University of Oklahoma Graduate College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE PARASITIC WORMS IN EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE, 1650-1810 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JULIE HAYDEN GRISSOM Norman, Oklahoma 2014 PARASITIC WORMS IN EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE, 1650-1810 A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Kathleen Crowther, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Steven Livesey ______________________________ Dr. Kerry Magruder ______________________________ Dr. Sarah Tracy ______________________________ Dr. Katherine Hirschfeld © Copyright by JULIE HAYDEN GRISSOM 2014 All Rights Reserved. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Kathleen Crowther, Dr. Steven Livesey, Dr. Kerry Magruder, Dr. Sarah Tracy, and Dr. Katherine Hirschfeld for their time, insight, and patience. I am especially grateful to my committee chair, Dr. Crowther, for spending countless hours commenting on drafts and offering much needed encouragement, motivation, and advice. Truly, this project would have never reached completion without her determined refusal to give up on me. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Peter Barker and Dr. Laura Gibbs for introducing me to the fascinating study of the history of science and medicine in the first place, as well as Dr. Stephen Weldon and Dr. JoAnn Palmeri for their ongoing encouragement throughout my graduate studies. I would also like to thank the staff of the History of Science Collections, all of whom were wonderful in helping me locate materials for this project, and my fellow students in the History of Science Department, who have been a constant source of support and inspiration, especially Dr. Cornelia Lambert. And last but not least, I want to profusely thank my lovely family, Lyal, Kira, and Lauren Grissom, for putting up with me all the way through this process and still loving me when I got to the end. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments. iv List of Figures. vi Abstract. viii Introduction. 1 Chapter I: What a Worm Is. 24 I. Defining Worms. 28 II. Why Worms? . 47 III. Marvelous or Mundane? . 57 Chapter II: Worms and Disease. .68 I. Origins of Worms. .71 II. Worms and Disease. 88 III. Prevention and Remedy. .115 Chapter III: Worms as Scientific Objects. 140 I. Observing Worms. 144 II. Writing about Worms. .161 III. Exchanging Worms. .177 Conclusion: What a Worm Is Not. .196 Works Cited. 202 Appendix: Figures. .221 v List of Figures Figure 1.1 Ambroise Paré, Adriaan van de Spiegel, The Workes of the Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey (London, 1649), p. 596. Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine. <http://www.archive.org/details/workesofthatfamo00par>, accessed 3 April 2014. Figure 1.2 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker, De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. 282. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 2.1 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker. De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. 73. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 3.1 Daniel Le Clerc, Danielis Clerici, med. Doct. Historia naturalis et medica latorum lumbricorum, intra hominem & alia animalia, nascentium, ex variis auctoribus & propriis observationibus (Genevae, 1715), Table III, Figures 5-10. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. <http://www.archive.org/details/danielisclericim00lecl>, accessed 3 April 2014. Figure 3.2 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker. De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. 126. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 3.3 Cornelius Gemma, De natvræ divinis characterismis; sev, raris & admirandis spectaculis, causis, indiciis, proprietatibus rerum in partibus vi singulis vniuersi, libri II (Antverpiæ, 1575), p. 101. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 3.4 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker. De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. xiv. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 3.5 Daniel Le Clerc, Danielis Clerici, med. Doct. Historia naturalis et medica latorum lumbricorum, intra hominem & alia animalia, nascentium, ex variis auctoribus & propriis observationibus (Genevae, 1715), Table VI, Figures 1-2. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. <http://www.archive.org/details/danielisclericim00lecl>, accessed 3 April 2014. Figure 3.6 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker. De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. 92, 73, 121-122. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. Figure 3.7 Andry de Bois-Regard, Nicolas, Giorgio Baglivi, Claude Berger, Claude Du Cerf, Guy-Crescent Fagon, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Nicolaas Hartsoeker. De la des vers dans le corps de l'homme: de la nature et des especes de cette maladie; des moyens de (Paris, 1741), p. 319. Image courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries. vii Abstract From antiquity, parasites, and especially worms, were thought to be responsible for human suffering and disease. However, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, worms became the subject of extensive scientific investigations and began to be implicated in a much wider array of diseases. The advent of widespread use of the compound microscope for scientific investigation in the mid-seventeenth century contributed to a flourishing of research into parasitic organisms, particularly worms, and their role in disease. Although historians of medicine have written about the history of parasitology, almost all of these studies begin with the formal establishment of parasitology as a scientific discipline in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The preceding two centuries of parasitological research, however, remain relatively unexamined. In this project, I argue that parasites, especially worms, were important explanatory mechanisms for a wide range of diseases during the early modern period. Thus, the neglect of early modern parasitology by historians of medicine means that we have missed a crucial aspect of medical theory in this period. This project contributes to our understanding of early modern ideas about disease and disease causation by challenging existing historiographical categories. viii One of the vilest Animals in the World is examin’d here with such noble Erudition, as makes us forthwith lose the Idea of its baseness; and all the Disgust which the Matter might cause in us, must give way to the agreeable diversity of Matters of Fact, and the Elegance with which they are related… as important for the practice of Physic as curious for natural History. —M. Guy Crescent Fagon All these Observations, which we have hitherto recited, shew how easie and common a thing it is for Worms to breed in the Body of Man, and consequently how much it behoves the Physicians carefully to watch the Signs by which they may know when their Patients are infested with them. —Nicolas Andry de Bois-Regard ix INTRODUCTION In 1699, the famous Dutch physicist and microscopist Nicholas Hartsoeker (1656-1725) wrote a letter to the French physician Nicolas Andry (1658-1742) in which he commented on the role of worms in human disease: “To tell you my thoughts, Sir, I believe that Worms occasion most Diseases with which Mankind is attack’d, and likewise that those who have the Distempers that are called Venereal, nourish in their Bodies an infinite number of invisible Insects, who gnaw and devour every thing that comes in their way.”1 From antiquity, parasites, and especially worms, were thought to be responsible for human suffering and disease. However, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, worms became the subject of extensive scientific investigations and began to be implicated in a much wider array of diseases. The advent of widespread use of the compound microscope for scientific investigation in the mid-seventeenth century contributed to a flourishing of research into parasitic organisms, particularly worms, and their role in disease. Although historians of medicine have written about the history of parasitology, almost all of these studies begin with the formal establishment 1 A letter from Nicholas Hartsoeker to Nicolas Andry, June 11, 1699. Published in Nicolas Andry de Bois-Regard, An Account of the Breeding of Worms in Human Bodies; Their Nature, and Several Sorts; Their Effects, Symptoms, and Prognostics. With the True Means to Avoid Them, and Med'cines to Cure Them (London: H. Rhodes