Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 115-116. (Budapest, 19869

TANULMÁNYOK - Magyar, László: Öngyógyító állatok (angol nyelven)

Of the forty three animals listed, there is a surprisingly small number (seven) of domestic animals, although we are supposed to believe that these were easier to observe. This is just due to the fact that they were easier to observe and therefore there was less chance to fib about them. On the other hand, it can be assumed that the instincts and self-supporting abilities of the animals living near man, that is, of those living in captivity and comfort are less developed or else they regress, as it also notable in those of man living in captivity and comfort. The selection was only about self-curing animals, not about ones of a general "curing" ability," because to give an account of them, we should have had to largely excurse from the subject. This topic could perhaps be treated in a separate study. The typology of the various ways of treatment used by the animals is fairly interesting. Naturally, they primarily seek and find the medicines residing in "herbs and trees". In most, i. e. sixty five of the cases, medicinal therapy was mentioned. Of the drugs used, fifty six were plants, eight of animal and one of mineral origin dietetic therapy was applied in thirteen cases, while surgical intervention only in two cases. The forty three animals did namely apply eighty kinds of therapy. The deer was familiar with the most procedures, i. e. with nine, origanum and herb of grace were taken by several of them, the former as a panacea, while the latter as a remedy for snake-bite. What are the conclusions to be drawn from the collected data? Certainly not much as regards the animals, since we may well doubt the veracity of what has been related. It is all the more interesting to meditate on why this tradition could have unfolded and why concerning just these animals? It is sure that one part of the descriptions was based on a single or multiple observations and it is also sure that the use of certain plants or minerals as medicines was learned by our ancestors from animals. Another portion of the stories in supposed to be of mythological origin (e. g. in cases of the hippopotamus, ibis and snake). Of the very few domestic animals mentioned, the early domesticated dog and the goat know the most, the much later domesticated cattle, horse, camel, swine, poultry figure only in one piece of data, each, or they are completely missing. The absence of sheep is particularly striking, whereof I have found no data at all in this respect. The fact, whether wild animals or animals domesticated early at the beginning of pastoral life are included in the selection, refers, im my opinion, to the antiquity of the data. They may derive from the times when man pursued a hunting way of life, and was just starting a nomadic life. The lack of a smart swine may perhaps point to the geographical origin of the stories, although this being a sweeping statement. Seventeen of the listed animals were birds, twenty one mammals and five reptiles. No data have been available on insects and fish and still less on other animals. This may certainly indicate that tradition attributed the more developed intellectual capacities mostly to various kinds of animals at a higher level of development. This deserves to be mentioned because it proves well, how imagination and myth is based on reality, which they never ignore completely. Data included in the compilation are namely contributions not only to the animal kingdom, but to human cultural history, and they should be interpreted accordingly. They are of interest not only in themselves, but due to their antiquity, since all is important by which we can look v into the unfathomably deep, but perhaps not hopelessly dark well of the past. , 99 There are lots of "curing" animals, let's just think about Asclepius' snake, or the "charadrios" bird of Plutarch, curing icterus (Quaest. Conviv. 5. 7. 2. 681). The point here is, which animal is to be considered a curer, the one curing by action, or those curing by their flesh, excrement or their eyesight?