Neal Hogg
Health Rhetoric
Feb 5, 2012
Style Analysis: “The Rise of Medicine”
In his essay “The
Rise of Medicine” Vivian Nutton presents a brief history of the emergence of
medicine in ancient cultures. In
conveying the changes to medical traditions from the times of the ancient
Egyptian and Greek societies Nutton focuses on the relationships between these
societies and their political, social and philosophical tendencies to resist or
create change in medical services and science.
Vivian
Nutton carries a high degree of situational ethos on the subject at hand, as he
is a Professor Emaritus of Cambridge.
His specialization was focused on “the history of classical rhetoric,
from Antiquity to the present, and particularly on Galen” (UCL web). With this expertise to give his writing
credibility, Nutton sets out to outline the focus of the history presented in
“The Rise of Medicine” in a chronological order when possible, and
cross-references cultures and their institutions to bring the reader closer to
his level of awareness of the subject.
The writing is clear and well-developed enough that the reader gains a
high degree of insight to the ancient medical traditions and their relation to
our understanding of modern medicine.
Since this essay appears as part of a collection in The Cambridge
History of Medicine it can be assumed that this text will be read by
individuals with an interest in the subject, but the composition of this work
as more of a history, with less technical illustration suggests that the
audience is not confined to medical professionals or specialized historians.
Nutton
begins his essay with a nod to Theodore Zwinger, a medical professor from the
16th century, whom Nutton credits with a feeble attempt at creating
a history of medicine based on “historical fictions” which Nutton claims are
valuable as a reminder that “the
evidence for healing and medicine antedates any literary text or historical
event” (Nutton 46). It seems Nutton is
softening up the reader in hopes they will keep an open mind about the
potential success of studies of the history of medicine. This serves the reader well when the topic of
discussion contains over four thousand years of often obscure history which has
been developed simultaneously and separately between and among several
societies and cultures on several continents.
Nutton
bases his accounts of the history of medicine chronologically, which, as a
writer, makes sense when chronicling a history of changing ideas. At every step of the way Nutton references
relevant texts and speakers whom even readers with a limited background on the
subjects will be able to identify. He
begins with descriptions of ancient healers of Babylonia and Egypt. Nutton cites the 18th century B.C.
“law code of Hammurabi” which “specified the fees paid to a healer for a
particular operation on a sliding scale” (Nutton 48). Here the reader gains insight into this
ancient code through Nutton’s framing of this scale with regards to social
standing and doctor error, two concerns which still effect our perception of
the level of quality care in modern medicine.
Nutton then references the Egyptian practice of mummification as a
possible equal to anatomy during ancient times, and suggests the “taboo”
regarding handling a corpse was not present in Egypt and offered opportunity
for possible medical research into the internal organs (51).
Throughout his essay Nutton notes the successes and failures of various
societies, and sometimes shows a sharing of knowledge between cultures. This helps readers who have studied a
predominantly Western history to appreciate the contributions of cultures
outside the Greek tradition.
Of course the
Greeks are heavily influential on modern philosophy and medicine and Nutton
covers their impact next. Contrasting
his point regarding the Egyptians, Nutton suggests one failing of Greek
medicine was a misunderstanding of internal organs from a lack of study of the
human body, as the Greeks relied on “comparisons with animals and everyday
objects” instead of “careful observation” (52). Nutton then references notable historical
Greek figures whose work benefitted the field of medicine. He also highlights the work of Hippocrates,
and his “Hippocratic Oath” which is a tradition still present in modern
medicine (50). Nutton then presents the
work of another recognizable Greek, Aristotle, claiming his “massive programme
of zoological and biological exploration” paved the way for Diocles of Carystos
to compile the first book on animal dissection (52). Nutton then claims the Greeks were able to
explore human anatomy when the Greek Empire expanded to include the new city of
Alexandria, which held attitudes more resembling Egyptian attitudes regarding
corpse handling than the greeks. These
attitudes allowed a new avenue of exploration for ancient doctors and helped
advance medical theory from the philosophical to the scientific.
Nutton then describes
the development of medicine with regard to religious motivation. He exhibits the hospital as a new “product of
Jewish and Christian ideas on charity” around the turn of the first century
A.D. (56). While this may seem to be an
ethnocentric claim of discovery, Nutton does not project either religion as
more influential than the other, and then credits the Arab influence as
influential during this time period as well.
Nutton doesn’t rank any society as more influential in his analysis, but
continues to illuminate the ways the three major epicenters of culture
influenced perceptions of each other’s medical canons. Nutton’s greatest example of this melting pot
of philosophy comes from the history of creation of medical texts and
translations across societies and time.
Nutton highlights the translation of the Galen writings on medicine into
Syriac as immensely beneficial to the spread of advanced medical concepts
during the 5th century B.C. (57).
He then follolws the translation of these works into Arabic, which
preserved the writings more completely than the Greek record and allowed Arab
scholars to identify the “psychic spirit, vital spirit, and natural spirit,”
all of which had been missing from medical philosophy until the sharing of
these cross-cultural writings (59).
As texts amassed,
the amount of medical knowledge swelled and medicine became a focused,
scholarly endeavor. The limited number
of doctors initially involved in University Medicine around 1250 were
“graduating at a rate of 1 or 2 every ten years” and immediately imposed a “textual examination” to supplement and
sometimes replace apprenticeship (64).
This historical moment brought doctors into a highly-specialized and
self-regulated group, much like our current medical tradition.
Nutton’s essay
“The Rise of Medicine” presents a history of the impact of medical traditions
and developments, and acknowledges how the failures and successes of medical
pioneers reveals medicine to be an ever-evolving subject enhanced by
collaboration and consensus wherever possible.
Through his ability to relate Ancient medicine of various cultures to
our modern concepts Nutton is able to show the reader that the developments in
medicine have led to a more effective system of health care, the development of
which has never been static and shaped by influences from various societies and
philosophies over time. Rather than
writing a tired history of the subject, Vivian Nutton engages the reader with
identifiable authorities from the historical context, presentations of the
convergence of societies in a historical context, and references to the
philosophy of those who developed the tradition of medicine.
Works Cited:
"Professor
Vivian Nutton (Emeritus)." UCL - London's Global University. Tue 05
Feb. 2012. <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/histmed/people/academics/nutton>.
Nutton,
Vivan. “The Rise of Medicine” Porter,
Roy. The Cambridge History of Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
Print. (p. 46-70)
No comments:
Post a Comment