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 title-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 passed away, and Death has deprived us of[vi] 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 assistance 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.

[vii]

THE SEVENTH BOOK

[1]

Concerning many Historical Tenents generally received, and some deduced from the history of holy Scripture.

CHAPTER I Of the Forbidden Fruit.

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 Becanus 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 pass 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 [2]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 vitæ, so commonly called, to obtain its name from the tree of life in Paradise, or Arbor Judæ, 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 passed 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 uncircumstantial, 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, Jacobs Sciatica, see Gen. 32. 25, 31, 32. do cautelously in their diet abstain from the[3]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 Passover 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, 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 superstitious 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 Goddess 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 [4]beside the great variety of Apples, the word in Greek comprehendeth Orenges, Lemmons, Citrons, Quinces; and as Ruellius defineth, 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, 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 passage in the Canticle,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, God 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, Fructus horæi. Poma desiderii animæ tuæ discesserunt à te, the apples that thy soul lusted 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 Philostrat. figur. 6. De amoribus. do play with apples in a garden; and[5] 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 assure them by determination. Which is not only verified concerning the fruit, but the Serpent that perswaded; many defining the kind or species thereof. 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 circumstance, and endeavours to propagate errors at any hand. And those he surely most desireth which concern either God or himself; for they dishonour God 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 sex of man still wants that rib our Father lost in Eve. And this is not only passant with the [6]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 TextOs 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.

But this will not consist with reason or inspection. For if we survey the Sceleton of both sexes, 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 sex 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[7] 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[8] 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 assent.

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[9] 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 mœrens pater, cui à 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 surpass 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[10] Abraham;Job thought by some to be of the race of Esau. for so did others who were not descended from Jacob; for Job is thought to be an Idumean, and of the seed 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 surpassed others; he was older then all, who was never so young as any. For though he knew old age, he was never acquainted with puberty, 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 compass 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 God 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[11] 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 God.

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 assertion 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