Book II
Chapter I
OF the four categories let substance be taken first, which having been taken let it be examined and further divided into (1) tobacco, and (2) pipes. To which division it may be objected, "Præterire aliquid maximum vitium in dividendo est"—"In division to pass over anything is a very great fault"; since many things have been omitted (jars, pouches, and the like). The reason for which omission is that all those things which have been omitted are trifling and unimportant, being contingently unnecessary, and not worthy of any systematic consideration. Wherefore I am constrained to censure all those (notably Gulielmus Cassiteridensis) who have ventured to differ from me in this matter as being stulti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones, as Plautus hath it.
Now tobacco being the prior member of the division, let it be considered as the occasion may direct, and in such a way as will tend to the enlightenment of all. Firstly, then, it will be remembered that it was materially defined "Herba, in quâ inest nicotinica et soporifera virtus"—a herb in which there resides a nicotinic and soporific virtue. But metaphysically it is defined "Nicotinica et soporifera virtus, quæ sub tabaci specie, nostris sensibus perspicitur"—a nicotinic and soporific virtue which is evident to our senses under the form of tobacco. Hence this nicotinic virtue is an immutable and eternal idea, having a real existence; and though we know not the where, when, or how of this existence, yet we know that it does exist. And this virtue is also named an energy, and likewise an act. But however we name it, it is evident that it has no ordinary material existence, since all tobacco which we can see, touch, and smoke must have certain accidents, such as a light colour, a strong odour, a heavy weight, and the like; also it must have come from some particular land or lands, such as Asia, America, Ægypt, and the like; yet all these are mere accidents, in no wise pertaining to our abstract notion of tobacco as metaphysically defined. This doctrine, now very generally received, was in some way shadowed forth by Pythagoras (albeit he used not the term "nicotinic," for it is of modern date), who spoke of a certain Δύναμις or power, corresponding to the virtue that was afterwards taught. And the theory we now maintain was first plainly declared by the Pundit Iradî Sânkhya, and further illustrated and exemplified by his commentator El-Mûdi. Hence arose the mystical School of Neo-Pythagoreans, who maintained that by a life of incessant smoking and meditation the philosopher might participate in the essential virtue, and comprehended its real nature. But here I will pause, and for two reasons—firstly, that I do not profess to communicate the esoteric doctrines of Pipe Philosophy; and secondly, lest, if I continue "obscurus fiam," I become obscure, and be reproved by Proctoratus Omniscientius, for that my subject-matter is not "plainly worded and exactly described," which reproof may the gods avert!
It having been granted that there exists a certain energy or virtue, let us consider by what means we may best partake of its essence and approximate to its nature. And the best method appears, in my judgment, to be smoking—h.e., "fumum tabaci ore trahere," as the Schoolmen maintain, which definition, however, may be censured on the ground that it is not adequate to the thing defined. For to say that smoking is "a drawing in [inhaling] of the smoke of tobacco with the mouth," "explicat tantum partem," explains only a part both of the actual process and the abstract idea; since the smoke cannot in the nature of things be continually inhaled without the corresponding process of exhalation; for which reason Scriblerus Redivivus appears to me more correct in defining smoking as "the sucking in of smoke at one part of the mouth, and the ejection thereof at the other." But yet he, too, goes astray in the latter part (as I think) of his definition. For I will maintain that if I suck in the smoke at the right side of my mouth and eject it, also on the right side, I have smoked. Whereas Scriblerus would seem to imply that it is necessary that the smoke should be ejected at some other part, diverse from that at which it was sucked in; whereas, as long as the smoke is exhaled, as far as I know, it is indifferent at what part—whether at mouth, nose, eyes, or ears. So I censure Scriblerus Redivivus for this definition of smoking, and do define it as follows:—"Smoking is the complex act by which we participate in the fumes of tobacco, and for which three things are required—(1) the inhalation of the smoke; (2) the retention thereof within the body for a space of time; (3) the exhalation of some part thereof from the mouth, nose, eyes, or ears taken separately or taken conjunctively."[1] In which definition I would direct your attention to the term "some part" as being significant, and, as far as I know, novel. For it is not necessary to smoking that the whole of the tobacco inhaled should be also exhaled—nay, it is impossible that this is ever the case, a certain portion of each inhalation being retained within the body, on which it exerts its nicotinic virtue.
Which observation recalls our attention to the subject under discourse—namely, the best means to be employed in participating in the above-named virtue. To which question it was answered that smoking is the best means, and most adapted to the end in view. And this answer led to a precise definition of smoking (ut supra), from which definition followed the corollary that "a certain portion of each inhalation is retained within the body on which it exerts its nicotinic virtue." Hence the participation of the mind in the nicotinic energy is a mediate one, and dependent on the body. And this is the doctrine of physical participation.
To which the upholders of the doctrine of metaphysical participation object that the pleasure received is incomplete if one smoke in the dark. Whence it followeth that the watching of the smoke, as it escapes from the bowl or mouth, has a large part in the process of participation; some even going so far as to make this contemplation of the smoke the essence of participation, and the physical effect only an inseparable accident thereof. And it is alleged by many that one who smokes in total darkness knows not even whether his pipe is in or out, and will often continue inhaling contentedly his own breath, his pipe containing nought but burnt-out ashes. But if this doctrine were true then it follows that to view others smoking would be an equal pleasure to smoking oneself, which if it were so smoking would shortly become a thing of the past (since who would be at the expense to buy tobacco when he could have the same pleasure by merely watching another smoking?) Also, if tobacco produces no physical sensations, any one of the weakest stomach would be free to smoke the strongest tobacco by the hour, provided only that he either bandaged his eyes or smoked in darkness. And this being granted as possible (argumenti causâ) leads us necessarily to the conclusion that the sensation of nausea, which undoubtedly does sometimes result from the use of tobacco, is caused alone by the disturbance to the eye, caused by viewing the clouds of smoke in the air. Furthermore, since the clouds arising from Cavendish and the Turkish tobacco are exactly the same in appearance, it follows that nausea is no more likely to result from the use of the one than the other, which is to say that they are both of an equal strength. But this, as any one of my readers can ascertain for himself, is a falsity, Cavendish tobacco being, at the least, double the strength of Turkish tobacco. Hence, since the proposition, "All sensations experienced in smoking are due to the sight of the smoke," has been proved to be false, its contradictory must be true—that is, "Some sensations experienced in smoking are not due to the sight of the smoke."
And this being established on the firm ground of logical inference, I will at once grant that smoking in darkness is a most unsatisfactory and incomplete process, affording very little pleasure at the best of times, and frequently none at all. And the reason is this—namely, "Some sensations experienced in smoking are due to the sight of the smoke," which I account for as follows:—The reception of the smoke into the body acts in two modes—firstly, directly upon the body. And to this first mode are to be referred nausea and sickness as resulting directly from it, and having no connection with the sight of the smoke in the air. Secondly, through the body indirectly on the mind, in which it excites certain sensations and dispositions. Now one of these dispositions is a pleasure in watching the clouds of smoke as they rise, and a desire to do so. Hence if it be dark and the smoke invisible this desire is ungratified, and the pleasure reduced. So in proportion to the virtue of the tobacco is the disappointment experienced, seeing that the more virtuous it be the more does it stir up this desire of beholding the smoke. But the effect upon the body remains entirely the same, being less or greater according to the stomach of the smoker or his habitude to smoking. Such is the explanation of diminution (or even extinction) of pleasure in smoking in the dark.
Now the next question is—how to account for a total absence of all sensation whatever under these conditions. And, firstly, we must inquire if such is the fact, unless we would imitate those erudite members of the Royal Society in the reign of our second Charles of ever blessed and glorious memory. And as far as I am able to judge, using both the experience of myself and that of others, I reply that it is a fact, but one that only is manifest in particular cases and under particular circumstances, which are such as follow:—(1.) He who smokes must have been in the habit of so doing for some years. (2.) He must use always the same kind of tobacco. (3.) He must use always the same kind of pipe. (4.) He must smoke at the same time of day at which he has been aforetime wont to smoke. Now let such a one fill his accustomed pipe with his accustomed tobacco, and if it be daylight let his eyes be blindfolded, and if it be night let the lamps be put out, and in such case I should not at all be astonished to hear him declare that he knows not whether his pipe be in or out. But on the other hand, if any one of the four conditions laid down should be violated, then, if I mistake not, the result would be different, and though the pleasure of smoking would be either entirely absent or greatly reduced, still there would be a complete physical appreciation of the act. And from the whole of the above discourse it appears that participation in the energy (or virtue) is composite, partly proceeding from physical influence on the body, partly from dispositions in the mind, one of which dispositions is gratified by the sight of the smoke in the air. And such other more remote sensations of the mind will be treated of under Relation at full length.
Next it will be profitable to take a brief view of the principal kinds of tobacco, with their several distinguishing properties.
Cavendish.—A good tobacco, I confess, strong, hearty, and wholesome, well adapted to vivify the mind and confirm the body; cool and pleasant to the mouth, and grateful to the stomachs of such as be used to it. Nathless, caution should be observed in its exhibition, lest by reason of its vigour it breed bile and loathing. So, if any one be about to use it for the first time, I would recommend that it be admixed with some milder kind, such as is Honeydew or Birdseye.
Birdseye.—A pleasant and fragrant tobacco, adapted for common use by all; not lacking savour, but not too vigorous. Yet is it apt to be hot and fretful in the mouth, so let such as be at all tender in that part use it but sparingly.
Honeydew.—Honeydew is cool and bland in the mouth and mild of digestion, yet by itself it wants fragrance and savour, and by reason of that want fails to stimulate, as it ought, both body and mind, but as I have noted, admixed with Cavendish it is mighty pleasant and delightsome.
Turkish.—A hot, tasteless tobacco, little fitted for the pipe, and incapable of good admixture, yet in it (if it be the best) there is a certain faint fragrance which some do much admire.
Returns.—A strong, rank tobacco, without fragrance or pleasant taste. Hot to the mouth, it breeds bile, and is to be avoided, unless by such as are veteran smokers.
Shag.—Like in all respects to Returns, save that it is ranker and more choleric. This tobacco I commend to none, and wish it were altogether abolished, since by its fumes much discredit is brought on tobacco in general.
Latakia.—Of itself a tasteless tobacco, or at least when smoked in pipes of European fashion, but useful for admixture with stronger tobaccos, and (as I am told) pleasantly to be smoked in a hookah or water-pipe.
Virginia.—Exceeding hot and biting in the mouth, and so to be condemned, yet of a most delicate and delightful fragrance, in which I think no tobacco surpasses it. Also of a fair strength, but a quick burner, and so dear to use.[2]
Such are the principal kinds of tobacco in use amongst us, which may either be taken separately or combined in various proportions as the taste of the smoker may direct. And so various is this taste that to lay down any one kind or admixture as good for all times and for all persons were impossible, yet I may roughly and conjecturally say that those who smoke for the love of smoking will smoke Cavendish, Birdseye, or Honeydew, while those who smoke because they think it adds to the beauty of their countenances will smoke Latakia, Turkish, or Virginia. But these are mostly, as Sir Thomas Schelsegensis maintains, clothes-horses, and not men in any rational sense of the term. And as to admixture I would commend that, of which half-a-pound being taken, four ounces shall consist of Honeydew, one of Birdseye, and three of Cavendish, the Honeydew contributing blandness, the Birdseye fragrance, and the Cavendish strength. And this must be said in favour of admixtures—that by smoking several kinds of tobacco in combination the student approximates more nearly to the universal energy than if he smoke one kind alone, for it is to be considered that each sort has its peculiar excellences and its peculiar defects, whence by mixing several sorts in such a proportion that the excellences are combined in a harmony and the defects or vices annulled, we are near to that ideal tobacco possessing every conceivable excellence and no conceivable vice.
So much, then, for the various kinds of Tobacco, the properties thereof, and the combinations thereof. Now Smalgruelius, in the Appendix to his work De Omnibus Rebus, entitled De Quibusdem Aliis, at the beginning of the chapter De Rebus Hypotheticis, has these words:—"Anything which can be applied to some use, and, on being so applied, is incapable of being used again, is said to exist in three modes, namely—I. Privation. II. Position. III. Negation. Exempli gratiâ coal, which before it is burnt exists in privation; when it is burning, in position; and when it is burnt to ashes, in negation. Such substance is said to be determinate. And anything which is capable of being applied to some use, and on being applied continues its usefulness to infinity, is said to exist in two modes only, namely—I. Privation. II. Continuation. Exempli gratiâ stone, which, when it is in the quarry, exists in privation; but when it is shapen into a pyramid, in continuation. Such substance is said to be continuous. Thirdly, anything which is capable of being applied to some use, and on being applied vanishes utterly out of our sight, is said to exist in three modes, namely—I. Privation. II. Position. III. Extinction. Exempli gratiâ oil, which, when it is unlighted, exists in privation; when it is in the state of being employed in giving light, in position; and when, the oil being consumed, the lamp goes out, in extinction. Such substance is said to be indeterminate. Fourthly, anything which is capable of being applied to some use, and, on being applied to that use, continues its usefulness for a greater or less amount of time, but then becomes incapable of being so applied any longer, is said to exist in three modes, namely—I. Privation. II. Continuation. III. Negation. Exempli gratiâ wood, which, when alive and growing, exists in privation; when shapen into a beam, in continuation, and when, having in the course of years become rotten, it falls to pieces, in negation. Such substance is said to be temporary. Some, however, would deny that any substance can be properly placed in this class, since it only differs from determinate substance in continuing in position a longer time, which (they allege) is no sufficient differentia. And aught that cannot be placed in some one of these four classes, or partly in one and partly in another, is insoluble and unknowable (est insolubile et inscibile), which substances I have considered under the head De Insolubilibus in the former part of this work."[3] So far Smalgruelius, whom I have quoted, partly from the curiosity and rareness of his book and partly for the application of his words to our subject-matter. Under which class, then, shall we place tobacco—Determinate, Continuous, Indeterminate, or Temporary? Let us consider, then, the classes in their order and endeavour to resolve this matter. And firstly let it be Determinate. Now, determinate substance has three modes—privation, position, and negation, and tobacco before it is kindled with fire may be said to exist in privation. Next, being alight and in the condition of being smoked, it plainly exists in position. And when it has been reduced to ashes and the pipe is out it exists in negation, since the ashes cannot ever be applied to the use of being smoked. So far good; and since tobacco is evidently neither continuous—i. e., lasting to infinity—nor temporary—i. e., lasting for a long course of years—nor yet indeterminate, for it does not vanish out of our sight, but leaves ashes, we may with saftey declare it to be determinate, existing in the three modes above-named.
This granted, let us consider tobacco existing in privation, that is, before it is placed in position—id est, combustion. Now, since the whole universe and all contained in it may by a comprehensive dichotomy be divided into that which belongs to oneself and that which does not, it appears plain that all the tobacco in the world may be, as far as I am concerned, also divided into that which I have and that which I have not. (And I may remark, by the way, that at this moment I possess about four ounces of the herb to set against the other somewhat larger member of the dichotomy—that which I have not.) But before I can smoke it is necessary that I do practically make this dichotomy—that is, become possessed of some tobacco for my own use and enjoyment. And to this possession there are four ways—borrowing, begging, buying, stealing, any or each of which are open to the would-be dichotomiser and fumigator. And let these four methods be taken in their order and considered. Firstly, borrowing, which I perceive is defined in the dictionary "to ask upon loan," "to take for use," neither of which definitions I am able to accept, for many do "ask upon loan" but yet receive nought save refusals, which is not borrowing but endeavouring to borrow; and many do "take things for use" without going through the pain of asking the owner's consent. But this we name stealing, and those amongst us who are unwilling to use harsh words concerning their fellowmen conveying, which is plainly not borrowing. Let borrowing, then, be defined as "the asking for and obtaining anything on loan"—that is, with the intention of restoring it, or its equivalent, back. And provided this intention of restoring be really present, and afterwards carried into effect, I do highly commend this way of getting tobacco as likely to give the borrower a more universal taste in the herb, since if he borrow from many friends it is probable that he borrows, and likewise smokes, many sorts of tobacco. But if this intention of restoring be altogether absent, or if present never resulting in action, then it is no longer borrowing but sponging, a hateful and detestable practice, of which certain students at the University of Oxford did show their abhorrence in coining the future tense of a verb Σμωκμιφρενζουήζω, to express a fellow who was notable for such parasitical champetry. Such a "sponge" will walk into another's rooms with a cheerful smile and "Heus! amice," or "Οὑτος συ," "Hullo! old fellow," it matters not which, and before he has tarried long out comes his pipe, and with some lame excuse of having forgotten his pouch, or the like, will dive deep into the tobacco-jar, and calling for ale, will play the host most gallantly—at another's expense. Off with such blood-suckers from the face of the earth! say I—"a twenty devil way," as old Chaucer hath it. So much for borrowing.
Next let us take begging, which differeth from borrowing in that he who begs neither pretends nor intends to pay back that which he has borrowed, but sues of your mercy and kindness to grant him his request. And this way of obtaining tobacco is practised chiefly by such lewd folk as do loiter about the streets and market-places "seeking what they may devour." And since any one who has reached this point of my discourse must be of far too obstinate, pigheaded, and determined a nature ever to come to begging tobacco it were unprofitable to continue the matter further; and whether it be profitable or not, this is all I shall say on the question.
Next cometh buying, which meaneth to give the coins of the realm in exchange for that thou buyest. Now, buying may may be regarded in three ways—firstly, the place where you buy; secondly, the price at which you buy; and thirdly, those from whom you buy. Now, the place where you buy is sometimes designated a tobacco-shop, but more frequently a "divan" or a "cigar stores." And the meaning of the word "divan" is that what would in nature be the sitting-room of the shopkeeper has been fitted up with hard chairs and harder benches and some stony tripods, answering in some respects to tables. Here, by the payment of a shilling, you may smoke a bad cigar and drink a bad cup of coffee, reading meanwhile an obsolete paper. Happy is the man who between this den and the word "divan" can establish any connection. He should be writing this book, not I. Secondly, the price at which you buy may be either a great price, a moderate price, or a small price. For example, of the first take Turkish tobacco at twenty-five shillings the pound; of the second, Birdseye tobacco at six shillings the pound; and of the third, Shag tobacco at four shillings the pound. And in this, as in other matters, wisdom lies in the mean, for he who buys tobacco at a great price needs a long purse, and he who buys it at a small price a strong stomach, but if he observe the mean he need have neither. Thirdly, those from whom you buy, the best division of whom is into male and female. Now the male seller of tobacco is of various sorts, of which take for example (1) the man of many words. From such a one you have much talking concerning all matters in general, especially if he be from foreign lands, which lands he doth not fail greatly to commend, but yet hath no desire to return unto them; (2) the man of few words, whose sole topic is the weather; (3) the man of no words, who selleth thee tobacco as if thou wast doing him an injury, and taketh thy money with a forbidding countenance. Yet if thou givest him no money is his countenance yet more forbidding, which is strange and with difficulty to be explained. For since the contradictory of receiving some money is receiving no money, and likewise the contradictory of a forbidding countenance a cheerful countenance, so rightly in such case should this man's countenance be cheerful; but yet it is not so, the reason whereof has not yet been discovered.
Next take the female sellers of tobacco, whose very existence I consider an insult to the smoker. For as it is not the habit of females in this country to smoke needs must be that such ones do sell that of which they know nothing and on which they are not qualified to discriminate. And this want of knowledge they endeavour to replace by idle verbosities and foolish grimaces wherewith to please the clothes-horses who may frequent their shop. Yet let it not be thought that they have any pretensions to a pleasant wit or pointed understanding, for I myself, being in company with one whose fault it was to have too great a fondness for these harpies, did list to a conversation lasting above an hour, in which I avow no one sensible, pleasant, or humorous word did pass, the talk being like unto ditchwater. And what pleasure he who calls himself a man can find in such discourse I know not, but am willing to be instructed on the matter. So much for buying tobacco.
Fourthly and lastly, it is possible to obtain tobacco by stealing, to which there is the one objection that the law will not suffer it, and if by means of "bobbies" it can apprehend the stealer will deprive him of both tobacco and liberty for a greater or less period. Otherwise I can see no objection to this method, it being devoid of all expense and being capable of much dexterity in the application. But unless thou possess a quick hand and a swift foot I do not recommend the direct or ostensive method of stealing. But would advise that which is called indirect or per accidens, which is thus accomplished:—By much pains discover a tobacco-shop where the folk seem of a simple and confiding nature, and for some weeks make frequent purchases thereat, paying for all that thou receivest in good and immediate coin. And when thou hast established that confidence which is so much to be desired between man and man it is an easy matter to slide (as it were) into disbursing for that thou hast received at longer and longer intervals, and finally into disbursing not at all. And thus is mere buying converted per accidens into stealing, and that without any risk or harm to the stealer.
So much for the four ways of becoming possessed of tobacco, to which some do add a fifth—namely, presentation, in which you receive it without request on your part and without the understanding that it is in any way to be repaid the presenter, but by free gift. But this is a very rare and phenomenal occurrence; nay, men have doubted whether there is such a thing as a gift at all, thinking to detect in every gift (so called) a certain sub-audition by which the giver implies that he expects some manner of repayment. This question I leave open, only observing that as there are four ways of becoming possessed of tobacco so there are four ways of becoming dispossessed of it—namely, by being borrowed of, by being begged of, by being bought of, and by being robbed of, of which only the third is to be commended, as leading to profit, while the others are at the best doubtful and mostly to be avoided.
And having by one or all of these methods obtained possession of the required tobacco, nothing remains but to smoke it, of which process somewhat hath already been said, and somewhat more shall presently be noted, but for the present let the matter of tobacco be deemed at an end.
- ↑ Namely, from the mouth alone, as is most common; from the mouth and nose, as is not uncommon; from the mouth and ears, which is rare; from the mouth and eyes, which is rarer, or from mouth, nose, ears, and eyes all at once, which is rarest. And since Scriblerus Redivivus was of the School of Oxford, he has, doubtless, many disciples in that place who will be prepared to do battle for his cause. Wherefore I do announce, proclaim, and promise that I am ready publicly to maintain and defend this thesis in the Schools of that University—viz., "That it is wholly and completely indifferent from which aperture of the face the smoke is emitted or exhaled, or whether it be exhaled from the right side of the mouth, the left side of the mouth, or the centre of the mouth." And on this question I would dispute with the Doctor Subtilis himself, so convinced and assured am I of the truth of my assertion.
- ↑ Hence the memorial lines:—
Latakia, et Turkish, Returns, Virginia, Birdseye,
Shag, Honeydew, Cavendish:—omnia fumifera.It is doubted whether these be the lines in the mind of the poet when he speaks of a "most burlesque, barbarous experiment." This I leave to the consideration of the curious in such matters.
- ↑ In confirmation of this theory I am able to adduce Ammonius De Interpretatione. "τὸ μὲν ξύλον ἐστι φύσει, ἡ δὲ θύρα θέσει" = timber exists naturally (privatively), but a door in position. But he only starts, as it were, the notion which Smalgruelius amplifies, and which, if time allow, I do myself intend to amplify to a still greater extent.