Biomedical subjects
O Riha
Publications and source records attributed to O Riha.
[Subjectivity and objectivity, semiotics and diagnosis. An approach to the medieval concept of illness].
Relying on their patients' complaints, medieval physicians did not discriminate theoretically between sickness and health. As for the types of illness, there were two different concepts of disease: The semiotic tracts (sphygmology, uroscopy, hematoscopy) describe signs of dyscrasia and locus affectus, while the medical handbooks combine symptoms like fever, pain, nausea, constipation etc. with the signs of pulse, urine and blood. The term "diagnosis" should be used only for this latter type of disease. Because of the ancient model of humoral pathology and because of the deductive construction of symptomatology, "medieval" illnesses cannot be compared with "ours".
[Not Available].
The problem of 'reality' and 'realism' is rarely discussed in medieval medical texts, although medieval medicine is based on objectivity. There are three reasons why medieval physicians were so sure about their image of human nature: the convincing model of humoral pathology, the undoubted truth of tradition, and the suggestive similarities between worldly things and their presumed divine purpose. Thus, individual cases were only examples of the common theory of medicine and were by no means able to change it.
Surgical case records as an historical source: limits and perspectives.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
[Not Available].
The history of the tradition of medical texts written in the vernacular in the Middle Ages, in particular the strict synchronic study of manuscripts, reveals that we are not dealing with specialized knowledge for experts but with information which was available to anybody who could read. The medical layman and with him the potential patient thus shifted into the centre of interest. The study of these texts illustrated the medieval concept of "knowledge" and the understanding of "reality". It emerged that empiricism in our sense played an important, but not the most important role. Trust in the world order led to the application of principles of analogous magic and faith in the truth of classical Latin tradition and the authority of the ancients went almost unbroken. However, the decisive factor is that the same degree of "reality" was attributed to humoral pathology as is to cellular pathology today. As to the significance of the texts, this means that they conveyed both theoretical intellectual knowledge and concrete practical knowledge from which experts and amateurs were able to benefit in different ways. Whereas ideas are usually developed inductively, medieval argument was conducted deductively, that is, based on natural philosophy not on natural science, and followed therefore the tradition of classical antiquity. In the final analysis it is this factor which, in spite of differing standards, unites learned and popular medicine.
[Gilbertus Anglicus and his 'Compendium medicinae'. Working method and organization of knowledge].
Although undoubtedly the name of Gilbertus Anglicus was well known during the middle ages, all data about his biography remain uncertain. His, Compendium medicinae' (ca. 1240), however, is one of the most interesting medieval medical texts. Not only that it is one of the earliest examples of Aristotle's reception in France (at Paris?), it discusses also most of the other medical authorities. The book was read and studied up to the 17th century. The elegant language and the effective construction were the main causes of this great success, which was continued by Ortolf von Baierland, who used the 'Compendium' as a source of his 'Arzneibuch'.
[Communication problems in medical historical research of the middle ages].
Although medieval medical research on scientific prose has a tradition of a hundred years, its results are largely ignored by the scientific community. The reason for this is not only a shift of interest towards the social history of medicine but, more important, a deficiency in the fields of systematology and terminology which makes communication difficult, if not impossible. Most regrettable is the lack of a comprehensive review of the texts and their topics which could serve as a basis for further methodological discussion.
[100 years of Braun anastomosis].
Although in his time a well-known and high esteemed surgeon, the data of Heinrich Braun's life are nearly forgotten, but his (now 100 year old) description of enteroanastomosis as a routine addition to gastroenterostomia made his name immortal. The author himself was not too enthusiastic about his idea, because he applied the new technique only to a few patients suffering from inoperable cancer. Apparently he never thought of the possibility nor expected the great success of the combination with the Billroth II operation as it is practised nowadays.
[From the 'canon' of Avicenna to the illustration of the 'wound healer'].
The different genres in which Latin medical texts are preserved, may become integrated in German medical literature into a new specific kind of text, the 'arzneibuch'. Depending on which parts of Ortolf von Baierland's 'arzneibuch' are preserved, different literary genres result in further tradition. When little Ortolf text survives in large compilations, as often is the case, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to identify them as belonging to a certain genre. Although medieval nomenclature is useful, it does not define the different genres, it merely classifies the texts according to their contents.
[Paracelsus--the Michelangelo of medicine? Diagnosis by Paracelsus and Ortolf of Bavaria].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
[Urine analysis in the diagnosis of Isaak Judaeus, Gilles de Corbeil and Ortolf von Baierland. Observations on the processing technic].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.