CHAPTER XVIII

Of Moles, or Molls.

That Moles are blind and have no eyes, though a common opinion, is received with much variety; some affirming only they have no sight, as _Oppianus_, the Proverb _Talpa Cæcior_, and the word σπαλαχία, or _Talpitas_, which in _Hesychius_ is made the same with _Cæcitas_: some that they have eyes, but no sight, as the text of _Aristotle_ seems to imply; some neither eyes nor sight, as _Albertus_, _Pliny_, and the vulgar opinion; some both eyes and sight, as _Scaliger_, _Aldrovandus_, and some others. Of which opinions the last with some restriction, is most consonant unto truth: for that they have eyes in their head is manifest unto any, that wants them not in his own: and are discoverable, not only in old ones, but as we have observed in young and naked conceptions, taken out of the belly of the Dam. And he that exactly enquires into the cavity of their cranies, may perhaps discover some propagation of nerves communicated unto these parts. But that the humours together with their coats are also distinct (though _Galen_ seem to affirm it) transcendeth our discovery; for separating these little Orbs, and including them in magnifying Glasses, we discerned no more then _Aristotle_ mentions, τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν μέλαινα, that is, a black humour, nor any more if they be broken. That therefore they have eyes we must of necessity affirm; but that they be comparatively incomplete we need not to deny: So _Galen_ affirms the parts of generation in women are imperfect, in respect of those of men, as the eyes of Moles in regard of other Animals; So _Aristotle_ terms them πηρουμένους, which _Gaza_ translates _Oblæsos_, and _Scaliger_ by a word of imperfection _inchoatos_.

Now as that they have eyes is manifest unto sense, so that they have sight not incongruous unto reason; if we call not in question the providence of this provision, that is, to assign the Organs, and yet deny the Office, to grant them eyes and withhold all manner of vision. For as the inference is fair, affirmatively deduced from the action to the Organ, that they have eyes because they see; so is it also from the organ to the action, that they have eyes, therefore some sight designed, if we take the intention of Nature in every species, and except the casual impediments, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are more imperfect then others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of vision, for they will run against things, and hudling forwards fall from high places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there is in them no Cecity, yet more then a Cecutiency; they have sight enough to discern the light, though not perhaps to distinguish of objects or colours; so are they not exactly blind, for light is one object of vision. And this (as _Scaliger_ observeth) might be as full a sight as Nature first intended, for living in darkness under the earth, they had no further need of eyes then to avoid the light; and to be sensible when ever they lost that darkness of earth, which was their natural confinement. And therefore however Translators do render the word of _Aristotle_ or _Galen_, that is, _imperfectos oblæsos_ or _inchoatos_, it is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to finish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect Vision.

And lastly, although they had neither eyes nor sight, yet could they not be termed blind. For blindness being a privative term unto sight, this appellation is not admittible in propriety of speech, and will overthrow the doctrine of privations; which presuppose positive forms or habits, and are not indefinite negations, denying in all subjects, but such alone wherein the positive habits are in their proper Nature, and placed without repugnancy. So do we improperly say a Mole is blind, if we deny it the Organs or a capacity of vision from its created Nature; so when the text of _John_ had said, that person was blind from his nativity, whose cecity our Saviour cured, it was not warrantable in _Nonnus_ to say he had no eyes at all, as in the judgment of _Heinsius_, he describeth in his paraphrase; and as some ancient Fathers affirm, that by this miracle they were created in him. And so though the sense may be accepted, that Proverb must be candidly interpreted, which maketh fishes Mute; and calls them silent which have no voice in Nature.

Now this conceit is erected upon a misapprehension or mistake in the symtomes of vision; men confounding abolishment, diminution and depravement, and naming that an abolition of sight, which indeed is but an abatement. For if vision be abolished, it is called _cæcitas_, or blindness; if depraved and receive its objects erroneously, Hallucination; if diminished, _hebetudo visus_, _caligatio_, or dimness. Now instead of a diminution or imperfect vision in the Mole, we affirm an abolition or total privation; instead of a caligation or dimness, we conclude a cecity or blindness. Which hath been frequently inferred concerning other Animals; so some affirm the Water-Rat is blind, so _Sammonicus_ and _Nicander_ do call the Mus-Araneus the shrew or Ranny, blind: And because darkness was before light, the _Ægyptians_ worshipped the same. So are _Cæciliæ_ or Slow-worms accounted blind, and the like we affirm proverbially of the Beetle; although their eyes be evident, and they will flye against lights, like many other Insects, and though also _Aristotle_ determines, that the eyes are apparent in all flying Insects, though other senses be obscure, and not perceptible at all. And if from a diminution we may infer a total privation, or affirm that other Animals are blind which do not acutely see, or comparatively unto others, we shall condemn unto blindness many not so esteemed; for such as have corneous or horney eyes, as Lobsters and crustaceous Animals, are generally dim-sighted; all Insects that have _antennæ_, or long horns to feel out their way, as Butterflyes and Locusts; or their forelegs so disposed, that they much advance before their heads, as may be observed in Spiders; and if the Eagle were judge, we might be blind our selves. The expression therefore of Scripture in the story of _Jacob_ is surely with circumspection: And it came to pass when _Jacob_ was old, and his eyes were dim, _quando caligarunt oculi_, saith _Jerome_ and _Tremellius_, which are expressions of diminution, and not of absolute privation.

Other concerns there are of Molls, which though not commonly opinioned are not commonly enough considered: As the peculiar formation of their feet, the slender _ossa Iugalia_, and Dogteeth, and how hard it is to keep them alive out of the Earth: As also the ferity and voracity of these animals; for though they be contented with Roots, and stringy parts of Plants, or Wormes under ground, yet when they are above it will sometimes tear and eat one another, and in a large glass wherein a Moll, a Toad, and a Viper were inclosed, we have known the Moll to dispatch them and to devour a good part of them both.