Part 4

The above extracts will shew far more vividly than any generalized statements in what light Galen and the ancients appeared to scholars at the time of the revival of learning. Before considering what was the actual effect of the revival of the ancient medicine on modern science and practice, it may be well to clear away a certain amount of misconception which has been prevalent on the subject.

It is often assumed that the study of Galen introduced the habit of relying implicitly on authority and dogma, and thus retarded the progress of medicine. But in reality the habits of submission to authority and blind acceptance of tradition were already prevalent, and had been so long before the revival of learning. Never were men more ready to bow down to authority than in the middle ages; and, in name at least, they reverenced even the ancient rulers of thought, Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates, though it was to distorted images of these heroic personages that their homage was paid. The names of Galen and Hippocrates were associated with corrupt and often spurious treatises, of which the style was as barbarous as the matter was worthless. The aphorisms of Hippocrates were known in Latin versions as the _Amphorismi_, a barbarism perpetuated even by Symphorien Champier. Galen was chiefly known by a little treatise, often copied and printed with the title _Liber Tegni Galieni_, afterwards known as the _Ars Parva_ to distinguish it from the great _Methodus Medendi_, translated by Linacre. The quaint title of this work is a history and a commentary in itself; a scholar might well be puzzled with the word _Tegni_, which seems to suggest an imaginary author, Tegnus Galienus. But this word is simply a corruption of the Greek τέχνη, handed down by a succession of scribes ignorant of Greek. Moreover, as in the case of Aristotle, not only were the works ascribed to Galen and Hippocrates corrupted and misunderstood; but their best works were unknown. If men were to bow down to canonical authority it was better they should have the best works of the writers regarded as canonical, and have them unadulterated.

On the lowest view then the change was rather the substitution of one dogma for another than the introduction of the dogmatic habit; but in reality a much wider and more salutary reform was involved. In the first place, the new authorities were actually much more valuable than the old, and in the second place the new dogma, instead of being merely conservative and petrifying, was found to be innovating and inspiriting in its tendency. Galen himself was not so strictly a Galenist as his followers. His works shew (in spite of his undeniable and fatal love of system and formula) enterprise and originality, with frequent reference to observation, and even experiment. They led also inevitably to a study of Hippocrates, a writer far more unsystematic, and free from the vice of formalism, whose sagacity and power of observation give his works a perennial freshness. Finally, the revival of the ancient classics led to the revival also of the sciences on which modern medicine rests, and which were destined to overthrow all the dogmatic systems, viz. Anatomy and the knowledge of Drugs.

Haller, speaking of the progress of anatomy in the 16th century, attributes it to two chief causes, the revival of the works of Galen, and the invention of printing. Not less did Botany and Pharmacology take a new departure from the works of Dioscorides. It would thus appear that the task of Linacre and the scholars, really though not in appearance, contributed to the scientific movement which was the turning-point in modern medicine. This movement was the special work of the 16th century. The time had not yet come for the reform in practical medicine which the progress of the sciences rendered possible, and which was reserved to be the special glory of the next age. But a definite and brilliant service was rendered to the progress of medicine by the scholars of the Renaissance, among whom no name is better entitled to be held in grateful remembrance than that of Thomas Linacre.

It would be out of place here to enter into any general estimate of the value of Galen’s writings. They are of immense bulk, and few persons in modern times can claim to have done more than dip into them. But this massiveness and bulk were perhaps even among the features which caused his works to be held in such high estimation. They formed a vast encyclopædia in which all the ancient medical lore was comprised. A very large part of the works even of Hippocrates may be said to be contained in Galen, and many older writers are now only known through the account which Galen has given of them. The Galenical collection embraces anatomy, physiology, practical medicine, and what we should now call Hygiene, as well as dissertations on the history and sects of medicine, with many curious anecdotes and allusions to the manners and opinions of his time. We hear also of works on logic and philosophy which are almost entirely lost.

This encyclopædic knowledge was classified with a systematic minuteness and a delusive appearance of scientific precision which especially fitted Galen to be a ruler of thought in ages when men were willing to accept an intellectual despotism. The disciple of Galen had a formula to explain every disease, and a rule for the treatment of every case.

What his general principles were is shewn very clearly in the work now reprinted, which is rather physiological or physical than strictly medical. In it we find developed the theory of humours and temperaments, which formed the physiological basis of Galen’s system of medicine; and which, conveyed through many popular medical works to the lay public, entered largely into the current philosophy of the time. Hence Linacre speaks of this work as not less necessary to philosophers than to physicians. Some knowledge of these ideas is indispensable for understanding many allusions and metaphors in English writers of the Elizabethan age. Nay more, a great part of it has passed into our common language. Such words as ‘_humour_’ in its many acceptations, and many compounds, _temperament_, _temper_, _choler_, _melancholy_ and others derived all their original significance from the place which they held in the Galenical system. It is perhaps not too much to suppose that this very version may have been among the sources whence such writers as Elyot (who was a pupil of Linacre) in his _Castell of Helth_, Bright, the predecessor of Burton, in his _Treatise of Melancholie_, and later, Walkington, in the fantastic book called _The Optick Glasse of Humors_, obtained the ideas which, popularized by them, became the common property of scholars and literary men. From this point of view, our treatise is not without importance in the history of English literature.

The little treatise at the end, _De Inæquali intemperie_, is no part of the work which precedes it; but is apparently appended by Linacre to shew Galen’s application of his physiological system to certain points in pathology or the theory of disease.

It is only necessary to say in conclusion that this version of the _De Temperamentis_ appears to have been the first ever made in Latin, or at least published. Orlandi (in 1722) speaks of a previous edition with Linacre’s name, published at Venice in the year 1498, but this statement is certainly erroneous. All the enquiries of Linacre’s learned biographer, Dr Noble Johnson, and of the present editor, have failed to establish the existence of any such edition, and indeed the preface to this edition is of itself enough to refute the story. The treatise _De inæquali intemperie_ on the other hand had been previously translated into Latin, though not by Linacre. It is included in a collection of Latin versions of many of the works of Galen and others, translated by Georgius Valla, of Piacenza. This was printed at Venice in 1498; and hence, no doubt, the source of the confusion between Valla’s translation of this treatise and Linacre’s translation of this and the _De Temperamentis_. I have seen the third edition of Valla’s collection published at Pavia 1516; the version of this treatise there given is quite different from Linacre’s. Dr Johnson is responsible for the statement that a second edition of both was published during Linacre’s lifetime, of which a presentation copy on vellum given to Henry VIII. is in the Bodleian Library. But an examination of this copy has convinced me that it is of the same edition, though an error in the printing of the last six leaves makes it appear different. According to the British Museum Catalogue a second edition in 24mo. was printed at London in 1527. The version was frequently reprinted on the continent, either alone or as a part of the collected Latin editions of Galen’s works; but no subsequent edition has appeared in this country.

J. F. PAYNE.

LIST OF LINACRE’S PUBLISHED WORKS.

1. Translation of _Proclus de Sphærâ_. Venice, by Aldus Romanus, 1499. Folio.

2. Translation of Galen, _De Sanitate tuendâ_. Paris, Gulielmus Rubeus, 1517. Folio.

3. Translation of Galen, _Methodus Medendi_. Paris, Desiderius Maheu, 1519. Folio.

4. Translation of Galen, _De Temperamentis et de inæquali intemperie_. Cambridge, Siberch, 1521. 4to.

5. Translation of Galen, _De Naturalibus Facultatibus_. London, Richard Pynson, 1523. 4to.

6. Translation of Galen, _De Pulsuum usû_. London, ‘in ædibus pinsonianis,’ sine anno. 4to.

7. Translation of Galen, _De Symptomatum Differentiis et causis_. London, Pynson, 1524. 4to.

8. _Rudimenta Grammatices._ London, ‘in ædibus pinsonianis,’ sine anno. 4to.

9. _De emendatâ structurâ Latini sermonis._ London, Pynson, 1524. 4to.

NOTES.

SOURCES OF THE BIOGRAPHY OF LINACRE.

The only separate biography of Linacre is that by Dr Noble Johnson, a fellow of the College of Physicians, published, in 1835 after the author’s death, under the editorship of Mr Robert Graves. From this the biographical part of the short sketch here given has been chiefly derived. Dr Johnson collected with great learning and industry the contemporary notices of Linacre, as well as all that has appeared in later writers, and investigated many manuscript authorities. It would be ungrateful here to point out the few errors into which he has fallen, especially as they are probably partly due to his work having been published without the author’s personal revision. The earliest life is either that contained in the Elogia contributed by George Lily to the _Descriptio Britanniæ_ of Paulus Jovius, Venetiis, 1548 (also Basileæ 1578), or that given in Bale’s _Illustrium majoris Britanniæ scriptorum summarium_. Gippeswici, 1548. Further materials are contained in Leland (_Principum … et eruditorum etc. encomia._ London 1589) Pits (_De Illustribus Angliæ scriptoribus_); Freind’s _History of Physic_; the _Biographia Britannica_; Wood’s _Athenæ Oxonienses_, Bishop Tanner’s _Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica_, etc. Later biographical collections, such as Aitken’s _Biographical Memoirs of Medicine_, the _Lives of the British Physicians_, and Dr Munk’s learned _Roll of the Royal College of Physicians_, have added little or nothing. The present Editor has carefully verified most of Dr Johnson’s references; and corrected or added a few facts, but has found little to glean after so exhaustive a worker. The latter part, however, of this short introduction owes little to Dr Johnson. I have to thank Mr Bradshaw, the University Librarian, for some valuable hints.

NOTES (referred to in text).

1. (Page 7). There is no reference to Linacre or Selling in the _Stemmata Chicheleana_ or in the MS. additions made to the copy in the library of All Souls’ College.

2. (P. 10). Procli de Sphærâ, in the Collection called _Astronomici Veteres, Venetiis curâ Aldi Romani 1499_.

3. (P. 12). Dr Johnson quotes Pacey’s _De Fructû qui ex Doctrinâ percipitur_. Basileæ Froben 1517, p. 76.

4. (P. 13). Calendar of Letters and Papers relating to the reign of Henry VIII, edited by Brewer, Vol. IV., part 3, page 2874, no. 6403.

5. (P. 13). _Nicolai Leoniceni, De Plinii ac plurium aliorum in medicinâ erroribus liber ad doctissimum virum Angelum Politianum._ Ferrariæ 1492. Also in _Angeli Politiani et aliorum epistolæ_. Lib. II., epist. 3, 4 et seq. (Ed. Hanoviæ 1622, page 46).

6. (P. 14). Johnson’s _Life of Linacre_, page 147. It does not appear whence these verses are quoted, as no reference is given by Dr Johnson.

7. (P. 15). Seebohm. _The Oxford Reformers: Colet, Erasmus, and More._ 2nd edition. London 1869, page 17.

8. (P. 17). _Erasmi Roterodami Moriæ encomium._ Basileæ, Froben 1521, page 251.

(Is this passage the foundation of Mr Browning’s fine poem, “The Grammarian’s funeral”?)

9. (P. 18). _Pauli Jovii Novocomensis episcopi Descriptio Britanniæ._ Basileæ 1571, p. 40. Elogia virorum per Georgium Lilium Britannum exarata.

10. (P. 19). Sir John Cheke:

_Joannis Cheki Angli de pronuntiatione Græcæ potissimum linguæ disputationes cum Stephano Wintoniensi Episcopo._ Basileæ 1555, p. 176 and 281, etc. Linacre’s name is brought in as follows. Bishop Gardiner finds fault with Cheke for too Ciceronian a style of writing (Ciceronis grandiloquentiam ad sententias de rebus levibus atque ridiculis inconcinne additam et accommodatam), and quotes to him Erasmus _in Ciceronianos_ and also Linacre, who he says never admired the style of Cicero and could not listen to it without disgust. Cheke retorts in the manner we have quoted, “Si de acumine et celeritate ingenii disputatur etc.—in eo si nunc viveret, tibi laudem concederet,” and makes the curious remark that it is strange Linacre could not listen to Cicero without disgust, when his work _De structurâ_ abounds with examples taken from Cicero. Perhaps, Cheke suggests, he had not really neglected the study of that writer, but through some perversity wished to be thought to have neglected him, “ut non tam fortasse reverâ neglexerit, quam animi quâdam morositate videri voluit neglexisse.”

11. (P. 21). The phrase quoted from Tanner, _Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica_, seems to refer clearly to ordination, not merely to collation to a benefice.

12. (P. 21). See Dr Munk. _Roll of the College of Physicians._ _2nd edition_ 1878, page 16.

13. (P. 25). “pro ocio in quod me (honorifico collato sacerdotio) ex negocio primus vindicasti.” Introduction to Galen, _De Naturalibus Facultatibus_. London, 1523.

14. (P. 34). This foible of over-elaboration is discussed at great length by Bayle in his article on Linacre in the _Dictionary_. He remarks that though this is not a common fault with authors, it has often operated to the prejudice of the best, and to the consequent loss of the public.

15. (P. 41). Janus Cornarius, in his introduction (dated 1535) to _Marcellus de Medicamentis_, published in the Collection called _Medicæ Artis Principes_. Paris, Henr. Stephanus, 1567.

SANCTISSIMO DOMINO NOSTRO PAPAE LEONI DECIMO, Thomas Linacer Medicorum Minimus. S. D.

Non hanc tibi lucubratiunculam meam Beatissime Pater quasi tuis aptam studiis dignamve offero, quem totum totius christianae Reip. gubernaculis incumbere omnes scimus, sed quod studiosis eam futuram non ingratam sperem. quibus quidquid vsui esse potest, tibi quoque fore iucundum non dubito. Accedit quod quum recens in me collatae non vulgaris munificentiae tuae, qua me quoque sicut reliquos quicunque te olim comitabamur in ludum beare es dignatus, non immemorem me aliquo saltem officii genere declarare volui: vnum hoc inter facultates meas quo id efficere conarer literarium perspexi genus. quod et mihi cui pene praeter literas nihil est, et tibi qui in literis es eminentissimus maxime visum sit congruens. In quo genere Galeni hic, se obtulit libellus, breuis omnino, sed non minus philosophis quam medicis necessarius. Qui breuitate sua simul officium meum minus erat moraturus, simul meae in uertendo, quantulaecunque, certe tenuis facultatis gustum aliquem tibi praebiturus. Perexigua (fateor) res, nimisque impar quae pro tante benignitatis vel Mnemosyno ad sacram presertim Celsitudinem tuam mittatur. Verum et cuius ipse vicem in terris geris pauperculae mulieris duo minuta probauit: et mola salsa litare eos, qui thura non haberent, proditum non ignoras. Sunt sane mihi plura maioraque in manibus, quae vt primum per valetudinem et ministerii mei officia licebit, si tibi haec non displicere intelligam, sub nomine tuo (modo id non graueris) aedentur. Non quo iis operae precium tibi vllum me facturum autumem, quod scilicet mihi de meo ingeniolo sperare non licet, sed quo iis ex praefatione nominis tui, quod merito literatis omnibus est charissimum, gratiam aliquam autoritatemque captem. Permultum sane si qui erunt qui ex vigiliis meis fructum aliquem percipient, Sanctitati tuae debituris, qui tam insigni beneficentia studiorum meorum ocio consulueris. Deum opt. Max. precor diu te nobis seruet atque incoepta tua omnia secundet. Londini. Anno Christianae salutis. M. D. XXI. Nonis Septembris.

ELENCHVS SEQVENTIS OPERIS.

Pro Elenchi huius intelligentia, scire licet, quum in singulis huius codicis pagellis viginti septem versus contineantur: diuisis iis in tres nouenarios: per A significatur eorum primus. per B. secundus. et per C tertius. Sic intra nouem semper versus lector quod ex Elencho requiret, non difficulter inueniet. Modo qui breuissimus labor erit, singulis libri chartis numerum adscribere velit.

A

Animans in summo calidum humidum frigidum aut siccum nullum esse. folio primo, pagina. i. C

Autumni incommodum. fo. vii. i. B

Autumni qualitas. fo. eodem. i. C

Autumni et veris collatio. fo. eodem. ii. A

Animalia quomodo veteribus calida et humida sint dicta. fo. x. ii. A

Atrae bilis temperies. fo. xxxiii. i. C

Animal calidum et humidum cur dixerint ueteres. fo. eodem. ii. C

Adipis et carnis variae causae. fo. xxxiiii. ii. B

Anatomica speculatio. fo. xlii. ii. C

Aristotelem de substantia formatricis virtutis dubitasse. fo. xliiii. ii. A

Ab exiguo momento magnam fieri interdum mutationem, et eius rei exemplum. fo. li. i. C

Archimedes. folio lii. i. B

Attendendum in sicco et humi. quid per se tale sit quid per accidens. fo. lv. ii. B

Aliqua pati a nostro corpore magis quam agere aliqua magis agere quam pati. omnia vero tum agere tum pati. fo. lviii. i. C

Ἀειπάθεια. folio lviii. ii. C

Aliqua primo statim vsu alterationem suam ostendere. fo. lix. i. A

Abs quibus externis iudicandum. fo. lxi. ii. B

Ad aliquid esse quicquid potestate dicitur. fo. lxiiii. ii. C

Arterias et venas partes esse compositas. fo. lxvi.

Aliter simplicem carnem aliter vniuersum musculum inaequali temperie affectum esse. fo. lxvi.

Abscessio que melior sit que deterior. fo. lxvii.

Alterationis varietates in phlegmonis, ex quinque generibus accidere. fo. lxviii.

Animalium quaedam conuenientes, quaedam contrarios inter se succos habere. fo. lxx. i. B

Aliquos rigere nec tamen febricitare. Rarumque id. fo. lxxii.

B

Biliosum quod in uentriculo gignitur quo sit colore, et quo quod in iocinore. fo. xliii. ii. A

C

Calidum, humidum, frigidum, siccum multifariam dici Aristotelem censuisse. fo. ix. ii. C

Calidum et frigidum, humidum et siccum dici idem corpus multis modis. fo. xiii. i. B

Calidum & frigidum non de corporibus modo, sed etiam de qualitatibus interdum dici. eodem. ii. C

Calida, fri. hu. sic. vt substantiae, quae. fo. xv. i. B

Calida. frig. humi. sic. absolute quae. fo. xvi. ii. B

Cutem in calore & frigore medium optinere statum. fo. xxi. i. B.

Chondrosyndesmos. fo. eodem. ii. A

Calidum in aetatibus qualiter tactu sit discernendum. folio xxix. i. A

Calorem in pueris & florentibus parem esse. fo. xxxi. i. B

Carnosi genereris species. fo. xxxii. i. A

Caro proprie, quae. folio eodem. i. A

Carnem iocinoris, lienis, pulmonis, & renum. simplicis naturae esse. fo. eodem. ii. B

Cordis carnem non esse simplicem. fo. eodem. ii. B

Carnem ventriculi, vteri, & vesicarum propriam quandam esse. folio eodem. ii. C

Carnis temperies. fo. xxxiii. i. A

Cartilaginis temperamentum. fo. xxxiii. i. B

Calcarium temperies. folio eodem. i. B

Carnosi qui. folio xxxiiii. ii. B

Consuetudinem esse acquisititiam naturam. fo. eo. ii. B

Calui cur. folio xxxix. i. B

Cani cur. folio eodem. ii. A

Cur calui a sincipite cani a temporibus magis fiant. fo. eodem. ii. B

Cui maxime attendendum cum corporis temperiem iudicabimus. fo. eodem. ii. B

Cur quibus hirtus est thorax ob idipsum aliquando reliquis partibus dissimili sint temperamento. fo. xl. ii. C

Cutis quando sub se positarum partium temperiem indicet, & quarum. folio xli. i. C

Considerandum etiam si quid raro accidit. fo. xlii. ii. A

Cerebri ipsius temperamentum ex quibus dignoscatur. fo. xliiii. i. A

Causa quaedam humiditatis in carne. fo. xlvi. i. A

Considerandum esse ex quibus & in quae mutationes sint factae. folio eodem i. B

Cur aliqua protinus, aliqua interposito tempore calefaciant. folio l. ii. B

Calefacere omnis esse alimenti communem effectum. fo. lii. ii. A

Cur aliqua eorum quae ut alimenta comeduntur, cuti imposita exulcerent. folio liii. ii. A

Corpora calida. frigida. hu. & sic. quaedam per se talia esse, quedam ex accidenti. fo. lv. i. B

Cantharidas vesicam exulcerare. fo. eodem. ii. A

Commune iudicium in omnibus quae potestate sunt ex alterationis celeritate. folio lvi. i. B

Contrarietas naturae vnde iudicanda. fo. eodem. ii. C

Cedendum aliquando esse non exactissime loquentibus. folio lviii. ii. B

Cibi pariter & medicamenta, que. fo. lix. i. B

Calidi. frigidi. humidi. sicci. respectu nostri iudicium a nobis certum esse posse. folio lxi. ii. A

Calor quomodo ex accidenti refrigeret. fo. lxiii. ii. B

Calidum reuma quemadmodum musculi partes inuadat. fo. lxvi.

Corporis temperies quando extrinsecus, et quando interne alteretur. fo. lxxi.

Cur aliqui simul rigeant et febricitent. fo. eodem.

Concoctionem phlegmonis duo sequi. fo. lxvii.

D

Demonstrationis omnis principia esse quae sensui et quae intellectui sint manifesta. fo. xxviii. ii. B

Durum et molle cum mediocriter calent iudicanda. fo. xxxi. ii. C

Dubitatio de nonnullis quomodo calida frigida ue appellentur. fo. xlix. i. A

Diuersorum ex medicamentis effectuum causae. fo. liiii. i. C

Diacantharidon. fo. lv. ii. A

Deleterion. folio lvi. ii. A

Deleteria vnde iudicanda. fo. eodem. ii. C

Dubitatio de iis quae sub calore applicata, tamen refrigerant. fo. lvii. i. C

Dupliciter fieri aliquid calidius. fo. lix. ii. A

Dupliciter fieri aliquid frigidius. fo. eodem. ii. B

Diuisio partium maiorum in sibi proximas. fo. lxvi.

Digestionem in phlegmone maxime optandam esse curationem. fo. lxvii.

Dolor quando desinat. fo. eodem.

Doloris in febri spacium et eius terminus. fo. lxix.

E

Eusarcos. folio xii. i. A

Eucraton corpus quod dicatur. fo. xvii. ii. B

Ex siccitate de solo naso iudicandum. fo. xlv. i. A

Error alius in iudicandis temperamentis. fo. xlvi. ii. B

F

Frigidam temperiem nec humidam necessario esse nec siccam. folio xvii. i. C

Florescentis etatis temperies. fo. xxv. i. A

Fibrae temperies. folio eodem. i. A

Fibrae variae. folio xxxii. ii. C

Flauae bilis temperies. folio xxxiii. i. C

Formatricem vim artificem facultatem esse. fo. xliiii. ii. A

Frigida per naturam immodice calefacta vim suam amittere. folio lviii. i. A

H

Humidum & calidum temperamentum esse pessimum. fo. viii. i. A

Hominis cutem medium esse in calido fri. humore & sicc. proprieque eam quae in manu est. fo. xix. ii. B