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 b.r.e.a.s.t.s, 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 p.r.i.c.ks were found upon her arm; which was all the ground that _Caesar_ 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 Chersaea 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 p.r.i.c.ks, 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_, _Arria.n.u.s_, 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 Caesar_, whose triumph was honoured with captive Elephants, as may be observed in the order thereof, set forth by _Jacobus Laurus_[SN: In splendere urbis Antiquae.]. 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 n.o.ble _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_, _Caesar_, and _Tacitus_; and there want not some who have taken advantage hereof, and made it one argument of their original from _Troy_.
[Sidenote: _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 _Caesar_, 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, [SN: De inventione rerum, variae 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 cla.s.sical 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 _Caesar_. 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 _Ingra.s.sias_; the one of _Sicilia_, the other of _Cremona_, and both within the compa.s.s 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 e??t?sta?, 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 dest.i.tute of stirrops did usually mount their Horses; as _Lipsius_ informeth the unable and softer sort of men had their ??a??e??, or Stratores, which helped them up on horse back, as in the practice of _Cra.s.sus_ in _Plutarch_, and _Caracalla_ in _Spartia.n.u.s_, and the later example of _Valentinia.n.u.s_, 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_ [SN: 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:
_Infraenant alii currus et corpora saltu Injiciunt 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.
[Sidenote: _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. For that he pursued not his vow unto a literal oblation, there want not arguments both from the Text. [SN: Judg.
11.39] 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 c.u.m 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 G.o.d, 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, aegles; and though they come not into holocausts, yet do we read the _Syrians_ did make oblations of fishes unto the G.o.ddess _Derceto_. It being therefore a sacrifice so abominable unto G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 compa.s.s 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 Jehovae, 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 Jehovae, 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 G.o.d, must be the former.
CHAPTER XV
Of the Picture of _John_ the Baptist.
The Picture of _John_ the Baptist, in a Camels skin is very questionable, and many I perceive have condemned it. The ground or occasion of this description are the words of the holy Scripture, especially of _Matthew_ and _Mark_, for _Luke_ and _John_ are silent herein; by them it is delivered, his garment was of Camels hair, and had a leather girdle about his loins. Now here it seems the Camels hair is taken by Painters for the skin or pelt with the hair upon it. But this Exposition will not so well consist with the strict acceptation of the words; for _Mark_ 1. It is said, he was, ??ded????? t???a? ?a????, and _Matthew_ 3. e??e t? ??d?a ?p? t????? ?a????, that is, as the vulgar translation, that of _Beza_, that of _Sixtus Quintus_, and _Clement_ the eight hath rendred it, _vestimentum habebat e pilis camelinis_; which is as ours translateth it, a garment of Camels hair; that is, made of some texture of that hair, a course garment; a cilicious or sackcloth habit; sutable to the austerity of his life; the severity of his Doctrine, Repentance; and the place thereof, the wilderness, his food and diet, locusts and wild hony. Agreeable unto the example of _Elias_ [SN: 2 Kings 3. 18.], who is said to be _vir pilosus_, that is, as _Tremellius_ interprets, _Veste villosa[5] cinctus_, answerable unto the habit of the ancient Prophets, according to that of _Zachary_ [SN: Zach. 13.]. In that day the Prophets shall be ashamed, neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive; and sutable to the Cilicious and hairy Vests of the strictest Orders of Fryers, who derive the inst.i.tution of their Monastick life from the example of _John_ and _Elias_.
[5] _villoso_, 1646, 1650, 1658, 1669, 1672.
As for the wearing of skins, where that is properly intended, the expression of the Scripture is plain; so it is said, _Heb._ 11. They wandered about ?? a??e???? d??as??, that is, in Goats skins; and so it is said of our first Parents, _Gen._ 3. That G.o.d made them ??t??a?
de?at?????, _Vestes pelliceas_, or coats of skins; which though a natural habit unto all, before the invention of Texture, was something more unto _Adam_, who had newly learned to die; for unto him a garment from the dead, was but a dictate of death, and an habit of mortality.
Now if any man will say this habit of _John_ was neither of Camels skin, nor any course Texture of its hair, but rather some finer Weave of Camelot, Grograin or the like, in as much as these stuffs are supposed to be made of the hair of that Animal, or because that _aelian_ affirmeth, that Camels hair of _Persia_, is as fine as _Milesian_ wool, wherewith the great ones of that place were cloathed; they have discovered an habit, not only unsutable unto his leathern cincture, and the coa.r.s.eness of his life; but not consistent with the words of our Saviour, when reasoning with the people concerning _John_, he saith, What went you out into the wilderness to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment, are in Kings houses.
CHAPTER XVI
Of the Picture of St. _Christopher_.
The Picture of St. _Christopher_, that is, a man of a Giantlike stature, bearing upon his shoulders our Saviour Christ, and with a staff in his hand, wading thorow the water, is known unto Children, common over all _Europe_, not only as a sign unto houses, but is described in many Churches, and stands _Colossus_ like in the entrance of _Nostre Dame_ in _Paris_.
Now from hence, common eyes conceive an history sutable unto this description, that he carried our Saviour in his Minority over some river or water: which notwithstanding we cannot at all make out. For we read not thus much in any good Author, nor of any remarkable _Christopher_, before the reign of _Decius_: who lived 250 years after Christ. This man indeed according unto History suffered as a Martyr in the second year of that Emperour, and in the _Roman_ Calendar takes up the 21 of _July_.
The ground that begat or promoted this opinion, was, first the fabulous adjections of succeeding ages unto the veritable acts of this Martyr, who in the most probable accounts was remarkable for his staff, and a man of a goodly stature.