The Works of Sir Thomas Browne Volume I Part 24

That a Bever to escape the Hunter, bites off his t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es or stones, is a Tenet very ancient; and hath had thereby advantage of propagation.

[SN: _aesops Apologues, of what antiquity._] For the same we find in the Hieroglyphicks of the Egyptians in the Apologue of _aesop_, 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 _aelian_, _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:

_----imitatus Castora, qui se Eunuchum ipse facit, cupiens evadere d.a.m.no Testiculorum, adeo medicatum intelligit inguen._

It hath been propagated by Emblems: and some have been so bad Grammarians as to be deceived by the Name, deriving _Castor a castrando_, whereas the proper Latine word is _Fiber_, and _Castor_ but borrowed from the Greek, so called _quasi_ ??st??, 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 a.s.sertion. 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 _aesop_; 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 lat.i.tude 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 Tragdy 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es or Stones; for these Cods or Follicles are found in both s.e.xes, though somewhat more protuberant in the Male.

There is hereto no derivation of the seminal parts, nor any pa.s.sage from hence, unto the Vessels of e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n: 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es 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 vnic.u.m, ovi Auscrini magnitudine, inter hos est mentula in maribus, in faeminis pudendum, hi tumores testes non sunt, sed folliculi membrana contecti, in quorum medio sunguli sunt meatus e quibus exudat liquor pinguis et cerosus, quem ipse Castor saepe 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 mentulae meatum derivitur, et foras emittatur; praeterea quod testes intus reperiuntur, eosdem tumores Moscho animali inesse puto, e 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.e, 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es of the _Bever_; as _Dioscorides_, _Galen_, _aegineta_, _aetius_, 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es, which was amongst them the penalty of such incontinency. Nor is _aetius_ 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es: 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_. [SN: 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es in other animals. Which notwithstanding is no well founded illation, for the t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es 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 t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es, 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 a.s.sertion, 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.

CHAPTER V

Of the Badger.

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 a.s.sented 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 Gra.s.shoppers; or both unto the middle, as in some Beetles and Spiders, as is determined by _Aristotle_, _De incessu Animalium_. [SN: De incessu Animalium.] Perfect and viviparous quadrupeds, so standing in their position of p.r.o.neness, 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. [SN: _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.

CHAPTER VI

Of the Bear.

That a Bear brings forth her young informous and unshapen, which she fas.h.i.+oneth 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 _aelian_ directly affirm it, and _Ovid_ smoothly delivereth it:

_Nec catulus partu quem reddidit ursa recenti_ _Sed male viva caro est, lambendo mater in artus_ _Ducit, et in formam qualem cupit ipsa reducit._

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 a.s.surance was _Julius Scaliger_ in his Exercitations, _Ursam ftus informes potius ejicere, quam parere, si vera dic.u.n.t, quos postea linctu effingat: Quid hujusce fabulae authoribus fidei habendum ex hac historia cognosces; In nostris Alpibus venatores faetum Ursam cepere, dissecta ea faetus 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 Gla.s.s 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 pa.s.sive 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 G.o.d, 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. [SN: _Formation in the Matrix, the admirable work of Nature._] Wherein the plastick or formative faculty, from matter appearing h.o.m.ogeneous, 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 fas.h.i.+oned 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 _Mire me plasmaverunt ma.n.u.s tuae_, 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 ursae; unde evenit ut praecipitata faecunditas 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 [SN: ????s??.], 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_.

CHAPTER VII

Of the Basilisk

Many Opinions are pa.s.sant concerning the Basilisk or little King of Serpents, commonly called the c.o.c.katrice: 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 Basilisc.u.m 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, c.o.c.katrices 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_, _aelian_, _aetius_, _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 _aetius_ 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 c.o.c.katrice, and wherein (but under a different name) we intend a formal Ident.i.ty 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 c.o.c.k. 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 c.o.c.katrice only unlike the Basilisk, but of no real shape in Nature; and rather an Hieroglyphical fansie, to express different intentions, set forth in different fas.h.i.+ons. 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 ment.i.ti sunt vulgo Gallinacco similem, et pedibus binis; neque enim absimiles sunt caeteris 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 c.o.c.k, 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_ c.o.c.ks, and flying Serpents, yet is it commonly contrived out of the skins of Thornbacks, Scaits, or Maids, as _Aldrovand_ hath observed, [SN: _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. [SN: _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. [SN: _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 pa.s.s. [SN: _How the Basilisk kills at distance._]

Thus through a green or red Gla.s.s 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 Gla.s.s; 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.

[Sidenote: _The generation of the c.o.c.ks egg._]

As for the generation of the Basilisk, that it proceedeth from a c.o.c.ks egg hatched under a Toad or Serpent, it is a conceit as monstrous as the brood it self. For if we should grant that c.o.c.ks growing old, and unable for emission, ama.s.s within themselves some seminal matter, which may after conglobate into the form of an egg, yet will this substance be unfruitful. As wanting one principle of generation, and a commixture of both s.e.xes, which is required unto production, as may be observed in the eggs of Hens not trodden; and as we have made trial in some which are termed c.o.c.ks eggs. [SN: Ovum Centeninum, _or the last egg which is a very little one._] It is not indeed impossible that from the sperm of a c.o.c.k, Hen, or other Animal, being once in putrescence, either from incubation or otherwise, some generation may ensue, not univocal and of the same species, but some imperfect or monstrous production, even as in the body of man from putrid humours, and peculiar ways of corruption, there have succeeded strange and unseconded shapes of worms; whereof we have beheld some our selves, and read of others in medical observations.

And so may strange and venomous Serpents be several ways engendered; but that this generation should be regular, and alway produce a Basilisk, is beyond our affirmation, and we have good reason to doubt.

Again, It is unreasonable to ascribe the equivocacy of this form unto the hatching of a Toad, or imagine that diversifies the production. For Incubation alters not the species, nor if we observe it, so much as concurs either to the s.e.x or colour: as appears in the eggs of Ducks or Partridges hatched under a Hen, there being required unto their exclusion only a gentle and continued heat: and that not particular or confined unto the species or parent. So have I known the seed of Silk-worms hatched on the bodies of women: and _Pliny_ reports that _Livia_ the wife of _Augustus_ hatched an egg in her bosome. Nor is only an animal heat required hereto, but an elemental and artificial warmth will suffice: for as _Diodorus_ delivereth, the aegyptians were wont to hatch their eggs in Ovens, and many eye-witnesses confirm that practice unto this day. And therefore this generation of the Basilisk, seems like that of _Castor_ and _Helena_; he that can credit the one, may easily believe the other: that is, that these two were hatched out of the egg which _Jupiter_ in the form of a Swan, begat on his Mistress _Leda_.

The occasion of this conceit might be an aegyptian tradition concerning the Bird _Ibis_: which after became transferred unto c.o.c.ks. For an opinion it was of that Nation, that the _Ibis_ feeding upon Serpents, that venomous food so inquinated their oval conceptions, or eggs within their bodies, that they sometimes came forth in Serpentine shapes, and therefore they always brake their eggs, nor would they endure the Bird to sit upon them. But how causeless their fear was herein, the daily incubation of Ducks, Pea-hens, and many other testifie, and the Stork might have informed them; which Bird they honoured and cherished, to destroy their Serpents.

That which much promoted it, was a misapprehension of holy Scripture upon the Latine translation in _Esa._ 51, _Ova aspidum ruperunt et telas Arenearum texuerunt, qui comedent de ovis corum morietur, et quod confotum est, erumpet in Regulum_. From whence notwithstanding, beside the generation of Serpents from eggs, there can be nothing concluded; and what kind of Serpents are meant, not easie to be determined, for Translations are here very different: _Tremellius_ rendering the Asp Haemorrhous, and the Regulus or Basilisk a Viper, and our translation for the Asp sets down a c.o.c.katrice in the Text, and an Adder in the margin.

Another place of _Esay_ doth also seem to countenance it, Chap. 14. _Ne laeteris Philistaea quoniam diminuta est virga percussoris tui, de radice enim colubri egredietur Regulus, et s.e.m.e.n ejus absorbens volucrem_, which ours somewhat favourably rendereth: _Out of the Serpents Root shall come forth a c.o.c.katrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying Serpent_. But _Tremellius_, _e radice Serpentis prodit Haemorrhous, et fructus illius praester volans_; wherein the words are different, but the sense is still the same; for therein are figuratively intended _Uzziah_ and _Ezechias_; for though the Philistines had escaped the minor Serpent _Uzziah_, yet from his stock a fiercer Snake should arise, that would more terribly sting them, and that was _Ezeckias_.

But the greatest promotion it hath received from a misunderstanding of the Hieroglyphical intention. For being conceived to be the Lord and King of Serpents, to aw all others, nor to be destroyed _by any_; the aegyptians hereby implied Eternity, and the awful power of the supreme Deitie: and therefore described a crowned Asp or Basilisk upon the heads of their G.o.ds. As may be observed in the Bembine Table, and other aegyptian Monuments.