Emblem 106
	Emblem 106 In emblem 106, Non Invicta Recedo (I do not return without victory), Henry Peacham presents a rhinoceros as a devise for his friend Hannibal Baskervile and as an emblem of tenacity and hard work. The rhinoceros is a very accurate rhinoceros, as many Renaissance portrayals of the beast were, although in the emblem its skin has a more armor-plated look than it does in reality. Peacham begins by giving a bit of natural history about the rhinoceros, commenting that “This Indian beast, by Nature [is] armed so that scarce the Steele that can peirce his scalie side” (Peacham 106, lines 1-2) and describes its hatred of the “The Elephant, his foe” (Peacham line 3), explaining that when the rhinoceros and the elephant fight, the rhinoceros “either doth the conqueror abide, or by his mightie combatant is slaine” (Peacham 4,5). Peacham proceeds to use the rhinoceros as an emblem encouraging those who face great difficulty to “take courage and tread under foote dispaire” (Peacham 9-10), saying “sooner leave your body in the place, then back returne, unletter’d with disgrace” (Peacham 11-12). Because the emblem is addressed to “my Scholler Mr. Hannibal Baskervile,” the difficulties described are academic in nature (“So you must that encounter Want, and Care, To over come your hard, and crabbed skill.” (Peacham 7-8)), but like most emblems the moral can be generalized to many situations. The image of the rhinoceros as an unstoppable juggernaut intent on its goal lends itself especially well to Peacham’s moral (and the moral still strikes a chord today) because of the unusual accuracy of the description of the rhinoceros. Our knowledge of the rhinoceros and a learned person of the Renaissance’s idea of it are surprisingly close, especially given the strangeness of many of the other bits of natural history Peacham presents. Peacham’s rhinoceros is, in fact, fairly inaccurate compared to many other Renaissance representations of it, because the emblem is based on an earlier one by Paulus Iovius, so the image is at least secondhand. A famous woodcut by Albrecht Durer was based on a rhinoceros belonging to the King of Portugal, and is remarkably accurate. Conrad Gesner also drew the same rhinoceros, with similar accuracy, and his image was used in Edward Topsell’s Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes and Serpents. Durer’s rhinoceros: Gesner’s rhinoceros (click for full size): A photograph: A comparison of Gesner’s with the photograph: In both cases, the images are remarkably realistic, only slightly distorting the proportions of the beast and somewhat over-emphasizing the armor-like qualities of its hide. The entry on the rhinoceros in Topsell’s Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes and Serpents is in many places not only accurate but nearly scientific, carefully building a case for the reality of the rhinoceros (or rhinocerot, as Topsell occasionally calls it), perhaps because he realized that, appearing as it did in a book along with such fantastic creatures as the Lamia, his account of the beast might not be completely trusted. He carefully logs previous authors who wrote about the animal, listing “Pliny, Solinus, Diodorus, Aelianus, Lampridus, and others” (Topsell p. 594), and finishing up by pointing out that the picture was “taken by Gesner from the beast alive at Lysbon, Portugale, before many witnesses, both Marchants and others” (Topsell 594, 596). The information about the animal is generally factual, but peppered with the strange fancies of Renaissance natural history as, for instance, when Topsell interrupts his discussion of how the name rhinoceros comes from the Greek for “horned-nose” to point out that contrary to some opinions, the Rhinoceros is not the same thing as the Unicorn, and that the Unicorn will be discussed later in the book. But perhaps because he considers the rhinoceros “the second wonder in nature, namely a beast every way admirable both for the outward shape, quantity, and greatnesse, and also for the inward courage, disposition, and mildness” (Topsell 594). Topsell’s descriptions are for the most part quite accurate, generally relying on first-hand accounts or other reliable sources. One of his sources, Pliny, gave a succinct and largely factual description in his Historie of the World, Book VIII, despite repeating the legend that the rhinoceros battles elephants and sharpens its horn in preparation: Rhinoceros, with one horne in his snout or muzzle. This is a second enemie by nature to an Elephant. He fileth that horne of his against hard stones, and maketh it sharpe against he should fight; and in his conflict with the Elephant, he layeth principally at his bellie, which he knoweth to be more tender than the rest. He is full as long as he, his legges are much shorter, and of the boxe colour. (Pliny, Chapter 20) Another source, Solonius, less accurately said that the rhinoceros was [A] Monstar that belloweth horriblie, bodyed like a horse, footed like an Oliphant, tayled like a Swyne, and headed like a Stagge. His horne sticketh out of the midds of hys forehead, of a wonderfull brightnesse about foure foote long, so sharp, that whatsoever he pusheth at, he striketh it through easily. Hee is never caught alive: killed he may be, but taken he cannot be. (Solinus, 52, chap. 63) Topsell specifically refutes Solonius's errors in the position and nature of the horn, and tacitly denies the last portion by mentioning that one lived in Portugal in captivity. In his own Historie Topsell references these writers and others on the nature of the rhinoceros, and these quotes are largely correct: “Pliny maketh it equall in length to an Elephant, some make it longer but withal they say it is lower, and hath shorter legges...The skinne is so firme and hard that no dart is able to pierce it upon his nose there grows a sharp hard horne, crooking a little towards the crowne of the head” (596). In his opening comments on the animal Topsell explains that while we know a great deal about such common animals as dogs and mice, despite the amazing appearance of the rhinoceros we know very little. Topsell blames this lack of knowledge on the Fall of Man, and hopes that by leaving the rhinoceros somewhat mysterious his reader might “consider how great a losse unto him was his fall in Paradise, who before knew both God, himself and all creatures but since neither knoweth God as he should or himself as he shall nor the creatures as he did know then” (594). This resonates with the ‘Book of Nature’ concept, which taught that nature held moral lessons from God, but Topsell’s attempts at accuracy here are a far cry from claims that, for instance, the Beaver chewed off its own genitals when pursued as a lesson that we should not love treasures more than our lives. Topsell dismisses Oppainus’ claim that “there was never any distinction of sexes in the Rhinoceros” as ridiculous, pointing out that “it were impossible that the breede should continue without females” (597), but he also attacks Eucherius for saying “that the Rhinocerot hath two hornes on his nose,” not realizing that certain breeds of do indeed and have two horns, and other errors do creep in: “his back is distinguished with certain purple spots upon a yellow ground.” “upon [the skin] appeare many divisions, like the shelles of a tortoise” and, once again, the legend found in Peacham’s emblem that “there is not only a natural discord betwixt these beasts and Elephants but a natural enmity” (596). In a sense the rhinoceros problem is a microcosm of the shifting nature of philosophy, especially natural philosophy, during the Renaissance. It seemed a natural and obvious thing that the two largest beasts they knew should fight, especially since elephants and rhinoceroses have tusks and horns respectively, and this warfare would also serve to highlight the rhinoceros’ tenacity, feeding into idea that emblems like Peacham’s did not create the moral, but actually catalogued God’s insertion of moral examples into the structure of nature. At the same time, Renaissance scholars were beginning to develop the idea that one should actually observe the facts one reported instead of assuming what God must have logically done; the idea that Topsell expressed when he said that “I will not lie to bring in man in love and admiration with God and his works, for God needeth not the lies of man.” (Topsell 594) On one side was a mindset that felt if a rhinoceros has a thick hide it must be drawn as wearing plate armour, bolts and all, and on the other was a viewpoint that counted the rhinoceros’s toes and carefully described it in relation to known animals. This crisis of scientific versus emblematic perspectives was one of the defining characteristics of the Renaissance. --John Altum The Emblem. Home.   Citations: Topsell, Edward. The Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes. London: William Iaggard, 1607.  Many Thanks to Professor T. Billings for his help in uncovering Topsell's Historie. Peacham, Henry. Minerva Brittanica. London: 1612. Pliny the Younger, History of the World. Translated into English by Philemon Holland. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/index.html Cited in Eason http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudo323.html: Solinus, in the translation of Golding (1587).