Osler and Van Helmont on Bloodletting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J R Coll Physicians edinb 2017; 47: 196–204 | doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2017.221 PAPER The ‘bloody Moloch’: Osler and van Helmont on bloodletting HistoryIML Donaldson1 & Humanities In a passage on the treatment of pneumonia, Osler quoted van Helmont’s Correspondence to: remark that ‘a bloody Moloch presides in the chairs of medicine’. This paper IML Donaldson Abstract explores Helmont’s use of ‘Moloch’ as a term of abuse against the bloodletting Royal College of Physicians of traditional Galenist physicians and his vigorous opposition to the use of of Edinburgh bleeding in treating diseases. The possible reasons for Helmont’s opposition 9 Queen Street to the practice of bloodletting are discussed, leading to the conclusion that it Edinburgh EH2 1JQ arose from his theories of the origin of diseases, reinforced by some observations of its malign UK effects on a patient who had been bled excessively. The question of whether Helmont knew of Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood is explored and the conclusion reached that, Email: if he did, he ignored it completely. Helmont believed that ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ blood coexisted [email protected] in disease and could be affected selectively by bloodletting which, in effect, concentrated the ‘impure’ at the expense of the ‘pure’ blood to the great detriment of the patient. Keywords: bloodletting, Moloch, Osler, van Helmont Declaration of interests: no confl ict of interests declared van Helmont, Osler and blood letting intensity and high fever is, I believe, a good practice. I have seen instances in which it was very benefi cial In his posthumous Ortus medicinæ of 16481 Joan Baptista in relieving the pain and the dyspnoea, reducing the van helmont famously proposed a ‘trial’ of the treatment temperature, and allaying the cerebral symptoms. (Osler3 of fever with and without bloodletting. I have discussed this p. 135) proposal for a trial2 and shown that we can be confi dent that no such trial ever took place. Nevertheless, Helmont the content of osler’s section on pneumonia changed in became famous as a bitter opponent of bloodletting and, successive editions of his textbook. Though he mentions since bleeding was almost universally employed for almost the ‘bloody moloch’ from the fi rst edition in 1892, the any malady in the 17th century, it seems worth exploring reference to louis’s ‘iconoclastic paper’ (of 1835) does the reasons for helmont’s opposition to it. not appear until the third edition of 1898. the fi nal (eighth) edition of 1916 contains the same text about the ‘bloody The great physician William Osler, who practised in the moloch’ as does the third edition. 19th and early 20th centuries, was one of those who drew attention to helmont’s fierce rejection of venesection. So Osler was by no means opposed to the use of bloodletting Osler, however, was a fi rm advocate of early bleeding in the in pneumonia – he recommended it as late as 1916. indeed, treatment of (lobar) pneumonia and of other conditions. in what was to prove the fi nal edition of osler’s book in 1935, Thus, in the third (1898) edition of his textbook Osler3 wrote, by then long edited by MacCrae (Osler had died in 1919), regarding bleeding in the treatment of pneumonia: the advice ‘…to bleed at the very onset…’ of pneumonia was unchanged from that in the early editions. In those The reproach of Van Helmont, that ‘a bloody Moloch editions we fi nd that Osler recommended purging as well presides in the chairs of medicine,’ can not be brought as bloodletting in cardiac failure and in other disorders of against this generation of physicians. before louis’ the circulation as well as in pneumonia. One might conclude iconoclastic paper on bleeding in pneumonia it would that, apart from the use of digitalis, osler’s practice both in have been regarded as almost criminal to treat a case pneumonia and in cardiac failure with peripheral oedema without venesection. We employ it nowadays much more (‘dropsy’) differed from that of galenic practice in the 17th than we did a few years ago, but more often late in the century mainly in that Osler was more circumspect about disease than early. To bleed at the very onset in robust, repeated bloodletting and violent purging than the Galenists healthy individuals in whom the disease sets in with great had been. 1Honorary Librarian, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; Emeritus Professor, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; Emeritus Fellow, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 196 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF EDINBURGH VOLUME 47 ISSUE 2 JUNE 2017 Osler and van Helmont on bloodletting Therapeutic bloodletting in the 21st Figure 1 An 18th century illustration of how Moloch was imagined, century probably based on mediæval Rabbinical commentary. ‘the idol moloch. How the children were put in his fi ery arms as offerings.’ From a book on Bloodletting may still be used very occasionally in acute Jewish religious practices.19 Image courtesy of Universitätsbibliothek, cardiac failure with very severe dyspnoea, which it does Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main. Compare this image with the description given by sandys – see appendix relieve, at least temporarily. But now that rapidly-acting powerful diuretics are available for intravenous administration, venesection is rarely necessary and, though it provides rapid relief of dyspnoea, this relief is temporary and the resultant drop in haemoglobin is a considerable disadvantage. The principal uses of bloodletting now are to reduce excessive levels of stored iron, for example in haemochromatosis and porphyria cutanea tarda and excess of red cells in polycythaemia.4 In a sense one may regard these uses as a formal parallel with the Galenic opinion that bloodletting was appropriate in any plethora. What has changed is the nature of the excess constituting the plethora. Though Osler recommended bloodletting in several conditions in which it was desirable to reduce the cardiac load by reducing the venous return, he pointed out that Helmont was vehemently opposed to bleeding but, as we shall see, his remark about the ‘bloody moloch’ quotes helmont somewhat out of context. Moloch Why Moloch? Moloch or Molech or Molek – all varieties of transliteration of a Hebrew word – appears several times in the Old Testament as the name of a god, probably a Canaanite deity, to whom children were sacrifi ced, perhaps First MOLOCH, horrid King besmear’d with blood by being thrown or dropped into a fi re in, or in front of, of human sacrifi ce, and parents tears, his idol. The practice was denounced by the prophets as Though, for the noyse of Drums and Timbrels loud, abominable. Also in the Old Testament, the cult of Moloch their children’s cries unheard that passed through fi re was associated with a site in the Hinnom valley near To his grim Idol. Jerusalem. The Greek version, Gehenna, of the Aramaic …… name for this valley eventually became a name for hell …… and made his grove because of its association with fiery sacrifices to the The pleasant Vally of HINNOM, TOPHET thence underworld god Moloch. Day’s article in Religion Past and and black gehenna call’d, the Type of Hell. Present5 presents some conclusions of modern scholarship on the Moloch cult but rather obscures the amount of What is not entirely clear, however, is why Helmont, and indeed disagreement among scholars. Since the 17th century the Milton, described moloch as ‘bloody’. osler’s quotation worship of Molech/Molek has attracted much attention by of helmont is probably a slight paraphrase of Chandler’s archaeologists and philologists as well as biblical scholars. translation of helmont’s Latin which will be discussed For a view of the complexity, and diffi culty, of the arguments below in more detail. For the moment, let us consider just and a comprehensive historical overview of the scholarship the ‘bloody’ attribution. helmont wrote: ‘At certe cruentum see heider’s 1984 Yale thesis.6 But, taking account of Moloch, Cathedris praesidere conspicuo medicis’ (‘for I see a the differences in the transliteration of Hebrew names by bloody Moloch to preside in the chairs of medicine’). the latin early biblical commentators and by modern scholars, the adjective translated as ‘bloody’ is cruentum. This adjective commentary of Jerome (ca. 347–420 ad) on Jeremiah,7 translates as bloody in two related, but distinct, senses. First is probably a reasonable approximation to what Helmont it may mean bloody in the literal sense – covered, soaked believed about Moloch and his worship. Jerome was the or spotted with blood. But it may also mean bloody in a principal compiler of the 4th century Latin translation of the fi gurative sense indicating cruelty or bloodthirstiness. In the Bible which later became known as the Vulgate. For more context of helmont’s use it can be taken in either sense – or, information on Jerome’s commentary and a 17th century indeed, in both. milton’s use ‘besmeared with blood of human description of the Valley of Hinnom (Gehinnom/Gehinnon, sacrifi ce’ seems unequivocally literal and does not appear to Ben-Hinnom) see the Appendix. have any basis in Old Testament scripture. Later, in English lay writing of the 18th and 19th centuries, Moloch was used A little after Helmont, Milton echoed all these grim to signal butchery, usually metaphorical, and especially, but associations in Paradise Lost: not exclusively, of children. JUNE 2017 VOLUME 47 ISSUE 2 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF EDINBURGH 197 IML Donaldson given its associations it is not diffi cult to see why helmont – called pleurisy, pleuro-pneumonia and pneumonia – though, a devout Catholic Christian to whom the text of the Vulgate characteristically, he digresses a good deal along the way in would have been familiar – chose Moloch as a term to his attacks on the wicked Galenists and their bloodletting.