Some difference I find amongst writers, about the principal part
affected in this disease, whether it be the brain, or heart, or some
other member. Most are of opinion that it is the brain: for being a
kind of dotage, it cannot otherwise be but that the brain must be
affected, as a similar part, be it by [1032]consent or essence, not in
his ventricles, or any obstructions in them, for then it would be an
apoplexy, or epilepsy, as [1033]Laurentius well observes, but in a
cold, dry distemperature of it in his substance, which is corrupt and
become too cold, or too dry, or else too hot, as in madmen, and such as
are inclined to it: and this [1034] Hippocrates confirms, Galen, the
Arabians, and most of our new writers. Marcus de Oddis (in a
consultation of his, quoted by [1035]Hildesheim) and five others there
cited are of the contrary part; because fear and sorrow, which are
passions, be seated in the heart. But this objection is sufficiently
answered by [1036]Montaltus, who doth not deny that the heart is
affected (as [1037]Melanelius proves out of Galen) by reason of his
vicinity, and so is the midriff and many other parts. They do compati,
and have a fellow feeling by the law of nature: but forasmuch as this
malady is caused by precedent imagination, with the appetite, to whom
spirits obey, and are subject to those principal parts, the brain must
needs primarily be misaffected, as the seat of reason; and then the
heart, as the seat of affection. [1038]Capivaccius and Mercurialis have
copiously discussed this question, and both conclude the subject is the
inner brain, and from thence it is communicated to the heart and other
inferior parts, which sympathise and are much troubled, especially when
it comes by consent, and is caused by reason of the stomach, or mirach,
as the Arabians term it, whole body, liver, or [1039]spleen, which are
seldom free, pylorus, mesaraic veins, &c. For our body is like a clock,
if one wheel be amiss, all the rest are disordered; the whole fabric
suffers: with such admirable art and harmony is a man composed, such
excellent proportion, as Ludovicus Vives in his Fable of Man hath
elegantly declared.
As many doubts almost arise about the [1040]affection, whether it be
imagination or reason alone, or both, Hercules de Saxonia proves it out
of Galen, Aetius, and Altomarus, that the sole fault is in
[1041]imagination. Bruel is of the same mind: Montaltus in his 2 cap.
of Melancholy confutes this tenet of theirs, and illustrates the
contrary by many examples: as of him that thought himself a shellfish,
of a nun, and of a desperate monk that would not be persuaded but that
he was damned; reason was in fault as well as imagination, which did
not correct this error: they make away themselves oftentimes, and
suppose many absurd and ridiculous things. Why doth not reason detect
the fallacy, settle and persuade, if she be free? [1042]Avicenna
therefore holds both corrupt, to whom most Arabians subscribe. The same
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account