I-em-hotep and Ancient Egyptian medicine: II. Prevention of valvular disease: The Harveian Oration delivered before the Royal college of physicians on June 21, 1904 — John Shaqi
I-em-hotep and Ancient Egyptian medicine: II. Prevention of valvular disease: The Harveian Oration delivered before the Royal college of physicians on June 21, 1904Caton, Richard
History
I-em-hotep and Ancient Egyptian medicine: II. Prevention of valvular disease: The Harveian Oration delivered before the Royal college of physicians on June 21, 1904
Caton, Richard
Heart valves -- Diseases; Medicine, Egyptian
It is of some interest to note that these priests of I-em-hotep,
themselves learned men, not only saw and prescribed daily for vast
numbers of sick persons but also performed innumerable necropsies. They
removed the heart, large blood-vessels, viscera, and brain from the
bodies of deceased persons, also from the bodies of sacred animals,
prior to embalmment; the heart was placed in a separate jar by itself
and the remainder of the viscera in a larger vessel. We are told by
Pliny that in later times an examination of the body was made after
death in order to ascertain the nature of the disease which was the
cause of death.[14] Thus these men had an opportunity of learning
something of anatomy and pathology. They may have gained some insight
into the intricate problem of the action of the heart, the movement of
the blood, and the changes of heart and vessels produced by disease; no
nation of antiquity had such opportunities. Did they discover anything?
I think I can demonstrate to you that they did obtain a partial
knowledge of the circulation; they did not solve the problem, but they
approached it as nearly as did the Greeks, and probably from them the
Greeks obtained such knowledge as they possessed in early times.
References to the Circulation in the Medical Papyri
Certain of the contents of the medical papyri are at present almost
incomprehensible, partly on account of the difficulty of translating
technical terms; these parts I shall not refer to at all; those portions
which are more easily understood still present difficulties, and
translations must necessarily be free and at times vague. It must be
remembered that the hieratic script was not a good medium for the clear
and definite statement of facts, also that the modes of thought and
forms of expression of the time were far removed from our own, even far
remote from those of the Hellenes. We enter a different world when we
try to comprehend the beliefs and conceptions of the ancient Egyptian,
the platform of thought on which he built is imperfectly known to us.
Furthermore, the philosophic conceptions which the Greeks gave to
mankind and their lucidity of expression had not then come into
existence.
In addition to these negative aspects of difference there are positive
ones. The Egyptian believed himself to dwell in a universe peopled by
spirits and demons, good and evil, whose influence must be propitiated
or averted by charms and spells. It will, therefore, be understood that
a hieratic papyrus is vastly more difficult to interpret than a Greek
manuscript.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account