The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1Browne, Thomas, Sir
Religion
The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1
Browne, Thomas, Sir
Christianity; Ethics; Religion and medicine
Illiterate heads have been led on by the name [SN: Μάνδρα, Spelunca.],
which in the first syllable expresseth its Representation; but others
have better observed the Laws of _Etymology_, and deduced it from a word
of the same language, because it delighteth to grow in obscure and shady
places; which derivation, although we shall not stand to maintain, yet
the other seemeth answerable unto the Etymologies of many Authors, who
often confound such nominal Notations. Not to enquire beyond our own
profession, the Latine Physitians which most adhered unto the _Arabick_
way, have often failed herein; particularly _Valescus de Tarranta_, [SN:
_In the old Edition._] a received Physitian, in whose _Philonium_ or
Medical practice these may be observed: _Diarhea_, saith he, _Quia
pluries venit in die. Herisepela, quasi hærens pilis, Emorrohis, ab
emach sanguis & morrohis quod est cadere. Lithargia à Litos quod est
oblivio & Targus morbus, Scotomia à Scotus quod est videre, & mias
musca. Opthalmia ab opus Græce quod est succus, & Talmon quod est
occulus. Paralisis, quasi læsio partis. Fistula à fos sonus & stolon
quod est emissio, quasi emissio soni vel vocis._ Which are derivations
as strange indeed as the other, and hardly to be parallel'd elsewhere;
confirming not only the words of one language with another, but creating
such as were never yet in any.
The received distinction and common Notation by Sexes, hath also
promoted the conceit; for true it is, that _Herbalists_ from ancient
times have thus distinguished them, naming that the Male, whose leaves
are lighter, and Fruit and Apples rounder; but this is properly no
generative division, but rather some note of distinction in colour,
figure or operation. For though _Empedocles_ affirm, there is a mixt,
and undivided Sex in Vegetables; and _Scaliger_ upon _Aristotle_ [SN: De
Plantis.], doth favourably explain that opinion; yet will it not consist
with the common and ordinary acception, nor yet with _Aristotles_
definition. For if that be Male which generates in another, that Female
which procreates in it self; if it be understood of Sexes conjoined, all
Plants are Female; and if of disjoined and congressive generation, there
is no Male or Female in them at all.
[Sidenote: _The impostures touching the Root of Mandrake._]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account