Inventarium sive chirurgia magna, Volume One: Text PDF
Preview Inventarium sive chirurgia magna, Volume One: Text
GUIGONIS DE CAULHIACO (GUY DE CHAULIAC) INVENTA RI UM SIVE CHIRURGIA MAGNA VOLUME ONE: TEXT STUDIES IN ANCIENT MEDICINE EDITED BY JOHN SCARBOROUGH VOLUME 14,1 GUIGONIS DE CAULHIACO (GUY DE CHAULIAC) INVENTARIUM SIVE CHIRURGIA MAGNA Volume One: Text edited by Michael R. McV augh EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN 1997 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. ISSN 0925-1421 ISBN 90 04 10706 1 ISBN (set) 90 04 10785 1 © Copyright 1997 by EJ. Brill, Lei.den, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval .rystem, or transmitted in any farm or by any means, el£ctronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission ftom the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items far internal or personal use is granted by EJ. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid direct!Y to The Copyright C/,earance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction ix The Inventarium Proemium Capitulum singulare 2 Rubrice 11 Tractatus primus de anathomia 23 Tractatus secundus de apostematibus, exituris, et pustulis 57 Tractatus tercius de vulneribus 134 Tractatus quartus de ulceribus 206 Tractatus quintus de algebra et extencione et restauracione ossium fractorum et dislocatorum 250 Tractatus sextus de omnibus egritudinibus que non sunt proprie apostemata neque ulcera neque ossium passiones pro quibus habetur recursus ad cyrurgicum 272 Tractatus septimus qui antydotarius dicitur 391 Variant readings 467 PREFACE In 1971 the Early English Text Society published the first of a projected two volumes of The Cyrurgie of Guy de Chau/iac, edited by Margaret S. Ogden. That first volume contained a transcription of a Middle English translation of Guy's lnventarium or Chirurgia magna; the second was planned to include a commentary on the Middle English translator's technique, on his errors and peculiarities of style, but also on the sources of Guy's original Latin version, since errors made by Guy when inter- preting those sources had sometimes left their traces in the subsequent English. By 1981 Dr. Ogden had decided that she would be unable to complete the commentary volume, and she proposed that I should take it over. She and I had long had a personal connection, for I had known her when I was growing up in Ann Arbor while she was at work on the Middle Eng- lish Dictionary, but I had only become aware at the end of my graduate training, in the mid-1960s, that this mother of my high-school friends was at work in the same general area of scholarship-the history of me- dieval medicine-that I had come to mark out for myself. My interest in Arnau de Vilanova and the medical faculty at Montpellier in the early fourteenth century, where Guy was trained, had led to continuing corres- pondence between us and thus made her eventual proposal a natural one. le, It also meant that I felt competent to take over the commentary-but, as I warned her then in 1981, I could not hope to devote much time to Guy for some years to come; I had just committed myself to explore the social history of medicine in Arnau de Vilanova's world, a project that I expec- ted would require many years to complete. She understood the need for delay, and graciously passed over to me all her research materials. In the next few years I was able to set aside a little time for work on the com- mentary, familiarizing myself with the problems involved and sending her a draft of a commentary on book I of the Cyrurgie for her criticism and suggestions, but this was all I was able to do before her death in 1988. My social history was finally published in 1993 and left me free to devote more ofmy time to Guy. viii PREFACE Dr. Ogden had recognized from the beginning that her plans for the commentary were ambitious and that it might have to be altered or re- duced in scope. As I worked more and more on that aspect of the com- mentary that she had done least with, the identification of Guy's Latin sources, and consulted with the editors of the EETS, it became obvious that the eventual product would be far too large to be published as a whole. Realizing that her projected volume might be thought of as com- prising one commentary on the Middle English and a second on the Latin Guy, with only slight overlap between them, I concluded that the two might be dissociated and published separately. To publish a commentary on the Latin Inventarium, however, meant providing an accompanying Latin text, which again raised the problem of undue length, and I am very grateful to Dr. Julian Deahl (and to E. J. Brill) for agreeing to the publication of so large a work. Volume I of this study, therefore, con- tains the complete text of Guy's Inventarium; volume 2 will contain a commentary on the text that identifies the sources of Guy's citations and discusses some aspects of his Latin terminology. Dr. Ogden's commen- tary on the Middle English translation, which was virtually complete at the time of her death, is expected to be published later by the EETS. During the thirty years or so that this work has been in the making in one form or another, many people have offered advice and encourage- ment to its authors: among others, Patrick Browder, Luke Demaitre, Richard Durling, Roger French, Katherine Kube!, Peter Jones, Loren MacKinney, Julia McVaugh, Vivian Nutton, Tiziana Pesenti, Kari Anne Rand Schmidt, William Sharpe, Nancy Siraisi, Helen Valls, Linda Voigts, and Mary Jane Williams. Dr. Ogden would no doubt have ac- knowledged the help of still more scholars of whom I am unaware, and I apologize for their inescapable omission. She would have wanted me too, I am sure, to express her thanks for the John Simon Guggenheim Memo- rial Fellowship and for the support from the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies of the University of Michigan that made possible much of her work on Guy de Chauliac. I am myself deeply thankful to my own University of North Carolina for granting me a research leave and to Clare Hall, Cambridge, for a Visiting Fellowship in the fall of 1994, during which much of my final work on this study was carried out. INTRODUCTION It would be by no means unreasonable to assert that the Inventarium ( of- ten called the Chirurgia magna)1 of the French surgeon Guy de Chauliac, completed in 1363, marks the end of medieval medicine-"end" under- stood both as fulfillment and as termination. Certainly it brought medie- val surgery to a close. During the previous two hundred years, Western Europe had developed a tradition of surgical literature, something quite unknown in the Greek or Arab world, producing a series of texts that grew more elaborate, more highly organized, and more physiological in character. Beginning with Ruggiero Frugardi in the late twelfth century and his various commentators in the early thirteenth, and continuing with independent works by Bruno Longoburgo, Teodorico Borgognoni, and Guglielmo da Saliceto, what had originally been an Italian tradition came to France with Lanfranco about 1300 and was continued there by Henri de Mondeville a decade later. Guy de Chauliac is the next figure in this tradition, but with Guy this steady production of Latin surgical texts abruptly comes to an end. Guy was evidently quite conscious that he stood in such a surgical tra- dition. His lnventarium begins with a capitulum singulare that contains a remarkable history of surgery;2 it was no doubt modeled on the histo- ries of medicine with which certain Arab authors ( e.g., Haly Abbas and Rasis) had begun their works, but its willingness to critically evaluate earlier authorities is much more obvious, particularly in its account of European authors of the previous two centuries: [Before Avicenna] everyone was both physician and surgeon, but afterwards, whether because of greed or because of too much to do, surgery was set apart and given into the hands of mechanics. The first of these were Ruggiero, Rolando, and the 1 The title that the work bears in manuscript is "Inventarium seu collectorium in parte cyrurgicali medicine"; "Chirurgia magna" was the title given it by Renaissance editors. 2 See Chiara Crisciani, "History, Novelty, and Progress in Scholastic Medicine," Osiris, 2nd series, 6 (1990), 118-139, esp. 131-132. X INTRODUCTION Four Masters, who wrote separate works of surgery into which they put much of an empirical character. Then came Iamerius, who wrote a crude surgery in which he said many stupid things, but often followed Ruggiero. Afterwards came Bruno, who cor- rectly adopted the teachings of Galen and Avicenna and the techniques of Albucasis, though he did not have a complete translation of Galen's books and left out anatomy almost en- tirely. Immediately after him came Teodorico, who wrote his book by stealing everything that Bruno said and adding a few tales from his master Ugo da Lucca. Guglielmo da Saliceto was a notable figure, and wrote two texts, one in medicine and one of surgery, and in my judgment he wrote well about what he treated. Lanfranco also wrote a book in which he put very little besides the things he found in Guglielmo, though he reordered them. At this time master Arnau de Vilanova flourished in both areas and wrote many good books. At Paris, Henri de Monde- ville began a treatise in which he tried to harmonize Teodorico and Lanfranco, but it was left incomplete at his death.3 Guy's overall judgment that Western surgery had steadily advanced has decisively shaped the interpretation presented by many later historians of medieval Latin surgery as a progressive, rational, text-oriented but ana- tomy-based enterprise. For Guy had come to believe that the most impor- tant thing for a surgeon, ranking ahead even of practical experience, was learning-and not just of the principles of surgery but of medicine too, both theory and practice: As regards theory he has to understand the res naturales, res non naturales, and res contra naturam. First he has to under- stand the res natura/es, especially anatomy, without which no- thing can be done in surgery .... Let him understand complex- ional doctrine too, because medicines must be adapted to the different bodily natures ... and the same is true of the faculties. He also has to understand the res non naturales, air and food and drink and the like, since these are the causes of all health and illness. He must also understand the res contra naturam, es- pecially disease, because the program of treatment is derived di- rectly from this, and let him not be ignorant of cause, because if he cures without understanding it the reward should be not his but fortune's. And let him not overlook symptoms, for they 3 For the Latin text, see below, pp. 6/26-7/ 3.
The list of books you might like
