Kitabı oku: «The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1», sayfa 23
CHAPTER II
Of the Horse
The second Assertion, that an Horse hath no gall, is very general, nor only swallowed by the people, and common Farriers, but also received by good Veterinarians, Veterinarians or Farriers. and some who have laudably discoursed upon Horses. It seemeth also very ancient; for it is plainly set down by Aristotle, an Horse and all solid ungulous or whole hoofed animals have no gall; and the same is also delivered by Pliny, which notwithstanding we find repugnant unto experience and reason. For first, it calls in question the providence or wise provision of Nature; who not abounding in superfluities, is neither deficient in necessities. Wherein nevertheless there would be a main defect, and her improvision justly accusable, if such a feeding Animal, and so subject unto diseases from bilious causes, should want a proper conveyance for choler; or have no other receptacle for that humour then the Veins, and general mass of bloud.
It is again controllable by experience, for we have made some search and enquiry herein; encouraged by Absyrtus a Greek Author, in the time of Constantine, who in his Hippiatricks Medicina equaria., obscurely assigneth the gall a place in the liver; but more especially by Carlo Ruini the Bononian, who in his Anatomia del Cavallo, hath more plainly described it, and in a manner as I found it. For in the particular enquiry into that part, in the concave or simous part of the Liver, whereabout the Gall is usually seated in quadrupedes, I discover an hollow, long and membranous substance, of a pale colour without, and lined with Choler and Gall within; which part is by branches diffused into the lobes and several parcels of the Liver; from whence receiving the fiery superfluity, or cholerick remainder, by a manifest and open passage, it conveyeth it into the duodenum or upper gut, thence into the lower bowels; which is the manner of its derivation in Man and other Animals. And therefore although there be no eminent and circular follicle, no round bag or vesicle which long containeth this humour: yet is there a manifest receptacle and passage of choler from the Liver into the Guts: which being not so shut up, or at least not so long detained, as it is in other Animals: procures that frequent excretion, and occasions the Horse to dung more often then many other, which considering the plentiful feeding, the largeness of the guts, and their various circumvolution, was prudently contrived by providence in this Animal. Choler the natural glister. For choler is the natural Glister, or one excretion whereby Nature excludeth another; which descending daily into the bowels, extimulates those parts, and excites them unto expulsion. And therefore when this humour aboundeth or corrupteth, there succeeds oft-times a cholerica passio, that is, a sudden and vehement Purgation upward and downward: and when the passage of gall becomes obstructed, the body grows costive, and the excrements of the belly white; as it happeneth in the Jaundice.
If any therefore affirm an Horse hath no gall, that is, no receptacle, or part ordained for the separation of Choler, or not that humour at all; he hath both sense and reason to oppose him. But if he saith it hath no bladder of Gall, and such as is observed in many other Animals, we shall oppose our sense, if we gain-say him. Thus must Aristotle be made out when he denieth this part, by this distinction we may relieve Pliny of a contradiction, who in one place affirming an Horse hath no gall, delivereth yet in another, that the gall of an Horse was accounted poison; and therefore at the sacrifices of Horses in Rome, it was unlawful for the Flamen Priest. to touch it. But with more difficulty, or hardly at all is that reconcileable which is delivered by our Countryman, and received Veterinarian; whose words in his Master-piece, and Chapter of diseases from the Gall, are somewhat too strict, and scarce admit a Reconciliation. The fallacie therefore of this conceit is not unlike the former; A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Because they have not a bladder of gall, like those we usually observe in others, they have no gall at all. Which is a Paralogism not admittible; a fallacy that dwels not in a cloud, and needs not the Sun to scatter it.
CHAPTER III
Of the Dove
The third assertion is somewhat like the second, that a Dove or Pigeon hath no gall; which is affirmed from very great antiquity; for as Pierius observeth, from this consideration the Egyptians did make it the Hieroglyphick of Meekness. It hath been averred by many holy Writers, commonly delivered by Postillers and Commentators, who from the frequent mention of the Dove in the Canticles, the precept of our Saviour, to be wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves: and especially the appearance of the Holy Ghost in the similitude of this Animal, have taken occasion to set down many affections of the Dove, and what doth most commend it, is, that it hath no gall. And hereof have made use not only Minor Divines, but Cyprian, Austin, Isidore, Beda, Rupertus, Jansenius, and many more.
Whereto notwithstanding we know not how to assent, it being repugnant unto the Authority and positive determination of ancient Philosophy. The affirmative of Aristotle in his History of Animals is very plain, Fel aliis ventri, aliis intestino jungitur: Some have the gall adjoined to the guts, as the Crow, the Swallow, Sparrow, and the Dove; the same is also attested by Pliny, and not without some passion by Galen, who in his Book De Atra bile, accounts him ridiculous that denies it.
It is not agreeable to the constitution of this Animal, nor can we so reasonably conceive there wants a Gall: that is, the hot and fiery humour in a body so hot of temper, which Phlegm or Melancholy could not effect. Salubrium, 31° Now of what complexion it is, Julius Alexandrinus declareth, when he affirmeth that some upon the use thereof, have fallen into Feavers and Quinsies. The temper of their Dung and intestinal Excretions do also confirm the same; which Topically applied become a Phænigmus or Rubifying Medicine, and are of such fiery parts, that as we read in Galen, they have of themselves conceived fire, and burnt a house about them. And therefore when in the famine of Samaria (wherein the fourth part of a Cab of Pigeons dung was sold for five pieces of silver,) it is delivered by Josephus, that men made use hereof in stead of common Salt: although the exposition seem strange, it is more probable then many other. For that it containeth very much Salt, as beside the effects before expressed, is discernable by taste, and the earth of Columbaries or Dove-houses, so much desired in the artifice of Salt-petre. And to speak generally, the Excrement of Birds hath more of Salt and acrimony, then that of other pissing animals. Now if because the Dove is of a mild and gentle nature, we cannot conceive it should be of an hot temper; our apprehensions are not distinct in the measure of constitutions, and the several parts which evidence such conditions. Whence the irascible, whence the concupiscible Passions do most arise. For the Irascible passions do follow the temper of the heart, but the concupiscible distractions the crasis of the liver. Now many have hot livers, which have but cool and temperate hearts; and this was probably the temper of Paris, a contrary constitution to that of Ajax, and both but short of Medea, who seemed to exceed in either.
Lastly, it is repugnant to experience, for Anatomical enquiry discovereth in them a gall: and that according to the determination of Aristotle, not annexed unto the liver, but adhering unto the guts: nor is the humour contained in smaller veins, or obscurer capillations, but in a vescicle, or little bladder, though some affirm it hath no bag at all. And therefore the Hieroglyphick of the Ægyptians, though allowable in the sense, is weak in the foundation: who expressing meekness and lenity by the portract of a Dove with a tail erected, affirmed it had no gall in the inward parts, but only in the rump, and as it were out of the body. And therefore also if they conceived their gods were pleased with the sacrifice of this Animal, as being without gall, the ancient Heathens were surely mistaken in the reason, and in the very oblation. Whereas in the holocaust or burnt offering of Moses, the gall was cast away: for as Ben Maimon instructeth Levit. 1., the inwards whereto the gall adhereth were taken out with the crop, according unto the Law: which the Priest did not burn, but cast unto the East, that is, behind his back, and readiest place to be carried out of the Sanctuary. Doves, the Birds of Venus, why? And if they also conceived that for this reason they were the Birds of Venus, and wanting the furious and discording part, were more acceptable unto the Deity of Love, they surely added unto the conceit, which was at first venereal: and in this Animal may be sufficiently made out from that conception.
The ground of this conceit is partly like the former, the obscure situation of the gall, and out of the liver, wherein it is commonly enquired. But this is a very injust illation, not well considering with what variety this part is seated in Birds. In some both at the stomach and the liver, as in the Capriceps; in some at the liver only, as in Cocks, Turkeys, and Pheasants; in others at the guts and liver, as in Hawks and Kites, in some at the guts alone, as Crows, Doves, and many more. And these perhaps may take up all the ways of situation, not only in Birds, but also other Animals; for what is said of the Anchovie,Ἐγκρασίχολος. that answerable unto its name, it carrieth the gall in the head, is farther to be enquired. And though the discoloured particles in the skin of an Heron be commonly termed Galls, yet is not this Animal deficient in that part, but containeth it in the Liver. And thus when it is conceived that the eyes of Tobias were cured by the gall of the fish Callyonimus, or Scorpius marinus, commended to that effect by Dioscorides, although that part were not in the liver, yet there were no reason to doubt that probability. And whatsoever Animal it was, it may be received without exception, when it's delivered, the married couple as a testimony of future concord, did cast the gall of the sacrifice behind the Altar.
A strict and literal acception of a loose and tropical expression was a second ground hereof. For while some affirmed it had no gall, intending only thereby no evidence of anger or fury; others have construed it anatomically, and denied that part at all. By which illation we may infer, and that from sacred Text, a Pigeon hath no heart; according to that expression, Hosea 7. Factus est Ephraim sicut Columba seducta non habens Cor. And so from the letter of the Scripture we may conclude it is no mild, but a fiery and furious animal, according to that of Jeremy, Cap. 25. Facta est terra in desolationem à facie iræ Columbæ: and again, Revertamur ad terram nativitatis nostræ à facie gladii Columbæ. Cap. 46. Where notwithstanding the Dove is not literally intended; but thereby may be implied the Babylonians, whose Queen Semiramis was called by that name, and whose successors did bear the Dove in their Standard. So is it proverbially said, Formicæ sua bilis inest, habet et musca splenem; whereas we know Philosophy doubteth these parts, nor hath Anatomy so clearly discovered them in those insects.
If therefore any affirm a Pigeon hath no gall, implying no more thereby then the lenity of this Animal, we shall not controvert his affirmation. Thus may we make out the assertions of Ancient Writers, and safely receive the expressions of Divines and worthy Fathers. But if by a transition from Rhetorick to Logick, he shall contend, it hath no such part or humour, he committeth an open fallacy, and such as was probably first committed concerning Spanish Mares, whose swiftness tropically expressed from their generation by the wind; might after be grosly taken, and a real truth conceived in that conception.
CHAPTER IV
Of the Bever
That a Bever to escape the Hunter, bites off his testicles or stones, is a Tenet very ancient; and hath had thereby advantage of propagation. Æsops Apologues, of what antiquity. For the same we find in the Hieroglyphicks of the Egyptians in the Apologue of Æsop, an Author of great Antiquity, who lived in the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, and in the time of Cyrus: the same is touched by Aristotle in his Ethicks, but seriously delivered by Ælian, Pliny, and Solinus: the same we meet with in Juvenal, who by an handsome and Metrical expression more welcomly engrafts it in our junior Memories:
– imitatus Castora, qui se
Eunuchum ipse facit, cupiens evadere damno
Testiculorum, adeo medicatum intelligit inguen.
It hath been propagated by Emblems: and some have been so bad Grammarians as to be deceived by the Name, deriving Castor à castrando, whereas the proper Latine word is Fiber, and Castor but borrowed from the Greek, so called quasi γάστωρ, that is, Animal ventricosum, from his swaggy and prominent belly.
Herein therefore to speak compendiously, we first presume to affirm that from strict enquiry, we cannot maintain the evulsion or biting off any parts, and this is declarable from the best and most professed Writers: for though some have made use hereof in a Moral or Tropical way, yet have the professed Discoursers by silence deserted, or by experience rejected this assertion. Thus was it in ancient times discovered, and experimentally refuted by one Sestius a Physitian, as it stands related by Pliny; by Dioscorides, who plainly affirms that this tradition is false; by the discoveries of Modern Authors, who have expressly discoursed hereon, as Aldrovandus, Mathiolus, Gesnerus, Bellonius; by Olaus Magnus, Peter Martyr, and others, who have described the manner of their Venations in America; they generally omitting this way of their escape, and have delivered several other, by which they are daily taken.
The original of the conceit was probably Hieroglyphical, which after became Mythological unto the Greeks, and so set down by Æsop; and by process of tradition, stole into a total verity, which was but partially true, that is in its covert sense and Morality. Now why they placed this invention upon the Bever (beside the Medicable and Merchantable commodity of Castoreum, or parts conceived to be bitten away) might be the sagacity and wisdom of that Animal, which from the works it performs, and especially its Artifice in building, is very strange, and surely not to be matched by any other. Omitted by Plutarch, De solertia Animalium, but might have much advantaged the drift of that Discourse.
If therefore any affirm a wise man should demean himself like the Bever, who to escape with his life, contemneth the loss of his genitals, that is in case of extremity, not strictly to endeavour the preservation of all, but to sit down in the enjoyment of the greater good, though with the detriment and hazard of the lesser; we may hereby apprehend a real and useful Truth. In this latitude of belief, we are content to receive the Fable of Hippomanes, who redeemed his life with the loss of a Golden Ball; and whether true or false, we reject not the Tragœdy of Absyrtus, and the dispersion of his Members by Medea, to perplex the pursuit of her Father. But if any shall positively affirm this act, and cannot believe the Moral, unless he also credit the Fable; he is surely greedy of delusion, and will hardly avoid deception in theories of this Nature. The Error therefore and Alogy in this opinion, is worse then in the last; that is, not to receive Figures for Realities, but expect a verity in Apologues; and believe, as serious affirmations, confessed and studied Fables.
Again, If this were true, and that the Bever in chase makes some divulsion of parts, as that which we call Castoreum; yet are not the same to be termed Testicles or Stones; for these Cods or Follicles are found in both Sexes, though somewhat more protuberant in the Male. There is hereto no derivation of the seminal parts, nor any passage from hence, unto the Vessels of Ejaculation: some perforations onely in the part it self, through which the humour included doth exudate: as may be observed in such as are fresh, and not much dried with age. And lastly, The Testicles properly so called, are of a lesser magnitude, and seated inwardly upon the loins: and therefore it were not only a fruitless attempt, but impossible act, to Eunuchate or castrate themselves: and might be an hazardous practice of Art, if at all attempted by others.
Now all this is confirmed from the experimental Testimony of five very memorable Authors: Bellonius, Gesnerus, Amatus, Rondeletius, and Mathiolus: who receiving the hint hereof from Rondeletius in the Anatomy of two Bevers, did find all true that had been delivered by him, whose words are these in his learned Book De Piscibus: Fibri in inguinibus geminos tumores habent, utrinque vnicum, ovi Auscrini magnitudine, inter hos est mentula in maribus, in fæminis pudendum, hi tumores testes non sunt, sed folliculi membrana contecti, in quorum medio sunguli sunt meatus è quibus exudat liquor pinguis et cerosus, quem ipse Castor sæpe admoto ore lambit et exugit, postea veluti oleo, corporis partes oblinit: Hos tumores testes non esse hinc maxime colligitur, quod ab illus nulla est ad mentulam via neque ductus quo humor in mentulæ meatum derivitur, et foras emittatur; præterea quod testes intus reperiuntur, eosdem tumores Moscho animali inesse puto, è quibus odoratum illud plus emanat. Then which words there can be no plainer, nor more evidently discovering the impropriety of this appellation. That which is included in the cod or visible bag about the groin, being not the Testicle, or any spermatical part; but rather a collection of some superfluous matter deflowing from the body, especially the parts of nutrition as unto their proper emunctories; and as it doth in Musk and Civet Cats, though in a different and offensive odour; proceeding partly from its food, that being especially Fish; whereof this humour may be a garous excretion and olidous separation.
Most therefore of the Moderns before Rondeletius, and all the Ancients excepting Sestius, have misunderstood this part, conceiving Castoreum the Testicles of the Bever; as Dioscorides, Galen, Ægineta, Ætius, and others have pleased to name it. The Egyptians also failed in the ground of their Hieroglyphick, when they expressed the punishment of Adultery by the Bever depriving himself of his testicles, which was amongst them the penalty of such incontinency. Nor is Ætius perhaps, too strictly to be observed, when he prescribeth the stones of the Otter, or River-dog, as succedaneous unto Castoreum. But most inexcusable of all is Pliny, who having before him in one place the experiment of Sestius against it, sets down in another, that the Bevers of Pontus bite off their testicles: and in the same place affirmeth the like of the Hyena. Which was indeed well joined with the Bever, as having also a bag in those parts; if thereby we understand the Hyena odorata , or Civet Cat, as is delivered and graphically described by Castellus. Castellus de Hyena odorifera.
Now the ground of this mistake might be the resemblance and situation of these tumours about those parts, wherein we observe the testicles in other animals. Which notwithstanding is no well founded illation, for the testicles are defined by their office, and not determined by place or situation; they having one office in all, but different seats in many. For beside that, no Serpent, or Fishes oviparous, that neither biped nor quadruped oviparous have testicles exteriourly, or prominent in the groin; some also that are viviparous contain these parts within, as beside this Animal, the Elephant and the Hedg-hog.
If any therefore shall term these testicles, intending metaphorically, and in no strict acception; his language is tolerable, and offends our ears no more then the Tropical names of Plants: when we read in Herbals, of Dogs, Fox, and Goat-stones. But if he insisteth thereon, and maintaineth a propriety in this language: our discourse hath overthrown his assertion, nor will Logic permit his illation; that is, from things alike, to conclude a thing the same; and from an accidental convenience, that is a similitude in place or figure, to infer a specifical congruity or substantial concurrence in Nature.
