Some Medical Aspects of Old Age: Being the Linacre lecture, 1922, St. John's college, Cambridge — John Shaqi
Some Medical Aspects of Old Age: Being the Linacre lecture, 1922, St. John's college, CambridgeRolleston, Humphry Davy, Sir
Science
Some Medical Aspects of Old Age: Being the Linacre lecture, 1922, St. John's college, Cambridge
Rolleston, Humphry Davy, Sir
Geriatrics; Linacre lecture, St. John's college, Cambridge; Longevity
occurrence of natural death in the animal kingdom has been questioned,
just as de Candolle denied the natural death of trees and ascribed it
to injury or disease. Metchnikoff,[19] who paid special attention to
this question, described natural death in the Ephemerids, day-flies,
the imagines of which are incapable of feeding and after an hour or
two of “aerial life devoted to love” die, their ova falling into the
water; Sir Ray Lankester accepts the view that they are “wound up” for
a few hours only of life, but according to Child death is probably
due to starvation. In man natural death from old age--a physiological
ending--is very rare, much less frequent indeed than death certificates
and ordinary parlance would suggest; for in such cases there is very
commonly some latent disease, such as pneumonia, which just turns
the scale in the trembling balance. Montaigne warns us “what an idle
conceit it is to expect to die of a decay of strength, which is the
last of the effects of the extremest age, and to propose to ourselves
no shorter lease of life than that, considering that it is a kind of
death of all others the most rare and hardly ever seen.” While it must
be admitted that this still holds good, it is a stimulus to our efforts
to render it no longer true.
The length of days ascribed to Methuselah (969), Adam (930 or, if the
“conceit urged by learned men,” as Sir Thomas Browne[20] says, that
he was 50 or 60 years old when called into being be accepted, 980
years), Seth (912), has aroused attempts at explanation on the basis
of a difference in chronology. The suggestion that the “years” were
lunar and not solar, in other words containing 30 instead of 365 days,
was controverted at length by Eugenius Philalethes[21] (not Thomas,
twin of Henry Vaughan “the Silurist”) as too radical, for on this
interpretation some of the patriarchs would have become fathers of
children before they were ten years old. Long ago, Hensler, following
Justin, put forward the view that the year consisted of but three
months up to the time of Abraham, when it was extended to eight months
until the era of Joseph, after which it contained our full complement
of twelve months. This explanation was supported by Hufeland[22] on the
ground that some eastern nations still reckoned three months to the
year. Adopting this explanation Methuselah’s age would be cut down to
243 years.
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