SECTION V Chapter 13 - Medicine and Science Before Modern Times "I think that in the discussions of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." -- Galileo Galilei Science During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. As we have seen, the revival of classical knowledge in the Renaissance had encouraged bold new speculation in the areas of philosophy, religion, and even the newly emerging sciences. Even though proponents were sometimes branded as heretics, still there were centers of knowledge and learning that survived against the background of political, religious, and economic unphevels throughout Europe. Nicholas Copernicus studied at the universities of Bologna and Padua in Italy for nine years, where he was introduced to Renaissance learning. While Copernicus made his observations on the stars back in Poland--Michael Servantes and Andreas Vesalius were studying anatomy in Paris. Copernicus' discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe paralleled Vesalius' discovery that the Ancients were wrong about the mechanical workings of the heart. These scientific beginnings were made against a hotbed of religious and economic revolutionary activity. Medieval superstitions were also firmly ingrained in the minds of the general population. Both witch hunts and religious wars and persecution were symptomatic of the mindset of these times. Belief in holy relics, whether related to Jesus or some later saint, was common among the masses (lasting well into the eighteenth century). Although some early scientists, such as Galileo, were effectively silenced by the Inquisition, the PRACTICAL backgrounds of others saved them from being imprisoned or executed. Geradus Mercator, a Flemish map-maker whose approach to cartography was influenced by the Copernican theory, was arrested along with other intellectuals for heresy, in 1544. Although many of his companions were executed, Mercator's release was secured by Charles V who badly needed accurate maps for his military campaigns. Vesalius likewise received imperial protection from the Inquisition when he became physician to the emperor. Superstition during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation Plague and disease remained one of the most serious problems faced by European society during the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. Although the Black Plague hit Europe hard in 1349, it kept returning through the centuries, reaching another great epidemic in 1665. The plague served to accentuate the superstitions of the people. For example, in 1630, Guglielmo Piazza, commissioner of health of Milan, was observed by some women in the neighborhood, of wiping his ink-stained fingers on the walls of some houses. He was accused of smearing the houses with the plague, and was arrested by city officials. Although the Commissioner Piazza was brought before a Renaissance judge--the application of law that he faced was a carryover from feudal times. He was shaved and purged. According to the law, if he survived the tortures inflicted upon his body through three rounds, then God Himself was deemed to have intervened, thus attesting to his innocence. It was said the Commissioner Piazza withstood two sessions of the torture, but yielded to the "third degree". During this time he "confessed" his guilt, and agreed to name his "accomplices". A barber named Mora was implicated, and after being tortured, he too gave the desired confession of guilt and the name of another "accomplice". The prisoners were thereupon sentenced to death.-- They were stretched on a wheel, ripped up with red-hot pincers, their bones were broken, and their hands cut off. They were burned after their torture session was over, and their ashes were thrown into the river. The house that had been "contaminated" with the ink was razed to the ground, and on its site was erected a "column of infamy" to attest to the evil role played by these men in spreading the plague. (These events happened roughly ONE HUNDRED years before the American Declaration of Independence!) Medicine as "Science" and NOT "Superstition" Prior to the seventeenth century, physicians followed a set of procedures and rituals that were comparable in nature to those of any primitive witchdoctor! They applied Medieval theories regarding the existence of four body humors, the control of the planets on the functions of the body, of putrid odors that require bleeding, and the theory of numbers and colors. For example, during a typical visit, the doctor would frequently start off by determining if the stars were in a favorable conjunction to begin "treatment". There were many highly fanciful (and equally dubious) medical prescriptions against diseases and inflictions. For example, an English doctor named Gilbert prescribed eating lion's meat, scorpion oil and ants' eggs for apoplexy, and the drinking of the blood of a ram (fed on specialized diuretic herbs) to cure bladder stones. Hugo de Lucques treated broken bones by applying a powder made of ginger and cinnamon. This was combined with reciting the PATER NOSTER and other prayers of the Trinity at just the precise moment of healing. It was common practice to ward off epilepsy by wearing on their personage the names of Gaspar, Balthasar and Melchior (who would ward of the demons). According to Howard Haggard, in his book THE DOCTOR IN HISTORY, even into the SIXTEENTH CENTURY: "Dignified and scholarly physicians sat in consultation rooms strewn with strange relics which would have delighted a befeathered medicine man--stuffed alligators, narwhal horns, and bizarre animals from the New World. Through the heavy leather-bound spectacles of the day they peered at yellowed manuscripts and drew astrological charts, made their diagnoses and prescribed a medicine of a hundred ingredients without perhaps ever having seen their patient. "The educated surgeon, dressed in his long robe, disdained to touch the wounded man. With his cane he pointed to the place where the barber surgeon should cut. "Such doctors as these were not for the common people. For them there were quacks and tinkers, bathhouse keepers, strolling mountebanks, and old women. Failing these, there were the holy shrines where hope and prayer and faith brought ease of mind and suffering as they had in the temples of Aesclepius [ie ancient Egyptian/Greek god of healing]. But the shrines stopped no disease; disease was most rampant when faith in shrines and holy relics was the greatest. "Neither physician nor surgeon nor quack knew the human structure; few had seen inside the body; none had studied it. None knew the simplest facts of physiology--how the blood circulates, why man breathes. None had heard of bacteria. "The physician of the sixteenth century lacked knowledge. But his greatest fault was his failure to seek knowledge." (Ibid, pp 200-201). That is, as Howard Haggard explains in his book, the move towards modern medicine did not begin to make progress until people began questioning the ancient texts and began searching for new knowledge--using rational observation, inquiry, and experimentation. (Howard W. Haggard, THE DOCTOR IN HISTORY, Dorsett Press, 1989, p 200) One of the most popular treatments of all--that is BLEEDING of patients to remove "bad humours", was not discontinued until the mid 1800's. Bleeding The medieval practice of bleeding had its origins from Christian monks who, sworn to celibacy, were greatly concerned how to SUPPRESS their sexual urges. The theory of bleeding followed from an ancient Roman belief that taught that the retention of semen would lead to an imbalance in the bodies "humours", which could lead to blood poisoning. Medieval scholars interpreted these writings to mean that leading a chaste life would make one sick--unless these poisons--arising from an imbalance of the humours--were "bled" out of the system. As a result, bleeding among cloistered Christian monks became a regular practice, often performed monthly. Blood from younger monks were examined at regular intervals to make sure sickly, decayed matter was present. (If this appeared healthy then this was taken to mean that the monk had been "secretly" copulating or masturbating). Any monk who confessed to sexual sins would be heavily bled, until his desires abated. The monks also promoting bleeding among the laity. Because premarital sex was considered one of the "worst" crimes that could be committed, unmarried men (including sometimes boys) were bled in the belief that this would cleanse them of the "evil juices" that caused their passion. (Women were spared the procedure as it was believed her menstruation cycle naturally rid the body of the buildup of these poisons.) Medieval doctors took up the practice of bleeding because it was believed that by relieving the body of its poisons, that this could cure all diseases (ie not just sexual passion). Its practice became so common, that it became the equivalent of the modern "take two aspirin and call me in the morning." Doctors typically prescribed that for any sickness, that the patient should be bled, AT A MINIMUM, three to five times-- withdrawing as much as 2 pints on each occasion (Note, this is an extremely dangerous level as the human body typically contains only 12-15 pints of blood). It was not uncommon for the patient to turn ghastly white and die. Yet the physicians never blamed the procedure--but instead lamented the fact that bleeding had not been started EARLIER! (Charles Panati, "PANATI'S EXTRAORDINARY ENDINGS OF PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY", Harper & Row Publishers, 1989, p 264-5) Doctors HURT More Often than HELPED Their Patients! It's been estimated that because of the barbarous, superstitious medical practices that existed prior to the twentieth century, that a doctor more often HARMED than HELPED his patient. Thus, the irony is that the wealthy, who could afford doctors often received WORSE treatment at the hands of their medieval practitioners, than the poor! One classic example of this involves the case of England's Charles II, who is believed to have had a stroke. Because there were some fourteen royal physicians at his court, NO EFFORT WAS SPARED to give him the "best" treatment that (then) modern medicine could provide. After Charles II became ill, the first physician that arrived on the scene, saw to it that the King had the traditional bleeding--and a full pint of blood was taken from a vein in his left arm. After the King's personal physician had arrived on the scene, he determined that the first doctor had not taken enough blood, and prescribed that another half pint be drained out. The King stirred (unfortunately for him), and this was taken as a sign by his physicians that the bleeding was working. It was determined to drain more fluids out of his body by administering a concoction (consisting of a antimony potassium tartrate which is poisonous) that induced retching vomiting. Again the king stirred, and he was given a series of enemas. Afterwards, however the king lapsed into unconsciousness. The royal doctors thereupon shaved his head and applied another concoction (this one containing a cantharis-- Spanish fly--which was known to encourage frequent urination--ie, the release of more "poisons"). Another medicinal powder was applied under the king's nose to induce uncontrolled spasms of sneezing (again to expel white mucous material). When the king appeared to have improved the next morning, his physician recorded in his diary how, by the "blessing of God", this had been accomplished "by the application of proper and seasonable remedies". More bleeding was prescribed, this time by opening up both jugular veins in his neck for another half pint of blood. On the next day, the King's health worsened and he began having convulsions. His physician administered a concoction made from a pulverized human skull, (thus hoping to cure the convulsions with a "like" substance). The following day, the King was still in great pain, so all the bleeding, vomiting, and enemas were repeated. In addition he was given the miraculous "Jesuits' bark". (Laced with quinine, the preparation had been discovered by the Jesuits to aid malarial fever--giving it the reputation as a miraculous agent). Instead, the King's condition became rapidly worse. Determined to do everything humanly possible to revive the King, the King was bled again, and given according to his doctor, an "antidote which contained extracts of all the herbs and animals of the kingdom." The King died soon after another round of bleedings. His doctors were confident that they, in good conscience, had given him the "best" medical treatment that money could buy. Ironically, the King would have fared far better, if he had been born a poor man--who had no money to pay for such "professional" medical treatment. The "Royal Touch" In medieval Europe, it was commonly held that kings (possibly because of the doctrine that they ruled by "divine right") held special powers whereby they could cure their subjects by "touching" ceremonies. For reasons not known, these powers were limited to ONE disease--scrofula-- a common disease now known as tuberculosis of the glands of the neck. (Footnote: The belief in the power of "laying of hands" on the ill and ordering the evil spirit within to depart, probably has its origins in pagan times.) It was recorded that Edward the Confessor in England touched for this disease as early as the eleventh century AD. During the reigns of Henry VII in 1465 to William of Orange in 1689, the ceremony of the royal touch was an established custom. William of Orange, was reportedly skeptical of his "divine" power, and reluctantly agreed to use the touch only once. At that, he said to his sickly subject, "May God give you better health and more sense"! (Howard Haggard, THE DOCTOR IN MEDICENE, p 256) Queen Anne revived the practice in the eighteenth century. One of her last touches was performed on Dr. Johnson who had the disease scrofula as a child. (He carried the disease with him to his grave.) The French kings from Clovis (8th century) to Louis XVI (18th century) also touched for the disease of scrofula. It was said that Louis XVI (who was executed during the French Revolution of 1789) touched some 2400 ill people in 1775 on the day of his coronation. By then, some men had grown more openly skeptical of the practice, and followed the "cured" people to see if they had improved.--Only five showed any signs whatsoever of improvement. (Ibid.) Still, the practice was very popular with the common people. And when Charles X was coronated in 1824, it was reported that he touched some 121 sick people. The practice only fell out of vogue by the late nineteenth century, as medical science began finding real cures for diseases. Leprosy Symptoms of leprosy can take two forms: (1) from sores on the skin which can spread and thus damage the eyes and throat, and (2) damage to the nervous system resulting in muscle paralysis and limb deformation-- with fingers and toes especially vulnerable. Today, leprosy is known to result from contact with the bacillus MYCOBACTERIUM LEPRAE. Generally, most people are naturally resistant to leprosy--therefore outbreaks are most common in areas where there is a high incidence among the general population of poor dietary and unsanitary living conditions. Leprosy is one of the most common afflictions mentioned in the Bible. Indeed, the Old Testament book of Leviticus, contains two chapters devoted entirely towards identification of the disease, along with rituals to be undertaken to cleanse the leper. In Leviticus 14, one can see some of the elaborate rituals, whereby hebrew priests sought to help unfortunate lepers within their community. The prescription here in Leviticus 14 calls for: * First, "two living clean birds", along with cedar wood, scarlet stuff and hyssop are brought by the leper to the priest. *the priest commands the leper to "kill one of the bird in an earthen vessel under running water." * the live bird, along with the scarlet stuff and hyssop is dipped in the blood of the dead bird. * this is sprinkled seven times over the leper, who is then pronounced clean. * the living bird is allowed to go free. * the leper is then to bath and shave off all his hair, dwelling "outside his tent for seven days." * the leper is to "shave off his beard and his eyebrows, all his hair." * the priest makes a "guilt offering" of one male lamb. Some of the blood from the guilt offering is then placed on the right ear, the right thumb, a the right big toe of the leper. (This is then reinforced by oil prepared by the priest). *On the ninth, another burnt offering is made, and the leper is pronounced cured. (A less expensive offering for the poor is also listed.) Both the Old and New Testament also contain miraculous accounts of lepers being DIRECTLY cured by Old Testament prophets, Jesus, or the apostles. During the Middle Ages, leprosy is mentioned as a common affliction within society. Medieval writers and theologians frequently identified leprosy with lust and carnal sin. Sometimes pride and defiance of the laws of God and the Church were also invoked as "causes". When a person discovered they had leprosy, the church performed a special ceremony that essentially declared them to have already died.--The leper would be sprinkled with holy water by the priest, to whom he would also confess his sins. After the priest had finished saying mass, he would throw three spades of dirt at the leper declaring "Be thou dead to the world, but alive again to God." Then the leper would be given a lecture to stay away from all human contact. SEX,DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION--MINORITY GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, (Routledge, London), 1990, p. 155) After the twelfth century, lepers were made to wear distinctive clothing, and to make some sound--a rattle or horn noise--to warn others of their approach. The Church established hospitals for lepers, and urged compassion to be shown towards them. Still, fear of the disease sometimes led to public outcries against them. During the Black Plague, for example, there was a case in Perigueux France in 1321, where lepers were accused of poisoning the wells. Some local lepers were arrested, tortured until they confessed their guilt, and then burnt at the stake. (Jeffrey Richards, SEX, DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION-- MINORITY GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, (Routledge, England, 1990), p 161-2) An improvement in living conditions throughout most of the West has reduced the occurrences of leprosy (although this has been a problem in poorer countries, such as India). Today, there is medication for leprosy that essentially removes all symptoms of the disease--allowing the sufferer to lead a completely normal life. The individual must stay on this medication for the rest of his/her life to keep symptoms from returning. An Early "Scientific" Success--Discovery of the Cause of St. Anthony's Fire One of the first dramatic uses of the new rational (Aristotelian) approaches to medicine was in the discovery of the cause of a disease that all agreed was more TERRIBLE than even leprosy! Called "holy fire", "hell's fire" or "St. Anthony's fire"-- in its most common form, the disease started as an icy chill in the arms and legs, followed by an excruciating painful burning sensation. The limbs would then blacken and shrivel away. Some victims died, but many recovered-- horribly disfigured so that in some cases, all arms and legs had shriveled away, leaving only the head and trunk! Pregnant women were especially hard hit by the disease. Up into the sixteenth century, sufferers of the disease would travel to hospitals where they would be cared for by holy men dedicated to the order of St. Anthony, the Catholic patron saint of the disease. (Catholics typically associated a different saint with each disease. Thus, St. Agattin who was tortured by having her breasts cut off, became the patron saint of nursing and diseased breasts. St. Apollonia had her jaw broken and her teeth punched out. The faithful prayed to her for relief from toothaches.) In 1597, the medical faculty at Marburg, Germany studied the disease, and concluded that it resulted from eating rye bread which had been blighted with ergot--a fungus growth. The fungus was prevalent in wet weather, and appeared as enlarged black kernels in the rye grains. In 1630, the physician to the Duke of Sully independently proved the association of St. Anthony's fire with ergot, based on his experiments with animals. Once the people were taught to avoid the ergot fungus-like poison, the incidences greatly declined. Still, during famines when there was nothing else to eat--epidemics of St Anthony's disease would occur.-- One of the last known incidences broke out among peasants of Russia in 1888, following a terrible famine. Smallpox The marks of smallpox have been identified on Egyptian mummies that are three thousand years old. Still, epidemics from smallpox are not believed to have been common in Europe until around the tenth century. A great epidemic from smallpox took place in Europe in the early 1600's. Neither king nor peasant were spared from its ravages. It was said that Charles IX of France was scarred so badly from smallpox, that it appeared to have split his nose into two noses. King Louis IV had the disease, and Louis V died from it. The historian Macaulay described how smallpox ravaged England, and caused the death of Queen Mary II: "That disease, over which science has since achieved a succession of glorious and beneficent victories, was the most terrible of all the ministers of death. The havoc of the plague had been far more rapid; but plague has visited our shores only once or twice within living memory; and smallpox was always present, filling the churchyard with corpses, tormenting with constant fear all whom it had not yet stricken, leaving on those whose lives were spared the hideous traces of its power, turning the babe into a changeling at which the mother shuddered, making the eyes and cheeks of the betrothed maiden objects of horror to the lover. Towards the end of the year 1694 this pestilence was more than usually severe...." Queen Mary II was only thirty three when she died from smallpox. (Her husband William III who survived her, was very sickly. He suffered from malaria, and probably tuberculosis. He died eight years later after falling from a horse.) In 1721, Cotton Mather (the same preacher who was implicated in the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692) read a story about how the Muslim Turks protected themselves from smallpox by inoculation. Inoculation (not to be confused with vaccination) was accomplished through taking the pus from the sores of a person actually sick with smallpox. A drop of this pus was then placed in the scratch of a person who had never had the disease. Typically, the person would then have a MILD case of the disease. True, some 1-3% of the inoculated people would die, but this was far less than the death rate among groups that were NOT inoculated (plus those who survived the inoculation did not get pockmarked). Believing the inoculation to be a godsend, Mather convinced a prominent Boston physician, Zabdiel Boylston to introduce the procedure in the colonies. Dr. Boylston inoculated 247 people in Boston in 1721, and some 39 people were inoculated by other doctors. Six patients contracted smallpox so severely that they died. During this same period, a smallpox epidemic broke out in Boston which affected roughly half of the population. Out of 5759 people who were not inoculated and contracted the disease, some 844 died. Many of those that recovered were terribly scarred and disfigured for the rest of their lives. Instead of being perceived as a hero (ie 2.1% died of the inoculated group as opposed to 14.7%), both the pulpit and the press railed against the use of inoculation-- some calling for doctors that performed the procedure to be hanged. A bomb was thrown in the homes of both Cotton Mather and Dr. Boylston. In addition Dr. Boylston was attacked in the streets and his house set on fire. Public opinion eventually changed as other epidemics wore on out of control. Benjamin Franklin, for example, had been an early opponent of inoculation as a young man, but completely changed his mind and became one of its strongest supporters after his four year old son died during a smallpox epidemic. By the time of the Revolutionary War, the practice had become more accepted. In fact, George Washington ordered all recruits in the Continental Army to be inoculated who had not already had the disease. Still, many people avoided inoculation-- and it was not until vaccination became commonplace (ie, after 1884 when Louis Pasteur first developed the first vaccine for rabies that was used on a boy who was bitten by a rabid dog), that the public could live without fear of the terrible disease. Discovery of Painkiller, and Religious Opposition to "Painless" Labor The deadening of pain through potions was known to most ancient civilizations. Helen put "nepenthe" in the wine of Ulysses; the Talmud of the Jews refers to a narcotic called "samme de shinta"; the ARABIAN NIGHTS refers to "bhang". Roman surgeons often used mandrake wine. Likewise, mandrake was the most popular anesthetic during the Middle Ages. (HW Haggard, DEVILS, DRUGS, AND DOCTORS, Charles River Books, Boston, 1980, pp 95-6) However, mandrake was apparently not a very effective painkiller. The medical physician Pare (who was concerned about the pain of "poor wounded men") used no anesthesia-- he simply tied down his patients so that they could not offer him any resistance to his surgery. Opium or alcohol was used by surgeons during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. During all this time, there was no tradition of using painkiller to relieve the pain of women going though labor. (Opium can halt the progression of labor, although alcohol does not). Women midwives could be accused of witchcraft if they employed such drugs. One such case occurred in 1591, when a woman of high social standing, Eufame Macalyane, asked Agnes Sampson to help relieve her pain during the births of her two sons. Agnes Sampson was later arrested and tried before King James for this heresy. She was condemned as a witch and burned alive at the Castle Hill of Edinburgh. It was not until 1846, that ether was successfully administered as an anesthetic during an operation. In 1847, Dr. James Y. Simpson, professor of obstetrics at the University of Glasgow successfully used chloroform to relieve the suffering of a woman patient in childbirth. After he published a report on his success, he was denounced because the pain of childbirth was claimed by many to go against God's plan for mankind-- ie that women "deserved" to suffer due to Eve's crime in the Garden of Eden. This religious argument was of course based on Genesis 3:16 which states: "Unto the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception; IN SORROW THOU SHALT BRING FORTH CHILDREN; (emphasis mine). One clergyman for example argued: "chloroform is a decoy of Satan, apparently offering itself to bless women; but in the end it will harden society and rob God of the deep earnest cries which arise in time of trouble for help." (Haggard, Ibid, p 108) Dr. Simpson was a practical man, and determined to fight fire with fire.-- He therefore used OTHER biblical analogies to show the absurdity of his opponents' position. In his "Answers to the Religious Objection Against the Employment of Anesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery" (1847), he pointed out that, a SIMILAR literal interpretation of the Bible would lead to the following conclusions.--That farmers were ALSO going against God's express Will of punishing the male descendants of Adam, in pulling out "the thorn and thistle" (to avoid the curse of the earth), and in using horses and machinery (to avoid "the sweat of the brow" in tilling the earth). According to Simpson, any medical effort to lengthen life past one's "natural" time, could also be interpreted as "unbiblical". Simpson reminded his opponents of EARLIER intense religious opposition to progressive movements. He quoted, for example, earlier religious opposition to the use of smallpox vaccination, such as one religious warning that: "Smallpox is a visitation from God, and originates in man: but the cowpox [vaccination] is produced by presumptuous, impious man. The former Heaven ordained; the latter is a daring and profane violation of our holy religion." (Haggard, op cit, p 109) Likewise, Simpson demonstrated how there had been fierce opposition to the introduction of agriculture machinery--especially the winnowing machine (which separates the chaff from grain) because it was irreligious for man to generate "winds"--thus presupposing some of the Almighty's great powers for himself. Last, Simpson wrote of cleric opposition to the proposal for building a canal in the Isthmus of Panama, for daring to "attempt[] to improve that which the Creator in His almighty will and providence has ordained from the creation of the world." (Haggard, Ibid, p 110) Simpson concluded by arguing that God Himself had established the precedent for using anesthesia.--For in Genesis 2:21, we are told: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof." Simpson's paper was well received in Edinburgh, and he continued administering chloroform for both surgical operations AND women in labor. Queen Victoria's Precedent for Using Chloroform In 1853, when Queen Victoria, announced she wanted to use chloroform during the delivery of her seventh child, Prince Leopold, the Archbishop of Canterbury warned her that this was unbiblical--and reminded her of the verse, "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children!" Queen Victoria's doctor used Simpson's arguments to deflect the bishop's threats. He told the bishop: "Monsignor, it was also written that 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.'" Queen Victoria sided with her doctor in using chloroform as a painkiller. It was after her powerful precedent, that religious opposition to painkiller for women in labor gradually lessened. However, some attempted to make women feel guilty for wanting to use painkilling drugs during childbirth. For example, according to Dr. Channing of Boston, the PAIN suffered by women in labor, "proved" the LOVE she bore for her future offspring. This argument reportedly was taken up among matrons of past child-bearing age--who believed that their earlier labors should be respected, and thus ALSO borne, by younger generations of women. Although there were no doubt older women who viewed themselves as superior for going natural during childbirth, this was obviously not always the case. In my own family, for instance, my mother once told me of a conversation she had on this subject with my great grandmother (her grandmother). My mother had told her that she had felt "disappointed" because she had been UNCONSCIOUS during most of her labor--including the delivery stage. My great grandmother surprised her, when instead of expressing sympathy, she clapped her hands together and cooed, "Oh, how WONDERFUL that must have been!" Development of Science in the Western Christian World It was not until the development of the "scientific method" -- with its emphasis on rational inquiry from the Greeks, PLUS the experimentation from the Arabs for VERIFICATION of scientific thought--that the Age of Science came to the West. Greek philosophical rationalism was often abstract and metaphysical-- and thus favored the theoretical, as opposed to the applied sciences. Science was thus kept subservient to philosophy under the Greeks. As Greek philosophy came to be dominated by the Platonic mistrust of the sensory world--in favor of pure deductive logic and mathematics--it was felt there was no need for experimentation to objectively "test" new theories. Inquiry into new knowledge in the West only began in earnest after schools had opened up again and Greek writings such as those of Aristotle (which had stressed observation and inquiry) were rediscovered. Christian scholars had looked with envy at the science that had been developed by the then thriving Muslim Arab civilization. Catholic scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas had played an important role in reintroducing the role of reasoning--although he was careful never to use it to question the initial assumptions of Church dogma. The followers of Aquinas, the Scholastics, viewed the Universe in naturalistic terms--whereby the goal of mankind was to try and explain "why" God determined that Nature was to have such-and such form, as opposed to understanding "how" things really worked. Inquiry using our senses was not used--as medieval philosophers (including St. Thomas Aquinas) were still strongly influenced by the Platonic paradigm that taught that our senses could not be used in discovering the ultimate reality of the universe. Consequently, Scholastics applied their reasoning towards spiritual issues-- such as the existence of witches and descriptions of heaven. During the Renaissance, there was a new paradigm that viewed God as giving special insights to selected individuals into the secrets of the universe. Some individuals came to be influenced by the view that scientific inquiry could bring one CLOSER to the great Truths of religion. Johannes Kepler, for example, believed that his discoveries would help gain him a better insight into the Mind of the Creator himself--or, as he put it, to "think the thoughts of God." Still, the Platonic distrust of the senses was a strong counterforce against early scientific development. When Galileo argued that his telescope proved that the earth was NOT located at the center of the universe, his opponents countered that the lens of his telescope was instead "distorting" reality-- and thus could not be trusted. Galileo had proposed that in matters of nature, one should begin with observation and experimentation--and not with scripture. Galileo's writings influenced a new generation of scientists, most notably Isaac Newton (who was born in 1642, the same year that Galileo died). Following the success of the scientific method under Newton, there was another important shift in paradigm, whereby English empiricists now viewed God as a great lawmaker--who built a mechanical universe run by laws that could be discovered by men through the use of the sciences. According to this paradigm, God was compared to a Watchmaker whose creation (or "Watch") could be analyzed independently of the Watchmaker Himself. (One of Newton's large quarrels with Leibniz was over this paradigm. Leibniz believed this view to be blasphemous, as this meant there was no role for the Deity to play in Nature, following His initial Creation. Newton's supporters, on the other hand, argued that their discovery of scientific laws could be used as evidence for a God who had designed the universe.) In Newton's introduction to his PRINCIPIA, can be seen this critical shift in paradigm towards use of the scientific method. In it, he wrote how earlier philosophers had been "employed in giving names to things, and not into searching them out". He went on to recommend the scientific method: "these Principles I consider not as occult Qualities supposed to result from the specific Forms of Things but as general Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves are formed." Thus, when Newton came up with his law of gravitation, he did NOT give any explanation as to "why" it worked. Instead, based upon his experimentation, he argued that "it is enough that gravity really does exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea." (Earlier, when Galileo studied the acceleration of fallen bodies, he wrote how "the cause of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies is not a a necessary part of the investigation." )(as quoted by John D. Barrow, THE WORLD WITHIN THE WORLD, Oxford University Press, 1990, p 86) Still, it took time for the new paradigm towards the scientific method to take hold. As a scientific base of understanding is only obtained after painstaking observations, experiments, and tests--early scientists had to fill in gaps of knowledge with something-- and mysticism and the pseudo-sciences were all that were "known". Thus, these had to be "disproven" before they could be replaced with new knowledge. Alchemy and astrology, for example, were slow to be replaced by their scientific equivalents--chemistry and astronomy. Thus, the rational English philosopher, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), spoke of his steadfast belief that all matter on earth was made up of "four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence duly and eternally placed." Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) charted horoscopes to help finance his private studies on astronomy. Even the great Isaac Newton (1642-1727) took precious time from his studies on mathematics and physics to pursue one of the favorite (but worthless) pastimes of the Ancients--alchemy--or more specifically the search to transmute base metals such as lead into gold. Chemistry is such an especially complex science, it was almost necessary to go through an interim stage before its laws could be discovered. As L. Sprague de Camp explained in his book, THE ANCIENT ENGINEERS: "the laws of chemistry are so complex and interdependent that, in formulating these laws, one must hit upon the right scheme almost all at once, instead of proceeding in normal scientific fashion from the simpler problems to the more complex... Since one cannot see atoms and molecules, one must infer their existence and behavior from other facts, and it takes much trial and error to get such inferences right." (L. Sprague de Camp, THE ANCIENT ENGINEERS--Technology and Invention from the Earliest Times to the Renaissance, Dorset Press, New York, 1990, p 236.) Accurate scientific instruments are also necessary in order to conduct experiments and to accurately measure results. New knowledge gained from one area can be used to make discoveries/theories in another area--and with it the demand for even BETTER technologies and mathematics. Looking back at these times, it can be seen that until the very foundations of science could be built-- literally from scratch--that science progressed slowly and took many torturous wrong turns. As we shall see next, it was no coincidence that the scientific climate that emerged in Europe, occurred in tandem with a general movement towards political and religious toleration-- whereby individuals could now question the assumptions of the past.