14 The Animal-Lore of Shalcspeare’s Time. 
The Mole, moldwarp, or mouldiwarpe, as it is fre¬ 
quently called, must have been as common 
Mole. . . 
m earlier times as at present. The Kev. 
Edward Topsell was chaplain in the Church of Saint 
Botolph, Aldersgate, and the author of one of the most 
remarkable books of his age. He called his work A 
Historie of Foure-Footed Beastes , and added, that it was 
“ necessary for all divines and students, because the story 
of every beast is amplified with narrations out of scrip¬ 
tures, fathers, phylosophers, physitians, and poets, col¬ 
lected out of all the volumes of Conradus Gesner and 
all other writers to this present day.” This book was 
published in 1607. Though it abounds with marvellous 
stories, farfetched derivations of names, and absurd 
recipes, yet it is no mere compilation from the writings 
of others. Notwithstanding his amazing credulity on 
many points, the author is independent enough to 
decline to accept statements which are contradicted by 
his own observations. As regards the place of the mole 
in nature, he writes:— 
“ I do utterly dissent from all them that holde opinion that the 
mole or want is of the kinde of myse, for that all of them in generall, 
both one and other have two longe crooked fore-teeth which is not in 
moles, and therefore wanting those as the inseparable propriety of 
kind ; we wil take it for graunted that it pertaineth not to that ranke 
or order of four-footed beasts.” (Page 499.) 
With respect to the name, he informs us that— 
“the Italians retaine the latine word talpa , the Spaniards topo, by 
which word the Italians call a mouse. The French call it taulpe, the 
Germaines muiwerf, and in Saxon molwurffe, from whence is derived 
the English mole and molewarpe.” 
Topsell gives it as his opinion that though moles want 
their sight, yet they possess eyes, or rather, they have 
where the eyes should be, “a plaine and bald place of the 
skin.” As a further proof of the perversity of this little 
