Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus repaired [by] Petrus Gassendus ; augmented [by] Walter Charleton ...

SECT. I.

WHoever is natively deprived of any one sense, saith Aristotle (in Analy∣ticis) is much less capable of any Science, than He who hath all five Fingers on the left hand of his soul (to use the metaphor of Casserius Placentinus, in praefat. ad lib. de sens. Organ) or all the Organs of the sensitive Faculty complete: and His reason is that General Canon, Nihil est in intellectu, quod non pri∣us fuerit in sensu; the senses being the Windows, through which the soul takes in her ideas of the nature of sensible Objects. If so, whoever hath any one sense less perfect than the others, can hardly attain the Knowledge of the nature of objects proper to that sense: and upon consequence, the Cognition of the Essence of an O∣DOURE must be so much more difficult to acquire, than that of Visi∣bles and Audibles, by how much less perfect the sense of SMELLING is in man, than the sight and Hearing. And, that Man, generally, is not en∣dowed (for, we may not, with our noble Country man Sir Kenelme Digby charge this imperfection altogether upon the Errors of our Diet; because we yet want a Parallel for his Iohn of Liege, who being bred savagely a∣mong wild beasts, in the Forrest of Ardenna, could wind his pursuers at as great distance, as Vultures do their prey, and after his Cicuration or redu∣ction to conversation with men, retained so much of the former sagacity of his nose, that He could hunt out his absen•• friends by the smell of their foot∣steps, like our Blood-Hounds) we say, that man is not generally endowed with exquisiteness of smell; needs no other eviction, but this: that He doth not deprehend or distinguish any but the stronger, or vehement sorts of Odours; and those either very offensive, or very Grateful.

But, albeit this difficulty of acquiring the knowledge of the Essence and immediate Causes of Odours, hath its origine in the native Imper∣fection of our sense accommodate to the perception thereof: yet hath it received no small advance from the obscurity of our Intectuals, the Er∣rors of human judgement, and the common Effect thereof, the contrary Opinions of Philosophers. For, however they unanimously decree, that the proper object of smelling is an Odour; and the adaequate sensory, ordained for the apprehension of it, the Mammillary Processes of the brain, or two nervous productions derived to the basis of the nose: yet could they never agree about the chief subject of their dispute, the Quid∣dity, or Form of an Odour; or the Commensuration betwixt the same, and the odoratory Nerves, the theory whereof seems most necessary to the explanation of the Reason and Manner of its Perception and Distin∣ction by them.

Thus, on one side of the schools, Heraclitus, cited by Aristotle (de sensu & sensili, cap. 5.) is positive, that the smell is not affected with only an Incorporeal Quality, or spiritual species; but that a certain subtle sub∣stance [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Corporeal Exhalation, emitted from the odorous object, doth really and materially invade and affect the senso∣ry.

(2) And Epicurus (in Epist ad Herodot. apud Diogen. Laertium, lib. 10.) seconds him with somewhat a louder voice;

Existimandum est, Odo∣rem non facturum ullam sui impressionem, nisi ab odora re us{que} deferren∣tur moleculae se•• Corpuscula quaedam, ea ratione Commensurata ipsi olfact•••• sensorio, u•• ipsum moveant afficiant ve; alia quidem perturbate ac discrepan∣ter ex quo odores Ingrati sunt; alia placide & accommodate, ex quo Iucundi sunt odores: men are to conceive, that an Odour could make no sensi∣ble impression of it self, unless there were transferred from the odorous object certain substantial Effluxes, or minute Bodies, so Commensurate or Analogous to the peculiar Contexture of the Organ of smelling, as to be capable of affecting the same; and those either perturbdly and discor∣dantly, whence some Odours are Ingrateful; or amicably and conveni∣ently, and those Odours are Grateful.

(3) And Gal••n, attended on by most of the Aesculapian Tribe, sings the same tune, and in as high a key as either of the Former; saying, (in lib. de instrum. olfact cap 2.) Id quod a rerum corporibus exhalat, Odoris substantia est: though Casserius Placentinus (de fabric. Nasi, Sect. 2. cap. 3.) hath endeavoured to corrupt the genuine sense of those words, by converting substantia into subjectum, as if Galen intended only that the Exhalation from an odorous body was only the subjectum inhaesionis, and the odour it self meerly the Quality inhaerent therein. Contrary to the rules of Fide∣lity and Ingenuity; because incongruous both the Letter of the Text, and the Syntaxis thereof with his whole Enquiry.

(4) And the Lord St. Alban, though a modern, yet not unworthy to enter the Chorus with the noblest among the Ancients, though He had too frequently used his tongue to the Dialect of Immaterial

Qualities, and spiritual Images, in his discourses of the other senses; doth yet make a perfect unison with Galen, in this particular, delivering his judge∣ment in most full and definite termes, thus: Certain it is, that no smell issu∣eth from a body, but with emission of some Corporeal substance; (Sylva sylvar. Cent. 9. experim. 834.)

On the other side, we hear the great Genius of Nature, as his Idolaters miscall him, Aristotle, and that most numerous of Sects, the Peripatetick, vehemently contending, that an Odour belongs to the classis of simple, or Immaterial Qualities; and that though it be wafted or transported on the wings of an Exhalation, from the Odorate body to the Sensory: yet is the sensory affected onely with the meer Image, or Intentional species thereof.

Now the moments of Authority being thus equal on both sides, our province is to determine the scales by the praepondium of Reason, i. e, with an even hand to examine the weight of the Arguments on which each of these contrary Opinions is grounded

To begin with the Later, as the most Epidemical and generally entertain∣ed; we find the principal Base of it to be only that common Axiome, Sen∣sus non percipiunt substantias, sed tantum earum Accidentia, that no sense is invaded and actuated into sensation by the Real or Material, but onely the intentional species of the Object: which being weak of it self, and by us frequently subverted in our praecedent Discourses; the whole superstru∣cture thereon relying is already ruined, and they who will reaedifie it, must lay a new foundation.

But, as to the Former, that an Odour is a perfect substance, by material impression on the Sensory causing a sensation of it self therein; this seems a Truth standing upon such firm feet of its own, that it contemns the crutches of sophistry. For

(1) No Academick can be so obstinate, as not to acknowledge, that there is a certain Effluvium, or Corporeal Exhalation from all odorous bo∣dies, diffused and transmitted through the aer; as well because his own ob∣servation doth ascertain him, that all Aromatiques and other odorous bo∣dies, in tract of a few years, confess a substantial Contabescence, or decay of Quantity; which makes our Druggists and Apothecaries conserve their parcels of Ambre Grise, Musk, Civit, and other rich Perfumes, in bladders, and those immured in Glasses, to praevent the exhaustion of them by spon∣taneous emanation: as for this, that the odour doth most commonly conti∣nue vigorous in the medium, a good while after the remove of the source, or body from which it was effused. And Aristotle himself, after his pe∣remptory Negative, Odorem non esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Effluxionem: could not but let slip this Affirmative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod effluit ex corporibus, ipsa est odorum substantia.

(2) Common Experience confirms, that odours are vigorous and po∣tent, not only in the production of sundry Affections in the brain, good or evil, according to their vehemency and Gratefulness or Noy∣somness, by the refocillation or pollution of the spirits; but also in the

Vellication and frequently the Corrosion of tender investment of the Nostrills. Thus much the reverend Oracle of Cous well observed in 28 Aphorisme 5 Sect.; Odoramentorum suffitus muliebria educit, & ad alia plaerumque utilis esset, nisi gravitatem capitis inferret: and Galen supports with his opinion and arguments, that pleasant Odours are a kinde of Nourishment of the spirits. Besides, Plutarch reports, that He observed Catts grow mad onely by the smell of certain odori∣ferous Unguents: and Levinus Lemnius (de Natur. miracul) hath a me∣morable story of certain Travellers, who passing through large fields of Beans in the Flower, in Holland, become Phrantick meerly with the strength of their smell. And all Physicians dayly finde, that good smels, by a recreation of the languid spirits, speedily restore men from swooning fits; as evil scents often induce Vomitings, syncopes, Vertigoes, and other suddain symptomes. Nay, scarce an Author, who hath written of the Plague and its Causes, but abounds in relati∣ons of those accursed miscreants, who have kindled most mortal infe∣ctions, by certain Veneficious practices, and Compositions of putrid and noysom Odours: witness Petrus Droetus (de pestilentia, cap. 10.) Wierus (de Venificiis lib. 3. cap. 37) Horatius Augenius (lib. de peste, cap. 3) Her∣cules Saxonia (de plica, cap. 2. & 11.) Thomas Iordanus (de pestis phaeno∣men. tr. 1. cap 18.) and Sennertus, out of Nich. Polius in Haemerologia Si∣lesiae, (in lib. de peste, cap. 2.) Which prodigious Effects clearly pro∣claim the mighty energy of their Causes, and are manifestoes sufficient, that Odours justly challenge to themselves those Attributes, which are proper onely to Corporiety: nor can ought but downright ignorance ex∣pect them from the naked Immaterial Qualities, or imaginary Images of the Peripatetick.

(3) The Manner of the Odours moving, or Affecting the Sensory can never be explained, but by assuming a certain Commensuration, or Cor∣respondency betwixt the Particles amassing the Odour, and the Con∣texture of the Olfactory Nerves, or Mammillary Processes of the brain delated through the spongy bone. For (1) it is Canonical, that no Immaterial can Operate upon a Material, Physically; the inexplicable activity of the Rational Soul upon the body by the mediation of the spirits, and that of Angelical essences excepted. (2) Though an O∣dour, diffused through the aer, chance to touch upon the hands, cheeks, lips, tongue, &c. yet doth it therein produce no sensation of it self; be∣cause the Particles of it hold no proportion to either the pores, or parti∣cles of which those parts are composed: but arriving at the organ of smel∣ling, it cannot but instantly excite the Faculty therein resident to an actu∣al sensation, or apprehension of it; in regard of that correspondency in Figure and Contexture, which the particles of it hold to the pores and particles of the Odoratory Nerves. Certainly, as the Contexture of the Odoratory Nerves is altogether different from that of the Tongue; and so the minute bodies of them, as well as the small spaces intercepted among those minute bodies, in all points of their superficies not contingent, are likewise of a dissimilar configuration from the particles and intercep∣ted vacuola of the Tongue: so also is it necessary, that the small bodies, which commove and affect the Contexture of the Odoratory Nerves, be altogether dissimilar to those, which commove and affect the contexture of the Tongue, since, otherwise all objects would be in common, and the Distinction of senses unnecessary.

Now (lest we should seem to beg the Quaestion) that the sensation is effected in the Odoratory Nerves, only by the Figures of the particles of an Odour; and that the variety of Odours depends on the variety of im∣pressions made on the sensory, respective to their various figures and con∣textures: this is not obscurely intimated in those formerly recited words of Epicurus, Molecularum, sive Corpusculorum quaedam perturbate ac dis∣crepanter, quaedam verò placide ac leniter, seu accommodatè se habere, ad olfactus sensorium. The substance whereof is this, that because the par∣ticles and Contexture of some Odours are such, that they strike the sen∣sory roughly and discordantly to the contexture thereof; therefore are they Ingrateful: and on the contrary, because other Odours have such particles and such contextures, as being smooth in Figure, strike the senso∣ry gently, evenly and concordantly to the contexture thereof; therefore are they Grateful and desiderable. We might have introduced Plato him∣self, as lighting the tapor to us, in this part••cular; insomuch as He saith (in Timaeo) that the sweet sort of Odours [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] de mulcere, & quâ inseritur, amicabiliter se habere, doth softly stroke, and cause a certain blandishment in the sensory: but, that the kinde of noysom or stinking Odours [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] doth in a manner Exasperate and wound it. To this Incongruity or Dispropor∣tion betwixt offensive smells and the composure of the Odoratory Nerves, the profound Fracastorius plainly alludeth, in his; proportionalitèr autem se habent & odores, quorum ingratissimus est, qui F••tidus appellatur, quique abominabili in saporibus respondet; nam & hic ex iis pariter resul∣tat, quae nullam habent digestionem, nec rationem mistionis, sed confusionem èmultis fere ac diversis, qualia fere sunt Putrescentia, in quibus dissoluta mistione evaporatio diversorum contingit. (de sympath. & antipath. cap. 14) importing withal, that the reason why the stink of corrupting Car∣casses is of all other most noysom, is because the odours effuming from them consist of heterogeneous or divers particles. If you had rather hear this in Verse, be pleased to listen to that Tetrastich of Lucretius;

Non simile penetrare, putes, primordia formâ In nares hominum, cum taetra Cadavera torrent; Et cum Scena Croco Cilici perfusa recens est, Ara{que} Panchaeos exhalat propter odores.

Upon which we may justly thus descant. As the hand touching a lock of wool, is pleased with the softness of it; but grasping a Nettle, is injured by that phalanx of villous stings, wherewith Nature hath guarded the leaves thereof: so are the Nostrills invaded with the odour of Saffron, delight∣ed therewith, because the particles of it are smooth in figure, and of equal contexture; but invaded with the odour of a putrid Carcase, they are highly offended, because the particles thereof are asper in figure and of unequal contexture, and so prick and dilacerate the tender senso∣ry.

Moreover, whereas there is so great variety of individual Tempe••a∣ments among men, and some have the Contexture of their odoratory Nerves exceeding dissimilar to that of others; hence may we well derive 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cause of that so much admired secret, Why those Odours, which are

not onely grateful, but even highly cordial to some persons, are most odious and almost poysonous to others. Infinite are the Examples recorded by Physicians, in this kinde; but none more memorable than that remembred by Plutarch (lib. 1. advers. Coloten.) of Berenice and a certain Spartan woman, who meeting each other instantly disliked and fainted, because the one smelt of Butter, the other of a certain fragrant Ointment. However, the rarity of the Accident will not permit us to pass over the mention of a Lady of honor and eminent prudence, now living in London; who doth usu∣ally swoon at the smell of a Rose (the Queen of sweets:) and sometimes feasts her nose with Assa faetida (the Devils Turd, as some call it) than which no favour is generally held more abominable; and this out of no Affectation, for her wisdom and modesty exclude that praetence, nor to prevent Fitts of the Mother, for she never knew an Hysterical passion, but in others, in all her life, as she hath frequently protested to me, who have served her as Physician many years.

Again, as this Assumption of the Corporiety of an Odour doth easily solve the Sympathies and Antipathies observed among men, to particular smells; so likewise doth it yield a plain and satisfactory reason, why some Br••••t Animals are pleased with those Odours; which are extremely hateful to others. Why Doggs abhorr the smell of Wine, and are so much de∣lighted with the stink of Carrion, as they are loath to leave it behind them, and therefore tumble on it to perfume their skins therewith? Why a Cat so much dislikes the smell of Rue, that she will avoid a Mouse that is rubbd with the juice thereof; as Africanus (in Geoponicis)? Why Mice are poysoned with the scent of Rododaphne, or Oleander, commonly named Rose-bay-tree; as Apuleius, and from him Weckerus (de secretis Ani∣mal.)? Why Serpents are driven from Gardens by the smell of Citro••s as Galen affirms; when yet they solace themselves with that of Savin, which our nose condemns? Why Cocks cannot endure the breath of Garlick; which is soveraign incense to Turkeys, and pure Alchermes to their drooping yong ones? Why Moths are destroyed by the fume of Hopps; which is Ambre Grise to Bees, as Mouffet (de insectis)? For the Caus•• hereof wholly consists in the Similitude or Dissimilitude be∣twixt the particular Contexture of the Sensory, and the Figures of the particles of the odour.

The Materiality of an Odour being thus firmly commonstrated; the next Considerable is the Generation, and proxime Efficient Cause thereof. And herein Aristotle came neerer the truth, than in his conception of the Essence of it; for that Assertion of his, Odorem gigni & moveri beneficio Caloris, that Heat conduceth both to the Generation and Motion or Diffu∣sion of an Odour, doth well deserve our assent. For, whether those minute Masses, or small Concretions, that constitute the body of an Odour, be con∣tained ch••••fly in some sulphurous substance, as the Dissolutions and Ex∣periment•• of Chymistry seem to conclude; or ambuscadoed in any other consisten•••• whatever: yet still is it manifest, that they are deduced into act and seques••••ed from those dissimilar or heterogeneous bodies of Earth and Water 〈◊〉〈◊〉 surrund and oppress them, and so becoming more at liberty and unite••▪ they more vigorously affect the sense, and all this by the ener∣gy of Heat▪ Hence comes it, that all Fruits are so much more Fragrant, by how much more Concocted and Maturated by the warmth of the Sun.

That all Aromaticks grow in Hot Climats. That all smells are stronger in Summer, than Winter; as Plutarch observes (lib. de Caus. Natur. cap. 25.) where he enquires, why in Frost wild beasts leave but a cold scent behind them, when they are hunted. That all odoriferous Druggs are Hot, and suffer a perpetual exhaustion or expence of their halituous substance: so that who so would conserve their Fragrancy, must embalm them in Oyl, or incorporate them with Gumms, or other substance not easily evaporable; according to the common practice of all Perfumers and Confectioners; or immure them in close conservatories, and that rather in great lumps, than small fragments, and in Cold rather than Hot rooms. Hence it is also, that all Botanicks hold it for an unquestionable Axiome, Omnia Odorata esse ca∣lida; so that some have undertaken to distinguish of the degrees of Heat in Plants and other Simples, meerly by the vehemence or languor of their Odour: and that Aristotle (problem. sect. 12. quaest. 12.) affirms that all O∣dorous seeds are Calefactive, because Heat is the Efficient of an Odour; to which Galen also subscribes (4 de simpl. medicament. facul. cap. 22.)

From the Nature & Efficient of Odours, we are conducted to their Diffe∣rence, or Distinct species; which is an Argument involved not in the least Difficulties. For, since the imperfection of our sense of smelling is such, that it is affectable only with the more vehement sort of them, which are but few in comparison to those many, which the sagacity of most Bruit A∣nimals makes familiar to their deprehension, and so we remain ignorant of the greatest part of them; and did we know them, yet should we be to seek for proper Appellatives to express their particular natures: to deliver an exact Table of all their Distinctions, is not only difficult, but impossible. Which Naturalists well understanding, have been forced to the cleanly shift of transferring the distinct names of sapours over to the specifical Diffe∣rences of Odours; there being some manifest symbolism betwixt the two senses, and no obscure Analogy betwixt the Conditions of their objects: as Aristotle insinuates in his Affirmation, Nullum corpus esse odoriferum, quod non pariter saporiferum existat (de sens & sensil. cap. 5.) that all Odo∣riferous bodies are also saporiferous; and in his definition of an olfactile, or odorable object to be, Quod sapidae siccitatis diluendae ac diffundendae vim sortitur. Well may we, therefore, content our selves with the Discrimi∣nation of those kinds of Odours, that fall under the Cognizance of our sense; and those are Sweet, Sower, Austere, Acerb, and Fatt or Luscious: as for Putrid or Faeti•• Odours, they have resemblance to Bitter Sapours, because as Bitter things are o••ious and distastful to the pallate, and no man swallows them without some horror and reluctancy, so likewise doth the Nose never admit rotten and cadaverous smells without loathing and offence. There is also another Difference of smells, whereof one kind is either pleasant or unpleasant by Accident, or upon Circumstance; as the smell of Meats and Drinks is pleasant to the Hungry, but offensive to the Full-gordged, and this sort is in common as well to Beasts, as Men: the other is pleasant, or un∣pleasant of their own Nature, as the smells of Herbs, Flowers, Perfumes, &c. which conduce neither to the Excitement, nor Abatement of Appe∣tite, unless they be admixt to meats or drinks; to which Stratis alluded, when taxing Uripides he said, Cum lens coquitur, unguenti nil infundito, and this Difference is proper only to man. Lastly, Authors have divided Odours into Natural, and Artificial, or Simple and Compound; the Latter whereof our Luxury and Delicacy have enhanced to such immoderate

rates, that the Confection of them is become an Arte, and reduced to cer∣tain Dispensatories and set Praescripts, and that Lady is not al-a-mode, who hath not her Manuscript of Recipes for Perfumes, nay every street hath its Myropolies or shops of sweets, of all sorts.

Finally, the Medium inservient to Odoration, is either Aer, or Water: yet neither according to Essence, but Infection, or Impraegnation. That ••he Aer is a convenient Convoy, or Vehicle of an Odour, no man did ever doubt: and that water hath the like Capacity, or perodorable Faculty, though in an inferiour degree; we may, with Aristotle (de histor. Animal. 4. cap. 8.) conclude from the vulgar Experiment of betraying Fishes with perfumed Baites.

Notes

• Art. 1. That the Cog∣nition of the Nature of O∣dours is very difficult; in respect of the Imperfection of the sense of Smelling, in man: and
• Art. 2. The contrary opinions of Phylosophers, concerning it.
• Art. 3. Some determi∣ning an Odour to be a substance
• Art. 4. Others, a meer Accident or Quality.
• Art. 5. The Basis of the Latter opi∣nion, infirme and ruinous.
• Art. 6. That all odo∣rous Bodies e∣mit corporeal Exhalations.
• Art. 7. That Odours cause sundry Affections in our Bodies, and such as are config••••able only to sub∣stances.
• (8 de Compos. medic. secund. lo∣ca, cap. 4.)
• Art. 8. That the Rea∣son of an O∣dours affect∣ing the senso∣ry, consists on∣ly in a certain Symbolisme be¦twixt the Fi¦gures and Con∣texture of its Particles, and the Figures and Con••ep∣ture of the Particles of the Odoratory Nerves.
• Art. 9. That the Di∣versity of O∣dours depends on the Diver∣sity of Impres∣sions made on the sensory, respondent to the vari••us Fi∣gures and Con∣texture of their Parti∣cles.
• Art. 10. Why some Persons abhor those smells, which are grateful to most others.
• Art. 11. Why, among Beasts, some species are of∣fended at those scents in which others h••••••ly delight
• Art. 12. The Ge••erati••n and D••ffusion of Odours, due only to Heat.
• Art. 13. The Differen∣ces of Odours.
• Art. 14. The Medium of Odours.