Chemistry.— Some historians have sug gested that a Papal bull of the later Middle Ages forbade alchemy and therefore hampered the development of chemistry just as the sim ilarly quoted Papal bull, which we have seen had no such import, forbade dissection and therefore prevented the proper evolution of anatomy. The bull as to chemistry referred to is one issued by Pope John X XII, and its text, as also the text of the corresponding decree with regard to the cutting up of bodies, may be found in 'The Popes and Science> (Walsh, New York 1915). The "alchemies" that were forbidden under this technical term were op erations for the supposed manufacture of gold and silver out of base metals. As pointed out by the Pope these were bringing about debase ment of the coinage and so were very prop erly prohibited. The popes of the time issued bulls for the chartering of universities and the regulation of education generally and this being an international matter very naturally came within their purview. There is not the slightest evidence for any Church opposition to chemistry at this time or subsequently. There had been a good deal of interest in chemistry during the 13th century and Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon made distinct con tributions to the science under the name of alchemy, Raymond Lully wrote on it some 16 treatises, Arnold of Villanova gave special at tention to it and the Hollanduses, father and son, continued it in the 14th century. Al bertus Magnus was highly honored in his own time, was made a bishop and subsequently was canonized. That is his life was held up as a model of what a Christian should be. Roger Bacon is sometimes said to have been perse cuted for his work in science and particularly in chemistry, but not by those who know his life. Bacon was placed under custody—there is no evidence for imprisonment—because of the violation of disciplinary regulations within his own order, the Franciscans, but it was due to the request of a pope that his great works on science were written and Roger Bacon him self never withdrew from the Franciscans, but continued to be a member of the order until his death, well past 80 years of age.
There was abundant interest in chemistry in the 16th century, and it is curious how many of the men connected with it were ecclesiastics. Basil Valentine, the German Benedictine Monk, may only a name for a group of men, but the writers were surely Benedictines. Para celsus, the great chemical investigator for medical purposes of the 16th century, mentions that he was helped in his chemical studies by the Abbot Trithemius of Spanheim; by Bishop Scheit of Stettbach; by Bishop Erhardt of Lavanthol; by Bishop Nicholas of Nippon; and by Bishop Matthew Schacht. In more modern times there has been no question of any opposition to chemistry, and pharmaceuti cal chemistry at least has had some magnifi cent contributions made to it by the drugs obtained from the Indians by missionaries. These include cinchona, which was for so long known as "Jesuits' hark"; cascara sagrada, se cured by the Franciscans from the American Indians; a number of valuable laxatives from the same source, grindelia robusta and other pharmacals.
Medicine.— It has been suggested that the Church was so much interested in cures by relics, prayers, masses, pilgrimages to holy places, and the hire, that naturally her policy was to discourage the development of medi cal science. The historical contradiction of this suggestion is to be found in the list of papal physicians. The popes summoned to
Rome to be their" personal medical attendants and as a rule at the same time to teach in the Papal Medical School at Rome some of the most distinguished scientific physicians of medical history. No list of physicians con nected by any bond in the history of medicine, not even that of the faculties of the older med ical schools, can compare in personal prestige and scientific achievements with the roll of papal physicians. In the section of this article on anatomy a few of them are named, but there are literally dozens of others who have an enduring place • in the history of medicine. Among them are Guy of Montpellier, a great reorganizer of hospitals; Richard, the English man, famous throughout Europe in his time; Taddeo Alderotti and Simon of Genoa, both well known in medical history; William of Brescia; Gentilis; John Philip de Lignamine, bibliophile and hygienist; Bartholomew of Pisa; Paulus T ovms ; Brasavola ; Alfonso Fern, the authority on gun-shot wounds; Manovelli; John of Aquila, referred to by his contemporaries as "a second iEsculapius*; Frigimelica, famous for his study of baths; Maggi, who made the study of gun-shot wounds so clear; Cananus, the well-known dissector; Simon Pasqua, who wrote on the gout; Gymnasius, who was summoned on con sultation to many of the princes of Italy; Mal pighi f Ciesalpinus; Jacobus Bonaventura; the brothers Castellani; uncle and nephew Syl vester and Taddeus Collicola; Zacchias who wrote on medico-legal problems, and so on through many other names that have a place in the history of medicine.
The Church's attitude toward medicine is very well illustrated by the regulations for the maintenance of high standards in medical edu cation which were enforced by papal bulls. According to these there had to be three years of preliminary study at the university, then four years at medicine and a year of practice with a physician before personal practice could be taken up. We have climbed back in many schools, but by no means in all, to this stand ard in the 20th century. In the mid-19th cen tury we required only two terms of four months each, ungraded lectures, for the degree in medicine, and that was a license to practise in any State in the Union.
The Church's greatest contribution to medicine was the hospitals. Mediaeval hos pitals were beautiful buildings, well planned, roomy, airy, with an abundance of water and well-organized nursing. Virchow has told the story of these old hospitals and their founda tion. The main factor was "the papal en thusiasm." He adds: "Though hospitals had existed in the East it was reserved for the Roman Catholic Church . . . to establish institutions for the care of those suffering from disease." Miss Nutting and Miss Dock in their 'History of Nursing' have emphasized the contrast between the sordid municipal and State institutions of the modern time with the "beautiful gardens, roomy halls and springs of water of the old cloister hospitals of the Middle Ages with the comforts of their friendly interiors.' It was these finely organized hos pitals and the good nursing that made the astounding surgery of the later Middle Ages possible. The three things go together,— good surgery, good nursing, good hospitals. The medieval hospitals were very numerous. Vir chow points out that in Germany every city of 5,000 inhabitants had its hospitals. They were at least as numerous in the Latin countries.