{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50004/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50004","id":"gutenberg_50004","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50004","summary":null,"tags":["Bruno, Giordano, 1548-1600","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Evil eye","Knights of Malta","Medicine","Mythology","Religion","Students"],"text":"THE EVIL EYE\n    THANATOLOGY\n    _AND OTHER ESSAYS_\n\n    ROSWELL PARK, M. D., LL.D. (YALE)\n\n    [Illustration: Man operating fruit press \"Arti et Veritati\"]\n\n    RICHARD G. BADGER\n    THE GORHAM PRESS\n    BOSTON\n\n    Copyright, 1912, by Richard G. Badger\n\n    All Rights Reserved\n\n\n    THE GORHAM PRESS, BOSTON, U. S. A.\n\n    To\n\n    Sir William Osler, M. D., LL.D.,\n    F. R. C. P., etc.\n\n    Regius Professor of Medicine,\n    Oxford University.\n\n    Ideal Scholar and Friend.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nResponsibility for the following collection of essays and addresses\n(occasional papers) rests perhaps not more with their writer, who was\nnot unwilling to see them presented in a single volume, than with those\nof his friends who were complimentary enough to urge their assemblage\nand publication in this shape. They partake of the character of studies\nin that borderland of anthropology, biology, philology and history\nwhich surrounds the immediate domain of medical and general science.\nThis ever offers a standing invitation and an enduring fascination\nfor those who will but raise their eyes from the fertile and arable\nsoil in which they concentrate their most arduous labors. Too close\nconfinement in this field may result in greater commercial yield, but\nthe fragrance of the clover detracts not at all from the value of the\nhay, nor do borderland studies result otherwise than in enlargement of\nthe boundaries of one's storm center of work.\n\nNo strictly technical nor professional papers have been reprinted\nherein, while several of those which appear do so for the first time.\n\nBuffalo, December, 1912.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER                                                PAGE\n\n   I The Evil Eye                                         9\n\n  II Thanatology                                         32\n\n III Serpent-Myths and Serpent Worship                   49\n\n  IV Iatro-Theurgic Symbolism                            70\n\n   V The Relation of the Grecian Mysteries to\n       the Foundation of Christianity                    92\n\n  VI The Knights Hospitaller of St. John of\n       Jerusalem                                        132\n\n VII Giordano Bruno                                     164\n\nVIII Student Life in the Middle Ages                    199\n\n  IX A Study of Medical Words, Deeds and\n       Men                                              233\n\n   X The Career of the Army Surgeon                     265\n\n  XI The Evolution of the Surgeon from the\n       Barber                                           296\n\n XII The Story of the Discovery of the Circulation      314\n\nXIII History of Anaesthesia and the Introduction\n       of Anaesthetics in Surgery                       351\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTHE EVIL EYE[1]\n\n[1] A Presidential Address before the Buffalo Society of Natural\nSciences.\n\n\nBelief in magic has been called by Tylor, one of the greatest\nauthorities on the occult sciences, \"one of the most pernicious\ndelusions that ever vexed mankind.\" It has been at all times among\ncredulous and superstitious people made the tool of envy, which Bacon\nwell described as the vilest and most depraved of all feelings.\nBacon, moreover, singled out love and envy as the only two affections\nwhich have been noted to fascinate, or bewitch, since they both have\n\"vehement wishes, frame themselves readily into imaginations and\nsuggestions and come easily into the eye.\" He also noted the fact that\nin the Scriptures envy was called the Evil Eye.\n\nIt is to this interesting subject in anthropological and folk-lore\nstudy, namely, the Evil Eye, that I wish to invite your attention\nfor a time. Belief in it is, of course, inseparable from credence in\na personal devil or some personal evil and malign influence, but in\nmodern times and among people who are supposed to be civilized has\nbeen regarded ordinarily as an attribute of the devil. Consideration\nof the subject is inseparable, too, from a study of the expressions\n\"to fascinate\" and \"to bewitch.\" Indeed this word \"fascination\" has\na peculiar etymological interest. It seems to be a Latin form of the\nolder Greek verb \"_baskanein_,\" or else to be descended from a common\nroot. No matter what its modern signification, originally it meant\nto bewitch or to subject to an evil influence, particularly by means\nof eyes or tongue or by casting of spells. Later it came to mean the\ninfluencing of the imagination, reason or will in an uncontrollable\nmanner, and now, as generally used, means to captivate or to allure.\nIts use in our language is of itself an indication of the superstition\nso generally prevalent centuries ago. It is, however, rather a polite\nterm for which we have the more vulgar equivalent \"to bewitch,\" used in\na signification much more like the original meaning.\n\nBelief in an evil power constantly at work has existed from absolutely\nprehistoric times. It has been more or less tacitly adopted and\nsanctioned by various creeds or religious beliefs, particularly\nso by the church of Rome, by mediaeval writers and by writers on\noccult science. Even now it exists not only among savage nations but\neverywhere among common people. We to-day may call it superstition,\nbut there was a time when it held enormous sway over mankind, and\nexercised a tremendous influence. In its present form it consists\noften of a belief that certain individuals possess a blighting power,\nand the expression in England to \"overlook\" is not only very common,\nbut an easily recognizable persistence of the old notion. Evidently\nSt. Paul shared this prevalent belief when he rebuked the foolish\nGalatians, saying as in our common translation, \"Who hath bewitched\nyou that ye should not obey the truth?\" In the Vulgate the word\ntranslated \"bewitch\" is \"_fascinare_,\" exactly the same word as used by\nVirgil, and referring to the influence of the evil eye. Cicero himself\ndiscussed the word \"fascination,\" and he explained the Latin verb\n_invidere_ and noun _invidia_ as meaning to look closely at; whence\ncomes our word envy, or evil eye.\n\nAll the ancients believed that from the eyes of envious or angry people\nthere was projected some malign influence which could infect the air\nand penetrate and corrupt both living creatures and inanimate objects.\nWoyciki, in his Polish Folk-lore, relates the story of a most unhappy\nSlav, who though possessed of a most loving heart realized that he\nwas afflicted with the evil eye, and at last blinded himself in order\nthat he might not cast a spell over his children. Even to-day, among\nthe Scotch Highlanders, if a stranger look too admiringly at a cow the\npeople believe that she will waste away of the evil eye, and they give\nhim of her milk to drink in order to break the spell. Plutarch was sure\nthat certain men's eyes were destructive to infants and young animals,\nand he believed that the Thebans could thus destroy not only the young\nbut strong men. The classical writers are so full of allusions to this\nsubject that it is easy to see where people during the Middle Ages\ngot their prevalent belief in witches. Thus, Pliny said that those\npossessed of the evil eye would not sink in water, even if weighed down\nwith clothes; hence the mediaeval ordeal by water;--which had, however,\nits inconveniences for the innocent, for if the reputed witch sank he\nevidently was not guilty, but if he floated he was counted guilty and\nthen burned.\n\nNot only was this effect supposed to be produced by the fascinating\neye, but even by the voice, which, some asserted, could blast trees,\nkill children and destroy animals. In Pliny's time special laws were\nenacted against injury to crops by incantation or fascination; but the\nRomans went even farther than this, and believed that their gods were\nenvious of each other and cast their evil eyes upon the less powerful\nof their own circle; hence the _caduceus_ which Mercury always carried\nas a protection.\n\nTo be the reputed possessor of an evil eye was an exceeding great\nmisfortune. Solomon lent himself to the belief when he enjoined, \"Eat\nthou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye.\" (Prov. 23:6). The\nmost inconvenient country in which to have this reputation to-day\nis Italy, and especially in Naples. The Italians apply the term\n_jettatore_ to the individual thus suspected, and to raise the cry of\n\"_Jettatore_\" in a Neapolitan crowd even to-day is to cause a speedy\nstampede. For the Italians the worst of all is the \"_jettatore di\nbambini_,\" or the fascinator of infants. Elworthy relates the case of\na gentleman who on three occasions acted in Naples in the capacity of\nsponsor; singularly all three children died, whereupon he at once\ngot the reputation of having the \"_malocchio_\" to such an extent that\nmothers would take all sorts of precautions to keep their children\nout of his sight. The great Bacon lent himself also to the belief to\nsuch an extent as to advise the carrying on one's person of certain\narticles, such as rue, or a wolf's tail or even an onion, by which the\nevil influence was supposed to be averted.\n\nA most interesting work was written by Valletta and published in\nNaples in 1787. It was practically a treatise upon fascination and the\njettatore. Valletta himself was a profound believer in all this sort\nof thing, and finished up his work by offering rewards for answers to\ncertain questions, among which were the following:--\"Which jettatore is\nmost powerful, he who has or he who has not a wig? Whether monks are\nmore powerful than others? To what distance does the influence of the\njettatore extend, and whether it operates more to the side, front or\nback? What words in general ought one to repeat to escape the evil eye?\"\n\nIn ancient times it was believed that women had greater power of\nfascination then men, a belief to which our sex still hold at the\npresent day, although in modern times the evil eye proper is supposed\nto be possessed by men rather than by women; monks especially, ever\nsince the establishment of religious orders, being considered to\npossess this fatal influence. Curiously enough, the late Pope, Pius\nIX, was supposed to be a most pronounced jettatore, and the most\ndevout Catholics would point two fingers at him even while receiving\nhis blessing. Let me quote Elworthy in this connection:--\"Ask a Roman\nabout the late Pope's evil eye, and he will answer, 'They say so, and\nit really seems to be true. If he had not the jettatura it is very\nodd that everything he blessed made fiasco. We did very well in the\ncampaign against the Austrians in '48; we were winning battle after\nbattle and all was gayety and hope, when suddenly he blessed the cause\nand everything went to the bad at once. Nothing succeeds with anybody\nor anything when he wishes well to them. When he went to S. Agnese\nto hold a great festival down went the floor and the people were all\nsmashed together. Then he visited the Column to the Madonna in the\nPiazza di Spagna and blessed it and the workmen. Of course one fell\nfrom the scaffold the same day and killed himself. He arranged to meet\nthe King of Naples at Porto d'Anzio, when up came a violent gale and\nstorm that lasted a week. Another arrangement was made and then came\nthe fracas about the ex-Queen of Spain.'\"\n\nThe superstition of the evil eye and of witchcraft goes everywhere with\nthe belief in the power of transformation, which at certain periods of\nhistory has been so prevalent as to account for many of the stories of\nancient mythology, and will account even for such nursery stories as\nthat of Little Red Riding Hood, as well as for the old-world belief\nin the _werewolf_. Indeed, a common expression of to-day reminds one\nof this old belief, since it is a common saying to be ready to \"jump\nout of one's skin for joy.\" This belief in transformation has begotten\nan ever-present dread of ill omens which is even now one of the most\nprevalent of superstitions. In Somerset, to see a hare cross the path\nin front of one is a sign of death. In India they fear to name any\nsacred or dreaded animal. The black cat is everywhere an object of\naversion, and in some parts of England to meet a person who squints is\nequal to meeting one possessing the evil eye. Surely I do not need to\nremind this audience of the fear which many people have of taking any\nimportant action on Friday. This fear goes so far in some instances\nas to lead people to deprecate over-praise or apologize for a too\npositive statement. Your courteous Turk will not take a compliment\nwithout \"Mashallah;\" the Italians will not receive one without \"Grazio\na Dio;\" while the Irishman almost always says \"Glory be to God,\" and\nthe English peasant \"Lord be wi' us;\" the idea in every instance being\nto avert the danger of fascination by these acknowledgments of a higher\npower.\n\nIn England during the horrible times when the Black Death raged it\nwas supposed that the disease was communicated by a glance from the\ndistorted eyes of a sick man. In 1603 Delrio, a Jesuit, published a\nlarge six-volume folio work entitled \"A Disquisition on Magic,\" in\nwhich he takes it for granted that the calamities of mortals are the\nwork of evil spirits. He says, \"Fascination is a power derived by\ncontact with the devil, who, when the so-called fascinator looks at\nanother with evil intent, or praises by means known to himself, infects\nwith evil the person at whom he looks.\" Those familiar with the history\nof so-called animal magnetism, mesmerism or hypnotism, will see a close\nconnection between these beliefs and the practice of this peculiar\nform of influence. Mesmerism, in fact, as ordinarily practiced, was\nmore or less dependent upon the influence of touch, or actual contact,\nwhose importance has always been by the credulous rated high. In fact,\nit will be remembered that many of the miracles of the New Testament\nwere performed by the aid of touch, and in the Old Testament it is\nrecorded how disappointed Naaman was when he went to be cured of his\nleprosy in that the prophet did not _touch_ him. The influence of the\n_royal touch_ for the cure of scrofula, known for centuries as the\nKing's Evil, will also not be forgotten. In fact, our word to \"bless\"\nsignifies to touch by making the sign of the cross on the diseased\npart, as, for instance, in the West of England, where goitre is rather\ncommon, it is believed that the best cure is that the swelling should\nbe touched by the hand of a corpse of the opposite sex.\n\nThe more we deal with the superstitions now under consideration the\nmore evident it becomes that the principal thought among the simpler\npeoples, or even among some of the religious sects of to-day, has\nbeen the propitiation of angry deities, or of destructive influences,\nrather than the worship and exaltation of beneficent attributes. As\nElworthy says, \"We find that fear and dread have in all human history\nbeen more potent factors in men's conduct than hope and gratitude or\nlove.\" Take for example the propitiatory sacrifices of Abel and Cain,\nor the sacrifice which Abraham proposed to make of his own son, or the\nvery words which have crept into our language such as _atonement_, etc.\nWith this personification of an evil power or attribute in nature came\nalso belief in transformation, or metamorphosis, of which the Greek and\nRoman mythology is full. How many of the Christian symbols of to-day,\nnearly all of which are of pagan origin, convey to the initiated\ninstances of this belief, can hardly be mentioned in this place.\nSuffice it to say that their number is very great. But I find too many\ntemptations to wander from my subject, which is essentially the evil\neye.\n\nIn mediaeval symbolism, as in ancient, the intent often was to\nrepresent either on some amulet, charm or picture a figure of the thing\nagainst which it was most desired that a protective influence should be\nexercised, hence the general prevalence of the eye in some pictorial\nrepresentation. The ancient Egyptians, as well as the Etruscans, used\nto paint a huge eye on the bows of their vessels, which was supposed\nto be a charm against the evil eye. Even to-day in the Orient I have\nseen Greek boats with eyes painted on either side of their prows. The\neye was a common adornment of Egyptian pottery, usually in combination\nwith various other pictures, but as a symbol it seems during the past\ncentury or two to have passed out of common employ, except perhaps\nin Malta, and among the Free-masons, who simply are perpetuating its\nuse. Nevertheless, wax or silver eyes are seen hung up in some foreign\nchurches. A curious feature of these superstitions has been this, that\nany feature of indecency or obscenity when attaching to these symbols,\namulets, etc., has been supposed to make them much more potent. This\nprobably was because anything strange or unusual was more likely to\nattract the eye, and therefore divert its influence from the individual\nto the inanimate object, hence the prevalence of phallic emblems in\nconnection with these fancied protections. Many objects of this kind\ncan be to-day picked up in the jewelry stores of Rome and of Naples.\n\nAnother of the most efficacious of these amulets takes the general form\nof a hideous mask, often called the _Gorgoneion_. In all probability\nthis was largely for the reason given above--that it was most likely\nto attract attention. Symbols of this kind are in very general use\namong people who know nothing of the reason therefore. Thus, we see\nthem on seals, coins, etc. The gargoyles of mediaeval architecture are\nfrequently given this fantastic appearance and for this same purpose.\n\nIn Roman times the dolphin was a favorite device for a potent charm\nagainst the evil eye, and was pictured on many a soldier's shield.\nUlysses adopted it as his especial choice, both on his signet and his\nshield, perhaps because it was supposed to have been through the\nagency of the dolphin that Telemachus was saved from drowning.\n\nTo us in the medical profession it is of no little interest that in\nRome, according to Varro, there stood three temples on the Esquiline\ndedicated to the goddess of Fever and one to Mephitis. Tacitus relates\nthat a temple to Mephitis was the only building left standing after the\ndestruction of Cremona, where there was also an altar dedicated to the\nEvil Eye. We know, also, that in the very centre of the Forum there\nstood an altar to Cloacina, the Goddess of Typhoid. What complete sway\nthis goddess has held from ancient times to the present I need scarcely\ntell you. \"When Rome, after the fall of the empire, relapsed into its\nmost insanitary condition this old worship reappeared in another shape,\nand a chapel arose near the Vatican to the _Madonna della Febre_, the\nmost popular in Rome in times of sickness or epidemic.\" This simply\nshows a transfer of ideas, the attributes of Diana being conveyed over\nto her Christian successor, the virgin, whose cult became equally\nsupreme.\n\nThe principal symbol of this cult was the horned moon or crescent,\nand, in consequence, horns in one form or another became the most\ncommon of objects as amulets against the Evil Eye. So comprehensive\nand persistent is this belief in Naples that, in the absence of a horn\nin some shape, the mere utterance of the name _corno_ was supposed to\nbe an effectual protection. Even more than this, the name _Un Corno_\nbecame applicable to any and every charm or amulet against the Evil\nEye. We may find many references to the Horn in Scripture, where it\nserved both as an emblem of dignity and as an amulet. Most curious it\nis that the phylactery with which the Pharisees adorned their garments,\nand which called forth the most scathing denunciation by the Master,\nwas undoubtedly an emblem of a horn, and worn as an amulet against\nthe Evil Eye. At the beginning of the Christian era it had become\nfashionable to wear these, and how they were enlarged and made not only\nbadges of sanctity but marks of worldly honor, we may read in the New\nTestament.\n\nThe horn has been an important feature of Christian symbolism, as of\npagan, and we constantly see the ram's horn, which was the successor of\nthe bull's horn, made such from economical reasons, all over the ruins\nof ancient Rome. The married women of Lebanon wear silver horns upon\ntheir heads to distinguish them from the single women. The Jewesses\nof Northern Africa wear them as a part of their regular costume, and\neven to-day curious spiral ornaments are worn on either side of the\nhead by the Dutch women. In Naples horns in all shapes are exceedingly\ncommon upon the trappings of the cab horses. Indeed the heavy trappings\nand harness of these overloaded animals are usually protected with a\nperfect battery of potent charms, so that any evil glance must be fully\nextinguished before it can light upon the animal itself. Thus, we may\nfrequently see upon the backs of these animals two little brazen flags,\nsaid to be typical of the flaming sword which turned every way, and\nwhich are supposed to be an unfailing attraction to the eye. The high\npommel ends usually in a piece of the inevitable wolf's skin, and many\ncolored ribbons or worsteds are wound about portions of the harness in\nsuch a way as completely to protect all that it encloses.\n\nBut the most numerous of all these emblems is a _hand_ in various\npositions or gestures. Probably every other cab horse in Naples carries\nthe hand about him in some form. In Rome these things are not seen\nso much on horses' backs, although wolf skins, horns and crescents\nare common enough, but we see large numbers of silver rings for human\nfingers, to each of which a little pendant horn is attached. These\nmay be seen in the shop windows strung upon rods and plainly marked\n_Annelli contra la Jettatura_. Those who have seen Naples thoroughly\nhave noted how cows' horns, often painted blue, are fixed against the\nwalls, especially at an angle, about the height of the first floor. But\none of the most remarkable amulets which I have ever seen hangs outside\none of the entries to the Cathedral in Seville, where over a door is\nhung by a chain the tusk of an elephant, and further out, over the\nsame doorway, swung by another chain, an enormous crocodile, sent as a\npresent or charm of special power to Alfonso, in 1260, by the Sultan of\nEgypt. These two strange charms hang over the doorway of a Christian\nchurch of to-day, indicating the acceptance by a Christian people of a\nMoslem emblem and amulet.\n\nAgain, in Rome it is very common to see a small cow's horn on the\nframework of the Roman wine carts or dangling beneath the axle.\nMuch more common and better known among the Anglo-Saxon peoples is\nthe horse-shoe emblem, which with us has lost all of its original\nsignification, as an emblem of fecundity, and has become a charm\nagainst evil. It is hung up over doorways, is nailed up in houses, it\nguards stable doors and protects fields against malign influences. Even\nin the Paris Exhibition of 1889, where there was a representation of a\nstreet from old Cairo, there hung over several of the doors a crocodile\nwith a horse-shoe on his snout.\n\nSo far I have said very little about the positions of the hand and\ncertain gestures by which it is intended to ward off the evil eye.\nThe Mohammedans, like the Neapolitans, are profound believers in the\nefficacy of manual signs; thus outside of many a door in Tangier I have\nseen the imprint of a hand made by placing the outstretched hand upon\nsome sticky black or colored material, which was then transferred as\nby a type or die to the doorway of the dwelling, where in the likeness\nof the outstretched manus it serves to guard the dwellers within. This\nis to me one of the most curious things to be observed in Mohammedan\ncountries. A relic of the same belief I have seen also over the great\ngate of the Alhambra, in the Tower of Justice, where, in spite of the\nvery strict Moslem custom and belief against representation of any\nliving object, over the keystone of the outer Moorish arch is carved\nan outstretched upright hand, a powerful protection against evil. It\nis this position of the hand, by the way, which has been observed in\nall countries in the administration of the judicial oath. Moreover, the\nhand in this position is the modern heraldic sign of baronetcy.\n\nThe hand in the customary position of benediction is sometimes open\nand extended, while at other times only the first and second fingers\nare straightened. The power which the extended hand may exert is well\nillustrated in the biblical account (Exodus 17: 11) \"And it came to\npass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let\ndown his hand Amalek prevailed.\" And so it happened that when Moses\nwearied of the constrained position his hand was supported by Aaron\nand by Hur. This is only one of numerous illustrations in the holy\nwritings showing the talismanic influence of the human hand. There are\ncomparatively few people who realize, to-day, that the conventional\nattitude of prayer as of benediction, with hands held up, is the old\ncharm as against the evil eye. In one of the great marble columns\nin the Mosque of St. Sophia in Constantinople there is a remarkable\nnatural freak by which there seems to appear upon the dark marble\nthe white figure of an outspread hand. This is held in the highest\nreverence by the superstitious populace, who all approach it to pray\nfor protection from the evil eye. The open hand has also been stamped\nupon many a coin both in ancient and modern times, and the general\nprevalence of the hand as a form of doorknocker can be seen alike in\nthe ruins of Pompeii and the modern dwelling.\n\nThe hand clenched in various forms has been used in more ways than as\na mere signal or sign of defiance. In Italy the _mano-fica_ implies\ncontempt or insult rather than defiance. Among all the Latin races this\npeculiar gesture of the thumb between the first and second fingers\nhas a significant name and a significant meaning. It is connected\neverywhere with the fig, and expresses in the most discourteous way\nthat which is implied in our English phrase \"don't care a fig.\" It\nis in common use as an amulet to be worn from the neck or about the\nbody, and conveys the same meaning as that which the Neapolitans\nfrequently express when they say \"May the evil eye do you no harm.\"\nAnother position of the hand, namely, that with the index and little\nfingers extended, while the middle and ring fingers are flexed and\nclasped by the thumb, gives also the rude imitation of the head of\na horned animal, and is frequently spoken of as the _mano cornuta_.\nA Neapolitan's right hand is frequently, in some instances almost\nconstantly, kept in that position pointing downwards, just as hand\ncharms are made to hang downwards, save when it is desired to use the\nsign against some particular individual, when the hand is pointed\ntoward him, even at his very eyes if he appear much to be dreaded.\nWhen, however, the hand in this position is pointed toward one's chin\nit conveys a most insulting meaning and hints at conjugal infidelity.\nAs the Neapolitan cab-men pass each other the common sign is to wave\nthe hand in gesture and in this position. This is true also of many\nother places.\n\nThe sign of the cross is very often made with the hand, usually with\nthe first two fingers extended, and seems to mean a benediction of\ndouble potency, because both the hand and the cross itself are utilized\nin the gesture. I have elsewhere discussed the signification of the\nsign of the cross, and do not care to take it up again just now. It is\ncertainly of phallic origin and as certainly antedates the Christian\nera by many hundred years. It is, in other words, a pagan symbol\nto which a newer significance has been given. Talismanic power has\nusually been ascribed to it, and in some form, either as the Greek\nTau or the Crux Ansata, has been most frequently employed. In one or\nthe other of these forms it was the mark set upon the houses of the\nIsraelites to preserve them from the destroying angel. In the roll of\nthe Roman soldiery, after a battle, it was placed after the names of\nthose still alive; and we read in Ezekiel 9:4 of the mark which was to\nbe set upon \"the foreheads of the men that cry,\" which was certainly\nthe Greek Tau, because the Vulgate plainly states this. Upon some\nof the old Anglo-Saxon coins there was placed a cross on each side,\nusually the handled cross, and upon various seals it has been in use\nuntil a comparatively recent period. It may be seen, also, in many\nillustrations from the catacombs, for instance, dating back to a time\nbefore the cross was a generally received Christian emblem, showing\nboth the use of the cross and the hand in the positions to which I have\nalready alluded. The sign of the cross is made by many a schoolboy in\nhis play before he shoots his marble, and I have often seen it made\nupon the wooden ball before a man has bowled with it. Many a peasant\nscratches it upon his field after sowing, and many a housewife has\nscratched it upon her dough.\n\nThe hand with the first two fingers and thumb extended in the ordinary\nposition of sacerdotal benediction was certainly a charm against evil\nlong before the Christian era. This is not used so much by the common\npeople, but has been appropriated rather by the priests. By a sort of\ngeneral consent this has been especially the attitude permitted to the\nSecond Person of the Trinity, although there are numerous instances in\nmediaeval painting where the hand of the First Person has been shown in\nthis position. Indeed, the expression \"_dextera Dei_,\" or \"right hand\nof God,\" is conventionalized.\n\nIn many amulets, images and pictures, other charms are combined with\nthat supposed to be exercised by the human hand. An exceedingly common\none was the Egyptian scarab. The Egyptians believed that there were no\nfemales of this kind of insect, hence it was considered a symbol of\nvirility and manly force, and in connection with the _mano pantea_\njust alluded to gave the amulet power to guard both the living and\ndead. In fact it was almost as common upon these emblems as the human\neye itself.\n\nAgain, the serpent was a frequent emblem in this same connection. As\nI have elsewhere written upon the subject of serpent-worship I need\nscarcely more than allude to it here, save to say that to the serpent\nwere ascribed numerous virtues and powers, and that its use upon any\ncharm was supposed to reinforce the virtues already possessed by it.\n\nAmong the most curious of all the Italian charms against the Evil Eye,\nand yet one which has been singularly neglected by most writers, is\nthe sprig of rue or, as the Neapolitans call it, the _cimaruta_. In\nits simplest form it was undoubtedly of Etruscan or Phoenician origin.\nLater, however, it became curiously involved with other symbols and\nquite complicated. It is worn especially upon the breasts of Neapolitan\nbabies, and is considered their especial protection against the\nmuch-dreaded jettatura. In ancient times no plant had so many virtues\nascribed to it as had the rue. Pliny, indeed, cites it as being a\nremedy for 84 different diseases. It used to be hung about the neck in\nprimeval times to serve as an amulet against fascination. In most of\nthese amulet forms it consists of three branches, which were supposed\nto be typical of Diana Triformis, who used often to be represented in\nthree positions and as if having three pairs of arms.\n\nDiana, by the way, was the especial protectress of women in\nchild-birth. Silver was her own metal and the moon her special emblem.\nTherefore, the expression, \"the silver moon\" is not so meaningless\nas it would appear. This will in some measure account for the fact\nthat corals, to which large virtues were ascribed, used always to be\nmounted in silver, and that the crescent, or new moon, is also almost\ninvariably made of this same metal. Of the many charms which used to be\ncombined in the _cimaruta_ there is scarcely one which may not be more\nor less considered as connected with Diana, the Goddess of Infants.\n\nFrequently, also, we may see representations of the sea-horse quite\nlike the living hippocampi of to-day, which are worn alike by cab\nhorses and by women in Naples. They are known locally as the _Cavalli\nmarini_.\n\nProtection supposed to be most efficient was and is frequently afforded\nalso by another method, namely, printed or written invocations,\nprayers, formulae, etc., worn somewhere about the body. Sometimes\nthese were worn concealed from view and at others they were openly\ndisplayed. Even today on Turkish horses and Arab camels are hung\nlittle bags containing passages from the Koran, while the Neapolitan\nhorses frequently carry in little canvas bags prayers to the Madonna\nor verses from scripture,--these as a sort of last resort in case the\nother charms fail. The good Catholic of to-day, especially if of Irish\ndescent, wears his little scapulary suspended around the neck, which\nis supposed to be a potent protection. Frommannd's large work on Magic\noffers us a perfect mine of written spells against fascination, which\nhave often to be prepared with certain mystic observances. The various\nwritten charms, as against the bite of the mad dog, are only other\nillustrations of the same superstition. Indeed, many superstitious\npeople believe that the mere utterance of particular numbers exercises\na charm. Daily expression of this belief we see in the credulity about\nthe luck of odd numbers, and the old belief that the third time will be\nlucky. Military salutes are always in odd numbers. More value attaches\nin public estimation to the number seven than to any other, as we see\nin the miraculous powers ascribed to the seventh son of a seventh son.\n\nAn appeal to luck to-day is the equivalent of the old prayer to the\nGoddess Fortuna, and is voiced in the common idea about the lucky coin\nand the various little observances for luck which are so popular. These\nobservances are everywhere inclusive of the popular importance attached\nto expectoration, which is one of the most curious features of these\nmany widespread beliefs. The habit of spitting on a coin, for instance,\nis very common, just as the schoolboy spits on his agate when playing\nmarbles or on his baseball, or the bowler upon his wooden ball before\nrolling it. In fact, this whole matter of spitting has been in all\nages an expression of a deep-rooted popular belief. Among the ancient\nGreeks and Romans the most common remedy against an envious look was\nspitting, hence it was called \"_despuere malum_.\" Old women would avert\nthe evil eye from their children by spitting three times (observe the\nodd number) into their bosoms.\n\nThe virtues and properties attributed to saliva among various peoples\nhave been numerous and exalted. To lick a wart on rising in the\nmorning used to be one of its well-recognized cures, and is to-day\na popular remedy for any slight wound. Especially was the saliva of\na fasting person peculiarly efficacious. Pliny states that when a\nperson looks upon an infant asleep the nurse should spit three times\nupon the ground. But the most marvellous virtues were attributed to\nsaliva in the direction of restoration of sight. The most conspicuous\nillustration of this is the instance mentioned in the New Testament\nwhen Christ healed the blind man, for it is related that:\n\n\"He spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and did anoint the\neyes of the blind man with the clay.\"\n\nThe practice of concealing the eyes is prevalent throughout the\nOrient, and among the Mohammedans, cannot be referred entirely to male\njealousy, for the women themselves confess to the greatest reluctance\nto show their faces to the stranger, fearing the influence of the evil\neye.\n\nAgain, inasmuch as from time immemorial diseases of all kinds have\nbeen considered the direct result of fascination, it was most natural\nthat charms of varied form should be introduced as a protection.\nMany persons even of considerable education lend themselves to this\nsuperstition. The carrying in one's pocket of a potato, a lump of\ncamphor or an amulet is, among other alleged charms, but an everyday\nillustration of this belief.\n\nIt would be possible to go on with an almost endless enumeration of\nthe forms of this still generally prevalent belief in the power of\nthe evil eye, and of the charms by which it may be averted. As has\nbeen set forth, it is but a particulate expression of a general and\nwidespread belief in the existence of an evil being, for some vague\nand almost unsubstantial, for others assuming almost the proportions\nof the personal devil of mediaeval theology, or even of the Tyrolean\nPassion Plays. A discussion in a general way of this topic I have held\nto be not entirely foreign to the purpose of this society, it being one\nof the most interesting subjects of folklore study, and it may perhaps\nbe considered just at the present to have a more particular interest\nfor us in that we have so recently been favored with a most delightful\nand scholarly essay on the \"Salem Witchcraft\" by Prof. John Fiske, in\nwhich he graphically set forth the mechanism and the consequences of\nan aggravated expression of this belief, which constitutes the most\nserious blot which can be found upon the history of the Protestant\nwhite races in this country.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nTHANATOLOGY\n\nA QUESTIONNAIRE AND A PLEA FOR A NEGLECTED STUDY[2]\n\n[2] Appeared first in the Journal of the American Medical Association,\nApril 27, 1912.\n\n\nIs it possible to watch the \"vital spark of heavenly flame,\" as it\nquits \"this mortal frame\" and not be overcome by the mystery of death\nas the termination of that even greater mystery, life? Is there\ninspiration in the pagan emperor's address to his soul--those Latin\nverses which Pope has so beautifully translated?\n\nTo the speculative philosopher death may have a different\nsignificance, and one not altogether included in that given to it by\nthe physiologist. To the former it is a subject for transcendental\nspeculation; to the latter it is the terminal stage of that adjustment\nof internal and external relations which, for Spencer, constitutes\nlife. For us its primary and immediate significance is purely mundane,\nyet it deserves such serious study from a practical viewpoint as it\nseldom receives.\n\nWhat is death? When does it actually occur? How can it occur when\nthe majority of cells in the previously living organism live on for\nhours or for days or, under certain favoring circumstances, retain\npotentialities of life for indefinite periods? These and numberless\nrelated questions constitute a line of inquiry that may well call for\na separate department of science. Pondering in this wise, I long ago\ncoined an expression which years later I found had been incorporated\nin the scientific dictionaries, though never before heard by me or\nencountered in my reading. \"Thanatology\" is this word, and it may be\ndefined as the study of the nature and causes of death. Inseparable\nfrom it, however, are certain considerations regarding the nature and\ncauses of life. Yet I would not introduce a compound term such as\n\"biothanatology,\" wishing so far as possible to limit the study and the\nmeaning.\n\nLet us ask ourselves a few more questions. Does life inhere in any\nparticular cell? In the leukocytes? In the neurons? Both are capable\nof stimulated activity long after the death of their host. In fact, by\nsuitable electric stimulation, nearly all the phenomena of life may\nbe reproduced after death, save consciousness and mentality alone. Do\nthese then constitute life, and their suppression or abolition death?\nIf so what about the condition of trance, or of absolute imbecility,\ncongenital or induced? Or, again, how can a decapitated frog go on\nliving for hours? Is it perhaps because the heart is _the_ vital organ\nthat the hearts of some animals will continue to palpitate for hours\nafter their removal from the bodies? Yet the animals which have lost\nthem certainly promptly die. Suddenly stop a man's heart-action by\nelectrocution, or the guillotine, or a bullet, and he dies, we say,\ninstantly. Let it stop equally suddenly under chloroform and there is\na period of several minutes during which it may be set going. Let a\nman apparently drown and this viable period becomes even longer--say a\ngoodly fraction of an hour. During the interval is he alive or dead, or\nis there an intermediate period of absolutely suspended animation? And\nif so, in what does it consist?\n\nIs there a vital principle? If so what is it? Is such a thing\nconceivable? Can such a concept prevail among physicists? Can we\nconsent even to entertain in this direction the notion of what is so\nvaguely called \"the soul?\" Of course, those who talk most lucidly\nabout the soul know least about it, and no man can define it in\ncomprehensible terms; but can consideration of the soul (whatever it\nmay be) be omitted from our thanatology? Probably not, at least by many\nthinkers who cannot segregate their physics from their theology. Sad\nit is that theology, which might be so consolatory had it any fixed\nfoundation, should be utterly impotent when so much is wanted of it.\nTheology, however, has little if aught to do with thanatology.\n\nIs protoplasm alive? If so, then why may we not believe, with Binet,\nin the psychic life of micro-organisms? He seems to have advanced good\nreason for assuming that we may do so, albeit such manifestations in\neither direction may be scarcely more than expressions of chemiotaxis.\nBut if protoplasm be alive in any proper sense, as it would appear\n(else where draw the line?), just when does it so appear and whence\ncomes its life? If it be alive, then life inheres in the nitrogen\ncompounds composing it, or else is an adjunct of matter, imponderable,\nelusive, something _un_-conceivable if undeniable. The vitalists are\nof late perhaps attaining an ascendency which for decades they had\nlost, since they maintain that life is not to be explained by chemical\nactivities alone. And yet it is possible to set going in the eggs of\ncertain sea animals the phenomena of life, or to liberate them by\ncertain weak solutions of alkaline cyanides, without the pressure or\nassistance of fructifying spermatozoa. In such cases life or death are\ndetermined by ionization and certain chemicals, or by their absence.\nWhere then, again, is the vital principle? Or is it inherent in the\nion, and was Bion correct when he said \"electricity is life?\"\n\nThe life of a cell is then necessarily quite distinct from the life\nof its host, nor can the latter be composed simply of the numerical\ntotal lives of its components. Some lower animals bear semidivision,\nin which case each half soon becomes a complete unit by itself. Others\nseem to bear the loss of almost any individual part without loss of\nlife, and it is hard to say just which is the vital part. The central\npumping organ is perhaps the _sine qua non_, when it exists. But when\nnon-existent, then what?\n\nAgain, while a living organism may be artificially divided into viable\nportions, no method seems known by which a series of separate cells may\nbe, as it were, assembled or combined into one, of which a new unit\nmay result from assemblage or combination. The more highly specialized\nor complex the cell, the more easily does it part with life, and the\nmore difficult becomes its preservation and its reproduction. We may\nassume that after the death of a man his most specialized cells are\nthe first to die, or more, that their death has perhaps preceded his\nown. In the ante-mortem collapse seen in many diseases and poisonings,\nhas not this very thing occurred, i. e., that the patient has outlived\nhis most important cells? Certainly when a patient dies of progressive\ngangrene he has outlived, perhaps, a large proportion of his millions\nof competent cells. Viewed properly, what a strange spectacle is here\npresented! Perhaps twenty per cent. of his cells actually dead, the\nrest bathed in more or less poisonous media, still their host endures\nyet a little while. \"Behold, I show you a great mystery.\" About which\nof the poisoned cells does the flame of life still flicker?\n\nThe life-giving germ-and sperm-cells may exist and persist for some\ntime after the body dies, as numerous experiences and experiments have\nshown. Ova and spermatozoa do not die the instant the host dies. And\nherein appears another great mystery, that cells from the undoubtedly\ndead body may possess and unfold the potentialities of life when\nproperly environed. Among the lower forms of life cells but slightly\ndifferentiated go on living and even creating new organisms, though the\nlarger organisms be dead. Moreover, in what way shall we regard the\ndivision of one ameboid cell into two, equally alive and complete? Here\ntwo living organisms are made out of one, without death intervening,\nand by permutation alone may one calculate, through how few generations\ncells need pass in order to be numbered by millions, without a death\nnecessary to the process.\n\nThus far we have had in mind life and death in the animal kingdom\nalone. But most of what has been said, and much that has not, is\nequally true in the vegetable kingdom. Even in the mineral kingdom--as\nsome think--the invariable and inevitable tendency to assume definite\ncrystalline form represents the lowest type of life. Indeed it might\nfall in with Spencer's definition as evincing a tendency to adjust\ninternal to external relations, though exhibited only after such\nruthless disturbance as liquefaction by heat or solution. But then,\nis not every disturbance of relations \"ruthless,\" because it follows\ninexorable habits of Nature? Even a crystal will reform as frequently\nas appear certain other phenomena of life, if made to do so. Were atoms\nalive they would suffer with every fresh chemical change, and who knows\nbut that they do?\n\nBut in the vegetable world we certainly have all the features of life\nand death in complete form: fructification of certain cells by certain\nothers, development in unicellular form or in most profuse and complex\nform, a selection of necessary constituents of growth from apparently\nunpromising soil, and the production of startling results. Does not\nthe sensitive plant evince a contact sensibility almost equal to that\nof the conjunctiva? And who shall say that it does not suffer when\nrudely handled? Does not the production of the complex essential oils\nand volatile ethers which give to certain flowers their wonderful\nfragrance, indicating what strange combinations of crude materials have\nbeen effected within their cells, show as wonderful a laboratory as any\nconcealed within the animal organisms? Yet death comes to these plants\nwith equal certainty, and presents equally perplexing mysteries. When\ndies the flower? When plucked and separated from its natural supply\nor when it begins to fade (a period made more or less variable by the\ncare given it), or when it ceases to emit its odor? And is then death\na matter of hours? When the floral stem was snapped what else snapped\nwith it? At what instant did the floral murder occur?\n\nEvery seed and every seedling possesses marvelous potentiality of life,\nand so long as it does we say it is not dead; nor yet is it alive. It\nresists considerable degrees of heat, will bear the lowest temperature,\nwill remain latent for long periods, and still its cells will instantly\nrespond to favoring stimuli. Its actual life is apparently aroused by\npurely thermic and chemical (electrionic?) activities environing it. In\nwhat do its life and its death consist?\n\nBut life and death are influenced--we say \"strangely\" only because it\nall seems strange to us--by uncommon or purely artificial conditions.\nRadium emanations have always an injurious effect on embryonic\ndevelopment. Under their influence, for example, the eggs of amphibia\nbecome greatly disturbed. Cells that should specialize into nerve,\nganglion and muscle fail to develop, and consequently there may be\nproduced minute amphibian monsters, destitute of nerves and muscles,\nbut otherwise nearly normal. Hertwig has submitted the sperm-cells of\nsea urchins to these rays, without killing them, but invariably with\nconsequent abnormal development.\n\nThe effect of cathode or _x_-rays is even more widely recognized and\nhas been more generally demonstrated. They seem to possess properties\ninjurious to most cell-life and even fatal to some.\n\nStill more puzzling, and weird in a way, are the results of\nexperiments, now widely practiced, which have to do with juggling, as\nit were, with ova, larv\u00e6 and embryos, by all imaginable combinations\nof subdivision and reattachment of parts, so that there have resulted\nall kinds of monstrosities and abnormalities. To such an extent has\nthis laboratory play been carried that almost any desired product can\nbe furnished--living creatures with two heads, two tails, or whatever\ncombination may be determined.\n\nAmong the most remarkable of these efforts have been those of\nVianney, of Lyons, who has shown that it is possible to remove the\nhead end of several different insect larv\u00e6 without preventing their\ndevelopment and metamorphosis into the butterfly stage. In _Bombyx_\nlarv\u00e6, for example, the butterflies arrived at the mature stage, with\nstreaked wings and beautiful coloration, but almost headless. These\nanencephalous insects lived for some time.\n\nFew animals survive exposures of any length to a temperature much over\n150 F., and most of them are killed by considerably less heat. Freezing\nhas always been considered equally fatal. Gangrene is the common result\nof freezing a part of the human body, and that means local death.\nExtraordinary pains must be taken with a frozen ear or finger if its\nvitality is to be restored. And so even with the hibernating, or the\ncold-blooded animals, a really low temperature has been generally\nregarded as fatal.\n\nBut the recent experiments of Pictet, who did so much in the production\nof exceedingly low temperatures, freezing of gases, etc., have shown\nsome startling results in the failure to kill goldfish and other of the\nlower animals by refrigeration. For instance, goldfish were placed in a\ntank whose water was gradually frozen while the fish were still moving\ntherein. The result was a cake of ice with imprisoned supposedly dead\nfish. This ice was then reduced to a still lower temperature, at which\nit was maintained for over two months. It was then very slowly thawed\nout, whereupon the fish came to life and moved in apparently their\nnormal and natural ways as if nothing had happened.\n\nThis confirms Pictet's early experiments and convictions, that if the\nchemical reactions of living organisms can be suspended without causing\norganic lesions the phenomena of life will temporarily disappear, to\nreturn when conditions are again as usual. It is worth relating that\nhis fish frozen in this way could be broken in small pieces just as if\nthey were part of the ice itself.\n\nHow often during these recent decades when events have seemed to move\nfaster, when discoveries and inventions have been announced at such\nfrequent and brief intervals that we fail to note them all for lack\nof time, when haste and rush characterize habits alike of life and\nthought, do we find that we simply must stop, as it were for breath,\nwhile we unload a large amount of accumulated mental rubbish and\nclear a space in our storage capacity for up-to-date knowledge! It is\na decennial mental house-cleaning process. We must unlearn so much\nof that which ten to forty years ago we so laboriously learned. We\nmust adopt new and improved reasoning processes. But it is hard to do\nall this. For instance, as a boy I learned the old chemistry quite\nthoroughly. During a subsequent interval, when I did not need to study\nit, came the new chemistry, and when I again required it I had not\nonly to study a practically new science--which was not so bad--but\nto rid my brain of much that had really found firm lodgment there,\nand this was difficult or impossible. So it is with one who, having\nbeen brought up on Euclidean geometry, finds himself confronted with\nthe comparatively new non-Euclidean, and who has then not merely to\nforget, but to unlearn all those fundamental axioms which seemed so\nplain and so indisputable, that is, if he would accept the teachings of\nBolyai and others. For example, that a straight line is not necessarily\nthe shortest route between two points shocks our Euclidean orthodoxy,\nand is at the same time, _to us_, inconceivable; as also that parallel\nlines indefinitely prolonged _may_ touch, and the like; likewise the\nconcept of four-dimensional spaces, or worse yet, _n_-dimensional. And\nnow, in somewhat like manner and to a certain degree, must we revise\nour previous conceptions of death, at least to this extent: Not that we\nyet know much better than we did what it really is, but that we know\nmore about what it is not. Even save, perhaps, in its instantaneous\nhappening it is _but a step_ toward dissolution, usually not the first,\ncertainly not the last, but yet the most conspicuous.\n\nDeath is in many respects a biochemical fact. It is so intertwined with\nionic changes in the arrangement of matter that we may hope for more\ninformation regarding some of its aspects as knowledge of the latter\naccumulates.\n\nBut, evidently, we need to clarify our notions as we rearrange our\nfacts. Somatic death is, after all, a most complex process. It may be\nshortened by instant and complete incineration, but scarcely in any\nother way. Even dynamite would scarcely simplify the problem. As to\nconscious death, that is _probably_ (though not certainly) a matter\nof seconds only or possibly fractions of a second. While we have no\naccurate appreciation of what constitutes consciousness, nor even just\nwhere it resides, the central nervous system appears to be its most\nprobable seat. But conscious death may occur almost instantly without\ninjury to this system, as when a bullet passes through the thorax and\nthe heart, without injuring the spine.\n\nBut what is it that suddenly checks all concerted and interdependent\nactivity? Or does something or some controlling agency suddenly leave\nthe body?\n\nA recent theory, having features to commend it, is to the effect that\nlife is a property or a feature of the ultimate _corpuscles_ which\ncompose the atom. Since these corpuscles bear to their containing\natom a relative size comparable to that of the tiniest visible insect\nwinging its way in a large church edifice, the intricacies of this\nparticular theory readily appear. But it does seem as though among\nourselves life has much to do with the hitherto neglected and despised\nnitrogen atom or molecule, since life inheres _par excellence_ in\nnitrogen compounds. Moreover, _vitality is conspicuously a feature of\nthose chemical elements which have the lowest atomic weight_, while at\nthe other end of the table of atomic weights stands radium, of whose\ndestructive emanations I have already spoken.\n\nAnother phase of the general subject of thanatology was suggested\nespecially by Osier, who a few years ago called attention to the fact\nthat but few, if any patients really die of the disease from which\nthey have been suffering. This is not a paradox, and needs only\nreason and observation to confirm it. His statement was a preliminary\nto the consideration of terminal infections and toxemias, which of\nitself would be sufficient to erect thanatology into a dignified\nspecial study. Take, for instance, a patient who has long suffered\nfrom diabetes. The end is characterized by coma, i. e., an evidence\nof profound toxemia, and is in large measure due to acetonemia. A\npatient with chronic Bright's disease dies of uremic poisoning, or\none with pneumonia dies of genuine heart-failure. The terminal stage\nof cancer is, again, toxemia of one kind or another, according as it\nhas interfered with digestion, with respiration, or some other vital\nfunction, or has broken down, thus saturating the patient with septic\nproducts.\n\nThis aspect of the subject will bear any amount of study and\nelaboration, and its mention here should be sufficient for my purpose.\nAccordingly as it is properly appreciated, it will be recognized as\nhaving an important practical bearing, since, if we may foresee the\ndirection from which the final danger threatens, it may be the better\nand the longer averted.\n\nAnother very important and practical subject is wrapped up in this\none, namely, the utilization of apparently dead, or at least of only\npotentially living material (tissue) in the various methods of grafting\nor transplantation, which are to-day a part of the surgeon's work. The\nmethods are themselves a transplantation of experiences gained by work\nin the vegetable kingdom. What wonder that the marvels revealed in one\ndepartment should have incited work along parallel lines in the other?\nThat flowers and fruit of one kind may be made to grow on a tree of a\nvery different kind excites but a small amount of the astonishment it\ndeserves, mainly because it is now a common occurrence, though properly\nregarded it might seem a miracle.\n\nDiffering only in minor respect is, for example, the removal of\nthyroidal tissue from one human being and its implantation into\nanother, with functional success. One may ask just here, how is\nthis matter concerned with thanatology? And the reply is: If this\ntissue were taken from a fresh corpse it would be by most people\nregarded as dead tissue. If so, does the dead come to life? Without\nviolating the proper scientific use of the imagination one may\nfancy something like the following: Let a healthy young woman meet\naccidental and instantaneous death. It would be possible to use no\ninconsiderable portion of her body for grafting or other justifiable\nsurgical procedures. The arteries and nerves could be used, both in\nthe fresh state, and the former even after preservation, for suitable\ntransplantation or repair work on the vascular and nervous systems\nof a considerable number of other people. So also could the thyroid,\nthe cornea, the ovaries and especially the bones. All the teeth, if\nhealthy, could be reimplanted. With the thin bones, ribs especially,\nplastic operations--particularly on the noses--of fifty people\ncould be made. And then the exterior of the body could be made to\nsupply any amount of normal integument with which to do heterologous\ndermatoplastic operations, or would furnish an almost inexhaustible\nsupply of epidermis for Thiersch grafts, which latter material need not\nbe used in the fresh state, but could be preserved and made available\nsome days and even weeks later. A portion of the muscles might possibly\nbe made available for checking oozing from bleeding surfaces of others,\nif used while still fresh and warm, and possibly portions of the\nureters or some other portion of the remains might be utilized for some\nunusual purpose. Then what extracts or extractives might be prepared\nfrom other parts of the body, pituitary, adrenals, bone-marrow, etc.?\nThe tendons might also be prepared for sutures. Every one of these\nprocedures would give promise of success, the technic being in every\nrespect satisfactory.\n\nBut the possible limit is not yet reached, since with each kidney might\nbe carried out experiments like those feats of physiologic jugglery\nsuch as Carrel has shown us, by implanting one, say in the neck,\nconnecting up the renal with the carotid artery, and the renal vein\nwith the jugular, while some receptacle would have to be provided as a\nterminal for the ureter.\n\nThis is, after all, not a fantastic dream, nor such an extreme\npicture as would at first appear, since every organ or tissue\nabove-mentioned--and more--has been used as indicated, and with success.\n\nBut imagine the dead body affording viable products, even indirectly\nlife itself, to (possibly) so many others! Does this complicate the\nstudy of death? And what must become of the simple credulous faith of\nthe zealot who believes in the actual and absolute resurrection, at\nsome later date?\n\nThere is something more than mere transcendentalism in the science of\nthanatology; it has a plausible medico-legal and pragmatic import.\nRight glad should I be if I might arouse a deserved interest in it.\n\nHow may I more fittingly conclude than by quoting a few lines from our\nown Bryant's \"Thanatopsis\":\n\n    \"Earth that nourished thee, shall claim\n    Thy growth, to be resolved to earth again,\n    And, lost each human trace, surrendering up\n    Thine individual being, shalt thou go\n    To mix forever with the elements.\"\n\nThough were I minded to rehearse certain difficulties met in the\npreparation of this paper, which I have long had in mind, I might also\nadd the following lines from the same poet's \"Hymn to Death\":\n\n    \"Alas! I little thought that the stern power\n    Whose fateful praise I sung, would try me thus\n    Before the strain was ended.\"\n\nOne may well quote, at this point, Lamartine, who asked, \"What is life\nbut a series of preludes to that mystery whose initial solemn note\nis tolled by death?\" (On this theme Liszt built up that wonderful\nsymphonic tone poem \"Les Preludes.\")\n\nEven infinity is now questioned by the mathematicians. This being the\ncase, where shall we, where can _we_ stop?\n\n NOTE.--While writing the foregoing paper there came to my notice the\n recent book \"Death; Its Causes and Phenomena,\" by Carrington and\n Meader (London, 1911). It is interesting, but save that it contains a\n helpful bibliography, is of little assistance to one wishing to pursue\n the study from its pragmatic aspect. One of the authors is committed\n to a personal theory that death is caused by cessation of the\n vibrations which during life maintain vital activity; the other that\n death is, as it were, the culmination of a bad habit of expectancy\n that something of the kind must occur, into which we have fallen, in\n spite of the fact that other living beings below man undergo the same\n fate, though not capable of expecting anything.\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nSERPENT-MYTHS AND SERPENT-WORSHIP[3]\n\n[3] A Presidential Address before the Buffalo Society of Natural\nSciences.\n\n\nSince the dawn of written history, and from the most remote periods,\nthe serpent has been regarded with the highest veneration as the most\nmysterious of living creatures. Being alike an object of wonder,\nadmiration and fear, it is not strange that it became early connected\nwith numerous superstitions; and when we remember how imperfectly\nunderstood were its habits we shall not wonder at the extraordinary\nattributes with which it was invested, nor perhaps even why it\nobtained so general a worship. Thus centuries ago Horapollo referring\nto serpent symbolism, said: \"When the Egyptians were representing a\nuniverse they delineated the spectacle as a variegated snake devouring\nits own tail, the scales intimating the stars in the universe, the\nanimal being extremely heavy, as is the earth, and extremely slippery\nlike the water; moreover it every year puts off its old age with its\nskin as, in the universe, the recurring year effects a corresponding\nchange, and becomes renovated, while the making use of its own body for\nfood implies that all things whatever which are generated by divine\nprovidence in the world undergo a corruption into them again.\"\n\nIn all probability the annual shedding of the skin and the supposed\nrejuvenation of the animal was that which first connected it with\nthe idea of eternal succession of form, subsequent reproduction and\ndissolution. This doctrine is typified in the notion of the succession\nof ages which prevailed among the Greeks, and the similar notion met\nwith among nearly all primitive peoples. The ancient mysteries, with\nfew or perhaps no exceptions, were all intended to illustrate the\ngrand phenomena of nature. The mysteries of Osiris, Isis and Horus in\nEgypt; of Cybele in Phrygia, of Ceres and Proserpine at Eleusis, of\nVenus and Adonis in Phoenicia, of Bona Dea and of Priapus in Rome,\nall had this in in common, that they both mystified and typified the\ncreation of things and the perpetuation of life. In all of them the\nserpent was conspicuously introduced as it symbolized and indicated\nthe invigorating energy of nature. In the mysteries of Ceres, the\ngrand secret which was communicated to the initiates was put in this\nenigma,--\"The bull has begotten a serpent and the serpent a bull,\"\nthe bull being a prominent emblem of generative force. In ancient\nEgypt it was usually the bull's horns which served as a symbol for the\nentire animal. When with the progress of centuries the bull became too\nexpensive an animal to be commonly used for any purpose, the ram was\nsubstituted; hence the frequency of the ram's horns, as a symbol for\nJove, seen so frequently, for example, among Roman antiquities.\n\nOriginally fire was taken to be one of the emblems of the sun, and thus\nmost naturally, inevitably and universally the sun came to symbolize\nthe active, vivifying principle of nature. That the serpent should\nin time typify the same principle, while the egg symbolized the more\npassive or feminine element, is equally certain but less easy of\nexplanation; indeed we are to regard the serpent as the symbol of the\ngreat hermaphrodite first principle of nature. \"It entered into the\nmythology of every nation, consecrated almost every temple, symbolized\nalmost every deity, was imagined in the heavens, stamped on the earth\nand ruled in the realms of eternal sorrow.\" For this animal was\nestimated to be the most spirited of all reptiles of fiery nature,\ninasmuch as it exhibits an incredible celerity, moving by its spirit\nwithout hands or feet or any of the external members by which other\nanimals effect their motion, while in its progress it assumes a variety\nof forms, moving in a spiral course and darting forward with whatever\ndegree of swiftness it pleases.\n\nThe close relationship if not absolute identity among the early races\nof man between Solar, Phallic and Serpent worship was most striking;\nso marked indeed as to indicate that they are all forms of a single\nworship. It is with the latter that we must for a little while concern\nourselves. How prominent a place serpent worship plays in our own\nOld Testament will be remarked as soon as one begins to reflect upon\nit. The part played by the serpent in the biblical myth concerning\nthe origin of man is the first and most striking illustration. In the\ndegenerated ancient mysteries of Bacchus some of the persons who took\npart in the ceremonies used to carry serpents in their hands and with\nhorrid screams call \"Eva, Eva;\" the attendants were in fact often\ncrowned with serpents while still making these frantic cries. In the\nSabazian mysteries the snake was permitted to slip into the bosom\nof the person to be initiated and then to be removed from below the\nclothing. This ceremony was said to have originated among the Magi. It\nhas been held that the invocation \"Eva\" related to the great mother of\nmankind; even so good an authority as Clemens of Alexandria held to\nthis opinion, but Clemens also acknowledges that the name Eva, when\nproperly aspirated is practically the same as Epha, or Opha, which the\nGreeks call Ophis, which is, in English, serpent. In most of the other\nmysteries serpent rites were introduced and many of the names were\nextremely suggestive. The Abaddon mentioned in the book of Revelation\nis certainly some serpent deity, since the prefix Ab, signifies not\nonly father, but serpent. By Zoroaster the expanse of the heavens and\neven nature itself was described under the symbol of the serpent. In\nancient Persia temples were erected to the serpent tribe, and festivals\nconsecrated to their honor, some relic of this being found in the word\nBasilicus, or royal serpent, which gives rise to the term Basilica\napplied to the Christian churches of the present era. The Ethiopians,\neven, of the present day derive their name from the Greek Aithiopes,\nmeaning the serpent gods worshipped long before them; again, the Island\nof Euboea signifies the Serpent Island and properly spelled should be\nOub-Aia. The Greeks claimed that Medusa's head was brought by Perseus,\nby which they mean the serpent deity, as the worship was introduced\ninto Greece by a people called Peresians. The head of Medusa denoted\ndivine wisdom, while the Island was sacred to the serpent. The worship\nof the serpent being so old, many places as well as races received\nnames indicating the prevalence of this general superstition; but this\nis no time to catalogue names,--though one perhaps should mention\nOphis, Oboth, Eva in Macedonia, Dracontia, and last but not least, the\nname of Eve and the Garden of Eden.\n\nSeth was, according to some, a semi-divine first ancestor of the\nSemites; Bunsen has shown that several of the antedeluvian descendants\nof Adam were among the Phoenician deities; thus Carthagenians had\nas God, Yubal or Jubal who would appear to have been the sun-god of\nEsculapius; or, spelled more correctly, Ju-Baal, that is Beauty of Baal.\n\nWhether or not the serpent symbol has a distinct phallic reference has\nbeen disputed, but the more the subject is broadly studied the more it\nwould seem that such is the case. It must certainly appear that the\nolder races had that form of belief with which the serpent was always\nmore or less symbolically connected, that is, adoration of the male\nprinciple of generation, one of whose principal phases was undoubtedly\nancestor worship, while somewhat later the race adored the female\nprinciple which they symbolized by the sacred tree so often alluded\nto in Scripture as the Assyrian grove. Whether snakes be represented\nsingly, coupled in pairs as in the well known Caduceus or Rod of\nEsculaipius, or in the crown placed upon the head of many a god and\ngoddess, or the many headed snake drinking from the jewelled cup, or\na snake twisted around a tree with another approaching it, suggesting\ntemptation and fall,--in all these the underlying principle is always\nthe same. Symbols of this character are met with not only in the\ntemples of ancient Egypt but in ruins antedating them in Persia and the\nEast; in the antiquities belonging to the races that first peopled what\nis now Greece and Italy, in the rock markings of India and of Central\nEurope, in the Cromlechs of Great Britain and Scandinavia, in the Great\nSerpent Mound which still remains in Ohio, and in many other mounds\nleft by the mound builders of this country, in the ruins of Central\nAmerica and Yucatan, and in the traditions and relics of the Aztecs and\nToltecs,--in fact wherever antiquarian research has penetrated or where\nmonuments of ancient peoples remain. There never has been so widespread\na superstition, and no matter what later forms it may have assumed we\nmust admit that it, first of all, and for a long time was man's tribute\nto the great, all powerful and unknown regenerative principle of\nnature, which has been deified again and again, and which always has\nbeen and always will be the greatest mystery within the ken of mankind.\n\nBrown in his \"Great Dionysiak Myth\" says the serpent has these points\nof connection with Dionysus, (1) as a symbol of and connected with\nwisdom, (2) as a solar emblem, (3) as a symbol of time and eternity,\n(4) as an emblem of the earth, life, (5) as connected with the\nfertilizing mystery, (6) as a phallic emblem. Referring to the last\nof these he says: \"The serpent being connected with the sun, the\nearth, life and fertility, must needs be also a phallic emblem, and\nwas appropriate to the cult of Dionysos Priapos.\" Again, Sir G. W.\nCox says, \"It is unnecessary to analyze theories which profess to\nsee in it worship of the creeping brute or the wide-spreading tree;\na religion based upon the worship of the venomous reptile must have\nbeen a religion of terror. In the earliest glimpses which we have\nthe serpent is the symbol of life and of love, nor is the phallic\ncultus in any respect a cult of the full grown branching tree.\" Again,\n\"This religion, void of reason, condemned in the wisdom of Solomon,\nprobably survived even Babylonian captivity; certainly it was adopted\nby the sects of Christians which were known as Ophites, Gnostics and\nNicolaitans.\"\n\nAnother learned author says: \"By comparing the varied legends of the\nEast and West in conjunction we obtain a full outline of the mythology\nof the ancients. It recognizes as the primary element of things two\nindependent principles of nature, the male and female, and these,\nin characteristic union as the soul and body, constitute the Great\nHermaphrodite Deity, the one, the universe itself, consisting still\nof the two separate elements of its composition, modified though\ncombined in one individual, of which all things are regarded but as\nparts.\" In fact the characteristics of all pagan deities, male or\nfemale, gradually mold into each other and at last into one or two;\nfor as William Jones has stated, it seems a well-founded opinion\nthat the entire list of gods and goddesses means only the powers of\nnature, principally those of the sun, expressed in a variety of ways\nwith a multitude of fanciful names. The Creation is, in fact, human\nrather than a divine product in this sense, that it was suggested to\nthe mind of man by the existence of things, while its method was,\nat least at first, suggested by the operation of nature; thus man\nsaw the living bird emerge from the egg, after a certain period of\nincubation, a phenomenon equivalent to actual creation as apprehended\nby his simple mind. Incubation obviously then associated itself with\ncreation, and this fact will explain the universality with which the\negg was received as a symbol in the earlier systems of cosmogony. By\na similar process creation came to be symbolized in the form of a\nphallus, and so Egyptians in their refinement of these ideas adopted\nas their symbol of the great first cause a Scarabaeus, indicating the\ngreat hermaphroditic unity, since they believed this insect to be both\nmale and female. They beautifully typified a part of this idea also\nin the adoration which they paid to the water lily, or _Lotus_, so\ngenerally regarded as sacred throughout the East. It is the sublime and\nbeautiful symbol which perpetually occurs in oriental mythology, and,\nas Maurice has stated, not without substantial reason, for it is its\nown beautiful progeny and contains a treasure of physical instruction.\nThe lotus flower grows in the water among broad leaves, while in its\ncenter is formed a seed vessel shaped like a bell, punctured on the\ntop with small cavities in which its seeds develop; the openings into\nthe seed cells are too small to permit the seeds to escape when ripe,\nconsequently they absorb moisture and develop within the same, shooting\nforth as new plants from the place where they originated; the bulb of\nthe vessel serving as a matrix which shall nourish them until they\nare large enough to burst open and release themselves, after which\nthey take root wherever deposited. \"The plant, therefore, being itself\nproductive of itself, vegetating from its own matrix, being fostered in\nthe earth, was naturally adopted as a symbol of the productive power\nof the waters upon which the creative spirit of the Creator acted, in\ngiving life and vegetation to matter. We accordingly find it employed\nin every part of the northern hemisphere where symbolical religion,\nimproperly called idolatry, existed.\"\n\nFurther exemplification of the same underlying principle is seen in the\nfact that most all of the ancient deities were paired; thus we have\nheaven and earth, sun and moon, fire and earth, father and mother, etc.\nFaber says \"The ancient pagans of almost every part of the globe were\nwont to symbolize the world by an egg, hence this symbol is introduced\ninto the cosmogonies of nearly all nations, and there are few persons\neven among those who have made mythology their study to whom the\nmundane egg is not perfectly familiar; it is the emblem not only of\nearth and life but also of the universe in its largest extent.\" In the\nIsland of Cyprus is still to be seen a gigantic egg-shaped vase which\nis supposed to represent the mundane or Orphic egg. It is of stone,\nmeasuring thirty feet in circumference, and has upon it a sculptured\nbull, the emblem of productive energy. It is supposed to signify the\nconstellation of Taurus, whose rising was connected with the return of\nthe mystic re-invigorating principle.\n\nThe work of the Mound Builders in this country is generally and widely\nknown, still it is perhaps not so generally known how common upon this\ncontinent was the general use of the serpent symbol. Their remains\nare spread over the country from the sources of the Allegheny in N.\nY. state westward to Iowa and Nebraska, to a considerable extent\nthrough the Mississippi Valley, and along the Susquehanna as far as\nthe Valley of Wyoming in Pennsylvania. They are found even along the\nSt. Lawrence River; they also line the shore of the Gulf from Florida\nto Texas. That they were erected for other than defensive purposes\nis most clear; without knowing exactly what was the government of\ntheir builders the presumption is that it combined both the priestly\nand civil functions, as obtained centuries ago in Mexico. The Great\nSerpent Mound, already alluded to, had a length of at least 1,000 feet;\nthe outline was perfectly regular and the mouth was widely open as if\nin the act of swallowing or ejecting an oval figure, also formed of\nearth, whose longest diameter was one hundred and sixty feet. Again\nnear Granville, Ohio, occurs the form of an alligator in connection\nwith which was indubitable evidence of an altar. Near Tarlton, Ohio,\nis another earth work in the form of a cross. There is every reason to\nthink that sacrifices were made upon the altars nearly always found in\nconnection with these mounds. Among the various animal effigies found\nin Wisconsin, mounds in the form of a serpent are most frequently\nmet with, while circles enclosing a pentagon, or a mound with eight\nradiating points, undoubtedly representing the sun, were also found.\n\nThere would seem in all these representations to be an unmistakable\nreference to that form of early cosmogony in which every vivification\nof the mundane egg constituted a real act of creation. In Japan this\nconceptive egg is allegorically represented by a nest-egg shown\nfloating upon an expanse of water, against which a bulb is striking\nwith horns. The Sandwich Islanders have a tradition that a bird, which\nwith them is an emblem of deity, laid an egg upon the waters, which\nburst of itself and thus produced the Islands. In Egypt, Kneph was\nrepresented as a serpent emitting from his mouth an egg, from which\nproceeds the divinity Phtha. In the Bible there is frequent reference\nto seraphs; Se Ra Ph is the singular of seraphim, meaning, splendor,\nfire or light. It is emblematic of the fiery sun, which under the name\nof the Serpent Dragon was destroyed by the reformer Hezekiah; or, it\nmeans, also, the serpent with wings and feet, as used to be represented\nin funeral rituals.\n\nUndoubtedly Abraham brought with him from Chaldea into lower Egypt\nsymbols of simple phallic deities. The reference in the Bible to\nthe Teraphim of Jacob's family reminds us that Terah was the name\nof Abraham's father, and that he was a maker of images. Undoubtedly\nthe Teraphim were the same as the Seraphim; that is, were serpent\nimages and were the household charms of the Semitic worshippers of the\nSun-God, to whom the serpent was sacred. In Numbers, 21, the serpent\nsymbol of the Exodus is called a seraph; moreover when the people were\nbitten by a fiery serpent Moses prayed for them, when Jehovah replied,\n\"Make them a fiery serpent, (literally seraph) and set it upon a pole,\nand it shall come to pass that every one who is bitten when he looketh\nupon it shall live.\" The exact significance of this healing figure of\nthe serpent is far to seek.\n\nIn this connection it must be remembered also, that among several of\nthe Semitic tongues the same root signifies both serpent and phallus,\nwhich are both in effect solar emblems. Cronus of the ancient Orphic\ntheogony, probably identical with Hercules, was represented under the\nmixed emblem of a lion and a serpent, or often as a serpent alone. He\nwas originally considered Supreme, as is shown from his being called\nIl, which is the same as the Hebrew, El, which was, according to St.\nJerome, one of the ten names of God. Damascius in his life of Isidorus\nmentions that Cronus was worshipped under the name of El. Brahm, Cronus\nand Kneph each represented the mystical union of the reciprocal or\nactive and passive regenerative principles.\n\nThe Semitic Deity, Seth, was certainly a serpent god, and can be\nidentified with Saturn and with deities of other people. The common\nname of God, _Eloah_, among the Hebrews and other Semites, goes back\ninto the earliest times; indeed Bryant goes so far as to say that El\nwas the original name of the Supreme deity among all the nations of the\nEast. He was the same as Cronus, who again was the primeval Saturn.\nThus Saturn and El were the same deity, and like Seth were symbolized\nby the serpent.\n\nOn the western continent this great unity was equally recognized; in\nMexico as Teotl, in Peru as Varicocha or the Soul of the Universe, in\nCentral America and Yucatan as Stunah Ku, or God of Gods. The mundane\negg was everywhere received as the symbol of the original, passive,\nunorganized formless nature, and later became associated with other\nsymbols referring to the creative force or vitalizing influence, which\nwas often represented in emblem by a bull. In the Aztec Pantheon all\nthe other gods and goddesses were practically modified impersonations\nof these two principles. In the simpler mythology of Peru these\nprinciples took the form of the Sun, and the Moon his wife. Among the\nruins of Uxmal are two long massive walls of stone thirty feet thick,\nwhose inner sides are embellished with sculpture containing fragments\nof colossal entwined serpents which run the whole length of the walls;\nin the center of the wall was a great stone ring.\n\nAmong the annals of the Mexicans the woman whose name old Spanish\nwriters translated \"The woman of our Fish\" is always represented as\naccompanied by a great male serpent. This serpent is the Sun-God, the\nprincipal deity of the Mexican Pantheon, while the name which they give\nto the goddess mother of primitive man signifies \"Woman of the Serpent.\"\n\nInseparably connected with the serpent as a phallic emblem are also\nthe pyramids, and, as is well known, pyramids abound in Mexico and\nCentral America. As Humboldt years ago observed pyramids existed\nthrough Mexico, in the forests of Papantha at a short distance above\nsea-level; on the plains of Cholula and of Teotihuacan, and at an\nelevation which exceeds those of the passes of the Alps. In most widely\ndifferent nations, in climates most different, man seems to have\nadopted the same style of construction, the same ornaments, the same\ncustoms, and to have placed himself under the government of the same\npolitical institutions. Mayer describing one of his trips says, \"I\nconstantly saw serpents in the city of Mexico, carved in stone and in\nthe various collections of antiquities.\" The symbolic feathered serpent\nwas by no means peculiar to Mexico and Yucatan. Squier encountered\nit in Nicaragua on the summits of volcanic ridges; even among our\nhistoric Indian tribes, for example among the Lenni Lenape, they called\nthe rattlesnake \"grandfather,\" and made offerings of tobacco to it.\nFurthermore in most of the Indian traditions of the Manitou the great\nserpent figures most conspicuously.\n\nIt has been often remarked that every feature of the religion of the\nnew world discovered by Cortez and Pizarro indicates a common origin\nfor the superstitions of both continents, for we have the same worship\nof the sun, the same pyramidal monuments, and the same universal\nveneration of the serpent. Thus it will be seen that the serpent symbol\nhad a wide acceptance upon this continent as well as the other, and\namong the uncivilized and semi-barbaric races; that it entered widely\ninto all symbolic representation with an almost universal significance.\nPerhaps the latest evidences of the persistence of this belief may be\nseen in the tradition ascribing to St. Patrick, the credit of having\ndriven all the serpents from Irish soil; or in the perpetuation of\nrites, festivals and representations whose obsolete origin is now\nforgotten. For instance the annual May-day festival, scarcely yet\ndiscontinued, is certainly of this origin, yet few if any of those who\nparticipate in it are aware that it is only the perpetuation of the\nvernal solar festival of Baal, and that the garlanded May-pole was\nanciently a phallic emblem. Among men of my own craft the traditions\nof Aesculapius are familiar. Aesculapius is, however, inseparably\nconnected with the serpent myth and in statues and pictures he is\nalmost always represented in connection with a serpent. Thus he is seen\nwith the Caduceus or the winged wand entwined by two serpents, or,\nsometimes with serpents' bodies wound around his own; but rarely ever\nwithout some serpent emblem. Moreover the Caduceus is identical with\nthe simple figure of the Cross by which its inventor, Thoth, is said to\nhave symbolized the four elements proceeding from a common center. In\nconnection with the Cross it is interesting also that in many places in\nthe East serpent worship was not immediately destroyed by the advent of\nChristianity. The Gnostics for example, among Christian sects, united\nit with the religion of the Cross, as might be shown by many quotations\nfrom religious writers. The serpent clinging to the Cross was used as\na symbol of Christ, and a form of Christian serpent worship was for\na long time in vogue among many beside the professed Ophites. In the\ncelebration of the Bacchic mysteries the mystery of religion, as usual\nthroughout the world, was concealed in a chest or box. The Israelites\nhad their sacred Ark, and every nation has had some sacred receptacle\nfor holy things and symbols. The worshippers of Bacchus carried in\ntheir consecrated baskets the mystery of their God, while after their\nbanquet it was usual to pass around the cup which was called \"The Cup\nof the Good Daemon,\" whose symbol was a serpent. This was long before\nthe institution of the rite of the Last Supper. The fable of the method\nby which the god Aesculapius was brought from Epidaurus to Rome, and\nthe serpentine form in which he appeared before his arrival in Rome\nfor the purpose of checking the terrible pestilence, are well known.\nThe serpentine column which still stands in the old race course in\nConstantinople is certainly a relic of serpent worship, though this\nfact was not appreciated by Constantine when he set it up.\n\nThe significance of the Ark is not to be overlooked. First, Noah was\ndirected to take with him into the Ark animals of every kind. But this\nhistorical absurdity, read aright and in its true phallic sense, means\nthat the Ark was the sacred Argha of Hindoo mythology, which like\nthe moon in Zoroastrian teachings, carries in itself the germ of all\nthings. Read in this sense the thing is no longer incomprehensible.\nAs _En Arche_ (in the beginning) Elohim created the Heavens and the\nEarth, so in the Ark were the seeds of all things preserved that\nthey might again repopulate the earth. Thus this Ark of Noah, or of\nOsiris, the primeval ship whose navigation has been ascribed to various\nmythological beings, was in fact the Moon or the Ship of the Sun, in\nwhich his seed is supposed to be hidden until it bursts forth in new\nlife and power. But the dove which figures so conspicuously in the\nbiblical legend was consecrated to Venus in all her different names, in\nBabylon, in Syria, in Palestine and in Greece; it even attended upon\nJanus in his Voyage of the Golden Fleece. And so the story of Jonah\ngoing to Joppa, a seaport where Dagon, the Fish-God was worshipped, and\nof the great fish, bears a suspicious relation to the same cult, for\nthe fish was revered at Joppa as was the dove at Nineveh.\n\nIt has been impossible to dissociate serpent and serpent worship from\nAesculapius. This is not because this mythological divinity is supposed\nto have been the founder of my profession, but because he has been\ngiven at all times a serpentine form and has been, apparently, on the\nmost familiar terms with the animal. Pausanias, indeed, assures us that\nhe often appeared in serpentine form, and the Roman citizens of two\nthousand years ago saw in this god \"in reptilian form an object of high\nregard and worship.\" When this divinity was invited to make Rome his\nhome, in accordance with the oracle, he is represented as saying:\n\n    \"I come to leave my shrine;\n    This serpent view, that with ambitious play\n    My staff encircles; mark him every way;\n    His form though larger, nobler, I'll assume,\n    And, changed as God's should be, bring aid to Rome.\"\n\n    (Ovid: Metamorphosis XV).\n\nWhen in due time this salutary serpent arrived upon the island in the\nTiber he began to assume his natural form, whatever that may have been;\n\n    \"And now no more the drooping city mourns,\n    Joy is again restored and health returns.\"\n\nConsidering then the intimate relation between the founder of medicine\nand the serpent it will not seem strange to you that the serpent myth\nis a subject of keen interest to every student of the history of\nmedicine.\n\nThis devotion to serpent worship appears to have lingered a long\ntime in Italy, for so late as the year 1001 a bronze serpent on the\nbasillica of St. Ambrose was worshipped. De Gubernatis speaking of it\nsays, \"Some say it was the serpent Aesculapius, others Moses, others\nthat it was the image of Christ; for us it is enough to remark that it\nwas a mythological serpent before which the Milanese mothers offered\ntheir children when they suffered from worms, in order to relieve\nthem,\" a practice which was finally suppressed by San Carlo. Moreover,\nthere has persisted until recently what is called a snake festival in\na little mountain church near Naples, where those participating carry\nsnakes around their persons, the purpose of the festival being to\npreserve the participants from poison and sudden death and bring them\ngood fortune. (Sozinskey).\n\nThe power of the sun over health and disease was long ago recognized\nin the old Chaldean hymn in which the sun is petitioned thus:\n\n    \"Thou at thy coming cure the race of man;\n    Cause the ray of health to shine upon him;\n    Cure his disease.\"\n\nProbably some feeling akin to that voiced in this way gave rise to the\nfollowing beautiful passage in Malachi (4:2):\n\n  \"The Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings.\"\n\nAs a purely medical symbol the serpent is meant to symbolize prudence;\nlong ago men were enjoined to be \"As wise as serpents\" as well as\nharmless as doves. In India the serpent is still regarded as a symbol\nof every species of learning. It has also another medical meaning,\nnamely, _convalescence_, for which there is afforded some ground in\nthe remarkable change which it undergoes every spring from a state of\nlethargy to one of active life.\n\nAccording to Ferguson, the experience of Moses and the Children of\nIsrael with brazen serpents led to the first recorded worship paid\nto the serpent, which is also noteworthy, since the cause of this\nadoration is said to have been its intrinsic healing power. The\nprototype of the brazen serpent of Moses in latter times was the Good\nGenius, the _Agathodaemon_ of the Greeks, which was regarded always\nwith the greatest favor and usually accorded considerable power over\ndisease.\n\nThe superstitious tendency to regard disease and death as the\nvisitation of a more or less capricious act by some extra mundane power\npersists even to the present day. For example, in the Episcopal book\nof Common Prayer, it is stated, in the Order for the Visitation of the\nSick, \"Wherefore, whatsoever your sickness be, know you certainly that\nit is God's visitation,\" while for relief the following sentiment is\nformulated in prayer, \"Lord look down from heaven, behold, visit and\nrelieve these, thy servants,\" thus voicing the very ideas which were\ncurrent among various peoples of remote antiquity and eliminating all\npossibility of such a thing as the regulation of disease or of sanitary\nmedicine.\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\nIATRO-THEURGIC SYMBOLISM[4]\n\n[4] An Address before the Maine Medical Association, Portland, June\n2nd, 1898.\n\n\nSo soon as had subsided the feeling of surprise, caused by a most\nunexpected invitation to address you to-night, I began at once to cast\nabout for a subject with which I might endeavor so to interest you as\nto justify the high and appreciated compliment which this invitation\nmutely conveyed. And so, after considerable reflection, it appeared\nto me that it was perhaps just as well that medical men should be\nentertained, even at such a gathering as this, by something which\nif not _of_ the profession was at least _for_ the profession, and\nstill not too remote from the purposes which have drawn us together.\nAccordingly I decided to forsake the beaten path and, instead of\nselecting a topic in pathology or in surgery, upon which I could\npossibly speak with some familiarity, to invite your attention to a\nsubject which has always been of the greatest interest to me, yet upon\nwhich it has been hard, without great labor and numerous books, to get\nmuch information. If I were to attempt to formulate this topic under a\ndistinctive name I could perhaps call it _Medico-Christian_ Symbolism.\nIt is well known to scholars that practically all of the symbols and\nsymbolism of Christianity have come from pagan sources, having been\ncarried over, as one might say, across the line of the Christian\nera, from one to the other, in the most natural and unavoidable way,\nalthough most of these symbols and caricatures have more or less lost\ntheir original signification and have been given another of purely\nChristian import.\n\nTo acknowledge that this is so is to cast no slur upon Christianity;\nit is simply recording an historical fact. It would take me too far\nfrom my purpose to-night were I to go into the reasons which brought\nabout this change; I simply want to disavow all intention of making\nlight of serious things, or of reflecting in any way upon the nobility\nof the Christian Church, its meanings or its present practices. But,\naccepting the historical fact that Christian symbols were originally\npagan caricatures, I want to ask you to study with me for a little\nwhile the original signification of these pagan symbols, feeling that\nI can perhaps, interest you in such a study providing that it can be\nshown that almost all of these emblems had originally an essentially\nmedical significance, referring in some way or other either to\nquestions of health and disease, or else to the deeper question of\nthe origin of mankind and the great generative powers of nature, at\nwhich physicians to-day wonder as much as they did two thousand years\nago. Considering then the medical significance of such study I have\nbeen tempted to incur the charge of being pedantic and have coined the\nterm _Iatro-Theurgic Symbolism_, which title I shall give to the essay\nwhich I shall present to you to-night.\n\nAs Inman says, \"Moderns who have not been initiated in the sacred\nmysteries and only know the emblems considered sacred, have need\nof both anatomical knowledge and physiological lore ere they can\nsee the meaning of many signs.\" The emblems or symbols then, to\nwhich I shall particularly allude, are the _Cross_, the _Tree_ and\n_Grove_, the _Fish_, the _Dove_, and the _Serpent_. And first of all\nthe Cross, about which very erroneous notions prevail. It is seen\neverywhere either as a matter of personal or church adornment, or as\nan architectural feature, and everywhere the impression prevails that\nit is exclusively a Christian symbol. This, however, is the grossest\nof errors, for the world abounds in cruciform symbols and monuments\nwhich existed long before Christianity was thought of. It is otherwise\nhowever with the Crucifix which is, of course, an absolutely Christian\nsymbol. The image of a dead man stretched out upon the Cross is a\npurely Christian addition to a purely pagan emblem, though some of\nthe old Hindoo crosses remind one of it very powerfully. No matter\nupon which continent we look we see everywhere the same cruciform sign\namong peoples and races most distinct. There perhaps has never been\nso universal a symbol, with the exception of the serpent. Moreover\nthe cross is a sort of international feature, and is spoken of in its\nmodifications as St. Andrew's, St. George's, the Maltese, the Greek,\nthe Latin, etc. Probably because of its extreme simplicity the ages\nhave brought but little change in its shape, and the bauble of the\njeweller of to-day is practically the same sign that the ancient\nEgyptian painted upon the mummy cloth of his sacred dead. Thus it will\nappear that the shadow of the Cross was cast far back into the night\nof ages. The Druids consecrated their sacred oak by cutting it into\nthe shape of a cross, and when the natural shape of the tree was not\nsufficient it was pieced out as the case required. When the Spaniards\ninvaded this continent they were overcome with surprise at finding the\nsign of the Cross everywhere in common use. It was by the community of\nthis emblem between the two peoples that the Spaniards enjoyed a less\nwar-like reception than would otherwise have been accorded to them.\n\nThat the Cross was originally a phallic emblem is proven, among other\nthings, by the origin of the so-called Maltese Cross, which originally\nwas carved out of solid granite, and represented by four huge phalli\nspringing from a common center, which were afterward changed by the\nKnights of St. John of Malta into four triangles meeting at a central\nglobe; thus we see combined the symbol of eternal and the emblem of\nconstantly renovating life. The reason why the Maltese Cross had so\ndistinctly a phallic origin, and why the Knights of St. John saw fit\nto make something more decent of it, is not clear, but a study of\nAssyrian antiquities of the days of Nineveh and Babylon shows that it\nreferred to the four great gods of the Assyrian Pantheon, and that with\na due setting it signifies the sun ruling both the earth and heavens.\nSchliemann discovered many examples of it on the vases which he exhumed\nfrom the ruins of Troy.\n\nBut probably the most remarkable of all crosses is that which is\nexceedingly common upon Egyptian monuments and is known as the\n_Crux-Ansata_, that is the handled cross, which consisted of the\nordinary Greek _Tau_ or cross, with a ring on the top. When the\nEgyptian was asked what he meant by this sign he simply replied that it\nwas a divine mystery, and such it has largely remained ever since. It\nwas constantly seen in the hands of Isis and Osiris. In nearly the same\nshape the Spaniards found it when they first came to this continent.\nThe natives said that it meant \"Life to come.\"\n\nIn the British Museum one may see, in the Assyrian galleries, effigies\nin stone of certain kings from whose necks are suspended sculptured\nMaltese crosses, such as the Catholics call the Pectoral Cross. In\nEgypt, long before Christ, the sacred Ibis was represented with human\nhands and feet, holding the staff of Isis in one hand and the Cross in\nthe other. The ancient Egyptian astronomical signs of planets contained\nnumerous crosses. Saturn was represented by a cross surmounting a ram's\nhorn; Jupiter by a cross beneath a horn, Venus by a cross beneath a\ncircle (practically the Crux-Ansata), the Earth by a cross within the\ncircle, and Mars by a circle beneath the cross; many of these signs are\nin use to-day. Between the Buddhist crosses of India and those of the\nRoman church are remarkable resemblances; the former were frequently\nplaced upon a Calvary as is the Catholic custom to-day. The cross is\nfound among the hieroglyphics of China and upon Chinese pagodas, and\nupon the lamps with which they illuminated their temples. Upon the\nancient Phoenician medals were inscribed the Cross, the Rosary and the\nLamb. In England there has been for a long time the custom of eating\nthe so-called Hot-Cross Buns upon Good Friday:--this is no more than\na reproduction of a cake marked with a cross which used to be duly\noffered to the serpent and the bull in heathen temples, as also to\nhuman idols. It was made of flour and milk, or oil, and was often eaten\nwith much ceremony by priests and people.\n\nPerhaps the most ancient of all forms of the cross is the cruciform\nhammer known sometimes as Thor's Battle Ax. In this form it was\nvenerated by the heroes of the North as a magical sign, which thwarted\nthe power of death over those who bore it. Even to-day it is employed\nby the women of India and certain parts of Africa as indicating the\npossession of a taboo with which they protect their property. It has\nbeen stated that this was the mark which the prophet was commanded to\nimpress upon the foreheads of the faithful in Judah. (Ezekiel 9:4).\n\nIt is of interest also as being almost the last of the purely\npagan symbols to be religiously preserved in Europe long after the\nestablishment of Christianity, since to the close of the Middle Ages\nthe Cistercean monk wore it upon his stole. It may be seen upon the\nbells of many parish churches, where it was placed as a magical sign to\nsubdue the vicious spirit of the tempest.\n\nThe original cross, no matter what its form, had but one meaning;\nit represented creative power and eternity. In Egypt, Assyria and\nBritain, in India, China and Scandinavia, it was an emblem of life\nand immortality; upon this continent it was the sign of freedom from\nsuffering, and everywhere it symbolized resurrection and life to come.\nMoreover from its common combination with the yoni or female emblem, we\nmay conclude, with Inman, that the ancient Cross was an emblem of the\nbelief in a male Creator and the method by which creation was initiated.\n\nNext to the Cross, the _Tree of Life_ of the Egyptians furnishes\nperhaps the most ancient and universal symbol of immortality. The tree\nis probably the most generally received symbol of life, and has been\nregarded as the most appropriate. The fig tree especially has had the\nhighest place in this regard. From it gods and holy men ascended to\nheaven; before it thousands of barren women have worshipped and made\nofferings; under it pious hermits have become enlightened, and by\nrubbing together fragments of its wood, holy fire has been drawn from\nheaven.\n\nAn anonymous Catholic writer has stated, \"No religion is founded upon\ninternational depravity. Searching back for the origin of life, men\nstopped at the earliest point to which they could trace it and exalted\nthe reproductive organs in the symbols of the Creator. The practice was\nat least calculated to procure respect for a side of nature liable,\nunder an exclusively spiritual regime, to be relegated to undue\ncontempt. * * * Even Moses himself fell back upon it when, yielding to\na pressing emergency, he gave his sanction to serpent worship by his\nelevation of the brazen serpent upon a pole or cross, for all portions\nof this structure constituted the most universally accepted symbol of\nsex in the world.\"\n\nAs perfectly consistent with the ancient doctrine that deity is\nboth male and female take this thought from Proclus, who quotes the\nfollowing among other Orphic verses:\n\n\"Jupiter is a man; Jupiter is also an immortal maid;\" while in the\nsame commentary we read that \"All things were contained in the womb of\nJupiter.\"\n\nIn this connection it was quite customary to depict Jupiter as a\nfemale, sometimes with three heads; often the figure was drawn with a\nserpent and was venerated under the symbol of fire. It was then called\nMythra and was worshipped in secret caverns. The rites of this worship\nwere quite well known to the Romans.\n\nThe hermaphrodite element of religion is sex worship; gods are styled\nhe-she; Synesius gives an inscription on an Egyptian deity, \"Thou art\nthe father and thou art the mother; thou art the male and thou art the\nfemale.\" Baal was of uncertain sex and his votaries usually invoked\nhim thus, \"Hear us whether thou art god or goddess.\" Heathens seem\nto have made their gods hermaphrodites in order to express both the\ngenerative and prolific virtue of their deities. I have myself heard\none of the finest living Hindoo scholars, a convert to Christianity,\ninvoke the God of the Christian Church both as father and as mother.\n\nThe most significant and distinctive feature of nature worship\ncertainly had to do with phallic emblems. This viewed in the light of\nancient times simply represented allegorically that mysterious union of\nthe male and female principle which seems necessary to the existence of\nanimate beings. If, in the course of time, it sadly degenerated, we may\nlament the fact, while, nevertheless, not losing sight of the purity\nand exalted character of the original idea. Of its extensive prevalence\nthere is ample evidence, since monuments indicating such worship are\nspread over both continents and have been recognized in Egypt, India,\nAssyria, Western Europe, Mexico, Peru, Hayti and the Pacific Islands.\nWithout doubt the generative act was originally considered as a solemn\nsacrament in honor of the Creator. As Knight has insisted, the indecent\nideas later attached to it, paradoxical as it may seem, were the result\nof the more advanced civilization tending toward its decline, as we see\nin Rome and Pompeii. Voltaire speaking of phallic worship says \"Our\nideas of propriety lead us to suppose that a ceremony which appears\nto us so infamous could only be invented by licentiousness, but it\nis impossible to believe that depravity of manners would ever lead\namong any people to the establishment of religious ceremonies. It is\nprobable, on the contrary, that this custom was first introduced in\ntimes of simplicity, and that the first thought was to honor a deity in\nthe symbol of life which it gives us.\"\n\nThe so-called Jewish rite of circumcision was practiced among Egyptians\nand Phoenicians long before the birth of Abraham. It had a marked\nreligious significance, being a sign of the Covenant, and was a\npatriarchal observance because it was always performed by the head of\nthe family. Indeed on the authority of the Veda, we learn that this was\nthe case also even among the primitive Aryan people.\n\nLater in the centuries, as Patterson has observed, obscene methods\nbecame the principal feature of the popular superstition and were,\nin after times, even extended to and intermingled with gloomy rites\nand bloody sacrifices. The mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus celebrated\nat Eleusis were probably the most celebrated of all the Grecian\nobservances. The addition of Bacchus was comparatively a late one, and\nthis name Bacchus was first spelled Iacchos; the first half, _Iao_,\nbeing in all probability related to _Jao_ which appears in Jupiter or\nJovispater, and to the Hebrew Yahve, or Jehovah. Jao was the Harvest\nGod and consequently the god of the grape, hence his close relation to\nBacchus. How completely these Eleusinian mysteries degenerated into\nBacchic orgies is of course a matter of written history.\n\nI have not yet alluded to the reverence paid to the fish, both as\nphallic emblem and as a Christian symbol. The supposition that the\nreason why the fish played so large a part in early Christian symbolism\nwas because of the fact that each letter of the Greek word _Ichthus_\ncould be made the beginning of words which when fully spelled out, read\nJesus Christ, the Son of God, etc., is altogether too far-fetched;\nthough it be true it is a scholastic trick to juggle with words in this\nway rather than to find for them a proper signification.\n\nAmong the Egyptians and many other nations, the greatest reverence\nwas paid to this animal. Among the natives the rivers which contained\nthem were esteemed more or less sacred; the common people did not\nfeed upon them and the priests never tasted them, because of their\nreputed sanctity, while at times they were worshipped as real deities.\nCities were named after them and temples built to them. In different\nparts of Egypt different fish were worshipped individually; the Greek\ncomedians even made fun of the Egyptians because of this fact. Dagon\nfigures as the Fish-god, and the female deity known as Athor, in Egypt,\nis undoubtedly the same as Aphrodite of the Greeks and Venus of the\nRomans, who were believed to have sprung from the sea. Lucian tells us\nthat this worship was of great antiquity; strange as this idolatry may\nappear, it was yet most wide-spread and included also the veneration\nwhich the Egyptians, before Moses, paid to the river Nile.\n\nIt is important to remember that Nun, the name of the father of Joshua,\nis the Semitic word for fish, while the phallic character of the fish\nin Chaldean mythology cannot be gainsaid. Nim, the planet Saturn, was\nthe fish-god of Berosus, and the same as the Assyrian god Asshur, whose\nname and office are strikingly similar to those of the Hebrew leader\nJoshua.\n\nCorresponding to the ancient phallus or lingam, which was the masculine\nphallic symbol, we have the Kteis or Yoni as the symbol of the female\nprinciple; but an emblem of similar import is often to be met with in\nthe shape of the shell, the fig leaf or the letter delta, as may be\nfrequently seen from ancient coins and monuments. Similar attributes\nwere at other times expressed by a bird, using the dove or sparrow,\nwhich will at once make one think of the prominence given to the dove\nin the fable of Noah and the Ark. Referring again to the fish symbol\nlet me say that the head of Proserpine is very often represented\nsurrounded by dolphins; sometimes by pomegranates which also have a\nphallic significance. In fact, Inman in his work on Ancient Faiths\nsays of the pomegranate, \"The shape of this fruit much resembles that\nof the gravid uterus in the female, and the abundance of seeds which\nit contains makes it a fitting emblem of the prolific womb of the\ncelestial mother. Its use was largely adopted in various forms of\nworship; it was united with bells in the adornment of the robes of the\nJewish High Priest; it was introduced as an ornament into Solomon's\nTemple, where it was united with lilies and with the lotus.\"\n\nIts arcane meaning is undoubtedly phallic. In fact, as Inman has\nstated, the idea of virility was most closely interwoven with religion,\nthough the English Egyptologists have suppressed a portion of the facts\nin the history which they have given the world; but the practice which\nstill obtains among certain Negroes of Northern Africa of mutilating\nevery male captive and slain enemy is but a continuance of the practice\nalluded to in the 2nd Book of Kings, 20:18, Isaiah, 39:17, and 1st\nSamuel 18:26.\n\nFrequently in sacred Scripture we find allusions to the Pillar as\na most sacred emblem, as for example in Isaiah 19:19, \"In that day\nthere shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt\nand a pillar to the border thereof to Jehovah,\" etc. Moreover God\nwas supposed to have appeared to his chosen people as a _pillar of\nfire_. Nevertheless when among idolatrous nations _pillars_ were set\nup as a part of their rites we find them noticed in Scripture as an\n_abomination_, as for example, Deut. 12:3, \"Ye shall overthrow their\naltars and break their pillars;\" Levit. 26:1, \"Neither rear ye up a\nstanding image.\"\n\nAmong the Jews the pillar had much the same significance as the\npyramid among the Egyptians or the triangle or cone among votaries of\nother worships. The Tower of Babel must have been purely a mythical\ncreation but in the same direction. Although Abraham is regarded as\nhaving emigrated from Chaldea in the character of a dissenter from the\nreligion of his country (see Joshua 24:2-3), his immediate descendants\napparently had recourse to the symbols to which I have alluded. Thus he\nerected altars and planted pillars wherever he resided, and conducted\nhis son to the land of Moriah to sacrifice him to the deity, as was\ndone among the Phoenicians. Jeptha in like manner sacrificed his own\ndaughter Mizpeh, and the temple of Solomon was supposed to have been\nbuilt upon the site of Abraham's ancient altar. Jacob not only set up a\npillar at the place which he called Bethel but made libations; Samuel\nworshipped at the High Places at Ramah, and Solomon at the Great Stone\nin Gibeon. It remained for Hezekiah to change the entire Hebrew cult.\nHe removed the Dionysiac statues and phallic pillars as well as the\nconical and omphallic symbols of Venus and Ashtaroth, broke in pieces\nthe brazen serpent of Moses and overthrew the mounds and altars. After\nhim Josiah removed the paraphernalia of sun worship and destroyed the\nstatues and emblems of Venus and Adonis, (2nd Kings, 23:4-20).\n\nThe Greek Hermes was identical with the Egyptian Khem, as well as with\nMercury and with Priapus, also with the Hebrew Eloah; thus when Jacob\nentered into a covenant with Laban his father-in-law, a pillar was\nset up and a heap of stones made and a certain compact entered into;\nsimilar land marks were usual with the Greeks and placed by them upon\npublic roads.\n\nAs Mrs. Childs has beautifully said, \"Other emblems deemed sacred by\nHindoos and worshipped in their temples have brought upon them the\ncharge of gross indecencies. * * * If light with its grand revealings,\nand heat, making the earth fruitful with beauty, excited wonder and\nworship among the first inhabitants of our world, is it strange that\nthey likewise regarded with reverence the great mystery of human birth?\nWere they impure thus to regard it? Or are _we_ impure that we do _not_\nso regard it?\"\n\nConstant, in his work on Roman Polytheism says, \"Indecent rites may be\npracticed by religious people with the greatest purity of heart, but\nwhen incredulity has gained a footing among these peoples then those\nrites become the cause and pretext of the most revolting corruption.\"\n\nThe phallic symbol was always found in temples of Siva, who corresponds\nto Baal, and was usually placed as are the most precious emblems of\nour Christian temples to-day, in some inmost recess of the sanctuary.\nMoreover lamps with seven branches were kept burning before it, these\nseven branched lamps long antedating the golden candlestick of the\nMosaic Tabernacle. The Jews by no means escaped the objective evidence\nof phallic worship; in Ezekiel 16:17, is a very marked allusion to the\nmanufacture by Jewish women of gold and silver phalli.\n\nAs a purely phallic symbol and custom mark the significance of certain\nsuperstitions and practices even now prevalent in Great Britain. Thus\nin Boylase's _History of Cornwall_ it is stated that there is a\nstone in the Parish of Mardon, with a hole in it fourteen inches in\ndiameter, through which many persons creep for the relief of pains\nin the back and limbs, and through which children are drawn to cure\nthem of rickets, this being a practical application of the doctrine\nof regeneration. In 1888 there was printed in the _London Standard_ a\nconsiderable reference to passing children through clefts in trees as\na curative measure for certain physical ailments. The same practice\nprevails in Brazil and in many other places, and within the present\ngeneration it has been customary to split a young ash tree and, opening\nthis, pass through it a child for the purpose of curing rupture or some\nother bodily ailment.\n\nThe phallic element most certainly cannot be denied in Christianity\nitself, since in it are many references which to the initiated are\nunmistakable. From the fall of man with its serpent myth and its\nphallic foundation to the peculiar position assigned to the Virgin\nMary as a mother, phallic references abound. However, it should not\nbe forgotten that whatever were the primitive ideas on which these\ndogmas were based, they had been lost sight of or had been received in\na fresh aspect by the founders of Christianity. The fish and the cross\noriginally typified the idea of generation and later that of life,\nin which sense they were applied to Christ. The most plainly phallic\nrepresentation used in early Christian Iconography, is undoubtedly the\n_Aureole_ or elliptical frame work, containing usually the figure of\nChrist, sometimes that of Mary. The Nimbus also, generally circular\nbut sometimes triangular, is of positive phallic significance, even\nthough it contain within it the name of Jehovah. The sun flowers\nwhich sometimes are made to surround the figure of St. John the\nEvangelist are the lotus flowers of the Egyptians. The divine hand\nwith the thumb and two fingers outstretched, even though it rests on a\ncruciform nimbus, is a phallic emblem, and is used by the Neapolitans\nof to-day to avert the Evil Eye, although it was originally a symbol\nof Isis. Indeed the Virgin Mary is the ancient Isis, as can be most\neasily established, since the virgin \"Succeeded to her form, titles,\nsymbols, rites and ceremonies.\" (King). The great image still moves\nin procession as when Juvenal laughed at it, and her proper title is\nthe exact translation of the Sanskrit and the equivalent of the modern\nMadonna, the Lotus of Isis, and the Lily of the modern Mary. Indeed, as\nKing has written, \"It is astonishing how much of the Egyptian symbolism\npassed over into usages of the following times.\" The high cap and\nhooked staff of the god became the bishop's mitre and crozier. The term\nNun is purely Egyptian and bore its present meaning. The Crux Ansata,\ntestifying the union of the male and female principle in the most\nobvious manner, and denoting fecundity and abundance, is transformed\nby a simple inversion into an orb surmounted by a cross, the ensign of\nroyalty.\n\nThe teaching of the Church of Rome regarding the Virgin Mary shows a\nremarkable resemblance to the teachings of the ancients concerning\nthe female associate of the triune deity. In ancient times she has\npassed under many and diverse names; she was the Virgin, conceiving and\nbringing forth from her own inherent power; she was the wife of Nimrod;\nshe has been known as Athor, Artemis, Aphrodite, Venus, Isis, Cybele,\netc.\n\nAs Anaitis she is Mother and Child, appearing again as Isis and Horus;\neven in ancient Mexico Mother and Child were worshipped. In modern\ntimes she reappears as the Virgin Mary and her Son; she was queen of\nfecundity, queen of the gods, goddess of war, Virgin of the Zodiac, the\nmysterious Virgin \"Time\" from whose womb all things were born. Although\nvariously represented she has been usually pictured as a more or less\nnude figure carrying an infant in her arms. (Inman, \"Ancient Faiths\").\n\nInman declares without hesitation that the trinity of the ancients is\nunquestionably of phallic origin, and others have strenuously contended\nand apparently proven that the male emblem of generation in divine\ncreation was three in one, and that the female emblem has always been\nthe triangle or accepted symbol of trinity. Sometimes two triangles\nhave been combined forming a six-rayed star, the two together being\nemblematical of the union of the male and female principles producing\na new figure; the triangle by itself with the point down typifies the\ndelta or yoni through which all things come into the world.\n\nAnother symbol of deity among the Indians was the Trident, and this\nmarks the belief in the Trinity which very generally prevailed in\nIndia among the Hindoos. As Maurice says, \"It was indeed highly proper\nand strictly characteristic that a three-fold deity should wield a\ntriple scepter.\" Upon the top of the immense pyramids of Deoghur,\nwhich were truncated, and upon whose upper surface rested the circular\ncone--that ancient emblem of the Phallus and of the Sun, was found\nthe trident scepter of the Greek Neptune. It is said that in India is\nto be found the most ancient form of Trinitarian worship. In Egypt it\nlater prevailed widely, but scarcely any two states worshipped the\nsame triad, though all triads had this in common at least that they\nwere father, mother and son, or male and female with their progeny. In\nthe course of time, however, the worship of the first person was lost\nor absorbed in the second and the same thing is prevalent among the\nChristians of today, for many churches and institutions are dedicated\nto the second or third persons of the Trinity but none to the first.\n\nThe transition from the old to the new could not be effected in a short\ntime and must have been an exceedingly slow process, therefore we need\nnot be surprised to be told of the ancient worship that after its\nexclusion from larger places it was maintained for a long time by the\ninhabitants of humbler localities; hence its subsequent designation,\nsince from being kept up in the villages, the _pagi_, its votaries,\nwere designated _pagani_, or pagans.\n\nEven now some of these ancient superstitions remain in recognizable\nform. The moon is supposed to exert a baneful or lucky influence\naccording as it is first viewed; the mystic horse-shoe, which is a\npurely uterine symbol, is still widely employed; lucky and unlucky\ndays are still regarded; our playing cards are indicated by phallic\nsymbols, the spade, the triadic club, the omphallic distaff and\neminence disguised as the heart and the diamonds. Dionysius reappears\nas St. Denys, or in France as St. Bacchus; Satan is revered as St.\nSatur or St. Swithin; the Holy Virgin, Astraea, whose return was\nheralded by Virgil as introducing the Golden Age, is now designated\nas the Blessed Virgin, Queen of Heaven. The Mother and Child are\nto-day in Catholic countries adored as much as were Ceres and Bacchus,\nor Isis and the infant Horus, centuries ago. The nuns of Christian\nto-day are the nuns of the Buddhists or of the Egyptian worshippers\nof Isis, and the phallic import is not lost even in their case since\nthey are the \"Brides of the Savior.\" The libations of human blood\nwhich were formerly offered to Bacchus found most tragic imitation in\nthe sacrifices of later days. The screechings of the ancient prophets\nof Baal, and of the Egyptian worshippers, preceded the flagellations\nof the penitentes. Even recently, during Holy Week in Rome, devotees\nlash themselves until the blood runs, as did the young men in ancient\nRome during the Lupercalia. And even yet in New Mexico the Indian\n_penitentes_ repeat the cruel flagellations and cross-bearing taught by\nthe Spanish priest, to the extent--sometimes--of an actual crucifixion.\nIn the ancient Roman catacombs are found portraits of the utensils\nand furniture of the ancient mysteries, and one drawing shows a woman\nstanding before an altar offering buns to a certain god. In fact we may\nsay there is no Christian fast nor festival, procession nor sacrament,\ncustom nor example, that do not come quite naturally from previous\npaganism.\n\nThe Creation is in fact a _human rather than a divine product_, in\nthis sense that it was suggested to the mind of man by the existence\nof things, while its method was, at least at first, suggested by the\noperations of nature; thus man saw the living bird emerge from the\negg, after a certain period of incubation, a phenomenon equivalent to\nactual creation as apprehended by his simple mind. Incubation obviously\nthen associated itself with Creation, and this fact will explain\nthe universality with which the egg was received as a symbol in the\nearlier systems of cosmogony. By a similar process creation came to be\nsymbolized in the form of a phallus, and so the Egyptians, in their\nrefinement of these ideas, adopted as their symbol of the first great\ncause, a Scarabaeus, indicating the great hermaphroditic unity since\nthey believed this insect to be both male and female.\n\nFurther exemplification of the same underlying principle is seen in the\nfact that most all of the ancient deities were paired, thus we have\nheaven and earth, sun and moon, fire and earth, father and mother, etc.\nFaber says,--\"The Ancient Pagans of almost every part of the globe were\nwont to symbolize the world by an egg; hence this symbol is introduced\ninto the cosmogonies of nearly all nations, and there are few persons\neven among those who have made mythology their study to whom the\nmundane egg is not perfectly familiar; it is the emblem not only of\nearth and life but also of the universe in its largest extent.\"\n\nI began this essay with the intention of demonstrating the recondite\nbut positive connection between the symbolism of the Church of to-day\nand the phallic and iatric cults of pre-christian centuries. (Much\nof the subject matter contained in the previous essay (III) may be\nprofitably read in this connection). As a humble disciple of that\nAesculapius who was the reputed founder of our craft, I have felt\nthat every genuine scholar in medicine should be familiar with these\nrelations between the past and the present.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nTHE RELATION OF THE GRECIAN MYSTERIES TO THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nEver since mentality has been an attribute of mankind, man has\nappreciated that he is surrounded by a vast incomprehensible mystery\nwhich ever closes in upon him, and from whose environment he may never\nfree himself. The endeavor to solve this mystery has on one hand\nstimulated his reasoning power, and on the other nearly paralyzed it.\nHaving no better guidance he has in all time attributed to a Great\nFirst Cause powers and faculties, even shape and form, more or less\nhuman; thus from time immemorial God or the Gods have been given a\nkingdom, a throne, some definite form, and even offspring. To him\nor them have been given purely human attributes, and they have been\nsupposed to possess human passions and to be capable of love, wrath,\nstrength, etc. In nearly all ages lightning, for instance, has been\nregarded as an expression of divine fury. As intelligence advanced\nthe number of Gods was reduced and their manifestations classified\nand studied more or less imaginatively; and so while men have always\nacknowledged the impossibility of explaining the great mysteries of\ncreation and of space, they have seemed to find it necessary to create\nother equally inscrutable mysteries of purely human invention, such as\nthe incarnation, the trinity, the resurrection, vicarious salvation,\nmetempsychosis, and the like.\n\nHistory shows the love of mystery to be contagious as well as\nproductive of its kind, and the origin of mystic teachings as well as\nof most secret societies bears out these statements. Secrets, guarded\nby fearful oaths, personified by meaningless emblems, concealed either\nin language unintelligible to others, or else hidden in terms whose\nspecial meaning is known only to the initiated, made attractive by\nspecial signs, symbols, innocent rites, or barbarous observances,--all\nof these means were designed solely to keep men banded together for\nthe purpose of forming a propaganda intended to perpetuate yet other\nmysteries in which the initiates were especially interested. Since\nhistory began such associations of men have existed for most diverse\nends, all having this in common, that only by this means could they\nsecure and maintain influence and power.\n\nAnd so the series of pictures which represent man in this role may be\nregarded as a panorama, led by garlanded priests carrying images of\nIsis or droning hymns to Demeter of Eleusis, or Druids preparing for\ntheir human sacrifices; followed by gay and voluptuous Bacchantes,\nsucceeded by white-robed Pythagoreans; next may come the suffering\nEssenes bearing crosses, then the Latin Brotherhoods, followed by the\nGerman and English Guilds, the Stone Masons with their implements,\nthe Crusader Knights, those coming first having an appearance of\nactual humility and devotion, while those who follow are haughty and\ncontemptuous to a degree. Then would follow the black-robed Penitentes\nand the members of the Society of Jesus, sanctimonious, with eyes cast\ndown, human machines, mere tools in the hands of their superiors; the\npanorama continuing with a widely assorted lot of scholars, artisans\nand men of all conditions in various regalia, and terminated with an\nindistinguishable multitude of variously adorned men, some sleek and\nfat, others ill-conditioned, some devout and sincere, others mere\njesters and knaves from every walk of life.\n\nIt was most natural and to be expected that primitive man should be\nmost profoundly impressed with the forces of nature, often terrifying\nand frightful, often winsome and attractive, and that he should bow\nhimself down to the unknown cause of these manifestations. With his\nextremely finite mind he necessarily personified them; after having\ndone this he proceeded to propitiate them by worship with certain forms\nof ritual. Perhaps fire first and most of all attracted him in this\nway, and drew from him the earliest acts of worship, for in spite of\nthe general views to the contrary fire is often of natural origin,\nand must have been known to men before they became able to produce\nit by their own efforts. From practical to generalized concepts was\na natural step, and thus mythology had its beginnings; the earliest\ndistinctions were as between that which is overhead, i. e. Heaven, and\nthat which is beneath, namely, the earth; these are the beginnings\nof all cosmogonies. Next the Gods were given the attributes of sex;\nHeaven was represented as masculine, fructifying, powerful; Earth as\nconceptive, female and gentle. By the union of these two were produced\nsun, moon and their progeny--the stars. Later the sun became Poseidon\nor Neptune, because he appeared from and disappeared into the sea. Then\nthe imagination began to run riot, and gave rise to many individual\ndivinities, gods and goddesses, all with human passions and attributes,\nmingling and propagating after human fashion, and begetting dynasties\nand half human races, whose doings were the subject of countless epics,\ndramas, myths and romances.\n\nThus time passed on and the original sense or meaning of these\nmyths, descending slowly by oral tradition, became lost, while the\nmyths themselves were for a long time accepted as historical facts.\nNevertheless in all ages there have been men who, like Aristotle,\nCicero and Plutarch, have questioned the accuracy of these statements\nand shown themselves intelligent and active sceptics. During all these\ntimes, however, a wily priest-craft had lived and thrived on the\nsuperstitions of the common people and the practices in which they have\nindulged; by these men, thus conditioned, any active doubt was regarded\nas subversive of the system by which they were supported, and as one\nnot to be tolerated;--this condition pertaining not only to antiquity,\nsince it is too significant a feature even of the early years of this\ntwentieth century. A more or less honest though misinformed priesthood\nhas, in all times, been in favor of the purification of the theology\nin vogue in their times and among their inner circles, and has in the\nmain given the most rationalistic interpretation to the obscure things\nwhich they taught, and practised what their education and environment\nwould permit. But in order to preserve the mysteries, to maintain them\nas such, and save themselves from becoming superfluous, not to say\nintolerable, these same mysteries have been tricked out with mysticism,\nsymbolism of the most fantastic character, and allegory of the most\nbewildering kind; moreover this has often been accomplished by dramatic\nrepresentations and by moralizing or demoralizing ceremonies. The\ncountries in which these \"mysteries,\" as they have since been known,\nwere most commonly practised and most widely believed were Egypt,\nChaldea and Greece.\n\nThe sources of the Egyptian mysteries, like those of Egyptian\ncivilization, are the most difficult to discover. The Nile is\nnecessarily the basis of Egyptian history, geography, activity and\nhabits, and consequently must be also of the Egyptian cult. The people\nwho were known as Egyptians invaded the land of the Nile from the\ndirection of Asia, and found there a race of negro type whom they\nsubdued and with whom they later mingled. The Semites called the land\nMisraim; the Greeks finally changed the name of its great river to\nNeilos. The country is a land of enigmas. Who built those pyramids, and\nwhy? Who originated the system of pictorial writing which we call the\nhieroglyphic? Who planned those wonderful temples now either in ruins,\nas in upper Egypt, or buried beneath the desert sands, as in lower\nEgypt? Who brought and erected those mighty blocks of stone or massive\nslabs from enormous distances, and handled them as we could scarcely do\nto-day with the best of modern machinery?\n\nIn course of time two hereditary classes were formed, the priests who\ndominated the minds, and the warriors who controlled the bodies of the\nconquered people and the lower classes. The latter kept the throne of\nEgypt occupied, while the former, having a monopoly of the knowledge of\nthe time, prescribed for the people what they must believe, yet were\nvery far from accepting these precepts for themselves, and in their\ninner circles made light of that which they preached to the despised\nclasses without.\n\nThe Egyptians named their Sun God RE, but assigned the various\nattributes of the sun to different personalities; they had moreover not\nonly Gods for the whole land, but Ptah was God of Memphis, Ammon God\nof Thebes, etc. Local deities were often constructed out of inspiring\nobjects or from animals inhabited by spirits, and thus the fetichism\nof the original negro race exerted no little influence upon the higher\ncult of their lighter colored conquerors. Worship was paid to animals\nnot for their own sake but because of the Gods who were supposed to\nreside within them; thus their prominent Gods were represented with\nthe head of some animal. This honor belonged not to any individual\nanimal but of necessity to the entire species, certain representatives\nof which were maintained at public expense in the temples, where they\nwere carefully guarded and waited upon by the faithful. To harm one of\nthese animals was to be severely punished, to kill one of them was to\ndie. Conversely when a God failed in responding to the prayers of the\nfaithful his fetich had to suffer, and the priests first threatened the\nanimal, and if menaces were unavailing they killed the sacred beast,\nalbeit in secret, lest the people should learn of it.\n\nAs time went on there was less of zo\u00f6latry, and the Sun-Gods and their\nassociates figured more largely among the cult of the people. The sun's\ncourse was not represented as that of a chariot, as among the Persians\nand Greeks, but rather as the voyage of a Nile boat, upon which the\nGod Re navigated the heavens; from which it will appear that the\npriestly religion was making slow progress to monotheism by means of\noligotheism. The secret teaching of the priests was now more and more\nto the effect that the Gods stood not so much for themselves as for\nsomething else. During the fourth dynasty the lower Egyptian city Anu\nwas known as the City of the Sun, hence the Greek name for the place,\nHeliopolis. Still more characteristic was the giving of the name of\nOsiris, who figured as God of Abdu, which the Greeks called Abydos,\nin upper Egypt, to the God of the Sunset, who was king of the lower\ndomains and of death, brother and at the same time husband of Isis,\nbrother also of Set, who slew him, and father of Horus, i. e. God of\nthe new sun, who figures after each sunset. Horus fought with Set,\nbut being unable to completely destroy him left him the desert as his\nkingdom, while himself holding to the Nile valley. This story of the\nGods was publicly represented in various scenes on certain holidays,\nbut only the priests, i. e., the initiated, knew the real meaning of\nthe representations. Even the name of Osiris and his abode were kept\nsecret, and outsiders heard only of the \"great God\" dwelling somewhere\nin \"the West.\"\n\nThese were the most famous of all the old Egyptian mysteries, though\nto them were added many others, including that of Apis, the sacred\nbull of Memphis, who served also as the symbol of the Sun and of the\nfructifying Nile; beneath his tongue was to be seen the sacred beetle,\nand the behavior of the great animal was supposed to be prophetic and\nhis actions to mean oracular sayings. The Sphinx again was a sun-God,\nhis image being repeated throughout the Nile region, and was always\nthought of as a male; the head was represented as that of some king,\nwhile the whole figure stood for the Sun-God Harmachis; although the\nsphinx later introduced into Greece was always female.\n\nWhile the Egyptians did not attribute to their numerous Gods divine\nperfection, they nevertheless regarded religious practices as a means\nof currying favor with their divinities, a custom apparently still in\nfavor. The priests believed in a Sun-God as the only true deity, but\nnot so the people; thus the priests in the various cities praised their\nlocal and tutelary God as supreme and made him identical with Re, whose\nname they appended to the original, as for instance _Amon-Re_. The\nking, no matter where he was, prayed always to the local deity as lord\nof heaven and earth, yet in words always the same.\n\nAt last during the eighteenth dynasty, about 1460 B. C., Amenhotep IV\nrealized that the power of the priesthood was a menace to the crown\nand therefore proclaimed the Sun as the sole God, not in human shape,\nbut in that of a disk. He ordered all other images of other Gods\nassociated with the sun to be destroyed; the priests of these deposed\nGods lost their places and estates, which latter were confiscated.\nBut his sons-in-law who succeeded him restored the deposed monarchs.\nNevertheless they were marked as heretics by those priests who were\nreinstated in their former power. In consequence of this conflict,\nwhich was violent and prolonged, the intellectual life of Egypt was\nparalyzed and the mystic teachings of the priests were henceforth not\ndisturbed by any wave of progress or advance.\n\nThe people again sank into a stupid and unredeemable formalism,\ndemonism and sorcery. With the purpose of amusing them the priests\nfurnished gorgeous sacrificial processions and festivals, while at\nthe same time drawing them away from the true God by teaching them a\nworship of deceased kings and queens. They also built temples, to only\nthe outer portion of which were the people generally admitted, while\nthe innermost portions were guarded by these priests lest the mysteries\nthus protected be such no longer. They also procured the building of\nthe ancient Labyrinth, near Lake Moeris, of which Herodotus tells us\nthat there were fifteen hundred chambers above ground and as many more\nunder ground, which latter were never shown except to the initiated,\nand which contained the remains of sacred crocodiles and of the\nPharaohs.\n\nThe Egyptian priests taught that man was made up of _body_, a material\nessence or the _soul_, which in the shape of a bird left the body\nat death, and an _immaterial spirit_ which held to the man the same\nrelation which a God held to the animal in which he dwelt, and which\nat death departed from the body like the image of a dream. They taught\nalso that, if the soul and spirit were to live on, the body should be\nembalmed and laid in a rock chamber, and that then the relatives must\nsupply meat, drink, and clothing for its use. The spirit took its way\nto Osiris and by means of a magic formula the dead would be made one\nwith Osiris; hence in the Egyptian \"Book of the Dead\" the deceased was\naddressed as Osiris with his own name added, and could now lead a happy\nlife in the other world, which life was portrayed on the walls of the\nSepulchres in pictures which are still to be seen, showing how the\ncreature comforts of this world were to be enhanced in the next. Having\nreached the outer world, and having escaped the host of demons that\nthreatened him on his passage, he could then revisit this earth at will\nin any form.\n\nThe Egyptian priests also taught that there was a judgment of the dead,\nand that new comers had to appear before Osiris, with his forty-two\nAssessors, and disclaim the commission of each one of forty-two sins;\nall of which was a magic formula for obtaining bliss according to\ntheir notion rather than anything intended as a true statement. The\nhippopotamus figured as an active agent in the Book of the Dead,\nappearing always as the accuser, when the sins and the good deeds were\nbeing weighed in the balance, while the God Thot was the \"attorney for\nthe defense.\"\n\nAll these secret doctrines of a priestcraft necessitated secret\nassociations, at least of the higher priests, to which the king was\nalways admitted, the only Egyptian outside of the priesthood to be\nthus taught their secrets. This was purely for protection; having less\nfear of foreigners these priests often initiated distinguished men\nfrom foreign lands, Greeks especially. Thus Orpheus, Homer, Lycurgus,\nSolon, Herodotus, Pythagoras, Plato, Archimedes, and many others,\nreceived the secret doctrine. The ritual was a long and tedious but\nsignificant ceremony, taught by degrees like the Masonry of to-day, and\nnecessitated in some cases the right of circumcision; all who passed\nit were pledged to the most strict silence. According to Diodorus the\nOrphic Mysteries were in large degree a repetition of the Egyptian,\nwhile the Greek legislators, philosophers and mathematicians whom I\nhave named drew their knowledge from the same source; all of which is\nprobably a very gross exaggeration. Nevertheless it would appear from\nthe hieroglyphic remains that high grade schools were conducted by the\nEgyptian priests, and that foreign scholars could obtain for themselves\ninstruction in the exact sciences of the day. Only the priests,\nhowever, were able to write the hieroglyphics, at least in the earlier\ncenturies of Egyptian history.\n\nThere can be no doubt but that the secret doctrine of the Egyptian\npriests was both philosophic and religious, and was sharply\ndistinguished from the popular belief which mistook tradition for\ntruth; that it was monotheistic, that it rejected polytheism and\nzo\u00f6latry, and that the true signification of Egyptian mythology was\nexpounded in private. Moreover an essential part of this mystery\nconcerned the interpretation of myths as allegorical accounts of\npersonified natural phenomena. For instance Plutarch (\"Isis and\nOsiris\") writes--\"When we hear of the Egyptian myths of the Gods, their\nwanderings, their dismemberment and other like incidents, we must\nrecall the remarks already made, so as to understand that the stories\ntold are not to be taken literally as recounting actual occurrences.\"\n\nWithout now going into the subject of the relative age of the Egyptian\nand Chaldean cults, I will remind you that the secret wisdom of\none race was not excelled by that of the other. The Chaldean races\nare undoubtedly of Turanian origin, and their form of religion was\npeculiar to the Ural-Altaic stock and the Turkic races, who originated\nthe Cuneiform writing. Their most ancient writings represented evil\nspirits as coming from the desert in groups of seven, and contained\nformulas for exorcising them; they were presided over by the heavens,\nwhile from the higher spirits evolved Gods and Goddesses in countless\nnumber. Upon the original ground work of Chaldean ideas a Semitic race\nbuilt a superstructure, and the first traces of the Babylonians and\nAssyrians appeared some four thousand years B. C. Their highest God was\nan individual whom they named Baal, while the sun and moon were his\nimages. As in Egypt the priests were held in great reverence, standing\nnext after the king, who was _ex officio_ high priest; they too had a\nsecret doctrine withheld from the vulgar. Although the Chaldeans were\nastrologers rather than astronomers, they were yet familiar enough with\nthe heavens to estimate astral phenomena for what they really were,\ninstead of holding them to be Gods, though they may have represented\nthem as such to the common people. Their literature contained numerous\nmythological poems, so obscure that to understand them a key was\nrequired, which key was only in the possession of the priests. Inasmuch\nas Abraham came from Ur in Chaldea, with him crept into biblical\nliterature much of the Chaldean tradition and folklore. The Chaldeans\nhad also their Noah, and their deluge, in which the dove figured as in\nthe biblical account. When the proprietor of the Ark finally freed the\nanimals he erected an altar and offered sacrifice, to which the Gods\ngathered \"like masses of flies.\" This story contributes but one section\nof the great Chaldean epic in which are recounted the exploits of a\nhero corresponding with the Nimrod of the Hebrew Bible, dating from the\ntwenty-third century B. C., and reminding one forcibly of the Herculean\nand many other myths recounted in other ancient languages.\n\nAn off-shoot of the Chaldean culture was that of Persia, whose priestly\nclass were far removed above the warriors and farmers that constituted\nthe other two classes. Priests married only among their own race,\npossessed all the knowledge, made their king _ex officio_ one of\nthemselves, and practised itinerant teaching, but solely among their\nown caste. In the holy city, Ragha, the priests alone held rule and no\nsecular power prevailed; Zoroaster was their founder; they were the\nphysicians, astrologers, interpreters of dreams, scribes and officers\nof justice, while they impressed upon the minds of the people their\nexclusive duties;--to reverence the holy fire, which was their greatest\nmystery, to listen to the teaching of passages from the sacred book,\nand to perform numerous ceremonies of purification. Only the initiated\nwere taught the meaning of the strife between the good Ormuzd and the\nevil Ahriman, which was probably the alternation of day and night, and\nof summer and winter.\n\nIn India the intense feeling with regard to caste but little altered\nthe condition of things from that obtaining as above described,\nthough the Brahmins were further away from the other castes than in\nother countries where the priests came from the common people; by\nthe latter the Brahmins used to be regarded as Gods and did all they\ncould to perpetuate this feeling. By this fact alone they became a\nself-constituted mystic organization, being themselves pantheists while\nthe people were idolators. Though they taught pantheism in their sacred\nbooks, the second and third castes, namely the warriors and farmers,\ndid not understand the teaching, and the fourth caste dared not read\nthem at all.\n\nIn this pantheism penitents and hermits were esteemed as above kings\nand heroes; but even the life of a hermit was not exacting enough\nfor them, so they organized the idea of a soul of the universe so\nincomprehensible that, as they themselves acknowledged, no man could\ncomprehend it or instruct another in it. Despairing of solving the\nproblem they finally fancied that the universe was a phantasm, and that\nthe earth and all things earthly were nothing. They taught that through\ncountless aeons of time men grew always worse, and were born only to\nsuffer and die, or to do penance in the torments of an indescribable\nHell. Naturally of all these things the people could only understand\nthe teachings pertaining to hell and future punishment, and so the\nBrahmins contrived for them a supreme deity, having the same name as\ntheir Soul of the Universe, namely Brahma, whom they made the creator\nbut playing a passive part. The people were not content, however,\nwith an absentee passive God, but paid much more attention to Vishnu\nthe preserver, and the dreaded Siva, the destroyer. After a while\nthese three Gods were united in a sort of trinity, represented by a\nthree headed figure, but without temples or sacrifices. The Brahmins\ncontinued their subtleties and divided the people into parties, like\nthe scholiasts and disputants of the middle centuries of our present\nChristian era, and so the Hindoo religion became more and more debased.\nHowever, in the sixth century B. C., Buddha, that great figure in\nearly history, endeavored to save it by a reform which found much more\nencouragement in the West, and to the far East of India, than in India\nitself, and which has since assumed a more composite character by\nfusion with the religions of the surrounding countries.\n\nBuddha formed first a monastic society based upon ethical doctrines,\nwhose underlying principle was that only by a renunciation of\neverything can man find safety, peace and comfort. Buddha's first\nteachings were mystic and for the initiated only; his followers\nbelieved also in reincarnation. After his death and that of those who\nwere supposed to have lived before him, and who were expected to appear\nagain, and who had been raised to the dignity of Gods, (and after\ntheir number had been added to that of the popular Hindoo Gods and\nto the Gods of the other people), then Buddhism became a polytheism,\nand because of the variety of possible explanations and the necessary\nexegesis, assumed in the end the dimensions of a secret mystic doctrine.\n\nThe Hellenes undoubtedly did, in the beginning, worship natural\nforces under the form of animals, especially of serpents; later human\nand animal forms were united, and so they had deities with heads of\nanimals, or with the bodies of horses like the Centaurs, or with the\nhoofs of goats like the Satyrs. But the natural Greek taste for the\nbeautiful early asserted itself; the figures of Gods came by degrees\nto express the ideal of physical perfection, that is the human shape,\nand the Grecian religion became essentially a worship of the beautiful,\nand not as among Oriental religions a worship of the unnatural or\nhideous. They forgot the astronomic and cosmic significance of the\nearly myths and held rather to personifications of the normal forces,\nof which their poets sang as of mortal heroes. They never dreamt of\ndogma, creed or revelation, demanded only that man honor the Gods, but\nleft it to the taste of each one how he should suitably perform his\nacts of reverence. It must be confessed, however, that in candor and\nchastity they left much to be desired; but this may be explained when\nwe remember that their own Gods set them a very poor example in these\nrespects. Still history will forgive them much because they loved\nmuch. The Greeks were exceedingly liberal in their interpretations\nconcerning the Gods, while the various peoples constituting the Greek\nrace were not at all agreed as to the number and respective rank\nof the Gods whom they worshiped. Thus one would be disowned here,\nanother there; while in one place greater honor would be paid to one,\nor elsewhere to another; exactly as in the case of the Saints among\nthe Catholic people of to-day. They went so far in their worship\nof the beautiful as to divide the Gods among the localities which\npossessed statues of them, which Gods came to be regarded as distinct\nindividuals; so that even Socrates doubted whether Aphrodite of the sky\nand Aphrodite of the people were or were not the same person.\n\nFurthermore in their liberality they made Gods to hand for every\nemergency, and even worshiped the unknown Gods, as St. Paul long ago\nrecorded. For the Greeks these Gods were neither monsters like those\nof Egypt, India and Chaldea, nor incorporeal spirits like the Gods of\nPersia and of Israel, but human beings with all the human attributes.\nFor the Greeks neither Jehovah existed, nor a personal devil in any\nform. Like the Greeks themselves their Gods had many human failings,\nthough in them religion survived many mythological creations like the\nCentaurs, the Satyrs, etc. These were merely folklore beings enacting\nparts ranging from terror to farce, and never receiving divine honors.\n\nGrecian religion was, so to speak, the established church of the\nGreek states, but came to be in time a cloak for the designs of the\npoliticians; in which respect history has many times repeated itself.\nFor instance Socrates was made to drink his cup of hemlock on the\npretext that he had apostatized from the state religion. Still even\nin his day heresy played no part except among politicians. Every one\ncould plainly state his convictions, and Aristophanes in his comedies\nintroduced Gods in the most ridiculous and compromising situations. So\nlong as the public worship of the Gods went on the state cared little\nfor the upholding of positive or suppressing of negative beliefs. The\nGods were entitled to sacrifices and the people to divine aid, but they\ncould regulate the interchange to suit themselves. The greatest public\ncrimes were violation of temples and profanation of sacred things; one\nmust leave the images alone even if he did not believe in the Gods they\nrepresented. Punishment of blasphemy was only inflicted when complaint\nwas made. Foreign Gods could be introduced and worshiped at will,\nproviding only that the customary honors were rendered to those at home.\n\nSuch religious freedom could naturally only exist during the minority\nor the absence of a priestly class. Anyone could transact business\nwith the Gods or conduct sacrifices; priests were employed only in\nthe temples, and outside of them they had neither business, influence\nnor privileges. Their pantheism was comprehensive; the Gods were\neverywhere, and the honor done to them consisted in invocations,\nvotive offerings and sacrifices. The Grecian religion recognized no\nofficial revelation which all were required to believe, though it did\nnot deny the possibility of revelations at any time. Their oracles\nwere obtainable only in particular places and through duly qualified\nindividuals. At one time in ancient Greece conjuration was in vogue,\nbut the Gods and demons who indulged in it were all borrowed from\nforeign sources, and in time it degenerated into pure magic.\n\nThe Greeks, however, could not get away from the sentimental notion\nthat belief in the Gods must have an ethical side and must be\nsubordinate to their faith; in other words that human nature was\nsomething entirely different from the divine to which it was subject.\nAlienation from the God in which they believed led necessarily to the\nimpulse to seek him, which was the leading motive in the institution of\nthe Grecian mysteries,--Gods who were man's equals were not sufficient\nfor the Greeks. In the beginning of these mysteries they borrowed the\nart of the popular religion, disregarded the science of the day as\nwell as the philosophic doctrines of their great men, held in contempt\nboth human power and human knowledge, and devoted themselves almost\nentirely to self-introspection, meditation on revelation, incarnation\nand resurrection, and presented these things in dramatic forms and\nceremonies, by which illusions they hoped to make more or less\nimpression upon the senses. The Grecian mysteries were the opposite\nof genuine Hellenism. The true Greek was cheerful, happy, clear in\nperception, and his Gods appeared to him as do their statues to us\nto-day. But Greek mysticism was full of gloom, symbolism and fantastic\ninterpretations; in every way it was unhellenic and abnormal, having no\nfit place in their soil nor in their age. It always has been the case\nthat sentimental, romantic or mystical dispositions find delight in the\nmysterious, while logical minds are unmoved by it. From the Mysteries\nno man was excluded, save those who had shown themselves unworthy of\ninitiation. They had their origin in the early rites of purification\nand atonement; the former being at first only bodily cleansing, which\nlater took on a moral significance; while the atonement was a sort\nof expiation which came with the consciousness of sin and desire for\nforgiveness. Atonement was most called for in case of blood guiltiness,\nand consisted largely in the sacrifices of animals, burning of incense,\netc. In all the ancient mysteries these two features of purification\nand expiation played a great part.\n\nOf them all the oldest and most celebrated were those instituted at\nEleusis, in Attica, in honor of the Goddess Demeter (Latin Ceres),\nand her daughter Persephone (Latin Proserpina). To these were added\nlater a masculine deity, known at first as Iacchos, whose name is\nprobably related to Jao, which appears in Jovispater or Jupiter, and\nto the Hebrew Yahve or Jehovah. Later, however, B was substituted for\nI and Iacchos was made to read Bacchus. Jao was the Harvest God, and\nconsequently God of the grape, hence the close relation to Bacchus.\nThe Greek word Eleusis means _advent_, and commemorates the visit of\nDemeter while wandering in search of her daughter,--which reminds one\nof the Egyptian story of Isis. Moved by gratitude, Demeter bestowed\nupon the people of Eleusis the bread-grain and the mysteries. From this\ncity the cult of these two deities spread over all Greece and most of\nAsia Minor, passed into Italy in modified form, and thus became widely\naccepted. The people built at Eleusis a temple in pure Doric style and\na Mystic House in which the secret festivals were held. The city was\nconnected with Athens by a Sacred Way, which was flanked with temples\nand sanctuaries, while in Athens itself was a building, the Eleusinion,\nin which a portion of the mysteries were celebrated. The buildings at\nEleusis were in good preservation until the fourth century A. D., when\nthey were destroyed by the Goths under Alaric, and at the instigation\nof monkish fanatics. You will see, then, that the mysteries were widely\nobserved in Asia Minor, and at a time when they must have deeply tinged\nthe religious views and habits of a large portion of the population\nprior to the beginning of the Christian Era.\n\nThe Eleusinian mysteries were always under the direction of the\nAthenian government, and the report of their celebration was always\nrendered to the grand council of Athens. The function of the priests\nwas an hereditary and exclusive privilege and the mysteries as a\nwhole were under the immediate care of a sacred council. The people\ncontented themselves mainly with honoring the Gods, while in these\nmysteries the original endeavor was to emphasize the pre\u00ebminence of\nthe divine over the human, hence their careful guardianship by the\nauthorities of the state. Both were offshoots of pantheism, one seeing\nthe divine in all earthly things, the other constantly searching for\nit there, and striving to unite with it. Monotheism, that is absolute\nseparation of the human from the divine without hope of union, is a\npurely Oriental conception, quite incomprehensible to the Greek mind.\nNo ancient Greek ever conceived of a creative deity in the Egyptians'\nsense, nor of a vengeful Jehovah like that of the Hebrews.\n\nThe Eleusinian mysteries were most highly venerated among the Greeks;\nso much so that during their celebration hostilities were suspended\nbetween opposing armies, while those who witnessed them uninvited or\nbetrayed the secret teaching, or ridiculed them, were executed or\nbanished. So late even as the period of the Roman supremacy the Roman\nEmperors took an interest in maintaining these mysteries, and some of\nthe early Christian Emperors, like Constantius II. and Jovian, while\nforbidding nocturnal festivals made an exception of these.\n\nThe sum of the original Eleusinian doctrine is a myth based upon the\nrape of Demeter's daughter Persephone by Pluto, all of which is the old\nstory of the seasons and the changes brought about in their regular\nsuccession; and as Persephone was ultimately united with Bacchus but\nreturned to the lower world for the winter, we see typified first, the\nfruitfulness of the Sun God; secondly, the fecundity of the soil, and,\nthirdly, the resurrection of the body, which having been dropped like\nthe grain into the earth was supposed to rise from it again after a\nsimilar fashion. How much this may have to do with present Christian\nbeliefs concerning the resurrection may not be easily decided.\nNevertheless it is of interest that the doctrine of the resurrection\nis of pre-Christian origin and is traceable through heathen teachings,\neven if having no greater support than the analogy above cited. The\ncentral teaching of the mysteries was probably that of a personal\nimmortality analogous to the return of bloom and blossom to plants in\nthe spring.\n\nThere were two festivals held at Eleusis, the _lesser_ in March, when\nthe ravished Persephone came up out of the nether world into the\nsunlight; and the _greater_ in October when she had to follow her\nsullen spouse into Hades again. The preliminary celebration was held\nat Athens, and lasted six days, from October 15th to 20th. They all\nassembled upon that day and went down to the seashore for the rite of\npurification, the other days being spent in sacrificing and marching\nin solemn procession. On the last of them came the grand Bacchic\nprocession, when thousands of both sexes wended their way along the\nsacred road to Eleusis; the distance to be traveled was fourteen miles,\nbut many stops were made. Arrived at Eleusis the first evening was\ndevoted to drinking the decoction called _kykeon_, by which Demeter was\noriginally comforted during her wanderings. During the first days the\ninitiated feasted and performed their mystic rites, consisting largely\nof torch light processions at night. After these were over the festival\nbecame a scene of merriment and athletic competition. The fasting and\nsolemn cup, along with others of their rites, remind one of certain\nChristian observations perpetuated to the present day, while the severe\ntests to which those desiring initiation were subject have been more\nor less imitated by the Free Masons and other secret societies of\nmediaeval or modern times. The Mystic House must have been furnished\nwith all the resources of the stage and the most ingenious stage\ncarpentry of that day, and makes one think of Scottish Rite Masonry\nof this. The initiates regarded their chances in the next world as\nmuch better than those of the common people, as all the ancient Greek\nwriters acknowledge.\n\nIn age and renown the mysteries of the Cabiri, in the island of\nSamothrace, rank next to those of Eleusis. They date back to a time\npreceding the evolution of several of the Grecian deities. These\nMysteries implied originally an astro-mythology, losing in time its\nastral meaning. In these Samothracian mysteries the reproductive forces\nof nature figured most prominently, and through them the Phallic\nworship of the Orientals was transmitted to the Greeks. Into these\nmysteries women and even children were initiated. There were also\nCabirian mysteries in several other Islands in the Grecian Archipelago,\nas well as on the continent.\n\nMysteries were also celebrated in the Island of Crete, in honor of\nZeus. We know but little concerning them save that in the spring time\nthe birth of the God was commemorated in one place, and his death at\nanother, and that amid loud noises the story of the childhood of Zeus\nwas enacted by the young.\n\nAs already remarked the worship of Bacchus was imported and in him was\npersonified the influence of the sun upon the growth of the vine, while\nthe ultimate tendency was to the glorification of life and force; in\nother words, it was eminently materialistic and appealed to the grosser\nsenses. The Dionysian mysteries originated in Thrace, and among a\npeople of Pelasgian stock, who were naturally gloomy save when aroused,\nwhen their enthusiasm became exaggerated into transports of frenzy. In\ntime a distinction obtained between the Dionysian mysteries and the\nfestivals. At least seven different non-mystic festivals occurred in\nAttica during the year, which were of popular character, during which\nthe Phallic worship, if any, predominated. The fabled adventures of\nBacchus were enacted and the dramatic stage originated at this time\nand from this beginning. On the other hand, a triennial festival of\nDionysos was held in which women participated who, saturated with wine,\nlost all restraint and humility and were called _maenades_ or mad\nwomen, while their festivals were spoken of as _orgia_, whence our\nmodern term orgies. These were conducted at night, upon the mountains,\nby torch-light, in mid-winter, while the women, who were clothed in\nskins, shunned all association with men, and drank, danced, sang and\ncommitted all sorts of excesses, finally sacrificing a bull, in honor\nof the god, whose flesh they devoured raw. They then raved about\nthe death of their god and how he must be found again; all hope in\nrediscovering him centering in the quickening springtime.\n\nBacchus worship, bad as it was in Greece, was surpassed in Rome, Livy\neven comparing the introduction of the Bacchic cult into Rome to a\nvisitation of the plague. In its Etruscan and Roman form it became\nsimple debauchery with a thin veneering of religion. So abominable did\nit become in time that in 186 B. C., the Consul Albinus was compelled\nto suppress it. Seven thousand persons were implicated at that time,\nand the ringleaders and a multitude of their accomplices were condemned\nto death or exile. The senate decreed that the Bacchanalia should\nnever again be held in Rome or Italy, and the places sacred to Bacchic\nworship were to be destroyed. These orgies continued unchecked outside\nof Italy, and in time reappeared again even upon Italian soil, until\nthe days of the Roman Emperors, when they reached a pitch of absolute\nshamelessness, as in the case of the notorious Messalina.\n\nTime fails in which to mention all of the other debased mysteries\nwhich were met with in the various parts of Greece and Italy. Among\nthem, however, must be recorded those of the mother of Rhea, those of\nSebazios, and those of Mithras, all of which were finally collected\nby the sect of Orpheans. Among the Persians Mithras was the Light,\nand his worship was perhaps the purest cult that could be imagined.\nLater it was combined with sun worship, and Mithras became a Sun God,\nand as such generally recognized among the different peoples. To the\nearly Greeks Mithras was unknown, but in the later days of the Roman\nEmpire his mysteries made their appearance and gained great prominence.\nThe monuments represented a young man in the act of slaying a bull\nwith a dagger, while all around are human and animal figures, the\nyouth standing for the Sun God who, on subduing Taurus in May, begins\nto develop his highest power. The original beautiful rites later\ndegenerated and became orgies. Among the original rites was a form of\nbaptism and the drinking of a potion made of meal and water. Human\nsacrifices were in some places a part of the cult.\n\nThe most disreputable of all these mysteries appear to have been the\nSabazian, which were made up of several earlier forms, and were mere\nexcuses for gluttony and lewdness, while the priests of the cult were\nmost impudent beggars.\n\nThus in time the mysteries were stripped of all the beauties of a\nheavenly origin and became of earth exceedingly earthy, while their\ninitiates, lost to all shame and decency, persisted nevertheless\nin their sacred hypocrisy, until the hideous night of the Gods\ndisappeared before the glow of a brighter morning.\n\nAfter this rather long preliminary portion, we are now prepared,\nas otherwise we could not be, to consider the relation between the\nChristian religion and these ancient mysteries. Granting that Jesus was\nthe founder of the Christian religion, we must remember, nevertheless,\nthat he was distinctly a Jew, spent his life in Judea, and based his\nteachings upon Judaism; also that long before his day Judaism was\nthoroughly indoctrinated with Greek elements, and that after his\ncrucification the propaganda was carried on not so much by Jews as\nby Greeks and men of Grecian education. Between the Greeks and the\nJews there were then, as now, the greatest differences; differences\nwhich have already been epitomized, but which may be thus summarized.\nOn one side the closest union between God or the Gods and man, most\nlofty sentiments and finest sense of art-form, a priesthood making no\npretentions and exerting little influence, a nation sustaining active\ncommercial relations with the world, and all imbued with eagerness to\nadopt whatever was novel; on the other side, the widest separation\nbetween Jehovah and man, a substitution of theology and religious\npoetry for a study of nature, a nation ruled by priests and protected\nagainst all access from without, either by sea or caravan, adhering\ndeterminedly to the old and distrusting whatever was new.\n\nAfter the Jews were liberated from Babylon, by Cyrus, they dispersed\nwidely, living largely under Persian rule, and subjected after\nAlexander's conquest to Greek influences. Later they were scattered\nstill more widely, becoming in time a mercantile race. In Egypt they\nenjoyed greater privileges than elsewhere, and in Alexandria saw the\nacme of Grecian art and teaching. While retaining their reverence for\ntheir scriptures and for the temple at Jerusalem, they quite generally\nadopted the language of the country, and particularly was this true of\nthe Jews living in Alexandria in the third century, B. C., during which\nthe Pentateuch was translated into the Septuagint, the remainder of the\nHebrew bible being translated about 125 B. C. Thus the Greeks gained\nan introduction to Jewish theology, while the Hellenist Jews learned\nfor the first time a Grecian philosophy; thus, too, among the scholars\nof one race was begotten a high esteem for the sages and philosophers\nof the other, while from the polytheism of one and the monotheism\nof the other was constructed a new mysticism. In this Alexandrian\nmysticism appeared in particular and for the first time the new idea\nof divine revelation, which was applied by enthusiasts alike to the\nOld Testament and to the Grecian writings. The Jew Aristobulus devised\na most ingenious allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and\ntraced to it all the wisdom of the Greeks, who until recently had never\nheard of it; and Philo, another Hebrew philosopher, contemporary with\nChrist, yet of whom he knew nothing, so construed the traditions of his\nrace as to see in the four rivers of Eden the four cardinal virtues,\nin the trees of paradise the lesser virtues, and in the great figures\nof Jewish history personifications of various moral conceptions, all\nof which was out-doing the manner in which his Grecian friends had\ndeveloped their own mysteries. Moreover, and this is very important,\nPhilo taught that God had made a world of ideas and according to this\nmodel had subsequently made a corporeal world; the former having for\nits central point the Word. This statement that the _Word_ was the\nfirst and the _World_ his second deed passed later into the gospel of\nSt. John, which opens \"In the beginning was the _word_, and the _word_\nwas God.\"\n\nPhilo founded a sect based upon the doctrine that the soul's union\nwith the body is to be regarded as a punishment from which man should\nfree himself, for his soul's sake. This sect was known as the Essenes,\nwho in spite of claims to the highest antiquity really were founded\nduring the first century B. C., and who constituted in effect a secret\nsociety. They were the true socialists of their day, and held things\nin common. They invented a peculiar nomenclature for the angels\nand imposed upon their new members to keep these names secret. As\na society they did not long survive the beginning of the Christian\nera, being made superfluous by Christian asceticism. The Essenes,\nhowever, were of importance in this regard that they constituted the\nmiddle terms between the Grecian mysteries and Christianity, as they\ndid between Grecian philosophy and Judaism. They were, in effect,\na Jewish imitation of the Pythagorean league. _When with Grecian\nmysticism were associated the nobility of Socrates, the philosophy\nof Plato, the science of Aristotle and the Jewish belief in one God,\nit is not strange that out of these elements, combined with the\nteachings of simple humanity enunciated by Christ, there resulted a\npower which transformed the world._ The view that all mankind are\nbrothers, originally Jewish, was also of independent Greek origin and\ncame especially from the Stoics, who had to lie dormant until some tie\nstronger than mere political association held men together. This tie\nsubsequently became a religious one. Polytheism had nothing more to\ngive up; all the forces had been worked over in the God-making process,\nthe Pantheon was full, and men ridiculed alike the Gods, their oracles\nand their priests. These same priests smiled at each other when they\nmet, and forfeited all public respect by the lives they led. Olympic\nwantoning and derision of the Gods must necessarily have ended so soon\nas anything better could be substituted therefor.\n\nThe long felt want was for a God of definite character, of approved\nprowess, with human feelings, human wrath, and human love, made after\nman's own likeness, who should stand for a doctrine of personal\nimmortality, and give some promise of a hereafter. The Jews, the only\nmonotheists of the time, were prepared to furnish such a God, but he\nwas too spiritual, and was worshiped by altogether too indefinite\nrites and peculiar usages. Nevertheless the God of the Jews was\nutilized for this purpose while the mystic elements with which he was\nto be surrounded were furnished by the ancient Grecian mysteries and\nthe doctrines of the Pythagoreans and Essenes. So completely did the\nJews and Greeks mingle in Egypt and in Judea, that the idea prevailed\namong both races that the time had come for something new in the\ndesired direction. The various secret leagues demanded a separation of\nthe divine from the human and their subsequent reconciliation, all of\nwhich was subsequently furnished to their satisfaction in the accounts\nof the origin and death of Christ. Even during the early years of the\nRoman Empire men looked for a new kingdom in the East, and both Jews\nand Heathen awaited some divine intervention. This took more definite\nform in the Jewish expectation of a Messiah who should restore the\nkingdom of Israel, and in their worship of Jehovah, while the Greeks\nyearned for something to take the place of their degenerate polytheism.\n\nThe times were thus ready for the appearance of Jesus, who lived for\nmost of his life in obscurity, and of whose career no mention is made\nby contemporary Greek and Roman writers. This was perhaps fortunate for\nhis followers, for none could contradict what any other might choose\nto say of Him who rose above the bigotry of his day and people, who\nwas executed because of his independence of the priests and scribes,\nand who was thus regarded as the longed for Messiah. On the Jewish\nbranch of his real origin were grafted Grecian mystical off-shoots of\nsuperhuman origin;--an immaculate conception, a vicarious sacrifice,\na resurrection and an assumption of a portion of the God-head. Thus,\nin what has come down to us concerning the Founder of the Christian\nchurch, truth and fiction mingle; the former being that which is\nconsistent with highest laws and natural phenomena; and the latter that\nwhich conflicts with these. Jesus himself never made pretentions to\nbeing more than a man. When he spoke of his father he spoke of him as\nequally the father of all mankind; he was the greatest moral reformer\nthat ever lived, and he differed widely from the Essenes in that he\nsought to save man, not by Essenism and withdrawing him from the world,\nbut by living with him and setting him a beautiful example.\n\nThe ancients were firm believers in signs and portents from the heavens\nwhich were supposed to serve both for the instruction and warning\nof mankind. Stars, meteors, the aurora, comets and sudden lights of\nany kind were regarded as presaging events like the birth of Gods,\nheroes, etc. Great lights were supposed to have appeared both at the\nconception and birth of Buddha, and of Crishna. The sacred writings of\nChina tell of like events in the history of the founder of her first\ndynasty, Yu, and of her inspired sages. The Greeks and Romans had\nsimilar traditions regarding the birth of Aesculapius and several of\nthe Caesars. In Jewish history we read that a star appeared at the\nbirth of Moses, and of Abraham--for whom an unusual one appeared in\nthe East. The prominence which a similar star in the East played in\nthe legends of the Founder of Christianity and the effect which, as\nalso in the case of Moses it had upon Magi, needs here no rehearsing. A\nvery different significance was attached to eclipse or to any phenomena\nby which unexpected darkness is produced. The Greeks held that at the\ndeaths of Prometheus, Hercules, Aesculapius and Alexander, a great\ndarkness overspread the earth. In Roman history the earth was shadowed\nin darkness for six hours when Romulus died. Much the same thing is\nreported to have occurred when Julius Caesar died. So also one of the\nmost conspicuous features attending the crucifixion of Jesus was a\nsimilar phenomenon which is made to play a most conspicuous part, for\nwe read in three of the gospels that \"darkness spread over the earth\nfrom the sixth to the ninth hour;\" although the only evangelist who\nclaims to have been present says nothing about it, nor do historians of\nthat time, like Seneca and Pliny, make note of any such event in Judea.\n\nIn view of all this, however, to deny the star in the East, and the\nhours of darkness following the crucifixion, is regarded by many pious\npeople as rank blasphemy or heresy of the deepest dye.\n\nThe parables in which Jesus taught so unmistakably were similes adapted\nto the simple comprehension of his people, who likewise often made use\nof such figurative language. Those who followed him used this form\nof speech much more freely, and quickly erected his personality into\nthe dignity of a God, magnified him and his mission, and soon saw him\ngenerally accepted as the equivalent of the Messiah, for whom Greeks\nand Jews alike had longed. His alleged miracles were unnecessary,\nin addition to being contradictory to all known natural sequences,\nbecause the simple and sublime truths which he preached could not be\nmade more expressive by any such help. In the light of to-day they\nseem unnecessary juggleries, quite unworthy of so grand a character.\nThey probably represent the effort of his followers, who portrayed his\nlife and personality in colors which would make them more generally\nacceptable.\n\nOf such transformations as that by which the son of a carpenter was\nmade to appear of divine origin history has no lack. The Grecian\npolytheism furnished numerous illustrations; Apollo appeared on earth\nas a shepherd, Herakles, the son of Zeus, and Romulus (who was also the\nson of a _virgin_ and of _Mars_), were founders of cities, states and\nnations. The Jewish accounts of creation stated that God walked the\nearth, and why not in human form? Why also should not the founder of a\nreligion be the son of God and of a virgin? The rest of the beautiful\nstory upon which we were all brought up must be regarded as fanciful\nembellishment, beautiful in its imagery, but having no foundation in\nfact or scientific possibility. The annunciation, the star in the\nEast, the slaughter of the innocents, etc., can only be regarded in\nthis light.\n\nThe stories of the miracles are probably distinctively purposive.\nIn the Grecian mysteries Demeter and Dionysos figured as givers of\nbread and wine; Jesus, too, was made lord and giver of these two\nsacred viands, all of which appears in his changing water into wine,\nmultiplying the loaves, and later in the institution of the Last\nSupper, at which bread and wine became a part of these Christian\nmysteries which are still widely perpetuated. In his quieting the\nstorm, walking upon the water, finding the penny in the fishes' mouth,\nand the draught of fishes, are portrayed his power over the forces of\nnature and lower forms of life. His power over disease was personified\nby stories of healing paralytics, lepers, blind, deaf and dumb people,\ncasting out devils, and even by restoring the dead to life. Apparitions\nwere common according to the history of his life, as of the holy spirit\nin form of a dove, his encounter with Satan, the appearance of Moses\nand Elias, etc. The ancient tendency to personify appears again in the\nform of Satan or a personal devil, namely the power of evil, while in\nthe Transfiguration is personified the superiority of the new law over\nthe old. Finally the miracles attending his last days, the darkening\nof the sun, the rending of the veil and the Resurrection, were all\noccurrences which it would be impossible to omit from the closing\nscenes in the life of anyone who has figured as a God. They betoken\nthe mourning of nature, while the Ascension personified the belief in\nan everlasting Redeemer and the individual immortality of those who\nbelieved in him.\n\nIn thus epitomizing the events in the life of Jesus upon which, from\nhis day until now, men have laid such fearful stress, and upon whose\nacceptance the present life as well as the future of all men has been\nconditioned, I should be far from doing justice to myself should I\nfail to point out my own attitude in the matter. I hold it true that\nthe self-evident truth, as well as the wonderful sublimity of Christ's\nteachings, become apparent upon the study of the same, and are weakened\nrather than strengthened by insistence upon all that is supernatural,\nmysterious and inconceivable in the generally accepted account of his\nlife and labor. My mind is freed from the necessity for the mysterious\nwhich the Graeco-Jewish people demanded, and which the superstitious\npeople of to-day still demand, and I prefer to let him stand for what\nhe seems to me to be,--_the greatest moralist and teacher of all\ntime_, rather than to surround him with a veil of imagery and with\nstatements so impossible of belief as to make it impossible to accept\none part without accepting them all. The Jews already had doctrines\nof unity of God and love for others; the Grecian philosophy antedated\nhim in insisting upon elevation of life to a higher plane than that\nof mere gratification of the senses, and everywhere his predecessors\nand contemporaries could furnish miracles by the hundred, but in\nforce, grandeur and simplicity of his teachings, in his comprehensive\nhumanity, in his directness of appeal, in his condemnations of those\nwho departed from the model which he set, he never has had and probably\nnever will have an equal. In his self-abasement and love for others he\nwas as irresistible as have been these principles in civilizing and, in\nthis sense, christianizing the world.\n\nIn Jesus' own day there was no hair-splitting theology; devotion, love\nof fellow-men, charity, repentance, these were all that were needed.\nBut the beautiful simplicity of his teaching was lost with the death of\nhis first disciples. The system was esteemed too simple, too unadorned\nto appeal to the people used to something quite the contrary. And so\nStephen the Martyr, who was of Grecian education, was stoned because\nhe demanded a repudiation of certain Jewish teachings, although the\ncongregation at Antioch adopted his views.\n\nPaul the great leader was an epileptic and had frequent fits and\nvisions, and these made a strong impression, not only on himself but\non his followers. On the creations of his imagination the doctrine of\nthe resurrection is largely based. He set up the God-man Jesus as the\ncounterpart of the first man Adam, who represented sin and death, and\nwho was to be crucified and born anew in Christ. Between Paul, the\ngreat Gentile Christian, and Peter, the Jewish Christian, the church\nwas quickly split into two parties; these two soon subdividing into\nothers, and among them all arose the New Testament literature, whose\nAlexandrine dialect establishes the influence of Greek education.\n\nThus did Christianity develop out of the secret associations of the\nancient world. The early Christians themselves constituted, at least\nwhile under persecution, a sort of secret society. Their worship\nwas mystical, but not because Jesus so taught;--rather because of\ntheir environment and traditions. The practice of baptism, the last\nsupper and the doctrines of incarnation and resurrection have been as\ncertainly added to the Nazarene's sublime code of ethics as to them in\nturn, in the centuries to follow, were added every conceivable notion,\nmystery and stupid absurdity which the diseased minds of men could\nimagine, and which have been the cause of more departure from Christ's\noriginal teachings, and of more strife and bloodshed than any other\nfeature in the history of mankind.\n\nIndeed it is one of the greatest inconsistencies of history that\nthe doctrines of love, unity and peace, taught by the Founder of\nChristianity, should have been the greatest of all factors to rend\nmankind apart, beget feelings of hatred, and result in the death, from\nthis cause, of millions of men such as Jesus himself most loved.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nTHE KNIGHTS HOSPITALLER OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM\n\n\nThe three great militant, mendicant and monastic orders of the middle\nages were the Knights Hospitaller of St. John, the Knights Templar,\nand the Teutonic Order. In addition were numerous others, smaller,\nshorter lived, less important in every respect, scarcely mentioned in\neven the larger histories, like the knights of Calatrava, Alcantara,\nSantiago de Compostella, and the English Knights of the Holy Sepulchre.\nThese orders were the immediate as well as the indirect outgrowth\nof mediaeval conditions for which both the Church and the State\nwere responsible. The secret tenets of the Christians had been made\npublic, and those who held to them had for some time ceased to be a\nsecret society; their faith was now a part of that church which was\nessentially the State, and which occupied a goodly part of Europe.\n\nSad to say the Church was rent, and the State suffered accordingly\nfrom constant strife between sects and parties, who contested, even\nto the death, over interpretations to be given to the scriptures, and\nthe matter of creeds. Thus while discussing at point of the sword\nwhether the soul is to be saved by good works, or by grace of God, they\ndisregarded the very essence of the simple teachings of Jesus, and\nbrought upon theology, even in those days, the contempt and ridicule of\nthe liberal minded and the non-believer, so that even to-day it suffers\nbecause of the unfortunate light in which it was made to appear.\nThat theology should lead to war is the antithesis of the Christian\ndoctrine, yet no wars have been so fierce and bloody as those waged in\n\"spreading the cross\" and propagating a misinterpreted gospel. And so\ntheology suffered doubly from the Monks who perverted it, and from the\nKnights and the State that inculcated it with fire and sword.\n\nFor a thousand years nothing of importance was added to human\nknowledge, and mental confusion reigned supreme. At the end of\nthis period all the original teachings of Christ were forgotten,\nand after passing through the hands and tongues of fanatics or\ndeluded and ignorant men, Christianity was left with the semblance\nof a monotheistic basis on which had been crudely built up certain\ndoctrines borrowed from Egyptian and Grecian sources, among which may\nbe mentioned the Trinity, Immaculate Conception, Resurrection and\nAscension, as well as certain practices like that of the Lord's Supper,\nplainly borrowed from pagan customs. There was in all this so much\nto challenge belief, and so much at first unacceptable to minds not\ntrained to believe it, that, in order to be effective their propaganda\nhad to be carried on with the sword. Moreover to the Christian mystic,\nanxious to unify himself with the hidden, unknown deity the idea of\nMoslem unbelievers in possession of the high places which they regarded\nwith such reverence, was simply intolerable and repugnant beyond\ndescription.\n\nHence the Crusades undertaken in order to regain the Sepulchre; in\nwhich by Papal decree the Monks joined the Knights, and under command\nof emperors and the greatest generals of their day, made temporary\nconquest of the Holy Land, founding the kingdom of Jerusalem. The\nimmediate outcome of the general movement was that alliance, made wise\nand even necessary, when theology and chivalry joined hands, from\nwhich resulted the foundation of such orders as those mentioned at the\nbeginning of this paper. These allies of which they were composed, all\ntook the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and for a\ntime kept them, until the possession of power and the acquisition of\nwealth brought their inevitably accompanying temptations. Each of these\norders and many of the others passed through the successive stages of\npoverty, with meekness and constant benefaction, succeeded sooner or\nlater by temporal aggrandizement, selfishness, greed, and rapacity,\nwith all the crimes in the calendar, and the inevitable ultimate\ndownfall. Of them all the Hospital Knights bore by all means the least\nsmirched record, on which account, partly, as well as because of their\nmost prominent purpose, i. e., their work among the sick, wounded and\ndistressed, I deem their careers worthy of more particular study.\n\nFor this purpose we may quickly dismiss the Teutonic knights from\npresent consideration, simply reminding you that they were really\nthe founders of modern Prussia. They had their own origin in the\ncommendable public spirit of the merchants of L\u00fcbeck and Bremen, who\nduring the siege of Acre made tents out of the sails of their ships, in\nwhich their wounded countrymen might be nursed and attended. Most of\ntheir active service against the Saracens was in Spain.\n\nOf the Knights Templar a little must be said here. About 1119 two\nKnights, Hugo (or Hugh) of Payens, and Godfrey of St. Omers, associated\nwith themselves six other French Knights in a league of military\ncharacter, styling themselves \"Poor Knights of Christ,\" and pledged\nthemselves to keep safe for pilgrims the highways of the Holy Land.\nThey prospered and grew, and came into the favor of Baldwin I, king\nof that kingdom of Jerusalem already mentioned. Inasmuch as their\nMonastery occupied a part of the site of Solomon's temple of old they\nwere known as _Templars_. At the synod of Troyes, in 1128, they were\nrecognized as a regular Order, and received monastic rules and habits,\nwith a special banner. They were also known as \"Poor Companions of the\nTemple of Jerusalem,\" a name which did not very long befit them. At\nfirst, like the Hospital Knights, they begged their food, fasted, kept\nvows, worshipped diligently, and cared for the poor and infirm. Beard\nand hair were cropped short, the chase was forbidden, and they took\nthe usual vows of chastity. But as they acquired property they forgot\nthe simple life and habit, as well as their vows of obedience and\nchastity, while their pledge to protect the pilgrim on his way became\nin time a farce, not alone through their indifference and negligence,\nbut through their treasonable dealings with the Saracens, and even\ntreacherous surrender of their strongholds.\n\nThus, whatever their pristine purpose, lucre and power became the later\nobjects of their strife and the impelling motives of their lives. By\nthe accession of so-called \"affiliated members\" they avoided the rule\nof celibacy, and admitted married knights and those engaged to be\nmarried.\n\nTheir Grand Masters in time ranked next after Popes and Monarchs. While\nthe former favored them it was mainly because they feared them. They\nwere exempt from all episcopal jurisdiction, and subject only to the\nPope. So rich and powerful did they become that at the time of their\nsuppression they controlled an Empire of five provinces in the East and\nsixteen in the West, while the Order possessed some 15,000 houses. They\naimed to make all Christendom dependent upon themselves, with only the\nPope as their nominal head.\n\nOf their personal bravery, which was usually impeccable, of their\naffluence and intolerable effrontery, and of many of their traits and\ncharacteristics, one may form an excellent idea by reading _Ivanhoe_,\nwhere these seem to be quite faithfully depicted. It is, to me I\nconfess, just a little amusing as well as saddening to see the men, who\nname their secret Masonic associations after the founders of the Order,\ndisplaying and imitating, at least in public where alone they can be\njudged by outsiders, only those features of Templar Knighthood which\nmarked the period of their decadence or their downfall. As imitations\nthey may be historically accurate, but as worthy of emulation, or even\nof imitation such displays are matters of questionable taste, at least,\nto those who read medieval history.\n\nThe Templars in their days of splendor and later downfall, were neither\npious, nor learned, nor good Christians. Many of their secret doctrines\nwere of heretical origin, taken from the Waldenses or the Albigenses,\nand they cared far more for their own possessions than for the Holy\nLand. They promulgated the shameful excuse that God evidently willed\nthat the Saracen should win; that the defects of the Crusaders were\nevidently according to His decision, and that therefore they were\nreleased from their vows, and could return to Europe, where indeed they\nrested--after their fashion,--from their labors, and passed their time\nin doing everything their founders had vowed not to do.\n\nBut this is not intended to be an epitome of Templar history; rather\na brief statement of the reasons why they went proudly and sometimes\nstoically to their final downfall, and why the Hospital Order, though\nnot always keeping up to its earlier standards, nevertheless so\nfar eclipsed them, as to become the recipients of very much of the\nTemplars' enormous resources and wealth, being thought worthy to be\nthus entrusted. And so it happened that, in 1307, Philip of France had\nall the Templars in France arrested and their property sequestrated.\nThis led to a tripartite dispute in which were involved the Templars,\nthe Pope and the King. In 1310 fifty-four Templar Knights were burned\nalive in Paris. At last the Pope, to prevent their property from\nfalling into secular hands, made over to the Hospitallers most of the\nTemplar estates, excepting however those in Spain. The Grand Master\nMolay and another Templar were burned to death on an island in the\nSeine.\n\nSo much then in brief, for purposes of contrast. Now to the avowed\nsubject of this paper.\n\nDuring the seventeenth century there rose a controversy as to the\nfoundation of a hospital already in existence in Jerusalem, named\nafter the Asmorean prince John Hyrcanus, (the son and successor of\nSimon Maccabaeus, who restored the independence of Judea and founded\na monarchy over which his descendants reigned till the accession of\nHerod. He died 105 B. C.). This was at a time when the pious merchants\nof Amalfi planned a refuge for their pilgrims. It was this John whom\nmany suppose to have been the patron of the order, though it seems\nnow clearly established that the first sponsor or the first St. John,\nin this connection, was the Greek patriarch John surnamed Ele\u00ebmon,\nor the Charitable, because of his practical philanthropy. (See \"St.\nJohn the Almsgiver,\" Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth, 1901). But by the time\nthe Crusaders, under Godfrey of Bouillon, had taken Jerusalem from the\nSaracens, St. John Baptist seems to have become the acknowledged patron\nsaint of the hospital, his image being worn by epileptic patients, and\nbeing later adopted as the regular badge for those engaged in hospital\nwork.\n\nBut this term _hospital_ must not be regarded in its present\nacceptance; it was used in a broader sense to imply any house of\nrefuge, even from wild animals; in fact a _hospice_.\n\nThis particular hospice seems to have been erected on the ruins of\none founded by St. Gregory in 603, where it is known that the French\nBenedictines worked. Two centuries later Charlemagne had claimed the\ntitle of Protector of the Pilgrims. (\"De Prime Origine Hospitaliorum,\"\nby La Roulx. Paris. 1885).\n\nThis institution was naturally located in close proximity to the most\nsacred places, which early Christian traditions made such to the\npilgrims who came from all over Western Europe. It was in existence in\n1099. It was made doubly necessary by not only the hardships of travel,\nbut by the ill usage of the natives, at a time when the Holy City was\nin the hands of the Moslems, who demanded an entrance fee often beyond\nthe pilgrims' means. Thus subjected to indignities indescribable,\nrobbed often before their arrival, these misguided pilgrims often died\nof want, or returned with their primary pious object unattained. Had\nit not been for one Gerard, the first administrator of the hospice,\ntheir hardships had been even greater.\n\nThe buildings of the Order, at first meagre, were finally enlarged to\ncover a square, nearly 500 ft. on each side, with one side on the Via\nDolorosa and another fronting the Bazaar, and all a little south of the\nChurch of the Holy Sepulchre. Nearby were other churches and hospices.\nThis was the arrangement before the establishment of the kingdom of\nJerusalem in 1099. During the next century the Order, under Raymond du\nPuy, had enlarged the church of St. John Ele\u00ebmon into the conventual\nchurch of St. John Baptist, while along the south of the square above\nmentioned ran an excellent building, the hospital of St. John. When\nSaladin recaptured Jerusalem, in 1187, this church was converted by the\nTurks into a mad-house, known as the \"Muristan,\" this being finally\nceded to Germany in 1869.\n\nFrom the new kingdom of Jerusalem the Hospitallers obtained a\nconstitution, and the Gerard above mentioned was made their first\n\"Master.\" He was succeeded in 1118 by du Puy, while Baldwin II was\nthe Latin King of Jerusalem. The Hospital had been recognized by the\nArchbishop of Caesarea in 1112, and had widely extended its sphere\nof usefulness. It was King Baldwin who was anxious to stamp upon the\nOrder a military character, similar to that conferred upon the Order of\nthe Temple in 1130. This was natural since the kingdom was isolated,\nsurrounded by fanatic enemies and always beset by and in danger from\nthem. Thus the necessities of the times and the environment made it\nrequisite that all who were able should bear arms, and co\u00f6perate for\nmutual defence.\n\nThus it came about that the Order was divided into three divisions, the\nfirst in rank being the Knights of Justice, each of whom must be of\nnoble rank or birth, and have received the accolade of knighthood from\nsecular authority. The second division comprised the ecclesiastics,\nwho were later divided into two grades, the Conventual Chaplains, who\nwere assigned to duty at headquarters, and the Priests of Obedience who\nserved other priories and commanderies in various parts of Europe. The\nthird grade were the Serving Brothers, also divided into the Servants\nat arms or Esquires, and the Servants at office. The Servants at arms\nattended the Knights of Justice as their Esquires, and might eventually\nbecome eligible to the first division. The Servants at office were\nlittle if anything more than menials or domestics. Even these latter,\nhowever, possessed certain privileges and emoluments which made\nadmission to this grade advantageous to men of humble origin and\nfaculties.\n\nThe dress of the Order was a black robe with cowl, having a white linen\ncross of eight points over the left breast, and was at first worn by\nall. Later, under Pope Alexander IV, the fighting knights wore their\nwhite crosses upon a ground gules.\n\nThe first recorded appearance of a body of Hospitaller knights in\nactual war was at Antioch, in 1119, while the complete military\nconstitution of the Order of St. John was achieved in 1128. During the\nbalance of the existence of the Kingdom of Jerusalem then, two colleges\nor companies of military monastic knights existed, side by side, in\nthe Holy Land, the \"chief props of a tottering throne.\" (Bedford).\nBetween these rival bodies arose in time such jealousy, and within them\nsuch intrigues,--aggravated always by the animosities of the ordinary\nclergy, who took offense at the patronage bestowed upon the orders\nby the Popes, aggravated also by similar difficulties on the part of\nthe knights of the Teutonic Order and that of St. Lazarus,--that the\nbest interests of the kingdom and of the Church suffered as much from\nintestine dangers as from those arising from the Moslems surrounding\nthem. Nevertheless it may be said that the Order of the Hospital\nnever lost sight of its primary purposes, and never disgraced itself\nby the treasonable and treacherous dealings, and correspondence with\nenemies which disgraced not a few members of other and rival Christian\norganizations.\n\nThe result of such disreputable actions lead--as ever--to disunion\nand final disruption, and this to final capitulation and surrender\nof Jerusalem, in 1187. This meant the abandonment not only of their\nold home, but of their usefulness there. The Saracens occupied their\nbuildings and premises from that time till ruin overtook them. Thus\nrudely compelled to emigrate the Order moved the same year (1187) to\nthe town of Margat, where was also a castle of the same name. But the\nwork in Jerusalem had not been abruptly discontinued, since Sultan\nSaladin, in evidence of his esteem, allowed them possession of their\nhospital for another year, in order that their charitable work should\nnot be abruptly interrupted, and even made them liberal donations.\nWhen during the third Crusade, in which Richard Coeur de Lion bore so\nvaliant a part, Ptolemais was captured, it was then and there that the\nOrder established its headquarters, in 1192, wherefore the town became\nnamed St. Jean d'Acre. Here they abode nearly a century.\n\nVarious other towns in Palestine held out for a time against the Turks,\ne. g., Carac, Margat, Castel Blanco and Antioch, and in spite of the\nintense rivalry between the Orders, Thierry, the Grand Master of the\nTemplars, reported in a letter to King Henry II, that the Hospitallers\nbore themselves even with fervor and the greatest bravery, and praised\nthe aid they gave in the capture of the Turkish fleet, at Tyre, when\nseventeen Christian galleys manned by friars, and ten Sicilian vessels\ncommanded by General Margarit, a Catalan, defeated the infidels, and\ncaptured their admiral and eight Emirs, with eleven ships, the rest\nbeing run aground, where Saladin later burned them, to keep them from\nfalling into Christian hands. (Bedford).\n\nNotwithstanding all this, however, the joint occupation of Acre with\nthe Templars had a bad effect on both Orders, who turned not only to\nluxury and license, but their swords against each other. Acre was at\nthis time a most cosmopolitan city; here mingled at least seventeen\ndifferent nationalities and languages, each occupying its own part of\nthe city, so that in time extravagance and lust flourished to the last\ndegree of demoralization. The Hospitallers were at this time far more\nwealthy than the Templars, who were exceedingly jealous thereof, and\nboth at Margat and still worse at Acre this jealousy was exhibited in\nmany bloody affairs. Weakened thus by this intestine strife they were\nin reverse proportion strengthened. The Pope who had defended them as\nagainst the scathing censure of Emperor Frederick, found need, in 1238,\nto accuse the knights--alike of both orders--of sheltering loose women\nwithin their precincts, of owning individual property, both of these in\nviolation of their vows of chastity and poverty, and of treacherously\nassisting the enemy. Yet many bore witness to the actual good they\naccomplished, even at this time. In 1259 Pope Alexander, bewailing\nthe lack of a more distinctive dress, permitted the decree that the\nfighting knights might wear black mantles, while in war they were\npermitted to wear red surcoats, with a white cross.\n\nLater it was permitted to women to join the Order, and many ladies of\nhigh degree took advantage of the permission, rivalling in religious\nzeal and in charitable deeds the most sanctified of the brethren. As\nthe King of Hungary wrote, at one time, after visiting some of their\nhouses, \"In a word the Knights of St. John are employed, sometimes like\nMary in contemplation, and sometimes like Martha in action, and this\nnoble militia consecrate their days either in their infirmaries or else\nin engagements against the enemies of the cross.\"\n\nThe deterioration of Acre was not so great as to make cowards of our\nKnights, however, and with the continued and aggressive siege laid\nby the Saracens against that city the Hospitallers and the Templars\nfinally made common cause, each endeavoring to outdo the other in deeds\nof bravery and daring. Though defeated again and again, the Moslem\nranks were renewed by fresh soldiers, while the militant and other\nmonks imprisoned within the city saw their combined members steadily\ndiminish. At last it remained for John Villiers, Grand Master, with his\nfew surviving fighters, to carve their way to their boats, leaving no\ncombatants behind them, and then to embark in their galleys to seek a\nharbor of refuge in the island of Cyprus.\n\n_Cyprus and Rhodes._ Settled in Cyprus, the Knights renewed their zeal\nand their resources. Here they began to build that fleet of galleys\nwhich, increased later in Rhodes, became most formidable. When they and\nthe Templars left forever the Holy Land the Templars took the position\nthat their vow to protect the holy places was now either fulfilled\nor at least at an end, and they distributed themselves among their\nnumerous preceptories all over Europe, where they made themselves\n_personae non gratae_ to their civil rulers, because of their own\nreal power, their oriental ostentation, and their secularization\nand distasteful entrance into and interference with the social and\npolitical life and customs of their new environment. Things went from\nbad to worse, public feeling was more and more aroused, and their\nextermination was only a matter of time. Finally Pope Clement V and\nKing Phillip le Bel undertook this task with barbarous ruthlessness.\nKings, nobility and the people joined hands in the common task. The\nTemplars had acquired various properties, by capture, by bequest, and\nin every lawful and unlawful manner, which yielded in the aggregate\nrelatively enormous revenues, too strong a temptation for needy secular\nrulers to resist. The Pope had at last to intervene in order to prevent\nthe total secularization of all this great spoil, and thus it happened\nthat no small proportion of it was, after its sequestration, allotted\nto the Order of St. John, whose Grand Masters and Knights had not\nforgotten nor abandoned their original vows and purposes, and who held\nthat the inviolacy of their obligations required their continuous\nresidence in some such oriental city as Rhodes.\n\nAnd here we may part company, as did they, only quite peacefully, with\nthe Templar Knights. Driven from Europe they made their last stand\nin Great Britain, and of their lives and deeds there we have no more\nreadable nor interesting historical account than Scott has given us\nin Ivanhoe. Any further allusion to them here will be most casual.\nThey offer the conventional picture, only _in extenso_, of original\npoverty and self-abnegation, coupled with devotion and valor, changed\nto arrogance, treason, abandonment of purpose, unbridled lawlessness\nleading to crime and cruelty, all brought about because of affluence,\nacquired power, selfishness, cupidity and every debasing human\nweakness. Small wonder then, that they could be no longer tolerated in\nChristendom.\n\nSo turn we again to the Hospitallers, now made rich and powerful at\nthe expense of their old rivals and at last enemies. It had soon been\nmade evident that Cyprus did not meet their wants and necessities. Its\nking was not over friendly, and they sought further. Their gaze fixed\non the island of Rhodes, which possessed a fertile soil, a city with\nan excellent harbor, not too far from the main land, i. e. not too\nisolated, which was under the--by that time merely nominal--suzerainty\nof the Emperor of the Eastern or Greek empire. After several futile\nefforts they at last, in 1310, under the twenty-fourth Grand Master\nVillaret, captured the island, where under their ceaseless energy both\nhospitals and forts were built. To Rhodes were brought also Christian\nrefugees from the various Turkish provinces, and thus their numbers\nwere rapidly strengthened. Their fleet, already begun (_vide supra_)\nwas greatly increased, and with it they had many a conflict with the\nTurkish corsairs, whose inroads they practically checked.\n\nAbout the beginning of the fourteenth century changes had been made in\nthe Order, which was now divided into Langues, or arranged according to\nnationalities, yet without materially altering the original division\ninto the three classes (Knights, Chaplains and Serving Brothers). In\nthis way the Order was apportioned between seven nations or languages,\nProvence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, England and Germany.\nFinally under pressure from Spain the Langue of Aragon was divided\ninto two, Aragon and Castile, the latter including Portugal. The\nvarious dignities and offices were divided among these langues, whose\nprincipals became a kind of Privy Council to the Grand Master, and were\nknown as Conventual Bailiffs. They were given different names in each\ncountry; thus the Grand Commander of the English langue was known as\nthe Turcopolier, of France the Grand Hospitaller, of Italy the Admiral,\netc. As the new fortifications arose around the city of Rhodes, each\nwas placed in charge of one of these langues or divisions, while each\nerected quarters for its own men. It did not follow, however, that\nevery member of each langue came from the country which it represented.\nWhile Scotland was an independent kingdom it contributed to the\nTurcopolier, while many Scotchmen belonged to the French or even the\nother langues. At this time the inhabitants of the City of Rhodes\nconsisted largely of Christian refugees, who owed their security, even\ntheir lives, to the fact that the Knights Hospitaller still adhered\nto their primary objects, the liberation of the captive and giving\nassistance to the sick and distressed. This they afforded through\ntheir fleet and their hospices. When Smyrna nearly fell into the hands\nof Timour the Tartar, about the middle of the fourteenth century,\nthe Order strengthened their harbor by erecting a new fort, which\nthey named Budrum (corrupted from Petros-a Rock), where any Christian\nescaping from slavery found shelter. Here was also kept a remarkable\nbreed of dogs, who were trained not only as watch dogs but to render\nservices similar to those afforded by the Alpine dogs of St. Bernard.\n\nAs time went on the Sultans became more and more jealous of the naval\npower possessed by the Order. With the fall of the Eastern Empire\nand the final retaking of Constantinople by Mahomet II, in 1453 (See\n\"Prince of India\"), it was made evident that danger to the Order from\nthis direction was rapidly increasing. This became so urgent that\nin 1470, after Mahomet had taken the island of Negropont, the Grand\nMaster commanded that all members of the Order should repair at once\nto Rhodes. In 1476 d'Aubusson began the most active measures for the\ndefense of the place, and thus was ready for the attack, in May, 1480,\nwhen 80,000 men in 160 ships, landed on the island coast. In this siege\nno small part was played by renegade traitors, the most prominent being\none George Frapant, a German, whom the Grand Master finally hung in\nJuly. In the last sorties which terminated this siege deeds of the\ngreatest bravery were performed; yet here we can only commemorate the\nfact that the Turks were summarily defeated, leaving 3,500 corpses on\nthe ground after the last decisive attack. The losses of the besieged\nwere small as compared with those suffered by the Turks.\n\nLater in the same year the island suffered from a severe earthquake.\nMahomet died not long after this, was succeeded by his son Bo-jazet who\nmade truce with the Order, presenting them with a relic of supposedly\ninestimable value, namely the hand of St. John, which the Turks had\ntaken at Constantinople.\n\nYears of comparative quietude succeeded until in the following century,\nin 1522, Solyman the Magnificent landed upon the island in July, with\n100,000 soldiers and 60,000 pioneers. Again ensued all the horrors of a\nsiege. The defenders did their part so bravely that the Sultan publicly\ndisgraced his generals. But the inevitable famine wrought consequent\ndisaffection on the part of the native population, who clamored for\ncapitulation, and sought treasonable terms therefor, because of which\none of the most prominent of them was tried, found guilty and executed.\nFinally under stress of circumstances no longer endurable Grand Master\nAdam agreed to honorable surrender, and on the first of January, 1523,\nthe Hospitaller Knights relinquished the island, the Sultan himself\nspeaking in terms of extravagant praise of their heroism, while at\nthe same time he scathingly censured the Christian monarchs of Europe\nwho had failed to come to their relief. Thus after two hundred and\ntwenty years of occupation and rule of the island of Rhodes, some 5,000\nKnights and other members of the Order, and natives, left it to take\nabode for a short time in their Priory at Messina. Driven from here by\nplague, they moved on to Viterbo, while their Grand Master travelled in\nsearch of a new home.\n\n_Malta._ Malta had been early proposed for this purpose, and offered by\nCharles V, while many wishes turned to the city of Modon, in Greece.\nAfter seven years of wandering and indecision Grand Master L'Isle Adam\naccepted Malta as the best solution of the difficulty. Thither the\nOrder now removed, and there Adam died in the Castle of St. Angelo,\nerected by the Norman Count Roger of Sicily, still active in improving\nits existing defences. In 1555 the Order lost nearly all of its fleet\nin consequence of a violent hurricane, which accident for a while laid\nthe island open to piratical attacks, especially of a corsair named\nDragut; but he did little damage, save that with the knowledge of the\nisland and its defences thus gained he persuaded Solyman to undertake\nanother attempt to crush the Order, the latter being justly furious\nbecause some galleys belonging to the Order had captured a ship that\nhappened to be loaded with rich valuables belonging to the ladies of\nhis harem. Therefore war was again declared in 1565.\n\nThe Turkish fleet was made up of 130 galleys with 50 smaller boats, and\ncarried the Janissaries and 34,000 other soldiers, against whom the\nGrand Master could only oppose some 9,000 men, 700 of whom, however,\nwere desperate men, released from the galleys of the enemy, and eager\nfor vengeance. On May twenty-fourth the siege of St. Elmo was in\nreality begun by a fierce bombardment, the walls being soon battered,\nand the garrison forced to take shelter in excavations made in the\nsolid rock. And now the besiegers' force was augmented by the arrival\nof Dragut, in those days the dreaded corsair of the sea, who came with\nthirteen more ships and 1,500 more men. June thirteenth saw a desperate\nconflict when, after six hours of fierce fighting and the loss of\nonly 300 men, the besiegers were repulsed. Soon after this Dragut was\nkilled. Again on June twenty-third another general attack was repulsed,\nthough the garrison was thereby reduced to 60 men. Even this small\nforce, many crippled and maimed, repulsed the first onslaught of the\nTurks, but had later to sell their lives as dearly as they could.\n\nThe Turkish general Mustapha took barbarous revenge, even on the\ncorpses of the Knights which he decapitated and then tied to planks\nthat they might float past St. Angelo. La Vallette retaliated by\nbeheading some of his captives and firing their heads at the Turks from\nhis cannon.\n\nAt this juncture the garrison was reinforced by the arrival of 700 men\nand 42 Knights from Sicily. Refusing all opportunities to surrender\nand all parley under flags of truce, Grand Master La Vallette built\nnew defences and strengthened the old, in spite of a fierce July sun.\nMeanwhile the Turks, also reinforced, prepared for still more desperate\nsorties, selecting for the land attack men who knew not how to swim,\nin order that they might fight the more fiercely, and drawing off the\nboats as soon as their loads were emptied, so that no retreat could be\npossible. One thousand Janissaries were embarked in ten large barges,\nbut nine of these were sunk by the artillery fire from the forts. On\nthe other side of the defences a large attacking column was completely\nrouted. The loss to the Turks this day was 3,000 men, that of the\ngarrison 250.\n\nAnd so the siege went on; attack after attack, with but small success\nto the investing army. But the heroic defenders suffered increasingly\nunder the constant strain, and both armies were exhausted, the Turks\nlosing 800 men from dysentery alone. To such an extent was this true\nthat when the Turkish officers drove their soldiers to the charge by\nblows of their own swords, it was but necessary to cut down those who\nled the charges, when the rest would turn and fly.\n\nAnd now came other long expected reinforcements from Sicily, when a\nfleet landed 8,500 men and returned for 4,000 more. Being now quite\nunequal to the continuation of the siege the Turks evacuated all the\nground they had gained, and finally made a hasty and complete flight,\nharassed in every way, in their endeavors to escape, by the now\nvictorious garrison.\n\nThe losses during the period of siege, with its numerous engagements,\nwere estimated at some 30,000 Turks, and 8,000 men and 260 Knights of\nthe Order. Is it strange that by contributions from all over Christian\nEurope there was soon built up a town bearing the name of Valetta, thus\ncommemorating the heroism and military prowess of the Order's Grand\nMaster La Valette, as well as the \"glorious issue\" of the struggle for\nMalta, and the confirmation of the Order as a sovereign independent\ncommunity?\n\nThus secured from further probable struggle this city of Valetta\nacquired a certain degree of glory, later even of magnificence.\nFrom all parts of Europe, wherever any commandery of the Order was\nmaintained, was paid tribute to the Grand Master, as may be adjudged\neven to-day, long after French rapacity had robbed the city of many of\nits treasures. Individual Knights vied with each other in their gifts,\nand palaces arose wherein were received the envoys and even ambassadors\nof foreign courts. The fleet was constantly busied in clearing the\nMediterranean of Moslem and other pirates, and many Christians were\nreleased from the galleys in which they had been chained to the oars.\n\nIn this restoration the English langue took a rather small part, and\ntheir officers and members had often to be rebuked or punished for\ninsubordination or worse crimes. The Reformation in England interfered,\nand furnished some reason for their diminishing zeal. The galleys of\nthe Order became more and more like pleasure boats, and many of their\ncruises were in effect pleasure excursions. Later in their decadence\ntheir adventures became more like piratical incursions, until, under\nletters of marque issued by a decadent Admiralty, the Malta privateer\nwas equivalent to the pirate. (Maroyat). These facts were scarcely\noffset by that other, that the last fleet of the Order, which left\nValetta in 1783, was sent to the relief of earthquake sufferers in\nSicily.\n\nWith regard to their activities in the matter of succoring the sick let\nit be noted that the Knights found on their arrival at Malta a hospital\nor hospice already existing. In the buildings of a nunnery still\nstanding may be seen the gateway of their own first hospital. In 1575\nthey erected one much larger, which had a passageway connected with\nthe waterfront, so that patients could be brought directly from the\nships. This building in some part still remains in use as a military\nhospital. Its great ward is 500 feet in length, and 30 feet high,\ndivided by partitions 15 feet in height. In its best days patients were\nserved from silver utensils. It was under the charge of the Regent\nof the French Knights, who had as his staff five doctors and three\napothecaries. Other knights and servants acted as male nurses. The\nknights were luxuriously cared for, and 150 beds were always in reserve\nfor those returning from expeditions who might need them.\n\nIn 1796, only a year before the disintegration of the Order began, the\npatients numbered from 350 to 400. There existed also a hospital for\nwomen, with 230 beds, and a foundling hospital where some fifty waifs\nwere sheltered.\n\nA curious bit of history connecting the middle ages with the more\nrecent past relates to the hospital interests of the Order. The nobles\nof Dauphigny had founded a fraternity of Hospitallers for the relief\nof sufferers from St. Anthony's fire (erysipelas), which was erected\ninto the regular Antoine order in 1218. About 550 years later, or to be\nexact in 1777, a compact was made by which the Order of St. John took\nover their property, under certain conditions, which involved, among\nother considerations, a larger expenditure. The Antonine estates, in\nFrance and Savoy, were confiscated in 1792, thus entailing a tremendous\nloss to the Order, so great, in fact that the Valetta treasury became\ninsolvent. (Bedford). From this time we may date the rapid downfall of\nthe Order. Malcontents and traitors gained the supremacy, and in 1798,\nafter treacherous negotiations, Napoleon landed part of his army in\nMalta, and Valetta surrendered.\n\nThus, as Bartlett says, \"ignominiously came to a close, on June 12th,\n1798, the once illustrious Order of St. John of Jerusalem, having\nsubsisted for more than 700 years.\"\n\nAt this time it consisted of 328 enrolled knights, and a military force\nof some 7,000 men.\n\nNapoleon expressed his surprise at the strength of the fortifications,\nfurnished them with one thousand cannon, left a garrison of 3,000\nmen, took with him the disciplined soldiers he found there, rifled\nthe island of its treasures, its art work and its bullion, and sailed\nfor Egypt. Several of the traitor knights were put to death by the\ninfuriated populace, whose anger was not appeased by Nelson's victory\nat Aboukir--the battle of the Nile--but took form in open insurrection.\nThe French garrison finally took refuge in the old fortifications,\nwhere they withstood for two years a siege by the combined insurgents\nand an English fleet. Finally reduced by famine and disease they\ncapitulated to the English forces under Gen. Pigot. The latter then\nselected Capt. Sir Alexander Ball, Nelson's representative, Governor of\nthe Island. At the Peace of Amiens the effort was made to restore the\nOrder as ruling authority, under the protectorate of the Great Powers,\nbut the Maltese themselves objected so vehemently that after no small\namount of trouble and dispute the inhabitants of the island elected to\nplace themselves under the sovereignty of Great Britain, an arrangement\nfinally and definitely confirmed at the Congress of Vienna in 1814.\n\nThus disappeared from history one of the most interesting and longest\nenduring institutions recorded in its pages, and certainly the most\nlong-lived of any of its kind. I say disappeared, meaning thereby only\nto indicate its disruption, as it were into fragments, its primary\npurpose, i. e. aid to the needy, being kept ever in view by some, while\nothers preferring the life of a soldier, took service under various\nrulers or military leaders. The traitors who were responsible for\nsurrender to Napoleon fared badly according to their deserts, though\nit does not appear that any of them were hung. In the migration England\nseemed to attract many, perhaps the majority of those who were still\ninclined to good deeds. The title of Grand Master was still continued,\nunder some pretension to perpetuation of the Order. In Russia the Czar\nAlexander, in 1801, upon the death of his predecessor Paul, announced\nhimself a Protector of the Order, and designated Count Soltikoff to\nexercise the functions of the Grand Master.\n\nThus dismembered, disunited and scattered, the fragmentary langues\nof the Order underwent, on their way to final dissolution, various\nvicissitudes, through which they cannot here be followed. Complete\nextinguishment was the eventual fate of most of them. I shall only\nconcern myself now with that of the English langue, and its partial\nrevival in 1830.\n\nRev. Dr. Peat, chaplain to George IV, was one of those to whom the\nremnants of the English langue appealed, with the result that in 1827\ncertain notable English gentry, of eminent attainments, undertook to\nrevive the Order in England, only under quite different conditions from\nthose previously obtaining. In 1831 Dr. Peat was invested with the\nauthority and functions of Grand Prior. It will be at once seen how the\nmatter of religious belief now separated the English Order from all the\nsurvivors of the previous regime, and why the last ties were severed.\n\nUnder the new regime members of the Order dropped all pretense of\nplaying a military role; one may read thereafter of real hospital\nactivity. The Life Boat movement and ambulance work were gradually\nincorporated into their plans and scope. When First Aid to the Injured\nbegan to be publicly taught public and general interest was quickly\naroused, and the energetic cooperation of eminent men was assured. In\nother words the Order gradually took up just that class of work which\nis now done under the Red Cross. Sir Edward Lechmere established, in\n1867, a commandery of the Order in one of his castles, and in 1874\nwas instrumental in the acquisition of the St. John Gate, which still\nstands, an example of Tudor architecture as also a well preserved\nmonumental relic of the time, beginning about 1180, when the Order had\nfounded a hospital in Clerkenwell, while the ladies of the order were\nhoused in Bucland, in Somersetshire. The old Priory of the Order in\nClerkenwell was practically destroyed in 1381, by the mob led by Jack\nStraw, in an insurrection which had, along with other results, as an\nincident, the beheading of Sir Robert Hales, the Prior of the Order. In\nthe slow process of rebuilding the present Gate was not completed till\n1504. On the North and South fronts remain projecting towers, while in\nthe Western tower a spiral stair case is still in use. Bedford's work,\nfrom which I have drawn heavily, gives excellent pictures of the Gate\nas it appears to-day, and of the old priory restored.\n\nColonel Duncan, also, deserves honorable mention in this connection;\nhe became Director of the Ambulance Movement in 1875. Finally we have\nto record here that under a new Charter, granted in 1888, the then\nPrince of Wales, later King Edward, became the Grand Prior. Therefore\nthe Order of the Hospital, in England of St. John of Jerusalem is, in\nfact, the legitimate successor--one might say the lineal descendant--of\nthe old Order of Knights Hospitaller, though it is to-day a secular and\nvoluntary society, keeping to the traditions of the past, no longer\nmilitary nor militant, save as it fights disease and best of all\nteaches others how to do the same. To follow it further is no longer\nnecessary. Its work is essentially that of the Red Cross. It has, for\ninstance, a depot at old St. John's Gate, whence all the material\nrequired in teaching and illustrating as well as rendering first aid is\nissued. Its work was begun with a two-wheeled litter, an old Esmarch\ntriangular bandage from Germany, and a stretcher from France. Now it\ndistributes all these things throughout the British Empire. Now, too,\nit maintains ambulances all over the city of London, which do for\ntheir own hospitals just what each of our hospitals at home has to\ndo for itself. The German \"Samariter-Verein\" is virtually a Chapter\nof the English Order in its revivified form. In 1883 a branch of the\nOrder was organized in India, where among others the native police are\ninstructed in \"First Aid.\" In 1882, by a Firman of the Turkish Sultan,\nan Ophthalmic Hospital was opened, under the auspices of the Order, in\nJerusalem. Only those who have travelled in the East can appreciate\nwhat this means to the poor, where squalor vies with ignorance, and, as\nin Egypt though not so universally, both conspire to the ruin of that\ngreatest of all blessings--eyesight.\n\nBut I will not delay to write further of what the Ambulance Brigade of\nLondon, and its affiliated corps, have accomplished in many parts of\nthe world; in South Africa, for example, it works under the general\nsupervision of the Order of St. John, as it now exists in London.\nIt does everything that in our country is accomplished by the Red\nCross for the general public, and by the Hospital Corps and their\nMedical Officers for our Army and Navy. Over the graves of eleven\nmembers of the brigade, who died at their posts in South Africa, in\nSt. Paul's, London, not far from the crypts where lie the remains of\nNelson and Wellington, has been erected a monument to their memory.\nAnother bearing among other inscriptions this beautiful scriptural\nquotation:--\"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his\nlife for his friends,\" was unveiled by His Royal Highness, acting\nas Grand Prior, in St. John's Church, Clerkenwell, June 11th, 1902.\nFifteen hundred men enrolled in the Order had left that church before\ntheir departure for the Front, and of these about seventy sacrificed\ntheir lives to this sort of duty. Do not the dead deserve all praise\nand respect, and the survivors all commendation?\n\nA few years ago my friend Sir George Beatson, surgeon to the Royal\nInfirmary in Glasgow, published a little monograph--\"The Knights\nHospitallers in Scotland and their Priory at Torphichen\" (Printed by\nHedderwick and Sons, Glasgow,)--which aroused my interest sufficiently\nto prompt a visit to this, the last home of the old Order in that\npart of the world. The little village Torphichen lies about midway\nbetween Glasgow and Edinburgh, and three miles south from the town of\nLlinlithgow. Here had been founded, in 1124, one of the great Priories\nor Preceptories under control of the English _langue_. Here they\nsettled in a magnificent and fertile area, the Grampian hills to their\nnorth; to their west could be seen the snow-capped top of what is now\nknown as Ben Lomond. By donation, by cultivation of the arable soil,\nand by wise management of their resources, they prospered greatly, from\nthe worldly point of view. Here they erected that building, a part of\nwhich still exists, and which makes a picturesque ruin which is not yet\na scene of desolation.\n\nThe members of the Order took, here as elsewhere, the view that the\nbest way to serve God was by _remaining in it_ and working, not by\n_fleeing from it_ into lazy, selfish and profitless solitude as did too\nmany of the monks.\n\nIn common with other monasteries the Torphichen Preceptory possessed\nthe Right of Sanctuary, and in its churchyard still stands the short\nstone pillar, carved with a Maltese cross on its upper surface,\nwhich meant that within a mile in every direction therefrom all\nthose charged with any crime, save murder only, might find temporary\nprotection.\n\nHere for four hundred years, and until the Reformation upset\neverything, the Hospitallers carried on their affairs. In 1560 their\nlast Preceptor or Grand Prior made over to the Crown all their\nproperties and effects. The Crown in return made these possessions a\ntemporal Barony, carrying with it the title of Lord of Torphichen. From\nthis time the property began to suffer--from time, storm, vandalism of\nthe people and neglect. Still the present Lord Torphichen has proven\nhimself a better guardian than did some of his predecessors. A parish\nchurch has been built, partly upon the sight of the old structure,\npartly into it. Dr. Beatson has urged that a combination between the\npresent Order of St. John, in London, and the St. Andrew's Ambulance\nAssociation might be effected which might work to the benefit of both,\nby reviving some of the work done here in days gone by.\n\nI have ventured this brief reference to Torphichen, partly because\nof my interest in the place itself, associated with my visit there,\nand partly because every such visit to the monuments of past grandeur\nand usefulness should strengthen our interest and zeal in what man is\naccomplishing to-day, and should help link together the Past and the\nPresent in a manner not merely fascinating but inspirational, and keep\nus from forgetting that motto of the Order,\n\n    \"Pro utilitate Hominum\"\n    For the Welfare of Mankind.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nGIORDANO BRUNO\n\n\nThe Renaissance was the fourth of the great events in the history of\nthe Christian Era; the first being the decline of Rome, the second the\nintroduction of the Christian cult, and the third, the intrusion into\nSouthern Europe of the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes. With none of these\nhowever, save the fourth, is this paper primarily concerned, and not\neven with the fourth save indirectly, though it deals with a special\nfeature of it. Protestants and Catholics alike impeded progress and\nthe self-evolution of reason in every possible way. Italy gave the\nworld the Roman Republic, then the Roman Empire and finally the Roman\nChurch; after that arose a new storm centre in the North which swept\ntoward the Mediterranean. The Teutons effaced the Western Empire,\nadopted Christianity, and completely modified what remained of Latin\ncivilization. Then the Roman Bishops separated the Latin from the Greek\nChurch, and under the captious title of The Holy Roman Empire bound\nWestern Europe into what has been called a \"cohesive whole.\" While\nRomans and Teutons never actually blended homogeneously, they had\nyet a common bond of union. When this coalition was for a time freed\nfrom both Papacy and Empire--then began intellectual activity and\nindependence of thought, taking form in Italy as the Renaissance; in\nGermany as the Reformation. In the South it was known as the Revival\nof Learning. It furnished a _lux a non lucendo_. Italy gave freedom\nrather to the mind, Germany rather to the soul. Toward the South men\nstill took refuge behind that form of modified paganism which became\nCatholicism. In the North they attained a more complete emancipation\nbecause of their violent opposition to the Papacy and all that went\nwith it.\n\nIn the long run both attained the same result, i. e., liberation of\nthe mind from artificial impediments and fetters, though they of the\nNorth achieved it in its full extent far earlier. (I am speaking of\ncourse, relatively; men's minds are far from free even today, but the\nstate we have reached is a great advance upon that of Bruno's time).\nThe Reformation led men to be far more outspoken than they dared be in\nthe South; the free thinkers of Italy were still content to do homage\nto a thoroughly corrupt Papal hierarchy. As critics and warriors Luther\nand Calvin rank as liberators of the human mind, but later, as founders\nof mutually hostile sects, they only retarded civilization, and the\nchurches they founded are today as stagnant pools.\n\nIn 1548, in the midst of this stormy period in Italian history Bruno\nwas born, in the little village of Nola, not far from Naples, whence\nVesuvius was visible in the picturesque distance. His father was a\nsoldier, his mother of very humble origin. Of his family history\nnothing is known; little explanation is thus afforded, by the doctrine\nof heredity, for the marvelous mental faculties which he subsequently\ndisplayed. Nevertheless his father was a man of some culture, at\nleast, for he was a friend of Tansillo, a poet, under whose influence\nthe growing boy subsequently came. Bruno has told us himself how one\nSavolino (probably an uncle) annually confessed his sins to his Cur\u00e9,\nof which \"though many and great\" his boon companion readily absolved\nhim. But only once was full confession necessary; each subsequent\nyear Savolino would say: \"Padre mio, the sins of a year--to-day,--you\nmay know them;\" to which the Cur\u00e9 would reply \"son, thou knowest the\nabsolution of one year ago;--go in peace, and sin no more.\"\n\nIn those days as in many others superstition was everywhere rife and\neffective. Its influence must not be disregarded as one studies the\nformation of Bruno's character.\n\nWhen he was about eleven years old Bruno was sent to Naples to be\ntaught logic, dialectics and humanities. When fifteen he entered the\nDominican Monastery in Naples, and assumed the clerical habit of that\norder. Here he gave up his baptismal name of Filippo and assumed that\nof Giordano, according to the monastic custom. In 1572 he was ordained\npriest.\n\nHis reasons for thus entering the Church are scarcely far to seek. Of\nintellectual bent, and studious rather than martial in his habits and\ninclinations, there was but one career open to him. To be sure the\nDominican Order was the most narrow and most bigoted of all, as the\ncurrent punning expression \"_Domini canes_\" will indicate. Still it was\nat that time the most powerful, especially in the kingdom of Naples,\nwhich was then ruled by Spain. The old cloister had been once the home\nof St. Thomas Aquinas, whose works Bruno claimed at his trial he had\nalways by him, \"continually reading, studying and restudying them, and\nholding them dear.\"\n\nThis was the age when efforts to put down every heresy had been\nredoubled. The fanaticism of Loyola, and the decision of the Council of\nTrent \"to erase with fire and sword the slightest traces of heresy,\"\nmade a poor frame work in which to place the picture of a liberal\nminded scholar. Bruno soon learned this at his cost. Even during his\nnovitiate he was accused of giving away images of the saints, and\nof giving bad advice to his associates. In 1576 he was accused of\napologizing for the heresy of Arius, that the Son was begotten of the\nFather, and so not consubstantial nor coeternal with Him, but created\nby Him and subordinate to Him; (which was condemned by the Council\nof Nice, 325, and contradicted in the Nicene Creed;) admiring its\nscholastic form, rather than its abstract truth. Disgusted with his\ntreatment he left Naples and went to Rome. Even here he was molested\nin the Cloister of Minerva (note the pagan name), and was met with\nan accusation of 130 specifications. He then abandoned his garb and\nhis cloister and escaped from Rome, beginning thus the nomadic life\nwhich he continued until immured in the dungeons of the Inquisition at\nVenice, sixteen years later. Through these wanderings one must follow\nhim, if one would become familiar with his life and traits.\n\nHe now resumed for a time his baptismal name, and traveled to a town on\nthe Gulf of Genoa, where he taught youth and young gentlemen. Then he\npassed on to Turin and Venice, where he spent weeks in futile attempts\nto find work. But the schools and the printing houses were closed\nbecause of the plague. In Venice however he managed to print his first\nbook on \"The Signs of the Times;\" or rather this was his first book to\nappear in print. It seems that before he left Naples he wrote \"The Ark\nof Noah,\" a satirical allegory. In this he represented that the animals\nheld a formal meeting in the Ark, to settle questions of precedence\nand rank, and that the presiding officer, the Ass, was in danger of\nlosing his position and his influence, because his power lay rather in\nhoofs than horns. Throughout most of his life Bruno constantly scored\nand criticised Asinity; it was frequently the topic of his invective,\nand those who read between his lines were probably quite justified in\nregarding these frequent allusions as references to the ignorance,\nbigotry and credulity of the Monks.\n\nFrom Venice Bruno went to Padua, where some of the Dominican friars\npersuaded him to resume monastic costume, since it made travel easier\nand safer. Thence by way of Brescia and Milan he may be followed to\nBergamo. At Milan he first heard of his future friend Sir Philip\nSydney. From Bergamo he resolved to go to Lyons, but learning that he\nwould find anything but welcome there he turned aside and crossed the\nAlps, arriving in Geneva in the Spring of 1579. Here he was visited by\na distinguished Neapolitan exile, the Marquis De Vico, who persuaded\nhim again to lay aside his clerical garb, and who gave him the dress of\na gentleman, including a sword.\n\nHere is raised the great question,--Did Bruno adopt Calvinism? Before\nthe Inquisition fifteen years later he practically denied this, yet\nacknowledged attending the lectures of Balbani, of Lucca, as well as\nof others who taught and preached in Geneva. Under the regulations of\nthe Academy (University), where he had already registered, certain\nregulations must be complied with, and Bruno appears to have obeyed\nthem in at least a certain degree. But the immediate cause for his\ndeparture from Geneva appears to have been one of his outbreaks of\ncynicism and accurate scholarship, since in 1579 he was called before\nthe Council for having caused to be printed a document enumerating\ntwenty errors made by the Professor of Philosophy (de la Faye) in one\nof his lectures. The latter was incensed and outraged at this criticism\nand disparagement of his views and learning, and the quarrel assumed\nunexpected magnitude, since Bruno, on his second appearance before the\nConsistory or supreme tribunal of the Church, denied the charges and\ncalled the ministers \"pedagogues.\" These gentlemen decided to refuse\nhim communion unless he should confess and repent of his faults and\nmake due apology. His acceptance of these conditions not being hearty\nenough to suit his judges, he was admonished and excluded from the\ncommunion. These steps lead to greater contrition on his part, and the\nban of excommunication was withdrawn. This sentence of exclusion was\nthe only one within the power of the Consistory to pass, but does not\nprove that Bruno had accepted the protestant faith, nor partaken of its\ncommunion. In fact at his trial he steadfastly denied this. It seemed\nhowever, to disgust him with Calvinism, against which thereafter he\nnever ceased to inveigh. Later he contrasted it with Lutheranism which\nwas far more tolerant, and still later gave him a heartier welcome.\nCalvin, it must be remembered, had written a polemic against Servetus,\n\"in which it is shown to be lawful to coerce heretics by the sword.\"\nAs between the council of Trent and Calvin it certainly must have been\nhard, in those days, to select either a faith, or an abiding place\nwhere that faith might be peaceably practised. Doubtless Bruno's views\nconcerning the philosophy of Aristotle conflicted with those of the\nchurch authorities, for Beza (Calvin's follower), had stated that they\ndid not propose to swerve one particle from the opinions of that Greek\nphilosopher, to whom, though of pagan origin, the Church, both Roman\nand Protestant, was for centuries so firmly bound.\n\nAnd so shaking the dust of Geneva from his feet he journeyed to Lyons,\nwhere he failed utterly to find occupation, and then on to Toulouse,\nwhere he remained about two years. Here he took a Doctorate in Theology\nin order to compete for a vacant chair. To this he was elected by\nthe students, as the custom then was in most of the _scholia_ or\nuniversities. For two sessions he lectured on Aristotle. Had this\nUniversity required of him that he should attend mass, as did some\nothers, he could not have done so, owing to his excommunication;\nthough just why exclusion from a Calvinistic academy should debar him\nfrom Catholic mass does not appear. Toulouse was a _warm_ place for\nheretics; the burning of 14,000 of them at its capture will prove\nthis. A few years (35) after he left it Vanini was burned for heretic\nnotions. It is hardly to be believed that Bruno could pass two years\nor more here without controversies arising from his teaching. But his\nnominal reason for leaving, in 1581, and going to Paris, was the war\nthen raging in Southern France, under Henry of Navarre.\n\nBefore leaving Toulouse he completed his \"_Clavis Magna_\" or \"Great\nKey,\" the last word--as he seemed to think--on the art of memory. Only\none volume of this great work, which, in his peculiarly egotistical\nway, he said is \"superlatively pregnant,\" was ever published, and that\nin England, the \"_Sigillus Sigillorum_.\" It must not be forgotten that\nit was on both teaching and practising this art of memory that Bruno,\nthroughout his career, prided himself. He was even not averse, at least\nat certain periods of his career, to the belief that he had some secret\nsystem for this purpose, or even received occult aid. But when summoned\nbefore Henry III, to whose ears had come his fame, and asked whether\nthe memory he had and the art he professed were natural or due to\nmagic, he proved that a good memory was a cultivated natural product.\nHe then dedicated to the King a book on \"_The Art of Memory_.\"\n\nBut this was shortly after his arrival in Paris, in 1581, where he\nquickly became famous. A course of thirty lectures on \"_The Thirty\nDivine Attributes_\" of St. Thomas Aquinas would have given him a chair,\ncould he have attended mass.\n\nHis residence in Paris was marked by an extraordinary literary\nactivity. He published in succession _De Umbris Idearum_ (Shadow of\nIdeas), dedicated to Henry III, (this included the Art of Memory\njust mentioned) _Cantus Circaeus_ (Incantation of Circe) dedicated\nto Prince Henry; _De Compendiosa Architectura et Complemento Artis\nLulli_ (Compendious Architecture); _Il Candelaio_ (The Torchbearer);\nthese all appeared in 1582. These varied greatly in character. The\nfirst was devoted to the metaphysics of the art of remembering, with\nan analysis of that faculty, and these second was given up to the\nsame general topic. It was all obscure, hence perhaps its popularity.\nBrunnhofer says that it was \"a convenient means of introducing Bruno\nto strange universities, gaining him favor with the great, or helping\nhim out of pressing need of money. It was his exoteric philosophy with\nwhich he could carefully drape the philosophy of a religion hostile\nto the Church, and ride as a hobby horse in his unfruitful humors.\"\nNevertheless we must believe in his sincerity. The \"Compendious\nArchitecture\" is the first of his works in which Bruno deals with the\nviews of Raymond Lully, a \"logical calculus and mnemonic scheme in one\"\n(McIntyre) that had many imitators. For Lully Bruno seems to have the\ngreatest regard, this appearing in many ways. Lully, by the way, was a\nSpanish scholastic and alchemist, who was born on one of the Balearic\nIslands in 1235. He went as a missionary to the Mahommedans, and spent\nmuch time in Asia and Africa. He figures largely in the history of the\nalchemists and as a practitioner of the occult.\n\nThe \"Torchbearer\" was a work of very different character. It was\ndescribed as a \"Comedy\" by one who described himself as \"Academico di\nnulla academia, ditto il fastidito: In tristitia hilaris, hilaritate\ntristis.\" It is essentially a satire on the predominant vices of\npedantry, superstition and selfishness or sordid love. Though lacking\nin dramatic power it is regarded as second to nothing of its kind and\ntime. Its _dramatis personae_ are personified types, not individuals.\nIt was realistic even in its vulgarity, for obscenity was prevalent in\nthe literature of those days. But in it Bruno struck at what seemed to\nhim his greatest enemy, i. e. pedantry.\n\nThere were at this time in Paris two great Universities, one the\nCollege de France, with liberal tendencies, and opposed to the Jesuits\nand all pedantry; the other the Sorbonne, for centuries the guardian\nof the Catholic faith, endowed with the right of censorship, which\nmust have been exercised over Bruno's works. In which of these, though\nsurely in one of them, Bruno was made an Extraordinary Lecturer\nhistory has failed to record. He must have offended both, since he was\nanxious to be taken back into the Church, yet was revolutionary in his\nteaching. More than thirty years later Nostitz, one of his pupils,\npaid tribute to his versatility and skill, saying \"he was able to\ndiscourse impromptu on any suggested subject, to speak extensively and\nelaborately without preparation, so that he attracted many pupils and\nadmirers in Paris.\" (McIntyre). But Bruno belonged to the literally\nperipatetic school, and in 1583 he forsook Paris for London, because as\nhe says of \"tumults,\" leaving it to the imagination whether these were\ncivil or scholastic.\n\nElizabeth reigned at this time; her influence made England a harbor\nof safety for religious and other mental suspects. She had a penchant\nfor Italians and their language; two of her physicians were Italians,\nand Florio was ever welcome at her court. To this court Bruno also\nwas welcomed, and, basking for sometime in the sunshine of her regard\nand patronage, passed there the happiest portion of his unhappy life.\nOxford was at that time the stronghold of Aristotelianism. One of\nits statutes ordained that \"Bachelors and Masters who did not follow\nAristotle faithfully were liable to a fine of five shillings for every\npoint of divergence, and for every fault committed against the Logic\nof the Organon.\" (McIntyre). In Oxford at this time, unfortunately,\ntheology was the only live issue; of science as of real scholarship\nthere was little or none. (Its predominant trait of those days is\nstill, perhaps, its dominant feature to-day). To this university Bruno\naddressed a letter, couched in vainglorious and egotistical terms,\ncraving permission to lecture there. This was not received with favor,\nwhile his doctrines met with small encouragement at this ancient seat\nof learning, which Bruno later stigmatized as the \"widow of true\nscience.\" But opportunity was afforded him to dispute publicly before\na noble visitor in June, 1583, a Polish prince; one Alasco, for whom\ngreat public entertainment had been provided. His opponent, defeated by\nfifteen unanswerable syllogisms, resorted to scurrility and abuse. This\npublic exhibition put an end to the lectures on the Immortality of the\nSoul which Bruno had been allowed to give, and he returned to London.\n\nShortly after this he published his _Cena_ (Ash Wednesday Supper)\nin which he ridiculed the Oxford doctors, saying among other things\nthat they were much better acquainted with beer than with Greek. But\nhe criticised too cynically and lost thereby in popularity. This\nled to the appearance of the _Causa_, a dialogue, in which he was\nless vindictive. He admitted in this that there was much in the old\ninstitution which was admirable; that it was even the first in Europe,\nthat speculative philosophy first flourished there, and that thence,\n\"the splendor of one of the noblest and rarest spheres of philosophy,\nin our times almost extinct, was diffused to all other academies in\ncivilized lands.\" What he most condemned was the too great attention\ngiven to language and words while the realistics for which words\nstand were neglected. Doctors were easily made and doctorates too\ncheaply bought. His charge in brief was that they mistook the shadow\nfor the substance; a charge even yet too commonly justified among the\nstrongholds of theology and other speculative dogmas.\n\nReturning to London after this experience Bruno went to live with\nMauvissiere, the French Ambassador. While the English records make no\nmention of his presence it is yet quite certain that he was frequently\nat Court, and that men like Sydney, Greville, Temple and others were\nhis frequent associates. But as the Ambassador's influence was on the\nwane, he was not equal to his great trust. At this time our philosopher\nspoke of himself as one \"whom the foolish hate, the ignoble despise,\nwhom the wise love, the learned admire,\" etc. (McIntyre). Of Queen\nElizabeth he wrote in most fulsome phrases, such as she too dearly\nloved. Before his judges, a few years later, Bruno apologized for his\nexaggerated expressions concerning a Protestant ruler, claiming that\nwhen he spoke of her as \"divine\" he meant it not as a term of worship,\nbut as an epithet like those which the ancients bestowed upon their\nrulers; claiming further that he knew he erred in thus praising a\nheretic.\n\nBruno published seven works in England. The first was \"_Explicatio\ntriginta Sigillorum_,\" the Thirty Seals thus explained being hints for\nacquiring, arranging and remembering all arts and sciences. To it was\nadded his _Sigillus Sigillorum_ for comparing and explaining all mental\noperations. Then came an Italian dialogue \"_La Cena de le Ceneri_\" or\nAsh Wednesday Supper. This was written in praise and extension of the\nCopernican theory, indeed quite exceeding it in teaching the identity\nof matter, the infinity of the universe, the possibility of life on\nother spheres, with a painstaking attempt to show that these notions\ndo not conflict with those of Mother Church. Next came \"_De Causa,\nPrincipio et Uno_.\" (Cause, Principle and Unity). This treated of the\nimmanence of spirit, the eternity of matter, the potential divinity\nof life, the origin of sin and death, and many other similar abstruse\ntopics. It was followed by _De l'Infinito Universo ed Mondi_, with\nnumerous reasons for believing the universe to be infinite and full of\ninnumerable worlds, with the divine essence everywhere pervading.\n\nAll these works appeared in 1583. In 1584 appeared his \"_Spacio de la\nBestia Triofante_\" or Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast. In this prose\npoem Jupiter, repenting his errors, resolves to expel the many beasts\nthat occupy his heavenly sphere--the constellations--and to substitute\nfor them the virtues. In the council of the gods convened by him many\nsubjects are discussed, among them the history of religions, the\ncontrasts between natural and revealed religions and the fundamental\nforms of morality. In this allegory Jupiter represents of course\nthe human spirit; the Bear, the Scorpion, etc., are the vices to be\nexpelled. Unfortunately the book was quite generally regarded as\nattack upon the Church or the Pope, though what he really struck at\nwas the credulity of mankind. It was dedicated to Sir Philip Sydney.\nThen came his \"_Cabala del Cavallo Pegasio_\" or Cabal, dedicated to a\nsuppositious Bishop who was made to impersonate the spirit of ignorance\nand sloth. It is a mordant satire on Asinity, including credulity and\nunquestioning faith. After this he dedicated another work to Sidney.\n\"_Degl' Heroici Furori_\" (Enthusiasms of the Noble), a collection of\nsonnets with prose commentaries, like Dante's _Vita Nuova_, touching\non the love for spiritual beauty arising from that for physical beauty\nattaining a climax in a sort of ecstasy by union with the divine. These\nsonnets possess a very high literary value aside from their other\ninterest.\n\nWhen his ambassadorial patron was recalled Bruno probably returned\nto Paris with him, during the latter part of 1585. Here he spent a\nyear amidst constant turmoil and excitement, and at his own expense.\nThough he attempted reconciliation with the Church he was regarded as\nan apostate. He held one more public disputation in which he advanced\none hundred and twenty theses against the teaching of the Sorbonne,\nhis side being taken by its rival, the College de France. The outcome\ncannot have been brilliantly favorable, since he soon after left Paris,\nin June, 1586. The collection of charges above alluded to was published\nin Paris after Bruno's departure, and again in Wittenberg, under the\ntitle \"_Excubitor_\" (The Ambassador). It was an arraignment of the\nAristotelians, based on the words of that great master himself. Bruno\nclaimed the same right to criticise Aristotle that the latter claimed\nto criticise his predecessors. In it Bruno says, \"It is a poor mind\nthat will think with the multitude because it is a multitude; truth is\nnot altered by the opinions of the vulgar or the confirmation of the\nmany;\"--and again--\"it is more blessed to be wise in truth in face of\nopinion than to be wise in opinion in face of truth.\" (McIntyre, p. 50).\n\nIn addition to this Bruno had also published, before leaving Paris, a\ncommentary on the Physics of Aristotle.\n\nTarrying somewhat by the wayside Bruno reached Wittenberg, where,\nin 1586, he matriculated at its University, Marburg having curtly\nrejected him. Describing him here McIntyre styles him the \"Knight\nErrant of Philosophy.\" Here Lutheranism dominated the theological\nfaculty, while the philosophical faculty was dominated by Calvinism;\nviews concerning the person of Christ, the \"Real Presence,\" and the\ndoctrine of Predestination keeping them apart in spite of Melancthon's\nattempt to reunite the two factions. From the Lutheran party Bruno\nobtained permission to lecture, and so for two years he taught from\nthe Organon of Aristotle, as well as the writings of Raymond Lulli.\nTo the University senate he dedicated a work on Lulli, \"_De Lampade\nCombinatoria Lulliana_,\" whose chief purpose was to teach one how\nto find \"an indefinite number of propositions and middle terms for\nspeaking and arguing.\" He regarded it as the only key to the Lullian\nwritings, as well as a clue to a great many of the mysteries of the\nPythagoreans and Cabalists. It was soon followed by \"_De Progressu\net Lampade Venatoria Logicorum_,\" intended to enable one to \"dispute\npromptly and copiously on any subject.\"\n\nBut again fate compelled a change of residence, for the Calvanistic\nand Ducal party gained in political ascendancy, to which party Bruno,\nas a Copernican, would have appeared as a heretic. After delivering\nan eloquent address of farewell he moved on, his next abiding place\nbeing Prague, where Rudolph II, of Bohemia, was posing as the friend\nof all learned men. Here he already had friends at court, and here\nhe introduced himself with another Lullian work. To the Emperor he\nnext dedicated a work of iconoclastic type, \"One hundred and sixty\narticles against the mathematicians and philosophers of the day.\" For\nthis the Emperor granted him the sum of three hundred dollars, and in\nJanuary, 1589, he shifted again to Helmstadt, in Brunswick, where he\nmatriculated again in the then youngest of the German Universities.\nThis had been founded only twelve years before by Duke Julius, who\nwas extremely liberal in his views, and intended to found a model\ninstitution, in which theology should not play too dominant a part. But\nwhile he received here a certain recognition fate again sported with\nhim, for the Duke died four months after his arrival. Bruno obtained\npermission to pronounce a funeral oration, desiring to express his\ngratitude to the memory of one who had opened such an institution, so\nfree to all lovers of the Muses and to exiles like himself, who were\nhere protected from the greedy maw of the Roman wolf, whereas in Italy\nhe had been chained to a superstitious cult. It was full of allusions\nto the papal tyranny which was infecting the world with the rankest\npoison of ignorance and vice.\n\nThe fatuous simplicity and the worldly blindness which Bruno displayed,\nin ever setting foot inside of Italian or papal territory after the\ndelivery of this _Oratio Consolatoria_, may in one way be appreciated\nbut never understood or explained. Moreover he had made himself\n_persona non grata_ as well to the Protestants, who were scarcely\nmore liberal than the Catholics. It appears that the great Boethius,\nsuperintendent of the Church at Helmstadt, had acted both as judge\nand executioner, and publicly excommunicated Bruno without a hearing,\nsince there is extant a letter appealing from his arbitrary judgment\nand malice. The grounds for this judgment were never made clear,\nsince no attention was ever paid to the appeal; but inasmuch as Bruno\nnever really joined the Protestant profession it must have been meant\nto inflict some species of social ostracism. Boethius had himself to\nbe suppressed later. But Bruno, finding too many enemies, left for\nFrankfort in 1590, \"in order to get two books printed.\"\n\nThese were his two great Latin Works, \"De Minimo\" and \"De Immenso,\" the\nintroduction to the latter being the \"De Monade.\" He worked at these\nwith his own hands. In the introduction to the former his publisher\nstated that before its final revision Bruno had been hurriedly called\naway by an unforseen chance. This sudden departure may have been due\nto a refusal of the town Council to permit his residence there, or it\nmay have been a call to Z\u00fcrich, where he spent a few months with one\nHainzel, who had a leaning toward the Black Arts. Bruno wrote for him\n\"_De Imaginum Compositione_,\" a manual of his Art of Memory. In this\nSwiss city he also dictated a work \"_Summa Terminorum Metaphysicorum_,\"\nwhich was not published until 1609, and then in Marburg. But Bruno\nreturned to Frankfort in 1591, where he obtained permission to\npublish his _De Minimo_. This work was on the \"three fold minimum\nand measurement, being the elements of three speculative and several\npractical sciences.\" This like the two next mentioned was a Latin poem,\nafter the fashion of Lucretius. The _De Monade, Numero et Figura_ dealt\nwith the Monad, and with the elements of a more esoteric science,\nwhile in the _De Immenso et Innumerabilibus_, the Immeasurable and\nInnumerable, he dealt with the Universe and the worlds. These three\npoems contain Bruno's complete philosophy of God and Nature.\n\nWhile thus staying in Frankfort for the second time Bruno was invited\nby a young Venetian patrician to pay him a visit, and become his\ntutor in those arts in which the philosopher excelled. It was the\nmost unfortunate event in Bruno's unhappy life when he accepted this\napparently tempting invitation. Mocenigo, his host, was of good family,\nbut shallow, vain, weak-minded and dishonest, with the fashionable\ntaste of his day for the black arts. It is quite possible that he\nwas moreover the tool of the Inquisition, which had long desired to\nentrap Bruno. It is probable moreover that the latter quite failed to\nappreciate how unenviably he was regarded by that Church to which he\nstill felt that he belonged. Furthermore Venice was then a Republic and\nfree, and he longed for his beloved Italy again.\n\nEn route to Venice he spent three months in Padua, teaching there and\ngathering around himself pupils, even in that short time. He had barely\nleft it when Galileo was invited there to teach; as Riehl has said,\n\"the creator of modern science following in the steps of its prophet.\"\n\nEarly in 1592 Bruno went to live in Mocenigo's house. Trouble soon\nbegan. Entirely apart in temperament and characteristics, they soon\ndisagreed. The pupil was deeply disappointed at not acquiring that\nmastery over the secrets of nature for which he had hoped, and found\nthat there was no quick way to acquire a retentive and replete memory.\nAnd so Mocenigo announced to his friend Ciotto, the bookseller, his\nintent to gain from Bruno all he could and then denounce him to the\nHoly Office. While others were thus conspiring against him Bruno\nwas writing a work on \"The Seven Liberal Arts\" and on \"Seven Other\nInventive Arts,\" intending to present it to the Pope, hoping thus to\nobtain absolution and be released from the ban of excommunication.\n\nWhen Bruno at last appreciated the dangers by which he was surrounded\nhe announced his intent to go again to Frankfort to have some of his\nbooks printed, and so took his leave of Mocenigo. On the following day,\nin May, 1592, Bruno was seized by six men, using force, who locked him\nin an upper story of Mocenigo's house. The next day he was transferred\nto an underground cellar, and the following night to the prison of the\nInquisition. May 23rd his former host denounced him, with a cunning and\nlying statement concerning some of his views and teachings. Thus he was\nreported as stating that Christ's miracles were only apparent, that He\nand the apostles were magicians, that the Catholic faith was full of\nblasphemies against God, that the Friars befouled the world and should\nnot be allowed to preach, that they were asses, and the doctrines of\nthe Church were asses' beliefs, etc. (McIntyre). This was followed\ntwo days later by a second denunciation in which Mocenigo went to a\ndiabolical extreme of deceit and hypocrisy; stating that all the time\nhe was entertaining Bruno he was promising himself to bring him before\nthe Holy Office. Within forty-eight hours the Holy Tribunal met to\nconsider the matter; before them appeared the book-sellers who had\nknown Bruno in Z\u00fcrich and Frankfort, and before them came Bruno in his\nown behalf, professing his entire willingness to tell the whole truth.\nWithin a few days Mocenigo made yet another deposition, denouncing\nBruno's statements about the infallible Church. On the following day\nBruno was again heard in his own defense, and appealed to the famous\nand fallacious doctrine of two-fold truth, acknowledging that he had\ntaught too much as a philosopher rather than as an honest man and\nChristian, and that he had based his teachings too much on sense and\nreason and not enough on faith;--so specious had become his argument\nwith the terrors of the Inquisition before him. He further claimed that\nhis intent had been not to impugn the faith but to exalt philosophy. He\nthen beautifully epitomized his own views, claiming that he believed\nin an infinite universe, in an infinite divine potency, holding it\nunworthy of an infinite power to create a finite world, when he could\nproduce so vast an infinity; with Pythagoras he regarded this world as\none of many stars,--innumerable worlds. This universe he held to be\ngoverned by a universal providence, existent in two forms;--one nature,\nthe shadow or footprint of deity, the other the ineffable essence of\nGod, always inexplicable. Concerning the triune Godhead he confessed\ncertain philosophic doubts as well as concerning the use of the term\n\"_persons_\" in these distinctions, while he quoted St. Augustine to\nthe same effect. The miracles he had always believed to be divine and\ngenuine; concerning the Holy Mass and the Transubstantiation he agreed\nwith the Church. As the days went by he became the more insistent upon\nhis orthodoxy. He condemned the heretic writings of Melancthon, Luther\nand Calvin, expressed respect for the writings of Lulli because of\ntheir philosophical bearings, while for St. Thomas Aquinas he had the\nmost profound regard.\n\nOther counts in the indictment which he had to face were his doubts\nconcerning the miracles, the sacraments and the incarnation, his\npraise of heretics and heretic princes and his familiarity with the\nmagic arts. He finally made a formal solemn abjuration of all the\nerrors he had ever committed, and the heresies he had ever uttered, or\ndoubts expressed or believed, praying only that the Holy Office would\nreceive him back into the Church where he might rest in peace. Further\nexaminations were held and the earlier processes against him in Naples\nand Rome recalled. After this there was a period of apparent quiet save\nthat he remained in prison. It is not known to what tortures he may\nhave been subjected, but it is recorded that he knelt before his judges\nasking their pardon, and God's, for all his faults, and professed\nhimself ready for any penance, apparently not yet realizing the fate\nin store for him.\n\nA little later it transpired that the Sacred Congregation of the\nSupreme Tribunal of the Holy Office, in Rome, desired to assume all\nfurther responsibility for the process against so distinguished a\nheretic. Accordingly the machinery of the Church was put in motion to\nthis end. Negotiations with the Venetian Republic, somewhat tedious\nand complicated, which need not detain us now, were at last concluded.\nJanuary 7, 1603, the Venetian procurator reported of Bruno that \"his\nfaults were exceedingly grave in respect of heresies, though in other\nrespects he was one of the most excellent and rarest natures, and\nof exquisite learning and knowledge,\" (McIntyre) but that the case\nwas of unusual gravity, Bruno not a Venetian subject, the Pope most\nanxious, etc. It was then decided to remit him to the Tribunal of the\nInquisition at Rome; whereat it is duly reported, the Pope was deeply\ngratified.\n\nTo Rome then he went and here he was lost, so far as documentary\nrecords go, for a period of six years. How to explain this fact and\nthis apparent clemency has bothered the biographers not a little.\nWhether this time was spent in an examination of his voluminous\nwritings, which would seem incredible, or whether the Dominicans\nlabored so long to procure his more absolute recantation in order\nto prevent scandal in and reflection on their order, or whether\nPope Clement himself regarded kindly--in some degree-- the great\nscholar who was so anxious to dedicate to him a _magnum opus_;--to\nthese queries history answereth not. The Dominicans pretended--years\nlater--to doubt if he ever had been put to death, or whether he\nhad ever really belonged to their order. These statements are too\ncharacteristic to provoke more than a sad smile.\n\nFinally matters were hastened to an end by the efforts of Fathers\nCommisario and Bellarmino; the latter being the zealous bigot who\ndecided that Copernicanism was a heresy, who later laid the indictment\nagainst Galileo. Through their machinations Bruno was, in February,\n1599, decreed on eight counts as a dangerous heretic, who might still\nadmit his heresies, and he was to be granted forty days in which to\nrecant and repent. But this period was stretched out some ten months,\nuntil December, when it was reported that Bruno refused to recant,\nhaving nothing to take back. Among the Tribunal at this time was San\nSeverino, fanatical, bitter because of his failure to secure the\npapacy, who had declared that St. Bartholomew's was \"a glorious day,\na day of joy for Catholics.\" It was decided that the high officers of\nthe Dominicans should make one last effort to compel or coax Bruno to\nabjure. This he declined to do, Whereupon, January 20th, 1600, it was\ndecreed that \"further measures be proceeded to, _servatis servandis_,\nthat sentence be passed, and that the said Friar Giordano be handed\nover to the secular authority.\" A few days later Bruno was degraded,\nexcommunicated and handed over to the Governor of Rome, with the\nusual hypocritical recommendation to \"mercy,\" and that he be punished\n\"without effusion of blood,\" which meant of course burning at the stake.\n\nBruno's reply to his judges deserves to be printed in letters of\ngold whenever it can be recorded;--\"_Greater perhaps is your fear in\npronouncing my sentence than mine in hearing it._\"\n\nLet us spare ourselves a too minute account of his execution. Some\nreports are to the effect that his tongue was tied, because he refused\nto listen to the exhortations of those members of the Company of St.\nJohn the Beheaded, better known as the Brothers of the Misericordia,\nwho accompanied the condemned to the scaffold or the stake, resorting\nto the most cruel methods in order to provoke at least some appearance\nof recantation or repentance during the last moments of life.\n\nRight here let it be said of Bruno that whatever may have been his\nweaknesses before the Inquisition at Venice, he stood firmly by his\ncreed when put to the final test, and died an ideal martyr's death\nbecause his creed did not agree with that of his persecutors.\n\nAnd so terminated the life of one of Italy's greatest ornaments and\nscholars. The occasion had not then the importance we assign it now.\nThe burning of a heretic was a frequent spectacle, and the year 1600\nwas the year of Jubilee, in which the death of one unbeliever more\nwas but the incident of a day. He had himself foreseen it, saying,\n\"Torches, fifty or a hundred, will not fail me, even though the march\npast be at mid-day, should it be my fate to die in Roman Catholic\nCountry.\"\n\nThere remains yet to comment on his character and to analyze his views.\n\nThe greatest blot upon the former is his attitude before the Venetian\nTribunal. Here he was at first defiant, even polemical, strong in his\nasserted right to use the natural light of sense and reason. Under\ngreater stress he modified this to one of absolute and indignant\ndenial, and finally became submissive to the last degree, cringing\nand finally begging for pardon on bended knees. That this attitude\nchanged with his better realization of his predicament is undeniable.\nMoreover what keen and sensitive natures may do under the influence\nof torture is never to be predicated. How many of us could resist the\npersuasiveness of the rack when it came to modifying our beliefs?\nBut whatever may have been his weakness at that time, he completely\nrehabilitated himself before his end, for were not his ashes scattered\nto the winds as a token that he completely failed to recant? Surely no\nmartyr to science or dogma ever died a more dignified death, for the\nedification or example of others.\n\nWhat shall be said of his persecutors and prosecutors? Let us here be\ncharitable; let us be just. Have we yet that absolute knowledge of\nright and wrong which can enable us to pass final judgment on men of\nthe past, their motives and actions? Moral perceptions are the product\nof the race, the age and the environment; they vary greatly with the\ntimes. There is no crime in or out of the Decalogue which has at all\ntimes and by all peoples been regarded as such. The Church during\nseveral centuries enjoyed a monopoly of wisdom or learning as well as\nof opportunities for acquiring them. Zealotry, bigotry, intolerance,\nfanaticism, were the natural products of such conditions. So were\ncruelty and disregard of human life. Join the mind of a bigot to the\nbody of one who knows not fear, and the result will be a Loyola, or a\nSt. Louis of France, who held that the only argument a layman should\nengage in with a heretic should be a sword thrust through the body.\nIf then heresy was a crime, punishable by a cruel death in all the\ncapitals of Europe, let us blame less the men who were trained and\ngrew up with these notions, but rather more the Church which preached\nthem, whether Catholic or Protestant. Only if one of these really\nwere, as it still claims to be, _infallible_, then what has become of\nits infallibility? Or if heresy be held still a crime then what shall\nwe say of the Church's ethics? If one were God-given the other is\nun-Christ-like. But no free thinker can engage in theological polemics,\nor with jesuitical sophistries, without letting his reason excite his\nemotions; and when the emotions enter the door logic flies out of the\nwindow.\n\nLet us say then that Bruno was in some respects so far ahead of his day\nand generation that they understood him not. And yet he was a _torch\nbearer_, save at his own last funeral pyre, shedding forth a light\nwhich illumed the centuries to come, and helping to make the period\nof the Italian Renaissance one of the most important and glorious in\nthe world's history. If better known and more widely studied, he would\nbe by English and American students placed on that pinnacle which he\ndeserves in the Hall of Fame.\n\nWhat shall be said of Bruno as a philosopher? He, first of all men in\nthe middle ages, taught that Nature was lovable and worthy of study.\nLoving her, trusting, confiding in her, he found himself at outs with\nall the mental processes of his fellow scholars. In this way the\nnatural method was brought into direct opposition with the ponderously\nartificial and strained methods of his day. He held that our eyes were\ngiven us that we might open and look upward. \"Seeing, I do not pretend\nnot to see, nor fear to profess it openly,\" he says. His philosophy\nwas rather a product of intuition than of ratiocination, which became\nhis real religion, for which Catholicism was a cloak, because in those\ndays one was compelled to wear a cloak or live but a short life, and\nthat within prison walls. What the medieval church, Catholic and even\nProtestant, has to answer for, as to the suppression of truth and\nprovocation of hypocrisy, is beyond the mensuration of man. For the\nargument from authority he had the greatest contempt, and herein he\nset the world of thinkers a valuable lesson. \"To believe with the many\nbecause they were many, was the mark of a slave,\" (McIntyre). Before\nBacon, before Descrates, he saw the necessity of \"first clearing the\nmind of all prejudice, all traditional beliefs that rest on authority.\"\nHe thus begins one of his sonnets:--\n\n\"Oh, holy assinity! Oh, holy ignorance, holy folly and pious devotion;\nwhich alone makest souls so good that human wit and zeal can go no\nfurther,\" etc.\n\nBy the independence of his mental processes he was thrown quite upon\nhis own resources, and his nature, already dignified and reserved, was\nmade more introspective and self-conscious. In this way he developed\nstrains of vanity and egotism which led him at times to the bombastic\nself-laudation of a Paracelsus. He had nothing but disgust for the\ncommon people and the sort of scholars (pedants) whom they admired. The\nvulgar mind was more influenced by sophisms, by appearance, by failure\nto distinguish between the shadow and the substance. Take but two or\nthree of Bruno's conceptions:--\n\nHe perhaps first during the middle ages taught the transformation of\nlower into higher organisms, following the Greeks who first enunciated\nthe doctrine of evolution, which it remained for Darwin and Wallace\nto edit and illustrate as that law of the organic continuity of life,\nwhich we call _evolution_. He further wrote of the human hand as a\nfactor in the evolution of the human race, in a way which should have\ncommended him to the author of the Bridgewater treatise. He wrote of\nthe changes on the earth's surface brought about by natural processes,\nwhich have changed not only the external configuration of the same but\nthe fate and destiny of nations; of the identity of matter throughout\nthe universe; of the universal movement of matter. Long before Lessing\nhe showed how myths may contain the germs of great truths, and should\nbe regarded as indications thereof. In this way, he told us, the Bible\nwas to be regarded, holding its more or less historical statements to\nbe quite subordinate to its moral teachings.\n\nWhen we realize how to such highly developed reasoning powers as Bruno\npossessed, were added a phenomenal memory, a tremendous power of\nassimilation, a developed imagination, a poetic nature, the gift of\neasy and accurate speech and a temperament easily excited to fervor\nin attack or defense, we may the better appreciate his dominating\ngreatness as well as his trifling weakness; the former being entirely\nto his own credit while the latter are ascribed largely to the faults\nof his time, and the fact that he was really living far ahead of his\nday and generation. He was not only the forerunner of modern science,\nhe was the prototype of the modern biblical critic, foreshadowing the\nmodern higher criticism, albeit in veiled terms, and as a matter of\nesoteric teaching; because the biblical critic of those days was burned\nat the stake, while to-day he is barely ostracized by the shallow and\nnarrow minded, with whom he has at best nothing mentally in common. So\nmuch have four centuries of labor and vicarious suffering accomplished\nfor the emancipation of the human mind.\n\nBruno _had_ a creed, but it was too simple for his times. He rejected\ncertain orthodox dogmas, (e. g. the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception)\nwhich commend themselves still less to the emancipated and cultivated\nminds of to-day. He absolutely rejected authority, which was a step\ntoward reason comparable to the freeing of the slaves or serfs. He\nevolved a theory of evolution from _a priori_ concepts, which it\nremained for Darwin to complete and demonstrate. He believed in the\nnatural history of religions. His motives were of the loftiest, though\nhis methods were not always those of to-day. He believed that the\nessence of truth inhered in those differences which kept men apart, and\nstill sever them. He believed the _law of love_ and that it sprang from\nGod, which is the Father of All, that it was in harmony with nature,\nand that by love we may be transformed into something of His likeness.\nAs Bruno himself says:--\"This is the religion, above controversy or\ndispute, which I observe from the belief of my own mind, and from the\ncustom of my fatherland and my race.\" (McIntyre, p. 110).\n\nAnd yet this sublime man was burned as a heretic! Let us stop when we\nhereafter pass through the Campo dei Fiori, as I have done many a time,\nand take off our hats to the memory of this great man, who, while small\nin some human traits, yet was the greatest thinker in Italy during\nthe sixteenth century, whose memory may help us to forget some of the\nhypocrisies and cant so generally prevalent during the age which and\namong the men who condemned him. Let us also thank God that there is no\nTribunal of the Inquisition to-day, to pass misguided judgment upon us\nfor having gone further than Bruno ever dreamed, though along the same\nlines, and to condemn us therefore to the Flames.\n\nThis paper has already been prolonged, perhaps tiresomely, nevertheless\nI cannot refrain from quoting a few paragraphs from that most versatile\nstudent of this period, Symonds, whose estimate of Bruno is as\nfollows:--(Renaissance in Italy; Catholic Reaction, II Chap. ix).\n\n\"Bruno appears before us as the man who most vitally and\ncomprehensively grasped the leading tendencies of his age in their\nintellectual essence. He left behind him the mediaeval conception of an\nextra-mundane God, creating a finite world, of which this globe is the\ncenter, and the principal episode in the history of which is the series\nof events from the Fall, through the Incarnation and Crucifixion, to\nthe Last Judgment. He substituted the conception of an ever-living,\never-acting, ever-self-effectuating God, immanent in an infinite\nuniverse, to the contemplation of whose attributes the mind of man\nascends by the study of Nature and interrogation of his conscience.\n\n\"Bolder even than Copernicus, and nearer in his intuition to the\ntruth, he denied that the universe had \"flaming walls\" or any walls\nat all. That \"immaginata circonferenza,\" \"quella margine immaginata\ndel cielo,\" on which antique science and Christian theology alike\nreposed, was the object of his ceaseless satire, his oft-repeated\npolemic. What, then, rendered Bruno the precursor of modern thought in\nits various manifestations, was that he grasped the fundamental truth\nupon which modern science rests, and foresaw the conclusions which\nmust be drawn from it. He speculated boldly, incoherently, vehemently;\nbut he speculated with a clear conception of the universe, as we still\napprehend it. Through the course of three centuries we have been\nengaged in verifying the guesses, deepening, broadening and solidifying\nthe hypotheses, which Bruno's extension of the Copernican theory, and\nhis application of it to pure thought suggested to his penetrating and\naudacious intellect.\"\n\nBruno was convinced that religion in its higher essence would not\nsufferer from the new philosophy. Larger horizons extended before the\nhuman intellect. The soul expanded in more exhilarating regions than\nthe old theologies had offered.\n\n    \"Lift up thy light on us and on thine own,\n    O soul whose spirit on earth was as a rod\n    To scourge off priests, a sword to pierce their God,\n    A staff for man's free thought to walk alone,\n    A lamp to lead him far from shrine and throne\n    On ways untrodden where his fathers trod\n    Ere earth's heart withered at a high priest's nod,\n    And all men's mouths that made not prayer made moan.\n    From bonds and torments, and the ravening flame,\n    Surely thy spirit of sense rose up to greet\n    Lucretius, where such only spirits meet,\n    And walk with him apart till Shelley came\n    To make the heaven of heavens more heavenly sweet,\n    And mix with yours a third incorporate name.\"\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nSTUDENT LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES[5]\n\n[5] An Address given before the Chas. K. Mills Society of Students of\nthe University of Pennsylvania, February 19, 1902.\n\n[Reprinted from the _Univ. of Penna. Medical Bulletin_, March, 1902.]\n\n\nI assume that every university student of today realizes that his\npossibilities and his opportunities are better in every way than were\nthose enjoyed by students of bygone times. I take it, also, that you\nwould not be averse to listening to an account of the habits, the\nsurroundings, the privileges, and the disadvantages which surrounded\nstudents at a time when universities were young and when customs in\ngeneral, as well as manners, were very different from those of to-day.\nWith all this in view, I shall ask your attention to a brief account\nof Student Life in the Middle Ages, with especial reference to that of\nthe medical student. Measured by its results, the most priceless legacy\nof medi\u00e6val times to mankind was the university system, which began in\ncrude form and with an almost mythical origin, but which gradually took\nform and shape in consequence of many external forces. It represented\nan effort to \"realize in concrete form an ideal of life in one of its\naspects.\" Such ideals \"pass into great historic forces by embodying\nthemselves in institutions,\" as witness, for instance, the case of the\nChurch of Rome.\n\nThe use of words in our language has undergone many curious\nperversions. Take our word \"bombast,\" for instance. Originally it\nwas a name applied to the cotton plant. Then it was applied to any\npadding for garments which was made of cotton. Later it was used\nas describing literary padding, as it were, as when one filled out\nan empty speech with unnecessary and long words, and, at last, it\ncame to have the meaning which we now give it. So with the word\n\"university.\" \"Universitas\" in the original Latin meant simply a\ncollection, a plurality, or an aggregation. It was almost synonymous\nwith \"collegium.\" By the beginning of the thirteenth century it was\napplied to corporations of masters or students and to other associated\nbodies, and implied an association of individuals, not a place of\nmeeting, nor even a collection of schools. If we were to be literal and\nconsistent in our use of terms, for the place where such collections\nof men exercise scholastic functions the term should be \"_studium\ngenerale_,\" meaning thereby a place, not where all things are studied,\nbut where students come together from all directions. Very few of the\nmedi\u00e6val studia possessed all the faculties of a modern university.\nEven Paris, in its palmiest days, had no faculty of law. The name\n_universitas_ implies a general invitation to students from all over\nthe world to seek there a place for higher education from numerous\nmasters or teachers. The three great _studia_ of the thirteenth century\nwere Paris, transcendent in theology and the arts; Bologna, where\nlegal lore prevailed; and Salernum, where existed the greatest medical\nschool of the world's history. In spite of the fact that these, like\nall the other _studia_ of the Middle Ages, were under the influence of\nthe Church, from them sprang most of the inspiration that constituted\nthe mainspring of medi\u00e6val intellectual activity, although how baneful\nsuch influence could be may be illustrated by the Spanish--that is, the\nultra-Catholic University of Salamanca, where not until one hundred\nyears ago were they allowed to teach the Copernican system of astronomy.\n\nUnder the conditions existing during the Middle Ages, with relatively\nfew institutions of advanced learning, and in the presence of that\nspirit which led men to travel long distances, and very widely out\nof the provinces, to the cities of the great scholia, or, as we call\nthem now, universities, the most imperative common want was that of a\ncommon language; and so it happened that not only were the lectures all\ngiven in Latin, but that it was very commonly used for conversational\npurposes, and appears to have been almost a necessity of university\nlife. Early in the history of the University of Paris a statute made\nthe ability of the petitioner to state his case before the rector in\nLatin a test of his bona-fide studentship. This may perhaps, in some\nmeasure account for the barbarity of medi\u00e6val Latin. Still, as the\nlistener said about Wagner's music, \"it may not have been as bad as it\nsounded,\" since the period of greatest ignorance of construction and\nrhetoric had passed away before the university era began. John Stuart\nMill even praised the schoolmen of the Middle Ages for their inventive\ncapacity in the matter of technical terms. The Latin language, which\nwas originally stiff and poor in vocabulary, became, in its employment\nby these medi\u00e6val thinkers, much more flexible and expressive. It was\nthe Ciceronian pedantry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries\nwhich killed off Latin as a living language. Felicity in Latin counted,\nthen as now, as a mark of scholarship, and six hundred years ago a\nschoolmaster could come up to the university and, after performing\nsome exercises and passing such an examination as the doctors of music\ndo to-day, could write one hundred verses in Latin in praise of the\nuniversity, and take his degree. The boys who went to the universities\nlearned their Latin at inferior grammar schools, often in university\ntowns. These schools were mainly connected with cathedrals or churches,\nalthough, in the later Middle Ages, even the smallest towns had schools\nwhere a boy might learn to read and write at least the rudiments of\necclesiastical Latin. In those days not only were the clergy Latin\nscholars, but the bailiff of every manor kept his accounts in Latin,\nand a tutor even formed part of the establishment of a great noble or\nprelate who had either a family or pages in his care.\n\nIn those good old days boys were accustomed to seek the university at\nthe ages of thirteen to fifteen. A Paris statute required them to\nbe at least fourteen, and naturally many were older. Many of these\nstudents were beneficed, and boys were canons or even rectors of parish\nchurches. In this capacity they obtained leave of absence to study in\nthe universities, and so it was quite common at one time for rectors\nand ecclesiastics of all ages to appear in the r\u00f4le of university\nstudents. At the close of the fourteenth century, in the University of\nPrague, in the law school alone there appeared on the list of students\none bishop, one abbot, nine archdeacons, 290 canons, 187 rectors, and\nstill other minor ecclesiastics. At one time in the University of\nBologna, in the registry of German corps, more than half the students\nwere church dignitaries. Sad to relate, many of these clerical students\nwere among the most disorderly and troublesome of the academic\npopulation, the statutes vainly prescribing that they should sit \"as\nquiet as girls;\" while, as Rashdall says, \"even spiritual thunders had\nat times to be invoked to prevent them from shouting, playing, and\ninterrupting.\"\n\nConsidering the youthfulness of what we may call the freshmen, as many\nof them went up to the universities at the early age already mentioned,\nit is not strange that we hear of \"fetchers\" or \"carriers\" or\n\"bryngers,\" who were detailed to escort them home; but we must remember\nthat the roads were dangerous in those days, and that protection of\nsome kind was necessary even for men. Proclamations against bearing\narms usually made exceptions in favor of students travelling to or\nfrom the university. Students, many of them, lived in halls, or, as\nwe would say now, dormitories, and one of them assumed the r\u00f4le of\nprincipal, or was delegated to exercise certain authority. Quite often\nthis was the man who made himself responsible for the rent, whose\nauthority came only from the voluntary consent of his fellow-students,\nor who was elected by them.\n\nWhen it came to the matter of discipline, the good old-fashioned\nbirchen rod was not an unknown factor in university government. There\nseems to have been always a certain relationship between classic\nstudies and corporal punishment. In medi\u00e6val university records\nallusions to this relationship began about the fifteenth century. In\nParis, about this time, when there were so many disgraceful factional\nfights, the rectors and proctors had occasionally to go to the\ncolleges and halls and personally superintend the chastisement of\nthe young rioters. We find also in the history of the University of\nLouvain that flogging was at one time ordered by the Faculty of Arts\nfor homicide or other grave outrages. It is worth while to recall\nfor a moment how grave offences were dealt with in those days. At\nthe University of Ingolstadt one student killed another in a drunken\nquarrel, and was punished by the university by the confiscation of\nhis scholastic effects and garments, but he was not even expelled. At\nPrague a certain Master of Arts assisted in cutting the throat of a\nfriar bishop, and was actually expelled for the deed. In those days\ndrunkenness was rarely treated as a university offence. The penalties\nwhich were inflicted for the gravest outrages and immoralities were\nfor the greater part puerile in the extreme. In most serious cases\nexcommunication or imprisonment were the penalties, while lesser\noffences were punished by postponement of degree, expulsion from the\ncollege, temporary banishment from a university town, or by fines.\n\nIn Leipzig, in 1439, the fine of ten new groschen was provided for the\noffense of lifting a stone or missile with a view of throwing it at\na master, but not actually throwing it; whereas the act of throwing\nand missing increased the penalty to eight florins, while successful\nmarksmanship was still more expensive. Later statutes made distinction\nbetween hitting without wounding and wounding without mutilation,\nexpulsion being the penalty for actual mutilation. With the beginning\nof the sixteenth century the practice of flogging the very poorest\nstudents appears to have been introduced. During these Middle Ages\nthey had a peculiar fashion of expiating even grave offences. For\nexample, at the Sorbonne, if a fellow should assault or cruelly beat\na servant he was fined a measure of good wine--not for the benefit of\nthe servant, but for all the culprit's fellow-students. Those were the\ndays, too, when trifling lapses incurred each its own penalty. A doctor\nof divinity was fined a quart of wine for picking a pear off a tree in\nthe college garden or forgetting to shut the chapel door. Clerks were\nfined for being very drunk and committing insolences when in that\ncondition. The head cook was fined for not putting salt in the soup.\nMost of these fines being in the shape of liquors or wines, I imagine\nthat the practice was more general because the penalty was shared in by\nall who were near.\n\nWith lapse of time the statutes of the German universities gradually\ngrew stricter until they became very minute and restrictive in the\nmatter of unacademical pleasures. A visit to the tavern, or even to\nthe kitchen of the college or hall, became a university offence. There\nwere statutes against swearing, against games of chance, walking abroad\nwithout a companion, being out after eight in the winter or nine in the\nsummer, making odious comparisons of country to country, etc. This was\nparticularly true of the English universities, where a definite penalty\nwas imposed for every offence, ranging from a quarter of a penny for\nnot speaking Latin to six shillings eight pence for assault with\neffusion of blood.\n\nThe matter of constantly speaking Latin led to a system of espionage,\nby which a secret system of spies, called \"_lupi_\" or wolves, was\narranged; these were to inform against the \"_vulgarisantes_,\" or those\noffenders who persisted in speaking in their mother tongue.\n\nIt was the students of those days who set the example and the fashion\nof initiating, or, as we would say now, of hazing the newcomers. This\ncustom of initiation, in one form or another, seems to have an almost\nhoary antiquity. As Rashdall puts it, three deeply rooted instincts of\nhuman nature combine to put the custom almost beyond suppression. It\nsatisfies alike the bullying instinct, the social instinct, and the\ndesire to find at once the excuse and the means for a carouse. In the\ndays of which we are speaking the _Bejaunus_, which is a corruption of\nthe old French _Bec-jaune_ (or yellow bill), as the academic fledgling\nwas called, had to be bullied and coaxed and teased in order to be\nwelcomed as a comrade, and finally his \"jocund advent\" had to be\ncelebrated by a feast furnished at his own expense. A history of the\nprocess of initiating would furnish one of the most singular chapters\nin university records. At first there were several prohibitions\nagainst all _bejaunia_, for the unfortunate youth's limited purse ill\nafforded even the first year's expenses. As the years went by certain\nrestrictions were imposed, and by the sixteenth century the _depositio\ncornuum_ had become in the German universities a ceremony almost equal\nin importance to matriculation. The callow country youth was supposed\nto be a wild beast who must be deprived of his horns before he could\nbe received into refined society in his new home. This constituted the\n_depositio_ for which he was supposed to arrange with his new masters,\nat the same time begging them to keep expenses as low as possible.\nSoon after he matriculated he was visited in his room by two of the\nstudents, who would pretend to be investigating the source of an\nabominable odor.\n\nThis would be subsequently discovered to be due to the newcomer\nhimself, whom they would take at first to be a wild boar, but later\ndiscovery to be that rare creature known as a _bejaunus_, a creature\nof whom they had heard, but which they had never seen. After chaffing\ncomments about his general ferocious aspect it would be suggested,\nwith marked sympathy, that his horns might be removed by operation,\nthe so-called _depositio_. The victim's face would then be smeared\nwith some preparation, and certain formalities would be gone through\nwith--clipping his ears, removal of his tusks, etc. Finally, in fear\nlest the mock operation should be fatal, the patient would be shriven;\none of the students, feigning himself a priest, would put his ear to\nthe dying man's mouth and then repeat his confession. The boy was\nmade to accuse himself of all sorts of enormities, and finally it was\nexacted as penance that he should provide a sumptuous banquet for his\nnew masters and comrades.\n\nThis latter ceremony consisted of a procession headed by a master in\nacademic dress, followed by students in masquerading costume. Certain\nfurther operative procedures were then gone through with, the beast was\nfinally dehorned and his nose held to the grindstone, while a little\nlater his chin was adorned with a beard made of burnt cork, and his\nwounded sensibilities assuaged by a dose of salt and wine. All this\nconstituted a peculiar German custom, although some means of extorting\nmoney or bothering those who were initiated was practically universal.\nIn Germany this ceremony of _depositio_ seems to have led later to\nthe bullying and fagging of juniors by seniors, that gave rise to\nindignities while at the same time it more than exceeded in brutality\nanything of which we have read in the English grammar schools. These\nexcesses reached their highest in the seventeenth century, and for\na long time defied all efforts of both government and university\nauthorities to suppress them.\n\nIn southern France this initiation assumed somewhat different form.\nHere the freshman was treated as a criminal, and had to be tried for\nand released by purgation from the consequences of his original sin.\nAt Avignon this purgation of freshmen was made the primary purpose\nof a religious fraternity formed under ecclesiastical sanction, and\nwith a chapel in the Dominican church. (Rashdall). The preamble of\nits constitution piously boasted that its object was to put a stop\nto enormities, drunkenness and immorality, but its practices were at\nextreme variance with its avowed purposes.\n\nThe matter of academical dress may interest for a moment. During\nthe Middle Ages there was for the undergraduate nothing which could\nbe properly called academic dress. In the Italian universities the\nstudents wore a long black garment known as a \"cappa.\" In the Parisian\nuniversities every student was required by custom or statute to wear a\ntonsure and a clerical habit, such \"indecent, dissolute, or secular\"\napparel as puffed sleeves, pointed shoes, colored boots, etc., being\npositively forbidden; and so the clothes of uniform color and material,\nlike those worn in some of the English charitable schools, have been\nthe result of the uniform dress of a particular color which medi\u00e6val\nstudents were supposed to wear, and which indicated that at the time\nthey were supposed to be clerks. At one time the so-called Queen's Men\nin Oxford University were required to wear bright red garments, and\ndifferences of color and ornament still survive in the undergraduate\ngowns of Cambridge. While the students usually wore dark-hued material,\nthe higher officials of the universities wore more and more elaborate\ngarments, until the rector appeared in violet or purple, perhaps with\nfur trimmings. The hoods, which are still worn to-day, were at one\ntime made of lamb's wool or rabbit's fur, silk, such as those which we\nwear, coming in as a summer alternative at the end of the fourteenth\ncentury. The birretta, or square cap, with a tuft on the top, in lieu\nof the modern tassel on top of the square cap, was a distinctive badge\nof membership, while doctors and superior officers were distinguished\nby the red or violet color of their birrettas.\n\nThis so-called \"philosophy of clothes\" throws much light upon the\nrelation of the Church to the universities, as well as on the use\nand misuse of the term \"clericus.\" That a man was a _clericus_ in\nthe Middle Ages did not necessarily imply that he had taken even the\nlowest grade of clerical orders. It simply implied that he was a\nclerk, i. e., a student. Even the wearing of a so-called clerical\ndress was rather in order that the wearer might enjoy exemption from\nsecular courts and the privileges of the clerical order. The lowest\nof the people even took the clerical tonsure simply in order to get\nthe benefit of clergy; and to become a clerk was at one time almost\nequivalent to taking out a license for the commission of murder or\noutrage with comparative immunity. Nevertheless, the relation between\nclerkship and minor orders is still quite obscure.\n\nIt is quite evident that students of those days were not worked as\nhard as those of the present day. Three lectures a day constituted a\nmaximum of work of this kind, beside which there were disputations\nand \"resumpciones,\" which seem to have corresponded very much to the\nquizzes of to-day, scholars being examined or catechised, sometimes\neven by the lecturer himself. Gradually supplementary lectures were\nintroduced, but there was a period during which the university seemed\nto decline and decay rather than the reverse, when intellectual life\nwas not nearly as active and studies not nearly as closely pursued. In\nthe days of Thomas Aquinas intellectual vigor was at its highest, but\nin the fifteenth century there was a distinct falling off.\n\nDuring these centuries, too, it was not unusual that students attended\nmass or religious services before going to lectures. This practice grew\nduring the latter portion of the Middle Ages. Attendance was not,\nhowever, compulsory. Even at Oxford the statutes of the New College\nwere the first which required daily attendance at mass. In those days\nlectures began at six in the morning in summer, and sometimes as late\nas seven in the winter mornings. There is every reason to think that\noften lectures were given in the darkness preceding dawn, and even\nwithout artificial light. It should be said that these lectures were\nsometimes three hours in duration, and hence it might appear that three\nsuch lectures a day were about all that could be expected of a student.\n\nThe standard of living for the medi\u00e6val student was not always so bad\nas has been sometimes represented. University students then, as now,\nwere recruited from the highest as well as the poorest social classes,\nand the young sons of princely families often had about them quite an\nestablishment. At the lower end of the university social ladder was\nthe poor scholar who was reduced to begging for his living or becoming\na servant in one of the colleges. In Vienna and elsewhere there were\nhalls whose inmates were regularly sent out to beg, the proceeds of\ntheir mendicancy being placed in a common chest. Very poor scholars\nwere often granted licenses to beg by the chancellor. This was not\nregarded as a particular degradation, however, because the example of\nthe friars had made begging comparatively respectable. Those who would\nhave been ashamed to work hard were not ashamed to beg.\n\nThis custom, for that matter, is by no means yet abandoned. When\nI was first studying in Vienna, in 1882, I remember a young German\nnobleman who was reduced to such an extent that he lived absolutely on\nthe charity of others. He kept a little book in which he had it set\ndown that on such a day such a person had promised to give him so much\ntoward his support, and he called regularly on his list of supporters,\nand almost daily, in order that the gulden which they had promised him\nmight be forthcoming.\n\nThere is the good old story you know, also, of the three students who\nwere so poor that they had but one cappa or gown between them, in which\nthey took turns to go to lectures. In the small university towns,\nwhere thousands of students gathered together during a part of the\nyear--where means of carrying food were scanty, and food itself not\nabundant--it is not strange that student fare was often of the most\nmeagre sort.\n\nThe matter of food was not the only hardship of student life in those\ndays about which we are talking. At that time such a thing as a fire\nin a lecture-room was unknown, there being no source of warmth or\ncomfort, save, perhaps, straw or rushes upon the floor. The winter\nin the northern university towns must have been severe, but it is\nnot likely that either in the lecture-room or in his own apartments\ndid the student have any comfort from heat. This was true to such an\nextent that they often sought the kitchens for comfort. In Germany\nit was even one of the duties of the head of the college to inspect\nthe college-rooms lest the occupants should have supplied themselves\nwith some source of heat. In some places, however, there was a common\nhall or combination room in which a fire was built in cold weather.\nYou must remember, also, that glass windows were an exceptional luxury\nuntil toward the close of the period under discussion. In Padua the\nwindows of the schools were made of linen. In 1643 a glass window was\nfor the first time introduced into the Theological School at Prague.\nIn 1600 the rooms inhabited by some of the junior fellows at Cambridge\nwere still unprovided with glass windows. Add to these hardships the\nrelative expense of lights, when the average price of candles was\nnearly two pence per pound, and you will see that the poorest student\ncould not afford to study by artificial light. Some of the senior\nstudents may have had bedsteads, but the younger students slept mostly\nupon the floor. In some places there were cisterns or troughs of lead,\nor occasionally pitchers and bowls were provided, but usually the\nstudent had to resort to the public lavatory in the hall.\n\nAlong with these hardships consider the amusements of this period,\nwhich were for the greater part conspicuous by their absence. Statutes\nconcerning amusements were often more stringent than those concerning\ncrime or vice. These were essentially military times, and tournaments,\nhunting, and hawking, which were enjoyed by the upper social classes,\nwere considered too expensive and distracting for university students,\nand were consequently forbidden. \"Mortification of the flesh\" was\nthe cry of those days, as even now among some religious fanatics.\nEven playing with a ball or bat was at times forbidden, along with\nother \"insolent games.\" A statute of the sixteenth century speaks of\ntennis and fives as among \"indecent games\" whose introduction would\ncreate scandal in and against the college. Games of chance and playing\nfor money were also forbidden; nevertheless, they were more or less\npractised. Even chess enjoyed a bad reputation among the medi\u00e6val\nmoralists, and was characterized by a certain bishop of Winchester\nas a \"noxious, inordinate, and unhonest game.\" Dancing was rather\na favorite amusement, but was repressed as far as possible, since\nthe celebrated William of Wykeham found it necessary to prohibit\ndancing and jumping in the chapel. Apparently, then, in those days a\ngood student amused himself little, if at all, and had to find his\nrelaxation in the frequent interruptions caused by church holidays. At\nSt. Andrew's, in Scotland, however, two days' holiday was allowed at\ncarnival time expressly for cock-fighting. On the evenings of festival\ndays entertainments were occasionally provided by strolling players,\njesters, or mountebanks, who were largely patronized by students.\n\nAltogether, it is not strange that students in those days fell into\ndissolute habits, many having to be expelled or punished. We can even\nunderstand how some of them actually turned highwaymen and waylaid\ntheir more peaceful brothers as they approached the universities\nwith money for the ensuing season. In the archives of the University\nof Leipzig there are standard forms of proclamation against even\nsuch boyish follies as pea-shooting, destruction of trees and crops,\nthrowing water out of the window upon passers-by, shouting at night,\nwearing of disguises, interfering with a hangman in the execution of\nhis duty, or attending exhibitions of wrestling, boxing, and the like.\n\nEvidently, then, university life had its exceedingly wild side. One\nneeds only to recall the history of the famous Latin Quarter in Paris\nto be convinced of this. This was the students' quarter in the old\ncity of Paris as extended by Philip Augustus across the river. Paris\nthen was surrounded by a cordon of monasteries, whose abbots exercised\njurisdiction over their surrounding districts. Just to the west of the\nstudent quarter stood the great Abbey of St. Germain. Between the monks\nof this monastery and the students there were frequent conflicts, and\nit is recorded that in 1278, for instance, a pitched battle occurred\nbetween the monks, under their provost, on one side, and the unarmed\nand defenceless boys and masters, on the other, during which many were\nbadly wounded, and some mortally. The matter was finally carried to\ncourt, and the monks were required to perform certain penances and\nto pay certain fines. Their brutality, however, was not effectually\nsuppressed. In 1304 the Provost of Paris hanged and gibbetted a\nstudent, and was punished therefor by the king; while the subsequent\nhistory of Paris is one of constant conflict between students and the\nclerical orders. On the other hand, the clerical tonsure in which the\nParisian scholar clothed himself enabled him to indulge in all kinds of\ncrime, without fear of that summary execution which would have been his\nfate had he been merely an ordinary beggar.\n\nBibulousness was another striking characteristic of medi\u00e6val university\nlife. In those days they knew not tea nor coffee nor tobacco, but\nspirituous liquors in some form were far from unknown to them. No\nimportant event of life could be transacted without its drinking\naccompaniment. At all exercises, public or private, wine was freely\nprovided, and many of the feasts and festivals which began with mass\nwere concluded with a drunken orgie.\n\nYou have observed that so far I have made frequent mention of clerical\nmatters. In truth, in northern Europe the Church included practically\nall the learned professions, including the civil servants of the\ngovernment, the physicians, architects, secular lawyers, diplomatists,\nand secretaries, who were all ecclesiastics. It is true that in order\nto be a \"clerk\" it was not really necessary to take even minor orders,\nbut it was so easy for a king or bishop to reward his physician, his\nlawyer, or his secretary by a monastic office rather than by a large\nsalary, that the average student, at least in the larger places, looked\nto holy orders as his eventual destination. How much of insincerity and\nhypocrisy there were among those reverend gentlemen thus constituted\nyou may imagine better than I can picture. The Reformation, as well as\nthe increasing corruption of the monastic orders, brought about changes\nwhich were not rapid, but which became almost complete, and led finally\nto the partial restoration of the ancient dignity of the early Church.\n\nWithout pursuing this part of the subject further, it may be imagined\nwhat a general alteration and reformation in all branches of study, as\nwell as in the general intellectual life of the people, the founding\nof the universities accomplished. For the greater part designed for\nthe confirmation of the faith, they often brought about a reaction\nagainst it. Like the other integral portions of the university, the\nmedical departments of nearly all the medi\u00e6val institutions came into\nexistence through voluntary associations of physicians and would-be\nteachers. For a long time medicine was included under the general head\nof philosophy, whose standard-bearers were Aristotle and the Arabians.\nAt T\u00fcbingen, in 1481, the medical student's days were divided about as\nfollows: In the morning he studied Galen's _Ars Medici_, and in the\nafternoon Avicenna on _Fever_. During the second year, in the forenoon\nhe studied Avicenna's _Anatomy and Physiology_, and in the afternoon\nthe ninth book of Rhazes on _Local Pathology_. The forenoons of his\nthird year were spent with the _Aphorisms_ of Hippocrates, and in the\nafternoon he studied Galen. If any text-book on surgery at all were\nused it was usually that of Avicenna. Some time was also given to\nthe writings of some of the other Arabian physicians. At that time\nany man who had studied medicine for three years and attained the age\nof twenty-one might assume the r\u00f4le of teacher if he saw fit, being\ncompelled only, at first, to lecture upon the preparatory branches. He\nwas at that time called a _baccalaureus_. After three years' further\nstudy he became a _magister_ or _doctor_, although for the latter\ntitle a still further course of study was usually prescribed. The\ncourses of medical instruction were quite stereotyped in form, and were\ncarefully watched over by the Church. Nevertheless, it came about that\nthe study of medicine once more was taken up by thinkers, although,\nunfortunately, not logical thinkers, whereas previously it had been\nalmost entirely confined within the ranks of the clerics or clergy.\nThe most celebrated of all these medi\u00e6val philosophers in science and\nmedicine was Albert von Bollstaedt, usually known as Albertus Magnus,\nwho died in 1280. His works which remain to us fill twenty-one quarto\nvolumes, in which he discussed both anatomical and physiological\nquestions. It is exceedingly illustrative of the foolishly speculative\nvein in which many of these discussions were carried on, that they\nseriously discussed such questions as whether the removal of the rib\nfrom Adam's side, out of which Eve was formed, really caused Adam\nsevere pain, and whether at the judgment day that loss of rib would be\ncompensated by the insertion of another. Those were the days, also,\nwhen it was seriously discussed whether Adam or Eve ever had a navel.\nIn spite of such follies, however, Albertus Magnus left an impression\nupon scholarship in science, in a general way, which long outlasted him.\n\nThese were the days when the students organized themselves into\nso-called \"nations,\" whence arose that conspicuous features of\nGerman university life of today of so-called students' Corps.\nThese nations--each composed, for the main part, of men of one\nnationality--had their own meeting-places, their own property, etc. One\nof the principal means of instruction in those days was disputations,\nor, as we would say, debates, held between students, often of different\nnations, in which they were expected to prove their knowledge and\nmental alertness. When it is recalled that universities were larger--i.\ne., better attended--in those days than now, it will be seen to what\nan extent these nations were developed. Oxford, in 1340, is said to\nhave had no less than 14,000 students; Paris about the same time had\n12,000; and Bologna had some 10,000 students, the majority of whom were\nstudying law.\n\nThe title of doctor came into vogue about the twelfth century. At\nfirst it was confined to teachers proper, and was bestowed upon the\nlearned--i. e., those who had almost solely studied internal medicine,\nand who were required to take an oath to maintain the methods which\nhad been taught them. For the title of doctor certain fees were\npaid, partly in money and partly in merchandise. The so-called\npresents consisted of gloves, clothes, hats, caps, etc. At Salernum\nit cost about $60 to graduate in this way, while at Paris the cost\nwas sometimes as high as $1,000, and this at a time when money had\nmuch more purchasing value than it has to-day. It was then, as now, a\npeculiar feature of the English universities that but little systematic\ninstruction in medical science was given. Just as the majority of\nEnglish students at present study in London rather than at one of\nthe great universities, so in those days did they go to Paris or\nMontpellier.\n\nThis will be perhaps as good a place as any to emphasize the fact that\nthe clergy, having so long monopolized all learning and teaching, and\nhaving, at the same time, an abhorrence for the shedding of blood,\nwhich indeed had been prohibited by many papal bulls and royal edicts,\npermitted the practice of the operative part of medicine--i. e.,\nsurgery--to fall into the hands of the most illiterate and incompetent\nmen. Inasmuch as the Church prohibited the wearing of beards, and\nas many of the religious orders also shaved their heads, there were\nattached to every monastery and to every religious order a number of\nbarbers, whose duty was to take care of the clergy in these respects.\nThus into their hands was gradually committed the performance of any\nminor operation which involved the letting of blood, and from this,\nas a beginning, it came about that no really educated man concerned\nhimself with the operations of surgery, but left them entirely to the\nilliterate servants of the Church. This is really the reason that the\nbarbers for many centuries did nearly all the surgery, and why, at the\nsame time, surgery fell into such general and wide-spread disrepute.\nFrom this it was only revived about one hundred years ago. Did time\npermit, this would be a most appropriate place to digress from the\nsubject of this paper and rehearse to you the various stages in the\nevolution of the surgeon from the barber; but time does not permit\nit, and it constitutes a chapter in history by itself, which must be\nrelegated to some other occasion. (See p. 296).\n\nIt was about the beginning of the fifteenth century that the better\nclass of physicians began to belong to the laity, and were called\n\"physici\" in contrast to the \"clerici.\" Later they were known as\n\"doctores.\" Until the fourteenth century most of them studied in\nItalian or French universities, the Germans even being compelled to\ngo to these foreign institutions. In Paris they were required to take\nan oath that they would not join the surgeons. This regulation was\nfounded as much upon spite and envy as upon any other motive. Many\nof the clerical physicians belonged to the lower class, and were so\nignorant that even the Church itself was forced to declare many of\ntheir successes miracles. Although monks and the clergy in general\nhad been frequently forbidden to practice medicine, the decrees to\nthis effect were quite generally disregarded, except in the matter of\nsurgical operations. In the ranks of the higher clergy it must be\nsaid that well-educated physicians were occasionally found. There is,\nfor instance, the record of a certain bishop of Basel, who was deputed\nto seek from Pope Clement V. an archbishopric for another person, but\nfinding the Pope seriously ill, cured him, and received for himself in\nreturn the electorate of Mayence, which was perhaps one of the largest\nhonorariums ever given to a physician.\n\nThese were the days when magic, mingled with mystery, played no small\nr\u00f4le in the practice of medicine, and when disgusting and curious\nremedies were quite in vogue. Superstition and ignorance everywhere\nplayed a most prominent part. For instance, it was, in those days, an\nexcellent remedy to creep under the coffin of a saint. When a person\nwas poisoned it was considered wise to hang him up by the feet and\nperhaps to gouge out one of his eyes, in order that the poison might\nrun out. It should be noted that putting out the eyes was frightfully\ncommon in the Middle Ages, mainly as a matter of punishment. It\nis said, for instance, that the Emperor Basil II. on one occasion\nput out the eyes of 15,000 Bulgarians, leaving one eye to one of\nevery thousand, in order that he might lead his more unfortunate\nfellow-sufferers back to their ruler, who, it is said, at the sight of\nthis outrage swooned and died in two days. It is said, too, that this\nis the reason why the Emperor Albrecht was one-eyed.\n\nWhat the revival of learning could thus and did accomplish under\nthese conditions as above portrayed may be readily appreciated. The\nrestoration of Greek literature, the revival of anatomy, the habit\nof independent observation--all told materially in this renaissance\nof medicine. The Italian universities became the objective point of\nall who desired a thorough medical education. The students chose the\nlecturers and officers of the university and had a large voice in\nthe construction of the curriculum. The officers of their selection\nnegotiated with those of the State, at least until the close of the\nsixteenth century.\n\nIn spite of this general renaissance of medical learning and the\nimpetus felt by the inspired few during the sixteenth century, it\nmust be said that the general condition of medical science and of\nthose who practised it was not greatly improved. The superstition of\nthe common people and the timidity and indolence of all concerned\nwere about as marked as they have ever been in the history of human\nerror, and the practice of medicine was at least a century behind the\napplied knowledge of the other arts and sciences. At that time the best\nphysicians and doctors were to be found in the Italian universities,\nthe French coming next, and, last of all, the German. The Italian\nuniversities were the Mecca sought by those who desired the best\neducation of the day, and of all the Italian medical faculties those of\nBologna, Pisa, and Padua ranked highest.\n\nThose were the days, also, of the travelling scholars--a very marked\nfeature of medi\u00e6val life. They migrated from one of the Latin\nschools to another, and from one famous teacher to another, sometimes\ntravelling alone, at other times in groups or bands, and practising\noften the worst barbarities while _en route_, supporting themselves by\nbegging and stealing. On their marches they stole almost everything\nwhich was not tightly fastened down, and prepared their food even in\nthe open fields. The result was that most of them fell into dissolute\nhabits of life. A somewhat better class of vagrant students sang hymns\nbefore doors and received food as pay. Some earned money singing in the\nchurches. They apparently both drank more beer and at less cost than at\npresent. At that time the cost of beer was about one cent for a large\nglass.\n\nThe younger students were called \"schutzen,\" and, like apprentices\nin trades, were obliged to perform the most menial duties. The older\nstudents were known as the \"bacchanten,\" and each bacchant was honored\nin proportion to the number of \"schutzen\" who waited upon him. When,\nhowever, this bacchant himself reached the university he was compelled\nto lay aside his rough clothing and rude manners and take an oath to\nbehave himself.\n\nNot only the students, however, wandered from place to place, but even\nthe professors of the sixteenth century were nomadic, wandering from\none university to another; for example, Vesalius, the great teacher of\nanatomy, taught in Padua, in Pisa, in Louvain, in Basel, in Augsburg,\nand in Spain. These habits may be partly accounted for by the fact\nthat the students elected at least some of their teachers, and the\nprofessors who failed of re-election certainly may be considered to\nhave had a motive for moving on. Salaries were certainly not large in\nthose days. Melanchthon, the great theologian, received during his\nfirst eight years a salary of $43 per annum, and by strict economy was\nable during this period to buy his wife a new dress. During his later\nyears his salary attained the sum of $170, which would be equivalent\nto $750 to-day. When Vesalius died his salary was $1,000 per annum,\nto which certain fees were added. It is not strange, therefore, that\nmany of the professors pursued reputable occupations during their odd\nhours or that they took students to board. We hear to-day of frequent\nillustrations of the pursuit of knowledge under difficulty, but\ncertainly during the ages to which I have referred the ardent student,\nwere he undergraduate or professor, put up with an amount of hardship,\nmeagre fare, and trouble of all kinds which would stagger most of the\nyoung men of to-day.\n\nMen were human then as now, and the universities were not above\ndisputes and quarrels, which sometimes became very bitter and\ndishonorable, but were the indirect instrument of good, since they led\nin not a few instances to the founding of other universities. Thus,\nabout the beginning of the sixteenth century, Pistorius and Pollich\nwere both teachers in Leipzig, but holding antagonistic views regarding\nthe nature of syphilis, became so embittered that they could not bear\neach other's presence, and each resolved to seek another home. The\nformer influenced the elector to select Frankfort-on-the-Oder as the\nsite of a new university, while the latter was the means of founding\nanother at Wittenberg.\n\nIt is pretty hard to keep away from the relation of the barber to the\nanatomist and surgeon when discussing this subject. In another place\nI have dealt with the evolution of the surgeon from the barber, (See\npage 296) and have endeavored to show that the principal factor which\noperated to keep back the progress of surgery during the eighteen\ncenturies previous to the last was the influence of the Church, which\nopposed the study of anatomy and degraded the practice of surgery. In\nthe times to which I am referring now, an operation which caused the\nshedding of blood was considered beneath the dignity of an educated\nphysician, and, in some circles, was regarded even as disreputable.\nIt was, therefore, left to the only class of men who were supposed to\nknow how to handle a knife or sharp instrument, i. e., the barbers.\nWhen operations were done in universities papal indulgences were often\nrequired, and these cost money, since in those days the Pope gave\nnothing for nothing. Public dissection required also papal indulgences,\nalthough in Strasburg, in 1517, permission to dissect the body of an\nexecuted criminal was granted by the magistrates in spite of papal\nprohibition.\n\nThe ceremonies attending demonstrations of this kind were both\nfantastic and amusing. A corpse was ordinarily regarded as\ndisreputable, and had first to be made reputable by reading a decree\nto that effect from the chief magistrate or lord of the land, and\nthen, by order of the University, stamping the body with the seal of\nthe corporation. It was carried upon the cover of the box in which\nit had been transported into the anatomical hall, which cover, upon\nwhich it rested through the ceremonies, was taken back afterward to\nthe executioner, who remained at some distance with his vehicle. If\nthe corpse was that of one who had been beheaded, the head during the\nperformance of these solemn ceremonies lay between its legs. After the\ncompletion of the ceremonies the occasion was graced with music by\nthe city fifers, trumpeters, etc., or an entertainment was given by\nitinerant actors (Baas).\n\nIn time, however, this folly was given up, and by the latter half of\nthe sixteenth century public anatomical theatres were established. The\nmost celebrated was built by Fabricus ab Aquapendente, in Padua. It was\nso high, however, and so dark that dissections even in broad daylight\ncould only be made visible by torchlight.\n\nThe zeal with which gradually the better class of physicians pursued\ntheir scientific studies became more and more conspicuous, evidenced\nin many ways by the hardships with which some of them had to deal, as\nwitness the struggles of many of the great anatomists of those days.\n\nAnd so in time the clergy disappeared almost entirely from the ranks\nof public physicians, and after the Thirty Years' War completely lost\ntheir supremacy even in literary matters, this being gradually usurped\nby the nobility and the more educated laymen; but even then knowledge\nwas pursued under difficulties, especially the study of anatomy. It\nwas not until 1658 that a mounted skeleton could be found in Vienna.\nStrasburg obtained one in 1671. The handling of the dead body, which we\nregard as so necessary, was in those days avoided as much as possible.\nThe professor of anatomy rarely, if ever, touched it himself, but he\nlectured or read a lecture while the actual dissection was done with a\nrazor by a barber, under his supervision.\n\nPractical instruction in obstetrics, which would seem almost as\nimportant as that in anatomy, was not given in those days; male\nstudents only studied it theoretically. In the H\u00f4tel Dieu, in Paris,\nthat part which was devoted to instruction in midwifery was closed\nagainst men. It was the midwives in those days who enjoyed the\nmonopoly of this teaching, and upon whom the greatest dependence for\nobstetrical ability was placed. The physicians proper, or _medici\npuri_ of the seventeenth century, were individuals of greatest dignity\nand profoundest gravity, who wore fur-trimmed robes, perukes, and\ncarried swords, who considered it beneath them to do anything more\nthan write prescriptions in the old Galenic fashion. Some continuation\nof this is seen in the distinction made even to-day in England\nbetween the physicians who enjoy the title of doctor and the surgeons\nwho affect to disdain it. These old physicians knowing nothing of\nsurgery, nevertheless demanded to be always consulted in surgical\ncases, claiming that only by this course could things go right. Still\nwhen elements of danger were introduced, as in treating the plague,\nthey were glad enough to send the barber surgeons into the presence\nof the sick, whom they merely inspected through panes of glass. Very\nentertaining pictures could be furnished you illustrating the habits\nof the physicians of two or three hundred years ago in dealing with\nthese contagious cases. The masks and armor which they wore and the\nprecautions which they took would seem to indicate protection rather\nagainst the weapons of medi\u00e6val warfare. At one time they were advised\nthat if they must go into actual contact with these patients they\nshould first repeat the Twenty-second Psalm. You may find in the old\nbooks, if you will hunt for them, curious pictures illustrating the\nprecautions taken a few hundred years ago against the pestilence, of\nwhose nature they knew nothing, and seeing them you may imagine the\nvague dread and even the abject fear which led the _physici puri_\nor physicians to send the barbers in to minister to plague-stricken\npatients, while they contented themselves with ministering at long\nrange to their needs.\n\nBut gentlemen, I fear lest I weary you with a longer rehearsal of\nmedi\u00e6val customs and student follies. While they have all passed away\nsome of them have survived either in tradition or in modified form, as\nwill surely have occurred to you while they were rehearsed. You will\nnot fail to note the steady progress of an ethical evolution which has\ntoned down the barbarities and the asperities of the past, and which\nhas substituted a far more ennobling life-purpose and method of its\naccomplishment than seemed to actuate your predecessors of long ago.\n\nIt is small wonder that the students of those days bore an ill-repute\nwith their surrounding neighbors. You may see better now, perhaps, why\nthe medical student even of to-day has to contend with a prejudice\nagainst both his calling and himself, a prejudice begotten of the many\ndebaucheries and misdeeds of his predecessors, and, I am sorry to say,\neven certain excesses of to-day. I do not know how I may more fittingly\nterminate these remarks than by reminding you that the profession\nwhich you students hope to enter has suffered most seriously in time\npast from the character of the men who have entered it, and that even\nto-day certain of its members fail to have a proper regard for its\ndignity. It is axiomatic that those slights and indignities from which\nwe often suffer, and the neglect and indifference of which we often\ncomplain, are in effect the result of our own shortcomings, and that\nwe are ourselves largely to blame because of that which does not suit\nus. I beg you then to remember that even at the outset of student life\nthere should be ever before you such an ideal of intellectual force and\ndignity, of power, of co-ordination of mind and body, as may keep you\never in the right way, so that when you at last attain your goal you\nmay deserve that sort of benediction which I find in one of Beaumont\nand Fletcher's plays (_Custom of the Country_, v. iv.):\n\n                   \"So may you ever\n  Be styled the 'Hands of Heaven,' Nature's restorers;\n  Get wealth and honors, and, by your success\n  In all your undertakings, propagate\n  A great opinion in the world.\"\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\nA STUDY OF MEDICAL WORDS, DEEDS AND MEN[6]\n\n[6] Address in Medicine, delivered June 24, 1902, at Yale University\nCommencement.\n\n[Reprinted from the _Yale Medical Journal_, July, 1902.]\n\n_Study nature for facts; study lives of great men for inspiration how\nto use them_\n\n\nNever have I more earnestly craved the gift of eloquence than on\noccasions like this, when young men are about to leave the halls in\nwhich and the men with whom they have grown into man's estate, in order\nto assume the solemn and weighty responsibilities not only of their\nown lives but those as well of others. The day upon which you are thus\nreleased from duties of one kind to assume those of another, welcome\nand joyous though it may be, should nevertheless be interspersed with\nsome serious and earnest thoughts and resolutions. Old Yale sets now\nher stamp upon you. It will prove a passport to many homes, but must\nnever be abused. It will entitle you to the society of the cultivated\nand to the respect of scholars everywhere. It will admit you to the\nranks of the learned and cause you to be treated with respect and\nequality by some of the profoundest and most scholarly thinkers the\nworld has even known. Yale has now furnished you with that which her\nripe experience has shown to be requisite for young men commencing\nprofessional careers. As contrasted with the total of human knowledge\nits aggregate is not large, but it has not for centuries been the\ncustom for men to grow gray in studies before undertaking to practice\nmedicine, and when your own qualifications are compared with those\nwhich we of the passing generation possessed at the corresponding\nperiod of our lives, the comparison will furnish at the same time the\nmost startling illustration of the rapid advance of medicine in the\npast twenty-five years.\n\nYale has always been eminent for the versatility and originality of\nher teachers. Her medical history has been so well told during the\npast year by one of her most honored sons, Dr. Welch, that it is not\nnecessary nor wise to go now into such historical details. The trend of\nscience to-day is along the lines of comparative investigation, and the\nBible is by no means the only literary collection which to-day is being\nsubjected to the \"higher criticism.\" The inspiration claimed for the\ncontributors to that great ancient Collection is denied to the writers\nof great modern works, where, nevertheless, fundamental truth is as\nrequisite for the welfare of the body as in the other for that of the\nsoul. Only by painstaking research, laboriously repeated, do we clear\nthe old paths of the rubbish of centuries or discover totally new ones.\n\nPathfinders of this description have always abounded in this great\ninstitution, drawn by common impulses or attracted by some centripetal\nforce. And though it were perhaps invidious to mention names, I\nnevertheless must select two of Yale's great teachers whose names are\nstill green in the memory of all men, and ask you to note how the\nexamples they have set and the work they have done may furnish the line\nof thought in which I wish you to follow me for a little while.\n\nThe science of comparative philology would seem to be far removed\nfrom that of medicine. Still, it is based upon an ultimate analysis\nof parts of speech, and men like Professor Whitney were, not only the\ncomparative anatomists, but even the histologists--if I may use the\nphrase--of words. Comparative philology then is to medical terminology\nwhat embryology and comparative anatomy are to a study of the structure\nof the human body. The philologist loves to dissect words and trace\nthem back through rudimentary stages and roots to their earliest forms.\nHe loves also to study the evolution of an idea as conveyed by a word,\nand trace atavism or reversion in human speech.\n\nAgain you have here at Yale a wonderful collection of extinct animal\nremains restored with marvellous accuracy to semblance of their\noriginal form and appearance. The indefatigable industry and wonderful\nability of Professor Marsh and his co-workers have enabled us to form\nideographs of the living forms of earlier geologic ages upon this\nearth, which could not have been furnished had it not been for their\nremarkable knowledge of morphology and skill in synthesis. Indeed,\nwhere have powers of analysis and synthesis been more brilliantly\ndisplayed than by these men. It used to be said of Cuvier, the great\nFrench comparative anatomist, that if given a tooth from any beast,\npast or present, he could describe the animal and its habits as well\nas reconstruct his skeleton, so wonderfully are minute differences\nperpetuated, and so familiar was he with them.\n\nLet us see, then, if it be possible to take some of our common medical\nwords and by applying to them the methods of Whitney and of Marsh\nfollow them back to their early forms and significances, and then\nconstruct from them ideographs of the customs, habits and superstitions\nof the men who used them. Such a plan systematically carried out\nmight furnish both a fitting and a novel introduction to the history\nof medicine. Coleridge, you know, said we might often derive more\nuseful knowledge from the history of a word than from the history of a\ncampaign.\n\nTake, for instance, our word _idiocy_. The Greeks, especially the\nAthenians, were a race of politicians. Private citizens who cared\nlittle or naught for office were the _idiotai_, as distinguished from\nthe public officials and office holders. It came about in time that\nmen of such retiring habits and modest tastes were regarded as persons\nof degraded intellect and taste. And so the _iviwrai_ were considered\nof inferior intellectual capacity. In other words, the idiot of those\ndays was the man content with private life. How different from the\npresent day when conditions seem so nearly reversed.\n\nOur kindred word _imbecile_ has also present reference to those of\nfeeble, dwarfed or perverted intellect, and refers rather to mental\nthan physical defects, though both must often be associated. But\noriginally the lame and the deformed who were obliged to use artificial\nsupport, walked as it was said, _in bacillum_, upon a stick or crutch,\nand from this expression we derive our word imbecile.\n\nLet us trace, for instance, again, the etymology of our word _palate_.\nThe Latin _palatum_ is the same as _balatum_, that is, the bleating\npart. The ancient shepherds of the region of the Campagna watched the\nsheep as they went bleating (_balatans_) over those hills, one of which\nsubsequently became the _Palatine_.\n\nOr take again our word _mania_. It is derived from _unv_ the moon,\nmeaning the moon-sickness, and corresponds to lunacy from _luna_. You\nsee the ancient superstition concerning the influence of the moon\nabides in the name. This brings up again the old ideas concerning\nthe metal silver which was sacred alike to Diana and the moon, and\nconsequently feminine in sex and attributes. Hence comes the medi\u00e6val\nalchemistic term _lunar caustic_, and hence, too, comes its use in the\ntreatment of epilepsy for which it was formerly much in use, since\nepilepsy was regarded as a form of mania caused by the evil influence\nof the moon.\n\nBy the way, this may also remind us of the peculiar views of the\nalchemists of the middle ages, who believed that the property of sex\ninhered in the metals. They believed, for example, that arsenic was\nmasculine in sex, and so named it from _arsen_, male, and _arsenikos_,\nmasculine. Medical, like comparative philology, is the more or less\ndirect outcome of the earth's physical features as they have influenced\nthe commingling of races and the conquest of nations.\n\nMedicine seems a science of Aryan parentage; in the Sanscrit the\nliterature of medicine is rich; it was cultivated by the Greeks, but it\nlost much of its original significance by virtue of Roman supremacy, as\nthe Latin races took it over. Under the Arabians it flourished after a\nfashion. With the revival of Greek learning there was a restoration of\nmuch that had been lost, but the supremacy of the Church kept it within\nextremely narrow limits, though the clericals could not eliminate all\nthe Arabian words which had crept into its terminology. Greek is to-day\nthe language to which we turn for aid when it becomes necessary to\ninvent new terms by which to indicate fresh discoveries or concepts.\n\nThe debt of medicine to our Aryan forefathers is great. Surgery was\nthen a dignified branch of the science. Their autoplastic methods\nwere conceived with great ingenuity and carried out with much, albeit\nwith crude skill. The so-called Indian method of reconstructing a\nnose bears witness to their ability in plastic art. Their itinerant\nsurgeons performed many capital operations; i. e., lithotomy and\ncoeliotomy. There is good reason to believe that Hippocrates knew\nnothing of practical anatomy, whereas, long before him Susruta urged\nthat all physician priests should dissect the human body in order\nthat they might know its structure; and gave, moreover, directions\nfor the selection of suitable subjects. The Sanscrit writers knew\nthe properties of many plants and of at least five of the metals.\nMany Greek names of drugs are derived from the Sanscrit, or else they\nhad a common Aryan origin. Thus the Greek equivalents for our words\ncastor, musk, cardamon, chestnut, hemp, mace, pepper, sandal-wood,\nginger, nerve, marrow, bone, heart, and head, are unmistakably of much\nolder, i. e., Sanscrit or Aryan stock, several of them coming down\nin Romanized form, but almost unchanged--e. g., os, cor, moschus,\ncannabis, castorion.\n\nAlthough many of the ancient Greeks visited India, it appears that but\nrelatively few words have come to us from this ancient source.\n\nOur word sulphur, though, is of Sanscrit origin, the Greek word\n_theion_ indicating its divine or god-given purifying power, with\npossible allusion to its utility in that lower world with which the\ntheologians most often associate it. The Greek word appears in our\nchemical nomenclature as dithionic, trithionic, etc.\n\nWe note also an almost complete absence of Egyptian words, though many\ncultured Greeks visited Egypt. Nevertheless, the latter looked with\nsmall favor on barbarisms of speech, and our word pyramid is one of the\nvery few which they thus adopted. The term surgery is of very distinct\nGreek origin, and meant handwork as distinguished from the action of\ninternal remedies. Medicine seems to be derived from _medeo_ to take\ncare of, to provide, and physic and physician from _phusis_, i. e.,\nnature. The physici were originally naturalists, or scientists, like\nAristotle, medical science being but a part of their study. Campbell\nin his book (\"The Language of Medicine\") gives a list of at least two\ndozen common terms of to-day which were employed by Homer. In addition\nto these, many other Homeric terms are still in use, but with more or\nless altered or perverted meanings; for example, \u00e6ther, when used in\nthe sense of its being a narcotic agency; astragalus, which originally\nmeant a die, since the analogous bones of the sheep were used for\ndice; amoeba, from _amoibe_, change or alteration, alluding to\nconstant change of shape. Ammon originally meant a young lamb, iris a\nhalo, meconium has reference to the juice of the poppy, from _mekon_,\nopium; molybdenum was so named from its resemblance to lead, narcosis\noriginally meant numbness; the pleura was the side; the original phial\nwas a saucer; the phalanges were so called because they were arranged\nside by side as it were in a phalanx; our troche was at first a wheel;\nand our tympanum was the original Greek drum, the word still persisting\nin musical terminology. The arteries were so named because they\nwere supposed to contain air, while the veins were the gushers, from\n_phleo_, to gush or flow. The original confusion of nerves and tendons\nappears in the term aponeurosis.\n\nLong ago there were two rival medical factions among the Greeks, the\nEmpirics, from _empeirikos_, meaning experimental--who believed there\nwere no philosophic underlying principles of medical science, and\nthat experience alone was the safe guide,--and the Methodists, from\n_methodos_, who believed it better to follow the _hodos_, or \"middle of\nthe road.\" The present use of the word empiric shows the contempt with\nwhich the former came to be regarded.\n\nAs cure (_curo_) meant to care for, so did medicus have the same\nmeaning, as already remarked, while the Greek slave, _therapon_, who\nwaited on his master, became later the therapeutist who cared for his\nailments. Our word to heal has also a somewhat similar dislocated\nmeaning, since originally it meant protection, i. e., covering. The\nsame root persists in hell, i. e., hades, referring to a certain\nsupposititious locality so well covered that from it there is no escape.\n\nNote, too, the influence of ancient mythology in medical phraseology.\nJupiter Ammon, the horned god, is recognized in hartshorn or ammonia.\nMars, the god of war, whose symbol is iron, persists in the so-called\nmartial preparations or ferruginous tonics. Venus and Aphrodite\nnaturally appear in venereal and aphrodisiac, while Vulcan's r\u00f4le is\nindicated in the heat to which caoutchouc is subjected in vulcanizing\nrubber. Mercury appears not only in Roman form as a metal, but in\nhis Greek r\u00f4le as Hermes, not to be forgotten when receptacles are\nhermetically sealed. Let us cut short a longer list by simply noting in\npassing how the Greek Cupid Eros and his mate Psyche are perpetuated\nin our terms erotic and psychiatry, while Morpheus, the god of sleep,\ncan never be forgotten so long as morphine is in use. That the wrath\nof the gods was to be dreaded is indicated in our word plague, from\n_plege_, meaning a _blow_ from that source, that is their vengeance.\nYou thus see the antiquity of the notion that epidemics were a divine\nvisitation, and not due to bad sanitation.\n\nMelancholia, _melas_ and _chole_, meant originally black bile. In\nancient physiology the bile played a very important part, and the\nresults of hepatic insufficiency were not only indicated by this name,\nbut the advantages of the use of calomel were amply emphasized by its\nname, _kalos_ and _melas_, for it was a beautiful remedy for this\nblackness. Another condition indicating trouble with the liver, which\nwe call jaundice to-day (from the French _jaunisse_), was known as\nicterus from _ikteros_, a yellow bird. The poultice which the average\nhousewife of to-day is so fond of using, was originally a _poltos_, or\npudding, or perhaps a bean porridge.\n\nIn the days of ancient sacrifices one part of the animal was not\nplaced upon the altar as an offering to delight the gods. It was\nthat now known as the _sacrum_, which is usually defined to have been\nconsidered the sacred bone. The adjective _sacer_ (sacrum), had not\nonly the meaning generally ascribed to it, but meant also execrable,\ndetestable, accursed. The sacrum meant then rather the part that was\nnot acceptable to those to whom it was offered. The word _calculus_,\nlike the term to calculate, must remind us of the presence of pebbles\nand their early use in facilitating reckoning, while our common terms\ntestimony, testify, must necessarily recall the ancient sacred but\nphallic methods of oath-taking. Another superstition connected with\ndeity is perpetuated in the term _iliac passion_, formerly applied to\nvolvulus, or one form of acute bowel obstruction with its violent pain,\nwhich has been compared to that produced by the spear-point as part of\nthe suffering upon the cross.\n\nA keen analysis of the situation at the beginning of the Christian\nEra reveals the subtlety of the Greek character. The names of those\norgans which called for deep investigation or dissection are taken\ndirectly from the Greek, e. g., hepatic, sphenoid, ethmoid, the aorta,\nwhile many of the superficial parts have Latin names, e. g., temporal,\nfrontal.\n\nIt is to the Greek that all nations almost invariably turn when they\nseek to fashion new terms with which to characterize or name new\ndiscoveries. The Romans showed their appreciation of that which was\ngood when they so readily adopted the science and learning of the\nGreeks, and were willing to take over even their gods. The Latin\nraces have always been good imitators but poor originators, save\nperhaps in war and politics. Had they been willing to imitate the\nGreeks in these their history might have been very different. When the\nLatin translators of Greek medical literature lacked for a word they\ncheerfully took the original, sometimes giving it a Latin dress. For\ninstance, that which we now call the duodenum, meaning only twelve, was\noriginally the dodekadaktulon, meaning that it was of a length equal to\nthe width of twelve fingers, while they twisted the name _eileon_, the\ntwisted intestine, into _ileum_. But the names of most diseases, like\nthose of the more concealed parts, they copied almost exactly.\n\nWhile in later ages the Church completely dominated, then subordinated,\nand then finally almost terminated the study of the natural sciences,\nit is yet of no small interest to note the effect of the rise of\nChristianity upon the study of medicine. It has been well said that\nthe same \"cross which brought light to religion cast a gloom over\nphilosophy\" (Campbell). Certain it is that the creed and the tenets\nwhich were for centuries the mainstay of Christianity, and which did so\nmuch for the uplifting of mankind, were made the excuse for the gradual\nsuppression of all tendency toward investigation of natural phenomena,\nand the monasteries, where scholars congregated, became the graves of\nscientific thought and study. And so in time knowledge was exiled from\nChristian domiciles and transplanted to a Mohammedan environment. With\nChristian mythology and mysticism soon came also Christian demonology,\nand disease was generally regarded as an evidence of diabolical\npossession. This gave rise then, as even now, to the imposters who\npretended to cure it by exorcism of evil spirits or invocation of\ndivine or superhuman aid. It has always been a sorry time for rational\nmedicine when superstition is rife. Even under the Arabians science\nflourished to but a limited extent. Their religion forbade the\nportrayal of any living object, animal or vegetable, consequently their\nworks contained mere descriptions, never any illustration of any kind.\nThis, by the way, is the explanation of their fondness for geometric\ntracery and of the richness of their ornamental designs. They professed\nthe same horror of the dead body that was later inculcated by the\nChurch and most of them scorned dissection. What wonder then that under\nChristianity and Islam alike our profession fared badly.\n\nBut very little now remains in our terminology to remind us of the\nperiod of Arabian supremacy. The Arabic words naphtha, sumach, alkali,\nalcohol, elixir and _nucha_ (neck) are almost the only ones which have\nsurvived the renaissance. How different the monkish Latin sometimes is\nfrom the classic may appear in the use of the two words os and bucca\nfor mouth, or os frontis and glabella for the frontal bone.\n\nBut this enumeration must not be prolonged unduly. Let us select three\nor four more examples almost at random and then pass on. But few will\nassociate Christianity with cretinism. The early Christian inhabitants\nof the Pyrenees were known as _Christaas_, or in French, as to-day,\nas Chretiens. A mountainous region did for them what it has done in\nSwitzerland for the races of to-day, and dwarfed the intellects of many\nwhile their thyroids underwent great enlargement. Such degenerates are\nknown everywhere to-day as cretins, i. e., Christians.\n\nTarentum was the old Calabrian city later known as Tarento, where\nduring the middle ages the dancing mania appeared in aggravated form.\nThe frenzy was known in consequence as _tarantism_, while the spider\nwhose bite was supposed to cause it was called _tarantula_, and a rapid\ndance music which alone would suit such rapid movements is still known\nas the _tarantella_.\n\nNightmare has reference to the old Norse deity or demigod Mara, who was\nsupposed to strangle people during sleep.\n\nThe Sardonic grin has reference to a tradition that in Sardinia was\nfound a plant which when eaten caused people to laugh so violently that\nthey died.\n\nBut turn we now from words to those deeds which are reputed to proclaim\nyet more loudly the manner and the worth of their authors. Where may\none look for a profession which shall afford greater opportunities? And\nwhere may he find one in which incentives are so small? The world's\ngreat rewards have been paid to the great destroyers of our race rather\nthan to its saviors. Do you suppose that if Napoleon had saved as many\nlives as he lost he would have figured in history with his present\nlustre? It is true that Lister's discovery has saved many more lives\nthan Napoleon took. If so, the H\u00f4tel des Invalides should, when the\ntime comes, contain Lister's monument and not that of a great murderer.\n\nPersonal courage is one of the noblest characteristics which any\nman can display, particularly so when it combines the moral and the\nphysical type. Public bravery brings nearly always its meed of public\nrecognition. In fact, publicity is often the stimulus to a kind of\nbravery which without it would hardly respond to the tests. But your\nreally courageous man is he who cares not for a search-light to reveal\nhis deeds, one who dares and does within the quietude of his own\nenvironment that from which his weaker brothers would shrink.\n\nThe soldier stirred to frenzy by the intensity of his passion will\naccomplish with but little dread that which might easily baffle the\nresolution of a reasoning man in a calm mood. The religious fanatic,\nbe he Mussulman or Christian, may permit himself to be rent asunder\nrather than recant; but his motives are essentially selfish, since he\nlooks forward to the Mohammedan's or the Christian's paradise, and so\nthey are far from altruistic. But for that quiet heroism which shuns\npublicity, which calls for the highest quality of both mental and\nphysical courage, which looks forward neither to the golden present\nnor the mystical yet sensuous future, commend me daily, yes hourly,\nto the sick rooms of patients suffering from diseases which menace the\nwelfare of others, the infectious, the dangerous, the loathsome. One\nmay read of late many stories of army surgeons doing heroic deeds under\nfire, and one's heart naturally thrills with emotion as he imagines the\nscenes and wonders what manner of daring may lead a man to risk his\nlife after this fashion. But I submit to you, that brave as is such a\ndeed and worthy of all possible honor, it has been hundreds of times\nfor one exceeded in the actual devotion to duty and the resolution\nrequired to brave the elements, or to face death elsewhere than on the\nbattlefield, or to surrender strength or mayhap life itself, or to\ninvite disaster by infection, or to wear out and work out life in the\nconstant grinding altruistic work of doing for others, who perhaps have\nviolated every known sanitary law and forfeited their every right to\nlive.\n\nHere is a theme that might well stir the most eloquent poet or orator\nthat ever lived. How then shall I do it justice? Joanna Bailie has well\nput it:\n\n    \"The brave man is not he who feels no fear,\n    For that were stupid and irrational;\n    But he whose nobler soul its fear subdues,\n    And bravely dares the danger Nature shrinks from.\"\n\nThis recognition of our profession was accorded much more unstintingly\nnearly two thousand years ago, at a time when it was much less\ndeserved, when Cicero wrote (_De Natura Deorum_) \"_Homines ad Deos\nnulla re propius accedunt, quam salutem hominibus dando._\" (Men are\nnever more godlike than when giving health to mankind).\n\nBut we can hardly delay longer here and at this time with the subject\nof heroism in medicine. I shall not have completed the matters which\nI wish to present to you to-day until I invite your attention to a\nshort sketch of the careers of four or five of the men who, during the\npast two or three hundred years have set the example for men of all\ntimes and most climes, whose lives are so replete with that which is\ninteresting, instructive or important that they may be well held up\nbefore a graduating class as illustrations of everything which may be\nadvantageously imitated. They belong to that class of whom Longfellow\nwrote:\n\n    \"Lives of great men all remind us\n    We can make our lives sublime.\"\n\nOne of those was Jean Fernel, who was born in France about 1497 and\ndied in 1558. I do not know that his life history offers anything so\nvery startling, although he came to be regarded as the most memorable\nphysiologist of his generation, but he adopted a motto which I think\nwe all might well select for our own, and it was because of this motto\nthat I have mentioned his name at this point. It was this: \"_Destiny\nreserves for us repose enough._\" If each of you will take this\nindividually to himself he will find in it stimulus enough for all\nkinds of hard work.\n\nThe first of the eminently great men now to be mentioned in this\nconnection was Herman Boerhaave, born in 1668 and died in 1738. He\nenjoyed the reputation of being perhaps the most eminent physician who\never lived. The eldest son of a poor clergyman with a large family, he\nwas originally intended for theology, and with this in view studied\nphilosophy, history, logic, metaphysics, philology and mathematics,\nas well as theology. A mere accident, resulting from intense party\nspirit and doctrinal differences, prevented his devoting his life to\ntheology, and he turned next to mathematics and then to chemistry and\nbotany, subsequently studying anatomy and medicine. He graduated in\n1693 and began at once to practice in Leyden, with such success that\nhe was early offered the position of ordinary surgeon to the king,\nwhich, however, he had the moral courage to decline. Subsequently\nhe taught medicine and botany, to which chairs was also added later\nthat of chemistry. This fact of itself will show to you something\nof the condition of medical science of that day, when one man could\nteach chemistry, botany and medicine. His rarest talents, however,\nwere developed in the direction of clinical instruction, and in this\nparticular field he won such repute that hearers were attracted to\nLeyden from all quarters of the world and in such numbers that no\nuniversity lecture-room was large enough to contain them. His practice\ngrew in extent and remunerativeness in pace with his reputation, and\nwhen he died he left an estate of two millions. So famous was he that\nit is said of him that a Chinese official once sent to him a letter\naddressed simply \"To the Most Famous Physician in Europe.\" That he had\nfixed convictions and practices may be better understood from the fact\nthat so little difference did he make between his patients that he\nkept Peter the Great waiting over one night to see him, declining to\nregulate his visiting list by the means or position of his patients.\n\nBoerhaave was universally regarded as a great student and a great\nphysician, but it was probably his qualities as a man which led to\nthe astonishing extent of his reputation. Essentially modest, not\ndisputatious nor belligerent, he had a remarkable influence over\nthe young men who came near him, while he had a habit of speaking\noracularly or in aphorisms, which are not always so profound as they\nsound and yet often make a man's dicta celebrated. Save that he\nintroduced the use of the thermometer and the ordinary lens in the\nexaminations of his patients, his teachings do not form any really new\nsystem. In the classification of men he would be regarded as a great\neclectic, in the purer sense of the term. Probably his greatest service\nto medicine was in the permanent establishment of the clinical method\nof instruction, and perhaps his next greatest real claim to glory is\nthe character of the instruction and the inspiration which he gave to\ntwo of his greatest scholars, viz.: Haller and Van Swieten. He was\nnot the founder of a school. He left no great nor memorable doctrines\nfor which others should contend, but he left a name for studiousness,\nhonest and logical thinking, which was a priceless heritage for the\nuniversity with which he was connected.\n\nThe next great scholar to whose life and works I would invite your\nattention for a moment, is Morgagni, born in Italy in 1682, died in\n1772. He was a pupil of Valsalva, whose assistant he became at the\nage of nineteen. Brought up in this way, as it were in the domain of\nanatomy, it is not strange that he devoted his attention throughout\nhis life especially to the anatomical products of disease. It matters\nlittle to us now that he was wont to regard these products as the\ncauses of disease and thus neglected their remote causes. He it was\nwho taught us to apply to pathological anatomy the same scrupulous\nattention to tissue alterations and changes which the ordinary\nanatomist would note in dissecting a new animal form. He was scarcely\nthe founder of the science of pathological anatomy, for this credit\nbelongs to Benivieni, but he did very much to popularize the study and\nto show its importance. More than this, he wrote a work which for his\nday and generation was colossal. It bore the title \"_De Sedibus et\nCausis Morborum per Anatomen Indagatis._\" It consisted of five books.\nThe first appeared in Venice in 1761. This proved a perfect mine of\ninformation to which one may often turn even to-day, and read with\nwonder the observations published one hundred and fifty years ago.\nThey stamp Morgagni as a great scientist as well as anatomist. His\nindustry will be indicated by the fact that even after he became blind\nhe did not cease to work.\n\nPerhaps the most wonderful figure in the whole history of modern\nmedicine is that of Albrecht von Haller, of Berne, born 1708, died\n1777, and often known as the Great. No more versatile genius than his\nhas ever adorned our profession. A most precocious child, he developed\nremarkable abilities in the direction of poetry and music, as well as\nmedicine, and the only wonder is that he lived to such a ripe old age,\nenjoying the fruits of his labors, having displayed throughout his\nentire life an industry and productiveness which were most remarkable.\nBefore he reached the age of ten he had written a Chaldee grammar, a\nGreek and Hebrew vocabulary, and a large collection of Latin verses and\nbiographies. During the next few years he translated many of the Latin\nauthors, and wrote an original epic poem of some four thousand verses\non the Swiss Confederacy. All of this work he had completed by the\nage of twenty-one. It is not strange that among those who knew of his\nprecocity he was generally known and regarded as a \"wonder child.\" It\nwill thus be seen, too, that medicine was but one of the many subjects\nof his study. He studied a year in T\u00fcbingen, where the riotous living\nof his fellow students repelled him; then he went to Leyden, falling\nthere under the influence of the illustrious Boerhaave. How much he\ndrew from this source no man may accurately say at present, but a\nmore brilliant example he certainly could not have had. He finished\nhis studies in Leyden before he was twenty and then traveled through\nEngland and France, but was compelled to flee from Paris to escape\narrest for hiding cadavers in his room for purposes of dissection. This\nwill prove an evidence of taste for study if not of taste in other\ndirections.\n\nSuddenly developing a passion for mathematics, he went to Basle and\nworked so hard as to almost ruin his health. This necessitated a trip\nto the mountains and here his interest in botany was aroused and\nindirectly that in medicine continued. Soon after he returned to Berne\nto take up the practice of medicine. Here he studied and worked so\nhard as to arouse a suspicion of his sanity, but he kept up his health\nby frequent trips to the Alps in search of flowers. His fondness for\nbotany and his taste for poetry seemed to grow with equal pace and he\nseems to have been among the first of modern students to appreciate the\nbeauty and grandeur of Swiss mountain scenery. When he was twenty-five\nyears of age appeared the first edition of his poems, many editions\nappearing later. Here in Berne also he published so many essays on\nbotany, anatomy and physiology that widespread attention was attracted\nto his eminent learning, and he was called to fill the chair of\nanatomy and botany in the new university of G\u00f6ttingen, where he spent\nseventeen years of extraordinary mental activity, publishing countless\npapers and at the same time continuing his poetic and his nomadic\nhabits. He established in G\u00f6ttingen a great botanic garden, founded\nscientific societies, published five books on anatomy, all elaborately\nillustrated, printed a series of commentaries on Boerhaave's lectures,\nand is said to have contributed altogether thirteen thousand articles\nrelating to almost every branch of human knowledge. It is not strange\nthat the fame of the University of G\u00f6ttingen depended largely upon\nHaller's reputation.\n\nBut Haller developed a clear case of nostalgia, and after being f\u00eated\nby the nobility, honored by almost every monarch in Europe, and\nreceiving every honor that universities and philosophic societies\nconfer, he resigned from his chair in G\u00f6ttingen and returned to Berne,\nto his _fatherland_. Here, amid his old home surroundings, he worked\nfor twenty years more at the same tremendous rate, discharging diverse\nduties of state and private citizenship, founding and promoting\nindustries and asylums, and serving constantly upon commissions of all\nkinds. While thus engaged appeared that phenomenal work, his great\nTreatise on Physiology, so full of original observations that it has\nbeen stated that should discoveries which have been re-discovered\nsince Haller be collected they would fill several quarto volumes. The\nphysiological institute of Berne is to-day known as the _Hallerianum_,\nas it should be, for it is distinctly the product of his genius.\nHe died at a ripe age, after having performed an incredible amount\nof work, the greatest scholar of his own or perhaps of any century,\nrevered and honored, faithful to the last and exhibiting in his last\nmoments that \"philosophic calmness of the cultivated intellect\" of\nwhich Cicero loved to write. It is related of him that on his deathbed\nhe kept his fingers on his own wrist, watching the ebbing away of\nhis own existence and waiting for the last pulsation from his radial\nartery. Finally he exclaimed, \"I no longer feel it,\" and then joined\nthe great majority.\n\nPerhaps Haller's greatest contribution to physiological lore was his\ndoctrine of irritability of tissues. It took the place of much that had\ncaused previous discussion and is accepted to-day as explaining, as\nnearly as we can explain, numerous phenomena.\n\nIn this same great wonder-century lived also John Hunter, the greatest\nof England's medical students, the most famous surgeon of his day\nand the most indefatigable collector in natural history and natural\nscience that ever lived. He was born in 1728 and died in 1783. He was\nled to study medicine by the fame of his illustrious brother William,\nand began his studies by acting as prosector for him. He soon became\na pupil of Cheselden, perhaps the most famous English surgeon of his\ngeneration. Hunter developed very early those extraordinary powers of\nobservation and that originality in investigation which later made him\nso famous. Early in his medical career he came for a time under the\ninfluence of Percival Pott. This was at a time when surgery had emerged\nfrom barbarism and when the French Academy of Surgery had erected it\ninto the dignity of a science. He entered St. George's Hospital in 1754\nas a surgeon's pupil. Later he became a partner with his brother in the\nlatter's private school of anatomy, but John, being a poor lecturer,\nwas distinguished by his services in the dissecting-room rather than\nin the amphitheater. The customs of his time and the jealousies of\nthe various medical factions then existing in London led to numerous\nacrimonious disputes, in the literary part of which William Hunter,\nwho was much the more cultured student, took the lead, while John,\nwho lacked in scholastic ability and had much less education, was\nrelied on to supply the anatomical data. John was painfully aware of\nhis deficiencies in literary culture and is said once to have replied\nto the disparaging remarks of an opponent: \"He accuses me of not\nunderstanding the dead languages, but I could tell him that on the dead\nbody which he never knew in any language living or dead.\"\n\nIt was in this way that he was led into unseemly encounters with the\nMunros, of Edinburgh, and with his late teacher, Pott. The same sort\nof dispute finally separated the two brothers, and they parted company\nafter a very unseemly exhibition of jealousy and fraternal discord.\n\nAfter studying human anatomy for several years, John Hunter became\nprofoundly impressed with the need for much larger knowledge of\ncomparative anatomy, but about this time ill health compelled a\ntemporary change and so he went into the army as a staff surgeon.\nThis was at the time when Europe was engaged in the sanguinary Seven\nYears' War, and so it happened that Hunter had ample opportunity for\nstudies and observations in military surgery--at the siege of Belleisle\nand later in the war in the Peninsula. Here he made many of those\nobservations on gunshot wounds which he published at various periods\nlater and which helped to make him famous.\n\nHe resumed his work in London in 1763, and here again he had to\nundergo a long trial of those qualities of passive fortitude and\nactive perseverance under difficulties which were his prominent\ncharacteristics. His personal needs were small but his scientific\nrequirements were large, and to these latter he devoted every guinea\nwhich he could earn in his small but slowly growing practice. His\nown manners were so brusque, and he was so lacking in the refinement\nof many of his colleagues and competitors, that it took rare mental\nqualities to force him to the front, to which he nevertheless rapidly\nadvanced. Bacon has said, \"He that is only real had need of exceeding\ngreat parts of virtue, as the stone had need be rich that is set\nwithout foil,\" and this was never more true than in John Hunter's case.\nHis leisure hours were never unemployed. He obtained the bodies of\nall animals dying in the public collections in London and so began\nto form that enormous collection which became known later as the\nHunterian Museum. As his means afforded it he built and added to his\naccommodations and carried on those vast researches into animal anatomy\nand physiology to which the balance of his life was devoted. Although\nhis practice gradually increased and he became in time the most famous\nsurgeon and consultant in London, he used, nevertheless, to spend three\nor four hours every morning before breakfast in dissection of animals,\nand as much of the rest of the day as he could spare. Pupils and\nstudents who wished to consult him had to come early in the morning,\noften as early as four o'clock, in order to find him disengaged. He\nhad that rare ability to do a maximum of work with a minimum of sleep\nwhich has been so conspicuous in the case of Virchow. Before he died,\nHunter attained to a large competence, and his anatomical collection,\nconsisting of some ten thousand preparations, made largely with his\nown hands, was purchased after his death by the Government, for\nseventy-five thousand dollars, and presented to the College of Surgeons\nwhere it forms the chief part of the so-called Hunterian Museum.\n\nHunter's principal claims to greatness obtain in this, that he not only\nbrought the light of physiology to bear upon the practice of our art,\nbut by his writings and teachings and especially by his example led men\nto follow along the paths he cleared for them. It is no small claim\nto glory to be known by such pupils as Hunter had. By these, by his\ncolossal industry in building up his museum, and by his writings, he\nwill ever be known as the most prominent figure in the medical history\nof Great Britain.\n\nThe fifth man in this quintette of geniuses which I am presenting to\nyou to-day was Francis Xavier Bichat, who was born in France in 1771,\nand died in 1802. Although he was thirty-one years old at his death,\nhis career was so phenomenal, almost meteoric, that it deserves to be\nheld up as showing what one can do in the early period of his life,\nif he will but work. As one reads of his originality and talent one\nis led almost insensibly to compare them with those of some of the\nworld's famous musicians who, also, have died in early manhood after\ngiving to the world their immortal works, e. g., Schubert, Mozart and\nMendelssohn. Bichat was the son of a physician and applied himself\nearly to medical studies in Nantes, Lyons, Montpellier and finally\nin Paris, where he became the pupil and trusted friend of Desault,\nthen the greatest Parisian surgeon. When Desault died, in 1795,\nthis young man began lecturing for him, at the age of twenty-four.\nHe displayed a wonderful, almost feverish scientific activity, more\nparticularly in the direction of general and pathological anatomy. He\nwas the originator of the phrase which he made famous: \"Take away some\nfevers and nervous troubles, and all else belongs in the domain of\npathological anatomy.\" Coming upon the stage shortly after Morgagni\nleft it, he was able by his genius, his logical acumen and his graces\nof speech and manner, to give an attractiveness and importance to this\nsubject which it had hitherto lacked.\n\nIt was his great service to more clearly differentiate closely\nrelated diseased conditions and to insist upon a study of post-mortem\nappearances in connection with previously observed clinical phenomena.\nHe also established the tendency of similar tissues to similar\nanatomical lesions. In fact our view of what we call general tissue\nsystems we in reality owe to him, since without use of the microscope\nhe distinguished twenty-one kinds of tissue, which he studied under the\nhead of general anatomy, while he held that descriptive anatomy had to\ndo with their various combinations.\n\nTo Bichat was largely due the overthrow of purely speculative medicine\nbecause he placed facts far in advance of theories and ideas. Books\nhe said are or should be merely \"memoranda of facts.\" That he made\nmany such memoranda will appear from the fact that before his untimely\ndeath he had published nine volumes of essays and treatises, nearly\nall bearing on the general subject of anatomy, normal and morbid. He\nalso had not only his limitations but his faults. He strangely denied\nthe applicability of so-called physical laws to body processes, he\nminimized the importance of therapeutics, and he sought to place the\nvitalistic system upon a realistic basis. Nevertheless he set an\nexample not only for the young men of France, but of all times and\nclimes, which should be often held up before them.\n\nAnd so I have thus placed before you five bright and shining\nillustrations of what brains and application can accomplish, selected\nfrom different lands in order to show that medicine has no country, and\nfrom a previous century in order that you may the better realize how\nmeagre was their environment in those days as compared with that which\nyou enjoy. Perhaps you will say, \"there were giants in those days.\"\nTrue, but the race has not entirely died out. While Spencer and Virchow\nlive one may not call the race extinct, nor can the times which have\nproduced such men as Helmholtz, DuBois-Reymond, Darwin, Huxley, Leidy\nor Marsh, fail to still produce an occasional worthy successor.\n\nBut it is time now to draw this rather rambling discourse to an end.\nThe effort has been partly to attract your attention to some of\nthe side lights by which the vista of your futures may be the more\npleasantly illumined, and partly, by placing before you brief accounts\nof the careers of some of your illustrious predecessors, to show that\neminence in medical science inheres in no particular nationality nor\nrace, neither comes it of heredity nor by request. Like salvation it\nis available to all who fulfill the prerequisites. It is a composite\nproduct of application, direction, fervor in study, logical powers\nof mind, honesty of purpose, capability of observation, alertness to\nimprove opportunities, all combined with that somewhat rare gift of\ntact, which last constitutes the so-called personal equation by which\nmany humanitarian problems are solved. _Study nature for facts; study\nlives of great men for inspiration how to use them._\n\n    \"Were a star quenched on high\n      For ages would its light,\n    Still traveling downward from the sky,\n      Shine on our mortal sight.\n    So when a great man dies\n      For years beyond our ken,\n    The light he leaves behind him lies\n      Upon the paths of men.\"\n\nIf then you regulate your mental habits by such a code other habits\nwill of necessity fall into the proper line. The only other admonition\nI would give you in parting is summed up in these beautiful lines of\nour own Bryant:\n\n    \"So live that when thy summons comes to join\n    The innumerable caravan which moves\n    To that mysterious realm where each shall take\n    His chamber in the silent halls of death,\n    Thou go not like the quarry slave at night,\n    Scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed\n    By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave\n    Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch\n    About him and lies down to pleasant dreams.\"\n\nThat the sentiment is not new, however, will appear in this other and\nancient version which Sir William Jones has thus rendered from the\nPersian:\n\n    \"On parent knees, a naked newborn child,\n    Weeping thou satst while all around thee smiled,\n    So live that, sinking to thy last long sleep,\n    Calm mayst thou smile while all around thee weep.\"\n\n\n\n\nX\n\nTHE CAREER OF THE ARMY SURGEON[7]\n\n[7] Commencement Address at the Army Medical School, Washington, D. C.,\nMay 29, 1909.--From \"_The Military Surgeon_,\" July, 1909.\n\n\nThe experience of listening to a so-called Commencement Address under\nthese peculiar circumstances is doubtless as novel to you as is to\nme its preparation. So different is this occasion from that usually\nspoken of as Commencement Day, that it taxed my judgment as much as\nit did my ability to--as it were--\"meet the indication,\" and to try\nto say the appropriate thing. It behooves me to remember that this\nis in effect not an address to a class of students just entering a\nlearned profession, but an effort on the part of one on the borderland\nof experiences gathered from a civil surgeon's work, yet enjoying a\nquasi military title, with strong ties and leanings--to some extent\ninherited--toward the course of the army surgeon and the fascinations\nof the soldier's life. Self-evident it is that you need no admonition\nwhich I could give, for the very fact of your presence here indicates\nthat your selection by your superior officers stamps their approval of\nyour ability as well as your character.\n\nTime has wrought vast changes in the personnel of the army medical\ncorps, as in every other branch of the service. From the days of\nXenophon, with his selection of the best material afforded, to the\ndark middle ages with practically no provision, then to the later\ncenturies with their menial barbers and barber surgeons, and then the\nvery gradually improved conditions which bettered the service, down\nto the present time, when the best is none too good, there has been\nthat same evolution which has characterized all the rest of mankind's\nsurroundings and man's realization of his public and private duties.\nFrom the days when the first duty of the so-called army surgeon was\nto minister to his commanding general, and when the private soldier\nreceived but the scantiest if any attention, we have arrived at that\ntime when the good health of the entire army is the aim and pride of\nthe medical corps, and when public opinion demands for every enlisted\nman a degree of watchful care greater than many parents bestow upon\ntheir own families. The line officer of to-day can no longer afford\nto disregard the advice of his medical officers, and camp sanitation\nis now of even greater importance than operative technique, because\npreventable sickness and the incapacity caused by disease are\nrecognized as far more to be dreaded than the bullets of the enemy.\n\nPublic estimate of our duties to the sick and wounded has varied\nlargely during different epochs. Thus Homer makes Nestor say:\n\n    \"A surgeon skilled our wounds to heal,\n    Is more than armies to the public weal.\"\n\nHomer also lauded the services of the two sons of Aesculapius, whom he\ndeified as the grandest of heroes and the wisest of surgeons, and thus\nwrote of them at the siege of Troy, twelve hundred years before the\nbirth of Christ:\n\n    \"Of two great surgeons, Podalirius stands\n    This hour surrounded by the Trojan bands,\n    And great Machaon, wounded, in his tent\n    Now wants the succor which so oft he lent.\"\n\nAgain he thus describes an operation:\n\n    \"Patroclus cut the forky steel away;\n    While in his hand a bitter root he pressed,\n    The wound he washed and styptic juice infused;\n    The closing flesh that instant ceased to glow,\n    The wound to torture, and the blood to flow.\"\n\nContrast the tender mercies thus described with an incident occurring\nduring one of the exciting experiences of Ambroise Par\u00e9, who one\nday, during a battle, saw three desperately wounded soldiers placed\nwith their backs against a wall. An old campaigner inquired, \"Can\nthose fellows get well?\" \"No,\" answered Ambroise. Thereupon the old\ncampaigner went up to them and cut all their throats, \"sweetly and\nwithout wrath.\" Note, if you will, the expression, \"sweetly and without\nwrath,\" since it implies a primitive form of humanity in providing\neuthanasia for the hopelessly wounded.\n\nWhile it has been from time immemorial the custom to attach surgeons\nto various armies, some idea of prevailing notions of antiquity may be\ngained from the statement that Xenophon had but eight field surgeons\nwith his 10,000 troops. In his army the sick and wounded were cared for\nin adjoining villages, or, when on the march, were carried in the rear\nof the troops, being cared for by women from \"the baggage.\" Whether\nthese women were the \"vivandieres\" of those days I do not quite make\nout, nevertheless they must have been much the same thing.\n\nIn the days of Rome's greatest glory each cohort of 420 men had four\nsurgeons, while each legion of ten cohorts had one legionary physician.\nIn the navy there was also one physician to each trireme; nevertheless\nthe wounded on land or sea received scant attention, although it\nis interesting to read that each soldier carried with him the most\nnecessary bandages ready for use, an emergency packet supposed to be\nquite modern.\n\nA few hundred years later, in the Eastern Empire, the Emperor Maurice\nordered that throughout every division of from two hundred to four\nhundred cavalry eight or ten of the strongest men be selected, in order\nto bring to the rear those who were severely wounded, to supply them\nwith water, and to collect the weapons lying upon the field. These\nmounted cavalrymen received a small reward for each person rescued.\nThree hundred years later this arrangement was continued in operation\nby Leo VI. Wherever it was possible the sick and wounded soldiers\nwere cared for by monks or by sisters, in the numerous hospices and\ninstitutions which abounded throughout the East, and although the care\nwas often of the worst the efforts made were in the right direction.\nHoly oil, laying on of hands, supplication, and the use of holy relics\nconstituted a large part of the treatment in vogue; nevertheless these\nremedies were not quite so injurious as some of the other and more\ndisgusting ones whose use prevailed in those days.\n\nWithout doubt the two army surgeons who during the last 500 years\nachieved more fame than any of their colleagues were Ambroise Par\u00e9,\nand Baron Larrey. Such commanding figures were they, not only in their\nprofessional work, but in the general influence which they wielded\nalike upon sovereign and common soldier, that they will ever be\nregarded as among the most memorable characters of common history. Par\u00e9\ndied in 1590, Larrey in 1842. Each was passed along from one ruler or\ncommander to his successor, and each was regarded as about the most\npriceless legacy which could be thus transmitted.\n\nPar\u00e9's name has always been most conspicuously mentioned in connection\nwith the history of the introduction of the ligature as a substitute\nfor the cautery iron or boiling oil, previously in use for the\nchecking of hemorrhage, and for his teaching concerning the nature of\ngun-shot wounds, which had been previously and universally considered\nas necessarily poisoned wounds; but his new practice and his new views\nin these respects were but a small part of the general services which\nhe rendered. It is not worth while to try to even epitomize here\nto-day the history of the ligature; though while its introduction\nhas been widely credited to Par\u00e9, you must not forget that it was\nin use many centuries before his time, and was frequently mentioned\nby the early writers. What Par\u00e9 really did was, first, to abolish a\nbarbarous and unscientific method of dealing with hemorrhage, and then\nto re-introduce or promote the employment of the ligature as a far\npreferable substitute, more humane, more clean, and more desirable.\nAnd so rather than do scant justice by incomplete reference to Par\u00e9's\nactual contributions to knowledge I prefer rather to speak of the other\nside of this great man's character, and to remind you of some of the\nmany ways by which he secured such marvellous influence over those\naround him, and made his remarkable personality of the greatest use.\nAs he passed through one campaign after another his reputation became\nmore and more firmly established, and inspired surgeons the world over\nwith the desire to visit him. In almost his every act his sagacity was\nconspicuously displayed, while, whenever they were called for, his\npersonal courage and absolute lack of fear were equally apparent.\n\nDeprived of the benefits of early and liberal training he probably, on\nthat very account, developed his power of thought, his memory and his\nanalytical powers all the more keenly, inasmuch as these were made to\ntake the place of what he might have learned from books.\n\nThe following anecdote will serve to illustrate, for instance, the\ngeneral esteem in which he was held. In October, 1552, the army of\nCharles V. was besieging the city of Metz, and Charles himself came to\ntake command. In the beleaguered city were gathered the nobility and\nthe bluest blood of France, while at the head of the defending forces\nwas the Duke of Guise. The imprisoned soldiers and civilians suffered\nalike from the onslaughts of the enemy, the rigors of a frightful\nwinter, the lack of food, and the presence of disease. The Duke had\nestablished two hospitals for the soldiers, which he put in charge of\nthe barber surgeons of the city, and furnished them with money with\nwhich to procure supplies, but owing to the wretched incompetence of\nthese same barber surgeons nearly all the wounded perished, and the\nhorrible suspicion arose that the soldiers were being poisoned. The\nDuke sent word to the King of France that the place could hold out for\nten months, but that they needed more medicines. The King then sent\nfor Par\u00e9, gave him money, ordered him to take all the medicines and\nother supplies he deemed necessary, and further aided him by bribing\nan Italian captain to permit the celebrated surgeon, in some way,\nto enter the besieged city. Braving all dangers, and being finally\nsuccessful, Par\u00e9 entered Metz two months later. He had at this time\nbeen with the armies for at least sixteen years, and was known by\nsight to officers and soldiers alike. On the day after his arrival the\nDuke of Guise dramatically presented him, on the ramparts, to all his\nofficers, who embraced him, and hailed him with loud acclaim, while\nby the soldiers he was received with shouts of triumph. \"We shall not\ndie,\" they exclaimed, \"even though wounded, for Par\u00e9 is among us.\" The\neffect of this great surgeon's appearance was to give new vigor to the\ndefenders, and to it was due the fact that the city was saved.\n\nIn his time Par\u00e9 met with success such as to-day would be pronounced\nmost extraordinary. He inspired the wounded with utmost confidence,\nand displayed, always and everywhere, remarkable firmness. Not the\nleast notable feature in his personal history is it that he should have\nso long retained favor at court with such outspoken independence of\ncharacter.\n\nEqually reputable among army surgeons of the past, and one of the most\ncommanding figures in history, medical or other, was Baron Larrey. For\nmore than fifty years he was an army surgeon, and for a great part of\nthat period he stood really closer to Napoleon than almost any of the\nmen whom the latter attached to his person by one or another of those\ntraits that made him such a remarkable figure. That one of the greatest\nmurderers and one of the greatest life-savers of all time should\nhave been so closely drawn to each other, constitutes one of the most\nnoteworthy incidents of history. Alike in many respects, so unlike in\nso many others, it is one of the most creditable features of Napoleon's\ncareer that he should have accorded to Larrey that recognition which\nhe early gave and never withdrew. Never was such tribute more signally\ndeserved nor worthily bestowed. Though he passed through twenty-six\ncampaigns, \"from Syria to Portugal, and from Moscow to Madrid,\" and\nthough his wonderful courage never failed him under the most trying\nsurroundings of carnage and conflict, it may still be questioned\nwhether it did not take a higher degree or order of courage to face\nNapoleon in his tent, or tell him plain truths in the Tuilleries.\n\nThe history of campaigning affords innumerable incidents illustrating\nheroism under fire, or equally trying circumstances, and it is\ndifficult and perhaps unjust to single out a few for individual\nmention. Bravery is confined to no epoch and to no race; it is simply\na God-given trait, not by any means possessed by all men. Take, for\ninstance, one incident in the career of Larrey. During the landing of\nthe English on the shores of Aboukir Bay, when General Silly had his\nknee crushed by a bullet, Larrey appreciated that immediate amputation\nwas imperative, and gaining consent performed it, in three minutes,\nunder the enemy's fire. Just as he was finished the English cavalry\ncharged upon them; in his own words, \"I had scarcely time,\" he said,\n\"to take the wounded officer on my shoulders and carry him rapidly\ntoward our army which was in full retreat. I spied a series of ditches\nacross which I passed, while the enemy had to go around by a more\ncircuitous route. Thus I had the happiness to reach the rear guard\nof our army before this corps of dragoons reached us. I arrived at\nAlexandria with this honorable, wounded officer, where I completed his\ncure.\"\n\nPerhaps under no circumstance did Larrey's courage and zeal show to\nbetter advantage than in the awful retreat from Moscow. For example,\nafter the terrible battle of Borodino, Larrey made two hundred\namputations, practically with his own hands, where there were neither\ncouches nor coverings of any kind, when the cold was so intense that\nthe instruments often fell from the benumbed fingers of the surgeons,\nand when food consisted of horse flesh, cabbage stalks and a few\npotatoes. And all this while the savage Cossacks were hovering around\nequally ready to kill both surgeons and patients. Soon after came the\npassage of the Beresina, with its attendant horrors. General Zayonchek,\nover sixty years of age, had his knee crushed, and was in need of\nimmediate amputation, which Larrey performed under the enemy's fire,\namid the falling snow, with no shelter except a cloak, held by two\nofficers over the patient while the operation was being performed. The\nGeneral recovered, and died fourteen years later as Viceroy of Poland.\n\nIt was after this passage of the Beresina by the Imperial Guard that\nit was discovered that all the requisites for the sick and wounded had\nbeen left behind and on the other side. Larrey at once recrossed the\nriver, and found himself amidst a furious, struggling crowd, in danger\nof being crushed to death, when suddenly the soldiers recognized him.\nImmediately they took him up in their arms, crossed the river with him,\ncrying, \"let us save him who saved us,\" and forgot their own safety\nin their regard for him whose merciful kindness they had so often\nexperienced.\n\nAnother incident in Larrey's career: Ever faithful to Napoleon, his\nadored master, through victory or reverse, Larrey stood one night with\na small group of medical men gazing over the field of Waterloo, and\nupon the wounded and dying who lay groaning around him. Suddenly they\nwere charged by a squadron of Prussian Lancers, at whom Larrey fired\nhis pistols and galloped away, but was overtaken by the Prussians, who\nshot his horse, sabred him, and left him for dead. After a while he\nrecovered his senses, and tried to make his way across lots to France,\nbut was again captured by another detachment of cavalry, who robbed\nhim of everything, and then took him to headquarters, where it was\nordered that he be shot. Think of such a fate for one who had saved so\nmany lives! But the order would have been carried out promptly had not\none of the Prussian surgeons recognized Larrey, having attended his\nlectures several years previously. Accordingly he was brought before\nB\u00fclow, and finally before Marshall Bl\u00fccher, whose son had been wounded\nand captured by the French in the Austrian Campaign, and whose life had\nbeen saved by Larrey's exertions. You may imagine that it did not take\nlong to reverse that order for execution.\n\nPraise from Napoleon was most rare, but of Larrey he made this remark\nin his will, along with a bequest of 100,000 francs, \"He is the most\nvirtuous man I have ever known.\"\n\nLet us mention a few other instances. For example, Surgeon Thomson, who\nduring the Crimean war, after the battle of the Alma, volunteered, with\nhis servant, John McGrath, to remain behind on the open, unsheltered\nfield, with five hundred Russians so wounded as to be disabled or even\nat the point of death. For three days and nights these two Englishmen\nremained practically alone upon that field, covered only with dead and\ndying, among foreign foes, none of them able to help themselves, or\neven to speak in a language that could be understood.\n\nAt the battle of Inkerman Assistant Surgeon Wolesley had established\nhis field hospital in that awful place of slaughter, the Sandbag\nBattery. When its defenders were reduced to 150 men, and were forced to\nleave it, most of them retreated in one direction to find, only thirty\npaces away, a Russian battalion blocking their path. There was not one\ncompetent officer left, so this surgeon took command. Seizing a bayonet\nbecause he had no sword, he spoke hurriedly to the men, and explained\nthat their next fight was not merely for victory, but for their own\nlives; then he led them in a charge that tore so fiercely through the\nRussian detachment that but half of them reached the other side alive.\n\nDuring the South African campaign the papers recorded (but how few read\nof it?) the fate of Surgeon Landon, who was shot through the spine\nwhile ministering to the wounded on Majuba Hill. Paralyzed below the\nwaist, he had himself propped up, and continued his work as best he\ncould until his strength failed, when he said, \"I am dying; do what you\ncan for the wounded.\"\n\nIt may be of interest to devote here a few minutes to the consideration\nof conditions obtaining at the time of our Revolutionary War. In\n1776 the barber surgeon still had a place in the armies of the world\nand was even then regarded as scarcely more than a menial. Never\nwas he accorded the respect or the honors of a gentleman, nor was\nhe allowed to carry a sword. On the other hand, he was subjected to\ncorporal punishment, and could be caned by his colonel, or almost\nanyone else, whenever such an act was provoked. It may be said that\nthe English troops were somewhat better equipped than were the hired\nHessians, while the French, who came to our aid, brought with them\nsome far better men, who were in many respects a revelation during our\nrevolution and an inspiration to our own so-called surgeons. But our\ncolonial and general governments dealt very stingily with our army\nmedical department, and their professional equipments were of the most\nmeagre; in fact, the history of surgery of those days, either in the\narmy or in civil life, is practically the history of a few prominent\nindividuals, most of whom had spent the time and money required for\nstudy abroad, and who had come home bringing back with them the best\nof their day, such as it was. For instance, there were the Warren\nbrothers, in Boston, of whom the elder, Joseph, started Paul Revere on\nhis famous ride. He was elected President of the Provincial Congress,\nand just before the battle of Bunker Hill was made Major General of the\nContinental forces, a position which he preferred to that of Physician\nGeneral, which he had been offered. During the battle he fought with\na musket, as though a private, and was shot down just as the conflict\nended. The younger brother, John, lived to achieve fame and reputation,\nand transmitted them to his posterity.\n\nDuring the war some colonial regiments even came into camp without any\nsurgeon, or the slightest provision for disease or injury. In 1776\nCongress ordered that there should be one surgeon and five assistants\nto each 5,000 enlisted men, the former being paid $1.66 per day,\nthe latter $1 a day. Imagine the attention that could be bestowed\nupon 5,000 soldiers by six men whose services were thus compensated.\nCamp hygiene, hospital corps, and ambulance service were undreamed\nof; nevertheless John Warren, then only twenty-three years of age,\naccomplished a great deal in building up a medical corps, while as much\nmore was done by Benjamin Church, of Boston, who was styled Director\nGeneral and Chief Physician, and who was paid $4 a day. Unfortunately\nChurch was detected in traitorous correspondence with the enemy,\nwas court-martialed, imprisoned for a year, then allowed to leave\nthe country, and was probably lost at sea. He was succeeded by John\nMorgan, of Philadelphia, who had to fight the politicians as well as\nthe foreign enemy and, failing to satisfy them, was dismissed from the\nservice, though acquitted from all blame. Thus you see that even in\nthose days the politicians made it hard to secure adequate and proper\ncare for our sick and wounded soldiers. Everywhere at that time were\nunrest, excitement, and suspicion, and their demoralizing effects\nshowed in every department of military as of civil government. After\nMorgan came Shippen, who held office from 1777 to 1781, under whose\nguidance affairs in the medical department improved very much. Smallpox\nhad been perhaps the greatest scourge of the soldiers, as well as of\nthe people in general, but this was kept in subjection by the practice\nof inoculation, which had been generally accepted in this country by\nnearly all men from Washington down.\n\nA word or two must also be said about that remarkable man, Benjamin\nRush, with his many-sided, versatile, erratic, obstinate and querulous\ncharacter, who nevertheless constituted in his day the most prominent\nfigure in the profession; who served two years in Congress; who signed\nthe Declaration of Independence; and who, in the same year, got his\nfirst army medical experience. It was perhaps not strange that, with\nhis peculiar temperament, he failed to come under the influence of\nWashington's peculiar personal magnetism, and that their personal\nrelations were not at all to Rush's credit, since he endeavored in many\nways to belittle his Commander-in-Chief, and suffered therefor a rather\nignominious exposure.\n\nThe temptation is always to place most stress upon accounts of heroism\nwhich happens to be most publicly performed. While this is not\nunnatural it is often an injustice, since an act of courage may be\nperformed in the lime-light of publicity, with a regard for notoriety,\nthat would be lost were it done in private. It perhaps is not kind\nto think that anyone would ever be more courageous in public than in\nprivate, and yet it is to be feared that human nature is not always\nfree from temptation of this kind. But the real silent heroes of\nmilitary or civil medical life are those who engage in duties which\nnevertheless have even more of danger about them than spectacular\nperformances upon the battle field. Take for instance, the work done by\nMajor Reed and Dr. Carroll, who devoted themselves for months to the\nstudy of yellow fever. Many a man will stand upon the field of battle\npermitting himself to be fired upon, but how many will deliberately\nsubmit to being bitten by insects believed to be carriers of the germs\nof yellow fever. Dr. Carroll had this quiet kind of bravery, and\nallowed himself to be bitten by a mosquito that twelve days previously\nhad filled himself with the blood of a yellow fever patient, and in\nconsequence suffered from a severe attack, barely escaping with his\nlife. Dr. Lazear permitted the same experiment upon himself, but was\nnot at that time infected; but some days later while in the yellow\nfever ward he was bitten by a mosquito, made careful note of the fact,\nacquired the disease in its most hideous form, and died a martyr to\nscience, as true a hero as ever died upon fortress or man-of-war.\nOthers, too, willingly exposed themselves, but there was at that time\nno other fatality to record. But realizing the value of the service\nrendered, the indisputable proof of the nature of the disease, and\nthe method by which it is carried, the value of the demonstration\nbecomes inestimable, since a true prophylaxis was demonstrated, and a\nmeans furnished of ridding the community of this fearful pestilence.\nMoreover, it was shown how unnecessary it is to destroy valuable\nproperty, it being only necessary to kill the mosquitoes, and do away\nwith their breeding places. Major Reed died a few years after he had\nled in this fight against the dread disease, but no monument, or other\ntestimonial which can be erected to the memory of Reed, Carroll and\nLazear can adequately express the value of the service which they have\nrendered to the world.\n\n\"Peace hath her victories no less than war.\" This epigram is as true\nof the conflicts in which the medical profession engage as of any\nother. This same sentiment has been put in other words. It is said,\n\"That peace hath higher tests of manhood than battle ever knew.\" For\ninstance, in New York there is a simple tablet commemorating, in loving\nremembrance, the death of eighteen young physicians who, one after\nanother, attended a ship load of emigrants sick of typhus fever on\nQuarantine Island. They fought their good fight and were buried without\nmartial music, adding eighteen names to the innumerable list of victims\nwho have fought the silent battle of dealing with disease, public\ngainers only in this, that someone has been thoughtful enough to record\ntheir names in this semi-public fashion.\n\nTaken again the case of Dr. Franz Muller, of Vienna, who contracted\nthe bubonic plague while working in the laboratory with its germs.\nJust so soon as he realized that he himself was infected he locked\nhimself in an isolated room, and pasted upon the window pane a sheet\nof paper containing this message, \"I am suffering from plague. Do not\nsend a doctor to me, as in any event my end will come in four or five\ndays.\" He refused to admit those who were anxious to do for him, wrote\na letter to his parents which he placed against the window, so that it\ncould be copied from the outside, then burned the original, fearing\nthat if sent through the mail it might carry the elusive germ. Was not\nthis equal to any instance of valor under the excitement or the stress\nof battle and cannonade? Could anyone more worthily win a Victorian\nCross, or any other emblem of courage and heroism?\n\nMany of you have been in, or will go to Havana. It will be worth your\nwhile to make a pilgrimage to the cemetery there, where were buried\nsixteen young medical students who lost their lives under peculiar\ncircumstances, which afford as well an illustration of Spanish tyranny\nand injustice. In 1871 one of the professors in the medical school\ndied, and was followed to his grave by the students whom he had taught,\nand who loved him. Unfortunately they committed an indiscretion\nby scribbling with a pencil in a public place some criticism on\nthe government; in consequence they were reported, arrested and\ncourt-martialed. The written paragraphs were evidence sufficient, and\nthe Governor General ordered the ranks of students to be decimated.\nThere were 160 students all told, and in accordance with this sentence\nsixteen of them were next day shot without any further ceremony. Of\nthese the youngest was not quite sixteen years old, and his father\noffered his entire fortune for his life, but without avail. Later the\ncitizens of Havana erected a monument of white marble, at no small\ncost, to commemorate this sacrifice.\n\nThere comes over me, as I prepare these words to read to you, a\nfeeling of their inadequacy, and of lack of personal justice to many\nof my auditors. Brought up in civil life, with but a smattering of\nmilitary training, I am rehearsing incidents of which you may read\nas easily as I, while at the same time I do not forget that from\nthe lives of many of my auditors there might be drawn just as many\nillustrations of courage, fortitude, endurance and personal valor as\nany that the Surgeon General's library records. Unfortunately I am not\nfamiliar with them. They are, happily in one respect, too numerous to\nmention, and again are not yet public property, because modesty is\never the accompaniment of these other traits which we all admire so\nmuch. Hence, gentlemen, if I seem to you to disregard or forget many an\nincident in your lives or the careers of your friends, ascribe it to my\nignorance rather than to my intent, and to the fact that I have never\nseen a battle, and that my fights with disease have not been fought\nin camps, but within the walls of the quiet sick room or hospital\nward. Nevertheless I am never happier than when I can try to compel a\nwider public recognition of what you are constantly doing and of your\nvalorous deeds.\n\nNext to those general improvements in the service which have come about\nthrough natural causes, and as results of a better appreciation of its\nneeds, and of a generally improved state of the profession, nothing\nhas come from outside during the past fifty years which has been so\nhelpful and advantageous as the support afforded by the Red Cross, and\nthe introduction of skilled nurses; in fact the greatest help which\nthe medical service of the army and navy can enjoy is that which comes\nfrom this volunteer and outside source. By the way, I wonder how many\nof you recall, or are familiar with, the beginnings of the Red Cross\nmovement? So important has it become that its history should be well\nknown to all. In June, 1859, was fought the bloody battle of Solferino,\nat the conclusion of which some 36,000 French, Sardinian and Austrian\nsoldiers lay dead or dying on the field. The medical corps was, of\ncourse, absolutely inadequate to the work thrown upon them, and as\nusual thousands of wounded men had to care for themselves as best they\ncould. A Swiss traveler, Henri Dunant, viewing the scenes, and being\nprofoundly impressed by them, not only assisted in the work of relief,\nbut wrote a book entitled, \"A Souvenir of Solferino,\" in which he urged\nmore humane, widespread and speedy aid to the wounded. M. Moynier,\npresident of the Society of Public Utility, of Geneva, a man of\nindependent means; Dr. Appia, a wise physician, and M. Ador, an eminent\nlawyer of Geneva, also became interested in the movement. The attention\nof the General of the Swiss Army was called to it and his co-operation\nenlisted. In this way came about, in 1863, the formation of a permanent\nsociety for the relief of wounded soldiers. At a meeting held in\nOctober in the same year men from many countries joined in discussing\nthe subject, and an international conference was held, which resulted\nin calling an international convention, to be held at Geneva in the\nautumn of 1864.\n\nSuch was the beginning of the Red Cross movement, which has now\nextended all over the world, and has afforded an opportunity for all\nraces, creeds and nationalities to care for those who are made victims\nof war or pestilence, or who suffer from any other great disaster\nwith which private charity is unable to cope. It marks a step in the\nevolution of mankind, and has now achieved such universal recognition\nthat national governments and individual potentates are glad to join\nhands in the great work.\n\nA more concrete application of the same idea has been the comparatively\nrecent formation of ambulance corps and later of nursing bureaus,\nwithin our own service, and the employment of trained nurses. This has\nnot been in all respects an easy matter to bring about, nevertheless it\nhas redounded to the credit and to the welfare of all concerned. Never\nat any time were the sick and injured, either in private or in military\npractice, so well cared for as now, and America should lead the world\nto-day, as ever, in the adequacy of its provisions and the perfection\nof its methods. In private this is notably the case in ordinary\nhospital work, as seen by all travelers, upon the continent and in\nGreat Britain, who take pains to make comparisons with the way in\nwhich things are done there and in our own country. Although Florence\nNightingale immortalized herself by showing what woman could do on\nthe battle field and in military camps, it has remained for Americans\nto improve upon the lessons which she taught, while at the same time\nrevering her for her wonderful devotion to her self-imposed duty and\nher enthusiasm. In its performance the lessons of the Crimean and the\nCivil War, for instance, have left their impressions upon history in\nsuch a way as may never be erased, and certainly no one was ever more\nentitled to the designation of \"angel of the sick room\" than was Miss\nNightingale.\n\nWars of conquest bring about curious results and in unexpected ways.\nWhile greed, lust and fanaticism have been the three great impelling\nand underlying motives for most of the wars which man thrusts upon his\nfellow-men, one far nobler motive has been the occasional and the only\njust cause of strife, namely, the desire for liberty; still this is\nalways secondary and the product of some other man's or people's greed.\nAs only by the cataclysms of the natural world has it been prepared for\nman's habitation, so by some wars have come benefits unforeseen, with\nan amelioration of the condition of mankind in general, which could\nnot have been secured by any less drastic measures. It is, however, a\nsad commentary on man's intelligence that most honor is paid to those\nwho have taken the most lives rather than to those who have saved\nthem. No school boy in the remotest districts but is brought up with\nsome trifling knowledge of the world's heroes, so-called, though they\nwere in reality the world's wholesale murderers. Yet you may find\nmany persons, credited with higher education, who are still densely\nignorant of the benefits conferred by those two greatest discoveries\nin the world's history (both of Anglo-Saxon origin), _anaesthesia_ and\n_antisepsis_, who will talk entertainingly and at length of Darius,\nCaesar, Hannibal and the more modern military lights, yet who never\nheard of Morton nor of Lister. Yet if to-day you inquire what is doing\nin the various parliaments of the world you learn that the talk is\never of more numerous and more powerful engines of destruction, and\nthat those in power have no time to devote to improvements in the army\nor navy medical service, and that it is even now impossible to secure\nanything like adequate attention to our needs in this direction.\n\nMeans of taking human life must be constantly at hand; means of saving\nit are of small importance until the emergency has arisen; and then the\nblame for inadequate provision of both means and men falls not where\nit belongs, on the politicians who would not look ahead, but upon the\nadministration of the medical department, who work to the point of\ndesperation and despair in times of peace, who keep perpetual vigil,\nwith scant recognition of the sacredness of their purpose, and scant\naid in its accomplishment.\n\nAre the lessons of the South African, the Spanish-American and the\nRusso-Japanese wars to be forgotten almost before they have been\nrecited? Are we prepared to-day to give adequate care and attention\nto our soldiers and sailors were war in sight? You well know that we\nare not; every military or naval surgeon knows we are not; the medical\nprofession generally knows it; and our legislators have been told it\nuntil we are tired of repeating it. Yet, what is the result? The same\nindifference on their part, the same ignorance of what it all means;\nand on the part of the public the same blindness and fatuous confidence\nthat \"everything is all right.\"\n\nFor instance, if an adequate medical service is to be built up for war\nthere should be one officer to every 100 of enlisted men. Estimating\nthat an army of at least 400,000 men would be required were we engaged\nwith a first-class power--and what other would dare to engage with\nus?--this means 4,000 army surgeons. Of these at least one-fourth\nshould be regular and experienced medical officers. In other words,\nthere should be for such an army at least 1,000 medical officers in\nthe regular service, and also at least 3,000 volunteer surgeons,\nprofessionally and physically equipped for such work. Should anyone\nobject that this exceeds all the provisions of time past, the reply is\nready and all sufficient, namely, that in time past all such provisions\nhave been utterly inadequate; that the conditions of modern warfare\nhave undergone an entire change, that a sick, wounded or disabled man\nis an encumbrance, and that it behooves us to prevent sickness, and to\ncure the disabled man as quickly as possible. Furthermore, advances in\nmedicine and surgery have been so great that far more is now expected\nof the medical corps than ever before, and it is a duty which we owe\nto those who incur the dangers of fighting for us that we should care\nfor them. We are, therefore, under the very highest moral obligation\nto give them our best, and enough of it. It must be a small inducement\nthat we offer to men to fight our battles if we permit them to feel\nthat they are not objects of our solicitude when sick or wounded.\n\nThere is another feature which we cannot disregard. So long as army\nregulations require that a man educated in advanced science spend much\nof his valuable time in acting as bookkeeper or clerk, there will\nbe less inducement to enter the service, and it will consequently\nnot attract men of highest proficiency. That which is required of\nyou is complicated and exacting. You must be good bookkeepers,\ngood sanitarians, and equally good surgeons, physicians and even\nobstetricians. Above all, you are expected to be able to keep all the\nmen under your supervision ready for the \"firing line\" at a moment's\nnotice. You have received the highest compliment which the State can\npay when you have been adjudged versatile and competent enough to fill\nall these r\u00f4les and do all these things.\n\nMoreover, as you gain promotion other things will be expected of you,\neven, I hope, the filling of the chairs in this modern Military Medical\nSchool. It is in a way the West Point of the medical corps, and it\nwould seem as though there should not be the slightest difficulty in\nreplenishing vacancies in its faculty by detail from your ranks. The\ncollections and the literary labors of your corps constitute to-day\ntreasures exceeded in value by but few if any in this, the Nation's\nCapital. The library, the museum and the archives of the medical\ndepartment have been models from which all the nations of the earth\nhave copied.\n\nIn this connection there occurs to me, by way of contrast, the story of\na French surgeon's experiences when he undertook to teach anatomy in a\nconquered and reconstructed country.\n\nAfter the French occupation of Egypt, Mehemet Ali took it into his head\nto introduce European civilization into Africa, and imported all sorts\nof artists, scientists and medical men, among them a practitioner of\nMarseilles, a true Bohemian in the modern acceptance of the expression,\nwho presented himself in most seedy apparel, saying, \"I am a doctor\nof medicine, with plenty of courage, but no clothes; I want to try\nmy fortune.\" This man was Dr. Clot, who rapidly became a favorite\nof the Viceroy. He soon learned Arabic so as to speak it fluently,\nand in six months not only received an army commission, and became a\nBey, but took the chair of anatomy in the newly organized school of\nmedicine. Conditions were all against him. Mussulman fanaticism and\nthe prohibitions of the Koran opposed all anatomical pursuits, and so\nsoon as he proposed a dissection there was a general explosion. By\nMohammedan ceremonial one who even touches a dead body is thereby\nrendered \"unclean\" for seven days. The Ulemas, the Muftis, and all of\nthe other fanatics, demanded of the Viceroy the closure of the school,\nand declared dissection a sacrilegious profanation. Mehemet refused\nthis, and ordered Clot Bey to commence his demonstrations. Then one\nday happened the following incident: The professor, scalpel in hand,\nstanding alongside the cadaver, began to open the thorax, when one\nof the students, either from sheer fanaticism, or more bold than the\nothers, jumped upon him and stabbed him with a poignard. The blade\nslid over the ribs, and Clot Bey, perceiving that he was not seriously\nhurt, applied a piece of plaster to the wound, observing as he did\nso, \"We were speaking of the disposition of the sternum and the ribs,\nand I now can illustrate to you why a blow directed from above has so\nlittle chance of penetrating the cavity of the thorax.\" He continued\nhis lectures, and turned out some skilful practitioners. He became an\nofficer of almost every order in the world, and acquired more than\nsixty decorations, although he never wore but one, the red rosette of\nhis own country. (_Med. Times and Gazette_, September 19, 1868.)\n\nWhile just such an experience may never be duplicated again, the\nPhilippines, or some other country yet to fall under our rule, may\nafford an opportunity for a similar display of _sang froid_.\n\nWhile no one may see far into the future, the maxim, \"In time of\npeace prepare for war,\" is as true of the medical department as of\nany. Were it a state secret no one would breathe it here, but it is\nlamentably true and publicly known that even now we are not prepared\nas we should be. The awful lessons of the Spanish War have been\nforgotten. West Point officers have until comparatively recently\nreceived no instruction in camp sanitation. Some of us worked hard a\nwhile ago to have at least elementary instruction in it introduced\ninto their curriculum. As an illustration I believe that to-day they\nare taught more about horse's feet and how to keep them in good\ncondition, than about those of their men. Line officers, especially\nvolunteer, have never been too ready to locate their camps where water\nand drainage were the best, and the awful mortality of the Spanish War\nwas mainly due to preventable disease, while this was due to stupid\nand inexcusable disregard, on the part of officers of the line (mainly\nvolunteer) of the advice of their medical officers.\n\nBut, after all, gentlemen, the discouragements you will meet with will\nbe far fewer than those with which your predecessors had to contend,\nwhile the pleasant side of your lives will be far pleasanter than was\ntheirs. In fact, I think your lives have in many respects fallen in\npleasanter places than have ours. Discipline and order protect you to\na large extent from quackery and idiocy. The fads of the day disappear\nbefore the appearance of the flag and the sound of the drum. So-called\nChristian Science finds no place in your curriculum, and it will be\nlong, I trust, before the army chaplain tinctures the military hospital\nwith sectarian therapeutics or an Emanuel church cult. If by entering\nthe army one may escape disgusting influences of this character, then\nit may become such a refuge that it shall thereby be made both inviting\nand invincible.\n\nIt is pleasing to those of us who co-operated in the movement, to have\nthe assurances of the Surgeon General that the establishment of the\nMedical Reserve Corps has been of actual benefit to the regular Army\nMedical Department. While the military rank to which its members found\nthemselves suddenly elevated was not so lofty as to cause any attacks\nof vertigo, none having been up to the present day reported, it at\nleast gives us satisfaction to realize that help may thus be afforded\nfrom private life, and that a closer rapport has been effected.\n\nAnd now it is well nigh as difficult a task to appropriately conclude\nthese remarks as to begin them. Men come and go; a few leave imprints\nof their footsteps; the vast majority make no impression that lingers.\n\n    \"Some when they die, die all; their mouldering clay\n    Is but an emblem of their memories;\n    The space quite closes up through which they passed.\"\n\nFain would I believe that many of you would make enduring records. Yet\neach can do his best, and I doubt not each will do it. You have so\nmuch to encourage you, so comparatively little to hamper or hold back.\nGlorious is your work, glorious may be your fulfillment of it. We have\nlived in a goodly time; you will enjoy one still more goodly. With\nscientific progress, whose like the world has never known, and with an\naltruism which makes the world constantly better, you will be able to\ndo things never done by your predecessors.\n\n    \"'Tis coming up the steeps of time,\n    And this old world is growing brighter!\n    We may not see its dawn sublime,\n    Yet high hopes make the heart throb lighter!\n    Our dust may slumber underground\n    When it awakens the world in wonder;\n    But we have felt it gathering 'round!\n    We have heard its voice of distant thunder.\n    'Tis coming! Yes, 'tis coming!\n\n    \"'Tis coming now, that glorious time\n    Foretold by seers and sung in story,\n    For which, when thinking was a crime,\n    Souls leaped to heaven from scaffolds gory!\n    They passed. But lo! the work they wrought!\n    Now the crowned hopes of centuries blossom,\n    The lightning of their living thought\n    Is flashing through us, brain and bosom;\n    'Tis coming! Yes, 'tis coming.\"\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE SURGEON FROM THE BARBER\n\n\nIf one attempt to scan the field of the history of medicine, to take\nnote of all the fallacies and superstitions which have befogged men's\nminds, and brought about what _now_ seem to be the most absurd and\nrevolting views and practices of times gone by, and if one search\ndeliberately for that which is of curious nature, or calculated to\nserve as a riddle difficult of solution, he will scarcely in the tomes\nwhich he may consult find anything stranger than the close connection,\nnay, even the identity maintained for centuries, between the trade of\nthe barber and the craft of the surgeon. Even after having studied\nhistory and the various laws passed at different times, he will still\nmiss the predominant yet concealed reason for this state of affairs.\nThis will be found to be, in the words of Paget, the \"maintenance of\nvested rights as if they were better than the promotion of knowledge.\"\nHe will wonder also why women were licensed to practise surgery in the\nfourteenth century and prevented in the nineteenth, or why specialties\nwere legally recognized in the sixteenth century only to lose their\ndignity and identity a little later.\n\nIn thus attempting to consider the relations which have existed in\ntime past between barbers and surgeons I must ask you to remember\nthat there was a time when bleeding was deemed necessary for the cure\nof almost all ailments, and that after the Church had condemned the\nshedding of blood by any of her officials it was most natural to turn\nfor assistance to the barbers, who were supposed to be dexterous with\nsharp instruments, with basins and with towels. Thus it happened that\nwhen the barbers found themselves permitted to perform this sole act\nthey naturally ventured further and practised many parts of minor\nsurgery independently of the ecclesiastics.\n\nMoreover there persist to-day in Europe many relics of the old customs,\nand the barber surgeon is still a common figure in Germany, and\nparticularly in Russia, where the really educated surgeons are still\ntoo few for a vast and widespread population. It must be remembered\nalso that the Church gradually imbued men's minds with a horror of a\ndead body, and of the profanation which followed having anything to\ndo with it, and surrounded the study of anatomy with every possible\nobstacle and obloquy; even to such an extent that to be known as having\ndissected a human body was to be exposed to indignity, assault and even\ndeath. It was, therefore only intense yearning for knowledge, on the\npart of earnest men, which then permitted anatomical instruction to be\ngiven or encouraged.\n\nDuring the middle ages the greatest medical school in the world was\nsituated at Salernum (or Salerno), but a short distance from Naples.\nThis is not the place in which to discuss its history, although it\nbecame famous above almost every other institution of learning of any\nkind, and though, by one of the freaks of history, even the site of the\nbuildings is now lost and no one seems to know just where they stood.\nIn his time, namely, in 1240, the Emperor Frederick II was the great\npatron of this college; his decrees concerning the regulation of the\nstudy and practice of medicine deserve attention to-day. A part of one\nof his enactments reads as follows: \"Since it is possible for a man to\nunderstand medical science only if he has previously learned something\nof logic, we ordain that no one shall be permitted to study medicine\nuntil he has given his attention to logic for three years. After these\nthree years he may if he wishes proceed to the study of medicine.\" And\nagain: \"No surgeon shall be allowed to practise until he has submitted\ncertificates in writing, of the teachers of the faculty of medicine,\nthat he has spent at least one year in that part of medical science\nwhich gives skill in the practice of surgery, that in the college he\nhas diligently and especially studied the anatomy of the human body,\nand is also thoroughly experienced in the way in which operations are\nsuccessfully performed and healing afterwards brought about.\"\n\nWhen first we hear of medical men in Great Britain they were commonly\nspoken of as _leeches_, as among the Danes and Saxons; later the\nclergy introduced books from Rome, and almost every Monastery had\nsome brother possessed of more or less knowledge of the medicine of\nthe day. The College of Salernum later gave great impetus to the study\nof medicine, even before the days of William the Conqueror, which was\nstrengthened by the influence emanating from Naples, and particularly\nfrom Montpellier. For centuries the Catholic clergy were almost the\nonly persons with sufficient education to study and practise physic;\nwhich profession became in time so lucrative that many of the monks\nabandoned their monasteries, neglecting their religious duties, and\napplied themselves to the study of medicine. To such an extent was this\ntrue that in 1163 the Council of Tours forbade monks staying out of the\nmonastery for more than two months at a time, or teaching or practising\nphysic. In taking this action the Council only repeated what had been\nordained by decree of Henry III in 1216, and by the second Council of\nLateran in 1139. No restraint was at first placed upon the secular\nclergy, and many of the Bishops and other church dignitaries gained\nboth money and honor by acting as physicians to Kings and Princesses.\n\nNext to the clergy the Jews possessed the largest share of learning.\nTheir nomadic life permitted an intercourse with the different nations\nof the world, which was denied to most others, and there were many\nwho studied medicine and practised, not only among those of their\nown race but amongst Moors and Christians alike. The priests became\nextremely jealous of Jewish physicians and of lay surgeons, and\nendeavored to secure through Rome a formal excommunication of all who\ncommitted themselves to the care of a Jew, while by canon law no Jew\nmight give medicine to a Christian. But so celebrated were the Jewish\nphysicians, and so superior to everything else was men's desire for\nlife and strength, that even the power of Rome could not exclude them\nfrom practice. Still less could the clergy restrain the lay surgeons\nfrom the performance of their craft, and though it would appear that at\nfirst, in England, the priests were not disposed to separate surgery\nfrom medicine, the Pope became jealous of so much interruption to\nthe duties of the clergy and looked upon the manual part of surgery\nas detracting from clerical dignity. Accordingly were made numerous\nattempts to debar priests from the performance of surgical operations.\nIn 1215 the ecclesiastics were prohibited by Pope Innocent III from\nundertaking any operation involving the shedding of blood, while by\nBoniface VIII at the close of the thirteenth century, and Clement V,\nabout the beginning of the fourteenth century, surgery was formally\nseparated from physic and the priests positively forbidden to practice\nit. It is to the Church then that we owe this absolute abandonment of\nsurgery to an illiterate and grasping laity. For some time, however,\nthe priests kept their hold upon surgery by instructing their servants,\nthe barbers, who were employed to shave their own priestly beards,\nin the performance of minor operations. It was these men, who were\nin some degree qualified by the instruction of the clergy, who first\nassumed the title of barber surgeons, and who gradually formed a great\nfraternity.\n\nIn France it was in the reign of Louis XIV that the hairdressers\nwere formally separated from the barber-surgeons, the latter being\nincorporated as a distinct medical body. In London it was in 1375 that\nthe Company of Barbers were practically divided into two sections,\ncontaining respectively those who practiced shaving, and those who\npracticed surgery. In 1460 the surgeons were finally incorporated by\nthemselves as the Guild of Surgeons and took their place as one of the\nliveried companies of the city of London. Similar separation occurred\nin the original great Guild of Weavers, who divided into the Woollen\nDrapers and Linen Armourers, the latter afterwards becoming the wealthy\nand powerful Company of Merchant Tailors.\n\nTo trace the history of the London Company of Barbers a little more\nfully, it was first formed in 1308 and incorporated in 1462 by a\ncharter. In one of the statutes of Henry VIII it was enacted that:\n\"No person using any shaving or barbery in London shall occult (i. e.\npractise) any surgery, letting of blood or other matter except only\ndrawing of teeth.\" In 1540 Parliament passed an act allowing the United\nCompanies of Barbers and Surgeons each to have yearly the bodies of\nfour criminals for dissection. In 1518 the barbers and surgeons were\nunited in one company; the former being restricted from all operations\nexcept tooth drawing, and the latter having to abandon shaving and hair\ndressing.\n\nIt is interesting also to note that in Oxford, for instance, the\nBarbers, Surgeons, Waferers and Makers of \"Singing bread\" were all of\nthe same fellowship, from 1348 to 1500; when, at last, the Cappers,\nor knitters of caps, were united to them, in 1551, the barbers and\nwaferers abrogated their charter and took one in the name of the city,\nuntil 1675, when they received a charter from the University.\n\nThe London Guild of Surgeons appears to have been first a mere\nfraternity which had incorporated itself, and to have originated from\nan association of the military barber surgeons who had been trained\nin the hundred years war with France, 1337 to 1444. Its membership,\nhowever, was select, and when the physicians declined an alliance\nwith it, it amalgamated with the barber companies in 1540. The United\nCompany of Barbers and Surgeons was peculiar in that strangers and\nthose who were not free men were admitted, while the journeymen of\nthe craft formed a subordinate body within the company. In 1745 the\nsurgeons separated from the barbers and formed a surgeon's company\nwhich rapidly acquired influence. By a foolish blunder it forfeited\nits charter in 1796 but was subsequently incorporated by George III,\nin 1800, as the Royal College of Surgeons in London; a body which\nhas since maintained its identity, grown tremendously in wealth and\nstrength, and having become one of the licensing bodies of England,\nhas acquired the finest collection of books and specimens in the world\nand has numbered the brightest intellects which the English surgical\nprofession has contained.\n\nIn Dublin the Barber Surgeons were incorporated as a guild by charter\ngranted by Henry VI, in 1446. In 1576 they were amalgamated with the\nindependent surgeons, and by Queen Elizabeth with the barber surgeons\nand wig-makers. This confraternity was dissolved in 1784 and the\nCollege of Surgeons founded immediately afterwards. In Edinburgh the\nbarbers and surgeons were united in 1505, to be separated at about the\nsame time as elsewhere in Great Britain.\n\nDuring the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on the continent\nmedicine and surgery were abruptly separated, and the latter was\nalmost entirely in the hands of the barbers. For hundreds of years\nthe dissection of corpses and the embalming of those who could afford\nit, were in the hands of first the butchers and later of the barbers.\nThe greatest contempt was everywhere shown for one who attempted any\nsurgery. If for instance a nobleman while being bled by a barber\nreceived the slightest harm the poor barber was heavily fined, while,\nshould the gentleman die, the culprit was given into the hands of the\ndead man's relatives to be dealt with as they desired. Throughout the\nmonasteries and whenever the influence of the Church was felt it was\nforbidden to the monks, who had the monopoly of knowledge, to perform\nany surgical operation since the Church abhorred the shedding of\nblood.[8]\n\n[8] I leave it to defenders of the Faith to reconcile this abhorrence\nwith the persecutions of heretics and the tortures of the Inquisition\npermitted by the same Church.\n\nFor hundreds of years the monks were not allowed to wear a beard;\nthis necessitated the employment of tonsors (\"tonsorial-artists\"\nthey call themselves to-day) to whom was left also the performance\nof anything that partook of the nature of an operation, such as\nbleeding, bandaging, etc. This calling, was however, recognized as a\nmost inferior one, and the barbers, like the bathkeeper, the shepherd\nand the hangman, were not considered of good repute. Consequently,\nsuch an one was not eligible for membership in any other guilds or\nfraternities. In 1406 the Emperor Wenzel was rescued from prison, in\nPrague, by the daughter of a bathkeeper; in gratitude he made her his\nmistress, and declared both barbers and bathkeepers to be respectable;\nbut having lost his position his decree had no weight, and not until\n1548, in Augsburg, were they really made eligible to the guilds. At\nthis time their most dignified labor was the sharpening of instruments.\nIn 1696 Leopold I. decreed their profession to be an art, and gave it a\nposition above that of the apothecary so that in their most dignified\noccupation they were elevated to the making of ointments and plasters.\n\nAs surgery has for the profession of barber surgery to thank the\nexistence upon man of a beard, so the European continent may thank\nthe Crusaders of the eleventh century for having necessitated the\nexistence of the bathkeeper, because of the leprosy which they brought\nhome from the East. During the Crusades, as is well known, there were\nfounded numerous Orders having for their original purpose the care and\nprotection of pilgrims and injured soldiers. The three most celebrated\nOrders were the Knights of St. John, the Knights Templar and the\nTeutonic Order. Were this the place it would be most interesting to go\ninto a history of these religio-medico-military Orders, and show how\nfrom most devout purposes and humble origin they grew into despotic\nand tyrannical associations of great power, which it finally took all\nthe force of Church and State to suppress. As the then humble and\nenthusiastic members of these Orders returned from the Holy Land they\nestablished hospitals for the care of lepers, who became very numerous\nin Europe. For instance it is stated that in France, in 1225, there\nwere two thousand hospitals for this purpose, while the King Louis the\nGreat founded, in 1260, a special hospital for those made blind by\nEgyptian ophthalmia. It is well known also that during the middle ages\nthere was the greatest neglect of the ordinary canons of cleanliness\nboth among the upper and lower classes. The number of hospitals and\ncloisters dedicated to the lepers being insufficient, bath houses were\nbuilt and bathkeepers were engaged in order, so far as possible,\nto prevent the spread of leprosy. At this time the bathkeeper was\npermitted to bathe and cup, later also to bleed, although the bleeding\nwas required to be done in the bathkeepers' own house, since he was\nnot usually permitted to enter a patient's house. As bathing became\nless necessary for purposes already mentioned the bathkeeper took to\nimitating the barber, though much later, and not until about 1750 in\nsome countries, were they permitted to do this publicly, and only after\nhaving passed the examinations to which the barber was also subjected.\nIn Prussia they were only allowed to treat wounds and chronic diseases,\nand so it came about that by the beginning of the eighteenth century a\nreally conscientious and efficient barber surgeon was supposed to have\nserved an apprenticeship in large hospitals, to have witnessed the work\nof noted surgeons and to have served in the Army or Navy. He was also\nsupposed to be something of a linguist and to know a little botany;\nparticularly was he expected to be conversant with anatomy, although\nthere was a sad lack of cadavers--which was atoned for by the use of\ncarcasses of animals, for the main part swine.\n\nEckardt, writing at this time of the sixteen different virtues of a\nbarber, enumerated, first of all, fear of God; then that he should be\ncareful, prudent, temperate, and ready to use both hands with equal\ndexterity; he claimed that \"Arrogance seems most prevalent among\nbarbers, as a common saying would imply 'barbers are proud animals.'\"\nHe expressed his surprise also at the envy and malice between\nbathkeepers and barbers, and advised them both to consult physicians\nand other masters.\n\nThe customs of the time must be blamed for this lamentable condition of\naffairs. The boy who was destined to become a barber was apprenticed\nat a time when he had scarcely learned to write. If he could write\nlegibly and read a little Latin no one dared refuse him. He learned\nto shave and went from house to house for this purpose, spending the\nlittle time remaining in sharpening knives, spreading plasters, picking\nlint, taking care of children, doing all menial duties, and using the\nsame light as the housemaid because it would have been disrespectful\nto his master's wife to use any other. After years of this work he\nwas gradually taken to visit patients and then was taught how to\nbleed, cup, apply leeches, extract teeth and clysters. His master\nknowing nothing of anatomy could give him no instruction, though by\nthe laws of apprenticeship he was bound to do so. Before concluding\nthis apprenticeship he was supposed to pass an examination, which his\nmaster's laziness usually permitted him to escape. He then presented\nthe master with some silver instruments and was dismissed with an\ninjunction to be thankful that such a miserable specimen of God's\ncreatures had ever been taught to shave a beard or spread a plaster.\nHe now became a journeyman, still living at the house of his master,\nand was not allowed to marry; after a while he received a paltry sum\nas wages, got his dinners free and began to dabble on his own account.\nStudy was out of the question; these men could not understand what\nlittle they did read and served the community mainly as bearers of\ntales. After some years of activity as journeyman they could become\nmasters by applying to the authorities, presenting certificates, and\npassing an examination before the physicians of the district.\n\nPrussia was the first country to appreciate the necessity of regulating\nmedical practice, and the barbers and bathkeepers were placed under the\ncontrol of the Medical College founded, in 1685, by Prince Frederick\nWilliam. In 1724 this institution attained its greatest activity,\nhaving a subordinate school in each province. In 1725 King Frederick\nWilliam issued a famous edict which did much to regulate medical\naffairs throughout the kingdom, and directed among other things that\nbarbers and bathkeepers should \"lead a religious, temperate, retired\nand sober life, in order to be at their best whenever their services\nwere required.\" When their business was not sufficiently good they\nassumed other cares, as, for instance, one man was surgeon, municipal\njudge and post-master all at once. They were extremely envious of\neach other and often dabbled in medicine without permission. It was\nnot until 1779 that the bathkeepers were permitted to rank in Prussia\nwith the barbers, and were allowed to use more than four basins, the\nbathkeepers' guild being incorporated with that of the barber.\n\nThere being no temptation to enter these ranks it is not strange\nthat so late even as 1790 good surgeons were rare in Germany; not\none in fifty of the barbers really knowing the first principles of\nthe work they were supposed to perform. It came to such a pass that\nsurgeons were compelled to shave and perform other duties of the\nhairdresser, for no surgeon, however skilled, was allowed to practice\nas such, unless he was the proprietor of a head-shaving and bathing\nestablishment, with assistants and apprentices, and belonged to the\nbarbers' guild, or unless he was favored by Royal exemption. It was\nthe general lament in Germany, all through the 18th century, that\nGerman surgeons were educated in barber shops. Even by the middle of\nthat century the practice of surgery was not considered an honorable\nbusiness, and those who practiced it were not permitted to carry a\nsword, neither was a surgeon admitted into society nor tolerated among\nphysicians; moreover when unsuccessful he was bitterly and relentlessly\npursued. Under existing conditions the Reichstag either could or would\ndo nothing to alleviate the distressing condition. The physician\nboasted of his education and treated the surgeon and his craft with\ndisdain, holding that surgery sustained the same relation to medicine\nthat geometry does to higher mathematics and physics. All this time,\nhowever, while the physician contented himself with disdaining surgeons\nhe made no attempt to elevate the craft nor to himself study and adorn\nit. Even by the beginning of the nineteenth century there were scarcely\nany physicians in Europe who could diagnose a surgical case, while\ndentistry they claimed called for no more skill than that sufficient\nfor tooth extraction. It was even claimed that so long as the people\ngenerally were neglectful of their teeth the physician, or even the\nsurgeon, should be ashamed to concern himself with dentistry.\n\nVon Siebold, in his day, deplored the position of the surgeon; his\nlarge military experience had shown him the difficulties with which he\nhad to contend before he could enter society, while his ambitions and\nhigh motives were scorned. Even the peasantry were bitterly opposed\nto all operations. So intense were their feelings that he repeatedly\nremoved his patients to other towns before performing operations.\nNevertheless it was true that there were the best of reasons for lack\nof confidence in any barber who dropped his razor for the purpose of\ntreating a fracture, a hernia or an obstetric case. The State required\na barber surgeon to call in a physician in all complicated surgical\ncases. In such a case the physician demanded the control of the case\nand reserved to himself the right to judge of what was required. He\nwould not even consider a surgeon who had obtained the doctorate as\nhis equal. Such consultations resulted in little but quarrels and\ndisagreeable scenes. If a village contained no physician the surgeon\ntreated also internal diseases, though he was not allowed to use strong\nmedicines. Every district had its special surgeon who, alone, had\ncharge of several villages where he had the right to keep journeymen\nand apprentices and to do shaving and cupping. In the Prussian capital\ncity only twenty German and six French surgeons were allowed to\npractice in 1725, besides the court and private surgeons.\n\nUntil 1808 every German surgeon carried on a medico-legal business\nwhich was later separated from his surgery. In 1782 there were three\nclasses of surgeons; from the lower one might be promoted to a higher\nafter an examination. In Austria, in 1805, there were doctors of\nsurgery who were required to show a general knowledge of medicine and\nwho had the same rights as the physicians; there were also medical\nsurgeons who could practice under restrictions, and bathkeepers for\nminor surgery. After the year 1773 barbers and bathkeepers were both\nspoken of in Austria as surgeons; this was to break up the disputes\nbetween them. According to an official feebill holding good in Prussia\nin 1815, the highest fee that could be charged for an operation was for\nlithotomy in adults, the maximum limit being about M. 140 ($35), while\nthe majority of operations ranged from M. 20 to M. 50 ($5.00 to $13.00\nexpressed in U. S. money). Of course this was at a time when the value\nof money was much greater than now.\n\nAs already made plain, it was the Church which by its decrees brought\nabout the separation of surgery from medicine, a condition not existing\nduring the palmy days of Greece and Rome. Even the University of\nParis at one time refused to admit a student who had not foresworn the\nstudy of surgery, while the denouncement of anatomy and surgery alike\nwas promulgated by both papal bulls and clerical decrees. While many\nof the physicians considered surgery too burdensome a study, and many\nothers had a severe prejudice against it, the principal cause operating\nto keep them apart was probably the fact that for surgeons there was\nabsolutely no social position. In 1774 Mederer was made Professor of\nSurgery in Freiburg, in Breisgau; he delivered his opening address\non the wisdom and necessity of combining medicine and surgery. As a\nresult he was persecuted by the public, insulted by students, abused by\nsurgeons and constantly threatened with personal assault. He maintained\nhis position, however, and fought against the prejudice. Twenty-two\nyears later, when he left Freiburg, he referred in his last lecture to\nhis early experience. By this time public opinion had been so changed\nthat the students serenaded him and humbly apologized for what their\npredecessors had done. Mederer could then see the success of his\nefforts in that the constitution of France contained a clause combining\nmedicine and surgery, and the Royal Sanitary Commissioners of Vienna\nhad unanimously resolved in favor of such union.\n\nThe movement begun by Mederer was continued by men like Richter, Von\nSiebold, Loder and others. In 1797, or over a hundred years ago, the\nElectoral Academy of Erfurt offered a prize for the best essay on\nthe subject \"Is it necessary and possible to combine medicine and\nsurgery theoretically as well as practically?\" Fourteen papers were\nsubmitted, of which twelve were in favor of union. Nevertheless the\nAcademy awarded the prize to the only writer who had opposed such\nunion. His reasons for such opposition were most puerile, as were all\nthe arguments subsequently advanced against it. Nevertheless a great\nstep was taken in advance, when the guilds and fraternities of barbers\nand bathkeepers were abolished, in which good work Vienna, in 1783,\ntook the lead. It was then declared that shaving was the business of\nthe hair-dresser, and that barber surgeons must attend lectures in\nsurgery and anatomy. Bavaria followed in 1804, and four years later,\nin Prussia, no one was permitted to practice surgery without having\nstudied medicine. The rules of 1786 regulating the respective positions\nand duties between physicians and surgeons were annulled in 1808, and\nby 1811 the barber license was no longer essential for the practice of\nsurgery, the privileges of the barber, as such, being abolished, while\nfor his trade only a common license was needed.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\nTHE STORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE CIRCULATION\n\nA STUDY OF THE TIMES AND LABORS OF WILLIAM HARVEY[9]\n\n[9] Address delivered at the Annual Commencement of the Medical\nDepartment of the University of Chicago, (Rush Medical College), June\n13, 1906.\n\n\nHistory in general is but a record of the succession of great events\nor epochs which have moulded the world's affairs. That which is of the\ngreatest import in the life of the individual may count for little in\nthe lives of his contemporaries, and yet it must be said that in the\nevents of to-day there has occurred a great epoch in the life of each\nof you, presumably the most important as yet in your personal records.\nThis day is then in your personal histories one of the greatest\nimportance. It is desirable, therefore, that your lives be so moulded\nand influenced by it that you may long hence look back to it and recall\nits significance.\n\nI do not know what advice I can give you which will be more fruitful\nof results, than that among your studies you include that of the\nlives of the great men who have moulded destiny and made the world's\nhistory. Their lives were modified by little things, as have been and\nwill be yours, and yet out of small matters grew for them and for us\nsome of the most far reaching effects. Select the really great men of\nwhom you best happen to know and analyze their characters that you may\nappreciate how they have become great; while if they have, as all great\nmen have, traits of smallness, study even wherein they are small, and\nhow such faults may be avoided.\n\nHistory runs as does a fairly steady stream, save that every now and\nthen some event abruptly diverts its course or influences its current.\nIt has been so, for instance, with the history of medicine. For the\nfirst sixteen hundred years of the Christian era men engaged in the\ncrude practices of our profession, utterly ignorant of the course of\nthe blood, as well as of its purposes. Then appeared upon the scene a\nman who did his own thinking, who was willing to free himself from the\nshackles of the past, to observe nature and to reason therefrom. In\nthis way came suddenly upon the world, as it were, an appreciation of\nthe Circulation of the Blood, than which perhaps no event in medical\nhistory has been of greater importance or reflected more credit upon\nits demonstrator.\n\nIt is my purpose, then, to-day to try to tell you, in a semipopular\nway, how William Harvey came to make this great discovery, as well as\nto give you some idea of the difficulties under which he worked, and of\nthe men and influences that surrounded him, believing that rather than\nspend a half hour in humorous platitudes which may provoke a smile,\nbut which are quickly forgotten, it is much better to try to implant\nsomething which may linger a while in your memories, and sufficiently\nimpress you with the value of observation and inductive reasoning,\nsince if you become thus fully impressed you will be spared in the\nfuture many sad errors of speech and even of thought.\n\nBefore telling the story of Harvey's life and work let us study for a\nfew moments the general condition of affairs in Europe, in order that\nwe may better understand the men whose influence surrounded him, as\nwell as the spirit of the times and men's habits of thought.\n\nAmong the monarchs reigning in various parts of Europe during Harvey's\ntime there were, for instance, in that part of the Empire of the West\nwhich was called Germany, Rudolph II, Matthias and Ferdinand. In\nSweden reigned King Sigismund, Charles IX, the great monarch Gustavus\nAdolphus, and Queen Christine. In Prussia the throne had been occupied\nby Joachim, George William and Frederick William, as electors, this\nbeing before the days of the Prussian kings. In Russia the Czars Boris\nGodunow, Michael Theodore and Alexis had occupied the throne.\n\nFrance had but recently passed through the inhuman butchery of the\nmassacre of St. Bartholomew and its accompanying persecution of the\nHuguenots, under Charles IX, who expressed the hope that not a single\nHuguenot would be left alive to reproach him with the deed, but who\ndied himself soon after the massacre, which is said to have caused\nhim bitter remorse. Charles had been succeeded by his brother Henry\nIII, a weak, fickle and vicious monarch, whose weakness caused him\nto be embroiled in civil strife, which was only concluded by his own\nassassination at the hands of a Dominican friar. Then came Henry IV, he\nof Navarre, afterwards surnamed The Great, who fought the famous battle\nof Ivry in 1590, and who reigned for twenty-one years, the greatest\nand most popular sovereign who ever occupied the throne of France.\nNotwithstanding his noble qualities he did not succeed in preserving\nhis court from many of the contaminations of the age, and in his reign\nit is said that no less than 4,000 French gentlemen were killed in\nduels, chiefly arising out of quarrels about women. He was succeeded by\nLouis XIII, who was still on the throne when Harvey died.\n\nIn Harvey's own country James I was occupying the throne when Harvey\nappeared upon the scene. He was that royal pedant whom the Duke of\nSully pronounced \"the wisest fool in Europe.\" After his death, and when\nCharles I ascended the throne during his twenty-fifth year, in 1625,\nHarvey was preparing to publish his great work. It was this Charles I\nwho retained as a favorite the worthless scoundrel Buckingham, whose\nmisconduct in Spain prevented the proposed marriage of the king with\nthe Spanish Infanta and brought about the Civil War. It was because\nof the cost of this war, and of the king's disputes with Parliament\nregarding the matter, that England was rent between the conflicts of\nthe Cavaliers and the Roundheads, two of the consequences of this\nintestine strife being the execution of the Earl of Strafford and of\nArchbishop Laud. The troubles thus engendered finally cost the life of\nthe king himself, who was beheaded in 1649. Harvey even lived to see\nthe first half of the short tenure of office of Cromwell as the Great\nProtector, and was perhaps fortunate in dying before began the reign of\nthat odious profligate Charles II.\n\nIt is worth while to enquire for a moment what was doing on this side\nof the ocean at this period which we have now under consideration. In\n1607 Virginia was settled by the English, in 1614 New York, by the\nDutch, in 1620 Massachusetts and, three years later, New Hampshire,\nby the English Puritans; in 1624 New Jersey, by the Dutch, in 1627\nDelaware by Swedes and Finns, in 1630 Maine, by the English, in 1634\nMaryland, by Irish Catholics, in 1635 Connecticut, by English Puritans.\nThus it will be seen that the active period of Harvey's life was\nsynchronous with the beginnings of our colonial activities. Very little\nknowledge of what was going on in the then world of science was brought\nto this country at this period of its existence, however, and it was\nmany years before in these colonies there were any exhibitions of\nscientific interest save in extremely scattered and sporadic cases.\n\nAmong Harvey's literary associates were a number of celebrated English\npoets, for example,--Marlowe (1593), Spenser (1598), Beaumont (1615),\nShakespeare (1615), Herbert (1635), Ben Jonson (1637), Massinger\n(1639). Lord Bacon died a year or two after the appearance of Harvey's\nbook, while Baron Napier, the inventor of logarithms, had passed away.\nHis contemporaries in Italy, where he had studied, included Tasso\n(1595) and Galileo (1645). Rubens had died in 1640, Michael Angelo in\n1564 and Titian in 1576. In France, Calvin, the practical murderer of\nServetus, had passed away in 1564, Beza died in 1605, Descartes in\n1650, Pascal in 1662 and Gassendi in 1655. Portugal had produced but\none great figure in the 16th century, namely Camoens, who died in 1579.\nIn Spain, Loyola, the ascetic and fanatic founder of the Jesuits, had\njoined the great majority in 1556; but Cervantes did not die until\n1616, Lope de Vega in 1635, Velasquez in 1660 and Calderon in 1667.\n\nIn Germany some great figures had but recently disappeared. Paracelsus\ndied in 1541, Copernicus in 1543, Luther in 1546, Hans Holbein in\n1554, and Melancthon in 1560. Mercator, who introduced a new method of\ncartography, died in 1594, Tycho Brahe in 1601, Keppler in 1631, Van\nDyck in 1641, Grotius, the great scholar, in 1645, Rembrandt in 1668\nand Spinoza in 1677.\n\nIn philosophy, scepticism was the prevailing doctrine in the time of\nHarvey. It had been founded a hundred years previously by Montaigne,\nand continued by Charron, the chaplain of Queen Margaret of Navarre,\nwho died in 1603, and who declared all religion to be opposed to human\nreason;--a remarkable attitude for a chaplain to assume. Opposed to the\nscepticism of Harvey's day was the mystic, Cabalistic or supernatural\nphilosophy especially represented by B\u00f6hme, a peasant shoemaker,\nuneducated and yet wonderfully gifted. He had been the philosophical\ncolleague of that great Meistersinger, Hans Sachs. Later philosophers\nand thinkers, yet belonging to Harvey's time, were Pascal, the great\nJansenist, who discovered the variations of atmospheric pressure at\ndifferent levels, and Malebranche, who figures prominently in the\nhistory of philosophy.\n\nDescartes, who died in 1650, held the pineal gland to be the seat of\nthe soul. He was the discoverer of the laws of refraction of light\nand furnished the explanation for the rainbow. He attained greatest\neminence in mathematics, physics and philosophy, and was one of\nthe inventors of modern algebra. One of his greatest opponents was\nthat noble Jew, Spinoza, whose colleagues had expelled him from the\nSanhedrim to the sound of the trombone.\n\nThe Italian Dominican Campanella, who died in 1639, considered\nthe foundation of knowledge to be supernatural revelation and its\nperception by the senses. In spite of these views he came before The\nInquisition on a charge of heresy and of cooperation with the Turks,\nwas tortured by the rack, and imprisoned for thirty years.\n\nThe mystic or Cabalistic notions of Harvey's day have just been\nmentioned. Under them we may recognize many degenerate products and\namalgamations of the real doctrines of Paracelsus. The doctrines of\nthe Rosicrucians, as well as of Zoroaster and the Cabala, were revived\nand made to do strange work. There was, for instance, that Sir Kenelm\nDigby, who died in 1605, a King's chamberlain, who posed among the\nEnglish as a so-called Rosicrucian. It was he who suggested the famous\n\"_sympathetic powder_,\" which was to be applied to the weapon by which\na wound had been inflicted, after which the _weapon_ was anointed and\ndressed two or three times a day, while the wound itself was carefully\nbound up with dressings and left alone for a week. This was perhaps\nmuch the better course, but it will show what strange notions prevailed\nin those days.\n\nWhat it meant to run counter to ecclesiastical policy and theological\ndogma appears not only in such tragedies as terminated the lives\nof Bruno and many other martyrs to science, but in such facts as\nthese; for instance, when in 1624, just when Harvey was preparing to\npublish his work, some young chemists in Paris, seeing the benefit\nof the experimental method, broke away from Aristotle and the canons\nof theological reasoning, the faculty of theology appealed to the\nParliament of Paris, which latter prohibited all such researches, under\nthe severest penalties.\n\nThis was the time too when such exhibitions as the following were\naltogether too frequent;--One Quaresimo, of Lodi, came out with\na ponderous work entitled \"A Historical, Theological and Moral\nExplanation of the Holy Land,\" in which he devoted great space to the\nquestion of The Dead Sea and the salt pillar supposed to represent\nLot's wife, dividing a long chapter upon the subject into three parts,\ndealing with the method and the locality of this transformation and the\nquestion of the existence at that time of her saline remains. Thus,\nwith his peculiar powers of reasoning, he was able to decide the exact\npoint where the saline change took place, and finally showed that the\nstatue _was still in existence_.\n\nLord Bacon was also an older contemporary of Harvey, having been born\nin 1561 and dying in 1626, shortly after the appearance of Harvey's\ngreat work. His services to analytic science need no description here,\nbut it is worth while to remember that Harvey, like many others, must\nhave come under his influence and have profited by his teachings in\nlogic and analysis.\n\nAt about the time when Harvey made known his discovery Bacon was\npublishing his views of the laws of transmission and reflection of\nsound. Great man as he was, with a keen foresight into the value of\nthe recent inventions of the compass, gun-powder and printing, he\nnevertheless was himself so narrow, in some respects, that he placed\nbut little value upon the discovery of Copernicus. He, however, paved\nthe way for one in some respects still greater, namely Isaac Newton,\nwho, however, had scarcely attained man's stature when Harvey died.\n\nHow much we owe to the two great Bacons of history one cannot indicate\nin this short r\u00e9sum\u00e9. Roger Bacon (1214-1292) seems to have been the\nfirst great thinker along truly scientific lines. He was more than a\nmere chemist while, as White says, more than three centuries before\nFrancis Bacon _advocated_ the experimental method Roger Bacon had\n_practised_ it, and in many directions. He did more than anyone else\nin the middle ages to direct thought into fruitful paths, and only\nnow are we finding out how nearly he reached some of the principal\ndoctrines of modern philosophy and chemistry. Most important of all,\nhis methods were even greater than his results, and this at a time\nwhen \"theological subtilizing\" was the only passport to reputation for\nscholarship.\n\nIt was Avicenna, the Arabian, who perhaps first announced substantially\nthe modern theory of geology, accounting for changes in the earth's\nsurface by suggesting a stone-making force, but the presence of fossils\nin the rocks had been always a thorn in the sides of the theologians.\nIt was Leonardo da Vinci, that versatile genius in science and art,\nwho, previous to Harvey's generation, suggested true notions as to the\norigin of fossils, while, in Harvey's time, Bernard Palissy, another\nartist, vehemently contended for their correctness. Still, even at\nHarvey's death, neither geology nor paleontology had come anywhere near\nscientific accuracy.\n\nThe _Academia dei Lyncei_, so-called from its seal, which bore the\nimage of a fox, was founded in Rome in 1603. In France The Academy\nof Science was not founded until 1665, in Germany The Society of\nNaturalists and Physicians in 1652, and the British Royal Society in\n1665.\n\nIn matters of general interest it may be worth while to say that in\narchitecture the general style of The Renaissance was changed for the\nmore substantial Barocco, while the more formal and limited style of\nchurch music had given away to musical drama, i. e., opera, albeit\nin very crude form. The first newspaper had appeared at Antwerp in\n1605, the first German paper being published in Frankfort in 1615, and\nThe London Weekly News making its first appearance in 1620. Tobacco,\nwhich had been brought over by Raleigh in 1560, had come into quite\ngeneral use, while coffee, tea and chocolate had gained in public\nesteem. When coffee was first introduced in England it sold for about\n$28 a pound. The first coffee house appears to have been established\nin Constantinople, in the middle of the 16th century, while the first\ncoffee house in London was not opened until a century later.\n\nThe barbers still retained their ascendency, and the bath keepers had\nscarcely lost their position next to the barbers. It was not until\nHarvey had reached a ripe age that the barbers were required in Germany\nto pass an examination, in which they had to prove not only their\nknowledge but the legitimacy of their birth, and the fact that they\nhad studied for three years and had worked for three years more as\napprentices.\n\nAnatomy was studied quite generally, sometimes upon human bodies. A\ndissecting room had been established in Dresden in 1617, in which\nstuffed bears, at that time a great rarity, were preserved with other\ncuriosities. In 1623 Rolfink, at Jena, arranged for public dissection\nupon the bodies of all executed malefactors, delegates being present\nthereat from various other institutions. It is worth while to mention\nthat in Frankfort, for instance, during the expiration of 65 years, but\nseven dissections were made, and that these were always accompanied\nby a celebration which lasted several days. Vienna did not possess a\nskeleton in 1668, and Strassburg did not have one until 1671. Yet it is\nof interest to remember that the anatomical plates, like those often\npublished to-day, which are meant to be lifted off in layers, existed\neven at this period. On the other hand, botanical gardens and chemical\nlaboratories existed in several of the universities,--in Strassburg,\nfor instance, in 1619,--in Oxford in 1622.\n\nFabricius Hildanus, the father of German surgery, or, as he has\nbeen sometimes called, the Ambroise Par\u00e9, of Germany, was also a\ncontemporary of Harvey's. His real name was Fabry and he was born in\nHilden, but he latinized his name into that form usually adopted to-day.\n\nScultetus was another famous surgeon of the same period.\n\nWilliam Gilbert, 1540-1603, had been the talented physician of Queen\nElizabeth, and was among the first to study the experimental method.\nWith the appearance of his book upon the magnet, in 1600, began the\nscience of electricity and magnetism. He was the first to teach the\nfact that the earth itself was a great magnet and he distinguished\nbetween magnetic and electric reactions. Later the great Dutch\nanatomist, Ruysch, afforded corroboration of Harvey's views by\nanother method, when he invented and practised those beautiful minute\ninjections of the vascular system which made him so famous, and built\nup that great collection of specimens which Peter the Great bought for\nRussia at an expense of about $75,000.\n\nContemporary with Harvey also was Swammerdam, one of the most versatile\nmen of his time, famous as naturalist, savant, physiologist, linguist\nand poet. It was during the fifteenth century that astronomy began to\nassume an importance and degree of accuracy never hitherto known. This\nwas due very largely to the independence of thought and the researches\nof Copernicus, who was born in Cremona in 1477, and who studied\nmedicine in Krakau and astronomy in Vienna. He lived to the age of 70\nand was the real father of the heliocentric theory, now known as the\nCopernician system, which he substituted for the previous Ptolemaic\ntheory, thus reversing the ancient idea that the sun circled about\nthe earth. Copernicus demonstrated the phases of the moon, but his\nopponents claimed that if this doctrine were true Venus would exhibit\nthe same phenomena; to which he replied that it was true, though he\nknew not what to say to these objections, but that God was good and\nwould in time furnish answer to them. It was Galileo's crude telescope\nwhich, in Harvey's younger day, in 1611, furnished this answer and\nrevealed the phases of Venus. To illustrate how the views of Copernicus\nwere received we might add here that Martin Luther paid his compliments\nto him by declaring that Copernicus was a fool who wished to stand\nastronomy upon its head.\n\nCopernicus was succeeded by Galileo, who was born in 1554 in Pisa,\nand died 1642. He may be called the creator of dynamic astronomy\nand mechanics, as well as one of the most brilliant exponents of\nexperimental and inductive reasoning. He was of noble birth and was, in\nfact, the torch bearer of physics at the period of The Renaissance. He\ngave up speculation and substituted for it the habit of observation,\nreaping a large harvest of surprising facts, any one of which might\nhave immortalized him. He not only established the movements of the\nearth on its own axis as well as around the sun, which Copernicus\nhad shown, but he discovered the weight of the atmosphere and first\ncalculated the law of gravity. He and his successors were governed\nalways by that aphorism which is to-day as true as ever: \"Experience is\ndeceptive and judgment difficult.\"\n\nIn 1615 when he was before The Inquisition, at Rome, and when its\ntheologians had examined statements extracted from his letters, they\nsolemnly rendered their decision in these words: \"The first proposition\nthat the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth is\nfoolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical, because expressly\ncontrary to The Holy Scripture. The second proposition that the earth\nis not the centre, but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in\nphilosophy and, from a theological point of view, at least, opposed to\nthe true faith.\" This for a pronunciamento from the _infallible_ Church!\n\nGalileo and Bruno have by some writers both been made to stand in an\nunpleasant light because of their recantation or shifting position\nbefore The Inquisition. Bruno was the greatest philosopher and sceptic\nof the latter part of the 16th century, and had outlined, withal\nsomewhat vaguely, that which is now known as the nebular hypothesis.\nHe was murdered by The Inquisition in 1600, and the views which he\nenunciated seem to have been buried with him, not to reappear until\nlong after his sad fate had been consummated. He had, for instance,\ncontended for the truths of the Copernican doctrine, but it was not\nuntil ten years after his martyrdom that Galileo proved it with his\ntelescope. That both these great men yielded in some respects to the\ninfluences of The Inquisition and renounced some of their scientific\n\"heresies\" is largely to be excused by the fact that they were both\nold, broken in health from the sufferings which they had endured, as\nwell as from their disappointments, and that they had been, under\nthese circumstances, handed over to that Inquisition which knew no\nmercy. Galileo could well remember the _auto da f\u00ea_ in the Piazza\ndei Fiore, in Rome, the scene of Bruno's martyrdom, as well as the\ntragic end of many another who had dared to have the courage of his\nconvictions. Let us, then, not judge him harshly, but be grateful\neven that the enormous power of The Inquisition did not and could not\nsuppress the truth.\n\nGalileo's discovery of the satellites of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn,\nhis experiments with the pendulum, his construction of the telescope,\nas well as of the thermometer, and many other deeds, have stamped him\nas one of the great figures in the history of progress and science. It\nis most interesting to note that this contemporary of Harvey's, like\nhimself, was given to inductions obtained from experimental studies.\nAnother great astronomical light of Harvey's time was Keppler, who was\ndriven from one place to another by religious fanaticism, until he\nended his life in 1630. It was he who formulated the great principle\nwhich underlies the motions of the planets, and who gave to the world\nhis so-called \"laws,\" which so materially advanced the science of\nastronomy. It was he who really discovered that comet which was later\ngiven Hailey's name, whose periodic return he first foretold.\n\nSuch was the spirit of the times in which Harvey lived, and such\nthe influences which surrounded his teachers before him and himself\nin turn. It makes a long preface to a consideration of what Harvey\nhimself accomplished, but it is not without its interest because men\nand their deeds must be judged largely by their environment. Now, to\nspeak more particularly of Harvey himself, and what was known of the\ncirculation when he undertook his investigations.\n\nThe liver had been considered, from time immemorial, as the principal\nfactor in the production and movement of the blood. The ancients\nsupposed that here the veins took their origin and that through them\nthe blood flowed to all parts of the body, returning to its source by\nan undulating movement or series of alternate waves. The arteries had\nbeen supposed to contain only vital spirits, whose great reservoir was\nthe heart, although Erasistratus had admitted that in certain cases\nblood might escape into the arterial channels. Later Galen showed that\nthe arteries always contained blood, and he knew that blood was poured\ninto the right side of the heart by the great veins, but believed that\nonly a little of it passed from the right ventricle into the lungs, the\ngreater part of it passing through hypothetical pores in the septum\nand thus into the left ventricle. This opinion, like Galen's in other\nrespects, remained unchanged until the middle of the 16th century.\nIt was also known that valves existed within the veins, and that if\nan artery were tied on a living animal blood would cease to flow and\npulsation be checked below the ligature, while if a vein were tied it\nshrunk above the ligature and became distended below.\n\nThree men before Harvey's time came very near to discovering the secret\nthat made him famous; in fact, they made such advances on what was\nalready known that history should accord them a distinguished place.\nOne was _Columbus_, who was born at Cremona in 1490, and died in 1559.\nHe was first a pupil and prosector and then a friend of Vesalius, the\ngreat anatomist. Later he succeeded him at The University of Padua\nand unfortunately, after gaining his position, ungratefully turned\nupon his old teacher. He was, however, for his day a good anatomist\nand especially a good osteologist. It was he who first demonstrated\nexperimentally that blood passes through the lungs into the pulmonary\nveins and that the latter connect with the left ventricle. He thus\npractically established the fact of the lesser circulation. He\nsuffered, however, as did Servetus, from the prevailing notion that\nspirits and blood were mixed together. From Padua Columbus went to\nPisa, and then to Rome. He wrote with elegance and correctness of style\nand even described the vessels which penetrate the bone cells, the\nossicles of the ear, the minute anatomy of the teeth, the ventricles\nof the larynx, as well as those valves which prevent the return of\nblood from the lungs to the heart. In fact, he narrowly missed the\nsignificance of the actual facts of the case, simply failing in his\nfinal analysis and assembling of those facts which he had already\ndemonstrated.\n\n_Cesalpinus_, who lived a little later, came still nearer the mark,\nhaving accepted the teachings of Columbus regarding the course of\nthe blood through the lungs. He added that the ultimate arterial\nbranches connect with those of the veins, and he taught that blood\nand vital spirits, from which the ancients could never separate\nthemselves, passed from the arteries into the veins during sleep, as\nwas demonstrated by the swelling of the veins and the diminution of the\npulse at that time.\n\nA little later came _Michael Servetus_, who figures principally in\nhistory as a theologian and a victim of theologians, since he perished\na martyr to Calvin's jealousy. He was, in effect, a wisely and widely\neducated man who did a great deal for science, one of the offences\nattributed to him being an edition of Ptolemy's geography, in which\nJudea was described as a barren and inhospitable land instead of one\n\"flowing with milk and honey.\" This simple statement of a geographical\nfact was made a tremendous weapon of offence by Calvin, who replied\nthat even if Servetus had only quoted from Ptolemy and, although\nthere were ample geographical proofs, it nevertheless \"unnecessarily\ninculpated Moses and grievously outraged The Holy Ghost.\" Servetus\ndared to deny the passage of the blood through the septum of the heart,\nand contended that that which comes into the right side was distributed\nto the lung and returned to the left ventricle. He published his views,\nhowever, in a religious treatise on Errors concerning The Trinity, a\nmost unfortunate place in which to inject such an important fact,\nsince it gave his enemies a still greater opportunity to vent and\nventilate their spleen. Had he been able to leave out that notion of\nvital spirits, which prevailed with all his predecessors, he might\nactually have made the great discovery left for Harvey to enunciate.\nI have not been able to refer to original documents in this matter,\nbut it is claimed by some that his description of the circulation was\ncontained in another religious work concerning the Restitution of\nChristianity, which was printed in Nuremberg in 1790.\n\nSuch was the actual state of knowledge concerning the movements of the\nblood and the functions of the heart when Harvey published his great\nwork. It behooves us now to proceed with a short account of Harvey's\nown life and researches.\n\n_William Harvey_ was born at Folkestone on the first of April, 1578. He\nwas the eldest son of a prosperous merchant who raised a large family\nand who occupied the highest positions of honor in his own town. The\nson William was born to his second wife, by whom he had seven sons and\ntwo daughters. All of these children were helped to remunerative or\nhonorable positions. They became merchants or politicians or secured\nprominence in some way, but William was the only one to study medicine.\nHe was sent to the King's school at Canterbury, in 1588, and he was\nadmitted at Caius, in Cambridge, in 1593, where he graduated in arts\nin 1597. The following year he went to Padua, which then had one of\nthe greatest medical schools of the time, and he obtained his medical\ndiploma in 1602, when twenty-four years of age. Returning to England he\nreceived a doctor's degree at Cambridge, and shortly afterward married\na daughter of a London physician and entered upon the practice of\nmedicine in London.\n\nIn the great city his practice as a physician seems to have been from\nthe outset successful, and his knowledge and ability procured him\nvarious valuable appointments. He was made a Fellow of The College\nof Physicians in 1607. This Royal College of Physicians was given a\ngrant of incorporation by Henry VIII in 1518, at the intercession of\nChambers, Linacre and Ferdinand Victoria, the King's Physicians, it\nbeing under the patronage of Cardinal Wolsey. The first meetings were\nheld at Linacre's house which he bequeathed to the corporation at his\ndeath. Until this College was founded practitioners of medicine were\nlicensed to practise by the Bishop of London or by the Dean of St.\nPaul's.\n\nA few years later Harvey was appointed Physician-Extraordinary to King\nJames I, and later yet, after the publication of his great treatise\nand its dedication to the King, he was made Physician-in-Ordinary to\nCharles I, whom he attended during the Civil Wars.\n\nIt must have been about 1615 when Harvey first began expounding his\nviews on the circulation of the blood, during lectures which were\ndelivered at The College of Physicians, but it was not until thirteen\nyears later, i. e., in 1628, that his great work DE MOTU CORDIS\nwas published in Latin, as was customary among scholars, and at\nFrankfort-on-the-Main, since that was then the great center of the book\npublishing trade.\n\nThe treatise was dedicated to King Charles I, in a manner which to us\nwould seem servile, and yet which was according to a custom followed\nby nearly all of the scholars of the day, who desired to attract not\nonly the attention of royalty, but, in most instances, their benevolent\nassistance. It is worth while to quote at this point the first sentence\nor two of his dedication:\n\n           \"To the\n  Most Serene and Invincible\n           CHARLES,\n  of Great Britain, France and Ireland,\n  KING: DEFENDER of the FAITH,\n         Most Serene King,\n\n\"The heart of animals is the basis of their life, the principle of\nthe whole, the Sun of their Microcosm, that upon which all movement\ndepends, from which all strength proceeds. The King in like manner\nis the basis of his Kingdom, the Sun of his World, the heart of the\nCommonwealth, whence all power derives, all grace appears. What I have\nhere written of the movements of the heart I am the more emboldened to\npresent to your Majesty, according to the Custom of the present age,\nbecause nearly all things human are done after human examples and many\nthings in the King are after the pattern of the heart.\"\n\nThe dedication was followed by a Proemium which one may hardly read\nto-day without emotion. In it he sets forth the mystery that has\nsurrounded the subject of the motion and function of the heart, as well\nas the attendant difficulties of the subject, speaking of his own early\ndespair that he would ever be able to clear up the subject. He even\nsaid that at one time he found the matter so beset with difficulties\nthat he was inclined to agree with Fracastorius \"that the movements of\nthe heart and their purpose could be comprehended by God alone.\" Only\nlater was this despair dispelled by a suggestion when, as he says: \"I\nbegan to think whether there might not be a movement in a circle\" when\nthus the truth dawned fully upon him.\n\nWe shall have to speak later of the opposition provoked by the\nappearance of this work and its almost general rejection. It is\nperhaps, however, but just to those who disputed Harvey's discoveries\nto recall that no complete and actual demonstration of the actual\ncirculation was possible at that time, nor for many years after, and\nuntil the introduction of the microscope, the common magnifying glass\nof that day being the only lens in use. It remained for Malpighi to\ndemonstrate the blood actually in circulation in the lung of a frog\nsome three or four years after Harvey's death, in 1657. But Harvey\nlived long enough to see his views gain general acceptance, and\nthough at first, and as the result of the opposition provoked by his\npublication, his practice fell off mightily, he later regained his\nprofessional position and rose to the highest eminence, being elected\nin 1654 to the Presidency of the College of Physicians. To this\ninstitution he proved a great benefactor, making considerable additions\nto the building after its destruction in The Great Fire of 1666 and\nits subsequent restoration. He also left a certain sum of money as a\nfoundation for an annual oration, to be delivered in commemoration\nof those who had been great benefactors of the College. This oration\nis still regularly delivered on St. Luke's Day, i. e., the 18th of\nOctober, and is ordinarily known as the Harveian oration. In these\norations more or less reference to Harvey's work and influence is\nalways made.\n\nThis great man passed away on the 3d of June, 1657, within ten months\nof his eightieth birthday, thus affording a brilliant exception to the\nlist of men who have rendered great service to the world and not lived\nlong enough to see it appreciated.\n\nAs one reads Harvey's own words, the wonder ever grows that it should\nhave remained for him, after the lapse of so many centuries, to not\nonly call attention to what had been said by Galen but apparently\nforgotten by his successors, namely, that \"the arteries contained blood\nand nothing but blood, and, consequently, neither spirits nor air,\nas may be readily gathered from experiments and reasonings,\" which\nhe elsewhere furnishes. He furthermore shows how Galen demonstrated\nthis by applying two ligatures upon an exposed artery at some distance\nfrom each other, and then opening the vessel itself in which nothing\nbut blood could be found. He calls attention also to the result of\nligation of one of the large vessels of an extremity, the inevitable\nresult being just what we to-day know it must be, and the procedure\nterminating with gangrene of the limb.\n\nNot long before Harvey's own publication, Fabricius, he of\nAquapendente, had published a work on respiration, stating that, as\nthe pulsation of the heart and arteries was insufficient for the\nventilation and refrigeration of the blood, therefore were the lungs\nfashioned to surround the heart. Harvey showed how the arterial pulse\nand respiration could not serve the same ends, combating the view\ngenerally held, that if the arteries were filled with air, a larger\nquantity of air penetrating when the pulse is large and full, it\nmust come to pass that if one plunge into a bath of water or of oil\nwhen the pulse is strong and full it should forthwith become either\nsmaller or much slower, since the surrounding fluid would render it\neither difficult or impossible for air to penetrate. He also called\nattention to the inconsistencies between this view and the arrangement\nof the prenatal circulation; also to the fact that marine animals,\nliving in the depths of the sea, could under no circumstances take\nin or emit air by the movements of their arteries and beneath the\ninfinite mass of waters, inasmuch as \"to say that they absorb the air\nthat is present in the water and emit their fumes into this medium,\nwere to utter something very like a figment;\" furthermore \"when the\nwindpipe is divided, air enters and returns through the wound by two\nopposite movements, but when an artery is divided blood escapes in one\ncontinuous stream and no air passes.\"\n\nDiscussing further the views which he stigmatized as so incongruous\nand mutually subversive that every one of them is justly brought\nunder suspicion, he reverts again to the statements of Galen, calling\nattention to the fact that from a single divided artery the whole of\nthe blood of the body may be withdrawn in the course of half an hour\nor less, and to the inevitable consequences of such an act; also that\nwhen an artery is opened the blood is emptied with force and in jets,\nand that the impulse corresponds with that of the heart; again that in\nan aneurism the pulsation is the same as in other arteries, appealing\nfor corroboration in this matter to the recent statements of Riolan,\nwho later became his avowed enemy. Harvey also called attention to the\nfact that while ordinarily there was a seemingly fixed relation between\nrespiration and pulse-rate, this might vary very much under certain\ncircumstances, showing that respiration and circulation were two\ntotally different processes. Harvey utilized also the results of his\nresearches in comparative anatomy and physiology, for early in his work\nhe called attention to the fact that every animal which is unfurnished\nwith lungs lacks a right ventricle.\n\nIn his Proemium he then proceeds to ask certain very pertinent\nquestions which can only be briefly summarized in this place. He asks:\nFirst, why, inasmuch as the structure of both ventricles is practically\nidentical, it should be imagined that their uses are different, and\nwhy, if tricuspid valves are placed at the entrance into the right\nventricle and prove obstacles to the return of blood into vena cava,\nand if similar valves are situated at the commencement of the pulmonary\nartery, preventing return of blood into the ventricle, then why, when\nsimilar valves are found in connection with the other side of the\nheart, should we deny that they are there for the same purpose of\nprevention \"here the egress\" and \"there the regurgitation of the blood?\"\n\nSecondly, he asks why, in view of the similarity of these structures,\nit should be said that things are arranged in the left ventricle for\nthe egress and regress of spirits, and in the right ventricle for those\nof blood?\n\nThirdly, he enquires why, when one notes the resemblance between the\npassages and vessels connected with the opposite sides of the heart,\none should regard one side as destined to a private purpose, namely,\nthat of nourishing the lungs, the other to a more public function?\nFurthermore, he enquires, since the lungs are so near, and in continual\nmovement, and the vessels supplying them of such dimensions, what can\nbe the use of the pulse of the right ventricle, which he had often\nobserved in the course of his experiments? He sums up his inability\nto accept the explanations previously offered with a phrase which\nreads rather strangely, even in original Latin: \"Deus bone! Quomodo\ntricuspides impediunt a\u00ebris egressum, non sanguinis.\" i. e., \"Good God!\nhow should the mitral valves prevent the regurgitation of air and not\nof blood?\"\n\nHe then takes up the views of those who have believed that the blood\noozed through the septum of the heart from the right to the left side\nby certain secret pores, and to them he replied \"By Hercules, no such\npores can be demonstrated, nor, in fact, do any such exist.\" Again,\n\"Besides, if the blood could permeate the substance of the septum,\nor could be emptied from the ventricles, what use were there for the\ncoronary artery and vein, branches of which proceed to the septum\nitself, to supply it with nourishment?\"\n\nFurther on in the treatise Harvey sets forth his motives for writing,\nstating how greatly unsettled had become his mind in that he did not\nknow what he himself should conclude nor what to believe from others.\nHe says: \"I was not surprised that Laurentius should have written that\nthe movements of the heart were as perplexing as the flux and reflux\nof Euripus had appeared to Aristotle.\" He apologizes for the crime,\nas some of his friends considered it, that he should dare to depart\nfrom the precepts and opinions of all anatomists. He acknowledged\nthat he took the step all the more willingly, seeing that Fabricius,\nwho had accurately and learnedly delineated almost every one of the\nseveral parts of animals in a special work, had left the heart entirely\nuntouched.\n\nPassing more directly to the actual work of the heart, he shows that\nnot only are the ventricles contracted by virtue of the muscular\nstructure of their own walls, but further that those fibers or bands,\nstyled \"Nerves\" by Aristotle, that are so conspicuous in the ventricles\nof larger animals when they contract simultaneously, by an admirable\nadjustment, help to draw together all the internal surfaces as if\nwith cords, thus expelling the charge of contained blood with force.\nLater on he says that if the pulmonary artery be opened, blood will\nbe seen spurting forth from it, just as when any other artery is\npunctured, and that the same result follows division of the vessel\nwhich in fishes leads from the heart. He furnishes a very happy simile\nto prove that the pulses of the arteries are due to the impulses of\nthe left ventricle by showing how, when one blows into a glove all of\nits fingers will be found to have become distended at one and the same\ntime. He quotes Aristotle, who made no distinction between veins and\narteries, but said that the blood of all animals palpitates within\ntheir vessels and by the pulse is sent everywhere simultaneously, all\nof this depending upon the heart.\n\nIt is in Chapter Five of the treatise that he gives, probably for the\nfirst time, an accurate published account of just what transpires with\none complete cycle of cardiac activity. The passage need not be quoted\nhere, but deserves to be read by everyone interested in the subject,\nas who should not be? One sentence, however, is worth quotation or,\nat least, a summary, as follows: \"But if the divine Galen will here\nallow, as in other places he does, that all the arteries of the body\narise from the great artery, and that this takes its origin from the\nheart; that all the vessels naturally contain and carry blood; that the\nthree semilunar valves situated at the orifice of the aorta prevent the\nreturn of the blood into the heart, and that they were here for some\nimportant purpose,--I do not see how he can deny that the great artery\nis the very vessel to carry the blood, when it has attained its highest\ntriumph of perfection, from the heart for distribution to all parts of\nthe body.\"\n\nHis Chapter Six deals with the course by which blood is carried from\nthe right into the left ventricle, and here one must admire the large\nnumber of experimental demonstrations which Harvey had undertaken upon\nall classes of animals, for he speaks even of that which occurs in\nsmall insects, whose circulation he had studied so far as he could with\nthe simple lens. Furthermore he described the prenatal circulation,\nomitting practically nothing of that which is taught to-day, showing\nthat in embryos, while the lungs are yet in a state of inaction, both\nventricles of the heart are employed, as if they were but one, for\nthe transmission of blood. In concluding this chapter he again states\nbriefly the course of the blood, and promises to show, first, that this\nmay be so and, then, to prove that it really is so.\n\nHis Chapter Seven is devoted to showing how the blood passes through\nthe substance of the lungs from the right ventricle and then on into\nthe pulmonary vein and left ventricle. He alludes to the multitude of\ndoubters as belonging, as the poet had said, to that race of men who,\nwhen they will, assent full readily, and when they will not, by no\nmatter of means; who, when their assent is wanted, fear, and when it is\nnot, fear not to give it. A little later on he says: \"As there are some\nwho admit nothing unless upon authority, let them learn that the truth\nI am contending for can be confirmed from Galen's own words, namely,\nthat not only may the blood be transmitted from the pulmonary artery\ninto the pulmonary veins and then into the left ventricle of the heart,\nbut that this is effected by the ceaseless pulsation of the heart and\nthe movements of the lungs in breathing.\" He then shows how Galen\nexplained the uses of the valves and the necessity for their existence,\nas well as the universal mutual anastomosis of the arteries with the\nveins, and that the heart is incessantly receiving and expelling blood\nby and from its ventricles, for which purpose it is furnished with four\nsets of valves, two for escape and two for inlet and their regulation.\n\nHarvey then noted a well-known clinical fact, that the more frequent\nor forcible the pulsations, the more speedily might the body be\ndeprived of its blood during hemorrhage, and that it thus happens that\nin fainting fits and the like, when the heart beats more languidly,\nhemorrhages are diminished and arrested. The balance of the book is\npractically devoted to further demonstration and corroboration of\nstatements already made. A study of this work of Harvey's illustrates\nhow much respect even he and his contemporaries still showed for the\nauthority of Galen. It shows still further how nearly Galen came\nto the actual truth concerning the circulation. Had the latter not\nadopted too many of the notions of his predecessors concerning the\nnature of the soul (Anima) and the spirits (Pneuma) of man, he might\nhimself have anticipated Harvey by a thousand years, and by such\nannouncement of a great truth have set forward physiology by an equal\nperiod. Independent and original as Harvey showed himself, he seems to\nhave failed to get away from the notion of the vapors and spiritual\nnature of the blood which he had inherited from the writings of Galen\nand many others. Nevertheless he also alludes to this same blood as\nalimentive and nutritive. We must not forget, however, that this was\nyears before Priestly's discovery of oxygen and that Harvey had, like\nothers, no notion of the actual purpose of the lungs, believing that\nthe purification and revivification of the blood was the office of the\nheart itself.\n\nAlong with its other intrinsic merits Harvey's book possesses a clear\nand logical arrangement, the author first disposing of the errors of\nantiquity, describing next the behavior of the heart in the living\nanimal, showing its automatic pumplike structure, its alternate\ncontractions and the other phenomena already alluded to, thus piling\nup facts one upon another in a manner which proved quite irresistible.\nThe only thing that he missed was the ultimate connection between the\nveins and the arteries, i. e., the capillaries, which it remained for\nMalpighi to discover with the then new and novel microscope, which he\ndid about 1657, showing the movement of the blood cells in the small\nvessels, and confirming the reality of that ultimate communication\nwhich had been held to exist. Malpighi discovered the blood corpuscles\nin 1665, but it remained for Leeuwenhoek, of Delft, in 1690, by using\nan improved instrument to demonstrate to all observers the actual\nmovements of the circulating blood in the living animal. One historian\nhas said that with Harvey's overthrow of the old teachings regarding\nthe importance of the liver and of the spirits in the heart \"fell the\nfour fundamental humors and qualities\" while Daremberg exclaims: \"As\nin one of the days of the creation, chaos disappeared and light was\nseparated from darkness.\"\n\nIt remains now only to briefly consider how Harvey's great discovery\nwas received. To quote the words of one writer: \"So much care and\ncircumspection in search for truth, so much modesty and firmness in\nits demonstration, so much clearness and method in the development of\nhis ideas, should have prepossessed everyone in favor of the theory\nof Harvey; on the contrary, it caused a general stupefaction in the\nmedical world and gave rise to great opposition.\"\n\nDuring the quarter of a century which elapsed after Harvey's\nannouncement there probably was not an anatomist nor physiologist\nof any prominence who did not take active part in the controversy\nengendered by it; even the philosopher Descartes was one of the first\nadherents of the doctrine of the circulation, which he corroborated by\nexperiments of his own.\n\nTwo years after the appearance of Harvey's book appeared an attack,\ncomposed in fourteen days by one Primerose, a man of Scotch descent,\nborn and educated in France, but practising at Hull, in which he\npronounced the impossibilities of surpassing the ancients or improving\non the work of Riolan, who already had written in opposition to Harvey,\nand who was the only one to whom the latter vouchsafed an answer. It\nwas Riolan who procured a decree of the Faculty of Paris prohibiting\nthe teaching of Harvey's doctrine. It was this same Riolan who combated\nwith equal violence and obstinacy the other great discovery of the age,\nnamely,--the circulation of the lymph.\n\nOne of the earliest and fiercest adversaries of Harvey's theory was\nPlempius, of Louvaine, who, however, gave way to the force of argument\nand who finally publicly and voluntarily passed over to the ranks of\nits defenders in 1652, becoming one of Harvey's most enthusiastic\nadvocates.\n\nHarvey's conduct through the controversy was always of the most\ndignified character; in fact, he rarely ventured to reply in any\nway to his adversaries, believing in the ultimate triumph of the\ntruths which he had enunciated. His only noteworthy reply was one\naddressed to Riolan, then Professor in the Paris Faculty and one of\nthe greatest anatomists of his age, to whose opinion great value was\nalways attached. Even in debating or arguing against him, Harvey always\nspoke of him with great deference, calling him repeatedly The Prince of\nScience. Riolan was, however, never converted, though whether he held\nto his previous position from obstinacy, from excess of respect for the\nancients, or from envy and jealousy of his contemporary, is not known.\n\nAnother peculiar spectacle was afforded by one Parisunus, who died in\n1643, a physician in Venice, who, like Harvey, had been a pupil of\nFabricius of Aquapendente, who had been stigmatized by Riolan as an\nignoramus in anatomy, but who joined with others in declaring that he\nhad seen the heart beat when perfectly bloodless, and that no beating\nof the heart and no sounds were to be heard as Harvey had affirmed.\n\nWith the later and more minute studies into the structure and function\nof the heart we are not here concerned. The endeavor has been rather\nto place before you the sentiments, the knowledge and the habits of\nthought of the men of Harvey's time, with the briefest possible epitome\nof what they knew, or rather of how little they knew, to account for\nthis later slavish adherence to authority by unwillingness to reason\nindependently, or to observe natural phenomena intelligently, still\nless to experiment with them. It is, then, rather the brief history\nof an epochal discovery than an effort to trace out its far-reaching\nconsequences that I have endeavored to give.\n\nHere must close an account which perhaps has been to you tedious, and\nyet which is really brief, of Harvey's life and labors. He lived to see\nhis views generally accepted and to enjoy his own triumph, a pleasure\nnot attained by many great inventors or discoverers. Lessons of great\nimportance may be gathered from a more careful study of this great\nhistorical epoch, but they must be left to your own powers of reasoning\nrather than to what I may add here. I commend it to you as a fertile\nsource of inspiration, and a line of research worthy of both admiration\nand imitation. Few men have rendered greater service to the world by\nthe shedding of blood than did Harvey, in his innocent and wonderful\nstudies of its natural movement. Perhaps it might be said of him that\nhe was the first man to show that \"blood will tell.\" What he made it\ntell has been thus briefly told to you.\n\nI know not how I may better close this account than by quoting the\nconcluding words of his famous book, and especially repeating the lines\nwhich he has quoted from some Latin author whom I have not been able to\nidentify. His paragraph and his quotation are as follows:\n\n\"Finally, if any use or benefit to this department of the republic of\nletters should accrue from my labors, it will, perhaps, be allowed that\nI have not lived idly, and, as the old man in the comedy says:\n\n    'For never yet hath anyone attained\n    To such perfection, but that time, and place,\n    And use, have brought addition to his knowledge;\n    Or made correction, or admonished him,\n    That he was ignorant of much which he\n    Had thought he knew; or led him to reject\n    What he had once esteemed of highest price.'\"\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\nHISTORY OF ANAESTHESIA AND THE INTRODUCTION OF ANAESTHETICS IN\nSURGERY[10]\n\n[10] Commemorative Address delivered at the Medical Department,\nUniversity of Buffalo, October 16, 1896.\n\nIN COMMEMORATION OF THE SEMI-CENTENNIAL OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ETHER AS\nAN ANAESTHETIC AGENT\n\n\nFifty years ago to-day--that is to say, on the 16th of October,\n1846,--there occurred an event which marks as distinct a step in human\nprogress as almost any that could be named by the erudite historian.\nI refer to the first demonstration of the possibility of alleviating\npain during surgical operations. Had this been the date of a terrible\nbattle, on land or sea, with mutual destruction of thousands of human\nbeings, the date itself would have been signalized in literature and\nwould have been impressed upon the memory of every schoolboy, while the\nnames of the great military murderers who commanded the opposing armies\nwould have been emblasoned upon monuments and the pages of history. But\nthis event was merely the conquest of pain and the alleviation of human\nsuffering, and no one who has ever served his race by contributing to\neither of these results has been remembered beyond his own generation\nor outside the circle of his immediate influence. Such is the irony\nof fate. The world erects imposing monuments or builds tombs, like\nthat of Napoleon, to the memory of those who have been the greatest\ndestroyers of their race; and so C\u00e6sar, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Richard\nthe Lion-hearted, Gustavus Vasa, Napoleon and hundreds of other great\nmilitary murderers have received vastly more attention, because of\ntheir race-destroying propensities and abilities, than if they had ever\nfulfilled fate in any other capacity. But the men like Sir Spencer\nWells, who has added his 40,000 years of life to the total of human\nlongevity, or like Sir Joseph Lister, who has shown our profession\nhow to conquer that arch enemy of time past, surgical sepsis, or like\nMorton, who first publicly demonstrated how to bring on a safe and\ntemporary condition of insensibility to pain, are men more worthy in\nour eyes of lasting fame, and much greater heroes of their times, and\nof all time,--yet are practically unknown to the world at large, to\nwhom they have ministered in such an unmistakable and superior way.\n\nThis much, then, by way of preface and reason for commemorating in this\npublic way the semi-centennial of this really great event. Because\nthe world does scant honor to these men we should be all the more\nmindful of their services, and all the more insistent upon their public\nrecognition.\n\nOf all the achievements of the Anglo-Saxon race, I hold it true that\nthe two greatest and most beneficent were the discovery of ether and\nthe introduction of antiseptic methods,--one of which we owe to an\nAmerican, the other to a Briton.\n\nThe production of deep sleep and the usual accompanying abolition of\npain have been subjects which have ever appeared, in some form, in\nmyth or fable, and to which poets of all times have alluded, usually\nwith poetic license. One of the most popular of these fables connects\nthe famous oracle of Apollo, at Delphi, whence proceeded mysterious\nutterances and inchoate sounds, with convulsions, delirium and\ninsensibility upon the part of those who approached it. To what extent\nthere is a basis of fact in this tradition can never be explained, but\nit is not improbable from what we now know of hypnotic influence.\n\nFrom all time it has been known that many different plants and herbs\ncontained principles which were narcotic, stupefying or intoxicating.\nThese properties have especially been ascribed to the juices of\nthe poppy, the deadly nightshade, henbane, the Indian hemp and the\nmandr\u00e1gora, which for us now is the true mandrake, whose juice has\nlong been known as possessing soporific influence. Ulysses and his\ncompanions succumbed to the influence of _Nepenthe_; and, nineteen\nhundred years ago, when crucifixion was a common punishment of\nmalefactors, it was customary to assuage their last hours upon the\ncross by a draught of vinegar with gall or myrrh, which had real or\nsupposititious narcotic properties. Even the prophet Amos, seven\nhundred years before the time of Christ, spoke of such a mixture as\nthis as \"the wine of the condemned,\" for he says, in rehearsing the\niniquities of Israel by which they had incurred the anger of the\nAlmighty: \"And they lay themselves down upon the clothes laid to pledge\nby every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house\nof their God,\" (Chap. II, verse 8), meaning thereby undoubtedly that\nthese people, in their completely demoralized condition, drank the\nsoporific draught kept for criminals. Herodotus mentions a habit of the\nScythians, who employed a vapor generated from the seed of the hemp\nfor the purpose of producing an intoxication by inhalation. Narcotic\nlotions were also used for bathing the people about to be operated\nupon. Pliny, who perished at the destruction of Herculaneum, A. D.\n79, testified to the soporific power of the preparations made from\nmandr\u00e1gora upon the faculties of those who drank it. He says: \"It is\ndrunk against serpents and before cuttings and puncturings, lest they\nshould be felt.\" He also describes the indifference to pain produced\nby drinking a vinous infusion of the seeds of eruca, called by us\nthe rocket, upon criminals about to undergo punishment. Dioscorides\nrelates of mandr\u00e1gora that \"some boil down the roots in wine to a\nthird part, and preserve the juice thus procured, and give one cyathus\nof this to cause the insensibility of those who are about to be cut\nor cauterized.\" One of his later commentators also states that wine\nin which mandr\u00e1gora roots have been steeped \"does bring on sleep and\nappease pain, so that it is given to those who are to be cut, sawed or\nburnt in any parts of their body, that they may not perceive pain.\"\nApuleius, about a century later than Pliny, advised the use of the\nsame preparation. The Chinese, in the earlier part of the century,\ngave patients preparations of hemp, by which they became completely\ninsensible and were operated upon in many ways. This hemp is the\ncannabis Indica which furnishes the _Hasheesh_ of the Orient and the\nintoxicating and deliriating _Bhang_, about which travelers in the East\nused to write so much. In Barbara, for instance, it was always taken,\nif possible, by criminals condemned to suffer mutilation or death.\n\nAccording to the testimony of medieval writers, knowledge of these\nnarcotic drugs was practically applied during the last of the Crusades,\nthe probability being that the agent principally employed was this same\nhasheesh. Hugo di Lucca gave a complete formula for the preparation of\nthe mixture, with which a sponge was to be saturated, dried, and then,\nwhen wanted, was to be soaked in warm water, and afterward applied to\nthe nostrils, until he who was to be operated upon had fallen asleep;\nafter which he was aroused with the vapor of vinegar.\n\nStrangely enough, the numerous means of attaining insensibility, then\nmore or less known to the common people, and especially to criminals\nand executioners, do not appear to have found favor for use during\noperations. Whether this was due to unpleasant after-effects, or from\nwhat reason, we are not informed. Only one or two surgical writers\nbeside Guy de Chauliac (1498) refer in their works to agents for relief\nof pain, and then almost always to their unpleasant effects, the danger\nof producing asphyxiation, and the like. Ambrose Par\u00e9 wrote that\npreparations of mandr\u00e1gora were formerly used to avert pain. In 1579,\nan English surgeon, Bulleyn, affirmed that it was possible to put the\npatient into an anaesthetic state during the operation of lithotomy,\nbut spoke of it as a \"terrible dream.\" One Meisner spoke of a secret\nremedy used by Weiss, about the end of the XVII Century, upon Augustus\nII., king of Poland, who produced therewith such perfect insensibility\nto pain that an amputation of the royal foot was made without\nsuffering, even without royal consent. The advice which the Friar gave\nJuliet regarding the distilled liquor which she was to drink, and which\nshould presently throw her into a cold and drowsy humor, although a\npoetic generality, is Shakespeare's recognition of a popular belief.\nMiddleton, a tragic writer of Shakespeare's day, in his tragedy known\nas \"Women beware Women,\" refers in the following terms to anesthesia in\nsurgery:\n\n    \"I'll imitate the pities of old surgeons\n    To this lost limb, who, ere they show their art,\n    Cast one asleep; then cut the diseased part.\"\n\nOf course, of all the narcotics in use by educated men, opium has\nbeen, since its discovery and introduction, the most popular and\ngenerally used. Surgeons of the last century were accustomed to\nadminister large doses of it shortly before an operation, which, if\nserious, was rarely performed until the opiate effect was manifested.\nStill, in view of its many unpleasant after-effects, its use was\nrestricted, so far as possible, to extreme cases.\n\nBaron Larrey, noticing the benumbing effect of cold upon wounded\nsoldiers, suggested its introduction for anesthetic purposes, and\nArnott, of London, systematized the practice, by recommending a\nfreezing mixture of ice and salt to be laid directly upon the part\nto be cut. Other surgeons were accustomed to put their patients into\na condition of either alcoholic intoxication or alcoholic stupor.\nLong-continued compression of a part was also practised by some, by\nwhich a limb could, as we say, be made to \"go to sleep.\" A few others\nrecommended to produce faintness by excessive bleeding. It was in 1776\nthat the arch-fraud Mesmer entered Paris and began to initiate people\ninto the mysteries of what he called _animal magnetism_, which was soon\nnamed mesmerism, after him. Thoroughly degenerate and disreputable\nas he was, he nevertheless taught people some new truths, which many\nof them learned to their sorrow, while in the hospitals of France\nand England severe operations were performed upon patients thrown\ninto a mesmeric trance, and without suffering upon their part. That a\nscientific study of the mesmeric phenomena has occupied the attention\nof eminent men in recent years, and that hypnotism is now recognized\nas an agent often capable of producing insensibility to pain is simply\ntrue, as these facts have been turned to the real benefit of man by\nscientific students rather than by quacks and charlatans.\n\nIn 1799, Sir Humphrey Davey, being at that time an assistant in the\nprivate hospital of Dr. Beddoes, which was established for treatment\nof disease by inhalation of gases, and which he called The Pneumatic\nInstitute, began experimenting with nitrous oxide gas, and noticed its\nexhilarating and intoxicating effects; also the relief from pain which\nit afforded in headache and toothache. As the results of his reports, a\nknowledge of its properties was diffused all over the world, and it was\nutilized both for amusement and exhibition purposes. Davey even wrote\nas follows of this gas:\n\nAs nitrous oxide, in its extensive operation, appears capable of\ndestroying physical pain, it may probably be used with advantage during\nsurgical operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.\n\nIt is not at all unlikely that Colton and Wells, to be soon referred\nto, derived encouragement, if not incentive, from these statements of\nDavey. Nevertheless, Velpeau, perhaps the greatest French surgeon of\nhis day, wrote in 1839, that \"to escape pain in surgical operations is\na chimera which we are not permitted to look for in our day.\"\n\nSulphuric ether, as a chemical compound, was known from the XIII\nCentury, for reference was made to it by Raymond Lully. It was first\nspoken of by the name of ether by Godfrey, in the Transactions of the\nLondon Royal Society, in 1730, while Isaac Newton spoke of it as the\nethereal spirits of wine. During all of the previous century it was\nknown as a drug, and allusion to its inhalation was made in 1795 in a\npamphlet, probably by Pearson. Beddoes, in 1796, stated that \"it gives\nalmost immediate relief, both to the oppression and pain in the chest,\nin cases of pectoral catarrh.\" In 1815, Nysten spoke of inhalation of\nether as being common treatment for mitigating pain in colic, and in\n1816 he described an inhaler for its use. As early as 1812 it was often\ninhaled for experiment or amusement, and so-called \"ether frolics\" were\ncommon in various parts of the country. This was true, particularly for\nour purpose, of the students of Cambridge, and of the common people in\nGeorgia in the vicinity of Long's home. It probably is for this reason\nthat a host of claimants for the honor of the discovery appeared so\nsoon as the true anesthetic properties of the drug were demonstrated.\n\nThere probably is every reason to think that, either by accident or\ndesign, a condition of greater or less insensibility to pain had been\nproduced between 1820 and 1846, by a number of different people,\neducated and ignorant, but that no one had the originality or the\nhardihood to push these investigations to the point of determining the\nreal usefulness of ether. This was partly from ignorance, partly from\nfear, and partly because of the generally accepted impossibility of\nproducing safe insensibility to pain. So, while independent claims\nsprang up from various sources, made by aspirants for honors in this\ndirection, it is undoubtedly as properly due to Morton to credit him\nwith the introduction of this agent as an anesthetic as to credit\nColumbus with the discovery of the New World, in spite of certain\nevidences that some portions of the American continent had been touched\nupon by adventurous voyagers before Columbus ever saw it.\n\nThe noun \"anesthesia\" and the adjective \"anesthetic\" were suggestions\nof Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who early proposed their use to Dr.\nMorton in a letter which is still preserved. He suggests them with\nbecoming modesty, advises Dr. Morton to consult others before adopting\nthem, but, nevertheless, states that he thinks them apt for that\npurpose. The word anesthesia, therefore, is just about of the same age\nas the condition itself, and it, too, deserves commemoration upon this\noccasion.\n\nAs one reads the history of anesthesia, which has been written up by\na number of different authors, each, for the main part, having some\nparticular object in view, or some particular friend whose claims he\nwishes especially to advocate, he may find mentioned at least a dozen\ndifferent names of men who are supposed to have had more or less to\ndo with this eventful discovery. But, for all practical purposes, one\nmay reduce the list of claimants for the honor to four men, each of\nwhose claims I propose to briefly discuss. These men were Long, Wells,\nJackson and Morton. Of these four, two were dentists and two practising\nphysicians, to whom fate seems to have been unkind, as it often is,\nsince three of them at least died a violent or distressing death, while\nthe fourth lived to a ripe old age, harassed at almost every turn by\nthose who sought to decry his reputation or injure his fortunes.\n\nCrawford W. Long was born in Danielsville, Ga., in 1816. In 1839\nhe graduated from the Medical Department of the University of\nPennsylvania. In the part of the country where Long settled it was a\nquite common occurrence to have what were known as \"ether frolics\"\nat social gatherings, ether being administered to various persons to\nthe point of exhilaration, which in some instances was practically\nuncontrollable. Long's friends claim that he had often noticed that\nwhen the ether effect was pushed to this extent the subjects of the\nfrolic became oblivious to minor injuries, and that these facts, often\nnoticed, suggested to his mind the use of ether in surgical operations.\nThere is good evidence to show that Long first administered ether\nfor this purpose on the 30th of March, 1842, and that on June 6th\nhe repeated this performance upon the same patient; that in July he\namputated a toe for a negro boy, but that the fourth operation was\nnot performed until September of 1843. In 1844 a young man, named\nWilhite, who had helped to put a colored boy to sleep at an ether\nfrolic in 1839, became a student of Dr. Long's, to whom Long related\nhis previous experiences. Long had never heard of Wilhite's episode,\nbut had only one opportunity, in 1845, to try it, again upon a negro\nboy. Long lived at such a distance from railroad communication (130\nmiles) as to have few advantages, either of practice, observation or\naccess to literature. Long made no public mention of his use of ether\nuntil 1849, when he published An Account of the First Use of Sulphuric\nEther by Inhalation as an Anesthetic in Surgical Operations, stating\nthat he first read of Morton's experiments in an editorial in the\n_Medical Examiner_ of December, 1846, and again later; on reading\nwhich articles he determined to wait before publishing any account of\nhis own discovery, to see whether anyone else would present a prior\nclaim. No special attention was paid to Long's article, as it seemed\nthat he merely desired to place himself on record. There is little,\nprobably no reasonable doubt as to Long's priority in the use of ether\nas an anesthetic, although it is very doubtful if he carried it, at\nleast at first, to its full extent. Nevertheless Long was an isolated\nobserver, working entirely by himself, having certainly no opportunity\nand apparently little ambition to announce his discovery, and having\nno share in the events by which the value of ether was made known to\nthe world. Long's strongest advocate was the late Dr. Marion Sims, who\nmade a strong plea for his friend, and yet was not able to successfully\nestablish anything more than has just been stated. As Dr. Morton's\nson, Dr. W. J. Morton, of New York, says, when writing of his father's\nclaim: \"Men used steam to propel boats before Fuller; electricity to\nconvey messages before Morse; vaccine virus to avert smallpox before\nJenner; and ether to annul pain before Morton.\"\n\nBut these men are not generally credited with their introduction by\nthe world at large and, he argues, neither should Long or the other\ncontestants be given the credit due Morton himself. In fact, Long\nwrites of his own work that the result of his second experiment was\nsuch as to make him conclude that ether would only be applicable in\ncases where its effects could be kept up by constant use; in other\nwords, that the anesthetic state was of such short duration that it was\nto him most unsatisfactory. Sir James Paget has summed up the relative\nclaims of our four contestants in an article entitled Escape from Pain,\npublished in the _Nineteenth Century_ for December, 1879. He says:\n\n\"While Long waited, and Wells turned back, and Jackson was thinking,\nand those to whom they had talked were neither acting nor thinking,\nMorton, the practical man, went to work and worked resolutely. He gave\nether successfully in severe surgical operations; he loudly proclaimed\nhis deeds and he compelled mankind to hear him.\"\n\nHorace Wells was born in Hartford, Vt., in 1815. In 1834 he began to\nstudy dentistry in Boston, and after completing his studies began to\npractise in Hartford, Ct. He was a man of no small ingenuity, and\ndevised many novelties for his work. In December, 1844, he listened to\na lecture delivered by Dr. Colton, who took for his subject nitrous\noxide gas, the amusing effects of which he demonstrated to his audience\nupon a number of persons who visited the platform for that purpose.\nWells was one of these. Wells, moreover, noticed that another young\nman, who bruised himself while under its influence, said afterward that\nhe had not hurt himself at all. Wells then stated to a bystander that\nhe thought that if one took enough of that kind of gas he could have a\ntooth extracted and not feel it. He at once called upon a neighboring\ndentist friend and made arrangements to test the anesthetic effects\nof the gas upon himself the next morning. Accordingly Colton gave\nhim the gas, and Riggs, the friend, extracted the tooth; and Wells,\nreturning to consciousness, assured them both that he had not suffered\na particle of pain. He began at once to construct an apparatus for its\nmanufacture. Dr. Marcey, of Hartford, then informed Wells that while\na student at Amherst he and others had often inhaled nitrous oxide as\nwell as the vapor of ether, for amusement, and suggested to Wells to\ntry ether. After a few trials, however, it was found more difficult\nto administer, and Wells accordingly resolved to adhere to gas alone.\nThis was in 1844, two years after Long's obscure experiments, of which,\nof course, they were ignorant. In 1845, Wells visited Boston for the\npurpose of introducing his discovery, and among others called upon his\nformer partner, Morton, trying to establish the use of the gas. He soon\nbecame discouraged, however, and returned to Hartford, resuming his\npractice. There he continued to use gas for about two years, but failed\nto secure its introduction into general surgery, owing to prejudice and\nignorance on the part of dentists and physicians alike.\n\nWells's claims have been advocated by many of his fellow-citizens, and\nin Bushnell Park, in Hartford, stands a monument erected by the city\nand the state, dedicated to Horace Wells, \"who discovered anesthesia,\nNovember, 1844.\"\n\nC. T. Jackson was born in Plymouth, Mass., in 1805. He graduated\nin the Harvard Medical School in 1829, after which he went abroad,\nwhere he remained for several years, made the acquaintance of the\nmost distinguished men, experimented in general science, electricity\nand magnetism and even devised a telegraphic apparatus, similar to\nthat which Morse patented a year later. Returning, in 1835, he opened\nin Boston a laboratory for instruction in analytical chemistry, the\nfirst of its kind in the country. He also made quite a reputation\nas a geologist and mineralogist and received official appointments\nfrom Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and other states. In 1845 he\ndiscovered and opened up copper and iron mines in the Lake Superior\ndistrict. In 1846 and 1847 he was much aroused by Morton's experiments\nwith sulphuric ether, and claimed even that he had suggested the use\nof ether to Morton, claiming also that he had himself been relieved\nof an acute distress by inhalation of ether vapor, and that it was\nfrom reflection on the phenomena presented in his own case that the\npossibility of its use for relief of pain during surgical operations\nsuggested itself to him. This led to a triangular conflict for the\npriority of discovery between Wells, Jackson and Morton, each claiming\nthe honor for himself. Wells health soon gave way. He went abroad and\ngot recognition from the French Institute and the Paris Academy of\nSciences, which did not, however, endorse his claim as discoverer nor\naccept nitrous oxide as an anesthetic. Wells returned to find that\nMorton was on the tide of popular favor, the public having endorsed\nether as the only reliable anesthetic. His mind became unbalanced, and\nin a fit of temporary aberration he ended his own life in a prison\ncell, in New York city in 1848.\n\nWells being out of the way, Jackson became Morton's most violent\nopponent, and the two indulged in a most bitter fight and unseemly\ndiscussion. A few years later, Jackson, who, as remarked, had an\nextensive acquaintance abroad, visited Europe and presented his claim\nto the credit of the discovery of ether before various individuals\nand learned bodies, and so well did he work upon the French Institute\nas to be recognized as the discoverer of modern anesthesia. A select\ncommittee of the House of Representatives, to whom in 1854 Congress\nreferred the matter, announced the following conclusions:\n\n\"First, that Dr. Horace Wells did not make any discovery of the\nanesthetic properties of the vapor of ether which he himself considered\nreliable and which he thought proper to give to the world. That his\nexperiments were confined to nitrous oxide, but did not show it to be\nan efficient and reliable anesthetic agent....\n\n\"Second, that Dr. Charles T. Jackson does not appear at any time to\nhave made any discovery in regard to ether which was not in print in\nGreat Britain some years before.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Fifth, that the whole agency of Dr. Jackson in the matter appears to\nconsist entirely in his having made certain suggestions to aid Dr.\nMorton to make the discovery.\"\n\nIn 1873, Jackson's mind gave way, and after seven years of confinement\nin an asylum he died in 1880, at the age of 75, having been the\nrecipient of many honors from foreign potentates and learned societies.\n\nWilliam T. G. Morton was born in Charleston, Mass., in 1819. After a\ndisastrous experience in business he was sent to Baltimore in 1840 and\nbegan the study of dentistry. In 1841 he entered the dental office of\nHorace Wells as student and assistant, becoming a partner in 1842. In\n1843 partnership was dissolved, Wells removing to Hartford, as before\nstated. Morton, ambitious for a medical degree, entered his name as a\nstudent in the office of Charles T. Jackson, in 1844, and the same\nyear matriculated in the Harvard Medical School, though he never\ngraduated. Having learned through Wells of the latter's successful use\nof nitrous oxide gas, but not knowing how to make it, he sought the\nadvice of Dr. Jackson, who informed him that its preparation entailed\nconsiderable difficulty, and inquired for what purpose he wanted it. On\nMorton's replying that he wished to use it to make patients insensible\nto pain, Jackson suggested the use of sulphuric ether, as Marcey had\nsuggested it to Wells two years previously, saying that it would\nproduce the same effect and did not require any apparatus. Jackson\nalso told Morton of the ether frolics common at Cambridge among the\nstudents. That same evening, September 30, 1846, Morton administered\nether to a patient and extracted a tooth for him without pain. The\nnext day he visited the office of a patent lawyer, for the purpose of\nsecuring a patent upon the new discovery. This lawyer ascertained that\nJackson had been intimately connected with its suggestion, and came\nto the conclusion that a patent could not safely issue to either one\nindependently of the other. But Jackson being a member of the State\nMedical Society, against whose ethical code it is to patent discoveries\nthat pertain to the welfare of patients, and fearing the censure of\nhis colleagues, agreed at once to assign his right over to Morton,\nreceiving in return a 10 per cent. commission upon all that the latter\nmade out of it. Morton, as a dentist, having no more compunction then\nthan dentists have now upon the securement of a patent,--in other\nwords, being actuated by no fine ethical scruples,--secured the patent,\nand then called upon Dr. J. Mason Warren, one of the surgeons in the\nMassachusetts General Hospital. Warren promised his co\u00f6peration and\nappointed the 16th of October, 1846, for the first public trial. Upon\nthis occasion the clinic room was filled with visitors and students,\nwhen Morton placed the young man under the influence of his \"letheon,\"\nas he called it then; after which Warren removed a tumor from his neck.\nThe trial was most successful. Another took place on the following\nday, and on November 7th an amputation and an excision of the jaw were\nmade, both patients being under the influence of letheon and oblivious\nto pain. At this time the nature of the anesthetic agent was kept a\nsecret, the vapor of ether being disguised by aromatics, so as not to\nbe recognized by anyone present.\n\nTrue to the highest traditions of their craft, the staff of the\nMassachusetts General Hospital now met and declined to make further\nuse of a drug whose composition was thus kept secret. It was then that\nMorton revealed the exact nature of it as sulphuric ether, disguised\nwith aromatic oils. In a report made by the commissioner of patents, it\nwas set forth that:\n\n\"For many years it had been known that the vapor of sulphuric ether,\nwhen freely inhaled, would intoxicate as does alcohol when taken\ninto the stomach, but that the former was much more temporary in its\neffects. But notwithstanding the records of its effects to this\nextent, which were familiar to so many, no surgeon had ever attempted\nto substitute it for the palliatives in common use previous to surgical\noperations. That, in view of these and other considerations, a patent\nhad been granted for the discovery.\"\n\nIn 1846 an English patent was obtained.\n\nMorton soon began the attempt to sell office rights, as do the dentists\nof to-day, while the medical profession was then, as ever, antagonistic\nto patents, holding them to be subversive of general good. His patent\nwas soon opposed and then generally infringed upon. Litigation followed\nwithout end, and the government stultified itself by refusing to\nrecognize the validity of the patent issued by itself. And so, without\nany compensation to the discoverer, ether soon came into general use\nin this country as abroad. While receiving many congratulations from\nfriends and humanitarians, Morton's success aroused the jealousy of\nsome of his professional brethren, among them one Dr. Flagg, who\ncommenced a terrible onslaught upon the new application of ether and\nits promoter. By his machinations a meeting of Boston dentists was\ncalled and a committee of twelve appointed to make a formal protest\nagainst anesthesia. This committee published a manifesto in the\n_Boston Daily Advertiser_, in which all sorts of untoward effects\nand unpleasant results were attributed to the new anesthetic. This\nproclamation was spread broadcast, and did Morton, for the time, very\nmuch harm. Equally obstreperous was Dr. Westcott, connected with the\nDental College in Baltimore. He made fun of Morton's \"sucking bottles,\"\nas his inhalers were dubbed; and in various of the medical and secular\njournals of the day, bitter, often foolish and absurd, attacks were\nmade. The editors of the _New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal_\nsaid:\n\n\"That the leading surgeons of Boston could be captivated by such an\ninvention as this, heralded to the world under such auspices and upon\nsuch evidences of utility and safety as are presented by Dr. Bigelow,\nexcites our amazement. Why, mesmerism, which is repudiated by the\nsavants of Boston, has done a thousand times greater wonders, and\nwithout any of the dangers here threatened. What shall we see next?\"\n\nThese and similar statements created a very strong prejudice against\nMorton, who, in December, 1846, sent to Washington, to a nephew of\nDr. Warren, to endeavor to urge upon the government the advantages\nof employing ether in the army during the Mexican war, then in\nprogress. The chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery reported\nthat the article might be of some service for use in large hospitals,\nbut did not think it expedient for the department to incur any\nexpense by introducing it into the general service; while the acting\nsurgeon-general believed that the highly volatile character of the\nsubstance itself made it ill-adapted to the rough usage it would\nnecessarily encounter upon the field of battle, and accordingly\ndeclined to recommend its use.\n\nIn January of 1853, Morton demonstrated at the infirmary in Washington,\nbefore a congressional committee and others, the anesthetic effect of\nether, which he continued through a dangerous and protracted surgical\noperation. This was the result of a challenge to compare the effects\nof nitrous oxide and those of ether, the advocates of the former not\nputting in an appearance.\n\nThe balance of Morton's life seems to have been spent in continued\njangles. The government, having repudiated its own patent, was\nrepeatedly besought by memorials and through the influence of members\nof Congress to bestow some testimonial upon or make some money return\nto Morton for his discovery. Several times he came near a realization\nof his hopes in this respect, when the action of some of his enemies\nor the termination of a congressional session, or some other accident,\nwould doom him again to disappointment. The pages of evidence that were\nprinted, the various reports issued through or by government officers,\nthe memorials addressed from various individuals and societies, if all\nprinted together, would make a large volume; but all of these were\nof no avail. Morton spent all his means, as he spent his energies\nand time, in futile endeavor to get pecuniary recognition of his\ndiscovery, but was doomed to disappointment. He seemed alike a victim\nof unfortunate circumstances and of treachery and animosity upon the\npart of his opponents. Especially did the fight wage warm between\nhim and his friends and Jackson. Plots to ruin his business were\nrepeatedly hatched and his life was made miserable in many ways. Mere\ntemporary sops to wounded vanity and impaired fortune were the honorary\ndegrees and the testimonials that came to him from various institutions\nof learning and foreign societies. In 1850 both Morton and Jackson\nreceived from the French Academy prizes valued at 2,500 francs each.\nFinally, Morton fell into a state of nervous prostration, suffered from\nanxiety and insomnia, and in a fit of temporary aberration exposed\nhimself in Central Park, New York, became unconscious, and was taken\nto St. Luke's hospital, dying just as he reached the institution, on\nthe 15th of July, 1868. In Mount Auburn cemetery, in Boston, there\nstands a beautiful monument to William T. G. Morton, bearing this\ninscription: \"Inventor and revealer of anesthetic inhalation, before\nwhom in all time surgery was agony; by whom pain in surgery was averted\nand annulled; since whom science has control of pain.\"\n\nAgain, in the Public garden in Boston there was erected, in 1867, a\nbeautiful monument to the honor of the discoverer of ether, upon whom\nat that time they could not decide. Upon the front are these words:\n\"To commemorate that the inhaling of ether causes insensibility to\npain, first proven to the world at the Massachusetts General hospital,\nin Boston, October, A. D. 1846.\" Upon the right side are the words:\n\"'Neither shall there be any more pain.'--Revelations.\" Upon the left:\n\"'This also cometh forth from the Lord of Hosts, which is wonderful in\ncounsel and excellent in working.'--Isaiah.\" And upon the other: \"In\ngratitude for the relief of human suffering by the inhaling of ether,\na citizen of Boston has erected this monument, A. D. 1867. The gift of\nThomas Lee.\"\n\nSumming up, then, the claims of our four contestants in the light of\na collected history of the merits of each, it would appear that Wells\nfirst made public use of nitrous oxide gas for limited purposes, but\nfailed to introduce it into general professional use. That Long, in\nan isolated rural practice, a few times used ether, with which he\nproduced probably only partial insensibility to pain, and that he had\napparently discontinued its use before learning of Morton's researches.\nThat Jackson made no claim to the use of the agent on his own part,\nbut simply of having suggested it to Morton. And, finally, that\nMorton quickly accepted the suggestion, made careful and scientific\nuse thereof, but especially, and above all other things, first\n_demonstrated_ to the world at large the capability and the safety\nof this agent as an absolute, reliable and efficient anesthetic. So,\nthough Morton permitted his cupidity to run away with finer ethical\nconsiderations, and attached a higher pecuniary than humanitarian value\nto sulphuric ether, he, nevertheless, must be generally credited with\nhaving, to use the modern expression, \"promoted\" its introduction,\nand having shown to the world at large what an inestimably valuable\ntherapeutic agent had been added to our resources for the control of\npain.\n\nThe synthetic compound known as chloroform was discovered independently\nby three different observers between 1830 and 1832. These were\nrespectively Guthrie, of Sackett's Harbor, N. Y.; Soubeiran, of France,\nand Liebig, of Germany. The honor of introducing it to the profession\nas an anesthetic for surgical purposes is universally accorded to James\nY. Simpson, then of Edinburgh.\n\nYet claim was at one time advanced in favor of Surgeon-Major Furnell,\nof the Madras Army Medical Corps, who in the summer preceding the\nannouncement of Simpson's brilliant discovery experimented with what is\nknown as chloric ether, which is not an ether at all, but a solution of\nchloroform in alcohol. It is said that he found that it would produce\nthe same results as sulphuric ether, with less unpleasant sensations,\nand suggested its use to Coote, a well-known London surgeon. However,\nsuch claims as those made in favor of Furnell are no more entitled\nto recognition than are those of Wells or Long in the matter of\nthe introduction of ether to the public; for although individual\nobservations were favorable to the compound, it never came to public\nnotice on this surmise.\n\nSir James Y. Simpson was born in 1811, took the degree of doctor of\nmedicine in 1832 and advanced rapidly in his professional career until,\nin January, 1847, he was appointed one of her majesty's physicians in\nScotland. Having already obtained a large reputation, particularly in\nmidwifery and gynecology, he directed his special attention toward the\nuse of anesthetics in childbirth, and he had quickly recognized the\nvalue of sulphuric ether when introduced the previous year. He sought,\nhowever, for a substitute of equal power, having less disagreeable odor\nand unpleasant after effect. Upon inquiry of his friend Waldie, Master\nof Apothecaries Hall of Liverpool, if he knew of a substance likely to\nbe of service in this direction, Waldie, familiar with the composition\nof chloric ether, suggested its active principle chloroform; with\nwhich Simpson experimented, and, upon the 4th of November, 1847,\nestablished its anesthetic properties. These he first made known to\nthe Medico-Chirurgical Society of Edinburgh in a paper read November\n10th. Three days later a public test was to have been made at the Royal\nInfirmary, but Simpson, who was to administer the chloroform, being\nunavoidably detained, the operation was done as heretofore without an\nanesthetic, and this patient died during the operation. You can readily\nsee that had this occurred under chloroform it would have been ascribed\nto the new drug, which would then and there have received its death\nblow. As it was, the first public trial took place two days later and\nthe test was most successful.\n\nOne would think that such a boon as Simpson had here offered to the\nworld would have been gratefully--not to say greedily--accepted by\nall. Simpson's position was such as to give the new anesthetic every\nadvantage that his already great reputation could attach to it, and it\nbecame at once the agent in common use in midwifery practice. But the\nScotch clergy of his day still possessed altogether too much of the old\nfanatic spirit of the church of the middle ages. One is never allowed\nto forget, in scanning the history of medicine, how bitterly the church\nhas opposed, until recently, every advance in our science and our art.\nIt was in A. D. 995, for instance, that the son of one of the Venetian\nDoges was married, in Venice, to a sister of the emperor of the Eastern\nRoman Empire. At the marriage feast the princess produced a silver\nfork and gold spoon, table novelties which excited both amusing and\nangry comment. But the Venetian aristocracy took up with this new table\nfad, and forks and spoons as substitutes for fingers soon became the\nfashion. But the puissant church disapproved most strongly even of this\narrangement, for priests went so far as to say, \"to use forks was to\ndeliberately insult the kind Providence which had given to man fingers\non each hand.\" It was this same spirit that led the Scotch clergy to\nattack Simpson most vehemently and denounce him from their pulpits as\none who violated the moral law, for they said: \"Is it not ordained in\nScripture, 'in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children?' and yet this\nman would introduce a substance calculated to mitigate this sorrow.\"\nWe of to-day can scarcely imagine the rancor with which these attacks\nwere made for many months. Finally, however, these fanatic defenders\nof the faith were routed by a quotation from the same Scriptures in\nwhich they claimed to find their authority; for Simpson, most adroitly\nturning upon them with their own weapons, called their attention to\nthe first chapter of Genesis, in which an account of Eve's creation\nappears, and reminded them that when Eve was formed from the rib of\nAdam, the Lord \"caused a deep sleep to fall upon\" him. So weak was\ntheir cause that with this single quotation their opposition subsided\nand within a week or two the entire Scotch clergy was silenced. Sir\nJames Simpson received from his own government that which was never\naccorded to Morton: that is, due recognition of the great service\nhe had rendered humanity. He died in 1870, and upon his bust, which\nstands in Westminster Abbey, are the following words: \"To whose genius\nand beneficence the world owes the blessings derived from the use of\nchloroform for the relief of suffering.\"\n\nIt is scarcely necessary that I delay you now with an account of all\nof the other ethereal anesthetic agents which have from time to time\nbeen advocated since the memorable days to which I have devoted most\nof my time to-night. Two only are at present ever thought of--namely,\nbichloride of methylene and bromide of ethyl!--and these are used by\nonly a few, though each has its advantages. It is well known that\nnearly all of the ethers have more or less of anesthetic property,\ncoupled with many dangers and disadvantages. Sulphuric ether and\nchloroform hold the boards to-day as against any and all of their\ncompetitors.\n\nNitrous oxide gas, as already mentioned, was known to and used by\nWells, in Hartford. With the advent of ether this gas fell at once into\ndisuse, to be revived some fifteen years after the death of Wells,\nmainly through the use of Dr. G. Q. Colton. Since this time its use\nhas been quite universal, although confined for the main part to the\noffices of dentists. Its great advantages are ease of administration\nand rapidity of recovery, making it especially useful for their\npurposes, while the difficulties attendant upon prolonged anesthesia by\nit makes it less useful for the surgeon.\n\nI will spend no further time upon it nor upon the subject save to do\njustice to modern anesthesia by a very different method and by means of\na very different drug, which is to-day in so common use that we almost\nforget to mention the man to whom we owe it. I allude to _Cocaine_ and\nits discoverer, Koller.\n\nCocaine is now such a universally recognized local anesthetic that\nthere is the best of reason for referring to it here--the more so\nbecause it affords another opportunity to do honor to a discoverer, who\nhas rendered a most important service to not only our profession, but\nto the world in general.\n\nThis principal active constituent of cocoa leaves was discovered about\n1860 by Niemann, and called by him cocaine. It is an alkaloid which\ncombines with various acids in the formation of salts. It has the\nquality of benumbing raw and mucous surfaces, for which purpose it was\napplied first in 1862 by Schroff, and in 1868 by Moreno. In 1880, Van\nAurap hinted that this property might some day be utilized. Karl Koller\nlogically concluded from what was known about it that this anesthetic\nproperty could be taken advantage of for work about the eye, and made a\nseries of experiments upon the lower animals, by which he established\nits efficiency and made a brilliant discovery. He reported his\nexperiments to the Congress of German Oculists, at Heidelberg, in 1884.\nNews of this was transmitted with great rapidity, and within a few\nweeks the substance was used all over the world. Its use spread rapidly\nto other branches of surgery, and cocaine local anesthesia became\nquickly an accomplished fact. More time was required to point out its\ndisagreeable possibilities, its toxic properties and the like, but it\nnow has an assured and most important place among anesthetic agents,\nand has been of the greatest use to probably 10 per cent. of the\ncivilized world. To Koller is entirely due the credit of establishing\nits remarkable properties.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n Transcriber's Notes\n\n Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected, but the\n variations in spelling, punctuation, accents and hyphenation remain\n as in the original.\n\n Chapter IX\n\n The paragraph originally read: \"This recognition of our profession was\n accorded much more unstintingly nearly two thousand years ago, at a\n time when it was much less deserved, when Cicero wrote (_De Natura\n Deorum_) \"_Homines ad inibus dando._\" (Men are never more godlike than\n when giving health to mankind).\"\n\n The missing line in the Latin quotation has been restored.\n\n Italics are represented thus _italic_.","title":"The Evil Eye, Thanatology, and Other Essays","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":93125}