Justin Erik Halldór Smith

Descartes' Cure for Constipation

What follows is a remedy that René Descartes apparently used and recorded in July, 1628, in order to relieve a trouble du transit intestinal. I have often said, only half-jokingly, that an alternative history of philosophy could be written by focusing upon the preoccupations of the canonical thinkers throughout history with the state of their own bowels, from the Pythagorean interdiction on beans to Nietzsche's claim (which I endorse) that "you will understand the origin of the German spirit—from distressed intestines." In such a history, Descartes' recipe would stand as a particularly important bit of evidence: the only reason we have it is because another philosopher, G. W. Leibniz, transcribed it nearly 50 years later, when Descartes' literary executor, Claude Clerselier, gave the German philosopher one day, February 24, 1676, to look through Descartes' manuscripts and to transcribe whatever interested him. Ponder that fact for a moment: Leibniz had a single day to copy out whatever he could find of interest in the Nachlass of the greatest philosopher of his era, and this remedy against constipation made the list. Clearly he was operating with a different understanding of the scope of the discipline than we are.

(Query to neo-Latinists: I'm not sure how to translate the phrase 'italicae nucis testae inditae'. Surely he's talking about some sort of nut-shaped clay vessels, rather than nuts themselves?)

A particularly difficult evacuation of the lower intestine after a number of meals was brought about in this way: Equal parts bull's gall, unsalted butter, black hellebore, extract of diacolocynthide, diagridion, and saffron, reduced into a single mass and heated over a flame until they have attained the consistency of honey, inserted into Italian terracotta vessels and applied to the navel. And this cataplasm is then fastened so that it does not fall; and two cataplasms of clay, filled with these potions, are applied the one after the other, one per day. The first days nothing was felt by the patient, other than agitations and murmurs; the third day, the desired evacuation arrived with great pain, but the normal excretion did not follow the very hard excrements until the abdomen of a freshly slaughtered calf, covered in aged oil sifted after cooking and heated up, was applied to the patient's stomach, and until the anus was probed by fingers covered with bile and butter. 

[Alvi egrestio difficillima post menses aliquot sic provocata. Fellis taurini recentis, butyri insulsi, hellebori nigri, extracti diacolocynthidis, diagridii & croci partes aequales, in unam massam redactae, & igni ad mellis consistentiam decoctae, italicae nucis testae inditae, umbilico impositae sunt. Ligataque fuit mox ne caderet, & binae testae, diebus singulis, potionibus intus assumtis, sic repleta impositae sunt. Primis diebus, nihil praeter fluctuationes & murmura a patiente sentiebantur; tertia die, cum immensis doloribus supervenit egerendi desiderium; at induratis excrementis non successit excretio, donec vituli abdomen recens, cum oleo antiquo ad ignem cribratum & calens, ventriculo induceretur, digitis que felle & butyro inunctis anus sollicitaretur] (AT XI 644).

Depraved by Custome? Tyson and Wallis on Eating Meat

[I am currently writing a piece titled "Diet, Embodiment and the Good Life in Early Modern Philosophy," for a volume edited by Emma Spary et al. This 1701 exchange between Edward Tyson and John Wallis will be treated at length.]

Edward Tyson to John Wallis, January 16, 1701: "...[H]ad Man been design'd by Nature not to have been a Carnivorous Animal, no doubt there would have been observed, in some part of the World, Men which did not at all feed upon Flesh. But since no History (as I know of) furnishes us with such an instance, I cannot but think what hath been done universally by the whole Species, must be Natural to them. What the Pythagoreans did, in Abstaining from Flesh, was upon the notion of a metempsychosis, or Transmigration of Souls, a mistake in their Philosophy, and not a Law of Nature. And, though in some Countries Men feed more freely on Flesh, in others more sparingly, this is owing to their own choice, from the Advantage they find thereby. Nature having given Mankind Reason, he can, or ought to elect what food he finds most agreeable to him, in the Climate he lives in; and is not determined to any one sort, but has liberty to all. And 'tis as probable, that the Ante-diluvial World had so likewise...

...[A]s Gassendus remarks in the same Epistle I have so often quoted..., Custome may make that seem Natural to us, which Nature never intended. As he instances in a Lamb that was bred on Ship-board, which refused the green Pasture of the Fields, for the Diet it was formerly used to. And I have often seen here in London (and it being a thing so unusual, I take leave to mention it) a Horse, that, with a great deal of pleasure, would eat Oysters, scranching them, shell and all, between his Teeth, and swallowing them And this he took to by accident, being left at a Tavern door, where stood a Tub of Oysters: And since hath frequently done it, whenever they were offered him. Now Gassendus observes, that Children (from whom he thinks we may better take the Instincts of Nature, than from our Appetites when depraved by Custome) are much fonder of Fruit than of any Flesh that is offered them; and therefore he supposes it more Natural to them...

Wallis to Tyson, January 23, 1701: Upon the whole matter, I think your sentiments to be much the same with mine. I am inclined to think, That all Nations (as well before as since the Deluge) have used to feed on Flesh. Which is a strong Presumption (as you well observe) that to feed on Flesh (duly prepared) is not wholly Unnatural for Mankind. On the other hand; I believe you think (as I do) that Raw Flesh is not a Natural Food for our Bodies. I do not know that any Nation have (of choice) used to feed on Raw Flesh; unless in cases of Extremity, or when they have not the Convenience of Preparing it by previous Coction, or somewhat equivalent. ) For I put a great difference between Raw Flesh (which is the common Food of what we call Carnivorous Animals,) and Flesh duly prepared for our Food. If any there be that (of choice) feed on Raw Flesh, I look upon it as a Case Anomalous; like that of the Lamb mentioned by Gassendus; and the Horse (you mention) that Eats Oysters. I may add, the Rat eating Bacon, for want of other Food, (which yet is not quite void of Coction;) and the Swine sometimes eating Poultry. Which latter I do not take to be purely Natural; but rather the effect of an Appetite Depraved by Custome; because much of the Hog-wash we give to Swine, ariseth from the Coction of Flesh for our own use; which doth inure the Swine (a Voracious Animal) to the Taste of Flesh, and makes it familiar to them. But Flesh, duly prepared for our Food, I look upon as a thing very different from Raw Flesh, and which may be proper Food for Man; if (and so far as) it agrees with out Health: (which caution is to be observed, as to other Food, as well as Flesh.) And this I refer to the care of the Physician and Apothecary, rather than the Cook and the Confectioner.

Philosophical Transactions 22 (1701): 775-784.