THE THIRD BOOK:

THE PARTICULAR PART CONTINUED.

OF POPULAR AND RECEIVED TENETS CONCERNING ANIMALS.

CHAPTER I.

That an Elephant hath no joints, &c.

THE first shall be of the elephant, whereof there generally passeth an opinion it hath no joints:6 and this absurdity is seconded with another, that, being unable to lie down, it sleepeth against a tree; which the hunters observing do saw

The first shall be of the elephant, &c.] The "popular and received tenet" concerning this animal, which it is the main object of the chapter before us to refute, appears either to have been first delivered, or first recorded from tradition, by Ctesias the Cnidian, who is the earliest writer to whom I have been able to trace it; and who, according to Professor Schlegel, was the first among the Greeks who gave, from his own personal observation, a description of the elephant in any way copious, which was written about 380 A.C. The probability that Ctesias was the originator, or the first recorder, of this vulgar error, is confirmed by the circumstance that many idle tales, regarding other animals, appear to have been also first promulgated by him; and also by the fact, that Aristotle, in his details on the elephant, twice refutes the assertions of Ctesias, naming him; and when refuting this particular error, does so in such a manner, that although no name is given, his allusions, as Professor Schlegel has shown, can refer only to that writer. The absurdity respecting the elephant's posture in sleep and the consequent mode of capturing him, is also derived from Ctesias.

It is very true, therefore, that, the "conceit" in question "is not the daughter of later times, but an old and grey-headed error;" and it is also true that it is delivered as such by Aristotle. I have found it necessary, for reasons that will be evident in the course of these annotations,

it almost asunder; whereon the beast relying, by the fall of the tree falls also down itself, and is able to rise no more.

always to compare what our author has attributed to that philosopher, with the original statements made in his works; and as there are several curious points in the history of our knowledge respecting the elephant connected with the subject, and which contribute to elucidate Browne's remarks, I shall here introduce Aristotle's observasions.

It will be proper to premise, however, that it has been shown by Professor Schlegel, in his learned and interesting History of the Elephant and Sphinx, (Class. Journ. vol. xxxi.), that the first battle between any of the nations of the western world and those of the eastern, in which elephants were used, was that of Arbela, and that some of these, taken by Alexander, and sent by him into Greece, were the first elephants seen in that country, and very probably the actual subjects of the admirable natural history of this animal contained in the works of Aristotle, which is manifestly, and indeed professedly, the result of frequent and minute actual examination of elephants of both sexes. And, "what he himself could not ascertain," as Professor Schlegel remarks, "viz. the beast's mode of life in his wild state, he doubtless ascertained from the Indian conductors who led the elephants." (Ib. p. 53.)

Aristotle, in the ninth chapter of his book, On the Progressive Motion of Animals, when showing that without inflexion there could be no progression, to which demonstration Browne's argument on the subject is greatly indebted (as he indeed indirectly acknowledges), has occasion to notice some partial exceptions to this rule, which he introduces thus: "It is possible, however, for the leg to be moved when not inflected, in the same manner as infants creep. And there is an ancient report of this kind about elephants, which is not true; for such animals as these are moved in consequence of an inflexion taking place either in their shoulders or hips. No animal, however, is capable of moving with a continued progressive motion, and with security, with its members straight; but it may be moved as they are in the palestra, who proceed on their knees through the dust."-T. Taylor's Treatises of Aristotle on the Parts and Progressive Motion of Animals, p. 181.

In the second book of his History of Animals, chap. i. when treating of the accordance of viviparous animals in general with each other, and with man, in configuration and in motions, the Stagyrite observes: "The legs, however, of other animals, as well the fore as the hind legs, have flexions contrary to each other, and to the flexions of the legs and arms of man, the elephant being excepted..... What is asserted of the elephant, however, by some, is not true (i. e. that he cannot bend his legs, nor sit); for he can do both, except that he cannot, on account of his weight, at one and the same time, bend each fore leg, and recline on each side, but he can alone bend one leg, either the right or the left, and alone recline on one side, and in this manner he sleeps (leaning against some wall or tree). But he bends his hind legs in the

Which conceit is not the daughter of later times, but an old and grey-headed error, even in the days of Aristotle, as he delivereth in his book, De Incessu Animalium, and stands successively related by several other authors; by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Ambrose, Cassiodore, Solinus, and many more. Now, herein, methinks, men much forget themselves, not well considering the absurdity of such assertions.

For first, they affirm it hath no joints, and yet concede it walks and moves about; whereby they conceive there may

same manner as men. n.”—Taylor's Translation of Aristotle's History of Animals, p. 36.

the

In the latter passage, however, Aristotle, though he corrects the error of Ctesias in a satisfactory manner, appears, on another point, to be mistaken himself. For it would seem to imply that the elephant, having bent one fore-leg, cannot then bend the other so as to kneel with both-which is contrary to the fact. And, what is perhaps still more curious in the history of the subject, Mr. Taylor, in his concluding interpolation, has actually adopted a portion of the original error of Ctesias, to complete the sense of his author. Something, certainly, appears to be wanting, in order to complete the sense. But, that a statement by a writer who is never mentioned by Aristotle except for purpose of refuting him, and which is in itself so well known to be untrue, should have been employed for the purpose, is very extraordinary. As the amplifications of Mr. Taylor's version of this passage also tend in some degree to obscure the sense, I will add the closer and more concise version of Du Val, "Flectunt autem crura, priora contrà, atque posteriora : et e contrario, quàm homo, membra inflectunt, excepto elephanto Elephas non, ut aliqui retulerunt, agit: sed considendo crura inflectit, nequit tamen præ nimio pondere utrumque in latus equilibrio quodam vergere: sed aut lævo incubat, aut dextro, atque eo ipso habitu requiescit."—Arist. Opera Omnia, curâ Du Val, tom. i. p. 771, B.—Br.

For first, they affirm it hath no joints, &c.] This argument of our author, showing, from reason, anatomy, and general analogy with other animals, the absurdity of the error he is refuting, is exceedingly logical and pertinent.

Ross, with his usual dogmatism, represents that "the doctor, prying too narrowly into the sayings of the ancients, reckoneth them amongst his Vulgar Errors, which being rightly understood, are no errors at all; as when they say the elephant hath no joynts, they meant their joynts were stiffe, and not so easily flexible as those of other animals." (Arcan. Microc. p. 152). But unfortunately for this explanation, Ctesias explicitly affirms, that the elephant hath no joints in the bone of his leg," which fully justifies the importance given by Browne to the popular misrepresentation founded on the statement of that writer.

Robinson, by implication, condemns Browne for censuring the views of the ancients on this subject; observing, "that elephants have no

be a progression or advancement made in motion, without inflexion of parts. Now all progression or animal locomotion being (as Aristotle teaches) performed tractu et pulsu, that is by drawing on or impelling forward some part which was before in station, or at quiet,-where there are no joint or flexures, neither can there be the actions. And this is true, not only in quadrupeds, volatiles, and fishes, which have distinct and prominent organs of motion,-legs, wings, and fins, but in such also as perform their progression by the trunk,as serpents, worms and leeches; whereof, though some want bones, and all, extended articulations, yet have they arthriti cal analogies, and, by the motion of fibrous and musculous parts, are able to make progression. Which to conceive in bodies flexible, and without all protrusion of parts, were to expect a race from Hercules' pillars or hope to behold the effects of Orpheus' harp, when trees found joints, and danced after his music.

*

Again, while men conceive they never lie down, and enjoy not the position of rest ordained unto all pedestrious animals,

* Joint-like-parts.

joynts, though by some it be delivered in generall termes; yet was not their Minerva so dull, to except all; but did intend the suffragineous or knee joynts onely: without which there may be a progression in man; as upon stilts; by the sole motion of the hippe : in quadrupedes, as in full gallop." But though he proceeds to quote Cæsar as affirming such to be the case with the elk (alces), he adduces no facts whatever in contravention of Browne's representations and arguments; although, on the other hand, he has some good instances of animals to which station is rest, as many birds, and ordinarily horses also. Thus this commentator, in his defence of the ancients against our author, actually admits that they made the very statement which we have just seen to be that of Ctesias, the original promulgator of the story.—Br.

8

Again, while men conceive they never lie down.] The argument contained in this and the following paragraph, is deserving of the same praise as has been awarded to the preceding direct argument on the necessity of the elephant having joints; that necessity being now shown, in an indirect manner, from the general necessity of change and alternation of posture in animals. But our author, from the deficiency of his knowledge both of the natural history and the anatomy of the elephant, happens not to have been aware that station, to it, is rest (except when greatly fatigued, or in great weakness from disease), as we have seen, when citing Robinson's animadversions, to be the case also with some other animals. From the construction of all the joints in the legs of this animal, and especially from that of the knee-joint,

hereby they imagine (what reason cannot conceive), that an animal of the vastest dimension and longest duration, should live in a continual motion, without that alternity and vicissitude of rest whereby all others continue; and yet must thus much come to pass, if we opinion they lie not down and enjoy no decumbence at all. For station is properly no rest, but one kind of motion, relating unto that which physicians (from Galen) do name extensive or tonical; that is, an extension of the muscles and organs of motion, maintaining the body at length, or in its proper figure.

Wherein although it seem to be unmoved, it is not without all motion; for in this position the muscles are sensibly extended, and labour to support the body; which, permitted unto its proper gravity, would suddenly subside and fall unto the earth; as it happeneth in sleep, diseases, and death. From which occult action and invisible motion of the muscles, in station (as Galen declareth), proceed more offensive lassi

the elephant, when standing still, rests, as it were, upon four pillars, with scarcely any need of muscular exertion, and of none but what slight mental excitement can supply. Thus the elephant, which died some years since in the menagerie of the Jardin des Plantes, at Paris, was observed never to lie down, even in his last illness, until immediately before his death; and that which was so long exhibited at Exeter Change, London, and killed there in 1826, received 152 balls in almost every anterior part of his body, before he fell.

The following relation, however, is still more illustrative of the fact, that the elephant rests while standing; expecially when under any excitement. Mr. Corse (now Mr. Corse Scott), under whose direction the elephant hunters of Tiperah, in Bengal, where placed for several years, states, that it is always a good sign when an elephant lies down to sleep within a few months after he is taken; as it shows him to be of a good temper, not suspicious, but reconciled to his fate. "Elephants," he observes, "particularly goondahs (which are large male animals that have strayed from the woods and from the herds), have been known to stand twelve months at their pickets without lying down to sleep; though they sometimes take a short nap standing.' Obs. on the Manners, Habits, and Nat. Hist. of the Elephant-Phil. Trans. 1799,

P. 44.

From the observation of some remarkable case of this description, in a country where the rarity of the animal precluded the correction of the inference deduced from it, in addition perhaps to the "cylindrical composure of the legs," to which it is attributed by our author, the story of the want of knee-joints in the elephant, in all probability, must have originated.—Br.