyris_, by _Moptha_ the Genius of Nilus,

might also be considered. And then the learned _Kircherus_, no man were

likely to be a better _Oedipus_.

CHAPTER XII

Of the Phœnix.

That there is but one Phœnix in the World, which after many hundred

years burneth it self, and from the ashes thereof ariseth up another, is

a conceit not new or altogether popular, but of great Antiquity; not

only delivered by humane Authors, but frequently expressed also by holy

Writers; by _Cyril_, _Epiphanius_, and others, by _Ambrose_ in his

Hexameron, and _Tertullian_ in his Poem _De Judicio Domini_; but more

agreeably unto the present sense, in his excellent Tract, _De

Resurrectione carnis_. _Illum dico alitem orientis peculiarem, de

singularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum; qui semetipsum

libenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens, atque succedens iterum

Phœnix. Ubi jam nemo, iterum ipse; quia non jam, alius idem._ The

Scripture also seems to favour it, particularly that of _Job_ 21. In the

interpretation of _Beda_, _Dicebam in nidulo meo moriar, et sicut Phœnix

multiplicabo dies_: and _Psal._ 31. δίκαιος ὥσπερ φοῖνιξ ἀνθήσει, _vir

justus ut Phœnix florebit_, as _Tertullian_ renders it, and so also

expounds it in his Book before alledged.

[Sidenote: _Against the story of the Phœnix._]

All which notwithstanding, we cannot presume the existence of this

Animal; nor dare we affirm there is any Phœnix in Nature. For, first

there wants herein the definitive confirmator and test of things

uncertain, that is, the sense of man. For though many Writers have much

enlarged hereon, yet is there not any ocular describer, or such as

presumeth to confirm it upon aspection. And therefore _Herodotus_ that

led the story unto the _Greeks_, plainly saith, he never attained the

sight of any, but only in the picture.

Again, Primitive Authors, and from whom the stream of relations is

derivative, deliver themselves very dubiously; and either by a doubtful

parenthesis, or a timorous conclusion overthrow the whole relation. Thus

_Herodotus_ in his _Euterpe_, delivering the story hereof, presently

interposeth, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πίστα λέγοντες; that is, which account seems to

me improbable. _Tacitus_ in his annals affordeth a larger story, how the

Phœnix was first seen at _Heliopolis_ in the reign of _Sesostris_, then

in the reign of _Amasis_, after in the days of _Ptolomy_, the third of

the _Macedonian_ race; but at last thus determineth, _Sed Antiquitas

obscura, et nonnulli falsum esse hunc Phœnicem neque Arabum è terris

credidere_. _Pliny_ makes yet a fairer story, that the Phœnix flew into

_Egypt_ in the Consulship of _Quintus Plancius_, that it was brought to

Rome in the Censorship of _Claudius_, in the eight hundred year of the

City, and testified also in their records; but after all concludeth,

_Sed quæ falsa nemo dubitabit_, As we read it in the fair and ancient

impression of _Brixia_; as _Aldrovandus_ hath quoted it, and as it is

found in the manuscript Copy, as _Dalechampius_ hath also noted.

Moreover, Such as have naturally discoursed hereon, have so diversly,

contrarily, or contradictorily delivered themselves, that no affirmative

from thence can reasonably be deduced. For most have positively denied

it, and they which affirm and believe it, assign this name unto many,

and mistake two or three in one. So hath that bird been taken for the

Phœnix which liveth in _Arabia_, and buildeth its nest with Cinnamon;

by _Herodotus_ called _Cinnamulgus_, and by _Aristotle_, _Cinnamomus_;

and as a fabulous conceit is censured by _Scaliger_. Some have conceived

that bird to be the Phœnix, which by a _Persian_ name with the

_Greeks_ is called _Rhyntace_; but how they made this good we find

occasion of doubt; whilest we read in the life of _Artaxerxes_, that

this is a little bird brought often to their Tables, and wherewith

_Parysatis_ cunningly poisoned the Queen. The _Manucodiata_ or Bird of

Paradise, hath had the honour of this name, and their feathers brought

from the _Molucca's_ do pass for those of the Phœnix. Which though

promoted by rarity with us, the _Eastern_ Travellers will hardly admit;

who know they are common in those parts, and the ordinary plume of

_Janizaries_ among the _Turks_. And lastly, the Bird _Semenda_ hath

found the same appellation, for so hath _Scaliger_ observed and refuted;

nor will the solitude of the Phœnix allow this denomination; for

many there are of that species, and whose trifistulary bill and crany we

have beheld our selves. Nor are men only at variance in regard of the

Phœnix it self, but very disagreeing in the accidents ascribed

thereto: for some affirm it liveth three hundred, some five, others six,

some a thousand, others no less then fifteen hundred years; some say it

liveth in _Æthiopia_, others in _Arabia_, some in _Egypt_, others in

_India_, and some in _Utopia_; for such a one must that be which is

described by _Lactantius_; that is, which neither was singed in the

combustion of _Phaeton_, or overwhelmed by the innundation of

_Deucalion_.

Lastly, Many Authors who have discoursed hereof, have so delivered

themselves, and with such intentions, that we cannot from thence deduce

a confirmation. For some have written Poetically, as _Ovid_, _Mantuan_,

_Lactantius_, _Claudian_, and others: Some have written mystically, as

_Paracelsus_ in his Book _De Azoth_, or _De ligno et linea vitæ_; and as

several Hermetical Philosophers, involving therein the secret of their

Elixir, and enigmatically expressing the nature of their great work.

Some have written Rhetorically, and concessively, not controverting, but

assuming the question, which taken as granted, advantaged the illation.

So have holy men made use hereof as far as thereby to confirm the

Resurrection; for discoursing with Heathens who granted the story of the

Phœnix, they induced the Resurrection from principles of their own,

and positions received among themselves. Others have spoken

Emblematically and Hieroglyphically; and so did the _Egyptians_, unto

whom the Phœnix was the Hieroglyphick of the Sun. And this was

probably the ground of the whole relation; succeeding Ages adding

fabulous accounts, which laid together built up this singularity, which

every Pen proclaimeth.

As for the Texts of Scripture, which seem to confirm the conceit, duly

perpended, they add not thereunto. For whereas in that of _Job_,

according to the Septuagint or Greek Translation we find the word

Phœnix, yet can it have no animal signification; for therein it is not

expressed φοῖνιξ, but στέλεχoς φοίνικος, the trunk of the Palm-tree,

which is also called Phœnix; and therefore the construction will be very

hard, if not applied unto some vegetable nature. Nor can we safely

insist upon the Greek expression at all; for though the Vulgar

translates it _Palma_, and some retain the word Phœnix, others do render

it by a word of a different sense; for so hath _Tremellius_ delivered

it: _Dicebam quod apud nidum meum expirabo, et sicut arena multiplicabo

dies_; so hath the _Geneva_ and ours translated it, _I said I shall die

in my Nest, and shall multiply my days as the sand._ As for that in the

Book of Psalms, _Vir justus ut Phœnix florebit_, as _Epiphanius_ and

_Tertullian_ render it, it was only a mistake upon the Homonymy of the

Greek word Pœnix, which signifies also a Palm-tree. [SN: Consent of

names.] Which is a fallacy of equivocation, from a community in name

inferring a common nature; and whereby we may as firmly conclude, that

Diaphœnicon a purging Electuary hath some part of the Phœnix for its

ingredient; which receiveth that name from Dates, or the fruit of the

Palm-tree, from whence, as _Pliny_ delivers, the Phœnix had its name.

Nor do we only arraign the existence of this Animal, but many things are

questionable which are ascribed thereto, especially its unity, long

life, and generation. As for its unity or conceit there should be but

one in nature, it seemeth not only repugnant unto Philosophy, but also

holy Scripture; which plainly affirms, there went of every sort two at

least into the Ark of _Noah_, according to the Text, [SN: _Gen. 7._]

_Every Fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort, they went into the

Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is the breath of life, and

they that went in, went in both male and female of all flesh._ It

infringeth the benediction of God concerning multiplication. God blessed

them, saying, [SN: _Gen. 1._] _Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the

waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth:_ And again, [SN:

_Chap. 8._] _Bring forth with thee every living thing, that they may

breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the

earth:_ which terms are not appliable unto the Phœnix, whereof there

is but one in the world, and no more now living then at the first

benediction. For the production of one, being the destruction of

another, although they produce and generate, they encrease not; and must

not be said to multiply, who do not transcend an unity.

As for longævity, that it liveth a thousand years or more; beside that

from imperfect observations and rarity of appearance, no confirmation

can be made; there may be probable a mistake in the compute. For the

tradition being very ancient and probably Egyptian, the _Greeks_ who

dispersed the Fable, might summ up the account by their own numeration

of years; whereas the conceit might have its original in times of

shorter compute. For if we suppose our present calculation, the

Phœnix now in nature will be the sixth from the Creation, but in the

middle of its years; and if the _Rabbins_ Prophecie [SN: _That the World

should last but six thousand years._] succeed, shall conclude its days

not in his own but the last and general flames, without all hope of

Reviviction.

Concerning its generation, that without all conjunction it begets and

reseminates it self, hereby we introduce a vegetable production in

Animals, and unto sensible natures, transfer the propriety of Plants;

that is, to multiply within themselves, according to the Law of the

Creation [SN: _Gen. 1._], _Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb

yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in it self_.

Which is indeed the natural way of Plants, who having no distinction of

sex, and the power of the species contained in every _individuum_, beget

and propagate themselves without commixtion; and therefore their fruits

proceeding from simpler roots, are not so unlike, or distinguishable

from each other, as are the off-springs of sensible creatures and

prolifications descending from double originals. But Animal generation

is accomplished by more, and the concurrence of two sexes is required to

the constitution of one. And therefore such as have no distinction of

sex, engender not at all, as _Aristotle_ conceives of Eels, and

testaceous animals. And though Plant-animals do multiply, they do it not

by copulation, but in a way analogous unto Plants. So _Hermaphrodites_

although they include the parts of both sexes, and may be sufficiently

potent in either; yet unto a conception require a separated sex, and

cannot impregnate themselves. And so also though _Adam_ included all

humane nature, or was (as some opinion) an _Hermaphrodite_, yet had he

no power to propagate himself; and therefore God said, _It is not good

that man should be alone, let us make him an help meet for him_; that

is, an help unto generation; for as for any other help, it had been

fitter to have made another man.

Now whereas some affirm that from one Phœnix there doth not

immediately proceed another, but the first corrupteth into a worm, which

after becometh a Phœnix, it will not make probable this production.

[SN: _Irregularities._] For hereby they confound the generation of

perfect animals with imperfect, sanguineous with exanguious, vermiparous

with oviparous, and erect Anomalies, disturbing the laws of Nature. Nor

will this corruptive production be easily made out in most imperfect

generations; for although we deny not that many animals are vermiparous,

begetting themselves at a distance, and as it were at the second hand

(as generally Insects, and more remarkably Butter-flies and Silkworms)

yet proceeds not this generation from a corruption of themselves, but

rather a specifical and seminal diffusion, retaining still the Idea of

themselves, though it act that part a while in other shapes. And this

will also hold in generations equivocal, and such as are not begotten

from Parents like themselves; so from Frogs corrupting, proceed not

Frogs again; so if there be anatiferous Trees, whose corruption breaks

forth into Bernacles, yet if they corrupt, they degenerate into Maggots,

which produce not them again. For this were a confusion of corruptive

and seminal production, and a frustration of that seminal power

committed to animals at the Creation. The problem might have been

spared, _Why we love not our lice as well as our children?_ _Noah's_ Ark

had been needless, the graves of Animals would be the fruitful'st wombs;

for death would not destroy, but empeople the world again.

Since therefore we have so slender grounds to confirm the existence of

the Phœnix, since there is no ocular witness of it, since as we have

declared, by Authors from whom the story is derived, it rather stands

rejected; since they who have seriously discoursed hereof, have

delivered themselves negatively, diversly, or contrarily; since many

others cannot be drawn into Argument, as writing Poetically,

Rhetorically, Enigmatically, Hieroglyphically; since holy Scripture

alledged for it duly perpended, doth not advantage it; and lastly, since

so strange a generation, unity and long life, hath neither experience

nor reason to confirm it, how far to rely on this tradition, we refer

unto consideration.

But surely they were not well-wishers unto parable Physick [SN:

εὐπόριστα.], or remedies easily acquired, who derived medicines from

the Phœnix; as some have done, and are justly condemned by _Pliny_;

_Irridere est vitæ remedia post millesimum annum reditura monstrare_; It

is a folly to find out remedies that are not recoverable under a

thousand years; or propose the prolonging of life by that which the

twentieth generation may never behold. More veniable is a dependance

upon the Philosophers stone, potable gold, or any of those Arcana's

whereby _Paracelsus_ that died himself at forty-seven, gloried that he

could make other men immortal. Which, although extreamly difficult, and

_tantum non_ infesible, yet are they not impossible, nor do they

(rightly understood) impose any violence on Nature. And therefore if

strictly taken for the Phœnix, very strange is that which is delivered

by _Plutarch_ [SN: De sanitate tuenda.], That the brain thereof is a

pleasant bit, but that it causeth the head-ach. Which notwithstanding

the luxurious Emperour [SN: Heliogabalus.] could never taste, though he

had at his Table many a Phœnicopterus, yet had he not one Phœnix; for

though he expected and attempted it, we read not in _Lampridius_ that he

performed it; and considering the unity thereof, it was a vain design,

that is, to destroy any species, or mutilate the great accomplishment of

six days. And although some conceive, and it may seem true, that there

is in man a natural possibility to destroy the world in one generation,

that is, by a general conspire to know no woman themselves, and disable

all others also: yet will this never be effected. And therefore _Cain_

after he had killed _Abel_, were there no other woman living, could not

have also destroyed _Eve_: which although he had a natural power to

effect, yet the execution thereof, the providence of God would have

resisted: for that would have imposed another creation upon him, and to

have animated a second Rib of _Adam_.

CHAPTER XIII

Of Frogs, Toads, and Toad-stone.

Concerning the venomous Urine of Toads, of the stone in the Toads head,

and of the generation of Frogs, conceptions are entertained which

require consideration. And first, that a Toad pisseth, and this way

diffuseth its venome, is generally received, not only with us, but also

in other parts; for so hath _Scaliger_ observed in his Comment, _Aversum

urinam reddere ob oculos persecutoris perniciosam ruricolis persuasum

est_; and _Mathiolus_ hath also a passage, that a Toad communicates its

venome, not only by Urine, but by the humidity and slaver of its mouth;

which notwithstanding strictly understood, may admit of examination: for

some doubt may be made whether a Toad properly pisseth, that is

distinctly and separately voideth the serous excretion: for though not

only birds, but oviparous quadrupeds and Serpents have kidneys and

ureters, and some Fishes also bladders: yet for the moist and dry

excretion they seem at last to have but one vent and common place of

exclusion: and with the same propriety of language, we may ascribe that

action unto Crows and Kites. And this not onely in Frogs and Toads, but

may be enquired in Tortoyses: that is, whether that be strictly true, or

to be taken for a distinct and separate miction, when _Aristotle_

affirmeth, that no oviparous animal, that is, which either spawneth or

layeth Eggs, doth Urine except the Tortois.

The ground or occasion of this expression might from hence arise, that

Toads are sometimes observed to exclude or spit out a dark and liquid

matter behind: which we have observed to be true, and a venomous

condition there may be perhaps therein, but some doubt there may be,

whether this is to be called their urine: not because it is emitted

aversly or backward, by both sexes, but because it is confounded with

the intestinal excretions and egestions of the belly: and this way is

ordinarily observed, although possible it is that the liquid excretion

may sometimes be excluded without the other.

As for the stone commonly called a Toad-stone, which is presumed to be

found in the head of that animal, we first conceive it not a thing

impossible: nor is there any substantial reason why in a Toad there may

not be found such hard and lapideous concretions. For the like we daily

observe in the heads of Fishes, as Cods, Carps, and Pearches: the like

also in Snails, a soft and exosseous animal, whereof in the naked and

greater sort, as though she would requite the defect of a shell on their

back, Nature near the head hath placed a flat white stone, or rather

testaceous concretion. Which though _Aldrovandus_ affirms, that after

dissection of many, he found but in some few: yet of the great gray

Snails, I have not met with any that wanted it: and the same indeed so

palpable, that without dissection it is discoverable by the hand.

Again, though it be not impossible, yet it is surely very rare: as we

are induced to believe from some enquiry of our own, from the trial of

many who have been deceived, and the frustrated search of _Porta_, who

upon the explorement of many, could scarce find one. Nor is it only of

rarity, but may be doubted whether it be of existencie, or really any

such stone in the head of a Toad at all. For although _Lapidaries_ and

questuary enquirers affirm it, yet the Writers of Minerals and natural

speculators, are of another belief: conceiving the stones which bear

this name, to be a Mineral concretion; not to be found in animals, but

in fields. And therefore _Bœtius_ refers it to _Asteria_ or some kind

of _Lapis stellaris_, and plainly concludeth, _reperiuntur in agris,

quos tamen alii in annosis ac qui diu in Arundinetis inter rubos

sentesque delituerunt bufonis capitibus generari pertinaciter

affirmant_.

Lastly, If any such thing there be, yet must it not, for ought I see, be

taken as we receive it, for a loose and moveable stone, but rather a

concretion or induration of the crany it self; for being of an earthy

temper, living in the earth, and as some say feeding thereon, such

indurations may sometimes happen. Thus when _Brassavolus_ after a long

search had discovered one, he affirms it was rather the forehead bone

petrified, then a stone within the crany; and of this belief was

_Gesner_. Which is also much confirmed from what is delivered in

_Aldrovandus_, upon experiment of very many Toads, whose cranies or

sculs in time grew hard, and almost of a stony substance. All which

considered, we must with circumspection receive those stones which

commonly bear this name, much less believe the traditions, that in envy

to mankind they are cast out, or swallowed down by the Toad; which

cannot consist with _Anatomy_, and with the rest, enforced this censure

from _Bœtius_, _Ab eo tempore pro nugis habui quod de Bufonio lapide,

ejusque origine traditur._

What therefore best reconcileth these divided determinations, may be a

middle opinion; that of these stones some may be mineral, and to be

found in the earth; some animal, to be met with in Toads, at least by

the induration of their cranies. The first are many and manifold, to be

found in _Germany_ and other parts; the last are fewer in number, and in

substance not unlike the stones in Crabs heads. This is agreeable unto

the determination of _Aldrovandus_[SN: De Mineral. lib. 4. Musæi

Calceolariani, Sect. 3.], and is also the judgment of learned

_Spigelius_ in his Epistle unto _Pignorius_.

But these Toadstones, at least very many thereof, which are esteemed

among us, are at last found to be taken not out of Toads heads, but out

of a Fishes mouth, being handsomely contrived out of the teeth of the

_Lupus Marinus_, a Fish often taken in our Northern Seas, as was

publickly declared by an eminent and learned Physitian. [SN: Sir _George

Ent_.] But because men are unwilling to conceive so low of their

Toadstones which they so highly value, they may make some trial thereof

by a candentorned hot Iron applied unto the hollow and unpolished part

thereof, whereupon if they be true stones they will not be apt to burn

or afford a burnt odour, which they may be apt to do, if contrived out

of animal parts or the teeth of fishes.

Concerning the generation of Frogs, we shall briefly deliver that

account which observation hath taught us. By Frogs I understand not such

as arising from putrefaction, are bred without copulation, and because

they subsist not long, are called _Temporariæ_; nor do I mean the little

Frog of an excellent Parrat green, that usually sits on Trees and

Bushes, and is therefore called _Ranunculus viridis_, or _arboreus_; but

hereby I understand the aquatile or Water-Frog, whereof in ditches and

standing plashes we may behold many millions every Spring in _England_.

Now these do not as _Pliny_ conceiveth, exclude black pieces of flesh,

which after become Frogs; but they let fall their spawn in the water, of

excellent use in Physick, and scarce unknown unto any. In this spawn of

a lentous and transparent body, are to be discerned many specks, or

little conglobulations, which in a small time become of deep black, a

substance more compacted and terrestrious then the other; for it riseth

not in distillation, and affords a powder when the white and aqueous

part is exhaled. Now of this black or dusky substance is the Frog at

last formed; as we have beheld, including the spawn with water in a

glass, and exposing it unto the Sun. For that black and round substance,

in a few days began to dilate and grow longer, after a while the head,

the eyes, the tail to be discernable, and at last to become that which

the Ancients called _Gyrinus_, we a _Porwigle_ or Tadpole. This in some

weeks after becomes a perfect Frog, the legs growing out before, and the

tail wearing away, to supply the other behind; as may be observed in

some which have newly forsaken the water; for in such, some part of the

tail will be seen, but curtailed and short, not long and finny as

before. A part provided them a while to swim and move in the water, that

is, untill such time as Nature excluded legs, whereby they might be

provided not only to swim in the water, but move upon the land,

according to the amphibious [SN: _Amphibious Animals, such as live in

both elements of land and water._] and mixt intention of Nature, that

is, to live in both. So that whoever observeth the first progression of

the seed before motion, or shall take notice of the strange

indistinction of parts in the Tadpole, even when it moveth about, and

how successively the inward parts do seem to discover themselves, until

their last perfection; may easily discern the high curiosity of Nature

in these inferiour animals, and what a long line is run to make a Frog.

And because many affirm, and some deliver, that in regard it hath lungs

and breatheth, a Frog may be easily drowned; though the reason be

probable, I find not the experiment answerable; for fastning one about a

span under water, it lived almost six days. Nor is it only hard to

destroy one in water, but difficult also at land: for it will live long

after the lungs and heart be out; how long it will live in the seed, or

whether the spawn of this year being preserved, will not arise into

Frogs in the next, might also be enquired: and we are prepared to trie.

CHAPTER XIV

Of the Salamander.

That a Salamander is able to live in flames, to endure and put out fire,

is an assertion, not only of great antiquity, but confirmed by frequent,

and not contemptible testimony. The _Egyptians_ have drawn it into their

Hieroglyphicks, _Aristotle_ seemeth to embrace it; more plainly

_Nicander_, _Sarenus Sammonicus_, _Ælian_ and _Pliny_, who assigns the

cause of this effect: An Animal (saith he) so cold that it extinguisheth

the fire like Ice. All which notwithstanding, there is on the negative,

Authority and Experience; _Sextius_ a Physitian, as _Pliny_ delivereth,

denied this effect; _Dioscorides_ affirmed it a point of folly to

believe it; _Galen_ that it endureth the fire a while, but in

continuance is consumed therein. For experimental conviction,

_Mathiolus_ affirmeth, he saw a Salamander burnt in a very short time;

and of the like assertion is _Amatus Lusitanus_; and most plainly

_Pierius_, whose words in his Hieroglyphicks are these: _Whereas it is

commonly said that a Salamander extinguisheth fire, we have found by

experience, that it is so far from quenching hot coals, that it dieth

immediately therein._ As for the contrary assertion of _Aristotle_, it

is but by hear say, as common opinion believeth, _Hæc enim (ut aiunt)

ignem ingrediens, eum extinguit_; and therefore there was no absurdity

in _Galen_, when as a Septical medicine [SN: _A corruptive Medicine

destroying the parts like Arsenike._] he commended the ashes of a

Salamander; and _Magicians_ in vain from the power of this Tradition, at

the burning of Towns or Houses expect a relief from Salamanders.

The ground of this opinion, might be some sensible resistance of fire

observed in the Salamander: which being, as _Galen_ determineth, cold in

the fourth, and moist in the third degree, and having also a mucous

humidity above and under the skin, by vertue thereof it may a while

endure the flame: which being consumed, it can resist no more. Such an

humidity there is observed in Newtes, or Water-Lizards, especially if

their skins be perforated or pricked. Thus will Frogs and Snails endure

the Flame: thus will whites of Eggs, vitreous or glassie flegm

extinguish a coal: thus are unguents made which protect a while from the

fire: and thus beside the _Hirpini_ there are later stories of men that

have passed untoucht through the fire. And therefore some truth we allow

in the tradition: truth according unto _Galen_, that it may for a time

resist a flame, or as _Scaliger_ avers, extinguish or put out a coal:

for thus much will many humid bodies perform: but that it perseveres and

lives in that destructive element, is a fallacious enlargement. Nor do

we reasonably conclude, because for a time it endureth fire, it subdueth

and extinguisheth the same, because by a cold and aluminous moisture, it

is able a while to resist it: from a peculiarity of Nature it subsisteth

and liveth in it.

It hath been much promoted by Stories of incombustible napkins and

textures which endure the fire, whose materials are called by the name

of Salamanders wool. Which many too literally apprehending, conceive

some investing part, or tegument of the Salamander: wherein beside that

they mistake the condition of this Animal (which is a kind of Lizard, a

quadruped corticated and depilous, that is, without wool, fur, or hair)

they observe not the method and general rule of nature; whereby all

Quadrupeds oviparous, as Lizards, Frogs, Tortois, Chamelions,

Crocodiles, are without hair, and have no covering part or hairy

investment at all. And if they conceive that from the skin of the

Salamander, these incremable pieces are composed; beside the experiments

made upon the living, that of _Brassavolus_ will step in, who in the

search of this truth, did burn the skin of one dead.

Nor is this Salamanders wooll desumed from any Animal, but a Mineral

substance Metaphorically so called from this received opinion. For

beside _Germanicus_ his heart, [SN: Suetonius.] and _Pyrrhus_ his great

Toe, [SN: Plutarch.] which would not burn with the rest of their bodies,

there are in the number of Minerals some bodies incombustible; more

remarkably that which the ancients named _Asbeston_, and _Pancirollus_

treats of in the Chapter of _Linum vivum_. Whereof by art were weaved

Napkins, Shirts, and Coats, inconsumable by fire; and wherein in ancient

times to preserve their ashes pure, and without commixture, they burnt

the bodies of Kings. A Napkin hereof _Pliny_ reports that _Nero_ had,

and the like saith _Paulus Venetus_ the Emperour of _Tartary_ sent unto

Pope _Alexander_; and also affirms that in some part of _Tartary_ there

were Mines of Iron whose filaments were weaved into incombustible cloth.

Which rare Manufacture, although delivered for lost by _Pancirollus_,

yet _Salmuth_ his Commentator affirmeth, that one _Podocaterus_ a

Cyprian, had shewed the same at _Venice_; and his materials were from

_Cyprus_, where indeed _Dioscorides_ placeth them; the same is also

ocularly confirmed by _Vives_ upon _Austin_, and _Maiolus_ in his

Colloquies. And thus in our days do men practise to make long-lasting

Snasts for Lamps out of Alumen plumosum; and by the same we read in

_Pausanius_, that there always burnt a Lamp before the Image of

_Minerva_.

CHAPTER XV

Of the Amphisbæna.

That the Amphisbæna, that is, a smaller kind of Serpent, which moveth

forward and backward, hath two heads, or one at either extream, was

affirmed first by _Nicander_, and after by many others, by the Author of

the Book _De Theriaca ad Pisonem_, ascribed unto _Galen_; more plainly

_Pliny_, _Geminum habet caput, tanquam parum esset uno ore effundi

venenum_: but _Ælian_ most confidently, who referring the conceit of

_Chimera_ and _Hydra_ unto Fables, hath set down this as an undeniable

truth.

Whereunto while men assent, and can believe a bicipitous conformation in

any continued species, they admit a gemination of principle parts, not

naturally discovered in any Animal. True it is that other parts in

Animals are not equal; for some make their progression with many legs,

even to the number of an hundred, as _Juli_, _Scolopendræ_; or such as

are termed _Centipedes_: some fly with two wings, as Birds and many

Insects, some with four, as all farinaceous or mealy-winged Animals, as

Butterflies, and Moths: all vaginipennous or sheath-winged Insects, as

Beetles and Dorrs. Some have three Testicles, as _Aristotle_ speaks of

the Buzzard; and some have four stomachs, as horned and ruminating

Animals; but for the principle parts, the Liver, Heart, and especially

the brains; regularly they are but one in any kind or species

whatsoever.

And were there any such species or natural kind of animal, it would be

hard to make good those six positions of body, which according to the

three dimensions are ascribed unto every Animal: that is, _infra_,

_supra_, _ante_, _retro_, _dextrosum_, _sinistrosum_: for if (as it is

determined) that be the anterior and upper part, wherein the senses are

placed, and that the posterior and lower part which is opposite

thereunto, there is no inferiour or former part in this Animal; for the

senses being placed at both extreams, doth make both ends anterior,

which is impossible; the terms being Relative, which mutually subsist,

and are not without each other. And therefore this duplicity was ill

contrived to place one head at both extreams, and had been more

tolerable to have setled three or four at one. And therefore also Poets

have been more reasonable then Philosophers, and _Geryon_ or _Cerberus_

less monstrous than _Amphisbæna_.

Again, if any such thing there were, it were not to be obtruded by the

name of _Amphisbæna_, or as an Animal of one denomination; for properly

that Animal is not one, but multiplicious or many, which hath a

duplicity or gemination of principal parts. And this doth _Aristotle_

define, when he affirmeth a monster is to be esteemed one or many,

according to its principle, which he conceived the heart, whence he

derived the original of Nerves, and thereto ascribed many acts which

Physitians assign unto the brain: and therefore if it cannot be called

one, which hath a duplicity of hearts in his sense, it cannot receive

that appellation with a plurality of heads in ours. And this the

practice of Christians hath acknowledged, who have baptized these

geminous births, and double connascencies with several names, as

conceiving in them a distinction of souls, upon the divided execution of

their functions; that is, while one wept, the other laughing; while one

was silent, the other speaking; while one awaked, the other sleeping; as

is declared by three remarkable examples in _Petrarch_, _Vincentius_ and

the _Scottish_ History of _Buchanan_.

It is not denied there have been bicipitous Serpents with the head at

each extream, for an example hereof we find in _Aristotle_, and of the

like form in _Aldrovandus_ we meet with the Icon of a Lizzard; and of

this kind perhaps might that _Amphisbæna_ be, the picture whereof

_Cassianus Puteus_ shewed unto the learned _Faber_. Which double

formations do often happen unto multiparous generations, more especially

that of Serpents; whose productions being numerous, and their Eggs in

chains or links together (which sometime conjoin and inoculate into each

other) they may unite into various shapes and come out in mixed

formations. But these are monstrous productions, beside the intention of

Nature, and the statutes of generation, neither begotten of like

parents, nor begetting the like again, but irregularly produced, do

stand as Anomalies in the general Book of Nature. Which being shifts and

forced pieces, rather then genuine and proper effects, they afford us no

illation; nor is it reasonable to conclude, from a monstrosity unto a

species, or from accidental effects, unto the regular works of Nature.

Lastly, The ground of the conceit was the figure of this Animal, and

motion oft-times both ways; for described it is to be like a worm, and

so equally framed at both extreams, that at an ordinary distance it is

no easie matter to determine which is the head; and therefore some

observing them to move both ways, have given the appellation of heads

unto both extreams, which is no proper and warrantable denomination; for

many Animals with one head, do ordinarily perform both different and

contrary Motions; Crabs move sideling, Lobsters will swim swiftly

backward, Worms and Leeches will move both ways; and so will most of

those Animals, whose bodies consist of round and annulary fibers, and

move by undulation; that is, like the waves of the Sea, the one

protruding the other, by inversion whereof they make a backward Motion.

Upon the same ground hath arisen the same mistake concerning the

Scolopendra or hundred-footed Insect, as is delivered by _Rhodiginus_

from the Scholiast of _Nicander_: _Dicitur à Nicandro_, ἀμφικαρὴς, _id

est dicephalus aut biceps fictum vero, quoniam retrorsum_ (_ut scribit

Aristoteles), arrepit_, observed by _Aldrovandus_, but most plainly by

_Muffetus_, who thus concludeth upon the Text of _Nicander_: _Tamen pace

tanti authoris dixerim, unicum illi duntaxat caput licet pari

facilitate, prorsum capite, retrorsum ducente cauda, incedat, quod

Nicandro aliisque imposuisse dubito_: that is, under favour of so great

an Author, the Scopolendra hath but one head, although with equal

facility it moveth forward and backward, which I suspect deceived

_Nicander_, and others.

And therefore we must crave leave to doubt of this double-headed Serpent

until we have the advantage to behold or have an iterated ocular

testimony concerning such as are sometimes mentioned by _American_

relators; and also such as _Cassianus Puteus_ shewed in a picture to

_Johannes Faber_; and that which is set down under the name of

_Amphisbæna Europæa_ in his learned discourse upon _Hernandez_ his

History of _America_.

CHAPTER XVI

Of the Viper.

That the young Vipers force their way through the bowels of their Dam,

or that the female Viper in the act of generation bites off the head of

the male, in revenge whereof the young ones eat through the womb and

belly of the female, is a very ancient tradition. In this sense

entertained in the Hieroglyphicks of the _Egyptians_; affirmed by

_Herodotus_, _Nicander_, _Pliny_, _Plutarch_, _Ælian_, _Jerome_,

_Basil_, _Isidore_, seems countenanced by _Aristotle_, and his Scholar

_Theophrastus_: from hence is commonly assigned the reason why the

_Romans_ punished _Parricides_ by drowning them in a Sack with a Viper.

And so perhaps upon the same opinion the men of _Melita_ when they saw a

Viper upon the hand of _Paul_, said presently without conceit of any

other sin, _No doubt this man is a murderer, who though he have escaped

the Sea, yet vengeance suffereth him not to live_: that is, he is now

paid in his own way, the parricidous Animal and punishment of murderers

is upon him. And though the tradition were currant among the Greeks, to

confirm the same the Latine name is introduced, _Vipera quasi vi

pariat_; That passage also in the Gospel, _O ye generation of Vipers!_

hath found expositions which countenance this conceit. Notwithstanding

which authorities, transcribed relations and conjectures, upon enquiry

we find the same repugnant unto experience and reason.

And first, it seems not only injurious unto the providence of Nature, to

ordain a way of production which should destroy the producer, or

contrive the continuation of the species by the destruction of the

Continuator; but it overthrows and frustrates the great Benediction of

God, [SN: Gen. 1.] _God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply._

Now if it be so ordained that some must regularly perish by

multiplication, and these be the fruits of fructifying in the Viper; it

cannot be said that God did bless, but curse this Animal: _Upon thy

belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all thy life_, was not so

great a punishment unto the Serpent after the fall, as _encrease, be

fruitful and multiply_, was before. This were to confound the

Maledictions of God, and translate the curse of the Woman upon the

Serpent: that is, _in dolore paries_, _in sorrow shalt thou bring

forth_; which being proper unto the Woman, is verified best in the

Viper, whose delivery is not only accompanied with pain, but also with

death it self. And lastly, it overthrows the careful course, and

parental provision of Nature, whereby the young ones newly excluded are

sustained by the Dam, and protected until they grow up to a sufficiency

for themselves. All which is perverted in this eruptive generation: for

the Dam being destroyed, the younglings are left to their own

protection: which is not conceivable they can at all perform, and

whereof they afford us a remarkable continuance many days after birth.

For the young one supposed to break through the belly of the Dam, will

upon any fright for protection run into it; for then the old one

receives them in at her mouth, which way the fright being past, they

will return again, which is a peculiar way of refuge; and although it

seem strange, is avowed by frequent experience and undeniable testimony.

As for the experiment, although we have thrice attempted it, it hath not

well succeeded; for though we fed them with Milk, Bran, Cheese, etc.,

the females always died before the young ones were mature for this

eruption; but rest sufficiently confirmed in the experiments of worthy

enquirers. Wherein to omit the ancient conviction of _Apollonius_, we

shall set down some few of Modern Writers. [SN: _That Vipers exclude

their young ones by an ordinary passage, as other viviparous

creatures._] The first, of _Amatus Lusitanus_ in his Comment upon

_Dioscorides_, _Vidimus nos viperas prægnantes inclusas pixidibus

parere, quæ inde ex partu nec mortuæ, nec visceribus perforatæ

manserunt._ The second is that of _Scaliger_, _Viperas ab impatientibus

moræ fœtibus numerosissimis rumpi atque interire falsum esse scimus,

qui in Vincentii Camerini circulatoris lignea theca vidimus, enatas

viperellas, parente salva._ The last and most plain of _Franciscus

Bustamantinus_, a _Spanish_ Physitian of _Alcala de Henares_, whose

words in his third _de Animantibus Scripturæ_, are these: _Cum vero per

me et per alios hæc ipsa disquisissem servata Viperina progenie, etc._:

that is, when by my self and others I had enquired the truth hereof,

including Vipers in a glass, and feeding them with Cheese and Bran, I

undoubtedly found that the Viper was not delivered by the tearing of her

bowels; but I beheld the young ones excluded by the passage of

generation, near the orifice of the seidge. Whereto we might also add

the ocular confirmation of _Lacuna_ upon _Dioscorides_, _Ferdinandus

Imperatus_, and that learned Physician of _Naples_, _Aurelius

Severinus_.

Now although the Tradition be untrue, there wanted not many grounds

which made it plausibly received. The first was a favourable indulgence

and special contrivance of Nature; which was the conceit of _Herodotus_,

who thus delivereth himself. Fearful Animals, and such as serve for

food, Nature hath made more fruitful; but upon the offensive and

noxious kind, she hath not conferred fertility. So the Hare that

becometh a prey unto Man, unto Beasts, and Fowls of the air, is fruitful

even to superfætation; but the Lion, a fierce and ferocious Animal hath

young ones but seldom, and also but one at a time; Vipers indeed

although destructive are fruitful; but lest their number should

increase, Providence hath contrived another way to abate it: for in

copulation the female bites off the head of the male, and the young ones

destroy the mother. But this will not consist with reason, as we have

declared before. And if we more nearly consider the condition of Vipers

and noxious Animals we shall discover an higher provision of Nature: how

although in their paucity she hath not abridged their malignity, yet

hath she notoriously effected it by their secession or latitancy. For

not only offensive insects, as Hornets, Wasps, and the like; but

sanguineous corticated Animals, as Serpents, Toads and Lizzards, do lie

hid and betake themselves to coverts in the Winter. Whereby most

Countries enjoying the immunity of _Ireland_ and _Candie_, there ariseth

a temporal security from their venoms; and an intermission of their

mischiefs, mercifully requiting the time of their activities.

A second ground of this effect, was conceived the justice of Nature,

whereby she compensates the death of the father by the matricide or

murder of the mother: and this was the expression of _Nicander_. But the

cause hereof is as improbable as the effect; and were indeed an

improvident revenge in the young ones, whereby in consequence, and upon

defect of provision they must destroy themselves. And whereas he

expresseth this decollation of the male by so full a term as

ἀποκόπτειν, that is, to cut or lop off, the act is hardly conceiveable;

for the Viper hath but two considerable teeth, and those so disposed, so

slender and needle-pointed, that they are apter for puncture then any

act of incision. And if any like action there be, it may be only some

fast retention or sudden compression in the _Orgasmus_ or fury of their

lust; according as that expression of _Horace_ is construed concerning

_Lydia_ and _Telephus_.

----_Sive puer furens,

Impressit memorem dente labris notam._

Others ascribe this effect unto the numerous conception of the Viper;

and this was the opinion of _Theophrastus_. Who though he denieth the

exesion or forcing through the belly, conceiveth nevertheless that upon

a full and plentiful impletion there may perhaps succeed a disruption of

the matrix, as it happeneth sometimes in the long and slender fish

_Acus_. [SN: _Needle-fish, found sometimes upon the Sea-shore,

consisting of four lines unto the vent, and six from thence unto the

head._] Now although in hot Countries, and very numerous conceptions, in

the Viper or other Animals, there may sometimes ensue a dilaceration of

the genital parts; yet is this a rare and contingent effect, and not a

natural and constant way of exclusion. For the wise Creator hath formed

the organs of Animals unto their operations, and in whom he ordaineth a

numerous conception, in them he hath prepared convenient receptacles,

and a sutable way of exclusion.

Others do ground this disruption upon their continued or protracted time

of delivery, presumed to last twenty days; whereat excluding but one a

day, the latter brood impatient, by a forcible proruption anticipate

their period of exclusion; and this was the assertion of _Pliny_,

_Cæteri tarditatis impatientes prorumpunt latera, occisâ parente_;

which was occasioned upon a mistake of the Greek Text in _Aristotle_,

τίκτει δὲ ἐν μία ἠμέρα καθʼ ἐν, τίκτει δὲ πλείω ἢε εἴκοσιν, which are

literally thus translated, _Parit autem una die secundum unum, parit

autem plures quam viginti_, and may be thus Englished, _She bringeth

forth in one day, one by one, and sometimes more than twenty_: and so

hath _Scaliger_ rendered it, _Sigillatim parit absolvit, una die,

interdum plures quam viginti_: But _Pliny_, whom _Gaza_ followeth, hath

differently translated it, _Singulos diebus singulis parit, numero ferè

viginti_; whereby he extends the exclusion unto twenty days, which in

the textuary sense is fully accomplished in one.

But what hath most advanced it, is a mistake in another text of

_Aristotle_, which seemeth directly to determine this disruption,

τίκτει μικρὰ ἐχίδια ἐν ὑμέσιν, ἁι περιρρήγνυνται τριταῖοι,

ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἔσωθεν διαφαγόντα αὐτὰ ἐξέρχεται, which _Gaza_ hath

thus translated, _Purit catulos abvolutos membranis quæ tertio die

rumpuntur, evenit interdum ut qui in utero adhuc sunt abrosis membranis

prorumpant._ Now herein probably _Pliny_, and many since have been

mistaken; for the disruption of the membranes or skins, which include

the young ones, conceiving a dilaceration of the matrix and belly of the

Viper: and concluding from a casual dilaceration, a regular and constant

disruption.

As for the Latine word _Vipera_, which in the Etymologie of _Isidore_

promoteth this conceit; more properly it may imply _vivipera_. For

whereas other Serpents lay Eggs, the Viper excludeth living Animals; and

though the _Cerastes_ be also viviparous, and we have found formed

Snakes in the belly of the _Cicilia_ or Slow-worm; yet may the Viper

emphatically bear the name. For the notation or Etymology is not of

necessity adequate unto the name; and therefore though animal be deduced

from _anima_, yet are there many animations beside, and Plants will

challenge a right therein as well as sensible Creatures.

As touching the Text of Scripture, and compellation of the _Pharisees_,

by Generation of Vipers, although constructions be made hereof

conformable to this Tradition; and it may be plausibly expounded, that

out of a viperous condition, they conspired against their Prophets, and

destroyed their spiritual parents; yet (as _Jansenius_ observeth)

_Gregory_ and _Jerome_, do make another construction; apprehending

thereby what is usually implied by that Proverb, _Mali corvi, malum

ovum_; that is, of evil parents, an evil generation, a posterity not

unlike their majority; of mischievous progenitors, a venomous and

destructive progeny.

And lastly, Concerning the Hieroglyphical account, according to the

Vulgar conception set down by _Orus Apollo_, the Authority thereof is

only Emblematical; for were the conception true or false, to their

apprehensions, it expressed filial impiety. Which strictly taken, and

totally received for truth, might perhaps begin, but surely promote this

conception.

More doubtful assertions have been raised of no Animal then the Viper,

as we have dispersedly noted: and _Francisco Redi_ hath amply discovered

in his noble observations of Vipers; from good reasons and iterated

experiments affirming, that a Viper containeth no humour, excrement, or

part which either dranke or eat, is able to kill any: that the

_remorsores_ or dog-teeth, are not more than two in either sex: that

these teeth are hollow, and though they bite and prick therewith, yet

are they not venomous, but only open a way and entrance unto the poyson,

which notwithstanding is not poysonous except it touch or attain unto

the bloud. And that there is no other poison in this Animal, but only

that almost insipid liquor like oyl of Almonds, which stagnates in the

sheaths and cases that cover the teeth; and that this proceeds not from

the bladder of gall, but is rather generated in the head, and perhaps

demitted and sent from thence into these cases by salival conducts and

passages, which the head communicateth unto them.

CHAPTER XVII

Of Hares.

The double sex of single Hares, or that every Hare is both male and

female, beside the vulgar opinion, was the affirmative of _Archelaus_,

of _Plutarch_, _Philostratus_, and many more. Of the same belief have

been the Jewish _Rabbins_; The same is likewise confirmed from the

Hebrew word; [SN: Arnabeth.] which, as though there were no single males

of that kind, hath only obtained a name of the feminine gender. As also

from the symbolical foundation of its prohibition in the law, [SN:

_Levit._ 11.] and what vices therein are figured; that is, not only

pusillanimity and timidity from its temper, feneration or usury from its

fœcundity and superfetation; but from this mixture of sexes,

unnatural venery and degenerous effemination. Nor are there hardly any

who either treat of mutation or mixtion of sexes, who have not left some

mention of this point; some speaking positively, others dubiously, and

most resigning it unto the enquiry of the Reader. Now hereof to speak

distinctly, they must be male and female by mutation and succession of

sexes; or else by composition, mixture or union thereof.

[Sidenote: _Transmutation of Sexes_, viz. _of Women into Men, granted_.]

As for the mutation of sexes, or transition into one another, we cannot

deny it in Hares, it being observable in Man. For hereof beside

_Empedocles_ or _Tiresias_, there are not a few examples: and though

very few, or rather none which have emasculated or turned women, yet

very many who from an esteem or reality of being Women have infallibly

proved Men. Some at the first point of their menstruous eruptions, some

in the day of their marriage, others many years after: which occasioned

disputes at Law, and contestations concerning a restore of the dowry.

And that not only mankind, but many other Animals may suffer this

transexion, we will not deny, or hold it at all impossible: although I

confess by reason of the postick and backward position of the feminine

parts in quadrupedes, they can hardly admit the substitution of a

protrusion, effectual unto masculine generation; except it be in

Retromingents, and such as couple backward.

Nor shall we only concede the succession of sexes in some, but shall not

dispute the transition of reputed species in others; that is, a

transmutation, or (as _Paracelsians_ term it) Transplantation of one

into another. Hereof in perfect Animals of a congenerous seed, or near

affinity of natures, examples are not unfrequent, as in Horses, Asses,

Dogs, Foxes, Pheasants, Cocks, etc. but in imperfect kinds, and such

where the discrimination of sexes is obscure, these transformations are

more common; and in some within themselves without commixtion, as

particularly in Caterpillars or Silkworms, wherein there is a visible

and triple transfiguration. But in Plants, wherein there is no

distinction of sex, these transplantations are conceived more obvious

then any; as that of Barley into Oats, of Wheat into Darnel; and those

grains which generally arise among Corn, as Cockle, Aracus, Ægilops, and

other degenerations; which come up in unexpected shapes, when they want

the support and maintenance of the primary and master-forms. And the

same do some affirm concerning other Plants in less analogy of figures;

as the mutation of Mint into Cresses, Basil into Serpoile, and Turneps

into Radishes. In all which, as _Severinus_ conceiveth, [SN: In Idea

Medicinæ Philosophicæ.] there may be equivocal seeds and

Hermaphroditical principles, which contain the radicality and power of

different forms; thus in the seed of Wheat there lieth obscurely the

seminality of Darnel, although in a secondary or inferiour way, and at

some distance of production; which nevertheless if it meet with

convenient promotion, or a conflux and conspiration of causes more

powerful then the other, it then beginneth to edifie in chief, and

contemning the superintendent form, produceth the signatures of its

self.

Now therefore although we deny not these several mutations, and do allow

that Hares may exchange their sex, yet this we conceive doth come to

pass but sometimes, and not in that vicissitude or annual alteration as

is presumed. That is, from imperfection to perfection, from perfection

to imperfection; from female unto male, from male to female again, and

so in a circle to both without a permansion in either. For beside the

inconceivable mutation of temper, which should yearly alternate the sex,

this is injurious unto the order of nature, whose operations do rest in

the perfection of their intents; which having once attained, they

maintain their accomplished ends, and relapse not again into their

progressional imperfections. So if in the minority of natural vigor,

the parts of seminality take place; when upon the encrease or growth

thereof the masculine appear, the first design of nature is atchieved,

and those parts are after maintained.

But surely it much impeacheth this iterated transexion of Hares, if that

be true which _Cardan_ and other Physicians affirm, that Transmutation

of sex is only so in opinion; and that these transfeminated persons were

really men at first; although succeeding years produced the manifesto or

evidence of their virilities. Which although intended and formed, was

not at first excluded: and that the examples hereof have undergone no

real or new transexion, but were Androgynally born, and under some kind

of _Hermaphrodites_. For though _Galen_ do favour the opinion, that the

distinctive parts of sexes are only different in Position, that is,

inversion or protrusion; yet will this hardly be made out from the

Anatomy of those parts. The testicles being so seated in the female,

that they admit not of protrusion; and the neck of the matrix wanting

those parts which are discoverable in the organ of virility.

The second and most received acception, is, that Hares are male and

female by conjunction of both sexes; and such as are found in mankind,

Poetically called Hermaphrodites; supposed to be formed from the

equality, or _non victorie_ of either seed; carrying about them the

parts of Man and Woman; although with great variety in perfection, site

and ability; not only as _Aristotle_ conceived, with a constant

impotency in one; but as later observers affirm, sometimes with ability

of either venery. And therefore the providence of some Laws have thought

good, that at the years of maturity they should elect one sex, and the

errors in the other should suffer a severer punishment. Whereby

endeavouring to prevent incontinency, they unawares enjoyned perpetual

chastity; for being executive in both parts, and confined unto one, they

restrained a natural power, and ordained a partial virginity. _Plato_

and some of the Rabbins proceeded higher; who conceived the first Man an

Hermaphrodite; and _Marcus Leo_ the learned _Jew_, in some sense hath

allowed it; affirming that _Adam_ in one suppositum without division,

contained both Male and Female. And therefore whereas it is said in the

text, That God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created

he him, male and female created he them: applying the singular and

plural unto _Adam_, it might denote, that in one substance, and in

himself he included both sexes, which was after divided, and the female

called Woman. The opinion of _Aristotle_ extendeth farther, from whose

assertion all men should be Hermaphrodites; for affirming that Women do

not spermatize, and confer a place or receptacle rather then essential

principles of generation, he deductively includes both sexes in mankind;

for from the father proceed not only males and females, but from him

also must Hermaphroditical and masculo-feminine generations be derived,

and a commixtion of both sexes arise from the seed of one. But the

Schoolmen have dealt with that sex more hardly then any other; who

though they have not much disputed their generation, yet have they

controverted their Resurrection, and raisen a querie, whether any at the

last day should arise in the sex of Women; as may be observed in the

supplement of _Aquinas_.

Now as we must acknowledge this Androgynal condition in Man [SN:

_Consisting of man and woman._], so can we not deny the like doth

happen in beasts. Thus do we read in _Pliny_, that _Neroes_ Chariot was

drawn by four Hermaphroditical Mares, and _Cardan_ affirms he also

beheld one at _Antwerp_. And thus may we also concede, that Hares have

been of both sexes, and some have ocularly confirmed it; but that the

whole species or kind should be bisexous or double-sexed, we cannot

affirm, who have found the parts of male and female respectively

distinct and single in any wherein we have enquired: And the like

success had _Bacchinus_[SN: Bacch. De Hermaphroditis.] in such as he

dissected. And whereas it is conceived, that being an harmless Animal

and delectable food unto man, nature hath made them with double sexes,

that actively and passively performing they might more numerously

increase; we forget an higher providence of nature whereby she

especially promotes the multiplication of Hares, which is by

superfetation; that is, a conception upon a conception, or an

improvement of a second fruit before the first be excluded; preventing

hereby the usual intermission and vacant time of generation; which is

very common and frequently observable in Hares, mentioned long ago by

_Aristotle_, _Herodotus_, and _Pliny_; and we have often observed, that

after the first cast, there remain successive conceptions, and other

younglings very immature, and far from their term of exclusion.

[Sidenote: _Superfetation possible in women, and that unto a perfect

birth._]

Nor need any man to question this in Hares, for the same we observe doth

sometime happen in Women; for although it be true, that upon conception

the inward orifice of the matrix exactly closeth, so that it commonly

admitteth nothing after; yet falleth it out sometime, that in the act of

coition, the avidity of that part dilateth it self, and receiveth a

second burden; which if it happen to be near in time unto the first,

they do commonly both proceed unto perfection, and have legitimate

exclusions, periodically succeeding each other. But if the superfetation

be made with considerable intermission, the latter most commonly proves

abortive; for the first being confirmed, engrosseth the aliment from the

other. However therefore the project of _Julia_ seem very plausible, and

that way infallible, when she received not her passengers, before she

had taken in her lading, yet was there a fallibility therein: nor indeed

any absolute security in the policy of adultery after conception. For

the Matrix (which some have called another Animal within us, and which

is not subjected unto the law of our will) after reception of its proper

Tenant, may yet receive a strange and spurious inmate. As is confirmable

by many examples in _Pliny_; by _Larissæa_ in _Hippocrates_ and that

merry one in _Plautus_ urged also by _Aristotle_: that is, of _Iphicles_

and _Hercules_, the one begat by _Jupiter_, the other by _Amphitryon_

upon _Alemæna_ as also in those super-conceptions, where one child was

like the father, the other like the adulterer, the one favoured the

servant, the other resembled the master.

Now the grounds that begat, or much promoted the opinion of a double sex

in Hares, might be some little bags or tumours, at first glance

representing stones or Testicles, to be found in both sexes about the

parts of generation; which men observing in either sex, were induced to

believe a masculine sex in both. But to speak properly, these are no

Testicles or parts official unto generation, but glandulous substances

that seem to hold the nature of Emunctories. For herein may be perceived

slender perforations, at which may be expressed a black and fæculent

matter. If therefore from these we shall conceive a mixtion of sexes in

Hares, with fairer reason we may conclude it in Bevers; whereof both

sexes contain a double bag or Tumour in the groin, commonly called the

Cod of _Castor_, as we have delivered before.

Another ground were certain holes or cavities observable about the

siedge; which being perceived in Males, made some conceive there might

be also a fœminine nature in them. And upon this very ground, the

same opinion hath passed upon the Hyæna, and is declared by _Aristotle_,

and thus translated by _Scaliger_; _Quod autem aiunt utriusque sexus

habere genitalia, falsum est, quod videtur esse fœmineum sub cauda

est simile figura fœminino, verum pervium non est_; and thus is it

also in Hares, in whom these holes, although they seem to make a deep

cavity, yet do they not perforate the skin, nor hold a community with

any part of generation: but were (as _Pliny_ delivereth) esteemed the

marks of their age, the number of those deciding their number of years.

In which opinion what truth there is we shall not contend; for if in

other Animals there be authentick notations, if the characters of years

be found in the horns of Cows, or in the Antlers of Deer; if we

conjecture the age of Horses from joints in their docks, and undeniably

presume it from their teeth; we cannot affirm, there is in this conceit,

any affront unto nature; although who ever enquireth shall find no

assurance therein.

The last foundation was Retromingency or pissing backward; for men

observing both sexes to urine backward, or aversly between their legs,

they might conceive there was a fœminine part in both; wherein they

are deceived by the ignorance of the just and proper site of the Pizzel,

or part designed unto the Excretion of urine; which in the Hare holds

not the common position, but is aversly seated, and in its distention

enclines unto the Coccix or Scut. Now from the nature of this position,

there ensueth a necessity of Retrocopulation, which also promoteth the

conceit: for some observing them to couple without ascension, have not

been able to judge of male or female, or to determine the proper sex in

either. And to speak generally, this way of copulation is not

appropriate unto Hares, nor is there one, but many ways of coition:

according to divers shapes and different conformations. For some couple

laterally or sidewise, as Worms: some circularly or by complication, as

Serpents: some pronely, that is, by contaction of the ventral parts in

both, as Apes, Porcupines, Hedgehogs, and such as are termed Mollia, as

the Cuttle-fish and the Purple; some mixtly, that is, the male ascending

the female, or by application of the ventral parts of the one, unto the

postick parts of the other, as most Quadrupeds: Some aversly, as all

Crustaceous Animals, Lobsters, Shrimps, and Crevises, and also

Retromingents, as Panthers, Tygers, and Hares. This is the constant Law

of their Coition, this they observe and transgress not: onely the

vitiosity of man hath acted the varieties hereof; nor content with a

digression from sex or species, hath in his own kind run thorow the

Anomalies of venery; and been so bold, not only to act, but represent to

view, the irregular ways of Lust.

CHAPTER XVIII

Of Moles, or Molls.

That Moles are blind and have no eyes, though a common opinion, is

received with much variety; some affirming only they have no sight, as

_Oppianus_, the Proverb _Talpa Cæcior_, and the word σπαλαχία, or

_Talpitas_, which in _Hesychius_ is made the same with _Cæcitas_: some

that they have eyes, but no sight, as the text of _Aristotle_ seems to

imply; some neither eyes nor sight, as _Albertus_, _Pliny_, and the

vulgar opinion; some both eyes and sight, as _Scaliger_, _Aldrovandus_,

and some others. Of which opinions the last with some restriction, is

most consonant unto truth: for that they have eyes in their head is

manifest unto any, that wants them not in his own: and are discoverable,

not only in old ones, but as we have observed in young and naked

conceptions, taken out of the belly of the Dam. And he that exactly

enquires into the cavity of their cranies, may perhaps discover some

propagation of nerves communicated unto these parts. But that the

humours together with their coats are also distinct (though _Galen_ seem

to affirm it) transcendeth our discovery; for separating these little

Orbs, and including them in magnifying Glasses, we discerned no more

then _Aristotle_ mentions, τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν μέλαινα, that is, a black

humour, nor any more if they be broken. That therefore they have eyes we

must of necessity affirm; but that they be comparatively incomplete we

need not to deny: So _Galen_ affirms the parts of generation in women

are imperfect, in respect of those of men, as the eyes of Moles in

regard of other Animals; So _Aristotle_ terms them πηρουμένους, which

_Gaza_ translates _Oblæsos_, and _Scaliger_ by a word of imperfection

_inchoatos_.

Now as that they have eyes is manifest unto sense, so that they have

sight not incongruous unto reason; if we call not in question the

providence of this provision, that is, to assign the Organs, and yet

deny the Office, to grant them eyes and withhold all manner of vision.

For as the inference is fair, affirmatively deduced from the action to

the Organ, that they have eyes because they see; so is it also from the

organ to the action, that they have eyes, therefore some sight designed,

if we take the intention of Nature in every species, and except the

casual impediments, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are

more imperfect then others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of

vision, for they will run against things, and hudling forwards fall from

high places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there

is in them no Cecity, yet more then a Cecutiency; they have sight enough

to discern the light, though not perhaps to distinguish of objects or

colours; so are they not exactly blind, for light is one object of

vision. And this (as _Scaliger_ observeth) might be as full a sight as

Nature first intended, for living in darkness under the earth, they had

no further need of eyes then to avoid the light; and to be sensible when

ever they lost that darkness of earth, which was their natural

confinement. And therefore however Translators do render the word of

_Aristotle_ or _Galen_, that is, _imperfectos oblæsos_ or _inchoatos_,

it is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to

finish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect Vision.

And lastly, although they had neither eyes nor sight, yet could they not

be termed blind. For blindness being a privative term unto sight, this

appellation is not admittible in propriety of speech, and will overthrow

the doctrine of privations; which presuppose positive forms or habits,

and are not indefinite negations, denying in all subjects, but such

alone wherein the positive habits are in their proper Nature, and placed

without repugnancy. So do we improperly say a Mole is blind, if we deny

it the Organs or a capacity of vision from its created Nature; so when

the text of _John_ had said, that person was blind from his nativity,

whose cecity our Saviour cured, it was not warrantable in _Nonnus_ to

say he had no eyes at all, as in the judgment of _Heinsius_, he

describeth in his paraphrase; and as some ancient Fathers affirm, that

by this miracle they were created in him. And so though the sense may be

accepted, that Proverb must be candidly interpreted, which maketh fishes

Mute; and calls them silent which have no voice in Nature.

Now this conceit is erected upon a misapprehension or mistake in the

symtomes of vision; men confounding abolishment, diminution and

depravement, and naming that an abolition of sight, which indeed is but

an abatement. For if vision be abolished, it is called _cæcitas_, or

blindness; if depraved and receive its objects erroneously,

Hallucination; if diminished, _hebetudo visus_, _caligatio_, or dimness.

Now instead of a diminution or imperfect vision in the Mole, we affirm

an abolition or total privation; instead of a caligation or dimness, we

conclude a cecity or blindness. Which hath been frequently inferred

concerning other Animals; so some affirm the Water-Rat is blind, so

_Sammonicus_ and _Nicander_ do call the Mus-Araneus the shrew or Ranny,

blind: And because darkness was before light, the _Ægyptians_ worshipped

the same. So are _Cæciliæ_ or Slow-worms accounted blind, and the like

we affirm proverbially of the Beetle; although their eyes be evident,

and they will flye against lights, like many other Insects, and though

also _Aristotle_ determines, that the eyes are apparent in all flying

Insects, though other senses be obscure, and not perceptible at all. And

if from a diminution we may infer a total privation, or affirm that

other Animals are blind which do not acutely see, or comparatively unto

others, we shall condemn unto blindness many not so esteemed; for such

as have corneous or horney eyes, as Lobsters and crustaceous Animals,

are generally dim-sighted; all Insects that have _antennæ_, or long

horns to feel out their way, as Butterflyes and Locusts; or their

forelegs so disposed, that they much advance before their heads, as may

be observed in Spiders; and if the Eagle were judge, we might be blind

our selves. The expression therefore of Scripture in the story of

_Jacob_ is surely with circumspection: And it came to pass when _Jacob_

was old, and his eyes were dim, _quando caligarunt oculi_, saith

_Jerome_ and _Tremellius_, which are expressions of diminution, and not

of absolute privation.

Other concerns there are of Molls, which though not commonly opinioned

are not commonly enough considered: As the peculiar formation of their

feet, the slender _ossa Iugalia_, and Dogteeth, and how hard it is to

keep them alive out of the Earth: As also the ferity and voracity of

these animals; for though they be contented with Roots, and stringy

parts of Plants, or Wormes under ground, yet when they are above it will

sometimes tear and eat one another, and in a large glass wherein a Moll,

a Toad, and a Viper were inclosed, we have known the Moll to dispatch

them and to devour a good part of them both.

CHAPTER XIX

Of Lampries.

Whether Lampries have nine eyes, as is received, we durst refer it unto

_Polyphemus_, who had but one, to judge it. An error concerning eyes,

occasioned by the error of eyes; deduced from the appearance of diverse

cavities or holes on either side, which some call eyes that carelessly

behold them; and is not only refutable by experience, but also repugnant

unto Reason. For beside the monstrosity they fasten unto Nature, in

contriving many eyes, who hath made but two unto any Animal, that is,

one of each side, according to the division of the brain; it were a

superfluous inartificial act to place and settle so many in one plane;

for the two extreams would sufficiently perform the office of sight

without the help of the intermediate eyes, and behold as much as all

seven joyned together. For the visible base of the object would be

defined by these two; and the middle eyes, although they behold the same

thing, yet could they not behold so much thereof as these; so were it no

advantage unto man to have a third eye between those two he hath

already; and the fiction of _Argus_ seems more reasonable then this; for

though he had many eyes, yet were they placed in circumference and

positions of advantage, and so are they placed in several lines in

Spiders.

Again, These cavities which men call eyes are seated out of the head,

and where the Gils of other fish are placed; containing no Organs of

sight, nor having any Communication with the brain. [SN: _All

sense is from the brain._] Now all sense proceeding from the brain, and

that being placed (as _Galen_ observeth) in the upper part of the body,

for the fitter situation of the eyes, and conveniency required unto

sight; it is not reasonable to imagine that they are any where else, or

deserve that name which are seated in other parts. And therefore we

relinquish as fabulous what is delivered of _Sternopthalmi_, or men with

eyes in their breast, and when it is said by _Solomon_, A wise mans eyes

are in his head, it is to be taken in a second sense, and affordeth no

objection. True it is that the eyes of Animals are seated with some

difference, but in sanguineous animals in the head, and that more

forward then the ear or hole of hearing. In quadrupedes, in regard of

the figure of their heads, they are placed at some distance; in

latirostrous and flat-bill'd birds they are more laterally seated, and

therefore when they look intently they turn one eye upon the object, and

can convert their heads to see before and behind, and to behold two

opposite points at once. But at a more easie distance are they situated

in man, and in the same circumference with the ear; for if one foot of

the compass be placed upon the Crown, a circle described thereby will

intersect, or pass over both the ears.

[Sidenote: _To what use the nine eyes in a Lamprie do serve._]

The error in this conceit consists in the ignorance of these cavities,

and their proper use in nature; for this is a particular disposure of

parts, and a peculiar conformation whereby these holes and sluces supply

the defect of Gils, and are assisted by the conduit in the head; for

like cetaceous Animals and Whales, the Lamprie hath a fistula, spout or

pipe at the back part of the head, whereat it spurts out water. Nor is

it only singular in this formation, but also in many other; as in defect

of bones, whereof it hath not one; and for the spine or backbone, a

cartilaginous substance without any spondyles, processes or protuberance

whatsoever. As also in the provision which Nature hath made for the

heart; which in this Animal is very strangely secured, and lies immured

in a cartilage or gristly substance. And lastly, in the colour of the

liver: which is in the Male of an excellent grass-green: but of a deeper

colour in the Female, and will communicate a fresh and durable verdure.

CHAPTER XX

Of Snayls.

Whether _Snayls_ have eyes some Learned men have doubted. For _Scaliger_

terms them but imitations of eyes; and _Aristotle_ upon consequence

denyeth them, when he affirms that _Testaceous_ Animals have no eyes.

But this now seems sufficiently asserted by the help of exquisite

Glasses, which discover those black and atramentous spots or globales to

be their eyes.

That they have two eyes is the common opinion, but if they have two

eyes, we may grant them to have no less than four, that is, two in the

larger extensions above, and two in the shorter and lesser horns below,

and this number may be allowed in these inferiour and exanguious

animals; since we may observe the articulate and latticed eyes in Flies,

and nine in some Spiders: And in the great _Phalangium_ Spider of

_America_, we plainly number eight.

But in sanguineous animals, quadrupeds, bipeds, or man, no such number

can be regularly verified, or multiplicity of eyes confirmed. And

therefore what hath been under this kind delivered, concerning the

plurality, paucity or anomalous situation of eyes, is either monstrous,

fabulous, or under things never seen includes good sense or meaning. And

so may we receive the figment of _Argus_, who was an Hieroglyphick of

heaven, in those centuries of eyes expressing the stars; and their

alternate wakings, the vicissitude of day and night. Which strictly

taken cannot be admitted; for the subject of sleep is not the eye, but

the common sense, which once asleep, all eyes must be at rest. And

therefore what is delivered as an Embleme of vigilancy, that the Hare

and Lion do sleep with one eye open, doth not evince they are any more

awake then if they were both closed. For the open eye beholds in sleep

no more then that which is closed; and no more one eye in them then two

in other Animals that sleep with both open; as some by disease, and

others naturally which have no eye-lids at all.

[Sidenote: _How things happen to be seen as double._]

As for Polyphemus, although the story be fabulous, the monstrosity is

not impossible. For the act of Vision may be performed with one eye; and

in the deception and fallacy of sight, hath this advantage of two, that

it beholds not objects double, or sees two things for one. For this doth

happen when the axis of the visive cones, diffused from the object, fall

not upon the same plane; but that which is conveyed into one eye, is

more depressed or elevated then that which enters the other. So if

beholding a Candle, we protrude either upward or downward the pupill of

one eye, the object will appear double; but if we shut the other eye,

and behold it with one, it will their appear but single; and if we

abduce the eye unto either corner, the object will not duplicate: for in

that position the axis of the cones remain in the same plane, as is

demonstrated in the opticks, and delivered by _Galen_, in his tenth _De

usu partium_.

Relations also there are of men that could make themselves invisible,

which belongs not to this discourse: but may serve as notable

expressions of wise and prudent men, who so contrive their affairs, that

although their actions be manifest, their designs are not discoverable.

In this acception there is nothing left of doubt, and _Giges_ Ring

remaineth still amongst us: for vulgar eyes behold no more of wise men

then doth the Sun: they may discover their exteriour and outward ways,

but their interiour and inward pieces he only sees, that sees into their

beings.

CHAPTER XXI

Of the Chameleon.

Concerning the _Chameleon_ there generally passeth an opinion that it

liveth only upon air, and is sustained by no other aliment: Thus much is

in plain terms affirmed by _Solinus_, _Pliny_, and others, and by this

periphrasis is the same described by _Ovid_. All which notwithstanding,

upon enquiry I find the assertion mainly controvertible, and very much

to fail in the three inducements of belief.

And first for its verity, although asserted by some, and traditionally

delivered by others, yet is it very questionable. For beside _Ælian_,

who is seldom defective in these accounts; _Aristotle_ distinctly

treating hereof, hath made no mention of this remarkable propriety:

which either suspecting its verity, or presuming its falsity, he surely

omitted: for that he remained ignorant of this account it is not easily

conceiveable: it being the common opinion, and generally received by all

men. Some have positively denied it, as _Augustinus_, _Niphus_,

_Stobæus_, _Dalechampius_, _Fortunius Licetus_, with many more; others

have experimentally refuted it, as namely _Johannes Landius_, who in the

relation of _Scaliger_, observed a _Chameleon_ to lick up a fly from his

breast: But _Bellonius_ [SN: _Comment. in Ocell._ Lucan.] hath

been more satisfactorily experimental, not only affirming they feed on

Flies, Caterpillars, Beetles and other Insects, but upon exenteration he

found these Animals in their bellies: whereto we might also add the

experimental decisions of the worthy _Peireschius_ and learned _Emanuel

Vizzanius_, in that _Chameleon_ which had been often observed to drink

water, and delight to feed on Meal-worms. And although we have not had

the advantage of our own observation, yet have we received the like

confirmation from many ocular spectators.

As touching the verisimility or probable truth of this relation, several

reasons there are which seem to overthrow it. For first, there are found

in this Animal, the guts, the stomack, and other parts official unto

nutrition; which were its aliment the empty reception of air, their

provisions had been superfluous. Now the wisdom of nature abhorring

superfluities, and effecting nothing in vain, unto the intention of

these operations, respectively contriveth the Organs; and therefore

where we find such Instruments, we may with strictness expect their

actions; and where we discover them not, we may with safety conclude the

non-intention of their operations. So when we perceive that Bats have

teats, it is not unreasonable to infer they suckle their younglings with

milk; but whereas no other flying Animal hath these parts, we cannot

from them expect a viviparous exclusion; but either a generation of

eggs, or some vermiparous separation, whose navel is within it self at

first, and its nutrition after not connexedly depending of its original.

Again, Nature is so far from leaving any one part without its proper

action, that she oft-times imposeth two or three labours upon one, so

the Pizel in Animals is both official unto Urine and to generation, but

the first and primary use is generation; for some creatures enjoy that

part which urine not. So the nostrils are useful both for respiration

and smelling, but the principal use is smelling; for many have nostrils

which have no lungs, as fishes, but none have lungs or respiration,

which have not some shew, or some analogy of nostrils. [SN: _Nature

provides no part without its proper function or office._] Thus we

perceive the providence of Nature, that is, the wisdom of God, which

disposeth of no part in vain, and some parts unto two or three uses,

will not provide any without the execution of its proper office, nor

where there is no digestion to be made, make any parts inservient to

that intention.

Beside the remarkable teeth, the tongue of this animal is a second

argument to overthrow this airy nutrication: and that not only in its

proper nature, but also its peculiar figure. For of this part properly

taken there are two ends; that is, the formation of the voice, and the

execution of tast; for the voice, it can have no office in _Chameleons_,

for they are mute Animals; as beside fishes, are most other sorts of

Lizards. As for their tast, if their nutriment be air, neither can it be

an Instrument thereof; for the body of that element is ingustible, void

of all sapidity, and without any action of the tongue, is by the rough

artery or wezon conducted into the lungs. And therefore _Pliny_ much

forgets the strictness of his assertion, when he alloweth excrements

unto that Animal, that feedeth only upon Air; which notwithstanding with

the urine of an Ass, he commends as a magicall Medicine upon our

enemies.

The figure of the tongue seems also to overthrow the presumption of this

aliment, which according to exact delineation, is in this Animal

peculiar, and seemeth contrived for prey. For in so little a creature it

is at the least a palm long, and being it self very slow in motion, hath

in this part a very great agility; withall its food being flies and such

as suddenly escape, it hath in the tongue a mucous and slimy extremity,

whereby upon a sudden emission it inviscates and tangleth those Insects.

And therefore some have thought its name not unsuitable unto its nature;

the nomination in Greek is a little Lion [SN: χαιμαιλέων.]; not so much

for the resemblance of shape, as affinity of condition; that is for

vigilancy in its prey, and sudden rapacity thereof, which it performeth

not like the Lion with its teeth, but a sudden and unexpected

ejaculation of the tongue. This exposition is favoured by some,

especially the old gloss upon _Leviticus_, whereby in the Translation of

_Jerome_ and the Septuagint, this Animal is forbidden; what ever it be,

it seems as reasonable as that of _Isidore_, who derives this name _à

Camelo et Leone_, as presuming herein resemblance with a Camell.

As for the possibility hereof, it is not also unquestionable; and wise

men are of opinion, the bodies of Animals cannot receive a proper

aliment from air; for beside that tast being (as _Aristotle_ terms it) a

kind of touch; it is required the aliment should be tangible, and fall

under the palpable affections of touch; beside also that there is some

sapor in all aliments, as being to be distinguished and judged by the

gust; which cannot be admitted in air: Beside these, I say, if we

consider the nature of aliment, and the proper use of air in

respiration, it will very hardly fall under the name hereof, or properly

attain the act of nutrication.

[Sidenote: _Requisites unto Nutrition._]

And first concerning its nature, to make a perfect nutrition into the

body nourished, there is required a transmutation of the nutriment, now

where this conversion or aggeneration is made, there is also required in

the aliment a familiarity of matter, and such a community or vicinity

unto a living nature, as by one act of the soul may be converted into

the body of the living, and enjoy one common soul. Which cannot be

effected by air, it concurring only with our flesh in common principles,

which are at the largest distance from life, and common also unto

inanimated constitutions. And therefore when it is said by _Fernelius_,

and asserted by divers others, that we are only nourished by living

bodies, and such as are some way proceeding from them, that is, the

fruits, effects, parts, or seeds thereof; they have laid out an object

very agreeable unto assimulation; for these indeed are fit to receive a

quick and immediate conversion, as holding some community with our

selves, and containing approximate dispositions unto animation.

Secondly, (as is argued by _Aristotle_ against the _Pythagoreans_)

whatsoever properly nourisheth before its assimulation, by the action of

natural heat it receiveth a corpulency or incrassation progressional

unto its conversion; which notwithstanding cannot be effected upon air;

for the action of heat doth not condense but rarifie that body, and by

attenuation, rather then for nutrition, disposeth it for expulsion.

Thirdly, (which is the argument of _Hippocrates_) all aliment received

into the body, must be therein a considerable space retained, and not

immediately expelled. Now air but momentally remaining in our bodies, it

hath no proportionable space for its conversion; only of length enough

to refrigerate the heart; which having once performed, lest being it

self heated again, it should suffocate that part, it maketh no stay, but

hasteth back the same way it passed in.

Fourthly, The use of air attracted by the lungs, and without which there

is no durable continuation in life, is not the nutrition of parts, but

the contemperation and ventilation of that fire always maintained in the

forge of life; whereby although in some manner it concurreth unto

nutrition, yet can it not receive the proper name of nutriment. And

therefore by _Hippocrates_[SN: De Alimento.] it is termed _Alimentum

non Alimentum_, a nourishment and no nourishment. That is, in a large

acception, but not in propriety of language; conserving the body, not

nourishing the same; nor repairing it by assimulation, but preserving it

by ventilation; for thereby the natural flame is preserved from

extinction, and so the individuum supported in some way like nutrition.

And though the air so entreth the Lungs, that by its nitrous Spirit doth

affect the heart, and several ways qualifie the blood; and though it be

also admitted into other parts, even by the meat we chew, yet that it

affordeth a proper nutriment alone, it is not easily made out.

Again, Some are so far from affirming the air to afford any nutriment,

that they plainly deny it to be any Element, or that it entreth into

mixt bodies as any principle in their compositions, but performeth other

offices in the Universe; as to fill all vacuities about the earth or

beneath it, to convey the heat of the sun, to maintain fires and flames,

to serve for the flight of volatils, respiration of breathing Animals,

and refrigeration of others. And although we receive it as an Element,

yet since the transmutation of Elements and simple bodies, is not beyond

great question, since also it is no easie matter to demonstrate that air

is so much as convertible into water [SN: _Wherein Vapour is commonly

mistaken for air._]; how transmutable it is into flesh, may be of deeper

doubt.

And although the air attracted may be conceived to nourish the invisible

flame of life, in as much as common and culinary flames are nourished by

the air about them; we make some doubt whether air is the pabulous

supply of fire, much less that flame is properly air kindled. And the

same before us, hath been denied by the Lord of _Verulam_, in his Tract

of Life and Death, and also by Dr. _Jorden_ in his book of Mineral

waters. [SN: _What the matter of Culinary or Kitchin fire is._] For that

which substantially maintaineth the fire, is the combustible matter in

the kindled body, and not the ambient air, which affordeth exhalation to

its fuliginous atomes; nor that which causeth the flame properly to be

termed air, but rather as he expresseth it, the accension of fuliginous

exhalations, which contain an unctuosity in them, and arise from the

matter of fuel, which opinion will salve many doubts, whereof the common

conceit affordeth no solution.

As first, How fire is stricken out of flints? that is, not by kindling

the air from the collision of two hard bodies; for then Diamonds should

do the like better than Flints: but rather from sulphureous inflamed and

even vitrified effluviums and particles, as hath been observed of late.

The like saith _Jorden_ we observe in canes and woods, that are unctuous

and full of oyl, which will yield fire by frication, or collision, not

by kindling the air about them, but the inflamable oyl within them. [SN:

_Why fire goes out commonly wanting air, and why sometimes continued

many ages in flame without fuel._] Why the fire goes out without air?

that is, because the fuliginous exhalations wanting evaporation recoil

upon the flame and choak it, as is evident in cupping glasses; and the

artifice of charcoals, where if the air be altogether excluded, the fire

goes out. Why some lamps included in those bodies have burned many

hundred years, as that discovered in the Sepulchre of _Tullia_, the

sister of _Cicero_, and that of _Olibius_ many years after, near

_Padua_? because whatever was their matter, either a preparation of

gold, or _Naptha_, the duration proceeded from the purity of their oyl

which yielded no fuliginous exhalations to suffocate the fire; For if

air had nourished the flame, it had not continued many minutes, for it

would have been spent and wasted by the fire. Why a piece of flax will

kindle, though it touch not the flame? because the fire extendeth

further, then indeed it is visible, being at some distance from the

week, a pellucide and transparent body, and thinner then the air it

self. Why Mettals in their liquation, although they intensly heat the

air above their surface, arise not yet into a flame, nor kindle the air

about them? because their sulphur is more fixed, and they emit not

inflamable exhalations. And lastly, why a lamp or candle burneth only in

the air about it, and inflameth not the air at a distance from it?

because the flame extendeth not beyond the inflamable effluence, but

closely adheres unto the original of its inflamation; and therefore it

only warmeth, not kindleth the air about it. Which notwithstanding it

will do, if the ambient air be impregnate with subtile inflamabilities,

and such as are of quick accension; as experiment is made in a close

room; upon an evaporation of spirits of wine and Camphire; as

subterraneous fires do sometimes happen, and as _Creusa_ and

_Alexanders_ boy in the bath were set on fire by _Naptha_.

Lastly, The Element of air is so far from nourishing the body, that some

have questioned the power of water; many conceiving it enters not the

body in the power of aliment, or that from thence there proceeds a

substantial supply. For beside that some creatures drink not at all;

Even unto our selves, and more perfect Animals, though many ways

assistent thereto, it performs no substantial nutrition, serving for

refrigeration, dilution of solid aliment, and its elixation in the

stomack; which from thence as a vehicle it conveys through less

accessible cavities, and so in a rorid substance through the capillary

cavities, into every part; which having performed, it is afterward

excluded by Urine, sweat and serous separations. And this opinion surely

possessed the Ancients; for when they so highly commended that water

which is suddenly hot and cold, which is without all savour, the

lightest, the thinnest, and which will soonest boil Beans or Pease, they

had no consideration of nutrition; whereunto had they had respect, they

would have surely commended gross and turbid streams, in whose confusion

at least, there might be contained some nutriment; and not jejune or

limped water, nearer the simplicity of its Element. Although, I confess,

our clearest waters and such as seem simple unto sense, are much

compounded unto reason, as may be observed in the evaporation of large

quantities of water; wherein beside a terreous residence some salt is

also found, as is also observable in rain water; which appearing pure

and empty, is full of seminal principles, and carrieth vital atomes of

plants and Animals in it, which have not perished in the great

circulation of nature; as may be discovered from several Insects

generated in rain water, from the prevalent fructification of plants

thereby; and (beside the real plant of _Cornerius_ [SN: _A seed of

plants and animals contained in rain-water._ Zibavius, _tom. 4_. Chym.])

from vegetable figurations, upon the sides of glasses, so rarely

delineated in frosts.

All which considered, severer heads will be apt enough to conceive the

opinion of this Animal, not much unlike that of the Astomi, or men

without mouths, in _Pliny_; sutable unto the relation of the Mares in

_Spain_, and their subventaneous conceptions, from the Western wind; and

in some way more unreasonable then the figment of _Rabican_ the famous

horse in _Ariosto_, which being conceived by flame and wind, never

tasted grass, or fed on any grosser provender then air; for this way of

nutrition was answerable unto the principles of his generation. Which

being not airy, but gross and seminal in the _Chameleon_; unto its

conservation there is required a solid pasture, and a food congenerous

unto the principles of its nature.

The grounds of this opinion are many; the first observed by

_Theophrastus_, was the inflation or swelling of the body, made in this

Animal upon inspiration or drawing in its breath; which people

observing, have thought it to feed upon air. But this effect is rather

occasioned upon the greatness of its lungs, which in this Animal are

very large, and by their backward situation, afford a more observable

dilation; and though their lungs be less, the like inflation is also

observable in Toads, but especially in Sentortoises.

A second is the continual hiation or holding open its mouth, which men

observing, conceive the intention thereof to receive the aliment of air;

but this is also occasioned by the greatness of its lungs; for repletion

whereof not having a sufficient or ready supply by its nostrils; it is

enforced to dilate and hold open the jaws.

The third is the paucity of blood observed in this Animal, scarce at all

to be found but in the eye, and about the heart; which defect being

observed, inclined some into thoughts, that the air was a sufficient

maintenance for these exanguious parts. But this defect or rather

paucity of blood, is also agreeable unto many other Animals, whose solid

nutriment we do not controvert; as may be observed in other sorts of

Lizards, in Frogs and divers Fishes; and therefore an Horse-leech will

not readily fasten upon every fish; and we do not read of much blood

that was drawn from Frogs by Mice, in that famous battel of _Homer_.

The last and most common ground which begat or promoted this opinion, is

the long continuation hereof without any visible food, which some

observing, precipitously conclude they eat not at all. It cannot be

denied it is (if not the most of any) a very abstemious Animal, and such

as by reason of its frigidity, paucity of blood, and latitancy in the

winter (about which time the observations are often made) will long

subsist without a visible sustentation. But a like condition may be also

observed in many other Animals; for Lizards and Leeches, as we have made

trial, will live some months without sustenance; and we have included

Snails in glasses all winter, which have returned to feed again in the

spring. Now these notwithstanding, are not conceived to pass all their

lives without food; for so to argue is fallacious, and is moreover

sufficiently convicted by experience. And therefore probably other

relations are of the same verity, which are of the like affinity; as is

the conceit of the _Rhintace_ in _Persia_, the _Canis Levis_ of

_America_, and the _Manucodiata_ or bird of Paradise in _India_.

To assign a reason of this abstinence in Animals, or declare how without

a supply there ensueth no destructive exhaustion, exceedeth the limits

and intention of my discourse. _Fortunius Licetus_ in his excellent

Tract, _de his qui diu vivunt sine alimento_, hath very ingeniously

attempted it; deducing the cause hereof from an equal conformity of

natural heat and moisture, at least no considerable exuperancy in

either; which concurring in an unactive proportion, the natural heat

consumeth not the moisture (whereby ensueth no exhaustion) and the

condition of natural moisture is able to resist the slender action of

heat (whereby it needeth no reparation) and this is evident in Snakes,

Lizards, Snails, and divers Insects latitant many months in the year;

which being cold creatures, containing a weak heat in a crass or copious

humidity, do long subsist without nutrition. For the activity of the

agent, being not able to overmaster the resistance of the patient, there

will ensue no deperdition. And upon the like grounds it is, that cold

and phlegmatick bodies, and (as _Hippocrates_ determineth) that old men

will best endure fasting. Now the same harmony and stationary

constitution, as it happeneth in many species, so doth it fall out

sometime in Individuals. For we read of many who have lived long without

aliment; and beside deceits and impostures, there may be veritable

Relations of some, who without a miracle, and by peculiarity of temper,

have far out fasted _Elias_. Which notwithstanding doth not take off the

miracle; for that may be miraculously effected in one, which is

naturally causable in another. Some naturally living unto an hundred;

unto which age, others notwithstanding could not attain without a

miracle.

CHAPTER XXII

Of the Ostrich.

The common opinion of the _Ostrich_, _Struthiocamelus_ or

_Sparrow-Camel_ conceives that it digesteth Iron; and this is confirmed

by the affirmations of many; beside swarms of others, _Rhodiginus_ in

his prelections taketh it for granted, _Johannes Langius_ in his

Epistles pleadeth experiment for it; the common picture also confirmeth

it, which usually describeth this Animal with an horshoe in its mouth.

Notwithstanding upon enquiry we find it very questionable, and the

negative seems most reasonably entertained; whose verity indeed we do

the rather desire, because hereby we shall relieve our ignorance of one

occult quality; for in the list thereof it is accounted, and in that

notion imperiously obtruded upon us. For my part, although I have had

the sight of this Animal, I have not had the opportunity of its

experiment, but have received great occasion of doubt, from learned

discourses thereon.

For _Aristotle_ and _Oppianus_ who have particularly treated hereof are

silent in this singularity; either omitting it as dubious, or as the

Comment saith, rejecting it as fabulous. _Pliny_ speaketh generally,

affirming only, the digestion is wonderful in this Animal; _Ælian_

delivereth, that it digesteth stones without any mention of Iron; _Leo

Africanus_, who lived in those Countries wherein they most abound,

speaketh diminutively, and but half way into this assertion: _Surdum ac

simplex animal est, quicquid invenit, absque delectu, usque ad ferrum

devorat_: _Fernelius_ in his second _De abditis rerum causis_,

extenuates it, and _Riolanus_ in his Comment thereof positively denies

it. Some have experimentally refuted it, as _Albertus Magnus_; and most

plainly _Ulysses Aldrovandus_, whose words are these: _Ego ferri frusta

devorare, dum Tridenti essem, observavi, sed quæ incocta rursus

excerneret_, that is, at my being at Trent, I observed the _Ostrich_ to

swallow Iron, but yet to exclude it undigested again.

Now beside experiment, it is in vain to attempt against it by

Philosophical argument, it being an occult quality, which contemns the

law of Reason, and defends it self by admitting no reason at all. [SN:

_How_ (_possibly_) _the stomack of the_ Ostrich _may alter Iron_.] As

for its possibility we shall not at present dispute; nor will we affirm

that Iron ingested, receiveth in the stomack of the _Ostrich_ no

alteration at all; but if any such there be, we suspect this effect

rather from some way of corrosion, then any of digestion; not any liquid

reduction or tendance to chilification by the power of natural heat, but

rather some attrition from an acide and vitriolous humidity in the

stomack, which may absterse and shave the scorious parts thereof. So

rusty Iron crammed down the throat of a Cock, will become terse and

clear again in its gizzard: So the Counter which according to the

relation of _Amatus_ remained a whole year in the body of a youth, and

came out much consumed at last; might suffer this diminution, rather

from sharp and acide humours, then the strength of natural heat, as he

supposeth. So silver swallowed and retained some time in the body, will

turn black, as if it had been dipped in _Aqua fortis_, or some corrosive

water, but Lead will remain unaltered; for that mettal containeth in it

a sweet salt or sugar, whereby it resisteth ordinary corrosion, and will

not easily dissolve even in _Aqua fortis_. So when for medical uses, we

take down the filings of Iron or Steel, we must not conceive it passeth

unaltered from us; for though the grosser parts be excluded again, yet

are the dissoluble parts extracted, whereby it becomes effectual in

deopilations; and therefore for speedier operation we make extinctions,

infusions, and the like, whereby we extract the salt and active parts of

the Medicine; which being in solution, more easily enter the veins. [SN:

_What the Chymists would have by their_ Aurum Potabile.] And this is

that the Chymists mainly drive at in the attempt of their _Aurum

Potabile_; that is, to reduce that indigestible substance into such a

form as may not be ejected by siege, but enter the cavities, and less

accessible parts of the body, without corrosion.

The ground of this conceit is its swallowing down fragments of Iron,

which men observing, by a froward illation, have therefore conceived it

digesteth them; which is an inference not to be admitted, as being a

fallacy of the consequent, that is, concluding a position of the

consequent, from the position of the antecedent. For many things are

swallowed by Animals, rather for condiment, gust or medicament, then any

substantial nutriment. So Poultrey, and especially the Turkey, do of

themselves take down stones; and we have found at one time in the

gizzard of a Turkey no less then seven hundred. Now these rather concur

unto digestion, then are themselves digested; for we have found them

also in the guts and excrements; but their descent is very slow, for we

have given them stones and small pieces of Iron, which eighteen days

after we have found remaining in the gizzard. And therefore the

experiment of _Langius_ and others might be fallible, whilst after the

taking they expected it should come down within a day or two after. [SN:

_How Cherry-stones may be thought to prevent surfets upon eating

Cherries._] Thus also we swallow Cherry-stones, but void them

unconcocted, and we usually say they preserve us from surfet; for being

hard bodies they conceive a strong and durable heat in the stomack, and

so prevent the crudities of their fruit: And upon the like reason do

culinary operators observe, that flesh boiles best, when the bones are

boiled with it. Thus dogs will eat grass, which they digest not: Thus

Camels to make the water sapid, do raise the mud with their feet: Thus

horses will knable at walls, Pigeons delight in salt stones. Rats will

gnaw iron, and _Aristotle_ saith the Elephant swalloweth stones. And

thus may also the _Ostrich_ swallow Iron; not as his proper aliment, but

for the ends above expressed, and even as we observe the like in other

Animals.

And whether these fragments of Iron and hard substances swallowed by the

_Ostrich_, have not also that use in their stomacks, which they have in

other birds; that is, in some way to supply the use of teeth, by

commolition, grinding and compression of their proper aliment, upon the

action of the strongly conformed muscles of the stomack; as the honor'd

Dr. _Harvey_ discourseth, may also be considered.

What effect therefore may be expected from the stomack of an _Ostrich_

by application alone to further digestion in ours, beside the

experimental refute of _Galen_, we refer it unto considerations above

alledged; Or whether there be any more credit to be given unto the

Medicine of _Ælian_, who affirms the stones they swallow have a peculiar

vertue for the eyes, then that of _Hermolaus_ and _Pliny_ drawn from the

urine of this Animal; let them determine who can swallow so strange a

transmission of qualities, or believe that any Bird or flying Animal

doth separately and distinctly urine beside the Bat.

That therefore an _Ostrich_ will swallow and take down Iron, is easily

to be granted: that oftimes it pass entire away, if we admit of ocular

testimony not to be denied. And though some experiment may also plead,

that sometimes they are so altered, as not to be found or excluded in

any discernable parcels: yet whether this be not effected by some way of

corrosion, from sharp and dissolving humidities, rather then any proper

digestion, chilifactive mutation, or alimental conversion, is with good

reason doubted.

CHAPTER XXIII

Of Unicorns Horn.

Great account and much profit is made of _Unicorns horn_, at least of

that which beareth the name thereof; wherein notwithstanding, many I

perceive suspect an Imposture, and some conceive there is no such Animal

extant. Herein therefore to draw up our determinations; beside the

several places of Scripture mentioning this Animal (which some may well

contend to be only meant of the Rhinoceros [SN: _Some doubt to be made

what_ ראם _signifieth in Scripture_.]) we are so far from denying there

is any _Unicorn_ at all, that we affirm there are many kinds thereof. In

the number of Quadrupedes, we will concede no less then five; that is,

the _Indian_ Ox, the _Indian_ Ass, the Rhinoceros, the Oryx, and that

which is more eminently termed _Monoceros_, or _Unicornis_. Some of the

list of fishes; as that described by _Olaus_, _Albertus_ and others: and

some Unicorns we will allow even among Insects; as those four kinds of

nasicornous Beetles described by _Muffetus_.

Secondly, Although we concede there may be many _Unicorns_, yet are we

still to seek; for whereunto to affix this Horn in question, or to

determine from which thereof we receive this magnified Medicine, we have

no assurance, or any satisfactory decision. For although we single out

one, and eminently thereto assign the name of the _Unicorn_; yet can we

not be secure what creature is meant thereby; what constant shape it

holdeth, or in what number to be received. For as far as our endeavours

discover, this animal is not uniformly described, but differently set

forth by those that undertake it. [SN: _The Unicorn, how variously

reported by Authors._] _Pliny_ affirmeth it is a fierce and terrible

creature; _Vartomannus_ a tame and mansuete Animal: those which _Garcias

ab Horto_ described about the cape of good hope, were beheld with heads

like horses; those which _Vartomannus_ beheld, he described with the

head of a Deer; _Pliny_, _Ælian_, _Solinus_, and after these from ocular

assurance, _Paulus Venetus_ affirmeth, the feet of the _Unicorn_ are

undivided, and like the Elephants: But those two which _Vartomannus_

beheld at _Mecha_, were as he describeth, footed like a Goat. As _Ælian_

describeth, it is in the bigness of an Horse, as _Vartomannus_, of a

Colt; that which _Thevet_ speaketh of was not so big as an Heifer; but

_Paulus Venetus_ affirmeth, they are but little less then Elephants.

Which are discriminations very material, and plainly declare, that under

the same name Authors describe not the same Animal: so that the

_Unicorns_ Horn of one, is not that of another, although we proclaim an

equal vertue in all.

Thirdly, Although we were agreed what Animal this was, or differed not

in its description, yet would this also afford but little satisfaction;

for the Horn we commonly extol, is not the same with that of the

Ancients. For that in the description of _Ælian_ and _Pliny_ was black:

this which is shewed amongst us is commonly white, none black; and of

those five which _Scaliger_ beheld, though one spadiceous, or of a light

red, and two enclining to red, yet was there not any of this complexion

among them.

Fourthly, What Horns soever they be which pass amongst us, they are not

surely the Horns of any one kind of Animal, but must proceed from

several sorts of _Unicorns_. For some are wreathed, some not: That

famous one which is preserved at St. _Dennis_ near _Paris_, hath wreathy

spires, and chocleary turnings about it, which agreeth with the

description of the _Unicorns_ Horn in _Ælian_. Those two in the treasure

of St. _Mark_ are plain, and best accord with those of the _Indian_ Ass,

or the descriptions of other _Unicorns_: That in the Repository of the

electour of Saxone is plain and not hollow, and is believed to be a true

Land _Unicorns_ Horn. _Albertus Magnus_ describeth one ten foot long,

and at the base about thirteen inches compass: And that of _Antwerp_

which _Goropius Becanus_ describeth, is not much inferiour unto it;

which best agree unto the descriptions of the _Sea-Unicorns_; for these,

as _Olaus_ affirmeth, are of that strength and bigness, as able to

penetrate the ribs of ships. The same is more probable, because it was

brought from Island, from whence, as _Becanus_ affirmeth, three other

were brought in his days: And we have heard of some which have been

found by the Sea-side, and brought unto us from _America_. So that while

we commend the _Unicorns_ Horn, and conceive it peculiar but unto one

animal; under apprehension of the same vertue, we use very many; and

commend that effect from all, which every one confineth unto some one he

hath either seen or described.

Fifthly, Although there be many _Unicorns_, and consequently many Horns,

yet many there are which bear that name, and currantly pass among us,

which are no Horns at all. Such are those fragments and pieces of _Lapis

Ceratites_, commonly termed _Cornu fossile_, whereof _Bœtius_ had no

less than twenty several sorts presented him for _Unicorns_ Horn. Hereof

in subterraneous cavities, and under the earth there are many to be

found in several parts of _Germany_; which are but the lapidescencies

and petrifactive mutations of hard bodies; sometimes of Horn, of teeth,

of bones, and branches of trees, whereof there are some so imperfectly

converted, as to retain the odor and qualities of their originals; as he

relateth of pieces of Ash and Walnut. Again, in most, if not all which

pass amongst us, and are extolled for precious Horns, we discover not an

affection common unto other Horns; that is, they mollifie not with fire,

they soften not upon decoction or infusion, nor will they afford a

jelly, or mucilaginous concretion in either; which notwithstanding we

may effect in Goats horns, Sheeps, Cows and Harts-horn, in the Horn of

the _Rhinoceros_, the horn of the Pristis or Sword fish. Nor do they

become friable or easily powderable by Philosophical calcination, that

is, from the vapor or steam of water, but split and rift contrary to

others horns. [SN: Unicorns _Horn commonly used in_ England, _what it

is_.] Briefly, many of those commonly received, and whereof there be so

many fragments preserved in _England_, are not only no Horn, but a

substance harder then a bone, that is, parts of the tooth of a Morse or

Sea-horse; in the midst of the solider part contained a curdled grain,

which is not to be found in Ivory. This in Northern Regions is of

frequent use for hafts of knives or hilts of swords, and being burnt

becomes a good remedy for fluxes: but Antidotally used, and exposed for

_Unicorns_ Horn, it is an insufferable delusion; and with more veniable

deceit, it might have been practised in Harts-horn.

The like deceit may be practised in the teeth of other Sea-animals; in

the teeth also of the _Hippopotamus_, or great Animal which frequenteth

the River _Nilus_: For we read that the same was anciently used instead

of Ivory or Elephants tooth. Nor is it to be omitted, what hath been

formerly suspected, but now confirmed by _Olaus Wormius_, and _Thomas

Bartholinus_ and others, that those long Horns preserved as pretious

rarities in many places, are but the teeth of Narhwales, to be found

about Island, Greenland and other Northern regions; of many feet long,

commonly wreathed, very deeply fastned in the upper jaw, and standing

directly forward, graphically described in _Bartholinus_[SN: De

Unicornu.], according unto one sent from a Bishop of Island, not

separated from the crany. Hereof _Mercator_ hath taken notice in his

description of Island: some relations hereof there seem to be in

_Purchas_, who also delivereth that the Horn at _Windsor_, was in his

second voyage brought hither by _Frobisher_. These before the Northern

discoveries, as unknown rarities, were carried by Merchants into all

parts of _Europe_; and though found on the Sea-shore, were sold at very

high rates; but are now become more common, and probably in time will

prove of little esteem; and the bargain of _Julius_ the third, be

accounted a very hard one, who stuck not to give many thousand crowns

for one.

Nor is it great wonder we may be so deceived in this, being daily gulled

in the brother Antidote Bezoar; whereof though many be false, yet one

there passeth amongst us of more intollerable delusion; somewhat paler

then the true stone, and given by women in the extremity of great

diseases, which notwithstanding is no stone, but seems to be the stony

seed of some Lithospermum or greater Grumwell; or the Lobus Echinatus of

_Clusius_, called also the Bezoar Nut; for being broken, it discovereth

a kernel of a leguminous smell and tast, bitter like a Lupine, and will

swell and sprout if set in the ground, and therefore more serviceable

for issues, then dangerous and virulent diseases.

Sixthly, Although we were satisfied we had the _Unicorns_ Horn, yet were

it no injury unto reason to question the efficacy thereof, or whether

those vertues pretended do properly belong unto it. For what we observe,

(and it escaped not the observation of _Paulus Jovius_ many years past)

none of the Ancients ascribed any medicinal or antidotal vertue unto the

_Unicorns_ Horn; and that which _Ælian_ extolleth, who was the first and

only man of the Ancients who spake of the medical vertue of any

_Unicorn_, was the Horn of the _Indian_ Ass; whereof, saith he, the

Princes of those parts make bowls and drink therein, as preservatives

against Poyson, Convulsions, and the Falling-sickness. Now the

description of that Horn is not agreeable unto that we commend; for

that (saith he) is red above, white below, and black in the middle;

which is very different from ours, or any to be seen amongst us. And

thus, though the description of the _Unicorn_ be very ancient, yet was

there of old no vertue ascribed unto it; and although this amongst us

receive the opinion of the same vertue, yet is it not the same Horn

whereunto the Antients ascribed it.

Lastly, Although we allow it an Antidotal efficacy, and such as the

Ancients commended, yet are there some vertues ascribed thereto by

Moderns not easily to be received; and it hath surely faln out in this,

as other magnified medicines, whose operations effectual in some

diseases, are presently extended unto all. That some Antidotal quality

it may have, we have no reason to deny; for since Elks Hoofs and Horns

are magnified for Epilepsies, since not only the bone in the heart, but

the Horn of a Deer is Alexipharmacal, and ingredient into the confection

of Hyacinth, and the Electuary of Maximilian; we cannot without

prejudice except against the efficacy of this. [SN: _Expulsive of

Poisons._] But when we affirm it is not only Antidotal to proper venoms,

and substances destructive by qualities we cannot express; but that it

resisteth also Sublimate, Arsenick, and poysons which kill by second

qualities, that is, by corrosion of parts; I doubt we exceed the

properties of its nature, and the promises of experiment will not secure

the adventure. And therefore in such extremities, whether there be not

more probable relief from fat oyly substances, which are the open

tyrants over salt and corrosive bodies, then precious and cordial

medicines which operate by secret and disputable proprieties; or whether

he that swallowed Lime, and drank down Mercury water, did not more

reasonably place his cure in milk, butter or oyl, then if he had

recurred unto Pearl and Bezoar, common reason at all times, and

necessity in the like case would easily determine.

Since therefore there be many _Unicorns_; since that whereto we

appropriate a Horn is so variously described, that it seemeth either

never to have been seen by two persons, or not to have been one animal;

Since though they agreed in the description of the animal, yet is not

the Horn we extol the same with that of the Ancients; Since what Horns

soever they be that pass among us, they are not the Horns of one, but

several animals; Since many in common use and high esteem are no Horns

at all; Since if there were true Horns, yet might their vertues be

questioned; Since though we allowed some vertues, yet were not others to

be received; with what security a man may rely on this remedy, the

mistress of fools hath already instructed some, and to wisdom (which is

never to wise to learn) it is not too late to consider.

CHAPTER XXIV

That all Animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea.

That all Animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea, although

received as a principle, is a tenent very questionable, and will admit

of restraint. For some in the Sea are not to be matcht by any enquiry at

Land, and hold those shapes which terrestrious forms approach not; as

may be observed in the Moon-fish, or Orthragoriscus, the several sorts

of Raia's, Torpedo's, Oysters, and many more, and some there are in the

Land which were never maintained to be in the Sea, as Panthers, Hyæna's,

Camels, Sheep, Molls, and others, which carry no name in Icthyology [SN:

_History of fishes._], nor are to be found in the exact descriptions of

_Rondoletius_, _Gesner_, or _Aldrovandus_.

Again, Though many there be which make out their nominations, as the

Hedg-hog, Sea-serpents and others; yet are there also very many that

bear the name of animals at Land, which hold no resemblance in corporal

configuration; in which account we compute _Vulpecula_, _Canis_, _Rana_,

_Passer_, _Cuculus_, _Asellus_, _Turdus_, _Lepus_, etc. Wherein while

some are called the Fox, the Dog, the Sparrow or Frog-fish: and are

known by common names with those at Land; yet as their describers

attest, they receive not these appellations from a total similitude in

figure, but any concurrence in common accidents, in colour, condition or

single conformation. As for Sea-horses which much confirm this

assertion; in their common descriptions, they are but Crotesco

deliniations which fill up empty spaces in Maps, and meer pictorial

inventions, not any Physical shapes: sutable unto those which (as

_Pliny_ delivereth) _Praxiteles_ long ago set out in the Temple of

_Domitius_. For that which is commonly called a Sea-horse, is properly

called a Morse, and makes not out that shape. That which the Ancients

named _Hippocampus_ is a little animal about six inches long, and not

preferred beyond the classis of Insects. That which they termed

_Hippopotamus_ an amphibious animal, about the River _Nile_, so little

resembleth an horse, that as _Mathiolus_ observeth, in all except the

feet, it better makes out a swine. That which they termed a Lion, was

but a kind of Lobster: that which they called the Bear, was but one

kind of Crab: and that which they named _Bos marinus_, was not as we

conceive a fish resembling an Ox, but a Skait or Thornback, so named

from its bigness, expressed by the Greek word _Bous_, which is a prefix

of augmentation to many words in that language.

And therefore although it be not denied that some in the water do carry

a justifiable resemblance to some at Land, yet are the major part which

bear their names unlike; nor do they otherwise resemble the creatures on

earth, then they on earth the constellations which pass under animal

names in heaven: nor the Dog fish at Sea much more make out the Dog of

the Land, then that his cognominal or name-sake in the heavens. Now if

from a similitude in some, it be reasonable to infer a correspondence in

all, we may draw this analogy of animals upon plants; for vegetables

there are which carry a near and allowable similitude unto animals. [SN:

Fab. column. de stirp. rarioribus, Orchis, Cercopithecophora,

Anthropophora.] We might also conclude that animal shapes were generally

made out in minerals: for several stones there are that bear their names

in relation to animals or their parts, as _Lapis anguinus_, _Conchites_,

_Echinites_, _Encephalites, Ægopthalmus_, and many more; as will appear

in the Writers of Minerals, and especially in _Bœtius_ and

_Aldrovandus_.

Moreover if we concede, that the animals of one Element, might bear the

names of those in the other, yet in strict reason the watery productions

should have the prenomination: and they of the land rather derive their

names, then nominate those of the Sea. For the watery plantations were

first existent, and as they enjoyed a priority in form, had also in

nature precedent denominations: but falling not under that Nomenclature

of _Adam_, which unto terrestrious animals assigned a name appropriate

unto their natures: from succeeding spectators they received arbitrary

appellations: and were respectively denominated unto creatures known at

Land; who in themselves had independent names and not to be called after

them, which were created before them.

Lastly, By this assertion we restrain the hand of God, and abridge the

variety of the creation; making the creatures of one Element, but an

acting over those of another, and conjoyning as it were the species of

things which stood at distance in the intellect of God; and though

united in the Chaos, had several seeds of their creation. For although

in that indistinguisht mass, all things seemed one; yet separated by the

voice of God, according to their species, they came out in

incommunicated varieties, and irrelative seminalities, as well as

divided places; and so although we say the world was made in six days,

yet was there as it were a world in every one; that is, a distinct

creation of distinguisht creatures; a distinction in time of creatures

divided in nature, and a several approbation and survey in every one.

CHAPTER XXV

Concerning the common course of Diet, in making choice

of some Animals, and abstaining from eating others.

Why we confine our food unto certain Animals, and totally reject some

others; how these distinctions crept into several Nations; and whether

this practice be built upon solid reason, or chiefly supported by

custom or opinion; may admit consideration.

For first there is no absolute necessity to feed on any; and if we

resist not the stream of Authority, and several diductions from holy

Scripture: there was no _Sarcophagie_ before the flood; [SN: _Eating of

Flesh._] and without the eating of flesh, our fathers from vegetable

aliments, preserved themselves unto longer lives, then their posterity

by any other. For whereas it is plainly said, [SN: Gen. 1. 29.] I have

given you every herb which is upon the face of all the earth, and every

tree, to you it shall be for meat; [SN: _The natural vertue of

vegetables impaired by the deluge._] presently after the deluge, when

the same had destroyed or infirmed the nature of vegetables, by an

expression of enlargement, it is again delivered: [SN: Gen. 9. 3.] Every

moving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you, even as the green herb,

have I given you all things.

And therefore although it be said that _Abel_ was a Shepherd, and it be

not readily conceived, the first men would keep sheep, except they made

food thereof: great Expositors will tell us, that it was partly for

their skins, wherewith they were cloathed, partly for their milk,

whereby they were sustained; and partly for Sacrifices, which they also

offered.

And though it may seem improbable, that they offered flesh, yet eat not

thereof; and _Abel_ can hardly be said to offer the firstlings of his

flock, and the fat or acceptable part, if men used not to tast the same,

whereby to raise such distinctions: some will confine the eating of

flesh unto the line of _Cain_, who extended their luxury, and confined

not unto the rule of God. That if at any time the line of _Seth_ eat

flesh, it was extraordinary, and only at their sacrifices; or else (as

_Grotius_ hinteth) if any such practice there were, it was not from the

beginning; but from that time when the waies of men were corrupted, and

whereof it is said, that the wickedness of mans heart was great; the

more righteous part of mankind probably conforming unto the diet

prescribed in Paradise, and the state of innocency. [SN: _Eating

of Flesh (probably) not so common before the flood._] And yet however

the practice of men conformed, this was the injunction of God, and might

be therefore sufficient, without the food of flesh.

That they fed not on flesh, at least the faithful party before the

flood, may become more probable, because they refrained the same for

some time after. For so was it generally delivered of the golden age and

reign of _Saturn_; which is conceived the time of _Noah_, before the

building of _Babel_. And he that considereth how agreeable this is unto

the traditions of the _Gentiles_; that that age was of one tongue: that

_Saturn_ devoured all his sons but three; that he was the son of

_Oceanus_ and _Thetis_; that a Ship was his Symbole; that he taught the

culture of vineyards, and the art of husbandry, and was therefore

described with a sickle, may well conceive, these traditions had their

original in _Noah_. Nor did this practice terminate in him, but was

continued at least in many after: as (beside the _Pythagoreans_ of old,

_Bannyans_ now in _India_, who upon single opinions refrain the food of

flesh) ancient records do hint or plainly deliver. Although we descend

not so low, as that of _Æsclepiades_ delivered by _Porphyrius_ [SN:

περὶ ἀποχῆς.], that men began to feed on flesh in the raign of

_Pygmaleon_ brother of _Dido_, who invented several torments, to punish

the eaters of flesh.

Nor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first, but as some

will have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very

grave conjecturers, carnivorous animals now, were not flesh devourers

then, according to the expression of the divine provision for them. [SN:

Gen. 1. 36.] To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,

I have given every green herb for meat, and it was so. As is also

collected from the store laid up in the Ark; wherein there seems to have

been no fleshly provision for carnivorous Animals. For of every kind of

unclean beast there went but two into the Ark: and therefore no stock of

flesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.

But when ever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet

how they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with

rejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the

distinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and

salveth not our practice. For no Animal is naturally unclean, or hath

this character in nature; and therefore whether in this distinction

there were not some mystical intention: [SN: _How_ Moses _might

distinguish beasts into clean and unclean before the flood_.] whether

_Moses_ after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these

so before the flood by anticipation: whether this distinction before the

flood, were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after

was in regard of food: (for many were clean for food, which were unclean

for sacrifice) or whether the denomination were but comparative, and of

beasts less commodious for food, although not simply bad, is not yet

resolved.

And as for the same distinction in the time of _Moses_, long after the

flood, from thence we hold no restriction, as being no rule unto Nations

beside the _Jews_ in dietetical consideration, or natural choice of

diet, they being enjoyned or prohibited certain foods upon remote and

secret intentions. Especially thereby to avoid community with the

Gentiles upon promiscuous commensality: or to divert them from the

Idolatry of _Egypt_ whence they came, they were enjoyned to eat the

Gods of _Egypt_ in the food of Sheep and Oxen. Withall in this

distinction of Animals the consideration was hieroglyphical; in the

bosom and inward sense implying an abstinence from certain vices

symbolically intimated from the nature of those animals; as may be well

made out in the prohibited meat of Swine, Cony, Owl, and many more.

At least the intention was not medical, or such as might oblige unto

conformity or imitation; For some we refrain which that Law alloweth, as

Locusts and many others; and some it prohibiteth, which are accounted

good meat in strict and Medical censure: as (beside many fishes which

have not finns and scales,) the Swine, Cony and Hare, a dainty dish with

the Ancients; as is delivered by _Galen_, testified by _Martial_ [SN:

Inter quadrupedes mattya prima Lepus.], as the popular opinion implied,

that men grew fair by the flesh thereof: by the diet of _Cato_, that is

Hare and Cabbage; and the _Jus nigrum_, or Black broath of the

_Spartans_, which was made with the blood and bowels of an Hare.

And if we take a view of other Nations, we shall discover that they

refrained many meats upon the like considerations. For in some the

abstinence was symbolical; so _Pythagoras_ enjoyned abstinence from

fish: that is, luxurious and dainty dishes; So according to _Herodotus_,

some _Egyptians_ refrained swines flesh, as an impure and sordid animal:

which whoever but touched, was fain to wash himself.

Some abstained superstitiously or upon religious consideration: So the

_Syrians_ refrained Fish and Pigeons; the _Egyptians_ of old, Dogs,

Eeles and Crocodiles; though _Leo Africanus_ delivers, that many of

late, do eat them with good gust: and _Herodotus_ also affirmeth, that

the _Egyptians_ of _Elephantina_ (unto whom they were not sacred,) did

eat thereof in elder times: and Writers testify, that they are eaten at

this day in _India_ and _America_. And so, as _Cæsar_ reports, [SN: Lib.

3. de bello Gall.] unto the ancient _Britains_ it was piaculous to tast

a Goose, which dish at present no table is without.

Unto some Nations the abstinence was political and for some civil

advantage: So the _Thessalians_ refrained Storks, because they destroyed

their Serpents; and the like in sundry animals is observable in other

Nations.

And under all these considerations were some animals refrained: so the

_Jews_ abstained from swine at first symbolically, as an Emblem of

impurity; and not for fear of the Leprosie, as _Tacitus_ would put upon

them. The _Cretians_ superstitiously, upon tradition that _Jupiter_ was

suckled in that countrey by a Sow. Some _Egyptians_ politically, because

they supplyed the labour of plowing by rooting up the ground. And upon

like considerations perhaps the _Phœnicians_ and _Syrians_ fed not on

this Animal: and as _Solinus_ reports, the _Arabians_ also and

_Indians_. A great part of mankind refraining one of the best foods, and

such as _Pythagoras_ himself would eat; who, as _Aristoxenus_ records

[SN: _Aul. Gell._ lib. 4.], refused not to feed on Pigs.

[Sidenote: _Certain dishes in great request with the Ancients, not so

much esteemed now._]

Moreover while we single out several dishes and reject others, the

selection seems but arbitrary, or upon opinion; for many are commended

and cryed up in one age, which are decryed and nauseated in another.

Thus in the dayes of _Mecenas_, no flesh was preferred before young

Asses; which notwithstanding became abominable unto succeeding

appetites. At the table of _Heliogabalus_ the combs of Cocks were an

esteemed service; which country stomacks will not admit at ours. The

Sumen or belly and dugs of swine with Pig, and sometimes beaten and

bruised unto death: the womb of the same Animal, especially that was

barren, or else had cast her young ones, though a tough and membranous

part, was magnified by Roman Palats; whereunto nevertheless we cannot

perswade our stomacks. How _Alec_, _Muria_, and _Garum_, would humour

our gust I know not; but surely few there are that could delight in

their _Cyceon_; that is, the common draught of Honey, Cheese, parcht

Barley-flower, Oyl and Wine; which notwithstanding was commended

mixture, and in high esteem among them. We mortifie our selves with the

diet of fish, and think we fare coursly if we refrain from the flesh of

other animals. But antiquity held another opinion hereof: When

_Pythagoras_ in prevention of luxury advised, not so much as to tast on

fish. Since the _Rhodians_ were wont to call them clowns that eat flesh:

and since _Plato_ to evidence the temperance of the noble _Greeks_

before _Troy_, observed, that it was not found they fed on fish, though

they lay so long near the _Hellespont_[SN: Odyss. 4⁰.]; and was only

observed in the companions of _Menelaus_, that being almost starved,

betook themselves to fishing about _Pharos_.

Nor will (I fear) the attest or prescript of Philosophers and

Physitians, be a sufficient ground to confirm or warrant common

practice, as is deducible from ancient Writers, from _Hippocrates_,

_Galen_, _Simeon_, _Sethi_: and the later tracts of _Nonnus_ [SN: _Non_

de re cibaria.] and _Castellanus_. [SN: _Cast._ de esu carnium.] So

_Aristotle_ and _Albertus_ commend the flesh of young Hawks:

_Galen_ [SN: _Gal._ Alim. fac. lib. 3.] when they feed on Grapes: but

condemneth Quails, and ranketh Geese but with Ostriches; which

notwithstanding, present practice and every table extolleth. Men think

they have fared hardly, if in times of extremity they have descended so

low as Dogs: but _Galen_ delivereth [SN: _Gal._ Simpl. fac. lib. 3.] were

the food of many Nations: and _Hippocrates_ [SN: _Hip._ de morbis de

superfit.] ranketh the flesh of Whelps with that of Birds: who also

commends them against the Spleen, and to promote conception. The opinion

in _Galens_ time, which _Pliny_ also followeth, deeply condemned

Horse-flesh, and conceived the very blood thereof destructive; but no

diet is more common among the _Tartars_, who also drink their blood. And

though this may only seem an adventure of _Northern_ stomacks, yet as

_Herodotus_ tells us, in the hotter clime of _Persia_, the same was a

convivial dish, and solemnly eaten at the feasts of their nativities:

whereat they dressed whole Horses, Camels and Asses; contemning the

Poverty of _Grecian_ feasts, as unfurnish'd of dishes sufficient to fill

the bellies of their guests.

Again, While we confine our diet in several places, all things almost

are eaten, if we take in the whole earth: for that which is refused in

one country, is accepted in another, and in the collective judgment of

the world, particular distinctions are overthrown. Thus were it not hard

to shew, that Tigers, Elephants, Camels, Mice, Bats and others, are the

food of several countries; and _Lerius_ with others delivers, that some

_Americans_ eat of all kinds, not refraining Toads and Serpents: and

some have run so high, as not to spare the flesh of man: a practise

inexcusable, nor to be drawn into example, a diet beyond the rule and

largest indulgence of God.

As for the objection against beasts and birds of prey, it acquitteth not

our practice, who observe not this distinction in fishes: nor regard the

same in our diet of Pikes, Perches and Eels; Nor are we excused herein,

if we examine the stomacks of Mackerels, Cods, and Whitings. Nor is the

foulness of food sufficient to justifie our choice; for (beside that

their natural heat is able to convert the same into laudable aliment) we

refuse not many whose diet is more impure then some which we reject; as

may be considered in hogs, ducks, puets, and many more.

Thus we perceive the practice of diet doth hold no certain course, nor

solid rule of selection or confinement; Some in an indistinct voracity

eating almost any, others out of a timorous pre-opinion, refraining very

many. Wherein indeed necessity, reason and Physick, are the best

determinators. Surely many animals may be fed on, like many plants;

though not in alimental, yet medical considerations: Whereas having

raised Antipathies by prejudgement or education, we often nauseate

proper meats, and abhor that diet which disease or temper requireth.

[Sidenote: _A problem._ ]

Now whether it were not best to conform unto the simple diet of our

fore-fathers; whether pure and simple waters were not more healthfull

then fermented liquors; whether there be not an ample sufficiency

without all flesh, in the food of honey, oyl, and the several parts of

milk: in the variety of grains, pulses, and all sorts of fruits; since

either bread or beverage may be made almost of all? whether nations have

rightly confined unto several meats? or whether the common food of one

countrey be not more agreeable unto another? how indistinctly all

tempers apply unto the same, and how the diet of youth and old age is

confounded: were considerations much concerning health, and might

prolong our days, but must not this discourse.

CHAPTER XXVI

Of Sperma-Ceti, and the Sperma-Ceti Whale.

What Sperma-Ceti is, men might justly doubt, since the learned

_Hofmannus_ in his work of Thirty years, [SN: De medicamentis officin.]

saith plainly, _Nescio quid sit_. And therefore need not wonder at the

variety of opinions; while some conceived it to be _flos maris_, and

many, a bituminous substance floating upon the sea.

That it was not the spawn of the Whale, according to vulgar conceit, or

nominal appellation Phylosophers have always doubted, not easily

conceiving the Seminal humour of Animals, should be inflamable; or of a

floating nature.

That it proceedeth from a Whale, beside the relation of _Clusius_ and

other learned observers, was indubitably determined, not many years

since by a Sperma-Ceti Whale, cast on our coast of _Norfolk_ [SN: _Near_

Wells.]. Which, to lead on further inquiry, we cannot omit to inform. It

contained no less then sixty foot in length, the head somewhat peculiar,

with a large prominency over the mouth; teeth only in the lower Jaw,

received into fleshly sockets in the upper. The Weight of the largest

about two pound: No gristly substances in the mouth, commonly called

Whale-bones; Only two short finns seated forwardly on the back; the eyes

but small, the pizell large, and prominent. A lesser Whale of this kind

above twenty years ago, was cast upon the same shore. [SN: _Near_

Hunstanton.]

The discription of this Whale seems omitted by _Gesner_, _Rondeletius_,

and the first Editions of _Aldrovandus_; but describeth the latin

impression of _Pareus_, in the Exoticks of _Clusius_, and the natural

history of _Nirembergius_; but more amply in Icons and figures of

_Johnstonus_.

Mariners (who are not the best Nomenclators) called it a _Jubartas_, or

rather _Gibbartas_. Of the same appellation we meet with one in

_Rondeletius_, called by the _French_ Gibbar, from its round and Gibbous

back. The name _Gibbarta_ we find also given unto one kind of

_Greenland_ Whales: But this of ours seemed not to answer the Whale of

that denomination; but was more agreeable unto the _Trumpa_ or

Sperma-Ceti Whale: according to the account of our _Greenland_

describers in _Purchas_. And maketh the third among the eight remarkable

Whales of that Coast.

Out of the head of this Whale, having been dead divers days, and under

putrifaction, flowed streams of oyl and Sperma-Ceti; which was carefully

taken up and preserved by the Coasters. But upon breaking up, the

Magazin of Sperma-Ceti, was found in the head lying in folds and

courses, in the bigness of goose eggs, encompassed with large flakie

substances, as large as a mans head, in form of hony-combs, very white

and full of oyl.

Some resemblance or trace hereof there seems to be in the _Physiter_ or

_Capidolio_ of _Rondeletius_; while he delivers, that a fatness more

liquid then oyl, runs from the brain of that animal; which being out,

the Reliques are like the scales of _Sardinos_ pressed into a mass;

which melting with heat, are again concreted by cold. And this many

conceive to have been the fish which swallowed _Jonas_. Although for the

largeness of the mouth, and frequency in those seas, it may possibly be

the _Lamia_.

Some part of the Sperma-Ceti found on the shore was pure, and needed

little depuration; a great part mixed with fetid oyl, needing good

preparation, and frequent expression, to bring it to a flakie

consistency. And not only the head, but other parts contained it. For

the carnous parts being roasted, the oyl dropped out, an axungious and

thicker parts subsiding; the oyl it self contained also much in it, and

still after many years some is obtained from it.

_Greenland_ Enquirers seldom meet with a Whale of this kind: and

therefore it is but a contingent Commodity, not reparable from any

other. It flameth white and candent like Camphire, but dissolveth not in

_aqua fortis_, like it. Some lumps containing about two ounces, kept

ever since in water, afford a fresh and flosculous smell. Well prepared

and separated from the oyl, it is of a substance unlikely to decay, and

may out last the oyl required in the Composition of _Mathiolus_.

Of the large quantity of oyl, what first came forth by expression from

the Sperma-Ceti, grew very white and clear, like that of Almonds or Ben.

What came by decoction was red. It was found to spend much in the

vessels which contained it: It freezeth or coagulateth quickly with

cold, and the newer soonest. It seems different from the oyl of any

other animal, and very much frustrated the expectation of our

soap-boylers, as not incorporating or mingling with their lyes. But it

mixeth well with painting Colours, though hardly drieth at all. Combers

of wooll made use hereof, and Country people for cuts, aches and hard

tumors. It may prove of good Medical use; and serve for a ground in

compounded oyls and Balsams. Distilled, it affords a strong oyl, with a

quick and piercing water. Upon Evaporation it gives a balsame, which is

better performed with Turpentine distilled with Sperma-Ceti.

Had the abominable scent permitted, enquiry had been made into that

strange composure of the head, and hillock of flesh about it. Since the

Work-men affirmed, they met with _Sperma-Ceti_ before they came to the

bone, and the head yet preserved, seems to confirm the same. The

Sphincters inserving unto the Fistula or spout, might have been

examined, since they are so notably contrived in other cetaceous

Animals; as also the Larynx or Throtle, whether answerable unto that of

Dolphins and Porposes in the strange composure and figure which it

maketh. What figure the stomack maintained in this Animal of one jaw of

teeth, since in Porposes, which abound in both, the ventricle is trebly

divided, and since in that formerly taken nothing was found but Weeds

and a Loligo. The heart, lungs, and kidneys had not escaped; wherein are

remarkable differences from Animals of the land, likewise what humor the

bladder contained, but especially the seminal parts, which might have

determined the difference of that humour; from this which beareth its

name.

In vain it was to rake for Ambergreece in the panch of this _Leviathan_,

as _Greenland_ discoverers, and attests of experience dictate, that they

sometimes swallow great lumps thereof in the Sea; insufferable fetour

denying that enquiry. And yet if, as _Paracelsus_ encourageth, Ordure

makes the best Musk, and from the most fetid substances may be drawn the

most odoriferous Essences; all that had not _Vespasians_ Nose [SN: Cui

dulcis odor lucri ex re qualibet.], might boldly swear, here was a

subject fit for such extractions.

CHAPTER XXVII

Compendiously of sundry Tenents concerning

other Animals, which examined, prove

either false or dubious.

1. And first from great Antiquity, and before the Melody of _Syrens_,

the Musical note of Swans hath been commended, and that they sing most

sweetly before their death. For thus we read in _Plato_, that from the

opinion of _Metempsuchosis_, or transmigration of the souls of men into

the bodies of beasts most sutable unto their humane condition, after his

death, _Orpheus_ the Musician became a Swan. Thus was it the bird of

_Apollo_ the god of Musick by the _Greeks_; and an Hieroglyphick of

musick among the _Egyptians_, from whom the _Greeks_ derived the

conception; hath been the affirmation of many Latines, and hath not

wanted assertors almost from every Nation.

[Sidenote: _Of swans, and their singing before death._]

All which notwithstanding, we find this relation doubtfully received by

_Ælian_, as an hear-say account by _Bellonius_, as a false one by

_Pliny_, expresly refuted by _Myndius_ in _Athenæus_; and severely

rejected by _Scaliger_; whose words unto _Cardan_ are these: _De Cygni

vero cantu suavissimo quem cum parente mendaciorum Græcia jactare ausus

est, ad Luciani tribunal, apud quem novi aliquid dicas, statuo._ Authors

also that countenance it, speak not satisfactorily of it. Some affirming

they sing not till they die; some that they sing, yet die not. Some

speak generally, as though this note were in all; some but particularly,

as though it were only in some; some in places remote, and where we can

have no trial of it; others in places where every experience can refute

it; as _Aldrovandus_ upon relation delivered, concerning the Musick of

the Swans on the river of _Thames_ near _London_.

[Sidenote: _The figuration to be found in Elks, and not in common

Swans._]

Now that which countenanceth, and probably confirmeth this opinion, is

the strange and unusual conformation of the wind pipe, or vocal organ in

this animal; observed first by _Aldrovandus_, and conceived by some

contrived for this intention. For in its length it far exceedeth the

gullet; and hath in the chest a sinuous revolution, that is, when it

ariseth from the lungs, it ascendeth not directly unto the throat, but

descending first into a capsulary reception of the breast bone; by a

Serpentine and Trumpet recurvation it ascendeth again into the neck; and

so by the length thereof a great quantity of air is received, and by the

figure thereof a Musical modulation effected. But to speak

indifferently, this formation of the Weazon, is not peculiar unto the

Swan, but common also unto the Platea or Shovelard, a bird of no Musical

throat; And as _Aldrovandus_ confesseth, may thus be contrived in the

Swan to contain a larger stock of air, whereby being to feed on weeds at

the bottom, they might the longer space detain their heads under water.

But were this formation peculiar, or had they unto this effect an

advantage from this part: yet have they a known and open disadvantage

from another; that is, a flat bill. For no Latirostrous animal (whereof

nevertheless there are no slender numbers) were ever commended for there

note, or accounted among those animals which have been instructed to

speak.

When therefore we consider the dissention of Authors, the falsity of

relations, the indisposition of the Organs, and the immusical note of

all we ever beheld or heard of; if generally taken and comprehending all

Swans, or of all places, we cannot assent thereto. Surely he that is

bit with a Tarantula, shall never be cured by this Musick; and with the

same hopes we expect to hear the harmony of the Spheres.

[Sidenote: _Of the Peacock._]

2. That there is a special propriety in the flesh of Peacocks, roast or

boiled, to preserve a long time incorrupted, hath been the assertion of

many; stands yet confirmed by _Austin_, _De Civitate Dei_; by _Gygas

Sempronius_, in _Aldrovandus_; and the same experiment we can confirm

our selves, in the brawn or fleshly parts of Peacoks so hanged up with

thred, that they touch no place whereby to contract a moisture; and

hereof we have made trial both in summer and winter. The reason, some, I

perceive, attempt to make out from the siccity and driness of its flesh,

and some are content to rest in a secret propriety thereof. As for the

siccity of the flesh, it is more remarkable in other animals, as Eagles,

Hawks, and birds of prey; That it is a propriety or agreeable unto none

other, we cannot with reason admit: for the same preservation, or rather

incorruption we have observed in the flesh of Turkeys, Capons, Hares,

Partridge, Venison, suspended freely in the air, and after a year and a

half, dogs have not refused to eat them.

As for the other conceit, that a Peacok is ashamed when he looks on his

legs, as is commonly held, and also delivered by _Cardan_; beside what

hath been said against it by _Scaliger_; let them believe that hold

specificial deformities; or that any part can seem unhandsome to their

eyes, which hath appeared good and beautiful unto their makers. The

occasion of this conceit, might first arise from a common observation,

that when they are in their pride, that is, advance their train, if they

decline their neck to the ground, they presently demit, and let fall the

same: which indeed they cannot otherwise do; for contracting their

body, and being forced to draw in their foreparts to establish the

hinder in the elevation of the train; if the foreparts depart and

incline to the ground, the hinder grow too weak, and suffer the train to

fall. And the same in some degree is also observable in Turkeys.

[Sidenote: _Of the Stork._]

3. That Storks are to be found, and will only live in Republikes or free

States, is a petty conceit to advance the opinion of popular policies,

and from Antipathies in nature, to disparage Monarchical government. But

how far agreeable unto truth, let them consider who read in _Pliny_,

that among the _Thessalians_ who were governed by Kings, and much

abounded with Serpents, it was no less then capital to kill a Stork.

That the Ancient _Egyptians_ honoured them, whose government was from

all times Monarchical. That _Bellonius_ affirmeth, men make them nests

in _France_. That relations make them common in _Persia_, and the

dominions of the great _Turk_. And lastly, how _Jeremy_ the Prophet

delivered himself [SN: Ier. 8. 7.] unto his countreymen, whose

government was at that time Monarchical. The Stork in the heaven knowing

her appointed time, the Turtle, Crane and Swallow observe the time of

their coming, but my people know not the judgment of the Lord. Wherein

to exprobate their stupidity, he induceth the providence of Storks. Now

if the bird had been unknown, the illustration had been obscure, and the

exprobation not so proper.

[Sidenote: _Of the Bittor._]

4. That a Bittor maketh that mugient noise, or as we term it Bumping, by

putting its bill into a reed as most believe, or as _Bellonius_ and

_Aldrovandus_ conceive, by putting the same in water or mud, and after a

while retaining the air by suddenly excluding it again, is not so easily

made out. For my own part, though after diligent enquiry, I could never

behold them in this motion; Notwithstanding by others whose

observations we have expressly requested, we are informed, that some

have beheld them making this noise on the shore, their bills being far

enough removed from reed or water; that is, first strongly attracting

the air, and unto a manifest distention of the neck, and presently after

with great contention and violence excluding the same again. As for what

others affirm of putting their bill in water or mud, it is also hard to

make out. For what may be observed from any that walketh the Fens, there

is little intermission, nor any observable pawse, between the drawing in

and sending forth of their breath. And the expiration or breathing forth

doth not only produce a noise, but the inspiration or hailing in of the

air, affordeth a sound that may be heard almost a flight-shot.

Now the reason of this strange and peculiar noise, is deduced from the

conformation of the wind-pipe, which in this bird is different from

other volatiles. For at the upper extream it hath no fit Larinx, or

throttle to qualify the sound, and at the other end, by two branches

deriveth it self into the lungs. Which division consisteth only of

Semicircular fibers, and such as attain but half way round the part; By

which formation they are dilatable into larger capacities, and are able

to contain a fuller proportion of air; which being with violence sent up

the weazon, and finding no resistance by the Larinx, it issueth forth in

a sound like that from caverns, and such as sometimes subterraneous

eruptions, from hollow rocks afford. As _Aristotle_ observeth in a

Problem, [SN: _Sect. 15._] and is observable in pitchers, bottles, and

that instrument which _Aponensis_ upon that Problem describeth,

wherewith in _Aristotles_ time Gardiners affrighted birds.

Whether the large perforations of the extremities of the weazon, in the

_abdomen_, admitting large quantity of ayr within the cavity of its

membrans, as it doth in Frogs; may not much assist this mugiency or

boation, may also be considered. For such as have beheld them making

this noise out of the water, observe a large distention in their bodies;

and their ordinary note is but like that of a Raven.

[Sidenote: _Of Whelps._]

5. That whelps are blind nine days and then begin to see, is the common

opinion of all, and some will be apt enough to descend unto oaths upon

it. But this I find not answerable unto experience, for upon a strict

observation of many, I have scarce found any that see the ninth day, few

before the twelfth, and the eyes of some not open before the fourteenth

day. And this is agreeable unto the determination of _Aristotle_: who

computeth the time of their anopsie or non-vision by that of their

gestation. For some, saith he, do go with their young the sixt part of a

year, two days over or under, that is, about sixty days or nine weeks;

and the whelps of these see not till twelve days. Some go the fifth part

of a year, that is, seventy-one days, and these, saith he, see not

before the fourteenth day. Others do go the fourth part of the year,

that is, three whole months, and these, saith he, are without sight no

less then seventeen days. Wherein although the accounts be different,

yet doth the least thereof exceed the term of nine days, which is so

generally received. And this compute of _Aristotle_ doth generally

overthrow the common cause alleadged for this effect, that is, a

precipitation or over-hasty exclusion before the birth be perfect,

according unto the vulgar Adage, _Festinans canis cæcos parit catulos_:

for herein the whelps of longest gestation, are also the latest in

vision. The manner hereof is this. At the first littering, their eyes

are fastly closed, that is, by coalition or joining together of the

eyelids, and so continue untill about the twelfth day; at which time

they begin to separate, and may be easily divelled or parted asunder;

they open at the inward Canthis or greater Angle of the eye, and so by

degrees dilate themselves quite open. An effect very strange, and the

cause of much obscurity, wherein as yet mens enquiries are blind, and

satisfaction not easily acquirable. What ever it be, thus much may we

observe, those animals are only excluded without sight, which are

multiparous and multifidous, that is, which have many at a litter, and

have also their feet divided into many portions. For the Swine, although

multiparous, yet being bisulcous, and only cloven hoofed, is not

excluded in this manner, but farrowed with open eyes, as other bisulcous

animals.

[Sidenote: _Of a Toad and a Spider._]

6. The Antipathy between a Toad and a Spider, and that they poisonously

destroy each other, is very famous, and solemn stories have been written

of their combats; wherein most commonly the victory is given unto the

Spider. Of what Toads and Spiders it is to be understood would be

considered. For the Phalangium and deadly Spiders, are different from

those we generally behold in _England_. However the verity hereof, as

also of many others, we cannot but desire; for hereby we might be surely

provided of proper Antidotes in cases which require them; But what we

have observed herein, we cannot in reason conceal; who having in a Glass

included a Toad with several Spiders, we beheld the Spiders without

resistance to sit upon his head and pass over all his body; which at

last upon advantage he swallowed down, and that in few hours, unto the

number of seven. And in the like manner will Toads also serve Bees, and

are accounted enemies unto their Hives.

[Sidenote: _Of a Lion and a Cock._]

7. Whether a Lion be also afraid of a Cock, as is related by many, and

believed by most, were very easie in some places to make trial. Although

how far they stand in fear of that animal, we may sufficiently

understand, from what is delivered by _Camerarius_, whose words in his

Symbola are these: _Nostris temporibus in Aula serenissimi Principis

Bavariæ, unus ex Leonibus miris saltibus in vicinam cujusdam domus aream

sese dimisit, ubi Gallinaceorum cantum aut clamores nihil reformidans,

ipsos unà cum plurimis gallinis devoravit._ That is, In our time in the

Court of the Prince of _Bavaria_, one of the Lions leaped down into a

Neighbours yard, where nothing regarding the crowing or noise of the

Cocks, he eat them up with many other Hens. And therefore a very unsafe

defensative it is against the fury of this animal (and surely no better

then Virginity or bloud Royal) which _Pliny_[SN: De sacrificiis et

magia.] doth place in Cock broth: For herewith, saith he, whoever is

anointed (especially if Garlick be boiled therein) no Lion or Panther

will touch him. But of an higher nature it were, and more exalted

Antipathy, if that were certain which _Proclus_ delivers, that solary

_Dæmons_, and such as appear in the shape of Lions, will disappear and

vanish, if a Cock be presented upon them.

8. It is generally conceived, an Ear-wig hath no Wings, and is reckoned

amongst impennous insects by many; but he that shall narrowly observe

them, or shall with a needle put aside the short and sheathy cases on

their back, may extend and draw forth two wings of a proportionable

length for flight, and larger then in many flies. The experiment of

_Pennius_ is yet more perfect, who with a Rush or Bristle so pricked

them as to make them flie.

[Sidenote: _Of Worms._]

9. That Worms are exanguious Animals, and such as have no bloud at all,

is the determination of Philosophy, the general opinion of Scholars, and

I know not well to dissent from thence my self. If so, surely we want a

proper term whereby to express that humour in them which so strictly

resembleth bloud: and we refer it unto the discernment of others what to

determine of that red and sanguineous humor, found more plentifully

about the Torquis or carneous Circle of great Worms in the Spring,

affording in Linnen or Paper an indiscernable tincture from bloud. Or

wherein that differeth from a vein, which in an apparent blew runneth

along the body, and if dexterously pricked with a lancet, emitteth a red

drop, which pricked on either side it will not readily afford.

In the upper parts of Worms, there are likewise found certain white and

oval Glandulosities, which Authors term Eggs, and in magnifying Glasses,

they also represent them; how properly, may also be enquired; since if

in them there be distinction of Sexes, these Eggs are to be found in

both. For in that which is presumed to be their coition, that is, their

usual complication, or lateral adhesion above the ground, dividing

suddenly with two Knives the adhering parts of both, I have found these

Eggs in either.

10. That Flies, Bees, etc. do make that noise or humming sound by their

mouth, or as many believe with their wings only, would be more warily

asserted, if we consulted the determination of _Aristotle_, who as in

sundry other places, so more expresly in his book of respiration,

affirmeth this sound to be made by the illision of an inward spirit upon

a pellicle or little membrane about the precinct or pectoral division

of their body. If we also consider that a Bee or Flie, so it be able to

move the body, will buz, though its head be off; that it will do the

like if deprived of wings, reserving the head, whereby the body may be

the better moved. And that some also which are big and lively will hum

without either head or wing.

Nor is it only the beating upon this little membrane, by the inward and

con-natural spirit as _Aristotle_ determines, or the outward air as

_Scaliger_ conceiveth, which affordeth this humming noise, but most of

the other parts may also concur hereto; as will be manifest, if while

they hum we lay our finger on the back or other parts; for thereupon

will be felt a serrous or jarring motion like that which happeneth while

we blow on the teeth of a comb through paper; and so if the head or

other parts of the trunk be touched with oyl, the sound will be much

impaired, if not destroyed: for those being also dry and membranous

parts, by attrition of the spirit do help to advance the noise: And

therefore also the sound is strongest in dry weather, and very weak in

rainy season, and toward winter; for then the air is moist, and the

inward spirit growing weak, makes a languid and dumb allision upon the

parts.

[Sidenote: _Of a Tainct._]

11. There is found in the Summer a kind of Spider called a Tainct, of a

red colour, and so little of body that ten of the largest will hardly

outway a grain; this by Country people is accounted a deadly poison unto

Cows and Horses; who, if they suddenly die, and swell thereon, ascribe

their death hereto, and will commonly say, they have licked a Tainct.

Now to satisfie the doubts of men we have called this tradition unto

experiment; we have given hereof unto Dogs, Chickens, Calves and

Horses, and not in the singular number; yet never could find the least

disturbance ensue. There must be therefore other causes enquired of the

sudden death and swelling of cattle; and perhaps this insect is

mistaken, and unjustly accused for some other. For some there are which

from elder times have been observed pernicious unto cattle, as the

Buprestis or Burstcow, the Pityocampe or Eruca Pinuum, by _Dioscorides,

Galen_ and _Ætius_, the Staphilinus described by _Aristotle_ and others,

or those red Phalangious Spiders like Cantharides mentioned by

_Muffetas_. Now although the animal may be mistaken and the opinion also

false, yet in the ground and reason which makes men most to doubt the

verity hereof, there may be truth enough, that is, the inconsiderable

quantity of this insect. For that a poison cannot destroy in so small a

bulk, we have no reason to affirm. For if, as _Leo Africanus_ reporteth,

the tenth part of a grain of the poison of _Nubia_[SN: granum Nubiæ.],

will dispatch a man in two hours; if the bite of a Viper and sting of a

Scorpion, is not conceived to impart so much; if the bite of an Asp will

kill within an hour, yet the impression scarce visible, and the poison

communicated not ponderable; we cannot as impossible reject this way of

destruction; or deny the power of death in so narrow a circumscription.

[Sidenote: _Of the Glow-worm_.]

12. Wondrous things are promised from the Glow-worm; from thence

perpetual lights are pretended, and waters said to be distilled which

afford a lustre in the night; and this is asserted by _Cardan, Albertus,

Gaudentinus, Mizaldus_, and many more. But hereto we cannot with reason

assent: for the light made by this animal depends much upon its life.

For when they are dead they shine not, nor alwaies while they live; but

are obscure or light, according to the protrusion of their luminous

parts, as observation will instruct us. For this flammeous light is not

over all the body, but only visible on the inward side; in a small white

part near the tail. When this is full and seemeth protruded, there

ariseth a flame of a circular figure and Emerald green colour; which is

discernable in any dark place in the day; but when it falleth and

seemeth contracted, the light disappeareth, and the colour of the part

only remaineth. Now this light, as it appeareth and disappeareth in

their life, so doth it go quite out at their death. As we have observed

in some, which preserved in fresh grass have lived and shined eighteen

days; but as they declined, and the luminous humor dryed, their light

grew languid, and at last went out with their lives. Thus also the

_Torpedo_, which alive hath a power to stupifie at a distance, hath none

upon contaction being dead, as _Galen_ and _Rondeletius_ particularly

experimented. And this hath also disappointed the mischief of those

intentions, which study the advancement of poisons; and fancy

destructive compositions from Asps or Vipers teeth, from Scorpions or

Hornet stings. For these omit their efficacy in the death of the

individual, and act but dependantly on their forms. And thus far also

those Philosophers concur with us, which held the Sun and Stars were

living creatures, for they conceived their lustre depended on their

lives; but if they ever died, their light must also perish.

It were a Notable piece of Art to translate the light from the

_Bononian_ Stone into another Body; he that would attempt to make a

shining Water from _Glow-worms_, must make trial when the Splendent part

is fresh and turgid. For even from the great _American Glow-worms_, and

Flaming _Flies_, the light declineth as the luminous humor dryeth.

Now whether the light of animals, which do not occasionally shine from

contingent causes, be of Kin unto the light of Heaven; whether the

invisible flame of life received in a convenient matter, may not become

visible, and the diffused ætherial light make little Stars by

conglobation in idoneous parts of the compositum: whether also it may

not have some original in the seed and spirit analogous unto the Element

of Stars, whereof some glympse is observable in the little refulgent

humor, at the first attempts of formation: Philosophy may yet enquire.

True it is, that a Glow-worm will afford a faint light, almost a days

space when many will conceive it dead; but this is a mistake in the

compute of death, and term of disanimation; for indeed, it is not then

dead, but if it be distended will slowly contract it self again, which

when it cannot do, it ceaseth to shine any more. And to speak strictly,

it is no easie matter to determine the point of death in Insects and

Creatures who have not their vitalities radically confined unto one

part; for they are not dead when they cease to move or afford the

visible evidences of life; as may be observed in Flies, who when they

appear even desperate and quite forsaken of their forms; by vertue of

the Sun or warm ashes will be revoked unto life, and perform its

functions again.

Now whether this lustre, a while remaining after death, dependeth not

still upon the first impression, and light communicated or raised from

an inward spirit, subsisting a while in a moist and apt recipient, nor

long continuing in this, or the more remarkable _Indian_ Glow-worm; or

whether it be of another Nature, and proceedeth from different causes

of illumination; yet since it confessedly subsisteth so little a while

after their lives, how to make perpetual lights, and sublunary moons

thereof as is pretended, we rationally doubt, though not so sharply

deny, with _Scaliger_ and _Muffetus_.

13. The wisdom of the Pismire is magnified by all, and in the

Panegyricks of their providence we alwaies meet with this, that to

prevent the growth of Corn which they store up, they bite off the end

thereof: And some have conceived that from hence they have their name in

Hebrew [SN: Nemalah à Namal circumcidit.]: From whence ariseth a conceit

that Corn will not grow if the extreams be cut or broken. But herein we

find no security to prevent its germination; as having made trial in

grains, whose ends cut off have notwithstanding suddenly sprouted, and

accordingly to the Law of their kinds; that is, the roots of barley and

oats at contrary ends, of wheat and rye at the same. And therefore some

have delivered that after rainy weather they dry these grains in the

Sun; which if effectual, we must conceive to be made in a high degree

and above the progression of Malt; for that Malt will grow, this year

hath informed us, and that unto a perfect ear.

[Sidenote: _A natural vicissitude of generation in Homogeneous things._]

And if that be true which is delivered by many, and we shall further

experiment, that a decoction of Toad-stools if poured upon earth, will

produce the same again: If Sow-thistles will abound in places manured

with dung of Hogs, which feeds much upon that plant: If Horse-dung

reproduceth oats: If winds and rains will transport the seminals of

plants; it will not be easie to determine where the power of generation

ceaseth. The forms of things may lie deeper then we conceive them;

seminal principles may not be dead in the divided atoms of plants: but

wandering in the ocean of nature, when they hit upon proportionable

materials, may unite, and return to their visible selves again.

But the prudence of this Animal is by knawing, piercing, or otherwise,

to destroy the little nebbe or principle of germination. Which

notwithstanding is not easily discoverable; it being no ready business

to meet with such grains in Ant-hils; and he must dig deep, that will

seek them in the Winter.

CHAPTER XXVIII

Of some others.

[Sidenote: _Of the Chicken._]

That a Chicken is formed out of the yelk of the Egg, was the opinion of

some Ancient Philosophers. Whether it be not the nutriment of the

Pullet, may also be considered: Since umbilical vessels are carried unto

it: Since much of the yelk remaineth after the Chicken is formed: Since

in a Chicken newly hatched, the stomack is tincted yellow, and the belly

full of yelk, which is drawn in at the navel or vessels towards the

vent, as may be discerned in Chickens within a day or two before

exclusion.

Whether the Chicken be made out of the white, or that be not also its

aliment, is likewise very questionable: Since an umbilical vessel is

derived unto it: Since after the formation and perfect shape of the

Chicken, much of the white remaineth.

Whether it be not made out of the grando, gallature, germ or tred of the

Egg, as, _Aquapendente_ informeth us, seemed to many of doubt: for at

the blunter end it is not discovered after the Chicken is formed; by

this also the yelk and white are continued, whereby it may conveniently

receive its nutriment from them both.

Now that from such slender materials, nature should effect this

production it is no more then is observed in other animals; and even in

grains and kernels, the greatest part is but the nutriment of that

generative particle, so disproportionable unto it.

[Sidenote: _Of Eggs._]

A greater difficulty in the doctrine of Eggs, is, how the sperm of the

Cock prolificates and makes the oval conception fruitful, or how it

attaineth unto every Egg, since the vitellary or place of the yelk is

very high: Since the ovary or part where the white involveth it, is in

the second region of the matrix, which is somewhat long and inverted:

Since also a Cock will in one day fertilate the whole racemation or

cluster of Eggs, which are not excluded in many weeks after.

But these at last, and how in the Cicatricula or little pale circle

formation first beginneth, how the Grando or tredle, are but the poles

and establishing particles of the tender membrans, firmly conserving the

floating parts, in their proper places, with many other observables,

that ocular Philosopher, and singular discloser of truth, Dr. _Harvey_

hath discovered, in that excellent discourse of Generation; So strongly

erected upon the two great pillars of truth, experience and solid

reason.

That the sex is discernable from the figure of Eggs, or that Cocks or

Hens proceed from long or round ones, as many contend, experiment will

easily frustrate.

The _Ægyptians_ observed a better way to hatch their Eggs in Ovens, then

the _Babylonians_ to roast them at the bottom of a sling, by swinging

them round about, till heat from motion had concocted them; for that

confuseth all parts without any such effect.

Though slight distinction be made between boiled and roasted Eggs, yet

is there no slender difference, for the one is much drier then the

other: the Egg expiring less in the elixation or boiling; whereas in the

assation or roasting, it will sometimes abate a dragm; that is,

threescore grains in weight. So a new laid Egg will not so easily be

boiled hard, because it contains a greater stock of humid parts; which

must be evaporated, before the heat can bring the inexhalable parts into

consistence.

Why the Hen hatcheth not the Egg in her belly, or maketh not at least

some rudiment thereof within her self, by the natural heat of inward

parts, since the same is performed by incubation from an outward warmth

after? Why the Egg is thinner at one extream? Why there is some cavity

or emptiness at the blunter end? Why we open them at that part? Why the

greater end is first excluded? Why some Eggs are all red, as the

Kestrils; some only red at one end, as those of Kites and Buzzards? why

some Eggs are not Oval but Round, as those of fishes? etc. are problems,

whose decisions would too much enlarge this discourse.

[Sidenote: _Of Snakes, etc._]

That Snakes and Vipers do sting or transmit their mischief by the tail,

is a common expression not easily to be justified; and a determination

of their venoms unto a part, wherein we could never find it; the poison

lying about the teeth, and communicated by bite, in such are

destructive. And therefore when biting Serpents are mentioned in the

Scripture, they are not differentially set down from such as mischief

by stings; nor can conclusions be made conformable to this opinion,

because when the Rod of _Moses_ was turned into a Serpent, God

determinately commanded him to take up the same by the tail.

Nor are all Snakes of such empoisoning qualities, as common opinion

presumeth; as is confirmable from the ordinary green Snake with us, from

several histories of domestick Snakes, from Ophiophagous nations, and

such as feed upon Serpents.

Surely the destructive delusion of Satan in this shape, hath much

enlarged the opinion of their mischief. Which notwithstanding was not so

high with the heathens, in whom the Devil had wrought a better opinion

of this animal, it being sacred unto the _Egyptians_, _Greeks_ and

_Romans_, and the common symbole of sanity. In the shape whereof

_Æsculapius_ the God of health appeared unto the _Romans_, accompanied

their Embassadors to _Rome_ from _Epidaurus_; and the same did stand in

the _Tiberine_ Isle upon the Temple of _Æsculapius_.

Some doubt many have of the Tarantula, or poisonous Spider of

_Calabria_, and that magical cure of the bite thereof by Musick. But

since we observe that many attest it from experience: Since the learned

_Kircherius_ hath positively averred it, and set down the songs and

tunes solemnly used for it; Since some also affirm the Tarantula it self

will dance upon certain stroaks, whereby they set their instruments

against its poison; we shall not at all question it.

Much wonder is made of the Boramez, that strange plant-animal or

vegetable Lamb of _Tartary_, which Wolves delight to feed on, which hath

the shape of a Lamb, affordeth a bloody juyce upon breaking, and liveth

while the plants be consumed about it. And yet if all this be no more,

then the shape of a Lamb in the flower or seed, upon the top of the

stalk, as we meet with the forms of Bees, Flies and Dogs in some others;

he hath seen nothing that shall much wonder at it.

It may seem too hard to question the swiftness of Tigers, which hath

therefore given names unto Horses, Ships and Rivers, nor can we deny

what all have thus affirmed; yet cannot but observe, that _Jacobus

Bontius_ late Physitian at _Java_ in the East _Indies_, as an ocular and

frequent witness is not afraid to deny it; to condemn _Pliny_ who

affirmeth it, and that indeed it is but a slow and tardigradous animal,

preying upon advantage, and otherwise may be escaped.

Many more there are whose serious enquiries we must request of others,

and shall only awake considerations, Whether that common opinion that

Snakes do breed out of the back or spinal marrow of man, doth build upon

any constant root or seed in nature; or did not arise from contingent

generation, in some single bodies remembred by _Pliny_ or others, and

might be paralleld since in living corruptions of the guts and other

parts; which regularly proceed not to putrifactions of that nature.

Whether the Story of the Remora be not unreasonably amplified; whether

that of Bernacles and Goose-trees be not too much enlarged; whether the

common history of Bees will hold, as large accounts have delivered;

whether the brains of Cats be attended with such destructive

malignities, as _Dioscorides_ and others put upon them.

As also whether there be not some additional help of Art, unto the

Numismatical and Musical shells, which we sometimes meet with in

conchylious collections among us?

Whether the fasting spittle of man be poison unto Snakes and Vipers, as

experience hath made us doubt? Whether the Nightingals setting with her

breast against a thorn, be any more then that she placeth some prickels

on the outside of her nest, or roosteth in thorny and prickly places,

where Serpents may least approach her? Whether Mice may be bred by

putrifaction as well as univocall production, as may be easily believed,

if that receit to make Mice out of wheat will hold, which _Helmont_ hath

delivered. [SN: Helm. Imago fermenti, _etc._] Whether Quails from any

idiosyncracy or peculiarity of constitution, do innocuously feed upon

Hellebore, or rather sometime but medically use the same; because we

perceive that Stares, which are commonly said harmlessly to feed on

Hemlock, do not make good the tradition; and he that observes what

vertigoes, cramps and convulsions follow thereon in these animals, will

be of our belief.

THE FOURTH BOOK

Of many popular and received Tenents

concerning Man, which examined,

prove either false or dubious.

CHAPTER I

Of the Erectness of Man.

[Sidenote: _What figure in animals is properly erect._]

That only _Man_ hath an Erect figure, and for to behold and look up

toward heaven, according to that of the Poet,

_Pronaque cum spectant animalia cætera terram,

Os homini sublime dedit, cælumque tueri

Jussit, et erectos ad sydera tollere vultus,_

is a double assertion, whose first part may be true, if we take

Erectness strictly, and so as _Galen_ hath defined it; for they only,

saith he, have an Erect figure, whose spine and thigh-bone are carried

in right lines; and so indeed of any we yet know, _Man_ only is Erect.

For the thighs of other animals do stand at Angles with their spine, and

have rectangular positions in Birds, and perfect Quadrupeds. Nor doth

the Frog, though stretched out, or swimming, attain the rectitude of

_Man_, or carry its thigh without all angularity. [SN: _What seiante or

sitting._] And thus is it also true, that Man only sitteth, if we

define sitting to be a firmation of the body upon the _Ischias_:

wherein if the position be just and natural, the Thigh-bone lieth at

right angles to the Spine, and the Leg-bone or Tibia to the Thigh. For

others when they seem to sit, as _Dogs_, _Cats_, or _Lions_, do make

unto their Spine acute angles with their Thigh, and acute to the Thigh

with their Shank. Thus is it likewise true, what _Aristotle_ alledgeth

in that Problem; why _Man_ alone suffereth pollutions in the Night [SN:

ἐξονειρωκτικός.], because _Man_ only lyeth upon his Back; if we

define not the same by every supine position, but when the Spine is in

rectitude with the Thigh, and both with the arms lie parallel to the

_Horizon_: so that a line through their Navel will pass through the

Zenith and Centre of the Earth. And so cannot other Animals lie upon

their Backs: for though the Spine lie parallel with the _Horizon_, yet

will their Legs incline, and lie at angles unto it. And upon these three

divers positions in _Man_, wherein the Spine can only be at right lines

with the Thigh, arise those remarkable postures, prone, supine and

erect; which are but differenced in situation, or in angular postures

upon the Back, the Belly and the Feet.

But if Erectness be popularly taken, and as it is largely opposed unto

proneness, or the posture of animals looking downwards, carrying their

venters or opposite part to the Spine, directly towards the Earth, it

may admit of question. For though in _Serpents_ and _Lizards_ we may

truly allow a proneness, yet _Galen_ acknowledgeth that perfect

Quadrupeds, as _Horses_, _Oxen_ and _Camels_, are but partly prone, and

have some part of Erectness. And _Birds_ or flying Animals, are so far

from this kind of proneness, that they are almost Erect; advancing the

Head and Breast in their progression, and only prone in the Act of

volitation or flying. And if that be true which is delivered of the

_Pengin_ or _Anser Magellanicus_, often described in Maps about those

_Straits_, that they go Erect like _Men_, and with their Breast and

Belly do make one line perpendicular unto the axis of the Earth; it will

almost make up the exact Erectness of _Man_ [SN: _Observe also the_

Vrias Bellanii _and_ Mergus major.]. Nor will that Insect come very

short which we have often beheld, that is, one kind of Locust which

stands not prone, or a little inclining upward, but in a large

Erectness, elevating alwaies the two fore Legs, and sustaining it self

in the middle of the other four: by _Zoographers_ [SN: _Describers of

animals._] called _Mantis_, and by the common people of _Provence_,

_Prega_, _Dio_, the Prophet and praying Locust; as being generally found

in the posture of supplication, or such as resembleth ours, when we lift

up our hands to Heaven.

As for the end of this Erection; to look up toward Heaven; though

confirmed by several testimonies, and the _Greek_ Etymology of _Man_, it

is not so readily to be admitted; and as a popular and vain conceit was

Anciently rejected by _Galen_; who in his third, _De usu partium_,

determines, that _Man_ is Erect, because he was made with hands, and was

therewith to exercise all Arts, which in any other figure he could not

have performed; as he excellently declareth in that place, where he also

proves that _Man_ could have been made neither Quadruped nor Centaur.

And for the accomplishment of this intention, that is, to look up and

behold the Heavens, _Man_ hath a notable disadvantage in the Eye lid;

whereof the upper is far greater than the lower, which abridgeth the

sight upwards; contrary to those of _Birds_, who herein have the

advantage of _Man_: Insomuch that the Learned _Plempius_[SN: Plemp.

Ophthalmographia.] is bold to affirm, that if he had had the formation

of the Eye-lids, he would have contrived them quite otherwise.

The ground and occasion of this conceit was a literal apprehension of a

figurative expression in _Plato_, as _Galen_ thus delivers; To opinion

that _Man_ is Erect to look up and behold the Heavens, is a conceit only

fit for those that never saw the _Fish_ Uranoscopus, that is, the

Beholder of Heaven; which hath its Eyes so placed, that it looks up

directly to Heaven; which _Man_ doth not, except he recline, or bend his

head backward: and thus to look up to Heaven, agreeth not only unto

_Men_, but _Asses_; to omit _Birds_ with long necks, which look not only

upwards, but round about at pleasure. And therefore _Men_ of this

opinion understood not _Plato_ when he said that _Man_ doth _Sursum

aspicere_; for thereby was not meant to gape, or look upward with the

Eye, but to have his thoughts sublime; and not only to behold, but

speculate their Nature, with the Eye of the understanding.

Now although _Galen_ in this place makes instance but in one, yet are

the other fishes, whose Eyes regard the Heavens, as Plane, and

Cartilagineous _Fishes_; as _Pectinals_, or such as have their bones

made laterally like a Comb; for when they apply themselves to sleep or

rest upon the white side, their Eyes on the other side look upward

toward Heaven. For _Birds_, they generally carry their heads Erectly

like _Man_, and have advantage in their upper Eye-lid; and many that

have long necks, and bear their heads somewhat backward, behold far more

of the Heavens, and seem to look above the æquinoxial Circle. And so

also in many Quadrupeds, although their progression be partly prone, yet

is the sight of their Eye direct, not respecting the Earth but Heaven;

and make an higher Arch of altitude then our own. The position of a

_Frog_ with his head above water exceedeth these; for therein he seems

to behold a large part of the Heavens, and the acies of his Eye to

ascend as high as the Tropick; but he that hath beheld the posture of a

_Bittor_, will not deny that it beholds almost the very _Zenith_. [SN:

_Point of heaven over our heads._]

CHAPTER II

Of the Heart.

[Sidenote: _How a Mans heart is placed in his Body._]

That the _Heart_ of Man is seated in the left side, is an asseveration,

which strictly taken, is refutable by inspection, whereby it appears the

base and centre thereof is in the midst of the chest; true it is, that

the Mucro or Point thereof inclineth unto the left; for by this position

it giveth way unto the ascension of the midriff, and by reason of the

hollow vein could not commodiously deflect unto the right. From which

diversion, nevertheless we cannot so properly say tis placed in the

left, as that it consisteth in the middle, that is, where its centre

resteth; for so do we usually say a Gnomon or Needle is in the middle of

a Dial, although the extreams may respect the North or South, and

approach the circumference thereof.

The ground of this mistake is a general observation from the pulse or

motion of the _Heart_, which is more sensible on this side; but the

reason hereof is not to be drawn from the situation of the _Heart_, but

the site of the left ventricle wherein the vital Spirits are laboured;

and also the great Artery that conveieth them out; both which are

situated on the left. Upon this reason Epithems or cordial Applications

are justly applied unto the left Breast; and the Wounds under the fifth

Rib may be more suddenly destructive if made on the sinister side, and

the Spear of the Souldier that peirced our Saviour, is not improperly

described, when Painters direct it a little towards the left.

The other ground is more particular and upon inspection; for in dead

Bodies especially lying upon the Spine, the _Heart_ doth seem to incline

unto the left. Which happeneth not from its proper site; but besides its

sinistrous gravity, is drawn that way by the great Artery, which then

subsideth and haleth the _Heart_ unto it. And therefore strictly taken,

the _Heart_ is seated in the middle of the Chest; but after a careless

and inconsiderate aspection, or according to the readiest sense of

pulsation, we shall not quarrel, if any affirm it is seated toward the

left. And in these considerations must _Aristotle_ be salved, when he

affirmeth the _Heart_ of Man is placed in the left side, and thus in a

popular acception may we receive the Periphrasis of _Persius_[SN:

----Leva in parte mamillæ.]; when he taketh the part under the left Pap

for the _Heart_; and if rightly apprehended, it concerneth not this

controversie, when it is said in _Ecclesiastes_: The _Heart_ of a wise

Man is in the right side, but that of a Fool in the left, for thereby

may be implied, that the _Heart_ of a wise Man delighteth in the right

way, or in the path of Vertue; that of a Fool in the left or road of

Vice; according to the mystery of the Letter of _Pythagoras_, or that

expression in _Jonah_, concerning sixscore thousand, that could not

discern between their right hand and their left, or knew not good from

evil.

That assertion also that Man proportionally hath the largest brain, I

did I confess somewhat doubt; and conceived it might have failed in

Birds, especially such as having little Bodies, have yet large Cranies,

and seem to contain much Brain, as _Snipes_, _Woodcocks_, etc. But upon

trial I find it very true. The Brains of a Man, _Archangelus_ and

_Bauhinus_ observe, to weigh four pound, and sometime five and a half.

If therefore a Man weigh one hundred and fourty pounds, and his Brain

but five, his Weight is 27. times as much as his brain, deducting the

weight of that five pound which is allowed for it. Now in a Snipe, which

weighed four ounces two dragms, I find the Brains to weigh but half a

dragm; so that the weight of the Body (allowing for the Brain) exceeded

the weight of the Brain, sixty seven times and an half.

More controvertible it seemeth in the Brains of Sparrows, whose Cranies

are rounder, and so of larger capacity: and most of all in the Heads of

Birds, upon the first formation in the Egg, wherein the Head seems

larger then all the Body, and the very Eyes almost as big as either. A

Sparrow in the total we found to weigh seven dragms and four and twenty

grans; whereof the Head a dragm, but the Brain not fifteen grains; which

answereth not fully the proportion of the brain of Man. And therefore it

is to be taken of the whole Head with the Brains, when _Scaliger_[SN:

Histor. Animal. _lib._ 1.] objecteth that the Head of a Man is the

fifteenth part of his Body; that of a Sparrow, scarce the fifth.

CHAPTER III

Of Pleurisies.

[Sidenote: _What a Pleurisie is._]

That _Pleurisies_ are only on the left side, is a popular Tenent not

only absurd but dangerous. From the misapprehension hereof, men omitting

the opportunity of remedies, which otherwise they would not neglect.

Chiefly occasioned by the Ignorance of _Anatomy_ and the extent of the

part affected; which in an exquisite _Pleurisie_ is determined to be the

skin or membrane which invested the Ribs, for so it is defined,

_Inflammatio membranæ costas succingentis_; An Inflammation, either

simple, consisting only of an hot and sanguineous affluxion; or else

denominable from other humours, according to the predominancy of

melancholy, flegm, or choler. The membrane thus inflamed, is properly

called _Pleura_; from whence the disease hath its name; and this

investeth not only one side, but overspreadeth the cavity of the chest,

and affordeth a common coat unto the parts contained therein.

Now therefore the _Pleura_ being common unto both sides, it is not

reasonable to confine the inflammation unto one, nor strictly to

determine it is alwaies in the side; but sometimes before and behind,

that is, inclining to the Spine or Breast-bone; for thither this Coat

extendeth; and therefore with equal propriety we may affirm, that ulcers

of the lungs, or Apostems of the brain do happen only in the left side;

or that Ruptures are confinable unto one side, whereas the Peritoneum or

Rib of the Belly may be broke, or its perforations relaxed in either.

CHAPTER IV

Of the Ring-finger.

An opinion there is, which magnifies the fourth _Finger_ of the left

Hand; presuming therein a cordial relation, that a particular vessel,

nerve, vein or artery is conferred thereto from the heart, and therefore

that especially hath the honour to bear our Rings. Which was not only

the Christian practice in Nuptial contracts, but observed by Heathens,

as _Alexander ab Alexandro_, _Gellius_, _Macrobius_ and _Pierius_ have

delivered, as _Levinus Lemnius_ hath confirmed, who affirms this

peculiar vessel to be an artery, and not a Nerve, as Antiquity hath

conceived it; adding moreover that _Rings_ hereon peculiarly affect the

Heart; that in Lipothymies or swoundings he used the frication of this

_Finger_ with saffron and gold: that the ancient Physitians mixed up

their Medicines herewith; that this is seldom or last of all affected

with the Gout, and when that becometh nodous, Men continue not long

after. Notwithstanding all which we remain unsatisfied, nor can we think

the reasons alleadged sufficiently establish the preheminency of this

_Finger_.

For first, Concerning the practice of Antiquity, the custom was not

general to wear their _Rings_ either on this hand or _Finger_; for it is

said, and that emphatically in _Jeremiah_, _Si fuerit Jeconias filius

Joachim regis Judæ annulus in manu dextrâ meâ, inde evallam eum_: Though

_Coniah_ the son of _Joachim_ King of _Judah_, were the signet on my

right Hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. So is it observed by _Pliny_,

that in the portraits of their Gods, the _Rings_ were worn on the

_Finger_ next the _Thumb_; that the _Romans_ wore them also upon their

little Finger, as _Hero_ is described in _Petronius_; some wore them on

the middle _Finger_, as the ancient _Gaules_ and _Britans_; and some

upon the fore-_Finger_, as is deduceable from _Julius Pollux_: who names

that _Ring_ Corionos.

[Sidenote: _Rings anciently of Iron._]

Again, That the practice of the ancients, had any such respect of

cordiality or reference unto the Heart, will much be doubted, if we

consider their Rings were made of iron; such was that of _Prometheus_,

who is conceived the first that brought them in use. So, as _Pliny_

affirmeth, for many years the _Senators_ of _Rome_ did not wear any

Rings of Gold; but the slaves wore generally Iron Rings until their

manumission or preferment to some dignity. That the _Lacedemonians_

continued their Iron Rings unto his daies, _Pliny_ also delivereth, and

surely they used few of Gold; for beside that _Lycurgus_ prohibited that

mettal, we read in _Athenæus_, that having a desire to guild the face of

_Apollo_, they enquired of the Oracle where they might purchase so much

Gold; and were directed unto _Crœsus_ King of _Lydia_.

Moreover whether the Ancients had any such intention, the grounds which

they conceived in Vein, Nerve or Artery, are not to be justified, nor

will inspection confirm a peculiar vessel in this Finger. For as

_Anatomy_ informeth, the Basilica vein dividing into two branches below

the cubit, the outward sendeth two surcles unto the thumb, two unto the

fore-finger, and one unto the middle finger in the inward side; the

other branch of the Basilica sendeth one surcle unto the outside of the

middle finger, two unto the Ring, and as many unto the little fingers;

so that they all proceed from the Basilica, and are in equal numbers

derived unto every one. In the same manner are the branches of the

axillary artery distributed into the Hand; for below the cubit it

divideth into two parts, the one running along the _Radius_, and passing

by the wrest or place of the pulse, is at the _Fingers_ subdivided into

three Branches; whereof the first conveyeth two surcles unto the

_Thumb_, the second as many to the fore-_Finger_, and the third one unto

the middle _Finger_; the other or lower division of the artery

descendeth by the ulna, and furnisheth the other _Fingers_; that is the

middle with one surcle, and the _Ring_ and little _Fingers_ with two.

[SN: _Whence the Nerves proceed._] As for the Nerves, they are disposed

much after the same manner, and have their original from the Brain, and

not the Heart, as many of the Ancients conceived; which is so far from

affording Nerves unto other parts, that it receiveth very few it self

from the sixth conjugation, or pair of Nerves in the Brain.

Lastly, These propagations being communicated unto both Hands, we have

no greater reason to wear our _Rings_ on the left, then on the right;

nor are there cordial considerations in the one, more then the other.

And therefore when _Forestus_ for the stanching of blood makes use of

Medical applications unto the fourth _Finger_, he confines not that

practice unto the left, but varieth the side according to the nostril

bleeding. So in Feavers, where the Heart primarily suffereth, we apply

Medicines unto the wrests of either arm; so we touch the pulse of both,

and judge of the affections of the Heart by the one as well as the

other. And although in indispositions of Liver or Spleen, considerations

are made in _Phlebotomy_ respectively to their situation; yet when the

Heart is affected, Men have thought it as effectual to bleed on the

right as the left; and although also it may be thought, a nearer respect

is to be had of the left, because the great artery proceeds from the

left ventricle, and so is nearer that arm; it admits not that

consideration. For under the channel bones the artery divideth into two

great branches, from which trunk or point of division, the distance unto

either Hand is equal, and the consideration also answerable.

All which with many respective Niceties, in order unto parts, sides, and

veines, are now become of less consideration, by the new and noble

doctrine of the circulation of the blood.

And therefore _Macrobius_ discussing the point, hath alleadged another

reason; affirming that the gestation of _Rings_ upon this Hand and

_Finger_, might rather be used for their conveniency and preservation,

then any cordial relation. For at first (saith he) it was both free and

usual to wear _Rings_ on either Hand; but after that luxury encreased,

when pretious gems and rich insculptures were added, the custom of

wearing them on the right Hand was translated unto the left; for that

Hand being less imployed, thereby they were best preserved. And for the

same reason they placed them on this _Finger_; for the _Thumb_ was too

active a _Finger_, and is commonly imployed with either of the rest: the

Index or fore-_Finger_ was too naked whereto to commit their

pretiosities, and hath the tuition of the _Thumb_ scarce unto the second

joint: the middle and little _Finger_ they rejected as extreams, and too

big or too little for their _Rings_, and of all chose out the fourth, as

being least used of any, as being guarded on either side, and having in

most this peculiar condition, that it cannot be extended alone and by

itself, but will be accompanied by some _Finger_ on either side. And to

this opinion assenteth _Alexander ab Alexandro_, _Annulum nuptialem

prior ætas in sinistrâ ferebat, crediderim ne attereretur_.

Now that which begat or promoted the common opinion, was the common

conceit that the Heart was seated on the left side; but how far this is

verified, we have before declared. The _Egyptian_ practice hath much

advanced the same, who unto this _Finger_ derived a Nerve from the

Heart; and therefore the Priest anointed the same with precious oyls

before the Altar. But how weak _Anatomists_ they were, which were so

good Embalmers, we have already shewed. And though this reason took most

place, yet had they another which more commended that practice: and that

was the number whereof this _Finger_ was an Hieroglyphick. For by

holding down the fourth _Finger_ of the left Hand, while the rest were

extended, they signified the perfect and magnified number of six. For as

_Pierius_ hath graphically declared, Antiquity expressed numbers by the

_Fingers_ of either Hand: on the left they accounted their digits and

articulate numbers unto an hundred; on the right Hand hundreds and

thousands; the depressing this _Finger_, which in the left Hand implied

but six, in the right indigitated six hundred. In this way of

numeration, may we construe that of _Juvenal_ concerning _Nestor_,

----_Qui per tot sæcula mortem

Distulit, atque suos jam dextrâ computat annos._

And however it were intended, in this sense it will be very elegant what

is delivered of Wisdom, _Prov._ 3. Length of daies is in her right Hand,

and in her left Hand riches and honour.

[Sidenote: _Hand-Gouty persons._]

As for the observation of _Lemnius_ an eminent Physitian, concerning the

Gout; however it happened in his Country, we may observe it otherwise in

ours; that is, that chiragrical persons do suffer in this _Finger_ as

well as in the rest, and sometimes first of all, and sometimes no where

else. And for the mixing up medicines herewith; it is rather an argument

of opinion, then any considerable effect; and we as highly conceive of

the practice in _Diapalma_, that is, in the making of that plaister, to

stir it with the stick of a Palm.

CHAPTER V

Of the right and left Hand.

It is also suspicious, and not with that certainty to be received, what

is generally believed concerning the right and left hand; that Men

naturally make use of the right, and that the use of the other is a

digression or aberration from that way which nature generally intendeth.

We do not deny that almost all Nations have used this hand, and ascribed

a preheminence thereto: hereof a remarkable passage there is in the 48.

of _Genesis_, And _Joseph_ took them both, _Ephraim_ in his right hand

towards _Israels_ left hand, and _Manasses_ in his left hand towards

_Israels_ right hand, and _Israel_ stretched out his right hand and laid

it upon _Ephraims_ head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon

_Manasses_ head, guiding his hands wittingly, for _Manasses_ was the

first-born; and when _Joseph_ saw that his father laid his right hand

upon the head of _Ephraim_, it displeased him, and he held up his

fathers hand to remove it from _Ephraims_ head unto _Manasses_ head, and

_Joseph_ said, Not so my father, for this is the first-born, put thy

right hand upon his head: The like appeareth from the ordinance of

_Moses_ in the consecration of their Priests, Then shalt thou kill the

Ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of

_Aaron_, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the

thumb of the right hand, and upon the great toe of the right foot, and

sprinkle the blood on the Altar round about. That the _Persians_ were

wont herewith to plight their faith, is testified by _Diodorus_: That

the _Greeks_ and _Romans_ made use hereof, beside the testimony of

divers Authors, is evident from their custom of discumbency at their

meals, which was upon their left side, for so their right hand was free,

and ready for all service. As also from the conjunction of the right

hands and not the left observable in the _Roman_ medals of concord. Nor

was this only in use with divers Nations of Men, but was the custom of

whole Nations of Women; as is deduceable from the Amazones in the

amputation of their right breast, whereby they had the freer use of

their bow. All which do seem to declare a natural preferment of the one

unto motion before the other; wherein notwithstanding in submission to

future information, we are unsatisfied unto great dubitation.

For first, if there were a determinate prepotency in the right, and such

as ariseth from a constant root in nature, we might expect the same in

other animals, whose parts are also differenced by dextrality; wherein

notwithstanding we cannot discover a distinct and complying account; for

we find not that _Horses_, _Buls_, or _Mules_, are generally stronger on

this side. As for Animals whose forelegs more sensibly supply the use of

arms, they hold, if not an equality in both, a prevalency oft-times in

the other, as _Squirrels_, _Apes_, and _Monkies_; the same is also

discernable in _Parrets_, who feed themselves more commonly by the

left-leg, and Men observe that the Eye of a Tumbler is biggest, not

constantly in one, but in the bearing side.

[Sidenote: _Whence the dextral activity in men proceeds._]

That there is also in Men a natural prepotency in the right, we cannot

with constancy affirm, if we make observation in children; who permitted

the freedom of both, do oft-times confine unto the left, and are not

without great difficulty restrained from it. And therefore this

prevalency is either uncertainly placed in the laterality, or custom

determines its differency. Which is the resolution of _Aristotle_ in

that Problem, which enquires why the right side being better then the

left, is equal in the senses? because, saith he, the right and left do

differ by use and custom, which have no place in the senses. For right

and left as parts inservient unto the motive faculty, are differenced by

degrees from use and assuefaction, according whereto the one grows

stronger and oft-times bigger then the other. But in the senses it is

otherwise; for they acquire not their perfection by use or custom, but

at the first we equally hear and see with one Eye, as well as with

another. And therefore, were this indifferency permitted, or did not

constitution, but nature determine dextrality, there would be many more

Scevolaes then are delivered in story; nor needed we to draw examples of

the left, from the sons of the right hand [SN: Benjamin filius dextræ.];

as we read of seven thousand in the Army of the _Benjamites_. True it

is, that although there be an indifferency in either, or a prevalency

indifferent in one, yet is it most reasonable for uniformity, and sundry

respective uses, that Men should apply themselves to the constant use of

one; for there will otherwise arise anomalous disturbances in manual

actions, not only in civil and artificial, but also in Military affairs,

and the several actions of war.

Secondly, The grounds and reasons alleadged for the right, are not

satisfactory, and afford no rest in their decision. _Scaliger_ finding a

defect in the reason of _Aristotle_, introduceth one of no less

deficiency himself; _Ratio materialis_ (saith he) _sanguinis crassitudo

simul et multitudo_; that is, the reason of the vigour of this side, is

the crassitude and plenty of blood; but this is not sufficient; for the

crassitude or thickness of blood affordeth no reason why one arm should

be enabled before the other, and the plenty thereof, why both not

enabled equally. _Fallopius_ is of another conceit, deducing the reason

from the Azygos or _vena sine pari_, a large and considerable vein

arising out of the _cava_ or hollow vein, before it enters the right

ventricle of the Heart, and placed only in the right side. But neither

is this perswasory; for the Azygos communicates no branches unto the

arms or legs on either side, but disperseth into the Ribs on both, and

in its descent doth furnish the left Emulgent with one vein, and the

first vein of the loins on the right side with another; which manner of

derivation doth not confer a peculiar addition unto either. _Cælius

Rodiginus_ undertaking to give a reason of Ambidexters and _Left-handed_

Men, delivereth a third opinion: Men, saith he, are Ambidexters, and use

both _Hands_ alike, when the heat of the Heart doth plentifully disperse

into the left side, and that of the Liver into the right, and the spleen

be also much dilated; but Men are _Left-handed_ when ever it happeneth

that the Heart and Liver are seated on the left-side; or when the Liver

is on the right side, yet so obducted and covered with thick skins, that

it cannot diffuse its vertue into the right. Which reasons are no way

satisfactory; for herein the spleen is injustly introduced to invigorate

the sinister side, which being dilated it would rather infirm and

debilitate. As for any tunicles or skins which should hinder the Liver

from enabling dextral parts; we must not conceive it diffuseth its

vertue by meer irradiation, but by its veins and proper vessels, which

common skins and teguments cannot impede. And for the seat of the Heart

and Liver in one side, whereby Men become _Left-handed_, it happeneth

too rarely to countenance an effect so common; for the seat of the Liver

on the left side is monstrous, and rarely to be met with in the

observations of Physitians. Others not considering ambidextrous and

_Left-handed_ Men, do totally submit unto the efficacy of the Liver;

which though seated on the right side, yet by the subclavian division

doth equidistantly communicate its activity unto either Arm; nor will it

salve the doubts of observation; for many are _Right-handed_ whose

Livers are weakly constituted, and many use the left, in whom that part

is strongest; and we observe in Apes, and other animals, whose Liver is

in the right, no regular prevalence therein.

And therefore the brain, especially the spinal marrow, which is but the

brain prolonged, hath a fairer plea hereto; for these are the principles

of motion, wherein dextrality consists; and are divided within and

without the Crany. By which division transmitting Nerves respectively

unto either side; according to the indifferency, or original and native

prepotency, there ariseth an equality in both, or prevalency on either

side. And so may it be made out, what many may wonder at, why some most

actively use the contrary Arm and Leg; for the vigour of the one

dependeth upon the upper part of the spine, but the other upon the

lower.

And therefore many things are Philosophically delivered concerning

right and left, which admit of some suspension. That a Woman upon a

masculine conception advanceth her right Leg, will not be found to

answer strick observation. That males are conceived in the right side of

the womb, females in the left, though generally delivered, and supported

by ancient testimony, will make no infallible account; it happening oft

times that males and females do lie upon both sides, and Hermaphrodites

for ought we know on either. It is also suspitious what is delivered

concerning the right and left testicle, that males are begotten from the

one, and females from the other. For though the left seminal vein

proceedeth from the emulgent, and is therefore conceived to carry down a

serous and feminine matter; yet the seminal Arteries which send forth

the active materials, are both derived from the great Artery. Beside

this original of the left vein was thus contrived, to avoid the

pulsation of the great Artery, over which it must have passed to attain

unto the testicle. Nor can we easily infer such different effects from

the divers situation of parts which have one end and office; for in the

kidneys which have one office, the right is seated lower then the left,

whereby it lieth free, and giveth way unto the Liver. And therefore also

that way which is delivered for masculine generation, to make a strait

ligature about the left testicle, thereby to intercept the evacuation of

that part, deserveth consideration. For one sufficeth unto generation,

as hath been observed in semicastration, and oft times in carnous

ruptures. [SN: _How an Horse or Bull may generate after they be gelt._]

Beside, the seminal ejaculation proceeds not immediately from the

testicle, but from the spermatick glandules; and therefore _Aristotle_

affirms (and reason cannot deny) that although there be nothing diffused

from the testicles, an _Horse_ or _Bull_ may generate after castration;

that is, from the stock and remainder of seminal matter, already

prepared and stored up in the Prostates or grandules of generation.

Thirdly, Although we should concede a right and left in Nature, yet in

this common and received account we may err from the proper acception;

mistaking one side for another; calling that in Man and other animals

the right which is the left, and that the left which is the right, and

that in some things right and left, which is not properly either.

For first the right and left, are not defined by Phylosophers according

to common acception, that is, respectively from one Man unto another, or

any constant site in each; as though that should be the right in one,

which upon confront or facing, stands athwart or diagonally unto the

other; but were distinguished according to the activity and predominant

locomotion upon either side. Thus _Aristotle_ in his excellent Tract _de

incessu animalium_, ascribeth six positions unto Animals, answering the

three dimensions; which he determineth not by site or position unto the

Heavens, but by their faculties and functions; and these are _Imum

_, _Ante Retro_, _Dextra et Sinistra_: that is, the superiour

part, where the aliment is received, that the lower extream, where it is

last expelled; so he termeth a Man a plant inverted; for he supposeth

the root of a Tree the head or upper part thereof, whereby it receiveth

its aliment, although therewith it respects the Center of the Earth, but

with the other the Zenith; and this position is answerable unto

longitude. Those parts are anteriour and measure profundity, where the

senses, especially the Eyes are placed, and those posterior which are

opposite hereunto. The dextrous and sinistrous parts of the body make

up the latitude; and are not certain and inalterable like the other; for

that, saith he, is the right side, from whence the motion of the body

beginneth, that is, the active or moving side; but that the sinister

which is the weaker or more quiescent part. Of the same determination

were the _Platonicks_ and _Pythagoreans_ before him; who conceiving the

heavens an animated body, named the _East_, the right or dextrous part,

from whence began their motion: and thus the _Greeks_, from whence the

_Latins_ have borrowed their appellation, have named this hand

δέξια, denominating it not from the site, but office, from

δέχομαι _capio_, that is, the hand which receiveth, or is usually

implied in that action.

Now upon these grounds we are most commonly mistaken, defining that by

situation which they determined by motion; and giving the term of right

hand to that which doth not properly admit it. For first, Many in their

Infancy are sinistrously disposed, and divers continue all their life

Ἀριστεροί, that is, left handed, and have but weak and imperfect use of

the right; now unto these, that hand is properly the right, and not the

other esteemed so by situation. Thus may _Aristotle_ be made out, when

he affirmeth the right claw of _Crabs_ and _Lobsters_ is biggest, if we

take the right for the most vigorous side, and not regard the relative

situation: for the one is generally bigger then the other, yet not

alwayes upon the same side. So may it be verified what is delivered by

_Scaliger_ in his Comment, that Palsies do oftnest happen upon the left

side, if understood in this sense; the most vigorous part protecting it

self, and protruding the matter upon the weaker and less resistive side.

And thus the Law of Common-Weals, that cut off the right hand of

Malefactors, if Philosophically executed, is impartial; otherwise the

amputation not equally punisheth all.

Some are Ἀμφιδέξιοι, that is, ambidextrous or right handed on both

sides; which happeneth only unto strong and Athletical bodies, whose

heat and spirits are able to afford an ability unto both. [SN: _Apt for

contention._] And therefore _Hippocrates_ saith, that Women are not

ambidextrous, that is, not so often as Men; for some are found, which

indifferently make use of both. And so may _Aristotle_ say, that only

Men are ambidexterous; of this constitution was _Asteropæus_ in _Homer_,

and _Parthenopeus_ the _Theban_ Captain in _Statius_: and of the same,

do some conceive our Father _Adam_ to have been, as being perfectly

framed, and in a constitution admitting least defect. Now in these Men

the right hand is on both sides, and that is not the left which is

opposite unto the right, according to common acception.

Again, Some are Ἀμφαριστεροὶ, as _Galen_ hath expressed it; that is,

ambilevous or left-handed on both sides; such as with agility and vigour

have not the use of either: who are not gymnastically [SN: _Strongly or

fit for corporal exercise._] composed: nor actively use those parts. Now

in these there is no right hand: of this constitution are many Women,

and some Men, who though they accustom themselves unto either hand, do

dexterously make use of neither. And therefore although the Political

advice of _Aristotle_ be very good, that Men should accustom themselves

to the command of either hand: yet cannot the execution or performance

thereof be general: for though there be many found that can use both,

yet will there divers remain that can strenuously make use of neither.

Lastly, These lateralities in Man are not only fallible, if relatively

determined unto each other, but made in reference unto the heavens and

quarters of the Globe: for those parts are not capable of these

conditions in themselves, nor with any certainty respectively derived

from us, nor from them to us again. And first in regard of their proper

nature, the heavens admit not these sinister and dexter respects; there

being in them no diversity or difference, but a simplicity of parts, and

equiformity in motion continually succeeding each other; so that from

what point soever we compute, the account will be common unto the whole

circularity. And therefore though it be plausible, it is not of

consequence hereto what is delivered by _Solinus_. That Man was

therefore a Microcosm or little World, because the dimensions of his

positions were answerable unto the greater. For as in the Heavens the

distance of the North and Southern pole, which are esteemed the

superiour and inferiour points, is equal unto the space between the East

and West, accounted the dextrous and sinistrous parts thereof; so is it

also in Man, for the extent of his fathome or distance betwixt the

extremity of the fingers of either hand upon expansion, is equal unto

the space between the sole of the foot and the crown. But this doth but

petionarily infer a dextrality in the Heavens, and we may as reasonably

conclude a right and left laterality in the Ark or naval edifice of

_Noah_. For the length thereof was thirty cubits, the breadth fifty, and

the height or profundity thirty; which well agreeth unto the proportion

of Man, whose length, that is, a perpendicular from the vertex unto the

sole of the foot is sextuple unto his breadth, or a right line drawn

from the ribs of one side to another; and decuble unto his profundity;

that is, a direct line between the breast bone and the spine.

Again, They receive not these conditions with any assurance or

stability from our selves. For the relative foundations and points of

denomination, are not fixed and certain, but variously designed

according to imagination. The Philosopher accounts that East from whence

the Heavens begin their motion. The Astronomer regarding the South and

Meridian Sun, calls that the dextrous part of Heaven which respecteth

his right hand; and that is the West. Poets respecting the West, assign

the name of right unto the North, which regardeth their right hand; and

so must that of _Ovid_ be explained _utque duæ dextrâ Zonæ totidemquæ

sinistrâ_. [SN: _Declarable from the original expression_, Psalm 89.

13.] But Augurs or Southsayers turning their face to the East, did make

the right in the South; which was also observed by the _Hebrews_ and

_Chaldeans_. Now if we name the quarters of Heaven respectively unto our

sides, it will be no certain or invariable denomination. For if we call

that the right side of Heaven which is seated Easterly unto us, when we

regard the Meridian Sun; the inhabitants beyond the Æquator and Southern

Tropick when they face us, regarding the Meridian, will contrarily

define it; for unto them, the opposite part of Heaven will respect the

left, and the Sun arise to their right.

And thus have we at large declared that although the right be most

commonly used, yet hath it no regular or certain root in nature. Since

it is not confirmable from other Animals: Since in Children it seems

either indifferent or more favourable in the other; but more reasonable

for uniformity in action, that Men accustom unto one: Since the grounds

and reasons urged for it, do not sufficiently support it: Since if there

be a right and stronger side in nature, yet may we mistake in its

denomination; calling that the right which is the left, and the left

which is the right. Since some have one right, some both, some neither.

And lastly, Since these affections in Man are not only fallible in

relation unto one another, but made also in reference unto the Heavens,

they being not capable of these conditions in themselves, nor with any

certainty from us, nor we from them again.

And therefore what admission we ow unto many conceptions concerning

right and left, requireth circumspection. That is, how far we ought to

rely upon the remedy in _Kiranides_, that is, the left eye of an

_Hedg-hog_ fried in oyl to procure sleep, and the right foot of a _Frog_

in a _Dears_ skin for the _Gout_; or that to dream of the loss of right

or left tooth, presageth the death of male or female kindred, according

to the doctrine of _Artemidorus_. What verity there is in that numeral

conceit in the lateral division of Man by even and odd, ascribing the

odd unto the right side, and even unto the left; and so by parity or

imparity of letters in Mens names to determine misfortunes on either

side of their bodies; by which account in Greek numeration, _Hephæstus_

or _Vulcan_ was lame in the right foot, and _Anibal_ lost his right eye.

And lastly, what substance there is in that Auspicial principle, and

fundamental doctrine of Ariolation, that the left hand is ominous, and

that good things do pass sinistrously upon us, because the left hand of

man respected the right hand of the Gods, which handed their favours

unto us.

CHAPTER VI

Of Swimming and Floating.

That Men swim naturally, if not disturbed by fear; that Men being

drowned and sunk, do float the ninth day when their gall breaketh; that

Women drowned, swim prone, but Men supine, or upon their backs; are

popular affirmations, whereto we cannot assent. And first, that Man

should swim naturally, because we observe it is no lesson unto other

Animals, we are not forward to conclude; for other Animals swim in the

same manner as they go, and need no other way of motion for natation in

the water, then for progression upon the land. And this is true whether

they move _per latera_, that is, two legs of one side together, which is

Tollutation or ambling; or _per diametrum_, lifting one foot before, and

the cross foot behind, which is succussation or trotting; or whether

_per frontem_ or _quadratum_, as _Scaliger_ terms it, upon a square

base, the legs of both sides moving together, as _Frogs_ and salient

Animals, which is properly called leaping. For by these motions they are

able to support and impel themselves in the water, without alteration in

the stroak of their legs, or position of their bodies.

But with Man it is performed otherwise; for in regard of site he alters

his natural posture and swimmeth prone; whereas he walketh erect. Again,

in progression the arms move parallel to the legs, and the arms and legs

unto each other; but in natation they intersect and make all sorts of

angles. And lastly, in progressive motion, the arms and legs do move

successively, but in natation both together; all which aptly to

perform, and so as to support and advance the body, is a point of Art,

and such as some in their young and docile years could never attain. But

although swimming be acquired by art, yet is there somewhat more of

nature in it then we observe in other habits, nor will it strictly fall

under that definition; for once obtained, it is not to be removed; nor

is there any who from disuse did ever yet forget it.

Secondly, That persons drowned arise and float the ninth day when their

gall breaketh, is a questionable determination both in the time and

cause. For the time of floating, it is uncertain according to the time

of putrefaction, which shall retard or accelerate according to the

subject and season of the year; for as we observed, _Cats_ and _Mice_

will arise unequally, and at different times, though drowned at the

same. Such as are fat do commonly float soonest, for their bodies

soonest ferment, and that substance approacheth nearest unto air: and

this is one of _Aristotles_ reasons why dead _Eels_ will not float,

because saith he, they have but slender bellies, and little fat.

[Sidenote: _Why drowned bodies float after a time._]

As for the cause, it is not so reasonably imputed unto the breaking of

the gall as the putrefaction or corruptive firmentation of the body,

whereby the unnatural heat prevailing, the putrifying parts do suffer a

turgescence and inflation, and becoming aery and spumous affect to

approach the air, and ascend unto the surface of the water. And this is

also evidenced in Eggs, whereof the sound ones sink, and such as are

addled swim, as do also those which are termed hypenemia or wind-eggs;

and this is also a way to separate seeds, whereof such as are corrupted

and steril, swim; and this agreeth not only unto the seed of plants

lockt up and capsulated in their husks, but also unto the sperm and

seminal humour of Man; for such a passage hath _Aristotle_ upon the

Inquisition and test of its fertility.

That the breaking of the gall is not the cause hereof, experience hath

informed us. For opening the _abdomen_, and taking out the gall in

_Cats_ and _Mice_, they did notwithstanding arise. And because we had

read in _Rhodiginus_ of a Tyrant, who to prevent the emergency of

murdered bodies, did use to cut off their lungs, and found Mens minds

possessed with this reason; we committed some unto the water without

lungs, which notwithstanding floated with the others. And to compleat

the experiment, although we took out the guts and bladder, and also

perforated the Cranium, yet would they arise, though in a longer time.

From these observations in other Animals, it may not be unreasonable to

conclude the same in Man, who is too noble a subject on whom to make

them expressly, and the casual opportunity to rare almost to make any.

Now if any should ground this effect from gall or choler, because it is

the highest humour and will be above the rest; or being the fiery humour

will readiest surmount the water, we must confess in the common

putrescence it may promote elevation, which the breaking of the bladder

of gall, so small a part in Man, cannot considerably advantage.

Lastly, That Women drowned float prone, that is, with their bellies

downward, but Men supine or upward, is an assertion wherein the _hoti_

or point it self is dubious; and were it true, the reason alledged for

it, is of no validity. The reason yet currant was first expressed by

_Pliny_, _veluti pudori defunctorum parcente naturâ_, nature modestly

ordaining this position to conceal the shame of the dead; which hath

been taken up by _Solinus_, _Rhodiginus_, and many more. This indeed (as

_Scaliger_ termeth it) is _ratio civilis non philosophica_, strong

enough for morality of Rhetoricks, not for Philosophy or Physicks. For

first, in nature the concealment of secret parts is the same in both

sexes, and the shame of their reveal equal: so _Adam_ upon the tast of

the fruit was ashamed of his nakedness as well as _Eve_. And so likewise

in _America_ and Countries unacquainted with habits, where modesty

conceals these parts in one sex, it doth it also in the other; and

therefore had this been the intention of nature, not only Women but Men

also had swimmed downwards; the posture in reason being common unto

both, where the intent is also common.

Again, While herein we commend the modesty, we condemn the wisdom of

nature: for that prone position we make her contrive unto the Woman,

were best agreeable unto the Man, in whom the secret parts are very

anteriour and more discoverable in a supine and upward posture. And

therefore _Scaliger_ declining this reason, hath recurred unto another

from the difference of parts in both sexes; _Quod ventre vasto sunt

mulieres plenoque intestinis, itaque minus impletur et subsidet, inanior

maribus quibus nates præponderant_: If so, then Men with great bellies

will float downward, and only _Callipygæ_, and Women largely composed

behind, upward. But _Anatomists_ observe, that to make the larger cavity

for the Infant, the hanch bones in Women, and consequently the parts

appendant are more protuberant then they are in Men. They who ascribe

the cause unto the breasts of Women, take not away the doubt; for they

resolve not why children float downward, who are included in that sex,

though not in the reason alleadged. But hereof we cease to discourse,

lest we undertake to afford a reason of the [1]golden tooth, that is, to

invent or assign a cause when we remain unsatisfied or unassured of the

effect.

[1] _Of the cause whereof much dispute was made, and at last proved an

imposture._

That a _Mare_ will sooner drown then a _Horse_, though commonly

opinion'd, is not I fear experienced: nor is the same observed, in the

drowning of _Whelps_ and _Kitlins_. But that a Man cannot shut or open

his eyes under water, easie experiment may convict. Whether Cripples and

mutilated Persons, who have lost the greatest part of their thighs, will

not sink but float, their lungs being abler to waft up their bodies,

which are in others overpoised by the hinder legs; we have not made

experiment. Thus much we observe, that Animals drown downwards, and the

same is observable in _Frogs_, when the hinder legs are cut off. But in

the air most seem to perish headlong from high places; however _Vulcan_

thrown from Heaven, be made to fall on his feet.

CHAPTER VII

Concerning Weight.

That Men weigh heavier dead then alive, if experiment hath not failed

us, we cannot reasonably grant. For though the trial hereof cannot so

well be made on the body of Man, nor will the difference be sensible in

the abate of scruples and dragms, yet can we not confirm the same in

lesser Animals, from whence the inference is good; and the affirmative

of _Pliny_ saith, that it is true in all. For exactly weighing and

strangling a _Chicken_ in the Scales; upon an immediate ponderation, we

could discover no sensible difference in weight; but suffering it to

lie eight or ten hours, untill it grew perfectly cold, it weighed most

sensibly lighter; the like we attempted, and verified in _Mice_, and

performed their trials in Scales, that would turn upon the eighth or

tenth part of a grain.

Now whereas some alledge that spirits are lighter substances, and

naturally ascending, do elevate and waft the body upward, whereof dead

bodies being destitute, contract a greater gravity; although we concede

that spirits are light, comparatively unto the body, yet that they are

absolutely so, or have no weight at all, we cannot readily allow. For

since Philosophy affirmeth, that spirits are middle substances between

the soul and body, they must admit of some corporiety, which supposeth

weight or gravity. Beside, in carcasses warm, and bodies newly

disanimated, while transpiration remaineth, there do exhale and breath

out vaporous and fluid parts, which carry away some power of

gravitation. Which though we allow, we do not make answerable unto

living expiration; and therefore the _Chicken_ or _Mice_ were not so

light being dead, as they would have been after ten hours kept alive;

for in that space a man abateth many ounces. Nor if it had slept, for in

that space of sleep, a Man will sometimes abate fourty ounces; nor if it

had been in the middle of summer, for then a Man weigheth some pounds

less, then in the height of winter; according to experience, and the

statick Aphorisms of _Sanctorius_.

Again, Whereas Men affirm they perceive an addition of ponderosity in

dead bodies, comparing them usually unto blocks and stones, whensoever

they lift or carry them; this accessional preponderancy is rather in

appearance then reality. For being destitute of any motion, they confer

no relief unto the Agents, or Elevators; which makes us meet with the

same complaints of gravity in animated and living bodies, where the

Nerves subside, and the faculty locomotive seems abolished; as may be

observed in the lifting or supporting of persons inebriated,

Apoplectical, or in Lypothymies and swoundings.

Many are also of opinion, and some learned Men maintain, that Men are

lighter after meals then before, and that by a supply and addition of

spirits obscuring the gross ponderosity of the aliment ingested; but the

contrary hereof we have found in the trial of sundry persons in

different sex and ages. And we conceive Men may mistake if they

distinguish not the sense of levity unto themselves, and in regard of

the scale or decision of trutination. For after a draught of wine, a Man

may seem lighter in himself from sudden refection, although he be

heavier in the balance, from a corporal and ponderous addition; but a

Man in the morning is lighter in the scale, because in sleep some pounds

have perspired; and is also lighter unto himself, because he is

refected.

And to speak strictly, a Man that holds his breath is weightier while

his lungs are full, then upon expiration. For a bladder blown is

weightier then one empty, and if it contain a quart, expressed and

emptied it will abate about a quarter of a grain. And therefore we

somewhat mistrust the experiment of a pumice stone taken up by

_Montanus_, in his Comment upon _Avicenna_, where declaring how the

rarity of parts, and numerosity of pores, occasioneth a lightness in

bodies, he affirms that a pumice-stone powdered, is lighter then one

entire; which is an experiment beyond our satisfaction; for beside that

abatement can hardly be avoided in the Trituration; if a bladder of good

capacity will scarce include a grain of air, a pumice of three or four

dragms, cannot be presumed to contain the hundred part thereof; which

will not be sensible upon the exactest beams we use. Nor is it to be

taken strictly which is delivered by the learned Lord _Verulam_, and

referred unto further experiment; That a dissolution of Iron in _aqua

fortis_, will bear as good weight as their bodies did before,

notwithstanding a great deal of waste by a thick vapour that issueth

during the working; for we cannot find it to hold neither in Iron nor

Copper, which is dissolved with less ebullition; and hereof we made

trial in Scales of good exactness: wherein if there be a defect, or such

as will not turn upon quarter grains, there may be frequent mistakes in

experiments of this nature. That also may be considered which is

delivered by _Hamerus Poppius_[SN: Basilica Antimonii.], that

_Antimony_ calcin'd or reduced to ashes by a burning glass, although it

emit a gross and ponderous exhalation, doth rather exceed then abate its

former gravity. Nevertheless, strange it is; how very little and almost

insensible abatement there will be sometimes in such operations, or

rather some encrease, as in the refining of metals, in the test of bone

ashes, according to experience: and in a burnt brick, as _Monsieur de

Clave_[SN: Des Pierres.] affirmeth. Mistake may be made in this way of

trial, when the _Antimony_ is not weighed immediately upon the

calcination; but permitted the air, it imbibeth the humidity thereof,

and so repaireth its gravity.

CHAPTER VIII

Of the passage of Meat and Drink.

That there are different passages for Meat and Drink, the Meat or dry

aliment descending by the one, the Drink or moistening vehicle by the

other, is a popular Tenent in our daies, but was the assertion of

learned men of old. For the same was affirmed by _Plato_, maintained by

_Eustathius_ in _Macrobius_, and is deducible from _Eratosthenes_,

_Eupolis_ and _Euripides_. Now herein Men contradict experience, not

well understanding _Anatomy_, and the use of parts. For at the Throat

there are two cavities or conducting parts; the one the Oesophagus or

Gullet, seated next the spine, a part official unto nutrition, and

whereby the aliment both wet and dry is conveied unto the stomack; the

other (by which tis conceived the Drink doth pass) is the weazon, rough

artery, or wind-pipe, a part inservient to voice and respiration; for

thereby the air descendeth into the lungs, and is communicated unto the

heart. And therefore all Animals that breath or have lungs, have also

the weazon; but many have the gullet or feeding channel, which have no

lungs or wind-pipe; as fishes which have gils, whereby the heart is

refrigerated; for such thereof as have lungs and respiration, are not

without the weazon, as Whales and cetaceous Animals.

Again, Beside these parts destin'd to divers offices, there is a

peculiar provision for the wind-pipe, that is, a cartilagineous flap

upon the opening of the Larinx or Throttle, which hath an open cavity

for the admission of the air; but lest thereby either meat or drink

should descend, Providence hath placed the _Epiglottis_, _Ligula_, or

flap like an Ivy leaf, which alwaies closeth when we swallow, or when

the meat and drink passeth over it into the gullet. Which part although

all have not that breath, as all cetaceous and oviparous Animals, yet is

the weazon secured some other way; and therefore in Whales that breath,

least the water should get into the lungs, an ejection thereof is

contrived by a Fistula or spout at the head. And therefore also though

birds have no Epiglottis, yet can they so contract the rim or chink of

their Larinx, as to prevent the admission of wet or dry ingested; either

whereof getting in, occasioneth a cough, until it be ejected. [SN: _Why

a man cannot drink and breath at once._] And this is the reason why a

Man cannot drink and breath at the same time; why, if we laugh while we

drink, the drink flies out at the nostrils; why, when the water enters

the weazon, Men are suddenly drowned; and thus must it be understood,

when we read [SN: Anacreon _the Poet, if the story be taken literally_.]

of one that died by the seed of a Grape, and another by an hair in milk.

Now if any shall still affirm, that some truth there is in the

assertion, upon the experiment of _Hippocrates_, who killing an Hog

after a red potion, found the tincture thereof in the Larinx; if any

will urge the same from medical practice, because in affections both of

Lungs and weazon, Physitians make use of syrupes, and lambitive

medicines; we are not averse to acknowledge, that some may distil and

insinuate into the wind-pipe, and medicines may creep down, as well as

the rheum before them; yet to conclude from hence, that air and water

have both one common passage, were to state the question upon the weaker

side of the distinction, and from a partial or guttulous irrigation, to

conclude a total descension.

CHAPTER IX

Of Sneezing.

Concerning Sternutation or Sneezing, and the custom of saluting or

blessing upon that motion, it is pretended, and generally believed to

derive its original from a disease, wherein Sternutation proved mortal,

and such as Sneezed, died. And this may seem to be proved from _Carolus

Sigonius_, who in his History of _Italy_, makes mention of a Pestilence

in the time of _Gregory_ the Great, that proved pernitious and deadly to

those that Sneezed. Which notwithstanding will not sufficiently

determine the grounds hereof: that custom having an elder _Æra_, then

this Chronology affordeth.

For although the age of _Gregory_ extend above a thousand, yet is this

custom mentioned by _Apuleius_, in the Fable of the Fullers wife, who

lived three hundred years before; by _Pliny_ in that Problem of his,

_Cur Sternutantes salutantur_; and there are also reports that

_Tiberius_ the Emperour, otherwise a very sower Man, would perform this

rite most punctually unto others, and expect the same from others, unto

himself. _Petronius Arbiter_, who lived before them both, and was

Proconsul of _Bythinia_ in the raign of _Nero_, hath mentioned it in

these words, _Gyton collectione spiritus plenus, ter continuo ita

sternutavit ut grabatum concuteret, ad quem motum Eumolpus conversus,

Salvere Gytona jubet._ _Cælius Rhodiginus_ hath an example hereof among

the _Greeks_, far antienter than these, that is, in the time of _Cyrus_

the younger; when consulting about their retreat, it chanced that one

among them Sneezed; at the noise whereof, the rest of the Souldiers

called upon _Jupiter Soter_. There is also in the Greek Anthology [SN:

_A Collection of Greek Epigrams_, Titulo εἰς δυσειδεῖς.], a remarkable

mention hereof in an Epigram, upon one _Proclus_; the Latin whereof we

shall deliver, as we find it often translated.

_Non potis est Proclus digitis emungere nasum,

Namq; est pro nasi mole pusilla manus:

Non vocat ille Jovem sternutans, quippe, nec audit

Sternutamentum, tam procul aure sonat._

_Proclus_ with his hand his nose can never wipe,

His hand too little is his nose to gripe;

He Sneezing calls not _Jove_, for why? he hears

Himself not Sneeze, the sound's so far from's ears.

Nor was this only an ancient custom among the _Greeks_ and _Romans_, and

is still in force with us, but is received at this day in remotest parts

of _Africa_. For so we read in _Codignus_[SN: De rebus Abassinorum];

that upon a Sneeze of the Emperour of _Monomotapa_, there passed

acclamations successively through the City. And as remarkable an example

there is of the same custom, in the remotest parts of the East, recorded

in the travels of _Pinto_[SN: Buxt. Lex. Chald.].

But the history will run much higher, if we should take in the

_Rabinical_ account hereof; that Sneezing was a mortal sign even from

the first Man; until it was taken off by the special supplication of

_Jacob_. From whence, as a thankful acknowledgment, this salutation

first began; and was after continued by the expression of _Tobim

Chaiim_, or _vita bona_, by standers by, upon all occasion of Sneezing.

[Sidenote: _Whence Sternutation or Sneezing proceeds._]

Now the ground of this ancient custom was probably the opinion the

ancients held of sternutation, which they generally conceived, to be a

good sign or a bad, and so upon this motion accordingly used, a Salve or

Ζεῦ σῶσον, as a gratulation for the one, and a deprecation for the

other. Now of the waies whereby they enquired and determined its

signality; the first was natural, arising from Physical causes, and

consequences oftentimes naturally succeeding this motion; and so it

might be justly esteemed a good sign. For Sneezing being properly a

motion of the brain, suddenly expelling through the nostrils what is

offensive unto it, it cannot but afford some evidence of its vigour; and

therefore saith _Aristotle_[SN: _Problem Sect. 33._], they that hear it,

προσκυνοῦσιν ὡς ἵερον, honour it as somewhat sacred, and a sign of

Sanity in the diviner part; and this he illustrates from the practice of

Physitians, who in persons near death, do use Sternutatories, or such

medicines as provoke unto Sneezing; when if the faculty awaketh, and

Sternutation ensueth, they conceive hopes of life, and with gratulation

receive the signs of safety. [SN: _In what cases a sign of good._] And so

is it also of good signality, according to that of _Hippocrates_, that

Sneezing cureth the hicket, and is profitable unto Women in hard labour;

and so is it good in Lethargies, Apoplexies, Catalepsies, and Coma's

[SN: _2. King 4. 35._]. [SN: _In what of bad._] And in this natural way

it is sometime likewise of bad effects or signs, and may give hints of

deprecation; as in diseases of the chest; for therein _Hippocrates_

condemneth it as too much exagitating: in the beginning of _Catarrhs_

according unto _Avicenna_, as hindering concoction, in new and tender

conceptions (as _Pliny_ observeth) for then it endangers abortion.

The second way was superstitious and Augurial, as _Cælius Rhodiginus_

hath illustrated in testimonies, as ancient as _Theocritus_ and _Homer_:

as appears from the _Athenian_ Master, who would have retired, because a

Boat-man Sneezed; and the testimony of _Austin_, that the Ancients were

wont to go to bed again if they Sneezed while they put on their shoe.

And in this way it was also of good and bad signification; so

_Aristotle_ hath a Problem, why Sneezing from noon unto midnight was

good, but from night to noon unlucky? So _Eustathius_ upon _Homer_

observes, that Sneezing to the left hand was unlucky, but prosperous

unto the right; so, as _Plutarch_ relateth, when _Themistocles_

sacrificed in his galley before the battle of _Xerxes_, and one of the

assistants upon the right hand sneezed; _Euphrantides_ the Southsayer,

presaged the victory of the _Greeks_, and the overthrow of the

_Persians_.

Thus we may perceive the custom is more ancient then commonly conceived;

and these opinions hereof in all ages, not any one disease to have been

the occasion of this salute and deprecation. Arising at first from this

vehement and affrighting motion of the brain, inevitably observable unto

the standers by; from whence some finding dependent effects to ensue;

others ascribing hereto as a cause what perhaps but casually or

inconnexedly succeeded; they might proceed unto forms of speeches,

felicitating the good, or deprecating the evil to follow.

CHAPTER X

Of the Jews.

That _Jews_ stink naturally, that is, that in their race and nation

there is an evil savour, is a received opinion we know not how to admit;

although concede many questionable points, and dispute not the verity of

sundry opinions which are of affinity hereto. We will acknowledg that

certain odours attend on animals, no less then certain colours; that

pleasant smels are not confined unto vegetables, but found in divers

animals, and some more richly then in plants. And though the Problem of

_Aristotle_ enquire why no animal smels sweet beside the Parde? yet

later discoveries add divers sorts of _Monkeys_, the _Civet Cat_ and

_Gazela_, from which our Musk proceedeth. We confess that beside the

smell of the species, there may be individual odours, and every Man may

have a proper and peculiar savour; which although not perceptible unto

Man, who hath this sense, but weak, yet sensible unto _Dogs_, who hereby

can single out their masters in the dark. We will not deny that

particular Men have sent forth a pleasant savour, as _Theophrastus_ and

_Plutarch_ report of _Alexander_ the great, and _Tzetzes_ and _Cardan_

do testifie of themselves. That some may also emit an unsavory odour, we

have no reason to deny; for this may happen from the quality of what

they have taken; the Fætor whereof may discover it self by sweat and

urine, as being unmasterable by the natural heat of Man, not to be

dulcified by concoction beyond an unsavory condition: the like may come

to pass from putrid humours, as is often discoverable in putrid and

malignant feavers. And sometime also in gross and humid bodies even in

the latitude of sanity; the natural heat of the parts being insufficient

for a perfect and through digestion, and the errors of one concoction

not rectifiable by another. But that an unsavory odour is gentilitious

or national unto the _Jews_, if rightly understood, we cannot well

concede; nor will the information of reason or sence induce it.

For first, Upon consult of reason, there will be found no easie

assurance to fasten a material or temperamental propriety upon any

nation; there being scarce any condition (but what depends upon clime)

which is not exhausted or obscured from the commixture of introvenient

nations either by commerce or conquest; much more will it be difficult

to make out this affection in the _Jews_; whose race however pretended

to be pure, must needs have suffered inseparable commixtures with

nations of all sorts; not only in regard of their proselytes, but their

universal dispersion; some being posted from several parts of the earth,

others quite lost, and swallowed up in those nations where they planted.

For the tribes of _Reuben_, _Gad_, part of _Manasses_ and _Naphthali_,

which were taken by _Assur_, and the rest at the Sacking of _Samaria_,

which were led away by _Salmanasser_ into _Assyria_, and after a year

and half arrived at _Arsereth_, as is delivered in _Esdras_; these I say

never returned, and are by the _Jews_ as vainly expected as their

_Messias_. Of those of the tribe of _Judah_ and _Benjamin_, which were

led captive into _Babylon_ by _Nebuchadnezzar_, many returned under

_Zorobabel_; the rest remained, and from thence long after upon invasion

of the _Saracens_, fled as far as _India_; where yet they are said to

remain, but with little difference from the _Gentiles_.

The Tribes that returned to _Judea_, were afterward widely dispersed;

for beside sixteen thousand which _Titus_ sent to _Rome_ unto the

triumph of his father _Vespasian_, he sold no less then an hundred

thousand for slaves. Not many years after, _Adrian_ the Emperour, who

ruined the whole Countrey, transplanted many thousands into _Spain_,

from whence they dispersed into divers Countreys, as into _France_ and

_England_, but were banished after from both. From _Spain_ they

dispersed into _Africa_, _Italy_, _Constantinople_, and the Dominions of

the _Turk_, where they remain as yet in very great numbers. And if

(according to good relations) where they may freely speak it, they

forbear not to boast that there are at present many thousand _Jews_ in

_Spane_, _France_ and _England_, and some dispensed withall even to the

degree of Priesthood; it is a matter very considerable, and could they

be smelled out, would much advantage, not only the Church of Christ, but

also the coffers of Princes.

Now having thus lived in several Countries, and alwaies in subjection,

they must needs have suffered many commixtures; and we are sure they are

not exempted from the common contagion of Venery contracted first from

Christians. Nor as fornications unfrequent between them both; there

commonly passing opinions of invitement, that their Women desire

copulation with them rather then their own Nation, and affect Christian

carnality above circumcised venery. It being therefore acknowledged,

that some are lost, evident that others are mixed, and not assured that

any are distinct, it will be hard to establish this quality upon the

_Jews_, unless we also transfer the same unto those whose generations

are mixed, whose genealogies are _Jewish_, and naturally derived from

them.

Again, if we concede a National unsavouriness in any people, yet shall

we find the _Jews_ less subject hereto then any, and that in those

regards which most powerfully concur to such effects, that is, their

diet and generation. [SN: _The Jews generally very temperate._] As for

their diet whether in obedience unto the precepts of reason, or the

injunctions of parsimony, therein they are very temperate; seldom

offending in ebriety or excess of drink, nor erring in gulosity or

superfluity of meats; whereby they prevent indigestion and crudities,

and consequently putrescence of humors. They have in abomination all

flesh maimed, or the inwards any way vitiated; and therefore eat no

meat but of their own killing. They observe not only fasts at certain

times, but are restrained unto very few dishes at all times; so few,

that whereas St. _Peters_ sheet will hardly cover our Tables, their Law

doth scarce permit them to set forth a Lordly feast; nor any way to

answer the luxury of our times, or those of our fore-fathers. For of

flesh their Law restrains them many sorts, and such as compleat our

feasts: That Animal, _Propter convivia natum_ [SN: Quanta est gula, quæ

sibi totos ponit Apros! Animal propter convivia natum.], they touch not,

nor any of its preparations, or parts so much in respect at _Roman_

Tables, nor admit they unto their board, _Hares_, _Conies_, _Herons_,

_Plovers_ or _Swans_. Of _Fishes_ they only taste of such as have both

fins and scales; which are comparatively but few in number, such only,

saith _Aristotle_, whose Egg or spawn is arenaceous; whereby are

excluded all cetaceous and cartilagious _Fishes_; many pectinal, whose

ribs are rectilineal; many costal, which have their ribs embowed; all

spinal, or such as have no ribs, but only a back bone, or somewhat

analogous thereto, as _Eels_, _Congers_, _Lampries_; all that are

testaceous, as _Oysters_, _Cocles_, _Wilks_, _Scollops_, _Muscles_; and

likewise all crustaceous, as _Crabs_, _Shrimps_ and _Lobsters_. So that

observing a spare and simple diet, whereby they prevent the generation

of crudities; and fasting often whereby they might also digest them;

they must be less inclinable unto this infirmity then any other Nation,

whose proceedings are not so reasonable to avoid it.

As for their generations and conceptions (which are the purer from good

diet,) they become more pure and perfect by the strict observation of

their Law; upon the injunctions whereof, they severely observe the times

of Purification, and avoid all copulation, either in the uncleanness of

themselves, or impurity of their Women. A Rule, I fear, not so well

observed by Christians; whereby not only conceptions are prevented, but

if they proceed, so vitiated and defiled, that durable inquinations

remain upon the birth. [SN: _The original or material causes of the Pox

and Meazels._] Which, when the conception meets with these impurities,

must needs be very potent; since in the purest and most fair

conceptions, learned Men derive the cause of _Pox_ and _Meazels_, from

principles of that nature; that is, the menstrous impurities in the

Mothers blood, and virulent tinctures contracted by the Infant, in the

nutriment of the womb.

Lastly, Experience will convict it; for this offensive odor is no way

discoverable in their Synagogues where many are, and by reason of their

number could not be concealed: nor is the same discernable in commerce

or conversation with such as are cleanly in Apparel, and decent in their

Houses. Surely the Viziars and _Turkish_ Basha's are not of this

opinion; who as Sir _Henry Blunt_ informeth, do generally keep a _Jew_

of their private Counsel. And were this true, the _Jews_ themselves do

not strictly make out the intention of their Law, for in vain do they

scruple to approach the dead, who livingly are cadaverous, or fear any

outward pollution, whose temper pollutes themselves. And lastly, were

this true, yet our opinion is not impartial; for unto converted _Jews_

who are of the same seed, no Man imputeth this unsavoury odor; as though

Aromatized by their conversion, they lost their scent with their

Religion, and smelt no longer then they savoured of the _Jew_.

Now the ground that begat or propagated this assertion, might be the

distasteful aversness of the Christian from the _Jew_, upon the villany

of that fact, which made them abominable and stink in the nostrils of

all Men. Which real practise, and metaphorical expression, did after

proceed into a literal construction; but was a fraudulent illation; for

such an evil savour their father _Jacob_ acknowledged in himself, [SN:

Gen. 34.] when he said, his sons had made him stink in the land, that

is, to be abominable unto the inhabitants thereof. Now how dangerous it

is in sensible things to use metaphorical expressions unto the people,

and what absurd conceits they will swallow in their literals; an

impatient example we have in our profession; who having called an eaten

_ulcer_ by the name of a _Wolf_, common apprehension conceives a reality

therein; and against our selves, ocular affirmations are pretended to

confirm it.

The nastiness of that Nation, and sluttish course of life hath much

promoted the opinion, occasioned by their servile condition at first,

and inferiour ways of parsimony ever since; as is delivered by Mr.

_Sandys_. They are generally fat, saith he, and rank of the savours

which attend upon sluttish corpulency. The _Epithetes_ assigned them by

ancient times, have also advanced the same; for _Ammianus Marcellinus_

describeth them in such language; and _Martial_ more ancient, in such a

relative expression sets forth unsavoury _Bassa_.

_Quod jejunia Sabbatoriorum.

Mallem, quam quod oles, olere Bassa._

From whence notwithstanding we cannot infer an inward imperfection in

the temper of that Nation; it being but an effect in the breath from

outward observation, in their strict and tedious fasting; and was a

common effect in the breaths of other Nations, became a Proverb [SN:

Νηστείας ὄζειν. Iejunia olere.] among the _Greeks_, and the reason

thereof begot a Problem in _Aristotle_.

Lastly, If all were true, and were this savour conceded, yet are the

reasons alleadged for it no way satisfactory. _Hucherius_[SN: De

sterilitate], and after him _Alsarius Crucius_[SN: Cruc. Med. Epist.],

imputes this effect unto their abstinence from salt or salt meats; which

how to make good in the present diet of the _Jews_, we know not; nor

shall we conceive it was observed of old, if we consider they seasoned

every Sacrifice, and all oblations whatsoever; whereof we cannot deny a

great part was eaten by the Priests. And if the offering were of flesh,

it was salted no less than thrice, that is, once in the common chamber

of salt, at the foot-step of the Altar, and upon the top thereof, as is

at large delivered by _Maimonides_. Nor if they refrained all salt, is

the illation very urgent; for many there are, not noted for ill odours,

which eat no salt at all; as all carnivorous Animals, most Children,

many whole Nations, and probably our Fathers after the Creation; there

being indeed in every thing we eat, a natural and concealed salt, which

is separated by digestions, as doth appear in our tears, sweat and

urines, although we refrain all salt, or what doth seem to contain it.

Another cause is urged by _Campegius_, and much received by Christians;

that this ill savour is a curse derived upon them by Christ, and stands,

as a badge or brand of a generation that crucified their _Salvator_. But

this is a conceit without all warrant; and an easie way to take off

dispute in what point of obscurity soever. A method of many Writers,

which much depreciates the esteem and value of miracles; that is,

therewith to salve not only real verities, but also nonexistencies. Thus

have elder times not only ascribed the immunity of _Ireland_ from any

venemous beast, unto the staff or rod of _Patrick_; but the long tails

of _Kent_, unto the malediction of _Austin_. Thus therefore, although

we concede that many opinions are true which hold some conformity unto

this, yet in assenting hereto, many difficulties must arise: it being a

dangerous point to annex a constant property unto any Nation, and much

more this unto the _Jew_; since this quality is not verifiable by

observation; since the grounds are feeble that should establish it; and

lastly, since if all were true, yet are the reasons alleadged for it, of

no sufficiency to maintain it.

CHAPTER XI

Of Pigmies.

By _Pigmies_ we understand a dwarfish race of people, or lowest

diminution of mankind, comprehended in one cubit, or as some will have

it, in two foot or three spans; not taking them single, but nationally

considering them, and as they make up an aggregated habitation. Whereof

although affirmations be many, and testimonies more frequent then in any

other point which wise men have cast into the list of fables, yet that

there is, or ever was such a race or Nation, upon exact and confirmed

testimonies, our strictest enquiry receives no satisfaction.

I say, exact testimonies, first, In regard of the Authors, from whom we

derive the account, for though we meet herewith in _Herodotus_,

_Philostratus_, _Mela_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, and many more; yet were they

derivative Relators, and the primitive Author was _Homer_; who, using

often similies, as well to delight the ear, as to illustrate his matter,

in the third of his Iliads, compareth the _Trojans_ unto _Cranes_, when

they descend against the _Pigmies_; which was more largely set out by

_Oppian_, _Juvenal_, _Mantuan_, and many Poets since, and being only a

pleasant figment in the fountain, became a solemn story in the stream,

and current still among us.

Again, Many professed enquirers have rejected it; _Strabo_ an exact and

judicious Geographer, hath largely condemned it as a fabulous story,

_Julius Scaliger_ a diligent enquirer, accounts thereof, but as a

Poetical fiction; _Ulysses Aldrovandus_ a most exact Zoographer in an

express discourse hereon, concludes the story fabulous, and a Poetical

account of _Homer_; and the same was formerly conceived by _Eustathius_,

his excellent Commentator. _Albertus Magnus_ a man ofttimes too

credulous, herein was more then dubious; for he affirmeth, if any such

dwarfs were ever extant, they were surely some kind of _Apes_: which is

a conceit allowed by _Cardan_, and not esteemed improbable by many

others.

There are I confess two testimonies, which from their authority admit of

consideration. The first of _Aristotle_[SN: _Hist. animal. lib. 3._],

whose words are these, ἐστὶ dὲ ὁ τόπος, etc. That is, _Hic locus est

quem incolunt Pygmæi, non enim id fabula est, sed pusillum genus ut

aiunt._ Wherein indeed _Aristotle_ plaies the _Aristotle_, that is, the

wary and evading assertor; For though with _non est fabula_, he seems at

first to confirm it, yet at the last he claps in _Sciunt aiunt_, and

shakes the belief he put before upon it. And therefore I observe

_Scaliger_ hath not translated the first; perhaps supposing it

surreptitious or unworthy so great an assertor. And truly for those

books of animals, or work of eight hundred talents, as _Athenæus_ terms

it, although ever to be admired, as containing most excellent truths;

yet are many things therein delivered upon relation, and some repugnant

unto the history of our senses; as we are able to make out in some, and

_Scaliger_ hath observed in many more, as he hath freely declared in his

Comment upon that piece.

The second testimony is deduced from holy Scripture; [SN: Ezek. 27. 12.]

thus rendered in the vulgar translation, _Sed et Pygmæi qui erant in

turribus tuis, pharetras suas suspenderunt in muris tuis per gyrum_:

from whence notwithstanding we cannot infer this assertion, for first

the Translators accord not, and the Hebrew word _Gammadim_ is very

variously rendered. Though _Aquila_, _Vetablus_ and _Lyra_ will have it

_Pygmæi_, yet in the Septuagint, it is no more then Watchmen; and so in

the _Arabick_ and high _Dutch_. In the _Chalde_, _Cappadocians_, in

_Symmachus_, _Medes_, and in the _French_, those of _Gamad_.

_Theodotian_ of old, and _Tremellius_ of late, have retained the

Textuary word; and so have the _Italian_, Low _Dutch_ and _English_

Translators, that is, the Men of _Arvad_ were upon thy walls round

about, and the _Gammadims_ were in thy Towers.

Nor do men only dissent in the Translation of the word, but in the

Exposition of the sense and meaning thereof; for some by _Gammadims_

understand a people of _Syria_, so called from the City _Gamala_; some

hereby understand the _Cappadocians_, many the _Medes_ [SN: _See Mr._

Fullers _excellent description of_ Palestine.]: and hereof _Forerius_

hath a singular Exposition, conceiving the Watchmen of _Tyre_ might well

be called _Pigmies_, the Towers of that City being so high, that unto

Men below, they appeared in a cubital stature. Others expounded it quite

contrary to common acception, that is not Men of the least, but of the

largest size; so doth _Cornelius_ construe _Pygmæi_, or _viri

cubitales_, that is, not Men of a cubit high, but of the largest

stature, whose height like that of Giants, is rather to be taken by the

cubit then the foot; in which phrase we read the measure of _Goliah_,

whose height is said to be six cubits and a span. Of affinity hereto is

also the Exposition of _Jerom_; not taking _Pigmies_ for dwarfs, but

stout and valiant Champions; not taking the sense of πυγμὴ, which

signifies the cubit measure, but that which expresseth Pugils; that is,

Men fit for combat and the exercise of the fist. Thus can there be no

satisfying illation from this Text, the diversity or rather contrariety

of Expositions and interpretations, distracting more then confirming the

truth of the story.

Again, I say, exact testimonies; in reference unto circumstantial

relations so diversly or contrarily delivered. Thus the Relation of

_Aristotle_ placeth them above _Egypt_ towards the head of _Nyle_ in

_Africa_; _Philostratus_ affirms they are about _Ganges_ in _Asia_, and

_Pliny_ in a third place, that is, _Gerania_ in _Scythia_: some write

they fight with Cranes, but _Menecles_ in _Athenæus_ affirms they fight

with _Partridges_, some say they ride on _Partridges_, and some on the

backs of _Rams_.

Lastly, I say, confirmed testimonies; for though _Paulus Jovius_

delivers there are _Pigmies_ beyond _Japan_; _Pigafeta_, about the

_Molucca's_; and _Olaus Magnus_ placeth them in _Greenland_; yet wanting

frequent confirmation in a matter so confirmable, their affirmation

carrieth but slow perswasion;[2] and wise men may think there is as much

reality in the [3]_Pigmies_ of _Paracelsus_; that is, his non-Adamical

men, or middle natures betwixt men and spirits.

There being thus no sufficient confirmation of their verity, some doubt

may arise concerning their possibility, wherein, since it is not

defined in what dimensions the soul may exercise her faculties, we shall

not conclude impossibility; or that there might not be a race of

_Pigmies_, as there is sometimes of Giants. So may we take in the

opinion of _Austin_, and his Comment _Ludovicus_, but to believe they

should be in the stature of a foot or span, requires the preaspection of

such a one as _Philetas_ the Poet in _Athenæus_: who was fain to fasten

lead unto his feet lest the wind should blow him away. Or that other in

the same Author, who was so little _ut ad obolum accederet_; a story so

strange, that we might herein excuse the PRINTER, did not the account of

_Ælian_ accord unto it, as _Causabone_ hath observed in his learned

Animadversions.

Lastly, If any such Nation there were, yet is it ridiculous what Men

have delivered of them; that they fight with _Cranes_ upon the backs of

_Rams_ or _Partridges_: or what is delivered by _Ctesias_, that they are

_Negroes_ in the middest of _India_; whereof the King of that Country

entertaineth three thousand Archers for his guard. Which is a relation

below the tale of _Oberon_; nor could they better defend him, then the

Emblem saith, they offended _Hercules_ whilest he slept; that is, to

wound him no deeper, then to awake him.

[2] _The story of Pigmies rejected._

[3] _By Pigmies intending Fairies and other spirits about the earth as

by Nymphs and Salamanders, spirits of fire and water._ Lib. De

Pigmæis, Nymphis, _etc._

CHAPTER XII

Of the great Climacterical year, that is,

Sixty three.

Certainly the Eyes of the understanding, and those of the sense are

differently deceived in their greatest objects; the sense apprehending

them in lesser magnitudes then their dimensions require; so it beholdeth

the Sun, the Stars, and the Earth it self. But the understanding quite

otherwise: for that ascribeth unto many things far larger horizons then

their due circumscriptions require: and receiveth them with

amplifications which their reality will not admit. Thus hath it fared

with many Heroes and most worthy persons, who being sufficiently

commendable from true and unquestionable merits, have received

advancement from falshood and the fruitful stock of Fables. Thus hath it

happened unto the Stars, and Luminaries of heaven: who being

sufficiently admirable in themselves, have been set out by effects, no

way dependent on their efficiencies, and advanced by amplifications to

the questioning of their true endowments. Thus is it not improbable it

hath also fared with number, which though wonderful in it self, and

sufficiently magnifiable from its demonstrable affections, hath yet

received adjections from the multiplying conceits of men, and stands

laden with additions, which its equity will not admit.

And so perhaps hath it happened unto the number, 7 and 9, which

multiplied into themselves do make up Sixty three, commonly esteemed the

great Climacterical of our lives. For the daies of men are usually cast

up by Septenaries, and every seventh year conceived to carry some

altering character with it, either in the temper of body, mind, or both.

But among all other, three are most remarkable, that is, 7 times 7 or

fourty nine, 9 times 9 or eighty one, and 7 times 9 or the year of Sixty

three; which is conceived to carry with it the most considerable

fatality; and consisting of both the other numbers was apprehended to

comprise the vertue of either: is therefore expected and entertained

with fear, and esteemed a favour of fate to pass it over. [SN: _The

great Climacterical, Sixty-three, no such dangerous year._] Which

notwithstanding many suspect to be but a Panick terrour, and men to fear

they justly know not what: and to speak indifferently, I find no

satisfaction: nor any sufficiency in the received grounds to establish a

rational fear.

Now herein to omit Astrological considerations (which are but rarely

introduced) the popular foundation whereby it hath continued, is first,

the extraordinary power and secret virtue conceived to attend these

numbers: whereof we must confess there have not wanted not only especial

commendations, but very singular conceptions. Among Philosophers,

_Pythagoras_ seems to have played the leading part; which was long after

continued by his disciples, and the _Italick_ School. The Philosophy of

_Plato_, and most of the _Platonists_ abounds in numeral considerations:

above all, _Philo_ the learned _Jew_, hath acted this part even to

superstition; bestowing divers pages in summing up every thing, which

might advantage this number. Which notwithstanding, when a serious

Reader shall perpend, he will hardly find any thing that may convince

his judgment, or any further perswade, then the lenity of his belief, or

prejudgment of reason inclineth.

For first, Not only the number of 7 and 9 from considerations abstruse,

have been extolled by most, but all or most of the other digits have

been as mystically applauded. For the number of One and Three have not

been only admired by the Heathens, but from adorable grounds, the unity

of God, and mystery of the Trinity admired by many Christians. The

number of four stands much admired, not only in the quaternity of the

Elements, which are the principles of bodies, but in the letters of the

Name of God, which in the _Greek_, _Arabian_, _Persian_, _Hebrew_, and

_Egyptian_, consisteth of that number; and was so venerable among the

_Pythagoreans_, that they swore by the number four. That of six hath

found many leaves in its favour; not only for the daies of the Creation,

but its natural consideration, as being a perfect number, and the first

that is compleated by its parts; that is, the sixt, the half, and the

third, 1. 2. 3. Which drawn into a sum, make six. The number of Ten hath

been as highly extolled, as containing even, odd, long, plain, quadrate

and cubical numbers; and _Aristotle_ observed with admiration, that

_Barbarians_ as well as _Greeks_, did use numeration unto Ten, which

being so general, was not to be judged casual, but to have a foundation

in nature. So that not only 7 and 9, but all the rest have had their

Elogies, as may be observed at large in _Rhodiginus_, and in several

Writers since: every one extolling number, according to his subject, and

as it advantaged the present discourse in hand.

Again, They have been commended not only from pretended grounds in

nature, but from artificial, casual or fabulous foundations: so have

some endeavoured to advance their admiration, from the 9 Muses, from the

7 Wonders of the World, from the 7 Gates of _Thebes_: in that 7 Cities

contended for _Homer_, in that there are 7 Stars in _Ursa minor_, and 7

in Charles wayn, or Plaustrum of _Ursa major_. Wherein indeed although

the ground be natural, yet either from constellations or their

remarkable parts, there is the like occasion to commend any other

number, the number 5 from the stars in _Sagitta_, 3 from the girdle of

_Orion_, and 4 from _Equiculus_, _Crusero_, or the feet of the Centaur:

yet are such as these clapt in by very good Authors, and some not

omitted by _Philo_.

Nor are they only extolled from Arbitrary and Poetical grounds, but from

foundations and principles, false or dubious. That Women are menstruant,

and Men pubescent at the year of twice seven is accounted a punctual

truth; which period nevertheless we dare not precisely determine, as

having observed a variation and latitude in most, agreeable unto the

heat of clime or temper; Men arising variously unto virility, according

to the activity of causes that promote it. _Sanguis menstruosus ad diem,

ut plurimum, septimum durat_, saith _Philo_. Which notwithstanding is

repugnant unto experience, and the doctrine of _Hippocrates_, who in his

book, _de diæta_, plainly affirmeth, it is thus but with few women, and

only such as abound with pituitous and watery humours.

It is further conceived to receive addition, in that there are 7 heads

of _Nyle_, but we have made manifest elsewhere, that by the description

of Geographers, they have been sometime more, and are at present fewer.

In that there were 7 Wise men of _Greece_, which though generally

received, yet having enquired into the verity thereof we cannot so

readily determine it, for in the life of _Thales_, who was accounted in

that number, _Diogenes Laertius_ plainly saith, _Magna de eorum numero

discordia est_; some holding but four, some ten, others twelve, and none

agreeth in their names, though according in their number.

In that there are just 7 Planets or errant Stars in the lower orbs of

Heaven, but it is now demonstrable unto sense, that there are many more;

as _Galileo_[SN: Nuncius Sydereus.] hath declared, that is, two more in

the orb of Saturn, and no less then four more in the sphere of Jupiter.

And the like may be said of the _Pleiades_ or 7 Stars, which are also

introduced to magnifie this number, for whereas scarce discerning six,

we account them 7, by his relation, there are no less then fourty.

That the Heavens are encompassed with 7 Circles, is also the allegation

of _Philo_; which are in his account, the Arctick, Antarctick, the

Summer and Winter Tropicks, the Æquator, Zodiack, and the Milky circle;

whereas by Astronomers they are received in greater number. For though

we leave out the Lacteous circle (which _Aratus_, _Geminus_, and

_Proclus_, out of him hath numbred among the rest) yet are there more by

four then _Philo_ mentions; that is, the Horizon, Meridian and both the

Colures; circles very considerable, and generally delivered, not only by

_Ptolomie_, and the Astronomers since his time, but such as flourished

long before, as _Hipparchus_ and _Eudoxus_. So that for ought I know, if

it make for our purpose, or advance the theme in hand, with equal

liberty, we may affirm there were 7 Sybils, or but 7 signs in the

Zodiack circle of Heaven.

That verse in _Virgil_ translated out of _Homer_ [SN: Τρὶς

μάκαρες Δαναοὶ καὶ τετράχις.], _O terque quaterque beati_; that is as

men will have it, 7 times happy, hath much advanced this number in

critical apprehensions; yet is not this construction so indubitably to

be received, as not at all to be questioned: for though _Rhodiginus_,

_Beroaldus_, and others from the authority of _Macrobius_ so interpret

it, yet _Servius_ his ancient commentator conceives no more thereby then

a finite number for indefinite, and that no more is implied then often

happy. _Strabo_[SN: Lib. 10.] the ancientest of them all, conceives no

more by this in _Homer_, then a full and excessive expression; whereas

in common phrase and received language, he should have termed them

thrice happy; herein exceeding that number, he called them four times

happy, that is, more then thrice. And this he illustrates by the like

expression of _Homer_, in the speech of _Circe_; who to express the

dread and terrour of the Ocean, sticks not unto the common form of

speech in the strict account of its reciprocations, but largely

speaking, saith, it ebbs and flows no less then thrice a day, _terque

die revomit fluctus iterumque resorbet_. And so when it is said by

_Horace_, _fælices ter et amplius_, the exposition is sufficient, if we

conceive no more then the letter fairly beareth, that is, four times, or

indefinitely more then thrice.

But the main considerations which most set of this number, are

observations drawn from the motions of the Moon, supposed to be measured

by sevens; and the critical or decretory daies dependent on that number.

As for the motion of the Moon, though we grant it to be measured by

sevens, yet will not this advance the same before its fellow numbers;

for hereby the motion of other Stars are not measured, the fixed Stars

by many thousand years, the Sun by 365 daies, the superiour Planets by

more, the inferiour by somewhat less. And if we consider the revolution

of the first Movable, and the daily motion from East to West, common

unto all the Orbs, we shall find it measured by another number, for

being performed in four and twenty hours, it is made up of 4 times 6:

and this is the measure and standard of other parts of time, of months,

of years, Olympiades, Lustres, Indictions of Cycles, Jubilies, etc.

[Sidenote: _What a Solary month is._]

Again, Months are not only Lunary, and measured by the Moon, but also

Solary, and determined by the motion of the Sun; that is, the space

wherein the Sun doth pass 30 degrees of the Ecliptick. By this month

_Hippocrates_[SN: De octomestri partu.] computed the time of the

Infants gestation in the womb; for 9 times 30, that is, 270 daies, or

compleat 9 months, make up forty weeks, the common compute of women. And

this is to be understood, when he saith, 2 daies makes the fifteenth,

and 3 the tenth part of a mouth. This was the month of the ancient

_Hebrews_ before their departure out of _Egypt_: and hereby the compute

will fall out right, and the account concur, when in one place it is

said, the waters of the flood prevailed an hundred and fifty daies, and

in another it is delivered, that they prevailed from the seventeenth day

of the second month, unto the seventeenth day of the seventh. As for

hebdomadal periods or weeks, although in regard of their Sabbaths, they

were observed by the _Hebrews_, yet it is not apparent the ancient

_Greeks_ or _Romans_ used any: but had another division of their months

into Ides, Nones and Calends.

Moreover, Moneths howsoever taken, are not exactly divisible into

septenaries or weeks, which fully contain seven daies: whereof four

times do make compleatly twenty eight. For, beside the usual or

Calendary month, there are but four considerable: the month of

Peragration, of Apparition, of Consecution, and the medical or

Decretorial month; whereof some come short, others exceed this account.

A month of Peragration, is the time of the Moons revolution from any

part of the Zodiack, unto the same again; and this containeth but 27

daies, and about 8 hours: which cometh short to compleat the septenary

account. The month of Consecution, or as some will term it, of

progression, is the space between one conjunction of the Moon with the

Sun, unto another: and this containeth 29 daies and an half: for the

Moon returning unto the same point wherein it was kindled by the Sun,

and not finding it there again (for in the mean time, by its proper

motion it hath passed through 2 signs) it followeth after, and attains

the Sun in the space of 2 daies and 4 hours more, which added unto the

account of Peragration, makes 29 daies and an half: so that this month

exceedeth the latitude of Septenaries, and the fourth part comprehendeth

more then 7 daies. A month of Apparition, is the space wherein the Moon

appeareth (deducting three daies wherein it commonly disappeareth; and

being in combustion with the Sun, is presumed of less activity,) and

this containeth but 26 daies and 12 hours. The medical month, not much

exceedeth this, consisting of 26 daies and 22 hours, and is made up out

of all the other months. For if out of 29 and an half, the month of

Consecution, we deduct 3 daies of disappearance, there will remain the

month of Apparition 26 daies and 12 hours: whereto if we add 27 daies

and 8 hours, the month of Peragration, there will arise 53 daies and 10

hours, which divided by 2, makes 26 daies and 22 hours: called by

Physitians the medical month: introduced by _Galen_ against

_Archigenes_, for the better compute of Decretory or Critical daies.

[Sidenote: _What a Critical day is._]

As for the Critical daies (such I mean wherein upon a decertation

between the disease and nature, there ensueth a sensible alteration,

either to life or death,) the reasons thereof are rather deduced from

Astrology, then Arithmetick: for accounting from the beginning of the

disease, and reckoning on unto the seventh day, the Moon will be in a

Tetragonal or Quadrate aspect, that is, 4 signs removed from that

wherein the disease began: in the fourteenth day it will be in an

opposite aspect: and at the end of the third septenary, Tetragonal

again: as will most graphically appear in the figures of Astrologers,

especially _Lucas Gauricus_, _De diebus decretoriis_.

Again, (Beside that computing by the Medical month, the first hebdomade

or septenary consists of 6 daies, seventeen hours and an half, the

second happeneth in 13 daies and eleven hours, and the third but in the

twentieth natural day) what _Galen_ first, and _Aben-Ezra_ since

observed in his Tract of Critical daies, in regard of Eccentricity and

the Epicycle or lesser orb wherein it moveth, the motion of the Moon is

various and unequal; whereby the Critical account must also vary. For

though its middle motion be equal, and of 13 degrees, yet in the other

it moveth sometimes fifteen, sometimes less then twelve. For moving in

the upper part of its orb, it performeth its motion more slowly then in

the lower; insomuch that being at the height, it arriveth at the

Tetragonal and opposite signs sooner, and the Critical day will be in 6

and 13; and being at the lowest, the critical account will be out of the

latitude of 7, nor happen before the eighth or ninth day. Which are

considerations not to be neglected in the compute of decretory daies,

and manifestly declare that other numbers must have a respect herein as

well as 7 and fourteen.

Lastly, Some things to this intent are deduced from holy Scripture; thus

is the year of _Jubile_ introduced to magnifie this number, as being a

year made out of 7 times 7; wherein notwithstanding there may be a

misapprehension; for this ariseth not from 7 times 7, that is, 49; but

was observed the fiftieth year, as is expressed, [SN: Levit. 25.] And

you shall hallow the fiftieth year, a _Jubile_ shall that fiftieth year

be unto you. Answerable whereto is the Exposition of the _Jews_

themselves, as is delivered by _Ben-Maimon_; that is, the year of

_Jubile_, cometh not into the account of the years of 7, but the fourty

ninth is the Release, and the fiftieth the year of _Jubile_. Thus is it

also esteemed no small advancement unto this number, that the Genealogy

of our Saviour is summed up by 14, that is, this number doubled;

according as is expressed. [SN: Mat. 1.] So all the generations from

_Abraham_ to _David_ are fourteen generations, and from _David_ unto the

carrying away into _Babylon_, are fourteen generations; and from the

carrying away into _Babylon_ unto _Christ_, are fourteen generations.

Which nevertheless must not be strictly understood as numeral relations

require; for from _David_ unto _Jeconiah_ are accounted by _Matthew_ but

14 generations; whereas according to the exact account in the History of

Kings, there were at least 17; and 3 in this account, that is,

_Ahazias_, _Joas_ and _Amazias_ are left out. For so it is delivered by

the Evangelist: And _Joram_ begat _Ozias_: whereas in the regal

Genealogy there are 3 successions between: for _Ozias_ or _Uzziah_ was

the son of _Amazias_, _Amazias_ of _Joas_, _Joas_ of _Azariah_, and

_Azariah_ of _Joram_: so that in strict account, _Joram_ was the

_Abavus_ or Grand-father twice removed, and not the Father of _Ozias_.

And these second omitted descents made a very considerable measure of

time, in the Royal chronology of _Judah_: for though _Azariah_ reigned

but one year, yet _Joas_ reigned fourty, and _Amazias_ no less then nine

and twenty. However therefore these were delivered by the Evangelist,

and carry (no doubt) an incontroulable conformity unto the intention of

his delivery: yet are they not appliable unto precise numerality, nor

strictly to be drawn unto the rigid test of numbers.

Lastly, Though many things have been delivered by Authors concerning

number, and they transferred unto the advantage of their nature, yet are

they oft-times otherwise to be understood, then as they are vulgarly

received in active and causal considerations; they being many times

delivered Hieroglyphically, Metaphorically, Illustratively, and not with

reference unto action or causality. True it is, that God made all things

in number, weight and measure, yet nothing by them or through the

efficacy of either. Indeed our daies, actions and motions being measured

by time (which is but motion measured) what ever is observable in any,

falls under the account of some number; which notwithstanding cannot be

denominated the cause of those events. So do we injustly assign the

power of Action even unto Time it self; nor do they speak properly who

say that Time consumeth all things; for Time is not effective, nor are

bodies destroyed by it, but from the action and passion of their

Elements in it; whose account it only affordeth: and measuring out their

motion, informs us in the periods and terms of their duration, rather

then effecteth or physically produceth the same.

A second consideration which promoteth this opinion, are confirmations

drawn from Writers, who have made observations, or set down favourable

reasons for this Climacterical year; so have _Henricus Ranzovius_,

_Baptista Codronchus_[SN: De annis Climactericis.], and _Levinus

Lemnius_[SN: De occultis naturæ miraculis.] much confirmed the same;

but above all, that memorable Letter of _Augustus_ [SN: Bel. lib.

5.] sent unto his Nephew _Caius_, wherein he encourageth him to

celebrate his nativity, for he had now escaped Sixty three, the great

Climacterical and dangerous year unto man: which notwithstanding rightly

perpended, it can be no singularity to question it, nor any new Paradox

to deny it.

For first, It is implicitely, and upon consequence denied by _Aristotle_

in his Politicks, in that discourse against _Plato_, who measured the

vicissitude and mutation of States, by a periodical fatality of number.

_Ptolomie_ that famous Mathematician plainly saith, he will not deliver

his doctrines by parts and numbers which are ineffectual, and have not

the nature of causes; now by these numbers saith _Rhodiginus_ and

_Mirandula_, he implieth Climacterical years, that is, septenaries, and

novenaries set down by the bare observation of numbers. _Censorinus_ an

Author of great authority, and sufficient antiquity, speaks yet more

amply in his book _De die Natali_, wherein expresly treating of

Climacterical daies, he thus delivereth himself. Some maintain that 7

times 7, that is, fourty nine, is most dangerous of any other, and this

is the most general opinion; others unto 7 times 7, add 9 times 9, that

is, the year of eighty one, both which consisting of square and quadrate

numbers, were thought by _Plato_ and others to be of great

consideration; as for this year of Sixty three or 7 times 9, though some

esteem it of most danger, yet do I conceive it less dangerous then the

other; for though it containeth both numbers above named, that is, 7 and

9, yet neither of them square or quadrate; and as it is different from

them both, so is it not potent in either. Nor is this year remarkable in

the death of many famous men. I find indeed that _Aristotle_ died this

year, but he by the vigour of his mind, a long time sustained a natural

infirmity of stomack; so that it was a greater wonder he attained unto

Sixty three, then that he lived no longer. The Psalm of _Moses_ hath

mentioned a year of danger differing from all these: and that is ten

times 7 or seventy; for so it is said, The daies of Man are threescore

and ten. And the very same is affirmed by _Solon_, as _Herodotus_

relates in a speech of his unto _Crœsus_, _Ego annis septuaginta

humanæ vitæ modum definio_: and surely that year must be of greatest

danger, which is the Period of all the rest; and fewest safely pass

thorow that, which is set as a bound for few or none to pass. And

therefore the consent of elder times, setling their conceits upon

Climacters, not only differing from this of ours, but one another;

though several Nations and Ages do fancy unto themselves different years

of danger, yet every one expects the same event, and constant verity in

each.

Again, Though _Varro_ divided the daies of man into five proportions,

_Hippocrates_ into 7, and _Solon_ into 10; yet probably their divisions

were to be received with latitude, and their considerations not strictly

to be confined unto their last unities. So when _Varro_ extendeth

_Puertia_ unto 15. _Adolescentia_ unto 30. _Juventus_ unto 35. There is

a latitude between the terms or Periods of compute, and the verity holds

good in the accidents of any years between them. So when _Hippocrates_

divideth our life into 7 degrees or stages, and maketh the end of the

first 7. Of the second 14. Of the third 28. Of the fourth 35. Of the

fift 47. Of the sixt 56. And of the seventh, the last year when ever it

happeneth; herein we may observe, he maketh not his divisions precisely

by 7 and 9, and omits the great Climacterical; beside there is between

every one at least the latitude of 7 years, in which space or interval,

that is either in the third or fourth year, what ever falleth out is

equally verified of the whole degree, as though it had happened in the

seventh. _Solon_ divided it into ten Septenaries, because in every one

thereof, a man received some sensible mutation; in the first is

Dedention or falling of teeth; in the second Pubescence; in the third

the beard groweth; in the fourth strength prevails; in the fift maturity

for issue; in the sixt moderation of appetite; in the seventh prudence,

etc. Now herein there is a tolerable latitude, and though the division

proceed by 7, yet is not the total verity to be restrained unto the last

year; nor constantly to be expected the beard should be compleat at 21.

or wisdom acquired just in 49. and thus also though 7 times 9 contain

one of those septenaries, and doth also happen in our declining years;

yet might the events thereof be imputed unto the whole septenary; and be

more reasonably entertained with some latitude, then strictly reduced

unto the last number, or all the accidents from 56. imputed unto Sixty

three.

Thirdly, Although this opinion may seem confirmed by observation, and

men may say it hath been so observed, yet we speak also upon experience,

and do believe that men from observation will collect no satisfaction.

That other years may be taken against it, especially if they have the

advantage to precede it; as sixty against sixty three, and sixty three

against sixty six. For fewer attain to the latter then the former; and

so surely in the first septenary do most die, and probably also in the

very first year; for all that ever lived were in the account of that

year; beside the infirmities that attend it are so many, and the body

that receives them so tender and inconfirmed, we scarce count any alive

that is not past it.

_Fabritius Paduanius_[SN: De catena temporis.] discoursing of the great

Climacterical, attempts a numeration of eminent men, who died in that

year; but in so small a number, as not sufficient to make a considerable

Induction. He mentioneth but four, _Diogenes Cynicus_, _Dyonysius

Heracleoticus_, _Xenocrates Platonicus_, and _Plato_. As for

_Dionysius_, as _Censorinus_ witnesseth, he famished himself in the 82

year of his life; _Xenocrates_ by the testimony of _Laertius_ fell into

a cauldron, and died the same year, and _Diogenes_ the _Cynick_, by the

same testimony lived almost unto ninety. The date of _Plato's_ death is

not exactly agreed on, but all dissent from this which he determineth:

_Neanthes_ in _Laertius_ extendeth his daies unto 84. _Suidas_ unto 82.

But _Hermippus_ defineth his death in 81. And this account seemeth most

exact; for if, as he delivereth, _Plato_ was born in the 88 Olympiade,

and died in the first year of the 108, the account will not surpass the

year of 81, and so in his death he verified the opinion of his life, and

of the life of man, whose period, as _Censorinus_ recordeth, he placeth

in the Quadrate of 9, or 9 times 9, that is, eighty one: and therefore

as _Seneca_ delivereth, the _Magicians_ at _Athens_ did sacrifice unto

him, as declaring in his death somewhat above humanity; because he died

in the day of his nativity, and without deduction justly accomplished

the year of eighty one. _Bodine_ I confess, delivers a larger list of

men that died in this year, [SN: _Method_. Hist.] _Moriuntur

innumerabiles anno sexagesimo tertio, Aristoteles, Chrysippus,

Bocatius, Bernardus, Erasmus, Lutherus, Melancthon, Sylvius, Alexander,

Jacobus Sturmius, Nicolaus Causanus, Thomas Linacer, eodem anno Cicero

cæsus est._ Wherein beside that it were not difficult to make a larger

Catalogue of memorable persons that died in other years, we cannot but

doubt the verity of his Induction. As for _Sylvius_ and _Alexander_,

which of that name he meaneth I know not; but for _Chrysippus_, by the

testimony of _Laertius_, he died in the 73 year, _Bocatius_ in the 62,

_Linacer_ the 64, and _Erasmus_ exceedeth 70, as _Paulus Jovius_ hath

delivered in his Elogy of learned men. And as for _Cicero_, as

_Plutarch_ in his life affirmeth, he was slain in the year of 64; and

therefore sure the question is hard set, and we have no easie reason to

doubt, when great and entire Authors shall introduce injustifiable

examples, and authorize their assertions by what is not authentical.

Fourthly, They which proceed upon strict numerations, and will by such

regular and determined waies measure out the lives of men, and

periodically define the alterations of their tempers; conceive a

regularity in mutations, with an equality in constitutions, and forget

that variety, which Physitians therein discover. [SN: _Cholerick men

commonly shorter lived._] For seeing we affirm that women do naturally

grow old before men, that the cholerick fall short in longævity of the

sanguine, that there is _senium ante senectum_, and many grow old before

they arrive at age, we cannot affix unto them all one common point of

danger, but should rather assign a respective fatality unto each. Which

is concordant unto the doctrine of the numerists, and such as maintain

this opinion: for they affirm that one number respecteth Men, another

Women, as _Bodin_ explaineth that of _Seneca Septimus quisque annus

ætati signum imprimit_, subjoins _Hoc de maribus dictum oportuit, hoc

primum intueri licet, perfectum numerum, id est, sextum fæminas

septenarium mares immutare._

Fiftly, Since we esteem this opinion to have some ground in nature, and

that nine times seven revolutions of the Sun, imprints a dangerous

Character on such as arrive unto it; it will have some doubt behind, in

what subjection hereunto were the lives of our fore-fathers presently

after the flood, and more especially before it; who attaining unto 8 or

900 years, had not their Climacters Computable by digits, or as we do

account them; for the great Climacterical was past unto them before they

begat Children, or gave any Testimony of their virility; for we read not

that any begat children before the age of sixty five. And this may also

afford a hint to enquire, what are the Climacters of other animated

creatures; whereof the lives of some attain not so far as this of ours,

and that of others extend a considerable space beyond it.

Lastly, The imperfect accounts that Men have kept of time, and the

difference thereof both in the same and divers common Wealths, will much

distract the certainty of this assertion. For though there were a

fatality in this year, yet divers were, and others might be out in their

account, aberring several waies from the true and just compute, and

calling that one year, which perhaps might be another.

For first, They might be out in the commencement or beginning of their

account; for every man is many months elder then he computeth. For

although we begin the same from our nativity, and conceive that no

arbitrary, but natural term of compute, yet for the duration of life or

existence, we are liable in the Womb unto the usual distinctions of

time; and are not to be exempted from the account of age and life, where

we are subject to diseases, and often suffer death. And therefore

_Pythagoras_, _Hippocrates_, _Diocles_, _Avicenna_ and others, have set

upon us numeral relations and temporal considerations in the womb; not

only affirming the birth of the seventh month to be vital, that of the

eighth mortal, but the progression thereto to be measured by rule, and

to hold a proportion unto motion and formation. As what receiveth motion

in the seventh, to be perfected in the Triplicities; that is, the time

of conformation unto motion is double, and that from motion unto the

birth, treble; So what is formed the 35 day, is moved the seventy, and

born the 210 day. And therefore if any invisible causality there be,

that after so many years doth evidence it self as Sixty three, it will

be questionable whether its activity only set out at our nativity, and

begin not rather in the womb, wherein we place the like considerations.

Which doth not only entangle this assertion, but hath already embroiled

the endeavours of Astrology in the erection of Schemes, and the judgment

of death or diseases; for being not incontroulably determined, at what

time to begin, whether at conception, animation or exclusion (it being

indifferent unto the influence of Heaven to begin at either) they have

invented another way, that is, to begin _ab Hora quæstionis_, as _Haly_,

_Messahallach_, _Ganivetus_, and _Guido Bonatus_ have delivered.

Again, In regard of the measure of time by months and years, there will

be no small difficulty; and if we shall strictly consider it, many have

been and still may be mistaken. For neither the motion of the Moon,

whereby months are computed; nor of the Sun, whereby years are

accounted, consisteth of whole numbers, but admits of fractions, and

broken parts, as we have already declared concerning the Moon. That of

the Sun consisteth of 365 daies, and almost 6 hours, that is, wanting

eleven minutes; which 6 hours omitted, or not taken notice of, will in

process of time largely deprave the compute; and this is the occasion of

the Bissextile or leap-year, which was not observed in all times, nor

punctually in all Common-Wealths; so that in Sixty three years there may

be lost almost 18 daies, omitting the intercalation of one day every

fourth year, allowed for this quadrant, or 6 hours supernumerary. And

though the same were observed, yet to speak strictly a man may be

somewhat out in the account of his age at Sixty three, for although

every fourth year we insert one day, and so fetch up the quadrant, yet

those eleven minutes whereby the year comes short of perfect 6 hours,

will in the circuit of those years arise unto certain hours; and in a

larger progression of time unto certain daies. Whereof at present we

find experience in the Calender we observe. For the _Julian_ year of 365

daies being eleven minutes larger then the annual revolution of the Sun,

there will arise an anticipation in the Æquinoxes; and as _Junctinus_

[SN: Comment. in Sphæram Ioh. de Sacro bosco.] computeth, in every 136

year they will anticipate almost one day. And therefore those ancient

men and Nestors of old times, which yearly observed their nativities,

might be mistaken in the day; nor that to be construed without a grain

of Salt, which is delivered by _Moses_; At the end of four hundred

years, even the self same day, all the host of _Israel_ went out of the

land of _Egypt_. For in that space of time the Æquinoxes had

anticipated, and the eleven minutes had amounted far above a day. And

this compute rightly considered will fall fouler on them who cast up

the lives of Kingdoms, and sum up their duration by particular numbers;

as _Plato_ first began, and some have endeavoured since by perfect and

spherical numbers, by the square and cube of 7 and 9 and 12, the great

number of _Plato_. Wherein indeed _Bodine_[SN: Mat. Histor.] hath

attempted a particular enumeration; but (beside the mistakes committible

in the solary compute of years) the difference of Chronology disturbs

the satisfaction and quiet of his computes; some adding, others

detracting, and few punctually according in any one year; whereby indeed

such accounts should be made up; for the variation in an unite destroys

the total illation.

Thirdly, The compute may be unjust not only in a strict acception, of

few daies or hours, but in the latitude also of some years; and this may

happen from the different compute of years in divers Nations, and even

such as did maintain the most probable way of account: their year being

not only different from one another, but the civil and common account

disagreeing much from the natural year, whereon the consideration is

founded. Thus from the testimony of _Herodotus_, _Censorinus_ and

others, the _Greeks_ observed the Lunary year [SN: _The Lunary year

what._], that is, twelve revolutions of the Moon, 354 daies; but the

_Egyptians_, and many others adhered unto the Solary account [SN: _The

Solary year what._], that is, 365 daies, that is, eleven daies longer.

Now hereby the account of the one would very much exceed the other: A

man in the one would account himself 63, when one in the other would

think himself but 61; and so although their nativities were under the

same hour, yet did they at different years believe the verity of that

which both esteemed affixed and certain unto one. The like mistake there

is in a tradition of our daies; men conceiving a peculiar danger in the

beginning daies of _May_, set out as a fatal period unto consumptions

and Chronical diseases; wherein notwithstanding we compute by Calenders,

not only different from our ancestors, but one another; the compute of

the one anticipating that of the other; so that while we are in _April_,

others begin _May_, and the danger is past unto one, while it beginneth

with another.

Fourthly, Men were not only out in the number of some daies, the

latitude of a few years, but might be wide by whole Olympiades and

divers Decades of years. [SN: _The different account or measure of a

year._] For as _Censorinus_ relateth, the ancient _Arcadians_ observed a

year of three months, the _Carians_ of six, the _Iberians_ of four; and

as _Diodorus_ and _Xenophon de Æquivocis_ alleadgeth, the ancient

_Egyptians_ have used a year of three, two, and one moneth: so that the

Climacterical was not only different unto those Nations, but

unreasonably distant from ours; for Sixty three will pass in their

account, before they arrive so high as ten in ours.

Nor if we survey the account of _Rome_ it self, may we doubt they were

mistaken; and if they feared Climacterical years, might err in their

numeration. For the civil year whereof the people took notice, did

sometimes come short, and sometimes exceed the natural. For according to

_Varro_, _Suctoninus_ and _Censorinus_, their year consisted first of

ten months; which comprehended but 304 daies, that is, 61 less than ours

containeth; after by _Numa_ or _Tarquine_ from a superstitious conceit

of imparity were added 51 daies, which made 355, one day more then

twelve revolutions of the Moon. And thus a long time it continued, the

civil compute exceeding the natural; the correction whereof, and the

due ordering of the Leap year was referred unto the Pontifices; who

either upon favour or malice, that some might continue their offices a

longer or shorter time; or from the magnitude of the year that men might

be advantaged, or endamaged in their contracts, by arbitrary

intercalations depraved the whole account. Of this abuse _Cicero_

accused _Verres_, which at last proceeded so far, that when _Julius

Cæsar_ came unto that office, before the redress hereof he was fain to

insert two intercalary months unto _November_ and _December_, when he

had already inserted 23 daies unto _February_; so that the year

consisted of 445 daies; a quarter of a year longer then that we observe;

and though at the last the year was reformed, yet in the mean time they

might be out wherein they summed up Climacterical observations.

Lastly, One way more there may be of mistake, and that not unusual among

us, grounded upon a double compute of the year; the one beginning from

the 25 of _March_, the other from the day of our birth, unto the same

again which is the natural account. Now hereupon many men frequently

miscast their daies; for in their age they deduce the account not from

the day of their birth, but the year of our Lord, wherein they were

born. So a man that was born in _January_ 1582, if he live to fall sick

in the latter end of _March_ 1645, will sum up his age, and say I am now

Sixty three, and in my Climacterical and dangerous year; for I was born

in the year 1582, and now it is 1645, whereas indeed he wanteth many

months of that year, considering the true and natural account unto his

birth; and accounteth two months for a year: and though the length of

time and accumulation of years do render the mistake insensible; yet is

it all one, as if one born in _January_ 1644, should be accounted a

year old the 25 of _March_ 1645.

All which perpended, it may be easily perceived with what insecurity of

truth we adhere unto this opinion; ascribing not only effects depending

on the natural period of time unto arbitrary calculations, and such as

vary at pleasure; but confirming our tenets by the uncertain account of

others and our selves. There being no positive or indisputable ground

where to begin our compute; that if there were, men have been several

waies mistaken; the best in some latitude, others in greater, according

to the different compute of divers states, the short and irreconcilable

years of some, the exceeding error in the natural frame of others, and

the lapses and false deductions of ordinary accountants in most.

Which duly considered, together with a strict account and critical

examen of reason, will also distract the witty determinations of

Astrology. That Saturn the enemy of life, comes almost every seventh

year, unto the quadrate or malevolent place; that as the Moon about

every seventh day arriveth unto a contrary sign, so Saturn, which

remaineth about as many years, as the Moon doth daies in one sign, and

holdeth the same consideration in years as the Moon in daies; doth cause

these periculous periods. Which together with other Planets, and

profection of the Horoscope, unto the seventh house, or opposite signs

every seventh year; oppresseth living natures, and causeth observable

mutations, in the state of sublunary things.

Further satisfaction may yet be had from the learned discourse of

_Salmasius_ lately published, [SN: _De annis Climactericis._] if any

desire to be informed how different the present observations are from

those of the ancients; how every one hath different Climactericals;

with many other observables, impugning the present opinion.

CHAPTER XIII

Of the Canicular or Dog daies.

Whereof to speak distinctly: among the Southern constellations two there

are which bear the name of the Dog; the one in 16 degrees of latitude,

containing on the left thigh a Star of the first magnitude, usually

called Procyon or Anticanis, because say some it riseth before the

other; which if truly understood, must be restrained unto those

habitations, who have elevation of pole above thirty two degrees.

Mention thereof there is in _Horace_[SN: Iam Procyon fuerit et stella

vesani Leonis.], who seems to mistake or confound the one with the

other; and after him in _Galen_, who is willing, the remarkablest Star

of the other should be called by this name; because it is the first that

ariseth in the constellation; which notwithstanding, to speak strictly,

it is not; unless we except one of the third magnitude in the right paw

in his own and our elevation, and two more on his head in and beyond the

degree of Sixty. [SN: _What the Dog-star is._] A second and more

considerable one there is, and neighbour unto the other, in 40 degrees

of latitude, containing 18 Stars, whereof that in his mouth of the first

magnitude, the _Greeks_ call Σείριος, the _Latines canis

major_, and we emphatically the Dog-Star.

Now from the rising of this Star, not cosmically, that is, with the Sun,

but Heliacally, that is, its emersion from the raies of the Sun, the

Ancients computed their canicular daies; concerning which there

generally passeth an opinion, that during those daies, all medication or

use of physick is to be declined; and the cure committed unto nature.

And therefore as though there were any feriation in nature, or

justitiums imaginable in professions, whose subject is natural, and

under no intermissive, but constant way of mutation; this season is

commonly termed the Physitians vacation, and stands so received by most

men. Which conceit however general, is not only erroneous, but

unnatural, and subsisting upon foundations either false, uncertain,

mistaken or misapplied, deserves not of mankind that indubitable assent

it findeth.

For first, which seems to be the ground of this assertion, and not to be

drawn into question, that is, the magnified quality of this Star

conceived to cause, or intend the heat of this season whereby these

daies become more observable then the rest: We find that wiser Antiquity

was not of this opinion. For, seventeen hundred years ago it was as a

vulgar error rejected by _Geminus_, a learned Mathematician in his

Elements of Astronomy; wherein he plainly affirmeth, that common opinion

made that a cause, which was at first observed but as a sign. The rising

and setting both of this Star and others being observed by the Ancients,

to denote and testifie certain points of mutation rather then conceived

to induce or effect the same. For our fore-fathers, saith he, observing

the course of the Sun, and marking certain mutations to happen in his

progress through particular parts of the Zodiack, they registred and set

them down in their Parapegmes, or Astronomical Canons; and being not

able to design these times by daies, months or years (the compute

thereof, and the beginning of the year being different, according unto

different Nations) they thought best to settle a general account unto

all; and to determine these alterations by some known and invariable

signs; and such did they conceive the rising and setting of the fixed

Stars; not ascribing thereto any part of causality, but notice and

signification. And thus much seems implied in that expression of

_Homer_, when speaking of the Dog Star, he concludeth----κακὸν δέ τε

σῆμα τέτυκται, _Malum autem signum est_; The same, as _Petavius_

observeth, is implied in the word of _Ptolomy_, and the Ancients, περὶ

ἐπισημασιῶν, that is, of the signification of Stars. The term of

Scripture also favours it, as that of _Isaiah_, _Nolite timere à signis

cœli_; and that in _Genesis_, _Ut sint in signa et tempora_: Let there

be lights in the firmament, and let them be for signs and for seasons.

The Primative and leading magnifiers of this Star, were the _Egyptians_,

the great admirers of Dogs in Earth and Heaven. [SN: Dionysius

Periegesi.] Wherein they worshipped _Anubis_ or _Mercurius_, the Scribe

of _Saturn_, and Counseller of _Osyris_, the great inventor of their

religious rites, and Promoter of good unto _Egypt_. Who was therefore

translated into this Star; by the _Egyptians_ called _Sothis_, and

_Siris_ by the _Ethiopians_; from whence that _Sirius_ or the Dog-star

had its name, is by some conjectured.

And this they looked upon, not with reference unto heat, but

cœlestial influence upon the faculties of man, in order to religion

and all sagacious invention; and from hence derived the abundance and

great fertility of _Egypt_, the overflow of _Nilus_ happening about the

ascent hereof. And therefore in hieroglyphical monuments, _Anubis_ is

described with a Dogs-head, with a Crocodile between his legs, with a

sphere in his hand, with two Stars, and a water Pot standing by him;

implying thereby, the rising and setting of the Dog-star, and the

inundation of the River _Nilus_.

But if all were silent, _Galen_ hath explained this point unto the life;

who expounding the reason why _Hippocrates_ declared the affections of

the year by the rising and setting of Stars; it was saith he, because he

would proceed on signs and principles best known unto all Nations. And

upon his words in the first of the Epidemicks, _In Thaso Autumno circa

Equinoxium et sub virgilias pluviæ erant multæ_, he thus enlargeth. If

(saith he) the same compute of times and months were observed by all

Nations, _Hippocrates_ had never made any mention either of Arcturus,

Pleiades or the Dog-star; but would have plainly said, in _Macedonia_,

in the month Dion, thus or thus was the air disposed. But for as much as

the month Dion is only known unto the _Macedonians_, but obscure unto

the _Athenians_ and other Nations, he found more general distinctions of

time, and instead of naming months, would usually say, at the Æquinox,

the rising of the Pleiades, or the Dog-star. [SN: _How the Ancients

divided the seasons of the year._] And by this way did the Ancients

divide the seasons of the year, the Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer.

By the rising of the Pleiades, denoting the beginning of Summer, and by

that of the Dog-star, the declination thereof. By this way _Aristotle_

through all his books of Animals, distinguishing their times of

generation, latitancy, migration, sanity and venation. And this were an

allowable way of compute, and still to be retained, were the site of the

Stars as inalterable, and their ascents as invariable as primitive

Astronomy conceived them. And therefore though _Aristotle_ frequently

mentioneth this Star, and particularly affirmeth that Fishes in the

Bosphorus are best catched from the arise of the Dog-star, we must not

conceive the same a meer effect thereof. Nor though _Scaliger_ from

hence be willing to infer the efficacy of this Star, are we induced

hereto; except because the same Philosopher affirmeth, that Tunny is fat

about the rising of the Pleiades, and departs upon Arcturus, or that

most insects are latent, from the setting of the 7 Stars; except, I say,

he give us also leave to infer that these particular effects and

alterations proceed from those Stars; which were indeed but designations

of such quarters and portions of the year, wherein the same were

observed. Now what _Pliny_ affirmeth of the Orix, that it seemeth to

adore this Star, and taketh notice thereof by voice and sternutation;

until we be better assured of its verity, we shall not salve the

sympathy.

Secondly, What slender opinion the Ancients held of the efficacy of this

Star, is declarable from their compute. For as _Geminus_ affirmeth, and

_Petavius_ his learned Commentator proveth, they began their account

from its Heliacal emersion, and not its cosmical ascent. [SN: _What the

Cosmical._] The cosmical ascention of a Star we term that, when it

ariseth together with the Sun, or the same degree of the Ecliptick

wherein the Sun abideth: [SN: _What the Heliacal ascent of Star is._]

and that the Heliacal, when a Star which before for the vicinity of the

Sun was not visible, being further removed, beginning to appear. For the

annual motion of the Sun from West to East being far swifter then that

of the fixed Stars, he must of necessity leave them on the East while he

hasteneth forward, and obscureth others to the West: and so the Moon who

performs its motion swifter then the Sun (as may be observed in their

Conjunctions and Eclipses) gets Eastward out of his raies; and appears

when the Sun is set. If therefore the Dog-star had this effectual heat

which is ascribed unto it, it would afford best evidence thereof, and

the season would be most fervent, when it ariseth in the probablest

place of its activity, that is, the cosmical ascent; for therein it

ariseth with the Sun, and is included in the same irradiation. But the

time observed by the Ancients was long after this ascent, and in the

Heliacal emersion; when it becomes at greatest distance from the Sun,

neither rising with it nor near it. And therefore had they conceived any

more then a bare signality in this Star, or ascribed the heat of the

season therunto, they would not have computed from its Heliacal ascent,

which was of inferiour efficacy; nor imputed the vehemency of heat unto

those points wherein it was more remiss, and where with less probability

they might make out its action.

Thirdly, Although we derive the authority of these daies from

observations of the Ancients, yet are our computes very different, and

such as confirm not each other. For whereas they observed it Heliacally,

we seem to observe it Cosmically; for before it ariseth Heliacally unto

our latitude, the Summer is even at an end. Again, we compute not only

from different ascents, but also from divers Stars; they from the

greater Dog-star, we from the lesser; they from _Orions_ we from

_Cephalus_ his Dog; they from _Seirius_, we from _Procyon_; for the

beginning of the Dog-daies with us is set down the 19 of _July_, about

which time the lesser Dog-star ariseth with the Sun; whereas the Star of

the greater Dog ascendeth not until after that month. And this mistake

will yet be larger, if the compute be made stricter, and as Dr.

_Bainbrigge_ late professor of Astronomy in Oxford, hath set it down

[SN: Bainb. Canicularis.]. Who in the year 1629 computed, that in the

Horizon of _Oxford_ the Dog-star arose not before the fifteenth day of

_August_; when in our Almanack accounts, those daies are almost ended.

So that the common and received time not answering the true compute, it

frustrates the observations of our selves. And being also different from

the calculations of the Ancients, their observations confirm not ours,

nor ours theirs, but rather confute each other.

Nor will the computes of the Ancients be so Authentick unto those, who

shall take notice, how commonly they applied the celestial descriptions

of other climes unto their own; wherein the learned _Bainbrigius_ justly

reprehendeth _Manilius_, who transferred the _Ægyptian_ descriptions

unto the _Roman_ account; confounding the observation of the _Greek_ and

_Barbarick_ Spheres.

Fourthly, (which is the Argument of _Geminus_) were there any such

effectual heat in this Star, yet could it but weakly evidence the same

in Summer; it being about 40 degrees distant from the Sun: and should

rather manifest its warming power in the Winter, when it remains

conjoyned with the Sun in its Hybernal conversion. For about the 29 of

_October_, and in the 16 of _Scorpius_ and so again in _January_, the

Sun performs his revolution in the same parallel with the Dog-star.

Again, If we should impute the heat of this season, unto the

co-operation of any Stars with the Sun, it seems more favourable for our

times, to ascribe the same unto the constellation of _Leo_. Where

besides that the Sun is in his proper house, it is conjoyned with many

Stars; whereof two of the first magnitude; and in the 8{th} of _August_

is corporally conjoyned with _Basilicus_; a Star of eminent name in

Astrology, and seated almost in the Ecliptick.

Fifthly, If all were granted, that observation and reason were also for

it, and were it an undeniable truth, that an effectual fervour proceeded

from this Star; yet would not the same determine the opinion now in

question; it necessarily suffering such restrictions as take off general

illations. For first in regard of different latitudes, unto some the

canicular daies are in the Winter; as unto such as have no latitude, but

live in a right Sphere, that is, under the Equinoctial line; for unto

them it ariseth when the Sun is about the Tropick of Cancer; which

season unto them is Winter, and the Sun remotest from them. Nor hath the

same position in the Summer, that is, in the Equinoctial points, any

advantage from it; for in the one point the Sun is at the Meridian,

before the Dog-star ariseth; in the other the Star is at the Meridian,

before the sun ascendeth.

[Sidenote: _What latitudes have no Dog-daies at all._]

Some latitudes have no canicular daies at all; as namely all those which

have more then 73 degrees of Northern Elevation; as the territory of

_Nova Zembla_, part of _Greenland_ and _Tartary_; for unto that

habitation the Dog-star is invisible, and appeareth not above the

Horizon.

Unto such latitudes wherein it ariseth, it carrieth a various and very

different respect; unto some it ascendeth when Summer is over, whether

we compute Heliacally or Cosmically; for though unto _Alexandria_ it

ariseth in Cancer; yet it ariseth not unto Biarmia Cosmically before it

be in Virgo, and Heliacally about the Autumnal Equinox. Even unto the

latitude of 52, the efficacy thereof is not much considerable, whether

we consider its ascent, Meridian, altitude or abode above the Horizon.

For it ariseth very late in the year, about the eighteenth of _Leo_,

that is, the 31 of _July_. Of Meridian Altitude it hath but 23 degrees,

so that it plaies but obliquely upon us, and as the Sun doth about the

23 of _January_. And lastly, his abode above the Horizon is not great;

for in the eighteenth of _Leo_, the 31 of _July_, although they arise

together; yet doth it set above 5 hours before the Sun, that is, before

two of the clock, after which time we are more sensible of heat, then

all the day before.

Secondly, In regard of the variation of the longitude of the Stars, we

are to consider (what the Ancients observed not) that the site of the

fixed Stars is alterable, and that since elder times they have suffered

a large and considerable variation of their longitudes. [SN: _What the

longitude of a Star is._] The longitude of a Star, to speak plainly, is

its distance from the first point of numeration toward the East; which

first point unto the Ancients was the vernal æquinox. Now by reason of

their motion from West to East, they have very much varied from this

point: The first Star of Aries in the time of _Meton_ the _Athenian_ was

placed in the very intersection, which is now elongated and removed

Eastward 28 degrees; insomuch that now the sign of Aries possesseth the

place of Taurus, and Taurus that of Gemini. Which variation of longitude

must very much distract the opinion of the Dog star; not only in our

daies, but in times before and after; for since the World began it hath

arisen in Taurus, and if the World last, may have its ascent in Virgo;

so that we must place the canicular daies, that is, the hottest time of

the year in the Spring in the first age, and in the Autumn in Ages to

come.

Thirdly, The Stars have not only varied their longitudes, whereby their

ascents have altered; but have also changed their declinations, whereby

their rising at all, that is, their appearing hath varied. [SN: _What

the declination of a Star is._] The declination of a Star we call its

distance from the Equator. Now though the Poles of the world and the

Equator be immovable, yet because the Stars in their proper motions from

West to East, do move upon the poles of the Ecliptick, distant 23

degrees and an half from the Poles of the Equator, and describe circles

parallel not unto the Equator, but the Ecliptick; they must be therefore

sometimes nearer, sometimes removed further from the Equator. All Stars

that have their distance from the Ecliptick Northward not more then 23

degrees and an half (which is the greatest distance of the Ecliptick

from the Equator) may in progression of time have declination Southward,

and move beyond the Equator: but if any Star hath just this distance of

23 and an half (as hath Capella on the back of Ericthonius) it may

hereafter move under the Equinoctial; and the same will happen

respectively unto Stars which have declination Southward. And therefore

many Stars may be visible in our Hemisphere, which are not so at

present; and many which are at present, shall take leave of our Horizon,

and appear unto Southern habitations. And therefore the time may come

that the Dog star may not be visible in our Horizon, and the time hath

been, when it hath not shewed it self unto our neighbour latitudes. So

that canicular daies there have been none, nor shall be; yet certainly

in all times some season of the year more notably hot then other.

Lastly, We multiply causes in vain; and for the reason hereof, we need

not have recourse unto any Star but the Sun, and continuity of its

action. For the Sun ascending into the Northern signs, begetteth first a

temperate heat in the air; which by his approach unto the solstice he

intendeth; and by continuation increaseth the same even upon

declination. [SN: _Why the Dog-daies be so hot._] For running over the

same degrees again, that is, in Leo, which he hath done in Taurus, in

_July_ which he did in _May_; he augmenteth the heat in the latter which

he began in the first; and easily intendeth the same by continuation

which was well promoted before. So it is observed, that they which dwell

between the Tropicks and the Equator, have their second summer hotter

and more maturative of fruits then the former. So we observe in the day

(which is a short year) the greatest heat about two in the afternoon,

when the Sun is past the Meridian (which is his diurnal solstice) and

the same is evident from the Thermometer or observations of the

weather-glass. So are the colds of the night sharper in the Summer about

two or three after midnight, and the frosts in Winter stronger about

those hours. So likewise in the year we observe the cold to augment,

when the daies begin to increase, though the Sun be then ascensive, and

returning from the Winter Tropick. And therefore if we rest not in this

reason for the heat in the declining part of Summer, we must discover

freezing Stars that may resolve the latter colds of Winter; which

whoever desires to invent, let him study the Stars of _Andromeda_, or

the nearer constellation of _Pegasus_, which are about that time

ascendent.

It cannot therefore seem strange, or savour of singularity that we have

examined this point; since the same hath been already denied by some,

since the authority and observations of the Ancients rightly understood,

do not confirm it, since our present computes are different from those

of the Ancients, whereon notwithstanding they depend; since there is

reason against it, and if all were granted, yet must it be maintained

with manifold restraints, far otherwise then is received. And lastly,

since from plain and natural principles, the doubt may be fairly

salved, and not clapt up from petitionary foundations and principles

unestablished.

But that which chiefly promoted the consideration of these daies, and

medically advanced the same, was the doctrin of _Hippocrates_; a

Physitian of such repute, that he received a testimony from a Christian,

that might have been given unto Christ. [SN: Qui nec fallere potest nec

falli.] The first in his book, _de Acre, Aquis, et locis_. _Syderum

ortus_, etc. That is, we are to observe the rising of Stars, especially

the Dog-star, Arcturus, and the setting of the Pleiades or seven Stars.

From whence notwithstanding we cannot infer the general efficacy of

these Stars, or co-efficacy particular in medications. Probably

expressing no more hereby then if he should have plainly said, especial

notice we are to take of the hottest time in Summer, of the beginning of

Autumn and Winter; for by the rising and setting of those Stars were

these times and seasons defined. [SN: _Diseases commonly determined, by

what seasons._] And therefore subjoyns this reason, _Quoniam his

temporibus morbi finiuntur_, because at these times diseases have their

ends; as Physitians well known, and he elsewhere affirmeth, that seasons

determine diseases, beginning in their contraries; as the Spring the

diseases of Autumn, and the Summer those of Winter. Now (what is very

remarkable) whereas in the some place he adviseth to observe the times

of notable mutations, as the Equinoxes, and the Solstices, and to

decline Medication ten daies before and after; how precisely soever

canicular cautions be considered, this is not observed by Physitians,

nor taken notice of by the people. And indeed should we blindly obey the

restraints both of Physitians and Astrologers, we should contract the

liberty of our prescriptions, and confine the utility of Physick unto a

very few daies. For observing the Dog-daies, and as is expressed, some

daies before, likewise ten daies before and after the Equinoctial and

Solsticial points; by this observation alone are exempted an hundred

daies. Whereunto if we add the two _Egyptian_ daies in every month, the

interlunary and plenilunary exemptions, the Eclipses of Sun and Moon,

conjunctions and oppositions Planetical, the houses of Planets, and the

site of the Luminaries under the signs (wherein some would induce a

restraint of Purgation or Phlebotomy) there would arise above an hundred

more; so that of the whole year the use of Physick would not be secure

much above a quarter. Now as we do not strictly observe these daies, so

need we not the other; and although consideration be made hereof, yet

must we prefer the nearer indications before those which are drawn from

the time of the year; or other cælestial relations.

The second Testimony is taken out of the last piece of his Age, and

after the experience (as some think) of no less then an hundred years,

that is, his book of Aphorisms, or short and definitive determinations

in Physick. The Aphorism alleadged is this, _Sub Cane et ante Canem

difficiles sunt purgationes._ _Sub Cane et Anticane_, say some including

both the Dog-stars; but that cannot consist with the Greek: ὑπὸ κύνα καὶ

πρὸ κυνὸς, nor had that Criticism been ever omitted by _Galen_. Now how

true this sentence was in the mouth of _Hippocrates_, and with what

restraint it must be understood by us, will readily appear from the

difference between us both, in circumstantial relations.

And first, Concerning his time and Chronology: [SN: _When_ Hippocrates

_lived_.] he lived in the reign of _Artaxerxes Longimanus_, about the 82

Olympiade, 450 years before Christ; and from our times above two

thousand. Now since that time (as we have already declared) the Stars

have varied their longitudes; and having made large progressions from

West to East, the time of the Dog-stars ascent must also very much

alter. For it ariseth later now in the year, then it formerly did in the

same latitude; and far later unto us who have a greater elevation; for

in the daies of _Hippocrates_ this Star ascended in Cancer, which now

ariseth in Leo: and will in progression of time arise in Virgo. And

therefore in regard of the time wherein he lived, the Aphorism was more

considerable in his daies then in ours, and in times far past then

present, and in his Countrey then ours.

The place of his nativity was _Coos_, an Island in the _Myrtoan_ Sea,

not far from _Rhodes_, described in Maps by the name of _Lango_, and

called by the _Turks_ who are Masters thereof, _Stancora_; according

unto _Ptolomy_ of Northern latitude 36 degrees. That he lived and writ

in these parts, is not improbably collected from the Epistles that

passed betwixt him and _Artaxerxes_; as also between the Citizens of

_Abdera_, and _Coos_, in the behalf of _Democritus_. Which place being

seated from our latitude of 52, 16 degrees Southward, there will arise a

different consideration; and we may much deceive our selves if we

conform the ascent of Stars in one place unto another, or conceive they

arise the same day of the month in _Coos_ and in _England_. For as

_Petavius_ computes in the first _Julian_ year, at _Alexandria_ of

latitude 31, the Star arose cosmically in the twelfth degree of Cancer,

Heliacally the 26, by the compute of _Geminus_ about this time at

_Rhodes_ of latitude 37, it ascended cosmically the 16 of Cancer,

Heliacally the first of Leo; and about that time at _Rome_ of latitude

42, cosmically the 22 of Cancer, and Heliacally the first of Leo. For

unto places of greater latitude it ariseth ever later; so that in some

latitudes the cosmical ascent happeneth not before the twentieth degree

of Virgo, ten daies before the Autumnal Equinox, and if they compute

Heliacally, after it, in Libra.

Again, Should we allow all, and only compute unto the latitude of

_Coos_; yet would it not impose a total omission of Physick. For if in

the hottest season of that clime, all Physick were to be declined, then

surely in many other none were to be used at any time whatsoever; for

unto many parts, not only in the Spring and Autumn, but also in the

Winter, the Sun is nearer, then unto the clime of _Coos_ in the Summer.

The third consideration concerneth purging medicines, which are at

present far different from those implied in this Aphorism, and such as

were commonly used by _Hippocrates_. [SN: _Three degrees of

purgations._] For three degrees we make of purgative medicines: The

first thereof is very benign, nor far removed from the nature of

Aliment, into which, upon defect of working, it is oft-times converted;

and in this form do we account _Manna_, _Cassia_, _Tamarindes_, and many

more; whereof we find no mention in _Hippocrates_. This second is also

gentle having a familiarity with some humor, into which it is but

converted if it fail of its operation: of this sort are _Aloe_,

_Rhabarb_, _Senna_, etc. Whereof also few or none were known unto

_Hippocrates_. The third is of a violent and venemous quality, which

frustrate of its action, assumes as it were the nature of poison; such

as are Scammoneum, Colocynthis, Elaterium, Euphorbium, Tithymallus,

Laureola, Peplum, etc. Of this sort _Hippocrates_ made use, even in

Fevers, Pleurisies and Quinsies; and that composition is very remarkable

which is ascribed unto _Diogenes_ in _Ætius_[SN: Tetrab. lib. 1. Serm.

3.]; that is, of Pepper, Sal Armoniac, Euphorbium, of each an ounce,

the Dosis whereof four scruples and an half; which whosoever should

take, would find in his bowels more then a canicular heat, though in the

depth of Winter; many of the like nature may be observed in _Ætius_, or

in the book _De Dinamidiis_, ascribed unto _Galen_, which is the same

_verbatim_ with the other.

Now in regard of the second, and especially the first degree of

Purgatives, the Aphorism is not of force; but we may safely use them,

they being benign and of innoxious qualities. And therefore _Lucas

Gauricus_, who hath endeavoured with many testimonies to advance this

consideration, at length concedeth that lenitive Physick may be used,

especially when the Moon is well affected in Cancer or in the watery

signs. But in regard of the third degree the Aphorism is considerable:

purgations may be dangerous; and a memorable example there is in the

medical Epistles of _Crucius_, of a _Roman_ Prince that died upon an

ounce of Diaphænicon, taken in this season. From the use whereof we

refrain not only in hot seasons, but warily exhibit it at all times in

hot diseases. Which when necessity requires, we can perform more safely

then the Ancients, as having better waies of preparation and correction;

that is, not only by addition of other bodies, but separation of noxious

parts from their own.

But beside these differences between _Hippocrates_ and us, the

Physitians of these times and those of Antiquity; the condition of the

disease, and the intention of the Physitian, hold a main consideration

in what time and place soever. For Physick is either curative or

preventive; Preventive we call that which by purging noxious humors, and

the causes of diseases, preventeth sickness in the healthy, or the

recourse thereof in the valetudinary; this is of common use at the

spring and fall, and we commend not the same at this season.

Therapeutick or curative Physick, we term that, which restoreth the

Patient unto Sanity, and taketh away diseases actually affecting. [SN:

_Diseases Chronical and Acute what they be._] Now of diseases some are

cronical and of long duration, as quartane Agues, Scurvy, etc. Wherein

because they admit of delay we defer the cure to more advantagious

seasons; Others we term acute, that is, of short duration and danger, as

Fevers, Pleurisies, etc. In which, because delay is dangerous, and they

arise unto their state before the Dog-daies determine, we apply present

remedies according unto Indications; respecting rather the acuteness of

the disease, and precipitancy of occasion, then the rising or setting of

Stars; the effects of the one being disputable, of the other assured and

inevitable.

And although Astrology may here put in, and plead the secret influence

of this Star; yet _Galen_ in his Comment, makes no such consideration;

confirming the truth of the Aphorism from the heat of the year; and the

operation of Medicines exhibited. [SN: _Strong purgations not so well

given in the heat of summer, and why._] In regard that bodies being

heated by the Summer, cannot so well endure the acrimony of purging

Medicines; and because upon purgations contrary motions ensue, the heat

of the air attracting the humours outward, and the action of the

Medicine retracting the same inward. But these are readily salved in the

distinctions before alleadged; and particularly in the constitution of

our climate and divers others, wherein the air makes no such exhaustion

of spirits. And in the benignity of our Medicines; whereof some in their

own natures, others well prepared, agitate not the humors, or make

sensible perturbation.

[Sidenote: _A Problem._]

Nor do we hereby reject or condemn a sober and regulated Astrology; we

hold there is more truth therein then in Astrologers; in some more then

many allow, yet in none so much as some pretend. We deny not the

influence of the Stars, but often suspect the due application thereof;

for though we should affirm that all things were in all things; that

heaven were but earth celestified, and earth but heaven terrestrified,

or that each part above had an influence upon its divided affinity

below; yet how to single out these relations, and duly to apply their

actions is a work oft times to be effected by some revelation, and

_Cabala_ from above, rather then any Philosophy, or speculation here

below. What power soever they have upon our bodies, it is not requisite

they should destroy our reasons, that is, to make us rely on the

strength of Nature, when she is least able to relieve us; and when we

conceive the heaven against us, to refuse the assistance of the earth

created for us. [SN: _Upon the biting of a mad Dog there ensues an

hydrophobia or fear of water._] This were to suffer from the mouth of

the Dog above, what others do from the teeth of Dogs below; that is, to

be afraid of their proper remedy, and refuse to approach any water,

though that hath often proved a cure unto their disease. There is in

wise men a power beyond the Stars; and _Ptolomy_ encourageth us, that by

foreknowledge, we may evade their actions; for, being but universal

causes, they are determined by particular agents; which being inclined,

not constrained, contain within themselves the casting act, and a power

to command the conclusion.

Lastly, If all be conceded, and were there in this Aphorism an

unrestrained truth, yet were it not reasonable from a caution to inferr

a non-usance or abolition, from a thing to be used with discretion, not

to be used at all. Because the Apostle bids us beware of Philosophy,

heads of extremity will have none at all; an usual fallacy in vulgar and

less distinctive brains, who having once overshot the mean, run

violently on, and find no rest but in the extreams.

Now hereon we have the longer insisted, because the error is material,

and concerns oft-times the life of man; an error to be taken notice of

by State, and provided against by Princes, who are of the opinion of

_Solomon_, that their riches consists in the multitude of their

subjects. An error worse then some reputed _Heresies_; and of greater

danger to the body, then they unto the soul; which whosoever is able to

reclaim, he shall salve more in one summer then _Themison_[SN: _A

Physitian._ Quot Themison ægros Autumno occiderit uno. _Juvenal._]

destroyed in any Autumn; he shall introduce a new way of cure,

preserving by Theory, as well as practice, and men not only from death,

but from destroying themselves.

THE FIFTH BOOK

Of many things questionable as they are

commonly described in Pictures.

CHAPTER I

Of the Picture of the Pelecan.

And first in every place we meet with the picture of the Pelecan,

opening her breast with her bill, and feeding her young ones with the

blood distilling from her. Thus is it set forth not only in common

Signs, but in the Crest and Schucheon of many Noble families; hath been

asserted by many holy Writers, and was an Hierogliphick of piety and

pitty among the _Ægyptians_; on which consideration, they spared them at

their tables.

Notwithstanding upon enquiry we find no mention hereof in Ancient

Zodiographers, and such as have particularly discoursed upon Animals, as

_Aristotle_, _Ælian_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_ and many more; who seldom

forget proprieties of such a nature, and have been very punctual in less

considerable Records. Some ground hereof I confess we may allow, nor

need we deny a remarkable affection in Pelecans toward their young; for

_Ælian_ discoursing of Storks, and their affection toward their brood,

whom they instruct to fly, and unto whom they re-deliver up the

provision of their Bellies, concludeth at last, that Herons and Pelecans

do the like.

As for the testimonies of Ancient Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers,

we may more safely conceive therein some Emblematical than any real

Story: so doth _Eucherius_ confess it to be the Emblem of Christ. And we

are unwilling literally to receive that account of _Jerom_, that

perceiving her young ones destroyed by Serpents, she openeth her side

with her bill, by the blood whereof they revive and return unto life

again. By which relation they might indeed illustrate the destruction of

man by the old Serpent, and his restorement by the blood of Christ: and

in this sense we shall not dispute the like relations of _Austine_,

_Isidore_, _Albertus_, and many more: and under an Emblematical

intention, we accept it in coat-armour.

As for the Hieroglyphick of the _Egyptians_, they erected the same upon

another consideration, which was parental affection; manifested in the

protection of her young ones, when her nest was set on fire. For as for

letting out her blood, it was not the assertion of the _Egyptians_, but

seems translated unto the Pelecan from the Vulture, as _Pierius_ hath

plainly delivered. _Sed quod Pelicanum (ut etiam aliis plerisque

persuasum est) rostro pectus dissecantem pingunt, ita ut suo sanguine

filios alat, ab Ægyptiorum historiâ valde alienum est, illi enim

vulturem tantum id facere tradiderunt._

And lastly, as concerning the picture, if naturally examined, and not

Hierogliphically conceived, it containeth many improprieties,

disagreeing almost in all things from the true and proper description.

For, whereas it is commonly set forth green or yellow, in its proper

colour, it is inclining to white; excepting the extremities or tops of

the wing feathers, which are brown. [SN: _The bigness of a Pelecan._]

It is described in the bigness of a Hen, whereas it approacheth and

sometimes exceedeth the magnitude of a Swan. It is commonly painted with

a short bill; whereas that of the Pelecan attaineth sometimes the length

of two spans. The bill is made acute or pointed at the end; whereas it

is flat and broad, though somewhat inverted at the extream. It is

described like fissipedes, or birds which have their feet or claws

divided; whereas it is palmipedous, or fin-footed like Swans and Geese;

according to the method of nature, in latirostrous or flat-bild birds;

which being generally swimmers, the organ is wisely contrived unto the

action, and they are framed with fins or oars upon their feet; and

therefore they neither light, nor build on trees, if we except

Cormorants, who make their nests like Herons. [SN: _Of her Crop._]

Lastly, there is one part omitted more remarkable than any other, that

is, the chowle or crop adhering unto the lower side of the bill, and so

descending by the throat: a bag or sachel very observable, and of a

capacity almost beyond credit; which notwithstanding, this animal could

not want; for therein it receiveth Oysters, Cochels, Scollops, and other

testaceous animals; which being not able to break, it retains them until

they open, and vomiting them up, takes out the meat contained. This is

that part preserved for a rarity and wherein (as _Sanctius_ delivers) in

one dissected, a _Negro_ child was found.

A possibility there may be of opening and bleeding their breast; for

this may be done by the uncous and pointed extremity of their bill: and

some probability also that they sometimes do it, for their own relief,

though not for their young ones; that is by nibling and biting

themselves on their itching part of their breast, upon fullness or

acrimony of blood. And the same may be better made out; if (as some

relate) their feathers on that part are sometimes observed to be red and

tincted with blood.