AMBERGRIS. 
131 
stream sets to the shore, then the stream will cast it up 
to great advantage! March 1st, 1672, in Batavia.”* — 
Phil . Trans vol. viii. p. 6113. 
But notwithstanding the above statement, Dr. Thomas 
Brown, in his work published a few years afterwards 
(1686), in his description of a sperm whale which was 
thrown on the coast of Norfolk, states that “ in vain it 
was to rake for ambergriese in the paunch of this levia- 
than, as Greenland discoverers, and attests of experience 
dictate, that they sometimes swallow great lumps thereof 
in the sea— insufferable fetor denying that inquiry ; and 
yet if, as Paracelsus encourageth, ordure makes the best 
musk, and from the most feted substances may be drawn 
the most odoriferous essences, all that had not Vespa- 
sian’s nose might boldly swear here was a substance for 
such extractions which proves that the Dr. still sus- 
pected that the ambergris was found in the sperm whale, 
although it was found by this animal floating in the sea, 
and swallowed by it in “ great lumps!” 
But it was reserved for Dr. Boylston, of Boston, to 
enlighten mankind on this important subject, and he 
therefore claims the discovery of its source in the follow- 
ing manner : “ The most learned part of mankind are 
still at a loss about many things even in medical use, 
and particularly were so, in what is called ambergris, 
until our whale fishermen of Nantucket, in New Eng- 
land, some three or four years past made the discovery. 
Their account to me is this : — cutting up a spermaceti 
bull-whale, they found accidentally in him about twenty 
pounds’ weight, more or less, of that drug ; after which, 
