to Louis XIV in 1679 for two thousand louis d’or, a pension and a title.  That the profession was divided in opinion on the subject was probably due to sophistication, or to the importation of other and inert barks.  It was well into the eighteenth century before its virtues were universally acknowledged.  The tree itself was not described until 1738, and Linnaeus established the genus “Chinchona” in honor of the Countess.(1)

     (1) Clements R. Markham:  Peruvian Bark, John Murray, London,
     1880; Memoir of the Lady Anna di Osoria, Countess of Chinchona
     and Vice-Queen of Peru, 1874.

A step in advance followed the objective study of the changes wrought in the body by disease.  To a few of these the anatomists had already called attention.  Vesalius, always keen in his description of aberrations from the normal, was one of the first to describe internal aneurysm.  The truth is, even the best of men had little or no appreciation of the importance of the study of these changes.  Sydenham scoffs at the value of post-mortems.

Again we have to go back to Italy for the beginning of these studies, this time to Florence, in the glorious days of Lorenzo the Magnificent.  The pioneer now is not a professor but a general practitioner, Antonio Benivieni, of whom we know very little save that he was a friend of Marsilio Ficino and of Angelo Poliziano, and that he practiced in Florence during the last third of the fifteenth century, dying in 1502.  Through associations with the scholars of the day, he had become a student of Greek medicine and he was not only a shrewd and accurate observer of nature but a bold and successful practitioner.  He had formed the good habit of making brief notes of his more important cases, and after his death these were found by his brother Jerome and published in 1507.(2) This book has a rare value as the record of the experience of an unusually intelligent practitioner of the period.  There are in all 111 observations, most of them commendably brief.  The only one of any length deals with the new “Morbus Gallicus,” of which, in the short period between its appearance and Benivieni’s death, he had seen enough to leave a very accurate description; and it is interesting to note that even in those early days mercury was employed for its cure.  The surgical cases are of exceptional interest, and No. 38 refers to a case of angina for which he performed a successful operation.  This is supposed to have been a tracheotomy, and if so, it is the first in the fourteen centuries that had elapsed since the days of Antyllus.(3) There are other important cases which show that he was a dexterous and fearless surgeon.  But the special interest of the work for us is that, for the first time in modern literature, we have reports of post-mortem examinations made specifically with a view to finding out the exact cause of death.  Among the 111 cases, there are post-mortem records of cases of gallstones, abscess of the mesentery, thrombosis of the mesenteric veins, several cases of heart disease, senile gangrene and one of cor villosum.  From no other book do we get so good an idea of a practitioner’s experience at this period; the notes are plain and straightforward, and singularly free from all theoretical and therapeutic vagaries.  He gives several remarkable instances of faith healing.