Page 38
Of the definition of a Part. QVEST. I.
HIppocrates, whose happy workes are the very Oracles of our Arts, and Galen * 1.1 his interpreter, doe promiscuously vse the names of a Part, a Member, and a Place, for the same thing. The Eye (sayth Galen in the first Book of his Me∣thod) we call a Member; neyther is there any oddes which you call it, a Member, or a Part: if any man shall say the Eye is a Part and not a Member, or a Member, and not a Part; I will not in either contend with him. In his first Book de locis affectis; Not onely the latter Physitians (sayth he) but many also of the antients doe vse to call the particles of the body, Places. Hippocrates in his Book de locis in homine, and de victus ratione in morbis acutis, calleth also Parts, Places: yet there are some who distinguish a Member from a Part, * 1.2 and a Particle from a Place. Aristotle calleth those only Members which are compoun∣ded * 1.3 of parts of diuers natures, as the Head, the Feete, and the Hands; and those that are similar he calleth properly Parts. Theodorus in Aristotle, thinketh that the name of a Part or Place, is of larger extent then the name of a Member. So also Galen in the sixt of his Me∣thod, * 1.4 sayth that the Eye may be called a Part or a Member; and the horny tunicle a Part, * 1.5 but not a Member: but because in these Philosophicall disquisitions, it becommeth vs better, to stand vpon substances, then vpon wordes; wee take no care whether you vse the name of a Part, a Member, a Particle, or a Place; it concernes vs more to find out an essen∣tiall definition of a Part.
Auicen defineth a Part to be a body ingendered of the first permixtion of the humours, as the humors doe consist of the first mixtion of the meate, and the meate of the Elements. But this de∣finition * 1.6 of the Arabian, is too presse, straight & narrow, because it agreeth only to homo∣genie parts, & not to heterogenie: for euery man may easily perceiue that heterogenie or dissimilar parts are compounded immediately of similar, not of the first mixture of the hu∣mors. And this Galen teacheth in plaine and expresse words, in his first Book de Elemen∣tis, * 1.7 where hee sayth; that compounded partes are immediately made of the simple or similar, the simple of humors, humors of Aliments, Aliments of the Elements. They which would salue the Arabians credite, say that his definition is materiall, nor formall; for both similar and * 1.8 dissimilar do communicate in the matter, though their forme or difference be diuers; but they forget that an essentiall definition must expresse the forme especially, because it is the chiefe part of the essence, as that which giueth Being to the thing. Aponensis defineth a * 1.9 part to be a solid and thick body, begotten of humidities or moystures, and adorned with the po∣wers of Nature; which definition laboureth of the same disease with the former, compre∣hending onely simple not compounded parts.
Galen hath two definitions of parts. The first, in the first Booke of his Method and the * 1.10 fift Chapter, and in the first booke de Elementis, cap. 6. The second is in his first Booke de vsupartium. The first is this; A Part is that which accomplisheth or integrateth the whole: Or whatsoeuer addeth any thing to the frame of a humane body. The second is this, A Part is a body which neither hath a proper circumscription of his owne, nor yet is on euery hand ioyned with others. Both these definitions seeme to bee too large, comprehending not onely li∣uing * 1.11 particles (which are onely, truely and properly partes) but those also which haue no life, as the haires, the nailes, the fat. Hippocrates also vseth this large and ample significati∣on of a part, in Lib. 6. Epidemi••n, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, humors & spirits he calleth parts. So Aristotle calleth seede, bloud, milke, marrow, phlegme, and fatte, or grease, Parts. Fernelius the french Galen, giueth vs a perfect definition of a Part, in the first * 1.12 Chapter of the second Booke of his Physiologia, and disputeth and scanneth the particu∣lar branches of his definition learnedly and at large. Argenterius (a common Calumni∣ator * 1.13 sayeth Laurentius) taxeth Fernelius definition, assuming a diuerse consideration of mans body; first as it is a substance, and so hee sayeth the parts of it are the Matter and the Forme; next as it is a body, and so the parts of it are all the Corporeall substances therein contained. Finally, as a liuing and animated Creature, and in that respect (sayth he) what∣soeuer liueth, may be called a part of the liuing Creature, not a part of the body. Where∣fore Fernelius did ill define a Part of mans body to bee a body cohearing or cleaning to the whole, and ioyned to it in common life, framed for his vse and function.
But these are but nice and friuolous cauils, and indeede extrauagant from a Physitians consideration: for a Phisitian doth not consider the body of man as it is a naturall body,