But the grand absurdity of all was the belief that the Salamander was incombustible ; that it not only resisted the action of fire, but extinguished it ; and, when it saw the flame, charged it as an enemy which it well knew how to vanquish.
Aristotle, whose Salamandra (aaAcutiv5p4 this appears to be, has been quoted as giving his sanction to this belief, and indeed he cites it as a proof that there are animals over which flame has no power : " the Salamandra, as they say, when it goes through fire, extinguishes it." (` Hist. An.,' v. 19.) Now this is evidently only a reference to report ; and it is not improbable that a copious secretion of the fluid above noticed might, in a rapid and short passage, so damp the fire that the animal might get through comparatively unhurt. 2Elian (ii. 31) says not only that it will live in the flames, but that it attacks fire like an enemy_ Nicander, Dioscorides, and Pliny all add their authority ; and the latter not onljtrelates that they extinguish fire by their touch, but that they are without sex and produce nothing. He dwells on their poison as being of the worst description, and is profuse in his catalogue of remedies. ('Hist. xxix. 4.) But even so late as 1789 there was an attempt to revive these wondrous tales. A French consul at Rhodes relates that, while sitting in his chamber there, he heard a loud cry in his kitchen, whither be ran and found his cook in a horrible fright, who informed him that he had seen the devil in the fire. M. Pothonier then states that he looked into a bright fire, and there saw a little animal with open mouth and palpi tating throat. Ile took the tongs and endeavoured to secure it. At his first attempt the animal, which he says had been motionless up to that time (two or three minutes), ran into a corner of the chimney, having lost the tip of its tail in escaping, and buried itself in a heap of hot ashes. In his second attempt the consul was successful drew the animal out, which he describes as a kind of small lizard, plunged it into spirit of wine, and gave it to Buffon. This appears to be very circumstantial, and M. Pothonier, whose head was evidently filled with preconceived opinions, may be acquitted of any intention to deceive.
That the skin of an animal which could resist the action of fire should be considered proof against that element Is not to be wondered at. We accordingly find that a cloth said to be made of the skins of salamanders was incombustible, as is noticed by Marco Polo, who however was shrewd enough to observe that those fire-proof cloths were really made of a mineral substance (asbestos, no doubt, which the old writers termed Salamander's Wool). Such most probably was the Salamander-Cloth sent by the Tartar king to the Roman pontiff, in which the Holy Napkin (Saidarisem Domini) is preserved.
Among the other fables may be noticed the belief that the saliva of the Salamander was depilatory—having the power to remove hair, and substitute bald places for luxuriant tresses. Martial has an
epigram, of which this notion forma the point (lib. it, ep.
Its heart, worn as an amulet, was considered to be a prophylactic against fire, and it was used in medicine to eradicate leprosy.
It could hardly be expected that the alchymists would neglect animals of which such wonders were rife; and we accordingly find that the power of transmuting quicksilver into gold was attributed to them. To this cud the wretched reptiles were placed in a vessel on the coals, and quicksilver introduced through an iron tube was poured upon them. This experiment was supposed to be accompanied with danger to the life of the operator. Those who would further dwell on the legends connected with this subject may consult Funk's work, 'De Salarnandra3 Terreatris Vita, Evolution°, et Formatione: In the catalogue of the specimens of Amphibia in the British Museum the following arrangement is adopted. The catalogue of the first suborder, the Anourous Amphibia, is not yet published (June, 1853).
Fossil Salamandrida..—Few have awakened more curiosity than the Homo Dilurii Testis of Scheuchzer, who was unwearied in collecting organic remains, which he considered irrefragable evidence of the general deluge.. At length he obtained from the (Eningen Beds (Miocene Period of Lyell) a fossil which he viewed with transport as the unequivocal remains of Man himself: A short description of this specimen was published by him in the Philosophical Transactions' for 1726. He again brought forward this piece of 'good fortune'l—(in his rapture he writes the last two words in Greek—) in his Physica Sacra,' where he tells us that previously he had only possessed two. dorsal vertebrae. Of the humanity of his prize he certainly entertained no doubt. In his rapturous vision he saw in the fossil not only one part of the human skeleton, but many parts. No fancy could possibly lead astray in a case where there were appearances of bones, and flesh, and even the softer parts of flesh, impressed on the solid stone. Here indeed was a rarity above all rarities. He gives no bad figure of the fossil in tab. xlix. of the work last quoted. When we look at that figure, it is difficult to conceive how such remains could have appeared to a physician, who must have had some acquaintance with osteology, to be those of man ; and we can only account for it by the blindness which an excited imagination and a determined adherence to theory can produce. The iteration and determination of Scheuchzer had its effect, and naturalists adopted his opinions. Gesner (1758) appears to have been the first who threw deserved doubt on the alleged nature of the fossil ; for though he quotes it as an anthropolite, he nevertheless, having become possessed of a similar specimen, offers his conjecture that it was a fossil fish (Silurus glania Linn.), and the obsequious naturalists were now as ready to follow' him as they had been eager to run after Scheuchzer.