A Paper read at a Meeting of the C.E.Y.M.S. Literary Class, on Monday, March 12th, 1894. [121]

I am glad to redeem my promise to read a paper before this Literary Class, during this present session, upon one of our most noted British Authors, and I have thought that I could not do better than to bring before your notice one of those who literally resided at our very doors; and whose works—if not so generally read as those of many other writers—are not the less deserving of careful study, and will well repay any time spent upon their perusal. In fact, I make bold to say that the more they are studied, the more does the great learning displayed in them impress itself upon us, and the more also does the high moral nature of the Author make itself felt. I could well have wished that this brief notice had been more elaborate and more worthy of the Author, but I may well plead the great public demands which have recently been made upon my time; and which often have been so numerous and so continuous, as to leave but little time for literary work or thought, or indeed for anything but the ordinary duties of each day as it comes round. The Author whom I have selected for notice this evening is Sir Thomas Browne, long a resident in this city, for many years a practising physician here; a gentleman who enjoyed the highest reputation even in his own lifetime, as a man of high character and great literary attainments; who enjoyed personal and literary acquaintanceship with many of the greatest men of his day; and whose works attracted the notice of the learned and the great from the first moment of their public appearance.

The house in which Sir Thomas Browne resided is the one immediately opposite to the entrance to this building; and a portion of it is now the Norfolk and Norwich Savings Bank, just across the street. I am unable to say how far Sir Thomas Browne’s house extended at the time of his occupation of it; undoubtedly many of the buildings to the north and east of it have been erected since his time; and as we are told of his extensive garden adjoining it, it is probable that this latter extended far up to, or possibly even on to Orford Hill. It is also believed that he had another garden somewhere upon Mousehold.

Sir Thomas Browne was not a native of Norwich, for he appears to have been born in London in 1605. He settled in practice here in 1634 or 1636, and continued to reside here until 1682, when he died at the age of 77 years. He was buried in the chancel of St. Peter Mancroft church in this city, and a tablet to his memory hangs on the adjoining wall, with a notable inscription, which any of you can go and see for yourselves, but which is too long for me to reproduce here.

I am able to show you an engraving from a portrait of him which long hung neglected in the Vestry Room of St. Peter’s, but which now occupies a more worthy position on the walls of the Board Room of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. [123] I can also show you a copy of the 7th edition of his works, dated 1686.

Sir Thomas Browne was knighted in 1671, on the occasion of a visit of King Charles II. to this city. The King at first offered to confer this honour upon the Mayor of Norwich, but his worship declining the compliment, Dr. Thomas Browne was knighted in his stead.

I have said that Sir Thomas Browne was buried in the Chancel of St. Peter Mancroft Church. Here he appears to have rested in peace for nearly two hundred years, when in 1840—as recorded by Mr. Fitch—(Proceedings of the ArchÆological Institute, 1847) “Some workmen who were employed in digging a vault in the Chancel of the Church of St. Peter’s Mancroft, Norwich, accidentally broke, with a blow of the pick axe, the lid of a coffin, which proved to be that of one whose residence within its walls conferred honour on Norwich in olden times.” “The bones of the skeleton were found to be in good preservation, particularly those of the skull; the hair profuse and perfect, of a fine auburn colour, similar to that in the portrait presented to the parish by Dr. Howman” (who in later times occupied his house, now the Savings Bank).

The coffin plate bore a Latin inscription, which was translated by the late Mr. Firth, of this city, thus—“The very distinguished man, Sir Thomas Browne, Knight, Doctor of Medicine, aged 77 years, who died on the 19th of October, in the year of our Lord, 1682, sleeping in this coffin of lead, by the dust of his alchemic body transmuted it into a coffer of gold.”

You are all, doubtless, familiar with the fact that the skull of this great man was then taken away, and finally presented to the Museum of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, where, along with a lock of his hair, it still remains, carefully preserved and held in high honour. And you have doubtless heard and read of the efforts which have recently been made to re-obtain possession of it and again consign it to its mother earth. The numerous letters and papers which have appeared in the public press, discussing this question, are also fresh in all your minds, and give nearly every aspect of the matter. One good thing at least they have affected, and that is, to bring Sir Thomas Browne’s name into greater prominence than for many long years. And I have no doubt that this incident, together with a reviving interest in the works of this great Norwich writer and thinker, have resulted in his being more famous to-day in Norwich than at any former period since that of his actual residence here and of the years immediately following his decease.

Much has been made, during this discussion, of a paragraph in Sir Thomas Browne’s disquisition on urn-burial. He is said to have, almost prophetically, described this incident of the removal of his own skull from his tomb, when he wrote “to be knaved out of our graves, to have our skulls made drinking bowls, and our bones turned into pipes, to delight and sport our enemies, are tragical abominations escaped in burning burials.” But, I think the whole force of this extract is removed by turning to Wilkin’s edition, where this passage runs, “to be gnawed (not knaved) out of our graves,” which clearly gives it a very different meaning.

Sir Thomas Browne married a few years after settling in Norwich (in 1641), a daughter of Edward Mileham, Esq., of Burlingham St. Peter, in this county, and granddaughter of John Hobart, Esq., by whom he had ten children. Of these ten, his eldest son, Dr. Edward Browne, became very eminent in his profession. He practised in London, where he was made Physician to King Charles II., and he was afterwards appointed Physician to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and later became President of the Royal College of Physicians.

Sir Thomas Browne appears to have enjoyed for many years a very considerable practice in this city. But he was also an archÆologist, a naturalist, a studier of plants and animals. He had as personal friends or literary correspondents such men as Sir Robert Paston, Sir Hamon L’Estrange, Sir Kenelm Digby, John Evelyn, Sir William Dugdale, and Bishop Hall, and he appears to have found time to carry on a very large literary correspondence. He lived in Norwich from 1634 to 1682, which included the dangerous times of the Stuarts, of the Long Parliament, and of the Commonwealth. But he appears to have been a staunch Royalist. He was knighted, as I have said, by King Charles II., on the occasion of his visiting Norwich in 1671.

Later in this year he was visited by the well-known Evelyn, whose oft quoted passage respecting him runs thus—“My Lord Henry Howard . . . would needs have me go with him to Norwich, promising to convey me back after a day or two; this, as I could not refuse, I was not hard to be persuaded to, having a desire to see that famous scholar and physitian, Dr. T. Browne, author of the ‘Religio Medici,’ and ‘Vulgar Errors,’ etc., now lately knighted.” And he adds, “Next morning I went to see Sir Tho. Browne (with whom I had some time corresponded by letter, tho’ I had never seen him before). His whole house and garden being a paradise and cabinet of rarities, and that of the best collections, especially medails, books, plants, and natural things. Amongst other curiosities, Sir Thomas had a collection of the eggs of all the foule and birds he could procure. . . . He led me to see all the remarkable places of this ancient citty being one of the largest, and certainly, after London, one of the noblest of England, for its venerable Cathedrall, number of stately churches, cleanesse of the streetes, and buildings of flints, so exquisitely headed and squared, as I was much astonished at. . . . The Castle is an antique extent of ground, which now they call Marsfield, and would have been a fitting area to have placed the ducal palace on. The suburbs are large, the prospects sweete, with other amenities, not omitting the flower gardens, in which all the inhabitants excel. The fabric of stuffs brings a vast trade to this populous towne.”

Sir Thomas Browne was, as is evident from even a cursory study of his works, a great student. He understood most of the European languages, Latin and Greek critically, and a little Hebrew, and it is quite certain that he must have studied carefully, not only the Christian Scriptures, but also the works of many of the ancient fathers of the Christian Church. His memory of what he had read must have been prodigious. But though he was so learned a man, a traveller, a student of languages, a naturalist, a medical practitioner, and in many respects doubtless ahead of his time, yet a sad blot exists upon his generally great character, and scientific acumen. I allude to the evidence which he gave at Bury St. Edmund’s, in 1664, at the trial before Lord Chief Baron Hale, of two women for witchcraft. Sir Thomas appears to have been a firm believer in witches and witchcraft, and the declaration which he made to this effect “was thought to have had no small influence in occasioning the condemnation of the wretched victims, whose execution was one of the latest instances of the kind by which the English annals are disgraced.”

After his death his widow resided in his house until her death. Then it was occupied by Dr. Howman, who presented the portrait of the knight to St. Peter’s Mancroft. A large portion of his letters and manuscripts passed into the hands of Sir Hans Sloane, and are now in our National Library at the British Museum.

During this present century the house has been dismantled and converted to its new purposes, and its fittings dispersed. A handsome carved mantel-piece, removed from one of the rooms by the builder, is now in the possession of Mr. Henry Birkbeck, of Stoke; and the very keys of the house were long treasured as relics by the late Mr. Barker, of Thorpe Hamlet.

But I must not dwell longer upon his personality and personal history, interesting though they be, in the light of his being a Norwich man, and the most famous of Norwich authors. If you wish to know more of his biography, you will find it all excellently given in the memoir of him written by Dr. Samuel Johnson, and which, together with a supplemental memoir by Simon Wilkin, is prefaced to the edition of his works in three volumes, published by Bohn in 1852, and edited by Wilkin.

We must next consider to what Sir Thomas Browne owes his great literary fame, and upon what his claims rest for being one of this city’s most eminent citizens.

Sir Thomas Browne was a very voluminous writer, and he touched a great variety of subjects. The greatest of his works, the one which was published soon after his settling in Norwich, was undoubtedly that to which he gave the name of “Religio Medici”—the religion of a physician; implying thereby, not “that physicians have a religion to themselves, but that physicians have religion as well as other men.” It immediately attracted the attention of the most learned in the land, and it is certainly the production upon which his literary fame most largely depends. It is quaintly written, full of odd phrases, original thoughts, and peculiarities of diction, but equally full of fine sentiments and expressions of confident religious faith. It is a work often so quaint in its diction, so stilted in its modes of expression (as indeed was common in those days), and so interlarded with specialized or new-coined words, that it is somewhat difficult to read and understand. But its high qualities and beauties are so great that it richly repays the trouble of mastering its style; and I venture to assert that the greatness of its sentiments and thoughts grows upon one by perusal, and that the oftener it is read the more greatly will it be appreciated.

To show what was thought of it from the first, it had, by the year 1736, passed through fourteen editions, and had also been translated into Latin, French, Dutch and German.

Now let me briefly quote a few passages from this “Religio Medici,” to show the views and opinions upon the Christian religion which are therein set forth.

First, Sir T. Browne says, “I dare without usurpation assume the honourable style of a Christian, not that I merely owe this title to the font, or any education . . . but that having in my riper years and confirmed judgement, seen and examined all, I find myself obliged by the principles of grace, and the law of mine own reason, to embrace no other name but this.”

Again, whilst professing himself a member of the reformed faith, he shows the great charity of his mind by saying “I could never divide myself from any man upon the difference of an opinion, or be angry with his judgement for not agreeing with me in that from which perhaps within a few days I should dissent myself.”

And speaking of Death, he says “I hold the same conceit (of the soul) that we all do of the body, that it should rise again,” and in all humility he adds “so that I might enjoy my Saviour at the last, I could with patience be nothing almost unto eternity.”

As for the many difficulties and mysteries of our religion, he expresses an almost blind faith in all that is written. He writes “I desire to exercise my faith in the difficultest point: for to credit ordinary and visible objects, is not faith, but pursuasion;” again, he craves by faith “that greater blessing pronounced to all that believe and saw not,” adding “God hath not made a creature that can comprehend him; ’tis a privilege of his own nature. ‘I am, that I am,’ was his own definition unto Moses; and ’twas a short one to confound mortality, that durst question God, or ask him what he was.”

Speaking of natural, as a confirmation of revealed religion, he says “there are two books from whence I collect my divinity. Besides that written one of God, another of his servant nature, that universal and publick manuscript, that lies expansed unto the eyes of all.” . . . “Nor do I so forget God as to adore the name of nature, which I define not, with the schools, to be the principle of motion and rest, but that straight and regular line, that settled and constant course the wisdom of God hath ordained the actions of his creatures, according to their several kinds.”

And as a comfort to the comparatively weak, he says, in speaking of Christian martyrs, “’Tis not in the power of every honest faith to proceed thus far, or to pass to Heaven through the flames. . . . Yet men may, notwithstanding, in a peaceful way, truly adore their Saviour, and have, no doubt, a faith acceptable in the eyes of God.”

These extracts are quite sufficient to show you the tone in which this great work was written; and to disprove the allegation made by some against Browne of having written an Atheistical book. It is remarkable that it was placed by the Roman Church in the Index Expurgatorius.

Sir Thomas Browne wrote yet another religious or semi-religious book, which was entitled “Christian Morals.” It is very different in style from the one just mentioned, and the manner is more that of proverbs or aphorisms.

He commences by saying “Tread softly and circumspectly in this . . . narrow path of goodness; pursue virtue virtuously; leaven not good actions, nor render virtue disputable.” Again, “In this virtuous voyage of thy life . . . let not disappointment cause despondency, nor difficulty despair.” “Rest not in an ovation, but a triumph over thy passions. Let anger walk hanging down the head; let malice go manacled, and envy fettered after thee.”

“Be charitable before wealth make thee covetous, and lose not the glory of the mite. If riches increase, let thy mind hold pace with them, and think it not enough to be liberal, but munificent. Though a cup of cold water may not be without its reward, yet stick not thou for wine and oil for the wounds of the distressed.”

“Let not the law of thy country be the non ultra of thy honesty. . . . Join Gospel righteousness with legal right.”

“Let not the sun go down upon thy wrath, but write thy wrongs in ashes. Draw the curtain of night upon injuries, shut them up in the tower of oblivion, and let them be as though they had not been. To forgive our enemies, yet hope that God will punish them, is not to forgive enough.”

“Think not that always good which thou thinkest thou can always make good, nor that concealed which the sun doth not behold. There is no darkness unto conscience; which can see without light, and in the deepest obscurity give a clear draught of things, which the cloud of dissimulation hath concealed from all eyes.”

As final quotations from “Christian Morals” let me give these sentences, “Bright thoughts, clear deeds, constancy, fidelity, bounty, and generous honesty, are the gems of noble minds,”—and

“Live happy in the Elysium of a virtuously composed mind. . . . Tranquility is better than jollity, and to appease pain than to invent pleasure. . . . Forget not the capital end, and frustrate not the opportunity of once living. . . . Think every day the last, and live always beyond thy account.”

I want neither to tire you, nor to read you a sermon at second-hand. So having now shown you the religious side of Browne’s character, let me give you some idea of his learning and acquirements and general industry.

In his grand treatise on Hydriotaphia or Urn-burial, which he wrote consequent upon the discovery of some ancient sepulchral urns at Old Walsingham, in Norfolk, he exemplifies the great stores of knowledge which by his reading and memory he had accumulated. He quaintly prefaces this treatise by saying, “Who knows the fate of his bones, or how often he is to be buried? Who hath the oracle of his ashes, or whither they are to be scattered?” And then he goes on to describe the various modes of disposal of the dead in various ages, and among different nations. For instance, he says that “Carnal interment or burying was of the elder date,” as shown by the older examples of Abraham and the Patriarchs. “But the practice of burning was also of great antiquity, and of no slender extent.” And he illustrates this by the Grecian funerals of Homer; the funeral pyre of Hector; and by early records of the practice in various countries of Asia, in Rome itself, and in different countries of both Europe and Africa.

Touching the various modes of disposal of the dead, he says, “The Indian Brachmans thought it the noblest way to end their days in fire.

“The Chaldeans abhorred fire.

“The Egyptians objected to the merciless consuming of their bodies by fire, but preserved them, by precious embalments, depositure in dry earths, or handsome enclosure in glasses.

“The Scythians, who swore by wind and sword, declined all interment, and made their graves in the air.

“The Icthyophagi, or fish-eating nations about Egypt, affected the sea for their grave.

“The Chinese, without cremation of their bodies, made use of trees, and much burning, while they plant a pine tree by their grave.

“The Jews usually buried their dead, but occasionally admitted cremation, as when Jabesh burnt the body of Saul, and as was their practice in times of pestilence.

“The Christians have preferred the practice of the Patriarchs, returning their bodies, not to ashes, but to dust.”

He then goes on to discuss the various customs in this respect of the successive inhabitants of England; and he concludes his learned and interesting treatise by saying, as to the hopes of Christians, and the comparative unimportance of the mode of sepulture, “To subsist in lasting monuments, to live in their productions, . . . was large satisfaction unto old expectations. But all this is nothing in the metaphysicks of true belief. To live indeed is to be again ourselves, which being not only a hope, but an evidence in noble believers, ’tis all one to lie in St. Innocents’ Churchyard, or in the sands of Egypt. Ready to be anything, in the ecstasy of being ever, and as content with six foot (of earth) as the Moles of Adrianus.”

But I must hurry on, and next very briefly call your attention to another of his great works, that which he styled Pseudodoxia Epidemica, or “Enquiries into many received tenets and presumed truths, which, examined, prove but vulgar and common errors.”

These “errors,” which he treats of in papers or treatises of various lengths, are very numerous, and for even a cursory knowledge of them I must refer you to the book itself.

To give you an idea of the subjects, I will only mention a few of the titles of the errors which he proceeds to refute:—

That crystal is nothing else but ice strongly congealed,
That an elephant hath no joints,
That a pigeon hath no gall,
Of the Phoenix,
Of the Basilisk,
That a Salamander lives in the fire,
That an ostrich digesteth iron.

Or, to take another class of subjects—

That snails have no eyes,
Of the picture of Moses with horns,
That the forbidden fruit was an apple,

and so forth.But though his tracts on these “vulgar errors” may, in many instances—and looked at by the light of our present knowledge (and we must never forget the immense difference in the scientific knowledge of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries)—appear not only quaint, but almost trivial, yet even where the conclusion to the question discussed may appear to be self-evident, and the reasoning thrown away, we often see an amount of learning and research displayed which strikes us as quite remarkable. For example, in discussing the “vulgar error,” that the ostrich digesteth iron, he quotes the following writers in reference to it:—Rhodiginus, Johannes Langius, Aristotle, Oppianus, Pliny, Œlian, Leo Africanus, Fernelius, Riolanus, Albertus Magnus, and Ulysses Aldrovandus—a list which may well make us stand astonished at the extent of his studies, and cause us to say of him, even in such small matters, “Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit.” It is almost needless to add that in this case Sir Thomas arrived at the common-sense conclusion that although ostriches may swallow iron they do not digest it.

His greatest works were undoubtedly those which I have already mentioned. But he wrote also a very noted book, entitled the Garden of Cyrus, in which he discussed learnedly, and often fancifully, numerous questions connected with the vegetable world. He reviewed the practice of Horticulture, and the arrangements of gardens even from the first garden mentioned—that of Eden in Paradise. He makes reference to the hanging gardens of Babylon; the classical gardens of the Hesperides and of Alcinous; and to the gardens and orchards, with their pools of water, of King Solomon. And he discusses the various forms in which ancient gardens were presumably laid out—dwelling largely upon the quincuncial [135a] arrangements probably adopted. The whole book teems also with allusions, showing his minute acquaintance with vegetable phenomena.

As to King Cyrus, he says, “All stories do look upon Cyrus as the splendid and regular planter.”

Sir Thomas Browne also wrote Some account of the tombs and monuments in the Cathedral Church of Norwich; and many papers on the birds, and fishes, and vegetable life of Norfolk and other parts. [135b] But I should indeed weary you, were I merely to enumerate to you the bare titles of the long list of tracts and papers which his fertile brain produced.

Amongst his Letters, those to his sons, which will be found in Wilkin’s Edition of his works, are worthy of mention as illustrating the special bent of his mind, his wide range of thought, the peculiarity of his advice, and the strength of his family attachments.

The stilted and complimentary, as well as roundabout, epistolary style of those days is well known. Thus, in writing to Mr. Evelyn, he begins: “Worthy Sir,—In obedience unto the commands of my noble friend, Mr. Paston, and the respects I owe unto so worthy a person as yourself,” or again, addressing Dr. Merritt, he commences: “Most honoured Sir,—I take the boldness to salute you as a person of singular worth and learning, and whom I very much respect and honour,” or again, “Honoured Sir,—I am sorry that I have had diversions of such necessity, as to hinder my more sudden salute since I received your last.”

To his sons he writes many letters. In these he addresses his eldest son Edward as “Dear Sonne,” or “Dear Sonne Edward;” but those to his younger son Thomas, always commenced “Honest Tom” or “Tom” only.

Much of his advice to “Honest Tom” is peculiar although essentially sound and practical. Thus he advises him, when a young man in France, in this fashion: “I would be glad you had a good handsome garb of your body, . . . and take up a commendable boldness, without which you will never be fit for anything.” “Live soberly and temperately, the heat of the place (Xaintes) will otherwise mischief you, and keep within in the heat of the day.” “You may stay your stomach with little pastrys some times in cold mornings, for I doubt sea larks will be too dear a collation and drawe too much wine down.”

Again, later on, he writes: “Bee sober and complacent. If you quit periwigs it would be better, and more for your credit.” “Hee that goes to warre must patiently submit unto the various accidents thereof.” And that this “Honest Tom” was a worthy son and a fine English sailor we learn from a passage in another letter to him at a latter period, when a lieutenant of his Majesty’s ship the “Marie Rose.” He writes to his son: “Mr. Scudamore, your sober and learned chaplaine, in your voyage with Sir Jeremie Smith, gives you no small commendations for a sober, studious, courageous, and diligent person; that he had not met with any of the fleet like you, so civile, observing, and diligent to your charge, with the reputation and love of all the shippe; and that without doubt you would make a famous man and a reputation to your country.”

We can only regret that this promising son did not live to fulfil the high expectations formed of him.

Finally reference may be made to a Letter, because stated to have been previously unpublished, which may be found in the “Eastern Counties Collectanea,” in which he exhaustively discusses the nature of a large fish-bone dug up at Cunnington, and which had been sent to him for his opinion upon it.

To sum up—Sir Kenelm Digby writes to Sir T. Browne, of the Religio Medici as “Your excellent piece, . . . of so weighty subjects, and so strongly penned.”

Dr. Johnson says of him “There is no science of which he does not discover some skill; and scarce any kind of knowledge profane or sacred, obstruse or elegant, which he does not appear to have cultivated with success.”

Carlyle says “The conclusion of the essay on urn burial is absolutely beautiful; a still elegiac mood, so soft, so solemn and tender, like the song of some departed saint flitting faint under the everlasting canopy of night—an echo of deepest meaning from the great and mighty nations of the dead. Browne must have been a good man.”

Evelyn, as I have already quoted, writes of him as “That famous scholar and physician.”

And to come nearer home, the late Captain Blakiston, in a paper read before the ArchÆological Institute, in Norwich, in 1847, writes of him as a “Great Antiquarian and eminent citizen; . . . a quaint and original thinker;” and as “Leaving behind him a shining reputation.”

By general consent Sir Thomas Browne was recognised, not only as a “curious thinker,” but as a man of remarkable and original talent even in his lifetime, and the same reputation continued after his death. His works have always been regarded as those of a strong and original thinker, and they have never been held in higher estimation than at the present time. And I think I may fairly repeat that the more his writings are studied the more does their learning and power impress itself upon our understanding. With many faults, with many shortcomings—as judged by the standard of the present day—they yet remain the monument of genius, and worthy to be classed amongst the highest productions of great and cultivated intellects.

Norwich may be well proud of so great a citizen—of one whose memory is held in higher and yet higher esteem, and who is justly regarded as one of the greatest of her literary men.

Perhaps the only drawback to our satisfaction is the fact that he was not a native of Norwich. And in this sense we cannot claim him as our own, as we are proud to claim so many of our citizens, who have distinguished themselves in literature, in science, in botany, in departments of natural history, in medicine, and in painting. But Norwich can look upon him with pride as an adopted son, as one who elected to live the whole of his working life in this city; and who identified himself so absolutely with it, that his name is inseparable from it, and who will be known for all time as Sir Thomas Browne, of Norwich.

Addendum.—On October 19th, 1905, the admirable statue by Mr. Henry Pegram of Sir Thomas Browne, erected in the Norwich Haymarket, was unveiled by Lord Avebury, in the presence of the Mayor and other city officials and of a numerous company. This date was the tercentenary of the birth of this great philosopher, and he was both born and died on the 19th October.

Jarrold & Sons, Ltd.,
Printers.
The Empire Press, Norwich.