The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2

Again, If we take these two benedictions together, the resemblances are not appropriate, and Moses therein conforms not unto Jacob: for that which in the Prophesie of Jacob is appropriated unto one, is in the blessing of Moses made common unto others. So whereas Judah is compared unto a Lion by Jacob, Judah is a Lions whelp, the same is applied unto Dan by Moses, Dan is a Lions whelp, he shall leap from Bashan, and also unto Gad; he dwelleth as a Lion.

Thirdly, If a lion were the proper coat of Judah, yet were it not probably a Lion Rampant, as it is commonly described, but rather couchant or dormant, as some Heralds and Rabbins do determine; according to the letter of the Text, Recumbens dormisti ut Leo, He couched as a Lion, and as a young Lion, who shall rouse him?

Lastly, when it is said,Num. 2. Every man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard with the Ensign of their fathers house; upon enquiry what these standards and ensigns were there is no small incertainty; and men conform not unto the Prophesie of Jacob. Christian expositors are fain herein to rely upon the Rabbins, who notwithstanding are various in their traditions, and confirm not these common descriptions. For as for inferiour ensigns, either of particular bands or houses, they determine nothing at all; and of the four principal or Legionary standards, that is, of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan (under every one whereof marched three Tribes) they explain them very variously. Jonathan who compiled the Thargum conceives the colours of these banners to answer the precious stones in the breast-plate, and upon which the names of the Tribes were engraven. The like also P. Fagius upon the Thargum or Chaldie Paraphrase of Onkelus. Num. 1. So the standard for the Camp of Judah was of three colours, according unto the stones, Chalcedony, Saphir and Sardonix; and therein were expressed the names of the three Tribes,Num. 10. Judah, Isachar, and Zabulon, and in the middest thereof was written, Rise up Lord, and let thy enemies be scattered, and let them that hate thee flee before thee; in it was also the pourtrait of a Lion. The standard of Reuben was also of three colours, Sardine, Topaz, and Amethyst; therein were expressed the names of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, in the middest was written,Deut. 6. Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one: Therein was also the pourtraiture of a Hart. But Abenezra and others, beside the colours of the field, do set down other charges, in Reubens the form of a man or mandrake, in that of Judah a Lion, in Ephraims an Ox, in Dan’s the figure of an Eagle.

And thus indeed the four figures in the banners of the principal squadrons of Israel are answerable unto the Cherubins in the vision of Ezekiel;Ezek. 1. every one carrying the form of all these. As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the likeness of the face of a Man, and the face of a Lion on the right side, and they four had the face of an Ox on the left side, they four had also the face of an Eagle. The common Pictures of the 4 Evangelists explicated. And conformable hereunto the pictures of the Evangelists (whose Gospels are the Christian banners) are set forth with the addition of a man or Angel, an Ox, a Lion, and a Eagle. And these symbolically represent the office of Angels, and Ministers of Gods Will; in whom is required understanding as in a man, courage and vivacity as in the Lion, service and ministerial officiousness, as in the Ox, expedition or celerity of execution, as in the Eagle.

From hence therefore we may observe that these descriptions, the most authentick of any, are neither agreeable unto one another, nor unto the Scutcheons in question. For though they agree in Ephraim and Judah, that is, the Ox and the Lion, yet do they differ in those of Dan, and Reuben, as far as an Eagle is different from a Serpent, and the figure of a Man, Hart, or Mandrake, from three Bars wave. The Antiquity of bearing Scutcheons. Wherein notwithstanding we rather declare the incertainty of Arms in this particular, than any way question their antiquity; for hereof more ancient examples there are, than the Scutcheons of the Tribes, if Osyris, Mizraim or Jupiter the Just, were the Son of Cham; for of his two Sons, as Diodorus delivereth, the one for his Device gave a Dog, the other a Wolf. And, beside the shield of Achilles, and many ancient Greeks: if we receive the conjecture of Vossius, that the Crow upon Corvinus his head, was but the figure of that Animal upon his helmet, it is an example of Antiquity among the Romans.

But more widely must we walk, if we follow the doctrine of the CabalistsRicius4 de cœlesti Agricultura, lib. 4., who in each of the four banners inscribe a letter of the Tetragrammaton, or quadriliteral name of God: and mysterizing their ensigns, do make the particular ones of the twelve Tribes, accommodable unto the twelve signs in the Zodiack, and twelve moneths in the year: but the Tetrarchical or general banners, of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan, unto the signs of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricornus: that is, the four cardinal parts of the Zodiack, and seasons of the year.

CHAPTER XI

Of the Pictures of the Sibyls

The Pictures of the Sibyls are very common, and for their Prophesies of Christ in high esteem with Christians; described commonly with youthful faces, and in a defined number. Common pieces making twelve, and many precisely ten; observing therein the account of Varro, that is, Sibylla, Delphica, Erythræa, Samia, Cumana, Cumæa, or Cimmeria, Hellespontiaca, Lybica, Phrygia, Tiburtina, Persica. In which enumeration I perceive learned men are not satisfied, and many conclude an irreconcilable incertainty; some making more, others fewer, and not this certain number. For Suidas, though he affirm that in divers ages there were ten, yet the same denomination he affordeth unto more; Boysardus in his Tract of Divination hath set forth the Icons of these Ten, yet addeth two others, Epirotica, and Ægyptia; and some affirm that Prophesying women were generally named Sibyls.

Others make them fewer: Martianus Capella two; Pliny and Solinus three; Ælian four; and Salmasius in effect but seven. For discoursing hereof in his Plinian Exercitations, he thus determineth; Ridere licet hodiernos Pictores, qui tabulas proponunt Cumanæ, Cumeæ, et Erythrææ, quasi trium diversarum Sibyllarum; cum una cademque fuerit Cumana, Cumæa, et Erythræa, ex plurium et doctissimorum Authorum sententia. Boysardus gives us leave to opinion there was no more than one; for so doth he conclude, In tanta Scriptorum varietate liberum relinquimus Lectori credere, an una et eadem in diversis regionibus peregrinata, cognomen sortita sit ab iis locis ubi oracula reddidisse comperitur, an plures extiterint: And therefore not discovering a resolution of their number from pens of the best Writers, we have no reason to determine the same from the hand and pencil of Painters.

As touching their age, that they are generally described as young women, History will not allow; for the Sibyl whereof Virgil speaketh is termed by him longæva sacerdos, and Servius in his Comment amplifieth the same. The other that sold the books unto Tarquin, and whose History is plainer than any, by Livie and Gellius is termed Anus; that is, properly no woman of ordinary age, but full of years, and in the dayes of dotage, according to the Etymology of Festus; Anus, quasi Ἀnoῦs, sine mente. and consonant unto the History; wherein it is said, that Tarquin thought she doted with old age. Which duly perpended, the Licentia pictoria is very large; with the same reason they may delineate old Nestor like Adonis, Hecuba with Helens face, and Time with Absolons head. But this absurdity that eminent Artist Michael Angelo hath avoided, in the Pictures of the Cumean and Persian Sibyls, as they stand described from the printed sculptures of Adam Mantuanus.

CHAPTER XII

Of the Picture describing the death of Cleopatra

The Picture concerning the death of Cleopatra with two Asps or venemous Serpents unto her arms, or breasts, or both, requires consideration: for therein (beside that this variety is not excusable) the thing it self is questionable; nor is it indisputably certain what manner of death she died. Plutarch in the life of Antony plainly delivereth, that no man knew the manner of her death; for some affirmed she perished by poison, which she alwayes carried in a little hollow comb, and wore it in her hair. Beside, there were never any Asps discovered in the place of her death, although two of her maids perished also with her; only it was said, two small and almost insensible pricks were found upon her arm; which was all the ground that Cæsar had to presume the manner of her death. Galen who was contemporary unto Plutarch, delivereth two wayes of her death: that she killed her self by the bite of an Asp, or bit an hole in her arm, and poured poison therein. Strabo that lived before them both hath also two opinions; that she died by the bite of an Asp, or else a poisonous ointment.

We might question the length of the Asps, which are sometimes described exceeding short; whereas the Chersæa or land-Asp which most conceive she used, is above four cubits long. Their number is not unquestionable; for whereas there are generally two described, Augustus (as Plutarch relateth) did carry in his triumph the Image of Cleopatra but with one Asp under her arm. As for the two pricks, or little spots in her arm, they infer not their plurality: for like the Viper, the Asp hath two teeth; whereby it left this impression, or double puncture behind it.

And lastly, We might question the place; for some apply them unto her breast, which notwithstanding will not consist with the History; and Petrus Victorius hath well observed the same. But herein the mistake was easie; it being the custom in capital malefactors to apply them unto the breast, as the Author De Theriaca ad Pisonem, an eye witness hereof in Alexandria, where Cleopatra died, determineth: I beheld, saith he, in Alexandria, how suddenly these Serpents bereave a man of life; for when any one is condemned to this kind of death, if they intend to use him favourably, that is, to dispatch him suddenly, they fasten an Asp unto his breast; and bidding him walk about, he presently perisheth thereby.

CHAPTER XIII

Of the Pictures of the Nine Worthies

The Pictures of the nine Worthies are not unquestionable, and to critical spectators may seem to contain sundry improprieties. Some will enquire why Alexander the Great is described upon an Elephant: for, we do not find he used that animal in his armies, much less in his own person; but his horse is famous in History, and its name alive to this day. Beside, he fought but one remarkable battel, wherein there were any Elephants, and that was with Porus King of India; in which notwithstanding, as Curtius, Arrianus, and Plutarch report, he was on Horseback himself. And if because he fought against Elephants, he is with propriety set upon their backs; with no less or greater reason is the same description agreeable unto Judas Maccabeus, as may be observed from the history of the Maccabees; and also unto Julius Cæsar, whose triumph was honoured with captive Elephants, as may be observed in the order thereof, set forth by Jacobus Laurus. In splendere urbis Antiquæ. And if also we should admit this description upon an Elephant, yet were not the manner thereof unquestionable, that is, in his ruling the beast alone; for beside the Champion upon their back, there was also a guide or ruler, which sat more forward to command or guide the beast. Thus did King Porus ride when he was overthrown by Alexander; and thus are also the towred Elephants described, Maccab. 2. 6. Upon the beasts there were strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them by devices: there were also upon every one of them thirty two strong men, beside the Indian that ruled them.

Others will demand, not only why Alexander upon an Elephant, but Hector upon an Horse: whereas his manner of fighting, or presenting himself in battel, was in a Chariot, as did the other noble Trojans, who as Pliny affirmeth were the first inventers thereof. The same way of fight is testified by Diodorus, and thus delivered by Sir Walter Rawleigh. Of the vulgar little reckoning was made, for they fought all on foot, slightly armed, and commonly followed the success of their Captains; who rode not upon horses, but in Chariots drawn by two or three Horses. And this was also the ancient way of fight among the Britains, as is delivered by Diodorus, Cæsar, and Tacitus; and there want not some who have taken advantage hereof, and made it one argument of their original from Troy.

The use of stirrops not ancient.

Lastly, By any man versed in Antiquity, the question can hardly be avoided, why the Horses of these Worthies, especially of Cæsar, are described with the furniture of great saddles, and stirrops; for saddles largely taken, though some defence there may be, yet that they had not the use of stirrops, seemeth of lesser doubt; as Pancirollus hath observed, as Polydore Virgil, and Petrus Victorius have confirmed,De inventione rerum, variæ Lectiones. expresly discoursing hereon; as is observable from Pliny, and cannot escape our eyes in the ancient monuments, medals and Triumphant arches of the Romans. Nor is there any ancient classical word in Latine to express them. For Staphia, Stapes or Stapeda is not to be found in Authors of this Antiquity. And divers words which may be urged of this signification, are either later, or signified not thus much in the time of Cæsar. And therefore as Lipsius observeth, lest a thing of common use should want a common word, Franciscus Philelphus named them Stapedas, and Bodinus Subicus Pedaneos. And whereas the name might promise some Antiquity, because among the three small bones in the Auditory Organ, by Physitians termed Incus, Malleus and stapes, one thereof from some resemblance doth bear this name; these bones were not observed, much less named by Hippocrates, Galen, or any ancient Physitian. But as Laurentius observeth, concerning the invention of the stapes or stirrop bone, there is some contention between Columbus and Ingrassias; the one of Sicilia, the other of Cremona, and both within the compass of this Century.

The same is also deduceable from very approved Authors: Polybius speaking of the way which Anibal marched into Italy, useth the word βεβημάτισται, that is, saith Petrus Victorius, it was stored with devices for men to get upon their horses, which ascents were termed Bemata, and in the life of Caius Gracchus, Plutarch expresseth as much. For endevouring to ingratiate himself with the people, besides the placing of stones at every miles end, he made at nearer distances certain elevated places, and Scalary ascents, that by the help thereof they might with better ease ascend or mount their Horses. Now if we demand how Cavaliers then destitute of stirrops did usually mount their Horses; as Lipsius informeth the unable and softer sort of men had their ἀναβολεῖς, or Stratores, which helped them up on horse back, as in the practice of Crassus in Plutarch, and Caracalla in Spartianus, and the later example of Valentinianus, who because his horse rised before that he could not be setled on his back, cut off the right hand of his Strator. But how the active and hardy persons mounted, Vegetius De re Milit. resolves us, that they used to vault or leap up, and therefore they had wooden horses in their houses and abroad: that thereby young men might enable themselves in this action: wherein by instruction and practice they grew so perfect, that they could vault up on the right or left, and that with their sword in hand, according to that of Virgil

Poscit equos atque arma simul, saltuque superbus Emicat.

And again:

Infrænant alii currus et corpora saltuInjiciunt in equos.

So Julius Pollux adviseth to teach horses to incline, dimit, and bow down their bodies, that their riders may with better ease ascend them. And thus may it more causally be made out, what Hippocrates affirmeth of the Scythians, that using continual riding, they were generally molested with the Sciatica or hip-gout. Or what Suetonius delivereth of Germanicus, that he had slender legs, but encreased them by riding after meals; that is, the humours descending upon their pendulosity, they having no support or suppedaneous stability.

Now if any shall say that these are petty errors and minor lapses, not considerably injurious unto truth, yet is it neither reasonable nor fair to contemn inferiour falsities; but rather as between falshood and truth there is no medium, so should they be maintained in their distances: nor the contagion of the one, approach the sincerity of the other.

CHAPTER XIV

Of the Picture of Jephthah sacryficing his daughter

That Jephthah did not kill his daughter.

The hand of the Painter confidently setteth forth the Picture of Jephthah in the posture of Abraham, sacrificing his only daughter: Thus is it commonly received, and hath had the attest of many worthy Writers. Notwithstanding upon enquiry we find the matter doubtful, and many upon probable grounds to have been of another opinion: conceiving in this oblation not a natural but a civil kind of death, and a separation only unto the Lord. Judg. 11.39For that he pursued not his vow unto a literal oblation, there want not arguments both from the Text and reason.

For first, It is evident that she deplored her Virginity, and not her death; Let me go up and down the mountains, and bewail my Virginity, I and my fellows.

Secondly, When it is said, that Jephthah did unto her according unto his vow, it is immediately subjoyned, Et non cognovit virum, and she knew no man; which as immediate in words, was probably most near in sense unto the vow.

Thirdly, It is said in the Text, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to talk with the daughter of Jephthah four dayes in the year; which had she been sacrificed, they could not have done: For whereas the word is sometime translated to lament, yet doth it also signifie to talk or have conference with one, and by Tremellius, who was well able to Judge of the Original, it is in this sense translated: Ibant filii Israelitarum, ad confabulandum cum filia Jephthaci, quatuor diebus quotannis: And so it is also set down in the marginal notes of our Translation. And from this annual concourse of the daughters of Israel, it is not improbable in future Ages, the daughter of Jephthah came to be worshipped as a Deity; and had by the Samaritans an annual festivity observed unto her honour, as Epiphanius hath left recorded in the Heresie of the Melchidecians.

It is also repugnant unto reason; for the offering of mankind was against the Law of God, who so abhorred humane sacrifice, that he omitted not the oblation of unclean beasts, and confined his Altars but unto few kinds of Animals, the Ox, the Goat, the Sheep, the Pigeon and its kinds: In the cleansing of the Leper, there is I confess, mention made of the Sparrow; but great dispute may be made whether it be properly rendered. And therefore the Scripture with indignation oft-times makes mention of humane sacrifice among the Gentiles; whose oblations scarce made scruple of any Animal, sacrificing not only Man, but Horses, Lions, Ægles; and though they come not into holocausts, yet do we read the Syrians did make oblations of fishes unto the goddess Derceto. It being therefore a sacrifice so abominable unto God, although he had pursued it, it is not probable the Priests and Wisdom of Israel would have permitted it; and that not only in regard of the subject or sacrifice it self, but also the sacrificator, which the Picture makes to be Jephthah; who was neither Priest, nor capable of that Office: for he was a Gileadite, and as the Text affirmeth, the son also of an harlot. And how hardly the Priesthood would endure encroachment upon their function, a notable example there is in the story of Ozias.

Secondly, The offering up of his daughter was not only unlawful, and entrenched upon his Religion, but had been a course that had much condemned his discretion; that is, to have punished himself in the strictest observance of his vow, when as the Law of God had allowed an evasion; that is, by way of commutation or redemption, according as is determined, Levit. 27. Whereby if she were between the age of five and twenty, she was to be estimated but at ten shekels, and if between twenty and sixty, not above thirty. A sum that could never discourage an indulgent Parent; it being but the value of servant slain; the inconsiderable Salary of Judas; and will make no greater noise than three pound fifteen shillings with us. And therefore their conceit is not to be exploded, who say that from the story of Jephthah sacrificing his own daughter, might spring the fable of Agamemnon, delivering unto sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia, who was also contemporary unto Jephthah: wherein to answer the ground that hinted it, Iphigenia was not sacrificed her self, but redeemed with an Hart, which Diana accepted for her.

Lastly, Although his vow run generally for the words, Whatsoever shall come forth, etc. Yet might it be restrained in the sense, for whatsoever was sacrificable, and justly subject to lawful immolation: and so would not have sacrificed either Horse or Dog, if they had come out upon him. Nor was he obliged by oath unto a strict observation of that which promissorily was unlawful; or could he be qualified by vow to commit a fact which naturally was abominable. Which doctrine had Herod understood, it might have saved John Baptists head; when he promised by oath to give unto Herodias whatsoever she would ask; that is, if it were in the compass of things, which he could lawfully grant. For his oath made not that lawful which was illegal before: and if it were unjust to murther John, the supervenient Oath did not extenuate the fact, or oblige the Juror unto it.

Now the ground at least which much promoted the opinion, might be the dubious words of the text, which contain the sense of his vow; most men adhering unto their common and obvious acception. Whatsoever shall come forth of the doors of my house shall surely be the Lords, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. Now whereas it is said, Erit Jehovæ, et offeram illud holocaustum, the word signifying both et and aut, it may be taken disjunctively; aut offeram, that is, it shall either be the Lords by separation, or else, an holocaust by common oblation; even as our marginal translation advertiseth; and as Tremellius rendreth it, Erit inquam Jehovæ, aut offeram illud holocaustum: and for the vulgar translation, it useth often et, where aut must be presumed, as Exod. 21. Si quis percusserit patrem et matrem, that is, not both, but either. There being therefore two waies to dispose of her, either to separate her unto the Lord, or offer her as a sacrifice, it is of no necessity the later should be necessary; and surely less derogatory unto the sacred text and history of the people of God, must be the former.