Medizin und Arzt bei den Griechischen Kirchenvatern bis Chrysostomos by Hermann JosefFringsReview by: Ludwig EdelsteinIsis, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Jun., 1962), pp. 247-248Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228047 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 16:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.195 on Fri, 9 May 2014 16:41:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS

easy to follow; the essay on climata (p. 154 ff.) gives a very satisfactory

history of the word and the idea. To- wards the end of this last discussion (p. 162 ff.) Dr. Dicks may be right in

his supposition that Hipparchus in his third book constructed two tables, one an astronomical table of parallels be- tween the equator and the north pole, and the other a more modest table of latitudes, lying, mainly at least, within the bounds of the oekoumene. But one must admit that the words of Strabo at this point rather support the idea of a single table, and there is no appar- ent garbling of the evidence, such as Dr. Dicks has successfully pointed out elsewhere. Further points of impor- tance, which are rarely elsewhere clari- flied, the Greek meaning of "arctic circle" (p. 165), and the variability of the ecliptic (p. 168) are clearly and succinctly explained.

One may mention a couple of points on which it is possible to hold some- what different views from those adopted by Dr. Dicks. On p. 146, second-last line, frag. 37 is obviously a slip for frag. 36. Frag. 36 proves that the "later authorities" mentioned in this and the preceding fragment as having estimated the circumference of the earth cannot include Posidonius as Dr. Dicks supposes, unless, that is, Posi- donius is believed to have published such a measurement while he was yet in his teens. But Berger showed long ago that there is no proof that Posi- donius ever made such a measurement. We do know that he accepted the lowest current figure for the circum- ference (Strabo 95). The method of proportionate arcs which Dr. Dicks discusses and illustrates (p. 149 ff.) was known to Hipparchus and earlier still to the fourth-century mathematicians (Aristotle, De Caelo II 297 b 31) who

first calculated (probably Eudoxus is meant; cf. Hultsch R. E. VI 938, and Rehm XI 688) the circumference at 400,000 stades.

Again Dr. Dicks has been most suc- cessful in pursuing and identifying the confusions and garblings of Strabo in his treatment of Pytheas and Hip- parchus. It may however be possible

easy to follow; the essay on climata (p. 154 ff.) gives a very satisfactory

history of the word and the idea. To- wards the end of this last discussion (p. 162 ff.) Dr. Dicks may be right in

his supposition that Hipparchus in his third book constructed two tables, one an astronomical table of parallels be- tween the equator and the north pole, and the other a more modest table of latitudes, lying, mainly at least, within the bounds of the oekoumene. But one must admit that the words of Strabo at this point rather support the idea of a single table, and there is no appar- ent garbling of the evidence, such as Dr. Dicks has successfully pointed out elsewhere. Further points of impor- tance, which are rarely elsewhere clari- flied, the Greek meaning of "arctic circle" (p. 165), and the variability of the ecliptic (p. 168) are clearly and succinctly explained.

One may mention a couple of points on which it is possible to hold some- what different views from those adopted by Dr. Dicks. On p. 146, second-last line, frag. 37 is obviously a slip for frag. 36. Frag. 36 proves that the "later authorities" mentioned in this and the preceding fragment as having estimated the circumference of the earth cannot include Posidonius as Dr. Dicks supposes, unless, that is, Posi- donius is believed to have published such a measurement while he was yet in his teens. But Berger showed long ago that there is no proof that Posi- donius ever made such a measurement. We do know that he accepted the lowest current figure for the circum- ference (Strabo 95). The method of proportionate arcs which Dr. Dicks discusses and illustrates (p. 149 ff.) was known to Hipparchus and earlier still to the fourth-century mathematicians (Aristotle, De Caelo II 297 b 31) who

first calculated (probably Eudoxus is meant; cf. Hultsch R. E. VI 938, and Rehm XI 688) the circumference at 400,000 stades.

Again Dr. Dicks has been most suc- cessful in pursuing and identifying the confusions and garblings of Strabo in his treatment of Pytheas and Hip- parchus. It may however be possible

to squeeze more of Pytheas and Hip- parchus from Strabo's "confused ac- count" of the northern parallels than has been thought feasible by Dr. Dicks. Hipparchus seems to have followed Pytheas through his various points up to 61? and even to Thule at 66?. These points of detail constitute no criticism of a most valuable and instructive book.

JAMES J. TIERNEY

University College, Dublin

HERMANN JOSEF FRINGS. Medizin und Arzt bei den Griechischen Kirchen- vdtern bis Chrysostomos. Dissertation. Bonn: 1959.

Inquiries into medical allusions in the writings of individual Church Fathers have been undertaken not in- frequently. The author of the disser- tation under review has chosen a broader framework. He has brought together the medical passages in Chris- tian Greek literature from the second to the fourth century - with the excep- tion of those in legends and in the Acta Sanctorum (p. 7) - and has grouped them according to subject matter: the judgment on the medical art (Part A) and the evaluation of the physician and his activities (Part B). In doing this, his aim has been to provide a basis for further study of the topics and motifs discussed, espe- cially as regards their relation to Hel- lenistic philosophy (ibid.).

The work undertaken here is quite important-for it should make it pos- sible to discern clearly in a special field the close dependence of the early Chris- tians' attitude on that of their pagan forebears - and the task has been ac- complished very well indeed. Moreover, in not a negligible number of instances Dr. Frings himself has added in the footnotes to his text historical parallels (or references to modern literature)

which give a first indication of the precedent material.

But the value of the dissertation lies not only in that it will now be easier to trace the background of the debate that

to squeeze more of Pytheas and Hip- parchus from Strabo's "confused ac- count" of the northern parallels than has been thought feasible by Dr. Dicks. Hipparchus seems to have followed Pytheas through his various points up to 61? and even to Thule at 66?. These points of detail constitute no criticism of a most valuable and instructive book.

JAMES J. TIERNEY

University College, Dublin

HERMANN JOSEF FRINGS. Medizin und Arzt bei den Griechischen Kirchen- vdtern bis Chrysostomos. Dissertation. Bonn: 1959.

Inquiries into medical allusions in the writings of individual Church Fathers have been undertaken not in- frequently. The author of the disser- tation under review has chosen a broader framework. He has brought together the medical passages in Chris- tian Greek literature from the second to the fourth century - with the excep- tion of those in legends and in the Acta Sanctorum (p. 7) - and has grouped them according to subject matter: the judgment on the medical art (Part A) and the evaluation of the physician and his activities (Part B). In doing this, his aim has been to provide a basis for further study of the topics and motifs discussed, espe- cially as regards their relation to Hel- lenistic philosophy (ibid.).

The work undertaken here is quite important-for it should make it pos- sible to discern clearly in a special field the close dependence of the early Chris- tians' attitude on that of their pagan forebears - and the task has been ac- complished very well indeed. Moreover, in not a negligible number of instances Dr. Frings himself has added in the footnotes to his text historical parallels (or references to modern literature)

which give a first indication of the precedent material.

But the value of the dissertation lies not only in that it will now be easier to trace the background of the debate that

247 247

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.195 on Fri, 9 May 2014 16:41:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS

took place at the end of antiquity. Reading through the two main sections which are carefully and skillfully sub- divided (see Inhaltsiibersicht, pp. 3 ff.), one receives an impression of the kind of medicine the early Fathers favored, of the human reactions to disease and treatment, and of the general medical situation.

As for the first point, it is important to note that most of those who ap- proved medicine as an art given by God (pp. 8 ff., 12 ff.) seem to have sided with "dogmatic" medicine, that doc- trine of rationalism and empiricism symbolized by the names of Hippocrates and Galen (p. 36), although some called the physician simply an empiric because it is experience that constitutes the worth of the doctor (p. 34, note 190). They all rejected instrusions of magic (p. 28; the remedies mentioned pp. 54 f. are sympathetic remedies which not even Galen discarded altogether). Nay, they went so far as to defend all methods suitable for acquiring new knowledge, including dissection of the human cadaver and even vivisection. That the latter was practiced by the ancients, has often been called into question. A testimony of Eusebius that had been overlooked, now corroborates the historicity of the report preserved in Celsus (p. 20 and note 74).

Next, writing in a very personal style and with an eye for people and their lives, the Christian authors give descrip- tions of sickness and its consequences, perhaps unparalleled in earlier litera- ture. One learns about the tortures men had to endure during operations (pp. 78 f. cf. 75). One hears of the

difficulties caused by the lack of doctors - and of remedies - in the country dis- tricts; the joy and relief of the people coming to cities where doctors were to be found (pp. 29 f.); the long trips they made to consult physicians of high re- nown (p. 80). The irritability of the sick, the patience and forbearance of the physician who finds in the misery of his patients the excuse for their out- bursts, are set forth (pp. 44 f.; 83 f.).

Finally, there emerges a very distinct picture of medical conditions. Un- licensed as the doctors were in general,

took place at the end of antiquity. Reading through the two main sections which are carefully and skillfully sub- divided (see Inhaltsiibersicht, pp. 3 ff.), one receives an impression of the kind of medicine the early Fathers favored, of the human reactions to disease and treatment, and of the general medical situation.

As for the first point, it is important to note that most of those who ap- proved medicine as an art given by God (pp. 8 ff., 12 ff.) seem to have sided with "dogmatic" medicine, that doc- trine of rationalism and empiricism symbolized by the names of Hippocrates and Galen (p. 36), although some called the physician simply an empiric because it is experience that constitutes the worth of the doctor (p. 34, note 190). They all rejected instrusions of magic (p. 28; the remedies mentioned pp. 54 f. are sympathetic remedies which not even Galen discarded altogether). Nay, they went so far as to defend all methods suitable for acquiring new knowledge, including dissection of the human cadaver and even vivisection. That the latter was practiced by the ancients, has often been called into question. A testimony of Eusebius that had been overlooked, now corroborates the historicity of the report preserved in Celsus (p. 20 and note 74).

Next, writing in a very personal style and with an eye for people and their lives, the Christian authors give descrip- tions of sickness and its consequences, perhaps unparalleled in earlier litera- ture. One learns about the tortures men had to endure during operations (pp. 78 f. cf. 75). One hears of the

difficulties caused by the lack of doctors - and of remedies - in the country dis- tricts; the joy and relief of the people coming to cities where doctors were to be found (pp. 29 f.); the long trips they made to consult physicians of high re- nown (p. 80). The irritability of the sick, the patience and forbearance of the physician who finds in the misery of his patients the excuse for their out- bursts, are set forth (pp. 44 f.; 83 f.).

Finally, there emerges a very distinct picture of medical conditions. Un- licensed as the doctors were in general,

and therefore without any official war- rant of their competence, they acquired a clientele by proving to the prospec- tive patient their ability to handle the case (p. 37). Treatment of the sick, be they suffering from internal diseases or in need of surgery, was a public affair (pp. 50 f.). Prophylactic medi- cine played as great a role as did the cure of illness (pp. 64 f.). The limita- tions of the medical art were openly acknowledged (pp. 46 f.). And laymen no less than doctors were wont to dis- cuss problems of medicine (p. 51). The paradoxy of the art of healing-- which relieves suffering by cutting and burning, by inflicting pain, and asks for reward in addition (p. 60; cf. 41)- was in everybody's mouth. In short, things were as they had been in the earliest times.

That one realizes how little change took place in Greek medicine through- out the centuries, is I think as valuable a result of Dr. Frings' study as is the better understanding one gains of the Christian attitude toward medicine, or the greater familiarity one acquires with the humble beneficiary of the art of healing whose woes and heroism are all too often forgotten in the telling of the story.

LUDWIG EDELSTEIN The Rockefeller Institute

* * *

JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, JR. Aristotle. xv + 309 pp. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. $5.00.

This is a very successful book: it does what it sets out to do, to provide for those who have no previous knowledge of Aristotle and no knowledge of Greek a balanced and lucid account of Aris- totle's outlook and achievement. I think that any such person reading Professor Randall's book would get pre- cisely that: a clear and well-propor- tioned statement of what Aristotle at- tempted and did. As Professor Randall says, " The scientist must surrender his mind to the structure of the subject matter he is investigating," and this he himself does. It is an easy book to read - indeed at times it is almost con-

and therefore without any official war- rant of their competence, they acquired a clientele by proving to the prospec- tive patient their ability to handle the case (p. 37). Treatment of the sick, be they suffering from internal diseases or in need of surgery, was a public affair (pp. 50 f.). Prophylactic medi- cine played as great a role as did the cure of illness (pp. 64 f.). The limita- tions of the medical art were openly acknowledged (pp. 46 f.). And laymen no less than doctors were wont to dis- cuss problems of medicine (p. 51). The paradoxy of the art of healing-- which relieves suffering by cutting and burning, by inflicting pain, and asks for reward in addition (p. 60; cf. 41)- was in everybody's mouth. In short, things were as they had been in the earliest times.

That one realizes how little change took place in Greek medicine through- out the centuries, is I think as valuable a result of Dr. Frings' study as is the better understanding one gains of the Christian attitude toward medicine, or the greater familiarity one acquires with the humble beneficiary of the art of healing whose woes and heroism are all too often forgotten in the telling of the story.

LUDWIG EDELSTEIN The Rockefeller Institute

* * *

JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, JR. Aristotle. xv + 309 pp. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. $5.00.

This is a very successful book: it does what it sets out to do, to provide for those who have no previous knowledge of Aristotle and no knowledge of Greek a balanced and lucid account of Aris- totle's outlook and achievement. I think that any such person reading Professor Randall's book would get pre- cisely that: a clear and well-propor- tioned statement of what Aristotle at- tempted and did. As Professor Randall says, " The scientist must surrender his mind to the structure of the subject matter he is investigating," and this he himself does. It is an easy book to read - indeed at times it is almost con-

248 248

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.195 on Fri, 9 May 2014 16:41:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions