THE SALPÊTRIÈRE AND THE BEGINNING OF PSYCHIATRY

         Some of Paris’ largest hospitals originated with far different purposes than medical care. France was exhausted after the Thirty Years’ War, ending in 1648, and a subsequent civil war that further ruined the economy and drove thousands of impoverished citizens into the capital. To prevent public unrest, leading members of the Parlement won a royal edict from the young Louis XIV to create the Hôpital Général, a group of buildings to shelter the poor and to provide both religious and work-oriented instruction. In relation to medical history, three buildings of the Hôpital Général stand out: the Bicêtre (for men), La Pitié (for children), and the Salpêtrière (for women). The Salpêtrière occupied the old city arsenal, its name derived from the saltpeter used to manufacture gunpowder. 

The Salpêtrière shortly after the chapel tower was added (Wikipedia)

A large chapel, whose dome dominates the structure, went up in the later 1600s as part of an overall expansion. 

         The poor and disabled filled most beds. Those with medical/surgical problems went to the Hôtel Dieu, Paris’ central hospital. Mentally ill and epileptic women, categorized at the time as custodial problems, lived in separate divisions, often enchained and ill-treated. In 1684 a prison was added to house prostitutes and other female “undesirables” and soon earned a bad name. 

Prostitutes on the way to the Salpêtrière, by Etienne Seurat, 1755 (Wikipedia)

        In the early 1700s the government dispatched hundreds of women from the prison to populate French colonies in the New World, settled by men. In 1792, during the French Revolution, a drunken mob entered the prison, dragged 45 women out and massacred them. Order was eventually restored and in 1795 authorities abolished the prison.

Medicalization of the Salpêtrière began only in 1780 with the inauguration of an infirmary, followed by a resident doctor in 1783, thereby reducing the number of sick previously dispatched to the Hôtel Dieu.     

         The Revolution brought about extensive changes in the medical world. The new government founded medical schools that accepted students and faculty based on merit. The hospices assumed new medical functions, offering abundant patient material for teaching and study. Autopsies revealed new information on disease processes and bedside teaching flourished. Introduction of the stethoscope and the rediscovery of percussion opened new methods of premortem diagnosis. At the Salpêtrière, an important step was the appointment of Dr. Philippe Pinel as medical director in 1795.

         Philippe Pinel was born in 1745 in the Department of Tarn,

Phillipe Pinel (Wikipedia)

southern France. His father and both grandfathers were physicians. At the University of Toulouse, he studied mathematics and obtained a degree in medicine. He moved to Montpellier to further his medical studies, supporting himself by tutoring in mathematics and Latin. Next, he moved to Paris, surviving at first by tutoring. He advanced slowly, partly due to extreme shyness, wrote medical articles, became editor of the Gazette de Santé, translated William Cullen’s Institutes of Medicine, and met important physicians who appreciated his learning. After the French Revolution, in 1793, he received an appointment as “physician of the infirmaries” at the Bicêtre Hôpital, a hospice similar to the Salpêtrière but reserved for men. 

In Ward 7, containing 700 mentally ill men, Pinel he found the “governor” (administrator), Jean Baptist Pussin, managing the patients without chains or beatings, contrary to the usual practice at the time. Pussin penned a summary of his experience, probably at the request of Pinel, in which he noted that patients responded well to gentle treatment. For those who persisted with violent behavior he used what is now called a straitjacket, allowing the patient some movement without risk to others. Pinel, impressed, presented the novel method of care to the Society of Natural History, a politically neutral haven for physicians during the chaotic revolutionary days, in 1794, acknowledging the work of Pussin.

         The next year, Pinel was transferred to the Salpêtrière as “physician in chief,” and brought Pussin with him. Imbued with scientific sentiments of the enlightenment, Pinel embarked on a study of over 1,000 patients to help plan treatments. He combined statistics and probability techniques and emphasized the value of experiments. He wrote that experiments must “fairly report the proportion of positive and failed results, all of which are instructive. It must therefore be based on the theory of probability which must henceforth be basic to medical therapies.” (Weiner, “Philippe Pinel in the Twenty-First Century”) The historian Edwin Acknerknacht has called him the “actual father of the numerical method in medicine.” 

For the mentally ill, Pinel instituted a kind, though firm, rehabilitation program that included a detailed history of the illness and the patient’s background and usually advised a work program. He reduced bleeding and many medicines as treatments.

1857 Lithograph by Armand Gautier:  Personifications of dementia, megalomania, acute mania, melancholia, idiocy, hallucination, erotic mania and paralysis at la Salpêtrière. (Wellcome Library)

    He found time to write texts, including a book on mental illness and one on internal medicine and taught at the University. His

Pinel's text on mental illness,
first ed.,1801 (year 9 in
Revolution calendar)

students included Xavier Bichat and René Laennec. After the restoration of the monarchy, the liberal Pinel was dismissed from the Salpètriére in 1822. Though an important figure in many ways, he is primarily remembered today as a father of modern psychiatry. Pussin’s role is under-appreciated. Similar approaches to the mentally ill were also underway in England, the German states, and America.

Two striking paintings commemorate Pinel’s work. The first, commissioned in 1849 by the Académie de Médecine, shows Pinel dramatically gesturing toward an attendant, presumably Pussin, who is removing chains from an emaciated, elderly man in the Bicêtre, a depiction that distorts the role of Pussin. (Painting and information on artist viewable at: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/207397

        The other, set in the Salpêtrière, shows Pinel supervising the release from chains of a somewhat dazed woman, again ignoring Pussin. It hangs now in the Salpêtrière.

 Pinel at la Salpêtrière (1876) by Tony Robert-Fleury (Wikipedia)

The Salpêtrière today is a huge hospital complex, particularly famous for its neurology center, created by the famous Jean-Martin Charcot. But that story is for another time.

Front entrance of the Salpêtrière today. The chapel dome is behind entrance. (by author)

SOURCES:

 

Ackerknecht, E, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848. 1967, J Hopkins Press.

 

Foucault, M, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. 1965, Random House.

 

Weiner, D B, “The Apprenticeship of Philippe Pinel.” Clio Medica 1978; 13 (2): 125-33.

 

Weiner, D B, “Philippe Pinel in the Twenty-First Century.” Chapter in Wallace, E R and Gach, J, History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology. 2008, Springer.

 

Weiner, D B, “The Madman in the Light of Reason: Enlightenment Psychiatry.” Chapter in Wallace, E R and Gach, J, History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology. 2008, Springer.

 

Kushner, I, “The Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris and Its Role in the Beginnings of Modern Rheumatology.” J Rheumatology 2011; 38 (9): 1990-93.

 

Hurwitz, L J, “L’Hôpital de La Salpêtrière, Paris.” BMJ 1962; Apr 28, 1196-7.

 

Ruiz-Gomez, N and Liebrenz, M, “The Ties that Bind Past and Present: Tony Robert-Fleury, Philippe Pinel and the Salpêtrière.” Forensic Science International: Mind and Law 2021; 2: 1-7. 

 

McHugh, T J, “The Hôpital Général, the Parisian Elites and Crown Social Policy During the Reign of Louis XIV.” French History 2001; 15 (3): 235-53.

 

         

          

 

         

         

 THE ORIGINS OF BYSSINOSIS 

         In February 1842, the relatively new town of Lowell, Massachusetts welcomed Charles Dickens during a tour through America. A business group in Boston had founded Lowell in the 1820s, aiming to create a “model city.” The principle business, the Lowell textile factory, employed young women from nearby farms who lived in company residences equipped with a piano, a library,

Charles Dickens at the time of his
visit (Wikipedia)

and facilities to publish their own magazine. A nearby hospital provided medical care. After some two or three years of work the women returned to their homes, presumably to contemplate marriage.

Dickens, familiar with the poor working conditions in textile mills in England, was surprised by the healthy appearance of the Lowell workers. He wrote, “They were healthy in appearance, many of them remarkably so, and had the manners and deportment of young women, not of degraded brutes of burden.” This, despit a twelve-hour workday. A local physician, Dr. Elisha Bartlett, also the town mayor, agreed, saying, “the manufacturing population of this city is the healthiest portion of the population.” The young Elisha Bartlett became influential. After a

Elisha Bartlett (Wikipedia)

stint as itinerant professor, he studied with Pierre Louis in Paris. On return, he produced important works on fevers in the U.S. and promoted Louis’ statistical approach to medicine, eventually rising to a professorship at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

         Dickens and Bartlett would have rendered a different opinion of cotton factories a few decades later. After the Civil War, as America’s industrial revolution accelerated, the machinery in the mills became larger, noisier, and created more dust. Immigrant labor replaced local farm girls, living quarters were more crowded, water supplies became contaminated, and epidemics sprouted. “Consumption” was widespread in and out of the mills. The relation of inhalation of cotton fibers to symptoms of tuberculosis was not clear.

         Within the mills cotton dust filled the air, both from processing cotton and a process known as sizing. To improve the quality of fibers, jets of warm water sprayed into the rooms. The result was a mixture of heat, moist dust and loud noise. One physician described the factory air as “one floating mass of cotton particles, which none but those accustomed to it can breathe…” How harmful this was aroused controversy, since some workers seemed unaffected over years of exposure. As more complicated machinery developed, the noise became so loud that hearing impairment was a risk. The noise level reached 94 to 103 decibels. This compares to 90 decibels for a pneumatic drill at 10 feet or the 97 decibels of a 1992 disco. The heat of the workplace added to the strain.

         

Textile mill, Lancashire. Imagine the noise and dust. (Wikipedia)

         The discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus by Koch in 1882 settled the debate on whether tuberculosis was communicable. In Massachusetts, post-Civil War cotton factory workers frequently developed tuberculosis. Separating its effects from the effects of dust proved difficult. The workers lived in confined home conditions, often had marginal diets, and labored in crowded factory rooms, all conducive to tuberculosis spread. Studies showed that tubercle bacilli were more numerous in dust samples from rooms moistened with sprays. The item of greatest contention, though, was the shuttle. The mechanical looms shot shuttles back and forth at lightning speed that unraveled the weft as they went. When a length of weft ended, a

Shuttle. Weft in center, sucked 
through hole near top (Wikipedia)

worker would rearm the spindle and suck the new thread through a hole in one end, a maneuver called “kissing the shuttle.” The spindles were not cleaned or substituted between aspirations, leading to claims that tuberculosis and other diseases were transmitted by this route. 

The growth in population, increased disease outbreaks, and mounting sewage problems in Lowell and elsewhere persuaded the state to commission the famous Report of the Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts by Lemuel Shattuck, issued in 1850. Following recommendations in the report, Massachusetts created, in 1869, the first public health department in the U.S. that remained permanent. California followed a year later.

        

"Shuttle Girl" Drawing by Winslow Homer, from The Song of the Sower by
William Cullen Bryant (Internet Archive) Wefts are in the box below. 

     High tuberculosis rates in mill workers and strikes over wage issues prompted the new Massachusetts Board of Health to inspect mill premises and examine personnel. Workers, though, often did not disclose symptoms to doctors or asked them not to identify them as tubercular, fearing an ensuing loss of wages. Despite that, health department findings led to laws that improved ventilation, regulated humidity levels, and ensured clean water and better sewage in the towns. In 1911 the suction shuttle was banned. Non-contagious disease, such as lung conditions due to cotton fibers, received little attention.

Workers still complained of tightness of the chest, especially on Monday evenings following a weekend of breathing clean air. Many long-term workers developed chronic lung disease, including nonsmokers. The term that emerged to label these conditions was “byssinosis.” The word byssus refers to a very fine, silky cotton or flax fiber. Ludwig Hirt, a German author of an 1871 book on occupational disease, applied the name lyssinosis pulmonum to cotton workers’ lung complaints. A few years later (1877), Adrien Proust, a prominent French public health official and father of the writer

Adrien Proust (Wikipedia)

Marcel Proust, pointed out that Hirt should have written byssinosis since lyssa was the German word for rabies. To Proust, then, we owe the current name for a collection of pulmonary symptoms related to working in textile mills. X-ray and pathology findings have been inconsistent, making the diagnosis primarily clinical.

By the time byssinosis was being seriously investigated, the textile industry had moved to the southern U.S. Today much of the current literature on byssinosis comes from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other sites where the textile industry has concentrated in recent years. 

No essay next month, I am traveling. See you in November.

 

         

SOURCES:

 

Greenlees, J, When the Air Became Important: A Social History of the New England and Lancashire Textile Industries. 2019; Rutgers Univ Press.

 

Rooke, G B, “The Pathology of Byssinosis.” Chest 1981; 79 (4) Suppl: 67S-71S

 

CDC, NIOSH, Criteria for a Recommended Standard…Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust. 1974; US Dept Health, Education, and Welfare.

 

Massoud, A, “The Origin of the Term ‘Byssinosis.’” Brit J Industr Med 1964; 21: 162.

 

Dickens, C, American Notes for General Circulation and Pictures from Italy. 1913 edit. of 1842 version.

 

Louttit, C, “Lowell Revisited: Dickens and the Working Girl.” Dickens Quarterly 2007; 24 (1): 27-36.

 

Huntington, E, An Address on the Life, Character, and Writings of Elisha Bartlett, MD, MMSS. 1856; S J Varney, Lowell.

 

Corn, J K, “Byssinosis – An Historical Perspective.” Amer J Indust Med 1981; 2: 331-52.

 

Greenlees, J, “Stop Kissing and Steaming!: Tuberculosis and the Occupational Health Movement in the Massachusetts and Lancashire Cotton Weaving Industries.” Urban History 2005; 32 (2): 223-246.

 THE EYES HAVE IT: THE EARLY DAYS 

OF OPHTHALMOLOGY

 

         For many years, mankind endured diseases of the eyes with little remedy. Infections, especially from gonorrhea and syphilis, cataracts, injuries, and the ravages of untreated glaucoma were prevalent. Physicians had few remedies. Their inexperience was evident when a wave of “Egyptian ophthalmia” swept through Europe and England in the opening days of the 19^th century, introduced by Napoleon’s troops from a campaign in Egypt. The disease, now known as trachoma, and characterized by swollen, purulent eyes, eyelashes that scraped the cornea, corneal scarring, and blindness, resisted effective treatment. No department of ophthalmology existed at the time in Europe.

The first university chair of ophthalmology in the world was held by Georg Josef Beer, in Vienna. Beer had studied under the

Joseph Beer (Wikipedia)

Maltese anatomist and surgeon, Joseph Barth, who lectured on diseases of the eye. After graduating in 1786, Beer opened a private practice in his small apartment in Vienna focused on eye disease, treating the poor, mainly at his own expense. Twenty-six years later (1812), with no help from Barth, having earned a reputation on his own, he was appointed professor of ophthalmology at the University of Vienna.

Beer produced a two-volume practical text on eye disease. The text, though modern for its time, still cited contaminated air as the cause of purulence and recommended bleeding and leeches as treatments. But the new specialty was established. One of Beer’s pupils, Johan Nepomuk Fischer, founded a

Ferdinand Arlt (Wikipedia)

department of ophthalmology in Prague. His assistant, Ferdinand Arlt, the son a blacksmith, had trained in pathology with Carl von Rokitansky, the brilliant pathologist at Vienna’s Allgemeine Krankenhaus. He brought modern pathology and histology to the specialty and after succeeding Fischer in Prague assumed the prestigious ophthalmology chair in Vienna in 1856.

Two discoveries in midcentury dramatically enhanced the profession: the introduction of anesthesia in 1848 and the invention of the ophthalmoscope by Herman Helmholtz in 1851, both huge advances. For the first time doctors could operate without exquisite pain and could peer inside the eye. 

 The breakthroughs are reflected in Arlt’s three-volume text that grounded ophthalmology on a more scientific basis. First appearing in 1850, the work went through five editions in seven years and included ophthalmoscopic discoveries. Arlt also was the first to elucidate the cause of myopia: elongation of the longitudinal axis of the eye. He improved on methods of removing pterygia and developed new surgical procedures for complications of trachoma. 

One of Arlt’s students, Albrecht von Graefe, was awarded the

Albrecht von Graefe (Wellcome Library)

first chair of ophthalmology in Berlin. He founded the first journal devoted to ophthalmology, Archiv für Ophthalmologie. Graefe was a kindly man and after his death, three of his colleagues, including Arlt, renamed the journal Albrecht von Graefe’s Archiv für Ophthalmologie in his honor. 

Early Helmholtz ophthalmoscope owned by 
Albrecht von Graefe (National Museum of Health
and Medicine)

As an early user of the ophthalmoscope, Graefe was the first to describe changes in glaucoma from increased intraocular pressure, to describe swelling of the optic disc due to increased intracranial pressure, and record changes in the vessels, such as embolism of the central retinal artery. Tragically, Graefe developed tuberculosis and died in 1870 at the age of 42.

Von Graefe was well-known in Berlin. This image of him treating a young woman is from
a popular illustrated magazine, Die Gartenlaube, 1857 (Internet Archive)

Franz Cornelius Donders, his friend and professor in Utrecht, invented a tonometer to measure intraocular pressure and elucidated the mechanism of accommodation. His investigations of visual acuity

Snellen eye chart (Wikipedia)

and astigmatism led to the proper prescription of corrective lenses. His close associate was Herman Snellen, creator of the Snellen eye charts in use today.

In England, most of the early victims of the trachoma epidemic were military men. In one regiment, 636 out of 700 men were afflicted. John Cunningham Saunders, a young surgeon, on the advice of his superior, Astley Cooper, opened a practice for eye

John Cunningham Saunders 
(Wikipedia)

diseases. Saunders quickly recognized the extent of eye disease and especially the social consequences of blindness and, with state assistance, founded the London Dispensary for Eye Disease in 1805, which grew into the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital of today. 

The European influence extended to America. In 1817 the Baltimore physician George Frick traveled to Vienna to study under Beer and returned to open a practice in eye disease. He published the first American text on ophthalmology, A Treatise on Diseases of the Eye, based largely on Beer’s tome and in use for

George Frick (From Hubble, A A,
The Development of Ophthalmology 
in America, Internet Archive)

some years. He taught at the University of Maryland and is considered by many to be the “father of American ophthalmology.”  In 1816 Edward Reynolds,  just ending a preceptorship under the Boston surgeon, John Collins Warren, and two recent graduates of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, Edward Delafield and John Kearney Rodgers, journeyed to England. All three (and the poet, Keats) studied under John Cunningham Saunders. There they learned new surgical techniques, including the treatment of cataract by lens extraction (rather than by “couching,” an earlier process that dislodged the opaque lens, leaving it in the eye). 

On their return, the Americans founded two enduring institutions. Reynolds, with a second physician, established the Boston Eye Infirmary for the poor, later known as the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, which exists to this day. Delafield and Rogers founded the New York Eye Infirmary, also providing free eye care to the city’s poor. It was the second permanent such institution in America, now affiliated with Mount Sinai Medical School. Both infirmaries were based on Saunders’ institute in London. The AMA recognized the specialty of ophthalmology with the founding of the American Ophthalmic Association in 1864.

 From Hubble, A A, The Development of Ophthalmology 
in America (Internet Archive)

         Knowledge of bacteriology in the late 19^th century allowed prevention and control of eye infections, the next major step toward modern eye care. Advancing technology continues to improve eye care and reduce blindness.

 

SOURCES:

Lesky, E, The Vienna Medical School of the 19^th Century. 1976, Johns Hopkins Univ Press.

 

Adler, F H, “Sketches from the Life of Albrecht von Graefe.” Ann Med Hist, 1928; 10(3): 284-90.

 

Rohrbach, J M, “Albrecht von Graefe in the Present, the Past, and the Future.” Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2020; 258: 1141-47.

 

Laios, K, et al, “Carl Ferdidand von Arlt, Ritter von Bergschmitt (1812-1887): A Pioneer in Ophthalmology.” Acta Medica Academica 2019; 48 (3): 331-36.

 

Ivanisevic´, M, “Prof. Dr. Carl Ferdinand Ritter von Arlt (1812-1887): His Life and Work During his Ophthalmological Career in Prague.” Čes. a slov. Oftal., 79, 2023, No. 1, p. 36–40. (available in English at: https://cs-ophthalmology.cz/en/journal/articles/268

Pearce, J M S, “The Ophthalmoscope: Helmholtz’s Augenspiegel.” European Neurology 2009; 61: 244-49.

Lyle, T K, “Some of the Great Historical Figures Associated with Moorfields.” Brit J Ophthalmology1961; 45: 251-58.

SchmidtiWyklicky, G and Gröger, H, “Georg Joseph Beer (1763–1821). Leben und Werk des Begründers der ältesten Universitäts-Augenklinik.” Spektrum Augenheilkunde 2012; 26: 266-72.

Duke-Elder, S, “Moorfields and British Ophthalmology.” Proc Royal Soc Med 1964; 58 (7): 541-45.

Tower, P, “George Frick: Factors Influencing Early Nineteenth Century Ophthalmology.” AMA Arch Ophthalmology 1958; 60: 989-94.

Kara, G B, “A Historical Review of the department of Ophthalmology at the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary.” N.Y. State J Medicine 1973; 73 (23): 1-10.

Snyder, C, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary: Studies in its History. 1984; Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary.

 

 

 

 

 

 RICHARD MEAD AND PLAGUE

 

         In May 1719, several crewmembers on trading vessels arriving at Marseilles from the Middle East fell ill and died. The Chief Surgeon of Health found no evidence of contagion, only that the men suffered a "malignant fever."  By July, however, plague was recognized, the city was overwhelmed with the dead and dying, the well-to-do were fleeing, doctors and clergy were fleeing, even food producers such as bakers and butchers left town. The city was desperate and short of food. Beggars and galley slaves were enlisted to dig mass graves and bury the dead and smokey fires lit up the streets. Hospitals were overwhelmed and makeshift facilities sprang up. All to no avail. The final tally of the dead is estimated at between 40,000 and 60,000, with more in the surrounding Provence area. 

Translation of de Croissante's
work (Internet Archive)

       

         The following year, the “Counsellor and Orator” of Marseilles, Pichatty de Croissainte, published a journal of the plague, detailing the tragic events. Across the Channel, an English translation of de Croissainte’s journal appeared almost immediately. England’s last experience with plague had been the great London epidemic in 1665, a devastating event still in public memory. Daniel Defoe’s Journal of the Plague of London of 1722 is thought to be based on de Croissante’s work. The British Secretary of State asked London’s most prominent physician, Dr. Richard Mead, to advise on measures to prevent plague from visiting British shores. 

Richard Mead (Wikipedia)

         Richard Mead was born in Stepney, near London, in 1673. Following a nonconformist primary school education, he studied at Utrecht, Leyden (botany and medicine), and Padua (philosophy and medicine). He opened a practice in London in 1696, rising quickly in prominence. He gave anatomy lectures to the Company of Surgeons, was appointed physician to St. Thomas’ Hospital, received a medical degree from Oxford, a fellowship in the College of Physicians, and was elected to the Royal Society. He encouraged the wealthy Thomas Guy to fund a hospital for “incurables,” now the famous Guy’s Hospital. John Radcliffe, the leading physician in London (after whom the illustrious Radcliffe Infirmary is named), and physician to William III, took a liking to

John Radcliffe (Wikipedia)

Mead. When Radcliffe died in 1714, Mead moved into his house and inherited his fashionable gold-headed cane. The cane passed to a few later distinguished physicians and currently resides at the College of Physicians. Gold-Headed Cane awards for excellence in medicine are now granted by several medical societies and schools.

         

John Radcliffe's Cane on cover of The Gold-
Headed Cane by William Macmichael
 (Internet Archive)

Mead was an interesting choice to advise on plague. He had no direct experience with plague but carefully studied its history. He was one of the best educated men of his time, a friend of scientific figures like Halley (of comet fame) and Newton, of leading physicians, and a schoolmate and correspondent of Herman Boerhaave, the famous clinician in Leyden. He had published a work on poisons and a work concerning celestial influences on health based on the new Newtonian mechanics, a book that influenced Franz Mesmer in his formulation of the magnetic fluid theory of disease. 

         Mead condensed his thoughts in a brief work entitled A Short Discourse Concerning Pestilential Contagion, and the Methods to Be Used to Prevent It. On page two Mead writes, “Contagion is propagated by three causes, the air; diseased persons; and goods transported from infected places.” Mead recognized that plague moved from place to place, ruling out a generally

Mead's work on plague and contagion
(Internet Archive)

contaminated atmosphere, a common “non-contagionist” target, as a source of epidemics. When Mead spoke of air, he was referring to local air, into which the sick released poisonous atoms, a phenomenon to explain how people not in direct contact with the sick still developed plague. These “contagious atoms” (his words) caused disease nearby but were dispersed by wind to become ineffective more distantly, something he compared to London’s smokey air. The ideas are similar to those voiced by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546, though Mead does not mention him. Neither man could have known about rats and fleas as carriers and transmitters of plague but Mead’s concept of contagion in the local atmosphere is a reasonable substitute. Thomas Sydenham, incorrectly, held that epidemics resulted from an interaction of atmospheric factors and emanations from the earth, a concept stemming from Hippocrates.

In short, Mead concluded that a quarantine would be effective. A quarantine was duly invoked, and England remained free of the pestilence. Considering that rats sneaking ashore could have foiled the quarantine measures, luck was probably a factor, though the basic idea has proven to be sound. Mead’s book on plague went through nine editions and appeared in several languages. Though some recommendations changed, the basic ideas remained the same.

         Mead was also involved in the first experiment with variolation (inoculation with live smallpox material to produce immunity), introduced by Lady Mary Montagu from Turkey. Six prisoners condemned to death received inoculation into the skin. All survived and were set free. Mead and other physicians involved in the trials recommended variolation, even in the face of a 2-3% mortality from the procedure.

         In the 1740s, Mead helped establish a foundling hospital. He, in concert with the artist William Hogarth, encouraged artists to show their creations in the hospital’s halls as a way to raise funds. 

Foundling Hospital (Wellcome Library and Wikipedia)

Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, and Hogarth exhibited works. It was the first public art gallery in London and influenced the formation of the Royal Academy of Art. 

Foundling Hospital Chapel, where Handel regularly performed his Messiah.
(Wikipedia)

         Mead wrote other works, managed a large practice, dispensed medical consultations to apothecaries in coffee houses (common at the time), collected books and works of art, and was a generous humanitarian. He was considered by C.E.A. Winslow, former professor of public health at Yale University School of Medicine, and others, one of the pioneers of preventive medicine.

         

SOURCES:

 

Meade, R H, In the Sunshine of Life: a Biography of Dr. Richard Mead, 1673-1754. 1974; Dorrance & Co., Philadelphia.

 

Winslow, C E A, “A Physician of Two Centuries Ago: Richard Mead and his Contributions to Epidemiology.” Bull History of Medicine 1935; 3: 509-44.

 

Roos, A M, “Luminaries in Medicine: Richard Med, James Gibbs, and Solar and Lunar Effects on the Human Body in Early Modern England.” Bull History of Medicine 2000; 74(3): 433-457.

 

Williamson, R, “The Plague of Marseilles and the Experiments of Professor Anton Deidier on its Transmission.” Medical History 1958; 2: 237-52.

 

Hattie, W H, “Richard Mead: A father of Preventive Medicine.” Canad Medical Assoc Journal 1928; 19(1): 101-5.

 

Zuckerman, A, “Plague and Contagionism in Eighteenth-Century England: The Role of Richard Mead.” 2004; Bull Hist Med 78(2): 273-308.

         

Anon, “The Great Plague of Marseilles.” BMJ  1900; May 12, p1172.

 

Mead, R, A Short Discourse Concerning Pestilential Contagion, and the Methods to be Used to Prevent It. London, 1720.

A full index of past essays is available at: 

https://museumofmedicalhistory.org/j-gordon-frierson%2C-md

 AZTEC CONTRIBUTIONS TO EUROPEAN 

PHARMACEUTICALS

 

         When Hernando Cortés and his troops entered the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan in 1519 they were stunned. Huge temples and palaces surpassed many of their own. Sweepers kept the streets cleaner than in Spain, and aqueducts carried in fresh water from the nearby mountains. A knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, two separate calendars, and pictorial writing revealed unexpected sophistication. Colorful markets tempted the troops, including one specializing in herbs and medicines, as noted in a letter by Cortés: “There is a street set apart for the sale of herbs, where can be found every sort of root and medical herb which grows in the country. There are houses like apothecary shops, where prepared medicines are sold, as well as liquids, ointments, and plasters.”

         Cortés found that the Aztecs enjoyed a well-organized medical system. Physicians, known as ticitl, took care of most ills using a combination of herbals and contact with various gods. Surgeons and midwives also practiced their specialties.  Extensive botanical gardens in and near the capital supplied the wide variety of herbals used as medicines. Aztec experts classified and named the plants and doctors prescribed them internally and externally. The Spaniards appreciated the skills of Aztec practitioners sufficiently for Columbus to suggest to Charles V that he need not send additional physicians to Mexico.

A ticitl (robed figure on mat and above) making a diagnosis
(from Codex Magliabechiano, folio 78r, Wikimedia Commons)

         A number of these herbal remedies entered the medical practices in Europe. One of the first was tobacco. “Tabaco,” originally the indigenous name for a y-shaped pipe to enable powder of any plant to be sniffed into each nostril (used mainly for hallucinogenics), became the name for the leaf. Columbus had noticed Caribbean natives applying leaves for wounds and illnesses

Nicolás Monardes (Wikipedia)

and others observed it being chewed, smoked, or mixed with other plants as poultices. When it arrived at the docks of Seville, the prominent Seville physician, Nicolás Monardes, praised its 
marvelous properties in an influential book (first edition in 1565) on medicines from “our West Indies.” The plant grew well in European soil.

         In 1560 the French ambassador to Portugal, Jean Nicot, found that it cured a number of ailments, including skin lesions, and popularized it. The French called it Nicotaine (Nicotiana in Latin, now the genus designation), and it appeared in numerous materia medica. Classified as “hot and dry” in

Jean Nicot (Wikipedia)

terms of Galen, it neutralized cold humors causing various ailments and was used topically and rectally. Nicolas Culpepper praised it in England. Eventually, smoking the leaves largely replaced its use as a medicine.

         Monardes also described sarsaparilla, also considered by European medical writers a hot and dry medicine and sudorific. It enjoyed brief popularity as an antisyphilitic but subsequently was used mainly for rheumatism and fevers. It became popular in patent medicines in the nineteenth century (though sassafras was often the main ingredient), was taken for a variety of ailments, and often mixed with alcohol or opium.

Patent medicine ad for sarsaparilla (Wellcome Library)

         The cathartic jalap, used liberally by practitioners like Benjamin Rush, was derived from Ipomoea purga, a Mexican plant. Monardes called it “Rhubarb of the Indies” after the cathartic rhubarb, though there is no botanical relation of the two plants. It was used for fevers, coughs, and chronic diseases as well as a cathartic.

         The medicine that achieved the most popularity was an extract of the wood of the Guaicum tree (Guaicum officinale), found in many of the Caribbean islands and usually referred to as lignum sanctum (holy wood) or, in Spain, guaiacum. Spaniards had noticed its use by locals for what apparently was syphilis and it soon arrived in Europe for the same purpose. Mercury had been the standard anti-syphilitic,

Ulrich von Hutten (Wikipedia)

used in doses that caused numerous side effects. Ulrich von Hutten, a notable German humanist and supporter of Martin Luther, wrote the first major work on lignum sanctum in 1519. He described his own case of syphilis, how to prepare the wood (a hot water extract), and outlined a treatment that included preparation with a cathartic and a special diet. Perhaps more well-known today is the work of Fracastoro, whose work on syphilis praised lignum sanctum and gave the disease its modern name. The enthusiastic recommendations of Hutten and Fracastoro stimulated a high demand for the wood. But the Fugger family of Augsburg had secured from Charles V a monopoly on guaicum in exchange for a loan. Prices went too high for patients of modest means until 1525, when the monopoly expired. Monardes also considered it helpful against scurvy, rheumatism, and “almost all chronical distempers.” Guaiacum lasted until the early 1800s though mercury persisted for syphilis until the advent of arsenicals.

Right: cutting, measuring, boiling guaiacum.
Left: administrating guaiacum. (Wikipedia)

 

The Spanish domains yielded other new medicines, some from non-Aztec areas. Extracts of bark of the chinchona tree in Bolivia and Peru were effective against malarial fevers, and eventually yielded the active ingredient quinine. Ipecacuanha root, from Central America, served as an emetic and sweating agent. It was especially popular in an English preparation called “Dover’s Powder,” a combination of ipecacuanha, opium, and potassium salts, used as a sweating agent to ward off colds and other fevers in early stages. Cocaine, from coca leaves chewed by Peruvian natives to allay hunger or for pleasure, came later as an ingredient in tonics, as a local anesthetic, and as an addicting drug. Peruvian balsam served as an aid to wound healing. Bezoars from Peruvian llamas were valued as healing agents, superior to bezoars from elsewhere. Hallucinogens, mainly from mushrooms, did not prove popular as European medicines, though used in Mexico for magical and religious purposes. 

         By the middle eighteenth century Spain alone was importing about 155 tons of New World medicinal plants annually, supplemented by copious imports from other countries. Many of these products are with us today.

 

SOURCES:

 

Gänger, S, “World Trade in Medicinal Plants from Spanish America, 1717-1815.” Medical History2015; 59 (1): 44-62.

 

Guerra, F, “Aztec Medicine.” Medical History 1966; 10: 315-338.

 

Estes, J W, “The European Reception of the First Drugs from the New World.” Pharmacy in History1995; 37 (1): 3-23.

 

Munger, R S, “Guaicum, the Holy Wood from the New World.” J Hist of Medicine 1949; 4: 196-229.

 

Hope, J, Lectures on the Materia Medica: Containing the Natural History of Drugs, their Virtues, and Doses. v 2. (from manuscript of Dr. Charles Alston)

 

Monardes, Nicolas, Joyfull newes out of the new-found worlde. Wherein are declared, the rare and singuler vertues of divers herbs, trees, plantes, oyles and stones, with their applications, as well to the use of phisicke, as of chirurgery ..., trans by John Frampton, 1596 (online in Wellcome Library).

 

A full index of past essays is available at: 

https://museumofmedicalhistory.org/j-gordon-frierson%2C-md