صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

This was secondary, however. His main purport was to bring out his Messiahship, that he was the One sent, the One coming. But to return to our text. The archbishop is greatly mistaken in attaching the same meaning to the εy a of this verse which the words bear in verses 24 and 25. Notwithstanding the Jews well understood what Jesus taught or declared of himself in the preceding part of his discourse, they now (v. 25) put him the ironical and impertinent question, "Who art thou?" The Saviour has but to reiterate, with emphasis, Tny apxny, that he is that what he also announces to them-o, nominative case, in answer to the question, and neuter, because referring to the abstract idea of his office or mission. To seize the full force of the second member, τι και λαλω υμιν, we must call to mind the outset of the Saviour's discourse. In v. 12, he asserted that he was the "Light of the world." The Pharisees take him up, and object that he is his own herald, and, as such, unworthy of trust that his testimony is not true. Christ replies that his testimony is true, albeit coming from himself; for he knows whence he cometh, and, furthermore, he is not alone his own witness, for the Father is with him, and beareth witness to him (vs. 14, 16, 18). The xar λal in the second member of Christ's answer (vs. 25), "I also declare," has reference to the refusal of the Jews to accept his own declaration (v. 13). He now threatens (vs. 24-25) that they shall die in their sins if they refuse to believe him to be the Messiah; and, to their question, repeats emphatically that he is that what he also preaches himself to be.

Those of our readers who wish to see the whole subject of vernacular versions treated in a manner at once comprehensive, learned, and interesting, we would confidently refer to Dr. Beelen's work already cited, i.e., Grondregels, &c. But it requires little learning or research to see that the version of the "Final Committee" is by no means final, except so far as its numerous blunders, as well as its crude, harsh, and yet pedantic style, may serve as a warning to others to undertake only what they are competent to fulfil. As remarked at the outset, we have declined to criticise it in this paper, further than to refer to a single passage as a specimen of the tout ensemble, but we intend to take up a chapter or two on a future occasion, and compare them with the original as well as with other English versions, if only for the purpose of showing our readers that the quasi pundits of the Final Committee would require to go to school a little longer.

ART. VII.—1. Principles of Human Physiology, with their chief application to Psychology, Pathology, Therapeutics, Hygiene, and Forensic Medicine. By WILLIAM B. CARPENTER, M. D., F. R. S., &c., &c. Philadelphia, 1856.

2. Clinical Lectures on the principles and practice of Medicine. By JOHN HUGHES BENNETT, M.D., F. R. S., Professor of Institutes of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. New York.

3. Histoire de la Medicine. Par Daniel Leclerc, Genève.

4. Histoire de la Medicine depuis son origine jusqu'au dix-neuvieme siècle. Paris, 1846.

5. Institutions historic Medicine. Nuremberg.

A SOUND condition of body being a prerequisite to the proper exercise of every faculty, one would naturally look far back into antiquity for the first observations on the disturbing causes of health, and would expect to find them only by deep thought and patient research. Yet the recorded views of men who have devoted themselves to such enquiries are very few and unreliable when we carry our ken beyond the time of Hippocrates. Mythology furnishes some information on medical matters in the earliest historic times, but even that is a garbled tradition of the pre-Hellenic epoch. Homer makes mention of two physicians, Machaon and Podalirus, whose chief skill consisted in staunching wounds and effecting a temporary alleviation of pain. Were it not, indeed, for the famed story of Esculapius, we would scarcely have proof sufficient to establish the existence of medical men as a separate class among the earliest communities. This tradition, however, conclusively shows that as far back as authentic and even legendary history goes, there existed men who made disease and the healing art a special study, and derived their means of subsistence from the practice of their craft. Beyond this, however, very little has been handed down to us, and it is probable very little could, for observations and theories which proceeded on the assumed truth of the crude philosophic systems of the early Greek and Eastern schools, must have been either barren of result or entirely false.

This applies especially to principles and facts underlying pathology and therapeutics, for isolated observations and the description of symptoms were both nu

merous and marked by much acuteness even before the time of Hippocrates. The works of this great man were the first embodiment of the studies and observations of those who had preceded him; they remain to this day a monument of unwearied industry and wonderful fidelity to nature. Yet the restrictions placed on human dissections and the undeveloped state of collateral science led him into countless grave errors. But that which especially detracted from the usefulness of the labors of Hippocrates was his constant identification of effect with cause, mistaking the symptoms of disease for the disease itself. And here it may be well to mark a fallacy which has greatly retarded medical science from Hippocrates to Cullen, and has radical'y falsified every system of nosology. In medicine, as in all unmatured sciences, effects have been mistaken for causes, the signs of facts for the facts themselves; and hence systems, proteus-like, changing every day. Ignorance of sound physiology and anatomy precluded the true solution of the various diseased conditions of the human system, and hence the explanation of the effects was sought for in the effects themselves. The immediate successors of Hippocrates added but little to the researches and discoveries of the Father of Medicine, and we have no record of improvement down to the time of the Ptolemies. The Alexandrian School of Medicine instituted a new manner of enquiry in harmony with its own philosophy. The analytical method naturally pointed to dissection as the true means of unlocking the secrets of the human frame, and shedding light on the multifarious phenomena of disease. For awhile the Alexandrian doctors devoted themselves with ardor to the study of disease in its various forms, seeking to connect its phenomena with the facts and principles dissection had revealed to them. Their labors were productive of grand results, and remained for a long time a beacon light to all students of nature. Herophilus, the most celebrated of their number, made six hundred dissections, and so great was his authority in medical matters that the following saying, remarkable only for bad Latinity and false principle, passed into an aphorism: "Contradicere Herophilo in anatomicis est contradicere evangelium."

But the same tendency to philosophize and draw inferences from unwarranting premises, which marked the comparative anatomy studies of Aristotle, greatly detracted from the utility of those labors, and the ruin which involved

the famous Alexandrian library robbed us of the fruits of the Alexandrian researches. But the destruction which overtook the works of the Alexandrians did not await the principles discovered by them. On the authority of Galen we may refer the most important system of early medicine to Philinus, an immediate disciple of Herophilus. Hippocrates did not confine himself to observation, but, impelled by the activity of his enquiring mind, sought to assign causes aud invent theories. This laid the foundation of dogmatism, and soon the Hippocratic physicians, discarding observation completely, studied disease by the light of pure reason. The result was a speedy lapse into insane and fruitless speculation. To counteract this pernicious tendency, Philinus, instructed by the example of Herophilus, strongly urged the necessity of a return to observation and clinical studies, ridiculing the mystical doctrines of the dogmatists. His efforts were eminently successful, for soon he found himself surrounded by a brilliant host of observers, who severely condemned the dogmatic doctrines, and established the system of empiricism. Many names of remarkable empiricists have been handed down to us, the most celebrated being Heraclides of Tarentum, the first to introduce opium into practice.*

In the system of the empiricists we discover the germ of the modern inductive method, and therefore feel no surprise that it should have led to many valuable discoveries. Its chief contributions, however, were in the materia medica, for so thoroughly had it set itself in opposition to the dogmatic system, that it abstained from deep pathological studies for fear of running into speculation. The empiricists, therefore, confined themselves almost entirely to the testing of various remedies in the different diseases and conditions of the system, and little came from their labors except a knowledge of the efficacy and mode of administration of certain drugs. But had not even such a practical result flowed from the empiric theories, yet incalculable benefit followed the changed direction of the medical mind, from enquiries into essential and inscrutable causes to the real and the tangible. The other systems of medicine which grew up in the East were more or less connected with the superstitious religions of the time, or had their origin in the mystical systems of philosophy of Anaxagoras, Zeno, and Pythagoras. Proceeding to the West,

* Galen, De subfigurat. Empir., Cap. Ult.

we find the cultivation of medicine little attended to by the people of Italy, and Pliny assures us that the Roman people had been without a physician during a period of six hundred years. There were several temples consecrated to numerous deities, whose intervention was all the people could depend upon, even in the severest epidemics. Thus Tomasini* gives an inscription taken from a votive tablet dedicated to the goddess who presided over fevers:

"Febri divæ febri
Sancto febri magno
Camilla Amuta pro
Filio male affecto P."

Macrobius mentions a goddess called Ossifyga, who presided over the growth of the bones, and the goddess Carna, who took charge of the thorax and abdomen. It is by many supposed that the slaves of wealthy Roman masters were the first to practise the healing art at Rome, and for this reason the profession was for a long time held in disrepute. About one hundred years before the Christian era, Asclepeiades came to Rome, and having failed as a teacher of rhetoric turned his attention to medicine. From the little we know of his mode of practice we can imagine him to have been the pink of impostors, for he rendered himself great by decrying the works of his predecessors, and by working alternately on the fears and ignorance of the Romans. Yet from Celsus we learn that he first introduced the distinction between chronic and acute diseases, and thus greatly contributed to the advancement of the science. He also introduced the antiphlogistic regime, pushing it to an extreme degree. Herein, however, his immediate successor and disciple Themison, of Saodicea, greatly outshone him, having often reduced his unhappy patients to the verge of starvation. His successes may be estimated by the line of Juvenal,

[ocr errors]

Quot Themison egros autumno occiderat uno." This Themison founded a system called by him Methodism, which seemed to combine the practical tendency of empiri cism with that proneness to speculate which marked the system of the dogmatists. But the wide compass of questions which it undertook to solve, without any well-defined

* In Grov. Thesaur. Roman Antiquit, vol. xii., p. 867.

+ Macrob. Saturnal., lib. 1, p. 12, 3 ed. Ald.

« السابقةمتابعة »