 Appendix 1 of Old Time Makers of Medicine. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Adam Marcicic. September 2009, Alexandria, Virginia. Old Time Makers of Medicine by James Joseph. Appendix 1, Part 2 of 2. It is not surprising, then, that there should be dual or even triple descriptions of authorship for various portions of the scriptures, and Luke's writings have, on this score, suffered as much or more even than others, with the possible exception of Moses. It is now definitely settled, however, that the similarities of style between the Acts and the Third Gospel are too great for them to have come from two different minds. This is especially true, as pointed out by Harnak, in all that regards the use of medical terms. The writer of the Acts and the writer of the Third Gospel knew Greek from the standpoint of the physician of that time. Each used terms that we find nowhere else in Greek literature except among medical writers. What is thus true for one critical attack on Luke's reputation is also true in another phase of recent higher criticism. It has been said that certain portions of the Acts, which are called the We portions because the narration changes in them from the Third to the First Person, were to be attributed to another writer than the one who wrote the narrative portions. Here, once more, the test of the medical words employed has decided the case for Luke's sole authorship. It is evidently an excellent thing to be able to use medical terms properly if one wants to be recognized with certainty later on in history for just what one's business was. It has certainly saved the situation for St. Luke, though there may be some doubt as to the real force of objections thus easily overthrown. It is rather interesting to realize that many scholars of the present generation had allowed themselves to be led away by the German higher criticism from the Old Tradition with regard to Luke as a physician, and now will doubtless be led back to former views by the leader of German biblical critics. It shows how much more distant things may influence certain people than those near home, how the hills are green far away. Harnack confesses that the best book ever written on the subject of Luke as a physician, the one that has proved of most value to him, and that he still recommends everyone to read, was originally written in English. It is Hobart's medical language of St. Luke, written more than a quarter of a century before Harnack. The Germans generally had rather despised what the English were doing in the manner of biblical criticism, and above all in philology. Yet now the acknowledged coriffius of them all, Harnack, not only admits the superiority of an old-time English book, but confesses that it is the best statement of the subject up to the present time, including his own. He constantly quotes from it, and it is evident that it has been the foundation of all his arguments. It is not the first time that men have fetched from afar what they might have got just as well or better at home. Harnack has made complete the demonstration, then, that the Third Gospel and the Acts were written by St. Luke, who had been a practicing physician. In spite of this, however, he finds many objections to the Luke narratives, and considers that they add very little that is valuable to the contemporary evidence that we have with regard to Christ. He impairs with one hand the value of what he has so lavishly yielded with the other. He finds inconsistencies and discrepancies in the narrative that for him destroy their value as testimony. A lawyer would probably say that this is that very human element in the writings which demonstrates their authenticity, and adds to their value as evidence, because it shows clearly the lack of any attempt to do anything more than tell a direct story, as it had come to the narrator. No special effort was made to avoid critical objections founded on details. It was a general impression that was looked for. Sir William Ramsey, in his Luke the Physician and other studies in the history of religion, New York, Armstrong and Sons, 1908, has answered Harnack from the side of the professional critic with much force. He appreciates thoroughly the value of Professor Harnack's book, and above all the reactionary tendency, away from nihilistic so-called higher criticism which characterized so much of German writing on biblical themes in the 19th century. He says, page 7, quote, This book of Harnack's alone carries leucan criticism a long step forwards, and sets it on a new and higher plane. Never has the unity and character of the book been demonstrated so convincingly and conclusively. The step is made, and the plane is reached by the method which is practiced in other departments of literary criticism, visibly by dispassionate investigation of the work, and by discarding fashionable a priori theories, end quote. The distinguished English traveler and writer on biblical subjects points out, however, that in detail many of Harnack's objections to the leucan narratives are due to insufficient consideration of the circumstances in which they were written, and the comparative significance of the details criticized. He says, quote, Harnack lays much stress on the fact that inconsistencies and inexactnesses occur all through acts. Some of these are undeniable, and I have argued that they are to be regarded in the same light as similar phenomena in the poem of Lucretius and in other ancient classical writers, visibly as proofs that the work never received the final form which Luke intended to give it, but was still incomplete when he died. The evident need for a third book to complete the work, together with those blemishes in an expression, form the proof, end quote. Ramsey's placing of Harnack's writing in general is interesting in this connection, page 8, quote, Professor Harnack stands on the border between the 19th and 20th century. His book shows that he is to a certain degree sensitive of, and obedient to, the new spirit, but he is only partially so. The 19th century critical method was false, and is already antiquated. The first century could find nothing real and true that was not accompanied by the marvelous and the supernatural. The 19th century could find nothing real and true that was. Which view was right, and which was wrong? Was either complete? Of these two questions, the second alone is profitable at the present. Both views were right, in a certain way of contemplating. Both views were wrong, in a certain way. Neither was complete. At present, as we are struggling to throw off the fetters, which impeded thought in the 19th century, it is most important to free ourselves from its prejudices and narrowness, end quote. He adds, pages 26 and 27, quote, There are clear signs of the unfinished state in which this chapter was left by Luke, but some of the German scholars' criticisms show that he has not a right idea of the simplicity of life and equipment that evidently characterized the jailer's house and the prison. The details which he blames as inexact and inconsistent are sometimes most instructive about the circumstances of this provincial town and Roman colonia. But it is never safe to lay much stress on small points of inexactness or inconsistency in any author. One finds such faults even in the works of modern scholarship, if one examines them in the microscopic fashion in which Luke is studied here. I think I can find them in the author, Harnak himself. His point of view sometimes varies in a puzzling way, end quote. As a matter of fact, Harnak, as pointed out by Ramsay, was evidently working himself more and more out of the old conclusion as to the lack of authenticity in the Lukean writings into an opinion ever more and more favorable to Luke. For instance, in a notice of his own book, published in the Theologaisha Litera Zeitung, quote, he speaks far more favorably about the trustworthiness and credibility of Luke as being generally in a position to acquire and transmit reliable information and as having proved himself able to take advantage of his position. Harnak was gradually working his way to a new plane of thought. His later opinion is more favorable, end quote. Ramsay also points out that Professor Gifford, one of our American biblical critics, had felt compelled by the geographical and historical evidence to abandon in part the older unfavorable criticism of Luke and to admit that the ax is more trustworthy than previous critics allowed. Above all, quote, he saw that it was a living piece of literature written by one author, end quote. In a word, Luke is being vindicated in every regard. Some of the supposed inaccuracies of Luke vanish when careful investigation is made. Some of his natural history details, for instance, have been impugned and the story of the viper that fastened itself upon Saint Paul in Malta has been cited as an example of a story that would not have been told in that way by a man who knew medicine and the related sciences in Luke's time. Because the passage illustrates a number of phases of the discussion with regard to Luke's language, I make a rather long quotation from Ramsay. Quote, Take as a specimen with which to finish off this paper, the passage Acts 28, 9, at sequence, which is very fully discussed by Harnac twice. He argues that the true meaning of the passage was not understood until medical language was compared. When it was shown that the Greek word by which the act of the viper to Paul's hand is described, implies bit, and not merely fastened upon. But it is a well-assured fact that the viper, a poisonous snake, only strikes, fixes the poisoned fangs on the flesh for a moment, and withdraws its head instantly. Its action could never be what is attributed by Luke, the eyewitness to this Maltese viper, that it hung from Paul's hand and was shaken off into the fire by him. On the other hand, constrictors, which have no poison fangs, cling in the way described, but as a rule do not bite. Are we then to understand in spite of the medical style and the authority of Professor Blass, who translates Mamordit in his edition, that the viper fastened upon the Apostle's hand, then the very name viper is a difficulty. Was Luke mistaken about the kind of snake which he saw? A trained medical man in ancient times was usually a good authority about serpents, to which great respect was paid in ancient medicine and custom. A mere verbal study is here utterly at fault. We can make no progress without turning to the realities and facts of Maltese natural history. A correspondent obligingly informed me some years ago that Mr. Brian Hook, of Farnham, Surrey, who, my correspondent assures me, is a thoroughly good naturalist, had found in Malta a small snake, Cornella austriaca, which is rare in England, but common in many parts of Europe. It is a constrictor without poison fangs, which would cling to the hand or arm, as Luke describes. It is similar in size to the viper, and so like in markings and general appearance, that Mr. Hook, when he caught his specimen, thought he was killing a viper. My friend, Professor J. W. H. Trail, of Aberdeen, whom I consulted, replied that Cornella lovis, or austriaca, is known in Sicily and the adjoining islands, but he can find no evidence of its existence in Malta. It is known to be rather irritable, and to fix its small teeth so firmly into the human skin, as to need a little force to pull it off, though the teeth are too short to do any real injury to the skin. Cornella is, at a glance, very much like a viper, and in the flames it would not be closely examined. While it is not reported as found in Malta except by Mr. Hook, two species are known there belonging to the same family, and having similar habits, Leopardinus and Zamenus, or Colubur gemonensis. The coloring of Cornella leopardinus would be the most likely to suggest a viper. The observations justify Luke entirely. We have here a snake so closely resembling a viper as to be taken for one by a good naturalist, until he had caught and examined a specimen. It clings, and yet it also bites without doing harm. That the Maltese rustics should mistake this harmless snake for a venomous one is not strange. Many uneducated people have the idea that all snakes are poisonous, in varying degrees, just as the vulgar often firmly believe that toads are poisonous. Every detail as related by Luke is natural, and in accordance with the facts of the country." In a word then, the whole question as to Luke's authority as a writer, as an eyewitness of many things, and as the relator of many others with regard to which he had obtained the testimony of eyewitnesses is fully vindicated. Twenty years ago many scholars were prone to doubt this whole question. Ten years ago most of them were convinced that the Luke traditions were not justified by recent investigation. Now we have come back once more to the complete acceptance of the old traditions. Perhaps the most unfortunate characteristic of much 19th century criticism in all departments, even those strictly scientific, was the marked tendency to reject previous opinions for new ones. Somehow men felt themselves so far ahead of old time writers and thinkers that they concluded they must hold opinions different from their ancestors. In nearly every case the new ideas that they evolved by supposedly newer methods were not standing the test of time and further study. There had been a continuous belief in men's minds having its bias very probably on a passage in one of Saint Peter's epistles that the earth would dissolve by fire. This was openly contradicted all during the 19th century, and the time when the earth would freeze up definitely calculated by our mathematicians. Now after having studied radioactivity and learned from the physicist that the earth is heating up and will eventually get too hot for life, we calmly go back to the old patron declaration. Some of the most distinguished of the German biologists of the present day, such men as Driesch and others, calmly tell us that the edifice erected by Darwin will have to come down because of newly discovered evidence, and indeed some of them go so far as to declare that Darwinism was a crude hypothesis very superficial in its philosophical aspects, and therefore acceptable to a great many people who, because it was easy to understand and was very different from what our fathers had believed, hastened to accept it. Nothing shows the necessity for being conservative in the matter of new views in science or ethics or religion more than the curious transition state in which we are with regard to many opinions at the present time with a distinct tendency toward reaction to older views that a few years ago were thought quite untenable. We are rather proud of the advance that we are supposed to be making along many lines in science and scholarship, and yet over and over again, after years of work, we prove to have been following a wrong lead and must come back to where we started. This has been the way of man from the beginning and doubtless will continue. The present generation are having this curious regression that follows supposed progress strongly emphasized for them. End of Part Two of Two. End of Appendix One. Appendix Two of Old Time Makers of Medicine. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Adam Marsatich, September 2009, Alexandria, Virginia. Old Time Makers of Medicine by James Joseph. Appendix Two. Science at the Medieval Universities. Part One of Two. With the growth of interest in science and in nature's study in our own day, one of the expressions that is probably oftenist heard is surprise that the men of proceeding generations and especially university men did not occupy themselves more with the world around them and with the phenomena that are so tempting to curiosity. Science is usually supposed to be comparatively new and nature study only a few generations old. Men are supposed to have been so much interested in book knowledge and in speculations and theories of many kinds that they neglected the realities of life around them while spinning fine webs of theory. Previous generations, of course, have indulged in theory but then our own generation is not entirely free from that amusing occupation. Nothing could well be less true, however, than that the men of preceding generations were not interested in science even in the sense of physical science or that nature study is new or that men were not curious and did not try to find out all they could about the phenomena of the world around them. The medieval universities and the school men who taught in them have been particularly blamed for their failure to occupy themselves with realities instead of with speculation. We are coming to realize their wonderful zeal for education, the large number of students they attracted, the enthusiasm of their students, since they made so many handwritten copies of the books of their masters, the devotion of the teachers themselves, who wrote at much greater length than do our professors even now, and on the most abstruse subjects so that it is all the more surprising to think they should have neglected science. The thought of our generation in the matter, however, is founded entirely on an assumption. Those who know anything about the writers of the Middle Ages, at first hand, are not likely to think of them as neglectful of science even in our sense of the term. Those who know them at second hand are, however, very sure in the matter. The assumption is due to the neglective history that came in the 17th and 18th centuries. We have many other similar assumptions because of the neglect of many phases of mental development and applied science at this time. For instance, most of us are very proud of our modern hospital development and think of this as a great humanitarian evolution of applied medical science. We are very likely to think that this is the first time in the world's history that the building of hospitals has been brought to such a climax of development, and that the houses for the ailing in the olden time were mere refuges, prone to become death traps, and at most makeshifts for the solution of the problem of the care of the ailing poor. This is true for the hospitals of the 17th and 18th centuries, but it is not true at all for the hospitals of the 13th and 14th and 15th centuries. Miss Nutting and Miss Doc, in their history of nursing, have called attention to the fact that the lowest period in hospital development is during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Hospitals were little better than prisons. They had narrow windows, were ill provided with light and air and hygienic arrangements, and in general, were all that we should imagine old time hospitals to be. The hospitals of the earlier time, however, had fine high ceilings, large windows, abundant light and air, excellent arrangements for the privacy of patients, and in general were as worthy of the architects of the earlier times as the municipal buildings, the cathedrals, the castles, the university buildings, and every other form of construction that the late medieval centuries devoted themselves to. The trouble with those who assume that there was no study of science and practically no attention to nature study in the Middle Ages is that they know nothing at all at first hand about the works of the men who wrote in the medieval period. They have accepted their declarations with regard to the absolute dependence of the scholastics on authority, their almost divine worship of Aristotle, their utter readiness to accept authoritative assertions provided they came with a stamp of a mighty name, and then their complete lack of attention to observation and above all to experiment. Nothing could well be more ridiculous than this ignorant assumption of knowledge with regard to the great teachers at the medieval universities. Just as soon as there is definite knowledge of what these great teachers wrote and taught, not only does the previous mood of blame for them not paying much more attention to science and nature at once disappear, but it gives place to the hardiest admiration for the work of these great thinkers. It is easy to appreciate then what Professor Sainsbury said in a recent volume on the 13th century, quote, and there have even been in these latter days some graceless ones who have asked whether the science of the 19th century, after an equal interval, will not be of any more positive value. Whether it will not have even less comparative interest than that which apportains to the scholasticism of the 13th, end quote. Three men were the great teachers in the medieval universities at their prime. They have been read and studied with interest ever since. They wrote huge tomes, but men have poured over them in every generation. They were Albertus Magnus, the teacher of the other two, Thomas Aquinas, and Roger Bacon. All three of them were together at the University of Paris shortly after the middle of the 13th century. Anyone who wants to know anything about the attitude of mind of the medieval universities, their professors and students, and of all the intellectual world of the time, toward science and observation and experiment, should read the books of these men. Any other mode of getting at any knowledge of the real significance of the science of this time is mere pretense. These constitute the documents behind any scientific history of the development of science at this time. It is extremely interesting to see the attitude of these men with regard to authority. In Albert's tenth book of his summer, in which he catalogues and describes all the trees, plants, and herbs known in his time, he observes, quote, all that is here set down is the result of our own experience, or has been borrowed from authors whom we know to have written what their personal experience has confirmed. For in these matters, experience alone can be of certainty, end quote. In his impressive Latin phase, quote, Experimentum Solum Certificat in Talibus, end quote, with regard to the study of nature in general, he was quite as emphatic. He was a theologian as well as a scientist, yet in his treatise on the heavens and the earth, he declared that, quote, in studying nature, we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as he freely wills, use his creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth his power. We have rather to inquire what nature with its imminent causes can naturally bring to pass, end quote. Just as striking quotations on this subject might be made from Roger Bacon, indeed, Bacon was quite impatient with the scholars around him who talked over much, did not observe enough, depended to excess on authority, and in general did, as mediocre scholars always do, made much fuss on second hand information, plus some flimsy speculations of their own. Friar Bacon, however, had one great pupil whose work he thoroughly appreciated because it exhibited the opposite qualities. This was Petrus, we have come to know him as Peregrinus, whose observations on magnetism have excited so much attention in recent years with the republications of his epistle on the subject. It is really a monograph on magnetism written in the 13th century. Roger Bacon's opinion of it and of its author furnishes us the best possible index of his attitude of mind towards observation and experiment in science. Quote, I know of only one person who deserves praise for his work in experimental philosophy for he does not care what the discourses of men and their wordy warfare but quietly and diligently pursues the works of wisdom. Therefore, what others grope after blindly, as bats in the evening twilight, this man contemplates in their brilliancy because he is a master of experiment. Hence, he knows all of natural science, whether pertaining to medicine and alchemy or to matters celestial or terrestrial. He has worked diligently in the smelting of ores as also in the working of minerals. He is thoroughly acquainted with all sorts of arms and implements used in military service and in hunting, besides which he is skilled in agriculture and the measurement of land. It is impossible to write a useful or correct treatise in experimental philosophy without mentioning this man's name. Moreover, he pursues knowledge for its own sake for if he wished to obtain royal favor, he could easily find sovereigns who would honor and enrich him. End quote. Similar expressions might be readily quoted from Thomas Aquinas, but his works are so easy to secure and his old attitude of mine so well known that it scarcely seems worthwhile taking space to do so. Aquinas is still studied very faithfully in many universities and within the last few years one of his great textbooks on philosophy has been replaced in the curriculum of Oxford University in which it occupied a prominent position in the long ago, as a work that may be offered for examination in the department of philosophy. It is with regard to him particularly that there has been the greatest revulsion of feeling in recent years and a recognition of the fact that here was a great thinker familiar with all that was known in the physical sciences and who had this knowledge constantly in his mind when he drew his conclusions with regard to philosophical and theological questions. It used to be the fashion to make little of the medieval scholars for the high estimation in which they held Aristotle. Occasionally, even yet one hears narrowly educated men, I am sorry to say much more frequently scientific specialists than others, talk deprecatingly of this ardent devotion to Aristotle. No one who knows anything about Aristotle ever indulges in such an exhibition of ignorance of the realities of the history of philosophy and science. To know Aristotle well is to think of him as probably possessed of the greatest human mind that ever existed. We do not need to go back to the Middle Ages to be confirmed in that opinion. Modern scientists who know their science well but who also know Aristotle well and who are ardent worshippers at his shrine are not hard to find. Before Romanes, the great English biologist at the end of the 19th century said, quote, it appears to me that there can be no question that Aristotle stands forth not only as the greatest figure in antiquity but as the greatest intellect that has ever appeared upon this earth, end quote. Before Romanes, George H. Luz, in his interesting monograph in the history of thought, Aristotle, a chapter in the history of science, is quite as complementary to the great Greek thinker. We may say that Luz was by no means partial to Aristotle, anything but inclined to accept authority as a value in philosophy. He had been rendered impatient by the fact that so much of the history of philosophy was dominated by Aristotle, and it was only that the pangyric was forced from him by careful study of all that the Staggerite wrote that he said, quote, history gazed on him with wonder, his intellect was piercing and comprehensive, his attainments surpassed those of every philosopher, his influence has been excelled only by the founders of religion, his vast and active intelligence for twenty centuries held the world in awe, end quote. Professor Osborne, whose scholarly study of the theory of evolution down the ages, from the Greeks to Darwin, rather startled the world of science by showing not only how old was the theory of evolution, but how frequently it had been stated, and how many of them anticipated phases of our own thought in the matter, pays a high compliment to the great Greek scientist. He says, quote, Aristotle clearly states and rejects a theory of the origin of adaptive structures and animals altogether similar to that of Darwin, end quote. He then quotes certain passages from Aristotle's physics, and says, quote, these passages seem to contain absolute evidence that Aristotle had substantially the modern conception of the evolution of life from a primordial soft mass of living matter to the most perfect forms, and that even in these he believed that evolution was incomplete, for they were progressing to higher forms, end quote. Modern French scientists are particularly laudatory in their estimation of Aristotle. The group of biologists, Buffon, Cuvier, Saint-Hiliere, and others who called world attention to French science and its attainments about a century ago are all of them on record in highest praise of Aristotle. Cuvier said, quote, I cannot read his work without being ravished with astonishment. It is impossible to conceive how a single man was able to collect and compare the multitude of facts implied in the rules and aphorisms contained in this book, end quote. It is possible, however, to get opinions ardently laudatory of Aristotle from the serious students of any nation, provided only they know their Aristotle. Sir William Hamilton, the Scotch professor, said, quote, Aristotle's seal is upon all the sciences. His speculations have determined those of all subsequent thinkers, end quote. Hegel, the German philosophic writer, is not less outspoken in his praise, quote, Aristotle penetrated the whole universe of things and subjected them to intelligence, end quote. Kant, who is often said to have influenced our modern thinking more than any other in recent generations, has his compliment for Aristotle. It relates particularly to that branch of philosophy with which Kant had most occupied himself. The Koningsburg philosopher said, quote, logic since Aristotle, like geometry since Euclid, is a finished science, end quote. I do not want to tire you, or I could quote many other authorities who proclaim Aristotle the genius of the race. They would include poets like Dante and Goethe, scholars like Cicero and Anton, literary men like Lessing and Reich, and many others. The scholars of the Middle Ages, far from condemnation for their devotion to Aristotle, deserve the highest praise for it. If they had done nothing else but appreciate Aristotle, as our greatest modern scholars have done, that of itself would proclaim their profound scholarship. The medieval writers are often said to have been uncritical in their judgment, but in their lofty estimation of Aristotle, they displayed the finest possible critical judgment. On the contrary, the generations who made much of the opportunity to minimize medieval scholarship because of its worship at the Shrine of Aristotle must themselves fall under the suspicion, at least of either not knowing Aristotle, or of not thinking deeply about the subjects with regard to which he wrote. For in all the world's history, the rule has been that whenever men have thought deeply about a subject, and know what Aristotle has written with regard to that subject, they have the liveliest admiration for the great Greek thinker. This is true for philosophy, logic, metaphysics, politics, ethics, dramatics, but it is also quite as true for physical science. He lacked our knowledge, though not nearly to the degree that is usually thought, and he had a marvelous accumulation of information, but he had a breath of view and a thoroughness of appreciation with a power of penetration that make his opinions worthwhile knowing, even on scientific subjects in our enlightened age. As for the supposed swearing by Aristotle, in the sense of literally accepting his opinions without daring to examine them critically, which is so constantly asserted to have been the habit of the medieval scholars and teachers, it is extremely difficult in the light of the expressions which we have from them to understand how this false impression arose. Aristotle, they thoroughly respected. They constantly referred to his works, but so has every thinking generation ever since. Whenever he had made a declaration, they would not accept the contradiction of it without a good reason, but whenever they had good reasons, Aristotle's opinion was at once rejected without compunction. Albertus Magnus, for instance, said, quote, whoever believes that Aristotle was a god must also believe that he never heard, but if we believe that Aristotle was a man, then doubtless he was liable to err just as we are, end quote, a number of direct contradictions of Aristotle we have from Albert, a well-known one is that with regard to Aristotle's assertion that lunar rainbows appeared only twice in fifty years. Albert declared that he himself had seen two in a single year. Indeed, it seems very clear that the whole trend of thought among the great teachers of the time was away from the acceptance of scientific conclusions on authority unless there was good evidence for them available. They were quite as impatient as the scientists of our time with the constant putting forward of Aristotle as if that settled a scientific question. Roger Bacon wanted the Pope to forbid the study of Aristotle because his works were leading men astray from the study of science, his authority being looked upon as so great that men did not think for themselves but accepted his assertions. Smaller men are always prone to do this, and indeed it constitutes one of the difficulties in the way of advance in scientific knowledge at all times, as Roger Bacon himself pointed out. These are the sort of expressions that are to be expected from Friar Bacon from what we know of other parts of his work. His opus tertium was written at the request of Pope Clement IV because the Pope had heard many interesting accounts of what the great 13th century teacher and experimenter was doing at the University of Oxford and wished to learn for himself the details of his work. Bacon starts out with the principle that there are four grounds of human ignorance. These are, quote, first, trust in inadequate authority. Second, that force of custom which leads men to accept without properly questioning what has been accepted before their time. Third, the placing of confidence in the assertions of the inexperienced. And fourth, the hiding of one's own ignorance behind the parade of superficial knowledge so that we are afraid to say I do not know. End quote. Professor Henry Morley, a careful student of Bacon's writings, said with regard to these expressions of Bacon, quote, no part of that ground has yet been cut away from beneath the feet of students, although six centuries have passed. We still make sheep walks of second, third, and fourth, and fiftieth hand references to authority. Still we are the slaves of habit. Still we are found following too frequently the untaught crowd. Still we flinch from the righteous and wholesome phrase I do not know, and acquiesce actively in the opinion of others that we know what we appear to know. End quote. In his opus magis Bacon had previously given abundant evidence of his respect for the experimental method. There is a section of this work which bears the title Scientia Experimentalis. In this, Bacon affirms that, quote, without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument may prove the correctness of a theory, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt, nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds its way by means of experiment. End quote. To this he later added in his opus tertium, quote, the strongest argument proves nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences, and the goal of all speculation. End quote. It is no wonder that Dr. Wewell, in his history of the inductive sciences should have been unstinted in his praise of Roger Bacon's work and writings. In a well known passage he says of the opus magis, quote, Roger Bacon's opus magis is the encyclopedia and Novum organon of the 13th century. A work equally wonderful with regard to its wonderful scheme and to the special treatises by which the outlines of the plans are filled up. The professed object of the work is to urge the necessity of a reform in the mode of science, to set forth the reasons why knowledge had not made greater progress, to draw back attention to the sources of knowledge which had been unwisely neglected, to discover other sources which were yet almost untouched, and to animate men in the undertaking of a prospect of the vast advantages which it offered. In the development of this plan all the leading portions of science are expanded in the most complete shape, which they had at that time assumed, and improvements of a very wide and striking kind are proposed in some of the principal branches of study. Even if the work had no leading purposes it would have been highly valuable as a treatise of the most solid knowledge and soundest speculations of the time. Even if it had contained no such details it would have been in the work most remarkable for its general views and scope. As a matter of fact the universities of the Middle Ages, far from neglecting science, were really scientific universities, because the universities of the early 19th century occupied themselves almost exclusively with languages, and especially formed students' minds by means of classical studies, men in our time seemed to be prone to think that such linguistic studies formed the main portion of the curriculum of the universities in all the old times, and particularly in the Middle Ages. The study of the classic languages however came into university life only after the Renaissance. Before that the undergraduates of the universities had occupied themselves almost entirely with science. It was quite as much trouble to introduce linguistic studies into the old universities in the Renaissance time to replace science, as it was to secure room for science by pushing out the classics in the modern time. Indeed the two revolutions in education are strikingly similar when studied in detail. Men who had been brought up on science before the Renaissance were quite sure that that formed the best possible means of developing the mind. In the early 19th century men who had been formed on the classics were quite sure that science could not replace them with any success. End of Part 1 of 2 Appendix 2 of Old Time Makers of Medicine This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Adam Marcicic September 2009 Alexandria, Virginia Old Time Makers of Medicine by James Joseph Appendix 2 Science at the Medieval Universities Part 2 of 2 There is no pretense that this view of the medieval universities would be in the history of education. Those who have known the old universities at first hand by the study of the actual books of their professors and by familiarity with their courses of study have not been inclined to make the mistake of thinking that the medieval university neglected science. Professor Huxley in his inaugural address as rector of Aberdeen University some 30 years ago said very definitely his recognition of medieval devotion to science. His words are well worth remembering by all those who are accustomed to think of our time as the first in which the study of science was taken up seriously in our universities. Professor Huxley said quote, the scholars of the medieval universities seem to have studied grammar, logic, and rhetoric arithmetic and geometry, astronomy, theology, and music. Thus their work, however imperfect and faulty, judged by modern lights, it may have been, brought them face to face with all the leading aspects of the many-sided mind of man. For these studies did really contain, at any rate, in embryo. Sometimes it may be in caricature what we now call philosophy mathematical and physical science and art. And I doubt if the curriculum of any modern university shows so clear and generous a comprehension of what is meant by culture as this old trivium and quadtrivium does end quote. It would be entirely a mistake, however to think that these great writers and teachers who influenced the medieval universities so deeply and whose works were textbooks of the universities for centuries after only had the principles of physical and experimental science and did not practically apply them. As a matter of fact their works are full of observation. Once more the presumption that they wrote only nonsense with regard to science comes from those who do not know their writings at all while great scientists who have taken the pains to study their works are enthusiastic in praise. Humboldt, for instance, says of Albertus Magnus after reading some of his works with care. Quote, Albertus Magnus is equally active and influential in promoting the study of natural science and of the Aristotelian philosophy. His works contain some exceedingly acute remarks on the organic structure and physiology of plants. One of his works bearing the title of Lieber Cosmographicus De Natura Locorum is a species of physical geography. I have founded in considerations on the dependence of temperature concurrently on latitude and elevation and on the effect of different angles of the sun's rays in heating the ground which have excited my surprise end quote. It is with regard to physical geography, of course, that Humboldt is himself a distinguished authority. Humboldt's expression that he found some exceedingly acute remarks on the organic structure and physiology of plants in Albert the Great's writings will prove a great surprise to many people. Meyer, the German historian of botany, however, has re-echoed Humboldt's praise with emphasis. The extraordinary addition and originality of Albert's treatise on plants drew from Meyer the comment, quote, no botanist who lived before Albert can be compared with him unless Theophrastus, with whom he was not acquainted, and after him none has painted nature in such living colors or studied it so profoundly until the time of Conrad Gessner and C'est Salpinot, end quote. These men, it may be remarked, come three centuries after Albert's time. A ready idea of Albert's contributions to physical science can be obtained from his life by Sigart, which has been translated into English by Dixon, and was published in London in 1870. Pagel, in Pushman's History of Medicine, already referred to, gives a list of the books written by Albert on scientific matters, with some comments which are eminently suggestive, and furnished solid basis for the remark that I have made, that men's minds were occupied with nearly the same problems in science in the 13th century as we are now, while the conclusions they came to were not very different from ours, though reached so long before us. This catalogue of Albertus Magnus' works show very well his own interest and that of his generation in physical science of all kinds. There were eight treatises on Aristotle's physics, and on the underlying principles of natural philosophy, and of energy, and of movement. Four treatises concerning the heavens and the earth, one on physical geography, which also contains, according to Pagel, numerous suggestions on ethnography and theology. There are two treatises on generation and corruption, six books on meteors, five books on minerals, three books on the soul, two books on the intellects, a treatise on nutritives, and then a treatise on the senses, and other on the memory and on the imagination. All the phases of the biological sciences were especially favorite subjects of his study. There is a treatise on the motion of animals, a treatise in six books on vegetables and plants, a treatise on breathing things, a treatise on sleep and walking, a treatise on youth and old age, and a treatise on life and death. His treatise on minerals contains, according to Pagel, a description of 95 different kinds of precious stones. Albert's volumes on plants were reproduced with Meyer, the German botanist as editor, Berlin, 1867. All of Albert's books are available in modern editions. Pagel says of Albertus that, quote, his profound scholarship, his boundless industry, the almost incontrollable impulse of his mind after universality of knowledge, the many-sidedness of his literary productivity, and finally, the almost universal recognition which he received from his contemporaries and succeeding generations stamp him as one of the most imposing characters and one of the most wonderful phenomena of the Middle Ages, end quote. In another passage, Pagel has said, quote, while Albert was a churchman and an ardent devotee of Aristotle, in matters of natural phenomena, he was relatively unprejudiced and presented an open mind. He thought that he must follow Hippocrates and Galen rather than Aristotle and Augustine in medicine and in the natural sciences. We must concede it a special subject of praise for Albert that he distinguished very strictly between natural and supernatural phenomena, the former he considered as entirely the object of the investigation of nature, the latter he handed it over to the realm of metaphysics, end quote. Roger Bacon is, however, the one of these three great teachers who shows us how thoroughly practical was the scientific knowledge of the universities and how much it led to important useful discoveries in applied science and to anticipations of what is most novel even in our present day sciences. Some of these, indeed, are so startling that only that we know them, not by tradition, but from his works, where they may be readily found without any doubt of their authenticity, we should be sure to think that they must be the result of later commentators' ideas. Bacon was very much interested in astronomy and not only suggested the correction of the calendar but also a method by which it could be kept from wandering away from the actual date thereafter. He discovered many of the properties of lenses and is said to have invented spectacles and announced very emphatically that light did not travel instantaneously but moved with a definite velocity. He is sometimes said to have invented gunpowder but, of course, he did not, though he studied this substance in various forms very carefully and drew a number of conclusions in his observations. He was sure that some time or other man would learn to control the energies exhibited by explosives and then he would be able to accomplish many things that seemed quite impossible under present conditions. He said, for instance, quote, art can construct instruments of navigation such that the largest vessels governed by a single man will traverse rivers and seas more rapidly than if they were filled with oarsmen. One may also make carriages which, without the aid of any animal, will run with remarkable swiftness, end quote. In these days when the automobile is with us and when the principal source of energy for motor purposes is derived from explosives of various kinds, this expression of Roger Bacon represents a prophecy marvelously surprising in its fulfillment. It is no wonder that the book, Whence It Comes, bears the title De Secretis Artis et Nature. Roger Bacon even went to the extent, however, of declaring that man would sometime be able to fly. He was even sure that, with sufficient pains, he could himself construct a flying machine. He did not expect to use explosives of his motor power, however, but thought that a windless properly arranged, worked by hand, might enable a man to make sufficient movement to carry himself aloft, or at least to support himself in the air, if there were enough surface to enable him to use his lifting power to advantage. He was in intimate relations by letter, with many other distinguished inventors and investigators besides Peregrinus, and was a source of incentive and encouragement to them all. The more one knows of Aquinas, the more surprised there is at his anticipation of many modern scientific ideas. At the conclusion of a course on cosmology delivered at the University of Paris, he said that quote, nothing at all would ever be reduced to nothingness end quote. He was teaching the doctrine that man could not destroy matter, and God would not annihilate it. In other words, he was teaching the indestructibility of matter even more emphatically than we do. He saw the many changes that take place in material substances around us, but he thought that these were only changes of form and not substantial changes, and that the same amount of matter always remained in the world. At the same time, he was teaching that the forms in matter by which he meant the combinations of energies which distinguish the various kinds of matter are not destroyed. In other words, he was anticipating not vaguely, but very clearly and definitely, the conservation of energy. His teaching with regard to the composition of matter was very like that now held by physicists. He declared that matter was composed of two principles, prime matter and form. By forma, he meant the dynamic element in matter, while by materia prima, he meant the underlying substratum of material, the same in every substance, but differentiated by the dynamics of matter. It used to be the custom to make fun of these medieval scientists for believing in the transmutation of metals. It may be said that all three of these greatest teachers did not hold the doctrine of the transmutation of metals in the exaggerated way in which it appealed to many of their contemporaries. The theory of matter and form, however, gave a philosophical basis for the idea that one kind of matter might be changed into another. We no longer think that notion absurd. Sir William Ramsey has actually succeeded in changing one element into another and radium and helium are seen changing into each other. Until now, we are quite ready to think of transmutation placidly. The philosopher's stone used to seem a great absurdity until our recent experience with radium, which is, to some extent, at least the philosopher's stone since it brings about the change of certain supposed elements into others. A distinguished American chemist said not long ago that he would like to extract all the silver from a large body of lead ore in which it occurs so commonly and then come back after twenty years and look for further traces of silver, for he felt sure that they would be found and that lead ore is probably always producing silver in small quantities and copper ore is producing gold. Most people will be inclined to ask where the fruits of this undergraduate teaching of science are to be found. They are inclined to presume that science was a close book to the men and women of that time. It is not hard, however, to point the effect of the scientific training in the writings of the times. Dante is a typical university man of the period. He was at several Italian universities, was at Paris, and perhaps at Oxford. His writings are full of science. Professor Coons of Wesleyan in his book The Treatment of Nature in Dante has pointed out how much Dante knows of science and of nature. Few of the poets, not only of his own, but of any time, have known more. There are only one or two writers of poetry in our time who go with so much confidence to nature and the scientific interpretation of her for figures for their poetry. The astronomy, the botany, the zoology of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, Dante knew very well and used confidently for figurative purposes. Anyone who is inclined to think nature study a new idea in the world forgets, or has never known, his Dante. The birds and the bees, the flowers, the leaves, the varied aspects of clouds and sea, the phenomena of phosphorescence, the intimate habits of bird and beast, and the ways of the plants, as well as all the appearances of the heavens. Dante knew very well, and in a detail that is quite surprising, when we recall how little nature study is supposed to have attracted the men of his time. Only that his readers appreciated it at all, Dante would surely not have used his scientific erudition so constantly. So much for the undergraduate department of the Universities of the Middle Ages. And the view is absolutely fair, for these were the men to whom the students flocked by thousands. They were teaching science, not literature. They were discussing physics, as well as metaphysics. Psychology in its phenomena as well as philosophy. Observation and experiment as well as logic. The ethical sciences, economics, practically all the scientific ideas that were needed in their generation. And that generation saw the rise of the Universities, the finishing of the cathedrals, the building of magnificent town halls and castles, and beautiful municipal buildings of many kinds, including hospitals, the development of the Hansa League in commerce, and of wonderful manufacturers of all the textiles, the arts and crafts, as well as the most beautiful bookmaking and art and literature. We could be quite sure that the men who solved all the other problems so well could not have been absurd only in their treatment of science. Anyone who reads their books will be quite sure of that. While most people might be ready then, to confess that possibly Huxley was not mistaken with regard to the undergraduate development of the Universities, most of them would feel sure that at least the graduate departments were sadly deficient in accomplishment. Once more this is entirely an assumption, the facts are all against any such idea. There were three graduate departments in most of the Universities, theology, law, and medicine. While physical scientists are usually not cognizant of it apparently, theology is a science, a department of knowledge developed scientifically, and most of these medieval Universities did more for its scientific development than the schools of any other period. Quite as much may be said for philosophy, for there are many who hesitate to attribute any scientific quality to modern developments in this matter. As for law, this is the great period of the foundation of scientific law development. The English Common Law was formulated by Brackton. The deep foundations of basic French and Spanish law were laid, and canon law acquired a definite scientific character which it has always to retain. All this was accomplished almost entirely by the professors in the law departments of the Universities. It was in medicine, however, where most people would be quite sure without any more ado that nothing worthwhile talking about was being done, that the great triumphs of graduate teaching at the medieval Universities were secured. Here more than anywhere else is their room for supreme surprise at the quite unheard of anticipations of our modern medicine and, stranger still, as it may seem of our modern surgery. The law regulating the practice of medicine in the two Sicilies about the middle of the 13th century shows us the high standard of medical education. Students were required to have three years of preliminary study at the university, four years in the medical department, and then practice for a year with a physician before they were allowed to practice for themselves. If they wanted to practice surgery, an extra year in the study of anatomy was required. I published the text of this law, which was issued by Emperor Frederick II about 1241 in the Journal of the American Medical Association three years ago. It also regulated the practice of pharmacy. Drugs were manufactured under the inspection of the government, and there was a heavy penalty for substitution or for the sale of old inert drugs or improperly prepared pharmaceutical materials. If the government inspector violated his obligations as to the oversight of drug preparations, the penalty was death. Nor was this law of Emperor Frederick an exception. We have the charters of a number of medical schools issued by the Popes during the next century, all of which require seven years or more of university study, four of them in the medical department before the doctor's degree could be obtained. When new medical schools were founded, they had to have professors from certain well recognized schools on their staff at the beginning in order to assure proper standards of teaching, and all examinations were conducted under oath bound secrecy and with the heaviest obligations on professors to be assured of the knowledge of students before allowing them to pass. It might be easy to think, and many people are prone to do so, that in spite of the long years of study required, there was really very little to study in medicine at that time. Those who think so should read Professor Clifford Albert's address on the historical relations of medicine and surgery delivered at the World's Fair at St. Louis in 1904. He has dwelt more on surgery than on medicine, but he makes it very clear that he considers that the thinking professors of medicine of the later Middle Ages were doing quite a serious work in their way as any that had been done since. They were carefully studying cases and writing case histories. They were teaching at the bedside. They were making valuable observations. And they were using the means at their command to the best advantage. Of course there are many absurdities in their therapeutics, but then we must not forget there have always been many absurdities in therapeutics and that we are not free from them in our day. Professor Richard at the University of Paris said not long ago quote the therapeutics of any generation is quite absurd to the second succeeding generation end quote. We shall not blame the medieval generations for having accepted remedies that afterwards proved inert for every generation has done that, even our own. Their study of medicine was not without lasting accomplishment however they laid down the indications and the dosage for opium. They used iron with success. They tried out many of the bitter tonics among the herbal medicines and they used laxatives and purgatives to good advantage. Down at Montpelier, Gilbert, the Englishman, suggested red light for smallpox because it shortened the fever lessened the lesions and made the disfigurement much less. Finsen was given the Nobel Prize partly for rediscovery of this. They segregated ericipolas and so prevented its spread. They recognized the contagiousness of leprosy and though it was probably as widespread as tuberculosis is at the present time they succeeded not only in controlling but eventually obliterating it through Europe. It was in surgery, however, that the greatest triumphs of teaching of the medieval universities were secured. Most people are inclined to think that surgery developed only in our day. The great surgeons of the 13th and 14th centuries, however, anticipated most of our teaching. They investigated the causes of the failure of healing by first intention, recognized the danger of wounds of the neck, differentiated the venereal diseases, described rabies and knew much of blood poisoning and operated very skillfully. We have their textbooks of surgery and they are a never-ending source of surprise. They operated on the brain, on the thorax, on the abdominal cavity and did not hesitate to do most of the operations that modern surgeons do. They operated for hernia by the radical cure, though Mondeville suggested that more people were operated on for hernia for the benefit of the doctor's pocket than for the benefit of the patient. Guy Descholiac declared that in wounds of the intestines patients would die unless the intestinal lacerations were sewed up, and he described the method of suture and invented a needle holder. We have many wonderful instruments from these early days, preserved in pictures at least, that show us how much modern advance is merely reinvention. They understood the principles of aseptic surgery very well. They declared that it was not necessary that pus should be generated in wounds. Professor Clifford Elbit says, They washed the wound with wine, scrupulously removing every foreign particle. Then they brought the edges together, not allowing wine or anything else to remain within. Dry adhesive surfaces were their desire. Nature, they said, produces the means of union in a viscous exudation or natural balm as it was afterwards called by Celsus, Pare and Wurz. In older wounds they did their best to obtain union by cleansing, desiccation, and refreshing of the edges. Upon the outer surface they laid only lint steeped in wine. Powders they regarded as too desiccating for powder shuts in decomposing matters, wine after washing, purifying, and drying the raw surfaces evaporates end quote. Almost needless to say these are exactly the principles of aseptic surgery. The wine was the best antiseptic that they could use, and we still use alcohol in certain cases. It would seem too many, quite impossible, that such operations, as are described, could have been done without anesthetics. But they were not done without anesthetics. There were two or three different forms of anesthesia used during the 13th and 14th centuries. One method employed by Ugo de Luzsa consisted of the use of an inhalant. We do not know what the material employed was. There are definite records, however, of its rather frequent employment. What a different picture of science at the medieval universities all this makes from what we have been accustomed to hear and read with regard to them. It is difficult to understand where the old false impressions came from. The picture of university work that recent historical research has given us shows us professors and students busy with science in every department, making magnificent advances, many of which were afterwards forgotten, or at least allowed to lapse into desuitude. The positive assertions with regard to old-time ignorance were all made in the course of religious controversy. In English-speaking countries, particularly, it became a definite purpose to represent the old church as very much opposed to education of all kinds, and above all, to scientific education. There is not a trace of that to be found anywhere, but there were many documents that were appealed to to conform the Protestant view. There was a papal bull, for instance, said to forbid dissection. When read it proves to forbid the cutting up of bodies to carry them a distance for burial, and abuse which caused the spread of disease, and was properly prohibited. The church prohibition was international and therefore effective. At the time the bull was issued, there were twenty medical schools doing dissection in Italy, and they continued to practice it quite undisturbed during succeeding centuries. The papal physicians were among the greatest dissectors. Dissections were done at Rome, and the Cardinals attended them. Bologna at the height of its fame was in the papal states. All this has been ignored, and the supposed bull against anatomy emphasized as representing the keynote of medical and surgical history. Then there was a papal decree forbidding the making of gold and silver. This was said to forbid chemistry or alchemy, and so prevent scientific progress. The history of the medical schools of the time shows that it did no such thing. The great alchemists of the time, doing really scientific work, were all clergymen, many of them very prominent ecclesiastics. Just in the same way, there were said to be decrees of the church, councils forbidding the practice of surgery. President White says in his Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom that, as a consequence of these, surgery was in dishonor until the Emperor Wenceslas at the beginning of the fifteenth century, ordered that it should be restored to estimation. As a matter of fact, during the two centuries immediately preceding the first years of the fifteenth century, surgery developed very wonderfully, and we have probably the most successful period in all the history of surgery, except possibly our own. The decrees forbade monks to practice surgery because it led to certain abuses. Those who found these decrees and wanted to believe that they prevented all surgical development simply quoted them, and assumed there was no surgery. The history of surgery at this time is one of the most wonderful chapters in human progress. The more we know of the Middle Ages, the more do we realize how much they accomplished in every department of intellectual effort. Their development of the arts and crafts has never been equaled in the modern time. They made very great literature, marvelous architecture, sculpture that rivals the Greeks, painting that is still the model for our artists, surprising illuminations. Everything that they touched became so beautiful as to be a model for all the after time. They accomplished as much in education, as they did in all the other arts. Their universities had more students than any that have existed down to our own time. And they were enthusiastic students, and their professors were ardent teachers, writers, observers, investigators. While we have been accustomed to think of them as neglecting science, their minds were occupied entirely with science. They succeeded in anticipating much more of our modern thought, and even scientific progress. Then we have had any idea until comparatively recent years. The work of the latter Middle Ages in mathematics is particularly strong, and was the incentive for many succeeding generations. Roger Bacon insisted that, without mathematics, there was no possibility of real advance in physical science. They had the right ideas in every way. While they were occupied more with the philosophical and ethical sciences than we are, these were never pursued to the neglect of the physical sciences in the strictest sense of that term. Is it not time that we should drop the foolish notions that are very commonly held because we know nothing about the Middle Ages, and therefore, the more easily assumed great knowledge, and get back to appreciate the really marvelous details of educational and scientific development, which are so interesting and of so much significance at this time? End of Part 2 of Part 2. End of Appendix 2