For first, they affirm it hath no joints, and yet concede it walks and moves about; whereby they conceive there may be a progression or advancement made in Motion without inflexion of parts. Now all progression or Animals locomotion being (as Aristotle teacheth) performed tractu et pulsu; that is, by drawing on, or impelling forward some part which was before in station, or at quiet; where there are no joints or flexures, neither can there be these actions. And this is true, not onely in Quadrupedes, Volatils, and Fishes, which have distinct and prominent Organs of Motion, Legs, Wings, and Fins; but in such also as perform their progression by the Trunk, as Serpents, Worms, and Leeches. Joint-like parts. Whereof though some want bones, and all extended articulations, yet have they arthritical Analogies, and by the motion of fibrous and musculous parts, are able to make progression. Which to conceive in bodies inflexible, and without all protrusion of parts, were to expect a Race from Hercules his pillars; or hope to behold the effects of Orpheus his Harp, when trees found joints, and danced after his Musick.
Again, While men conceive they never lie down, and enjoy not the position of rest, ordained unto all pedestrious Animals, hereby they imagine (what reason cannot conceive) that an Animal of the vastest dimension and longest duration, should live in a continual motion, without that alternity and vicissitude of rest whereby all others continue; and yet must thus much come to pass, if we opinion they lye not down and enjoy no decumbence at all. Extensive or Tonical Motion, what? For station is properly no rest, but one kind of motion, relating unto that which Physitians (from Galen) do name extensive or tonical; that is, an extension of the muscles and organs of motion maintaining the body at length or in its proper figure.
Wherein although it seem to be unmoved, it is not without all Motion; for in this position the muscles are sensibly extended, and labour to support the body; which permitted unto its proper gravity, would suddenly subside and fall unto the earth; as it happeneth in sleep, diseases, and death. From which occult action and invisible motion of the muscles in station (as Galen declareth) proceed more offensive lassitudes then from ambulation. And therefore the Tyranny of some have tormented men with long and enforced station, and though Ixion and Sisiphus which always moved, do seem to have the hardest measure; yet was not Titius favoured, that lay extended upon Caucasus; and Tantalus suffered somewhat more then thirst, that stood perpetually in Hell. Thus Mercurialis in his Gymnasticks justly makes standing one kind of exercise; and Galen when we lie down, commends unto us middle figures, that is, not to lye directly, or at length, but somewhat inflected, that the muscles may be at rest; for such as he termeth Hypobolemaioi or figures, of excess, either shrinking up or stretching out, are wearisome positions, and such as perturb the quiet of those parts. Now various parts do variously discover these indolent and quiet positions, some in right lines, as the wrists: some at right angles, as the cubit: others at oblique angles, as the fingers and the knees: all resting satisfied in postures of moderation, and none enduring the extremity of flexure or extension.
Moreover men herein do strangely forget the obvious relations of history, affirming they have no joints, whereas they dayly read of several actions which are not performable without them. They forget what is delivered by Xiphilinus, and also by Suetonius in the lives of Nero and Galba, that Elephants have been instructed to walk on ropes, in publick shews before the people. Which is not easily performed by man, and requireth not only a broad foot, but a pliable flexure of joints, and commandible disposure of all parts of progression. They pass by that memorable place in Curtius, concerning the Elephant of King Porus, Indus qui Elephantem regebat, descendere eum ratus, more solito procumbere jussit in genua cæteri quoque (ita enim instituti erant) demisere corpora in terram. De rebus gestis Emanuelis. They remember not the expression of Osorius, when he speaks of the Elephant presented to Leo the tenth, Pontificem ter genibus flexis, et demisso corporis habitu venerabundus salutavit. But above all, they call not to mind that memorable shew of Germanicus, wherein twelve Elephants danced unto the sound of Musick, and after laid them down in the Tricliniums, or places of festival Recumbency.
They forget the Etymologie of the Knee, Γόνυ from γωνία. approved by some Grammarians. They disturb the position of the young ones in the womb: which upon extension of legs is not easily conceivable; and contrary unto the general contrivance of Nature. Nor do they consider the impossible exclusion thereof, upon extension and rigour of the legs.
Lastly, they forget or consult not experience, whereof not many years past, we have had the advantage in England, by an Elephant shewn in many parts thereof, not only in the posture of standing, but kneeling and lying down. Whereby although the opinion at present be well suppressed, yet from some strings of tradition, and fruitful recurrence of errour, it is not improbable it may revive in the next generation again. This being not the first that hath been seen in England; for (besides some others) as Polydore Virgil relateth, Lewis the French King sent one to Henry the third, and Emanuel of Portugal another to Leo the tenth into Italy, where notwithstanding the errour is still alive and epidemical, as with us.
The hint and ground of this opinion might be the gross and somewhat Cylindrical composure of the legs, the equality and less perceptible disposure of the joints, especially in the former legs of this Animal; they appearing when he standeth, like Pillars of flesh, without any evidence of articulation. The different flexure and order of the joints might also countenance the same, being not disposed in the Elephant, as they are in other quadrupedes, but carry a nearer conformity unto those of Man; that is, the bought of the fore-legs, not directly backward, but laterally and somewhat inward; but the hough or suffraginous flexure behind rather outward. Somewhat different unto many other quadrupedes, as Horses, Camels, Deer, Sheep, and Dogs; for their fore-legs bend like our legs, and their hinder legs like our arms, when we move them to our shoulders. But quadrupedes oviparous, as Frogs, Lizards, Crocodiles, have their joints and motive flexures more analogously framed unto ours; and some among viviparous, that is, such thereof as can bring their fore-feet and meat therein unto their mouths, as most can do that have the clavicles or coller-bones: whereby their brests are broader, and their shoulders more asunder, as the Ape, the Monkey, the Squirrel and some others. If therefore any shall affirm the joints of Elephants are differently framed from most of other quadrupedes, and more obscurely and grosly almost then any, he doth herein no injury unto truth. But if à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, he affirmeth also they have no articulations at all, he incurs the controulment of reason, and cannot avoide the contradiction also of sense.
As for the manner of their venation, if we consult historical experience, we shall find it to be otherwise then as is commonly presumed, by sawing away of Trees. The accounts whereof are to be seen at large in Johannes, Hugo, Edwardus Lopez, Garcias ab horto, Cadamustus, and many more.
Other concernments there are of the Elephant, which might admit of discourse; and if we should question the teeth of Elephants, that is, whether they be properly so termed, or might not rather be called horns: it were no new enquiry of mine, but a Paradox as old as Oppianus. Cyneget. lib. 2. Whether as Pliny and divers since affirm it, that Elephants are terrified, and make away upon the grunting of Swine, Garcias ab horto may decide, who affirmeth upon experience, they enter their stalls, and live promiscuously in the Woods of Malavar. That the situation of the genitals is averse, and their copulation like that which some believe of Camels, as Pliny hath also delivered, is not to be received; for we have beheld that part in a different position; and their coition is made by supersaliency, like that of horses, as we are informed by some who have beheld them in that act. That some Elephants have not only written whole sentences, as Ælian ocularly testifieth, but have also spoken, as Oppianus delivereth, and Christophorus à Costa particularly relateth; although it sound like that of Achilles Horse in Homer, we do not conceive impossible. Some Brutes tolerably well organized for speech and approaching to reason. Nor beside the affinity of reason in this Animal any such intollerable incapacity in the organs of divers quadrupedes, whereby they might not be taught to speak, or become imitators of speech like Birds. Strange it is how the curiosity of men that have been active in the instruction of Beasts, have never fallen upon this artifice; and among those, many paradoxical and unheard of imitations, should not attempt to make one speak. The Serpent that spake unto Eve, the Dogs and Cats that usually speak unto Witches, might afford some encouragement. And since broad and thick chops are required in Birds that speak, since lips and teeth are also organs of speech; from these there is also an advantage in quadrupedes, and a proximity of reason in Elephants and Apes above them all. Since also an Echo will speak without any mouth at all, articulately returning the voice of man, by only ordering the vocal spirit in concave and hollow places; whether the musculous and motive parts about the hollow mouths of Beasts, may not dispose the passing spirit into some articulate notes, seems a query of no great doubt.
The second Assertion, that an Horse hath no gall, is very general, nor only swallowed by the people, and common Farriers, but also received by good Veterinarians, Veterinarians or Farriers. and some who have laudably discoursed upon Horses. It seemeth also very ancient; for it is plainly set down by Aristotle, an Horse and all solid ungulous or whole hoofed animals have no gall; and the same is also delivered by Pliny, which notwithstanding we find repugnant unto experience and reason. For first, it calls in question the providence or wise provision of Nature; who not abounding in superfluities, is neither deficient in necessities. Wherein nevertheless there would be a main defect, and her improvision justly accusable, if such a feeding Animal, and so subject unto diseases from bilious causes, should want a proper conveyance for choler; or have no other receptacle for that humour then the Veins, and general mass of bloud.
It is again controllable by experience, for we have made some search and enquiry herein; encouraged by Absyrtus a Greek Author, in the time of Constantine, who in his Hippiatricks Medicina equaria., obscurely assigneth the gall a place in the liver; but more especially by Carlo Ruini the Bononian, who in his Anatomia del Cavallo, hath more plainly described it, and in a manner as I found it. For in the particular enquiry into that part, in the concave or simous part of the Liver, whereabout the Gall is usually seated in quadrupedes, I discover an hollow, long and membranous substance, of a pale colour without, and lined with Choler and Gall within; which part is by branches diffused into the lobes and several parcels of the Liver; from whence receiving the fiery superfluity, or cholerick remainder, by a manifest and open passage, it conveyeth it into the duodenum or upper gut, thence into the lower bowels; which is the manner of its derivation in Man and other Animals. And therefore although there be no eminent and circular follicle, no round bag or vesicle which long containeth this humour: yet is there a manifest receptacle and passage of choler from the Liver into the Guts: which being not so shut up, or at least not so long detained, as it is in other Animals: procures that frequent excretion, and occasions the Horse to dung more often then many other, which considering the plentiful feeding, the largeness of the guts, and their various circumvolution, was prudently contrived by providence in this Animal. Choler the natural glister. For choler is the natural Glister, or one excretion whereby Nature excludeth another; which descending daily into the bowels, extimulates those parts, and excites them unto expulsion. And therefore when this humour aboundeth or corrupteth, there succeeds oft-times a cholerica passio, that is, a sudden and vehement Purgation upward and downward: and when the passage of gall becomes obstructed, the body grows costive, and the excrements of the belly white; as it happeneth in the Jaundice.
If any therefore affirm an Horse hath no gall, that is, no receptacle, or part ordained for the separation of Choler, or not that humour at all; he hath both sense and reason to oppose him. But if he saith it hath no bladder of Gall, and such as is observed in many other Animals, we shall oppose our sense, if we gain-say him. Thus must Aristotle be made out when he denieth this part, by this distinction we may relieve Pliny of a contradiction, who in one place affirming an Horse hath no gall, delivereth yet in another, that the gall of an Horse was accounted poison; and therefore at the sacrifices of Horses in Rome, it was unlawful for the Flamen Priest. to touch it. But with more difficulty, or hardly at all is that reconcileable which is delivered by our Countryman, and received Veterinarian; whose words in his Master-piece, and Chapter of diseases from the Gall, are somewhat too strict, and scarce admit a Reconciliation. The fallacie therefore of this conceit is not unlike the former; A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Because they have not a bladder of gall, like those we usually observe in others, they have no gall at all. Which is a Paralogism not admittible; a fallacy that dwels not in a cloud, and needs not the Sun to scatter it.
The third assertion is somewhat like the second, that a Dove or Pigeon hath no gall; which is affirmed from very great antiquity; for as Pierius observeth, from this consideration the Egyptians did make it the Hieroglyphick of Meekness. It hath been averred by many holy Writers, commonly delivered by Postillers and Commentators, who from the frequent mention of the Dove in the Canticles, the precept of our Saviour, to be wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves: and especially the appearance of the Holy Ghost in the similitude of this Animal, have taken occasion to set down many affections of the Dove, and what doth most commend it, is, that it hath no gall. And hereof have made use not only Minor Divines, but Cyprian, Austin, Isidore, Beda, Rupertus, Jansenius, and many more.
Whereto notwithstanding we know not how to assent, it being repugnant unto the Authority and positive determination of ancient Philosophy. The affirmative of Aristotle in his History of Animals is very plain, Fel aliis ventri, aliis intestino jungitur: Some have the gall adjoined to the guts, as the Crow, the Swallow, Sparrow, and the Dove; the same is also attested by Pliny, and not without some passion by Galen, who in his Book De Atra bile, accounts him ridiculous that denies it.
It is not agreeable to the constitution of this Animal, nor can we so reasonably conceive there wants a Gall: that is, the hot and fiery humour in a body so hot of temper, which Phlegm or Melancholy could not effect. Salubrium, 31° Now of what complexion it is, Julius Alexandrinus declareth, when he affirmeth that some upon the use thereof, have fallen into Feavers and Quinsies. The temper of their Dung and intestinal Excretions do also confirm the same; which Topically applied become a Phænigmus or Rubifying Medicine, and are of such fiery parts, that as we read in Galen, they have of themselves conceived fire, and burnt a house about them. And therefore when in the famine of Samaria (wherein the fourth part of a Cab of Pigeons dung was sold for five pieces of silver,) it is delivered by Josephus, that men made use hereof in stead of common Salt: although the exposition seem strange, it is more probable then many other. For that it containeth very much Salt, as beside the effects before expressed, is discernable by taste, and the earth of Columbaries or Dove-houses, so much desired in the artifice of Salt-petre. And to speak generally, the Excrement of Birds hath more of Salt and acrimony, then that of other pissing animals. Now if because the Dove is of a mild and gentle nature, we cannot conceive it should be of an hot temper; our apprehensions are not distinct in the measure of constitutions, and the several parts which evidence such conditions. Whence the irascible, whence the concupiscible Passions do most arise. For the Irascible passions do follow the temper of the heart, but the concupiscible distractions the crasis of the liver. Now many have hot livers, which have but cool and temperate hearts; and this was probably the temper of Paris, a contrary constitution to that of Ajax, and both but short of Medea, who seemed to exceed in either.
Lastly, it is repugnant to experience, for Anatomical enquiry discovereth in them a gall: and that according to the determination of Aristotle, not annexed unto the liver, but adhering unto the guts: nor is the humour contained in smaller veins, or obscurer capillations, but in a vescicle, or little bladder, though some affirm it hath no bag at all. And therefore the Hieroglyphick of the Ægyptians, though allowable in the sense, is weak in the foundation: who expressing meekness and lenity by the portract of a Dove with a tail erected, affirmed it had no gall in the inward parts, but only in the rump, and as it were out of the body. And therefore also if they conceived their gods were pleased with the sacrifice of this Animal, as being without gall, the ancient Heathens were surely mistaken in the reason, and in the very oblation. Whereas in the holocaust or burnt offering of Moses, the gall was cast away: for as Ben Maimon instructeth Levit. 1., the inwards whereto the gall adhereth were taken out with the crop, according unto the Law: which the Priest did not burn, but cast unto the East, that is, behind his back, and readiest place to be carried out of the Sanctuary. Doves, the Birds of Venus, why? And if they also conceived that for this reason they were the Birds of Venus, and wanting the furious and discording part, were more acceptable unto the Deity of Love, they surely added unto the conceit, which was at first venereal: and in this Animal may be sufficiently made out from that conception.
The ground of this conceit is partly like the former, the obscure situation of the gall, and out of the liver, wherein it is commonly enquired. But this is a very injust illation, not well considering with what variety this part is seated in Birds. In some both at the stomach and the liver, as in the Capriceps; in some at the liver only, as in Cocks, Turkeys, and Pheasants; in others at the guts and liver, as in Hawks and Kites, in some at the guts alone, as Crows, Doves, and many more. And these perhaps may take up all the ways of situation, not only in Birds, but also other Animals; for what is said of the Anchovie,Ἐγκρασίχολος. that answerable unto its name, it carrieth the gall in the head, is farther to be enquired. And though the discoloured particles in the skin of an Heron be commonly termed Galls, yet is not this Animal deficient in that part, but containeth it in the Liver. And thus when it is conceived that the eyes of Tobias were cured by the gall of the fish Callyonimus, or Scorpius marinus, commended to that effect by Dioscorides, although that part were not in the liver, yet there were no reason to doubt that probability. And whatsoever Animal it was, it may be received without exception, when it's delivered, the married couple as a testimony of future concord, did cast the gall of the sacrifice behind the Altar.
A strict and literal acception of a loose and tropical expression was a second ground hereof. For while some affirmed it had no gall, intending only thereby no evidence of anger or fury; others have construed it anatomically, and denied that part at all. By which illation we may infer, and that from sacred Text, a Pigeon hath no heart; according to that expression, Hosea 7. Factus est Ephraim sicut Columba seducta non habens Cor. And so from the letter of the Scripture we may conclude it is no mild, but a fiery and furious animal, according to that of Jeremy, Cap. 25. Facta est terra in desolationem à facie iræ Columbæ: and again, Revertamur ad terram nativitatis nostræ à facie gladii Columbæ. Cap. 46. Where notwithstanding the Dove is not literally intended; but thereby may be implied the Babylonians, whose Queen Semiramis was called by that name, and whose successors did bear the Dove in their Standard. So is it proverbially said, Formicæ sua bilis inest, habet et musca splenem; whereas we know Philosophy doubteth these parts, nor hath Anatomy so clearly discovered them in those insects.
If therefore any affirm a Pigeon hath no gall, implying no more thereby then the lenity of this Animal, we shall not controvert his affirmation. Thus may we make out the assertions of Ancient Writers, and safely receive the expressions of Divines and worthy Fathers. But if by a transition from Rhetorick to Logick, he shall contend, it hath no such part or humour, he committeth an open fallacy, and such as was probably first committed concerning Spanish Mares, whose swiftness tropically expressed from their generation by the wind; might after be grosly taken, and a real truth conceived in that conception.
That a Bever to escape the Hunter, bites off his testicles or stones, is a Tenet very ancient; and hath had thereby advantage of propagation. Æsops Apologues, of what antiquity. For the same we find in the Hieroglyphicks of the Egyptians in the Apologue of Æsop, an Author of great Antiquity, who lived in the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, and in the time of Cyrus: the same is touched by Aristotle in his Ethicks, but seriously delivered by Ælian, Pliny, and Solinus: the same we meet with in Juvenal, who by an handsome and Metrical expression more welcomly engrafts it in our junior Memories:
It hath been propagated by Emblems: and some have been so bad Grammarians as to be deceived by the Name, deriving Castor à castrando, whereas the proper Latine word is Fiber, and Castor but borrowed from the Greek, so called quasi γάστωρ, that is, Animal ventricosum, from his swaggy and prominent belly.
Herein therefore to speak compendiously, we first presume to affirm that from strict enquiry, we cannot maintain the evulsion or biting off any parts, and this is declarable from the best and most professed Writers: for though some have made use hereof in a Moral or Tropical way, yet have the professed Discoursers by silence deserted, or by experience rejected this assertion. Thus was it in ancient times discovered, and experimentally refuted by one Sestius a Physitian, as it stands related by Pliny; by Dioscorides, who plainly affirms that this tradition is false; by the discoveries of Modern Authors, who have expressly discoursed hereon, as Aldrovandus, Mathiolus, Gesnerus, Bellonius; by Olaus Magnus, Peter Martyr, and others, who have described the manner of their Venations in America; they generally omitting this way of their escape, and have delivered several other, by which they are daily taken.
The original of the conceit was probably Hieroglyphical, which after became Mythological unto the Greeks, and so set down by Æsop; and by process of tradition, stole into a total verity, which was but partially true, that is in its covert sense and Morality. Now why they placed this invention upon the Bever (beside the Medicable and Merchantable commodity of Castoreum, or parts conceived to be bitten away) might be the sagacity and wisdom of that Animal, which from the works it performs, and especially its Artifice in building, is very strange, and surely not to be matched by any other. Omitted by Plutarch, De solertia Animalium, but might have much advantaged the drift of that Discourse.
If therefore any affirm a wise man should demean himself like the Bever, who to escape with his life, contemneth the loss of his genitals, that is in case of extremity, not strictly to endeavour the preservation of all, but to sit down in the enjoyment of the greater good, though with the detriment and hazard of the lesser; we may hereby apprehend a real and useful Truth. In this latitude of belief, we are content to receive the Fable of Hippomanes, who redeemed his life with the loss of a Golden Ball; and whether true or false, we reject not the Tragœdy of Absyrtus, and the dispersion of his Members by Medea, to perplex the pursuit of her Father. But if any shall positively affirm this act, and cannot believe the Moral, unless he also credit the Fable; he is surely greedy of delusion, and will hardly avoid deception in theories of this Nature. The Error therefore and Alogy in this opinion, is worse then in the last; that is, not to receive Figures for Realities, but expect a verity in Apologues; and believe, as serious affirmations, confessed and studied Fables.
Again, If this were true, and that the Bever in chase makes some divulsion of parts, as that which we call Castoreum; yet are not the same to be termed Testicles or Stones; for these Cods or Follicles are found in both Sexes, though somewhat more protuberant in the Male. There is hereto no derivation of the seminal parts, nor any passage from hence, unto the Vessels of Ejaculation: some perforations onely in the part it self, through which the humour included doth exudate: as may be observed in such as are fresh, and not much dried with age. And lastly, The Testicles properly so called, are of a lesser magnitude, and seated inwardly upon the loins: and therefore it were not only a fruitless attempt, but impossible act, to Eunuchate or castrate themselves: and might be an hazardous practice of Art, if at all attempted by others.
Now all this is confirmed from the experimental Testimony of five very memorable Authors: Bellonius, Gesnerus, Amatus, Rondeletius, and Mathiolus: who receiving the hint hereof from Rondeletius in the Anatomy of two Bevers, did find all true that had been delivered by him, whose words are these in his learned Book De Piscibus: Fibri in inguinibus geminos tumores habent, utrinque vnicum, ovi Auscrini magnitudine, inter hos est mentula in maribus, in fæminis pudendum, hi tumores testes non sunt, sed folliculi membrana contecti, in quorum medio sunguli sunt meatus è quibus exudat liquor pinguis et cerosus, quem ipse Castor sæpe admoto ore lambit et exugit, postea veluti oleo, corporis partes oblinit: Hos tumores testes non esse hinc maxime colligitur, quod ab illus nulla est ad mentulam via neque ductus quo humor in mentulæ meatum derivitur, et foras emittatur; præterea quod testes intus reperiuntur, eosdem tumores Moscho animali inesse puto, è quibus odoratum illud plus emanat. Then which words there can be no plainer, nor more evidently discovering the impropriety of this appellation. That which is included in the cod or visible bag about the groin, being not the Testicle, or any spermatical part; but rather a collection of some superfluous matter deflowing from the body, especially the parts of nutrition as unto their proper emunctories; and as it doth in Musk and Civet Cats, though in a different and offensive odour; proceeding partly from its food, that being especially Fish; whereof this humour may be a garous excretion and olidous separation.
Most therefore of the Moderns before Rondeletius, and all the Ancients excepting Sestius, have misunderstood this part, conceiving Castoreum the Testicles of the Bever; as Dioscorides, Galen, Ægineta, Ætius, and others have pleased to name it. The Egyptians also failed in the ground of their Hieroglyphick, when they expressed the punishment of Adultery by the Bever depriving himself of his testicles, which was amongst them the penalty of such incontinency. Nor is Ætius perhaps, too strictly to be observed, when he prescribeth the stones of the Otter, or River-dog, as succedaneous unto Castoreum. But most inexcusable of all is Pliny, who having before him in one place the experiment of Sestius against it, sets down in another, that the Bevers of Pontus bite off their testicles: and in the same place affirmeth the like of the Hyena. Which was indeed well joined with the Bever, as having also a bag in those parts; if thereby we understand the Hyena odorata , or Civet Cat, as is delivered and graphically described by Castellus. Castellus de Hyena odorifera.
Now the ground of this mistake might be the resemblance and situation of these tumours about those parts, wherein we observe the testicles in other animals. Which notwithstanding is no well founded illation, for the testicles are defined by their office, and not determined by place or situation; they having one office in all, but different seats in many. For beside that, no Serpent, or Fishes oviparous, that neither biped nor quadruped oviparous have testicles exteriourly, or prominent in the groin; some also that are viviparous contain these parts within, as beside this Animal, the Elephant and the Hedg-hog.
If any therefore shall term these testicles, intending metaphorically, and in no strict acception; his language is tolerable, and offends our ears no more then the Tropical names of Plants: when we read in Herbals, of Dogs, Fox, and Goat-stones. But if he insisteth thereon, and maintaineth a propriety in this language: our discourse hath overthrown his assertion, nor will Logic permit his illation; that is, from things alike, to conclude a thing the same; and from an accidental convenience, that is a similitude in place or figure, to infer a specifical congruity or substantial concurrence in Nature.
That a Brock or Badger hath the legs on one side shorter then of the other, though an opinion perhaps not very ancient, is yet very general; received not only by Theorists and unexperienced believers, but assented unto by most who have the opportunity to behold and hunt them daily. Which notwithstanding upon enquiry I find repugnant unto the three Determinators of Truth, Authority, Sense, and Reason. For first, Albertus Magnus speaks dubiously, confessing he could not confirm the verity hereof; but Aldrovandus plainly affirmeth, there can be no such inequality observed. And for my own part, upon indifferent enquiry, I cannot discover this difference, although the regardable side be defined, and the brevity by most imputed unto the left.
Again, It seems no easie affront unto Reason, and generally repugnant unto the course of Nature; for if we survey the total set of Animals, we may in their legs, or Organs of progression, observe an equality of length, and parity of Numeration; that is, not any to have an odd legg, or the supporters and movers of one side not exactly answered by the other. Although the hinder may be unequal unto the fore and middle legs, as in Frogs, Locusts, and Grasshoppers; or both unto the middle, as in some Beetles and Spiders, as is determined by Aristotle, De incessu Animalium. De incessu Animalium. Perfect and viviparous quadrupeds, so standing in their position of proneness, that the opposite joints of Neighbour-legs consist in the same plane; and a line descending from their Navel intersects at right angles the axis of the Earth. It happeneth often I confess that a Lobster hath the Chely or great claw of one side longer then the other; but this is not properly their leg, but a part of apprehension, and whereby they hold or seiz upon their prey; for the legs and proper parts of progression are inverted backward, and stand in a position opposite unto these.
Lastly, The Monstrosity is ill contrived, and with some disadvantage; the shortness being affixed unto the legs of one side, which might have been more tolerably placed upon the thwart or Diagonial Movers. Diagonion, a line drawn from the cross angles. For the progression of quadrupeds being performed per Diametrum, that is the cross legs moving or resting together, so that two are always in motion, and two in station at the same time; the brevity had been more tolerable in the cross legs. For then the Motion and station had been performed by equal legs; whereas herein they are both performed by unequal Organs, and the imperfection becomes discoverable at every hand.
That a Bear brings forth her young informous and unshapen, which she fashioneth after by licking them over, is an opinion not only vulgar, and common with us at present: but hath been of old delivered by ancient Writers. Upon this foundation it was an Hieroglyphick with the Egyptians: Aristotle seems to countenance it; Solinus, Pliny, and Ælian directly affirm it, and Ovid smoothly delivereth it:
Which notwithstanding is not only repugnant unto the sense of every one that shall enquire into it, but the exact and deliberate experiment of three Authentick Philosophers. The first of Mathiolus in his Comment on Dioscorides, whose words are to this effect. In the Valley of Anania about Trent, in a Bear which the Hunters eventerated or opened, I beheld the young ones with all their parts distinct: and not without shape, as many conceive; giving more credit unto Aristotle and Pliny, then experience and their proper senses. Of the same assurance was Julius Scaliger in his Exercitations, Ursam fœtus informes potius ejicere, quam parere, si vera dicunt, quos postea linctu effingat: Quid hujusce fabulæ authoribus fidei habendum ex hac historia cognosces; In nostris Alpibus venatores fætum Ursam cepere, dissecta ea fætus plane formatus intus inventus est. And lastly, Aldrovandus who from the testimony of his own eyes affirmeth, that in the Cabinet of the Senate of Bononia, there was preserved in a Glass a Cub taken out of a Bear perfectly formed, and compleat in every part.
It is moreover injurious unto Reason, and much impugneth the course and providence of Nature, to conceive a birth should be ordained before there is a formation. For the conformation of parts is necessarily required, not onely unto the pre-requisites and previous conditions of birth, as Motion and Animation: but also unto the parturition or very birth it self: Wherein not only the Dam, but the younglings play their parts; and the cause and act of exclusion proceedeth from them both. For the exclusion of Animals is not meerly passive like that of Eggs, nor the total action of delivery to be imputed unto the Mother: but the first attempt beginneth from the Infant: which at the accomplished period attempteth to change his Mansion: and strugling to come forth, dilacerates and breaks those parts which restrained him before.
Beside (what few take notice of) Men hereby do in an high measure vilifie the works of God, imputing that unto the tongue of a Beast, which is the strangest Artifice in all the acts of Nature; that is the formation of the infant in the Womb, not only in Mankind, but all viviparous Animals. Formation in the Matrix, the admirable work of Nature. Wherein the plastick or formative faculty, from matter appearing Homogeneous, and of a similary substance, erecteth Bones, Membranes, Veins, and Arteries: and out of these contriveth every part in number, place, and figure, according to the law of its species. Which is so far from being fashioned by any outward agent, that once omitted or perverted by a slip of the inward Phidias, it is not reducible by any other whatsoever. And therefore Mirè me plasmaverunt manus tuæ, though it originally respected the generation of Man, yet is it appliable unto that of other Animals; who entring the Womb in bare and simple Materials, return with distinction of parts, and the perfect breath of life. He that shall consider these alterations without, must needs conceive there have been strange operations within; which to behold, it were a spectacle almost worth ones beeing, a sight beyond all; except that Man had been created first, and might have seen the shew of five dayes after.
Now as the opinion is repugnant both unto sense and Reason, so hath it probably been occasioned from some slight ground in either. Thus in regard the Cub comes forth involved in the Chorion, a thick and tough Membrane obscuring the formation, and which the Dam doth after bite and tear asunder; the beholder at first sight conceives it a rude and informous lump of flesh, and imputes the ensuing shape unto the Mouthing of the Dam; which addeth nothing thereunto, but only draws the curtain, and takes away the vail which concealed the Piece before. And thus have some endeavoured to enforce the same from Reason; that is, the small and slender time of the Bears gestation, or going with her young; which lasting but few days (a Month some say) the exclusion becomes precipitous, and the young ones consequently informous; according to that of Solinus, Trigesimus dies uterum liberat ursæ; unde evenit ut præcipitata fæcunditas informes creet partus. But this will overthrow the general Method of Nature in the works of generation. For therein the conformation is not only antecedent, but proportional unto the exclusion; and if the period of the birth be short, the term of conformation will be as sudden also. There may I confess from this narrow time of gestation ensue a Minority or smalness in the exclusion; but this however inferreth no informity, and it still receiveth the Name of a natural and legitimate birth; whereas if we affirm a total informity, it cannot admit so forward a term as an Abortment, for that supposeth conformation. So we must call this constant and intended act of Nature, a slip or effluxion Ἔκρυσις., that is an exclusion before conformation: before the birth can bear the name of the Parent, or be so much as properly called an Embryon.
Many Opinions are passant concerning the Basilisk or little King of Serpents, commonly called the Cockatrice: some affirming, others denying, most doubting the relations made hereof. What therefore in these incertainties we may more safely determine: that such an Animal there is, if we evade not the testimony of Scripture and humane Writers, we cannot safely deny. So it is said Psalm 91. Super Aspidem et Basiliscum ambulabis, wherein the Vulgar Translation retaineth the Word of the Septuagint, using in other places the Latine expression Regulus, as Proverbs 23. Mordebit ut coluber, et sicut Regulus venena diffundet: and Jeremy 8. Ecce ego mittam vobis serpentes Regulos, etc. That is, as ours translate it, Behold I will send Serpents, Cockatrices among you which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you. And as for humane Authors, or such as have discoursed of Animals, or Poisons, it is to be found almost in all: in Dioscorides, Galen, Pliny, Solinus, Ælian, Ætius, Avicen, Ardoynus, Grevinus, and many more. In Aristotle I confess we find no mention thereof, but Scaliger in his Comment and enumeration of Serpents, hath made supply; and in his Exercitations delivereth that a Basilisk was found in Rome, in the days of Leo the fourth. The like is reported by Sigonius; and some are so far from denying one, that they have made several kinds thereof: for such is the Catoblepas of Pliny conceived to be by some, and the Dryinus of Ætius by others.
But although we deny not the existence of the Basilisk, yet whether we do not commonly mistake in the conception hereof, and call that a Basilisk which is none at all, is surely to be questioned. For certainly that which from the conceit of its generation we vulgarly call a Cockatrice, and wherein (but under a different name) we intend a formal Identity and adequate conception with the Basilisk; is not the Basilisk of the Ancients, whereof such wonders are delivered. For this of ours is generally described with legs, wings, a Serpentine and winding tail, and a crist or comb somewhat like a Cock. But the Basilisk of elder times was a proper kind of Serpent, not above three palms long, as some account; and differenced from other Serpents by advancing his head, and some white marks or coronary spots upon the crown, as all authentick Writers have delivered.
Nor is this Cockatrice only unlike the Basilisk, but of no real shape in Nature; and rather an Hieroglyphical fansie, to express different intentions, set forth in different fashions. Sometimes with the head of a Man, sometime with the head of an Hawk, as Pierius hath delivered; and as with addition of legs the Heralds and Painters still describe it. Nor was it only of old a symbolical and allowable invention, but is now become a manual contrivance of Art, and artificial imposure; whereof besides others, Scaliger hath taken notice: Basilici formam mentiti sunt vulgo Gallinacco similem, et pedibus binis; neque enim absimiles sunt cæteris serpentibus, nisi macula quasi in vertice candida, unde illi nomen Regium; that is, men commonly counterfeit the form of a Basilisk with another like a Cock, and with two feet; whereas they differ not from other serpents, but in a white speck upon their Crown. Now although in some manner it might be counterfeited in Indian Cocks, and flying Serpents, yet is it commonly contrived out of the skins of Thornbacks, Scaits, or Maids, as Aldrovand hath observed, By way of figure.] and also graphically described in his excellent Book of Fishes; and for satisfaction of my own curiosity I have caused some to be thus contrived out of the same Fishes.
Nor is onely the existency of this animal considerable, but many things delivered thereof, particularly its poison and its generation. Concerning the first, according to the doctrine of the Ancients, men still affirm, that it killeth at a distance, that it poisoneth by the eye, and by priority of vision. Destructive. Now that deleterious it may be at some distance, and destructive without corporal contaction, what uncertainty soever there be in the effect, there is no high improbability in the relation. For if Plagues or pestilential Atoms have been conveyed in the Air from different Regions, if men at a distance have infected each other, if the shadows of some trees be noxious, if Torpedoes deliver their opium at a distance, and stupifie beyond themselves; we cannot reasonably deny, that (beside our gross and restrained poisons requiring contiguity unto their actions) there may proceed from subtiller seeds, more agile emanations, which contemn those Laws, and invade at distance unexpected.
That this venenation shooteth from the eye, and that this way a Basilisk may empoison, although thus much be not agreed upon by Authors, some imputing it unto the breath, others unto the bite, it is not a thing impossible. For eyes receive offensive impressions from their objects, and may have influences destructive to each other. Effluxion of corporeal species. For the visible species of things strike not our senses immaterially, but streaming in corporal raies, do carry with them the qualities of the object from whence they flow, and the medium through which they pass. How the Basilisk kills at distance. Thus through a green or red Glass all things we behold appear of the same colours; thus sore eyes affect those which are sound, and themselves also by reflection, as will happen to an inflamed eye that beholds it self long in a Glass; thus is fascination made out, and thus also it is not impossible, what is affirmed of this animal, the visible rayes of their eyes carrying forth the subtilest portion of their poison, which received by the eye of man or beast, infecteth first the brain, and is from thence communicated unto the heart.
But lastly, That this destruction should be the effect of the first beholder, or depend upon priority of aspection, is a point not easily to be granted, and very hardly to be made out upon the principles of Aristotle, Alhazen, Vitello, and others, who hold that sight is made by Reception, and not by extramission; by receiving the raies of the object into the eye, and not by sending any out. For hereby although he behold a man first, the Basilisk should rather be destroyed, in regard he first receiveth the rayes of his Antipathy, and venomous emissions which objectively move his sense; but how powerful soever his own poison be, it invadeth not the sense of man, in regard he beholdeth him not. And therefore this conceit was probably begot by such as held the opinion of sight by extramission; as did Pythagoras, Plato, Empedocles, Hipparrchus, Galen, Macrobius, Proclus, Simplicius, with most of the Ancients, and is the postulate of Euclide in his Opticks, but now sufficiently convicted from observations of the Dark Chamber.