Читать онлайн
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2
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.
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 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.
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. 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, 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,Gen. 1. Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth: And againChap. 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 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 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. 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 Physickεὐπόριστα., 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 PlutarchDe sanitate tuenda., That the brain thereof is a pleasant bit, but that it causeth the head-ach. Which notwithstanding the luxurious EmperourHeliogabalus. 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 AldrovandusDe 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.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 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 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 heartSuetonius., and Pyrrhus his great Toe,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, 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. 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. 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;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, 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.
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,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, 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 BacchinusBacch. 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.
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.