Scholastic tradition and humanist innovation: the concept of neutrum in Renaissance medicine

despite their individual obscurity, Birken claims that as a group they can tell us something of the closeness of seventeenthcentury Puritan medical and clerical families, and also reveal "the mighty compatibility of Puritanism and medical professionalism", which is "not fully appreciated" (p. 101). And here we glimpse an axe that the author has brought with him to the historical mill: Puritans were good, orthodox members of the College of Physicians. The patriarch of this family, Dr Edmund Wilson, Sr, was a Puritan who early in his education opted for a medical career to avoid the bureaucratic hindrances that were being created to block Puritans from ecclesiastical careers. This choice worked because the College of Physicians was more concerned with candidates' credentials and medical orthodoxy than with their religious background or views, and therefore provided a professional refuge from policies aimed against dissenters. This helps "to cast doubt on the common assumption that the College was an extension of royal and ecclesiastical authority in Church and State" (p.41). Owing to the complete lack of references or other critical apparatus, the reader has no idea whose views Birken is addressing. However, examination of his earlier work suggests that he is still engaging George Clark, Christopher Hill, Charles Webster, and others who have portrayed the College as an instrument of official policy and Puritans as champions of sectarian, Paracelsian medicine. This is a profitable discussion, but one to which this paper makes little contribution.