Kitobni o'qish: «The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2»
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 Ælian, 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 assertion. 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, Chimæra, and Harpies, for though there be some flying Animals of mixed and participating 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 participating 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 γρὺπς or Gryps, sometimes mentioned in Scripture 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 assume 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 π, yet is not this unusual; so what the Greeks call τρόπαιον, the Latine will call Trophæum; and that person which in the Gospel is named Κλέοπας, 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 authores, Gryphes nec in illa septentrionis, nec in aliis orbis 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 noblest 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 noble 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 God in the Sun, or the influence of the Cœlestial 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 Phœnix
That there is but one Phœnix 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 Phœnix. 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 Phœnix multiplicabo dies: and Psal. 31. δίκαιος ὥσπερ φοῖνιξ ἀνθήσει, vir justus ut Phœnix florebit, as Tertullian renders it, and so also expounds it in his Book before alledged.
Against the story of the Phœnix.
All which notwithstanding, we cannot presume the existence of this Animal; nor dare we affirm there is any Phœnix 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, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πίστα λέγοντες; that is, which account seems to me improbable. Tacitus in his annals affordeth a larger story, how the Phœnix 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 Phœnicem neque Arabum è terris credidere. Pliny makes yet a fairer story, that the Phœnix 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 quæ 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 manuscript 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, assign this name unto many, and mistake two or three in one. So hath that bird been taken for the Phœnix 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 Phœnix, 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 pass for those of the Phœnix. 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 Semenda hath found the same appellation, for so hath Scaliger observed and refuted; nor will the solitude of the Phœnix 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 Phœnix 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 Æthiopia, 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 vitæ; 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 assuming 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 Phœnix, 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 Phœnix 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 Phœnix, yet can it have no animal signification; for therein it is not expressed φοῖνιξ, but στέλεχoς φοίνικος, the trunk of the Palm-tree, which is also called Phœnix; 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 Phœnix, 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 Phœnix florebit, as Epiphanius and Tertullian render it, it was only a mistake upon the Homonymy of the Greek word Pœnix, which signifies also a Palm-tree. 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 Diaphœnicon a purging Electuary hath some part of the Phœnix for its ingredient; which receiveth that name from Dates, or the fruit of the Palm-tree, from whence, as Pliny delivers, the Phœnix 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, 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 God concerning multiplication. God blessed them, saying,Gen. 1. Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth: And againChap. 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 Phœnix, 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 longævity, 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 Phœnix now in nature will be the sixth from the Creation, but in the middle of its years; and if the Rabbins Prophecie 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 Gen. 1., Let the earth bring forth grass, 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 sex, 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 sexes is required to the constitution of one. And therefore such as have no distinction of sex, 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 analogous unto Plants. So Hermaphrodites although they include the parts of both sexes, and may be sufficiently potent in either; yet unto a conception require a separated sex, 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 God 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 Phœnix there doth not immediately proceed another, but the first corrupteth into a worm, which after becometh a Phœnix, it will not make probable this production. 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 Butter-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 Phœnix, 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 Physickεὐπόριστα., or remedies easily acquired, who derived medicines from the Phœnix; as some have done, and are justly condemned by Pliny; Irridere est vitæ 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 Phœnix, very strange is that which is delivered by PlutarchDe sanitate tuenda., That the brain thereof is a pleasant bit, but that it causeth the head-ach. Which notwithstanding the luxurious EmperourHeliogabalus. could never taste, though he had at his Table many a Phœnicopterus, yet had he not one Phœnix; 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 God would have resisted: for that would have imposed another creation upon him, and to have animated a second Rib of Adam.
