CHAPTER VI.

_Age of Renovation (continued).--Student-life During the Fifteenth and

Sixteenth Centuries. Ceremonials Previous to Dissection.--Reform Period:

The Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Centuries. Modern Realism

in Medicine and Science. Introduction of the Cell-doctrine. Discovery

of the Circulation. William Harvey, 1578-1637. Malpighi, 1628-1694.

Leuwenhoek, 1632-1723. Correct Doctrine of Respiration. Discovery of

the Lymphatic Circulation. The Nervous System. Discovery of Cinchona.

Development in Obstetric Art, in Medical Jurisprudence, in Oral Clinical

Teaching. Van Helmont, 1578-1644.--The Iatrochemical System: Le Bôe,

1614-1672. Thomas Willis, 1622-1675._

For a{148} long time the Italian universities held the first rank; next

came the French; and last the German, although all were well attended.

The most famous were the medical faculties of Bologna, Pisa, Padua; then

Paris, Montpellier, and, finally, Basel.

A little of what concerned the student-life of this period may not be

amiss. The students chose the rector and officers of the universities,

sometimes even the teachers, and assisted in determining the curriculum

of study, the execution of which they watched. In some of the Scotch

universities even now the students choose the rector.

The students were divided, usually according to country, into bodies

denominated "nations" (some having special seals), which were the

parents of the present stu-dent-corps in German universities. Certain

representatives, known as vice-rectors, were chosen from each of these

corps and constituted a so-called college of rectors which negotiated

with the officials of the State, and possessed a power that was

preserved until the end of the sixteenth century.

The poorer class of students passed from one school to another,

supporting themselves by singing, begging, or stealing, and were

sometimes guilty of great barbarities. The younger scholars, called

"Schutzen," were compelled to perform{149} most menial duties for their

older comrades, the "Bacchanten,"--much like the system of fagging

still in vogue in English grammar-schools; and when the bacchantes were

admitted to the university proper they were required to pass through

an initiation, or hazing, which eclipsed anything known in these

days; indeed, the antiquity of fagging may be traced back even to the

philosophic schools of Athens. The habits of the traveling scholars

led many of them into dissolute and vicious ways, though some attained

respectable positions,--possibly even eminence. The students who were

better situated financially; for the most part entered the Italian

universities.

Already mention has been made of the enormous number of students

congregated during this age in Bologna and in Naples. In the small

University of Wettenburg there were, in 1520, only about six hundred

students; in Erfurt, three hundred, and this number dwindled two years

later to fifteen; in 1500 Leipzig had four hundred students; at the

same time there were about seven thousand in the University of Vienna.

Students and teachers migrated from one place to another, and faculties

were constantly changing. Great teachers were received with great

ceremony. Bitter struggles and disputes between teachers sometimes

occurred; it is related of Pistorius, who died in 1523, and Pollich,

deceased in 1513, that they conceived a violent enmity toward each other

because of antagonistic views relative to the epidemic or contagious

character of syphilis, and both ultimately left Leipzig for other

schools.

Some curious customs prevailed. In teaching anatomy, while the learned

teachers explained the parts as exposed, the dissections were left to

barbers as being unworthy of an educated medical gentleman. While the

cadavers were mainly the corpses of executed criminals, it was thought

that before and after each special dissection religious ceremonies were

appropriate, and such were often held; it was also believed that all

who came in contact with such a corpse{150} would be made disreputable

unless it were itself first made reputable; hence the professors first

read aloud a decree to that effect from the magistrate, and then, by

order of the senate of the faculty, stamped upon the breast of the

corpse the seal of the university. The body was next carried into

the anatomical hall, and the cover of the box in which it had been

transported was returned to the executioner, who remained at some

distance for this purpose. If the corpse was one that had been

decapitated, during these solemn ceremonies the head was placed between

its legs. Finally, an entertainment with music, often furnished by

itinerant actors, was given. But this folly was gradually discontinued,

and by the second half of the sixteenth century public dissection was

performed without recourse to such mummeries. The price of skeletons

in those days was high; the University of Hiedelberg, in 1669, paid

seventy-two dollars for one.

The practitioners of the sixteenth century were often quite as roving

as the students and professors, though those who held positions as State

physicians were bound by contract to a fixed residence for a certain

time. In 1519 the State physician of Heilbronn received a salary of

twenty-one dollars per year and his firewood, but could not leave

the city over night without permission of the burgomaster. Medical

attendants of the King of Spain were required to kneel down when they

felt the king's pulse. There were few physicians who acquired wealth,

although Fabricius ab Aquapendente left a fortune of two hundred

thousand ducats.

The Reform Period is the name which Renouard has given to the time

beginning with the commencement of the seventeenth century,--a time when

the domain of natural science was daily enlarged, and when observation

had enriched human knowledge with multitudes of new facts, some of which

harmonized with, and some of which were in opposition to, prevailing

doctrines. Men whose knowledge{151} equaled their genius began to need

a radical reform, and by such men intellectual improvement was begun

by which the decrepit theories of the schools of the Middle Ages were

eradicated and by which there were substituted for them others which

harmonized much better with known phenomena. To the period of worship of

ancient authority succeeded one characterized by a desire to shake

off the yoke of the same, and men now struggled, as it were, to free

themselves from the tyranny of the past. As Galileo was the torch-bearer

for regeneration of the knowledge of physics, and as Kepler, and

others already named, or to be named, did as much for other branches

of science, so there were not lacking those who broke away from the

restraint of authority in medicine, and began to beat or choose paths

for themselves among the facts which experimental science furnished

them.

With the approach of the seventeenth century there was evident

improvement in both the social and mental status of medical men. While

political humiliation and exhaustion were everywhere noted, in the field

of literature it was evident that the line had advanced. What may have

been the effect of thirty years of religious war, with other political

struggles carried on under the hypocritical cloak of religion, may be

imagined, if not fully described; the devastation of whole countries by

disease, and notably by the plague,--the poverty and hunger consequent

upon the ravages of perpetual war (it is stated that even so late as

1792 there were still in Saxony 535 wasted and extinct villages), to

say nothing of the barbarity and immorality resulting therefrom,--all

combined to make the early part of the seventeenth century a most

mournful epoch. It is not strange that, with poverty, superstition and

great rudeness of manners prevailed, or that trials for witchcraft and

persecutions by the Jesuit Inquisition were common. That any advance

should{152} have been made under such circumstances speaks well for the

progress of the human mind. That this advance was slight in Germany

and central Europe is not strange, though other countries were able

to quietly enlarge their scientific borders. Now it was that England,

Italy, and the Netherlands, which took but little part in the warlike

struggles of the century, acquired leadership in medicine, and were

seconded by the French. In Great Britain, science had been fostered

by various kings, and particularly by Charles II, who professed to be

something of a chemist; in fact, an epidemic of scientific interest fell

upon the English court.

The seventeenth century, in contrast to the idealistic sixteenth,

witnessed the advent of modern realism in almost all departments of

thought. Medicine furnished the first example in what we are accustomed

to-day to speak of as the exact method; hence, the century is of great

importance, in that physicists and chemists began to be original,

instead of mere followers of the past. The most notable feature

of medicine was the promulgation of three medical systems: the

pietistically colored Paracelsism of Van Hel-mont; the chemical

system of Sylvius; and the iatro-cliemical system of the physicist and

mechanician, Borelli. This period is, moreover, illumined by the life of

one great practitioner, whose name will be imperishable in the history

of our art,--namely, Sydenham.

The principal tendency of the time was toward skepticism, which had

begun in the preceding century with Montaigne, and was continued by

Charron, under the patronage of Queen Marguerite of Navarre; it was the

fundamental idea of Pierre Bayle, the author of the great dictionary.

Opposed thereto was the supernatural philosophy, or the theosophic,

cabalistic, or mystic. The leading exponent of the latter was Boehme,

who was a business colleague of the celebrated "Meistersinger," Hans

Sachs, in Germany, and of Blaise Pascal and his contemporary.

Malebranche,{153} in France. The doctrine of Lord Bacon, Lord Verulam

(1561-1626), a man who showed himself as exalted in mind as he was

mean in personal traits, was of great importance Bacon is a landmark

in history as the defender and eulogist of modern realism,--i.e., of

inductive philosophy. While personally contributing but little to the

advance of science, he taught a great method; as Gruen says, he was the

philosopher of patents and profit; he recognized the compass, the art of

printing, and gunpowder as great inventions, but placed little value on

the discovery of Copernicus, having little comprehension of mathematics.

Hobbes and Locke went farther into realistic philosophy, and the latter

was an exponent later of pure empiricism.

In the seventeenth century, also, zoology and botany were largely

extended. In it lived Swammerdam (1637-1680), famous as a naturalist,

physiologist, linguist, poet, and _savant_; there were others, also,

whose names are better known in the history of collateral science than

in medicine, and who left conclusive demonstrations in accordance with

their theories, and made daily use of the microscope, simple as it then

was. The term "cell" had been introduced by Hooke in 1667, and Malpighi

and Grew were the founders of the cell-doctrine. The astronomical laws

discovered by Copernicus changed the course of the world's thought; and

now appeared the brilliant Kepler (1571-1630), and Galileo (15641642),

the defender of the Copernican system, and the persecuted discoverer of

the law of falling bodies, of the thermometer, the telescope, and

the movements of Jupiter; also, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), whose

discovery of the laws of gravitation in 1665 marked an era in the

history of science. This century, too, gave birth to Romer, who in 1675

calculated the velocity of light; Huyghens (1627-1693), who discovered

the polarization of light and the satellites of Saturn; James Gregory,

who in 1663 made{154} a reflecting telescope with a metallic concave

mirror; Torricelli, who in 1643 measured the weight of the air;

Gascoigne, who invented the micrometer in 1639; and Napier, who invented

logarithms in 1700.

Now chemistry, having ceased to be alchemy, began to don the dignity

of a science _per se_, and it may be claimed that medicine derived no

slight benefit therefrom. Scientific societies and journals arose at

this period, and were all of good service to medicine in their way.

The church scented danger to the faith in everything which related to

natural science, and founded certain secret associations, especially in

Italy; the Accademia Degli Lyncei, so called from its seal, which bore

the image of a fox or lynx, founded in Rome in 1603, was one of these.

Counter-societies, or, rather, societies with opposite purposes, were

also started, and the original and private so-called Invisible Society,

which was originated mainly by Milton, in 1645, and remodeled by Charles

II in 1662, is now the flourishing Royal Society. In France the Academy

was founded in 1665 by Colbert, but developed its first real activity

thirty-five years later.

Those who to-day are so familiar with the course of the circulation of

the blood through the arteries and veins find it difficult to understand

how the recognition of this phenomenon could have been so long

delayed; it seems so simple, yet to the ancients it was perfectly

incompre-hensible! Although every one had recognized that blood would

flow from an incision, few stopped to reason thereupon. From time

immemorial it had been supposed that the veins had their origin in

the liver, and were the only vessels which contained blood, since the

arteries were always found empty after death; the latter were held to

contain only air or spirit. The circulation was supposed to leave and

return to the liver through the venous canals by undulating movements

similar to those of the waves of the ocean; and this was the doctrine of

the Asclepiadæ,{155} and probably of Erasistratus. Galen modified this

view by showing that the arteries contained blood; he knew it was

poured into the right cavities of the heart by the great veins, but he

believed that only a small quantity passed from the right ventricle

into the lungs, and that the major portion reached the left ventricle by

passing through pores in the inner ventricular septum. This opinion was

uncontested until the middle of the sixteenth century.

Then the theologian, Michael Servetus, who, in 1553, perished as the

victim of Calvin's jealousy, denied the passage of the blood through

this septum, contending that it was returned from the lungs to the left

side of the heart by the pulmonary veins. This was a happy thought,

and a great step toward the truth. Soon after Columbus demonstrated

anatomically that the conjecture of Servetus was plausible, by showing

the function and real use of the valves of the heart. Cesalpinus came

still nearer to the truth, and explained, as did Columbus, the course

of the circulation through the lungs, but he opined that blood and vital

spirits passed from the arteries into the veins during sleep, because at

that time there was swelling of the latter and diminution of the pulse.

Valves in the veins were known, and it had been shown that ligature of

an artery in the living animal stopped the flow below it, while if a

vein were tied there was shrinkage above the ligature, and swelling

below it. Such was the state of science at the beginning of the

seventeenth century; there remained, practically, but one step to

take,--to find the true course of the blood.

[Illustration: 0176]

William Harvey was born in Folkestone, Kent, in 1578 and died in London

in 1637. He first studied at Cambridge, entering at the age of fifteen;

subsequently traveled in France, Germany, and Italy, remaining in

Padua from 1599 to 1602, in order to hear the lectures of Fabricius ab

Aquapendente. With the title of "Doctor" he returned{156} and settled in

London and soon became a member of the College of Medicine, of which he

was made a regent in 1613; in time he became physician to James I,

and, on the demise of this sovereign, to Charlçs I; to the latter he

dedicated his chief work. During the civil war he was driven from place

to place, and, finally, to Oxford, where he surrendered himself to the

Parliamentary troops, after which he again resided in London with his

brothers, who had become rich. Modesty led him to decline the high

distinction of President of the College of Physicians, and he lived

a quiet and retired life, occupied with his studies and, in his later

years, investigations in mathematics. Soon after 1613 he began, through

his lectures, to make known the doctrine of the circulation of the

blood; but he did not publish the results of his researches until 1628,

after submitting them to fifteen years of proofs and counterproofs{157}

of every kind. So bitter was the opposition of his contemporaries to the

new doctrine that he at one time lost a part of his practice, and

was even held to be demented. It is characteristic of the fate of new

truths, as well as of that age of dominant authority, that his first

publication--_Concerning the Motions of the Heart and the Blood_--was

unable to pass censorship in England, and therefore appeared in a

foreign country (Frankfort, in 1628) when he was fifty years old; but

his second treatise on the same subject, in reply to Riolan, a professor

in the Faculty of Paris, was published in Cambridge in 1649.

"So much care and circumspection in search for truth, so much modesty

and firmness in its demonstration, so much clearness and method in the

development of his ideas," says Renouard, "should have prepossessed

every one in favor of the theory of Harvey; but, on the contrary, it

caused a general stupefaction in the medical world, and gave rise to

great opposition."

This theory, which to-day appears so natural that we conceive with

difficulty why it was not sooner discovered, was nothing less than

a revolution in physiology; it excited a tremendous controversy that

continued more than twenty-five years, and in which mingled every one

possessed of any pretension to knowledge of anatomy or physiology; even

naturalists and philosophers took part in the dispute. René Descartes

was the first to declare in its favor and to support it by experiment;

John Walæus (Jan de Wale), the celebrated Professor of Anatomy in

the University of Leyden, confirmed it by new observations; finally

Plempius, of Louvain, for a time one of the most fiery of opponents,

succumbed to the truth, and in 1652 passed publicly to the ranks of

Harvey's followers--no small triumph!

During these long debates Harvey remained always dignified and firm,

although the early attacks rendered him unduly sensitive regarding

others which he anticipated.

About{158} his only answer to the arguments adduced against him, was to

add new proofs and new experiments to those already published. The only

one of his adversaries who obtained a direct response was Riolan,

who possessed immense influence among his contemporaries as a man of

attainments; Riolan combated with equal violence and obstinacy the other

great discovery of the age,--viz., the circulation of the lymph.

Harvey ultimately, however, had the satisfaction of seeing his theory

universally adopted. But his services were not limited to this one

discovery. He made most interesting observations on generation, both in

man and in animals; on midwifery; and on the structure and diseases of

the uterus.

The intermediary system and bond of union between the arteries and

veins, so very essential, yet up to this time unknown, was discovered by

the great Malpighi, who was born in 1628 near Bologna, became professor

in its university, and discovered in the lungs and mesentery of frogs,

in 1661, the capillary circulation. He first described the corpuscles

of the blood in 1665; he also discovered the lung-cells, as well as the

cutaneous glands, certain portions of the kidney, and the pigmentary

layer of the skin, named after him (_rete Malpighi_), which later

furnished the first explanation of the difference of color in different

races.

In 1690 Leuwenhoek (1632-1723), who had been making observations on

the larvæ of frogs and other small animals, was able to see with his

improved microscope the movements of the blood in the small vessels, and

gave the important testimony of his observations. In 1687 Cowper saw the

passage of the arterial into the venous current in the mesentery of a

cat. The capillary connection between the two vascular systems was first

demonstrated by Marchetti, but was best shown by Ruysch (1638-1731),

professor at Amsterdam, the famous inventor of minute injections, who

greatly advanced anatomy by the formation of collections, one of which

was brought into Russia by Peter{159} the Great at an expense of

about seventy-five thousand dollars. The Russian transporters of the

collection, however, drank the alcohol in which many of the preparations

were preserved, and a portion of the specimens was thus ruined.

Further illustration and amplification of Harvey's views came from

various sources; the last, perhaps, from Nich-olaus Steno (1638-1686),

who was first a professor in Copenhagen, then a bishop and peripatetic

converter of heretics. Steno first proved the heart to be a muscle that

contracts actively and expels the blood. The duct that bears his name

was discovered during his residence in Leyden or at Amsterdam. His name

is written also "Stenson."

While ancient anatomists were able to describe in a general way the form

of the lungs, their location, consistency, the ring-like structure of

the trachea, and the first division of the bronchi, they did not go

farther, but blindly accepted the prevalent theory that the bronchial

tubes anastomosed with the terminal pulmonary veins, and that in this

way atmospheric fluid was conveyed from the respiratory organs into the

heart. On such vague and erroneous data was constructed the theory that

the air was drawn into the lungs by the heat of the heart, which was the

reservoir of the vital spirits; that in penetrating through the smaller

tubes it was rarefied, its thinnest part passing into the heart, where

it served as material for the formation of the vital spirit, its grosser

part being exhaled. In other words, respiration was supposed to have two

purposes one to refresh the lungs, which, being porous and inflammable,

would otherwise take fire from the heart, or focus of animal heat; the

other to furnish the pneuma, or ether, which was employed by the heart

in the formation of animal spirits. Harvey's discovery upset all this,

in great measure.

Next it was shown that pulmonary veins carried nothing to the heart

except blood. And now, during this Reform{160} Period, the purpose of

the movements of the chest was better studied, for Borelli, Helvetius,

and Haller made many experiments, as the result of which it was

determined that during inspiration the thorax is enlarged in all

directions, and during expiration partly collapsed by relaxation of

muscles, and that there never is any empty space between the lungs and

the sides of the chest; further, that air is drawn into the chest by the

tendency of all gases or fluids to maintain an equilibrium, or, in

other words, because Nature abhors a vacuum. This being settled,

various pneumatic theories were adopted and abandoned, all of which had

subsequently to give way before a knowledge of what really occurs. The

truth was conceived of by Mayow in 1668. It had been noticed that blood

which appeared black in issuing from the veins, became red in contact

with the air, and direct observation proved a similar change of color

to take place during its passage from the pulmonary veins during life.

Goodwin, opening the thorax of a frog, was the first to see this, and

Hessenfratz filled a silk bladder with venous blood, and, plunging it

into an atmosphere of oxygen, saw the blood change from black to red.

In this way and by the later labors of Bichat and Lavoisier were

clearly established the mechanism and the purpose of the function of

respiration.

The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was scarcely

less remarkable than that of the circulation, though marked by less

eclat because it was not the work of one man, but a matter of slow

development. Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels

connected with the lymph-nodes in the mesentery of animals, and supposed

them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed this, for he believed

that the intestinal chyle was carried by the veins of the mesentery into

the liver. In 1563 Eustachius described the thoracic duct in the horse.

In 1622 Aselli, Professor of Anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal

vessels in a dog which had been killed immediately after partaking{161}

of food; having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid

issue from it. Repeating the experiment, he became certain that the

white threads were vessels which drew the chyle from the intestines.

He observed the valves with which they are supplied, and supposed these

vessels all met in the pancreas and continued on into the liver. In

1647 Pecquet, while still a student at Montpellier, discovered the

lymph-reservoir, or _receptaculum chyli_, and the canal which leads from

it (the thoracic duct), which he followed to its termination in the

left subclavian vein. Having ligated the duct, he saw it swell below and

become empty above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,

and convinced himself that they all entered into the common reservoir.

This discovery gave the last blow to the ancient theory which attributed

to the liver the function of blood-making, and confirmed the doctrine of

Harvey. Strangely enough, the latter united with Riolan in opposing the

discovery of Pecquet and denying its significance. From this time the

lymphatic vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were

investigated by many anatomists,--by Bartholin, Ruysch, the Hunters,

Hewson, and, above all, by Mascagni, who was the first to give a graphic

description of the whole lymphatic apparatus.

The ancients confounded, under the name "neuron," nerves, tendons,

ligaments, and membranes; even Aristotle regarded the brain as an inert

mass devoid of sensation, and supposed the nerves to originate in the

heart. Rufus, of Ephesus, remarked that Herophilus distinguished

three sorts of nerves,--the first serving for sensation and motion

and proceeding from the brain and spinal marrow, the second and third

serving to unite bones and muscles.

Galen also shared in this error, but, nevertheless, described the

brain-membranes and the difference between white and gray matter; he

supposed the cerebrum to be the seat of the soul and origin of sensory

nerves, and that the cerebellum{162} gave rise to nerves of motion;

the pulsation of the cerebrum exposed was held to be a sort of brain

respiration. Galen came very near recognizing the distinction between

nerves and tendons, but nevertheless confused them. The anatomists of

the sixteenth century described certain portions of the nervous system

with, more exactness than did Galen, but not with such positiveness as

to prevent Cesalpinus from renewing the Aristotelian theory that the

heart was the origin of sensation and the seat of the soul. Nearly two

centuries later Baglivi advanced a theory which referred vital movement

to the heart and the dura mater.

The progress which accrued to comparative anatomy and physiology, and

the experiments which were made on animals, during this period, shed

a great deal of light upon the nervous system. The researches of

Vieussens, Haller, Meckel, Vicq d'Azyr, Scarpa, Soemmering, and others

had already rendered it manifest that the brain was the organ of

sensation and voluntary motion, and Bichat had proposed to divide the

nervous system into cerebrospinal and sympathetic branches.

Now, too, Kepler discovered that the crystalline lens was not the seat

of vision, as had been supposed, but that its function, like that of

other lenses, is the refraction of light. He observed that the image

of objects is depicted upon the retina, and (with Schemer) demonstrated

that the expansion of the optic nerve in the retina is the essential

part in the organ of sight. Obviously, also, interest in the anatomy of

the eye, which these observations everywhere stimulated, was, in a great

measure, aided by the researches of Newton on light and color.

About this time, too, Casserius and others studied the auditory

apparatus and described the ossicles, the small muscles of the internal

ear, and the semicircular canals; they even followed the acoustic nerve.

By the researches of a number of French and Italian anatomists it was

likewise{163} established that the true seat of hearing lies within

the internal ear, the external parts being merely of assistance in

conducting sound.

Thomas Willis was one of the first to consider the brain as an

assemblage of organs and to assign special functions to certain of its

divisions; he thus became a pioneer in cerebral localization, although

most of his conjectures were inaccurate or fanciful. The workings of

the brain were also studied by Pinel and others, who observed that

in certain conditions of mania or partial insanity some of the mental

faculties--such as memory, judgment, imagination, or will--were

abolished or suspended, while other faculties were preserved; hence it

was inferred that each faculty must have its own seat. The views thus

enunciated were carried to an absurd degree by Gall, and later by

Spurzheim, who made an entirely new classification, believing the

cranium to be molded in a reasonably exact manner upon the brain, and

that, by inspection of the exterior, the character of a given individual

could be read. They thus founded the pseudoscience denominated

phrenology, which we now know has practically nothing to justify itself.

About the middle of the seventeenth century Glisson (a professor in the

University of Oxford) recognized a property pertaining to all living

tissue, which he termed irritability, and which he regarded as

sufficient cause for all the phenomena of life; he enunciated certain

views that, in times past, have had an important bearing upon the

pathology of disease, but which were forgotten for sixty years or more

until revamped by the Dutch anatomist, Goerter. It was the latter,

with the great Haller, who, by a series of very ingenious experiments,

elevated the suppositions of Glisson to the dignity of demonstrated

facts. In 1747 the results of Haller's researches were published under

the modest title of _First Lines in Physiology_; the author was,

in fact, the great exponent of the doctrine of irritability in{164}

neurophysiology, and for this deserves to be remembered wherever the

history of our art is spoken of. This theory of irritability was applied

to pathology by Fabre, of Paris, who refuted the mechanical theory of

Boerhaave on inflammation, proving that the latter proceeds not

from obstruction of the capillaries, but from exaltation of their

irritability. It was also applied in many ways by Bichat, who enjoyed a

brief, though memorable, career. The theory of irritability, along with

the truths established by John Hunter in his researches on the blood,

made a very distinct advance in the physiological knowledge of the

seventeenth century, and the researches of those who contributed so much

to its advance are well worthy of study even at the present day. In this

line of investigation should, perhaps, also be mentioned the names

of Winslow, Albinus, the two Monroes, besides vicq d'Azyr, and others

already named.

I have so far discussed the development of theories and researches of

individuals. During the earlier portion of the seventeenth century there

happened something which gave to materia medica a remedy so valuable,

and which attracted such wide-spread attention, that it deserves special

mention, I refer to the discovery of that great febrifuge, Peruvian

bark. Malarial fevers had been known as early as the time of

Hippocrates, and were universally treated largely with purgatives,

sometimes with venesections. There had been no notable improvement in

the management of pyrexias of this class down to 1638, when the Countess

of Cinchon, wife of the Viceroy of Peru, became a prey to a fever which

nothing could remove. It is said a Spaniard learned from the natives

the secret of the bark, and advised its employment, whereby the countess

recovered her health. This is the generally received account, although

it has been widely discredited, and Humboldt expresses decided doubts

as to the source whence the first knowledge of the bark was derived. Be

this as it may, however,{165} it is certain that, in 1639, the countess

and her physician, de Vega, imported into Spain a quantity of ground

Peruvian bark, and distributed it to various persons, though it was not

made an article of general commerce until ten years later, when it was

exploited by the Jesuits, who had received a large supply; in Spain

it was known as the "countess's powder," and in Italy as "Jesuit" or

"cardinal" powder. Being very high-priced, it was soon so sophisticated

as to be quite unreliable. Condamine, the botanist, having been sent

to America for other purposes, determined the botanical position of the

tree and described several species of cinchona, one of which is known by

his name. To him is due the generic title bestowed in acknowledgment

of the services rendered by the countess, who introduced the bark

into Europe. Many vain attempts were made to determine the chemical

composition of the powder, and it remained for two French chemists to

isolate and separate its most important alkaloid. The first who wrote

upon the therapy of cinchona was Barba, a Spanish physician, whose work

was printed in Seville in 1642. After its introduction into England

Peruvian bark fell into disrepute, owing to improper administration,

whereby death was caused in certain instances; and it was this latter

fact that instigated Sydenham to investigate it still more accurately.

There has never been introduced into medicine any one drug which has

proved itself so generally valuable and so widely effective as cinchona

and its products.

As little progress had been made in obstetrics as in other branches

of applied medicine or surgery. The custom of employing midwives was

general, and these, for the most part, were ignorant and filthy

old women, slaves of routine procedures that had obtained from time

immemorial. Educated accoucheurs were called only in extraordinary

cases; but with progress the prejudice which excluded educated

physicians from the practice of midwifery gradually gave{166} way,

and there was opened for obstetrics a new era. In the beginning of the

seventeenth century the initiative was taken by Louise Bourgeois, the

_sage femme_ of Marie de Medicis, who in 1626 published a collection of

observations concerning sterility, abortion, fecundity, accouchement,

and diseases of women and children generally; it embodied several

distinctly new ideas. A little later (in 1668), Mauriceau, of Paris,

chief accoucheur to the Hôtel-Dieu, published his treatise on diseases

of pregnancy and childbirth, which was translated into all the languages

of Europe and became a powerful agent for good, not alone that it

represented an advance in knowledge, but it stimulated such rivals

and successors as Devanter, Peu, Paul Portal, and Delamotte to further

research. About this time the Chamberlains, an English family devoted

to the practice of midwifery, invented an instrument to facilitate the

extraction of the foetal head when arrested, and one of them went to

Paris, and, failing of success there, went on to Holland, where he sold

his secret to two Dutch practitioners, who kept it only too faithfully.

In 1721, Palfvn, a surgeon of Ghent, while seeking to fathom the device

of the Chamberlains, conceived a _tire tête_ (literally a head-drawer)

composed of two steel spoons, and hastened to publish an account

thereof,--a praiseworthy act, whereby he merits distinction as the

inventor of the forceps. As modified by Smellie in England and Levret in

France, the obstetrical forceps ranks among the most useful discoveries

of modern surgery, and, although not in common use until about a century

ago, it may be said that the invention has been the means of saving the

lives of countless women and children.

Medical jurisprudence also seems to have had its beginning during this

century. It had long been the practice to summon physicians to court

in order to enlighten the judiciary in questions demanding particular

knowledge in physics and medicine; indeed, the practice began{167} under

the first Christian emperors, and owes its origin to ecclesiastical

authority. Charlemagne confirmed in this regard what Justinian was

perhaps the first to ordain. The tribunal of Châtelet, according to

Renouard, appears to have been the first which comprehended the great

utility of consultation with expert physicians; an edict of Philip le

Bel, in 1311, qualified Master John Potard with the title "Sworn Surgeon

of Châtelet", and the constitution promulgated by Charles V, in 1552, gave

great importance to medical jurisprudence, as it treated in detail of

infanticide, wounds, poisons, abortion, and other such crimes. Early in

the seventeenth century Fidelis collated all that had been written on

this subject, and thus published the first special treatise on legal

medicine.

Some writers claim to have discovered traces of clinical teaching in the

history of Arabian universities, but, as Renouard says, the presence of

a few pupils during visitations and consultations no more constituted

real clinical teaching than the practice adopted by some practitioners

of ancient Rome of being ever surrounded by a group of spectators whom

they dignified with the title of disciples. The first attempt at real

clinical teaching appears to have been in the hospital of St. Francis,

in Padua, in 1558, by Botoni and Oddi. About the beginning of the

seventeenth century Otto de Heurne, of the University of Leyden,

introduced bedside instruction, which was continued by le Boe, sometimes

called Sylvius, with the result of drawing-large crowds of students

to Leyden from 1658 to 1672. Notwithstanding the success attained, the

practice was neglected by the successors of Sylvius until renewed by

Boerhaave, who, invested with several functions at the University of

Leyden, also occupied the chair of medicine. So great was the renown

of Boerhaave that, despite the poverty of the resources of the Leyden

hospital, people came to consult him from the most distant countries,

and he was a correspondent of several crowned heads, even of the Pope,

although{168} himself a Protestant. During his life and long afterward

he exerted an immense influence in medicine, and while, perhaps,

inferior in genius to some of his contemporaries, he had a wider

reputation, and his doctrines prevailed longer. The great success of

his clinics decided in favor of this method of teaching, and in 1715 the

Pope established in Rome a similar institution, under the direction

of the celebrated Lancisi. Soon Edinburgh, Vienna, Pavia, and other

universities followed suit, the first clinical chair in Paris being held

by Corvisart, and the first in Vienna by Van Swieten. After the demise

of Boerhaave, the school of Leyden rapidly declined, while those of

Edinburgh and Vienna became rivals for the first place. It is thus seen

that after an interruption of more than two thousand years clinical

teaching was revived and became more brilliant than ever before.

I now propose to recount the methods and deeds of some of those

concerned in the development of systems, so called, and make mention of

the most prominent medical men in national and historical order. This

will not prevent going back to philosophical conclusions or reflections

upon the philosophy of the history of medicine, when it may seem wise so

to digress.

First, of the system of J. B. Van Helmont, which in its day was most

highly regarded, and which seems to have been, in some measure, a

rearrangement of the views of Paracelsus into a mystic and pietistic

system based upon mechanical principles. Van Helmont was born in

Brussels in 1578, and was so precocious that he entered the University

of Louvain at an age which would have enabled him, had he so desired, to

obtain the degree of Magister when only seventeen years old, he deemed

the degree frivolous. He had studied mathematics, astronomy, philosophy,

and astrology. Going now to the Jesuits, who at that time, even, taught

music, he soon became dissatisfied, and turned to the study of stoical

philosophy. Believing that the{169} Capuchins (who were mere lascivious

gluttons, and considered even washing unchristian) were the true stoics,

he sought to join this order, but ere long abandoned them and resumed

his studies in law, botany, and medicine. For the latter Van Helmont had

at first little respect, since his studies in this line did not enable

him to rid himself of the itch. He soon again lapsed to the monastics,

and came to the conclusion that wisdom, like the grace of God, was

obtainable only by fasting, supplication, and poverty; accordingly he

practiced medicine among the poor as a labor of love (having received

his degree of Doctor in 1599). During his travels he became familiar

with the writings of Paracelsus, which he studied zealously. Finally

he settled down in Vilvorde, where he practiced medicine and chemistry

until his death (in 164-4).

Like most "systems," that of Van Helmont is valued only as an expression

of the spirit of the age, since it embodied largely the pantheism of

Paracelsus, merely cloaked with a more religious or monkish dress. He

held that the general cause of disease was the fall of man; though

there also figured a subsidiary cause, which he denominated Archeus,--a

faculty of appetite seated in the spleen or in the stomach; thus dropsy

was a hindrance of renal excretion by the enraged Archeus. Demons,

witches, and ghosts were included in Van Helmont's system as causes of

disease. Indeed, the man seems to have been a second Paracelsus, lacking

only in the dishonesty and bombast of the latter. He had no followers of

any prominence, and the "system" soon lapsed into obscurity.

The Chemical, or Iatrochemical, System was originated by le Bôe,

commonly known as Sylvius (but who must not be confounded with the great

anatomist of the same name). Le Bôe was born in Hanau in 161-4; studied

in Paris, Leyden, and Basel; received his doctorate from the latter

university at the age of twenty, and practiced in Switzerland with great

success until 1660, when he accepted{170} a professorship in Leyden;

here he was distinguished for his eloquence, wealth, and sociability,

as well as for the great number of pupils that were attracted by his

clinical method of teaching. His system embraced a peculiar phantasy,

being based upon the elements of chemistry, the new knowledge of the

circulation, the latest physiological teachings, and the old doctrine

of the spirituous or innate heat of the heart, which he claimed to

have felt with his finger. He asserted his theories were founded upon

experience, but the truth is, they were inaccurate deductions from

experimental observations, many of which were wholly irrelevant. The

majority of diseases, he taught, were produced by excess of acidity or

alkalinity. For him, the three great fluids of the body were the saliva,

the pancreatic fluid, and the bile, while health consisted in the

undisturbed performance in the body of the process of fermentation;

and the saliva was supposed to give rise to hectic fevers, because

such manifest exacerbation after eating. Stereotyped theory and equally

stereotyped therapeutics gained for him, for a short time, a large

following, but later raised numerous opponents, who alleged that his

system caused as many human lives as the whole thirty years' war. He

died in 1672.

To the same iatrochemical school is generally assigned Thomas Willis,

born in Oxford in 1622 (died in 1675), who rendered great service to

anatomy, especially to anatomy of the nervous system, although his

teaching was disfigured by certain unsupported theories. Like Van

Helmont, he had been destined for theology, but turned his attention to

medicine. Ultimately he became Professor of Philosophy in the University

of Oxford. He first described the so-called circle of Willis, whence

its name; also ascribed diseases, especially those of the blood, to

fermentation, in which the vital spirits played the chief part. He

accounted for hysteria, for instance, by the union of the spiritus with

imperfectly purified blood.

An Epitome of the History of Medicine · 第 6 / 14 章