|
Williams |
The catholicity
of Ptolemy's tastes led him, naturally enough, to cultivate the biological
no less than the physical sciences. In particular his influence permitted
an epochal advance in the field of medicine. Two anatomists became famous
through the investigations they were permitted to make under the patronage
of the enlightened ruler. These earliest of really scientific investigators
of the mechanism of the human body were named Herophilus and Erasistratus.
These two anatomists gained their knowledge by the dissection of human
bodies (theirs are the first records that we have of such practices), and
King Ptolemy himself is said to have been present at some of these dissections.
They were the first to discover that the nerve- trunks have their origin
in the brain and spinal cord, and they are credited also with the discovery
that these nerve-trunks are of two different kinds - one to convey motor,
and the other sensory impulses. They discovered, described, and named the
coverings of the brain. The name of Herophilus is still applied by anatomists,
in honor of the discoverer, to one of the sinuses or large canals that
convey the venous blood from the head. Herophilus also noticed and described
four cavities or ventricles in the brain, and reached the conclusion that
one of these ventricles was the seat of the soul - a belief shared until
comparatively recent times by many physiologists. He made also a careful
and fairly accurate study of the anatomy of the eye, a greatly improved
the old operation for cataract.
With the increased knowledge of anatomy
came also corresponding advances in surgery, and many experimental operations
are said to have been performed upon condemned criminals who were handed
over to the surgeons by the Ptolemies. While many modern writers have attempted
to discredit these assertions, it is not improbable that such operations
were performed. In an age when human life was held so cheap, and among
a people accustomed to torturing condemned prisoners for comparatively
slight offences, it is not unlikely that the surgeons were allowed to inflict
perhaps less painful tortures in the cause of science. Furthermore, we
know that condemned criminals were sometimes handed over to the medical
profession to be "operated upon and killed in whatever way they thought
best" even as late as the sixteenth century. Tertullian[1] probably exaggerates,
however, when he puts the number of such victims in Alexandria at six hundred.
Had Herophilus and Erasistratus been as
happy in their deductions as to the functions of the organs as they were
in their knowledge of anatomy, the science of medicine would have been
placed upon a very high plane even in their time. Unfortunately, however,
they not only drew erroneous inferences as to the functions of the organs,
but also disagreed radically as to what functions certain organs performed,
and how diseases should be treated, even when agreeing perfectly on the
subject of anatomy itself. Their contribution to the knowledge of the scientific
treatment of diseases holds no such place, therefore, as their anatomical
investigations.
Half a century after the time of Herophilus
there appeared a Greek physician, Heraclides, whose reputation in the use
of drugs far surpasses that of the anatomists of the Alexandrian school.
His reputation has been handed down through the centuries as that of a
physician, rather than a surgeon, although in his own time he was considered
one of the great surgeons of the period. Heraclides belonged to the "Empiric"
school, which rejected anatomy as useless, depending entirely on the use
of drugs. He is thought to have been the first physician to point out the
value of opium in certain painful diseases. His prescription of this drug
for certain cases of "sleeplessness, spasm, cholera, and colic," shows
that his use of it was not unlike that of the modern physician in certain
cases; and his treatment of fevers, by keeping the patient's head cool
and facilitating the secretions of the body, is still recognized as "good
practice." He advocated a free use of liquids in quenching the fever patient's
thirst - a recognized therapeutic measure to-day, but one that was widely
condemned a century ago. |
|