A Treatise upon the Small-Pox. Blackmore Richard Doddridge

are not greatly superior to such Remarks as these: If a Man eats and sleeps, it is a good Sign. If he refuses Meat and cannot rest, it is bad. If he rejects his Medicines it is ill, nor is it well if he has a violent Pain in his Side. If a Man sprains his Leg it is ill, if he breaks it, it is worse: such as these are many of his certain Aphorisms. But his dubious ones are like a String of logical Topicks, or probable Doctrines in the Church of Rome, which are sometimes true and sometimes false, and as often fail as they hold good.

      One would wonder how a Man that knew so little of Fevers, should be qualified for the Cure of the Plague, which is a Fever of the highest and most dangerous Kind: Yet it is reported by Historians that he gained great Fame, and even divine Honours for his Success in subduing that destructive Disease: But it is no Argument of his Humanity and Good-will to Mankind, that he has no where in his Works clearly communicated this efficacious Medicine or Method for the great Benefit of all succeeding Ages. One would be tempted to think there was some Juggle in this Matter, and that he never really ​was Master of any Medicine that could cure the Plague, but that he came at a lucky Time, when the Pestilence had spent its Fury, and was on the declining Hand, or that he was favoured by some other fortunate Incidents, that moved the People to ascribe the Extinction of that dreadful Disease, to the Care and Skill of the Physician: For my part I do not believe that there ever was any such prevalent Medicine in the Hands of any Man whatsoever; and if Hippocrates was Master of any such Remedy, he must out of Enmity to his Species have concealed and sunk it, that Posterity might have no Benefit or Advantage by it, which surpasses all Belief; had it been so, he ought to have been stripped of his Divinity, and have had his Apotheosis reversed; If he was guilty of such Cruelty, he should have been brought down and ranked with Misanthropes, and the most unnatural and hard-hearted Barbarians; and therefore not being capable of thinking thus of him, I conclude he had no such Receipt.

      Van Helmont, a visionary Chymist, pretended to be Master of the Remedies that Hippocrates used in curing the Plague, tho' ​he did not discover it in that Author’s Writings, but was obliged to an Angel, as he says, for revealing it to him. Athanasius Kircher the Jesuit, pretended likewise to the Knowledge of this Secret, but does not say that he received it from Van Helmont, but affirms that he discovered or thought he had discovered it from some Passages in the Writings of Hippocrates. It is indeed said by a late ingenious Author, that the enthusiastical Chymist, whose Head swarmed with Reveries and Phantoms imparted this Remedy to Kircher, and that Kircher this Way came by his pretended Discovery: This indeed he roundly affirms, and there wants nothing but Proof to make me believe it. Is it credible that this should be true, that Kircher should rely on the Authority of a Vision that appeared to a crack-brained Adept, and that he should never make the least mention of him in this Matter, but affirm that he dug and drew up this Knowledge from the Depths of Hippocrates himself? And had it been otherwise, is it credible that he should submit it to the Perusal of the Society of the Jesuits, and the most eminent Physicians then ​in Rome, and that upon this he should receive the Approbation and Encomiums of both, and lastly, that he should be so hardy to dedicate a Dream, and an absurd unphilosophical Account of Remedies, to such a Pope as Alexander the seventh, who was so far from being weak and credulous, that if Matchiavel, who knew him, may be trusted for his Character, he was a very sensible and subtle Man? Now, I say, is it not very difficult after this to conclude, that the Chymist communicated his Vision to the Jesuit, concerning the Medicine which Hippocrates used in the Cure of the Plague, and that he relied upon his Story; especially when no Evidence is produced on the contrary Side of the Question? It is much more reasonable to believe, it being no more than himself affirms, that he extracted his supposed Discovery from the Works of Hippocrates himself. If it be said that he was greatly mistaken, and that what he affirms is not to be found in Hippocrates; be it so, may not Kircher notwithstanding believe that he had discovered the Secret in the Works of Hippocrates, though he was misled and relied upon obscure Passages that would not ​bear him out? Is it any Wonder that one that reads that Greek Author should be mistaken, and think that he had found out in him, what was never there and so deceive himself and afterwards lead others into the same Error? By no means; for I am well assured that a late learned Commentator has published several Discoveries, which no doubt he believes are contained in that Author, which others of as clear a Sight will never be able to find there without Van Helmont's Vision, or some other necessary Machine: And I am ready to make this Assertion good in several Instances; but this is not a proper Place for such a Dissertation; and besides it would swell this Preface, which is too large already, to a yet more immoderate Bulk.

      By what I have said, it will appear that the Study and Knowledge of the old Fathers of Physick, can serve no other valuable purpose, than to gratify the Curious with a Narrative of the low State of the healing Art in antient Times. As for Mathematical Science, which some have endeavoured to interest in the Improvement of Physick, my Judgment is, that as a ​profound Knowledge in it is not conducive to the Service of Mankind, though a moderate one is, it being only the agreeable Amusement of contemplative Men of Leisure, so it is unserviceable to Men of our Profession, who are more concerned with Fluids than with Solids; and therefore I look upon it as an injudicious and vain Attempt for any Men in order to discover the Nature of Diseases, to apply the Compass to a depraved Mass of Humours, or endeavour to square the Circle of the Blood. Geometrical Skill is rightly employed about Bones, and Muscles, and other solid Parts of the animal Frame, which more eminently belong to the Surgeon's Province; but it cannot be so useful to the Physician, whose principal, though not entire Business, respects fluid Bodies. According to the Maxims laid down in the past Discourse, I have compiled the following Treatise, where I have advanced no Notions relating to the Nature, and no Method for the Cure of the Small-Pox, but what are founded upon, and are the Result of long Observation and Experience.

      ​

      A

TREATISE

       Table of Contents

      UPON THE

SMALL-POX.

       Table of Contents

Part I.

       Table of Contents

      Sect. I.

      Of the Nature of the Small-Pox.

      t

      is universally acknowledged that this great Distemper is to be ranged in the Class of Fevers, and I shall enquire to what Kind or Species it properly belongs.

      ​A Fever is an inordinate Elevation of the oyly or fiery Parts of the Blood, by which the balance of Power between the active and governing Principles being broken, a great Tumult and Disorder arises in the animal Oeconomy, attended with immoderate Heat and Thirst, too high and often too swift a Pulse, Head-ake, and sickness of Stomach, and is either original in the Blood and Humours of the Body, or secondary and derived from some other previous Distemper. Of the first sort are all Fevers call'd acute, produced by the Admission of noxious Matter into the Blood, while the solid Parts are sound and entire: The Secondary are but an Effect or Symptom of some other Disease, of which Kind are hectick, scorbutick, wandring and white Fevers, which proceed from some antecedent Distemper, and that chiefly in one of the Bowels, and these being slow and lingring, and protracted to a considerable space