The Works of Sir Thomas Browne Volume III Part 1

The Works of Sir Thomas Browne.

by Thomas Browne.

VOL 3.

PREFATORY NOTE

In concluding the present edition of Sir Thomas Browne's works, attention may be drawn to the reprint of the _Hydriotaphia_, from the first edition of 1658. The copy collated was the one preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. In this, in addition to the corrections made at the time of publication on the printed label attached, there are a few others made by a contemporary hand, which deserve consideration. Among these is the excision of a sentence hitherto preserved in the text, and now relegated to the margin (p.

205). If further sanction were needed for the change indicated, it may be gathered from the inscription on the t.i.tle-page, 'Ex dono Auctoris.'

The text of the _Christian Morals_ of 1716 has been collated with the copy in the same Library.

For the account of Birds and Fishes found in Norfolk (pp. 513-539), Professor Alfred Newton generously placed his annotated copy at the disposal of the editor. As those actual pages were in the press, Professor Newton pa.s.sed away, and Death has deprived us of the pleasure of placing this volume in his hands. In this edition Professor Newton's readings have been in the main followed, with the additional help of the valuable recension, published by Mr. Thomas Southwell of Norwich, in 1902, to which every serious student of this treatise must always refer.

For further a.s.sistance in questions of identification, I am again indebted to the kindness of Mr. W. Aldis Wright; and for one correction to Mr. A. R. Waller.

Sir Thomas Browne's Latin treatises and his correspondence are not included in these volumes. It was the determination of the original publisher of this edition that they should be omitted; and indeed they do not form the most characteristic part of Sir Thomas Browne's work.

His erudition, and the resources from which he drew, his amazing industry, his marvellous diction, and natural piety--all these are apparent to the general reader of his English text; and it is to such that the present edition of Sir Thomas Browne's works, as they originally appeared, will primarily appeal.

C. S.

_16th June 1907._

CHAPTER I

Of the Forbidden Fruit.

[Sidenote: _Opinions, of what kind the forbidden fruit was._]

That the Forbidden fruit of Paradise was an Apple, is commonly believed, confirmed by Tradition, perpetuated by Writings, Verses, Pictures; and some have been so bad _Prosodians_, as from thence to derive the Latine word _malum_, because that fruit was the first occasion of evil; wherein notwithstanding determinations are presumptuous, and many I perceive are of another belief. For some have, conceived it a Vine; in the mystery of whose fruit lay the expiation of the transgression: _Goropius Beca.n.u.s_ reviving the conceit of _Barcephas_, peremptorily concludeth it to be the _Indian_ Fig-tree; and by a witty Allegory labours to confirm the same. Again, some fruits pa.s.s under the name of _Adams_ apples, which in common acception admit not that appellation; the one described by _Mathiolus_ under the name of _Pomum Adami_, a very fair fruit, and not unlike a Citron, but somewhat rougher, chopt and cranied, vulgarly conceived the marks of _Adams_ teeth. Another, the fruit of that plant which _Serapion_ termeth _Musa_, but the Eastern Christians commonly the Apples of Paradise; not resembling an apple in figure, and in taste a Melon or Cowcomber. Which fruits although they have received appellations suitable unto the tradition, yet can we not from thence infer they were this fruit in question: No more then _Arbor vitae_, so commonly called, to obtain its name from the tree of life in Paradise, or _Arbor Judae_, to be the same which supplied the gibbet unto _Judas_.

Again, There is no determination in the Text; wherein is only particulared that it was the fruit of a tree good for food, and pleasant unto the eye, in which regards many excell the Apple; and therefore learned men do wisely conceive it inexplicable; and _Philo_ puts determination unto despair, when he affirmeth the same kind of fruit was never produced since. Surely were it not requisite to have been concealed, it had not pa.s.sed unspecified; nor the tree revealed which concealed their nakedness, and that concealed which revealed it; for in the same chapter mention is made of fig-leaves. And the like particulars, although they seem uncirc.u.mstantial, are oft set down in holy Scripture; so is it specified that _Elias_ sat under a juniper tree, _Absalom_ hanged by an Oak, and _Zacheus_ got up into a Sycomore.

And although to condemn such Indeterminables unto him that demanded on what hand _Venus_ was wounded, the Philosopher thought it a sufficient resolution to re-inquire upon what leg King _Philip_ halted; and the _Jews_ not undoubtedly resolved of the Sciatica-side of _Jacob_ [SN: Jacobs _Sciatica_, see _Gen._ 32. 25, 31, 32.], do cautelously in their diet abstain from the sinews of both: yet are there many nice particulars which may be authentically determined. That _Peter_ cut off the right ear of _Malchus_, is beyond all doubt. That our Saviour eat the Pa.s.sover in an upper room, we may determine from the Text. And some we may concede which the Scripture plainly defines not. That the Dyal of _Ahaz_ was placed upon the West side of the Temple, we will not deny, or contradict the description of _Adricomius_. That _Abrahams_ servant put his hand under his right thigh, we shall not question; and that the Thief on the right hand was saved, and the other on the left reprobated, to make good the Method of the last judicial dismission, we are ready to admit. But surely in vain we enquire of what wood was _Moses_ rod, or the tree that sweetned the waters. Or though tradition or humane History might afford some light, whether the Crown of thorns was made of Paliurus; Whether the cross of Christ were made of those four woods in the Distick of _Durantes_ [SN: Pes ceorus est, truncus cupressus, oliva supremum, palmaq; transversum Christi sunt in cruce lignum.], or only of Oak, according unto _Lipsius_ and _Goropius_, we labour not to determine. For though hereof prudent Symbols and pious Allegories be made by wiser Conceivers; yet common heads will flie unto superst.i.tious applications, and hardly avoid miraculous or magical expectations.

Now the ground or reason that occasioned this expression by an Apple, might be the community of this fruit, and which is often taken for any other. So the G.o.ddess of Gardens is termed _Pomona_; so the Proverb expresseth it to give Apples unto _Alcinous; so_ the fruit which _Paris_ decided was called an Apple; so in the garden of _Hesperides_ (which many conceive a fiction drawn from Paradise) we read of golden Apples guarded by the Dragon. And to speak strictly in this appellation, they placed it more safely then any other; for beside the great variety of Apples, the word in Greek comprehendeth Orenges, Lemmons, Citrons, Quinces; and as _Ruellius_ defineth [SN: _Ruel._ de stirpium natura.], such fruits as have no stone within, and a soft covering without; excepting the Pomegranate. And will extend much farther in the acception of _Spigelius_ [SN: Isagoge in rem Herbariam.], who comprehendeth all round fruits under the name of apples, not excluding Nuts and Plumbs.

It hath been promoted in some constructions from a pa.s.sage in the _Canticle_ [SN: _Can._ 8.], as it runs in the vulgar translation, _Sub arbore malo suscitavi te, ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genetrix tua_; Which words notwithstanding parabolically intended, admit no literal inference, and are of little force in our translation, I raised thee under an Apple-tree, there thy mother brought thee forth, there she brought thee forth that bare thee. So when from a basket of summer fruits or apples, as the vulgar rendreth them, G.o.d by _Amos_ foretold the destruction of his people, we cannot say they had any reference unto the fruit of Paradise, which was the destruction of man; but thereby was declared the propinquity of their desolation, and that their tranquility was of no longer duration then those horary or soon decaying fruits of Summer. Nor when it is said in the same translation [SN: Fructus horaei.], _Poma desiderii animae tuae discesserunt a te_, the apples that thy soul l.u.s.ted after are departed from thee, is there any allusion therein unto the fruit of Paradise. But thereby is threatned unto _Babylon_, that the pleasures and delights of their Palate should forsake them. And we read in _Pierius_, that an Apple was the Hieroglyphick of Love, and that the Statua of _Venus_ was made with one in her hand. So the little Cupids in the figures of _Philostratus_ [SN: _Philostrat._ figur. 6. De amoribus.] do play with apples in a garden; and there want not some who have symbolized the Apple of Paradise unto such constructions.

Since therefore after this fruit, curiosity fruitlesly enquireth, and confidence blindly determineth, we shall surcease our Inquisition; rather troubled that it was tasted, then troubling our selves in its decision; this only we observe, when things are left uncertain, men will a.s.sure them by determination. Which is not only verified concerning the fruit, but the Serpent that perswaded; many defining the kind or species thereof. [SN: _Opinions of what kind the Serpent was_, etc.] So _Bonaventure_ and _Comestor_ affirm it was a Dragon, _Eugubinus_ a Basilisk, _Delrio_ a Viper, and others a common snake. Wherein men still continue the delusion of the Serpent, who having deceived _Eve_ in the main, sets her posterity on work to mistake in the circ.u.mstance, and endeavours to propagate errors at any hand. And those he surely most desireth which concern either G.o.d or himself; for they dishonour G.o.d who is absolute truth and goodness; but for himself, who is extreamly evil, and the worst we can conceive, by aberration of conceit they may extenuate his depravity, and ascribe some goodness unto him.

CHAPTER II

That a Man hath one Rib less then a Woman.

That a Man hath one Rib less then a Woman, is a common conceit derived from the History of _Genesis_, wherein it stands delivered, that _Eve_ was framed out of a Rib of _Adam_; whence 'tis concluded the s.e.x of man still wants that rib our Father lost in _Eve_. And this is not only pa.s.sant with the many, but was urged against _Columbus_ in an Anatomy of his at _Pisa_, where having prepared the Sceleton of a woman that chanced to have thirteen ribs on one side, there arose a party that cried him down, and even unto oaths affirmed, this was the rib wherein a woman exceeded. Were this true, it would ocularly silence that dispute out of which side _Eve_ was framed; it would determine the opinion of _Oleaster_, that she was made out of the ribs of both sides, or such as from the expression of the Text [SN: Os ex ossibus meis.] maintain there was a plurality of ribs required; and might indeed decry the parabolical exposition of _Origen_, _Cajetan_, and such as fearing to concede a monstrosity, or mutilate the integrity of _Adam_, preventively conceive the creation of thirteen ribs.

[Sidenote: _How many ribs commonly in men and women._]

But this will not consist with reason or inspection. For if we survey the Sceleton of both s.e.xes, and therein the compage of bones, we shall readily discover that men and women have four and twenty ribs, that is, twelve on each side, seven greater annexed unto the Sternon, and five lesser which come short thereof. Wherein if it sometimes happen that either s.e.x exceed, the conformation is irregular, deflecting from the common rate or number, and no more inferrible upon mankind, then the monstrosity of the son of _Rapha_, or the vitious excess in the number of fingers and toes. And although some difference there be in figure and the female _os inominatum_ be somewhat more protuberant, to make a fairer cavity for the Infant; the coccyx sometime more reflected to give the easier delivery, and the ribs themselves seem a little flatter, yet are they equal in number. And therefore while _Aristotle_ doubteth the relations made of Nations, which had but seven ribs on a side, and yet delivereth, that men have generally no more than eight; as he rejecteth their history, so can we not accept of his Anatomy.

Again, Although we concede there wanted one rib in the Sceleton of _Adam_, yet were it repugnant unto reason and common observation that his posterity should want the same. For we observe that mutilations are not transmitted from father unto son; the blind begetting such as can see, men with one eye children with two, and cripples mutilate in their own persons do come out perfect in their generations. For the seed conveyeth with it not only the extract and single Idea of every part, whereby it transmits their perfections or infirmities; but double and over again; whereby sometimes it multipliciously delineates the same, as in Twins, in mixed and numerous generations. Parts of the seed do seem to contain the Idea and power of the whole; so parents deprived of hands, beget manual issues, and the defect of those parts is supplied by the Idea of others. So in one grain of corn appearing similary and insufficient for a plural germination, there lyeth dormant the virtuality of many other; and from thence sometimes proceed above an hundred ears. And thus may be made out the cause of multiparous productions; for though the seminal materials disperse and separate in the matrix, the formative operator will not delineate a part, but endeavour the formation of the whole; effecting the same as far as the matter will permit, and from dividing materials attempt entire formations. And therefore, though wondrous strange, it may not be impossible what is confirmed at _Lausdun_ concerning the Countess of _Holland_, nor what _Albertus_ reports of the birth of an hundred and fifty. And if we consider the magnalities of generation in some things, we shall not controvert its possibilities in others: nor easily question that great work, whose wonders are only second unto those of the Creation, and a close apprehension of the one, might perhaps afford a glimmering light, and crepusculous glance of the other.

CHAPTER III

Of _Methuselah_.

What hath been every where opinioned by all men, and in all times, is more then paradoxical to dispute; and so that _Methuselah_ was the longest liver of all the posterity of _Adam_, we quietly believe: but that he must needs be so, is perhaps below paralogy to deny. For hereof there is no determination from the Text; wherein it is only particulared he was the longest Liver of all the Patriarchs whose age is there expressed; but that he out-lived all others, we cannot well conclude.

For of those nine whose death is mentioned before the flood, the Text expresseth that _Enoch_ was the shortest Liver; who saw but three hundred sixty-five years. But to affirm from hence, none of the rest, whose age is not expressed, did die before that time, is surely an illation whereto we cannot a.s.sent.

Again, Many persons there were in those days of longevity, of whose age notwithstanding there is no account in Scripture; as of the race of _Cain_, the wives of the nine Patriarchs, with all the sons and daughters that every one begat: whereof perhaps some persons might out-live _Methuselah_; the Text intending only the masculine line of _Seth_, conduceable unto the Genealogy of our Saviour, and the antediluvian Chronology. And therefore we must not contract the lives of those which are left in silence by _Moses_; for neither is the age of _Abel_ expressed in the Scripture, yet is he conceived far elder then commonly opinioned; and if we allow the conclusion of his Epitaph as made by _Adam_, and so set down by _Salian, Posuit mrens pater, cui a filio justius positum foret, Anno ab ortu rerum 130. Ab Abele nato 129_, we shall not need to doubt. Which notwithstanding _Cajetan_ and others confirm, nor is it improbable, if we conceive that _Abel_ was born in the second year of _Adam_, and _Seth_ a year after the death of _Abel_: for so it being said, that _Adam_ was an hundred and thirty years old when he begat _Seth_, _Abel_ must perish the year before, which was one hundred twenty nine.

And if the account of _Cain_ extend unto the Deluge, it may not be improbable that some thereof exceeded any of _Seth_. Nor is it unlikely in life, riches, power and temporal blessings, they might surpa.s.s them in this world, whose lives related unto the next. For so when the seed of _Jacob_ was under affliction and captivity, that of _Ismael_ and _Esau_ flourished and grew mighty, there proceeding from the one twelve Princes, from the other no less then fourteen Dukes and eight Kings. And whereas the age of _Cain_ and his posterity is not delivered in the Text, some do salve it from the secret method of Scripture, which sometimes wholly omits, but seldom or never delivers the entire duration of wicked and faithless persons, as is observable in the history of _Esau_, and the Kings of _Israel_ and _Judah_. And therefore when mention is made that _Ismael_ lived 137 years, some conceive he adhered unto the faith of _Abraham_; for so did others who were not descended from _Jacob_; for _Job_ is thought to be an _Idumean_, and of the seed of _Esau_. [SN: _Job thought by some to be of the race of_ Esau.]

Lastly (although we rely not thereon) we will not omit that conceit urged by learned men, that _Adam_ was elder then _Methuselah_; inasmuch as he was created in the perfect age of man, which was in those days 50 or 60 years, for about that time we read that they begat children; so that if unto 930 we add 60 years, he will exceed _Methuselah_. And therefore if not in length of days, at least in old age he surpa.s.sed others; he was older then all, who was never so young as any. For though he knew old age, he was never acquainted with p.u.b.erty, youth or Infancy; and so in a strict account he begat children at one year old.

And if the usual compute will hold, that men are of the same age which are born within compa.s.s of the same year, _Eve_ was as old as her husband and parent _Adam_, and _Cain_ their son coetaneous unto both.

Now that conception, that no man did ever attain unto a thousand years, because none should ever be one day old in the sight of the Lord, unto whom according to that of _David_, A thousand years are but one day, doth not advantage _Methuselah_. And being deduced from a popular expression, which will not stand a _Metaphysical_ and strict examination, is not of force to divert a serious enquirer. For unto G.o.d a thousand years are no more then one moment, and in his sight _Methuselah_ lived no nearer one day then _Abel_, for all parts of time are alike unto him, unto whom none are referrible; and all things present, unto whom nothing is past or to come. And therefore, although we be measured by the Zone of time, and the flowing and continued instants thereof, do weave at last a line and circle about the eldest: yet can we not thus commensurate the sphere of _Trismegistus_; or sum up the unsuccessive and stable duration of G.o.d.

CHAPTER IV

That there was no Rain-bow before the Flood.

That there shall no Rain-bow appear forty years before the end of the world, and that the preceding drought unto that great flame shall exhaust the materials of this Meteor, was an a.s.sertion grounded upon no solid reason: but that there was not any in sixteen hundred years, that is, before the flood, seems deduceable from holy Scripture, _Gen._ 9. I do set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be for a token of a Covenant between me and the earth. From whence notwithstanding we cannot conclude the nonexistence of the Rain-bow; nor is that Chronology naturally established, which computeth the antiquity of effects arising from physical and setled causes, by additionall impositions from voluntary determinators. Now by the decree of reason and Philosophy, the Rain-bow hath its ground in Nature, as caused by the rays of the Sun, falling upon a roride and opposite cloud: whereof some reflected, others refracted, beget that semi-circular variety we generally call the Rain-bow; which must succeed upon concurrence of causes and subjects aptly predisposed. And therefore, to conceive there was no Rain-bow before, because G.o.d chose this out as a token of the Covenant, is to conclude the existence of things from their signalities, or of what is objected unto the sense, a coexistence with that which is internally presented unto the understanding. With equall reason we may infer there was no water before the inst.i.tution of Baptism, nor bread and wine before the holy Eucharist.

[Sidenote: _That there is a Rain-bow of the Moon._]

Again, while men deny the antiquity of one Rain-bow, they anciently concede another. For, beside the solary Iris which G.o.d shewed unto _Noah_, there is another Lunary, whose efficient is the Moon, visible only in the night, most commonly at full Moon, and some degrees above the Horizon. Now the existence hereof men do not controvert, although effected by a different Luminary in the same way with the other. And probably appeared later, as being of rare appearance and rarer observation, and many there are which think there is no such thing in Nature. And therefore by casual spectators they are lookt upon like prodigies, and significations made, not signified by their natures.

Lastly, We shall not need to conceive G.o.d made the Rain-bow at this time, if we consider that in its created and predisposed nature, it was more proper for this signification then any other Meteor or celestial appearancy whatsoever. Thunder and lightning had too much terrour to have been tokens of mercy; Comets or blazing Stars appear too seldom to put us in mind of a Covenant to be remembred often: and might rather signifie the world should be once destroyed by fire, then never again by water. The Galaxia or milky Circle had been more probable; for (beside that unto the lat.i.tude of thirty, it becomes their Horizon twice in four and twenty hours, and unto such as live under the aequator, in that s.p.a.ce the whole Circle appeareth) part thereof is visible unto any situation; but being only discoverable in the night, and when the ayr is clear, it becomes of unfrequent and comfortless signification. A fixed Star had not been visible unto all the Globe, and so of too narrow a signality in a Covenant concerning all. But Rain-bows are seen unto all the world, and every position of sphere. Unto our own elevation they may appear in the morning, while the Sun hath attained about forty five degrees above the Horizon (which is conceived the largest semi-diameter of any Iris) and so in the afternoon when it hath declined unto that alt.i.tude again; which height the Sun not attaining in winter, rain-bows may happen with us at noon or any time. Unto a right position of sphere they may appear three hours after the rising of the Sun, and three before its setting; for the Sun ascending fifteen degrees an hour, in three attaineth forty five of alt.i.tude. Even unto a parallel sphere, and such as live under the pole, for half a year some segments may appear at any time and under any quarter, the Sun not setting, but walking round about them.

[Sidenote: _The natural signification of the rain-bow._]