Ancient Greek medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first known Greek medical school opened in Cnidus in 700 BC. Alcmaeon, author of the first anatomical work, worked at this school, and it was here that the practice of observing patients was established. Hippocrates established his own medical school at Cos.[1] Despite their known respect for Egyptian medicine, attempts to discern any particular influence on Greek practice at this early time have not been dramatically successful because of the lack of sources and the challenge of understanding ancient medical terminology. It is clear, however, that the Greeks imported Egyptian substances into their pharmacopoeia, and the influence becomes more pronounced after the establishment of a school of Greek medicine in Alexandria.[2]

Contents

[edit] Hippocrates and Hippocratic medicine

Hippocrates
Hippocrates

The Hippocratic Corpus contains the core medical texts of this school. Although once thought to have been written by Hippocrates himself, today, many scholars believe that these texts were written by a series of authors over several decades.[citation needed] Since it is impossible to determine which may have been written by Hippocrates himself, it is difficult to know which Hippocratic doctrines originated with him.

The existence of the Hippocratic Oath implies that this "Hippocratic" medicine was practiced by a group of professional physicians bound (at least among themselves) by a strict ethical code. Aspiring students normally paid a fee for training (a provision is made for exceptions) and entered into a virtual family relationship with his teacher. This training included some oral instruction and probably hands-on experience as the teacher's assistant, since the Oath assumes that the student will be interacting with patients. The Oath also places limits on what the physician may or may not do ("To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug") and intriguingly hints at the existence of another class of professional specialists, perhaps akin to surgeons ("I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art").[3]

[edit] Aristotle

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was the most influential scholar of the living world from antiquity. Though his early natural philosophy work was speculative, Aristotle's later biological writings demonstrate great concern for empiricism, biological causation, and the diversity of life.[4] Aristotle did not experiment, however, holding that items display their real natures in their own environments, rather than controlled artificial ones. While in physics and chemistry, this assumption has been found unhelpful, in zoology and ethology it has not, and Aristotle's work "retains real interest".[5] He made countless observations of nature, especially the habits and attributes of plants and animals in the world around him, which he devoted considerable attention to categorizing. In all, Aristotle classified 540 animal species, and dissected at least 50.

Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, formal causes, guided all natural processes.[6]Such a teleological view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design; for example suggesting that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and generally giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. In a similar fashion, Aristotle believed that creatures were arranged in a graded scale of perfection rising from plants on up to man; : the scala naturae or Great Chain of Being.[7] .

He held that the level of a creature's perfection was reflected in its form, but not foreordained by that form. Yet another aspect of his biology divided souls into three groups: a vegetative soul, responsible for reproduction and growth; a sensitive soul, responsible for mobility and sensation; and a rational soul, capable of thought and reflection. He attributed only the first to plants, the first two to animals, and all three to humans. [8] Aristotle, in contrast to earlier philosophers, and like the Egyptians, placed the rational soul in the heart, rather than the brain.[9] Notable is Aristotle's division of sensation and thought, which generally went against previous philosophers, with the exception of Alcmaeon.[10]Aristotle's successor at the Lyceum, Theophrastus, wrote a series of books on botany—the History of Plants—which survived as the most important contribution of antiquity to botany, even into the Middle Ages. Many of Theophrastus' names survive into modern times, such as carpos for fruit, and pericarpion for seed vessel. Rather than focus on formal causes, as Aristotle did, Theophrastus suggested a mechanistic scheme, drawing analogies between natural and artificial processes, and relying on Aristotle's concept of the efficient cause. Theophrastus also recognized the role of sex in the reproduction of some higher plants, though this ro z & lu c last discovery was lost in later ages.[11].The biological/teleological ideas, of Aristotle and Theophrastus as well as their emphasis on a serious of axioms rather than on empirical observation, cannot be easily separated from their consequent impact on Western medicine.

[edit] Alexandria

Frontispiece to a 1644 version of the expanded and illustrated edition of Historia Plantarum (ca. 1200), which was originally written around 200 BC
Frontispiece to a 1644 version of the expanded and illustrated edition of Historia Plantarum (ca. 1200), which was originally written around 200 BC

Following Theophrastus, the Lyceum failed to produce any original work. Though interest in Aristotle's ideas survived, they were generally taken unquestioningly.[12] It is not until the age of Alexandria under the Ptolemies that advances in biology can be again found. The first medical teacher at Alexandria was Herophilus of Chalcedon, who corrected Aristotle, placing intelligence in the brain, and connected the nervous system to motion and sensation. Herophilus also distinguished between veins and arteries, noting that the latter pulse while the former do not. He did this using the experiment involving cutting certain vein and arteries in a pigs neck until the squealing stopped.[13] In the same vein, he developed a diagnostic technique which relied upon distinguishing different types of pulse.[14] He, and his contemporary, Erasistratus of Chios, researched the role of veins and nerves, mapping their courses across the body.

Erasistratus connected the increased complexity of the surface of the human brain compared to other animals to its superior intelligence. He sometimes employed experiments to further his research, at one time repeatedly weighing a caged bird, and noting its weight loss between feeding times. Following his teacher's researches into pneumatics, he claimed that the human system of blood vessels was controlled by vacuums, drawing blood across the body. In Erisistratus' physiology, air enters the body, is then drawn by the lungs into the heart, where it is transformed into vital spirit, and is then pumped by the arteries throughout the body. Some of this vital spirit reaches the brain, where it is transformed into animal spirit, which is then distributed by the nerves.[15] Herophilus and Erasistratus performed their experiments upon criminals given to them by their Ptolemaic kings. They dissected these criminals alive, and "while they were still breathing they observed parts which nature had formerly concealed, and examined their position, colour, shape, size, arrangement, hardness, softness, smoothness, connection."[16]

Though a few ancient atomists such as Lucretius challenged the teleological viewpoint of Aristotelian ideas about life, teleology (and after the rise of Christianity, natural theology) would remain central to biological thought essentially until the 18th and 19th centuries. In the words of Ernst Mayr, "Nothing of any real consequence in biology after Lucretius and Galen until the Renaissance."[17] Aristotle's ideas of natural history and medicine survived, but they were generally taken unquestioningly.[18]

[edit] Influence on Rome & Christianity

Through long contact with Greek culture, and their eventual conquest of Greece, the Romans absorbed many of the Greek ideas on medicine. Early Roman reactions to Greek medicine ranged from enthusiasm to hostility, but eventually the Romans adopted a favorable view of Hippocratic medicine.[19]

This acceptance led to the spread of Greek medical theories throughout the Roman Empire, and thus a large portion of the West. Following the collapse of the Empire, however, official Catholic support for Galen's teachings made these the only politically acceptable ideas on medicine until the Renaissance. This support was a major reason for the huge impact of his teachings, despite their sometimes questionable value. For example, the theory of bloodletting was popular into the 19th century, despite its total inefficacy and the extreme riskiness: many people, including possibly George Washington, died from its failure. Medicine was very important to the Greek culture because such a high priority was placed upon such healthy lifestyles.


[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Atlas of Anatomy, ed. Giunti Editorial Group, Taj Books LTD 2002, p. 9
  2. ^ Heinrich Von Staden, Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 1-26.
  3. ^ Owsei Temkin, "What Does the Hippocratic Oath Say?," in "On Second Thought" and Other Essays in the History of Medicine (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp. 21-28.
  4. ^ Mason, A History of the Sciences pp 41
  5. ^ Annas, Classical Greek Philosophy pp 247
  6. ^ Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, pp 84-90, 135; Mason, A History of the Sciences, p 41-44
  7. ^ Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, pp 201-202; see also: Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being
  8. ^ Aristotle, De Anima II 3
  9. ^ Mason, A History of the Sciences pp 45
  10. ^ Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy Vol. 1 pp. 348
  11. ^ Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, pp 90-91; Mason, A History of the Sciences, p 46
  12. ^ Annas, Classical Greek Philosophy pp 252
  13. ^ Mason, A History of the Sciences pp 56
  14. ^ Barnes, Hellenistic Philosophy and Science pp 383
  15. ^ Mason, A History of the Sciences, p 57
  16. ^ Barnes, Hellenistic Philosophy and Science, pp 383-384
  17. ^ Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, pp 90-94; quotation from p 91
  18. ^ Annas, Classical Greek Philosophy, p 252
  19. ^ von Staden, "Liminal Perils: Early Roman Receptions of Greek Medicine," in Tradition, Transmission, Transformation, ed. F. Jamil Ragep and Sally P. Ragep with Steven Livesey (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 369-418.

[edit] References

  • Annas, Julia Classical Greek Philosophy. In Boardman, John; Griffin, Jasper; Murray, Oswyn (ed.) The Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford University Press: New York, 1986. ISBN 0-19-872112-9
  • Barnes, Jonathan Hellenistic Philosophy and Science. In Boardman, John; Griffin, Jasper; Murray, Oswyn (ed.) The Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford University Press: New York, 1986. ISBN 0-19-872112-9
  • Cohn-Haft, Louis The Public Physicians of Ancient Greece, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1956
  • Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Volume I: The earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1962. ISBN 0-521-29420-7
  • Jones, W. H. S.  Philosophy and Medicine in Ancient Greece, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1946
  • Lennox, James (2006-02-15). Aristotle's Biology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Longrigg, James Greek Rational Medicine: Philosophy and Medicine from Alcmæon to the Alexandrians, Routledge, 1993.
  • Lovejoy, Arthur O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Harvard University Press, 1936. Reprinted by Harper & Row, ISBN 0-674-36150-4, 2005 paperback: ISBN 0-674-36153-9.
  • Mason, Stephen F. A History of the Sciences. Collier Books: New York, 1956.
  • Mayr, Ernst. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982. ISBN 0-674-36445-7

[edit] External links