It is important to remember that this obscure stream of tradition flowed on, only partially affected by the influx of Arabian, or even the early revival of purer classical learning. Arabian Medicine. As in the parallel case of the Roman conquest of Greece, the superior culture of the conquered race asserted its supremacy over their Arab conquerors.
After the Mahommedan conquests became consolidated, and learning began to flourish, schools of medicine, often connected with hospitals and schools of pharmacy, arose in all the chief seats of Moslem power. At Damascus Greek medicine was zealously cultivated with the aid of Jewish and Christian teachers. Certain writings of Joannitius, translated into Latin, were popular in the middle ages in Europe, and were printed in the 16th century.
At the same time the Arabs became acquainted with Indian medicine, and Indian physicians lived at the court of Bagdad. The Islamite rulers in Spain were not long behind those of the East in encouraging learning and medical science, and developed culture to a still higher degree of perfection. In that country much was due to the Jews, who had already established schools in places which were afterwards the seats of Moslem dominion. From the 10th to the 13th century was the brilliant period of Arabian medicine in Spain.
He was the first of the Arabs to treat medicine in a comprehensive and encyclopedic manner, surpassing probably in voluminousness Galen himself, though but a small proportion of his works are extant. Rhazes is deservedly remembered as having first described small-pox and measles in an accurate manner.
Hali, i. The work De simplicibus , which bears his name, was for centuries a standard authority on what would now be called materia medica, was printed in twenty-six editions in the 15th century and later, and was used in the formation of the first London pharmacopoeia, issued by the College of Physicians in the reign of James I. Among his own countrymen the fame and position of Abulcasis were soon eclipsed by the greater name of Avicenna.
Avicenna has always been regarded as the chief representative of Arabian medicine. He wrote on philosophy also, and in both subjects acquired the highest reputation through the whole of eastern Islam. His style and expository power are highly praised, but the subject-matter shows little originality.
As in the case of Galen, the formal and encyclopaedic character of Avicenna's works was the chief cause of his popularity and ascendancy, though in modern times these very qualities in a scientific or medical writer would rather cause him to become more speedily antiquated. In the long list of Arabian medical writers none can here be mentioned except the great names of the Hispano-Moorish school, a school both philosophically and medically antagonistic to that of Avicenna.
It was translated into Latin, and more than once printed, as were some of his lesser works, which thus formed a part of the contribution made by the Arabians to European medicine. His friend and pupil Averroes of Cordova q. The famous Rabbi Maimonides A. His works exist chiefly in the original Arabic or in Hebrew translations; only some smaller treatises have been translated into Latin, so that no definite opinion can be formed as to their medical value. But, so far as is known, the independent and rationalistic spirit which the two last-named writers showed in philosophy did not lead them to take any original point of view in medicine.
The works of the Arabian medical writers who have now been mentioned form a very small fraction of the existing literature. It is thus evident that the circumstance of having been translated which may have been in some cases almost an accident is what has chiefly determined the influence of particular writers on Western medicine. But it is improbable that further research will alter the general estimate of the value of Arabian medicine.
There can be no doubt that it was in the main Greek medicine, modified to suit other climates, habits and national tastes, and with some important additions from Oriental sources. The greater part is taken from Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides and later Greek writers. The Latin medical writers were necessarily unknown to the Arabs; and this was partly the cause that even in Europe Galenic medicine assumed such a preponderance, the methodic school and Celsus being forgotten or neglected.
In anatomy and physiology the Arabians distinctly went back; in surgery they showed no advance upon the Greeks; in practical medicine nothing new can be traced, except the description of certain diseases e. By their relations with the farther East, the Arabs became acquainted with valuable new remedies which have held their ground till modern times; and their skill in chemistry enabled them to prepare new chemical remedies, and form many combinations of those already in use. They produced the first pharmacopoeia, and established the first apothecaries' shops.
Many of the names and many forms of medicines now used, and in fact the general outline of modern pharmacy, except so far as modified by modern chemistry, started with the Arabs. Thus does Arabian medicine appear as judged from a modern standpoint; but to medieval Europe, when little but a tradition remained of the great ancient schools, it was invested with a far higher degree of originality and importance. It is now necessary to-consider what was the state of medicine in Europe after the fall of the Western Empire and before the influence of Arabian science and literature began to be felt.
This we may call the pre-Arabian or Salernitan period. A continuous thread of learning and practice must have connected the last period of Roman medicine already mentioned with the dawn of science in the middle ages. But the intellectual thread is naturally traced with greater difficulty than that which is the theme of civil history; and in periods such as that from the 5th to the 10th century in Europe it is almost lost. The chief homes of medical as of other learning in these disturbed times were the monasteries.
Though the science was certainly not advanced by their labours, it was saved from total oblivion, and many ancient medical works were preserved either in Latin or vernacular versions. The Anglo-Saxon Leechdoms  of the 11th century, published in the Rolls series of medieval chronicles and memorials, admirably illustrate the mixture of magic and superstition with the relics of ancient science which constituted monastic medicine. Similar works, in Latin or other languages, exist in manuscript in all the great European libraries.
It was among the Benedictines that the monastic study of medicine first received a new direction, and aimed at a higher standard. The study of Hippocrates, Galen, and other classics was recommended by Cassiodorus 6th century , and in the original mother-abbey of Monte Cassino medicine was studied; but there was not there what could be called a medical school; nor had this foundation any connexion as has been supposed with the famous school of Salerno. The origin of this, the most important source of medical knowledge in Europe in the early middle ages, is involved in obscurity. It is known that Salerno, a Roman colony, in a situation noted in ancient times for its salubrity, was in the 6th century at least the seat of a bishopric, and at the end of the 7th century of a Benedictine monastery, and that some of the prelates and higher clergy were distinguished for learning, and even for medical acquirements.
But it has by recent researches been clearly established that the celebrated Schola salernitana was a purely secular institution. All that can with certainty be said is that a school or collection of schools gradually grew up in which especially medicine, but also, in a subordinate degree, law and philosophy were taught. In the 9th century Salernitan physicians were already spoken of, and the city was known as Civitas hippocratica. A little later we find great and royal personages resorting to Salerno for the restoration of their health, among whom was William of Normandy, afterwards the Conqueror.
The number of students of medicine must at one time have been considerable, and in a corresponding degree the number of teachers. Among the latter many were married, and their wives and daughters appear also in the lists of professors. The most noted female professor was the celebrated Trotula in the 11th century.
The Jewish element appears to have been important among the students, and possibly among the professors. The reputation of the school was great till the 12th or 13th century, when the introduction of the Arab medicine was gradually fatal to it. The foundation of the university of Naples, and the rise of Montpellier, also contributed to its decline.
The teachings of the Salernitan doctors are pretty well known through existing works, some of which have only recently been discovered and published. This was a popular work intended for the laity; but there are others strictly professional. All of these fall into the first period before the advent of Arabian medicine. In the transitional period, when the Arabian school began to influence European medicine, but before the Salernitans were superseded, comes Nicolaus Praepositus, who wrote the Antidotarium , a collection of formulae for compound medicines, which became the standard work on the subject, and the foundation of many later compilations.
An equally popular writer was Gilles de Corbeil Aegidius Corboliensis , at one time a teacher at Salerno, afterwards court physician to Philip Augustus of France, who composed several poems in Latin hexameters on medical subjects. Two of them, on the urine and the pulse respectively, attained the position of medical classics. None of these Salernitan works rise much above the rank of compilations, being founded on Hippocrates, Galen and later Greek writers, with an unmistakable mixture of the doctrines of the methodists.
But they often show much practical experience, and exhibit the naturalistic method of the Hippocratic school. The general plan of treatment is dietetic rather than pharmaceutical, though the art of preparing drugs had reached a high degree of complexity at Salerno. Anatomy was as little regarded as it was in the later ancient schools, the empiric and methodic, but demonstrations of the parts of the body were given on swine.
Although it cannot be said that the science of medicine was advanced at Salerno, still its decline was arrested at a time when every other branch of learning was rapidly falling into decay; and there can be no doubt that the observation of patients in hospitals, and probably clinical instruction, were made use of in learning and teaching. The school of Salerno thus forms a bridge between the ancient and the modern medicine, more direct though less conspicuous than that circuitous route, through Byzantium, Bagdad and Cordova, by which Hippocrates and Galen, in Arabian dress, again entered the European world.
Though the glory of Salerno had departed, the school actually existed till it was finally dissolved by an edict of the emperor Napoleon I. Constantinus Africanus, a monk, was the author of the earliest of such versions A. For some time the Salernitan medicine held its ground, and it was not till the conquest of Toledo by Alphonso of Castile that any large number of Western scholars came in contact with the learning of the Spanish Moors, and systematic efforts were made to translate their philosophical and medical works. Jewish scholars, often under the patronage of Christian bishops, were especially active in the work.
Gerard of Cremona, a physician of Toledo , made translations, it is said by command of Barbarossa, from Avicenna and others. It is needless to point out the influence of the crusades in making Eastern ideas known in the Western world. The influence of Arabian medicine soon began to be felt even in the Hippocratic city of Salerno, and in the 13th century is said to have held an even balance with the older medicine.
After this time the foreign influence predominated; and by the time that the Aristotelian dialectic, in the introduction of which the Arabs had so large a share, prevailed in the schools of Europe, the Arabian version of Greek medicine reigned supreme in the medical world. That this movement coincided with the establishment of some of the older European universities is well known. The history of medicine in the period now opening is closely combined with the history of scholastic philosophy.
Both were infected with the same dialectical subtlety, which was, from the nature of the subject, especially injurious to medicine. At the same time, through the rise of the universities, medical learning was much more widely diffused, and the first definite forward movement was seen in the school of Montpellier, where a medical faculty existed early in the 12th century, afterwards united with faculties of law and philosophy.
The medical school owed its foundation largely to Jewish teachers, themselves educated in the Moorish schools of Spain, and imbued with the intellectual independence of the Averroists. Its rising prosperity coincided with the decline of the school of Salerno. Montpellier became distinguished for the practical and empirical spirit of its medicine, as contrasted with the dogmatic and scholastic teaching of Paris and other universities. In Italy, Bologna and Padua were earliest distinguished for medical studies—the former preserving more of the Galenical tradition, the latter being more progressive and Averroist.
The northern universities contributed little—the reputation even of Paris being of later growth. The supremacy of Arabian medicine lasted till the revival of learning, when the study of the medical classics in their original language worked another revolution. The medical writers of this period, who chiefly drew from Arabian sources, have been called Arabists though it is difficult to give any clear meaning to this term , and were afterwards known as the neoterics.
The medical literature of this period is extremely voluminous, but essentially second-hand, consisting mainly of commentaries on Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna and others, or of compilations and compendia still less original than commentaries. Among these may be mentioned the Conciliator of Peter of Abano , the Aggregator of Jacob de Dondi , both of the school of Padua, and the Pandectae medicinae of the Salernitan Matthaeus Sylvaticus d. The first of these works is the Compendium medicinae , also called Laurea or Rosa anglicana , of Gilbert Gilbertus Anglicus, about , said to contain good observations on leprosy.
A more important work, the Practica seu lilium medicinae , of Bernard Gordon, a Scottish professor at Montpellier written in the year , was more widely spread, being translated into French and Hebrew, and printed in several editions. Of these two physicians the first probably, the latter certainly, was educated and practised abroad, but John Gaddesden ?
His compendium is entirely wanting in originality, and perhaps unusually destitute of common sense, but it became so popular as to be reprinted up to the end of the 16th century. Works of this kind became still more abundant in the 14th and in the first half of the 15th century, till the wider distribution of the medical classics in the original put them out of fashion.
In surgery this period was far more productive than in medicine, especially in Italy and France, but the limits of. In anatomy also the beginning of a new epoch was made by Mondino de Liucci or Mundinus , and his followers. The medical writings of Arnald de Villanova c.
Finally, in the 13th and especially the 14th century we find, under the name of consilia , the first medieval reports of medical cases which are preserved in such a form as to be intelligible. Collections of consilia were published, among others, by Gentilis Fulgineus before , by Bartolomeo Montagnana d. The last-named contains much that is interesting and readable. Period of the Revival of Learning. Not that the spirit of the science, or of its corresponding practice, was at once changed.
The basis of medicine through the middle ages had been literary and dogmatic, and it was literary and dogmatic still; but the medical literature now brought to light—including as it did the more important works of Hippocrates and Galen, many of them hitherto unknown, and in addition the forgotten element of Latin medicine, especially the work of Celsus—was in itself far superior to the second-hand compilations and incorrect versions which had formerly been accepted as standards.
The classical works, though still regarded with unreasoning reverence, were found to have a germinative and vivifying power that carried the mind out of the region of dogma, and prepared the way for the scientific movement which has been growing in strength up to our own day. The former brought with it necessarily a more accurate conception of physiology, and thus led up to the great discovery of Harvey, which was the turning point in modern medicine.
The latter gave rise, on the one hand, to the modern science of botany, on the other to a more rational knowledge of drugs and their uses. At the same time, the discovery of America, and increased intercourse with the East, by introducing a variety of new plants, greatly accelerated the progress both of botany and pharmacology.
But it was not in these directions that improvement was first looked for. It was at first very naturally imagined that the simple revival of classical and especially of Greek literature would at once produce the same brilliant results in medicine as in literature and philosophy. The movement of reform started, of necessity, with scholars rather than practising physicians—more precisely with a group of learned men, whom we may be permitted, for the sake of a name, to call the medical humanists, equally enthusiastic in the cause of letters and of medicine. From both fields they hoped to expel the evils which were summed up in the word barbarism.
Nearly all medieval medical literature was condemned under this name; and for it the humanists proposed to substitute the originals of Hippocrates and Galen, thus leading back medicine to its fountain-head. Since a knowledge of Greek was still confined to a small body of scholars, and a still smaller proportion of physicians, the first task was to translate the Greek classics into Latin.
To this work several learned physicians, chiefly Italians, applied themselves with great ardour. Symphorien Champier Champerius or Campegius of Lyons , a contemporary of Rabelais, and the patron of Servetus, wrote with fantastic enthusiasm on the superiority of the Greek to the Arabian physicians, and possibly did something to enlist in the same cause the two far greater men just mentioned.
Rabelais, not only lectured on Galen and Hippocrates, but edited some works of the latter; and Michael Servetus , in a little tract Syruporum universa ratio , defended the practice of Galen as compared with that of the Arabians. The great Aldine Press made an important contribution to the work, by editiones principes of Hippocrates and Galen in the original.
Thus was the campaign opened against the medieval and Arabian writers, till finally Greek medicine assumed a predominant position, and Galen took the place of Avicenna. Arabicae et barbarae servitutis medicae jugo, ex professo se Galenicam appellavit et profligato barbarorum exercitu unum totum et solum Galenum, ut optimum artis medicae authorem, in omnibus se sequuturam pollicita est.
The triumph of Galenism was therefore not complete by the middle of the 16th century. It was probably most so, and earliest, in the schools of Italy and in those of England, where the London College of Physicians might be regarded as an offshoot of the Italian schools. Paris was the stronghold of conservatism, and Germany was stirred by the teachings of one who must be considered apart from all schools—Paracelsus.
The nature of the struggle between the rival systems may be well illustrated by a formidable controversy about the rules for bleeding in acute diseases. This operation, according to the Arabian practice, was always performed on a vein at a distance from the organ affected. The Hippocratic and also Galenic rule, to let blood from, or near to, the diseased organ, was revived by Pierre Brissot , a professor in the university of Paris.
His attempt at reform, which was taken to be, as in effect it was, a revolt against the authority of the Arabian masters, led to his expulsion from Paris, and the formal prohibition by the parliament of his method. Upon this apparently trifling question arose a controversy which lasted many years, occupied several universities, and led to the interposition of personages no less important than the pope and the emperor, but which is thought to have largely contributed to the final downfall of the Arabian medicine.
Paracelsus and Chemical Medicine. The first noticeable quality in Paracelsus c. Himself well trained in the learning and medical science of the day, he despised and trampled upon all traditional and authoritative teachings. He began his lectures at Basel by burning the books of Avicenna and others; he afterwards boasted of having read no books for ten years; he protested that his shoe-buckles were more learned than Galen and Avicenna. On the other hand, he spoke with respect of Hippocrates, and wrote a commentary on his Aphorisms.
In this we see a spirit very different from the enthusiasm of the humanists for a purer and nobler philosophy than the scholastic and Arabian versions of Greek thought. There is no record of Paracelsus' knowledge of Greek, and as, at least in his student days, the most important works of Greek medicine were very imperfectly known, it is probable he had little first hand acquaintance with Galen or Hippocrates, while his breach with the humanists is the more conspicuous from his lecturing and writing chiefly in his native German.
Having thus made a clean sweep of nearly the whole of the dogmatic medicine, what did Paracelsus put in its place? Certainly not pure empiricism, or habits of objective observation. He had a dogma of his own—one founded, according to his German expositors, on the views of the Neoplatonists, of which a few disjointed specimens must here suffice.
To know the nature of man and how to deal with it, the physician should study, not anatomy, which Paracelsus utterly rejected, but all parts of external nature. Life was a perpetual germinative process controlled by the indwelling spirit or Archeus; and diseases, according to the mystical conception of Paracelsus, were not natural but spiritual. Nature was sufficient for the cure of most diseases; art had only to interfere when the internal physician, the man himself, was tired or incapable.
Then some remedy had to be introduced which should be antagonistic, not to the disease in a physical sense, but to the spiritual seed of the disease. Great importance was also attached to chemically prepared remedies as containing the essence or spiritual quality of the material from which they were derived.
In this doubtless he derived much advantage from his knowledge of chemistry, though the science was as yet not disentangled from the secret traditions of alchemy, and was often mixed up with imposture. German historians of medicine attach great importance to the revolt of Paracelsus against the prevailing systems, and trace in his writings anticipations of many scientific truths of later times. That his personality was influential, and his intrepid originality of great value as an example in his own country, is undeniable.
As a national reformer he has been not inaptly compared to Luther. But his importance in the universal history of medicine we cannot estimate so highly. The chief immediate result we can trace is the introduction of certain mineral remedies, especially antimony, the use of which became a kind of badge of the disciples of Paracelsus. The use of these remedies was not, however, necessarily connected with a belief in his system, which seems to have spread little beyond his own country. Of the followers of Paracelsus some became mere mystical quacks and impostors.
Others, of more learning and better repute, were distinguished from the regular physicians chiefly by their use of chemical remedies. In France the introduction of antimony gave rise to a bitter controversy which lasted into the 17th century, and led to the expulsion of some men of mark from the Paris faculty. But it should be remembered that all the chemical physicians did not call Paracelsus master. The most notorious of that school in England, Francis Anthony , never quotes Paracelsus, but relies upon Arnald de Villanova and Raimon Lull.
From this time, however, it is always possible to trace a school of chemical practitioners, who, though condemned by the orthodox Galenists, held their ground, till in the 17th century a successor of Paracelsus arose in the celebrated J. Van Helmont. Consequences of the Revival of Ancient Medicine. The standard of excellence in the ancient writers was indeed far above the level of the 16th century; but the fatal habit of taking at second hand what should have been acquired by direct observation retarded progress more than the possession of better models assisted it, so that the fundamental faults of medieval science remained uncorrected.
Nevertheless some progress has to be recorded, even if not due directly to the study of ancient medicine. In the first place the 15th and 16th centuries were notable for the outbreak of certain epidemic diseases, which were unknown to the old physicians. Among many descriptions of this disease, that by John Kaye or Caius, already referred to, was one of the best, and of great importance as showing that the works of Galen did not comprise all that could be known in medicine. The spread of syphilis, a disease equally unknown to the ancients, and the failure of Galen's remedies to cure it, had a similar effect.
In another direction the foundations of modern medicine were being laid during the 16th century—namely, by the introduction of clinical instruction in hospitals. In this Italy, and especially the renowned school of Padua, took the first step, where Giovanni De Monte Montanus , , already mentioned as a humanist, gave clinical lectures on the patients in the hospital of St Francis, which may still be read with interest.
Pupils flocked to him from all European countries; Germans are especially mentioned; a Polish student reported and published some of his lectures; and the Englishman Kaye was a zealous disciple, who does not, however, seem to have done anything towards transplanting this method of instruction to his own country. Inspections of the dead, to ascertain the nature of the disease, were made, though not without difficulty, and thus the modern period of the science of morbid anatomy was ushered in.
Medicine in the 17th Century. The practice and theory of medicine were mainly founded upon Hippocrates and Galen, with ever increasing additions from the chemical school. But the development of mathematical and physical science soon introduced a fundamental change in the habits of thought with respect to medical doctrine. These discoveries not only weakened or destroyed the respect for authority in matters of science, but brought about a marked tendency to mechanical explanations of life and disease.
When William Harvey by his discovery of the circulation furnished an explanation of many vital processes which was reconcilable with the ordinary laws of mechanics, the efforts of medical theorists were naturally directed to bringing all the departments of medicine under similar laws. It is often assumed that the writings and influence of Bacon did much towards introducing a more scientific method into medicine and physiology. But, without discussing the general philosophical position or historical importance of Bacon, it may safely be said that his direct influence can be little traced in medical writings of the first half of the 17th century.
Harvey, as is well known, spoke slightingly of the great chancellor, and it is not till the rapid development of physical science in England and Holland in the latter part of the century, that we find Baconian principles explicitly recognized. The dominant factors in the 17th-century medicine were the discovery of the circulation by William Harvey published in , the mechanical philosophy of Descartes and the contemporary progress of physics, the teaching of Van Helmont and the introduction of chemical explanations of morbid processes, and finally, combined of all these, and inspiring them, the rise of the spirit of inquiry and innovation, which may be called the scientific movement.
Before speaking in detail of these, we may note that by other influences quite independent of theories, important additions were made to practical medicine. It is noteworthy that concurrently with the rise of clinical study the works of Hippocrates were more and more valued, while Galen began to sink into the background. At the same time the discovery of new diseases, unknown to the ancients, and the keener attention which the great epidemics of plague caused to be paid to those already known, led to more minute study of the natural history of disease. The most important disease hitherto undescribed was rickets, first made known by Arnold de Boot, a Frisian who practised in Ireland, in , and afterwards more fully in the celebrated work of Francis Glisson in The plague was carefully studied by Isbrand de Diemerbroek, in his De Peste , and others.
Nathaniel Hodges of London in seems to have been the first who had the ' courage to make a post mortem inspection of a plague patient. Christopher Bennet wrote an important work on consumption in During the same period many new remedies were introduced, the most important being cinchona-bark, brought to Spain in the year The progress of pharmacy was shown by the publication of Dispensatories or Pharmacopoeiae —such as that of the Royal College of Physicians of London in This, like the earlier German works of the same kind on which it was partly founded , contains both the traditional Galenical and the modern or chemical remedies.
Van Helmont was a man of noble family in Brussels, who, after mastering all other branches of learning as then understood, devoted himself with enthusiasm to medicine and chemistry. By education and position a little out of the regular lines of the profession, he took up in medicine an independent attitude. Well acquainted with the doctrines of Galen, he rejected them as thoroughly as Paracelsus did, and borrowed from the latter some definite ideas as well as his revolutionary spirit.
Many of the symptoms of diseases were caused by the passions and perturbations of the archeus, and medicines acted by modifying the ideas of the same archeus. These and other notions cannot be here stated at sufficient length to be intelligible. It is enough to say that on this fantastic basis Helmont constructed a medical system which had some practical merits, that his therapeutical methods were mild and in many respects happy, and that he did service by applying newer chemical methods to the preparation of drugs.
He thus had some share, though a share not generally recognized, in the foundation of the iatro-chemical school, now to be spoken of.
But his avowed followers formed a small and discredited sect, which, in England at least, can be clearly traced in the latter part of the century. Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood. Its merits were recognized by Descartes, among the first, nine years after its publication. For the history of the discovery, and its consequences in anatomy and physiology, we must refer to the article Harvey. In respect of practical medicine, much less effect was at first noticeable.
But this example, combined with the Cartesian principles, set many active and ingenious spirits to work to reconstruct the whole of medicine on a physiological or even a mechanical basis—to endeavour to form what we should now call physiological or scientific medicine. The result of this was not to eliminate dogma from medicine, though it weakened the authority of the old dogma. The movement led rather to the formation of schools or systems of thought, which under various names lasted on into the 18th century, while the belief in the utility or necessity of schools and systems lasted much longer.
The most important of these were the so-called iatro-physical or mechanical and the iatro-chemical schools. Iatro-Physical School. Its founder is held to have been G. Borelli , whose treatise De motu animalium , published in , is regarded as marking an epoch in physiology. The tendency of the school was to explain the actions and functions of the body on physical, and especially on mechanical, principles. The movements of bones and muscles were referred to the theory of levers; the process of digestion was regarded as essentially a process of trituration; nutrition and secretion were shown to be dependent upon the tension of the vessels, and so forth.
The developments of this school belong rather to the history of physiology, where they appear, seen in the light of modern science, as excellent though premature endeavours in a scientific direction. But the influence of these theories on practical medicine was not great. The more judicious of the mechanical or physical school refrained, as a judicious modern physiologist does, from too immediate an application of their principles to daily practice. Mechanical theories were introduced into pathology, in explanation of the processes of fever and the like, but had little or no influence on therapeutics.
An English physician, William Cole , is also usually ranked with them. One very shrewd thinker, who sat in the House, proposed an annual Ministry, chosen by lot. Others proposed an elective Ministry: others wished to develop the House of Lords into something like the Grand Council of Venice.
No political scheme was too absurd to lack an advocate. Universal suffrage, Edition: current; Page: [  ] annual parliaments, and electoral districts were loudly demanded, and Dukes were counted among their warmest supporters. The Edition: orig; Page: [ xi ] lawyers demonstrated how greatly the liberties of the nation had fallen off, and how grossly their nature was misunderstood. They proved it to be the duty of the People to reclaim them, and that no obstacle stood in the way. In this cry many Whigs and Tories, members of both Houses of Parliament, were found to join.
This liberal movement was not confined to England. It spread, in a greater or less degree, all over Europe, even to St. Petersburg and Constantinople. In England, Reform was rather a cry than a political movement; but in France and Austria it was a movement as well as a cry. In the latter country, indeed, the Reform was supplied before the demand, and the Emperor Joseph was forced by an ignorant people to reverse projects in which he had vainly tried to precede his age. But the demands abroad were for organic reforms, such as had long been effected in England. England, after the reign of Charles II, is a completely modern nation; society is reorganised on the basis which still subsists.
But France and Germany in were still what they had been in the Middle Ages. The icy fetters which England had long ago broken up had on the Continent hardened until nothing would break them up but a convulsion. In France this had been demonstrated by the failures of Turgot. The body of oppressive interests which time and usage had legalised was too strong to give way to a moderate pressure. A convulsion, a mighty shock, a disturbance of normal forces, was necessary: and the French people had long been collecting themselves for the task.
Forty years a Revolution had been foreseen, and ten years at least it had been despaired of. But it came at Edition: current; Page: [  ] last, and came unexpectedly; the Revolution shook down the feudalism of France, and the great general of the Revolution trampled to dust the tottering relics of it in the rest of Western Europe.
Conspicuous among the agencies which effected it was the new power of public opinion, which wrought an obvious effect, by means of the Gazettes of Paris, throughout the western world. Burke saw this, and to public opinion he appealed against the movement, and so far as this country was concerned, successfully. It was hard, at such a crisis, to sever general ideas from the Edition: orig; Page: [ xii ] immediate occasion.
Burke tells us less about the French Revolution than about English thought and feeling on the subject of Revolutions in general. On the applicability of these general views to the occasion of their enunciation, it is not necessary for the reader to form any definite judgment. Properly speaking, indeed, the question depends only in a small degree on grounds which demand or justify such a mode of treatment. To condemn all Revolutions is monstrous.
To say categorically that the French Revolution was absolutely a good thing or a bad thing conveys no useful idea. Either may be said with some degree of truth, but neither can be said without qualifications which almost neutralise the primary thesis. No student of history by this time needs to be told that the French Revolution was, in a more or less extended sense, a very good thing.
Complex and cautious democratic processes aimed at consensus, such as those of Switzerland do not always yield expected results particularly in health care. An armada of spin doctors has been called at the bedside of Obamacare. Its many true and wise sayings are mixed up with extravagant and barefaced sophistry: its argument, with every semblance of legal exactness, is disturbed by hasty gusts of anger, and broken by chasms which yawn in the face of the least observant reader. The general conception of the physician's aim and task remained the same, though, as knowledge increased, there was much divergence both in theory and practice—even opposing schools were found to be developing some part of the Hippocratic system. Primarily originating in accidents—railway in particular—the late Victorian notion of trauma paved the way not only for disaster medicine and emergency relief but also for the treatment of psychiatric trauma, which shares the same origins. We are referring here to testing among partners as a way to abolish condom use.
No one was better qualified than Burke to compose an apologetic for the final appeal of a people against tyranny: but nunc non erat his locus. Burke appears here in the character of an advocate: like all advocates, he says less than he knows. It was his cue to represent the Revolution as a piece of voluntary and malicious folly; he could not well admit that it was the result of deep-seated and irresistible causes. Not that the Revolution could not have been avoided—every one knew that it might; but it could only have been avoided by an equally sweeping Revolution from above.
In default of this there came to pass a Revolution from below. Though the Revolution brought with it mistakes in policy, crimes, and injuries, it involved no more of each than the fair average of human affairs will allow, if we consider its character and magnitude; and we must pay less than usual heed to Burke when he insists that these were produced wholly by the ignorance and wickedness of the Revolutionary leaders. The sufferers in a large measure brought them on themselves by ill-timed resistance and vacillating counsels. Edition: orig; Page: [ xiii ] From the present work the student will learn little of the history of the Revolution.
It had barely begun: only two incidents of importance, the capture of the Bastille and the transportation from Versailles to Paris, had taken place: of that coalition of hostile elements which first gave the Revolution force and self-consciousness, there was as yet not a trace. It was not only in its beginnings, but even these beginnings were imperfectly understood. School-boys now know more of the facts of the matter than was known to Burke, and thanks to the pen of De Tocqueville, most persons of moderate literary pretensions can claim a closer familiarity with its fundamental nature.
Wherein, then, consists the value of the book? How came this virulent and intemperate attack to have the wide and beneficial effect which attended it? What was the Edition: current; Page: [  ] nature of its potent magic, which disarmed the Revolutionists of England, and exorcised from the thinking classes of Europe the mischievous desire of political change?
It was obvious that the movement in France was accompanied by a general distrust of the existing framework of society. Something of the same kind was prevalent in England; but it belonged to a narrower class, with narrower motives and meaner ends. From his earliest years Burke had been familiar with the idea of a nation of human savages rising in revolt against law, religion, and social order, and he believed the impulse to such a revolt to exist in human nature as a specific moral disease.
The thing which he greatly feared now seemed to have come suddenly upon him. Burke manifestly erred in representing such an element as the sole aliment and motive force of the French Revolution. Distrust of society was widely disseminated in England, though less widely than Burke believed, and far less widely than in France; but Burke had no means of verifying his bodings. Jacobinism had prevailed in France, and a Revolution had followed—it was coming to prevail in England, and a Revolution might be expected.
England had in France the highest reputation for political progress, liberty, and good government. It was represented in France that the French Revolution was proceeding on English principles. It was further understood that England sympathised with and intended to benefit by the broader and more enlightened Revolution which was being accomplished in France. This Burke takes all pains to refute. He shows that this famous English Revolution was, in truth, a Revolution not made, but prevented.
He aims to prove by conclusive evidence that English policy, though not averse from reform, is stubbornly opposed to revolution. He shows that the main body of the British nation, from its historical Edition: current; Page: [  ] traditions, from the opinions and doctrines transmitted to it from the earliest times, from its constitution and essence, was utterly hostile to these dangerous novelties, and bound to eschew and reprobate them.
Though mainly sound and homogeneous, the body politic had rotten members, and it is the utterances of these, by which the intelligent Frenchman might otherwise be pardonably misled, that Burke in the first instance applies himself to confute. The earliest title of the work see Notes, p. Knowing little of Europe in general, by comparison with his intimate knowledge of England, Burke can have been little disposed or prepared to rush into print, in the midst of absorbing state business at home, with a general discussion of the changes which had taken place in a foreign nation.
This was not the habit of the time. In our day a man must be able to sustain an argument on the internal politics of all nations of the earth: in that day, Englishmen chiefly regarded their own business. But the Revolutionists had aiders and abettors on this side of the Channel, and they openly avowed their purpose of bringing about a catastrophe similar to that which had been brought about in France.
Hence that strong tincture of party virulence which is perceptible throughout the work. Burke writes not as a Hallam—not as a philosophical critic or a temperate judge, but in his accustomed character as an impassioned advocate and an angry debater. Indeed anything like a reserved and observant Edition: orig; Page: [ xv ] attitude, on the part of his countrymen, irritates him to fury. His real aim is less to attack the French than the English Revolutionists: not so much to asperse Sieyes and Mirabeau, as Dr.
Price and Lord Stanhope. The work, then, professes to be a general statement, confessedly hasty and fragmentary, of the political doctrines and sentiments of the English people. It was, on the whole, recognised as true. The body of the nation agreed in this fierce and eloquent denunciation. The Jacobins steadily went down in public estimation from the day of its publication. But it is the moral power of the argument, and the brilliancy with which it is enforced, which give the work its value.
The topics themselves are of slighter significance. Half awed by the tones of the preacher, half by his evident earnestness and self-conviction, we are predisposed to submit to his general doctrines, although we cannot feel sure of their applicability to the occasion. Unfair as this denunciation was to France, we sympathise in its effects on the malcontents in England. The tone of the book was well suited to the occasion. A loud and bitter cry was to be raised—the revolutionary propaganda was to be stayed—and to this end all that could be said against it was to be clearly, sharply, emphatically, and uncompromisingly put forth.
With Hannibal at the gates, it was no time for half-opinions, for qualification, and for temporisation. No wise man could hesitate to do his best to discredit the Jacobins, without any very scrupulous regard to absolute justice. They were unjust and unscrupulous, and it was perhaps pardonable to attack them with their own weapons. The book is not history, nor philosophy, but a polemic.
It is a polemic against Jacobinism, particularly English Jacobinism. What is, or rather was, Jacobinism? In the usage of the day, Edition: orig; Page: [ xvi ] it was a vituperative term applied summarily to all opposition to the dominant party. He who doubted Mr. Pitt was set down as a Jacobin, much as he who doubted the Bishops was set down as an infidel. But the Jacobin proper is the revolter against the established order of society. This creed will never lack exponents. It is founded on an ancient tale, and in a certain sense, a tale of wrong; but whilst the human species maintains its vantage above the lower animals, it is a wrong that will never be completely righted.
Degree is inseparable from the maintenance of the artificial structure of civilisation. The last phrase leads us to note the fundamental fallacy of the doctrine in its next stage Edition: current; Page: [  ] of philosophical or speculative Jacobinism. Civilisation, social happiness, the comfortable arts of life, are no gift of nature to man. They are, in the strictest sense, artificial.
The French philosophers, by a gross assumption, took them to be natural, and therefore a matter of common right to all. We notice here a fundamental antagonism alleged by Burke to exist between the Revolutionists and the English school of politicians. The former base their claims upon Right; Burke, following the traditions of English statesmanship, claims to base his upon Law. It is not that Law has no basis in natural Right: it is rather that Law, having occupied as a basis a portion of Edition: orig; Page: [ xvii ] the space naturally covered by Right, all outside it ceases to be right in the same sense in which it was so before.
In other words, realised Right, in the shape of tangible and enforceable Law, is understood to be so material an advance upon abstract Right, that your acceptance of the former amounts to a renunciation of the latter. You cannot have both at once. Now Jacobinism may be regarded as the sentiment which leads man to repudiate Law and take his stand upon natural Right.
The difficulty is that in so doing he limits himself, and seeks to reduce his fellow-men, to the right of the naked savage, for natural right cannot extend beyond the state of nature. As Jacobinism is the repudiation of Law, Burke takes his stand upon the Law; and one of the defects of the present work is that he carries this too far. It has been said of his attitude in this work that he begins like a pettifogger and ends like a statesman. Hallam has proved it untenable at many points: and the refutation may, it is believed, be completely made out by reference to the notes at the end of this volume.
A British statesman may, however, plead a closer relation between law and liberty than Edition: current; Page: [  ] is usual in most countries, and claim to be leniently criticised for defending himself on the standpoint of the lawyer. Men of the law were the statesmen under whom the British Constitution grew into shape. Men of the law defended it from Papal aggression, a circumstance to which Burke complacently alludes p. Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, were his undoubted chain of English constitutional securities, and he declined to admit any further modification of them.
So far he was in harmony with popular ideas. When he went beyond this, and declared that the Act of Settlement bound the English nation for ever, his reasoning was obviously false. The whole procedure of Burke throughout this book is, as has been observed, Edition: orig; Page: [ xviii ] avowedly that of an advocate. He is not to embarrass the minds of his hearers, or to incumber or overlay his speech, by bringing into view at once as if he were reading an academic lecture all that may and ought, when a just occasion presents itself, be said in favour of the other members.
At that time they are out of court; there is no question concerning them. Whilst he opposes his defence on the part where the attack is made, he presumes that for his regard to the just rights of all the rest, he has credit in every candid mind. But Burke demanded something positive—something to which men could bind themselves by covenant. In the apology from which we have just quoted, he proclaims the speeches of the managers of the impeachment of Sacheverel, as representing those who brought about the English Revolution, to be the fountains of true constitutional doctrine.
After this epoch he seems to have distrusted all political creeds. There is hardly one notable political work of the day immediately preceding him to which he makes allusion, and then only in terms of censure. That of France was in a still worse case. Scandalous as were the delays, the useless and cumbrous processes, and the exaction which attended the management of the English law, those who administered it were at least able men, and men who had honestly risen to their places, in virtue of their native and acquired qualifications.
It was not so in France. In France judges purchased their places and suitors purchased justice. It is enough to say of it that it exhibited the worst characteristics of English law before the time of Edition: orig; Page: [ xx ] Richard II. The general system of English law he thought entitled a qualified commendation.
His views on the subject were however very different from those of his contemporary, Lord Eldon. He did not systematically discountenance all enquiry, and scout all proposed reform. He had taken the lead in , in advocating reforms dealing with the Royal Edition: current; Page: [  ] property, which have since been carried out with general approval. He had commenced, early in his career, a treatise advocating that reform of the Irish Penal Laws which, when carried through by his friends Savile and Dunning, produced the awful riots of His judgment on the question of how far reform was admissible, and at what point it degenerated into innovation, coincides with that of Bacon and Hale, rather than with that of Coke and Eldon.
Conceiving the English nation as a four-square fabric supported on the four bases of the Church, the Crown, the Nobility, and the People, it is natural to find the author insisting most on the excellences of those elements which were then assailed in France. The People, of course, needed no defence, nor was the Crown as yet overthrown. The dream of the moment was a constitutional monarchy, based on elements similar to those of the English Constitution.
On this subject, independently of constitutional law and of theory, Burke cherished prejudices early formed and never shaken. He had lived on terms of intimacy with, and was bound by ties of mutual obligation to some of the worthiest members of the British aristocracy. It is mainly to them personally that his panegyric is applicable.
Nobility, however, possessed claims which he was as eager to recognise, as an important establishment of the common law of the country, and as justified by universal analogy and supported by the best general theories of society. Because it operated as an instinct to secure property, Edition: current; Page: [  ] Edition: orig; Page: [ xxi ] and to preserve communities in a settled state p.
It is pervaded by his own conception of an aristocracy, derived from his own personal friends and fellow-workers. The aristocracy of France differed from that of England as substance differs from shadow. In England, nobility had long implied privileges which are merely honorary; in France it implied privileges substantial in themselves, and grievous to those who were excluded from them. Practically, though Burke in the duties of his advocacy denies the fact, the nobility were untaxed.
To use a sufficiently accurate expression, the feudal system was still in operation in France. If not aggravated by natural growth during successive centuries, it exhibited a growing incompatibility with what surrounded it. In England it had practically been extinct for two centuries, and it was now absolutely out of mind. Barons and Commons had long made up but one People; the old families were mostly extinct, and the existing Peers were chiefly commoners with coronets on their coats of arms. At the present moment not a single seat in the House of Peers is occupied in virtue of tenure, 1 and the Peerage, saving heraldic vanities and some legal and social courtesies, practically confers nothing but a descendible personal magistracy, exercised at considerable expense and inconvenience.
The status of a Peer generally involves, in addition, the maintenance of the bulk of a fortune not always large in the least remunerative of investments. The qualification for a Peerage has long been limited to a long-continued course of service to the State. Every one of these conditions was reversed in France. The nobleman was a member of a decaying privileged class, who clung to their unjust and oppressive privileges with the most obstinate tenacity.
It was the idle noble who spent the hard earnings of the peasant. Taxation Edition: current; Page: [  ] in England fell lightly in the extreme upon the poorer classes; in France they bore almost the whole burden of the national expenses. Society in France thus rested on a tottering and artificial frame: while in England the frame had gradually and safely accommodated itself to the change of social force. But in the method of Burke every argument in favour of a Edition: orig; Page: [ xxii ] particular element of the State, based upon the special excellence of that element, is subordinate to his general doctrine of the nature of the State as a grand working machine.
A machine, he thought, to attain the end for which it was devised, must be allowed to work fairly and continuously. To be perpetually stopping its system for the purpose of trying experiments, was an error venial only in a child. To destroy it, in order to use its parts in the construction of some other ideal machine, which might never be got to work at all, was criminal madness. The strictures of Burke with reference to this great and central point in his political philosophy are only partially applicable to the French Reformers of his day; nor are they at any time unexceptionably appropriate.
Yet they constitute a profound and necessary substructure in every intelligent conception of civil matters, and as such they will never cease to be worthy of the remembrance of the most practised statesmen, as well as an indispensable part of the education of the beginner in politics. Every student must begin, if he does not end, with Conservatism; and every Reformer must bear in mind that without a certain established base, secured by a large degree of this often-forgotten principle, his best devised scheme cannot fail to fall to the ground.
The present work is the best text-book of Conservatism which has ever appeared. Burke claims for his views the support of the English nation. Political events and the popularity of his book alike proved that this was no idle boast: but it necessarily indicated nothing more than that the party of progress was in England in the minority, while in France it was in the ascendant. To examine the justice of this claim would involve the whole political and religious history of the stirring century between the Spanish Armada and the Revolution of This is far beyond our present purpose, which may be equally well served on ground merely literary.
Taking English literature as our guide, we shall find that, two hundred years before, conclusions very similar to those of Burke were formed in the minds of philosophical Edition: orig; Page: [ xxiii ] observers. The significance of those conclusions is not impaired by the historical results of the contest. They throw no shade upon the glorious victories of the spirit of English liberty. They rather illustrate and complement them. They rather tend to justify the partial adoption, by sober and reasonable men, when the substance of English liberty began to be attacked under the Scotch kings, of ideas which were previously limited to intemperate and half-educated minds.
But these ideas never penetrated the mass of English contemporary thinkers. Milton, in his proposed organisation of the republic, followed Italian, not English ideas: and the honour due to Milton will not prevent our recognising the beauty and propriety of doctrines from which, under other circumstances, even he might have drawn his practical deductions.
That Conservatism is compatible with philosophical statesmanship can be illustrated in a remarkable degree from the great work of Hooker. Hooker and Grotius allow a view of the general rights and obligations of civil society, which goes far beyond what Burke, in the present work, will admit. In the state, Hooker saw distinctly reflected the order and discipline which he believed to have been impressed upon the natural face of the universe by an all-wise and beneficent Creator.
The reign of law on earth reflected the reign of law in heaven. Hooker ridicules the turbulent wits of old, to whom, in the words of the Roman historian, quieta movere magna merces videbatur. Both point out the value of what the English nation regards as an everlasting possession; both lay bare the deep foundations of law, order, and temporal polity; and seek, by the united force of truth and reason, to display and vindicate in the eye of the world the gradations, the dignities, and the majesty of a well-balanced state.
The limits of the application of general principles in politics are Edition: orig; Page: [ xxiv ] admirably sketched out by Hooker. Following Aristotle, he remarks the fallacies which occur from disregarding the nature of the stuff which the politician has to work upon. These varieties [the phases of human will and sentiment] are not known but by much experience, from whence to draw the true bounds of all principles, to discern how far forth they take effect, to see where and why they fail, to apprehend by what degrees and means they lead to the practice of things in shew, though not indeed repugnant and contrary one to another, requireth more sharpness of wit, more intricate circuitions of discourse, more industry and depth of judgment than common opinion doth yield.
They that walk in darkness, know not whither they go. Such conceptions are naturally generated in a comprehensive mind, as soon as the world is stirred by the impulse Edition: current; Page: [  ] to shake off old evils. Wisdom consists in no inconsiderable degree, says Burke, in knowing what amount of evil is to be tolerated. The science of politics, unlike most other sciences, is too often regarded as having reached its final stage: many a specious conclusion is vitiated by this assumption. The defect of such aphorisms as that of Montesquieu obviously lies in their extreme liability to abuse: and Burke cannot be absolved from the charge of abusing the principle which the aphorism embodies.
But it cannot be denied that Hooker and many another Englishman whose authority English people held in high respect, had done the same thing before him. The following passage of Hooker strikingly reminds the reader of a mode of argument frequently employed by Burke:. For first, the ground whereupon they build, is not certainly their own, but with special limitations. Few things are so restrained to any one end or purpose, that the same being extinct Edition: orig; Page: [ xxv ] they should forthwith utterly become frustrate.
Wisdom may have framed one and the same thing to serve commodiously for divers ends, and of those ends any one be sufficient cause for continuance, though the rest have ceased, even as the tongue, which nature hath given us for an instrument of speech, is not idle in dumb persons, because it also serveth for taste. Again, if time have worn out, or any other mean altogether taken away, what was first intended, uses not thought upon before may afterwards spring up, and be reasonable causes of retaining that which other considerations did formerly procure to be instituted.
And it cometh sometime to pass, that a thing unnecessary in itself as touching the whole direct purpose whereto it was meant or can be applied, doth notwithstanding appear convenient to be still held even without use, lest by reason of that coherence which it hath with somewhat Edition: current; Page: [  ] more necessary, the removal of the one should indamage the other; and therefore men which have clean lost the possibility of sight, keep still their eyes nevertheless in the place where nature set them.
The ground of this philosophical or rational conservatism mainly consists in seeking to contemplate things with reference to their dependency on an entire system, and to have regard to the coherence and significance of the system. It is liable to abuse: and many may think that the whole conception belongs to the domain of poetry rather than to that of philosophy.
The poetry of the time, indeed, reflects it in more than one place. It reminds us something of the bodings of the Greek chorus, when they sing that the founts of the sacred rivers are turned backward, and that justice and the universe are suffering a revolution. Such notions are unquestionably more than the over-wrought dreams of poets.
They have their key in the defective moral tone of their age: but it by no means follows that the moral defect which this implies covers the whole ground to which they extend. Slumber seems natural to certain stages of human history: and a slumbering nation always resents the first signs of Edition: orig; Page: [ xxvi ] its awakenment. The faculty Edition: current; Page: [  ] of looking on an institution on many sides enabled Daniel to point out. Daniel had trained himself in an instructive school, in the preparation and composition of his History of the Civil Wars.
The statesman must study. The English nation is emphatically an old nation: it proceeds on the assumption that there is nothing new under the sun. It is always disposed to criticise severely any one who labours, as Warburton says, under that epidemic distemper of idle men, the idea of instructing and informing the world. The heart of men, and the greater heart of associated bodies of men, has been radically the same in all ages. In the laws of life we cannot hope for much additional illumination: new lights in general turn out to be old illusions.
There is no unexplored terra australis, whether of morality or political science. Englishmen have in all times affected a taste for public matters and for scholarship: and this affectation is not ill exemplified in one who was a man of letters, with the superadded qualities of the philosopher and the politician. Philocosmus taunts Musophilus with his empty and purposeless pursuits, to which Musophilus replies by a spirited defence of learning.
Philocosmus changes his ground, and lays to the charge of the professors of learning, who overswarm and infest the English world, a general spirit of discontent, amounting to sedition. See how a retired observer in the time of the first Stuart anticipates the effects of the same misplaced activity. Action, Philocosmus goes on to say, differs materially from what is read of in books:. Men of letters, in the indulgence of the tastes which their pursuits have fostered, lose those faculties which are necessary to the conduct of affairs.
Beware of the philosopher who pretends to statesmanship. The Scholar replies, that the Statesman, with all his boasted skill, cannot anticipate the perils of the time, or see. Giddy innovations would overthrow the whole fabric of society. But what is the Edition: current; Page: [  ] remedy?
This might end in bringing men more astray, and destroy the faith in the unity and continuity of civil life, which is. He does not task his characters to utter his private sentiments and convictions. His characters are realities, not masks. A book might be made up by illustrating the political conceptions of Shakspere out of his plays: but it will be enough for our purpose to consider one or two specimens. The following extract from the speech in which Ulysses demonstrates the ills arising from the feuds of the Greek champions is alike remarkable for the compass of its thought and for the accuracy with which it reflects a feeling which has always been common among Englishmen.
No passage in literature reflects more faithfully the general spirit of the present work. The grave tone of mingled doctrine and portent, and the two contrasted moral effects, are in each exactly similar. Jack Cade and his rout, and the mob in Coriolanus, will doubtless occur to the student as instances of sharp satire against Democracy. Shakspere always conceives political action, especially in England, as proceeding from a lawful monarch, wielding Edition: orig; Page: [ xxxi ] real power under the guidance of wise counsellors: and this does not differ greatly from the Whig theory to which Burke always adhered.
The popular party of the Commonwealth and the Revolution were the true conservatives of their age. They fought, as Burke had pointed out in a previous work, for a liberty that had been consecrated by long usage and tradition; and outside Edition: current; Page: [  ] this memorable strife the greatest of English minds, with a few exceptions, surrendered themselves to the general tide of anti-revolutionary opinion. Dryden, always a favourite authority with Burke, is an obvious instance. One passage from his prose works may be adduced to show that the worst arguments employed by Burke in the present treatise do not lack the authority of great and popular English names:.
For the preservation of his right destroys not our propriety, but maintains us in it. He has tied himself by law not to invade our possessions, and we have obliged ourselves as subjects to him and all his lawful successors: by which irrevocable act of ours, both for ourselves and our posterity, we can no more exclude the successor than we can depose the present king.
It may be truly objected that the course of English political events destroys the authority of these Tory formulas. But it is well known that the Whig policy of England since the Revolution had not been supported by a majority of the English people. The majority of English people, told by the head, would down to the beginning of the reign of George III have been found to be Tory: and Burke was in a strong position when he averred that such was the disposition of the English nation as a whole.
Phocion and Socrates are satirically instanced as examples of popular justice. Then follows a remarkable forecast of an opinion first elaborated and given to the world by the French philosophers in the next century:. It would be easy to pursue the same track in Butler and Swift, in the vast field of the Essayists, and in English theological and historical writers, among whom most of the popular names will be found on the same side.
The Whigs and Tories of the century, if we except a few clerical politicians, alike avoid professing extremes. English poetry, from Spenser and Drayton to Scott and Tennyson, has in fact always been largely pervaded by this idea, and a retrospective tendency, tinged with something of pride and admiration, has generally accompanied literary taste in the Englishman.
Why do people shed virus strands of polio, measles, etc. Rising rates of above stated diseases in the U. Most, if not all illegals have no immunizations whatsoever! See the California Measles outbreak at Disneyland. Report Block. My interest in this subject is due to the fact that I survived, mostly, GBS. It was a life changing event and may have been preventable because I complained about reactions to my annual flu shot for two years prior and was told that the shot had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Of course now that permanent damage is done the same doctors will not even consider giving me flu vaccine. Then on a similar vein about two months ago my pet got a vaccination. He was a little older but in good health. He died about 8 hours later. I received a call the next day that his blood work was perfect and I had to inform them of his death. I don't blame the vet, she was doing what she thought best but I have to wonder about the cause and effect. Overall vaccines are a good thing I believe but we have to consider some questions and not be blind to possible problems.
Medicine is a business that makes money when you are sick, not when you are well. This creates an implicit conflict of interest between the medical industry and the consumer. As with all businesses, consumer beware! As a medical anthropologist researcher examining the lifestyle causes of disease, I often come up against this medical conflict of interest. Preventing disease is unfortunately in conflict with the detection and treatment of disease.
I have personally experienced this dilemma with my research into the link between breast cancer and wearing tight bras. Medical response to this issue over the past 25 years has been vitriolic and obstructive, although numerous studies internationally now support the bra-cancer link, and new bra designs for safer bras cite our research. You would think that a simple lifestyle solution would be welcome by the medical community.
It's not when it affects profits. This article is just plain wrong. It says "Dr Andrew Wakefield's study was withdrawn and he was barred from the profession, but the damage was done. Toto has pulled back the curtain, exposing the murderous con artists in big pharma. This article is pretending Toto never pulled back the curtain. Too late! Articles like this one are so LOL. This article is correct that trust is waning but incorrect about why. It's not because us drooling mouth-breathers' "brains [are being] tricked" or because of random side effects of various drugs.
It's because vaccines contain fetal tissue and mercury and are being used for things other than vaccinating people against disease, such as sterilization for the purpose of depopulation.
[EPUB] Médecine irresponsable (Résurgence) (French Edition) by Marc Avérous. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and. Médecine irresponsable ; ils ont renié Hippocrate! Marc Avérous · Pietteur marco · Resurgence; 26 Février ;
Google African polio and tetanus vaccines were found to contain the HcG sterilant - the patent is also online. Or how about Puerto Rico in the 60s? Bill Gates said if "we do a great job with vaccines", we can reduce the population.
Or how about forced STDs in Guatemala? The US apologized for doing that. Etc etc et al ad infinitum. What about the millions of 3rd world poor that the US introduced into the country who have never been vaccinated. Many of whom had communicable diseases and no understanding of literacy nor sanitation.. The distrust in medical treatment is a side effect of the distrust is science caused by the climate change scam.
All those claims from climate so called scientist that never came true when they were supposed to proved that they were lying. So now all science has a dark cloud over because of the greed in the climate change scam. The reason people distrust medicine is because they are frequently belittled by "healthcare" professionals. Or, they just give a prescription to mask the symptoms, which often times have serious side effects of their own.
People have been forced to rely on the personal experience of friends and family or use social media to try to heal themselves. Many times they find real answers and solutions by connecting with others who are in the same boat. Those solutions are usually pharmaceutical-free, affordable and highly effective. The public is becoming highly educated about how the medical system operates and is realizing that modern medicine is controlled by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies.