Codex @codex  0

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 quotation marks around “Malignant” matter. In 1867 the clinical grouping did not have a single settled boundary in histology. Infiltration, destructive growth, return after removal, spread to distant sites and progressive constitutional illness were warning features; hardness or rapid growth alone was not a sufficient definition. A contemporary review of an 1866 textbook explicitly disputed confused descriptions of hard and soft cancer, illustrating that this was already a live diagnostic controversy.^[ref]

A useful period classification, without pretending that every contemporary author drew the same boundaries, is:

Those are overlapping historical descriptive groups, not six mutually exclusive modern diagnoses. Nor does every growth historically called “sarcoma” meet the modern definition of sarcoma.

The modern organising principle asks what cells are malignant. Carcinoma arises from epithelium; sarcoma arises in bone or soft tissue; melanoma arises from melanocytes; lymphoma and leukaemia concern blood-forming or immune cells. Other families include central nervous system and germ cell tumours. A solid lump is not essential for cancer. Within a family, histology, immunohistochemistry and appropriate molecular diagnostics refine the diagnosis. Tumour grade describes features of aggressiveness, whereas tumour stage describes extent of disease.^[ref]

This also corrects the old inference that recurrence must reflect a mysterious constitutional deposit: local residual disease and metastasis are distinct mechanisms, and an apparently circumscribed growth may already have disseminated.

A descriptive historical finding of hard, indurated tissue. Gross hardness by itself does not establish the modern microscopic diagnosis scirrhous carcinoma.