History of Four Footed Beasts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE HISTORY OF FOUR-FOOTED BEASTS AND SERPENTS AND INSECTS Volume 1 Four-footed Beasts THE HISTORY OF FOUR-FOOTED BEASTS AND SERPENTS AND INSECTS Volume 1: THE HISTORY OF FOUR-FOOTED BEASTS by Edward Topsell Volume 2: THE HISTORY OF SERPENTS by Edward Topsell Volume 3: THE THEATER OF INSECTS byT. Muffet THE HISTORY OF FOUR-FOOTED BEASTS AND SERPENTS AND INSECTS Volume 1 The History of Four-footed Beasts Taken principally from the Historire Animalium of Conrad Gesner by EDWARD TOPSELL With a New Introduction by WILLY LEY ~ l Routledge iii~ Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK A Da Capo Press Reprint Edition UK edition published by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN An unabridged republication of the 1658 edition published in London, this work has been reproduced from a copy in the Rare Book Collection of the Library of the American Museum of Natural History. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65-23391 Transferred to Digital Printing 2006 © 1967 Da Capo Press A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation 270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016 ISBN 0-7146-1589-7 (Set) ISBN 0-415-42695-2 (hbk) Publisher's Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent Prjnted and bound by CPI Antony Rowe, Eastboume INTRODUCTION ~ The first animal in Tapsell's work is the "Antalope," a fact easily explained by stating that the arrangement is alphabetical by English names. But any reader with a reasonable amount of curiosity is going to ask why Tapsell used an alphabetical arrangement in the first place. Of course, Conrad Gesner had provided the precedent for this arrangement, and Tapsell's Four- footed Beasts was primarily a translation of Gesner's Histori12 Animalium. Nonetheless, Tapsell was not obligated to follow Gesner, and a better answer as to why he did so can be found by a survey of the status of zoology at the time. During the first decade of the seventeenth century, when Tapsell prepared his translation, zoology had just become a science through the works of Guillaume Rondelet (1507-1566), Pierre Belon (Petrus Bellonius) (1517-1564), and, mainly, Conrad Gesner of Zurich (1516-1565). Before these pioneers wrote their books, all zoological information, with the single exception of a book on falcons and falconry by Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, had been of classical vintage. Anyone who, say in A.D. 1500, wanted to learn about animals had to go either to the encyclopedias of Albertus Magnus, Vincent of Beauvais, or Thomas of Cantimpre, or to tl;J.e classical authors directly. If he chose the latter, he might try to find a manuscript copy of the works of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) ; or he could turn to the Histori12 Natura/is of Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79); or he might examine the somewhat later work of the "honey tongued" Claudius Aelianus (A.D. 170-ca. 230) . The earliest of these works, Aristotle's writings, were actually better than the reputation they acquired during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Since Aristotle was the first to discuss animals systematically, his writings naturally suffered from all the short comings of an early work on any subject. That Aristotle also repeated a number of obvious fables (among them the famous story that the crocodile's lower jaw is rigid and that only its upper jaw moves) would have been less important if the Church had not, many cen turies after his death, decided that his books contained the sum of INTRODUCTION knowledge about nature. This doctrine carried with it the logical continued corollary that nothing of his writings could be doubted, and eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars rebelled against such an idea almost instinctively. As for Pliny, he was an indefatigable collector of information and compiled whatever he could find. Being a proud Roman, he had a tendency to disbelieve stories that came to him from Greek sources, and he could be quite sarcastic about reports he did not believe. He actually eliminated quite a number of earlier fables. Unfortunately, he retained just as many, either believing them or not daring to discard them. Claudius Aelianus' book on animals was in sharp contrast to Pliny's in many respects. Where Pliny was dry, Aelianus was poetic; where Pliny was skeptical, Aelianus was willing to use any material, provided it was of Greek origin and a good story. In retrospect, we can say that the student of the year 1500 would have done best with Pliny's Historice Natura/is. But the student of 1500 could not have known that. Of course, that student could have fallen into a far worse trap: He could have taken seriously the older "bestiaries," although by the year 1500, they had, generally speaking, run their course. These bestiaries had their origin in a small book of immense popularity and unknown authorship. Generally referred to as the Physiologus, a word first used by Aristotle with the meaning of "one who knows nature," this work was written in Greek sometime between A.D. 200 and 250, and dealt with about forty different animals (actual as well as mythical), one plant (the tree Peridexion), and six stones. In each case, just one fact, usually untrue, was described; and this supposed fact was then used as the basis for an allegory. For example: The Hydrus is the enemy of the crocodile. When it sees one, it covers itself with mud in order to be slippery and permits itself to be swallowed by the crocodile. Then, once swallowed, it tears up the crocodile's intestines. Thus, Christ had assumed the body of a mortal, descended into hell, and conquered both death and the devil. The Physiologus was the original source of the story that the Phoenix cremates itself but rises from the ashes on the third day. Similarly, it was the origin of the tale that the salamander is not harmed by fire and that, in fact, any fire it enters will die down. Thus, the just were in no danger, and the three men in the fiery fur nace had remained unscathed. The Physiologus was at first simply translated, with editions appearing in Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Old High German, Icelandic, Anglo-Saxon, Old French, Proven~al, and Middle English. But then things began to happen to it: Translators shortened the material, additional sermonizing was interpolated, the original allegories were explained and expanded, and, several times, the translation was versified. In this manner, the bestiaries were born, culminating in a troubadour's version, the Bestiaire d'Amour. The more serious-minded among fifteenth- and sixteenth-century scholars disregarded the bestiaries as much as they dared and went back to the classical sources, fortified, if at all possible, with per sonal observations. The most important of them, and Topsell's direct source, was the Swiss, Conrad Gesner. Born in Zurich in 1516, Gesner was educated in the "three languages" (the contemporary term for Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) . After teaching classical Greek for a time, he decided to become a physician. In pursuit of this goal, he embarked upon a six-week walk from Basel to Bourges in France. However, he was disappointed with the university at Bourges because of its concentration on juris prudence, and, after some time, he left for Paris. Ultimately, he acquired his medical degree in Basel in March 1541, and then returned to Zurich with license to practice medicine, at the same time taking on a poorly paid teaching job for side income. Having more free time than he liked, Gesner soon began to write. His first work was the Bibliotheca universalis, comprising an alpha betical treatment of all authors who had written in any of the "three languages." For each author, a biographical sketch was followed by a list of works, including both those already printed and those existing only in manuscript. This work was so thorough that Gesner soon became known throughout Europe. Ducal libraries were arranged according to his book, Archbishop Hoper invited him to come to England to live, and the famous Fugger family in Augsburg tendered the same offer. Gesner chose Augsburg. However, the Fuggers apparently insisted that he become a Catholic, and since he had no desire to change his religion, he soon returned to Zurich. ·while in Augsburg, however, Gesner had read a manuscript copy of the work of Claudius Aelianus, and he now decided to compose a modern equivalent. At that point, of course, the problem of arrangement arose. Aristotle had offered a broad distinction between animals with blood and "bloodless" animals, meaning those without red blood, and this was still acceptable to Gesner. But where did one go from there? Pliny had not developed an analytical system - he had started the book on four-footed animals with the elephant and that on birds with the ostrich because each was the biggest, and had then proceeded without discernible pattern. And Aelianus was of no greater help, since he had believed, apparently, that his book would be better if the reader could not guess which animal would be treated next. Since Gesner had used an alphabetical arrangement in his Bibliotheca universalis, he decided to do the same in his work on animals, the Historite Animalium. His over-all plan called for six volumes. The first was to deal with four-footed animals that bear live young- the mammals, as we would say. The second was to de scribe four-footed animals that lay eggs- reptiles and amphibians in our terminology.