New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-07-03
NEW PUBLICATIONS
sHAKEspEARE's MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.

SHAKESPEARES MEDlCAL ANVWbIDUEI
OF ROMEO AND JULIET with an INTRODUCTION
touching tho question to the medical acquire.
Shakespeare Society OF New-fork
Tho last volume of the Bankside Shakespeare
sontaips Romeo and Juliet" the Players text
of 1879 collated with the Heminges and Condell
text of 623. The introduction is by DIR. b Rush
Field who in ss5 published " Medical Thoughts
Of Shakespeare" and now reopens the discussion
rs TO Shakespearc's medical knowledge. In
case of this kind the first reflection naturally
might be "Who shall decide when doctors dis
agree ~ for DR.. Field goes counter very squarely
TO the opinion of not few eminent members OF his
own profession, who have seen IN Shakespeares
medical illusions evidence OF scientific knowl-
edge not only abreast but far In advance OF the
acorirements of his contemporaries. DR.. Field.
nevertheless, makes a strong case for his view.
which is that Shakespeare knew neither more nor
less than wel-informed men of his period; that
he was not at ell in advance of his age, but fully
shared the medical superstitions which swarmcd
during the Elizabethan age; and that in particular
he did not anticipate Harvey in the doctrine OF
the circulation OF the blood.
There can be no doubt that DR.. Field has the
commonsensc and scientific side OF the contro-
versy When a great writer seems to express a
knowledge beyond that of his generation, u must
ALWAYS be very dangerous to assume that this
seeming is Trustworthy and not Elusive. Before
certainty upon such point can be obtained the
critic must be fully informed as TO the scope
and extent of that contemporary knowledge which
appears to have been overpassed by genius In
many. possibly in all, such cases careful
and conscientious research would establish the fact
that the modern critic has erred through In
a. ~ fha narlO
concerned DR.. Field has proved that the con-
tention regarding Shakespeares knowledge about
the circulation Of the blood belongs TO this cate
CORY the fact being that all the references IN his
works TO the mechanism of circulation are based
upon the doctrine of Hppocrates and other an
GENTS who while not mastering the actual
phenomena rs did Harvey, yet approached the
truth near enough to grasp the existence OF a
circulatory system. AS regards Shakespeare
other medical knowledge it was certainly beyond
the average physician of the Elizabethan age, but
almost equally certainly, not beyond the most
intelligent scholars Of the time
There is reason to suspect that Shakespeare
looked with some contempt upon the doctors
his contemporaries; for it has been observed that
the physicians he puts on the stage are never
allowed to express his deepest truths concerning
medicines, but these are placed in the mouths
genius that he does not rest content with the
low level of medical knowledge which prevailed
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 1t
was a time when superstitions gross and fan
tastic as were ever accepted by Congo Africans
were the rule; where every year thousands were
touched by the royal hand for the Kings evll'
when the doctrine of signatures was thought sound
science: when the touch OF the hand OF an executed
criminal was held TO be an infallible cure Tor
wens and for epilepsy; when spider put IN q
nutshell and worn around the neck was pre-
scribed for a cough; when powdered mummy en-
tered largely into the pharmacopoeia; when magic
selves and sympathetical cures were solemnly
advocated and experimental upon, as witness the
essays of Sir Kcnelm Dieby and others 1t was
period when DR.. Sangrado flourished, and blood
letting was prescribed for almost every complaint
and the new learning" had not as vet made much
progress in any direction. Ben Jonson, to make
a comparison, shows much closer affinity with the
medical ignorance Of his day than does Shake
.pcare and so do all the other Elizabethan
dramatists II must think, be admitted that
If Shakcspcare'S specific knowledge did not much
exceed that of his fellows, his intelligence pre-
vented his acceptance of what was easily credible
TO them.
Dr. Field has discussed the problem in an en-
PERTAINING manner. but too specifically ana
briefly He says enough to show that in twice
The number of pages occupied he could have
written q sufficient and very interesting essay.
On one point we cannot agree with him. Speak
ing of the poisonngs in Romeo and Juliet he
intimates that the suddenness of the death of
Romeo is not realistic, for that no poison kills so
quickly. II would he extremely rash to assert
that in Shazespcare's time no quick poisons were
known-especially in Italy, the land of lethal
drugs above all lands. There is no reason why
poison equal in celebrity of operation TO hydro
cyanic acid, for example, should not have been
known; and that poison is capable Of producing
death in from one to two minutes. But the ques-
tons of poisons and of sleeping draughts de-
serve far more extended consideration than DR..
Field has here given them. We are inclined TO
think him mistaken again in regard to sleeping
dra lights, but as he hardly raises the question
it is not possible to enter upon it. Broadly
speaking, we think he is right in protesting
against the tendency to ascribe mysterious and
almost miraculous knowledge to Shakespeare.
The poets intuition went for much, but IL did
not enable him TO forcrun his peers and his time
in the ways too often implied by enthusiasts.