The workes of that famous chirurgion Ambrose Parey translated out of Latine and compared with the French. by Th: Johnson

Let us come now to Reason.

NOw so it is, that one cannot apply hot irons but with extreame and vehement paine in a sensible part, void of a Gangreene, which would be cause of a Con∣vulsion, Feaver, yea oft times of death. Moreover, it would bee a long while after∣wards before the poore patients were cured, because that by the action of the fire there is made an eschar, which proceeds from the subject flesh, which being fallen, * 1.1 nature must regenerate a new flesh in stead of that which hath beene burned, as also the bone remaines discovered and bare; and by this meanes, for the most part there remaines an Vlcer incurable. Moreover there is yet another accident. It happeneth that oftentimes the crust being fallen off, the flesh not being well re∣newed, the blood issueth out as much as it did before. But when they shall be ty∣ed, the ligature falls not off untill first the flesh have very well covered them againe: which is prooved by Galen, saying, that escharoticke medicines which cause a crust or eschar, whensoever they fall off, leave the part more bare than the naturall ha∣bit * 1.2 requires. For the generation of a crust proceeds from the parts subject, and which are scituate round about it, being also burned, as I may say: wherefore by how much the part is burnt, by so much it looseth the naturall heate. Then tell * 1.3 me when it is necessary to use escharoticke medicines, or cautering irons? Tis when the flux of blood is caused by erosion, or some Gangreene or putrifaction. Now is it thus? In fresh bleeding wounds there is neither Gangreene nor putrifaction. Therefore, the cauteries ought not to be there applyed. And when the Ancients commanded to apply hot irons to the mouthes of the vessells, it hath not beene onely to stay the flux of blood, but cheefely to correct the malignitie, or gangree∣nous putrifaction which might spoile the neighbouring parts. And it must be here noted, that if I had knowne such accidents to happen, which you have declared in your booke, in drawing and tying the vessells, I had never beene twice deceived; nor would I ever have left by my writings to posteritie, such a way of stopping a flux of blood: But I writ it after I had seene it done and did it very often, with happy successe. See then what may happen through your inconsiderate counsell, with∣out

examining, or standing upon the facility of tying the sayd vessells. For see, heere's * 1.4 your scope and proposition, to tye the vessells after amputation is a new remedy, say you; then it must not be used, it is an ill argument for a Doctor.

But as for that (say you) one must use fire after the amputation of members, to consume, and drie the putrifaction, which is a common thing in Gangreenes, and mortifications, that indeed hath no place here, because the practise is to ampu∣tate the part above that which is mortified, and corrupted; as Celsus writes and com∣mands, * 1.5 to make the amputation upon the sound part, rather than to leave any whit of the corrupted. I would willingly aske you, if when a veine is cut transverse, and that it is very much retracted towards the originall, whether you would make no conscience to burne till that you had found the orifice of the veine, or artery; and if it be not more easie onely with a Crow bill to pinch and draw the vessell, and so tie it? In which you may openly shew your ignorance, and that you have your minde * 1.6 seised with much rancor and choler. We daily see the ligature of the vessells practi∣sed with happy successe after the amputation of a part, which I will now verifie by experiences and histories, of those to whom the said ligature hath beene made, and persons yet living.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of what the esch••r is made.
• * 1.2

  In the 5 book of his Meth.
• * 1.3

  Words of the adversary.
• * 1.4

  Proposition of the Adver∣sary.
• * 1.5

  In the 5, booke ch. 26, and in the 7 booke ch. 33••
• * 1.6

  In the ch. of cutting booke the 2.