Past exam of the medicine course of the University of Oxford / 1867 / Second examination / Classical paper (No. VII.)

Original volume: Examination papers for the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine by the University of Oxford (1864–1867). The paper occupies PDF volume pages 101–102 (Oxford, December 1867, No. VII.). Open the original paper in the scanned volume.

Original questions are transcribed from the public-domain edition. Credit: Wellcome Collection; original supplied by Royal College of Physicians, London. Source and public-domain rights statement.

Translate :—

Celeres enim, vel acutae passiones, etiam sponte solvuntur, et nunc fortunâ nunc naturâ favente. Quo fit ut ignari homines elati saepe medicos fugiant, et hos proventus incantationibus novis ac ligamentis adscribant, aut fortunae; pelluntur enim (celeres passiones) aut fluore sudoris, aut sanguinis per nares, aut ventris. Chroniae autem, vel tardae passionis morbi, qui jam praejudicio quodam corpora possederint, solius medici peritiam poscunt, cum neque naturâ, neque fortunâ solvantur.

Translation. For rapidly developing, or acute diseases, also resolve of their own accord, sometimes through favourable chance and sometimes through nature's favour. Consequently, ignorant people, carried away by this, often avoid physicians and attribute these favourable outcomes to new incantations and amulets, or to chance; for these rapidly developing diseases are driven out either by a flow of sweat, by blood discharged through the nose, or by a discharge from the intestines. But chronic diseases, or diseases of slow development, which have already gained possession of the body with a kind of prior claim, call for the skill of the physician alone, since they are resolved neither by nature nor by chance.

Interpretation. Caelius Aurelianus contrasts spontaneous resolution in acute disease with the entrenched course of chronic disease. Here passiones means affections or diseases, not emotions; ligamenta means protective bindings or amulets, not anatomical ligaments; proventus means favourable outcomes. The metaphor praejudicio quodam gives the established disease something like a prior claim on the body. The final assertion is the author's defence of professional medicine, not a present-day law that every chronic disease requires effective medical treatment or that none can remit spontaneously. The account of sweating, nosebleeds and intestine discharge describes his historical explanation, not evidence that deliberately producing these discharges cures acute disease. ^[ref]

Translate :—

ex Aretaei de causis et signis morborum diuturnorum Libri Sec. cap. 7ᵐᵒ.

Translation. The stomach, the internal organ responsible for digestion, performs digestion poorly whenever diarrhoea takes hold of a person; and the diarrhoea consists of liquid, undigested food. Unless this happens from a temporary cause for only one or two days, the whole person becomes weak through wasting of the body, and the coeliac affection of Aretaeus becomes a chronic disease, through weakness of the digestive heat and chilling of the stomach. Then the food is indeed broken down under the action of heat, but the heat does not digest it completely or turn it into an appropriate nutritive fluid: it leaves it half-finished (the printed word is incomplete), through failure of the completing power. The food, abandoned by the process, changes for the worse in colour, smell and consistency. Its colour is white and lacking bile; its smell is foul and dung-like; and it is liquid and without cohesion because the process has failed, retaining only the beginning of digestion as its one good quality. Hence there is gaseous, continual, foul-smelling belching in the stomach.

Text and medical meaning. The scan ends PDF volume p. 101 with λείπε- and begins p. 102 with ἀδρανείῃ. The translation marks this defective word rather than silently pretending that the missing ending is visible. The corresponding edited Greek has λείπει, “leaves”, which supplies the sense used here. The Oxford extract also separates the conditional clause from the following sentence more abruptly than that edition; the translation carries its evident qualification forward. ^[ref]

Aretaeus of Cappadocia uses κοιλίη for the stomach or digestive belly and σκῆνος, literally a tent or dwelling, for the body. ἀτροφίη indicates wasting or failure of nourishment; it need not denote the modern histological concept of atrophy. “Appropriate nutritive fluid” renders χυμὸν οἰκεῖον: the product that the author thinks suitable for bodily nourishment, rather than a modern chemical identification. The pale, foul, loose output is an observed feature; the explanation by weak digestive heat is the author's theory. It is not a modern account of digestion. ^[ref]

The historical coeliac affection of Aretaeus cannot establish a modern diagnosis of coeliac disease. Modern coeliac disease involves an immune response to gluten that damages the small intestine; the ancient symptom description alone cannot identify that mechanism. The diagnosis should therefore not be read back into the passage as certain. ^[ref]

Give a brief account of the History of Blood-letting from ancient to modern times. Explain the changes of opinion in respect of it.

By 1867 the central change was from confidence in bloodletting as a general remedy to a disputed, increasingly restricted practice tested against clinical outcomes. Bloodletting includes opening a vein, local wet cupping, and the application of medicinal leeches. The history must explain both the theories that supported it and why clinical comparisons weakened that support.

Ancient explanations and qualifications. In the Hippocratic Corpus, disease could be explained through disturbances of bodily fluids. The four-fluid account underlying humorism named blood, humoral phlegm, yellow bile and black bile; restoring their proper mixture offered a rationale for evacuation. This was a historical explanatory system, not a modern description of blood composition. Nor was ancient practice uniformly indiscriminate. Aulus Cornelius Celsus describes bloodletting as a powerful intervention whose suitability depends on bodily strength and whether the condition represents excess rather than exhaustion. Galen likewise distinguishes whether evacuation is needed, whether it should be by venesection, and whether the patient can tolerate it; he discusses the site, quantity and repetition. Thus the ancient debate already included selection and restraint. ^{[ref] [ref] [ref]}

Medieval continuity and the instruments. The Canon of Medicine by Ibn Sina preserves a carefully qualified doctrine of venesection, including cases where removing good blood would leave harmful fluids behind. Its reasoning belongs to humorism; its distinctions should not be mistaken for verified modern indications. In late medieval Europe, bloodletting was also organized by calendars: a surviving Augsburg calendar for 1472 specifies supposedly favourable times according to the patient and the Moon. This documents an additional astrological framework, not evidence of therapeutic efficacy. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The material distinction between general and local removal mattered. Venesection opened a vein with a sharp instrument. Wet cupping combined superficial cuts in the skin with suction under a cup; Celsus describes bronze cups in which burning material reduced the enclosed air's pressure, and horn cups from which air was sucked through a small opening. Dry cupping did not include the cuts and therefore did not itself remove blood. Medicinal leeches provided another means of local removal. These instruments made depletion visibly demonstrable, but the visible removal of blood did not establish that a disease had been removed. ^[ref]

New physiology did not immediately settle treatment. William Harvey's 1628 account of blood circulation undermined the older picture of blood simply being supplied and consumed in the parts. His observations of venous valves and experiments with arm ligatures showed directional movement: filling below a ligature and the behaviour of compressed veins helped demonstrate return towards the heart. Nevertheless, a circulating blood supply could still be invoked to explain relief through depletion or redistribution. Establishing blood circulation and establishing the benefit of bloodletting were different questions. ^[ref]

In the early nineteenth century, François-Joseph-Victor Broussais's emphasis on local irritation and inflammation encouraged extensive use of medicinal leeches. This illustrates why changing theory could increase bloodletting: a local inflammatory explanation supplied a fresh reason to remove blood near the supposed seat of disease. The accompanying claims of efficacy still needed comparison with what happened under other treatments. ^[ref]

Comparative evidence weakened general claims. In 1835 Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis asked whether comparable patients with pneumonia did better when first subjected to bloodletting during days 1–4 than when first bled later. He explicitly considered age and other differences. This numerical method in medicine shifted attention from selected recoveries to outcomes in defined groups. His work restricted confidence in a large, general benefit; it should not be presented as a randomized controlled trial proving that every use was ineffective. In modern terms, these were observational studies: confounding by indication could make the earlier-treated group differ in severity, and surviving long enough to enter the later-treated group could introduce selection bias. Counting cases was an advance, but did not automatically remove these problems. ^[ref]

The dispute still alive in 1867. William Pulteney Alison defended earlier experience of benefit, while John Hughes Bennett opposed routine depletion and developed a restorative approach. One defence of the altered practice was the change-of-type theory of disease: formerly vigorous or “sthenic” inflammatory illness was said to have become weak or “asthenic”, so that measures once borne well were now inappropriate. The rival explanation was that understanding of pathology and the evidence about treatment had improved. Alison's 1856 argument and the contemporary 1858 review show that this was an active disagreement, not a completed unanimous rejection. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Bennett's 1864 discussion made the theoretical contrast explicit: an account centred on altered blood and vessels favoured depletion, whereas his account of tissue irritation and inflammatory exudation led him towards the opposite practice. That historical account of inflammation should itself be evaluated historically, rather than adopted as current pathology. The durable methodological lesson is that recovery after treatment is insufficient evidence of recovery because of it: acute disease may resolve naturally, as even the Latin extract acknowledges. Changes in theory, recognition of the patient's limited reserve, and comparative clinical observation together explain the retreat from routine bloodletting. ^[ref]

Present-day distinction. Contemporary venesection has specific indications: in haemochromatosis, removal of red blood cells helps reduce excess iron; in polycythaemia vera, it can reduce an excessive red blood cell burden. Those uses concern defined abnormalities, rather than correction of historical humorism or a general remedy for fever and inflammation. They are a modern explanatory coda, not knowledge attributed to the 1867 candidate. ^{[ref] [ref]}