CHAPTER XXIV.

That all Animals of the Land are in their kind in the Sea. THAT all animals of the land are, in their kind, in the sea, although received as a principle, is a tenet very questionable, and will admit of restraint. For some in the sea are not to be matched by any enquiry at land, and hold those shapes which terrestrious forms approach not; as may be observed in the moon-fish, or orthragoriscus, the several sorts of rays, torpedos, oysters, and many more; and some there are in the land which were never maintained to be in the sea, as panthers, hyænas, camels, sheep, moles, and others, which carry no name in icthyology, nor are to be found in the exact descriptions of Rondeletius, Gesner, or Aldrovandus.

Again, though many there be which make out their nominations, as the hedgehog, sea serpents, and others; yet are there also very many that bear the name of animals at land, which hold no resemblance in corporal configuration; in which account, we compute vulpecula, canis, rana, passer, cuculus, asellus, turdus, lepus, &c. Wherein while some are called the fox, the dog, the sparrow or frog fish, and are known by common names with those at land; yet as their describers attest, they receive not these appellations from a total similitude in figure, but any concurrence in common accidents, in colour, condition or single conformation. As for sea-horses, which much confirm this assertion, in their common descriptions, they are but grotesco delineations, which fill up empty spaces in maps, and mere pictorial inventions, not any physical shapes: suitable unto those which (as Pliny delivereth) Praxiteles long ago set out in the temple of Domitius. For that which is commonly called a sea-horse, is properly called a morse, and makes not out

6

6 descriptions.] But Scaliger, in his 187th exercitation, relates a particular description of them, and that 2 of them having got from the Portugals (watching at Capo Viride in the mouth of Gambra) as soone as they sawe the men returne to the long boote, set upon them most fiercely, and were not driven away with blowes; but as despairinge of doing any hurt to the men.-Wr.

that shape. That which the ancients named hippocampus, is a little animal about six inches long, and not preferred beyond the class of insects. That which they termed hippopotamus, an amphibious animal, about the river Nile, so little resembleth an horse, that, as Matthiolus observeth, in all except the feet it better makes out a swine. That which they termed a lion, was but a kind of lobster; that which they called the bear, was but one kind of crab; and that which they named bos marinus, was not as we conceive a fish resembling an ox, but a skait or thornback, so named from its bigness, expressed by the Greek word bous, which is a prefix of augmentation to many words in that language.

And therefore, although it be not denied that some in the water do carry a justifiable resemblance to some at land, yet are the major part which bear their names, unlike; nor do they otherwise resemble the creatures on earth, than they on earth the constellations which pass under animal names in heaven; nor the dog-fish at sea much more make out the dog of the land, than that his cognominal or namesake in the heavens. Now if from a similitude in some, it be reasonable to infer a correspondence in all, we may draw this analogy of animals upon plants; for vegetables there are which carry a near and allowable similitude unto animals.* We might also conclude that animal shapes were generally made out in minerals: for several stones there are that bear their names in relation to animals or their parts, as lapis anguinus, conchites, echinites, encephalites, @gophthalmus, and many more; as will appear in the writers of minerals, and especially in Boëtius and Aldrovandus.

Moreover, if we concede that the animals of one element might bear the names of those in the other, yet in strict reason the watery productions should have the prenomination, and they of the land rather derive their names than nominate those of the sea; for the watery plantations were first existent, and as they enjoyed a priority in form, had * Fab. Column. de stirp. rarioribus, Orchis, Cercopithecophora, Anthropophora.

7 not preferred, &c.] A mistake. The hippocampus is one of the osseous fishes, belonging to the tribe called, by Cuvier, lophobranches :— syngnathus hippocampus, Lin.; but now constituted a distinct genus, hippocampus vulgaris.

also in nature precedent denominations; but falling not under that nomenclature of Adam, which unto terrestrious animals assigned a name appropriate unto their natures, from succeeding spectators they received arbitrary appellations, and were respectively denominated unto creatures known at land, who in themselves had independent names, and not to be called after them which were created before them.

Lastly, by this assertion we restrain the hand of God,3 and abridge the variety of the creation, making the creatures of one element, but an acting over those of another, and conjoining as it were the species of things which stood at distance in the intellect of God, and though united in the chaos, had several seeds of their creation. For although in that indistinguished mass all things seemed one, yet separated by the voice of God, according to their species, they came out in incommunicated varieties, and irrelative seminalities, as well as divided places, and so although we say the world was made in six days, yet was there as it were a world in every one, that is, a distinct creation of distinguished creatures; a distinction in time of creatures divided in nature, and a several approbation and survey in every one.

CHAPTER XXV.9

Concerning the common course of our Diet, in making choice of some animals, and abstaining from eating others.

WHY we confine our food unto certain animals, and totally reject some others, how these distinctions crept into several nations, and whether this practice be built upon solid reason, or chiefly supported by custom or opinion, may admit consideration.

For first, there is no absolute necessity to feed on any, and if we resist not the stream of authority, and several deductions from Holy Scripture, there was no sarcophagy* before

* Eating of flesh.

8 we restrain the hand of God.] This is a greate inconsequent, for both baboons and tritons imitate the shape of man, without disparagement to him, or (the Creator) Him that made man.—Wr.

9 This chapter was new in 2nd edition.

the flood, and without the eating of flesh, our fathers, from vegetable aliments, preserved themselves unto longer lives than their posterity by any other. For whereas it is plainly said, "I have given you every herb which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree; to you it shall be for meat:"presently after the deluge, when the same had destroyed or infirmed the nature of vegetables, by an expression of enlargement it is again delivered, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

And therefore, although it be said that Abel was a shepherd, and it be not readily conceived the first man would keep sheep, except they made food thereof; great expositors will tell us, that it was partly for their skins wherewith they were clothed, partly for their milk whereby they were sustained, and partly for sacrifices, which they also offered.

And though it may seem improbable that they offered flesh yet ate none thereof, and Abel can hardly be said to offer the firstlings of his stock, and the fat or acceptable part, if men used not to taste the same, whereby to raise such distinctions; some will confine the eating of flesh unto the line of Cain, who extended their luxury, and confined not unto the rule of God. That if at any time the line of Seth ate flesh, it was extraordinary, and not only at their sacrifices; or else, as Grotius hinteth, if any such practice there were, it was not from the beginning, but from that time when the ways of men were corrupted, and whereof it is said, that the wickedness of man's heart was great; the more righteous part of mankind probably conforming unto the diet prescribed in Paradise, and the state of innocency; and yet however the practice of man conformed, this was the injunction of God, and might be therefore sufficient, without the food of flesh.

That they fed not on flesh, at least the faithful party, before the flood, may become more probable, because they refrained the same for some time after. For so it was generally delivered of the golden age and reign of Saturn, which is conceived the time of Noah, before the building of Babel.

66

infirmed.] What scriptural evidence have we that the flood had impaired the properties" of the vegetables which had been and still remained as food for man?

And he that considereth how agreeable this is unto the traditions of the Gentiles; that that age was of one tongue; that Saturn devoured all his sons but three; that he was the son of Oceanus and Thetis; that a ship was his symbol; that he taught the culture of vineyards, and the art of husbandry, and was therefore described with a sickle, may well conceive these traditions had their original in Noah. Nor did this practice terminate in him, but was continued at least in many after; as (beside the Pythagoreans of old, and Banyans now in India, who, upon single opinions refrain the food of flesh) ancient records do hint or plainly deliver; although we descend not so low as that of Asclepiades delivered by Porphyrius,* that men began to feed on flesh in the reign of Pygmaleon, brother of Dido, who invented several torments to punish the eaters of flesh.

Nor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first. but, as some will have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very grave conjectures, carnivorous animals now were not flesh devourers then, according to the expression of the divine provision for them; "To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, I have given every green herb for meat, and it was so." And is also collected from the store laid up in the ark, wherein there seems to have been no fleshy provision for carnivorous animals. For of every kind of unclean beast there went but two into the ark, and therefore no stock of flesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.

But whenever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet how they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with rejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and salveth not our practice. For no animal is naturally unclean, or hath this character in nature, and therefore whether in this distinction there were not some mystical intention; whether Moses, after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these so before the flood by anticipation; whether this distinction before the flood were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after was in regard of food (for many were

* περὶ ἀποχῆς.