Читать книгу An Epitome of the History of Medicine - Roswell Park - Страница 8

The Island of Cos is now called Stan-Co, and is situated not far from the coast of Ionia. Formerly it was considered as having a most salubrious climate; now that it is under the dominion of the Turks, it is considered most unhealthy. It possessed a temple dedicated to Æsculapius and a celebrated medical school. But Hippocrates, not satisfied with what he could learn here, visited the principal foreign cities, and seems to have been a most accurate and painstaking observer and collector of notes. That he achieved great renown in his life is known, since Plato and even Aristotle refer to him as their authority in very many matters. His children and grandchildren followed in his footsteps, and published their writings under the same name; it has, therefore, become difficult to distinguish his works from theirs. Finally, authors more unscrupulous, who bore no relationship to him, attached his name to their own writings. But the true were, as a rule, easily distinguished from the spurious, and were carefully separated by those in charge of the Alexandrian library.

The enumeration of his writings by different authors varies very much. Renouard, who seems to have studied the subject very carefully, gives the following as appearing to him to be the authentic list of writings of Hippocrates the Second—i.e., the Great: The Prognostic, the Aphorisms, the first and third books of Epidemics, that on Regimen in Acute Disease, that on Airs, Waters, and Places, that on Articulations and Luxations, that on Fractures, and the Mochlic, or the treatise on instruments and reduction. This list does not comprise the fourth part of the entire Hippocratic collection, but its authenticity appears to be undoubted, and it suffices, as Renouard says, to justify the enthusiasm of his contemporaries and the admiration of posterity. Later, joined with the writings of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others, they constituted the so-called Hippocratic collection, which was a definite part of the great libraries of Alexandria and Pergamos, and formed the most ancient authentic monument of medical science.

Respect for the bodies of the dead was a religious observance in all Greece, and prevented the dissection of the human body. Consequently the knowledge of anatomy possessed by Hippocrates must have been meagre. Nevertheless, he described lesions, like wounds of the head, of the heart, the glands, the nature of bones, etc. It being impossible to establish a physiology without an anatomical basis, it is not strange that we find but little physiology in the Hippocratic writings, and that this little is very crude and incorrect. Arteries and veins were confounded, and nerves, tendons, ligaments, and membranes were represented as analogous or interchangeable tissues. The physiologists of those days abandoned themselves to transcendental speculation concerning the nature and principles of life, which some placed in moisture, others in fire, etc. Speculation, thus run wild, prevented such accurate observation as might have greatly enhanced the progress of physiological knowledge.

Hippocrates wrote at least three treatises concerning hygiene: The first, on Airs, Waters, and Places; the second, on Regimen; the third, on Salubrious Diet—practically an abridgement of the preceding, in which he recommends the habit of taking one or two vomits systematically every month. The classification of diseases into internal or medical, and external or surgical, is not modern, but is due to Hippocrates; neither is it philosophic, although it is very convenient.

With so little knowledge of physiology and pathology as the ancients had, it is not strange that they ascribed undue importance to external appearance; in other words, to what has been termed semeiotics, which occupies a very considerable place in the medical treatises of the Asclep-iadæ. Indeed, the writings on this subject constitute more than one-eighth part of the entire Hippocratic collection. To prognosis, also, Hippocrates ascribed very great importance, saying that "The best physician is the one who is able to establish a prognosis, penetrating and exposing first of all, at the bedside, the present, the past, and the future of his patients, and adding what they omit in their statements. He gains their confidence, and being convinced of his superiority of knowledge they do not hesitate to commit themselves entirely into his hands. He can treat, also, so much better their present condition in proportion as he shall be able from it to foresee the future," etc.

To the careful scrutiny of facial appearances, the position, and other body-marks about the patient he attributed very great importance; in fact, so positive was he about these matters that he embodied the principal rules of semeiotics into aphorisms, to which, however, there came later so many exceptions that they lost much of their value. From certain passages in his book on Prediction, and from the book on Treatment, which is a part of the Hippocratic collection, it appears that it was the custom then of physicians to announce the probable issue of the disease upon the first or second visit—a custom which still prevails in China and in Turkey, It gave the medical man the dignity of an oracle when right, but left him in a very awkward position when wrong.

To Hippocrates we are indebted for the classification of sporadic, epidemic, and endemic forms, as well as for the division of disease into acute and chronic. Hippocrates wrote extensively on internal disease, including some particular forms of it, such as epilepsy, which was called the sacred disease; also fragments on diseases of girls, relating particularly to hysteria; also a book on the nature of woman, an extensive treatise on diseases of women, and a monograph on sterility. That Hippocrates was a remarkably close observer of disease as it appeared to him his books amply prove; in fact, they almost make one think that close observation is one of the lost arts, being only open to the objection that too much weight was attached to insignificant external appearances, speculation on which detracted from consideration of the serious feature of the case. His therapeutics, considering the crude information of the time, was a vast improvement on that which had preceded, and really entitled him to his title of "Great Physician."

Of external diseases and their surgical therapeutics he wrote fully: on The Laboratory of the Surgeon, dealing with dressings, bandaging, and operating; on Fractures; and on Articulations and Dislocations; showing much more anatomical knowledge than was possessed by his contemporaries. The Mochlic was an abridgment of former treatises; in Wounds of the Head he formulated the dictum concerning the possible danger of trifling wounds and the possible recovery from those most serious, so often ascribed to Sir Astlev Cooper. Other monographs, also, he wrote, on Diseases of the Eye, on Fistula, and on Hoemorrhoids. He described only a small number of operations, however, and all the Hippocratic writings on surgery would make but a very incomplete treatise as compared with those that belong to the next historical epoch; all of which we have to ascribe—in the main—to prejudice against dissection and ignorance of anatomy.

From the earliest times physicians and writers occupied themselves largely with obstetrics, as was most natural. The Hippocratic collection includes monographs on Generation; the Nature of the Infant; the Seventh Month of Pregnancy; the Eighth Month of Pregnancy; on Accouchement; Superfoetation; on Dentition; on Diseases of Women; on Extraction of the Dead Foetus. The treatise on superfcetation concerned itself mainly with obstetrics.

On epidemics Hippocrates writes extensively, showing that he had studied them carefully. He was among the first to connect meteorological phenomena with those of disease during given seasons of the year, expressing the hope that by the study of storms it would be possible to foresee the advent of the latter, and prepare for them. Seven books of the Hippocratic collection bear the title of Epidemics, although only two of them are exclusively devoted to this subject. In these books were contained a long list of clinical observations relating to various diseases. They constituted really a clinical study of disease.

The collection of Hippocrates's Aphorisms fills seven of the books; no medical work of antiquity can compare with these. Physicians and philosophers of many centuries have professed for them the same veneration as the Pythagoreans manifested for their golden verses. They were considered the crowning glory of the collection. Even within a short time past the Faculty of Paris required aspirants for the medical degree to insert a certain number of these in their theses, and only the political revolution of France served to cause a discontinuance of this custom. These aphorisms formed, says Littré, "a succession of propositions in juxtaposition, but not united." It has always been and always will be disadvantageous for a work to be written in that style, since such aphorisms lose all their general significance; and that which seems isolated in itself becomes more so when introduced into modern science, with which it has but little practical relationship. But not so if the mind conceive of the ideas which prevailed when these aphorisms were written; in this light, when they seem most disjoined they are most related to a common doctrine by which they are united, and in this view they no longer appear as detached sentences.

The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain theories which have been more or less prominent during the earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration of the humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by the conservative principles of life to effect a coction—i.e., a combination of the morbific matter in the economy, it being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until thus united and prepared so as to form excrementitious material. This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital principles, which some called nature (Physis), some spirit (Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon).

The gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis; it was regarded as the announcement of the completion of the union by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed critical, as were also the signs which preceded or accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it only remained to evacuate the morbific material—which nature sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat, urination, or stools, or sometimes the physician had to come to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives, etc. The term "critical period" was given to the number of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was supposed to be four, the so-called quarternary, while the septenary was also held in high consideration. Combination of figures after the Pythagorean fashion produced many complicated periods, however, and so periods of 34, 40, and 60 days were common. This doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical mind not yet fully eliminated. Celsus was the most illustrious of its adherents, but it can be recognized plainly in the teachings of Galen, Sydenham, Stahl, Van Swieten, and many others. In explanation, it must be said that there have always existed diseases of nearly constant periods, these being nearly all of the infectious form, and that the whole "critical" doctrine is founded upon the recognition of this natural phenomenon.

The Hippocratic books are full, also, of the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire; four elementary qualities—namely, heat, cold, dryness, and moisture; and the four cardinal humors—blood, bile, atrabile, and phlegm.

Owing to the poverty of knowledge of physics and chemistry possessed by the ancients, and notwithstanding their errors and imperfections, the doctrine of Dogmatism, founded upon the theory of coction and humors, was the most intelligible and complete among the medical doctrines of antiquity, responding better, as it did, to the demands of the science of that day. That Hippocrates was a profound observer is shown in this: that he reminds both philosophers and physicians that the nature of man cannot be well known without the aid of medical observation, and that nothing should be affirmed concerning that nature until by our senses we have become certain of it. In this maxim he took position opposed to the Pythagorean doctrine, and included therein the germ of a new philosophy of which Plato misconceived, and of which Aristotle had a very faint glimpse.

Another prominent theory throughout the Hippocratic books is that of Fluxions, meaning thereby about what we would call congestions, or conditions which we would say were ordinarily caused by cold, though certain fluxions were supposed to be caused by heat, because the tissues thereby became rarefied, their pores enlarged, and their humor attenuated so that it flowed easily when compressed. The whole theorv of fluxion was founded on the densest ignorance of tissues and the laws of physics, the body of man being sometimes likened to a sponge and sometimes to a sieve. The treatment recommended was almost as crazy as the theory. Certain other theories have complicated or disfigured the Hippocratic writings, and certain have been founded on the consideration of two elements—i.e., fire and earth—or on the consideration of one single element which was supposed to be air—the breath, or pneuma; and there was—lastly—the theory of any excedent, which is very vague; of all of these we may say that they are not of sufficient interest to demand expenditure of our time.

The eclat which the second (i.e., the Great) Hippocrates gave to the school of Asclepiadæ in the Island of Cos long survived, and many members of his family followed in his footsteps. Among his most prominent successors were Polybius, Diodes, and Praxagoras, also of Cos—the last of the Asclepiadæ mentioned in history. Praxagoras was distinguished principally for his anatomical knowledge; like Aristotle, he supposed that the veins originated from the heart, but did not confound these vessels with the arteries, as his predecessors had done, but supposed that they contained only air, or the vital spirit. It has been claimed that he dissected the human body. He laid the foundation of sphygmology, or study of the pulse, since Hippocratic writers rarely alluded to arterial pulsations and described them as of only secondary importance.

The predominating theory in the Island of Cos was that which made health dependent on the exact proportion and play of the elements of the body, and on perfect combination of the four cardinal humors. This was the prevailing doctrine—i.e., the Ancient Medical Dogmatism, so named because it embraced the most profound dogmas in medicine, and was taught exclusively until the foundation of the school at Alexandria.

Two men, however, more commonly ranked among philosophers than among physicians of antiquity, dissected the statements of Hippocrates, and embodied them more or less in their own teachings, and thus exercised a great influence on the progress of the human mind, particularly in the direction of medical study. The first of these was Plato, profound moralist, eloquent writer, and most versatile thinker of his day or any other. He undertook the study of disease, not by observation (the empirical or experimental method), but by pure intuition. He seemed to have never discovered that his meditations were taken in the wrong direction, and that the method did not conduce to the discovery of abstract truths. He gave beauty an abstract existence, and affirmed that all things beautiful are beautiful because of the presence of beauty. This reminds one of that famous response in the school of the Middle Ages to a question: "Why does opium produce sleep?" the answer being: "Because it possesses the sleepy principle." Plato introduced into natural science a doctrine of final causes. He borrowed from Pythagoras the dogma of homogeneity of matter, and claimed that it had a triangular form.

Aristotle, equally great thinker with Plato, but whose mental activity was manifest in other channels, was born in Stagyrus, in Macedonia. He was fascinated by the teachings of Plato, and attained such eminence as a student that King Philip of Macedon made him preceptor to his son Alexander, subsequently the Great, by whom he was later furnished with sufficient funds to form the first known museum in natural history.—a collection of rare objects of every sort, transmitted, many of them, by the royal hands of his former student from the remote depths of Asia. Aristotle, by long odds the greatest naturalist of antiquity, laid the first philosophic basis for empiricism. He admitted four elements—fire, air, earth, and water—and believed them susceptible of mutual transmutation. He studied the nature of the soul and that of the animal body; regarded heat and moisture as two conditions indispensable to life; described the brain with some accuracy, but without the least idea of its true function; said that the nerves proceeded from the heart; termed the aorta a nervous vein; and made various other mistakes which to us seem inexcusable. Nevertheless, he was rich in many merits, and no one of his age studied or searched more things than he, nor introduced so many new facts. Although he never dissected human bodies, he nevertheless corrected errors in anatomy held to by the Hippocratic school. He dissected a large number of animals of every species, and noted the varieties of size and shape of hearts of various animals and birds. In other words, he created a comparative anatomy and physiology, and the plan that he traced was so complete that two thousand years later the great French naturalist Cuvier followed it quite closely. If he be charged with having propagated a taste for scholastic subtleties, he also furnished an example of patient and attentive observation of Nature. His history of animals is a storehouse of knowledge, and his disciples cultivated with zeal anatomy, physiology, and natural history. His successor, Theophrastus, was the most eminent botanist of antiquity.

It will thus be seen that Plato and Aristotle were the eminent propagators of two antagonistic opinions. One supposed knowledge to be derived by mental intuition, and the other that all ideas are due to sensation. Both count among moderns some partisans of the greatest acumen: Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant being followers of Plato, and Bacon, Locke, Hume, and Condillac, of Aristotle.

The excuse for stating these things, which apparently do not so closely concern the history of medicine, must be that of the learned interpreter of the doctrine of Cuvier, that "The first question in science is always a question of method."

Hippocrates formed a transition between a period of mythology and that of history. His doctrine was received by contemporaries and by posterity with a veneration akin to worship. No other man ever obtained homage so elevated, constant, and universal. A little later ignorance reigned in the school that he made celebrated. Methods and theories were propagated there under the shadow of his name which he would have disowned.

Medical science now changes its habitation as well as its aspect, and from the record of Hippocrates and his work we turn to the fourth period of the Age of Foundation—namely, the Anatomic, which extends from the foundation of the Alexandrian library, 320 B.C., up to the death of Galen, about the year A.D. 200.