- Email: [email protected]
A history of medicine
BOOK REVIEW
Book Review Prioreschi: A History of Medicine. Vol3: Roman Medicine. Omaha, NE, Horatio Press, 1998. Plinio
notes a dramatic clilTcrcncr: Galrn practiced animal dissection and \i\iscction; he is much more accurate and dctailcd in his anatom): Furthermore, “Galcn undcrstands the newssit). of cspcrimentation, Hippocrates does not. This is the great difrcrcncc bct\vccn Roman medicine (that is, Greek mcdicinc practiced in Rome) and classical Greek medicine.” The author also remarks that “the alwage patient \\w~lcl probably ha1.e hacl the same chances of reco\xy. if he lvcrc treated b!, Hippocrates or by Galcn.” Dr Priorcschi, a physician and a professor of pharmacolog? at Crcighton, is also a medical historian, an educator, ancl a classicist, obviously \~ersecl in ancl partial to Roman (some \vould prefer the term Grcco-Roman) civilization. Is Romnn ,\leditine another scholarly compilation or does it ha1.c something trul>. original that distinguishes it from other current tests dealing lvith the same topic? In my opinion, its originality lies in “pearls” scattered throughout the test. In his forc\vord the author notes, among \\hat he percei\.es as “signs 01 deca!. of our present society,” the current transformntion of the Hippocratic Oath. To Dr Prior-es&i, such “an updating and improving process . \vould bc cqui\xlcnt to the replacing of the sling of ~Iichclangelo’s David \vith an assault rifle and dressing him \\ith combat fatigues.“Thc author also lashes out at “some historians of medicine (~~suall>. among those \vho, not being ph!xicians, arc not familiar \vith mcclical science)” and at the “fashionable notion that is held in some intellectual circles . that scicncc is not \\hat \vc bclic7.c it is. that is the objccti\,c, sc\wc imx3tigation of the physical \vorld, but is instcacl an arbitrar?. construct made ~11)b!. the \vhims (usually despicable) of the indi\iclual scientist.” In his introduction, the author enclorses “the coninionl~~ accepted notion that Roman medicine is simpl>. Greek mcdicinc practicecl in Rome in the same sense that American medicine is European medicine practiced in the Unitecl States.” He admits, ho\\.e\w, in a footnote that “01x of the main dilYercnccs being that in Rome medicine, for a long time, \vas practiced mainI>. b!, Greek physicians.” The author should ha1.e also glanced at a list of post-World War II Sobel prize a\rarcls. His canclid assertions are guaranteed to raise sonic c)vbro\vs but merit, nc\~crthelcss, to be aired. Altogcthcr, I ha\,e greatI>. enjoyed reading Dr Priorcschi’s scholarl~~ test. I particulnrl~~ recommend his His-
771 pages, $150. First, \vhy should modern physicians, including pathologists, be interested in Roman mcclicinc? To the skeptic, I suggest that it ma>. be both bcnclicial and sobering to occasionally retrench in time and space and contemplate lvhat health, discasc, and ph!xicians \vc’rc about lvhen Rome \vas the sole “supcrpo\vcr.” The pragmatic is ~2isc to ponder the possibility that our socie+, unless it falls back on some time-tested common sense tenets and practices of the ancient Sear East, Greece, and Rome, vill demand Ithat \\.oulcl be c\.entuall>. most dilficult to pro\idc or \\hat might e\‘en be undesirable. Roman iZl&%w is a sequel to Dr Priorcschi’s Vol 1, Primihe nnd .4ncienf ,lledicine, and Vol 2, Greek .Urdicinr. The test contains abundant quotations and translations from priman. sources, as IveIl as profiw footnotes \vith cross-references. A detailed table of contents ancl a general index are provided. The test hovers around Galen of Pergamum (:\I) I El-circa 2(M), “scconcl onI>. to Hippocrates in the medical hagiograph!. ofthc N’estern World.” Galen’s voluminous bibliograph!~ (including a few spurious tests) runs into at least 1% cntrics, originally M-ritten in Greek and translated into Latin. plus selFera lvorks that suni\,cd mainly in Arabic. This vast corpus includes anatom!’ and ph!xiolo.. Roman Medicine includes three main component chapters: Medicine Before Galen, Galcn, and hlcdicinc Aftcl Galen. Was there any tangible progress during the GO0 )xxrs that separated Hippocrates and Galcn? Dr Priorcschi 204
Annals
of Diagnostic
Pathology,
Vol4,
No 3 (June),
2000:
pp 204-205
Book
toric and Social Outline; the extensive sections on Corn&us C&us (born circa 25 UC:), a Roman aristocrat who practiced medicine and wrote the first medical treatise in Latin, De nzedirirza (remember Celsus’s four signs of inflammation: rubor, trtmor, calor, and &or); and the chapter on Roman militar). medicine. In his general conclusions, the author, true to his discipline of pharmacolog?,, expounds his quantitative assessment of the ancient use of poppy as an analgesic and his use of an “efficacy quotient” formula. The book ends with a “recessional” moralistic quotation from Libanius, the
Review
205
friend of emperor Julian, and Kipling’s “Our Fathers of Old.” I recommend Roman Medicine as an excellent reference book for the period it covers. As to reading it from cover to cover, I would advise this undertaking to the one with fortitude, tolerance for the occasional tortuous phrase and unsubstantiated footnote, and willingness to keep an open mind.
Hen y il. &ar, MD, PhD Chapel
Hill, NC
Book Review Prioreschi: A History of Medicine. Vol3: Roman Medicine. Omaha, NE, Horatio Press, 1998. Plinio
notes a dramatic clilTcrcncr: Galrn practiced animal dissection and \i\iscction; he is much more accurate and dctailcd in his anatom): Furthermore, “Galcn undcrstands the newssit). of cspcrimentation, Hippocrates does not. This is the great difrcrcncc bct\vccn Roman medicine (that is, Greek mcdicinc practiced in Rome) and classical Greek medicine.” The author also remarks that “the alwage patient \\w~lcl probably ha1.e hacl the same chances of reco\xy. if he lvcrc treated b!, Hippocrates or by Galcn.” Dr Priorcschi, a physician and a professor of pharmacolog? at Crcighton, is also a medical historian, an educator, ancl a classicist, obviously \~ersecl in ancl partial to Roman (some \vould prefer the term Grcco-Roman) civilization. Is Romnn ,\leditine another scholarly compilation or does it ha1.c something trul>. original that distinguishes it from other current tests dealing lvith the same topic? In my opinion, its originality lies in “pearls” scattered throughout the test. In his forc\vord the author notes, among \\hat he percei\.es as “signs 01 deca!. of our present society,” the current transformntion of the Hippocratic Oath. To Dr Prior-es&i, such “an updating and improving process . \vould bc cqui\xlcnt to the replacing of the sling of ~Iichclangelo’s David \vith an assault rifle and dressing him \\ith combat fatigues.“Thc author also lashes out at “some historians of medicine (~~suall>. among those \vho, not being ph!xicians, arc not familiar \vith mcclical science)” and at the “fashionable notion that is held in some intellectual circles . that scicncc is not \\hat \vc bclic7.c it is. that is the objccti\,c, sc\wc imx3tigation of the physical \vorld, but is instcacl an arbitrar?. construct made ~11)b!. the \vhims (usually despicable) of the indi\iclual scientist.” In his introduction, the author enclorses “the coninionl~~ accepted notion that Roman medicine is simpl>. Greek mcdicinc practicecl in Rome in the same sense that American medicine is European medicine practiced in the Unitecl States.” He admits, ho\\.e\w, in a footnote that “01x of the main dilYercnccs being that in Rome medicine, for a long time, \vas practiced mainI>. b!, Greek physicians.” The author should ha1.e also glanced at a list of post-World War II Sobel prize a\rarcls. His canclid assertions are guaranteed to raise sonic c)vbro\vs but merit, nc\~crthelcss, to be aired. Altogcthcr, I ha\,e greatI>. enjoyed reading Dr Priorcschi’s scholarl~~ test. I particulnrl~~ recommend his His-
771 pages, $150. First, \vhy should modern physicians, including pathologists, be interested in Roman mcclicinc? To the skeptic, I suggest that it ma>. be both bcnclicial and sobering to occasionally retrench in time and space and contemplate lvhat health, discasc, and ph!xicians \vc’rc about lvhen Rome \vas the sole “supcrpo\vcr.” The pragmatic is ~2isc to ponder the possibility that our socie+, unless it falls back on some time-tested common sense tenets and practices of the ancient Sear East, Greece, and Rome, vill demand Ithat \\.oulcl be c\.entuall>. most dilficult to pro\idc or \\hat might e\‘en be undesirable. Roman iZl&%w is a sequel to Dr Priorcschi’s Vol 1, Primihe nnd .4ncienf ,lledicine, and Vol 2, Greek .Urdicinr. The test contains abundant quotations and translations from priman. sources, as IveIl as profiw footnotes \vith cross-references. A detailed table of contents ancl a general index are provided. The test hovers around Galen of Pergamum (:\I) I El-circa 2(M), “scconcl onI>. to Hippocrates in the medical hagiograph!. ofthc N’estern World.” Galen’s voluminous bibliograph!~ (including a few spurious tests) runs into at least 1% cntrics, originally M-ritten in Greek and translated into Latin. plus selFera lvorks that suni\,cd mainly in Arabic. This vast corpus includes anatom!’ and ph!xiolo
Annals
of Diagnostic
Pathology,
Vol4,
No 3 (June),
2000:
pp 204-205
Book
toric and Social Outline; the extensive sections on Corn&us C&us (born circa 25 UC:), a Roman aristocrat who practiced medicine and wrote the first medical treatise in Latin, De nzedirirza (remember Celsus’s four signs of inflammation: rubor, trtmor, calor, and &or); and the chapter on Roman militar). medicine. In his general conclusions, the author, true to his discipline of pharmacolog?,, expounds his quantitative assessment of the ancient use of poppy as an analgesic and his use of an “efficacy quotient” formula. The book ends with a “recessional” moralistic quotation from Libanius, the
Review
205
friend of emperor Julian, and Kipling’s “Our Fathers of Old.” I recommend Roman Medicine as an excellent reference book for the period it covers. As to reading it from cover to cover, I would advise this undertaking to the one with fortitude, tolerance for the occasional tortuous phrase and unsubstantiated footnote, and willingness to keep an open mind.
Hen y il. &ar, MD, PhD Chapel
Hill, NC