The Works of Sir Thomas Browne.
Volume 2.
by Thomas Browne.
PREFATORY NOTE
The frontispiece to this volume is reproduced from a photograph kindly lent to me for the purpose by Mr. Charles Williams, F.R.C.S.E., of Norwich, whose note upon the measurements of Sir Thomas Browne"s skull appeared as Appendix II. in the edition of Browne"s _Hydriotaphia_ and _Garden of Cyrus_, published in the "Golden Treasury Series," by Messrs.
Macmillan and Co., in 1896.
The identification of the author quoted in the margin of page 233 (Book v. Chapter x.). I owe to Mr. W. Aldis Wright.
C.S.
_May 1, 1904._
PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA
THE THIRD BOOK--_continued_
CHAPTER XI
Of Griffins.
That there are Griffins in Nature, that is a mixt and dubious Animal, in the fore-part resembling an Eagle, and behind, the shape of a Lion, with erected ears, four feet and a long tail, many affirm, and most, I perceive, deny not. The same is averred by _aelian_, _Solinus_, _Mela_, and _Herodotus_, countenanced by the Name sometimes found in Scripture, and was an Hieroglyphick of the Egyptians.
Notwithstanding we find most diligent enquirers to be of a contrary a.s.sertion. For beside that _Albertus_ and _Pliny_ have disallowed it, the learned _Aldrovandus_ hath in a large discourse rejected it; _Mathias Michovius_ who writ of those Northern parts wherein men place these Griffins, hath positively concluded against it; and if examined by the Doctrine of Animals, the invention is monstrous, nor much inferiour unto the figment of Sphynx, Chimaera, and Harpies, for though there be some flying Animals of mixed and partic.i.p.ating Natures, that is, between Bird and quadruped, yet are their wings and legs so set together, that they seem to make each other; there being a commixtion of both, rather then an adaptation or cement of prominent parts unto each other, as is observable in the Bat, whose wings and fore-legs are contrived in each other. For though some species there be of middle and partic.i.p.ating Natures, that is, of Bird and Beast, as Bats and some few others, yet are their parts so conformed and set together, that we cannot define the beginning or end of either; there being a commixtion of both in the whole, rather then an adaptation or cement of the one unto the other.
Now for the word ???p? or _Gryps_, sometimes mentioned in Scripture [SN: _Levit. 11._], and frequently in humane Authors, properly understood, it signifies some kind of Eagle or Vulture, from whence the Epithete _Grypus_ for an hooked or Aquiline Nose. Thus when the Septuagint makes use of this word, _Tremellius_ and our Translation hath rendred it the Ossifrage, which is one kind of Eagle. And although the Vulgar Translation, and that annexed unto the Septuagint, retain the word _Gryps_, which in ordinary and school construction is commonly rendred a Griffin, yet cannot the Latine a.s.sume any other sense then the Greek, from whence it is borrowed. And though the Latine _Gryphes_ be altered somewhat by the addition of an _h_, or aspiration of the letter p, yet is not this unusual; so what the Greeks call t??pa???, the Latine will call _Trophaeum_; and that person which in the Gospel is named ????pa?, the Latines will render _Cleophas_. And therefore the quarrel of _Origen_ was unjust, and his conception erroneous, when he conceived the food of Griffins forbidden by the law of _Moses_: that is, Poetical Animals, and things of no existence. And therefore when in the Hecatombs and mighty Oblations of the Gentiles, it is delivered they sacrificed Gryphes or Griffins; hereby we may understand some stronger sort of Eagles. And therefore also when its said in _Virgil_ of an improper Match, or _Mopsus_ marrying _Nysa_, _Jungentur jam gryphes equis_; we need not hunt after other sense, then that strange unions shall be made, and different Natures be conjoined together.
As for the testimonies of ancient Writers, they are but derivative, and terminate all in one _Aristeus_ a Poet of _Proconesus_; who affirmed that near the _Arimaspi_, or one-eyed Nation, Griffins defended the Mines of Gold. But this, as _Herodotus_ delivereth, he wrote by hear-say; and _Michovius_ who hath expresly written of those parts, plainly affirmeth, there is neither Gold nor Griffins in that Country, nor any such Animal extant; for so doth he conclude, _Ego vero contra veteres auth.o.r.es, Gryphes nec in illa septentrionis, nec in aliis...o...b..s partibus inveniri affirmarim_.
Lastly, Concerning the Hieroglyphical authority, although it nearest approach the truth, it doth not infer its existency. The conceit of the _Griffin_ properly taken being but a symbolical phansie, in so intollerable a shape including allowable morality. So doth it well make out the properties of a _Guardian_, or any person entrusted; the ears implying attention, the wings celerity of execution, the Lion-like shape, courage and audacity, the hooked bill, reservance and tenacity.
It is also an Emblem of valour and magnanimity, as being compounded of the Eagle and Lion, the n.o.blest Animals in their kinds; and so is it appliable unto Princes, Presidents, Generals, and all heroick Commanders; and so is it also born in the Coat-arms of many n.o.ble Families of _Europe_.
But the original invention seems to be Hieroglyphical, derived from the Egyptians, and of an higher signification. By the mystical conjunction of Hawk and Lion, implying either the Genial or the sydereous Sun, the great celerity thereof, and the strength and vigour in its operations.
And therefore under such Hieroglyphicks _Osyris_ was described; and in ancient Coins we meet with Gryphins conjointly with _Apollo"s_, _Tripodes_ and Chariot wheels; and the marble Gryphins at Saint _Peters_ in _Rome_, as learned men conjecture, were first translated from the Temple of _Apollo_. Whether hereby were not also mystically implied the activity of the Sun in Leo, the power of G.o.d in the Sun, or the influence of the Clestial _Osyris_, by _Moptha_ the Genius of Nilus, might also be considered. And then the learned _Kircherus_, no man were likely to be a better _Oedipus_.
CHAPTER XII
Of the Phnix.
That there is but one Phnix in the World, which after many hundred years burneth it self, and from the ashes thereof ariseth up another, is a conceit not new or altogether popular, but of great Antiquity; not only delivered by humane Authors, but frequently expressed also by holy Writers; by _Cyril_, _Epiphanius_, and others, by _Ambrose_ in his Hexameron, and _Tertullian_ in his Poem _De Judicio Domini_; but more agreeably unto the present sense, in his excellent Tract, _De Resurrectione carnis_. _Illum dico alitem orientis peculiarem, de singularitate famosum, de posteritate monstruosum; qui semetipsum libenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens, atque succedens iterum Phnix. Ubi jam nemo, iterum ipse; quia non jam, alius idem._ The Scripture also seems to favour it, particularly that of _Job_ 21. In the interpretation of _Beda_, _Dicebam in nidulo meo moriar, et sicut Phnix multiplicabo dies_: and _Psal._ 31. d??a??? ?spe? f????? ????se?, _vir justus ut Phnix florebit_, as _Tertullian_ renders it, and so also expounds it in his Book before alledged.
[Sidenote: _Against the story of the Phnix._]
All which notwithstanding, we cannot presume the existence of this Animal; nor dare we affirm there is any Phnix in Nature. For, first there wants herein the definitive confirmator and test of things uncertain, that is, the sense of man. For though many Writers have much enlarged hereon, yet is there not any ocular describer, or such as presumeth to confirm it upon aspection. And therefore _Herodotus_ that led the story unto the _Greeks_, plainly saith, he never attained the sight of any, but only in the picture.
Again, Primitive Authors, and from whom the stream of relations is derivative, deliver themselves very dubiously; and either by a doubtful parenthesis, or a timorous conclusion overthrow the whole relation. Thus _Herodotus_ in his _Euterpe_, delivering the story hereof, presently interposeth, ??? ?? ?? p?sta ?????te?; that is, which account seems to me improbable. _Tacitus_ in his annals affordeth a larger story, how the Phnix was first seen at _Heliopolis_ in the reign of _Sesostris_, then in the reign of _Amasis_, after in the days of _Ptolomy_, the third of the _Macedonian_ race; but at last thus determineth, _Sed Antiquitas obscura, et nonnulli falsum esse hunc Phnicem neque Arab.u.m e terris credidere_. _Pliny_ makes yet a fairer story, that the Phnix flew into _Egypt_ in the Consulship of _Quintus Plancius_, that it was brought to Rome in the Censorship of _Claudius_, in the eight hundred year of the City, and testified also in their records; but after all concludeth, _Sed quae falsa nemo dubitabit_, As we read it in the fair and ancient impression of _Brixia_; as _Aldrovandus_ hath quoted it, and as it is found in the ma.n.u.script Copy, as _Dalechampius_ hath also noted.
Moreover, Such as have naturally discoursed hereon, have so diversly, contrarily, or contradictorily delivered themselves, that no affirmative from thence can reasonably be deduced. For most have positively denied it, and they which affirm and believe it, a.s.sign this name unto many, and mistake two or three in one. So hath that bird been taken for the Phnix which liveth in _Arabia_, and buildeth its nest with Cinnamon; by _Herodotus_ called _Cinnamulgus_, and by _Aristotle_, _Cinnamomus_; and as a fabulous conceit is censured by _Scaliger_. Some have conceived that bird to be the Phnix, which by a _Persian_ name with the _Greeks_ is called _Rhyntace_; but how they made this good we find occasion of doubt; whilest we read in the life of _Artaxerxes_, that this is a little bird brought often to their Tables, and wherewith _Parysatis_ cunningly poisoned the Queen. The _Manucodiata_ or Bird of Paradise, hath had the honour of this name, and their feathers brought from the _Molucca"s_ do pa.s.s for those of the Phnix. Which though promoted by rarity with us, the _Eastern_ Travellers will hardly admit; who know they are common in those parts, and the ordinary plume of _Janizaries_ among the _Turks_. And lastly, the Bird _s.e.m.e.nda_ hath found the same appellation, for so hath _Scaliger_ observed and refuted; nor will the solitude of the Phnix allow this denomination; for many there are of that species, and whose trifistulary bill and crany we have beheld our selves. Nor are men only at variance in regard of the Phnix it self, but very disagreeing in the accidents ascribed thereto: for some affirm it liveth three hundred, some five, others six, some a thousand, others no less then fifteen hundred years; some say it liveth in _aethiopia_, others in _Arabia_, some in _Egypt_, others in _India_, and some in _Utopia_; for such a one must that be which is described by _Lactantius_; that is, which neither was singed in the combustion of _Phaeton_, or overwhelmed by the innundation of _Deucalion_.
Lastly, Many Authors who have discoursed hereof, have so delivered themselves, and with such intentions, that we cannot from thence deduce a confirmation. For some have written Poetically, as _Ovid_, _Mantuan_, _Lactantius_, _Claudian_, and others: Some have written mystically, as _Paracelsus_ in his Book _De Azoth_, or _De ligno et linea vitae_; and as several Hermetical Philosophers, involving therein the secret of their Elixir, and enigmatically expressing the nature of their great work.
Some have written Rhetorically, and concessively, not controverting, but a.s.suming the question, which taken as granted, advantaged the illation.
So have holy men made use hereof as far as thereby to confirm the Resurrection; for discoursing with Heathens who granted the story of the Phnix, they induced the Resurrection from principles of their own, and positions received among themselves. Others have spoken Emblematically and Hieroglyphically; and so did the _Egyptians_, unto whom the Phnix was the Hieroglyphick of the Sun. And this was probably the ground of the whole relation; succeeding Ages adding fabulous accounts, which laid together built up this singularity, which every Pen proclaimeth.
As for the Texts of Scripture, which seem to confirm the conceit, duly perpended, they add not thereunto. For whereas in that of _Job_, according to the Septuagint or Greek Translation we find the word Phnix, yet can it have no animal signification; for therein it is not expressed f?????, but st??e?o? f???????, the trunk of the Palm-tree, which is also called Phnix; and therefore the construction will be very hard, if not applied unto some vegetable nature. Nor can we safely insist upon the Greek expression at all; for though the Vulgar translates it _Palma_, and some retain the word Phnix, others do render it by a word of a different sense; for so hath _Tremellius_ delivered it: _Dicebam quod apud nidum meum expirabo, et sicut arena multiplicabo dies_; so hath the _Geneva_ and ours translated it, _I said I shall die in my Nest, and shall multiply my days as the sand._ As for that in the Book of Psalms, _Vir justus ut Phnix florebit_, as _Epiphanius_ and _Tertullian_ render it, it was only a mistake upon the h.o.m.onymy of the Greek word Pnix, which signifies also a Palm-tree. [SN: Consent of names.] Which is a fallacy of equivocation, from a community in name inferring a common nature; and whereby we may as firmly conclude, that Diaphnicon a purging Electuary hath some part of the Phnix for its ingredient; which receiveth that name from Dates, or the fruit of the Palm-tree, from whence, as _Pliny_ delivers, the Phnix had its name.
Nor do we only arraign the existence of this Animal, but many things are questionable which are ascribed thereto, especially its unity, long life, and generation. As for its unity or conceit there should be but one in nature, it seemeth not only repugnant unto Philosophy, but also holy Scripture; which plainly affirms, there went of every sort two at least into the Ark of _Noah_, according to the Text, [SN: _Gen. 7._]
_Every Fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort, they went into the Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is the breath of life, and they that went in, went in both male and female of all flesh._ It infringeth the benediction of G.o.d concerning multiplication. G.o.d blessed them, saying, [SN: _Gen. 1._] _Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth:_ And again, [SN: _Chap. 8._] _Bring forth with thee every living thing, that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth:_ which terms are not appliable unto the Phnix, whereof there is but one in the world, and no more now living then at the first benediction. For the production of one, being the destruction of another, although they produce and generate, they encrease not; and must not be said to multiply, who do not transcend an unity.
As for longaevity, that it liveth a thousand years or more; beside that from imperfect observations and rarity of appearance, no confirmation can be made; there may be probable a mistake in the compute. For the tradition being very ancient and probably Egyptian, the _Greeks_ who dispersed the Fable, might summ up the account by their own numeration of years; whereas the conceit might have its original in times of shorter compute. For if we suppose our present calculation, the Phnix now in nature will be the sixth from the Creation, but in the middle of its years; and if the _Rabbins_ Prophecie [SN: _That the World should last but six thousand years._] succeed, shall conclude its days not in his own but the last and general flames, without all hope of Reviviction.
Concerning its generation, that without all conjunction it begets and reseminates it self, hereby we introduce a vegetable production in Animals, and unto sensible natures, transfer the propriety of Plants; that is, to multiply within themselves, according to the Law of the Creation [SN: _Gen. 1._], _Let the earth bring forth gra.s.s, the herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in it self_.
Which is indeed the natural way of Plants, who having no distinction of s.e.x, and the power of the species contained in every _individuum_, beget and propagate themselves without commixtion; and therefore their fruits proceeding from simpler roots, are not so unlike, or distinguishable from each other, as are the off-springs of sensible creatures and prolifications descending from double originals. But Animal generation is accomplished by more, and the concurrence of two s.e.xes is required to the const.i.tution of one. And therefore such as have no distinction of s.e.x, engender not at all, as _Aristotle_ conceives of Eels, and testaceous animals. And though Plant-animals do multiply, they do it not by copulation, but in a way a.n.a.logous unto Plants. So _Hermaphrodites_ although they include the parts of both s.e.xes, and may be sufficiently potent in either; yet unto a conception require a separated s.e.x, and cannot impregnate themselves. And so also though _Adam_ included all humane nature, or was (as some opinion) an _Hermaphrodite_, yet had he no power to propagate himself; and therefore G.o.d said, _It is not good that man should be alone, let us make him an help meet for him_; that is, an help unto generation; for as for any other help, it had been fitter to have made another man.
Now whereas some affirm that from one Phnix there doth not immediately proceed another, but the first corrupteth into a worm, which after becometh a Phnix, it will not make probable this production.
[SN: _Irregularities._] For hereby they confound the generation of perfect animals with imperfect, sanguineous with exanguious, vermiparous with oviparous, and erect Anomalies, disturbing the laws of Nature. Nor will this corruptive production be easily made out in most imperfect generations; for although we deny not that many animals are vermiparous, begetting themselves at a distance, and as it were at the second hand (as generally Insects, and more remarkably b.u.t.ter-flies and Silkworms) yet proceeds not this generation from a corruption of themselves, but rather a specifical and seminal diffusion, retaining still the Idea of themselves, though it act that part a while in other shapes. And this will also hold in generations equivocal, and such as are not begotten from Parents like themselves; so from Frogs corrupting, proceed not Frogs again; so if there be anatiferous Trees, whose corruption breaks forth into Bernacles, yet if they corrupt, they degenerate into Maggots, which produce not them again. For this were a confusion of corruptive and seminal production, and a frustration of that seminal power committed to animals at the Creation. The problem might have been spared, _Why we love not our lice as well as our children?_ _Noah"s_ Ark had been needless, the graves of Animals would be the fruitful"st wombs; for death would not destroy, but empeople the world again.
Since therefore we have so slender grounds to confirm the existence of the Phnix, since there is no ocular witness of it, since as we have declared, by Authors from whom the story is derived, it rather stands rejected; since they who have seriously discoursed hereof, have delivered themselves negatively, diversly, or contrarily; since many others cannot be drawn into Argument, as writing Poetically, Rhetorically, Enigmatically, Hieroglyphically; since holy Scripture alledged for it duly perpended, doth not advantage it; and lastly, since so strange a generation, unity and long life, hath neither experience nor reason to confirm it, how far to rely on this tradition, we refer unto consideration.
But surely they were not well-wishers unto parable Physick [SN: e?p???sta.], or remedies easily acquired, who derived medicines from the Phnix; as some have done, and are justly condemned by _Pliny_; _Irridere est vitae remedia post millesimum annum reditura monstrare_; It is a folly to find out remedies that are not recoverable under a thousand years; or propose the prolonging of life by that which the twentieth generation may never behold. More veniable is a dependance upon the Philosophers stone, potable gold, or any of those Arcana"s whereby _Paracelsus_ that died himself at forty-seven, gloried that he could make other men immortal. Which, although extreamly difficult, and _tantum non_ infesible, yet are they not impossible, nor do they (rightly understood) impose any violence on Nature. And therefore if strictly taken for the Phnix, very strange is that which is delivered by _Plutarch_ [SN: De sanitate tuenda.], That the brain thereof is a pleasant bit, but that it causeth the head-ach. Which notwithstanding the luxurious Emperour [SN: Heliogabalus.] could never taste, though he had at his Table many a Phnicopterus, yet had he not one Phnix; for though he expected and attempted it, we read not in _Lampridius_ that he performed it; and considering the unity thereof, it was a vain design, that is, to destroy any species, or mutilate the great accomplishment of six days. And although some conceive, and it may seem true, that there is in man a natural possibility to destroy the world in one generation, that is, by a general conspire to know no woman themselves, and disable all others also: yet will this never be effected. And therefore _Cain_ after he had killed _Abel_, were there no other woman living, could not have also destroyed _Eve_: which although he had a natural power to effect, yet the execution thereof, the providence of G.o.d would have resisted: for that would have imposed another creation upon him, and to have animated a second Rib of _Adam_.
CHAPTER XIII
Of Frogs, Toads, and Toad-stone.
Concerning the venomous Urine of Toads, of the stone in the Toads head, and of the generation of Frogs, conceptions are entertained which require consideration. And first, that a Toad p.i.s.seth, and this way diffuseth its venome, is generally received, not only with us, but also in other parts; for so hath _Scaliger_ observed in his Comment, _Aversum urinam reddere ob oculos persecutoris perniciosam ruricolis persuasum est_; and _Mathiolus_ hath also a pa.s.sage, that a Toad communicates its venome, not only by Urine, but by the humidity and slaver of its mouth; which notwithstanding strictly understood, may admit of examination: for some doubt may be made whether a Toad properly p.i.s.seth, that is distinctly and separately voideth the serous excretion: for though not only birds, but oviparous quadrupeds and Serpents have kidneys and ureters, and some Fishes also bladders: yet for the moist and dry excretion they seem at last to have but one vent and common place of exclusion: and with the same propriety of language, we may ascribe that action unto Crows and Kites. And this not onely in Frogs and Toads, but may be enquired in Tortoyses: that is, whether that be strictly true, or to be taken for a distinct and separate miction, when _Aristotle_ affirmeth, that no oviparous animal, that is, which either sp.a.w.neth or layeth Eggs, doth Urine except the Tortois.
The ground or occasion of this expression might from hence arise, that Toads are sometimes observed to exclude or spit out a dark and liquid matter behind: which we have observed to be true, and a venomous condition there may be perhaps therein, but some doubt there may be, whether this is to be called their urine: not because it is emitted aversly or backward, by both s.e.xes, but because it is confounded with the intestinal excretions and egestions of the belly: and this way is ordinarily observed, although possible it is that the liquid excretion may sometimes be excluded without the other.
As for the stone commonly called a Toad-stone, which is presumed to be found in the head of that animal, we first conceive it not a thing impossible: nor is there any substantial reason why in a Toad there may not be found such hard and lapideous concretions. For the like we daily observe in the heads of Fishes, as Cods, Carps, and Pearches: the like also in Snails, a soft and exosseous animal, whereof in the naked and greater sort, as though she would requite the defect of a sh.e.l.l on their back, Nature near the head hath placed a flat white stone, or rather testaceous concretion. Which though _Aldrovandus_ affirms, that after dissection of many, he found but in some few: yet of the great gray Snails, I have not met with any that wanted it: and the same indeed so palpable, that without dissection it is discoverable by the hand.
Again, though it be not impossible, yet it is surely very rare: as we are induced to believe from some enquiry of our own, from the trial of many who have been deceived, and the frustrated search of _Porta_, who upon the explorement of many, could scarce find one. Nor is it only of rarity, but may be doubted whether it be of existencie, or really any such stone in the head of a Toad at all. For although _Lapidaries_ and questuary enquirers affirm it, yet the Writers of Minerals and natural speculators, are of another belief: conceiving the stones which bear this name, to be a Mineral concretion; not to be found in animals, but in fields. And therefore _Btius_ refers it to _Asteria_ or some kind of _Lapis stellaris_, and plainly concludeth, _reperiuntur in agris, quos tamen alii in annosis ac qui diu in Arundinetis inter rubos sentesque delituerunt bufonis capitibus generari pertinaciter affirmant_.