Past exam of the medicine course of the University of Oxford / 1865 / Second examination / Medical translations / Latin translation

Opus etiam esse cucurbitula potest in morbis longis, quamvis et iis jam spatium aliquod accessit ; sive corrupta materia, sive spiritu male habente : in acutis quoque quibusdam, si et levari corpus debet, et ex vena sanguinem mitti vires non patiuntur. Idque auxilium ut minus vehemens, ita magis tutum ; neque umquam periculosum est, etiamsi in medio febris impetu, etiamsi in cruditate adhibetur. Ideoque ubi sanguinem mitti opus est, si incisa vena praeceps periculum est, aut si in parte corporis etiam vitium est, huc potius confugiendum est : cum eo tamen, ut sciamus, hic ut nullum periculum, ita levius praesidium esse ; nec posse vehementi malo, nisi aeque vehemens auxilium succurrere.

Celsus. Lib. 2. § 11.

Instruction applying to both passages, printed after them: Translate these passages, and criticize them by the light of Modern Pathology and Practice. State in what cases you would endorse, and in what you would dissent from the treatment here recommended by Aretæus.

Translation. A cupping vessel may also be needed in chronic diseases, even when they have already continued for some time, whether because the bodily material is corrupted or because the wind is in a disordered condition; likewise in some acute diseases, if the body needs to be relieved but the patient's strength does not permit blood to be let from a vein. This remedy is less forceful and therefore safer; nor is it ever dangerous, even if used in the midst of an attack of fever, or while food remains undigested. Accordingly, where bloodletting is needed, if opening a vein presents an immediate danger, or if the disorder is also situated in a particular part of the body, one should resort to this instead. We must nevertheless understand that, just as there is no danger here, so the protection is weaker, and that a violent malady cannot be met except by an equally forceful remedy.

Critical interpretation. Celsus is comparing local cupping with general venesection, rather than distinguishing a scientifically established safe treatment from a dangerous one. His absolute claim of harmlessness and his rule that severe disease requires an equally forceful intervention need criticism, even though the concern for the patient's limited reserve is sensible.

The instrument and the historical explanation. Cucurbitula means a cupping vessel, not a vegetable prescribed as food. Earlier in the same chapter, Celsus describes bronze cups using burning material and horn cups from which air is withdrawn through an opening. Reduced internal pressure holds the cup against the skin. He distinguishes wet cupping, over incised skin, from dry cupping, over intact skin; the present comparison with bloodletting chiefly concerns the former, while the reference to disordered wind belongs to his broader account of cupping. Materia and spiritus are his explanatory categories: “corrupted material” and pathological wind in ancient medicine should not be silently relabelled as demonstrated bacterial infection or a modern measurement of gas. Cruditas means a state of incomplete digestion, not a specific modern disease. ^[ref]

Criticism available in 1865. A cautious practitioner could agree that the patient's condition limits the use of depletory measures, and that a local complaint does not automatically require general bloodletting. But neither premise proves that local bloodletting is needed. The important distinction is between comparing the burdens of two interventions and establishing a benefit from either. By 1864, John Hughes Bennett was arguing that venesection could not remove established inflammatory exudation and that routine depletion in pneumonia weakened the processes needed for recovery. His account supplies contemporary grounds for dissenting from the final maxim: a severe inflammatory disease might call for support rather than an equally violent intervention. This was an argument available before the examination, although his particular theory of inflammatory repair is itself historical. ^[ref]

Present-day assessment. The absolute statement “never dangerous” is false. Wet cupping can cause blood loss and anaemia, and both forms of cupping can cause burns, scars and infection. Current research does not establish cupping as an effective general remedy for fever or internal inflammatory disease. A skin mark or extracted blood is an observed local effect, not by itself evidence that the cause of an internal disease has been removed. The defensible part of the paragraph is the concern for the patient's reserve, not its assurance of harmlessness or its equation of severity with therapeutic violence. ^[ref]