Chapter IV
NOW the six principal schools of philosophers who dispute concerning pipes are as follows:—
- (1) The Chorizontic or Separatists.
- (2) The Solidic.
- (3) The Medioliquorean.
- (4) The Megacremasuotic.
- (5) The Cœlosphaeric or Cyclosematic.
- (6) The Orthopoetic.
And, to take them in the above order, the Chorizontics maintain the following thesis—that if a pipe be simple, considered apart from its mouthpiece, it is also simple with it—that is to say, the mouthpiece should not be held to affect in any way the dichotomy into simple and complex, the two essential parts which are to be considered being the bowl and stem, in support of which the learned Boëterbroddius argues thus:—"If I make me a bowl of wood, fitting to it a stem, also of wood, it is plain that such pipe is simple. Next, if I procure a lid of silver and affix it to the bowl, the pipe still remains simple (since the possession of a lid is an accident of a pipe). Finally then if I get a mouthpiece of amber and fit it to the stem, since a mouthpiece as well as a lid is an accident and not a property or differentia, that pipe will continue simple, and should be considered as such."—Boëterbroddius. De Re Fumariâ b. viii., p. 987. And the Chorizontic definition of a complex ⟨pipe⟩ is this:—"A complex pipe is such that it cannot become simple without ceasing to be a pipe."
But, on the other hand, the no less learned Dreckenhauserius, chief of the opposite School of Solidics, expresses his judgment as follows:—"A complex pipe is one in which the matter is not homogeneous. So that if any pipe contain or be composed of more than one kind of matter, that pipe is complex. But a wooden pipe with an amber mouthpiece contains more than one kind of matter; for it contains both wood and amber (here followeth a dissertation of some ten pages as to the nature of amber, and as to how far it may be identified with the ἢλεκτρον of the Greeks). Therefore a wooden pipe with an amber mouthpiece is complex. Further it is to be remembered that in some pipes the mouthpiece far exceeds in length the true stem, which often does not continue for more than an inch or two beyond the bowl; and to say that in such case the mouthpiece is no essential part of the pipe were surely a rank and insane absurdity.
Such being the opinions of the Chorizontic and Solidic Schools, I shall next proceed to those held by the Medioliquoreans, or half-and-half philosophers, to whom I myself do for the most part incline. Now this School teacheth that the Chorizontics are right and wrong, and the Solidics wrong and right, which seems to me a happy and dexterous distinction. For they agree with the old Chorizontics in asserting that the term "pipe" doth by no means of necessity imply the possession of a mouthpiece; so on that ground they allow that the Separatists have reason in refusing to take the mouthpiece into account when making division into simple and complex. But, on the other hand, they do not dispute the contention of the Solidics in the case of a pipe that hath but an inch of true stem, and four or five inches of mouthpiece; and allow that in such case the pipe should be classed as complex rather than simple.
So that in fact the Medioliquorean must examine the pipe before he will venture to class it; and if it be, by example, a pipe of briar-root six inches as to total length, of which half an inch consists of the mouthpiece, he shall set it down as simple; but if, per contra, it be of six inches of total length, having a true stem of half an inch, and an amber mouthpiece of five and a half inches, then shall it be considered as complex.
Fourthly come the Megacremasuotics, so called ὑπο το͂υ ἴέναι πάντα τὸν σῦν, because they go the whole hog.[1] And their doctrine is this:—The term "pipe" doth comprise every part which any given pipe possesses, whether it be differentia, property, or accident. And a pipe which, whether by reason of its mouthpiece, lid, colour, or joint in its bowl, stem, or mouthpiece, hath in it more than one kind of matter, cannot be simple. For they define the term simple as denoting an absolute unity of matter, and allege that as amber both true and false, ivory both true and false, bone and every manner of composition (as to mouthpiece), gold, silver, and base metal (with regard to lids); red, blue, and yellow (with regard to colour, since colour cannot exist on a pipe without the agency of that material substance called paint);—are all certainly matter; therefore they aver that if to Z + A (by which symbol is denoted the joining of the essence and existence) there be added any matter which is not A, then Z + A + a . . . —the simple pipe becomes Z + A + x—the complex pipe.
Such are the doctrines of the Megacremasuotic School of Pipe Philosophers.
Fifthly, let us take the Cœlosphaeric or Cyclosematic School. And their teaching is this:—The real essence of the pipe is contained in the bowl, whence cometh the name Cœlosphaeric (Κοιλοσφαιρικοί), since they regard the bowl as the root, from out of which, from reasons of practical utility and convenience, the stem hath sprung; some saying that the first pipe was a bowl in which tobacco was placed, and the smoke drawn out from a hole in the side. They profess to find a support to these doctrines in the fact that supposing any one should detach the stem from the bowl he would by no means call the stem by itself a pipe, whereas a bowl without a stem might very well be called so. Further, by analogy they liken a pipe to a tree. Now without a root the stem of a tree cannot exist, whereas it is conceivable that a root should exist without a stem. So with the bowl and stem of a pipe, they name the bowl the inevitable part and the stem the evitable. They also lay stress on the shape of the bowl, which is circular. Now a circle is the most perfect geometrical conception, and therefore the bowl is the most perfect and ideal part of the pipe, the stem being that part invented by man to bring the whole down to his lower and grosser level. Lastly, they affirm that in the bowl there always resides essence, and sometimes existence also; that in the bowl and stem conjoined there is both essence and existence; and in the stem alone neither essence nor existence.
Sixthly cometh the Orthopoetic Philosophers, so called for that they, rejecting the dogma of the Cœlosphaerics that the essence resides in the bowl, maintain that it is in the stem (τὸ μέρος. τὸ ὀρθόν), and that the first pipe was a tube, in one end of which tobacco was placed, and the smoke thereof drawn through the other; to strengthen which doctrine they adduce the pipes used by Asiatics for the inhaling of the fumes of opium, which do not possess a bowl, but only a place in the stem in which to set the opium. And in opposition to the Cœlosphaerics, who affirm that one who had cut off the stem of his pipe would not call the stem by itself a pipe, they reply that "pipe" is a conventional term, by which is meant the whole instrument as we have it at the present day; and, since the time when pipes had no bowls is long gone by, it is according to nature that men should have come to regard the bowl as an essential part; yet, while admitting this, they by no means admit the contrary—that if the bowl be separated from the stem it is still spoken of as a pipe; but rather that it is called by its own name "bowl," or with the adjective "pipe," prefixed to it, that is "pipe-bowl." And the smoke-addicted and ingenious (though perchance somewhat too eristical) Dummerkopfius, who for a long while past hath stood in the van of battle for the Orthopoetics, seizes as with a vice upon this very expression "pipe-bowl," and shows it to be a compound substantive, in which "pipe" used as an adjective defines and limits the substantive bowl, and is a term of wider distribution than bowl. And since the term "pipe" extends more widely than "bowl," it follows that there are some pipes which have not bowls; and therefore that, so far from a bowl containing the whole essence of a pipe, there is no reason why a pipe should
have a bowl at all. (See diagram.[2]) Next he proceeds by analogy, and chooseth the words "horse-cloth," "nose-ring," which are in every way similar to "pipe-bowl." And firstly let "horse-cloth" be taken, in which it is manifest that a horse may have both essence and existence without possessing a cloth, which is an accident of "horse." Secondly, "nose-ring," in which it is manifest also that a nose is perfect and complete without a ring being attached to it.[3]
So noses existing without rings, and horses without cloths, it is manifest that pipes do exist without bowls.
Next the acute and cloud-compelling Dummerkopfius proceeds by etymology, and demonstrates thus:—The common name of anything express the common meaning attached to that thing when that common name was first given. And if no other name can be shown to have existed before that which is now used, then that name expresses the primary and essential conception of the thing named. So that if we find by investigation that a "thing-for-smoking-tobacco" has always been named a "pipe," and is called so now, then we determine that the word "pipe" expresses the primary, essential, and common meaning of a "thing-for-inhaling-tobacco." Next let us determine the meaning of the word by etymology. It appears that the primary notion expressed by this word is "whistling," hence it was probably framed by onomatopœia, as more plainly appears in the German "pfeiffe" and the Latin "fistula," which do counterfeit in some measure the noise of whistling.[4] Therefore the etymological first intention of the term "pipe" is "something which whistles."
But when we inquire what is the logical first intention, at first sight there appears some difficulty. For to take a good example of first and second intention, "bird" in its first intention is an animal that has feathers, in its second intention a partridge, and I do not perceive how we can assign a first intention to "pipe" quite in this manner. Second intentions, however, are sufficiently numerous, as will be seen when we consider that an organist, a plumber, and a pastoral poet use the term each in a peculiar technical sense, plainly constituting second intention. But shall we not agree, supposing an organist to be conversing with a plumber, or a plumber with a pastoral poet, that in speaking to one another they would use the term "pipe" with the meaning of an instrument used in smoking? And is not this, then, the logical first intention of the word pipe? Such, at all events, it appears to me.
Thus, then, I have proved that when we pronounce the word "pipe" in common language we imply remotely and etymologically "something that whistles," and directly and logically "an instrument used in smoking." How, then, can the Cœlosphaerics contend that the bowl is the essential part? For bowls cannot whistle, either of themselves or by the help of another. And if the essence and primary nature lies in the bowl, why do we not call this "instrument for smoking" a bowl and not a pipe? And how comes it to pass that we do not call the stem a "bowl-pipe?" Responde mihi, O genus cœlosphaericum et rotundum!
Finally Dummerkopfius citeth the famous Sorites Smalgrueli. The name of ⟨a⟩ thing expresses the innate ideas we have of that thing; the name of an "instrument for smoking tobacco" is a pipe; the name pipe expresses not ideas of sphæricity and circularity, but of length and hollowness; therefore our innate ideas of an "instrument for smoking tobacco" are not conceptions of sphæricity and circularity, but conceptions of length and hollowness."
But the Cœlosphaerics reply, in answer to the "pipe-bowl" argument, that Dummerkopfius might as well argue from the term "goat-skin" that goats can exist without skins, and that such analogous arguments are absurd and sophistical, and quote in support the words of Devey, who asserts that "we cannot adduce any example in which the force of an analogous argument arises above that of weak probability;" and as to the etymological argument that it is futile, else we might conclude that all "priests" are old men, that the Esquimaux are "nonchalant" quia non calent, that no one can be "insulted" unless his adversary leaps on him, that all "imbeciles" lean on staffs, and lastly that two persons cannot be "rivals" unless they dwell on the banks of the same river.
But to return to the Orthopoetics: they, in reply to the Cœlosphaeric ideas concerning the perfection of the circular form, maintain that a circle itself is but a number of straight lines joined angularly and continuously to one another in such a way as to form a circular figure; and as that which makes to exist must be prior to that which exists, therefore the idea of a straight line is primary, while the idea of a circle is secondary. They also aver that the circle is a barren figure generating nothing; whereas from straight lines are produced all the rectilineal figures. To which the Cyclosematics reply that the idea of a circle must have existed before these straight lines were joined to form one, even admitting that they were so joined, which they say is not proven—nay, rather they aver that by taking away an infinitely small part of the circumference of a circle a straight line was generated; and finally that the objections of the Orthopoetics apply only to the circumference of the circle, and not to the circle itself. For the definition of Euclides commences, "A circle is a plane figure contained by one line which is called the circumference," where it is evident that the circle is not the circumference, which is only a formal part necessary to render the ideal conception of a circle comprehensible by our material senses; for if the terms "circle" and "circumference" were identical, then would a thing be said to be contained by itself, which is impossible.
To whom rejoin the Orthopoetics that the essence of anything is "that which makes it to be what it is"; that essence is divided into two parts—the material part or genus, and the formal part or differentia. Now the definition of a circle is "A circle is a plane figure contained by one line which is called the circumference," which definition "a plane figure" is the genus, and "contained by one line" the differentia; and since if the differentia be taken away the essence no longer remains, therefore if the idea of circumference be separated from the idea of circle, as the Cyclosematics direct, then no essence remains, and a circle does not exist. But we know that circles do exist, therefore their arguments are erroneous and absurd.
Now amongst the arguments of the Cœlosphaerics we noticed one that made comparison between the root of a tree and the bowl of a pipe. Know, then, that the Orthopoetics have made a similar comparison between the parts of a pipe and the parts of a lily in blossom. First comes the bulb concealed in the earth, which they say is the invisible essence of the pipe; next the stem, which they say is the stem of the pipe; and lastly the blossom, which is the bowl of the pipe. And since there must be a lily stem before there is a lily blossom, so there must have been a pipe stem before there was a pipe bowl. But yet to this rejoin the Cœlosphaerics that by this very example of a lily which they bring forward the Orthopoetics are condemned; for since the bulb of a lily implies necessarily the idea of a blossom, therefore the essence of a pipe implies necessarily the idea of a bowl, and that as without a blossom the lily does not exist, so neither without a bowl is existence possible to a pipe.
But yet another argument of the Orthopoetics I have to lay before thee, and it is this. The Cœlosphaerics define a pipe as an instrument used in smoking tobacco. Let it be granted that the definition is valid, and it shall be proved to the satisfaction of all that the bowl is no essential part of a pipe. For take any stem of any pipe, having previously disjoined it from the bowl, and insert into one end a cigar, and place the other in your mouth. Now having applied fire to the free end of the cigar draw in the breath, which, when it is ejected from the mouth, shall be found to consist in great part of the fume of the said cigar; from which it is evident that the stem alone of a pipe has been used in smoking tobacco (for who will deny that a cigar is tobacco?) without the agency of a bowl. Wherefore it is proved that the bowl is not an essential part of a pipe, but only a separable accident thereof.[5] And from this conclusion comes the corollary—that what are commonly called cigar-tubes are, in fact, pipes, for they contain in them everything essential to pipes; that they are survivals of the primitive pipes, while those which are commonly called pipes are merely amplified to suit the requirements of tobacco which is cut fine, and requires something to stay it from being drawn into the mouth; that, finally, it is evident that when tobacco was first used it was used in its most simple form, that uncut tobacco is a more simple form than cut, that therefore uncut tobacco was first used; ergo, the first pipes had no bowls, for bowls are for cut tobacco.
Such is the stupendous and gigantic controversy between the two Schools of Cœlosphaeric and Orthopoetic philosophers—such, at least, is a short and incomplete statement of a few of the principal points at which they join issue. For so far have I been from giving their disputations at length that here is contained not a hundredth part of the matter at my disposal. But I am like those men who transcribe the speeches in our Senate House for the diurnals, who out of an oration which hath taken two hours to deliver make a something which taketh up six lines or less of print, and all con fess that it is well done. Some rash and daring spirits, indeed, would persuade us that, though it is well done to compress so far, it would be better done to omit the whole oration; but these be atheistical and blasphemous doctrines, to which I do in no wise assent. So, observing the golden mediocrity that the Venusian commends, I have touched the matter—I will not say with a needle, but with a pipe-stopper, which, be it remarked, is an image much to the purpose. For as when a man, the smoke coming with diffidence and uncertainty from his pipe, doth gently and carefully compress with a pipe-stopper the tobacco within, and lo! it burneth to admiration; so have I, in considering the contentions of these two Schools, applied the pipe-stopper of my understanding unto them. And I dare swear that as one hath said of the book writ by Immanuel Kant (I would say the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft), "to read it is like going into a lighted room"; so shall men say of this book, "to read it is like going into a smoky one." And if it be indeed so said, why, sublimi feriam vertice sidera—I shall strike the stars with my sublime top (as Flaccus hath it).
And finally, as to the two Schools, it may not be impertinent to quote the world-renowned and much-learning-possessing Spitsbubius, called for his sublime and impenetrable cloudiness Doctor Fumificus (the Fumifical Doctor), who speaks as follows:—"With regard to the Schools of Cœlosphaeric and Orthopoetic philosophers, verily it appears to me that their several contentions are, as it were, all smoke, and that there is no essential distinction between their dogmas. For since a candle is a candle whether it be long or short, whether it have a large wick or a small wick; and a ball is a ball, whether it be large, as is a football, or small, as is a tennis-ball: so, if they will but consider, the Cœlosphaerics have but to conceive of the stem of the Orthopoetics as a very long bowl to remove all difference between them. And on the other hand the Orthopoetics have but to think of the bowl of the Cœlosphaerics as a very short stem, and they will be completely at one. And therefore since by bowl and stem they plainly mean the same thing, by much the more does glory redound to them, who have so completely proved each other's doctrines absurd and monstrous."
So far Spitsbubius, and with his words I deem fit to close the matter, but if any desire to read further let him take Papaverius Donnerblitsius's De Naturâ Fistularum: Exercitationes Fumigabundæ of Spitsbubius, and those excellent Noctes Nebulosæ, or Foggy Nights, of Margites Dummerkopfius, so extolled by Theodorus Wattsius in his Minervic Disputations. For Wattsius sayeth that it is the best done of any book that ever was writ, save only his own sonnet on the "Libellus Lavatorius, or Washerwoman's Account, of a Minor Poet of the Cave-Dwellers," lately brought to light and edited (cum vitâ Poetæ) by Gossius.[6] For the excellence of this writer see also Moncurius Scepticus in his Orationes Notilocellenses (South-windy Discourses), where he interrupts himself in the midst of denouncing a certain obscure and contemptible sect called Christians to exalt and magnify this notable Dummerkopfius.
And his is certainly the most worthy to be read of all such works, for in the preface to his disquisition he giveth all that hath been said on either side since the very dawn of Pipe Philosophy, which preface extendeth to only ten volumes of the book (it having but one hundred and twenty volumes in all). And as a concluding, final, and transcendental testimony to the excellence of these Foggy Nights the aforesaid Wattsius can detect one naevus alone in toto egregio corpore, which is that in tom. xcix., cap. li., sect. 13, subsect. 8, a "P" hath been substituted for a "Q," which, as Wattsius justly insisteth, doth violate the first canon of the more Humane Letters—i e., "Ευλαβοῦ τἀ σὰ Π καὶ Q," or in the vulgar tongue, "Mind your 'P's' and 'Q's.'"
- ↑ This is the interpretation of the Pseudo-Smithus and Johannes de Grotibus, but Jacobulus Corvinus insists that it should be rendered the "complete swine," to whom Gulielmus Septemhorologiensis objects that the real meaning is rather "the entire animal."
- ↑ In this diagram the larger circle (A) comprehends all pipes, the smaller circle (C) all bowls; while the space within the circumferences of both circles (B) denotes all pipe-bowls. So it is evident there are some pipes wholly distinct and separated from bowls, and therefore a bowl is no essential part of a pipe.
- ↑ And the conclusion seems in the main correct; but see on this point the Distinctiones Meticulosæ of Pseudo-Spitsbubius (Magister Distinctionum), who opines that the noses of hogs are by no means complete without rings, and adds that, if necessary, he can confirm this dictum from his own experience.
- ↑ See Tully, In Atticum Epistolæ, I., 16, 11. "Itaque et ludis et gladiatoribus mirandas ἐπισημασίας sine ulla pastoricia fistula auferebamus.
- ↑ Note here the objection of the Arabian Ebn Mascha ben Dûda:—"If instead of the cigar being placed in the stem of a pipe and the stem in the mouth, it be placed directly in the mouth, the smoke will be inhaled with as much or greater ease without any medium whatever being employed. So that neither bowl nor stem are essential parts, and a pipe therefore has no essential part, and therefore no essence. But that which has no essence has no existence; but a pipe certainly has existence, wherefore this cigar tube argument is like unto a broken hookah that will hold not rosewater, and is, indeed, bosh lakerdi" (empty talk).
- ↑ And here be it remarked that Gossius doth speak of the aforesaid poet as a "sweet singer," whence it is evident that the Cave-Dwellers were well acquainted with the science and art of music, and also that their era must be placed before the descent of the Wagnerids upon the continent of Europe, else would not their singing be sweet.