THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
The Crusades.—Astrology.
The Crusades were of the highest importance to the development of
Western civilization; they brought the European world into contact
with the ancient wisdom of the East, they greatly stimulated commerce,
aroused a spirit of restlessness and inquiry, and thus enlarged men’s
minds, stimulated them to adventure and heroic deeds, improved the
art of war and the invention of arms, etc. By bringing the Crusaders
into contact with the Saracens many new medicines were introduced into
practice; physicians followed the armies to the East, and thus had
opportunities of studying the healing art as practised in the midst
of ancient civilizations. To a great extent the present advantages we
enjoy are due to the influence of the Crusades, which brought to Europe
many arts and sciences we should not have otherwise learned.
One of the evil consequences of the Crusades was the introduction into
Europe of epidemic diseases and contagious disorders which have always
had their home in the East. Thus were introduced the plague, leprosy,
and the disorders which are bred of filth and promiscuous living.
In the thirteenth century very few who possessed either medical or
surgical skill were not priests or monks, chiefly mendicants. The
profession became very lucrative, and so many monks devoted themselves
to the healing art that they neglected their spiritual duties, and were
consequently forbidden to leave their monasteries for a longer period
than two months at a time.[777] In this century astrology was closely
related to the practice of medicine. It was believed that an intimate
association existed between the heavenly bodies and those of men, and
no cure could be attempted without consulting the astrological oracle.
M. Jules Andrieu says that medical science, “like the other
sciences, began by being astrological. The first encyclopædia was
astrology.”[778] Certainly it was one of the modes most anciently
and universally practised for discovering the most important things
relating to the lives and fortunes of those who believed in it. It was
flattering to men to believe that the heavenly bodies are interested
in their welfare, and the events of life were awaited with resignation
and composure by those who believed they were regulated by the stars
in their courses; they applied themselves therefore to diagrams and
calculations to learn the simplest and most obvious details of their
lives.
M. Littré, member of the Institute and the Academy of Medicine at
Paris, in his _Fragment de Médecine Rétrospective_,[779] describes
seven “miracles” which took place in France at the end of the
thirteenth century at the tomb of St. Louis. He states the simple
facts as written in the chronicles of the period. He does not dispute
them, does not ridicule nor ignore them, but endeavours to give a
pathological interpretation of them. He notices in the first place that
at the moment of cure the patient felt a sharp pain—the part affected
seemed to be stretched or touched, and sometimes a sort of cracking
sensation in the bone was experienced, then movements became possible,
although the lengthening of the limb and the possibility of moving it
freely were not experienced immediately; the cure was not so sudden, a
period of weakness, long or short, always followed the miracle, and the
part only gradually regained its use. The cracking of the bone is just
what the surgeon finds when he moves a joint which has become fixed by
disuse; without breaking down these adhesions, he can do nothing to
restore the articulation. In cases of rheumatic paralysis a similar
state of things is observed. Of course in the accounts of the healing
at the tomb of St. Louis we expect to find errors and exaggerations
due to the preoccupation and ignorance of those who wrote the reports,
but we at once recognise the cracking and the pain as genuine
pathological details; we should not expect a natural cure without
these symptoms. To what shall we attribute them? M. Littré gives the
explanation in the words of M. le docteur Onimus, published in _La
Philosophic positive sur la Vibration nerveuse_.[780] The ascending
action or vibration expresses the influence of the physical on the
moral; the descending action or vibration expresses the influence of
the moral on the physical. In these cases it is the descending action
which we have to consider. This action is exerted on the muscular
portion of the affected part; it contracts energetically; it breaks
down the pathological adhesions if they exist; it restores the bones
violently to their place; this done, the patient is in a condition to
use the limb, but not without passing through a period of debility
which requires time for recovery. It is a violent extension produced
by muscular contractions. Surgery has frequently to break down such
adhesions and destroy false anchyloses. Here the force is not exerted
by a strange hand, but by an influence which is exerted on the muscles
themselves, and this in a far more beneficent manner than surgery can
afford. What is the exciting cause of these energetic contractions?
That which we find in all miracles of this sort—a strong persuasion, a
complete confidence. Under a profound emotion born of these sentiments,
the patient, feeling that the cure was in the extension of the part,
had a belief which he could understand. Of course such faith is not
possible in every case. On one side there must be the mental condition
which can receive in its fulness the emotion born of persuasion and
confidence, and on the other that the lesions must be susceptible of
cure. To a certain degree there are lesions which escape all this sort
of treatment. Herbert Spencer points out[781] that muscular power fails
with flagging emotions or desires which lapse into indifference, and
conversely that intense feeling or passion confers a great increase in
muscular force. It is brain and feeling generated by the mind which
give strength to the person who thinks strongly.
ALBERTUS MAGNUS (1193-1280), one of the greatest of the schoolmen,
combined with his religious speculations so great a knowledge of
physical science and mechanics that he was reputed as a sorcerer. He
constructed automata, some of which could speak; wrote on anatomy,
physiology, botany, chemistry, astronomy, magnetism, acclimatization
of plants and animals, etc. He digested, interpreted, and systematized
the whole of the writings of Aristotle in accordance with the teaching
of the Church. He was called, not only “Albert the Great,” but “the
Universal doctor.” To his labours and those of THOMAS AQUINAS may be
explained the reverence for ARISTOTLE entertained by the clergy of the
Roman and Anglican churches even to the present day.
THOMAS AQUINAS (1225 _circ._-1274), was the great Dominican theologian
who wrote the _Summa Theologiæ_. In his famous work he incidentally
dealt with medical and physiological questions. The source of all
motion is the heart. The soul is created anew in each conception.
Moisture, heat, and æther alone are necessary for the generation of an
individual; the lower animals originate even from putrefying matter. He
wrote commentaries on the works of Aristotle, and derived many of his
scientific ideas from this great master. The biology of St. Thomas, as
may be imagined, is exceedingly feeble, yet it too often forms the only
knowledge of the subject which continental clergymen possess.
RAYMOND LULLI (1235-1315) was a man of great intellect, who sought the
secrets of transmutation of metals and the philosopher’s stone. He
was a bold thinker, an astrologer, and a physician of great repute.
Naturally he was accused of magic. His acquaintance with the Arabians
directed his mind to the study of chemistry. He wrote on medical
subjects, the titles of his best known works being _De Pulsibus et
Urinis_, _De Medicina Theorica et Practica_, _De Aquis et Oleis_.
ROGER BACON (1214-1298). By theologians he was believed to be in
league with the devil, because of his belief in astrology and his
scientific attainments. It is probable that his reputed invention of
certain optical instruments was really due to his acquaintance with
Arabic, as the Arabians were familiar with the camera, burning glass,
and microscope, which have been attributed to him. Neither is it the
fact that he invented gunpowder, as is usually supposed. Bacon wrote
voluminously on theology, philosophy, and science. Although he believed
in astrology and the philospher’s stone, he had a true scientific idea
of the value of experiment, which forcibly reminds us of the Francis
Bacon which future ages would reveal.
“Experimental science,” he said, “has three great prerogatives over
all other sciences: (1) it verifies their conclusions by direct
experiments; (2) it discovers truths which they could never reach; (3)
it investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of
past and future.”[782] As an instance of his method, Bacon gives an
investigation into the phenomena of the rainbow, which is doubtless a
very remarkable example of inductive research.
Roger Bacon proved himself far in advance of his time by his insistence
of the supremacy of experiment. So different was his mental attitude in
this regard from the temper of his time that Whewell finds it difficult
to conceive how such a character could then exist.[783] He learned
much from Arabian writers, but certainly not from them did he learn
to emancipate himself from the bondage to Aristotle which everywhere
enslaved them. Doubtless he learned from Aristotle himself to call no
man master in science, for the Stagyrite declared that all knowledge
must come from observation, and that science must be collected from
facts by induction.[784] Probably the truth about Aristotle is that
Bacon’s objections were directed against the Latin translations of
the Greek philosopher, which were very bad ones. Of both Avicenna
and Averroes he speaks respectfully, and it is doubted whether any
passages in Bacon’s works can be construed into opposition to
Aristotle’s own authority.[785]
Wood says[786] that Roger Bacon was accounted the fourth in order of
the chief chemists the world had ever produced, their names being
(1) Hermes Trismegistus, the first chemist, (2) Geber, (3) Morienus
Romanus, (4) Roger Bacon, (5) Raymond Lulli, (6) Paracelsus.
Roger Bacon made such prodigious chemical experiments at Oxford and
Paris “that none could be convinced to the contrary but that he dealt
with the devil.”
JEAN PITARD (1228-1315) founded the surgical society in France,
which exercised a very important influence on the development of the
healing art in that country, under the title of the “College de Saint
Côme.”[787] At a time when surgery of the lower character was practised
by barbers, this important corporation of educated men broke off from
the inferior association and combined to form an academy of the higher
surgery.
PETER DE MAHARNCOURT was an Oxford student, so “excellent in chemical
experiments that he was instituted _Dominus Experimentorum_.”[788]
He not only worked in metallurgy, but interested himself in “the
experiments of old women, their charms, magical spells, and verses
that they used to repeat when they applied or gave anything to their
patients.”
NICHOLAS MYREPSUS (_circ._ A.D. 1250), “Actuarius,” _i.e._
physician-in-ordinary, wrote a vast work on materia medica, containing
2,656 prescriptions for every disease, real or imaginary, which
afflicts our race. He had studied at Salerno.
JOHN ACTUARIUS (_circ._ 1283) was a medical genius in advance of his
age. He wrote a useful materia medica and a treatise on the kidney
secretion, in which he explains the use of a graduated glass for
estimating the amount of sediments, which he classifies according to
their colours. He appeared, says Haeser, “like the last flickerings of
a dying flame” just before the Turks destroyed the glorious work of the
Greeks in the civilized world.
In Edward the First’s reign the king’s physician had twelve pence per
day for his expenses in visiting the Countess of Gloucester, the king’s
daughter, when she was ill.[789]
The art of poisoning was brought to considerable perfection in the
Middle Ages, and there is abundant evidence of the fact that women were
commonly agents in it.[790]
In Edward the Third’s reign the ladies of the household were both
nurses and doctors. Regular practitioners were few, and the mistress
of the house and her maidens were compelled to do the best they could
in their absence. Medicinal herbs were cultivated in every garden, and
were either dried or made into decoctions and kept ready for use. Many
of these fair practitioners were reputed to be very skilful in medical
practice. Chaucer, in the “Nonne-Prestes Tale,” has left a faithful
picture of the domestic medicine of the period in the character of Dame
Pertelot.