Produced by Laurent Vogel and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Transcriber’s Note: Whilst the publishers of the original text intended
it as a facsimile reproduction, this was not considered practical for
an e-text. The original used, for example, scribal abbreviations and
the long s, making it unnecessarily difficult to read. These have been
converted. In addition the mistakes noted in the INDEX ERRATORVM have
been addressed, and a number of other errors (listed at the end) were
picked up on and changed, based on a comparison with another edition of
the same work printed in Paris in 1523.
GALENI PERGAMENSIS DE TEMPERAMENTIS, ET DE INAEQVALI INTEMPERIE
[Illustration]
GALENI PERGAMENSIS
DE TEMPERAMENTIS, ET DE
INAEQVALI INTEMPERIE
LIBRI TRES
THOMA LINACRO ANGLO INTERPRETE.
Opus non medicis modo, sed et philosophis oppido quam necessarium
nunc primum prodit in lucem
CVM GRATIA
& Priuilegio.
Impressum apud praeclaram Cantabrigiam per Joannem Siberch,
anno MDXXI.
_Reproduced in exact Facsimile_
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
JOSEPH FRANK PAYNE, M.D., F.R.C.P.
FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD
AND A PORTRAIT OF THOMAS LINACRE
¶ _Printed by_ C. J. CLAY, M.A.
_Printer to the University of Cambridge for_ ALEXANDER
MACMILLAN _and_ ROBERT BOWES, _Booksellers
No. 1 Trinity Street, over against Saint Mary’s Church_
MDCCCLXXXI
PUBLISHERS’ NOTE.
The present reproduction of Linacre’s translation of two treatises by
Galen is issued as a specimen of early typography, being the sixth in
order of the seven books printed by John Siberch, the first Cambridge
printer, in 1521. Besides these seven, one appeared in 1522, after which
date no book is known to have been printed in Cambridge till 1584. The
books printed by Siberch are all very scarce; of one but a single copy
is known, and of three of the books there is not a single specimen in
Cambridge. In 1878, the publishers of the present volume proposed to
issue the whole of the eight books, and the following are now ready, and
will shortly be published:
1. Bullock, Henry. Oratio habita Cantabrigiae. 1521.
2. Cujusdam fidelis Christiani Epistola ad Christianos omnes.
Subsequitur et Divi Augustini de miseria … vitæ sermo. 1521.
8. Papyrii Gemini Eleatis Hermathena, seu de Eloquentiae
victoria. 1522.
Mr Bradshaw, University Librarian, has compared the eight books side by
side, and has thus been able to determine their relative order. He kindly
allows his notes to be printed, and they will be issued with the first of
the above three volumes.
The Publishers are desirous of gaining information about the printer,
John Siberch, before 1521, when he commenced to print in Cambridge, and
after 1522 when he discontinued printing there. Herbert suggests that he
may be the John Sibert, who was printing at Lyons in 1498, and mentions
a book of that date being in the Cambridge University Library. But this
book, Henrici Bouhic Distinctiones super libros quinque Decretalium,
consists of two large folio volumes, and the printer calls himself
‘_Magister_ Johannes Siberti;’ both of which facts make it unreasonable
to identify him with the plain Johannes Siberch who printed little books
at Cambridge so many years afterwards.
CAMBRIDGE, _July 1, 1881_.
INTRODUCTION.
Thomas Linacre, known to his contemporaries as one of the most learned
scholars of an epoch when learning was highly prized, but in after times
chiefly as the founder of the College of Physicians in London, was born
at Canterbury, probably about the year 1460. Of his parentage and descent
nothing certain is known, though some of his biographers have assumed,
apparently without any evidence except the name, that he was connected
with the family of Linacre in Derbyshire. It is clear from a passage
in Linacre’s will that he had a brother, sisters, and other relatives
(the brother strange to say, bearing the same baptismal name—Thomas) but
further the family history cannot be traced.
This fact will appear less surprising, if we remember that Linacre like
many scholars of his time, was never married, and lived for many years
an almost monastic life, little influenced by family or social ties.
More important than his descent was his education, and in this Linacre
was unusually happy; for not a little of the success and eminence of
his after life may be traced to the bias which the young scholar’s mind
received from his earliest teacher. The Cathedral school of Canterbury
within the monastery of Christ Church where Linacre became a pupil was at
that time under the direction of William Tilly, otherwise called William
of Selling, an Augustinian monk, and a scholar of a type at that time
rare in England. Originally educated at Oxford, elected a Fellow of the
newly founded College of All Souls, and afterwards received as a monk in
the Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, Selling found the means to
travel in Italy, where he not only studied the Canon Law, but, what is
more to the present purpose, during a stay at Bologna, studied Greek and
became the pupil of Angelo Politiano. After two years’ stay in Italy, he
returned home, became Prior of Christ Church, and later on was sent as
Envoy from Henry VII. to the papal court; an event which proved of great
importance to Linacre. At the time of which we are now speaking, he was
only Master of the Grammar School, whether appointed before or after
his first journey to Italy we do not know. In any case it is clear that
he had already those tastes and pursuits from which his pupil Linacre
derived not only his determining impulse to the life of a scholar, but
especially that love of Greek literature which runs like a thread through
the great physician’s life and is the clue to much of his versatile
literary activity.
At the mature age (especially according to the customs of the day) of
twenty, Linacre was sent to Oxford. At what College or Hall he studied
is uncertain, though it is assumed, on trivial grounds that he must have
entered at Canterbury Hall. The only fact which is certain is that after
four years’ residence at the University, in 1484, he was elected a fellow
of All Souls’ College. It has been thought by Dr Noble Johnson, the best
biographer of Linacre, that this election must have implied relationship
to Archbishop Chichele, the founder, and thus also to Selling, assuming
that the latter owed his preferment also to family connexions. But the
entry in the College books (which though not contemporary is a copy
thought to have been made about 1571 of the original record) has no
indication of his being of founder’s kin. It is simply “Thomas Lynaker,
_medicus insignis_.” The omission to specify kinship to the founder is
regarded by Dr Leighton the present Warden of All Souls (he was himself
good enough to inform me) as decisive that no such kinship existed, and
the supposition of any family tie between Linacre and Chichele or Selling
must therefore be regarded as entirely baseless[1].
The time of Linacre’s residence at Oxford was one of much moment in the
history of the University, already stirred by the earliest movements of
the revival of learning. The first Oxford printing press was already
issuing those few volumes, now become so rare, which must have been
of startling interest to the world of scholars. The study of the new
learning, Greek, had been introduced by Cornelio Vitali, an Italian,
said to have been the first teacher of that language in England, and it
is stated that Linacre became his pupil. At the same time he doubtless
formed the acquaintance of two scholars who shared his devotion to the
‘new learning,’ William Grocyn and William Latimer, the former of whom
survived to form part, with Linacre himself, of the brilliant circle of
Oxford scholars, who a few years later excited the admiration of Erasmus.
But Linacre was soon to have the privilege which he must have long
coveted, of perfecting his knowledge of Greek at what was then the
fountain-head of that learning, in the schools of Italy. The opportunity
came through his old friend and teacher, William of Selling, who was sent
by Henry the Seventh as his envoy to the Papal Court. It is not clear
that Linacre had any official position in the embassy; he accompanied
his patron however, as far as Bologna, but not in his further journey
to Rome. At Bologna Linacre is stated by Leland to have been introduced
to Angelo Politiano, and to have remained there in order to become a
pupil of this great scholar. His stay in Bologna appears to have been
short, and we next hear of him at Florence, having perhaps followed
thither Politiano, who along with Demetrius Chalcondylas had now been
charged with the instruction of the two sons of Lorenzo de Medici, Piero
and Giovanni. Linacre seems to have been favoured with the patronage of
Lorenzo, who allowed him to share the instructions given to the young
princes. It is not easy to understand precisely what was the position
Linacre now occupied at the Court of Florence, for though his fellow
pupils were boys and he himself a man of twenty-five and already a
considerable scholar, he is not spoken of as in any sense their tutor.
The connexion however must have been in after years valuable to him, as
the dedication of the work now reprinted clearly shews: the pope Leo the
Tenth, being the younger of the two Medici princes. It will be evident
from the dedication itself that the privilege accorded to Linacre was
shared by others, and it was therefore perhaps not so important as it has
been regarded. It is enough to know that he studied under such eminent
scholars as Politiano and Chalcondylas, and thus laid the foundation of
the elegance in Latin scholarship and profundity in Greek learning for
which he was afterwards distinguished.
After a year thus spent in Florence, Linacre proceeded to Rome, where
his studies in the Vatican library procured him the acquaintance of
another great scholar, Hermolaus Barbarus. It is possible that this
acquaintance may have given Linacre’s studies a bias in the direction
of medicine; for Barbarus, though not a physician, had devoted himself
specially to the study of Dioscorides, whose works he translated into
Latin, and illustrated with commentaries, more than once reprinted.
It is suggested by Dr Noble Johnson that the example and arguments of
Hermolaus Barbarus may have given Linacre’s mind a bias of a different
kind, namely towards a single life; for the Italian scholar, we are told,
wrote a treatise in favour of celibacy at the age of eighteen, and never
afterwards deviated either in practice or theory from the principles
there advocated. Barbarus was also a great Aristotelian scholar, and
in this direction also he may have influenced the mind of Linacre; who
afterwards undertook and partly carried out a plan which had also been
among the projects of the elder scholar, of a complete translation of
the works of Aristotle. In other less important matters, the influence
of Hermolaus Barbarus seems traceable, and if Linacre took as his model
in a learned life any of the great scholars with whom he studied, it was
certainly rather Hermolaus than any other.
From Rome Linacre went to Venice, and here made the valuable acquaintance
of the great printer, Aldus Manutius Romanus, who was then engaged in
bringing out some of the most important editions of the classics, by
which he earned the gratitude of scholars. Aldus appears to have treated
the English scholar with great kindness, which is acknowledged, as a
personal favour, by William Grocyn, in a letter to Aldus, which must
have been written shortly after Linacre’s return from Italy. After
acknowledging the kindness shewn to his friend Linacre, Grocyn goes
on to thank Aldus, in the name of English scholars especially for his
editions of the Greek classics, and commends his preference for Aristotle
to Plato. The rest of this letter, the style of which is praised by
Erasmus, is interesting, especially as the only extant composition,
except two trifling epigrams, of this once celebrated scholar, but has
no further reference to our subject. Aldus prefixed it to Linacre’s
translation of Proclus _On the Sphere_, printed by him in the year
1499[2], in order (as he says in his dedication of this work to Albertus
Pius, prince of Carpi) to make the Italian philosophers ashamed of their
bad Latin, and lead them to rival the Englishmen. In the dedication just
named Aldus pays a high compliment to Linacre’s scholarship, which may be
quoted here, though written later. “Linacre,” he says, “has translated
this work with elegance and learning.
“Qui utinam et Simplicium in Aristotelis Physica, et in ejusdem meteora
Alexandrum quos nunc summâ curâ Latinos facit, ad me dedisset, ut et
illos unâ cum Proclo ad te mitterem. Quanquam (ut spero) eosque et alios
in Philosophiâ, medicinâque perutiles libros aliquando dabit. ut ex eâdem
Britanniâ unde olim barbaræ et indoctæ literæ ad nos profectæ Italiam
occuparunt, et adhuc arces tenent, latine et docte loquentes bonas artes
accipiamus, ac britannicis adjutoribus fugatâ barbarie, arces nostras
recipiamus, ut eâdem hastâ sanetur a quâ illatum est vulnus.”
He also implies that an intimate friendship existed between Linacre and
the prince of Carpi, on which account the work will be more welcome to
his patron.
The Aldine _editio princeps_ of Aristotle contains also an interesting
allusion to Linacre, which seems to shew that he had something to do with
the editing or correcting of that great work. It may even not be without
some significance that a splendid copy of this edition, printed on vellum
(and as complete in this state, according to Dibdin, of the highest
rarity), once belonged to Linacre, and is now, bearing his autograph, in
the library of New College, Oxford. In the dedication prefixed to the
second volume of this work, Aldus boasts of the pains he had taken to
secure a correct text,
“Ut tum querendis optimis et antiquis libris atque eâdem in re
multiplicibus tum conferendis castigandisque exemplaribus quæ dilaceranda
impressoribus traderentur, perirentque ut pariens vipera, in manus
hominum venirent emendatissima. Id ita sit necne sunt mihi gravissimi
testes in totâ fere Italiâ, et præcipue in Venetiis Thomas Anglicus,
homo et græce et latine peritissimus præcellensque in doctrinarum omnium
disciplinis.”
This volume is dated February, 1497, the first volume 1495, dates which
are quite reconcilable with the time when Linacre is believed to have
been at Venice.
On leaving Venice, Linacre went to Padua and probably made some stay
there: since it was here that he graduated as Doctor of Medicine, and
here he must have acquired the greatest part of his medical knowledge.
Padua was at that time one of the chief seats of medical knowledge
in Europe, and became shortly afterwards one of the first schools of
anatomy. Its reputation in both departments was long preserved under
the enlightened patronage of the Venetian Senate. Many students from
Northern Europe naturally flocked thither, and among them a few from
England and Scotland. Linacre was not the first eminent English scholar
who graduated in medicine at Padua; the once celebrated Phreas [Wells],
who left Balliol for Italy, and died at Rome, having preceded him by half
a century or more; but he was followed by a long roll of English and
Scottish students the names and escutcheons of some of whom may still be
seen in the gallery of the University quadrangle.
Though Linacre is said to have taken the degree of Doctor of Medicine
with great distinction, there is no foundation for the assertion that he
was ever _Professor_ of Medicine in the University. The story rests on
an obvious confusion of the titles of Doctor and Professor which were
then and long afterwards equivalent and interchangeable in the European
Universities.
The tradition of Linacre’s successful disputation at Padua is preserved
in a dialogue by Richard Pacey (quoted in Johnson’s life) where Grammar
and Rhetoric are made to dispute as to the respective merits of Theodore
Gaza and Thomas Linacre. Grammar first claims Linacre as her own,
Rhetoric contends that he was by right her son, and that Grammar was only
the occupation of his leisure moments. On one occasion (says Rhetoric) he
condescended to dispute with some Grammarian on certain minutiæ connected
with the vocative case, but gained a more brilliant victory when he
defended his theses for graduation at Padua, “Nam quum in gymnasio
Patavino, professionis artis medicæ ei (ut nunc moris est) darentur
insignia, publicé non sine summâ laude disputavit, et seniorum medicorum
adversaria argumenta accuratissime refellit”[3].
Linacre’s route after leaving Padua, may, Dr Johnson tells us, be
accurately and precisely traced through Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo
and Milan; but the authority for this statement is not given. It may
however be permissible to delay for a moment at Vicenza, since it is
pretty certain that Linacre did pass there, and highly probable that
his stay had some influence on his literary life. This city was the
home of a celebrated physician and scholar, Nicolaus Leonicenus, best
known as the author of the earliest treatise on Syphilis, the fearful
malady at that time beginning to be known; but also celebrated for having
translated several works of Galen from the Greek. One of these versions,
that of the treatise _De motû musculorum_ was afterwards published by
Linacre with some of his own. Leonicenus was much older than Linacre
(though he survived him) and in after years, as we know from a letter of
Croke to Henry VIII., spoke of Linacre as his pupil[4].
The reputation of this now almost forgotten scholar was very high among
his contemporaries. Aldus Romanus, in the dedication of the Aristotle
already spoken of to Albertus Pius, Prince of Carpi, speaks of Leonicenus
as ‘_philosophorum ætatis nostræ medicorumque facile princeps_’. A
correspondence which has been preserved between Leonicenus and Angelus
Politianus is full of mutual compliments; and shews that the two scholars
regarded themselves as allies in the common warfare against ‘barbarism’ a
foe that had to be expelled from the fields of philosophy and medicine as
well as from that of letters[5].
It is certain that the example of such a man could not have been without
effect on so apt a pupil as Linacre, and the influence of Vicenza is
clearly apparent in some of his later work.
On leaving Italy, Linacre is said to have indulged in an antiquarian
caprice which seems little in harmony with what we afterwards hear of
his staid character, though in his hot youth and under the influence of
the classical sentiment it may have been possible, and even natural.
The story is that on bidding farewell to Italy at some mountain pass he
indulged his fancy in building a cairn of stones, which he crowned with
flowers, and dedicated to Italy, as _sancta mater studiorum_. All that is
known about this transaction comes from two Latin poems, by Janus Vitalis
and by Joannes Latomus, one of which it may be sufficient to quote.
JANUS VITALES
IN THOMÆ LINACRI ANGLI ITALIA DISCESSUM.
Dum Linacrus adit Morinos, patriosque Britannos,
Artibus egregiis dives ab Italiâ,
Ingentem molem saxorum in rupibus altis,
Congerit ad fauces ante Gebenna tuas,
Floribus hinc, viridique struem dum fronde coronat,
Et sacer Assyrias pascitur ignis opes:
“Hoc tibi” ait “mater studiorum, ô sancta meorum
Templum Linacrus dedicat, Italia;
Tu modò cui doctâ assurgunt cum Pallade Athenæ
Hoc de me pretium sedulitatis habe.”
The second poem is by Joannes Latomus, and entitled _Arnidis querela in
Thomam Linacrum Anglum Italiâ discessurum_. It represents the nymph of
the Arno expostulating with Linacre while engaged in erecting his altar,
on his fixed resolution to return home. It is highly laudatory, but too
long for quotation[6].
In both copies of verses the name _Gebenna_ occurs in connexion with
this incident, and as this usually means, in classical Latin, the
mountain district called the Cevennes, Dr Johnson concludes that Linacre
before pursuing his journey to Paris stayed in this district. It does
not seem necessary to suppose that he took so circuitous a route, or
visited a part of the country which must at that time have been wild
and little traversed, and where a scholar, uninfluenced by modern love
of the picturesque can have found nothing to attract him. But _Civitas
Gebennensis_ is the name given, almost universally, by the printers of
Linacre’s time, to the city of Geneva, and Stephanus:—_Dictionarium
nominum propriorum_ gives an interpretation apparently identical. We can
well believe that, in crossing the pass of the great St Bernard on his
way down to Geneva, Linacre would not bid farewell to the southern side
of the Alps without some expression of emotion. But too much importance
must not be attached to a story which probably rested only on some
trifling incident of travel in crossing the Alps, related by Linacre
himself in writing to his Italian friends.
The name _Morinos_ in the verses quoted above sufficiently indicates
that Linacre returned home, or was expected to return by way of Calais.
He must doubtless have passed through Paris, but we have no record of
any acquaintanceship there, though certainly at a later time Linacre had
literary correspondents and friends in that city.
On his return to England Linacre seems to have resumed his residence in
All Souls’ College. His position in the University must have been one of
considerable eminence, since a knowledge of Greek was still confined to a
few scholars, and great respect was paid to those who had acquired this
new accomplishment in Italy. There were about this time or a little later
but four such scholars in Oxford. Grocyn and Latimer were a little older
than Linacre. Colet was younger, or, at least, visited Italy later, and
the date of his stay in Florence gave his studies a somewhat different
complexion from what we see in Linacre. It has been well pointed out by
Mr Seebohm, in his work on the Oxford Reformers[7], that Colet was at
Florence during the agitation and enthusiasm aroused by the preaching of
Savonarola, and doubtless derived from him that new spirit in theology
which his after life displayed, and which has caused him to be reckoned
among the precursors of the reformation. Grocyn and Linacre shew nothing
of this. They knew Florence when the literary _renaissance_ was at
its height, and when the spirit of the learned world was more pagan
than Christian. We shall notice afterwards what bearing this had upon
Linacre’s literary and theological position.
The dissertation which the newly-returned scholar read for his degree in
medicine is said to have attracted attention, but he does not seem to
have taught publicly;—at least Grocyn and Latimer are the only names we
hear of as public lecturers on Greek. It was, however, Linacre’s good
fortune, at this time, to meet with a pupil whose subsequent eminence
was enough to make his teacher distinguished, with whom he formed the
most important literary friendship of his life, and who has left us the
brightest and most life-like pictures of Linacre himself. This pupil was
Erasmus, whose long-cherished plans of going to Italy to learn Greek
were, as is well known, deferred, in order that he might visit England
with the same object. The story of Erasmus’ stay in Oxford has often
been told, though never before so fully and clearly as in Mr Seebohm’s
volume already referred to. It is very likely that he may have derived
from Colet some of the ideas which afterwards influenced his literary and
theological activity. To Linacre he owed, undoubtedly, the foundation
of his Greek scholarship, and his respect for the ability and character
of his teacher are shewn in many well-known passages from his letters.
In one of the best known he writes as follows: “In Colet I hear Plato
himself. Who does not admire the perfect compass of science in Grocyn?
What can be more acute, more profound, or more refined than the judgment
of Linacre?” There are many similar passages, and, though eulogy was
the fashion of the age, we feel at once that, at least in speaking of
Linacre, Erasmus meant what he said. The same impression must be derived,
I think, from an amusing passage in the “Encomium Moriæ,” though some of
Linacre’s biographers seem to have omitted it as if derogatory to his
reputation. It is, however, written in a strain of good-natured banter,
which shews that there was a foundation of good feeling and mutual
respect between the two scholars.
“Novi quendam πολυτεχνότατον Græcum, Latinum, Mathematicum, philosophum
medicum καὶ ταῦτα βασιλικὸν jam sexagenarium qui cæteris rebus omissis
annis plus viginti se torquet et discruciat in Grammaticâ, prorsus
felicem se fore ratus si tamdiu licet vivere, donec certo statuat,
quomodo distinguendæ sint octo partes orationis, quod hactenus nemo
Græcorum aut Latinorum ad plenum præstare valuit. Proinde quasi res
sit bello quoque vindicanda, si quis conjunctionem faciat dictionem ad
adverbiorum jus pertinentem[8].”
There is no record of Linacre’s practice in his profession at Oxford.
A new direction was given to his life by the call which he received
about the year 1501 to come to court, and direct the studies of the
young Prince Arthur. This mark of court favour appears to have been in
some way connected with the visit of Prince Arthur to the University
where he resided in Magdalen College. The appointment lasted till the
prince’s death in 1503, but the only record of it which remains is the
Latin translation of the treatise of Proclus _On the Sphere_, dedicated
to Prince Arthur, which has been already referred to. This was Linacre’s
earliest published work. After the prince’s death Linacre appears to have
stayed in London, and probably to have practised medicine, but there is
no satisfactory evidence as to this period of his life.
The accession of Henry VIII. must have raised the hopes of Linacre,
as it did those of all the scholars and enlightened men in England at
that time. The young king, known to be learned himself and a favourer
of learning, was expected to give a powerful stimulus to the progress
of the new studies. Erasmus was urged by his friends to return to
England to share the prosperity and splendour of the new reign. A new
epoch of enlightenment was to commence, and a final blow was to be
given to all those evils and abuses which the scholars summed up in
the word barbarism. It is well known that these hopes were not at all,
or very imperfectly, realized, but Linacre himself had no reason for
disappointment. He was made the royal physician, a post, in those days,
of great influence and importance in other than professional matters, as
is shewn by a curious letter addressed to Linacre by the University of
Oxford. From this, as from other events, it is clear that Linacre did
not, while at court, forget his old mistress, learning, but used his
influence as far as possible for her advancement. He is described by a
contemporary and friend George Lilly, as conspicuous among the chief
persons of the court in a purple robe and a hood of black silk[9]. Among
his other patients are mentioned the great prelates Wolsey, Warham, and
Fox.
After some years of professional activity, and when he was about fifty
years of age, Linacre appears to have taken holy orders; or possibly at
this time merely proceeded to priest’s orders, having been previously
deacon. The simplest explanation of this step is that which is given by
himself in the dedication of his translation of _Galen de Naturalibus
Facultatibus_ to Archbishop Warham, namely, that he hoped to get more
leisure for literary work. It is supposed that he prepared himself
for the sacred office by entering, in mature life, upon the study of
theology, and a curious story is told in connexion with his first reading
of the New Testament, which, as it has been strangely misunderstood,
may be worth giving in detail. The story rests solely on the authority
of Sir John Cheke, Professor of Greek at Cambridge, in his letters
on the pronunciation of Greek, addressed to Bishop Gardiner, at that
time Chancellor of the University. Cheke seems to have been anxious to
conciliate the Bishop, and at the same time, for some reason or other,
to depreciate Linacre. He speaks of him as a learned person and a good
physician, but one who should not venture out of his own province, and,
he says, in power of rhetoric and popular expression far inferior to the
episcopal correspondent to whom Cheke’s letters were addressed[10].
He then tells the following story. Linacre when advanced in life, his
health broken by study and disease, and near his end, took the New
Testament in his hand for the first time, (although he was a priest,) and
read the Gospel of St Matthew to the end of the 7th Chapter (that is to
the end of the Sermon on the Mount). Having read it, he threw the volume
away with all the strength he could muster, swearing “either this is not
the Gospel or we are not Christians.” It is probable that the striking
contrast between the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the practice
of the Christian World has inspired many readers with the same feeling,
and it will continue to have the same effect on many more, though they
may not happen to give vent to their surprise with the same petulance.
Cheke seems to argue that it shewed some scepticism in Linacre or want
of respect for the Scriptures. Selden has misunderstood the story still
more strangely, imagining that Linacre referred only or chiefly to
the prohibition of swearing. But looked at without prejudice Linacre’s
exclamation seems natural enough. It is well known that the Scholars of
the _renaissance_, before the time of Erasmus at least, were very little
acquainted with the Scriptures in the original text, or even in the Latin
Vulgate Version, which is said to have been avoided on account of its
non-classical idioms. Now Linacre was a scholar and not a theologian. A
theologian by profession either passes lightly over discrepancies such
as these or else has already found such an explanation of them as is
possible. But the spirit of scholarship and criticism is to take words
in their true meaning and to view ideas by uncoloured light. Linacre’s
remark needs no other explanation than that he read the passage with the
unbiassed judgment of a scholar.
Although it is clear that Linacre entered the Church under the patronage
of Archbishop Warham he is said to have been ordained priest by the
Bishop of London on Decʳ 22ⁿᵈ 1520. The date of his entrance into
deacon’s orders is unknown. It has been conjectured that he received
from Pope Leo the Tenth, his old schoolfellow, a dispensation from the
necessity of passing through the inferior clerical degrees, and that
this may have been the kindness for which he expresses his gratitude in
the dedication of the present volume. Be this as it may, he received
from Warham in 1509 his first preferment to the Rectory of Merstham in
Kent, which he resigned in a little more than a month from his collation.
In the same year he received the Prebend of Easton in Gardano in the
Cathedral of Wells, and in the same year the living of Hawkhurst, in
Kent, which he held till the year 1524. Further marks of favour were
bestowed upon him in 1517, when he was made Canon and Prebendary of
Westminster, and in 1518 when he acquired the Prebend of South Newbold
in the Cathedral of York. He resigned the latter preferment on receiving
the important appointment of Precentor in the same York Cathedral, but
resigned this also in the same year. Two other benefices are recorded as
having been bestowed upon him, the Rectory of Holworthy in Devonshire by
the King, in 1518, and in 1520 the Rectory of Wigan, in Lancashire, on
the title of which he received priest’s orders, Dec. 22, 1520, and which
he held till his death[11].
There is no evidence that Linacre resided at any one of the benefices or
Cathedral appointments which he received. In fact it is most probable,
though not absolutely certain, that he continued to live in his London
house. His biographers then have been somewhat puzzled to account for
his accepting so many preferments and resigning most of them so soon.
But it is probable that a physician and scholar did not hold more
rigid notions respecting the evils of pluralism than his more strictly
clerical contemporaries and that he saw no harm in holding a benefice
of which he could not discharge the duty or only did so by deputy. The
speedy resignation of a benefice is no evidence that the preferment was
unprofitable. It is probable that in accordance with the common custom
he resigned only in favour of a consideration paid by an aspirant who
desired to be presented to the office, and was willing to pay the holder
to vacate it. Such a practice has lasted in regard to secular offices
almost to our own time[12]. Linacre must be judged not by the system
which, whatever its faults, gave him leisure for literary work and plans
of public usefulness, but by the manner in which he employed the wealth
which these benefices placed at his disposal. It must have been from this
source that he obtained funds for his munificent endowments.
The firstfruits of his renewed literary activity did not appear till
the year 1517, eighteen years after his first work, when he published
his translation into Latin of the six Books of Galen, _De Sanitate
Tuendâ_. This version was printed in a fine folio by Rubeus, of Paris,
and dedicated to Henry VIII. The dedication of this work shews the
reverence in which the writings of Galen were held, a point of which
we shall have to speak again. It is also interesting since it tells us
that many scholars of Italy, France, and Germany, but especially the two
great lights of the age, Erasmus and Budæus, had repeatedly urged him to
publish this work. The Preface addressed to the reader contains a great
many Greek words, which may perhaps be the reason why the work was not
printed in England, where no Greek type probably existed at this time,
as will be seen from Siberch’s introduction to the work now reprinted. A
vellum copy of this book presented to Cardinal Wolsey is still preserved
in the British Museum with the original letter which accompanied it.
Another copy presented to Bishop Fox is now in the library of the College
of Physicians, and has a dedicatory letter written at the beginning, but
I cannot think it to be Linacre’s own handwriting.
Two years later appeared the translation of Galen’s _Methodus Medendi_,
in bulk one of the greatest of his works, and in substance one of the
most obscure. It is not now easy to understand the admiration and
gratitude with which scholars received his translation. The work itself
was known by name only to most, and perhaps on that account was the
more respected. The judgment of Dr Johnson, Linacre’s biographer, is as
follows:—“Not less formidable in its length than incomprehensible in
many of the theories contained in it. The sentence pronounced by the
Mufti on the verses of the Turkish poet Missi, whose meaning he declared
to be intelligible to none save to God and to him by whom they were
composed, may with equal truth be applied to the doctrine which this book
inculcates.” This translation also was dedicated to Henry 8th and it is
curious that Linacre speaks of it as the third work published under the
protection of the Royal name, though no other is known than that already
mentioned, unless the allusion be to the dedication of his translation
of Proclus to the King’s elder brother, Prince Arthur. It is further
introduced by some commendatory verses from the pen of Janus Lascaris.
It was beautifully printed in folio by Desiderius Maheu, at Paris, in
1519. A presentation copy sent to Cardinal Wolsey with the complimentary
letter which accompanied it is still preserved in the British Museum.
Both the above-mentioned versions have been frequently reprinted at Paris
and elsewhere, and, with a few alterations, have been accepted as the
standard translations of those works of Galen.
The next work published by Linacre was the translation now reproduced
of which we need not speak further at this point. The dedication to
Pope Leo the Tenth is, as will be seen, inspired by a recollection of
the writer’s early friendship with the great Pontiff, when they were
fellow-pupils of Politian and Chalcondylas. One passage in this letter is
still obscure, that in which he refers to some recent and striking proof
of the Pontiff’s munificence, shared in common with others, who had been
also his schoolfellows at Florence. It has been suggested that this act
of kindness may have been some dispensation which facilitated Linacre’s
entrance into Holy Orders. If there were any such dispensation, it is
more likely that it was one enabling him to hold a benefice, while still
a deacon, or perhaps even a layman, since we find that Linacre’s first
clerical preferment was given him in the year of Henry the Eighth’s
accession, which must also have been that of Linacre’s appointment as
Court Physician, and it seems highly improbable that his ordination
should have taken place almost simultaneously with this appointment. But
there is no proof that any dispensation whatever was referred to, and it
is quite possible that the Pope’s generosity may have been shewn in some
other way, such as by some valuable present, since this might have been,
what a dispensation could not have been, bestowed alike on his other old
schoolfellows.
Two other translations from Galen, were published by Linacre during his
lifetime, one the treatise _De Naturalibus Facultatibus_ in the year 1523
by Pynson, in London, and a short tract _De Pulsuum Usû_, either in the
same year or in the next, which was the last year of Linacre’s life. Two
other translations, _De Symptomatum Differentiis_ and _De Symptomatum
Causis_, were printed by Pynson after the writer’s death.
Two grammatical works must also be mentioned as occupying some part of
Linacre’s later years; the _Rudimenta Grammatices_ was composed for the
use of the Princess Mary, and is in English, though its title is Latin.
It was afterwards translated into Latin by George Buchanan, and in this
form published at Paris.
A more elaborate work entitled _De Emendatâ structurâ_ was not printed
until the year 1524, but from the history of its composition must have
been written about 14 years earlier. Linacre’s old friend Dean Colet,
the founder of St Paul’s School, desiring to have for the use of his
school a better grammar than any which already existed, appears to have
asked Linacre to compose a suitable work. The treatise of which we are
now speaking resulted, but when produced it was thought to be, in bulk
and difficulty, quite beyond the comprehension of young pupils. Colet
accordingly thought himself obliged to decline it, and substituted a
much shorter compendium written by himself, or William Lily, or by
both jointly, which was afterwards revised by Erasmus and reprinted by
Cardinal Wolsey for the use of Ipswich School. This was the foundation
of the well-known Lily’s Grammar. Linacre appears to have been annoyed
at the rejection of his Grammar, and a breach was thus made in his
friendship with Colet, which never appears to have been healed. Erasmus
vainly endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation. This was the best
known work published by Linacre in the domain of scholarship; several
editions were printed by Estienne at Paris, and many others in other
European cities. To some is prefixed a laudatory preface by Melanchthon.
It is not quite clear whether it was published before or immediately
after the author’s death.
The works now mentioned were, in combination with medical practice, the
occupation of the last 14 years of Linacre’s life. It is impossible
to say exactly at what time he gave up the active practice of his
profession. The only passage which might be supposed to throw any
light on the subject, is one in the dedication of the translation of
_De Naturalibus Facultatibus_ to Archbishop Warham, where he speaks
gratefully of the leisure afforded by the assumption of the priestly
office conferred on him by Warham[13]. But as the only certain instance
of his receiving a benefice from the Archbishop, was that of the rectory
of Merstham, in 1509, the year in which Linacre entered upon his
duties as Court Physician, it seems that some later preferment or else
ordination, must be referred to. It is possible therefore, that he may
have only gradually given up practice.
But Linacre rendered a service to medicine far more important than any
of his writings, by the foundation of the College of Physicians and it
is for this that he has been and will continue to be held in grateful
remembrance. In order to understand the importance and utility of
Linacre’s conception we must remember that up to this time medicine could
not be said to have existed as a distinct profession in England. The two
classes of physicians and surgeons were very widely separated. The former
were chiefly ecclesiastics and so far as any authorization was necessary
to allow them to practice they received their authority from the Bishops
or Archbishops. A statute passed in the 3rd year of Henry VIII. (3 Henry
VIII. Cap. 11.) exhibits a first attempt to remedy this deficiency. It
is there recited that “forasmuch as the science and cunning of physic
and chirurgy to the perfect knowledge whereof be requisite both great
learning and ready experience is daily in this realm exercised by great
multitudes of ignorant persons of whom the greater part have no manner
of insight in the same nor in any other kind of learning; some also can
know no letters on the book, so far that common artificers as smiths,
weavers, and women boldly and customarily take upon them great cures
of things of great difficulty in the which they partly use sorcery and
witchcraft, and partly apply such medicines unto the disease as be very
noyous and are not meet therefor, to the high displeasure of God, great
infamy to the faculty, and the grievous hurt, damage, and destruction
of many of the King’s liege people, most especially of them that cannot
discern the uncunning from the cunning.” It is then provided that no one
should practise as a physician or surgeon within the City of London or
seven miles from the same except he be examined and proved by the Bishop
of London or by the Dean of Paul’s with the aid of doctors of Physic and
experts in surgery. In other parts of the country the duty of proving
medical practitioners was assigned to the Bishop of the Diocese.
We do not know whether Linacre’s influence was in any way concerned in
getting this Statute passed. A few years afterwards, in the year 1518,
Royal letters patent were granted for the carrying out of the scheme in
which Linacre was concerned and which was in all probability framed by
him. The letters were addressed to John Chambre, Thomas Linacre, and
Fernandus de Victoria, together with three other physicians also named,
and all men of the same faculty in London. These were to be incorporated
as one perpetual commonalty or College, to have the power of electing
a President, the use of a common seal, the liberty of holding lands in
fee and of purchasing lands whose annual value did not exceed £12. They
were permitted to make statutes for regulating the practice of physic in
London and for seven miles round, and received the important privilege of
punishing offenders by fine or imprisonment.
These letters were dated 23rd September in the 10th year of Henry VIII.
Four years after the privileges thereby granted were confirmed and
extended by a Statute (14 & 15 Henry VIII. Cap. 5). By this Statute the
privileges of the College were extended over the whole of England, no
person being allowed to practise physic without having been examined
and licensed by the President of the College and three of the elect.
The reason given for this extension of privilege was the difficulty of
finding in each diocese men able to sufficiently examine those who were
to be admitted physicians. The graduates of Oxford or Cambridge who had
accomplished all their exercises in due form without any grace were alone
allowed to practise without a licence. The privileges of the College were
confirmed and enlarged by several subsequent Statutes and Letters Patent
in the reign of King James the First, in the Protectorate of Cromwell,
and at other times. Among other powers conferred by James the First
was that of examining into the purity and goodness of all apothecaries’
wares kept in the houses of apothecaries and druggists in London. This
right was exercised up till the beginning of this century and a similar
inspection or visitation of drugs is still performed by Government
Assessors in Germany.
Comparing the College of Physicians with the bodies which exercised the
same rights in other countries in the sixteenth century we see that the
chief justification for its existence was the fact that no University
or Faculty of Medicine existed in London. In Paris, for instance, and
in other University cities very similar privileges were given to the
Faculty, that is to say, to the Doctors of Medicine of the University. It
would have been a serious curtailment of University privileges to have
founded in those cities any body like the College of Physicians. Linacre,
who was so well acquainted with the learned bodies of Italy and France,
must doubtless have felt the want in London of a learned body with the
name and dignity of the University. His College was doubtless intended to
take the place of the University so far as medicine was concerned. There
is, however, no hint of any provision for teaching.