The Works of Sir Thomas Browne Volume II Part 2

As for the mutation of s.e.xes, or transition into one another, we cannot deny it in Hares, it being observable in Man. For hereof beside _Empedocles_ or _Tiresias_, there are not a few examples: and though very few, or rather none which have emasculated or turned women, yet very many who from an esteem or reality of being Women have infallibly proved Men. Some at the first point of their menstruous eruptions, some in the day of their marriage, others many years after: which occasioned disputes at Law, and contestations concerning a restore of the dowry.

And that not only mankind, but many other Animals may suffer this trans.e.xion, we will not deny, or hold it at all impossible: although I confess by reason of the postick and backward position of the feminine parts in quadrupedes, they can hardly admit the subst.i.tution of a protrusion, effectual unto masculine generation; except it be in Retromingents, and such as couple backward.

Nor shall we only concede the succession of s.e.xes in some, but shall not dispute the transition of reputed species in others; that is, a trans.m.u.tation, or (as _Paracelsians_ term it) Transplantation of one into another. Hereof in perfect Animals of a congenerous seed, or near affinity of natures, examples are not unfrequent, as in Horses, a.s.ses, Dogs, Foxes, Pheasants, c.o.c.ks, etc. but in imperfect kinds, and such where the discrimination of s.e.xes is obscure, these transformations are more common; and in some within themselves without commixtion, as particularly in Caterpillars or Silkworms, wherein there is a visible and triple transfiguration. But in Plants, wherein there is no distinction of s.e.x, these transplantations are conceived more obvious then any; as that of Barley into Oats, of Wheat into Darnel; and those grains which generally arise among Corn, as c.o.c.kle, Aracus, aegilops, and other degenerations; which come up in unexpected shapes, when they want the support and maintenance of the primary and master-forms. And the same do some affirm concerning other Plants in less a.n.a.logy of figures; as the mutation of Mint into Cresses, Basil into Serpoile, and Turneps into Radishes. In all which, as _Severinus_ conceiveth, [SN: In Idea Medicinae Philosophicae.] there may be equivocal seeds and Hermaphroditical principles, which contain the radicality and power of different forms; thus in the seed of Wheat there lieth obscurely the seminality of Darnel, although in a secondary or inferiour way, and at some distance of production; which nevertheless if it meet with convenient promotion, or a conflux and conspiration of causes more powerful then the other, it then beginneth to edifie in chief, and contemning the superintendent form, produceth the signatures of its self.

Now therefore although we deny not these several mutations, and do allow that Hares may exchange their s.e.x, yet this we conceive doth come to pa.s.s but sometimes, and not in that vicissitude or annual alteration as is presumed. That is, from imperfection to perfection, from perfection to imperfection; from female unto male, from male to female again, and so in a circle to both without a permansion in either. For beside the inconceivable mutation of temper, which should yearly alternate the s.e.x, this is injurious unto the order of nature, whose operations do rest in the perfection of their intents; which having once attained, they maintain their accomplished ends, and relapse not again into their progressional imperfections. So if in the minority of natural vigor, the parts of seminality take place; when upon the encrease or growth thereof the masculine appear, the first design of nature is atchieved, and those parts are after maintained.

But surely it much impeacheth this iterated trans.e.xion of Hares, if that be true which _Cardan_ and other Physicians affirm, that Trans.m.u.tation of s.e.x is only so in opinion; and that these transfeminated persons were really men at first; although succeeding years produced the manifesto or evidence of their virilities. Which although intended and formed, was not at first excluded: and that the examples hereof have undergone no real or new trans.e.xion, but were Androgynally born, and under some kind of _Hermaphrodites_. For though _Galen_ do favour the opinion, that the distinctive parts of s.e.xes are only different in Position, that is, inversion or protrusion; yet will this hardly be made out from the Anatomy of those parts. The t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es being so seated in the female, that they admit not of protrusion; and the neck of the matrix wanting those parts which are discoverable in the organ of virility.

The second and most received acception, is, that Hares are male and female by conjunction of both s.e.xes; and such as are found in mankind, Poetically called Hermaphrodites; supposed to be formed from the equality, or _non victorie_ of either seed; carrying about them the parts of Man and Woman; although with great variety in perfection, site and ability; not only as _Aristotle_ conceived, with a constant impotency in one; but as later observers affirm, sometimes with ability of either venery. And therefore the providence of some Laws have thought good, that at the years of maturity they should elect one s.e.x, and the errors in the other should suffer a severer punishment. Whereby endeavouring to prevent incontinency, they unawares enjoyned perpetual chast.i.ty; for being executive in both parts, and confined unto one, they restrained a natural power, and ordained a partial virginity. _Plato_ and some of the Rabbins proceeded higher; who conceived the first Man an Hermaphrodite; and _Marcus Leo_ the learned _Jew_, in some sense hath allowed it; affirming that _Adam_ in one suppositum without division, contained both Male and Female. And therefore whereas it is said in the text, That G.o.d created man in his own Image, in the Image of G.o.d created he him, male and female created he them: applying the singular and plural unto _Adam_, it might denote, that in one substance, and in himself he included both s.e.xes, which was after divided, and the female called Woman. The opinion of _Aristotle_ extendeth farther, from whose a.s.sertion all men should be Hermaphrodites; for affirming that Women do not spermatize, and confer a place or receptacle rather then essential principles of generation, he deductively includes both s.e.xes in mankind; for from the father proceed not only males and females, but from him also must Hermaphroditical and masculo-feminine generations be derived, and a commixtion of both s.e.xes arise from the seed of one. But the Schoolmen have dealt with that s.e.x more hardly then any other; who though they have not much disputed their generation, yet have they controverted their Resurrection, and raisen a querie, whether any at the last day should arise in the s.e.x of Women; as may be observed in the supplement of _Aquinas_.

Now as we must acknowledge this Androgynal condition in Man [SN: _Consisting of man and woman._], so can we not deny the like doth happen in beasts. Thus do we read in _Pliny_, that _Neroes_ Chariot was drawn by four Hermaphroditical Mares, and _Cardan_ affirms he also beheld one at _Antwerp_. And thus may we also concede, that Hares have been of both s.e.xes, and some have ocularly confirmed it; but that the whole species or kind should be bis.e.xous or double-s.e.xed, we cannot affirm, who have found the parts of male and female respectively distinct and single in any wherein we have enquired: And the like success had _Bacchinus_[SN: Bacch. De Hermaphroditis.] in such as he dissected. And whereas it is conceived, that being an harmless Animal and delectable food unto man, nature hath made them with double s.e.xes, that actively and pa.s.sively performing they might more numerously increase; we forget an higher providence of nature whereby she especially promotes the multiplication of Hares, which is by superfetation; that is, a conception upon a conception, or an improvement of a second fruit before the first be excluded; preventing hereby the usual intermission and vacant time of generation; which is very common and frequently observable in Hares, mentioned long ago by _Aristotle_, _Herodotus_, and _Pliny_; and we have often observed, that after the first cast, there remain successive conceptions, and other younglings very immature, and far from their term of exclusion.

[Sidenote: _Superfetation possible in women, and that unto a perfect birth._]

Nor need any man to question this in Hares, for the same we observe doth sometime happen in Women; for although it be true, that upon conception the inward orifice of the matrix exactly closeth, so that it commonly admitteth nothing after; yet falleth it out sometime, that in the act of coition, the avidity of that part dilateth it self, and receiveth a second burden; which if it happen to be near in time unto the first, they do commonly both proceed unto perfection, and have legitimate exclusions, periodically succeeding each other. But if the superfetation be made with considerable intermission, the latter most commonly proves abortive; for the first being confirmed, engrosseth the aliment from the other. However therefore the project of _Julia_ seem very plausible, and that way infallible, when she received not her pa.s.sengers, before she had taken in her lading, yet was there a fallibility therein: nor indeed any absolute security in the policy of adultery after conception. For the Matrix (which some have called another Animal within us, and which is not subjected unto the law of our will) after reception of its proper Tenant, may yet receive a strange and spurious inmate. As is confirmable by many examples in _Pliny_; by _Larissaea_ in _Hippocrates_ and that merry one in _Plautus_ urged also by _Aristotle_: that is, of _Iphicles_ and _Hercules_, the one begat by _Jupiter_, the other by _Amphitryon_ upon _Alemaena_ as also in those super-conceptions, where one child was like the father, the other like the adulterer, the one favoured the servant, the other resembled the master.

Now the grounds that begat, or much promoted the opinion of a double s.e.x in Hares, might be some little bags or tumours, at first glance representing stones or t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es, to be found in both s.e.xes about the parts of generation; which men observing in either s.e.x, were induced to believe a masculine s.e.x in both. But to speak properly, these are no t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es or parts official unto generation, but glandulous substances that seem to hold the nature of Emunctories. For herein may be perceived slender perforations, at which may be expressed a black and faeculent matter. If therefore from these we shall conceive a mixtion of s.e.xes in Hares, with fairer reason we may conclude it in Bevers; whereof both s.e.xes contain a double bag or Tumour in the groin, commonly called the Cod of _Castor_, as we have delivered before.

Another ground were certain holes or cavities observable about the siedge; which being perceived in Males, made some conceive there might be also a fminine nature in them. And upon this very ground, the same opinion hath pa.s.sed upon the Hyaena, and is declared by _Aristotle_, and thus translated by _Scaliger_; _Quod autem aiunt utriusque s.e.xus habere genitalia, falsum est, quod videtur esse fmineum sub cauda est simile figura fminino, verum pervium non est_; and thus is it also in Hares, in whom these holes, although they seem to make a deep cavity, yet do they not perforate the skin, nor hold a community with any part of generation: but were (as _Pliny_ delivereth) esteemed the marks of their age, the number of those deciding their number of years.

In which opinion what truth there is we shall not contend; for if in other Animals there be authentick notations, if the characters of years be found in the horns of Cows, or in the Antlers of Deer; if we conjecture the age of Horses from joints in their docks, and undeniably presume it from their teeth; we cannot affirm, there is in this conceit, any affront unto nature; although who ever enquireth shall find no a.s.surance therein.

The last foundation was Retromingency or p.i.s.sing backward; for men observing both s.e.xes to urine backward, or aversly between their legs, they might conceive there was a fminine part in both; wherein they are deceived by the ignorance of the just and proper site of the Pizzel, or part designed unto the Excretion of urine; which in the Hare holds not the common position, but is aversly seated, and in its distention enclines unto the Coccix or Scut. Now from the nature of this position, there ensueth a necessity of Retrocopulation, which also promoteth the conceit: for some observing them to couple without ascension, have not been able to judge of male or female, or to determine the proper s.e.x in either. And to speak generally, this way of copulation is not appropriate unto Hares, nor is there one, but many ways of coition: according to divers shapes and different conformations. For some couple laterally or sidewise, as Worms: some circularly or by complication, as Serpents: some p.r.o.nely, that is, by contaction of the ventral parts in both, as Apes, Porcupines, Hedgehogs, and such as are termed Mollia, as the Cuttle-fish and the Purple; some mixtly, that is, the male ascending the female, or by application of the ventral parts of the one, unto the postick parts of the other, as most Quadrupeds: Some aversly, as all Crustaceous Animals, Lobsters, Shrimps, and Crevises, and also Retromingents, as Panthers, Tygers, and Hares. This is the constant Law of their Coition, this they observe and transgress not: onely the vitiosity of man hath acted the varieties hereof; nor content with a digression from s.e.x or species, hath in his own kind run thorow the Anomalies of venery; and been so bold, not only to act, but represent to view, the irregular ways of l.u.s.t.

CHAPTER XVIII

Of Moles, or Molls.

That Moles are blind and have no eyes, though a common opinion, is received with much variety; some affirming only they have no sight, as _Oppia.n.u.s_, the Proverb _Talpa Caecior_, and the word spa?a??a, or _Talpitas_, which in _Hesychius_ is made the same with _Caecitas_: some that they have eyes, but no sight, as the text of _Aristotle_ seems to imply; some neither eyes nor sight, as _Albertus_, _Pliny_, and the vulgar opinion; some both eyes and sight, as _Scaliger_, _Aldrovandus_, and some others. Of which opinions the last with some restriction, is most consonant unto truth: for that they have eyes in their head is manifest unto any, that wants them not in his own: and are discoverable, not only in old ones, but as we have observed in young and naked conceptions, taken out of the belly of the Dam. And he that exactly enquires into the cavity of their cranies, may perhaps discover some propagation of nerves communicated unto these parts. But that the humours together with their coats are also distinct (though _Galen_ seem to affirm it) transcendeth our discovery; for separating these little Orbs, and including them in magnifying Gla.s.ses, we discerned no more then _Aristotle_ mentions, t?? ?f?a??? ??a??a, that is, a black humour, nor any more if they be broken. That therefore they have eyes we must of necessity affirm; but that they be comparatively incomplete we need not to deny: So _Galen_ affirms the parts of generation in women are imperfect, in respect of those of men, as the eyes of Moles in regard of other Animals; So _Aristotle_ terms them p?????????, which _Gaza_ translates _Oblaesos_, and _Scaliger_ by a word of imperfection _inchoatos_.

Now as that they have eyes is manifest unto sense, so that they have sight not incongruous unto reason; if we call not in question the providence of this provision, that is, to a.s.sign the Organs, and yet deny the Office, to grant them eyes and withhold all manner of vision.

For as the inference is fair, affirmatively deduced from the action to the Organ, that they have eyes because they see; so is it also from the organ to the action, that they have eyes, therefore some sight designed, if we take the intention of Nature in every species, and except the casual impediments, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are more imperfect then others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of vision, for they will run against things, and hudling forwards fall from high places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there is in them no Cecity, yet more then a Cecutiency; they have sight enough to discern the light, though not perhaps to distinguish of objects or colours; so are they not exactly blind, for light is one object of vision. And this (as _Scaliger_ observeth) might be as full a sight as Nature first intended, for living in darkness under the earth, they had no further need of eyes then to avoid the light; and to be sensible when ever they lost that darkness of earth, which was their natural confinement. And therefore however Translators do render the word of _Aristotle_ or _Galen_, that is, _imperfectos oblaesos_ or _inchoatos_, it is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to finish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect Vision.

And lastly, although they had neither eyes nor sight, yet could they not be termed blind. For blindness being a privative term unto sight, this appellation is not admittible in propriety of speech, and will overthrow the doctrine of privations; which presuppose positive forms or habits, and are not indefinite negations, denying in all subjects, but such alone wherein the positive habits are in their proper Nature, and placed without repugnancy. So do we improperly say a Mole is blind, if we deny it the Organs or a capacity of vision from its created Nature; so when the text of _John_ had said, that person was blind from his nativity, whose cecity our Saviour cured, it was not warrantable in _Nonnus_ to say he had no eyes at all, as in the judgment of _Heinsius_, he describeth in his paraphrase; and as some ancient Fathers affirm, that by this miracle they were created in him. And so though the sense may be accepted, that Proverb must be candidly interpreted, which maketh fishes Mute; and calls them silent which have no voice in Nature.

Now this conceit is erected upon a misapprehension or mistake in the symtomes of vision; men confounding abolishment, diminution and depravement, and naming that an abolition of sight, which indeed is but an abatement. For if vision be abolished, it is called _caecitas_, or blindness; if depraved and receive its objects erroneously, Hallucination; if diminished, _hebetudo visus_, _caligatio_, or dimness.

Now instead of a diminution or imperfect vision in the Mole, we affirm an abolition or total privation; instead of a caligation or dimness, we conclude a cecity or blindness. Which hath been frequently inferred concerning other Animals; so some affirm the Water-Rat is blind, so _Sammonicus_ and _Nicander_ do call the Mus-Araneus the shrew or Ranny, blind: And because darkness was before light, the _aegyptians_ wors.h.i.+pped the same. So are _Caeciliae_ or Slow-worms accounted blind, and the like we affirm proverbially of the Beetle; although their eyes be evident, and they will flye against lights, like many other Insects, and though also _Aristotle_ determines, that the eyes are apparent in all flying Insects, though other senses be obscure, and not perceptible at all. And if from a diminution we may infer a total privation, or affirm that other Animals are blind which do not acutely see, or comparatively unto others, we shall condemn unto blindness many not so esteemed; for such as have corneous or horney eyes, as Lobsters and crustaceous Animals, are generally dim-sighted; all Insects that have _antennae_, or long horns to feel out their way, as b.u.t.terflyes and Locusts; or their forelegs so disposed, that they much advance before their heads, as may be observed in Spiders; and if the Eagle were judge, we might be blind our selves. The expression therefore of Scripture in the story of _Jacob_ is surely with circ.u.mspection: And it came to pa.s.s when _Jacob_ was old, and his eyes were dim, _quando caligarunt oculi_, saith _Jerome_ and _Tremellius_, which are expressions of diminution, and not of absolute privation.

Other concerns there are of Molls, which though not commonly opinioned are not commonly enough considered: As the peculiar formation of their feet, the slender _ossa Iugalia_, and Dogteeth, and how hard it is to keep them alive out of the Earth: As also the ferity and voracity of these animals; for though they be contented with Roots, and stringy parts of Plants, or Wormes under ground, yet when they are above it will sometimes tear and eat one another, and in a large gla.s.s wherein a Moll, a Toad, and a Viper were inclosed, we have known the Moll to dispatch them and to devour a good part of them both.

CHAPTER XIX

Of Lampries.

Whether Lampries have nine eyes, as is received, we durst refer it unto _Polyphemus_, who had but one, to judge it. An error concerning eyes, occasioned by the error of eyes; deduced from the appearance of diverse cavities or holes on either side, which some call eyes that carelessly behold them; and is not only refutable by experience, but also repugnant unto Reason. For beside the monstrosity they fasten unto Nature, in contriving many eyes, who hath made but two unto any Animal, that is, one of each side, according to the division of the brain; it were a superfluous inartificial act to place and settle so many in one plane; for the two extreams would sufficiently perform the office of sight without the help of the intermediate eyes, and behold as much as all seven joyned together. For the visible base of the object would be defined by these two; and the middle eyes, although they behold the same thing, yet could they not behold so much thereof as these; so were it no advantage unto man to have a third eye between those two he hath already; and the fiction of _Argus_ seems more reasonable then this; for though he had many eyes, yet were they placed in circ.u.mference and positions of advantage, and so are they placed in several lines in Spiders.

Again, These cavities which men call eyes are seated out of the head, and where the Gils of other fish are placed; containing no Organs of sight, nor having any Communication with the brain. [SN: _All sense is from the brain._] Now all sense proceeding from the brain, and that being placed (as _Galen_ observeth) in the upper part of the body, for the fitter situation of the eyes, and conveniency required unto sight; it is not reasonable to imagine that they are any where else, or deserve that name which are seated in other parts. And therefore we relinquish as fabulous what is delivered of _Sternopthalmi_, or men with eyes in their breast, and when it is said by _Solomon_, A wise mans eyes are in his head, it is to be taken in a second sense, and affordeth no objection. True it is that the eyes of Animals are seated with some difference, but in sanguineous animals in the head, and that more forward then the ear or hole of hearing. In quadrupedes, in regard of the figure of their heads, they are placed at some distance; in latirostrous and flat-bill'd birds they are more laterally seated, and therefore when they look intently they turn one eye upon the object, and can convert their heads to see before and behind, and to behold two opposite points at once. But at a more easie distance are they situated in man, and in the same circ.u.mference with the ear; for if one foot of the compa.s.s be placed upon the Crown, a circle described thereby will intersect, or pa.s.s over both the ears.

[Sidenote: _To what use the nine eyes in a Lamprie do serve._]

The error in this conceit consists in the ignorance of these cavities, and their proper use in nature; for this is a particular disposure of parts, and a peculiar conformation whereby these holes and sluces supply the defect of Gils, and are a.s.sisted by the conduit in the head; for like cetaceous Animals and Whales, the Lamprie hath a fistula, spout or pipe at the back part of the head, whereat it spurts out water. Nor is it only singular in this formation, but also in many other; as in defect of bones, whereof it hath not one; and for the spine or backbone, a cartilaginous substance without any spondyles, processes or protuberance whatsoever. As also in the provision which Nature hath made for the heart; which in this Animal is very strangely secured, and lies immured in a cartilage or gristly substance. And lastly, in the colour of the liver: which is in the Male of an excellent gra.s.s-green: but of a deeper colour in the Female, and will communicate a fresh and durable verdure.

CHAPTER XX

Of Snayls.

Whether _Snayls_ have eyes some Learned men have doubted. For _Scaliger_ terms them but imitations of eyes; and _Aristotle_ upon consequence denyeth them, when he affirms that _Testaceous_ Animals have no eyes.

But this now seems sufficiently a.s.serted by the help of exquisite Gla.s.ses, which discover those black and atramentous spots or globales to be their eyes.

That they have two eyes is the common opinion, but if they have two eyes, we may grant them to have no less than four, that is, two in the larger extensions above, and two in the shorter and lesser horns below, and this number may be allowed in these inferiour and exanguious animals; since we may observe the articulate and latticed eyes in Flies, and nine in some Spiders: And in the great _Phalangium_ Spider of _America_, we plainly number eight.

But in sanguineous animals, quadrupeds, bipeds, or man, no such number can be regularly verified, or multiplicity of eyes confirmed. And therefore what hath been under this kind delivered, concerning the plurality, paucity or anomalous situation of eyes, is either monstrous, fabulous, or under things never seen includes good sense or meaning. And so may we receive the figment of _Argus_, who was an Hieroglyphick of heaven, in those centuries of eyes expressing the stars; and their alternate wakings, the vicissitude of day and night. Which strictly taken cannot be admitted; for the subject of sleep is not the eye, but the common sense, which once asleep, all eyes must be at rest. And therefore what is delivered as an Embleme of vigilancy, that the Hare and Lion do sleep with one eye open, doth not evince they are any more awake then if they were both closed. For the open eye beholds in sleep no more then that which is closed; and no more one eye in them then two in other Animals that sleep with both open; as some by disease, and others naturally which have no eye-lids at all.

[Sidenote: _How things happen to be seen as double._]

As for Polyphemus, although the story be fabulous, the monstrosity is not impossible. For the act of Vision may be performed with one eye; and in the deception and fallacy of sight, hath this advantage of two, that it beholds not objects double, or sees two things for one. For this doth happen when the axis of the visive cones, diffused from the object, fall not upon the same plane; but that which is conveyed into one eye, is more depressed or elevated then that which enters the other. So if beholding a Candle, we protrude either upward or downward the pupill of one eye, the object will appear double; but if we shut the other eye, and behold it with one, it will their appear but single; and if we abduce the eye unto either corner, the object will not duplicate: for in that position the axis of the cones remain in the same plane, as is demonstrated in the opticks, and delivered by _Galen_, in his tenth _De usu partium_.

Relations also there are of men that could make themselves invisible, which belongs not to this discourse: but may serve as notable expressions of wise and prudent men, who so contrive their affairs, that although their actions be manifest, their designs are not discoverable.

In this acception there is nothing left of doubt, and _Giges_ Ring remaineth still amongst us: for vulgar eyes behold no more of wise men then doth the Sun: they may discover their exteriour and outward ways, but their interiour and inward pieces he only sees, that sees into their beings.

CHAPTER XXI

Of the Chameleon.

Concerning the _Chameleon_ there generally pa.s.seth an opinion that it liveth only upon air, and is sustained by no other aliment: Thus much is in plain terms affirmed by _Solinus_, _Pliny_, and others, and by this periphrasis is the same described by _Ovid_. All which notwithstanding, upon enquiry I find the a.s.sertion mainly controvertible, and very much to fail in the three inducements of belief.

And first for its verity, although a.s.serted by some, and traditionally delivered by others, yet is it very questionable. For beside _aelian_, who is seldom defective in these accounts; _Aristotle_ distinctly treating hereof, hath made no mention of this remarkable propriety: which either suspecting its verity, or presuming its falsity, he surely omitted: for that he remained ignorant of this account it is not easily conceiveable: it being the common opinion, and generally received by all men. Some have positively denied it, as _Augustinus_, _Niphus_, _Stobaeus_, _Dalechampius_, _Fortunius Licetus_, with many more; others have experimentally refuted it, as namely _Johannes Landius_, who in the relation of _Scaliger_, observed a _Chameleon_ to lick up a fly from his breast: But _Bellonius_ [SN: _Comment. in Ocell._ Lucan.] hath been more satisfactorily experimental, not only affirming they feed on Flies, Caterpillars, Beetles and other Insects, but upon exenteration he found these Animals in their bellies: whereto we might also add the experimental decisions of the worthy _Peireschius_ and learned _Emanuel Vizzanius_, in that _Chameleon_ which had been often observed to drink water, and delight to feed on Meal-worms. And although we have not had the advantage of our own observation, yet have we received the like confirmation from many ocular spectators.

As touching the verisimility or probable truth of this relation, several reasons there are which seem to overthrow it. For first, there are found in this Animal, the guts, the stomack, and other parts official unto nutrition; which were its aliment the empty reception of air, their provisions had been superfluous. Now the wisdom of nature abhorring superfluities, and effecting nothing in vain, unto the intention of these operations, respectively contriveth the Organs; and therefore where we find such Instruments, we may with strictness expect their actions; and where we discover them not, we may with safety conclude the non-intention of their operations. So when we perceive that Bats have teats, it is not unreasonable to infer they suckle their younglings with milk; but whereas no other flying Animal hath these parts, we cannot from them expect a viviparous exclusion; but either a generation of eggs, or some vermiparous separation, whose navel is within it self at first, and its nutrition after not connexedly depending of its original.

Again, Nature is so far from leaving any one part without its proper action, that she oft-times imposeth two or three labours upon one, so the Pizel in Animals is both official unto Urine and to generation, but the first and primary use is generation; for some creatures enjoy that part which urine not. So the nostrils are useful both for respiration and smelling, but the princ.i.p.al use is smelling; for many have nostrils which have no lungs, as fishes, but none have lungs or respiration, which have not some shew, or some a.n.a.logy of nostrils. [SN: _Nature provides no part without its proper function or office._] Thus we perceive the providence of Nature, that is, the wisdom of G.o.d, which disposeth of no part in vain, and some parts unto two or three uses, will not provide any without the execution of its proper office, nor where there is no digestion to be made, make any parts inservient to that intention.

Beside the remarkable teeth, the tongue of this animal is a second argument to overthrow this airy nutrication: and that not only in its proper nature, but also its peculiar figure. For of this part properly taken there are two ends; that is, the formation of the voice, and the execution of tast; for the voice, it can have no office in _Chameleons_, for they are mute Animals; as beside fishes, are most other sorts of Lizards. As for their tast, if their nutriment be air, neither can it be an Instrument thereof; for the body of that element is ingustible, void of all sapidity, and without any action of the tongue, is by the rough artery or wezon conducted into the lungs. And therefore _Pliny_ much forgets the strictness of his a.s.sertion, when he alloweth excrements unto that Animal, that feedeth only upon Air; which notwithstanding with the urine of an a.s.s, he commends as a magicall Medicine upon our enemies.