4 More might be added unto this list; and I have only taken the pains to give you a short specimen of those, many more which you may find in respective authors, and which time and future industry may make no great strangers in England. The inhabitants of nova Hispania, and a great part of America, Mahometans, Indians, Chinese, are eminent promoters of these coronary and specious plants; and the annual tribute of the King of Bisnaguer in India, arising out of odours and flowers, amounts unto many thousands of crowns. Thus, in brief, of this matter. I am, &c. More might be added unto this list.] Which Sir Thomas sent me a catalogue of from Norwich.-MS. note of Evelyn's. This list has not been found. TRACT III. OF THE FISHES EATEN BY OUR SAVIOUR WITH HIS DISCIPLES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. 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?*] and I return such an answer, as, in so short a time for study, and in the midst of my occasions, occurs to me. you 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 only set down in general which have fins 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 only 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 St. John, the fishes are only 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. * St. John xxi, 9, 10, 11-13. 1 what kind, &c.] MS. Sloan. 1827, reads, "of what kind those little fish were, which fed the multitude in the wilderness, or, &c." 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 fifty and 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 faber marinus, by some, a peter or penny fish; which having two remarkable round spots upon either side these are conceived to be the marks of St. 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, Gennesareth, 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 yourself concerning that fish mentioned by Procopius,* 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, senators, and consuls, had many enemies, by whose De Bello Gothico, lib. i. false accusations Theodorick being persuaded 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 murdered: 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, &c. TRACT IV. AN ANSWER TO CERTAIN QUERIES RELATING TO FISHES, BIRDS, AND INSECTS. 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 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 are 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 And was a conditure and sauce much affected by antiquity, as was also muria and garum. In common constructions mugil is rendered a mullet, which, notwithstanding, is a different fish from the mugil described by authors; wherein, if we mistake, we cannot so closely apprehend the expression of Juvenal, 1 -Quosdam ventres et mugilis intrat. And misconceive the fish whereby fornicators were so opprobriously and irksomely punished; for the mugil, being some authors.] MS. Sloan. proceeds thus: "for which I know not, perhaps, whether we have any proper name in Eng lish; and other nations nearly imitate the Latin, wherein, &c."-MS. Sloan. 1827, |