Singularly enough, both Dr. Payne and Mr. Kingsford profess to find in the Compendium some evidence that Gilbert sojourned in Syria for a certain period, though the circ.u.mstances of this sojourn are viewed differently by the two biographers. Dr. Payne thinks that the physician, after completing his education in England, proceeded to the Continent and extended his travels as far as Syrian Tripoli, where he met Archbishop Walter and became attached to his staff. As the prelate returned to England in 1192, this sojourn of Gilbert in Syria must have been about 1190-91, when, according to Dr. Payne's chronology, Gilbert could have been not more than about twenty years of age.

Dr. Payne bases his story upon a certain pa.s.sage in the Compendium, in which Gilbert says that he met in Syrian Tripoli "a _canonicus_ suffering from rheumatic symptoms." I have been entirely unable to find the pa.s.sage referred to in this story, in spite of a careful search of the text of the edition of 1510. But, admitting the existence of the pa.s.sage in question, it proves nothing as to the _date_ of this alleged Syrian sojourn. Tripoli was captured by the Crusaders in 1109, and continued under their control until its recapture by the Saracens in 1289, a period of nearly two hundred years. Gilbert's travels in Syria may then have occurred at almost any time during this long period, and his fortuitous meeting with Archbishop Walter has very much the appearance of a story evolved entirely from the consciousness of the biographer.

On the other hand, Mr. Kingsford bases his theory of Gilbert's sojourn in Syria upon a story adopted, I think, from Littre and found in the Histoire literaire de la France. The Compendium of Gilbert contains (f. 137a) a chapter giving the composition of a complex collyrium with which he professes to have cured the almost total blindness of Bertram, son of Hugo de Jubilet, after the disease had baffled the skill of the Saracen and Christian-Syrian physicians of his day.

Now Littre avers that a certain Hugo de Jubilet was involved in an ambuscade in Syria in the year 1227, and that he had a son named Bertram. It is very natural, of course, to conclude that this Bertram was the patient recorded in the book of Gilbert. Kingsford says that Gilbert "met" Bertram in Syria, but the text of the Compendium says nothing of the locality of their meeting, which might have taken place almost anywhere in Europe, perhaps even at Salernum, a favorite resort of the invalided Crusaders in these times. Finally, Dr. Payne disposes effectually of the authenticity of the entire story by calling attention to the fact that the chapter referred to in the Compendium is marked plainly "_Additio_," without indicating whether this addition is from the pen of Gilbert or some later glossator.

Finally, I may suggest another line of argument, which, so far as I know, has not yet been advanced for the determination of the period of Gilbert.

The Compendium Medicinae of Gilbert is, of course, a compendium of internal medicine. But the book is also something more. Not less than fifty chapters are devoted to a comparatively full discussion of wounds, fractures and dislocations, lithotomy, herniotomy, fistulae and the various diseases on the border line between medicine and surgery. Not a single surgical writer, however, is quoted by name.

Nevertheless the major part of these surgical chapters are either literal copies, or very close paraphrases, of the similar chapters of the "_Chirurgia_" of Roger of Parma, a distinguished professor in Salernum and the pioneer of modern surgery. The precise period of Roger is not definitely settled by the unanimous agreement of modern historians, but in the "_Epilogus_" of the "_Glosulae Quatuor Magistrorum_" it is said that Roger's "_Chirurgia_" was "_in lucem et ordinem redactum_" by Guido Arietinus, in the year of our Lord 1230.

This date, while perhaps not unquestionable, is also adopted by De Renzi, the Italian historian of Medicine. The original MS. of Roger's work is said to be still in existence in the Magliabechian Library in Florence, but it has never been published in its original form.[5]

Roland of Parma, however, a pupil of Roger, published in 1264 what purports to be a copy of Roger's "_Chirurgia_" with some notes and additions of his own, and it is from this MS. of Roland that all our copies of Roger's work have been printed. Roger's "_Chirurgia_" was popularly known as the "_Rogerina_;" the edition of Roland as the "_Rolandina_." They are frequently confounded, but are not identical, though the additions of Roland are usually regarded as of little importance. In the absence of Roger's ma.n.u.script, however, they lead often to considerable confusion, as it is not always easy to determine in the printed copies of the "_Rolandina_" just what belongs to Roger and what to his pupil and editor. Now a careful comparison of the surgical chapters of Gilbert of England with the published text of the "_Rolandina_" leads me to the conviction that Gilbert had before him the text of Roger, rather than that of Roland, his pupil. If such is the fact, Gilbert's Compendium must have been written between 1230 and 1264, the dates respectively of the "_Rogerina_" and "_Rolandina_."

[Footnote 5: Haeser says that this MS. of Roger's "Chirurgia," made by Guido Arenitensium, was discovered by Puccinoti in the Magliabechian library, and that an old Italian translation of the same work is also found there. The latter was the work of a certain Bartollomeo.

The text used to represent Roger in the present paper is that published by De Renzi (Collectio Salernitana, tom. II, pp. 426-493) and ent.i.tled "Rogerii, Medici Celeberrimi Chirurgia." It is really the text published originally in the "Collectio Chirurgica Veneta" of 1546, of which the preface says:

"_His acceserunt Rogerii ac Guil. Saliceti chirurgiae, quarum prior quibusdam decorata adnotationibus nunc primum in lucem exit, etc._,"

and adds further on:

"_Addidimus etiam quasdam in Rogerium veluti explanationes, in antiquissimo codice inventas, et ab ipso forta.s.se Rolando factas._"

While I may recognize gratefully the surgical enthusiasm which led the editor to the publication of these "_veluti explanationes_," for my present purpose he would have earned more grateful recognition if he had left them unprinted. As the text now stands it is merely a garbled edition of the Rolandina. However, it is the best representative of the "Chirurgia" of Roger at present available. See De Renzi, op. cit., p. 425.]

From a careful review of the data thus presented we may epitomize, somewhat conjecturally, the life of Gilbert substantially as follows: He was probably born about 1180 and received his early education in England. On the completion of this education, about the close of the 12th century, he proceeded to the Continent to complete his studies, and spent some time in the school of Salernum, where it is probable that he enjoyed the instruction of Roger of Parma, Ricardus Salernita.n.u.s, and may have had among his fellow-students Aegidius of Corbeil. Probably after his return to England he served for a brief period on the staff of Archbishop Hubert Walter, after whose death in 1205, but at an unknown period, Gilbert returned once more to the Continent, where it seems probable he spent the remainder of his life.

This comports best with his extensive European reputation, his surname "Anglicus" and the comparative dearth in England of any facts relating to his life. The date of the Compendium I am inclined to place about 1240, prior to the literary activity of Ricardus Parisiensis or Richard of Wendover, Roland of Parma, Roger Bacon and Theodorius of Cervia. We may place his death, conjecturally, at about 1250.

The first edition of the Compendium is a small quarto of 362 folios (724 modern pages), five by seven inches in size, printed in double narrow columns, in black letter, perfectly legible and clear. The pagination shows some errors, but the text itself is remarkably accurate, though the presence of a multiplicity of contractions and ligatures renders the reading somewhat difficult to the modern student. On the last page we find the following colophon:

_Explicit compendium medicine Gilberti Anglici corr.e.c.t.u.m et bene emendatum per dominum Michaelem de Capella artium et medicine doctorem: ac Lugduni Impressum per Jacob.u.m Saccon: expensis Vincentii de Portonariis. Anno Domini M.D.x. die vero vigesima mensis Novembris._

_Deo Gratias._

The second edition (which I have not seen) is said to bear the t.i.tle: "Laurea anglicana, sive compendium totius medicinae, etc," Geneva, 1608.

It should be noticed that the t.i.tle "Laurea anglicana" is not mentioned in the original edition of 1510, but is apparently due to the exuberance of enthusiasm of the editor of the later edition, whose taste seems to have been more flamboyant.

Various ma.n.u.script works of greater or less authenticity are ascribed to Gilbert by different authorities. Of these Mr. Kingsford furnishes the following list:

1. "Commentarii in Versus Aegidii de Urinis," quoted by John Gaddesden and probably authentic.

2. "Practica Medicinae," mentioned by Pits, but of doubtful authenticity.

3. "Experimenta Magistri Gilliberti, Cancellarii Montepessulani,"

noticed on page 2, but authenticity doubtful.

4. "Compendium super Librum Aphorismorum Hippocratis."

MS. in Bodleian.

5. "Eorundem Expositio." MS. in Bodleian.

6. "Antidotarium." MS. in Caius College.

To these he adds, on the authority of Bale and Pits:

7. "De Viribus Aquarum et Specierum."

8. "De Proportione Fistularum."

9. "De Judicio Patientis."

10. "De Re Herbaria."

11. "De Tuenda Valentudine."

12. "De Particularibus Morbis."

13. "Thesaurus Pauperum."

All of these latter may be regarded as doubtful.

The authorities named by Gilbert are Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Rufus, Maerobius, Boetius, Alexander of Tralles, Theodorus Priscia.n.u.s, Theophilus Philaretes, Stephanon (of Athens?), the Arabians Haly Abbas, Rhazes, Isaac Judaeus, Joannitius, Ja.n.u.s Damascenus, Jacobus Alucindi, Avicenna and Averroes; the Salernian writers, quoted generally as Salernitani and specifically Constantino Africa.n.u.s, Nicholas Praepositus, Romoaldus Ricardus and Maurus, and two otherwise unknown authors, Torror and Funcius, cla.s.sed by Gilbert as "_antiqui_." The latter author is also said to have written a "_Liber de lapidibus_." Certainly this list suggests a pretty good medical library for a pract.i.tioner of the 13th century.

Dr. Payne calls attention to the fact that all these writers antedate the 13th century, and thus limit the period of Gilbert in antiquity.

This is undoubtedly true with reference to authorities actually named, but does not exclude from consideration other writers quoted, but not named, whom we shall have occasion to refer to hereafter.

The Compendium opens with a very brief and modest foreword, couched in the following terms:

"_Incipit liber morborum tam universalium quam particularium a magistro Gilberto anglico editus ab omnibus autoribus et practicis magistrorum extractus et exceptus, qui compendium medicine int.i.tulatur._"

It will be observed that no claim whatever for originality is presented by the author. He calls his book a compendium extracted from all authors and the practice of the professors, and edited only by himself. The same idea is more fully emphasized later (f. 55c), where he says:

"_Sed consuetudo nostra est ex dictis meliorum meliora aggregare, et ubi dubitatio est, opiniones diversas interserere; ut quisque sibi eligat quam velit retinere._"

The self-abnegation implied in these extracts must not, however, be interpreted too literally, for the editorial "_dico_" on numerous pages, and even an occasional chapter marked "_Propria opinio_,"

testify to the fact that Gilbert had opinions of his own, and was ready on occasion to furnish them to the profession. On the whole, however, the "Compendium" is properly cla.s.sified by the author as a compilation, rather than an original work.

The Compendium is divided into seven books, and the general cla.s.sification of diseases is from head to foot--the usual method of that day. The modern reader will probably be surprised at the comprehensiveness of the work, which, besides general diseases, includes considerable portions of physiology, physiognomy, ophthalmology, laryngology, otology, gynecology, neurology, dermatology, embryology, obstetrics, dietetics, urinary and venereal diseases, therapeutics, toxicology, operative surgery, cosmetics and even the hygiene of travel and the prevention of sea-sickness. Some of these subjects too are discussed with an acuteness and a common sense quite unexpected. Of course, scholastic speculations, superst.i.tion, charms, polypharmacy and the use of popular and disgusting remedies are not wanting. Even the mind of a philosopher like Roger Bacon was unable to rise entirely above the superst.i.tion of his age. But the charms and popular specifics of Gilbert are often introduced with a sort of apology, implying his slight belief in their efficacy. Thus in his chapter on the general treatment of wounds (f. 87a) he introduces a popular charm with the following words:

"_Alio modo, solo divino carmine confisi, quidam experti posse curari omnes plagas hoc._

"_Carmine._

"_Tres boni fratres per viam unam ibant, et obviavit eis noster dominus jesus christus et dixit eis, tres boni fratres quo itis_, etc."

And again, in his discussion of the treatment of gout and rheumatism (f. 327b), Gilbert adds, under the t.i.tle

_Emperica_

"_Quamvis ego declino ad has res parum, tamen est bonum scribere in libro nostro, ut non remaneat tractatus sine eis quas dixrunt antiqui.

Dico igitur quod dixit torror: Si scinderis pedem rane viridis et ligaveris supra pendem podagrici per tres dies, curatur; ita quod dextrum pedum rane ponas supra dextrum pedem patientis, et e converso.