For beside Ælian, who is seldom defective in these accounts, Aristotle, distinctly treating hereof, hath made no mention of this remarkably 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 conceivable, it being the common opinion, and generally received by all men. Some have positively denied it, as Augustinus, Niphus, Stobæus, 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* 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; whereby we might also add the experimental decisions of the worthy Peireschius and learned Emanuel Tizzanius, 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 we have received the like confirmation from many ocular spectators.

2. 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 stomach, 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 itself at first, and its nutrition after not connexedly depending of its original.

*Comment in Ocell. Lucan.

Again, nature is so far from leaving any one part without its proper action, that she ofttimes imposeth two or three labours upon one, so the pizzle 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 principal use is smelling, for many have nostrils which have no lungs, as fishes, but none have lungs or respiration, which have not some show or some analogy of nostrils. Thus we perceive the providence of nature, that is, the wisdom of God, 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 taste; 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 taste, 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 weazand conducted into the lungs. And therefore Pliny much forgets the strictness of his assertion, when he alloweth excrements unto that animal, that feedeth only upon air; which notwithstanding, with the urine of an ass, he commends as a magical medicine upon our enemies.

The figure of the tongue seems also to overthrow the presumption of this aliment, which, according to exact delineation, is in this animal peculiar, and seemeth contrived for prey. For in so little a creature it is at the least a palm long, and being itself very slow in motion, hath in this part a very great agility; withal its food being flies, and such as suddenly escape, it hath in the tongue a mucous and slimy extremity, whereby upon a sudden emission it inviscates and tangleth those insects. And therefore some have thought

its name not unsuitable unto its nature; the nomination in Greek is a little lion; not so much for the resemblance of shape, as affinity of condition; that is, for vigilancy in its prey, and sudden rapacity thereof, which it performeth not like the lion with its teeth, but a sudden and unexpected ejaculation of the tongue. This exposition is favoured by some, especially the old gloss upon Leviticus, whereby in the translation of Jerome and the Septuagint this animal is forbidden; whatever it be, it seems as reasonable as that of Isidore, who derives this name, à camelo et leone, as presuming herein resemblance with a camel.9

3. As for the possibility hereof, it also is not unquestionable, and wise men are of opinion the bodies of animals cannot receive a proper aliment from air: for, beside that, taste being (as Aristotle terms it) a kind of touch, it is required the aliment should be tangible and fall under the palpable affections of touch; beside also that there is some sapor in all aliments, as being to be distinguished and judged by the gust, which cannot be admitted in air; beside these, I say, if we consider the nature of aliment, and the proper use of air in respiration, it will very hardly fall under the name hereof, or properly attain the act of nutrication.

And first, concerning its nature, to make a perfect nutrition into the body nourished, there is required a transmutation of the nutriment. Now where this conversion or aggeneration is made, there is also required in the aliment

* χαμαιλέων.

9 camel.] In the first edition he goes on thus :-"For this derivation offendeth the rules of etymology, wherein indeed the notation of names should be orthographical, not exchanging diphthongs for vowels, or converting consonants into each other." But notwithstanding this observation, he has spelled the word cameleon in every edition. Dean Wren criticised the spelling, and noticed its inconsistency with the above remark of that author, who was probably induced, in every edition subsequent to the first, to suppress the observation, lest he might seem to condemn himself.

1aggeneration.] Generic assimilation. Johnson defines this, "the state of growing or uniting to another body." Webster defines it, "the state of growing to another." Both definitions are erroneous, or liable at least to be misunderstood. They would apply to the attachment of parasitic plants. Certainly they do not express the signification in

a familiarity of matter, and such a community or vicinity unto a living nature, as by one act of the soul may be converted into the body of the living, and enjoy one common soul which cannot be effected by air, it concurring only with our flesh in common principles, which are at the largest distance from life, and common also unto inanimated constitutions. And therefore, when it is said by Fernelius, and asserted by divers others, that we are only nourished by living bodies, and such as are some way proceeding from them, that is, the fruits, effects, parts, or seeds thereof, they have laid out an object very agreeable unto assimilation; for these indeed are fit to receive a quick and immediate conversion, as holding some community with ourselves, and containing approximate dispositions unto animation.

Secondly (as is argued by Aristotle against the Pythagoreans), whatsoever properly nourisheth before its assimilation, by the action of natural heat it receiveth a corpulency or incrassation progressional unto its conversion; which notwithstanding, cannot be effected upon air, for the action of heat doth not condense but rarify that body, and by attenuation disposeth it for expulsion rather than for nutrition.

Thirdly (which is the argument of Hippocrates), all aliment received into the body, must be therein a considerable space retained, and not immediately expelled. Now air, but momentally remaining in our bodies, it hath no proportionable space for its conversion, not only of length enough to refrigerate the heart, which having once performed, lest being itself heated again it should suffocate that part, it maketh no stay, but hasteth back the same way it passed in.

Fourthly, the use of air attracted by the lungs, and without which there is no durable continuation in life, is not the nutrition of parts, but the contemperation and ventilation of that fire always maintained in the forge of life; whereby, although in some manner it concurreth unto nu

which the word is used in the present passage. It is here meant to express the transmutation of that which is eaten, from its own nature, into that of the animal receiving it. It becomes assimilated, generically, to the nature of that animal.

trition, yet can it not receive the proper name of nutriment. And therefore by Hippocrates* it is termed alimen tum non alimentum, a nourishment and no nourishment. That is, in a large acception, but not in propriety of language; conserving the body, not nourishing the same, nor repairing it by assimilation, but preserving it by ventilation; for thereby the natural flame is preserved from extinction, and so the individuum supported in some way like

nutrition.

And though the air so entereth the lungs, that by its nitrous spirit it doth affect the heart and several ways qualify the blood; and though it be also admitted into other parts, even by the meat we chew, yet that it affordeth a proper nutriment alone, is not easily made out.2

Again, some are so far from affirming the air to afford any nutriment, that they plainly deny it to be any element, or that it entereth into mixed bodies as any principle in their compositions, but performeth other offices in the universe; as to fill all vacuities about the earth or beneath it, to convey the heat of the sun, to maintain fires and flames, to serve for the flight of volatiles, respiration of breathing animals, and refrigeration of others. And although we receive it as an element, yet, since the transmutation of elements and simple bodies is not beyond great question; since also it is no easy matter to demonstrate that air is so much as convertible into water; how transmutable it is into flesh, may be of deeper doubt.3

And although the air attracted may be conceived to nourish the invisible flame of life, inasmuch as common and culinary flames are nourished by the air about them, we make some doubt whether air is the pabulous supply of fire, much less that flame is properly air kindled. And the same before us hath been denied by the Lord of Verulam, in his tract of Life and Death: and also by Dr. Jordan, in his book of mineral waters. For that which substantially maintaineth the fire is the combustible matter in the kindled body, and not the ambient air, which affordeth exhalation to

* De Alimento.

2 And though, &c.] This paragraph was altered in 6th edition.

3

Again, &c.] This paragraph first added in 2nd edition.