History of Monsters. 355

So much for those who, with great liberty in ancient fables, described sea horses as being part equine and part fish. Just as they imagined doves, peacocks, and eagles pulling the chariots of their deities—Venus, Juno, and Jupiter, respectively—they likewise wished for Neptune to be led through the waters by these "hippopotami." Thus, following the whims of painters and to the great wonder of onlookers, they devised that equine form, which seemed to belong more to a sea-horse (*hippocampus*) than a river-horse (*hippopotamus*). Indeed, a dolphin's tail has never been observed on a hippopotamus, nor did the Romans ever see any other "river horse" besides the one we discussed in the *History of Finger-Footed Quadrupeds*. Consequently, many have asserted that Roman ambition gave rise to this figure; for, to manifest their dominion over both land and sea to all, they arranged for two animals from each element—namely the horse and the dolphin—to be depicted joined together. Many, marveling at such a figure and thinking it a single animal, called this monster a "sea horse." Now, we should not be gripped by wonder if the proposed illustration achieves some degree of truth.

We shall further reinforce this opinion by adding the image of a more terrifying aquatic monster mentioned by Gessner, who attributes the likeness to a painter who saw the creature alive in Antwerp. The head of the monster seems to display something of a fury, for it is equipped with a double horn and marked by very prominent ears. Its arms were not unlike human ones, while the rest of the body represented the form of a fish. It was captured in the Illyrian Sea when it approached the shore to snatch a young boy staying there. Observing it, fishermen wounded it with stones; the monster fled, struck by a lethal wound, but shortly afterward returned to the shore it had left and died. The features of this monster are presented to be seen in the illustration.

We subjoin another monster, much more marvelous than the last, according to the account of Rondelet. He received its likeness from Gisbert, a German physician, who himself had received it by letter from Amsterdam. The letter affirmed that in the year 1531, such a sea monster was seen in Poland, bearing a resemblance to the basic form of a bishop’s attire, and it was brought to the King of Poland. Indeed, it seemed to indicate by certain signs that it desired to return to the sea; when it was finally led back there, it threw itself into the water. For this reason, Rondelet said he omitted many things that could be told about this monster because he considered them fabulous. He adds that he presents the image of the monster exactly as he received it; whether it is ultimately true or not, he dares neither fully affirm nor fully deny. In confirmation of this assertion, Belon adds these words: "Nor should we overlook what is written in the Dutch annals about the 'Bishop Fish,' which Cornelius of Amsterdam wrote to the physician Gilbert in Rome was captured near Poland in 1531 and presented to the King of Poland. The size of its body, its face, and its attire were entirely such as we see in the figure of some bishop dressed in his miter and other ornaments." Thus far Belon.

Since there are so many miracles of nature playing at will upon the earth, so too in the sea, because of their rarity and variety of form, nearly incredible monsters of that same craftsmanship are observed. Indeed, who does not marvel at Tritons, Sirens, Nereids, and many other monsters of this kind? Many used to think they were fables, yet it was written above that such things have occasionally been seen. We may, therefore, rightly sing this distich:

Neither the heavens nor the rugged earth nourish so many monsters, As the salt depths hide within their secret vaults.