By the preceding article I am induced to give some information in
regard to the history of infirmaries. To offer anything complete on
this subject, it would be necessary to enter also into the history
of inns established for the use of pilgrims and strangers, which
in general were combined with them, and likewise into that of the
different orders instituted for the like purpose, and of taverns which
arose at a later period.
It is certain that ancient Rome, though a magnificent city, had no
houses into which sick persons were admitted in order to be taken care
of and cured. Diseased people, however, were carried to the temple
of Æsculapius, but for a very different purpose. They waited there
for a cure, as some Christian believers still do in churches which
contain wonder-working images; but no preparations were made there for
their accommodation. Those numerous benevolent institutions for the
accommodation of travellers, the indigent, and the sick, which do so
much honour to modern times, were first introduced by Christianity.
Bodin[1107], who could not deny this service, endeavoured to lessen
it, by asserting that, on the introduction of Christianity, freedom
was given to many slaves, who possessed nothing else; and who, having
learned no trade or handicraft by which they could gain a living,
became so burdensome to the state, that the clergy were obliged to
devise some means to remove them from the public view, and to provide
with the necessary support these unfortunate beings, abandoned by all
mankind, whose increasing number was asserted by unbelievers to be an
effect of the Christian religion.
In this representation however there is some truth. It indeed cannot
be denied that our religion, as it requires humanity and compassion,
though the intolerance it occasions converts the severest cruelties
into good works, procures to beggars more indulgence and respect than
they in general deserve, and thereby causes a continual increase of
their number. But it is to be observed that Bodin, notwithstanding his
acuteness and great learning, often suffers himself to be led away
by the effects of his innate Jewish hatred to the Christians; and he
readily embraces every opportunity of exalting his paternal religion,
the Jewish, and depreciating the Christian, by which he obtained riches
and honour.
The enemies of Christianity, however, during the first years of our
æra, could not but observe the numerous means for alleviating human
misfortunes which were introduced by the new religion. It was galling
to the emperor Julian to acknowledge this superiority; and in order
to banish it, he caused his priests to provide for the poor, and to
establish for them inns (_Xenodochia_), into which they could be
received; and he assigned to them the funds necessary for that purpose.
Into these were admitted not only persons of his own religion but of
every other, in imitation of the Christians, who, besides supporting
their own poor, maintained those of the pagans also. How much he
interested himself to weaken this means, by which the impious Galilæans
procured respect, love, and attachment, may be seen by an oration
wherein he inculcated the Christian morality as his own[1108]. This
imitation of the new religion, which contributed more perhaps to
recommend it than to bring it into discredit, is ridiculed by Gregory
Nazianzenus in his third oration.
The care of providing the necessary assistance to those sick persons
who can expect no help and attention from individuals, belongs to
the police; and because this forms a part of government, rulers and
sovereigns ought at all times to have made the establishments requisite
for that purpose. But in the oldest periods, as appears, they had
too much to do in administering justice, and securing the state
against hostile attacks, to be able to attend to the necessary police
establishments.
On the other hand, the clergy, whose first duty was to maintain good
order, discipline, and virtue, however much they might often in private
offend against them themselves, endeavoured to supply this want; and,
on that account, among the decrees of various councils, we find a great
many regulations which have not yet been sufficiently employed to
illustrate the history of police. The establishment of the first houses
for the reception of the sick is among the services rendered by the
clergy; and to mention all the places of this kind, either founded by
them or at their instigation, would form a very long list. The first,
or at least one of the first houses for the reception of indigent sick
was that built at Rome by Fabiola, a Roman lady, the friend of St.
Jerome, consequently in the fifth century[1109].
When pilgrimages to holy places, as they were called, and often from
very distant countries, came to be considered as a part of religion,
the number of these houses was much increased. Taverns, in which
pilgrims could procure proper care and attention for payment, were
not then to be found; and most people travelled without money, in the
full confidence of meeting with gratuitous assistance. When the clergy
wished to maintain and increase the number of pilgrims, which their
own advantage induced them to do, it was necessary that they should
afford them every facility of travelling, and consequently provide
for the wants of indigent pilgrims; and it was impossible that among
these there should not be some sick, especially as the inconvenience,
fatigue, and dangers of the journey were much increased by many things
injurious to the health.
But as the principal and most dangerous pilgrimages were made to
Palestine, which is situated beyond the boundaries of Europe, where
no countrymen, and not even Christians, one of whose religious duties
it is to be compassionate, could be expected, institutions for the
reception of sound as well as of sick pilgrims were erected by the
clergy at a very early period on the road thither, and also at the holy
places. Thus Jerome built an hospital at Bethlem; and his friend Paula
caused several to be erected on the road to that village, in order that
the devout idlers, as she says, might fare better than the mother of
God, who, on her necessary journey thither, could find no inn[1110]. In
the like manner, the Scots and Irish erected hospitals in France for
the use of their countrymen, who, on their pilgrimage to Rome, might be
desirous of passing through that kingdom[1111].
But hospitals were most necessary in wild and desert parts, where
human habitations were not to be expected; and particularly in woody
mountainous districts, and on the banks of broad rivers, where
travellers were stopped for the want of bridges, and collected together
in great numbers. It is probable that many of these hospitals may have
given rise to the villages which are still found in such situations.
Pope Adrian I. recommended to the notice of Charlemagne[1112] the
hospitals built in the Alps; and in the year 855, the emperor Louis II.
caused those situated on mountains to be visited and repaired[1113].
The ruins of many of these edifices still exist.
Towards the end of the eleventh century, brotherhoods, which undertook
to provide for the wants of sick pilgrims, were formed in the Holy
Land; and these became richer and more numerous as the crusades
increased. It was not uncommon for opulent persons, when dying, to
bequeathe their property to establishments in which they had found
consolation and relief; and very often those who had experienced a
cure gave their money and effects, or a considerable part of them,
to some brotherhood, either in consequence of a vow, or in order to
show their gratitude. On this account the hospitals in Palestine
could be constructed on a larger scale, and provided with better
accommodations, than any before seen in Europe. They were therefore
considered as models; and princes and rich persons, on returning safe
from their pilgrimages, caused similar ones to be established in their
own countries. Many princes even brought with them to Europe members
of these brotherhoods, which in the course of time were converted into
orders of knighthood, that they might employ them in the erection of
hospitals. Instances of this circumstance have been given by Möhsen,
in his History of the Sciences in the Mark of Brandenburg, and these
might be easily increased. In the same author may be seen an account
of the establishment of houses for the reception of persons afflicted
with cutaneous disorders, and of their conversion into pest-houses. I
shall here only remark, that these inns and hospitals contributed, in
no small degree, to facilitate the travelling of mercantile people,
who in the infancy of trade, when the roads were insecure and no means
of conveyance established, were obliged to accompany their merchandise
themselves.
The assertion of Muratori, however, that the oldest hospitals were not
properly established for sick travellers, but rather for the sound,
is undoubtedly true; and it appears that hospitals, according to the
meaning of the word at present, that is, such as were destined for the
sick alone, were not introduced before the eleventh century. The above
author quotes[1114] from the life of St. Lanfranc, who was archbishop
of Canterbury in the year 1070, that he caused an hospital to be built
there, and fitted up in such a manner, that one part of it was destined
for sick men, and the other for sick women. It is probable, or rather
almost certain, that this prelate formed the institution here mentioned
after the model of those which he had seen in his native country,
Italy. After this period similar establishments for the sick are
mentioned in various other parts.
The first hospitals, at least in general, were built close to
cathedrals or monasteries; and the bishops themselves had the
inspection of them; but afterwards, either for the greater convenience
or the want of leisure, when their occupations increased, they
committed this charge to the deacons. In the course of time, when
houses for the sick were erected by laymen, and entirely separate from
monasteries, the bishops asserted their right, often confirmed to them
by imperial as well as pontifical laws, of visiting these institutions.
We find, however, that in later times they were deprived of this
privilege by princes and sovereigns, either because they wished to
omit no opportunity of lessening the power of the clergy, or because
the latter had given reason to suspect that the incomes destined for
the use of the hospitals were not always applied to the intended
purpose. Instances are found also, where, by the letters of foundation,
the whole management is consigned to the sovereign or the heirs of
the founder. These institutions, however, have the appearance of
ecclesiastical establishments, and still retain in many cases similar
privileges. As such they are free from all taxes, are spared as much as
possible in war, and enjoy the same rank as churches.
Of the internal œconomy of the oldest houses for the reception of the
sick, no information, however, is to be found. It is not even known
whether physicians and surgeons belonged to them, nor in what manner
they were supplied with medicines. Apothecary shops were not then
established; and those found in hospitals at present, are but of modern
existence.
In the hospitals at Jerusalem the knights and brothers attended
the sick themselves, bound up their wounds, and, in imitation of
the Grecian heroes, Hercules, Achilles and others, acted as their
physicians. Thus we find in Amadis, and other books of knight-errantry
written in the middle ages, how much the knights exerted themselves to
obtain the best balsamic mixtures, and that, in general, they dressed
each other’s wounds. The well-known _baume de commendeur_ is one of the
oldest compositions of this kind, belonging to the times of knighthood.
Profound or extensive knowledge of medicine could not be expected
among these knights, were we even unacquainted with the account given
of their skill by Guy de Chauliac. This author, who wrote his book on
the healing of wounds in the year 1363, mentions the different medical
sects, and among these names the German knights as the fourth sect,
who, he says, cured wounds by exorcism, beverages, oil, wool, and
cabbage-leaves, and trusted to the belief that God had conferred a
supernatural power upon words, plants, and stones[1115].
The oldest mention of physicians and surgeons, established in houses
for the sick belonging to the order of Templars, is under the
government of John de Lastic, who, in 1437, undertook the office of
grand-master, and defined very exactly the duty of physician and
surgeon[1116]. It however appears to me, as it does to Möhsen, that the
hospitals had regular and learned physicians at a period much earlier.
But, as long as this was not the case, they could afford no instruction
to young physicians in the theory or practice of their art, like our
hospitals at present. We, however, find a very singular account in
regard to Persia, where it is said that some Nestorian priests had an
hospital adjacent to their monastery, together with an institute or
school for young physicians, who under certain prescribed rules were
allowed to visit the sick. This establishment was in a town called
Gandisapora, or, as Professor Sprengel writes it, Dschandisabor, the
medical school of which is not unfrequently mentioned after the seventh
century. The pupils who were desirous of attending the hospital for
their improvement, were first obliged to submit to a trial, and to read
the psalms of David and the New Testament. Many of those who had here
studied medicine attained to high ecclesiastical dignity, which is the
more surprising as the rest of the Nestorian schools in the East pay
attention only to theology, and prohibit the young clergy entirely from
studying medicine[1117].
Mad-houses, or houses for the reception and cure of insane persons,
seem also to have been first established in the East. Zimmerman, in his
work on Solitude, says that as early as the year 491 there was a house
of this kind at Jerusalem, the chief object of which was to take care
of such monks as became insane in the monasteries, or such hermits as
were visited by the same affliction in the deserts; but, as usual, he
has given no proofs. In the twelfth century, when the Jew, Benjamin
of Tudela, was in Bagdad, he found many hospitals having nearly sixty
shops or dispensaries belonging to them, which distributed, at the
public expense, the necessary medicines. A large building called
_Dal almeraphtan_, that is, the House of Grace, was destined for the
reception of those who lost their reason in summer. They were kept
there in chains till they were cured; and every month this house was
visited by magistrates, who examined the state of the patients and
suffered those who had recovered their reason to return to their
relations or friends.
To those police establishments which form the subject of this article
belong also hospitals for invalids. Though it may be true, that among
many ancient nations the soldiers, as sailors in some privateers at
present, served voluntarily and without pay, in the hope of acquiring
by plunder a sufficient compensation for the expenses, labour,
and dangers to which they were exposed in war, it was at any rate
considered as a general duty to make such provision for the indigent,
and also for those become incapable of military service, when they
had no means of support, that they might not be a burthen on the
public. If any one should be so devoid of feeling as to suppose that
our soldiers, after enjoying years of peace without much waste of
their bodily powers or laborious occupation, free from care, amidst
every necessary of life, and the enjoyment of rank above those members
of the state from which they were taken, ought to consider it no
hardship to perform military service when war renders it necessary;
it still remains a duty incumbent on the government to provide for
soldiers incapable of further service, who are destitute of support;
and besides, political prudence requires it, in order that others may
not be deterred from defending their native country or sovereign, but
rather by the confident hope of a future provision may have their
courage and fidelity strengthened; which, notwithstanding the strictest
subordination, and though fire-arms require less personal bravery than
bows and arrows, is still indispensably necessary. This truth seems to
have been fully acknowledged in the oldest periods.
Solon deducted something from the pay of soldiers, and employed it
for the education of children whose fathers had fallen in battle, in
order that others might be encouraged to bravery[1118]. Pisistratus,
following this example, made an order that those who had lost any
of their limbs in war should be maintained at the public expense.
The pensions granted do not seem at all times to have been equally
great, and they appear to have been even modified according to
circumstances[1119].
Of the attention paid by the Romans to the care of their invalids,
_milites causarii_, or soldiers become unfit for service, either by
wounds or old-age, many instances may be found, some of which occur
in the Justinian and several in the Theodosian code[1120]. They were
not only exempted from taxes, but frequently obtained lands and cattle
as well as money, and were assigned over, to be taken care of by rich
families and communities[1121]. The assertion, however, that the Romans
had particular houses for invalids, in which soldiers worn out by the
fatigues of war were taken care of, and that the _taberna meritoria_
was a house of this kind, is one of the many errors of Peter von Andlo,
canon of Colmer, who is entitled to the merit of having written in the
fifteenth century, and with a great deal of freedom, the first work on
the German public law[1122].
How such an idea could be conceived by this author I do not know, for
the following is the only account of the _taberna meritoria_ to be
found among the ancients. In the first place we are told by Valerius
Maximus[1123], that a traveller was murdered in one of them in which
he lodged. Judging from this circumstance, the _taberna meritoria_
appears to have been a public tavern or inn, a meaning which writers
on jurisprudence seem always to have adopted[1124]. In the next place
Eusebius, who died in the year 340, relates in his Chronicon[1125],
that under the second or third year of the reign of Augustus, an oil
issued from the earth in a _taberna meritoria_, on the other side
of the Tiber, and continued flowing without interruption the whole
day; but I cannot see what relation this phenomenon can have to Jesus
Christ. In the third place, the same thing is related by Orosius[1126],
who lived about the year 416; but he makes the time of this event much
later, that is to say, in the year 730 or 731 after the building of the
city, which would be about twenty years before the birth of Christ.
Nevertheless, Martinus Polonus said, in the thirteenth century, that
this oil appeared at the birth of Christ[1127]. Damasus (Pope Formosus?
in the ninth century) added that, on this account, Pope Callistus
I., so early as the third century, caused a Christian church to be
built in that place; and some modern writers believe, contrary to the
assertion of Platina[1128], that it is the present church of St. Mary
Transtiberina, _Maria in Trastevere_; and in this church a stone is
still shown with the inscription _fons olei_. To render the building of
a church in the third century probable, some moderns have conjectured
that this _taberna_ was the cook’s shop purchased by the Christians
under the reign of Alexander Severus, who assigned it to them with
the observation that “it was better that God should be served in any
manner in that place, than that tavern-keepers, cooks, or perhaps the
ministers of voluptuousness, _popinarii_, should there carry on their
occupations[1129].” Our writers on historical criticism positively deny
that Callistus I. built a church at Rome[1130]. It is to be observed
also, that Donatus, who died in 1640, confidently asserts that the
_taberna meritoria_ was the house where the people of Ravenna lodged
when they came to Rome to see the public spectacles; but he does not
tell us whence he derived this information[1131]. What I have here
collected in regard to the _taberna meritoria_ may serve to correct a
false and often repeated relation; but all I can prove from it is, that
this _taberna_ was not an hospital for invalids.
Hardouin also was of opinion that there were hospitals for invalids at
Rome, one of which was built by Metellus, the son-in-law of Pompey;
but for proof he refers only to a coin with the image of Metellus, on
the reverse of which is the naked figure of a man walking, who holds
in his right-hand the palladium, and bears on his left shoulder a
naked man, with the inscription on the face, “Q. Metellus Pius.” From
this Hardouin infers that Metellus built an Hôtel des Invalides for
sick or wounded soldiers, which he dedicated to Pallas, and that on
this account he obtained the surname of _Pius_[1132]. It is indeed
remarkable, that two coins having the same reverse, and the inscription
_pietas_, occur in Patin. I shall leave to the judgement of the critics
this opinion of Hardouin; but I must confess that the explanation
of ambiguous figures on coins, has a resemblance to the far-fetched
derivations of etymologists. Both may be learned, ingenious, and
probable; but they cannot be employed alone as evidence, except to add
more force to a truth already proved. These coins, perhaps, allude
to some other attention paid to wounded soldiers, of which Metellus,
Herennius, and Cæsar may have given examples; and the people are always
weak enough to set too high a value on every mark of compassion or
benevolence exhibited by their sovereigns or commanders, because it is
seldom that they observe as they ought the general duties incumbent
upon them.
I do not consider it a reproach to the Romans, notwithstanding
their propensity to war and robbery, that they had no hospitals for
invalids; because the remark already made in regard to orphan-houses
is applicable also to them. Magnificent buildings, fitted up at great
expense, afford a proof of the wealth and perhaps the liberality of the
founder; but there can be no doubt that, with the capital employed,
a greater number of invalids might be maintained, and in a manner
much more beneficial to the public; that is to say, by making such
arrangements that the invalids could be distributed throughout the
country, and placed out at board and lodging for a certain sum. In
this case many families would be glad to receive them, both on account
of the money, and because these invalids could be of great assistance
to them in their domestic œconomy, either by labouring themselves or
overlooking others. People may praise large and expensive hospitals as
much as they please; but the sight of so many men who have lost their
health or limbs in war is but a melancholy spectacle, and gives too
great occasion to reflect how much mankind suffer from the avarice,
pride, and revenge of sovereigns, without which wars would be less
frequent.
The first establishment for the reception of invalids which, as far as
I know at present, occurs in history, was that formed at Constantinople
by the emperor Alexius Comnenus, at the end of the eleventh century. A
complete description of it may be found in the history of that prince,
written by his learned daughter Anna Comnena, who says that the emperor
caused a great number of buildings standing around a church to be
fitted up as an hospital, which undoubtedly was never exceeded in size;
though other historians relate that Alexius only revived and enlarged
in an uncommon degree an old institution. It was indeed called the
Orphan-house; but sick and indigent persons of both sexes and of every
age, and, as the female historian expressly says, soldiers dismissed
from service, were admitted into it, and provided with bed, board, and
clothing[1133]. Though the emperor secured to this institution several
sources of revenue, it however appears not to have long existed; at any
rate, in the time of George Codinus, that is, in the fifteenth century,
the high office of director or manager had long been disused.
Of the hospitals for invalids existing at present, the oldest and
largest is the Hôtel des Invalides at Paris. The kings of France
enjoyed from the earliest times what was called _droit d’oblat_, which
consisted in the power of sending to abbeys and monasteries, in order
to be maintained, officers and soldiers unfit for further service, and
particularly such as had been wounded. Traces of this practice are
said to occur under the reign of Charles the Great; at least Seissel,
in the Life of Louis XII., relates that there was an old tradition
in an abbey in Languedoc, that the abbot had been punished by that
prince, because he would not receive the soldiers assigned to him. It
may be readily conceived how unpleasant these guests must have been to
the clergy, and how little the ideas, mode of living, and manners of
these two classes would accord with each other. The complaints on this
subject had become so great under Henry IV., that he at length resolved
to cause all invalids to be lodged and maintained together in a palace
called “La Maison Royale de la Charité Chretienne.” But as the revenues
destined for the support of this establishment were not sufficient, it
was abolished under the same sovereign, and the invalids were again
distributed among the abbeys and convents. In the course of time these
houses purchased exemption from this burthen, by giving an annual
pension to their guests; but they soon spent their money, and then
fell into a state of the greatest poverty. On this account Louis XIII.
renewed the experiment of founding an hospital for invalids, which
through the want of money was never completed. At length Louis XIV., in
the year 1670, began to build the Hôtel des Invalides, the extravagant
magnificence of which is rather a proof and monument of the profusion
and pride of that sovereign, than of his care for meritorious soldiers.
In the year 1682, the hospital for soldiers at Chelsea was founded in
England by Charles II.[1134], carried on by James II., and completed
by William III. But far larger and more magnificent is the hospital
for seamen at Greenwich, which was first suggested by Queen Mary, the
consort of King William. The building, determined on in the year 1694,
was begun in 1695, and from time to time enlarged and beautified[1135].
As France was the first country in Europe that maintained a standing
army of national troops, it had therefore first occasion to make
provision for its native soldiers when disabled by service. As long
as military men consisted chiefly of foreigners, who served during a
certain period for pay and plunder, sovereigns believed that when a
war was ended, they were no further indebted to these aliens; they
consequently suffered them to retire wherever they thought proper, and
gave themselves no further trouble respecting them.
In the last place, I shall here consider the question, Since what time
have regular surgeons been appointed to armies? and lay before the
reader the little I have been able to collect towards answering it. In
the Trojan war they were indeed not known. At that period many of the
principal heroes had acquired some knowledge of surgery, and, like the
knights in the time of the crusades, undertook the office of assisting
and curing the wounded[1136]. Such persons in armies were particularly
honoured, and considered to be of great value, as appears from what
Idomeneus, speaking of Machaon, says:
Ιητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἂλλον.
Medicus vir multis æquiparandus aliis[1137].
Yet the instance of Machaon shows how little care was then taken of the
wounded; for Virgil makes him even, whose assistance must every moment
have been necessary, mount into the wooden horse, and he was the first
who came out of it[1138]. There is reason to think that the armies in
Homer, and until the introduction of Christianity, and the invention
of gunpowder, had in every battle but few wounded, and always a much
greater proportion of killed than in modern times. Hostile bands stood
nearer to each other; all came to close action; prisoners were not
exchanged, but made slaves, and among the Romans sold to the infamous
schools for gladiators. Wounded prisoners were a burthen to the
victorious party; such as could not escape defended themselves to the
last, and were put to death by the conquerors.
In Achilles Tatius[1139], who seems to have lived in the third century
of the Christian æra, I find that an army-physician, _exercitus
medicus_, was called in to a sick person; and one might almost believe
that a regular physician appointed to attend an army is here meant,
especially as Salmasius, on this passage, says that each cohort had in
general a physician, and therefore the appellations _medicus cohortis_,
_medicus legionis_, were found in ancient inscriptions. I will not
venture to contradict so great an authority on a subject of this kind;
but I am sorry that I have not been able to find any other evidence of
such army-physicians.
The first traces of field-hospitals, or, as they are commonly called
at present, flying-hospitals, occur perhaps in the East. At any rate,
the emperor Mauricius, in the sixth century, had along with his armies
_deputati_, whose duty he describes, as did also the emperor Leo VI. in
the ninth century, who has copied many things verbatim from the work
of that prince. These _deputati_ were distributed in the armies among
the cavalry, and were obliged to carry off those wounded in battle.
On this account they had on the left side of the saddle two stirrups,
in order that they might more easily take up the wounded behind them;
and for every person thus saved, they obtained a certain reward. They
were obliged also to carry with them a bottle containing water, for
the purpose of reviving those who might have fainted through the loss
of blood. Leo, besides the officers necessary for each band or company
of a regiment, mentions expressly not only the _deputati_, but also
physicians and attendants on the sick[1140].
Though an order was made by the Convention of Ratisbon[1141] in 742,
that every commander of an army should have along with him two bishops,
with priests and chaplains, and that every colonel should be attended
by a confessor, no mention is to be found either of field-hospitals or
army-surgeons belonging to the first Christian armies in the writings
of the middle ages. We read, however, in the works of Paracelsus,
Thurneyser, Lottich and others, that they were present at battles
and sieges; but it can be proved that they were not appointed as
army-surgeons, but served merely as soldiers.
The field-surgeons, who occur as accompanying armies in the beginning
of the fifteenth century, were destined rather for the use of the
commanders and principal officers, than for the service of the
field-hospital. Their number was too small for a whole army; and as
they were authorised by their commission to receive prisoners and
booty, and, like the knights, were obliged to bring with them archers,
it is highly probable that to fight was a part of their duty also.
When Henry V. of England carried on war with France in 1415, he took
into his service Nicholas Colnet, as field-surgeon, for a year[1142].
He was bound to carry with him three archers on horseback, and to
accompany the king wherever he went. In return he was to receive yearly
forty marks or pounds, to be paid at the rate of ten marks every
quarter. He was allowed also twelve pennies per day as subsistence
money, and each of his archers had twenty marks a year, and six pennies
daily for subsistence. The chief army-surgeon, Morstede, was engaged
with fifteen men, three of whom were to be archers, and the remaining
twelve surgeons. He received also ten pounds quarterly as pay, and
twelve pennies daily for subsistence. His archers and surgeons were
placed on an equal footing; each was to receive quarterly five pounds,
and six pennies daily as subsistence. Both Colnet and Morstede could
receive prisoners and plunder; but when the latter amounted to more
than twenty pounds in value, a third part of it was to be given to the
king. Both these head-men had a quarter’s pay in advance; and, that
they might always have security for the next quarter, the king engaged
to put into their hands, by way of pledge, as many jewels or other
articles as might be equivalent to one quarter’s pay and subsistence.
Harte, in his Life of Gustavus Adolphus, seems to believe that this
prince first appointed four surgeons to each regiment, which he reduced
from the number of two or three thousand, first to 1200, and afterwards
to 1008; and he is of opinion that it may with certainty be believed
that the imperial troops at that time had no surgeons, because Tilly
himself, after the battle at Leipsic, was obliged to cause his wounds
to be dressed by a surgeon established at Halle. He adds in a note,
that he was told that the Austrians, till about the year 1718, had no
regimental surgeons regularly appointed. However this may be, it is
certain that the field-hospital establishments of the imperial army,
till the beginning of the eighteenth century, were on a very bad
footing. Even in the year 1718, they had no field-surgeons; but at this
period the company surgeons were dismissed, and a regimental surgeon,
with six assistants, was appointed to each regiment; and beside the
field medicine-chest, surgical instruments were provided at the
emperor’s expense[1143].
The establishment of field-hospitals in Germany is certainly much
older; for Fronsperger, who wrote in the middle of the sixteenth
century, does not speak of field-surgeons, army-surgeons and
their servants, as if they had been then newly introduced; but in
such a manner as shows that the need of them had been generally
acknowledged long before that period[1144]. According to his
statement, it was necessary that there should be along with the
commander-in-chief, or, according to the modern phrase, the general
staff, a field-surgeon-in-chief, a doctor who had the inspection of
the field-surgeons, the barbers and their servants, whose duty was to
drag the wounded from the heaps of slain and to convey them to the
former. He was obliged to keep by him instruments and medicines, and
at each mustering to examine the instruments and apparatus of the
field-surgeons; he decided also, in disputed cases, how much soldiers
whose wounds had been cured ought to pay to the field-surgeon. During
marches he was bound to remain with the commander-in-chief. Fronsperger
says also, that there ought to be with the artillery a field-surgeon
of _arckelley_, and with each company a particular field-surgeon,
not however a paltry beard-scraper (_bart-scherer_), but a regularly
instructed, experienced and well-practised man. This person was bound
always to accompany, with able servants, the ensign, and he received
double pay.
[To give a description of all the hospitals, infirmaries and
dispensaries in this country would fill volumes. It may be sufficient
here to observe, that there are ten large hospitals in the metropolis,
each of which receives a considerable number of patients into the
house, and a still larger number of out-door patients are prescribed
for and supplied with medicines, but attend at the establishments. In
the largest of these, which is that of St. Bartholomew, the annual
number of patients, both in-door and out, is about 12,000; about
three-fifths of these are out-door patients. The number of beds in the
hospital amounts to upwards of 550.
There are twenty-eight dispensaries; such patients as are able, attend
at these establishments; those who are incapable, are visited and
relieved at their own homes.
Moreover, there are in the metropolis ten midwifery establishments,
three ophthalmic institutions, three public lunatic asylums, a venereal
hospital, a small-pox and a fever hospital, as also one for patients
suffering from consumption.
There are also ninety-seven county hospitals, infirmaries and
dispensaries[1145].
Admission to the hospitals is gained by the presentation of a petition
signed by a governor, on a certain day in each week; of course,
out of the number of patients who apply, the worst cases have the
preference. Accidents and very severe cases are admitted at any time,
and without any petition or recommendation. The out-patients require
no recommendation. The same general rule gains attendance at the other
medical establishments.]