The history of four-footed beasts and serpents describing at large their true and lively figure, their several names, conditions, kinds, virtues ... countries of their breed, their love and hatred to mankind, and the wonderful work by Edward Topsell ; whereunto is now added, The theater of insects, or, Lesser living creatures ... by T. Muffet ...

CHAP. XXV.

Of the Fire-fly.

THat which is called by Aelian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, other Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hermolaus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some * 1.1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristot. l. 5. Hist. c. 19. giveth these little creatures no proper name, but sayes they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which Gaza translateth Bestiales fornacum, Furnace creatures. Strabo reckons them among Gnats, they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Suidas, and by the Scepticks, as we read in Laertius l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Solinus calleth it Carystia l. de mund. Mirab. Jul. Scaliger, Ignigena; Gaza, Fur〈…〉〈…〉 and Besti••la Fornacum, out of Aristotle, which he maketh bigger than the greater flies and winged: Pliny af∣firmeth the same l. 11. c. 36. Antigonus l. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ saith from Aristotle that these Fire-flies are bigger than Mice (not Flies only); where it is evident he foully mistook 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mice, for Flies; which Xylander his Translator took no notice of. In shape it is somewhat like a very big Gnat, of a bright fire-red colour, glittering with a kinde of fiery raies; it leaps, goes, flies, and lives in the flame, as Aristotle reporteth, l. 5. hist. c. 19. For I can scarce give credit to Aelian l. 2. Hist. c. 2. when he saith that the Fire-fly as soon as it hath gone out of the place where it was bred, and flown into the air for food, dieth presently: for I cannot believe that any thing bred in the fire, goeth out of its element to seek for food; nor is it likely that Nature, that most loving parent of all things, should prescribe any creature such a way of getting its food, by which it should presently lose its life. Neither is it, as it seems to me, so hard to finde out the reason of this their sudden dying in the air (which Aelian, leaves to be searched out by others) for being bred in the extremity of heat, how should they live in a temperate place? For it is evident by daily experience, that some Fishes dye as soon as ever they are taken up o••t of the water into the air; much less can those creatures that are bred in the fire, endure the air, since it differeth so much from the air, and indeed more than the a〈…〉〈…〉from the water.

These Flies are bred in the Brass Furnaces of the Isle Cyprus, where the Chalcitis (or Brass∣stone) is burnt for many daies together: perhaps the sooty vapours which go up with the flame, while the stone is continually burnt, are the matter and cause of their generation. Strabo speaking in his 12 Book of Worms bred in the snow, addeth this which followeth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: They conje∣cture that the generation of these creatures is like that of Gnats, of the flame from metals and plates of brass; where any man may see the error of the Interpreter, for he renders it thus: Horum animalium generationem talem putant, ut culicum ex flammâ & bracteâ metallorum. For they are bred in the flame (as Scaliger saith) not in massa, that is (as I interpret it) in the fire which is condensed together: nor doth any thing forbid but that the most dry animals may be generated in the most dry element (for there is mi••tion there also) as the moistest are in the moistest; for we have no pure fire with us. But what hinders but that living creatures may be generated of matter ready for them, or what natural reason contradicteth it? They answer, that fire destroyeth all things, corrupteth all things. But they which have had but any taste of the se∣crets of Philosophy, do evince that to be false by clear demonstration and experience. For so far is our fire from destroying or corrupting all things, that it even perfecteth some. It doth not corrupt nor consume gold, nor some sorts of metals, not ashes, not the stone Amiantus which is very like Sicil Allum; nor some other things which I will not now stand to reckon up for those froward mens sakes. What then should hinder fire from having the power of generating, so it be in a fit and convenient matter? its very d••iness cannot hinder the generation from coming to effect; because it proceedeth from the form; but fire is the matter and the forms instrument for some operations. Besides, our fire hath alwaies some moisture joyned with it; for it would not take flame nor burn, if it were not cherished with a fat moisture; for certainly those things are nei∣ther without earth nor water, which are generated in our terrestrial fire. G. Agricola. But if this were not so, because fire putrefies not; yet there is no reason we should doubt but that generation may be effected by the fire, as by the form in its proper matte••. For unless there were moisture in metals, they would not melt; what therefore should hinder nature, but that it may give this a form? Aristotle maketh the question, Whether in the sphere of the fire (which is next to the Moon) there be generated any living creatures? and he seemeth to be in doubt, and putteth off the question until another time; but when he affirmeth that the Fire-fly is generated in this fire of ours, I see no reason, why any should doubt of it: yet there are some very learned men, and eminent writers of our time (who seem nevertheless to excel rather in wit, reading and language, than in the solid knowledge of things natural) who condemn and reject not only the generation of these little creatures in the fire, but this whole history as frivolous, false, and unworthy of a Philosopher. My readers expect now, that I answere these mens arguments.

They object that Aristotle doth in plain terms affirm, that the fire produceth no living crea∣ture. The Philosopher doth there compare the heat of seed with the heat of fire, affirming that there is not a fiery heat in seed; for (saith he) if there were, it would produce nothing. But this hinders not, but that a living creature may be generated in the fire without seed: but of some other fit and convenient matter, as we shall see anon. Besides, the Philosopher seems here (as

likewise elsewhere) to speak of that fire only which is under the sphere of the Moon, that that produceth no living creature; not of ours, where there is both mixtion, and no pure fire. But they yet urge: Our fire is Substantia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a substance of most subtil parts, and seizeth upon all things that are in its way, devouring them and turning them into its own substance. This was answered before when we instanced in some things which are rather perfected in the fire, and which fire is by no means able to consume or turn into its substance. Ic. Langius (a man of much reading, and a most learned Philosopher) and from him Cardane grants that some Animals may live in the fire, but not that they can be bred there; for in this they yeeld to the Philoso∣pher. But who seeth not how absurd this yeelding is? for I cannot see how things generated in a temperate place, should be able to live in that extreme. For that which they say of the Sala∣mander, is as good as nothing. The Salamander (as Diosc. hath observed) doth not live long in the fire: for as soon as that moisture, which runneth down on every side from its yellow spots (as I conceive) while it staies in the fire, is consumed (which is quickly done) it is presently brought to ashes, as Pennius hath made trial with our Bruerus in the Countrey about Heidelburg. Erastus a most learned Physitian, disputing about rotten Feavers, endevoureth to overthrow all this Hi∣story with these arguments. First, because Aristotle compileth the History (saith Erastus) who, it is confessed, writ many things from hearsay; I grant it: but then he adds, ut aiunt, as it is re∣ported, or some other word of the same importance (as Niphus hath well-observed) even as in that very place, speaking of the Salamander, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We may observe that this is the constant practise of the Philosopher, when he speaks according to the opinion, or from the rela∣tion of others; but grant it were so, that he from others related it; they were deceived (saith Erastus) who related it to him; imagining those creatures bred in the fire, which fell by chance into it. But the circumstances of the place make it appear that this is false. If they had fallen from elsewhere into the fire, surely by his own confession they would be consumed by the fire. And unless they had been bred there, (as I said before) how should they be able to live in such an extremity of flame? Besides, spectators have observed the motion of their feet, the num∣ber of their wings, their flying, yea their death, and the cause of their death, viz. their flying somewhat too far out of the fire. These things and the like evince that those relators were not at all deceived, but that they related what was true and unquestionable. But no Author either before or since Aristotle affirms this, but one or other perhaps who hath transcribed it from him. This is more (Erastus) than you know, you have not read all Authors Books: the greatest part of books is lost, as it appeareth plainly out of Athenaeus, and Histories bear witness. But how I pray you, came Pliny to be assured that Fire-flies have four feet? He did not learn this from Aristotle, nor is there any such thing to be found in his writings which are extant. Wherefore either he learnt it from others, or else the History was known in Pliny's time. Pliny therefore added this, that he might make up the History compleat. Nay, if you had read Cicero l. de Nat. Deo. you had found him affirming for certain, that there are little winged creatures bred in the middle of the fire. Neither did I before think you so ignorant in Theology, as not to know what S. Augustine (l. de Civit. Dei 21. c. 2.) hath observed of these Pyribia: There are, saith he, creatures which live in the midst of the fire; and there are found some worms at the Spring∣head of hot waters, whose heat no man toucheth without harm: while these remain there not only without receiving any hurt, but are not able to subsist out of them. And Vincentius hist. Nat. l. 20. c. 68. In some waters which are naturally hot, there are certain Worms which live as well as Fishes in cold: nay if they go out of those waters into cold they die. Solinus also confirmeth it c. 17. who calleth these kinde of Flies Carystiae, and reporteth that in Crete they fly into hot furnaces without harm. Yea and Seneca (quest. natural. l. 2.) affirmeth that some living creatures are generated of the fire; and therefore these Fire-flies likewise; as lately Mar∣silius Cognatus teacheth us in a large Discourse, Variar. observ. l. 1. c. 23, 24. Do not then any longer contend, that no Author either before or since Aristotle affirmeth it; since besides these pious and grave men already named, I can bring others also, who would convince you either of plain falshood, or of a levity not hard to be discerned. But Theophrastus maketh no mention of it in his Book de Igne. What do you conclude, Erastus, from thence, that the History is false? Very fine. Perhaps he beleeved it not; is it therefore false? But it is probable. I grant it. There are many things probable, and yet false, as experience teacheth us. Erastus wrote many things against Paracelsus which are probable, yet not all true, unless those things which he understood not, be true. Certainly he endevoured to confute many things, which I know he never under∣stood: I will not now descend to particulars. Well, but the heat of fire is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fit for generation. This, Erastus, you apprehend not; but I told you before, that if it were in the seed, it were not, which was the Philosophers meaning. For it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, corruptive, according to Aristotle: But I answered before, that fire doth not corrupt all things. This barrenness there∣fore, or (if you please) destructiveness of the fire is to be limited. Nor truly do I conceive this to be done miraculously, but by the power of Nature; neither do I take it for a tale, but for a History agreeable to nature. And as for what he writeth of the Salamander, he adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I said before: there was no need to add it. But I beseech those who believe nothing but what they see, to tell me, Have any one of the ancients found fault with this History, or con∣futed it? I speak of the Greek writers. No, not so much as Galen, who otherwise is a most sharp reprehender of the Philosophers, and would have laid hold on this instantly, if he had had

any such opinion. Therefore it is likely that the history is true, because none of the old wri∣ters found fault with it. But come we now to Matthiolus, who of all men hath contradicted this History most unhappily; for in his margent he inveigheth against the vain opinions of the Phi∣losopher (as he thinks) where he appears in some things vainer than vanity it self. But I will return to the business. It is against (saith he) the work of nature. Is it enough for Matthiolus to say so, though he prove nothing? If the story had been true, Galen would never have omit∣ted it, who hath searched out all things else so diligently, furnaces, and metals, and what not? Ju∣lius Scaliger will make answer, to what end should he repeat a thing known before? Sooner would he (as he was a famous and a malicious detracter) if he had not found it so, have repre∣hended it, as he doth in some places make it ridiculous. He which continued so few daies, did not understand the whole matter; they were not, they are not alwaies at hand; he never en∣quired of the Bakers. But if I should say that a little she colt newly foaled should have plenty of milk in its udder, and that it did issue forth in great quantity, what would they say then? yet nevertheless I saw it at London about six years since, as also many others of good note and credit, who with their own hands did milk it out of its teats. They will say perhaps, we do not be∣lieve it; let then chuse, it makes not much to the matter; there are many productions of na∣ture, the causes whereof it is impossible for any man to know, much less to shew to others. And that certainly not without great reason, that we might both admire the infinite power of God, and acknowledge our own blindness and ignorance. For these and the like did God create on∣ly for his glory, that he might both confound the shallow understandings of men, and also learn them to acquiesce in his wisdome only, for so much as in searching out the natural causes of things, it is impossible to go any farther. For this is amongst the works of God that may pluck down our ambition, and makes us with all our wit to fly to that common Anchor of fools, namely hid∣den causes and the whole substance. What have we then to do? surely only to apply our selves unto him, from whom all wisdom, knowledge, and perfection doth proceed: for whilest we re∣lie on our own wits, and do pry into the Majesty of God, we must needs (as Solomon in his Pro∣verbs speaketh) be confounded by the same. What then remains? this surely, that they which think these things to be impossible, do keep their opinion to themselves, without medling with those that think the contrary.

The Author of the Geoponicks (if I am not deceived) cals this little animal a Salamander: his words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that is to say, The Sala∣mander that little creature is begotten in the fire; and living in the fire, is not consumed by it. Here he tels three untruths together. For neither is this the least of creatures, but oftentimes bigger, sometime less, neither is it generated by the fire, nor doth it live long in the fire, as I said be∣fore, out of Dioscorides. Thus much I thought good to add, lest young students reading those Geoponicks should erre so foully with Zoroastes. For what purposes it serveth, I cannot boldly say: yet by its place of growth and principles it seemeth to dry and cleanse powerfully. It is also of very thin parts and body; it pierceth to places very distant: and truly if the Grashopper which feedeth upon air, be of so burning a faculty; what shall we think of the Fire-fly, which eateth and drinketh flames? But the Fire-flies are of this use to our mindes: they represent to our understanding the wonderful power of God, who hath made the greatest of all the Elements, Fire, subject to so small, so dry a creature: vouchsafing to be vanquished by these while it scor∣neth, I do not say to be vanquished (to use Majolus's words, Dier. Canic. Colloq. 5.) but even so much as to be touched by men, or the greater Animals.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Name.