hares have been of both sexes, and some have ocularly confirmed it; but that the whole species or kind should be bisexous or double-sexed, 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 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 sexes, that actively and passively 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.

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 itself, 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 seems very plausible, and that way infallible, when she received not her passengers 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 con

* Bacch. de Hermaphroditis.

firmable by many examples in Pliny; by Larissæa 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 Alcmæna; as also in those superconceptions, 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 sex in hares, might be some little bags or tumours, at first glance representing stones or testicles, to be found in both sexes about the parts of generation; which men observing in either sex, were induced to believe a masculine sex in both. But to speak properly, these are no testicles 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 fæculent matter. If therefore from these, we shall conceive a mixtion of sexes in hares, with fairer reason we may conclude it in beavers; whereof both sexes 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 siege; which being perceived in males, made some conceive there might be also a feminine nature in them. And upon this very ground, the same opinion hath passed upon the hyæna, and is declared by Aristotle, and thus translated by Scaliger: Quòd autem aiunt utriusque sexus habere genitalia, falsum est; quod videtur esse fœmineum sub cauda, est simile figurâ fæminino, verùm 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 authentic 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, whoever enquireth shall find no assurance therein.

The last foundation was retromingency or pissing backward; for men observing both sexes to urine backward, or aversely between their legs, they might conceive there was a feminine part in both; wherein they are deceived by the ignorance of the just and proper site of the pizzle, or part designed unto the excretion of urine: which in the hare holds not the common position, but is aversely seated, and in its distention inclines unto the coccyx 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 sex 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 pronely, 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 aversely, as all crustacious animals, lobsters, shrimps, and crevises, and also retromingents, as panthers, tigers, and hares.4 This is the constant law of their coition, this they observe and transgress not only the vitiosity of man hath acted the varieties hereof; nor content with a digression from sex or species, hath in his own kind run through the anomalies of venery; and been so bold, not only to act, but represent to view, the irregular ways of lust.

3 retrocopulation.] Which is true in lions alsoe, and partlye in dogs. -Wr.

4 hares.] Hares and lions: which I sawe at the tower, and remember itt is specified expresly by Aristotle of them.-Wr.

CHAPTER XVIII.

That Moles are blind.

THAT moles are blind and have no eyes,5 though a common opinion, is received with much variety; some affirming only they have no sight, as Oppianus, the proverb talpa cacior, and the word anaλaxia, or talpitas, which in Hesychius is made the same with cæcitas; some that they have eyes, but no sight, as the text of Aristotle seems to apply; 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 manifested 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

5 That moles are blind, &c.] The eyes of the mole are so extremely minute, and so perfectly hid in its hair, that it is not wonderful if careless and casual observers have pronounced it blind.—Still less is it wonderful, that so absurd a personage as Alexander Ross, should have declared them to be but "forms of eyes," given by nature "rather for ornament than use; as wings are given to the ostrich, which never flies, and a long tail to the rat, which serves for no other use but to be catched sometimes by it!"—Arc. 151.

"It appears," however, observe the editors of Cuvier's Animal Kingdom, "that this animal was not known to the ancients, who have been very wrongfully accused of having fallen into the gross error of supposing that the mole had no eyes. Aristotle, it is true, in two places of his History of Animals, repeats this assertion. But the researches of modern times have ascertained that this illustrious naturalist was perfectly right in refusing the organs of vision to the mole of his native country, to the oraλag or doxaλag, of ancient Greece. There does, in fact, exist, in that country, a little subterraneous animal totally deprived of sight: naturalists have only recently become acquainted with it, and have designated it under the appellation of the rat-mole. They have been obliged to confess, after many ages of injustice towards the ancients, that these last had truth altogether on their side, with regard to the mole known in Greece, and had correctly observed, that this animal was not only completely blind, but did not possess even the smallest rudiment of an external eye."-Vol. ii. p. 197.

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 glasses, we discerned no more than Aristotle mentions, Tv opdaλuwv péλaiva, 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 ηpovμévovs, which Gaza translates oblæsos, 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 assign 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 impediment, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are more imperfect than others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of vision, for they will run against things, and huddling forwards fall from high places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there is in them no cecity, yet more than 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 than to avoid the light; and to be sensible whenever 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, oblæsos, or inchoatos, it is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to finish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect vision.