{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39961/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39961","id":"gutenberg_39961","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39961","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Christianity","Ethics","Religion and medicine"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, KD Weeks and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nMarginal notes are used for multiple purposes in this edition. Footnotes\nand section headers were both printed in the margins. For this text\nversion, numbered marginal footnotes have been moved to the end of their\nparagraphs. The headers have been moved to appear on a separate line at\nthe beginning of each section. Redundant sidenotes merely indicating\nPart and Section numbers have been removed.\n\nThose notes which serve as paragraph descriptions, at or near\nthe head of a paragraph, precede that paragraph. Those which serve to\nannotate specific points are inserted parenthetically as [SN: notes].\n\nItalics are used freely, and have been rendered using _underscore_\ncharacters. Superscripted characters are rendered as {x}.\n\nPlease consult the more detailed notes at the end of this text.\n\n\n\n\n\n THE ENGLISH LIBRARY\n\n THE WORKS OF\n SIR THOMAS BROWNE\n\n VOLUME II\n\n [Illustration: Sir Thomas Browne's Skull]\n\n THE WORKS OF\n SIR THOMAS BROWNE\n\n\n Edited by\n CHARLES SAYLE\n\n\n VOLUME II\n\n\n LONDON\n GRANT RICHARDS\n 1904\n\n Edinburgh T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThe frontispiece to this volume is reproduced from a photograph kindly\nlent to me for the purpose by Mr. Charles Williams, F.R.C.S.E., of\nNorwich, whose note upon the measurements of Sir Thomas Browne's skull\nappeared as Appendix II. in the edition of Browne's _Hydriotaphia_ and\n_Garden of Cyrus_, published in the 'Golden Treasury Series,' by Messrs.\nMacmillan and Co., in 1896.\n\nThe identification of the author quoted in the margin of page 233 (Book\nv. Chapter x.). I owe to Mr. W. Aldis Wright.\n\n C.S.\n_May 1, 1904._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n PAGE\nPSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA\n\n THE THIRD BOOK (_continued_):\n\n 11. Of Griffins, 1\n 12. Of the Ph\u0153nix, 4\n 13. Of Frogs, Toads, and Toad-stone, 13\n 14. Of the Salamander, 18\n 15. Of the Amphisb\u00e6na, 22\n 16. Of the Viper, 26\n 17. Of Hares, 33\n 18. Of Moles, or Molls, 42\n 19. Of Lampries, 46\n 20. Of Snayls, 48\n 21. Of the Chameleon, 50\n 22. Of the Ostrich, 62\n 23. Of Unicorns Horn, 66\n 24. That all animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea, 73\n 25. Concerning the common course of Diet, in making choice of\n some Animals, and abstaining from eating others, 76\n 26. Of Sperma-Ceti, and the Sperma-Ceti Whale, 85\n 27. Compendiously of Sundry Tenents concerning other Animals,\n which examined, prove either false or dubious, 89\n 28. Of some others, 103\n\n THE FOURTH BOOK:\n\n 1. Of the Erectness of Man, 109\n 2. Of the Heart, 113\n 3. Of Pleurisies, 116\n 4. Of the Ring-finger, 117\n 5. Of the right and left Hand, 122\n 6. Of Swimming and Floating, 134\n 7. Concerning Weight, 138\n 8. Of the passage of Meat and Drink, 142\n 9. Of Sneezing, 144\n 10. Of the Jews, 147\n 11. Of Pigmies, 155\n 12. Of the great Climacterical year, that is, Sixty-three, 160\n 13. Of the Canicular or Dog daies, 183\n\n THE FIFTH BOOK:\n\n 1. Of the Picture of the Pelecan, 202\n 2. Of the Picture of Dolphins, 205\n 3. Of the Picture of a Grashopper, 207\n 4. Of the Picture of the Serpent tempting Eve, 209\n 5. Of the Picture of Adam and Eve with Navels, 212\n 6. Of the Pictures of Eastern Nations, and the Jews at\n their Feasts, especially our Saviour at the Passover, 215\n 7. Of the Picture of our Saviour with long hair, 224\n 8. Of the Picture of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, 226\n 9. Of the Picture of Moses with horns, 227\n 10. Of the Scutcheons of the Tribes of Israel, 229\n 11. Of the Pictures of the Sibyls, 233\n 12. Of the Picture describing the death of Cleopatra, 235\n 13. Of the Pictures of the Nine Worthies, 237\n 14. Of the Picture of Jephthah sacryficing his daughter, 241\n 15. Of the Picture of John the Baptist, 245\n 16. Of the Picture of St. Christopher, 247\n 17. Of the Picture of St. George, 249\n 18. Of the Picture of Jerom, 251\n 19. Of the Pictures of Mermaids, Unicorns, and some others, 253\n 20. Of the Hieroglyphical Pictures of the Egyptians, 258\n 21. Of the Picture of Haman hanged, 260\n 22. Compendiously of many questionable Customs, Opinions,\n Pictures, Practices, and Popular Observations, 264\n 23. Of some others, 276\n\n THE SIXTH BOOK:\n\n 1. Concerning the beginning of the World, 283\n 2. Of mens Enquiries in what season or Point of the\n Zodiack it began, 300\n 3. Of the Divisions of the seasons and four Quarters\n of the year, 302\n 4. Of some computation of days and deductions of one part\n of the year unto another, 309\n 5. A Digression of the wisdom of God in the site and\n motion of the Sun, 313\n 6. Concerning the vulgar opinion, that the Earth was\n slenderly peopled before the Flood, 319\n 7. Of East and West, 338\n 8. Of the River Nilus, 349\n 9. Of the Red Sea, 363\n 10. Of the Blackness of Negroes, 367\n 11. Of the same, 380\n 12. A Digression concerning Blackness, 387\n 13. Of Gypsies, 395\n 14. Of some others, 397\n\n\n\n\n PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA\n\n\n\n\n THE THIRD BOOK--_continued_\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Of Griffins.\n\n\nThat there are Griffins in Nature, that is a mixt and dubious Animal, in\nthe fore-part resembling an Eagle, and behind, the shape of a Lion, with\nerected ears, four feet and a long tail, many affirm, and most, I\nperceive, deny not. The same is averred by _\u00c6lian_, _Solinus_, _Mela_,\nand _Herodotus_, countenanced by the Name sometimes found in Scripture,\nand was an Hieroglyphick of the Egyptians.\n\nNotwithstanding we find most diligent enquirers to be of a contrary\nassertion. For beside that _Albertus_ and _Pliny_ have disallowed it,\nthe learned _Aldrovandus_ hath in a large discourse rejected it;\n_Mathias Michovius_ who writ of those Northern parts wherein men place\nthese Griffins, hath positively concluded against it; and if examined by\nthe Doctrine of Animals, the invention is monstrous, nor much inferiour\nunto the figment of Sphynx, Chim\u00e6ra, and Harpies, for though there be\nsome flying Animals of mixed and participating Natures, that is, between\nBird and quadruped, yet are their wings and legs so set together, that\nthey seem to make each other; there being a commixtion of both, rather\nthen an adaptation or cement of prominent parts unto each other, as is\nobservable in the Bat, whose wings and fore-legs are contrived in each\nother. For though some species there be of middle and participating\nNatures, that is, of Bird and Beast, as Bats and some few others, yet\nare their parts so conformed and set together, that we cannot define the\nbeginning or end of either; there being a commixtion of both in the\nwhole, rather then an adaptation or cement of the one unto the other.\n\nNow for the word \u03b3\u03c1\u1f7a\u03c0\u03c2 or _Gryps_, sometimes mentioned in Scripture [SN:\n_Levit. 11._], and frequently in humane Authors, properly understood, it\nsignifies some kind of Eagle or Vulture, from whence the Epithete\n_Grypus_ for an hooked or Aquiline Nose. Thus when the Septuagint makes\nuse of this word, _Tremellius_ and our Translation hath rendred it the\nOssifrage, which is one kind of Eagle. And although the Vulgar\nTranslation, and that annexed unto the Septuagint, retain the word\n_Gryps_, which in ordinary and school construction is commonly rendred a\nGriffin, yet cannot the Latine assume any other sense then the Greek,\nfrom whence it is borrowed. And though the Latine _Gryphes_ be altered\nsomewhat by the addition of an _h_, or aspiration of the letter \u03c0, yet\nis not this unusual; so what the Greeks call \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the Latine will\ncall _Troph\u00e6um_; and that person which in the Gospel is named \u039a\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2,\nthe Latines will render _Cleophas_. And therefore the quarrel of\n_Origen_ was unjust, and his conception erroneous, when he conceived the\nfood of Griffins forbidden by the law of _Moses_: that is, Poetical\nAnimals, and things of no existence. And therefore when in the Hecatombs\nand mighty Oblations of the Gentiles, it is delivered they sacrificed\nGryphes or Griffins; hereby we may understand some stronger sort of\nEagles. And therefore also when its said in _Virgil_ of an improper\nMatch, or _Mopsus_ marrying _Nysa_, _Jungentur jam gryphes equis_; we\nneed not hunt after other sense, then that strange unions shall be made,\nand different Natures be conjoined together.\n\nAs for the testimonies of ancient Writers, they are but derivative, and\nterminate all in one _Aristeus_ a Poet of _Proconesus_; who affirmed\nthat near the _Arimaspi_, or one-eyed Nation, Griffins defended the\nMines of Gold. But this, as _Herodotus_ delivereth, he wrote by\nhear-say; and _Michovius_ who hath expresly written of those parts,\nplainly affirmeth, there is neither Gold nor Griffins in that Country,\nnor any such Animal extant; for so doth he conclude, _Ego vero contra\nveteres authores, Gryphes nec in illa septentrionis, nec in aliis orbis\npartibus inveniri affirmarim_.\n\nLastly, Concerning the Hieroglyphical authority, although it nearest\napproach the truth, it doth not infer its existency. The conceit of the\n_Griffin_ properly taken being but a symbolical phansie, in so\nintollerable a shape including allowable morality. So doth it well make\nout the properties of a _Guardian_, or any person entrusted; the ears\nimplying attention, the wings celerity of execution, the Lion-like\nshape, courage and audacity, the hooked bill, reservance and tenacity.\nIt is also an Emblem of valour and magnanimity, as being compounded of\nthe Eagle and Lion, the noblest Animals in their kinds; and so is it\nappliable unto Princes, Presidents, Generals, and all heroick\nCommanders; and so is it also born in the Coat-arms of many noble\nFamilies of _Europe_.\n\nBut the original invention seems to be Hieroglyphical, derived from the\nEgyptians, and of an higher signification. By the mystical conjunction\nof Hawk and Lion, implying either the Genial or the sydereous Sun, the\ngreat celerity thereof, and the strength and vigour in its operations.\nAnd therefore under such Hieroglyphicks _Osyris_ was described; and in\nancient Coins we meet with Gryphins conjointly with _Apollo's_,\n_Tripodes_ and Chariot wheels; and the marble Gryphins at Saint _Peters_\nin _Rome_, as learned men conjecture, were first translated from the\nTemple of _Apollo_. Whether hereby were not also mystically implied the\nactivity of the Sun in Leo, the power of God in the Sun, or the\ninfluence of the C\u0153lestial _Osyris_, by _Moptha_ the Genius of Nilus,\nmight also be considered. And then the learned _Kircherus_, no man were\nlikely to be a better _Oedipus_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n Of the Ph\u0153nix.\n\n\nThat there is but one Ph\u0153nix in the World, which after many hundred\nyears burneth it self, and from the ashes thereof ariseth up another, is\na conceit not new or altogether popular, but of great Antiquity; not\nonly delivered by humane Authors, but frequently expressed also by holy\nWriters; by _Cyril_, _Epiphanius_, and others, by _Ambrose_ in his\nHexameron, and _Tertullian_ in his Poem _De Judicio Domini_; but more\nagreeably unto the present sense, in his excellent Tract, _De\nResurrectione carnis_. _Illum dico alitem orientis peculiarem, de\nsingularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum; qui semetipsum\nlibenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens, atque succedens iterum\nPh\u0153nix. Ubi jam nemo, iterum ipse; quia non jam, alius idem._ The\nScripture also seems to favour it, particularly that of _Job_ 21. In the\ninterpretation of _Beda_, _Dicebam in nidulo meo moriar, et sicut Ph\u0153nix\nmultiplicabo dies_: and _Psal._ 31. \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, _vir\njustus ut Ph\u0153nix florebit_, as _Tertullian_ renders it, and so also\nexpounds it in his Book before alledged.\n\n[Sidenote: _Against the story of the Ph\u0153nix._]\n\nAll which notwithstanding, we cannot presume the existence of this\nAnimal; nor dare we affirm there is any Ph\u0153nix in Nature. For, first\nthere wants herein the definitive confirmator and test of things\nuncertain, that is, the sense of man. For though many Writers have much\nenlarged hereon, yet is there not any ocular describer, or such as\npresumeth to confirm it upon aspection. And therefore _Herodotus_ that\nled the story unto the _Greeks_, plainly saith, he never attained the\nsight of any, but only in the picture.\n\nAgain, Primitive Authors, and from whom the stream of relations is\nderivative, deliver themselves very dubiously; and either by a doubtful\nparenthesis, or a timorous conclusion overthrow the whole relation. Thus\n_Herodotus_ in his _Euterpe_, delivering the story hereof, presently\ninterposeth, \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; that is, which account seems to\nme improbable. _Tacitus_ in his annals affordeth a larger story, how the\nPh\u0153nix was first seen at _Heliopolis_ in the reign of _Sesostris_, then\nin the reign of _Amasis_, after in the days of _Ptolomy_, the third of\nthe _Macedonian_ race; but at last thus determineth, _Sed Antiquitas\nobscura, et nonnulli falsum esse hunc Ph\u0153nicem neque Arabum \u00e8 terris\ncredidere_. _Pliny_ makes yet a fairer story, that the Ph\u0153nix flew into\n_Egypt_ in the Consulship of _Quintus Plancius_, that it was brought to\nRome in the Censorship of _Claudius_, in the eight hundred year of the\nCity, and testified also in their records; but after all concludeth,\n_Sed qu\u00e6 falsa nemo dubitabit_, As we read it in the fair and ancient\nimpression of _Brixia_; as _Aldrovandus_ hath quoted it, and as it is\nfound in the manuscript Copy, as _Dalechampius_ hath also noted.\n\nMoreover, Such as have naturally discoursed hereon, have so diversly,\ncontrarily, or contradictorily delivered themselves, that no affirmative\nfrom thence can reasonably be deduced. For most have positively denied\nit, and they which affirm and believe it, assign this name unto many,\nand mistake two or three in one. So hath that bird been taken for the\nPh\u0153nix which liveth in _Arabia_, and buildeth its nest with Cinnamon;\nby _Herodotus_ called _Cinnamulgus_, and by _Aristotle_, _Cinnamomus_;\nand as a fabulous conceit is censured by _Scaliger_. Some have conceived\nthat bird to be the Ph\u0153nix, which by a _Persian_ name with the\n_Greeks_ is called _Rhyntace_; but how they made this good we find\noccasion of doubt; whilest we read in the life of _Artaxerxes_, that\nthis is a little bird brought often to their Tables, and wherewith\n_Parysatis_ cunningly poisoned the Queen. The _Manucodiata_ or Bird of\nParadise, hath had the honour of this name, and their feathers brought\nfrom the _Molucca's_ do pass for those of the Ph\u0153nix. Which though\npromoted by rarity with us, the _Eastern_ Travellers will hardly admit;\nwho know they are common in those parts, and the ordinary plume of\n_Janizaries_ among the _Turks_. And lastly, the Bird _Semenda_ hath\nfound the same appellation, for so hath _Scaliger_ observed and refuted;\nnor will the solitude of the Ph\u0153nix allow this denomination; for\nmany there are of that species, and whose trifistulary bill and crany we\nhave beheld our selves. Nor are men only at variance in regard of the\nPh\u0153nix it self, but very disagreeing in the accidents ascribed\nthereto: for some affirm it liveth three hundred, some five, others six,\nsome a thousand, others no less then fifteen hundred years; some say it\nliveth in _\u00c6thiopia_, others in _Arabia_, some in _Egypt_, others in\n_India_, and some in _Utopia_; for such a one must that be which is\ndescribed by _Lactantius_; that is, which neither was singed in the\ncombustion of _Phaeton_, or overwhelmed by the innundation of\n_Deucalion_.\n\nLastly, Many Authors who have discoursed hereof, have so delivered\nthemselves, and with such intentions, that we cannot from thence deduce\na confirmation. For some have written Poetically, as _Ovid_, _Mantuan_,\n_Lactantius_, _Claudian_, and others: Some have written mystically, as\n_Paracelsus_ in his Book _De Azoth_, or _De ligno et linea vit\u00e6_; and as\nseveral Hermetical Philosophers, involving therein the secret of their\nElixir, and enigmatically expressing the nature of their great work.\nSome have written Rhetorically, and concessively, not controverting, but\nassuming the question, which taken as granted, advantaged the illation.\nSo have holy men made use hereof as far as thereby to confirm the\nResurrection; for discoursing with Heathens who granted the story of the\nPh\u0153nix, they induced the Resurrection from principles of their own,\nand positions received among themselves. Others have spoken\nEmblematically and Hieroglyphically; and so did the _Egyptians_, unto\nwhom the Ph\u0153nix was the Hieroglyphick of the Sun. And this was\nprobably the ground of the whole relation; succeeding Ages adding\nfabulous accounts, which laid together built up this singularity, which\nevery Pen proclaimeth.\n\nAs for the Texts of Scripture, which seem to confirm the conceit, duly\nperpended, they add not thereunto. For whereas in that of _Job_,\naccording to the Septuagint or Greek Translation we find the word\nPh\u0153nix, yet can it have no animal signification; for therein it is not\nexpressed \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be, but \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c7o\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, the trunk of the Palm-tree,\nwhich is also called Ph\u0153nix; and therefore the construction will be very\nhard, if not applied unto some vegetable nature. Nor can we safely\ninsist upon the Greek expression at all; for though the Vulgar\ntranslates it _Palma_, and some retain the word Ph\u0153nix, others do render\nit by a word of a different sense; for so hath _Tremellius_ delivered\nit: _Dicebam quod apud nidum meum expirabo, et sicut arena multiplicabo\ndies_; so hath the _Geneva_ and ours translated it, _I said I shall die\nin my Nest, and shall multiply my days as the sand._ As for that in the\nBook of Psalms, _Vir justus ut Ph\u0153nix florebit_, as _Epiphanius_ and\n_Tertullian_ render it, it was only a mistake upon the Homonymy of the\nGreek word P\u0153nix, which signifies also a Palm-tree. [SN: Consent of\nnames.] Which is a fallacy of equivocation, from a community in name\ninferring a common nature; and whereby we may as firmly conclude, that\nDiaph\u0153nicon a purging Electuary hath some part of the Ph\u0153nix for its\ningredient; which receiveth that name from Dates, or the fruit of the\nPalm-tree, from whence, as _Pliny_ delivers, the Ph\u0153nix had its name.\n\nNor do we only arraign the existence of this Animal, but many things are\nquestionable which are ascribed thereto, especially its unity, long\nlife, and generation. As for its unity or conceit there should be but\none in nature, it seemeth not only repugnant unto Philosophy, but also\nholy Scripture; which plainly affirms, there went of every sort two at\nleast into the Ark of _Noah_, according to the Text, [SN: _Gen. 7._]\n_Every Fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort, they went into the\nArk, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is the breath of life, and\nthey that went in, went in both male and female of all flesh._ It\ninfringeth the benediction of God concerning multiplication. God blessed\nthem, saying, [SN: _Gen. 1._] _Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the\nwaters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth:_ And again, [SN:\n_Chap. 8._] _Bring forth with thee every living thing, that they may\nbreed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the\nearth:_ which terms are not appliable unto the Ph\u0153nix, whereof there\nis but one in the world, and no more now living then at the first\nbenediction. For the production of one, being the destruction of\nanother, although they produce and generate, they encrease not; and must\nnot be said to multiply, who do not transcend an unity.\n\nAs for long\u00e6vity, that it liveth a thousand years or more; beside that\nfrom imperfect observations and rarity of appearance, no confirmation\ncan be made; there may be probable a mistake in the compute. For the\ntradition being very ancient and probably Egyptian, the _Greeks_ who\ndispersed the Fable, might summ up the account by their own numeration\nof years; whereas the conceit might have its original in times of\nshorter compute. For if we suppose our present calculation, the\nPh\u0153nix now in nature will be the sixth from the Creation, but in the\nmiddle of its years; and if the _Rabbins_ Prophecie [SN: _That the World\nshould last but six thousand years._] succeed, shall conclude its days\nnot in his own but the last and general flames, without all hope of\nReviviction.\n\nConcerning its generation, that without all conjunction it begets and\nreseminates it self, hereby we introduce a vegetable production in\nAnimals, and unto sensible natures, transfer the propriety of Plants;\nthat is, to multiply within themselves, according to the Law of the\nCreation [SN: _Gen. 1._], _Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb\nyielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in it self_.\nWhich is indeed the natural way of Plants, who having no distinction of\nsex, and the power of the species contained in every _individuum_, beget\nand propagate themselves without commixtion; and therefore their fruits\nproceeding from simpler roots, are not so unlike, or distinguishable\nfrom each other, as are the off-springs of sensible creatures and\nprolifications descending from double originals. But Animal generation\nis accomplished by more, and the concurrence of two sexes is required to\nthe constitution of one. And therefore such as have no distinction of\nsex, engender not at all, as _Aristotle_ conceives of Eels, and\ntestaceous animals. And though Plant-animals do multiply, they do it not\nby copulation, but in a way analogous unto Plants. So _Hermaphrodites_\nalthough they include the parts of both sexes, and may be sufficiently\npotent in either; yet unto a conception require a separated sex, and\ncannot impregnate themselves. And so also though _Adam_ included all\nhumane nature, or was (as some opinion) an _Hermaphrodite_, yet had he\nno power to propagate himself; and therefore God said, _It is not good\nthat man should be alone, let us make him an help meet for him_; that\nis, an help unto generation; for as for any other help, it had been\nfitter to have made another man.\n\nNow whereas some affirm that from one Ph\u0153nix there doth not\nimmediately proceed another, but the first corrupteth into a worm, which\nafter becometh a Ph\u0153nix, it will not make probable this production.\n[SN: _Irregularities._] For hereby they confound the generation of\nperfect animals with imperfect, sanguineous with exanguious, vermiparous\nwith oviparous, and erect Anomalies, disturbing the laws of Nature. Nor\nwill this corruptive production be easily made out in most imperfect\ngenerations; for although we deny not that many animals are vermiparous,\nbegetting themselves at a distance, and as it were at the second hand\n(as generally Insects, and more remarkably Butter-flies and Silkworms)\nyet proceeds not this generation from a corruption of themselves, but\nrather a specifical and seminal diffusion, retaining still the Idea of\nthemselves, though it act that part a while in other shapes. And this\nwill also hold in generations equivocal, and such as are not begotten\nfrom Parents like themselves; so from Frogs corrupting, proceed not\nFrogs again; so if there be anatiferous Trees, whose corruption breaks\nforth into Bernacles, yet if they corrupt, they degenerate into Maggots,\nwhich produce not them again. For this were a confusion of corruptive\nand seminal production, and a frustration of that seminal power\ncommitted to animals at the Creation. The problem might have been\nspared, _Why we love not our lice as well as our children?_ _Noah's_ Ark\nhad been needless, the graves of Animals would be the fruitful'st wombs;\nfor death would not destroy, but empeople the world again.\n\nSince therefore we have so slender grounds to confirm the existence of\nthe Ph\u0153nix, since there is no ocular witness of it, since as we have\ndeclared, by Authors from whom the story is derived, it rather stands\nrejected; since they who have seriously discoursed hereof, have\ndelivered themselves negatively, diversly, or contrarily; since many\nothers cannot be drawn into Argument, as writing Poetically,\nRhetorically, Enigmatically, Hieroglyphically; since holy Scripture\nalledged for it duly perpended, doth not advantage it; and lastly, since\nso strange a generation, unity and long life, hath neither experience\nnor reason to confirm it, how far to rely on this tradition, we refer\nunto consideration.\n\nBut surely they were not well-wishers unto parable Physick [SN:\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1.], or remedies easily acquired, who derived medicines from\nthe Ph\u0153nix; as some have done, and are justly condemned by _Pliny_;\n_Irridere est vit\u00e6 remedia post millesimum annum reditura monstrare_; It\nis a folly to find out remedies that are not recoverable under a\nthousand years; or propose the prolonging of life by that which the\ntwentieth generation may never behold. More veniable is a dependance\nupon the Philosophers stone, potable gold, or any of those Arcana's\nwhereby _Paracelsus_ that died himself at forty-seven, gloried that he\ncould make other men immortal. Which, although extreamly difficult, and\n_tantum non_ infesible, yet are they not impossible, nor do they\n(rightly understood) impose any violence on Nature. And therefore if\nstrictly taken for the Ph\u0153nix, very strange is that which is delivered\nby _Plutarch_ [SN: De sanitate tuenda.], That the brain thereof is a\npleasant bit, but that it causeth the head-ach. Which notwithstanding\nthe luxurious Emperour [SN: Heliogabalus.] could never taste, though he\nhad at his Table many a Ph\u0153nicopterus, yet had he not one Ph\u0153nix; for\nthough he expected and attempted it, we read not in _Lampridius_ that he\nperformed it; and considering the unity thereof, it was a vain design,\nthat is, to destroy any species, or mutilate the great accomplishment of\nsix days. And although some conceive, and it may seem true, that there\nis in man a natural possibility to destroy the world in one generation,\nthat is, by a general conspire to know no woman themselves, and disable\nall others also: yet will this never be effected. And therefore _Cain_\nafter he had killed _Abel_, were there no other woman living, could not\nhave also destroyed _Eve_: which although he had a natural power to\neffect, yet the execution thereof, the providence of God would have\nresisted: for that would have imposed another creation upon him, and to\nhave animated a second Rib of _Adam_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n Of Frogs, Toads, and Toad-stone.\n\n\nConcerning the venomous Urine of Toads, of the stone in the Toads head,\nand of the generation of Frogs, conceptions are entertained which\nrequire consideration. And first, that a Toad pisseth, and this way\ndiffuseth its venome, is generally received, not only with us, but also\nin other parts; for so hath _Scaliger_ observed in his Comment, _Aversum\nurinam reddere ob oculos persecutoris perniciosam ruricolis persuasum\nest_; and _Mathiolus_ hath also a passage, that a Toad communicates its\nvenome, not only by Urine, but by the humidity and slaver of its mouth;\nwhich notwithstanding strictly understood, may admit of examination: for\nsome doubt may be made whether a Toad properly pisseth, that is\ndistinctly and separately voideth the serous excretion: for though not\nonly birds, but oviparous quadrupeds and Serpents have kidneys and\nureters, and some Fishes also bladders: yet for the moist and dry\nexcretion they seem at last to have but one vent and common place of\nexclusion: and with the same propriety of language, we may ascribe that\naction unto Crows and Kites. And this not onely in Frogs and Toads, but\nmay be enquired in Tortoyses: that is, whether that be strictly true, or\nto be taken for a distinct and separate miction, when _Aristotle_\naffirmeth, that no oviparous animal, that is, which either spawneth or\nlayeth Eggs, doth Urine except the Tortois.\n\nThe ground or occasion of this expression might from hence arise, that\nToads are sometimes observed to exclude or spit out a dark and liquid\nmatter behind: which we have observed to be true, and a venomous\ncondition there may be perhaps therein, but some doubt there may be,\nwhether this is to be called their urine: not because it is emitted\naversly or backward, by both sexes, but because it is confounded with\nthe intestinal excretions and egestions of the belly: and this way is\nordinarily observed, although possible it is that the liquid excretion\nmay sometimes be excluded without the other.\n\nAs for the stone commonly called a Toad-stone, which is presumed to be\nfound in the head of that animal, we first conceive it not a thing\nimpossible: nor is there any substantial reason why in a Toad there may\nnot be found such hard and lapideous concretions. For the like we daily\nobserve in the heads of Fishes, as Cods, Carps, and Pearches: the like\nalso in Snails, a soft and exosseous animal, whereof in the naked and\ngreater sort, as though she would requite the defect of a shell on their\nback, Nature near the head hath placed a flat white stone, or rather\ntestaceous concretion. Which though _Aldrovandus_ affirms, that after\ndissection of many, he found but in some few: yet of the great gray\nSnails, I have not met with any that wanted it: and the same indeed so\npalpable, that without dissection it is discoverable by the hand.\n\nAgain, though it be not impossible, yet it is surely very rare: as we\nare induced to believe from some enquiry of our own, from the trial of\nmany who have been deceived, and the frustrated search of _Porta_, who\nupon the explorement of many, could scarce find one. Nor is it only of\nrarity, but may be doubted whether it be of existencie, or really any\nsuch stone in the head of a Toad at all. For although _Lapidaries_ and\nquestuary enquirers affirm it, yet the Writers of Minerals and natural\nspeculators, are of another belief: conceiving the stones which bear\nthis name, to be a Mineral concretion; not to be found in animals, but\nin fields. And therefore _B\u0153tius_ refers it to _Asteria_ or some kind\nof _Lapis stellaris_, and plainly concludeth, _reperiuntur in agris,\nquos tamen alii in annosis ac qui diu in Arundinetis inter rubos\nsentesque delituerunt bufonis capitibus generari pertinaciter\naffirmant_.\n\nLastly, If any such thing there be, yet must it not, for ought I see, be\ntaken as we receive it, for a loose and moveable stone, but rather a\nconcretion or induration of the crany it self; for being of an earthy\ntemper, living in the earth, and as some say feeding thereon, such\nindurations may sometimes happen. Thus when _Brassavolus_ after a long\nsearch had discovered one, he affirms it was rather the forehead bone\npetrified, then a stone within the crany; and of this belief was\n_Gesner_. Which is also much confirmed from what is delivered in\n_Aldrovandus_, upon experiment of very many Toads, whose cranies or\nsculs in time grew hard, and almost of a stony substance. All which\nconsidered, we must with circumspection receive those stones which\ncommonly bear this name, much less believe the traditions, that in envy\nto mankind they are cast out, or swallowed down by the Toad; which\ncannot consist with _Anatomy_, and with the rest, enforced this censure\nfrom _B\u0153tius_, _Ab eo tempore pro nugis habui quod de Bufonio lapide,\nejusque origine traditur._\n\nWhat therefore best reconcileth these divided determinations, may be a\nmiddle opinion; that of these stones some may be mineral, and to be\nfound in the earth; some animal, to be met with in Toads, at least by\nthe induration of their cranies. The first are many and manifold, to be\nfound in _Germany_ and other parts; the last are fewer in number, and in\nsubstance not unlike the stones in Crabs heads. This is agreeable unto\nthe determination of _Aldrovandus_[SN: De Mineral. lib. 4. Mus\u00e6i\nCalceolariani, Sect. 3.], and is also the judgment of learned\n_Spigelius_ in his Epistle unto _Pignorius_.\n\nBut these Toadstones, at least very many thereof, which are esteemed\namong us, are at last found to be taken not out of Toads heads, but out\nof a Fishes mouth, being handsomely contrived out of the teeth of the\n_Lupus Marinus_, a Fish often taken in our Northern Seas, as was\npublickly declared by an eminent and learned Physitian. [SN: Sir _George\nEnt_.] But because men are unwilling to conceive so low of their\nToadstones which they so highly value, they may make some trial thereof\nby a candentorned hot Iron applied unto the hollow and unpolished part\nthereof, whereupon if they be true stones they will not be apt to burn\nor afford a burnt odour, which they may be apt to do, if contrived out\nof animal parts or the teeth of fishes.\n\nConcerning the generation of Frogs, we shall briefly deliver that\naccount which observation hath taught us. By Frogs I understand not such\nas arising from putrefaction, are bred without copulation, and because\nthey subsist not long, are called _Temporari\u00e6_; nor do I mean the little\nFrog of an excellent Parrat green, that usually sits on Trees and\nBushes, and is therefore called _Ranunculus viridis_, or _arboreus_; but\nhereby I understand the aquatile or Water-Frog, whereof in ditches and\nstanding plashes we may behold many millions every Spring in _England_.\nNow these do not as _Pliny_ conceiveth, exclude black pieces of flesh,\nwhich after become Frogs; but they let fall their spawn in the water, of\nexcellent use in Physick, and scarce unknown unto any. In this spawn of\na lentous and transparent body, are to be discerned many specks, or\nlittle conglobulations, which in a small time become of deep black, a\nsubstance more compacted and terrestrious then the other; for it riseth\nnot in distillation, and affords a powder when the white and aqueous\npart is exhaled. Now of this black or dusky substance is the Frog at\nlast formed; as we have beheld, including the spawn with water in a\nglass, and exposing it unto the Sun. For that black and round substance,\nin a few days began to dilate and grow longer, after a while the head,\nthe eyes, the tail to be discernable, and at last to become that which\nthe Ancients called _Gyrinus_, we a _Porwigle_ or Tadpole. This in some\nweeks after becomes a perfect Frog, the legs growing out before, and the\ntail wearing away, to supply the other behind; as may be observed in\nsome which have newly forsaken the water; for in such, some part of the\ntail will be seen, but curtailed and short, not long and finny as\nbefore. A part provided them a while to swim and move in the water, that\nis, untill such time as Nature excluded legs, whereby they might be\nprovided not only to swim in the water, but move upon the land,\naccording to the amphibious [SN: _Amphibious Animals, such as live in\nboth elements of land and water._] and mixt intention of Nature, that\nis, to live in both. So that whoever observeth the first progression of\nthe seed before motion, or shall take notice of the strange\nindistinction of parts in the Tadpole, even when it moveth about, and\nhow successively the inward parts do seem to discover themselves, until\ntheir last perfection; may easily discern the high curiosity of Nature\nin these inferiour animals, and what a long line is run to make a Frog.\n\nAnd because many affirm, and some deliver, that in regard it hath lungs\nand breatheth, a Frog may be easily drowned; though the reason be\nprobable, I find not the experiment answerable; for fastning one about a\nspan under water, it lived almost six days. Nor is it only hard to\ndestroy one in water, but difficult also at land: for it will live long\nafter the lungs and heart be out; how long it will live in the seed, or\nwhether the spawn of this year being preserved, will not arise into\nFrogs in the next, might also be enquired: and we are prepared to trie.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n Of the Salamander.\n\n\nThat a Salamander is able to live in flames, to endure and put out fire,\nis an assertion, not only of great antiquity, but confirmed by frequent,\nand not contemptible testimony. The _Egyptians_ have drawn it into their\nHieroglyphicks, _Aristotle_ seemeth to embrace it; more plainly\n_Nicander_, _Sarenus Sammonicus_, _\u00c6lian_ and _Pliny_, who assigns the\ncause of this effect: An Animal (saith he) so cold that it extinguisheth\nthe fire like Ice. All which notwithstanding, there is on the negative,\nAuthority and Experience; _Sextius_ a Physitian, as _Pliny_ delivereth,\ndenied this effect; _Dioscorides_ affirmed it a point of folly to\nbelieve it; _Galen_ that it endureth the fire a while, but in\ncontinuance is consumed therein. For experimental conviction,\n_Mathiolus_ affirmeth, he saw a Salamander burnt in a very short time;\nand of the like assertion is _Amatus Lusitanus_; and most plainly\n_Pierius_, whose words in his Hieroglyphicks are these: _Whereas it is\ncommonly said that a Salamander extinguisheth fire, we have found by\nexperience, that it is so far from quenching hot coals, that it dieth\nimmediately therein._ As for the contrary assertion of _Aristotle_, it\nis but by hear say, as common opinion believeth, _H\u00e6c enim (ut aiunt)\nignem ingrediens, eum extinguit_; and therefore there was no absurdity\nin _Galen_, when as a Septical medicine [SN: _A corruptive Medicine\ndestroying the parts like Arsenike._] he commended the ashes of a\nSalamander; and _Magicians_ in vain from the power of this Tradition, at\nthe burning of Towns or Houses expect a relief from Salamanders.\n\nThe ground of this opinion, might be some sensible resistance of fire\nobserved in the Salamander: which being, as _Galen_ determineth, cold in\nthe fourth, and moist in the third degree, and having also a mucous\nhumidity above and under the skin, by vertue thereof it may a while\nendure the flame: which being consumed, it can resist no more. Such an\nhumidity there is observed in Newtes, or Water-Lizards, especially if\ntheir skins be perforated or pricked. Thus will Frogs and Snails endure\nthe Flame: thus will whites of Eggs, vitreous or glassie flegm\nextinguish a coal: thus are unguents made which protect a while from the\nfire: and thus beside the _Hirpini_ there are later stories of men that\nhave passed untoucht through the fire. And therefore some truth we allow\nin the tradition: truth according unto _Galen_, that it may for a time\nresist a flame, or as _Scaliger_ avers, extinguish or put out a coal:\nfor thus much will many humid bodies perform: but that it perseveres and\nlives in that destructive element, is a fallacious enlargement. Nor do\nwe reasonably conclude, because for a time it endureth fire, it subdueth\nand extinguisheth the same, because by a cold and aluminous moisture, it\nis able a while to resist it: from a peculiarity of Nature it subsisteth\nand liveth in it.\n\nIt hath been much promoted by Stories of incombustible napkins and\ntextures which endure the fire, whose materials are called by the name\nof Salamanders wool. Which many too literally apprehending, conceive\nsome investing part, or tegument of the Salamander: wherein beside that\nthey mistake the condition of this Animal (which is a kind of Lizard, a\nquadruped corticated and depilous, that is, without wool, fur, or hair)\nthey observe not the method and general rule of nature; whereby all\nQuadrupeds oviparous, as Lizards, Frogs, Tortois, Chamelions,\nCrocodiles, are without hair, and have no covering part or hairy\ninvestment at all. And if they conceive that from the skin of the\nSalamander, these incremable pieces are composed; beside the experiments\nmade upon the living, that of _Brassavolus_ will step in, who in the\nsearch of this truth, did burn the skin of one dead.\n\nNor is this Salamanders wooll desumed from any Animal, but a Mineral\nsubstance Metaphorically so called from this received opinion. For\nbeside _Germanicus_ his heart, [SN: Suetonius.] and _Pyrrhus_ his great\nToe, [SN: Plutarch.] which would not burn with the rest of their bodies,\nthere are in the number of Minerals some bodies incombustible; more\nremarkably that which the ancients named _Asbeston_, and _Pancirollus_\ntreats of in the Chapter of _Linum vivum_. Whereof by art were weaved\nNapkins, Shirts, and Coats, inconsumable by fire; and wherein in ancient\ntimes to preserve their ashes pure, and without commixture, they burnt\nthe bodies of Kings. A Napkin hereof _Pliny_ reports that _Nero_ had,\nand the like saith _Paulus Venetus_ the Emperour of _Tartary_ sent unto\nPope _Alexander_; and also affirms that in some part of _Tartary_ there\nwere Mines of Iron whose filaments were weaved into incombustible cloth.\nWhich rare Manufacture, although delivered for lost by _Pancirollus_,\nyet _Salmuth_ his Commentator affirmeth, that one _Podocaterus_ a\nCyprian, had shewed the same at _Venice_; and his materials were from\n_Cyprus_, where indeed _Dioscorides_ placeth them; the same is also\nocularly confirmed by _Vives_ upon _Austin_, and _Maiolus_ in his\nColloquies. And thus in our days do men practise to make long-lasting\nSnasts for Lamps out of Alumen plumosum; and by the same we read in\n_Pausanius_, that there always burnt a Lamp before the Image of\n_Minerva_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n Of the Amphisb\u00e6na.\n\n\nThat the Amphisb\u00e6na, that is, a smaller kind of Serpent, which moveth\nforward and backward, hath two heads, or one at either extream, was\naffirmed first by _Nicander_, and after by many others, by the Author of\nthe Book _De Theriaca ad Pisonem_, ascribed unto _Galen_; more plainly\n_Pliny_, _Geminum habet caput, tanquam parum esset uno ore effundi\nvenenum_: but _\u00c6lian_ most confidently, who referring the conceit of\n_Chimera_ and _Hydra_ unto Fables, hath set down this as an undeniable\ntruth.\n\nWhereunto while men assent, and can believe a bicipitous conformation in\nany continued species, they admit a gemination of principle parts, not\nnaturally discovered in any Animal. True it is that other parts in\nAnimals are not equal; for some make their progression with many legs,\neven to the number of an hundred, as _Juli_, _Scolopendr\u00e6_; or such as\nare termed _Centipedes_: some fly with two wings, as Birds and many\nInsects, some with four, as all farinaceous or mealy-winged Animals, as\nButterflies, and Moths: all vaginipennous or sheath-winged Insects, as\nBeetles and Dorrs. Some have three Testicles, as _Aristotle_ speaks of\nthe Buzzard; and some have four stomachs, as horned and ruminating\nAnimals; but for the principle parts, the Liver, Heart, and especially\nthe brains; regularly they are but one in any kind or species\nwhatsoever.\n\nAnd were there any such species or natural kind of animal, it would be\nhard to make good those six positions of body, which according to the\nthree dimensions are ascribed unto every Animal: that is, _infra_,\n_supra_, _ante_, _retro_, _dextrosum_, _sinistrosum_: for if (as it is\ndetermined) that be the anterior and upper part, wherein the senses are\nplaced, and that the posterior and lower part which is opposite\nthereunto, there is no inferiour or former part in this Animal; for the\nsenses being placed at both extreams, doth make both ends anterior,\nwhich is impossible; the terms being Relative, which mutually subsist,\nand are not without each other. And therefore this duplicity was ill\ncontrived to place one head at both extreams, and had been more\ntolerable to have setled three or four at one. And therefore also Poets\nhave been more reasonable then Philosophers, and _Geryon_ or _Cerberus_\nless monstrous than _Amphisb\u00e6na_.\n\nAgain, if any such thing there were, it were not to be obtruded by the\nname of _Amphisb\u00e6na_, or as an Animal of one denomination; for properly\nthat Animal is not one, but multiplicious or many, which hath a\nduplicity or gemination of principal parts. And this doth _Aristotle_\ndefine, when he affirmeth a monster is to be esteemed one or many,\naccording to its principle, which he conceived the heart, whence he\nderived the original of Nerves, and thereto ascribed many acts which\nPhysitians assign unto the brain: and therefore if it cannot be called\none, which hath a duplicity of hearts in his sense, it cannot receive\nthat appellation with a plurality of heads in ours. And this the\npractice of Christians hath acknowledged, who have baptized these\ngeminous births, and double connascencies with several names, as\nconceiving in them a distinction of souls, upon the divided execution of\ntheir functions; that is, while one wept, the other laughing; while one\nwas silent, the other speaking; while one awaked, the other sleeping; as\nis declared by three remarkable examples in _Petrarch_, _Vincentius_ and\nthe _Scottish_ History of _Buchanan_.\n\nIt is not denied there have been bicipitous Serpents with the head at\neach extream, for an example hereof we find in _Aristotle_, and of the\nlike form in _Aldrovandus_ we meet with the Icon of a Lizzard; and of\nthis kind perhaps might that _Amphisb\u00e6na_ be, the picture whereof\n_Cassianus Puteus_ shewed unto the learned _Faber_. Which double\nformations do often happen unto multiparous generations, more especially\nthat of Serpents; whose productions being numerous, and their Eggs in\nchains or links together (which sometime conjoin and inoculate into each\nother) they may unite into various shapes and come out in mixed\nformations. But these are monstrous productions, beside the intention of\nNature, and the statutes of generation, neither begotten of like\nparents, nor begetting the like again, but irregularly produced, do\nstand as Anomalies in the general Book of Nature. Which being shifts and\nforced pieces, rather then genuine and proper effects, they afford us no\nillation; nor is it reasonable to conclude, from a monstrosity unto a\nspecies, or from accidental effects, unto the regular works of Nature.\n\nLastly, The ground of the conceit was the figure of this Animal, and\nmotion oft-times both ways; for described it is to be like a worm, and\nso equally framed at both extreams, that at an ordinary distance it is\nno easie matter to determine which is the head; and therefore some\nobserving them to move both ways, have given the appellation of heads\nunto both extreams, which is no proper and warrantable denomination; for\nmany Animals with one head, do ordinarily perform both different and\ncontrary Motions; Crabs move sideling, Lobsters will swim swiftly\nbackward, Worms and Leeches will move both ways; and so will most of\nthose Animals, whose bodies consist of round and annulary fibers, and\nmove by undulation; that is, like the waves of the Sea, the one\nprotruding the other, by inversion whereof they make a backward Motion.\n\nUpon the same ground hath arisen the same mistake concerning the\nScolopendra or hundred-footed Insect, as is delivered by _Rhodiginus_\nfrom the Scholiast of _Nicander_: _Dicitur \u00e0 Nicandro_, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u1f74\u03c2, _id\nest dicephalus aut biceps fictum vero, quoniam retrorsum_ (_ut scribit\nAristoteles), arrepit_, observed by _Aldrovandus_, but most plainly by\n_Muffetus_, who thus concludeth upon the Text of _Nicander_: _Tamen pace\ntanti authoris dixerim, unicum illi duntaxat caput licet pari\nfacilitate, prorsum capite, retrorsum ducente cauda, incedat, quod\nNicandro aliisque imposuisse dubito_: that is, under favour of so great\nan Author, the Scopolendra hath but one head, although with equal\nfacility it moveth forward and backward, which I suspect deceived\n_Nicander_, and others.\n\nAnd therefore we must crave leave to doubt of this double-headed Serpent\nuntil we have the advantage to behold or have an iterated ocular\ntestimony concerning such as are sometimes mentioned by _American_\nrelators; and also such as _Cassianus Puteus_ shewed in a picture to\n_Johannes Faber_; and that which is set down under the name of\n_Amphisb\u00e6na Europ\u00e6a_ in his learned discourse upon _Hernandez_ his\nHistory of _America_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n Of the Viper.\n\n\nThat the young Vipers force their way through the bowels of their Dam,\nor that the female Viper in the act of generation bites off the head of\nthe male, in revenge whereof the young ones eat through the womb and\nbelly of the female, is a very ancient tradition. In this sense\nentertained in the Hieroglyphicks of the _Egyptians_; affirmed by\n_Herodotus_, _Nicander_, _Pliny_, _Plutarch_, _\u00c6lian_, _Jerome_,\n_Basil_, _Isidore_, seems countenanced by _Aristotle_, and his Scholar\n_Theophrastus_: from hence is commonly assigned the reason why the\n_Romans_ punished _Parricides_ by drowning them in a Sack with a Viper.\nAnd so perhaps upon the same opinion the men of _Melita_ when they saw a\nViper upon the hand of _Paul_, said presently without conceit of any\nother sin, _No doubt this man is a murderer, who though he have escaped\nthe Sea, yet vengeance suffereth him not to live_: that is, he is now\npaid in his own way, the parricidous Animal and punishment of murderers\nis upon him. And though the tradition were currant among the Greeks, to\nconfirm the same the Latine name is introduced, _Vipera quasi vi\npariat_; That passage also in the Gospel, _O ye generation of Vipers!_\nhath found expositions which countenance this conceit. Notwithstanding\nwhich authorities, transcribed relations and conjectures, upon enquiry\nwe find the same repugnant unto experience and reason.\n\nAnd first, it seems not only injurious unto the providence of Nature, to\nordain a way of production which should destroy the producer, or\ncontrive the continuation of the species by the destruction of the\nContinuator; but it overthrows and frustrates the great Benediction of\nGod, [SN: Gen. 1.] _God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply._\nNow if it be so ordained that some must regularly perish by\nmultiplication, and these be the fruits of fructifying in the Viper; it\ncannot be said that God did bless, but curse this Animal: _Upon thy\nbelly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all thy life_, was not so\ngreat a punishment unto the Serpent after the fall, as _encrease, be\nfruitful and multiply_, was before. This were to confound the\nMaledictions of God, and translate the curse of the Woman upon the\nSerpent: that is, _in dolore paries_, _in sorrow shalt thou bring\nforth_; which being proper unto the Woman, is verified best in the\nViper, whose delivery is not only accompanied with pain, but also with\ndeath it self. And lastly, it overthrows the careful course, and\nparental provision of Nature, whereby the young ones newly excluded are\nsustained by the Dam, and protected until they grow up to a sufficiency\nfor themselves. All which is perverted in this eruptive generation: for\nthe Dam being destroyed, the younglings are left to their own\nprotection: which is not conceivable they can at all perform, and\nwhereof they afford us a remarkable continuance many days after birth.\nFor the young one supposed to break through the belly of the Dam, will\nupon any fright for protection run into it; for then the old one\nreceives them in at her mouth, which way the fright being past, they\nwill return again, which is a peculiar way of refuge; and although it\nseem strange, is avowed by frequent experience and undeniable testimony.\n\nAs for the experiment, although we have thrice attempted it, it hath not\nwell succeeded; for though we fed them with Milk, Bran, Cheese, etc.,\nthe females always died before the young ones were mature for this\neruption; but rest sufficiently confirmed in the experiments of worthy\nenquirers. Wherein to omit the ancient conviction of _Apollonius_, we\nshall set down some few of Modern Writers. [SN: _That Vipers exclude\ntheir young ones by an ordinary passage, as other viviparous\ncreatures._] The first, of _Amatus Lusitanus_ in his Comment upon\n_Dioscorides_, _Vidimus nos viperas pr\u00e6gnantes inclusas pixidibus\nparere, qu\u00e6 inde ex partu nec mortu\u00e6, nec visceribus perforat\u00e6\nmanserunt._ The second is that of _Scaliger_, _Viperas ab impatientibus\nmor\u00e6 f\u0153tibus numerosissimis rumpi atque interire falsum esse scimus,\nqui in Vincentii Camerini circulatoris lignea theca vidimus, enatas\nviperellas, parente salva._ The last and most plain of _Franciscus\nBustamantinus_, a _Spanish_ Physitian of _Alcala de Henares_, whose\nwords in his third _de Animantibus Scriptur\u00e6_, are these: _Cum vero per\nme et per alios h\u00e6c ipsa disquisissem servata Viperina progenie, etc._:\nthat is, when by my self and others I had enquired the truth hereof,\nincluding Vipers in a glass, and feeding them with Cheese and Bran, I\nundoubtedly found that the Viper was not delivered by the tearing of her\nbowels; but I beheld the young ones excluded by the passage of\ngeneration, near the orifice of the seidge. Whereto we might also add\nthe ocular confirmation of _Lacuna_ upon _Dioscorides_, _Ferdinandus\nImperatus_, and that learned Physician of _Naples_, _Aurelius\nSeverinus_.\n\nNow although the Tradition be untrue, there wanted not many grounds\nwhich made it plausibly received. The first was a favourable indulgence\nand special contrivance of Nature; which was the conceit of _Herodotus_,\nwho thus delivereth himself. Fearful Animals, and such as serve for\nfood, Nature hath made more fruitful; but upon the offensive and\nnoxious kind, she hath not conferred fertility. So the Hare that\nbecometh a prey unto Man, unto Beasts, and Fowls of the air, is fruitful\neven to superf\u00e6tation; but the Lion, a fierce and ferocious Animal hath\nyoung ones but seldom, and also but one at a time; Vipers indeed\nalthough destructive are fruitful; but lest their number should\nincrease, Providence hath contrived another way to abate it: for in\ncopulation the female bites off the head of the male, and the young ones\ndestroy the mother. But this will not consist with reason, as we have\ndeclared before. And if we more nearly consider the condition of Vipers\nand noxious Animals we shall discover an higher provision of Nature: how\nalthough in their paucity she hath not abridged their malignity, yet\nhath she notoriously effected it by their secession or latitancy. For\nnot only offensive insects, as Hornets, Wasps, and the like; but\nsanguineous corticated Animals, as Serpents, Toads and Lizzards, do lie\nhid and betake themselves to coverts in the Winter. Whereby most\nCountries enjoying the immunity of _Ireland_ and _Candie_, there ariseth\na temporal security from their venoms; and an intermission of their\nmischiefs, mercifully requiting the time of their activities.\n\nA second ground of this effect, was conceived the justice of Nature,\nwhereby she compensates the death of the father by the matricide or\nmurder of the mother: and this was the expression of _Nicander_. But the\ncause hereof is as improbable as the effect; and were indeed an\nimprovident revenge in the young ones, whereby in consequence, and upon\ndefect of provision they must destroy themselves. And whereas he\nexpresseth this decollation of the male by so full a term as\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, that is, to cut or lop off, the act is hardly conceiveable;\nfor the Viper hath but two considerable teeth, and those so disposed, so\nslender and needle-pointed, that they are apter for puncture then any\nact of incision. And if any like action there be, it may be only some\nfast retention or sudden compression in the _Orgasmus_ or fury of their\nlust; according as that expression of _Horace_ is construed concerning\n_Lydia_ and _Telephus_.\n\n ----_Sive puer furens,\n Impressit memorem dente labris notam._\n\nOthers ascribe this effect unto the numerous conception of the Viper;\nand this was the opinion of _Theophrastus_. Who though he denieth the\nexesion or forcing through the belly, conceiveth nevertheless that upon\na full and plentiful impletion there may perhaps succeed a disruption of\nthe matrix, as it happeneth sometimes in the long and slender fish\n_Acus_. [SN: _Needle-fish, found sometimes upon the Sea-shore,\nconsisting of four lines unto the vent, and six from thence unto the\nhead._] Now although in hot Countries, and very numerous conceptions, in\nthe Viper or other Animals, there may sometimes ensue a dilaceration of\nthe genital parts; yet is this a rare and contingent effect, and not a\nnatural and constant way of exclusion. For the wise Creator hath formed\nthe organs of Animals unto their operations, and in whom he ordaineth a\nnumerous conception, in them he hath prepared convenient receptacles,\nand a sutable way of exclusion.\n\nOthers do ground this disruption upon their continued or protracted time\nof delivery, presumed to last twenty days; whereat excluding but one a\nday, the latter brood impatient, by a forcible proruption anticipate\ntheir period of exclusion; and this was the assertion of _Pliny_,\n_C\u00e6teri tarditatis impatientes prorumpunt latera, occis\u00e2 parente_;\nwhich was occasioned upon a mistake of the Greek Text in _Aristotle_,\n\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f20\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u02bc \u1f10\u03bd, \u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9 \u1f22\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which are\nliterally thus translated, _Parit autem una die secundum unum, parit\nautem plures quam viginti_, and may be thus Englished, _She bringeth\nforth in one day, one by one, and sometimes more than twenty_: and so\nhath _Scaliger_ rendered it, _Sigillatim parit absolvit, una die,\ninterdum plures quam viginti_: But _Pliny_, whom _Gaza_ followeth, hath\ndifferently translated it, _Singulos diebus singulis parit, numero fer\u00e8\nviginti_; whereby he extends the exclusion unto twenty days, which in\nthe textuary sense is fully accomplished in one.\n\nBut what hath most advanced it, is a mistake in another text of\n_Aristotle_, which seemeth directly to determine this disruption,\n\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f01\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, which _Gaza_ hath\nthus translated, _Purit catulos abvolutos membranis qu\u00e6 tertio die\nrumpuntur, evenit interdum ut qui in utero adhuc sunt abrosis membranis\nprorumpant._ Now herein probably _Pliny_, and many since have been\nmistaken; for the disruption of the membranes or skins, which include\nthe young ones, conceiving a dilaceration of the matrix and belly of the\nViper: and concluding from a casual dilaceration, a regular and constant\ndisruption.\n\nAs for the Latine word _Vipera_, which in the Etymologie of _Isidore_\npromoteth this conceit; more properly it may imply _vivipera_. For\nwhereas other Serpents lay Eggs, the Viper excludeth living Animals; and\nthough the _Cerastes_ be also viviparous, and we have found formed\nSnakes in the belly of the _Cicilia_ or Slow-worm; yet may the Viper\nemphatically bear the name. For the notation or Etymology is not of\nnecessity adequate unto the name; and therefore though animal be deduced\nfrom _anima_, yet are there many animations beside, and Plants will\nchallenge a right therein as well as sensible Creatures.\n\nAs touching the Text of Scripture, and compellation of the _Pharisees_,\nby Generation of Vipers, although constructions be made hereof\nconformable to this Tradition; and it may be plausibly expounded, that\nout of a viperous condition, they conspired against their Prophets, and\ndestroyed their spiritual parents; yet (as _Jansenius_ observeth)\n_Gregory_ and _Jerome_, do make another construction; apprehending\nthereby what is usually implied by that Proverb, _Mali corvi, malum\novum_; that is, of evil parents, an evil generation, a posterity not\nunlike their majority; of mischievous progenitors, a venomous and\ndestructive progeny.\n\nAnd lastly, Concerning the Hieroglyphical account, according to the\nVulgar conception set down by _Orus Apollo_, the Authority thereof is\nonly Emblematical; for were the conception true or false, to their\napprehensions, it expressed filial impiety. Which strictly taken, and\ntotally received for truth, might perhaps begin, but surely promote this\nconception.\n\nMore doubtful assertions have been raised of no Animal then the Viper,\nas we have dispersedly noted: and _Francisco Redi_ hath amply discovered\nin his noble observations of Vipers; from good reasons and iterated\nexperiments affirming, that a Viper containeth no humour, excrement, or\npart which either dranke or eat, is able to kill any: that the\n_remorsores_ or dog-teeth, are not more than two in either sex: that\nthese teeth are hollow, and though they bite and prick therewith, yet\nare they not venomous, but only open a way and entrance unto the poyson,\nwhich notwithstanding is not poysonous except it touch or attain unto\nthe bloud. And that there is no other poison in this Animal, but only\nthat almost insipid liquor like oyl of Almonds, which stagnates in the\nsheaths and cases that cover the teeth; and that this proceeds not from\nthe bladder of gall, but is rather generated in the head, and perhaps\ndemitted and sent from thence into these cases by salival conducts and\npassages, which the head communicateth unto them.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n Of Hares.\n\n\nThe double sex of single Hares, or that every Hare is both male and\nfemale, beside the vulgar opinion, was the affirmative of _Archelaus_,\nof _Plutarch_, _Philostratus_, and many more. Of the same belief have\nbeen the Jewish _Rabbins_; The same is likewise confirmed from the\nHebrew word; [SN: Arnabeth.] which, as though there were no single males\nof that kind, hath only obtained a name of the feminine gender. As also\nfrom the symbolical foundation of its prohibition in the law, [SN:\n_Levit._ 11.] and what vices therein are figured; that is, not only\npusillanimity and timidity from its temper, feneration or usury from its\nf\u0153cundity and superfetation; but from this mixture of sexes,\nunnatural venery and degenerous effemination. Nor are there hardly any\nwho either treat of mutation or mixtion of sexes, who have not left some\nmention of this point; some speaking positively, others dubiously, and\nmost resigning it unto the enquiry of the Reader. Now hereof to speak\ndistinctly, they must be male and female by mutation and succession of\nsexes; or else by composition, mixture or union thereof.\n\n[Sidenote: _Transmutation of Sexes_, viz. _of Women into Men, granted_.]\n\nAs for the mutation of sexes, or transition into one another, we cannot\ndeny it in Hares, it being observable in Man. For hereof beside\n_Empedocles_ or _Tiresias_, there are not a few examples: and though\nvery few, or rather none which have emasculated or turned women, yet\nvery many who from an esteem or reality of being Women have infallibly\nproved Men. Some at the first point of their menstruous eruptions, some\nin the day of their marriage, others many years after: which occasioned\ndisputes at Law, and contestations concerning a restore of the dowry.\nAnd that not only mankind, but many other Animals may suffer this\ntransexion, we will not deny, or hold it at all impossible: although I\nconfess by reason of the postick and backward position of the feminine\nparts in quadrupedes, they can hardly admit the substitution of a\nprotrusion, effectual unto masculine generation; except it be in\nRetromingents, and such as couple backward.\n\nNor shall we only concede the succession of sexes in some, but shall not\ndispute the transition of reputed species in others; that is, a\ntransmutation, or (as _Paracelsians_ term it) Transplantation of one\ninto another. Hereof in perfect Animals of a congenerous seed, or near\naffinity of natures, examples are not unfrequent, as in Horses, Asses,\nDogs, Foxes, Pheasants, Cocks, etc. but in imperfect kinds, and such\nwhere the discrimination of sexes is obscure, these transformations are\nmore common; and in some within themselves without commixtion, as\nparticularly in Caterpillars or Silkworms, wherein there is a visible\nand triple transfiguration. But in Plants, wherein there is no\ndistinction of sex, these transplantations are conceived more obvious\nthen any; as that of Barley into Oats, of Wheat into Darnel; and those\ngrains which generally arise among Corn, as Cockle, Aracus, \u00c6gilops, and\nother degenerations; which come up in unexpected shapes, when they want\nthe support and maintenance of the primary and master-forms. And the\nsame do some affirm concerning other Plants in less analogy of figures;\nas the mutation of Mint into Cresses, Basil into Serpoile, and Turneps\ninto Radishes. In all which, as _Severinus_ conceiveth, [SN: In Idea\nMedicin\u00e6 Philosophic\u00e6.] there may be equivocal seeds and\nHermaphroditical principles, which contain the radicality and power of\ndifferent forms; thus in the seed of Wheat there lieth obscurely the\nseminality of Darnel, although in a secondary or inferiour way, and at\nsome distance of production; which nevertheless if it meet with\nconvenient promotion, or a conflux and conspiration of causes more\npowerful then the other, it then beginneth to edifie in chief, and\ncontemning the superintendent form, produceth the signatures of its\nself.\n\nNow therefore although we deny not these several mutations, and do allow\nthat Hares may exchange their sex, yet this we conceive doth come to\npass but sometimes, and not in that vicissitude or annual alteration as\nis presumed. That is, from imperfection to perfection, from perfection\nto imperfection; from female unto male, from male to female again, and\nso in a circle to both without a permansion in either. For beside the\ninconceivable mutation of temper, which should yearly alternate the sex,\nthis is injurious unto the order of nature, whose operations do rest in\nthe perfection of their intents; which having once attained, they\nmaintain their accomplished ends, and relapse not again into their\nprogressional imperfections. So if in the minority of natural vigor,\nthe parts of seminality take place; when upon the encrease or growth\nthereof the masculine appear, the first design of nature is atchieved,\nand those parts are after maintained.\n\nBut surely it much impeacheth this iterated transexion of Hares, if that\nbe true which _Cardan_ and other Physicians affirm, that Transmutation\nof sex is only so in opinion; and that these transfeminated persons were\nreally men at first; although succeeding years produced the manifesto or\nevidence of their virilities. Which although intended and formed, was\nnot at first excluded: and that the examples hereof have undergone no\nreal or new transexion, but were Androgynally born, and under some kind\nof _Hermaphrodites_. For though _Galen_ do favour the opinion, that the\ndistinctive parts of sexes are only different in Position, that is,\ninversion or protrusion; yet will this hardly be made out from the\nAnatomy of those parts. The testicles being so seated in the female,\nthat they admit not of protrusion; and the neck of the matrix wanting\nthose parts which are discoverable in the organ of virility.\n\nThe second and most received acception, is, that Hares are male and\nfemale by conjunction of both sexes; and such as are found in mankind,\nPoetically called Hermaphrodites; supposed to be formed from the\nequality, or _non victorie_ of either seed; carrying about them the\nparts of Man and Woman; although with great variety in perfection, site\nand ability; not only as _Aristotle_ conceived, with a constant\nimpotency in one; but as later observers affirm, sometimes with ability\nof either venery. And therefore the providence of some Laws have thought\ngood, that at the years of maturity they should elect one sex, and the\nerrors in the other should suffer a severer punishment. Whereby\nendeavouring to prevent incontinency, they unawares enjoyned perpetual\nchastity; for being executive in both parts, and confined unto one, they\nrestrained a natural power, and ordained a partial virginity. _Plato_\nand some of the Rabbins proceeded higher; who conceived the first Man an\nHermaphrodite; and _Marcus Leo_ the learned _Jew_, in some sense hath\nallowed it; affirming that _Adam_ in one suppositum without division,\ncontained both Male and Female. And therefore whereas it is said in the\ntext, That God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created\nhe him, male and female created he them: applying the singular and\nplural unto _Adam_, it might denote, that in one substance, and in\nhimself he included both sexes, which was after divided, and the female\ncalled Woman. The opinion of _Aristotle_ extendeth farther, from whose\nassertion all men should be Hermaphrodites; for affirming that Women do\nnot spermatize, and confer a place or receptacle rather then essential\nprinciples of generation, he deductively includes both sexes in mankind;\nfor from the father proceed not only males and females, but from him\nalso must Hermaphroditical and masculo-feminine generations be derived,\nand a commixtion of both sexes arise from the seed of one. But the\nSchoolmen have dealt with that sex more hardly then any other; who\nthough they have not much disputed their generation, yet have they\ncontroverted their Resurrection, and raisen a querie, whether any at the\nlast day should arise in the sex of Women; as may be observed in the\nsupplement of _Aquinas_.\n\nNow as we must acknowledge this Androgynal condition in Man [SN:\n_Consisting of man and woman._], so can we not deny the like doth\nhappen in beasts. Thus do we read in _Pliny_, that _Neroes_ Chariot was\ndrawn by four Hermaphroditical Mares, and _Cardan_ affirms he also\nbeheld one at _Antwerp_. And thus may we also concede, that Hares have\nbeen of both sexes, and some have ocularly confirmed it; but that the\nwhole species or kind should be bisexous or double-sexed, we cannot\naffirm, who have found the parts of male and female respectively\ndistinct and single in any wherein we have enquired: And the like\nsuccess had _Bacchinus_[SN: Bacch. De Hermaphroditis.] in such as he\ndissected. And whereas it is conceived, that being an harmless Animal\nand delectable food unto man, nature hath made them with double sexes,\nthat actively and passively performing they might more numerously\nincrease; we forget an higher providence of nature whereby she\nespecially promotes the multiplication of Hares, which is by\nsuperfetation; that is, a conception upon a conception, or an\nimprovement of a second fruit before the first be excluded; preventing\nhereby the usual intermission and vacant time of generation; which is\nvery common and frequently observable in Hares, mentioned long ago by\n_Aristotle_, _Herodotus_, and _Pliny_; and we have often observed, that\nafter the first cast, there remain successive conceptions, and other\nyounglings very immature, and far from their term of exclusion.\n\n[Sidenote: _Superfetation possible in women, and that unto a perfect\nbirth._]\n\nNor need any man to question this in Hares, for the same we observe doth\nsometime happen in Women; for although it be true, that upon conception\nthe inward orifice of the matrix exactly closeth, so that it commonly\nadmitteth nothing after; yet falleth it out sometime, that in the act of\ncoition, the avidity of that part dilateth it self, and receiveth a\nsecond burden; which if it happen to be near in time unto the first,\nthey do commonly both proceed unto perfection, and have legitimate\nexclusions, periodically succeeding each other. But if the superfetation\nbe made with considerable intermission, the latter most commonly proves\nabortive; for the first being confirmed, engrosseth the aliment from the\nother. However therefore the project of _Julia_ seem very plausible, and\nthat way infallible, when she received not her passengers, before she\nhad taken in her lading, yet was there a fallibility therein: nor indeed\nany absolute security in the policy of adultery after conception. For\nthe Matrix (which some have called another Animal within us, and which\nis not subjected unto the law of our will) after reception of its proper\nTenant, may yet receive a strange and spurious inmate. As is confirmable\nby many examples in _Pliny_; by _Lariss\u00e6a_ in _Hippocrates_ and that\nmerry one in _Plautus_ urged also by _Aristotle_: that is, of _Iphicles_\nand _Hercules_, the one begat by _Jupiter_, the other by _Amphitryon_\nupon _Alem\u00e6na_ as also in those super-conceptions, where one child was\nlike the father, the other like the adulterer, the one favoured the\nservant, the other resembled the master.\n\nNow the grounds that begat, or much promoted the opinion of a double sex\nin Hares, might be some little bags or tumours, at first glance\nrepresenting stones or Testicles, to be found in both sexes about the\nparts of generation; which men observing in either sex, were induced to\nbelieve a masculine sex in both. But to speak properly, these are no\nTesticles or parts official unto generation, but glandulous substances\nthat seem to hold the nature of Emunctories. For herein may be perceived\nslender perforations, at which may be expressed a black and f\u00e6culent\nmatter. If therefore from these we shall conceive a mixtion of sexes in\nHares, with fairer reason we may conclude it in Bevers; whereof both\nsexes contain a double bag or Tumour in the groin, commonly called the\nCod of _Castor_, as we have delivered before.\n\nAnother ground were certain holes or cavities observable about the\nsiedge; which being perceived in Males, made some conceive there might\nbe also a f\u0153minine nature in them. And upon this very ground, the\nsame opinion hath passed upon the Hy\u00e6na, and is declared by _Aristotle_,\nand thus translated by _Scaliger_; _Quod autem aiunt utriusque sexus\nhabere genitalia, falsum est, quod videtur esse f\u0153mineum sub cauda\nest simile figura f\u0153minino, verum pervium non est_; and thus is it\nalso in Hares, in whom these holes, although they seem to make a deep\ncavity, yet do they not perforate the skin, nor hold a community with\nany part of generation: but were (as _Pliny_ delivereth) esteemed the\nmarks of their age, the number of those deciding their number of years.\nIn which opinion what truth there is we shall not contend; for if in\nother Animals there be authentick notations, if the characters of years\nbe found in the horns of Cows, or in the Antlers of Deer; if we\nconjecture the age of Horses from joints in their docks, and undeniably\npresume it from their teeth; we cannot affirm, there is in this conceit,\nany affront unto nature; although who ever enquireth shall find no\nassurance therein.\n\nThe last foundation was Retromingency or pissing backward; for men\nobserving both sexes to urine backward, or aversly between their legs,\nthey might conceive there was a f\u0153minine part in both; wherein they\nare deceived by the ignorance of the just and proper site of the Pizzel,\nor part designed unto the Excretion of urine; which in the Hare holds\nnot the common position, but is aversly seated, and in its distention\nenclines unto the Coccix or Scut. Now from the nature of this position,\nthere ensueth a necessity of Retrocopulation, which also promoteth the\nconceit: for some observing them to couple without ascension, have not\nbeen able to judge of male or female, or to determine the proper sex in\neither. And to speak generally, this way of copulation is not\nappropriate unto Hares, nor is there one, but many ways of coition:\naccording to divers shapes and different conformations. For some couple\nlaterally or sidewise, as Worms: some circularly or by complication, as\nSerpents: some pronely, that is, by contaction of the ventral parts in\nboth, as Apes, Porcupines, Hedgehogs, and such as are termed Mollia, as\nthe Cuttle-fish and the Purple; some mixtly, that is, the male ascending\nthe female, or by application of the ventral parts of the one, unto the\npostick parts of the other, as most Quadrupeds: Some aversly, as all\nCrustaceous Animals, Lobsters, Shrimps, and Crevises, and also\nRetromingents, as Panthers, Tygers, and Hares. This is the constant Law\nof their Coition, this they observe and transgress not: onely the\nvitiosity of man hath acted the varieties hereof; nor content with a\ndigression from sex or species, hath in his own kind run thorow the\nAnomalies of venery; and been so bold, not only to act, but represent to\nview, the irregular ways of Lust.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n Of Moles, or Molls.\n\n\nThat Moles are blind and have no eyes, though a common opinion, is\nreceived with much variety; some affirming only they have no sight, as\n_Oppianus_, the Proverb _Talpa C\u00e6cior_, and the word \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1, or\n_Talpitas_, which in _Hesychius_ is made the same with _C\u00e6citas_: some\nthat they have eyes, but no sight, as the text of _Aristotle_ seems to\nimply; some neither eyes nor sight, as _Albertus_, _Pliny_, and the\nvulgar opinion; some both eyes and sight, as _Scaliger_, _Aldrovandus_,\nand some others. Of which opinions the last with some restriction, is\nmost consonant unto truth: for that they have eyes in their head is\nmanifest unto any, that wants them not in his own: and are discoverable,\nnot only in old ones, but as we have observed in young and naked\nconceptions, taken out of the belly of the Dam. And he that exactly\nenquires into the cavity of their cranies, may perhaps discover some\npropagation of nerves communicated unto these parts. But that the\nhumours together with their coats are also distinct (though _Galen_ seem\nto affirm it) transcendeth our discovery; for separating these little\nOrbs, and including them in magnifying Glasses, we discerned no more\nthen _Aristotle_ mentions, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, that is, a black\nhumour, nor any more if they be broken. That therefore they have eyes we\nmust of necessity affirm; but that they be comparatively incomplete we\nneed not to deny: So _Galen_ affirms the parts of generation in women\nare imperfect, in respect of those of men, as the eyes of Moles in\nregard of other Animals; So _Aristotle_ terms them \u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, which\n_Gaza_ translates _Obl\u00e6sos_, and _Scaliger_ by a word of imperfection\n_inchoatos_.\n\nNow as that they have eyes is manifest unto sense, so that they have\nsight not incongruous unto reason; if we call not in question the\nprovidence of this provision, that is, to assign the Organs, and yet\ndeny the Office, to grant them eyes and withhold all manner of vision.\nFor as the inference is fair, affirmatively deduced from the action to\nthe Organ, that they have eyes because they see; so is it also from the\norgan to the action, that they have eyes, therefore some sight designed,\nif we take the intention of Nature in every species, and except the\ncasual impediments, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are\nmore imperfect then others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of\nvision, for they will run against things, and hudling forwards fall from\nhigh places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there\nis in them no Cecity, yet more then a Cecutiency; they have sight enough\nto discern the light, though not perhaps to distinguish of objects or\ncolours; so are they not exactly blind, for light is one object of\nvision. And this (as _Scaliger_ observeth) might be as full a sight as\nNature first intended, for living in darkness under the earth, they had\nno further need of eyes then to avoid the light; and to be sensible when\never they lost that darkness of earth, which was their natural\nconfinement. And therefore however Translators do render the word of\n_Aristotle_ or _Galen_, that is, _imperfectos obl\u00e6sos_ or _inchoatos_,\nit is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to\nfinish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect Vision.\n\nAnd lastly, although they had neither eyes nor sight, yet could they not\nbe termed blind. For blindness being a privative term unto sight, this\nappellation is not admittible in propriety of speech, and will overthrow\nthe doctrine of privations; which presuppose positive forms or habits,\nand are not indefinite negations, denying in all subjects, but such\nalone wherein the positive habits are in their proper Nature, and placed\nwithout repugnancy. So do we improperly say a Mole is blind, if we deny\nit the Organs or a capacity of vision from its created Nature; so when\nthe text of _John_ had said, that person was blind from his nativity,\nwhose cecity our Saviour cured, it was not warrantable in _Nonnus_ to\nsay he had no eyes at all, as in the judgment of _Heinsius_, he\ndescribeth in his paraphrase; and as some ancient Fathers affirm, that\nby this miracle they were created in him. And so though the sense may be\naccepted, that Proverb must be candidly interpreted, which maketh fishes\nMute; and calls them silent which have no voice in Nature.\n\nNow this conceit is erected upon a misapprehension or mistake in the\nsymtomes of vision; men confounding abolishment, diminution and\ndepravement, and naming that an abolition of sight, which indeed is but\nan abatement. For if vision be abolished, it is called _c\u00e6citas_, or\nblindness; if depraved and receive its objects erroneously,\nHallucination; if diminished, _hebetudo visus_, _caligatio_, or dimness.\nNow instead of a diminution or imperfect vision in the Mole, we affirm\nan abolition or total privation; instead of a caligation or dimness, we\nconclude a cecity or blindness. Which hath been frequently inferred\nconcerning other Animals; so some affirm the Water-Rat is blind, so\n_Sammonicus_ and _Nicander_ do call the Mus-Araneus the shrew or Ranny,\nblind: And because darkness was before light, the _\u00c6gyptians_ worshipped\nthe same. So are _C\u00e6cili\u00e6_ or Slow-worms accounted blind, and the like\nwe affirm proverbially of the Beetle; although their eyes be evident,\nand they will flye against lights, like many other Insects, and though\nalso _Aristotle_ determines, that the eyes are apparent in all flying\nInsects, though other senses be obscure, and not perceptible at all. And\nif from a diminution we may infer a total privation, or affirm that\nother Animals are blind which do not acutely see, or comparatively unto\nothers, we shall condemn unto blindness many not so esteemed; for such\nas have corneous or horney eyes, as Lobsters and crustaceous Animals,\nare generally dim-sighted; all Insects that have _antenn\u00e6_, or long\nhorns to feel out their way, as Butterflyes and Locusts; or their\nforelegs so disposed, that they much advance before their heads, as may\nbe observed in Spiders; and if the Eagle were judge, we might be blind\nour selves. The expression therefore of Scripture in the story of\n_Jacob_ is surely with circumspection: And it came to pass when _Jacob_\nwas old, and his eyes were dim, _quando caligarunt oculi_, saith\n_Jerome_ and _Tremellius_, which are expressions of diminution, and not\nof absolute privation.\n\nOther concerns there are of Molls, which though not commonly opinioned\nare not commonly enough considered: As the peculiar formation of their\nfeet, the slender _ossa Iugalia_, and Dogteeth, and how hard it is to\nkeep them alive out of the Earth: As also the ferity and voracity of\nthese animals; for though they be contented with Roots, and stringy\nparts of Plants, or Wormes under ground, yet when they are above it will\nsometimes tear and eat one another, and in a large glass wherein a Moll,\na Toad, and a Viper were inclosed, we have known the Moll to dispatch\nthem and to devour a good part of them both.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n Of Lampries.\n\n\nWhether Lampries have nine eyes, as is received, we durst refer it unto\n_Polyphemus_, who had but one, to judge it. An error concerning eyes,\noccasioned by the error of eyes; deduced from the appearance of diverse\ncavities or holes on either side, which some call eyes that carelessly\nbehold them; and is not only refutable by experience, but also repugnant\nunto Reason. For beside the monstrosity they fasten unto Nature, in\ncontriving many eyes, who hath made but two unto any Animal, that is,\none of each side, according to the division of the brain; it were a\nsuperfluous inartificial act to place and settle so many in one plane;\nfor the two extreams would sufficiently perform the office of sight\nwithout the help of the intermediate eyes, and behold as much as all\nseven joyned together. For the visible base of the object would be\ndefined by these two; and the middle eyes, although they behold the same\nthing, yet could they not behold so much thereof as these; so were it no\nadvantage unto man to have a third eye between those two he hath\nalready; and the fiction of _Argus_ seems more reasonable then this; for\nthough he had many eyes, yet were they placed in circumference and\npositions of advantage, and so are they placed in several lines in\nSpiders.\n\nAgain, These cavities which men call eyes are seated out of the head,\nand where the Gils of other fish are placed; containing no Organs of\nsight, nor having any Communication with the brain. [SN: _All\nsense is from the brain._] Now all sense proceeding from the brain, and\nthat being placed (as _Galen_ observeth) in the upper part of the body,\nfor the fitter situation of the eyes, and conveniency required unto\nsight; it is not reasonable to imagine that they are any where else, or\ndeserve that name which are seated in other parts. And therefore we\nrelinquish as fabulous what is delivered of _Sternopthalmi_, or men with\neyes in their breast, and when it is said by _Solomon_, A wise mans eyes\nare in his head, it is to be taken in a second sense, and affordeth no\nobjection. True it is that the eyes of Animals are seated with some\ndifference, but in sanguineous animals in the head, and that more\nforward then the ear or hole of hearing. In quadrupedes, in regard of\nthe figure of their heads, they are placed at some distance; in\nlatirostrous and flat-bill'd birds they are more laterally seated, and\ntherefore when they look intently they turn one eye upon the object, and\ncan convert their heads to see before and behind, and to behold two\nopposite points at once. But at a more easie distance are they situated\nin man, and in the same circumference with the ear; for if one foot of\nthe compass be placed upon the Crown, a circle described thereby will\nintersect, or pass over both the ears.\n\n[Sidenote: _To what use the nine eyes in a Lamprie do serve._]\n\nThe error in this conceit consists in the ignorance of these cavities,\nand their proper use in nature; for this is a particular disposure of\nparts, and a peculiar conformation whereby these holes and sluces supply\nthe defect of Gils, and are assisted by the conduit in the head; for\nlike cetaceous Animals and Whales, the Lamprie hath a fistula, spout or\npipe at the back part of the head, whereat it spurts out water. Nor is\nit only singular in this formation, but also in many other; as in defect\nof bones, whereof it hath not one; and for the spine or backbone, a\ncartilaginous substance without any spondyles, processes or protuberance\nwhatsoever. As also in the provision which Nature hath made for the\nheart; which in this Animal is very strangely secured, and lies immured\nin a cartilage or gristly substance. And lastly, in the colour of the\nliver: which is in the Male of an excellent grass-green: but of a deeper\ncolour in the Female, and will communicate a fresh and durable verdure.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n Of Snayls.\n\n\nWhether _Snayls_ have eyes some Learned men have doubted. For _Scaliger_\nterms them but imitations of eyes; and _Aristotle_ upon consequence\ndenyeth them, when he affirms that _Testaceous_ Animals have no eyes.\nBut this now seems sufficiently asserted by the help of exquisite\nGlasses, which discover those black and atramentous spots or globales to\nbe their eyes.\n\nThat they have two eyes is the common opinion, but if they have two\neyes, we may grant them to have no less than four, that is, two in the\nlarger extensions above, and two in the shorter and lesser horns below,\nand this number may be allowed in these inferiour and exanguious\nanimals; since we may observe the articulate and latticed eyes in Flies,\nand nine in some Spiders: And in the great _Phalangium_ Spider of\n_America_, we plainly number eight.\n\nBut in sanguineous animals, quadrupeds, bipeds, or man, no such number\ncan be regularly verified, or multiplicity of eyes confirmed. And\ntherefore what hath been under this kind delivered, concerning the\nplurality, paucity or anomalous situation of eyes, is either monstrous,\nfabulous, or under things never seen includes good sense or meaning. And\nso may we receive the figment of _Argus_, who was an Hieroglyphick of\nheaven, in those centuries of eyes expressing the stars; and their\nalternate wakings, the vicissitude of day and night. Which strictly\ntaken cannot be admitted; for the subject of sleep is not the eye, but\nthe common sense, which once asleep, all eyes must be at rest. And\ntherefore what is delivered as an Embleme of vigilancy, that the Hare\nand Lion do sleep with one eye open, doth not evince they are any more\nawake then if they were both closed. For the open eye beholds in sleep\nno more then that which is closed; and no more one eye in them then two\nin other Animals that sleep with both open; as some by disease, and\nothers naturally which have no eye-lids at all.\n\n[Sidenote: _How things happen to be seen as double._]\n\nAs for Polyphemus, although the story be fabulous, the monstrosity is\nnot impossible. For the act of Vision may be performed with one eye; and\nin the deception and fallacy of sight, hath this advantage of two, that\nit beholds not objects double, or sees two things for one. For this doth\nhappen when the axis of the visive cones, diffused from the object, fall\nnot upon the same plane; but that which is conveyed into one eye, is\nmore depressed or elevated then that which enters the other. So if\nbeholding a Candle, we protrude either upward or downward the pupill of\none eye, the object will appear double; but if we shut the other eye,\nand behold it with one, it will their appear but single; and if we\nabduce the eye unto either corner, the object will not duplicate: for in\nthat position the axis of the cones remain in the same plane, as is\ndemonstrated in the opticks, and delivered by _Galen_, in his tenth _De\nusu partium_.\n\nRelations also there are of men that could make themselves invisible,\nwhich belongs not to this discourse: but may serve as notable\nexpressions of wise and prudent men, who so contrive their affairs, that\nalthough their actions be manifest, their designs are not discoverable.\nIn this acception there is nothing left of doubt, and _Giges_ Ring\nremaineth still amongst us: for vulgar eyes behold no more of wise men\nthen doth the Sun: they may discover their exteriour and outward ways,\nbut their interiour and inward pieces he only sees, that sees into their\nbeings.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n Of the Chameleon.\n\n\nConcerning the _Chameleon_ there generally passeth an opinion that it\nliveth only upon air, and is sustained by no other aliment: Thus much is\nin plain terms affirmed by _Solinus_, _Pliny_, and others, and by this\nperiphrasis is the same described by _Ovid_. All which notwithstanding,\nupon enquiry I find the assertion mainly controvertible, and very much\nto fail in the three inducements of belief.\n\nAnd first for its verity, although asserted by some, and traditionally\ndelivered by others, yet is it very questionable. For beside _\u00c6lian_,\nwho is seldom defective in these accounts; _Aristotle_ distinctly\ntreating hereof, hath made no mention of this remarkable propriety:\nwhich either suspecting its verity, or presuming its falsity, he surely\nomitted: for that he remained ignorant of this account it is not easily\nconceiveable: it being the common opinion, and generally received by all\nmen. Some have positively denied it, as _Augustinus_, _Niphus_,\n_Stob\u00e6us_, _Dalechampius_, _Fortunius Licetus_, with many more; others\nhave experimentally refuted it, as namely _Johannes Landius_, who in the\nrelation of _Scaliger_, observed a _Chameleon_ to lick up a fly from his\nbreast: But _Bellonius_ [SN: _Comment. in Ocell._ Lucan.] hath\nbeen more satisfactorily experimental, not only affirming they feed on\nFlies, Caterpillars, Beetles and other Insects, but upon exenteration he\nfound these Animals in their bellies: whereto we might also add the\nexperimental decisions of the worthy _Peireschius_ and learned _Emanuel\nVizzanius_, in that _Chameleon_ which had been often observed to drink\nwater, and delight to feed on Meal-worms. And although we have not had\nthe advantage of our own observation, yet have we received the like\nconfirmation from many ocular spectators.\n\nAs touching the verisimility or probable truth of this relation, several\nreasons there are which seem to overthrow it. For first, there are found\nin this Animal, the guts, the stomack, and other parts official unto\nnutrition; which were its aliment the empty reception of air, their\nprovisions had been superfluous. Now the wisdom of nature abhorring\nsuperfluities, and effecting nothing in vain, unto the intention of\nthese operations, respectively contriveth the Organs; and therefore\nwhere we find such Instruments, we may with strictness expect their\nactions; and where we discover them not, we may with safety conclude the\nnon-intention of their operations. So when we perceive that Bats have\nteats, it is not unreasonable to infer they suckle their younglings with\nmilk; but whereas no other flying Animal hath these parts, we cannot\nfrom them expect a viviparous exclusion; but either a generation of\neggs, or some vermiparous separation, whose navel is within it self at\nfirst, and its nutrition after not connexedly depending of its original.\n\nAgain, Nature is so far from leaving any one part without its proper\naction, that she oft-times imposeth two or three labours upon one, so\nthe Pizel in Animals is both official unto Urine and to generation, but\nthe first and primary use is generation; for some creatures enjoy that\npart which urine not. So the nostrils are useful both for respiration\nand smelling, but the principal use is smelling; for many have nostrils\nwhich have no lungs, as fishes, but none have lungs or respiration,\nwhich have not some shew, or some analogy of nostrils. [SN: _Nature\nprovides no part without its proper function or office._] Thus we\nperceive the providence of Nature, that is, the wisdom of God, which\ndisposeth of no part in vain, and some parts unto two or three uses,\nwill not provide any without the execution of its proper office, nor\nwhere there is no digestion to be made, make any parts inservient to\nthat intention.\n\nBeside the remarkable teeth, the tongue of this animal is a second\nargument to overthrow this airy nutrication: and that not only in its\nproper nature, but also its peculiar figure. For of this part properly\ntaken there are two ends; that is, the formation of the voice, and the\nexecution of tast; for the voice, it can have no office in _Chameleons_,\nfor they are mute Animals; as beside fishes, are most other sorts of\nLizards. As for their tast, if their nutriment be air, neither can it be\nan Instrument thereof; for the body of that element is ingustible, void\nof all sapidity, and without any action of the tongue, is by the rough\nartery or wezon conducted into the lungs. And therefore _Pliny_ much\nforgets the strictness of his assertion, when he alloweth excrements\nunto that Animal, that feedeth only upon Air; which notwithstanding with\nthe urine of an Ass, he commends as a magicall Medicine upon our\nenemies.\n\nThe figure of the tongue seems also to overthrow the presumption of this\naliment, which according to exact delineation, is in this Animal\npeculiar, and seemeth contrived for prey. For in so little a creature it\nis at the least a palm long, and being it self very slow in motion, hath\nin this part a very great agility; withall its food being flies and such\nas suddenly escape, it hath in the tongue a mucous and slimy extremity,\nwhereby upon a sudden emission it inviscates and tangleth those Insects.\nAnd therefore some have thought its name not unsuitable unto its nature;\nthe nomination in Greek is a little Lion [SN: \u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.]; not so much\nfor the resemblance of shape, as affinity of condition; that is for\nvigilancy in its prey, and sudden rapacity thereof, which it performeth\nnot like the Lion with its teeth, but a sudden and unexpected\nejaculation of the tongue. This exposition is favoured by some,\nespecially the old gloss upon _Leviticus_, whereby in the Translation of\n_Jerome_ and the Septuagint, this Animal is forbidden; what ever it be,\nit seems as reasonable as that of _Isidore_, who derives this name _\u00e0\nCamelo et Leone_, as presuming herein resemblance with a Camell.\n\nAs for the possibility hereof, it is not also unquestionable; and wise\nmen are of opinion, the bodies of Animals cannot receive a proper\naliment from air; for beside that tast being (as _Aristotle_ terms it) a\nkind of touch; it is required the aliment should be tangible, and fall\nunder the palpable affections of touch; beside also that there is some\nsapor in all aliments, as being to be distinguished and judged by the\ngust; which cannot be admitted in air: Beside these, I say, if we\nconsider the nature of aliment, and the proper use of air in\nrespiration, it will very hardly fall under the name hereof, or properly\nattain the act of nutrication.\n\n[Sidenote: _Requisites unto Nutrition._]\n\nAnd first concerning its nature, to make a perfect nutrition into the\nbody nourished, there is required a transmutation of the nutriment, now\nwhere this conversion or aggeneration is made, there is also required in\nthe aliment a familiarity of matter, and such a community or vicinity\nunto a living nature, as by one act of the soul may be converted into\nthe body of the living, and enjoy one common soul. Which cannot be\neffected by air, it concurring only with our flesh in common principles,\nwhich are at the largest distance from life, and common also unto\ninanimated constitutions. And therefore when it is said by _Fernelius_,\nand asserted by divers others, that we are only nourished by living\nbodies, and such as are some way proceeding from them, that is, the\nfruits, effects, parts, or seeds thereof; they have laid out an object\nvery agreeable unto assimulation; for these indeed are fit to receive a\nquick and immediate conversion, as holding some community with our\nselves, and containing approximate dispositions unto animation.\n\nSecondly, (as is argued by _Aristotle_ against the _Pythagoreans_)\nwhatsoever properly nourisheth before its assimulation, by the action of\nnatural heat it receiveth a corpulency or incrassation progressional\nunto its conversion; which notwithstanding cannot be effected upon air;\nfor the action of heat doth not condense but rarifie that body, and by\nattenuation, rather then for nutrition, disposeth it for expulsion.\n\nThirdly, (which is the argument of _Hippocrates_) all aliment received\ninto the body, must be therein a considerable space retained, and not\nimmediately expelled. Now air but momentally remaining in our bodies, it\nhath no proportionable space for its conversion; only of length enough\nto refrigerate the heart; which having once performed, lest being it\nself heated again, it should suffocate that part, it maketh no stay, but\nhasteth back the same way it passed in.\n\nFourthly, The use of air attracted by the lungs, and without which there\nis no durable continuation in life, is not the nutrition of parts, but\nthe contemperation and ventilation of that fire always maintained in the\nforge of life; whereby although in some manner it concurreth unto\nnutrition, yet can it not receive the proper name of nutriment. And\ntherefore by _Hippocrates_[SN: De Alimento.] it is termed _Alimentum\nnon Alimentum_, a nourishment and no nourishment. That is, in a large\nacception, but not in propriety of language; conserving the body, not\nnourishing the same; nor repairing it by assimulation, but preserving it\nby ventilation; for thereby the natural flame is preserved from\nextinction, and so the individuum supported in some way like nutrition.\n\nAnd though the air so entreth the Lungs, that by its nitrous Spirit doth\naffect the heart, and several ways qualifie the blood; and though it be\nalso admitted into other parts, even by the meat we chew, yet that it\naffordeth a proper nutriment alone, it is not easily made out.\n\nAgain, Some are so far from affirming the air to afford any nutriment,\nthat they plainly deny it to be any Element, or that it entreth into\nmixt bodies as any principle in their compositions, but performeth other\noffices in the Universe; as to fill all vacuities about the earth or\nbeneath it, to convey the heat of the sun, to maintain fires and flames,\nto serve for the flight of volatils, respiration of breathing Animals,\nand refrigeration of others. And although we receive it as an Element,\nyet since the transmutation of Elements and simple bodies, is not beyond\ngreat question, since also it is no easie matter to demonstrate that air\nis so much as convertible into water [SN: _Wherein Vapour is commonly\nmistaken for air._]; how transmutable it is into flesh, may be of deeper\ndoubt.\n\nAnd although the air attracted may be conceived to nourish the invisible\nflame of life, in as much as common and culinary flames are nourished by\nthe air about them; we make some doubt whether air is the pabulous\nsupply of fire, much less that flame is properly air kindled. And the\nsame before us, hath been denied by the Lord of _Verulam_, in his Tract\nof Life and Death, and also by Dr. _Jorden_ in his book of Mineral\nwaters. [SN: _What the matter of Culinary or Kitchin fire is._] For that\nwhich substantially maintaineth the fire, is the combustible matter in\nthe kindled body, and not the ambient air, which affordeth exhalation to\nits fuliginous atomes; nor that which causeth the flame properly to be\ntermed air, but rather as he expresseth it, the accension of fuliginous\nexhalations, which contain an unctuosity in them, and arise from the\nmatter of fuel, which opinion will salve many doubts, whereof the common\nconceit affordeth no solution.\n\nAs first, How fire is stricken out of flints? that is, not by kindling\nthe air from the collision of two hard bodies; for then Diamonds should\ndo the like better than Flints: but rather from sulphureous inflamed and\neven vitrified effluviums and particles, as hath been observed of late.\nThe like saith _Jorden_ we observe in canes and woods, that are unctuous\nand full of oyl, which will yield fire by frication, or collision, not\nby kindling the air about them, but the inflamable oyl within them. [SN:\n_Why fire goes out commonly wanting air, and why sometimes continued\nmany ages in flame without fuel._] Why the fire goes out without air?\nthat is, because the fuliginous exhalations wanting evaporation recoil\nupon the flame and choak it, as is evident in cupping glasses; and the\nartifice of charcoals, where if the air be altogether excluded, the fire\ngoes out. Why some lamps included in those bodies have burned many\nhundred years, as that discovered in the Sepulchre of _Tullia_, the\nsister of _Cicero_, and that of _Olibius_ many years after, near\n_Padua_? because whatever was their matter, either a preparation of\ngold, or _Naptha_, the duration proceeded from the purity of their oyl\nwhich yielded no fuliginous exhalations to suffocate the fire; For if\nair had nourished the flame, it had not continued many minutes, for it\nwould have been spent and wasted by the fire. Why a piece of flax will\nkindle, though it touch not the flame? because the fire extendeth\nfurther, then indeed it is visible, being at some distance from the\nweek, a pellucide and transparent body, and thinner then the air it\nself. Why Mettals in their liquation, although they intensly heat the\nair above their surface, arise not yet into a flame, nor kindle the air\nabout them? because their sulphur is more fixed, and they emit not\ninflamable exhalations. And lastly, why a lamp or candle burneth only in\nthe air about it, and inflameth not the air at a distance from it?\nbecause the flame extendeth not beyond the inflamable effluence, but\nclosely adheres unto the original of its inflamation; and therefore it\nonly warmeth, not kindleth the air about it. Which notwithstanding it\nwill do, if the ambient air be impregnate with subtile inflamabilities,\nand such as are of quick accension; as experiment is made in a close\nroom; upon an evaporation of spirits of wine and Camphire; as\nsubterraneous fires do sometimes happen, and as _Creusa_ and\n_Alexanders_ boy in the bath were set on fire by _Naptha_.\n\nLastly, The Element of air is so far from nourishing the body, that some\nhave questioned the power of water; many conceiving it enters not the\nbody in the power of aliment, or that from thence there proceeds a\nsubstantial supply. For beside that some creatures drink not at all;\nEven unto our selves, and more perfect Animals, though many ways\nassistent thereto, it performs no substantial nutrition, serving for\nrefrigeration, dilution of solid aliment, and its elixation in the\nstomack; which from thence as a vehicle it conveys through less\naccessible cavities, and so in a rorid substance through the capillary\ncavities, into every part; which having performed, it is afterward\nexcluded by Urine, sweat and serous separations. And this opinion surely\npossessed the Ancients; for when they so highly commended that water\nwhich is suddenly hot and cold, which is without all savour, the\nlightest, the thinnest, and which will soonest boil Beans or Pease, they\nhad no consideration of nutrition; whereunto had they had respect, they\nwould have surely commended gross and turbid streams, in whose confusion\nat least, there might be contained some nutriment; and not jejune or\nlimped water, nearer the simplicity of its Element. Although, I confess,\nour clearest waters and such as seem simple unto sense, are much\ncompounded unto reason, as may be observed in the evaporation of large\nquantities of water; wherein beside a terreous residence some salt is\nalso found, as is also observable in rain water; which appearing pure\nand empty, is full of seminal principles, and carrieth vital atomes of\nplants and Animals in it, which have not perished in the great\ncirculation of nature; as may be discovered from several Insects\ngenerated in rain water, from the prevalent fructification of plants\nthereby; and (beside the real plant of _Cornerius_ [SN: _A seed of\nplants and animals contained in rain-water._ Zibavius, _tom. 4_. Chym.])\nfrom vegetable figurations, upon the sides of glasses, so rarely\ndelineated in frosts.\n\nAll which considered, severer heads will be apt enough to conceive the\nopinion of this Animal, not much unlike that of the Astomi, or men\nwithout mouths, in _Pliny_; sutable unto the relation of the Mares in\n_Spain_, and their subventaneous conceptions, from the Western wind; and\nin some way more unreasonable then the figment of _Rabican_ the famous\nhorse in _Ariosto_, which being conceived by flame and wind, never\ntasted grass, or fed on any grosser provender then air; for this way of\nnutrition was answerable unto the principles of his generation. Which\nbeing not airy, but gross and seminal in the _Chameleon_; unto its\nconservation there is required a solid pasture, and a food congenerous\nunto the principles of its nature.\n\nThe grounds of this opinion are many; the first observed by\n_Theophrastus_, was the inflation or swelling of the body, made in this\nAnimal upon inspiration or drawing in its breath; which people\nobserving, have thought it to feed upon air. But this effect is rather\noccasioned upon the greatness of its lungs, which in this Animal are\nvery large, and by their backward situation, afford a more observable\ndilation; and though their lungs be less, the like inflation is also\nobservable in Toads, but especially in Sentortoises.\n\nA second is the continual hiation or holding open its mouth, which men\nobserving, conceive the intention thereof to receive the aliment of air;\nbut this is also occasioned by the greatness of its lungs; for repletion\nwhereof not having a sufficient or ready supply by its nostrils; it is\nenforced to dilate and hold open the jaws.\n\nThe third is the paucity of blood observed in this Animal, scarce at all\nto be found but in the eye, and about the heart; which defect being\nobserved, inclined some into thoughts, that the air was a sufficient\nmaintenance for these exanguious parts. But this defect or rather\npaucity of blood, is also agreeable unto many other Animals, whose solid\nnutriment we do not controvert; as may be observed in other sorts of\nLizards, in Frogs and divers Fishes; and therefore an Horse-leech will\nnot readily fasten upon every fish; and we do not read of much blood\nthat was drawn from Frogs by Mice, in that famous battel of _Homer_.\n\nThe last and most common ground which begat or promoted this opinion, is\nthe long continuation hereof without any visible food, which some\nobserving, precipitously conclude they eat not at all. It cannot be\ndenied it is (if not the most of any) a very abstemious Animal, and such\nas by reason of its frigidity, paucity of blood, and latitancy in the\nwinter (about which time the observations are often made) will long\nsubsist without a visible sustentation. But a like condition may be also\nobserved in many other Animals; for Lizards and Leeches, as we have made\ntrial, will live some months without sustenance; and we have included\nSnails in glasses all winter, which have returned to feed again in the\nspring. Now these notwithstanding, are not conceived to pass all their\nlives without food; for so to argue is fallacious, and is moreover\nsufficiently convicted by experience. And therefore probably other\nrelations are of the same verity, which are of the like affinity; as is\nthe conceit of the _Rhintace_ in _Persia_, the _Canis Levis_ of\n_America_, and the _Manucodiata_ or bird of Paradise in _India_.\n\nTo assign a reason of this abstinence in Animals, or declare how without\na supply there ensueth no destructive exhaustion, exceedeth the limits\nand intention of my discourse. _Fortunius Licetus_ in his excellent\nTract, _de his qui diu vivunt sine alimento_, hath very ingeniously\nattempted it; deducing the cause hereof from an equal conformity of\nnatural heat and moisture, at least no considerable exuperancy in\neither; which concurring in an unactive proportion, the natural heat\nconsumeth not the moisture (whereby ensueth no exhaustion) and the\ncondition of natural moisture is able to resist the slender action of\nheat (whereby it needeth no reparation) and this is evident in Snakes,\nLizards, Snails, and divers Insects latitant many months in the year;\nwhich being cold creatures, containing a weak heat in a crass or copious\nhumidity, do long subsist without nutrition. For the activity of the\nagent, being not able to overmaster the resistance of the patient, there\nwill ensue no deperdition. And upon the like grounds it is, that cold\nand phlegmatick bodies, and (as _Hippocrates_ determineth) that old men\nwill best endure fasting. Now the same harmony and stationary\nconstitution, as it happeneth in many species, so doth it fall out\nsometime in Individuals. For we read of many who have lived long without\naliment; and beside deceits and impostures, there may be veritable\nRelations of some, who without a miracle, and by peculiarity of temper,\nhave far out fasted _Elias_. Which notwithstanding doth not take off the\nmiracle; for that may be miraculously effected in one, which is\nnaturally causable in another. Some naturally living unto an hundred;\nunto which age, others notwithstanding could not attain without a\nmiracle.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n Of the Ostrich.\n\n\nThe common opinion of the _Ostrich_, _Struthiocamelus_ or\n_Sparrow-Camel_ conceives that it digesteth Iron; and this is confirmed\nby the affirmations of many; beside swarms of others, _Rhodiginus_ in\nhis prelections taketh it for granted, _Johannes Langius_ in his\nEpistles pleadeth experiment for it; the common picture also confirmeth\nit, which usually describeth this Animal with an horshoe in its mouth.\nNotwithstanding upon enquiry we find it very questionable, and the\nnegative seems most reasonably entertained; whose verity indeed we do\nthe rather desire, because hereby we shall relieve our ignorance of one\noccult quality; for in the list thereof it is accounted, and in that\nnotion imperiously obtruded upon us. For my part, although I have had\nthe sight of this Animal, I have not had the opportunity of its\nexperiment, but have received great occasion of doubt, from learned\ndiscourses thereon.\n\nFor _Aristotle_ and _Oppianus_ who have particularly treated hereof are\nsilent in this singularity; either omitting it as dubious, or as the\nComment saith, rejecting it as fabulous. _Pliny_ speaketh generally,\naffirming only, the digestion is wonderful in this Animal; _\u00c6lian_\ndelivereth, that it digesteth stones without any mention of Iron; _Leo\nAfricanus_, who lived in those Countries wherein they most abound,\nspeaketh diminutively, and but half way into this assertion: _Surdum ac\nsimplex animal est, quicquid invenit, absque delectu, usque ad ferrum\ndevorat_: _Fernelius_ in his second _De abditis rerum causis_,\nextenuates it, and _Riolanus_ in his Comment thereof positively denies\nit. Some have experimentally refuted it, as _Albertus Magnus_; and most\nplainly _Ulysses Aldrovandus_, whose words are these: _Ego ferri frusta\ndevorare, dum Tridenti essem, observavi, sed qu\u00e6 incocta rursus\nexcerneret_, that is, at my being at Trent, I observed the _Ostrich_ to\nswallow Iron, but yet to exclude it undigested again.\n\nNow beside experiment, it is in vain to attempt against it by\nPhilosophical argument, it being an occult quality, which contemns the\nlaw of Reason, and defends it self by admitting no reason at all. [SN:\n_How_ (_possibly_) _the stomack of the_ Ostrich _may alter Iron_.] As\nfor its possibility we shall not at present dispute; nor will we affirm\nthat Iron ingested, receiveth in the stomack of the _Ostrich_ no\nalteration at all; but if any such there be, we suspect this effect\nrather from some way of corrosion, then any of digestion; not any liquid\nreduction or tendance to chilification by the power of natural heat, but\nrather some attrition from an acide and vitriolous humidity in the\nstomack, which may absterse and shave the scorious parts thereof. So\nrusty Iron crammed down the throat of a Cock, will become terse and\nclear again in its gizzard: So the Counter which according to the\nrelation of _Amatus_ remained a whole year in the body of a youth, and\ncame out much consumed at last; might suffer this diminution, rather\nfrom sharp and acide humours, then the strength of natural heat, as he\nsupposeth. So silver swallowed and retained some time in the body, will\nturn black, as if it had been dipped in _Aqua fortis_, or some corrosive\nwater, but Lead will remain unaltered; for that mettal containeth in it\na sweet salt or sugar, whereby it resisteth ordinary corrosion, and will\nnot easily dissolve even in _Aqua fortis_. So when for medical uses, we\ntake down the filings of Iron or Steel, we must not conceive it passeth\nunaltered from us; for though the grosser parts be excluded again, yet\nare the dissoluble parts extracted, whereby it becomes effectual in\ndeopilations; and therefore for speedier operation we make extinctions,\ninfusions, and the like, whereby we extract the salt and active parts of\nthe Medicine; which being in solution, more easily enter the veins. [SN:\n_What the Chymists would have by their_ Aurum Potabile.] And this is\nthat the Chymists mainly drive at in the attempt of their _Aurum\nPotabile_; that is, to reduce that indigestible substance into such a\nform as may not be ejected by siege, but enter the cavities, and less\naccessible parts of the body, without corrosion.\n\nThe ground of this conceit is its swallowing down fragments of Iron,\nwhich men observing, by a froward illation, have therefore conceived it\ndigesteth them; which is an inference not to be admitted, as being a\nfallacy of the consequent, that is, concluding a position of the\nconsequent, from the position of the antecedent. For many things are\nswallowed by Animals, rather for condiment, gust or medicament, then any\nsubstantial nutriment. So Poultrey, and especially the Turkey, do of\nthemselves take down stones; and we have found at one time in the\ngizzard of a Turkey no less then seven hundred. Now these rather concur\nunto digestion, then are themselves digested; for we have found them\nalso in the guts and excrements; but their descent is very slow, for we\nhave given them stones and small pieces of Iron, which eighteen days\nafter we have found remaining in the gizzard. And therefore the\nexperiment of _Langius_ and others might be fallible, whilst after the\ntaking they expected it should come down within a day or two after. [SN:\n_How Cherry-stones may be thought to prevent surfets upon eating\nCherries._] Thus also we swallow Cherry-stones, but void them\nunconcocted, and we usually say they preserve us from surfet; for being\nhard bodies they conceive a strong and durable heat in the stomack, and\nso prevent the crudities of their fruit: And upon the like reason do\nculinary operators observe, that flesh boiles best, when the bones are\nboiled with it. Thus dogs will eat grass, which they digest not: Thus\nCamels to make the water sapid, do raise the mud with their feet: Thus\nhorses will knable at walls, Pigeons delight in salt stones. Rats will\ngnaw iron, and _Aristotle_ saith the Elephant swalloweth stones. And\nthus may also the _Ostrich_ swallow Iron; not as his proper aliment, but\nfor the ends above expressed, and even as we observe the like in other\nAnimals.\n\nAnd whether these fragments of Iron and hard substances swallowed by the\n_Ostrich_, have not also that use in their stomacks, which they have in\nother birds; that is, in some way to supply the use of teeth, by\ncommolition, grinding and compression of their proper aliment, upon the\naction of the strongly conformed muscles of the stomack; as the honor'd\nDr. _Harvey_ discourseth, may also be considered.\n\nWhat effect therefore may be expected from the stomack of an _Ostrich_\nby application alone to further digestion in ours, beside the\nexperimental refute of _Galen_, we refer it unto considerations above\nalledged; Or whether there be any more credit to be given unto the\nMedicine of _\u00c6lian_, who affirms the stones they swallow have a peculiar\nvertue for the eyes, then that of _Hermolaus_ and _Pliny_ drawn from the\nurine of this Animal; let them determine who can swallow so strange a\ntransmission of qualities, or believe that any Bird or flying Animal\ndoth separately and distinctly urine beside the Bat.\n\nThat therefore an _Ostrich_ will swallow and take down Iron, is easily\nto be granted: that oftimes it pass entire away, if we admit of ocular\ntestimony not to be denied. And though some experiment may also plead,\nthat sometimes they are so altered, as not to be found or excluded in\nany discernable parcels: yet whether this be not effected by some way of\ncorrosion, from sharp and dissolving humidities, rather then any proper\ndigestion, chilifactive mutation, or alimental conversion, is with good\nreason doubted.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n Of Unicorns Horn.\n\n\nGreat account and much profit is made of _Unicorns horn_, at least of\nthat which beareth the name thereof; wherein notwithstanding, many I\nperceive suspect an Imposture, and some conceive there is no such Animal\nextant. Herein therefore to draw up our determinations; beside the\nseveral places of Scripture mentioning this Animal (which some may well\ncontend to be only meant of the Rhinoceros [SN: _Some doubt to be made\nwhat_ \u05e8\u05d0\u05dd _signifieth in Scripture_.]) we are so far from denying there\nis any _Unicorn_ at all, that we affirm there are many kinds thereof. In\nthe number of Quadrupedes, we will concede no less then five; that is,\nthe _Indian_ Ox, the _Indian_ Ass, the Rhinoceros, the Oryx, and that\nwhich is more eminently termed _Monoceros_, or _Unicornis_. Some of the\nlist of fishes; as that described by _Olaus_, _Albertus_ and others: and\nsome Unicorns we will allow even among Insects; as those four kinds of\nnasicornous Beetles described by _Muffetus_.\n\nSecondly, Although we concede there may be many _Unicorns_, yet are we\nstill to seek; for whereunto to affix this Horn in question, or to\ndetermine from which thereof we receive this magnified Medicine, we have\nno assurance, or any satisfactory decision. For although we single out\none, and eminently thereto assign the name of the _Unicorn_; yet can we\nnot be secure what creature is meant thereby; what constant shape it\nholdeth, or in what number to be received. For as far as our endeavours\ndiscover, this animal is not uniformly described, but differently set\nforth by those that undertake it. [SN: _The Unicorn, how variously\nreported by Authors._] _Pliny_ affirmeth it is a fierce and terrible\ncreature; _Vartomannus_ a tame and mansuete Animal: those which _Garcias\nab Horto_ described about the cape of good hope, were beheld with heads\nlike horses; those which _Vartomannus_ beheld, he described with the\nhead of a Deer; _Pliny_, _\u00c6lian_, _Solinus_, and after these from ocular\nassurance, _Paulus Venetus_ affirmeth, the feet of the _Unicorn_ are\nundivided, and like the Elephants: But those two which _Vartomannus_\nbeheld at _Mecha_, were as he describeth, footed like a Goat. As _\u00c6lian_\ndescribeth, it is in the bigness of an Horse, as _Vartomannus_, of a\nColt; that which _Thevet_ speaketh of was not so big as an Heifer; but\n_Paulus Venetus_ affirmeth, they are but little less then Elephants.\nWhich are discriminations very material, and plainly declare, that under\nthe same name Authors describe not the same Animal: so that the\n_Unicorns_ Horn of one, is not that of another, although we proclaim an\nequal vertue in all.\n\nThirdly, Although we were agreed what Animal this was, or differed not\nin its description, yet would this also afford but little satisfaction;\nfor the Horn we commonly extol, is not the same with that of the\nAncients. For that in the description of _\u00c6lian_ and _Pliny_ was black:\nthis which is shewed amongst us is commonly white, none black; and of\nthose five which _Scaliger_ beheld, though one spadiceous, or of a light\nred, and two enclining to red, yet was there not any of this complexion\namong them.\n\nFourthly, What Horns soever they be which pass amongst us, they are not\nsurely the Horns of any one kind of Animal, but must proceed from\nseveral sorts of _Unicorns_. For some are wreathed, some not: That\nfamous one which is preserved at St. _Dennis_ near _Paris_, hath wreathy\nspires, and chocleary turnings about it, which agreeth with the\ndescription of the _Unicorns_ Horn in _\u00c6lian_. Those two in the treasure\nof St. _Mark_ are plain, and best accord with those of the _Indian_ Ass,\nor the descriptions of other _Unicorns_: That in the Repository of the\nelectour of Saxone is plain and not hollow, and is believed to be a true\nLand _Unicorns_ Horn. _Albertus Magnus_ describeth one ten foot long,\nand at the base about thirteen inches compass: And that of _Antwerp_\nwhich _Goropius Becanus_ describeth, is not much inferiour unto it;\nwhich best agree unto the descriptions of the _Sea-Unicorns_; for these,\nas _Olaus_ affirmeth, are of that strength and bigness, as able to\npenetrate the ribs of ships. The same is more probable, because it was\nbrought from Island, from whence, as _Becanus_ affirmeth, three other\nwere brought in his days: And we have heard of some which have been\nfound by the Sea-side, and brought unto us from _America_. So that while\nwe commend the _Unicorns_ Horn, and conceive it peculiar but unto one\nanimal; under apprehension of the same vertue, we use very many; and\ncommend that effect from all, which every one confineth unto some one he\nhath either seen or described.\n\nFifthly, Although there be many _Unicorns_, and consequently many Horns,\nyet many there are which bear that name, and currantly pass among us,\nwhich are no Horns at all. Such are those fragments and pieces of _Lapis\nCeratites_, commonly termed _Cornu fossile_, whereof _B\u0153tius_ had no\nless than twenty several sorts presented him for _Unicorns_ Horn. Hereof\nin subterraneous cavities, and under the earth there are many to be\nfound in several parts of _Germany_; which are but the lapidescencies\nand petrifactive mutations of hard bodies; sometimes of Horn, of teeth,\nof bones, and branches of trees, whereof there are some so imperfectly\nconverted, as to retain the odor and qualities of their originals; as he\nrelateth of pieces of Ash and Walnut. Again, in most, if not all which\npass amongst us, and are extolled for precious Horns, we discover not an\naffection common unto other Horns; that is, they mollifie not with fire,\nthey soften not upon decoction or infusion, nor will they afford a\njelly, or mucilaginous concretion in either; which notwithstanding we\nmay effect in Goats horns, Sheeps, Cows and Harts-horn, in the Horn of\nthe _Rhinoceros_, the horn of the Pristis or Sword fish. Nor do they\nbecome friable or easily powderable by Philosophical calcination, that\nis, from the vapor or steam of water, but split and rift contrary to\nothers horns. [SN: Unicorns _Horn commonly used in_ England, _what it\nis_.] Briefly, many of those commonly received, and whereof there be so\nmany fragments preserved in _England_, are not only no Horn, but a\nsubstance harder then a bone, that is, parts of the tooth of a Morse or\nSea-horse; in the midst of the solider part contained a curdled grain,\nwhich is not to be found in Ivory. This in Northern Regions is of\nfrequent use for hafts of knives or hilts of swords, and being burnt\nbecomes a good remedy for fluxes: but Antidotally used, and exposed for\n_Unicorns_ Horn, it is an insufferable delusion; and with more veniable\ndeceit, it might have been practised in Harts-horn.\n\nThe like deceit may be practised in the teeth of other Sea-animals; in\nthe teeth also of the _Hippopotamus_, or great Animal which frequenteth\nthe River _Nilus_: For we read that the same was anciently used instead\nof Ivory or Elephants tooth. Nor is it to be omitted, what hath been\nformerly suspected, but now confirmed by _Olaus Wormius_, and _Thomas\nBartholinus_ and others, that those long Horns preserved as pretious\nrarities in many places, are but the teeth of Narhwales, to be found\nabout Island, Greenland and other Northern regions; of many feet long,\ncommonly wreathed, very deeply fastned in the upper jaw, and standing\ndirectly forward, graphically described in _Bartholinus_[SN: De\nUnicornu.], according unto one sent from a Bishop of Island, not\nseparated from the crany. Hereof _Mercator_ hath taken notice in his\ndescription of Island: some relations hereof there seem to be in\n_Purchas_, who also delivereth that the Horn at _Windsor_, was in his\nsecond voyage brought hither by _Frobisher_. These before the Northern\ndiscoveries, as unknown rarities, were carried by Merchants into all\nparts of _Europe_; and though found on the Sea-shore, were sold at very\nhigh rates; but are now become more common, and probably in time will\nprove of little esteem; and the bargain of _Julius_ the third, be\naccounted a very hard one, who stuck not to give many thousand crowns\nfor one.\n\nNor is it great wonder we may be so deceived in this, being daily gulled\nin the brother Antidote Bezoar; whereof though many be false, yet one\nthere passeth amongst us of more intollerable delusion; somewhat paler\nthen the true stone, and given by women in the extremity of great\ndiseases, which notwithstanding is no stone, but seems to be the stony\nseed of some Lithospermum or greater Grumwell; or the Lobus Echinatus of\n_Clusius_, called also the Bezoar Nut; for being broken, it discovereth\na kernel of a leguminous smell and tast, bitter like a Lupine, and will\nswell and sprout if set in the ground, and therefore more serviceable\nfor issues, then dangerous and virulent diseases.\n\nSixthly, Although we were satisfied we had the _Unicorns_ Horn, yet were\nit no injury unto reason to question the efficacy thereof, or whether\nthose vertues pretended do properly belong unto it. For what we observe,\n(and it escaped not the observation of _Paulus Jovius_ many years past)\nnone of the Ancients ascribed any medicinal or antidotal vertue unto the\n_Unicorns_ Horn; and that which _\u00c6lian_ extolleth, who was the first and\nonly man of the Ancients who spake of the medical vertue of any\n_Unicorn_, was the Horn of the _Indian_ Ass; whereof, saith he, the\nPrinces of those parts make bowls and drink therein, as preservatives\nagainst Poyson, Convulsions, and the Falling-sickness. Now the\ndescription of that Horn is not agreeable unto that we commend; for\nthat (saith he) is red above, white below, and black in the middle;\nwhich is very different from ours, or any to be seen amongst us. And\nthus, though the description of the _Unicorn_ be very ancient, yet was\nthere of old no vertue ascribed unto it; and although this amongst us\nreceive the opinion of the same vertue, yet is it not the same Horn\nwhereunto the Antients ascribed it.\n\nLastly, Although we allow it an Antidotal efficacy, and such as the\nAncients commended, yet are there some vertues ascribed thereto by\nModerns not easily to be received; and it hath surely faln out in this,\nas other magnified medicines, whose operations effectual in some\ndiseases, are presently extended unto all. That some Antidotal quality\nit may have, we have no reason to deny; for since Elks Hoofs and Horns\nare magnified for Epilepsies, since not only the bone in the heart, but\nthe Horn of a Deer is Alexipharmacal, and ingredient into the confection\nof Hyacinth, and the Electuary of Maximilian; we cannot without\nprejudice except against the efficacy of this. [SN: _Expulsive of\nPoisons._] But when we affirm it is not only Antidotal to proper venoms,\nand substances destructive by qualities we cannot express; but that it\nresisteth also Sublimate, Arsenick, and poysons which kill by second\nqualities, that is, by corrosion of parts; I doubt we exceed the\nproperties of its nature, and the promises of experiment will not secure\nthe adventure. And therefore in such extremities, whether there be not\nmore probable relief from fat oyly substances, which are the open\ntyrants over salt and corrosive bodies, then precious and cordial\nmedicines which operate by secret and disputable proprieties; or whether\nhe that swallowed Lime, and drank down Mercury water, did not more\nreasonably place his cure in milk, butter or oyl, then if he had\nrecurred unto Pearl and Bezoar, common reason at all times, and\nnecessity in the like case would easily determine.\n\nSince therefore there be many _Unicorns_; since that whereto we\nappropriate a Horn is so variously described, that it seemeth either\nnever to have been seen by two persons, or not to have been one animal;\nSince though they agreed in the description of the animal, yet is not\nthe Horn we extol the same with that of the Ancients; Since what Horns\nsoever they be that pass among us, they are not the Horns of one, but\nseveral animals; Since many in common use and high esteem are no Horns\nat all; Since if there were true Horns, yet might their vertues be\nquestioned; Since though we allowed some vertues, yet were not others to\nbe received; with what security a man may rely on this remedy, the\nmistress of fools hath already instructed some, and to wisdom (which is\nnever to wise to learn) it is not too late to consider.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV\n\n That all Animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea.\n\n\nThat all Animals of the Land, are in their kind in the Sea, although\nreceived as a principle, is a tenent very questionable, and will admit\nof restraint. For some in the Sea are not to be matcht by any enquiry at\nLand, and hold those shapes which terrestrious forms approach not; as\nmay be observed in the Moon-fish, or Orthragoriscus, the several sorts\nof Raia's, Torpedo's, Oysters, and many more, and some there are in the\nLand which were never maintained to be in the Sea, as Panthers, Hy\u00e6na's,\nCamels, Sheep, Molls, and others, which carry no name in Icthyology [SN:\n_History of fishes._], nor are to be found in the exact descriptions of\n_Rondoletius_, _Gesner_, or _Aldrovandus_.\n\nAgain, Though many there be which make out their nominations, as the\nHedg-hog, Sea-serpents and others; yet are there also very many that\nbear the name of animals at Land, which hold no resemblance in corporal\nconfiguration; in which account we compute _Vulpecula_, _Canis_, _Rana_,\n_Passer_, _Cuculus_, _Asellus_, _Turdus_, _Lepus_, etc. Wherein while\nsome are called the Fox, the Dog, the Sparrow or Frog-fish: and are\nknown by common names with those at Land; yet as their describers\nattest, they receive not these appellations from a total similitude in\nfigure, but any concurrence in common accidents, in colour, condition or\nsingle conformation. As for Sea-horses which much confirm this\nassertion; in their common descriptions, they are but Crotesco\ndeliniations which fill up empty spaces in Maps, and meer pictorial\ninventions, not any Physical shapes: sutable unto those which (as\n_Pliny_ delivereth) _Praxiteles_ long ago set out in the Temple of\n_Domitius_. For that which is commonly called a Sea-horse, is properly\ncalled a Morse, and makes not out that shape. That which the Ancients\nnamed _Hippocampus_ is a little animal about six inches long, and not\npreferred beyond the classis of Insects. That which they termed\n_Hippopotamus_ an amphibious animal, about the River _Nile_, so little\nresembleth an horse, that as _Mathiolus_ observeth, in all except the\nfeet, it better makes out a swine. That which they termed a Lion, was\nbut a kind of Lobster: that which they called the Bear, was but one\nkind of Crab: and that which they named _Bos marinus_, was not as we\nconceive a fish resembling an Ox, but a Skait or Thornback, so named\nfrom its bigness, expressed by the Greek word _Bous_, which is a prefix\nof augmentation to many words in that language.\n\nAnd therefore although it be not denied that some in the water do carry\na justifiable resemblance to some at Land, yet are the major part which\nbear their names unlike; nor do they otherwise resemble the creatures on\nearth, then they on earth the constellations which pass under animal\nnames in heaven: nor the Dog fish at Sea much more make out the Dog of\nthe Land, then that his cognominal or name-sake in the heavens. Now if\nfrom a similitude in some, it be reasonable to infer a correspondence in\nall, we may draw this analogy of animals upon plants; for vegetables\nthere are which carry a near and allowable similitude unto animals. [SN:\nFab. column. de stirp. rarioribus, Orchis, Cercopithecophora,\nAnthropophora.] We might also conclude that animal shapes were generally\nmade out in minerals: for several stones there are that bear their names\nin relation to animals or their parts, as _Lapis anguinus_, _Conchites_,\n_Echinites_, _Encephalites, \u00c6gopthalmus_, and many more; as will appear\nin the Writers of Minerals, and especially in _B\u0153tius_ and\n_Aldrovandus_.\n\nMoreover if we concede, that the animals of one Element, might bear the\nnames of those in the other, yet in strict reason the watery productions\nshould have the prenomination: and they of the land rather derive their\nnames, then nominate those of the Sea. For the watery plantations were\nfirst existent, and as they enjoyed a priority in form, had also in\nnature precedent denominations: but falling not under that Nomenclature\nof _Adam_, which unto terrestrious animals assigned a name appropriate\nunto their natures: from succeeding spectators they received arbitrary\nappellations: and were respectively denominated unto creatures known at\nLand; who in themselves had independent names and not to be called after\nthem, which were created before them.\n\nLastly, By this assertion we restrain the hand of God, and abridge the\nvariety of the creation; making the creatures of one Element, but an\nacting over those of another, and conjoyning as it were the species of\nthings which stood at distance in the intellect of God; and though\nunited in the Chaos, had several seeds of their creation. For although\nin that indistinguisht mass, all things seemed one; yet separated by the\nvoice of God, according to their species, they came out in\nincommunicated varieties, and irrelative seminalities, as well as\ndivided places; and so although we say the world was made in six days,\nyet was there as it were a world in every one; that is, a distinct\ncreation of distinguisht creatures; a distinction in time of creatures\ndivided in nature, and a several approbation and survey in every one.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV\n\n Concerning the common course of Diet, in making choice\n of some Animals, and abstaining from eating others.\n\n\nWhy we confine our food unto certain Animals, and totally reject some\nothers; how these distinctions crept into several Nations; and whether\nthis practice be built upon solid reason, or chiefly supported by\ncustom or opinion; may admit consideration.\n\nFor first there is no absolute necessity to feed on any; and if we\nresist not the stream of Authority, and several diductions from holy\nScripture: there was no _Sarcophagie_ before the flood; [SN: _Eating of\nFlesh._] and without the eating of flesh, our fathers from vegetable\naliments, preserved themselves unto longer lives, then their posterity\nby any other. For whereas it is plainly said, [SN: Gen. 1. 29.] I have\ngiven you every herb which is upon the face of all the earth, and every\ntree, to you it shall be for meat; [SN: _The natural vertue of\nvegetables impaired by the deluge._] presently after the deluge, when\nthe same had destroyed or infirmed the nature of vegetables, by an\nexpression of enlargement, it is again delivered: [SN: Gen. 9. 3.] Every\nmoving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you, even as the green herb,\nhave I given you all things.\n\nAnd therefore although it be said that _Abel_ was a Shepherd, and it be\nnot readily conceived, the first men would keep sheep, except they made\nfood thereof: great Expositors will tell us, that it was partly for\ntheir skins, wherewith they were cloathed, partly for their milk,\nwhereby they were sustained; and partly for Sacrifices, which they also\noffered.\n\nAnd though it may seem improbable, that they offered flesh, yet eat not\nthereof; and _Abel_ can hardly be said to offer the firstlings of his\nflock, and the fat or acceptable part, if men used not to tast the same,\nwhereby to raise such distinctions: some will confine the eating of\nflesh unto the line of _Cain_, who extended their luxury, and confined\nnot unto the rule of God. That if at any time the line of _Seth_ eat\nflesh, it was extraordinary, and only at their sacrifices; or else (as\n_Grotius_ hinteth) if any such practice there were, it was not from the\nbeginning; but from that time when the waies of men were corrupted, and\nwhereof it is said, that the wickedness of mans heart was great; the\nmore righteous part of mankind probably conforming unto the diet\nprescribed in Paradise, and the state of innocency. [SN: _Eating\nof Flesh (probably) not so common before the flood._] And yet however\nthe practice of men conformed, this was the injunction of God, and might\nbe therefore sufficient, without the food of flesh.\n\nThat they fed not on flesh, at least the faithful party before the\nflood, may become more probable, because they refrained the same for\nsome time after. For so was it generally delivered of the golden age and\nreign of _Saturn_; which is conceived the time of _Noah_, before the\nbuilding of _Babel_. And he that considereth how agreeable this is unto\nthe traditions of the _Gentiles_; that that age was of one tongue: that\n_Saturn_ devoured all his sons but three; that he was the son of\n_Oceanus_ and _Thetis_; that a Ship was his Symbole; that he taught the\nculture of vineyards, and the art of husbandry, and was therefore\ndescribed with a sickle, may well conceive, these traditions had their\noriginal in _Noah_. Nor did this practice terminate in him, but was\ncontinued at least in many after: as (beside the _Pythagoreans_ of old,\n_Bannyans_ now in _India_, who upon single opinions refrain the food of\nflesh) ancient records do hint or plainly deliver. Although we descend\nnot so low, as that of _\u00c6sclepiades_ delivered by _Porphyrius_ [SN:\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2.], that men began to feed on flesh in the raign of\n_Pygmaleon_ brother of _Dido_, who invented several torments, to punish\nthe eaters of flesh.\n\nNor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first, but as some\nwill have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very\ngrave conjecturers, carnivorous animals now, were not flesh devourers\nthen, according to the expression of the divine provision for them. [SN:\nGen. 1. 36.] To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,\nI have given every green herb for meat, and it was so. As is also\ncollected from the store laid up in the Ark; wherein there seems to have\nbeen no fleshly provision for carnivorous Animals. For of every kind of\nunclean beast there went but two into the Ark: and therefore no stock of\nflesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.\n\nBut when ever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet\nhow they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with\nrejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the\ndistinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and\nsalveth not our practice. For no Animal is naturally unclean, or hath\nthis character in nature; and therefore whether in this distinction\nthere were not some mystical intention: [SN: _How_ Moses _might\ndistinguish beasts into clean and unclean before the flood_.] whether\n_Moses_ after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these\nso before the flood by anticipation: whether this distinction before the\nflood, were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after\nwas in regard of food: (for many were clean for food, which were unclean\nfor sacrifice) or whether the denomination were but comparative, and of\nbeasts less commodious for food, although not simply bad, is not yet\nresolved.\n\nAnd as for the same distinction in the time of _Moses_, long after the\nflood, from thence we hold no restriction, as being no rule unto Nations\nbeside the _Jews_ in dietetical consideration, or natural choice of\ndiet, they being enjoyned or prohibited certain foods upon remote and\nsecret intentions. Especially thereby to avoid community with the\nGentiles upon promiscuous commensality: or to divert them from the\nIdolatry of _Egypt_ whence they came, they were enjoyned to eat the\nGods of _Egypt_ in the food of Sheep and Oxen. Withall in this\ndistinction of Animals the consideration was hieroglyphical; in the\nbosom and inward sense implying an abstinence from certain vices\nsymbolically intimated from the nature of those animals; as may be well\nmade out in the prohibited meat of Swine, Cony, Owl, and many more.\n\nAt least the intention was not medical, or such as might oblige unto\nconformity or imitation; For some we refrain which that Law alloweth, as\nLocusts and many others; and some it prohibiteth, which are accounted\ngood meat in strict and Medical censure: as (beside many fishes which\nhave not finns and scales,) the Swine, Cony and Hare, a dainty dish with\nthe Ancients; as is delivered by _Galen_, testified by _Martial_ [SN:\nInter quadrupedes mattya prima Lepus.], as the popular opinion implied,\nthat men grew fair by the flesh thereof: by the diet of _Cato_, that is\nHare and Cabbage; and the _Jus nigrum_, or Black broath of the\n_Spartans_, which was made with the blood and bowels of an Hare.\n\nAnd if we take a view of other Nations, we shall discover that they\nrefrained many meats upon the like considerations. For in some the\nabstinence was symbolical; so _Pythagoras_ enjoyned abstinence from\nfish: that is, luxurious and dainty dishes; So according to _Herodotus_,\nsome _Egyptians_ refrained swines flesh, as an impure and sordid animal:\nwhich whoever but touched, was fain to wash himself.\n\nSome abstained superstitiously or upon religious consideration: So the\n_Syrians_ refrained Fish and Pigeons; the _Egyptians_ of old, Dogs,\nEeles and Crocodiles; though _Leo Africanus_ delivers, that many of\nlate, do eat them with good gust: and _Herodotus_ also affirmeth, that\nthe _Egyptians_ of _Elephantina_ (unto whom they were not sacred,) did\neat thereof in elder times: and Writers testify, that they are eaten at\nthis day in _India_ and _America_. And so, as _C\u00e6sar_ reports, [SN: Lib.\n3. de bello Gall.] unto the ancient _Britains_ it was piaculous to tast\na Goose, which dish at present no table is without.\n\nUnto some Nations the abstinence was political and for some civil\nadvantage: So the _Thessalians_ refrained Storks, because they destroyed\ntheir Serpents; and the like in sundry animals is observable in other\nNations.\n\nAnd under all these considerations were some animals refrained: so the\n_Jews_ abstained from swine at first symbolically, as an Emblem of\nimpurity; and not for fear of the Leprosie, as _Tacitus_ would put upon\nthem. The _Cretians_ superstitiously, upon tradition that _Jupiter_ was\nsuckled in that countrey by a Sow. Some _Egyptians_ politically, because\nthey supplyed the labour of plowing by rooting up the ground. And upon\nlike considerations perhaps the _Ph\u0153nicians_ and _Syrians_ fed not on\nthis Animal: and as _Solinus_ reports, the _Arabians_ also and\n_Indians_. A great part of mankind refraining one of the best foods, and\nsuch as _Pythagoras_ himself would eat; who, as _Aristoxenus_ records\n[SN: _Aul. Gell._ lib. 4.], refused not to feed on Pigs.\n\n[Sidenote: _Certain dishes in great request with the Ancients, not so\nmuch esteemed now._]\n\nMoreover while we single out several dishes and reject others, the\nselection seems but arbitrary, or upon opinion; for many are commended\nand cryed up in one age, which are decryed and nauseated in another.\nThus in the dayes of _Mecenas_, no flesh was preferred before young\nAsses; which notwithstanding became abominable unto succeeding\nappetites. At the table of _Heliogabalus_ the combs of Cocks were an\nesteemed service; which country stomacks will not admit at ours. The\nSumen or belly and dugs of swine with Pig, and sometimes beaten and\nbruised unto death: the womb of the same Animal, especially that was\nbarren, or else had cast her young ones, though a tough and membranous\npart, was magnified by Roman Palats; whereunto nevertheless we cannot\nperswade our stomacks. How _Alec_, _Muria_, and _Garum_, would humour\nour gust I know not; but surely few there are that could delight in\ntheir _Cyceon_; that is, the common draught of Honey, Cheese, parcht\nBarley-flower, Oyl and Wine; which notwithstanding was commended\nmixture, and in high esteem among them. We mortifie our selves with the\ndiet of fish, and think we fare coursly if we refrain from the flesh of\nother animals. But antiquity held another opinion hereof: When\n_Pythagoras_ in prevention of luxury advised, not so much as to tast on\nfish. Since the _Rhodians_ were wont to call them clowns that eat flesh:\nand since _Plato_ to evidence the temperance of the noble _Greeks_\nbefore _Troy_, observed, that it was not found they fed on fish, though\nthey lay so long near the _Hellespont_[SN: Odyss. 4\u2070.]; and was only\nobserved in the companions of _Menelaus_, that being almost starved,\nbetook themselves to fishing about _Pharos_.\n\nNor will (I fear) the attest or prescript of Philosophers and\nPhysitians, be a sufficient ground to confirm or warrant common\npractice, as is deducible from ancient Writers, from _Hippocrates_,\n_Galen_, _Simeon_, _Sethi_: and the later tracts of _Nonnus_ [SN: _Non_\nde re cibaria.] and _Castellanus_. [SN: _Cast._ de esu carnium.] So\n_Aristotle_ and _Albertus_ commend the flesh of young Hawks:\n_Galen_ [SN: _Gal._ Alim. fac. lib. 3.] when they feed on Grapes: but\ncondemneth Quails, and ranketh Geese but with Ostriches; which\nnotwithstanding, present practice and every table extolleth. Men think\nthey have fared hardly, if in times of extremity they have descended so\nlow as Dogs: but _Galen_ delivereth [SN: _Gal._ Simpl. fac. lib. 3.] were\nthe food of many Nations: and _Hippocrates_ [SN: _Hip._ de morbis de\nsuperfit.] ranketh the flesh of Whelps with that of Birds: who also\ncommends them against the Spleen, and to promote conception. The opinion\nin _Galens_ time, which _Pliny_ also followeth, deeply condemned\nHorse-flesh, and conceived the very blood thereof destructive; but no\ndiet is more common among the _Tartars_, who also drink their blood. And\nthough this may only seem an adventure of _Northern_ stomacks, yet as\n_Herodotus_ tells us, in the hotter clime of _Persia_, the same was a\nconvivial dish, and solemnly eaten at the feasts of their nativities:\nwhereat they dressed whole Horses, Camels and Asses; contemning the\nPoverty of _Grecian_ feasts, as unfurnish'd of dishes sufficient to fill\nthe bellies of their guests.\n\nAgain, While we confine our diet in several places, all things almost\nare eaten, if we take in the whole earth: for that which is refused in\none country, is accepted in another, and in the collective judgment of\nthe world, particular distinctions are overthrown. Thus were it not hard\nto shew, that Tigers, Elephants, Camels, Mice, Bats and others, are the\nfood of several countries; and _Lerius_ with others delivers, that some\n_Americans_ eat of all kinds, not refraining Toads and Serpents: and\nsome have run so high, as not to spare the flesh of man: a practise\ninexcusable, nor to be drawn into example, a diet beyond the rule and\nlargest indulgence of God.\n\nAs for the objection against beasts and birds of prey, it acquitteth not\nour practice, who observe not this distinction in fishes: nor regard the\nsame in our diet of Pikes, Perches and Eels; Nor are we excused herein,\nif we examine the stomacks of Mackerels, Cods, and Whitings. Nor is the\nfoulness of food sufficient to justifie our choice; for (beside that\ntheir natural heat is able to convert the same into laudable aliment) we\nrefuse not many whose diet is more impure then some which we reject; as\nmay be considered in hogs, ducks, puets, and many more.\n\nThus we perceive the practice of diet doth hold no certain course, nor\nsolid rule of selection or confinement; Some in an indistinct voracity\neating almost any, others out of a timorous pre-opinion, refraining very\nmany. Wherein indeed necessity, reason and Physick, are the best\ndeterminators. Surely many animals may be fed on, like many plants;\nthough not in alimental, yet medical considerations: Whereas having\nraised Antipathies by prejudgement or education, we often nauseate\nproper meats, and abhor that diet which disease or temper requireth.\n\n[Sidenote: _A problem._ ]\n\nNow whether it were not best to conform unto the simple diet of our\nfore-fathers; whether pure and simple waters were not more healthfull\nthen fermented liquors; whether there be not an ample sufficiency\nwithout all flesh, in the food of honey, oyl, and the several parts of\nmilk: in the variety of grains, pulses, and all sorts of fruits; since\neither bread or beverage may be made almost of all? whether nations have\nrightly confined unto several meats? or whether the common food of one\ncountrey be not more agreeable unto another? how indistinctly all\ntempers apply unto the same, and how the diet of youth and old age is\nconfounded: were considerations much concerning health, and might\nprolong our days, but must not this discourse.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI\n\n Of Sperma-Ceti, and the Sperma-Ceti Whale.\n\n\nWhat Sperma-Ceti is, men might justly doubt, since the learned\n_Hofmannus_ in his work of Thirty years, [SN: De medicamentis officin.]\nsaith plainly, _Nescio quid sit_. And therefore need not wonder at the\nvariety of opinions; while some conceived it to be _flos maris_, and\nmany, a bituminous substance floating upon the sea.\n\nThat it was not the spawn of the Whale, according to vulgar conceit, or\nnominal appellation Phylosophers have always doubted, not easily\nconceiving the Seminal humour of Animals, should be inflamable; or of a\nfloating nature.\n\nThat it proceedeth from a Whale, beside the relation of _Clusius_ and\nother learned observers, was indubitably determined, not many years\nsince by a Sperma-Ceti Whale, cast on our coast of _Norfolk_ [SN: _Near_\nWells.]. Which, to lead on further inquiry, we cannot omit to inform. It\ncontained no less then sixty foot in length, the head somewhat peculiar,\nwith a large prominency over the mouth; teeth only in the lower Jaw,\nreceived into fleshly sockets in the upper. The Weight of the largest\nabout two pound: No gristly substances in the mouth, commonly called\nWhale-bones; Only two short finns seated forwardly on the back; the eyes\nbut small, the pizell large, and prominent. A lesser Whale of this kind\nabove twenty years ago, was cast upon the same shore. [SN: _Near_\nHunstanton.]\n\n\nThe discription of this Whale seems omitted by _Gesner_, _Rondeletius_,\nand the first Editions of _Aldrovandus_; but describeth the latin\nimpression of _Pareus_, in the Exoticks of _Clusius_, and the natural\nhistory of _Nirembergius_; but more amply in Icons and figures of\n_Johnstonus_.\n\nMariners (who are not the best Nomenclators) called it a _Jubartas_, or\nrather _Gibbartas_. Of the same appellation we meet with one in\n_Rondeletius_, called by the _French_ Gibbar, from its round and Gibbous\nback. The name _Gibbarta_ we find also given unto one kind of\n_Greenland_ Whales: But this of ours seemed not to answer the Whale of\nthat denomination; but was more agreeable unto the _Trumpa_ or\nSperma-Ceti Whale: according to the account of our _Greenland_\ndescribers in _Purchas_. And maketh the third among the eight remarkable\nWhales of that Coast.\n\nOut of the head of this Whale, having been dead divers days, and under\nputrifaction, flowed streams of oyl and Sperma-Ceti; which was carefully\ntaken up and preserved by the Coasters. But upon breaking up, the\nMagazin of Sperma-Ceti, was found in the head lying in folds and\ncourses, in the bigness of goose eggs, encompassed with large flakie\nsubstances, as large as a mans head, in form of hony-combs, very white\nand full of oyl.\n\nSome resemblance or trace hereof there seems to be in the _Physiter_ or\n_Capidolio_ of _Rondeletius_; while he delivers, that a fatness more\nliquid then oyl, runs from the brain of that animal; which being out,\nthe Reliques are like the scales of _Sardinos_ pressed into a mass;\nwhich melting with heat, are again concreted by cold. And this many\nconceive to have been the fish which swallowed _Jonas_. Although for the\nlargeness of the mouth, and frequency in those seas, it may possibly be\nthe _Lamia_.\n\nSome part of the Sperma-Ceti found on the shore was pure, and needed\nlittle depuration; a great part mixed with fetid oyl, needing good\npreparation, and frequent expression, to bring it to a flakie\nconsistency. And not only the head, but other parts contained it. For\nthe carnous parts being roasted, the oyl dropped out, an axungious and\nthicker parts subsiding; the oyl it self contained also much in it, and\nstill after many years some is obtained from it.\n\n_Greenland_ Enquirers seldom meet with a Whale of this kind: and\ntherefore it is but a contingent Commodity, not reparable from any\nother. It flameth white and candent like Camphire, but dissolveth not in\n_aqua fortis_, like it. Some lumps containing about two ounces, kept\never since in water, afford a fresh and flosculous smell. Well prepared\nand separated from the oyl, it is of a substance unlikely to decay, and\nmay out last the oyl required in the Composition of _Mathiolus_.\n\nOf the large quantity of oyl, what first came forth by expression from\nthe Sperma-Ceti, grew very white and clear, like that of Almonds or Ben.\nWhat came by decoction was red. It was found to spend much in the\nvessels which contained it: It freezeth or coagulateth quickly with\ncold, and the newer soonest. It seems different from the oyl of any\nother animal, and very much frustrated the expectation of our\nsoap-boylers, as not incorporating or mingling with their lyes. But it\nmixeth well with painting Colours, though hardly drieth at all. Combers\nof wooll made use hereof, and Country people for cuts, aches and hard\ntumors. It may prove of good Medical use; and serve for a ground in\ncompounded oyls and Balsams. Distilled, it affords a strong oyl, with a\nquick and piercing water. Upon Evaporation it gives a balsame, which is\nbetter performed with Turpentine distilled with Sperma-Ceti.\n\nHad the abominable scent permitted, enquiry had been made into that\nstrange composure of the head, and hillock of flesh about it. Since the\nWork-men affirmed, they met with _Sperma-Ceti_ before they came to the\nbone, and the head yet preserved, seems to confirm the same. The\nSphincters inserving unto the Fistula or spout, might have been\nexamined, since they are so notably contrived in other cetaceous\nAnimals; as also the Larynx or Throtle, whether answerable unto that of\nDolphins and Porposes in the strange composure and figure which it\nmaketh. What figure the stomack maintained in this Animal of one jaw of\nteeth, since in Porposes, which abound in both, the ventricle is trebly\ndivided, and since in that formerly taken nothing was found but Weeds\nand a Loligo. The heart, lungs, and kidneys had not escaped; wherein are\nremarkable differences from Animals of the land, likewise what humor the\nbladder contained, but especially the seminal parts, which might have\ndetermined the difference of that humour; from this which beareth its\nname.\n\nIn vain it was to rake for Ambergreece in the panch of this _Leviathan_,\nas _Greenland_ discoverers, and attests of experience dictate, that they\nsometimes swallow great lumps thereof in the Sea; insufferable fetour\ndenying that enquiry. And yet if, as _Paracelsus_ encourageth, Ordure\nmakes the best Musk, and from the most fetid substances may be drawn the\nmost odoriferous Essences; all that had not _Vespasians_ Nose [SN: Cui\ndulcis odor lucri ex re qualibet.], might boldly swear, here was a\nsubject fit for such extractions.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII\n\n Compendiously of sundry Tenents concerning\n other Animals, which examined, prove\n either false or dubious.\n\n\n1. And first from great Antiquity, and before the Melody of _Syrens_,\nthe Musical note of Swans hath been commended, and that they sing most\nsweetly before their death. For thus we read in _Plato_, that from the\nopinion of _Metempsuchosis_, or transmigration of the souls of men into\nthe bodies of beasts most sutable unto their humane condition, after his\ndeath, _Orpheus_ the Musician became a Swan. Thus was it the bird of\n_Apollo_ the god of Musick by the _Greeks_; and an Hieroglyphick of\nmusick among the _Egyptians_, from whom the _Greeks_ derived the\nconception; hath been the affirmation of many Latines, and hath not\nwanted assertors almost from every Nation.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of swans, and their singing before death._]\n\nAll which notwithstanding, we find this relation doubtfully received by\n_\u00c6lian_, as an hear-say account by _Bellonius_, as a false one by\n_Pliny_, expresly refuted by _Myndius_ in _Athen\u00e6us_; and severely\nrejected by _Scaliger_; whose words unto _Cardan_ are these: _De Cygni\nvero cantu suavissimo quem cum parente mendaciorum Gr\u00e6cia jactare ausus\nest, ad Luciani tribunal, apud quem novi aliquid dicas, statuo._ Authors\nalso that countenance it, speak not satisfactorily of it. Some affirming\nthey sing not till they die; some that they sing, yet die not. Some\nspeak generally, as though this note were in all; some but particularly,\nas though it were only in some; some in places remote, and where we can\nhave no trial of it; others in places where every experience can refute\nit; as _Aldrovandus_ upon relation delivered, concerning the Musick of\nthe Swans on the river of _Thames_ near _London_.\n\n[Sidenote: _The figuration to be found in Elks, and not in common\nSwans._]\n\nNow that which countenanceth, and probably confirmeth this opinion, is\nthe strange and unusual conformation of the wind pipe, or vocal organ in\nthis animal; observed first by _Aldrovandus_, and conceived by some\ncontrived for this intention. For in its length it far exceedeth the\ngullet; and hath in the chest a sinuous revolution, that is, when it\nariseth from the lungs, it ascendeth not directly unto the throat, but\ndescending first into a capsulary reception of the breast bone; by a\nSerpentine and Trumpet recurvation it ascendeth again into the neck; and\nso by the length thereof a great quantity of air is received, and by the\nfigure thereof a Musical modulation effected. But to speak\nindifferently, this formation of the Weazon, is not peculiar unto the\nSwan, but common also unto the Platea or Shovelard, a bird of no Musical\nthroat; And as _Aldrovandus_ confesseth, may thus be contrived in the\nSwan to contain a larger stock of air, whereby being to feed on weeds at\nthe bottom, they might the longer space detain their heads under water.\nBut were this formation peculiar, or had they unto this effect an\nadvantage from this part: yet have they a known and open disadvantage\nfrom another; that is, a flat bill. For no Latirostrous animal (whereof\nnevertheless there are no slender numbers) were ever commended for there\nnote, or accounted among those animals which have been instructed to\nspeak.\n\nWhen therefore we consider the dissention of Authors, the falsity of\nrelations, the indisposition of the Organs, and the immusical note of\nall we ever beheld or heard of; if generally taken and comprehending all\nSwans, or of all places, we cannot assent thereto. Surely he that is\nbit with a Tarantula, shall never be cured by this Musick; and with the\nsame hopes we expect to hear the harmony of the Spheres.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of the Peacock._]\n\n2. That there is a special propriety in the flesh of Peacocks, roast or\nboiled, to preserve a long time incorrupted, hath been the assertion of\nmany; stands yet confirmed by _Austin_, _De Civitate Dei_; by _Gygas\nSempronius_, in _Aldrovandus_; and the same experiment we can confirm\nour selves, in the brawn or fleshly parts of Peacoks so hanged up with\nthred, that they touch no place whereby to contract a moisture; and\nhereof we have made trial both in summer and winter. The reason, some, I\nperceive, attempt to make out from the siccity and driness of its flesh,\nand some are content to rest in a secret propriety thereof. As for the\nsiccity of the flesh, it is more remarkable in other animals, as Eagles,\nHawks, and birds of prey; That it is a propriety or agreeable unto none\nother, we cannot with reason admit: for the same preservation, or rather\nincorruption we have observed in the flesh of Turkeys, Capons, Hares,\nPartridge, Venison, suspended freely in the air, and after a year and a\nhalf, dogs have not refused to eat them.\n\nAs for the other conceit, that a Peacok is ashamed when he looks on his\nlegs, as is commonly held, and also delivered by _Cardan_; beside what\nhath been said against it by _Scaliger_; let them believe that hold\nspecificial deformities; or that any part can seem unhandsome to their\neyes, which hath appeared good and beautiful unto their makers. The\noccasion of this conceit, might first arise from a common observation,\nthat when they are in their pride, that is, advance their train, if they\ndecline their neck to the ground, they presently demit, and let fall the\nsame: which indeed they cannot otherwise do; for contracting their\nbody, and being forced to draw in their foreparts to establish the\nhinder in the elevation of the train; if the foreparts depart and\nincline to the ground, the hinder grow too weak, and suffer the train to\nfall. And the same in some degree is also observable in Turkeys.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of the Stork._]\n\n3. That Storks are to be found, and will only live in Republikes or free\nStates, is a petty conceit to advance the opinion of popular policies,\nand from Antipathies in nature, to disparage Monarchical government. But\nhow far agreeable unto truth, let them consider who read in _Pliny_,\nthat among the _Thessalians_ who were governed by Kings, and much\nabounded with Serpents, it was no less then capital to kill a Stork.\nThat the Ancient _Egyptians_ honoured them, whose government was from\nall times Monarchical. That _Bellonius_ affirmeth, men make them nests\nin _France_. That relations make them common in _Persia_, and the\ndominions of the great _Turk_. And lastly, how _Jeremy_ the Prophet\ndelivered himself [SN: Ier. 8. 7.] unto his countreymen, whose\ngovernment was at that time Monarchical. The Stork in the heaven knowing\nher appointed time, the Turtle, Crane and Swallow observe the time of\ntheir coming, but my people know not the judgment of the Lord. Wherein\nto exprobate their stupidity, he induceth the providence of Storks. Now\nif the bird had been unknown, the illustration had been obscure, and the\nexprobation not so proper.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of the Bittor._]\n\n4. That a Bittor maketh that mugient noise, or as we term it Bumping, by\nputting its bill into a reed as most believe, or as _Bellonius_ and\n_Aldrovandus_ conceive, by putting the same in water or mud, and after a\nwhile retaining the air by suddenly excluding it again, is not so easily\nmade out. For my own part, though after diligent enquiry, I could never\nbehold them in this motion; Notwithstanding by others whose\nobservations we have expressly requested, we are informed, that some\nhave beheld them making this noise on the shore, their bills being far\nenough removed from reed or water; that is, first strongly attracting\nthe air, and unto a manifest distention of the neck, and presently after\nwith great contention and violence excluding the same again. As for what\nothers affirm of putting their bill in water or mud, it is also hard to\nmake out. For what may be observed from any that walketh the Fens, there\nis little intermission, nor any observable pawse, between the drawing in\nand sending forth of their breath. And the expiration or breathing forth\ndoth not only produce a noise, but the inspiration or hailing in of the\nair, affordeth a sound that may be heard almost a flight-shot.\n\nNow the reason of this strange and peculiar noise, is deduced from the\nconformation of the wind-pipe, which in this bird is different from\nother volatiles. For at the upper extream it hath no fit Larinx, or\nthrottle to qualify the sound, and at the other end, by two branches\nderiveth it self into the lungs. Which division consisteth only of\nSemicircular fibers, and such as attain but half way round the part; By\nwhich formation they are dilatable into larger capacities, and are able\nto contain a fuller proportion of air; which being with violence sent up\nthe weazon, and finding no resistance by the Larinx, it issueth forth in\na sound like that from caverns, and such as sometimes subterraneous\neruptions, from hollow rocks afford. As _Aristotle_ observeth in a\nProblem, [SN: _Sect. 15._] and is observable in pitchers, bottles, and\nthat instrument which _Aponensis_ upon that Problem describeth,\nwherewith in _Aristotles_ time Gardiners affrighted birds.\n\nWhether the large perforations of the extremities of the weazon, in the\n_abdomen_, admitting large quantity of ayr within the cavity of its\nmembrans, as it doth in Frogs; may not much assist this mugiency or\nboation, may also be considered. For such as have beheld them making\nthis noise out of the water, observe a large distention in their bodies;\nand their ordinary note is but like that of a Raven.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of Whelps._]\n\n5. That whelps are blind nine days and then begin to see, is the common\nopinion of all, and some will be apt enough to descend unto oaths upon\nit. But this I find not answerable unto experience, for upon a strict\nobservation of many, I have scarce found any that see the ninth day, few\nbefore the twelfth, and the eyes of some not open before the fourteenth\nday. And this is agreeable unto the determination of _Aristotle_: who\ncomputeth the time of their anopsie or non-vision by that of their\ngestation. For some, saith he, do go with their young the sixt part of a\nyear, two days over or under, that is, about sixty days or nine weeks;\nand the whelps of these see not till twelve days. Some go the fifth part\nof a year, that is, seventy-one days, and these, saith he, see not\nbefore the fourteenth day. Others do go the fourth part of the year,\nthat is, three whole months, and these, saith he, are without sight no\nless then seventeen days. Wherein although the accounts be different,\nyet doth the least thereof exceed the term of nine days, which is so\ngenerally received. And this compute of _Aristotle_ doth generally\noverthrow the common cause alleadged for this effect, that is, a\nprecipitation or over-hasty exclusion before the birth be perfect,\naccording unto the vulgar Adage, _Festinans canis c\u00e6cos parit catulos_:\nfor herein the whelps of longest gestation, are also the latest in\nvision. The manner hereof is this. At the first littering, their eyes\nare fastly closed, that is, by coalition or joining together of the\neyelids, and so continue untill about the twelfth day; at which time\nthey begin to separate, and may be easily divelled or parted asunder;\nthey open at the inward Canthis or greater Angle of the eye, and so by\ndegrees dilate themselves quite open. An effect very strange, and the\ncause of much obscurity, wherein as yet mens enquiries are blind, and\nsatisfaction not easily acquirable. What ever it be, thus much may we\nobserve, those animals are only excluded without sight, which are\nmultiparous and multifidous, that is, which have many at a litter, and\nhave also their feet divided into many portions. For the Swine, although\nmultiparous, yet being bisulcous, and only cloven hoofed, is not\nexcluded in this manner, but farrowed with open eyes, as other bisulcous\nanimals.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of a Toad and a Spider._]\n\n6. The Antipathy between a Toad and a Spider, and that they poisonously\ndestroy each other, is very famous, and solemn stories have been written\nof their combats; wherein most commonly the victory is given unto the\nSpider. Of what Toads and Spiders it is to be understood would be\nconsidered. For the Phalangium and deadly Spiders, are different from\nthose we generally behold in _England_. However the verity hereof, as\nalso of many others, we cannot but desire; for hereby we might be surely\nprovided of proper Antidotes in cases which require them; But what we\nhave observed herein, we cannot in reason conceal; who having in a Glass\nincluded a Toad with several Spiders, we beheld the Spiders without\nresistance to sit upon his head and pass over all his body; which at\nlast upon advantage he swallowed down, and that in few hours, unto the\nnumber of seven. And in the like manner will Toads also serve Bees, and\nare accounted enemies unto their Hives.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of a Lion and a Cock._]\n\n7. Whether a Lion be also afraid of a Cock, as is related by many, and\nbelieved by most, were very easie in some places to make trial. Although\nhow far they stand in fear of that animal, we may sufficiently\nunderstand, from what is delivered by _Camerarius_, whose words in his\nSymbola are these: _Nostris temporibus in Aula serenissimi Principis\nBavari\u00e6, unus ex Leonibus miris saltibus in vicinam cujusdam domus aream\nsese dimisit, ubi Gallinaceorum cantum aut clamores nihil reformidans,\nipsos un\u00e0 cum plurimis gallinis devoravit._ That is, In our time in the\nCourt of the Prince of _Bavaria_, one of the Lions leaped down into a\nNeighbours yard, where nothing regarding the crowing or noise of the\nCocks, he eat them up with many other Hens. And therefore a very unsafe\ndefensative it is against the fury of this animal (and surely no better\nthen Virginity or bloud Royal) which _Pliny_[SN: De sacrificiis et\nmagia.] doth place in Cock broth: For herewith, saith he, whoever is\nanointed (especially if Garlick be boiled therein) no Lion or Panther\nwill touch him. But of an higher nature it were, and more exalted\nAntipathy, if that were certain which _Proclus_ delivers, that solary\n_D\u00e6mons_, and such as appear in the shape of Lions, will disappear and\nvanish, if a Cock be presented upon them.\n\n8. It is generally conceived, an Ear-wig hath no Wings, and is reckoned\namongst impennous insects by many; but he that shall narrowly observe\nthem, or shall with a needle put aside the short and sheathy cases on\ntheir back, may extend and draw forth two wings of a proportionable\nlength for flight, and larger then in many flies. The experiment of\n_Pennius_ is yet more perfect, who with a Rush or Bristle so pricked\nthem as to make them flie.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of Worms._]\n\n9. That Worms are exanguious Animals, and such as have no bloud at all,\nis the determination of Philosophy, the general opinion of Scholars, and\nI know not well to dissent from thence my self. If so, surely we want a\nproper term whereby to express that humour in them which so strictly\nresembleth bloud: and we refer it unto the discernment of others what to\ndetermine of that red and sanguineous humor, found more plentifully\nabout the Torquis or carneous Circle of great Worms in the Spring,\naffording in Linnen or Paper an indiscernable tincture from bloud. Or\nwherein that differeth from a vein, which in an apparent blew runneth\nalong the body, and if dexterously pricked with a lancet, emitteth a red\ndrop, which pricked on either side it will not readily afford.\n\nIn the upper parts of Worms, there are likewise found certain white and\noval Glandulosities, which Authors term Eggs, and in magnifying Glasses,\nthey also represent them; how properly, may also be enquired; since if\nin them there be distinction of Sexes, these Eggs are to be found in\nboth. For in that which is presumed to be their coition, that is, their\nusual complication, or lateral adhesion above the ground, dividing\nsuddenly with two Knives the adhering parts of both, I have found these\nEggs in either.\n\n10. That Flies, Bees, etc. do make that noise or humming sound by their\nmouth, or as many believe with their wings only, would be more warily\nasserted, if we consulted the determination of _Aristotle_, who as in\nsundry other places, so more expresly in his book of respiration,\naffirmeth this sound to be made by the illision of an inward spirit upon\na pellicle or little membrane about the precinct or pectoral division\nof their body. If we also consider that a Bee or Flie, so it be able to\nmove the body, will buz, though its head be off; that it will do the\nlike if deprived of wings, reserving the head, whereby the body may be\nthe better moved. And that some also which are big and lively will hum\nwithout either head or wing.\n\nNor is it only the beating upon this little membrane, by the inward and\ncon-natural spirit as _Aristotle_ determines, or the outward air as\n_Scaliger_ conceiveth, which affordeth this humming noise, but most of\nthe other parts may also concur hereto; as will be manifest, if while\nthey hum we lay our finger on the back or other parts; for thereupon\nwill be felt a serrous or jarring motion like that which happeneth while\nwe blow on the teeth of a comb through paper; and so if the head or\nother parts of the trunk be touched with oyl, the sound will be much\nimpaired, if not destroyed: for those being also dry and membranous\nparts, by attrition of the spirit do help to advance the noise: And\ntherefore also the sound is strongest in dry weather, and very weak in\nrainy season, and toward winter; for then the air is moist, and the\ninward spirit growing weak, makes a languid and dumb allision upon the\nparts.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of a Tainct._]\n\n11. There is found in the Summer a kind of Spider called a Tainct, of a\nred colour, and so little of body that ten of the largest will hardly\noutway a grain; this by Country people is accounted a deadly poison unto\nCows and Horses; who, if they suddenly die, and swell thereon, ascribe\ntheir death hereto, and will commonly say, they have licked a Tainct.\nNow to satisfie the doubts of men we have called this tradition unto\nexperiment; we have given hereof unto Dogs, Chickens, Calves and\nHorses, and not in the singular number; yet never could find the least\ndisturbance ensue. There must be therefore other causes enquired of the\nsudden death and swelling of cattle; and perhaps this insect is\nmistaken, and unjustly accused for some other. For some there are which\nfrom elder times have been observed pernicious unto cattle, as the\nBuprestis or Burstcow, the Pityocampe or Eruca Pinuum, by _Dioscorides,\nGalen_ and _\u00c6tius_, the Staphilinus described by _Aristotle_ and others,\nor those red Phalangious Spiders like Cantharides mentioned by\n_Muffetas_. Now although the animal may be mistaken and the opinion also\nfalse, yet in the ground and reason which makes men most to doubt the\nverity hereof, there may be truth enough, that is, the inconsiderable\nquantity of this insect. For that a poison cannot destroy in so small a\nbulk, we have no reason to affirm. For if, as _Leo Africanus_ reporteth,\nthe tenth part of a grain of the poison of _Nubia_[SN: granum Nubi\u00e6.],\nwill dispatch a man in two hours; if the bite of a Viper and sting of a\nScorpion, is not conceived to impart so much; if the bite of an Asp will\nkill within an hour, yet the impression scarce visible, and the poison\ncommunicated not ponderable; we cannot as impossible reject this way of\ndestruction; or deny the power of death in so narrow a circumscription.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of the Glow-worm_.]\n\n12. Wondrous things are promised from the Glow-worm; from thence\nperpetual lights are pretended, and waters said to be distilled which\nafford a lustre in the night; and this is asserted by _Cardan, Albertus,\nGaudentinus, Mizaldus_, and many more. But hereto we cannot with reason\nassent: for the light made by this animal depends much upon its life.\nFor when they are dead they shine not, nor alwaies while they live; but\nare obscure or light, according to the protrusion of their luminous\nparts, as observation will instruct us. For this flammeous light is not\nover all the body, but only visible on the inward side; in a small white\npart near the tail. When this is full and seemeth protruded, there\nariseth a flame of a circular figure and Emerald green colour; which is\ndiscernable in any dark place in the day; but when it falleth and\nseemeth contracted, the light disappeareth, and the colour of the part\nonly remaineth. Now this light, as it appeareth and disappeareth in\ntheir life, so doth it go quite out at their death. As we have observed\nin some, which preserved in fresh grass have lived and shined eighteen\ndays; but as they declined, and the luminous humor dryed, their light\ngrew languid, and at last went out with their lives. Thus also the\n_Torpedo_, which alive hath a power to stupifie at a distance, hath none\nupon contaction being dead, as _Galen_ and _Rondeletius_ particularly\nexperimented. And this hath also disappointed the mischief of those\nintentions, which study the advancement of poisons; and fancy\ndestructive compositions from Asps or Vipers teeth, from Scorpions or\nHornet stings. For these omit their efficacy in the death of the\nindividual, and act but dependantly on their forms. And thus far also\nthose Philosophers concur with us, which held the Sun and Stars were\nliving creatures, for they conceived their lustre depended on their\nlives; but if they ever died, their light must also perish.\n\nIt were a Notable piece of Art to translate the light from the\n_Bononian_ Stone into another Body; he that would attempt to make a\nshining Water from _Glow-worms_, must make trial when the Splendent part\nis fresh and turgid. For even from the great _American Glow-worms_, and\nFlaming _Flies_, the light declineth as the luminous humor dryeth.\n\nNow whether the light of animals, which do not occasionally shine from\ncontingent causes, be of Kin unto the light of Heaven; whether the\ninvisible flame of life received in a convenient matter, may not become\nvisible, and the diffused \u00e6therial light make little Stars by\nconglobation in idoneous parts of the compositum: whether also it may\nnot have some original in the seed and spirit analogous unto the Element\nof Stars, whereof some glympse is observable in the little refulgent\nhumor, at the first attempts of formation: Philosophy may yet enquire.\n\nTrue it is, that a Glow-worm will afford a faint light, almost a days\nspace when many will conceive it dead; but this is a mistake in the\ncompute of death, and term of disanimation; for indeed, it is not then\ndead, but if it be distended will slowly contract it self again, which\nwhen it cannot do, it ceaseth to shine any more. And to speak strictly,\nit is no easie matter to determine the point of death in Insects and\nCreatures who have not their vitalities radically confined unto one\npart; for they are not dead when they cease to move or afford the\nvisible evidences of life; as may be observed in Flies, who when they\nappear even desperate and quite forsaken of their forms; by vertue of\nthe Sun or warm ashes will be revoked unto life, and perform its\nfunctions again.\n\nNow whether this lustre, a while remaining after death, dependeth not\nstill upon the first impression, and light communicated or raised from\nan inward spirit, subsisting a while in a moist and apt recipient, nor\nlong continuing in this, or the more remarkable _Indian_ Glow-worm; or\nwhether it be of another Nature, and proceedeth from different causes\nof illumination; yet since it confessedly subsisteth so little a while\nafter their lives, how to make perpetual lights, and sublunary moons\nthereof as is pretended, we rationally doubt, though not so sharply\ndeny, with _Scaliger_ and _Muffetus_.\n\n13. The wisdom of the Pismire is magnified by all, and in the\nPanegyricks of their providence we alwaies meet with this, that to\nprevent the growth of Corn which they store up, they bite off the end\nthereof: And some have conceived that from hence they have their name in\nHebrew [SN: Nemalah \u00e0 Namal circumcidit.]: From whence ariseth a conceit\nthat Corn will not grow if the extreams be cut or broken. But herein we\nfind no security to prevent its germination; as having made trial in\ngrains, whose ends cut off have notwithstanding suddenly sprouted, and\naccordingly to the Law of their kinds; that is, the roots of barley and\noats at contrary ends, of wheat and rye at the same. And therefore some\nhave delivered that after rainy weather they dry these grains in the\nSun; which if effectual, we must conceive to be made in a high degree\nand above the progression of Malt; for that Malt will grow, this year\nhath informed us, and that unto a perfect ear.\n\n[Sidenote: _A natural vicissitude of generation in Homogeneous things._]\n\nAnd if that be true which is delivered by many, and we shall further\nexperiment, that a decoction of Toad-stools if poured upon earth, will\nproduce the same again: If Sow-thistles will abound in places manured\nwith dung of Hogs, which feeds much upon that plant: If Horse-dung\nreproduceth oats: If winds and rains will transport the seminals of\nplants; it will not be easie to determine where the power of generation\nceaseth. The forms of things may lie deeper then we conceive them;\nseminal principles may not be dead in the divided atoms of plants: but\nwandering in the ocean of nature, when they hit upon proportionable\nmaterials, may unite, and return to their visible selves again.\n\nBut the prudence of this Animal is by knawing, piercing, or otherwise,\nto destroy the little nebbe or principle of germination. Which\nnotwithstanding is not easily discoverable; it being no ready business\nto meet with such grains in Ant-hils; and he must dig deep, that will\nseek them in the Winter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVIII\n\n Of some others.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Of the Chicken._]\n\nThat a Chicken is formed out of the yelk of the Egg, was the opinion of\nsome Ancient Philosophers. Whether it be not the nutriment of the\nPullet, may also be considered: Since umbilical vessels are carried unto\nit: Since much of the yelk remaineth after the Chicken is formed: Since\nin a Chicken newly hatched, the stomack is tincted yellow, and the belly\nfull of yelk, which is drawn in at the navel or vessels towards the\nvent, as may be discerned in Chickens within a day or two before\nexclusion.\n\nWhether the Chicken be made out of the white, or that be not also its\naliment, is likewise very questionable: Since an umbilical vessel is\nderived unto it: Since after the formation and perfect shape of the\nChicken, much of the white remaineth.\n\nWhether it be not made out of the grando, gallature, germ or tred of the\nEgg, as, _Aquapendente_ informeth us, seemed to many of doubt: for at\nthe blunter end it is not discovered after the Chicken is formed; by\nthis also the yelk and white are continued, whereby it may conveniently\nreceive its nutriment from them both.\n\nNow that from such slender materials, nature should effect this\nproduction it is no more then is observed in other animals; and even in\ngrains and kernels, the greatest part is but the nutriment of that\ngenerative particle, so disproportionable unto it.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of Eggs._]\n\nA greater difficulty in the doctrine of Eggs, is, how the sperm of the\nCock prolificates and makes the oval conception fruitful, or how it\nattaineth unto every Egg, since the vitellary or place of the yelk is\nvery high: Since the ovary or part where the white involveth it, is in\nthe second region of the matrix, which is somewhat long and inverted:\nSince also a Cock will in one day fertilate the whole racemation or\ncluster of Eggs, which are not excluded in many weeks after.\n\nBut these at last, and how in the Cicatricula or little pale circle\nformation first beginneth, how the Grando or tredle, are but the poles\nand establishing particles of the tender membrans, firmly conserving the\nfloating parts, in their proper places, with many other observables,\nthat ocular Philosopher, and singular discloser of truth, Dr. _Harvey_\nhath discovered, in that excellent discourse of Generation; So strongly\nerected upon the two great pillars of truth, experience and solid\nreason.\n\nThat the sex is discernable from the figure of Eggs, or that Cocks or\nHens proceed from long or round ones, as many contend, experiment will\neasily frustrate.\n\nThe _\u00c6gyptians_ observed a better way to hatch their Eggs in Ovens, then\nthe _Babylonians_ to roast them at the bottom of a sling, by swinging\nthem round about, till heat from motion had concocted them; for that\nconfuseth all parts without any such effect.\n\nThough slight distinction be made between boiled and roasted Eggs, yet\nis there no slender difference, for the one is much drier then the\nother: the Egg expiring less in the elixation or boiling; whereas in the\nassation or roasting, it will sometimes abate a dragm; that is,\nthreescore grains in weight. So a new laid Egg will not so easily be\nboiled hard, because it contains a greater stock of humid parts; which\nmust be evaporated, before the heat can bring the inexhalable parts into\nconsistence.\n\nWhy the Hen hatcheth not the Egg in her belly, or maketh not at least\nsome rudiment thereof within her self, by the natural heat of inward\nparts, since the same is performed by incubation from an outward warmth\nafter? Why the Egg is thinner at one extream? Why there is some cavity\nor emptiness at the blunter end? Why we open them at that part? Why the\ngreater end is first excluded? Why some Eggs are all red, as the\nKestrils; some only red at one end, as those of Kites and Buzzards? why\nsome Eggs are not Oval but Round, as those of fishes? etc. are problems,\nwhose decisions would too much enlarge this discourse.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of Snakes, etc._]\n\nThat Snakes and Vipers do sting or transmit their mischief by the tail,\nis a common expression not easily to be justified; and a determination\nof their venoms unto a part, wherein we could never find it; the poison\nlying about the teeth, and communicated by bite, in such are\ndestructive. And therefore when biting Serpents are mentioned in the\nScripture, they are not differentially set down from such as mischief\nby stings; nor can conclusions be made conformable to this opinion,\nbecause when the Rod of _Moses_ was turned into a Serpent, God\ndeterminately commanded him to take up the same by the tail.\n\nNor are all Snakes of such empoisoning qualities, as common opinion\npresumeth; as is confirmable from the ordinary green Snake with us, from\nseveral histories of domestick Snakes, from Ophiophagous nations, and\nsuch as feed upon Serpents.\n\nSurely the destructive delusion of Satan in this shape, hath much\nenlarged the opinion of their mischief. Which notwithstanding was not so\nhigh with the heathens, in whom the Devil had wrought a better opinion\nof this animal, it being sacred unto the _Egyptians_, _Greeks_ and\n_Romans_, and the common symbole of sanity. In the shape whereof\n_\u00c6sculapius_ the God of health appeared unto the _Romans_, accompanied\ntheir Embassadors to _Rome_ from _Epidaurus_; and the same did stand in\nthe _Tiberine_ Isle upon the Temple of _\u00c6sculapius_.\n\nSome doubt many have of the Tarantula, or poisonous Spider of\n_Calabria_, and that magical cure of the bite thereof by Musick. But\nsince we observe that many attest it from experience: Since the learned\n_Kircherius_ hath positively averred it, and set down the songs and\ntunes solemnly used for it; Since some also affirm the Tarantula it self\nwill dance upon certain stroaks, whereby they set their instruments\nagainst its poison; we shall not at all question it.\n\nMuch wonder is made of the Boramez, that strange plant-animal or\nvegetable Lamb of _Tartary_, which Wolves delight to feed on, which hath\nthe shape of a Lamb, affordeth a bloody juyce upon breaking, and liveth\nwhile the plants be consumed about it. And yet if all this be no more,\nthen the shape of a Lamb in the flower or seed, upon the top of the\nstalk, as we meet with the forms of Bees, Flies and Dogs in some others;\nhe hath seen nothing that shall much wonder at it.\n\nIt may seem too hard to question the swiftness of Tigers, which hath\ntherefore given names unto Horses, Ships and Rivers, nor can we deny\nwhat all have thus affirmed; yet cannot but observe, that _Jacobus\nBontius_ late Physitian at _Java_ in the East _Indies_, as an ocular and\nfrequent witness is not afraid to deny it; to condemn _Pliny_ who\naffirmeth it, and that indeed it is but a slow and tardigradous animal,\npreying upon advantage, and otherwise may be escaped.\n\nMany more there are whose serious enquiries we must request of others,\nand shall only awake considerations, Whether that common opinion that\nSnakes do breed out of the back or spinal marrow of man, doth build upon\nany constant root or seed in nature; or did not arise from contingent\ngeneration, in some single bodies remembred by _Pliny_ or others, and\nmight be paralleld since in living corruptions of the guts and other\nparts; which regularly proceed not to putrifactions of that nature.\n\nWhether the Story of the Remora be not unreasonably amplified; whether\nthat of Bernacles and Goose-trees be not too much enlarged; whether the\ncommon history of Bees will hold, as large accounts have delivered;\nwhether the brains of Cats be attended with such destructive\nmalignities, as _Dioscorides_ and others put upon them.\n\nAs also whether there be not some additional help of Art, unto the\nNumismatical and Musical shells, which we sometimes meet with in\nconchylious collections among us?\n\nWhether the fasting spittle of man be poison unto Snakes and Vipers, as\nexperience hath made us doubt? Whether the Nightingals setting with her\nbreast against a thorn, be any more then that she placeth some prickels\non the outside of her nest, or roosteth in thorny and prickly places,\nwhere Serpents may least approach her? Whether Mice may be bred by\nputrifaction as well as univocall production, as may be easily believed,\nif that receit to make Mice out of wheat will hold, which _Helmont_ hath\ndelivered. [SN: Helm. Imago fermenti, _etc._] Whether Quails from any\nidiosyncracy or peculiarity of constitution, do innocuously feed upon\nHellebore, or rather sometime but medically use the same; because we\nperceive that Stares, which are commonly said harmlessly to feed on\nHemlock, do not make good the tradition; and he that observes what\nvertigoes, cramps and convulsions follow thereon in these animals, will\nbe of our belief.\n\n\n\n\n THE FOURTH BOOK\n\n Of many popular and received Tenents\n concerning Man, which examined,\n prove either false or dubious.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n Of the Erectness of Man.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _What figure in animals is properly erect._]\n\nThat only _Man_ hath an Erect figure, and for to behold and look up\ntoward heaven, according to that of the Poet,\n\n _Pronaque cum spectant animalia c\u00e6tera terram,\n Os homini sublime dedit, c\u00e6lumque tueri\n Jussit, et erectos ad sydera tollere vultus,_\n\nis a double assertion, whose first part may be true, if we take\nErectness strictly, and so as _Galen_ hath defined it; for they only,\nsaith he, have an Erect figure, whose spine and thigh-bone are carried\nin right lines; and so indeed of any we yet know, _Man_ only is Erect.\nFor the thighs of other animals do stand at Angles with their spine, and\nhave rectangular positions in Birds, and perfect Quadrupeds. Nor doth\nthe Frog, though stretched out, or swimming, attain the rectitude of\n_Man_, or carry its thigh without all angularity. [SN: _What seiante or\nsitting._] And thus is it also true, that Man only sitteth, if we\ndefine sitting to be a firmation of the body upon the _Ischias_:\nwherein if the position be just and natural, the Thigh-bone lieth at\nright angles to the Spine, and the Leg-bone or Tibia to the Thigh. For\nothers when they seem to sit, as _Dogs_, _Cats_, or _Lions_, do make\nunto their Spine acute angles with their Thigh, and acute to the Thigh\nwith their Shank. Thus is it likewise true, what _Aristotle_ alledgeth\nin that Problem; why _Man_ alone suffereth pollutions in the Night [SN:\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.], because _Man_ only lyeth upon his Back; if we\ndefine not the same by every supine position, but when the Spine is in\nrectitude with the Thigh, and both with the arms lie parallel to the\n_Horizon_: so that a line through their Navel will pass through the\nZenith and Centre of the Earth. And so cannot other Animals lie upon\ntheir Backs: for though the Spine lie parallel with the _Horizon_, yet\nwill their Legs incline, and lie at angles unto it. And upon these three\ndivers positions in _Man_, wherein the Spine can only be at right lines\nwith the Thigh, arise those remarkable postures, prone, supine and\nerect; which are but differenced in situation, or in angular postures\nupon the Back, the Belly and the Feet.\n\nBut if Erectness be popularly taken, and as it is largely opposed unto\nproneness, or the posture of animals looking downwards, carrying their\nventers or opposite part to the Spine, directly towards the Earth, it\nmay admit of question. For though in _Serpents_ and _Lizards_ we may\ntruly allow a proneness, yet _Galen_ acknowledgeth that perfect\nQuadrupeds, as _Horses_, _Oxen_ and _Camels_, are but partly prone, and\nhave some part of Erectness. And _Birds_ or flying Animals, are so far\nfrom this kind of proneness, that they are almost Erect; advancing the\nHead and Breast in their progression, and only prone in the Act of\nvolitation or flying. And if that be true which is delivered of the\n_Pengin_ or _Anser Magellanicus_, often described in Maps about those\n_Straits_, that they go Erect like _Men_, and with their Breast and\nBelly do make one line perpendicular unto the axis of the Earth; it will\nalmost make up the exact Erectness of _Man_ [SN: _Observe also the_\nVrias Bellanii _and_ Mergus major.]. Nor will that Insect come very\nshort which we have often beheld, that is, one kind of Locust which\nstands not prone, or a little inclining upward, but in a large\nErectness, elevating alwaies the two fore Legs, and sustaining it self\nin the middle of the other four: by _Zoographers_ [SN: _Describers of\nanimals._] called _Mantis_, and by the common people of _Provence_,\n_Prega_, _Dio_, the Prophet and praying Locust; as being generally found\nin the posture of supplication, or such as resembleth ours, when we lift\nup our hands to Heaven.\n\nAs for the end of this Erection; to look up toward Heaven; though\nconfirmed by several testimonies, and the _Greek_ Etymology of _Man_, it\nis not so readily to be admitted; and as a popular and vain conceit was\nAnciently rejected by _Galen_; who in his third, _De usu partium_,\ndetermines, that _Man_ is Erect, because he was made with hands, and was\ntherewith to exercise all Arts, which in any other figure he could not\nhave performed; as he excellently declareth in that place, where he also\nproves that _Man_ could have been made neither Quadruped nor Centaur.\n\nAnd for the accomplishment of this intention, that is, to look up and\nbehold the Heavens, _Man_ hath a notable disadvantage in the Eye lid;\nwhereof the upper is far greater than the lower, which abridgeth the\nsight upwards; contrary to those of _Birds_, who herein have the\nadvantage of _Man_: Insomuch that the Learned _Plempius_[SN: Plemp.\nOphthalmographia.] is bold to affirm, that if he had had the formation\nof the Eye-lids, he would have contrived them quite otherwise.\n\nThe ground and occasion of this conceit was a literal apprehension of a\nfigurative expression in _Plato_, as _Galen_ thus delivers; To opinion\nthat _Man_ is Erect to look up and behold the Heavens, is a conceit only\nfit for those that never saw the _Fish_ Uranoscopus, that is, the\nBeholder of Heaven; which hath its Eyes so placed, that it looks up\ndirectly to Heaven; which _Man_ doth not, except he recline, or bend his\nhead backward: and thus to look up to Heaven, agreeth not only unto\n_Men_, but _Asses_; to omit _Birds_ with long necks, which look not only\nupwards, but round about at pleasure. And therefore _Men_ of this\nopinion understood not _Plato_ when he said that _Man_ doth _Sursum\naspicere_; for thereby was not meant to gape, or look upward with the\nEye, but to have his thoughts sublime; and not only to behold, but\nspeculate their Nature, with the Eye of the understanding.\n\nNow although _Galen_ in this place makes instance but in one, yet are\nthe other fishes, whose Eyes regard the Heavens, as Plane, and\nCartilagineous _Fishes_; as _Pectinals_, or such as have their bones\nmade laterally like a Comb; for when they apply themselves to sleep or\nrest upon the white side, their Eyes on the other side look upward\ntoward Heaven. For _Birds_, they generally carry their heads Erectly\nlike _Man_, and have advantage in their upper Eye-lid; and many that\nhave long necks, and bear their heads somewhat backward, behold far more\nof the Heavens, and seem to look above the \u00e6quinoxial Circle. And so\nalso in many Quadrupeds, although their progression be partly prone, yet\nis the sight of their Eye direct, not respecting the Earth but Heaven;\nand make an higher Arch of altitude then our own. The position of a\n_Frog_ with his head above water exceedeth these; for therein he seems\nto behold a large part of the Heavens, and the acies of his Eye to\nascend as high as the Tropick; but he that hath beheld the posture of a\n_Bittor_, will not deny that it beholds almost the very _Zenith_. [SN:\n_Point of heaven over our heads._]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n Of the Heart.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _How a Mans heart is placed in his Body._]\n\nThat the _Heart_ of Man is seated in the left side, is an asseveration,\nwhich strictly taken, is refutable by inspection, whereby it appears the\nbase and centre thereof is in the midst of the chest; true it is, that\nthe Mucro or Point thereof inclineth unto the left; for by this position\nit giveth way unto the ascension of the midriff, and by reason of the\nhollow vein could not commodiously deflect unto the right. From which\ndiversion, nevertheless we cannot so properly say tis placed in the\nleft, as that it consisteth in the middle, that is, where its centre\nresteth; for so do we usually say a Gnomon or Needle is in the middle of\na Dial, although the extreams may respect the North or South, and\napproach the circumference thereof.\n\nThe ground of this mistake is a general observation from the pulse or\nmotion of the _Heart_, which is more sensible on this side; but the\nreason hereof is not to be drawn from the situation of the _Heart_, but\nthe site of the left ventricle wherein the vital Spirits are laboured;\nand also the great Artery that conveieth them out; both which are\nsituated on the left. Upon this reason Epithems or cordial Applications\nare justly applied unto the left Breast; and the Wounds under the fifth\nRib may be more suddenly destructive if made on the sinister side, and\nthe Spear of the Souldier that peirced our Saviour, is not improperly\ndescribed, when Painters direct it a little towards the left.\n\nThe other ground is more particular and upon inspection; for in dead\nBodies especially lying upon the Spine, the _Heart_ doth seem to incline\nunto the left. Which happeneth not from its proper site; but besides its\nsinistrous gravity, is drawn that way by the great Artery, which then\nsubsideth and haleth the _Heart_ unto it. And therefore strictly taken,\nthe _Heart_ is seated in the middle of the Chest; but after a careless\nand inconsiderate aspection, or according to the readiest sense of\npulsation, we shall not quarrel, if any affirm it is seated toward the\nleft. And in these considerations must _Aristotle_ be salved, when he\naffirmeth the _Heart_ of Man is placed in the left side, and thus in a\npopular acception may we receive the Periphrasis of _Persius_[SN:\n----Leva in parte mamill\u00e6.]; when he taketh the part under the left Pap\nfor the _Heart_; and if rightly apprehended, it concerneth not this\ncontroversie, when it is said in _Ecclesiastes_: The _Heart_ of a wise\nMan is in the right side, but that of a Fool in the left, for thereby\nmay be implied, that the _Heart_ of a wise Man delighteth in the right\nway, or in the path of Vertue; that of a Fool in the left or road of\nVice; according to the mystery of the Letter of _Pythagoras_, or that\nexpression in _Jonah_, concerning sixscore thousand, that could not\ndiscern between their right hand and their left, or knew not good from\nevil.\n\nThat assertion also that Man proportionally hath the largest brain, I\ndid I confess somewhat doubt; and conceived it might have failed in\nBirds, especially such as having little Bodies, have yet large Cranies,\nand seem to contain much Brain, as _Snipes_, _Woodcocks_, etc. But upon\ntrial I find it very true. The Brains of a Man, _Archangelus_ and\n_Bauhinus_ observe, to weigh four pound, and sometime five and a half.\nIf therefore a Man weigh one hundred and fourty pounds, and his Brain\nbut five, his Weight is 27. times as much as his brain, deducting the\nweight of that five pound which is allowed for it. Now in a Snipe, which\nweighed four ounces two dragms, I find the Brains to weigh but half a\ndragm; so that the weight of the Body (allowing for the Brain) exceeded\nthe weight of the Brain, sixty seven times and an half.\n\nMore controvertible it seemeth in the Brains of Sparrows, whose Cranies\nare rounder, and so of larger capacity: and most of all in the Heads of\nBirds, upon the first formation in the Egg, wherein the Head seems\nlarger then all the Body, and the very Eyes almost as big as either. A\nSparrow in the total we found to weigh seven dragms and four and twenty\ngrans; whereof the Head a dragm, but the Brain not fifteen grains; which\nanswereth not fully the proportion of the brain of Man. And therefore it\nis to be taken of the whole Head with the Brains, when _Scaliger_[SN:\nHistor. Animal. _lib._ 1.] objecteth that the Head of a Man is the\nfifteenth part of his Body; that of a Sparrow, scarce the fifth.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n Of Pleurisies.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _What a Pleurisie is._]\n\nThat _Pleurisies_ are only on the left side, is a popular Tenent not\nonly absurd but dangerous. From the misapprehension hereof, men omitting\nthe opportunity of remedies, which otherwise they would not neglect.\nChiefly occasioned by the Ignorance of _Anatomy_ and the extent of the\npart affected; which in an exquisite _Pleurisie_ is determined to be the\nskin or membrane which invested the Ribs, for so it is defined,\n_Inflammatio membran\u00e6 costas succingentis_; An Inflammation, either\nsimple, consisting only of an hot and sanguineous affluxion; or else\ndenominable from other humours, according to the predominancy of\nmelancholy, flegm, or choler. The membrane thus inflamed, is properly\ncalled _Pleura_; from whence the disease hath its name; and this\ninvesteth not only one side, but overspreadeth the cavity of the chest,\nand affordeth a common coat unto the parts contained therein.\n\nNow therefore the _Pleura_ being common unto both sides, it is not\nreasonable to confine the inflammation unto one, nor strictly to\ndetermine it is alwaies in the side; but sometimes before and behind,\nthat is, inclining to the Spine or Breast-bone; for thither this Coat\nextendeth; and therefore with equal propriety we may affirm, that ulcers\nof the lungs, or Apostems of the brain do happen only in the left side;\nor that Ruptures are confinable unto one side, whereas the Peritoneum or\nRib of the Belly may be broke, or its perforations relaxed in either.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n Of the Ring-finger.\n\n\nAn opinion there is, which magnifies the fourth _Finger_ of the left\nHand; presuming therein a cordial relation, that a particular vessel,\nnerve, vein or artery is conferred thereto from the heart, and therefore\nthat especially hath the honour to bear our Rings. Which was not only\nthe Christian practice in Nuptial contracts, but observed by Heathens,\nas _Alexander ab Alexandro_, _Gellius_, _Macrobius_ and _Pierius_ have\ndelivered, as _Levinus Lemnius_ hath confirmed, who affirms this\npeculiar vessel to be an artery, and not a Nerve, as Antiquity hath\nconceived it; adding moreover that _Rings_ hereon peculiarly affect the\nHeart; that in Lipothymies or swoundings he used the frication of this\n_Finger_ with saffron and gold: that the ancient Physitians mixed up\ntheir Medicines herewith; that this is seldom or last of all affected\nwith the Gout, and when that becometh nodous, Men continue not long\nafter. Notwithstanding all which we remain unsatisfied, nor can we think\nthe reasons alleadged sufficiently establish the preheminency of this\n_Finger_.\n\nFor first, Concerning the practice of Antiquity, the custom was not\ngeneral to wear their _Rings_ either on this hand or _Finger_; for it is\nsaid, and that emphatically in _Jeremiah_, _Si fuerit Jeconias filius\nJoachim regis Jud\u00e6 annulus in manu dextr\u00e2 me\u00e2, inde evallam eum_: Though\n_Coniah_ the son of _Joachim_ King of _Judah_, were the signet on my\nright Hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. So is it observed by _Pliny_,\nthat in the portraits of their Gods, the _Rings_ were worn on the\n_Finger_ next the _Thumb_; that the _Romans_ wore them also upon their\nlittle Finger, as _Hero_ is described in _Petronius_; some wore them on\nthe middle _Finger_, as the ancient _Gaules_ and _Britans_; and some\nupon the fore-_Finger_, as is deduceable from _Julius Pollux_: who names\nthat _Ring_ Corionos.\n\n[Sidenote: _Rings anciently of Iron._]\n\nAgain, That the practice of the ancients, had any such respect of\ncordiality or reference unto the Heart, will much be doubted, if we\nconsider their Rings were made of iron; such was that of _Prometheus_,\nwho is conceived the first that brought them in use. So, as _Pliny_\naffirmeth, for many years the _Senators_ of _Rome_ did not wear any\nRings of Gold; but the slaves wore generally Iron Rings until their\nmanumission or preferment to some dignity. That the _Lacedemonians_\ncontinued their Iron Rings unto his daies, _Pliny_ also delivereth, and\nsurely they used few of Gold; for beside that _Lycurgus_ prohibited that\nmettal, we read in _Athen\u00e6us_, that having a desire to guild the face of\n_Apollo_, they enquired of the Oracle where they might purchase so much\nGold; and were directed unto _Cr\u0153sus_ King of _Lydia_.\n\nMoreover whether the Ancients had any such intention, the grounds which\nthey conceived in Vein, Nerve or Artery, are not to be justified, nor\nwill inspection confirm a peculiar vessel in this Finger. For as\n_Anatomy_ informeth, the Basilica vein dividing into two branches below\nthe cubit, the outward sendeth two surcles unto the thumb, two unto the\nfore-finger, and one unto the middle finger in the inward side; the\nother branch of the Basilica sendeth one surcle unto the outside of the\nmiddle finger, two unto the Ring, and as many unto the little fingers;\nso that they all proceed from the Basilica, and are in equal numbers\nderived unto every one. In the same manner are the branches of the\naxillary artery distributed into the Hand; for below the cubit it\ndivideth into two parts, the one running along the _Radius_, and passing\nby the wrest or place of the pulse, is at the _Fingers_ subdivided into\nthree Branches; whereof the first conveyeth two surcles unto the\n_Thumb_, the second as many to the fore-_Finger_, and the third one unto\nthe middle _Finger_; the other or lower division of the artery\ndescendeth by the ulna, and furnisheth the other _Fingers_; that is the\nmiddle with one surcle, and the _Ring_ and little _Fingers_ with two.\n[SN: _Whence the Nerves proceed._] As for the Nerves, they are disposed\nmuch after the same manner, and have their original from the Brain, and\nnot the Heart, as many of the Ancients conceived; which is so far from\naffording Nerves unto other parts, that it receiveth very few it self\nfrom the sixth conjugation, or pair of Nerves in the Brain.\n\nLastly, These propagations being communicated unto both Hands, we have\nno greater reason to wear our _Rings_ on the left, then on the right;\nnor are there cordial considerations in the one, more then the other.\nAnd therefore when _Forestus_ for the stanching of blood makes use of\nMedical applications unto the fourth _Finger_, he confines not that\npractice unto the left, but varieth the side according to the nostril\nbleeding. So in Feavers, where the Heart primarily suffereth, we apply\nMedicines unto the wrests of either arm; so we touch the pulse of both,\nand judge of the affections of the Heart by the one as well as the\nother. And although in indispositions of Liver or Spleen, considerations\nare made in _Phlebotomy_ respectively to their situation; yet when the\nHeart is affected, Men have thought it as effectual to bleed on the\nright as the left; and although also it may be thought, a nearer respect\nis to be had of the left, because the great artery proceeds from the\nleft ventricle, and so is nearer that arm; it admits not that\nconsideration. For under the channel bones the artery divideth into two\ngreat branches, from which trunk or point of division, the distance unto\neither Hand is equal, and the consideration also answerable.\n\nAll which with many respective Niceties, in order unto parts, sides, and\nveines, are now become of less consideration, by the new and noble\ndoctrine of the circulation of the blood.\n\nAnd therefore _Macrobius_ discussing the point, hath alleadged another\nreason; affirming that the gestation of _Rings_ upon this Hand and\n_Finger_, might rather be used for their conveniency and preservation,\nthen any cordial relation. For at first (saith he) it was both free and\nusual to wear _Rings_ on either Hand; but after that luxury encreased,\nwhen pretious gems and rich insculptures were added, the custom of\nwearing them on the right Hand was translated unto the left; for that\nHand being less imployed, thereby they were best preserved. And for the\nsame reason they placed them on this _Finger_; for the _Thumb_ was too\nactive a _Finger_, and is commonly imployed with either of the rest: the\nIndex or fore-_Finger_ was too naked whereto to commit their\npretiosities, and hath the tuition of the _Thumb_ scarce unto the second\njoint: the middle and little _Finger_ they rejected as extreams, and too\nbig or too little for their _Rings_, and of all chose out the fourth, as\nbeing least used of any, as being guarded on either side, and having in\nmost this peculiar condition, that it cannot be extended alone and by\nitself, but will be accompanied by some _Finger_ on either side. And to\nthis opinion assenteth _Alexander ab Alexandro_, _Annulum nuptialem\nprior \u00e6tas in sinistr\u00e2 ferebat, crediderim ne attereretur_.\n\nNow that which begat or promoted the common opinion, was the common\nconceit that the Heart was seated on the left side; but how far this is\nverified, we have before declared. The _Egyptian_ practice hath much\nadvanced the same, who unto this _Finger_ derived a Nerve from the\nHeart; and therefore the Priest anointed the same with precious oyls\nbefore the Altar. But how weak _Anatomists_ they were, which were so\ngood Embalmers, we have already shewed. And though this reason took most\nplace, yet had they another which more commended that practice: and that\nwas the number whereof this _Finger_ was an Hieroglyphick. For by\nholding down the fourth _Finger_ of the left Hand, while the rest were\nextended, they signified the perfect and magnified number of six. For as\n_Pierius_ hath graphically declared, Antiquity expressed numbers by the\n_Fingers_ of either Hand: on the left they accounted their digits and\narticulate numbers unto an hundred; on the right Hand hundreds and\nthousands; the depressing this _Finger_, which in the left Hand implied\nbut six, in the right indigitated six hundred. In this way of\nnumeration, may we construe that of _Juvenal_ concerning _Nestor_,\n\n ----_Qui per tot s\u00e6cula mortem\n Distulit, atque suos jam dextr\u00e2 computat annos._\n\nAnd however it were intended, in this sense it will be very elegant what\nis delivered of Wisdom, _Prov._ 3. Length of daies is in her right Hand,\nand in her left Hand riches and honour.\n\n[Sidenote: _Hand-Gouty persons._]\n\nAs for the observation of _Lemnius_ an eminent Physitian, concerning the\nGout; however it happened in his Country, we may observe it otherwise in\nours; that is, that chiragrical persons do suffer in this _Finger_ as\nwell as in the rest, and sometimes first of all, and sometimes no where\nelse. And for the mixing up medicines herewith; it is rather an argument\nof opinion, then any considerable effect; and we as highly conceive of\nthe practice in _Diapalma_, that is, in the making of that plaister, to\nstir it with the stick of a Palm.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n Of the right and left Hand.\n\n\nIt is also suspicious, and not with that certainty to be received, what\nis generally believed concerning the right and left hand; that Men\nnaturally make use of the right, and that the use of the other is a\ndigression or aberration from that way which nature generally intendeth.\nWe do not deny that almost all Nations have used this hand, and ascribed\na preheminence thereto: hereof a remarkable passage there is in the 48.\nof _Genesis_, And _Joseph_ took them both, _Ephraim_ in his right hand\ntowards _Israels_ left hand, and _Manasses_ in his left hand towards\n_Israels_ right hand, and _Israel_ stretched out his right hand and laid\nit upon _Ephraims_ head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon\n_Manasses_ head, guiding his hands wittingly, for _Manasses_ was the\nfirst-born; and when _Joseph_ saw that his father laid his right hand\nupon the head of _Ephraim_, it displeased him, and he held up his\nfathers hand to remove it from _Ephraims_ head unto _Manasses_ head, and\n_Joseph_ said, Not so my father, for this is the first-born, put thy\nright hand upon his head: The like appeareth from the ordinance of\n_Moses_ in the consecration of their Priests, Then shalt thou kill the\nRam, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of\n_Aaron_, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the\nthumb of the right hand, and upon the great toe of the right foot, and\nsprinkle the blood on the Altar round about. That the _Persians_ were\nwont herewith to plight their faith, is testified by _Diodorus_: That\nthe _Greeks_ and _Romans_ made use hereof, beside the testimony of\ndivers Authors, is evident from their custom of discumbency at their\nmeals, which was upon their left side, for so their right hand was free,\nand ready for all service. As also from the conjunction of the right\nhands and not the left observable in the _Roman_ medals of concord. Nor\nwas this only in use with divers Nations of Men, but was the custom of\nwhole Nations of Women; as is deduceable from the Amazones in the\namputation of their right breast, whereby they had the freer use of\ntheir bow. All which do seem to declare a natural preferment of the one\nunto motion before the other; wherein notwithstanding in submission to\nfuture information, we are unsatisfied unto great dubitation.\n\nFor first, if there were a determinate prepotency in the right, and such\nas ariseth from a constant root in nature, we might expect the same in\nother animals, whose parts are also differenced by dextrality; wherein\nnotwithstanding we cannot discover a distinct and complying account; for\nwe find not that _Horses_, _Buls_, or _Mules_, are generally stronger on\nthis side. As for Animals whose forelegs more sensibly supply the use of\narms, they hold, if not an equality in both, a prevalency oft-times in\nthe other, as _Squirrels_, _Apes_, and _Monkies_; the same is also\ndiscernable in _Parrets_, who feed themselves more commonly by the\nleft-leg, and Men observe that the Eye of a Tumbler is biggest, not\nconstantly in one, but in the bearing side.\n\n[Sidenote: _Whence the dextral activity in men proceeds._]\n\nThat there is also in Men a natural prepotency in the right, we cannot\nwith constancy affirm, if we make observation in children; who permitted\nthe freedom of both, do oft-times confine unto the left, and are not\nwithout great difficulty restrained from it. And therefore this\nprevalency is either uncertainly placed in the laterality, or custom\ndetermines its differency. Which is the resolution of _Aristotle_ in\nthat Problem, which enquires why the right side being better then the\nleft, is equal in the senses? because, saith he, the right and left do\ndiffer by use and custom, which have no place in the senses. For right\nand left as parts inservient unto the motive faculty, are differenced by\ndegrees from use and assuefaction, according whereto the one grows\nstronger and oft-times bigger then the other. But in the senses it is\notherwise; for they acquire not their perfection by use or custom, but\nat the first we equally hear and see with one Eye, as well as with\nanother. And therefore, were this indifferency permitted, or did not\nconstitution, but nature determine dextrality, there would be many more\nScevolaes then are delivered in story; nor needed we to draw examples of\nthe left, from the sons of the right hand [SN: Benjamin filius dextr\u00e6.];\nas we read of seven thousand in the Army of the _Benjamites_. True it\nis, that although there be an indifferency in either, or a prevalency\nindifferent in one, yet is it most reasonable for uniformity, and sundry\nrespective uses, that Men should apply themselves to the constant use of\none; for there will otherwise arise anomalous disturbances in manual\nactions, not only in civil and artificial, but also in Military affairs,\nand the several actions of war.\n\nSecondly, The grounds and reasons alleadged for the right, are not\nsatisfactory, and afford no rest in their decision. _Scaliger_ finding a\ndefect in the reason of _Aristotle_, introduceth one of no less\ndeficiency himself; _Ratio materialis_ (saith he) _sanguinis crassitudo\nsimul et multitudo_; that is, the reason of the vigour of this side, is\nthe crassitude and plenty of blood; but this is not sufficient; for the\ncrassitude or thickness of blood affordeth no reason why one arm should\nbe enabled before the other, and the plenty thereof, why both not\nenabled equally. _Fallopius_ is of another conceit, deducing the reason\nfrom the Azygos or _vena sine pari_, a large and considerable vein\narising out of the _cava_ or hollow vein, before it enters the right\nventricle of the Heart, and placed only in the right side. But neither\nis this perswasory; for the Azygos communicates no branches unto the\narms or legs on either side, but disperseth into the Ribs on both, and\nin its descent doth furnish the left Emulgent with one vein, and the\nfirst vein of the loins on the right side with another; which manner of\nderivation doth not confer a peculiar addition unto either. _C\u00e6lius\nRodiginus_ undertaking to give a reason of Ambidexters and _Left-handed_\nMen, delivereth a third opinion: Men, saith he, are Ambidexters, and use\nboth _Hands_ alike, when the heat of the Heart doth plentifully disperse\ninto the left side, and that of the Liver into the right, and the spleen\nbe also much dilated; but Men are _Left-handed_ when ever it happeneth\nthat the Heart and Liver are seated on the left-side; or when the Liver\nis on the right side, yet so obducted and covered with thick skins, that\nit cannot diffuse its vertue into the right. Which reasons are no way\nsatisfactory; for herein the spleen is injustly introduced to invigorate\nthe sinister side, which being dilated it would rather infirm and\ndebilitate. As for any tunicles or skins which should hinder the Liver\nfrom enabling dextral parts; we must not conceive it diffuseth its\nvertue by meer irradiation, but by its veins and proper vessels, which\ncommon skins and teguments cannot impede. And for the seat of the Heart\nand Liver in one side, whereby Men become _Left-handed_, it happeneth\ntoo rarely to countenance an effect so common; for the seat of the Liver\non the left side is monstrous, and rarely to be met with in the\nobservations of Physitians. Others not considering ambidextrous and\n_Left-handed_ Men, do totally submit unto the efficacy of the Liver;\nwhich though seated on the right side, yet by the subclavian division\ndoth equidistantly communicate its activity unto either Arm; nor will it\nsalve the doubts of observation; for many are _Right-handed_ whose\nLivers are weakly constituted, and many use the left, in whom that part\nis strongest; and we observe in Apes, and other animals, whose Liver is\nin the right, no regular prevalence therein.\n\nAnd therefore the brain, especially the spinal marrow, which is but the\nbrain prolonged, hath a fairer plea hereto; for these are the principles\nof motion, wherein dextrality consists; and are divided within and\nwithout the Crany. By which division transmitting Nerves respectively\nunto either side; according to the indifferency, or original and native\nprepotency, there ariseth an equality in both, or prevalency on either\nside. And so may it be made out, what many may wonder at, why some most\nactively use the contrary Arm and Leg; for the vigour of the one\ndependeth upon the upper part of the spine, but the other upon the\nlower.\n\nAnd therefore many things are Philosophically delivered concerning\nright and left, which admit of some suspension. That a Woman upon a\nmasculine conception advanceth her right Leg, will not be found to\nanswer strick observation. That males are conceived in the right side of\nthe womb, females in the left, though generally delivered, and supported\nby ancient testimony, will make no infallible account; it happening oft\ntimes that males and females do lie upon both sides, and Hermaphrodites\nfor ought we know on either. It is also suspitious what is delivered\nconcerning the right and left testicle, that males are begotten from the\none, and females from the other. For though the left seminal vein\nproceedeth from the emulgent, and is therefore conceived to carry down a\nserous and feminine matter; yet the seminal Arteries which send forth\nthe active materials, are both derived from the great Artery. Beside\nthis original of the left vein was thus contrived, to avoid the\npulsation of the great Artery, over which it must have passed to attain\nunto the testicle. Nor can we easily infer such different effects from\nthe divers situation of parts which have one end and office; for in the\nkidneys which have one office, the right is seated lower then the left,\nwhereby it lieth free, and giveth way unto the Liver. And therefore also\nthat way which is delivered for masculine generation, to make a strait\nligature about the left testicle, thereby to intercept the evacuation of\nthat part, deserveth consideration. For one sufficeth unto generation,\nas hath been observed in semicastration, and oft times in carnous\nruptures. [SN: _How an Horse or Bull may generate after they be gelt._]\nBeside, the seminal ejaculation proceeds not immediately from the\ntesticle, but from the spermatick glandules; and therefore _Aristotle_\naffirms (and reason cannot deny) that although there be nothing diffused\nfrom the testicles, an _Horse_ or _Bull_ may generate after castration;\nthat is, from the stock and remainder of seminal matter, already\nprepared and stored up in the Prostates or grandules of generation.\n\nThirdly, Although we should concede a right and left in Nature, yet in\nthis common and received account we may err from the proper acception;\nmistaking one side for another; calling that in Man and other animals\nthe right which is the left, and that the left which is the right, and\nthat in some things right and left, which is not properly either.\n\nFor first the right and left, are not defined by Phylosophers according\nto common acception, that is, respectively from one Man unto another, or\nany constant site in each; as though that should be the right in one,\nwhich upon confront or facing, stands athwart or diagonally unto the\nother; but were distinguished according to the activity and predominant\nlocomotion upon either side. Thus _Aristotle_ in his excellent Tract _de\nincessu animalium_, ascribeth six positions unto Animals, answering the\nthree dimensions; which he determineth not by site or position unto the\nHeavens, but by their faculties and functions; and these are _Imum\n_, _Ante Retro_, _Dextra et Sinistra_: that is, the superiour\npart, where the aliment is received, that the lower extream, where it is\nlast expelled; so he termeth a Man a plant inverted; for he supposeth\nthe root of a Tree the head or upper part thereof, whereby it receiveth\nits aliment, although therewith it respects the Center of the Earth, but\nwith the other the Zenith; and this position is answerable unto\nlongitude. Those parts are anteriour and measure profundity, where the\nsenses, especially the Eyes are placed, and those posterior which are\nopposite hereunto. The dextrous and sinistrous parts of the body make\nup the latitude; and are not certain and inalterable like the other; for\nthat, saith he, is the right side, from whence the motion of the body\nbeginneth, that is, the active or moving side; but that the sinister\nwhich is the weaker or more quiescent part. Of the same determination\nwere the _Platonicks_ and _Pythagoreans_ before him; who conceiving the\nheavens an animated body, named the _East_, the right or dextrous part,\nfrom whence began their motion: and thus the _Greeks_, from whence the\n_Latins_ have borrowed their appellation, have named this hand\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b1, denominating it not from the site, but office, from\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 _capio_, that is, the hand which receiveth, or is usually\nimplied in that action.\n\nNow upon these grounds we are most commonly mistaken, defining that by\nsituation which they determined by motion; and giving the term of right\nhand to that which doth not properly admit it. For first, Many in their\nInfancy are sinistrously disposed, and divers continue all their life\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, that is, left handed, and have but weak and imperfect use of\nthe right; now unto these, that hand is properly the right, and not the\nother esteemed so by situation. Thus may _Aristotle_ be made out, when\nhe affirmeth the right claw of _Crabs_ and _Lobsters_ is biggest, if we\ntake the right for the most vigorous side, and not regard the relative\nsituation: for the one is generally bigger then the other, yet not\nalwayes upon the same side. So may it be verified what is delivered by\n_Scaliger_ in his Comment, that Palsies do oftnest happen upon the left\nside, if understood in this sense; the most vigorous part protecting it\nself, and protruding the matter upon the weaker and less resistive side.\nAnd thus the Law of Common-Weals, that cut off the right hand of\nMalefactors, if Philosophically executed, is impartial; otherwise the\namputation not equally punisheth all.\n\nSome are \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, that is, ambidextrous or right handed on both\nsides; which happeneth only unto strong and Athletical bodies, whose\nheat and spirits are able to afford an ability unto both. [SN: _Apt for\ncontention._] And therefore _Hippocrates_ saith, that Women are not\nambidextrous, that is, not so often as Men; for some are found, which\nindifferently make use of both. And so may _Aristotle_ say, that only\nMen are ambidexterous; of this constitution was _Asterop\u00e6us_ in _Homer_,\nand _Parthenopeus_ the _Theban_ Captain in _Statius_: and of the same,\ndo some conceive our Father _Adam_ to have been, as being perfectly\nframed, and in a constitution admitting least defect. Now in these Men\nthe right hand is on both sides, and that is not the left which is\nopposite unto the right, according to common acception.\n\nAgain, Some are \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, as _Galen_ hath expressed it; that is,\nambilevous or left-handed on both sides; such as with agility and vigour\nhave not the use of either: who are not gymnastically [SN: _Strongly or\nfit for corporal exercise._] composed: nor actively use those parts. Now\nin these there is no right hand: of this constitution are many Women,\nand some Men, who though they accustom themselves unto either hand, do\ndexterously make use of neither. And therefore although the Political\nadvice of _Aristotle_ be very good, that Men should accustom themselves\nto the command of either hand: yet cannot the execution or performance\nthereof be general: for though there be many found that can use both,\nyet will there divers remain that can strenuously make use of neither.\n\nLastly, These lateralities in Man are not only fallible, if relatively\ndetermined unto each other, but made in reference unto the heavens and\nquarters of the Globe: for those parts are not capable of these\nconditions in themselves, nor with any certainty respectively derived\nfrom us, nor from them to us again. And first in regard of their proper\nnature, the heavens admit not these sinister and dexter respects; there\nbeing in them no diversity or difference, but a simplicity of parts, and\nequiformity in motion continually succeeding each other; so that from\nwhat point soever we compute, the account will be common unto the whole\ncircularity. And therefore though it be plausible, it is not of\nconsequence hereto what is delivered by _Solinus_. That Man was\ntherefore a Microcosm or little World, because the dimensions of his\npositions were answerable unto the greater. For as in the Heavens the\ndistance of the North and Southern pole, which are esteemed the\nsuperiour and inferiour points, is equal unto the space between the East\nand West, accounted the dextrous and sinistrous parts thereof; so is it\nalso in Man, for the extent of his fathome or distance betwixt the\nextremity of the fingers of either hand upon expansion, is equal unto\nthe space between the sole of the foot and the crown. But this doth but\npetionarily infer a dextrality in the Heavens, and we may as reasonably\nconclude a right and left laterality in the Ark or naval edifice of\n_Noah_. For the length thereof was thirty cubits, the breadth fifty, and\nthe height or profundity thirty; which well agreeth unto the proportion\nof Man, whose length, that is, a perpendicular from the vertex unto the\nsole of the foot is sextuple unto his breadth, or a right line drawn\nfrom the ribs of one side to another; and decuble unto his profundity;\nthat is, a direct line between the breast bone and the spine.\n\nAgain, They receive not these conditions with any assurance or\nstability from our selves. For the relative foundations and points of\ndenomination, are not fixed and certain, but variously designed\naccording to imagination. The Philosopher accounts that East from whence\nthe Heavens begin their motion. The Astronomer regarding the South and\nMeridian Sun, calls that the dextrous part of Heaven which respecteth\nhis right hand; and that is the West. Poets respecting the West, assign\nthe name of right unto the North, which regardeth their right hand; and\nso must that of _Ovid_ be explained _utque du\u00e6 dextr\u00e2 Zon\u00e6 totidemqu\u00e6\nsinistr\u00e2_. [SN: _Declarable from the original expression_, Psalm 89.\n13.] But Augurs or Southsayers turning their face to the East, did make\nthe right in the South; which was also observed by the _Hebrews_ and\n_Chaldeans_. Now if we name the quarters of Heaven respectively unto our\nsides, it will be no certain or invariable denomination. For if we call\nthat the right side of Heaven which is seated Easterly unto us, when we\nregard the Meridian Sun; the inhabitants beyond the \u00c6quator and Southern\nTropick when they face us, regarding the Meridian, will contrarily\ndefine it; for unto them, the opposite part of Heaven will respect the\nleft, and the Sun arise to their right.\n\nAnd thus have we at large declared that although the right be most\ncommonly used, yet hath it no regular or certain root in nature. Since\nit is not confirmable from other Animals: Since in Children it seems\neither indifferent or more favourable in the other; but more reasonable\nfor uniformity in action, that Men accustom unto one: Since the grounds\nand reasons urged for it, do not sufficiently support it: Since if there\nbe a right and stronger side in nature, yet may we mistake in its\ndenomination; calling that the right which is the left, and the left\nwhich is the right. Since some have one right, some both, some neither.\nAnd lastly, Since these affections in Man are not only fallible in\nrelation unto one another, but made also in reference unto the Heavens,\nthey being not capable of these conditions in themselves, nor with any\ncertainty from us, nor we from them again.\n\nAnd therefore what admission we ow unto many conceptions concerning\nright and left, requireth circumspection. That is, how far we ought to\nrely upon the remedy in _Kiranides_, that is, the left eye of an\n_Hedg-hog_ fried in oyl to procure sleep, and the right foot of a _Frog_\nin a _Dears_ skin for the _Gout_; or that to dream of the loss of right\nor left tooth, presageth the death of male or female kindred, according\nto the doctrine of _Artemidorus_. What verity there is in that numeral\nconceit in the lateral division of Man by even and odd, ascribing the\nodd unto the right side, and even unto the left; and so by parity or\nimparity of letters in Mens names to determine misfortunes on either\nside of their bodies; by which account in Greek numeration, _Heph\u00e6stus_\nor _Vulcan_ was lame in the right foot, and _Anibal_ lost his right eye.\nAnd lastly, what substance there is in that Auspicial principle, and\nfundamental doctrine of Ariolation, that the left hand is ominous, and\nthat good things do pass sinistrously upon us, because the left hand of\nman respected the right hand of the Gods, which handed their favours\nunto us.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n Of Swimming and Floating.\n\n\nThat Men swim naturally, if not disturbed by fear; that Men being\ndrowned and sunk, do float the ninth day when their gall breaketh; that\nWomen drowned, swim prone, but Men supine, or upon their backs; are\npopular affirmations, whereto we cannot assent. And first, that Man\nshould swim naturally, because we observe it is no lesson unto other\nAnimals, we are not forward to conclude; for other Animals swim in the\nsame manner as they go, and need no other way of motion for natation in\nthe water, then for progression upon the land. And this is true whether\nthey move _per latera_, that is, two legs of one side together, which is\nTollutation or ambling; or _per diametrum_, lifting one foot before, and\nthe cross foot behind, which is succussation or trotting; or whether\n_per frontem_ or _quadratum_, as _Scaliger_ terms it, upon a square\nbase, the legs of both sides moving together, as _Frogs_ and salient\nAnimals, which is properly called leaping. For by these motions they are\nable to support and impel themselves in the water, without alteration in\nthe stroak of their legs, or position of their bodies.\n\nBut with Man it is performed otherwise; for in regard of site he alters\nhis natural posture and swimmeth prone; whereas he walketh erect. Again,\nin progression the arms move parallel to the legs, and the arms and legs\nunto each other; but in natation they intersect and make all sorts of\nangles. And lastly, in progressive motion, the arms and legs do move\nsuccessively, but in natation both together; all which aptly to\nperform, and so as to support and advance the body, is a point of Art,\nand such as some in their young and docile years could never attain. But\nalthough swimming be acquired by art, yet is there somewhat more of\nnature in it then we observe in other habits, nor will it strictly fall\nunder that definition; for once obtained, it is not to be removed; nor\nis there any who from disuse did ever yet forget it.\n\nSecondly, That persons drowned arise and float the ninth day when their\ngall breaketh, is a questionable determination both in the time and\ncause. For the time of floating, it is uncertain according to the time\nof putrefaction, which shall retard or accelerate according to the\nsubject and season of the year; for as we observed, _Cats_ and _Mice_\nwill arise unequally, and at different times, though drowned at the\nsame. Such as are fat do commonly float soonest, for their bodies\nsoonest ferment, and that substance approacheth nearest unto air: and\nthis is one of _Aristotles_ reasons why dead _Eels_ will not float,\nbecause saith he, they have but slender bellies, and little fat.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why drowned bodies float after a time._]\n\nAs for the cause, it is not so reasonably imputed unto the breaking of\nthe gall as the putrefaction or corruptive firmentation of the body,\nwhereby the unnatural heat prevailing, the putrifying parts do suffer a\nturgescence and inflation, and becoming aery and spumous affect to\napproach the air, and ascend unto the surface of the water. And this is\nalso evidenced in Eggs, whereof the sound ones sink, and such as are\naddled swim, as do also those which are termed hypenemia or wind-eggs;\nand this is also a way to separate seeds, whereof such as are corrupted\nand steril, swim; and this agreeth not only unto the seed of plants\nlockt up and capsulated in their husks, but also unto the sperm and\nseminal humour of Man; for such a passage hath _Aristotle_ upon the\nInquisition and test of its fertility.\n\nThat the breaking of the gall is not the cause hereof, experience hath\ninformed us. For opening the _abdomen_, and taking out the gall in\n_Cats_ and _Mice_, they did notwithstanding arise. And because we had\nread in _Rhodiginus_ of a Tyrant, who to prevent the emergency of\nmurdered bodies, did use to cut off their lungs, and found Mens minds\npossessed with this reason; we committed some unto the water without\nlungs, which notwithstanding floated with the others. And to compleat\nthe experiment, although we took out the guts and bladder, and also\nperforated the Cranium, yet would they arise, though in a longer time.\nFrom these observations in other Animals, it may not be unreasonable to\nconclude the same in Man, who is too noble a subject on whom to make\nthem expressly, and the casual opportunity to rare almost to make any.\nNow if any should ground this effect from gall or choler, because it is\nthe highest humour and will be above the rest; or being the fiery humour\nwill readiest surmount the water, we must confess in the common\nputrescence it may promote elevation, which the breaking of the bladder\nof gall, so small a part in Man, cannot considerably advantage.\n\nLastly, That Women drowned float prone, that is, with their bellies\ndownward, but Men supine or upward, is an assertion wherein the _hoti_\nor point it self is dubious; and were it true, the reason alledged for\nit, is of no validity. The reason yet currant was first expressed by\n_Pliny_, _veluti pudori defunctorum parcente natur\u00e2_, nature modestly\nordaining this position to conceal the shame of the dead; which hath\nbeen taken up by _Solinus_, _Rhodiginus_, and many more. This indeed (as\n_Scaliger_ termeth it) is _ratio civilis non philosophica_, strong\nenough for morality of Rhetoricks, not for Philosophy or Physicks. For\nfirst, in nature the concealment of secret parts is the same in both\nsexes, and the shame of their reveal equal: so _Adam_ upon the tast of\nthe fruit was ashamed of his nakedness as well as _Eve_. And so likewise\nin _America_ and Countries unacquainted with habits, where modesty\nconceals these parts in one sex, it doth it also in the other; and\ntherefore had this been the intention of nature, not only Women but Men\nalso had swimmed downwards; the posture in reason being common unto\nboth, where the intent is also common.\n\nAgain, While herein we commend the modesty, we condemn the wisdom of\nnature: for that prone position we make her contrive unto the Woman,\nwere best agreeable unto the Man, in whom the secret parts are very\nanteriour and more discoverable in a supine and upward posture. And\ntherefore _Scaliger_ declining this reason, hath recurred unto another\nfrom the difference of parts in both sexes; _Quod ventre vasto sunt\nmulieres plenoque intestinis, itaque minus impletur et subsidet, inanior\nmaribus quibus nates pr\u00e6ponderant_: If so, then Men with great bellies\nwill float downward, and only _Callipyg\u00e6_, and Women largely composed\nbehind, upward. But _Anatomists_ observe, that to make the larger cavity\nfor the Infant, the hanch bones in Women, and consequently the parts\nappendant are more protuberant then they are in Men. They who ascribe\nthe cause unto the breasts of Women, take not away the doubt; for they\nresolve not why children float downward, who are included in that sex,\nthough not in the reason alleadged. But hereof we cease to discourse,\nlest we undertake to afford a reason of the [1]golden tooth, that is, to\ninvent or assign a cause when we remain unsatisfied or unassured of the\neffect.\n\n [1] _Of the cause whereof much dispute was made, and at last proved an\n imposture._\n\nThat a _Mare_ will sooner drown then a _Horse_, though commonly\nopinion'd, is not I fear experienced: nor is the same observed, in the\ndrowning of _Whelps_ and _Kitlins_. But that a Man cannot shut or open\nhis eyes under water, easie experiment may convict. Whether Cripples and\nmutilated Persons, who have lost the greatest part of their thighs, will\nnot sink but float, their lungs being abler to waft up their bodies,\nwhich are in others overpoised by the hinder legs; we have not made\nexperiment. Thus much we observe, that Animals drown downwards, and the\nsame is observable in _Frogs_, when the hinder legs are cut off. But in\nthe air most seem to perish headlong from high places; however _Vulcan_\nthrown from Heaven, be made to fall on his feet.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n Concerning Weight.\n\n\nThat Men weigh heavier dead then alive, if experiment hath not failed\nus, we cannot reasonably grant. For though the trial hereof cannot so\nwell be made on the body of Man, nor will the difference be sensible in\nthe abate of scruples and dragms, yet can we not confirm the same in\nlesser Animals, from whence the inference is good; and the affirmative\nof _Pliny_ saith, that it is true in all. For exactly weighing and\nstrangling a _Chicken_ in the Scales; upon an immediate ponderation, we\ncould discover no sensible difference in weight; but suffering it to\nlie eight or ten hours, untill it grew perfectly cold, it weighed most\nsensibly lighter; the like we attempted, and verified in _Mice_, and\nperformed their trials in Scales, that would turn upon the eighth or\ntenth part of a grain.\n\nNow whereas some alledge that spirits are lighter substances, and\nnaturally ascending, do elevate and waft the body upward, whereof dead\nbodies being destitute, contract a greater gravity; although we concede\nthat spirits are light, comparatively unto the body, yet that they are\nabsolutely so, or have no weight at all, we cannot readily allow. For\nsince Philosophy affirmeth, that spirits are middle substances between\nthe soul and body, they must admit of some corporiety, which supposeth\nweight or gravity. Beside, in carcasses warm, and bodies newly\ndisanimated, while transpiration remaineth, there do exhale and breath\nout vaporous and fluid parts, which carry away some power of\ngravitation. Which though we allow, we do not make answerable unto\nliving expiration; and therefore the _Chicken_ or _Mice_ were not so\nlight being dead, as they would have been after ten hours kept alive;\nfor in that space a man abateth many ounces. Nor if it had slept, for in\nthat space of sleep, a Man will sometimes abate fourty ounces; nor if it\nhad been in the middle of summer, for then a Man weigheth some pounds\nless, then in the height of winter; according to experience, and the\nstatick Aphorisms of _Sanctorius_.\n\nAgain, Whereas Men affirm they perceive an addition of ponderosity in\ndead bodies, comparing them usually unto blocks and stones, whensoever\nthey lift or carry them; this accessional preponderancy is rather in\nappearance then reality. For being destitute of any motion, they confer\nno relief unto the Agents, or Elevators; which makes us meet with the\nsame complaints of gravity in animated and living bodies, where the\nNerves subside, and the faculty locomotive seems abolished; as may be\nobserved in the lifting or supporting of persons inebriated,\nApoplectical, or in Lypothymies and swoundings.\n\nMany are also of opinion, and some learned Men maintain, that Men are\nlighter after meals then before, and that by a supply and addition of\nspirits obscuring the gross ponderosity of the aliment ingested; but the\ncontrary hereof we have found in the trial of sundry persons in\ndifferent sex and ages. And we conceive Men may mistake if they\ndistinguish not the sense of levity unto themselves, and in regard of\nthe scale or decision of trutination. For after a draught of wine, a Man\nmay seem lighter in himself from sudden refection, although he be\nheavier in the balance, from a corporal and ponderous addition; but a\nMan in the morning is lighter in the scale, because in sleep some pounds\nhave perspired; and is also lighter unto himself, because he is\nrefected.\n\nAnd to speak strictly, a Man that holds his breath is weightier while\nhis lungs are full, then upon expiration. For a bladder blown is\nweightier then one empty, and if it contain a quart, expressed and\nemptied it will abate about a quarter of a grain. And therefore we\nsomewhat mistrust the experiment of a pumice stone taken up by\n_Montanus_, in his Comment upon _Avicenna_, where declaring how the\nrarity of parts, and numerosity of pores, occasioneth a lightness in\nbodies, he affirms that a pumice-stone powdered, is lighter then one\nentire; which is an experiment beyond our satisfaction; for beside that\nabatement can hardly be avoided in the Trituration; if a bladder of good\ncapacity will scarce include a grain of air, a pumice of three or four\ndragms, cannot be presumed to contain the hundred part thereof; which\nwill not be sensible upon the exactest beams we use. Nor is it to be\ntaken strictly which is delivered by the learned Lord _Verulam_, and\nreferred unto further experiment; That a dissolution of Iron in _aqua\nfortis_, will bear as good weight as their bodies did before,\nnotwithstanding a great deal of waste by a thick vapour that issueth\nduring the working; for we cannot find it to hold neither in Iron nor\nCopper, which is dissolved with less ebullition; and hereof we made\ntrial in Scales of good exactness: wherein if there be a defect, or such\nas will not turn upon quarter grains, there may be frequent mistakes in\nexperiments of this nature. That also may be considered which is\ndelivered by _Hamerus Poppius_[SN: Basilica Antimonii.], that\n_Antimony_ calcin'd or reduced to ashes by a burning glass, although it\nemit a gross and ponderous exhalation, doth rather exceed then abate its\nformer gravity. Nevertheless, strange it is; how very little and almost\ninsensible abatement there will be sometimes in such operations, or\nrather some encrease, as in the refining of metals, in the test of bone\nashes, according to experience: and in a burnt brick, as _Monsieur de\nClave_[SN: Des Pierres.] affirmeth. Mistake may be made in this way of\ntrial, when the _Antimony_ is not weighed immediately upon the\ncalcination; but permitted the air, it imbibeth the humidity thereof,\nand so repaireth its gravity.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n Of the passage of Meat and Drink.\n\n\nThat there are different passages for Meat and Drink, the Meat or dry\naliment descending by the one, the Drink or moistening vehicle by the\nother, is a popular Tenent in our daies, but was the assertion of\nlearned men of old. For the same was affirmed by _Plato_, maintained by\n_Eustathius_ in _Macrobius_, and is deducible from _Eratosthenes_,\n_Eupolis_ and _Euripides_. Now herein Men contradict experience, not\nwell understanding _Anatomy_, and the use of parts. For at the Throat\nthere are two cavities or conducting parts; the one the Oesophagus or\nGullet, seated next the spine, a part official unto nutrition, and\nwhereby the aliment both wet and dry is conveied unto the stomack; the\nother (by which tis conceived the Drink doth pass) is the weazon, rough\nartery, or wind-pipe, a part inservient to voice and respiration; for\nthereby the air descendeth into the lungs, and is communicated unto the\nheart. And therefore all Animals that breath or have lungs, have also\nthe weazon; but many have the gullet or feeding channel, which have no\nlungs or wind-pipe; as fishes which have gils, whereby the heart is\nrefrigerated; for such thereof as have lungs and respiration, are not\nwithout the weazon, as Whales and cetaceous Animals.\n\nAgain, Beside these parts destin'd to divers offices, there is a\npeculiar provision for the wind-pipe, that is, a cartilagineous flap\nupon the opening of the Larinx or Throttle, which hath an open cavity\nfor the admission of the air; but lest thereby either meat or drink\nshould descend, Providence hath placed the _Epiglottis_, _Ligula_, or\nflap like an Ivy leaf, which alwaies closeth when we swallow, or when\nthe meat and drink passeth over it into the gullet. Which part although\nall have not that breath, as all cetaceous and oviparous Animals, yet is\nthe weazon secured some other way; and therefore in Whales that breath,\nleast the water should get into the lungs, an ejection thereof is\ncontrived by a Fistula or spout at the head. And therefore also though\nbirds have no Epiglottis, yet can they so contract the rim or chink of\ntheir Larinx, as to prevent the admission of wet or dry ingested; either\nwhereof getting in, occasioneth a cough, until it be ejected. [SN: _Why\na man cannot drink and breath at once._] And this is the reason why a\nMan cannot drink and breath at the same time; why, if we laugh while we\ndrink, the drink flies out at the nostrils; why, when the water enters\nthe weazon, Men are suddenly drowned; and thus must it be understood,\nwhen we read [SN: Anacreon _the Poet, if the story be taken literally_.]\nof one that died by the seed of a Grape, and another by an hair in milk.\n\nNow if any shall still affirm, that some truth there is in the\nassertion, upon the experiment of _Hippocrates_, who killing an Hog\nafter a red potion, found the tincture thereof in the Larinx; if any\nwill urge the same from medical practice, because in affections both of\nLungs and weazon, Physitians make use of syrupes, and lambitive\nmedicines; we are not averse to acknowledge, that some may distil and\ninsinuate into the wind-pipe, and medicines may creep down, as well as\nthe rheum before them; yet to conclude from hence, that air and water\nhave both one common passage, were to state the question upon the weaker\nside of the distinction, and from a partial or guttulous irrigation, to\nconclude a total descension.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n Of Sneezing.\n\n\nConcerning Sternutation or Sneezing, and the custom of saluting or\nblessing upon that motion, it is pretended, and generally believed to\nderive its original from a disease, wherein Sternutation proved mortal,\nand such as Sneezed, died. And this may seem to be proved from _Carolus\nSigonius_, who in his History of _Italy_, makes mention of a Pestilence\nin the time of _Gregory_ the Great, that proved pernitious and deadly to\nthose that Sneezed. Which notwithstanding will not sufficiently\ndetermine the grounds hereof: that custom having an elder _\u00c6ra_, then\nthis Chronology affordeth.\n\nFor although the age of _Gregory_ extend above a thousand, yet is this\ncustom mentioned by _Apuleius_, in the Fable of the Fullers wife, who\nlived three hundred years before; by _Pliny_ in that Problem of his,\n_Cur Sternutantes salutantur_; and there are also reports that\n_Tiberius_ the Emperour, otherwise a very sower Man, would perform this\nrite most punctually unto others, and expect the same from others, unto\nhimself. _Petronius Arbiter_, who lived before them both, and was\nProconsul of _Bythinia_ in the raign of _Nero_, hath mentioned it in\nthese words, _Gyton collectione spiritus plenus, ter continuo ita\nsternutavit ut grabatum concuteret, ad quem motum Eumolpus conversus,\nSalvere Gytona jubet._ _C\u00e6lius Rhodiginus_ hath an example hereof among\nthe _Greeks_, far antienter than these, that is, in the time of _Cyrus_\nthe younger; when consulting about their retreat, it chanced that one\namong them Sneezed; at the noise whereof, the rest of the Souldiers\ncalled upon _Jupiter Soter_. There is also in the Greek Anthology [SN:\n_A Collection of Greek Epigrams_, Titulo \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.], a remarkable\nmention hereof in an Epigram, upon one _Proclus_; the Latin whereof we\nshall deliver, as we find it often translated.\n\n _Non potis est Proclus digitis emungere nasum,\n Namq; est pro nasi mole pusilla manus:\n Non vocat ille Jovem sternutans, quippe, nec audit\n Sternutamentum, tam procul aure sonat._\n _Proclus_ with his hand his nose can never wipe,\n His hand too little is his nose to gripe;\n He Sneezing calls not _Jove_, for why? he hears\n Himself not Sneeze, the sound's so far from's ears.\n\nNor was this only an ancient custom among the _Greeks_ and _Romans_, and\nis still in force with us, but is received at this day in remotest parts\nof _Africa_. For so we read in _Codignus_[SN: De rebus Abassinorum];\nthat upon a Sneeze of the Emperour of _Monomotapa_, there passed\nacclamations successively through the City. And as remarkable an example\nthere is of the same custom, in the remotest parts of the East, recorded\nin the travels of _Pinto_[SN: Buxt. Lex. Chald.].\n\nBut the history will run much higher, if we should take in the\n_Rabinical_ account hereof; that Sneezing was a mortal sign even from\nthe first Man; until it was taken off by the special supplication of\n_Jacob_. From whence, as a thankful acknowledgment, this salutation\nfirst began; and was after continued by the expression of _Tobim\nChaiim_, or _vita bona_, by standers by, upon all occasion of Sneezing.\n\n[Sidenote: _Whence Sternutation or Sneezing proceeds._]\n\nNow the ground of this ancient custom was probably the opinion the\nancients held of sternutation, which they generally conceived, to be a\ngood sign or a bad, and so upon this motion accordingly used, a Salve or\n\u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, as a gratulation for the one, and a deprecation for the\nother. Now of the waies whereby they enquired and determined its\nsignality; the first was natural, arising from Physical causes, and\nconsequences oftentimes naturally succeeding this motion; and so it\nmight be justly esteemed a good sign. For Sneezing being properly a\nmotion of the brain, suddenly expelling through the nostrils what is\noffensive unto it, it cannot but afford some evidence of its vigour; and\ntherefore saith _Aristotle_[SN: _Problem Sect. 33._], they that hear it,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f35\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, honour it as somewhat sacred, and a sign of\nSanity in the diviner part; and this he illustrates from the practice of\nPhysitians, who in persons near death, do use Sternutatories, or such\nmedicines as provoke unto Sneezing; when if the faculty awaketh, and\nSternutation ensueth, they conceive hopes of life, and with gratulation\nreceive the signs of safety. [SN: _In what cases a sign of good._] And so\nis it also of good signality, according to that of _Hippocrates_, that\nSneezing cureth the hicket, and is profitable unto Women in hard labour;\nand so is it good in Lethargies, Apoplexies, Catalepsies, and Coma's\n[SN: _2. King 4. 35._]. [SN: _In what of bad._] And in this natural way\nit is sometime likewise of bad effects or signs, and may give hints of\ndeprecation; as in diseases of the chest; for therein _Hippocrates_\ncondemneth it as too much exagitating: in the beginning of _Catarrhs_\naccording unto _Avicenna_, as hindering concoction, in new and tender\nconceptions (as _Pliny_ observeth) for then it endangers abortion.\n\nThe second way was superstitious and Augurial, as _C\u00e6lius Rhodiginus_\nhath illustrated in testimonies, as ancient as _Theocritus_ and _Homer_:\nas appears from the _Athenian_ Master, who would have retired, because a\nBoat-man Sneezed; and the testimony of _Austin_, that the Ancients were\nwont to go to bed again if they Sneezed while they put on their shoe.\nAnd in this way it was also of good and bad signification; so\n_Aristotle_ hath a Problem, why Sneezing from noon unto midnight was\ngood, but from night to noon unlucky? So _Eustathius_ upon _Homer_\nobserves, that Sneezing to the left hand was unlucky, but prosperous\nunto the right; so, as _Plutarch_ relateth, when _Themistocles_\nsacrificed in his galley before the battle of _Xerxes_, and one of the\nassistants upon the right hand sneezed; _Euphrantides_ the Southsayer,\npresaged the victory of the _Greeks_, and the overthrow of the\n_Persians_.\n\nThus we may perceive the custom is more ancient then commonly conceived;\nand these opinions hereof in all ages, not any one disease to have been\nthe occasion of this salute and deprecation. Arising at first from this\nvehement and affrighting motion of the brain, inevitably observable unto\nthe standers by; from whence some finding dependent effects to ensue;\nothers ascribing hereto as a cause what perhaps but casually or\ninconnexedly succeeded; they might proceed unto forms of speeches,\nfelicitating the good, or deprecating the evil to follow.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n Of the Jews.\n\n\nThat _Jews_ stink naturally, that is, that in their race and nation\nthere is an evil savour, is a received opinion we know not how to admit;\nalthough concede many questionable points, and dispute not the verity of\nsundry opinions which are of affinity hereto. We will acknowledg that\ncertain odours attend on animals, no less then certain colours; that\npleasant smels are not confined unto vegetables, but found in divers\nanimals, and some more richly then in plants. And though the Problem of\n_Aristotle_ enquire why no animal smels sweet beside the Parde? yet\nlater discoveries add divers sorts of _Monkeys_, the _Civet Cat_ and\n_Gazela_, from which our Musk proceedeth. We confess that beside the\nsmell of the species, there may be individual odours, and every Man may\nhave a proper and peculiar savour; which although not perceptible unto\nMan, who hath this sense, but weak, yet sensible unto _Dogs_, who hereby\ncan single out their masters in the dark. We will not deny that\nparticular Men have sent forth a pleasant savour, as _Theophrastus_ and\n_Plutarch_ report of _Alexander_ the great, and _Tzetzes_ and _Cardan_\ndo testifie of themselves. That some may also emit an unsavory odour, we\nhave no reason to deny; for this may happen from the quality of what\nthey have taken; the F\u00e6tor whereof may discover it self by sweat and\nurine, as being unmasterable by the natural heat of Man, not to be\ndulcified by concoction beyond an unsavory condition: the like may come\nto pass from putrid humours, as is often discoverable in putrid and\nmalignant feavers. And sometime also in gross and humid bodies even in\nthe latitude of sanity; the natural heat of the parts being insufficient\nfor a perfect and through digestion, and the errors of one concoction\nnot rectifiable by another. But that an unsavory odour is gentilitious\nor national unto the _Jews_, if rightly understood, we cannot well\nconcede; nor will the information of reason or sence induce it.\n\nFor first, Upon consult of reason, there will be found no easie\nassurance to fasten a material or temperamental propriety upon any\nnation; there being scarce any condition (but what depends upon clime)\nwhich is not exhausted or obscured from the commixture of introvenient\nnations either by commerce or conquest; much more will it be difficult\nto make out this affection in the _Jews_; whose race however pretended\nto be pure, must needs have suffered inseparable commixtures with\nnations of all sorts; not only in regard of their proselytes, but their\nuniversal dispersion; some being posted from several parts of the earth,\nothers quite lost, and swallowed up in those nations where they planted.\nFor the tribes of _Reuben_, _Gad_, part of _Manasses_ and _Naphthali_,\nwhich were taken by _Assur_, and the rest at the Sacking of _Samaria_,\nwhich were led away by _Salmanasser_ into _Assyria_, and after a year\nand half arrived at _Arsereth_, as is delivered in _Esdras_; these I say\nnever returned, and are by the _Jews_ as vainly expected as their\n_Messias_. Of those of the tribe of _Judah_ and _Benjamin_, which were\nled captive into _Babylon_ by _Nebuchadnezzar_, many returned under\n_Zorobabel_; the rest remained, and from thence long after upon invasion\nof the _Saracens_, fled as far as _India_; where yet they are said to\nremain, but with little difference from the _Gentiles_.\n\nThe Tribes that returned to _Judea_, were afterward widely dispersed;\nfor beside sixteen thousand which _Titus_ sent to _Rome_ unto the\ntriumph of his father _Vespasian_, he sold no less then an hundred\nthousand for slaves. Not many years after, _Adrian_ the Emperour, who\nruined the whole Countrey, transplanted many thousands into _Spain_,\nfrom whence they dispersed into divers Countreys, as into _France_ and\n_England_, but were banished after from both. From _Spain_ they\ndispersed into _Africa_, _Italy_, _Constantinople_, and the Dominions of\nthe _Turk_, where they remain as yet in very great numbers. And if\n(according to good relations) where they may freely speak it, they\nforbear not to boast that there are at present many thousand _Jews_ in\n_Spane_, _France_ and _England_, and some dispensed withall even to the\ndegree of Priesthood; it is a matter very considerable, and could they\nbe smelled out, would much advantage, not only the Church of Christ, but\nalso the coffers of Princes.\n\nNow having thus lived in several Countries, and alwaies in subjection,\nthey must needs have suffered many commixtures; and we are sure they are\nnot exempted from the common contagion of Venery contracted first from\nChristians. Nor as fornications unfrequent between them both; there\ncommonly passing opinions of invitement, that their Women desire\ncopulation with them rather then their own Nation, and affect Christian\ncarnality above circumcised venery. It being therefore acknowledged,\nthat some are lost, evident that others are mixed, and not assured that\nany are distinct, it will be hard to establish this quality upon the\n_Jews_, unless we also transfer the same unto those whose generations\nare mixed, whose genealogies are _Jewish_, and naturally derived from\nthem.\n\nAgain, if we concede a National unsavouriness in any people, yet shall\nwe find the _Jews_ less subject hereto then any, and that in those\nregards which most powerfully concur to such effects, that is, their\ndiet and generation. [SN: _The Jews generally very temperate._] As for\ntheir diet whether in obedience unto the precepts of reason, or the\ninjunctions of parsimony, therein they are very temperate; seldom\noffending in ebriety or excess of drink, nor erring in gulosity or\nsuperfluity of meats; whereby they prevent indigestion and crudities,\nand consequently putrescence of humors. They have in abomination all\nflesh maimed, or the inwards any way vitiated; and therefore eat no\nmeat but of their own killing. They observe not only fasts at certain\ntimes, but are restrained unto very few dishes at all times; so few,\nthat whereas St. _Peters_ sheet will hardly cover our Tables, their Law\ndoth scarce permit them to set forth a Lordly feast; nor any way to\nanswer the luxury of our times, or those of our fore-fathers. For of\nflesh their Law restrains them many sorts, and such as compleat our\nfeasts: That Animal, _Propter convivia natum_ [SN: Quanta est gula, qu\u00e6\nsibi totos ponit Apros! Animal propter convivia natum.], they touch not,\nnor any of its preparations, or parts so much in respect at _Roman_\nTables, nor admit they unto their board, _Hares_, _Conies_, _Herons_,\n_Plovers_ or _Swans_. Of _Fishes_ they only taste of such as have both\nfins and scales; which are comparatively but few in number, such only,\nsaith _Aristotle_, whose Egg or spawn is arenaceous; whereby are\nexcluded all cetaceous and cartilagious _Fishes_; many pectinal, whose\nribs are rectilineal; many costal, which have their ribs embowed; all\nspinal, or such as have no ribs, but only a back bone, or somewhat\nanalogous thereto, as _Eels_, _Congers_, _Lampries_; all that are\ntestaceous, as _Oysters_, _Cocles_, _Wilks_, _Scollops_, _Muscles_; and\nlikewise all crustaceous, as _Crabs_, _Shrimps_ and _Lobsters_. So that\nobserving a spare and simple diet, whereby they prevent the generation\nof crudities; and fasting often whereby they might also digest them;\nthey must be less inclinable unto this infirmity then any other Nation,\nwhose proceedings are not so reasonable to avoid it.\n\nAs for their generations and conceptions (which are the purer from good\ndiet,) they become more pure and perfect by the strict observation of\ntheir Law; upon the injunctions whereof, they severely observe the times\nof Purification, and avoid all copulation, either in the uncleanness of\nthemselves, or impurity of their Women. A Rule, I fear, not so well\nobserved by Christians; whereby not only conceptions are prevented, but\nif they proceed, so vitiated and defiled, that durable inquinations\nremain upon the birth. [SN: _The original or material causes of the Pox\nand Meazels._] Which, when the conception meets with these impurities,\nmust needs be very potent; since in the purest and most fair\nconceptions, learned Men derive the cause of _Pox_ and _Meazels_, from\nprinciples of that nature; that is, the menstrous impurities in the\nMothers blood, and virulent tinctures contracted by the Infant, in the\nnutriment of the womb.\n\nLastly, Experience will convict it; for this offensive odor is no way\ndiscoverable in their Synagogues where many are, and by reason of their\nnumber could not be concealed: nor is the same discernable in commerce\nor conversation with such as are cleanly in Apparel, and decent in their\nHouses. Surely the Viziars and _Turkish_ Basha's are not of this\nopinion; who as Sir _Henry Blunt_ informeth, do generally keep a _Jew_\nof their private Counsel. And were this true, the _Jews_ themselves do\nnot strictly make out the intention of their Law, for in vain do they\nscruple to approach the dead, who livingly are cadaverous, or fear any\noutward pollution, whose temper pollutes themselves. And lastly, were\nthis true, yet our opinion is not impartial; for unto converted _Jews_\nwho are of the same seed, no Man imputeth this unsavoury odor; as though\nAromatized by their conversion, they lost their scent with their\nReligion, and smelt no longer then they savoured of the _Jew_.\n\nNow the ground that begat or propagated this assertion, might be the\ndistasteful aversness of the Christian from the _Jew_, upon the villany\nof that fact, which made them abominable and stink in the nostrils of\nall Men. Which real practise, and metaphorical expression, did after\nproceed into a literal construction; but was a fraudulent illation; for\nsuch an evil savour their father _Jacob_ acknowledged in himself, [SN:\nGen. 34.] when he said, his sons had made him stink in the land, that\nis, to be abominable unto the inhabitants thereof. Now how dangerous it\nis in sensible things to use metaphorical expressions unto the people,\nand what absurd conceits they will swallow in their literals; an\nimpatient example we have in our profession; who having called an eaten\n_ulcer_ by the name of a _Wolf_, common apprehension conceives a reality\ntherein; and against our selves, ocular affirmations are pretended to\nconfirm it.\n\nThe nastiness of that Nation, and sluttish course of life hath much\npromoted the opinion, occasioned by their servile condition at first,\nand inferiour ways of parsimony ever since; as is delivered by Mr.\n_Sandys_. They are generally fat, saith he, and rank of the savours\nwhich attend upon sluttish corpulency. The _Epithetes_ assigned them by\nancient times, have also advanced the same; for _Ammianus Marcellinus_\ndescribeth them in such language; and _Martial_ more ancient, in such a\nrelative expression sets forth unsavoury _Bassa_.\n\n _Quod jejunia Sabbatoriorum.\n Mallem, quam quod oles, olere Bassa._\n\nFrom whence notwithstanding we cannot infer an inward imperfection in\nthe temper of that Nation; it being but an effect in the breath from\noutward observation, in their strict and tedious fasting; and was a\ncommon effect in the breaths of other Nations, became a Proverb [SN:\n\u039d\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Iejunia olere.] among the _Greeks_, and the reason\nthereof begot a Problem in _Aristotle_.\n\nLastly, If all were true, and were this savour conceded, yet are the\nreasons alleadged for it no way satisfactory. _Hucherius_[SN: De\nsterilitate], and after him _Alsarius Crucius_[SN: Cruc. Med. Epist.],\nimputes this effect unto their abstinence from salt or salt meats; which\nhow to make good in the present diet of the _Jews_, we know not; nor\nshall we conceive it was observed of old, if we consider they seasoned\nevery Sacrifice, and all oblations whatsoever; whereof we cannot deny a\ngreat part was eaten by the Priests. And if the offering were of flesh,\nit was salted no less than thrice, that is, once in the common chamber\nof salt, at the foot-step of the Altar, and upon the top thereof, as is\nat large delivered by _Maimonides_. Nor if they refrained all salt, is\nthe illation very urgent; for many there are, not noted for ill odours,\nwhich eat no salt at all; as all carnivorous Animals, most Children,\nmany whole Nations, and probably our Fathers after the Creation; there\nbeing indeed in every thing we eat, a natural and concealed salt, which\nis separated by digestions, as doth appear in our tears, sweat and\nurines, although we refrain all salt, or what doth seem to contain it.\n\nAnother cause is urged by _Campegius_, and much received by Christians;\nthat this ill savour is a curse derived upon them by Christ, and stands,\nas a badge or brand of a generation that crucified their _Salvator_. But\nthis is a conceit without all warrant; and an easie way to take off\ndispute in what point of obscurity soever. A method of many Writers,\nwhich much depreciates the esteem and value of miracles; that is,\ntherewith to salve not only real verities, but also nonexistencies. Thus\nhave elder times not only ascribed the immunity of _Ireland_ from any\nvenemous beast, unto the staff or rod of _Patrick_; but the long tails\nof _Kent_, unto the malediction of _Austin_. Thus therefore, although\nwe concede that many opinions are true which hold some conformity unto\nthis, yet in assenting hereto, many difficulties must arise: it being a\ndangerous point to annex a constant property unto any Nation, and much\nmore this unto the _Jew_; since this quality is not verifiable by\nobservation; since the grounds are feeble that should establish it; and\nlastly, since if all were true, yet are the reasons alleadged for it, of\nno sufficiency to maintain it.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Of Pigmies.\n\n\nBy _Pigmies_ we understand a dwarfish race of people, or lowest\ndiminution of mankind, comprehended in one cubit, or as some will have\nit, in two foot or three spans; not taking them single, but nationally\nconsidering them, and as they make up an aggregated habitation. Whereof\nalthough affirmations be many, and testimonies more frequent then in any\nother point which wise men have cast into the list of fables, yet that\nthere is, or ever was such a race or Nation, upon exact and confirmed\ntestimonies, our strictest enquiry receives no satisfaction.\n\nI say, exact testimonies, first, In regard of the Authors, from whom we\nderive the account, for though we meet herewith in _Herodotus_,\n_Philostratus_, _Mela_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, and many more; yet were they\nderivative Relators, and the primitive Author was _Homer_; who, using\noften similies, as well to delight the ear, as to illustrate his matter,\nin the third of his Iliads, compareth the _Trojans_ unto _Cranes_, when\nthey descend against the _Pigmies_; which was more largely set out by\n_Oppian_, _Juvenal_, _Mantuan_, and many Poets since, and being only a\npleasant figment in the fountain, became a solemn story in the stream,\nand current still among us.\n\nAgain, Many professed enquirers have rejected it; _Strabo_ an exact and\njudicious Geographer, hath largely condemned it as a fabulous story,\n_Julius Scaliger_ a diligent enquirer, accounts thereof, but as a\nPoetical fiction; _Ulysses Aldrovandus_ a most exact Zoographer in an\nexpress discourse hereon, concludes the story fabulous, and a Poetical\naccount of _Homer_; and the same was formerly conceived by _Eustathius_,\nhis excellent Commentator. _Albertus Magnus_ a man ofttimes too\ncredulous, herein was more then dubious; for he affirmeth, if any such\ndwarfs were ever extant, they were surely some kind of _Apes_: which is\na conceit allowed by _Cardan_, and not esteemed improbable by many\nothers.\n\nThere are I confess two testimonies, which from their authority admit of\nconsideration. The first of _Aristotle_[SN: _Hist. animal. lib. 3._],\nwhose words are these, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 d\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, etc. That is, _Hic locus est\nquem incolunt Pygm\u00e6i, non enim id fabula est, sed pusillum genus ut\naiunt._ Wherein indeed _Aristotle_ plaies the _Aristotle_, that is, the\nwary and evading assertor; For though with _non est fabula_, he seems at\nfirst to confirm it, yet at the last he claps in _Sciunt aiunt_, and\nshakes the belief he put before upon it. And therefore I observe\n_Scaliger_ hath not translated the first; perhaps supposing it\nsurreptitious or unworthy so great an assertor. And truly for those\nbooks of animals, or work of eight hundred talents, as _Athen\u00e6us_ terms\nit, although ever to be admired, as containing most excellent truths;\nyet are many things therein delivered upon relation, and some repugnant\nunto the history of our senses; as we are able to make out in some, and\n_Scaliger_ hath observed in many more, as he hath freely declared in his\nComment upon that piece.\n\nThe second testimony is deduced from holy Scripture; [SN: Ezek. 27. 12.]\nthus rendered in the vulgar translation, _Sed et Pygm\u00e6i qui erant in\nturribus tuis, pharetras suas suspenderunt in muris tuis per gyrum_:\nfrom whence notwithstanding we cannot infer this assertion, for first\nthe Translators accord not, and the Hebrew word _Gammadim_ is very\nvariously rendered. Though _Aquila_, _Vetablus_ and _Lyra_ will have it\n_Pygm\u00e6i_, yet in the Septuagint, it is no more then Watchmen; and so in\nthe _Arabick_ and high _Dutch_. In the _Chalde_, _Cappadocians_, in\n_Symmachus_, _Medes_, and in the _French_, those of _Gamad_.\n_Theodotian_ of old, and _Tremellius_ of late, have retained the\nTextuary word; and so have the _Italian_, Low _Dutch_ and _English_\nTranslators, that is, the Men of _Arvad_ were upon thy walls round\nabout, and the _Gammadims_ were in thy Towers.\n\nNor do men only dissent in the Translation of the word, but in the\nExposition of the sense and meaning thereof; for some by _Gammadims_\nunderstand a people of _Syria_, so called from the City _Gamala_; some\nhereby understand the _Cappadocians_, many the _Medes_ [SN: _See Mr._\nFullers _excellent description of_ Palestine.]: and hereof _Forerius_\nhath a singular Exposition, conceiving the Watchmen of _Tyre_ might well\nbe called _Pigmies_, the Towers of that City being so high, that unto\nMen below, they appeared in a cubital stature. Others expounded it quite\ncontrary to common acception, that is not Men of the least, but of the\nlargest size; so doth _Cornelius_ construe _Pygm\u00e6i_, or _viri\ncubitales_, that is, not Men of a cubit high, but of the largest\nstature, whose height like that of Giants, is rather to be taken by the\ncubit then the foot; in which phrase we read the measure of _Goliah_,\nwhose height is said to be six cubits and a span. Of affinity hereto is\nalso the Exposition of _Jerom_; not taking _Pigmies_ for dwarfs, but\nstout and valiant Champions; not taking the sense of \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1f74, which\nsignifies the cubit measure, but that which expresseth Pugils; that is,\nMen fit for combat and the exercise of the fist. Thus can there be no\nsatisfying illation from this Text, the diversity or rather contrariety\nof Expositions and interpretations, distracting more then confirming the\ntruth of the story.\n\nAgain, I say, exact testimonies; in reference unto circumstantial\nrelations so diversly or contrarily delivered. Thus the Relation of\n_Aristotle_ placeth them above _Egypt_ towards the head of _Nyle_ in\n_Africa_; _Philostratus_ affirms they are about _Ganges_ in _Asia_, and\n_Pliny_ in a third place, that is, _Gerania_ in _Scythia_: some write\nthey fight with Cranes, but _Menecles_ in _Athen\u00e6us_ affirms they fight\nwith _Partridges_, some say they ride on _Partridges_, and some on the\nbacks of _Rams_.\n\nLastly, I say, confirmed testimonies; for though _Paulus Jovius_\ndelivers there are _Pigmies_ beyond _Japan_; _Pigafeta_, about the\n_Molucca's_; and _Olaus Magnus_ placeth them in _Greenland_; yet wanting\nfrequent confirmation in a matter so confirmable, their affirmation\ncarrieth but slow perswasion;[2] and wise men may think there is as much\nreality in the [3]_Pigmies_ of _Paracelsus_; that is, his non-Adamical\nmen, or middle natures betwixt men and spirits.\n\nThere being thus no sufficient confirmation of their verity, some doubt\nmay arise concerning their possibility, wherein, since it is not\ndefined in what dimensions the soul may exercise her faculties, we shall\nnot conclude impossibility; or that there might not be a race of\n_Pigmies_, as there is sometimes of Giants. So may we take in the\nopinion of _Austin_, and his Comment _Ludovicus_, but to believe they\nshould be in the stature of a foot or span, requires the preaspection of\nsuch a one as _Philetas_ the Poet in _Athen\u00e6us_: who was fain to fasten\nlead unto his feet lest the wind should blow him away. Or that other in\nthe same Author, who was so little _ut ad obolum accederet_; a story so\nstrange, that we might herein excuse the PRINTER, did not the account of\n_\u00c6lian_ accord unto it, as _Causabone_ hath observed in his learned\nAnimadversions.\n\nLastly, If any such Nation there were, yet is it ridiculous what Men\nhave delivered of them; that they fight with _Cranes_ upon the backs of\n_Rams_ or _Partridges_: or what is delivered by _Ctesias_, that they are\n_Negroes_ in the middest of _India_; whereof the King of that Country\nentertaineth three thousand Archers for his guard. Which is a relation\nbelow the tale of _Oberon_; nor could they better defend him, then the\nEmblem saith, they offended _Hercules_ whilest he slept; that is, to\nwound him no deeper, then to awake him.\n\n [2] _The story of Pigmies rejected._\n\n [3] _By Pigmies intending Fairies and other spirits about the earth as\n by Nymphs and Salamanders, spirits of fire and water._ Lib. De\n Pigm\u00e6is, Nymphis, _etc._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n Of the great Climacterical year, that is,\n Sixty three.\n\n\nCertainly the Eyes of the understanding, and those of the sense are\ndifferently deceived in their greatest objects; the sense apprehending\nthem in lesser magnitudes then their dimensions require; so it beholdeth\nthe Sun, the Stars, and the Earth it self. But the understanding quite\notherwise: for that ascribeth unto many things far larger horizons then\ntheir due circumscriptions require: and receiveth them with\namplifications which their reality will not admit. Thus hath it fared\nwith many Heroes and most worthy persons, who being sufficiently\ncommendable from true and unquestionable merits, have received\nadvancement from falshood and the fruitful stock of Fables. Thus hath it\nhappened unto the Stars, and Luminaries of heaven: who being\nsufficiently admirable in themselves, have been set out by effects, no\nway dependent on their efficiencies, and advanced by amplifications to\nthe questioning of their true endowments. Thus is it not improbable it\nhath also fared with number, which though wonderful in it self, and\nsufficiently magnifiable from its demonstrable affections, hath yet\nreceived adjections from the multiplying conceits of men, and stands\nladen with additions, which its equity will not admit.\n\nAnd so perhaps hath it happened unto the number, 7 and 9, which\nmultiplied into themselves do make up Sixty three, commonly esteemed the\ngreat Climacterical of our lives. For the daies of men are usually cast\nup by Septenaries, and every seventh year conceived to carry some\naltering character with it, either in the temper of body, mind, or both.\nBut among all other, three are most remarkable, that is, 7 times 7 or\nfourty nine, 9 times 9 or eighty one, and 7 times 9 or the year of Sixty\nthree; which is conceived to carry with it the most considerable\nfatality; and consisting of both the other numbers was apprehended to\ncomprise the vertue of either: is therefore expected and entertained\nwith fear, and esteemed a favour of fate to pass it over. [SN: _The\ngreat Climacterical, Sixty-three, no such dangerous year._] Which\nnotwithstanding many suspect to be but a Panick terrour, and men to fear\nthey justly know not what: and to speak indifferently, I find no\nsatisfaction: nor any sufficiency in the received grounds to establish a\nrational fear.\n\nNow herein to omit Astrological considerations (which are but rarely\nintroduced) the popular foundation whereby it hath continued, is first,\nthe extraordinary power and secret virtue conceived to attend these\nnumbers: whereof we must confess there have not wanted not only especial\ncommendations, but very singular conceptions. Among Philosophers,\n_Pythagoras_ seems to have played the leading part; which was long after\ncontinued by his disciples, and the _Italick_ School. The Philosophy of\n_Plato_, and most of the _Platonists_ abounds in numeral considerations:\nabove all, _Philo_ the learned _Jew_, hath acted this part even to\nsuperstition; bestowing divers pages in summing up every thing, which\nmight advantage this number. Which notwithstanding, when a serious\nReader shall perpend, he will hardly find any thing that may convince\nhis judgment, or any further perswade, then the lenity of his belief, or\nprejudgment of reason inclineth.\n\nFor first, Not only the number of 7 and 9 from considerations abstruse,\nhave been extolled by most, but all or most of the other digits have\nbeen as mystically applauded. For the number of One and Three have not\nbeen only admired by the Heathens, but from adorable grounds, the unity\nof God, and mystery of the Trinity admired by many Christians. The\nnumber of four stands much admired, not only in the quaternity of the\nElements, which are the principles of bodies, but in the letters of the\nName of God, which in the _Greek_, _Arabian_, _Persian_, _Hebrew_, and\n_Egyptian_, consisteth of that number; and was so venerable among the\n_Pythagoreans_, that they swore by the number four. That of six hath\nfound many leaves in its favour; not only for the daies of the Creation,\nbut its natural consideration, as being a perfect number, and the first\nthat is compleated by its parts; that is, the sixt, the half, and the\nthird, 1. 2. 3. Which drawn into a sum, make six. The number of Ten hath\nbeen as highly extolled, as containing even, odd, long, plain, quadrate\nand cubical numbers; and _Aristotle_ observed with admiration, that\n_Barbarians_ as well as _Greeks_, did use numeration unto Ten, which\nbeing so general, was not to be judged casual, but to have a foundation\nin nature. So that not only 7 and 9, but all the rest have had their\nElogies, as may be observed at large in _Rhodiginus_, and in several\nWriters since: every one extolling number, according to his subject, and\nas it advantaged the present discourse in hand.\n\nAgain, They have been commended not only from pretended grounds in\nnature, but from artificial, casual or fabulous foundations: so have\nsome endeavoured to advance their admiration, from the 9 Muses, from the\n7 Wonders of the World, from the 7 Gates of _Thebes_: in that 7 Cities\ncontended for _Homer_, in that there are 7 Stars in _Ursa minor_, and 7\nin Charles wayn, or Plaustrum of _Ursa major_. Wherein indeed although\nthe ground be natural, yet either from constellations or their\nremarkable parts, there is the like occasion to commend any other\nnumber, the number 5 from the stars in _Sagitta_, 3 from the girdle of\n_Orion_, and 4 from _Equiculus_, _Crusero_, or the feet of the Centaur:\nyet are such as these clapt in by very good Authors, and some not\nomitted by _Philo_.\n\nNor are they only extolled from Arbitrary and Poetical grounds, but from\nfoundations and principles, false or dubious. That Women are menstruant,\nand Men pubescent at the year of twice seven is accounted a punctual\ntruth; which period nevertheless we dare not precisely determine, as\nhaving observed a variation and latitude in most, agreeable unto the\nheat of clime or temper; Men arising variously unto virility, according\nto the activity of causes that promote it. _Sanguis menstruosus ad diem,\nut plurimum, septimum durat_, saith _Philo_. Which notwithstanding is\nrepugnant unto experience, and the doctrine of _Hippocrates_, who in his\nbook, _de di\u00e6ta_, plainly affirmeth, it is thus but with few women, and\nonly such as abound with pituitous and watery humours.\n\nIt is further conceived to receive addition, in that there are 7 heads\nof _Nyle_, but we have made manifest elsewhere, that by the description\nof Geographers, they have been sometime more, and are at present fewer.\n\nIn that there were 7 Wise men of _Greece_, which though generally\nreceived, yet having enquired into the verity thereof we cannot so\nreadily determine it, for in the life of _Thales_, who was accounted in\nthat number, _Diogenes Laertius_ plainly saith, _Magna de eorum numero\ndiscordia est_; some holding but four, some ten, others twelve, and none\nagreeth in their names, though according in their number.\n\nIn that there are just 7 Planets or errant Stars in the lower orbs of\nHeaven, but it is now demonstrable unto sense, that there are many more;\nas _Galileo_[SN: Nuncius Sydereus.] hath declared, that is, two more in\nthe orb of Saturn, and no less then four more in the sphere of Jupiter.\nAnd the like may be said of the _Pleiades_ or 7 Stars, which are also\nintroduced to magnifie this number, for whereas scarce discerning six,\nwe account them 7, by his relation, there are no less then fourty.\n\nThat the Heavens are encompassed with 7 Circles, is also the allegation\nof _Philo_; which are in his account, the Arctick, Antarctick, the\nSummer and Winter Tropicks, the \u00c6quator, Zodiack, and the Milky circle;\nwhereas by Astronomers they are received in greater number. For though\nwe leave out the Lacteous circle (which _Aratus_, _Geminus_, and\n_Proclus_, out of him hath numbred among the rest) yet are there more by\nfour then _Philo_ mentions; that is, the Horizon, Meridian and both the\nColures; circles very considerable, and generally delivered, not only by\n_Ptolomie_, and the Astronomers since his time, but such as flourished\nlong before, as _Hipparchus_ and _Eudoxus_. So that for ought I know, if\nit make for our purpose, or advance the theme in hand, with equal\nliberty, we may affirm there were 7 Sybils, or but 7 signs in the\nZodiack circle of Heaven.\n\nThat verse in _Virgil_ translated out of _Homer_ [SN: \u03a4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c2.], _O terque quaterque beati_; that is as\nmen will have it, 7 times happy, hath much advanced this number in\ncritical apprehensions; yet is not this construction so indubitably to\nbe received, as not at all to be questioned: for though _Rhodiginus_,\n_Beroaldus_, and others from the authority of _Macrobius_ so interpret\nit, yet _Servius_ his ancient commentator conceives no more thereby then\na finite number for indefinite, and that no more is implied then often\nhappy. _Strabo_[SN: Lib. 10.] the ancientest of them all, conceives no\nmore by this in _Homer_, then a full and excessive expression; whereas\nin common phrase and received language, he should have termed them\nthrice happy; herein exceeding that number, he called them four times\nhappy, that is, more then thrice. And this he illustrates by the like\nexpression of _Homer_, in the speech of _Circe_; who to express the\ndread and terrour of the Ocean, sticks not unto the common form of\nspeech in the strict account of its reciprocations, but largely\nspeaking, saith, it ebbs and flows no less then thrice a day, _terque\ndie revomit fluctus iterumque resorbet_. And so when it is said by\n_Horace_, _f\u00e6lices ter et amplius_, the exposition is sufficient, if we\nconceive no more then the letter fairly beareth, that is, four times, or\nindefinitely more then thrice.\n\nBut the main considerations which most set of this number, are\nobservations drawn from the motions of the Moon, supposed to be measured\nby sevens; and the critical or decretory daies dependent on that number.\nAs for the motion of the Moon, though we grant it to be measured by\nsevens, yet will not this advance the same before its fellow numbers;\nfor hereby the motion of other Stars are not measured, the fixed Stars\nby many thousand years, the Sun by 365 daies, the superiour Planets by\nmore, the inferiour by somewhat less. And if we consider the revolution\nof the first Movable, and the daily motion from East to West, common\nunto all the Orbs, we shall find it measured by another number, for\nbeing performed in four and twenty hours, it is made up of 4 times 6:\nand this is the measure and standard of other parts of time, of months,\nof years, Olympiades, Lustres, Indictions of Cycles, Jubilies, etc.\n\n[Sidenote: _What a Solary month is._]\n\nAgain, Months are not only Lunary, and measured by the Moon, but also\nSolary, and determined by the motion of the Sun; that is, the space\nwherein the Sun doth pass 30 degrees of the Ecliptick. By this month\n_Hippocrates_[SN: De octomestri partu.] computed the time of the\nInfants gestation in the womb; for 9 times 30, that is, 270 daies, or\ncompleat 9 months, make up forty weeks, the common compute of women. And\nthis is to be understood, when he saith, 2 daies makes the fifteenth,\nand 3 the tenth part of a mouth. This was the month of the ancient\n_Hebrews_ before their departure out of _Egypt_: and hereby the compute\nwill fall out right, and the account concur, when in one place it is\nsaid, the waters of the flood prevailed an hundred and fifty daies, and\nin another it is delivered, that they prevailed from the seventeenth day\nof the second month, unto the seventeenth day of the seventh. As for\nhebdomadal periods or weeks, although in regard of their Sabbaths, they\nwere observed by the _Hebrews_, yet it is not apparent the ancient\n_Greeks_ or _Romans_ used any: but had another division of their months\ninto Ides, Nones and Calends.\n\nMoreover, Moneths howsoever taken, are not exactly divisible into\nseptenaries or weeks, which fully contain seven daies: whereof four\ntimes do make compleatly twenty eight. For, beside the usual or\nCalendary month, there are but four considerable: the month of\nPeragration, of Apparition, of Consecution, and the medical or\nDecretorial month; whereof some come short, others exceed this account.\nA month of Peragration, is the time of the Moons revolution from any\npart of the Zodiack, unto the same again; and this containeth but 27\ndaies, and about 8 hours: which cometh short to compleat the septenary\naccount. The month of Consecution, or as some will term it, of\nprogression, is the space between one conjunction of the Moon with the\nSun, unto another: and this containeth 29 daies and an half: for the\nMoon returning unto the same point wherein it was kindled by the Sun,\nand not finding it there again (for in the mean time, by its proper\nmotion it hath passed through 2 signs) it followeth after, and attains\nthe Sun in the space of 2 daies and 4 hours more, which added unto the\naccount of Peragration, makes 29 daies and an half: so that this month\nexceedeth the latitude of Septenaries, and the fourth part comprehendeth\nmore then 7 daies. A month of Apparition, is the space wherein the Moon\nappeareth (deducting three daies wherein it commonly disappeareth; and\nbeing in combustion with the Sun, is presumed of less activity,) and\nthis containeth but 26 daies and 12 hours. The medical month, not much\nexceedeth this, consisting of 26 daies and 22 hours, and is made up out\nof all the other months. For if out of 29 and an half, the month of\nConsecution, we deduct 3 daies of disappearance, there will remain the\nmonth of Apparition 26 daies and 12 hours: whereto if we add 27 daies\nand 8 hours, the month of Peragration, there will arise 53 daies and 10\nhours, which divided by 2, makes 26 daies and 22 hours: called by\nPhysitians the medical month: introduced by _Galen_ against\n_Archigenes_, for the better compute of Decretory or Critical daies.\n\n[Sidenote: _What a Critical day is._]\n\nAs for the Critical daies (such I mean wherein upon a decertation\nbetween the disease and nature, there ensueth a sensible alteration,\neither to life or death,) the reasons thereof are rather deduced from\nAstrology, then Arithmetick: for accounting from the beginning of the\ndisease, and reckoning on unto the seventh day, the Moon will be in a\nTetragonal or Quadrate aspect, that is, 4 signs removed from that\nwherein the disease began: in the fourteenth day it will be in an\nopposite aspect: and at the end of the third septenary, Tetragonal\nagain: as will most graphically appear in the figures of Astrologers,\nespecially _Lucas Gauricus_, _De diebus decretoriis_.\n\nAgain, (Beside that computing by the Medical month, the first hebdomade\nor septenary consists of 6 daies, seventeen hours and an half, the\nsecond happeneth in 13 daies and eleven hours, and the third but in the\ntwentieth natural day) what _Galen_ first, and _Aben-Ezra_ since\nobserved in his Tract of Critical daies, in regard of Eccentricity and\nthe Epicycle or lesser orb wherein it moveth, the motion of the Moon is\nvarious and unequal; whereby the Critical account must also vary. For\nthough its middle motion be equal, and of 13 degrees, yet in the other\nit moveth sometimes fifteen, sometimes less then twelve. For moving in\nthe upper part of its orb, it performeth its motion more slowly then in\nthe lower; insomuch that being at the height, it arriveth at the\nTetragonal and opposite signs sooner, and the Critical day will be in 6\nand 13; and being at the lowest, the critical account will be out of the\nlatitude of 7, nor happen before the eighth or ninth day. Which are\nconsiderations not to be neglected in the compute of decretory daies,\nand manifestly declare that other numbers must have a respect herein as\nwell as 7 and fourteen.\n\nLastly, Some things to this intent are deduced from holy Scripture; thus\nis the year of _Jubile_ introduced to magnifie this number, as being a\nyear made out of 7 times 7; wherein notwithstanding there may be a\nmisapprehension; for this ariseth not from 7 times 7, that is, 49; but\nwas observed the fiftieth year, as is expressed, [SN: Levit. 25.] And\nyou shall hallow the fiftieth year, a _Jubile_ shall that fiftieth year\nbe unto you. Answerable whereto is the Exposition of the _Jews_\nthemselves, as is delivered by _Ben-Maimon_; that is, the year of\n_Jubile_, cometh not into the account of the years of 7, but the fourty\nninth is the Release, and the fiftieth the year of _Jubile_. Thus is it\nalso esteemed no small advancement unto this number, that the Genealogy\nof our Saviour is summed up by 14, that is, this number doubled;\naccording as is expressed. [SN: Mat. 1.] So all the generations from\n_Abraham_ to _David_ are fourteen generations, and from _David_ unto the\ncarrying away into _Babylon_, are fourteen generations; and from the\ncarrying away into _Babylon_ unto _Christ_, are fourteen generations.\nWhich nevertheless must not be strictly understood as numeral relations\nrequire; for from _David_ unto _Jeconiah_ are accounted by _Matthew_ but\n14 generations; whereas according to the exact account in the History of\nKings, there were at least 17; and 3 in this account, that is,\n_Ahazias_, _Joas_ and _Amazias_ are left out. For so it is delivered by\nthe Evangelist: And _Joram_ begat _Ozias_: whereas in the regal\nGenealogy there are 3 successions between: for _Ozias_ or _Uzziah_ was\nthe son of _Amazias_, _Amazias_ of _Joas_, _Joas_ of _Azariah_, and\n_Azariah_ of _Joram_: so that in strict account, _Joram_ was the\n_Abavus_ or Grand-father twice removed, and not the Father of _Ozias_.\nAnd these second omitted descents made a very considerable measure of\ntime, in the Royal chronology of _Judah_: for though _Azariah_ reigned\nbut one year, yet _Joas_ reigned fourty, and _Amazias_ no less then nine\nand twenty. However therefore these were delivered by the Evangelist,\nand carry (no doubt) an incontroulable conformity unto the intention of\nhis delivery: yet are they not appliable unto precise numerality, nor\nstrictly to be drawn unto the rigid test of numbers.\n\nLastly, Though many things have been delivered by Authors concerning\nnumber, and they transferred unto the advantage of their nature, yet are\nthey oft-times otherwise to be understood, then as they are vulgarly\nreceived in active and causal considerations; they being many times\ndelivered Hieroglyphically, Metaphorically, Illustratively, and not with\nreference unto action or causality. True it is, that God made all things\nin number, weight and measure, yet nothing by them or through the\nefficacy of either. Indeed our daies, actions and motions being measured\nby time (which is but motion measured) what ever is observable in any,\nfalls under the account of some number; which notwithstanding cannot be\ndenominated the cause of those events. So do we injustly assign the\npower of Action even unto Time it self; nor do they speak properly who\nsay that Time consumeth all things; for Time is not effective, nor are\nbodies destroyed by it, but from the action and passion of their\nElements in it; whose account it only affordeth: and measuring out their\nmotion, informs us in the periods and terms of their duration, rather\nthen effecteth or physically produceth the same.\n\nA second consideration which promoteth this opinion, are confirmations\ndrawn from Writers, who have made observations, or set down favourable\nreasons for this Climacterical year; so have _Henricus Ranzovius_,\n_Baptista Codronchus_[SN: De annis Climactericis.], and _Levinus\nLemnius_[SN: De occultis natur\u00e6 miraculis.] much confirmed the same;\nbut above all, that memorable Letter of _Augustus_ [SN: Bel. lib.\n5.] sent unto his Nephew _Caius_, wherein he encourageth him to\ncelebrate his nativity, for he had now escaped Sixty three, the great\nClimacterical and dangerous year unto man: which notwithstanding rightly\nperpended, it can be no singularity to question it, nor any new Paradox\nto deny it.\n\nFor first, It is implicitely, and upon consequence denied by _Aristotle_\nin his Politicks, in that discourse against _Plato_, who measured the\nvicissitude and mutation of States, by a periodical fatality of number.\n_Ptolomie_ that famous Mathematician plainly saith, he will not deliver\nhis doctrines by parts and numbers which are ineffectual, and have not\nthe nature of causes; now by these numbers saith _Rhodiginus_ and\n_Mirandula_, he implieth Climacterical years, that is, septenaries, and\nnovenaries set down by the bare observation of numbers. _Censorinus_ an\nAuthor of great authority, and sufficient antiquity, speaks yet more\namply in his book _De die Natali_, wherein expresly treating of\nClimacterical daies, he thus delivereth himself. Some maintain that 7\ntimes 7, that is, fourty nine, is most dangerous of any other, and this\nis the most general opinion; others unto 7 times 7, add 9 times 9, that\nis, the year of eighty one, both which consisting of square and quadrate\nnumbers, were thought by _Plato_ and others to be of great\nconsideration; as for this year of Sixty three or 7 times 9, though some\nesteem it of most danger, yet do I conceive it less dangerous then the\nother; for though it containeth both numbers above named, that is, 7 and\n9, yet neither of them square or quadrate; and as it is different from\nthem both, so is it not potent in either. Nor is this year remarkable in\nthe death of many famous men. I find indeed that _Aristotle_ died this\nyear, but he by the vigour of his mind, a long time sustained a natural\ninfirmity of stomack; so that it was a greater wonder he attained unto\nSixty three, then that he lived no longer. The Psalm of _Moses_ hath\nmentioned a year of danger differing from all these: and that is ten\ntimes 7 or seventy; for so it is said, The daies of Man are threescore\nand ten. And the very same is affirmed by _Solon_, as _Herodotus_\nrelates in a speech of his unto _Cr\u0153sus_, _Ego annis septuaginta\nhuman\u00e6 vit\u00e6 modum definio_: and surely that year must be of greatest\ndanger, which is the Period of all the rest; and fewest safely pass\nthorow that, which is set as a bound for few or none to pass. And\ntherefore the consent of elder times, setling their conceits upon\nClimacters, not only differing from this of ours, but one another;\nthough several Nations and Ages do fancy unto themselves different years\nof danger, yet every one expects the same event, and constant verity in\neach.\n\nAgain, Though _Varro_ divided the daies of man into five proportions,\n_Hippocrates_ into 7, and _Solon_ into 10; yet probably their divisions\nwere to be received with latitude, and their considerations not strictly\nto be confined unto their last unities. So when _Varro_ extendeth\n_Puertia_ unto 15. _Adolescentia_ unto 30. _Juventus_ unto 35. There is\na latitude between the terms or Periods of compute, and the verity holds\ngood in the accidents of any years between them. So when _Hippocrates_\ndivideth our life into 7 degrees or stages, and maketh the end of the\nfirst 7. Of the second 14. Of the third 28. Of the fourth 35. Of the\nfift 47. Of the sixt 56. And of the seventh, the last year when ever it\nhappeneth; herein we may observe, he maketh not his divisions precisely\nby 7 and 9, and omits the great Climacterical; beside there is between\nevery one at least the latitude of 7 years, in which space or interval,\nthat is either in the third or fourth year, what ever falleth out is\nequally verified of the whole degree, as though it had happened in the\nseventh. _Solon_ divided it into ten Septenaries, because in every one\nthereof, a man received some sensible mutation; in the first is\nDedention or falling of teeth; in the second Pubescence; in the third\nthe beard groweth; in the fourth strength prevails; in the fift maturity\nfor issue; in the sixt moderation of appetite; in the seventh prudence,\netc. Now herein there is a tolerable latitude, and though the division\nproceed by 7, yet is not the total verity to be restrained unto the last\nyear; nor constantly to be expected the beard should be compleat at 21.\nor wisdom acquired just in 49. and thus also though 7 times 9 contain\none of those septenaries, and doth also happen in our declining years;\nyet might the events thereof be imputed unto the whole septenary; and be\nmore reasonably entertained with some latitude, then strictly reduced\nunto the last number, or all the accidents from 56. imputed unto Sixty\nthree.\n\nThirdly, Although this opinion may seem confirmed by observation, and\nmen may say it hath been so observed, yet we speak also upon experience,\nand do believe that men from observation will collect no satisfaction.\nThat other years may be taken against it, especially if they have the\nadvantage to precede it; as sixty against sixty three, and sixty three\nagainst sixty six. For fewer attain to the latter then the former; and\nso surely in the first septenary do most die, and probably also in the\nvery first year; for all that ever lived were in the account of that\nyear; beside the infirmities that attend it are so many, and the body\nthat receives them so tender and inconfirmed, we scarce count any alive\nthat is not past it.\n\n_Fabritius Paduanius_[SN: De catena temporis.] discoursing of the great\nClimacterical, attempts a numeration of eminent men, who died in that\nyear; but in so small a number, as not sufficient to make a considerable\nInduction. He mentioneth but four, _Diogenes Cynicus_, _Dyonysius\nHeracleoticus_, _Xenocrates Platonicus_, and _Plato_. As for\n_Dionysius_, as _Censorinus_ witnesseth, he famished himself in the 82\nyear of his life; _Xenocrates_ by the testimony of _Laertius_ fell into\na cauldron, and died the same year, and _Diogenes_ the _Cynick_, by the\nsame testimony lived almost unto ninety. The date of _Plato's_ death is\nnot exactly agreed on, but all dissent from this which he determineth:\n_Neanthes_ in _Laertius_ extendeth his daies unto 84. _Suidas_ unto 82.\nBut _Hermippus_ defineth his death in 81. And this account seemeth most\nexact; for if, as he delivereth, _Plato_ was born in the 88 Olympiade,\nand died in the first year of the 108, the account will not surpass the\nyear of 81, and so in his death he verified the opinion of his life, and\nof the life of man, whose period, as _Censorinus_ recordeth, he placeth\nin the Quadrate of 9, or 9 times 9, that is, eighty one: and therefore\nas _Seneca_ delivereth, the _Magicians_ at _Athens_ did sacrifice unto\nhim, as declaring in his death somewhat above humanity; because he died\nin the day of his nativity, and without deduction justly accomplished\nthe year of eighty one. _Bodine_ I confess, delivers a larger list of\nmen that died in this year, [SN: _Method_. Hist.] _Moriuntur\ninnumerabiles anno sexagesimo tertio, Aristoteles, Chrysippus,\nBocatius, Bernardus, Erasmus, Lutherus, Melancthon, Sylvius, Alexander,\nJacobus Sturmius, Nicolaus Causanus, Thomas Linacer, eodem anno Cicero\nc\u00e6sus est._ Wherein beside that it were not difficult to make a larger\nCatalogue of memorable persons that died in other years, we cannot but\ndoubt the verity of his Induction. As for _Sylvius_ and _Alexander_,\nwhich of that name he meaneth I know not; but for _Chrysippus_, by the\ntestimony of _Laertius_, he died in the 73 year, _Bocatius_ in the 62,\n_Linacer_ the 64, and _Erasmus_ exceedeth 70, as _Paulus Jovius_ hath\ndelivered in his Elogy of learned men. And as for _Cicero_, as\n_Plutarch_ in his life affirmeth, he was slain in the year of 64; and\ntherefore sure the question is hard set, and we have no easie reason to\ndoubt, when great and entire Authors shall introduce injustifiable\nexamples, and authorize their assertions by what is not authentical.\n\nFourthly, They which proceed upon strict numerations, and will by such\nregular and determined waies measure out the lives of men, and\nperiodically define the alterations of their tempers; conceive a\nregularity in mutations, with an equality in constitutions, and forget\nthat variety, which Physitians therein discover. [SN: _Cholerick men\ncommonly shorter lived._] For seeing we affirm that women do naturally\ngrow old before men, that the cholerick fall short in long\u00e6vity of the\nsanguine, that there is _senium ante senectum_, and many grow old before\nthey arrive at age, we cannot affix unto them all one common point of\ndanger, but should rather assign a respective fatality unto each. Which\nis concordant unto the doctrine of the numerists, and such as maintain\nthis opinion: for they affirm that one number respecteth Men, another\nWomen, as _Bodin_ explaineth that of _Seneca Septimus quisque annus\n\u00e6tati signum imprimit_, subjoins _Hoc de maribus dictum oportuit, hoc\nprimum intueri licet, perfectum numerum, id est, sextum f\u00e6minas\nseptenarium mares immutare._\n\nFiftly, Since we esteem this opinion to have some ground in nature, and\nthat nine times seven revolutions of the Sun, imprints a dangerous\nCharacter on such as arrive unto it; it will have some doubt behind, in\nwhat subjection hereunto were the lives of our fore-fathers presently\nafter the flood, and more especially before it; who attaining unto 8 or\n900 years, had not their Climacters Computable by digits, or as we do\naccount them; for the great Climacterical was past unto them before they\nbegat Children, or gave any Testimony of their virility; for we read not\nthat any begat children before the age of sixty five. And this may also\nafford a hint to enquire, what are the Climacters of other animated\ncreatures; whereof the lives of some attain not so far as this of ours,\nand that of others extend a considerable space beyond it.\n\nLastly, The imperfect accounts that Men have kept of time, and the\ndifference thereof both in the same and divers common Wealths, will much\ndistract the certainty of this assertion. For though there were a\nfatality in this year, yet divers were, and others might be out in their\naccount, aberring several waies from the true and just compute, and\ncalling that one year, which perhaps might be another.\n\nFor first, They might be out in the commencement or beginning of their\naccount; for every man is many months elder then he computeth. For\nalthough we begin the same from our nativity, and conceive that no\narbitrary, but natural term of compute, yet for the duration of life or\nexistence, we are liable in the Womb unto the usual distinctions of\ntime; and are not to be exempted from the account of age and life, where\nwe are subject to diseases, and often suffer death. And therefore\n_Pythagoras_, _Hippocrates_, _Diocles_, _Avicenna_ and others, have set\nupon us numeral relations and temporal considerations in the womb; not\nonly affirming the birth of the seventh month to be vital, that of the\neighth mortal, but the progression thereto to be measured by rule, and\nto hold a proportion unto motion and formation. As what receiveth motion\nin the seventh, to be perfected in the Triplicities; that is, the time\nof conformation unto motion is double, and that from motion unto the\nbirth, treble; So what is formed the 35 day, is moved the seventy, and\nborn the 210 day. And therefore if any invisible causality there be,\nthat after so many years doth evidence it self as Sixty three, it will\nbe questionable whether its activity only set out at our nativity, and\nbegin not rather in the womb, wherein we place the like considerations.\nWhich doth not only entangle this assertion, but hath already embroiled\nthe endeavours of Astrology in the erection of Schemes, and the judgment\nof death or diseases; for being not incontroulably determined, at what\ntime to begin, whether at conception, animation or exclusion (it being\nindifferent unto the influence of Heaven to begin at either) they have\ninvented another way, that is, to begin _ab Hora qu\u00e6stionis_, as _Haly_,\n_Messahallach_, _Ganivetus_, and _Guido Bonatus_ have delivered.\n\nAgain, In regard of the measure of time by months and years, there will\nbe no small difficulty; and if we shall strictly consider it, many have\nbeen and still may be mistaken. For neither the motion of the Moon,\nwhereby months are computed; nor of the Sun, whereby years are\naccounted, consisteth of whole numbers, but admits of fractions, and\nbroken parts, as we have already declared concerning the Moon. That of\nthe Sun consisteth of 365 daies, and almost 6 hours, that is, wanting\neleven minutes; which 6 hours omitted, or not taken notice of, will in\nprocess of time largely deprave the compute; and this is the occasion of\nthe Bissextile or leap-year, which was not observed in all times, nor\npunctually in all Common-Wealths; so that in Sixty three years there may\nbe lost almost 18 daies, omitting the intercalation of one day every\nfourth year, allowed for this quadrant, or 6 hours supernumerary. And\nthough the same were observed, yet to speak strictly a man may be\nsomewhat out in the account of his age at Sixty three, for although\nevery fourth year we insert one day, and so fetch up the quadrant, yet\nthose eleven minutes whereby the year comes short of perfect 6 hours,\nwill in the circuit of those years arise unto certain hours; and in a\nlarger progression of time unto certain daies. Whereof at present we\nfind experience in the Calender we observe. For the _Julian_ year of 365\ndaies being eleven minutes larger then the annual revolution of the Sun,\nthere will arise an anticipation in the \u00c6quinoxes; and as _Junctinus_\n[SN: Comment. in Sph\u00e6ram Ioh. de Sacro bosco.] computeth, in every 136\nyear they will anticipate almost one day. And therefore those ancient\nmen and Nestors of old times, which yearly observed their nativities,\nmight be mistaken in the day; nor that to be construed without a grain\nof Salt, which is delivered by _Moses_; At the end of four hundred\nyears, even the self same day, all the host of _Israel_ went out of the\nland of _Egypt_. For in that space of time the \u00c6quinoxes had\nanticipated, and the eleven minutes had amounted far above a day. And\nthis compute rightly considered will fall fouler on them who cast up\nthe lives of Kingdoms, and sum up their duration by particular numbers;\nas _Plato_ first began, and some have endeavoured since by perfect and\nspherical numbers, by the square and cube of 7 and 9 and 12, the great\nnumber of _Plato_. Wherein indeed _Bodine_[SN: Mat. Histor.] hath\nattempted a particular enumeration; but (beside the mistakes committible\nin the solary compute of years) the difference of Chronology disturbs\nthe satisfaction and quiet of his computes; some adding, others\ndetracting, and few punctually according in any one year; whereby indeed\nsuch accounts should be made up; for the variation in an unite destroys\nthe total illation.\n\nThirdly, The compute may be unjust not only in a strict acception, of\nfew daies or hours, but in the latitude also of some years; and this may\nhappen from the different compute of years in divers Nations, and even\nsuch as did maintain the most probable way of account: their year being\nnot only different from one another, but the civil and common account\ndisagreeing much from the natural year, whereon the consideration is\nfounded. Thus from the testimony of _Herodotus_, _Censorinus_ and\nothers, the _Greeks_ observed the Lunary year [SN: _The Lunary year\nwhat._], that is, twelve revolutions of the Moon, 354 daies; but the\n_Egyptians_, and many others adhered unto the Solary account [SN: _The\nSolary year what._], that is, 365 daies, that is, eleven daies longer.\nNow hereby the account of the one would very much exceed the other: A\nman in the one would account himself 63, when one in the other would\nthink himself but 61; and so although their nativities were under the\nsame hour, yet did they at different years believe the verity of that\nwhich both esteemed affixed and certain unto one. The like mistake there\nis in a tradition of our daies; men conceiving a peculiar danger in the\nbeginning daies of _May_, set out as a fatal period unto consumptions\nand Chronical diseases; wherein notwithstanding we compute by Calenders,\nnot only different from our ancestors, but one another; the compute of\nthe one anticipating that of the other; so that while we are in _April_,\nothers begin _May_, and the danger is past unto one, while it beginneth\nwith another.\n\nFourthly, Men were not only out in the number of some daies, the\nlatitude of a few years, but might be wide by whole Olympiades and\ndivers Decades of years. [SN: _The different account or measure of a\nyear._] For as _Censorinus_ relateth, the ancient _Arcadians_ observed a\nyear of three months, the _Carians_ of six, the _Iberians_ of four; and\nas _Diodorus_ and _Xenophon de \u00c6quivocis_ alleadgeth, the ancient\n_Egyptians_ have used a year of three, two, and one moneth: so that the\nClimacterical was not only different unto those Nations, but\nunreasonably distant from ours; for Sixty three will pass in their\naccount, before they arrive so high as ten in ours.\n\nNor if we survey the account of _Rome_ it self, may we doubt they were\nmistaken; and if they feared Climacterical years, might err in their\nnumeration. For the civil year whereof the people took notice, did\nsometimes come short, and sometimes exceed the natural. For according to\n_Varro_, _Suctoninus_ and _Censorinus_, their year consisted first of\nten months; which comprehended but 304 daies, that is, 61 less than ours\ncontaineth; after by _Numa_ or _Tarquine_ from a superstitious conceit\nof imparity were added 51 daies, which made 355, one day more then\ntwelve revolutions of the Moon. And thus a long time it continued, the\ncivil compute exceeding the natural; the correction whereof, and the\ndue ordering of the Leap year was referred unto the Pontifices; who\neither upon favour or malice, that some might continue their offices a\nlonger or shorter time; or from the magnitude of the year that men might\nbe advantaged, or endamaged in their contracts, by arbitrary\nintercalations depraved the whole account. Of this abuse _Cicero_\naccused _Verres_, which at last proceeded so far, that when _Julius\nC\u00e6sar_ came unto that office, before the redress hereof he was fain to\ninsert two intercalary months unto _November_ and _December_, when he\nhad already inserted 23 daies unto _February_; so that the year\nconsisted of 445 daies; a quarter of a year longer then that we observe;\nand though at the last the year was reformed, yet in the mean time they\nmight be out wherein they summed up Climacterical observations.\n\nLastly, One way more there may be of mistake, and that not unusual among\nus, grounded upon a double compute of the year; the one beginning from\nthe 25 of _March_, the other from the day of our birth, unto the same\nagain which is the natural account. Now hereupon many men frequently\nmiscast their daies; for in their age they deduce the account not from\nthe day of their birth, but the year of our Lord, wherein they were\nborn. So a man that was born in _January_ 1582, if he live to fall sick\nin the latter end of _March_ 1645, will sum up his age, and say I am now\nSixty three, and in my Climacterical and dangerous year; for I was born\nin the year 1582, and now it is 1645, whereas indeed he wanteth many\nmonths of that year, considering the true and natural account unto his\nbirth; and accounteth two months for a year: and though the length of\ntime and accumulation of years do render the mistake insensible; yet is\nit all one, as if one born in _January_ 1644, should be accounted a\nyear old the 25 of _March_ 1645.\n\nAll which perpended, it may be easily perceived with what insecurity of\ntruth we adhere unto this opinion; ascribing not only effects depending\non the natural period of time unto arbitrary calculations, and such as\nvary at pleasure; but confirming our tenets by the uncertain account of\nothers and our selves. There being no positive or indisputable ground\nwhere to begin our compute; that if there were, men have been several\nwaies mistaken; the best in some latitude, others in greater, according\nto the different compute of divers states, the short and irreconcilable\nyears of some, the exceeding error in the natural frame of others, and\nthe lapses and false deductions of ordinary accountants in most.\n\nWhich duly considered, together with a strict account and critical\nexamen of reason, will also distract the witty determinations of\nAstrology. That Saturn the enemy of life, comes almost every seventh\nyear, unto the quadrate or malevolent place; that as the Moon about\nevery seventh day arriveth unto a contrary sign, so Saturn, which\nremaineth about as many years, as the Moon doth daies in one sign, and\nholdeth the same consideration in years as the Moon in daies; doth cause\nthese periculous periods. Which together with other Planets, and\nprofection of the Horoscope, unto the seventh house, or opposite signs\nevery seventh year; oppresseth living natures, and causeth observable\nmutations, in the state of sublunary things.\n\nFurther satisfaction may yet be had from the learned discourse of\n_Salmasius_ lately published, [SN: _De annis Climactericis._] if any\ndesire to be informed how different the present observations are from\nthose of the ancients; how every one hath different Climactericals;\nwith many other observables, impugning the present opinion.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n Of the Canicular or Dog daies.\n\n\nWhereof to speak distinctly: among the Southern constellations two there\nare which bear the name of the Dog; the one in 16 degrees of latitude,\ncontaining on the left thigh a Star of the first magnitude, usually\ncalled Procyon or Anticanis, because say some it riseth before the\nother; which if truly understood, must be restrained unto those\nhabitations, who have elevation of pole above thirty two degrees.\nMention thereof there is in _Horace_[SN: Iam Procyon fuerit et stella\nvesani Leonis.], who seems to mistake or confound the one with the\nother; and after him in _Galen_, who is willing, the remarkablest Star\nof the other should be called by this name; because it is the first that\nariseth in the constellation; which notwithstanding, to speak strictly,\nit is not; unless we except one of the third magnitude in the right paw\nin his own and our elevation, and two more on his head in and beyond the\ndegree of Sixty. [SN: _What the Dog-star is._] A second and more\nconsiderable one there is, and neighbour unto the other, in 40 degrees\nof latitude, containing 18 Stars, whereof that in his mouth of the first\nmagnitude, the _Greeks_ call \u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the _Latines canis\nmajor_, and we emphatically the Dog-Star.\n\nNow from the rising of this Star, not cosmically, that is, with the Sun,\nbut Heliacally, that is, its emersion from the raies of the Sun, the\nAncients computed their canicular daies; concerning which there\ngenerally passeth an opinion, that during those daies, all medication or\nuse of physick is to be declined; and the cure committed unto nature.\nAnd therefore as though there were any feriation in nature, or\njustitiums imaginable in professions, whose subject is natural, and\nunder no intermissive, but constant way of mutation; this season is\ncommonly termed the Physitians vacation, and stands so received by most\nmen. Which conceit however general, is not only erroneous, but\nunnatural, and subsisting upon foundations either false, uncertain,\nmistaken or misapplied, deserves not of mankind that indubitable assent\nit findeth.\n\nFor first, which seems to be the ground of this assertion, and not to be\ndrawn into question, that is, the magnified quality of this Star\nconceived to cause, or intend the heat of this season whereby these\ndaies become more observable then the rest: We find that wiser Antiquity\nwas not of this opinion. For, seventeen hundred years ago it was as a\nvulgar error rejected by _Geminus_, a learned Mathematician in his\nElements of Astronomy; wherein he plainly affirmeth, that common opinion\nmade that a cause, which was at first observed but as a sign. The rising\nand setting both of this Star and others being observed by the Ancients,\nto denote and testifie certain points of mutation rather then conceived\nto induce or effect the same. For our fore-fathers, saith he, observing\nthe course of the Sun, and marking certain mutations to happen in his\nprogress through particular parts of the Zodiack, they registred and set\nthem down in their Parapegmes, or Astronomical Canons; and being not\nable to design these times by daies, months or years (the compute\nthereof, and the beginning of the year being different, according unto\ndifferent Nations) they thought best to settle a general account unto\nall; and to determine these alterations by some known and invariable\nsigns; and such did they conceive the rising and setting of the fixed\nStars; not ascribing thereto any part of causality, but notice and\nsignification. And thus much seems implied in that expression of\n_Homer_, when speaking of the Dog Star, he concludeth----\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _Malum autem signum est_; The same, as _Petavius_\nobserveth, is implied in the word of _Ptolomy_, and the Ancients, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, that is, of the signification of Stars. The term of\nScripture also favours it, as that of _Isaiah_, _Nolite timere \u00e0 signis\nc\u0153li_; and that in _Genesis_, _Ut sint in signa et tempora_: Let there\nbe lights in the firmament, and let them be for signs and for seasons.\n\nThe Primative and leading magnifiers of this Star, were the _Egyptians_,\nthe great admirers of Dogs in Earth and Heaven. [SN: Dionysius\nPeriegesi.] Wherein they worshipped _Anubis_ or _Mercurius_, the Scribe\nof _Saturn_, and Counseller of _Osyris_, the great inventor of their\nreligious rites, and Promoter of good unto _Egypt_. Who was therefore\ntranslated into this Star; by the _Egyptians_ called _Sothis_, and\n_Siris_ by the _Ethiopians_; from whence that _Sirius_ or the Dog-star\nhad its name, is by some conjectured.\n\nAnd this they looked upon, not with reference unto heat, but\nc\u0153lestial influence upon the faculties of man, in order to religion\nand all sagacious invention; and from hence derived the abundance and\ngreat fertility of _Egypt_, the overflow of _Nilus_ happening about the\nascent hereof. And therefore in hieroglyphical monuments, _Anubis_ is\ndescribed with a Dogs-head, with a Crocodile between his legs, with a\nsphere in his hand, with two Stars, and a water Pot standing by him;\nimplying thereby, the rising and setting of the Dog-star, and the\ninundation of the River _Nilus_.\n\nBut if all were silent, _Galen_ hath explained this point unto the life;\nwho expounding the reason why _Hippocrates_ declared the affections of\nthe year by the rising and setting of Stars; it was saith he, because he\nwould proceed on signs and principles best known unto all Nations. And\nupon his words in the first of the Epidemicks, _In Thaso Autumno circa\nEquinoxium et sub virgilias pluvi\u00e6 erant mult\u00e6_, he thus enlargeth. If\n(saith he) the same compute of times and months were observed by all\nNations, _Hippocrates_ had never made any mention either of Arcturus,\nPleiades or the Dog-star; but would have plainly said, in _Macedonia_,\nin the month Dion, thus or thus was the air disposed. But for as much as\nthe month Dion is only known unto the _Macedonians_, but obscure unto\nthe _Athenians_ and other Nations, he found more general distinctions of\ntime, and instead of naming months, would usually say, at the \u00c6quinox,\nthe rising of the Pleiades, or the Dog-star. [SN: _How the Ancients\ndivided the seasons of the year._] And by this way did the Ancients\ndivide the seasons of the year, the Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer.\nBy the rising of the Pleiades, denoting the beginning of Summer, and by\nthat of the Dog-star, the declination thereof. By this way _Aristotle_\nthrough all his books of Animals, distinguishing their times of\ngeneration, latitancy, migration, sanity and venation. And this were an\nallowable way of compute, and still to be retained, were the site of the\nStars as inalterable, and their ascents as invariable as primitive\nAstronomy conceived them. And therefore though _Aristotle_ frequently\nmentioneth this Star, and particularly affirmeth that Fishes in the\nBosphorus are best catched from the arise of the Dog-star, we must not\nconceive the same a meer effect thereof. Nor though _Scaliger_ from\nhence be willing to infer the efficacy of this Star, are we induced\nhereto; except because the same Philosopher affirmeth, that Tunny is fat\nabout the rising of the Pleiades, and departs upon Arcturus, or that\nmost insects are latent, from the setting of the 7 Stars; except, I say,\nhe give us also leave to infer that these particular effects and\nalterations proceed from those Stars; which were indeed but designations\nof such quarters and portions of the year, wherein the same were\nobserved. Now what _Pliny_ affirmeth of the Orix, that it seemeth to\nadore this Star, and taketh notice thereof by voice and sternutation;\nuntil we be better assured of its verity, we shall not salve the\nsympathy.\n\nSecondly, What slender opinion the Ancients held of the efficacy of this\nStar, is declarable from their compute. For as _Geminus_ affirmeth, and\n_Petavius_ his learned Commentator proveth, they began their account\nfrom its Heliacal emersion, and not its cosmical ascent. [SN: _What the\nCosmical._] The cosmical ascention of a Star we term that, when it\nariseth together with the Sun, or the same degree of the Ecliptick\nwherein the Sun abideth: [SN: _What the Heliacal ascent of Star is._]\nand that the Heliacal, when a Star which before for the vicinity of the\nSun was not visible, being further removed, beginning to appear. For the\nannual motion of the Sun from West to East being far swifter then that\nof the fixed Stars, he must of necessity leave them on the East while he\nhasteneth forward, and obscureth others to the West: and so the Moon who\nperforms its motion swifter then the Sun (as may be observed in their\nConjunctions and Eclipses) gets Eastward out of his raies; and appears\nwhen the Sun is set. If therefore the Dog-star had this effectual heat\nwhich is ascribed unto it, it would afford best evidence thereof, and\nthe season would be most fervent, when it ariseth in the probablest\nplace of its activity, that is, the cosmical ascent; for therein it\nariseth with the Sun, and is included in the same irradiation. But the\ntime observed by the Ancients was long after this ascent, and in the\nHeliacal emersion; when it becomes at greatest distance from the Sun,\nneither rising with it nor near it. And therefore had they conceived any\nmore then a bare signality in this Star, or ascribed the heat of the\nseason therunto, they would not have computed from its Heliacal ascent,\nwhich was of inferiour efficacy; nor imputed the vehemency of heat unto\nthose points wherein it was more remiss, and where with less probability\nthey might make out its action.\n\nThirdly, Although we derive the authority of these daies from\nobservations of the Ancients, yet are our computes very different, and\nsuch as confirm not each other. For whereas they observed it Heliacally,\nwe seem to observe it Cosmically; for before it ariseth Heliacally unto\nour latitude, the Summer is even at an end. Again, we compute not only\nfrom different ascents, but also from divers Stars; they from the\ngreater Dog-star, we from the lesser; they from _Orions_ we from\n_Cephalus_ his Dog; they from _Seirius_, we from _Procyon_; for the\nbeginning of the Dog-daies with us is set down the 19 of _July_, about\nwhich time the lesser Dog-star ariseth with the Sun; whereas the Star of\nthe greater Dog ascendeth not until after that month. And this mistake\nwill yet be larger, if the compute be made stricter, and as Dr.\n_Bainbrigge_ late professor of Astronomy in Oxford, hath set it down\n[SN: Bainb. Canicularis.]. Who in the year 1629 computed, that in the\nHorizon of _Oxford_ the Dog-star arose not before the fifteenth day of\n_August_; when in our Almanack accounts, those daies are almost ended.\nSo that the common and received time not answering the true compute, it\nfrustrates the observations of our selves. And being also different from\nthe calculations of the Ancients, their observations confirm not ours,\nnor ours theirs, but rather confute each other.\n\nNor will the computes of the Ancients be so Authentick unto those, who\nshall take notice, how commonly they applied the celestial descriptions\nof other climes unto their own; wherein the learned _Bainbrigius_ justly\nreprehendeth _Manilius_, who transferred the _\u00c6gyptian_ descriptions\nunto the _Roman_ account; confounding the observation of the _Greek_ and\n_Barbarick_ Spheres.\n\nFourthly, (which is the Argument of _Geminus_) were there any such\neffectual heat in this Star, yet could it but weakly evidence the same\nin Summer; it being about 40 degrees distant from the Sun: and should\nrather manifest its warming power in the Winter, when it remains\nconjoyned with the Sun in its Hybernal conversion. For about the 29 of\n_October_, and in the 16 of _Scorpius_ and so again in _January_, the\nSun performs his revolution in the same parallel with the Dog-star.\nAgain, If we should impute the heat of this season, unto the\nco-operation of any Stars with the Sun, it seems more favourable for our\ntimes, to ascribe the same unto the constellation of _Leo_. Where\nbesides that the Sun is in his proper house, it is conjoyned with many\nStars; whereof two of the first magnitude; and in the 8{th} of _August_\nis corporally conjoyned with _Basilicus_; a Star of eminent name in\nAstrology, and seated almost in the Ecliptick.\n\nFifthly, If all were granted, that observation and reason were also for\nit, and were it an undeniable truth, that an effectual fervour proceeded\nfrom this Star; yet would not the same determine the opinion now in\nquestion; it necessarily suffering such restrictions as take off general\nillations. For first in regard of different latitudes, unto some the\ncanicular daies are in the Winter; as unto such as have no latitude, but\nlive in a right Sphere, that is, under the Equinoctial line; for unto\nthem it ariseth when the Sun is about the Tropick of Cancer; which\nseason unto them is Winter, and the Sun remotest from them. Nor hath the\nsame position in the Summer, that is, in the Equinoctial points, any\nadvantage from it; for in the one point the Sun is at the Meridian,\nbefore the Dog-star ariseth; in the other the Star is at the Meridian,\nbefore the sun ascendeth.\n\n[Sidenote: _What latitudes have no Dog-daies at all._]\n\nSome latitudes have no canicular daies at all; as namely all those which\nhave more then 73 degrees of Northern Elevation; as the territory of\n_Nova Zembla_, part of _Greenland_ and _Tartary_; for unto that\nhabitation the Dog-star is invisible, and appeareth not above the\nHorizon.\n\nUnto such latitudes wherein it ariseth, it carrieth a various and very\ndifferent respect; unto some it ascendeth when Summer is over, whether\nwe compute Heliacally or Cosmically; for though unto _Alexandria_ it\nariseth in Cancer; yet it ariseth not unto Biarmia Cosmically before it\nbe in Virgo, and Heliacally about the Autumnal Equinox. Even unto the\nlatitude of 52, the efficacy thereof is not much considerable, whether\nwe consider its ascent, Meridian, altitude or abode above the Horizon.\nFor it ariseth very late in the year, about the eighteenth of _Leo_,\nthat is, the 31 of _July_. Of Meridian Altitude it hath but 23 degrees,\nso that it plaies but obliquely upon us, and as the Sun doth about the\n23 of _January_. And lastly, his abode above the Horizon is not great;\nfor in the eighteenth of _Leo_, the 31 of _July_, although they arise\ntogether; yet doth it set above 5 hours before the Sun, that is, before\ntwo of the clock, after which time we are more sensible of heat, then\nall the day before.\n\nSecondly, In regard of the variation of the longitude of the Stars, we\nare to consider (what the Ancients observed not) that the site of the\nfixed Stars is alterable, and that since elder times they have suffered\na large and considerable variation of their longitudes. [SN: _What the\nlongitude of a Star is._] The longitude of a Star, to speak plainly, is\nits distance from the first point of numeration toward the East; which\nfirst point unto the Ancients was the vernal \u00e6quinox. Now by reason of\ntheir motion from West to East, they have very much varied from this\npoint: The first Star of Aries in the time of _Meton_ the _Athenian_ was\nplaced in the very intersection, which is now elongated and removed\nEastward 28 degrees; insomuch that now the sign of Aries possesseth the\nplace of Taurus, and Taurus that of Gemini. Which variation of longitude\nmust very much distract the opinion of the Dog star; not only in our\ndaies, but in times before and after; for since the World began it hath\narisen in Taurus, and if the World last, may have its ascent in Virgo;\nso that we must place the canicular daies, that is, the hottest time of\nthe year in the Spring in the first age, and in the Autumn in Ages to\ncome.\n\nThirdly, The Stars have not only varied their longitudes, whereby their\nascents have altered; but have also changed their declinations, whereby\ntheir rising at all, that is, their appearing hath varied. [SN: _What\nthe declination of a Star is._] The declination of a Star we call its\ndistance from the Equator. Now though the Poles of the world and the\nEquator be immovable, yet because the Stars in their proper motions from\nWest to East, do move upon the poles of the Ecliptick, distant 23\ndegrees and an half from the Poles of the Equator, and describe circles\nparallel not unto the Equator, but the Ecliptick; they must be therefore\nsometimes nearer, sometimes removed further from the Equator. All Stars\nthat have their distance from the Ecliptick Northward not more then 23\ndegrees and an half (which is the greatest distance of the Ecliptick\nfrom the Equator) may in progression of time have declination Southward,\nand move beyond the Equator: but if any Star hath just this distance of\n23 and an half (as hath Capella on the back of Ericthonius) it may\nhereafter move under the Equinoctial; and the same will happen\nrespectively unto Stars which have declination Southward. And therefore\nmany Stars may be visible in our Hemisphere, which are not so at\npresent; and many which are at present, shall take leave of our Horizon,\nand appear unto Southern habitations. And therefore the time may come\nthat the Dog star may not be visible in our Horizon, and the time hath\nbeen, when it hath not shewed it self unto our neighbour latitudes. So\nthat canicular daies there have been none, nor shall be; yet certainly\nin all times some season of the year more notably hot then other.\n\nLastly, We multiply causes in vain; and for the reason hereof, we need\nnot have recourse unto any Star but the Sun, and continuity of its\naction. For the Sun ascending into the Northern signs, begetteth first a\ntemperate heat in the air; which by his approach unto the solstice he\nintendeth; and by continuation increaseth the same even upon\ndeclination. [SN: _Why the Dog-daies be so hot._] For running over the\nsame degrees again, that is, in Leo, which he hath done in Taurus, in\n_July_ which he did in _May_; he augmenteth the heat in the latter which\nhe began in the first; and easily intendeth the same by continuation\nwhich was well promoted before. So it is observed, that they which dwell\nbetween the Tropicks and the Equator, have their second summer hotter\nand more maturative of fruits then the former. So we observe in the day\n(which is a short year) the greatest heat about two in the afternoon,\nwhen the Sun is past the Meridian (which is his diurnal solstice) and\nthe same is evident from the Thermometer or observations of the\nweather-glass. So are the colds of the night sharper in the Summer about\ntwo or three after midnight, and the frosts in Winter stronger about\nthose hours. So likewise in the year we observe the cold to augment,\nwhen the daies begin to increase, though the Sun be then ascensive, and\nreturning from the Winter Tropick. And therefore if we rest not in this\nreason for the heat in the declining part of Summer, we must discover\nfreezing Stars that may resolve the latter colds of Winter; which\nwhoever desires to invent, let him study the Stars of _Andromeda_, or\nthe nearer constellation of _Pegasus_, which are about that time\nascendent.\n\nIt cannot therefore seem strange, or savour of singularity that we have\nexamined this point; since the same hath been already denied by some,\nsince the authority and observations of the Ancients rightly understood,\ndo not confirm it, since our present computes are different from those\nof the Ancients, whereon notwithstanding they depend; since there is\nreason against it, and if all were granted, yet must it be maintained\nwith manifold restraints, far otherwise then is received. And lastly,\nsince from plain and natural principles, the doubt may be fairly\nsalved, and not clapt up from petitionary foundations and principles\nunestablished.\n\nBut that which chiefly promoted the consideration of these daies, and\nmedically advanced the same, was the doctrin of _Hippocrates_; a\nPhysitian of such repute, that he received a testimony from a Christian,\nthat might have been given unto Christ. [SN: Qui nec fallere potest nec\nfalli.] The first in his book, _de Acre, Aquis, et locis_. _Syderum\nortus_, etc. That is, we are to observe the rising of Stars, especially\nthe Dog-star, Arcturus, and the setting of the Pleiades or seven Stars.\nFrom whence notwithstanding we cannot infer the general efficacy of\nthese Stars, or co-efficacy particular in medications. Probably\nexpressing no more hereby then if he should have plainly said, especial\nnotice we are to take of the hottest time in Summer, of the beginning of\nAutumn and Winter; for by the rising and setting of those Stars were\nthese times and seasons defined. [SN: _Diseases commonly determined, by\nwhat seasons._] And therefore subjoyns this reason, _Quoniam his\ntemporibus morbi finiuntur_, because at these times diseases have their\nends; as Physitians well known, and he elsewhere affirmeth, that seasons\ndetermine diseases, beginning in their contraries; as the Spring the\ndiseases of Autumn, and the Summer those of Winter. Now (what is very\nremarkable) whereas in the some place he adviseth to observe the times\nof notable mutations, as the Equinoxes, and the Solstices, and to\ndecline Medication ten daies before and after; how precisely soever\ncanicular cautions be considered, this is not observed by Physitians,\nnor taken notice of by the people. And indeed should we blindly obey the\nrestraints both of Physitians and Astrologers, we should contract the\nliberty of our prescriptions, and confine the utility of Physick unto a\nvery few daies. For observing the Dog-daies, and as is expressed, some\ndaies before, likewise ten daies before and after the Equinoctial and\nSolsticial points; by this observation alone are exempted an hundred\ndaies. Whereunto if we add the two _Egyptian_ daies in every month, the\ninterlunary and plenilunary exemptions, the Eclipses of Sun and Moon,\nconjunctions and oppositions Planetical, the houses of Planets, and the\nsite of the Luminaries under the signs (wherein some would induce a\nrestraint of Purgation or Phlebotomy) there would arise above an hundred\nmore; so that of the whole year the use of Physick would not be secure\nmuch above a quarter. Now as we do not strictly observe these daies, so\nneed we not the other; and although consideration be made hereof, yet\nmust we prefer the nearer indications before those which are drawn from\nthe time of the year; or other c\u00e6lestial relations.\n\nThe second Testimony is taken out of the last piece of his Age, and\nafter the experience (as some think) of no less then an hundred years,\nthat is, his book of Aphorisms, or short and definitive determinations\nin Physick. The Aphorism alleadged is this, _Sub Cane et ante Canem\ndifficiles sunt purgationes._ _Sub Cane et Anticane_, say some including\nboth the Dog-stars; but that cannot consist with the Greek: \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2, nor had that Criticism been ever omitted by _Galen_. Now how\ntrue this sentence was in the mouth of _Hippocrates_, and with what\nrestraint it must be understood by us, will readily appear from the\ndifference between us both, in circumstantial relations.\n\nAnd first, Concerning his time and Chronology: [SN: _When_ Hippocrates\n_lived_.] he lived in the reign of _Artaxerxes Longimanus_, about the 82\nOlympiade, 450 years before Christ; and from our times above two\nthousand. Now since that time (as we have already declared) the Stars\nhave varied their longitudes; and having made large progressions from\nWest to East, the time of the Dog-stars ascent must also very much\nalter. For it ariseth later now in the year, then it formerly did in the\nsame latitude; and far later unto us who have a greater elevation; for\nin the daies of _Hippocrates_ this Star ascended in Cancer, which now\nariseth in Leo: and will in progression of time arise in Virgo. And\ntherefore in regard of the time wherein he lived, the Aphorism was more\nconsiderable in his daies then in ours, and in times far past then\npresent, and in his Countrey then ours.\n\nThe place of his nativity was _Coos_, an Island in the _Myrtoan_ Sea,\nnot far from _Rhodes_, described in Maps by the name of _Lango_, and\ncalled by the _Turks_ who are Masters thereof, _Stancora_; according\nunto _Ptolomy_ of Northern latitude 36 degrees. That he lived and writ\nin these parts, is not improbably collected from the Epistles that\npassed betwixt him and _Artaxerxes_; as also between the Citizens of\n_Abdera_, and _Coos_, in the behalf of _Democritus_. Which place being\nseated from our latitude of 52, 16 degrees Southward, there will arise a\ndifferent consideration; and we may much deceive our selves if we\nconform the ascent of Stars in one place unto another, or conceive they\narise the same day of the month in _Coos_ and in _England_. For as\n_Petavius_ computes in the first _Julian_ year, at _Alexandria_ of\nlatitude 31, the Star arose cosmically in the twelfth degree of Cancer,\nHeliacally the 26, by the compute of _Geminus_ about this time at\n_Rhodes_ of latitude 37, it ascended cosmically the 16 of Cancer,\nHeliacally the first of Leo; and about that time at _Rome_ of latitude\n42, cosmically the 22 of Cancer, and Heliacally the first of Leo. For\nunto places of greater latitude it ariseth ever later; so that in some\nlatitudes the cosmical ascent happeneth not before the twentieth degree\nof Virgo, ten daies before the Autumnal Equinox, and if they compute\nHeliacally, after it, in Libra.\n\nAgain, Should we allow all, and only compute unto the latitude of\n_Coos_; yet would it not impose a total omission of Physick. For if in\nthe hottest season of that clime, all Physick were to be declined, then\nsurely in many other none were to be used at any time whatsoever; for\nunto many parts, not only in the Spring and Autumn, but also in the\nWinter, the Sun is nearer, then unto the clime of _Coos_ in the Summer.\n\nThe third consideration concerneth purging medicines, which are at\npresent far different from those implied in this Aphorism, and such as\nwere commonly used by _Hippocrates_. [SN: _Three degrees of\npurgations._] For three degrees we make of purgative medicines: The\nfirst thereof is very benign, nor far removed from the nature of\nAliment, into which, upon defect of working, it is oft-times converted;\nand in this form do we account _Manna_, _Cassia_, _Tamarindes_, and many\nmore; whereof we find no mention in _Hippocrates_. This second is also\ngentle having a familiarity with some humor, into which it is but\nconverted if it fail of its operation: of this sort are _Aloe_,\n_Rhabarb_, _Senna_, etc. Whereof also few or none were known unto\n_Hippocrates_. The third is of a violent and venemous quality, which\nfrustrate of its action, assumes as it were the nature of poison; such\nas are Scammoneum, Colocynthis, Elaterium, Euphorbium, Tithymallus,\nLaureola, Peplum, etc. Of this sort _Hippocrates_ made use, even in\nFevers, Pleurisies and Quinsies; and that composition is very remarkable\nwhich is ascribed unto _Diogenes_ in _\u00c6tius_[SN: Tetrab. lib. 1. Serm.\n3.]; that is, of Pepper, Sal Armoniac, Euphorbium, of each an ounce,\nthe Dosis whereof four scruples and an half; which whosoever should\ntake, would find in his bowels more then a canicular heat, though in the\ndepth of Winter; many of the like nature may be observed in _\u00c6tius_, or\nin the book _De Dinamidiis_, ascribed unto _Galen_, which is the same\n_verbatim_ with the other.\n\nNow in regard of the second, and especially the first degree of\nPurgatives, the Aphorism is not of force; but we may safely use them,\nthey being benign and of innoxious qualities. And therefore _Lucas\nGauricus_, who hath endeavoured with many testimonies to advance this\nconsideration, at length concedeth that lenitive Physick may be used,\nespecially when the Moon is well affected in Cancer or in the watery\nsigns. But in regard of the third degree the Aphorism is considerable:\npurgations may be dangerous; and a memorable example there is in the\nmedical Epistles of _Crucius_, of a _Roman_ Prince that died upon an\nounce of Diaph\u00e6nicon, taken in this season. From the use whereof we\nrefrain not only in hot seasons, but warily exhibit it at all times in\nhot diseases. Which when necessity requires, we can perform more safely\nthen the Ancients, as having better waies of preparation and correction;\nthat is, not only by addition of other bodies, but separation of noxious\nparts from their own.\n\nBut beside these differences between _Hippocrates_ and us, the\nPhysitians of these times and those of Antiquity; the condition of the\ndisease, and the intention of the Physitian, hold a main consideration\nin what time and place soever. For Physick is either curative or\npreventive; Preventive we call that which by purging noxious humors, and\nthe causes of diseases, preventeth sickness in the healthy, or the\nrecourse thereof in the valetudinary; this is of common use at the\nspring and fall, and we commend not the same at this season.\nTherapeutick or curative Physick, we term that, which restoreth the\nPatient unto Sanity, and taketh away diseases actually affecting. [SN:\n_Diseases Chronical and Acute what they be._] Now of diseases some are\ncronical and of long duration, as quartane Agues, Scurvy, etc. Wherein\nbecause they admit of delay we defer the cure to more advantagious\nseasons; Others we term acute, that is, of short duration and danger, as\nFevers, Pleurisies, etc. In which, because delay is dangerous, and they\narise unto their state before the Dog-daies determine, we apply present\nremedies according unto Indications; respecting rather the acuteness of\nthe disease, and precipitancy of occasion, then the rising or setting of\nStars; the effects of the one being disputable, of the other assured and\ninevitable.\n\nAnd although Astrology may here put in, and plead the secret influence\nof this Star; yet _Galen_ in his Comment, makes no such consideration;\nconfirming the truth of the Aphorism from the heat of the year; and the\noperation of Medicines exhibited. [SN: _Strong purgations not so well\ngiven in the heat of summer, and why._] In regard that bodies being\nheated by the Summer, cannot so well endure the acrimony of purging\nMedicines; and because upon purgations contrary motions ensue, the heat\nof the air attracting the humours outward, and the action of the\nMedicine retracting the same inward. But these are readily salved in the\ndistinctions before alleadged; and particularly in the constitution of\nour climate and divers others, wherein the air makes no such exhaustion\nof spirits. And in the benignity of our Medicines; whereof some in their\nown natures, others well prepared, agitate not the humors, or make\nsensible perturbation.\n\n[Sidenote: _A Problem._]\n\nNor do we hereby reject or condemn a sober and regulated Astrology; we\nhold there is more truth therein then in Astrologers; in some more then\nmany allow, yet in none so much as some pretend. We deny not the\ninfluence of the Stars, but often suspect the due application thereof;\nfor though we should affirm that all things were in all things; that\nheaven were but earth celestified, and earth but heaven terrestrified,\nor that each part above had an influence upon its divided affinity\nbelow; yet how to single out these relations, and duly to apply their\nactions is a work oft times to be effected by some revelation, and\n_Cabala_ from above, rather then any Philosophy, or speculation here\nbelow. What power soever they have upon our bodies, it is not requisite\nthey should destroy our reasons, that is, to make us rely on the\nstrength of Nature, when she is least able to relieve us; and when we\nconceive the heaven against us, to refuse the assistance of the earth\ncreated for us. [SN: _Upon the biting of a mad Dog there ensues an\nhydrophobia or fear of water._] This were to suffer from the mouth of\nthe Dog above, what others do from the teeth of Dogs below; that is, to\nbe afraid of their proper remedy, and refuse to approach any water,\nthough that hath often proved a cure unto their disease. There is in\nwise men a power beyond the Stars; and _Ptolomy_ encourageth us, that by\nforeknowledge, we may evade their actions; for, being but universal\ncauses, they are determined by particular agents; which being inclined,\nnot constrained, contain within themselves the casting act, and a power\nto command the conclusion.\n\nLastly, If all be conceded, and were there in this Aphorism an\nunrestrained truth, yet were it not reasonable from a caution to inferr\na non-usance or abolition, from a thing to be used with discretion, not\nto be used at all. Because the Apostle bids us beware of Philosophy,\nheads of extremity will have none at all; an usual fallacy in vulgar and\nless distinctive brains, who having once overshot the mean, run\nviolently on, and find no rest but in the extreams.\n\nNow hereon we have the longer insisted, because the error is material,\nand concerns oft-times the life of man; an error to be taken notice of\nby State, and provided against by Princes, who are of the opinion of\n_Solomon_, that their riches consists in the multitude of their\nsubjects. An error worse then some reputed _Heresies_; and of greater\ndanger to the body, then they unto the soul; which whosoever is able to\nreclaim, he shall salve more in one summer then _Themison_[SN: _A\nPhysitian._ Quot Themison \u00e6gros Autumno occiderit uno. _Juvenal._]\ndestroyed in any Autumn; he shall introduce a new way of cure,\npreserving by Theory, as well as practice, and men not only from death,\nbut from destroying themselves.\n\n\n\n\n THE FIFTH BOOK\n\n Of many things questionable as they are\n commonly described in Pictures.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n Of the Picture of the Pelecan.\n\n\nAnd first in every place we meet with the picture of the Pelecan,\nopening her breast with her bill, and feeding her young ones with the\nblood distilling from her. Thus is it set forth not only in common\nSigns, but in the Crest and Schucheon of many Noble families; hath been\nasserted by many holy Writers, and was an Hierogliphick of piety and\npitty among the _\u00c6gyptians_; on which consideration, they spared them at\ntheir tables.\n\nNotwithstanding upon enquiry we find no mention hereof in Ancient\nZodiographers, and such as have particularly discoursed upon Animals, as\n_Aristotle_, _\u00c6lian_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_ and many more; who seldom\nforget proprieties of such a nature, and have been very punctual in less\nconsiderable Records. Some ground hereof I confess we may allow, nor\nneed we deny a remarkable affection in Pelecans toward their young; for\n_\u00c6lian_ discoursing of Storks, and their affection toward their brood,\nwhom they instruct to fly, and unto whom they re-deliver up the\nprovision of their Bellies, concludeth at last, that Herons and Pelecans\ndo the like.\n\nAs for the testimonies of Ancient Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers,\nwe may more safely conceive therein some Emblematical than any real\nStory: so doth _Eucherius_ confess it to be the Emblem of Christ. And we\nare unwilling literally to receive that account of _Jerom_, that\nperceiving her young ones destroyed by Serpents, she openeth her side\nwith her bill, by the blood whereof they revive and return unto life\nagain. By which relation they might indeed illustrate the destruction of\nman by the old Serpent, and his restorement by the blood of Christ: and\nin this sense we shall not dispute the like relations of _Austine_,\n_Isidore_, _Albertus_, and many more: and under an Emblematical\nintention, we accept it in coat-armour.\n\nAs for the Hieroglyphick of the _Egyptians_, they erected the same upon\nanother consideration, which was parental affection; manifested in the\nprotection of her young ones, when her nest was set on fire. For as for\nletting out her blood, it was not the assertion of the _Egyptians_, but\nseems translated unto the Pelecan from the Vulture, as _Pierius_ hath\nplainly delivered. _Sed quod Pelicanum (ut etiam aliis plerisque\npersuasum est) rostro pectus dissecantem pingunt, ita ut suo sanguine\nfilios alat, ab \u00c6gyptiorum histori\u00e2 valde alienum est, illi enim\nvulturem tantum id facere tradiderunt._\n\nAnd lastly, as concerning the picture, if naturally examined, and not\nHierogliphically conceived, it containeth many improprieties,\ndisagreeing almost in all things from the true and proper description.\nFor, whereas it is commonly set forth green or yellow, in its proper\ncolour, it is inclining to white; excepting the extremities or tops of\nthe wing feathers, which are brown. [SN: _The bigness of a Pelecan._]\nIt is described in the bigness of a Hen, whereas it approacheth and\nsometimes exceedeth the magnitude of a Swan. It is commonly painted with\na short bill; whereas that of the Pelecan attaineth sometimes the length\nof two spans. The bill is made acute or pointed at the end; whereas it\nis flat and broad, though somewhat inverted at the extream. It is\ndescribed like fissipedes, or birds which have their feet or claws\ndivided; whereas it is palmipedous, or fin-footed like Swans and Geese;\naccording to the method of nature, in latirostrous or flat-bild birds;\nwhich being generally swimmers, the organ is wisely contrived unto the\naction, and they are framed with fins or oars upon their feet; and\ntherefore they neither light, nor build on trees, if we except\nCormorants, who make their nests like Herons. [SN: _Of her Crop._]\nLastly, there is one part omitted more remarkable than any other, that\nis, the chowle or crop adhering unto the lower side of the bill, and so\ndescending by the throat: a bag or sachel very observable, and of a\ncapacity almost beyond credit; which notwithstanding, this animal could\nnot want; for therein it receiveth Oysters, Cochels, Scollops, and other\ntestaceous animals; which being not able to break, it retains them until\nthey open, and vomiting them up, takes out the meat contained. This is\nthat part preserved for a rarity and wherein (as _Sanctius_ delivers) in\none dissected, a _Negro_ child was found.\n\nA possibility there may be of opening and bleeding their breast; for\nthis may be done by the uncous and pointed extremity of their bill: and\nsome probability also that they sometimes do it, for their own relief,\nthough not for their young ones; that is by nibling and biting\nthemselves on their itching part of their breast, upon fullness or\nacrimony of blood. And the same may be better made out; if (as some\nrelate) their feathers on that part are sometimes observed to be red and\ntincted with blood.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n Of the Picture of Dolphins.\n\n\nThat Dolphins are crooked, is not only affirmed by the hand of the\nPainter, but commonly conceived their natural and proper figure; which\nis not only the opinion of our times, but seems the belief of elder\ntimes before us. For, beside the expressions of _Ovid_ and _Pliny_,\ntheir Pourtraicts in some ancient Coyns are framed in this figure, as\nwill appear in some thereof in _Gesner_, others in _Goltsius_, and\n_L\u00e6vinus Hulsius_ in his discription of Coyns, from _Julius C\u00e6sar_ unto\n_Rhodulphus_ the second.\n\nNotwithstanding, to speak strictly in their natural figure they are\nstreight, nor have their spine convexed, or more considerably embowed,\nthan Sharks, Porposes, Whales, and other Cetaceous animals, as\n_Scaliger_ plainly affirmeth: _Corpus habet non magis curvum quam\nreliqui pisces._ As ocular enquiry informeth; and as unto such as have\nnot had the opportunity to behold them, their proper pourtraicts will\ndiscover in _Rondeletius_, _Gesner_, and _Aldrovandus_. And as indeed is\ndeducible from pictures themselves; for though they be drawn repandous,\nor convexedly crooked in one piece, yet the Dolphin that carrieth Arion\nis concavously inverted, and hath its spine depressed in another. And\nanswerably hereto may we behold them differently bowed in medalls, and\nthe Dolphins of _Tarus_ and _Fulius_ do make another flexure from that\nof _Commodus_ and _Agrippa_.\n\nAnd therefore what is delivered of their incurvity, must either be taken\nEmphatically, that is, not really but in appearance; which happeneth,\nwhen they leap above water, and suddenly shoot down again; which is a\nfallacy in vision, whereby straight bodies in a sudden motion protruded\nobliquely downward, appear unto the eye crooked; and this is the\nconstruction of _Bellonius_. Or if it be taken really, it must not\nuniversally and perpetually; that is, not when they swim and remain in\ntheir proper figures, but only when they leap, or impetuously whirl\ntheir bodies any way; and this is the opinion of _Gesnerus_. Or lastly,\nIt may be taken neither really nor emphatically, but only\nEmblematically: for being the Hieroglyphick of celerity, and swifter\nthan other animals, men best expressed their velocity by incurvity, and\nunder some figure of a bow: and in this sense probably do Heralds also\nreceive it, when from a Dolphin extended, they distinguish a Dolphin\nembowed.\n\nAnd thus also must that picture be taken of a Dolphin clasping an\nAnchor: that is, not really, as is by most conceived out of affection\nunto man, conveighing the Anchor unto the ground: but emblematically,\naccording as _Pierius_ hath expressed it, The swiftest animal conjoyned\nwith that heavy body, implying that common moral, _Festina lent\u00e8_: and\nthat celerity should always be contempered with cunctation.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n Of the Picture of a Grashopper.\n\n\nThere is also among us a common description and picture of a Grashopper,\nas may be observed in the pictures of Emblematists, in the coats of\nseveral families, and as the word _Cicada_ is usually translated in\nDictionaries. Wherein to speak strictly, if by this word Grashopper, we\nunderstand that animal which is implied by \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03be with the\n_Greeks_, and by _Cicada_ with the _Latines_; we may with safety affirm\nthe picture is widely mistaken, and that for ought enquiry can inform,\nthere is no such insect in _England_. Which how paradoxical soever, upon\na strict enquiry, will prove undeniable truth.\n\nFor first, That animal which the _French_ term _Sauterelle_, we a\nGrashopper, and which under this name is commonly described by us, is\nnamed \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 by the _Greeks_, by the _Latines Locusta_, and by our\nselves in proper speech a Locust; as in the diet of John _Baptist_, and\nin our Translation [SN: Prov. 30.], the _Locusts_ have no King, yet go\nthey forth all of them by bands. Again, Between the _Cicada_ and that we\ncall a Grashopper, the differences are very many, as may be observed in\nthemselves, or their descriptions in _Matthiolus_, _Aldrovandus_ and\n_Muffetus_. For first, They are differently cucullated or capuched upon\nthe head and back, and in the _Cicada_ the eyes are more prominent: the\nLocusts have _Antenn\u00e6_: or long horns before, with a long falcation or\nforcipated tail behind; and being ordained for saltation, their hinder\nlegs do far exceed the other. The Locust or our Grashopper hath teeth,\nthe _Cicada_ none at all; nor any mouth according unto _Aristotle_: the\n_Cicada_ is most upon trees; and lastly, the fritinnitus or proper note\nthereof, is far more shril than that of the Locust; and its life so\nshort in Summer, that for provision it needs not have recourse unto the\nprovidence of the Pismire in Winter.\n\nAnd therefore where the _Cicada_ must be understood, the pictures of\nHeralds and Emblematists are not exact, nor is it safe to adhere unto\nthe interpretation of Dictionaries; and we must with candour make out\nour own Translations: for in the Plague of _\u00c6gypt_, _Exodus_ 10. the\nword \u1f0c\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 is translated a Locust, but in the same sense and subject,\n_Wisdom_ 16. it is translated a Grashopper; For them the bitings of\nGrashoppers and flies killed: whereas we have declared before, the\n_Cicada_ hath no teeth, but is conceived to live upon dew; and the\npossibility of its subsistence is disputed by _Licetus_. Hereof I\nperceive _Muffetus_ hath taken notice, dissenting from _Langius_ and\n_Lycostenes_, while they deliver, the _Cicada's_ destroyed the fruits in\n_Germany_, where that insect is not found; and therefore concludeth,\n_Tam ipsos quam alios deceptos fuisse autumo, dum locustas cicadas esse\nvulgari errore crederent._\n\nAnd hereby there may be some mistake in the due dispensation of\nMedicines desumed from this animal; particularly of Diatettigon\ncommended by _\u00c6tius_ in the affections of the kidnies. It must be\nlikewise understood with some restriction what hath been affirmed by\n_Isidore_, and yet delivered by many, that Cicades are bred out of\nCuccow spittle or Woodsear; that is, that spumous, frothy dew or\nexudation, or both, found upon Plants, especially about the joints of\nLavender and Rosemary, observable with us about the latter end of May.\nFor here the true _Cicada_ is not bred, but certain it is, that out of\nthis, some kind of Locust doth proceed; for herein may be discovered a\nlittle insect of a festucine or pale green, resembling in all parts a\nLocust, or what we call a Grashopper.\n\nLastly, The word it self is improper, and the term of Grashopper not\nappliable unto the _Cicada_; for therein the organs of motion are not\ncontrived for saltation, nor are the hinder legs of such extension, as\nis observable in salient animals, and such as move by leaping. Whereto\nthe Locust is very well conformed; for therein the legs behind are\nlonger than all the body, and make at the second joynt acute angles, at\na considerable advancement above their backs.\n\nThe mistake therefore with us might have its original from a defect in\nour language; for having not the insect with us, we have not fallen upon\nits proper name, and so make use of a term common unto it and the\nLocust; whereas other countries have proper expressions for it. So the\n_Italian_ calls it _Cicada_, the _Spaniard Cigarra_, and the _French\nCigale_; all which appellations conform unto the original, and properly\nexpress this animal. Whereas our word is borrowed from the Saxon\nG\u00e6rsthopp, which our forefathers, who never beheld the _Cicada_, used\nfor that insect which we yet call a Grashopper.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n Of the Picture of the Serpent tempting Eve.\n\n\nIn the Picture of Paradise, and delusion of our first Parents, the\nSerpent is often described with humane visage; not unlike unto _Cadmus_\nor his wife, in the act of their Metamorphosis. Which is not a meer\npictorial contrivance or invention of the Picturer, but an ancient\ntradition and conceived reality, as it stands delivered by _Beda_ and\nAuthors of some antiquity; that is, that Sathan appeared not unto _Eve_\nin the naked form of a Serpent, but with a Virgins head, that thereby he\nmight become more acceptable, and his temptation find the easier\nentertainment. Which nevertheless is a conceit not to be admitted, and\nthe plain and received figure, is with better reason embraced.\n\nFor first, as _Pierius_ observeth from _Barcephas_, the assumption of\nhumane shape had proved a disadvantage unto Sathan; affording not only a\nsuspicious amazement in _Eve_, before the fact, in beholding a third\nhumanity beside her self and _Adam_; but leaving some excuse unto the\nwoman, which afterward the man took up with lesser reason; that is, to\nhave been deceived by another like her self.\n\nAgain, There was no inconvenience in the shape assumed, or any\nconsiderable impediment that might disturb that performance in the\ncommon form of a Serpent. For whereas it is conceived the woman must\nneeds be afraid thereof, and rather flie than approach it; it was not\nagreeable unto the condition of Paradise and state of innocency therein;\nif in that place as most determine, no creature was hurtful or terrible\nunto man, and those destructive effects they now discover succeeded the\ncurse, and came in with thorns and briars. And therefore _Eugubinus_\n(who affirmeth this Serpent was a Basilisk) incurreth no absurdity, nor\nneed we infer that _Eve_ should be destroyed immediately upon that\nVision. For noxious animals could offend them no more in the Garden,\nthan _Noah_ in the Ark: as they peaceably received their names, so they\nfriendly possessed their natures: and were their conditions destructive\nunto each other, they were not so unto man, whose constitutions then\nwere antidotes, and needed not fear poisons. And if (as most conceive)\nthere were but two created of every kind, they could not at that time\ndestroy either man or themselves; for this had frustrated the command of\nmultiplication, destroyed a species, and imperfected the Creation. And\ntherefore also if Cain were the first man born, with him entred not only\nthe act, but the first power of murther; for before that time neither\ncould the Serpent nor _Adam_ destroy _Eve_; nor _Adam_ and _Eve_ each\nother; for that had overthrown the intention of the world, and put its\nCreator to act the sixt day over again.\n\nMoreover, Whereas in regard of speech, and vocal conference with _Eve_,\nit may be thought he would rather assume an humane shape and organs,\nthen the improper form of a serpent; it implies no material impediment.\nNor need we to wonder how he contrived a voice out of the mouth of a\nSerpent, who hath done the like out of the belly of a Pythonissa, and\nthe trunk of an Oak; as he did for many years at _Dodona_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why_ Eve _wondered not at the serpents speaking_.]\n\nLastly, Whereas it might be conceived that an humane shape was fitter\nfor this enterprise; it being more than probable she would be amazed to\nhear a Serpent speak; some conceive she might not yet be certain that\nonly man was priviledged with speech; and being in the novity of the\nCreation, and inexperience of all things, might not be affrighted to\nhear a Serpent speak. Beside she might be ignorant of their natures, who\nwas not versed in their names, as being not present at the general\nsurvey of Animals, when _Adam_ assigned unto every one a name\nconcordant unto its nature. Nor is this my opinion, but the\ndetermination of _Lombard_ and _Tostatus_; and also the reply of _Cyril_\nunto the objection of _Julian_, who compared this story unto the fables\nof the _Greeks_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n Of the Picture of _Adam_ and _Eve_ with Navels.\n\n\nAnother mistake there may be in the Picture of our first Parents, who\nafter the manner of their posterity are both delineated with a Navel.\nAnd this is observable not only in ordinary and stained pieces, but in\nthe Authentick draughts of _Urbin_, _Angelo_ and others. Which\nnotwithstanding cannot be allowed, except we impute that unto the first\ncause, which we impose not on the second; or what we deny unto nature,\nwe impute unto Naturity it self; that is, that in the first and most\naccomplished piece, the Creator affected superfluities, or ordained\nparts without use or office.\n\n[Sidenote: _What the Navel is, and for what use._]\n\nFor the use of the Navel is to continue the Infant unto the Mother, and\nby the vessels thereof to convey its aliment and sustentation. The\nvessels whereof it consisteth, are the umbilical vein, which is a branch\nof the Porta, and implanted in the Liver of the Infant; two Arteries\nlikewise arising from the Iliacal branches, by which the Infant\nreceiveth the purer portion of blood and spirits from the mother; and\nlastly, the Urachos or ligamental passage derived from the bottom of the\nbladder, whereby it dischargeth the waterish and urinary part of its\naliment. Now upon the birth, when the Infant forsaketh the womb,\nalthough it dilacerate, and break the involving membranes, yet do these\nvessels hold, and by the mediation thereof the Infant is connected unto\nthe womb, not only before, but a while also after the birth. These\ntherefore the midwife cutteth off, contriving them into a knot close\nunto the body of the Infant; from whence ensueth that tortuosity or\ncomplicated modosity we usually call the Navel; occasioned by the\ncolligation of vessels before mentioned. [SN: _That_ Adam _and_ Eve _had\nnot Navels_.] Now the Navel being a part, not precedent, but subsequent\nunto generation, nativity or parturition, it cannot be well imagined at\nthe creation or extraordinary formation of _Adam_, who immediately\nissued from the Artifice of God; nor also that of _Eve_; who was not\nsolemnly begotten, but suddenly framed, and anomalously proceeded from\n_Adam_.\n\nAnd if we be led into conclusions that _Adam_ had also this part,\nbecause we behold the same in our selves, the inference is not\nreasonable; for if we conceive the way of his formation, or of the first\nanimals, did carry in all points a strict conformity unto succeeding\nproductions, we might fall into imaginations that _Adam_ was made\nwithout Teeth; or that he ran through those notable alterations in the\nvessels of the heart, which the Infant suffereth after birth: we need\nnot dispute whether the egg or bird were first; and might conceive that\nDogs were created blind, because we observe they are littered so with\nus. Which to affirm, is to confound, at least to regulate creation unto\ngeneration, the first Acts of God, unto the second of Nature; which were\ndetermined in that general indulgence, Encrease and Multiply, produce or\npropagate each other; that is, not answerably in all points, but in a\nprolonged method according to seminal progression. For the formation of\nthings at first was different from their generation after; and although\nit had nothing to precede it, was aptly contrived for that which should\nsucceed it. And therefore though _Adam_ were framed without this part,\nas having no other womb than that of his proper principles, yet was not\nhis posterity without the same: for the seminality of his fabrick\ncontained the power thereof; and was endued with the science of those\nparts whose predestinations upon succession it did accomplish.\n\nAll the Navel therefore and conjunctive part we can suppose in _Adam_,\nwas his dependency on his Maker, and the connexion he must needs have\nunto heaven, who was the Son of God. For holding no dependence on any\npreceding efficient but God; in the act of his production there may be\nconceived some connexion, and _Adam_ to have been in a momental Navel\nwith his Maker. And although from his carnality and corporal existence,\nthe conjunction seemeth no nearer than of causality and effect; yet in\nhis immortal and diviner part he seemed to hold a nearer coherence, and\nan umbilicality even with God himself. And so indeed although the\npropriety of this part be found but in some animals, and many species\nthere are which have no Navel at all; yet is there one link and common\nconnexion, one general ligament, and necessary obligation of all what\never unto God. Whereby although they act themselves at distance, and\nseem to be at loose; yet do they hold a continuity with their Maker.\nWhich catenation or conserving union when ever his pleasure shall\ndivide, let go, or separate, they shall fall from their existence,\nessence, and operations: in brief, they must retire unto their primitive\nnothing, and shrink into their Chaos again.\n\nThey who hold the egg was before the Bird, prevent this doubt in many\nother animals, which also extendeth unto them: For birds are nourished\nby umbilical vessels, and the Navel is manifest sometimes a day or two\nafter exclusion. The same is probable in oviparous exclusions, if the\nlesser part of eggs must serve for the formation, the greater part for\nnutriment. The same is made out in the eggs of Snakes; and is not\nimprobable in the generation of Porwiggles or Tadpoles, and may be also\ntrue in some vermiparous exclusions: although (as we have observed in\nthe daily progress in some) the whole Maggot is little enough to make a\nFly, without any part remaining.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n Of the Pictures of Eastern Nations, and the\n _Jews_ at their Feasts, especially our\n _Saviour_ at the Passover.\n\n\nConcerning the Pictures of the _Jews_, and Eastern Nations at their\nFeasts, concerning the gesture of our Saviour at the Passover, who is\nusually described sitting upon a stool or bench at a square table, in\nthe middest of the twelve, many make great doubt; and (though they\nconcede a table-gesture) will hardly allow this usual way of Session.\n\nWherein restraining no mans enquiry, it will appear that accubation, or\nlying down at meals was a gesture used by very many Nations. That the\n_Persians_ used it, beside the testimony of humane Writers, is deducible\nfrom that passage in _Esther_[SN: Esther 7.]. That when the King\nreturned into the place of the banquet of wine, _Haman_ was fallen upon\nthe bed whereon _Esther_ was. That the _Parthians_ used it, is evident\nfrom _Athen\u00e6us_, who delivereth out of _Possidonius_, that their King\nlay down at meals, on an higher bed than others. That _Cleopatra_ thus\nentertained _Anthony_, the same Author manifesteth when he saith, she\nprepared twelve Tricliniums. That it was in use among the _Greeks_, the\nword Triclinium implieth, and the same is also declarable from many\nplaces in the Symposiacks of _Plutarch_. That it was not out of fashion\nin the days of _Aristotle_, he declareth in his politicks; when among\nthe Institutionary rules of youth, he adviseth they might not be\npermitted to hear Iambicks and Tragedies before they were admitted unto\ndiscumbency or lying along with others at their meals. That the _Romans_\nused this gesture at repast, beside many more, is evident from\n_Lipsius_, _Mercurialis_, _Salmasius_ and _Ciaconius_, who have expresly\nand distinctly treated hereof.\n\nNow of their accumbing places, the one was called Stibadion and Sigma,\ncarrying the figure of an half Moon, and of an uncertain capacity,\nwhereupon it received the name of Hexaclinon, Octoclinon, according unto\nthat of _Martial_,\n\n _Accipe Lunata scriptum testudine Sigma:\n Octo capit, veniat quisquis amicus erit._\n\nHereat in several ages the left and right horn were the principal\nplaces, and the most honorable person, if he were not master of the\nfeast, possessed one of those rooms. The other was termed Triclinium,\nthat is, Three beds about a table, as may be seen in the figures\nthereof, and particularly in the _Rhamnusian_ Triclinium, set down by\n_Mercurialis_[SN: Merc. De Arte Gymnastica.]. The customary use hereof\nwas probably deduced from the frequent use of bathing, after which they\ncommonly retired to bed, and refected themselves with repast; and so\nthat custom by degrees changed their cubiculary beds into discubitory,\nand introduced a fashion to go from the bathes unto these.\n\n[Sidenote: _The ancient gesture or position of the body at feasts._]\n\nAs for their gesture or position, the men lay down leaning on their left\nelbow, their back being advanced by some pillow or soft substance: the\nsecond lay so with his back towards the first, that his head attained\nabout his bosome; and the rest in the same order. For women, they sat\nsometimes distinctly with their sex, sometime promiscuously with men,\naccording to affection or favour, as is delivered by _Juvenal_,\n\n _Gremio jacuit nova nupta mariti._\n\nAnd by _Suetonius_ of _Caligula_, that at his feasts he placed his\nsisters, with whom he had been incontinent, successively in order below\nhim.\n\nAgain, As their beds were three, so the guests did not usually exceed\nthat number in every one; according to the ancient Laws, and proverbial\nobservations to begin with the Graces, and make up their feasts with the\nMuses. And therefore it was remarkable in the Emperour _Lucius Verus_,\nthat he lay down with twelve: which was, saith _Julius Capitolinus,\npr\u00e6ter exempla majorum_, not according to the custom of his\nPredecessors, except it were at publick and nuptial suppers. The regular\nnumber was also exceeded in this last supper, whereat there were no less\nthan thirteen, and in no place fewer than ten, for, as _Josephus_\ndelivereth, it was not lawful to celebrate the Passover with fewer than\nthat number.\n\nLastly, For the disposing and ordering of the persons: The first and\nmiddle beds were for the guests, the third and lowest for the Master of\nthe house and his family; he always lying in the first place of the last\nbed, that is, next the middle bed; but if the wife or children were\nabsent, their rooms were supplied by the Umbr\u00e6, or hangers on, according\nto that of _Juvenal_ [SN: _Who the Umbr\u00e6 were at banquets._]----_Locus\nest et pluribus Umbris._ For the guests, the honourablest place in every\nbed was the first, excepting the middle or second bed; wherein the most\nhonourable Guest of the feast was placed in the last place, because by\nthat position he might be next the Master of the feast [SN: _Iul.\nScalig. familiarium exercitationum Problema 1._]. For the Master lying\nin the first of the last bed, and the principal Guest in the last place\nof the second, they must needs be next each other; as this figure doth\nplainly declare, and whereby we may apprehend the feast of _Perpenna_\nmade unto _Sertorius_, described by _Salustius_, whose words we shall\nthus read with _Salmasius_: _Igitur discubuere, Sertorius inferior in\nmedio lecto, supra Fabius; Antonius in summo; Infra Scriba Sertorii\nVersius; alter scriba M\u00e6cenas in Imo, medius inter Tarquitium et Dominum\nPerpennam._\n\n Ultimus\n Honoratissimus Locus Summus\n Infra Medius Supra\n +--------------------------------+\n |L. Fabius Locus Vacuus Sertorius|\n | Medius Lectus |\n +----------+--------------------------------+------------+\n L | | | |\n o S | | | | U\n c e | | | |I l\n u u S| | | |n t\n s u|Perpenna | |Versinis |f i\n D p|Dominus | | |r m\n S o r| | | |a u\n u m a| | | | s\n m i | | | |\n m n | | | |\n u i | | | |\n s | | | |\n | | | |\n M| | | |M\n e| | |Locus |e\n d|M\u00e6cenas | |Vacuus |d\n i|Imus | |Summus |i\n u|Lectus | |Lectus |u\n s| | | |s\n | | | |\n | | | | P\n U| | | | S r\n l| | | | e i\n t| | | |S u m\n i|Tarquitius| | Antonius |u u\n m| | | |p S s\n u| | | |r u\n s| | | |a m L\n | | | | m o\n | | | | u c\n | | | | s u\n | | | | s\n\n\nAt this feast there were but seven; the middle places of the highest and\nmiddle bed being vacant; and hereat was _Sertorius_ the General and\nprincipal guest slain. And so may we make out what is delivered by\n_Plutarch_ in his life, that lying on his back, and raising himself up,\n_Perpenna_ cast himself upon his stomack; which he might very well do,\nbeing Master of the feast, and lying next unto him. And thus also from\nthis Tricliniary disposure, we may illustrate that obscure expression of\n_Seneca_; That the Northwind was in the middle, the North-East on the\nhigher side, and the North-West on the lower. For as appeareth in the\ncircle of the winds, the North-East will answer the bed of _Antonius_,\nand the North-West that of _Perpenna_.\n\nThat the custom of feasting upon beds was in use among the _Hebrews_,\nmany deduce from _Ezekiel_[SN: Ezek. 23.]. Thou sattest upon a stately\nbed, and a table prepared before it. The custom of Discalceation or\nputting off their shoes at meals, is conceived to confirm the same; as\nby that means keeping their beds clean; and therefore they had a\npeculiar charge to eat the Passover with their shooes on; which\nInjunction were needless, if they used not to put them off. However it\nwere in times of high antiquity, probable it is that in after ages they\nconformed unto the fashions of the _Assyrians_ and Eastern Nations, and\nlastly of the _Romans_, being reduced by _Pompey_ unto a Provincial\nsubjection.\n\nThat this discumbency at meals was in use in the days of our Saviour, is\nconceived probable from several speeches of his expressed in that\nphrase, even unto common Auditors, as _Luke_ 14. _Cum invitatus fueris\nad nuptias, non discumbas in primo loco_, and besides many more,\n_Matthew_ 23. When reprehending the _Scribes_ and _Pharises_, he saith,\n_Amant protoclisias, id est, primos recubitus in c\u00e6nis, et\nprotocathedrias, sive, primas cathedras, in Synagogis_: wherein the\nterms are very distinct, and by an Antithesis do plainly distinguish the\nposture of sitting, from this of lying on beds. The consent of the\n_Jews_ with the _Romans_ in other ceremonies and rites of feasting,\nmakes probable their conformity in this. The _Romans_ washed, were\nanointed, and wore a cenatory garment: and that the same was practised\nby the _Jews_, is deduceable from that expostulation of our Saviour with\n_Simon_[SN: Luke 7.], that he washed not his feet, nor anointed his head\nwith oyl; the common civilities at festival entertainments; and that\nexpression of his concerning the cenatory or wedding garment [SN: Matth.\n22.]; and as some conceive of the linnen garment of the young man or St.\n_John_; which might be the same he wore the night before at the last\nSupper.\n\nThat they used this gesture at the Passover, is more than probable from\nthe testimony of _Jewish_ Writers, and particularly of _Ben-maimon_\nrecorded by _Scaliger De emendatione temporum_. After the second cup\naccording to the Institution. [SN: Exod. 12.] The Son asketh, what\nmeaneth this service? Then he that maketh the declaration, saith, How\ndifferent is this night from all other nights? for all other nights we\nwash but once but this night twice; all other we eat leavened or\nunleavened bread, but this only leavened; all other we eat flesh\nroasted, boyled or baked, but this only roasted, all other nights we eat\ntogether lying or sitting, but this only lying along. And this posture\nthey used as a token of rest and security which they enjoyed, far\ndifferent from that at the eating of the Passover in _\u00c6gypt_.\n\nThat this gesture was used when our Saviour eat the Passover, is not\nconceived improbable from the words whereby the Evangelists express the\nsame, that is, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which\nterms do properly signifie this Gesture in _Aristotle_, _Athen\u00e6us_,\n_Euripides_, _Sophocles_, and all humane Authors; and the like we meet\nwith in the paraphrastical expression of _Nonnus_.\n\nLastly, If it be not fully conceded, that this gesture was used at the\nPassover, yet that it was observed at the last supper, seems almost\nincontrovertible: for at this feast or cenatory convention, learned men\nmake more than one supper, or at least many parts thereof. The first was\nthat Legal one of the Passover, or eating of the Paschal Lamb with\nbitter herbs, and ceremonies described by _Moses_. Of this it is\nsaid, [SN: Matth. 26.] then when the even was come he sat down with the\ntwelve. This is supposed when it is said, [SN: John 13.] that the supper\nbeing ended, our Saviour arose, took a towel and washed the disciples\nfeet. The second was common and Domestical, consisting of ordinary and\nundefined provisions; of this it may be said, that our Saviour took his\ngarment, and sat down again, after he had washed the Disciples feet, and\nperformed the preparative civilities of suppers; at this 'tis conceived\nthe sop was given unto _Judas_, the Original word implying some broath\nor decoction, not used at the Passover. The third or latter part was\nEucharistical, which began at the breaking and blessing of the bread,\naccording to that of _Matthew_, And as they were eating, Jesus took\nbread and blessed it.\n\nNow although at the Passover or first supper, many have doubted this\nReclining posture, and some have affirmed that our Saviour stood; yet\nthat he lay down at the other, the same men have acknowledged, as\n_Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, _Austin_, and many more. And if the\ntradition will hold, the position is unquestionable; for the very\nTriclinium is to be seen at _Rome_, brought thither by _Vespasian_, and\ngraphically set forth by _Casalius_[SN: De veterum ritibus.].\n\nThus may it properly be made out; what is delivered, _John_ 13. _Erat\nrecumbens unus ex Discipulis ejus in sinu Jesu quem diligebat_; Now\nthere was leaning on Jesus bosom one of his Disciples whom Jesus loved;\nwhich gesture will not so well agree unto the position of sitting, but\nis natural, and cannot be avoided in the Laws of accubation. And the\nvery same expression is to be found in _Pliny_, concerning the Emperour\n_Nerva_ and _Veiento_ whom he favoured; _C\u0153nabat Nerva cum paucis,\nVeiento recumbebat proprius atque etiam in sinu_; and from this custom\narose the word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, that is, a near and bosom friend. And\ntherefore _Causabon_ [SN: _Not_ in Evan.] justly rejecteth\n_Theophylact_; who not considering the ancient manner of decumbency,\nimputed this gesture of the beloved Disciple unto Rusticity, or an act\nof incivility. And thus also have some conceived, it may be more plainly\nmade out what is delivered of _Mary Magdalen_[SN: Luke 7.]. That she\nstood at Christs feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet\nwith tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head. Which actions,\nif our Saviour sat, she could not perform standing, and had rather stood\nbehind his back, than at his feet. And therefore it is not allowable,\nwhat is observable in many pieces, and even of _Raphael Urbin_; wherein\n_Mary Magdalen_ is pictured before our Saviour, washing his feet on her\nknees; which will not consist with the strict description and letter of\nthe Text.\n\nNow whereas this position may seem to be discountenanced by our\nTranslation, which usually renders it sitting, it cannot have that\nillation, for the _French_ and _Italian_ Translations expressing neither\nposition of session or recubation, do only say that he placed himself\nat the table; and when ours expresseth the same by sitting, it is in\nrelation unto our custom, time, and apprehension. The like upon occasion\nis not unusual: so when it is said, _Luke_ 4. \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, and the\nVulgar renders it, _Cum plicasset librum_, ours translateth it, he shut\nor closed the book; which is an expression proper unto the paginal books\nof our times, but not so agreeable unto volumes or rolling books in use\namong the _Jews_, not only in elder times, but even unto this day. [SN:\n_What_ Denarius, _or the penny in the Gospel is_.] So when it is said,\nthe _Samaritan_ delivered unto the host two pence for the provision of\nthe _Levite_; and when our Saviour agreed with the Labourers for a penny\na day, in strict translation it should be seven pence half penny; and is\nnot to be conceived our common penny, the sixtieth part of an ounce. For\nthe word in the Original is \u03b4\u03b7\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, in Latine, _Denarius_, and with\nthe _Romans_ did value the eight part of an ounce, which after five\nshillings the ounce amounteth unto seven pence half penny of our money.\n\nLastly, Whereas it might be conceived that they eat the Passover\nstanding rather than sitting, or lying down, according to the\nInstitution, _Exod._ 12. [SN: _Ceremonies of the Passover omitted._]\nThus shall you eat, with your loins girded, your shooes on your feet,\nand your staff in your hand; the _Jews_ themselves reply, this was not\nrequired of succeeding generations, and was not observed, but in the\nPassover of _\u00c6gypt_. And so also many other injunctions were afterward\nomitted, as the taking up of the Paschal Lamb, from the tenth day, the\neating of it in their houses dispersed; the striking of the blood on the\ndoor posts, and the eating thereof in hast. Solemnities and Ceremonies\nprimitively enjoyned, afterward omitted; as was also this of station,\nfor the occasion ceasing, and being in security, they applied\nthemselves unto gestures in use among them.\n\nNow in what order of recumbancy Christ and the Disciples were disposed,\nis not so easily determined. _Casalius_ from the Lateran Triclinium will\ntell us, that there being thirteen, five lay down in the first bed, five\nin the last, and three in the middle bed; and that our Saviour possessed\nthe upper place thereof. That _John_ lay in the same bed seems plain,\nbecause he leaned on our Saviours bosom. That _Peter_ made the third in\nthat bed, conjecture is made, because he beckened unto _John_, as being\nnext to him, to ask of Christ, who it was that should betray him. That\n_Judas_ was not far off seems probable, not only because he dipped in\nthe same dish, but because he was so near, that our Saviour could hand\nthe sop unto him.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n Of the Picture of our Saviour with long hair.\n\n\nAnother Picture there is of our Saviour described with long hair,\naccording to the custom of the _Jews_, and his description sent by\n_Lentulus_ unto the Senate. Wherein indeed the hand of the Painter is\nnot accusable, but the judgement of the common Spectator; conceiving he\nobserved this fashion of his hair; because he was a _Nazarite_, and\nconfounding a _Nazarite_ by vow, with those by birth or education.\n\nThe _Nazarite_ by vow is declared, _Numb._ 6. And was to refrain three\nthings, drinking of Wine, cutting the hair, and approaching unto the\ndead; and such a one was _Sampson_. Now that our Saviour was a\n_Nazarite_ after this kind, we have no reason to determine; for he drank\nWine, and was therefore called by the _Pharisees_, a Wine-bibber; he\napproached also the dead, as when he raised from death _Lazarus_, and\nthe daughter of _Jairus_.\n\nThe other _Nazarite_ was a Topical appellation, and appliable unto such\nas were born in _Nazareth_, a City of _Galilee_, and in the Tribe of\n_Napthali_. Neither if strictly taken was our Saviour in this sense a\n_Nazarite_; for he was born in _Bethlehem_ in the Tribe of _Judah_; but\nmight receive that name, because he abode in that City; and was not only\nconceived therein, but there also passed the silent part of his life,\nafter his return from _\u00c6gypt_; as is delivered by _Matthew_, And he came\nand dwelt in a City called _Nazareth_, that it might be fulfilled which\nwas spoken by the Prophet, He shall be called a _Nazarene_. Both which\nkinds of _Nazarites_, as they are distinguishable by _Zain_, and _Tsade_\nin the Hebrew, so in the Greek, by _Alpha_ and _Omega_; for as\n_Jansenius_ observeth, [SN: Ians. Concordia Evangelica.] where the\nvotary _Nazarite_ is mentioned, it is written, \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03cc\u03c2, as _Levit._ 6.\nand _Lament._ 4. Where it is spoken of our Saviour, we read it,\n\u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, as in _Matthew_, _Luke_ and _John_; only _Mark_ who writ his\nGospel at _Rome_, did Latinize, and wrote it \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n Of the Picture of _Abraham_ sacrificing _Isaac_.\n\n\nIn the Picture of the Immolation of _Isaac_, or _Abraham_ sacrificing\nhis son, _Isaac_ is described as a little boy; which notwithstanding is\nnot consentaneous unto the authority of Expositors, or the circumstance\nof the Text. For therein it is delivered that _Isaac_ carried on his\nback the wood for the sacrifice; which being an holocaust or burnt\noffering to be consumed unto ashes, we cannot well conceive a burthen\nfor a boy; but such a one unto _Isaac_, as that which it typified was\nunto Christ, that is, the wood or cross whereon he suffered; which was\ntoo heavy a load for his shoulders, and was fain to be relieved therein\nby _Simon_ of _Cyrene_.\n\nAgain, He was so far from a boy, that he was a man grown, and at his\nfull stature, if we believe _Josephus_, who placeth him in the last of\n_Adolescency_, and makes him twenty five years old. And whereas in the\nVulgar Translation he is termed _puer_, it must not be strictly\napprehended (for that age properly endeth in puberty, and extendeth but\nunto fourteen) but respectively unto _Abraham_, who was at that time\nabove sixscore. And therefore also herein he was not unlike unto him,\nwho was after led dumb unto the slaughter, and commanded by others, who\nhad legions at command; that is, in meekness and humble submission. For\nhad he resisted, it had not been in the power of his aged parent to have\nenforced; and many at his years have performed such acts, as few besides\nat any. [SN: _Men of eminent fame and prowess at 25._] _David_ was too\nstrong for a Lion and a Bear; _Pompey_ had deserved the name of Great;\n_Alexander_ of the same cognomination was _Generalissimo_ of _Greece_;\nand _Anibal_ but one year after, succeeded _Asdruball_ in that memorable\nwar against the _Romans_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n Of the Picture of _Moses_ with horns.\n\n\nIn many pieces, and some of ancient Bibles, _Moses_ is described with\nhorns. The same description we find in a silver Medal; that is, upon one\nside _Moses_ horned, and on the reverse the commandment against\nsculptile Images. Which is conceived to be a coynage of some _Jews_, in\nderision of Christians, who first began that Pourtract.\n\nThe ground of this absurdity, was surely a mistake of the Hebrew Text,\nin the history of _Moses_ when he descended from the Mount; [SN: Exod.\n34.29, 35.] upon the affinity of _K\u00e6ren_ and _Karan_, that is, an horn,\nand to shine, which is one quality of horn: The Vulgar Translation\nconforming unto the former. _Ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies ejus.\nQui videbant faciem Mosis esse cornutam._ But the _Chaldee_ paraphrase,\ntranslated by _Paulus Fagius_, hath otherwise expressed it. _Moses\nnesciebat quod multus esset splendor glori\u00e6 vultus ejus. Et viderunt\nfilii Israel quod multa esset claritas glori\u00e6 faciei Moses._ The\nexpression of the Septuagint is as large, \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, _Glorificatus est aspectus cutis, seu coloris faciei._\n\nAnd this passage of the Old Testament, is well explained by another of\nthe New [SN: 2 Cor. 3.]; wherein it is delivered, that they could not\nstedfastly behold the face of _Moses_, \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5; that\nis, for the glory of his countenance. And surely the exposition of one\nText is best performed by another; men vainly interposing their\nconstructions, where the Scripture decideth the controversie. And\ntherefore some have seemed too active in their expositions, who in the\nstory of _Rahab_ the harlot, have given notice that the word also\nsignifieth an Hostess; for in the Epistle to the _Hebrews_, she is\nplainly termed \u03c0\u1f41\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7, which signifies not an Hostess, but a pecuniary\nand prostituting Harlot [SN: _What kind of Harlot she was, read_ Camar.\nDe vita Eli\u00e6.]; a term applied unto _Lais_ by the _Greeks_, and\ndistinguished from \u1f15\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, or _amica_, as may appear in the thirteenth\nof _Athen\u00e6us_.\n\nAnd therefore more allowable is the Translation of _Tremellius, Quod\nsplendida facta esset cutis facici ejus_; or as _Estius_ hath\ninterpreted it, _facies ejus erat radiosa_, his face was radiant, and\ndispersing beams like many horns and cones about his head; which is also\nconsonant unto the original signification, and yet observed in the\npieces of our Saviour, and the Virgin _Mary_, who are commonly drawn\nwith scintillations, or radient Halo's about their head; which after the\n_French_ expression are usually termed, the Glory.\n\nNow if besides this occasional mistake, any man shall contend a\npropriety in this picture, and that no injury is done unto Truth by this\ndescription, because an horn is the Hieroglyphick of authority, power\nand dignity, and in this Metaphor is often used in Scripture; the piece\nI confess in this acception is harmless and agreeable unto _Moses_: and\nunder such emblematical constructions, we find that _Alexander_ the\nGreat, and _Attila_ King of _Hunnes_, in ancient Medals are described\nwith horns. But if from the common mistake, or any solary consideration\nwe persist in this description, we vilify the mystery of the\nirradiation, and authorize a dangerous piece conformable unto that of\n_Jupiter Hammon_; which was the Sun, and therefore described with horns;\nas is delivered by _Macrobius; Hammonem quem Deum solem occidentem\nLybies existimant, arietinis cornibus fingunt, quibus id animal valet,\nsicut radiis sol_. We herein also imitate the Picture of _Pan_, and\n_Pagan_ emblem of Nature. And if (as _Macrobius_ and very good Authors\nconcede) _Bacchus_, (who is also described with horns) be the same Deity\nwith the Sun; and if (as _Vossius_ well contendeth) [SN: Moses _and_\nBacchus _supposed to be the same person_, De origine Idolatri\u00e6.]\n_Moses_ and _Bacchus_ were the same person; their descriptions must be\nrelative, or the Tauricornous picture of the one, perhaps the same with\nthe other.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n Of the Scutcheons of the Tribes of Israel.\n\n\nWe will not pass over the Scutcheons of the Tribes of _Israel_, as they\nare usually described in the Maps of _Canaan_ and several other pieces;\ngenerally conceived to be the proper coats, and distinctive badges of\ntheir several Tribes. So _Reuben_ is conceived to bear three Bars wave,\n_Judah_ a Lyon Rampant, _Dan_ a Serpent nowed, _Simeon_ a sword inpale\nthe point erected, etc. The ground whereof is the last Benediction of\n_Jacob_[SN: Gen. 49.], wherein he respectively draweth comparisons from\nthings here represented.\n\nNow herein although we allow a considerable measure of truth, yet\nwhether as they are usually described, these were the proper\ncognizances, and coat-arms of the Tribes; whether in this manner\napplyed, and upon the grounds presumed, material doubts remain.\n\nFor first, They are not strictly made out, from the Prophetical blessing\nof _Jacob_; for _Simeon_ and _Levi_ have distinct coats, that is, a\nSword, and the two Tables, yet are they by _Jacob_ included in one\nProphesie, _Simeon_ and _Levi_ are brethren, Instruments of cruelties\nare in their habitations. So _Joseph_ beareth an Ox, whereof\nnotwithstanding there is no mention in this Prophesie; for therein it is\nsaid _Joseph_ is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; by\nwhich repitition are intimated the two Tribes descending from him,\n_Ephraim_ and _Manasses_; whereof notwithstanding _Ephraim_ only beareth\nan Ox: True it is, that many years after in the benediction of _Moses_,\nit is said of _Joseph_[SN: Deut. 33.], His glory is like the firstlings\nof his Bullock: and so we may concede, what _Vossius_ learnedly\ndeclareth, that the _\u00c6gyptians_ represented _Joseph_, in the Symbole of\nan Ox; for thereby was best implied the dream of _Pharoah_, which he\ninterpreted, the benefit by Agriculture, and provident provision of corn\nwhich he performed; and therefore did _Serapis_ bear a bushel upon his\nhead.\n\nAgain, If we take these two benedictions together, the resemblances are\nnot appropriate, and _Moses_ therein conforms not unto _Jacob_: for that\nwhich in the Prophesie of _Jacob_ is appropriated unto one, is in the\nblessing of _Moses_ made common unto others. So whereas _Judah_ is\ncompared unto a Lion by _Jacob_, _Judah_ is a Lions whelp, the same is\napplied unto _Dan_ by _Moses_, _Dan_ is a Lions whelp, he shall leap\nfrom _Bashan_, and also unto _Gad_; he dwelleth as a Lion.\n\nThirdly, If a lion were the proper coat of _Judah_, yet were it not\nprobably a Lion Rampant, as it is commonly described, but rather\ncouchant or dormant, as some _Heralds_ and _Rabbins_ do determine;\naccording to the letter of the Text, _Recumbens dormisti ut Leo_, He\ncouched as a Lion, and as a young Lion, who shall rouse him?\n\nLastly, when it is said, [SN: Num. 2.] Every man of the Children of\n_Israel_ shall pitch by his own standard with the Ensign of their\nfathers house; upon enquiry what these standards and ensigns were there\nis no small incertainty; and men conform not unto the Prophesie of\n_Jacob_. Christian expositors are fain herein to rely upon the\n_Rabbins_, who notwithstanding are various in their traditions, and\nconfirm not these common descriptions. For as for inferiour ensigns,\neither of particular bands or houses, they determine nothing at all; and\nof the four principal or Legionary standards, that is, of _Judah_,\n_Reuben_, _Ephraim_, and _Dan_ (under every one whereof marched three\nTribes) they explain them very variously. _Jonathan_ who compiled the\nThargum conceives the colours of these banners to answer the precious\nstones in the breast-plate, and upon which the names of the Tribes were\nengraven. [SN: _The like also_ P. Fagius _upon the Thargum or_ Chaldie\n_Paraphrase of_ Onkelus. Num. 1.] So the standard for the Camp of\n_Judah_ was of three colours, according unto the stones, Chalcedony,\nSaphir and Sardonix; and therein were expressed the names of the three\nTribes, [SN: Num. 10.] _Judah_, _Isachar_, and _Zabulon_, and in the\nmiddest thereof was written, Rise up Lord, and let thy enemies be\nscattered, and let them that hate thee flee before thee; in it was also\nthe pourtrait of a Lion. The standard of _Reuben_ was also of three\ncolours, Sardine, Topaz, and Amethyst; therein were expressed the names\nof _Reuben_, _Simeon_, and _Gad_, in the middest was written, [SN: Deut.\n6.] Hear, O _Israel_, The Lord our God, the Lord is one: Therein was\nalso the pourtraiture of a Hart. But _Abenezra_ and others, beside the\ncolours of the field, do set down other charges, in _Reubens_ the form\nof a man or mandrake, in that of _Judah_ a Lion, in _Ephraims_ an Ox, in\n_Dan's_ the figure of an Eagle.\n\nAnd thus indeed the four figures in the banners of the principal\nsquadrons of _Israel_ are answerable unto the Cherubins in the vision of\n_Ezekiel_[SN: Ezek. 1.]; every one carrying the form of all these. As\nfor the likeness of their faces, they four had the likeness of the face\nof a Man, and the face of a Lion on the right side, and they four had\nthe face of an Ox on the left side, they four had also the face of an\nEagle. [SN: _The common Pictures of the 4 Evangelists explicated._] And\nconformable hereunto the pictures of the Evangelists (whose Gospels are\nthe Christian banners) are set forth with the addition of a man or\nAngel, an Ox, a Lion, and a Eagle. And these symbolically represent the\noffice of Angels, and Ministers of Gods Will; in whom is required\nunderstanding as in a man, courage and vivacity as in the Lion, service\nand ministerial officiousness, as in the Ox, expedition or celerity of\nexecution, as in the Eagle.\n\nFrom hence therefore we may observe that these descriptions, the most\nauthentick of any, are neither agreeable unto one another, nor unto the\nScutcheons in question. For though they agree in _Ephraim_ and _Judah_,\nthat is, the Ox and the Lion, yet do they differ in those of _Dan_, and\n_Reuben_, as far as an Eagle is different from a Serpent, and the figure\nof a Man, Hart, or Mandrake, from three Bars wave. [SN: _The Antiquity\nof bearing Scutcheons._] Wherein notwithstanding we rather declare the\nincertainty of Arms in this particular, than any way question their\nantiquity; for hereof more ancient examples there are, than the\nScutcheons of the Tribes, if _Osyris_, _Mizraim_ or _Jupiter_ the Just,\nwere the Son of _Cham_; for of his two Sons, as _Diodorus_ delivereth,\nthe one for his Device gave a Dog, the other a Wolf. And, beside the\nshield of _Achilles_, and many ancient _Greeks_: if we receive the\nconjecture of _Vossius_, that the Crow upon _Corvinus_ his head, was but\nthe figure of that Animal upon his helmet, it is an example of Antiquity\namong the _Romans_.\n\nBut more widely must we walk, if we follow the doctrine of the\n_Cabalists_[SN: _Ricius_[4] de c\u0153lesti Agricultura, lib. 4.], who in\neach of the four banners inscribe a letter of the Tetragrammaton, or\nquadriliteral name of God: and mysterizing their ensigns, do make the\nparticular ones of the twelve Tribes, accommodable unto the twelve signs\nin the Zodiack, and twelve moneths in the year: but the Tetrarchical or\ngeneral banners, of _Judah_, _Reuben_, _Ephraim_, and _Dan_, unto the\nsigns of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricornus: that is, the four\ncardinal parts of the Zodiack, and seasons of the year.\n\n [4] _Recius_, 1650, 1658, 1669, 1672, 1686.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Of the Pictures of the _Sibyls_.\n\n\nThe Pictures of the _Sibyls_ are very common, and for their Prophesies\nof Christ in high esteem with Christians; described commonly with\nyouthful faces, and in a defined number. Common pieces making twelve,\nand many precisely ten; observing therein the account of _Varro_, that\nis, _Sibylla_, _Delphica_, _Erythr\u00e6a_, _Samia_, _Cumana_, _Cum\u00e6a_, or\n_Cimmeria_, _Hellespontiaca_, _Lybica_, _Phrygia_, _Tiburtina_,\n_Persica_. In which enumeration I perceive learned men are not\nsatisfied, and many conclude an irreconcilable incertainty; some making\nmore, others fewer, and not this certain number. For _Suidas_, though he\naffirm that in divers ages there were ten, yet the same denomination he\naffordeth unto more; _Boysardus_ in his Tract of Divination hath set\nforth the Icons of these Ten, yet addeth two others, _Epirotica_, and\n_\u00c6gyptia_; and some affirm that Prophesying women were generally named\n_Sibyls_.\n\nOthers make them fewer: _Martianus Capella_ two; _Pliny_ and _Solinus_\nthree; _\u00c6lian_ four; and _Salmasius_ in effect but seven. For\ndiscoursing hereof in his _Plinian_ Exercitations, he thus determineth;\n_Ridere licet hodiernos Pictores, qui tabulas proponunt Cuman\u00e6, Cume\u00e6,\net Erythr\u00e6\u00e6, quasi trium diversarum Sibyllarum; cum una cademque fuerit\nCumana, Cum\u00e6a, et Erythr\u00e6a, ex plurium et doctissimorum Authorum\nsententia._ _Boysardus_ gives us leave to opinion there was no more than\none; for so doth he conclude, _In tanta Scriptorum varietate liberum\nrelinquimus Lectori credere, an una et eadem in diversis regionibus\nperegrinata, cognomen sortita sit ab iis locis ubi oracula reddidisse\ncomperitur, an plures extiterint_: And therefore not discovering a\nresolution of their number from pens of the best Writers, we have no\nreason to determine the same from the hand and pencil of Painters.\n\nAs touching their age, that they are generally described as young women,\nHistory will not allow; for the Sibyl whereof _Virgil_ speaketh is\ntermed by him _long\u00e6va sacerdos_, and _Servius_ in his Comment\namplifieth the same. The other that sold the books unto _Tarquin_, and\nwhose History is plainer than any, by _Livie_ and _Gellius_ is termed\n_Anus_; that is, properly no woman of ordinary age, but full of years,\nand in the dayes of dotage, according to the Etymology of _Festus_[SN:\nAnus, quasi \u1f08no\u1fe6s, sine mente.]; and consonant unto the History; wherein\nit is said, that _Tarquin_ thought she doted with old age. Which duly\nperpended, the _Licentia pictoria_ is very large; with the same reason\nthey may delineate old _Nestor_ like _Adonis_, _Hecuba_ with _Helens_\nface, and Time with _Absolons_ head. But this absurdity that eminent\nArtist _Michael Angelo_ hath avoided, in the Pictures of the _Cumean_\nand _Persian_ Sibyls, as they stand described from the printed\nsculptures of _Adam Mantuanus_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n Of the Picture describing the death of\n _Cleopatra_.\n\n\nThe Picture concerning the death of _Cleopatra_ with two Asps or\nvenemous Serpents unto her arms, or breasts, or both, requires\nconsideration: for therein (beside that this variety is not excusable)\nthe thing it self is questionable; nor is it indisputably certain what\nmanner of death she died. _Plutarch_ in the life of _Antony_ plainly\ndelivereth, that no man knew the manner of her death; for some affirmed\nshe perished by poison, which she alwayes carried in a little hollow\ncomb, and wore it in her hair. Beside, there were never any Asps\ndiscovered in the place of her death, although two of her maids perished\nalso with her; only it was said, two small and almost insensible pricks\nwere found upon her arm; which was all the ground that _C\u00e6sar_ had to\npresume the manner of her death. _Galen_ who was contemporary unto\n_Plutarch_, delivereth two wayes of her death: that she killed her self\nby the bite of an Asp, or bit an hole in her arm, and poured poison\ntherein. _Strabo_ that lived before them both hath also two opinions;\nthat she died by the bite of an Asp, or else a poisonous ointment.\n\nWe might question the length of the Asps, which are sometimes described\nexceeding short; whereas the Chers\u00e6a or land-Asp which most conceive she\nused, is above four cubits long. Their number is not unquestionable; for\nwhereas there are generally two described, _Augustus_ (as _Plutarch_\nrelateth) did carry in his triumph the Image of _Cleopatra_ but with one\nAsp under her arm. As for the two pricks, or little spots in her arm,\nthey infer not their plurality: for like the Viper, the Asp hath two\nteeth; whereby it left this impression, or double puncture behind it.\n\nAnd lastly, We might question the place; for some apply them unto her\nbreast, which notwithstanding will not consist with the History; and\n_Petrus Victorius_ hath well observed the same. But herein the mistake\nwas easie; it being the custom in capital malefactors to apply them unto\nthe breast, as the Author _De Theriaca ad Pisonem_, an eye witness\nhereof in _Alexandria_, where _Cleopatra_ died, determineth: I beheld,\nsaith he, in _Alexandria_, how suddenly these Serpents bereave a man of\nlife; for when any one is condemned to this kind of death, if they\nintend to use him favourably, that is, to dispatch him suddenly, they\nfasten an Asp unto his breast; and bidding him walk about, he presently\nperisheth thereby.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n Of the Pictures of the Nine Worthies.\n\n\nThe Pictures of the nine Worthies are not unquestionable, and to\ncritical spectators may seem to contain sundry improprieties. Some will\nenquire why _Alexander_ the Great is described upon an Elephant: for, we\ndo not find he used that animal in his armies, much less in his own\nperson; but his horse is famous in History, and its name alive to this\nday. Beside, he fought but one remarkable battel, wherein there were any\nElephants, and that was with _Porus_ King of _India_; in which\nnotwithstanding, as _Curtius_, _Arrianus_, and _Plutarch_ report, he was\non Horseback himself. And if because he fought against Elephants, he is\nwith propriety set upon their backs; with no less or greater reason is\nthe same description agreeable unto _Judas Maccabeus_, as may be\nobserved from the history of the _Maccabees_; and also unto _Julius\nC\u00e6sar_, whose triumph was honoured with captive Elephants, as may be\nobserved in the order thereof, set forth by _Jacobus Laurus_[SN: In\nsplendere urbis Antiqu\u00e6.]. And if also we should admit this description\nupon an Elephant, yet were not the manner thereof unquestionable, that\nis, in his ruling the beast alone; for beside the Champion upon their\nback, there was also a guide or ruler, which sat more forward to command\nor guide the beast. Thus did King _Porus_ ride when he was overthrown by\n_Alexander_; and thus are also the towred Elephants described, _Maccab._\n2. 6. Upon the beasts there were strong towers of wood, which covered\nevery one of them, and were girt fast unto them by devices: there were\nalso upon every one of them thirty two strong men, beside the _Indian_\nthat ruled them.\n\nOthers will demand, not only why _Alexander_ upon an Elephant, but\n_Hector_ upon an Horse: whereas his manner of fighting, or presenting\nhimself in battel, was in a Chariot, as did the other noble _Trojans_,\nwho as _Pliny_ affirmeth were the first inventers thereof. The same way\nof fight is testified by _Diodorus_, and thus delivered by Sir _Walter\nRawleigh_. Of the vulgar little reckoning was made, for they fought all\non foot, slightly armed, and commonly followed the success of their\nCaptains; who rode not upon horses, but in Chariots drawn by two or\nthree Horses. And this was also the ancient way of fight among the\n_Britains_, as is delivered by _Diodorus_, _C\u00e6sar_, and _Tacitus_; and\nthere want not some who have taken advantage hereof, and made it one\nargument of their original from _Troy_.\n\n[Sidenote: _The use of stirrops not ancient._]\n\nLastly, By any man versed in Antiquity, the question can hardly be\navoided, why the Horses of these Worthies, especially of _C\u00e6sar_, are\ndescribed with the furniture of great saddles, and stirrops; for saddles\nlargely taken, though some defence there may be, yet that they had not\nthe use of stirrops, seemeth of lesser doubt; as _Pancirollus_ hath\nobserved, as _Polydore Virgil_, and _Petrus Victorius_ have\nconfirmed, [SN: De inventione rerum, vari\u00e6 Lectiones.] expresly\ndiscoursing hereon; as is observable from _Pliny_, and cannot escape our\neyes in the ancient monuments, medals and Triumphant arches of the\n_Romans_. Nor is there any ancient classical word in Latine to express\nthem. For _Staphia_, _Stapes_ or _Stapeda_ is not to be found in Authors\nof this Antiquity. And divers words which may be urged of this\nsignification, are either later, or signified not thus much in the time\nof _C\u00e6sar_. And therefore as _Lipsius_ observeth, lest a thing of common\nuse should want a common word, _Franciscus Philelphus_ named them\n_Stapedas_, and _Bodinus Subicus_ Pedaneos. And whereas the name might\npromise some Antiquity, because among the three small bones in the\nAuditory Organ, by Physitians termed _Incus_, _Malleus_ and _stapes_,\none thereof from some resemblance doth bear this name; these bones were\nnot observed, much less named by _Hippocrates_, _Galen_, or any ancient\nPhysitian. But as _Laurentius_ observeth, concerning the invention of\nthe stapes or stirrop bone, there is some contention between _Columbus_\nand _Ingrassias_; the one of _Sicilia_, the other of _Cremona_, and both\nwithin the compass of this Century.\n\nThe same is also deduceable from very approved Authors: _Polybius_\nspeaking of the way which _Anibal_ marched into _Italy_, useth the word\n\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, that is, saith _Petrus Victorius_, it was stored with\ndevices for men to get upon their horses, which ascents were termed\n_Bemata_, and in the life of _Caius Gracchus_, _Plutarch_ expresseth as\nmuch. For endevouring to ingratiate himself with the people, besides the\nplacing of stones at every miles end, he made at nearer distances\ncertain elevated places, and Scalary ascents, that by the help thereof\nthey might with better ease ascend or mount their Horses. Now if we\ndemand how Cavaliers then destitute of stirrops did usually mount their\nHorses; as _Lipsius_ informeth the unable and softer sort of men had\ntheir \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, or Stratores, which helped them up on horse back, as in\nthe practice of _Crassus_ in _Plutarch_, and _Caracalla_ in\n_Spartianus_, and the later example of _Valentinianus_, who because his\nhorse rised before that he could not be setled on his back, cut off the\nright hand of his Strator. But how the active and hardy persons mounted,\n_Vegetius_ [SN: De re Milit.] resolves us, that they used to vault or\nleap up, and therefore they had wooden horses in their houses and\nabroad: that thereby young men might enable themselves in this action:\nwherein by instruction and practice they grew so perfect, that they\ncould vault up on the right or left, and that with their sword in hand,\naccording to that of _Virgil_\n\n _Poscit equos atque arma simul, saltuque superbus\n Emicat._\n\nAnd again:\n\n _Infr\u00e6nant alii currus et corpora saltu\n Injiciunt in equos._\n\nSo _Julius Pollux_ adviseth to teach horses to incline, dimit, and bow\ndown their bodies, that their riders may with better ease ascend them.\nAnd thus may it more causally be made out, what _Hippocrates_ affirmeth\nof the _Scythians_, that using continual riding, they were generally\nmolested with the Sciatica or hip-gout. Or what _Suetonius_ delivereth\nof _Germanicus_, that he had slender legs, but encreased them by riding\nafter meals; that is, the humours descending upon their pendulosity,\nthey having no support or suppedaneous stability.\n\nNow if any shall say that these are petty errors and minor lapses, not\nconsiderably injurious unto truth, yet is it neither reasonable nor fair\nto contemn inferiour falsities; but rather as between falshood and truth\nthere is no medium, so should they be maintained in their distances: nor\nthe contagion of the one, approach the sincerity of the other.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n Of the Picture of _Jephthah_ sacryficing\n his daughter.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _That_ Jephthah _did not kill his daughter_.]\n\nThe hand of the Painter confidently setteth forth the Picture of\n_Jephthah_ in the posture of _Abraham_, sacrificing his only daughter:\nThus is it commonly received, and hath had the attest of many worthy\nWriters. Notwithstanding upon enquiry we find the matter doubtful, and\nmany upon probable grounds to have been of another opinion: conceiving\nin this oblation not a natural but a civil kind of death, and a\nseparation only unto the Lord. For that he pursued not his vow unto a\nliteral oblation, there want not arguments both from the Text. [SN: Judg.\n11.39] and reason.\n\nFor first, It is evident that she deplored her Virginity, and not her\ndeath; Let me go up and down the mountains, and bewail my Virginity, I\nand my fellows.\n\nSecondly, When it is said, that _Jephthah_ did unto her according unto\nhis vow, it is immediately subjoyned, _Et non cognovit virum_, and she\nknew no man; which as immediate in words, was probably most near in\nsense unto the vow.\n\nThirdly, It is said in the Text, that the daughters of _Israel_ went\nyearly to talk with the daughter of _Jephthah_ four dayes in the year;\nwhich had she been sacrificed, they could not have done: For whereas the\nword is sometime translated to lament, yet doth it also signifie to talk\nor have conference with one, and by _Tremellius_, who was well able to\nJudge of the Original, it is in this sense translated: _Ibant filii\nIsraelitarum, ad confabulandum cum filia Jephthaci, quatuor diebus\nquotannis_: And so it is also set down in the marginal notes of our\nTranslation. And from this annual concourse of the daughters of\n_Israel_, it is not improbable in future Ages, the daughter of\n_Jephthah_ came to be worshipped as a Deity; and had by the _Samaritans_\nan annual festivity observed unto her honour, as _Epiphanius_ hath left\nrecorded in the Heresie of the _Melchidecians_.\n\nIt is also repugnant unto reason; for the offering of mankind was\nagainst the Law of God, who so abhorred humane sacrifice, that he\nomitted not the oblation of unclean beasts, and confined his Altars but\nunto few kinds of Animals, the Ox, the Goat, the Sheep, the Pigeon and\nits kinds: In the cleansing of the Leper, there is I confess, mention\nmade of the Sparrow; but great dispute may be made whether it be\nproperly rendered. And therefore the Scripture with indignation\noft-times makes mention of humane sacrifice among the _Gentiles_; whose\noblations scarce made scruple of any Animal, sacrificing not only Man,\nbut Horses, Lions, \u00c6gles; and though they come not into holocausts, yet\ndo we read the _Syrians_ did make oblations of fishes unto the goddess\n_Derceto_. It being therefore a sacrifice so abominable unto God,\nalthough he had pursued it, it is not probable the Priests and Wisdom of\n_Israel_ would have permitted it; and that not only in regard of the\nsubject or sacrifice it self, but also the sacrificator, which the\nPicture makes to be _Jephthah_; who was neither Priest, nor capable of\nthat Office: for he was a _Gileadite_, and as the Text affirmeth, the\nson also of an harlot. And how hardly the Priesthood would endure\nencroachment upon their function, a notable example there is in the\nstory of _Ozias_.\n\nSecondly, The offering up of his daughter was not only unlawful, and\nentrenched upon his Religion, but had been a course that had much\ncondemned his discretion; that is, to have punished himself in the\nstrictest observance of his vow, when as the Law of God had allowed an\nevasion; that is, by way of commutation or redemption, according as is\ndetermined, _Levit._ 27. Whereby if she were between the age of five and\ntwenty, she was to be estimated but at ten shekels, and if between\ntwenty and sixty, not above thirty. A sum that could never discourage an\nindulgent Parent; it being but the value of servant slain; the\ninconsiderable Salary of _Judas_; and will make no greater noise than\nthree pound fifteen shillings with us. And therefore their conceit is\nnot to be exploded, who say that from the story of _Jephthah_\nsacrificing his own daughter, might spring the fable of _Agamemnon_,\ndelivering unto sacrifice his daughter _Iphigenia_, who was also\ncontemporary unto _Jephthah_: wherein to answer the ground that hinted\nit, _Iphigenia_ was not sacrificed her self, but redeemed with an Hart,\nwhich _Diana_ accepted for her.\n\nLastly, Although his vow run generally for the words, Whatsoever shall\ncome forth, etc. Yet might it be restrained in the sense, for whatsoever\nwas sacrificable, and justly subject to lawful immolation: and so would\nnot have sacrificed either Horse or Dog, if they had come out upon him.\nNor was he obliged by oath unto a strict observation of that which\npromissorily was unlawful; or could he be qualified by vow to commit a\nfact which naturally was abominable. Which doctrine had _Herod_\nunderstood, it might have saved _John Baptists_ head; when he promised\nby oath to give unto _Herodias_ whatsoever she would ask; that is, if\nit were in the compass of things, which he could lawfully grant. For his\noath made not that lawful which was illegal before: and if it were\nunjust to murther _John_, the supervenient Oath did not extenuate the\nfact, or oblige the Juror unto it.\n\nNow the ground at least which much promoted the opinion, might be the\ndubious words of the text, which contain the sense of his vow; most men\nadhering unto their common and obvious acception. Whatsoever shall come\nforth of the doors of my house shall surely be the Lords, and I will\noffer it up for a burnt offering. Now whereas it is said, _Erit Jehov\u00e6,\net offeram illud holocaustum_, the word signifying both _et_ and _aut_,\nit may be taken disjunctively; _aut offeram_, that is, it shall either\nbe the Lords by separation, or else, an holocaust by common oblation;\neven as our marginal translation advertiseth; and as _Tremellius_\nrendreth it, _Erit inquam Jehov\u00e6, aut offeram illud holocaustum_: and\nfor the vulgar translation, it useth often _et_, where _aut_ must be\npresumed, as _Exod._ 21. _Si quis percusserit patrem et matrem_, that\nis, not both, but either. There being therefore two waies to dispose of\nher, either to separate her unto the Lord, or offer her as a sacrifice,\nit is of no necessity the later should be necessary; and surely less\nderogatory unto the sacred text and history of the people of God, must\nbe the former.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n Of the Picture of _John_ the Baptist.\n\n\nThe Picture of _John_ the Baptist, in a Camels skin is very\nquestionable, and many I perceive have condemned it. The ground or\noccasion of this description are the words of the holy Scripture,\nespecially of _Matthew_ and _Mark_, for _Luke_ and _John_ are silent\nherein; by them it is delivered, his garment was of Camels hair, and had\na leather girdle about his loins. Now here it seems the Camels hair is\ntaken by Painters for the skin or pelt with the hair upon it. But this\nExposition will not so well consist with the strict acceptation of the\nwords; for _Mark_ 1. It is said, he was, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, and\n_Matthew_ 3. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, that is, as the vulgar\ntranslation, that of _Beza_, that of _Sixtus Quintus_, and _Clement_ the\neight hath rendred it, _vestimentum habebat \u00e8 pilis camelinis_; which is\nas ours translateth it, a garment of Camels hair; that is, made of some\ntexture of that hair, a course garment; a cilicious or sackcloth habit;\nsutable to the austerity of his life; the severity of his Doctrine,\nRepentance; and the place thereof, the wilderness, his food and diet,\nlocusts and wild hony. Agreeable unto the example of _Elias_ [SN: 2\nKings 3. 18.], who is said to be _vir pilosus_, that is, as _Tremellius_\ninterprets, _Veste villosa[5] cinctus_, answerable unto the habit of the\nancient Prophets, according to that of _Zachary_ [SN: Zach. 13.]. In\nthat day the Prophets shall be ashamed, neither shall they wear a rough\ngarment to deceive; and sutable to the Cilicious and hairy Vests of the\nstrictest Orders of Fryers, who derive the institution of their\nMonastick life from the example of _John_ and _Elias_.\n\n [5] _villoso_, 1646, 1650, 1658, 1669, 1672.\n\nAs for the wearing of skins, where that is properly intended, the\nexpression of the Scripture is plain; so it is said, _Heb._ 11. They\nwandered about \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, that is, in Goats skins; and so it\nis said of our first Parents, _Gen._ 3. That God made them \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _Vestes pelliceas_, or coats of skins; which though a\nnatural habit unto all, before the invention of Texture, was something\nmore unto _Adam_, who had newly learned to die; for unto him a garment\nfrom the dead, was but a dictate of death, and an habit of mortality.\n\nNow if any man will say this habit of _John_ was neither of Camels skin,\nnor any course Texture of its hair, but rather some finer Weave of\nCamelot, Grograin or the like, in as much as these stuffs are supposed\nto be made of the hair of that Animal, or because that _\u00c6lian_\naffirmeth, that Camels hair of _Persia_, is as fine as _Milesian_ wool,\nwherewith the great ones of that place were cloathed; they have\ndiscovered an habit, not only unsutable unto his leathern cincture, and\nthe coarseness of his life; but not consistent with the words of our\nSaviour, when reasoning with the people concerning _John_, he saith,\nWhat went you out into the wilderness to see? a man clothed in soft\nraiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment, are in Kings houses.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n Of the Picture of St. _Christopher_.\n\n\nThe Picture of St. _Christopher_, that is, a man of a Giantlike stature,\nbearing upon his shoulders our Saviour Christ, and with a staff in his\nhand, wading thorow the water, is known unto Children, common over all\n_Europe_, not only as a sign unto houses, but is described in many\nChurches, and stands _Colossus_ like in the entrance of _Nostre Dame_ in\n_Paris_.\n\nNow from hence, common eyes conceive an history sutable unto this\ndescription, that he carried our Saviour in his Minority over some river\nor water: which notwithstanding we cannot at all make out. For we read\nnot thus much in any good Author, nor of any remarkable _Christopher_,\nbefore the reign of _Decius_: who lived 250 years after Christ. This man\nindeed according unto History suffered as a Martyr in the second year of\nthat Emperour, and in the _Roman_ Calendar takes up the 21 of _July_.\n\nThe ground that begat or promoted this opinion, was, first the fabulous\nadjections of succeeding ages unto the veritable acts of this Martyr,\nwho in the most probable accounts was remarkable for his staff, and a\nman of a goodly stature.\n\nThe second might be a mistake or misapprehension of the Picture, most\nmen conceiving that an History which was contrived at first but as an\nEmblem or Symbolical fancy: as from the Annotations of _Baronius_ upon\nthe _Roman_ Martyrologie, _Lipellous_[SN: _Lip._ De vitis Sanctorum.] in\nthe life of St. _Christopher_ hath observed in these words; _Acta S.\nChristopheri \u00e0 multis depravata inveniuntur: quod quidem non aliunde\noriginem sumpsisse certum est, quam quod symbolicas figuras imperiti ad\nveritatem successu temporis transtulerint: itaque cuncta illa de Sancto\nChristophero pingi consueta, symbola potius, quam histori\u00e6 alicujus\nexistimandum est esse expressam imaginem_; that is, The Acts of St.\n_Christopher_ are depraved by many: which surely began from no other\nground, then, that in process of time, unskilful men translated\nsymbolical figures unto real verities: and therefore what is usually\ndescribed in the Picture of St. _Christopher_, is rather to be received\nas an Emblem, or Symbolical description, then any real History. Now what\nEmblem this was, or what its signification, conjectures are many;\n_Pierius_ hath set down one, that is, of the Disciple of Christ; for he\nthat will carry Christ upon his shoulders, must rely upon the staff of\nhis direction, whereon if he firmeth himself, he may be able to overcome\nthe billows of resistance, and in the vertue of this staff, like that of\n_Jacob_, pass over the waters of _Jordan_. Or otherwise thus; He that\nwill submit shoulders unto Christ, shall by the concurrence of his power\nencrease into the strength of a Giant; and being supported by the staff\nof his holy Spirit, shall not be overwhelmed by the waves of the world,\nbut wade through all resistance.\n\nAdd also the mystical reasons of this pourtract alleadged by _Vida_ and\n_Xerisanus_: and the recorded story of _Christopher_, that before his\nMartyrdom he requested of God, that where ever his body were, the places\nshould be freed from pestilence and mischiefs, from infection. [SN:\nAnton. Castellion\u00e6i antiquitates Mediolanenses.] And therefore his\npicture or pourtract, was usually placed in publick wayes, and at the\nentrance of Towns and Churches, according to the received Distich\n\n _Christophorum videas, postea tutus eris._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n Of the Picture of St. _George_.\n\n\nThe Picture of St. _George_ killing the Dragon, and, as most ancient\ndraughts do run, with the daughter of a King standing by, is famous\namongst Christians. And upon this description dependeth a solemn story,\nhow by this atchievement he redeemed a Kings daughter: which is more\nespecially believed by the _English_, whose Protector he is: and in\nwhich form and history, according to his description in the _English_\nColledge at _Rome_, he is set forth in the Icons or Cuts of Martyrs by\n_Cevalerius_: and all this according to the _Historia Lombardica_, or\ngolden legend of _Jacobus de Voragine_. Now of what authority soever\nthis piece be amongst us, it is I perceive received with different\nbeliefs: for some believe the person and the story; some the person, but\nnot the story; and others deny both.\n\nThat such a person there was, we shall not contend: for besides others,\nDr. _Heilin_ hath clearly asserted it in his History of St. _George_.\nThe indistinction of many in the community of name, or the\nmisapplication of the acts of one unto another, hath made some doubt\nthereof. For of this name we meet with more then one in History, and no\nless then two conceived of _Cappadocia_. The one an _Arrian_, who was\nslain by the _Alexandrians_ in the time of _Julian_; the other a\nvaliant Souldier and Christian Martyr, beheaded in the reign of\n_Dioclesian_. This is the _George_ conceived in this Picture, who hath\nhis day in the _Roman_ Calender, on whom so many fables are delivered,\nwhose story is set forth by _Metaphrastes_, and his miracles by\n_Turonensis_.\n\nAs for the story depending hereon, some conceive as lightly thereof, as\nof that of _Persius_ and _Andromeda_; conjecturing the one to be the\nfather of the other; and some too highly assert it. Others with better\nmoderation, do either entertain the same as a fabulous addition unto the\ntrue and authentick story of St. _George_; or else conceive the literal\nacception to be a misconstruction of the symbolical expression;\napprehending a veritable History, in an Emblem or piece of Christian\nPoesie. And this Emblematical construction hath been received by men not\nforward to extenuate the acts of Saints: as from _Baronius_, _Lipellous_\nthe _Carthusian_ hath delivered in the life of St. _George_; _Picturam\nillam St._ Georgii _qu\u00e2 effingitur eques armatus, qui hast\u00e6 cuspide\nhostem interficit, juxta quam etiam virgo posita manus supplices tendens\nejus explorat auxilium, Symboli potius quam histori\u00e6 alicujus censenda\nexpressa imago. Consuevit quidem ut equestris militi\u00e6 miles equestri\nimagine referri_: that is, The Picture of St. _George_, wherein he is\ndescribed like a Curassier or horseman compleatly armed, etc. Is rather\na symbolical image, then any proper figure.\n\nNow in the Picture of this Saint and Souldier, might be implied the\nChristian Souldier and true Champion of Christ. A horseman armed _Cap a\npe_, intimating the _Panoplia_ or compleat armour of a Christian;\ncombating with the Dragon, that is, with the Devil; in defence of the\nKings daughter, that is, the Church of God. And therefore although the\nhistory be not made out, it doth not disparage the Knights and Noble\norder of St. _George_: whose cognisance is honourable in the Emblem of\nthe Souldier of Christ, and is a worthy memorial to conform unto its\nmystery. Nor, were there no such person at all, had they more reason to\nbe ashamed, then the Noble order of _Burgundy_, and Knights of the\nGolden Fleece; whose badge is a confessed fable.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n Of the Picture of _Jerom_.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Clocks no very ancient invention._]\n\nThe Picture of _Jerom_ usually described at his study, with a Clock\nhanging by, is not to be omitted; for though the meaning be allowable,\nand probable it is that industrious Father did not let slip his time\nwithout account; yet must not perhaps that Clock be set down to have\nbeen his measure thereof. For Clocks or Automatous organs, whereby we\nnow distinguish of time, have found no mention in any ancient Writers\nbut are of late invention, as _Pancirollus_ observeth. And _Polydore\nVirgil_ discoursing of new inventions whereof the authors are not known,\nmakes instance in Clocks and Guns. Now _Jerom_ is no late Writer, but\none of the ancient Fathers, and lived in the fourth Century, in the\nreign of _Theodosius_ the first.\n\nIt is not to be denied that before the daies of _Jerom_ there were\nHorologies, and several accounts of time; for they measured the hours\nnot only by drops of water in glasses called Clepsydr\u00e6, but also by sand\nin glasses called Clepsammia. There were also from great antiquity,\nScioterical or Sun Dials, by the shadow of a stile or gnomon denoting\nthe hours of the day: an invention ascribed unto _Anaximines_ by\n_Pliny_. Hereof a memorable one there was in _Campus Martius_, from an\nobelisk erected, and golden figures placed horozontally about it; which\nwas brought out of _Egypt_ by _Augustus_, and described by _Jacobus\nLaurus_. And another of great antiquity we meet with in the story of\n_Ezechias_; for so it is delivered in _King._ 2. 20. That the Lord\nbrought the shadow backward ten degrees by which it had gone down in the\ndial of Ahaz. [SN: _A peculiar description and particular construction\nhereof out of_ R. Chomer, _is set down_, Curios de Caffarel. chap. 9.]\nThat is, say some, ten degrees, not lines; for the hours were denoted by\ncertain divisions or steps in the Dial, which others distinguished by\nlines, according to that of _Persius_\n\n _Stertimus indomitum quod despumare Falernum\n Sufficiat, quint\u00e2 dum linea tangitur umbra._\n\nThat is, the line next the Meridian, or within an hour of noon.\n\n[Sidenote: _Doctrine of circular motions._]\n\nOf later years there succeeded new inventions, and horologies composed\nby Trochilick or the artifice of wheels; whereof some are kept in motion\nby weight, others perform without it. Now as one age instructs another,\nand time that brings all things to ruin, perfects also every thing; so\nare these indeed of more general and ready use then any that went before\nthem. By the Water-glasses the account was not regular: for from\nattenuation and condensation, whereby that Element is altered, the hours\nwere shorter in hot weather then in cold, and in Summer then in Winter.\nAs for Scioterical Dials, whether of the Sun or Moon, they are only of\nuse in the actual radiation of those Luminaries, and are of little\nadvantage unto those inhabitants, which for many months enjoy not the\nLustre of the Sun.\n\nIt is I confess no easie wonder how the horometry of Antiquity\ndiscovered not this Artifice, how _Architas_ that contrived the moving\nDove, or rather the _Helicosophie_ of _Archimedes_, fell not upon this\nway. Surely as in many things, so in this particular, the present age\nhath far surpassed Antiquity; whose ingenuity hath been so bold not only\nto proceed below the account of minutes, but to attempt perpetual\nmotions, and engines whose revolutions (could their substance answer the\ndesign) might out-last the exemplary mobility, and out measure time it\nself. For such a one is that mentioned by _John Dee_, whose words are\nthese in his learned Preface unto _Euclide_: By Wheels strange works and\nincredible are done: A wondrous example was seen in my time in a certain\nInstrument, which by the Inventer and Artificer was sold for twenty\ntalents of gold; and then by chance had received some injury, and one\n_Janellus_ of _Cremona_ did mend the same, and presented it unto the\nEmperor _Charles_ the fift. _Jeronimus Cardanus_ can be my witness, that\ntherein was one Wheel that moved at such a rate, that in seven thousand\nyears his own period should be finished; a thing almost incredible, but\nhow far I keep within my bounds, many men yet alive can tell.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n Of the Pictures of _Mermaids_, _Unicorns_,\n and some others.\n\n\nFew eyes have escaped the Picture of _Mermaids_: that is, according to\n_Horace_ his Monster, with womans head above, and fishy extremity below;\nand these are conceived to answer the shape of the ancient _Syrens_ that\nattempted upon _Ulysses_. Which notwithstanding were of another\ndescription, containing no fishy composure, but made up of Man and Bird;\nthe humane mediety variously placed not only above, but below; according\nunto _\u00c6lian_, _Suidas_, _Servius_, _Boccatius_, and _Aldrovandus_, who\nhath referred their description unto the story of fabulous Birds;\naccording to the description of Ovid, and the account thereof in\nHyginus, that they were the daughters of _Melpomene_, and metamorphosed\ninto the shape of man and bird by _Ceres_.\n\nAnd therefore these pieces so common among us, do rather derive their\noriginal, or are indeed the very description of _Dagon_[SN: _Dagon the\nIdol, of what form._]; which was made with human figure above, and fishy\nshape below; whose stump, or as _Tremellius_ and our margin renders it,\nwhose fishy part only remained, when the hands and upper part fell\nbefore the Ark. [SN: 1 Sam. 5.] Of the shape of _Artergates_, or\n_Derceto_ with the _Ph\u0153nitians_; in whose fishy and feminine mixture,\nas some conceive, were implied the Moon and the Sea, or the Deity of the\nwaters; and therefore, in their sacrifices, they made oblations of\nfishes. From whence were probably occasioned the Pictures of _Nereides_\nand _Tritons_ among the _Grecians_, and such as we read in _Macrobius_,\nto have been placed on the top of the Temple of _Saturn_.\n\nWe are unwilling to question the Royal Supporters of _England_, that is,\nthe approved descriptions of the Lion and the Unicorn. Although, if in\nthe Lion, the position of the pizel be proper, and that the natural\nsituation; it will be hard to make out their retro-copulation, or their\ncoupling and pissing backward, according to the determination of\n_Aristotle_; All that urine backward do copulate \u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03b7\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd _clunatim_, or\naversly, as Lions, Hares, Linxes.\n\nAs for the Unicorn, if it have the head of a Deer, and the tail of a\nBoar, as _Vartomannus_ describeth it, how agreeable it is to this\npicture every eye may discern. If it be made bisulcous or cloven footed,\nit agreeth unto the description of _Vartommanus_, but scarce of any\nother; and _Aristotle_ supposeth that such as divide the hoof, do also\ndouble the horn; they being both of the same nature, and admitting\ndivision together. And lastly if the horn have this situation and be so\nforwardly affixed, as is described, it will not be easily conceived, how\nit can feed from the ground; and therefore we observe, that Nature in\nother cornigerous animals, hath placed the horns higher and reclining,\nas in Bucks; in some inverted upwards, as in the Rhinoceros, the\n_Indian_ Ass, and Unicornous Beetles; and thus have some affirmed it is\nseated in this animal.\n\nWe cannot but observe that in the Picture of _Jonah_ and others, Whales\nare described with two prominent spouts on their heads; whereas indeed\nthey have but one in the forehead, and terminating over the wind-pipe.\nNor can we overlook the Picture of Elephants with Castles on their\nbacks, made in the form of land Castles, or stationary fortifications,\nand answerable unto the Arms of _Castile_, or Sir _John_ Old Castle;\nwhereas the towers they bore were made of wood, and girt unto their\nbodies; as is delivered in the books of _Maccabees_, and as they were\nappointed in the Army of _Antiochus_.\n\nWe will not dispute the Pictures of Retiary Spiders, and their position\nin the web, which is commonly made lateral, and regarding the Horizon;\nalthough, if observed, we shall commonly find it downward, and their\nheads respecting the Center. [SN: _Where the seven Stars be situated._]\nWe will not controvert the Picture of the seven Stars; although if\nthereby be meant the Pleiades, or subconstellation upon the back of\nTaurus, with what congruity they are described, either in site or\nmagnitude, in a clear night an ordinary eye may discover, from July unto\nApril. We will not question the tongues of Adders and Vipers, described\nlike an Anchor; nor the Picture of the Flower _de Luce_: though how far\nthey agree unto their natural draughts, let every spectator determine.\n\nWhether the Cherubims about the Ark be rightly described in the common\nPicture, that is, only in humane heads, with two wings; or rather in the\nshape of Angels or young men, or somewhat at least with feet, as the\nScripture seems to imply. [SN: 2 Chron. 3. 13.] Whether the Cross seen\nin the air by _Constantine_, were of that figure wherein we represent\nit; or rather made out of \u03a7 and \u03a1, the two first letters of \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\nWhether the Cross of Christ did answer the common figure; whether so far\nadvanced above his head; whether the feet were so disposed, that is, one\nupon another, or separately nailed, as some with reason describe it: we\nshall not at all contend. Much less whether the house of _Diogenes_ were\na Tub framed of wood, and after the manner of ours, or rather made of\nearth, as learned men conceive, and so more clearly make out that\nexpression of _Juvenal_ [SN: ----Dolia magni non ardent Cynici, etc.].\nWe should be too critical to question the letter Y, or bicornous element\nof _Pythagoras_, that is, the making of the horns equal: or the left\nless then the right, and so destroying the Symbolical intent of the\nfigure; confounding the narrow line of Vertue, with the larger road of\nVice; answerable unto the narrow door of Heaven, and the ample gates of\nHell, expressed by our Saviour, and not forgotten by _Homer_, in that\nEpithete of _Pluto's_ house. [SN: \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2.]\n\nMany more there are whereof our pen shall take no notice, nor shall we\nurge their enquiry; we shall not enlarge with what incongruity, and how\ndissenting from the pieces of Antiquity, the Pictures of their gods and\ngoddesses are described, and how hereby their symbolical sense is lost;\nalthough herein it were not hard to be informed from _Phornutus_[SN:\nPhornut. De natura deorum.], _Fulgentius_[SN: Fulg. mytho. Logia], and\n_Albricus_[SN: Albric. De deorum imaginibus.]. Whether _Hercules_ be\nmore properly described strangling than tearing the Lion, as _Victorius_\nhath disputed; nor how the characters and figures of the Signs and\nPlanets be now perverted, as _Salmasius_ hath learnedly declared. We\nwill dispence with Bears with long tails, such as are described in the\nfigures of heaven; We shall tolerate flying Horses, black Swans,\nHydra's, Centaur's, Harpies and Satyrs; for these are monstrosities,\nrarities, or else Poetical fancies, whose shadowed moralities requite\ntheir substantial falsities. Wherein indeed we must not deny a liberty;\nnor is the hand of the Painter more restrainable than the Poet. But\nwhere the real works of Nature, or veritable acts of storie are to be\ndescribed, digressions are aberrations; and Art being but the imitator\nor secondary representor, it must not vary from the verity of the\nexample; or describe things otherwise than they truly are or have been.\nFor hereby introducing false Idea's of things it perverts and deforms\nthe face and symmetry of truth.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n Of the Hieroglyphical Pictures of the\n _Egyptians_.\n\n\nCertainly of all men that suffered from the confusion of _Babel_, the\n_\u00c6gyptians_ found the best evasion; for, though words were confounded,\nthey invented a language of things, and spake unto each other by common\nnotions in Nature. Whereby they discoursed in silence, and were\nintuitively understood from the theory of their Expresses. For they\nassumed the shapes of animals common unto all eyes; and by their\nconjunctions and compositions were able to communicate their\nconceptions, unto any that co-apprehended the Syntaxis of their Natures.\nThis many conceive to have been the primitive way of writing, and of\ngreater antiquity than letters; and this indeed might _Adam_ well have\nspoken, who understanding the nature of things, had the advantage of\nnatural expressions. Which the _Egyptians_ but taking upon trust, upon\ntheir own or common opinion; from conceded mistakes they authentically\npromoted errors; describing in their Hieroglyphicks creatures of their\nown invention; or from known and conceded animals, erecting\nsignifications not inferrible from their natures.\n\nAnd first, Although there were more things in Nature than words which\ndid express them; yet even in these mute and silent discourses, to\nexpress complexed significations, they took a liberty to compound and\npiece together creatures of allowable forms into mixtures inexistent.\nThus began the descriptions of Griphins, Basilicks, Ph\u0153nix, and many\nmore; which Emblematists and Heralds have entertained with\nsignifications answering their institutions; Hieroglyphically adding\nMartegres, Wivernes, Lion fishes, with divers others. Pieces of good and\nallowable invention unto the prudent Spectator, but are lookt on by\nvulgar eyes as literal truths, or absurd impossibilities; whereas\nindeed, they are commendable inventions, and of laudable significations.\n\nAgain, Beside these pieces fictitiously set down, and having no Copy in\nNature; they had many unquestionable drawn, of inconsequent\nsignification, nor naturally verifying their intention. We shall\ninstance but in few, as they stand recorded by _Orus_. The male sex they\nexpressed by a Vulture, because of Vultures all are females, and\nimpregnated by the wind; which authentically transmitted hath passed\nmany pens, and became the assertion of _\u00c6lian_, _Ambrose_, _Basil_,\n_Isidore_, _Tzetzes_, _Philes_, and others. Wherein notwithstanding what\ninjury is offered unto the Creation in this confinement of sex, and what\ndisturbance unto Philosophy in the concession of windy conceptions, we\nshall not here declare. By two dragms they thought it sufficient to\nsignifie an heart; because the heart at one year weigheth two dragms,\nthat is, a quarter of an ounce, and unto fifty years annually encreaseth\nthe weight of one dragm, after which in the same proportion it yearly\ndecreaseth; so that the life of a man doth not naturally extend above an\nhundred. And this was not only a popular conceit, but consentaneous unto\ntheir Physical principles, as _Heurnius_ hath accounted it. [SN: _In\nhis_ Philosophia Barbarica.]\n\nA Woman that hath but one Child, they express by a Lioness; for that\nconceiveth but once. Fecundity they set forth by a Goat, because but\nseven daies old, it beginneth to use coition. The abortion of a Woman\nthey describe by an Horse kicking a Wolf; because a Mare will cast her\nfoal if she tread in the track of that animal. Deformity they signifie\nby a Bear; and an unstable Man by an Hy\u00e6na, because that animal yearly\nexchangeth its sex. A Woman delivered of a female Child, they imply by a\nBull looking over his left shoulder; because if in coition a Bull part\nfrom a Cow on that side, the Calf will prove a female.\n\nAll which, with many more, how far they consent with truth, we shall not\ndisparage our Reader to dispute; and though some way allowable unto\nwiser conceits, who could distinctly receive their significations: yet\ncarrying the majesty of Hieroglyphicks, and so transmitted by Authors:\nthey crept into a belief with many, and favourable doubt with most. And\nthus, I fear, it hath fared with the Hieroglyphical Symboles of\nScripture: which excellently intended in the species of things\nsacrificed, in the prohibited meats, in the dreams of _Pharoah_,\n_Joseph_, and many other passages: are oft-times wrackt beyond their\nsymbolizations, and inlarg'd into constructions disparaging their true\nintentions.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n\n Of the Picture of _Haman_ hanged.\n\n\nIn common draughts, _Haman_ is hanged by the Neck upon an high Gibbet,\nafter the usual and now practised way of suspension, but whether this\ndescription truly answereth the Original, Learned pens consent not, and\ngood grounds there are to doubt. For it is not easily made out that this\nwas an ancient way of Execution, in the publick punishment of\nMalefactors among the _Persians_; but we often read of Crucifixion in\ntheir Stories. So we find that _Oroetes_[6] a _Persian_ Governour\ncrucified _Polycrates_ the _Samian_ Tyrant. And hereof we have an\nexample in the life of _Artaxerxes_ King of _Persia_; (whom some will\nhave to be _Ahasuerus_ in this Story) that his Mother _Parysatis_ flead\nand crucified her _Eunuch_. The same also seems implied in the letters\npatent of King _Cyrus_. [SN: _In_ Ezra 6.] _Omnis qui hanc mutaverit\njussionem, tollatur lignum de domo ejus, et erigatur et configatur in\neo._\n\n [6] _Oroetes_, 1672, 1686, etc.\n\nThe same kind of punishment was in use among the _Romans_, _Syrians_,\n_Egyptians_, _Carthaginians_ and _Grecians_. For though we find in\n_Homer_, that _Ulysses_ in a fury hanged the strumpets of those who\ncourted _Penelope_, yet is it not so easie to discover, that this was\nthe publick practice or open course of justice among the _Greeks_.\n\nAnd even that the _Hebrews_ used this present way of hanging, by\nillaqueation or pendulous suffocation in publick justice and executions;\nthe expressions and examples in scripture conclude not beyond good\ndoubt.\n\nThat the King of _Hai_ was hanged, or destroyed by the common way of\nsuspension, is not conceded by the learned _Masius_ in his comment upon\nthat text; who conceiveth thereby rather some kind of crucifixion; at\nleast some patibulary affixion after he was slain; and so represented\nunto the people untill toward the evening.\n\nThough we read in our translation, that _Pharaoh_ hanged the chief\nBaker, yet learned expositors understand hereby some kind of\ncrucifixion, according to the mode of _Egypt_, whereby he exemplarily\nhanged out till the fowls of the air fed on his head or face, the first\npart of their prey being the eyes. And perhaps according to the signal\ndraught hereof in a very old manuscript of _Genesis_, now kept in the\nEmperors Library at _Vienna_; and accordingly set down by the learned\n_Petrus Zamberius_, in the second Tome of the description of that\nLibrary.\n\nWhen the _Gibeonites_ hanged the bodies of those of the house of _Saul_,\nthereby was intended some kind of crucifying, according unto good\nexpositors, and the vulgar translation: _crucifixerunt eos in monte\ncoram domino_; many both in Scripture and humane writers might be said\nto be crucified, though they did not perish immediately by crucifixion:\nBut however otherwise destroyed, their bodies might be afterward\nappended or fastned unto some elevated engine, as exemplary objects unto\nthe eyes of the people: So sometimes we read of the crucifixion of only\nsome part, as of the Heads of _Julianus_ and _Albinus_, though their\nbodies were cast away.\n\nThat legal Text [SN: Deut. 21.] which seems to countenance the common way\nof hanging, if a man hath committed a sin worthy of Death, and they hang\nhim on a Tree; is not so received by Christian and Jewish expositors.\nAnd as a good Annotator of ours [SN: Ainsworth.] delivereth, out of\n_Maimonides_: The _Hebrews_ understand not this of putting him to death\nby hanging, but of hanging of a Man after he was stoned to death; and\nthe manner is thus described. After he is stoned to death, they fasten a\npiece of timber in the Earth, and out of it there commeth a piece of\nwood, and then they tye both his hands one to another, and hang him unto\nthe setting of the Sun.\n\nBeside, the original word _Hakany_ determineth not the doubt. For that\nby _Lexicographers_ or _Dictionarie_ interpreters, is rendred\nsuspension and crucifixion; there being no _Hebrew_ word peculiarly and\nfully expressing the proper word of crucifixion, as it was used by the\n_Romans_; nor easie to prove it the custom of the _Jewish_ Nation to\nnail them by distinct parts unto a Cross, after the manner of our\nSAVIOUR crucified: wherein it was a special favour indulged unto\n_Joseph_ to take down the Body.\n\n_Lipsius_[7] lets fall a good caution to take off doubts about\nsuspension delivered by ancient Authors, and also the ambiguous sence of\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 among the _Greeks_. _Tale apud Latinos ipsum suspendere, quod\nin crucem referendum moneo juventutem_, as that also may be understood\nof _Seneca_. _Latrocinium fecit aliquis, quid ergo meruit? ut\nsuspendatur._ And this way of crucifying he conceiveth to have been in\ngeneral use among the _Romans_, until the latter daies of _Constantine_,\nwho in reverence unto our SAVIOUR abrogated that opprobrious and\ninfamous way of crucifixion. Whereupon succeeded the common and now\npractised way of suspension.\n\nBut long before this abrogation of the Cross, the _Jewish_ Nation had\nknown the true sense of crucifixion; whereof no Nation had a sharper\napprehension, while _Adrian_ crucified five hundred of them every day,\nuntil Wood was wanting for that service. So that they which had nothing\nbut _crucifie_ in their mouths, were therewith paid home in their own\nbodies: Early suffering the reward of their imprecations, and properly\nin the same kind.\n\n [7] _Zipsias_, 1672.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n\n Compendiously of many questionable Customs,\n Opinions, Pictures, Practices, and Popular\n Observations.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The ground of many vain observations._]\n\n1. If an Hare cross the high way, there are few above threescore years\nthat are not perplexed thereat: which notwithstanding is but an Augurial\nterror, according to that received expression, _Inauspicatum dat iter\noblatus Lepus._ And the ground of the conceit was probably no greater\nthan this, that a fearful animal passing by us, portended unto us some\nthing to be feared: as upon the like consideration, the meeting of a Fox\npresaged some future imposture; which was a superstitious observation\nprohibited unto the _Jews_, as is expressed in the Idolatry of\n_Maimonides_, and is referred unto the sin of an observer of Fortunes,\nor one that abuseth events unto good or bad signs; forbidden by the Law\nof _Moses_[SN: Deut. 18.]; which notwithstanding sometimes succeeding,\naccording to fears or desires, have left impressions and timerous\nexpectations in credulous minds for ever.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Emblem of superstition._]\n\n2. That Owls and Ravens are ominous appearers, and pre-signifying\nunlucky events, as Christians yet conceit, was also an Augurial\nconception. Because many Ravens were seen when _Alexander_ entred\n_Babylon_, they were thought to pre-ominate his death; and because an\nOwl appeared before the battle, it presaged the ruin of _Crassus_. Which\nthough decrepite superstitions, and such as had their nativity in times\nbeyond all history, are fresh in the observation of many heads, and by\nthe credulous and feminine party still in some Majesty among us. And\ntherefore the Emblem of Superstition was well set out by _Ripa_[SN:\nIconologia de C\u00e6sare Ripa.], in the picture of an Owl, an Hare, and an\nOld Woman. And it no way confirmeth the Augurial consideration, that an\nOwl is a forbidden food in the Law of _Moses_; or that _Jerusalem_ was\nthreatned by the Raven and the Owl, in that expression of _Esay_ 34.\nThat it should be a court for Owls, that the Cormorant and the Bittern\nshould possess it, and the Owl and the Raven dwell in it. For thereby\nwas only implied their ensuing desolation, as is expounded in the words\nsucceeding; He shall draw upon it the line of confusion, and the stones\nof emptiness.\n\n3. The falling of Salt is an authentick presagement of ill luck, nor can\nevery temper contemn it; from whence notwithstanding nothing can be\nnaturally feared: nor was the same a general prognostick of future evil\namong the Ancients, but a particular omination concerning the breach of\nfriendship. For Salt as incorruptible, was the Symbole of friendship,\nand before the other service was offered unto their guests; which if it\ncasually fell, was accounted ominous, and their amity of no duration.\nBut whether Salt were not only a Symbole of friendship with man, but\nalso a figure of amity and reconciliation with God, and was therefore\nobserved in sacrifices, is an higher speculation.\n\n4. To break the egg shell after the meat is out, we are taught in our\nchildhood, and practise it all our lives; which nevertheless is but a\nsuperstitious relict, according to the judgment of _Pliny_, _Huc\npertinet ovorum, ut exorbuerit quisq; calices protinus frangi, aut\neosdem coclearibus perforari_; and the intent hereof was to prevent\nwitchcraft; for lest witches should draw or prick their names therein,\nand veneficiously mischief their persons, they broke the shell, as\n_Dalecampius_ hath observed.\n\n5. The true Lovers knot is very much magnified, and still retained in\npresents of Love among us; which though in all points it doth not make\nout, had perhaps its original from the _Nodus Herculanus_, or that which\nwas called _Hercules_ his knot, resembling the snaky complication in the\ncaduceus or rod of _Hermes_; and in which form the Zone or woollen\ngirdle of the Bride was fastned, as _Turnebus_ observeth in his\n_Adversaria_.\n\n6. When our cheek burneth or ear tingleth, we usually say that some body\nis talking of us, which is an ancient conceit, and ranked among\nsuperstitious opinions by _Pliny_. _Absentes tinnitu aurium pr\u00e6sentire\nsermones de se receptum est_, according to that distick noted by\n_Dalecampius_.\n\n _Garrula quid totis resonas mihi noctibus auris?\n Nescio quem dicis nunc meminisse mei._\n\nWhich is a conceit hardly to be made out without the concession of a\nsignifying _Genius_, or universal _Mercury_; conducting sounds unto\ntheir distant subjects, and teaching us to hear by touch.\n\n[Sidenote: _The original of the proverb_, Under the Rose be it, _etc._]\n\n7. When we desire to confine our words, we commonly say they are spoken\nunder the Rose; which expression is commendable, if the Rose from any\nnatural property may be the Symbole of silence, as _Nazianzene_ seems to\nimply in these translated verses:\n\n _Utq; latet Rosa Verna suo putamine clausa,\n Sic os vincla ferat, validisq; arctetur habenis,\n Indicatq; suis prolixa silentia labris:_\n\nAnd is also tolerable, if by desiring a secrecy to words spoke under\nthe Rose, we only mean in society and compotation, from the ancient\ncustom in Symposiack meetings, to wear chaplets of Roses about their\nheads: and so we condemn not the _German_ custom, which over the Table\ndescribeth a Rose in the cieling. But more considerable it is, if the\noriginal were such as _Lemnius_, and others have recorded; that the Rose\nwas the flower of _Venus_, which _Cupid_ consecrated unto _Harpocrates_\nthe God of silence, and was therefore an Emblem thereof, to conceal the\npranks of Venery; as is declared in this Tetrastick;\n\n _Est Rosa flos veneris, cujus quo facta laterent,\n Harpocrati matris, dona dicavit Amor;\n Inde Rosam mensis hospes suspendit Amicis.\n Conviv\u00e6 ut sub e\u00e2 dicta tacenda sciant._\n\n8. That smoak doth follow the fairest, is an usual saying with us, and\nin many parts of _Europe_; whereof although there seem no natural\nground, yet it is the continuation of a very ancient opinion, as _Petrus\nVictorius_ and _Causabon_ have observed from a passage in _Athen\u00e6us_:\nwherein a _Parasite_ thus describeth himself:\n\n _To every Table first I come,\n Whence Porridge I am cal'd by some:\n A Capaneus at Stares I am,\n To enter any Room a Ram;\n Like whips and thongs to all I ply,\n Like smoake unto the Fair I fly._\n\n9. To sit cross leg'd, or with our fingers pectinated or shut together,\nis accounted bad, and friends will perswade us from it. The same conceit\nreligiously possessed the Ancients, as is observable from _Pliny_.\n_Poplites alternis genibus imponere nefas olim_; and also from\n_Athen\u00e6us_, that it was an old veneficious practice, and _Juno_ is made\nin this posture to hinder the delivery of _Alcmena_. And therefore, as\n_Pierius_ observeth, in the Medal of _Julia Pia_, the right hand of\n_Venus_ was made extended with the inscription of _Venus, Genetrix_; for\nthe complication or pectination of the fingers was an Hieroglyphick of\nimpediment, as in that place he declareth.\n\n10. The set and statary times of pairing of nails, and cutting of hair,\nis thought by many a point of consideration; which is perhaps but the\ncontinuation of an ancient superstition. For piaculous it was unto the\n_Romans_ to pare their nails upon the Nundin\u00e6, observed every ninth day;\nand was also feared by others in certain daies of the week; according to\nthat of _Ausonius_, _Ungues Mercurio_, _Barbam Jove_, _Cypride Crines_;\nand was one part of the wickedness that filled up the measure of\n_Manasses_, when 'tis delivered that he observed times. [SN: 2 Chron.\n33.]\n\n11. A common fashion it is to nourish hair upon the mouls of the face;\nwhich is the perpetuation of a very ancient custom; and though\ninnocently practised among us, may have a superstitious original,\naccording to that of _Pliny_, _N\u00e6vos in facie tondere religiosum habent\nnunc multi._ From the like might proceed the fears of poling Elvelocks\nor complicated hairs of the head, and also of locks longer than the\nother hair; they being votary at first, and dedicated upon occasion;\npreserved with great care, and accordingly esteemed by others, as\nappears by that of _Apuleius, Adjuro per dulcem capilli tui nodulum._\n\n12. A custom there is in most parts of _Europe_ to adorn Aqueducts,\nspouts and Cisterns with Lions heads: which though no illaudable\nornament, is of an _Egyptian_ genealogy,[8] who practised the same under\na symbolical illation. For because the Sun being in Leo, the flood of\n_Nilus_ was at the full, and water became conveyed into every part, they\nmade the spouts of their Aqueducts through the head of a Lion. And upon\nsome c\u0153lestial respects it is not improbable the great Mogul or\n_Indian_ King doth bear for his Arms a Lion and the Sun.\n\n [8] geneologie, 1658, 1669, geneology, 1672.\n\n[Sidenote: _Symbolical significations of the girdle._]\n\n13. Many conceive there is somewhat amiss, and that as we usually say,\nthey are unblest until they put on their girdle. Wherein (although most\nknow not what they say) there are involved unknown considerations. For\nby a girdle or cincture are symbolically implied Truth, Resolution, and\nReadiness unto action, which are parts and vertues required in the\nservice of God. According whereto we find that the _Israelites_ did eat\nthe Paschal Lamb with their loins girded; and the Almighty challenging\n_Job_, bids him gird up his loins like a man. So runneth the expression\nof _Peter_, Gird up the loins of your minds, be sober and hope to the\nend: so the high Priest was girt with the girdle of fine linnen: so is\nit part of the holy habit to have our lines girt about with truth; and\nso is it also said concerning our Saviour, Righteousness shall be the\ngirdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. [SN: Isa.\n11.]\n\nMoreover by the girdle, the heart and parts which God requires are\ndivided from the inferior and concupiscential organs; implying thereby a\nmemento unto purification and cleanness of heart, which is commonly\ndenied from the concupiscence and affection of those parts; and\ntherefore unto this day the _Jews_ do bless themselves when they put on\ntheir zone or cincture. And thus may we make out the doctrin of\n_Pythagoras_, to offer sacrifice with our feet naked, that is, that our\ninferiour parts and farthest removed from reason might be free, and of\nno impediment unto us. Thus _Achilles_, though dipped in Styx, yet\nhaving his heel untouched by that water; although he were fortified\nelsewhere, he was slain in that part, as only vulnerable in the\ninferiour and brutal part of Man. This is that part of _Eve_ and her\nposterity the devil still doth bruise, that is, that part of the soul\nwhich adhereth unto earth, and walks in the paths thereof. And in this\nsecundary and symbolical sense it may be also understood, when the\nPriests in the Law washed their feet before the sacrifice; when our\nSaviour washed the feet of his Disciples, and said unto _Peter_, If I\nwash not thy feet thou hast no part in me. And thus is it symbolically\nexplainable, and implyeth purification and cleanness, when in the burnt\nofferings the Priest is commanded to wash the inwards and legs thereof\nin water; and in the peace and sin-offerings, to burn the two kidneys,\nthe fat which is about the flanks, and as we translate it, the Caul\nabove the Liver. But whether the _Jews_ when they blessed themselves,\nhad any eye unto the words of _Jeremy_[SN: Jer. 13.], wherein God makes\nthem his Girdle; or had therein any reference unto the Girdle, which the\nProphet was commanded to hide in the hole of the rock of _Euphrates_,\nand which was the type of their captivity, we leave unto higher\nconjecture.\n\n[Sidenote: _Certain_ Hereticks _who ascribed humane figure unto God,\nafter which they conceived he created man in his likeness._]\n\n14. The Picture of the Creator, or God the Father in the shape of an old\nMan, is a dangerous piece, and in this Fecundity of sects may revive the\nAnthropomorphites. Which although maintained from the expression of\n_Daniel_, I beheld where the Ancient of dayes did sit, whose hair of his\nhead was like the pure wool; yet may it be also derivative from the\nHieroglyphical description of the _\u00c6gyptians_; who to express their\nEneph, or Creator of the world, described an old man in a blew mantle,\nwith an egg in his mouth; which was the Emblem of the world. Surely\nthose heathens, that notwithstanding the exemplary advantage in heaven,\nwould endure no pictures of Sun or Moon, as being visible unto all the\nworld, and needing no representation; do evidently accuse the practice\nof those pencils, that will describe invisibles. And he that challenged\nthe boldest hand unto the picture of an Echo, must laugh at this\nattempt, not only in the description of invisibility, but\ncircumscription of Ubiquity, and fetching under lines incomprehensible\ncircularity.\n\nThe Pictures of the _\u00c6gyptians_ were more tolerable, and in their sacred\nletters more veniably expressed the apprehension of Divinity. For though\nthey implied the same by an eye upon a Scepter, by an \u00c6gles head, a\nCrocodile, and the like: yet did these manual descriptions pretend no\ncorporal representations; nor could the people misconceive the same unto\nreal correspondencies. So though the Cherub carried some apprehension of\nDivinity, yet was it not conceived to be the shape thereof: and so\nperhaps because it is metaphorically predicated of God, that he is a\nconsuming fire, he may be harmlessly described by a flaming\nrepresentation; Yet if, as some will have it, all mediocrity of folly is\nfoolish, and because an unrequitable evil may ensue, an indifferent\nconvenience must be omitted; we shall not urge such representments; we\ncould spare the holy Lamb for the picture of our Saviour, and the Dove\nor fiery Tongues to represent the holy Ghost.\n\n15. The Sun and Moon are usually described with humane faces; whether\nherein there be not a _Pagan_ imitation, and those visages at first\nimplied _Apollo_ and _Diana_, we may make some doubt; and we find the\nstatua of the Sun was framed with raies about the head, which were the\nindiciduous and unshaven locks of _Apollo_. We should be too\nIconomical [SN: _Or quarrelsom with Pictures._] to question the pictures\nof the winds, as commonly drawn in humane heads, and with their cheeks\ndistended; which notwithstanding we find condemned by _Minutius_, as\nanswering poetical fancies, and the gentile description of _\u00c6olus_,\n_Boreas_, and the feigned Deities of winds.\n\n16. We shall not, I hope, disparage the Resurrection of our Redeemer, if\nwe say the Sun doth not dance on Easter day. And though we would\nwillingly assent unto any sympathetical exultation, yet cannot conceive\ntherein any more than a Tropical expression. Whether any such motion\nthere were in that day wherein Christ arised, Scripture hath not\nrevealed, which hath been punctual in other records concerning solary\nmiracles: and the Areopagite [SN: _Dion._ Ep. 7. _a._ ad Policar. et Pet.\nHall not. in vit. S. Dionys.] that was amazed at the Eclipse, took no\nnotice of this. And if metaphorical expressions go so far, we may be\nbold to affirm, not only that one Sun danced, but two arose that day:\nThat light appeared at his nativity, and darkness at his death, and yet\na light at both; for even that darkness was a light unto the _Gentiles_,\nilluminated by that obscurity. That 'twas the first time the Sun set\nabove the Horizon; that although there were darkness above the earth,\nthere was light beneath it, nor dare we say that hell was dark if he\nwere in it.\n\n17. Great conceits are raised of the involution or membranous covering,\ncommonly called the Silly-how, that sometimes is found about the heads\nof children upon their birth; and is therefore preserved with great\ncare, not only as medical in diseases, but effectual in success,\nconcerning the Infant and others; which is surely no more than a\ncontinued superstition. For hereof we read in the life of _Antoninus_\ndelivered by _Spartianus_, that children are born sometimes with this\nnatural cap; which Midwives were wont to sell unto credulous Lawyers,\nwho had an opinion it advantaged their promotion.\n\nBut to speak strictly, the effect is natural, and thus may be conceived:\nAnimal conceptions have largely taken three teguments, or membranous\nfilms which cover them in the womb, that is, the Corion, Amnios, and\nAllantois; the Corion is the outward membrance wherein are implanted the\nVeins, Arteries and umbilical vessels, whereby its nourishment is\nconveyed: the Allantois a thin coat seated under the Corion, wherein are\nreceived the watery separations conveyed by the Urachus, that the\nacrimony thereof should not offend the skin. [SN: De formato f\u0153tu.] The\nAmnios is a general investment, containing the sudorus or thin serosity\nperspirable through the skin. Now about the time when the Infant\nbreaketh these coverings, it sometimes carrieth with it about the head a\npart of the Amnios or nearest coat; which saith _Spiegelius_, either\nproceedeth from the toughness of the membrance or weakness of the Infant\nthat cannot get clear thereof. And therefore herein significations are\nnatural and concluding upon the Infant, but not to be extended unto\nmagical signalities, or any other person.\n\n18. That 'tis good to be drunk once a moneth, is a common flattery of\nsensuality, supporting it self upon Physick, and the healthful effects\nof inebriation. This indeed seems plainly affirmed by _Avicenna_, a\nPhysitian of great authority, and whose religion prohibiting Wine, could\nless extenuate ebriety. But _Averroes_ a man of his own faith was of\nanother belief; restraining his ebriety unto hilarity, and in effect\nmaking no more thereof than _Seneca_ commendeth, and was allowable in\n_Cato_; that is, a sober incalescence and regulated \u00e6stuation from wine;\nor what may be conceived between _Joseph_ and his brethren, when the\ntext expresseth they were merry, or drank largely, and whereby indeed\nthe commodities set down by _Avicenna_, that is, alleviation of spirits,\nresolution of superfluities, provocation of sweat and urine may also\nensue. But as for dementation, sopition of reason, and the diviner\nparticle from drink; though _American_ religion approve, and _Pagan_\npiety of old hath practised it, even at their sacrifices; Christian\nmorality and the doctrine of Christ will not allow. And surely that\nreligion which excuseth the fact of _Noah_, in the aged surprizal of six\nhundred years, and unexpected inebriation from the unknown effects of\nwine, will neither acquit ebriosity nor ebriety, in their known and\nintended perversions.\n\nAnd indeed, although sometimes effects succeed which may relieve the\nbody, yet if they carry mischief or peril unto the soul, we are therein\nrestrainable by Divinity, which circumscribeth Physick, and\ncircumstantially determines the use thereof. From natural\nconsiderations, Physick commendeth the use of venery; and happily,\nincest, adultery, or stupration may prove as Physically advantagious, as\nconjugal copulation; which notwithstanding must not be drawn into\npractise. And truly effects, consequents, or events which we commend,\narise oft-times from wayes which we all condemn. Thus from the fact of\n_Lot_, we derive the generation of _Ruth_, and blessed Nativity of our\nSaviour; which notwithstanding did not extenuate the incestuous ebriety\nof the generator. And if, as is commonly urged, we think to extenuate\nebriety from the benefit of vomit oft succeeding, _Egyptian_ sobriety\nwill condemn us, which purged both wayes twice a moneth, without this\nperturbation: and we foolishly contemn the liberal hand of God, and\nample field of medicines which sobriety produce that action.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why the devil is commonly said to appear with a cloven\nfoot._]\n\n19. A conceit there is, that the Devil commonly appeareth with a cloven\nhoof; wherein although it seem excessively ridiculous, there may be\nsomewhat of truth; and the ground thereof at first might be his frequent\nappearing in the shape of a Goat, which answers that description. This\nwas the opinion of ancient Christians concerning the apparition of\nPanites, Fauns and Satyres; and in this form we read of one that\nappeared unto _Antony_ in the wilderness. The same is also continued\nfrom expositions of holy Scripture; for whereas it is said, [SN: Levit.\n17.] Thou shalt not offer unto Devils, the Original word is\n_Seghnirim_, that is, rough and hairy Goats, because in that shape the\nDevil most often appeared; as is expounded by the _Rabbins_, as\n_Tremellius_ hath also explained; and as the word _Ascimah_, the god of\n_Emath_ is by some conceived. Nor did he only assume this shape in elder\ntimes, but commonly in later dayes, especially in the place of his\nworship, if there be any truth in the confession of Witches, and as in\nmany stories it stands confirmed by _Bodinus_[SN: _In his_\nD\u00e6monomania.]. And therefore a Goat is not improperly made the\nHieroglyphick of the devil, as _Pierius_ hath expressed it. So might it\nbe the Emblem of sin, as it was in the sin-offering; and so likewise of\nwicked and sinful men, according to the expression of Scripture in the\nmethod of the last distribution; when our Saviour shall separate the\nSheep from the Goats, that is, the Sons of the Lamb from the children of\nthe devil.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n\n Of some others.\n\n\n1. That temperamental dignotions, and conjecture of prevalent humours,\nmay be collected from spots in our nails, we are not averse to concede.\nBut yet not ready to admit sundry divinations, vulgarly raised upon\nthem. Nor do we observe it verified in others, what _Cardan_[SN: De\nvarietate rerum.] discovered as a property in himself: to have found\ntherein some signs of most events that ever happened unto him. Or that\nthere is much considerable in that doctrine of Cheiromancy, that spots\nin the top of the nails do signifie things past; in the middle, things\npresent; and at the bottom, events to come. That white specks presage\nour felicity, blew ones our misfortunes. That those in the nail of the\nthumb have significations of honour, those in the forefinger, of riches,\nand so respectively in other fingers, (according to Planetical\nrelations, from whence they receive their names) as _Tricassus_ hath\ntaken up, and _Picciolus_[SN: De inspectione manus.] well rejecteth.\n\nWe shall not proceed to querie, what truth there is in Palmistry, or\ndivination from those lines in our hands, of high denomination. Although\nif any thing be therein, it seems not confinable unto man; but other\ncreatures are also considerable; as is the fore-foot of the Moll, and\nespecially of the Monkey; wherein we have observed the table line, that\nof life, and of the liver.\n\n2. That Children committed unto the school of Nature, without\ninstitution would naturally speak the primitive language of the world,\nwas the opinion of ancient heathens, and continued since by Christians:\nwho will have it our _Hebrew_ tongue, as being the language of _Adam_.\nThat this were true, were much to be desired, not only for the easie\nattainment of that useful tongue, but to determine the true and\nprimitive Hebrew. For whether the present Hebrew, be the unconfounded\nlanguage of _Babel_, and that which remaining in _Heber_ was continued\nby _Abraham_ and his posterity, or rather the language of _Ph\u0153nicia_\nand _Canaan_, wherein he lived, some learned men I perceive do yet\nremain unsatisfied. Although I confess probability stands fairest for\nthe former: nor are they without all reason, who think that at the\nconfusion of tongues, there was no constitution of a new speech in every\nfamily: but a variation and permutation of the old; out of one common\nlanguage raising several Dialects: the primitive tongue remaining still\nintire. Which they who retained, might make a shift to understand most\nof the rest. [SN: _How_ Abraham _might understand the language of\nseveral Nations._] By vertue whereof in those primitive times and\ngreener confusions, _Abraham_ of the family of _Heber_ was able to\nconverse with the _Chaldeans_, to understand _Mesopotamians_,\n_Cananites_, _Philistins_, and _Egyptians_: whose several Dialects he\ncould reduce unto the Original and primitive tongue, and so be able to\nunderstand them.\n\n3. Though useless unto us, and rather of molestation, we commonly\nrefrain from killing Swallows, and esteem it unlucky to destroy them:\nwhether herein there be not a _Pagan_ relique, we have some reason to\ndoubt. For we read in _\u00c6lian_, that these birds were sacred unto the\n_Penates_ or houshold gods of the ancients, and therefore were\npreserved. The same they also honoured as the nuncio's of the spring;\nand we find in _Athen\u00e6us_[SN: _The same is extant in the_ 8th _of_\nAthen\u00e6us.] that the _Rhodians_ had a solemn song to welcome in the\nSwallow.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why candles may burn blew, before the apparition of a\nspirit._]\n\n4. That Candles and Lights burn dim and blew at apparition of spirits,\nmay be true, if the ambient ayr be full of sulphurious spirits, as it\nhappeneth oft-times in mines; where damps and acide exhalations are able\nto extinguish them. And may be also verified, when spirits do make\nthemselves visible by bodies of such effluviums. But of lower\nconsideration is the common foretelling of strangers, from the fungous\nparcels about the weeks of Candles: which only signifieth a moist and\npluvious ayr about them, hindering the avolation of the light and\nfavillous particles: whereupon they are forced to settle upon the Snast.\n\n5. Though Coral doth properly preserve and fasten the Teeth in men, yet\nis it used in Children to make an easier passage for them: and for that\nintent is worn about their necks. But whether this custom were not\nsuperstitiously founded, as presumed an amulet or defensative against\nfascination, is not beyond all doubt. For the same is delivered by\n_Pliny_[SN: Lib. 32.]. _Aruspices religiosum Coralli gestamen amoliendis\npericulis arbitrantur; et surculi infanti\u00e6 alligati, tutelam habere\ncreduntur._\n\n6. A strange kind of exploration and peculiar way of Rhabdomancy is that\nwhich is used in mineral discoveries; that is, with a forked hazel,\ncommonly called _Moses_ his Rod, which freely held forth, will stir and\nplay if any mine be under it. And though many there are who have\nattempted to make it good, yet until better information, we are of\nopinion with _Agricola_[SN: De re metallica, lib. 2.], that in it self\nit is a fruitless exploration, strongly scenting of _Pagan_ derivation,\nand the _virgula Divina_, proverbially magnified of old. The ground\nwhereof were the Magical rods in Poets that of _Pallas_ in _Homer_, that\nof _Mercury_ that charmed _Argus_, and that of _Circe_ which transformed\nthe followers of _Ulysses_. Too boldly usurping the name of _Moses_ rod,\nfrom which notwithstanding, and that of _Aaron_, were probably\noccasioned the fables of all the rest. For that of _Moses_ must needs be\nfamous unto the _\u00c6gyptians_; and that of _Aaron_ unto many other\nNations, as being preserved in the Ark, until the destruction of the\nTemple built by _Solomon_.\n\n7. A practise there is among us to determine doubtful matters, by the\nopening of a book, and letting fall a staff; which notwithstanding are\nancient fragments of _Pagan_ divinations. The first an imitation of\n_Sortes Homeric\u00e6_; or _Virgilian\u00e6_, drawing determinations from verses\ncasually occurring. The same was practised by _Severus_, who entertained\nominous hopes of the Empire, from that verse in _Virgil_, _Tu regere\nimperio populos, Romane, memento_; and _Cordianus_ who reigned but few\ndayes was discouraged by another, that is, _Ostendunt terris hunc tantum\nfata, nec ultra esse sinunt._ Nor was this only performed in heathen\nAuthors, but upon the sacred text of Scripture, as _Gregorius\nTuronensis_ hath left some account, and as the practise of the Emperour\n_Heraclius_, before his Expedition into _Asia_ minor, is delivered by\n_Cedrenus_.\n\nAs for the Divination or decision from the staff; it is an Augurial\nrelique, and the practise thereof is accused by God himself; [SN: Hosea\n4.] My people ask counsel of their stocks, and their staff declareth\nunto them. Of this kind of Rhabdomancy was that practised by\n_Nabuchadonozor_ in that _Caldean_ miscellany, delivered by\n_Ezekiel_[SN: Ezek. 24.]; the king of _Babylon_ stood at the parting of\nthe way, at the head of two wayes to use divination, he made his arrows\nbright, he consulted with Images, he looked in the Liver; at the right\nhand were the divinations of _Jerusalem_. That is, as _Estius_ expounded\nit, the left way leading unto _Rabbah_, the chief City of the\n_Ammonites_, and the right unto _Jerusalem_, he consulted _Idols_ and\nentrails, he threw up a bundle of arrows to see which way they would\nlight; and falling on the right hand he marched towards _Jerusalem_. A\nlike way of Belomancy or Divination by arrows hath been in request with\n_Scythians_, _Alanes_, _Germans_, with the _Africans_ and _Turks_ of\n_Algier_. But of another nature was that which was practised by\n_Elisha_[SN: 2 King. 13.15.], when by an arrow shot from an Eastern\nwindow, he pre-signified the destruction of _Syria_; or when according\nunto the three stroaks of _Joash_, with an arrow upon the ground, he\nforetold the number of his victories. For thereby the spirit of God\nparticular'd the same; and determined the stroaks of the King unto\nthree, which the hopes of the Prophet expected in twice that number.\n\n8. We cannot omit to observe the tenacity of ancient customs, in the\nnominal observation of the several dayes of the week, according to\n_Gentile_ and _Pagan_ appellations [SN: Dion. Cassii. lib. 37.]: for the\nOriginal is very high, and as old as the ancient _\u00c6gyptians_, who named\nthe same according to the seven Planets, the admired stars of heaven,\nand reputed Deities among them. Unto every one assigning a several day;\nnot according to their c\u0153lestial order, or as they are disposed in\nheaven; but after a diatesseron or musical fourth. For beginning\nSaturday with Saturn, the supremest Planet, they accounted by Jupiter\nand Mars unto Sol, making Sunday. From Sol in like manner by Venus and\nMercury unto Luna, making Munday; and so through all the rest. And the\nsame order they confirmed by numbering the hours of the day unto twenty\nfour, according to the natural order of the Planets. For beginning to\naccount from Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and so about unto twenty four, the\nnext day will fall unto Sol; whence accounting twenty four, the next\nwill happen unto Luna, making Munday. And so with the rest, according to\nthe account and order observed still among us.\n\nThe _Jews_ themselves in their Astrological considerations, concerning\nNativities, and Planetary hours, observe the same order, upon as witty\nfoundations. Because by an equal interval, they make seven triangles,\nthe bases whereof are the seven sides of a septilateral figure,\ndescribed within a circle. That is, If a figure of seven sides be\ndescribed in a circle, and at the angles thereof the names of the\nPlanets be placed in their natural order on it: if we begin with Saturn,\nand successively draw lines from angle to angle, until seven equicrural\ntriangles be described, whose bases are the seven sides of the\nseptilateral figure; the triangles will be made by this order. The first\nbeing made by Saturn, Sol and Luna, that is, Saturday, Sunday, and\nMunday; and so the rest in the order still retained. [SN: Cujus Icon\napud doct. Iaffarel. chap. 11. Et Fabrit. Paduantum.]\n\nBut thus much is observable, that however in c\u0153lestial considerations\nthey embraced the received order of the Planets, yet did they not retain\neither characters, or names in common use amongst us; but declining\nhumane denominations, they assigned them names from some remarkable\nqualities; as is very observable in their red and splendent Planets,\nthat is, of Mars [SN: Maadim.] and Venus. [SN: Nogah.] But the change of\ntheir names disparaged not the consideration of their natures; nor did\nthey thereby reject all memory of these remarkable Stars; which God\nhimself admitted in his Tabernacle, if conjecture will hold concerning\nthe Golden Candlestick, whose shaft resembled the Sun, and six branches\nthe Planets about it.\n\n9. We are unwilling to enlarge concerning many other; only referring\nunto sober examination, what natural effects can reasonably be expected,\nwhen to prevent the Ephialtes or night-Mare we hang up an hollow stone\nin our stables; when for amulets against Agues we use the chips of\nGallows and places of execution. When for Warts we rub our hands before\nthe Moon, or commit any maculated part unto the touch of the dead. What\ntruth there is in those common female Doctrines, that the first Rib of\nRoast Beef powdered is a peculiar remedy against Fluxes. That to urine\nupon earth newly cast up by a Moll, bringeth down the menses in Women.\nThat if a Child dieth, and the neck becommeth not stiff, but for many\nhowers remaineth Lythe and Flaccid, some other in the same house will\ndye not long after. That if a woman with child looketh upon a dead body,\nher child will be of a pale complexion, our learned Philosophers and\ncritical Philosophers might illustrate, whose exacter performances our\nadventures do but solicite; mean while, I hope, they will plausibly\nreceive our attempts, or candidly correct our misconjectures.\n\n _Disce, sed ira cadat naso, rugosaque sanna,\n Dum veteres avias tibi de pulmone recello._\n\n\n\n\n THE SIXTH BOOK\n\n Of sundry common opinions Cosmographical and Historical\n\n _The first Discourse comprehended in several Chapters._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n Concerning the beginning of the World, that the time thereof is not\n precisely to be known, as men generally suppose: Of mens\n enquiries in what season or point of the Zodiack it began. That\n as they are generally made they are in vain, and as particularly\n applied uncertain. Of the division of the seasons and four\n quarters of the year, according to Astronomers and Physitians.\n That the common compute of the Ancients, and which is yet\n retained by most, is unreasonable and erroneous. Of some\n Divinations and ridiculous diductions from one part of the year\n to another. And of the Providence and Wisdom of God in the site\n and motion of the Sun.\n\n[Sidenote: _The age of the world not certainly determinable._]\n\nConcerning the World and its temporal circumscriptions, who ever shall\nstrictly examine both extreams, will easily perceive there is not only\nobscurity in its end, but its beginning; that as its period is\ninscrutable, so is its nativity indeterminable: That as it is\npresumption to enquire after the one, so is there no rest or\nsatisfactory decision in the other. And hereunto we shall more readily\nassent, if we examine the informations, and take a view of the several\ndifficulties in this point; which we shall more easily do, if we\nconsider the different conceits of men, and duly perpend the\nimperfections of their discoveries.\n\nAnd first, The histories of the _Gentiles_ afford us slender\nsatisfaction, nor can they relate any story, or affix a probable point\nto its beginning. For some thereof (and those of the wisest amongst\nthem) are so far from determining its beginning, that they opinion and\nmaintain it never had any at all; as the doctrin of _Epicurus_ implieth,\nand more positively _Aristotle_ in his books _De C\u0153lo_ declareth.\nEndeavouring to confirm it with arguments of reason, and those\nappearingly demonstrative; wherein his labours are rational, and\nuncontroulable upon the grounds assumed, that is, of Physical\ngeneration, and a Primary or first matter, beyond which no other hand\nwas apprehended. But herein we remain sufficiently satisfied from\n_Moses_, and the Doctrin delivered of the Creation; that is, a\nproduction of all things out of nothing, a formation not only of matter,\nbut of form, and a materiation even of matter it self.\n\nOthers are so far from defining the Original of the World or of mankind,\nthat they have held opinions not only repugnant unto Chronology, but\nPhilosophy; that is, that they had their beginning in the soil where\nthey inhabited; assuming or receiving appellations conformable unto such\nconceits. [SN: _Why the_ Athenians _did wear a golden Insect upon their\nhead._] So did the _Athenians_, term themselves \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 or\n_Aborigines_, and in testimony thereof did wear a golden Insect on their\nheads: the same name is also given unto the Inlanders, or _Midland_\ninhabitants of this Island by _C\u00e6sar_. But this is a conceit answerable\nunto the generation of the Giants; not admittable in Philosophy, much\nless in Divinity, which distinctly informeth we are all the seed of\n_Adam_, that the whole world perished unto eight persons before the\nflood, and was after peopled by the _Colonies_ of the sons of _Noah_.\nThere was therefore never any _Autochthon_, or man arising from the\nearth but _Adam_; for the Woman being formed out of the rib, was once\nremoved from earth, and framed from that Element under incarnation. And\nso although her production were not by copulation, yet was it in a\nmanner seminal: For if in every part from whence the seed doth flow,\nthere be contained the Idea of the whole; there was a seminality and\ncontracted _Adam_ in the rib, which by the information of a soul, was\nindividuated into _Eve_. And therefore this conceit applied unto the\nOriginal of man, and the beginning of the world, is more justly\nappropriable unto its end. For then indeed men shall rise out of the\nearth: the graves shall shoot up their concealed seeds, and in that\ngreat Autumn, men shall spring up, and awake from their Chaos again.\n\nOthers have been so blind in deducing the Original of things, or\ndelivering their own beginnings, that when it hath fallen into\ncontroversie, they have not recurred unto Chronologie or the Records of\ntime: but betaken themselves unto probabilities, and the\nconjecturalities of Philosophy. Thus when the two ancient Nations,\n_Egyptians_ and _Scythians_, contended for antiquity, the _Egyptians_\npleaded their antiquity from the fertility of their soil, [SN: Diodor.\nJustin.] inferring that men there first inhabited, where they were with\nmost facility sustained; and such a land did they conceive was _Egypt_.\n\nThe _Scythians_, although a cold and heavier Nation urged more acutely,\ndeducing their arguments from the two active Elements and Principles of\nall things, Fire and Water. For if of all things there was first an\nunion, and that Fire over-ruled the rest: surely that part of earth\nwhich was coldest, would first get free, and afford a place of\nhabitation. But if all the earth were first involved in Water, those\nparts would surely first appear, which were most high, and of most\nelevated situation, and such was theirs. These reasons carried indeed\nthe antiquity from the _Egyptians_, but confirmed it not in the\n_Scythians_: for as _Herodotus_ relateth from _Pargitaus_, their first\nKing unto _Darius_, they accounted but two thousand years.\n\n[Sidenote: _That men speak not by natural instinct, but by instruction\nand imitation._]\n\nAs for the _Egyptians_ they invented another way of trial; for as the\nsame Author relateth, _Psammitichus_ their King attempted this decision\nby a new and unknown experiment, bringing up two Infants with Goats, and\nwhere they never heard the voice of man; concluding that to be the\nancientest Nation, whose language they should first deliver. But herein\nhe forgot that speech was by instruction not instinct, by imitation, not\nby nature, that men do speak in some kind but like Parrets, and as they\nare instructed, that is, in simple terms and words, expressing the open\nnotions of things; which the second act of Reason compoundeth into\npropositions, and the last into Syllogisms and Forms of ratiocination.\nAnd howsoever the account of _Manethon_ the _Egyptian_ Priest run very\nhigh, and it be evident that _Mizraim_ peopled that Country (whose name\nwith the _Hebrews_ it beareth unto this day) and there be many things of\ngreat antiquity related in Holy Scripture, yet was their exact account\nnot very ancient; for _Ptolomy_ their Country-man beginning his\nAstronomical compute no higher than _Nabonasser_, who is conceived by\nsome the same with _Salmanasser_. As for the argument deduced from the\nFertility of the soil, duly enquired, it rather overthroweth than\npromoteth their antiquity; if that Country whose Fertility they so\nadvance, was in ancient times no firm or open land, but some vast lake\nor part of the Sea, and became a gained ground by the mud and limous\nmatter brought down by the River _Nilus_, which setled by degrees into a\nfirm land. According as is expressed by _Strabo_, and more at large by\n_Herodotus_, both from the _Egyptian_ tradition and probable inducements\nfrom reason, called therefore _fluvii donum_, an accession of earth, or\ntract of land acquired by the River.\n\nLastly, Some indeed there are, who have kept Records of time, and a\nconsiderable duration, yet do the exactest thereof afford no\nsatisfaction concerning the beginning of the world, or any way point out\nthe time of its creation. The most authentick Records and best approved\nantiquity are those of the _Chaldeans_; yet in the time of _Alexander_\nthe Great, they attained not so high as the flood. For as _Simplicius_\nrelateth, _Aristotle_ required of _Calisthenes_, who accompanied that\nWorthy in his Expedition, that at his arrive at _Babylon_, he would\nenquire of the antiquity of their Records; and those upon compute he\nfound to amount unto 1903 years; which account notwithstanding ariseth\nno higher than 95 years after the flood. The _Arcadians_ I confess, were\nesteemed of great antiquity, and it was usually said they were before\nthe Moon, according unto that of _Seneca_, _Sydus post veteres Arcades\neditum_; and that of _Ovid_, _Lun\u00e2 gens prior illa fuit._ But this as\n_Censorinus_ observeth, must not be taken grosly, as though they were\nexistent before that Luminary; but were so esteemed, because they\nobserved a set course of year, before the _Greeks_ conformed their year\nunto the course and motion of the Moon.\n\nThus the Heathens affording no satisfaction herein, they are most likely\nto manifest this truth, who have been acquainted with Holy Scripture,\nand the sacred Chronology delivered by _Moses_, who distinctly sets down\nthis account, computing by certain intervails, by memorable _\u00c6ras_,\n_Epoches_, or terms of time. As from the Creation unto the flood, from\nthence unto _Abraham_, from _Abraham_ unto the departure from _Egypt_,\netc. Now in this number have only been _Samaritans_, _Jews_ and\n_Christians_. [SN: _Different accounts upon Scripture concerning the Age\nof the World._] For the _Jews_ they agree not in their accounts, as\n_Bodine_ in his method of History hath observed out of _Baal Seder_,\n_Rabbi Nassom_, _Gersom_, and others; in whose compute the age of the\nWorld is not yet 5400 years. The same is more evidently observable from\nthe two most learned _Jews_, _Philo_ and _Josephus_; who very much\ndiffer in the accounts of time, and variously sum up these Intervails\nassented unto by all. Thus _Philo_ from the departure out of _Egypt_\nunto the building of the Temple, accounts but 920 years, but _Josephus_\nsets down 1062. _Philo_ from the building of the Temple to its\ndestruction 440. _Josephus_ 470. _Philo_ from the Creation to the\nDestruction of the Temple 3373, but _Josephus_ 3513. _Philo_ from the\nDeluge to the Destruction of the Temple 1718, but _Josephus_ 1913. In\nwhich Computes there are manifest disparities, and such as much divide\nthe concordance and harmony of times.\n\nFor the _Samaritans_; their account is different from these or any\nothers; for they account from the Creation to the Deluge, but 1302\nyears; which cometh to pass upon the different account of the ages of\nthe Patriarks set down when they begat children. For whereas the\n_Hebrew_, _Greek_ and _Latin_ texts account _Jared_ 162 when he begat\n_Enoch_, they account but 62, and so in others. Now the _Samaritans_\nwere no incompetent Judges of times and the Chronology thereof; for they\nembraced the five books of _Moses_, and as it seemeth, preserved the\nText with far more integrity then the _Jews_; who as _Tertullian_,\n_Chrysostom_, and others observe, did several wayes corrupt the same,\nespecially in passages concerning the prophesies of Christ; So that as\n_Jerom_ professeth, in his translation he was fain sometime to relieve\nhimself by the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch; as amongst others in that Text,\n_Deuteronomy_ 27. _Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus qu\u00e6\nscripta sunt in libro Legis._ From hence Saint _Paul_ [SN: Gal. 3.]\ninferreth there is no justification by the Law, and urgeth the Text\naccording to the Septuagint. Now the Jews to afford a latitude unto\nthemselves, in their copies expunged the word \u05d1\u05dc or Syncategorematical\nterm _omnis_: wherein lieth the strength of the Law, and of the Apostles\nargument; but the _Samaritan_ Bible retained it right, and answerable\nunto what the Apostle had urged.\n\nAs for Christians from whom we should expect the exactest and most\nconcurring account, there is also in them a manifest disagreement, and\nsuch as is not easily reconciled. For first, the Latins accord not in\ntheir account: to omit the calculation of the Ancients, of _Austin_,\n_Bede_, and others, the Chronology of the Moderns doth manifestly\ndissent. _Josephus Scaliger_, whom _Helvicus_ seems to follow, accounts\nthe Creation in 765 of the _Julian_ period; and from thence unto the\nNativity of our Saviour alloweth 3947 years; but _Dionysius Petavius_ a\nlearned Chronologer dissenteth from this compute almost 40 years;\nplacing the Creation in the 730 of the _Julian_ period, and from thence\nunto the Incarnation accounteth 3983 years.\n\nFor the Greeks; their accounts are more anomalous: for if we recur unto\nancient computes, we shall find that _Clemens Alexandrinus_, an ancient\nFather and _Pr\u00e6ceptor_ unto _Origen_, accounted from the Creation unto\nour Saviour, 5664 years; for in the first of his Stromaticks, he\ncollecteth the time from _Adam_ unto the death of _Commodus_ to be 5858\nyears; now the death of _Commodus_ he placeth in the year after Christ\n194, which number deducted from the former, there remaineth 5664.\n_Theophilus_ Bishop of _Antioch_ accounteth unto the Nativity of Christ\n5515, deduceable from the like way of compute, for in his first book _ad\nAutolychum_, he accounteth from _Adam_ unto _Aurelius Verus_ 5695 years;\nnow that Emperour died in the year of our Lord 180, which deducted from\nthe former sum, there remaineth 5515. _Julius Africanus_, an ancient\nChronologer, accounteth somewhat less, that is, 5500. _Eusebius_,\n_Orosius_ and others dissent not much from this, but all exceed five\nthousand.\n\nThe latter compute of the Greeks, as _Petavius_ observeth, hath been\nreduced unto two or three accounts. The first accounts unto our Saviour\n5501, and this hath been observed by _Nicephorus_, _Theophanes_, and\n_Maximus_. [SN: _By what account the world hath lasted 7154 years._] The\nother accounts 5509; and this of all at present is generally received by\nthe Church of _Constantinople_, observed also by the _Moscovite_, as I\nhave seen in the date of the Emperors letters; wherein this year of ours\n1645 is from the year of the world 7154, which doth exactly agree unto\nthis last account 5509, for if unto that sum be added 1645, the product\nwill be 7154, by this Chronology are many Greek Authors to be\nunderstood; and thus is _Martinus Crusius_ to be made out, when in his\nTurcogrecian history he delivers, the City of _Constantinople_ was taken\nby the Turks in the year \u03db\u03e0\u03be\u03b1; that is, 6961. Now according unto these\nChronologists, the Prophecy of _Elias_ the Rabbin, so much in request\nwith the Jews, and in some credit also with Christians, that the world\nshould last but six thousand years; unto these I say, it hath been long\nand out of memory disproved, for the Sabbatical and 7000 year wherein\nthe world should end (as did the Creation on the seventh day) unto them\nis long ago expired; they are proceeding in the eight thousand year, and\nnumbers exceeding those days which men have made the types and shadows\nof these. But certainly what _Marcus Leo_ the Jew conceiveth of the end\nof the heavens, exceedeth the account of all that ever shall be; for\nthough he conceiveth the Elemental frame shall end in the Seventh or\nSabbatical Millenary, yet cannot he opinion the heavens and more durable\npart of the Creation shall perish before seven times seven, or 49, that\nis, the Quadrant of the other seven, and perfect Jubilee of thousands.\n\nThus may we observe the difference and wide dissent of mens opinions,\nand thereby the great incertainty in this establishment. The Hebrews not\nonly dissenting from the Samaritans, the Latins from the Greeks, but\nevery one from another. Insomuch that all can be in the right it is\nimpossible; that any one is so, not with assurance determinable. And\ntherefore as _Petavius_ confesseth, to effect the same exactly without\ninspiration it is impossible, and beyond the Arithmetick of any but God\nhimself. And therefore also what satisfaction may be obtained from those\nviolent disputes, and eager enquirers in what day of the month the world\nbegan either of March or October; likewise in what face or position of\nthe Moon, whether at the prime or full, or soon after, let our second\nand serious considerations determine.\n\n[Sidenote: _The cause of so different accounts about the age of the\nworld._]\n\nNow the reason and ground of this dissent, is the unhappy difference\nbetween the Greek and Hebrew Editions of the Bible, for unto these two\nLanguages have all translations conformed; the holy Scripture being\nfirst delivered in Hebrew, and first translated into Greek. For the\nHebrew; it seems the primitive and surest text to rely on, and to\npreserve the same entire and uncorrupt there hath been used the highest\ncaution humanity could invent. For as _R. Ben. Maimon_ hath declared, if\nin the copying thereof one letter were written twice, or if one letter\nbut touched another, that copy was not admitted into their Synagogues,\nbut only allowable to be read in Schools and private families. Neither\nwere they careful only in the exact number of their Sections of the Law,\nbut had also the curiosity to number every word, and affixed the account\nunto their several books. [SN: _Corruption even in the Hebrew Text of\nthe Bible._] Notwithstanding all which, divers corruptions ensued, and\nseveral depravations slipt in, arising from many and manifest grounds,\nas hath been exactly noted by _Morinus_ in his preface unto the\nSeptuagint.\n\nAs for the Septuagint, it is the first and most ancient Translation; and\nof greater antiquity than the Chaldee version; occasioned by the request\nof _Ptolomeus Philadelphus_, King of _Egypt_, for the ornament of his\nmemorable Library; unto whom the high Priest addressed six Jews out of\nevery Tribe, which amounteth unto 72; and by these was effected that\nTranslation we usually term the Septuagint, or Translation of seventy.\n[SN: _The Credit of the Septuagint translation._] Which name, however it\nobtain from the number of their persons, yet in respect of one common\nSpirit, it was the Translation but as it were of one man; if as the\nstory relateth, although they were set apart and severed from each\nother, yet were their Translations found to agree in every point,\naccording as is related by _Philo_ and _Josephus_; although we find not\nthe same in _Arist\u00e6as_ [Sidenote: Aristeas ad Philocratorem de 72\ninterpretibus.], who hath expresly treated thereof. But of the Greek\ncompute there have passed some learned dissertations not many years ago,\nwherein the learned _Isacius Vossius_ makes the nativity of the world to\nanticipate the common account one thousand four hundred and forty years.\n\nThis Translation in ancient times was of great authority, by this many\nof the Heathens received some notions of the Creation and the mighty\nworks of God; This in express terms is often followed by the\nEvangelists, by the Apostles, and by our Saviour himself in the\nquotations of the Old Testament. This for many years was used by the\nJews themselves, that is, such as did Hellenize and dispersedly dwelt\nout of Palestine with the Greeks; and this also the succeeding\nChristians and ancient Fathers observed; although there succeeded other\nGreek versions, that is, of _Aquila_, _Theodosius_ and _Symmachus_; for\nthe Latin translation of _Jerom_, called now the Vulgar, was about 800\nyears after the Septuagint; although there was also a Latin translation\nbefore, called the Italick version. Which was after lost upon the\ngeneral reception of the translation of Saint _Jerom_ [SN: Pr\u00e6fat. in\nParalipom.]. Which notwithstanding (as he himself acknowledgeth) had\nbeen needless, if the Septuagint copys had remained pure, and as they\nwere first translated. But, (beside that different copys were used, that\n_Alexandria_ and _Egypt_ followed the copy of _Hesychius_, _Antioch_ and\n_Constantinople_ that of _Lucian_ the Martyr, and others that of\n_Origen_) the Septuagint was much depraved, not only from the errors of\nScribes, and the emergent corruptions of time, but malicious contrivance\nof the Jews; as _Justin Martyr_ hath declared, in his learned dialogue\n_Tryphon_, and _Morinus_ hath learnedly shewn from many confirmations.\n\n[Sidenote: De Hebr\u00e6i et Gr\u00e6ci textus sinceritate.]\n\nWhatsoever Interpretations there have been since, have been especially\neffected with reference unto these, that is, the Greek and Hebrew text,\nthe Translators sometimes following the one, sometimes adhering unto the\nother, according as they found them consonant unto truth, or most\ncorrespondent unto the rules of faith. Now however it cometh to pass,\nthese two are very different in the enumeration of Genealogies, and\nparticular accounts of time; for in the second intervail, that is,\nbetween the Flood and _Abraham_, there is by the Septuagint introduced\none _Cainan_ to be the son of _Arphaxad_ and father of _Salah_; whereas\nin the Hebrew there is no mention of such a person, but _Arphaxad_ is\nset down to be the father of _Salah_. But in the first intervail, that\nis, from the Creation unto the Flood, their disagreement is more\nconsiderable; for therein the Greek exceedeth the Hebrew, and common\naccount almost 600 years. And 'tis indeed a thing not very strange, to\nbe at the difference of a third part, in so large and collective an\naccount, if we consider how differently they are set forth in minor and\nless mistakable numbers. So in the Prophesie of _Jonah_, both in the\nHebrew and Latin text, it is said, Yet forty dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be\noverthrown: But the Septuagint saith plainly, and that in letters at\nlength, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 that is, yet three dayes and _Ninevy_ shall be\ndestroyed. Which is a difference not newly crept in, but an observation\nvery ancient, discussed by _Austin_ and _Theodoret_, and was conceived\nan error committed by the Scribe. Men therefore have raised different\ncomputes of time, according as they have followed their different texts;\nand so have left the history of times far more perplexed than Chronology\nhath reduced.\n\nAgain, However the texts were plain, and might in their numerations\nagree, yet were there no small difficulty to set down a determinable\nChronology, or establish from whence any fixed point of time. For the\ndoubts concerning the time of the Judges are inexplicable; that of the\nReigns and succession of Kings is as perplexed; it being uncertain\nwhether the years both of their lives and reigns ought to be taken as\ncompleat, or in their beginning and but currant accounts. Nor is it\nunreasonable to make some doubt whether in the first ages and long lives\nof our fathers, _Moses_ doth not sometime account by full and round\nnumbers, whereas strictly taken they might be some few years above or\nunder; as in the age of _Noah_, it is delivered to be just five hundred\nwhen he begat _Sem_; whereas perhaps he might be somewhat above or below\nthat round and compleat number. For the same way of speech is usual in\ndivers other expressions: Thus do we say the Septuagint, and using the\nfull and articulate number, do write the Translation of Seventy;\nwhereas we have shewn before, the precise number was Seventy two. So is\nit said that Christ was three days in the grave; according to that of\n_Mathew_, as _Jonas_ was three days and three nights in the Whales\nbelly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the\nheart of the earth: which notwithstanding must be taken Synecdochically;\nor by understanding a part for an whole day; for he remained but two\nnights in the grave; for he was buried in the afternoon of the first\nday, and arose very early in the morning on the third; that is, he was\ninterred in the eve of the Sabbath, and arose in the morning after it.\n\nMoreover although the number of years be determined and rightly\nunderstood, and there be without doubt a certain truth herein; yet the\ntext speaking obscurely or dubiously, there is oft-times no slender\ndifficulty at what point to begin or terminate the account. So when it\nis said _Exod._ 12. the sojourning of the children of _Israel_ who dwelt\nin _Egypt_ was 430 years, it cannot be taken strictly, and from their\nfirst arrival into Egypt, for their habitation in that land was far\nless; but the account must begin from the Covenant of God with\n_Abraham_, and must also comprehend their sojourn in the land of\n_Canaan_, according as is expressed, _Gal._ 3. The Covenant that was\nconfirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430 years after\ncannot disanul. Thus hath it also happened in the account of the 70\nyears of their captivity, according to that of _Jeremy_ [SN: _Chap._\n20.], This whole land shall be a desolation, and these nations shall\nserve the King of _Babylon_ 70 years. Now where to begin or end this\ncompute, ariseth no small difficulties; for there were three remarkable\ncaptivities and deportations of the Jews. The first was in the third or\nfourth year of _Joachim_, and first of _Nabuchodonozor_, when _Daniel_\nwas carried away; the second in the reign of _Ieconiah_, and the eighth\nyear of the same King; the third and most deplorable to the reign of\n_Zedechias_ and in the nineteenth year of _Nabuchodonozor_, whereat both\nthe Temple and City were burned. Now such is the different conceit of\nthese times, that men have computed from all; but the probablest account\nand most concordant unto the intention of _Ieremy_, is from the first of\n_Nabuchodonozor_ unto the first of King _Cyrus_ over _Babylon_; although\nthe Prophet _Zachary_ [SN: _Chap._ 1. 12.] accounteth from the last. O\nLord of hosts, How Long! Wilt thou not have mercy on _Ierusalem_,\nagainst which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?\nfor he maketh this expostulation in the second year of _Darius\nHistaspes_, wherein he prophesied, which is about eighteen years in\naccount after the other.\n\n[Sidenote: _The difficulties of_ Daniels _70 Weeks_.]\n\nThus also although there be a certain truth therein, yet is there no\neasie doubt concerning the seventy weeks, or seventy times seven years\nof _Daniel_; whether they have reference unto the nativity or passion of\nour Saviour, and especially from whence, or what point of time they are\nto be computed. For thus is it delivered by the Angel _Gabriel_: Seventy\nweeks are determined upon the people; and again in the following verse:\nKnow therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the\nCommandment to restore and to build _Ierusalem_ unto the Messias the\nPrince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street\nshall be built again, and the wall even in troublesome times; and after\nthreescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. Now the going out of\nthe Commandment to build the City, being the point from whence to\ncompute, there is no slender controversie when to begin. For there are\nno less than four several Edicts to this effect, the one in the first\nyear of _Cyrus_, the other in the second of _Darius_, the third and\nfourth in the seventh, and in the twentieth of _Artaxerxes Longimanus_;\nalthough as _Petavius_ accounteth, it best accordeth unto the twenty\nyear of _Artaxerxes_, from whence _Nehemiah_ deriveth his Commission.\n[SN: _Of our Bless. Saviours age at his Passion._] Now that computes are\nmade uncertainly with reference unto Christ, it is no wonder, since I\nperceive the time of his Nativity is in controversie, and no less his\nage at his Passion. For _Clemens_ and _Tertullian_ conceive he suffered\nat thirty; but _Iren\u00e6us_ a Father neerer his time, is further off in his\naccount, that is, between forty and fifty.\n\n_Longomontanus_ a late Astronomer, endeavours to discover this secret\nfrom Astronomical grounds, that is, the Apogeum of the Sun; conceiving\nthe Excentricity invariable, and the Apogeum yearly to move one scruple,\ntwo seconds, fifty thirds, etc. Wherefore if in the time of\n_Hipparchus_, that is, in the year of the _Iulian_ period 4557 it was in\nthe fifth degree of _Gemini_, and in the daies of _Tycho Brahe_, that is\nin the year of our Lord 1588, or of the world 5554, the same was removed\nunto the fift degree of _Cancer_; by the proportion of its motion, it\nwas at the Creation first in the beginning of _Aries_, and the Perigeum\nor nearest point in _Libra_. But this conceit how ingenious or subtile\nsoever, is not of satisfaction; it being not determinable, or yet agreed\nin what time precisely the Apogeum absolveth one degree, as _Petavius_\n[SN: De Doctrina temporum 1.4.] hath also delivered.\n\nLastly, However these or other difficulties intervene, and that we\ncannot satisfie our selves in the exact compute of time, yet may we sit\ndown with the common and usual account; nor are these differences\nderogatory unto the Advent or Passion of Christ, unto which indeed they\nall do seem to point, for the Prophecies concerning our Saviour were\nindefinitely delivered before that of _Daniel_; so was that pronounced\nunto _Eve_ in paradise, that after of _Balaam_, those of _Isaiah_ and\nthe Prophets, and that memorable one of _Iacob_, the Scepter shall not\ndepart from _Israel_ untill _Shilo_ come; which time notwithstanding it\ndid not define at all. In what year therefore soever, either from the\ndestruction of the Temple, from the re-edifying thereof, from the flood,\nor from the Creation he appeared, certain it is, that in the fulness of\ntime he came. When he therefore came is not so considerable, as that he\nis come: in the one there is consolation, in the other no satisfaction.\nThe greater Quere is, when he will come again; and yet indeed it is no\nQuere at all: for that is never to be known, and therefore vainly\nenquired: 'tis a professed and authentick obscurity, unknown to all but\nto the omniscience of the Almighty. Certainly the ends of things are\nwrapt up in the hands of God, he that undertakes the knowledge thereof,\nforgets his own beginning, and disclaims his principles of earth. No man\nknows the end of the world, nor assuredly of any thing in it: God sees\nit, because unto his Eternity it is present; he knoweth the ends of us,\nbut not of himself: and because he knows not this, he knoweth all\nthings, and his knowledge is endless, even in the object of himself.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n Of mens Enquiries in what season or Point of the Zodiack it began,\n that as they are generally made, they are in vain, and as\n particularly, uncertain.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The world began in all the four quarters of the year._]\n\nConcerning the Seasons, that is, the quarters of the year, some are\nready to enquire, others to determine, in what season, whether in the\nAutumn, Spring, Winter or Summer the World had its beginning. Wherein we\naffirm, that as the question is generally, and in respect of the whole\nearth proposed, it is with manifest injury unto reason in any particular\ndetermined; because when ever the world had its beginning it was created\nin all these four. For, as we have elsewhere delivered, whatsoever sign\nthe Sun possesseth (whose recess or vicinity defineth the quarters of\nthe year) those four seasons were actually existent; it being the nature\nof that Luminary to distinguish the several seasons of the year; all\nwhich it maketh at one time in the whole earth, and successively in any\npart thereof. Thus if we suppose the Sun created in Libra, in which sign\nunto some it maketh Autumn; at the same time it had been Winter unto the\nNorthern-pole, for unto them at that time the Sun beginneth to be\ninvisible, and to shew it self again unto the Pole of the South. Unto\nthe position of a right Sphere or directly under the \u00c6quator, it had\nbeen Summer; for unto that situation the Sun is at that time vertical.\nUnto the latitude of Capricorn, or the Winter Solstice it had been\nSpring; for unto that position it had been in a middle point, and that\nof ascent, or approximation, but unto the latitude of Cancer or the\nSummer Solstice it had been Autumn; for then had it been placed in a\nmiddle point, and that of descent, or elongation.\n\nAnd if we shall take it literally what _Moses_ described popularly, this\nwas also the constitution of the first day. For when it was evening unto\none longitude, it was morning unto another; when night unto one, day\nunto another. And therefore that question, whether our Saviour shall\ncome again in the twilight (as is conceived he arose) or whether he\nshall come upon us in the night, according to the comparison of a thief,\nor the _Jewish_ tradition, that he will come about the time of their\ndeparture out of _\u00c6gypt_, when they eat the Passover, and the Angel\npassed by the doors of their houses; this Quere I say needeth not\nfurther dispute. For if the earth be almost every where inhabited, and\nhis coming (as Divinity affirmed) must needs be unto all; then must the\ntime of his appearance be both in the day and night. For if unto\n_Jerusalem_, or what part of the world soever he shall appear in the\nnight, at the same time unto the _Antipodes_, it must be day; if\ntwilight unto them, broad day unto the _Indians_; if noon unto them, yet\nnight unto the _Americans_: and so with variety according unto various\nhabitations, or different positions of the Sphere, as will be easily\nconceived by those who understand the affections of different\nhabitations, and the conditions of _Ant\u00e6ci_, _Peri\u00e6ci_, and _Antipodes_.\nAnd so although he appear in the night, yet may the day of Judgement or\nDooms-day well retain that name; for that implieth one revolution of the\nSun, which maketh the day and night, and that one natural day. [SN:\n\u039d\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd] And yet to speak strictly, if (as the Apostle affirmeth) we\nshall be changed in the twinckling of an eye (and as the Schools\ndetermine) the destruction of the world shall not be successive but in\nan instant; we cannot properly apply thereto the usual distinctions of\ntime; called that twelve hours, which admits not the parts thereof, or\nuse at all the name of time, when the nature thereof shall perish.\n\nBut if the enquiry be made unto a particular place, and the question\ndetermined unto some certain Meridian; as namely, unto _Mesopotamia_\nwherein the seat of paradice is presumed, the Query becomes more\nreasonable, and is indeed in nature also determinable. Yet positively to\ndefine that season, there is no slender difficulty; for some contend\nthat it began in the Spring; as (beside _Eusebius_, _Ambrose_, _Bede_,\nand _Theodoret_) some few years past _Henrico Philippi_ in his\nChronology of the Scripture. Others are altogether for Autumn; and from\nhence do our Chronologers commence their compute; as may be observed in\n_Helvicus_, _Jo. Scaliger_, _Calvisius_, and _Petavius_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n Of the Divisions of the seasons and four Quarters of the year,\n according unto Astronomers and Physitians; that the common\n compute of the Ancients, and which is still retained by some is\n very questionable.\n\n\nAs for the divisions of the year, and the quartering out this remarkable\nstandard of time, there have passed especially two distinctions; the\nfirst in frequent use with Astronomers, according to the cardinal\nintersections of the Zodiack, that is, the two \u00c6quinoctials and both\nthe Solstitial points; defining that time to be the Spring of the year,\nwherein the Sun doth pass from the \u00c6quinox of Aries unto the Solstice of\nCancer; the time between the Solstice and the \u00c6quinox of Libra, Summer;\nfrom thence unto the Solstice of Capricornus, Autumn; and from thence\nunto the \u00c6quinox of Aries again, Winter. Now this division although it\nbe regular and equal, is not universal; for it includeth not those\nlatitudes which have the seasons of the year double; as have the\ninhabitants under the Equator, or else between the Tropicks. [SN:\n_Between the Tropicks two Summers in a year._] For unto them the Sun is\nvertical twice a year, making two distinct Summers in the different\npoints of verticality. So unto those which live under the \u00c6quator, when\nthe sun is in the \u00c6quinox it is Summer, in which points it maketh Spring\nor Autumn unto us; and unto them it is also Winter when the Sun is in\neither Tropick; whereas unto us it maketh always Summer in the one. And\nthe like will happen unto those habitations, which are between the\nTropicks and the \u00c6quator.\n\nA second and more sensible division there is observed by _Hippocrates_,\nand most of the ancient _Greeks_, according to the rising and setting of\ndivers stars; dividing the year, and establishing the account of seasons\nfrom usual alterations, and sensible mutations in the air, discovered\nupon the rising and setting of those stars, accounting the Spring from\nthe \u00c6quinoxial point of Aries; from the rising of the Pleiades, or the\nseveral stars on the back of Taurus, Summer; from the rising of\nArcturus, a star between the thighs of Bootes, Autumn; and from the\nsetting of the Pleiades, Winter. Of these divisions because they were\nunequal, they were fain to subdivide the two larger portions, that is of\nthe Summer and Winter quarters; the first part of the Summer they named\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the second unto the rising of the Dog-star, \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1, from thence unto\nthe setting of Arcturus, \u1f40\u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1. The Winter they divided also into three\nparts; the first part, or that of seed time they named \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, the\nmiddle or proper Winter, \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd, the last, which was their planting or\ngrafting time \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. This way of division was in former ages\nreceived, is very often mentioned in Poets, translated from one Nation\nto another; from the _Greeks_ unto the _Latines_ as is received by good\nAuthors; and delivered by Physitians, even unto our times.\n\nNow of these two, although the first in some latitude may be retained,\nyet is not the other in any to be admitted. For in regard of time (as we\nelsewhere declare) the stars do vary their longitudes, and consequently\nthe times of their ascension and descension. That star which is the term\nof numeration, or point from whence we commence the account, altering\nhis site and longitude in process of time, and removing from West to\nEast, almost one degree in the space of 72 years, so that the same star,\nsince the age of _Hippocrates_ who used this account, is removed in\n_consequentia_ about 27 degrees. Which difference of their longitudes,\ndoth much diversifie the times of their ascents, and rendereth the\naccount unstable which shall proceed thereby.\n\nAgain, In regard of different latitudes, this cannot be a setled rule,\nor reasonably applied unto many Nations. For whereas the setting of the\nPleiades or seven stars, is designed the term of Autumn, and the\nbeginning of Winter; unto some latitudes these stars do never set, as\nunto all beyond 67 degrees. And if in several and far distant latitudes\nwe observe the same star as a common term of account unto both, we\nshall fall upon an unexpected, but an unsufferable absurdity; and by the\nsame account it will be Summer unto us in the North, before it be so\nunto those, which unto us are Southward, and many degrees approaching\nnearer the Sun. For if we consult the Doctrine of the sphere, and\nobserve the ascension of the Pleiades, which maketh the beginning of\nSummer, we shall discover that in the latitude of 40, these stars arise\nin the 16 degree of Taurus; but in the latitude of 50, they ascend in\nthe eleventh degree of the same sign, that is, 5 dayes sooner; so shall\nit be Summer unto _London_, before it be unto _Toledo_, and begin to\nscorch in _England_, before it grow hot in _Spain_.\n\nThis is therefore no general way of compute, nor reasonable to be\nderived from one Nation unto another; the defect of which consideration\nhath caused divers errors in Latine poets, translating these expressions\nfrom the _Greeks_; and many difficulties even in the _Greeks_\nthemselves; which living in divers latitudes, yet observed the same\ncompute. So that to make them out, we are fain to use distinctions;\nsometime computing cosmically what they intended heliacally: and\nsometime in the same expression accounting the rising heliacally, the\nsetting cosmically. Otherwise it will be hardly made out, what is\ndelivered by approved Authors; and is an observation very considerable\nunto those which meet with such expressions, as they are very frequent\nin the poets of elder times, especially _Hesiod_, _Aratus_, _Virgil_,\n_Ovid_, _Manilius_; and Authors Geoponical, or which have treated _de re\nrustica_, as _Constantine_, _Marcus Cato_, _Columella_, _Palladius_ and\n_Varro_.\n\nLastly, The absurdity in making common unto many Nations those\nconsiderations whose verity is but particular unto some, will more\nevidently appear, if we examine the Rules and Precepts of some one\nclimate, and fall upon consideration with what incongruity they are\ntransferrible unto others. Thus is it advised by _Hesiod_.\n\n _Pleiadibus Atlante natis orientibus\n Incipe messem, Arationem vero occidentibus._\n\nImplying hereby the Heliacal ascent and Cosmical descent of those stars.\nNow herein he setteth down a rule to begin harvest at the arise of the\nPleiades; which in his time was in the beginning of _May_. This indeed\nwas consonant unto the clime wherein he lived, and their harvest began\nabout that season: but is not appliable unto our own, for therein we are\nso far from expecting an harvest, that our Barley-seed is not ended.\nAgain, correspondent unto the rule of _Hesiod_, _Virgil_ affordeth\nanother,\n\n _Ante tibi Eo\u00e6 Atlantides abscondantur,\n Debita quam sulcis committas semina._\n\nUnderstanding hereby their Cosmical descent, or their setting when the\nSun ariseth, and not their Heliacal obscuration, or their inclusion in\nthe lustre of the Sun, as _Servius_ upon this place would have it; for\nat that time these stars are many signs removed from that luminary. Now\nherein he strictly adviseth, not to begin to sow before the setting of\nthese stars; which notwithstanding without injury to agriculture, cannot\nbe observed in _England_; for they set unto us about the 12 of November,\nwhen our Seed-time is almost ended.\n\nAnd this diversity of clime and c\u0153lestial observations, precisely\nobserved unto certain stars and moneths, hath not only overthrown the\ndeductions of one Nation to another, but hath perturbed the observation\nof festivities and statary Solemnities, even with the _Jews_ themselves.\nFor unto them it was commanded that at their entrance into the land of\n_Canaan_, in the fourteenth of the first moneth (that is _Abib_ or\n_Nisan_ which is Spring with us) they should observe the celebration of\nthe Passover; and on the morrow after, which is the fifteenth day, the\nfeast of unleavened bread; and in the sixteenth of the same moneth, that\nthey should offer the first sheaf of the harvest. Now all this was\nfeasible and of an easie possibility in the land of _Canaan_, or\nlatitude of _Jerusalem_; for so it is observed by several Authors in\nlater times; and is also testified by holy Scripture in times very far\nbefore. For when the children of _Israel_ passed the river _Jordan_ [SN:\nJosh. 3.], it is delivered by way of parenthesis, that the river\noverfloweth its banks in the time of harvest; which is conceived the\ntime wherein they passed; and it is after delivered [SN: Josh. 5.], that\nin the fourteenth day they celebrated the Passover: which according to\nthe Law of _Moses_ was to be observed in the first moneth, or moneth of\n_Abib_.\n\nAnd therefore it is no wonder, what is related by _Luke_, that the\nDisciples upon the _Deuteroproton_, as they passed by, plucked the ears\nof corn. [SN: _What the Sabbaton Deuteroproton_, Luk. 6. _was_.] For the\n_Deuteroproton_ or second first Sabbath, was the first Sabbath after the\nDeutera or second of the Passover, which was the sixteenth of _Nisan_ or\n_Abib_. And this is also evidenced from the received construction of the\nfirst and latter rain. I will give you the rain of your land in his due\nseason, the first rain and the latter rain. [SN: _Deut._ 11.] For the\nfirst rain fell upon the seed-time about October, and was to make the\nseed to root, the latter was to fill the ear, and fell in Abib or March,\nthe first moneth: according as is expressed. [SN: _Joel_ 2.] And he will\ncause to come down for you the rain, the former rain and the latter\nrain in the first moneth; that is the moneth of _Abib_ wherein the\nPassover was observed. This was the Law of _Moses_, and this in the land\nof _Canaan_ was well observed, according to the first institution: but\nsince their dispersion and habitation in Countries, whose constitutions\nadmit not such tempestivity of harvests; and many not before the latter\nend of Summer; notwithstanding the advantage of their Lunary account,\nand intercalary moneth Veader, affixed unto the beginning of the year,\nthere will be found a great disparity in their observations; nor can\nthey strictly and at the same season with their forefathers observe the\ncommands of God.\n\nTo add yet further, those Geoponical rules and precepts of Agriculture\nwhich are delivered by divers Authors, are not to be generally received;\nbut respectively understood unto climes whereto they are determined. For\nwhereas one adviseth to sow this or that grain at one season, a second\nto set this or that at another, it must be conceived relatively, and\nevery Nation must have its Country Farm; for herein we may observe a\nmanifest and visible difference, not only in the seasons of harvest, but\nin the grains themselves. For with us Barley-harvest is made after\nwheat-harvest, but with the _Israelites_ and _\u00c6gyptians_ it was\notherwise; so is it expressed by way of priority, _Ruth_ the 2. So\n_Ruth_ kept fast by the maidens of _Boaz_ to glean unto the end of\nBarley-harvest and of Wheat-harvest, which in the plague of hayl in\n_\u00c6gypt_ is more plainly delivered, _Exod._ 9. And the Flax and the\nBarley were smitten, for the Barley was in the ear and the Flax was\nbolled, but the Wheat and the Rye were not smitten, for they were not\ngrown up.\n\nAnd thus we see the account established upon the arise or descent of the\nstars can be no reasonable rule unto distant Nations at all, and by\nreason of their retrogression but temporary unto any one. Nor must these\nrespective expressions be entertained in absolute considerations; for so\ndistinct is the relation, and so artificial the habitude of this\ninferiour globe unto the superiour, and even of one thing in each unto\nthe other, that general rules are dangerous, and applications most safe\nthat run with security of circumstance. Which rightly to effect, is\nbeyond the subtlety of sense, and requires the artifice of reason.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n Of some computation of days and deductions of one part of the year\n unto another.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _That the days decrease and increase unequally._]\n\nFourthly, There are certain vulgar opinions concerning days of the year,\nand conclusions popularly deduced from certain days of the moneth: men\ncommonly believing the days increase and decrease equally in the whole\nyear: which notwithstanding is very repugnant unto truth. For they\nincrease in the moneth of March, almost as much as in the two moneths of\nJanuary and February: and decrease as much in September, as they do in\nJuly and August. For the days increase or decrease according to the\ndeclination of the Sun, that is, its deviation Northward or Southward\nfrom the \u00c6quator. Now this digression is not equal but near the\n\u00c6quinoxial intersections, it is right and greater, near the Solstices\nmore oblique and lesser. So from the eleventh of March the vernal\n\u00c6quinox, unto the eleventh of April the Sun declineth to the North\ntwelve degrees; from the eleventh of April unto the eleventh of May but\neight, from thence unto the fifteenth of June, or the Summer Solstice\nbut three and a half: all which make twenty two degrees and an half, the\ngreatest declination of the Sun.\n\n[Sidenote: _The natural proportion of humane growth_, etc.]\n\nAnd this inequality in the declination of the Sun in the Zodiack or line\nof life, is correspondent unto the growth or declination of man. For\nsetting out from infancy we increase not equally, or regularly attain to\nour state or perfection: nor when we descend from our state, is our\ndeclination equal, or carrieth us with even paces unto the grave. For as\n_Hippocrates_ affirmeth, a man is hottest in the first day of his life,\nand coldest in the last: his natural heat setteth forth most vigorously\nat first, and declineth most sensibly at last. [SN: _In the world,_] And\nso though the growth of man end not perhaps until twenty one, yet is his\nstature more advanced in the first septenary than in the second, and in\nthe second, more than in the third, and more indeed in the first seven\nyears, than in the fourteen succeeding; for what stature we attain unto\nat seven years, we do sometimes but double, most times come short of at\none and twenty. And so do we decline again: For in the latter age upon\nthe Tropick and first descension from our solstice, we are scarce\nsensible of declination: but declining further, our decrement\naccelerates, we set apace, and in our last days precipitate into our\ngraves. [SN: _and in the womb._] And thus are also our progressions in\nthe womb, that is, our formation, motion, our birth or exclusion. For\nour formation is quickly effected, our motion appeareth later, and our\nexclusion very long after: if that be true which _Hippocrates_ and\n_Avicenna_ have declared, that the time of our motion is double unto\nthat of formation, and that of exclusion treble unto that of motion. As\nif the Infant be formed at thirty five days, it moveth at seventy, and\nis born the two hundred and tenth day, that is, the seventh month; or if\nit receives not formation before forty five days, it moveth the\nninetieth day, and is excluded in the two hundred and seventy, that is,\nthe ninth month.\n\nThere are also certain popular prognosticks drawn from festivals in the\nCalender, and conceived opinions of certain days in months; so is there\na general tradition in most parts of _Europe_, that inferreth the\ncoldness of succeeding winter from the shining of the Sun upon\n_Candlemas_ day, or the Purification of the Virgin _Mary_, according to\nthe proverbial distich,\n\n _Si Sol splendescat Mari\u00e2 purificante,\n Major erit glacies post festum quam fuit ante._\n\nSo is it usual among us to qualifie and conditionate the twelve months\nof the year, answerably unto the temper of the twelve days in\n_Christmas_; and to ascribe unto March certain borrowed days from April;\nall which men seem to believe upon annual experience of their own, and\nthe received traditions of their fore-fathers.\n\nNow it is manifest, and most men likewise know, that the Calenders of\nthese computers, and the accounts of these days are very different; the\nGreeks dissenting from the Latins, and the Latins from each other; the\none observing the _Julian_ or ancient account, as great _Britain_ and\npart of _Germany_; the other adhering to the _Gregorian_ or new account,\nas _Italy_, _France_, _Spain_, and the united Provinces of the\nNetherlands. Now this later account by ten days at least anticipateth\nthe other; so that before the one beginneth the account, the other is\npast it; yet in the several calculations, the same events seem true, and\nmen with equal opinion of verity, expect and confess a confirmation from\nthem all. Whereby is evident the Oraculous authority of tradition, and\nthe easie seduction of men, neither enquiring into the verity of the\nsubstance, nor reforming upon repugnance of circumstance.\n\nAnd thus may divers easily be mistaken who superstitiously observe\ncertain times, or set down unto themselves an observation of unfortunate\nmonths, or dayes, or hours; As did the _Egyptians_, two in every month,\nand the _Romans_, the days after the Nones, Ides and Calends. And thus\nthe Rules of Navigators must often fail, setting down, as _Rhodiginus_\nobserveth, suspected and ominous days in every month, as the first and\nseventh of March, the fift and sixt of April, the sixt, the twelfth and\nfifteenth of February. For the accounts hereof in these months are very\ndifferent in our days, and were different with several Nations in Ages\npast; and how strictly soever the account be made, and even by the\nself-same Calender, yet is it possible that Navigators may be out. For\nso were the Hollanders, who passing Westward through _fretum le Mayre_,\nand compassing the Globe, upon their return into their own Country,\nfound that they had lost a day. For if two men at the same time travel\nfrom the same place, the one Eastward, the other Westward round about\nthe earth, and meet in the same place from whence the first set forth;\nit will so fall out, that he which hath moved Eastward against the\ndiurnal motion of the Sun, by anticipating dayly something of its circle\nwith his own motion, will gaine one day; but he that travelleth\nWestward, with the motion of the Sun, by seconding its revolution,\nshall lose or come short a day. And therefore also upon these grounds\nthat _Delos_ was seated in the middle of the earth, it was no exact\ndecision, because two Eagles let fly East and West by _Jupiter_, their\nmeeting fell out just in the Island _Delos_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n A Digression of the wisdom of God in the site and motion of the Sun.\n\n\nHaving thus beheld the ignorance of man in some things, his error and\nblindness in others, that is, in the measure of duration both of years\nand seasons, let us a while admire the Wisdom of God in this\ndistinguisher of times, and visible Deity (as some have termed it) the\nSun. Which though some from its glory adore, and all for its benefits\nadmire, we shall advance from other considerations, and such as\nillustrate the artifice of its Maker. Nor do we think we can excuse the\nduty of our knowledge, if we only bestow the flourish of Poetry hereon,\nor those commendatory conceits which popularly set forth the eminency of\nthis creature; except we ascend unto subtiler considerations, and such\nas rightly understood, convincingly declare the wisdom of the Creator.\nWhich since a Spanish Physitian [SN: Valerius de Philos. _Sacr._] hath\nbegun, we will enlarge with our deductions; and this we shall endeavour\nfrom two considerations; its proper situation, and wisely ordered\nmotion.\n\nAnd first we cannot pass over his providence, in that it moveth at all;\nfor had it stood still, and were it fixed like the earth, there had been\nthen no distinction of times, either of day or year, of Spring, of\nAutumn, of Summer, or of Winter; for these seasons are defined by the\nmotions of the Sun; when that approacheth neare our Zenith, or vertical\nPoint, we call it Summer, when furthest off, Winter, when in the middle\nspaces, Spring or Autumn, whereas remaining in one place these\ndistinctions had ceased, and consequently the generation of all things\ndepending on their vicissitudes; making in one hemisphere a perpetual\nSummer, in the other a deplorable and comfortless Winter. [SN: _What the\nnatural day is._] And thus had it also been continual day unto some, and\nperpetual night unto others; for the day is defined by the abode of the\nSun above the Horizon, and the night by its continuance below; so should\nwe have needed another Sun, one to illustrate our Hemisphere, a second\nto enlighten the other; which inconvenience will ensue in what site\nsoever we place it, whether in the Poles, or the \u00c6quator, or between\nthem both; no spherical body of what bigness soever illuminating the\nwhole sphere of another, although it illuminate something more than half\nof a lesser, according unto the doctrine of the Opticks.\n\n[Sidenote: _Every part of the Earth habitable._]\n\nHis wisdom is again discernable, not only in that it moveth at all, and\nin its bare motion, but wonderful in contriving the line of its\nrevolution; which is so prudently effected, that by a vicissitude in one\nbody and light it sufficeth the whole earth, affording thereby a\npossible or pleasurable habitation in every part thereof; and this is\nthe line Ecliptick; all which to effect by any other circle it had been\nimpossible. For first, if we imagine the Sun to make his course out of\nthe Ecliptick, and upon a line without any obliquity, let it be\nconceived within that Circle, that is either on the \u00c6quator, or else on\neither side: (For if we should place it either in the Meridian or\nColures, beside the subversion of its course from East to West, there\nwould ensue the like incommodities.) Now if we conceive the sun to move\nbetween the obliquity of this Ecliptick in a line upon one side of the\n\u00c6quator, then would the Sun be visible but unto one pole, that is the\nsame which was nearest unto it. So that unto the one it would be\nperpetual day; unto the other perpetual night; the one would be\noppressed with constant heat, the other with insufferable cold; and so\nthe defect of alternation would utterly impugn the generation of all\nthings; which naturally require a vicissitude of heat to their\nproduction, and no less to their increase and conservation.\n\nBut if we conceive it to move in the \u00c6quator; first unto a parallel\nsphere, or such as have the pole for their Zenith, it would have made\nneither perfect day nor night. For being in the \u00c6quator it would\nintersect their Horizon, and be half above and half beneath it: or\nrather it would have made perpetual night to both; for though in regard\nof the rational Horizon, which bisecteth the Globe into equal parts, the\nSun in the \u00c6quator would intersect the Horizon: yet in respect of the\nsensible Horizon (which is defined by the eye) the Sun would be visible\nunto neither. For if as ocular witnesses report, and some also write, by\nreason of the convexity of the Earth, the eye of man under the \u00c6quator\ncannot discover both the poles; neither would the eye under the poles\ndiscover the Sun in the \u00c6quator. Thus would there nothing fructifie\neither near or under them: The Sun being Horizontal to the poles, and of\nno considerable altitude unto parts a reasonable distance from them.\nAgain, unto a right sphere, or such as dwell under the \u00c6quator,\nalthough it made a difference in day and night, yet would it not make\nany distinction of seasons: for unto them it would be constant Summer,\nit being alwaies vertical, and never deflecting from them: So had there\nbeen no fructification at all, and the Countries subjected would be as\nuninhabitable, as indeed antiquity conceived them.\n\nLastly, It moving thus upon the \u00c6quator, unto what position soever,\nalthough it had made a day, yet could it have made no year: for it could\nnot have had those two motions now ascribed unto it, that is, from East\nto West, whereby it makes the day, and likewise from West to East,\nwhereby the year is computed. For according to received Astronomy, the\npoles of the \u00c6quator are the same with those of the _Primum Mobile_. Now\nit is impossible that on the same circle, having the same poles, both\nthese motions from opposite terms should be at the same time performed;\nall which is salved, if we allow an obliquity in his annual motion, and\nconceive him to move upon the Poles of the Zodiack, distant from these\nof the world 23 degrees and an half. Thus may we discern the necessity\nof its obliquity, and how inconvenient its motion had been upon a circle\nparallel to the \u00c6quator, or upon the \u00c6quator it self.\n\nNow with what Providence this obliquity is determined, we shall perceive\nupon the ensuing inconveniences from any deviation. For first, if its\nobliquity had been less (as instead of twenty three degrees, twelve or\nthe half thereof) the vicissitude of seasons appointed for the\ngeneration of all things, would surely have been too short; for\ndifferent seasons would have hudled upon each other; and unto some it\nhad not been much better than if it had moved on the \u00c6quator.\n\nBut had the obliquity been greater than now it is, as double, or of 40\ndegrees; several parts of the earth had not been able to endure the\ndisproportionable differences of seasons, occasioned by the great\nrecess, and distance of the Sun. For unto some habitations the Summer\nwould have been extream hot, and the Winter extream cold; likewise the\nSummer temperate unto some, but excessive and in extremity unto others,\nas unto those who should dwell under the Tropick of Cancer, as then\nwould do some part of _Spain_, or ten degrees beyond, as _Germany_, and\nsome part of _England_; who would have Summers as now the _Moors_ of\n_Africa_. For the Sun would sometime be vertical unto them: but they\nwould have Winters like those beyond the Artick Circle; for in that\nseason the Sun would be removed above 80 degrees from them. Again, it\nwould be temperate to some habitations in the Summer, but very extream\nin the Winter: temperate to those in two or three degrees beyond the\nArtick Circle, as now it is unto us; for they would be equidistant from\nthat Tropick, even as we are from this at present. But the Winter would\nbe extream, the Sun being removed above an hundred degrees, and so\nconsequently would not be visible in their Horizon, no position of\nsphere discovering any star distant above 90 degrees, which is the\ndistance of every Zenith from the Horizon. And thus if the obliquity of\nthis Circle had been less, the vicissitude of seasons had been so small\nas not to be distinguished; if greater, so large and disproportionable\nas not to be endured.\n\n[Sidenote: _A competent distinction of seasons necessary, and why._]\n\nNow for its situation, although it held this Ecliptick line, yet had it\nbeen seated in any other Orb, inconveniences would ensue of condition\nlike the former; for had it been placed in the lowest sphere of the\nMoon, the year would have consisted but of one month; for in that space\nof time it would have passed through every part of the Ecliptick: so\nwould there have been no reasonable distinction of seasons required for\nthe generation and fructifying of all things; contrary seasons which\ndestroy the effects of one another, so suddenly succeeding. Besides by\nthis vicinity unto the earth, its heat had been intollerable; for if (as\nmany affirm) there is a different sense of heat from the different\npoints of its proper Orb, and that in the Apogeum or highest point\n(which happeneth in Cancer) it is not so hot under that Tropick, on this\nside the \u00c6quator, as unto the other side in the Perigeum or lowest part\nof the Eccentrick (which happeneth in Capricornus) surely being placed\nin an Orb far lower, its heat would be unsufferable, nor needed we a\nfable to set the world on fire.\n\nBut had it been placed in the highest Orb, or that of the eighth sphere,\nthere had been none but _Platoes_ year, and a far less distinction of\nseasons; for one year had then been many, and according unto the slow\nrevolution of that Orb which absolveth not his course in many thousand\nyears, no man had lived to attain the account thereof. These are the\ninconveniences ensuing upon its situation in the extream orbs, and had\nit been placed in the middle orbs of the Planets, there would have\nensued absurdities of a middle nature unto them.\n\nNow whether we adhere unto the hypothesis of _Copernicus_, affirming the\nearth to move, and the Sun to stand still; or whether we hold, as some\nof late have concluded, from the spots in the Sun, which appear and\ndisappear again; that besides the revolution it maketh with its Orbs, it\nhath also a dinetical motion, and rowls upon its own Poles, whether I\nsay we affirm these or no, the illations before mentioned are not\nthereby infringed. We therefore conclude this contemplation, and are not\nafraid to believe, it may be literally said of the wisdom of God, what\nmen will have but figuratively spoken of the works of Christ; that if\nthe wonders thereof were duly described, the whole world, that is, all\nwithin the last circumference, would not contain them. For as his Wisdom\nis infinite, so cannot the due expressions thereof be finite, and if the\nworld comprise him not, neither can it comprehend the story of him.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n Concerning the vulgar opinion, that the Earth was slenderly peopled\n before the Flood.\n\n\nBeside the slender consideration men of latter times do hold of the\nfirst ages, it is commonly opinioned, and at first thought generally\nimagined, that the earth was thinly inhabited, at least not remotely\nplanted before the flood; whereof there being two opinions, which seem\nto be of some extremity, the one too largely extending, the other too\nnarrowly contracting the populosity of those times; we shall not pass\nover this point without some enquiry into it.\n\nNow for the true enquiry thereof, the means are as obscure as the\nmatter, which being naturally to be explored by History, Humane or\nDivine, receiveth thereby no small addition of obscurity. For as for\nhumane relations, they are so fabulous in _Deucalions_ flood, that they\nare of little credit about _Ogyges_ and _Noahs_. For the Heathens (as\n_Varro_ accounteth) make three distinctions of time: the first from the\nbeginning of the world unto the general Deluge of _Ogyges_, they term\n_Adelon_, that is, a time not much unlike that which was before time,\nimmanifest and unknown; because thereof there is almost nothing or very\nobscurely delivered: for though divers Authors have made some mention of\nthe Deluge, as _Manethon_ the _Egyptian_ Priest, _Xenophon_ de\n\u00e6quivocis, _Fabius Pictor_ de Aureo seculo, _Mar. Cato_ de originibus,\nand _Archilochus_ the Greek, who introduceth also the Testimony of\n_Moses_ in his fragment _de temporibus_: yet have they delivered no\naccount of what preceded or went before. _Josephus_ I confess in his\nDiscourse against _Appion_ induceth the antiquity of the _Jews_ unto the\nflood, and before from the testimony of humane Writers; insisting\nespecially upon _Maseus_ of _Damascus_, _Jeronimus \u00c6gyptius_, and\n_Berosus_; and confirming the long duration of their lives, not only\nfrom these, but the authority of _Hesiod_, _Erathius_, _Hellanicus_ and\n_Agesilaus_. _Berosus_ the _Chaldean_ Priest, writes most plainly,\nmentioning the city of _Enos_, the name of _Noah_ and his Sons, the\nbuilding of the Ark, and also the place of its landing. And _Diodorus\nSiculus_ hath in his third book a passage, which examined, advanceth as\nhigh as _Adam_: for the _Chaldeans_, saith he, derive the Original of\ntheir Astronomy and letters forty three thousand years before the\nMonarchy of _Alexander_ the Great: now the years whereby they computed\nthe antiquity of their letters, being as _Xenophon_ interprets to be\naccounted Lunary: the compute will arise unto the time of _Adam_. For\nforty three thousand Lunary years make about three thousand six hundred\nthirty four years, which answereth the Chronology of time from the\nbeginning of the world unto the reign of _Alexander_, as _Annius_ of\n_Viterbo_ computeth in his Comment upon _Berosus_.\n\nThe second space or interval of time is accounted from the flood unto\nthe first Olympiad, that is, the year of the world 3174, which extendeth\nunto the days of _Isaiah_ the Prophet, and some twenty years before the\nfoundation of _Rome_: this they term _Mythicon_ or fabulous, because the\naccount thereof, especially of the first part, is fabulously or\nimperfectly delivered. Hereof some things have been briefly related by\nthe Authors above mentioned: more particularly by _Dares Phrygius_,\n_Dictys Cretensis_, _Herodotus_, _Diodorus Siculus_, and _Trogus\nPompeius_; the most famous _Greek_ Poets lived also in this interval, as\n_Orpheus_, _Linus_, _Mus\u00e6us_, _Homer_, _Hesiod_; and herein are\ncomprehended the grounds and first inventions of Poetical fables, which\nwere also taken up by historical Writers, perturbing the _Chaldean_ and\n_Egyptian_ Records with fabulous additions; and confounding their names\nand stories, with their own inventions.\n\nThe third time succeeding until their present ages, they term\n_Historicon_, that is, such wherein matters have been more truly\nhistorified, and may therefore be believed. Of these times also have\nbeen written _Herodotus_, _Thucydides_, _Xenophon_, _Diodorus_; and both\nof these and the other preceding such as have delivered universal\nHistories or Chronologies; as (to omit _Philo_, whose Narrations concern\nthe _Hebrews_) _Eusebius_, _Julius Africanus_, _Orosius_, _Ado_ of\n_Vienna_, _Marianus Scotus_, _Historia tripartita_, _Urspergensis_,\n_Carion_, _Pineda_, _Salian_, and with us Sir _Walter Raleigh_.\n\nNow from the first hereof that most concerneth us, we have little or no\nassistance; the fragments and broken records hereof inforcing not at\nall our purpose. And although some things not usually observed, may be\nfrom thence collected, yet do they not advantage our discourse, nor any\nway make evident the point in hand. For the second, though it directly\nconcerns us not, yet in regard of our last medium and some illustrations\ntherein, we shall be constrained to make some use thereof. As for the\nlast, it concerns us not at all; for treating of times far below us, it\ncan no way advantage us. And though divers in this last Age have also\nwritten of the first, as all that have delivered the general accounts of\ntime, yet are their Tractates little auxiliary unto ours, nor afford us\nany light to detenebrate and clear this Truth.\n\nAs for holy Scripture and divine revelation, there may also seem therein\nbut slender information, there being only left a brief narration hereof\nby _Moses_, and such as affords no positive determination. For the Text\ndelivereth but two genealogies, that is, of _Cain_ and _Seth_; in the\nline of _Seth_ there are only ten descents, in that of _Cain_ but seven,\nand those in a right line with mention of father and son; excepting that\nof _Lamech_, where is also mention of wives, sons, and a daughter.\nNotwithstanding if we seriously consider what is delivered therein, and\nwhat is also deducible, it will be probably declared what is by us\nintended, that is, the populous and ample habitation of the earth before\nthe flood. Which we shall labour to induce not from postulates and\nentreated Maxims, but undeniable Principles declared in holy Scripture;\nthat is, the length of mens lives before the flood, and the large extent\nof time from Creation thereunto.\n\nWe shall only first crave notice, that although in the relation of\n_Moses_ there be very few persons mentioned, yet are there many more to\nbe presumed; nor when the Scripture in the line of _Seth_ nominates but\nten persons, are they to be conceived all that were of this generation:\nThe Scripture singly delivering the holy line, wherein the world was to\nbe preserved, first in _Noah_, and afterward in our Saviour. For in this\nline it is manifest there were many more born than are named, for it is\nsaid of them all, that they begat sons and daughters. And whereas it is\nvery late before it is said they begat those persons which are named in\nthe Scripture, the soonest at 65, it must not be understood that they\nhad none before; but not any in whom it pleased God the holy line should\nbe continued. And although the expression that they begat sons and\ndaughters be not determined to be before or after the mention of these,\nyet must it be before in some; for before it is said that _Adam_ begat\n_Seth_ at the 130 year, it is plainly affirmed that _Cain_ knew his\nwife, and had a son; which must be one of the daughters of _Adam_, one\nof those whereof it is after said, he begat sons and daughters. And so\nfor ought can be disproved there might be more persons upon earth then\nare commonly supposed, when _Cain_ slew _Abel_; nor the fact so\nhainously to be aggravated in the circumstance of the fourth person\nliving. And whereas it is said upon the nativity of _Seth_, God hath\nappointed me another seed instead of _Abel_, it doth not imply he had no\nother all this while; but not any of that expectation, or appointed (as\nhis name applies) to make a progression in the holy line; in whom the\nworld was to be saved, and from whom he should be born, that was\nmystically slain in _Abel_.\n\nNow our first ground to induce the numerosity of people before the\nflood, is the long duration of their lives, beyond 7, 8, and 9, hundred\nyears. Which how it conduceth unto populosity we shall make but little\ndoubt, if we consider there are two main causes of numerosity in any\nkind or species, that is, a frequent and multiparous way of breeding,\nwhereby they fill the world with others, though they exist not long\nthemselves; or a long duration and subsistence, whereby they do not only\nreplenish the world with a new annumeration of others, but also maintain\nthe former account in themselves. From the first cause we may observe\nexamples in creatures oviparous, as Birds and Fishes; in vermiparous, as\nFlies, Locusts, and Gnats; in animals also viviparous, as Swine and\nConies. Of the first there is a great example in the herd of Swine in\n_Galilee_; although an unclean beast, and forbidden unto the _Jews_. Of\nthe other a remarkable one in _Athenus_, in the Isle _Astipalea_, one of\nthe Cyclades now called _Stampalia_, wherein from two that were\nimported, the number so increased, that the Inhabitants were constrained\nto have recourse unto the Oracle _Delphos_, for an invention how to\ndestroy them.\n\nOthers there are which make good the paucity of their breed with the\nlength and duration of their daies, whereof there want not examples in\nanimals uniparous: [SN: _A Million of Beeves yearly killed in England._]\nFirst, in bisulcous or cloven-hooft, as Camels, and Beeves, whereof\nthere is above a million annually slain in _England_. It is also said of\n_Job_, that he had a thousand yoak of Oxen, and six thousand Camels; and\nof the children of _Israel_ passing into the land of _Canaan_, that they\ntook from the _Midianites_ threescore and ten thousand Beeves; and of\nthe Army of _Semiramis_, that there were therein one hundred thousand\nCamels. For Solipeds or firm-hoofed animals, as Horses, Asses, Mules,\netc., they are also in mighty numbers, so it is delivered that _Job_\nhad a thousand she Asses: that the _Midianites_ lost sixty one thousand\nAsses. For Horses it is affirmed by _Diodorus_, that _Ninus_ brought\nagainst the _Bactrians_ two hundred eighty thousand Horses; after him\n_Semiramis_ five hundred thousand Horses, and Chariots one hundred\nthousand. Even in creatures steril and such as do not generate, the\nlength of life conduceth much unto the multiplicity of the species; for\nthe number of Mules which live far longer then their Dams or Sires, in\nCountries where they are bred, is very remarkable, and far more common\nthen Horses.\n\nFor Animals multifidous, or such as are digitated or have several\ndivisions in their feet, there are but two that are uniparous, that is,\nMen and Elephants; who though their productions be but single, are\nnotwithstanding very numerous. The Elephant (as _Aristotle_ affirmeth)\ncarrieth the young two years, and conceiveth not again (as _Edvardus\nLopez_ affirmeth) in many after, yet doth their age requite this\ndisadvantage; they living commonly one hundred, sometime two hundred\nyears. Now although they be rare with us in _Europe_, and altogether\nunknown unto _America_, yet in the two other parts of the world they are\nin great abundance, as appears by the relation of _Gorcias ab Horto_,\nPhysitian to the Viceroy at _Goa_, who relates that at one venation the\nKing of _Sion_ took four thousand; and is of opinion they are in other\nparts in greater number then herds of Beeves in _Europe_. And though\nthis delivered from a _Spaniard_ unacquainted with our Northern droves,\nmay seem very far to exceed; yet must we conceive them very numerous, if\nwe consider the number of teeth transported from one Country to another;\nthey having only two great teeth, and those not falling or renewing.\n\nAs for man, the disadvantage in his single issue is the same with these,\nand in the lateness of his generation somewhat greater then any; yet in\nthe continual and not interrupted time thereof, and the extent of his\ndays, he becomes at present, if not then any other species, at least\nmore numerous then these before mentioned. Now being thus numerous at\npresent, and in the measure of threescore, fourscore or an hundred\nyears, if their dayes extended unto six, seven, or eight hundred, their\ngenerations would be proportionably multiplied; their times of\ngeneration being not only multiplied, but their subsistence continued.\nFor though the great Grand-child went on, the _Petrucius_ [SN: _The term\nfor that person from whom consanguineal relations are accounted, as in\nthe_ Arbor civilis.] and first Original would subsist and make one of\nthe world; though he outlived all the terms of consanguinity, and became\na stranger unto his proper progeny. So by compute of Scripture _Adam_\nlived unto the ninth generation, unto the days of _Lamech_ the Father of\n_Noah_; _Methuselah_ unto the year of the flood; and _Noah_ was\ncontemporary unto all from _Enoch_ unto _Abraham_. So that although some\ndied, the father beholding so many descents, the number of Survivers\nmust still be very great; for if half the men were now alive, which\nlived in the last Century, the earth would scarce contain their number.\nWhereas in our abridged and Septuagesimal Ages, it is very rare, and\ndeserves a Distick [SN: Mater ait nat\u00e6 dic nat\u00e6 filia, etc.] to behold\nthe fourth generation. _Xerxes_ complaint still remaining; and what he\nlamented in his Army, being almost deplorable in the whole world: men\nseldom arriving unto those years whereby _Methuselah_ exceeded nine\nhundred, and what _Adam_ came short of a thousand, was defined long ago\nto be the age of man.\n\nNow although the length of days conduceth mainly unto the numerosity of\nmankind, and it be manifest from Scripture they lived very long, yet is\nnot the period of their lives determinable, and some might be longer\nlivers, than we account that any were. For (to omit that conceit of\nsome, that _Adam_ was the oldest man, in as much as he is conceived to\nbe created in the maturity of mankind, that is, at 60, (for in that age\nit is set down they begat children) so that adding this number unto his\n930, he was 21 years older than any of his posterity) that even\n_Methuselah_ was the longest liver of all the children of _Adam_, we\nneed not grant; nor is it definitively set down by _Moses_. Indeed of\nthose ten mentioned in Scripture, with their severall ages it must be\ntrue; but whether those seven of the line of _Cain_ and their progeny,\nor any of the sons or daughters posterity after them out-lived those, is\nnot expressed in holy Scripture; and it will seem more probable, that of\nthe line of _Cain_ some were longer lived than any of _Seth_; if we\nconcede that seven generations of the one lived as long as nine of the\nother. As for what is commonly alledged, that God would not permit the\nlife of any unto a thousand, because (alluding unto that of _David_) no\nman should live one day in the sight of the Lord; although it be urged\nby divers, yet is it methinks an inference somewhat Rabbinicall; and not\nof power to perswade a serious examinator.\n\nHaving thus declared how powerfully the length of lives conduced unto\npopulosity of those times, it will yet be easier acknowledged if we\ndescend to particularities, and consider how many in seven hundred years\nmight descend from one man; wherein considering the length of their\ndayes, we may conceive the greatest number to have been alive together.\nAnd this that no reasonable spirit may contradict, we will declare with\nmanifest disadvantage; for whereas the duration of the world unto the\nflood was above 1600 years, we will make our compute in less then half\nthat time. Nor will we begin with the first man, but allow the earth to\nbe provided of women fit for marriage the second or third first\nCenturies; and will only take as granted, that they might beget children\nat sixty, and at an hundred years have twenty, allowing for that number\nforty years. Nor will we herein single out _Methuselah_, or account from\nthe longest livers, but make choice of the shortest of any we find\nrecorded in the Text, excepting _Enoch_; who after he had lived as many\nyears as there be days in the year, was translated at 365. And thus from\none stock of seven hundred years, multiplying still by twenty, we shall\nfind the product to be one thousand, three hundred forty seven millions,\nthree hundred sixty eight thousand, four hundred and twenty.\n\n {1} 20.\n {2} 400.\n {3} 8000.\n {4} 160,000.\n Century {5} 3,200,000.\n {6} 46,000,000.\n {7} 1,280,000,000.\n {-----------------}\n Product { 1,347,368,420.}\n\nNow if this account of the learned _Petavius_ will be allowed, it will\nmake an unexpected encrease, and a larger number than may be found in\n_Asia_, _Africa_ and _Europe_; especially if in _Constantinople_, the\ngreatest City thereof, there be no more of Europe than _Botero_\naccounteth, seven hundred thousand souls. Which duly considered, we\nshall rather admire how the earth contained its inhabitants, then doubt\nits inhabitation; and might conceive the deluge not simply penall, but\nin some way also necessary, as many have conceived of translations, if\n_Adam_ had not sinned, and the race of man had remained upon earth\nimmortal.\n\nNow whereas some to make good their longevity, have imagined that the\nyears of their compute were Lunary; unto these we must reply: That if by\na Lunary year they understand twelve revolutions of the Moon, that is\n354 days, eleven fewer then in the Solary year; there will be no great\ndifference; at least not sufficient to convince or extenuate the\nquestion. But if by a Lunary year they mean one revolution of the Moon,\nthat is, a moneth, they first introduce a year never used by the Hebrews\nin their Civil accompts; and what is delivered before of the Chaldean\nyears (as _Xenophon_ gives a caution) was only received in the\nChronology of their Arts. Secondly, they contradict the Scripture, which\nmakes a plain enumeration of many moneths in the account of the Deluge;\nfor so is it expressed in the Text. In the tenth moneth, in the first\nday of the moneth were the tops of the mountains seen: Concordant\nwhereunto is the relation of humane Authors, _Inundationes plures fuere,\nprima novimestris inundatio terrarum sub prisco Ogyge. [SN: Xenophon de\n\u00c6quivocis.] Meminisse hoc loco par est post primum diluvium Ogygi\ntemporibus notatum, cum novem et amplius mensibus diem continua nox\ninumbrasset, Delon ante omnes terras radiis solis illuminatum\nsortitumque ex eo nomen._ [SN: Solinus.] And lastly, they fall upon an\nabsurdity, for they make _Enoch_ to beget children about six years of\nage. For whereas it is said he begat _Methuselah_ at 65, if we shall\naccount every moneth a year, he was at that time some six years and an\nhalf, for so many moneths are contained in that space of time.\n\nHaving thus declared how much the length of mens lives conduced unto the\npopulosity of their kind, our second foundation must be the large extent\nof time, from the Creation unto the Deluge, that is (according unto\nreceived computes about 1655 years) almost as long a time as hath passed\nsince the nativity of our Saviour: and this we cannot but conceive\nsufficient for a very large increase, if we do but affirm what\nreasonable enquirers will not deny: That the earth might be as populous\nin that number of years before the flood, as we can manifest it was in\nthe same number after. And whereas there may be conceived some\ndisadvantage, in regard that at the Creation the original of mankind was\nin two persons, but after the flood their propagation issued at least\nfrom six; against this we might very well set the length of their lives\nbefore the flood, which were abbreviated after, and in half this space\ncontracted into hundreds and threescores. Notwithstanding to equalize\naccounts, we will allow three hundred years, and so long a time as we\ncan manifest from the Scripture. There were four men at least that begat\nchildren, _Adam_, _Cain_, _Seth_, and _Enos_; So shall we fairly and\nfavourably proceed, if we affirm the world to have been as populous in\nsixteen hundred and fifty before the flood, as it was in thirteen\nhundred after. Now how populous and largely inhabited it was within this\nperiod of time, we shall declare from probabilities, and several\ntestimonies of Scripture and humane Authors.\n\nAnd first, To manifest the same neer those parts of the earth where the\nArk is presumed to have rested, we have the relation of holy Scripture\naccounting the genealogy of _Japhet_, _Cham_ and _Sem_, and in this\nlast, four descents unto the division of the earth in the days of\n_Peleg_, which time although it were not upon common compute much above\nan hundred years, yet were men at this time mightily increased. Nor can\nwe well conceive it otherwise, if we consider they began already to\nwander from their first habitation, and were able to attempt so mighty a\nwork as the building of a City and a Tower, whose top should reach unto\nthe heavens. Whereunto there was required no slender number of persons,\nif we consider the magnitude thereof, expressed by some, and conceived\nto be _Turris Beli_ in _Herodotus_; and the multitudes of people\nrecorded at the erecting of the like or inferiour structures: for at the\nbuilding of _Solomons_ Temple there were threescore and ten thousand\nthat carried burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains,\nbeside the chief of his officers three thousand and three hundred; and\nat the erecting of the Piramids in the reign of King _Cheops_, as\n_Herodotus_ reports, there were _decem myriads_, that is an hundred\nthousand _men_. And though it be said of the _Egyptians_, _Porrum et\nc\u00e6pe nefas violare et frangere morsu_ [SN: Juvenal.]; yet did the summes\nexpended in Garlick and Onyons amount unto no less then one thousand six\nhundred Talents.\n\n[Sidenote: _Who_ Nimrod _and_ Assur _were._]\n\nThe first Monarchy or Kingdom of _Babylon_ is mentioned in Scripture\nunder the foundation of _Nimrod_, which is also recorded in humane\nhistory; as beside _Berosus_, in _Diodorus_ and _Justine_, for _Nimrod_\nof the Scriptures is _Belus_ of the Gentiles, and _Assur_ the same with\n_Ninus_ his successour. There is also mention of divers Cities,\nparticularly of _Ninivey_ and _Resen_ expressed emphatically in the Text\nto be a great City.\n\nThat other Countries round about were also peopled, appears by the Wars\nof the Monarchs of _Assyria_ with the _Bactrians_, _Indians_,\n_Scythians_, _Ethiopians_, _Armenians_, _Hyrcanians_, _Parthians_,\n_Persians_, _Susians_; they vanquishing (as _Diodorus_ relateth)\n_Egypt_, _Syria_, and all _Asia_ minor, even from _Bosphorus_ unto\n_Tanais_. And it is said, that _Semiramis_ in her expedition against the\n_Indians_ brought along with her the King of _Arabia_. About the same\ntime of the _Assyrian_ Monarchy, do Authors place that of the\n_Sycionians_ in _Greece_, and soon after that of the _Argives_, and not\nvery long after, that of the _Athenians_ under _Cecrops_; and within our\nperiod assumed are historified many memorable actions of the Greeks, as\nthe expedition of the _Argonautes_, with the most famous Wars of\n_Thebes_ and _Troy_.\n\nThat _Canaan_ also and _Egypt_ were well peopled far within this period,\nbesides their plantation by _Canaan_ and _Misraim_, appeareth from the\nhistory of _Abraham_, who in less then 400 years after the Flood,\njournied from _Mesopotamia_ unto _Canaan_ and _Egypt_, both which he\nfound well peopled and policied into Kingdoms: wherein also in 430\nyears, from threescore and ten persons which came with _Jacob_ into\n_Egypt_, he became a mighty Nation; for it is said, at their departure,\nthere journeyed from _Rhamesis_ to _Succoth_ about six hundred thousand\non foot, that were men, besides children. Now how populous the land from\nwhence they came was, may be collected not only from their ability in\ncommanding such subjections and mighty powers under them, but from the\nseveral accounts of that Kingdom delivered by _Herodotus_. And how soon\nit was peopled, is evidenced from the pillar of their King _Osyris_,\nwith this inscription in _Diodorus_; _Mihi pater est Saturnus deorum\njunior, sum vero Osyris rex qui totum peragravi orbem usq; ad Indorum\nfines, ad eos quoq; sum profectus qui septentrioni subjacent usq; ad\nIstri fontes, et alias partes usq; ad Occanum._ [SN: _Who_ Osyris _and_\nSaturnus \u00c6gyptius _were_.] Now according unto the best determinations\n_Osyris_ was _Misraim_, and _Saturnus Egyptius_ the same with _Cham_;\nafter whose name _Egypt_ is not only called in Scripture the laud of\n_Ham_, but thus much is also testified by _Plutarch_; for in his\nTreatise _de Osyride_, he delivereth that _Egypt_ was called _Chamia a\nChamo Noe filio_, that is from _Cham_ the son of _Noah_. And if\naccording to the consent of ancient Fathers, _Adam_ was buried in the\nsame place where Christ was crucified, that is Mount _Calvary_, the\nfirst man ranged far before the Flood, and laid his bones many miles\nfrom that place, where its presumed he received them. And this migration\nwas the greater, if as the text expresseth, he was cast out of the\nEast-side of Paradise to till the ground; and as the Position of the\nCherubines implieth, who were placed at the east end of the garden to\nkeep him from the tree of life.\n\nThat the remoter parts of the earth were in this time inhabited is also\ninduceable from the like testimonies; for (omitting the numeration of\n_Josephus_, and the genealogies of the Sons of _Noah_) that _Italy_ was\ninhabited, appeareth from the Records of _Livie_, and _Dionysius\nHalicarnasscus_, the story of _\u00c6neas_, _Evander_ and _Janus_, whom\n_Annius_ of _Viterbo_, and the Chorographers of _Italy_, do make to be\nthe same with _Noah_. That _Sicily_ was also peopled, is made out from\nthe frequent mention thereof in _Homer_, the Records of _Diodorus_ and\nothers; but especially from a remarkable passage touched by _Aretius_\nand _Ranzanus_ Bishop of _Lucerium_, but fully explained by _Thomas\nFazelli_ in his accurate History of _Sicily_; that is, from an ancient\ninscription in a stone at _Panormo_, expressed by him in its proper\ncharacters, and by a _Syrian_ thus translated, _Non est alius Deus\npr\u00e6ter unum Deum, non est alius potens pr\u00e6ter eundem Deum, neq; est\nalius victor pr\u00e6ter eundem quem colimus Deum: Hujus turris pr\u00e6fectus\nest_ Sapha _filius_ Eliphat, _filii_ Esau, _fratris_ Jacob, _filii_\nIsaac, _filii_ Abraham: _et turri quidem ipsi nomen est_ Baych, _sed\nturri huic proxim\u00e6 nomen est_ Pharath. The antiquity of the inhabitation\nof _Spain_ is also confirmable, not only from _Berosus_ in the\nplantation of _Tubal_, and a City continuing yet in his name, but the\nstory of _Gerion_, the travels of _Hercules_ and his pillars: and\nespecially a passage in _Strabo_, which advanceth unto the time of\n_Ninus_, thus delivered in his fourth book. The _Spaniards_ (saith he)\naffirm that they have had Laws and Letters above six thousand years. Now\nthe _Spaniards_ or _Iberians_ observing (as _Xenophon_ hath delivered)\n_Annum quadrimestrem_, four moneths unto a year, this compute will make\nup 2000 solary years, which is about the space of time from _Strabo_,\nwho lived in the days of _Augustus_, unto the reign of _Ninus_.\n\nThat _Mauritania_ and the coast of _Africa_ were peopled very soon, is\nthe conjecture of many wise men, and that by the _Ph\u0153nicians_, who\nleft their Country upon the invasion of _Canaan_ by the _Israelites_.\nFor beside the conformity of the _Punick_ or _Carthaginian_ language\nwith that of _Ph\u0153nicia_, there is a pregnant and very remarkable\ntestimony hereof in _Procopius_, who in his second _de bello Vandalico_,\nrecordeth, that in a town of _Mauritania Tingitana_, there was to be\nseen upon two white Columns in the _Ph\u0153nician_ language these ensuing\nwords; _Nos Maurici sumus qui fugimus a facie Jehoschua filii Nunis\npr\u00e6datoris_. The fortunate Islands or _Canaries_ were not unknown; for\nso doth _Strabo_ interpret that speech in _Homer_ of _Proteus_ unto\n_Menelaus_,\n\n _Sed te qua terr\u00e6 postremus terminus extat,\n Elysium in Campum c\u0153lestia numina ducunt._\n\nThe like might we affirm from credible histories both of _France_ and\n_Germany_, and perhaps also of our own Country. For omitting the\nfabulous and _Trojan_ original delivered by _Jeofrey_ of _Monmouth_, and\nthe express text of Scripture; that the race of _Japhet_ did people the\nIsles of the _Gentiles_; the _Brittish_ Original was so obscure in\n_C\u00e6sars_ time, that he affirmeth the Inland inhabitants were\n_Aborigines_, that is, such as reported that they had their beginning in\nthe Island. That _Ireland_ our neighbour Island was not long time\nwithout Inhabitants, may be made probable by sundry accounts; although\nwe abate the Traditions of _Bartholanus_ the _Scythian_, who arrived\nthere three hundred years after the flood, or the relation of\n_Giraldus_; that _C\u00e6saria_ the daughter of _Noah_ dwelt there before.\n\nNow should we call in the learned account of _Bochartus_ [SN: Bochart.\nGeog. _Sacr. part. 2._], deducing the ancient names of Countries from\n_Ph\u0153nicians_, who by their plantations, discoveries, and sea\nnegotiations, have left unto very many Countries, _Ph\u0153nician_\ndenominations; the enquiry would be much shorter, and if _Spain_ in the\n_Ph\u0153nician_ Original, be but the region of _Conies_, _Lusitania_, or\n_Portugal_ the Countrey of Almonds, if _Brittanica_ were at first\n_Baratanaca_, or the land of Tin, and _Ibernia_ or _Ireland_, were but\n_Ibernae_, or the farthest habitation; and these names imposed and\ndispersed by _Ph\u0153nician_ Colonies in their several navigations; the\nAntiquity of habitations might be more clearly advanced.\n\nThus though we have declared how largely the world was inhabited within\nthe space of 1300 years, yet must it be conceived more populous then can\nbe clearly evinced; for a greater part of the earth hath ever been\npeopled, then hath been known or described by Geographers, as will\nappear by the discoveries of all Ages. For neither in _Herodotus_ or\n_Thucydides_ do we find any mention of _Rome_, nor in _Ptolomy_ of many\nparts of _Europe_, _Asia_ or _Africa_. And because many places we have\ndeclared of long plantations of whose populosity notwithstanding or\nmemorable actions we have no ancient story; if we may conjecture of\nthese by what we find related of others, we shall not need many words,\nnor assume the half of 1300 years. And this we might illustrate from the\nmighty acts of the _Assyrians_ performed not long after the flood;\nrecorded by _Justine_ and _Diodorus_; who makes relation of expeditions\nby Armies more numerous then have been ever since. For _Ninus_ King of\n_Assyria_ brought against the _Bactrians_ 700000 foot, 200000 horse,\n10600 Chariots. _Semiramis_ his successor led against the _Indians_\n1300000 foot, 500000 horse, 100000 Chariots, and as many upon Camels:\nAnd it is said, _Staurobates_ the _Indian_ King, met her with greater\nforces then she brought against him. All which was performed within less\nthen four hundred years after the flood.\n\nNow if any imagine the unity of their language did hinder their\ndispersion before the flood, we confess it some hindrance at first, but\nnot much afterward. For though it might restrain their dispersion, it\ncould not their populosity; which necessarily requireth transmigration\nand emission of Colonies; as we read of _Romans_, _Greeks_,\n_Ph\u0153nicians_ in ages past, and have beheld examples thereof in our\ndays. We may also observe that after the flood before the confusion of\ntongues, men began to disperse: for it is said, they journeyed towards\nthe East: and the Scripture it self expresseth a necessity conceived of\ntheir dispersion, for the intent of erecting the Tower is so delivered\nin the text, Lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth.\n\n[Sidenote: _Whether any Islands before the Flood._]\n\nAgain, If any apprehend the plantation of the earth more easie in regard\nof Navigation and shipping discovered since the flood, whereby the\nIslands and divided parts of the earth are now inhabited; he must\nconsider, that whether there were Islands or no before the flood, is not\nyet determined, and is with probability denied by very learned Authors.\n\nLastly, If we shall fall into apprehension that it was less inhabited,\nbecause it is said in the sixt of _Genesis_ about a 120 years before the\nflood, and it came to pass that when men began to multiply upon the face\nof the earth. Beside that this may be only meant of the race of _Cain_,\nit will not import they were not multiplied before, but that they were\nat that time plentifully encreased; for so is the same word used in\nother parts of Scripture. And so is it afterward in the 9 Chapter said,\nthat _Noah_ began to be an husbandman, that is, he was so, or earnestly\nperformed the Acts thereof; so it is said of our Saviour, that he began\nto cast them out that bought and sold in the Temple, that is, he\nactually cast them out, or with alacrity effected it.\n\nThus have I declared some private and probable conceptions in the\nenquiry of this truth; but the certainty hereof let the Arithmetick of\nthe last day determine; and therefore expect no further belief than\nprobability and reason induce. Only desire men would not swallow\ndubiosities for certainties, and receive as Principles points mainly\ncontrovertible; for we are to adhere unto things doubtful in a dubious\nand opinative way. It being reasonable for every man to vary his opinion\naccording to the variance of his reason, and to affirm one day what he\ndenied another. Wherein although at last we miss of truth; we die\nnotwithstanding in harmless and inoffensive errors; because we adhere\nunto that, whereunto the examen of our reasons, and honest enquiries\ninduce us.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n Of East, and West.\n\n\nThe next shall be of East and West; that is, the proprieties and\nconditions ascribed unto Regions respectively unto those situations;\nwhich hath been the obvious conception of Philosophers and Geographers,\nmagnifying the condition of _India_, and the Eastern Countries, above\nthe setting and occidental Climates, some ascribing hereto the\ngeneration of gold, precious stones and spices, others the civility and\nnatural endowments of men; conceiving the bodies of this situation to\nreceive a special impression from the first salutes of the Sun, and some\nappropriate influence from his ascendent and oriental radiations. But\nthese proprieties affixed unto bodies, upon considerations deduced from\nEast, West, or those observable points of the sphere, how specious and\nplausible so ever, will not upon enquiry be justified from such\nfoundations.\n\nFor to speak strictly, there is no East and West in nature, nor are\nthose absolute and invariable, but respective and mutable points,\naccording unto different longitudes, or distant parts of habitation,\nwhereby they suffer many and considerable variations. For first, unto\nsome the same part will be East or West in respect of one another, that\nis, unto such as inhabit the same parallel, or differently dwell from\nEast to West. Thus as unto _Spain_, _Italy_ lyeth East, unto _Italy_\n_Greece_, unto _Greece_ _Persia_, and unto _Persia_ _China_; so again\nunto the Country of _China_, _Persia_ lyeth West, unto _Persia_\n_Greece_, unto _Greece_ _Italy_, and unto _Italy_ _Spain_. So that the\nsame Countrey is sometimes East and sometimes West; and _Persia_ though\nEast unto _Greece_, yet is it West unto _China_.\n\nUnto other habitations the same point will be both East and West; as\nunto those that are _Antipodes_ or seated in points of the Globe\ndiametrically opposed. So the _Americans_ are Antipodal unto the\n_Indians_, and some part of _India_ is both East and West unto\n_America_, according as it shall be regarded from one side or the other,\nto the right or to the left; and setting out from any middle point,\neither by East or West, the distance unto the place intended is equal,\nand in the same space of time in nature also performable.\n\nTo a third that have the Poles for their vertex, or dwell in the\nposition of a parallel sphere, there will be neither East nor West, at\nleast the greatest part of the year. For if (as the name _Oriental_\nimplyeth) they shall account that part to be East where ever the Sun\nariseth, or that West where the Sun is occidental or setteth: almost\nhalf the year they have neither the one nor the other. For half the year\nit is below their Horizon, and the other half it is continually above\nit, and circling round about them intersecting not the Horizon, nor\nleaveth any part for this compute. And if (which will seem very\nreasonable) that part should be termed the Eastern point, where the Sun\nat \u00c6quinox, and but once in the year ariseth, yet will this also disturb\nthe cardinal accounts, nor will it with propriety admit that\nappellation. For that surely cannot be accounted East which hath the\nSouth on both sides; which notwithstanding this position must have. For\nif unto such as live under the Pole, that he only North which is above\nthem, that must be Southerly which is below them, which is all the other\nportion of the by Globe, beside that part possessed them. And thus these\npoints of East and West being not absolute in any, respective in some,\nand not at all relating unto others; we cannot hereon establish so\ngeneral considerations, nor reasonably erect such immutable assertions,\nupon so unstable foundations.\n\nNow the ground that begat or promoted this conceit, was first a mistake\nin the apprehension of East and West, considering thereof as of the\nNorth and South, and computing by these as invariably as by the other;\nbut herein, upon second thoughts there is a great disparity. [SN: _What\nthe Northern and Southern Poles be._] For the North and Southern Pole,\nare the invariable terms of that Axis whereon the heavens do move; and\nare therefore incommunicable and fixed points; wherof the one is not\napprehensible in the other. But with East and West it is quite\notherwise: for the revolution of the Orbs being made upon the Poles of\nNorth and South, all other points about the Axis are mutable; and\nwheresoever therein the East point be determined, by succession of parts\nin one revolution every point becometh East. And so if where the Sun\nariseth, that part be termed East, every habitation differing in\nlongitude, will have this point also different; in as much as the Sun\nsuccessively ariseth unto every one.\n\nThe second ground, although it depend upon the former, approacheth\nnearer the effect; and that is the efficacy of the Sun, set out and\ndivided according to priority of ascent; whereby his influence is\nconceived more favourable unto one Countrey than another, and to\nfelicitate _India_ more than any after. But hereby we cannot avoid\nabsurdities, and such as infer effects controulable by our senses. For\nfirst, by the same reason that we affirm the _Indian_ richer than the\n_American_, the _American_ will also be more plentiful than the\n_Indian_, and _England_ or _Spain_ more fruitful than _Hispaniola_ or\ngolden Castle: in as much as the Sun ariseth unto the one sooner than\nthe other: and so accountably unto any Nation subjected unto the same\nparallel, or with a considerable diversity of longitude from each other.\n\nSecondly, An unsufferable absurdity will ensue: for thereby a Country\nmay be more fruitful than it self: For _India_ is more fertile than\n_Spain_, because more East, and that the Sun ariseth first unto it:\n_Spain_, likewise by the same reason more fruitful than _America_, and\n_America_ than _India_: so that _Spain_ is less fruitful than that\nCountrey, which a less fertile Country than it self excelleth.\n\nLastly, If we conceive the Sun hath any advantage by priority of ascent,\nor makes thereby one Country more happy than another, we introduce\ninjustifiable determinations, and impose a natural partiality on that\nLuminary, which being equidistant from the earth, and equally removed in\nthe East as in the West, his Power and Efficacy in both places must be\nequal, as _Boetius_ hath taken notice, and _Scaliger_ [SN: De gemmis\nexercitat.] hath graphically declared. Some have therefore forsaken this\nrefuge of the Sun, and to salve the effect have recurred unto the\ninfluence of the Stars, making their activities National, and\nappropriating their Powers unto particular regions. So _Cardan_\nconceiveth the tail of _Ursa Major_ peculiarly respecteth _Europe_:\nwhereas indeed once in 24 hours it also absolveth its course over _Asia_\nand _America_. And therefore it will not be easie to apprehend those\nstars peculiarly glance on us, who must of necessity carry a common eye\nand regard unto all Countries, unto whom their revolution and verticity\nis also common.\n\nThe effects therefore or different productions in several Countries,\nwhich we impute unto the action of the Sun, must surely have nearer and\nmore immediate causes than that Luminary. And these if we place in the\npropriety of clime, or condition of soil wherein they are produced, we\nshall more reasonably proceed, than they who ascribe them unto the\nactivity of the Sun. Whose revolution being regular, it hath no power\nnor efficacy peculiar from its orientality, but equally disperseth his\nbeams unto all, which equally, and in the same restriction, receive his\nlustre. And being an universal and indefinite agent, the effects or\nproductions we behold, receive not their circle from his causality, but\nare determined by the principles of the place, or qualities of that\nregion which admits them. And this is evident not only in gemms,\nminerals, and mettals, but observable in plants and animals; whereof\nsome are common unto many Countries, some peculiar unto one, some not\ncommunicable unto another. [SN: _Whence proceed the different\ncommodities of several Countries._] For the hand of God that first\ncreated the earth, hath with variety disposed the principles of all\nthings; wisely contriving them in their proper seminaries, and where\nthey best maintain the intention of their species; whereof if they have\nnot a concurrence, and be not lodged in a convenient matrix, they are\nnot excited by the efficacy of the Sun; or failing in particular causes,\nreceive a relief or sufficient promotion from the universal. For\nalthough superiour powers co-operate with inferiour activities, and may\n(as some conceive) carry a stroke in the plastick and formative draught\nof all things, yet do their determinations belong unto particular\nagents, and are defined from their proper principles. Thus the Sun which\nwith us is fruitful in the generation of Frogs, Toads and Serpents, to\nthis effect proves impotent in our neighbour Island; wherein as in all\nother carrying a common aspect, it concurreth but unto predisposed\neffects; and only suscitates those forms, whose determinations are\nseminal, and proceed from the _Idea_ of themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why Astrological judgments upon Nativities be taken from the\nAscendent._]\n\nNow whereas there be many observations concerning East, and divers\nconsiderations of Art which seem to extol the quality of that point, if\nrightly understood they do not really promote it. That the Astrologer\ntakes account of nativities from the Ascendent, that is, the first house\nof the heavens, whose beginning is toward the East, it doth not\nadvantage the conceit. For, he establisheth not his Judgment upon the\norientality thereof, but considereth therein his first ascent above the\nHorizon; at which time its efficacy becomes observable, and is conceived\nto have the signification of life, and to respect the condition of all\nthings, which at the same time arise from their causes, and ascend to\ntheir Horizon with it. Now this ascension indeed falls out respectively\nin the East: but as we have delivered before, in some positions there is\nno Eastern point from whence to compute these ascentions. So is it in a\nparallel sphere: for unto them six houses are continually depressed, and\nsix never elevated: and the planets themselves, whose revolutions are\nof more speed, and influences of higher consideration, must find in that\nplace a very imperfect regard; for half their period they absolve above,\nand half beneath the Horizon. And so for six years, no man can have the\nhappiness to be born under _Jupiter_: and for fifteen together all must\nescape the ascendent dominion of _Saturn_.\n\nThat _Aristotle_ in his Politicks, commends the situation of a City\nwhich is open towards the East, and admitteth the raies of the rising\nSun, thereby is implied no more particular efficacy than in the West:\nBut that position is commended, in regard the damps and vaporous\nexhalations ingendered in the absence of the Sun, are by his returning\nraies the sooner dispelled; and men thereby more early enjoy a clear and\nhealthy habitation. Upon the like considerations it is, that _Marcus\nVarro_ [SN: De re Rustica.] commendeth the same situation, and exposeth\nhis farm unto the equinoxial ascent of the Sun, and that _Palladius_\nadviseth the front of his edifice should so respect the South, that in\nthe first angle it receive the rising raies of the Winter Sun, and\ndecline a little from the Winter setting thereof. And concordant\nhereunto is the instruction of _Columella De positione vill\u00e6_: which he\ncontriveth into Summer and Winter habitations, ordering that the Winter\nlodgings regard the Winter ascent of the Sun, that is South-East; and\nthe rooms of repast at supper, the \u00c6quinoxial setting thereof, that is\nthe West: that the Summer lodgings regard the \u00c6quinoxial Meridian: but\nthe rooms of c\u00e6nation in the Summer, he obverts unto the Winter ascent,\nthat is, South-East; and the Balnearies or bathing places, that they may\nremain under the Sun until evening, he exposeth unto the Summer\nsetting, that is, North-West, in all which although the Cardinal points\nbe introduced, yet is the consideration Solary, and only determined unto\nthe aspect or visible reception of the Sun.\n\n_Jews_ and _Mahometans_ in these and our neighbour parts are observed to\nuse some gestures towards the East, as at their benediction, and the\nkilling of their meat. And though many ignorant spectators, and not a\nfew of the Actors conceive some Magick or Mysterie therein, yet is the\nCeremony only Topical, and in a memorial relation unto a place they\nhonour. So the _Jews_ do carry a respect and cast an eye upon\n_Jerusalem_: for which practice they are not without the example of\ntheir fore-fathers, and the encouragement of their wise King; For so it\nis said that _Daniel_ [SN: _Dan._ 6.] went into his house, and his\nwindows being opened towards _Jerusalem_, he kneeled upon his knees\nthree times a day, and prayed. So is it expressed in the prayer of\n_Solomon_, what prayer or supplication soever be made by any man, which\nshall spread forth his hands towards this house: if thy people go out to\nbattle, and shall pray unto the Lord towards the City which thou hast\nchosen, and towards the house which I have chosen to build for thy Name,\nthen hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and\nmaintain their cause. Now the observation hereof, unto the Jews that are\ndispersed Westward, and such as most converse with us, directeth their\nregard unto the East: But the words of _Solomon_ are appliable unto all\nquarters of Heaven: and by the Jews of the East and South must be\nregarded in a contrary position. So _Daniel_ in _Babylon_ looking toward\n_Jerusalem_ had his face toward the West. So the Jews in their own land\nlooked upon it from all quarters. For the Tribe of _Judah_ beheld it to\nthe North: _Manasses_, _Zabulon_, and _Napthali_ unto the South:\n_Reuben_ and _Gad_ unto the West; only the Tribe of _Dan_ regarded it\ndirectly or to the due East. So when it is said [SN: _Luke_ 12.], when\nyou see a cloud rise out of the West, you say there cometh a shower, and\nso it is: the observation was respective unto _Judea_: nor is this a\nreasonable illation in all other Nations whatsoever: For the Sea lay\nWest unto that Country, and the winds brought rain from that quarter;\nBut this consideration cannot be transferred unto _India_ or _China_,\nwhich have a vast Sea Eastward, and a vaster Continent toward the West.\nSo likewise when it is said [SN: _Job._] in the vulgar Translation, Gold\ncometh out of the North, it is no reasonable inducement unto us and many\nother Countries, from some particular mines septentrional unto his\nsituation, to search after that mettal in cold and Northern regions,\nwhich we most plentifully discover in hot and Southern habitations.\n\nFor the _Mahometans_, as they partake with all Religions in something,\nso they imitate the _Jew_ in this. For in their observed gestures, they\nhold a regard unto _Mecha_ and _Medina Talnabi_, two Cities in _Arabia\nf\u00e6lix_, where their Prophet was born and buried; whither they perform\ntheir pilgrimages: and from whence they expect he should return again.\nAnd therefore they direct their faces unto these parts, which unto the\n_Mahometans_ of _Barbary_ and _Egypt_ lie East, and are in some point\nthereof unto many other parts of _Turkie_. Wherein notwithstanding there\nis no Oriental respect; for with the same devotion on the other side\nthey regard these parts toward the West, and so with variety wheresover\nthey are seated, conforming unto the ground of their conception.\n\nFourthly, Whereas in the ordering of the Camp of _Israel_, the East\nquarter is appointed unto the noblest Tribe, that is the Tribe of\n_Judah_, according to the command of God [SN: _Num. 3._], in the\nEast-side toward the rising of the Sun shall the Standard of the Tribe\nof _Judah_ pitch: it doth not peculiarly extol that point. For herein\nthe East is not to be taken strictly, but as it signifieth or implieth\nthe foremost place; for _Judah_ had the Van, and many Countries through\nwhich they passed were seated Easterly unto them. Thus much is implied\nby the Original, and expressed by Translations which strictly conform\nthereto: So _Tremelius_, _Castra habentium ab anteriore parte Orientem\nversus, vexillum esto castrorum Jud\u00e6_; so hath _R. Solomon Jarchi_\nexpounded it, the foremost or before, is the East quarter, and the West\nis called behind. And upon this interpretation may all be salved that is\nalleageable against it. For if the Tribe of _Judah_ were to pitch before\nthe Tabernacle at the East, and yet to march first, as is commanded,\n_Numb._ 10. there must ensue a disorder in the Camp, nor could they\nconveniently observe the execution thereof: For when they set out from\n_Mount Sinah_ where the Command was delivered, they made Northward unto\n_Rithmah_; from _Rissah_ unto _Eziongaber_ about fourteen stations they\nmarched South: From _Almon Diblathaim_ through the mountains of\n_Yabarim_ and plains of _Moab_ towards _Jordan_ the face of their march\nwas West: So that if _Judah_ were strictly to pitch in the East of the\nTabernacle, every night he encamped in the Rear: and if (as some\nconceive) the whole Camp could not be less than twelve miles long, it\nhad been preposterous for him to have marched foremost; or set out first\nwho was most remote from the place to be approached.\n\nFiftly, That Learning, Civility and Arts had their beginning in the\nEast, it is not imputable either to the action of the Sun, or its\nOrientality, but the first plantation of Man in those parts, which unto\n_Europe_ do carry the respect of East. [SN: _Where the Ark rested as\nsome think._] For on the mountains of _Ararat_, that is part of the hill\n_Taurus_, between the _East Indies_ and _Scythia_, as Sir _W. Raleigh_\naccounts it, the Ark of _Noah_ rested; from the East they travelled that\nbuilt the Tower of _Babel_: from thence they were dispersed and\nsuccessively enlarged, and Learning, good Arts, and all Civility\ncommunicated. The progression whereof was very sensible; and if we\nconsider the distance of time between the confusion of _Babel_, and the\nCivility of many parts now eminent therein, it travelled late and slowly\ninto our quarters. For notwithstanding the learning of _Bardes_ and\n_Druides_ of elder times, he that shall peruse that work of _Tacitus de\nmoribus Germanorum_, may easily discern how little Civility two thousand\nyears had wrought upon that Nation: the like he may observe concerning\nour selves, from the same Author in the life of _Agricola_, and more\ndirectly from _Strabo_; who to the dishonour of our Predecessors, and\nthe disparagement of those that glory in the Antiquity of their\nAncestors, affirmeth the _Britains_ were so simple, that though they\nabounded in Milk, they had not the Artifice of Cheese.\n\nLastly, That the Globe it self is by Cosmographers divided into East and\nWest, accounting from the first Meridian, it doth not establish this\nconceit. For that division is not naturally founded, but artificially\nset down, and by agreement; as the aptest terms to define or\ncommensurate the longitude of places. Thus the ancient Cosmographers do\nplace the division of the East and Western Hemisphere, that is the first\nterm of longitude in the Canary or fortunate Islands; conceiving these\nparts the extreamest habitations Westward: But the Moderns have altered\nthat term, and translated it unto the Azores or Islands of St.\n_Michael_; and that upon a plausible conceit of the small or insensible\nvariation of the Compass in those parts, wherein nevertheless, and\nthough upon second invention, they proceed upon a common and no\nappropriate foundation; for even in that Meridian farther North or South\nthe Compass observably varieth; and there are also other places wherein\nit varieth not, as _Alphonso_ and _Rodoriges de Lago_ will have it about\n_Capo de las Agullas_ in _Africa_; as _Maurolycus_ affirmeth in the\nshore of _Peleponesus_ in _Europe_: and as _Gilbertus_ averreth, in the\nmidst of great regions, in most parts of the earth.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n Of the River _Nilus_.\n\n\nHereof uncontroulably and under general consent many opinions are\npassant, which notwithstanding upon due examination, do admit of doubt\nor restriction. It is generally esteemed, and by most unto our days\nreceived, that the River of _Nilus_ hath seven ostiaries; that is, by\nseven Channels disburdeneth it self into the Sea. Wherein\nnotwithstanding, beside that we find no concurrent determination of ages\npast, and a positive and undeniable refute of these present, the\naffirmative is mutable, and must not be received without all limitation.\n\nFor some, from whom we receive the greatest illustrations of Antiquity,\nhave made no mention hereof: So _Homer_ hath given no number of its\nChannels, nor so much as the name thereof in use with all Historians.\n_Eratosthenes_ in his description of _Egypt_ hath likewise passed them\nover. [SN: How Egypt first became firm land.] _Aristotle_ is so\nindistinct in their names and numbers, that in the first _of Meteors_ he\nplainly affirmeth the Region of _Egypt_ (which we esteem the ancientest\nNation in the world) was a meer gained ground, and that by the setling\nof mud and limous matter brought down by the River _Nilus_, that which\nwas at first a continued Sea, was raised at last into a firm and\nhabitable Country. The like opinion he held of _M\u00e6otis Palus_, that by\nthe floods of _Tanais_ and earth brought down thereby, it grew\nobservably shallower in his days, and would in process of time become a\nfirm land. And though his conjecture be not as yet fulfilled, yet is the\nlike observable in the River _Gihon_, a branch of _Euphrates_ and River\nof Paradise; which having in former Ages discharged it self into the\n_Persian_ Sea, doth at present fall short; being lost in the lakes of\n_Chaldea_, and hath left between the Sea, a large and considerable part\nof dry land.\n\nOthers expresly treating hereof, have diversly delivered themselves;\n_Herodotus_ in his Euterpe makes mention of seven; but carelesly of two\nthereof; that is _Bolbitinum_, and _Bucolicum_; for these, saith he,\nwere not the natural currents, but made by Art for some occasional\nconvenience. _Strabo_ in his Geography naming but two, _Peleusiacum_ and\n_Canopicum_, plainly affirmeth there were many more than seven; _Inter\nh\u00e6c alia quinque_, etc. There are (saith he) many remarkable towns\nwithin the currents of Nile, especially such which have given the names\nunto the ostiaries thereof, not unto all, for they are eleven, and four\nbesides, but unto seven and most considerable; that is _Canopicum_,\n_Bolbitinum_, _Selenneticum_, _Sebenneticum_, _Pharniticum_,\n_Mendesium_, _Taniticum_ and _Pelusium_: wherein to make up the number,\none of the artificial chanels of _Herodotus_ is accounted. _Ptolomy_ an\n_Egyptian_, and born at the _Pelusian_ mouth of _Nile_, in his Geography\nmaketh nine: and in the third Map of _Africa_, hath unto their mouths\nprefixed their several names; _Heracleoticum_, _Bolbitinum_,\n_Sebenneticum_, _Pineptum_, _Diolcos_, _Pathmeticum_, _Mendesium_,\n_Taniticum_, _Peleusiacum_: wherein notwithstanding there are no less\nthen three different names from those delivered by _Pliny_. All which\nconsidered, we may easily discern that Authors accord not either in name\nor number; and must needs confirm the Judgement of _Maginus_, _de\nOstiorum Nili numero et nominibus, valde antiqui scriptores discordant_.\n\nModern Geographers and travellers do much abate of this number, for as\n_Maginus_ and others observe, there are now but three or four mouths\nthereof; as _Gulielmus Tyrius_ long ago, and _Bellonius_ since, both\nocular enquirers, with others have attested. For below _Cairo_, the\nRiver divides it self into four branches, whereof two make the chief and\nnavigable streams, the one running to _Pelusium_ of the Ancients, and\nnow _Damiata_; the other unto _Canopium_, and now _Roscetta_; the other\ntwo, saith Mr. _Sandys_ [SN: Sand. Relation.], do run between these; but\npoor in water. Of those seven mentioned by _Herodotus_, and those nine\nby _Ptolomy_, these are all I could either see or hear of. Which much\nconfirmeth the testimony of the Bishop of _Tyre_ a diligent and ocular\nEnquirer; who in his holy war doth thus deliver himself. We wonder much\nat the Ancients, who assigned seven mouths unto _Nilus_; which we can no\notherwise salve, then that by process of time, the face of places is\naltered, and the river hath lost his chanels; or that our fore-fathers\ndid never obtain a true account thereof.\n\nAnd therefore when it is said in holy Scripture [SN: _Isa._ 11. 15,\n16.], The Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the _Egyptian_ sea,\nand with his mighty wind he shall shake his hand over the river, and\nshall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod. If\nthis expression concerneth the river _Nilus_, it must only respect the\nseven principal streams. But the place is very obscure, and whether\nthereby be not meant the river _Euphrates_, is not without some\ncontroversie; as is collectible from the subsequent words; And there\nshall be an high way for the remnant of his people, that shall be left\nfrom _Assyria_; and also from the bare name _River_, emphatically\nsignifying _Euphrates_, and thereby the division of the _Assyrian_\nEmpire into many fractions, which might facilitate their return: as\n_Grotius_ hath observed [SN: Gr. Not in Isaiam.]; and is more plainly\nmade out, if the _Apocrypha_ of _Esdras_ [SN: _Esdr._ 2. 13, 43, 47.],\nand that of the _Apocalyps_[SN: _Apoc._ 16. 12.] have any relation\nhereto.\n\nLastly, Whatever was or is their number, the contrivers of Cards and\nMaps afford us no assurance or constant description therein. For whereas\n_Ptolemy_ hath set forth nine, _Hondius_ in his Map of _Africa_ makes\nbut eight, and in that of _Europe_ ten. _Ortelius_ in the Map of the\n_Turkish_ Empire, setteth down eight, in that of _Egypt_ eleven; and\n_Maginus_ in his Map of that Country hath observed the same number. And\nif we enquire farther, we shall find the same diversity and discord in\ndivers others.\n\nThus may we perceive that this account was differently related by the\nAncients, that it is undeniably rejected by the Moderns, and must be\nwarily received by any. For if we receive them all into account, they\nwere more then seven, if only the natural sluces, they were fewer; and\nhowever we receive them, there is no agreeable and constant description\nthereof. And therefore how reasonable it is to draw continual and\ndurable deductions from alterable and uncertain foundations; let them\nconsider who make the gates of _Thebes_, and the mouths of this River a\nconstant and continued periphrasis for this number, and in their\nPoetical expressions do give the River that Epithite unto this day.\n\nThe same River is also accounted the greatest of the earth, called\ntherefore _Fluviorum pater_, and _totius Orbis maximus_, by _Ortelius_:\nIf this be true, many Maps must be corrected, or the relations of divers\ngood Authors renounced.\n\nFor first, In the deliniations of many Maps of _Africa_, the River\n_Niger_ exceedeth it about ten degrees in length, that is, no less then\nsix hundred miles. For arising beyond the \u00c6quator it maketh Northward\nalmost 15 degrees, and deflecting after Westward, without Meanders,\ncontinueth a strait course about 40 degrees; and at length with many\ngreat currents disburdeneth it self into the Occidental Ocean. Again, if\nwe credit the descriptions of good Authors, other Rivers excell it in\nlength, or breadth, or both. _Arrianus_ in his history of _Alexander_,\nassigneth the first place unto the River _Ganges_; which truly according\nunto latter relations, if not in length, yet in breadth and depth may be\ngranted to excell it. For the magnitude of _Nilus_ consisteth in the\ndimension of longitude, and is inconsiderable in the other; what stream\nit maintaineth beyond _Syene_ or _Asna_, and so forward unto its\noriginal, relations are very imperfect; but below these places, and\nfarther removed from the head, the current is but narrow, and we read in\nthe History of the _Turks_, the _Tartar_ horsemen of _Selimus_ swam over\nthe _Nile_ from _Cairo_, to meet the forces of _Tonumbeus_. Baptista\nScortia expresly treating hereof, [SN: _De natura et incremento Nili._]\npreferreth the River of _Plate_ in _America_; for that as _Maffeus_ hath\ndelivered, falleth into the Ocean in the latitude of forty leagues; and\nwith that source and plenty that men at Sea do tast fresh water, before\nthey approach so near as to discover the land. So is it exceeded by that\nwhich by _Cardan_ is termed the greatest in the world, that is the River\n_Oregliana_ in the same continent; which as _Maginus_ delivereth, hath\nbeen navigated 6000 miles; and opens in a chanel of ninety leagues\nbroad; so that, as _Acosta_, an ocular witness recordeth, they that sail\nin the middle, can make no land of either side.\n\nNow the ground of this assertion was surely the magnifying esteem of the\nAncients, arising from the indiscovery of its head. For as things\nunknown seem greater then they are, and are usually received with\namplifications above their nature; so might it also be with this River,\nwhose head being unknown and drawn to a proverbial obscurity, the\nopinion thereof became without bounds; and men must needs conceit a\nlarge extent of that to which the discovery of no man had set a period.\nAnd this an usual way to give the superlative unto things of eminency in\nany kind; and when a thing is very great, presently to define it to be\nthe greatest of all. Whereas indeed Superlatives are difficult; whereof\nthere being but one in every kind, their determinations are dangerous,\nand must not be made without great circumspection. [SN: _The greatest\nCities of the World._] So the City of Rome is magnified by the _Latines_\nto be the greatest of the earth; but time and Geography informs _us_,\nthat _Cairo_ is bigger, and _Quinsay_ in _China_ far exceedeth both.\n[SN: The highest Hills.] So is _Olympus_ extolled by the _Greeks_, as an\nhill attaining unto heaven; but the enlarged Geography of aftertimes\nmakes slight account hereof, when they discourse of _Andes_ in _Peru_,\nor _Teneriffa_ in the _Canaries_. And we understand by a person who hath\nlately had a fair opportunity to behold the magnified mount _Olympus_,\nthat it is exceeded by some peakes of the _Alpes_. So have all Ages\nconceived, and most are still ready to swear, the Wren is the least of\nBirds; yet the discoveries of _America_, and even of our own Plantations\nhave shewed us one far less; that is, the Humbird [SN: Tomineio.], not\nmuch exceeding a Beetle. And truly, for the least and greatest, the\nhighest and the lowest of every kind, as it is very difficult to define\nthem in visible things, so is it to understand in things invisible. Thus\nis it no easie lesson to comprehend the first matter, and the affections\nof that which is next neighbour unto nothing, but impossible truly to\ncomprehend God, who indeed is all in all. For things as they arise unto\nperfection, and approach unto God, or descend to imperfection, and draw\nnearer unto nothing, fall both imperfectly into our apprehensions; the\none being too weak for our conceptions, our conceptions too weak for the\nother.\n\nThirdly, Divers conceptions there are concerning its increment or\ninundation. The first unwarily opinions, that this encrease or annual\noverflowing is proper unto _Nile_, and not agreeable unto any other\nRiver; which notwithstanding is common unto many Currents of _Africa_.\nFor about the same time the River _Niger_ and _Zaire_ do overflow; and\nso do the Rivers beyond the mountains of the Moon, as _Suama_, and\n_Spirito Santo_. And not only these in _Africa_, but some also in\n_Europe_ and _Asia_; for so it is reported of _Menan_ in _India_, and so\ndoth _Botero_ report of _Duina_ in _Livonia_; and the same is also\nobservable in the River _Jordan_ in _Judea_; for so is it delivered,\nthat _Jordan_ overfloweth all his banks in the time of harvest.\n\nThe effect indeed is wonderful in all, and the causes surely best\nresolvable from observations made in the Countries themselves, the parts\nthrough which they pass, or whence they take their Original. That of\n_Nilus_ hath been attempted by Many, and by some to that despair of\nresolution, that they have only referred it unto the Providence of God,\nand his secret manuduction of all things unto their ends. [SN: The cause\nof the overflowing of Nilus.] But divers have attained the truth, and\nthe cause alledged by _Diodorus_, _Seneca_, _Strabo_, and others, is\nallowable; that the inundation of _Nilus_ in _Egypt_ proceeded from the\nrains in _\u00c6thiopia_, and the mighty source of waters falling towards the\nfountains thereof. For this inundation unto the _Egyptians_ happeneth\nwhen it is winter unto the _\u00c6thiopians_; which habitations, although\nthey have no cold Winter (the Sun being no farther removed from them in\nCancer, then unto us in Taurus) yet is the fervour of the air so well\nremitted, as it admits a sufficient generation of vapors, and plenty of\nshowers ensuing thereupon. This Theory of the Ancients is since\nconfirmed by experience of the Moderns; by _Franciscus Alvarez_, who\nlived long in those parts, and left a description of _\u00c6thiopia_;\naffirming that from the middle of June unto September, there fell in his\ntime continual rains. As also _Antonius Ferdinandus_, who in an Epistle\nwritten from thence, and noted by _Codignus_, affirmeth, that during the\nwinter, in those Countries there passed no day without rain.\n\nNow this is also usual, to translate a remarkable quality into a\npropriety, and where we admire an effect in one, to opinion there is not\nthe like in any other. With these conceits do common apprehensions\nentertain the antidotal and wondrous condition of _Ireland_; conceiving\nonly in that land an immunity from venemous creatures: but unto him that\nshall further enquire, the same will be affirmed of _Creta_, memorable\nin ancient stories, even unto fabulous causes, and benediction from the\nbirth of _Jupiter_. The same is also found in _Ebusus_ or _Evisa_, an\nIsland near _Majorca_ upon the coast of _Spain_. With these\napprehensions do the eyes of neighbour Spectators behold _\u00c6tna_, the\nflaming mountain in _Sicilia_; but Navigators tell us there is a burning\nmountain in Island, a more remarkable one in _Teneriffa_ of the\n_Canaries_, and many Vulcano's or fiery Hils elsewhere. Thus Crocodiles\nwere thought to be peculiar unto _Nile_, and the opinion so possessed\n_Alexander_, that when he had discovered some in _Ganges_, he fell upon\na conceit he had found the head of _Nilus_; but later discoveries affirm\nthey are not only in _Asia_ and _Africa_, but very frequent in some\nrivers of _America_.\n\nAnother opinion confineth its Inundation, and positively affirmeth, it\nconstantly encreaseth the seventeenth day of June; wherein perhaps a\nlarger form of speech were safer, then that which punctually prefixeth a\nconstant day thereto. For this expression is different from that of the\nAncients, as _Herodotus_, _Diodorus_, _Seneca_, etc. delivering only\nthat it happeneth about the entrance of the Sun into Cancer; wherein\nthey warily deliver themselves, and reserve a reasonable latitude. So\nwhen _Hippocrates_ saith, _Sub Cane et ante Canem difficiles sunt\npurgationes_: There is a latitude of days comprised therein; for under\nthe Dog-star he containeth not only the day of its ascent, but many\nfollowing, and some ten days preceeding. So _Aristotle_ delivers the\naffections of animals: with the wary terms of _Circa, et magna ex\nparte_: and when _Theodorus_ translateth that part of his, _Coeunt\nThunni et Scombri mense Februario post Idus, pariunt Junio ante Nonas_:\n_Scaliger_ for _ante Nonas_, renders it _Junii initio_; because that\nexposition affordeth the latitude of divers days: For affirming it\nhappeneth before the Nones, he alloweth but one day; that is the\nCalends; for in the _Roman_ account, the second day is the fourth of the\nNones of June.\n\nAgain, Were the day definitive, it had prevented the delusion of the\ndevil, nor could he have gained applause by its prediction; who\nnotwithstanding (as _Athanasius_ in the life of _Anthony_ relateth) to\nmagnifie his knowledge in things to come, when he perceived the rains to\nfall in _\u00c6thiopia_, would presage unto the _Egyptians_ the day of its\ninundation. And this would also make useless that natural experiment\nobserved in earth or sand about the River; by the weight whereof (as\ngood Authors report) they have unto this day a knowledge of its\nencrease.\n\nLastly, It is not reasonable from variable and unstable causes, to\nderive a fixed and constant effect, and such are the causes of this\ninundation, which cannot indeed be regular, and therefore their effects\nnot prognosticable like Eclipses. For depending upon the clouds and\ndescent of showers in _\u00c6thiopia_, which have their generation from\nvaporous exhalations, they must submit their existence unto\ncontingencies, and endure anticipation and recession from the movable\ncondition of their causes. And therefore some years there hath been no\nencrease at all, as some conceive in the years of Famin under _Pharaoh_,\nas _Seneca_, and divers relate of the eleventh year of _Cleopatra_; nor\nnine years together, as is testified by _Calisthenes_. Some years it\nhath also retarded, and came far later then usually it was expected, as\naccording to _Sozomen_ and _Nicephorus_ it happened in the days of\n_Theodosius_; whereat the people were ready to mutiny, because they\nmight not sacrifice unto the River, according to the custom of their\nPredecessors.\n\nNow this is also an usual way of mistake, and many are deceived who too\nstrictly construe the temporal considerations of things. Thus books will\ntell us, and we are made to believe that the fourteenth year males are\nseminifical and pubescent; but he that shall enquire into the\ngenerality, will rather adhere unto the cautelous assertion of\n_Aristotle_, that is, _bis septem annis exactis_, and then but _magna ex\nparte_. That Whelps are blind nine days, and then begin to see, is\ngenerally believed, but as we have elsewhere declared, it is exceeding\nrare, nor do their eye-lids usually open until the twelfth, and\nsometimes not before the fourteenth day. And to speak strictly, an\nhazardable determination it is unto fluctuating and indifferent effects,\nto affix a positive Type or Period. For in effects of far more regular\ncausalities, difficulties do often arise, and even in time it self,\nwhich measureth all things, we use allowance in its commensuration. Thus\nwhile we conceive we have the account of a year in 365 days, exact\nenquirers and Computists will tell us, that we escape 6 hours, that is a\nquarter of a day. And so in a day which every one accounts 24 hours, or\none revolution of the Sun, in strict account we must allow the addition\nof such a part as the Sun doth make in his proper motion, from West to\nEast, whereby in one day he describeth not a perfect Circle.\n\nFourthly, It is affirmed by many, and received by most, that it never\nraineth in _Egypt_, the river supplying that defect, and bountifully\nrequiting it in its inundation: but this must also be received in a\nqualified sense, that is, that it rains but seldom at any time in the\nSummer, and very rarely in the Winter. [SN: _That_ Egypt _hath rain_.]\nBut that great showers do sometimes fall upon that Region, beside the\nAssertion of many Writers, [SN: _Sir_ William Paston _Baronet_.] we can\nconfirm from honourable and ocular testimony, and that not many years\npast, it rained in Grand _Cairo_ divers days together.\n\nThe same is also attested concerning other parts of _Egypt_, by _Prosper\nAlpinus_, who lived long in that Country, and hath left an accurate\nTreaty of the medical practise thereof. _Cayri raro decidunt pluvi\u00e6,\nAlexandri\u00e6, Pelusiiq; et in omnibus locis mari adjacentibus, pluit\nlargissime et s\u00e6pe_; that is, it raineth seldom at _Cairo_, but at\n_Alexandria_, _Damiata_, and places near the Sea, it raineth plentifully\nand often. Whereto we might add the latter testimony of Learned Mr.\n_Greaves_, in his accurate description of the _Pyramids_.\n\nBeside, Men hereby forget the relation of holy Scripture. [SN: _Exod._\n9.] _Behold I will cause it to rain a very great hail, such as hath not\nbeen in_ Egypt _since the foundation thereof, even untill now_. Wherein\nGod threatning such a rain as had not happened, it must be presumed they\nhad been acquainted with some before, and were not ignorant of the\nsubstance, the menace being made in the circumstance. The same\nconcerning hail is inferrible from _Prosper Alpinus. Rarissime nix,\ngrando_, it seldom snoweth or haileth. Where by we must concede that\nsnow and hail do sometimes fall, because they happen seldom.\n\nNow this mistake ariseth from a misapplication of the bounds or limits\nof time, and an undue transition from one unto another; which to avoid,\nwe must observe the punctual differences of time, and so distinguish\nthereof, as not to confound or lose the one in the other. For things may\ncome to pass, _Semper, Plerumq; S\u00e6pe, aut Nunquam, Aliquando, Raro_;\nthat is, Always, or Never, For the most part, or Sometimes, Ofttimes, or\nSeldom. Now the deception is usual which is made by the mis-application\nof these; men presently concluding that to happen often, which happeneth\nbut sometimes: that never, which happeneth but seldom; and that alway,\nwhich happeneth for the most part. So is it said, the Sun shines every\nday in Rhodes, because for the most part it faileth not. So we say and\nbelieve that a Camelion never eateth, but liveth only upon air, whereas\nindeed it is seen to eat very seldom, but many there are who have beheld\nit to feed on Flyes. And so it is said, that children born in the eighth\nmoneth live not, that is, for the most part, but not to be concluded\nalwaies: nor it seems in former ages in all places: for it is otherwise\nrecorded by _Aristotle_ concerning the births of _Egypt_.\n\nLastly, It is commonly conceived that divers Princes hath attempted to\ncut the Isthmus or tract of land [SN: Lingua maris \u00c6gyptii. _Isa. 11.\n15._] which parteth the _Arabian_ and _Mediterranean_ Sea: but upon\nenquiry I find some difficulty concerning the place attempted; many with\ngood authority affirming, that the intent was not immediately to unite\nthese Seas, but to make a navigable chanel between the Red Sea and the\nNile, the marks whereof are extant to this day; it was first attempted\nby _Sesostris_, after by _Darius_, and in a fear to drown the Country,\ndeserted by them both; but was long after re-attempted and in some\nmanner effected by _Philadelphus_. And so the grand Signior who is Lord\nof the Country, conveyeth his Gallies into the Red Sea by the Nile; for\nhe bringeth them down to Grand _Cairo_ where they are taken in pieces,\ncarried upon Camels backs, and rejoyned together at Sues, his port and\nNaval station for that Sea; whereby in effect he acts the design of\n_Cleopatra_, who after the battle of _Actium_ in a different way would\nhave conveyed her Gallies into the Red Sea.\n\nAnd therefore that proverb to cut an Isthmus [SN: Isthmum perfodere.],\nthat is, to take great pains, and effect nothing, alludeth not unto this\nattempt; but is by _Erasmus_ applyed unto several other, as that\nundertaking of the Cnidians to cut their Isthmus, but especially that of\n_Corinth_ so unsuccessfully attempted by many Emperours. The Cnidians\nwere deterred by the peremptory disswasion of _Apollo_, plainly\ncommanding them to desist; for if God had thought it fit, he would have\nmade that Country an Island at first. But this perhaps will not be\nthought a reasonable discouragement unto the activity of those spirits\nwhich endeavour to advantage nature by Art, and upon good grounds to\npromote any part of the universe; nor will the ill success of some be\nmade a sufficient determent unto others; who know that many learned men\naffirm, that Islands were not from the beginning, that many have been\nmade since by Art, that some Isthmus have been eat through by the Sea,\nand others cut by the spade: And if policy would permit, that of\n_Panama_ in _America_ were most worthy the attempt: it being but few\nmiles over, and would open a shorter cut unto the East Indies and\nChina.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n Of the Red Sea.\n\n\nContrary apprehensions are made of the Erythr\u00e6an or Red Sea; most\napprehending a material redness therein, from whence they derive its\ncommon denomination; and some so lightly conceiving hereof, as if it had\nno redness at all, are fain to recur unto other originals of its\nappellation. [SN: _What the Red Sea is._] Wherein to deliver a distinct\naccount, we first observe that without consideration of colour it is\nnamed the _Arabian Gulph_: The Hebrews who had best reason to remember\nit, do call it _Zuph_, or the weedy Sea; because it was full of sedge,\nor they found it so in their passage; the _Mahometans_ who are now lords\nthereof do know it by no other name then the _Gulph_ of _Mecha_ a City\nof _Arabia_.\n\nThe stream of Antiquity deriveth its name from King _Erythrus_; so\nsleightly conceiving of the nominal deduction from Redness, that they\nplainly deny there is any such accident in it. The words of _Curtius_\nare plain beyond Evasion, _Ab Erythro rege inditum est nomen, propter\nquod ignari rubere aquas credunt_: Of no more obscurity are the words of\n_Philostratus_, and of later times, _Sabellicus; Stulte persuasam est\nvulgo rubras alicubi esse maris aquas, quin ab Erythro rege nomen pelago\ninditum_. Of this opinion was _Andr\u00e6as Corsalius_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_,\n_Dio Cassius_, who although they denied not all redness, yet did they\nrely upon the original from King _Erythrus_. [SN: _More exactly hereof_\nBochartus _and Mr._ Dickinson.]\n\nOthers have fallen upon the like, or perhaps the same conceit under\nanother appellation; deducing its name not from King _Erythrus_, but\n_Esau_ or _Edom_, whose habitation was upon the coasts thereof. Now\n_Edom_ is as much as _Erythrus_, and the red Sea no more then the\n_Idumean_; from whence the posterity of _Edom_ removing towards the\nMediterranean coast, according to their former nomination by the Greeks\nwere called Ph\u0153nicians or red men: and from a plantation and colony\nof theirs, an Island near Spain was by the Greek describers termed\n_Erithra_, as is declared by _Strabo_ and _Solinus_.\n\nVery many omitting the nominal derivation, do rest in the gross and\nliteral conception thereof, apprehending a real redness and constant\ncolour of parts. Of which opinion are also they which hold the Sea\nreceiveth a red and minious tincture from springs, wells, and currents\nthat fall into it; and of the same belief are probably many Christians,\nwho conceiving the passage of the _Israelites_ through this Sea to have\nbeen the type of Baptism, according to that of the Apostle [SN: 1 _Cor._\n10. 2.], All were baptized unto _Moses_ in the cloud, and in the Sea:\nfor the better resemblance of the blood of Christ, they willingly\nreceived it in the apprehension of redness, and a colour agreeable unto\nits mystery: according unto that of _Austin_, _Significat mare illud\nrubrum Baptismum Christi; unde nobis Baptismus Christi nisi sanguine\nChristi consecratus_? [SN: Aug. in Johannem.]\n\nBut divers Moderns not considering these conceptions, and appealing unto\nthe Testimony of sense, have at last determined the point: concluding a\nredness herein, but not in the sense received. Sir _Walter Raleigh_ from\nhis own and _Portugal_ observations, doth place the redness of the Sea\nin the reflection from red Islands, and the redness of the earth at the\nbottom: wherein Coral grows very plentifully, and from whence in great\nabundance it is transported into _Europe_. The observations of\n_Alberquerque_ and _Stephanus de Gama_ (as from _Johannes de Bairros_,\n_Fernandius de Cordova_ relateth) derive this redness from the colour of\nthe sand and argillous earth at the bottom; for being a shallow Sea,\nwhile it rowleth to and fro, there appeareth a redness upon the water,\nwhich is most discernable in sunny and windy weather. But that this is\nno more than a seeming redness, he confirmeth by an experiment; for in\nthe reddest part taking up a vessel of water, it differed not from the\ncomplexion of other Seas. Nor is this colour discoverable in every place\nof that Sea, for as he also observeth, in some places it is very green,\nin others white and yellow, according to the colour of the earth or sand\nat the bottom. And so may _Philostratus_ be made out, when he saith,\nthis Sea is blew; or _Bellonius_ denying this redness, because he beheld\nnot that colour about Sues; or when _Corsalius_ at the mouth thereof\ncould not discover the same.\n\nNow although we have enquired the ground of redness in this Sea, yet are\nwe not fully satisfied: for what is forgot by many, and known by few,\nthere is another Red Sea whose name we pretend not to make out from\nthese principles; that is, the _Persian_ Gulph or Bay, which divideth\nthe _Arabian_ and _Persian_ shore, as _Pliny_ hath described it. _Mare\nrubrum in duos dividitur sinus, is qui ab Oriente est, Persicus\nappellatur_; or as _Solinus_ expresseth it, _Qui ab Oriente est Persicus\nappellatur, ex adverso unde Arabia est, Arabicus_: whereto assenteth\n_Suidas_, _Ortelius_, and many more. And therefore there is no absurdity\nin _Strabo_ when he delivereth that _Tigris_ and _Euphrates_ do fall\ninto the Red Sea, and _Fernandius de Cordova_ justly defendeth his\nCountryman _Seneca_ in that expression;\n\n _Et qui renatum prorsus excipiens diem\n Tepidum Rubenti Tigrin immiscet freto._\n\nNor hath only the _Persian_ Sea received the same name with the\n_Arabian_, but what is strange, and much confounds the distinction, the\nname thereof is also derived from King _Erythrus_; who was conceived to\nbe buried in an Island of this Sea, as _Dionysius Afer_, _Curtius_ and\n_Suidas_ do deliver. Which were of no less probability than the other,\nif (as with the same authors _Strabo_ affirmeth) he was buried neer\n_Caramania_ bordering upon the _Persian_ Gulph. And if his Tomb was seen\nby _Nearchus_, it was not so likely to be in the _Arabian_ Gulph; for we\nread that from the River _Indus_ he came unto _Alexander_ at _Babylon_,\nsome few days before his death. Now _Babylon_ was seated upon the River\n_Euphrates_, which runs into the _Persian_ Gulph. And therefore however\nthe Latin expresseth it in _Strabo_, that _Nearchus_ suffered much in\nthe _Arabian Sinus_, yet is the original, that is, the Gulf of\n_Persia_.\n\nThat therefore the Red Sea or _Arabian_ Gulph received its name from\npersonal derivation, though probable, is but uncertain; that both the\nSeas of one name should have one common denominator, less probable; that\nthere is a gross and material redness in either, not to be affirmed:\nthat there is an emphatical or appearing redness in one, not well to be\ndenied. And this is sufficient to make good the Allegory of the\nChristians: and in this distinction may we justifie the name of the\nBlack Sea, given unto _Pontus Euxinus:_ the name of _Xanthus_, or the\nyellow River of _Phrygia_: and the name of _Mar Vermeio_, or the Red\nSea in _America_.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n Of the Blackness of _Negroes_.\n\n\nIt is evident not only in the general frame of Nature, that things most\nmanifest unto sense, have proved obscure unto the understanding: But\neven in proper and appropriate Objects, wherein we affirm the sense\ncannot err, the faculties of reason most often fail us. Thus of colours\nin general, under whose gloss and vernish all things are seen, few or\nnone have yet beheld the true nature; or positively set down their\nincontroulable causes. Which while some ascribe unto the mixture of the\nElements, others to the graduality of Opacity and Light; they have left\nour endeavours to grope them out by twi-light, and by darkness almost to\ndiscover that whose existence is evidenced by Light. [SN: _The\nPrinciples of Colour according to the_ Chymists.] The _Chymists_ have\nlaudably reduced their causes unto Sal, Sulphur, and Mercury; and had\nthey made it out so well in this, as in the objects of smell and taste,\ntheir endeavours had been more acceptable: For whereas they refer Sapor\nunto Salt, and Odor unto Sulphur, they vary much concerning colour; some\nreducing it unto Mercury, some to Sulphur; others unto Salt. Wherein\nindeed the last conceit doth not oppress the former; and though Sulphur\nseem to carry the master-stroak, yet Salt may have a strong\nco-operation. For beside the fixed and terrestrious Salt, there is in\nnatural bodies a _Sal niter_ referring unto Sulphur; there is also a\nvolatile or Amnoniack Salt, retaining unto Mercury; by which Salts the\ncolours of bodies are sensibly qualified, and receive degrees of lustre\nor obscurity, superficiality or profundity, fixation or volatility.\n\nTheir general or first Natures being thus obscure, there will be greater\ndifficulties in their particular discoveries; for being farther removed\nfrom their simplicities, they fall into more complexed considerations;\nand so require a subtiler act of reason to distinguish and call forth\ntheir natures. Thus although a man understood the general nature of\ncolours, yet were it no easie Problem to resolve, Why Grass is green?\nWhy Garlick, Molyes, and Porrets have white roots, deep green leaves,\nand black seeds? Why several docks and sorts of Rhubarb with yellow\nroots, send forth purple flowers? Why also from Lactary or milky plants\nwhich have a white and lacteous juyce dispersed through every part,\nthere arise flowers blew and yellow? Moreover, beside the specifical and\nfirst digressions ordained from the Creation, which might be urged to\nsalve the variety in every species; Why shall the marvail of _Peru_\nproduce its flowers of different colours, and that not once, or\nconstantly, but every day, and variously? Why Tulips of one colour\nproduce some of another, and running through almost all, should still\nescape a blew? And lastly, Why some men, yea and they a mighty and\nconsiderable part of mankind, should first acquire and still retain the\ngloss and tincture of blackness? Which whoever strictly enquires, shall\nfind no less of darkness in the cause, than in the effect it self; there\narising unto examination no such satisfactory and unquarrelable reasons,\nas may confirm the causes generally received; which are but two in\nnumber. The heat and scorch of the Sun; or the curse of God on _Cham_\nand his Posterity.\n\nThe first was generally received by the Ancients, who in obscurities had\nno higher recourse than unto Nature, as may appear by a Discourse\nconcerning this point in _Strabo_. By _Aristotle_ it seems to be implied\nin those Problems which enquire why the Sun makes men black, and not the\nfire? Why it whitens wax, yet blacks the skin? By the word _\u00c6thiops_ it\nself, applied to the memorablest Nations of _Negroes_, that is of a burnt\nand torrid countenance. The fancy of the Fable infers also the Antiquity\nof the opinion; which deriveth this complexion from the deviation of the\nSun, and the conflagration of all things under _Phaeton_. But this opinion\nthough generally embraced, was I perceive rejected by _Aristobulus_ a very\nancient Geographer; as is discovered by _Strabo_. It hath been doubted by\nseveral modern Writers, particularly by _Ortelius_; but amply and\nsatisfactorily discussed as we know by no man. We shall therfore endeavour\na full delivery hereof, declaring the grounds of doubt, and reasons of\ndenial, which rightly understood, may, if not overthrow, yet shrewdly\nshake the security of this Assertion.\n\nAnd first, Many which countenance the opinion in this reason, do tacitly\nand upon consequence overthrow it in another. For whilst they make the\nRiver _Senaga_ to divide and bound the _Moors_, so that on the South\nside they are black, on the other only tawny; they imply a secret\ncausality herein from the air, place or river; and seem not to derive it\nfrom the Sun. The effects of whose activity are not precipitously\nabrupted, but gradually proceed to their cessations.\n\nSecondly, If we affirm that this effect proceeded, or as we will not be\nbackward to concede, it may be advanced and fomented from the fervour of\nthe Sun; yet do we not hereby discover a principle sufficient to decide\nthe question concerning other animals; nor doth he that affirmeth the\nheat makes man black, afford a reason why other animals in the same\nhabitations maintain a constant and agreeable hue unto those in other\nparts, as Lions, Elephants, Camels, Swans, Tigers, Estriges. Which\nthough in _\u00c6thiopia_, in the disadvantage of two Summers, and\nperpendicular Rayes of the Sun, do yet make good the complexion of their\nspecies, and hold a colourable correspondence unto those in milder\nregions. Now did this complexion proceed from heat in man, the same\nwould be communicated unto other animals which equally participate the\nInfluence of the common Agent. For thus it is in the effects of cold, in\nRegions far removed from the Sun; for therein men are not only of fair\ncomplexions, gray-eyed, and of light hair; but many creatures exposed to\nthe air, deflect in extremity from their natural colours; from brown,\nrusset and black, receiving the complexion of Winter, and turning\nperfect white. Thus _Olaus Magnus_ relates, that after the Autumnal\n\u00c6quinox, Foxes begin to grow white; thus _Michovius_ reporteth, and we\nwant not ocular confirmation, that Hares and Partridges turn white in\nthe Winter; and thus a white Crow, a proverbial rarity with us, is none\nunto them; but that inseparable accident of _Porphyrie_ is separated in\nmany hundreds.\n\nThirdly, If the fervour of the Sun, or intemperate heat of clime did\nsolely occasion this complexion, surely a migration or change thereof\nmight cause a sensible, if not a total mutation; which notwithstanding\nexperience will not admit. For _Negroes_ transplanted, although into\ncold and phlegmatick habitations, continue their hue both in themselves,\nand also their generations; except they mix with different complexions;\nwhereby notwithstanding there only succeeds a remission of their\ntinctures; there remaining unto many descents a strong shadow of their\nOriginals; and if they preserve their copulations entire, they still\nmaintain their complexions. As is very remarkable in the dominions of\nthe Grand Signior, and most observable in the _Moors_ in _Brasilia_,\nwhich transplanted about an hundred years past, continue the tinctures\nof their fathers unto this day. And so likewise fair or white people\ntranslated in hotter Countries receive not impressions amounting to this\ncomplexion, as hath been observed in many _Europeans_ who have lived in\nthe land of _Negroes_: and as _Edvardus Lopes_ testifieth of the\n_Spanish_ plantations, that they retained their native complexions unto\nhis days.\n\nFourthly, If the fervour of the Sun were the sole cause hereof in\n_Ethiopia_ or any land of _Negroes_, it were also reasonable that\ninhabitants of the same latitude, subjected unto the same vicinity of\nthe Sun, the same diurnal arch, and direction of its rayes, should also\npartake of the same hue and complexion, which notwithstanding they do\nnot. For the Inhabitants of the same latitude in _Asia_ are of a\ndifferent complexion, as are the Inhabitants of _Cambogia_ and _Java_,\ninsomuch that some conceive the _Negro_ is properly a native of\n_Africa_, and that those places in _Asia_ inhabited now by _Moors_, are\nbut the intrusions of _Negroes_ arriving first from _Africa_, as we\ngenerally conceive of _Madagascar_, and the adjoyning Islands, who\nretain the same complexion unto this day. But this defect is more\nremarkable in _America_; which although subjected unto both the\nTropicks, yet are not the Inhabitants black between, or near, or under\neither; neither to the Southward in _Brasilia_, _Chili_, or _Peru_; nor\nyet to the Northward in _Hispaniola_, _Castilia_, _del Oro_, or\n_Nicaragua_. And although in many parts thereof there be at present\nswarms of _Negroes_ serving under the _Spaniard_, yet were they all\ntransported from _Africa_, since the discovery of _Columbus_; and are\nnot indigenous or proper natives of _America_.\n\nFifthly, We cannot conclude this complexion in Nations from the vicinity\nor habitude they hold unto the Sun; for even in _Africa_ they be\n_Negroes_ under the Southern Tropick, but are not all of this hue either\nunder or near the Northern. So the people of _Gualata_, _Agades_,\n_Garamantes_, and of _Goaga_, all within the Northern Tropicks are not\n_Negroes_; but on the other side about _Capo Negro_, _Cefala_, and\n_Madagascar_, they are of a jetty black.\n\nNow if to salve this Anomaly we say the heat of the Sun is more powerful\nin the Southern Tropick, because in the sign of Capricorn fals out the\nPerigeum or lowest place of the Sun in his Excentrick, whereby he\nbecomes nearer unto them than unto the other in Cancer, we shall not\nabsolve the doubt. And if any insist upon such niceties, and will\npresume a different effect of the Sun, from such a difference of place\nor vicinity, we shall ballance the same with the concernment of its\nmotion, and time of revolution, and say he is more powerful in the\nNorthern Hemisphere, and in the Apogeum; for therein his motion is\nslower, and so his heat respectively unto those habitations, as of\nduration, so also of more effect. For, though he absolve his revolution\nin 365 days, odd hours and minutes, yet by reason of Excentricity, his\nmotion is unequal, and his course far longer in the Northern Semicircle,\nthan in the Southern; for the latter he passeth in a 178 days, but the\nother takes him a 187, that is, eleven days more. So is his presence\nmore continued unto the Northern Inhabitants; and the longer day in\nCancer is longer unto us, than that in Capricorn unto the Southern\nHabitator. Beside, hereby we only infer an inequality of heat in\ndifferent Tropicks, but not an equality of effects in other parts\nsubjected to the same. For, in the same degree, and as near the earth he\nmakes his revolution unto the _American_, whose Inhabitants\nnotwithstanding partake not of the same effect. And if herein we seek a\nrelief from the Dog-star, we shall introduce an effect proper unto a\nfew, from a cause common unto many; for upon the same grounds that Star\nshould have as forcible a power upon _America_ and _Asia_; and although\nit be not vertical unto any part of _Asia_, but only passeth by _Beach_,\n_in terra incognita_; yet is it so unto _America_, and vertically\npasseth over the habitations of _Peru_ and _Brasilia_.\n\nSixthly, And which is very considerable, there are _Negroes_ in _Africa_\nbeyond the Southern Tropick, and some so far removed from it, as\nGeographically the clime is not intemperate, that is, near the Cape of\ngood Hope, in 36 of the Southern Latitude. Whereas in the same elevation\nNorthward, the Inhabitants of _America_ are fair; and they of _Europe_\nin _Candy_, _Sicily_, and some parts of _Spain_, deserve not properly so\nlow a name as _Tawny_.\n\nLastly, Whereas the _Africans_ are conceived to be more peculiarly\nscorched and torrified from the Sun, by addition of driness from the\nsoil, from want and defect of water, it will not excuse the doubt. For\nthe parts which the _Negroes_ possess, are not so void of Rivers and\nmoisture, as is presumed; for on the other side the mountains of the\nMoon, in that great tract called _Zanzibar_, there are the mighty Rivers\nof _Suama_ and _Spirito Santo_; on this side, the great River _Zaire_,\nthe mighty _Nile_ and _Niger_; which do not only moisten and\ncontemperate the air by their exhalations, but refresh and humectate the\nearth by their annual Inundations. Beside, in that part of _Africa_,\nwhich with all disadvantage is most dry, that is, in situation between\nthe Tropicks, defect of Rivers and inundations, as also abundance of\nSands, the people are not esteemed _Negroes_; and that is _Lybia_, which\nwith the _Greeks_ carries the name of all _Africa_. A region so desert,\ndry and sandy, that Travellers (as _Leo_ reports) are fain to carry\nwater on their Camels; whereof they find not a drop sometime in six or\nseven days. Yet is this Country accounted by Geographers no part of\n_terra Nigritarum_, and _Ptolomy_ placeth herein the _Leuco \u00c6thiops_, or\npale and Tawny _Moors_.\n\nNow the ground of this opinion might be the visible quality of Blackness\nobservably produced by heat, fire and smoak; but especially with the\nAncients the violent esteem they held of the heat of the Sun, in the hot\nor torrid Zone; conceiving that part unhabitable, and therefore that\npeople in the vicinities or frontiers thereof, could not escape without\nthis change of their complexions. But how far they were mistaken in this\napprehension, modern Geography hath discovered: And as we have declared,\nthere are many within this Zone whose complexions descend not so low as\nunto blackness. And if we should strictly insist hereon, the possibility\nmight fall into question; that is, whether the heat of the Sun, whose\nfervour may swart a living part, and even black a dead or dissolving\nflesh, can yet in animals, whose parts are successive and in continual\nflux, produce this deep and perfect gloss of Blackness.\n\n[Sidenote: _The particular causes of the Negroes blackness probably._]\n\nThus having evinced, at least made dubious, the Sun is not the Author of\nthis Blackness, how, and when this tincture first began is yet a Riddle,\nand positively to determine, it surpasseth my presumption. Seeing\ntherefore we cannot discover what did effect it, it may afford some\npiece of satisfaction to know what might procure it. It may be therefore\nconsidered, whether the inward use of certain waters or fountains of\npeculiar operations, might not at first produce the effect in question.\nFor, of the like we have records in _Aristotle, Strabo_ and _Pliny_, who\nhath made a collection hereof, as of two fountains in _B\u0153otia_, the\none making Sheep white, the other black; of the water of _Siberis_ which\nmade Oxen black, and the like effect it had also upon men, dying not\nonly the skin, but making their hairs black and curled. This was the\nconceit of _Aristobulus_, who received so little satisfaction from the\nother, or that it might be caused by heat, or any kind of fire, that he\nconceived it as reasonable to impute the effect unto water.\n\nSecondly, It may be perpended whether it might not fall out the same way\nthat _Jacobs_ cattle became speckled, spotted and ring-straked, that is,\nby the Power and Efficacy of Imagination; which produceth effects in the\nconception correspondent unto the phancy of the Agents in generation;\nand sometimes assimilates the Idea of the Generator into a reality in\nthe thing ingendred. For, hereof there pass for current many indisputed\nexamples; so in _Hippocrates_ we read of one, that from an intent view\nof a Picture conceived a _Negro_; And in the History of _Heliodore_ of a\nMoorish Queen, who upon aspection of the Picture of _Andromeda_,\nconceived and brought forth a fair one. [SN: Vide plura apud _Tho.\nFienum_, de viribus imaginationis.] And thus perhaps might some say was\nthe beginning of this complexion: induced first by Imagination, which\nhaving once impregnated the seed, found afterward concurrent\nco-operation, which were continued by Climes, whose constitution\nadvantaged the first impression. [SN: _Why Beares_ etc. _white in some\nplaces._] Thus _Plotinus_ conceiveth white Peacocks first came in. Thus\nmany opinion that from aspection of the Snow, which lieth long in\nNorthern Regions, and high mountains. Hawks, Kites, Beares, and other\ncreatures become white; and by this way _Austin_ conceiveth the devil\nprovided, they never wanted a white spotted Ox in _Egypt_; for such an\none they worshipped, and called _Apis_.\n\nThirdly, It is not indisputable whether it might not proceed from such a\ncause and the like foundation of Tincture, as doth the black Jaundise,\nwhich meeting with congenerous causes might settle durable inclinations,\nand advance their generations unto that hue, which were naturally before\nbut a degree or two below it. And this transmission we shall the easier\nadmit in colour, if we remember the like hath been effected in organical\nparts and figures; the Symmetry whereof being casually or purposely\nperverted; their morbosities have vigorously descended to their\nposterities, and that in durable deformities. This was the beginning of\n_Macrocephali_, or people with long heads, whereof _Hippocrates_ [SN: De\nAere, Aquis, et Locis.] hath clearly delivered himself: _Cum primum\neditus est Infans, caput ejus tenellum manibus effingunt, et in\nlongitudine adolescere cogunt; hoc institutum primum hujusmodi, natur\u00e6\ndedit vitium, successu vero temporis in naturam abiit, ut proinde\ninstituto nihil amplius opus esset; semen enim genitale ex omnibus\ncorporis partibus provenit, ex sanis quidem sanum, ex morbosis\nmorbosum. Si igitur ex calvis calvi, ex c\u00e6ciis c\u00e6cii, et ex distortis,\nut plurimum, distorti gignuntur, eademque in c\u00e6teris formis valet ratio,\nquid prohibet cur non ex macrocephalis macrocephali gignantur?_ Thus as\n_Aristotle_ observeth, the Deers of _Arginusa_ had their ears divided;\noccasioned at first by slitting the ears of Deers. Thus have the\n_Chineses_ little feet, most _Negroes_ great Lips and flat Noses; And\nthus many _Spaniards_, and _Mediterranean_ Inhabitants, which are of the\nRace of _Barbary Moors_ (although after frequent commixture) have not\nworn out the _Camoys_ Nose [SN: Flat Nose.] unto this day.\n\nArtificial _Negroes_, or _Gypsies_ acquire their complexion by anointing\ntheir bodies with Bacon and fat substances, and so exposing them to the\nSun. In _Guiny Moors_ and others, it hath been observed, that they\nfrequently moisten their skins with fat and oyly materials, to temper\nthe irksom driness thereof from the parching rayes of the Sun. Whether\nthis practise at first had not some efficacy toward this complexion, may\nalso be considered.\n\n[Sidenote: _How sundry kinds of Animals come to be found in Islands._]\n\nLastly, If we still be urged to particularities, and such as declare\nhow, and when the seed of _Adam_ did first receive this tincture; we may\nsay that men became black in the same manner that some Foxes, Squirrels,\nLions, first turned of this complexion, whereof there are a constant\nsort in divers Countries; that some Chaughs came to have red Legs and\nBils, that Crows became pyed: All which mutations however they began,\ndepend on durable foundations; and such as may continue for ever. And if\nas yet we must farther define the cause and manner of this mutation, we\nmust confess, in matters of Antiquity, and such as are decided by\nHistory, if their Originals and first beginnings escape a due relation,\nthey fall into great obscurities, and such as future Ages seldom reduce\nunto a resolution. Thus if you deduct the administration of Angels, and\nthat they dispersed the creatures into all parts after the flood, as\nthey had congregated them into _Noahs_ Ark before; it will be no easie\nquestion to resolve, how several sorts of animals were first dispersed\ninto Islands, and almost how any into _America_: How the venereal\nContagion began in that part of the earth, since history is silent, is\nnot easily resolved by Philosophy. For whereas it is imputed unto\nAnthropophagy, or the eating of mans flesh; that cause hath been common\nunto many other Countries, and there have been Canibals or men eaters in\nthe three other parts of the world, if we credit the relations of\n_Ptolomy_, _Strabo_ and _Pliny_. And thus if the favourable pen of\n_Moses_ had not revealed the confusion of tongues, and positively\ndeclared their division at _Babel_, our disputes concerning their\nbeginning had been without end; and I fear we must have left the hopes\nof that decision unto _Elias_. [SN: Elias cum venerit solvet dubium.]\n\nAnd if any will yet insist, and urge the question farther still upon me,\nI shall be enforced unto divers of the like nature, wherein perhaps I\nshall receive no greater satisfaction. I shall demand how the Camels of\n_Bactria_ came to have two bunches on their backs, whereas the Camels of\n_Arabia_ in all relations have but one? How Oxen in some Countries began\nand continue gibbous or bunch-back'd? what way those many different\nshapes, colours, hairs, and natures of Dogs came in? how they of some\nCountries became depilous, and without any hair at all, whereas some\nsorts in excess abound therewith? How the Indian Hare came to have a\nlong tail, whereas that part in others attains no higher than a scut?\nHow the hogs of _Illyria_ which _Aristotle_ speaks of, became solipedes\nor whole-hoofed, whereas in other parts they are bisulcous, and\ndescribed cloven-hoofed by God himself? All which with many others must\nneeds seem strange unto those that hold there were but two of the\nunclean sort in the ark; and are forced to reduce these varieties to\nunknown originals.\n\n[Sidenote: _How the complexion of the Negroes may be propagated._]\n\nHowever therefore this complexion was first acquired, it is evidently\nmaintained by generation, and by the tincture of the skin as a\nspermatical part traduced from father unto Son; so that they which are\nstrangers contract it not, and the Natives which transmigrate, omit it\nnot without commixture, and that after divers generations. And this\naffection (if the story were true) might wonderfully be confirmed, by\nwhat _Maginus_ and others relate of the Emperour of _\u00c6thiopia_, or\n_Prester John_, who derived from _Solomon_ is not yet descended into the\nhue of his Country, but remains a _Mulatto_, that is, of a Mongril\ncomplexion unto this day. Now although we conceive this blackness to be\nseminal, yet are we not of _Herodotus_ conceit, that their seed is\nblack. An opinion long ago rejected by _Aristotle_, and since by sense\nand enquiry. His assertion against the Historian was probable, that all\nseed was white; that is without great controversie in viviparous\nAnimals, and such as have Testicles, or preparing vessels wherein it\nreceives a manifest dealbation. And not only in them, but (for ought I\nknow) in Fishes not abating the seed of Plants; whereof at least in most\nthough the skin and covering be black, yet is the seed and fructifying\npart not so; as may be observed in the seeds of _Onyons_, _Pyonie_ and\n_Basil_. Most controvertible it seems in the spawn of Frogs, and\nLobsters, whereof notwithstanding at the very first the spawn is white,\ncontracting by degrees a blackness, answerable in the one unto the\ncolour of the shell, in the other unto the Porwigle or Tadpole; that is\nthat Animall which first proceedeth from it. And thus may it also be in\nthe generation and sperm of Negroes; that being first and in its\nnaturals white, but upon separation of parts, accidents before invisible\nbecome apparent; there arising a shadow or dark efflorescence in the\noutside; whereby not only their legitimate and timely births, but their\nabortions are also dusky, before they have felt the scorch and fervor of\nthe Sun.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Of the same.\n\n\nA Second opinion there is, that this complexion was first a curse of God\nderived unto them from _Cham_, upon whom it was inflicted for\ndiscovering the nakedness of _Noah_. Which notwithstanding is sooner\naffirmed then proved, and carrieth with it sundry improbabilities. For\nfirst, if we derive the curse on _Cham_, or in general upon his\nposterity, we shall denigrate a greater part of the earth then was ever\nso conceived; and not only paint the \u00c6thiopians and reputed sons of\n_Cush_, but the people also of _Egypt_, _Arabia_, _Assyria_ and\n_Chaldea_; for by this race were these Countries also peopled. And if\nconcordantly unto _Berosus_, the fragment of _Cato de Originibus_, some\nthings of _Halicarnasseus_, _Macrobius_, and out of them of _Leandro_\nand _Annius_, we shall conceive of the travels of _Camese_ or _Cham_; we\nmay introduce a generation of _Negroes_ as high as _Italy_; which part\nwas never culpable of deformity, but hath produced the magnified\nexamples of beauty.\n\nSecondly, The curse mentioned in Scripture was not denounced upon\n_Cham_, but _Canaan_ his youngest son, and the reasons thereof are\ndivers. The first, from the Jewish Tradition, whereby it is conceived\nthat _Canaan_ made the discovery of the nakedness of _Noah_, and\nnotified it unto _Cham_. Secondly, to have cursed _Cham_ had been to\ncurse all his posterity, whereof but one was guilty of the fact. And\nlastly, he spared _Cham_, because he had blessed him before. [SN: Cap.\n9.] Now if we confine this curse unto _Canaan_, and think the same\nfulfilled in his posterity; then do we induce this complexion on the\nSidonians, then was the promised land a tract of Negroes; For from\n_Canaan_ were descended the _Canaanites_, _Jebusites_, _Amorites_,\n_Gergazites_ and _Hivites_, which were possessed of that land.\n\nThirdly, Although we should place the original of this curse upon one of\nthe sons of _Cham_, yet were it not known from which of them to derive\nit. For the particularity of their descents is imperfectly set down by\naccountants, nor is it distinctly determinable from whom thereof the\n_\u00c6thiopians_ are proceeded. For whereas these of _Africa_ are generally\nesteemed to be the Issue of _Chus_, the elder son of _Cham_, it is not\nso easily made out. For the land of _Chus_, which the Septuagint\ntranslates _\u00c6thiopia_, makes no part of _Africa_, nor is it the\nhabitation of Blackmores, but the Country of _Arabia_, especially the\nHappy and Stony possessions and Colonies of all the sons of _Chus_,\nexcepting _Nimrod_ and _Havilah_: possessed and planted wholly by the\nchildren of _Chus_, that is, by _Sabtah_ and _Raamah_, _Sabtacha_, and\nthe sons of _Raamah_, _Dedan_, and _Sheba_, according unto whose names\nthe Nations of those parts have received their denominations, as may be\ncollected from _Pliny_ and _Ptolemy_; and as we are informed by credible\nAuthors, they hold a fair Analogy in their names, even unto our days. So\nthe wife of _Moses_ translated in Scripture an _\u00c6thiopian_, and so\nconfirmed by the fabulous relation of _Josephus_, was none of the\ndaughters of _Africa_, nor any Negroe of _\u00c6thiopia_, but the daughter of\n_Jethro_, Prince and Priest of _Madian_, which was a part of _Arabia_\nthe stony, bordering upon the Red Sea. So the Queen of _Sheba_ came not\nunto _Solomon_ out of _\u00c6thiopia_, but from _Arabia_, and that part\nthereof which bore the name of the first planter, the son of _Chus_. So\nwhether the Eunuch which _Philip_ the Deacon baptised, were servant unto\n_Candace_ Queen of the _African \u00c6thiopia_ (although _Damianus a Goes,\nCodignus_, and the \u00c6thiopick relations averr) is yet by many, and with\nstrong suspitions doubted. So that Army of a million, which _Zerah_ King\nof _\u00c6thiopia_ is said to bring against _Asa_, was drawn out of _Arabia_,\nand the plantations of _Chus_; not out of _\u00c6thiopia_, and the remote\nhabitations of the Moors. For it is said that _Asa_ pursuing his\nvictory, took from him the City _Gerar_; now _Gerar_ was no City in or\nnear _\u00c6thiopia_, but a place between _Cadesh_ and _Zur_, where _Abraham_\nformerly sojourned. Since thereof these _African \u00c6thiopians_ are not\nconvinced by the common acception to be the sons of _Chus_, whether they\nbe not the posterity of _Phut_ or _Mizraim_, or both, it is not\nassuredly determined. For _Mizraim_, he possessed _Egypt_, and the East\nparts of _Africa_. From _Lubym_ his son came the _Lybians_, and perhaps\nfrom them the _\u00c6thiopians_. _Phut_ possessed _Mauritania_, and the\nWestern parts of _Africa_, and from these perhaps descended the Moors\nof the West, of _Mandinga_, _Meleguette_ and _Guinie_. But from\n_Canaan_, upon whom the curse was pronounced, none of these had their\noriginall; for he was restrained unto _Canaan_ and _Syria_; although in\nafter Ages many Colonies dispersed, and some thereof upon the coasts of\n_Africa_, and prepossessions of his elder brothers.\n\nFourthly, To take away all doubt or any probable divarication, the curse\nis plainly specified in the Text, nor need we dispute it, like the mark\nof _Cain_; _Servus servorum erit fratribus suis_, Cursed be _Canaan_, a\nservant of servants shall he be unto his brethren; which was after\nfulfilled in the conquest of _Canaan_, subdued by the _Israelites_, the\nposterity of _Sem_. Which Prophecy _Abraham_ well understanding, took an\noath of his servant not to take a wife for his son _Isaac_ out of the\ndaughters of the _Canaanites_; and the like was performed by _Isaac_ in\nthe behalf of his Son _Jacob_. As for _Cham_ and his other sons, this\ncurse attained them not; for _Nimrod_ the son of _Chus_ set up his\nkingdom in _Babylon_, and erected the first great Empire; _Mizraim_ and\nhis posterity grew mighty Monarchs in _Egypt_; and the Empire of the\n_\u00c6thiopians_ hath been as large as either. Nor did the curse descend in\ngenerall upon the posterity of _Canaan_: for the _Sidonians_, _Arkites_,\n_Hamathites_, _Sinites_, _Arvadites_, and _Zemerites_ seem exempted. But\nwhy there being eleven Sons, five only were condemned and six escaped\nthe malediction, is a secret beyond discovery.\n\nLastly, Whereas men affirm this colour was a Curse, I cannot make out\nthe propriety of that name, it neither seeming so to them, nor\nreasonably unto us; for they take so much content therein, that they\nesteem deformity by other colours, describing the Devil, and terrible\nobjects, white. And if we seriously consult the definitions of beauty,\nand exactly perpend what wise men determine thereof, we shall not\napprehend a curse, or any deformity therein. For first, some place the\nessence thereof in the proportion of parts, conceiving it to consist in\na comely commensurability of the whole unto the parts, and the parts\nbetween themselves: which is the determination of the best and learned\nWriters. Now hereby the Moors are not excluded from beauty: there being\nin this description no consideration of colours, but an apt connexion\nand frame of parts and the whole. Others there be, and those most in\nnumber, which place it not only in proportion of parts, but also in\ngrace of colour. But to make Colour essential unto Beauty, there will\narise no slender difficulty: For _Aristotle_ in two definitions of\npulchritude, and _Galen_ in one, have made no mention of colour. Neither\nwill it agree unto the Beauty of Animals: wherein notwithstanding there\nis an approved pulchritude. Thus horses are handsome under any colour,\nand the symmetry of parts obscures the consideration of complexions.\nThus in concolour animals and such as are confined unto one colour, we\nmeasure not their Beauty thereby: For if a Crow or Black-bird grow\nwhite, we generally account it more pretty; and in almost a monstrosity\ndescend not to opinion of deformity. By this way likewise the Moors\nescape the curse of deformity: there concurring no stationary colour,\nand sometimes not any unto Beauty.\n\nThe Platonick contemplators reject both these descriptions founded upon\nparts and colours, or either: as _M. Leo_ the Jew hath excellently\ndiscoursed in his Genealogy of Love, defining beauty a formal grace,\nwhich delights and moves them to love which comprehend it. This grace\nsay they, discoverable outwardly, is the resplendor and Ray of some\ninteriour and invisible Beauty, and proceedeth from the forms of\ncompositions amiable. Whose faculties if they can aptly contrive their\nmatter, they beget in the subject an agreeable and pleasing beauty; if\nover-ruled thereby, they evidence not their perfections, but run into\ndeformity. For seeing that out of the same materials, _Thersites_ and\n_Paris_, Beauty and monstrosity may be contrived; the forms and\noperative faculties introduce and determine their perfections. Which in\nnatural bodies receive exactness in every kind, according to the first\n_Idea_ of the Creator, and in contrived bodies the phancy of the\nArtificer. And by this consideration of Beauty, the Moors also are not\nexcluded, but hold a common share therein with all mankind.\n\nLastly, In whatsoever its _Theory_ consisteth, or if in the general, we\nallow the common conceit of symmetry and of colour, yet to descend unto\nsingularities, or determine in what symmetry or colour it consisted,\nwere a slippery designation. For Beauty is determined by opinion, and\nseems to have no essence that holds one notion with all; that seeming\nbeauteous unto one, which hath no favour with another; and that unto\nevery one, according as custome hath made it natural, or sympathy and\nconformity of minds shall make it seem agreeable. Thus flat noses seem\ncomely unto the Moor, an Aquiline or hawked one unto the _Persian_, a\nlarge and prominent nose unto the Romane; but none of all these are\nacceptable in our opinion. Thus some think it most ornamental to wear\ntheir Bracelets on their Wrests, others say it is better to have them\nabout their Ancles; some think it most comely to wear their Rings and\nJewels in the Ear, others will have them about their Privities; a third\nwill not think they are compleat except they hang them in their lips,\ncheeks, or noses. Thus _Homer_ to set off _Minerva_, calleth her\n\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, that is, gray or light-blew eyed: now this unto us seems far\nless amiable then the black. Thus we that are of contrary complexions\naccuse the blackness of the Moors as ugly: But the Spouse in the\n_Canticles_ excuseth this conceit, in that description of hers, I am\nblack, but comely. And howsoever _Cerberus_, and the furies of hell be\ndescribed by the Poets under this complexion, yet in the beauty of our\nSaviour blackness is commended, when it is said, his locks are bushie\nand black as a Raven. So that to inferr this as a curse, or to reason it\nas a deformity, is no way reasonable; the two foundations of beauty,\nSymmetry and complexion receiving such various apprehensions, that no\ndeviation will be expounded so high as a curse or undeniable deformity,\nwithout a manifest and confessed degree of monstrosity.\n\nLastly, It is a very injurious method unto Philosophy, and a perpetual\npromotion of ignorance, in points of obscurity; nor open unto easie\nconsiderations, to fall upon a present refuge unto Miracles; or recurr\nunto immediate contrivance, from the insearchable hands of God. Thus in\nthe conceit of the evil odor of the Jews, Christians without a further\nresearch into the verity of the thing, or inquiry into the cause, draw\nup a judgement upon them from the passion of their Saviour. Thus in the\nwondrous effects of the clime of _Ireland_, and the freedom from all\nvenemous creatures, the credulity of common conceit imputes this\nimmunity unto the benediction of S. _Patrick_, as _Beda_ and _Gyraldus_\nhave left recorded. Thus the Ass having a peculiar mark of a cross made\nby a black list down his back, and another athwart, or at right angles\ndown his shoulders; common opinion ascribes this figure unto a peculiar\nsignation; since that beast had the honour to bear our Saviour on his\nback. Certainly this is a course more desperate then Antipathies,\nSympathies, or occult qualities; wherein by a final and satisfactive\ndiscernment of faith, we lay the last and particular effects upon the\nfirst and general cause of all things; whereas in the other, we do but\npalliate our determinations, untill our advanced endeavours do totally\nreject, or partially salve their evasions.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n A Digression concerning Blackness.\n\n\nThere being therefore two opinions repugnant unto each other, it may not\nbe presumptive or skeptical to doubt of both. And because we remain\nimperfect in the general Theory of colours, we shall deliver at present\na short discovery of blackness; wherein although perhaps we afford no\ngreater satisfaction then others, yet shall we Emperically and sensibly\ndiscourse hereof; deducing the causes of Blackness from such Originals\nin nature, as we do generally observe things are denigrated by Art. And\nherein I hope our progression will not be thought unreasonable, for Art\nbeing the imitation of Nature, or Nature at the second hand, it is but a\nsensible expression of effects dependant on the same, though more\nremoved causes: and therefore the works of the one may serve to discover\nthe other. And though colours of bodies may arise according to the\nreceptions, refraction, or modification of Light; yet are there certain\nmaterialls which may dispose them unto such qualities.\n\nAnd first, Things become black by a sooty and fuliginous matter\nproceeding from the Sulphur of bodies torrified; not taking _fuligo_\nstrictly, but in opposition unto \u1f00\u03c4\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, that is any kind of vaporous or\nmadefying excretion; and comprehending \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, that is as\n_Aristotle_ defines it, a separation of moist and dry parts made by the\naction of heat or fire, and colouring bodies objected. Hereof in his\nMeteors, from the qualities of the subject he raiseth three kinds; the\nexhalations from ligneous and lean bodies, as bones, hair, and the like\nhe calleth \u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _fumus_, from fat bodies, and such as have not their\nfatness conspicuous or separated he termeth \u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c2, _fuligo_, as wax,\nrosin, pitch, or turpentine; that from unctuous bodies, and such whose\noyliness is evident, he named \u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7 or _nidor_. Now everyone of these do\nblack bodies objected unto them, and are to be conceived in the sooty\nand fuliginous matter expressed.\n\nI say, proceeding from the sulphur of bodies torrified, that is the\noylie fat, and unctuous parts wherein consist the principles of\nflammability. Not pure and refined sulphur, as in the Spirits of wine\noften rectified; but containing terrestrious parts, and carrying with it\nthe volatile salt of the body, and such as is distinguishable by taste\nin soot; nor vulgar and usual sulphur, for that leaves none or very\nlittle blackness, except a metalline body receive the exhalation.\n\nI say, torrified, sindged, or suffering some impression from fire; thus\nare bodies casually or artificially denigrated, which in their naturals\nare of another complexion; thus are Charcoals made black by an\ninfection of their own suffitus, so is it true what is affirmed of\ncombustible bodies. _Adusta nigra_, _perusta alba_; black at first from\nthe fuliginous tincture, which being exhaled they become white, as is\nperceptible in ashes. And so doth fire cleanse and purifie bodies,\nbecause it consumes the sulphureous parts, which before did make them\nfoul: and therefore refines those bodies which will never be mundified\nby water. Thus Camphire of a white substance, by its _fuligo_ affordeth\na deep black. So is pitch black, although it proceed from the same tree\nwith Rosin, the one distilling forth, the other forced by fire. So of\nthe suffitus of a torch, do Painters make a velvet black: so is\nlamp-black made: so of burnt Harts-horn a sable; so is Bacon denigrated\nin chimnies: so in Feavers and hot distempers from choler adust is\ncaused a blackness in our tongues, teeth and excretions: so are\nustilago, brant corn and trees black by blasting; so parts cauterized,\ngangrenated, siderated and mortified, become black, the radical\nmoisture, or vital sulphur suffering an extinction, and smothered in the\npart effected. So not only actual but potential fire: not burning fire,\nbut also corroding water will induce a blackness. [SN: _Why the smoak of\npure Sulphur blacks not._] So are Chimnies and Furnaces generally black,\nexcept they receive a clear and manifest sulphur: for the smoak of\nsulphur will not black a paper, and is commonly used by women to whiten\nTiffinies, which it performeth by an acide vitriolous, and penetrating\nspirit ascending from it, by reason whereof it is not apt to kindle any\nthing nor will it easily light a Candle, untill that spirit be spent,\nand the flame approacheth the match. This is that acide and piercing\nspirit which with such activity and compunction invadeth the brains and\nnostrils of those that receive it. And thus when _Bellonius_ affirmeth\nthat Charcoals made out of the wood of Oxycedar are white, Dr. _Jordan_\nin his judicious Discourse of mineral waters yeeldeth the reason,\nbecause their vapors are rather sulphureous then of any other\ncombustible substance. So we see that _Tinby_ coals will not black\nlinnen being hanged in the smoak thereof, but rather whiten it, by\nreason of the drying and penetrating quality of sulphur, which will make\nRed roses white. And therefore to conceive a general blackness in Hell,\nand yet therein the pure and refined flames of sulphur, is no\nPhilosophical conception, nor will it well consist with the real effects\nof its nature.\n\nThese are the advenient and artificial wayes of denigration, answerably\nwhereto may be the natural progress. These are the wayes whereby\nculinary and common fires do operate, and correspondent hereunto may be\nthe effects of fire elemental. So may Bitumen, Coals, Jet, Black-lead,\nand divers mineral earths become black; being either fuliginous\nconcretions in the earth, or suffering a scorch from denigrating\nPrinciples in their formation. So men and other animals receive\ndifferent tinctures from constitution and complexional efflorescences,\nand descend still lower, as they partake of the fuliginous and\ndenigrating humour. And so may the _\u00c6thiopians_ or _Negroes_ become\ncoal-black, from fuliginous efflorescences and complexional tinctures\narising from such probabilities, as we have declared before.\n\nThe second way whereby bodies become black, is an Atramentous condition\nor mixture, that is a vitriolate or copperose quality conjoyning with a\nterrestrious and astringent humidity; for so is _Atramentum\nScriptorium_, or writing Ink commonly made by copperose cast upon a\ndecoction or infusion of galls. I say a vitriolous or copperous quality;\nfor vitriol is the active or chief ingredient in Ink, and no other salt\nthat I know will strike the colour with galls; neither Alom, Sal-gem,\nNitre, nor Armoniack. [SN: _What the common Copperose is._] Now\nartificial copperose, and such as we commonly use, is a rough and\nacrimonious kind of salt drawn out of ferreous and eruginous earths,\npartaking chiefly of Iron and Copper; the blew of Copper, the green most\nof Iron: Nor is it unusual to dissolve fragments of Iron in the liquor\nthereof, for advantage in the concretion. I say, a terrestrious or\nastringent humidity; for without this there will ensue no tincture; for\nCopperose in a decoction of Lettuce or Mallows affords no black, which\nwith an astringent mixture it will do, though it be made up with oyl, as\nin printing and painting Ink. But whereas in this composition we use\nonly Nut-gals, that is an excrescence from the Oak, therein we follow\nand beat upon the old receit; for any plant of austere and stiptick\nparts will suffice, as I have experimented in _Bistorte_, _Myrobolans_,\n_Myrtus Brabantica_, _Balaustium_ and Red Roses. And indeed, most\ndecoctions of astringent plants, of what colour soever, do leave in the\nLiquor a deep and Muscadine red: which by addition of vitriol descends\ninto a black: and so _Dioscorides_ in his receit of Ink, leaves out\ngall, and with copperose makes use of soot.\n\nNow if we enquire in what part of vitriol this Atramental and\ndenigrating condition lodgeth, it will seem especially to lie in the\nmore fixed salt thereof; for the phlegm or aqueous evaporation will not\ndenigrate; nor yet spirits of vitriol, which carry with them volatile\nand nimbler Salt: For if upon a decoction of Copperose and gall, be\npoured the spirits or oyl of vitriol, the liquor will relinquish his\nblackness; the gall and parts of the copperose precipitate unto the\nbottom, and the Ink grow clear again; which it will not so easily do in\ncommon Ink, because that gum is dissolved therein which hindereth the\nseparation. But Colcothar or vitriol burnt, though unto a redness\ncontaining the fixed salt, will make good Ink; and so will the Lixivium,\nor Lye made thereof with warm water; but the Terra or Insipid earth\nremaining, affords no black at all, but serves in many things for a\ngross and useful red. And though Spirits of vitriol, projected upon a\ndecoction of gals, will not raise a black, yet if these spirits be any\nway fixed, or return into vitriol again, the same will act their former\nparts and denigrate as before.\n\nAnd if we yet make a more exact enquiry, by what this salt of vitriol\nmore peculiarly gives this colour, we shall find it to be from a\nmetalline condition, and especially an Iron Property or ferreous\nparticipation. For blew Copperose which deeply partakes of the copper\nwill do it but weakly, Verdigrise which is made of Copper will not do it\nat all, but the filings of Iron infused in vinegar, will with a\ndecoction of gals make good Ink, without any Copperose at all; and so\nwill infusion of Load-stone; which is of affinity with Iron. And though\nmore conspicuously in iron, yet such a Calcanthous or Atramentous\nquality, we will not wholly reject in other mettals; whereby we often\nobserve black tinctures in their solutions. Thus a Lemmon, Quince or\nsharp Apple cut with a knife becomes immediately black: And from the\nlike cause, Artichokes; so sublimate beat up with whites of eggs, if\ntouched with a knife, becomes incontinently black. So _Aqua fortis_,\nwhose ingredient is vitriol, will make white bodies black. So leather\ndressed with the bark of Oak, is easily made black by a bare solution of\nCopperose. So divers Mineral waters and such as participate of Iron,\nupon an infusion of gals, become of a dark colour, and entering upon\nblack. So steel infused, makes not only the liquor duskie, but in bodies\nwherein it concurs with proportionable tinctures makes also the\nexcretions black. And so also from this vitriolous quality _Mercurius\ndulcis_, and vitriol vomitive occasion black ejections. But whether this\ndenigrating quality in Copperose proceedeth from an Iron participation,\nor rather in Iron from a vitriolous communication; or whether black\ntinctures from metallical bodies be not from vitriolous parts contained\nin their sulphur, since common sulphur containeth also much vitriol, may\nadmit consideration. However in this way of tincture, it seemeth plain,\nthat Iron and Vitriol are the powerful Denigrators.\n\nSuch a condition there is naturally in some living creatures. Thus that\nblack humour by _Aristotle_ named \u03b8\u03cc\u03bbos, and commonly\ntranslated _Atramentum_, may be occasioned in the Cuttle-fish. Such a\ncondition there is naturally in some Plants, as Black-berries,\nWalnut-rinds, Black-cherries; whereby they extinguish inflammations,\ncorroborate the stomack, and are esteemed specifical in the Epilepsie.\nSuch an atramentous condition there is to be found sometime in the\nblood, when that which some call _Acetum_, others _Vitriolum_, concurs\nwith parts prepared for this tincture. And so from these conditions the\nMoors might possibly become Negroes, receiving Atramentous impressions\nin some of those wayes, whose possibility is by us declared.\n\n[Sidenote: _How a vitriolous quality may be in living bodies._]\n\nNor is it strange that we affirm there are vitriolous parts, qualities,\nand even at some distance Vitriol it self in living bodies; for there is\na sower stiptick salt diffused through the Earth, which passing a\nconcoction in plants, becometh milder and more agreeable unto the sense,\nand this is that vegetable vitriol, whereby divers plants contain a\ngratefull sharpness, as Lemmons, Pomegranats, Cherries, or an austere\nand inconcocted roughness, as Sloes, Medlars and Quinces. And that not\nonly vitriol is a cause of blackness, but that the salts of natural\nbodies do carry a powerfull stroke in the tincture and vernish of all\nthings, we shall not deny, if we contradict not experience, and the\nvisible art of Dyars; who advance and graduate their colours with Salts.\nFor the decoctions of simples which bear the visible colours of bodies\ndecocted, are dead and evanid, without the commixtion of Alum, Argol,\nand the like. And this is also apparent in Chymical preparations. So\nCinaber becomes red by the acide exhalation of sulphur, which otherwise\npresents a pure and niveous white. So spirits of Salt upon a blew paper\nmake an orient red. So Tartar or vitriol upon an infusion of violets\naffords a delightfull crimson. [SN: _Whence the colours of Plants, etc.\nmay arise._] Thus it is wonderful what variety of colours the spirits of\nSaltpeter, and especially, if they be kept in a glass while they pierce\nthe sides thereof; I say, what Orient greens they will project: from the\nlike spirits in the earth the plants thereof perhaps acquire their\nverdure. And from such salary irradiations may those wondrous varieties\narise, which are observable in Animals, as Mallards heads, and Peacocks\nfeathers, receiving intention or alteration according as they are\npresented unto the light. Thus Saltpeter, Ammoniack and Mineral spirits\nemit delectable and various colours; and common _Aqua fortis_ will in\nsome green and narrow mouthed glasses, about the verges thereof, send\nforth a deep and Gentianella blew.\n\nThus have we at last drawn our conjectures unto a period; wherein if our\ncontemplations afford no satisfaction unto others, I hope our attempts\nwill bring no condemnation on our selves (for besides that adventures in\nknowledge are laudable, and the assayes of weaker heads afford\noftentimes improveable hints unto better) although in this long journey\nwe miss the intended end; yet are there many things of truth disclosed\nby the way; and the collaterall verity may unto reasonable speculations\nsome what requite the capital indiscovery.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n Of Gypsies.\n\n\nGreat wonder it is not we are to seek in the original of _\u00c6thiopians_\nand natural Negroes, being also at a loss concerning the Original of\nGypsies and counterfeit Moors, observable in many parts of _Europe_,\n_Asia_, and _Africa_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Opinions concerning the original of Gypsies._]\n\nCommon opinion deriveth them from _Egypt_, and from thence they derive\nthemselves, according to their own account hereof, as _Munster_\ndiscovered in the letters and pass which they obtained from _Sigismund_\nthe Emperour; that they first came out of lesser _Egypt_, that having\ndefected from the Christian rule, and relapsed unto Pagan rites, some of\nevery family were enjoyned this penance to wander about the world; or as\n_Aventinus_ delivereth, they pretend for this vagabond course, a\njudgement of God upon their fore-fathers, who refused to entertain the\nVirgin _Mary_ and Jesus, when she fled into their Country.\n\nWhich account notwithstanding is of little probability: for the generall\nstream of writers, who enquire into their originall, insist not upon\nthis; and are so little satisfied in their descent from _Egypt_, that\nthey deduce them from several other nations [SN: _Fernand. de Cordua\ndidascal. multipl._]: _Polydore Virgil_ accounting them originally\n_Syrians_, _Philippus Bergomas_ fetcheth them from _Chald\u00e6a_, _\u00c6neas\nSylvius_ from some part of _Tartary_, _Bellonius_ no further then\n_Walachia_ and _Bulgaria_, nor _Aventinus_ then the confines of\n_Hungaria_.\n\nThat they are no _Egyptians_, _Bellonius_ [SN: Observat. l. 2.] maketh\nevident: who met great droves of Gypsies in _Egypt_, about Gran Cairo,\nMat\u00e6rea, and the villages on the banks of _Nilus_, who notwithstanding\nwere accounted strangers unto that Nation, and wanderers from foreign\nparts, even as they are esteemed with us.\n\n[Sidenote: _Gypsies first known in Germany._]\n\nThat they came not out of _Egypt_ is also probable, because their first\nappearance was in _Germany_, since the year 1400, nor were they observed\nbefore in other parts of _Europe_, as is deducible from _Munster_,\n_Genebrard_, _Crantsius_ and _Ortilius_.\n\nBut that they first set out not far from _Germany_, is also probable\nfrom their language, which was the Sclavonian tongue; and when they\nwandred afterward into _France_, they were commonly called _Bohemians_,\nwhich name is still retained for Gypsies. And therefore when _Crantsius_\ndelivereth, they first appeared about the Baltick Sea, when _Bellonius_\nderiveth them from _Bulgaria_ and _Walachia_, and others from about\n_Hungaria_, they speak not repugnantly hereto: for the language of those\nNations was Sclavonian, at least some dialect thereof.\n\n[Sidenote: _What use the Grand Signior maketh of Gypsies._]\n\nBut of what nation soever they were at first, they are now almost of\nall; associating unto them some of every country where they wander: when\nthey will be lost, or whether at all again, is not without some doubt:\nfor unsetled nations have out-lasted others of fixed habitations: and\nthough Gypsies have been banished by most Christian Princes, yet have\nthey found some countenance from the great Turk, who suffereth them to\nlive and maintain publick Stews near the Imperial City in _Pera_ [SN:\nBellon. observat. l. 2.], of whom he often maketh a politick advantage,\nimploying them as spies into other nations, under which title they were\nbanished by _Charles_ the fift.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n Of some others.\n\n\nWe commonly accuse the phancies of elder times in the improper figures\nof heaven assigned unto Constellations, which do not seem to answer\nthem, either in Greek or Barbarick Spheres: yet equall incongruities\nhave been commonly committed by Geographers and Historians, in the\nfigurall resemblances of several regions on earth; While by _Livy_ and\n_Julius, Rusticus_ the Island of _Britain_ is made to resemble a long\ndish or two-edged ax; _Italy_ by _Numatianus_ to be like an Oak-leaf:\nand _Spain_ an Ox-hide; while the phancy of _Strabo_ makes the habitated\nearth like a cloak, and _Dionysius Afer_ will have it like a sling: with\nmany others observable in good writers [SN: Tacit. de vita Jul. Agric.],\nyet not made out from the letter or signification; acquitting Astronomy\nin their figures of the Zodiack: wherein they are not justified unto\nstrict resemblances, but rather made out from the effects of Sun or Moon\nin these several portions of heaven, or from peculiar influences of\nthose constellations, which some way make good their names. [SN:\nJunctin. in Sph. l. de Sacro bosco cap. 2.]\n\nWhich notwithstanding being now authentick by prescription, may be\nretained in their naked acceptions, and names translated from substances\nknown on earth. And therefore the learned _Hevelius_ in his accurate\nSelenography, or description of the Moon, hath well translated the known\nappellations of Regions, Seas and Mountains, unto the parts of that\nLuminary: and rather then use invented names or humane denominations,\nwith witty congruity hath placed _Mount Sinai_, _Taurus_, _M\u00e6otis\nPalus_, the Mediterranean Sea, _Mauritania_, _Sicily_ and _Asia_ Minor\nin the Moon.\n\nMore hardly can we find the Hebrew letters in the heavens, made out of\nthe greater and lesser Stars which put together do make up words,\nwherein Cabalisticall Speculators conceive they read the events of\nfuture things [SN: _The Cabala of the Stars._]; and how from the Stars\nin the head of _Medusa_, to make out the word _Charab_; and thereby\ndesolation presignified unto _Greece_ or _Javan_, numerally\ncharacterized in that word, requireth no rigid reader. [SN: Greffarel\n_out of R._ Chomer.]\n\nIt is not easie to reconcile the different accounts of longitude, while\nin modern tables the hundred and eighty degree is more then thirty\ndegrees beyond that part, where _Ptolomy_ placeth an 180. Nor will the\nwider and more Western term of Longitude, from whence the Moderns begin\ntheir commensuration, sufficiently salve the difference. [SN: Athan.\nKircher. in pro\u0153mio.] The ancients began the measure of Longitude\nfrom the fortunate Islands or Canaries, the Moderns from the Azores or\nIslands of S. _Michael_; but since the Azores are but fifteen degrees\nmore West, why the Moderns should reckon 180, where _Ptolomy_ accounteth\nabove 220, or though they take in 15 degrees at the West, why they\nshould reckon 30 at the East, beyond the same measure, is yet to be\ndetermined; nor would it be much advantaged, if we should conceive that\nthe compute of _Ptolomy_ were not so agreeable unto the Canaries, as the\nHesperides or Islands of _Cabo Verde_. [SN: Robertus Hues de globis.]\n\n[Sidenote: _When the Moon will be seen on the first day of the change._]\n\n[Sidenote: _Why the Sun is seen after it is set, or naturally under the\nHorizon._]\n\nWhether the compute of moneths from the first appearance of the Moon,\nwhich divers nations have followed, be not a more perturbed way, then\nthat which accounts from the conjunction, may seem of reasonable doubt\n[SN: Hevel. Selenog. cap. 9.]; not only from the uncertainty of its\nappearance in foul and cloudy weather, but unequal time in any; that is\nsooner or later, according as the Moon shall be in the signs of long\ndescention, as _Pisces_, _Aries_, _Taurus_, in the Perigeum or swiftest\nmotion, and in the Northern Latitude: whereby sometimes it may be seen\nthe very day of the change, as will observably happen 1654, in the\nmoneths of April and May? or whether also the compute of the day be\nexactly made, from the visible arising or setting of the Sun, because\nthe Sun is sometimes naturally set, and under the Horizon, when visibly\nit is above it; from the causes of refraction, and such as make us\nbehold a piece of silver in a basin, when water is put upon it, which we\ncould not discover before, as under the verge thereof.\n\nWhether the globe of the earth be but a point, in respect of the Stars\nand Firmament, or how if the rayes thereof do fall upon a point, they\nare received in such variety of Angles, appearing greater or lesser from\ndifferences of refraction?\n\n[Sidenote: _To what the motion of the Heavens serveth_, Met. Lib.]\n\nWhether if the motion of the Heavens should cease a while, all things\nwould instantly perish? and whether this assertion doth not make the\nframe of sublunary things to hold too loose a dependency upon the first\nand conserving cause? at least impute too much unto the motion of the\nheavens, whose eminent activities are by heat, light and influence, the\nmotion it self being barren, or chiefly serving for the due application\nof celestial virtues unto sublunary bodies as _Cabeus_ hath learnedly\nobserved?\n\nWhether Comets or blazing Stars be generally of such terrible effects,\nas elder times have conceived them; for since it is found that many,\nfrom whence these predictions are drawn, have been above the Moon; why\nthey may not be qualified from their positions, and aspects which they\nhold with stars of favourable natures; or why since they may be\nconceived to arise from the effluviums of other Stars, they may not\nretain the benignity of their Originals; or since the natures of the\nfixed Stars are astrologically differenced by the Planets, and are\nesteemed Martial or Jovial, according to the colours whereby they answer\nthese Planets; why although the red Comets do carry the portensions of\nMars, the brightly-white should not be of the Influence of Jupiter or\nVenus, answerably unto _Cor Scorpii_ and Arcturus, is not absurd to\ndoubt.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n at the Edinburgh University Press\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\nContemporary spellings are variable (e.g., than/then, there/their,\ncurrent/currant) and are retained. See p. 90: \"were ever commended\nfor there note\".\n\nThe modern 'itself' and 'myself', etc. were printed as separate\nwords (e.g., \"our selves\" on p. 132.) This is retained.\n\nThe following errors have been corrected, or noted:\n\n p. 25 (_ut scribit Aristoteles[)]_ ) | added )\n |\n p. 57 Why some lamps include[d] in those | added 'd'\n bodies |\n |\n p. 70 the teeth of [Narhwales] | sic\n |\n p. 148 the information of reason or [f/s]ence | isolated instance\n | of 's' as 'f'\n | -- changed.\n |\n p. 220 [by/but] this only roasted | corrected\n |\n p. 256 Based on Juvenal's Satires, line 305, |\n where we see: \"Dolia >nudi< non ardent |\n Cynici;\" rather than >magni<. | sic\n |\n p. 272 The marginal note \"_Dion._ Ep. 7. ... | replaced '3'\n in vit. [3/S] Dionys.\" was misplaced. | with 'S'\n The numeral '3' is also a misprint for |\n 'S'. |\n |\n p. 290 in the [] 730 of the _Julian_ period | sic\n |\n p. 376 lo[n]gitudine | 'n' added","title":"The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":117680}