Chapter 2

Now Gilbert in his Compendium (f. 259a) refers to the writings of Averroës (Ibn Roschd) regarding the color of the iris of the eye. Averroës died in the year 1198. There is no pretense that Gilbert was familiar with the Arabic tongue, and the earliest translations into Latin of the writings of Averroës are ascribed by Bacon to the famous Michael Scot, though Bacon says they were chiefly the work of a certain Jew named Andrew, who made the translations for Scot. Bacon also says that these translations were made "_nostris temporibus_," in our time, a loose expression, which may, perhaps, be fairly interpreted to include the period 1230-1250. But if, as Dr. Payne believes, Gilbert died about 1230, it seems improbable that he could have been familiar with the translations of Michael Scot. Accordingly Dr. Payne suggests that, after the death of his patron in 1205, Gilbert returned to the Continent, and, perhaps in Paris or at Montpellier, met with earlier Latin versions of the writings of the Arabian physician and philosopher. This is, of course, possible, but there is no historical warrant for the hypothesis, which must, for the present at least, be regarded as merely a happy conjecture of Dr. Payne. The presence of Gilbert upon the Continent, probably as a teacher of reputation, seems, however, quite probable. Littre has even unearthed the fact that during the 14th century a street in Paris near the medical schools, bore the name of the Rue Gilbert l'Anglois. A MS. in the Bibliotheque Nationale entitled "_Experimenta Magistri Gilliberti, Cancellarii Montepessulani_" has suggested also the idea that Gilbert may have been at one time chancellor of the University of Montpellier. Dr. P. Pansier, of Avignon, however, who has carefully examined and published this manuscript[3], reports that while it contains some formulae found also in the Compendium of Gilbert, it contains many others from apparently other sources, and he was unable to convince himself that the compilation was in fact the work of Gilbertus Anglicus. Dr. Pansier also furnishes us with a list of the chancellors of Montpellier, which contains the name of a certain "Gillibertus," chancellor of the university in 1250. He could find, however, no evidence that this Gillibertus was Gilbertus Anglicus, author of the Compendium Medicinae. On the whole then the visit of Gilbert to France early in the 13th century, and his access in this way to early translations of Averroës, while a convenient and plausible conjecture on the part of Dr. Payne, does not seem supported by any trustworthy historical evidence.

[Footnote 3: Janus, 1903, p. 20.]

The "_Liber de speculis_" mentioned by Gilbert (f. 126 c), and since the time of Freind generally accepted as the work of Bacon, is almost certainly not from the pen of that eminent philosopher. In addition to the fact that Bacon himself says he had (for obvious reasons) written nothing except a few tracts (_capitula quaedam_) prior to the composition of his Opus Magnum in 1267, the real author of the Liber de speculis is probably mentioned by Bacon in the following passage from the Opus Tertium:

"_Nam in hoc ostenditur specialiter bonitas naturae, ut dicit auctor libri de speculis comburentibus._"[4]

[Footnote 4: Cap. XXXVI, p. 116, edition of Brewer.]

We must therefore agree with Dr. Payne that the _Liber de speculis_ of Gilbert was at least not the work of Roger Bacon.

Dr. Freind regards the chapters of Gilbert on the subject of leprosy as borrowed substantially from the "Chirurgia" of Theodorius of Cervia, who wrote about the year 1266. This view has also been generally accepted by later writers. But Dr. Payne boldly challenges the view of Freind, declares that Theodorius copied _his_ chapters from Gilbert, and asserts that Theodorius was a notorious plagiarist. Now, while the bold assertion of Dr. Payne cannot, of course, be accepted as _proof_ of Gilbert's precedence in chronological order, if that precedence is otherwise established, it will explain the similarity of the chapters of the two writers very satisfactorily. For the present, however, this similarity can be adduced as evidence on neither side.

Again, Gilbert, with the enthusiasm of a loyal pupil, speaks (f. 47 b) of a certain Magister Ricardus, "_omnium doctorum doctissimus_," whose views on uroscopy certainly indicate a mind superior to his age. Now there were about this period at least two eminent physicians who bore the name of Ricardus. Of these the senior, a Frenchman, known also as Ricardus Salednitanus, is highly praised by Aegidius of Corbeil (Gilles de Corbeil, Aegidius Corboliensis), physician to King Philip Augustus of France (1180-1223). This Ricardus was a famous teacher at Salernum when Aegidius was in attendance at that famous university, therefore probably about the close of the 12th century. The second Ricardus, called Parisiensis, has been recently identified by Toply with Richard of Wendover, an English canon of St. Paul's, and at one time physician to Pope Gregory IX, who died in 1241. Toply believes him to have been also the author of the "_Anatomia Ricardi_," recently published. This Ricardus died in 1252.

Now to which of these Ricardi does the eulogistic language of Gilbert refer? Dr. Payne believes it to be the senior, Ricardus Salernitanus. Mr. Kingsford, on the other hand, thinks it to be Ricardus Parisiensis, who died in 1252. A _Liber de urinis_ has been ascribed to each of them, but, it seems to me, with greater probability to Ricardus Salernitanus. If too the author of the "_Anatomia Ricardi_" was a contemporary of Gilbert, we might reasonably expect to find in the Compendium some evidences of Gilbert's acquaintance with that work. But Gilbert's discussion of anatomical questions is totally unlike that of the author of the "_Anatomia_," and betrays not the slightest evidence of knowledge of such a treatise. On the whole then I am inclined to agree in this question with Dr. Payne, and to consider the Ricardus of Gilbert identical with Ricardus Salernitanus, the famous professor of the School of Salernum. This conclusion is further justified by the fact, generally accepted by all modern writers, that Gilbert was himself a pupil of Salernum.

Singularly enough, both Dr. Payne and Mr. Kingsford profess to find in the Compendium some evidence that Gilbert sojourned in Syria for a certain period, though the circumstances of this sojourn are viewed differently by the two biographers. Dr. Payne thinks that the physician, after completing his education in England, proceeded to the Continent and extended his travels as far as Syrian Tripoli, where he met Archbishop Walter and became attached to his staff. As the prelate returned to England in 1192, this sojourn of Gilbert in Syria must have been about 1190-91, when, according to Dr. Payne's chronology, Gilbert could have been not more than about twenty years of age. Dr. Payne bases his story upon a certain passage in the Compendium, in which Gilbert says that he met in Syrian Tripoli "a _canonicus_ suffering from rheumatic symptoms." I have been entirely unable to find the passage referred to in this story, in spite of a careful search of the text of the edition of 1510. But, admitting the existence of the passage in question, it proves nothing as to the _date_ of this alleged Syrian sojourn. Tripoli was captured by the Crusaders in 1109, and continued under their control until its recapture by the Saracens in 1289, a period of nearly two hundred years. Gilbert's travels in Syria may then have occurred at almost any time during this long period, and his fortuitous meeting with Archbishop Walter has very much the appearance of a story evolved entirely from the consciousness of the biographer.

On the other hand, Mr. Kingsford bases his theory of Gilbert's sojourn in Syria upon a story adopted, I think, from Littré and found in the Histoire litéraire de la France. The Compendium of Gilbert contains (f. 137a) a chapter giving the composition of a complex collyrium with which he professes to have cured the almost total blindness of Bertram, son of Hugo de Jubilet, after the disease had baffled the skill of the Saracen and Christian-Syrian physicians of his day. Now Littré avers that a certain Hugo de Jubilet was involved in an ambuscade in Syria in the year 1227, and that he had a son named Bertram. It is very natural, of course, to conclude that this Bertram was the patient recorded in the book of Gilbert. Kingsford says that Gilbert "met" Bertram in Syria, but the text of the Compendium says nothing of the locality of their meeting, which might have taken place almost anywhere in Europe, perhaps even at Salernum, a favorite resort of the invalided Crusaders in these times. Finally, Dr. Payne disposes effectually of the authenticity of the entire story by calling attention to the fact that the chapter referred to in the Compendium is marked plainly "_Additio_," without indicating whether this addition is from the pen of Gilbert or some later glossator.

Finally, I may suggest another line of argument, which, so far as I know, has not yet been advanced for the determination of the period of Gilbert.

The Compendium Medicinae of Gilbert is, of course, a compendium of internal medicine. But the book is also something more. Not less than fifty chapters are devoted to a comparatively full discussion of wounds, fractures and dislocations, lithotomy, herniotomy, fistulae and the various diseases on the border line between medicine and surgery. Not a single surgical writer, however, is quoted by name. Nevertheless the major part of these surgical chapters are either literal copies, or very close paraphrases, of the similar chapters of the "_Chirurgia_" of Roger of Parma, a distinguished professor in Salernum and the pioneer of modern surgery. The precise period of Roger is not definitely settled by the unanimous agreement of modern historians, but in the "_Epilogus_" of the "_Glosulae Quatuor Magistrorum_" it is said that Roger's "_Chirurgia_" was "_in lucem et ordinem redactum_" by Guido Arietinus, in the year of our Lord 1230. This date, while perhaps not unquestionable, is also adopted by De Renzi, the Italian historian of Medicine. The original MS. of Roger's work is said to be still in existence in the Magliabechian Library in Florence, but it has never been published in its original form.[5] Roland of Parma, however, a pupil of Roger, published in 1264 what purports to be a copy of Roger's "_Chirurgia_" with some notes and additions of his own, and it is from this MS. of Roland that all our copies of Roger's work have been printed. Roger's "_Chirurgia_" was popularly known as the "_Rogerina_;" the edition of Roland as the "_Rolandina_." They are frequently confounded, but are not identical, though the additions of Roland are usually regarded as of little importance. In the absence of Roger's manuscript, however, they lead often to considerable confusion, as it is not always easy to determine in the printed copies of the "_Rolandina_" just what belongs to Roger and what to his pupil and editor. Now a careful comparison of the surgical chapters of Gilbert of England with the published text of the "_Rolandina_" leads me to the conviction that Gilbert had before him the text of Roger, rather than that of Roland, his pupil. If such is the fact, Gilbert's Compendium must have been written between 1230 and 1264, the dates respectively of the "_Rogerina_" and "_Rolandina_."

[Footnote 5: Haeser says that this MS. of Roger's "Chirurgia," made by Guido Arenitensium, was discovered by Puccinoti in the Magliabechian library, and that an old Italian translation of the same work is also found there. The latter was the work of a certain Bartollomeo.

The text used to represent Roger in the present paper is that published by De Renzi (Collectio Salernitana, tom. II, pp. 426-493) and entitled "Rogerii, Medici Celeberrimi Chirurgia." It is really the text published originally in the "Collectio Chirurgica Veneta" of 1546, of which the preface says:

"_His acceserunt Rogerii ac Guil. Saliceti chirurgiae, quarum prior quibusdam decorata adnotationibus nunc primum in lucem exit, etc._," and adds further on:

"_Addidimus etiam quasdam in Rogerium veluti explanationes, in antiquissimo codice inventas, et ab ipso fortasse Rolando factas._" While I may recognize gratefully the surgical enthusiasm which led the editor to the publication of these "_veluti explanationes_," for my present purpose he would have earned more grateful recognition if he had left them unprinted. As the text now stands it is merely a garbled edition of the Rolandina. However, it is the best representative of the "Chirurgia" of Roger at present available. See De Renzi, op. cit., p. 425.]

From a careful review of the data thus presented we may epitomize, somewhat conjecturally, the life of Gilbert substantially as follows: He was probably born about 1180 and received his early education in England. On the completion of this education, about the close of the 12th century, he proceeded to the Continent to complete his studies, and spent some time in the school of Salernum, where it is probable that he enjoyed the instruction of Roger of Parma, Ricardus Salernitanus, and may have had among his fellow-students Aegidius of Corbeil. Probably after his return to England he served for a brief period on the staff of Archbishop Hubert Walter, after whose death in 1205, but at an unknown period, Gilbert returned once more to the Continent, where it seems probable he spent the remainder of his life. This comports best with his extensive European reputation, his surname "Anglicus" and the comparative dearth in England of any facts relating to his life. The date of the Compendium I am inclined to place about 1240, prior to the literary activity of Ricardus Parisiensis or Richard of Wendover, Roland of Parma, Roger Bacon and Theodorius of Cervia. We may place his death, conjecturally, at about 1250.

The first edition of the Compendium is a small quarto of 362 folios (724 modern pages), five by seven inches in size, printed in double narrow columns, in black letter, perfectly legible and clear. The pagination shows some errors, but the text itself is remarkably accurate, though the presence of a multiplicity of contractions and ligatures renders the reading somewhat difficult to the modern student. On the last page we find the following colophon:

_Explicit compendium medicine Gilberti Anglici correctum et bene emendatum per dominum Michaelem de Capella artium et medicine doctorem: ac Lugduni Impressum per Jacobum Saccon: expensis Vincentii de Portonariis. Anno Domini M.D.x. die vero vigesima mensis Novembris._

_Deo Gratias._

The second edition (which I have not seen) is said to bear the title: "Laurea anglicana, sive compendium totius medicinae, etc," Geneva, 1608.

It should be noticed that the title "Laurea anglicana" is not mentioned in the original edition of 1510, but is apparently due to the exuberance of enthusiasm of the editor of the later edition, whose taste seems to have been more flamboyant.

Various manuscript works of greater or less authenticity are ascribed to Gilbert by different authorities. Of these Mr. Kingsford furnishes the following list:

1. "Commentarii in Versus Aegidii de Urinis," quoted by John Gaddesden and probably authentic.

2. "Practica Medicinae," mentioned by Pits, but of doubtful authenticity.

3. "Experimenta Magistri Gilliberti, Cancellarii Montepessulani," noticed on page 2, but authenticity doubtful.

4. "Compendium super Librum Aphorismorum Hippocratis." MS. in Bodleian.

5. "Eorundem Expositio." MS. in Bodleian.

6. "Antidotarium." MS. in Caius College.

To these he adds, on the authority of Bale and Pits:

7. "De Viribus Aquarum et Specierum."

8. "De Proportione Fistularum."

9. "De Judicio Patientis."

10. "De Re Herbaria."

11. "De Tuenda Valentudine."

12. "De Particularibus Morbis."

13. "Thesaurus Pauperum."

All of these latter may be regarded as doubtful.

The authorities named by Gilbert are Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Rufus, Maerobius, Boetius, Alexander of Tralles, Theodorus Priscianus, Theophilus Philaretes, Stephanon (of Athens?), the Arabians Haly Abbas, Rhazes, Isaac Judaeus, Joannitius, Janus Damascenus, Jacobus Alucindi, Avicenna and Averroës; the Salernian writers, quoted generally as Salernitani and specifically Constantino Africanus, Nicholas Praepositus, Romoaldus Ricardus and Maurus, and two otherwise unknown authors, Torror and Funcius, classed by Gilbert as "_antiqui_." The latter author is also said to have written a "_Liber de lapidibus_." Certainly this list suggests a pretty good medical library for a practitioner of the 13th century.

Dr. Payne calls attention to the fact that all these writers antedate the 13th century, and thus limit the period of Gilbert in antiquity. This is undoubtedly true with reference to authorities actually named, but does not exclude from consideration other writers quoted, but not named, whom we shall have occasion to refer to hereafter.

The Compendium opens with a very brief and modest foreword, couched in the following terms:

"_Incipit liber morborum tam universalium quam particularium a magistro Gilberto anglico editus ab omnibus autoribus et practicis magistrorum extractus et exceptus, qui compendium medicine intitulatur._"

It will be observed that no claim whatever for originality is presented by the author. He calls his book a compendium extracted from all authors and the practice of the professors, and edited only by himself. The same idea is more fully emphasized later (f. 55c), where he says:

"_Sed consuetudo nostra est ex dictis meliorum meliora aggregare, et ubi dubitatio est, opiniones diversas interserere; ut quisque sibi eligat quam velit retinere._"

The self-abnegation implied in these extracts must not, however, be interpreted too literally, for the editorial "_dico_" on numerous pages, and even an occasional chapter marked "_Propria opinio_," testify to the fact that Gilbert had opinions of his own, and was ready on occasion to furnish them to the profession. On the whole, however, the "Compendium" is properly classified by the author as a compilation, rather than an original work.

The Compendium is divided into seven books, and the general classification of diseases is from head to foot--the usual method of that day. The modern reader will probably be surprised at the comprehensiveness of the work, which, besides general diseases, includes considerable portions of physiology, physiognomy, ophthalmology, laryngology, otology, gynecology, neurology, dermatology, embryology, obstetrics, dietetics, urinary and venereal diseases, therapeutics, toxicology, operative surgery, cosmetics and even the hygiene of travel and the prevention of sea-sickness. Some of these subjects too are discussed with an acuteness and a common sense quite unexpected. Of course, scholastic speculations, superstition, charms, polypharmacy and the use of popular and disgusting remedies are not wanting. Even the mind of a philosopher like Roger Bacon was unable to rise entirely above the superstition of his age. But the charms and popular specifics of Gilbert are often introduced with a sort of apology, implying his slight belief in their efficacy. Thus in his chapter on the general treatment of wounds (f. 87a) he introduces a popular charm with the following words:

"_Alio modo, solo divino carmine confisi, quidam experti posse curari omnes plagas hoc._

"_Carmine._

"_Tres boni fratres per viam unam ibant, et obviavit eis noster dominus jesus christus et dixit eis, tres boni fratres quo itis_, etc."

And again, in his discussion of the treatment of gout and rheumatism (f. 327b), Gilbert adds, under the title

_Emperica_

"_Quamvis ego declino ad has res parum, tamen est bonum scribere in libro nostro, ut non remaneat tractatus sine eis quas dixrunt antiqui. Dico igitur quod dixit torror: Si scinderis pedem rane viridis et ligaveris supra pendem podagrici per tres dies, curatur; ita quod dextrum pedum rane ponas supra dextrum pedem patientis, et e converso. Et dixit Funcius, qui composuit librum de lapidibus, quod magnes, si ligatus fuerit in pedem podagrici, curatur. Et alius philosophus dixit. Si accipiatur calcancus asine et ponatur ligatus supra pedem egri, curatur, ita quod dexter supra dextrum, et e converso. Et juravit quod sit verum. Et dixit torror quod si ponatur pes testudinis dexter supra dextrum pedem podagrici, et e converso, curatur._"

We may believe, indeed, that Gilbert would have preferred to follow in the therapeutic footsteps of Hippocrates, had he not disliked to be regarded by his colleagues as eccentric and opinionated. For he says in his treatment of thoracic diseases (f. 193c):

"_Etenim eleganter dedit Ipo. (Hippocrates) modum curationis, sed ne a medicis nostri temporis videamur dissidere, secundum eos curam assignemus._"

Gilbert was a scholastic-humoralistic physician _par excellence_, delighting in superfine distinctions and hair-splitting definitions, and deriving even pediculi from a superfluity of the humors (f. 81d). Of course he was also a polypharmacist, and the complexity, ingenuity, and comprehensiveness of his prescriptions would put to shame even the "accomplished therapeutist" of these modern days. In dietetics too Gilbert was careful and intelligent, and upon this branch of therapeutics he justly laid great emphasis.

The first book of the Compendium, comprising no less than 75 folios, is devoted entirely to the discussion of fevers. Beginning with the definition of Joannicius (Honain ebn Ishak):

"Fever is a heat unnatural and surpassing the course of nature, proceeding from the heart into the arteries and injuring the patient by its effects."

Gilbert launches out with genuine scholastic finesse and verbosity into a discussion of the questions whether this definition is based upon the essentia or the differentia of fever; whether the heat of fever is natural or unnatural, and other similar subtle speculations, and finally arrives at a classification of fevers so elaborate and complex as to be practically almost unintelligible to the modern reader.

The more important of these fevers or febrile conditions are:

Ephemeral Hemitertian Double quartan Interpolated Synocha Causon synochides Epilala Quotidian Double tertian Quintan Continued Causon Putrid Lipparia Tertian Quartan Sextan Synochus Synochus causonides Ethica Erratica

Some of these names are still preserved in our nosologies of the present day; others will be recalled by the memories of our older physicians, and a few have totally disappeared from our modern medical nomenclature.

Interpolated fevers are characterized by intermissions and remissions, and thus include our intermittent and remittent fevers; synochus depended theoretically upon putrefaction of the blood in the vessels, and was a continued fever. Synocha, on the other hand, was occasioned by a mere superabundance of hot blood, hence the verse:

"_Synocha de multo, sed synochus de putrefacto._"