Chapter V
In relation let us first take the eight predicaments or categories of fumifical mischance, as they are commonly given by the scholastic writers, and repeated in the Schools of Pipe Philosophy: (1) suffering in body, which befalls detected smokers of tender years; (2) without a pipe-light: (3) in a drawing-room, or in the company of females; (4) in a church, which, if my arguments take effect, will soon cease to be reckoned a predicament; (5) sick in body, whether by reason of tobacco or otherwise; (6) with a stopped-up pipe; (7) with a burnt tongue; (8) proctorised, the which is a predicament limited to our English Universities. These predicaments are below enumerated in some Latin lines, of no little elegance and numerosity, and well worthy of a place in the memory:—
"(1) Verbera cum dantur, (2) tubulo cum lumina desunt,
(3) Aut cum fœmineis œdibus usque manes.
(4) Aut in Divorum templis, (5) ægerve, (6) dedisti
Frustra operam tubulo, heus! inapertus abit.
(7) Cum patiens tristi cruciatur lingua dolore,
(8) Proctoribus titulum dicis et æque domum.
Hæc si perlexisse juvit, collecta magistris
Omnia fumantis prædicamenta tenes."
Of these eight predicaments the doctrine was first taught in the University of Padua by certain learned Greeks who had fled thither from Constantinople. And they continued to hold their place without assault, till at the end of the last century they were impugned by the German Windiemann, who proposed to substitute the following:—Verberability, mulierity, ecclesiasticity, glossarity, and inillumination as being fewer in number, and possessing greater perspicuity. And Zimmerblast, in his "Kritik der Windiemannschen Pfeiffe-Philosophie," Tüb., 1815, would further reduce the predicaments to two only—inillumination and imperturbability, or hæccity, by which latter term he denotes that peculiar cohesion of matter inside a pipe which it is impossible, without the assistance of a steam-engine, to pierce through. But the publication of this tractate leading to a riot among the students, and the threatened deprivation of the professional chair, Zimmerblast consented to withdraw these innovations, and to be content to leave matters as he found them, which, to a German philosopher, is accounted the utmost of humiliation. Yet since that time a new school hath arisen in the University of Paris which teaches that there is in reality but one predicament, which is "N'être pas Parisien"—not to have been born in Paris. For Paris, being the capital of France, is the seat of the French Republic, which is admitted by all to be the most tolerant, magnanimous, and amiable Government that ever has existed or ever can exist; and it being likewise granted that the Parisians are the most courageous people under the sun, and also the most polite (as was indeed most apparent but lately), it follows of necessity that the only real misfortune that can befall a man is not to have been born in Paris; and so but to mention this is sufficient, all other misfortunes being of but minor importance. Moncurius Scepticus, however, in his "Itinerarium per Orbem Terrarum factum," considers the real predicament to be "the not-possessing a house in Bedford Park," which being bounded on one side by an open sewer, on another by a brickfield, and at each end by a railway, cannot fail to be a desirable and pleasant spot. (Rents from £35 to £100. Apply at the office.) Some obstinate and misguided spirits, indeed, would object to this on the ground that two feet of water on the floor of one room and a delapsed ceiling on the table of another are, to say the least, inconveniences; but as Moncurius contends, is there not a club and a School of Art, and doth not the railway take men direct to that spot, hallowed by the delivery of so many Orationes Notilocellenses, or south-windy discourses? And he who having read that notable discourse in which Moncurius completely, logically, and syllogistically proves the absurdity of the Christian religion[1] is yet inclined to doubt the blessedness of living in propinquity to so great a man, must be, in very deed and truth, nought but an ignoramus and blockhead. So that there is not a little to be said for this Moncurian predicament, but as it is but lately promulgated, I am constrained to adhere to the old predicament until such time as the world be dichotomised into—1. Wise men = Dwellers in Bedford Park. 2. Fools = Dwellers in other places.
To pass from the predicaments to other matters, I will first take the doctrine of tubular remembrance, or anamnesis, which, stated briefly, is as follows:—A pipe that has been smoked by any one, (1) in a certain place, (2) at a certain time, (3) in a certain relation, will, if laid by for a season and smoked again by the same person, (1) in another place, (2) at another time, (3) in a different relation, bring back to the soul an anamnesis, or remembrance of the former place, time, and relation. And this, not imperfectly as an outline, but perfectly as in a finished picture. Which in the Fumifical Logic of Peter Pfeiffe (Petrus Fistularius) stands thus:—"Tubulus, ab aliquo fumatus; I° In loco quodam; II° In tempore quodam; III° In ratione quadum; si per temporis quoddam spatium deponatur, et inde rursus ab eodem. I° In alio loco; II° In alio tempore; III° In ratione diversâ, fumetur: in animum ejus perfectam, loci, temporis, rationis prioris memoriam reducet. Quod non indistincté, ant confusé, sed distincte et perspicue, perficit."
Such being the doctrine of anamnesis in the precision of the Latin tongue, for the benefit of those who love to see a dignified subject treated of in a dignified language, let us examine somewhat closely this ingenious and subtle opinion. And firstly it may be inquired, is it in reality so? and if it be so, whether universally or particularly? To which questions I may make one answer, It is so, but not universally. For as a cucumber seed would attain to nothing if it were planted in ice, so neither can this process of anamnesis take place in a cold and unfruitful mind, but only in one that is delicate and readily receiveth and fructifieth whatever is cast upon it. And secondly, what is the cause of this recollection? Why, as to this various explications have been given. Some will have it that a pipe collects while it is being smoked certain atoms of a subtile æther, which in its turn is impregnated with the quintessence of the surrounding air, which differeth in some degree in every different place. And if the recollection includes a recollection of persons it is said that the atoms collected were partly composed of the breath of these persons. So these atoms being collected are stored up within the substance of the pipe, and remain wtihin it for any length of time (but Spitsbubius will not allow a greater duration than a thousand years), and upon the pipe being smoked again are drawn out by the heat, and pass with the smoke into the body, and so act on the mind, not immediately but mediately. But this theory seeming somewhat gross and material was rejected by Limalaudulus de Tamesi, who maintains that the anamnesis is owing to the ideas of place, time, and relation being perceived by the "anima tubuli," or spirit of the pipe, and so becoming a part of it, whence after a certain mysterious fashion they pass directly into the mind when the pipe is again used. But the means by which this is effected he explains not, and so lays himself open in some way to the charge of obscurity which hath been brought against him. And if we admitted this hypothesis we could not fail to regard a pipe as divinitatis specie quadam imbutus, a kind of divinity capable of receiving and imparting ideas, independent of matter, which would seem somewhat too extravagant. For my own part I do mostly incline to the opinions of Jacobulus de Corvis, who holds that a pipe is neither capable of receiving æthereal atoms or ideas, much less of storing them up and imparting them. And his explanation by instance is this:—Supposing that on a bitter and frosty day in midwinter I walk through a wild country abounding in hills, the tops of which are covered with snow. And let me also meet with certain of my acquaintance, and talk with them on some particular matter to which we alone are privy. Grant me likewise to fall into a ditch as I journey along, and be not wroth if I be covered with slush even to my doublet. And further when I reach my journey's end let it be not forbidden me to devour muffins (placentæ calefactæ) even till I can eat no more. Now all these events have occupied a certain space of time, during some part of which (say from my meeting with my friends till the falling into the ditch) I have smoked a particular pipe and none other. And a twelvemonth after, this pipe in the meantime not having been used by me, suppose that in the heart of a city, on a burning July day, I once more smoke it. And I have scarce put it to my lips when in imagination I am again among the snow-clad hills and feel again the cold keen air of winter. Next cometh to my mind the meeting with my acquaintance, the matter of our discourse, the wetness of the ditch, and the hotness of the muffins. Now it was only during a part of the whole time that I was actually smoking, so that neither by æthereal atoms or ideas could the pipe participate in what preceded and what followed my smoking of it. And the cause of recollection is as follows:—Every single pipe hath in it a somewhat that renders it different from other pipes. And this somewhat is perceived by the mind secretly—that is to say, it is not known by itself, but by what results from it. So taking this along with more material differences of substance, shape, colour, and the like, it is easy to understand that all these acting together ⟨recall⟩ to the mind when it was they were last perceived. Which being accomplished, the mind, not content with the bare particulars of time, proceeds to place, relation, action, passion, and so on through the categories until the whole circumstances, with what preceded and what followed, are run over anew. So that the very slightest matter which occurred formerly is now remembered and pondered over, it may be even to a ridiculous and disproportionate extent. And this seems to be a very rational view to take of the matter, far more agreeable to the intellect than the former hypotheses I have cited. For if we allow that the ideas do actually exist in the pipe itself it must follow that they exist for all who may afterward smoke it, and not alone for the original smoker. So we might suppose a new species of divination arising named capnomancy, in which by merely smoking a pipe we might gain a knowledge not only of the deeds or words of others but their very thoughts and desires, which would be an art greedily sought after and pursued, and, indeed, might have we know not what results. For since it is agreed that the superior produces the inferior, and since ideas are confessedly superior to matter, who shall say that ideas may not be so managed as to produce matter? So by continually brooding over the ideas—say of wealth—contained in a pipe the smoker might be surprised by one day seeing the ideas take visible form in the shape of gold, silver, and broad lands. But this hath not yet been accomplished, and as far as I can judge is not at present likely to be, which is much to be regretted and deplored.[2] And as to the atomic theory it is clear that it is not possible that, except during the very act of smoking, the atoms can influence the pipe at all, and since the most subtile part of the anamnesis is its comprehension of what preceded and what succeeded, this is left altogether unexplained, or only to be explained in an unnatural and improbable manner. So let the hypothesis of Jacobulus be adjudged the conqueror, and with this let us end the matter.
Next, by way of disputation, I will take the statement often made by the thoughtless—smoking is a slow poison. First as to the form. What is a "poison?" A poison is a substance, either solid, liquid, or gaseous, which being absorbed into the system of the body either kills it or more or less grievously injures it. And a "slow poison" is therefore a substance which does this slowly and by degrees. From which it appears that "smoking" is a substance. But smoking is the act of inhaling smoke. Therefore an act is also a substance, which is absurd. For how can we talk of a solid act, or a liquid act, or a gaseous act? It might as justly, quoad formam, be said of dancing that "it is a slow poison," or of any other act of the body that can be conceived of. And again, what meaning are we to assign to the word "slow"? I will grant that "smoking" is a poison, and search among other poisons and endeavour to understand in what manner "slow" is applied to them. Now among rapid poisons we find, for example, aconite, prussic acid, and the venom of certain snakes. These will kill a man, it may be, in a second of time, it may be in two or three days at the most. And among slow poisons there are those mysterious powders formerly in fashion by which, at most in a few months, a man's strength was undermined and he seemed to fade away as if by natural disease. Now since "smoking" is a "slow" poison it is in the latter way that we should expect it to act, and a year of smoking at the utmost would be sufficient to insure death. But who ever heard of a smoker fading away after this manner? and even if it has happened so, how many out of the millions of men who have smoked have been thus caused to perish? Furthermore, can we say of any man who has attained the age of seventy, eighty, or ninety years, and who throughout (say fifty years) of his life has persisted in a certain habit, that he has been poisoned by that habit? Yet many who have died at such ages have been constant smokers for the greater part of their lives, and glory in having thus done. I grant that if a boy of twelve, without previous preparation, smoke eight ounces of tobacco in as many hours it is not unlikely he will die, or at any rate be grievously sick, but this amounts only to saying that "Tobacco, if it be used to an inordinate extent by one not used to it, will act as a poison," which might be said of well-nigh every substance we can think of as capable of being taken into the body. But yet not a slow poison, for the boy would probably die in a very short space of time, or be at death's-door for a day or two and then recover. So in no case can tobacco be said to be a slow poison, and only a poison when taken under exceptional surroundings. And, in fact, this argument, or rather statement (for an argument requires its terms to have a distinct meaning, and also a solid foundation), is mostly brought forward by those who
"Compound for sins they are inclined to
By damning those they have no mind to."
Such as are, for instance, your fine City dames, who will become well-nigh exanimate at the smell of good wholesome tobacco, but who, in the privity of their chambers, will stupefy themselves with chloral or morphia and the like. But it were waste of breath, better employed in smoking, to rebuke these malaperts, so I will leave them to their drugs, and betake me to my pipe.
This pernicious and hateful dogma being analysed into its elements of equivocation, folly, and alazonie, and so confuted, I will next observe the ten topics of doubt as propounded by Ænesidemus Minimus in his Prior Fumifics (Καπνόφορα Πρότερα). They refer actually to the lighting of pipes, but do strike indirectly at the certainty of all smoking whatsoever. For it being impossible to smoke tobacco before it be lighted, if it can be shown that considerable doubt attaches to the certainty of lighting, then it follows that an equal doubt attaches to the certainty of smoking. And this Ænesidemus endeavoured to prove. For being a professor at the famous University of Gotham, he grew dissatisfied with the empirical methods there in vogue, and from his professorial tub enunciated the following sceptical propositions:—Supposing any one to have a pipe containing tobacco in one hand and a matchbox in the other, it is very improbable that this pipe will be lighted. For these reasons: 1. The tobacco may be damp. 2. The pipe may be too full. 3. The pipe may not be full enough. 4. The match may go out (a) of its own volition, (b) by the force of the wind, (c) by the foolishness of the agent. 5. The pipe may be undrawable, (a) because it is stopped up too much, (b) because it is not stopped up enough. 6. The intending smoker may become an idiot, or have a fit, and so be incapable of lighting the pipe. 7. If he be at school he may be interrupted by the archididascalus or one or more of the hypodidasculi. 8. He may change his mind. 9. There's many a slip 'twixt the pipe and the lip. 10. Supposing none of these things happen, and the matter be accomplished, yet it is false to say that the pipe has been lighted; for it is not lighted, but the tobacco that is in it. Which doctrines were no sooner made known than a storm of rage and indignation against Ænesidemus burst forth in Gotham, and not only was his tub of fumifical philosophy at once declared vacant, but its very bottom was knocked out by the students, by which it became yet more vacant, and wholly unfit for professorial purposes. Ænesidemus was further declared to be tainted with the worst errors of Gulielmus de Læto Lapide, the Pope, and the Caucus; and within a short space of time Gotham knew him no more, save as a Radical and a backslider, who had bitten the bosom that cherished him. And Gotham being a city of full five hundred souls, returning two Conservative members to the Commons' House, and possessing six churches and nine public pumps, besides innumerable private ones, it was universally thought in the town that this verdict would be decisive; but the country at large had lately experienced one of its occasional attacks of madness, and had placed Gulielmus de Læto Lapide at the head of the Government. And he, with that shameless wickedness for which he is everywhere known, did show favour to Ænesidemus, and (it is vulgarly reported) did enter into a Corrupt Compact with him, and did give him golden money, on the condition that he should exercise his art of blacking boots for his (Gulielmus's) benefit. But all this, the disputations in the Commons' House upon the matter, the questions asked therein upon it, and the leading articles thereon, are they not written in the books of the misdeeds of Gulielmus de Læto Lapide, who made the people of England to go astray?
But if it be inquired by the curious what was the fate of the tub that was made vacant by the abominable heresies of Ænesidemus, and the boots of the students, I am able in some sort to answer. On every thirty-first of April (Old Style) this tub is borne round the town, vested in full academicals, and surrounded by a body of the graduates of the University of Gotham shouting discordantly the following verses:—
I
"O! cives civitatis
Hujus clarissimæ,
Menoriam pravitatis
Æternam tenete.
II
"Illius Professoris,
Qui ausit[3] dubitare;
Et est expulsus è foris,
Nec scio cur, nec quare.
III
"Sed solum hoc scio,—
Qui audet dubitare,
Is expelletur Gothamo
Si absunt cur et quare."
So much for the history of these notable topics of doubt. But if we proceed to examine them critically, notwithstanding the indignation that they aroused, I believe we shall find them more or less reasonable. Being for the most part expressed in clear and precise language, there appears to be no necessity of a particular explication. But I would advise the reader that in the fifth topic the words "not stopped up enough" denote what is usually named "leaking"—that is, an escape of air at some part of the pipe diverse from the bowl or mouthpiece. So considering that of these topics not one is impossible, and very many do frequently come to pass, it seems not unreasonable to argue for an apathy, or suspension of the judgment upon the question of certainty or non-certainty. I confess, however, that the tenth topic hath somewhat the appearance of a quibbling with words and of drawing too nice a distinction; yet we must understand that one of the most distinguishing marks of a true philosopher is a nicety in speech and a disposition to correct a loose and vulgar diction. So I will concede that these topics are well founded, and justify a wise suspension of judgment upon the matter of lighting pipes. Yet I can by no means consent with Ænesidemus when in his Posterior Fumifics he deduces from this improbability that it will be possible to light any given pipe the conclusion that, it being so uncertain a matter, it is better not to smoke at all. And when he proceeds, on these grounds, to recommend the taking of snuff and the chewing of quids as a substitute for smoking, I do not hesitate to pronounce him a gross materialist. For though he affirms that a quid contains the quidditas or whole essence of the Schoolmen, he seems to me but to equivocate and play the sophist, and I do therefore warn such of my readers as are inclined to materialism against these Posterior Fumifics, as being in some places little better than plain acapnism, and evidently contrary to the teaching of Pythagoras. And let all such would-be materialists remember that, though metaphysically the possibility of smoking may seem doubtful, yet to all rational intents and purposes it is possible, and may therefore be believed in and practised with an easy conscience. And all doubters on this question I refer to the Καπνισμὰ Εντελεχέιας or Smoke-offering of Perfection by Proclus Capnobates, where shall be found much wholesome doctrine of a just mean between dogmatism and scepticism. Which observation applies equally to the downright acapnists, who deny all virtue whatsoever to tobacco, in whatsoever form it may be taken. For, they maintain, if there be any real savour in tobacco it must exist independently of the smoker, chewer, or snuffer, and be perceived in the same manner by all who use it. But what is more common than to hear two smokers of the same tobacco express directly contradictory judgments thereon? One will say it is mild, another strong, and if a third enter to them he will probably pronounce it neither mild nor strong, but of a medium flavour. Whence it is evident the virtue exists only in the mind of the smoker, and not at all in the tobacco itself. And who is ignorant that a single puff of tobacco-smoke appears a very different thing to an aphis vastator than to a man, inasmuch as to the insect it is death, but to the man a pleasure; but if the virtue really existed in the tobacco or the smoke from the tobacco it would be the same to the one as to the other. And again, you will hear the same man express different opinions at different times concerning the qualities of the very same tobacco; but if there existed any real savour in the tobacco itself this could not possibly be the case. So this nicotinic virtue is plainly a concept or notion of the mind, and in that manner really existing, but as it is vulgarly conceived to exist (namely, not in the mind, but in tobacco), it exists not at all. But these doctrines are so far harmless in that they do not advise the abjuration of smoking, but only regard it in a new and mysterious light, and so may be admired for their ingenuity without fear of any practical consequence. Yet they are to be condemned for obscurity and mistiness of expression, and are therefore not to be studied save by solid and profound doctors of Pipe Philosophy.
Such, in brief outline, are the two principal schools of sceptics, the one headed by the sometime Professor of Gotham, and becoming degraded to the base materialism of snuffing and chewing, and the other diverging into a mystic idealism, or notional philosophy, which, albeit not nocent, is yet wanting in basis, and so not worthy of any high laudation. And now, since I have traced from its origin and dim dawnings this Disciplina Tabulata, or Pipe Philosophy, expounding, anatomising, and dividing it on my way, rendering plain things dark and dark things plain, I may declare with Naso, Hoc opus exegi. Fessæ date serta carinæ. Contigimus portum, quo mihi cursus erat; or with Tully, using less tropical adornment, Adducta ad exitum quæstio est. And so, most stubborn and undaunted reader, I bid thee farewell, wishing thee half as much pleasure in the reading as I have had in the writing, which in truth has not been a little.
Ohe jam satis est, ohe Libelle
Jam pervenimus usque ad umbilicos.
- ↑ Thus:"The Story of Alcestis has some faint resemblance to the Belief of Christians.
No one now believes in the Story of Alcestis.
Therefore, No one now believes in the Belief of Christians—or, if they do, they ought not to!" And yet there are still some few persons who fail to see anything absurd in Christianity! - ↑ But read more of this in Limalaudulus de Tamesi and Dummerkopfius.
- ↑ Hæc vox ausit prava Latinitas tibi esse videatur. Quod ego quoque putabam cum Gothami hoc carmen audiebam, itaque talia cantori cuidam dixi. "Minime" inquit, "nisi magis Catone censore censorius es."