The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2. Browne Thomas

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Comment thereof positively denies it. Some have experimentally refuted it, as Albertus Magnus; and most plainly Ulysses Aldrovandus, whose words are these: Ego ferri frusta devorare, dum Tridenti essem, observavi, sed quæ incocta rursus excerneret, that is, at my being at Trent, I observed the Ostrich to swallow Iron, but yet to exclude it undigested again.

      Now beside experiment, it is in vain to attempt against it by Philosophical argument, it being an occult quality, which contemns the law of Reason, and defends it self by admitting no reason at all. How (possibly) the stomack of the Ostrich may alter Iron. As for its possibility we shall not at present dispute; nor will we affirm that Iron ingested, receiveth in the stomack of the Ostrich no alteration at all; but if any such there be, we suspect this effect rather from some way of corrosion, then any of digestion; not any liquid reduction or tendance to chilification by the power of natural heat, but rather some attrition from an acide and vitriolous humidity in the stomack, which may absterse and shave the scorious parts thereof. So rusty Iron crammed down the throat of a Cock, will become terse and clear again in its gizzard: So the Counter which according to the relation of Amatus remained a whole year in the body of a youth, and came out much consumed at last; might suffer this diminution, rather from sharp and acide humours, then the strength of natural heat, as he supposeth. So silver swallowed and retained some time in the body, will turn black, as if it had been dipped in Aqua fortis, or some corrosive water, but Lead will remain unaltered; for that mettal containeth in it a sweet salt or sugar, whereby it resisteth ordinary corrosion, and will not easily dissolve even in Aqua fortis. So when for medical uses, we take down the filings of Iron or Steel, we must not conceive it passeth unaltered from us; for though the grosser parts be excluded again, yet are the dissoluble parts extracted, whereby it becomes effectual in deopilations; and therefore for speedier operation we make extinctions, infusions, and the like, whereby we extract the salt and active parts of the Medicine; which being in solution, more easily enter the veins. What the Chymists would have by their Aurum Potabile. And this is that the Chymists mainly drive at in the attempt of their Aurum Potabile; that is, to reduce that indigestible substance into such a form as may not be ejected by siege, but enter the cavities, and less accessible parts of the body, without corrosion.

      The ground of this conceit is its swallowing down fragments of Iron, which men observing, by a froward illation, have therefore conceived it digesteth them; which is an inference not to be admitted, as being a fallacy of the consequent, that is, concluding a position of the consequent, from the position of the antecedent. For many things are swallowed by Animals, rather for condiment, gust or medicament, then any substantial nutriment. So Poultrey, and especially the Turkey, do of themselves take down stones; and we have found at one time in the gizzard of a Turkey no less then seven hundred. Now these rather concur unto digestion, then are themselves digested; for we have found them also in the guts and excrements; but their descent is very slow, for we have given them stones and small pieces of Iron, which eighteen days after we have found remaining in the gizzard. And therefore the experiment of Langius and others might be fallible, whilst after the taking they expected it should come down within a day or two after. How Cherry-stones may be thought to prevent surfets upon eating Cherries. Thus also we swallow Cherry-stones, but void them unconcocted, and we usually say they preserve us from surfet; for being hard bodies they conceive a strong and durable heat in the stomack, and so prevent the crudities of their fruit: And upon the like reason do culinary operators observe, that flesh boiles best, when the bones are boiled with it. Thus dogs will eat grass, which they digest not: Thus Camels to make the water sapid, do raise the mud with their feet: Thus horses will knable at walls, Pigeons delight in salt stones. Rats will gnaw iron, and Aristotle saith the Elephant swalloweth stones. And thus may also the Ostrich swallow Iron; not as his proper aliment, but for the ends above expressed, and even as we observe the like in other Animals.

      And whether these fragments of Iron and hard substances swallowed by the Ostrich, have not also that use in their stomacks, which they have in other birds; that is, in some way to supply the use of teeth, by commolition, grinding and compression of their proper aliment, upon the action of the strongly conformed muscles of the stomack; as the honor’d Dr. Harvey discourseth, may also be considered.

      What effect therefore may be expected from the stomack of an Ostrich by application alone to further digestion in ours, beside the experimental refute of Galen, we refer it unto considerations above alledged; Or whether there be any more credit to be given unto the Medicine of Ælian, who affirms the stones they swallow have a peculiar vertue for the eyes, then that of Hermolaus and Pliny drawn from the urine of this Animal; let them determine who can swallow so strange a transmission of qualities, or believe that any Bird or flying Animal doth separately and distinctly urine beside the Bat.

      That therefore an Ostrich will swallow and take down Iron, is easily to be granted: that oftimes it pass entire away, if we admit of ocular testimony not to be denied. And though some experiment may also plead, that sometimes they are so altered, as not to be found or excluded in any discernable parcels: yet whether this be not effected by some way of corrosion, from sharp and dissolving humidities, rather then any proper digestion, chilifactive mutation, or alimental conversion, is with good reason doubted.

      CHAPTER XXIII

      Of Unicorns Horn

      Great account and much profit is made of Unicorns horn, at least of that which beareth the name thereof; wherein notwithstanding, many I perceive suspect an Imposture, and some conceive there is no such Animal extant. Herein therefore to draw up our determinations; beside the several places of Scripture mentioning this Animal (which some may well contend to be only meant of the Rhinoceros Some doubt to be made what ראם signifieth in Scripture.) we are so far from denying there is any Unicorn at all, that we affirm there are many kinds thereof. In the number of Quadrupedes, we will concede no less then five; that is, the Indian Ox, the Indian Ass, the Rhinoceros, the Oryx, and that which is more eminently termed Monoceros, or Unicornis. Some of the list of fishes; as that described by Olaus, Albertus and others: and some Unicorns we will allow even among Insects; as those four kinds of nasicornous Beetles described by Muffetus.

      Secondly, Although we concede there may be many Unicorns, yet are we still to seek; for whereunto to affix this Horn in question, or to determine from which thereof we receive this magnified Medicine, we have no assurance, or any satisfactory decision. For although we single out one, and eminently thereto assign the name of the Unicorn; yet can we not be secure what creature is meant thereby; what constant shape it holdeth, or in what number to be received. For as far as our endeavours discover, this animal is not uniformly described, but differently set forth by those that undertake it. The Unicorn, how variously reported by Authors. Pliny affirmeth it is a fierce and terrible creature; Vartomannus a tame and mansuete Animal: those which Garcias ab Horto described about the cape of good hope, were beheld with heads like horses; those which Vartomannus beheld, he described with the head of a Deer; Pliny, Ælian, Solinus, and after these from ocular assurance, Paulus Venetus affirmeth, the feet of the Unicorn are undivided, and like the Elephants: But those two which Vartomannus beheld at Mecha, were as he describeth, footed like a Goat. As Ælian describeth, it is in the bigness of an Horse, as Vartomannus, of a Colt; that which Thevet speaketh of was not so big as an Heifer; but Paulus Venetus affirmeth, they are but little less then Elephants. Which are discriminations very material, and plainly declare, that under the same name Authors describe not the same Animal: so that the Unicorns Horn of one, is not that of another, although we proclaim an equal vertue in all.

      Thirdly, Although we were agreed what Animal this was, or differed not in its description, yet would this also afford but little satisfaction; for the Horn we commonly extol, is not the same with that of the Ancients. For that in the description of Ælian and Pliny was black: this which is shewed amongst us is commonly white, none black; and of those five which Scaliger beheld, СКАЧАТЬ