[Illustration]
No. 9 IN THE PHYSICIANS’ AND STUDENTS’ READY
REFERENCE SERIES.
MEDICAL SYMBOLISM
IN CONNECTION WITH
HISTORICAL STUDIES IN THE ARTS OF
HEALING AND HYGIENE.
ILLUSTRATED.
BY
THOMAS S. SOZINSKEY, M.D., PH.D.,
AUTHOR OF “THE CULTURE OF BEAUTY,” “THE CARE AND CULTURE OF
CHILDREN,” ETC.
[Illustration]
PHILADELPHIA AND LONDON:
F. A. DAVIS, PUBLISHER.
1891.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1891, by
EDWARD S. POWER, M.D.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C., U. S. A.
Philadelphia:
The Medical Bulletin Printing House,
1231 Filbert Street.
DEDICATION.
The medical profession is often spoken of as non-progressive. As a
practical member of it, the author is of a different opinion. He knows
full-well not only that, to many, age does not tend to make anything
medical more worthy of attention, but that the old is apt to be wilfully
overlooked. He discovered some time ago that in the library of the
College of Physicians of Philadelphia—the centre, probably, of medical
learning in the United States—Adams’ edition of the works of Hippocrates
had rested with the leaves uncut for over twenty years. New things are
far too much in vogue. If Bacon were alive to-day he might still say,
with too much truth, as he said three hundred years ago: “Let a man look
into physicians’ prescripts and ministrations and he will find them but
inconstancies and every-day devices, without any settled providence or
project” (“Advancement of Learning”). The age is too much one of trial,
of incoherency, to be either eminently scientific or highly successful
in practice. Beyond question, the medicine of the past is harmfully
neglected; for its literature few have a desirable taste, and fewer yet
a sufficient knowledge. Deploring this state of things, the author would
gladly assist in bringing about a change. Hence, it affords him pleasure
to dedicate this essay to his professional brethren.
PREFACE.
In this essay I have treated, as the title indicates, of medical
symbolism in connection with studies, essentially historical, in the
arts of healing and hygiene. Some parts of it bear only indirectly on
the main subject; but they serve to render the whole more complete and
interesting. Doubtless the reader will not be inclined to find much fault
with any of the apparent digressions.
In the score of chapters into which the essay is divided, attention
is invited to numerous more or less remarkable matters pertaining to
medicine, most of them of very ancient date, and some of practical
importance. Medical mythology is treated of very fully; and, on this,
as indeed on all points, the results of the most recent archæological
and other investigations are given. All I have said is deserving, I
believe, of the consideration of educated physicians.[1] “The wise
man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients,” says the author of
“Ecclesiasticus,”[2] one who had the tastes of a cultivated medical man.
Although the essay is mainly on old things, I venture to hold that it
contains much which a fairly well-read physician will find fresh. The
ground gone over has been little trodden before. It may be said, as
Pliny did, by way of suggestion of difficulties to be overcome, when
he sat down to write his sketch of the history of the art of medicine,
“that no one has hitherto treated of this subject.”[3] But just as Pliny
overlooked what Celsus had done, and done well, so in this case, some
worthy author may have been overlooked; still, this is improbable. What
is here presented, and in part coherently, is gathered from manifold
sources. I have limited my references as much as possible to works in the
English language, or translations. The statements of authors are given in
their own words; but quotations of wearisome length have been avoided.
The possibility of research in respect to the themes treated of, and
allied ones, not being limited, the essay cannot be expected to be either
perfect or complete. Whatever its merits or shortcomings may be, however,
it is an outcome of congenial studies pursued for their own sake. I
believe it contains a fund of information which deserves to be widely
known. The perusal of it may, at least, serve to excite an interest in
the ample literature and long and remarkable history of the benevolent
and learned profession of medicine.
T. S. S.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THOMAS S. SOZINSKEY, M.D., PH.D.
Thomas S. Sozinskey, M.D., Ph.D., the author of this interesting little
volume, was born in County Derry, Ireland, and died in the city of
Philadelphia, April 18, 1889, in the thirty-seventh year of his age.
He came to this country when seventeen years of age, and settled in
Philadelphia. Entering the University of Pennsylvania some years later,
he graduated from that institution, and afterward began the study of
medicine, receiving the degree of Doctor of Medicine in the year 1872. He
also received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the same faculty.
Dr. Sozinskey immediately entered upon his career as medical practitioner
in Philadelphia, where he remained until his marriage to Miss Abby W.
Johnson, a daughter of Luke Johnson, who was a descendant of one of the
founders of Germantown.
Shortly after his marriage Dr. Sozinskey decided to visit Kansas City,
partly with the idea of locating there; but after a sojourn of about
one year in the West he returned to Philadelphia, and began again the
practice of his chosen profession, succeeding in a few years in building
up a very extensive and lucrative practice in the northwestern section of
the city.
Dr. Sozinskey was a man highly intellectual, studious, and scholarly.
He was a frequent contributor to a number of leading medical journals,
as well as the author of several well-known works, among which may be
mentioned “The Care and Culture of Children.” Also, a little volume
entitled “Personal Appearance and the Culture of Beauty.”
His last literary effort, “Medical Symbolism,” which is a work showing
a vast amount of research, was completed just before his death. He was
induced to undertake “Medical Symbolism” after the appearance of an
article bearing this title in the _Medical and Surgical Reporter_, which
attracted considerable attention, both in this country and in Europe.
He received so many letters from men prominent in the medical profession,
suggesting that a book be written upon this subject, that the task was
undertaken.
By his untimely death three small children became orphans, the mother
having died one year earlier, after a short illness.
His readiness to attend the sick, regardless of compensation, greatly
endeared him to a large number of the poor.
Containing, as it does, so much that is unique, and in a field not
often touched by previous writers, “Medical Symbolism” is sure to
find appreciative readers, not only among the fraternity to which Dr.
Sozinskey belonged, but among the scientific and literary generally; and,
from the encouragement already received, the publishers feel confident of
a large and wide-spread demand for this little volume.
E. S. P.
PHILADELPHIA, October 27, 1890.
COMMENDATORY LETTERS.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan, 24, 1884.
DR. T. S. SOZINSKEY:
DEAR SIR:—Please accept my thanks for your paper on “Medical
Symbolism,” received this morning. I have read it with great
interest, more especially as it is in the direction of the
higher education of physicians. The preponderance of the
so-called practical (empirical) in medical literature, which
appeals strongly to the _trade_ element in the profession,
makes such a contribution all the more enjoyable.
Very truly yours,
FRANCES EMILY WHITE.
1427 N. SIXTEENTH ST.
DR. SOZINSKEY:
DEAR DOCTOR:—Many thanks. You ought to enlarge the article to
a little book. It interested me greatly. In a _bas-relief_ of
myself by St. Gaudens, New York, he has set beside the head the
caduceus and twin serpents as symbolical; at all events, they
will symbolize my relation to snakes.
Yours truly,
WEIR MITCHELL.
1524 WALNUT ST., PHILA.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 23, 1884.
DR. T. S. SOZINSKEY:
MY DEAR DOCTOR:—I write to thank you for a copy of your
interesting and instructive paper on “Medical Symbolism.” In
Fergusson, on “Tree and Serpent Worship,” which you quote,
you can readily trace the connection between the emblems
of religion and medicine. I recognize that, as priest and
physician were once the same person, medicine is yet justly
termed “the divine art.” It affords me much pleasure to see
your studious interest in your profession.
Yours truly,
HENRY H. SMITH.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
DEDICATION, iii
PREFACE, v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF T. S. SOZINSKEY, M.D., PH.D., vii
COMMENDATORY LETTERS, ix
CHAPTER I.
REMARKS ON THE MEANING OF SYMBOLS, 1
CHAPTER II.
THE SERPENTINE GOD OF MEDICINE AT ROME, 5
CHAPTER III.
THE ÆSCULAPIAN SERPENT, 13
CHAPTER IV.
THE EPIDAURIAN ORACLE, 17
CHAPTER V.
ASCLEPIA AND THE ASCLEPIADES, 23
CHAPTER VI.
THE GRECIAN GOD OF MEDICINE, 31
CHAPTER VII.
THE IMAGE OF ÆSCULAPIUS, 45
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ÆSCULAPIAN STAFF AND SERPENT, 49
CHAPTER IX.
ÆSCULAPIUS AND THE SERPENT, 59
CHAPTER X.
VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES OF ÆSCULAPIUS, 83
CHAPTER XI.
GODS ANALOGOUS TO ÆSCULAPIUS, 89
CHAPTER XII.
THE PINE-CONE AS AN ATTRIBUTE OF ÆSCULAPIUS, 111
CHAPTER XIII.
DIBBARA, A GOD OF PESTILENCE, 119
CHAPTER XIV.
HYGEIA, THE GODDESS OF HEALTH, 123
CHAPTER XV.
MEDICAL TALISMANS, 129
CHAPTER XVI.
MEDICAL AMULETS, 137
CHAPTER XVII.
PHARMACISTS’ SYMBOLS, 149
CHAPTER XVIII.
MISCELLANEOUS MEDICAL SYMBOLS, 155
CHAPTER XIX.
MEDICAL SYMBOLISM IN PRACTICE, 161
CHAPTER XX.
THE PENTACLE, 165
MEDICAL SYMBOLISM.
CHAPTER I.
REMARKS ON THE MEANING OF SYMBOLS.
A symbol is an illustration of a thing which, to use a poetic phrase,
is “not what it seems.” When a familiar object, or figure of any kind,
from some cause or other, has attached to it a meaning different from
the obvious and ordinary one, it is symbolic. Thus, if one take a
poppy-head to convey the idea of sleep, it is a symbol; one may regard
it as symbolic of sleep, or, if he choose, of Hypnos (Somnus), the god
of sleep. The illustration on the next page will afford a still more apt
example. To the eye, it appears to be simply a partly coiled serpent
resting on a pedestal. That is, in truth, what it is. But, regarded from
the stand-point of the student of medical symbolism, it has another and
very different signification. Before such a figure many a human being,
diseased and suffering, has bowed in reverence and piously offered to it
petitions for relief; to many a noble Greek and haughty Roman, indeed, to
generations of such, it was a god, the great god of “the divine art,” as
medicine was often beautifully called in ancient times. The serpent is
the most important of medical symbols.
In any composite figure the elements of it are spoken of as _attributes_;
and of these some are _essential_ and some _conventional_. The essential
ones only are, strictly speaking, symbols. Thus, in a representation of
the Goddess of Liberty, the cap is not a symbol; it is a conventional
attribute. Says the learned and distinguished historian of ancient
art, C. O. Müller, “The essence of the symbol consists in the supposed
real connections of the sign with the thing signified.”[4] In some
authoritative works, as, for instance, that of Fairholt,[5] the serpent
in medical art is said not to be a symbol; but this is not true if it be
taken to represent the god of medicine, which, as I have already stated,
was done by both Greeks and Romans. Evidently, if taken as of this narrow
meaning, there are not many comprehensive medical symbols. But I will
take it in a wider sense; I will take it to mean any mystic figure or any
kind of attribute. In doing so I do no more than Fairholt holds should
be done. Referring to the words _symbol_, _image_, and _allegorical
figure_ as well as _attribute_, he says, “Their shades of difference
are so slight that it would be most convenient to regard them all under
the general term _symbol_.”[6] I may add these remarks of Tiele: “A
symbol is a simple or complex thought clothed in a sensuous form. A myth
is a phenomenon of nature represented as the act of a person. Usually
symbols originate in myths, and in every case mythology is antecedent to
symbolism.”[7] There are many symbols, however, which never had anything
to do with myths, as will become evident later.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—A MEDICAL SYMBOL.]
In the wide sense in which I propose to use it, symbol is almost or quite
synonymous with _emblem_, as popularly used. Mackenzie[8] and other
authorities, however, state that the word emblem is properly applicable
only to a mystic object or figure of two or more parts. Thus, it is
more correct to speak of “a skull and cross-bones” as emblematic than
symbolic of a poison or of death. Again, while a serpent might properly
be called a symbol, one in connection with a staff is an emblem. In this
restricted sense, emblem is closely allied in meaning to _allegory_.
But in an allegorical representation most of the elements of it are apt
to be symbolic, and beauty of the whole is a consideration. The great
Epidaurian representation of Æsculapius is an example. A simple image or
_statue_ is essentially a symbol.
I need hardly say that any figure may or may not be a symbol; but a mere
_figure_ is simply a representation of any object regarded as void of any
other than its ordinary meaning. A conventional representation of any
idea may be nothing more than a figure. In this sense, it is sometimes
called an _ideograph_.