The Popes and Science
THE HISTORY OF THE PAPAL RELATIONS TO SCIENCE DURING THE MIDDLE AGES AND DOWN TO OUR OWN TIME
BY
JAMES J. WALSH
K.C. St.G., M.D., Ph.D., LL.D. Litt.D. (Georgetown), Sc. D. (Notre Dame)
PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
AT THE CATHEDRAL COLLEGE, NEW YORK;
MEMBER OF THE GERMAN, FRENCH AND ITALIAN
SOCIETIES OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE,
THE ST. LOUIS HISTORY CLUB,
NEW ORLEANS PARISH MEDICAL SOCIETY,
NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE,
NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
A.M.A., A.A.A.S., ETC.
NOTRE DAME EDITION
ILLUSTRATED
FIFTIETH THOUSAND
NEW YORK
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
1915
Copyright, 1908
James J. Walsh
First edition, 2,000 copies.
Second edition, 45,000 copies, 1910.
Third (English) edition, 2,000 copies, 1912.
Fourth (Notre Dame) edition, 1915,
enlarged and illustrated.
To
Professor ETTORE MARCHIAFAVA
Papal Physician
The worthy living representative of the great series of Papal Physicians, the most distinguished list of names connected by any bond in the history of science.
"Great additions have of late been made to our knowledge of the past; the long conspiracy against the revelation of truth has gradually given way, and competing historians all over the civilized world have been zealous to take advantage of the change. The printing of archives has kept pace with the admission of enquirers; and the total mass of new matter, which the last half-century has accumulated, amounts to many thousands of volumes. In view of changes and of gains such as these, it has become impossible for the historical writer of the present age to trust without reserve even to the most respected secondary authorities. The honest student finds himself continually deserted, retarded, misled by the classics of historical literature, and has to hew his own way through multitudinous transactions, periodicals and official publications in order to reach the truth.
"Ultimate history cannot be obtained in this generation; but, so far as documentary evidence is at command, conventional history can be discarded, and the point can be shown that has been reached on the road from one to the other." (Preface of Cambridge Modern History.)
{iii}
PREFACE
A new edition of this volume being called for, I take the occasion to place it under the aegis of the University of Notre Dame as a slight token of gratitude for the formal recognition of the work by the faculty of that institution, and bind this Notre Dame edition in the University colors, blue and gold.
There is much more readiness at the present time to accept the conclusions with regard to the relations of the Popes and science here suggested than there was when the book was first published. Knowledge of the general history of science has grown very materially in the last ten years. Every increase in historical knowledge has shown more and more clearly how utterly without foundation were many ideas which had been very commonly accepted, particularly in English-speaking countries, on the subjects here discussed. The supposed opposition to the development of science on the part of the Popes and the Church is now readily seen to have had no existence in reality, and popular notions on the subject were due entirely to ignorance of the history of science. There was supposed to be no scientific development and no nature study until quite recent times. The generations immediately preceding ours knew of none, and therefore concluded there must have been none. They went even farther, and felt that since there had been none, there must be some special reason for this lacuna in human progress. The Church and the Popes were the favorite scapegoats for human failings, so they were blamed. Now we know that there was a magnificent development of science, not only in the Renaissance period under the fostering care of the Popes and ecclesiastics, but also during the old university times. What has come above all to be recognized is that the medieval universities were scientific universities. They paid more attention to the ethical and philosophical sciences than we do, but they devoted a great deal of time to mathematics and the physical sciences. Mr. Huxley, in his inaugural address as Rector of the University of Aberdeen, declared thirty years ago that the curriculum of these old universities was better calculated to develop the many-sided mind of man than the curriculum of any modern university. Above all, in surgery and in medicine they did magnificent work. Anaesthesia, antisepsis, and the natural methods of cure were all anticipated in the medieval time. At the International Congress of Medicine last summer, a section on the history of medicine was organized because it has come to be recognized that very much that is even of practical value can be learned from medical history.
The fact of the matter is that during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there was a great decadence of interest in scholarship and true education. There is a distinct descent in human culture at this time. Education was at its lowest ebb, hospitals {iv} were the worst ever built, art and architecture were neglected, and human liberty was so shackled that the French Revolution was needed to lift the fetters from men's minds as well as bodies. They, in their ignorance, spoke slightingly of old-time scholars. During the past century we have come to a better knowledge of the Middle Ages, and he is indeed a backward student of history who now thinks of them as "dark." Our millionaires have gathered, at immense expense, magnificent examples of the arts and crafts and beautiful books of the medieval and Renaissance periods. Our binders imitate their books, our artists study their works, we have revived their architecture and literature, are imitating their social ideas until, instead of "the dark ages," we have come to think of them as "the bright ages." What is not generally realized is that they are just as bright in science as they were in art, architecture, literature, and the arts and crafts.
Literally, the Popes were as much the patrons of science as they were of the arts. Professor White's book, "The Warfare of Science with Theology," like Professor Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," are now seen to represent simply an interesting evidence of the lack of real knowledge of the history of science and, above all, complete ignorance of details as to the genuine accomplishment of the olden time on the part of the generation by which they were taken seriously. Being quite sure that there was no science to speak of in the older times, these writers gathered every possible reference, found anywhere in secondary authorities, for they almost never went to the original documents, as evidence for their preconceived conviction that the Church must have suppressed science whenever that was possible. The real history of science was ignored. As soon as that is known there is no further question of Church opposition, but, on the contrary, of the extent of ecclesiastical patronage and encouragement of science.
Some of this very different story is told only too incompletely in this volume. It would take many volumes to give all the details of it. Readers will find here at least such references to the actual documentary history as will form a good basis for definite knowledge of the genuine relations of the Popes to science. The series of new appendices in this edition, especially those on Papal Physicians, Science in America, and the original Papal documents so often quoted, but seldom seen entire, is meant to supply material for the correction of many false notions that are unfortunately prevalent. They
Appendix VII by Rev. Father Leahy on The Fathers of The Church and Science presents a controverted point of history to persuasion. Appendix IX shows how amusing and amazing was Professor Draper's lack of knowledge of the history of science and above all of medicine and surgery when he wrote his "histories" that were so widely read and accepted because we in America knew no better for the moment.
{v}
PREFACE
For years, as a student and physician, I listened to remarks from teachers and professional friends as to the opposition of the Popes to science, until finally, much against my will, I came to believe that there had been many Papal documents issued, which intentionally or otherwise hampered the progress of science. Interest in the history of medicine led me to investigate the subject for myself. To my surprise, I found that the supposed Papal opposition to science was practically all founded on an exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. As a matter of history, the Popes were as liberal patrons of science as of art. In the Renaissance period, when their patronage of Raphael and Michel Angelo and other great artists did so much for art, similar relations to Columbus, Eustachius, and Caesalpinus, and later to Steno and Malpighi, our greatest medical discoverers, had like results for science. The Papal Medical School was for centuries the greatest medical school in Europe, and its professors were the most distinguished medical scientists of the time. This is a perfectly simple bit of history that anyone may find for himself in any reliable history of medicine. The medical schools were the scientific departments of the universities practically down to the nineteenth century. In them were studied botany, zoology and the biological sciences generally, chemistry, physics, mineralogy and even astronomy, because of the belief that the stars influenced human constitutions. The Popes in fostering medical schools (there were four of them in the Papal dominions, and two of them, Bologna and Rome, were the greatest medical schools for several centuries) were acting as wise and beneficent patrons of science. Many of the greatest scientists of the Middle Ages were clergymen. Some of the greatest of them were canonized as saints. Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas are typical examples. At least one Pope had been a distinguished scientist before being elected to the Papacy. For seven centuries the Popes selected as their physicians the greatest medical scientists of the {vi} time, and the list of Papal physicians is the worthiest series of names connected by any bond in the history of medicine, far surpassing in scientific import even the roll of the faculty of any medical school.
In a word, I failed to find any trace of Papal opposition to true science in any form. On the contrary, I found abundant evidence of their having been just as liberal and judicious patrons of science as they were of art and education in all forms. I found also that those who write most emphatically about Papal opposition to science, know nothing at all of the history of science, and above all of medicine and of surgery, during three very precious centuries. Because they know nothing about it they think there was none, and go out of their way to find a reason for its absence, while all the time there is a wondrous series of chapters of science for those who care to look for them. This is the story that I have tried to tell in this book.
This material is, I think, gathered into compact form for the first time. No one knows better than I do how many defects are probably in the volume. What I have tried to do is to present a large subject in a popular way, and at the same time with such references to readily available authorities as would make the collection of further information comparatively easy. I am sorry that the book has had to take on a controversial tone. No one feels more than I do that controversy seldom advances truth. There are certain false notions, however, which have the prestige of prominent names behind them, which simply must be flatly contradicted. I did not seek the controversy, for when I began to publish the original documents in the subject I mentioned no names. Controversy was forced on me, but not until I had made it a point to meet and spend many pleasant hours with the writer whose statements I must impugn, because they so flagrantly contradict the simple facts of medical history.
{vii}
CONTENTS.
May Catholics dissect?
Supposed prohibition of dissection.
Twenty medical schools in Catholic Europe.
Medieval universities and medical education.
Allbutt on medicine down to the sixteenth century.
William of Salicet and Lanfranc, the great medieval surgeons.
The nearer to Rome the better the medical school.
The state of medical teaching and discovery.
The relation of the Popes to medical progress.
Supposed Papal prohibitions.
Ignorance of medieval medicine the reason for misrepresentation.
The Popes did not hamper medicine nor any other science.
Galileo's case an incident, not the index of a policy.
The Papal Medical School the greatest in the world.
The Papal Physicians leaders in science.
The Church did for science as much as for art and literature.
History a conspiracy against the truth. (Cambridge Modern History.)
A new Catholic medical school and dissection.
Supposed Papal prohibitions of anatomy and of chemistry.
The bull of Pope Boniface VIII., De Sepulturis.
Reason for the ball.
Supposed misinterpretation.
Misuse of word infallibility.
Some history of dissection.
Date of bull important in history.
Mondino's work.
Body-snatching.
Dissections elsewhere.
How Mondino prepared his bodies for dissection.
Guy de Chauliac at Bologna sees many dissections.
Mondino's assistants, Otto and Alessandra.
Papal permissions to dissect.
The Church granting anatomical privileges where civil authorities refused.
How the tradition of this Papal prohibition originated.
M. Daunou as an authority.
Reply of Pope Benedict XIV. as to bull.
This subject a type of certain kinds of history
Presumed failure of anatomy during the Middle Ages a myth.
Famous Law of Frederick II.
Dissections at Salerno.
Taddeo and anatomy.
Salicet and Lanfranc.
A famous medico-legal autopsy. {viii}
Mondino in the history of anatomy.
Roth's story of dissection.
Guy de Chauliac's experience at Bologna.
The story of dissection during the fourteenth century without a break.
Continued in next century.
The work of Berengar of Carpi, Achillini, Matthew of Gradi.
Pathological anatomy born with Benivieni.
Pres. White's attitude to the evidence for dissection at this time.
The golden age of anatomy as of letters and art in Italy.
Not origin, but wonderful development.
Great predecessors of Raphael and Michel Angelo, as of Vesalius and Columbus.
Legitimate culmination of anatomical development.
The pre-Vesalians, Mondino, Bertrucci, Chauliac, Achillini, Berengar and Benivieni.
The English students, Linacre, Caius, Phreas.
Italy the Mecca of anatomical investigators.
Harvey and Steno.
Graduate work in Italy then as in Germany now.
Vesalius's career.
The University of Louvain.
Vesalius in Paris, in Italy.
The Father of Modern Anatomy.
Royal Physician to Charles V.
Some historical misconstructions.
What the Popes did for anatomy in the sixteenth century.
False impression prevalent just as in anatomy.
Striking similarity of history-lie.
American writers.
The Papal decree.
Its purpose.
The gold-brick industry.
Fines to be distributed to the poor.
Pope John's bull, Super Illius specula.
Appeal to historians of chemistry.
Chemistry in later Middle Ages.
Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Raymond Lully, Arnold of Villanova, the two Hollanduses, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus and his ecclesiastical teachers.
Pope John XXII. a patron of science and of education
Pope John XXII. distinguished for his administrative abilities, his learning and his abstemiousness.
Avarice and the Papal revenues.
Educational foundations from Papal revenues.
Modern educators and this old-time patron of education.
All great Popes subject of slander.
The personality of Pope John XXII.
Pres. White's astonishing declarations as to the bull Super Illius specula.
Pope John XXII. "a kindly and rational scholar."
His bull for the University {ix} of Perugia.
Perugia and the history of culture.
Standards in education.
Seven years for the doctorate in medicine.
Foundation of the University of Cahors.
Modern requirements.
Why the Pope favored education
Mistaken notions as to medieval surgery.
Supposed Church discouragement of surgery.
Misinterpreted ecclesiastical documents once more.
Gurlt on surgery during the Middle Ages.
Wonderful developments of surgery, when ignorantly said not to exist.
Allbutt and Pagel on the great surgeons of the Middle Ages.
Salicet.
Lanfranc.
Surprising anticipations of modern surgery.
Mondeville.
Surgical common sense.
Yperman.
Illustrations of surgical instruments.
Hydrophobia.
Chauliac the Father of Modern Surgery.
Place in surgery.
Chamberlain of the Pope.
Technics of surgery.
Chauliac's career.
Ardern, the English surgeon.
His works.
False impressions with regard to surgical history.
Professional jealousy not
The college of St. Côme and its lessons.
False traditions as to the Church and surgery and their meaning
Belief in miracles and progress in medicine.
Prayer and healing.
The men the Popes chose as their medical advisers.
Names greater than those of the medical faculty of any university.
Guy of Montpelier, Richard the Englishman, Pope John XXI., Simon Januensis and the first medical dictionary.
Arnold of Villanova.
Guy de Chauliac.
Cecco di Ascolo.
Joannes de Tornamira.
Francis of Siena.
Baverius of Imola.
John de Vigo.
Columbus.
Eustachius.
Varolius.
Piccolomini.
Caesalpinus.
Malpighi.
Tozzi.
Lancisi.
Morgagni.
Contributions to the biological sciences from Papal Physicians.
Papal Medical School at Rome since 1300.
Supported by revenues from Popes at Avignon.
Previous Papal relations to medicine.
Monte Cassino and Salerno.
Pope Sylvester II. and medicine.
Medical schools and the ecclesiastical authorities.
A great physician made Pope.
The Renaissance and the re-established Papal Medical School.
Columbus original discoverer and practical teacher.
Attendance at his lessons.
His book dedicated to Pope.
Other medical dedications to Popes.
Eustachius's work.
Piccolomini as a great teacher.
Caesalpinus the probable discoverer of the circulation of the blood.
Father Kircher's work at Rome.
Malpighi the Father of Comparative Anatomy.
Tozzi the best teacher of his time.
Lancisi as a founder in clinical medicine.
On Sudden Death.
Morgagni's place as an adviser.
Bologna in the Papal dominions.
Medical schools at Ferrara and Perugia.
Protestant traditions with regard to the Popes and medicine.
{x}
Pope Innocent III., the Father of City Hospitals.
Santo Spirito at Rome.
Virchow on the effect of this in Germany.
French hospitals and the Hotel Dieu.
English hospitals.
The five royal hospitals.
Virchow's tribute to Pope Innocent III.
Hospital regulation.
Care for the poor.
Longings of patients.
Religious nurses and modern nursing.
Virchow's opinion.
Contemporaries on hospital accomplishment.
Magnificent hospital building.
Models for all future time.
A modern architects's opinion.
Hospital decoration.
Siena Hospital.
Hospital abuses.
Problem of malingerers.
Leper hospitals.
The eradication of leprosy.
Lesson for our generation as to tuberculosis.
Special hospitals for erysipelas.
Benefit of segregation.
The religious dress and its anticipation of aseptic needs.
Hospitals ruined when taken from the Church and the religious.
The doubting mood so important for science supposed to preclude faith.
Most great scientists Catholics.
Francis Bacon, the supposed Father of Inductive Science.
Only the popularizer of the experimental method.
Bacon and Copernicus.
Gilbert of Colchester before Bacon.
Friar Bacon on the experimental method.
Peregrinus and the value of experiments.
Bacon's four grounds of human ignorance.
Bacon's great teacher, Albertus Magnus, and the experimental method.
Christian tradition as to scientific inquiry as begun by Augustine.
Albert's place in the history of inductive science.
Interest of the Middle Ages in physical science.
{xi}
The Popes and the medieval universities.
What the scholastic philosophers did for science.
Scientific teaching at the early universities.
"Foundations of knowledge for Galileo, Harvey, Newton and Darwin." (Allbutt.)
Magnetics.
Philosopher's stone and the transmutation of metals.
Constitution of matter.
Matter and form.
Indestructibility of matter.
Conservation of energy.
Albertus Magnus on the antipodes.
Humboldt's appreciation of Albert.
Albert's scientific accomplishments.
Astronomy, botany, geography and biological sciences.
Roger Bacon and explosives; achievements in optics and astronomy.
Aquinas and chemistry.
The relations of these men to the Popes.
Bacon's difficulties.
Medieval accomplishments in applied science.
Scientific applications in medieval cities (Kropotkin).
Decadence in science after Middle Ages.
The place of the reformation so-called.
The first encyclopedia.
Vincent of Beauvais and interest in his work.
Thomas of Cantimprato and Bartholomaeus Anglicus.
Craving for information in natural science.
Dante a type of the medieval university student.
His knowledge a proof of how he was taught.
Dante as a student of nature.
Ruskin's opinion.
Trobridge's suggestions.
Dante's early education.
Azarias and Kropotkin on the public schools of Florence and Nuremberg.
Kuhns on Dante's science.
Optics.
Astronomy.
Humboldt's praise of Dante's scientific knowledge.
Dante the observer, phosphorescence, flies, bees and ants.
Dante knew more science than any modern poet.
His contribution to the science of education.
Disease and supernatural agency.
Denial of disease.
Scientists and spiritualism.
Reaction in recent years.
Anticipations in psychiatry.
Supposed evolution of treatment of the mentally diseased.
Medieval care of the insane.
Psychopathic wards in hospitals.
The open door treatment.
After-care of the insane.
The colony system.
Religious suggestion and cure--ancient and modern.
Prayer and mental disease.
Care of the insane at Gheel.
Neglect of insane not exclusively medieval.
Milder measures quite modern.
Spiritual agencies in life.
Alfred Russell Wallace, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Prof. Charles Richet, Lombroso.
{xii}
APPENDIX I.
OPPOSITION TO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. 390The Popes as patrons of scientific education.
Swift on genius and assinine opposition.
Allston on truth in unusual form.
"Nonsense" and "absurd" on scientists' tongues.
Jordan on human conservatism.
Galileo's letter to Kepler, on "logic" and science.
Huxley on Galileo.
De Morgan on other cases.
Dogmatism and folly.
Persecution of scientists.
Harvey, Vesalius, Servetus, Steno.
Not confined to old times, Jenner, Auenbrugger, Laennec, Thomas Young, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Semmelweiss.
Opposition in other sciences.
Ohm.
Young men and discoveries.
Pasteur and rabies.
Our universities and economics.
Conservatism still active.
The lesson.
APPENDIX II.
LATIN TEXT OF PAPAL BULLS AND DECREES. 413De Sepulturis.
De Crimine Falsi.
Super Illius specula.
Bulls for erection of Universities of Perugia and Cahors.
APPENDIX III.
Emperor Frederick's Law Regulating the Practice of Medicine (1231) 419APPENDIX IV.
Prohibition of the study and practice of medicine and law to members of religious orders.
Text of the decrees.
Significance of the prohibition.
Not all priests, but only members of religious orders involved.
Church decrees as to the physician's duty in securing the last rites of the Church for his patients when in danger of death.
Text of the decrees.
Misunderstanding.
{xiii}
APPENDIX V.
The principal Papal Physicians, their careers, and their chief works. Ursus, Guy of Montpellier, Ricardus Anglicus, Taddeo Florentinus, Simon Januensis, William of Brescia, Arnold of Villanova, Petrus Aichspadius, Gentilis Gentilis, Dino del Garbo, Guy de Chauliac, Jean de Tornemire, Francis Casinus, John Baptist Verallus, Ludovicus Scarampus, Bernard Garzonius, Laurentius Roverella, Joannes Serninus, Simon Tebaldi, Jacobus Gottifredus, Joannes Burgius, Sanctes Floccus, Sebastianus Veteranus, Onofrio de Onofriis, John Philip de Lignamine, Benedict of Nursia, Petrus Leonius, Alexander de Espinosa, Gaspar Torella, Petrus Pintor, Horatio and Scipio Lancillotti, Joannes Bodier, Samuel Sarfati, Antonius Petrutius, Dioscorides da Velletri, Bartholomeo of Pisa, Bernardinus Speronius, Jerome Sessa, Clementius Clementinus, Bartholomeo Montagnana, Giovanni Antracino, John de Vigo, Francesco Fusconi, Andreas Cibbo, Andrea Turini, Ludovico Augeni, Paulus Jovius, Matteo Corti (Curtius), Antonio Musa Brasavola, Silvius Zeffiri, Jacobus Bonacossus, Joannes Manovelli, Thomas Cadimustus, Tiberius Palella, Alfonso Ferri, Franciscus Frigimelica, Maggi, John Baptist Cananus, Augustino Ricchi, Altamare, Bianchi, Simon Pasqua, Pompeius Barba, Franciscus Gymnasius, Jerome Cardan, Mercurialis, Placidus Fuscus, Andreas Baccius, Demetrius Canevarius, Malpighi, Jerome Provenzalis, Jerome Rubeus, Jerome Cordella, Zecchius, Caesalpinus, Michael Mercatus, Nicholas Masinus, Jacobus Bonaventura, Julius de Angelis, Pompeius Caimus, Vincentius Crucius, Giovanni and Bernardino Castellani, Julius Mancinus, Sylvester and Thaddeus Collicola, Baldus Baldi, Paul Zacchias, Gabriel Fonseca, Matthias Naldius, Borelli, Lancisi, Salvatorius, Romulus Spezioli, Lucas Tozzi, Morgagni, Cotugno, Giambattista Bomba, Antonio Baccelli, Flajani, Paolo Baroni, Pier Luigi Valentini, Giuseppe Constantini, Castracane, Lapponi, Marchiafava.
APPENDIX VI.
ASTRONOMY AND THE CHURCH; SOME ROMAN ASTRONOMERS. 469No formal list of Papal astronomers available. The roll of names in astronomy connected in some way with the Popes almost as distinguished as that of Papal Physicians: Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Nicholas of Cusa, Regiomontanus, Toscanelli, Archbishop Antoninus, Clavius, the Roman College, Scheiner, Ricci, Athanasius Kircher, Thomas Leseur, Franz Jacquier, Boscovitch, Le Maire, Gilii, Beccaria, Piazzi, Secchi, De Vico, Sestini, Denza, Lais, Rodriguez, Hagan.
{xiv}
APPENDIX VII.
THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE. 484Supposed opposition of the Fathers of the Church to science.
Father Leahy on the true relations.
Defence of the Fathers.
Supposed opposition to science.
No opposition to true science.
Position as regards astrology.
What the Fathers did for science.
APPENDIX VIII.
SCIENCE IN AMERICA. 492Spanish Catholic America far outdistanced English Protestant America in the cultivation of science before our time.
Professor Bourne, on science at the Spanish-American Universities, "Spanish-American science of the sixteenth century only reached in English America in the nineteenth."
Dr. Chanca's letter.
Priority in medical education.
Bourne on Spanish-American anticipations.
Reasons for decadence.
APPENDIX IX.
THE DANGER OF A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE. 500Professor Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science."
The tradition of Church opposition to science founded on ignorance of the Middle Ages.
The "Bright," not the "Dark" Ages.
Draper's career.
"History of the Intellectual Development of Europe."
Acceptance of his writings as authoritative.
Lack of scholarship.
Medieval achievements.
"Lazy monks."
Wonderful work of the monks.
Monasteries as agricultural colleges.
The Arabs in science.
Medieval prophylaxis.
Magnificent hospitals.
Halley's comet.
The Popes of the beginning of the Renaissance: Nicholas V, Calixtus III, Pius II (AEneas Sylvius Piccolomini).
Draper's summaries of history, caricatures.
Contrast between Spanish and English America.
Professor Bourne.
Sir Sidney Lee.
Professor Draper's philosophy of history.
The Church and social conditions.
Draper's
Objections to the Church in her relations to science always founded on lack of knowledge.
INDEX.
521
{xv}
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FACING PAGE Guy de Chauliac's cauteries 182 Guy de Chauliac's cauteries 183 Guy de Chauliac's instruments 186 Guy de Chauliac's instruments 187 Hospital at Lübeck 252 Hospital at Tonnerre 268 Hospital, Mexico 272 Ferri's instruments Page 447 Maggi's instruments Page 448 Maggi's instruments Page 449 Maggi's instruments Page 450 Hospital, Mexico Opp. Page 495
{1}
INTRODUCTION.
When, some years ago, the announcement of the prospective opening of the medical school at Fordham University, New York City, was made, the preliminary faculty were rather astonished to find that a number of intelligent physicians expressed surprise that there should be any question of the establishment of a medical school in connection with a Catholic institution of learning, since, as they understood, the Church forbade the practice of dissection, and in general was distinctly unfavorable to the development of medical science. Most of us had already known of the false persuasion existing in some minds, that by a Papal decree the practice of dissection had been forbidden during the Middle Ages, but it was hard to understand how men should think, in this day of general information, that Catholics were not free to pursue the study of any true science, and above all medical science, without let or hindrance from ecclesiastical authorities. In a word, though we live in what we are pleased to call an enlightened age with the schoolmaster abroad in the land, as is so proudly proclaimed, we encountered the most childish simplicity of belief in a number of old-time prejudices as to the position of the Church with regard to the study of science.
We found such a curious state of positive ignorance and such an erroneous, pretentious knowledge with regard to the supposed attitude of the Church to medicine especially, that we realized that the first thing that the {2} new medical department would have to do would be to set about correcting authoritatively the false notions which existed with regard to the Popes and medical science. Most of the misinformation in this matter in American minds, we soon found, had its origin in Dr. Andrew D. White's volumes, "On the History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom." It is impossible for anyone to read Dr. White's chapter on from Miracles to Medicine in this work without coming to the conclusion that the constant policy of the Church for all the centuries down practically to our own time was to prevent the progress of medicine as far as possible. The reason for this policy, presumably, must be taken to be that it was to the interest of the ecclesiastics to have people apply to them for healing. Sufferers were to look to miracles rather than to drugs for their relief from ailments of any and every kind. Prayers were to be considered as much more efficacious than powders, and Masses much more likely to do good than the most careful nursing. These ecclesiastical offices had to be paid for. Accordingly, people had to be discouraged from applying to physicians, medical schools were kept under an ecclesiastical ban, "dissection was prohibited," anatomy declared "a sin against the Holy Ghost," "chemistry forbidden under the severest penalties," "the medieval miracles of healing checked medical science," "the practice of surgery was relegated mainly to the lowest orders of practitioners and confined strictly to them," "as the grasp of theology upon education tightened, medicine declined," and every possible means was employed to keep the popular mind in subjection to the clergy, and to prevent physicians from getting so much knowledge as would enable them {3} to help free the people from the bondage of superstition, of which they were the victims and the slaves.
We do not think that we exaggerate the impression likely to be obtained from Dr. White's book in stating the ordinarily accepted opinions thus baldly, and as a matter of fact, as the quotation marks are intended to show, most of the strongest phrases that we have used are Dr. White's own. For those who can take such statements in good faith, it must be a very genuine surprise to learn a few facts from the history of medicine in the Middle Ages. Before the beginning of the sixteenth century, that is, before the religious revolt in Germany, which has been dignified by the name of reformation, altogether some twenty medical schools were founded in various parts of Europe. Of these, the best known in the order of their foundation were Salerno, Bologna, Naples, Montpelier, Paris, Padua and Pisa. Excellent schools, however, were established also at Oxford, Rome, Salamanca, Orleans and Coimbra. Even early in the fourteenth century such unimportant towns as Perugia, Cahors and Lerida had medical schools. These schools were usually established in connection with the universities. It was realized that this would
The universities, as is well known, were the outgrowth of cathedral schools. Practically all those in authority {4} in them, by far the greater number of teachers and most of the pupils, were of the clerical order, that is, had assumed some ecclesiastical obligations and were considered to be churchmen. At these universities, if we can trust the example of England as applicable to the Continent also, there were, according to trustworthy, conservative statistics, more students in attendance in proportion to the population than there has been at any period since, or than there are even at the present time in the twentieth century in any country of the civilized world. From this we can readily appreciate the enthusiastic ardor of those seeking education. Of these large numbers, the medical schools had their due proportion. [Footnote 1]
[Footnote 1: This subject of the attendance at the universities of the Middle Ages is discussed, and authorities quoted, in my book "The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries," published by the Catholic Summer School Press, N. Y.]
Of course it will be said at once that though there were medical schools and medical professors and students, what was taught and studied at this time was so far distant from anything like practical knowledge of medicine, that it does not tell against the argument that medical education was practically non-existent. Some people will perhaps harbor the thought, if they do not frankly express it, that very probably these schools were organized under ecclesiastical authority, only in order to enable the Church and the clergy to maintain their control of medical education and keep the people from knowledge that might prove dangerous to Church authority. They were thus able to satisfy some of men's cravings for information in these matters, and yet prevent them from making such advances as would endanger the Church's policy of having them apply for prayers and Masses rather than for more physical remedies, {5} except possibly for certain minor ailments. We do not doubt that there are many educated people who would be quite satisfied to accept this as a complete explanation of the situation in medical education at the medieval universities. Those who have read Dr. White's "History of the Warfare of Theology with Science" and have placed any faith in his really amusing excursions into a realm of which apparently he knows nothing-- the history of medicine--must believe something like this. For them a little glance at even a few of the realities of medical teaching in the thirteenth century will show at once what a castle of the imagination they have been living in.
Only those who are thoroughly and completely ignorant of the real status of medical teaching in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries continue to hold these absurd opinions as to the nullity of medieval medicine and surgery. The reading of a single short recent contribution to medical history, the address of Professor Clifford Allbutt, Regius Professor of Physic at the University of Cambridge, England, before the Congress of Arts and Sciences at the Exposition held in St. Louis in 1904, "On the Historical Relations of Medicine and Surgery down to the Sixteenth Century," would suffice to eradicate completely such traditional errors. He pointed out some surprising anticipations of what is most modern in medicine and surgery in the teachings of William of Salicet and his pupil Lanfranc, Professors of Medicine and Surgery in the Italian Universities and in Paris during the thirteenth century. As these two professors were the most distinguished teachers of surgery of the period and the acknowledged leaders of thought in their time, their teaching may fairly be taken as {6} representative of the curricula of medieval medical schools. William of Salicet, according to Professor Allbutt, taught that dropsy was due to a hardening of the kidneys; durities renum are his exact words. He insisted on the danger of wounds of the neck. He taught the suture of divided nerves and gave explicit directions how to find the severed ends. He made a special study of suppurative disease of the hip and taught many practical things with regard to it. He taught, though this is a bit of knowledge supposed to come three centuries later into medicine and history, the true origin of chancre and phagedena. Most surprising of all, however, remains. William substituted the use of the knife for the abuse of the cautery, which had been introduced by the Arabs because they feared hemorrhage, and he insisted that hemorrhage could be controlled by proper means without searing the tissues, and that the wounds made by the knife healed ever so much more kindly and with less danger to the patient. In the matter of wound healing, he investigated the causes of the failure of healing by first intention, and expressed on this subject some marvelous ideas that are supposed to be of late nineteenth century origin.
While it is usually said that whatever teaching of science was done at medieval universities, was so entirely speculative or purely theoretic and so thoroughly impractical as not to be of any serious use for life and its problems, the utter falsity of such declarations can be seen from the fact that William of Salicet insisted on teaching medicine by clinical methods, always discussed cases with his students, and his medical and surgical works contain many case histories. This is just what pretentiously ignorant historians of medical education {7} have often emphatically declared that medieval teachers did not do, but should have done, in the Middle Ages. It is not surprising then to find that William himself, and his great pupil Lanfranc, insisted on the utter inadvisability of separating medicine and surgery in such a way that the physician would not have the opportunity to be present at operations, and thus gain more definite knowledge about the actual conditions of various organs which he had tried to investigate from the surface of the body. It is a very curious coincidence that both the Regius Professors of Physic in England at the present time, our own Professor Osler, now at Oxford, as well as his colleague, Professor Allbutt, of Cambridge, have within the last five years emphasized this same idea in almost the very words which were used by William and Lanfranc nearly seven hundred years ago. Lanfranc went even beyond his master in practical applications of important scientific principles to medicine and surgery. He added to the means of controlling hemorrhage. In arterial hemorrhage he suggested digital compression for an hour, or in severe cases ligature. His master had studied wounds of the neck. Lanfranc has a magnificent chapter on injuries of the head, which Professor Allbutt does not hesitate to call one of the classics of surgery. Lanfranc was thoroughly appreciated by his contemporaries. After years of study and teaching in Italy he was invited to Paris, where he became one of the lights of that great university. Both Salicet and Lanfranc did their wonderful work in scientific medicine down in Italy where ecclesiastical influence was strongest. Italy continued to be for the next six centuries always the home of the best medical schools in the world, to which the most ardent students from {8} all over the continent and even England went for the sake of the magnificent opportunities provided. It was literally true, in spite of the tradition of Church opposition to medical science, that the nearer to Rome the university the better its medical school; and as we shall see, Rome itself had the best medical
Dr. White has said just the opposite of this in a well-known passage of his book, in which he assures his readers that "in proportion as the grasp of theology upon education tightened, medicine declined; and in proportion as that grasp relaxed, medicine has been developed." The reason for such a statement is that he knew nothing about the history of medicine and surgery in these medieval centuries and thought there was none. This is a characteristic example of his mode of writing the History of the (Supposed) Warfare of Theology with Science in Christendom. This much will give some idea of the value of his book as a work of reference.
After knowing something of these wonderful developments of medieval medical science, it is to be hoped that no one will listen hereafter to the ignorant assertions of those who talk of the suppression of medical knowledge at this time. William of Salicet and Lanfranc were both of them clerics, that is, they belonged to the ecclesiastical body and had taken minor orders, though they were not priests, as priests were for obvious reasons not allowed to do surgical operations, it being as repugnant to human feelings in the Middle Ages as it is now, that {9} the messenger of Divine Mercy should handle the knife and spill blood, or that the pastor of souls should come straight from the operating room to bring consolation to the afflicted and the dying.
Much more might be said about the wonderful medical teaching of the thirteenth century. The men who made the universities what they have continued to be down to the present time, had open minds for any great advances that might come. Accordingly, when the histories of anesthesia tell us that there was a form of anesthesia introduced during the thirteenth century by Ugo da Lucca, and that even some method of inhalation was employed for this purpose, it will be a surprise only to those who have never properly realized all that our educational forefathers of the early university days succeeded in accomplishing.
Down at Montpelier, Gilbert the Englishman taught that small-pox patients should be treated in rooms with red hangings, red curtains being especially advised for the doors and windows. This is what Finsen re-discovered in the nineteenth century, and for it was given the Nobel prize in the twentieth century. He found that small-pox patients suffered much less, that their fever was shorter, and that the after effects were much less marked when only red light was admitted to them. One may well ask what drugs did they employ, and perhaps conclude that because they knew very little of drugs, therefore they knew little of medicine. It is in the use of drugs, however, that medicine has always been at its weakest, and we scarcely need Oliver Wendel Holmes's declaration, that if all the drugs men used up to his time had been thrown into the sea, they would be better rather than worse off for it; nor Professor Osier's many {10} emphatic protests with regard to our ignorance of drugs, to make the world of the present day realize that a generation's use of them as a test would tell quite as severely against the eighteenth or the nineteenth century, as against the thirteenth or the fourteenth. They did use opium, however, the drug having been introduced into general practice, it is said, by a distinguished Papal physician, Simon Januensis. Mandrake was employed, and has not as yet gone entirely out of use. Various herbal decoctions were employed, and though these were used entirely on empiric grounds, some at least of them have continued in use with no better reason for their employment during most of the centuries since.