Читать онлайн
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 3
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 3
PREFATORY NOTE
In concluding the present edition of Sir Thomas Browne’s works, attention may be drawn to the reprint of the Hydriotaphia, from the first edition of 1658. The copy collated was the one preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. In this, in addition to the corrections made at the time of publication on the printed label attached, there are a few others made by a contemporary hand, which deserve consideration. Among these is the excision of a sentence hitherto preserved in the text, and now relegated to the margin (p. 205). If further sanction were needed for the change indicated, it may be gathered from the inscription on the title-page, ‘Ex dono Auctoris.’ The text of the Christian Morals of 1716 has been collated with the copy in the same Library.
For the account of Birds and Fishes found in Norfolk (pp. 513-539), Professor Alfred Newton generously placed his annotated copy at the disposal of the editor. As those actual pages were in the press, Professor Newton passed away, and Death has deprived us of the pleasure of placing this volume in his hands. In this edition Professor Newton’s readings have been in the main followed, with the additional help of the valuable recension, published by Mr. Thomas Southwell of Norwich, in 1902, to which every serious student of this treatise must always refer.
For further assistance in questions of identification, I am again indebted to the kindness of Mr. W. Aldis Wright; and for one correction to Mr. A. R. Waller.
Sir Thomas Browne’s Latin treatises and his correspondence are not included in these volumes. It was the determination of the original publisher of this edition that they should be omitted; and indeed they do not form the most characteristic part of Sir Thomas Browne’s work. His erudition, and the resources from which he drew, his amazing industry, his marvellous diction, and natural piety – all these are apparent to the general reader of his English text; and it is to such that the present edition of Sir Thomas Browne’s works, as they originally appeared, will primarily appeal.
C. S.
16th June 1907.
THE SEVENTH BOOK
Concerning many Historical Tenents generally received, and some deduced from the history of holy Scripture
CHAPTER I
Of the Forbidden Fruit
Opinions, of what kind the forbidden fruit was.
That the Forbidden fruit of Paradise was an Apple, is commonly believed, confirmed by Tradition, perpetuated by Writings, Verses, Pictures; and some have been so bad Prosodians, as from thence to derive the Latine word malum, because that fruit was the first occasion of evil; wherein notwithstanding determinations are presumptuous, and many I perceive are of another belief. For some have, conceived it a Vine; in the mystery of whose fruit lay the expiation of the transgression: Goropius Becanus reviving the conceit of Barcephas, peremptorily concludeth it to be the Indian Fig-tree; and by a witty Allegory labours to confirm the same. Again, some fruits pass under the name of Adams apples, which in common acception admit not that appellation; the one described by Mathiolus under the name of Pomum Adami, a very fair fruit, and not unlike a Citron, but somewhat rougher, chopt and cranied, vulgarly conceived the marks of Adams teeth. Another, the fruit of that plant which Serapion termeth Musa, but the Eastern Christians commonly the Apples of Paradise; not resembling an apple in figure, and in taste a Melon or Cowcomber. Which fruits although they have received appellations suitable unto the tradition, yet can we not from thence infer they were this fruit in question: No more then Arbor vitæ, so commonly called, to obtain its name from the tree of life in Paradise, or Arbor Judæ, to be the same which supplied the gibbet unto Judas.
Again, There is no determination in the Text; wherein is only particulared that it was the fruit of a tree good for food, and pleasant unto the eye, in which regards many excell the Apple; and therefore learned men do wisely conceive it inexplicable; and Philo puts determination unto despair, when he affirmeth the same kind of fruit was never produced since. Surely were it not requisite to have been concealed, it had not passed unspecified; nor the tree revealed which concealed their nakedness, and that concealed which revealed it; for in the same chapter mention is made of fig-leaves. And the like particulars, although they seem uncircumstantial, are oft set down in holy Scripture; so is it specified that Elias sat under a juniper tree, Absalom hanged by an Oak, and Zacheus got up into a Sycomore.
And although to condemn such Indeterminables unto him that demanded on what hand Venus was wounded, the Philosopher thought it a sufficient resolution to re-inquire upon what leg King Philip halted; and the Jews not undoubtedly resolved of the Sciatica-side of Jacob, Jacobs Sciatica, see Gen. 32. 25, 31, 32. do cautelously in their diet abstain from thesinews of both: yet are there many nice particulars which may be authentically determined. That Peter cut off the right ear of Malchus, is beyond all doubt. That our Saviour eat the Passover in an upper room, we may determine from the Text. And some we may concede which the Scripture plainly defines not. That the Dyal of Ahaz was placed upon the West side of the Temple, we will not deny, or contradict the description of Adricomius. That Abrahams servant put his hand under his right thigh, we shall not question; and that the Thief on the right hand was saved, and the other on the left reprobated, to make good the Method of the last judicial dismission, we are ready to admit. But surely in vain we enquire of what wood was Moses rod, or the tree that sweetned the waters. Or though tradition or humane History might afford some light, whether the Crown of thorns was made of Paliurus; Whether the cross of Christ were made of those four woods in the Distick of Durantes, Pes ceorus est, truncus cupressus, oliva supremum, palmaq; transversum Christi sunt in cruce lignum. or only of Oak, according unto Lipsius and Goropius, we labour not to determine. For though hereof prudent Symbols and pious Allegories be made by wiser Conceivers; yet common heads will flie unto superstitious applications, and hardly avoid miraculous or magical expectations.
Now the ground or reason that occasioned this expression by an Apple, might be the community of this fruit, and which is often taken for any other. So the Goddess of Gardens is termed Pomona; so the Proverb expresseth it to give Apples unto Alcinous; so the fruit which Paris decided was called an Apple; so in the garden of Hesperides (which many conceive a fiction drawn from Paradise) we read of golden Apples guarded by the Dragon. And to speak strictly in this appellation, they placed it more safely then any other; for beside the great variety of Apples, the word in Greek comprehendeth Orenges, Lemmons, Citrons, Quinces; and as Ruellius defineth, Ruel. de stirpium natura. such fruits as have no stone within, and a soft covering without; excepting the Pomegranate. And will extend much farther in the acception of Spigelius, Isagoge in rem Herbariam. who comprehendeth all round fruits under the name of apples, not excluding Nuts and Plumbs.
It hath been promoted in some constructions from a passage in the Canticle,Can. 8. as it runs in the vulgar translation, Sub arbore malo suscitavi te, ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genetrix tua; Which words notwithstanding parabolically intended, admit no literal inference, and are of little force in our translation, I raised thee under an Apple-tree, there thy mother brought thee forth, there she brought thee forth that bare thee. So when from a basket of summer fruits or apples, as the vulgar rendreth them, God by Amos foretold the destruction of his people, we cannot say they had any reference unto the fruit of Paradise, which was the destruction of man; but thereby was declared the propinquity of their desolation, and that their tranquility was of no longer duration then those horary or soon decaying fruits of Summer. Nor when it is said in the same translation, Fructus horæi. Poma desiderii animæ tuæ discesserunt à te, the apples that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, is there any allusion therein unto the fruit of Paradise. But thereby is threatned unto Babylon, that the pleasures and delights of their Palate should forsake them. And we read in Pierius, that an Apple was the Hieroglyphick of Love, and that the Statua of Venus was made with one in her hand. So the little Cupids in the figures of Philostratus Philostrat. figur. 6. De amoribus. do play with apples in a garden; and there want not some who have symbolized the Apple of Paradise unto such constructions.
Since therefore after this fruit, curiosity fruitlesly enquireth, and confidence blindly determineth, we shall surcease our Inquisition; rather troubled that it was tasted, then troubling our selves in its decision; this only we observe, when things are left uncertain, men will assure them by determination. Which is not only verified concerning the fruit, but the Serpent that perswaded; many defining the kind or species thereof. Opinions of what kind the Serpent was, etc. So Bonaventure and Comestor affirm it was a Dragon, Eugubinus a Basilisk, Delrio a Viper, and others a common snake. Wherein men still continue the delusion of the Serpent, who having deceived Eve in the main, sets her posterity on work to mistake in the circumstance, and endeavours to propagate errors at any hand. And those he surely most desireth which concern either God or himself; for they dishonour God who is absolute truth and goodness; but for himself, who is extreamly evil, and the worst we can conceive, by aberration of conceit they may extenuate his depravity, and ascribe some goodness unto him.
CHAPTER II
That a Man hath one Rib less then a Woman
That a Man hath one Rib less then a Woman, is a common conceit derived from the History of Genesis, wherein it stands delivered, that Eve was framed out of a Rib of Adam; whence ’tis concluded the sex of man still wants that rib our Father lost in Eve. And this is not only passant with the many, but was urged against Columbus in an Anatomy of his at Pisa, where having prepared the Sceleton of a woman that chanced to have thirteen ribs on one side, there arose a party that cried him down, and even unto oaths affirmed, this was the rib wherein a woman exceeded. Were this true, it would ocularly silence that dispute out of which side Eve was framed; it would determine the opinion of Oleaster, that she was made out of the ribs of both sides, or such as from the expression of the TextOs ex ossibus meis. maintain there was a plurality of ribs required; and might indeed decry the parabolical exposition of Origen, Cajetan, and such as fearing to concede a monstrosity, or mutilate the integrity of Adam, preventively conceive the creation of thirteen ribs.
How many ribs commonly in men and women.
But this will not consist with reason or inspection. For if we survey the Sceleton of both sexes, and therein the compage of bones, we shall readily discover that men and women have four and twenty ribs, that is, twelve on each side, seven greater annexed unto the Sternon, and five lesser which come short thereof. Wherein if it sometimes happen that either sex exceed, the conformation is irregular, deflecting from the common rate or number, and no more inferrible upon mankind, then the monstrosity of the son of Rapha, or the vitious excess in the number of fingers and toes. And although some difference there be in figure and the female os inominatum be somewhat more protuberant, to make a fairer cavity for the Infant; the coccyx sometime more reflected to give the easier delivery, and the ribs themselves seem a little flatter, yet are they equal in number. And therefore while Aristotle doubteth the relations made of Nations, which had but seven ribs on a side, and yet delivereth, that men have generally no more than eight; as he rejecteth their history, so can we not accept of his Anatomy.
Again, Although we concede there wanted one rib in the Sceleton of Adam, yet were it repugnant unto reason and common observation that his posterity should want the same. For we observe that mutilations are not transmitted from father unto son; the blind begetting such as can see, men with one eye children with two, and cripples mutilate in their own persons do come out perfect in their generations. For the seed conveyeth with it not only the extract and single Idea of every part, whereby it transmits their perfections or infirmities; but double and over again; whereby sometimes it multipliciously delineates the same, as in Twins, in mixed and numerous generations. Parts of the seed do seem to contain the Idea and power of the whole; so parents deprived of hands, beget manual issues, and the defect of those parts is supplied by the Idea of others. So in one grain of corn appearing similary and insufficient for a plural germination, there lyeth dormant the virtuality of many other; and from thence sometimes proceed above an hundred ears. And thus may be made out the cause of multiparous productions; for though the seminal materials disperse and separate in the matrix, the formative operator will not delineate a part, but endeavour the formation of the whole; effecting the same as far as the matter will permit, and from dividing materials attempt entire formations. And therefore, though wondrous strange, it may not be impossible what is confirmed at Lausdun concerning the Countess of Holland, nor what Albertus reports of the birth of an hundred and fifty. And if we consider the magnalities of generation in some things, we shall not controvert its possibilities in others: nor easily question that great work, whose wonders are only second unto those of the Creation, and a close apprehension of the one, might perhaps afford a glimmering light, and crepusculous glance of the other.
CHAPTER III
Of Methuselah
What hath been every where opinioned by all men, and in all times, is more then paradoxical to dispute; and so that Methuselah was the longest liver of all the posterity of Adam, we quietly believe: but that he must needs be so, is perhaps below paralogy to deny. For hereof there is no determination from the Text; wherein it is only particulared he was the longest Liver of all the Patriarchs whose age is there expressed; but that he out-lived all others, we cannot well conclude. For of those nine whose death is mentioned before the flood, the Text expresseth that Enoch was the shortest Liver; who saw but three hundred sixty-five years. But to affirm from hence, none of the rest, whose age is not expressed, did die before that time, is surely an illation whereto we cannot assent.
Again, Many persons there were in those days of longevity, of whose age notwithstanding there is no account in Scripture; as of the race of Cain, the wives of the nine Patriarchs, with all the sons and daughters that every one begat: whereof perhaps some persons might out-live Methuselah; the Text intending only the masculine line of Seth, conduceable unto the Genealogy of our Saviour, and the antediluvian Chronology. And therefore we must not contract the lives of those which are left in silence by Moses; for neither is the age of Abel expressed in the Scripture, yet is he conceived far elder then commonly opinioned; and if we allow the conclusion of his Epitaph as made by Adam, and so set down by Salian, Posuit mœrens pater, cui à filio justius positum foret, Anno ab ortu rerum 130. Ab Abele nato 129, we shall not need to doubt. Which notwithstanding Cajetan and others confirm, nor is it improbable, if we conceive that Abel was born in the second year of Adam, and Seth a year after the death of Abel: for so it being said, that Adam was an hundred and thirty years old when he begat Seth, Abel must perish the year before, which was one hundred twenty nine.
And if the account of Cain extend unto the Deluge, it may not be improbable that some thereof exceeded any of Seth. Nor is it unlikely in life, riches, power and temporal blessings, they might surpass them in this world, whose lives related unto the next. For so when the seed of Jacob was under affliction and captivity, that of Ismael and Esau flourished and grew mighty, there proceeding from the one twelve Princes, from the other no less then fourteen Dukes and eight Kings. And whereas the age of Cain and his posterity is not delivered in the Text, some do salve it from the secret method of Scripture, which sometimes wholly omits, but seldom or never delivers the entire duration of wicked and faithless persons, as is observable in the history of Esau, and the Kings of Israel and Judah. And therefore when mention is made that Ismael lived 137 years, some conceive he adhered unto the faith of Abraham;Job thought by some to be of the race of Esau. for so did others who were not descended from Jacob; for Job is thought to be an Idumean, and of the seed of Esau.
Lastly (although we rely not thereon) we will not omit that conceit urged by learned men, that Adam was elder then Methuselah; inasmuch as he was created in the perfect age of man, which was in those days 50 or 60 years, for about that time we read that they begat children; so that if unto 930 we add 60 years, he will exceed Methuselah. And therefore if not in length of days, at least in old age he surpassed others; he was older then all, who was never so young as any. For though he knew old age, he was never acquainted with puberty, youth or Infancy; and so in a strict account he begat children at one year old. And if the usual compute will hold, that men are of the same age which are born within compass of the same year, Eve was as old as her husband and parent Adam, and Cain their son coetaneous unto both.
Now that conception, that no man did ever attain unto a thousand years, because none should ever be one day old in the sight of the Lord, unto whom according to that of David, A thousand years are but one day, doth not advantage Methuselah. And being deduced from a popular expression, which will not stand a Metaphysical and strict examination, is not of force to divert a serious enquirer. For unto God a thousand years are no more then one moment, and in his sight Methuselah lived no nearer one day then Abel, for all parts of time are alike unto him, unto whom none are referrible; and all things present, unto whom nothing is past or to come. And therefore, although we be measured by the Zone of time, and the flowing and continued instants thereof, do weave at last a line and circle about the eldest: yet can we not thus commensurate the sphere of Trismegistus; or sum up the unsuccessive and stable duration of God.
CHAPTER IV
That there was no Rain-bow before the Flood
That there shall no Rain-bow appear forty years before the end of the world, and that the preceding drought unto that great flame shall exhaust the materials of this Meteor, was an assertion grounded upon no solid reason: but that there was not any in sixteen hundred years, that is, before the flood, seems deduceable from holy Scripture, Gen. 9. I do set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be for a token of a Covenant between me and the earth. From whence notwithstanding we cannot conclude the nonexistence of the Rain-bow; nor is that Chronology naturally established, which computeth the antiquity of effects arising from physical and setled causes, by additionall impositions from voluntary determinators. Now by the decree of reason and Philosophy, the Rain-bow hath its ground in Nature, as caused by the rays of the Sun, falling upon a roride and opposite cloud: whereof some reflected, others refracted, beget that semi-circular variety we generally call the Rain-bow; which must succeed upon concurrence of causes and subjects aptly predisposed. And therefore, to conceive there was no Rain-bow before, because God chose this out as a token of the Covenant, is to conclude the existence of things from their signalities, or of what is objected unto the sense, a coexistence with that which is internally presented unto the understanding. With equall reason we may infer there was no water before the institution of Baptism, nor bread and wine before the holy Eucharist.
That there is a Rain-bow of the Moon.
Again, while men deny the antiquity of one Rain-bow, they anciently concede another. For, beside the solary Iris which God shewed unto Noah, there is another Lunary, whose efficient is the Moon, visible only in the night, most commonly at full Moon, and some degrees above the Horizon. Now the existence hereof men do not controvert, although effected by a different Luminary in the same way with the other. And probably appeared later, as being of rare appearance and rarer observation, and many there are which think there is no such thing in Nature. And therefore by casual spectators they are lookt upon like prodigies, and significations made, not signified by their natures.
Lastly, We shall not need to conceive God made the Rain-bow at this time, if we consider that in its created and predisposed nature, it was more proper for this signification then any other Meteor or celestial appearancy whatsoever. Thunder and lightning had too much terrour to have been tokens of mercy; Comets or blazing Stars appear too seldom to put us in mind of a Covenant to be remembred often: and might rather signifie the world should be once destroyed by fire, then never again by water. The Galaxia or milky Circle had been more probable; for (beside that unto the latitude of thirty, it becomes their Horizon twice in four and twenty hours, and unto such as live under the Æquator, in that space the whole Circle appeareth) part thereof is visible unto any situation; but being only discoverable in the night, and when the ayr is clear, it becomes of unfrequent and comfortless signification. A fixed Star had not been visible unto all the Globe, and so of too narrow a signality in a Covenant concerning all. But Rain-bows are seen unto all the world, and every position of sphere. Unto our own elevation they may appear in the morning, while the Sun hath attained about forty five degrees above the Horizon (which is conceived the largest semi-diameter of any Iris) and so in the afternoon when it hath declined unto that altitude again; which height the Sun not attaining in winter, rain-bows may happen with us at noon or any time. Unto a right position of sphere they may appear three hours after the rising of the Sun, and three before its setting; for the Sun ascending fifteen degrees an hour, in three attaineth forty five of altitude. Even unto a parallel sphere, and such as live under the pole, for half a year some segments may appear at any time and under any quarter, the Sun not setting, but walking round about them.
The natural signification of the rain-bow.
But the propriety of its Election most properly appeareth in the natural signification and prognostick of it self; as containing a mixt signality of rain and fair weather. For being in a roride cloud and ready to drop, it declareth a pluvious disposure in the air; but because when it appears the Sun must also shine, there can be no universal showrs, and consequently no Deluge. Thus when the windows of the great deep were open, in vain men lookt for the Rain-bow: for at that time it could not be seen, which after appeared unto Noah. It might be therefore existent before the flood, and had in nature some ground of its addition. Unto that of nature God superadded an assurance of his Promise, that is, never to hinder its appearance, or so to replenish the heavens again, as that we should behold it no more. And thus without disparaging the promise, it might rain at the same time when God shewed it unto Noah; thus was there more therein then the heathens understood, when they called it the Nuncia of the gods, and the laugh of weeping Heaven;Risus plorantis Olympi. and thus may it be elegantly said; I put my bow, not my arrow in the clouds, that is, in the menace of rain the mercy of fair weather.
Cabalistical heads, who from that expression in Esay,Isa. 34. 4. do make a book of heaven, and read therein the great concernments of earth, do literally play on this, and from its semicircular figure, resembling the Hebrew letter כ Caph, whereby is signified the uncomfortable number of twenty, at which years Joseph was sold, which Jacob lived under Laban, and at which men were to go to war: do note a propriety in its signification; as thereby declaring the dismal Time of the Deluge. And Christian conceits do seem to strain as high, while from the irradiation of the Sun upon a cloud, they apprehend the mysterie of the Sun of Righteousness in the obscurity of flesh; by the colours green and red, the two destructions of the world by fire and water; or by the colours of blood and water, the mysteries of Baptism, and the holy Eucharist.
Laudable therefore is the custom of the Jews, who upon the appearance of the Rain-bow, do magnifie the fidelity of God in the memory of his Covenant; according to that of Syracides, look upon the Rain-bow, and praise him that made it. And though some pious and Christian pens have only symbolized the same from the mysterie of its colours, yet are there other affections which might admit of Theological allusions. Nor would he find a more improper subject, that should consider that the colours are made by refraction of Light, and the shadows that limit that light; that the Center of the Sun, the Rain-bow, and the eye of the Beholder must be in one right line, that the spectator must be between the Sun and the Rain-bow; that sometime there appear, sometime one reversed. With many others, considerable in Meteorological Divinity, which would more sensibly make out the Epithite of the Heathens;Thaumancias. and the expression of the son of Syrach. Very beautifull is the Rain-bow, it compasseth the heaven about with a glorious circle, and the hands of the most High have bended it.
CHAPTER V
Of Sem, Ham and Japhet
Concerning the three sons of Noah, Sem, Ham and Japhet, that the order of their nativity was according to that of numeration, and Japhet the youngest son, as most believe, as Austin and others account, the sons of Japhet, and Europeans need not grant: nor will it so well concord unto the letter of the Text, and its readiest interpretations. For so is it said in our Translation, Sem the father of all the sons of Heber the brother of Japhet the elder: so by the Septuagint, and so by that of Tremelius. And therefore when the Vulgar reads it, Fratre Japhet majore, the mistake as Junius observeth, might be committed by the neglect of the Hebrew account; which occasioned Jerom so to render it, and many after to believe it. Nor is that Argument contemptible which is deduced from their Chronology: for probable it is that Noah had none of them before, and begat them from that year when it is said he was five hundred years old, and begat Sem, Ham and Japhet. Again it is said he was six hundred years old at the flood, and that two years after Sem was but an hundred; therefore Sem must be born when Noah was five hundred and two, and some other before in the year of five hundred and one.
Now whereas the Scripture affordeth the priority of order unto Sem, we cannot from thence infer his primogeniture. For in Sem the holy line was continued: and therefore however born, his genealogy was most remarkable. So is it not unusuall in holy Scripture to nominate the younger before the elder: so is it said, That Tarah begat Abraham,Gen. 11. Nachor and Haram: whereas Haram was the eldest. So Rebecca Gen. 28. is termed the mother of Jacob and Esau. Nor is it strange the younger should be first in nomination, who have commonly had the priority in the blessings of God, and been first in his benediction. In divine benedictions the younger often preferred. So Abel was accepted before Cain, Isaac the younger preferred before Ishmael the elder, Jacob before Esau, Joseph was the youngest of twelve, and David the eleventh son and minor cadet of Jesse.
Lastly, though Japhet were not elder then Sem, yet must we not affirm that he was younger then Cham, for it is plainly delivered, that after Sem and Japhet had covered Noah, he awaked, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him υἱὸς ὁ νεὡτερος, is the expression of the Septuagint, Filius minor of Jerom, and minimus of Tremelius. And upon these grounds perhaps Josephus doth vary from the Scripture enumeration, and nameth them Sem, Japhet and Cham; which is also observed by the Annian Berosus; Noah cum tribus filiis, Semo, Japeto, Cham. And therefore although in the priority of Sem and Japhet, there may be some difficulty, though Cyril, Epiphanius and Austin have accounted Sem the elder, and Salian the Annalist, and Petavius the Chronologist contend for the same, yet Cham is more plainly and confessedly named the youngest in the Text.
That Noah and Saturn were the same person.
And this is more conformable unto the Pagan history and Gentile account hereof, unto whom Noah was Saturn, whose symbol was a ship, as relating unto the Ark, and who is said to have divided the world between his three sons. Ham is conceived to be Jupiter, who was the youngest son: worshipped by the name of Hamon, which was the Egyptian and African name for Jupiter, who is said to have cut off the genitals of his father, derived from the history of HamGen. 9. 22. , who beheld the nakednes of his, and by no hard mistakeReading Veiaggod et abscidit, for Veiegged et nunciavit. might be confirmed from the Text, as Bochartus Bochartus de Geographia sacrâ. hath well observed.
CHAPTER VI
That the Tower of Babel was erected against a second Deluge
An opinion there is of some generality, that our fathers after the flood attempted the Tower of Babel to secure themselves against a second Deluge. Which however affirmed by Josephus and others, hath seemed improbable unto many who have discoursed hereon. For (beside that they could not be ignorant of the Promise of God never to drown the world again, and had the Rain-bow before their eyes to put them in mind thereof) it is improbable from the nature of the Deluge; which being not possibly causable from natural showers above, or watery eruptions below, but requiring a supernatural hand, and such as all acknowledg irresistible; must needs disparage their knowledg and judgment in so succesless attempts.
Again, They must probably hear, and some might know, that the waters of the flood ascended fifteen cubits above the highest mountains. Now, if as some define, the perpendicular altitude of the highest mountains be four miles; or as others, but fifteen furlongs, it is not easily conceived how such a structure could be effected. Although we allowed the description of Herodotus concerning the Tower of Belus; whose lowest story was in height and bredth one furlong, and seven more built upon it; abating that of the Annian Berosus, the traditional relation of Jerom, and fabulous account of the Jews. Probable it is that what they attempted was feasible, otherwise they had been amply fooled in fruitless success of their labours, nor needed God to have hindred them, saying, Nothing will be restrained from them, which they begin to do.
History of the world.
It was improbable from the place, that is a plain in the land of Shinar. And if the situation of Babylon were such at first as it was in the days of Herodotus, it was rather a feat of amenity and pleasure, than conducing unto this intention. It being in a very great plain, and so improper a place to provide against a general Deluge by Towers and eminent structures, that they were fain to make provisions against particular and annual inundations by ditches and trenches, after the manner of Egypt. And therefore Sir Walter Raleigh accordingly objecteth: If the Nations which followed Nimrod, still doubted the surprise of a second flood, according to the opinions of the ancient Hebrews, it soundeth ill to the ear of Reason, that they would have spent many years in that low and overflown valley of Mesopotamia. And therefore in this situation, they chose a place more likely to have secured them from the worlds destruction by fire, then another Deluge of water: and as Pierius observeth, some have conceived that this was their intention.
Lastly, The reason is delivered in the Text. Let us build us a City and a Tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the whole earth; as we have already began to wander over a part. These were the open ends proposed unto the people; but the secret design of Nimrod was to settle unto himself a place of dominion, and rule over his Brethren, as it after succeeded, according to the delivery of the Text, the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.
CHAPTER VII
Of the Mandrakes of Leah
We shall not omit the Mandrakes of Leah, according to the History of Genesis. And Reuben went out in the daies of Wheat-harvest, and found Mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah; then Rachel said unto Leah, give me, I pray thee, of thy sons Mandrakes: and she said unto her, is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband, and wouldest thou take my sons Mandrakes also? and Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee this night for thy sons Mandrakes. From whence hath arisen a common conceit, that Rachel requested these plants as a medicine of fecundation, or whereby she might become fruitfull. Which notwithstanding is very questionable, and of incertain truth.
For first from the comparison of one Text with another, whether the Mandrakes here mentioned, be the same plant which holds that name with us, there is some cause to doubt. The word is used in another place of Scripture,Cant. 7. when the Church inviting her beloved into the fields, among the delightfull fruits of Grapes and Pomegranates, it is said, The Mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits. Now instead of a smell of Delight, our Mandrakes afford a papaverous and unpleasant odor, whether in the leaf or apple, as is discoverable in their simplicity or mixture. The same is also dubious from the different interpretations: for though the Septuagint and Josephus do render it the Apples of Mandrakes in this Text, yet in the other of the Canticles, the Chaldy Paraphrase termeth it Balsame. R. Solomon, as Drusius observeth, conceives it to be that plant the Arabians named Jesemin. Oleaster, and Georgius Venetus, the Lilly, and that the word Dudaim may comprehend any plant that hath a good smell, resembleth a womans breast, and flourisheth in wheat harvest. Tremelius interprets the same for any amiable flowers of a pleasant and delightfull odor: but the Geneva Translators have been more wary then any: for although they retain the word Mandrake in the Text, they in effect retract it in the Margin: wherein is set down the word in the original is Dudaim, which is a kind of fruit or Flower unknown.
The vegetables in H. Scripture how variously expounded.
Nor shall we wonder at the dissent of exposition, and difficulty of definition concerning this Text, if we perpend how variously the vegetables of Scripture are expounded, and how hard it is in many places to make out the species determined. Thus are we at variance concerning the plant that covered Jonas; which though the Septuagint doth render Colocynthis, the Spanish Calabaca, and ours accordingly a Gourd: yet the vulgar translates it Hedera or Ivy; and as Grotius observeth, Jerom thus translated it, not as the same plant, but best apprehended thereby. The Italian of Diodati, and that of Tremelius have named it Ricinus, and so hath ours in the Margin, for palma Christi is the same with Ricinus. The Geneva Translators have herein been also circumspect, for they have retained the Original word Kikaion, and ours hath also affixed the same unto the Margin.
Nor are they indeed alwayes the same plants which are delivered under the same name, and appellations commonly received amongst us. So when it is said of Solomon, that he writ of plants from the Cedar of Lebanus, unto the Hysop that groweth upon the wall, that is, from the greatest unto the smallest, it cannot be well conceived our common Hysop; for neither is that the least of vegetables, nor observed to grow upon wals; but rather as Lemnius well conceiveth, some kind of the capillaries, which are very small plants, and only grow upon wals and stony places. Nor are the four species in the holy oyntment, Cinnamon, Myrrhe, Calamus and Cassia, nor the other in the holy perfume, Frankincense, Stacte, Onycha and Galbanum, so agreeably expounded unto those in use with us, as not to leave considerable doubts behind them. Nor must that perhaps be taken for a simple unguent, which Matthew only termeth a precious oyntment; but rather a composition as Mark and John imply by pistick Nard,V. Mathioli. Epist. that is faithfully dispensed, and may be that famous composition described by Dioscorides, made of oyl of Ben, Malabathrum, Juncus Odoratus, Costus, Amomum, Myrrhe, Balsam and Nard; which Galen affirmeth to have been in use with the delicate Dames of Rome; and that the best thereof was made at Laodicea; from whence by Merchants it was conveyed unto other parts. But how to make out that Translation concerning the Tithe of Mint, Anise and Cumin, we are still to seek; for we find not a word in the Text that can properly be rendred Anise; the Greek being ἄνηθον, which the Latines call Anethum, and is properly Englished Dill. Lastly, What meteor that was, that fed the Israelites so many years, they must rise again to inform us. Nor do they make it out,V. Doctissimum Chrysostom. Magnenum de Manna. who will have it the same with our Manna; nor will any one kind thereof, or hardly all kinds we read of, be able to answer the qualities thereof, delivered in the Scripture; that is, to fall upon the ground, to breed worms, to melt with the Sun, to taste like fresh oyl, to be grounded in Mils, to be like Coriander seed, and of the colour of Bdellium.
Again, It is not deducible from the Text or concurrent sentence of Comments, that Rachel had any such intention, and most do rest in the determination of Austin, that she desired them for rarity, pulchritude or suavity. Nor is it probable she would have resigned her bed unto Leah, when at the same time she had obtained a medicine to fructifie her self. And therefore Drusius who hath expresly and favourable treated hereof, is so far from conceding this intention, that he plainly concludeth, Hoc quo modo illis in mentem venerit conjicere nequeo; how this conceit fell into mens minds, it cannot fall into mine; for the Scripture delivereth it not, nor can it be clearly deduced from the Text.
Thirdly, If Rachel had any such intention, yet had they no such effect, for she conceived not many years after of Joseph; whereas in the mean time Leah had three children, Isachar, Zebulon and Dinah.
Lastly, Although at that time they failed of this effect, yet is it mainly questionable whether they had any such vertue either in the opinions of those times, or in their proper nature. That the opinion was popular in the land of Canaan, it is improbable, and had Leah understood thus much, she would not surely have parted with fruits of such a faculty; especially unto Rachel, who was no friend unto her. As for its proper nature, the Ancients have generally esteemed in Narcotick or stupefactive, and it is to be found in the list of poysons, set down by Dioscorides, Galen, Ætius, Ægineta, and several Antidotes delivered by them against it. It was I confess from good Antiquity, and in the days of Theophrastus accounted a philtre, or plant that conciliates affection; and so delivered by Dioscorides. And this intent might seem most probable, had they not been the wives of holy Jacob: had Rachel presented them unto him, and not requested them for her self.
Now what Dioscorides affirmeth in favour of this effect, that the grains of the apples of Mandrakes mundifie the matrix, and applied with Sulphur, stop the fluxes of women, he overthrows again by qualities destructive unto conception; affirming also that the juice thereof purgeth upward like Hellebore; and applied in pessaries provokes the menstruous flows, and procures abortion. Petrus Hispanus, or Pope John the twentieth speaks more directly in his Thesaurus pauperum: wherein among the receits of fecundation, he experimentally commendeth the wine of Mandrakes given with Triphera magna. But the soul of the medicine may lie in Triphera magna, an excellent composition, and for this effect commended by Nicolaus. And whereas Levinus Lemnius that eminent Physitian doth also concede this effect, it is from manifest causes and qualities elemental occasionally producing the same. For he imputeth the same unto the coldness of that simple, and is of opinion that in hot climates, and where the uterine parts exceed in heat, by the coldness hereof they may be reduced into a conceptive constitution, and Crasis accommodable unto generation; whereby indeed we will not deny the due and frequent use may proceed unto some effect, from whence notwithstanding we cannot infer a fertilitating condition or property of fecundation. For in this way all vegetables do make fruitful according unto the complexion of the Matrix; if that excel in heat, plants exceeding in cold do rectifie it; if it be cold, simples that are hot reduce it; if dry moist, if moist dry correct it; in which division all plants are comprehended. But to distinguish thus much is a point of Art, and beyond the Method of Rachels or feminine Physick. Again, Whereas it may be thought that Mandrakes may fecundate, since Poppy hath obtained the Epithite of fruitful, and that fertility was Hieroglyphically described by Venus with an head of Poppy in her hand; the reason hereof was the multitude of seed within it self, and no such multiplying in humane generation. And lastly, whereas they may seem to have this quality, since Opium it self is conceived to extimulate unto venery, and for that intent is sometimes used by Turks, Persians, and most oriental Nations; although Winclerus doth seem to favour the conceit, yet Amatus Lusitanus, and Rodericus à Castro are against it; Garcias ab horto refutes it from experiment; and they speak probably who affirm the intent and effect of eating Opium, Opium, of what effect in venery. it not so much to invigorate themselves in coition, as to prolong the Act, and spin out the motions of carnality.
CHAPTER VIII
Of the three Kings of Collein
Three magi or wise men (Mat. 2.) What manner of Kings they were.
A common conceit there is of the three Kings of Collein, conceived to be the wise men that travelled unto our Saviour by the direction of the Star, Wherein (omitting the large Discourses of Baronius, Pineda and Montacutius,) that they might be Kings, beside the Ancient Tradition and Authority of many Fathers, the Scripture also implieth. The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and Kings to the brightness of thy rising. The Kings of Tharsis and the Isles, the Kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer gifts, which places most Christians and many Rabbins interpret of the Messiah. Not that they are to be conceived potent monarchs, or mighty Kings; but Toparks, Kings of Cities or narrow Territories; such as were the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Kings of Jericho and Ai, the one and thirty which Joshuah subdued, and such as some conceive the Friends of Job to have been.
But although we grant they were Kings, yet can we not be assured they were three. For the Scripture maketh no mention of any number; and the numbers of their presents, Gold, Myrrhe and Frankincense, concludeth not the number of their persons; for these were the commodities of their Country, and such as probably the Queen of Sheba in one person had brought before unto Solomon. So did not the sons of Jacob divide the present unto Joseph, but are conceived to carry one for them all, according to the expression of their Father – Take of the best fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present. And therefore their number being uncertain, what credit is to be given unto their names, Gasper, Melchior, Balthazar, what to the charm thereof against the falling sickness,Gaspar fert myrrham, etc. or what unto their habits, complexions, and corporal accidents, we must rely on their uncertain story, and received pourtraits of Collein.
Lastly, Although we grant them Kings, and three in number, yet could we not conceive that they were Kings of Collein. For though Collein were the chief City of the Ubii, then called Ubiopolis, and afterwards Agrippina, yet will no History inform us there were three Kings thereof. Beside, these being rulers in their Countries, and returning home, would have probably converted their subjects: but according unto Munster, their conversion was not wrought until seventy years after by Maternus a disciple of Peter. And lastly, it is said that the wise men came from the East; but Collein is seated West-ward from Jerusalem; for Collein hath of longitude thirty four degrees, but Jerusalem seventy two.
And why of Collein.
The ground of all was this. These wise men or Kings, were probably of Arabia, and descended from Abraham by Keturah, who apprehending the mystery of this Star, either by the Spirit of God, the prophesie of Balaam, the prophesie which Suetonius mentions, received and constantly believed through all the East, that out of Jury one should come that should rule the whole world: or the divulged expectation of the Jews from the expiring prediction of Daniel: were by the same conducted unto Judea, returned unto their Country, and were after baptized by Thomas. From whence about three hundred years after, by Helena the Empress their bodies were translated to Constantinople. From thence by Eustatius unto Millane, and at last by Renatus the Bishop unto Collein: where they are believed at present to remain, their monuments shewn unto strangers, and having lost their Arabian titles, are crowned Kings of Collein.
CHAPTER IX
Of the food of John Baptist, Locusts and Wild-honey
Concerning the food of John Baptist in the wilderness, Locusts and Wild-honey, lest popular opiniatrity should arise, we will deliver the chief opinions. The first conceiveth the Locusts here mentioned to be that fruit which the Greeks name κεράτιον mentioned by Luke in the diet of the Prodigal son, the Latins Siliqua, and some Panis Sancti Johannis; included in a broad Cod, and indeed a taste almost as pleasant as Honey. But this opinion doth not so truly impugn that of the Locusts: and might rather call into controversie the meaning of Wild-honey.
Opinions concerning ἀκρίδες, or the Locusts of S. John Baptist.
The second affirmeth that they were the tops or tender crops of trees: for so Locusta also signifieth: which conceit is plausible in Latin, but will not hold in Greek, wherein the word is ἀκρίς, except for ἀκρίδες, we read ἀκρόδυα, or ἀκρέμονες, which signifie the extremities of trees, of which belief have divers been: more confidently Isidore Peleusiota, who in his Epistles plainly affirmeth they think unlearnedly who are of another belief. And this so wrought upon Baronius, that he concludeth in neutrality; Hæc cum scribat Isidorus definiendum nobis non est et totum relinquimus lectoris arbitrio; nam constat Græcam dictionem ἀκρίδες, et Locustam, insecti genus, et arborum summitates significare. Sed fallitur, saith Montacutius, nam constat contrarium, Ἀκρίδα apud nullum authorem classicum Ἀκρόδρυα significare. But above all Paracelsus with most animosity promoteth this opinion, and in his book de melle, spareth not his Friend Erasmus. Hoc à nonnullis ita explicatur ut dicant Locastus aut cicadas Johanni pro cibo fuisse; sed hi stultitiam dissimulare non possunt, veluti Jeronimus, Erasmus, et alii Prophetæ Neoterici in Latinitate immortui.
The more probable what.
A third affirmeth that they were properly Locusts: that is, a sheath-winged and six-footed insect, such as is our Grashopper. And this opinion seems more probable than the other. For beside the authority of Origen, Jerom, Chrysostom, Hillary and Ambrose to confirm it: this is the proper signification of the word, thus used in Scripture by the Septuagint, Greek vocabularies thus expound it. Suidas on the word Ακρὶς observes it to be that animal whereon the Baptist fed in the desert; in this sense the word is used by Aristotle, Dioscorides, Galen, and several humane Authors. And lastly, there is no absurdity in this interpretation, or any solid reason why we should decline it, it being a food permitted unto the Jews, whereof four kinds are reckoned up among clean meats. Beside, not only the Jews, but many other Nations long before and since, have made an usual food thereof. That the Æthiopians, Mauritanians and Arabians did commonly eat them, is testified by Diodorus, Strabo, Solinus, Ælian and Pliny: that they still feed on them is confirmed by Leo, Cadamustus and others. John therefore as our Saviour saith, came neither eating nor drinking: that is, far from the diet of Jerusalem and other Riotous places: but fared coursly and poorly according unto the apparel he wore, that is of Camels hair: the place of his abode, the wilderness; and the doctrin he preached, humiliation and repentance.
CHAPTER X
That John the Evangelist should not die
The conceit of the long-living, or rather not dying of John the Evangelist, although it seem inconsiderable, and not much weightier than that of Joseph the wandring Jew: yet being deduced from Scripture, and abetted by Authors of all times, it shall not escape our enquiry. It is drawn from the speech of our Saviour unto Peter after the prediction of his Martyrdom; Peter saith unto Jesus. John 21. Lord what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry until I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me; then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that this disciple should not die.
Now the belief hereof hath been received either grosly and in the general, that is not distinguishing the manner or particular way of this continuation, in which sense probably the grosser and undiscerning party received it. Or more distinctly apprehending the manner of his immortality; that is, that John should never properly die, but be translated into Paradise, there to remain with Enoch and Elias until about the coming of Christ; and should be slain with them under Antichrist, according to that of the Apocalyps. I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesie a thousand two hundred and threescore days cloathed in sack-cloth, and when they shall have finished their Testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. Hereof, as Baronius observeth, within three hundred years after Christ, Hippolytus the Martyr was the first assertor, but hath been maintained by Metaphrastes, by Freculphus, but especially by Georgius Trapezuntius, who hath expresly treated upon this Text, and although he lived but in the last Century, did still affirm that John was not yet dead.
The same is also hinted by the learned Italian Poet Dante, who in his Poetical survey of Paradise, meeting with the soul of St. John, and desiring to see his body; received answer from him that his body was in earth, and there should remain with other bodys, until the number of the blessed were accomplished.
In terra è terra il mio corpo, et saragli
Tanto con gli altri, che l’ numero nostro
Con l’ eterno proposito s’ agguagli.
As for the gross opinion that he should not die, it is sufficiently refuted by that which first occasioned it, that is the Scripture it self, and no further off than the very subsequent verse: Yet Jesus said unto him, he should not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, What is that to thee? And this was written by John himself, whom the opinion concerned; and as is conceived many years after, when Peter had suffered and fulfilled the prophesie of Christ.
For the particular conceit, the foundation is weak, nor can it be made out from the Text alledged in the Apocalyps: for beside that therein two persons are only named, no mention is made of John, a third Actor in this Tragedy. The death of St. John Evangelist, where and when. The same is also overthrown by History, which recordeth not only the death of John, but assigneth the place of his burial, that is Ephesus, a City in Asia minor, whither after he had been banished into Patmos by Domitian, he returned in the reign of Nerva, there deceased, and was buried in the days of Trajan. And this is testified by Jerom,De Scriptor. Ecclesiast. by Tertullian, De Anima. by Chrysostom and Eusebius, in whose days his Sepulchre was to be seen; and by a more ancient Testimony alleadged also by him, that is of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, not many successions after John; whose words are these in an Epistle unto Victor Bishop of Rome, Johannes ille qui supra pectus Domini recumbebat, Doctor optimus, apud Ephesum dormivit; many of the like nature are noted by Baronius, Jansenius, Estius, Lipellous, and others.
Now the main and primitive ground of this error, was a gross mistake in the words of Christ, and a false apprehension of his meaning; understanding that positively which was but conditionally expressed, or receiving that affirmatively which was but concessively delivered. For the words of our Saviour run in a doubtful strain, rather reprehending than satisfying the curiosity of Peter; as though he should have said, Thou hast thy own doom, why enquirest thou after thy Brothers? What relief unto thy affliction, will be the society of anothers? Why pryest thou into the secrets of Gods will? If he stay until I come, what concerneth it thee, who shalt be sure to suffer before that time? And such an answer probably he returned, because he fore-knew John should not suffer a violent death, but go unto his grave in peace. Which had Peter assuredly known, it might have cast some water on his flames, and smothered those fires which kindled after unto the honour of his Master.
Of all the Apostles St. John only is thought to have suffered a natural death: And why?
Now why among all the rest John only escaped the death of a Martyr, the reason is given; because all others fled away or withdrew themselves at his death, and he alone of the Twelve beheld his passion on the Cross. Wherein notwithstanding, the affliction that he suffered could not amount unto less than Martyrdom: for if the naked relation, at least the intentive consideration of that Passion, be able still, and at this disadvantage of time, to rend the hearts of pious Contemplators; surely the near and sensible vision thereof must needs occasion Agonies beyond the comprehension of flesh; and the trajections of such an object more sharply pierce the Martyred soul of John, than afterward did the nails the crucified body of Peter.
Again, They were mistaken in the Emphatical apprehension, placing the consideration upon the words, If I will: whereas it properly lay in these, when I come. Which had they apprehended as some have since, that is, not for his ultimate and last return, but his coming in Judgment and destruction upon the Jews; or such a coming, as it might be said, that that generation should not pass before it was fulfilled; they needed not, much less need we suppose such diuturnity. For after the death of Peter, John lived to behold the same fulfilled by Vespasian: nor had he then his Nunc dimittis, or went out like unto Simeon; but old in accomplisht obscurities, and having seen the expire of Daniels prediction, as some conceive, he accomplished his Revelation.
But besides this original and primary foundation, divers others have made impressions according unto different ages and persons by whom they were received. For some established the conceit in the disciples and brethren, which were contemporary unto him, or lived about the same time with him; and this was first the extraordinary affection our Saviour bare unto this disciple, who hath the honour to be called the disciple whom Jesus loved. Now from hence they might be apt to believe their Master would dispense with his death, or suffer him to live to see him return in glory, who was the only Apostle that beheld him to die in dishonour. Another was the belief and opinion of those times, that Christ would suddenly come; for they held not generally the same opinion with their successors, or as descending ages after so many Centuries; but conceived his coming would not be long after his passion, according unto several expressions of our Saviour grosly understood, and as we find the same opinion not long after reprehended by St. Paul: Thes. 2. and thus conceiving his coming would not be long, they might be induced to believe his favorite should live unto it. Saint John, how long surviving our B. Saviour. Lastly, the long life of John might much advantage this opinion; for he survived the other twelve, he was aged 22 years when he was called by Christ, and 25 that is the age of Priesthood at his death, and lived 93 years, that is 68 after his Saviour, and died not before the second year of Trajan. Now having out lived all his fellows, the world was confirmed he might live still, and even unto the coming of his Master.