The Works of Sir Thomas Browne Volume II Part 12

Lastly, The word it self is improper, and the term of Grashopper not appliable unto the _Cicada_; for therein the organs of motion are not contrived for saltation, nor are the hinder legs of such extension, as is observable in salient animals, and such as move by leaping. Whereto the Locust is very well conformed; for therein the legs behind are longer than all the body, and make at the second joynt acute angles, at a considerable advancement above their backs.

The mistake therefore with us might have its original from a defect in our language; for having not the insect with us, we have not fallen upon its proper name, and so make use of a term common unto it and the Locust; whereas other countries have proper expressions for it. So the _Italian_ calls it _Cicada_, the _Spaniard Cigarra_, and the _French Cigale_; all which appellations conform unto the original, and properly express this animal. Whereas our word is borrowed from the Saxon Gaersthopp, which our forefathers, who never beheld the _Cicada_, used for that insect which we yet call a Grashopper.

CHAPTER IV

Of the Picture of the Serpent tempting Eve.

In the Picture of Paradise, and delusion of our first Parents, the Serpent is often described with humane visage; not unlike unto _Cadmus_ or his wife, in the act of their Metamorphosis. Which is not a meer pictorial contrivance or invention of the Picturer, but an ancient tradition and conceived reality, as it stands delivered by _Beda_ and Authors of some antiquity; that is, that Sathan appeared not unto _Eve_ in the naked form of a Serpent, but with a Virgins head, that thereby he might become more acceptable, and his temptation find the easier entertainment. Which nevertheless is a conceit not to be admitted, and the plain and received figure, is with better reason embraced.

For first, as _Pierius_ observeth from _Barcephas_, the a.s.sumption of humane shape had proved a disadvantage unto Sathan; affording not only a suspicious amazement in _Eve_, before the fact, in beholding a third humanity beside her self and _Adam_; but leaving some excuse unto the woman, which afterward the man took up with lesser reason; that is, to have been deceived by another like her self.

Again, There was no inconvenience in the shape a.s.sumed, or any considerable impediment that might disturb that performance in the common form of a Serpent. For whereas it is conceived the woman must needs be afraid thereof, and rather flie than approach it; it was not agreeable unto the condition of Paradise and state of innocency therein; if in that place as most determine, no creature was hurtful or terrible unto man, and those destructive effects they now discover succeeded the curse, and came in with thorns and briars. And therefore _Eugubinus_ (who affirmeth this Serpent was a Basilisk) incurreth no absurdity, nor need we infer that _Eve_ should be destroyed immediately upon that Vision. For noxious animals could offend them no more in the Garden, than _Noah_ in the Ark: as they peaceably received their names, so they friendly possessed their natures: and were their conditions destructive unto each other, they were not so unto man, whose const.i.tutions then were antidotes, and needed not fear poisons. And if (as most conceive) there were but two created of every kind, they could not at that time destroy either man or themselves; for this had frustrated the command of multiplication, destroyed a species, and imperfected the Creation. And therefore also if Cain were the first man born, with him entred not only the act, but the first power of murther; for before that time neither could the Serpent nor _Adam_ destroy _Eve_; nor _Adam_ and _Eve_ each other; for that had overthrown the intention of the world, and put its Creator to act the sixt day over again.

Moreover, Whereas in regard of speech, and vocal conference with _Eve_, it may be thought he would rather a.s.sume an humane shape and organs, then the improper form of a serpent; it implies no material impediment.

Nor need we to wonder how he contrived a voice out of the mouth of a Serpent, who hath done the like out of the belly of a Pythonissa, and the trunk of an Oak; as he did for many years at _Dodona_.

[Sidenote: _Why_ Eve _wondered not at the serpents speaking_.]

Lastly, Whereas it might be conceived that an humane shape was fitter for this enterprise; it being more than probable she would be amazed to hear a Serpent speak; some conceive she might not yet be certain that only man was priviledged with speech; and being in the novity of the Creation, and inexperience of all things, might not be affrighted to hear a Serpent speak. Beside she might be ignorant of their natures, who was not versed in their names, as being not present at the general survey of Animals, when _Adam_ a.s.signed unto every one a name concordant unto its nature. Nor is this my opinion, but the determination of _Lombard_ and _Tostatus_; and also the reply of _Cyril_ unto the objection of _Julian_, who compared this story unto the fables of the _Greeks_.

CHAPTER V

Of the Picture of _Adam_ and _Eve_ with Navels.

Another mistake there may be in the Picture of our first Parents, who after the manner of their posterity are both delineated with a Navel.

And this is observable not only in ordinary and stained pieces, but in the Authentick draughts of _Urbin_, _Angelo_ and others. Which notwithstanding cannot be allowed, except we impute that unto the first cause, which we impose not on the second; or what we deny unto nature, we impute unto Naturity it self; that is, that in the first and most accomplished piece, the Creator affected superfluities, or ordained parts without use or office.

[Sidenote: _What the Navel is, and for what use._]

For the use of the Navel is to continue the Infant unto the Mother, and by the vessels thereof to convey its aliment and sustentation. The vessels whereof it consisteth, are the umbilical vein, which is a branch of the Porta, and implanted in the Liver of the Infant; two Arteries likewise arising from the Iliacal branches, by which the Infant receiveth the purer portion of blood and spirits from the mother; and lastly, the Urachos or ligamental pa.s.sage derived from the bottom of the bladder, whereby it dischargeth the waterish and urinary part of its aliment. Now upon the birth, when the Infant forsaketh the womb, although it dilacerate, and break the involving membranes, yet do these vessels hold, and by the mediation thereof the Infant is connected unto the womb, not only before, but a while also after the birth. These therefore the midwife cutteth off, contriving them into a knot close unto the body of the Infant; from whence ensueth that tortuosity or complicated modosity we usually call the Navel; occasioned by the colligation of vessels before mentioned. [SN: _That_ Adam _and_ Eve _had not Navels_.] Now the Navel being a part, not precedent, but subsequent unto generation, nativity or parturition, it cannot be well imagined at the creation or extraordinary formation of _Adam_, who immediately issued from the Artifice of G.o.d; nor also that of _Eve_; who was not solemnly begotten, but suddenly framed, and anomalously proceeded from _Adam_.

And if we be led into conclusions that _Adam_ had also this part, because we behold the same in our selves, the inference is not reasonable; for if we conceive the way of his formation, or of the first animals, did carry in all points a strict conformity unto succeeding productions, we might fall into imaginations that _Adam_ was made without Teeth; or that he ran through those notable alterations in the vessels of the heart, which the Infant suffereth after birth: we need not dispute whether the egg or bird were first; and might conceive that Dogs were created blind, because we observe they are littered so with us. Which to affirm, is to confound, at least to regulate creation unto generation, the first Acts of G.o.d, unto the second of Nature; which were determined in that general indulgence, Encrease and Multiply, produce or propagate each other; that is, not answerably in all points, but in a prolonged method according to seminal progression. For the formation of things at first was different from their generation after; and although it had nothing to precede it, was aptly contrived for that which should succeed it. And therefore though _Adam_ were framed without this part, as having no other womb than that of his proper principles, yet was not his posterity without the same: for the seminality of his fabrick contained the power thereof; and was endued with the science of those parts whose predestinations upon succession it did accomplish.

All the Navel therefore and conjunctive part we can suppose in _Adam_, was his dependency on his Maker, and the connexion he must needs have unto heaven, who was the Son of G.o.d. For holding no dependence on any preceding efficient but G.o.d; in the act of his production there may be conceived some connexion, and _Adam_ to have been in a momental Navel with his Maker. And although from his carnality and corporal existence, the conjunction seemeth no nearer than of causality and effect; yet in his immortal and diviner part he seemed to hold a nearer coherence, and an umbilicality even with G.o.d himself. And so indeed although the propriety of this part be found but in some animals, and many species there are which have no Navel at all; yet is there one link and common connexion, one general ligament, and necessary obligation of all what ever unto G.o.d. Whereby although they act themselves at distance, and seem to be at loose; yet do they hold a continuity with their Maker.

Which catenation or conserving union when ever his pleasure shall divide, let go, or separate, they shall fall from their existence, essence, and operations: in brief, they must retire unto their primitive nothing, and shrink into their Chaos again.

They who hold the egg was before the Bird, prevent this doubt in many other animals, which also extendeth unto them: For birds are nourished by umbilical vessels, and the Navel is manifest sometimes a day or two after exclusion. The same is probable in oviparous exclusions, if the lesser part of eggs must serve for the formation, the greater part for nutriment. The same is made out in the eggs of Snakes; and is not improbable in the generation of Porwiggles or Tadpoles, and may be also true in some vermiparous exclusions: although (as we have observed in the daily progress in some) the whole Maggot is little enough to make a Fly, without any part remaining.

CHAPTER VI

Of the Pictures of Eastern Nations, and the _Jews_ at their Feasts, especially our _Saviour_ at the Pa.s.sover.

Concerning the Pictures of the _Jews_, and Eastern Nations at their Feasts, concerning the gesture of our Saviour at the Pa.s.sover, who is usually described sitting upon a stool or bench at a square table, in the middest of the twelve, many make great doubt; and (though they concede a table-gesture) will hardly allow this usual way of Session.

Wherein restraining no mans enquiry, it will appear that accubation, or lying down at meals was a gesture used by very many Nations. That the _Persians_ used it, beside the testimony of humane Writers, is deducible from that pa.s.sage in _Esther_[SN: Esther 7.]. That when the King returned into the place of the banquet of wine, _Haman_ was fallen upon the bed whereon _Esther_ was. That the _Parthians_ used it, is evident from _Athenaeus_, who delivereth out of _Possidonius_, that their King lay down at meals, on an higher bed than others. That _Cleopatra_ thus entertained _Anthony_, the same Author manifesteth when he saith, she prepared twelve Tricliniums. That it was in use among the _Greeks_, the word Triclinium implieth, and the same is also declarable from many places in the Symposiacks of _Plutarch_. That it was not out of fashion in the days of _Aristotle_, he declareth in his politicks; when among the Inst.i.tutionary rules of youth, he adviseth they might not be permitted to hear Iambicks and Tragedies before they were admitted unto disc.u.mbency or lying along with others at their meals. That the _Romans_ used this gesture at repast, beside many more, is evident from _Lipsius_, _Mercurialis_, _Salmasius_ and _Ciaconius_, who have expresly and distinctly treated hereof.

Now of their acc.u.mbing places, the one was called Stibadion and Sigma, carrying the figure of an half Moon, and of an uncertain capacity, whereupon it received the name of Hexaclinon, Octoclinon, according unto that of _Martial_,

_Accipe Lunata scriptum testudine Sigma: Octo capit, veniat quisquis amicus erit._

Hereat in several ages the left and right horn were the princ.i.p.al places, and the most honorable person, if he were not master of the feast, possessed one of those rooms. The other was termed Triclinium, that is, Three beds about a table, as may be seen in the figures thereof, and particularly in the _Rhamnusian_ Triclinium, set down by _Mercurialis_[SN: Merc. De Arte Gymnastica.]. The customary use hereof was probably deduced from the frequent use of bathing, after which they commonly retired to bed, and refected themselves with repast; and so that custom by degrees changed their cubiculary beds into discubitory, and introduced a fashion to go from the bathes unto these.

[Sidenote: _The ancient gesture or position of the body at feasts._]

As for their gesture or position, the men lay down leaning on their left elbow, their back being advanced by some pillow or soft substance: the second lay so with his back towards the first, that his head attained about his bosome; and the rest in the same order. For women, they sat sometimes distinctly with their s.e.x, sometime promiscuously with men, according to affection or favour, as is delivered by _Juvenal_,

_Gremio jacuit nova nupta mariti._

And by _Suetonius_ of _Caligula_, that at his feasts he placed his sisters, with whom he had been incontinent, successively in order below him.

Again, As their beds were three, so the guests did not usually exceed that number in every one; according to the ancient Laws, and proverbial observations to begin with the Graces, and make up their feasts with the Muses. And therefore it was remarkable in the Emperour _Lucius Verus_, that he lay down with twelve: which was, saith _Julius Capitolinus, praeter exempla majorum_, not according to the custom of his Predecessors, except it were at publick and nuptial suppers. The regular number was also exceeded in this last supper, whereat there were no less than thirteen, and in no place fewer than ten, for, as _Josephus_ delivereth, it was not lawful to celebrate the Pa.s.sover with fewer than that number.

Lastly, For the disposing and ordering of the persons: The first and middle beds were for the guests, the third and lowest for the Master of the house and his family; he always lying in the first place of the last bed, that is, next the middle bed; but if the wife or children were absent, their rooms were supplied by the Umbrae, or hangers on, according to that of _Juvenal_ [SN: _Who the Umbrae were at banquets._]----_Locus est et pluribus Umbris._ For the guests, the honourablest place in every bed was the first, excepting the middle or second bed; wherein the most honourable Guest of the feast was placed in the last place, because by that position he might be next the Master of the feast [SN: _Iul.

Scalig. familiarium exercitationum Problema 1._]. For the Master lying in the first of the last bed, and the princ.i.p.al Guest in the last place of the second, they must needs be next each other; as this figure doth plainly declare, and whereby we may apprehend the feast of _Perpenna_ made unto _Sertorius_, described by _Sal.u.s.tius_, whose words we shall thus read with _Salmasius_: _Igitur discubuere, Sertorius inferior in medio lecto, supra Fabius; Antonius in summo; Infra Scriba Sertorii Versius; alter scriba Maecenas in Imo, medius inter Tarquitium et Dominum Perpennam._

Ultimus Honoratissimus Locus Summus Infra Medius Supra +--------------------------------+ |L. Fabius Locus Vacuus Sertorius| | Medius Lectus | +----------+--------------------------------+------------+ L | | | | o S | | | | U c e | | | |I l u u S| | | |n t s u|Perpenna | |Versinis |f i D p|Dominus | | |r m S o r| | | |a u u m a| | | | s m i | | | | m n | | | | u i | | | | s | | | | | | | | M| | | |M e| | |Locus |e d|Maecenas | |Vacuus |d i|Imus | |Summus |i u|Lectus | |Lectus |u s| | | |s | | | | | | | | P U| | | | S r l| | | | e i t| | | |S u m i|Tarquitius| | Antonius |u u m| | | |p S s u| | | |r u s| | | |a m L | | | | m o | | | | u c | | | | s u | | | | s

At this feast there were but seven; the middle places of the highest and middle bed being vacant; and hereat was _Sertorius_ the General and princ.i.p.al guest slain. And so may we make out what is delivered by _Plutarch_ in his life, that lying on his back, and raising himself up, _Perpenna_ cast himself upon his stomack; which he might very well do, being Master of the feast, and lying next unto him. And thus also from this Tricliniary disposure, we may ill.u.s.trate that obscure expression of _Seneca_; That the Northwind was in the middle, the North-East on the higher side, and the North-West on the lower. For as appeareth in the circle of the winds, the North-East will answer the bed of _Antonius_, and the North-West that of _Perpenna_.

That the custom of feasting upon beds was in use among the _Hebrews_, many deduce from _Ezekiel_[SN: Ezek. 23.]. Thou sattest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it. The custom of Discalceation or putting off their shoes at meals, is conceived to confirm the same; as by that means keeping their beds clean; and therefore they had a peculiar charge to eat the Pa.s.sover with their shooes on; which Injunction were needless, if they used not to put them off. However it were in times of high antiquity, probable it is that in after ages they conformed unto the fashions of the _a.s.syrians_ and Eastern Nations, and lastly of the _Romans_, being reduced by _Pompey_ unto a Provincial subjection.

That this disc.u.mbency at meals was in use in the days of our Saviour, is conceived probable from several speeches of his expressed in that phrase, even unto common Auditors, as _Luke_ 14. _c.u.m invitatus fueris ad nuptias, non disc.u.mbas in primo loco_, and besides many more, _Matthew_ 23. When reprehending the _Scribes_ and _Pharises_, he saith, _Amant protoclisias, id est, primos recubitus in caenis, et protocathedrias, sive, primas cathedras, in Synagogis_: wherein the terms are very distinct, and by an Ant.i.thesis do plainly distinguish the posture of sitting, from this of lying on beds. The consent of the _Jews_ with the _Romans_ in other ceremonies and rites of feasting, makes probable their conformity in this. The _Romans_ washed, were anointed, and wore a cenatory garment: and that the same was practised by the _Jews_, is deduceable from that expostulation of our Saviour with _Simon_[SN: Luke 7.], that he washed not his feet, nor anointed his head with oyl; the common civilities at festival entertainments; and that expression of his concerning the cenatory or wedding garment [SN: Matth.

22.]; and as some conceive of the linnen garment of the young man or St.

_John_; which might be the same he wore the night before at the last Supper.

That they used this gesture at the Pa.s.sover, is more than probable from the testimony of _Jewish_ Writers, and particularly of _Ben-maimon_ recorded by _Scaliger De emendatione temporum_. After the second cup according to the Inst.i.tution. [SN: Exod. 12.] The Son asketh, what meaneth this service? Then he that maketh the declaration, saith, How different is this night from all other nights? for all other nights we wash but once but this night twice; all other we eat leavened or unleavened bread, but this only leavened; all other we eat flesh roasted, boyled or baked, but this only roasted, all other nights we eat together lying or sitting, but this only lying along. And this posture they used as a token of rest and security which they enjoyed, far different from that at the eating of the Pa.s.sover in _aegypt_.

That this gesture was used when our Saviour eat the Pa.s.sover, is not conceived improbable from the words whereby the Evangelists express the same, that is, ??ap?pte??, ??a?e?s?a?, ?ata?e?s?a?, ??a??e????a?, which terms do properly signifie this Gesture in _Aristotle_, _Athenaeus_, _Euripides_, _Sophocles_, and all humane Authors; and the like we meet with in the paraphrastical expression of _Nonnus_.

Lastly, If it be not fully conceded, that this gesture was used at the Pa.s.sover, yet that it was observed at the last supper, seems almost incontrovertible: for at this feast or cenatory convention, learned men make more than one supper, or at least many parts thereof. The first was that Legal one of the Pa.s.sover, or eating of the Paschal Lamb with bitter herbs, and ceremonies described by _Moses_. Of this it is said, [SN: Matth. 26.] then when the even was come he sat down with the twelve. This is supposed when it is said, [SN: John 13.] that the supper being ended, our Saviour arose, took a towel and washed the disciples feet. The second was common and Domestical, consisting of ordinary and undefined provisions; of this it may be said, that our Saviour took his garment, and sat down again, after he had washed the Disciples feet, and performed the preparative civilities of suppers; at this 'tis conceived the sop was given unto _Judas_, the Original word implying some broath or decoction, not used at the Pa.s.sover. The third or latter part was Eucharistical, which began at the breaking and blessing of the bread, according to that of _Matthew_, And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it.

Now although at the Pa.s.sover or first supper, many have doubted this Reclining posture, and some have affirmed that our Saviour stood; yet that he lay down at the other, the same men have acknowledged, as _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, _Austin_, and many more. And if the tradition will hold, the position is unquestionable; for the very Triclinium is to be seen at _Rome_, brought thither by _Vespasian_, and graphically set forth by _Casalius_[SN: De veterum ritibus.].

Thus may it properly be made out; what is delivered, _John_ 13. _Erat rec.u.mbens unus ex Discipulis ejus in sinu Jesu quem diligebat_; Now there was leaning on Jesus bosom one of his Disciples whom Jesus loved; which gesture will not so well agree unto the position of sitting, but is natural, and cannot be avoided in the Laws of accubation. And the very same expression is to be found in _Pliny_, concerning the Emperour _Nerva_ and _Veiento_ whom he favoured; _Cnabat Nerva c.u.m paucis, Veiento rec.u.mbebat proprius atque etiam in sinu_; and from this custom arose the word ?p?st?????, that is, a near and bosom friend. And therefore _Causabon_ [SN: _Not_ in Evan.] justly rejecteth _Theophylact_; who not considering the ancient manner of dec.u.mbency, imputed this gesture of the beloved Disciple unto Rusticity, or an act of incivility. And thus also have some conceived, it may be more plainly made out what is delivered of _Mary Magdalen_[SN: Luke 7.]. That she stood at Christs feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head. Which actions, if our Saviour sat, she could not perform standing, and had rather stood behind his back, than at his feet. And therefore it is not allowable, what is observable in many pieces, and even of _Raphael Urbin_; wherein _Mary Magdalen_ is pictured before our Saviour, washing his feet on her knees; which will not consist with the strict description and letter of the Text.

Now whereas this position may seem to be discountenanced by our Translation, which usually renders it sitting, it cannot have that illation, for the _French_ and _Italian_ Translations expressing neither position of session or recubation, do only say that he placed himself at the table; and when ours expresseth the same by sitting, it is in relation unto our custom, time, and apprehension. The like upon occasion is not unusual: so when it is said, _Luke_ 4. pt??a? t? ?????, and the Vulgar renders it, _c.u.m plica.s.set librum_, ours translateth it, he shut or closed the book; which is an expression proper unto the paginal books of our times, but not so agreeable unto volumes or rolling books in use among the _Jews_, not only in elder times, but even unto this day. [SN: _What_ Denarius, _or the penny in the Gospel is_.] So when it is said, the _Samaritan_ delivered unto the host two pence for the provision of the _Levite_; and when our Saviour agreed with the Labourers for a penny a day, in strict translation it should be seven pence half penny; and is not to be conceived our common penny, the sixtieth part of an ounce. For the word in the Original is d???????, in Latine, _Denarius_, and with the _Romans_ did value the eight part of an ounce, which after five shillings the ounce amounteth unto seven pence half penny of our money.