1645: Van Helmont narrows asthma definition

Jean Baptiste van Helmont (1580-1644)

Galileo set the way for others to question old scientific and medical superstitions that were regarded as facts, and one such physician/ scientist/ alchemist was Jean Baptiste van Helmont, who, in 1579, was born into the dawn of the Scientific Revolution in Brussels.

He was the younger son of a noble family, and his father died in his second year. He entered the University of Louvain (Leuven) at a young age, and graduated from his studies in mathematics, astronomy, astrology, and philosophy at the young age of 17. (3, page 260) (4, page 113-114)(7)

He had an opportunity to become the imperial physician, but he declined it because medicine failed to heal him when he obtained scabies from a girl. Instead he decided to "spend his time by fasting, supplication and prayer, and in poverty. He chose the poverty of Christ, giving to his sister all his worldly possessions." (4, page 115)

He then spent time as a Capuchin friar just prior to studying law, botany and medicine. Once this task was completed, he traveled to Switzerland and Italy (1600-1602) and then France and England (1602-15), and then he received his medical degree in 1599. As a physician he was "unwilling to accept money from his sick fellow-man in return for so doubtful an art." (4, page 114)(7)

He put to use his medical skills during a plague that broke out in Antwerp in 1605. (7) This must have earned him quite a bit of fame.  It was also about this time that he was introduced to a person who introduced him to Paracelsus (1493-1541), and he studied his works "zealously." (4, page 114)

Perhaps due to the fame he earned by his travels and experiences, he was offered many attractive jobs from princes and archbishops, although he turned all of these down in 1609, claiming the he did not want to live in the "misery of my fellow men." (7)

It was that same year, in 1609, that he abandoned poverty and Christ, and married a rich heiress by the name of Margaret van Ranst. Through her he inherited several estates, and he retired to one of them, leaving the medical profession to devote his entire life to "chemical science" and transforming the works of Paracelsus. (4, pages 14-15) (7)

By this he became a chemist, although, more than likely, he was an alchemist, following in the footsteps of Paracelsus, of whom, many agree, was also an alchemist.

Unlike Paracelsus, van Helmont didn't believe in ancient Greek theories.  In fact, he became the first to dismiss the idea that asthma (and diseases in general) was a disease caused by an imbalance of the humors and instead was a disease caused by a narrowing of the pipes in the lungs. It was this view that made him a very controversial person during his lifetime.

 Historian Fielding Hudson Garrison explains van Helmont this way:

Like his master, Paracelsus, van Helmont believed that each material process of the body is presided over by a special archaeus, or spirit (which he calls Blas), and that these physiologic processes are in themselves purely chemical, being due in each case to the agency of a special ferment (or Gas). Each Gas is an instrument in the hands of its special Blas, while the latter are presided over by a sensory-motive soul (anima sensitiva motivaque), which van Helmont locates in the pit of the stomach, since a blow in that region destroys consciousness. (3, page 260)

Bradford explained him as follows:

Van Helmont transmuted the fancies of Paracelsus into a sort of mystic and pious system based on chemical principles. He was a considerable chemist. He thought that air and water were the elements; from the water everything on earth takes its origin—the world is the creation of God.(4, pages 114-115)

In order to prove the basic element of the earth was water he performed an experiment where he grew a tree in a a tub for five years and gave it nothing but pure water. He weighed the tree and soil before the experiment, and in the end the soil weighed the same and the tree had gained 160 pounds. He attributed the weight gain of the tree as being due to water. While his conclusion may not have been completely accurate, some historians refer to him as the father of biochemistry because of this experiment. (9)

Bradford continued:

Disease is something active and is caused by the fall of man. The spirit of man came from God, but on account of the fall became so corrupted that a lesser spirit in man gained control. There was next lower a perceptive soul, and below that a something which he called Archaeus; then there is also Gas which arose by the influence of the Archaeus on water. To Van Helmont we owe this word Gas. (4, page 115) 

The term "gas" he derived from the Greek word for chaos.  Due to his experiments with gases he is considered by many historians as the father of pneumatic (air) science.

One of his most famous experiments was when he burned charcoal and produced the substance carbon dioxide. He explained this was the same product produced from fermenting musk, which rendered the air inside caves as unbreathable. Yet at that time he did not use the word carbon dioxide, he used instead the word gas sylvestre.

He also described other gases, such as carbon monoxide, chlorine gas (prescribed by later physicians as an asthma remedy), digestive gases, sulfer dioxide, and a "vital" gas in the blood that we now refer to as oxygen.

Perhaps one of the reasons van Helmont studied air was that he was an asthmatic.  He generally believed asthma was a physical disease of the lungs caused by factors outside the lungs, such as substances one might come into contact with, substances in the air, and substances affecting the mind.

Orville Brown explains how van Helmont suspected the "archeus" was the cause of asthma: (5, page 27)

"Archeus"—a something—a vital spirit—was enshrined in the stomach, and when disturbed, was responsible for disease by sending forth a peculiar fluid, which, reaching the lungs, caused asthma.  (5, page 27)

To grasp a more complete understanding of this system of van Helmont, I will once again refer to Thomas Bradford, who said:

Van Helmont declared a very mystical and fanciful philosophy; the spleen and the stomach were the rulers over the body. The spleen presided over the abdomen, the sexual organs; the stomach over sleep, waking, and folly. This Archaeus also possessed a great power both in man and in animals. Disease depended on a perverted action of the Archaeus. (4, page 115)

More specifically, Walter Pagan, in his 1982 book about van Helmont, said van Helmont believed asthma was caused when a "specific disease semen has planted its root; in the present case (for asthma) a semen that closes the peripheral pores through which air passes from the lungs into the chest cavity.  It is a semen with the property of causing contraction of members and parts."  (2, page 175-176

That this has occurred, Pagan said of Helmont's theory, "is eveident with the phenomena associated with asthma," such as: (2, page 176)

• Diuresis
• Diarrhea 
• Gurgling of the gut
• Contraction around the gums (2, page 176)

Pagan likewise said that because the lung contracted, Helmont referred to asthma as "epilepsy of the lungs." (2, page 176)(1, page 216)(8, page 374)

He also called it this because asthma was observed to be "latent for long periods, only to provoke on special occasions attacks of contraction that chiefly concern one organ; in this case the lungs, in real epilepsy the nervous system." (2, page 176)  

Pagan added one other thing about the "specific disease semon" that causes asthma:

Basically, however, neither of these is a localized ailment but one conditioned by the influent archeus, the vital principle of the organism as a while. This is shown by the associated symptoms outside the lungs. But the anatomical changes must be looked for in the lungs, where the poison attacks directly, and where they are produced as at a specific seat. To that extent asthma (as indeed every other disease) is a local and localized affair. Its poison irritates in the same way cantharides do, and is essentially identical with the poison of epilepsy, but not strong enough to produce the latter. (2, page 176)

It is believed by many historians that he was the first to link asthma with hysteria, and therefore should be given credit as the father of the nervous theory of asthma.  But he usually doesn't get this credit, perhaps because of the controversial nature of his work, and the fact hat he fad no followers.

Most historians give Thomas Willis, his contemporary, credit for creating the nervous theory of asthma.  This is usually the case even though Willis mentioned nervous asthma several years after van Helmont did.  Yet this is just the way history is, sometimes giving credit for discoveries to the most popular person as opposed to the correct person.

Bradford said van Helmont's remedies for just about any disease were: (4, page 115)

• Conjuratoins
• Charms
• Prayer
• Power of god  (4, page 115)

He also used "earthly medicines," such as: (4, page 115)

• Opium
• Mercury
• Antimony
• Wine (for fevers)  (4, page 115)

Barry Brenner, in his 1999 history of asthma, said:

(Van Helmont) noted that the bronchi were the origin of asthma, and that inhaling dust and fish in certain individuals brought on attacks. He noted that the bronchi would react with spasm to dust, especially from the demolition of houses and temples. He described a monk who, while eating fish fired in oil, fell down, deprived of breathing, "so that he was scarce distinguished from a strangled man." The concept put it in conflict with the official Church view of internal humors as the cause of disease, and he was condemned to death until he recanted. (6, page 5-6)

Once he retired he dedicated about seven years to chemical research, and then he spent the rest of his life in "relative solitude and mostly in peace."  (7)

This was despite the fact that most of what he discovered, and most of what he believed, was contrary to the views of the church.  It was due to such controversies surrounding his work that he waited until he was on his deathbed to give his works to his son to edit and publish. So all of what was described above, all he accomplished in his life, was never published until after he was dead.  (7)

Van Helmont had an illustrious mind, one who decided to do what he thought was right as opposed to what was popular.  Surely this caused some controversy during his lifetime, but it was to the benefit of future generations.

References:

1. Nulan, Sherwin B, "The mysteries within: a surgeon explores myth, medicine and the human body," 2000, New York, Simon and Schuster
2. Pagan, Walter, "Joan Baptista Van Helmont: Reformer of Science and Medicine," 1982, UK, Cambridge University Press\
3. Garrison, Fielding Hudson, "An introduction to the history of medicine," 1921, 3rd edition, Philadelphia and London, W.B Saunders Company
4. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey
5. Brown, Orville Harry, "Asthma, presenting an exposition of the nonpassive expiration theory," 1917, St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Company
6. Brenner, Barry E, author of chapter one in "Emergency Asthma" called  "Where have we been? The history of acute asthma," 1999, New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc
7. "Jan Baptista van Helmont," Britannica.com, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/260549/Jan-Baptista-van-Helmont, accessed 11/11/13
8. Gill, M. H., "Review and Bibliographic Notices: "On the spasmotic asthma of adults," by Bergson, published Gill's book, "The Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science," volume X, August and November, 1850, Dublin, Hodges and Smith, pages 373-388
9. "History of Chemistry," historyworld.net, http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=kpt, accessed 7/6/14

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

1666: Dr. Sydenham expands medical wisdom

If you were sick with asthma during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, who would you want to treat you? You had an option between a botanic physician and his natural remedies, or a licensed physician and his harsh remedies? Dr. T'homas Sydenham would try to convince you to see him, as opposed to some quack doctor.

Back in this era the common folk simply had a bleak image of licensed physicians. Virgil Vogel, in his book "American Indian Medicine," said this was even noted by men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Neville Bonner, and Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Vogel quoted Nevelle as saying: (1, page 114, 115)

The stubborn addiction of most physicians to mercury, bleeding, and calomel was responsible for widespread fear of the medical men and their medicines.  (1, page 114, 115)

Vogel quotes Jefferson as saying: 

"It is part of the medicine that I wish to see reform, an abandonment of hypothesis for sober facts, the first degree of value set on clinical observation, and the lowest on visionary theories."

He also quotes Holmes, who said:

Nature heals most diseases without help from the pharmaceutic art."  

Thankfully, however, there were some well respected physicians, such as Dr. Thomas Sydenham in Britain and Dr. Benjamin Rush in American.  Although, neither did anything to allay the public's bitter perception of the profession.  

Sydenham had published his books in Britain, and there were no copies of them in America. Rush so respected the medical ideas of Sydenham that he self published Sydenham's book in America in 1809, complete with an introduction by himself. This book was aptly titled: "The Works of Thomas Sydenham M.D."

Historian Thomas Bradford said that Thomas Sydenham was born in 1624 at Winford Eagle, in Dorsetshire, England, to a father with a large fortune. He said that little is known about his early life.  What id known is that he started at Oxford, but war interrupted his studies. Some say he ended up as a soldier in the Parliamentary army of 1642. In 1646 he returned to his studies at Oxford. (3, page 118)

Rush said he obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Physic (the art of medicine) at the University of Oxford in 1648 and in the process obtained "some medical knowledge.  (2, page xvi)

A.J. Cain, in his 1999 book, said Sydenham wasn't content, and continued to travel abroad to further his education. He didn't obtain his M.D. until 1676 at Pembroke Hall at Cambridge. (4)

Bradford said he then moved on to the "celebrated" medical school at Montpelier. He received his degree of doctor at Ct Cambridge, and settled in Westminster, London, where he began his medical practice "sometime before 1661. He received his license from the College of Physicians of London." (3, page 118)

Historian Fielding Hudson Garrison said he is credited as reinstating the hippocratic art into medicine, which involved the art and skill of the physician more so than science and theory.  He believed that "the mind is limited and fallible, and to it final causes must remain inscrutable.  Scientific theories are, therefore, of little value to the practitioner since, at the bedside, he must rely upon his powers of observation and his fund of experience." (5, page 270)

Garrison said he was friends with fellow Englishmen Robert Boyle and John Locke.  However, and interestingly, it is generally believed he did not know of the works of many of his contemporaries, such as Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey, Marcello Malpighi, and John Mayow. Among his favorite books were Hippocrates and Don Quixote.  (5, page 269)

Rush said that Sydenham was well aware of the fact that his continued research into physick elevated him above his peers.  Regardless, he continued to have respect for the wisdom of those who came before him.  

To show this, Rush told the story of one of his meetings with Sir Richard Blackmore, who was physician to King William III and a famed writer and poet. (9). 

Rush said:

It is the general opinion, that he was made a physician by accident and necessity, and sir Richard Blackmore* reports, in plain terms, that he engaged in practice without any preparatory study, or previous knowledge, of the medical sciences; and affirms, that when he was consulted by him what books he should read to qualify him for the same profession, he recommended Don Quixote.

That he recommended Don Quixote to Blackmore, we are not allowed to doubt; but the relater is hindered by that self'love, which dazzles all mankind, from discovering that he might intend a satire very different from a general censure of all the ancient and modern writers on medicine, since he might perhaps mean, either seriously or in jest, to insinuate, that Blackmore was not adapted by nature to the study of physic, and that, whether he should read Cervantes or Hippocrates, he would be equally unqualified for practice, arid equally unsuccessful in it.  

Whatsoever was his meaning, nothing is more evident than that it was a transient sally of an inclination warmed with gaiety, or the negligent effusion of a mind intent on some other employment, and in haste to dismiss a troublesome intruder; for it is certain that Sydenham did not think it impossible to write usefully on medicine, because he has himself written upon it; and it is not probable that he carried his vanity so far, as to imagine that no man has ever acquired the same qualifications besides himself. He could not but know that he rather restored than invented most of his principles, and therefore'could not but acknowledge the value of those writers whose doctrine he adopted and enforced. (1, xvi-xvii)

Sydenham wrote a lot about his ideas on the medical profession of his time, and he had several books published in Britain.  None of these survive, so all that we have left of his works is the book published by Rush.  (3, page 118)

Sydenham believed in the four humors of Hippocrates, and that diseases were caused by some form of peccant matter (or "morbific particles") in the air that were inhaled, and disease states were the result of the body attempting  to expectorate the peccant matter.

Dr. Syndenham describes diseases as follows:

DISEASE,  in my opinion, how prejudicial so ever its causes may be to the body, is no more than a vigorous effort of nature to throw off the morbific matter, and thus recover the patient. For as God has been pleased so to create mankind, that they should be fitted to receive various impressions from without, they could not, upon this account, but be liable to different disorders; which arise either from such particles of the air, as having a disagreement with the juices, insinuate themselves into the body, and mixing with the blood, taint the whole frame; or from different kinds of fermentations and putrefactions of humours detained too long in the body, for want of its being able to digest, and discharge them, on account of their too large bulk, or unsuitable nature.(2, page 1)

In the introduction to the book, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) wrote the following:

"The works of Dr. Syndenham are singular, in being alike, celebrated and neglected by modern physicians.  They owe their fame to the invaluable truths that are contained in them; and the neglect with which they have been treated, to certain errors, which have been refuted by modern discoveries and improvements in medicine." (2, page III)

Dr. Rush did little to improve upon the image of the profession, as his methods differ by only a slight degree from those of Sydenham.  For example, Dr. Rush did not believe that "morbific matter" was the cause of disease, nor that the expulsion of this "morbific matter" would cure the disease. (2, page IV)

For the most part, however, Rush supported the medical views of Sydenham.  Dr. Rush said:

To enumerate the many truths that are contained in the following work, would be to transcribe, with the exception of a few pages, nearly every part of it. His histories of acute diseases; his details of the laws of epidemics; his intuitive discernment of old diseases, entangled in new ones; his defence of cool air, and pf depleting remedies, to which millions owe their lives; his sagacity in discovering the precise time, and manner of administering his remedies, and the difference of his practice in the same disease in different seasons, constitute a galaxy of medical knowledge, and mark that rare assemblage of discriminating and combining talents, which have elevated him above the claims of the century and nation in which he lived, and rendered him the physician of all ages and countries. The same talents, employed upon subjects of more general and popular inquiry, would probably have placed him upon the same grade with sir Isaac Newton, in a scale of human intellect... Indeed, so convinced have later times been of the validity and accuracy of his descriptions, that they are considered as the unrivalled delineations of nature; so universally have they been esteemed for their exactitude and truth, that poets never made freer use of, or stole more from Homer, Pindar, or Virgil; satyrists from Juvenal, Persius, or Horace; orators from Demosthenes, Quintilian, or Cicero; nor dramatists from Shakespeare, than physicians have from Sydenham."  (2, page VI)

Dr. Rush believed all medical students should study Sydenham, who believed it was the job of the physician to offer medicine to guide the body in its attempt to rid the body of the peccant material.  For example, Sydenham said of gout:

What is the gout, but the contrivance of nature to purify the blood of aged persons, and, as Hippocrates phrases it, to purge the recesses of the body? And the same may be said of many other diseases, when they are perfectly formed. (2, page 1)

What is impressive here is that the same philosophies of medicine written about by Hippocrates in 400 B.C. were still inculcated in the 17th century, and even still during the 18th century.  This, in essence, should explain some of the harsh remedies -- such as purging and bleeding to expel some peccant matter -- amid the licensed medical profession of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Amid a society that was growing skeptical of the harsh remedies of the licensed medical profession, it only makes sense that a gullible populace would seek the natural alternatives offered by the root and herb doctors, or the botanic physicians.
Chances are, however, that if you had access to an esteemed gentleman physician such as Dr. Sydenham, you'd probably have faith in his remedies.  Of this, Dr. Rush said:

What was his character as a physician, appears from the treatises that he has left, which it is not necessary to epitomize or transcribe; and from them it may likewise be collected, that his skill in physic was not his highest excellence; that his whole character was amiable ; that his chief view was the benefit of mankind, and the chief motive of his actions the will of God, whom he mentions with reverence, well becoming the most enlightened and most penetrating mind. He was benevolent, candid, and communicative, sincere and religious; qualities which it were happy if they would copy from him, who emulate his knowledge, and imitate his methods. (2, page xx)

He was among the most well respected physician of his era, influencing medicine well into the next century.  By his method of studying diseases by direct examination of the living, he is often cited as the founder of clinical medicine.  By his belief that it was important to understand diseases in order to better control them, he is often cited as the father of epidemiology. (6)(7)(5, page 270)

He also lived in a era where the various elements of science were first being categorized.  He believed, as Garrison said, "that each disease belonged to a certain definite species, which could be described and classified as a botanist describes plants. (5, page 270)  

Garrison said:

His theory of medicine was simple.  The human mind is limited and fallible, and to it final causes must inscrutable.  Scientific theories, therefore, are of little value to the practitioner since, at the bedside, he must rely upon his powers of observation and his fund of experience. (5, page 269-270)

Perhaps due to his Puritan beliefs, he rejected pathological anatomy, or using the microscope to learn more about the causes of internal diseases. He believed it was better for a physician to assess his patient and use his senses to determine proper treatment, as opposed to trying to learn about internal causes. (8)

Bradford said, "His model was Hippocrates, and he thought that we should follow nature; he differed from him in attempting to arrest the natural course of disease by giving specifics," said Bradford. (8)(3, page 118)

He continued to practice until 1789 when he died at the age of 65. He was so esteemed by his fellow British physicians that "a monument was erected to him by the college of physicians... (posthumously) he was called the English Hippocrates," said Bradford. (3, page 118)

References:

1. Vogel, Virgil J., "American Indian Medicine," 1970, London, Oklahoma University Press
2. Sydenham, Thomas, M.D., "The works of Thomas Sydenham, M.D., on acute and chronic diseases, with their histories and mode of cure, with notes intended to accommodate them to the present state of medicine, and to the climate and diseases of the United States, by Benjamin Rush, M.D., professor of the Institutes and Practice of Medicine, and of Clinical Practice, in the University of Pennsylvania," 1809, Philadelphia, Published by Benjamin and Thomas Kite. 
3. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey
4. Cain, A.J., "Thomas Sydenham, John Ray, and some contemporaries on species," Archives of Natural History, 1999, volume 26 (1), pages 55-83, http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/anh.1999.26.1.55
5. Garrison, Fielding Hudson, "An introduction to the history of medicine," 1922, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company
6. "Thomas Sydenham," britannica.com, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/577463/Thomas-Sydenham, accessed 6/9/13)
7. "Clinical Medicine," The Free Dictionary By Farlex, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clinical+medicine, accessed 6/9/13
8. "Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689)," sciencemuseum.org, http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/thomassydenham.aspx, accessed on 7/5/14
9. "Sir Richard Blackmore," britannica.com. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68560/Sir-Richard-Blackmore, accessed 6/9/13

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

1200: John Gaddesden describes asthma prognosis

John Gaddesden (1280-1361) was perhaps the most popular of the Medieval physicians.  He was an Englishman who obtained his medical education at the university at Montpelier in France sometime around 1200 A.D.  John Forbes said the he gave us our most accurate description of the prognosis of asthma when he said: (1, page 111)(2, page 196)

Et primo sciendum est, asthma in senibus non recipere curationem, nee in alia eetate nisi difficulter, maxime si sit antiquum. (2, page 196)

While we have to question the accuracy here, I allowed these words to be translated by Google Translate.

In the first place it must be known, not to receive the treatment of asthma in the elderly, nor in any other age except a very difficult task, especially if it is old. 

Bradford said he became the first Englishman to become physician in ordinary to the king, was professor at Merten College, and wrote a book called "Rosa Anglica" that, as noted by Bradford, "professed to embrace the whole practice of medicine; this was taken mostly from the Arabians, but with some original additions." (1, page 111)

While he probably used many ancient Greek and Arabic herbal remedies in the treatment of disease, he also was known to use "mystical remedies" and "superstition," said Bradford.  (1, page 111)

References:

1. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey
2. Forbes, John, "Encyclopedia of Practical Medicine," volume I, 1832, London, Paternoster-Row

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

1095: Crusaders return medicine to Europe

People of all classes joined the crusades for various reasons:
some to take Jerusalem back, some to be freed from landlords,
some to make money, and some to be freed from sin.
Photo from religionwiki.mvcsnow.org

Most people don't realize this, but the Christian crusades that took place during much of the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries were peaceful. Christians believed the trek would absolve them from their sins, and the Muslims welcomed the Christians. This was a great thing as far as our medical history is concerned, as the Christians returned to Europe, they brought with them medical wisdom.  (1, page 106)

This all went fine and dandy until the 10th century when the caliphs of Palestine imposed a tax on those seeking to visit the Holy Land.  It was this tax that ultimately lead to war between the Christians of Europe and the Muslims of Palestine. This was fine for Pilgrims with money, although the poor pilgrims often had to wait at the gates of Jerusalem for some rich person to pay their tax.  (1, page 106)

Historian Thomas Bradford explained what happened next: 

The sum from this tax was a mine of wealth to the Moslem governors of Palestine. At the close of the 10th century it was thought that the end of the world was at hand, the thousand years of the Apocalypse was near completion, and Jesus Christ would descend upon Jerusalem and judge mankind. Panic seized the weak, the credulous, and the guilty; forsaking their homes, kindred and occupation, they hastened to Jerusalem to await the coming of the Lord, imagining that their pious pilgrimage would free them from sin. The road from the West of Europe and Constantinople became a great highway of pilgrims and beggars; the monks, the almsgivers of the times, were obliged to refuse aid to the hordes; many lived upon berries that ripened on the roadways. Swarms besieged the Holy Land; the Turks were annoyed by the number that overran their country . . . they plundered them, beat them with stripes, and kept them for months at the Holy Gates in lieu of the golden bezant for admission. The day of judgment did not come, and so pilgrims a few at a time returned to Europe and told of their sufferings. These cruelities became the wrongs of Christendom. Fresh hordes now hastened on the difficult journey, sure of gaining the favor of heaven by visiting the holy sepulchre. (1, pages 106-107)

So you can see that the crusades were not an attempt by Christians to force their religion on the Muslim people.  It was merely an attempt to continue visiting the Holy land, something that the Muslims had no problem with for over 300 years.

It was these events that incited the wars.  Bradford said:

In 1095 there appeared one Peter the Hermit, a man enthusiastic, chivalrous, bigoted, and probably crazy. He had been a monk of Amiens, and previous to this a soldier. He had visited Jerusalem and was filled with indignation at the cruel persecutions inflicted on the Christian pilgrims. He returned to his home and began a crusade of wild preaching against the abominations of the infidels and their defilement of the Holy Places of Jerusalem and Palestine. He called upon the people to arm against the infidels, incited the clergy, and aroused the enthusiasm of the people and nobles. Musing in Palestine he planned to rouse the powers of all Christendom to rescue the Christians of the East from the thraldom of the Mussulmen, and the sepulchre from the infidel. Peter told his views to Simeon, Patriarch of the Greek church at Jerusalem, and this good prelate sent letters to the pope and to the monarchs of Christendom telling of the sorrows of the Christians of Jerusalem and urging that arms be taken up in their rescue. Peter now hastened to Italy. Pope Urban II. sat on St. Peter's throne. He listened to the sad story and read the letters and appeals. At the Council of Clermont Urban gave Peter full powers to go forth and preach his holy war to the Christian nations of the world. (1, page 107-108)

The crusade had now become an effort to help the Christians who feared that they would not be saved if they did not reach the Holy Land.  Bradford continued: (1, pages 108-109)

The nations were aroused; eternal rewards were promised to all who assumed the red cross; halt and lame, women and children, the pious, the fanatic, the needy, the dissolute, all enrolled themselves in this remarkable army. Walter the Penniless set out with the first army in the spring of 1096; each one was his own leader. Soon other bands were formed. It is said that 300,000 men, women and children of the lowest of Europe spread themselves over Hungary and Germany. (1, page 108)

They robbed and murdered, and in self defense the Hungarians were obliged to fight with them. Walter straggled on to Constantinople with his horde. Peter the Hermit was not far behind him. He led another rabble, and riot and rapine went with him. It was everywhere; all Europe was mad. This rabble did not conquer the Holy City, but a more orderly and soldierly expedition was organized under certain noble knights, among whom was Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, and count Raymond of Toulouse. Several armies were raised and marching by different routes united at Constantinople. He besieged several cities, among which was Antioch; at this place, when the Christian host were worn and tired, Peter had a vision in which he saw the lance that pierced the side of Christ, and telling where to dig they found it. He had another vision and was directed to carry the spear at the head of the army. Dreaming became contagious; other monks had dreams. So time passed; Antioch was taken, battles were fought, disruptions were prevalent. At last Godfrey set fire to his camp at Archas and set forward in the night. After a march of several hours the sun rose, and before our army lay the sun kissed towers of the holy city. The soldiers knelt upon the ground exclaiming, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem," in pious joy. After a long and bitter siege, on July the 15th, 1099, the city was taken, the Christians were free. (1, pages 108-109)

Bradford said these crusades had a very important impact on medicine.  To take care of the sick and wounded, hospitals were set up, and many were staffed by Jewish and Christian physicians from Europe. After the war many of the crusaders became free from serfdom, and for this reason many "devoted themselves to liberal arts, commerce, science and medicine." (1, page 109)

As the wars came to a close physicians returned to Europe, only they had increased their knowledge of medicine.  With them they brought medical books that were written by ancient Greek and Roman physicians, although these now needed to be interpreted back into European languages. (1, page 109)

Along with better medical knowledge, and better medicine, the profession of pharmacology made its way to Europe.  Evidence of early apothecaries can be seen in England in the 12th century, said Bradford.  Prior to this time physicians of Europe prescribed the medicine and made the medicine. (1, page 110)

Initially, however, apothecaries weren't much of an improvement, as, according to Bradford, "for the most part, the pharmacies were the places in the cloisters where the monkish physicians stored their drugs and simples."  (1 page 110)

When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1493, this is credited by many as the beginning of the Renaissance, a time when a dark ages of medicine occurred in the east, and the light started to shine again in the west. When this occurred, many other Greek classics made their way from Byzantine to Europe, thus opening the minds of Europeans. (2, page xxi)

References:

1. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey
2. Brock, John, "Galen on the natural faculties," 1916, London, New York, William Heinemann, G.P. Putnam's Sons

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

1070-1162: Avenzoar mentions the Bezoar Stones

A rare Benzoar Stone probably from a goat or camel
This one is dated from the 17th or 18th century.
Photo from onlinegalleries.com

While medicine was at its peek amid the Arabians at the beginning of the 10th century, many patients feared to seek the help of a physician because they were so prone to poison their patients.  It was because of this fear that Avenzoar (1091-1161) was the first physician ever to mention the Benzoar Stone.

Avenzoar was born Abou Merwan ben Ardel Melek ben Zohr, or Ibn Zuhr. Thomas Bradford, in his book "Quiz questions on the history of medicine, said the following about him. 

Of his personal history nothing is known, except that he was a man of noble mind as a practitioner, and possessed a liberal, dignified and enlightened spirit, and gained the respect and love of his fellow countrymen. He is now considered to have been the most eminent of all the Arabian surgical writers. He wrote a very celebrated work on the operations of surgery, also a work on the art of healing. This last was a synopsis of the medical practice of the day, and was made up of quotations from previous medical writers. But the work on surgery is his most important work. At the time of Albucasis (936-1013) surgery was almost a lost art among the Arabs.(1, page 70)

 Bradford continues:

(Avenzoar) lived in the magnificent capital, Seville. He was born near Seville, about 1070. He was said to have been the most renowned physician and surgeon after the learned Avicenna. His father and grandfather were renowned physicians, and from them he inherited his medical knowledge and skill. His son was a physician after him. Avenzoar began the study of medicine at an early age, his father, Abd-el-Melek beginning to teach him when he was ten years old. When he had finished his course in Seville, his father bound him by an oath never to administer poisons. In that day poisoning was among the Saracens a fine art, and would have delighted a De Quincey. He was a very learned man. He was an accomplished scholar and linguist, being familiar with Hebrew, Syriac and the Arabic languages. His reputation extended over the whole land, and he was in correspondence with the most celebrated physicians of his time, by whom he was considered to be a second Hippocrates. He was also known as a philosopher and poet. He was physician to Ali ben Temin, king of Seville. He performed a brilliant cure on the brother of the king, who was count of the royal stables. As a reward, he was cast into prison, where he remained until released by Joseph ben Tachefyn, prince of Morocco, who drove Ali, with a horde of other small tyrants, out of Spain.

Bradford continued to explain that, as with other Arabian physicians of the era, he lead a tumultuous life, even spending some time in prison.  Yet this doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad person, only that he, at times, disagreed with someone of the ruling class, such as the sultan.

Given that his father was a physician, Avenzoar learned much of his medical knowledge from him.  He later did the same for his own son, who also became a physician. Bradford said Avenzoar shared his wisdom through his book " Teisser," or "The Introduction." Of this work, Bradford said: (1, pages 70-71)

This work treats of the remedies and diet for most of the diseases (and probably asthma too) which were then known.  From it we learn that Avenzoar at one time had charge of a hospital. (1, page 71)

Bradford said he also wrote another book called the Antidotarium "containing the methods of preparing medicines and diet."  (1,page 71)

While he may mention asthma in his book, the fact that no historian visibly mentions this book is probably proof that he added nothing new regarding our disease.

As is typical of this era, in order to gain respect among the community he had to gain the respect of the ruling class. Likewise helping his reputation must have been that people trusted that he would not poison them.

Bradford said that Avenzoar was a respected physician, surgeon, and pharmacist. He typically prescribed what we'd refer to as rational remedies, and was opposed to quack medicine, such as the healing powers of astrology (something that was popular in this region of the world since the days of Babylon). (1,page 71)

Despite these truths, he did still believe in charms and amulets.  So this may explain why it was through Avenzoar that people learned of the powers of Bezoar Stones,which, according to thefreedicitonary.com, were: (1, pages 71- 72)(2)

A hard indigestible mass of material, such as hair, vegetable fibers, or fruits, found in the stomachs or intestines of animals, especially ruminants, and humans. It was formerly considered to be an antidote to poisons and to possess magic properties. (2)

Perhaps due to his ability to avoid poisons he lived to the year 1162, passing at the ripe old age of 92. Yet long after his death people continued searching for such stones. 

Bradford says that at one point the "Palace of Cordova was given  for one of these stones.  It was believed that no poison, no eruptive pestilential or putrid disease, could resist its influence."

This really bears no relevance to our asthma history, although I would imagine if you lived in Seville at this time, and you wanted to see a doctor for your asthma, you might be interested in finding a bezoar stone. That way you' d have insurance in the case the asthma remedy proffered to you was actually a poison.

Or, more likely, possessing such a stone might cure you of your asthma.  Seeking for the stone might be a better option for you than complaining about such a minor ailment as asthma.  If you had enough time and money (which you probably did not), you'd be able to pay someone to go on the hunt for you. Or, better yet, if you were a prince you could trade your palace for one.

References:

1. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey, pages 70-72
2. "Bezoar," The Free Dictionary By Farlex, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bezoar+Stones, accessed 11/9/13

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

750-48 B.C.: Medicine migrates to Rome

A bust of Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.)
Among his many accomplishments
was saving medicine for Rome.

Although they didn't know it at the time, the Latins had picked the perfect spot to build their village.  It was one of many built around the seven hills along the Tiber River in the Italian Peninsula somewhere around 750 B.C.  (1, page 112)

It was in the lowland, as compared with other Italian villages. While close to the sea it was built on a mountain side "where there was lava flow with a dominant position over the sea and the river Sarno."  (2)

Due to its volcanic origins, the "soil is naturally rich in water springs and minerals.  The hills were made of tufa rock, "a soft hardened rocky sponge," which the Romans were later able to use to make large buildings and monuments.  (2)

While it started out as a small village, it grew into a mighty city, and then into an empire that covered much of the known world.

At first the Romans were peaceful farmers and herders, but around 600 B.C. the Etruscans from up north along the Tiber decided to conquer the other villages.  For the next 100 years Rome was ruled by the Etruscans.  In 509 B.C. the people of Rome rebelled and set up what became the world's first republic. (1, page 112)

The people of Rome didn't forget what had happened, and they continued to build a mighty military. Many of the people became skilled soldiers, and they decided to fight for more land.  By 270 B.C. they took over the entire Italian Peninsula, and then after 23 years of Punic wars, in 146 B.C., the Romans conquered the city of Carthage along the north coast of Africa, where the Phoenicians settled. (1, 113-114)

There were ultimately three wars with Carthage, called the Punic wars.  In the second one, Macedonia, the strongest city-state in Greece at that time, decided to help Carthage.  Romans didn't forget this either, and when Carthage was defeated, the Romans conquered Greece and took many Grecians back to Rome.

Of course many of these people were philosophers and physicians, and thus Rome was introduced to Greek adaptations to these arts. (1, page 114-15) As the Roman Empire spread, so to did Grecian culture.

Greeks taken to Rome became Roman slaves, and many were better educated than their new Roman masters.  So it "became customary for the well-to-do to select for the child's nurse a Greek slave, that a child might acquire the Greek language as naturally as its own," according to historian Harold Johnston.  (7, page 71)

Johnston explains that: (7, page 78)

The Greek language came to be generally learned and Greek ideas of education were in some degree adopted. Schools were established in which the central thing was the study of the Greek poets, and these schools we may call Grammar Schools because the teacher was called grammaticus. Homer was long the universal text-book, and students were not only taught the language, but were instructed in the matters of geography, mythology, antiquities, history, and ethics suggested by the portions of the text which they read. The range of instruction and its value depended entirely upon the teacher, as does such instruction to-day, but it was at best fragmentary and disconnected. There was no systematic study of any of these subjects, not even of history, despite its interest and practical value to a world-ranging people like the Romans.

Of course we must understand that after doing battle against many Greeks during the Punic wars, a prejudice developed among the Romans regarding Greek culture. This might explain Pliney the Elder's statement that Rome "got along for 600 years without physicians." (5, page 72)

He held this opinion while knowing full well Rome had physicians, as he later contradicted himself by claiming the first physician came to Rome in 535 B.C. (3, page 81)

This prejudice might also explain why the Greeks were often disparagingly referred to as "graeculus esuriens of Juvenal," which means "hungry young Greek"  (5, page 72)

We must also understand that the Romans, as might be expected, had their own gods that they believed were responsible for health and sickness.  They had incantations and prayers they'd been using for hundreds of years.  (5, page 97)

They also saw Greek remedies (purging, cupping, bleeding) as harsh, and the fact Greeks kept snakes in their "private houses in pursuance of the Aesculpian cult, did little to make medicine respectable in the eyes of the austere Romans." (5, page 97).

But the medical profession of Rome had it's problems. For one thing, the medicine was primitive in nature, and based mainly on incantations and prayers.  In describing the flaws of the Roman medical system of the time, Bradford quotes medical historian Pierre-Victor Renouard:

In the midst of this overflowing of charlatanism, the health of the citizens was given over to the first imposter who called himself a doctor; for how could the cheat and usurper of the title be distinguished from the man of knowledge and probity, who had acquired it by study? No examination, no legal proof was imposed on any one who wished to practice medicine; there was no security for the sick.''

These weaknesses may have left the door open ever so slightly to the curiosities of some of those who yearned for a remedy that Roman physicians were not providing. Regardless, as Grecian physicians and teachers migrated to Rome, they did so with little encouragement from the Romans. (4, page 96)

Yet as what usually happens, time heals all wounds.  When a person is really sick, when he realizes that incantations and prayers don't heal pain and suffering, he becomes eager to accept new ideas.  And it must have been in this way the Romans were gradually exposed to Grecian medicine, and slowly grew to respect and gain confidence in Grecian physicians.  (4, page 96)

One of the best ways to change the mindset of a people is to impress the king. Even kings are human, and even kings get sick. And kings have the ability to change the mindset of a nation. And it must have been in this way Caesar was exposed to the benefits of Grecian medicine, because in his travels he started taking physicians with him.(4, page 97)

Perhaps it was for this reason that Roman philosopher and orator Cicero (106-43 B.C.) "declared the duty of all men -- a duty particularly incumbant of himself -- to support the dignity of the healing art." (4, pages 96-97)

A Greek physician named Archagathus was among the first to escape the wars of Greece by emigrating to Rome.  When he was born no one knows, although what is known is he was born in Sparta and was later adapted by the Romans, becoming a Roman citizen in the year 219 B.C., around the time that Ptolomy Philopater in Egypt.  He was among the first physicians to emigrate to Rome.

Historian Thomas Lindsley Bradford, in his 1898 book "Quiz questions on the history of medicine," discussed the influence of Archagathus the Executioner upon Greek medicine.

He was the first of all the Greeks who attempted to introduce their kind of physic (medicine) into Italy. At first his coming was very agreeable to them, and many marked distinctions were paid him, but when he came to the cutting and burning part they changed their opinion, and conceived such an aversion to him that he was compelled to leave the city. He was called executioner on account of the too frequent use of the actual cautery and the knife. He was also called Vulnarius and Carnifex. He was honored by the Senate." (8, pages 27-28)

Bradford must have obtained much of his wisdom about Archagathus from the writings of Pliny the Elder, who wrote  about 150 years later:

He obtained Roman citizenship and was extraordinarily popular on his arrival, but very soon, gained the nickname of the "executioner." (9)

Regardless, Roman physicians were slowly gaining the respect and confidence of the Roman people, and the man given credit for this was Asclepiades of Bithynia. He was born in Rome at the time of Pompey in 106 B.C., and then was educated at the school of Alexandria and practiced in Athens before moving back to Rome. (4, page 99-101)

Please note that, despite his name, Asclepiades has no ties with the Asclepiate temples that rose in Ancient Greece and Rome. (8, page 28)

His opinions and remedies were based on the Atomist philosophy of medicine devised by Democritus, and were the opposite of the Hippocratic doctrine.  Since he believed in a different hypothesis as Hippocrates, he also had different remedies which included fresh air, light diet, hydrotherapy, massage, clysters, local application of some external medicines, and sparing use of internal medicine.  (5, page 72)(8, page 28-29)

This new medical philosophy, coupled by his "good bedside manner," made Asclepiades a very popular physician in Rome.  He was so well accepted that after his death other physicians took on his name hoping to take advantage of his fame.  (6, page 83)

Asclepiades basically believed Romans had a negative view of Greek medicine because their dogmatic remedies appeared to make the sick  worse before gettingt better.  And considering most people probably thought those who got better would have done so regardless of the harsh treatment, Greek medicine was viewed skeptically.  (4, page 99)

Asclepiades believed it was perceived as a "crude and unfeeling practice." He took advantage of this and smoothed out the edges by not using medicine that "offended the stomach" and using hygienic remedies instead. His techniques were so well accepted he became famous and wealthy. He wrote a book on General Remedies, and started the first school of medicine in Rome. (4, page 99)

Bradford said:

He does not seem to have followed any course of medical study, but owing to his fashion of catering to the patient and avoiding everything that was painful and disagreeable, he soon gained a large practice.  He eschewed emetic and purgatives, though he practiced blood-letting.  He also relinquished the religious ceremonies which had held so large a place in medical practice...  His treatment was mainly dietetic and hygienic.  He advocated exercise, bathing, music, and even declamation as a means of curing disease." (8, pages 28-29)

He was revered by some as the greatest physician ever, aside from Hippocrates. Others claimed he was no more than a philosopher and charlatan. Even Galen "charged him with many absurdities, and with having but little knowledge of the great fathers of the profession, whom he affected to ridicule." (4, page 98)

Yet Caesar liked him and approved of his work, and that may have been all that was needed.  Asclepiades died in 48 B.C. "and is said to have been killed by a fall from a ladder in his extreme old age." (4, page 101)

So perhaps more so than the physicians themselves, it was a combination of both the politics, philosophy and public relations of the physicians, coupled with the approval of various emperors, who improved respect and confidence in Grecian medicine.  It is because of them Grecian medicine survived the test of time.

John Watson said: (4, pages 97-98)

Caesar, after reaching the summit of his power, in order to attract men of science to the capital, and to improve the condition of those already there, decreed that all who practiced physic at Rome, and all the masters of the liberal arts therin residing, should enjoy the privilege of citizenship.  And Augustus, after having been relieved of a dangerous illness by his freedman, Antonius Musa, loaded this physician with wealth; raised him, by consent of the Senate, to the equestian rank; erected a bronze statue to his honor near that of Aeslepius; and, at his instigation, conferred important privileges on the whole body of the profession then residing in the city... These privileges afterwords confirmed by... later emperors." (4, pages 97-98)

Bradford said:

Before the consolidation of the Roman empire in 31 B.C. there were no established medical laws.  The Greek system of training seems to have been in vogue.  Everyone who was liberally educated was instructed in philosophy of medicine. which explains why all the philosophers of the old days were also to some extent teachers of medicine. But the physician was expected, in common with his medical knowledge, to be familiar with the grammar of his own language, with rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, dialectics, moral philosophy, astronomy, and even architecture. (8, page 53)

The benefactors of all this education were, of course, all those who became sick or injured.

References:

1. Suter, Joanne, "Fearon's World History," 1994
2. "Ancient Rome Geography,"  mariamilani.com, http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/Ancient%20Rome%20Geography_.htm
3. Watson, John, "The Medical Profession in Anciet Times: an anniversary discourse delivered before the New York Accademy of Medicine November 7, 1855, New York, Baker and Godwin
4. Watson, ibid, pages 97-98, in reference to Seutonius, Octav, August, cap. lix.
5. Garrison, Fielding Hudson, "An introduction to the history of medicine: with medical chronology, Bibliographic data and test questions," 1913, Philadelphia and London, W.B. Saunders company
6. Withington, Edward, "Medical history from the earliest times: a popular history of the healing art," 1994, London
7. Johnston, Harold, "The Private Life of the Romans," 1908
8. Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, writer, Robert Ray Roth, editor, “Quiz questions on the history of medicine from the lectures of Thomas Lindley Bradford M.D.,” 1898, Philadelphia, Hohn Joseph McVey 
9. Pliney the Elder, "Natural History,

RT Cave Facebook Page
RT Cave on Twitter

1700 B.C.: Hebrew health and healing

Each Hebrew village had a physician who specialized in medicine and a surgery.  Some specialized in internal medicine, some external medicine, and others both.  (3, page 28-29) Permission to practice medicine had to be obtained by the magistrates where the physician wished to settle.  If you were sick (perhaps with asthma) you had the option of seeking out this physician to heal you.

This physician, however, also must obtain permission from the Beth-din, which was the council of the town. Did the doctor have to pass a test? Was he interviewed? What questions were asked? Did he otherwise have to prove his competency? The answers to these questions remain a mystery, explains Robley Dunglison in his 1872 history of medicine. (4, page 31-32)

Jewish physicians were knowledgeable of the basics of anatomy, although their knowledge was quite primitive, as it was for most ancient societies.  They did not understand the concept of internal diseases, nor the link between anatomy and disease.  However, as noted by Garrison, they did have a basic understanding of the most common diseases that left visible signs, such as leprosy, syphilis, phthisis, scabies, anthrax, epilepsy, and the various plagues (such as the plague of Ball Peor (numbers 25: 9) in which 24,000 perished. (7, page 59)

The best remedy was the one preached by Moses: good hygiene.  This included bathing, hand washing, sexual restraint, etc. Although, if someone did get sick, the remedies were simple.  For instance, the remedy for leprosy was washing in the Jordan, or "dipping seven times in the Jordan. (2 Kings 5: 14)" (7, page 59-60)

These physicians were educated in "sanitary administration and jurisprudence," says Puschmann.  Along with good hygiene, they were also required to do other things to prevent disease, which included circumcision.  (3, page 28-29)  While modern experts think they have disproved this theory, ancient people believed uncircumcised penises were more likely to become infected.  This was how circumcision made its way into the Bible.

Physicians were also, as noted by Garrison, required to isolate people with infectious disease such as leprosy, syphilis, gonorrhea and leukorrhea, as noted in Leviticus 12-15. (7, page 60)  This was another significant measure of preventing healthy people from getting these diseases.  It must also have been observed that many diseases were spread through sexual contact, and so sexual abstinence prior to marriage was encouraged, and loyalty to one man or one woman was also encouraged.

Puschmann notes that when a person was sick he called upon his physician, who paid the sick a visit. Then the physician was paid by the sick or his family, and not by a collective tax. (3, page 28-29) Although, "Jewish medicine was almost exclusively a medicine of the state, not a private profession," writes Thomas Bradford in his 1898 book "Quiz questions on the history of medicine." (9, page 9)(5, page 31)

The neat thing about ancient people such as Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews, is you didn't have to be a physicians to be an expert in medicine, says Puschman. He explains this was because medicine was included in the list of knowledge  taught at schools.  It would be like going to college today for Journalism, and having to take classes in math, English and Business.  So many of the people mentioned in the Bible, particularly prophets such as Solomon, Elijah, Elisha and Ahijah, had medical wisdom, and this wisdom allowed them to "become famous for their successful cures."  (3, page 29)

Baas says King Solomon (who reigned 1020-980 B.C.) was a prophet who had the ability to cure, (2, page 32) and Bradford said of Solomon that "tradition attributes to him a medical work which taught how to cure diseases by natural means. Arabian authorities assert that he left a history of plants and animals, and a number of other works." (9, page 8)

There are various, and random, references to the healing powers of the prophets in the Bible.  Elisha, who lived in the 9th century B.C., healed the water that causes miscarriages:

Some men from Jericho went to Elisha and  said, "As you know, sir, this is a fine city, but the water is bad and causes miscarriages." Elisha said, "Put some salt in a bowl and bring it to me." They brought it to him, and he went to the spring, threw in the salt in the water, and said, "This is what the Lord says: 'I make this water pure, and it will not cause any more  deaths or miscarriages.'" And that water has been pure ever since, just as Elisha said it would be. (Kings 2: 19-22)

Elisha also resurrected a Shunammite's son:

When Elisha arrived, he went alone into the room and saw the boy lying dead on the bed.  He closed the door and prayed to the Lord.  Then he lay down on the boy, placing his mouth, eyes, and hands on the boy's mouth, eyes, and hands.  As he lay stretched out over the boy, the boy's body started to get warm.  Elisha got up, walked around the room, and then went back and again stretched himself over the boy.  the boy sneezed seven times and then opened his eyes.  Elisha called Gehazi and told him to call the boy's mother.  When she came in, he said to her, "Here's your son." She fell at Elisha's feet, with her face touching the ground; then she took her son and left." (Kings 4: 32-37) 

He also healed Naaman:

"Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram.  He was a great man in sight of his master and highly regarded.  because through him the Lord had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy. Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife.  She said to her mistress, 'If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.'” (2Kings 5:1-2)

Naaman's master allowed him to see the king of Aram, who allowed Naaman to see the king of Israel for permission, although the king of Israel " tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”

The next passages says that:

When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet. So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”   

But Naaman went away angry and said,

“I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage. Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!”So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. (2Kings 5:9-15)

To finish this neat story, Naaman offered payment, or at least to be a servant to the prophet, but Elisha would not take payment, saying, "go in peace."  Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, was upset that Elisha didn't take payment, and so he did so himself.  Elisha punished Gehazi:

But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever.” Then Gehazi went from Elisha’s presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow. (2Kings 5: 27-28)

In another Biblical story, King Asa (10th century B.C.) was king of Judah, and he was among the first kings to be faithful to the worship of God.  In fact, even his name, Asa, means physician.  He opposed idolatry and all immoral behavior.  Yet despite his faithfulness, when he was struck with disease at the end of his life, he consulted physicians instead of the Lord (2Chronicles 16: 12-14)

"In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek The Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign. They buried him in the tomb which he had hewn out for himself in the city of David. They laid him on a bier which had been filled with various kinds of spices prepared by the perfumer's art; and they made a very great fire in his honor." (2Chronicles 16: 12-14

King Jeroboam, who died in 910 B.C., prayed to an old prophet for healing:

The prophet prayed to the Lord, and the king's arm was healed. (Kings I 13: 7) 

The prophet Elijah, who lived around 869-850 B.C., healed a widow's son:

"Give the boy to me," Elijah said.  He took the boy from her arms, carried him upstairs to the room where he was staying, and laid him on the bed.  Then he prayed aloud, "O Lord my god, why have you done such a terrible thing to this widow?  She has been kind enough to take care of me, and now you kill her son!" Then Elijah stretched himself out on the boy three times and prayed, "O Lord my god, restore this child's life!" The Lord answered Elijah's prayer; the child started breathing again and revived. (Kings I 17: 19-22)

Isaiah cured king Heekiah's illness:

Isaiah left the king, but before he had passed through the central courtyard of the palace the Lord told him to go back to Hezekiah, ruler of the Lord's people, and say to him, "I, the Lord, the god of your ancestor David, have heard your prayer and seen your tears.  I will heal you, and in three days you will go to the temple.  I will let you live fifteen years longer.  I will rescue you and this city Jerusalem from the emperor of Assyria.  I will defend this city, for the sake of my own honor and because of the promise I made to my servant David." (Kings II 20: 4-6)

There are many more references to health and healing in the Bible, from Adam all the way to Jesus. Consider the following:

•  “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the healer.” (Peter 2:24)
• Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (James 5:14-16
• And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. (Matthew 10:1)
• And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. (Matthew 4:23)
• “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."  (Isaiah 53:5, and 1Peter 2:24)

Most of these passage are not necessarily about medical healing, but spiritual healing.  Basically, by learning from the sins of others, we can be healed.  By not doing the evil things other people have done, the things that make you spiritually or physically sick, you will stay healthy, or be healed.

So the Bible, while not a medical texts, provides us with some vague information of medical wisdom from around 1500 to 1700 years before the birth of Christ. Most diseases at this time were best left to nature (4, page 30), as the remedies provided (bleeding, purging, emetics) often made the patient feel worse, and sometimes caused death.  The Bible offered a hope and a prayer, perhaps the best remedy of all.

Reference:  See "1700 B.C.: Hebrew Bible influences medicine"