John Locke’s ‘Anatomia’ and ‘De Arte Medica’: New Transcriptions.
Drafted circa 1998-2005.
Preface
This article presents updated transcriptions of John Locke’s Anatomia and De Arte Medica first drafted for my Ph.D. thesis — John Locke’s Natural Philosophy (1632-1671). The transcriptions here have a handful of minor corrections.
It is produced here to test Medium.com as a means of presenting scholarly material, and to make the updated texts more widely available in advance of their presentation in Writings on Medicine and Natural Philosophy for the Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke.
The discussion of the dating of John Ward’s diary, and various other minor matters regarding attribution, were later presented as an Appendix to “Sydenham and the Development of Locke’s Natural Philosophy”, The British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 16 (2008), pp. 65-83, at pp. 80-3. The attribution of these texts to Locke been decisively settled by John Burrows in Peter Anstey and John Burrows, “John Locke, Thomas Sydenham, and the Authorship of Two Medical Essays”, Electronic British Library Journal, 2009, article 3, 42 p.
References to the manuscripts should be prefaced by their being in what is now known as the National Archives.
I — Introduction[1]
This paper provides new transcriptions of Anatomia and De Arte Medica. Scholars familiar with these works will be well acquainted with the need to present new editions of these important texts. Equally, such scholars will also be aware that controversy still surrounds their authorial attribution. Written by John Locke at a time of close collaboration with Thomas Sydenham, and closely reflecting Sydenham’s views, the papers could potentially have been composed by either thinker.[2] Remarks will be made concerning the environment in which these papers were written. Detailed consideration will then be given to the arguments for attribution to show that Locke was the likely author of both pieces. Finally, new transcripts of the manuscripts will be presented.
II — The Collaboration of Locke and Sydenham
In his time at Oxford[3] Locke assiduously studied the medicine of his day undertaking experiments, working with noted virtuosi and taking many notes from extensive reading.[4] Amongst the many medical notes from this period, there are two significant pieces; the notebook entry ‘Morbus’ and a disputation entitled ‘Respirationis Usus’, both betraying a bias towards Helmontian theory.[5] In the spring of 1667, Locke left Oxford and moved to London, taking up residence with Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury.[6] There, Locke made the acquaintance of noted physician Thomas Sydenham. In 1666, Sydenham had published his first book, the Methodus Curandi Febres (London 1666),[7] which held that we have no knowledge of the causes of disease.[8] Consequently, ‘Aetiology is a difficult, and, perhaps, an inexplicable affair; and I choose to keep my hands clear of it’.[9] Rather than waste time formulating otiose theories, Sydenham sought to identify the species of disease present in the patient by careful scrutiny of the observable symptoms and applied whatever remedy had proved itself most efficacious over time. Sydenham vigorously defended his methodology:
To some it may appear that the method which I adopt is based upon insecure foundations. I am, however, on my part, fully convinced, and I truly affirm, that it <is> altogether proved by a manifest experience.[10]
Locke had read Sydenham’s work[11] and sought out the author. On the 2nd of April 1668 Sydenham sent Robert Boyle a letter concerning the recently published second edition of the Methodus. Boyle had sent thanks for again having the book dedicated to him. Sydenham was now returning thanks and updating Boyle on his work:
I perceive my friend Mr. Locke hath troubled you with an account of my practice, as he hath done himself in visiting with me very many of my variolous patients especially.[12]
In the summer of 1667,[13] Locke had helped Sydenham prepare this new edition of the Methodus, expanded to accommodate a new section on the plague. Sydenham proposed radical venesection as a treatment for the disease. As well justifying this treatment on the basis of experience, Sydenham also referred to a number of authors who supported this therapy. As Guy Meynell has argued,[14] this reference on Sydenham’s part was extremely uncharacteristic, not least because reliance upon authority was one of the worst practices of ‘the Schools’. All the authors listed by Sydenham are also listed in a book by Diemerbroek, the Tractatus de peste (Arnhem 1646). Sydenham listed these authors in roughly the same order as Diemerbroek. Diemerbroek’s list presented some authors with both surname and forename. This pattern of naming was copied exactly in Sydenham’s list, strongly suggesting that Diemerbroek’s Tractatus de peste was the source for this passage in the revised Methodus. Sydenham is not known to have had an extensive library. Locke, on the other hand, had read this book a year or so earlier.[15] Locke knew that the second edition of the Methodus concerned the plague and was acquainted with the Diemerbroek, as well as several of the authors cited Diemerbroek’s list. Sydenham, on the other hand, was likely not so acquainted. It is probable then, that Locke brought this work to Sydenham’s attention, who decided to include it in his own writing on the plague.
Locke also added a poem of fulsome praise to the text,[16] attributing to Sydenham an ‘equally amazing skill and success’[17] and stating that Sydenham’s treatment had brought the plague under control:
Who would believe in Plague subdued at last, mastered by our Art and now bereft of all its ancient threats? After deaths in thousands, with graves heaped up with the dead, the dreaded scourge lies conquered by a little wound.[18]
Locke thought this all the more praiseworthy when compared with previous medical practice: ‘A thousand cures has Medicine essayed, yet still the Fever burns.’[19] Earlier physicians had attempted to discover the disease’s cause, but were hampered by the obscurity of aetiology:
The Physician ponders the Fever’s cause and course, the darkness of flames and burning without light.[20]
Sydenham took another path:
SYDENHAM, at last, opposing both Fever and the Schools, both fever probed and treatment understood. Not for him, fires of occult corruption or those ‘humours’ that breed fevers … Not for him those squabbles whose heat exceeds the fires.[21]
Locke had identified the three worthwhile strands of Sydenham’s programme: the obscurity of aetiology, the dismissal of theoretical disputes, and the endorsement of treatments gained through experience. Sydenham clearly respected and valued his new collaborator.
Locke’s medical knowledge was soon put to its severest test.[22] In May of 1668, Ashley became seriously ill with a cyst of the liver.[23] Locke coordinated the treatment and, on the 12th of June,[24] Ashley was prevailed upon to undergo an operation. By the end of the year, Ashley was restored to health (subject to the advice of physicians, Locke and Sydenham included, to keep a permanent ‘tap’ from his liver to drain the cyst).[25] It is difficult to know just how decisive Locke’s input in this incident was, but it is clear that he played a significant role in the treatment of one of the most important Englishmen of the time. Locke’s stock had risen considerably in the eyes of his patron.[26]
Sydenham continued to collect clinical observations in a manuscript entitled Medical Observations.[27] Locke was closely involved with the production of these essays, acting as scribe in the drafting of at least seven of them.[28] There are approximately fifty separable essays in the Medical Observations, ten of which Locke wrote out. Of Sydenham’s fifty or so essays, Locke made fair copies of at least thirty-four for his own use.[29]
In the summer of 1669, Sydenham was contemplating a new work based upon his continued observations on smallpox. Locke again assisted. There are two extant pieces from 1669 relating to smallpox; an Epistolary Dedication[30] and a Preface.[31] Both are in Locke’s hand, but both are clearly the work of Sydenham.[32] Both contain highly personal statements detailing the abuse that Sydenham had received at the hands of contemporaries. Sydenham’s method of treating smallpox was to keep his patients relatively cool, in contradiction to established practice:
what storys of extravagancy & folly have ye talk of prejudiced people brought upon me soe much that it has been told to persons of quality yt I have taken those who have had ye smallpox out of their beds & put them into cold water.[33]
The personal nature of these statements make it unlikely that Locke was their author — Locke would likely not have put such inflammatory words in Sydenham’s mouth. Textual analysis also lends support to this conclusion. Examining the word frequency of the Medical Observations, Guy Meynell has found that the spelling of certain words is associated with their scribe. One pattern that emerges very clearly from this MS concerns ‘the’ or ‘ye’. Sydenham wrote ‘the’ exclusively throughout this document.[34] Locke, however, when writing at Sydenham’s dictation occasionally wrote ‘ye’ as well.[35] In Locke’s own writing by contrast there is a marked preference for ‘ye’ to ‘the’.[36] In the Dedication and Preface, Locke mostly wrote ‘the’, but occasionally wrote ‘ye’ as well.[37] Since the Dedication and Preface share this characteristic with other essays that we know Locke to have written at Sydenham’s dictation, and since the papers are of a highly personal nature, it seems likely that Sydenham was the author of these papers and Locke merely a scribe. Such confident attribution is not possible for an associated text entitled ‘Small pox Preface 70’;[38] a 19-line piece in Locke’s hand, presumably an alternative or an addition to that preface already mentioned. As the text is so short, and the subject matter relatively impersonal, it is difficult to make any certain statement about the likely author. Locke continued to make his own fair copies of Sydenham’s work up until the spring of 1671 at least, copying out ‘Epidemicall diseases of the year 1670’[39] into his own notebook.[40]
It is evident that throughout this period, the two men worked extremely closely together on both practical and theoretical matters. Sydenham had shifted Locke’s natural philosophical outlook and Sydenham had benefited from Locke’s erudition, learning and practical assistance. Both men had some standing in the medical community. Locke had played a significant role in Ashley’s treatment and Sydenham was notorious for his radical therapeutic practice. The two men were very much of one mind on medical matters. It is precisely this closeness that makes a firm attribution of Anatomia and De Arte Medica so problematic.
III — Attribution
Anatomia[41] concerns the utility of anatomical knowledge in the practice of medicine. It is in Locke’s hand, apart from one sentence on the front page written by Sydenham. This sentence appears in the top margin of the page and spills over into the left margin as the measure of the page had already filled with script, indicating that Sydenham’s sentence was a later edition to the text. Locke twice endorsed it as ‘Anatomia | 68’, presumably to stand for the year 1668.[42] The paper appears to have been hastily composed with numerous additions, corrections and deletions throughout. It is likely not a copy of a pre-existent manuscript.[43] The author does not think that anatomy is of much use to the practising physician (excepting gross anatomy for surgeons), primarily because
it is certaine & beyond controversy that nature perform all her operations in the body by parts soe minute. & in sensible that I thinke noe body will ever hope or pretend even by the assistance of glasses or any other invention to come to a sight of them.[44]
The discoveries of anatomists have not proved therapeutically useful.[45] Anatomists concern themselves solely with the features of the dead — not likely to help the living.[46] Changes in excreta are not sign enough that illness is present, nor can the anatomist help in prescribing treatment when a disorder of the excreta does indicate illness.[47] Even were an anatomist to gain more knowledge, this would be of no assistance in identifying the causes of disease as
it is certainly some thing more subtile & fine then what our senses can take cognisance of that is the cause of the disease, they are the invisible & insensible spts that governe preserve & disorder the aeconomie of the body.[48]
Advances made through microscopy have not helped — we have been presented with new creatures whose life we are no nearer explaining.[49] But even supposing anatomy were to show us some of the causal structure of nature, this would be of no help: medicines prescribed to help one part of the body may be altered in their ingestion.[50] Throughout, the author enjoins physicians to use clinical experience:
how regulate his dose, to mix his simples & to prescribe all in a due method, all this is only from history & the advantage of a diligent observation of these diseases, of their begining progresse & ways of cure.[51]
De Arte Medica[52] is a fragment of a projected larger treatise on the state of contemporary medicine. It is in Locke’s hand throughout. It is endorsed by Locke as ‘De Arte Med{…} 1669 | Ars. Medica | 1669’,[53] strongly suggesting a date of 1669. This paper also appears to have been hastily composed with numerous additions, corrections and deletions throughout. It is unlikely to be a copy of another document.[54] The fragment bids physicians try a new method of medical practice.[55] Generations of physicians are not be criticised for not having already adopted this method; they did what people find natural — building hypotheses and then expected nature to conform to them.[56] The author proposes another way:
the begining & improvemt, of useful arts, & the assistances of human life. have all sprung from industry & observacon.[57]
Physicians have spent time second-guessing creation, when it is likely that only God himself can understand it.[58] Scholars have concerned themselves with empty disputes and have left practical discoveries to the ‘meaner sort of people.’[59] The author then proposes to survey: 1) the current state of diseases and their susceptibility to cure, 2) how this state was reached and 3) what may yet be done to ameliorate the situation.[60] The first part of this plan is commenced highlighting, but not naming, those diseases that are ‘almost perfectly under the controule of medecin.’[61] The paper ends on this topic, half way through a sentence.[62] Anatomia and De Arte Medica are apologies for Sydenham’s new medical methodology. Both seek to support the positions that Sydenham had advanced in the two editions of the Methodus and both underline the three themes that Sydenham emphasised: 1) we have no knowledge of the workings of nature so, 2) we should not waste time with theories about these workings thus, 3) we should rely upon methods found to be effectual through observation. Anatomia emphasised the first of these points, De Arte Medica, the second.
Both papers have a long and distinguished history of transcription,[63] study and authorial attribution.[64] For the most part, scholars have assumed that Locke was the author of both papers. Little argument was advanced for this view, so it must be presumed that scholars used Locke’s handwriting as a guide to authorship. It is only with the work of Dewhurst in the 1950’s and 60’s that doubt was cast upon this standard interpretation. Supporting considerations were brought forward in the 1970’s in Bates’ PhD thesis. Considerations supporting Locke as author have recently been put forward by Meynell and Milton.
Dewhurst appears to have first accepted handwriting as a guide to authorship. Anatomia was thus a joint production and De Arte Medica the work of Locke alone. In Dewhurst’s ‘Locke and Sydenham on the Teaching of Anatomy’,[65] Locke is held to be the author of De Arte Medica, which ‘was intended as part of an ambitious work in which Locke proposed to the review the state of clinical medicine’.[66] Anatomia, ‘dated 1668, and written in collaboration with Dr. Thomas Sydenham, was meant to form part of this treatise’.[67] On the subject of Anatomia, Dewhurst later continued:
As a result of their collaboration in clinical work, Locke and Sydenham planned to write a medical treatise of which this uncompleted fragment forms part. This essay, with its grammatical vagaries, sparse punctuation, repetitive arguments and inelegant phraseology, was undoubtedly written in haste. It may even have been dictated by Sydenham to Locke, and never subsequently revised.[68]
Dewhurst presented no argument for these claims — no evidence that Locke and Sydenham had a larger book in preparation and none that the texts had been dictated by Sydenham to Locke. Indeed, Dewhurst did not present any evidence to suggest that Locke had ever taken dictation from Sydenham. Similar views were echoed in other works by Dewhurst at the time.[69]
Dewhurst later changed his mind and, in Dr. Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689), presented both papers as the work of Sydenham, briefly summarising the reasons for this change:
The Public Record Office has two uncompleted fragments, De Arte Medica (1669) and Anatomie (1668), intended to form chapters of a book wherein Sydenham proposed to show that experience was much more important in medical practice than the current stress on the basic sciences. “Dr. Sydenham is writing a book which will bring physitians about his ears,” wrote John Ward, “to decrie the usefulness of natural philosophie, and to maintaine the necessitie of knowledge in anatomie in subordination to physic.” Ward clearly referred to Sydenham’s uncompleted book, De Arte Medica of which Anatomie was meant to form a part. Both essays are in the handwriting of John Locke, apart from one sentence in Anatomie written by Sydenham. Hence, Fox Bourne and Gibson assumed that they were, in fact, Locke’s work. When these essays were written, Locke was Sydenham’s occasional amanuensis, and several other fragments in Locke’s handwriting are now known to be copies of Sydenham’s writings, or his rough drafts dictated to Locke. They clearly reflect Sydenham’s more mature clinical experience, and they were written when Locke (who then had a strong iatrochemical bias) was only just beginning his clinical apprenticeship. Furthermore, Sydenham expressed opinions similar to those in De Arte Medica and Anatomie in his Observationes Medicae.[70]
Some arguments presented here are more compelling than others. It is not clear that the papers are the result of a mature clinical experience. None of the statements made rely upon a knowledge of specific clinical matters — all the arguments are relatively broad and would be well within the capability of anyone with a reasonable medical and literary education. Indeed, the section in De Arte Medica concerned with the current state of medicine notably omits any clinical examples. Locke had extensive medical knowledge and had already grasped the central tenets of Sydenham’s methodology (as evidenced by the poem of the 2nd edition of the Methodus). Given that Locke had nothing but praise for Sydenham’s methodology, it is likely that Locke had already shed his iatrochemical allegiances by the time Anatomia and De Arte Medica were written.[71]
Sydenham may well have repeated arguments similar to those in these documents in his later writings, but this does not mean that these arguments originated with him. If Locke composed the pieces he would likely have done so either at the behest of Sydenham, or at least shown them to Sydenham (who certainly wrote upon Anatomia). Many of the points made in these papers also appeared in Locke’s subsequent writings.[72] That Sydenham later expressed points in similar ways does not mean that such points were originally his and thus cannot count as evidence for attribution to Sydenham.
Locke did act as Sydenham’s amanuensis on occasion and it is possible that these documents are another example of this, though Dewhurst did not clearly substantiate his claim in this argument. However, no systematic comparison of those documents in which Locke was acting as an amanuensis and the two under consideration was made. That Locke acted as an amanuensis on some occasions does not imply that he did in this also — Locke independently wrote many notes and papers on natural philosophical matters. Thus far, Dewhurst’s points are inconclusive.
The quotation from John Ward’s diary is more significant. Dewhurst references this quotation to Charles Severn’s edition of extracts from John Ward’s diary.[73] Severn did not reference his extracts to the original MSS, nor did he present them in chronological order.[74] It is therefore impossible to date the quotation that Dewhurst presents through the citation of Severn alone; Sydenham may well have been preparing such a book, but at a completely different date.[75] The original copies of the diaries are currently in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C.,[76] and a useful summary of this material has been presented by Robert G. Frank.[77] Typed transcripts of volumes V, IX, X, XI, XII and XVI were prepared by Sir D’Arcy Power and are available in the Wellcome Library.[78] Frank has matched the transcripts to the original volumes, and given approximate dates for the use of these volumes.[79] The quotation regarding Sydenham appears on p. 957 of Power’s transcripts; according to Frank, this is the second half of volume XXII, dated 1668-9.[80] Meynell found the original quotation in the transcripts and appears to have proposed a dating based on Frank’s matching of the transcripts to the originals and the dating of the original volumes:
Transcript p.957, suggesting 1668-9, which could refer either to the MS. ‘Anatomie’ … or to Observationes Medicae, 1676.[81]
Further examination of the transcripts allows for more accuracy.[82] Dated entries in the transcripts show that the entries are presented in chronological order.[83] Power’s transcript of the diary gives the quotation as follows:
Dr. Sydenham is writing a book wch will bring many physitians about his ears to decrie ye vsefulnes of natural philosophy and ye necessitie of knowledge in Anatomie in subordination to physick.[84]
Physick says Sydenham is not to bee learned by going to Vniversities, but hee is for taking apprentices and, says one had as good Send a man to Oxford to learne Shooemaking as practising physick.[85]
This note appears after one dated the 27th of December 1668, so Ward learnt of this fact after this date. Further entries allows us to narrow the scope of possible later dates. The first reads as follows:
After ye breaking of a frost in Jan. and ye beginning of ffebr. an. 1668 seueral persons were apoplectick in Stratford. Chr. Warins man and ye Loader of Clyfford Mill.[86]
Ward was likely using the old calendrical system at this point, meaning that the note referred to January and February 1668/9. However, there is no telling just how long after the fact Ward made this note. Another entry serves to restrict possible later dates:
The Earl of Lecester’s first wife by whom hee had a Sonne was Douglas Sheffeild, whom hee putt away with a great summe of mony and large promises
his Sonne by her was this Sr Robert Dudly whose wife ye Dutches Dudly now to be buried att Stonely, is.[87]
Power then provided supplementary information on the Duchess of Dudley:
Alice Dudly, nee Alice Leigh, the deserted wife of Sir Robery Dudley styled Duke of Northumberland and Earl of Warwick was buried at Stoneleigh. She died 22nd January 1668-9. There is a portrait of her at Trentham Hall.[88]
Ward’s description of the burial as imminent is unlikely to have been more than a few days after the death. This would mean that the previous note on the apoplexy at Stratford was likely made in the very first few days of February 1668/9. Sydenham, then, was known to be writing a book between the 27th of December 1668, and early February 1668/9.
Ward records that the book will ‘decrie ye vsefulnes of natural philosophy’ and subordinate anatomy to medicine. It is unlikely that this refers to the Observationes Medicae. At this point, Sydenham had only completed a few of the clinical notes that would later make up the work and those notes that we do have from this period, the Medical Observations, do not cast doubt on natural philosophy, nor do they discuss anatomy. It is equally unlikely that Ward had heard about the work that Sydenham was preparing on smallpox — from the evidence we have this work had a narrow clinical remit. It is, therefore, most likely that Sydenham was writing a separate treatise on the proper place of natural philosophy and anatomy in late 1668 or early 1669. This need not imply that either Anatomia or De Arte Medica were part or whole of this projected treatise, but the coincidence of dates and subject matter is notable.
Donald Bates’ PhD thesis provided additional considerations felt to strengthen the case for attribution to Sydenham. Bates first gave a general reason why he thought it unlikely that Locke was the author:
after a close study of the relevant materials, the thing that is most striking is what a monumental presumptuousness would have been needed by Locke, eight years Sydenham’s junior and even more junior in medicine, to have written so boldly, in the first person, and to have made such liberal use of Sydenham’s ideas, many of which were implicitly or explicitly already in print.[89]
Referring to the sentence in Sydenham’s hand on the first page of Anatomia, Bates says:
The sentence is, therefore, clearly meant as a part of this treatise. It implies a link with something that went before and sets forth admirably, in the first person, the program executed by the rest of the text. The ensuing text also uses the first person on frequent occasions. And the whole style, tenor, and philosophical position are entirely consonant with Sydenham’s known work.[90]
Finally, in referring to De Arte Medica, Bates advances the following considerations:
The “Ars Medica” is not so clearly marked and identified, and is the more philosophical and therefore the more interesting of the two. It would be possible to analyse the text line by line and show that each idea expressed is to be found in some known passage of Sydenham’s work. A good deal of the affinity between the text and Sydenham’s thought has been demonstrated in the course of this thesis.[91]
Bates then stated that ‘A thorough analysis of the two manuscripts, in order to prove Sydenham’s authorship, will be offered at a later date’.[92] Unfortunately, no such analysis was ever produced. The point regarding Anatomia is quite correct however; the line that Sydenham wrote on the treatise does imply a link with something that went directly before it. This strongly implies that Sydenham at one point intended to incorporate Anatomia into another text, now presumably lost.[93] But this need not imply that the text of Anatomia itself is any less Locke’s; Locke was not above writing pieces for the use and interest of others if needs be.[94] Bates’ assertions concerning Locke’s supposed ‘monumental presumptuousness’ are unpersuasive. We have already seen that Sydenham was quite amenable to Locke adding to the second edition of the Methodus, both in the body of the new text and in an admiring poem. These additions to the text of Sydenham’s published work clearly ‘made … liberal use of Sydenham’s ideas.’ It is not clear why Locke using such ideas again in manuscript form would have been such a presumptuous act. Indeed, Locke may have been writing these pieces as an assistance to his less erudite mentor, thus helping Sydenham clearly formulate and articulate the underlying themes of his outlook. Locke was a highly intelligent man, extremely well-read in medical and other matters, an Oxford Don, known and respected by the best scientists in England and working for one of the most influential people of the time. Sydenham would have been well aware that Locke was not some ignorant tyro. Consider the assessment that Sydenham later made of Locke in the preface to his Observationes:
You know also how thoroughly an intimate and common friend, and one who has closely and exhaustively examined the question, agrees with me as to the method that I am speaking of; a man who, in the acuteness of his intellect, in the steadiness of his judgement, in the simplicity (and by simplicity I mean excellence) of his manners, has, amongst the present generation, few equals and no superiors. This praise I may confidently attach to the name of JOHN LOCKE.[95]
The implication here is that Locke is at least Sydenham’s equal. It is evident that Sydenham recognised Locke’s intelligence and learning and would have appreciated assistance in those areas where Locke had the advantage of an intellectual. Consequently, Bates’ assertion of presumptuousness provides no compelling ground to assume that Sydenham was the author of these pieces. As we have noted, consonance with Sydenham’s later views is no argument for their having originated with Sydenham. Bates’ points are unpersuasive.
Guy Meynell has presented several reasons to suppose that Locke was the author of both pieces by comparing the texts of both with Sydenham’s Medical Observations from 1670 to 1674, Locke’s Drafts of the Essay from 1671 and a number of control texts.[96] Meynell first highlights the fact that, in the manuscripts that we have available to us, the prose style in Anatomia and De Arte Medica much more closely resembles Locke’s style in this period, than it does Sydenham’s.[97] Meynell then demonstrates that the spelling of some words is characteristic of Locke’s style when writing for himself, but different from that when Locke was writing at Sydenham’s dictation.[98] Meynell found that several words and phrases which Locke used in the Drafts of the Essay also appear in Anatomia and De Arte Medica,[99] but are absent from Sydenham’s Medical Observations.[100] De Arte Medica also shares a feature of Locke’s writings of this period — namely, list making.[101] All are strong reasons to suppose that Locke was the author of the piece.
Meynell speculates that the likely home of these papers was the preface of Sydenham’s Medical Observations, as there was space left in the preface section of the MS and because there were arguments in the published preface of Observationes Medicae similar to those presented in the two papers.[102] Neither of these reasons can be considered conclusive. That there was space does not imply that it was to be filled by a Lockean effort. Sydenham’s views were in flux at the time[103] as he developed his theory of constitutions; he may not have wished to preface a work the content of which he was not certain about. Arguments similar to those presented in the two papers did appear in the Preface to the Observationes Medicae, but again, they also appeared in Locke’s later work. The arguments may have ended up in both places, but that does not imply that this was where they were originally intended to go.
An additional consideration, not mentioned by Meynell in this article, but certainly known to him,[104] again concerns word preference. Sydenham preferred ‘the’ to the exclusion of ‘ye’. When writing for himself, Locke favoured ‘ye’ over ‘the’, but in those papers where Locke was writing at Sydenham’s dictation, ‘the’ consistently appeared more often, though ‘ye’ was notably still present. It appears that in the act of taking dictation, Locke tended towards Sydenham’s style, but did not adopt exclusively. It is therefore interesting to note that in De Arte Medica and Anatomia, Locke writes ‘the’ almost exclusively in both papers. This would suggest a conscious decision to adopt this style, a decision not present in those papers written at dictation, most likely written in haste without time for conscious stylistic choices. These papers do not share a characteristic with those papers Sydenham dictated to Locke, nor that when Locke wrote a paper for his own use. This means that the paper was likely not written at Sydenham’s dictation, nor is it likely that these papers were composed for Locke’s personal use. The possibility remains though, that Locke composed and wrote both papers for someone else.
John Milton has provided further considerations to suggest that Locke was the author of both papers:
Apart from the first sentence of the work (written by Sydenham), the manuscript is entirely in Locke’s hand. The frequent alterations made in the manuscripts of both Anatomia and De Arte Medica show that Locke was not merely copying an earlier text, and seem to indicate that he was exercising some degree of authorial control over what he was writing. For myself I find it impossible to believe that Locke was merely acting as Sydenham’s amanuensis here.[105]
Whilst this argument has an initial plausibility, it does not withstand scrutiny. We have already seen that Locke acted as Sydenham’s amanuensis on a number of occasions — in some of these cases, Locke appears to have had the type of scribal authority that Milton describes, making deletions, amendments and corrections. An example of this can be seen in the notes Locke took at Sydenham’s dictation for the drafts of the essays that would be used to compile the fair copies in the Medical Observations. In these drafts,[106] Locke wrote the raw text, but also modifications to this text. Here, Locke would appear to have had complete editorial control, but the content of these pieces was authored by Sydenham.[107] In such cases Sydenham was obviously changing his mind and modifying his phraseology as he dictated the text to Locke — Locke’s role in such cases appears to have been to work fast enough to keep up with Sydenham’s changes of mind. Indeed, there are some examples where Locke wrote substantial additions to Sydenham’s text.[108] Here again, we must assume that Sydenham is dictating to Locke the additions that he wished to include. Consequently, Milton’s point is unpersuasive.
With respect to De Arte Medica, however, further considerations may render a similar point rather more compelling. A significant section of the later part of De Arte Medica is in a noticeably lighter ink that the text that proceeds it; from ‘to my designe …’[109] to ‘…attempts of good practitioners.’[110] It is also noticeable that there are two different types of correction in this portion of text — some are in the same light ink as the rest of the text,[111] some however, are in a noticeably darker ink. It is also apparent, that these darker corrections are concerned with the styling and phraseology of the text.[112] The final portion of text, ‘Nor let the malice of prejudiced persons … some diseases like some weeds’,[113] is also in a darker ink than that which preceded it. It thus appears that there were two distinct strata of work on the text of De Arte Medica; the initial period of writing with correction and emendation being made as the text was written, and a second, later strata of correction — this later correction only being apparent in the portion with lighter ink, but likely applied to the rest of the text. Equally, it is likely that the final portion of text in the darker ink was an addition to the text made in the second strata of work — Locke wrote a number of corrections to the text that he had to hand and then added a new portion in this same darker ink at the end of this work.
This makes it more likely that Locke had authorial control over the text. If Sydenham had dictated the text it is unlikely that Locke would have gone through it and amended the style and phrasing at a later date; had Sydenham wanted to make such changes, he would likely have made them himself rather than read the text and then have Locke make the emendations. Indeed, Sydenham is not known to have been interested in such literary niceties. Moreover, if Sydenham composed the text, it is difficult to imagine Locke later adding the last section to it, after having made some amendments, independent of Sydenham (presuming that Sydenham had not made Locke make such literary emendations). Consequently, this second strata of work on the text suggests that Locke had authorial control over De Arte Medica.
Milton presents a second strand of evidence in favour of Locke as author. In discussing a reference to Aristotle’s ‘δημιουργὸξ’[114] that may have been taken from Daniel Sennert, Milton states that this reference ‘provides an additional indication that <Locke> was the author of Anatomia.’[115] This, and the reference to Helmont’s ‘archeus’,[116] are certainly uncharacteristic of Sydenham and would seem to lend support to Lockean authorship. However, as we have already noted, Locke likely provided scholarly support for Sydenham’s therapy in the second edition of the Methodus. It is perfectly possible that, were Sydenham the author of Anatomia, Locke may again have helped with the provision of recondite references. Consequently, this use of scholarly subject matter cannot decisively count in Locke’s favour as author of this paper.
Nonetheless, there are some additional considerations that count against Sydenham’s authorial control over these pieces. Firstly, there is nothing else in the known contemporary Sydenham MSS and published work that resembles Anatomia’s and De Arte Medica’s sustained argumentation and exposition. The majority of the surviving papers concern the histories of disease species, individual constitutions and matters of therapy. There are some few sporadic remarks redolent of the more epistemological themes of Anatomia and De Arte Medica in some of the MSS, but such sporadic remarks had already appeared in the first edition of the Methodus. There is no sustained argumentation as we find in the two papers under consideration. Were there a group of Sydenham’s contemporary writings which presented sustained and multi-faceted arguments, it would be easier to place Anatomia and De Arte Medica alongside them. The extant MSS may only be a fraction of Sydenham’s actual output, but as things stand, it is difficult to assign these works to Sydenham when we do not know that he produced anything else comparable. The contrast with Locke could not be greater. Locke was a prolific author on several topics, his compositions marshalling and deploying sustained and complex argumentation with speed and style. Meynell emphasised the similarities in language between the two papers under consideration and the early Drafts of the Essay. The similarities in argumentative strategy between the opening sections of Draft A and the two papers are equally notable. In both places the author is keen to outline his position, make known the necessary caveats, support his premises, draw conclusions and highlight important corollaries. There is also a tendency to digress from time to time on related matters.
It may be objected that Sydenham, whilst not perhaps in Locke’s class as a writer or polemicist, was nonetheless able to clearly express himself in argument when needs be. Commentators point to the Preface of the Observationes Medicae; it certainly is a lucid and succinct statement of the views underpinning his programme. Unfortunately, this preface significantly fails to address the concept of constitutions around which the entire book is geared and which differentiated Sydenham’s views in the Observationes from those in the Methodus. Indeed the preface, with its emphasis on species, confounds the points concerning constitutions that Sydenham wished to emphasise in the body of the book. As Bates put it:
The most obvious source of conflict between Sydenham’s notion of species and that of constitutions is that the latter raises the possibility of an infinite number of temporary variants, while the former implies stable types persisting through time. And there are many things which Sydenham said, and often quite emphatically, to heighten and contrast this conflict.[117]
Indeed, Bates is obliged to spend a great deal of time undertaking fast expository footwork to show that Sydenham had not fatally contradicted himself throughout his entire magnum opus.[118] It is not easy to credit Sydenham with a great deal of argumentative acumen when propagating such muddles. Nor is it necessary to do so in order to appreciate his achievement — Sydenham’s strengths were in his robust empiricism, his clinical skill and his attempts at therapeutic reform. He did not care for scholarly niceties or the pleasing presentation of a line of thought — he cared for his patients and the practical means to cure them.[119]
We are now in a position to draw together the strands of evidence that we have considered. It is highly unlikely that Sydenham was the author of either De Arte Medica or Anatomia. Both documents are very similar to the argumentative style, phraseology, spelling and voice that Locke used in a number of other independently produced documents. Sydenham is not known to have produced similar documentation and that evidence we do have of his voice, spelling, phraseology and polemical acumen makes it unlikely that he was the author of these pieces. In the case of De Arte Medica there are additional editorial reasons to suggest that Locke had complete authorial control of the MS, making it even more unlikely that Sydenham was the author. Sydenham certainly was working on a document late 1668 / early 1669 concerning natural philosophy, anatomy and medicine — let us name this project Sydenham’s ‘Natural Philosophy’. Given the points above, this is unlikely to have been De Arte Medica. Was it then Anatomia? Sydenham’s annotation on Anatomia strongly indicates the existence of another manuscript written by Sydenham dealing with anatomy. I would conjecture that Sydenham was attempting to integrate Anatomia into his ‘Natural Philosophy’. Locke and Sydenham were working closely together at this point in their careers and it is likely that Locke would have known Sydenham was working on such a project. I would suggest that De Arte Medica and Anatomia were Locke’s attempts to help and support his mentor, possibly at Sydenham’s request and undoubtedly with his knowledge. Locke was much the more learned of the pair and was the more skilful author — Sydenham would likely have appreciated assistance in helping to articulately formulate and elegantly defend the positions that he wished to put forward. This conjecture is consistent with the anomalous word preference of ‘the’ in both papers. If Locke were composing these papers for Sydenham’s use, they were not dictated by Sydenham, nor were they for Locke’s personal reference. Locke may have written them in a way he knew Sydenham preferred. How far Sydenham got with his own work on the subject can only be guessed at — there are no extant manuscripts. We are fortunate, though, that Locke’s attempts to provide assistance to his friend and mentor have survived to shed light on this important part of his natural philosophical development.
IV — Transcriptions
It is extremely difficult to produce a readable version of these texts that does adequate justice to the complexities of their composition. For this reason the transcriptions presented here are designed to be a faithful reproduction of the texts as they appear on the MS page. This has been done in order to retain as much significant information about the texts as possible. This does make the text difficult to read but does, I hope, present a useful tool for scholars wishing to present new interpretations and arguments for attribution. Consequently, Locke’s spelling and contractions have been retained throughout. Locke’s lineation is not retained — in those places where lineation is a significant factor, a remark is made in the footnotes. All insertions are default interlineal, without a caret — exceptions to this rule are noted in the footnotes.
italics = Insertion into the text
/f.32r/ = Italics and forward slashes indicate the foliation of the subsequent text
[word] = Deletion from text
[…] = Indecipherable deletion
<word> = Editorial insertion
{…} = Unreadable word or part of word
bold italics = Insertion in an insertion
w[ei]ord = ‘ei’ was written first, but was overwritten by ‘o’
[this [silly] word] = ‘silly’ was deleted individually before the rest of the text was deleted
V- The Text of Anatomia
This text, endorsed by Locke ‘Anatomia | ·68’, is preserved at the Public Record Office amongst the Shaftesbury Papers (PRO 30/24/47/2 ff.31-8). The MS comprises 4 sheets of paper — each was folded in half to produce 2 leaves and four pages. Each page is 226 x 165 mm. The leaves were stacked one on top of the other and folded vertically down the middle using the endorsed f. 38v as the outside cover of the entire MS. The preservation work undertaken by the Public Record Office makes it extremely difficult to determine whether or how the leaves were bound together — the centre crease of each sheet has been reinforced to provide a firm foundation for binding into the current mounting. This also makes it difficult to identify the watermark on the paper, although what can be seen appears to comprise capital letters, possibly ‘LAM’. It does appear, however, that the paper was of the same type throughout.
Locke numbered Folios 32r to 37r from 3 to 13, apart from 34r which was numbered ‘[6]7’.
/f.31r/<This opening passage in Sydenham’s hand> Others of them have more pompously & speciously prosecuted the promoting of this art by searching into the bowells of dead & living creatures as well sound as diseased to find out the seeds[120] of discharging them but with how little success such endeavors have bin or are like to be attended I shall here in some measure make appeare. Anatomy noe question &c.[121]
<The remainder of the paper and all endorsements in Locke’s hand> Anatomie noe question is absolutely necessary to a Chirurgien & to a physitian who would direct a [ch] Surgion in incision trepaning & severall other opera<ti>ons. It often too directs the physitians hand in the right application of topicall remedys & his judgmt in the prognostique of wounds, humors & severall other organicall diseases. It may too in many cases satisfie a physitian in the effects he finds [in]producd by his method or medecins & though it give him not a full account of the causes or their ways of opera<ti>on yet may [serve him in the frameing a probable hypothesis,] give him some light in the observations he shall make in the history [& ideas of diseases] of diseases, & the ideas he shall frame of them. wch though not perhaps true in its self yet [may serve] will be a great help to his memory & a guid to his practise, [but] & not least it[122] will be always thought an advantage for a physitian to know as much of the subject he has to deale with as is possible But that anatomie is like to afford any great improvemts [in]to the practise of physic or assist a man in the findeing out & establishing a true method I have reason to doubt: ·All that anatomie can doe is only to shew us the grosse & sensible parts of the body, or the vapid & dead juices. all wch after the most diligent search will be noe more able to direct a physitian how to cure a disease then how to make a man, for to remedy the [eff]defects of a part whose organica{…} constitution & that texture whereby it operates he cannot possibly know is alike hard as to make a part wch he knows not how is made. now it is certaine & beyond controversy that nature perform all her operations in the body by parts soe minute. & insensible that I thinke noe body will ever hope or pretend even by the assistance of glasses or any other invention to come to a sight of them, & to tell us what organicall texture or what kinde of ferment [separates any [part] of the juices in any of the viscera] (for whether it be donne by one or both of these ways is yet a question & like to be soe alway notwithstanding all the endeavours /f.31v/[123] of the most accurate dissections) separates any part of the juices in any of the viscera· or tell us of what figures the particles of those juices are or if this could be donne (wch yet is never like to be) would it at all contribute to the cure of the diseases of those very parts wch we soe perfectly knew for suppose any one should have so sharp a knife & sight as to discover the secret & effective composure of any part, could he make an ocular demonstration that the pores of the parenchyma of the liver or kidneys were either round or square & that the parts of urin & gall seperatd in those parts were in size & figure answerable to those pores, I aske how this would at all direct him in the cure either of the jaundice or stopage of urin [how knows] what would this advantage his method or guid him to fit medecins. how knows he here by that rhubarb or pellitory have in them fit wedges to divide the [bld] bloud […]in to such parts as may be seperable urin in the one or gall in the other [how shall he here by be] or any other particles in them fitted to open those passages. how regulate his dose, to mix his simples &[124] to prescribe all in a due method, all this is [effect] only from history & the advantage of a [seriou] diligent observation of these diseases, of their begining progresse & ways of cure. wch a physitian may as well doe without [the] a scrupulos enquiry into the anatomy of the parts as a gardener, may by his art & observation be able to ripen meliorate & preserve his fruit without examining, what kindes of juices fibres pores &c are to be found in the roots barke or body of the tree. An undeniable instance of this we have in the illiterate Indians, who by enquirys suitable to wise [but un] though unlearnd men· had found out the ways of cureing many diseases, wch [by] exceeded {…}he skill of[125] the best read Drs that came out of Europ now far better versd in /f.32r/ anatomy then those skillfull Indians who were soe far from makeing any dissections that they had not soe much as knives. [Soe] & yet the Christians chose to trust them selves in their hands & found help from them, when their owne Drs left them as incurable. No question but the dissector may know well the sensible parts of the organs for generation in man or woman by wch the pox is conveyd from one to an other, but can he hence discover to me what kinde of venom it is that produces [sh] such horrid effects in the body why it corrodes this or pains that part of the body · can he [tell me] his knife discover the re[p]ceptacles wch the nose soe easily affords more then other parts, or will all his knowledg in the parts of the body point out one fit remedy for it If therefor anatomie shew us neither the causes nor cures of of most diseases,[126] diseases, I thinke it is not very likely to bring any great advantages for removeing the pains & maladys of mankind. Tis true it pretends to teach us the use of the parts, but this if it doth at all it [very] doth imperfectly & after a grosse manner. [for] to evince this let us but consider the spleen & enquire what discoverys anatomy hath made in the use of that part & after all I feare we shall finde that we know little or noething of what office it is & what it contributes to the health or aeconomy of the body, all the assigned uses of it being at best but uncertain & uselesse guesses wch may appeare in this little alteration hath beene observd […] in those animals whose spleens have beene taken out & they livd long after it, now this proceeds not from [any] the exceeding curious fabrique & undiscoverable organs & tooles of this part above any of the rest that we are soe much [in]at a losse in the functions of this viscus, but only from a[n] [all] mistaken opinion of our owne knowledg, & a conceit that we are better acquainted with the operation of other parts then indeed we are, ffor haveing observed in some of the viscera a separation of /f.32v/ some liquor or other, & that by certain vessels for that [use] purpose certaine new juices are brought out of the part wch were noe where conveyd in by them selves, we presently conclude we know the use of the part, wch is true that in grosse & as to some effect we doe, as that gall is separatd in the liver urin in the kidneys, seed in the testicles &c but how this parte performes its duty by what engines it divides precipitats, ferments separates or what else you please to call it we know noe more in the [one then in the] liver then in the spleene nor will anatomy ever instruct us by shewing that gall comes from the liver how it is to be assisted in its defects or correctd in its errors when it does not this aright soe that he that does but know the size & situation of the liver & has seene but some of its large vessels their entrance in & comeing out of the substance of it, is like to know as much of its operation as he that shall excarnifie it & spend whole years in traceing the meanders of its vessels. tis noe doubt we see gall & urin [from] comeing from the liver & kidneys, & know these to be the effects of those parts but are not hereby one jott nearer the cause nor manner of their operation & he that upon this account shall imagine that he knows the use of the liver better then the spleen in order to his cureing of diseases may upon as good grounds perswade him self that he has discoverd how nature makes minerall waters in the bowels of the earth better then he does how she makes iron or lead because he sees the one [come] flow out but the other lyes hid within, whereas upon examination it will be found that the workmanship of nature is alike obscure in both. soe that I thinke it is cleare that after all our porings & mangling the parts of animals we know noething but the grosse parts, see not the tooles & contrivances by wch nature works· & are as far off from the discoverys we aime at as ever. soe that he that knows but the naturall shape size situation & colour of any part is as well furnishd for the knowing of its diseases & their cure as he that /f.33r/ as he that can describe all the minute & sensible parts of it can tell how many veins & arterys it has & how distributed, count every fibre & describe all the qualitys of the [parenchy] parenchyma, since he knows all this & yet not to perceive how it performes its office is indeed to take pains for some thing more difficult but not a jot more usefull then that other lesse accurate knowledg in anatomie[127] I mentioned [in], the laborious anatomist I will not deny knows more but not more to the purpose for if he cannot come to discover those litle differences wch [make] preserve health or make a disease if he cannot possibly see how nature prepares those juices wch serve [for their use] in· their fit places & proportions for the use & preservation of the body. he may perhaps be the better anatomist by multiplyd dissections but not a better physitian, for poreing & gazeing on the parts wch we [cut] dissect without perceiveing the very precise way of their workeing is but still a superficiall knowledg, & though we cut into the inside we see but the outside of things & make but a new superficies for our selves to stare at for could the intent lookeing upon any part teach us to cure its defects the Ladys would have more reason to goe to the painter then physitian for removall of frecles & scabs sore eyes & sallow cheeks from their faces But to make it yet clearer that when we pretend to discover {…} anatomy the use of any part it is only of those parts where we see something separated, & then all the knowledg we have is but that such a juice is there separated. wch is but a very scanty & uselesse [observation] discovery, & that wch in a very few days may be perfectly attained in all the parts of the body. Let us consider the lungs /f.33v/ a part of that constant [use] necessity that we cannot live a minute without its exercise & yet there [is] being [s]noe sensible a separation of any thing in this […] viscus, we are still at a perfect losse in its use, (not to say any thing that though anatomy had taught us its use yet it would not doe us much service towards the cure of its diseases.) & whether respiration serve to coole the bloud, or give vent to its vapours, or to adde a fermt to it, or to pound & mix its minute particles or whether any thing else is in dispute amongst the learned from whose [disputes] controversys about it are like to arise rather more doubts then any cleare determination of the point & all that anatomy has donne in this case as well as severall others. is. but to offer new conjectures & fresh matter for endlesse disputations. Tis certain therefor that in parts where noe separation is made the [ph] anatomist is forced to confesse his ignorance & but very doubtingly to [p] assigne the use of the part, not that he has any more perfect or usefull knowledg of those parts where he finds a separation, tis true he affirmes it is the [use] businesse[128] of the liver to separate the gall & the pancreas a juic of an other kinde [wch yet] of wch we have yet noe name[129] we know as well with all its uses as the gall & others yt we have names for.[130] & tis probable he is in the right but this does him noe more service than the bare[131] knowing that it is the businesse of a watchmaker to make a watch. will instruct any one the better to make, or mend it when [it goes not right] out of order soe that I thinke I may without injury to any body say that as to the true use of parts & their manner of operation anatomy has hitherto /f.34r/ made very slender discoverys, nor does it gives very much hopes of any greater improvemts ·haveing already baffled the indeavours of soe many learned ingenious industrious & able men not [because] for want of any skill or sagacity in them but because the matters they handled would not bare it [they being to small] the tooles where with nature works & the [ef] changes she produces in those particles being too small & too subtile for the observation of our senses for when we goe about to discover the curious artifice of nature & take a view of the instrumts by wch she works. we may with as much reason expect to have a sight of those very spirits by wch we hope to see them, for I beleive the one as far from the reach of our senses as the other
<Locke here leaves a one line gap in the MS.>
Let us next see how anatomie performs its undertakings in [the juice] detecting the [juices] humors & discovering to us their natures & uses & here I thinke we shall finde it performes as little as in the other part, & that for the same reasons, for though upon dissections we finde severall juices where they are lodged & wch way they tend, yet what part they beare in the aeconomy of the body what ferments [alterations] striynings, mixtures & other changes they receive in the severall part through wch they passe we cannot at all [finde] discover. for where ever almost the anatomist makes his trialls […] either the juises he observes must be extravasated &[132] dead & out of the regimen of the life & spirits of the body or else the animall dead […], & soe the parts wch alter these juices looses /f.34v/ [its] their operation, & wch soever of these two happen the humor he is examining will be of a far different nature & consideration [then] from what it is, when it has its due motion & activity in a liveing animal. all therefor that the anatomist can doe is to shew us the sensible qualitys & motions of severall of the juices of the body but how litle this can possibly conduce to hypothesis or cureing of diseases or preserveing the health & easing the maladys of mankind [may] will easily appeare to a man who considers first that [very few] many of these humors can not be knowne in a liveing man for whatever alterations may happen in the chyle Lympha succus pancreaticus, gall & what ever other humors be in the body not immediately vented in some outward part excepting the bloud, […] & how ever these alterations may concerne the present state of health or sicknesse of any man, yet even the sensible qualitys of those either naturall or depraved juices cannot be known to the physitian when he is considering the condition of his patient or the way to his recovery. Secondly that those [wch] juices that may come within the observation of the physitian [are liable to very much chang] as ye spittle seed uri{…} bloud &c are liable to very great alterations in their sensible qualitys without discovering any difference of health or sicknesse in the [patient] man & he would be thought a very indiscreet man that upon every change he should find in his urin or spittle should betake himself to a physitian /f.35r/ physitian to rectifie the disorders of his body, the vanity & quacking of uromantia hath beene sufficiently exploded by the learned & sober part of rationall physitians But thirdly grant that these excreta doe give the physitian any insight into either the constitution of the body or the condition of the disease what thanks is there due to anatomie for it, he that in a feavor or any other malady is able to make [any] advantage from [his] inspection into the urin, & by that takes any indication, & chooses time for purgeing bleeding or [any other] the giveing any medicin, [is no] doth not this one jot the better for knowing the structure of the veins ureters bladder &c, but by acquainting himself with the nature & history of the disease. & whether the stones be only a complication of vessels without parenchyma or [a mixture] glandules consisting of vessels & parenchyma will be of very litle consideration, [in]when a man findes the ex[oc]cretion & colour of the seed praeterna<tur>al in a virulent gonorrhaea. & he that knows all the [con] texture & constitution of that part is as far from knowing the cause of ye yellownesse or acrimony of the seed at that time as he that has never seen [soe much as] any more of a testicle, than a dish[133] lambstones fried & served up to a table. The bloud noe question is the great genius of the body & that wch is most concernd in the nourishmt[134] health & sicknesse of the man, (for as for the succus nervosus [though I or any body else may sup] whatever others may thinke of it, tis certain the /f.35v/ anatomist of all men if he will be true to his principles [ought] should not [to] suppose it, since he ought not to believe any thing but what he sees, & when he makes it visible others [are bound to] may then believe it too) the bloud I say that is soe much concernd almost in every disease is lyable to examination without the help of [anatomie] dissectiones & he that has but anatomie enough to know a veine & skill enough to use a lancet or [that] stands by a surgeon that does has if he be a good physitian & an observeing man more information from the bloud, & light into the disease then ever he could gaine by riping up all the veins & arteries traceing their branches & meanders in never soe many dead carcases. But, ffouerthly granting all this that the accurate anatomist knew more of the sensible qualitys of the juices of the body & the [alter] kinds of [its] their variations [&] then an other physitian, I thinke he would [g]after all that know very little more of the causes of diseases then a less accurate dissector, for after all the [finde] fine discourses of the tast smell colour & consistence of the juices in the body & the changes he […] supposes to be the cause of this or that disorder in the body, it is certainly some thing more subtile & fine then what our senses can take cognisance of that is the cause of the[135] disease, [&] they are the invisible & insensible spts that governe preserve & disorder the aeconomie of the body, [to shew] this cannot be doubted by any who will allow them selves [to] to consider how little different the bloud as to all its sensible qualitys is[136] in severall feavers wch are certainly distempers that doe affect /f.36r/ & reside in masse of bloud, from the bloud in an healthy man, [or what differ,] who is able by seeing the blood to divine whether it be an intermittent or a continu[all]ed fever whether a dysenterie or haemoptoe the patient is sick of· & what sensible falt does often appeare in that bloud [wch] in wch na<ture> does sometimes expell the cause of a disease & give present ease by a [chr] criticall haemorrhagia, wherein the bloud very often lookes as florid & as well conditioned, as any that flows in the veins of the most healthy man liveing tis some thing therefor beyond [yellow] florid or black, some thing besides acid sweet or salin that [influ] causes diseases & appears to us only in the sad effects we feele of it wch may be very violent & horrid though the cause be very small in bulke, & insensible in its parts, what strange disorders will the bite of a viper cause in the body of the strongest man, when [perhaps] all that he injects into ye wounded flesh is not the tenth nay perhaps not the [10] 1/100th part of a grain, & he that shall remember how many [thousand] men <an ounce> of vitrum antimon without wasting its self[137] [by] will vomit infused in wine wherein it makes noe sensible alteration will have little incouragment to seeke for the cause of diseases, in the sensible difference of the humors . Some men that have made anatomicall enquiries into the stomach, tell us the menstruu<m> wch there causes appetite & digestion is acid, others that it is more of kin to sal armoniak, (for the naturall temper of that juice wch lies at the threshold & very entrance of the body & is but the first praeparative to those other more refind & exalted that are afterwards to be /f.36v/ produced is not yet agreed on after soe many thousand dissections) be it [one or tother or] acid or salin or of what other sensible quality it will, the appetite [seemes not bar] nor digestion seemes not to depend upon the sensible constitution of that menstruum, when it often happens that one who sits downe to table with a good stomach looses it utterly upon the receit of [good] suddain bad news or any thing that violently stirs up al{…} any passion, & has noe longer any appetite though noe body can thinke that the juice in the stomach is by such [news] an accident made lesse acid then it was before. Ther is some thing therefor in the body & the juices too [sm] curious & [sub] fine for us to discerne wch performes the offices in the severall parts governs the health & produces the various motions in the body intus-mens agitat molem, & upon whose unconceivable alterations depends our health or sicknesse· hence a fright wch [aff] causes some diseases as epilepsies [&]hystericall fits, & fatuity often[138] cures others as agues & as some report the gout its self & tis probable in these cases twould puzzle the quickest sighted anatomist assisted too by the best microscope to find any sensible alteration made either in the juices or solid parts of the body. Therefor this hidden δημιουργὸξ was soe much out of the reach of the senses [&]yea & apprehension of the ancients that not knowing what to [call it] conceive it, they went above the clouds for a name[139] cald it φμσιν αναλογον τῶ τῶν ὰστρων ατοιχήῳ, an expression however obscure & insignificant more like to give us a usefull notion of the thing, then the anatomist to shew us this archeus by wch name Helmont has as clearely & intelligibly explained it to us as Aristotle by his description.[140] [as Helmont pleases to call it] . But to put it beyond doubt that anatomie is never like to shew us the minute organs of the parts /f.37r/ or subtile particles of the juices on wch depend all its operations & our health, it will suffice but to mention a mite or rather a little [ani] creature by the help of microscopes lately discovered in some kinde of[141] sand, an animall soe small, that it is not to be discernd by the naked eye & yet has life & motion to the preservation of wch there must necessarily be supposed a mouth stomach & guts, heart veins & arterys & juices in them adde to these brains[142] [to omit liver brains eyes] nerves muscles & bones without all wch it is hard to conceive life & motion & all these to omitt, [the rest of those parts] eyes ears liver spleen &c to be conteind in a [p]insensible particle of matter let the anatomist take this animalculum, or a mite (neither of wch I suppose he will thinke to be a finer peice of worke manship then the body of a man or to produce more refind spirits,) & when he can but shew the parts in one of these insects I shall beleive he will be able to shew the very operations of those parts in [the other] a man & till he dos that he does very litle towards the discovery of the cause & cure of diseases. [for let me adde] Tis certaine therefor notwithstanding all our anatomicall scrutinys we are still ignorant & like to be soe of the true [formall &] essentiall causes of diseases, their manner of production, formalities, & ways of ceaseing [& are like to be soe], & must be much more in the darke [t]as to their cures upon such hypothesis for supposeing it were the acidum amarum & acre of the great Hippocrates or the sal sulphur & mercury, the volatile & the fixd of the chymists[143] that made disorders in the body & we could come to know wch of these in excesse it was that [in excesse][144] producd this malady & where /f.37v/ it was lodged supposeing v.g. that too much acidity in the bloud or other juices[145] caused the gout a fever or epilepsie what indication would this give a practicall physitian in the cure of [of] either of these diseases tis true twill presently be suggested he must mortifie this acidity, but will he be thence inabled to choose fit remedies & a due method of their application, will he conclude that perle corall or egshells because they take away the acidity in vinegar will be certain & effectuall remedies in the removall of these maladies. he that shall proceed in such [hypothesis] grounds as these may indeed constitute fine doctrines & lay plausible hypotheses but will not have much to brag of his cures. for the alterations that both our food & physick receives in our mouths stomachs guts glandules &c[146] are soe many & soe unintelligible to us before they come to the places we designe them, that they are quite another thing [& worke [otherways] then we phansy] then we imagine & worke not as we phansie but as nature pleases & we may as well expect that the juice of worm·wood should retaine its greenesse or bitternesse in the venae lacteae as [its other qua] any other medicin its native qualitys till it come to the masse of bloud, for that it is not[147] any sensible qualitys by wch medecins work their effects on our bodys [is an] & soe cannot by those criterions be chosen & adaptd to our hypothesis (all our knowledge of their efficacy being [the effect of experience &] to be acknowledged rather /f.38r/ [to the ex{…}] [the of] old womens experience then learned mens theories .) appears in that wormwood & colcynthis are of different uses in physick. that sugar in some stomachs turns to acidity & milk the most universall & innocent food in the world is to some men as bad as poison. the anatomist will hardly be inabled to […] tell us therefor what changes any particular medecin either makes or receives in the body till he can inform us by what artifice & in what shops in the bodys of animals nature makes [out of the juice] volatil salts out of the juice of plants wch appear not to have any such substance in them
Anatomia
68[148]
/f.38v/ Anatomia
·68
Various
Abt the year 1670[149]
VI — The Text of De Arte Medica
This work, endorsed by Locke as ‘De Arte Med{…} 1669 | Ars Medica | 1669’ is preserved at the Public Record Office amongst the Shaftesbury Papers (PRO 30/24/47/2 ff. 47‑56). The body of the MS ff. 49-56, comprises four pieces of paper each vertically folded in the middle to make two leaves and four pages each. These pairs of leaves were stacked one upon the other. A jacket was provided for the text by ff. 47-48 — this is a larger heavier sheet, again vertically folded to produce two leaves in which the stack of the body text was placed, f. 47 the front cover, f. 48 the back. Locke only wrote upon the right-hand pages, leaving the left-hand pages blank for any insertions that he would add in later revisions. This is similar to the method which Locke would later use for the composition of Draft B, the only difference being that Draft B stacked quires one upon the other, rather than folded pairs of leaves. On a number of occasions in De Arte Medica, notes are made on the left-hand pages, but no point for insertion is indicated in the text. Where this occurs, the unmarked pieces of text are recorded in the footnotes; where there is a marker in the text for a note on a left-hand page, the note is incorporated into the main body of the text. Locke numbered f. 47v as ‘0’. From f. 49r onwards Locke numbered each page 1 to 16. Apart from Locke’s page numbers, ff. 48r&v, 50v, 51v, 54v & 56v are all blank. Locke did not use margins. Again, due to preservation work and mounting it is difficult to see watermarks and previous bindings. However, the different sizes of folios suggest that Locke used at least 3 different types of paper in composing De Arte Medica.
/f.47r/
De Arte Med{…} 1669
Ars. Medica
1669
/f.49r/ Length of life with freedome from infirmity & pain as much as the constitution of our fraile composure is capable of is of soe great [considera<ti>on] concernmt to man kinde, that there can scarce be found any greater undertakeing then the profession to cure diseases. nor is there any art that soe well deserves all the care & industry & observa<ti>on of its professors to improve it & bring it to perfection, wch I doubt not but [the] in many parts [of it] & to a great degree it is capable of. he that shall goe about to doe this shall noe question deserve the thanks of mankinde for soe good an intention, as the reduceing those rules & methods to a certainty on the practise whereof the ease & recovery of sicke men depends but whoever shall thinke to compass it alone will [inga] finde him self ingaged in a businesse too [great] large for any[150] one mans comprehension & too great for his owne single endeavours. My intention therefor [is in com] is to propose some few things to the considera<ti>on of the Learned men of this soe usefull a faculty & to excite their mutuall assistance to perfect the art & establish a setled certaine practise in the cure of [diseases] sicknesses, that soe the large catalogue of yet incurable diseases & the frequent sad events of [others] the rest being [must be] every day lessend the diffidence wch some sober men upon se{…} considera<ti>on seeme to have of the art its self & the disrepute wch others industriously labour {…} bring upon the practise of physick being by the dayly growing successe of the physicians removed, {…} [act] industrious & learned practitioners[151], [the diffidence & [disesteeme] disrepute of the art its self] [migh] [& then might cease wch hath very much spread its self might cease] & practitioners of physick with more confidence & satisfaction attend their calling when they could be noe longer upbraided with those [common] confessed opprobria medicorum wch every day yeild to the efficacy of their medecins or well orderd methods[152]. If this were once set about it would not perhaps be found soe impossible a designe as is at first sight imagind. & the great improvemt some parts[153] /f.50r/ of medecin have received within this few years give me confidence to beleive, [there remains yet a great deale to be] that it is yet capable of great additions & that in a way some thing different from what hitherto seems[154] [appeares] to have beene generally[155] followed [if we examine the writings of [most] those] by most of those who have beene soe kinde as to propagate the knowledg of physick, & leave the rules of practise to posteryty, as will appeare to any one who shall carefully peruse their wrightings, wherein yet they have very much obleiged posteryty, [& wherein yet] & they are not to be blamed that they did that wch is very [naturall to man] agreeable to the nature of [h]mans understanding, wch not contenting its self to observe the opera<ti>on of nature & the event of things, is very inquisitive after their cause & [is] very restlesse & unquiet till in those things wch it is conversant about, it has framed to its self some hypothesis & laid a foundation whereon to establish all its reasonings. If therefor the[is] Learned men of former ages imploid a great part of their time & thoughts in searching out the hidden & [forma][156] causes of distempers, were curious in imagining the secret workemanship of nature & the severall unperceptible tooles wherwith she wrought, & puting all these phansies togeather fashioned to them selves systems & hypotheses, ·is noe more to be wonderd at or [blamed] censured, then that they accomadated them selves to the fashon of[&] their times and countrys. & soe far complied with their most naturall inclinations, as to desire to have some basis to rest th[e]eir thoughts upon & some grounds to guide them in the practise of their art, their being busy & subtile in [imag] disputeing upon [certain] alloud principles was but to be imploid in the way of fame & reputa<ti>on & the learning [of that] valued in that age. [I] & that their practise extended noe farther then thier sacred principles they beleived in would permit is noe more to be admird then that we finde noe /f.51r/ fair & lasting fabriques left to us by our ancestors upon narrow & unsound foundations · I would not be thought here to censure the learned authors of former times, or disowne the advantages they have left to posterity. to them we owe a great number of excellent observa<ti>ons & severall [learned] ingenious discourses, & there is not any one rule of practise [left] founded upon unbiassed observa<ti>on wch I doe not receive & submitt to with venera<ti>on & acknowledgmt: yet I thinke I may confidently affirme, that those [th] [long & elaborate discourses of the ancients about the humours] .[h] hypothesis wch tied the [disease] long & elaborate discourses of the ancientts & sufferd not their enquirys to extend them selves any farther then how the phenomena of diseases might be explaind by these doctrines & the rules of practise [might be] accommodated to [those] the received principles has at last but confined & narrowed mens thoughts, amused their understanding with fine but uselesse [notions] speculations, & diverted their enquirys from the true & advantageous knowledg of things. the notions that [by this way of proceeding] have been raised into mens heads by remote speculative principles though true are much like the curious imagery men sometimes see in the clouds wch they are pleased to call the heavens, wch though they are for the most part phantasticall & at best but the accidentall [composure] contexture of a mist yet doe really hinder the sight & shorten the prospect, & though those painted aparitions are raisde by the sun & seeme the genuin ofspring of the great fountain of light. yet they are really noething but darknesse & a cloud. & whosoever shall travell with his eye fixed on these tis ten to one goes out of his way. he that in physick shall lay downe [princip] […] fundamentall maximes & from thence drawing consequence & raising dispute shall reduce it into the regular fame of a science has indeed done some thing to enlarge the art of talkeing & perhaps /f.52r/ Laid a foundation for endlesse disputs, but if he [requires] hopes [that] to bring men by such a system to the knowledg of [diseases] the infirmites [of mens] bodys, the constitution nature signes changes & history of diseases with the safe & direct way of their cure, takes much what a like course with him that should walke up & downe in a thick wood overgrowne with briers & thornes with a designe to take a view & draw a map of the country. these speculative theorems doe as little advantage the physick as food of men. & he that thinkes he came to be skild in diseases by studying the doctrine of the humors, [or that he owes the cure of feavours to the [inexplicable] notions of [p]obstructions & putrefaction] that the notions of obstructions & putrefaction assists him in the cure of feavers, or that [he] [owes the knowledg] by the acquaintance he has with sulphur & mercury he was lead into this usefull discovery, that what medecines & regimen are as certainely [cure] kill[157] [at]in the latter[158] end of some feavers as they [kill] cure in others, may as rationaly beleive that his […] Cooke owes his skill in rosting & boyling to his study of the elemts & that his speculations about fire & water have taught him that the same [boileing] seething liquors that boiles the egg hard makes the hen tender. the begining & improvemt, of useful arts, & the assistances of human life, have all sprung from industry & observa<ti>on [useful] true knowled grew first in the wor<l>d, by experience & rationall [opera<ti>ons] [tryalls] opera<ti>ons & had this method beene continued [for] & all mens thoughts beene imploid to adde their owne tryalls to the observa<ti>on of others noe question physick as well as many other arts, had been in a far better condi<ti>on then now it is {…} but proud man not content with that knowledg he was capable of & was useful to him, would needs [prie] penetrate into the hidden causes of things lay downe principles & establish maximes to him self about the[159] /f.53r/ opera<ti>ons of nature, & then vainely expect, that Nature or in truth god him self should proceede according to those laws his maximes had prescribed him. where as[160] his narrow weake facultys could reach noe farther then the observa<ti>on & memory of some few effects produced by visible & externall causes but in away utterly out of the reach of his apprehension, it being perhaps noe absurdity to thinke that this great […] & curious fabrique of the world the workemanship of the almighty cannot be perfectly [understood by any thing els] comprehended by any understandg but his that made it, but man still affecting some thing of a deity labourd to make his imagina<ti>on supply what his observa<ti>on failed him in, & when he could not discover the principles & causes & methods of natures workemanship, he would needs fashon all those [to him self,] out of his owne thought & make a world to him self· framed & governd by [him se] his owne intelligence. this vanity spread its self into [all the] many of usefull parts of naturall philosophy, & by how much the more it seemd subtile sublime or learned by soe much the more it [was] proved pernicious & hurtfull by hindering the [improvemt of [use] advantageous arts·] growth of [usefu] practicall knowledg. thus the most acute & ingenious part of men being by custom and [vanity] education ingagd in empty speculations, the improvemt of usefull arts was lefte to the meaner sort of [men] people who had weaker parts & lesse opportunitys to doe it, & [th] were therfor branded with the disgrasefull name of mechaniques, hence it came to passe that ye world was fild with books & disputes[161] bookes multiplied without /f.54r/ the increase of knowledg: the ages successively grew more learned without being wiser or happyer or if the conveniencys of humane life [happend] chanced to be promoted by any new invention, [it was] men were not led to such happy discoverys by the conduct of philosophicall speculations, but chance or well designed experiments taught[162] [shewed] them to[163] those who imploid their time &[164] thoughts about the works of nature more then the maxims of the schooles. of this the plowman [gardiner corb] tanners smiths bakers dier painter &c are witnesses. the great inventions of [guns &] powder & the load stone wch have alterd the whole affairs of man kinde are undeniable [inta] instances. [soe yt had both read & writ whole volumes of generation & corruption of nutrimt & concoction, knew little how to order their children their cable or their Kitchens. the country man & the cooke were in the usefull parts of]
Soe that those who had read & writt whole volumes of generation & corruption knew not the way to preserve or propagate the meanest species of creatures he that could dispute learnedly of nutrition concoction & assimulation was beholding yet to the cooke & the good housewife for a wholsome & savory meale, & who ever desired to have faire gardens & fruitfull fields, had more reason to consult [with] the experience of the dull plowman & unread gardener then [with] the profound philosopher or acute disputant. Let not any one be offended that I ranke the cooke & the ffarmer [in naturall philosophy] with the Scholler & philosopher, for speakeing here of the knowledg of naturall bodys, the end & benefit whereof can be noe other then the advantages, & conveniencys of human life, all speculations in this subject however curious or refined or seemeing profound & solid, if they teach not their followers to doe something either better or in a shorter & easier way then otherwise they could, or else leade them to the discovery of some new & usefull invention, deserve not the name of knowledg. or soe much as the wast time of our idle howers to be throwne away upon such empty [uselesse] idle phylosophy·[165] [whatsoever speculations & philosophy teach not a man to doe something for the common benefit of man kinde {…} deserves not the name of knowledg, or soe much as the wast time of our idle howers to be spent about it,] they that are [busy &] studiously bysy in the culti /f.55r/ cultivateing & adorning[166] such drie barren notionions, are vigorously imploid to little purpose & might […] with as much reason have retaind [the [pup] babys they] now they are men the [puppet] babys they made when they were children, as exchanged them for those empty impracticable notions [wch]yt are [p]but the puppets of mens phansys & imaginations wch however dressed up are after 40 years dandleing are but puppets still, [that have neither use] utterly void of strength use [nor efficacy] or activity [or productions] but not to expatiat into the large feild of na<tur>all[167] phylosophy where perhaps the foundation of the mischeif was first laid, I shall according[168] to my designe confine my self at present to that [pa] branch of it wch immeadiatly concerns the health of men. & in physick shall consider
1 The present state of the faculty of medecine as it now stands [at present] in reference to Diseases & their cure
2 The [deg] severall degrees & steps whereby it grew to that heigth it is at present [at] arrived to wch I suppose are these following 1 Experience. 2 Method founded upon phylosophy & Hypothesis 3 Botaniques. 4 Chymistry. 5 Anatomy. In all wch I shall indeavour to shew how much each hath contributed to the [perfecting] advanceing the art of physick, & wherein they came short of perfecting it
3 What yet [is to be donne] may be further donne towards the more speedy & [p]certain cure of diseases. i.e. by what means & method the practise of physick may be brought nearer to perfection
1 Diseases as they lye under the regimen of physick, & receive more or lesse check from the applica<ti>ons & methods of that art as it now stands, may fitly be divided into 4 sorts
1 Such as are [constantly] [almost] almost perfectly under the controule of medecin, & doe [almost] for the most part[169] constantly yeild to the [sph] skillfull physitians hand guided by the [rule] established rules of his art, & wherein he can [most commonly] [upon] at[170] first sight, (as far as is fit with submission to providence & the great disposer of mens lives) […] undertake the cure with assureance of a happy event. for it is not to be hoped yt ye meanest disease should always obey the skill of the ablest physitian nor would such a vanity be tolerable in weake ignorant men to [undertake presume] pretend to be the dispensers of health [& liberty] & life [wch]yt[171] are[172] /f.56r/ the free gifts of almighty god & wch though his hand uncontroulably takes away or bestows where he pleases, yet he most commonly does it by the intervention of fit secondary means; & therefor I doubt not but a physitian in some cases may [as] with as little presumption assure a sick man of recovery, as a mother undertake to cure the hunger of her childe wch is a disease too, [wch] but yet this[173] he doth not by any power or authority of his owne over the nature of things, but by a right applica<ti>on of those remedys wch were ordeined for the produceing such effects, medecins rightly orderd being as certaine to recover some infirme bodys as [food] rabits & chicken well dressed to nourish others that are healthy, though perhaps some constitutions may be found with whome that kinde even of wholsome diet will not at all agree. But yet whoever has brought the cure of any disease neare such a certainty, as is the nourishmt of a healthy man by any one kinde of holsome meat, may be allowd to be confident in his undertakeing [such a mal] that species of distemper & in that part to have perfected the art of physick, though perhaps in[174] some stubborne & irregular cases his well [established] constituted[175] method should faile him, & the disease frustrate the usuall successe of his indeavours. & to such a degree of perfection as this I thinke I may confidently affirme the art of physick is arrived in many diseases wch [most] seldom stand out agt the skillfull[of][176] attempts of good practitioners. Nor let the malice of prejudiced persons suggest here, that [t] these confident promises of [recovery] health are not to be relied but only in such diseases wch of them selves leave us, wherein nature commonly workes the cure without the assistance of art & it may be with reason suspected the patient owed his recovery more to the vigor of his owne constitution then the apothecarys drugs, some diseases like some weeds[177]
[1] In this paper, the following abbreviations will be used: ‘BL’ = British Library, ‘Bodl.’ = Bodleian Library, ‘PRO’ = Public Record Office, ‘WL’ = Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine and ‘FL’ = Folger Shakespeare Library. MS references comprise: Library, Shelfmark and folio or page number. Those manuscript entries that begin on one page and end on another will be linked by an ampersand. References to the content of Drafts A and B of the Essay will cite the Draft, Section number and page number of the extract from the P.H. Nidditch and G.A.J Rogers edition (Drafts for the Essay concerning Human Understanding, and other Philosophical Writings, Vol. I, (Oxford 1990)). References to the Essay are in standard form, with a prefix noting the derivation from the Essay. In referencing MS material in the body of the article, the textual apparatus will comprise: pointed brackets <…> = editorial insertion into a text, italics = an insertion into a text, | = a line break in a text and square brackets […] = a deletion from a text. A comprehensive apparatus will be presented for the transcriptions themselves.
[2] In this paper, a distinction will be drawn between the author who composed the texts and the scribe who wrote the words.
[3] For detail on Locke’s time in Oxford, see J.R. Milton, ‘Locke at Oxford’, in Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context, ed. G.A.J. Rogers, (Oxford 1994), pp. 29-47.
[4] Locke’s training in chemistry has been dealt with in J.C. Walmsley and J.R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Notebook ‘Adversaria 4’ and his Early Training in Chemistry’, The Locke Newsletter, 30 (1999), pp. 85-101 and G.G. Meynell, ‘Locke as a Pupil of Peter Stahl’, Locke Studies (formerly The Locke Newsletter), 1 (2001), pp. 221-227. Detail on the early collaboration between Locke and Boyle can be found in M.A. Stewart, ‘Locke’s Professional Contacts with Robert Boyle’, The Locke Newsletter, 12 (1981), pp. 19-44 and K. Dewhurst, ‘Locke’s contribution to Boyle’s Researches on the Air and Human blood’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 17 (1962), pp. 198-206. Details of Locke’s attendance at Willis’s lectures can be found in K. Dewhurst, Thomas Willis’s Oxford Lectures, (Oxford 1980), passim. Details of Locke’s work with Richard Lower can be found in R.G. Frank, Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists, (Los Angeles 1980), pp. 186-188 and pp. 193-196. Details of Locke’s notebooks and reading can be found in J. R. Milton, ‘John Locke’s Medical Notebooks’, The Locke Newsletter, 28 (1997), pp. 135-156 and G.G. Meynell, ‘A Database for John Locke’s Medical Notebooks’, Medical History, 41 (1997), pp. 473-486.
[5] BL Add. MS 32554 ff. 118v & 119r & 121r & 126r & 127r & 127v & 128r and PRO 30/24/47/2 ff. 71-74, respectively. For a transcription and overview of ‘Morbus’, see J.C. Walmsley, ‘Morbus — Locke’s Early Essay on Disease’, Early Science and Medicine, 5 (2000), pp. 366-393. For an overview and flawed transcription of ‘Respirationis Usus’ see K. Dewhurst, ‘Locke’s Essay on Respiration’, The Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 34 (1960), pp. 257-273.
[6] M. Cranston, John Locke: A Biography, (London 1957), pp. 103-104. Locke was in London by the 5th of June at the latest (Bodl. MS Film 79 p. 5).
[7] Quotations are taken from: T. Sydenham, Methodus curandi febres, propriis observationibus superstructura, ed. G.G. Meynell, (Folkestone 1987).
[8] Op cit. p. 59 and pp. 231-232.
[9] Op cit. p. 103.
[10] Op cit. p. 9
[11] Locke’s notes can be found in Bodl. MS Locke d.11 f. 79v and ff. 268r-267v rev.
[12] R. Boyle, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, ed. T. Birch, (London 1772), Vol. VI, pp. 648-649.
[13] Sydenham’s 2nd of April letter re-affirmed his belief in the general tenets of his methodology and results, especially regarding the section on smallpox: ‘I find no cause, from my best observation, to repent of anything said by me in my tract De Variolis’ (op cit. p. 649). However, there were some aspects of the illness that Sydenham had not been able to remedy in time for the second edition: ‘I confess, some accidents there are incident to that disease, which I was never able to master, till towards the end of last summer, and which therefore could not be mentioned by me’ (ibid.). This strongly suggests that the second edition was unavailable for Sydenham to alter at the end of the summer of 1667. This unavailability was most likely due to the book’s having already being sent to the press.
[14] G.G. Meynell, ‘Sydenham, Locke and Sydenham’s De Peste Sive Febre Pestilentiali’, Medical History, 37 (1993), pp. 330-332.
[15] BM Add. MS 32554 f. 33r cf. ff. 66v, 77v and 91r. Indeed, such was Locke’s interest in the book that he appears to have bought a copy for his friend John Strachy on the 1st of May 1666 (BL MS Film 79 p. 9), who later paid for this purchase on the 27th of April the following year (op cit. p. 28).
[16] Locke’s poem is printed on pp. 219-222. These pages are unnumbered — the last page number appears on p. 218 facing Locke’s poem, which also contains the last part of Sydenham’s text. These pages are a part of gathering P, which begins on p. 209. The unnumbered pages on which Locke’s poem appears are on leaves P6 and P7, conjugate with leaves P2 and P3 (pp. 211-212 and pp. 213-214 respectively). Locke’s poem is part of the last gathering of the book and must have been at the printers with the rest of Sydenham’s manuscript.
[17] Sydenham, Methodus Curandi Febres, p. 227.
[18] Op cit. p. 228.
[19] Op cit. p. 227.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Cranston’s account of this incident can be found in John Locke, pp. 113-114.
[23] The diagnosis was made by W. Osler, ‘John Locke as a physician’, in Lancet, 2 (1900), pp. 1115-1123.
[24] K. Dewhurst, Dr. Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689): His Life and Original Writings, (London 1966), p. 37.
[25] Locke’s notes on the case can be found in PRO 30/24/47/2 ff. 1-30 and ff. 81-82.
[26] According to the Third Earl of Shaftesbury, ‘After this cure Mr. Locke grew so much in esteem with my grandfather that as great a man as he had experienced him in physic, he looked upon this but as his least part. He encouraged him to turn his thoughts another way, nor would he suffer him to practice physic except in his own family and as a kindness to some particular friend.’ Quoted in Cranston, John Locke, p. 113.
[27] RCP MS 572. The material in the MS has been transcribed and collated with other sources in G.G. Meynell’s excellent Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’ and his ‘Medical Observations’ With new transcripts of related Locke MSS, in the Bodleian Library, (Folkstone 1991).
[28] A sample case of Locke acting as Sydenham’s amanuensis can be found in ‘Epidemicall diseases of the year 1669’ (RCP MS 572 ff. 17v-19r). This paper was first dictated to Locke who wrote it down in his own notes (BL MS Locke c.29 ff. 19r-v). Consider the final passage of the text in Locke’s notebooks, written in Locke’s hand:
upon the invasion of [Fevers] winter & very hard weather ye Cholera morbus gripeing of the guts & dysentery above mentioned totaly ceased & in stead of them the small pox (wch in the [som] sommer of this year as it had donne in the same season of the preceding yeare was almost gon) returnd again and became [more] more rife — in wch posture it continues at the writing hereof viz [Jan 166] the beginning of the yeare 1670 | Ex attenta et faelice observatione | Tho: Sydenham. (BL MS Locke c.29 f. 19v).
The revision of this text as written by Sydenham in Medical Observations was as follows:
Upon the invasion of winter & very hard weather the Cholera morbus griping of the gutts & dysentery all ceased & insteed of them the small pox (wch in the sum<m>er of this year, as it had don in that of the preceding, was allmost gon) returned agayne & together with the measles became rife and so continue at the writing herof. Feb. 12°. 1669/70 (RCP MS 572 f. 19r).
The revised version in Sydenham’s hand incorporated all of the changes made to the Lockean version, and added further changes. Locke’s version was going to be dated as ‘Jan 166<9/70>’, and Sydenham’s was dated as February of that same year. Locke’s version came first, and was a record of Sydenham’s dictation.
[29] It is not possible to be more precise in this particular due to the fragmentary nature of the essays, the different possible methods of numbering them and the possibility that there are other essays which Locke copied from Sydenham, but which have yet to be identified.
[30] PRO 30/24/47/2 ff. 60-63.
[31] Op cit. ff. 64-69.
[32] These have been transcribed by Dewhurst, Dr. Thomas Sydenham, pp. 101-102 and pp. 102-109 respectively. These transcriptions should be treated with circumspection.
[33] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 65r.
[34] 777 times out of a total of 16,925 words.
[35] Locke used ‘the’ 362 times and ‘ye’ 201 times out of a total of 8,117 words. These details are taken from Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, p. 177 cf. p. 180 Table 7.
[36] ‘Morbus’ used ‘the’ 17 times as against ‘ye’ 70 times.
[37] In the Dedication ‘the’ appears 33 times and ‘ye’ 10 times. In the Preface, ‘the’ appears 165 times and ‘ye’ 44 times. Meynell made a similar point, though without quoting exact figures, in Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Mediae’, p. 190.
[38] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 57. A photographic reproduction and transcription of this document appears in Romanell’s John Locke and Medicine. A new key to Locke, (Buffalo N.Y. 1984), pp. 70-72. The transcription is accurate for the most part, but it must be noted that word 11 on line 18 is ‘woods’, not ‘words’.
[39] RCP MS 572 ff. 42v-46v.
[40] BL MS Locke f.21 pp. 17, 42-5, 50-6, 58, 60 & 151.
[41] PRO 30/24/72/2 ff. 31-38.
[42] Op cit. f. 38r (upside down in the left margin — the ‘68’ is underlined) and f. 38v (in the top centre of the page — both words are underlined). f.38v also has an endorsement ‘Various | Abt the year 1670’. This is not in Locke’s hand and can be discounted for dating purposes. The dating must remain conjectural, nonetheless, as Locke’s endorsements do not always indicate the year. For an example, see J.R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Manuscripts among the Shaftesbury Papers at the Public Record Office’, The Locke Newsletter, 27 (1996), pp. 109-130, n. 3, in reference to PRO 30/24/4/116, which while endorsed as ‘62’ was likely not written in 1662.
[43] For example, the author wrote ‘what organicall texture or what kinde of ferment [separates any [part] of the juices in any of the viscera] (for whether it be donne by one or both of these ways is yet a question & like to be soe alway notwithstanding all the endeavours of the most accurate dissections) separates any part of the juices in any of the viscera’ (PRO 30/24/72/2 ff. 31r-v). The author appears to have had the phrase concerning the separation of juices in mind, but first wished to make a point about our lack of knowledge concerning micro-phenomena. Consequently, the first separation phrase was deleted, the point about our knowledge was added in parentheses, then author returned to the original point. Had this been a copy of a pre-existent document, there would have been no occasion to add and delete the first reference to separation. It is not likely that a reader would skip this far ahead in copying a text.
[44] Op cit. f. 31r.
[45] Op cit. f. 33v.
[46] Op cit. ff. 34r-v.
[47] Op cit. ff. 34v-35v.
[48] Op cit. f. 35v.
[49] Op cit. ff. 36v-37r.
[50] Op cit. ff. 37r-38v.
[51] Op cit. f. 31v.
[52] Op cit. ff. 47-56.
[53] Op cit. f. 47r.
[54] For example, ‘[soe yt had both read & writ whole volumes of generation & corruption of nutrimt & concoction, knew little how to order their children their cable or their Kitchens. the country man & the cooke were in usefull parts of] Soe that those who had read & writt whole volumes of generation & corruption knew not the way to preserve or propagate the meanest species of creatures he that could dispute learnedly of nutrition concoction & assimulation was beholding yet to the cooke & the good housewife, for a wholesome & savoury meale’ (op cit. f. 54r). The author here can be seen to be deleting a completely re-phrasing this section.
[55] Op cit. ff. 49r & 50r
[56] Op cit. ff. 50r & 51r & 52r.
[57] Op cit. f. 52r.
[58] Op cit. f. 53r.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Op cit. f. 55r.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Op cit. f. 56r.
[63] De Arte Medica was transcribed first by Fox Bourne, Life of John Locke, (London 1876), Vol. I, pp. 222-227, then by A.G. Gibson in The Physician’s Art, (Oxford 1933), pp. 13-26 and most recently by Dewhurst in Dr. Thomas Sydenham, pp. 79-84. Anatomia has been previously transcribed by K. Dewhurst ‘Locke and Sydenham on the Teaching of Anatomy’, Medical History, 2 (1958), pp. 1-12 (the transcription appears on pp. 3-8) and again by Dewhurst in Dr. Thomas Sydenham, pp. 85-93.
[64] A list of attributions can be found in G.G Meynell, ‘Locke as the Author of Anatomia and De Arte Medica’, The Locke Newsletter, 25 (1994), pp. 65-73. Those favouring Locke can be found in p. 65 n. 2, those favouring Sydenham in p. 65 n. 3. Further attributions to Sydenham can be found in D. Bates, ‘Thomas Sydenham: The Development of his Thought 1666-1676,’ (Johns Hopkins University, Ph.D Thesis 1975), p. 358 n. 36. In addition, D.E. Wolfe, ‘Sydenham and Locke on the Limits of Anatomy’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 35 (1961), pp. 193-220 attributes both papers to Locke (p. 200 for Anatomia and p. 201 & p. 209 for De Arte Medica). J. F. Payne, Thomas Sydenham, (London 1900), pp. 232-233 attributed Anatomia to both men.
[65] Dewhurst, ‘Locke and Sydenham on the Teaching of Anatomy’, pp. 1-12.
[66] Op cit. p. 1.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Op cit. p. 3.
[69] K. Dewhurst, ‘Sydenham’s original treatise on smallpox with a preface, and dedication to the Earl of Shaftesbury, by John Locke’, Medical History, 3 (1959), pp. 278-302. Here ‘Anatomie (1668), was written by both of them’; ‘De Arte Medica (1669) is in Locke’s hand’ (op cit. pp. 278 and 280). See also K. Dewhurst, ‘An Essay on Coughs by Locke and Sydenham’, The Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 33 (1959), pp. 366-374, where De Arte Medica is once more attributed to Locke (op cit. p. 366), and Anatomia to Locke and Sydenham (op cit. p. 367). Again, no evidence, other than the handwriting is presented to support Dewhurst’s claims.
[70] Dewhurst, Dr. Thomas Sydenham, p. 73. All italics are Dewhurst’s.
[71] There was no mention of ferments or archei in Draft A of the Essay (1671), whilst there certainly are mentions of the mechanical philosophy (Draft A, §15, pp. 30-31) and Aristotelian examples (Draft A, §38, pp. 65-66).
[72] Locke re-iterated Sydenham’s three methodological precepts in Draft A of the Essay: On our inability to pry into nature’s mechanism see Draft A, §15, pp. 30-31; ‘our senses faileing us in the discovery of those fine & insensible particles our understandings are unavoidably in the darke.’ On the scholastic methods of enquiry see Draft A, §27, pp. 51-52; ‘haveing fixd certeine significations to these following words anima forma, ἐντελέχεια, homo, ratio, animal, substantia I can make severall undoub<ted> propositions nay even demonstrations about the soule without haveing the least knowledg what the soule realy is & of this sort a man may finde an infinite number of propositions reasonings & conclusions in books of Metaphysicks, Schoole divinity, & some sort of natural phylosophy & after all know as little of god spirits or bodys as he did before he set out.’ On Locke’s reliance upon experience in natural philosophy see Draft A, §33, pp. 62-63; ‘the clearest best & most certain knowledg that man kinde can possibly have of things existing without him is but Experience, which is noe thing but the Exercise & observation of his senses about particular objects’. On Locke’s arguments that God made the world too complex for men to understand see the Essay, III.vi.9; ‘The Workmanship of the All-wise, and Powerful God, in the great Fabrick of the Universe, and every part thereof, farther exceeds the Capacity and Comprehension of the most inquisitive and intelligent Man, than the best contrivance of the most ingenious Man, doth the Conceptions of the most ignorant of rational Creatures.’ An extension of this last consideration is put forward in Locke’s discussion of substance: Essay, II.xxiii.11-12. Locke re-iterated and vigorously endorsed Sydenham’s methodology in a letter to Thomas Molyneaux in 1693 (E.S. de Beer (ed.), The Correspondence of John Locke, (Oxford 1978- ), Letter 1593).
[73] J. Ward, Diary of the Rev. John Ward, A.M. Vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon, Extending From 1648 to 1679, ed. Charles Severn, (London 1839), pp. 241-242.
[74] See, for example, a dated entry for ‘14th Feb 1661’ on op cit. p. 235, followed swiftly by an entry from ‘Sep. 14 1660’ on op cit. p. 237.
[75] It is noteworthy that Dewhurst used the second half of exactly the same entry on Sydenham in a discussion of Sydenham’s time at Oxford in the late 1640’s (Dewhurst, Dr. Thomas Sydenham, p. 17).
[76] FL MS V.a. 284-299.
[77] R.G. Frank, ‘The John Ward Diaries: Mirror of Seventeenth Century Science and Medicine’, Journal of the History of Medicine, 29 (1974), pp. 147-179.
[78] These transcripts are presented in several volumes (WL MS 6170-6174) and form a continuous sequence of 1359 pp. There are also two sets of Power’s hand-written notes (WL MS 6175-6176).
[79] Frank, ‘The John Ward Diaries’, pp. 174-179.
[80] FL MS V. a. 295; Frank, ‘The John Ward Diaries’, p. 178.
[81] G.G. Meynell, Materials for A Biography of Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) A new survey of public and private archives, (Folkstone 1988), p. 68.
[82] In the following discussion, references to the original MS in the Folger Shakespeare Library have been kindly provided to me by Heather Wolfe, Curator of Manuscripts at the Library.
[83] ‘The dog-days in ye yeer 1668’ (WL MS 6172 p.785 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 ff. 37r-v); ‘Towards August in ye yeer 1668’ (WL MS 6172 pp. 790-791 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 40r); ‘ye last of October Ann: 1668’ (WL MS 6173 p. 855 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 79v); ‘December ye 27th 1668’ (WL MS 6173 p. 944 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 135v).
[84] Power added an explanation of who Sydenham was at this point — Severn presented the two parts of the quotation as contiguous. I am informed that the text is presented as a whole in the original manuscript.
[85] WL MS 6173 p. 957 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 143v.
[86] WL MS 6173 p. 968 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 150r.
[87] WL MS 6173 p. 984 cf. FL MS V.a. 295 f. 161v.
[88] WL MS 6173 p. 984. Power’s annotations are taken directly from the Dictionary of National Biography, ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee, (London 1908), Vol. VI, p. 123.
[89] Bates, ‘Thomas Sydenham: The Development of his Thought’, pp. 359-360.
[90] Op cit. pp. 360-361.
[91] Op cit. p. 361.
[92] Ibid. François Duchesneau in L’Empirisme de Locke, (La Haye 1973), p. 41, n. 104, noted that this analysis had yet to be produced: ‘Nous comptons sur la publication des resultants de la recherché que mème actuellement le Dr. Bates pour être définitivement fixé.’
[93] No extant text would immediately segue into the beginning of Anatomia as we see it now.
[94] A comparable example is ‘An Essay on Toleration’ from 1667 (a transcription of this piece can be found in Locke: political essays, ed. M. Goldie, (Cambridge 1997), pp. 134-159), which Locke likely wrote at Shaftesbury’s request. As Marhsall puts it: ‘It is extremely likely that consultations with Ashley were part of the context in which Locke first composed this ‘Essay on Toleration’. A discussion of religious toleration would have been exactly the kind of issue that Ashley, with his own firm commitment to ecclesiastical liberty, would have requested of Locke in [this] period’ (J. Marhsall, John Locke: resistance, religion and responsibility, (Cambridge 1994), p. 49) and ‘The dating of the ‘Essay’ as probably composed in Ashley’s household, in which Locke spent most of 1667, the apparent intention in the ‘Essay’ itself of advising the King on toleration, and the form of the ‘Essay’ together make it seem much more likely that in fact the crucial initial impetus for composition of the ‘Essay’ came from encouragement or commission by Ashley’ (op cit. p. 69). Indeed, the Essay concerning Human Understanding itself started out as a discussion paper for the group who met at Shaftesbury’s house (Essay, p. 7).
[95] T. Sydenham, The Works of Thomas Sydenham, ed. R.G. Latham, (London 1648-1650), Vol. 1, p. 6.
[96] Meynell, ‘Locke as the Author of Anatomia and De Arte Medica’.
[97] Op cit. p. 69.
[98] Op cit. p. 70. Locke used ‘-ique’ rather than ‘-ick’ or ‘-ic’ as a suffix for such words as ‘fabrique’. Sydenham never used ‘-ique’. Locke when writing in a draft for Sydenham switched to ‘-ick’ or ‘-ic’.
[99] The phrases that Meynell used are ‘Learned men’, ‘mans understanding’, ‘foundation’, ‘hidden causes’, ‘maximes’, ‘briers & thornes’, ‘workmanship’, ‘ingenious’, ‘mechaniques’, ‘conveniencys’, ‘due method’, ‘jott’ and ‘superficies’.
[100] Meynell is incorrect that ‘superficies’ is absent from Sydenham’s Medical Observations, it can be found on RCP MS 572 f. 20v. Additionally, Sydenham does refer to ‘humane understanding’ (op cit. f. 22r), redolent of ‘mans understanding’. Sydenham also used the phrase ‘thornes and bryars’ in the Small Pox Preface (PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 66r), redolent of ‘briars and thornes’. Nonetheless, the general point stands — these are very rare examples.
[101] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 55r. There are many examples of this; Respirationis Usus finishes with a list (PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 74v). The ‘Essay on Toleration’ contains many lists and ends with seven listed items for further discussion. There are many examples in the Drafts of the Essay: Draft A, §5, pp, 15-6; §7, pp. 16-18 and § 27, pp. 42-43 §31, pp. 58-61 and Draft B, §3, pp. 102-103; §§27-29 pp. 137-139; §§32-35, pp. 141-144; §§53-57, pp. 160-161; §§93b-93e, pp. 201-203; §§93g, pp. 203-204; §§98-100, pp. 217-223; §105, p. 230.
[102] Meynell, ‘Locke as the Author of Anatomia and De Arte Medica’, p. 73.
[103] Bates, ‘Thomas Sydenham: The Development of his Thought’, pp. 61-140.
[104] Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, p. 178, cf. Table 6, p. 176.
[105] J.R. Milton, ‘Locke, Medicine and the Mechanical Philosophy’, The British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 9 (2001), pp. 221-243, see p. 241, n. 99.
[106] Bodl. MS Locke c.29 ff. 19, 21r, 22r, 23r-24r and 25r-28r. A table listing the essays that their counterparts in the Medical Observations, other Locke MSS and the Observationes Medicae, can be found in Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, pp. 8-9.
[107] A photographic reproduction of an example of Locke’s additions and deletions to what we know are Sydenham’s work (Bodl. MS Locke c.29 f. 23r) can be found in Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, p. viii, Figure 2.
[108] RCP MS 572 f.26v. This is transcribed in Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, pp. 100-101 and there is a photographic reproduction of this MS page in op cit. p. 181.
[109] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 55r.
[110] Op cit. f. 56r.
[111] For example, ‘that heigth it is at present [at] arrived to’ (op cit. f. 55r) — both the deletion and insertion are in the lighter ink.
[112] For example, ‘wherein he can [most commonly upon] at’ (op cit. f. 55r) — the initial phrase is in the lighter ink, the strike-through and the new word in a darker ink; ‘some stubborne & irregular cases his well [established] constituted method should faile him’ (op cit. f 56r) — the initial phrase is in the lighter ink, the strike-through and the new word in a darker ink.
[113] Op cit. f. 56r.
[114] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 36v.
[115] Milton, ‘Locke, Medicine and Mechanical Philosophy’, p. 241, n. 101.
[116] PRO 30/24/47/2 f. 36v.
[117] Bates, ‘Thomas Sydenham: The Development of his Thought’, p. 142.
[118] Bates devotes a chapter of his thesis to reconciling species and constitutions as presented in the Observationes (op cit. pp. 141-191).
[119] Meynell has also noted this omission from Sydenham’s preface: it is ‘full of Sydenham’s ideas but does not mention the concept of the epidemic constitution around which the book is organised. That comes in later and almost incidentally in I.2.1, 5, 15. In the same way, his terminology comes later still, in I.4.2.’ (Meynell, Thomas Sydenham’s ‘Observationes Medicae’, p. 179).
[120] This text appears in the top margin of the page above Locke’s text. At the end a cross ‘+’ appears as a catchword for the marginal continuation of this addition.
[121] A cross ‘+’ appears before the words ‘of discharging them…’ as a catchword for the top margin commencement of this addition.
[122] Caret.
[123] [of the most] appears at the very top of the page, perhaps over-written by illegible word, perhaps deleted. ‘of the most …’ is repeated after leaving a border at the top of the page.
[124] Inserted in the margin before the sentence continues on a new line.
[125] Inserted in the margin before the sentence continues on a new line.
[126] Caret.
[127] Caret.
[128] Caret.
[129] Caret.
[130] Caret after ‘separate the gall’ pointing to (1) — (1) appears in the margin as a cue for the marginal insertion.
[131] Caret.
[132] Caret for the insertion appears before ‘dead’ and another appears under the last ‘d’ of ‘dead’.
[133] Caret.
[134] Caret.
[135] Caret.
[136] Caret.
[137] Caret.
[138] Inserted in the margin before the sentence continues on a new line.
[139] Caret.
[140] Caret after ‘this archeus’ pointing to (1) — (1) appears in the margin as a cue for the marginal insertion.
[141] Caret.
[142] Caret.
[143] Caret — ‘the chymists’ appears in the margin.
[144] Caret (which was also deleted when the insertion was deleted).
[145] Caret.
[146] Caret.
[147] Transcription doubtful.
[148] ‘Anatomia 68’ is upside down at the bottom of the page.
[149] All these words appear upside down on the bottom right hand side of the page. ‘Various Abt the year 1670’ is not in Locke’s or Sydenham’s handwriting.
[150] Caret.
[151] Caret after ‘every day lessend’ pointing to (1) — (1) appears on f. 47v as a cue for the insertion.
[152] Caret.
[153] /f.49v/ Verum ego hanc vim esse intelligo in praeceptis omnibus non ut ea secuti oratores eloquentiae laudem sint adepti, sed quae suâ sponte homines eloquentes facerent ea quosdam observasse atque in artem redigisse non eloquentiam ex artificio sed artificium ex eloquentia natum Cic. de oratore. l 1. c. b. <An unmarked piece of text that was not properly interpolated into the document. It translates as: ‘But to my thinking the virtue in all rules is, not that orators by following them have won a reputation for eloquence, but that certain persons have noted and reduced to an art the doings of men who were naturally eloquent; eloquence is not the offspring of the art, but the art of eloquence’.>
[154] Caret.
[155] Caret.
[156] Caret.
[157] Caret.
[158] Caret.
[159] /f.52v/ & thus man by desire to know more than was fit a second time lost the little remainder of knowledg yt was left him. <An unmarked piece of text that was not interpolated into the document.>
[160] Caret.
[161] Caret.
[162] Caret.
[163] Caret.
[164] Caret.
[165] Caret after ‘of human life,’ pointing to (2) — (2) appears on f. 53v as a cue for the insertion.
[166] Caret.
[167] Caret.
[168] From ‘to my designe …’ to ‘…attempts of good practitioners’ the main body of text is in a noticeably lighter ink.
[169] The deletion and the inserted words in a noticeably darker ink.
[170] The deletion and the inserted words in a noticeably darker ink.
[171] The word ‘yt’ overwrites ‘wch’ in a noticeably darker ink.
[172] /f.55v/ Novum Organ 1 i § 31 · 32 <Not in Locke’s handwriting, and written in pencil or charcoal>
[173] This insertion is in a noticeably darker ink.
[174] Caret.
[175] The deletion and the inserted words in a noticeably darker ink.
[176] ‘full’ was added to ‘skill’ and overwriting the word ‘of’. Both of these changes made in a noticeably darker ink.
[177] ‘Nor let the …. like some weeds’ is in a noticeably darker ink.
