Medicine in Medieval Universities

“The Faculty of Medicine”

In Nancy Siraisi’s article on the faculty of medicine in the medieval university, she describes the university as centers of medical activity, firmly set in place over the 12^th and 13^th centuries. She begins by acknowledging that only a small fraction of medical practitioners were university educated. In fact, university-trained physicians faced competition from various pharmacists, surgeons, midwives, non-educated physicians in addition to those who offered spiritual or supernatural remedies. Additionally, many practicing physicians without university degrees had access to university materials and were mostly literate and had many prosperous patients. But largely, the university trained physician occupied the highest wealth and social status of those in the medical field, whose clientele were frequently noble, wealthy and royal. Yet treatments or success rates were unlikely to have differed greatly in administering cures. However, medical schools still thrives as the elite institutions of medical education, producing rich medical literature, insisting on health as an object of intellectual enquiry and creating an environment for legitimate dissection of bodies.

Before 1500, there were three primary centers for medical education: Paris, Bologna, and Montpellier. There were of course other places where medicine could be studied, but they did not achieve the same level of prominence. The organization of the faulty differed in different locations. The professors generally came from educated families and were men of means within their communities. They frequently drew a municipal salary and had other responsibilities outside of the university such as licensing medical practitioners. They were also called upon to perform autopsies or to give medical-legal opinions. Students came from all over Europe. When universities were established in other parts of Europe, it still did not diminish the status of these three schools as some students would in fact complete the arts portion of their education locally, and then travel for the prestigious medical portion. However, the majority of physicians received substantial training in the arts, however evidence indicates that only a few wrote extensively on their arts training once they had completed the minimum portion.

At these universities a substantial amount of Islamic medical texts such as the comprehensive Canon of Avicenna were available in Latin and served as a basis for much teaching. Additionally, Hippocratic and Galenic texts and their commentaries were universally used as texts. These books only served as a portion of the academics as masters frequently gave lectures of deviating subjects and there was usually a great deal of private study. The curriculum was aimed primarily at training practitioners which was for many the most lucrative endeavor. Central concepts taught included: the balance of the elementary qualities of hot, wet, cold and dry in the body, the influence of the heavenly bodies on terrestrial events-in fact many physicians studied astrology as part of their curriculum.

There appear to be only a few differences in the characteristics of each school. For example, Paris did not train surgeons, and Montpellier put more emphasis on the Hippocratic than Paris. However they all used similar texts and though it took 3-8 years to finish depending on the curriculum, all generally covered the same material in both medicine and in their arts education. In general university medicine played a large part in shaping the approach to medical texts, scientific understanding and healing practices of the period.

American Plastic Book Review

In order to keep track of my book reviews, I have opted to follow the model of some other grad student blogs that I have seen around. So here is my first review. Please do not plagiarize my reviews.

In his 1995 monograph American Plastic,[1] Jeffrey Meikle traces the cultural history of plastics from the invention of celluloid in 1869 up through the opening of Disneyworld in the 1970s, asserting that the “history of plastic…reveals much about American culture of the twentieth century, especially its tendency… of moving toward an inflationary proliferation of experiences.”[2] He begins his account by seeking a historically relevant definition of plastic. He recognizes that a single concrete definition of plastic is likely impossible since not only was the word applied to generally many different types of synthetic materials and concepts, many producers promoted their materials under a trade name. Meikle’s story begins in the mid-nineteenth century when manufacturers were seeking inexpensive alternatives to natural raw materials, particularly ivory and turtle shell. Celluloid provided a cheap substitute which gave mass amounts of people access to formally luxury goods. However, other than the field of photography, celluloid did not really insert plastic into the lives of average Americans. Leo Baekeland, with his invention of Bakelite in 1907 changed that. Bakelite, though initially used as an insulator, soon took on the identity of “the Material of a Thousand Uses”[3] due to a savvy marketing campaign. Almost immediately competitors sought to replicate Bakelite without violating patent. The result was the development of dozens of new synthetic materials and plastic companies and distributors appearing on the national market. Even so, plastic materials did not become common household materials until WWII. With the shortages of raw goods during the war, plastic companies were pressured to create viable substitutes. Additionally, the development of nylon not only gave the plastics industry a more vital role in the military but also made it an essential product for ladies, fundamentally replacing silk stockings. In the 1950’s, America entered a “Plastic Age” where the majority of household products were made out of plastic. In fact, for many products like counter tops, toy soldiers, or food storage containers[4] plastics proved superior to raw materials. However, as plastic became more common “the very nature of things had changed as people adjusted to a disposable world”[5] Plastic began utterly inundated in American art, particularly in the field of art and architecture. However, in the 1960’s, environmental concerns and cultural changes began to associate plastic with negative cultural meaning. Beyond worries about the chemical content in synthetic materials, plastic, as a concept, was associated with artificiality, where natural products were lauded for their authenticity and durability.  He concludes his book with a discussion of Disneyworld, showing how the plastic industry folded to the consumers demand for natural goods and resulted in a “technology that can give us more reality than nature can.”[6]

Though, like many other historians of technology Meikle argues that plastic had a considerable effect on American culture, he does not make an argument for technological determinism. For example, he demonstrates that it was not excessive chemical change in Bakelite that made it a household name but rather a publicity campaign conducted by Allan Brown. Additionally, though synthetic materials had the technological capacity to be made into household products like food containers and buttons, it was only the war shortages that made such substitutes necessary for the American public. Like Thomas Hughes in American Genesis,[7] he also shows how widespread acceptance of technology, in this case plastic, influenced art and entertainment, but also how the 1960’s counterculture were adverse to the perceived artificiality of chemical products.  Also like many other historians of technology, he shows the role that women played in this history, particularly as harbingers of household consumption and therefore the targets of industry marketing. His scope is extremely wide, covering a century. This means that some areas of text are extremely general. However arguing that plastic is vital to understanding American culture is an extremely novel approach to historical study.

Meikle’s book, though extremely interesting, has a rather unusual structure. In the first few chapters, he focuses on individual chemists and their ambitions as well as their technological processes. However, as the book progresses, he focuses more on American attitudes towards plastic, industrial business strategies and the constant assortment of new available products. However, this does not weaken his overall argument. In fact, since industrial chemistry was still a relatively new industry at the start of the twentieth century which experienced a rapid explosion, it is understandable that he could only focus on a few figures at the start of his book and then branch outward later in the text. Additionally, by pairing examinations of company records from businesses like Du Pont and Condensite with writing from literary figures like Norman Malier he shows the extreme contradiction of a society which professed to hate plastics yet still were avid consumers. Though he does not address many types of synthetics like rayon, Meikles book is generally a very interesting and comprehensive history of plastic, vital for historians of technology or business.

---

[1] Meikle, Jeffrey L. 1995. American plastic: a cultural history. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

[2] Ibid  9

[3] Ibid 31

[4] Ibid 175, 180

[5] Ibid 179

[6] Ibid  283

[7] Hughes, Thomas Parke. 1989. American genesis: a century of invention and technological enthusiasm, 1870-1970. New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Viking.

Welcome

As a grad student in the history of science concerned about the utter lack of new media in the field, I have decided to dedicate this blog to topic in the History of Science, Medicine, Technology, Mathematics and the Environment. I may also talk about other historical topics. I plan on posting book reviews, comments on some past events, updates on my research and whatever else strikes my fancy. For my first post, I would like to draw attention to some wonderful research tools for those interested in this topic.
Common-place http://www.common-place.org/
This though not really to do with history of science per say is one of the best examples of how historians can use new media. This online journal is amazing. The articles are clearly written and accessible for the layman but also very scholarly and an excellent resource for the academic. Though clearly a niche journal for those interested in the nineteenth century America, it is a great tool for all academic leaning people or those who just like to read some good history with wonderful images.
National Library of Medicine Online Syllabus Archive http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/collections/digital/syllabi/
This is amazing. It is really just for those who need some history of medicine but one of the best resources that I have ever encountered. You can find about a hundred or more syllabi from classes taught on the history of medicine which you can sort by professor, institution, or class title. Most importantly-for us doing our own research-you can sort by subject. This means I can find a list of readings, both books and articles, relating to everything from French medicine to the history of addiction to the history of human experimentation.
Now, I know these are only two, but since I have 2 research papers, grant applications and a few short historiographies all due in the next two weeks, I best be off for the time being. Cheers!