CHAPTER II

Of the Horse.

The second Assertion, that an Horse hath no gall, is very general, nor only swallowed by the people, and common Farriers, but also received by good _Veterinarians_, [SN: Veterinarians _or Farriers_.] and some who have laudably discoursed upon Horses. It seemeth also very ancient; for it is plainly set down by _Aristotle_, an Horse and all solid ungulous or whole hoofed animals have no gall; and the same is also delivered by _Pliny_, which notwithstanding we find repugnant unto experience and reason. For first, it calls in question the providence or wise provision of Nature; who not abounding in superfluities, is neither deficient in necessities. Wherein nevertheless there would be a main defect, and her improvision justly accusable, if such a feeding Animal, and so subject unto diseases from bilious causes, should want a proper conveyance for choler; or have no other receptacle for that humour then the Veins, and general mass of bloud.

It is again controllable by experience, for we have made some search and enquiry herein; encouraged by _Absyrtus_ a Greek Author, in the time of _Constantine_, who in his Hippiatricks [SN: Medicina equaria.], obscurely assigneth the gall a place in the liver; but more especially by _Carlo Ruini_ the _Bononian_, who in his _Anatomia del Cavallo_, hath more plainly described it, and in a manner as I found it. For in the particular enquiry into that part, in the concave or simous part of the Liver, whereabout the Gall is usually seated in quadrupedes, I discover an hollow, long and membranous substance, of a pale colour without, and lined with Choler and Gall within; which part is by branches diffused into the lobes and several parcels of the Liver; from whence receiving the fiery superfluity, or cholerick remainder, by a manifest and open passage, it conveyeth it into the _duodenum_ or upper gut, thence into the lower bowels; which is the manner of its derivation in Man and other Animals. And therefore although there be no eminent and circular follicle, no round bag or vesicle which long containeth this humour: yet is there a manifest receptacle and passage of choler from the Liver into the Guts: which being not so shut up, or at least not so long detained, as it is in other Animals: procures that frequent excretion, and occasions the Horse to dung more often then many other, which considering the plentiful feeding, the largeness of the guts, and their various circumvolution, was prudently contrived by providence in this Animal. [SN: _Choler the natural glister._] For choler is the natural Glister, or one excretion whereby Nature excludeth another; which descending daily into the bowels, extimulates those parts, and excites them unto expulsion. And therefore when this humour aboundeth or corrupteth, there succeeds oft-times a _cholerica passio_, that is, a sudden and vehement Purgation upward and downward: and when the passage of gall becomes obstructed, the body grows costive, and the excrements of the belly white; as it happeneth in the Jaundice.

If any therefore affirm an Horse hath no gall, that is, no receptacle, or part ordained for the separation of Choler, or not that humour at all; he hath both sense and reason to oppose him. But if he saith it hath no bladder of Gall, and such as is observed in many other Animals, we shall oppose our sense, if we gain-say him. Thus must _Aristotle_ be made out when he denieth this part, by this distinction we may relieve _Pliny_ of a contradiction, who in one place affirming an Horse hath no gall, delivereth yet in another, that the gall of an Horse was accounted poison; and therefore at the sacrifices of Horses in _Rome_, it was unlawful for the _Flamen_ [SN: _Priest._] to touch it. But with more difficulty, or hardly at all is that reconcileable which is delivered by our Countryman, and received _Veterinarian_; whose words in his Master-piece, and Chapter of diseases from the Gall, are somewhat too strict, and scarce admit a Reconciliation. The fallacie therefore of this conceit is not unlike the former; _A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter_. Because they have not a bladder of gall, like those we usually observe in others, they have no gall at all. Which is a Paralogism not admittible; a fallacy that dwels not in a cloud, and needs not the Sun to scatter it.