An Antidote Against Atheism/Book II/Chapter XI
Chap. XI.
1. Some general Observables concerning Birds. 2. Of the Cock. 3. Of the Turkey-Cock. 4. Of the Swan, Hern, and other Water-foul. 5. Of the γαμψώνυχα and πληκτροφόρα, and of the peculiarity of Sight in Birds of prey. 6. The Description of the Bird of Paradise according to Cardan. 7. The suffrages of Scaliger, Hernandes and Nierembergius. 8. Aldrovandus his Objections against her seeding on the dew onely, with what they might probably answer thereto. 9. His Objections against her manner of Incubiture, with the like Answer. 10. What Properties they are all five agreed on. 11. In what Pighafetta and Clusius dissent from them all, with the Author's conditional inclination to their judgment. 12. The main Remarkables in the story of the Bird of Paradise. 13. A supply from ordinary & known Examples as convictive or more convictive of a discerning Providence.
1. We pass on now to the consideration of Fowls or Birds. Where omitting the more general Properties, of having two Ventricles, and picking up stones to conveigh them into their second Ventricle, the Gizzern, (which provision and instinct is a supply for the want of teeth;) as also their having no Paps as Beasts have, their young ones being nourished so long in the Shell, that they are presently fit to be fed by the mouthes of the old ones, and unfit to suck by reason of the shape and hardness of their Bills: (which Observations plainly signifie that Nature does nothing ineptly and foolishly, and that therefore there is a Providence) I shall content my self in taking notice onely of the outward frame of some few kinds of this Creature that familiarly come into our sight, such as the Cock, the Duck, the Swan, and the like.
2. I demand therefore concerning the Cock, why he has Spurs at all; or having them, how they come to be so fittingly placed. For he might have had none, or so misplaced that they had been utterly useless, and so his courage and pleasure in fighting had been to no purpose. Nor are his Comb and his Wattles in vain, for they are an Ornament becoming his Martial Spirit; yea an Armature too, for the tugging of those often excuses the more usefull parts of his Head from harm. Thus fittingly does Nature gratifie all Creatures with accommodations sutable to their temper, and nothing is in vain.
3. Nor are we to cavil at the red pugger'd attire of the Turkey, and the long Excrescency that hangs down over his Bill, when he swells with pride and anger: for it may be a Receptacle for his heated blood, that has such free recourse to his Head; or he may please himself in it, as the rude Indians, whose Jewels hang dangling at their Noses. And if the Bird be pleasur'd, we are not to be displeased, being always mindful that Creatures are made to enjoy themselves as well as to serve us; and it is a gross piece of Ignorance and Rusticity to think otherwise.
4. Now for Swans & Ducks, and such like Birds of the Water, it is obvious to take notice how well they are fitted for that manner of life. For those that swim, their Feet are framed for it like a pair of Oars, their Claws being connected with a pretty broad Membrane; and their Necks are long, that they may dive deep enough into the water. As also the Neck of the Hern, and such like Fowl who live of Fishes, and are fain to frequent their Element, who walk on long stilts also like the people that dwell in the Marshes; but their Claws have no such Membranes, for they had been but a hindrance to those kind of Birds that onely wade in the water, and do not swim.
Aristotle is witty, in comparing the *καὶ γίνεται τοῖς τοιούτοις ὁ μὲν αὐχὴν καθάπερ ἀλιευτικὸς κάλαμος, τὸ δὲ ῥύγχος οἷον ὁρμιὰ καὶ τὸ ἄγκιστρον. Arist. de part. Animal. lib. 4. cap. 12. long necks of these Water-fowls to an Angle-Rod, and their long Bills to the Line and Hook. And adds also another observable concerning their long Legs, that their Tails are therefore the shorter: though I do not much admire his reason, who makes them so for want of matter that was spent upon the Legs. But the reason is, because they are Birds less volacious; and besides, the posture of their long Legs cast backwards while they fly, supplies the office of a larger ὀῤῥοπύγιον, and so they are helps to their flying, whenas otherwise they would be a trouble and hindrance. Wherefore, as I said their Tails are so short, not because the Matter was spent upon their Legs, but because their Legs supply the office of the Tail, according to that excellent Aphorism of ** Cap. 13. ejusd. lib. Aristotle, οὔτε περίεργον οὐδὲν οὔτε μύτην ἡ φύτις ποιεῖ, Nature does nothing vainly and superfluousy.
Which is the reason Fishes have no Legs, though they have Fins; and that the Torpedo has no Fins at the sides of his round body, but onely at the sides of his Tail, the breadth and flatness of his body serving him in stead of fore-fins to swim with. But this speculation of the Water-fowls has engaged me amongst the Fishes further then I intended.
5. I shall return, and make a short stay with the Birds, those Martial ones, I mean, and Birds of Prey. In which the Philosopher has observed shortness of Neck as fittest for strength; and that none of the γαμψώνυχα, or Birds with crooked claws, have long Necks, or plain and straight Beaks, but crooked, and that all carnivorous Birds that are forced to hunt for their prey, are such.De part. Animal. l. 4. c. 12. γαμψὸν δὲ τὸ ὠμοφάγον. Χρήσιμον γὰρ πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν τὸ τοιοῦτον, τὴν δὲ τροφὴν ἀναγκαῖον απὸ ζῴων πορίζεαθαι. And therefore their crooked Talons are fit to hold fast the live prey that otherwise would wriggle from them, and their crooked Beaks to tear their tough flesh, (as it were with a sharp hook) that with a plain Beak would not so easily be riven in pieces. But the Bills of Geese and Ducks are quite of another form, but fit for rooting in the ground or mud, or shearing of herbs and grass, and such easie manner of feeding.
That also is ingeniously observed of Aristotle concerning the γαμψώνυχα, that their Bodies are but small in comparison of their Wings, their greatest succour lying in them if they were assaulted: But that more heavy Birds are otherwise provided for defence, namely either by Spurs that grow on their Legs, or by the strength and sharpness of some single cley in their Foot; as I have observed in the Cassoware or Emeu. But he gives it for a Maxime, That the same Birds are never γαμψώνυχα and πληκτροφόρα, never have crooked claws and spurs together. For the Armature of Spurs is fit onely for such Birds as fight on the ground; but the crook-claw'd Birds are scarce well provided to tread upon it. And therefore none of the heavy-bodied Fowl have crooked Talons.
But the greatest observable in Nature concerning these Birds of Prey is the strangeness of their Sight. For by a peculiar frame of their Eye they are inabled to spy their booty from aloft in the Aire, and see best at that distance, scarce see at all near at hand. So they are both the Archer and Shaft; taking aim afar off, and then shooting themselves directly upon the desired Mark, they seise upon the prey having hit it. The works of Providence are infinite: I will close all with the description of that strange Bird of Paradise, for the strangeness has made it notorious.
6. There is a Bird that falls down out of the Aire dead, and is found sometimes in the Molucco Islands, that has no Feet at all. The bigness of her Body and Bill, as likewise the form of them, is much what as a Swallow's; but the spreading out of her Wings and Tail has no less compass then an Eagle's, She lives and breeds in the Aire, comes not near the Earth but for her burial, for the largeness and lightness of her Wings and Tail sustain her without lassitude. And the laying of her Eggs and brooding of her young is upon the back of the Male, which is made hollow, as also the breast of the Female, for the more easie incubation. Also two strings like two Shoe-makers ends come from the hinder parts of the Male, wherewith it is conceived that he is fastned closer to the Female while she hatches her Egges on the hollow of his back. The dew of Heaven is appointed her for food, her Region being too far removed from the approach of Flies and such like Insects.
This is the entire story and Philosophy of this miraculous Bird in Cardan, who professes himself to have seen it no less then thrice, and to have describ'd it accordingly. The Contrivances whereof, is the Matter were certainly true, are as evident Arguments of a Divine Providence, as that Copper-Ring, with the Greek ** The Inscription runs thus; εἰμὶ ἐκεῖνος ἰχθὺς ταύτη λίμνη παντοπρωτος ἐπιτεθεὶς διὰ τοὺ κοσμητοῦ Φεδηρίκου β. τὰς χεῖρας, ἐν τῆ έ. ἡμέρα τοῦ Ὀκτωβρίου. α. σ. λ. This Pike was taken about Hailprun, the Imperial City of Suevia, in the year 1497. Gesner. Inscription upon it, was an undeniable monument of the Artifice and finger of man.
7. But that the reproach of over-much credulity may not lye upon Cardan alone, Scaliger, who lay at catch with him to take him tripping whereever he could, cavils not with any thing in the whole Narration but the bigness of the Wings and littleness of the Body; which he undertakes to correct from one of his own which was sent him by Orvesanus from Java. Nay he confirms what his Antagonist has wrote, partly by History, and partly by Reason; affirming that himself in his own Garden found two little birds with membranaceous wings utterly devoid of Legs, their form was near to that of a Bat's. Nor is he deterr'd from the belief of the perpetual flying of the Manucodiata, by the gaping of the feathers of her wings, (which seem thereby less fit to sustain her body) but further makes the narration probable by what he has observed in Kites hovering in the Aire, as he saith, for a whole hour together without any flapping of their wings or changing place. And he has found also how she may sleep in the Aire from the Example of Fishes, which he has seen sleeping in the water without sinking themselves to the bottome, and without changing place, but lying stock still, Jul. Scalig. de Subtil. exercit. 228. §. 2. & 229. §. 2.pinnulis tantùm nescio quid motiunculæ meditantes, onely wagging a little their fins, as heedlesly and unconcernedly as Horses while they are asleep wag their ears, to displace the flyes that sit upon them. Wherefore Scaliger admitting that the Manucodiata is perpetually on the wing in the Aire, he must of necessity admit also that manner of IncubationCardan. de Subtile. l. 10. that Cardan describes; else how could their generations continue?
Franciscus Hernandes affirms the same with Cardan expresly in every thing: as also ** Nieremberg. Hist. Natur. lib. 10. cap. 13. Eusebius Nierembergius, who is so taken with the story, of this Bird, that he could not abstain from celebrating her miraculous properties in a short but elegant copie of Verses, and does after, though confidently opposed, assert the main matter again in Prose.
8. Such are the Suffrages of Cardan, Scaliger, Hernandes, and Nierembergius. But Aldrovandus rejects that Fable of her feeding on the dew of Heaven, and of her Incubiture on the back of the Male, with much scorn and indignation. And as for the former, his reasons are no waies contemptible, he alledging that Dew is near the Earth, and not at all times of the year, nor unless in clear daies, and that only in the Morning, and that the perpetual flying of the Bird must needs exhaust her spirits; lastly, that Dew is a body not perfectly-enough mixt, or heterogeneal enough for food, nor the hard Bill of the Bird made for such easy uses as sipping this soft moisture.
To which I know not what Cardan and the rest would answer, unless this. That they mean by Dew the more unctuous moisture of the Aire, which as it may not be alike every where, so these Birds maybe fitted with a natural sagacity to finde it out where it is: That there is Dew in this sense day and night (as well as in the morning) and in all seasons of the year; and therefore a constant supply of moisture and spirits to their perpetual flying, which they more copiously imbibe by reason of their exercise: That the thicker parts of this moisture stick and convert into Flesh, and that the lightness of their feathers is so great, that their pains in sustaining themselves are not overmuch: That what is homogeneal & simple to our sight, is fit enough to be the rudiments Generation (all Animals being generated of a kind of clear Crystalline liquour) and that therefore it may be also of Nutrition: That Orpine and Sea House-leek are nourished and grow being hung in the Aire, and that Duck-weed has its root no deeper then near the upper parts of the Water: and lastly, That the Bills of these Birds are for their better flying, by cutting the way, and for better ornament; for the rectifying also and composing of their feathers, while they swim in the Aire with as much ease as Swans do in the Rivers.
9. To his great impatiency against their manner of Incubation they would haply return this Answer; That the way is not ridiculous, but, it maybe, rather necessary, from what Aldrovandus himself not onely acknowledges, but contends for, namely, that they have no Feet at all. For hence it is manifest that they cannot light on the ground, nor any where rest on their bellies and be able to get on wing again; because they cannot creep out of holes of rocks, as Swifts and such like short-footed Birds can, they having no Feet at all to creep with. Besides, as Aristotle well argues concerning the long Legs of certain Water-Fowl, that they were made so long because they were to wade in the water and catch Fish, adding that excellent Aphorism, De part. Animal. lib. 4. c. 12.Τὰ γὰρ ὄργανα πρὸς τὸ ἔργον ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸ ἔργον πρὸς τὰ ὄργανα so may we rationally conclude, will they say, that as the long Legs of these Water-fowl imply a design of their hanting the Water, so want of Legs in these Manucodiata's argue they are never to come down to the Earth, because they can neither stand there, nor goe, nor get off again. And if they never come on the Earth or any other resting-place, where can their Eggs be lay'd or hatched but on the back of the Male?
Besides that Cardan pleases himself with that Antiphonie in Nature, that as the Ostrich being a Bird, yet never shes in the Aire, so this Bird of Paradise should alwayes be in the Aire, and never rest upon the Earth. And as tor Aldrovandus his presumption from the five several Manucodiata's that he had seen, and in which he could observe no such figuration of parts as imply'd a fitness for such a manner of Incubation, Cardan will answer, my self has seen three and Scaliger one, who both agree against you.
10. However, you see that both Cardan, Aldrovandus and the rest do joyntly agree in allowing the Manucodiata no feet, as also in furnishing her with two strings hanging at the hinder parts of her body; which Aldrovandus will have to be in the Female as well as the Male, though Cardan's experience reached not so farre.
11. But Pighafetta and Clusius will easily end this grand controversy betwixt Cardan and Aldrovandus, if it be true which they report, and if they speak of the same kind of Birds of Paradise. For they both affirm that they have Feet a palme long, and that with all confidence imaginable. But Nierembergius on the contrary affirms, that one that was an eye-witness, and that had taken up one of these Birds newly dead, told him that it had no Feet all. Johnston also gives his suffrage with Nierembergius in this, though with Aldrovandius he rejects the manner of their Incubation.
But unless they can raise themselves from the ground by the stifness of some of the feathers of their Wings, or rather by virtue of those nervous strings which they may have a power to stiffen when they are alive, by transfusing spirits into them, and make them serve as well in stead of Legs to raise them from the ground, as to hang upon the boughs of Trees by, (a slight thing being able to raise or hold up their light feathery bodies in the Aire, as a small twig will us in the Water;) I should rather incline to the testimony of Pighafetta and Clusius then to the judgment of the rest, and believe those Mariners that told him, that the Legs are pulled off by them that take them, and exenterate them and drie them in the Sun, for either their private use or sale.
Which Conclusion would the best salve the credit of Aristotle who long since has so peremptorily pronounced, Histor. Animal. l. 1. c. 1.Ὀτι πτηνὸν μόνον οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὤσπερ νευστικὸν μόνον ἐστὶν ἰχθὺς, That there is not any Bird that onely flies, as the Fish onely swims.
12. But thus our Bird of Paradise is quite flown and vanished into a Figment or Fable. But if any one will condole the loss of so convincing an Argument for a Providence that fits one thing to another, I must take the freedom to tell him, that unless he be a greater admirer of Novelty then a searcher into the indissoluble consequences of things, I shall supply his Meditations with what of this nature is as strongly conclusive, and re-mind him that it will be his own reproach if he cannot spy as clear an inference from an ordinary Truth, as from either an Uncertainty or a Fiction. And in this regard the bringing this doubtful narration into play may not justly seem to no purpose, it carrying so serious and castigatory a piece of pleasantry with it.
The Manucodiata's living on the Dew is no part of the Convictiveness of a Providence in this story: But the being so excellently-well provided of Wings and Feathers, tantâ levitatis supellectile exornata, (as Nierembergius speaks) being so well furnishied with all the advantages for lightness, that it seems harder for her to sink down (as he conceits) then to be born up in the Aire; that a Bird thus fitted for that Region should have no Legs to stand on the Earth, this would be a considerable indication of a discriminative Providence that on purpose avoids all uselesness and superfluities.
The other Remarkable, and it is a notorious one, is the Cavity on the back of the Male and in the breast of the Female, for Incubation.
And the third and last, the use of those strings, as Cardan supposes, for the better keeping them together in this Incubiture.
If these considerations of this strange Story strike so strongly upon thee as to convince thee of a Providence, think it humour and not judgment, if what I put in lieu of them, and is but ordinary, have not the same force with thee.
13. For is not the Fishe's wanting Feet, (as we observed before) she being sufficiently supply'd with Fins in so thick an Element as the Water, as great an Argument for a Providence, as so light a Bird's wanting Feet in that thinner Element of the Aire, the extreme lightness of her furniture being approportionated to the thinness of that Element? And is not the same Providence seen, and that as conspicuously, in allotting but very short Legs to those Birds that are called Apodes (both in Plinie and Aristotle,) upon whom she has bestow'd such large and strong Wings, and a power of flying so long and swift, as in giving no Legs at all to the Manucodiata, who has still a greater power of Wing and lightness of body?
And as for the Cavities on the back of the Male and in the breast of the Female, is that design of Nature any more certain and plain then in the Genital parts of Male and Female in all kind of Animals? What greater Argument of Counsel and purpose of fitting one thing for another can there be then that? And if we should make a more inward search into the contrivances of these parts in an ordinary Hen, and consider how or by what force an Egge of so great growth and bigness is transmitted from the Ovarium through the Infundibulum into the processus of the uterus, (the Membranes being so thin and the passage so very small to see to) the Principle of that Motion cannot be thought less then Divine. And if you would compare the protuberant Paps or Teats in the females of Beasts with that Cavity in the Breast of the she-Manucodiata, whether of them think you is the plainer pledge of a knowing and designing Providence?
And lastly, for the Strings that are conceived to hold together the Male and Female in their Incubiture, what a toy is it, if compared with those invisible links and ties that engage ordinary Birds to sit upon their Eggs, they having no visible allurement to such a tedious service?