terpretation of Beda, Dicebam, in nidulo meo moriar, et sicut phoenix multiplicabo dies: and Psalm xxxi. díralos wσTep poivi avohoei, vir justus ut phoenix florebit, as Tertullian renders it, and so also expounds it in his book, before alleged.

All which notwithstanding, we cannot presume the existence of this animal, nor dare we affirm there is any phoenix in nature. For first, there wants herein the definitive confirmator and test of things uncertain, that is, the sense of man. For though many writers have much enlarged hereon, yet is there not any ocular describer, or such as presumeth to confirm it upon aspection. And therefore Herodotus, that led the story unto the Greeks, plainly saith, he never attained the sight of any, but only in the picture.

66

Again, primitive authors, and from whom the stream of relations is derivative, deliver themselves very dubiously; and, either by a doubtful parenthesis or a timorous conclusion, overthrow the whole relation. Thus Herodotus, in his Euterpe, delivering the story hereof, presently interposeth ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ πιστὰ λέγοντες ; that is, " which account seems to me improbable." Tacitus, in his Annals, affordeth a larger story, how the phoenix was first seen at Heliopolis, in the reign of Sesostris, then in the reign of Amasis, after in the days of Ptolemy, the third of the Macedonian race; but at last thus determineth, sed antiquitas obscura, et nonnulli falsum esse hunc phonicem neque Arabum è terris credidere. Pliny makes yet a fairer story, that the phoenix flew into Egypt in the consulship of Quintus Plancius, that it was brought to Rome in the censorship of Claudius, in the eight hundredth year of the city, and testified also in their records; but after all concludeth, Sed quæ falsa nemo dubitabit, as we read it in the fair and ancient impression of Brixa, as Aldrovandus hath quoted it, and it is found in the manuscript copy, as Dalechampius hath also noted.3

Moreover, such as have naturally discoursed hereon, have so diversely, contrarily, or contradictorily, delivered themselves, that no affirmative from thence can reasonably be deduced; for most have positively denied it, and they which affirm and believe it, assign this name unto many, and mistake two or three in one. So hath that bird been taken for

3 as we read, &c.] First added in 3rd edition.

the phoenix, which liveth in Arabia, and buildeth its nest with cinnamon; by Herodotus called cinnamulgus, and by Aristotle cinnamomus; and as a fabulous conceit is censured by Scaliger. Some have conceived that bird to be the phoenix, which by a Persian name with the Greeks is called rhyntace; but how they make this good, we find occasion of doubt, whilst we read in the life of Artaxerxes, that this is a little bird brought often to their tables, and wherewith Parysatis cunningly poisoned the queen. The manucodiata, or bird of paradise, hath had the honour of this name, and their feathers, brought from the Moluccas, do pass for those of the phoenix. Which, though promoted by rarity with us, the eastern travellers will hardly admit; who know they are common in those parts, and the ordinary plume of Janizaries among the Turks. And lastly, the bird semenda hath found the same appellation, for so hath Scaliger observed and refuted: nor will the solitude of the phoenix allow this denomination, for many there are of that species, and whose trifistulary bill and crany we have beheld ourselves. Nor are men only at variance in regard of the phoenix itself, but very disagreeing in the accidents ascribed thereto; for some affirm it liveth three hundred, some five, others six, some a thousand, others, no less than fifteen hundred years; some say it liveth in Æthiopia, others, in Arabia, some in Egypt, others, in India, and some in Utopia,-for such a one must that be which is described by Lactantius; that is, which neither was singed in the combustion of Phaeton, nor overwhelmed by the inundation of Deucalion.4

Lastly, many authors, who have discoursed hereof, have so delivered themselves, and with such intentions, that we cannot from thence deduce a confirmation. For some have written poetically, as Ovid, Mantuan, Lactantius, Claudian, and others. Some have written mystically, as Paracelsus in his book, De Azoth, or De Ligno et Linea Vita; and as several hermetical philosophers, involving therein the secret of their elixir, and enigmatically expressing the nature of their great work. Some have written rhetorically and con

4 the combustion of Phaeton, &c.] The combustion of Phaeton was but in Italy only, and Deucalion's flood only in Attick: both farr inoughe from Arabia or Egypt; soe that the phoenix, yf any were, might live secure inoughe from those 2 mischeefs.- Wr.

cessively, not controverting, but assuming the question, which taken as granted advantaged the illation. So have holy men made use hereof as far as thereby to confirm the resurrection; for discoursing with heathens, who granted the story of the phoenix, they induced the resurrection from principles of their own, and positions received among themselves. Others have spoken emblematically and hieroglyphically; and so did the Egyptians, unto whom the phoenix was the hieroglyphic of the sun. And this was probably the ground of the whole relation; succeeding ages adding fabulous accounts, which ⚫ laid together built up this singularity, which every pen pro

claimeth.

As for the texts of Scripture which seem to confirm the conceit, duly perpended they add not thereunto. For whereas, in that of Job, according to the Septuagint or Greek translation, we find the word phoenix, yet can it have no animal signification; for therein it is not expressed poīvi, but σréλexos poivikos, the trunk of the palm-tree, which is also called phoenix, and therefore the construction will be very hard, if not applied unto some vegetable nature. Nor can we safely insist upon the Greek expression at all; for though the vulgar translates it palma, and some retain the word phoenix, others do render it by a word of a different sense for so hath Tremellius delivered it; Dicebam quòd apud nidum meum expirabo, et sicut arena multiplicabo dies; so hath the Geneva and ours translated it, "I said I shall die in my nest, and shall multiply my days as the sand.” As for that in the book of Psalms, Vir justus ut phoenix florebit, as Epiphanius and Tertullian render it, it was only a mistake upon the homonymy* of the Greek word phoenix, which signifies also a palm-tree. Which is a fallacy of equivocation, from a community in name inferring a common nature, and whereby we may as firmly conclude, that diaphonicon, a purging electuary, hath some part of the phonix for its ingredient; which receiveth that name from dates,

*Consent of names.

5 have spoken, &c.] From Pierius, whose authority is Pliny (lib. x. c. ii.); but Pliny does not allude to the hieroglyphic. It is also adduced from Horapollo, 49, 111.

6

ut phoenix.] i. e. ut palma.- Wr.

or the fruit of the palm-tree, from whence, as Pliny delivers, the phoenix had its name."

Nor do we only arraign the existence of this animal, but many things are questionable which are ascribed thereto, especially its unity, long life, and generation. As for its unity or conceit, there should be but one in nature, it seemeth not only repugnant unto philosophy, but also Holy Scripture; which plainly affirms, there went of every sort, two at least into the ark of Noah, according to the text, "Every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort, they went into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is the breath of life; and they that went in, went in both male and female of all flesh." * It infringeth the benediction of God concerning multiplication. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth :"+ and again, “Bring forth with thee every living thing, that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth;" which terms are not appliable unto the phoenix, whereof there is but one in the world, and no more now living than at the first benediction. For, the production of one being the destruction of another, although they produce and generate, they increase not, and must not be said to multiply, who do not transcend an unity.

As for longevity, that it liveth a thousand years or more; beside that from imperfect observations and rarity of appearance, no confirmation can be made, there may be probably a mistake in the compute. For the tradition being very ancient and probably Egyptian, the Greeks, who dispersed the fable, might sum up the account by their own numeration of years; whereas the conceit might have its original in times of shorter compute. For if we suppose our present calculation, the phoenix now in nature will be. the sixth from the creation, but in the middle of its years; and, if the rabbins' prophecy§ succeed, shall conclude its days, not in its own, but the last and general flames, without all hope of reviviction.

* Gen. vii.

+ Gen. i.

Gen. viii. § That the world should last but six thousand years.

7 its name.] Phoenix dactylifera, the date-palm.

Concerning its generation, that without all conjunction it begets and reseminates itself, hereby we introduce a vegetable production in animals, and unto sensible natures transfer the propriety of plants; that is, to multiply within themselves, according to the law of the creation, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself." * Which is indeed the natural way of plants, who, having no distinction of sex, and the power of the species contained in every individuum, beget and propagate themselves without commixtion; and therefore the fruits, proceeding from simpler roots, are not so unlike or distinguishable from each other as are the offsprings of sensible creatures and prolifications descending from double originals. But animal generation is accomplished by more, and the concurrence of two sexes is required to the constitution of one.9 And therefore such as have no distinction of sex, engender not at all, as Aristotle conceives of eels1 and testaceous animals. And though plant-animals * Gen. i.

2

8 having no distinction of sex, &c.] In correction of this assertion see note 1, p. 194.

9 But animal generation, &c.] Sir Everard Home first suspected, and then proved, that in a particular tribe of fishes, comprising the lamprey, the organs of both sexes are present in the same individual.-See Phil. Trans. 1815, part ii. p. 266.

1 eels.] Aristotel's conceyte of eeles was not unlike that other of his, of the galaxia and of comets, whereof the knowlege then was small. But in the end of April, 1654, and after some firce storms, which they say make eeles wander, a large one was brought, out of which wee tooke neer (50) young eeles alive, each above 1 inche and a halfe long, of the bignes of a bristle, which moved as quick as the old one. From whence it appeares manifestly that they doe engender and become viviparous, contrary to the opinion of the world hitherto. Soe that now wee may conclude that the eele, as well as the viper, is vermiparous and viviparous, and not only (as the matrix) oviparous. And in the Severne they finde clots of young lampreys, which they call elvers, a finger's length, white, as big as a wheete straw, 40 or more in a cluster, which I have found of a very pleasant taste, and are accompted daintyes. That which deceaved the world hitherto was, that the brood of the eele comes to life sooner then the spawne of any fish, bycause, being never severed from the matrix, till itt have life, itt is of soden growth, in which time the damm never ranges, and as soon as they are formed, are layd in bankes, or beds of mud, undiscernable.-Wr.

2 testaceous animals.] They present examples of all the modes of generation. Several of them possess the faculty of self-impregnation;