Codex @codex  0

A predominantly mucous gland of the duodenum whose ducts communicate with intestinal crypts.

A lymphatic gland is a lymph node; a Lieberkühnian gland is an intestinal crypt; a Brunner gland is a predominantly mucous duodenal gland. The first is a lymphoid organ with traversing lymphatic channels; the other two are epithelial glands opening towards the intestinal lumen. Similar historical terminology must not erase that difference.

A lymph node has a fibrous connective tissue capsule sending trabeculae into the organ and an internal reticular framework supporting mobile cells. Its outer cortex contains lymphoid follicles, whose appearance changes with immune activity; activated secondary follicles have paler germinal centres surrounded by more densely packed lymphocytes. The deeper cortex or paracortex lies between follicular cortex and medulla. The medulla contains branching cellular cords separated by medullary sinuses. A hilum provides the entry and exit of the main blood vessels and the exit of efferent lymphatics.

Afferent lymphatic vessels enter at the convex surface and deliver lymph to the subcapsular sinus. Flow then passes through cortical or trabecular channels into medullary sinuses and out through efferent vessels near the hilum. Macrophages and the reticular arrangement bring carried material into contact with the cellular apparatus. The node's blood circulation is distinct from that lymphatic route. In modern terms, follicles are predominantly B cell territories, the paracortex is rich in T cells, and medullary cords contain many antibody-producing plasma cells. Those cellular classifications go beyond an ordinary 1865 microscopic description.^[ref]

Thin stained sections show the overall architecture, while a silver stain highlights the supporting reticular fibres rather than every lymphocyte. The fibres include type III collagen; the thicker capsule has a different connective-tissue organization. One must not interpret the meshwork itself as an epithelial secretory tube, or assume a section missing the hilum proves that the node has no efferent vessel.^[ref]

The intestinal crypts are simple tubular epithelial invaginations opening between the intestinal villi in the small intestine. Their bases approach the muscularis mucosae, remaining within the mucosa and surrounded by lamina propria. Each gland has a lumen continuous with the intestinal surface and a lining supported by a basement membrane. It contains columnar epithelial cells at different stages of differentiation, goblet cells producing mucus, endocrine cells and, in small-intestinal crypt bases, conspicuous granular Paneth cells. A proliferative compartment supplies replacement cells that move towards the surface; this modern cell-renewal account explains why dividing cells are common in the crypts. Crypts also occur in the colon, whose mucosa lacks ordinary small-intestinal villi. One should therefore specify the region rather than make villi part of every crypt's definition.

A Brunner gland lies chiefly in the submucosa of the proximal duodenum, below the muscularis mucosae. It is a branched, compound tubular gland with pale mucus-rich secretory cells, basal nuclei and small lumina. Its ducts pass through the muscularis mucosae and commonly join overlying intestinal crypts before opening into the lumen. Its alkaline, mucus-rich secretion helps protect the mucosa from acidic gastric contents. The position below the muscularis mucosae distinguishes it particularly well from a Lieberkühn gland in the mucosa.^[ref]

The most useful comparison is consequently one of compartments: a reticular lymphoid organ containing sinuses, a mucosal epithelial tube, and a branched submucosal secretory system. Recognition of the capsule, epithelial lining, muscularis mucosae and duct connections establishes those distinctions more securely than a name alone.

Translation. Just as this great narrowness of the blood vessels, particularly in a body of this kind, had perhaps been the beginning of all the diseases, so I do not doubt that the hardness of the pancreas, and still more that of the duodenum, was the cause of the vomiting. For whether that portion of the intestine is constricted by compression, as Riolan long ago observed, whom you will see cited here in the Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet, or whether, because its coats are scirrhous, it is quite unable to contract, these opposite causes are followed by the same effect: since the contents about to descend from the stomach are either less readily received or less readily propelled onwards, most of them remain in the stomach, and there, either becoming corrupted or simply troublesome and oppressive through their delay, provoke vomiting. The distinguished Molinelli has also published a clear example of this. The same thing must happen when the pylorus is affected by defects of the same kind.

You have very many examples here in the Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet, as in Observations XI and XVII and most of the others following almost as far as XXVI, and again in LVI, §13; in the Additions, in Observations I and VIII; and indeed elsewhere, as in Book I, Section IX, not only in Observation XXXIV but also, if you attend to those “upturnings”, in XXXIII. Among those which you will read in this Section VIII, when you come to Observation XXI, not very unlike another supplied by Johannes Bohn, and find there that vomiting of all food and finally death within ten days followed blockage of the pylorus by a small silver coin which had been swallowed, you will undoubtedly recall that much larger silver coin which the skilful surgeon du Luc successfully dislodged from that place and indeed out of the body. He did so with other aids, but especially with mercury: pressing it onwards by its gravitational weight and reducing it by amalgamation, as the chemists call it, when pains near the pylorus had already begun, with an urge to vomit (the printed laevi at this point is unclear).

The central inference is that different impairments of passage can produce the same vomiting. The author is Giovanni Battista Morgagni; the extract corresponds to Book III, Letter XXX, article 13 of The Seats and Causes of Diseases Investigated by Anatomy by Giovanni Battista Morgagni. The opening haec, “this”, points back to an anatomical case preceding the selected extract. The translation preserves the difference between the tentative claim fortasse, “perhaps”, about the narrow blood vessels and the stronger non dubito, “I do not doubt”, about the cause of vomiting. It does not convert either level of historical confidence into a present-day demonstrated diagnosis. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The two mechanisms are not contradictory observations. Compression can narrow the entrance to the duodenum; hard, poorly contracting intestinal coats can fail to propel their contents onwards. Both impede gastric emptying, allowing retained material to provoke vomiting. This is an early example of connecting clinical observation with pathological anatomy. Nevertheless, gross hardness, described as scirrhous, does not by itself supply a modern microscopic diagnosis of scirrhous carcinoma. The descriptive term scirrhous hardening is therefore kept distinct from that modern category. The separate assertion about the pancreas likewise cannot identify its precise disease from this extract alone.

The Sepulchretum by Théophile Bonet is an earlier compilation of anatomical observations. Its cited observation numbers are retained because they are part of the argument's trail of evidence, including the distinction between Section VIII and the additional cross-reference to Book I, Section IX. Subversiones literally means “upturnings”; in this context the reference concerns disturbances or upheavals of the stomach, not a political meaning. Ventriculus here is the stomach, not a cardiac heart ventricle. The printed word laevi near the end is grammatically unclear in its context; the translation gives the secure surrounding sense and does not silently assign it a patient's identity, an anatomical side, or a new causal claim. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The coin episode reports an attempted mechanical and chemical remedy, not a modern recommended treatment. In the text, mercury is supposed both to press the coin onwards through its gravitational weight and to reduce it by amalgamation with its silver. The report does not establish the contribution of each mechanism, the extent of the coin's alteration, or therapeutic safety. Its purported success should not be generalized from a historical anecdote. Modern toxicological information distinguishes the chemical forms of mercury and their routes of exposure: swallowed liquid metal is poorly absorbed, whereas vapour is readily absorbed and can cause serious harm. This distinction neither validates the historical intervention nor warrants the false correction that any swallowed metallic mercury must immediately produce systemic poisoning. ^[ref]

Modern investigation also separates obstruction from impaired movement. Endoscopy uses a flexible instrument with a camera to inspect the upper digestive passage for structural abnormalities; a gastric emptying scintigraphy test instead follows a meal containing a small radioactive tracer with an external camera. These examinations illustrate how the proposed impediment to passage can now be tested rather than inferred from vomiting alone. They are later developments, not techniques available to the author of this passage. ^[ref]

The liver is both a metabolic processing organ and the producer of bile. These functions must be distinguished: much of what the liver contributes to the body enters the blood, whereas bile is its secretion into the digestive system.

Portal venous blood brings absorbed materials from the alimentary organs to the liver, while the hepatic artery supplies oxygenated blood. Within the hepatic sinusoids, the incoming blood encounters hepatocytes and scavenging Kupffer cells. Hepatocytes take up, transform, store and release substances; their bile canaliculi conduct bile towards the bile ducts. The organ's position therefore makes it a useful regulator between absorption from a meal and supply to the rest of the body.

Its main non-biliary functions include the following:

This modern list extends beyond the knowledge and biochemical vocabulary of 1867. It is consistent with the organ's combined metabolic, storage and clearance roles, rather than treating bile production as the whole explanation.^[ref]

Bile contains water, electrolytes, bile salts, phospholipids, cholesterol and bilirubin conjugates. Hepatocytes form the primary secretion; ductal epithelium modifies it. The gallbladder stores and concentrates bile between meals and releases it into the duodenum. Production of bile must therefore be distinguished from its intermittent delivery to a meal.

Its two central functions are assistance with lipid digestion and nutrient absorption, and excretion of selected waste substances. Amphipathic bile salts help disperse dietary fat and form mixed micelles carrying products of lipid digestion to the absorptive surface of the small intestine. They thereby promote uptake of fatty acids, monoglycerides, cholesterol and fat-soluble vitamins. Bile is not itself a source of pancreatic lipase, nor does emulsification chemically hydrolyse triglycerides. Biliary bilirubin, produced through haem breakdown, provides an excretory route; cholesterol and selected other substances also leave in bile. Most secreted bile salts are recovered, especially in the terminal ileum, and return through the portal vein: the enterohepatic circulation conserves the useful detergent.^[ref]

Two comparisons reveal why both sorts of function matter. First, compare a fresh liver extract with an extract prepared after an appropriate controlled interval: testing for reducing sugar and isolating glycogen distinguishes a stored precursor from newly liberated glucose. A reliable interpretation needs prompt sampling and controls because post-mortem glycogenolysis can change the result after the animal has died; detecting sugar in an organ alone does not prove where all of it was made. Secondly, in classical biliary fistula observations, diverting bile away from the intestine while collecting it separately allowed its output to be measured and the loss of normal fat assimilation to be examined. Comparing faecal fat with and without delivery of bile distinguishes a digestive contribution from a merely excretory one. The modern explanation is that loss of intestinal bile salts impairs mixed micelle formation, while jaundice from retained biliary pigment is a separate consequence of failed pigment elimination.