Knowledge and practice in English medicine, 1550–1680

who wants to read the medieval Latin of the translated texts which are being discussed is not often helped towards a printed edition: this is an understandable consequence of the manuscript focus of the book and (perhaps) the author's view of the poor quality of older editions. O'Boyle has produced a very clear account of the complex history and development of a text which was very important in the medieval university, and he describes its use in a remarkably vivid way. This is a major achievement. Suggesting as it does many thoughts and reflections, O'Boyle's book should do much to advance work in the future. Some examples: a large proportion of the Art of medicine contained GrecoLatin rather than Arabo-Latin translations, and the collection's later history suggests the need for more general discussion of the tensions between the routes. O'Boyle has deliberately concentrated on the formal and external characteristics of the collection and its commentaries, confining himself, as far as their contents are concerned, to brief comment on their general characteristics and (in the chapter on teaching) brief examples, mainly from the beginnings of commentaries. A path is opened up for those who want to read the western medieval glosses and commentaries more widely, and O'Boyle has provided the route with meticulous sign-posts. At the heart of O'Boyle's book is a very static view of what went on in medieval university medicine, essentially the communication from masters to pupils of a common gloss on a canonical collection of texts. This is salutary and at the same time it may stimulate debate. On this and on more general views of medicine in Paris, readers will also want to compare other major work in the field, in particular Danielle Jacquart's La Medecine medievale dans le cadre parisien (Paris, Fayard, 1998). While focusing mainly on later medieval Paris, Jacquart's book sometimes goes earlier, overlapping and sometimes contrasting with O'Boyle's. Examples in detail are Jacquart's discussion of knowledge of Johannitius's Isagoge displayed in Paris as early as the 1120s (by Hugh of St Victor), and also different nuances in her use of early evidence of organized medical teaching. More significant are the different hues of the portraits presented in these two different books, in pigments supplied on the one hand more by study of the characteristics of manuscripts and on the other hand more by reading the contents of texts. Both portraits are of high interest.