The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2

Lastly, If all be conceded, and were there in this Aphorism an unrestrained truth, yet were it not reasonable from a caution to inferr a non-usance or abolition, from a thing to be used with discretion, not to be used at all. Because the Apostle bids us beware of Philosophy, heads of extremity will have none at all; an usual fallacy in vulgar and less distinctive brains, who having once overshot the mean, run violently on, and find no rest but in the extreams.

Now hereon we have the longer insisted, because the error is material, and concerns oft-times the life of man; an error to be taken notice of by State, and provided against by Princes, who are of the opinion of Solomon, that their riches consists in the multitude of their subjects. An error worse then some reputed Heresies; and of greater danger to the body, then they unto the soul; which whosoever is able to reclaim, he shall salve more in one summer then ThemisonA Physitian. Quot Themison ægros Autumno occiderit uno. Juvenal. destroyed in any Autumn; he shall introduce a new way of cure, preserving by Theory, as well as practice, and men not only from death, but from destroying themselves.

THE FIFTH BOOK

Of many things questionable as they are commonly described in Pictures

CHAPTER I

Of the Picture of the Pelecan

And first in every place we meet with the picture of the Pelecan, opening her breast with her bill, and feeding her young ones with the blood distilling from her. Thus is it set forth not only in common Signs, but in the Crest and Schucheon of many Noble families; hath been asserted by many holy Writers, and was an Hierogliphick of piety and pitty among the Ægyptians; on which consideration, they spared them at their tables.

Notwithstanding upon enquiry we find no mention hereof in Ancient Zodiographers, and such as have particularly discoursed upon Animals, as Aristotle, Ælian, Pliny, Solinus and many more; who seldom forget proprieties of such a nature, and have been very punctual in less considerable Records. Some ground hereof I confess we may allow, nor need we deny a remarkable affection in Pelecans toward their young; for Ælian discoursing of Storks, and their affection toward their brood, whom they instruct to fly, and unto whom they re-deliver up the provision of their Bellies, concludeth at last, that Herons and Pelecans do the like.

As for the testimonies of Ancient Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers, we may more safely conceive therein some Emblematical than any real Story: so doth Eucherius confess it to be the Emblem of Christ. And we are unwilling literally to receive that account of Jerom, that perceiving her young ones destroyed by Serpents, she openeth her side with her bill, by the blood whereof they revive and return unto life again. By which relation they might indeed illustrate the destruction of man by the old Serpent, and his restorement by the blood of Christ: and in this sense we shall not dispute the like relations of Austine, Isidore, Albertus, and many more: and under an Emblematical intention, we accept it in coat-armour.

As for the Hieroglyphick of the Egyptians, they erected the same upon another consideration, which was parental affection; manifested in the protection of her young ones, when her nest was set on fire. For as for letting out her blood, it was not the assertion of the Egyptians, but seems translated unto the Pelecan from the Vulture, as Pierius hath plainly delivered. Sed quod Pelicanum (ut etiam aliis plerisque persuasum est) rostro pectus dissecantem pingunt, ita ut suo sanguine filios alat, ab Ægyptiorum historiâ valde alienum est, illi enim vulturem tantum id facere tradiderunt.

And lastly, as concerning the picture, if naturally examined, and not Hierogliphically conceived, it containeth many improprieties, disagreeing almost in all things from the true and proper description. For, whereas it is commonly set forth green or yellow, in its proper colour, it is inclining to white; excepting the extremities or tops of the wing feathers, which are brown. The bigness of a Pelecan. It is described in the bigness of a Hen, whereas it approacheth and sometimes exceedeth the magnitude of a Swan. It is commonly painted with a short bill; whereas that of the Pelecan attaineth sometimes the length of two spans. The bill is made acute or pointed at the end; whereas it is flat and broad, though somewhat inverted at the extream. It is described like fissipedes, or birds which have their feet or claws divided; whereas it is palmipedous, or fin-footed like Swans and Geese; according to the method of nature, in latirostrous or flat-bild birds; which being generally swimmers, the organ is wisely contrived unto the action, and they are framed with fins or oars upon their feet; and therefore they neither light, nor build on trees, if we except Cormorants, who make their nests like Herons. Of her Crop. Lastly, there is one part omitted more remarkable than any other, that is, the chowle or crop adhering unto the lower side of the bill, and so descending by the throat: a bag or sachel very observable, and of a capacity almost beyond credit; which notwithstanding, this animal could not want; for therein it receiveth Oysters, Cochels, Scollops, and other testaceous animals; which being not able to break, it retains them until they open, and vomiting them up, takes out the meat contained. This is that part preserved for a rarity and wherein (as Sanctius delivers) in one dissected, a Negro child was found.

A possibility there may be of opening and bleeding their breast; for this may be done by the uncous and pointed extremity of their bill: and some probability also that they sometimes do it, for their own relief, though not for their young ones; that is by nibling and biting themselves on their itching part of their breast, upon fullness or acrimony of blood. And the same may be better made out; if (as some relate) their feathers on that part are sometimes observed to be red and tincted with blood.

CHAPTER II

Of the Picture of Dolphins

That Dolphins are crooked, is not only affirmed by the hand of the Painter, but commonly conceived their natural and proper figure; which is not only the opinion of our times, but seems the belief of elder times before us. For, beside the expressions of Ovid and Pliny, their Pourtraicts in some ancient Coyns are framed in this figure, as will appear in some thereof in Gesner, others in Goltsius, and Lævinus Hulsius in his discription of Coyns, from Julius Cæsar unto Rhodulphus the second.

Notwithstanding, to speak strictly in their natural figure they are streight, nor have their spine convexed, or more considerably embowed, than Sharks, Porposes, Whales, and other Cetaceous animals, as Scaliger plainly affirmeth: Corpus habet non magis curvum quam reliqui pisces. As ocular enquiry informeth; and as unto such as have not had the opportunity to behold them, their proper pourtraicts will discover in Rondeletius, Gesner, and Aldrovandus. And as indeed is deducible from pictures themselves; for though they be drawn repandous, or convexedly crooked in one piece, yet the Dolphin that carrieth Arion is concavously inverted, and hath its spine depressed in another. And answerably hereto may we behold them differently bowed in medalls, and the Dolphins of Tarus and Fulius do make another flexure from that of Commodus and Agrippa.

And therefore what is delivered of their incurvity, must either be taken Emphatically, that is, not really but in appearance; which happeneth, when they leap above water, and suddenly shoot down again; which is a fallacy in vision, whereby straight bodies in a sudden motion protruded obliquely downward, appear unto the eye crooked; and this is the construction of Bellonius. Or if it be taken really, it must not universally and perpetually; that is, not when they swim and remain in their proper figures, but only when they leap, or impetuously whirl their bodies any way; and this is the opinion of Gesnerus. Or lastly, It may be taken neither really nor emphatically, but only Emblematically: for being the Hieroglyphick of celerity, and swifter than other animals, men best expressed their velocity by incurvity, and under some figure of a bow: and in this sense probably do Heralds also receive it, when from a Dolphin extended, they distinguish a Dolphin embowed.

And thus also must that picture be taken of a Dolphin clasping an Anchor: that is, not really, as is by most conceived out of affection unto man, conveighing the Anchor unto the ground: but emblematically, according as Pierius hath expressed it, The swiftest animal conjoyned with that heavy body, implying that common moral, Festina lentè: and that celerity should always be contempered with cunctation.

CHAPTER III

Of the Picture of a Grashopper

There is also among us a common description and picture of a Grashopper, as may be observed in the pictures of Emblematists, in the coats of several families, and as the word Cicada is usually translated in Dictionaries. Wherein to speak strictly, if by this word Grashopper, we understand that animal which is implied by τέττιξ with the Greeks, and by Cicada with the Latines; we may with safety affirm the picture is widely mistaken, and that for ought enquiry can inform, there is no such insect in England. Which how paradoxical soever, upon a strict enquiry, will prove undeniable truth.

For first, That animal which the French term Sauterelle, we a Grashopper, and which under this name is commonly described by us, is named Ἄκρις by the Greeks, by the Latines Locusta, and by our selves in proper speech a Locust; as in the diet of John Baptist, and in our Translation,Prov. 30. the Locusts have no King, yet go they forth all of them by bands. Again, Between the Cicada and that we call a Grashopper, the differences are very many, as may be observed in themselves, or their descriptions in Matthiolus, Aldrovandus and Muffetus. For first, They are differently cucullated or capuched upon the head and back, and in the Cicada the eyes are more prominent: the Locusts have Antennæ: or long horns before, with a long falcation or forcipated tail behind; and being ordained for saltation, their hinder legs do far exceed the other. The Locust or our Grashopper hath teeth, the Cicada none at all; nor any mouth according unto Aristotle: the Cicada is most upon trees; and lastly, the fritinnitus or proper note thereof, is far more shril than that of the Locust; and its life so short in Summer, that for provision it needs not have recourse unto the providence of the Pismire in Winter.

And therefore where the Cicada must be understood, the pictures of Heralds and Emblematists are not exact, nor is it safe to adhere unto the interpretation of Dictionaries; and we must with candour make out our own Translations: for in the Plague of Ægypt, Exodus 10. the word Ἄκρις is translated a Locust, but in the same sense and subject, Wisdom 16. it is translated a Grashopper; For them the bitings of Grashoppers and flies killed: whereas we have declared before, the Cicada hath no teeth, but is conceived to live upon dew; and the possibility of its subsistence is disputed by Licetus. Hereof I perceive Muffetus hath taken notice, dissenting from Langius and Lycostenes, while they deliver, the Cicada’s destroyed the fruits in Germany, where that insect is not found; and therefore concludeth, Tam ipsos quam alios deceptos fuisse autumo, dum locustas cicadas esse vulgari errore crederent.

And hereby there may be some mistake in the due dispensation of Medicines desumed from this animal; particularly of Diatettigon commended by Ætius in the affections of the kidnies. It must be likewise understood with some restriction what hath been affirmed by Isidore, and yet delivered by many, that Cicades are bred out of Cuccow spittle or Woodsear; that is, that spumous, frothy dew or exudation, or both, found upon Plants, especially about the joints of Lavender and Rosemary, observable with us about the latter end of May. For here the true Cicada is not bred, but certain it is, that out of this, some kind of Locust doth proceed; for herein may be discovered a little insect of a festucine or pale green, resembling in all parts a Locust, or what we call a Grashopper.

Lastly, The word it self is improper, and the term of Grashopper not appliable unto the Cicada; for therein the organs of motion are not contrived for saltation, nor are the hinder legs of such extension, as is observable in salient animals, and such as move by leaping. Whereto the Locust is very well conformed; for therein the legs behind are longer than all the body, and make at the second joynt acute angles, at a considerable advancement above their backs.

The mistake therefore with us might have its original from a defect in our language; for having not the insect with us, we have not fallen upon its proper name, and so make use of a term common unto it and the Locust; whereas other countries have proper expressions for it. So the Italian calls it Cicada, the Spaniard Cigarra, and the French Cigale; all which appellations conform unto the original, and properly express this animal. Whereas our word is borrowed from the Saxon Gærsthopp, which our forefathers, who never beheld the Cicada, used for that insect which we yet call a Grashopper.

CHAPTER IV

Of the Picture of the Serpent tempting Eve

In the Picture of Paradise, and delusion of our first Parents, the Serpent is often described with humane visage; not unlike unto Cadmus or his wife, in the act of their Metamorphosis. Which is not a meer pictorial contrivance or invention of the Picturer, but an ancient tradition and conceived reality, as it stands delivered by Beda and Authors of some antiquity; that is, that Sathan appeared not unto Eve in the naked form of a Serpent, but with a Virgins head, that thereby he might become more acceptable, and his temptation find the easier entertainment. Which nevertheless is a conceit not to be admitted, and the plain and received figure, is with better reason embraced.

For first, as Pierius observeth from Barcephas, the assumption of humane shape had proved a disadvantage unto Sathan; affording not only a suspicious amazement in Eve, before the fact, in beholding a third humanity beside her self and Adam; but leaving some excuse unto the woman, which afterward the man took up with lesser reason; that is, to have been deceived by another like her self.

Again, There was no inconvenience in the shape assumed, or any considerable impediment that might disturb that performance in the common form of a Serpent. For whereas it is conceived the woman must needs be afraid thereof, and rather flie than approach it; it was not agreeable unto the condition of Paradise and state of innocency therein; if in that place as most determine, no creature was hurtful or terrible unto man, and those destructive effects they now discover succeeded the curse, and came in with thorns and briars. And therefore Eugubinus (who affirmeth this Serpent was a Basilisk) incurreth no absurdity, nor need we infer that Eve should be destroyed immediately upon that Vision. For noxious animals could offend them no more in the Garden, than Noah in the Ark: as they peaceably received their names, so they friendly possessed their natures: and were their conditions destructive unto each other, they were not so unto man, whose constitutions then were antidotes, and needed not fear poisons. And if (as most conceive) there were but two created of every kind, they could not at that time destroy either man or themselves; for this had frustrated the command of multiplication, destroyed a species, and imperfected the Creation. And therefore also if Cain were the first man born, with him entred not only the act, but the first power of murther; for before that time neither could the Serpent nor Adam destroy Eve; nor Adam and Eve each other; for that had overthrown the intention of the world, and put its Creator to act the sixt day over again.

Moreover, Whereas in regard of speech, and vocal conference with Eve, it may be thought he would rather assume an humane shape and organs, then the improper form of a serpent; it implies no material impediment. Nor need we to wonder how he contrived a voice out of the mouth of a Serpent, who hath done the like out of the belly of a Pythonissa, and the trunk of an Oak; as he did for many years at Dodona.

Why Eve wondered not at the serpents speaking.

Lastly, Whereas it might be conceived that an humane shape was fitter for this enterprise; it being more than probable she would be amazed to hear a Serpent speak; some conceive she might not yet be certain that only man was priviledged with speech; and being in the novity of the Creation, and inexperience of all things, might not be affrighted to hear a Serpent speak. Beside she might be ignorant of their natures, who was not versed in their names, as being not present at the general survey of Animals, when Adam assigned unto every one a name concordant unto its nature. Nor is this my opinion, but the determination of Lombard and Tostatus; and also the reply of Cyril unto the objection of Julian, who compared this story unto the fables of the Greeks.

CHAPTER V

Of the Picture of Adam and Eve with Navels

Another mistake there may be in the Picture of our first Parents, who after the manner of their posterity are both delineated with a Navel. And this is observable not only in ordinary and stained pieces, but in the Authentick draughts of Urbin, Angelo and others. Which notwithstanding cannot be allowed, except we impute that unto the first cause, which we impose not on the second; or what we deny unto nature, we impute unto Naturity it self; that is, that in the first and most accomplished piece, the Creator affected superfluities, or ordained parts without use or office.

What the Navel is, and for what use.

For the use of the Navel is to continue the Infant unto the Mother, and by the vessels thereof to convey its aliment and sustentation. The vessels whereof it consisteth, are the umbilical vein, which is a branch of the Porta, and implanted in the Liver of the Infant; two Arteries likewise arising from the Iliacal branches, by which the Infant receiveth the purer portion of blood and spirits from the mother; and lastly, the Urachos or ligamental passage derived from the bottom of the bladder, whereby it dischargeth the waterish and urinary part of its aliment. Now upon the birth, when the Infant forsaketh the womb, although it dilacerate, and break the involving membranes, yet do these vessels hold, and by the mediation thereof the Infant is connected unto the womb, not only before, but a while also after the birth. These therefore the midwife cutteth off, contriving them into a knot close unto the body of the Infant; from whence ensueth that tortuosity or complicated modosity we usually call the Navel; occasioned by the colligation of vessels before mentioned. That Adam and Eve had not Navels. Now the Navel being a part, not precedent, but subsequent unto generation, nativity or parturition, it cannot be well imagined at the creation or extraordinary formation of Adam, who immediately issued from the Artifice of God; nor also that of Eve; who was not solemnly begotten, but suddenly framed, and anomalously proceeded from Adam.

And if we be led into conclusions that Adam had also this part, because we behold the same in our selves, the inference is not reasonable; for if we conceive the way of his formation, or of the first animals, did carry in all points a strict conformity unto succeeding productions, we might fall into imaginations that Adam was made without Teeth; or that he ran through those notable alterations in the vessels of the heart, which the Infant suffereth after birth: we need not dispute whether the egg or bird were first; and might conceive that Dogs were created blind, because we observe they are littered so with us. Which to affirm, is to confound, at least to regulate creation unto generation, the first Acts of God, unto the second of Nature; which were determined in that general indulgence, Encrease and Multiply, produce or propagate each other; that is, not answerably in all points, but in a prolonged method according to seminal progression. For the formation of things at first was different from their generation after; and although it had nothing to precede it, was aptly contrived for that which should succeed it. And therefore though Adam were framed without this part, as having no other womb than that of his proper principles, yet was not his posterity without the same: for the seminality of his fabrick contained the power thereof; and was endued with the science of those parts whose predestinations upon succession it did accomplish.

All the Navel therefore and conjunctive part we can suppose in Adam, was his dependency on his Maker, and the connexion he must needs have unto heaven, who was the Son of God. For holding no dependence on any preceding efficient but God; in the act of his production there may be conceived some connexion, and Adam to have been in a momental Navel with his Maker. And although from his carnality and corporal existence, the conjunction seemeth no nearer than of causality and effect; yet in his immortal and diviner part he seemed to hold a nearer coherence, and an umbilicality even with God himself. And so indeed although the propriety of this part be found but in some animals, and many species there are which have no Navel at all; yet is there one link and common connexion, one general ligament, and necessary obligation of all what ever unto God. Whereby although they act themselves at distance, and seem to be at loose; yet do they hold a continuity with their Maker. Which catenation or conserving union when ever his pleasure shall divide, let go, or separate, they shall fall from their existence, essence, and operations: in brief, they must retire unto their primitive nothing, and shrink into their Chaos again.

They who hold the egg was before the Bird, prevent this doubt in many other animals, which also extendeth unto them: For birds are nourished by umbilical vessels, and the Navel is manifest sometimes a day or two after exclusion. The same is probable in oviparous exclusions, if the lesser part of eggs must serve for the formation, the greater part for nutriment. The same is made out in the eggs of Snakes; and is not improbable in the generation of Porwiggles or Tadpoles, and may be also true in some vermiparous exclusions: although (as we have observed in the daily progress in some) the whole Maggot is little enough to make a Fly, without any part remaining.

CHAPTER VI

Of the Pictures of Eastern Nations, and the Jews at their Feasts, especially our Saviour at the Passover

Concerning the Pictures of the Jews, and Eastern Nations at their Feasts, concerning the gesture of our Saviour at the Passover, who is usually described sitting upon a stool or bench at a square table, in the middest of the twelve, many make great doubt; and (though they concede a table-gesture) will hardly allow this usual way of Session.

Wherein restraining no mans enquiry, it will appear that accubation, or lying down at meals was a gesture used by very many Nations. That the Persians used it, beside the testimony of humane Writers, is deducible from that passage in Esther.Esther 7. That when the King returned into the place of the banquet of wine, Haman was fallen upon the bed whereon Esther was. That the Parthians used it, is evident from Athenæus, who delivereth out of Possidonius, that their King lay down at meals, on an higher bed than others. That Cleopatra thus entertained Anthony, the same Author manifesteth when he saith, she prepared twelve Tricliniums. That it was in use among the Greeks, the word Triclinium implieth, and the same is also declarable from many places in the Symposiacks of Plutarch. That it was not out of fashion in the days of Aristotle, he declareth in his politicks; when among the Institutionary rules of youth, he adviseth they might not be permitted to hear Iambicks and Tragedies before they were admitted unto discumbency or lying along with others at their meals. That the Romans used this gesture at repast, beside many more, is evident from Lipsius, Mercurialis, Salmasius and Ciaconius, who have expresly and distinctly treated hereof.