.NDI.MjIzNTY: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "q) med. preaet. Lib.6.p.g.c.l For ought I know, ther may be as much witchery in the Tongue as in the Eye. [Senertus?] (q) that dicove red the Supersticion of these fancies Sig...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
q) med. | for ought I know, ther may be as much Witchery in [note in margin: q) med. pract. Lib. 6. p. g. C. 1] the tongue as in the Eye. [Underlined: Senortus?] (q) [first letter scratched out: has] dicove red the Superstition of these [fanies?] Sight dothnot proceed from an Emission of Rayes from the Eye but by a reception of the visible Species. And If it be (as Philosophers) conclude an Immanent Action and not an Emission of Optick Spirits, so that sight as such doth receive something from the Object, & not act upon it, the notion of Fascination by the Eye is unphilosophicall. It is true that [sore?] Eyes will [affect those?] that Look upon them; [the following latin phrase underlined:] Dumspect fant Oculi[letter scratched out at the end of the word, possibly an 'o' or 'p'] [leesos leeduntrir & ipsi?]. for which a [naturall?] reason is easie to be assigned; [Sout?] if witches Eyes are this [impacted?] with a [naturall?] contagion; [Whence?] is it that only bewitched persons are hurt therby? If the vulgar [Errour?] of the [Underlined:]Basilisks Killing with this Look of his poysonfull Eye were a truth, whatever person the serpent cast his Eyes upon would be poysoned. So if Witches = had a Physicall venome in their Eyes others be- side | ||
the | |||
red the | |||
proceed from an Emission of Rayes from the Eye | |||
but by a [ | |||
Revision as of 01:19, 1 July 2017
for ought I know, ther may be as much Witchery in [note in margin: q) med. pract. Lib. 6. p. g. C. 1] the tongue as in the Eye. [Underlined: Senortus?] (q) [first letter scratched out: has] dicove red the Superstition of these [fanies?] Sight dothnot proceed from an Emission of Rayes from the Eye but by a reception of the visible Species. And If it be (as Philosophers) conclude an Immanent Action and not an Emission of Optick Spirits, so that sight as such doth receive something from the Object, & not act upon it, the notion of Fascination by the Eye is unphilosophicall. It is true that [sore?] Eyes will [affect those?] that Look upon them; [the following latin phrase underlined:] Dumspect fant Oculi[letter scratched out at the end of the word, possibly an 'o' or 'p'] [leesos leeduntrir & ipsi?]. for which a [naturall?] reason is easie to be assigned; [Sout?] if witches Eyes are this [impacted?] with a [naturall?] contagion; [Whence?] is it that only bewitched persons are hurt therby? If the vulgar [Errour?] of the [Underlined:]Basilisks Killing with this Look of his poysonfull Eye were a truth, whatever person the serpent cast his Eyes upon would be poysoned. So if Witches = had a Physicall venome in their Eyes others be- side