CHAPTER VI.

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