[Ads-l] "flux" = "to bleed" and OED2 -- sense absent?

[Joel S. Berson]

My impression is that "to flux" was used frequently, over several 
centuries, with the meaning "to bleed" (as in "bleed, v.", sense 9, 
"To draw or let blood from, esp. surgically.")  Is that sense absent, 
or at least too obscure, in "flux, v." in OED2?

"flux, v." sense 1.a, trans., is defined as "To treat medically by 
subjecting to a flux; esp. to salivate. Also, of food or drink: To 
produce a flux in (a person); to purge. Obs."  If "salivate" is 
called out, why not "bleed", which I suspect was more common?

There is a referral to "flux, n.", for which sense 1.a. does mention 
blood: "An abnormally copious flowing of blood, excrement, etc. from 
the bowels or other organs; a morbid or excessive discharge. spec. An 
early name for dysentery ..."  But is bleeding well-described as a 
"flowing ... from the bowels or other organs"?

It's possible, however, that I've been misreading 17th and 18th 
century texts, and that the instances I've seen of "to flux" have 
instead the meaning "to purge" -- as in sense 2.a, "trans. To 
eliminate or expel (waste or harmful matter, etc.) from the body or 
an organ" -- that is, particularly feces or urine (saliva would be 
another "waste").

Joel 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org