Kitabı oku: «The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 3», sayfa 18

OF THE FISHES EATEN BY OUR SAVIOUR

with His Disciples after His Resurrection from the Dead

TRACT III

Sir,

I have thought, a little, upon the Question proposed by you [viz. What kind of Fishes those were of which our Saviour ate with his Disciples after his Resurrection?²⁵⁷] and I return you such an Answer, as, in so short time for study, and in the midst of my occasions, occurs to me.

The Books of Scripture (as also those which are Apocryphal) are often silent, or very sparing, in the particular Names of Fishes; or in setting them down in such manner as to leave the kinds of them without all doubt and reason for farther inquiry. For, when it declareth what Fishes were allowed the Israelites for their Food, they are onely set down in general which have Finns and Scales; whereas, in the account of Quadrupeds and Birds, there is particular mention made of divers of them. In the Book of Tobit that Fish which he took out of the River is onely named a great Fish, and so there remains much uncertainty to determine the Species thereof. And even the Fish which swallowed Jonah, and is called a great Fish, and commonly thought to be a great Whale, is not received without all doubt; while some learned men conceive it to have been none of our Whales, but a large kind of Lamia.

And, in this narration of S. John, the Fishes are onely expressed by their Bigness and Number, not their Names, and therefore it may seem undeterminable what they were: notwithstanding, these Fishes being taken in the great Lake or Sea of Tiberias, something may be probably stated therein. For since Bellonius, that diligent and learned Traveller, informeth us, that the Fishes of this Lake were Trouts, Pikes, Chevins and Tenches; it may well be conceived that either all or some thereof are to be understood in this Scripture. And these kind of Fishes become large and of great growth, answerable unto the expression of Scripture, One hundred and fifty-three great Fishes; that is, large in their own kinds, and the largest kinds in this Lake and fresh Water, wherein no great variety, and of the larger sort of Fishes, could be expected. For the River Jordan, running through this Lake, falls into the Lake of Asphaltus, and hath no mouth into the Sea, which might admit of great Fishes or greater variety to come up into it.

And out of the mouth of some of these forementioned Fishes might the Tribute money be taken, when our Saviour, at Capernaum, seated upon the same Lake, said unto Peter, Go thou to the Sea, and cast an Hook, and take up the Fish that first cometh; and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a piece of money; that take and give them for thee and me.

And this makes void that common conceit and tradition of the Fish called Fabermarinus, by some, a Peter or Penny Fish; which having two remarkable round spots upon either side, these are conceived to be the marks of S. Peter’s Fingers or signatures of the Money: for though it hath these marks, yet is there no probability that such a kind of Fish was to be found in the Lake of Tiberias, Geneserah or Galilee, which is but sixteen miles long and six broad, and hath no communication with the Sea; for this is a mere Fish of the Sea and salt Water, and (though we meet with some thereof on our Coast) is not to be found in many Seas.

Thus having returned no improbable Answer unto your Question, I shall crave leave to ask another of your self concerning that Fish mentioned by Procopius,²⁵⁸ which brought the famous King Theodorick to his end: his words are to this effect: '‘The manner of his Death was this, Symmachus and his Son-in-law Boëthius, just men and great relievers of the poor, Senatours and Consuls, had many enemies, by whose false accusations Theodorick being perswaded that they plotted against him, put them to death and confiscated their Estates. Not long after his Waiters set before him at Supper a great Head of a Fish, which seemed to him to be the Head of Symmachus lately murthered; and with his Teeth sticking out, and fierce glaring eyes to threaten him: being frighted, he grew chill, went to Bed, lamenting what he had done to Symmachus and Boëthius; and soon after died.’ What Fish do you apprehend this to have been? I would learn of you; give me your thoughts about it.

I am, etc.

AN ANSWER TO CERTAIN QUERIES RELATING TO FISHES, BIRDS, INSECTS

TRACT IV

Sir,

I return the following Answers to your Queries which were these,

[1. What Fishes are meant by the Names, Halec and Mugil?

2. What is the Bird which you will receive from the Bearer? and what Birds are meant by the Names Halcyon, Nysus, Ciris, Nycticorax?

3. What Insect is meant by the word Cicada?]

Answer to Query 1.

The word Halec we are taught to render an Herring, which, being an ancient word, is not strictly appropriable unto a Fish not known or not described by the Ancients; and which the modern Naturalists are fain to name Harengus; the word Halecula being applied unto such little Fish out of which they were fain to make Pickle; and Halec or Alec, taken for the Liquamen or Liquor itself, according to that of the Poet,

 
– Ego fæcem primus et Alec
Primus et inveni piper album—
 

And was a conditure and Sawce much affected by Antiquity, as was also Muria and Garum.

In common constructions, Mugil is rendred a Mullet, which, notwithstanding, is a different Fish from the Mugil described by Authours; wherein, if we mistake, we cannot so closely apprehend the expression of Juvenal,

 
– Quosdam ventres et Mugilis intrat.
 

And misconceive the Fish, whereby Fornicatours were so opprobriously and irksomely punished; for the Mugil being somewhat rough and hard skinned, did more exasperate the gutts of such offenders: whereas the Mullet was a smooth Fish, and of too high esteem to be imployed in such offices.

Answer to Query 2.

I cannot but wonder that this Bird you sent should be a stranger unto you, and unto those who had a sight thereof: for, though it be not seen every day, yet we often meet with it in this Country. It is an elegant Bird, which he that once beholdeth can hardly mistake any other for it. From the proper Note it is called an Hoopebird with us; in Greek Epops, in Latin Upupa. We are little obliged unto our School instruction, wherein we are taught to render Upupa, a Lapwing, which Bird our natural Writers name Vannellus; for thereby we mistake this remarkable Bird, and apprehend not rightly what is delivered of it.

We apprehend not the Hieroglyphical considerations which the old Ægyptians made of this observable Bird; who considering therein the order and variety of Colours, the twenty six or twenty eight Feathers in its Crest, his latitancy, and mewing this handsome outside in the Winter; they made it an Emblem of the varieties of the World, the succession of Times and Seasons, and signal mutations in them. And therefore Orus, the Hieroglyphick of the World, had the Head of an Hoopebird upon the top of his Staff.

Hereby we may also mistake the Duchiphath, or Bird forbidden for Food in Leviticus;Levit. 11. 19. and, not knowing the Bird, may the less apprehend some reasons of that prohibition; that is, the magical virtues ascribed unto it by the Ægyptians, and the superstitious apprehensions which that Nation held of it, whilst they precisely numbred the Feathers and Colours thereof, while they placed it on the Heads of their Gods, and near their Mercurial Crosses, and so highly magnified this Bird in their sacred Symbols.

Again, not knowing or mistaking this Bird, we may misapprehend, or not closely apprehend, that handsome expression of Ovid, when Tereus was turned into an Upupa, or Hoopebird.

 
Vertitur in volucrem cui sunt pro vertice Cristæ,
Protinus immodicum surgit pro cuspide rostrum
Nomen Epops volucri, facies armata videtur.
 

For, in this military shape, he is aptly phancied even still revengefully to pursue his hated Wife Progne: in the propriety of his Note crying out, Pou, pou, ubi, ubi, or Where are you?

Nor are we singly deceived in the nominal translation of this Bird: in many other Animals we commit the like mistake. So Gracculus is rendred a Jay, which Bird notwithstanding must be of a dark colour according to that of Martial,

 
Sed quandam volo nocte nigriorem
Formica, pice, Gracculo, cicada.
 

Halcyon ²⁵⁹ is rendred a King-fisher, a Bird commonly known among us, and by Zoographers and Naturals the same is named Ispida, a well coloured Bird frequenting Streams and Rivers, building in holes of Pits, like some Martins, about the end of the Spring; in whose Nests we have found little else than innumerable small Fish Bones, and white round Eggs of a smooth and polished surface, whereas the true Alcyon is a Sea Bird, makes an handsome Nest floating upon the Water, and breedeth in the Winter.

That Nysus should be rendred either an Hobby or a Sparrow Hawk, in the Fable of Nysus and Scylla in Ovid, because we are much to seek in the distinction of Hawks according to their old denominations, we shall not much contend, and may allow a favourable latitude therein: but that the Ciris or Bird into which Scylla was turned should be translated a Lark, it can hardly be made out agreeable unto the description of Virgil in his Poem of that name,

 
Inde alias volucres mimóque infecta rubenti
Crura—
 

But seems more agreeable unto some kind of Hæmantopus or Redshank; and so the Nysus to have been some kind of Hawk, which delighteth about the Sea and Marishes, where such prey most aboundeth, which sort of Hawk while Scaliger determineth to be a Merlin, the French Translatour warily expoundeth it to be some kind of Hawk.

Nycticorax we may leave unto the common and verbal translation of a Night Raven, but we know no proper kind of Raven unto which to confine the same, and therefore some take the liberty to ascribe it unto some sort of Owls, and others unto the Bittern; which Bird in its common Note, which he useth out of the time of coupling and upon the Wing, so well resembleth the croaking of a Raven that I have been deceived by it.

Answer to Query 3.

While Cicada is rendred a Grashopper, we commonly think that which is so called among us to be the true Cicada; wherein, as we have elsewhere declared,²⁶⁰ there is a great mistake: for we have not the Cicada in England, and indeed no proper word for that Animal, which the French nameth Cigale. That which we commonly call a Grashopper, and the French Saulterelle being one kind of Locust, so rendred in the Plague of Ægypt, and, in old Saxon named Gersthop.

I have been the less accurate in these Answers, because the Queries are not of difficult Resolution, or of great moment: however, I would not wholly neglect them or your satisfaction, as being, Sir,

Yours, etc.

OF HAWKS AND FALCONRY

Ancient and Modern

TRACT V

Sir,

In vain you expect much information, de Re Accipitraria, of Falconry, Hawks or Hawking, from very ancient Greek or Latin Authours; that Art being either unknown or so little advanced among them, that it seems to have proceeded no higher than the daring of Birds: which makes so little thereof to be found in Aristotle, who onely mentions some rude practice thereof in Thracia; as also in Ælian, who speaks something of Hawks and Crows among the Indians; little or nothing of true Falconry being mention’d before Julius Firmicus, in the days of Constantius, Son to Constantine the Great.

Yet if you consult the accounts of later Antiquity left by Demetrius the Greek, by Symmachus and Theodosius, and by Albertus Magnus, about five hundred years ago, you, who have been so long acquainted with this noble Recreation, may better compare the ancient and modern practice, and rightly observe how many things in that Art are added, varied, disused or retained in the practice of these days.

In the Diet of Hawks, they allowed of divers Meats which we should hardly commend. For beside the Flesh of Beef, they admitted of Goat, Hog, Deer, Whelp and Bear. And how you will approve the quantity and measure thereof, I make some doubt; while by weight they allowed half a pound of Beef, seven ounces of Swines Flesh, five of Hare, eight ounces of Whelp, as much of Deer, and ten ounces of He-Goats Flesh.

In the time of Demetrius they were not without the practice of Phlebotomy or Bleeding, which they used in the Thigh and Pounces; they plucked away the Feathers on the Thigh, and rubbed the part, but if the Vein appeared not in that part, they opened the Vein of the fore Talon.

In the days of Albertus, they made use of Cauteries in divers places: to advantage their sight they seared them under the inward angle of the eye; above the eye in distillations and diseases of the Head; in upward pains they seared above the Joint of the Wing, and at the bottom of the Foot, against the Gout; and the chief time for these cauteries they made to be the month of March.

In great coldness of Hawks they made use of Fomentations, some of the steam or vapour of artificial and natural Baths, some wrapt them up in hot Blankets, giving them Nettle Seeds and Butter.

No Clysters are mention’d, nor can they be so profitably used; but they made use of many purging Medicines. They purged with Aloe, which, unto larger Hawks, they gave in the bigness of a Great Bean; unto less, in the quantity of a Cicer, which notwithstanding I should rather give washed, and with a few drops of Oil of Almonds: for the Guts of flying Fowls are tender and easily scratched by it; and upon the use of Aloe both in Hawks and Cormorants I have sometimes observed bloody excretions.

In phlegmatick causes they seldom omitted Stave-saker, but they purged sometimes with a Mouse, and the Food of boiled Chickens, sometimes with good Oil and Honey.

They used also the Ink of Cuttle Fishes, with Smallage, Betony, Wine and Honey. They made use of stronger Medicines than present practice doth allow. For they were not afraid to give Coccus Baphicus; beating up eleven of its Grains unto a Lentor, which they made up into five Pills wrapt up with Honey and Pepper: and, in some of their old Medicines, we meet with Scammony and Euphorbium. Whether, in the tender Bowels of Birds, infusions of Rhubarb, Agaric and Mechoachan be not of safer use, as to take of Agary two Drachms, of Cinnamon half a Drachm, of Liquorish a Scruple, and, infusing them in Wine, to express a part into the mouth of the Hawk, may be considered by present practice.

Few Mineral Medicines were of inward use among them: yet sometimes we observe they gave filings of Iron in the straitness of the Chest, as also Lime in some of their pectoral Medicines.

But they commended Unguents of Quick-silver against the Scab: and I have safely given six or eight Grains of Mercurius Dulcis unto Kestrils and Owls, as also crude and current Quick-silver, giving the next day small Pellets of Silver or Lead till they came away uncoloured: and this, if any, may probably destroy that obstinate Disease of the Filander or Back-worm.

A peculiar remedy they had against the Consumption of Hawks. For, filling a Chicken with Vinegar, they closed up the Bill, and hanging it up untill the Flesh grew tender, they fed the Hawk therewith: and to restore and well Flesh them, they commonly gave them Hogs Flesh, with Oil, Butter and Honey; and a decoction of Cumfory to bouze.

They disallowed of salt Meats and Fat; but highly esteemed of Mice in most indispositions; and in the falling Sickness had great esteem of boiled Batts: and in many Diseases, of the Flesh of Owls which feed upon those Animals. In Epilepsies they also gave the Brain of a Kid drawn thorough a gold Ring; and, in Convulsions, made use of a mixture of Musk and Stercus humanum aridum.

For the better preservation of their Health they strowed Mint and Sage about them; and for the speedier mewing of their Feathers, they gave them the Slough of a Snake, or a Tortoise out of the Shell, or a green Lizard cut in pieces.

If a Hawk were unquiet, they hooded him, and placed him in a Smith’s Shop for some time, where, accustomed to the continual noise of hammering, he became more gentle and tractable.

They used few terms of Art, plainly and intelligibly expressing the parts affected, their Diseases and Remedies. This heap of artificial terms first entring with the French Artists: who seem to have been the first and noblest Falconers in the Western part of Europe; although, in their Language, they have no word which in general expresseth an Hawk.

They carried their Hawks in the left hand, and let them flie from the right. They used a Bell, and took great care that their Jesses should not be red, lest Eagles should flie at them. Though they used Hoods, we have no clear description of them, and little account of their Lures.

The ancient Writers left no account of the swiftness of Hawks or measure of their flight: but Heresbachius²⁶¹ delivers that William Duke of Cleve had an Hawk which, in one day, made a flight out of Westphalia into Prussia. And, upon good account, an Hawk in this Country of Norfolk, made a flight at a Woodcock near thirty miles in one hour. How far the Hawks, Merlins and wild Fowl which come unto us with a North-west wind in the Autumn, flie in a day, there is no clear account; but coming over Sea their flight hath been long, or very speedy. For I have known them to light so weary on the coast, that many have been taken with Dogs, and some knock’d down with Staves and Stones.

Their Perches seem not so large as ours; for they made them of such a bigness that their Talons might almost meet: and they chose to make them of Sallow, Poplar or Lime Tree.

They used great clamours and hollowing in their flight, which they made by these words, ou loi, la, la, la; and to raise the Fowls, made use of the sound of a Cymbal.

Their recreation seemed more sober and solemn than ours at present, so improperly attended with Oaths and Imprecations. For they called on God at their setting out, according to the account of Demetrius, τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικαλέσαντες, in the first place calling upon God.

The learned Rigaltius thinketh, that if the Romans had well known this airy Chase, they would have left or less regarded their Circensial Recreations. The Greeks understood Hunting early, but little or nothing of our Falconry. If Alexander had known it, we might have found something of it and more of Hawks in Aristotle; who was so unacquainted with that way, that he thought that Hawks would not feed upon the Heart of Birds. Though he hath mention’d divers Hawks, yet Julius Scaliger, an expert Falconer, despaired to reconcile them unto ours. And ’tis well if, among them, you can clearly make out a Lanner, a Sparrow Hawk and a Kestril, but must not hope to find your Gier Falcon there, which is the noble Hawk; and I wish you one no worse than that of Henry King of Navarre; which, Scaliger saith, he saw strike down a Buzzard, two wild Geese, divers Kites, a Crane and a Swan.

Nor must you expect from high Antiquity the distinctions of Eyess and Ramage Hawks, of Sores and Entermewers, of Hawks of the Lure and the Fist; nor that material distinction into short and long winged Hawks; from whence arise such differences in their taking down of Stones; in their flight, their striking down or seizing of their Prey, in the strength of their Talons, either in the Heel and fore-Talon, or the middle and the Heel: nor yet what Eggs produce the different Hawks, or when they lay three Eggs, that the first produceth a Female and large Hawk, the second of a midler sort, and the third a smaller Bird Tercellene or Tassel of the Masle Sex; which Hawks being onely observed abroad by the Ancients, were looked upon as Hawks of different kinds and not of the same Eyrie or Nest. As for what Aristotle affirmeth that Hawks and Birds of prey drink not; although you know that it will not strictly hold, yet I kept an Eagle two years, which fed upon Kats, Kittlings, Whelps and Ratts, without one drop of Water.

If any thing may add unto your knowledge in this noble Art, you must pick it out of later Writers than those you enquire of. You may peruse the two Books of Falconry writ by that renowned Emperour Frederick the Second; as also the Works of the noble Duke Belisarius, of Tardiffe, Francherius, of Francisco Sforzino of Vicensa; and may not a little inform or recreate your self with that elegant Poem of Thuanus.²⁶² I leave you to divert your self by the perusal of it, having, at present, no more to say but that I am, etc.